Novogratz on the Senate's Landmark Stablecoin Bill
Get a jump start on the US trading day with Matt Miller, Katie Greifeld and Sonali Basak on "Bloomberg Open Interest." Banks will get looser limitations for Treasury trades, but some argue that move could backfire on regulators. President Trump declines to say whether the US plans to join Israel's military offensive on Iran. Wall Street is quiet ahead of the Fed's decision later today. And Mike Novogratz joins Bloomberg Open Interest to talk about the Fed and his thoughts on the new stablecoin bill. (Source: Bloomberg)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Commentary: The oil chokepoint Iran could threaten — but probably won't
As President Trump weighs whether to join Israel's attack on Iran's nuclear weapons program, one major factor is how Iran might respond. That leads to a crucial bit of water known as the Strait of Hormuz. For decades, strategists have fixated on the channel linking the Persian Gulf to the Arabian Sea and open waters. The Strait of Hormuz, ranging in width from 35 to 60 miles, passes between Iran on the north and Oman on the south. About 20% of the world's petroleum and seaborne natural gas shipments flow through the strait, making it the world's single most important passageway for fossil fuel. Iranian officials routinely threaten to block energy shipments through the strait when involved in some kind of conflict. They've done so again since Israel began attacking Iranian nuclear weapons and military targets on June 13. That's a big part of the reason Brent crude (BZ=F) prices jumped more than 15%, to $76 per barrel, as traders anticipated and then reacted to the fresh outbreak of hostilities between Israel and Iran. An Iranian effort to shut the strait would roil energy markets, easily pushing crude prices above $100. But it would also be extremely risky for Iran, whose theocratic leaders have to map out what would happen next. Trump, meanwhile, has to gauge whether a US attack on Iran might trigger an effort to close the strait and how he would respond in turn. "It will be one of the central factors as the US considers whether to join Israel in attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities," Dan Marks of the British think tank RUSI wrote on June 18. The whole question of whether US forces should attack Iran hinges on a uranium enrichment site at Fordow, southwest of Tehran, that is buried at least 250 feet under a mountain and hardened against attack. Israel doesn't have conventional weapons able to penetrate that deep and destroy hardened targets. But the US does, and those giant bombs can only be carried by US warplanes. Taking out Fordow and wiping out the Iranian nuclear program would eliminate the risk of one of the world's nastiest regimes getting nukes anytime soon. That's a plus in the world peace column. But an American attack on Iran would open the door to Iranian retaliation. Iran can't beat the US in a war, but it can inflict pain on its adversaries and put Trump at odds with his pledge to end US involvement in foreign wars. Iran ships much of its own oil through the Strait of Hormuz, so it benefits from keeping the ships chugging. But it might make more sense to shut the strait if Israel or the US attacked Iran's oil facilities and it had less oil to ship, or Iran tried, there would be three basic ways it could try to stop oil shipments from exiting the Persian Gulf. It could mine the waters around the strait, attack oil tankers and military escorts with drones and missiles, or mount direct naval attacks on tankers and their escorts with ships, submarines, and naval drones. The US Navy and its allies in the region have war-gamed these scenarios for decades. The first thing that would happen is oil prices would soar, prompting quick action from a coalition of nations. "Closing the Strait of Hormuz would be such a severe threat to oil exports that the U.S. and other Western powers (and conceivably even China) would be virtually certain to use force to reopen the export routes," former CIA analyst Kenneth Pollack wrote recently in Foreign Affairs. Iran could cause trouble for "a number of bloody weeks," in Pollack's phrase, but it couldn't stop oil shipments out of the Gulf indefinitely. The US military and its allies are fully able to clear minefields, track and destroy missile launchers, and fend off a hostile navy, in time. Read more: How to protect your money during turmoil, stock market volatility An outgunned Iran, however, would probably use "asymmetric" tactics meant to preserve its most valuable military assets and create confusion. That could include missile and drone attacks on oil tankers, US warships, and energy infrastructure in other Gulf nations. The Iranian-backed Houthis in Yemen have used those types of tactics to target ships in the Red Sea. They've only hit a few vessels but have still forced many shippers to avoid the area and take longer, costlier routes. In the Gulf region, there are no alternative shipping routes. Producers ship some oil by pipeline, but capacity isn't nearly enough to replace tankers transiting the strait. Capital Economics recently outlined four scenarios for how the Israel-Iran conflict could play out. One is that it dies down without much effect on markets. But two other scenarios could have a more severe impact on energy markets and the global economy. The battle could intensify either because Iran preemptively attacks US forces or because the US decides to join Israel in striking Iranian nuclear facilities. The fighting could also drag on with no obvious exit ramp, with pressure rising on Iran to execute some kind of desperate breakout move, such as a closure of the strait. Under those scenarios, oil prices could rise from $75 per barrel now to $130 or more, causing a stock market sell-off and raising the odds of a global recession. The fourth possible outcome is the demise of Iran's Islamic government, a wild-card possibility that could go a number of ways. There's no obvious replacement regime waiting in the wings, so it's not clear if another hard-line group would materialize or something more benign might ensue. The direction of oil prices also factors into other global hotspots. A surge in crude prices would directly benefit Russia, for instance, bringing fresh cash into the government coffers financing Russia's effort to seize Ukraine. And a global energy crisis weakening the US economy could forestall other Trump priorities, such as his effort to realign trade. Under virtually any scenario, the US would eventually reopen the Strait of Hormuz and energy supplies would return to normal. The question is what the cost would be to everybody involved. It's a complex matrix of what-ifs currently under intense study in Washington and many other world capitals. Rick Newman is a senior columnist for Yahoo Finance. Follow him on Bluesky and X: @rickjnewman. Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow's stock prices.
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump installs pair of 88-foot-tall new flag poles at the White House
WASHINGTON ― Massive new flag poles hoisting United States flags have been installed on the White House grounds after President Donald Trump said they were desperately needed and that he would pay for them himself. The placement of the two 88-foot-tall flagpoles — one on the north lawn and one on the south lawn — began early in the morning of June 18. A U.S. flag was later raised on the south lawn around 1 p.m. at a ceremony that included Trump's daughter Ivanka Trump and son-in-law Jared Kushner. The couple was at the White House to watch the swearing in of Charles Kushner, Jared's father, as U.S. ambassador to France. 'How do you like it, everybody?' Trump said to reporters after the flag reached the top of the pole. Soon afterward, the second flag pole of identical height was installed on the north lawn. A few hours later, after thunderstorms rolled through Washington D.C., a second flag with the same dimensions was raised. Presidents have long put their own mark on how the White House is decorated, and Trump, who built his personal brand flipping commercial properties, is no exception. "It is a GIFT from me of something which was always missing from this magnificent place," Trump said in a social media post. "Hopefully, they will proudly stand at both sides of the White House for many years to come!" Trump said he paid out of his own pocket to install the poles, which cost about $50,000 each. This week, the White House traded a bust sitting in the Oval Office of the civil rights icon Martin Luther King Jr. for one of former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill. Trump said earlier this year he'd like to see a new ballroom built in the White House. When asked what gave him the idea to install the flag poles, Trump said he first considered the flags during his first term but blamed distractions caused by the media for getting in the way. 'I was the hunted. And now I'm the hunter,' Trump told reporters on June 18. "It's a big difference." Contributing: Swapna Venugopal Ramaswamy. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Trump installs pair of 88-foot-tall new flag poles at the White House
Forbes
12 minutes ago
- Forbes
What Parents—and Industry—Need To Know About Education's Future
As the school year ends, many parents are breathing a sigh of relief—but they also have some critical homework of their own. America's education system is in crisis—one that transcends test scores and headlines. It's a slow-burning, systemic failure that has robbed millions of students of opportunity and taxpayers of trust. With all the money we spend, why aren't our kids learning? Consider this: Governments at all levels spend over $850 billion annually on K–12 education—averaging more than $16,000 per student, and exceeding $29,000 in places like New York and Washington, D.C, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Yet the most recent National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reveals that 69% of eighth graders are not proficient in reading, and 73% are not proficient in math. These poor results are not new. They have persisted through pre-pandemic years, despite record-high spending. If this were any other public service, there would be outrage. Instead, families are met with shrugs and excuses. The excuses range from COVID-era learning loss to a lack of funding. But these rationalizations collapse under scrutiny. Student performance has been flat or declining since 2013, and pandemic relief funds—totaling more than $190 billion—barely moved the needle. That money is now gone, and districts are facing a fiscal cliff after investing in one-time fixes instead of systemic improvements. It was irresponsible spending with no accountability—and families know it. Fortunately, parents are no longer waiting for top-down solutions. They are driving a movement for education freedom—a shift toward a future where learning is personalized, innovative, and accountable to the people it serves. That's what the Center for Education Reform's 2025 Parent Power! Index reveals. It's not a measure of school choice alone; it's a roadmap of how well states empower parents through access to options, meaningful funding portability, and a culture of transparency and innovation. In states like Texas, Iowa, Indiana, and Arkansas, recent legislation has transformed the landscape. Texas jumped 15 spots in this year's Index after launching the largest day-one Education Savings Account (ESA) program in the country. Iowa made ESAs universal and expanded its charter school sector. Indiana enacted new policies to ensure charter schools receive equitable funding, helping it rank third nationally. Arkansas expanded its ESA program to provide universal eligibility, moving it into the top 10. These states didn't just talk about parent power—they backed it with laws that let funding follow the student and gave families the freedom to choose. This momentum matters not just for families—but for economic growth. States that empower parents are also outperforming economically. When education policy aligns with workforce needs, innovation flourishes and businesses thrive. It's no coincidence that states leading in education freedom—like Texas, Indiana, and Iowa—are also magnets for economic development. Governors who deliver results in education are winning in other sectors too, because great education fuels a great economy. Several other states also saw dramatic improvements. Wyoming surged 30 spots after enacting a new education scholarship program. North Dakota climbed 18 positions with strong charter legislation. Louisiana, Idaho, and Tennessee all rose substantially by expanding or creating new programs that prioritize parent-directed learning. These ranking shifts underscore a broader trend: bold governors and state leaders who enact strong laws and align workforce needs with educational delivery are leading the charge in responding to parent demands. Meanwhile, too many states remain stuck in bureaucratic inertia. Nebraska slid 18 spots after voters repealed its newly passed choice law. South Carolina and the District of Columbia lost ground due to missteps in managing challenges to ESA and charter programs, respectively. These declines reflect the consequences of weak follow-through, lack of vision, or resistance to innovation. State leadership is the key variable. In a polarized era, it is often governors—regardless of party—who are earning popularity and political capital by championing education freedom. When state executives embrace policies that fund students rather than systems, they don't just improve education; they build public trust. Parents want more than vague promises. They want a guarantee that their children are worth the same amount in public funding regardless of which school they choose. They want transparency in curriculum and outcomes. They want innovation that breaks free from one-size-fits-all models. And most of all, they want urgency. Education freedom isn't a theory. It's happening now in microschools, hybrid academies, online platforms, and career-based programs across the country. When parents are in charge, education becomes dynamic and adaptive. Students thrive. Educators innovate. Communities grow stronger. This isn't just a policy imperative. It's a moral one. Every year we wait, another generation of students slips through the cracks. We need leaders who are willing to challenge the status quo, put families first, and fund education that works—wherever it happens. The Parent Power! Index doesn't just highlight where states stand; it offers a vision of what's possible when we stop funding systems and start funding families. That's how we reclaim excellence, restore trust, and fulfill the promise of American education.
