Latest news with #HudsonBayCapital
Bloomberg
02-05-2025
- Business
- Bloomberg
Masters in Business
Barry speaks with Sander Gerber, Hudson Bay Capital CEO and CIO. Hudson Bay is a global, multi-strategy investment firm. In 2008, Mr. Gerber developed the Gerber Statistic, which was accepted as an innovation complementary to his own work by the late Dr. Harry Markowitz, the Nobel Prize-winning economist and father of Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT). The Gerber Statistic is utilized by Hudson Bay to identify the co-movement of financial assets, enabling early detection of concentration risks and insufficient diversification. Mr. Gerber began his investment career in 1991, as a member of the American Stock Exchange working as an equity options market maker. In 1997, he founded Gerber Asset Management to develop and engage in proprietary investment strategies. In late 2005, Mr. Gerber and Yoav Roth co-founded Hudson Bay Capital, which concentrates on generating positive returns while maintaining a focus on risk management and capital preservation.
Bloomberg
02-05-2025
- Business
- Bloomberg
Bloomberg Masters in Business: Sander Gerber
Barry speaks with Sander Gerber, Hudson Bay Capital CEO and CIO. Hudson Bay is referred to only as a global, multi-strategy investment firm. In 2008, Mr. Gerber developed the Gerber Statistic, which was accepted as an innovation complementary to his own work by the late Dr. Harry Markowitz, the Nobel Prize-winning economist and father of Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT). The Gerber Statistic is utilized by Hudson Bay to identify the co-movement of financial assets, enabling early detection of concentration risks and insufficient diversification. Mr. Gerber began his investment career in 1991, as a member of the American Stock Exchange working as an equity options market maker. In 1997, he founded Gerber Asset Management to develop and engage in proprietary investment strategies. In late 2005, Mr. Gerber and Yoav Roth co-founded Hudson Bay Capital, which concentrates on generating positive returns while maintaining a focus on risk management and capital preservation.
Fox News
04-04-2025
- Business
- Fox News
Danny Polishchuk: Trump Is Doing Exactly What He Told Us He Would With These Tariffs
Comedian Danny Polishchuk joins Fox Across America With Jimmy Failla to share his thoughts on President Trump rolling out sweeping new tariffs impacting essentially every U.S. trading partner. 'In November, so the head of Trump's economic advisors, this guy, Stephen Mirren, OK, he used to work at this place called Hudson Bay Capital, which is just like a, whatever hedge fund, something like that. He put out this paper in November. It's called You can look it up. Just search his name. It's called the restructuring of the global trading system something along those lines Essentially he laid out in November every single thing that they're doing. Yeah, like there's a plan of what they're Doing he laid the whole thing because you know, everybody's for the last three months has been like, oh what is Trump doing? 40 chess are the deal. What's he really doing? You're like they put this in a paper Yep, they're, doing exactly what they said they do and to happen to this point They are just doing it.' Plus, Jimmy and Danny discuss Alec Baldwin claiming America is currently in a pre-Civil War environment. Listen to the podcast to hear the full segment.
Yahoo
04-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump's Tariff Blueprint Called for 'Careful Planning' and 'Precise Execution'
If you want to understand what President Donald Trump is trying to accomplish with his massive tariff hikes, the best place to start is probably a report published not long after Trump won last year's election. That essay, titled "A User's Guide to Restructuring the Global Trading System," was authored by Stephen Miran, then a senior strategist at Hudson Bay Capital and a former Treasury Department official from the first Trump administration. He's now one of the White House's top economic advisors. The 41-page report is a concise (given the complexity of the issues involved) blueprint for what Miran called a "generational change in the international trade and financial systems" necessitated by an economic imbalance caused by an overvalued dollar. Tariffs, Miran argued, are one of the means to that end. Raising tariffs could generate revenue and change the balance of the U.S. dollar versus other currencies in ways that help America offset the costs incurred by, for example, providing national security services to so much of the world. To put it in more practical terms ripped from recent headlines: If the U.S. is expected to bear the burden of fighting the Houthis to keep shipping lanes in the Red Sea open, then it should find a way to offset those costs by taxing the trade that's able to flow because of America's security umbrella. We can't set up a toll booth in the Red Sea, so tariffs are the next best thing. As someone who doesn't see trade as a zero-sum game and recognizes that global supply chains make everyone wealthier, I'm not particularly swayed by this idea. But it isn't hard to see how Trump, who views everything as transactional (and who has been enamored with tariffs since the 1980s), would be into it. Still, he probably should have read Miran's recommendations a bit more carefully. When it comes to implementing those tariffs, Miran repeatedly stresses the need to move deliberately and in ways that "are minimally disruptive to markets and the economy." "There is a path by which the Trump Administration can reconfigure the global trading and financial systems to America's benefit," Miran wrote at the end of his essay, "but it is narrow, and will require careful planning, precise execution, and attention to steps to minimize adverse consequences." That's, uh, not what's happened this week. Trump's so-called "Liberation Day" announcement spiked U.S. tariff rates to levels not seen in more than a century. The move shocked global markets, spooked investors, and might have even woken up Congress to the economic threat posed by effectively unlimited executive economic powers. Rather than being carefully planned or precisely executed, the new tariff rates appear to be based on nonsensical calculations and applied in the most haphazard way possible. Trump is hiking tariffs on countries with which America runs trade surpluses and on places inhabited only by penguins. In short: Even if the Trump administration was using Miran's essay as a roadmap for reshaping global markets, it has already steered wildly off the edge. Or, as Derek Thompson of The Atlantic puts it, Trump's tariffs are "less an expression of economic theory and more a Dadaist art piece about the meaninglessness of expertise." Advocates of free trade are never going to support Trump's fixation with raising tariffs. But the political danger to Trump is that his chaotic approach will also alienate those who might have been nodding along with Miran's ideas or even Vice President J.D. Vance's theories about how to restore American manufacturing. In an excellent essay on his Substack, Noah Millman grapples with some of these same issues. If Trump is seeking to overturn the global economic order and rewrite the rules in ways that favor America, Millman concludes, then this week's tempestuous display is hardly the best way to start that process. "I get the whole 'madman theory' that Trump seems to be fond of," he writes. "But there's a difference between having someone believe you're crazy and having them believe you're an idiot." Even critics of free trade who might support some of the Trump administration's tariff policy goals—despite the contradictions in them—ought to be questioning how this is playing out. Like libertarians who might applaud the Department of Government Efficiency's goals but dispute some of what it is actually doing, some on the New Right who favor higher trade barriers might be getting what they want in the stupidest way possible. With Trump, this outcome seems almost inevitable. Against him, a policy requiring "careful planning" and "precise execution" never stood a chance. The post Trump's Tariff Blueprint Called for 'Careful Planning' and 'Precise Execution' appeared first on
Yahoo
01-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Commentary: The Trump economic plan that could be much riskier than tariffs
What if tariffs are only the beginning? What if President Trump has a far bolder plan to reshape the US economy, regardless of the consequences? Investors hope it isn't so. But they're still paying attention to a concept known as the 'Mar-a-Lago Accord,' which would dramatically rewire global capital flows by permanently devaluing the US dollar, refinancing trillions of dollars of US debt, and putting the United States in a much more adversarial role with its trading partners. Most doubt it will amount to anything, but Trump is so unpredictable that investors are learning to prepare for the unthinkable. The idea of a 'Mar-a-Lago Accord' comes from Stephen Miran, who was a senior strategist at investing firm Hudson Bay Capital last November when he wrote a 41-page essay on 'restructuring the global trading system.' Miran wrote from a Trumpian perspective, explaining how the incoming president's fondness for tariffs and protectionism could be the basis for reshaping much of the global economy. The paper probably would have gotten little notice, except that Trump tapped Miran to head the White House Council of Economic Advisers. He started the job this month. Trump himself hasn't said anything publicly about Miran's Mar-a-Lago plan. But now that Miran is a Trump whisperer, investors want to know what he might be whispering. 'Wall Street can't stop talking about the Mar-a-Lago Accord,' MarketWatch declared earlier this month. The basic premise behind Miran's plan is that the US dollar has been overvalued for decades, leading to chronic trade deficits — and the migration of manufacturing out of the United States to other countries such as China. Reversing that imbalance would therefore require a devaluation of the US dollar, something Trump does seem to favor. When the dollar is relatively strong, imports become cheaper to Americans, while US exports to other countries become more expensive. That shows up as a growing trade deficit in goods, as the gap between imports and exports grows. The goods trade deficit was $1.2 trillion in 2024, the highest ever and 175% larger than the deficit in 2000. Trump thinks the growing trade deficit is inherently bad. Economists don't necessarily agree. The US economy is powered by consumption, and more imported products at lower prices boost the buying power of Americans. Running a trade deficit isn't harmful if the US economy is otherwise healthy, with high levels of investment, innovation, and job creation. Many experts also think a strong dollar is better for the United States than a weak dollar. "A Mar-a-Lago Accord would be pointless, ineffectual, destabilizing, and only lead to the erosion of the dollar's pre-eminent role in the global financial system," economists Steven Kamin and Mark Sobel of the American Enterprise Institute wrote recently. They argue that a strong dollar gives American businesses privileged access to overseas markets while enhancing economic stability at home. It's true that a lot of lower-level assembly-line work has left the United States and that manufacturing employment has dropped. But manufacturing has been declining for years as a percentage of output in all the world's advanced economies as growth comes from technology and services. Since the 1980s, manufacturing as a share of US GDP has dropped from around 25% to less than 10%. Yet America's industrial output is nearly as high as it's ever been. Manufacturers simply make more with fewer workers due to automation, technology, and innovation. If there's a fatal flaw in Trump's economic thinking, it's his fetishization of manufacturing. The service economy employs 86% of American workers today. Just 8% work in manufacturing. And the United States has a longstanding trade surplus in services, exporting more than it imports. "Are assembly jobs good jobs? Yes," economist Mary Lovely of the Peterson Institute for International Economics said on the latest episode of the Yahoo Finance Capitol Gains podcast. "But there are lots of other good jobs in the US." Despite some rough patches, the United States has had the world's most dynamic and durable economy for at least 40 years. If the United States has somehow been handicapped by a lost blue-collar economy and a gamed trading system, it's a handicap any nation would gladly nonetheless, is basing his whole economic plan on boosting the manufacturing sector. In the Mar-a-Lago plan, tariffs would only be the beginning. Devaluing the dollar would come next. To do that without printing money and triggering runaway inflation, the Trump administration would have to intervene in currency markets. If other nations happened to agree with Trump's plan to devalue the dollar, the signatories could all gather at Mar-a-Lago and ink an accord similar to other marquee events in financial history. Voluntary agreement is unlikely, however, since trading partners would end up at a disadvantage. 'The circumstances do not look good for a voluntary currency agreement,' Capital Economics explained in a recent analysis of the idea. 'But a coercive deal forced on others by the US using threats or inducements may be possible.' A 'coercive' deal would involve some way of reducing the flow of foreign money into US dollar assets, especially Treasury securities. Miran, for instance, suggested a new user fee on some foreign purchases of Treasurys, which would reduce demand for Treasurys and weaken the dollar. But that would force interest rates higher in the United States, and Trump wants lower rates, not higher ones. So there would have to be some corrective for rising rates. One concept here is that the Trump team could somehow force current foreign holders of Treasury securities, which have a maximum maturity of 30 years, into a new 'century' bond with a 100-year maturity. The catch is that century bonds would be hard to trade in public markets the way Treasurys trade now. So there would have to be some new way of providing liquidity if century bondholders needed it, such as short-term loans from the Federal Reserve. Read more: What are bonds, and how do you invest in them? There are other twists and wrinkles. Trump, for instance, has talked about establishing a US sovereign wealth fund, which, if it ever existed, he could use to force the dollar lower by purchasing massive amounts of foreign assets. The United States could exploit its role as a defense guarantor for nations such as Taiwan, South Korea, and much of Europe to try forcing them into buying century bonds. Trump could also dangle tariff relief as an incentive for foreign help devaluing the dollar. If this scheme sounds remarkably convoluted, well, it is. 'There's no easy road to dollar weakening,' Oxford Economics said in a March 20 report. 'Achieving the size of depreciation that we think would be needed to have a significant impact on the trade deficit would involve swimming against a strong tide. The costs imposed on the economies and financial markets in the US and beyond could be large.' Those costs would most likely include sharply higher prices for both imported and domestic goods, higher interest rates, and whatever economic damage the disruption might cause. A worst-case outcome would be wrecking investor confidence in the sanctity of US Treasurys, which could happen if the United States did anything markets interpreted as a default, or refusal to pay, what Treasury holders are legally entitled to. That would devalue the dollar for sure, but at the devastating cost of much higher rates on Treasurys to compensate holders for the higher risk of losing their money. If that happened, US government borrowing costs would explode, and the gigantic national debt, now $36 trillion, could quickly become unsustainable. Economists also point out that there are better ways of addressing some legitimate problems in markets. One reason the dollar might be slightly overvalued today is the sheer amount of debt the Treasury has issued to finance annual deficits that now run close to $2 trillion per year. 'If the reduction in US domestic demand were done via fiscal tightening, that would have the added benefit of putting the US public debt onto a more sustainable path,' Capital Economics said. There are also real casualties of global trade, including American manufacturing towns that lost employers with nobody to take their place. Luring growth industries such as green energy, data centers, warehousing, and healthcare to such areas would likely be more effective than trying to hold onto the enterprises of the past. There's also an ongoing need for tradespeople and a mismatch between the skills companies need and the skills workers have that policymakers could do a much better job of reconciling. Trump, of course, sees tariffs as a kind of multitool that can solve many problems, including some that might not be problems at all. Investors generally dislike Trump's tariffs, which have dented stock values and raised new inflation fears. But tariffs may be tame medicine compared with other potions Trump might try to brew up. 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. Sign in to access your portfolio
