PERSPECTA

News from every angle

Results for "Bulls"

82 stories found

Kritik mot Netflix-succén: ”Bullshit”
Culturesvenska-dagbladet1mo ago

Kritik mot Netflix-succén: ”Bullshit”

Diplomaten Staffan Söderblom har fått namnet Staffan Söderström i ”Den svenska länken”. Det menar släktingar till Söderblom som tycker det är orättvist att göra honom till en buse.

GameStop CEO Ryan Cohen just put 'parasitic' bosses on blast. Michael Burry sees shades of Warren Buffett.
BusinessBusiness Insider1mo ago

GameStop CEO Ryan Cohen just put 'parasitic' bosses on blast. Michael Burry sees shades of Warren Buffett.

GameStop CEO Ryan Cohen GameStop GameStop CEO Ryan Cohen channeled Warren Buffett in a fiery post titled "The Hollow Men" on X. He took aim at directors, executives, and managers who collect big money and shirk responsibility. Michael Burry said Cohen has "rougher edges than Buffett," but he's "more modern in approach." Ryan Cohen seems to be doing his best Warren Buffett impression, just like Michael Burry suggested. The billionaire GameStop CEO and Chewy cofounder channeled the legendary investor in a lengthy X post titled "The Hollow Men" on Wednesday. Cohen railed against a "new, parasitic class of corporate bureaucrat: The Risk-Free Insider." He lambasted independent directors who don't dare rock the boat and risk losing their cushy, well-paid jobs. He berated corporate bosses who balk at tying their fortunes to their company's success — they collect big bonuses if its stock price rises, and receive huge payouts if they tank the business and leave. He also chastised managers who avoid accountability by hiring expensive consultants to blame if things don't work out. Cohen labeled those three groups the "hollow men of the boardroom" who "wear the right suits" and "say the right buzzwords" but have little skin in the game. Risking your own bottom line is the "only thing that keeps a business honest," Cohen wrote. He called for a return to an "owner's mentality," where bosses treat shareholders' money as if it were their own. He warned that failure to change would mean "iconic American franchises hollowed out by fees, managed for the benefit of the Insiders, while the true owners — the shareholders — are left holding the bag." Ryan has rougher edges than Buffett, but that just makes him more modern in approach. https://t.co/p0R06M2Ojr — Cassandra Unchained (@michaeljburry) February 18, 2026 Burry shared Cohen's post and wrote: "Ryan has rougher edges than Buffett, but that just makes him more modern in approach." The investor-turned-writer of "The Big Short" fame and GameStop shareholder has been touting the opportunity for Cohen to transform GameStop through acquisitions, drawing parallels to how Buffett reshaped Berkshire Hathaway from a failing textile mill into a $1 trillion conglomerate over six decades. Following Buffett's lead Buffett, who recently stepped down as Berkshire's CEO, has frequently taken aim at crony directors, overpaid executives, and costly consultants. In his shareholder letter for 2019, he bemoaned that many independent directors don't spend a penny of their own money on shares of the companies they're overseeing — and high fees heavily incentivize them to be compliant in the hope of landing additional, lucrative board seats. "When seeking directors, CEOs don't look for pit bulls," Buffett wrote. "It's the cocker spaniel that gets taken home." Buffett joked that he was the "Typhoid Mary of compensation committees," as he'd only ever been appointed to one despite sitting on 18 different boards up to that point. Time and again, Buffett has espoused an owner's mentality, underpinned by having more than 99% of his net worth in Berkshire stock. "We want to make money only when our partners do and in exactly the same proportion," he and the late Charlie Munger wrote in their "Owner's Manual" for Berkshire shareholders. "Moreover, when I do something dumb, I want you to be able to derive some solace from the fact that my financial suffering is proportional to yours," Buffett added. Cohen has diverged from Buffett's playbook in some ways, such as buying bitcoin for GameStop last year, and recently agreeing a compensation package worth tens of billions if he hits certain market-value and profit milestones. But he's also refused a salary as GameStop CEO, built a roughly 9% stake in the video-game retailer, urged frugality across the business, and even modeled its investor-relations website on Berkshire's homepage. Cohen's tirade against the "Risk-Free Insider" is certainly rooted in Buffett's philosophy too, even if he's harsher in his wording as Burry said. Read the original article on Business Insider

Stock Market Investment Strategies and Top Picks
FinanceReutersFTmarketwatch+3YahooTimes of Indiaadvisor-perspectives1mo ago6 sources

Stock Market Investment Strategies and Top Picks

Analysts and financial experts offer advice on navigating the stock market, including recommendations for dividend stocks, high-performing companies, and long-term investment opportunities.

Liza Minnelli Alleges Oscars Forced Her to Use Wheelchair at 2022 Ceremony With Lady Gaga: ‘Bulls—. I Will Not Be Treated This Way’
Culturevarietyrolling-stone1mo ago2 sources

Liza Minnelli Alleges Oscars Forced Her to Use Wheelchair at 2022 Ceremony With Lady Gaga: ‘Bulls—. I Will Not Be Treated This Way’

Liza Minnelli lashes out at the Oscars in her new memoir, “Kids, Wait Till You Hear This!” The “Cabaret” icon presented the Academy Award for best picture alongside Lady Gaga at the 2022 Oscars, but Minnelli appeared somewhat disoriented on stage and stumbled over her words. Gaga notably comforted Minnelli in the moment by telling […]

Culturewapo4d ago

Rodeo Clown Rick Young, 'Ragin' Cajun', Dies

Rick Young, known as the 'Ragin' Cajun' and later 'Agin' Cajun', a beloved rodeo clown who entertained audiences for decades, has passed away. He was known for his fearless interactions with bulls.

When Both Sides Go Quiet
PoliticsFox NewsYahoozerohedge+1Tehran Times1mo ago4 sources

When Both Sides Go Quiet

When Both Sides Go Quiet Submitted by QTR's Fringe Finance There is a political instinct that I’ve developed over the last few decade or so: when both parties are shouting, it’s business as usual. When both parties go quiet, pay attention, because something ugly is probably getting passed or covered up, and the American taxpayer is likely footing the bill of consequences. Few public controversies in recent memory have generated as much bipartisan distrust as the handling of the Epstein files. Republicans accused Democrats of failing to pursue full transparency while President Biden was in office. Now Democrats accuse Republicans of withholding or slow-walking the release of the complete records. The blame shifts with political control, but the underlying fact pattern remains the same: both parties have figures of influence whose names have surfaced in connection with Epstein’s orbit. That reality complicates the politics of accountability and fuels public suspicion that neither side is entirely comfortable with full disclosure. What should have been a straightforward matter of transparency, identifying networks of power, influence, and possible criminal complicity, has instead unfolded as a slow humiliating drip of redactions, procedural delays, partial disclosures and cagey congressional testimony. Each release seems to raise more questions than it resolves. These questions revolve around sex trafficking, exploitation, abuse of minors, coercion and manipulation, elite complicity, obstruction of justice, etc. But the deeper damage taking place now is not only about the crimes associated with Jeffrey Epstein. It is about institutional response. If only one political party had meaningful exposure to the scandal, the other would likely have been far more relentless in demanding transparency. But this is different. Despite Democrats harping on the files now, they were quiet in the years prior to Trump’s second term and, because Epstein’s connections span media, finance, academia, and politics, the discomfort still appears bipartisan. And that is precisely what unsettles me. When both political parties fail to press aggressively on something meaningful, especially something morally explosive, it often suggests that the issue cuts deeper than surface narratives allow. Bipartisan hesitation can signal overlapping vulnerability. Silence across the aisle is rarely accidental. The horror here is not just what may have occurred in private circles of power, but the perception that the institutions tasked with accountability are reluctant to fully illuminate it. Justice delayed in cases involving elites feels less like procedural caution and more like reputational risk management. Whether or not that perception is entirely fair, it is corrosive. Meanwhile, Goldman Sachs’ chief legal officer Kathryn Ruemmler announced her resignation after new emails with Epstein came to light, prompting internal pressure at the firm. British political figure Peter Mandelson resigned from the House of Lords and the Labour Party, and Scotland Yard has opened a criminal investigation into his ties with Epstein. In Norway, parliament has launched an external inquiry into prominent diplomats for their connections to Epstein, and police are investigating corruption allegations against former prime minister Thorbjørn Jagland and others. 🔥 50% OFF FOR LIFE: Using this coupon entitles you to 50% off an annual subscription to Fringe Finance for life: Get 50% off forever Across Europe, these disclosures have triggered formal probes, resignations, and institutional reviews that contrast sharply with the relative lack of accountability for high-profile figures in the United States, where calls for investigations and resignations have largely stalled. I mean, is Les Wexner really allowed to just walk around free at this point? How can that be possible? How are Kimbal Musk and Elon Musk allowed to remain on Tesla’s board? Why isn’t Bill Gates being hauled in front of congress? I have long argued that Americans should apply the same “when both parties agree, the American public is getting screwed” scrutiny to monetary policy for a similar reason. It is one of the few areas where both major political parties display remarkable convergence. While they wage visible battles over cultural issues and tax rates, they tend to align on central banking frameworks, large scale liquidity interventions, and deficit tolerance. Like other cover-ups, that alignment deserves examination. Monetary policy operates largely outside daily partisan warfare, yet it shapes purchasing power, asset prices, debt burdens, and wealth distribution. When balance sheets expand aggressively and markets are repeatedly stabilized during downturns, the effects are uneven. Asset holders often benefit first and most. Meanwhile, wage earners experience the lagging side effects such as inflationary pressure, higher living costs, and diminished purchasing power. Supporters of Modern Monetary Theory argue that sovereign currency systems provide more fiscal flexibility than traditionally assumed. Critics counter that, in practice, repeated interventions risk entrenching a cycle in which gains are privatized and losses are socialized. When markets rise, the wealth effect accrues to those with substantial exposure. When markets falter, public backstops prevent collapse. The middle class absorbs the inflationary residue. And the wealth gap widens: The structural similarity matters. When both parties avoid aggressive debate on a policy that materially burdens the average American, it raises the same instinctive question of what incentives are being protected. Monetary policy may not carry the visceral grotesqueness of the Epstein scandal, but it carries long term economic consequences that most Americans don’t know they are bearing, and don’t understand that they are being lied to about. The comparison is not moral equivalence. It is structural parallel. In one case, alleged networks of power may be shielded by mutual hesitation. In the other, a financial architecture persists with limited democratic scrutiny because challenging it would destabilize shared political comfort. In both cases, bipartisan alignment dampens confrontation. Two forms of silence. Two different domains. Both revealing. Foreign policy, particularly the authorization and funding of wars, has often followed a similar pattern. While domestic issues produce loud partisan divides, military interventions abroad frequently pass with overwhelming support from leadership in both parties. Public debate may flare at the margins, but institutional consensus tends to solidify quickly once action begins. History shows that major military engagements, from post 9/11 authorizations to prolonged overseas conflicts, have often been backed by broad congressional majorities. The initial votes are decisive. The funding continues year after year. Only later, when costs mount and public opinion shifts, does meaningful dissent emerge. By then, strategic commitments and financial obligations are deeply entrenched. Again, the pattern is not about moral equivalence between policy domains. It is about incentives. When both political parties converge quickly on matters involving immense money, immense power, or immense liability, scrutiny tends to narrow rather than widen. And when scrutiny narrows at the highest levels, the public’s role shifts from participant to spectator. When both political parties fail to address something meaningful, when they close ranks instead of competing for exposure, the public should not assume the issue is trivial. More often, it suggests the truth behind the surface may be larger and more consequential than advertised. Democracies depend not just on disagreement, but on adversarial pressure. When that pressure disappears, citizens are right to lean in, not tune out. When both sides go quiet, the story is rarely over. As the Epstein files are showing, it may simply run far deeper than we are being shown. Now read: Today's Epstein’s Records Destroy Official Narratives Our Liquidity Addiction Continues Do DOJ Docs Show Epstein Death Notice A Day Early? The Hijacking Of Bitcoin: Epstein’s Hidden Network Why America’s Two-Party System Will Never Threaten the True Political Elites QTR’s Disclaimer: Please read my full legal disclaimer on my About page here. This post represents my opinions only. In addition, please understand I am an idiot and often get things wrong and lose money. I may own or transact in any names mentioned in this piece at any time without warning. Contributor posts and aggregated posts have been hand selected by me, have not been fact checked and are the opinions of their authors. They are either submitted to QTR by their author, reprinted under a Creative Commons license with my best effort to uphold what the license asks, or with the permission of the author. This is not a recommendation to buy or sell any stocks or securities, just my opinions. I often lose money on positions I trade/invest in. I may add any name mentioned in this article and sell any name mentioned in this piece at any time, without further warning. None of this is a solicitation to buy or sell securities. I may or may not own names I write about and are watching. Sometimes I’m bullish without owning things, sometimes I’m bearish and do own things. Just assume my positions could be exactly the opposite of what you think they are just in case. If I’m long I could quickly be short and vice versa. I won’t update my positions. All positions can change immediately as soon as I publish this, with or without notice and at any point I can be long, short or neutral on any position. You are on your own. Do not make decisions based on my blog. I exist on the fringe. If you see numbers and calculations of any sort, assume they are wrong and double check them. I failed Algebra in 8th grade and topped off my high school math accolades by getting a D- in remedial Calculus my senior year, before becoming an English major in college so I could bullshit my way through things easier. I am an investor in Mark’s fund. The publisher does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information provided in this page. These are not the opinions of any of my employers, partners, or associates. I did my best to be honest about my disclosures but can’t guarantee I am right; I write these posts after a couple beers sometimes. I edit after my posts are published because I’m impatient and lazy, so if you see a typo, check back in a half hour. Also, I just straight up get shit wrong a lot. I mention it twice because it’s that important. Tyler Durden Tue, 02/17/2026 - 14:00

Target CEO Michael Fiddelke has had a busy first 2 weeks on the job
BusinessBusiness Insider1mo ago

Target CEO Michael Fiddelke has had a busy first 2 weeks on the job

Fiddelke at a Target event in December. Ilya S. Savenok/Getty Images for Target Target CEO Michael Fiddelke has been in his new job for two weeks now — and he's been busy. His appointment was met with skepticism over whether he'd make the changes needed to get on track. Fiddelke's early moves show he's determined to make his own mark on the company. Michael Fiddelke is working like a man with something to prove. Target's newest CEO has been in the job for two weeks now, and he's wasted no time getting down to business on some of the retailer's most difficult problems. "He's got off to a running start," Global Data retail analyst Neil Saunders told Business Insider. "He wants change, but I think he's also keen to be seen that he wants change at Target." Fiddelke's CEO appointment was met with skepticism by many, including Saunders, who questioned whether the longtime Bullseye employee would be willing to make meaningful changes to get the company back on track. Critics also pointed to the board's decision to keep outgoing CEO Brian Cornell on as executive chairman. Such a move has tied the hands of new CEOs at other companies that have tried it, several leadership experts told Business Insider. Fiddelke's early moves indicate he is determined to make his own mark In his first companywide meeting, Fiddelke said Target "didn't do enough" to maintain trust with its customers in recent years and that he's moving to reconnect those communities, Bloomberg reported. Fiddelke said in that meeting that Target was committing an additional $1 million to its Bullseye Builds community program and that company employees had logged more than a million hours of volunteer service in 2025. Target has found itself in the national spotlight in recent weeks as federal immigration agents crack down on its hometown of Minneapolis and the company previously faced criticism over its decision to roll back diversity efforts in 2025. "If yesterday was a true glimpse of Fiddelke stepping up, honestly, it's a good start," one employee who listened to the meeting told Business Insider the following day. "He seems to be very much on point with trying to restore guests' faith in us as a company," the person also said. Fiddelke also dove right into the field, visiting stores and distribution centers in Dallas and near his hometown of Manchester, Iowa, fulfilling a commitment he made in the days leading up to his start date. The new boss has had to make tough choices, too. On Monday, the company laid off 500 workers across its district offices and supply chain, a move it said would translate into beefed-up labor hours in stores across the US. The resource shift reflects Fiddelke's focus on improving the shopping experience to get Target back to growth. "Adding labor to the stores is a good move," former Target board member Gerald Storch told Business Insider. "The stores had gotten too messy, the lines had gotten too long upon checkout, and there were too many items out of stock." The day following that announcement, Target revealed two C-suite appointments that underscore the Fiddelke strategy, with a new chief merchant and chief operating officer taking over for outgoing execs Jill Sando and Rick Gomez. The moves also simplify the top of Target's org chart. Fiddelke's start has set a distinct tone for how he intends to run Target, and now the task is to sustain that effort in the months and years ahead. He's now responsible for fixing three years of flat or declining sales, a rocky relationship with customers and employees, and a race with competitors who have been charging forward without those same headwinds. Storch said Target has a lot of fundamental issues. "That's not going to be solved in two weeks," he said. Still, Saunders said there's something to be said for coming out of the gate with gusto. "It takes a long time to fix these things, and it takes even longer to push them through into customer perception and behaviors," he said. "The next best thing is being able to say, 'Look, we know there are problems, and we're getting on with remedying them." Read the original article on Business Insider