Search This Blog

Wednesday, November 5, 2025

'Wall Street Drops Fear of ‘Hot Commie Summer’ in Overture to Mamdani'

 New York City’s elite threw everything at Zohran Mamdani to stop him from becoming mayor: money, insults, scare tactics, and tweets.

The democratic socialist’s wealthy antagonists had decried his ascendance as the start of “hot commie summer.” Bill Ackman’s attacks were so relentless, Mamdani quipped on the Flagrant podcast last month: “He’s spending more money against me than I would even tax him.”

But on Tuesday, Mamdani triumphed with a decisive victory in the New York City mayoral election. And that prompted a conciliatory message from Ackman.

“Congrats on the win,” the billionaire investor told Mamdani in a post on X. “Now you have a big responsibility. If I can help NYC, just let me know what I can do.”

WATCH: Mamdani speaks after being elected the 111th mayor of New York City.Source: Bloomberg
WATCH: Mamdani speaks after being elected the 111th mayor of New York City.Source: Bloomberg

It’s not just Ackman. Others in the world of business are also adapting to a new reality of a critic of capitalism running the world’s financial capital.

Ralph Schlosstein, who ran Evercore Inc. and co-founded BlackRock Inc., is pledging to work with Mamdani even though they don’t share the same politics. He’s exploring ways to do so, including joining a business advisory group that hopes to guide the mayor-elect.

“I am certainly not a socialist, having spent 45 years in finance, in the private sector,” Schlosstein said. “I do care deeply about the city, and I’m not going anywhere, whoever the mayor is. I’m going to do whatever I can to help him be successful.”

Schlosstein’s vow is a response to concerns that Mamdani’s proposals like tax hikes will spur an exodus of the wealthy from the city.

It’s time for the city’s business elite to stop sulking and sketch a path to stay relevant, according to Mark Kronfeld, a former BlackRock executive and a lifelong New Yorker.

“Is it a dystopian, post-apocalyptic environment because Mamdani has won? No,” he said.

Mamdani used the Wall Street derision channeled in his direction as the perfect foil, Kronfeld said.

“In some respects he’s the left-wing version of Donald Trump,” he said. “He wanted to be attacked by people who would never support him, it became his marketing narrative.”

To some, the anti-Mamdani campaign by the wealthy laid bare the hubris on Wall Street and social animus for the financial industry.

Zohran Mamdani at an election night event in Brooklyn.Photographer: Adam Gray/Bloomberg
Zohran Mamdani at an election night event in Brooklyn.Photographer: Adam Gray/Bloomberg

“There are people in the industry who think what they do allows the sun to rise and set every day,” veteran headhunter Michael Nelson said. “A lot of people don’t care for Wall Street and billionaires. ‘Screw them’ is how Mamdani voters reacted.

To be sure, as Mamdani’s campaign progressed, he seemed to be gaining ground not just with the merely affluent, but also winning closeted fans in the top rungs of finance. A Bank of America Corp. employee who pulls in eight-figure pay said he supports Mamdani but wouldn’t dare admit it to colleagues and risk being branded a socialist.


Crypto billionaire Mike Novogratz isn’t shy about the need for outreach. “Once he’s the mayor, we’ve got to be sure he’s successful in keeping New York a thriving community,” he said. “He’s tapping into a message that’s real: that we’ve got a tale of two cities in the Dickensian sense, to a degree we haven’t seen since we’ve been alive, and can you address the affordability issue in creative ways without driving business out.”

Other business leaders are coming around. JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon, who previously described Mamdani as “more of a Marxist than a socialist,” said last month that he’ll put aside his skepticism and offer to help the upstart candidate.

“It doesn’t surprise me that a lot of people in the business community didn’t support him,” said Robert Wolf, CEO of 32 Advisors and former head of UBS Americas. “But now that he’s mayor, I’m hopeful that they help in his success to make sure New York City thrives.”

On Tuesday, Citigroup Inc. CEO Jane Fraser said “we hope to work with the Mayor-elect on making the city an even better place for our people and clients to live and work.”

Mamdani’s criticism of Israel remains an outstanding issue for many in the business community, said Kathy Wylde, president of the Partnership for New York City, a lobbying group with 350 CEOs in its ranks. He will have to reassure the city’s Jewish community, which has seen a surge in antisemitic hate crimes, she said.

Ex-Governor Andrew Cuomo, who ran as an independent in the mayoral race after losing to Mamdani in the Democratic primary, campaigned as a vocal supporter of Israel. He received just over 40% of the vote in the general election.

(Former Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, the founder and majority owner of Bloomberg News parent Bloomberg LP, endorsed Cuomo in the primary and general election and has contributed to a PAC supporting his candidacy.)

Business Bridge

Mamdani has sought to build a bridge with the business community. One hedge fund founder questioned if Mamdani was truly rigid about his socialist beliefs after attending a closed-door session with him. His statements to the group seemed more aligned with someone willing to take a flexible approach to reach his objectives, he recalled, even though he walked away unconvinced.

One of those bridges could be the group that is enticing Schlosstein. It already includes investors Kevin Ryan and Andrew Milgram, and aims to gather a panel of experts across finance, real estate, tech, health care and government.

Milgram, who runs the city’s biggest medallion owner at distressed investing fund Marblegate Asset Management, worked with Mamdani on the restructuring of taxi drivers’ debt. He said Mamdani worked to represent drivers who were drowning under their obligations, joining them in a hunger strike.

The young politician was relentless in finding a solution that included convincing Marblegate to buy the loans and forgive about $400 million in debt, Milgram said.

“This was not a fly-by photo op for an aspiring politician,” Milgram said of the negotiation. “He brought everyone together to drive to a solution.”

Zohran Mamdani supporters attend an election night watch party in Brooklyn, on Nov. 4.Photographer: Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images
Zohran Mamdani supporters attend an election night watch party in Brooklyn, on Nov. 4.Photographer: Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images

Despite his anti-rich rhetoric, Mamdani’s ascent was built on the support of the city’s young professionals, many of whom are just beginning to make their way into the ranks of the wealthy.

But like many in New York, even those with six-figure salaries are struggling with high costs. At least 65,000 households making between $100,000 and $300,000 a year pay a third or more of their gross income to landlords, and in many of those neighborhoods, voters supported Mamdani in the June primary.

“Cry me a river over the affordability, no one said you need to stay in New York,” said crypto hedge fund founder David Tawil.

In fact, in Tawil’s view, for all the appeal of the affordability mantra, it’s unrealistic for New York City. “I know it’s a horrible thing to say but I don’t think there’s a solution,” he said. “I don’t think the Wall Street class thinks it’s supposed to be an affordable city.”

Tawil himself moved out of Manhattan and decamped to the Jersey Shore after feeling the pinch of ballooning living costs.

Mamdani Era

New York native Lloyd Blankfein sees no reason to get nervous over the imminent Mamdani era in the city.

Blankfein led Goldman Sachs Group Inc. in the decade after the city was recovering from the global financial crisis, and was even personally targeted by the left-wing ‘Occupy Wall Street’ populist movement. Protesters had camped in Zuccotti Park — just blocks from the financial titan’s downtown Manhattan headquarters.

Mamdani’s new role will require him to be less of a flamethrower and force him to be judged by the results he produces, Blankfein said.

“Legislators like AOC or Sanders can spend a career in office without initiating and passing a single bill,” Blankfein said, calling out two of Mamdani’s prominent supporters — congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Bernie Sanders.

“But mayors are executives, stuff has to get done,” he said. “Garbage has to get picked up; snow has to be moved; crime has to stay under control. Or he’ll be out after a term and we won’t see another socialist for a long while.”

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/wall-street-drops-fear-hot-131003958.html

NY Fed Q3 Report: Household Debt Increased $197 Billion in Q3; Delinquencies "Elevated"

 From the NY Fed: Household Debt Balances Grow Steadily; Mortgage Originations Tick Up in Third Quarter

The Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s Center for Microeconomic Data today issued its Quarterly Report on Household Debt and Credit. The report shows total household debt increased by $197 billion (1%) in Q3 2025, to $18.59 trillion. The report is based on data from the New York Fed’s nationally representative Consumer Credit Panel. It includes a one-page summary of key takeaways and their supporting data points.

“Household debt balances are growing at a moderate pace, with delinquency rates stabilizing,” said Donghoon Lee, Economic Research Advisor at the New York Fed. “The relatively low mortgage delinquency rates reflect the housing market’s resilience, driven by ample home equity and tight underwriting standards.” Mortgage balances grew by $137 billion in the third quarter and totaled $13.07 trillion at the end of September 2025. Credit card balances rose by $24 billion from the previous quarter and stood at $1.23 trillion. Auto loan balances held steady at $1.66 trillion. Home equity line of credit (HELOC) balances rose by $11 billion to $422 billion. Student loan balances rose by $15 billion and stood at $1.65 trillion. In total, non-housing balances rose by $49 billion, a 1.0% increase from Q2 2025.

 

The pace of mortgage originations increased with $512 billion newly originated in Q3 2025. There was $184 billion in new auto loans and leases appearing on credit reports during the third quarter, a small dip from the $188 billion observed in Q2 2025. Aggregate limits on credit card accounts continued to rise by $94 billion, representing a 1.8% increase from the previous quarter. Home equity lines of credit (HELOC) limits rose by $8 billion, continuing the growth in HELOC limits that began in 2022.

Aggregate delinquency rates remained elevated in Q3 2025, with 4.5% of outstanding debt in some stage of delinquency. Transitions into early delinquency were mixed with credit card debt and student loans increasing, while all other debt types saw decreases. Transitions into serious delinquency mostly increased across debt types, although mortgages saw a slight decrease.
emphasis added
Total Household DebtClick on graph for larger image.

Here are two graphs from the report:

The first graph shows household debt increased in Q3.  Household debt previously peaked in 2008 and bottomed in Q3 2013. Unlike following the great recession, there wasn't a decline in debt during the pandemic.

From the NY Fed:
Aggregate nominal household debt balances increased by $197 billion in the third quarter of 2025, a 1% rise from 2025Q2. Balances now stand at $18.59 trillion and have increased by $4.44 trillion since the end of 2019, just before the pandemic recession.
Delinquency StatusThe second graph shows the percent of debt in delinquency.

The overall delinquency rate increased in Q3.  From the NY Fed:
Aggregate delinquency rates remained elevated in the third quarter of 2025. The share of outstanding debt balances in some stage of delinquency was largely flat in 2025Q3; 4.5% of outstanding debt was in some stage of delinquency, 0.1 percentage points higher than the previous quarter. 

https://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2025/11/ny-fed-q3-report-household-debt.html

Britain "Doomed" Under Labour As Wealthy Scramble To "Get The Hell Out Of London": Ryanair Boss

 by John-Paul Ford Rojas via ThisIsMoney.co.uk,

The UK is doomed under Labour, the boss of Ryanair has warned as he claimed wealthy people were scrambling to ‘get the hell out of London’ before being hit by a Budget tax raid.

Michael O’Leary said he had no faith in the Chancellor’s ability to restore growth and branded her tax policies ‘dumb’.

The comments came amid reports that Rachel Reeves is planning to target the wealthy with a mansion tax in the Budget later this month.

He told the Guardian: ‘The UK economy under the current leadership is doomed.'

‘The UK badly needs growth, but the way to deliver growth is through selective tax cuts… you are not going to grow the UK economy by taxing wealth or taxing air travel.’

Mr O’Leary’s comments add to a chorus of criticism of Labour from UK business leaders – following warnings about tax from the likes of Marks & Spencer boss Stuart Machin and Asda’s Allan Leighton.

Michael O'Leary branded Labour's policies 'dumb'

The Ryanair boss said: ‘I hold very little faith in Rachel Reeves or the current economic strategy of the Labour government.'

‘Rich people are fleeing… as they are trying to find low-fare flights to get the hell out of London before Rachel Reeves taxes their mansions, their income and inheritance.’

Mr O'Leary has also taken umbrage at Labour’s decision to hike air passenger duty – a tax on flights – and said further increases in the Budget would prompt the carrier to shift capacity to other countries with lower tax burdens such as Sweden or Italy.

He told Bloomberg: ‘She hasn’t a rashers how to deliver growth. She puts up employment taxes, puts up APD.’

Mr O’Leary said Ryanair had written to the Treasury describing the increase in the air tax as ‘the dumbest idea even you lot have come up with’.

He said that a further increase at the Budget would mean 10 per cent of Ryanair’s capacity, or about five million seats, is moved to lower tax countries.

Eventually even a dumb Labour government will work out that for an island on the periphery of Europe, the way to grow – and the way to increase tax revenue – is to get tourists onto the island first and then tax them,' he added.

‘The way to grow is not by increasing entry taxes, which is what APD is.’

Mr O’Leary made the comments as the airline revealed a surge in half-year profit amid a hike in fares. It was also helped by aircraft deliveries helping it fly more passengers.

The low-cost airline reported a pre-tax profit of £2.6 billion for the six months to the end of September, 40 per cent higher than the same period last year.

It flew 119 million passengers, 3 per cent more than last year

Average airfares rose by 13 per cent year on year to 58 euros (£50.90), Ryanair revealed, having spiked during the Easter period.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/britain-doomed-under-labour-wealthy-scramble-get-hell-out-london-ryanair-boss-warns

ADP: Private Employment Increased 42,000 in October

 From ADP: ADP National Employment Report: Private Sector Employment Increased by 42,000 Jobs in October; Annual Pay was Up 4.5%

“Private employers added jobs in October for the first time since July, but hiring was modest relative to what we reported earlier this year,” said Dr. Nela Richardson, chief economist, ADP. “Meanwhile, pay growth has been largely flat for more than a year, indicating that shifts in supply and demand are balanced.”
emphasis added
This was above the consensus forecast of 25,000 jobs added. The BLS report will NOT be released on Friday due to the government shutdown.

Supreme Court To Decide On Trump's Tariffs

 by Sam Dorman via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments on Nov. 5 in a landmark case over the legality of President Donald Trump’s global tariffs.

Illustration by The Epoch Times, Getty Images, Madalina Kilroy/The Epoch Times

More specifically, the justices are expected to hear two cases—Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc.—for at least 80 minutes with input from various parties. According to the court, oral arguments will include 40 minutes from the Trump administration and 20 minutes each for both the private businesses and states challenging Trump’s policy.

Whatever the ruling, the case could have major implications for the nation’s economy and determine how much future presidents can alter trade. Here’s what you need to know heading into oral arguments.

1. What Are the Cases About?

The cases center on two groups of tariffs that the Trump administration imposed earlier this year. One group targeted Mexico, Canada, and China over their alleged failure to address fentanyl trafficking, and the other set included a lengthy list of reciprocal tariffs on countries worldwide.

The tariffs were imposed under a 1977 emergency powers law—the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Trump is the first president to impose tariffs under this law, although President Richard Nixon used an identical provision in a predecessor law in 1971—the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917—to declare a trade emergency and issue 10 percent tariffs on all imports.

Trump established the fentanyl tariffs in February in response to the three countries’ failure to stem the flow of illegal opioids into the United States, which created a national emergency, including a public health crisis, according to his executive orders.

The president cited the hundreds of thousands of overdose deaths of Americans and the drug crisis’s impact on the health care system, communities, and families. Mexico and Canada were also penalized for failing to stem illegal immigration.

In enacting the reciprocal tariffs in April, Trump declared an emergency over large and persistent U.S. trade deficits caused by decades of unfair trade practices by other countries in the form of tariffs and nontariff barriers.

The persistent trade imbalance has threatened national and economic security, Trump’s executive order states, by hollowing out the country’s manufacturing capacity, undermining critical supply chains, and causing the defense industry to be dependent on foreign adversaries.

Trucks enter the United States from Canada at the Pacific Highway Port of Entry in Blaine, Wash., on Feb. 1, 2025. Earlier this year, the Trump administration imposed 25 percent tariffs on Mexico and Canada. The Supreme Court will hear arguments on Nov. 5 in a landmark case over the legality of the administration’s global tariffs. David Ryder/Getty Images

2. The Stakes

Trump has said that winning the case will be “vital to the interests” of the United States. Tariffs have been used against the country for years, causing the United States to lose its domestic industries, he said in an October interview with Fox Business.

The president noted that he was able to stop several wars by using the threat of tariffs as leverage, including one earlier this year between Pakistan and India.

As of Sept. 23, revenue from tariffs imposed under the emergency law hit nearly $90 billion in fiscal year 2025, according to data by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. That’s nearly half the total tariff revenue collected in the fiscal year.

The United States faces a trade deficit of more than $1 trillion, and the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the tariffs will reduce federal deficits by $4 trillion, according to a Justice Department (DOJ) filing.

So far, the Trump administration has reached trade deals with several countries, including the U.K., the European Union, Japan, and South Korea. These deals have led to more than $2 trillion in purchases and investment commitments in the United States.

Should the administration lose the case, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has said that the government could invoke other authorities to implement tariffs, although they are “not as efficient, not as powerful.”

Private companies have urged the Supreme Court to rule against the Trump administration, arguing that the tariffs represent hundreds of billions of dollars in new taxes. Some outside estimates have also been critical of the tariffs.

For example, the Peterson Institute for International Economics stated in September that U.S. businesses had absorbed much of the tariff costs through July, and consumers could see higher prices.

APEC leaders pose for a group photo before a dinner honoring U.S. President Donald Trump (4th-L) during APEC meetings at the Hilton Gyeongju in Gyeongju, South Korea, on Oct. 29, 2025. The Trump administration has secured trade deals with several countries, including the United Kingdom, the European Union, Japan, and South Korea. Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

3. Emergency Powers Law

The Supreme Court is set to review whether the tariffs are authorized by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The law authorizes the president to take a range of actions in response to emergencies.

It allows the president to declare a national emergency to deal with any “unusual and extraordinary threat” to the country’s national security, foreign policy, or economy.

In court, the DOJ has defended the Trump administration’s invocation of the law to impose tariffs by pointing to a section that allows presidents to regulate imports.

That provision allows the president to “investigate, block during the pendency of an investigation, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit, any acquisition, holding, withholding, use, transfer, withdrawal, transportation, importation or exportation of, or dealing in, or exercising any right, power, or privilege with respect to, or transactions involving, any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest.”

In arguing that the levies were not authorized by the law, challengers have highlighted that the provision doesn’t include the word tariffs.

The justices are expected to consider not only whether the law allows the tariffs but also whether the law was constitutional.

Because the Constitution grants tariff power to Congress, there is a question over whether the emergency law violated the nation’s separation of powers by unconstitutionally delegating expansive tariff authority to the president.

President Donald Trump signs an executive order after remarks on reciprocal tariffs during a Rose Garden event at the White House on April 2, 2025. The Supreme Court is set to review whether the tariffs are authorized under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images

4. What Did Lower Courts Decide?

So far, multiple federal courts—including the U.S. Court of International Trade and the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia—have stated that Trump’s tariffs are unlawful, but delayed the effects of their orders blocking the tariffs.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit halted oral arguments for one of the cases after the Supreme Court granted certiorari, or took it up for further consideration. The Supreme Court is expected to review that case, as well as one that the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled on in May. That ruling against Trump’s tariffs was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in August.

Both the district court in Washington and the Federal Circuit have noted that the law does not use the term tariffs. According to the court in Washington, regulating imports entails controlling them through rules, whereas tariffs are taxes on imports or exports.

U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras said that even if Congress authorized the tariffs, doing so would violate the nondelegation doctrine, a rule that generally prevents Congress from delegating its legislative powers to other entities. The doctrine has limits, however, and Congress can delegate authority if it provides some limits on how the president uses that authority.

The Federal Circuit stated that Congress would have had to use more explicit language if it had intended to allow presidents to impose large-scale tariffs, as Trump has.

5. What Is the Administration’s Argument?

In briefing the Supreme Court, the DOJ made multiple arguments in favor of the tariffs.

Among other things, it argued that the law’s plain text authorizes the tariffs and that the power to regulate imports encompasses tariffs or duties on imports.

A container ship arrives at the Port of Oakland in Oakland, Calif., on Oct. 10, 2025. Multiple federal courts—including the U.S. Court of International Trade and the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia—have ruled Trump’s tariffs unlawful, but delayed enforcement of their orders blocking them. Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

It noted that the IEEPA was intended as a successor to the Trading with the Enemy Act, which used similar language and was held by a federal court to authorize tariffs imposed by Nixon.

Moreover, the nondelegation doctrine is less applicable in cases that involve foreign affairs over which the president has authority under Article II of the Constitution, the DOJ argued. And even if the doctrine did apply, Congress clearly outlined the president’s authority in a way that would satisfy the requirements under the doctrine.

6. Major Questions Doctrine

While it’s difficult to predict how the Supreme Court will rule, arguments in the case and the court’s prior decisions indicate a concern for the separation of powers. Under Chief Justice John Roberts, the court has utilized a test known as the Major Questions Doctrine to rule against large-scale policies from the executive branch.

That doctrine states that administrative agencies need clear congressional authorization before making decisions of major economic or political importance. The court notably used the doctrine to strike down one of President Barack Obama’s climate policies, as well as one of President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness programs.

Both of those cases were cited by the Federal Circuit when it ruled against Trump. It compared the language in the IEEPA and the Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions Act (HEROES Act), which the Biden administration invoked to forgive student loans. It suggested that in both cases, the executive branch was going beyond what Congress’s language authorized.

“The Executive’s use of tariffs qualifies as a decision of vast economic and political significance,” the court’s majority stated.

It stated that, given the importance, the administration must obtain clear authorization from Congress.

Besides arguing that the law was clear in authorizing the tariffs, the DOJ stated that the Major Questions Doctrine doesn’t apply in this case because the rule applies to agencies.

Here, Congress delegates authority directly to the President,” its brief reads.

The government also contended that the doctrine hasn’t been applied in the context of foreign affairs. The brief pointed to a concurrence Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in an opinion in June.

In that opinion, Kavanaugh said that “the major questions canon has not been applied by this Court in the national security or foreign policy contexts, because the [doctrine] does not reflect ordinary congressional intent in those areas.”

“On the contrary, the usual understanding is that Congress intends to give the President substantial authority and flexibility to protect America and the American people,” he said.

https://www.zerohedge.com/personal-finance/supreme-court-decide-trumps-tariffs-heres-what-know