Connect with us

Business

The Price of Shrimp Cocktail

Published

on

The Price of Shrimp Cocktail

The shrimp cocktail at the comically exclusive Polo Bar in Manhattan is an imposing specimen, the crustaceans arriving tightly shingled on a steeple of ice accented by a celery spire. To devour one in a single bite would be gluttonous. Each requires at least three bites to enjoy — and to ensure the tail meat is excavated.

The hefty Gulf shrimp at the Polo Bar appear to be “U-10s,” a size classification that indicates there are fewer than 10 to a pound. Each bite will run you $2.83, roughly the price of the MetroCard swipe to get there (though Polo Bar patrons seem unlikely to arrive by subway). But at $34 for four shrimp, this is hardly the most expensive shrimp cocktail in the United States.

At heritage steakhouses, beachside dining rooms and birthday-destination chains, diners are sparing no expense to indulge in a little midcentury hedonism by the coupe glass.

At the Scottsdale, Ariz., location of Maple & Ash, a steakhouse with an outpost in Chicago and another opening soon in Miami, $35 gets you four wild blue prawns. At Thomas Keller’s Michelin-starred Surf Club Restaurant in Miami, $34 buys you three U-10s from the Gulf of Mexico. For $32 you get three jumbo shrimp at BLVD Steak in Los Angeles. And $30 buys four jumbo shrimp at the Boston, Denver and Phoenix locations of Ocean Prime.

Just two years ago, Bon Appétit lamented that shrimp cocktail had entered “its $30 era.” At Old Homestead Steakhouse in the meatpacking district of Manhattan, four jumbo shrimp will run you a nice, round $40.

Advertisement

Restaurant operators described the cost of shrimp as steadily increasing. It is always more expensive to buy shrimp fished off U.S. coasts, and prices fluctuate sometimes daily by a couple of dollars depending on demand. The number of shrimp dishes served in restaurants rose in 2024, according to Darren Seifer, an industry adviser for consumer goods and food-service insights at Circana, a market research firm.

While it is hard to compare when size, type, origin and transport vary, once you’re talking about $10 a shrimp, America’s most consumed seafood, the differences may be academic.

When such a formulaic appetizer costs as much as some entrees on the menu, it’s easy to wonder if there is a wood-paneled ceiling for shrimp cocktail prices.

At the Surf Club Restaurant, a silver ramekin of three plump shrimp is the same price as the crab cake, and a dollar more than a half-dozen oysters Rockefeller. Tom Mackenzie, the general manager, said the dish is undoubtedly having a comeback. It’s popular because it’s familiar: “It’s a habit. It’s ingrained.” When he sees a shrimp cocktail order on a ticket, he knows the table is there to celebrate.

“You’re in our world, forget about everything else that’s happening outside of it,” he said. “I think people are seeking that escape more than ever. The shrimp cocktail is really one of those dishes. It just pops. The crab cake is delicious, don’t get me wrong. But it’s a crab cake on a plate.”

Advertisement

Diners are savvier than ever when it comes to identifying quality, he said, and they’re more than willing to splurge when they find it.

“It’s like a Mercedes or a Toyota, right?” he said. “You can charge me for a Mercedes, but it has to be Mercedes quality.”

Joshua Pinsky, the chef and an owner of Penny, a seafood bar in the East Village of Manhattan, will order the appetizer almost anywhere that sells it. “I think shrimp cocktail might actually be one of those things where it’s maybe not a price focus,” he said. “It’s like you want it or you don’t.”

The price point can be what piques his curiosity — like $36 for two shrimp at a steakhouse he declined to name. How good could it be?

“They’re, like, comically big shrimp,” he said. “And I just don’t get why they even need to do that. I’d rather eat six small ones and feel like I’m getting a little more value than two — that I had to split with a four-top.”

Advertisement

At Penny, Mr. Pinsky serves five 16- to 20-count Argentine red shrimp, priced at $24.

“If you’re going to serve something that everyone has a point of reference and a favorite version of, you kind of have to hit it out of the park and beat every level of expectation,” he said.

Shrimp cocktail has been around since at least the 1890s, when it first appeared in Creole cookbooks documenting the culinary traditions of the Gulf Coast. While many Americans reserved it for restaurant special occasions, by the mid-20th century the dish had become more mass-market. To get gamblers through its doors, the Golden Gate Casino in Las Vegas began running a 50-cent shrimp cocktail promotion in 1959, a loss leader that signaled affordable abundance.

“We see food trends come and go, especially luxury ones,” said Sarah Lohman, a food historian and a co-host of the City Cast Las Vegas podcast. “But if it’s not delicious, it doesn’t stick around.”

This month, Leo and Yolanda Garcia tucked into a booth at the Hillstone in the NoMad neighborhood of Manhattan after a bit of shopping. The couple, visiting from Mexico City, were in town to celebrate Ms. Garcia’s 55th birthday. When at a Hillstone — or Morton’s, or the Palm — they always order a shrimp cocktail, with two cocktail sauces. They did not know the cost of the dish.

Advertisement

“Thank God, usually we don’t check the prices,” said Mr. Garcia, 57.

Over at the bar, Alice Eaton hadn’t looked, either. The shrimp were a vehicle for cocktail sauce, she admitted. “I’ve never seen anything this big,” said Ms. Eaton, 41. “They’re almost a little too big.”

At Hillstone locations across the country, five U-10 Blue Diamond shrimp from the Gulf hover just beneath the $30 threshold, ranging from $25 at the Bal Harbour, Fla., location to $28 in Manhattan.

“Because there is elasticity in something like the shrimp cocktail, we are very conscious of the fact that we do not want to be on the high end of what people offer,” said Steve Crompton, vice president of the Hillstone Restaurant Group.

At Queen Street, a raw bar in Los Angeles, Ari Kolender has laid eyes on the elusive shrimp cocktail price ceiling. As the chef and a partner of the restaurant, he said it looks a lot like $27.

Advertisement

There, they’ve actually marked down the cost of their four-piece, 10- to 20-count Gulf shrimp cocktail to build a bit more flexibility into the menu and to encourage diners to try more dishes. They’ll make up the difference on, say, a crudo.

They’ve prepared the dish several ways to test how best to indicate value: fully peeled shrimp, peel-and-eat shrimp, and peeled with the heads intact. (Mr. Kolender decided to leave the heads on because “that, to me, denotes ‘fresh.’ ”)

“We’re kind of hitting a threshold right now of how expensive shrimp are,” he said, “and what we think people will pay for them.”

Business

Video: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk

Published

on

Video: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk

new video loaded: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk

In mapping out Elon Musk’s wealth, our investigation found that Mr. Musk is behind more than 90 companies in Texas. Kirsten Grind, a New York Times Investigations reporter, explains what her team found.

By Kirsten Grind, Melanie Bencosme, James Surdam and Sean Havey

February 27, 2026

Continue Reading

Business

Commentary: How Trump helped foreign markets outperform U.S. stocks during his first year in office

Published

on

Commentary: How Trump helped foreign markets outperform U.S. stocks during his first year in office

Trump has crowed about the gains in the U.S. stock market during his term, but in 2025 investors saw more opportunity in the rest of the world.

If you’re a stock market investor you might be feeling pretty good about how your portfolio of U.S. equities fared in the first year of President Trump’s term.

All the major market indices seemed to be firing on all cylinders, with the Standard & Poor’s 500 index gaining 17.9% through the full year.

But if you’re the type of investor who looks for things to regret, pay no attention to the rest of the world’s stock markets. That’s because overseas markets did better than the U.S. market in 2025 — a lot better. The MSCI World ex-USA index — that is, all the stock markets except the U.S. — gained more than 32% last year, nearly double the percentage gains of U.S. markets.

That’s a major departure from recent trends. Since 2013, the MSCI US index had bested the non-U.S. index every year except 2017 and 2022, sometimes by a wide margin — in 2024, for instance, the U.S. index gained 24.6%, while non-U.S. markets gained only 4.7%.

Advertisement

The Trump trade is dead. Long live the anti-Trump trade.

— Katie Martin, Financial Times

Broken down into individual country markets (also by MSCI indices), in 2025 the U.S. ranked 21st out of 23 developed markets, with only New Zealand and Denmark doing worse. Leading the pack were Austria and Spain, with 86% gains, but superior records were turned in by Finland, Ireland and Hong Kong, with gains of 50% or more; and the Netherlands, Norway, Britain and Japan, with gains of 40% or more.

Investment analysts cite several factors to explain this trend. Judging by traditional metrics such as price/earnings multiples, the U.S. markets have been much more expensive than those in the rest of the world. Indeed, they’re historically expensive. The Standard & Poor’s 500 index traded in 2025 at about 23 times expected corporate earnings; the historical average is 18 times earnings.

Advertisement

Investment managers also have become nervous about the concentration of market gains within the U.S. technology sector, especially in companies associated with artificial intelligence R&D. Fears that AI is an investment bubble that could take down the S&P’s highest fliers have investors looking elsewhere for returns.

But one factor recurs in almost all the market analyses tracking relative performance by U.S. and non-U.S. markets: Donald Trump.

Investors started 2025 with optimism about Trump’s influence on trading opportunities, given his apparent commitment to deregulation and his braggadocio about America’s dominant position in the world and his determination to preserve, even increase it.

That hasn’t been the case for months.

”The Trump trade is dead. Long live the anti-Trump trade,” Katie Martin of the Financial Times wrote this week. “Wherever you look in financial markets, you see signs that global investors are going out of their way to avoid Donald Trump’s America.”

Advertisement

Two Trump policy initiatives are commonly cited by wary investment experts. One, of course, is Trump’s on-and-off tariffs, which have left investors with little ability to assess international trade flows. The Supreme Court’s invalidation of most Trump tariffs and the bellicosity of his response, which included the immediate imposition of new 10% tariffs across the board and the threat to increase them to 15%, have done nothing to settle investors’ nerves.

Then there’s Trump’s driving down the value of the dollar through his agitation for lower interest rates, among other policies. For overseas investors, a weaker dollar makes U.S. assets more expensive relative to the outside world.

It would be one thing if trade flows and the dollar’s value reflected economic conditions that investors could themselves parse in creating a picture of investment opportunities. That’s not the case just now. “The current uncertainty is entirely man-made (largely by one orange-hued man in particular) but could well continue at least until the US mid-term elections in November,” Sam Burns of Mill Street Research wrote on Dec. 29.

Trump hasn’t been shy about trumpeting U.S. stock market gains as emblems of his policy wisdom. “The stock market has set 53 all-time record highs since the election,” he said in his State of the Union address Tuesday. “Think of that, one year, boosting pensions, 401(k)s and retirement accounts for the millions and the millions of Americans.”

Trump asserted: “Since I took office, the typical 401(k) balance is up by at least $30,000. That’s a lot of money. … Because the stock market has done so well, setting all those records, your 401(k)s are way up.”

Advertisement

Trump’s figure doesn’t conform to findings by retirement professionals such as the 401(k) overseers at Bank of America. They reported that the average account balance grew by only about $13,000 in 2025. I asked the White House for the source of Trump’s claim, but haven’t heard back.

Interpreting stock market returns as snapshots of the economy is a mug’s game. Despite that, at her recent appearance before a House committee, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi tried to deflect questions about her handling of the Jeffrey Epstein records by crowing about it.

“The Dow is over 50,000 right now, she declared. “Americans’ 401(k)s and retirement savings are booming. That’s what we should be talking about.”

I predicted that the administration would use the Dow industrial average’s break above 50,000 to assert that “the overall economy is firing on all cylinders, thanks to his policies.” The Dow reached that mark on Feb. 6. But Feb. 11, the day of Bondi’s testimony, was the last day the index closed above 50,000. On Thursday, it closed at 49,499.50, or about 1.4% below its Feb. 10 peak close of 50,188.14.

To use a metric suggested by economist Justin Wolfers of the University of Michigan, if you invested $48,488 in the Dow on the day Trump took office last year, when the Dow closed at 48,448 points, you would have had $50,000 on Feb. 6. That’s a gain of about 3.2%. But if you had invested the same amount in the global stock market not including the U.S. (based on the MSCI World ex-USA index), on that same day you would have had nearly $60,000. That’s a gain of nearly 24%.

Advertisement

Broader market indices tell essentially the same story. From Jan. 17, 2025, the last day before Trump’s inauguration, through Thursday’s close, the MSCI US stock index gained a cumulative 16.3%. But the world index minus the U.S. gained nearly 42%.

The gulf between U.S. and non-U.S. performance has continued into the current year. The S&P 500 has gained about 0.74% this year through Wednesday, while the MSCI World ex-USA index has gained about 8.9%. That’s “the best start for a calendar year for global stocks relative to the S&P 500 going back to at least 1996,” Morningstar reports.

It wouldn’t be unusual for the discrepancy between the U.S. and global markets to shrink or even reverse itself over the course of this year.

That’s what happened in 2017, when overseas markets as tracked by MSCI beat the U.S. by more than three percentage points, and 2022, when global markets lost money but U.S. markets underperformed the rest of the world by more than five percentage points.

Economic conditions change, and often the stock markets march to their own drummers. The one thing less likely to change is that Trump is set to remain president until Jan. 20, 2029. Make your investment bets accordingly.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

How the S&P 500 Stock Index Became So Skewed to Tech and A.I.

Published

on

How the S&P 500 Stock Index Became So Skewed to Tech and A.I.

Nvidia, the chipmaker that became the world’s most valuable public company two years ago, was alone worth more than $4.75 trillion as of Thursday morning. Its value, or market capitalization, is more than double the combined worth of all the companies in the energy sector, including oil giants like Exxon Mobil and Chevron.

The chipmaker’s market cap has swelled so much recently, it is now 20 percent greater than the sum of all of the companies in the materials, utilities and real estate sectors combined.

Advertisement

What unifies these giant tech companies is artificial intelligence. Nvidia makes the hardware that powers it; Microsoft, Apple and others have been making big bets on products that people can use in their everyday lives.

But as worries grow over lavish spending on A.I., as well as the technology’s potential to disrupt large swaths of the economy, the outsize influence that these companies exert over markets has raised alarms. They can mask underlying risks in other parts of the index. And if a handful of these giants falter, it could mean widespread damage to investors’ portfolios and retirement funds in ways that could ripple more broadly across the economy.

Advertisement

The dynamic has drawn comparisons to past crises, notably the dot-com bubble. Tech companies also made up a large share of the stock index then — though not as much as today, and many were not nearly as profitable, if they made money at all.

Advertisement

How the current moment compares with past pre-crisis moments

To understand how abnormal and worrisome this moment might be, The New York Times analyzed data from S&P Dow Jones Indices that compiled the market values of the companies in the S&P 500 in December 1999 and August 2007. Each date was chosen roughly three months before a downturn to capture the weighted breakdown of the index before crises fully took hold and values fell.

Advertisement

The companies that make up the index have periodically cycled in and out, and the sectors were reclassified over the last two decades. But even after factoring in those changes, the picture that emerges is a market that is becoming increasingly one-sided.

In December 1999, the tech sector made up 26 percent of the total.

In August 2007, just before the Great Recession, it was only 14 percent.

Advertisement

Today, tech is worth a third of the market, as other vital sectors, such as energy and those that include manufacturing, have shrunk.

Since then, the huge growth of the internet, social media and other technologies propelled the economy.

Advertisement

Now, never has so much of the market been concentrated in so few companies. The top 10 make up almost 40 percent of the S&P 500.

Advertisement

How much of the S&P 500 is occupied by the top 10 companies

With greater concentration of wealth comes greater risk. When so much money has accumulated in just a handful of companies, stock trading can be more volatile and susceptible to large swings. One day after Nvidia posted a huge profit for its most recent quarter, its stock price paradoxically fell by 5.5 percent. So far in 2026, more than a fifth of the stocks in the S&P 500 have moved by 20 percent or more. Companies and industries that are seen as particularly prone to disruption by A.I. have been hard hit.

Advertisement

The volatility can be compounded as everyone reorients their businesses around A.I, or in response to it.

The artificial intelligence boom has touched every corner of the economy. As data centers proliferate to support massive computation, the utilities sector has seen huge growth, fueled by the energy demands of the grid. In 2025, companies like NextEra and Exelon saw their valuations surge.

Advertisement

The industrials sector, too, has undergone a notable shift. General Electric was its undisputed heavyweight in 1999 and 2007, but the recent explosion in data center construction has evened out growth in the sector. GE still leads today, but Caterpillar is a very close second. Caterpillar, which is often associated with construction, has seen a spike in sales of its turbines and power-generation equipment, which are used in data centers.

One large difference between the big tech companies now and their counterparts during the dot-com boom is that many now earn money. A lot of the well-known names in the late 1990s, including Pets.com, had soaring valuations and little revenue, which meant that when the bubble popped, many companies quickly collapsed.

Advertisement

Nvidia, Apple, Alphabet and others generate hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue each year.

And many of the biggest players in artificial intelligence these days are private companies. OpenAI, Anthropic and SpaceX are expected to go public later this year, which could further tilt the market dynamic toward tech and A.I.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Methodology

Sector values reflect the GICS code classification system of companies in the S&P 500. As changes to the GICS system took place from 1999 to now, The New York Times reclassified all companies in the index in 1999 and 2007 with current sector values. All monetary figures from 1999 and 2007 have been adjusted for inflation.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending