Breaking
Keep Resignation Safe
Author

admin

Browsing
Business

Harvard’s battle with the Trump administration is creating a thorny financial situation

Business 7 Mins Read

Harvard’s brewing conflict with the Trump administration could come at a steep cost — even for the nation’s richest university.

On April 14, Harvard University President Alan Garber announced the institution would not comply with the administration’s demands, including to “audit” Harvard’s students and faculty for “viewpoint diversity.” The federal government, in response, froze $2.2 billion in multi-year grants and $60 million in multi-year contracts with the university.

According to CNN and multiple other news outlets, the Trump administration has now asked the Internal Revenue Service to revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status. If the IRS follows through, it would have severe consequences for the university. The many benefits of nonprofit status include tax-free income on investments and tax deductions for donors, education historian Bruce Kimball told CNBC.

Bloomberg estimated the value of Harvard’s tax benefits in excess of $465 million in 2023.

Nonprofits can lose their tax exemptions if the IRS determines they are engaging in political campaign activity or earning too much income from unrelated activities. Few universities have lost their non-profit status. One of the few examples was Christian institution Bob Jones University, which lost its tax exemption in 1983 for racially discriminatory policies.

White House spokesperson Harrison Fields told the Washington Post that the IRS started investigating Harvard before President Donald Trump suggested on Truth Social that the university should be taxed as a “political entity.” The Treasury Department did not reply to a request for comment from CNBC.

A Harvard spokesperson told CNBC that the government has “no legal basis to rescind Harvard’s tax exempt status.”

“The government has long exempted universities from taxes in order to support their educational mission,” the spokesperson wrote in a statement. “Such an unprecedented action would endanger our ability to carry out our educational mission. It would result in diminished financial aid for students, abandonment of critical medical research programs, and lost opportunities for innovation. The unlawful use of this instrument more broadly would have grave consequences for the future of higher education in America.” 

The federal government has challenged Harvard on yet another front, with the Department of Homeland Security threatening to stop international students from enrolling. The Student and Exchange Visitor Program is administered by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which falls under the DHS.

International students make up more than a quarter of Harvard’s student body. However, Harvard is less financially dependent on international students than many other U.S. universities as it already offers need-based financial aid to international students in its undergraduate program. Many other universities require international students to pay full tuition.

The Harvard spokesperson declined to comment to CNBC on whether the university would sue the administration over the federal funds or any other grounds. Lawyers Robert Hur of King & Spalding and William Burck of Quinn Emanuel are representing Harvard, stating in a letter to the federal government that its demands violate the First Amendment.

Harvard, the nation’s richest university, has more resources than other academic institutions to fund a long legal battle and weather the storm. However, its massive endowment — which has raised questions during the recent developments — is not a piggy bank.

Harvard has an endowment of nearly $52 billion, averaging $2.1 million in endowed funds per student, according to a study by the National Association of College and University Business Officers, or NACUBO, and asset manager Commonfund.

That size makes it larger than than the GDP of many countries.

The endowment generated a 9.6% return last fiscal year, which ended June 30, according to the university’s latest annual report.

Founded in 1636, Harvard has had more time to accumulate assets as the nation’s oldest university. It also has robust donor base, receiving $368 million in gifts to the endowment in 2024. While the university noted that more than three-quarters of the gifts averaged $150 per donor, Harvard has a history of headline-making donations from ultra-rich alumni.

Kimball, emeritus professor of philosophy and history of education at the Ohio State University, attributes the outsized wealth of elite universities like Harvard to a willingness to invest in riskier assets.

University endowments were traditionally invested very conservatively, but in the early 1950s Harvard shifted its allocation to 60% equities and 40% bonds, taking on more risk and creating the opportunity for more upside.

“Universities that didn’t want to assume the risk fell behind,” Kimball told CNBC in March.

Other universities soon followed suit, with Yale University in the 1990s pioneering what would become the “Yale Model” of investing in alternative assets like hedge funds and natural resources. Though it proved lucrative, only universities with large endowments could afford to take on the risk and due diligence that was needed to succeed in alternative investments, according to Kimball.

According to Harvard’s annual report, the largest chunks of the endowment are allocated to private equity (39%) and hedge funds (32%). Public equities constitute another 14% while real estate and bonds/TIPs make up 5% each. The remainder is divided between cash and other real assets, including natural resources.

The university has made substantial portfolio allocation changes over the past seven years, the report notes. The Harvard Management Company has cut the endowment’s exposure to real estate and natural resources from 25% in 2018 to 6%. These cuts allowed the university to increase its private equity allocation. To limit equity exposure, the endowment has upped its hedge fund investments.

University endowments, though occasionally staggering in size, are not slush funds. The pools are actually made up of hundreds or even thousands of smaller funds, the majority of which are restricted by donors to be dedicated to areas including professorships, scholarships or research.

Harvard has some 14,600 separate funds, 80% of which are restricted to specific purposes including financial aid and professorships. Last fiscal year, the endowment distributed $2.4 billion, 70% of which was subject to donors’ directives.

“Most of that money was put in for a specific purpose,” Scott Bok, former chairman of the University of Pennsylvania, told CNBC in March. “Universities don’t have the ability to break open the proverbial piggy bank and just grab the money in whatever way they want.”

Some of these restrictions are overplayed, according to former Northwestern University President Morton Schapiro.

“It’s true that a lot of money is restricted, but it’s restricted to things you’re going to spend on already like need-based aid, study abroad, libraries,” Bok said previously.

Harvard has $9.6 billion in endowed funds that are not subject to donor restrictions. The annual report notes that “while the University has no intention of doing so,” these assets “could be liquidated in the event of an unexpected disruption” under certain conditions.

Liquidating $9.6 billion in assets, nearly 20% of total endowed funds, would come at the cost of future cash flow, as the university would have less to invest.

Harvard did not respond to CNBC’s queries about increasing endowment spending. Like most universities, it aims to spend around 5% of its endowment every year. Assuming the fund generates high-single-digit investment returns, spending just 5% allows the principal to grow and keep pace with inflation.

For now, Harvard is taking a hard look at its operating budget. In mid-March, the university started taking austerity measures, including a temporary hiring pause and denying admission to graduate students waitlisted for this upcoming fall.

Harvard is also issuing $750 million in taxable bonds due September 2035. This past February, the university issued $244 million in tax-exempt bonds. A slew of universities including Princeton and Colgate are also raising debt this spring.

So far, Moody’s has not updated its top-tier AAA rating for Harvard’s bonds. However, when it comes to higher education as a whole, the ratings agency isn’t so optimistic, lowering its outlook to negative in March.

This post appeared first on NBC NEWS

Keep Reading
Politics

Pro-life father whose home FBI raided appeals ruling by ‘activist’ judge: ‘Faulty investigation’

Politics 4 Mins Read

Pro-life activist Mark Houck, who sued the Justice Department over his arrest and prosecution under the Biden administration, said his family has been blocked from settling their lawsuit by an ‘activist’ federal judge. 

Houck filed a lawsuit against the Justice Department last year, seeking restitution for what he called ‘a faulty investigation’ and ‘excessive force’ after a SWAT team of around 25 people arrested him in front of his children.

Now, Houck is appealing the judge’s decision to the Third District Court and calling on the Trump administration to follow through on ending the weaponization of the DOJ against pro-lifers such as him once and for all. He discusses the case with his wife and 40 Days for Life founder Shawn Carney in a new video shared with Fox News Digital. 

‘You live in fear of it happening again, not only to yourselves but to others, and you want to know that this administration, which rode this message to the White House, is willing to step in,’ Houck said in the video, adding, ‘and they’re doing it for other organizations, they’re doing it in the DOGE, they’re doing it with all the things, they’re cleaning house.’ 

In an interview with Fox News Digital, 40 Days for Life President Shawn Carney said: ‘I just think, Democratic or Republican, we’re tired of activist judges on both sides of the political aisle.’ 

‘Nobody likes it – and just, this guy’s a victim,’ Carney said, adding that the Justice Department ‘needs to fix this.’

News of the appeal, which is slated to be filed by 40 Days for Life on behalf of Houck, was shared exclusively with Fox News Digital. The group has already filed a Notice to Appeal to the courts. 

At issue are the settlement negotiations that 40 Days for Life entered into with the Justice Department in early 2025, following Trump’s inauguration.

U.S. District Judge Paul Diamond, a Bush appointee, abruptly issued a motion to dismiss the case last month, effectively ending the negotiations that had been playing out between Houck and the Trump-led Justice Department.

It appears that the motion to dismiss the case had originally been filed by the Biden-led Justice Department, which charged Houck in 2021 for allegedly violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances, or FACE Act. 

In the video, Carney and Houck discussed the judge’s decision as well as changes in the law enforcement community more broadly, and what they hope to be new priorities of the second Trump administration.

Houck said his family is disappointed by the judge’s actions and added that ‘it reflects poorly against the Trump administration.’

Speaking with Fox News Digital, Carney lamented the dismissal of their lawsuit by Diamond, whom he called an ‘activist’ judge and accused of political bias. Nevertheless, he expressed confidence that the Trump administration would make it right. 

‘We are appealing the decision of the judge to continue the lawsuit against the DOJ,’ Carney said. ‘And of course, if we could get back on track with that, the idea is that then we would be able to settle with DOJ, since they want to settle.’

‘We have a very strong appeal,’ he said of their yet-to-be-filed brief. ‘We’re very confident about the appeal.’

The FBI and Department of Justice did not respond to requests for comment. 

Houck, a longtime volunteer with 40 Days for Life, was arrested in 2021 for his actions outside a Planned Parenthood clinic, which prosecutors said violated the so-called Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, or FACE Act.

He was acquitted by a Philadelphia jury, but could have faced up to eleven years in prison if convicted.

Both his high-profile arrest at home, and the lengthy prison sentence he could have faced if convicted, prompted outrage from pro-life groups, including 40 Days for Life, where Houck has volunteered since 2007. 

In 2023, after Houck’s acquittal, 40 Days for Life joined Houck in suing the Justice Department over the ordeal, accusing law enforcement personnel of conducting a ‘faulty investigation’ against him, and accusing law enforcement of using ‘excessive force’ in the FBI raid of his family home.

Carney has weighed in on the topic before, saying in a post on X this year that 40 Days for Life was ‘targeted constantly by the Biden DOJ.’ 

‘With 1,000,000 peaceful volunteers we will always fight for free speech for pro-life and pro-abortion Americans alike. God bless Trump and Vance for backing us up,’ said Carney. 

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Keep Reading
Investing

US Capital Gains Tax Guide for Gold and Silver Investors

Investing 8 Mins Read

As gold and silver continue to prove their worth as sound investments, market participants should know how precious metals investments are taxed in the US.

While the majority of gold and silver investing comes with a certain degree of taxation, there are different levels of tax based on how market participants decide to invest in these precious metals, how long the investments are held for and the investors individual tax bracket.

Read on for a breakdown of the taxes associated with investing in gold and silver bullion, ETFs and stocks, as well as the forms involved with reporting precious metals investments.

In this article

    How are physical gold and silver taxed?

    Gold and silver bullion, coins and bars are seen as collectibles by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in the US. Thus, physical gold and silver, no matter the form, are subject to a higher rate of capital gains tax when they are sold. The same is true for fellow precious metals platinum and palladium.

    While long-term capital gains would typically carry a top bracket of 20 percent, collectibles can be taxed at a higher 28 percent.

    The total an investor will owe in capital gains tax when selling physical gold and silver is based both on their income bracket and the length of time they held the asset.

    The long-term capital gains tax on physical gold and silver is equal to an investor’s marginal tax rate, up to a maximum of 28 percent due to their status as a collectible, meaning those in higher tax brackets still only have to pay 28 percent on long-term gains from physical precious metals sales.

    It is worth noting that the 28 percent maximum is only for long-term capital gains, which applies to metals that an investor has held for more than one year. Short-term capital gains on precious metals held for less than one year are taxed at ordinary income rates.

    For example, a person in the highest tax bracket purchased 100 ounces of physical gold at US$1,800 per ounce and two years later sold their holdings for US$2,000 per ounce. While they are in the 37 percent tax bracket, they would pay 28 percent tax on the capital gains made from these sales. As they earned US$20,000 in capital gains, that would translate to US$5,600 in income tax.

    However, if the investor sold the gold at the same gain just 11 months after they purchased it, it would count as short-term capital gains, and the investor would be taxed at 37 percent and owe US$7,400.

    Investors who are in one of the tax brackets below 28 percent are taxed at the standard rate of their bracket when selling their solid gold and silver assets, whether they are held short- or long-term.

    Similarly to other investments, precious metals sold at a loss can be used to offset capital gains.

    How are gold and silver ETFs taxed?

    Like all other exchange-traded funds (ETFs), gold ETFs and silver ETFs act in the same manner as individual stocks, meaning that investing in these ETFs is similar to trading a stock on an exchange. There are two main types of gold and silver ETFs: those that track the prices of those metals and those that track gold or silver stocks.

    ETFs that follow metals prices provide exposure to either physical gold or silver, or gold or silver futures contracts. It is important to keep in mind that investing in these ETF platforms does not allow investors to own any physical gold or silver — in general, even an investment in an ETF that tracks physical gold or silver cannot be redeemed for the tangible metal.

    ETFs that invest in gold or silver companies provide exposure to gold- and silver-mining stocks, as well as gold- or silver-streaming stocks.

    In terms of taxation, capital gain taxes from selling gold and silver ETFs is determined by the ETF’s holdings, the investors tax bracket and how long they held the asset for.

    Funds will often supply investors with tax forms that they can use to fill out their income tax. The webpage for a fund should have a document describing how income tax is handled for that fund, which is worth reading before investing in it.

    Long-term capital gains from selling shares of gold and silver ETFs are subject to a 28 percent maximum federal income tax rate if they hold physical precious metals and 20 percent if they hold stocks. While long-term capital gains would typically be capped at 20 percent maximum rate. This is because the holdings are considered collectibles, as described in the section above. Short-term gains made from selling gold or silver ETFs are subject to a maximum federal rate of 37 percent.

    Additionally, these gains could get slapped with a 3.8 percent net investment income tax for high net-worth investors, and a state income tax may also apply.

    Futures-based commodity ETFs can come with their own set of rules that you can learn about here. Briefly, they are often taxed in a 60/40 hybrid, with 60 percent treated as long-term gains and 40 percent treated as short-term gains. Additionally, this is calculated at the end of each tax year, whether a sale is made or not.

    ETFs that hold stocks are taxed in the same way as traditional securities, which you can read more about below.

    How are gold and silver stocks taxed?

    In terms of tax on gold and silver stocks, long-term gains from selling are subject to the standard 20 percent maximum federal rate, while short-term gains will face a maximum federal rate of 37 percent. For investors in higher income brackets, there is the potential for gold and silver stock investments to also be hit with the 3.8 percent net investment income tax as well as state income tax.

    Unlike physical precious metals and ETFs that hold them, precious metals stocks are not classified as collectibles, which is why the long-term capital gains tax is capped at 20 percent instead of 28 percent.

    Stocks sold at a loss are important as well as they can be used to offset capital gains when filing income tax.

    How to report taxes on physical gold and silver investments

    Market participants who sell precious metals in the US for a profit are required to report that profit on their income tax return, regardless of whether or not the dealer has any reporting obligation.

    When selling gold and silver investments in the US, there are two different sets of reporting guidelines — one applies to the dealer through which a person sells and the other applies to the investor who is selling the asset.

    It is important to note that taxes on the sale of gold and silver will not be due the moment that the sale is made, and the tax bill for all of these sales is due at the same time as a standard income tax bill.

    For investors selling precious metals, capital gains or losses need to be reported on Schedule D of Form 1040 when making a tax return.

    Investors will first need to detail their precious metals transactions on Form 8949, including the length of time the investments were held. This form must be filed alongside Schedule D. Investors then use this information alongside the 28% Rate Gain Worksheet included in the Schedule D instructions.

    Depending on the type of metal being sold, Form 1099-B may have to be submitted to the IRS by the broker when the sale closes, as such transactions are considered income. As for when a broker will need to file Form 1099-B, there are specific rules that determine which sales of precious metals require the dealer to file this form that apply to transactions over a 24 hours period.

    For gold sales, reportable items include specific gold coins, including the 1 ounce Canadian Gold Maple Leaf and Gold Kruggerand, and gold bars and rounds of at least 0.995 fineness. As for quantity, only sales of more than 25 gold coins and or more than 1 kilogram in gold bars and rounds will require the form.

    Sales of 0.999 fine silver bars and rounds totaling over 1,000 ounces qualify. For silver coins, US coins with above 90 percent silver are reportable, but Silver American Eagle coins are not. Sales of silver coins exceeding US$1,000 will require a form.

    When it comes to selling gold and silver overseas, market participants must follow the laws as they apply to the sale of gold and silver investments in that particular country.

    The information in this article does not constitute tax advice, and investors should work with a tax professional or program to help them make sure everything is reported accurately.

    Securities Disclosure: I, Lauren Kelly, currently hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.

    Keep reading…Show less
    This post appeared first on investingnews.com

    Keep Reading
    Investing

    Google’s Ad Tech Business Faces Uncertainty After Court Ruling

    Investing 4 Mins Read

    On April 17 (Thursday), Judge Leonie Brinkema of the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled against Google (NASDAQ:GOOGL) in the antitrust case concerning its advertising technology business, casting a shroud of uncertainty over the future of the tech giant’s online advertising business.

    Brinkema will now need to determine what remedies to impose on Google to restore fair market competition. The plaintiffs sought to force Google to divest its Ad Manager, which includes the company’s publisher ad server and its ad exchange, to restore competition in the market. This outcome is far more likely following Judge Brinkema’s ruling.

    This is a developing story happening alongside a similar case against Meta Platforms (NASDAQ:META), which is being sued by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for allegedly monopolizing social media through its acquisition of Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014.

    This trial against Google began in September 2024, and the plaintiffs in the lawsuit comprise the Department of Justice (DOJ) and attorneys general from eight states.

    The plaintiffs argued that Google’s dominance in ad tech allowed it to charge higher prices and take a larger share of ad sales. They accused Google of stifling competition by controlling the technology used to place ads on websites across the internet.

    The ruling against Google marks a significant step in one of numerous anti-competitive cases brought against Google in the past few years, both in the US and internationally.

    It follows an earlier ruling in August 2024 in which Google was found to have an illegal monopoly in the online search market in the US. That case will move into the remedies phase next week, with a court date of April 21, 2025.

    “This is a game-changer,” wrote Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, one of the plaintiffs in both cases. “As Judge Brinkema writes in her decision, Google was in direct violation of the Sherman Act by dictating how digital ads are sold and the terms under which its rivals can compete.

    ‘With this victory in hand, we can hopefully work now towards restoring a fair, free, and competitive digital advertising marketplace. This decision is the first step in opening up competition so that Connecticut businesses and consumers will pay less for advertising – and therefore less for goods and services. We will no longer be under the thumb of a gigantic multinational conglomerate.”

    US District Judge Amit Mehta, who ruled against Google in the August 2024 case, has considered imposing structural remedies that could involve forcing Google to divest its Chrome business, although Google has argued divestiture would hurt consumers. Instead, the company has suggested allowing browser companies to have multiple default agreements with various search engines.

    Regulators have been digging into various aspects of Google’s business, including its advertising technology, search practices and mobile operating system.

    In addition to the current case, Google is also facing scrutiny from antitrust regulators in Europe, the UK and other jurisdictions. The outcomes of these cases could have far-reaching implications for Google’s business model and the tech industry as a whole.

    Today’s ruling signifies a major development in the ongoing scrutiny of Big Tech’s market dominance, which echoes efforts to dismantle AT&T’s (NYSE:T) phone monopoly in the 1980s. The eventual outcome of that case led to AT&T’s breakup into seven independent enterprises, which laid the groundwork for some of today’s major telecommunications and internet services providers, including Verizon (NYSE:VZ) and Lumen Technologies (NYSE:LUMN). It also gave cable companies like Comcast room to expand into internet services.

    Whatever outcome Judge Brinkema decides, the ruling could reshape the online advertising landscape and have far-reaching implications for both the company and the broader tech industry.

    Securities Disclosure: I, Meagen Seatter, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.

    Keep reading…Show less
    This post appeared first on investingnews.com

    Keep Reading
    Investing

    Westport Announces Annual General and Special Meeting and Timing of Q1 2025 Financial Results

    Investing 2 Mins Read

    Westport Fuel Systems Inc. (TSX: WPRT Nasdaq: WPRT) (‘Westport’ or the ‘Company’) announces that the Company will release Q1 2025 financial results on Tuesday, May 13, 2025, after market close. A conference call and webcast to discuss the financial results and other corporate developments will be held on Wednesday, May 14, 2025.

    Time: 10:00 a.m. ET (7:00 a.m. PT)
    Call Link: https://register-conf.media-server.com/register/BI73bcac200e5f4652873668cf803d72ed
    Webcast: https://investors.wfsinc.com

    Participants may register up to 60 minutes before the event by clicking on the call link and completing the online registration form. Upon registration, the user will receive dial-in info and a unique PIN, along with an email confirming the details.

    The webcast will be archived on Westport’s website and a replay will be available at https://investors.wfsinc.com .

    Annual General and Special Meeting

    Westport will host its 2025 Annual General and Special Meeting (the ‘Meeting’) virtually on May 15, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. PT (1:00 p.m. ET).

    To streamline the virtual meeting process, Westport encourages shareholders to vote in advance of the Meeting using the voting instruction form or the form of proxy which has been shared with shareholders with the Meeting materials. Further instructions on voting and accessing the meeting are contained in the Management Information Circular under ‘Section 1: Voting’ – upon receipt, please review these materials carefully.

    Registered Shareholders and duly appointed proxyholders can attend the meeting online at https://meetnow.global/MD2JR55 to participate, vote, or submit questions during the meeting’s live webcast.

    About Westport Fuel Systems

    At Westport Fuel Systems, we are driving innovation to power a cleaner tomorrow. We are a leading supplier of advanced fuel delivery components and systems for clean, low-carbon fuels such as natural gas, renewable natural gas, propane, and hydrogen to the global transportation industry. Our technology delivers the performance and fuel efficiency required by transportation applications and the environmental benefits that address climate change and urban air quality challenges. Headquartered in Vancouver, Canada, with operations in Europe, Asia, North America, and South America, we serve our customers in approximately 70 countries with leading global transportation brands. At Westport Fuel Systems, we think ahead. For more information, visit www.wfsinc.com.

    Investor Inquiries:
    Investor Relations
    T: +1 604-718-2046
    E: invest@wfsinc.com

    News Provided by GlobeNewswire via QuoteMedia

    This post appeared first on investingnews.com

    Keep Reading
    Investing

    Gold Price Hits New Record, Breaking US$3,300 for First Time

    Investing 3 Mins Read

    The gold price reached yet another record high on Wednesday (April 16), breaking US$3,300 per ounce.

    The precious metal has gained significant momentum since the beginning of the year. In trading on Wednesday it surged past the US$3,200 mark, climbing as high as US$3,354.10 per ounce. The price retreated below the US$3,300 mark on Thursday (April 17).

    The rise comes after statements from US Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell made at the Economic Club of Chicago on Wednesday. In his remarks, he said that he expects US President Donald Trump’s tariff policy to negatively impact US economic growth and further fuel inflation.

    In addition to gold climbing to record highs, the US dollar sank to its lowest point in three years with the DXY dollar index falling to 99.3 points on Thursday.

    Gold price chart, April 10, 2025, to April 17, 2025.

    Gold prices have soared in recent weeks amidst the chaos caused by Donald Trump’s tariff announcements on April 2.

    Those measures included a 10 percent tariff on all but a handful of countries, including Canada and Mexico, with more severe reciprocal tariffs to come into effect this week. However, on April 9, Trump announced he would pause the additional tariffs for 90 days, saying more than 70 countries had contacted him to make deals.

    Trump may have also been feeling pressure from economic advisors as a surge in treasury yields signaled a potential economic crisis brewing in the US bond market. Normally a safe haven during market volatility, the bond market saw a significant selloff this week as US tariffs and worries about the US economy’s stability spooked traders.

    Although the pause gave most countries some breathing room, tariffs against China were left on the table. After much back and forth, US tariffs levied against China have now increased to 145 percent.

    The net effect of Trump’s actions has been political and financial turmoil, sparking selloffs in major stock markets and pushing prices for safe-haven assets like gold to fresh records.

    Additionally, China, Japan and South Korea agreed on March 30 to seek deeper free trade ties in response to the threat of tariffs from the US government. The deal marks a significant move by the three countries following decades of US diplomacy to maintain close relationships with Japan and South Korea.

    Securities Disclosure: I, Dean Belder, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.

    Keep reading…Show less
    This post appeared first on investingnews.com

    Keep Reading
    Investing

    Finlay Minerals Enters into Earn-In Agreements with Freeport for its PIL & ATTY Properties

    Investing 7 Mins Read

    Finlay Minerals Ltd.( TSXV: FYL) (OTCQB: FYMNF) (‘Finlay’ or the ‘Company’) announces that the Company has entered into two definitive earn-in agreements (the ‘Earn-In Agreements’) with Freeport-McMoRan Mineral Properties Canada Inc. (‘Freeport’), a wholly owned subsidiary of Freeport-McMoRan Inc. (NYSE: FCX), pursuant to which it has granted Freeport separate options to earn an 80% interest in its PIL and ATTY Properties (the ‘Properties’) in the Toodoggone District of northern British Columbia.

    Highlights

    • Freeport may earn 80% of the PIL and ATTY Projects by expending $35 million in Exploration Expenditures and making Cash Payments of $4.1 million – (Refer to Table 1 below for further details);
    • Finlay will act as the Operator during the Earn-In period; and
    • Exploration Program planning is underway and will be announced shortly.

    The earn-in in respect of each of the Properties may be exercised separately. Following the completion of the earn-in on either of the Properties, Freeport and Finlay will respectively hold interests of 80% and 20% in such Property, and a joint venture will be formed for further exploration and development. In the event that a party does not fund their portion of further joint venture programs, their interests in the joint venture will dilute. Any party that dilutes to below a 10% interest in the joint venture will exchange its joint venture interest for a net smelter returns (‘NSR‘) royalty of 1% on the applicable Property, which is subject to a 0.5% buyback for USD $2,000,000.

    The earn-in requirements can be accelerated by Freeport at its discretion. During the earn-in period, Finlay will be the Operator on the Properties, collecting an operator’s fee, under the direction of a technical committee that will approve work programs and budgets during the earn-in period.

    The PIL & ATTY Properties are each subject to a 3.0% NSR royalty held by Electrum Resource Corporation (‘Electrum’), a private company, the outstanding voting shares of which are held by Company directors: John A. Barakso and Ilona B. Lindsay. The Company has a current right to buy back ½ of the royalty (1.5%) on each property for an aggregate payment of $2,000,000 and $1,500,000 respectively. Finlay and Electrum have agreed that upon the exercise of the earn-in in respect of each Property by Freeport, the buy-back right will be amended to provide for a 2.0% buyback for each Property, in consideration for an increased buy-back payment to be sole-funded by Freeport without joint venture dilution to Finlay, and will be divided equally between Finlay and Electrum.

    Freeport-McMoRan (FCX) is a leading international metals company focused on copper, with major operations in the Americas and Indonesia and significant reserves of copper, gold, and molybdenum.

    The Earn-In Agreements were executed and delivered on April 17, 2025 and are subject to approval of the TSX Venture Exchange. Finlay and Freeport are arms-length parties and no finders’ fees were incurred with these transactions.

    About the PIL Property:

    The 100% owned PIL Property covers 13,374 hectares of highly prospective ground in the prolific Toodoggone mining district of north-central British Columbia. The core PIL claims were staked over 30 years ago by the founders of the Company. Over the decades, numerous Cu-Au-Mo porphyry and porphyry-related Au-Ag epithermal targets have been identified at PIL. The identified targets are central to a broader 70 km porphyry corridor trend, which includes: Centerra Gold’s past producing Kemess South Cu-Au porphyry mine and Kemess Underground Cu-Au-Ag porphyry resource, Thesis Gold’s Lawyers-Ranch Au-Ag epithermal resource, and the newly discovered Amarc Resources and Freeport AuRORA Cu-Au-Ag porphyry. Readers are cautioned that mineralization on the foregoing regional properties is not necessarily indicative of mineralization on the PIL Property. The PIL Property is road accessible and permitted for the 2025 season. (Refer to Figure 2 Map.)

    About the ATTY Property:

    The 100% owned ATTY Property covers 3,875 hectares in the prolific Toodoggone mining district of north-central British Columbia. The ATTY Property adjoins Centerra Gold’s Kemess Project and Amarc Resources and Freeport’s JOY property. Several epithermal-style Ag ± Au ± Cu ± base-metal veins are exposed on the ATTY Property, and geochemical and geophysical work have outlined at least two promising porphyry targets, including the drill-ready KEM Target. The ATTY Property is road accessible and permitted for the 2025 season.

    Qualified Person:

    Wade Barnes, P. Geo. and Vice President, Exploration for Finlay and a qualified person as defined by National Instrument 43-101, has reviewed and approved the technical content of this news release.

    About Finlay Minerals Ltd.

    Finlay is a TSXV company focused on exploration for base and precious metal deposits with four 100% owned properties in northern British Columbia: the PIL and ATTY properties in the Toodoggone, the Silver Hope Cu-Ag Property (21,322 ha) and the SAY Cu-Ag Property (15,246 ha).

    Finlay Minerals is advancing the PIL, ATTY, SAY and Silver Hope Properties that host copper-gold porphyry and gold-silver epithermal targets within different porphyry districts of northern and central BC. Each property is located in areas of recent development and porphyry discoveries with the advantage of hosting the potential for new discoveries.

    Finlay trades under the symbol ‘FYL’ on the TSXV and under the symbol ‘FYMNF’ on the OTCQB. For further information and details, please visit the Company’s website at www.finlayminerals.com

    On behalf of the Board of Directors,
    Robert F. Brown
    President, CEO & Director

    Neither the TSXV nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in the policies of the TSXV) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release.

    Forward-Looking Information: This news release includes certain ‘forward-looking information’ and ‘forward-looking statements’ (collectively, ‘forward-looking statements’) within the meaning of applicable Canadian securities legislation. All statements in this news release that address events or developments that we expect to occur in the future are forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are statements that are not historical facts and are generally, although not always, identified by words such as ‘expect’, ‘plan’, ‘anticipate’, ‘project’, ‘target’, ‘potential’, ‘schedule’, ‘forecast’, ‘budget’, ‘estimate’, ‘intend’ or ‘believe’ and similar expressions or their negative connotations, or that events or conditions ‘will’, ‘would’, ‘may’, ‘could’, ‘should’ or ‘might’ occur. All such forward-looking statements are based on the opinions and estimates of management as of the date such statements are made. Forward-looking statements in this news release include statements regarding, among others, the exploration plans for the Properties and the potential exercise of Freeport’s option to acquire an interest in the Properties. Although Finlay believes the expectations expressed in such forward-looking statements are based on reasonable assumptions, such statements are not guarantees of future performance and actual results or developments may differ materially from those forward-looking statements. Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in forward-looking statements include market prices, exploration successes, and continued availability of capital and financing and general economic, market or business conditions. These forward-looking statements are based on a number of assumptions including, among other things, assumptions regarding general business and economic conditions, the timing and receipt of regulatory and governmental approvals, the ability of Finlay and other parties to satisfy stock exchange and other regulatory requirements in a timely manner, the availability of financing for Finlay’s proposed transactions and programs on reasonable terms, and the ability of third-party service providers to deliver services in a timely manner. Investors are cautioned that any such statements are not guarantees of future performance and actual results or developments may differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements, and accordingly undue reliance should not be put on such statements due to the inherent uncertainty therein. Finlay does not assume any obligation to update or revise its forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future or otherwise, except as required by applicable law.

    Source

    This post appeared first on investingnews.com

    Keep Reading
    Politics

    Trump admin imposes sanctions against Bank of Yemen for supporting Houthis

    Politics 3 Mins Read

    The Trump administration announced sanctions against the International Bank of Yemen Y.S.C. (IBY) on Thursday for its financial support of Houthi terrorists.

    Along with the bank, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is sanctioning key leaders of IBY, like its Chairman of the Board of Directors Kamal Hussain Al Jebry; Executive General Manager Ahmed Thabit Noman Al-Absi and Deputy General Manager Abdulkader Ali Bazara. By sanctioning IBY, the U.S. hopes to stop Houthi attacks on commercial ships in the Red Sea.

    ‘Financial institutions like IBY are critical to the Houthis’ efforts to access the international financial system and threaten both the region and international commerce,’ Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Michael Faulkender said. ‘Treasury remains committed to working with the internationally recognized government of Yemen to disrupt the Houthis’ ability to secure funds and procure key components for their destabilizing attacks.’

    Based in Sana’a, Yemen, the IBY is controlled by the Iran-backed Houthis and provides the group with access to the bank’s Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications (SWIFT) network to make international financial transactions, the Treasury said.

    The IBY, for instance, has allegedly aided Houthi businesses and officials to pursue oil on the SWIFT network, while also facilitating attempts by the terrorist group to evade sanctions oversight.

    Under Thursday’s sanctions, all property and interests in property of the leaders named, that are in the United States or in the possession or control of U.S. persons are blocked and must be reported to OFAC. Additionally, any entities that are owned, directly or indirectly, individually or in the aggregate, 50 percent or more by one or more blocked persons are also blocked.

    OFAC’s regulations generally prohibit all transactions by U.S. persons or within, or transiting, the United States that involve any property or interests in property of designated or otherwise blocked persons. 

    U.S. State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce spoke about the sanctions during a press briefing Thursday, sending a message to anyone who supports foreign terrorist organizations like the Houthis.

    ‘The United States is committed to disrupting the Houthi financial networks and banking access as part of our whole-of-government approach to eliminating Iran’s threat network,’ she said. ‘Moreover, we can confirm the reporting that Chang Guang Satellite Technology Company Limited (CGSTL) is directly supporting Iran-backed Houthi terrorist attacks on U.S. Interests. Their actions and Beijing’s support of the company, even after our private engagements with them, is yet another example of China’s empty claims to support peace.

    She continued, urging partners of the U.S. to judge the Chinese Communist Party and Chinese companies on their actions, and not just their words.

    ‘Restoring freedom of navigation in the Red Sea is a priority to President Trump,’ Bruce said. ‘Beijing should take this priority seriously when considering any future support of CGSTL. The United States will not tolerate anyone providing support to foreign terrorist organizations such as the Houthis.’ 

    This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

    Keep Reading
    Politics

    Why Trump is right to revitalize the Monroe Doctrine

    Politics 5 Mins Read
    NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

    Why are President Donald Trump and his national security team focused on Panama and Greenland? 

    Donald Trump understands that modern threats – China’s predatory mercantilism and its massive military buildup, including the ability to destroy our reconnaissance satellites in orbit – requires an urgent reinvigoration of the 200-year-old Monroe Doctrine.

    The Monroe Doctrine, America’s fundamental national security imperative, seeks to exclude outside powers from the Western Hemisphere. It is key to protecting the U.S. and our neighbors from China’s malicious designs. 

    Trump understands that Greenland and Panama aren’t merely the key in any potential conflict with China, they are key to deterring China from conflict in the first place.

    During WWII and the Cold War, prior to the advent of near-global real-time overhead satellite coverage, America maintained forward bases in a string from Hawaii to Alaska to Canada to Greenland to Puerto Rico to Panama. These bases hosted naval assets, electronic listening posts, early warning radars and airfields for patrol aircraft. 

    The forward presence not only protected the American heartland, but it also served to guard the sea lanes needed for trade and to support our allies in Europe and Asia. 

    Trump recognizes the shifting geopolitical landscape, with China’s rise posing a new challenge to U.S. dominance in the Western Hemisphere – and a secure homeland. In 2019, he expressed interest in purchasing Greenland from Denmark, citing its vast natural resources and strategic Arctic location. This is more relevant than ever, with the Northwest Passage becoming increasingly accessible due in part to Russia and China’s rapidly growing heavy icebreaker fleet. 

    Similarly, Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth are taking significant steps to secure the Panama Canal – with full cooperation from the Panamanian government. 

    The Panama Canal is a vital artery for global trade and military logistics. But in 1997, just before Britain handed over Hong Kong to China, Hutchison Whampoa, a Hong Kong-based shipping and logistics firm, bought the concession that privatized operations of the Panama Canal. 

    When, in 2020, China ended the ‘one country, two systems’ model with Hong Kong, it meant for all intents and purposes that Hutchison Whampoa (now known as CK Hutchison) must do the Chinese Communist Party’s bidding. This greatly increases the risk to the Panama Canal – and it’s why the firm, reacting to pressure from Panama and the U.S., agreed to sell its global assets to an American holding company. That proposed sale was quickly threatened by the Chinese Communist Party, which instituted an ‘antitrust review.’

    Just to be sure, the Trump White House directed the U.S. military to develop options for increasing troop presence in Panama to ensure ‘unfettered’ access to the canal, reflecting concerns about ongoing Chinese threats to the canal’s operation. 

    Strategic Importance in a Conflict with China

    The strategic importance of Greenland and Panama is heightened in the context of a potential conflict with China, particularly if America’s extensive network of reconnaissance and nuclear missile early warning satellites are destroyed by China in its opening attack. Modern warfare relies heavily on satellite technology for communication, navigation and intelligence gathering. 

    If these assets are compromised, the U.S. would need to rely on traditional methods, such as long-range patrol aircraft and naval vessels, operating from forward bases. Greenland, with its airfields and ports, provides an ideal location for staging operations in the Arctic, deploying assets like the P-8 Poseidon to monitor submarine activity and secure shipping routes. 

    The Panama Canal, meanwhile, ensures rapid deployment of naval forces between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, maintaining flexibility in military operations.

    This focus on forward bases aligns with the need to defend the homeland and secure vital shipping lanes critical for global trade and military logistics despite enemy efforts. China’s growing naval capabilities, including advanced submarines and aircraft carriers, necessitate robust strategic positioning to deter potential threats and maintain maritime routes.

    Historical Parallels: WWII and Cold War Operations

    Historical precedents underscore the importance of forward bases in national defense. During WWII, the U.S. established the Caribbean Defense Command – forerunner to today’s U.S. Southern Command – to protect the Panama Canal and monitor German U-boat activity in the Atlantic. Bases in Trinidad, Brazil and Puerto Rico were instrumental in anti-submarine warfare, ensuring the flow of supplies to Europe and preventing Axis powers from gaining a foothold in the Americas. 

    During the Cold War, the U.S. maintained a significant military presence in Latin America to counter Soviet influence. Today, in Cuba, what’s old is new again, as China has occupied and upgraded the massive Cold War-era Soviet eavesdropping base at Lourdes. From that perch, China can listen to every cellphone conversation in the American Southeast. 

    The Broader Challenge

    Beyond Greenland and Panama, China’s activities in the Western Hemisphere, such as its Belt and Road Initiative infrastructure projects – some serving as replenishment ports for its navy – pose a direct challenge to U.S. interests and regional security. Along with the malevolent presence of Iran’s proxy, Hezbollah, and hostile regimes such as Maduro’s Venezuela, Trump’s team has a big task to clean up decades of neglect in the Western Hemisphere. 

    This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

    Keep Reading
    Politics

    Federal judge temporarily restricts DOGE access to personalized Social Security data

    Politics 4 Mins Read

    A federal judge in Baltimore issued a preliminary injunction Thursday restricting the Department of Government Efficiency’s access to Social Security data. 

    U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander, an Obama appointee, said DOGE-affiliated staffers must purge any of the non-anonymized Social Security data that they have received since Jan. 20. They are also barred from making any changes to the computer code or software used by the Social Security Administration, must remove any software or code they might have already installed, and are forbidden from disclosing any of that code to others.

    The injunction does allow DOGE staffers to access data that’s been redacted or stripped of anything personally identifiable, if they undergo training and background checks. 

    ‘The objective to address fraud, waste, mismanagement, and bloat is laudable, and one that the American public presumably applauds and supports,’ Hollander wrote in the ruling issued late Thursday night. ‘Indeed, the taxpayers have every right to expect their government to make sure that their hard earned money is not squandered.’

    But that’s not the issue, Hollander said — the issue is with how DOGE, led by billionaire Elon Musk, wants to do the work.

    ‘For some 90 years, SSA has been guided by the foundational principle of an expectation of privacy with respect to its records. This case exposes a wide fissure in the foundation,’ the judge wrote.

    The case was brought by a group of labor unions and retirees who allege DOGE’s recent actions violate privacy laws and present massive information security risks. 

    During a federal court hearing Tuesday in Baltimore, Hollander repeatedly asked the government’s attorneys why DOGE needs ‘seemingly unfettered access’ to the agency’s troves of sensitive personal information to uncover Social Security fraud.

    ‘What is it we’re doing that needs all of that information?’ Hollander said, questioning whether most of the data could be anonymized.

    Attorneys for the Trump administration said changing the process would slow down their efforts.

    ‘While anonymization is possible, it is extremely burdensome,’ Justice Department attorney Bradley Humphreys told the court. He argued the DOGE access doesn’t deviate significantly from normal practices inside the agency, where employees and auditors are routinely allowed to search its databases.

    But attorneys for the plaintiffs called it ‘a sea change’ in terms of how the agency handles sensitive information.

    Skye Perryman, President and CEO of the legal services group Democracy Forward, which is behind the lawsuit, said the ruling has brought ‘significant relief for the millions of people who depend on the Social Security Administration to safeguard their most personal and sensitive information.’ 

    Hollander made clear that her order didn’t apply to SSA workers who aren’t affiliated with DOGE, so they can still access any data they use in the course of ordinary work. But DOGE staffers who want access to the anonymized data must first undergo the typical training and background checks required of other Social Security Administration staffers, she said.

    Hollander, 75, is the latest judge to consider a DOGE-related case. Many of her inquiries Tuesday focused on whether the Social Security case differs significantly from another Maryland case challenging DOGE’s access to data at three other agencies: the Education Department, the Treasury Department and the Office of Personnel Management. In that case, an appeals court recently blocked a preliminary injunction and cleared the way for DOGE to once again access people’s private data.

    Hollander’s injunction could also be appealed to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which sided with the Trump administration in other cases, including allowing DOGE access to the U.S. Agency for International Development and letting executive orders against diversity, equity and inclusion move forward.

    The Associated Press contributed to this report.

    This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

    Keep Reading