Connect with us

Business

McDonald’s is losing its low-income customers. Economists call it a symptom of the stark wealth divide

Published

on

McDonald’s is losing its low-income customers. Economists call it a symptom of the stark wealth divide

In the early 2000s, after a severe slump, McDonald’s orchestrated a major turnaround, with the introduction of its Dollar Menu.

The menu, where all items cost $1, illustrated just how important it was to market to low-income consumers — who value getting the most bang for their buck.

Coming at a time of flagging growth, tumbling stock and the company’s first report of a quarterly loss, the Dollar Menu reversed the fast food giant’s bad fortune. It paved the way for three years of sales growth at stores open at least a year and ballooned revenue by 33%, news outlets reported at the time.

But no longer.

Advertisement

Prices have risen so high at the iconic fast food chain that traffic from one of its core customer bases, low-income households, has dropped by double digits, McDonald’s chief executive Christopher Kempczinski told investors last week. Meanwhile, traffic from higher-earners increased by nearly as much, he said.

The struggle of the Golden Arches — long synonymous with cheap food for the masses — reflects a larger trend upending the consumer economy and making “affordability” a hot policy topic.

McDonald’s executives say the higher costs of restaurant essentials, such as beef and salaries, have pushed food prices up and driven away lower-income customers who are already being squeezed by the rising cost of groceries, clothes, rent and child care.

With prices for everything rising, consumer companies concerned about the pressures on low-income Americans include food, automotive and airline businesses, among others, said analyst Adam Josephson. “The list goes on and on,” he said.

“Happy Meals at McDonald’s are prohibitively expensive for some people, because there’s been so much inflation,” Josephson said.

Advertisement

Josephson and other economists say the shrinking traffic of low-income consumers is emblematic of a larger trend of Americans diverging in their spending, with wealthier customers flexing their purchasing power and lower-income shoppers pulling back — what some call a “K-shaped economy.”

A recent earnings report from Delta offers yet another illustration. While Delta’s main cabin revenue fell 5% for the June quarter compared to a year ago, premium ticket sales rose 5%, highlighting the divide between affluent customers and those forced to be more economical.

At hotel chains, luxury brands are holding up better than low budget options. Revenue at brands including Four Seasons, Ritz-Carlton and St. Regis is up 2.9% so far this year, while economy hotels saw a 3.1% decline for the same period, according to industry tracker CoStar.

“There are examples everywhere you look,” Josephson said.

Consumer credit delinquency rates show just how much low-income households are hurting, with households that make less than $45,000 annually seeing “huge year-over-year increases,” even as delinquency rates for high- and middle-income households have flattened and stabilized, said Rikard Bandebo, chief strategy officer and chief economist at VantageScore.

Advertisement

After COVID-19-related stimulus programs ended, these households were the first to see dramatically increased delinquency rates, and haven’t seen a dip in delinquencies since 2022, according to data from VantageScore on 60-day past-due delinquencies from January 2020 to September 2025. And although inflation has come down from its peak in 2022, people are still struggling with relatively higher prices and “astronomical” rent increases, Bandebo said.

A report released this year by researchers with Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University found that half of all renters, 22.6 million people, were cost-burdened in 2023, meaning they spent more than 30% of their income on housing and utilities, up 3.2 percentage points since 2019 and 9 percentage points since 2001. Twenty-seven percent of renters are severely burdened, spending more than 50% of their income on housing.

As rents have grown, the amount families have left over after paying for housing and utilities has fallen to record lows. In 2023, renters with annual household incomes under $30,000 had a median of just $250 per month in residual income to spend on other needs, an amount that’s fallen 55% since 2001, with the steepest declines since the pandemic, according to the Harvard study.

“It’s getting tougher and tougher every month for low-income households to make ends meet,” Bandebo said.

Prices at limited-service restaurants, which include fast-food restaurants, are up 3.2% year over year, at a rate higher than inflation “and that’s climbing” said Marisa DiNatale, an economist at Moody’s Analytics.

Advertisement

On top of that, price increases due to tariffs disproportionately affect lower-income households, because they spend a greater portion of their income on goods rather than services, which are not directly impacted by tariffs. Wages too, are stagnating more for these households compared to higher- and middle-income households, DiNatale said.

“It has always been the case that more well-off people have done better. But a lot of the economic and policy headwinds are disproportionately affecting lower-income households, and [McDonald’s losing low-income customers] is a reflection of that,” DiNatale said.

It makes sense, then, that any price increases would hit these consumers hard.

According to a corporate fact sheet, from 2019 to 2024, the average cost of a McDonald’s menu item rose 40%. The average price of a Big Mac in 2019, for example, was $4.39, rising in 2024 to $5.29, according to the company. A 10-piece McNuggets Meal rose from $7.19 to $9.19 in the same time period.

The company says these increases are in line with the costs of running a restaurant — including soaring labor costs and high prices of beef and other goods.

Advertisement

Beef prices have skyrocketed, with inventory of the U.S. cattle herd at the lowest in 75 years due to the toll of drought and parasites. And exports of beef bound to the U.S. are down because of Trump’s trade war and tariffs. As a result, the prices of ground beef sold in supermarkets is up 13% in September, year over year.

McDonald’s has also placed blame on the meat-packing industry, accusing it of maneuvering to artificially inflate prices in a lawsuit filed last year against the industry’s “Big Four” companies — Tyson, JBS, Cargill and the National Beef Packing Company.

The companies have denied wrongdoing, and paid tens of millions of dollars to settle multiple lawsuits alleging price-fixing.

However, McDonald’s chief financial officer Ian Borden said on the recent earnings call that the company has managed to keep expenses from getting out of control.

“I think the strength of our supply chain means our beef costs are, I think, certainly up less than most,” he said.

Advertisement

McDonald’s did not disclose how the company gauges the income levels of their customers but businesses often analyze the market area they serve by estimating the background of their customers based on where they are shopping and what they are buying.

In California, the debate around fast food prices has centered on labor costs, with legislation going into effect last year raising the minimum wage for fast-food workers at chains with more than 60 locations nationwide.

But more than a year after fast-food wages were boosted, the impact is still being debated, with economists divided and the fast-food industry and unions sparring over its impact.

Fast-food restaurant owners as well as trade associations like the International Franchise Assn., which spearheaded an effort to block the minimum wage boost, have said businesses have been forced to trim employee hours, institute hiring freezes or lay people off to offset the cost of higher wages.

Meanwhile, an analysis by researchers at UC Berkeley’s Center on Wage and Employment Dynamics of some 2,000 restaurants found the $20 wage did not reduce fast-food employment, and “led to minimal menu price increases” of about 8 cents on a $4 burger.”

Advertisement

Labor groups have also argued that minimum wage increases give workers more purchasing power, helping to stimulate the economy.

McDonald’s said last year that spending by the company on restaurant worker salaries had grown around 40% since 2019, while costs for food, paper and other goods were up 35%.

The success of its Dollar Menu in the early 2000s was remarkable because it had come amid complaints of the chain’s highly processed, high-calorie and high-fat products, food safety concerns and worker exploitation.

As the company marketed the Dollar Menu, which included the double cheeseburger, the McChicken sandwich, french fries, a hot fudge sundae and a 16-ounce soda, it also added healthier options to its regular menu, including salads and fruit.

But the healthier menu items did not drive the turnaround. The $1 double cheeseburgers brought in far more revenue than salads or the chicken sandwiches, which were priced in the $3 to $4.50 range.

Advertisement

“The Dollar Menu appeals to lower-income, ethnic consumers,” said Steve Levigne, vice president for United States business research at McDonald’s, told the New York Times in 2006. “It’s people who don’t always have $6 in their pocket.”

The Dollar Menu eventually became unsustainable, however. With inflation driving up prices, McDonald’s stores, particularly franchisee locations, struggled to afford it, and by November 2013 rebranded it as the “Dollar Menu & More” with prices up to $5.

Last year, McDonald’s took a stab at appealing to cash-stretched customers with a $5 deal for a McDouble or McChicken sandwich, small fries, small soft drink and four-piece McNuggets. And in January it rolled out a deal offering a $1 menu item alongside an item bought for full price, with an ad starring John Cena, and launched Extra Value Meals in early September — offering combos costing 15% less than ordering each of the items separately.

The marketing didn’t seem to immediately cut through to customers, with McDonald’s in May reporting U.S. same-store sales in the recent quarter declined 3.6% from the year before. However, in its recent third-quarter earnings, the company reported a 2.4% lift in sales, even as its chief executive sounded the alarm about the increasingly two-tiered economy.

That other businesses, too, are reviving deals is a sign of the times. San Francisco-based burger chain Super Duper promoted its “recession combo” on social media. For $10, customers get fries, a drink and a “recession burger” at one of the chain’s 19 California locations.

Advertisement

What’s clear is companies are wary of passing along higher costs to customers, said DiNatale, of Moody’s Analytics.

“A lot of businesses are saying, we just don’t think consumers will stand for this,” DiNatale said. “[Consumers] have been through years of higher prices, and there’s just very little tolerance for higher prices going forward.”

Advertisement

Business

How Iran War Is Threatening Global Oil and Gas Supplies

Published

on

How Iran War Is Threatening Global Oil and Gas Supplies

Ships near the Strait of Hormuz before and after attacks began

Advertisement

Note: Times shown are in Iran Standard Time. Some ships in the region transmit false positions and others sometimes stop broadcasting their locations, and may not be reflected in the animation. Ships with sparse location data are shown in a lighter shade. Source: Kpler and Spire.

Every day, around 80 oil and gas tankers typically pass through the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway off Iran’s southern coast that carries a fifth of the world’s oil and a significant amount of natural gas.

Advertisement

On Monday, just two oil and gas tankers appear to have crossed the strait, according to a New York Times analysis of shipping activity from Kpler, an industry data firm. Since then, one tanker passed through.

“It’s a de facto closure,” said Dan Pickering, chief investment officer of Pickering Energy Partners, a Houston financial services firm. “You’ve got a significant number of vessels on either side of the strait but no one is willing to go through.”

Advertisement

Tankers have been staying away from Hormuz since the U.S.-Israeli attacks on Iran that began on Saturday. A prolonged conflict could ripple broadly across the global economy, threatening the energy supplies of countries halfway around the world and stoking inflation.

International oil prices have climbed 12 percent since the fighting began, trading Tuesday around $81 a barrel, and natural gas prices have surged in Europe and in Asia.

A senior Iranian military official threatened on Monday to “set on fire” any ships traveling through the Strait of Hormuz. Vessels in the region have already come under attack. Several oil and gas facilities have also been struck or affected by nearby shelling, though the damage did not initially appear to be catastrophic.

Advertisement

Where ships and energy facilities have been damaged

Advertisement

Note: Damage as of 2 p.m. Eastern time Tuesday. Source: Kpler, Kuwait National Petroleum Company, Saudi Arabian Ministry of Energy, Planet Labs, QatarEnergy, United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations and Vanguard Tech.

Advertisement

A fire broke out Tuesday at a major energy hub in Fujairah, United Arab Emirates, from the falling debris of a downed drone, the authorities said. On Monday, Qatar halted production of liquefied natural gas, or fuel that has been cooled so that it can be transported on ships, after attacks on its facilities.

Advertisement

Facilities at Ras Tanura oil refinery in Saudi Arabia were on fire on Monday after two Iranian drones were intercepted, according to Saudi Arabia’s Ministry of Energy, causing fragments to fall. Vantor

The sharp reduction in tanker traffic is reducing the supply of oil and gas to world markets, pushing up prices for both commodities. And the longer that ships stay away from the Strait of Hormuz, the less oil and gas get out to the world, which could raise prices even more.

Shipping companies have paused their tankers to protect their crew and cargo, and because insurance companies are charging significantly more to cover vessels in the conflict area.

Advertisement

On Tuesday, President Trump said that “if necessary,” the U.S. Navy would begin escorting tankers through the strait. He also said a U.S. government agency would begin offering “political risk insurance” to shipping lines in the area.

In addition to tankers, other large vessels regularly go through the strait, including car carriers and container ships. In normal conditions, nearly 160 make the trip each day.

Advertisement

Some ships in the region turn off the devices that broadcast their positions, while others transmit false locations — making it hard to give a full picture of the traffic in the strait.

The Shiva is a small oil tanker that has repeatedly faked its location, according to TankerTrackers.com, which tracks global oil shipments. It is suspected of carrying sanctioned Iranian oil, according to Kpler. The Shiva was one of the two tankers that crossed the strait on Monday.

The oil and gas that typically move through the strait come from big producing countries like Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran and United Arab Emirates, and are exported around the world.

Advertisement

Where tankers moving through the Strait have traveled

Advertisement

Note: Tanker paths are since Jan. 1 and include all tankers and gas carriers. Source: Kpler and Spire.

In 2024, more than 80 percent of the oil and gas transported through the Strait of Hormuz went to Asia. China, India, Japan and South Korea were the top importers, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Advertisement

Countries have energy stockpiles that could last them into the coming months, but a continued shutdown of the strait could damage their economies.

Several big disruptions have roiled supply chains in recent years, but the tanker standstill in the Strait of Hormuz could have an outsize impact.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Paramount credit downgraded to ‘junk’ status over debt worries

Published

on

Paramount credit downgraded to ‘junk’ status over debt worries

Paramount Skydance’s jubilation over its come-from-behind victory to claim Warner Bros. Discovery has entered a new phase:

Call it the deal-debt hangover.

Two major ratings agencies have raised concerns about Paramount’s credit because of the enormous debt the David Ellison-led company will have to shoulder — at least $79 billion — once it absorbs the larger Warner Bros. Discovery, bringing CNN, HBO, TBS and Cartoon Network into the Paramount fold.

Fitch Ratings said Monday that it placed Paramount on its “negative” ratings watch, and downgraded its credit to BB+ from BBB-, which puts the company’s credit into “junk” territory. Fitch said it took action due to “uncertainty” surrounding Paramount’s $110-billion deal for Warner Bros. Discovery, which the boards of both companies approved on Friday.

S&P Global Ratings took similar action.

Advertisement

To finance the Warner takeover, Ellison’s billionaire father, Larry Ellison, has agreed to guarantee the $45.7 billion in equity needed. Bank of America, Citibank and Apollo Global have agreed to provide Paramount with more than $54 billion in debt financing.

“Potential credit risks include the prospective debt-funded structure, Fitch’s expectation of materially elevated leverage and limited visibility on post-transaction financial policy and capital structure,” Fitch said.

Late last week, Paramount sent $2.8 billion to Netflix as a “termination fee” to officially end the streaming giant’s pursuit of Warner Bros. That payment paved the way for Warner and Paramount’s board to enter into the new merger agreement.

Paramount hopes the merger will be wrapped up by the end of September. It needs the approval of Warner Bros. Discovery shareholders and regulators, including the European Union.

Paramount executives acknowledged this week the new company would emerge with $79 billion in debt — a considerably higher total than what Warner Bros. Discovery had following its spinoff from AT&T. That 2022 transaction left Warner Bros. Discovery with nearly $55 billion of debt, a burden that led to endless waves of cost-cutting, including thousands of layoffs and dozens of canceled projects.

Advertisement

Warner still has $33.5 billion in debt, a lingering legacy that will be passed on to Paramount.

Paramount plans to restructure about $15 billion in Warner Bros. Discovery’s existing debt.

Paramount CEO David Ellison at a 2024 movie premiere for a Netflix show.

(Evan Agostini / Invision / AP)

Advertisement

Paramount told Wall Street it would find more than $6 billion in cost cuts or “synergies” within three years — a number that has weighed heavily on entertainment industry workers, particularly in Los Angeles.

Hollywood already is reeling from previous mergers in addition to a sharp pullback in film and television production locally as filmmakers chase tax credits offered overseas and in other states, including New York and New Jersey.

Some entertainment executives, including Netflix Co-Chief Executive Ted Sarandos, have speculated that Paramount will need to find more than $10 billion in cost cuts to make the math work. More recently, Sarandos went higher, telling Bloomberg News that Paramount may need $16 billion in cuts.

Cognizant of widespread fears about additional layoffs, Paramount Chief Operating Officer Andrew Gordon took steps this week to try to tamp down such concerns.

Gordon is a former Goldman Sachs banker and a former executive with RedBird Capital Partners, an investor in Paramount and the proposed Warner Bros. deal. He joined Paramount last August as part of the Ellison takeover.

Advertisement

During a conference call Monday with analysts, Gordon said Paramount would look beyond the workforce for cuts because the company wants to maintain its film and TV production levels.

Paramount plans to look for cost savings by consolidating the “technology stacks and cloud providers” for its streaming services, including Paramount+ and HBO Max, Gordon said. The company also would search for reductions in corporate overhead, marketing expenses, procurement, business services and “optimizing the combined real estate footprint.”

It’s unclear whether Paramount would sell the historic Melrose Avenue lot or simply centralize the sprawling operations onto the Warner Bros. and Paramount lots in Burbank and Hollywood.

Workers are scattered throughout the region.

HBO, owned by Warner Bros. Discovery, maintains its West Coast headquarters in Culver City; CBS television stations operate from CBS’ former lot off Radford Avenue in Studio City; and CBS Entertainment and Paramount cable channels executive teams are located in a high-rise off Gower Street and Sunset Boulevard, blocks from the Paramount movie studio lot.

Advertisement

“The combination of PSKY and WBD could create a materially stronger business than either individual entity,” Standard & Poor’s said in its note to investors. “However, this transaction presents unique challenges because it would involve the combination of three companies, with the smallest, Skydance, being the controlling entity.”

David Ellison’s production firm, Skydance Media, was the entity that bought Paramount, creating Paramount Skydance.

Ellison has not announced what the combined company will be called.

Paramount shares closed down more than 6% Tuesday to $12.45.

Warner Bros. Discovery fell 1% to $28.20. Netflix added less than 1% to close at $97.70.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Commentary: Trump Media’s financial report revives doubts for investors

Published

on

Commentary: Trump Media’s financial report revives doubts for investors

So much Trump-related news has appeared lately on the airwaves and in web pixels — what with Iran and Epstein and Minnesota and so on — that inevitably a nugget will fall between the cracks.

That seems to have been the fate of the most recent annual financial report of Trump Media and Technology Group, which covered calendar year 2025 and was issued Friday.

Trump Media, which is 52% owned by Donald Trump and trades on Nasdaq with a ticker symbol based on his initials (DJT), is the holding company for Trump’s social media platform, Truth Social.

The value of TMTG’s brand may diminish if the popularity of President Donald J. Trump were to suffer.

— A risk factor disclosed by Trump Media

Advertisement

The annual financial disclosure has garnered minimal press coverage. That’s a pity, because it makes fascinating reading, though not in a good way.

Here are the top and bottom lines from the 10-k annual report: Trump Media lost $712.1 million last year on revenue of about $3.7 million. That’s quite a bit worse than its performance in 2024, when it lost $409 million on revenue of about $3.6 million. The company attributed most of the flood of red ink to “loss from investments,” of which more in a moment.

Truth Social isn’t an especially strong keystone of this operation. The platform is chiefly an outlet for Trump’s social media ramblings and the occasional official White House statements. But no one has to sign in to Truth Social to see them — they’re almost invariably picked up by the news media or reposted by users on other platforms such as X.

That might explain Truth Social’s relatively scrawny user base. The platform is estimated to have about 2 million active users, according to the analytical firm Search Logistics. By comparison, X has about 450 million monthly active users and Facebook has more than 2.9 billion.

Advertisement

It’s no mystery, then, why TMTG disdains “traditional performance metrics like average revenue per user, ad impressions and pricing, or active user accounts, including monthly and daily active users,” according to its annual report.

Relying on those metrics, which are used to judge TMTG’s social media rivals, “might not align with the best interests of TMTG or its stockholders, as it could lead to short-term decision-making at the expense of long-term innovation and value creation.”

Instead, the company says it should be evaluated based on “its commitment to a robust business plan that includes introducing innovative features, new products, new technologies.” But it also acknowledges that, at its heart, TMTG is a proxy for “the reputation and popularity of President Donald J. Trump.” The company warns that “the value of TMTG’s brand may diminish if the popularity of President Donald J. Trump were to suffer.”

How has that played out in real time? Trump Media notched its highest closing price as a public company, $66.22, on March 27, 2024, the day after its initial public offering. In midday trading Monday, the shares were quoted at $11.08, for a loss of 83% since the IPO.

One can’t quibble with stock market price quotes; nor can one finagle annual profit and loss statements, at least not without receiving questions, and perhaps lawsuit complaints, from attentive investors and the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Advertisement

In recent months, TMTG has engaged in a number of baroque financial transactions.

In May, the company announced that it was planning to raise $3.5 billion from institutions to invest in bitcoin, with the money to come from issues of common and preferred shares. The goal was to climb onto the cryptocurrency train, which Trump himself was fueling by, among other things, issuing an executive order promoting the expansion of crypto in the U.S. and denigrating enforcement efforts by the Biden administration as reflecting a “war on cryptocurrency.”

Under Trump, federal regulators have dropped numerous investigations related to cryptocurrencies. Trump has also talked about creating a government crypto strategic reserve, which would entail large government purchases of bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies; a March 3 announcement on that subject briefly sent bitcoin prices soaring by nearly 20%, though they promptly fell back.

Then there’s TMTG’s relationship with Crypto.com, a Singapore-based crypto “service provider” best known to Angelenos unfamiliar with the crypto world as the firm with naming rights to the Los Angeles arena that hosts the NBA Lakers and Clippers, WNBA Sparks and NHL Kings.

In August, Crypto.com and TMTG announced a deal in which TMTG would pursue a crypto treasury strategy consisting mostly of Cronos tokens, a cryptocurrency sponsored by Crypto.com. The initial infusion would consist of 6.4 billion Cronos valued at $1 billion, or about 15.8 cents per Cronos.

Advertisement

As of Dec. 31, TMTG said in its 10-K, it owned 756.1 million Cronos, acquired at a cost of about $114 million, or 15 cents each. By year’s end, they were worth only about nine cents each, for a paper loss of about $46 million. In trading this week, Cronos was quoted at about 7.6 cents, producing a paper loss for TMTG of about $56.5 million, or roughly half the investment.

The financial maneuvering involved in this trade is a little dizzying. The initial transaction was a 50% stock, 50% cash trade in which Crypto.com bought $50 million in TMTG stock and TMTG bought $105 million in Cronos. Who gained in this deal? It’s almost impossible to say.

Crypto.com did gain, if not purely in cash, then arguably through the Trump administration’s good graces.

On March 27, the SEC formally closed an investigation of the company that it had launched during the Biden administration, when the agency was headed by a known crypto skeptic, Gary Gensler. Trump appointed a crypto-friendly regulator, Paul Atkins, as Gensler’s successor.

It’s reasonable to note that as a business model, crypto treasuries have been in vogue over the last year or so, allowing investors to play the crypto market without all the complexities of actually buying and holding the digital assets by buying shares in treasury companies.

Advertisement

I asked Crypto.com whether the steady decline in Cronos’ price suggested that the hookup with TMTG wasn’t bearing fruit. “The fluctuation in value during this time period is consistent with the entire crypto market, which is typical in a bear market,” company spokeswoman Victoria Davis told me by email.

Davis also asserted that the SEC’s investigation of the company had been closed by Gensler, “not the current administration” (i.e., Trump). That’s misleading, at best. Gensler put the investigation on hold after the 2024 election, when it became clear that Trump was going to be in charge.

Crypto.com’s March 27 announcement of the formal end of the case attributed the action to “the current SEC leadership” and blamed the case on “the previous administration.” I asked Davis to explain the discrepancy but got no reply.

TMTG, like Crypto.com, attributed the decline in Cronos’ value to the secular bear market raging in the entire cryptocurrency space, a reflection of “temporary price swings across the crypto market,” said TMTG spokeswoman Shannon Devine. She said the price decline “will not diminish our enthusiasm for the enormous potential of the [CRONOS] ecosystem.”

Trump’s coziness with crypto companies hasn’t gone unnoticed by Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee, who issued a scathing report on the topic in November. (The White House scoffed at the report, saying in response to the report that Trump “only acts in the best interests of the American public.”)

Advertisement

In mid-December, TMTG launched yet another remaking — this time, plunging into the business of fusion power. The instrument is TAE Technologies, a Foothill Ranch-based company working to develop the technology of nuclear fusion as a clean energy source. According to a Dec. 18 announcement, TMTG and TAE will merge, creating what they say is a $6-billion company.

According to the announcement, TMTG will contribute $200 million to the merged company when the deal closes in mid-2026, and an additional $100 million subsequently. Following the merger, TMTG said last month, it will consider spinning off Truth Social into a new publicly traded company.

These arrangements are murky. TAE is privately held and the value of Truth Social is conjectural at best, so TMTG shareholders could be hard-pressed to assess their gains or losses from the merger and spin-off.

What makes them even murkier is the speculative nature of fusion as an electrical power source. Although numerous companies have leaped into the field — and TAE, which has been backed by Alphabet, the parent of Google, is among the oldest — none has shown the capability of generating electrical power at commercial scale with the elusive technology.

Although some researchers say that fusion could become a technically and economically feasible power source within 10 years, only in 2022 did fusion researchers (at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory) achieve the goal of using fusion to produce more energy than is required to sustain a reaction. They were able to do so only for less than a billionth of a second.

Advertisement

Others working on the technology have expressed doubts that fusion could become a viable power source before the 2040s. The technical challenges, including how to convert the energy produced by a fusion reactor into electricity, remain daunting.

All this points to the fundamental question of what TMTG is supposed to be. TMTG’s original mission, according to its own publicity statements, was to build Truth Social into an alternative social media platform “to end Big Tech’s assault on free speech by opening up the Internet.”

Spinning off Truth Social would place that goal on the side. TMTG is on its way too becoming a hodgepodge of crypto, fusion and other investments selected without regard to whether they fit together or are even achievable. The only constant is Trump himself.

If you want to invest in him, TMTG may be the best way to do it. But judging from its latest financial disclosure, that’s not the same as being a good way to do it.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending