Latest news with #JamesFishback
Time of India
6 minutes ago
- Business
- Time of India
Is the U.S. government issuing a fourth $2,000 IRS stimulus check in 2025?
Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Stimulus Buzz: The Source of the Confusion Official Response: No Approval from Congress or IRS Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads The DOGE Dividend: A Separate and Unlikely Initiative Who Would Even Qualify? South Carolinians Advised to Remain Cautious Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Historical Context: Past Stimulus Measures Social Media and Financial Misinformation Stay Informed, Not Misled FAQs Who would qualify for the DOGE dividend if it ever gets approved? What have officials said about the stimulus rumors? Despite renewed buzz surrounding a fourth round of stimulus checks, officials and experts are urging caution. With social media amplifying claims about potential $2,000 payouts, South Carolina residents, and Americans more broadly, are being warned not to expect another federal stimulus check in speculation was that lawmakers were 'considering new payments due to mounting public pressure.' However, federal agencies, including the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), have issued no official guidance or confirmation supporting such claims, Greenville rumor mill gained momentum, which proposed that single taxpayers earning under $75,000 and couples with joint incomes under $150,000 would receive stimulus payments. Dependents, according to reports, would add additional funds to the payout. The reports projected that the checks, if authorized, could be distributed as early as late 2025 or early hypothetical scenario, however, lacks legislative backing. No such bill has been introduced in Congress, and the IRS has not acknowledged any preparations for a fourth disbursement to the online frenzy, a spokesperson from the Treasury Department reiterated that no current stimulus-related proposals have cleared either chamber of Congress. As of now, the IRS stimulus checks 2025 discussion remains IRS officials noted that there are no systems in place or staffing reallocations underway that would typically signal preparations for large-scale economic impact mirrors the official position of both the White House and U.S. President Donald Trump's administration, which have remained silent on any plans for direct economic relief packages in the confusion is the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) dividend proposal, introduced earlier this year by Azoria CEO James Fishback. Designed to reward taxpayers from government savings, the DOGE dividend is an entirely separate initiative, which would only materialize if federal savings exceed $2 of May 29, DOGE had accumulated $180 billion—well short of the required threshold. Moreover, with Congress yet to approve the distribution mechanism, the project appears stalled. Further dampening public optimism is the resignation of Elon Musk, a high-profile figure linked to DOGE's initial insiders suggest DOGE's operational phase may conclude by mid-2026 without disbursing any household-level key issue concerns eligibility. Should DOGE dividends or another stimulus be issued, only net-income taxpayers—those who pay more in federal taxes than they receive back—would reportedly would effectively exclude millions of low-income Americans. According to a study by the Pew Research Center, most households earning under $40,000 annually pay negligible federal income tax. As a result, they would likely not meet the threshold for receiving DOGE dividends or other stimulus-linked benefits under the rumored South Carolina, local economists and lawmakers are urging residents not to factor these rumored checks into their financial planning.'There is currently no federal framework for such payments,' noted Dr. Eileen Hargrove, a Columbia-based economic policy expert. 'The public should remain skeptical until they see action taken by Congress, not just online speculation.'Additionally, state officials have not received any directives from Washington that would suggest a renewed stimulus 2020 and 2021, the U.S. government authorized three rounds of stimulus checks to cushion the economic blow of the COVID-19 pandemic. Each round required congressional approval and was executed through the IRS in coordination with then, Americans have not received direct stimulus payments from the federal government. While a few states implemented their own economic relief programs post-2022, no such plan has been approved or discussed for 2025 at the national warn that the viral nature of unconfirmed reports, especially those shared on social platforms like TikTok, Facebook, and X (formerly Twitter), may contribute to widespread IRS has previously addressed this issue, cautioning the public to verify claims through official channels rather than relying on sensational headlines.'There's a reason why you haven't heard this from the IRS,' said a spokesperson. 'We urge people to cross-check these reports with our official bulletins.'As of July 23, there is no official plan for a fourth stimulus check in 2025. The IRS, Treasury, and U.S. Congress have not confirmed any forthcoming economic impact payments. With the DOGE dividend still in its infancy and Congress unlikely to revisit stimulus bills in an election cycle already dominated by other priorities, the possibility of another direct payout remains seeking financial support are encouraged to review existing assistance programs through local and federal net-income taxpayers—those who pay more in federal taxes than they receive in credits—would qualify. This would exclude millions of low-income households that pay little to no federal income and policymakers, particularly in South Carolina, are urging the public to ignore the rumors. Dr. Eileen Hargrove stated, 'There is currently no federal framework for such payments.' The IRS and Treasury have also urged caution and emphasized verifying news via official sources.
Yahoo
09-07-2025
- Automotive
- Yahoo
Why 1 key Musk rival won't challenge him in Silicon Valley
SAN FRANCISCO — A super PAC set up to go head-to-head with Elon Musk's America Party says it is not interested in competing with the tech billionaire for like-minded donors in one key area: Silicon Valley. The tech industry was once optimistic that Musk's appointment would give him the president's ear to defend long-held causes like expanding high-skilled immigration. Instead, his scorched-earth departure appears to have poisoned the well, turning those policy preferences into purity tests for some allies of President Donald Trump. 'If you're a tech bro, if you're a venture capitalist and you're a globalist, and you want open borders, and you want H-1Bs, and you want EV tax credits, and you want an EV mandate, we don't want your money,' said James Fishback, a pro-Trump investor whose FSD, or 'Full Support for Donald,' super PAC plans to protect MAGA candidates against Musk, in an interview with POLITICO. 'If you're not a real Republican, we don't want you.' It's a notable rejection of the kind of tech personalities who helped buoy Trump's successful 2024 campaign and have stayed close to the president since taking office, from his inauguration to business trips abroad. What's less clear is if anyone, that donor class included, takes Musk seriously outside of a few staunch Never Trumpers and businesspeople who flirted with the idea of a third-party run themselves last cycle. POLITICO asked several of the major corporate donors who previously backed Musk's America PAC during the 2024 cycle — including the Winklevoss brothers, Palantir co-founder Joe Lonsdale, Sequoia Capital's Shaun Maguire, coal executive Joe Craft, and Founders Fund and PayPal co-founder Ken Howery — if they would consider supporting his third party. None responded. Trump himself called Musk's new political party 'ridiculous' and predicted it would falter. The president's favorite foil these days, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, was similarly dismissive on Wednesday. 'I've seen these efforts in the past fizzle out,' he told POLITICO in an interview during a swing through rural South Carolina. 'I just don't know how committed he is to it, and so it doesn't concern me.' But Fishback, formerly an outside adviser to DOGE, has given more thought than most to the possibility that the America Party could pose a real political threat. FSD — a riff on Tesla's 'full self-driving' technology — launched last week as Musk revived his threats to primary Republican supporters of Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' and plans to pour money into any race where the billionaire funds a third-party run or targets a Trump-backed incumbent in the 2026 midterms. His comments highlight an ongoing tension: Musk's break with Trump is fueling backlash within the MAGA movement against other tech world figures even as many continue to profess loyalty to the president, who hasn't cast them aside either. 'If you just conveniently backed Trump in the last 45 days before the election because you wanted to get a political favor and wanted to attend a Starlight dinner, this is not the movement for you,' said Fishback. 'It is a movement of people who are sick and tired of the people who joined the Republican Party five months ago because they wanted to use Donald Trump, people have been lifelong supporters of the America First movement, saying, 'kick out the tech bros.'' If the Trump factor alone keeps donor dollars from returning to Musk, his greatest advantage remains his own deep pockets. Most of the funding for America PAC came from the man himself. 'He's got one thing that others haven't had, and that's a sustainable funding stream,' Newsom said Wednesday, though not without a note of skepticism. 'Presumably sustainable, though knowing Elon, who knows? He could get overleveraged here, and he could be in a real place of hurt.' Fishback acknowledged the America Party will no doubt outspend him, but argued that the Musk strategy of laser-focusing on just enough congressional districts to swing the vote on contentious bills is all about narrow human margins. 'You only need to convince one in 10 voters of Elon Musk's delusions of grandeur, and if you do, we lose the House. We lose the Senate,' he said. 'Boots on the ground, knocking on doors, showing up at churches, synagogues, and making that conversation known, hosting town halls, that's where we can really have an asymmetric impact against what's going to be a money machine.' At this early stage, a trail of X content acknowledged by Musk in comments, emojis and reposts is the closest approximation to the America Party platform. Although its loosely defined brand of tech-forward, fiscally restrained, pro-energy deregulation centrism could, in theory, appeal to voters disillusioned with both parties, most view the plan as a GOP spoiler. After all, Musk's popularity among Republicans has taken a hit but soars above his favorability with Democrats, surveyed at 3 percent in a Quinnipiac University national poll last month. 'Simply because of what the America Party is ostensibly based on — which is deficit reduction and government efficiency — that is something that more deeply resonates with conservatives and with Republicans,' Fishback said. 'It is a revenge plot against the president.' Cooper Teboe, a Democratic consultant in Silicon Valley, shared that impression and was 'deeply skeptical' the party will go anywhere. 'If tech leaders wanted a third party or thought something like this would work, they would have done it years ago,' he said. 'Elon seems more interested in hurting Trump than he is in actually winning anything. I wish him tremendous success in doing so.' That perception isn't helped by Musk confirming on Tuesday that another party priority will be to expose more information about the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein after a Justice Department and FBI review found no evidence of a secret client list. A version of this story first appeared in California Decoded, POLITICO's morning newsletter for Pros about how the Golden State is shaping tech policy within its borders and beyond. Like this content? POLITICO Pro subscribers receive it daily. Learn more at The barriers to mounting a third party in the U.S. are well-documented. Tech leaders less eccentric than Musk have struggled with the unique challenge of translating the industry's specialized concerns to resonate with the masses, and there is a long line of entrepreneurs whose dreams to disrupt the two-party system have been dashed. They include Andrew Yang, who has been in touch with Musk about the effort, and Mark Cuban, who offered to connect him to the Center for Competitive Democracy, a nonpartisan group he has worked with to eliminate obstacles to participation in political processes. Oliver Hall, the center's founder, told POLITICO he'd be open to helping the America Party get on ballots. As of Tuesday, there's been 'no contact yet with Elon's team, but I wouldn't be surprised if that happens,' he said. If Musk proceeds, he's also setting up a serious clash with other commitments. Earlier this week, Fishback sent a letter to Tesla's chair urging the board to confront Musk and assess whether there is a conflict between his political ventures and his role as CEO. Fishback's investment firm, Azoria, holds its largest position in Tesla and delayed the launch of an exchange-traded fund that he says would have invested over a billion dollars in the automaker due to concerns raised by the announcement. A resolution he could live with is Musk appointing a political operative to run the America Party instead. He has not received a response but expects one by Friday. Tesla and Musk did not respond to requests for comment. The Tesla CEO told Wall Street analyst Dan Ives to 'shut up' when he, too, said the board needed to rein in Musk and recommended it have oversight over his political endeavors. 'Starting a political party means traveling, media engagements, candidate training, candidate recruiting, logistics, organizing, etc,' said Fishback. 'It is a distraction. Jensen Huang is not running a political party. Sam Altman is not running a political party because they have better things to do.' Tyler Katzenberger contributed to this report.
Yahoo
08-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
The latest MAGA index fund is here
There's a new way to own the libs, but it'll cost you. The latest anti-DEI index fund — described by its founder to Semafor last year as 'an S&P 500 fund without the woke sh*t' — launches today. Azoria's Meritocracy ETF will own the S&P 500 except for 37 companies, including Nike and Airbnb, that it says prioritize diversity over merit in hiring. Azoria's founder, James Fishback, said in an interview that Susquehanna, the trading firm run by conservative donor Jeffrey Yass, bought 75,000 shares at the open. Conservative ETFs — and virtue-signaling funds of all political stripes — are proliferating in the Trump age. While a handful have beaten the broader market this year, they are far more expensive than the benchmarks they, to varying degrees, deviate from. The newly launched Meritocracy ETF charges $47 (for Trump) on every $10,000 invested, versus about $3 for the cheapest S&P 500 trackers. As a FactSet researcher told The Wall Street Journal, a more efficient, though less satisfying, way to virtue-signal would be to buy a plain-vanilla index fund and donate the investment gains to a political cause. — Liz Hoffman Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
08-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Should investors bet against DEI? What to know about new anti-'woke' index fund
One S&P 500 please, hold the diversity, equity and inclusion. That is the proposed selling point of a new index fund launching Tuesday: The exchange-traded fund mirrors the S&P 500 but excludes 37 companies that engage in DEI. It is the brainchild of James Fishback, an ally of President Donald Trump who used to work for the hedge fund Greenlight Capital and recently became more widely known as the Department of Government Efficiency adviser who proposed sending taxpayers stimulus checks. Last week, Fishback launched a Trump super PAC to back the president in his feud with the GOP's largest individual donor and former DOGE architect Elon Musk. With the Azoria 500 Meritocracy ETF, Fishback is piggybacking on the Trump-powered DEI backlash. He unveiled his plans in December at the president's Mar-a-Lago resort. 'I am making the bet of my career that, generally, stocks that hire on skill and merit and not on race and gender will do better,' Fishback, CEO and founder of investment firm Azoria, told USA TODAY in an exclusive interview. 'The next couple years are going to decide if this strategy is a success.' Morningstar analyst Bryan Armour said he expects some investors will flock to the index fund which trades under the ticker symbol SPXM. 'Investors are often drawn to the siren song of a good narrative, especially one that speaks to their views,' Armour said. 'My guess is there will be some appetite for an ETF like this.' But, he said, investors are best off "separating investing and politics.' Exchange-traded funds, or ETFs, are bundles of stocks that trade on public exchanges like individual stocks, giving investors the ability to buy hundreds of securities in a single purchase. Anyone with a brokerage account can put money in ETFs, which can be bought and sold like shares during the trading day. Ideologically driven S&P 500 trackers tend to charge high fees and attract meager investment, University of Florida finance professor Jay Ritter told USA TODAY in December. 'We will probably see some more anti-'woke' ETFs but only the biggest will survive,' Ritter said. 'Each year, a lot of small ETFs get closed or merged because there is not enough liquidity to attract investors and cover the costs of managing the ETF.' Fishback told USA TODAY his index fund filters out more than three dozen companies that use explicit race and gender quotas in hiring decisions including Nike, Airbnb and Intel. Airbnb and Nike declined to comment. In a statement, Intel said its hiring and promotion practices "follow a competitive and fair process in compliance with the law and we do not use identity based quotas.' Initially, Fishback thought the announcement of his S&P 500 tracker would put pressure on the nation's largest companies to roll back these policies, but in conversations with business leaders, Fishback said he discovered they 'genuinely believe that their DEI hiring targets help their long-term business" and few could be persuaded to make changes. 'I thought a lot more companies would have taken these policies off the table," he said. "But the fact that six months later, there are still three dozen companies hiring on race and gender tells me that this product has to be there." The Florida investment fund manager said his research shows a 'DEI drag' has caused these 37 stocks to underperform for the last two years. "We identified DEI hiring targets as the likely driver of underperformance by studying a diverse set of 37 companies across 26 industries that share little in common except for one policy: explicit, quantitative DEI hiring targets. This uniformity allowed us to isolate that variable as a common denominator," Fishback said. On average, the companies saw their stocks rise 3.8% in the 30 days after dropping diversity hiring targets, compared to the S&P 500's average monthly return of 1.24%, according to Fishback. "Our research demonstrates a strong negative association between explicit demographic hiring targets and stock returns," he said. Analysts were skeptical. 'I find it hard to believe that DEI hiring practices can be directly linked to stock underperformance,' Armour said. The Azoria 500 Meritocracy ETF charges a management fee of 0.47%, meaning if an investor puts in $10,000, they will have paid approximately $48 in fees to the fund manager after one year. Even if diversity targets were the common denominator, the omitted companies would need to "underperform by a lot" to make the fund a worthwhile investment when an investor can buy an S&P 500 fund "for three basis points of fees or less," Armour said. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Should you invest in new anti-DEI index fund? What to know Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
USA Today
08-07-2025
- Business
- USA Today
Should investors bet against DEI? What to know about new anti-'woke' index fund
One S&P 500 please, hold the diversity, equity and inclusion. That is the proposed selling point of a new index fund launching Tuesday: The exchange-traded fund mirrors the S&P 500 but excludes 37 companies that engage in DEI. It is the brainchild of James Fishback, an ally of President Donald Trump who used to work for the hedge fund Greenlight Capital and recently became more widely known as the Department of Government Efficiency adviser who proposed sending taxpayers stimulus checks. Last week, Fishback launched a Trump super PAC to back the president in his feud with the GOP's largest individual donor and former DOGE architect Elon Musk. With the Azoria 500 Meritocracy ETF, Fishback is piggybacking on the Trump-powered DEI backlash. He unveiled his plans in December at the president's Mar-a-Lago resort. 'I am making the bet of my career that, generally, stocks that hire on skill and merit and not on race and gender will do better,' Fishback, CEO and founder of investment firm Azoria, told USA TODAY in an exclusive interview. 'The next couple years are going to decide if this strategy is a success.' Is anti-DEI a good investment? Morningstar analyst Bryan Armour said he expects some investors will flock to the index fund which trades under the ticker symbol SPXM. 'Investors are often drawn to the siren song of a good narrative, especially one that speaks to their views,' Armour said. 'My guess is there will be some appetite for an ETF like this.' But, he said, investors are best off "separating investing and politics.' Exchange-traded funds, or ETFs, are bundles of stocks that trade on public exchanges like individual stocks, giving investors the ability to buy hundreds of securities in a single purchase. Anyone with a brokerage account can put money in ETFs, which can be bought and sold like shares during the trading day. Ideologically driven S&P 500 trackers tend to charge high fees and attract meager investment, University of Florida finance professor Jay Ritter told USA TODAY in December. 'We will probably see some more anti-'woke' ETFs but only the biggest will survive,' Ritter said. 'Each year, a lot of small ETFs get closed or merged because there is not enough liquidity to attract investors and cover the costs of managing the ETF.' Is there a DEI 'drag' on stocks? Fishback told USA TODAY his index fund filters out more than three dozen companies that use explicit race and gender quotas in hiring decisions including Nike, Airbnb and Intel. Airbnb and Nike declined to comment. In a statement, Intel said its hiring and promotion practices "follow a competitive and fair process in compliance with the law and we do not use identity based quotas.' Initially, Fishback thought the announcement of his S&P 500 tracker would put pressure on the nation's largest companies to roll back these policies, but in conversations with business leaders, Fishback said he discovered they 'genuinely believe that their DEI hiring targets help their long-term business" and few could be persuaded to make changes. 'I thought a lot more companies would have taken these policies off the table," he said. "But the fact that six months later, there are still three dozen companies hiring on race and gender tells me that this product has to be there." The Florida investment fund manager said his research shows a 'DEI drag' has caused these 37 stocks to underperform for the last two years. "We identified DEI hiring targets as the likely driver of underperformance by studying a diverse set of 37 companies across 26 industries that share little in common except for one policy: explicit, quantitative DEI hiring targets. This uniformity allowed us to isolate that variable as a common denominator," Fishback said. On average, the companies saw their stocks rise 3.8% in the 30 days after dropping diversity hiring targets, compared to the S&P 500's average monthly return of 1.24%, according to Fishback. "Our research demonstrates a strong negative association between explicit demographic hiring targets and stock returns," he said. Analysts were skeptical. 'I find it hard to believe that DEI hiring practices can be directly linked to stock underperformance,' Armour said. The Azoria 500 Meritocracy ETF charges a management fee of 0.47%, meaning if an investor puts in $10,000, they will have paid approximately $48 in fees to the fund manager after one year. Even if diversity targets were the common denominator, the omitted companies would need to "underperform by a lot" to make the fund a worthwhile investment when an investor can buy an S&P 500 fund "for three basis points of fees or less," Armour said.
