Ex-Washington Post fact check warns paper's courting of conservatives could backfire with liberal readers
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The rich already know how private equity mints money — and it's not from a 401(k)
The ultrawealthy are envied for many reasons. For instance, we wish we could access the same private-market investments that they favor. Now, after the White House issued an executive order on Aug. 7, you may be able to invest like the billionaires do. Homeowners rush to refinance as mortgage-rate plunge opens window of opportunity My wife and I are in our 50s and have $11 million. We're not leaving it to our kids. Is that wrong? You could receive up to $7,500 from the AT&T settlement. Here's how class-action suits work. But would you want to? The executive order allows ordinary retirement savers to invest in private assets and cryptocurrency. This will expand investment options for anyone with a 401(k) or similar tax-advantaged retirement plan. It is a big deal — opening part of America's $12.4 trillion defined-contribution market to private-asset managers. The largest private-equity firms and other asset managers are salivating at the opportunity to pitch this untapped market of retirement savers. Private assets encompass a range of investments that do not trade on a public exchange. Examples include hedge funds, private equity, private credit and infrastructure. The case for private assets is they can provide a buffer against inflation — plus steady returns. The downsides include high fees, illiquidity and complexity. The nation's biggest asset managers welcome the executive order. They want to develop funds that make private assets easier for people to buy, and argue that the added diversification serves savers' best interests. Larry Fink, chief executive of BlackRock BLK, says retirement savers should replace the traditional 60% stocks/40% bonds asset-allocation model with a 50/30/20 split: 50% stocks, 30% bonds and 20% private assets. Read: Larry Fink proposes an alternative to the 60/40 portfolio. It means more fees. Should you be excited about this widening menu of investment choices? It depends on whom you ask. Some investment professionals like the idea of making private assets more available to more people. 'Historically, a number of private-market strategies have produced higher performance and additional diversification in defined-benefit pensions,' says Peter von Lehe, head of investment solutions and strategy at Neuberger Berman. 'It's appropriate that a broader range of investors have access to private assets in their defined-contribution plans because of the potential for return and diversification that these long-term investments can provide.' However, von Lehe cautions that these investments are illiquid and 'have a higher degree of complexity.' He says his 'most appropriate use case' for private-market investments is through professionally managed target-date funds or other funds that allocate a percentage of defined-contribution money to these complex but potentially more lucrative alternatives. Read: Here's something the rich know about managing investment risk that can help you, too Financial advisers have differing views on the role of private assets in client portfolios. Steven Roge, a certified financial planner in Bohemia, N.Y., says private markets are not for everyone. 'It's for people in the wealth-accumulation phase, say 40 to 50 years old, who have a long time horizon and a high risk tolerance,' Roge says. 'And they have to be sophisticated enough to understand it. We know if they don't understand it, they may not stick with it.' Of the firm's 300 clients, he says that 'only about a dozen' fit the bill for adding private-market assets to their retirement accounts. Even with the expanded investment options that may result from the White House's action, Roge remains a fan of passive strategies for most investors. 'Indexing is how they will win over the long run,' he says. 'But some clients want something that's special and different' as they seek market-beating returns. Given the illiquidity of private assets, Roge anticipates setting expectations for those clients who tend to monitor their portfolio daily — and who engage in frequent trading. 'These private investments may only price four times a year,' Roge says. 'That's not enough action for certain clients who track their portfolio like a hawk.' In his personal portfolio, Roge uses private markets — especially private equity — to diversify his holdings. He says he allocates about 25% to alternative assets. 'It helps me sleep at night knowing my portfolio isn't being pushed around by the volatility of public markets,' he says. Roge adds that he is not concerned about the current high valuations of private-equity funds. 'The valuations [of private-equity funds] are more realistic than the erratic valuations we see in public markets on a daily basis,' he says. Other advisers are more skeptical of the White House executive order. 'It's less being done out of interest for the general public and more for private industry lobbying the [Trump] administration,' says Alex Ruda, an adviser in Silver Spring, Md. The executive order undoubtedly pleases asset managers and private-equity firms. For years, they've wanted to attract retirement savers' money. These savers bear primary responsibility for managing their 401(k) compared with today's older retirees, many of whom receive employer-funded defined-benefit pensions. While some younger savers enjoy picking their investments, others dread it. 'The average American worker isn't equipped to navigate these complex [private-market] investments,' Ruda says. 'And they may fall prey to a little performance chasing given where we are in the market cycle' — as private markets have outperformed publicly traded stocks since 2000. Ruda feels so strongly about not incorporating private assets into client portfolios that he's willing to forgo newcomers who express such interest. 'If I wanted to broaden my client base, I'd have to play to what they want,' he says. 'But I don't have to do that. So I'd say to them, 'I'm not the best fit.'' Read next: Here's what it's like to invest in private equity — and why you don't want it in your 401(k) More: As private equity enters retirement plans, is it too dangerous for average investors to jump in? I'm a senior who barely survives on $1,300 a month. No way could I live on $1,000. 'I am a senior citizen': My car needs $3,500 for repairs, but only has a trade-in value of $6,000. Do I bother fixing it?
Time Magazine
17 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
Trump's Summit With Putin Need Not Be an Echo of Appeasement
President Donald Trump's unprecedented summit with Vladimir Putin in Alaska has failed to deliver the breakthrough on securing a ceasefire in Ukraine that he was hoping for. But Trump proved to be more cautious than many diplomats thought, moving in consultation with European allies and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky—and the failure of the Alaska Summit need not be an unvarnished disaster nor an echo of Neville Chamberlain's 1938 appeasement at Munich. [time-brightcove not-tgx='true'] What comes next matters far more than the predictable failure to make a breakthrough, and now Trump needs to make the war more costly to Putin financially and militarily. It's time to call Putin's bluff. As Trump himself declared before the meeting, if Putin did not agree to stop his war on Ukraine, there must be 'severe consequences,' and the time has come for Trump to tighten the screwsby increasing economic pressure on Putin and by buttressing military assistance for Ukraine. As Admiral James Savridis, Former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, complained: 'Putin strung Trump along again with diplomatic rope-a-dope and there should be military consequences for Putin.' It would be a tragic mistake if this turned into merely another instance when Trump threatens Putin with tough talk, only to back down prematurely. Clearly, Putin is counting on Trump backing down and falling victim to his smoke and mirrors. But that bark-and-no-bite approach would destroy U.S. credibility as much as it would erode Trump's own credibility. Trump's initial reaction, declaring on Fox News that it would be up to President Zelenskyy to push the ball forward, is exactly the opposite of what should be done. The truth is that even now, Trump holds all the leverage while Putin has none. Read more: Why Trump's Summit in Alaska Cannot End Putin's War in Ukraine Despite Putin's braggadocio, claiming a win from the legitimacy of visiting U.S. soil for the first-time in a decade, despite having an ICC arrest warrant to his name after the killing of tens of thousands of civilians and the kidnapping of 20,000 children; still, Trump averted the worst-case scenario of falling for Putin's propaganda, stopping hours of planned follow-up meetings that Putin had planned with Russian business and economic development officials. Trump has been correct in recognizing that none of the 1,200 companies whose exit from Russia we helped accelerate have ever expressed interest in returning to Russia. The fact that Putin even thought that the U.S. needs the Russian economy shows how deluded Putin still is. Putin's only commodities are easily interchangeable raw materials that he brings to the world market; no finished goods, industrial products, pharmaceutical ingredients, fashion or financial products come from Russia at scale. Like a mercantile colony, all Putin has is a lot of land, raw materials, and psychopathic propaganda. The reality is that despite Putin's tough guy bluster, Putin is a failure economically and militarily, and Putin's house of cards is far more vulnerable than many realize. In fact, after three years of grueling warfare, Putin's economy is in tatters as Putin stares down bankruptcy. As we revealed previously, for years now, Putin has been obfuscating how weak the Russian economy really is by hiding and fudging the numbers. Putin refuses to disclose major economic indicators as required by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). This ranges from foreign trade data, monthly output data on oil and gas, and central bank monetary base data. Due to Putin's obfuscation, few appreciate how close Russia is to running out of cash. The value of Russia's sovereign wealth fund and foreign exchange reserves has dwindled by half since Putin's invasion of Ukraine, as he draws down his windfall oil revenues faster than he can replenish his coffers. That is because Putin is running an unsustainable record budget deficit to fund his war machine in the tens of billions. And with over 1,000 multinational businesses having exited from Russia, the Kremlin is running out of new cookie jars to raid to keep the lights on. Read more: Why The Last Six Trump-Putin Meetings Failed The time has come for Trump to escalate economic sanctions and economic pressure on Russia by cutting off Putin's exports of oil and other natural resources, once and for all. By tightening the screws on Putin's already crumbling economic house of cards, Putin could run out of money very soon—perhaps even by the end of the year. Already, Trump has threatened secondary tariffs on India for buying Russian oil, which aligns with the bipartisan legislation put forward by many of his GOP allies in the Senate, including the 'Sanctioning Russia Act of 2025' legislation co-sponsored by Senator Lindsey Graham and Senator Richard Blumenthal, which would impose secondary tariffs and sanctions on countries which continue to fund Russia's war machine. Simultaneously, Trump has to fortify military assistance for Ukraine, with our European allies being forced to shoulder an increasing share of the burden as previously-appropriated U.S. support dwindles. Already, there is growing momentum in Congress, including from Trump's GOP allies, for another major military aid package to help Ukraine, despite the misguided cries of outnumbered, outgunned isolationists such as JD Vance not to support Ukraine anymore. Already, there is a bipartisan proposal in the Senate for a new $54.6 billion package in new aid to Ukraine, which would make it the largest aid package for Ukraine yet. Providing Ukraine with desperately needed military aid is the best way to show Putin who really holds the leverage. In particular, replenishing Ukraine's stock of F-16s and Patriot missile interceptors would be an incredibly powerful and effective boost. That military aid is sorely needed. As Ambassador Michael McFaul pointed out on MSNBC, 'since President Trump has been in the White House, the war has gotten more aggressive. There's been more attacks on Ukrainian civilians, the number of drone and missile attacks have gone up'. After trying and failing to secure a ceasefire from Putin, the time has come for Trump to impose the 'severe consequences' against Putin that he has previously threatened. If he fails to do so, then Trump's inaction, after Putin's blatant unwillingness to agree to a ceasefire and other measures to end the war on constructive terms, will be deserving of the comparisons to Chamberlain's Munich summit with Hitler—and go down as a far greater blunder than Joe Biden's disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan.'
CBS News
17 minutes ago
- CBS News
Trump administration to more heavily scrutinize "good moral character" requirement for U.S. citizenship
The Trump administration is signaling it will more heavily scrutinize applications filed by legal immigrants seeking American citizenship, in its latest effort to tighten access to U.S. immigration benefits. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the federal agency overseeing the country's legal immigration system, instructed officers on Friday to consider additional factors when determining whether immigrants applying for U.S. citizenship have a "good moral character." Typically, legal immigrants with U.S. permanent residency, also known as a green card, can apply for naturalized American citizenship after a 3- or 5-year period, depending on their case. Demonstrating "a good moral character" has long been one of the requirements in U.S. immigration law for American citizenship, alongside passing English and civics tests. For decades, under Republican and Democratic administrations, the "good moral character" assessment has generally been satisfied if applicants don't have any of the criminal offenses or disqualifying conduct outlined in U.S. immigration law. Those disqualifying factors range from violent crimes like murder and aggravated felonies to drug offenses and being a "habitual drunkard." But a policy issued Friday by USCIS expands the "good moral character" assessment, saying that determination must involve "more than a cursory mechanical review focused on the absence of wrongdoing." Instead, the review, the agency told its officers, should be "a holistic assessment of an alien's behavior, adherence to societal norms, and positive contributions that affirmatively demonstrate good moral character." The directive orders officers to place a "greater emphasis" on applicants' "positive attributes and contributions," listing community involvement, family caregiving and ties, educational attainment, "stable and lawful" employment, the length of time spent in the U.S., and paying taxes as some of those factors. The memo also mandates "greater scrutiny" of factors that show applicants lack a "good moral character," beyond the crimes and disqualifying conduct detailed in U.S. immigration law. Those factors, the policy said, include "acts that are contrary to the average behavior of citizens in the jurisdiction where aliens reside," including actions that are "technically lawful" but also "inconsistent with civic responsibility within the community." USCIS listed "reckless or habitual traffic infractions, or harassment or aggressive solicitation" as some of those actions. Lastly, the new USCIS policy instructs officers to weigh factors that could show that applicants who have engaged in wrongdoing have rehabilitated, such as complying with probation, paying overdue taxes or child support and receiving letters of support from their community. Over the past decade, the U.S. government has naturalized between 600,000 and 1 million immigrants as citizens annually, USCIS figures show. In a statement to CBS News, USCIS chief spokesman Matthew Tragesser said the directive is another effort by President Trump's administration to "restore integrity" to the U.S. immigration system. "U.S. citizenship is the gold standard of citizenship — it should only be offered to the world's best of the best," Tragesser added. "Today, USCIS is adding a new element to the naturalization process that ensures America's newest citizens not only embrace America's culture, history, and language but who also demonstrate Good Moral Character." Doug Rand, a former senior USCIS official during the Biden administration, suggested the Trump administration's policy is designed to scare legal immigrants from applying for American citizenship and require officers to put their "thumb on the scale" to find more reasons to deny applications. "They're trying to increase the grounds for denial of U.S. citizenship by kind of torturing the definition of good moral character to encompass extremely harmless behavior," Rand said, citing the policy's reference to traffic infractions. While the Trump administration has launched a highly visible crackdown on illegal immigration by deploying thousands of troops to the southern border, expanding immigration raids across the country, and fast-tracking deportations of those in the U.S. illegally, it has simultaneously moved to restrict legal immigration, with less fanfare. The Trump administration has virtually shut down refugee admissions, terminated Biden-era programs that allowed migrants to enter the U.S. legally, limited visas for certain countries and implemented aggressive vetting procedures for legal immigration benefits. Those efforts include expanded vetting of social media activity of legal immigrants and stricter screening requirements for some applications.
