Search here...
Home Blog

Will the Stock Market Crash? History Gives a 95% Reason to Stay Calm

globalinvestmentstrategy.com
-
0
Will the Stock Market Crash? History Gives a 95% Reason to Stay Calm


There are growing concerns about whether the stock market is about to crash. In fact, the British newspaper The Guardian recently ran an article titled “Are Global Stock Markets Heading for a Crash?” Although worries appear to be mounting, history says there is a 95% chance we won’t see a market crash in the next year.

Here’s why investors are wary and why a crash probably isn’t around the corner.

A weak consumer, rising interest rates, and an AI bubble

The market right now is facing a trio of potential catalysts that could cause a major sell-off. The first is a weak consumer. Consumers are clearly stretched, hurt by high prices coming from tariffs and elevated gasoline prices stemming from the U.S. war with Iran.

Danish economist Henrik Zeberg recently pointed to the long-term U.S. unemployment rate, a weakening housing market, and a collapse in personal saving rates during the past five years as evidence that a recession could be coming next year. With recessions generally come large market pullbacks.

At the same time, the Federal Reserve has just begun a new tightening cycle to curb high inflation. Rate-increase cycles are rarely good for stocks, with the last tightening cycle being a catalyst for the last bear market when the S&P 500 (^GSPC -0.25%) index sank 25%. Meanwhile, according to RBC Wealth Management, the other five rate-tightening cycles since 1994 saw the S&P 500 drop between 8% and 14%.

Today’s Change

(-0.25%) -19.30

Index Level

7,651.54

And finally, there is the potential of an AI bubble bursting. Spending on AI infrastructure is booming, and any major shift in that spending could send stocks reeling. Meanwhile, a duo of valuation metrics is sending out warning signs that stocks are overvalued.

First among them is the S&P 500 cyclically adjusted price-to-earnings (CAPE) ratio. Developed by Yale economist Robert Shiller, it looks back over the past decade to smooth out boom and bust earnings cycles (adjusted for inflation). The ratio has been trading at roughly 40 times, which has only happened once before, right before the dot-com bubble crash.

Meanwhile, another popular metric called the Buffett Indicator, which divides the market’s entire market cap by gross domestic product (GDP), is trading at historically high levels. A favorite valuation metric of Warren Buffett, a level between 70% and 90% is considered reasonable, while more than 120% is considered high. The metric now sits above 235%.

A crash is unlikely

Despite the potential warning signs, history says a crash is unlikely to happen within the next year, and the reason centers around the midterm election. Since 1938, the market has risen from November to November 95% of the time after midterm elections, according to Fidelity Research. Meanwhile, this is also historically when the market puts up its best returns, with the S&P 500 posting a 14.5% average return in the 12 months after the midterms since 1950.

The returns tend to be strong early in the cycle. According to the Carson Group, in the fourth quarter of a midterm election year, the S&P 500 has gone up 84% of the time since 1950 and averaged a 6.6% return during the quarter. The following quarter is even stronger, with stocks showing gains 95% of the time and averaging a 7.4% return. Calendar Q2 in the year after midterms also tends to be good, with stocks up 74% of the time, with an average increase of 5%.

Image source: Getty Images.

How to invest

In my view, any AI bubble is not about to burst, given the strong, fast returns hyperscalers are seeing from their AI investments. Furthermore, as WisdomTree has pointed out, cumulative AI infrastructure spending as a percentage of global GDP is not yet close to the typical 25% danger zone for transformational technologies. As such, I’d try to ride the historical trend of strong stock gains after midterm elections.

However, I still think one of the best investment strategies, whether the market crashes or if the bull run continues, is to consistently dollar-cost average into one or two strong index exchange-traded funds (ETFs) like the broad Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (VOO -0.23%) or Invesco QQQ Trust (QQQ +0.25%), which tracks the tech-heavy Nasdaq-100 Index.

Trying to time the market rarely works, and dollar-cost averaging into top index ETFs is a proven long-term strategy to build wealth over time.

how Basel output floor could tilt bank lending – Bank Underground

globalinvestmentstrategy.com
-
0
how Basel output floor could tilt bank lending – Bank Underground


Marzio Bassanin

The 2017 finalisation package of the Basel III reforms to bank capital regulation aims to make capital requirements more robust and consistent across banks. One of its most significant changes is the introduction of the ‘output floor’, which limits how far capital requirements calculated using internal models can fall below those based on standardised approaches. But the output floor is not just about capital levels. We find that it may tilt lending towards corporate loans and some riskier mortgages, and away from the safest mortgages. And if banks’ responses to past reforms are any guide, banks won’t wait until its full implementation in 2030 to start reacting.

What’s the output floor?

The Basel framework for bank capital regulation aims to align capital requirements with risks: banks should hold more capital against riskier assets. The framework does this through risk weights, which determine how much capital banks must maintain against different types of lending for their own safety and soundness and to ensure financial stability. Because capital is costly, changes in risk weights can affect which loans banks find most attractive. Across banks, decisions about which assets to hold can, in aggregate, affect the type of credit supplied, including higher-risk loans that support productive investment, as well as the costs of that credit.

Banks can estimate risk weights using approved internal models or apply standardised approaches set by regulators. The case for internal models is that banks with the right expertise and capabilities are often best places to assess the risks on their balance sheets. Internal models let them turn detailed information about their borrowers, such as the probability that they default and the losses that would follow, into estimates of risks. But internal models have long raised concern: they can generate different risk weights for portfolios that look similar in terms of the underlining risks. This is not just a theoretical concern – empirical studies have shown it. That kind of variability raised questions about how robust the system really is.

The 2017 Basel III finalisation package responded with the output floor, a backstop that limits how much banks can reduce risk-weighted assets (RWAs) using internal models. Under the output floor, banks’ RWAs cannot fall below 72.5% of those implied by the standardised approaches. When internal models generate lower RWAs, the output floor becomes binding. In Chart 1, the RWAs calculated using internal models (green bar) fall below the floor and therefore are replaced by the 72.5% of those calculated with standardised approaches (blue bar, right). By underpinning internal models with a common benchmark, the output floor aims to reduce unwarranted differences in RWAs across banks with similar portfolios.

Chart 1: The output floor at work

Standardised approaches aren’t perfect – they apply fixed risk weights which have relatively limited risk-sensitivity – but they do offer something models often struggle to deliver: consistency. Because those weights are set by regulators and applied the same way to all banks in each jurisdiction, they help reduce unwarranted dispersion in capital requirements.

The output floor won’t bite all at once. In the UK, it will be phased in gradually from 1 January 2027, starting at 60% and rising to 72.5% on 1 January 2030. As the floor approaches its final level, it is expected to become a binding constraint for more banks – especially those with concentrated exposures to assets where the gap between internally modelled and standardised RWAs is largest – shaping how they measure and manage risks.

This post examines the incentives created by the output floor. But banks do not operate under a single regulatory constraint. They also face a leverage ratio, a simple risk-insensitive backstop based on capital and total exposures. Their choices will reflect which constraint dominates. Our findings speak more to those banks that are not constrained by the leverage ratio.

How are banks expected to react when the output floor is fully implemented?

In a new Bank of England staff working paper – Acosta-Smith et al (2026) – we study how banks are likely to respond to the implementation of the output floor over the cycle. To explore these effects, we use an extension of the macroeconomic model developed by Angelini et al (2014) which features banks that lend to households through mortgages and to nonfinancial corporates. We compare two regulatory regimes: one based solely on internally modelled risk weights (RWs) and another that incorporates the output floor.

We simulate an economic expansion driven by a positive technology shock. Results in Chart 2 suggest that the output floor moderates the rise in the credit-to-GDP ratio during economic expansions by preventing RWAs from falling too far hence keeping capital requirements tighter.

Chart 2: RWAs, credit-to-GDP and lending

Notes: The chart compares the impulse responses functions (deviation from the steady state values – percentage point deviation for RWAs and credit-to-GDP, per cent deviation for mortgages and corporate loans) to a positive technology shock with and without the output floor. After the shock, both mortgages and corporate loans increase but the magnitude depends on the prudential framework in place. With the output floor, the increase in mortgages is milder – at the end of the simulation period mortgages are 0.4 percentage point lower – while the increase in the corporate loans higher – around 0.2 percentage point higher. Differences seem to be persistent over the simulation period.

Chart 2 also shows how the introduction of the output floor affects banks’ allocation of lending. When the output floor is in place and it becomes binding, banks expand corporate lending more than mortgages relative to the regime based solely on internal models.

The key driver is the gap between internally modelled and standardised risk weights (IM-SA gap) and how the size of this gap varies across different asset classes. Standardised risk weights are generally higher than those produced by internally modelled ones, but the size of the IM-SA gap varies considerably across asset classes. Assets with a large IM-SA gap see the biggest increase in capital requirements (because the output floor is higher than modelled RWs). By contrast, assets with a small gap are affected much less and, in some case, the required regulatory capital reduced (because the output floor is equal to or lower than modelled RWs).

For UK banks, data show that mortgages tend to have lower RWAs than corporate loans but have a larger IM–SA gap – so the output floor is generally more binding for mortgages than for corporate loans. Chart 3 illustrates the implications: over the simulated period, the output floor-implied risk weights (72.5% of standardised RWs) are higher than the internally modelled risk weights for mortgages, but lower for corporate loans. As a result, once the output floor binds, mortgages become more ‘expensive’ in terms of capital requirements, while corporate loans become ‘cheaper’. Banks therefore are incentivised to expand more corporate loans than mortgages, to mitigate the costs of the output floor.

Chart 3: Assets’ contributions to capital requirements

Notes: The chart reports the difference (in percentage points) between the output floor implied risk weight (72.5% * SA risk weight) and the SA risk weight over the simulation of a positive technology shock. The difference is positive for mortgages and negative for corporates loans, meaning that the former become more expensive, while the latter cheaper for banks. The magnitude is higher for corporate loans compared to mortgages.

Models tidy up a world that’s anything but tidy. Ours boils banks’ balance sheets down to just two asset types. But mortgages, for instance, span a huge range of risks. Bigger IM–SA gaps tend to show up for safer mortgages, while smaller gaps point to riskier ones. Put simply, once you drop this back into the real world, the output floor is expected to push UK banks towards riskier mortgages and corporate loans and away from the safest mortgages – assuming everything else constant.

What can we say today about banks’ reactions?

The output floor won’t fully take effect until 2030. But that doesn’t mean banks which will see the output floor binding in 2030 will wait until then to react. Whether we see early behavioural changes depends on how much banks anticipate the future regime – and history suggests they often move well before formal implementation.

A study by Fritsch and Siedlarek (2022) at the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland looks back at the Basel III reforms. They find that banks started adjusting their regulatory capital positions shortly after the proposed rules were announced in 2012. That was years before the new regime actually came into force. They find that the effect was especially clear for US regional banks, which are typically more sensitive to supervisory scrutiny and have stronger incentives to stay comfortably above regulatory thresholds.

Early reactions aren’t limited to capital ratios. Hendricks et al (2023) document strategic changes in reporting, lobbying and business models that reduced banks’ exposure to the proposed Basel III rules before they were finalised. And looking at a different policy change, Guillaume et al (2020) show that UK banks eligible for Pillar 2A capital relief started altering their asset composition after the relevant policy statement was published, not when the relief formally applied.

Taken together, these studies suggest a clear pattern: when regulatory rules change but are not yet in effect, banks tend to react early.

What can we conclude?

Once the output floor is fully in place, banks are likely to rebalance their portfolios towards corporate loans and some riskier mortgages, and away from the safest mortgages. All else equal, these incentives point towards a reallocation of credit toward relatively higher-risk finance that may support productive investment.

Past experience suggests that banks will not wait until the output floor is fully implemented in 2030 to respond. Banks most likely to be affected by the output floor may already be adapting their strategies, with early signs of portfolio shifting emerging well before 2030. That makes this an area where timely empirical work could add real value.

As we noted at the start, the post sets aside the leverage ratio, the other backstop sitting alongside risk-weighted capital rules. A natural next step for future research will be to test whether a binding leverage ratio dampens the impact of the output floor.

Marzio Bassanin works in the Bank’s Prudential Framework Division.

If you want to get in touch, please email us at bankunderground@bankofengland.co.uk or leave a comment below.

Comments will only appear once approved by a moderator, and are only published where a full name is supplied. Bank Underground is a blog for Bank of England staff to share views that challenge – or support – prevailing policy orthodoxies. The views expressed here are those of the authors, and are not necessarily those of the Bank of England, or its policy committees.

Share the post “When the floor rises: how Basel output floor could tilt bank lending”

WA First Home Owner Grant

globalinvestmentstrategy.com
-
0


Western Australia’s First Home Owner Grant (FHOG) aims to give eligible first home buyers a financial boost to help get their foot in the door of the property market.

If you’re exploring the state for your future home, you might want to check out whether you can take advantage of the grant to achieve your home ownership goals.

What is the Western Australian First Home Owner Grant?

The FHOG provides a one-off payment to first home buyers to assist them in buying or building a new residential property.

The scheme was launched by the federal government in 2000 in a bid to offset the effect of the GST on home ownership. While the FHOG is a national scheme, each state and territory is responsible for funding and administering the program.

States and territories also pay out differing sums of money and have their own eligibility criteria.

See also: How do First Home Owner Grants work?

In Western Australia, first home buyers can apply for a one-time $10,000 payment that they can put towards buying or building a new home in the state. It is not available to those purchasing an established home.

Who is eligible for the WA First Home Owner Grant?

First up, the grant is not means-tested in Western Australia, so people at all income levels can apply.

To be eligible:

  • You must be 18 years or over at the time of making the application. If you’re under 18, you may be able to apply for an age exemption.

  • At least one applicant (if you’re applying with a spouse or de facto partner) must be an Australian citizen or a permanent resident at the time of making an application

  • You must hold a relevant interest (ownership) in any land on which the home is situated and must own the home in your own capacity

Residency requirement

When you qualify for the grant, you will need to occupy the property you buy as your principal place of residence for a continuous period of at least six months commencing within a year after either the purchase settlement or the completion of the construction of your home.

When are you not entitled to the WA First Home Owner Grant?

You’re not eligible for the grant if you or your spouse or de facto partner have:

If you’ve previously owned property, you might be eligible for the grant but you would have to fit through a gap in the following restrictions:

  • Can’t have owned residential property in Australia before 1 July 2000

  • Can’t have owned residential property in Australia on or after 1 July 2000 and occupied that property as a place of residence before 1 July 2004

  • Can’t have owned residential property anywhere in Australia on or after 1 July 2000 and occupied that property as a place of residence for a continuous period of at least six months that began on or after 1 July 2004

What property transactions are eligible for the grant?

When applying you’ll need to make sure that your property transaction is also eligible for the grant.

You can apply if you’re purchasing a new home, have signed a contract to build, or if you’re building your home yourself as an owner-builder.

While the grant isn’t available for the purchase of an established home or for renovations to an existing home, you may still be eligible if you’re buying a home that’s been ‘substantially renovated’.

What is the first home owner grant price cap in WA?

There is also a cap on the total value of the home and land that qualifies, and this depends on where the home is located.

For homes in the south of the 26th parallel of South latitude, which covers all Perth metropolitan areas, the combined value cap for the house and land is set at $800,000 (as of 7 May 2026 – previous value cap was $750,000).

A higher cap of $1 million is set for homes north of the 26th parallel (unchanged).

How to apply for the First Home Owner Grant in Western Australia

You have two options if you’re applying for the FHOG in Western Australia.

You can submit your application through an approved agent, typically the lender you use for your home loan.

If your lender is not an approved agent, you can submit an application directly to RevenueWA.

Take note of the documents you’ll need to provide when your apply for the grant:

On top of the supporting evidence of property transaction and the application form, you’ll need to submit at least one document from each of the categories below, particularly if you’re applying through RevenueWA.

  • Category 1: Australian Citizenship and permanent residency

    • Australian birth certificate/extract of passport or citizenship certificate

    • Evidence of permanent residency or permanent resident visa or

    • Certificate of Evidence of Resident Status, issued by the Department of Home Affairs

  • Category 2: Link between identity and person (only required if applying through RevenueWA)

    • Current Australian driver’s licence

    • Current passport (if not used in category 1)

    • Firearms licence

    • Proof of Age card (with photo)

    • Another identity document that includes a photo.

  • Category 3: Australian residence (only required if applying through RevenueWA)

    • Medicare card

    • Motor vehicle registration

    • Centrelink or Department of Veterans Affairs card

    • Debit/credit card from a financial institution

    • Similar card or document that shows residence in Australia

If you are married, separated, divorced, widowed, or using a different name for your application, you’ll need to provide corresponding documents providing evidence of your name change.

For the purchase of a new home, you’ll need to apply for the grant within one year after the settlement date.

For contract-to-build and owner-builder transactions, an application must be lodged within one year of the completion of the home.

When will the grant be paid?

When the $10,000 will be paid depends on the type of transaction and your mode of application.

If you’re applying through your lender, the timing of the payment will be according to the following:

  • Purchase of a new home: At settlement

  • Contract to build: After the first progress payment and after your name is registered on the certificate of title

  • Owner-builder: When you provide evidence that the home is ready for occupancy and after your name is registered on the certificate of title

When lodging your application through RevenueWA, you will get the funding when:

  • Purchase of a new home: When your name is registered on the certificate of title

  • Contract to build: After the first progress payment and after your name is registered on the certificate of title

  • Owner-builder: When you provide evidence that the home is ready for occupancy and after your name is registered on the certificate of title

Frequently Asked Questions about Western Australia’s FHOG

Here are some of the most commonly asked questions about Western Australia’s First Home Owner Grant:

Can I use the grant as a home loan deposit?

In practical terms, $10,000 will not be enough to cover a standard home deposit. It may be able to be used as part of a deposit in some circumstances (depending on your lender).

Bear in mind, however, the timing of the grant’s payment is generally not ideal if you’re planning to use it for deposit purposes, especially if you’re applying directly through RevenueWA.

Will my income impact my application for the grant?

No, your income will not impact your application for the grant.

Western Australia’s FHOG isn’t means-tested and doesn’t have any income-related eligibility requirements.

When applying for the grant alongside a partner, will each of us be able to receive the grant?

The grant is payable per transaction only. This means that two first home buyers involved with the purchase of a single property will only be eligible for one grant.

Can I still apply for the grant even if I have property overseas?

You’ll still be eligible for the grant even if you own a property overseas, as long as you’ve never owned a property in Australia.

Are there any additional incentives or concessions available for first home buyers in Western Australia?

Yes, on top of the FHOG, you may be eligible for other incentives and concessions, including the first home owner rate of stamp duty.

The FHOG can also be combined with existing housing initiatives at the federal level, including the Home Guarantee Scheme.

Where can I find a home loan designed for first home buyers?

Our first home buyer loans page features some of the most competitive interest rates on the market for first home buyers, as well as insights and tips on purchasing your first property.

See also: 

First Home Buyers Grant NSW

First Home Buyers Grant Victoria 

First Home Buyers Grant Queensland

First Home Buyers Grant South Australia

First Home Buyers Grant Tasmania

Image by Simon Maisch on Unsplash

First published in August 2024

Details of Bachelor of Business Administration (BBA)

globalinvestmentstrategy.com
-
2
Details of Bachelor of Business Administration (BBA)



The BBA (Bachelor of Business Administration) degree is described in depth in this Careers360 video. Bachelor of Business Administration is an undergraduate degree programme in business administration and management. Students can opt this degree programme after completing 10+2 in any stream. A BBA degree provides a lot of employment opportunities. Get additional details in this video.

👉 BBA –

👉 Subscribe to our YouTube Channel and press the 🔔 bell icon to get notifications for all new videos.

————————————————————–
Connect with us 👇
Telegram:
Facebook:
Instagram:
Twitter:
Website:
————————————————————-

👉 Download Free Careers360 App here:

🔥 People also Search:
bachelor of business administration
bachelor of business administration entrance exam
bba entrance exam
bba admission process
bba admission eligibility
bba courses

#bbaadmission
#bbaeligibility
#bbacourses

source

Treasury Will Auto-Open Trump Accounts For 68 Million Kids Starting October 1

globalinvestmentstrategy.com
-
0
Treasury Will Auto-Open Trump Accounts For 68 Million Kids Starting October 1


Key Points

  • Starting on or about October 1, 2026, Treasury will open a Trump account for every eligible child under 18 with a Social Security number, no parent action required.
  • The move follows weak sign-ups: about 5.6 million Forms 4547 processed against 73.37 million eligible kids as of July 30, under 8%.
  • Auto-opened accounts can only receive the $1,000 federal seed deposit if a parent files the tax-form election.

The Treasury Department and IRS on September 29 released temporary regulations directing the Treasury Secretary to open a Trump account for every eligible child in the country, “on or about October 1, 2026.”

The rules, published in the Federal Register on September 30 and effective the same day, reverse the position Treasury took in March, when it said it would require a parent to file Form 4547 to open a Trump account for a child.

The reason for the reversal is in Treasury’s own numbers. As of July 30, 2026, the IRS had processed about 5.6 million electronic Forms 4547 against an estimated 73.37 million eligible children, or under 8%. “In most states, the number of processed electronic Forms 4547 was less than 10% of the estimated number of eligible children,” the regulations state. That is only modestly ahead of the 4 million accounts the IRS reported in April, and Treasury concluded an opt-in program would have plateaued “close to 50% of eligible families.”

Would you like to save this?

We’ll email this article to you, so you can come back to it later!

Why It Matters

Treasury estimates the change will add more than 60 million Trump accounts in 2026 alone, impacting 73 million children in 44 million families. It’s also estimated that roughly two million additional accounts year will be opened going forward.

Every child under 18 with a Social Security number is included, not just the 2025 through 2028 babies who qualify for the $1,000 federal seed deposit. Parents who have been weighing a Trump account against a 529 plan will soon find the Trump account already exists whether they wanted one or not.

It’s important to note that this policy will impact lower-income families significantly more than those at a higher income. Middle- and higher-income families have been opening these accounts at a much higher rate than lower-income families.

Treasury’s Table 1 shows about 8.61 million eligible children in households with no adjusted gross income or a missing return, and roughly 10,000 processed forms for that group, a take-up rate near 0.1%. The agency’s blunt summary: “Proportionately, children in lower income groups are the biggest beneficiaries” of the rule.

That matters for families who have never had a reason to think about how a Trump account affects financial aid because they never had one.

The Catch: Auto-Opened Accounts Do Not Get The $1,000 Automatically

The auto-opened account, which the regulations call an “auto account,” can only accept two kinds of money during the growth period. The first is qualified general contributions from states, tribal governments, and 501(c)(3) nonprofits. The second is the $1,000 pilot contribution, but only “if a pilot program election has been made by a pilot program-electing individual,” which under the March proposed rules is generally the parent claiming the child as a dependent.

Treasury says the statute does not let the Secretary make that election on a family’s behalf, so the $1,000 baby bonus still requires a Form 4547 election.

The auto account also cannot take money from parents, grandparents, or employers. To contribute, a parent or guardian has to “claim” the account through an electronic application or web page, verify their identity, and establish their legal authority to see the child’s tax information.

Claiming triggers a trustee-to-trustee rollover of the full balance into either a “claimed initial Trump account” at Treasury’s trustee or a rollover Trump account at a provider of the family’s choosing. Only then can it accept the $5,000 annual contribution that a standard Trump account allows.

How The Money Gets Invested

Until a family claims it, an auto account’s only holding is an interest in a “master group trust” that Treasury runs for all auto accounts collectively. The trust can hold only eligible investments, meaning U.S. equity index funds charging 0.1% or less with no leverage, plus donated stock and, after the growth period, cash.

Neither the trustee nor the Secretary will have discretion over proxy voting or other corporate actions, which Treasury says keeps administration uniform across tens of millions of accounts. That is a narrower menu than the fund lineups families can choose in a 529 plan.

The regulations also formalize how donors like the Michael & Susan Dell Foundation, which pledged $6.25 billion to children born between 2016 and 2024 living in ZIP codes with median household income below $150,000, will move money in.

Donors contribute to Treasury first, and Treasury then makes equal contributions to every account in a “qualified class” of at least 5,000 beneficiaries defined by birth year, geography, or both. Donated public stock may be held directly in accounts, subject to a five-year minimum holding period. Treasury wrote that donors “prefer that their contributions reach all children, not just children whose parents have the awareness to opt in,” which is a large part of why it built the auto-enrollment structure at all.

For reference, when I opened Trump accounts for my kids, it took about 90 days before the Dell Foundation money was posted.

How This Connects

Treasury’s own math shows why the seed deposit and any class contribution are worth chasing. Using broad U.S. equity returns for birth cohorts from 1926 to 2006, the regulations estimate $1,000 invested at birth grows to a median $6,180 by age 18, with a 10th-percentile outcome of $2,980 and a 90th-percentile outcome of $13,800.

Even $1,000 invested at age 17 lands at a median $1,160 a year later. Those figures track the projections in our Trump accounts explainer, and they are the case for making sure a 2025 through 2028 baby’s parent actually files the pilot election rather than assuming the auto-open handles it.

What’s Next

Treasury will make its first round of elections on or about October 1 and says subsequent rounds will be frequent enough to make parent-initiated openings a “rare exception.”

The temporary rules apply to tax years beginning January 1, 2026, and expire September 30, 2029. A companion proposed rule takes comments through November 30, 2026, including on how ABLE rollovers should work for auto accounts whose beneficiaries Treasury knows nothing about.

Watch for the claim portal’s launch and for whether the IRS moves the pilot election onto the same screen. Until then, the Form 4547 process remains the only path to the $1,000.

Editor: Colin Graves

The post Treasury Will Auto-Open Trump Accounts For 68 Million Kids Starting October 1 appeared first on The College Investor.

Rumor: Chase Could Add Qantas and Cathay Pacific as 1:1 Transfer Partners

globalinvestmentstrategy.com
-
0
Rumor: Chase Could Add Qantas and Cathay Pacific as 1:1 Transfer Partners


Chase Could Add Qantas and Cathay Pacific Transfer Partners

According to a report on reddit, Chase could soon add Qantas Frequent Flyer and Cathay Pacific Asia Miles as new Ultimate Rewards transfer partners, with both reportedly transferring at a 1:1 ratio.

The reddit report claims the information came from a Chase employee who was told about the upcoming additions. There has been no official announcement from Chase, so this remains a rumor for now.

If accurate, this would add two more useful airline options to Ultimate Rewards. Cathay Pacific at 1:1 would be especially interesting, giving Chase cardholders another way to transfer points to Asia Miles.

Hopefully we’ll hear something official from Chase soon.

Chase Ultimate Rewards Travel Partners

Partner Ratio
Aer Lingus 1:1
Air Canada Aeroplan 1:1
British Airways Executive Club 1:1
Emirates 1:1
Flying Blue (Air France / KLM) 1:1
JetBlue 1:1
Iberia Plus 1:1
IHG Rewards Club 1:1
Marriott Bonvoy 1:1
Singapore Airlines KrisFlyer 1:1
Southwest Airlines Rapid Rewards 1:1
United Airlines MileagePlus 1:1
Virgin Atlantic Flying Club 1:1
World of Hyatt 1:1

Your Instinct Might Be to Cut Brand Marketing in a Downturn. Our Sales Pipeline Told a Different Story.

globalinvestmentstrategy.com
-
0


Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.

Key Takeaways

  • Cutting brand to fund lead generation backfires over time. Leads get harder to close, and competitors who stay visible win more business when demand returns.
  • Prove brand’s value with deal speed, not direct attribution. Tracking how quickly prospects move through the pipeline when brand campaigns are running gives leadership evidence they can trust.

When budgets get tight, most companies make the same move: they cut brand marketing and put every dollar into lead generation. It’s easy to see why. A paid search campaign that brought in 200 demo requests last month has a clear return you can show your CFO. A podcast sponsorship that makes future buyers recognize your name doesn’t. But cut brand long enough, and those leads get harder to close, more expensive to win and slower to come back when the market recovers.

When performance marketing eats the entire budget, a company stops creating demand and starts harvesting only what already exists in the market. On a spreadsheet, cutting upper-funnel spend looks like prudent governance: pause expensive media campaigns, put every dollar toward immediate conversions and present a clean return to leadership. Repeat that decision cycle after cycle, though, and you’re trading long-term market share for short-term efficiency.

The cost of harvesting without planting

Over my years leading marketing through shifting market cycles and economic headwinds, I’ve watched this tension play out again and again. During extended downturns, the instinct is to pull spending deeper into lead capture. For a public company under pressure to show profitability, the urge to cut anything without immediate, line-item attribution is almost irresistible.

The risk comes when a company over-indexes on demand capture for too long: it hits a wall of diminishing returns. Inbound form fills might hold steady for a quarter or two, but lead quality drops sharply. Prospects arrive without context or familiarity, so sales teams spend twice the effort explaining who you are and why you matter, burning valuable capacity on cold prospects who don’t yet trust the company.

Worse, pulling back on brand during a downturn costs you your place at the starting line when demand rebounds. Brand awareness isn’t a light switch you can flip back on when the economy loosens. If you go dark while conditions are tough, competitors who maintained their presence capture most of the recovering demand, and you’re left rebuilding recognition from scratch at a much higher cost.

Build a return case your CFO will accept

Breaking this cycle requires marketing leaders to change how they frame brand value in the boardroom. Asking a CFO to trust intuition or fuzzy ROI will fail every time. Brand investment can’t be presented as a leap of faith; it has to be tied to concrete proxy metrics that reflect real pipeline acceleration.

When my team set out to rebalance our marketing portfolio at Ryder, we stopped trying to prove direct attribution for broad awareness, which is nearly impossible. Instead, we focused on localized correlation and deal velocity, establishing a clear link between upper-funnel presence and bottom-of-funnel conversion.

We worked with partners to tag digital touchpoints during active brand campaigns, tracking regional website traffic jumps of more than 20% within a five-second window of campaign airtime. Then we mapped how that heightened visibility affected active deal cycles.

The data revealed a pattern even the most numbers-focused executive team could respect: when brand messaging is active in a market, prospects move through the sales pipeline significantly faster. Visibility validates your story before the first sales call, reducing friction and shortening sales cycles. Pairing those traffic spikes with annual brand perception studies gave our executive team clear evidence that brand spending isn’t a discretionary luxury. It’s the infrastructure that makes lead generation efficient.

Rebalance without breaking the budget

Rebalancing doesn’t require a multimillion-dollar broadcast buy in the middle of a lean cycle. If budget pressure rules out major broadcast channels, marketing leaders can shift a portion of performance dollars into targeted digital brand presence. Placing story-driven content on the specific channels where key decision-makers spend time keeps your brand visible without an outsized budget line.

Maintaining steady brand investment also keeps a company from yanking spending up and down with every quarterly shift. Expecting bottom-of-funnel tactics to drive sustainable revenue without brand equity is like asking someone to sign a marriage certificate before you’ve taken them to dinner.

Sustainable growth belongs to leaders who treat brand building and lead generation as two halves of the same engine. Lead generation captures today’s business; brand investment ensures tomorrow’s pipeline exists at all. Winning the budget argument isn’t about abandoning financial accountability. It’s about making sure your company stays top of mind long after the current quarter ends.

Key Takeaways

  • Cutting brand to fund lead generation backfires over time. Leads get harder to close, and competitors who stay visible win more business when demand returns.
  • Prove brand’s value with deal speed, not direct attribution. Tracking how quickly prospects move through the pipeline when brand campaigns are running gives leadership evidence they can trust.

When budgets get tight, most companies make the same move: they cut brand marketing and put every dollar into lead generation. It’s easy to see why. A paid search campaign that brought in 200 demo requests last month has a clear return you can show your CFO. A podcast sponsorship that makes future buyers recognize your name doesn’t. But cut brand long enough, and those leads get harder to close, more expensive to win and slower to come back when the market recovers.

When performance marketing eats the entire budget, a company stops creating demand and starts harvesting only what already exists in the market. On a spreadsheet, cutting upper-funnel spend looks like prudent governance: pause expensive media campaigns, put every dollar toward immediate conversions and present a clean return to leadership. Repeat that decision cycle after cycle, though, and you’re trading long-term market share for short-term efficiency.

The cost of harvesting without planting

Over my years leading marketing through shifting market cycles and economic headwinds, I’ve watched this tension play out again and again. During extended downturns, the instinct is to pull spending deeper into lead capture. For a public company under pressure to show profitability, the urge to cut anything without immediate, line-item attribution is almost irresistible.

OpenAI, SpaceX investor funds went to strip clubs, Bloomingdale’s, and shopping on Amazon, SEC alleges in charges against private fund advisers

globalinvestmentstrategy.com
-
0
OpenAI, SpaceX investor funds went to strip clubs, Bloomingdale’s, and shopping on Amazon, SEC alleges in charges against private fund advisers



The Securities and Exchange Commission is dropping the hammer on private fund advisers who allegedly mishandled millions in investor assets under the guise of granting them lucrative pre-IPO shares in coveted startups such as OpenAI, SpaceX, and others. 

According to two separate cases announced on Wednesday, the SEC claims multiple fund advisers allegedly deceived mom-and-pop investors—including Navy veterans—about where the millions they thought they invested actually went. One adviser raised money for funds meant to hold OpenAI and SpaceX shares, while the other pair pitched investors on SandboxAQ and Kraken while falsely claiming to hold stakes in SpaceX and xAI. None of the actual companies or the executives who lead them are alleged to have engaged in wrongdoing. 

The SEC has brought a series of charges related to pre-IPO stakes, misappropriated investor funds, and hidden fees in recent months, following SpaceX’s blockbuster $1.8 trillion IPO in June. Other recent charges have alleged that hundreds of investors were lured in by claims private fund advisers could grant them access to companies including Anduril, Anthropic, Perplexity, and others as valuations have skyrocketed.

In an eye-popping case announced on Wednesday the SEC sued Owen Meyer, 35, and his firm, Meyer Global Management in federal Court in Manhattan, alleging Meyer raised at least $18.5 million from nearly 100 investors while misappropriating at least $1.27 million in client money along the way. What’s more, the SEC claims Meyer spent more than $18,000 in fund capital for his “personal entertainment” at a strip club one night in April 2023 that spilled into the wee hours of the morning.

Meyer allegedly tried to pay a $4,400 bill to the club at 4:41 a.m. using a debit card associated with Meyer Global Partners, but it was declined twice, the SEC claims. Just minutes later, Meyer transferred $10,000 from a fund account containing only investor money to the Meyer Global Partners account. He then allegedly paid the club $4,400 at 4:44 a.m. and then another $3,650 at 5:30 a.m. for receipts that listed drinks, “entertainment room rental fees,” and included the name of Meyer’s cocktail server at the club, the SEC claims. 

That same night, Meyer allegedly transferred $10,000 directly from the same fund account, which held investor money raised to buy shares of online casino operator Playstar. He transferred the money to the manager of the strip club, the SEC alleges. Memo lines on the payments listed “movie tickets and theatre performance,” and “opera.” The SEC claims the strip club manager testified that “Meyer visited the club alone, not with any business associates or friends, and that Meyer’s payments to him personally may have been because Meyer was having difficulties paying with his own credit card, or as gratuity to him as manager,” the complaint states. 

When Meyer was asked by SEC staff about the $10,000 transfer from the fund account, Meyer invoked his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, the SEC said. Meyer did not respond to a request for comment. The SEC characterized it as an undisclosed “interest-free loan” because the Playstar investors eventually got their money back. 

In a second case announced on Wednesday, the SEC and federal prosecutors charged former naval officer Christopher Dinelli, 34, and Jacob Frankel, 32, with allegedly defrauding 35 investors of more than $8.7 million through their firm, Beyond Alpha Ventures. Their marketing falsely listed SpaceX and xAI as holdings, the SEC claims, when the funds never held investments in those companies. 

Authorities claim Dinelli and Frankel pitched investors on a trading fund with “153%” net returns plus pre-IPO stakes in crypto exchange Kraken, and AI software firm SandboxAQ, chaired by former Google CEO Eric Schmidt. None of the firms are alleged to have engaged in wrongdoing. The SEC claims the trading fund lost money in 13 of 14 months, and less than half the nearly $6 million raised for pre-IPO deals went into them. Much of the rest went into options trading that was later lost, the complaint states. The two allegedly sent fake statements to investors, including one that Dinelli allegedly “hand-delivered” to a Navy veteran couple saying their $750,000 investment had grown to $4.1 million. 

The SEC says Dinelli allegedly misappropriated more than $1 million, including a $250,000 investment in a documentary film, and Frankel allegedly misappropriated more than $340,000, partly for trades in accounts he controlled and to pay his criminal defense lawyer. 

In a telephone interview, Frankel denied the SEC’s allegations, calling them “completely false,” and said the “truth will come out in court.” Frankel said he terminated Dinelli “two years ago,” and blamed him for the allegations. The SEC’s complaint says Dinelli was Beyond Alpha Ventures’ chairman until July 2025. 

Dinelli did not respond to a request for comment. Frankel was convicted in March 2026 of grand larceny and identity theft. The SEC claims Frankel hid that conviction from regulators in his required disclosures. 

The Mechanics

In both cases, regulators allege the fund advisers marketed themselves as having access to stakes in high profile private companies. All are alleged to have sent investors fake account statements and communications claiming their investments were either safe and sound or growing rapidly. 

In Meyer’s case, the SEC claims he set up 16 funds, each to buy stakes in one pre-IPO company, most often Elon Musk-led SpaceX, in addition to Sam Altman-led OpenAI, which remains private.

According to the SEC, Meyer set up a fund to invest in OpenAI, but never got any OpenAI shares. Meyer testified that a deal to acquire OpenAI assets fell through in March 2024, yet six investors wired nearly $1.1 million in April and weren’t told for about six months that there was no investment. The SEC claims Meyer paid himself about $168,000 in fees anyway, more than triple what investors agreed to, and some of it went to landscaping at his home in Setauket, New York. Only about $15,600 remains in the fund, the SEC stated.

As for his SpaceX funds, Meyer told investors in 2021 that a large purchase in SpaceX assets had closed even though the third-party fund that held the shares wouldn’t approve the transfer, the complaint states. Meyer wound up allegedly misappropriating about $570,000, including $100,000 for a personal investment in an exotic-car company and $220,000 sent to his personal bank account.

In 2025, when three other SpaceX funds were liquidated, Meyer allegedly moved about $636,000 meant for investors into his personal account. He allegedly spent thousands on shopping at Bloomingdale’s and Amazon, and allegedly sent $86,000 to his father, the complaint states. Another fund forfeited its entire SpaceX stake after Meyer allegedly failed to pay a capital call for $46,000, or answer a lawsuit, the complaint states. About $13.1 million was paid back to investors after the liquidation, the SEC noted.

The day of the June 12 SpaceX IPO, Meyer emailed his investors in his SpaceX funds, including the one that had lost its stake.

“This is a dream that many of us have followed for years, and today we have the opportunity to participate in what I believe will be one of the most important companies of our generation,” Meyer wrote, according to the complaint Meyer closed the note by telling them to “stay tuned” for updates on their distributions. The fund held no SpaceX shares to distribute, the SEC says. The SEC is seeking to bar Meyer from the industry, plus disgorgement and penalties. 

In the second case, the SEC claims Navy vet Dinelli allegedly recruited fellow veterans and medical staff at a Veterans Affairs clinic in Pensacola, Fla., where he was a patient, the complaint states. Meanwhile, Frankel allegedly lost $2.8 million in margin trading in the fund’s brokerage account, including $1.9 million on a single options trade, the complaint states.

Prosecutors charged Dinelli and Frankel with securities fraud, wire fraud, and conspiracy. Frankel also faces investment adviser fraud and false-statement counts over SEC filings that allegedly concealed his conviction and a Finra suspension. 

Want Better Sleep? A Study Says to Change These 3 Parts of Your Diet

globalinvestmentstrategy.com
-
0
Want Better Sleep? A Study Says to Change These 3 Parts of Your Diet



The study found that three switches could lead to a longer time spent in the deep, slow-wave sleep phase.

[Last Day] Chase Sapphire Preferred & INK Business Preferred Will No Longer Transfer 1:1 To Hyatt (4:3 Rate)

globalinvestmentstrategy.com
-
0


Update 9/30/26: Last day to transfer before this goes into effect. 

Mixed with some positive news (discussed in this separate post), Chase announced that the Sapphire Preferred card and the INK Business Preferred card (and legacy INK Plus card) will no longer transfer to Hyatt at 1:1. Instead you’ll get 3 Hyatt points for every 4 Ultimate Reward points (4:3). 

There are no changes to the Sapphire Reserve and Sapphire Reserve for Business cards. Those cards are now the only ones with 1:1 Hyatt transfers. (You can move points from other cards to the Reserve card in order to get the 1:1 transfer rate.)

The change goes into effect on October 1, 2026, so you’ll want to do any transfers before then. For someone who applies for the Sapphire Preferred or INK Preferred from June 15, 2026 and onward the change goes into effect immediately.

Our Verdict

Obviously huge downgrade here. Coming on the heels of the Hyatt devaluation this is a real double whammy.

For a lot of people this will make the Sapphire Reserve card or Bilt card a real necessity. 

123...1,017Page 1 of 1,017

About Us

Get the Latest Insights based on: business, finance, mortgage, credit cards, Investments and better Ways to Make Money Online

Categories

Latest news

Will the Stock Market Crash? History Gives a 95% Reason to Stay Calm

Finance 0
There are growing concerns about whether the stock...

how Basel output floor could tilt bank lending – Bank Underground

Banking 0
Marzio Bassanin The 2017 finalisation package of the Basel...

WA First Home Owner Grant

Mortgage 0
Western Australia's First Home Owner Grant (FHOG) aims...

Popular news

Will the Stock Market Crash? History Gives a 95% Reason to Stay Calm

Finance 0
There are growing concerns about whether the stock...

how Basel output floor could tilt bank lending – Bank Underground

Banking 0
Marzio Bassanin The 2017 finalisation package of the Basel...

WA First Home Owner Grant

Mortgage 0
Western Australia's First Home Owner Grant (FHOG) aims...

© 2024. All Rights Reserved.