riskFULL ☣️

It was assumed that the US was in a structural change with it's privilege of global attraction to the USD however when we look at history these eras are never permanent. Historical events show even though money can be printed and financial markets can be controlled what cannot be

Hyperliquid subject matter is just spilling everywhere. Worth a read for any interest in exchanges + background on hyperliquid rise and future.

Body blows to LNG to power expectations.

-Between 2021 and 2026, more than half of LNG-fired power projects and import terminals in the Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand, and Bangladesh have been canceled or shown no notable progress.

-Recent developments in global LNG markets, as well as equipment and currency markets, have exacerbated execution risks for LNG-to-power projects in emerging economies and weakened the revenue security on which non-recourse project financing depends.

-Out of the 92 LNG-fired power plants surveyed, just 11% of total power capacity was successfully brought online over the last five years. Meanwhile, just 15% of the total capacity of proposed import terminals was completed. This is a substantially lower completion rate than IEEFA assumed in 2021.

ieefa.org/resources/lng-…

Fwiw this post misses a few other groups involved:

Audit Committee, which is comprised of independent members of Abaxx’s board of directors, retained Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP (“Fasken”) as its independent Canadian legal counsel and TSMP Law Corporation as independent legal counsel in Singapore. Fasken, in turn, retained Grant Thornton Singapore Private Limited, a major international public accounting firm, and William Knottenbelt, an independent industry expert with over 40 years of experience in global futures markets, and former Senior Managing Director and Head of International with CME Group to assist in its efforts.

I caught up with a long time friend over the weekend who has been a investment research consultant for 15 years. I got their thoughts on the $ABXX.TO audit and I very much underappreciated how it's viewed in the historical context.

Almost always gets put in the to hard bucket mainly due to probability. There is a main academic study on this (Brendel & Ryans, Journal of Accounting Research, 2021) which examined 351 U.S. activist short reports from 1996–2018. Firms respond publicly to only about 31% of reports overall.
Full internal investigations are uncommon (roughly 4% of cases).
Firms that announce an internal investigation have significantly higher subsequent rates of stock exchange delisting (around 50% vs. ~25% for short targets overall), SEC accounting enforcement actions (AAERs; ~29% vs. ~6% overall) and lower rates of being acquired (~7% vs. ~18%).

In the small sample of investigations they examined (~14 cases of full internal audit of the 351 in the historical window) only 3 resulted in a public disclosure that the company was cleared.

6 disclosed findings of wrongdoing.
The remaining 5 did not release results and the firm was later delisted (consistent with problems having been found).

Not responding at all was associated with a milder initial stock reaction and fewer later adverse outcomes. Simple denials also tended to fare better than investigations or lawsuits based on the study. What this means broadly speaking, just looking at the opportunity in the audit window has a higher probability of a negative short to medium outcome. This isn't saying there won't be a good outcome but historically it would leave reasons to wait to begin doing research that would lead to an investment decision. The average time of the investigations were 3-6 months with 20% taking 6-12 months due to organizational complexity, international coordination and duration of the investigations time frame focus.