---------- Original message --------- From: Michelle Thompson<michellethompsonmla@gmail.com> Date: Mon, Feb 16, 2026 at 3:05 PM Subject: Thank you for your email Re: My heart goes out to Melissa Ellsworth To: <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
Automatic Reply: You have reached the Antigonish Constituency Office.
If your matter is a health related issue and you are from outside the
Antigonish
Constituency, your email will be forwarded to Health.Minister@novascotia.ca
and the appropriate people at Department of Health and Wellness can
assist you with your concern. Emails containing abusive language or
threats will not be responded to
Thank you for reaching out. You have reached the constituency office
for Antigonish.
.
Thank you.
---------- Original message ---------
From: Anandasangaree, Gary - M.P.<Gary.Anand@parl.gc.ca> Date: Mon, Feb 16, 2026 at 3:06 PM Subject: Automatic reply: My heart goes out to Melissa Ellsworth To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
Hello,
Thank you for contacting the Office of the Honourable Gary
Anandasangaree, Member of Parliament for Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge
Park and the Minister of Public Safety. Your correspondence has been
received and will be reviewed.
Federal Services for Constituents:
If you are a resident of Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park seeking
assistance with a federal service or program, please ensure you provide
the following:
Full name
Address, including postal code
Telephone number
Brief details of your situation
To ensure a timely response, please note that we prioritize inquiries
from Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park residents and do not respond to
form letters.
Thank you again for taking the time to contact our office, it is always welcomed and appreciated.
Yours very truly,
Bonjour,
Merci d'avoir communiqué avec le bureau de l'honorable Gary
Anandasangaree, député de Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park et ministre
de la Sécurité publique. Votre correspondance a bien été reçue et sera
examinée.
Services fédéraux pour les électeurs :
Si vous résidez à Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park et que vous avez
besoin d'aide concernant un service ou un programme fédéral, veuillez
fournir les renseignements suivants :
Nom complet
Adresse, y compris le code postal
Numéro de téléphone
Brève description de votre situation
Afin d'assurer une réponse rapide, veuillez noter que nous traitons en
priorité les demandes provenant des résidents de
Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park et que nous ne répondons pas aux
lettres types.
Nous vous remercions encore une fois d'avoir pris le temps
de communiquer avec notre bureau. Vos messages sont toujours les
bienvenus et appréciés.
Cordialement,
The Honourable Gary Anandasangaree, PC, KC, MP
Member of Parliament
Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park
---------- Original message ---------
From: Blanchet, Yves-François - Député<Yves-Francois.Blanchet@parl.gc.ca> Date: Mon, Feb 16, 2026 at 3:06 PM Subject: Réponse automatique : My heart goes out to Melissa Ellsworth To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
(Ceci est une réponse automatique)
(English follows)
Bonjour,
Nous
avons bien reçu votre courriel et nous vous remercions d'avoir écrit à
M. Yves-François Blanchet, député de Beloeil-Chambly et chef du Bloc
Québécois.
Comme
nous avons un volume important de courriels, il nous est impossible de
répondre à tous individuellement. Soyez assuré(e) que votre courriel
recevra toute l'attention nécessaire.
Nous ne répondons pas à la correspondance contenant un langage offensant.
L'équipe du député Yves-François Blanchet
Chef du Bloc Québécois
Thank you for your email. We will read it as soon as we can.
We do not respond to correspondence that contains offensive language.
---------- Original message ---------
From: Poilievre, Pierre - M.P.<pierre.poilievre@parl.gc.ca> Date: Mon, Feb 16, 2026 at 3:06 PM Subject: Acknowledgement – Email Received / Accusé de réception – Courriel reçu To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
On behalf of the Hon. Pierre Poilievre, we would
like to thank you for contacting the Office of the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
Mr. Poilievre greatly values feedback and input from Canadians. We wish
to inform you that the Office of the Leader of the Official Opposition
reads and reviews every e-mail we receive. Please note that this
account receives a high volume of e-mails, and
we endeavour to reply as quickly as possible.
If you are a constituent of Mr. Poilievre in the
riding of Battle River - Crowfoot and you have an urgent matter to
discuss, please contact his constituency office at:
Phone: 1-780-608-4600
Fax: 1-780-608-4603
Hon. Pierre Poilievre, M.P.
Battle River – Crowfoot
Au nom de l’honorable Pierre
Poilievre, nous tenons à vous remercier d’avoir communiqué avec le
Bureau du chef de l’Opposition officielle.
M. Poilievre accorde une grande importance aux commentaires et aux
suggestions des Canadiens. Nous tenons à vous informer que le Bureau du
chef de l’Opposition officielle lit et examine tous les courriels qu’il
reçoit. Veuillez noter que ce compte reçoit un
volume important de courriels et que nous nous efforçons d’y répondre
le plus rapidement possible.
Si vous êtes un électeur de
M. Poilievre dans la circonscription de Battle River - Crowfoot et que
vous avez une question urgente à discuter, veuillez contacter son bureau
de circonscription :
Téléphone : 1-780-608-4600
Télécopieur : 1-780-608-4603
L’honorable Pierre Poilievre, député
Battle River – Crowfoot
4945, 50 Street
Camrose (Alberta) T4V 1P9
Encore une fois, merci de votre message.
Veuillez agréer nos salutations distinguées,
Bureau du chef de l’Opposition officielle
---------- Original message --------- From: Premier<PREMIER@novascotia.ca> Date: Mon, Feb 16, 2026 at 3:06 PM Subject: Thank you for your email To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
Thank you for contacting the Office of the Premier. This is an automatic confirmation that your message has been received.
Please note that the Premier receives a tremendous
volume of e-mails and letters every week. If your message requires an
answer, we will get back to you as soon as possible.
To get you the best answer possible and ensure
accurate information, your message may be shared with other Ministers or
appropriate government officials to respond on the Premier’s behalf. We
appreciate your patience and understanding.
For more information on the newly expanded Nova Scotia School Lunch Program and to order an affordable, nutritious lunch for your public school student, please visit: https://nslunch.ca/
To discover Nova Scotia Loyal and learn how to identify, buy, and support local Nova Scotian products, please visit:https://nsloyal.ca/
To learn more and sign up for the Nova Scotia Guard to rise to the occasion in the wake of an emergency, please visit: https://nsguard.ca/
To
book health services, get secure access to your own health records, or
find the right care option for you, please download the YourHealthNS app or visit: https://yourhealthns.ca/
Stay informed with NSGov News. Sign up for a
monthly newsletter with information about community programs, services,
and news that matters to you, delivered straight to your inbox.
Subscribe at:
https://newsletter.novascotia.ca/.
For the most up-to-date information from the Government of Nova Scotia, please visit:
https://novascotia.ca/.
Thank you,
The Premier’s Correspondence Team
---------- Original message --------- From: David Amos<david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com> Date: Mon, Feb 16, 2026 at 3:05 PM Subject: My heart goes out to Melissa Ellsworth To:
<PREMIER@novascotia.ca>, <michellethompsonmla@gmail.com>,
<kent.smith@novascotia.ca>,
<ragingdissident@protonmail.com> Cc: <tom.ayers@cbc.ca>,
<claudiachendermla@gmail.com>, <ca@zachchurchill.com>,
<sean.fraser@parl.gc.ca>, <mark.carney@parl.gc.ca>,
<lenametlege.diab@parl.gc.ca>, <Patty.Hajdu@parl.gc.ca>,
<dominic.leblanc@parl.gc.ca>, <don.davies@parl.gc.ca>,
<news957@rogers.com>, <pierre.poilievre@parl.gc.ca>,
<gary.anandasangaree@parl.gc.ca>,
<Yves-Francois.Blanchet@parl.gc.ca>,
<AWaugh@postmedia.com>, <mike.dawson@parl.gc.ca>,
<pm@pm.gc.ca>, <Chris.dEntremont@parl.gc.ca>
You should have called me back months ago. Now I don't care if you ever do
Mikey Dawson's fans should tune into the 23 minute mark of this rant
FYI
My blog supports the fact that I called Dawson's NB office not long
after Rebel News sent me a copy of his letter. The nice lady who
answered the phone recognized my voice but did not know about the letter
so I read it to her then we discussed anther issue. When she told me
she getting a lot of calls I asked for him to call me back and let her
off the hook. Mikey never did call back. However once CBC confirmed
what the Rebel News had informed me I sent many sheople an email and
posted it at the top of my Feb 9th blog about Mark Carney and David Eby
Melissa
Ellsworth, left, and Kendra Hill say Nova Scotia's workers'
compensation system needs an overhaul. Ellsworth says after waiting more
than a decade for benefits, she has applied for medical assistance in
dying. (Tom Ayers/CBC)
A
Cape Breton woman who has been fighting for more than a decade for
benefits from Nova Scotia's Workers' Compensation Board says she will
continue to push ahead as long as she can.
But Melissa Ellsworth
said she can't wait any longer for pain relief and has applied for
medical assistance in dying, also known as MAID.
Ellsworth said
workplace injuries while nursing in 2006 and working as a corrections
officer in 2009 have left her with constant pain and unable to eat
properly.
The 54-year-old has been off work since 2010, and has shrunk a couple of inches in height and now weighs under 100 pounds.
"I
can't live with this type of pain and I'm disintegrating to nothing,
and the options that I have for quality of life are there, but workers'
comp is refusing to provide them, so I have no option really but to
apply for MAID," she said.
Won 10 of 11 appeals
Ellsworth was
first injured when a psychiatric patient in a Halifax hospital threw a
chair and hit her in the head. The second injury came when an inmate
assaulted her, dislocating her shoulder and eventually leaving her with
post-traumatic stress disorder.
Despite diagnoses of trigeminal
neuralgia — also known as the suicide disease because of the severe
facial pain it causes — and PTSD, Ellsworth said WCB case managers have
denied her claims for treatment.
Ellsworth
says the WCB denied her pain injections in 2010. They were finally
approved in 2015 by an appeal tribunal, but by then the injections were
no longer helpful. (Robert Short/CBC)
Ellsworth
has continued to fight for other benefits. For example, her jaw has not
worked properly for years, so the WCB approved liquid meal
replacements. But Ellsworth said after 10 years, her body can't tolerate
the supplements anymore.
She said she has asked for a chewable
meal replacement that would help her retain some use of her jaw — rather
than submit to a permanent feeding tube that would mean never being
able to eat properly again — but the board won't approve the
alternative.
In addition, the WCB denied injections for pain in
2010 that were finally approved in 2015 after an appeal tribunal
overturned the initial decision, Ellsworth said, but by then the
injections were no longer helpful.
She's now getting palliative
treatment with pain pills and medical cannabis, but Ellsworth said the
strength of the cannabis prescription is too low and the board won't
change it.
She said she is speaking out not only to improve her case, but because she wants the WCB completely overhauled.
According to its most recent annual report,
the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal overturned 56 per cent of
all cases last year where someone questioned a WCB case manager's
decision to deny benefits.
Slowly starving to death
Ellsworth said she is not giving up the fight, but she no longer has any quality of life.
She
has anxiety and depression on top of her other diagnoses, which have
led to her decision to apply for medical assistance in dying.
Ellsworth said she's slowly starving to death anyway.
"I
love food, but can you imagine being hungry, but not being able to
... I can't even eat hamburgers," she said. "I can't open my mouth far
enough. And now I'm living across the street from my parents who get to
watch this with their own eyes, day in and day out.
"So in my case
it's more of I plan to leave this world with what little dignity that
workers' compensation leaves me with, and right now, it's not a lot."
Kendra
Hill says she suffered two injuries while nursing at the Cape Breton
Regional Hospital and has been battling for workers' compensation
benefits ever since. (Tom Ayers/CBC)
Ellsworth's
friend Kendra Hill, also 54, said she has also had difficulty getting
WCB benefits after suffering back injuries as a nurse at the Cape Breton
Regional Hospital in 2006 and 2013.
Hill said she has had surgery
on her back and neck, but her mobility is progressively being affected
and she also has chronic pain. Being off work permanently has also led
to PTSD, she said.
"One day you are at work and you have your job
to go to," Hill said. "You have your colleagues. You have your regular
daily life. You have your full paycheque.
"Then all of a sudden,
your pay is cut in half. You don't have that social life that's
connected to work. When all of that is gone from your life, it's
traumatic."
System designed to deny or delay, Hill says
Hill
said the workers' compensation system is designed to deny or delay
benefits, and like Ellsworth, she has also struggled to receive such
things as massage therapy and an occupational therapy assessment of her
home, despite orders for those from a doctor.
"This is your life
now and you've missed all of that and now on top of that, you have to
deal with this monstrous bureaucratic entity that seems to want to
squash you at every turn," Hill said.
Questioned
by the NDP at a legislative committee session in April, Nova Scotia
Labour Minister Jill Balser says the government is starting a review of
the workers' compensation system. (CBC)
Ellsworth
said the fact that 56 per cent of cases that went to the tribunal last
year were overturned on appeal shows the system is an "epic fail" that
is making people suffer for years before granting benefits.
At a
legislative committee in April, Labour Minister Jill Balser revealed the
government is planning a wide-ranging review of the workers'
compensation system.
She declined an interview request, saying she
cannot comment on individual cases, but said in an email that the
government must to balance the needs of workers and employers and that
it would be sharing details of the review in the fall.
NDP labour
critic Kendra Coombes, who questioned the minister in April about the
proposed review, said she hopes it will result in positive changes.
NDP
labour critic Kendra Coombes says she hopes for a positive outcome, but
fears a review of Nova Scotia's workers' compensation system will come
too late for Ellsworth. (Jeorge Sadi/CBC)
"The
problem is with Melissa [Ellsworth] and her health, my fear is that it
will come too late for her," Coombes said. "My fear is that she either
will have died, or the damage would be too far gone for her to get
healthy again."
She also said having more than half of WCB case
manager decisions overturned on appeal is a clear sign that something is
wrong with the system.
"It's not acceptable that we're seeing that many overturned," Coombes said.
"That
means that mistakes happened, and due to how long these things can
take, how long was that worker going through the system without WCB
supports?"
Tom
Ayers has been a reporter and editor for 40 years. He has spent the
last 22 covering Cape Breton and Nova Scotia stories. You can reach him
at tom.ayers@cbc.ca.
In the latest installment of our
series Code Critical, a Cape Breton woman is sharing her struggles with
the family doctor shortage in Nova Scotia. Rather than putting her name
on the growing waitlist, she says she chose to endure five hours of
travel each way to continue seeing her current physician. Skye
Bryden-Blom reports – Mar 26, 2024
In
a province where more than 156,000 people are on the waitlist for a
family doctor, Melissa Ellsworth counts herself lucky she has one.
The problem is, she now lives more than 400 km away in Cape Breton, while her doctor of 20 years is in Halifax.
“I have to keep my family doctor in Halifax, there’s no doctors here,” Ellsworth said from her home in Dominion, N.S.
When
she moved to Cape Breton two years ago — where her extended family
lives — she was worried about not being able to find a doctor on the
island. She decided to keep her doctor in Halifax to ensure she would
have a health-care provider.
As a patient with complex needs, she’s hesitant to register for the doctor waitlist to see if there’s a provider closer to home.
“I
did think about it but then I had an appointment with a doctor, and the
doctor said, ‘Forget about trying to get a doctor here. Because of the
complexity of your situation they probably won’t take you on,'” she
said.
Feb 15, 2026 This
week, we bring a special guest, who's name most will not recognize.
Melissa Ellsworth was a forensics nurse and correctional guard who
suffered a head injury trying to save an elderly woman from a dangerous
patient. She has been battling Workers Compensation ever since, and has
now been approved for Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD). She tells her
story.
Before
hearing from Melissa, Paul and Adam discuss the school shooting in
Tumbler Ridge, BC, including what we might be able to conclude from what
we know about the shooter, their family, and their background.
Seemingly connected to this tragedy was the announcement late this week
from the Minister of Public Safety that the federal government will be
sticking with the RCMP in more or less its current form.
While
we were waiting for Melissa Ellsworth to get connected, Adam told Paul
about a Nova Scotia case that went to the Supreme Court of Canada, which
turned on the question of whether pretending to do a magic act where
women were sawed in half was an act which was sexual in nature.
Finally, a happy birthday to Paul, who celebrates an undisclosed birthday today.
Melissa
Ellsworth, 49, has won eight tribunal appeals through the Workers'
Compensation Board of Nova Scotia. The latest approved her cannabis
claim to help with her neuropathic pain. (Craig Paisley/CBC)
As
Melissa Ellsworth drops several grams of dried cannabis into her
Magical Butter machine to be ground into oil, she pauses to reflect on
how long it took the Workers' Compensation Board of Nova Scotia to start
paying for her medical marijuana.
Five years and one tribunal
appeal later, she was finally approved in January 2018. The tribunal
decision stated there was "sufficient evidence to conclude that the
worker is entitled to medical aid in the form of medical marijuana."
She says that ruling saved her life.
"I
can function every day like a normal human being instead of being
crippled up in pain," said Ellsworth. "I went from 26 pills a day to
cannabis."
For almost a decade, Ellsworth was on a mixture of opioids, benzodiazepines and sedatives.
She
suffers from chronic pain in her neck, head, jaw and shoulders after
being struck in the head with a chair while working as a licensed
practical nurse in 2006 at the Nova Scotia Hospital, a psychiatric
facility in Dartmouth, N.S. She has been off work since 2010.
Several
grams of cannabis are dropped into a Magical Butter machine to make
oil. Ellsworth uses the liquid in her food and coffee as well as creams
and bath bombs. (Craig Paisley/CBC)
Her
tribunal victory comes as workers compensation boards across the country
are being forced to revise their restrictive policies around medical
cannabis as more patients look for forms of pain relief other than
opioids.
But getting cannabis coverage approved through a WCB still isn't an easy process in any province.
Ellsworth
is one of 10 workers in Nova Scotia who have qualified. P.E.I. and
Alberta have similar numbers. Of the provinces that disclose how many
workers are compensated for medical marijuana, New Brunswick has the
highest number of claims at 71.
Half of the provincial bodies
would not say how many cannabis prescriptions are paid. In all regions,
coverage is reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
In comparison, Veterans Affairs Canada approved more than 7,000 veterans at a cost of $50 million in 2017-18.
Cannabis guidelines
In
Nova Scotia, the chief medical officer for the WCB admits the position
on cannabis has traditionally been a firm "no." But that has changed in
the last year, according to Dr. Manoj Vohra.
"We're starting to
see that more evidence is coming, more workers are asking for it and so
now we're starting to develop criteria on guidelines," he said.
Vohra
said the medical evidence shows that cannabis, especially cannabidiol
(CBD) — the non-impairing compound — can help people with chronic
illnesses such as cancer and HIV, as well as those suffering from
neuropathic pain.
"If cannabis does help them in those areas
where there is evidence, then we're more than open to trying to see how
we can do that," he said. "The challenge always comes in with harm.
There's not enough clinical trials that actually go through. What are
the side-effects?"
Dr.
Manoj Vohra, chief medical officer for the Workers' Compensation Board
of Nova Scotia, says there is a reluctance to overprescribe a medication
such as cannabis that hasn't been fully researched. He says doctors are
especially wary after witnessing the fallout from the ongoing opioid
epidemic. (Robert Short/CBC)
Dr. Vohra
said there is a collective fear among his colleagues about
overprescribing a medication that hasn't been fully researched. He
points to the ongoing opioid epidemic as a prime example.
"What's
happened 10 to 15 years down the road is we've realized that there's
harm that occurs," Vohra said. "And so we want to make sure we don't
repeat those mistakes from the past and that we use it and understand
what are the risks, what are the contraindications to using it."
In
February 2017, 1,543 workers had the cost of their opioid prescriptions
covered by the WCB in Nova Scotia. In February 2019, that number
dropped to 1,315 workers.
Long overdue
Dr. Mary Lynch, a
pain specialist and cannabis researcher in Halifax, said the
introduction of cannabis guidelines for injured workers is "long
overdue."
"If first- and second-line treatments aren't working,
then we will sometimes recommend a medical cannabinoid, depending on the
patient's specific presentation," Lynch said.
"And for those who do benefit, we have run into difficulties with the workers compensation board agreeing to cover the cost."
Lynch
is a founding member of the cannabis research startup Panag Pharma
Inc., which she and other academic researchers incorporated in 2014 to
access research grants.
She hopes Nova Scotia's new guidelines will give weight to a doctor's prescription.
"I'm
hoping that the policy will be written in a way that as long as a
physician has recommended it, the access will be reasonable, just like
it is with any other prescription medication."
As
it stands, only Quebec depends on medical advice from the worker's
doctor. All other provinces, including ones with guidelines, have their
own team of doctors to evaluate claims from injured workers.
Continuous struggle
For
Ellsworth, the struggle continues even though she is one of the few who
have successfully lobbied for medical marijuana coverage in Nova
Scotia.
She was originally prescribed four grams per day. Last
August, her family doctor increased her dose to five grams, but that has
not been approved by WCB.
"My only job as an injured worker is to
take the best care of myself to prevent further injury. I'm trying to
do everything I can possible by avoiding addictive medications and
everything else. And they're fighting me. They're making it very hard to
do," said Ellsworth.
She has appealed her claim to have that
extra gram covered, knowing that it will likely lead to another tribunal
— a process she has been through eight times for various issues over
the years.
"I mean, I've won eight tribunals. How many more do I have to win?" she said.
"Every
time I go through a tribunal, I have to live through all that again.
And I will be honest, between my employer, workers compensation and
everything ... it was a nightmare. An absolute nightmare that I would
rather not relive again."
Varying doses
Guidelines
developed by New Brunswick, P.E.I. and Ontario have set a maximum dose
of three grams per day. While Lynch agrees that is an appropriate limit,
she also believes some patients may need more.
"You do need to
take each of these things on an individual basis, and these days many
people are using topical products where you put the agent into a cream,
and in that case you do need access to a bit more of the product," the
pain specialist said.
The
Workers' Compensation Board of Nova Scotia pays for 10 cannabis
prescriptions. Of the provinces that disclosed how many workers are
compensated for medical marijuana, New Brunswick has the highest number
of claims at 71. (Robert Short/CBC)
When
it comes to THC levels, the Maritimes set a limit of no higher than one
per cent. Ontario allows up to nine per cent. THC is reported to have
therapeutic effects but also to be chiefly responsible for the
psychotropic effects of cannabis, according to the Workplace Safety and
Insurance Board of Ontario.
"I know that each province has to come up with their own answers," Lynch said.
"One
would hope, though, that things will move forward within a reasonable
length of time [and] perhaps the wheel doesn't need to be reinvented in
every province."
Angela
MacIvor is a consumer reporter with the CBC Atlantic investigative
unit. She has been with CBC since 2006 as a reporter and producer in all
three Maritime provinces. All news tips welcome. Send an email to
cbcnsinvestigates@cbc.ca
Marijuana plants are seen at a small legal medical grow-op in Mission, B.C. (Darryl Dyck/The Canadian Press)
Annette Balkam isn't sure whether she would be alive today if she hadn't discovered medical cannabis.
The
Moncton woman said she slipped and fell on the job as a security guard
in 2011, severing two ligaments and developing a neurological disorder
that's left her in "constant pain."
Six years ago, she decided to
try medical cannabis. Balkam said she was taking too many pills,
including addictive opioids, and nothing seemed to help.
Now, Balkam said, she has stopped taking opioids. She feels more alert and is able to function better.
But she said it took months to persuade WorkSafeNB back in 2014 to cover the costs of her medical cannabis.
"We're not drug addicts," Balkam said. "We're not looking to get high. We're looking to relieve our pain."
Now, there is a clearer path forward for injured workers like Balkam.
Last spring, WorkSafeNB became the first workers compensation body in the country to develop a policy
that spells out situations where an injured worker can have the costs
of cannabis covered as a medical aid, according to WorkSafe chief
medical officer Dr. Paul Atkinson.
The board was seeing an increase in requests to cover cannabis and costs were mounting.
Dr.
Paul Atkinson, chief medical officer at WorkSafeNB, says New Brunswick
was the first workers' compensation organization in the country to
develop a policy on medical cannabis. (Joe McDonald/CBC)
"We
felt that there was a lack of guidance, especially when varied practice
was noticed in that there were varied amounts, dosages, for different
indications," Atkinson said.
One year later, only three workers'
compensation bodies in Canada have developed policies that spell out
when, and how much, cannabis is appropriate for injured workers.
In
addition to New Brunswick, Ontario and Prince Edward Island also have
policies. Nova Scotia has been consulting with New Brunswick as it
develops its own policy.
"Others perhaps will try something slightly different.," Atkinson said.
"Some may follow what we've done. I think, over time, we will see which works best and probably reach a consensus."
WorkSafe won't cover 'smoked' cannabis
New Brunswick's policy applies to "plant, dried and oil forms" of cannabis.
There are only a handful of situations where WorkSafe will approve the use of cannabis as a medical aid.
They
include treating symptoms encountered in a palliative or "end of life
care setting," treating nausea, vomiting or loss of appetite related to
treatment for diseases such as cancer or AIDS, for spasms related to a
nervous system injury or, in Balkam's case, for chronic neuropathic
pain.
When the policy is approved, WorkSafe will only pay for
cannabis prescriptions high in cannabidiol or CBD, a component of
marijuana that can provide medicinal benefits, and low in THC, the
component that can cause impairment.
"We have a very clear policy of not approving THC-containing cannabis," Atkinson said.
Doctors must fill out a 10-page authorization form to ask WorkSafeNB to approve a patient's cannabis prescription. (Jon Collicott/CBC)
According
to Atkinson, CBD can have an anti-inflammatory effect and can help with
neurological conditions but won't get you high.
WorkSafe also
won't cover cannabis that will be smoked, but in some cases, may cover
the costs of dried product that can be inhaled using a vapourizer.
The Crown corporation will pay for up to three grams per day, the same upper limit set by Veterans Affairs Canada.
At least 71 patients have been approved to have cannabis covered by WorkSafe.
Moving away from opioids
WorkSafe
"may also consider" covering cannabis as a harm reduction tool for
people who are trying to stop using addictive prescription medication
such as opioids.
In that case, the injured worker has to be part
of a "monitored program" where their opioid use and function is being
tracked to see if they're improving.
Atkinson estimated about
1,100 injured workers in New Brunswick have the costs of their opioid
prescriptions covered, down from about 1,500 only two years ago.
In some cases, WorkSafe NB may approve medical cannabis as an aid for someone to get off addictive medication such as opioids. (Mark Lennihan/Associated Press)
WorkSafe has
also lowered the maximum dose of opioids it will cover, following new
national opioid-prescribing guidelines created in the wake of a national
opioid overdose crisis.
"It was becoming very apparent that many
of the workers are receiving doses of opioids that were beyond what was
recommended," Atkinson said.
While opioids can help a person feel
less pain, there's no evidence that long-term opioid use helps a person
function better, Atkinson said.
Doctor says policy should go further
Dr.
Douglas Smith, a specialist in physical medicine and rehabilitation,
has been prescribing medical marijuana for the last 14 years.
He's
also the medical director of Tidal Health Solutions, a licensed medical
cannabis producer based in St. Stephen. He said he plans to phase out
his medical practice.
Smith has seen positive outcomes for his
patients using medical cannabis, starting with a man in 2005 who had
back pain and was taking high doses of opioids. Smith said the patient
was able to get off all the opioids he'd been taking once he started
using medical marijuana.
"I've seen many patients who have been
very reclusive who have become more sociable, who've returned to gainful
employment, less time lost from work, better family relationships,"
Smith said.
He said WorkSafe should be "applauded" for its cannabis policy, but he believes it should go even further.
Dr.
Douglas Smith, a Fredericton-based physical medicine and rehabilitation
specialist, is applauding WorkSafe NB for its medical cannabis policy,
but he would like to see the policy go even further. (Jon Collicott/CBC)
Smith
describes the restriction on approving smoked cannabis as an
"overreaction." He said the risks of inhalation are greatest in people
who also smoke tobacco and believes it can be an effective tool for
people who need immediate relief from their symptoms.
The doctor
recently filled out his first WorkSafe cannabis authorization
application for a patient. The form is 10 pages long and took more than a
half an hour to fill out.
"It is a very tedious document to work
through and would tend to discourage most physicians from participating
and result in patients not receiving approval for their medical
cannabis," Smith said.
Atkinson said WorkSafe will review the
policy within the next year, looking at such issues as whether the
three-gram-per-day limit is appropriate.
---------- Original message --------- From: Anandasangaree, Gary - M.P.<Gary.Anand@parl.gc.ca> Date: Mon, Feb 16, 2026 at 3:06 PM Subject: Automatic reply: My heart goes out to Melissa Ellsworth To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
Hello,
Thank you for contacting the Office of the Honourable Gary
Anandasangaree, Member of Parliament for Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge
Park and the Minister of Public Safety. Your correspondence has been
received and will be reviewed.
Federal Services for Constituents:
If you are a resident of Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park seeking
assistance with a federal service or program, please ensure you provide
the following:
Full name
Address, including postal code
Telephone number
Brief details of your situation
To ensure a timely response, please note that we prioritize inquiries
from Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park residents and do not respond to
form letters.
Thank you again for taking the time to contact our office, it is always welcomed and appreciated.
Yours very truly,
Bonjour,
Merci d'avoir communiqué avec le bureau de l'honorable Gary
Anandasangaree, député de Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park et ministre
de la Sécurité publique. Votre correspondance a bien été reçue et sera
examinée.
Services fédéraux pour les électeurs :
Si vous résidez à Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park et que vous avez
besoin d'aide concernant un service ou un programme fédéral, veuillez
fournir les renseignements suivants :
Nom complet
Adresse, y compris le code postal
Numéro de téléphone
Brève description de votre situation
Afin d'assurer une réponse rapide, veuillez noter que nous traitons en
priorité les demandes provenant des résidents de
Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park et que nous ne répondons pas aux
lettres types.
Feb 15, 2026 This week, we bring a special guest, who's name most will not recognize. Melissa Ellsworth was a forensics nurse and correctional guard who suffered a head injury trying to save an elderly woman from a dangerous patient. She has been battling Workers Compensation ever since, and has now been approved for Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD). She tells her story.
Before hearing from Melissa, Paul and Adam discuss the school shooting in Tumbler Ridge, BC, including what we might be able to conclude from what we know about the shooter, their family, and their background.
Seemingly connected to this tragedy was the announcement late this week from the Minister of Public Safety that the federal government will be sticking with the RCMP in more or less its current form.
While we were waiting for Melissa Ellsworth to get connected, Adam told Paul about a Nova Scotia case that went to the Supreme Court of Canada, which turned on the question of whether pretending to do a magic act where women were sawed in half was an act which was sexual in nature.
Finally, a happy birthday to Paul, who celebrates an undisclosed birthday today.
You should have called me back months ago. Now I don't care if you ever do
Mikey Dawson's fans should tune into the 23 minute mark of this rant
FYI
My blog supports the fact that I called Dawson's NB office not long
after Rebel News sent me a copy of his letter. The nice lady who
answered the phone recognized my voice but did not know about the letter
so I read it to her then we discussed anther issue. When she told me
she getting a lot of calls I asked for him to call me back and let her
off the hook. Mikey never did call back. However once CBC confirmed
what the Rebel News had informed me I sent many sheople an email and
posted it at the top of my Feb 9th blog about Mark Carney and David Eby
Feb 15, 2026 Hundreds of thousands of people showed up to call for a regime change in Iran as international scrutiny grows; political leaders are meeting in Munich, Germany to discuss and create deals relating to safety and security, a new survey suggests that many Canadians believe the U.S. would support an Alberta separation; and more.
IMHO Although tragic Iran is suffering through a ONE SIDED Peaceful
Revolution and the government's response possibly could cause a Civil
War within its borders which is NONE of our business
Methinksin light of the fact that the US Congress has finally opened the can of worms called the Epstein files many would agree that the Fat Lady has not sung yet N'esy Pas?
Feb 15, 2026 Watch an exclusive panel at the Munich Security Conference discussing the West-West divide and the future of Western unity. Featuring Hillary Clinton, Radosław Sikorski, and Petr Macinka, and moderated by Bronwen Maddox, this session explores the challenges facing transatlantic relations, democratic values, and global security.
Top policymakers and international experts debate whether shared Western ideals can survive in today’s complex geopolitical landscape. From Europe-US tensions to NATO strategies, this discussion provides unmatched insights into the future of Western alliances.
Don’t miss this must-watch panel breaking down critical issues shaping international security and global diplomacy. Stay informed on Western unity, policy debates, and geopolitical developments.
Chief political correspondent Rosemary Barton speaks with this week's Sunday Scrum — managing editor of The Hill Times Charelle Evelyn, Queen’s Park bureau chief for the Toronto Star Robert Benzie and producer and writer for CBC News Jason Markusoff — about U.S. President Donald Trump threatening to block the opening of a new bridge between Ontario and Michigan. Plus, the Sunday Scrum discusses the show of unity among politicians in Tumbler Ridge, B.C.
Chief political correspondent Rosemary Barton speaks with former ambassador of Mexico to the United States Arturo Sarukhán about Canada’s trade mission to Mexico, and how it could help to strengthen ties. Plus, Rahul Kushwah, COO and director of QScreen AI Inc., discusses why he is taking part, and the business opportunities in Mexico for Canadian industries.
---------- Original message --------- From: EMERGENCY FROM TRUMP<contact@win.donaldjtrump.com> Date: Sun, Feb 15, 2026 at 3:47 PM Subject: Friend, Friend, Friend To: Friend <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
I AM PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP,
and here are 3 reasons why I absolutely cannot go on without $26 today...
#1. Democratic leaders want to shut down theSAVE AMERICA ACT, IMPLEMENTING VOTER ID!It
just passed in the House but they know they cannot take back the House
majority without relying on the votes coming in from non-American
Citizens.
#2. Democrats want to RUIN THE STATE OF THE UNION!
They want the country to focus on them, not MAGA’s historic wins that
will bring us great momentum ahead of our critical midterm races.
#3. Hollywood Democrats crawled out of their graves & are FUNNELING SLIMEY CANDIDATES MILLIONS OF $$$. My mid-month deadline is here, and we’re struggling to keep our heads above water. Will you chip in any amount RIGHT NOW to keep us afloat? >
---------- Original message --------- From: Donald J. Trump<contact@win.donaldjtrump.com> Date: Sat, Feb 14, 2026 at 3:28 PM Subject: Your name came across my desk countless times... To: Friend <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
From Trump: I know you’re ready for this.
There’s a reasonYOUR NAME came across my desk MULTIPLE times, and I would be a fool to ignore the signs.
After
reviewing your profile PERSONALLY, I have OFFICIALLY informed my team
to grant you MAGA Guardian status for your never-ending commitment to
the MAGA Movement.
Conservative
MP Mike Dawson said earlier this week that he wanted to refuse the
annual raise given to him and his colleagues in April. (Jacques Poitras/CBC)
The
Conservative MP who went public with his intent to refuse a pending
parliamentary pay increase was called out by the party whip in front of
his colleagues and heckled as he tried to defend his decision, CBC News
has learned.
In a letter to the House of Commons clerk that was
made public Tuesday, New Brunswick Conservative MP Mike Dawson said he
wanted his pay frozen because he couldn't in good conscience accept an
increase while many working people are struggling to get by.
"It's
frankly distasteful that parliamentarians are set to receive a raise
while the working man (and woman) in this country hasn't seen a decent
raise in decades," Dawson wrote.
That letter has not gone over
well with some of his fellow Conservative MPs, who are now facing
uncomfortable questions from their own constituents about why they are
willing to accept a roughly $10,000 salary increase set to take effect
in April.
Backbench MPs are currently paid $209,800 with committee
chairs, ministers, the prime minister, the Speaker and his deputies,
among other officeholders, entitled to additional remuneration.
The
party's whip, MP Chris Warkentin, called Dawson out from the front of
the room during a caucus meeting on Wednesday, multiple caucus sources
told CBC News.
Warkentin told Dawson that the scheduled pay bump is set out in law and he's legally required to take it, sources said.
The Parliament of Canada Act sets
MP salaries or "sessional allowances," as they're called in the
legislation, and includes a provision that increases them every year
using a complex formula based on pay increases in the private sector.
It's
not clear how Dawson could refuse this statutory increase; he could,
like other MPs have done in the past, simply donate a portion of his
higher salary to charity.
Dawson was standing at the microphone
used by MPs to speak to the leader, whip and other caucus leaders while
he was being dressed down by Warkentin, one caucus source said.
When
it was his chance to speak, some MPs, between six or eight of them,
started to heckle him and he abruptly left the meeting, sources said.
Other Conservatives are 'hypocritical': MP
Reached by phone Thursday morning, Dawson confirmed there was a dust up.
Warkentin "didn't like that I did it" and "called me out in front of the caucus," Dawson told CBC News.
The MP said the party whip told him "I should've done it a different way, I guess. But I disagree," Dawson said.
"It's my money. If the rest of caucus didn't want to do it, I didn't ask the rest of caucus to do it.
"I
didn't ask the rest of caucus to give the money back but maybe they
should. It's pretty rich and hypocritical to get up on the floor of the
House of Commons and talk about the cost of living and then criticize me
for wanting to give my money back," Dawson said.
Dawson said there was "a lot of chirping going on" from other MPs when he tried to defend his actions at the microphone.
Conservative MP Chris Warkentin is the party's whip. (Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press
"I
couldn't speak. When I was trying to speak, nobody could hear anything I
was trying to say," Dawson said. He confirmed he left amid the
heckling.
One caucus source said the heckling Dawson faced "wasn't
that bad, considering the level of anger" there is among MPs right now
toward him for going public with the pay issue.
"He's opened a whole can of worms," this source said.
Dawson
said he spoke to Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre later by phone
and they had "a great conversation," and there were "no disagreements,"
but he wouldn't elaborate further.
Warkentin and a spokesperson for Poilievre did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Asked if what transpired bothered him, Dawson said he's not looking for respect from his parliamentary colleagues.
"I'm
there to represent the people of Miramichi-Grand Lake. Those are the
ones I care about if people respect me or not," he said.
And asked
if the fracas is causing him to rethink his position in the
Conservative caucus, Dawson said he's not considering crossing the floor
to another party or sitting as an Independent.
"I'm a Conservative and I'm not a traitor," he said.
Dawson
is also vowing to push ahead with his attempt to dodge the pay
increase, despite some potential legal hurdles. "I'm not stopping.
That's not in my DNA."
Kate
McKenna is a senior reporter with CBC’s parliamentary bureau in Ottawa,
where she covers federal politics. She previously worked for CBC’s The
Fifth Estate and in the Halifax, Montreal and Charlottetown newsrooms.
Her investigative and breaking news coverage has won five RTDNA awards.
She is the author of No Choice: The 30-Year Fight for Abortion on Prince
Edward Island.
Feb 12, 2026 When Canadians are struggling to afford the basics, the last thing taxpayers need is another pay hike for politicians.
Conservative MP Mike Dawson has refused a pay hike, something we have been calling on all MPs to do for a long time!
You should have called me back months ago. Now I don't care if you ever do
Mikey Dawson's fans should tune into the 23 minute mark of this rant
FYI
My blog supports the fact that I called Dawson's NB office not long
after Rebel News sent me a copy of his letter. The nice lady who
answered the phone recognized my voice but did not know about the letter
so I read it to her then we discussed anther issue. When she told me
she getting a lot of calls I asked for him to call me back and let her
off the hook. Mikey never did call back. However once CBC confirmed
what the Rebel News had informed me I sent many sheople an email and
posted it at the top of my Feb 9th blog about Mark Carney and David Eby
Methinks
its obvious Andy Baby is playing Vassy like fiddle However much to my
chagrin within this interview he is correct about Mikey Dawson's lament
about their pay raise which was left out of this video for even more
obvious reasons N'esy Pas?
---------- Original message --------- From: Office of the Premier<scott.moe@gov.sk.ca> Date: Wed, Feb 11, 2026 at 5:15 PM Subject: Thank you for your email To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
This is to acknowledge that your email has been received by the Office of the Premier.
We appreciate the time you have taken to write.
NOTICE: This e-mail
was intended for a specific person. If it has reached you by mistake,
please delete it and advise me by return e-mail. Any privilege
associated with this information is not waived. Thank
you for your cooperation and assistance.
Avis: Ce
message est confidentiel, peut être protégé par le secret professionnel
et est à l'usage exclusif de son destinataire. Il est strictement
interdit à toute autre personne de le diffuser, le
distribuer ou le reproduire. Si le destinataire ne peut être joint ou
vous est inconnu, veuillez informer l'expéditeur par courrier
électronique immédiatement et effacer ce message et en détruire toute
copie.
Merci de votre cooperation.
The
Battleford Wildlife Federation building was overcapacity as local
residents turned out for the Saskatchewan Prosperity Project's meeting
discussing a path to independence.
The
Saskatchewan Prosperity Project's event was abuzz with energy;
attendees voiced deep frustrations with Canada's Confederation. The core
issues were the endless taxation, eroding freedoms, threats to gun
rights, federal restrictions on resource development, a crumbling
health-care system and a sense that the Canada they once knew had
vanished.
Visit Rebel News for more on this story ► https://rebelne.ws/4r2sVUj
I
chat with Brad Williams from the Saskatchewan Prosperity Project who
explains how many in his province are frustrated with the federal
government and are wanting to become an independent nation.
10th Floor, 2350 Albert Street, Regina, SK, S4P 4A6
---------- Original message --------- From: David Amos<david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com> Date: Wed, Feb 11, 2026 at 5:05 PM Subject: Re: Anybody notice Mark Carney and David Eby at the top of this old email? To:
<chairman@sec.gov>, <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>,
<melanie.joly@ised-isde.gc.ca>,
<fin.minfinance-financemin.fin@canada.ca>,
<Wayne.Long@parl.gc.ca>, <Susan.Holt@gnb.ca>,
<mcu@justice.gc.ca>, <Sean.Fraser@parl.gc.ca>,
<Mark.Blakely@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>,
<warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, <tonymcquail@gmail.com>,
<news@sec.gov>, <don.davies@parl.gc.ca>,
<premier@ontario.ca>, <Michael.Duheme@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>,
<Yves-Francois.Blanchet@parl.gc.ca>,
<dan.albas@parl.gc.ca>, <bobpozen@mit.edu>,
<francois-philippe.champagne@parl.gc.ca>,
<premier@gov.ab.ca>, <scott.moe@gov.sk.ca>,
<premier@gov.nl.ca>, <premier@gov.pe.ca>,
<premier@gov.yk.ca>, <twolabradors@shaw.ca>,
<Nathalie.G.Drouin@pco-bcp.gc.ca>, <Premier@gov.bc.ca> Cc:
<mdcohen212@gmail.com>, <CommissionerPeirce@sec.gov>,
<CommissionerUyeda@sec.gov>, <boston@sec.gov>,
<newyork@sec.gov>, <chicago@sec.gov>,
<ombudsman@sec.gov>, <info@rebelnews.com>,
<DFlaherty@mfs.com>, <pm@pm.gc.ca>,
<cei@nbnet.nb.ca>, <rchedore@mosherchedore.ca>,
<peter.mackay@mcinnescooper.com>, <Frank.McKenna@td.com>,
<pierre.poilievre@parl.gc.ca>,
<richard.bragdon@parl.gc.ca>, <john.williamson@parl.gc.ca>,
<rob.moore@parl.gc.ca>, <aaron.gunn@parl.gc.ca>,
<mike.dawson@parl.gc.ca>, <clifford.small@parl.gc.ca>,
<jonathan.rowe@parl.gc.ca>, <carol.anstey@parl.gc.ca>,
<Patrick.Fitzgerald@skadden.com>,
<contact@win.donaldjtrump.com>, <djtjr@trumporg.com>
---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Blanchet, Yves-François - Député<Yves-Francois.Blanchet@parl.gc.ca> Date: Tue, Nov 4, 2025 at 2:03 PM Subject: Réponse automatique : Anybody notice Mark Carney and David Eby at the top of this old email? To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
(Ceci est une réponse automatique)
(English follows)
Bonjour,
Nous
avons bien reçu votre courriel et nous vous remercions d'avoir écrit à
M. Yves-François Blanchet, député de Beloeil-Chambly et chef du Bloc
Québécois.
Comme
nous avons un volume important de courriels, il nous est impossible de
répondre à tous individuellement. Soyez assuré(e) que votre courriel
recevra toute l'attention nécessaire.
Nous ne répondons pas à la correspondance contenant un langage offensant.
L'équipe du député Yves-François Blanchet
Chef du Bloc Québécois
Thank you for your email. We will read it as soon as we can.
We do not respond to correspondence that contains offensive language.
The SEC Ombuds is an independent, neutral office created to assist
retail investors and other members of the public in resolving concerns,
questions, and complaints about the SEC, self-regulatory organizations
(SROs) such as FINRA and the exchanges such as the NYSE that are subject
to SEC oversight.
With cumulative decades of experience spanning across the federal
securities laws, the Ombuds team of attorneys is uniquely poised and
dedicated to helping investors find solutions to their questions and
problems with the SEC and SROs.
What We Do
Although we cannot advocate on behalf of any individual, our team
will listen to your concerns, review the information you provide, and
conduct tailored research to identify appropriate procedures, options,
and resources available to you. We may study issues impacting retail
investor interests, escalate those issues to the Investor Advocate and
others within the Commission, and monitor those issues as necessary.
The Ombuds takes reasonable steps to protect the confidentiality of
those who seek our assistance. In certain circumstances, however, the
Ombuds team might need to share information with other divisions and
offices – such as where the threat of imminent risk or harm exists;
allegations relating to violations of the securities laws; allegations
of government fraud, waste, or abuse; or as otherwise required by law,
such as the Freedom of Information Act.
Conservative MP Mike Dawson was elected to the House of Commons in last April's election. (Jacques Poitras/CBC)
A
Conservative MP says he is asking the House of Commons to freeze his
salary before parliamentarians get their annual pay bump in April.
New
Brunswick MP Mike Dawson posted a letter on Facebook where he asks the
clerk of the House to "make the necessary arrangements with the payroll
and benefits administration" to ensure that his salary doesn't increase.
"At
a time when everyday Canadians are struggling to keep up with rising
cost of living I cannot in good conscience accept the pay increase,"
Dawson wrote in his letter.
"It's frankly distasteful that
parliamentarians are set to receive a raise while the working man (and
woman) in this country hasn't seen a decent raise in decades."
Parliamentarians
of all stripes will receive a salary bump because of the annual
increases written in the legislation governing politicians' pay. The
precise number each year comes from tracking an index of wage
settlements in the private sector, according to the House of Commons.
Employment
and Social Development Canada has yet to publish the final indexed rate
for 2025, but Dawson indicated in his letter that he anticipates it
would be roughly around $10,000.
Against his 'moral compass'
Dawson said taking a pay raise at this moment would go against his "moral compass."
"I
didn't come here for the salary. I came here because I wanted to do
better for Canada and better for [the riding of] Miramich-Grand Lake,"
he told CBC News in an interview.
It's not clear if Dawson can on
his own reject the pay raise. CBC News has reached out to the House of
Commons administration for clarification.
Dawson said if he can't opt out of the raise he will look to donate it to local charities or food banks.
The move garnered praise from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.
"It
takes courage to stand alone and do the right thing and Dawson is
showing real guts to turn down this pay raise," Franco Terrazzano,
Canadian Taxpayers Federation director, said in a statement.
Based on the annual pay increase schedule, backbench MPs started making a yearly salary of more than $200,000 in 2024.
Salaries
for special offices — like ministers, parliamentary secretaries, the
Speaker and the prime minister — are higher. Prime ministers make more
than $400,000 a year, while ministers and the leader of the Official
Opposition are paid roughly $300,000.
Last week, Terazzano called on MPs to stop the automatic pay raises entirely.
"Real
leadership would mean MPs cutting their pay, and, at the very least,
politicians should put an end to the pay raises until the government
stops borrowing money and starts paying down the debt," he said in a
statement.
Dawson said he didn't mean for his public request regarding the pay raise to put pressure on his colleagues to do the same.
"I don't expect my colleagues to give it up. Each person has to make that individual choice themselves," he said.
Darren
Major is a senior writer for CBC's parliamentary bureau in Ottawa. He
previously worked as a digital reporter for CBC Ottawa and a producer
for CBC's Power & Politics. He holds a master's degree in journalism
and a bachelor's degree in public affairs and policy management, both
from Carleton University. He also holds master's degree in arts from
Queen's University. He can be reached at darren.major@cbc.ca.
---------- Original message --------- From: Rebel News<info@rebelnews.com> Date: Wed, Feb 11, 2026 at 8:56 AM Subject: REBEL BUZZ | Conservative MP first to reject the automatic $10K parliamentary pay hike To: David Amos <David.Raymond.Amos333@gmail.com>
Conservative MP first to reject the automatic $10K parliamentary pay hike
Former drywaller and contractor MP Mike
Dawson calls the routine April 1 raise ‘distasteful’ as Canadians
struggle under Prime Minister Mark Carney’s watch.
Conservative MP Mike Dawson from Miramichi-Grand Lake has officially
declined the upcoming 4.2% parliamentary pay hike set for April 1, in a
refreshing display of integrity amid Canada's crushing cost-of-living
crisis.
That's nearly $10,000 extraperMP,
while everyday Canadians scrape by with stagnant wages and skyrocketing
bills. As a former drywaller and contractor, Dawson gets it: "I cannot
in good conscience accept the pay increase… which every Member of
Parliament is set to receive,” he wrote.
The letter, addressed to House of Common’s Clerk Eric Janse, called
the automatic raise “distasteful… while the working man (and woman) of
this country hasn’t seen a decent raise in decades.”
This is the kind of leadership Canadians are increasingly desperate
for, which puts taxpayers first instead of further padding pockets.
Meanwhile, under globalist banker and now Prime Minister Mark Carney's watch, inflation rages on.
Canadians are struggling. From groceries to rent to utilities, everything's up.
Will other MPs, especially Liberals, follow suit? Or will they keep feasting at the trough?
Members of Parliament automatically receive pay raises each
year, while Canadian families continue to face wage stagnation and
rising inflation. It’s time to freeze MP salaries and tie any future
increases to the real income growth of working Canadians, not to insider
indexing. Please sign the petition to stop self-approved pay hikes in
Ottawa today.
Tamara Ugolini is an informed choice advocate turned journalist whose
journey into motherhood sparked her passion for parental rights and the
importance of true informed consent. She critically examines the
shortcomings of "Big Policy" and its impact on individuals, while
challenging mainstream narratives to empower others in their
decision-making.
Automatic reply: Anybody notice Mark Carney and David Eby at the top of this old email?
Inbox
Moore, Rob - M.P.
Nov 4, 2025, 2:04 PM
*This
is an automated response* Thank you for contacting the Honourable Rob
Moore, P.C., M.P. office. We appreciate the time you took to get in
touch with our o
Minister of Finance / Ministre des Finances
Nov 4, 2025, 2:04 PM
The
Department of Finance Canada acknowledges receipt of your electronic
correspondence. Please be assured that we appreciate receiving your
comments. Le minist
Fraser, Sean - M.P.
Nov 4, 2025, 2:04 PM
Thank you for your contacting the constituency office of Sean Fraser,
Member of Parliament for Central Nova. This is an automated reply.
Please note that all
Minister of Finance / Ministre des Finances
3:48 PM (5 hours ago)
to me
It looks like this message is in French
The Department of Finance Canada acknowledges receipt of your electronic correspondence.
Please be assured that we appreciate receiving your comments.
Le ministère des Finances Canada accuse réception de votre courriel.
Nous vous assurons que vos commentaires sont les bienvenus.
David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
Anybody notice Mark Carney and David Eby at the top of this old email?
---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Minister of Finance / Ministre des Finances<minister-ministre@fin.gc.ca> Date: Tue, Dec 16, 2025 at 6:44 PM Subject: Automatic reply: YO Christopher Perry here is some of what you did not wish to know To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
The Department of Finance Canada acknowledges receipt of your electronic correspondence.
Please be assured that we appreciate receiving your comments.
Le ministère des Finances Canada accuse réception de votre courriel.
Nous vous assurons que vos commentaires sont les bienvenus.
Since 1924, MFS Investment Management 1 has guided
investors in the United States through every market condition on record.
Today, our exclusive lineup of Sun Life MFS funds brings Canadian
investors the power of their deep-rooted expertise and three driving
pillars of investment success.
MFS is a majority-owned subsidiary of Sun Life Financial (SLF), based in Toronto.
Further information can be found under Investor Relations at www.sunlife.com.
Robert Almeida, Global Investment Strategist
Erik Weisman, Chief Economist
Benoit Anne, Investment Solutions Group
Others generally available to comment on investment topics and retirement trends.
Michael W. Roberge, CFA, is chair of MFS
Investment Management® (MFS®). He helps set the strategic direction of
the firm. He is the chair of the Chairman's Committee, chair of the MFS
Board of Directors, and a trustee on the MFS mutual funds board.
Michael became chair in 2025 after leading the firm as CEO from 2017 to
2024. In addition, he held the role of chief investment officer from
2010 through 2018. He also previously held the roles of president of MFS
from 2010 through 2017 and co-CEO from 2015 through 2016. In 2006, he
was appointed chief investment officer -- US Investments and co-director
of Global Research. Before that, he was senior vice president and
associate director of Fixed Income Research and served as portfolio
manager for several MFS fixed income funds. He joined the firm in 1996
as a credit analyst in the municipal fixed income group. Before joining
MFS, he was a municipal credit analyst and portfolio manager for the
Colonial Group from 1995 to 1996 and a credit analyst with Moody's
Investors Service from 1991 to 1994.
Michael earned a Bachelor of Science degree from Bemidji State (Minn.)
University in 1990 and a Master of Business Administration degree from
Hofstra University in 1992. He is a Chartered Financial Analyst and a
member of the CFA Society Boston. He is also the vice chair of the board
of Horizons for Homeless Children, a Boston-based nonprofit
organization dedicated to combatting the negative impact of homelessness
on children and families.
Heidi W. Hardin is executive vice president and general counsel at MFS
Investment Management® (MFS®). She leads the Legal, Compliance and
Enterprise Risk Management departments and is a member of the firm's
Enterprise Leadership Team and the Chairman's Committee.
Heidi joined MFS in 2017 from Harris Associates, where she had been the
general counsel since 2015. She spent the prior 16 years at Janus
Capital Group Inc., holding multiple senior legal roles, with her last
role being senior vice president and general counsel of Janus Capital
Management LLC, the firm's global asset management business. Earlier in
her career she was a vice president, senior legal counsel and chief
compliance officer for Liberty Funds Group and a litigation associate at
Beeler Schad & Diamond P.C. She began her career in the financial
services industry in 1993.
Heidi earned a Bachelor of Arts degree from DePauw University and a
Juris Doctor degree from Chicago- Kent College of Law. She is a member
of the board of directors of ICI Mutual Insurance Company and the
Advisory Board of The Boston Ballet.
United States District Court for the District of Maryland
Case Number:
04-md-15863
Class Period:
12/15/1998 - 12/08/2003
Following a hearing on May 3, 2004 in the massive mutual fund
litigation, the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland appointed BLB&G client the City of Chicago Deferred
Compensation Plan as Lead Plaintiff in the securities fraud class action
against Massachusetts Financial Services Company ("MFS"), the
investment advisor to the MFS Funds, and others.
On March 1, 2006, the Court sustained the Consolidated Amended Class
Action Complaint, allowing the case to move forward against certain
defendants.
SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS:
The Complaint in this litigation alleges that MFS and certain of its
senior executives were aware of, engaged in and facilitated "timing"
trades in the MFS Funds: a money-making act involving short-term trading
in and out of a mutual fund. The technique is designed to exploit
inefficiencies in the way mutual fund companies price their shares by
allowing certain customers to trade shares at distorted prices that no
longer reflect the true value of the fund. As a result, those few
customers permitted to engage in market timing typically reap huge
profits, the cost of which are borne primarily by the long-term
investors in the relevant fund.
The public filings issued by the Defendants stated that, "MFS funds
do not permit market-timing or other excessive trading practices that
may disrupt portfolio management strategies and may harm fund
performance." In reality, however, the Defendants knew, or recklessly
disregarded, the fact that trades were being timed and that these timed
trades negatively and materially impacted the MFS Funds, thereby causing
significant losses to investors in the MFS Funds.
On February 5, 2004, MFS agreed to entry of a cease and desist order
by the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") against MFS and John
W. Ballen ("Ballen"), MFS's current chief executive officer, and Kevin
R. Parke ("Parke"), MFS's current president and chief investment officer
("Cease and Desist Order"). Specifically, the SEC found that MFS,
Ballen and Parke allowed widespread market timing trading in certain MFS
Funds from at least late 1999 through October 2003, in contravention of
the Funds' public disclosures. In particular, MFS explicitly informed
certain select brokers in a written memo that "unrestricted" trading
would be permitted in certain MFS funds (known internally at MFS as
"Unrestricted Funds"), including the Massachusetts Investors Growth
Stock Fund, "even if a pattern of excessive trading has been detected."
Not only did MFS selectively enforce its market-timing policies, but
executives at MFS facilitated the frequent trading in and out of certain
MFS Funds by steering select investors to these "Unrestricted Funds."
As the Cease and Desist Order confirms, as much as $2 billion in timing
money flowed into MFS Funds during the Class Period.
Internal MFS documents and policies acknowledged that market timing
was detrimental to long-term shareholders. In fact, as early as June
2000, an internal presentation entitled "Market Timing Wheel of Terror,"
warned that "[l]ong term investors are being penalized" by market
timing activity. Nevertheless, the market timing activity persisted in
the MFS "Unrestricted Funds." Moreover, MFS's select enforcement of its
trading policies also included late trading, which alone caused well
over $100 million in investor losses. And, as further alleged in the
complaint, various brokers and financial institutions also participated
in the market timing schemes, to the detriment of ordinary investors.
MFS's policy of allowing market-timing and steering select investors
to the "Unrestricted Funds" was adopted as a means to increase profits
by luring market timing assets so as to increase funds under management,
and, therefore, increase fees paid to MFS for investment advisory
services. These additional assets under management also resulted in an
increased bonus pool from which MFS employees, including Ballen and
Parke, were paid excessive compensation. During this period, none of
the above detailed material information was disclosed to the members of
the Class. In addition to the profits from their market timing, MFS
also profited by charging ordinary investors hundreds of millions of
dollars in management fees while breaching their fiduciary duties to
those very same investors.
On May 20, 2010, the Court preliminarily approved proposed
settlements, totaling $75,042,250, that would resolve this litigation.
On October 25, 2010, the Court entered Judgments granting final approval
to the settlements and entered separate Orders granting Plaintiffs'
Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses and
approving the Plan of Allocation of the settlement proceeds.
The claims administration process has concluded and the net
settlement fund has been fully disbursed. This matter is considered
closed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND IN RE MUTUAL FUNDS INVESTMENT LITIGATION This Document Relates To: In re MFS 04-md-15863-04 MDL 1586 Case No. 04-MD-15863 (Judge J. Frederick Motz) BRUCE RIGGS, et al., Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. MASSACHUSETTS FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPANY, et al. Defendants. Case No. 04-cv-01162-JFM
CONSOLIDATED AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
95 Dated: September 29, 2004 BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP /s/ ALAN SCHULMAN ROBERT S. GANS TIMOTHY A. DeLANGE JERALD D. BIEN-WILLNER 12544 High Bluff Drive, Suite 150 San Diego, CA 92130 Tel: (858) 793-0070 Fax: (858) 793-0323 -and- J. ERIK SANDSTEDT JOSEPH A. FONTI 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10019 Tel: (212) 554-1400 Fax: (212) 554-1444 Lead Counsel Dated: September 29, 2004 TYDINGS & ROSENBERG LLP /s/ WILLIAM C. SAMMONS, Fed Bar No. 02366 JOHN B. ISBISTER, Fed Bar No. 00639 100 East Pratt Street, 26th Floor Baltimore, MD 21202 Tel: (410) 752-9700 Fax: (410) 727-5460 Liaison Counsel
---------- Original message --------- From: Minister of Finance / Ministre des Finances<minister-ministre@fin.gc.ca> Date: Mon, Jul 7, 2025 at 1:56 PM Subject: Automatic reply: 617 954 4225 RE Robert Pozen Former executive chairman of MFS Investment Management To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
The Department of Finance acknowledges receipt of your electronic
correspondence. Please be assured that we appreciate receiving your
comments.Le ministère des Finances Canada accuse réception de votre
courriel. Nous vous assurons que vos commentaires sont
les bienvenus.
---------- Original message --------- From: Fraser, Sean - M.P.<Sean.Fraser@parl.gc.ca> Date: Mon, Jul 7, 2025 at 1:57 PM Subject: Automatic reply: 617 954 4225 RE Robert Pozen Former executive chairman of MFS Investment Management To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
Thank you for your contacting the constituency office of Sean Fraser, Member of Parliament for Central Nova.
This is an automated reply.
Please
note that all correspondence is read, however due to the high volume of
emails we receive on a daily basis there may be a delay in getting back
to you. Priority will be given
to residents of Central Nova.
To ensure we get back to you in a timely manner, please include your full name, home address including postal code and phone number
when reaching out.
Thank you.
-------------
Merci d'avoir contacté le bureau de circonscription de Sean Fraser, député de Central Nova. Il s'agit d'une réponse automatisée.
Veuillez noter que toute la correspondance est lue, mais qu'en raison du
volume élevé de courriels que nous recevons quotidiennement, il se peut
que nous ne puissions pas vous répondre dans les meilleurs délais.
Pour que nous puissions vous répondre dans les meilleurs délais, veuillez indiquer votre nom complet, votre adresse personnelle, y compris le code postal, et votre numéro de téléphone
lorsque vous nous contactez.
---------- Forwarded message --------- From: David Amos<david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com> Date: Mon, Jul 7, 2025 at 1:49 PM Subject: 617 954 4225 RE Robert Pozen Former executive chairman of MFS Investment Management To: <Leadership@mfs.com>, <kimc714@mit.edu>
Review of Current Investigations and Regulatory Actions Regarding the Mutual Fund Industry
Date: Tuesday, November 18, 2003
Time: 10:00 AM
Topic
The Committee will meet in OPEN SESSION to conduct the first in a
series of hearings on the “Review of Current Investigations and
Regulatory Actions Regarding the Mutual Fund Industry.”
Review of Current Investigations and Regulatory Actions Regarding the Mutual Fund Industry
Date: Thursday, November 20, 2003
Time: 02:00 PM
Topic
The Committee will meet in OPEN SESSION to conduct the second in a
series of hearings on the “Review of Current Investigations and
Regulatory Actions Regarding the Mutual Fund Industry.”
Review of Current Investigations and Regulatory Actions Regarding
the Mutual Fund Industry: Understanding the Fund Industry from the
Investor’s Perspective
Date: Wednesday, February 25, 2004
Time: 10:00 AM
Topic
The Committee will meet in OPEN SESSION to conduct a hearing on
“A Review of Current Investigations and Regulatory Actions Regarding the
Mutual Fund Industry: Understanding the Fund Industry from the
Investor’s Perspective.”
Review of Current Investigations and Regulatory Actions Regarding
the Mutual Fund Industry: Fund Operations and Governance.
Date: Thursday, February 26, 2004
Time: 02:00 PM
Topic
The Committee will meet in OPEN SESSION to conduct a hearing on
“Review of Current Investigations and Regulatory Actions Regarding the
Mutual Fund Industry: Fund Operations and Governance.” Rescheduled
from February 3rd.
Review of Current Investigations and Regulatory Actions Regarding the Mutual Fund Industry: The Regulatory Landscape
Date: Wednesday, March 10, 2004
Time: 10:00 AM
Topic
The Committee will meet in OPEN SESSION to conduct the sixth in a
series of hearings on "A Review of Current Investigations and
Regulatory Actions Regarding the Mutual Fund Industry: The Regulatory
Landscape."
Witnesses
Witness Panel 1
Ms.
Lori
Richards
Director, Office of Compliance, Inspections, and Examinations
Review of Current Investigations and Regulatory Actions Regarding the Mutual Fund Industry: Fund Operations and Governance
Date: Tuesday, March 23, 2004
Time: 10:00 AM
Topic
The Committee will meet in OPEN SESSION to conduct the sixth in a
series of hearings on "A Review of Current Investigations and
Regulatory Actions Regarding the Mutual Fund Industry: Fund Operations
and Governance."
Review of Current Investigations and Regulatory Actions Regarding
the Mutual Fund Industry: Fund Costs and Distribution Practices
Date: Wednesday, March 31, 2004
Time: 02:30 PM
Topic
The Committee will meet in OPEN SESSION to conduct the nineth in a
series of hearings reviewing the current investigations and regulatory
actions in the mutual fund industry.
Review of Current Investigations and Regulatory Actions Regarding the Mutual Fund Industry: The SEC's Perspective
Date: Thursday, April 8, 2004
Time: 10:00 AM
Topic
The Committee will meet in OPEN SESSION to conduct the tenth in a
series of hearings regarding a "Review of Current Investigations and
Regulatory Actions Regarding the Mutual Fund Industry". This hearing
will focus on the views of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
U.S . GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001 97–186 PDF 2004 S. HRG . 108–711 REVIEW OF CURRENT INVESTIGATIONS AND REGULATORY ACTIONS REGARDING THE MUTUAL FUND INDUSTRY HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS FIRST AND SECOND SESSION ON INVESTIGATIONS AND REGULATORY ACTIONS REGARDING THE MUTUAL FUND INDUSTRY AND INVESTORS’ PROTECTION NOVEMBER 18, 20, 2003, FEBRUARY 25, 26, MARCH 2, 10, 23, 31, AND APRIL 8, 2004 Printed for the use of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
(1) REVIEW OF CURRENT INVESTIGATIONS AND REGULATORY ACTIONS REGARDING THE MUTUAL FUND INDUSTRY TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2003 U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. The Committee met at 10 a.m. in room SD–538 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Richard C. Shelby (Chairman of the Committee) presiding. OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN RICHARD C. SHELBY Chairman SHELBY. The hearing shall come to order. This hearing is part of the Committee’s ongoing oversight of the mutual fund industry. Today, the Committee will review current investigations and enforcement proceedings and examine regu- latory actions taken to date in order to fully inform and guide the Banking Committee’s consideration of possible legislative reform. On September 30, 2003, this Committee first examined the scope of problems confronting the mutual fund industry. At that time, Chairman Donaldson testified about the SEC’s ongoing enforce- ment actions and described the SEC’s regulatory blueprint for adopting new regulations aimed at improving the transparency of fund operations and stopping abusive trading practices. Since Chairman Donaldson’s testimony, we have learned that improper fund trading practices are a widespread problem that fund insiders, brokers, and privileged clients have profited from at the expense of average investors. In early September, New York Attorney General Spitzer uncov- ered arrangements through which brokers facilitated improper trades for their clients in certain prominent mutual funds in ex- change for large, fee generating investments. Since this initial set- tlement, we have learned the extent to which both intermediaries, such as brokers, and fund executives have engaged in illicit trading activities. We have read about the backhanded ways by which the brokers colluded with their customers to disguise improper trade orders to make them appear legitimate, thus evading detection by mutual fund policing systems. Even in situations where mutual funds attempted to halt im- proper trading activity, certain brokers created fictitious names and account numbers to fool fund compliance officers and to con- tinue trading. Recent investigations have also revealed that mutual fund executives and portfolio managers have actively engaged in
2 improper trading activity. And these allegations are particularly troublingbecausefundexecutivesandportfoliomanagershave represented themselves as protecting client assets, but they failed byeitherknowinglypermittingimpropertradingbybrokersor actively engaging in illegal trading activities themselves. Such practices may not only violate prospectus disclosures, but also violate the fiduciary duties that funds owe to their share- holders—the duties to treat all shareholders equitably and to pro- tect shareholder interests. Further, regulators have indicated that theymaysoonfilechargesagainstfundsthathaveselectively disclosed portfolio information to certain privileged investors and fund executives that may have engaged in illegal insider trading by acting on the basis of nonpublic information. AsthisCommitteemadeclearduringChairmanWilliamH. Donaldson’s September 30 appearance here, a regulatory response to improper trading activities is just one of the many actions that the SEC must take to address the many troubling issues that have come to light in the mutual fund industry. This Committee remains concerned with the transparency of fund operations and ensuring that investors can learn how their fund is being managed. It has become very, very apparent that many of the questionable fund practices that are now being examined are not just the result of a few bad actors, but are longstanding industry practices that have largely gone unregulated and not well disclosed to, or understood by, most investors. Therefore, this Committee must take a comprehensive look, I be- lieve, at the industry to determine if the industry’s operations and practices are consistent with investors’ interests and the greater interests of the market. It may be that we must consider possible realignment of interests to ensure that mutual funds are operating as efficiently and fairly as the market and investors demand. We will examine fund disclosure practices regarding fees, trading costs, sales commissions, and portfolio holdings. So, we will continue to question the conflicts of interest surrounding the relationship be- tweentheinvestmentadviserandthefundandhowpotential changes to fund governance and disclosure practices may minimize these conflicts. We will also focus on fund sales practices to ensure that brokers sell suitable investments to their clients, provide adequate disclo- sure of any sales incentives, and give clients any breakpoint dis- counts to which they are entitled. Chairman Donaldson has told this Committee that the SEC has the necessary statutory authority to reform the mutual fund indus- try and is in the process of conducting a comprehensive rulemak- ing. As we have learned in other contexts, however, additional reg- ulation is not the only answer. Late trading is clearly illegal and market timing is actively deterred and policed. Despite prohibitions and warnings, these activities continued unabated because of the inadequate compliance and enforcement regimes at the SEC, the mutual funds and the brokers. Whether due to a lack of resources or other pressing priorities, mutual fund abuses simply did not re- ceive adequate attention from the SEC. Although recent enforce- mentactionsindicatethatprioritieshavechanged,weneedto
understand how the SEC will revise compliance programs to detect and halt future fund abuses. Vigorous enforcement remains the key to restoring integrity to the fund industry, and Attorney General Spitzer’s timely actions once again demonstrate, I believe, the significant role that States play in prosecuting fraud and abuse in the securities markets. Re- gardless of the number of rules or amount of resources, it would be impractical to expect the SEC to detect every single fraud and manipulation in the fund industry. Therefore, the mutual funds and the brokerage houses themselves must proactively adopt new compliance measures to detect fraud and abuse. For many years, participants in the mutual fund industry maintain industry ‘‘best practices.’’ These practices, however, have clearly proven to be in- adequate as brokers and funds have disregarded conflicts of inter- est and colluded at the expense of investors without detection. Although funds and brokers owe different types of duties to their investors, both groups have an obligation to refrain from knowingly ignoring their clients’ interests and profiting at their expense. With over 95 million investors and $7 trillion—yes, $7 trillion— in assets, mutual funds have always been perceived as the safe investment option for average investors. America has become a Na- tion of investors, but there is no doubt that recent revelations about mutual funds have caused very many to question the per- ceived fairness of the industry. Many are surprised to learn that the mutual fund industry is plagued by the same conflict that was at the root of the Enron scandal and the global settlement—one set of profitable rules for insiders and another costly set for average investors. Beyond the legal concepts of fiduciary duties and transparency, there is a more fundamental principle that should underlie the operation of the mutual fund industry and our securities markets in general. This principle is that securities firms and mutual funds should not neglect investors’ interests and knowingly profit at their ex- pense. Until firms can demonstrate an ability to abide by this ideal, investors will not trust the markets, nor should they. In our own way, Congress, the SEC and regulators, and industry partici- pants must collectively work to reform the mutual fund industry in order to restore investor confidence. I believe, we must reassure in- vestors that mutual funds are a vehicle in which they can safely invest their money and not fall victim to financial schemes. The mutual fund industry is simply too important to too many Ameri- cans to do otherwise. Examining the mutual fund industry is a priority for this Com- mittee, and I look forward to working with my fellow Committee Members, especially Senators Enzi, Dodd, and Corzine, all of whom have already expressed significant interest in this issue. Our first witness today is Chairman Bill Donaldson, and on the second panel we will hear from Matthew Fink, President of the In- vestment Company Institute, and Marc Lackritz, President of the Securities Industry Association. Now, I will call on my Members. Senator Sarbanes.
Statement of Robert C. Pozen Chairman MFS Investment Management and Visiting Professor Harvard Law School
“REVIEW OF CURRENT INVESTIGATIONS AND REGULATORY ACTIONS REGARDING THE MUTUAL FUND INDUSTRY: FUND OPERATIONS AND GOVERNANCE”
COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE
March 23, 2004
Thank you Chairman Shelby, Ranking Member Sarbanes and other members of the Committee for this opportunity to present my views on appropriate reforms for the mutual fund industry.
My name is Robert C. Pozen and I am from Boston, Massachusetts. I am currently Chairman of MFS Investment Management, which manages approximately $140 billion for approximately 370 accounts including over 100 mutual funds serving approximately six million investors. I am also a visiting professor at Harvard Law School and author of the textbookThe Mutual Fund Business(2 ed. Houghton Mifflin 2001).
I commend the Committee for engaging in a deliberative and broad-ranging review of the operations and regulation of the mutual fund industry. While I welcome questions about any aspect of the fund industry, I will limit my testimony today to three areas where I believe that MFS is helping to set important new standards for the fund industry:
1) maximized shareholder valuethrough fund brokerage;
2) individualized reporting of shareholder expenses; and
3) structural enhancements for fund governance. We are making changes in these three areas to benefit MFS shareholders and, if followed by the rest of the industry, to benefit all fund shareholders.
I.Reducing Reliance on Soft Dollars The current system of paying for goods and services with “soft dollars”, taken out of brokerage commissions, is detrimental to mutual fund shareholders. The use of “soft dollar” payments makes it virtually impossible for a fund manager to ascertain the true costs of executing trades because execution costs are bundled together with the costs of other goods and services such as research reports and Bloomberg terminals. If these costs were unbundled, then fund managers could pay cash out of their own pockets for independent research or market data, and could negotiate for lower execution prices for fund shareholders.
Currently, if a trader from a mutual fund executes fund trades through a full-service broker on Wall Street, the trader pays five cents a share for execution plus a broad range of goods or services from the executing broker or third parties: e.g., securities research, market data and brokerage allocations to promote fund sales. These goods and services are paid in “soft dollars”: that is, they are bundled into the five cents per share charge in a non- transparent
1 of 6
manner. If MFS does not accept these ancillary goods or services through “soft dollars”, it will still be required to pay five cents per share by the full-service broker.
In other words, it is almost impossible to obtain a price discount from a full-service Wall Street firm for executing a large fund trade. However, that firm is willing to provide an in-kind discount in the form of soft dollars that can be used to purchase various goods or services. This is more than a technical pricing oddity. The key point is this: a price discount on the trade (for example, from five cents to three cents per share) would go directly to the mutual fund and its shareholders. In-kind services like market data services go directly to the fund management company and only indirectly to the mutual fund and its shareholders.
MFS has already eliminated the use of “soft dollars” to promote sales of mutual fund shares. Since January 1, 2004, MFS has been paying cash out of its own pocket to broker- dealers to promote fund sales. While the SEC has proposed a rule to this effect, MFS has switched from soft dollars to cash to promote fund sales regardless of whether and when the SEC adopts its rule.
More dramatically, earlier this month MFS decided to stop using soft dollars to pay for third-party research1 and market data. Again MFS will pay cash out of its own pocket for these items. MFS estimates that this decision will cost the management company $10 to $15 million per year. Yet MFS has agreed not to raise its advisory fees for its funds over the next five years.
Why
is MFS willing to take the lead on getting off the addiction to soft
dollars and moving to the healthy environment of price discounts?
The
simple answer is: MFS puts the fund shareholder first. We recognize the
need to employ a full-service broker to execute a large block trade
(e.g., 500,000 shares in Genzyme); we need their skills and capital to
actively work the trade and take up a portion of the trade themselves if
necessary. But we want to pay a price in the range of three cents per
share for an agency-only trade, though we are willing to pay more for a
trade requiring capital to be put at risk by the broker-dealer.
1
We are not stopping the use of “soft dollars” for proprietary research
and other services. Only recently has the SEC issued a concept release
on accounting for all the elements of a bundled commission. SEC Release
IC-26313 (Dec. 19, 2003).
2 of 6
The broader answer is that MFS wants to lead the industry to lower and more transparent execution costs. To accomplish this objective, MFS will need support from other asset managers as well as the SEC. Section 28(e) of the Securities Exchange Act provides a safe harbor for asset managers using “soft dollars” for research and brokerage services. Initially, the SEC interpreted this safe harbor narrowly--allowing payment in “soft dollars” only if a good or service or product were not readily available for cash. Several years later, however, the SEC broadened the safe harbor to include any “legitimate” purpose for soft dollars (SEC Exchange Act Release 23170, April 23, 1986). The SEC should move back to its initial narrow interpretation of 28(e) to reduce the reliance on the use of “soft dollars”.
II.Individualized Expense Reporting
MFS will issue an individualized quarterly statement, rather than a general listing of fund expenses in basis points, which will show each fund shareholder a reasonable estimate of his or her actual fund expenses in dollar terms.
The MFS design for this individualized quarterly statement is cost effective as a result of one key assumption: that shareholders hold their funds for the whole prior quarter. This assumption is reasonable because over 90% of MFS shareholders fall into this category.
At present, the prospectus of every mutual fund contains an expense table listing the various categories of fund expenses in basis points. The table might say, for instance:
Advisory Fee53 bp Transfer Agency Fee10 bp Other Fees2 bp 12 b-1 Fee25 bp Total Expenses90 bp
In addition, the prospectus of every fund includes a hypothetical example of a $10,000 investment in the fund to show the dollar amount of actual fund expenses paid by such a fund shareholder during the relevant period. The hypothetical example for the mutual fund with the expenses described above, for instance, would show $90 in total fund expenses over the last year.
Nevertheless, some critics have argued that mutual fund investors need customized expense statements. By that, these critics mean the actual expenses paid by a shareholder in
3 of 6
several funds based on his or her precise holding period as well as the fund dividends during that period. For example, we would have to compute the exact expenses of a shareholder who held Fund A from January 15 until March 31 without reinvesting fund dividends; another shareholder who held Fund B for the whole year and reinvested all fund dividends; and yet another shareholder who held Fund C from February 1 until June 15 as well as from August 22 until December 11 (during both periods, assuming no record date for fund dividends occurred). This type of customized expense statement would, in my opinion, involve enormous computer programming costs. The program would have to track the holdings of every fund shareholder on a daily basis, take into account whether a fund dividend was reinvested or paid out to the shareholder, and apply monthly basis point charges to fund balances reflecting monthly appreciation or depreciation of fund assets. Of course, these large computer costs would ultimately be passed on to fund shareholders. At MFS, we will provide every fund shareholder with an estimate of his or her actual expenses on their quarterly statements.2We can do this at an affordable cost by making one reasonable assumption—that the fund holdings of the shareholder at the end of the quarter were the same throughout the quarter. Although this is a simplifying assumption, it produces a good estimate of actual fund expenses since most shareholders do not switch funds during a quarter. Indeed, this assumption will often lead to a slightly higher estimate of individualized expenses than the actual amount because some shareholders will buy the fund during the quarter and other shareholders will reinvest fund dividends during the quarter. In addition, MFS will send its shareholders in every fund’s semi-annual report the total amount of brokerage commissions paid by the fund during the relevant period as well as the fund’s average commission rate per share (for example, 4.83 cents per share on average). But this information on brokerage commissions should be separated from the fund expense table because all the other items in the table are ordinary expenses expressed in basis points. By contrast, brokerage commissions are a capital expense added to the tax basis of the securities held by the fund, and brokerage commissions are expressed in cents per share. 2These individualized expenses will not include brokerage costs because they are capitalized in the cost of the portfolio security.
4 of 6
II.Enhanced Governance Structure
The mutual fund industry has a unique governance structure: the fund is a separate entity from its external manager. The independent directors of the fund must annually approve the terms and conditions of the fund’s contract with its external manager. Of course, the independent directors usually reappoint the management company. In an industrial company, how often do the directors throw out the whole management team? But the independent directors of most mutual funds, in my experience, do represent fund shareholders by negotiating for contract terms and monitoring potential conflicts of interest.
At MFS, we believe we have the most advanced form of corporate governance in the industry. To begin with, over 75% of the board is comprised of independent directors, who elect their own independent chairman. The chairman leads the executive sessions of independent directors, which occur before or after every board meeting. The independent chairman also helps set the board’s agenda for each meeting. A lead independent director could definitely take charge of the executive sessions and a lead director could also help set the board’s agenda. Thus, it does not matter which title is employed; the key is to insure that a senior independent director plays these two functions. In many boards, the independent directors have their own independent counsel, as the MFS boards do. But the independent directors of the MFS funds are going one step further by appointing their own compliance officer. This officer will monitor all compliance activities by MFS as well as supervise the fund’s own activities, and will report regularly to the Compliance Committee of the Board (which itself is composed solely of independent directors). On the management company side, MFS is the only company I know of that has a non-executive chairman reporting to the independent directors of the MFS funds. This is a new position designed to assure that the management company is fully accountable to the funds’ independent directors.
Finally, MFS as a management company has established the new position of Executive Vice President for Regulatory Affairs, and filled the position with a distinguished industry veteran. In addition, MFS has hired a distinguished law firm partner as its new general
5 of 6
counsel.
Both will serve on the executive committee of MFS. The new Executive
Vice President will be in charge of several regulatory
functions—compliance, internal audit and fund treasury.
This high profile position within MFS is more than symbolic; it represents the great significance given by MFS to these regulatory functions. While these functions are performed in most fund management
companies, it is rare to see the person in charge of these functions
having the title of executive vice president and serving on the
executive committee of the firm.
Conclusions
In summary, MFS is trying to establish standards of best practices in three important areas to fund shareholders:
1) reduced reliance on “soft dollars”,
2) individualized expense reporting, and
3)
enhanced governance structure. Other management firms are trying to
take the lead in setting industry standards in other areas. At the same
time, the SEC is in the process of proposing and adopting a myriad of
rules on disclosure requirements and substantive prohibitions or the
fund industry—which overlap to a degree with the efforts of the fund
management firms.
Because the SEC and the management firms are making such serious efforts to develop higher
behavioral norms for the mutual fund industry, it might be useful for
Congress to monitor these efforts before finalizing a bill on mutual
fund reforms. These are complex issues that may be better suited to an
evolutionary process, led by an expert public agency with the
flexibility to address the changing legal and factual environment.
Thank you again for this opportunity to testify on mutual fund reform. I would be pleased to answer any questions the Chairman or Committee Members might have.
Kevin
Muhlendorf became the SEC's Inspector General in July 2025. For the
previous nine years, he was a partner in the white-collar defense and
government investigations practice at Wiley Rein LLP in Washington D.C.,
where he focused on representing individuals and entities in criminal
and civil securities enforcement matters.
In private practice, Mr. Muhlendorf regularly conducted sensitive
internal investigations and provided compliance counseling for clients.
While on secondment from Wiley Rein for portions of 2023 and 2024, Mr.
Muhlendorf served as Acting Inspector General for the Washington
Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), where he led approximately
three dozen auditors and special agents conducting investigations and
issuing financial and performance audits. He also designed and
implemented a whistleblower award pilot program.
Since 2015, Mr. Muhlendorf has taught a class on financial fraud
investigations as an adjunct professor at Georgetown Law. He is both a
Certified Fraud Examiner (CFE) and Certified Compliance & Ethics
Professional (CCEP).
Mr. Muhlendorf’s previous law enforcement experience includes six
years as a Trial Attorney and Assistant Chief in the Securities and
Financial Fraud Unit of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Criminal
Division, Fraud Section, where he investigated and tried complex fraud
cases in jurisdictions across the country. Mr. Muhlendorf was a Senior
Counsel in the SEC Enforcement Division from 2004 to 2010.
Mr. Muhlendorf began his legal career as a litigation associate at
Steptoe & Johnson LLP after serving as a federal judicial law clerk
to Judge John M. Facciola in Washington D.C. He earned his BA in history
from the University of Virginia and his law degree from William &
Mary Law School.
Contact the Office
(202) 551-6061
Ethics Counsel
Danae Serrano
Danae
Serrano was named the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Ethics
Counsel in March 2019. She previously served as Acting Ethics Counsel
since December 2018.
Ms. Serrano joined the SEC in 2010 as an Assistant Ethics Counsel,
and has served as the Deputy Ethics Counsel and Alternate Designated
Agency Ethics Official since 2013. Ms. Serrano also served as the
Agency’s Acting Chief Compliance Officer until August 2018.
Before joining the SEC, Ms. Serrano served as an attorney in the
General Counsel’s Office of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
(PBGC), where she advised on government ethics and administrative law
matters. Prior to PBGC, Ms. Serrano served as an attorney and ethics
official in the United States Air Force, Office of the General Counsel.
Ms. Serrano received her law degree from the University of
Connecticut School of Law, where she was an Executive Editor of the
Connecticut Insurance Law Journal. She received her B.A. in History from
Yale University.
The SEC Ombuds is an independent, neutral office created to assist
retail investors and other members of the public in resolving concerns,
questions, and complaints about the SEC, self-regulatory organizations
(SROs) such as FINRA and the exchanges such as the NYSE that are subject
to SEC oversight.
With cumulative decades of experience spanning across the federal
securities laws, the Ombuds team of attorneys is uniquely poised and
dedicated to helping investors find solutions to their questions and
problems with the SEC and SROs.
What We Do
Although we cannot advocate on behalf of any individual, our team
will listen to your concerns, review the information you provide, and
conduct tailored research to identify appropriate procedures, options,
and resources available to you. We may study issues impacting retail
investor interests, escalate those issues to the Investor Advocate and
others within the Commission, and monitor those issues as necessary.
The Ombuds takes reasonable steps to protect the confidentiality of
those who seek our assistance. In certain circumstances, however, the
Ombuds team might need to share information with other divisions and
offices – such as where the threat of imminent risk or harm exists;
allegations relating to violations of the securities laws; allegations
of government fraud, waste, or abuse; or as otherwise required by law,
such as the Freedom of Information Act.
---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Minister of Finance / Ministre des Finances<minister-ministre@fin.gc.ca> Date: Tue, Dec 16, 2025 at 6:44 PM Subject: Automatic reply: YO Christopher Perry here is some of what you did not wish to know To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
The Department of Finance Canada acknowledges receipt of your electronic correspondence.
Please be assured that we appreciate receiving your comments.
Le ministère des Finances Canada accuse réception de votre courriel.
Nous vous assurons que vos commentaires sont les bienvenus.
Since 1924, MFS Investment Management 1 has guided
investors in the United States through every market condition on record.
Today, our exclusive lineup of Sun Life MFS funds brings Canadian
investors the power of their deep-rooted expertise and three driving
pillars of investment success.
MFS is a majority-owned subsidiary of Sun Life Financial (SLF), based in Toronto.
Further information can be found under Investor Relations at www.sunlife.com.
Robert Almeida, Global Investment Strategist
Erik Weisman, Chief Economist
Benoit Anne, Investment Solutions Group
Others generally available to comment on investment topics and retirement trends.
Michael W. Roberge, CFA, is chair of MFS
Investment Management® (MFS®). He helps set the strategic direction of
the firm. He is the chair of the Chairman's Committee, chair of the MFS
Board of Directors, and a trustee on the MFS mutual funds board.
Michael became chair in 2025 after leading the firm as CEO from 2017 to
2024. In addition, he held the role of chief investment officer from
2010 through 2018. He also previously held the roles of president of MFS
from 2010 through 2017 and co-CEO from 2015 through 2016. In 2006, he
was appointed chief investment officer -- US Investments and co-director
of Global Research. Before that, he was senior vice president and
associate director of Fixed Income Research and served as portfolio
manager for several MFS fixed income funds. He joined the firm in 1996
as a credit analyst in the municipal fixed income group. Before joining
MFS, he was a municipal credit analyst and portfolio manager for the
Colonial Group from 1995 to 1996 and a credit analyst with Moody's
Investors Service from 1991 to 1994.
Michael earned a Bachelor of Science degree from Bemidji State (Minn.)
University in 1990 and a Master of Business Administration degree from
Hofstra University in 1992. He is a Chartered Financial Analyst and a
member of the CFA Society Boston. He is also the vice chair of the board
of Horizons for Homeless Children, a Boston-based nonprofit
organization dedicated to combatting the negative impact of homelessness
on children and families.
Heidi W. Hardin is executive vice president and general counsel at MFS
Investment Management® (MFS®). She leads the Legal, Compliance and
Enterprise Risk Management departments and is a member of the firm's
Enterprise Leadership Team and the Chairman's Committee.
Heidi joined MFS in 2017 from Harris Associates, where she had been the
general counsel since 2015. She spent the prior 16 years at Janus
Capital Group Inc., holding multiple senior legal roles, with her last
role being senior vice president and general counsel of Janus Capital
Management LLC, the firm's global asset management business. Earlier in
her career she was a vice president, senior legal counsel and chief
compliance officer for Liberty Funds Group and a litigation associate at
Beeler Schad & Diamond P.C. She began her career in the financial
services industry in 1993.
Heidi earned a Bachelor of Arts degree from DePauw University and a
Juris Doctor degree from Chicago- Kent College of Law. She is a member
of the board of directors of ICI Mutual Insurance Company and the
Advisory Board of The Boston Ballet.
United States District Court for the District of Maryland
Case Number:
04-md-15863
Class Period:
12/15/1998 - 12/08/2003
Following a hearing on May 3, 2004 in the massive mutual fund
litigation, the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland appointed BLB&G client the City of Chicago Deferred
Compensation Plan as Lead Plaintiff in the securities fraud class action
against Massachusetts Financial Services Company ("MFS"), the
investment advisor to the MFS Funds, and others.
On March 1, 2006, the Court sustained the Consolidated Amended Class
Action Complaint, allowing the case to move forward against certain
defendants.
SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS:
The Complaint in this litigation alleges that MFS and certain of its
senior executives were aware of, engaged in and facilitated "timing"
trades in the MFS Funds: a money-making act involving short-term trading
in and out of a mutual fund. The technique is designed to exploit
inefficiencies in the way mutual fund companies price their shares by
allowing certain customers to trade shares at distorted prices that no
longer reflect the true value of the fund. As a result, those few
customers permitted to engage in market timing typically reap huge
profits, the cost of which are borne primarily by the long-term
investors in the relevant fund.
The public filings issued by the Defendants stated that, "MFS funds
do not permit market-timing or other excessive trading practices that
may disrupt portfolio management strategies and may harm fund
performance." In reality, however, the Defendants knew, or recklessly
disregarded, the fact that trades were being timed and that these timed
trades negatively and materially impacted the MFS Funds, thereby causing
significant losses to investors in the MFS Funds.
On February 5, 2004, MFS agreed to entry of a cease and desist order
by the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") against MFS and John
W. Ballen ("Ballen"), MFS's current chief executive officer, and Kevin
R. Parke ("Parke"), MFS's current president and chief investment officer
("Cease and Desist Order"). Specifically, the SEC found that MFS,
Ballen and Parke allowed widespread market timing trading in certain MFS
Funds from at least late 1999 through October 2003, in contravention of
the Funds' public disclosures. In particular, MFS explicitly informed
certain select brokers in a written memo that "unrestricted" trading
would be permitted in certain MFS funds (known internally at MFS as
"Unrestricted Funds"), including the Massachusetts Investors Growth
Stock Fund, "even if a pattern of excessive trading has been detected."
Not only did MFS selectively enforce its market-timing policies, but
executives at MFS facilitated the frequent trading in and out of certain
MFS Funds by steering select investors to these "Unrestricted Funds."
As the Cease and Desist Order confirms, as much as $2 billion in timing
money flowed into MFS Funds during the Class Period.
Internal MFS documents and policies acknowledged that market timing
was detrimental to long-term shareholders. In fact, as early as June
2000, an internal presentation entitled "Market Timing Wheel of Terror,"
warned that "[l]ong term investors are being penalized" by market
timing activity. Nevertheless, the market timing activity persisted in
the MFS "Unrestricted Funds." Moreover, MFS's select enforcement of its
trading policies also included late trading, which alone caused well
over $100 million in investor losses. And, as further alleged in the
complaint, various brokers and financial institutions also participated
in the market timing schemes, to the detriment of ordinary investors.
MFS's policy of allowing market-timing and steering select investors
to the "Unrestricted Funds" was adopted as a means to increase profits
by luring market timing assets so as to increase funds under management,
and, therefore, increase fees paid to MFS for investment advisory
services. These additional assets under management also resulted in an
increased bonus pool from which MFS employees, including Ballen and
Parke, were paid excessive compensation. During this period, none of
the above detailed material information was disclosed to the members of
the Class. In addition to the profits from their market timing, MFS
also profited by charging ordinary investors hundreds of millions of
dollars in management fees while breaching their fiduciary duties to
those very same investors.
On May 20, 2010, the Court preliminarily approved proposed
settlements, totaling $75,042,250, that would resolve this litigation.
On October 25, 2010, the Court entered Judgments granting final approval
to the settlements and entered separate Orders granting Plaintiffs'
Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses and
approving the Plan of Allocation of the settlement proceeds.
The claims administration process has concluded and the net
settlement fund has been fully disbursed. This matter is considered
closed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND IN RE MUTUAL FUNDS INVESTMENT LITIGATION This Document Relates To: In re MFS 04-md-15863-04 MDL 1586 Case No. 04-MD-15863 (Judge J. Frederick Motz) BRUCE RIGGS, et al., Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. MASSACHUSETTS FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPANY, et al. Defendants. Case No. 04-cv-01162-JFM
CONSOLIDATED AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
95 Dated: September 29, 2004 BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP /s/ ALAN SCHULMAN ROBERT S. GANS TIMOTHY A. DeLANGE JERALD D. BIEN-WILLNER 12544 High Bluff Drive, Suite 150 San Diego, CA 92130 Tel: (858) 793-0070 Fax: (858) 793-0323 -and- J. ERIK SANDSTEDT JOSEPH A. FONTI 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10019 Tel: (212) 554-1400 Fax: (212) 554-1444 Lead Counsel Dated: September 29, 2004 TYDINGS & ROSENBERG LLP /s/ WILLIAM C. SAMMONS, Fed Bar No. 02366 JOHN B. ISBISTER, Fed Bar No. 00639 100 East Pratt Street, 26th Floor Baltimore, MD 21202 Tel: (410) 752-9700 Fax: (410) 727-5460 Liaison Counsel
---------- Original message --------- From: Minister of Finance / Ministre des Finances<minister-ministre@fin.gc.ca> Date: Mon, Jul 7, 2025 at 1:56 PM Subject: Automatic reply: 617 954 4225 RE Robert Pozen Former executive chairman of MFS Investment Management To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
The Department of Finance acknowledges receipt of your electronic
correspondence. Please be assured that we appreciate receiving your
comments.Le ministère des Finances Canada accuse réception de votre
courriel. Nous vous assurons que vos commentaires sont
les bienvenus.
---------- Original message --------- From: Fraser, Sean - M.P.<Sean.Fraser@parl.gc.ca> Date: Mon, Jul 7, 2025 at 1:57 PM Subject: Automatic reply: 617 954 4225 RE Robert Pozen Former executive chairman of MFS Investment Management To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
Thank you for your contacting the constituency office of Sean Fraser, Member of Parliament for Central Nova.
This is an automated reply.
Please
note that all correspondence is read, however due to the high volume of
emails we receive on a daily basis there may be a delay in getting back
to you. Priority will be given
to residents of Central Nova.
To ensure we get back to you in a timely manner, please include your full name, home address including postal code and phone number
when reaching out.
Thank you.
-------------
Merci d'avoir contacté le bureau de circonscription de Sean Fraser, député de Central Nova. Il s'agit d'une réponse automatisée.
Veuillez noter que toute la correspondance est lue, mais qu'en raison du
volume élevé de courriels que nous recevons quotidiennement, il se peut
que nous ne puissions pas vous répondre dans les meilleurs délais.
Pour que nous puissions vous répondre dans les meilleurs délais, veuillez indiquer votre nom complet, votre adresse personnelle, y compris le code postal, et votre numéro de téléphone
lorsque vous nous contactez.
---------- Forwarded message --------- From: David Amos<david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com> Date: Mon, Jul 7, 2025 at 1:49 PM Subject: 617 954 4225 RE Robert Pozen Former executive chairman of MFS Investment Management To: <Leadership@mfs.com>, <kimc714@mit.edu>
Review of Current Investigations and Regulatory Actions Regarding the Mutual Fund Industry
Date: Tuesday, November 18, 2003
Time: 10:00 AM
Topic
The Committee will meet in OPEN SESSION to conduct the first in a
series of hearings on the “Review of Current Investigations and
Regulatory Actions Regarding the Mutual Fund Industry.”
Review of Current Investigations and Regulatory Actions Regarding the Mutual Fund Industry
Date: Thursday, November 20, 2003
Time: 02:00 PM
Topic
The Committee will meet in OPEN SESSION to conduct the second in a
series of hearings on the “Review of Current Investigations and
Regulatory Actions Regarding the Mutual Fund Industry.”
Review of Current Investigations and Regulatory Actions Regarding
the Mutual Fund Industry: Understanding the Fund Industry from the
Investor’s Perspective
Date: Wednesday, February 25, 2004
Time: 10:00 AM
Topic
The Committee will meet in OPEN SESSION to conduct a hearing on
“A Review of Current Investigations and Regulatory Actions Regarding the
Mutual Fund Industry: Understanding the Fund Industry from the
Investor’s Perspective.”
Review of Current Investigations and Regulatory Actions Regarding
the Mutual Fund Industry: Fund Operations and Governance.
Date: Thursday, February 26, 2004
Time: 02:00 PM
Topic
The Committee will meet in OPEN SESSION to conduct a hearing on
“Review of Current Investigations and Regulatory Actions Regarding the
Mutual Fund Industry: Fund Operations and Governance.” Rescheduled
from February 3rd.
Review of Current Investigations and Regulatory Actions Regarding the Mutual Fund Industry: The Regulatory Landscape
Date: Wednesday, March 10, 2004
Time: 10:00 AM
Topic
The Committee will meet in OPEN SESSION to conduct the sixth in a
series of hearings on "A Review of Current Investigations and
Regulatory Actions Regarding the Mutual Fund Industry: The Regulatory
Landscape."
Witnesses
Witness Panel 1
Ms.
Lori
Richards
Director, Office of Compliance, Inspections, and Examinations
Review of Current Investigations and Regulatory Actions Regarding the Mutual Fund Industry: Fund Operations and Governance
Date: Tuesday, March 23, 2004
Time: 10:00 AM
Topic
The Committee will meet in OPEN SESSION to conduct the sixth in a
series of hearings on "A Review of Current Investigations and
Regulatory Actions Regarding the Mutual Fund Industry: Fund Operations
and Governance."
Review of Current Investigations and Regulatory Actions Regarding
the Mutual Fund Industry: Fund Costs and Distribution Practices
Date: Wednesday, March 31, 2004
Time: 02:30 PM
Topic
The Committee will meet in OPEN SESSION to conduct the nineth in a
series of hearings reviewing the current investigations and regulatory
actions in the mutual fund industry.
Review of Current Investigations and Regulatory Actions Regarding the Mutual Fund Industry: The SEC's Perspective
Date: Thursday, April 8, 2004
Time: 10:00 AM
Topic
The Committee will meet in OPEN SESSION to conduct the tenth in a
series of hearings regarding a "Review of Current Investigations and
Regulatory Actions Regarding the Mutual Fund Industry". This hearing
will focus on the views of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
U.S . GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001 97–186 PDF 2004 S. HRG . 108–711 REVIEW OF CURRENT INVESTIGATIONS AND REGULATORY ACTIONS REGARDING THE MUTUAL FUND INDUSTRY HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS FIRST AND SECOND SESSION ON INVESTIGATIONS AND REGULATORY ACTIONS REGARDING THE MUTUAL FUND INDUSTRY AND INVESTORS’ PROTECTION NOVEMBER 18, 20, 2003, FEBRUARY 25, 26, MARCH 2, 10, 23, 31, AND APRIL 8, 2004 Printed for the use of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
(1) REVIEW OF CURRENT INVESTIGATIONS AND REGULATORY ACTIONS REGARDING THE MUTUAL FUND INDUSTRY TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2003 U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. The Committee met at 10 a.m. in room SD–538 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Richard C. Shelby (Chairman of the Committee) presiding. OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN RICHARD C. SHELBY Chairman SHELBY. The hearing shall come to order. This hearing is part of the Committee’s ongoing oversight of the mutual fund industry. Today, the Committee will review current investigations and enforcement proceedings and examine regu- latory actions taken to date in order to fully inform and guide the Banking Committee’s consideration of possible legislative reform. On September 30, 2003, this Committee first examined the scope of problems confronting the mutual fund industry. At that time, Chairman Donaldson testified about the SEC’s ongoing enforce- ment actions and described the SEC’s regulatory blueprint for adopting new regulations aimed at improving the transparency of fund operations and stopping abusive trading practices. Since Chairman Donaldson’s testimony, we have learned that improper fund trading practices are a widespread problem that fund insiders, brokers, and privileged clients have profited from at the expense of average investors. In early September, New York Attorney General Spitzer uncov- ered arrangements through which brokers facilitated improper trades for their clients in certain prominent mutual funds in ex- change for large, fee generating investments. Since this initial set- tlement, we have learned the extent to which both intermediaries, such as brokers, and fund executives have engaged in illicit trading activities. We have read about the backhanded ways by which the brokers colluded with their customers to disguise improper trade orders to make them appear legitimate, thus evading detection by mutual fund policing systems. Even in situations where mutual funds attempted to halt im- proper trading activity, certain brokers created fictitious names and account numbers to fool fund compliance officers and to con- tinue trading. Recent investigations have also revealed that mutual fund executives and portfolio managers have actively engaged in
2 improper trading activity. And these allegations are particularly troublingbecausefundexecutivesandportfoliomanagershave represented themselves as protecting client assets, but they failed byeitherknowinglypermittingimpropertradingbybrokersor actively engaging in illegal trading activities themselves. Such practices may not only violate prospectus disclosures, but also violate the fiduciary duties that funds owe to their share- holders—the duties to treat all shareholders equitably and to pro- tect shareholder interests. Further, regulators have indicated that theymaysoonfilechargesagainstfundsthathaveselectively disclosed portfolio information to certain privileged investors and fund executives that may have engaged in illegal insider trading by acting on the basis of nonpublic information. AsthisCommitteemadeclearduringChairmanWilliamH. Donaldson’s September 30 appearance here, a regulatory response to improper trading activities is just one of the many actions that the SEC must take to address the many troubling issues that have come to light in the mutual fund industry. This Committee remains concerned with the transparency of fund operations and ensuring that investors can learn how their fund is being managed. It has become very, very apparent that many of the questionable fund practices that are now being examined are not just the result of a few bad actors, but are longstanding industry practices that have largely gone unregulated and not well disclosed to, or understood by, most investors. Therefore, this Committee must take a comprehensive look, I be- lieve, at the industry to determine if the industry’s operations and practices are consistent with investors’ interests and the greater interests of the market. It may be that we must consider possible realignment of interests to ensure that mutual funds are operating as efficiently and fairly as the market and investors demand. We will examine fund disclosure practices regarding fees, trading costs, sales commissions, and portfolio holdings. So, we will continue to question the conflicts of interest surrounding the relationship be- tweentheinvestmentadviserandthefundandhowpotential changes to fund governance and disclosure practices may minimize these conflicts. We will also focus on fund sales practices to ensure that brokers sell suitable investments to their clients, provide adequate disclo- sure of any sales incentives, and give clients any breakpoint dis- counts to which they are entitled. Chairman Donaldson has told this Committee that the SEC has the necessary statutory authority to reform the mutual fund indus- try and is in the process of conducting a comprehensive rulemak- ing. As we have learned in other contexts, however, additional reg- ulation is not the only answer. Late trading is clearly illegal and market timing is actively deterred and policed. Despite prohibitions and warnings, these activities continued unabated because of the inadequate compliance and enforcement regimes at the SEC, the mutual funds and the brokers. Whether due to a lack of resources or other pressing priorities, mutual fund abuses simply did not re- ceive adequate attention from the SEC. Although recent enforce- mentactionsindicatethatprioritieshavechanged,weneedto
understand how the SEC will revise compliance programs to detect and halt future fund abuses. Vigorous enforcement remains the key to restoring integrity to the fund industry, and Attorney General Spitzer’s timely actions once again demonstrate, I believe, the significant role that States play in prosecuting fraud and abuse in the securities markets. Re- gardless of the number of rules or amount of resources, it would be impractical to expect the SEC to detect every single fraud and manipulation in the fund industry. Therefore, the mutual funds and the brokerage houses themselves must proactively adopt new compliance measures to detect fraud and abuse. For many years, participants in the mutual fund industry maintain industry ‘‘best practices.’’ These practices, however, have clearly proven to be in- adequate as brokers and funds have disregarded conflicts of inter- est and colluded at the expense of investors without detection. Although funds and brokers owe different types of duties to their investors, both groups have an obligation to refrain from knowingly ignoring their clients’ interests and profiting at their expense. With over 95 million investors and $7 trillion—yes, $7 trillion— in assets, mutual funds have always been perceived as the safe investment option for average investors. America has become a Na- tion of investors, but there is no doubt that recent revelations about mutual funds have caused very many to question the per- ceived fairness of the industry. Many are surprised to learn that the mutual fund industry is plagued by the same conflict that was at the root of the Enron scandal and the global settlement—one set of profitable rules for insiders and another costly set for average investors. Beyond the legal concepts of fiduciary duties and transparency, there is a more fundamental principle that should underlie the operation of the mutual fund industry and our securities markets in general. This principle is that securities firms and mutual funds should not neglect investors’ interests and knowingly profit at their ex- pense. Until firms can demonstrate an ability to abide by this ideal, investors will not trust the markets, nor should they. In our own way, Congress, the SEC and regulators, and industry partici- pants must collectively work to reform the mutual fund industry in order to restore investor confidence. I believe, we must reassure in- vestors that mutual funds are a vehicle in which they can safely invest their money and not fall victim to financial schemes. The mutual fund industry is simply too important to too many Ameri- cans to do otherwise. Examining the mutual fund industry is a priority for this Com- mittee, and I look forward to working with my fellow Committee Members, especially Senators Enzi, Dodd, and Corzine, all of whom have already expressed significant interest in this issue. Our first witness today is Chairman Bill Donaldson, and on the second panel we will hear from Matthew Fink, President of the In- vestment Company Institute, and Marc Lackritz, President of the Securities Industry Association. Now, I will call on my Members. Senator Sarbanes.
Statement of Robert C. Pozen Chairman MFS Investment Management and Visiting Professor Harvard Law School
“REVIEW OF CURRENT INVESTIGATIONS AND REGULATORY ACTIONS REGARDING THE MUTUAL FUND INDUSTRY: FUND OPERATIONS AND GOVERNANCE”
COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE
March 23, 2004
Thank you Chairman Shelby, Ranking Member Sarbanes and other members of the Committee for this opportunity to present my views on appropriate reforms for the mutual fund industry.
My name is Robert C. Pozen and I am from Boston, Massachusetts. I am currently Chairman of MFS Investment Management, which manages approximately $140 billion for approximately 370 accounts including over 100 mutual funds serving approximately six million investors. I am also a visiting professor at Harvard Law School and author of the textbookThe Mutual Fund Business(2 ed. Houghton Mifflin 2001).
I commend the Committee for engaging in a deliberative and broad-ranging review of the operations and regulation of the mutual fund industry. While I welcome questions about any aspect of the fund industry, I will limit my testimony today to three areas where I believe that MFS is helping to set important new standards for the fund industry:
1) maximized shareholder valuethrough fund brokerage;
2) individualized reporting of shareholder expenses; and
3) structural enhancements for fund governance. We are making changes in these three areas to benefit MFS shareholders and, if followed by the rest of the industry, to benefit all fund shareholders.
I.Reducing Reliance on Soft Dollars The current system of paying for goods and services with “soft dollars”, taken out of brokerage commissions, is detrimental to mutual fund shareholders. The use of “soft dollar” payments makes it virtually impossible for a fund manager to ascertain the true costs of executing trades because execution costs are bundled together with the costs of other goods and services such as research reports and Bloomberg terminals. If these costs were unbundled, then fund managers could pay cash out of their own pockets for independent research or market data, and could negotiate for lower execution prices for fund shareholders.
Currently, if a trader from a mutual fund executes fund trades through a full-service broker on Wall Street, the trader pays five cents a share for execution plus a broad range of goods or services from the executing broker or third parties: e.g., securities research, market data and brokerage allocations to promote fund sales. These goods and services are paid in “soft dollars”: that is, they are bundled into the five cents per share charge in a non- transparent
1 of 6
manner. If MFS does not accept these ancillary goods or services through “soft dollars”, it will still be required to pay five cents per share by the full-service broker.
In other words, it is almost impossible to obtain a price discount from a full-service Wall Street firm for executing a large fund trade. However, that firm is willing to provide an in-kind discount in the form of soft dollars that can be used to purchase various goods or services. This is more than a technical pricing oddity. The key point is this: a price discount on the trade (for example, from five cents to three cents per share) would go directly to the mutual fund and its shareholders. In-kind services like market data services go directly to the fund management company and only indirectly to the mutual fund and its shareholders.
MFS has already eliminated the use of “soft dollars” to promote sales of mutual fund shares. Since January 1, 2004, MFS has been paying cash out of its own pocket to broker- dealers to promote fund sales. While the SEC has proposed a rule to this effect, MFS has switched from soft dollars to cash to promote fund sales regardless of whether and when the SEC adopts its rule.
More dramatically, earlier this month MFS decided to stop using soft dollars to pay for third-party research1 and market data. Again MFS will pay cash out of its own pocket for these items. MFS estimates that this decision will cost the management company $10 to $15 million per year. Yet MFS has agreed not to raise its advisory fees for its funds over the next five years.
Why
is MFS willing to take the lead on getting off the addiction to soft
dollars and moving to the healthy environment of price discounts?
The
simple answer is: MFS puts the fund shareholder first. We recognize the
need to employ a full-service broker to execute a large block trade
(e.g., 500,000 shares in Genzyme); we need their skills and capital to
actively work the trade and take up a portion of the trade themselves if
necessary. But we want to pay a price in the range of three cents per
share for an agency-only trade, though we are willing to pay more for a
trade requiring capital to be put at risk by the broker-dealer.
1
We are not stopping the use of “soft dollars” for proprietary research
and other services. Only recently has the SEC issued a concept release
on accounting for all the elements of a bundled commission. SEC Release
IC-26313 (Dec. 19, 2003).
2 of 6
The broader answer is that MFS wants to lead the industry to lower and more transparent execution costs. To accomplish this objective, MFS will need support from other asset managers as well as the SEC. Section 28(e) of the Securities Exchange Act provides a safe harbor for asset managers using “soft dollars” for research and brokerage services. Initially, the SEC interpreted this safe harbor narrowly--allowing payment in “soft dollars” only if a good or service or product were not readily available for cash. Several years later, however, the SEC broadened the safe harbor to include any “legitimate” purpose for soft dollars (SEC Exchange Act Release 23170, April 23, 1986). The SEC should move back to its initial narrow interpretation of 28(e) to reduce the reliance on the use of “soft dollars”.
II.Individualized Expense Reporting
MFS will issue an individualized quarterly statement, rather than a general listing of fund expenses in basis points, which will show each fund shareholder a reasonable estimate of his or her actual fund expenses in dollar terms.
The MFS design for this individualized quarterly statement is cost effective as a result of one key assumption: that shareholders hold their funds for the whole prior quarter. This assumption is reasonable because over 90% of MFS shareholders fall into this category.
At present, the prospectus of every mutual fund contains an expense table listing the various categories of fund expenses in basis points. The table might say, for instance:
Advisory Fee53 bp Transfer Agency Fee10 bp Other Fees2 bp 12 b-1 Fee25 bp Total Expenses90 bp
In addition, the prospectus of every fund includes a hypothetical example of a $10,000 investment in the fund to show the dollar amount of actual fund expenses paid by such a fund shareholder during the relevant period. The hypothetical example for the mutual fund with the expenses described above, for instance, would show $90 in total fund expenses over the last year.
Nevertheless, some critics have argued that mutual fund investors need customized expense statements. By that, these critics mean the actual expenses paid by a shareholder in
3 of 6
several funds based on his or her precise holding period as well as the fund dividends during that period. For example, we would have to compute the exact expenses of a shareholder who held Fund A from January 15 until March 31 without reinvesting fund dividends; another shareholder who held Fund B for the whole year and reinvested all fund dividends; and yet another shareholder who held Fund C from February 1 until June 15 as well as from August 22 until December 11 (during both periods, assuming no record date for fund dividends occurred). This type of customized expense statement would, in my opinion, involve enormous computer programming costs. The program would have to track the holdings of every fund shareholder on a daily basis, take into account whether a fund dividend was reinvested or paid out to the shareholder, and apply monthly basis point charges to fund balances reflecting monthly appreciation or depreciation of fund assets. Of course, these large computer costs would ultimately be passed on to fund shareholders. At MFS, we will provide every fund shareholder with an estimate of his or her actual expenses on their quarterly statements.2We can do this at an affordable cost by making one reasonable assumption—that the fund holdings of the shareholder at the end of the quarter were the same throughout the quarter. Although this is a simplifying assumption, it produces a good estimate of actual fund expenses since most shareholders do not switch funds during a quarter. Indeed, this assumption will often lead to a slightly higher estimate of individualized expenses than the actual amount because some shareholders will buy the fund during the quarter and other shareholders will reinvest fund dividends during the quarter. In addition, MFS will send its shareholders in every fund’s semi-annual report the total amount of brokerage commissions paid by the fund during the relevant period as well as the fund’s average commission rate per share (for example, 4.83 cents per share on average). But this information on brokerage commissions should be separated from the fund expense table because all the other items in the table are ordinary expenses expressed in basis points. By contrast, brokerage commissions are a capital expense added to the tax basis of the securities held by the fund, and brokerage commissions are expressed in cents per share. 2These individualized expenses will not include brokerage costs because they are capitalized in the cost of the portfolio security.
4 of 6
II.Enhanced Governance Structure
The mutual fund industry has a unique governance structure: the fund is a separate entity from its external manager. The independent directors of the fund must annually approve the terms and conditions of the fund’s contract with its external manager. Of course, the independent directors usually reappoint the management company. In an industrial company, how often do the directors throw out the whole management team? But the independent directors of most mutual funds, in my experience, do represent fund shareholders by negotiating for contract terms and monitoring potential conflicts of interest.
At MFS, we believe we have the most advanced form of corporate governance in the industry. To begin with, over 75% of the board is comprised of independent directors, who elect their own independent chairman. The chairman leads the executive sessions of independent directors, which occur before or after every board meeting. The independent chairman also helps set the board’s agenda for each meeting. A lead independent director could definitely take charge of the executive sessions and a lead director could also help set the board’s agenda. Thus, it does not matter which title is employed; the key is to insure that a senior independent director plays these two functions. In many boards, the independent directors have their own independent counsel, as the MFS boards do. But the independent directors of the MFS funds are going one step further by appointing their own compliance officer. This officer will monitor all compliance activities by MFS as well as supervise the fund’s own activities, and will report regularly to the Compliance Committee of the Board (which itself is composed solely of independent directors). On the management company side, MFS is the only company I know of that has a non-executive chairman reporting to the independent directors of the MFS funds. This is a new position designed to assure that the management company is fully accountable to the funds’ independent directors.
Finally, MFS as a management company has established the new position of Executive Vice President for Regulatory Affairs, and filled the position with a distinguished industry veteran. In addition, MFS has hired a distinguished law firm partner as its new general
5 of 6
counsel.
Both will serve on the executive committee of MFS. The new Executive
Vice President will be in charge of several regulatory
functions—compliance, internal audit and fund treasury.
This high profile position within MFS is more than symbolic; it represents the great significance given by MFS to these regulatory functions. While these functions are performed in most fund management
companies, it is rare to see the person in charge of these functions
having the title of executive vice president and serving on the
executive committee of the firm.
Conclusions
In summary, MFS is trying to establish standards of best practices in three important areas to fund shareholders:
1) reduced reliance on “soft dollars”,
2) individualized expense reporting, and
3)
enhanced governance structure. Other management firms are trying to
take the lead in setting industry standards in other areas. At the same
time, the SEC is in the process of proposing and adopting a myriad of
rules on disclosure requirements and substantive prohibitions or the
fund industry—which overlap to a degree with the efforts of the fund
management firms.
Because the SEC and the management firms are making such serious efforts to develop higher
behavioral norms for the mutual fund industry, it might be useful for
Congress to monitor these efforts before finalizing a bill on mutual
fund reforms. These are complex issues that may be better suited to an
evolutionary process, led by an expert public agency with the
flexibility to address the changing legal and factual environment.
Thank you again for this opportunity to testify on mutual fund reform. I would be pleased to answer any questions the Chairman or Committee Members might have.
Kevin
Muhlendorf became the SEC's Inspector General in July 2025. For the
previous nine years, he was a partner in the white-collar defense and
government investigations practice at Wiley Rein LLP in Washington D.C.,
where he focused on representing individuals and entities in criminal
and civil securities enforcement matters.
In private practice, Mr. Muhlendorf regularly conducted sensitive
internal investigations and provided compliance counseling for clients.
While on secondment from Wiley Rein for portions of 2023 and 2024, Mr.
Muhlendorf served as Acting Inspector General for the Washington
Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), where he led approximately
three dozen auditors and special agents conducting investigations and
issuing financial and performance audits. He also designed and
implemented a whistleblower award pilot program.
Since 2015, Mr. Muhlendorf has taught a class on financial fraud
investigations as an adjunct professor at Georgetown Law. He is both a
Certified Fraud Examiner (CFE) and Certified Compliance & Ethics
Professional (CCEP).
Mr. Muhlendorf’s previous law enforcement experience includes six
years as a Trial Attorney and Assistant Chief in the Securities and
Financial Fraud Unit of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Criminal
Division, Fraud Section, where he investigated and tried complex fraud
cases in jurisdictions across the country. Mr. Muhlendorf was a Senior
Counsel in the SEC Enforcement Division from 2004 to 2010.
Mr. Muhlendorf began his legal career as a litigation associate at
Steptoe & Johnson LLP after serving as a federal judicial law clerk
to Judge John M. Facciola in Washington D.C. He earned his BA in history
from the University of Virginia and his law degree from William &
Mary Law School.
Ethics Counsel
Danae Serrano
Danae
Serrano was named the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Ethics
Counsel in March 2019. She previously served as Acting Ethics Counsel
since December 2018.
Ms. Serrano joined the SEC in 2010 as an Assistant Ethics Counsel,
and has served as the Deputy Ethics Counsel and Alternate Designated
Agency Ethics Official since 2013. Ms. Serrano also served as the
Agency’s Acting Chief Compliance Officer until August 2018.
Before joining the SEC, Ms. Serrano served as an attorney in the
General Counsel’s Office of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
(PBGC), where she advised on government ethics and administrative law
matters. Prior to PBGC, Ms. Serrano served as an attorney and ethics
official in the United States Air Force, Office of the General Counsel.
Ms. Serrano received her law degree from the University of
Connecticut School of Law, where she was an Executive Editor of the
Connecticut Insurance Law Journal. She received her B.A. in History from
Yale University.
---------- 0riginal message --------- From: Cynthia Chung from Through A Glass Darkly<cynthiachung@substack.com> Date: Sat, Feb 14, 2026 at 9:51 AM Subject: US Billionaires Unite to “Make America Great Again” To: <David.Raymond.Amos333@gmail.com>
So, the statistics for 2025 are in on whether the Trump Administration’s approach of “tariff everything” (which is in fact a revenue tariff not a protective tariff as per William McKinley himself)
has been a success - and despite the claim that the “Golden Age” is
upon us, it is looking like you are not included in those positive
projections for the future.
Trump’s tariffs did generate revenue, approx. $250 billion, however, according to a study published in January 19, 2026 by the Kiel Institute für Weltwirtschaft, this money was not generated from overseas but rather 96% of this “revenue” from the tariffs came from the American consumers and producers. Foreign exporters in reaction to the Trump tariffs simply raised their prices to compensate or exported fewer products.
Let’s look at the automobile sector as an example:
The
top chart shows the cumulative duties since 2018 for imported vehicles.
We can see with the red line, representing the year 2025, that the
calculated duties as of July were $12.97 billion, compared with July in
2024 at a total of just $1.97 billion. This was a massive cost shock to
American automobile assemblers. This shows that it was the American
automobile producers who were hit hardest with the Trump tariffs, not
its foreign competitors.
The
bottom chart shows the operating profit (loss) from operations for
motor vehicles and parts manufactures (NAICS 3363) from the Quarterly
Financial Report. Q2 2025 was the second lowest profit quarter going
back to 2011, with only the Q2 2020 COVID lockdown quarter being worse.
[1] Firms made just $114 million in operating profit off of $229 billion
in revenue or a ratio of operating profit over loss (expressed as a
percentage) of just 0.05%. In other words, for every $1 of revenue, operating profit was $0.0005. [2] That is a net loss of huge proportions and is clearly not sustainable…
This
reminds me of when Biden claimed a Real GDP increase of 2.8% in 2024,
however, what he didn’t tell you was that that “growth” was made
possible with a GDP Deficit of 6.4%. As we can appreciate with the
below graph from the US Treasury Department, almost all of the United
States’ so-called GDP growth from especially 2010 till today, is in fact coming from massive deficit spending. In other words, the United States is borrowing money “to keep the party going,” there is no net growth.
And
in the case of the 2025 tariffs, we can see that any “revenue” claimed
as a profit is being paid by the American consumer or producer
“In
Q2 2024, auto assemblers built 10.7 million passenger vehicles in the
USA on a seasonally adjusted annual rate. That number was 10.3 million
in Q2 2025 (relatively unchanged). Yet, profits plunged to one of the
lowest levels in nearly 15 years. The tariffs are to blame.” [3]
Thus, there was no actual boost to the manufacturing base of the United States from these revenue tariffs, in fact, revenue
was actually taken from the American consumer and producer base to pay
off debt that has been accrued over the decades from the speculative
antics of Wall Street (anyone still remember that nothing
changed after the 2008 financial crash???). I know ex-lieutenant of
Soros, US Secretary of Treasury Scott Bessent does, where do you think
he made his billions of dollars from?
To
further confirm that US manufacturing in fact took a hit rather than a
boost from these policies here are some statistics from the past year:
Global and Domestic demand for U.S. products has declined,
while demand for global manufacturing has increased. (In other words
global demand increased despite U.S. demand decreasing, so, the U.S. has
a decreased participation in world trade.)
Based
on the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s Household Debt and Credit
Report for Q3 2025, US household debt reached a record high of $18.9
trillion an increase of $642 billion in one year. This amounts to an entire budget of a major industrialized country such as Germany. So, Americans officially got much more poor during 2025.
Since U.S. bank asset values are inflated, when the two-quadrillion-dollar global financial bubble bursts, they will turn into the largest aggregate loss in history.
There is no way to prevent this collapse of the system unless, rather ironically after Jamieson Greer’s speech at Davos,
the Trump Administration truly returns to the Hamiltonian roots of the
American System school of protectionism instead of using empty words.
This begins with the re-implementation of Glass-Steagall bank separation policy
to remove the parasitical banking of Wall Street from the essential
functions of commercial and savings banks that are tied to the real
economy, such as the manufacturing/industrial sector.
10 months ago · 57 likes · 8 comments · Matthew Ehret
With this in mind, I would like to reshare with you all Part II of my “Make Whose America Great Again?” series (with some recent updates)
where I went over in detail last summer 2025 why the Trump
Adminsitration’s approach to tariffs were going to gut U.S.
manufacturing rather than save it and work to decrease the overall
standard of living for Americans. And keep in mind here, we are only
into the first year of this policy…
US Billionaires Unite to “Make America Great Again”
By Cynthia Chung
(published May 8, 2025)
Part I
discusses the story of America’s deindustrialisation, which began in
the 1960s. In the following decades the United States became
increasingly a services economy which included the financialization of
debt, that now makes up a large portion of US revenue. Today the
American economy largely consists of revenue from casino (i.e. Wall
Street) and landlord profits, such as Blackstone the largest commercial
landlord in the world. Blackstone made a killing off of the housing
bubble bust during the 2008 financial crisis and is a big reason why
Americans can no longer afford to purchase a house of their own. Part I also goes through the real reason why the reciprocal tariffs were paused only one week after they were announced.
In
Part II we will do an overview of what US Treasury Secretary Scott
Bessent and US Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick have set forth in
their promise to Americans to bring back jobs, with a focus on
manufacturing jobs. And to rebuild industry, especially in advanced
technologies.
We
will also discuss the outcome thus far in Bessent’s global tariff
strategy as well as how the US tariff war is fairing in its face-off
with China.
Also make sure to check out Part III of this series:
Before
we get into the nitty-gritty of the policies of the new administration,
I would like to do a brief overview of the state of affairs presently
in terms of Americans’ livelihood. This will also allow us to appreciate
how much room or lack of room we have, if we were to face a deeper
recession in the near future.
In
America today, there are over 22 million people who are making less
than $15/hour and nearly 40 million people who are earning less than
$17/hour. The federal minimum wage has not been raised since 2009 and
remains $7.25/hour.
There are 20 out of the total 50 states who are still at the bare minimum wage of $7.25/hour.
The
US dollar has had an average inflation rate of 2.53% per year between
2009 and today, producing a cumulative price increase of 49.06%. This
means that today’s prices are 1.49 times as high as average prices since
2009, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics consumer price index.
This means that $100 in 2009 is equivalent to $149.06 today.
And in just four years (Jan. 2021- Jan. 2025) inflation on food prices has increased by 21%. This means that $100 in 2021 is now equivalent to $121.00 today. This is a big decrease in purchasing power because it is the prices of goods that are increasing by this much, not the wage. Minimum wage is not increasing based on the inflation rate. Thus, inflation means everything gets more expensive for the US consumer, especially for those in the lowest income bracket.
So this is very telling about the decline in living standard that is occurring within the country at an incredible pace.
In
addition, companies like Walmart who received staggering tax breaks
from Trump’s new tax reform have failed to lower prices. This begs the
question, if these massive companies who provide essential services to
the public, receive massive tax breaks and do not lower their prices,
how is this benefiting the average American? In addition, the tax breaks
mean revenue to pay off the US debt will have to come from somewhere
else, we will talk about who will ultimately foot the bill for these massive corporate tax cuts.
The Kobeissi Letter writes:
“US
credit card defaults have jumped to $46 billion in the first 9 months
of 2024, the highest since 2010. Credit card defaults are now up over
50% year-over-year. Defaults on seriously delinquent credit card loan
balances have more than doubled over the last 2 years.
Bottom income consumers were hit the hardest due to years of elevated inflation and interest rates. Additionally, the savings rate of the bottom third is now 0%, according to Moody’s.
The credit card bubble is popping.”
Delinquency
for a credit card loan means you are late in your payments (even by one
day) or miss a regular installment of payment or payments. A credit
card loan goes into default when the borrower fails to keep up with
ongoing loan obligations or doesn’t repay the loan according to the
terms laid out.
I should add here that the spike in credit card defaults in 2010 was from the 2008 financial crisis.
“In the 12 months that ended in September [2024], consumers who didn’t fully pay off their monthly credit card bills paid $170 billion in interest, according to the FT. Consumers may not see much relief soon.”
What
this means is that for US consumers who didn’t fully pay off their
credit card bills, congratulations you have just made Wall Street richer.
In
other words, US credit card interest payments to Wall Street came to a
staggering $170 billion in just 12 months, from September 2023 to
September 2024. This is insane. And guess what, rates are not looking
like they will be dropping any time soon. However, survival from now
till then isn’t guaranteed.
[Author’s note Feb 12, 2026: As of today, President Trump has NOT lowered credit card interest rates
despite having strongly advocated that they should be capped at 10%.
This was one of the loudest promises Trump made as one of the first
things he would do when he entered office in 2025, what happened?!?]
The
reason why we are seeing a higher default in credit cards is because of
increasing inflation as well as high credit card interest rates.
For those proportion of Americans who are increasingly unable to keep a
decent living standard as prices get higher, they are forced to go into
credit card debt to pay for groceries, or their utilities bill. This
debt then charges exorbitant interest rates of 20-25% trapping Americans
into losing even more of their salary and making it harder to pay off
the debt. In addition, people are swiping their credit cards more today
than during the 2020 lockdowns. We are near the desperation level just
after the 2008 housing collapse.
Many
Americans cannot afford to default, this is really a sign of a
desperate situation for the most part, because once you default your
credit rating is ruined. This means you will likely either be refused a
credit card from another bank or you will be charged even higher
interest rates since the risk of you defaulting is high. So you lose
even more of your salary to even higher interest rates.
We
can see from this pattern that those who are low-income wage earners
are hit from multiple angles to lose more and more of their salary to
inflation and interest payments.
35% of the average American paycheque goes to debt and that includes your mortgage and car payments. Recall that the savings rate for the bottom third of Americans is 0%. That is approximately 114 million people.
“Around 35% of households earning less than $50,000 per year are living paycheck to paycheck, up from 32% in 2019.”
An
increasing number of Americans today cannot afford to own their car
fully, they are either on a monthly payment plan or are paying a rental
fee. However, a growing number of Americans cannot even afford a monthly
payment plan at this point.
Granted
there is an increasing risk to lenders during a time when defaults are
rising. Credit lenders wrote off an incredible $46 billion in delinquent
loan balances in the first nine months of 2024. This is up by 50% in the same period the year before, so people are poorer today than in 2023.And this is the effect of higher inflation plus higher interest rates ravaging the economy.
But recall, there was still a total payment of $172 billion over 2024
to Wall Street on just the interest on credit cards, so profits are
still extremely high for lenders at the expense of Americans’
livelihood.
The
point in all of this is the undeniable fact that an increasing number
of Americans, 35% and rising, cannot afford their present living costs
and something will have to give. The Titanic is sinking and there are
only so many life jackets to go around.
Below
is a map on the percentage of housing that is affordable within the
United States. For example, the state of California has a 33% home
affordability. What that means is that 33% of houses listed for purchase
are listed at what is considered an affordable price for those living
in that state. We can see affordability rates as low as 23% in Wyoming,
25% in Oregon, 21% in Connecticut, 29% in Washington DC. And the states
with the highest affordability rates only scored in the 40% range,
except for just three states who scored higher than 50%: Virginia at
54%, Maryland at 57% and Delaware at 69%. However, these statistics are
representative of the housing situation in 2021, with the crisis of
housing affordability much worse today.
One
reason for this lack of affordability is Blackstone, who has been
investing for many years in buying up infrastructure and is the world’s
largest commercial landlord.
“Blackstone is the largest commercial landlord in history.
Over the past two decades, it has quietly taken control of apartment
blocks, care homes, student housing, railway arches, film studios,
offices, hotels, logistics warehouses and datacentres. Blackstone
doesn’t just own real estate, it owns everything – or that’s how it can
feel when you start to examine its bewildering array of assets.
…. Last year, the company invested $270bn, bringing the total value of the assets it manages to $881bn,
slightly more than the gross domestic product of Switzerland, and more
than twice that of Denmark… Blackstone is an asset manager, a type of
private financial firm that invests the wealth of pension funds and
insurance companies. It is not to be confused with BlackRock,
an asset management firm founded by Larry Fink, who worked for
Blackstone in the 1980s and set up its bond-investment business.
In 1994, BlackRock became an independent firm and Blackstone sold its
shares in the company. Fink and Schwarzman now work on opposite sides of
Park Avenue. Fink’s company dwarfs Blackstone, but when it comes to property, Blackstone is the giant.
Its $320bn real estate portfolio is more than six times larger than
that of BlackRock. ‘For Blackstone, real estate is the goose that lays
the golden egg’.
…
But it is Blackstone’s interest in another type of real estate that has
attracted the most scrutiny. In recent years, it has become known for
creating a profitable asset class from residential properties – in other words, buying up homes.
… The company has acquired houses and apartments at a voracious speed in cities around the world.
Like any company, Blackstone is focused on creating returns for its
investors [the billionaire class that is]. Residents in some Blackstone
properties have accused it of raising rents while reducing overheads,
and the company has even been blamed – by an adviser to the United
Nations – of helping to fuel the global housing crisis...”
“Homeowners
having trouble making their mortgage payments may soon find themselves
working out a payment plan with buyout kingpin Steve Schwarzman.
Schwarzman’s
private equity firm, The Blackstone Group, recently announced it is
prepping to make bets in the toxic subprime market.
And now, The Post has learned, it has set aside $1.25B to do this through a partnership with Florida firm Bayview Financial.
The
plan is to use Bayview’s mortgage servicing arm to locate troubled
loans on the cheap, including those where payments have stopped.
Once Bayview locates a loan, it will renegotiate the terms as needed, such as to get laggard payments back on track. [In other words, they are loan sharks]
Blackstone
can then turn around and resell or ‘securitize’ the loans for a profit.
Blackstone also has the option to take hold of properties when
mortgages default.
… Also drooling over the downtrodden residential-mortgage market are hedge funds Fortress and Och-Ziff, as well as traditional asset manager BlackRock.”
It
is literally the plan of “you will own nothing and be happy” agenda so
blatantly laid out by the World Economic Forum because even though they
know that will outrage the greater majority of people – they consider you irrelevant.
So
increasingly, even people who can theoretically afford to own a home
are being squeezed out by massive buyouts by commercial interests.
Increasingly overtime, there will no longer be any homeowners, only
renters according to this trend.
And
I would gather that this phenomenon in Fort Worth is not a coincidence.
Within Fort Worth is the billionaire Walton clan who are the world’s
richest family…and happen to be the owners of Walmart.
“In once again crowning the Waltons the world’s richest family, the Bloomberg news service recently reported [in 2021] that their collective fortune had risen by $23 billion in the past year due to the climbing stock price of the Walmart retail chain. Sam Walton opened the first Walmart store in 1962.
Descendants
of Sam and his brother, Bud, control more than 1.3 billion shares of
Walmart stock either directly or through family trusts, Bloomberg says.
Even though the Waltons have liquidated $6 billion in Walmart stock this
year, they’re now worth more in 2021 than they were in 2020.
As
of mid-September, the Waltons were worth $238.2 billion, according to
Bloomberg. That’s almost $100 billion above the next richest family in
the world, the Mars family of candy and pet care fame. Last year,
Bloomberg pegged the Waltons’ fortune at $215 billion.
To
put the Waltons’ one-year, $23 billion bump in wealth into perspective,
Bloomberg estimates the net worth of Walmart heir Lukas Walton at $22
billion.
Alice
Walton ranks as the second richest person in Texas (No. 1 is Elon Musk,
at more than $200 billion), but she’s not the richest Walmart heir. As
of September 27, Bloomberg estimated Walton’s net worth at $61.9
billion, making her the 19th richest person in the world. Ahead of her
are brothers Jim ($63.7 billion, No. 17 worldwide) and Rob ($63.3
billion, No. 18 worldwide).”
This
again calls into question why President Trump thought he needed to give
Walmart one of the biggest corporate tax cuts in 2025 while the
American consumer and producer were left with a heavier load.
“The
report highlights San Diego County, where private equity firm
Blackstone purchased 5,600 naturally occurring affordable housing units
in 2021 and how, as units become vacant, the company has raised rents in some units between 43-64% in just 2 years, (AB 1482 pegs annual raises above 10%, for existing tenants, as price gouging).
As San Diego becomes increasingly unaffordable, throwing more families into homelessness,
Blackstone’s aggressiveness as the third largest landlord in the area
in hiking up rents for its thousands of units only adds to the problem…By
jacking up the price of their units Blackstone is rapidly dwindling the
number of affordable housing units in the area – exacerbating an
already dire affordable housing shortage.
Key Points from the Report:
- Blackstone owns and manages over 300,000 units of rental housing in the U.S., making it the largest landlord in the U.S.
-
In the last two years, Blackstone has been on an aggressive buying
spree, expanding its residential real estate empire by snapping up
various single-family and multi-family rental properties, adding over 200,000 housing units to its portfolio.
…
- Blackstone also spent millions of dollars fighting against rent control in California. Blackstone
gave over $7 million in 2018 and more than $7 million in 2020 to oppose
statewide ballot initiatives that would have limited rent increases.
But it is not just Blackstone that is acting as a predatory private-equity firm buying up everything it can get its hands on.
Scott
Bessent has said that he plans to further privatize the US economy and
deregulate the banks as part of his medicine for sick America. But I
think the jury is no longer out on this, privatization is not making
things run more smoothly or responsibly but rather is having the very
opposite effect. People’s rights are being violated to a horrifying
level, with increased evictions, exorbitant hikes in rent of up to 60%
in two years, and criminal negligence and recklessness in the medical
field. And the deregulation of the banks is what made catastrophes like
the 2008 financial crisis possible, where Wall Street came out on top
while those who paid were the American people.
In
case you didn’t notice, private equity firms like Blackstone made their
biggest profits during the 2008 crash and the 2020-21 lockdowns. These
were periods of massive wealth transfer from the low and middle income
earners to the multi-millionaire and billionaire class.
This
is going to feed deeper into the class divide that is already occurring
in the United States. However, never to miss a business opportunity,
since let us remind ourselves that the bottom third of America’s
population still amounts to 114 million people and thus there is still
millions to be made off this impoverished sector. With credit card
default rates sky-rocketing what do we see emerge through the cracks of
the system? The new economic framework for the downtrodden who own nothing, the “Buy Now, Pay Later”new debt economy. Excited?!
Here's what US consumers had to say in a poll about the “Buy Now, Pay Later” experience.
I
think we have a pretty good idea of how this new framework is going to
suck people who are already struggling dry. With a growing number of
Americans entering into the low income bracket, and round up into one
gigantic pig pen within a debtor economy, we can see a point where
desperation is going to reach a peak. And what will happen then? An
entire overhaul of the system with a new framework will be announced,
likely with a global vision (recall private equity firms like Blackstone
are global), and it might just be Scott Bessent himself who will have
the honor of making this very announcement to the American people.
US Billionaires Unite to “Make America Great Again”
It
is interesting that Trump keeps referring to the “unfair treatment”
Americans have received in trade relations with the world. And thus, his
justification for implementing tariffs onto the entire world (i.e. a revenue tax on
the world), including their closest allies, as a means of taking back
revenue that has been, according to Trump, unfairly lost in global
trade.
As already mentioned in Part I of this series,
there is $9.2 trillion of US debt this year that will mature or need
refinancing. That is about 25% of the total US debt that has come a
knockin’ this year alone. It is clear that these tariffs are to function
as a revenue tax as a means of generating revenue to pay this debt off.
[Author’s note Feb. 12, 2026:
As we see from the 2025 stats, this revenue was in fact generated from
the American consumer and producer, not even its foreign competitors,
further stripping down U.S. manufacturing and lowering the standard of
living for the average American.]
If
the US defaults on its debt, you can basically kiss goodbye to the US
dollar system as hegemon in global trade transactions. If this were to
occur, the US would lose any power to sanction other countries. The
world would effectively be able to trade as they please with other
countries without incurring punishments or risk themselves being
sanctioned by the US. In other words, the US is going to lose the big stick it has been using.
[Author’s note Feb. 12 2026: Here are some charts showcasing the performance of the US dollar over the past year.]
As
we can see in the above graphs, the US Dollar as the world’s leading
reserve currency is beginning to lose its global hold. In other words,
the world is moving towards de-dollarization.
There
are many reasons for this, one very notable one is that the US has been
very liberal in its sanctioning of countries including Russia, Iran and
Venezuela who are big resources for energy. Increasingly we see
countries around the world using their own currencies to purchase from
sanctioned countries. One big commodity in these trades is that of oil,
to which Russia, Iran and Venezuela are all large producers of. In fact,
Russia has been selling a great deal of its oil in the Chinese
currency, the yuan, ¥.
China
as well has been trading more and more using their own currency and the
dollar is no longer a part of a huge portion of global trade
transactions. Over 50% of China’s cross border trade is in their local
currency. And in the first 8 months of last year, payments increased by
over 21%. The BRICS nations are increasingly avoiding the dollar in
their transactions with each other and their trading partners. And
Russia and China are now actively launching an alternative payment
system to SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial
Telecommunication).
This
is the so-called “national security threat” from the BRICS nations that
the United States has been ruffling its feathers over… That they dare
trade amongst themselves freely. However, what did you expect? For
countries to allow themselves to be contained in a cage and told what
they can and cannot trade in for vital resources such as energy needs?
In addition, sanctions have been used as an excuse for even going so far
as to deny countries humanitarian aid, such as after the 2023
earthquake in Syria. Iran has also been denied access to crucial medicine for many years now.
Are
we in the west truly thinking that we should have the right to
determine such a fate for people in the world, and are surprised when
they do not obey such orders?
As
the US dollar loses its status as the world’s leading reserve currency,
this also affects their ability to find investors to buy up their debt,
in the form of treasury bonds and thus avoid defaulting on the massive
$36 trillion and growing. You can see how dizzingly fast this debt is
expanding on the US Debt Clock.
This
debt can either be paid through surplus revenue, that is the big sales
pitch for Bessent’s global tariff strategy to Americans that has claimed
will generate “revenue.”
[ Author’s note Feb 12, 2026:
As we can appreciate now, revenue was generated from the American
producers and consumers to foot the bill to pay for a debt that is
expanding faster than it can be paid and is eating away America’s
manufacturing base and living standard at an increasing pace.]
DOGE
is already pretty much a failure at this point, seriously
under-performing from the promise of $2 trillion in savings during the
Trump campaign.
This graph shows that during the Trump campaign $2 trillion in savings were promised. Then by January 30th DOGE reduced this promised amount by 50%, with $1 trillion in savings. By April 10th,
the original promise was reduced by 85%, to $150 billion in savings.
The “wall of receipts” has amounted to $63 billion in itemized receipts
with major errors and $92 billion in claimed savings without any details
to prove they actually exist. Looks like DOGE also suffers from an
inflated bureaucracy and now Elon Musk has pretty much walked away from the mess.
When one considers that the 2025 military budget has risen to a record-breaking $1.035 trillion…
That is to say, a nearly $150 billion increase from the 2024 defense
budget- we see that the so-called “revenue” made by DOGE simply went
straight into the military industrial complex.
Recall from Part I
that the selling of many more US Treasury Bonds are key to not
defaulting on the $9.2 trillion owed this year. In other words, that
investors, especially foreign investors agree to buy this debt and hold
it. However, this hot potato is becoming too hot to hold for very much
longer.
US
bonds, which used to be considered extremely low-risk, pretty much zero
risk, are now considered very, very risky. This is very, very bad.
Since the US economy, after decades of gutting their industry have
become a financialized economy. In other words, Wall Street has been
generating “revenue” through betting on things, it is a casino economy.
However,
what was central to all of this working with the illusion of power and
luster was the “faith” in the system, the belief in the US dollar. But
the cracks in the ship are now clear for everyone to see. It isn’t going
to stay afloat much longer.
In other words, it is a very desperate situation.
Recall from Part I of this series,
that foreign investors dumped a massive amount of US treasury bonds as a
reaction to the world tariffs, which was made worse from the
announcement of the reciprocal tariffs. It also didn’t help that there
was a lot of flip-flopping from the Trump Administration and lack of
clarity as to what these tariffs would be and for how long. Investors
absolutely hate this sort of uncertainty, and they are more likely to
walk away from it and wipe their hands clean of the mess. It caused a
massive loss in confidence in the US markets during a time when
confidence was already extremely low from foreign investors who can
simply take their money elsewhere.
This
massive dumping of U.S. bonds, in turn, increased the treasury yield
making them a riskier investment, which caused a further drop in
investors purchasing these bonds. In other words, this happened at the
absolute worse time, when bond purchases need to increase (massively)
they have in fact decreased (massively) making the paying off of the US debt that much more challenging and the risk of default that much higher.
A higher yield also means the borrowing rate will be higher, i.e. interest rates (since the treasury yield is high). This means all interest rates across the board will be higher
- including house mortgages, or businesses that need to borrow money
to, for instance…rebuild manufacturing in the United States to “Make
America Great Again”!
This
in turn is going to have the effect of increasing the cost of
rebuilding US manufacturing since there will need to be borrowing for
this massive project that is going to cost hundreds of billions of
dollars, and this borrowing is going to occur in an already
high-interest rate environment which just got higher after the
March/April mayhem.
Think
about it, everyone knows that Day X is coming, the day the US will
default on their debt. The US dollar’s hegemony is based off of the
belief that that day the US defaults on their debt won’t be anytime
soon. However, increasingly the world is thinking that day is very, very
close by.
This
begs the question, if the current US strategy is causing more countries
and foreign investors to dump US bonds won’t that trigger a bigger
explosion in US debt? Right now, the prevention of further loss in US
Treasury bonds and the selling of more are essential for the US to have
any hope of not defaulting this year. Many analysts think this is the
real reason why there was a 90 day “pause” on the reciprocal tariffs.
They could not afford to risk any more carnage in the stock and bond
markets.
In
goods alone the US has an incredible trade deficit of more than $1.3
trillion. The US imports a ton of goods from China, Mexico and Vietnam.
The manufacturing base back home is almost non-existent. But because of
this the world earns a ton of dollars from US importers. Well over a
trillion is flowing out to foreign companies that make the goods that US
consumers purchase. And what do people do with the dollar earnings? A big part of it comes back to US investments.
Investors in China, Mexico and Japan, then start buying up US assets, like stocks- as a result stock values continue to rise. The US trade deficit is a big reason why, for the last few decades, the US stock and bond markets have been flying up - at the cost of the US manufacturing base and living standard.
America
will have to spend billions upon billions of dollars to build back US
manufacturing – while simultaneously needing to raise TRILLIONS to pay
off a massive debt. Even if Trump is successful in getting key
industries to re-shore to the US, this is not as simple as moving a
piece on the chessboard from one place to another. And for advanced
technology factories you need an industrial ecosystem to build up your
factories. You can’t just expect to build cutting edge facilities,
literally in the middle of deserts (i.e. semiconductor TSMC plants),
within a year or two.
In
addition, these industries based in the US will now be facing greater
costs in manufacturing - prices for supplies will be higher since they
need to import many of their materials in because the US produces very
little domestically at this point after over 60 years of
deindustrialization in favor of a debtor economy.
In
other words, most of these factories, especially advanced sector
industries, are going to require supply chains from outside the United
States. The US has not built up its own supply chain
capability, so these manufacturers within the US will be hit with the
tariffs on supplies they need to import to build and run their industry.
These were the original reciprocal tariffs planned for April 5.
[Author’s note Feb 12, 2026:
The below graph is a more up-to-date reference for the rates of the
reciprocal tariffs imposed by the Trump Administration globally.]
We
should understand here that Bessent’s tariffs on the world have been
used more as a weapon than a form of protection, and pose a very serious
threat. This was not some little bit of extra tax that was being
enforced here. The Trump team made it clear that these tariffs were
meant to be crippling such that countries all over the world would have
no choice but to make a “deal” with the United States.
As
for these “deals” we have seen that they are a shakedown of each
country in terms of what the U.S. views they can “offer” to the U.S.
empire. If you have key strategic industry, the U.S. wants it for their own now.
If
you are an economic competitor like Japan, the US wants you to step out
of the race. If you are an exporter of resources such as oil, or
critical minerals, the US would like you to sell this to them on the
dirt cheap, and the list goes on.
[Author’s note Feb 12, 2026: To quickly summarise how the application of the tariffs played out during 2025:
April 2, 2025 U.S. announced a sweeping 10% base tariff on imports from more than 180 countries without trade deals.
A few days later, reciprocal tariffs, ranging from 10% to 100%, were imposed.
After
an ongoing dispute between U.S. and China over tariff rates, there was a
90-day agreement in May for U.S. tariff rates at 30% and China’s at 10%
between the two countries.
EU,
UK, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia, Philippines, Pakistan each
secured framework deals and moderate tariff rates ranging between
10-20%.
U.S.
- EU agreement established a 15% tariff on EU goods, alongside a $600
billion EU investment into US energy and defense sectors [4] What this
means is that the EU, has been forbidden to buy the much much more
affordable Russian energy (hence the U.S.’s role in blowing up the Nordstream pipeline for instance) and to threaten the EU to pay much more exorbitantly priced energy from the United States amidst their energy crisis.
The
U.S. Navy’s Diving and Salvage Center can be found in a location as
obscure as its name—down what was once a country lane in rural Panama
City, a now-booming resort city in the southwestern panhandle of
Florida, 70 miles south of the Alabama border. The center’s complex is
as nondescript as its location—a drab concrete post-World War II
structure th…
Amidst
this, the EU is expected to prioritise putting money into their own
military-industrial complex and buy American defense products to support
the American military-industrial complex, while standards of living are
plummeting in Europe and people literally have access to no heating
during the winter months.
Vietnam faces a 40% surcharge on transshipped goods (basically as penalty for trading with China). [7]
Taiwan
faces tariffs at around 20%. The U.S. has carved out semiconductor
exemptions but overall tariff exposure remains substantial due to lack
of a full deal. [8]
Mexico
and Canada, no new deal was struck before August 1. Canada faces 35%
reciprocal tariffs on non-USMCA goods. For Mexico, rates range from
25-35%, depending on USMCA compliance. [9] (USMCA stands for United
States - Mexico - Canada Aggrement.)
High risk countries that the U.S. is unlikely to get a “deal” with:
China:
Still the fulcrum of global supply chains, China remains covered by
long-running Section 301 actions (with certain exclusions extended
through Aug 31, 2025) and is exposed to the reciprocal regime absent a
standalone deal. Global enterprises should not assume a single “China
rate.” [10]
Brazil:
Reporting indicates escalating tariffs amid political tensions.
Specific headline percentages differ by source and sector. The U.S.
treats Brazil as a heightened policy risk until official schedules are
posted. [11]
Syria,
Laos, Myanmar: Public guidance and news coverage point to ~41% for
Syria and ~40% for Laos/Myanmar, reflecting sanctions and limited
diplomatic engagement. Expect long-duration tariffs and extra screening
on end-use/end-user. [12]
Needless
to say, this ongoing instability of predatory tariff rates is causing a
great deal of disruption including in supply chains. This is not a
benefit to any country’s economic growth, including the U.S., however,
it is looking like the United States is only interested in making “deals” that are a benefit to its military industrial complex, and never really had the intention to boost its domestic manufacturing base nor the living standards of its own people.
Now let us get back to my original paper written this past May 2025…]
On
top of this, the U.S. has put yet another condition on these “deals,”
that all countries forego trade with China. The U.S., who can no longer
compete with China, is trying to bully the entire world into not trading
with it biggest competitor, through it weaponizing its U.S. consumer
market as a gun to the head of countries’ economies.
U.S.
Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick when asked about whether the
tariffs will in fact increase cost in manufacturing, and hence prices to
the US consumer, he answered, “Not if you make it in the US.” That is
not really true in the current situation. You can avoid the tariffs if
you make everything within house, sure, however, the cost of production
is higher in the U.S. than for example China because the U.S. is not as
streamlined as China. That’s the whole point of the tariff, the U.S.
goods cannot compete price-wise with outside goods’ prices. So prices
are going to be higher for the U.S. consumer if they were to buy things
made in America vs China.
And
that is fine, in terms of rebuilding U.S. industry, as long as the
prices are not too exorbitant. This is part of the benefits of how a
proper use of tariffs is applied. You tariff key sectors from other
countries that you cannot compete with price wise, and thus reduce
competition with them, such that your consumer base will support the
build-up of these domestic sectors within your own country.
So
prices were always going to increase for the US consumer, because that
is the whole point of the tariff, to raise the competitor’s price for
their competing product so you can be supported by the consumer base to
build-up domestically. Nothing gets cheaper immediately in this
scenario.
The
problem here with what Lutnick is discussing is that U.S. Treasury
Secretary Scott Bessent has put forward a strategy to tariff everything.
Everything coming into the country now just got more expensive, not
specific goods/materials. Everything. On top of this
trade with China has seriously halted on key materials required for
manufacturing that you cannot get elsewhere.
For
example, you would like to compete in the manufacturing of cars. This
is all fine and good. But you cannot also decide to put high tariffs on
steel and aluminum simultaneously! Because the United States DOES NOT in
fact produce enough steel and aluminum to meet all of its domestic
demand, to which the car industry is just a fraction. So by putting high
tariffs on steel and aluminum, which car industries have no choice but
to import a portion of their demand, you are increasing costs dramatically for the production of these cars.
You
may be thinking, well why don’t we just increase steel production? Yes,
this is also a fine and good thing to do. However, it would take years
to build up the capacity, which even then would not be able to meet the
full domestic demand. Meanwhile, the cost of car manufacturing is
sky-rocketing and making it less competive in the global markets. So it
is not so simple as putting a tariff on everything and thinking this is
going to bolster industry no matter what.
In
other words, without a doubt, boosting industry is important and the
United States should compete in car manufacturing and steel production
on a global scale, however, this strategy will work to undermine
industry since the components it needs will be made much more expensive
without anywhere for them to turn for a cheaper alternative.
So
now, U.S. manufacturers who already had a higher cost of production
(and thus were not competitive with global trade) now face ADDITIONAL
costs for the materials they need to import to finish their products,
which just got more expensive with the tariff strategy. So now U.S.
goods are a great deal more expensive, and we are talking about prices
that many U.S. consumers simply cannot afford.
This is the very opposite effect of what you would want with a proper application of tariffs. In
this scenario, the prices of U.S. goods are going to be so high that
U.S. consumers will not be able to afford them and these U.S. goods
cannot compete in the global consumer market either, so how are these
U.S. manufacturers going to earn their revenue? This is a losing strategy.
And
that is what is now backfiring with the Bessent tariff strategy,
making the mistake of using them as a weapon against other countries
rather than from a protective measure to the benefit of the American
economy.
Lutnick
seems to think the tariff strategy will act as a motivator for the U.S.
to just begin building everything in-house since there is no other
choice. But with what supplies? There are no complete supply chains in the United States. You will need to import necessary materials that are not available in the U.S. in order to build your manufacturing industry. There is no advanced industry presently that the U.S. has a complete supply chain in.
This won’t just manifest out of thin air! You can’t build supply chains
overnight, it takes years. So, this plan is disastrously short-sighted.
Another
indicator of short-sightedness from this tariff strategy was the
pulling back on tariffs to high tech goods from China, only after a few
days of their announcement. Apparently, whoever was in charge of
calculating these tariffs didn’t factor in that China was in fact
exporting high tech goods to the U.S. that were not easily replaceable.
Thus, effectively, the U.S. consumer would no longer have access to
these goods…notably laptops, smartphones and essential electronics for
businesses if the tariffs had been left in place.
However, when asked on the Face of the Nation
about clarification about these exemptions, which were thought
permanent, Lutnick said they were only temporary (about one month),
contrary to what Trump had given the impression of, since according to
Lutnick they would be incorporated into a separate tariff package
against China. This left manufacturers and investors in a never-ending
lurch as to how to go about managing their companies.
Lutnick
has even talked about how these factories will be operated using
automation and robotics but how are these advanced robots for assembly
lines going to be manufactured? Even if the U.S. knew how to build such
robots, which is debatable - the greater majority of the materials
required for such a thing would need to be imported. This goes for chip
manufacturing as well. It is impossible to build these industries without using China’s supply chain.
The
list below mentions just a few critical minerals to give us an idea of
how important these are to U.S. manufacturing, especially in advanced
technologies, and which are almost entirely dependent on having access
to China’s supply chain.
Note,
a supply chain does not just mean where these minerals are
geographically located, it also means who has the means to process and
refine these minerals and metals. When we take into account both the
geographical location of these critical minerals and metals plus who has
the capability to process and refine them, it is China who comes out on
top of these supply chains. And thus, China is the only one who has the
capability to complete the circle of manufacturing.
Granted
that this above graph is focusing solely on clean energy metals but it
gives us a good idea of how China is the only country in the world right
now that has the capability of processing and refining almost every
critical mineral/metal you would need to build advanced technology
industries.
This
is why the United States now wants to build up its own capability to
control its own supply chains, especially concerning
chips/semiconductors. However, this is an endeavour that takes several
years to accomplish. China did not build up this capability overnight.
For the United States to build up its knowledge and know-how, let alone
the actual building of these necessary processing and refining
facilities is going to cost billions of dollars on just this alone. Not
even factoring in the other billions of dollars needed to build up a
manufacturing base, especially if you want to include high-tech robots
for assembly lines. So this is a project that is going to take many
years and hundreds of billions of dollars in spending before it is even
up and running.
America’s
return as an industrial leader in high-tech manufacturing is not so
simple after decades of the very opposite. Recognise that this is not
even discussing the education and training or R&D (research and
development) that needs to also be incorporated for this process to go
as quickly and efficiently as possible.
Despite
the United State’s aggressive posturing against the Chinese government,
China has incredibly given an allowance, until recently, for
the U.S. to purchase these key critical minerals that are essential for
chip manufacturing as well as the manufacturing of military weapons.
China has allowed this despite the trade war, beginning in July 2018,
which has aggressively sought to cut China’s ability to participate in
the chip manufacturing industry.
Boeing (specifically mentioned: St. Louis-based defense unit)
L3Harris Maritime Services (and other L3Harris entities)
Anduril Industries (and founder Palmer Luckey)
Gibbs & Cox, Inc. (a Leidos subsidiary)
Advanced Acoustic Concepts
VSE Corporation
Sierra Technical Services, Inc.
Red Cat Holdings, Inc.
Teal Drones, Inc.
ReconCraft
High Point Aerotechnologies
Epirus, Inc.
Dedrone Holdings Inc.
Area-I
Blue Force Technologies
Dive Technologies
Vantor (formerly Maxar Intelligence)
Intelligent Epitaxy Technology, Inc.
Rhombus Power Inc.
Lazarus Enterprises Inc.
Previously Sanctioned Major Contractors
Lockheed Martin Corporation (repeatedly targeted, including various subsidiaries like Aeronautics and Missiles and Fire Control)
Raytheon (Missile Systems and Missiles & Defense)
General Dynamics (including Mission Systems and Ordnance and Tactical Systems)
Other Restricted Entities
Skydio: In 2025, China restricted this drone manufacturer, which reportedly cut off their supply chain for batteries.
Additional Firms (April 2025): 18 firms were listed in April 2025 including Shield AI, BRINC Drones, Red Six Solutions, and others.
Nature of the Restrictions
The sanctions, which took effect on December 26, 2025, for the latest batch, generally entail:
Freezing Assets: All assets, movable and immovable, within China are frozen.
Trade Ban:
Chinese organizations and individuals are prohibited from engaging in
transactions, cooperation, or other business activities with these
companies.
Travel Bans: Key executives from these firms are barred from entering China, including Hong Kong and Macau.
The
United State’s is heavily dependent on Chinese critical minerals for
their military industrial complex, and it looks like China, after one
year of the Trump teams’ monkey circus, will not be loosening these
sanctions on U.S. defense companies anytime soon. This is a disastrous
outcome for the Trump Administration and has ruined what appears to have
been the main objective that started this chicken run with China. The
Trump Administration thought they could intimidate China and that they
would bend the knee and give aid to America’s military empire by
pledging hundreds of billions of dollars in investment like Japan and
South Korea have done (whether these countries actually deliver on this
is another matter). However, China understands if they do this, they can
pretty much kiss goodbye to anything resembling sovereignty.]
China
has made it very clear that it will not be the first to backdown in
this face-off, they have gone all-in and are betting that the United
States needs them more than they need the United States in this trade
war.
In
response to the sound of crickets this past spring/summer 2025, the
White House has taken on bizarre messaging to the American people, who
were given the impression that this was going to be a cake walk and are
beginning to realise that things could get real serious for American
jobs and consumer prices.
White House spokesperson Karoline Levitt had this to say as the White House’s stance on the matter:
“The
President has made his position on China quite clear. Although I do
have an additional statement that he just shared with me in the Oval
Office. ‘The ball is in China’s court. China needs to make a deal with
us. We don’t have to make a deal with them. There’s no difference
between China and any other country except they are much larger.
And China wants what we have, every country wants what we have, the
American consumer. Or to put it in another way, they need our money’. So
the President again has made it quite clear that he’s open to a deal
with China, but China needs to make a deal with the United States of
America.”
It
was certainly not a show of strength when Trump kept acting acting like
he was having ongoing talks with the Chinese embassy, only to have the
Chinese embassy clarify that there are no talks happening and that the
U.S. “should stop spreading confusion.”
So,
it’s looking like China really doesn’t care about making a deal with
the U.S. and has spent the last several weeks further decoupling from
the American economy. The split looks pretty final here and China looks
like they have finally had enough of the dishonesty and bullying coming
out of the White House over the last several years.
Incredibly,
the United States did not put the critical minerals and metals they
need from China on a tariff list because they are of course essential for the manufacturing of advanced technologies, including military technologies.
However, what were they expecting? That they were going to start a
full-out trade war with China and that China was going to continue to
sell America these critical materials needed for advanced technology,
including military weapons?!?
The
lame attempt by the United States to punish China with high tariffs
while attempting to import all of their essential metals from China with
no reciprocal tariffs.
Or
the fact that China is the second highest treasury bond holder in the
world and are in the process of dumping these bonds. And can you blame
them? Why would China want to fund America’s plan to contain them and
cut them out of global trade in hopes of putting a leash on the growing
Asian economies? Recall from Part I of this series, Japan and China were the two biggest holders of US debt before the tariff war.
[Author’s Note Feb 12, 2026:
China is now third after dumping a bunch of treasury bonds these past
months, UK is now second which has been buying up a bunch of U.S.
treasury bonds to hold the U.S. debt ship afloat. The two below graphs
are updated up to October 2025.]
China,
Brazil and India cutting its U.S. Treasury holdings is showcasing a
further decoupling by BRICS nations and reduce exposure to U.S. assets
which are extremely volatile at this point.]
The below graph shows the scary reality of U.S. dependence on China for especially its military needs…
According
to Bessent, China is officially in recession, in fact, he believes that
Beijing is on the verge of a collapse and that is despite the Chinese
economy growing by 5% last year (a growth that didn’t rely on the
country going further into debt to inflate that number, unlike the US’s
2.8% growth in 2024).
The
US had to go into 6.4% GDP deficit, in order to boost the “real” GDP to
2.8%. In other words, for every $1 spent by the US, they made 50 cents
in the year 2024. This is the “growth” of the US economy.
“China is the most unbalanced, imbalanced country in the history of the world. They are in a severe recession/depression. They may have minus 4% disinflation. And they are attempting to export their way out of that as opposed to doing the much needed internal rebalance.”
Like becoming a Wall Street debtor economy Mr. Bessent?
This
is a very weird statement from Bessent since in the next breath he
admits that China still has a lot of money to build infrastructure. If
an economy is collapsing they wouldn’t have any money for anything would
they?
“China will build a hundred new coal plants this year. There is not a clean energy race. There is an energy race. China will build 10 nuclear plants this year. That is not solar. I am in favor of more nuclear plants.” Bessent confusingly stated.
In
fact, China is one of the few countries in the world who are actively
building new nuclear plants and are leading this by a large margin.
Notice
in the above graph that the United States is still leading in number of
nuclear plants, though the number is smaller today since they have been
shutting them down over the past several decades. Notice that China has
built 39 new nuclear reactors since 2011 when the United States
decreased by 11 nuclear reactors.
[Author’s note Feb 12, 2026:
There is a present plan by the Trump Administration to build new
nuclear plants (which take 5-10 years to build) with goals such as 35 GW
of new capacity by 2025 and 15 GW increase per year by 2040. And a goal
of 200 GW of new capacity by 2050. Whether these goals will be
accomplished or not is another matter, in addition to what this new
energy will in fact be used for. Keep in mind that there is a $90
billion investment in data centers and power infrastructure with plans
to build 10 large nuclear reactors by 2030. These data centers will be used to a great extent for AI use in applications for the military industrial complex. Data centers require a massive amount of energy. Just something to keep in mind…]
Energy
(when it is not used to mainly feed a military industrial complex) is
at the core of determining a country’s social progress index. And unlike
the situation the U.S. faces, China is not going into debt to pay for
this growing infrastructure.
As
we can see with the above graph, China now relies on the EU and ASEAN
countries for more than half of its total trade. And its trade with the
ASEAN countries is expected to increase exponentially since these
countries are quickly entering into “first world” economic status. They
also house more than half of the world’s population so there is a huge
consumer market here, and in the near future will surpass the U.S.
consumer market.
ASEAN countries are Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam, Philippines, Indonesia, Cambodia, Myanmar, Brunei and Laos.
China
has a SURPLUS of money coming in and they are not throwing it away into
Wall Street, they are using the money to actually build up industry.
How do you think they have become such a manufacturing powerhouse?
Scott
Bessent calls this imbalanced and unbalanced, to the most extreme
degree in ALL OF HISTORY. Meanwhile, what is the US attempting to do?
Build back its industry so it can be a leader in the export trade since
they realise that they can no longer be top dog with the system they
were previously operating on, which was controlled artificial scarcity.
China
has blown that tactic out of the water because they are offering
essential, crucial trade with other countries that will allow these
countries to be self-empowered. Look at the entire history of
colonialism, they ALWAYS wanted to prevent or put a cap on
industrialisation because it was always understood that that would free
regions of the world to become self-sustaining. There is no more control
if you are no longer the hand that withholds.
Here
is a map (to the left) of the colonial rail lines of Africa built by
the colonialists of Europe between 1890 and 1960. Notice that they for
the most part do not connect with each other, except in South Africa
where there are many white inhabitants. These rail lines are from a
resource mine to a port and were used simply for wealth extraction and
not to uplift the people. I will be doing an updated detailed overview
of what China’s BRI is in fact building throughout the world. However,
you can refer to my paper, with the subsection “China’s Belt and Road Initiative Put Into Perspective” for something I wrote a few years back. Great resources on this are Lawrence Freeman’s website “Africa and the World” as well as Nicholas Jones’s Substack Nkrumah’s Africa both are also RTF lecturers.
This is what President Putin was referring to in a speech from 2018 to light up Africa.
This map shows how much of the world is still in great need of energy and infrastructure.
In 2019, Reuters reported
that the United States’ top African diplomat warned that African
countries running up debt they won’t be able to pay back, should not
expect to be bailed out by western-sponsored debt relief.
“We went through, just in the last 20 years, this big debt forgiveness for a lot of African countries,”
said U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Tibor Nagy,
referring to the somewhat condescendingly named HIPC (Heavily Indebted
Poor Countries) program, started by the IMF and World Bank in 1996 as a
nice window dressing.
“Now
all of a sudden are we going to go through another cycle of that? ... I
certainly would not be sympathetic, and I don’t think my administration
would be sympathetic to that kind of situation,” he told reporters in Pretoria, South Africa.
Hmmm,
imagine if a Chinese diplomat were to have said that, how it would have
been viewed by the west, but apparently when a westerner says it, it is somehow not exploitive and predatory…
Wall
Street billionaire Scott Bessent has even gone so far in interviews to
say that China is not only sick and unbalanced for exporting so much,
but that these massive volumes of exports must be going somewhere, but
acted puzzled as to where that could possibly be. How about to where the
majority of the world population lives that is in great need of this
trade with China to lift their countries out of poverty Mr. Bessent.
So,
there’s an incredible disconnect here. According to Bessent, China is
both strong and weak at the same time. Is China an economic rival to
which you need to guard against or is China crashing and no longer a
threat - because you can’t have both. It looks like Americans might be
still underestimating China, and their policies to contain her are
already beginning to backfire.
Ironically,
what Bessent is doing with this tariff war is giving a boost to China’s
domestic market, which is going to further grow their economic
influence. Just like when the Americans attempted to cut China out of
the semiconductor industry, China in turn focused on self-reliance and
they are now increasingly becoming leaders in the semiconductor field.
China
is capable of doing this because they have a massive manufacturing
capability to begin with and an incredibly complex manufacturing
ecosystem in Shenzhen, which is a much more advanced and affluent city
than anything in the United States, hate to burst that bubble.
Shenzhen, China.
If
you really want to compare strength between the U.S. and China, a
better comparison is the cost of living. While its true that U.S. salary
is three to four times higher, the cost of food is much lower in China,
taxes are also lower, so the standard of living is higher in China.
Also,
if Chinese consumers buy more and U.S. consumers buy less from the
world as a result of this trade war, who has more power to influence the
global economy? This is a losing strategy from Mr. Bessent and it is going to backfire on the standard of living for the average American.
But enough about China let us take a look at how this tariff war has affected the U.S. economy thus far.
Are the Tariffs Creating Higher Inflation and Loss of Jobs?
Trump has said repeatedly that tariffs are a tax on a foreign country, not the American people, “it’s
a tax on a country that’s ripping us off and stealing our jobs. And
it’s a tax that doesn’t affect our country. And you could see hundreds
of billions of dollars of tariffs on other countries also.”
The dollar’s fall this year is the steepest since 2008. It reflects weak confidence in the US economy.
US
interest rates are not going down they are flying higher. And this is
bad for everyone in America. People with mortgages are going to get
squeezed, business and personal loans will also get repriced upwards.
Higher
interest rates are bad for the stock market and economic growth.
Companies can’t expand their operations, their loan payments get more
expensive, as a result salaries are also put under tremendous pressure.
This creates a snowball effect where people are earning less which leads
to lower consumption, in the broader economy. Major banks are already
sounding the alarm, rates could go much higher. This puts the US
consumer under threat which makes up about 70% of GDP.
Onshoring
manufacturing is going to take years to fully manifest. And people will
be hit with higher prices on goods from the world. Everything coming in
from Canada, Europe, Asia, the Middle East are going to be higher in
price and that’s going to be very inflationary.
There
is another complication to all of this. There are three possibilities
for who will have to “eat the tariffs” in a tariff war.
The
tariff can be “eaten” by either the exporter to the U.S., the importer
to the U.S., or the U.S. consumer. Bessent has stated his conviction
numerous times that he is without a doubt that the exporter will eat the
tariff in all cases, that is, with all countries. Because according to
Bessent to cut out the US consumer from their trade would be suicide.
And this is true for some very exposed countries.
Mexico
and Vietnam are at the top of the list after China. In their case, the
greater majority of their trade is with the United States so they are in
a tough bind here. In the case of Vietnam, they have offered to remove
their tariffs on U.S. goods. However, Peter Navarro, White
House advisor on economics, reportedly said no, that the condition would
have to be that they forfeit all trade relations with China.
In
other words, Navarro is asking for countries to pay their pound of
flesh. It is effectively asking Vietnam to remove itself from the
growing massive economic hub that is occurring in Asia right now. Who in
their right mind would do that? It is effectively asking nations to
commit harakiri in fealty to the American Empire.
As discussed in Part I of this series,
it has now been discovered that this tariffing of the world was never
about the U.S. getting screwed by tariffs on U.S. goods, but rather
about putting a criminal level of pressure on nations to force them to
cut China out of trade with the rest of the world and sign over their key industries to the U.S. empire.
This is a situation that should not be occurring if these tariffs were applied properly as protective tariffs. It
completely defeats the purpose of putting a tariff on an imported good,
if the end result is that businesses and U.S. consumers have no choice
but to pay higher prices for said good, it works as a revenue tax NOT a
protective tariff a la McKinley.
The
only option is to not purchase the good, or pay a much higher price for
this good. What do you think this is going to do to small businesses
and the U.S. consumer? Small businesses already have higher prices
typically, since they are not as streamlined and their profit margins
are smaller, so they are going to go belly-up. And U.S. consumers will
either have to forego access to many goods now with these tariffs, or
they will have to pay even higher prices, which is inflationary, making
them even poorer.
When
Beijing raised their tariff to 125% this effectively blocked out all
U.S. exports into China. That’s around $150 billion worth of revenue
vanishing into thin air. American companies took another hit.
The U.S. crushed their own domestic demand with their 145% tariff to
China and their corporate revenue in turn was hammered by China’s 125%
retaliatory tariff.
China
has secured their global supply chains and has the global majority as
trading partners. In other words, unlike countries like Canada, Mexico
and Vietnam, China didn’t just rely on U.S. trade, it saw where the wind
was blowing and began diversifying its trade back in 2018. So, they are
able to take this hit. Whereas countries who have failed to diversify,
such as Mexico and Canada and are at the mercy of the United States as
their primary trading partner. This is the lesson that the entire world
is looking at right now, the U.S. is not a reliable trade partner.
But the Trump team appears to have not realised that this trade war is a double-edged sword.
So
looks like prices for U.S. consumers are going to rise after all Mr.
Bessent. And American workers are going to be losing jobs in the
manufacturing sector.
The
chart below gives you an idea of how much China alone supports U.S.
jobs in manufacturing through U.S. exports to China which are now lost,
likely forever. With the top exporter states being Texas, California,
Louisiana, Indiana and Illinois etc. whose manufacturing industries are
now left totally in the lurch over this trade war and are likely not
going to be able to sustain their industries at this point.
But don’t worry guys. Trump says the tariffs aren’t going to hurt business in America…that is if you are “big business.” Why? Because big business already got massive tax cuts. You the American people are going to be footing the bill for their loss in profits over this tariff war.
Trump
is transferring wealth from private households all the way up to the
federal government to spend through this tariff war on the world.
[Author’s note Feb 12 , 2026: This has now been confirmed with the stats for 2025 now in.]
Trump
has mused to the bottom third of America that he could possibly
consider dropping taxes for this group which is just eeking by at this
point. However, in reality, his tariffs on the world are taxing the
bottom third of the American population the hardest.
[Author’s note Feb 12, 2026: And Trump still has put a cap on credit card interest rates at 10% like he had promised he would.]
Meanwhile
small businesses who can’t survive a weeks-to-months long siege are
already going belly-up in the cause for “Making America Great Again.”
Plenty of American businesses are going to be destroyed by this tariff
strategy. And these are small enterprises that rely on the Chinese
supply chain for affordable manufacturing. We could see massive
unemployment and entire local economies collapsing.
Ironically,
Bessent’s tariff strategy will deindustrialise America faster than ever
before. And if you think the lockdowns were brutal on small businesses,
wait and see what kind of carnage we are in for as a consequence of
this trade war.
Bessent’s
weaponised tariffs are inflationary for US consumers, they are raising
prices for American consumers and lowering their standard of living and
if this continues long enough, U.S. consumption will collapse and the
economy will nose dive.
Bessent said in his interview with Tucker Carlson:
“Well,
I don’t know if they [China] can retaliate for a couple of reasons. If
you look at the history, and I used to teach economic history, and when
you look at the history, we are the debtor nation, we have the trade
deficits. The surplus nation is in the weaker position because the
Chinese business model and the economy are the most unbalanced,
imbalanced in the history of the modern world. We’ve never seen anything
like this in terms of their export level relative to their GDP,
relative to their population. They’re in a deflationary
recession/depression right now. They’re trying to export their way out
of it and we can’t let them do that.”
Again
Bessent is talking about China as some sort of deranged Frankenstein,
an exporter monster, and it is up to America to save the world from
Chinese….affordable and high quality goods?!?
Bessent
continues: “And this is the first step towards realigning that a lot of
our trading partners, including some of our allies, have not been good
partners. If tariffs are so bad, why do they have them? Or, if the
American consumer is going to pay all the tariff then why do they care
about tariffs. Right, because they [the exporter] are going to eat them.
…
So
this is a national security issue that we’re seeing here but it’s also
an economic security issue and it’s to, I don’t want to say
redistribute, but it is to give working Americans real wage gains and
enhance their lives…Wall Street’s done great, it can continue
doing well, it’s Main Street’s turn….and that is what we saw yesterday,
it’s Main Street’s turn.”
Yesterday
(from that interview) when there was a particularly bad day in the U.S.
stock market where many Americans lost their life savings. That was
apparently Main Street’s turn….
For
all of Bessent’s insistence that it is “Main Street’s turn” we can now
see that prices are indeed increasing, manufacturing companies are not
going to be able to sustain the squeeze in profit margins for too long,
unless you are one of Trump’s favourite children and are considered “big
business.”
There
will be a massive loss of jobs in the millions from the drop in foreign
investment, in foreign employment, and foreign trade. Borrowing will be
more costly in a higher interest-rate environment. Things are going to
be more expensive or impossible to manufacture, with tariffs or trade
bans on essential materials required to finish these manufactured goods.
Again,
supply chains cannot be created overnight, this is going to take years.
During this time more jobs will be lost and more small businesses will
go belly-up.
Trump
and friends are considering giving U.S. companies exporter tax credits
to counter-foreign retaliation. So, if Europe decides to slap an import
tax, US exporters will eat some of the tariff and get U.S. government
subsidies. This is funny and sad at the same time, especially when the
U.S. keeps scolding the world for subsidizing their exports. Trump is
now willing to do the same for his own companies. But think about how ridiculous this is.Trump
wants to collect tariffs from U.S. consumers and use it to subsidize
U.S. companies for retaliatory tariffs they are being charged on their
exports.
At
this point I have lost count of all the multiple angles that the U.S.
consumer is expected to foot the bill from this brilliant plan to “Make
America Great Again.”
U.S.
job openings have decreased by 290,000 in one month. 7.48 million down
to 7.19 million according to monthly Bureau of Labor Statistics
published on April 29th, 2025.
But
Bessent continues to state it is not up to the U.S. to de-escalate but
China, despite the fact that it was the U.S. that started this whole
thing.
[Author’s note Feb 12, 2026:
The tariffs against China are not the only thing hitting the American
producer and consumer hard, the high tariffs on Canadian steel and
aluminum, for instance, also heavily hit the U.S. manufacturing industry
this past year, among many other examples.]
No pain, no gain right? Maybe if you live on Wall Street, but this is looking like the end of Main Street.
…but I guess this is all according to the plan? After all, we are thegood guys…right?
Ellsworth
says the WCB denied her pain injections in 2010. They were finally
approved in 2015 by an appeal tribunal, but by then the injections were
no longer helpful. (Robert Short/CBC)
Kendra
Hill says she suffered two injuries while nursing at the Cape Breton
Regional Hospital and has been battling for workers' compensation
benefits ever since. (Tom Ayers/CBC)
Questioned
by the NDP at a legislative committee session in April, Nova Scotia
Labour Minister Jill Balser says the government is starting a review of
the workers' compensation system. (CBC)
NDP
labour critic Kendra Coombes says she hopes for a positive outcome, but
fears a review of Nova Scotia's workers' compensation system will come
too late for Ellsworth. (Jeorge Sadi/CBC)
Adam Rodgers - Nova Scotia Lawyer 
Several
grams of cannabis are dropped into a Magical Butter machine to make
oil. Ellsworth uses the liquid in her food and coffee as well as creams
and bath bombs. (Craig Paisley/CBC)
Dr.
Manoj Vohra, chief medical officer for the Workers' Compensation Board
of Nova Scotia, says there is a reluctance to overprescribe a medication
such as cannabis that hasn't been fully researched. He says doctors are
especially wary after witnessing the fallout from the ongoing opioid
epidemic. (Robert Short/CBC) 
Dr.
Paul Atkinson, chief medical officer at WorkSafeNB, says New Brunswick
was the first workers' compensation organization in the country to
develop a policy on medical cannabis. (Joe McDonald/CBC)
Doctors must fill out a 10-page authorization form to ask WorkSafeNB to approve a patient's cannabis prescription. (Jon Collicott/CBC)
In some cases, WorkSafe NB may approve medical cannabis as an aid for someone to get off addictive medication such as opioids. (Mark Lennihan/Associated Press) 
Dr.
Douglas Smith, a Fredericton-based physical medicine and rehabilitation
specialist, is applauding WorkSafe NB for its medical cannabis policy,
but he would like to see the policy go even further. (Jon Collicott/CBC) 
Conservative MP Chris Warkentin is the party's whip. (Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press
6 Comments