The Truth Behind Trump’s New Money
President Trump is launching a new $250 bill with his face on it – the first living president to do so since Abraham Lincoln’s $10 demand note in 1861.
Source: The Kobeissi Letter, X.
Earlier this year, he instituted another currency change – insisting that his signature appear on all new bank notes.
If you’re starting to sense that Trump has taken an unusual interest in our money, you’re on the right track.
In fact, I’d like to show you that his new $250 bill is a mere distraction from a far bigger and more consequential change to U.S. currency being orchestrated behind the scenes.
Something that will affect every dollar you've ever saved or invested.
Bypassing all conventional legal and political channels, under the guise of national security, Trump is enacting a total money reset using a landmark executive order (14241).
Democrat or Republican, support him or despise him, it doesn't matter – the wheels are already in motion.
And that means every American may soon be forced to use Trump's New Dollar to fill your gas tank, buy groceries, pay the bills.
Which is why I've produced this critical new documentary laying out exactly what this means for your savings, your investments, and your family's financial future…
Detailing three important steps you can take today to prepare – including details on a core band of assets connected to Trump’s initiative that could surge, if this plays out as I predict…
Plus the name and ticker of my #1 move to make today.
As you’ll see in my briefing, the last time America reset its money like this – under Richard Nixon’s presidency in the 1970s – it created one of the greatest wealth divides in the history of our nation.
On one side, it minted an average of 1,300 new millionaires a day for over half a century. And on the other… the folks left behind, with many drowning in debt, and no idea how to use America’s new money to create wealth.
As Trump rolls out his new dollar, the question is:
Good investing,
Porter Stansberry
PS. If you’re wondering what Trump’s new money will look like, when it will be issued, what it means for your investments – all of those questions are answered in my briefing.
Wall Street’s largest banks spent years pushing together for lighter capital requirements. Now they are fighting each other over who benefits most from the final rules.
At the center is a Federal Reserve proposal that changes how short-term wholesale funding is counted in the capital surcharge applied to the largest U.S. banks.
What Moved
Friday, September 4
JPMorgan and Bank of America are urging the Fed to reverse a proposed funding-rule change.
Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley support keeping the change.
JPMorgan estimates the proposal would cost it $13 billion in additional capital relief.
Bank of America could miss out on about $9 billion in relief.
Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley could each receive an additional $1 billion to $2 billion in relief.
The dispute centers on the surcharge applied to global systemically important banks, or GSIBs.
The Fed proposed the change in March.
Bank executives have held repeated meetings with Fed officials as the rule moves toward completion.
Reuters sources said Fed officials are trying to finish the overhaul by year-end.
Why It Moved
The disagreement comes down to how the Fed measures short-term wholesale funding.
That includes funding sources such as repurchase agreements and commercial paper. Regulators treat these sources differently from deposits because they can disappear quickly during periods of financial stress.
Under the current system, short-term wholesale funding is measured relative to a bank’s risk-weighted assets. That formula has made the funding component account for roughly 30% of the overall GSIB calculation.
The Fed wants to replace that ratio with a measure based on the absolute amount of short-term wholesale funding.
That change would favor banks with relatively high wholesale-funding ratios.
Federal data cited by Reuters showed short-term wholesale funding represented 37% of Morgan Stanley’s liabilities and 30% of Goldman Sachs’ liabilities. The figure was 24% at Bank of America and 21% at JPMorgan.
The result is an unusual split among banks that otherwise support the broader capital overhaul.
Never worry about roaming again
Stay connected on every trip with Saily eSIM plans. From beach vacations to business travel, access data in 200+ destinations.
VIP perks available.
Activate instantly upon arrival.
Download SAILY in your app store and use code newsletter15 at checkout to get an exclusive 15% off your first purchase.
Chat support available 24/7. Get a full refund if your device isn’t eSIM compatible.
Why It Matters Now
Several short-term signals emerged:
Billions of dollars in usable bank capital are at stake.
JPMorgan and Bank of America could receive less relief than expected.
Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley stand to benefit from the funding change.
Capital rules influence how much banks can lend, trade and return to shareholders.
The fight could affect Treasury-market liquidity.
The Fed is under pressure to complete the rule before the regulatory environment changes again.
JPMorgan and Bank of America argue the proposed formula could favor trading activity over traditional lending.
Their concern is that banks with large deposit bases could receive less capital relief while firms more dependent on wholesale markets receive a bigger benefit. JPMorgan has argued that the structure could reduce incentives to lend to businesses and consumers.
Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley see it differently.
They argue the new formula would better reflect actual funding risk. Morgan Stanley has also said lower capital requirements for government-bond dealing could improve liquidity in the Treasury market.
That matters because bank capital is not just an accounting issue. The amount banks are required to hold influences how aggressively they can expand lending, market-making and trading operations. It can also affect share repurchases and dividends.
The broader proposal still reduces capital requirements for the largest banks. The fight is about how those benefits are distributed.
The timing makes the dispute more important. Reuters reported that Fed Vice Chair for Supervision Michelle Bowman has asked banks to limit additional feedback, while sources familiar with the process believe she wants to finish the rule by the end of the year.
In the immediate window ahead, investors will watch whether the Fed keeps the wholesale-funding change intact. The final formula could shift billions of dollars in capital flexibility between the largest U.S. banks, directly affecting their lending capacity, trading businesses and ability to return cash to shareholders.
