Zerohedge

The key question facing equity markets now is whether the April 8 low marked a floor — or merely a trap door for bulls. 

Veteran emerging-markets investor Mark Mobius joined Bloomberg TV earlier, warning, “Cash is king” as he waits for the trade war storm and mounting macroeconomic headwinds to blow over. 

“At this stage, cash is king. So 95% of my money in the funds are in cash,” Mobius said in an interview, adding, “Right now, we’ve got to keep the cash and be ready to move when the time is right.”

Mobius continued: “If the market comes down further, of course we will put more money in.” 

He said he owns “a little bit with S&P 500 funds” to track the market and expects higher prices by the end of the year.

“Trump doesn’t want to see a big market crash, so he will be making adjustments and announcements, which will give a little bit more confidence for people in the market,” the legendary investor said. 

He pointed out that he has “become very bullish on China” and sees possibilities for Beijing to boost trade and domestic consumption amid the ongoing trade war.

“Right now, we’ve got to keep the cash and be ready to move when the time is right”

Veteran emerging-markets investor Mark Mobius is keeping the bulk of his funds’ holdings in cash as he waits out the trade-related uncertainty https://t.co/X3z6gg4pvE pic.twitter.com/bHNvjszfUM

— Bloomberg (@business) April 30, 2025

By late Tuesday morning in the US, main equity futures tumbled following a series of negative prints that cast dark shadows over the US economy:

• Rate-Cut Odds Jump After ADP Reports Weakest Job Growth Since July 2024

• US Q1 GDP Contracts On Record Imports, Shrinking Govt, As Consumption Comes In Stronger Than Expected

Main equity futures were dumped following the bad macro prints.

However, there is good news:

*TRADERS FULLY PRICE FOUR QUARTER-POINT FED CUTS BY END-2025

Powell dragged in, kicking and screaming

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) April 30, 2025

Implied four cuts by year’s end. 

Separately from Mobius’ interview, Goldman analyst Vickie Chang offered clients a market snapshot on Tuesday, assessing whether the April 8 low marked a concrete bottom for stocks — or if another leg lower is still ahead:

• The most immediate question for markets is whether there is fresh downside to come. We said that a shift in trade policy was the most obvious route for recovery in risk assets, and there has been a modest version of that dynamic since April 9. Even though the economic impact is yet to be felt, it is possible that we are past the peak of new tariff “shocks” and policy uncertainty.

• In past equity corrections, markets tended to bottom near the trough in economic activity. But if there was a clear cause of the weakness, it was enough for the market to see the peak in pressure from that source to conclude that activity would bottom soon, and for equities to trough ahead of that. In episodes where the source was less easy to track, the market did not trough until economic growth itself started to bottom.

• What matters now is whether the current episode is more like past “shock”-driven corrections where the tariff shock having seemingly peaked could be enough to mark the market bottom, or whether this will ultimately be a scenario where the economic data needs to stabilize first. It is possible that simply being through the worst of the shock has allowed the market to set some limits on the process, even if the damage is yet to be felt and if the underlying economic situation remains bad for some time.

• Despite that possibility, we still think there is significant vulnerability in a recession scenario, even if the worst of the underlying “shock” has passed, for three reasons: 1) It has generally been true that in shock-driven corrections, there has been a meaningful reversal and not just a peak in the source of the pressure. So the tariff reversal may need to be more dramatic to be equivalent to those past peaks. 2) The unemployment rate matters a lot for the pricing of risk, and it has been some time since the economy has undergone a period of job and portfolio losses happening together. 3) The 19% drawdown so far would be relatively mild relative to past recessionary drawdowns and would have entirely taken place before economic damage is seen, which would be historically unusual.

• It is worth keeping an open mind given the unprecedented nature of the current shock, but continued market recovery from here means putting an increasing weight on the belief that recessionary dynamics will not take hold, and requires confidence in the market’s ability to look through what is likely to be a further weakening in the data. We think the balance of risks still argues for expecting renewed declines in equity prices from current levels and for adding downside protection, especially if further relaxation makes that protection cheaper.

Just days ago, Bank of America’s Michael Hartnett told clients to “sell rips” and stay long “BIG” (his favorite trade idea for 2025, namely Bonds, International Stocks, and Gold). 

Authored by Steve Cortes via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Last November, Americans sent a clear election message and delivered President Trump a clear mandate: Prices are way too high. While inflation has hit our grocery stores (up 23.6% since 2020) and housing costs (up 30.9% since 2020), there’s another cost outpacing the rest when it comes to price hikes. Prescription drugs have jumped 46.2% since 2020, forcing Americans to pay the highest price in the world for life-saving medications. No wonder citizens are angry.

In 2022, Congress passed legislation that gave the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) the authority to negotiate lower drug prices on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries for the first time. As this administration targets cost-saving measures across government, this program is projected to save billions of dollars, with an estimated $1.5 billion in savings for seniors next year alone and $100 billion in total taxpayer savings over 10 years.

Thankfully, President Trump knows how to negotiate. With his leadership, Medicare negotiation could be just the start in a larger effort to earn a better deal for Americans on prescription drugs. This issue presents an enormous opportunity for the president to bolster his legacy by protecting and expanding the government’s ability to crack down on corrupt lobbyists and special interests and allow the government to negotiate directly with drug manufacturers to lower prescription drug prices for the American people.

This issue is not new to President Trump, who has long railed against the corruption and greed in the pharmaceutical industry. He recognizes that “we pay, as a country, so much more for drugs because of the drug lobbies,” whom he says are “getting away with murder.” Trump’s solution? “Tougher negotiation [and] more competition [will lead to] much lower prices.” As one of the early voices calling for Medicare to negotiate drug prices back in 2016, this is his moment to make this promise into reality.

Now that he’s back in the White House, Trump can reaffirm his commitment to reducing costs for seniors and cutting government spending, two of his biggest priorities. Consistent with his clear mission to root out waste, fraud, and abuse in the federal government, he has already begun to implement this cost-saving plan by supporting and defending Medicare’s ability to negotiate lower drug prices.

If the drug lobby is successful in fighting against Trump by rolling back Medicare’s negotiation authority, the biggest winners would be – you guessed it – pharmaceutical companies, which would return to charging inflated prices, forcing both the government and everyday Americans to bear the cost, increasing prices of prescription drugs by a shocking 46.2%, effectively doubling their cost.

President Trump has long been a vocal critic of Big Pharma. His leadership can yet again make him the strongest voice ever in holding the industry accountable. Backing policies that rein in drug prices would be a major victory not just for his administration, but for every American family.

I know President Trump will continue to fight for the American people because he understands that Americans should never be taken advantage of by the drug lobby. This is President Trump’s chance to do it big by standing up to Big Pharma and ensuring drug prices come down. That’s a deal that every American can get behind.

Steve Cortes is a former advisor to President Donald Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance and a former commentator on Fox News and CNN.

While DOGE may have saved $160 billion so far, the Pentagon now ‘needs’ $150 billion of new funding under the guise of supporting various Trump priorities.

The House Armed Services Committee advanced the supplemental spending plan on Tuesday in a 35-21 vote during a markup hearing.

The plan was unveiled on April 27 by House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-AL) and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker (R-MS), with Congressional Republicans preparing it for reconciliation – a process which allows Congress to pass legislation concerning taxation and government spending without requiring the 60 Senate votes typically needed to invoke cloture and avoid a filibuster.

Republicans have several such reconciliation bills in the pipeline.

The military spending bill will now be added to a broader continuing resolution to fund the federal government through the remainder of FY2025. 

It provides $25 billion this year for Trump’s plan to overhaul the US missile defense network, as laid out in Trump’s January executive order calling for an “Iron Dome for America.”

As the Epoch Times notes further, other top priorities in the military spending supplemental include $34 billion to boost shipbuilding and $21 billion to replenish depleted munitions stockpiles.

Earlier this month, Trump signed executive orders aiming to boost U.S. shipbuilding and arms procurement capabilities.

The proposal also assigns around $14 billion for various innovation projects, including low-cost attritable weapons systems, $13 billion for efforts to modernize the U.S. nuclear arsenal, and $12 billion for general readiness projects like base infrastructure projects and efforts to boost stocks of spare parts.

Another $11 billion would go toward the U.S. military’s Pacific components to conduct training exercises and bolster regional defenses.

Another $7 billion would support various projects to enhance existing aircraft and develop new ones.

This would include $400 million to boost the development of the recently announced F-47 stealth fighter jet.

Border security would also get a spending boost.

The supplemental lays out $5 billion for Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security efforts to prevent illegal border crossings, and to conduct immigration and counter-drug enforcement operations.

The bill calls for around $9 billion more for quality of life improvements for military personnel and their families.

The additional funding would increase allowances for housing, health care, and family assistance programs.

Opening the April 29 markup hearing, Rogers said: “The time for this level of investment is long overdue.”

Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), by contrast, cast doubts as to whether the Defense Department could make efficient use of the new funding.

Smith, who is the committee’s ranking member, said: “I cannot support throwing another $150 billion that I absolutely guarantee you will not be well spent.”

Democrats on the House committee’s minority submitted 21 amendments to the Republican-led reconciliation bill, all of which failed to make it in.

One amendment that Smith offered called for all but 25 percent of the new funds to remain locked up until Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth orders a review of policies and procedures for handling classified and sensitive information.

Smith and other committee Democrats used the hearing to reiterate concerns about recent incidents in which Hegseth discussed military operations on the Signal messaging application.

Rep. Pat Ryan (D-N.Y.) also offered an amendment to reduce Hegseth’s salary to $1.

Ryan submitted yet another amendment to block any of the funds described in the military spending reconciliation bill from being made available to business entities operated by special government employees.

Billionaire entrepreneur and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has been advising the Trump administration and has been designated as a special government employee.

Committee Democrats offered other amendments to block the Department of Defense from relieving senior officers of their commands or terminating different groups of civilian employees.

Other amendments would have made much of the proposed funds contingent on the completion of a successful department financial audit, a task the department has failed to achieve in the past seven consecutive years it has tried.

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

When you buy those beautiful cupcakes and cookies at the grocery store, how much plastic are you eating? This is a burning question these days, as Americans have become newly aware of the real content of mainstream food.

MIT professor Retsef Levi has produced remarkable research detailing the extent of the problem of petroleum food dyes in normal products you eat every day. He did an analysis of 700K products in the USDA Global Branded Food Products Database and found over 85K products with at least one dye and some categories having well over 50 percent of products with at least one dye.

As is well known, these products have been credibility associated with behavioral disorders in the young and carcinogens in adults, which is why most countries in the world do not use them. Many dispute those findings, and arguments run in all directions. But these days, there is great concern about chronic disease in the young and a strong effort to address the issue through every means.

It makes sense that U.S. producers align themselves more with natural rather than synthetic dyes. It’s rather remarkable that the practice has continued as long as it has. Foreign travelers in the United States fear U.S. food in part for this reason. They would rather eat food, not plastic, and worry about what is really in our bright, delicious-looking, packaged foods.

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. at HHS and Dr. Marty Makary at the FDA have taken aim at six of these dyes (in addition to two already identified under the last administration) and have scheduled them to be phased out as part of the agenda to make America healthy again. In this, they have faced remarkably little pushback. Few are willing to stand up in defense of synthetic dyes in our food and most people have a sense that we would be better off without.

This is why so far, the agreements to get rid of them are voluntary. They rely on cooperative understandings with industry rather than mandates. This seems right to me.

I’m of a libertarian cast of mind and generally feel like people should eat whatever they want. It’s up to the consumer and not government to decide such questions. Producers should use whatever ingredients customers want, and it does seem as if these products on the ban list have more or less been approved by the consumer marketplace.

In principle, I agree with Jeffrey Singer: “The HHS and FDA regulatory monopolies should not infringe on adults’ autonomy to choose less expensive or more visually appealing foods containing these substances, if they wish. Autonomous adults must have the freedom to make their own risk-benefit assessments.”

As usual, however, the situation is more complicated than merely freedom of choice or bans by the government. Vast amounts of the U.S. food industry benefits from subsidies in the form of SNAP benefits and school lunches, among other programs. These provide a high margin of profitability for the producers.

Government is the consumer in this case, and not a very discerning one. Producers manufacture products that sell well for particular industrial purposes. These often require very long shelf lives and the ability to sustain the look and feel of food from having traveled long distances in challenging temperatures.

It makes sense that petroleum and synthetic products make the journey from factory to shelf more easily than natural dyes like fruit juices and spices. The look is entirely different when using real food dyes. I was at a Vietnamese superstore that sells none of the synthetic products because no one would ever buy them. I looked at the colors of the sweets. They are certainly more dull and less optically appealing. On the other hand, they look like food used to look.

I shop often at local markets and trade with local bakeries so I don’t see much of these fake colors in food. Farmers markets don’t use them. On the other hand, these cater to a customer who is health- conscious and pays for the real deal. Most people do not do this.

An investigation into how these synthetic dyes got in our food takes us far back in time to the very first federal food regulation measure of 1906 that centered on regulating the meat-packing industry. The cover story was that it was eliminating unhealthy and dangerous practices. In reality, and as unpacked by many historians, the dominant lobbyists in the text and implementation of the controls were the major industrial firms.

This is how “poke and sniff” became the dominant way meat was inspected in this country. It was the opposite of safe and ended up spreading disease. But it also resulted in much higher costs for the industry that only the biggest players could bear. The practical effect was to drive out small meat packing companies and bolster a growing cartel in the industry. The 1906 act was not really about stopping bad practices, it was about entrenching large businesses as the controlling force of industrial planning.

This was only the beginning of what ended up being a century-long consolidation of the food industry. It firmed up at the New Deal, which implemented a central plan for agriculture complete with production limits, mandates, subsidies, and controls. Price controls in World War II strengthened it further. The mad dash toward gigantic food-production subsidies in the early 1970s consolidated the industry ever more.

Independent farmers were the ones who suffered.

What was being created here was not a “free market” but a food cartel that discriminated hard against small farms and local food and in favor of centralized and industrial methods of production. Ask any local farmer or rancher about the struggles they face. The regulatory barriers are huge and the mandates all-consuming. They cannot simply raise food and sell it. They face a barrage of investigations and regulatory hoops.

A free market is exactly what they want. But it doesn’t exist. They will tell you that the big producers in the market have all the advantages over them wheres they would be fine a genuinely competitive market.

Food production and distribution in the United States is famously consolidated. What seems like infinite choice at the supermarket is really an illusion. Depending on the product, the dominant producers are usually one of the big four: PepsiCo, Tyson, Nestlé, and Kraft. The smaller producers are in the mix but face intractable barriers.

The problem with corporate consolidation is that it creates uniform industrial practices designed less for the consumer and more for the well-being of the company and its systems. These dyes have been fine for that purpose, and perpetuated themselves without an adequate system of feedback from the market they serve.

This is a reason not to blame the free market for unhealthy food. We don’t have a free market. We have a corporatist system in which the biggest players rely on close cooperation with the FDA and other regulatory agencies to protect and consolidate their market share. They get away with practices that otherwise would be punished in a real market with consumer-based accountability.

There is an additional problem with the existence of the FDA itself. Most Americans believe that because of its presence, anything for sale at the store has necessarily been certified as safe and fine to eat. If something says it is healthy, it surely is.

In a genuine market economy without such an overlay of constant assurance from government, we might develop more of a habit of questioning the claims of producers or seeking out better sources of information. There would surely be private and accurate sources to which we could appeal.

In electronics, for example, Underwriters Laboratory has long certified the safety of products. It is not a government institution and gets no support from government so far as I can tell. It makes money entirely from fees from producers who pay to have their products certified as safe. If the company fails in its duties, it would face a huge blowback. The system works.

The FDA, on the other hand, has long presided over a system largely captured by industrial lobbyists, shared patent revenue, revolving doors of regulators from and to industry, and conflicts of interest that are rampant throughout the whole process of food and drug approvals.

The system is deeply compromised to the point that it blesses certain practices in production and distribution that could never survive a legitimate market test. They dominate precisely because market forces are not allowed to operate to enable a correction.

For this reason, and despite my preference for freedom in all matters, I’m not unhappy about the pushes against synthetic food dyes that are now being enacted. Arguably, this should just be the beginning, a course correction. The agencies have served to ratify and protect practices that otherwise would not have survived in a genuine marketplace.

Freedom of choice is essential but so is informed choice and a truly competitive marketplace.

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

In 2015 the US Marines carried out a study to discern if women could fulfill combat duty roles within mixed gender units.  The study followed an aggressive push by the Pentagon and the Obama Administration to expand female participation on the front line.  This included the much hyped inclusion of women in Army Rangers training – The program was later exposed for giving special treatment to the female trainees and lowering their fitness standards.  In essence, it was the beginning of DEI within elite units in the military.

However, the Marines study relied on merit based standards and was not skewed to make the Pentagon brass happy.  It told the truth:  Women and mixed gender units offer dismal performance in the field under pressure.

Data collected during a months-long experiment showed Marine teams with female members performed at lower overall levels, completed tasks more slowly and fired weapons with less accuracy than their all-male counterparts. In addition, female Marines sustained significantly higher injury rates and demonstrated lower levels of physical performance capacity overall, officials said.  Any unit with women was dragged down.

DEI is a disaster for most endeavors, but it is especially deadly in the military where performance and merit determine life and death.  It also causes divisions and distrust; if a soldier cannot be counted on to perform tasks to a certain standard then they can put the entire unit at risk.

Furthermore, women would likely act as a distraction in the field and in combat for a number of reasons which should be obvious to anyone with half a brain. 

These same concerns are practical and apply to any fighting force around the world, they are not specific to the US.  That’s why it’s disturbing (but not surprising) that the British government is now holding soldiers under their “Terrorism Act” for questioning the idea of women in combat.

In what the Telegraph refers to as a “highly unusual move”, a serving member of the Royal Marines, an elite corp, has publicly warned about the lowering of standards for female trainees, stating that lives could be at risk. 

The commando says that up to 1,000 of his fellow Marines backed a private letter to military chiefs raising fears that so-called diversity, equality and inclusion (DEI) policies were in danger of creating an “unrecognisable, weak and compromised version of the corps”.  The letter claimed that some women at the Commando Training Centre were being “artificially pushed through training”, resulting in what was described as “unearned paper-passes”.

Given that this same process of lowering standards for female trainees has been observed in the past in the US military, it’s not surprising that the same thing is happening in Britain.  And given the British government’s cult-like obsession with far-left ideology, the imposition of DEI will probably be unstoppable and catastrophic for fighting forces. 

But the problem goes well beyond the risks of war.  The soldier in question has now been reportedly held by Police Scotland while entering the country after a holiday, and detained under the British “Terrorism Act” because he has voiced such warnings.  He says government officials initially dismissed the letter or petition as a product of “Russian bots”, then held an internal inquiry to investigate the soldiers involved. 

“They tell me that they deal with security leaks. And they essentially try and make what is a genuine issue look like it was just some uppity Marines that are just being sexist, being evil… It’s absurd because we wrote that in the survey, that we were concerned that… we will be painted as sexists. And that is exactly how they treated us. Telling me that I should be concerned for my career. Telling me that I should comply for the sake of myself and my family…”

“I ask them: ‘Am I being detained?’ They say: ‘No, you’re not being detained, but we’re holding you here under the Terrorism Act. And I’m just shaking my head in this instance. And I said: ‘Have I committed any acts of terrorism? Am I expected to commit any acts of terrorism?’ And they said: ‘No, we have you here because of your views…'”

The British government does not deny that the commando was flown to London for questioning; nor that he was detained by Police Scotland under counter-terrorism legislation.  Whitehall sources have suggested that Police Scotland was concerned he may be linked to “extreme far-Right politics.”  However, he was not charged, and continues to serve as a Royal Marine commando (for now).

Going public was a smart move for the soldier, as it has likely helped to prevent the government from burying him outright.  Britain under leftist Prime Minister Keir Starmer has spiraled into an Orwellian nightmare as the government actively hunts down anyone that openly questions DEI initiatives and mass immigration policies.  Many have already gone to prison simply for posting criticism and memes on social media. 

Analysts within Britain have suggested that the country is on the verge of civil war.  The progressive politicians in power would be caught at a disadvantage if the public knew that elite soldiers in the military do not support leftist policies and might very well be on the side of populist reforms.

Authored by Aldgra Fredly via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A federal judge ruled on April 29 that the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM) must disburse the funding appropriated by Congress to the nonprofit news organization Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth issued a temporary restraining order sought by the media group, directing USAGM to immediately disburse over $12 million in funding for the month of April to Radio Free Europe.

Lamberth said the plaintiff had shown it would suffer irreparable harm absent a restraining order, noting that USAGM’s actions to terminate the grants agreement “threaten the very existence” of the group.

The judge also stated that Radio Free Europe is likely to succeed on the merits of its claim that USAGM had violated the Administrative Procedure Act by terminating the grants agreement.

Lamberth said the Trump administration must seek congressional approval to take such action, noting that it “has no residual constitutional power to refuse” to spend appropriations by Congress.

“It is, after all, Congress that makes the laws in this country. In this case, for example, it was Congress who ordained that the monies at issue should be allocated to RFE/RL,” Lamberth stated, referring to the acronym for Radio Free Europe.

The judge also determined that USAGM’s decision to change the grant agreement after the start of the fiscal year was “arbitrary and capricious.”

According to the court order, USAGM presented “a radically different grant agreement” in mid-April, leaving little time for a meaningful negotiation as Radio Free Europe was running out of funding.

“If our nation is to thrive for another 250 years, each co-equal branch of government must be willing to courageously exert the authority entrusted to it by our Founders,” Lamberth stated.

USAGM moved to terminate Radio Free Europe’s grant agreement following President Donald Trump’s order directing officials to eliminate non-statutory components of the agency. USAGM has an annual budget of around $900 million and operates networks broadcasting in more than 60 languages and around 100 countries.

The cutbacks affect the organizations and agencies under its umbrella, including Voice of America (VOA); the Office of Cuba Broadcasting; Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and other organizations such as Radio Free Asia, and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks.

Radio Free Europe was established during the Cold War to broadcast news to the Soviet Union. It describes itself as a “private, independent international news organization whose programs—radio, Internet, television, and mobile—reach a weekly audience of nearly 50 million people in 23 countries, including Russia, Ukraine, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, the republics of Central Asia and the Caucasus.”

The organization filed a lawsuit against USAGM on March 18 and subsequently sought a temporary restraining order to block the funding cancellation.

Government lawyers have previously argued that the dispute is over a contract and can only be adjudicated by the Court of Federal Claims. The lawyers also said that while Congress makes funding available for grants to Radio Free Europe, there is no mandated sum within the appropriations specifically for the organization.

Stephen Capus, president and CEO of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, welcomed the ruling and said that they hope to receive the funding quickly. Capus said the group had to furlough staff and scale back some of its programming due to the funding cut.

“Every day that USAGM withholds money further endangers our journalists, including four who are currently in prison,” Capus said in a statement. “We will remain in court and look forward to working with USAGM to ensure that we’ll be paid for the rest of the fiscal year.”

The Epoch Times reached out to USAGM for comment but did not receive a response by publication time.

Zachary Stieber contributed to this report.

The artificial intelligence race to outperform Chinese DeepSeek intensified on Tuesday as Alibaba unveiled Qwen3, a family of open-source large language models. Goldman analysts told clients the new LLMs represent a continued boom in China’s AI space.

On Tuesday, the Qwen team published a blog post on its website announcing the results of Qwen3-235B-A22B, showing that the flagship model achieved competitive results in benchmark evaluations of coding, math, general capabilities, etc., when compared to other LLMs, including DeepSeek-R1, o1, o3-mini, Grok-3, and Gemini-2.5-Pro. 

According to Qwen, Qwen3-235B-A22B transitions between a “thinking mode” and a “non-thinking mode” in a hybrid approach to problem-solving. 

I seriously cannot believe this is a 0.6B LLM! 🤯@Alibaba_Qwen just released Qwen3, a series of hybrid reasoning models that allow you to control how much “thinking” the model does for a given task.

They can even run locally in your browser on WebGPU with 🤗 Transformers.js! pic.twitter.com/jnjWanObw9

— Xenova (@xenovacom) April 29, 2025

Goldman analysts Ronald Keung, Timothy Zhao, and colleagues commented on the rise of China’s AI models like Qwen, outlining seven key observations for clients after reviewing the Qwen3-235B-A22B:

1. Its leading benchmarking results for its flagship model (Qwen3-235B-A22B) in coding, math etc. vs. other top-tier models DeepSeek-R1, o1, etc.,

2. further improved performance alongside lower inference cost, with the smaller MoE model (Qwen3-30B-A3B) offering higher performance with much less activated parameters,

3. its smaller models allow for flexibility of local deployment and edge applications across mobile devices, smart glasses, autonomus vehicles, robotics etc.,

4. integrated thinking (complex reasoning) and non-thinking (instant responses) modes, offering users/enterprises to dynamically manage the inference costs.

5. expanded pre-training dataset for Qwen3 (36tn token, vs. 18tn token of Qwen2.5),

6. more AI agentic capabilities with support of MCP (model context protocol), and

7. global accessibility, supporting 119 languages and dialects. Separately, Alibaba Cloud announced earlier at its 2025 AI conference on April 9 where API calls for AI models on Alibaba Cloud surged nearly 100X in Jan 2025 vs. Dec 2024, while the number of enterprises integrated with the PAI model platform has also grown 100X to over 10k vs. last year

The analysts are “Buy” rated on BABA with a 12-month price target of $159 “on stabilizing domestic eCommerce profits and fast Alibaba Cloud revenue growth being China’s largest cloud hyperscaler, with leading AI models and diverse application scenarios.”

The race for more efficient LLMs will likely lead Washington to continue tightening chip exports to curb China’s advances, especially with developments from DeepSeek and Alibaba. US exports of Nvidia’s H20 AI chips were recently banned, while US-blacklisted Chinese Huawei Technologies said Monday that it’s testing its new powerful AI chips that exceed the performance of H100s. 

“Alibaba’s release of the Qwen 3 series further underscores the strong capabilities of Chinese labs to develop highly competitive, innovative, and open-source models, despite mounting pressure from tightened U.S. export controls,” Washington-based analyst Ray Wang told CNBC. 

Wang warned: “The U.S.-China AI race, the gap between American and Chinese labs has narrowed—likely to a few months, and some might argue, even to just weeks.” 

“With the latest release of Qwen 3 and the upcoming launch of DeepSeek’s R2, this gap is unlikely to widen—and may even continue to shrink,” he noted.

In markets, the Nasdaq 100 began spiraling lower just a week or so after DeepSeek’s R1 was launched in late January. 

What happens to the Nasdaq on a DeepSeek’s R2 launch? 

Well, for one thing, we know peak data center capacity has likely arrived:

• Wells Fargo Analysts Say Amazon Paused Some Data Center Lease Commitments

• Goldman Throws Cold Water On AI Hype, Moves Forward Datacenter Peak Forecast

. . .

Authored by Jihoon Yu via RealClearDefense,

North Korea’s recent unveiling of the Choe Hyon-class multipurpose destroyer signals a major transformation in its naval strategy, carrying profound and complex implications for regional and global security. The construction of this 5,000-ton warship marks a deliberate departure from Pyongyang’s traditional coastal defense doctrine, historically centered around small, fast attack craft optimized for littoral engagements. Instead, the new platform reflects an ambition to project power across broader maritime domains, signaling a strategic evolution towards an expeditionary, blue-water navy.

The enhanced operational radius provided by the Choe Hyon-class destroyer enables North Korea to extend its naval presence well beyond the Korean Peninsula, threatening key maritime routes and complicating the operational calculus of South Korea, Japan, and the United States. If this platform eventually secures the ability to launch nuclear-armed ballistic and cruise missiles, it would represent a transformative leap in Pyongyang’s deterrence posture. Equipped with vertical launch system (VLS), the destroyer could then field a diverse arsenal capable of targeting both land and sea-based assets across considerable distances, significantly elevating the strategic risks in the region.

If North Korea’s ongoing efforts to enhance its nuclear capabilities eventually lead to the deployment of nuclear warheads on this platform, the strategic landscape would be further destabilized. Sea-based nuclear platforms would introduce a new layer of strategic complexity. Unlike land-based missile systems, which are more readily tracked and targeted, mobile maritime platforms are inherently more elusive, complicating preemptive strike options and missile defense architectures. This mobility would grant North Korea a potent second-strike capability, eroding confidence in the stability of existing deterrence frameworks. As a result, adversaries may face greater difficulty in distinguishing between conventional and nuclear threats during a crisis, increasing the risk of inadvertent escalation.

The strategic implications would become even more acute if North Korea succeeds in complementing this surface capability with the acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines (SSNs) capable of launching submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs). Should Pyongyang succeed in fielding a credible SSBN (ballistic missile submarine) fleet, it would possess a survivable nuclear deterrent, fundamentally altering the strategic balance in Northeast Asia. Reports suggest that North Korea’s SSN program has received clandestine assistance, possibly from Russia, accelerating its timeline and technological sophistication.

The unveiling of the Choe Hyon-class destroyer must also be seen within the broader context of North Korea’s doctrinal shift toward proactive military operations. Moving away from a historically reactive defense posture, Pyongyang appears increasingly willing to embrace preemptive, offensive maritime strategies aimed at undermining U.S. and allied freedom of navigation in the region. This trajectory raises the possibility of North Korea seeking to impose a regional anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) strategy, leveraging both land- and sea-based assets to constrain allied operational flexibility in a crisis.

Such developments risk fueling a maritime arms race in Northeast Asia, prompting South Korea, Japan, and the United States to accelerate investments in naval modernization, undersea warfare capabilities, and integrated missile defenses. Yet simply matching North Korea platform-for-platform would be insufficient. Addressing the broader strategic challenge requires a comprehensive approach that enhances maritime domain awareness, strengthens alliance interoperability, and builds layered missile defenses capable of countering both conventional and nuclear threats. Enhanced investment in anti-submarine warfare (ASW) capabilities, the deployment of more resilient undersea surveillance systems, the expansion of joint maritime exercises, and the establishment of rapid-reaction maritime forces will also be critical to preempt and deter potential provocations. In particular, South Korea should seriously consider pursuing its own nuclear-powered submarine program to enhance its underwater operational endurance and strategic deterrence, thereby reinforcing its ability to respond flexibly to the evolving undersea threat environment.

Ultimately, the deployment of advanced platforms like the Choe Hyon-class destroyer reflects not merely a technical upgrade, but a profound recalibration of North Korea’s strategic ambitions. Pyongyang is no longer content to deter adversaries solely through the threat of land-based nuclear retaliation; it seeks to establish itself as a maritime power capable of projecting coercive influence across the Indo-Pacific. If left unaddressed, North Korea’s evolving naval capabilities could significantly erode regional stability and embolden Pyongyang’s broader strategic calculus. A coordinated, multidimensional response from the United States, South Korea, Japan, and other regional stakeholders—encompassing deterrence, defense, diplomacy, and sustained pressure on North Korea’s illicit networks—is urgently required to mitigate these emerging threats and preserve a credible deterrence posture.

Jihoon Yu is a research fellow and the director of external cooperation at the Korea Institute for Defense Analyses. Jihoon was the member of Task Force for South Korea’s light aircraft carrier project and Jangbogo-III submarine project. He is the main author of the ROK Navy’s Navy Vision 2045. His area of expertise includes the ROK-US alliance, the ROK-Europe security cooperation, inter-Korean relations, national security, maritime security, and maritime strategy. He earned his MA in National Security Affairs from the US Naval Postgraduate School and PhD in Political Science from Syracuse University.

Authored by Daniel Y. Teng and Naziya Alvi Rahman via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Australia’s population is now more multicultural than ever, with over 8.6 million residents born overseas—about 31.5 percent of the total population.

The biggest surge came from India, which is expected to surpass the UK as the top country of birth for migrants later this year.

The latest data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) shows that in 2025, there were 963,560 migrants from the UK, 916,330 from India, 700,120 from China (excluding Hong Kong and Macau), 617,960 from New Zealand, and 394,380 from the Philippines.

This was followed by Vietnam (318,760), South Africa (224,160), Nepal (197,800), Malaysia (183,490), and Sri Lanka (172,800).

Overall, the proportion of overseas migrants has steadily increased over recent decades from 23.8 percent in 2004 to 31.5 percent in 2024.

Globally, Australia ranked eighth in terms of the number of international migrants. The United States topped the list with 52.4 million overseas-born residents.

How It Breaks Down

Migration from Europe has steadily declined over the years, with Asian countries becoming the dominant source of new arrivals.

India migration has continued to surge with an additional 505,000 people entering Australia in the decade from 2014 to 2024, followed by China (234,000), the Philippines (164,000), and Nepal (155,000).

“India’s demographics, coupled with its skilled workforce and a high demand for international education, have made Australia a preferred destination,” said Annathurai Gnanasambandam, director of Visa Help Australia, in an interview with The Epoch Times.

On the flipside, the UK recorded the largest decrease in migrants, with 47,000 fewer individuals entering Australia from 2014 to 2024, followed by Italy (44,000), Greece (28,000), and Germany (18,000).

The average median age of European migrants is 60 years and over, reflecting the post-World War II migration trend.

Which Cities?

The demographic make-up of each state and territory differs as well.

In New South Wales, Chinese migrants were the largest source of overseas residents, followed by the British and Indians, according to the 2021 Census.

In Victoria, Indian migration was the largest by far, outstripping Chinese migration by about 90,000 individuals.

In Queensland, New Zealanders and British were the largest overseas communities, followed by Indians and Chinese.

The British were the biggest contributors to Western Australia and Tasmania.

Population Growth a Contentious Issue

Migration has continued to be a sensitive subject as Australians struggle with housing affordability.

The Coalition has accused the Albanese government of mismanaging immigration, with net overseas migration for 2023–24 forecast to reach 340,000—80,000 higher than initial estimates.

Shadow Immigration Minister Dan Tehan blamed Labor for “consistently overshooting” forecasts and pledged to cut permanent migration from 185,000 to 140,000 if elected.

But Treasurer Jim Chalmers defended the government’s position, pointing out that net migration was declining.

“It’s now at its lowest point since the pandemic,” he said, adding the system is being rebalanced to serve Australia’s national interest.

Just one week ago, China seemingly couldn’t get enough of gold, and the price of spot briefly touched a record $3500 as a result of, among other things, staggering inflows into Chinese gold ETFs such as the Huaan Yifu, Bosera and Guotai gold ETFs.

But, as with all things momentum-based in China, it’s easy come, easy go in the land of Dragons, and as Goldman commodity trader Adam Gillard writes, China liquidated what it bought last week ahead of the Labor Day holiday, resulting in total onshore positioning now 5% off the ATH. And while China’s share of total open interest remains on the highs at ~40%, upward momentum may have peaked for the time being.

Here is the story of Chinese gold buying… and then selling, in five charts.

Last Tuesday (22nd April) gold made an ATH as China added 1.2mn oz of positioning across SGE and SHFE, on record volume….

… so fast forward to today, when China liquidated a near-record 1mn oz across SHFE and SGE, reversing the entire April 22 blow-off top.

… although the ETF was largely unchanged

… Resulting in total Chinese positioning now ~5% off the ATH .

And the paper (spec) import arbitrage ~$20/oz off the highs

According to Gillard, who confirms our recent observation that all recent price moves take place exclusively around the time China opens…

China opens and gold soars to new record high https://t.co/z61bLLj4Y9 pic.twitter.com/bwLH49On8X

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) April 16, 2025

… China is having a disproportionate impact on price because they execute during an illiquid part of the day (Asia morning) which likely triggers ex China CTA trading signals. Sure enough, gold is dumping in early Asian trading to the lowest level in 2 weeks.

More int the full Goldman note available to pro subs.