Aggregator

"Didn’t MJ just die and you posting this? WOW," one angry fan had written on her vacation upload.

Dueling lawsuits have emerged over a New York Times piece that aimed to paint a bestselling author as a serial fabulist.

Netflix is mired a long slump that has seen its stock price dwindle and audiences bail on its shows.

Tom Cruise treated AMC employees to a private screening of "The Odyssey."

There was so much red on Lucas Herbert’s scorecard Friday it looked like it was bleeding during his British Open second round at Royal Birkdale.

Burnham Is Facing The Same Dilemma That Has Trapped British Politics Over The Past Decade

By Stefan Koopman, senior macro strategist at Rabobank

To Govern Is To Choose 

Today, Andy Burnham will formally be confirmed as Labour leader. Barring any last-minute surprises, he will become prime minister on Monday. The UK will then have had seven prime ministers in a decade, with five taking office without a general election: May in 2016, Johnson in 2019, Truss and Sunak in 2022, and now Burnham in 2026. 

We have often used these mid-term transfers to make the point that Brexit is like a monster devouring its babies. While we do think that this analogy is becoming increasingly stretched ten years after the vote, Brexit remains an important part of the UK’s story. It has contributed to weak productivity growth, subdued gains in real incomes and stagnant living standards, despite the explicit promise of sunlit uplands. The result is even more disappointment than before, and a never-ending search for a messiah who promises to restore rising prosperity. 

The macroeconomic backdrop helps explain why this search keeps ending in disappointment. The UK's problem increasingly appears to be one of supply rather than demand. In our forecasts for 2024-29, consumption growth never exceeds a paltry 1.2% per year, while per capita spending is broadly flat. Yet inflation remains above target in five of those six years. Weak demand alongside persistent inflation points at persistent supply-side constraints. 

This leaves Burnham facing a dilemma that has trapped much of British politics over the past decade. He inherits high public debt, elevated borrowing costs and weak growth, while demands on the state continue to rise from defence, net-zero and an ageing population. At the same time, investors are increasingly reluctant to finance ever-higher levels of current spending, fearing persistent inflation. That limits the scope for the traditional political response of boosting demand to generate a short-term feel-good factor. If Burnham wants to change the UK's economic trajectory in the run-up to the 2029 election, he will have to focus on expanding supply sooner than later. 

The problem is that expanding supply requires investment long before it delivers results. The UK needs more electricity generation and grid capacity if it wants to electrify industry, housing and transport. It needs more housing, infrastructure and business investment, which means overcoming planning constraints and local opposition. It needs greater labour supply in an economy still characterized by high inactivity and politically toxic immigration. And it needs both public and private capital directed to physical production after years of underinvestment. None of these bottlenecks can be removed quickly. 

For now, markets appear reassured by the expected composition of Burnham's government. The appointment investors feared most, Ed Miliband as Chancellor, appears to have been avoided. Shabana Mahmood is now reported to be the frontrunner for the Treasury. She is widely viewed as closer to Rachel Reeves in her approach to fiscal policy than Miliband is. 

At the same time, she has signalled support for a more active state where investment generates clear economic returns. That matters. If the UK's binding constraint is supply, then it will have to increase public investment. Expanding energy capacity, building housing, upgrading infrastructure and crowding in private capital all require the state to play a role. But higher investment spending cannot easily be layered on top of existing commitments in an environment of limited fiscal space. To create room for supply-enhancing investment, other areas of spending may ultimately face greater scrutiny. 

Markets welcomed this week the absence of a sharp turn to the left, but that alone does not solve the underlying growth problem. A supply-side agenda requires money, political capital, and time. Money remains scarce, with gilt yields near 5%. Political capital depreciates quickly. And recent British prime ministers have rarely been granted much time. If Burnham wants even a remote chance of changing the economic narrative before the 2029 election, he will have to make difficult decisions sooner rather than later. This may also mean testing his popularity with markets once the honeymoon period is over. To govern is to choose.

Tyler Durden Fri, 07/17/2026 - 09:40

Iranian strikes on Friday hit a power and water desalination plant in Kuwait, damaging one of the key sources of drinking water in the small desert nation.

The mom of 16 “almost feral” kids rescued from a feces-filled home was previously charged after six of her children failed to show up for school, according to court documents. 

Red and Blue are back, and they have a new friend or two!

Your bestseller starts here.

Afi wrestled Ric Flair to a stalemate in a one-hour time limit match for the NWA World Heavyweight Championship, to much fanfare.

Houston, We Have Shareholders

Submitted by QTR's Fringe Finance

SpaceX’s highly anticipated Starship test flight never made it off the pad Thursday evening. Instead, the launch was scrubbed after what appeared to be an automatic abort during engine startup, marking the first major operational disappointment since the company became publicly traded just weeks ago.

As of this writing, the company has not released a detailed explanation for what happened. SpaceX has only said there will be no launch today, that engineers will review the issue, determine the cause, and announce the next launch opportunity after completing their analysis. Until then, everything circulating online should be treated as speculation, not fact.

That hasn’t stopped launch watchers from dissecting the video frame by frame.

Several engineers and enthusiasts posting on X believe the booster triggered the abort after multiple Raptor engines failed to ignite properly. One widely shared theory suggests four engines in the center ring never achieved a successful startup sequence, while others have speculated that the new Raptor V3 engines may have a more demanding ignition process than previous versions. Those observations may ultimately prove correct, or they may prove completely wrong. At this point, nobody outside SpaceX knows.

But here’s what I know. What makes this different from every previous Starship launch is that SpaceX is no longer just a private engineering experiment. This is the company’s first Starship campaign as a publicly traded company, and that changes some things.

Before the IPO, a scrubbed launch was simply another engineering milestone…on the way to the company’s valuation doing this:

Investors weren’t watching every second because there were no public shareholders marking billions of dollars in value to market every afternoon. Now there are. Every countdown, every static fire, every launch, every anomaly and every explosion is effectively a public earnings report.

That’s simply the reality of being a public company.

I’ve argued repeatedly over the last several weeks that SpaceX’s valuation made very little sense. At one point investors briefly valued the company at well over $2 trillion before the shares gave back a substantial portion of those gains. The stock has now fallen below its $135 IPO price after peaking above $225 shortly after listing, leaving it down roughly one-third from its highs while still carrying an enormous valuation. It’s down another -3.8% after hours as of the time of this writing.

And look…my argument hasn’t been that SpaceX isn’t an extraordinary company, despite what some people argue when I’m being skeptical about valuation. It clearly is. My argument has been that no company deserves a valuation that assumes near perfection forever.

In fact, I’ve said more than once that SpaceX has the potential to become the pin that finally pops this market’s speculative bubble — and maybe even more than that. History is full of beloved companies that were wonderful businesses but terrible investments simply because investors paid absurd prices for them. The bond market seems to potentially agree with this sentiment.

Operational execution has always been the foundation of SpaceX’s story, but now it’s also the foundation of the stock. To be clear, one launch scrub means almost nothing by itself. Launch scrubs happen across the industry and are often the result of systems doing exactly what they’re supposed to do by preventing a launch under questionable conditions.

But now-public investors should not forget that Starship's development has been marked by a number of high-profile setbacks. The first integrated flight test in April 2023 lost control after failing to achieve stage separation and was intentionally destroyed by SpaceX's flight termination system. The second integrated test in November 2023 successfully achieved hot-stage separation for the first time, but both the Super Heavy booster and Starship upper stage were ultimately lost before completing their planned objectives.

Flight 7 in January 2025 ended with the loss of the Starship upper stage during ascent, and Flight 8 in March 2025 also resulted in the loss of the upper stage following another propulsion-system failure. More recently, Flight 12 in May 2026 suffered a significant setback when the Super Heavy booster failed during its return after multiple Raptor engines did not successfully relight. The Starship upper stage, however, continued its mission, deployed its test payloads, survived reentry and completed a controlled splashdown in the Indian Ocean.

🔥 50% OFF FOR LIFE: Using this coupon entitles you to 50% off an annual subscription to Fringe Finance for life: Get 50% off forever

Every one of these flights produced valuable engineering data and moved the program forward, but they also served as reminders that developing the world's largest and most powerful launch system remains one of the most technically demanding challenges in aerospace. The difference now is that every one of those outcomes has immediate consequences for shareholders.

For years, SpaceX always had another exciting story to tell. Another funding round. Another valuation increase. Another government contract. Another Starlink milestone. Another private market markup.

Now the company has entered a different phase. It’s put up or shut up time. Public investors will increasingly want to see successful launches, expanding cash flow, continued Starlink execution and tangible evidence that the next phase of growth is materializing.

With the stock now trading below its offering price after a sharp post-IPO reversal, there’s still plenty of optimism embedded in the valuation despite the recent decline. The market may start to demand (at least some) demand execution instead of simply rewarding potential.

None of this means today’s scrub is the beginning of a larger problem. It may wind up being nothing more than a minor startup issue that engineers resolve in a matter of days.

But that’s precisely why it’s worth watching. From this point forward, every Starship launch is no longer just a rocket launch. It’s also a referendum on one of the largest and most expensive public companies in the world.

That dynamic didn’t exist a month ago. Now it does.

--

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.

As of May 20, 2026 I personally no longer actively trade (read my story here). My investing/saving is done by recurring contributions mostly to sector ETFs and a few select equities, trusted third parties who oversee my accounts, and advisors. Such advisors or funds, through individual equities, options, index funds, mutual funds, ETFs, or other securities, may have positions in, exposure to, or holdings of names mentioned herein that I know nothing about. Basically, via index funds, ETFs and individual equities it is possible I could own, have exposure to, or not own anything at any point. As of the same date, May 20, 2026, in an attempt to lead a healthier lifestyle, I’ve also excluded myself from fantasy sports, sports betting, online and in-person casinos and prediction markets.

And 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.

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 Fri, 07/17/2026 - 09:25

US Industrial Production Disappoints (Again) In June

US Industrial Production rose just 0.1% MoM in June (less than the 0.2% MoM rise expected), after also disappointing in May. That slowed the annual growth in production from 1.6% YoY to +1.1% YoY...

The recent blip higher in Capacity Utilization faded last month (76.1% vs 76.2% exp) with the down-trend seemingly still in tact...

If 'soft' survey data is in any way predictive of reality, then we should be seeing a sizable trend higher in industrial production...

...or maybe it's just another useless sentiment signal.

Tyler Durden Fri, 07/17/2026 - 09:21

Gilbert told her fans the reason she's not returning to the Hallmark Channel series.

Gilbert told her fans the reason she's not returning to the Hallmark Channel series.

Howie Gelfand, who partly inspired Jonah Hill’s character in the Martin Scorsese film "The Wolf of Wall Street," claims “They just made up things.” 

Howie Gelfand, who partly inspired Jonah Hill’s character in the Martin Scorsese film "The Wolf of Wall Street," claims “They just made up things.” 

It's Wayne's world; Priscilla is just living in it.

Whether you're betting on the World Cup, you can use the Fanatics Sportsbook promo code NYPOST26 to get up to $1k matched in FanCash.

It’s astounding what can change within three weeks of a 162-game season.