It was apparently these kinds of agreements that Xbox's Phil Spencer had in mind opens in new tab when he spoke to Sony bosses in January and confirmed Microsoft's "intent to honor all existing agreements upon acquisition of Activision Blizzard".

Unfortunately, the footnote ends there, so there's not much in the way of detail about what these restrictions are or how long they'd remain in effect in a potential post-acquisition world. Given COD's continued non-appearance on Game Pass, you've got to imagine the restrictions are fairly significant if they're not an outright block on COD coming to the service.

Either way, the simple fact that Microsoft is apparently willing to maintain any restrictions on its own ability to put first-party games on Game Pass is rather remarkable, given that making Game Pass more appealing is one of the reasons for its acquisition spree.

The irony of Sony making deals like this one while fretting about COD's future on PlayStation probably isn't lost on Microsoft's lawyers, which is no doubt part of why they brought it up to the CMA. While it's absolutely reasonable to worry about a world in which more and more properties are concentrated in the hands of singular, giant megacorps, it does look a bit odd if you're complaining about losing access to games while stopping them from joining competing services.

We'll find out if the CMA agrees when it completes its in-depth, "Phase 2" investigation opens in new tab into the Activision Blizzard acquisition, which is some way off yet. For now, we'll have to content ourselves with poring over these kinds of corporate submissions for more interesting tidbits like this one. So far, we've already learned that Microsoft privately has a gloomy forecast for the future of cloud gaming opens in new tab , and that the company thinks Sony shouldn't worry so much since, hey, future COD games might be as underwhelming as Vanguard opens in new tab.

Who knows what we'll learn next? Sign up to get the best content of the week, and great gaming deals, as picked by the editors. One of Josh's first memories is of playing Quake 2 on the family computer when he was much too young to be doing that, and he's been irreparably game-brained ever since. His writing has been featured in Vice, Fanbyte, and the Financial Times.

He'll play pretty much anything, and has written far too much on everything from visual novels to Assassin's Creed. His most profound loves are for CRPGs, immersive sims, and any game whose ambition outstrips its budget. The thing that made it hard then was the fact that the Treasury yield had fallen persistently since In , however, 6. It would pull ground on everything and everyone else.

The following Monday I went all in with the Year. The situation is similar today but different enough that I haven't yet gone all in. I'm also not as keen on the Year as I was in because ten years is a long time given the number of variables in play right now. You can get about the same yield on the 2-Year anyway. You have to remember that the long term path of yields may have turned up. I thought that at the time of the all time low around zero in March and wrote about it at the time in this article.

I continue to think that the. The long bond rally from probably ended on that day. Short Treasuries now are likely in a countertrend move which will look like a blip after a few decades.

That's in fact a reason to keep maturities short and maintain some reserves in case Fed actions resume driving bonds down and yields up. My thinking is that between now and the resumption of a long term upward trend in yields there will likely be a recession which will pull yields down and keep them down for a while.

Short term Treasuries are the solution for the uncertainty, providing a good place to put cash while a recession is pulling rates down. If you have been holding a large cash position as I have they represent a material improvement in the overall return of your portfolio. This first occurred to me a couple of weeks ago and I thought about it for a few days, shaped a strategy, and executed.

A better rate was available for a few days before I acted but I didn't let that stop me. It was necessary to see the top on June The loss of a few basis points hasn't made it a bad deal.

You may be concerned about not buying with yields at that top tick, but it's not too late. I never managed to buy at the absolute bottom. The thing to remember is that your goal is to get your total portfolio return up without any risk and with maximum flexibility. It works fine with the good-enough current yield. At the same time keep in the back of your mind the likelihood that for the next few decades the probability is that yields slowly rise and bonds slowly fall.

So why buy Treasuries now? Over the long term the yield on Treasuries of all maturities will likely go up. If that doesn't happen it will be very bad news for the economy over a very long period. Over the short term, the direction of movement in Treasury yields is less certain. The odds are probably about that bonds rally and yields fall from here. What do you do when the odds are ?

You align yourself with the odds and go yourself. You probably think that is a casual number I just pulled out of the air, and to an extent it is. Actually it's a way of looking at binary outcomes when you have no privileged information. The assumption is that the present price is where it ought to be, which we all know as a market theory which isn't true. But assume it is the best model you have.

In this particular case, the odds of an actual capital loss is nil. The Treasury will pay you what it has promised.. The risk is "opportunity cost" if it turns out you would have done better to wait. The solution is balancing immediate yield against opportunity cost and adjusting your odds as new information becomes available. If you are even slightly statistical I strongly recommend taking a look at Kelly Criterion betting.

You can google John L. Kelly Jr. or go to the library and read pp. Investing half an hour of reading will provide a new tool in thinking about investment decisions. The odds for a recession started increasing in late March, and accelerated at the beginning of June. On June 14 the year yield reached 3. Then a funny thing happened. Just as it looked like the bond market was about to collapse and yields would take off rates started to fall across the yield curve.

That's what rates do when the probability of recession begins to increase. The quick turnaround in yields got my attention. Everybody now recognizes that the Federal Reserve is caught in a dilemma. They may successfully choke off inflation by raising rates and manage to avoid a recession, but the odds are not in their favor.

They can fight inflation relentlessly or they can tiptoe and whisper about what they are doing and hope that consumers, workers, and the stock market don't notice. They seem to be tilting toward an all-in war on inflation at the moment.

If this policy continues, the yield curve will continue to flatten and yields at all maturities will continue to decline. Keep an eye on that possibility as a major indicator of a recession on the way. Here's a table of the historical Treasury yield curve as of June 23, Take your time and have fun with the chart. It looks like a German train schedule but if you are unfamiliar with the yield curve you will begin to get the hang of it.

Notice that rates out to 10 years rose steadily as they had done since March 9, , when the year was 54 basis points. The recent sharp turnaround started on June The chances that this turnaround continues can't be calculated but in figuring out what to do with a cash position, I'm sticking with odds. If anything, my intuitive sense that a recession is on the way is getting stronger. That would, of course, suggest locking in current yields.

This isn't just a notion. The odds on a recession are not quite pure speculation and a number of important indicators are slowly ticking up. The first one may be the behavior of the bond market itself.

The Treasury market is one of those peculiar indicators which helps predict its own future. A few secondary indicators often confirm the picture. Here are a few. Are these numbers definitive predictors of a recession? Not quite. Employment numbers remain strong, although they are a coincident indicator. Future indicators increasingly point in the direction of recession.

The first point to make is the obvious one. The reason for doing this and doing it right now is that Treasury yields have risen enough to make it worth doing. Money market funds of all kinds are yielding next to nothing. This article is written for people who hold cash they don't presently want to deploy long term but would like to add a modest contribution to total portfolio returns.

Investing is the eternal search for win-win solutions. The ideal strategy is one where you win even if your premise is wrong. The premise of my short Treasury strategy is that the recent 3. It's also the premise of this article, but it comes with a moderate level of conviction. What's the way to win even if the premise is wrong? The answer is a bond ladder. A surprising number of highly intelligent people I have asked don't know what a bond ladder is. It's really a fairly simple concept.

You simply buy bonds or other fixed income instruments like CDs with maturities at set future intervals. Your choice for the interval will vary depending on your particular needs or the nuances of your strategy. In my present actions the interval starts at six months and continues at 6-month intervals, and it is what I am recommending in this article.

What I did and what I suggest for you is to buy equal amounts of Treasuries starting at six months, then 12 months, then 18 months, then two years.

That's where my personal Treasury ladder stops. My time periods aren't exact. I will extend a month or two if I get a meaningful jump in yield. For instance, in my recent buying I got a jump in yield by pushing my 18 month duration out by a couple of months. That anomaly was in the Treasury offerings at Vanguard and may or may not still be there. Why did I stop at 2 years? The short answer is that two years is the extent of visibility I have at the present moment.

Also, if you look at the tables above you don't get paid very much for moving out beyond 2 years. In fact, the rate for 2 years is trading around the same as the rate for 10 years. That's the number one indicator, you will remember, for a softening economy. There is, however, one argument for going further out on the yield curve, to 3 years, or even 10 years. That's to lock in a good yield against the prospect that rates go back down quickly and stay down. That's something which might well happen if the market stumbles badly and there is a deep recession.

The Fed might stop tightening and raising rates and instead pivot to dropping rates quickly in order to fight the recession. In that case, you would be pleased to have higher rates which are no longer available. For example, I have CDs not Treasuries bought at a 3.

Please check back soon for future events, and sign up to receive invitations to our events and briefings. December 1, Speaker Series on California's Future — Virtual Event. November 30, Virtual Event. November 18, Annual Water Conference — In-Person and Online. We believe in the power of good information to build a brighter future for California.

Help support our mission. Mark Baldassare , Dean Bonner , Rachel Lawler , and Deja Thomas. Supported with funding from the Arjay and Frances F. Miller Foundation and the James Irvine Foundation. California voters have now received their mail ballots, and the November 8 general election has entered its final stage. Amid rising prices and economic uncertainty—as well as deep partisan divisions over social and political issues—Californians are processing a great deal of information to help them choose state constitutional officers and state legislators and to make policy decisions about state propositions.

The midterm election also features a closely divided Congress, with the likelihood that a few races in California may determine which party controls the US House. These are among the key findings of a statewide survey on state and national issues conducted from October 14 to 23 by the Public Policy Institute of California:. Today, there is a wide partisan divide: seven in ten Democrats are optimistic about the direction of the state, while 91 percent of Republicans and 59 percent of independents are pessimistic.

Californians are much more pessimistic about the direction of the country than they are about the direction of the state. Majorities across all demographic groups and partisan groups, as well as across regions, are pessimistic about the direction of the United States. A wide partisan divide exists: most Democrats and independents say their financial situation is about the same as a year ago, while solid majorities of Republicans say they are worse off.

Regionally, about half in the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles say they are about the same, while half in the Central Valley say they are worse off; residents elsewhere are divided between being worse off and the same.

The shares saying they are worse off decline as educational attainment increases. Strong majorities across partisan groups feel negatively, but Republicans and independents are much more likely than Democrats to say the economy is in poor shape. Today, majorities across partisan, demographic, and regional groups say they are following news about the gubernatorial election either very or fairly closely.

In the upcoming November 8 election, there will be seven state propositions for voters. Due to time constraints, our survey only asked about three ballot measures: Propositions 26, 27, and For each, we read the proposition number, ballot, and ballot label. Two of the state ballot measures were also included in the September survey Propositions 27 and 30 , while Proposition 26 was not.

This measure would allow in-person sports betting at racetracks and tribal casinos, requiring that racetracks and casinos offering sports betting make certain payments to the state to support state regulatory costs. It also allows roulette and dice games at tribal casinos and adds a new way to enforce certain state gambling laws. Fewer than half of likely voters say the outcome of each of these state propositions is very important to them. Today, 21 percent of likely voters say the outcome of Prop 26 is very important, 31 percent say the outcome of Prop 27 is very important, and 42 percent say the outcome of Prop 30 is very important.

Today, when it comes to the importance of the outcome of Prop 26, one in four or fewer across partisan groups say it is very important to them. About one in three across partisan groups say the outcome of Prop 27 is very important to them.

Fewer than half across partisan groups say the outcome of Prop 30 is very important to them. When asked how they would vote if the election for the US House of Representatives were held today, 56 percent of likely voters say they would vote for or lean toward the Democratic candidate, while 39 percent would vote for or lean toward the Republican candidate. Democratic candidates are preferred by a point margin in Democratic-held districts, while Republican candidates are preferred by a point margin in Republican-held districts.

Abortion is another prominent issue in this election. When asked about the importance of abortion rights, 61 percent of likely voters say the issue is very important in determining their vote for Congress and another 20 percent say it is somewhat important; just 17 percent say it is not too or not at all important.

With the controlling party in Congress hanging in the balance, 51 percent of likely voters say they are extremely or very enthusiastic about voting for Congress this year; another 29 percent are somewhat enthusiastic while 19 percent are either not too or not at all enthusiastic. Today, Democrats and Republicans have about equal levels of enthusiasm, while independents are much less likely to be extremely or very enthusiastic. As Californians prepare to vote in the upcoming midterm election, fewer than half of adults and likely voters are satisfied with the way democracy is working in the United States—and few are very satisfied.

Satisfaction was higher in our February survey when 53 percent of adults and 48 percent of likely voters were satisfied with democracy in America. Today, half of Democrats and about four in ten independents are satisfied, compared to about one in five Republicans. Notably, four in ten Republicans are not at all satisfied.

In addition to the lack of satisfaction with the way democracy is working, Californians are divided about whether Americans of different political positions can still come together and work out their differences. Forty-nine percent are optimistic, while 46 percent are pessimistic.

Today, in a rare moment of bipartisan agreement, about four in ten Democrats, Republicans, and independents are optimistic that Americans of different political views will be able to come together. Notably, in , half or more across parties, regions, and demographic groups were optimistic. Today, about eight in ten Democrats—compared to about half of independents and about one in ten Republicans—approve of Governor Newsom.

Across demographic groups, about half or more approve of how Governor Newsom is handling his job. Approval of Congress among adults has been below 40 percent for all of after seeing a brief run above 40 percent for all of Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to approve of Congress.

Fewer than half across regions and demographic groups approve of Congress. Approval in March was at 44 percent for adults and 39 percent for likely voters. Across demographic groups, about half or more approve among women, younger adults, African Americans, Asian Americans, and Latinos. Views are similar across education and income groups, with just fewer than half approving. Approval in March was at 41 percent for adults and 36 percent for likely voters.

Across regions, approval reaches a majority only in the San Francisco Bay Area. Across demographic groups, approval reaches a majority only among African Americans. This map highlights the five geographic regions for which we present results; these regions account for approximately 90 percent of the state population. Residents of other geographic areas in gray are included in the results reported for all adults, registered voters, and likely voters, but sample sizes for these less-populous areas are not large enough to report separately.

The PPIC Statewide Survey is directed by Mark Baldassare, president and CEO and survey director at the Public Policy Institute of California. Coauthors of this report include survey analyst Deja Thomas, who was the project manager for this survey; associate survey director and research fellow Dean Bonner; and survey analyst Rachel Lawler. The Californians and Their Government survey is supported with funding from the Arjay and Frances F. Findings in this report are based on a survey of 1, California adult residents, including 1, interviewed on cell phones and interviewed on landline telephones.

The sample included respondents reached by calling back respondents who had previously completed an interview in PPIC Statewide Surveys in the last six months. Interviews took an average of 19 minutes to complete. Interviewing took place on weekend days and weekday nights from October 14—23, Cell phone interviews were conducted using a computer-generated random sample of cell phone numbers.

Additionally, we utilized a registration-based sample RBS of cell phone numbers for adults who are registered to vote in California. All cell phone numbers with California area codes were eligible for selection. After a cell phone user was reached, the interviewer verified that this person was age 18 or older, a resident of California, and in a safe place to continue the survey e.

Cell phone respondents were offered a small reimbursement to help defray the cost of the call. Cell phone interviews were conducted with adults who have cell phone service only and with those who have both cell phone and landline service in the household.

Landline interviews were conducted using a computer-generated random sample of telephone numbers that ensured that both listed and unlisted numbers were called. Additionally, we utilized a registration-based sample RBS of landline phone numbers for adults who are registered to vote in California. All landline telephone exchanges in California were eligible for selection. For both cell phones and landlines, telephone numbers were called as many as eight times. When no contact with an individual was made, calls to a number were limited to six.

Also, to increase our ability to interview Asian American adults, we made up to three additional calls to phone numbers estimated by Survey Sampling International as likely to be associated with Asian American individuals. Accent on Languages, Inc. The survey sample was closely comparable to the ACS figures. To estimate landline and cell phone service in California, Abt Associates used state-level estimates released by the National Center for Health Statistics—which used data from the National Health Interview Survey NHIS and the ACS.

The estimates for California were then compared against landline and cell phone service reported in this survey. We also used voter registration data from the California Secretary of State to compare the party registration of registered voters in our sample to party registration statewide.

The sampling error, taking design effects from weighting into consideration, is ±3. This means that 95 times out of , the results will be within 3. The sampling error for unweighted subgroups is larger: for the 1, registered voters, the sampling error is ±4. For the sampling errors of additional subgroups, please see the table at the end of this section. Sampling error is only one type of error to which surveys are subject. Results may also be affected by factors such as question wording, question order, and survey timing.

We present results for five geographic regions, accounting for approximately 90 percent of the state population. Residents of other geographic areas are included in the results reported for all adults, registered voters, and likely voters, but sample sizes for these less-populous areas are not large enough to report separately. We also present results for congressional districts currently held by Democrats or Republicans, based on residential zip code and party of the local US House member.

We compare the opinions of those who report they are registered Democrats, registered Republicans, and no party preference or decline-to-state or independent voters; the results for those who say they are registered to vote in other parties are not large enough for separate analysis. We also analyze the responses of likely voters—so designated per their responses to survey questions about voter registration, previous election participation, intentions to vote this year, attention to election news, and current interest in politics.

The percentages presented in the report tables and in the questionnaire may not add to due to rounding. Additional details about our methodology can be found at www. pdf and are available upon request through surveys ppic. October 14—23, 1, California adult residents; 1, California likely voters English, Spanish. Margin of error ±3.

Website Cookie Notice This website uses cookies to analyze site traffic and to allow users to complete forms on the site. Jim Sloan. By Associated Press. Treasuries being sold by former holders on this basis often offer a somewhat higher ultimate return than Treasuries selling at par. Supported with funding from the Arjay and Frances F.

Categories:

• Binary Options online
• Forex
• Forex Bitcoin
• Forex Brokers
• Binary Options