Sameer Shahzad@brexitmiyagi
𝙁𝙊𝙈𝘾 𝙂𝘼𝙈𝙀-𝘾𝙃𝘼𝙉𝙂𝙀𝙍
𝗧𝗟;𝗗𝗥
• 𝘍𝘖𝘔𝘊 𝘷𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝟪-𝟦 𝘞𝘦𝘥𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘈𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘭 𝟤𝟫 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘥 𝘧𝘦𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘧𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘢𝘵 𝟥.𝟧𝟢-𝟥.𝟩𝟧%, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝟦 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘖𝘤𝘵𝘰𝘣𝘦𝘳 𝟣𝟫𝟫𝟤 (𝟥𝟦 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴) 𝘱𝘦𝘳 𝘊𝘕𝘕, 𝘊𝘕𝘉𝘊 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘍𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘶𝘯𝘦; 𝘚𝘵𝘦𝘱𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘔𝘪𝘳𝘢𝘯 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘥𝘰𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘩 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝟤𝟧𝘣𝘱 𝘤𝘶𝘵, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘏𝘢𝘮𝘮𝘢𝘤𝘬, 𝘒𝘢𝘴𝘩𝘬𝘢𝘳𝘪, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘓𝘰𝘨𝘢𝘯 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘏𝘈𝘞𝘒𝘐𝘚𝘏 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘣𝘪𝘢𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵
• 𝘑𝘗𝘔𝘰𝘳𝘨𝘢𝘯 𝘈𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘵 𝘔𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵'𝘴 𝘋𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘥 𝘒𝘦𝘭𝘭𝘺: "𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘸𝘦𝘥 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦. 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘵 𝘢𝘤𝘳𝘰𝘴𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘸 𝘢𝘵 𝘒𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘯 𝘞𝘢𝘳𝘴𝘩" 𝘱𝘦𝘳 𝘊𝘕𝘉𝘊; 𝘊𝘭𝘢𝘶𝘥𝘪𝘢 𝘚𝘢𝘩𝘮: 𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘭𝘺 𝘤𝘶𝘵 "𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘰𝘧𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦", 𝘞𝘢𝘳𝘴𝘩 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝟩 𝘷𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴 "𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴𝘯'𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦"; 𝘗𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘺 𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘴 𝘍𝘦𝘥 𝘎𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘰𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘨𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘢 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘳𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘳 𝘊𝘕𝘉𝘊 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘍𝘰𝘹 𝘉𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴
• 𝘛𝘳𝘢𝘥𝘦: 𝘓𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘛𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘺 𝟣𝟢𝘠 𝘺𝘪𝘦𝘭𝘥 𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘷𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘦𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳 (𝘱𝘢𝘺 𝟣𝟢𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝟤𝘴) 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘩𝘢𝘸𝘬𝘪𝘴𝘩 𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘦; 𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘜𝘚𝘋/𝘑𝘗𝘠 𝘱𝘶𝘵𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘍𝘦𝘥-𝘉𝘖𝘑 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘸𝘬𝘪𝘴𝘩; 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦-𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘵𝘺 (𝘟𝘓𝘜 𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴, 𝘟𝘓𝘙𝘌 𝘙𝘌𝘐𝘛𝘴, 𝘟𝘏𝘉 𝘩𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴) 𝘰𝘯 𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘤𝘶𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘺; 𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘨𝘰𝘭𝘥 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘷𝘦 $𝟦,𝟩𝟤𝟢 𝘰𝘯 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘺 𝘶𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘪𝘶𝘮; 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘨-𝘥𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘛𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘴 (𝘛𝘓𝘛) 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘣𝘪𝘢𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘧𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘦; 𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘚𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘨𝘺 (𝘔𝘚𝘛𝘙) 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘉𝘛𝘊 𝘰𝘯 𝘗𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘨𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘰𝘳 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘺 𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘧𝘦𝘥 𝘥𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘰𝘸
𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗙𝗲𝗱 𝗝𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗗𝗶𝗱 𝗦𝗼𝗺𝗲𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗜𝘁 𝗛𝗮𝘀 𝗡𝗼𝘁 𝗗𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗜𝗻 𝟯𝟰 𝗬𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀. 𝗧𝗵𝗿𝗲𝗲 𝗛𝗮𝘄𝗸𝗶𝘀𝗵 𝗗𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝗦𝗽𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗗𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝗧𝗼 𝗖𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗪𝗮𝗿𝘀𝗵. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗠𝗮𝗿𝗸𝗲𝘁 𝗜𝘀 𝗣𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗗𝗼𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗵 𝗪𝗮𝗿𝘀𝗵 𝗙𝗲𝗱 𝗕𝘆 𝗝𝘂𝗹𝘆. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗲 𝗝𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗠𝗮𝗱𝗲 𝗧𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗦𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗜𝗺𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗹𝗲.
Per CNBC and CNN reporting on Wednesday April 29, the Federal Open Market Committee voted 8-4 to hold the federal funds rate at 3.50-3.75%, but the 4 dissents are the most since October 1992, a 34-year record. Per Fortune coverage, Stephen Miran (Trump-appointed governor) dissented dovishly in favor of a 25 basis point cut, his sixth consecutive dissent. Per the same coverage, the three other dissents are the structurally important ones: Beth Hammack (Cleveland Fed President), Neel Kashkari (Minneapolis Fed President), and Lorie Logan (Dallas Fed President) voted FOR the hold, but dissented HAWKISH; they opposed the inclusion of an "easing bias" in the policy statement. Per CNBC, these three dissenters "did not vote with the rest of the FOMC not because they disagreed to keep rates unchanged, but because they believed the easing bias from the statement should have been removed, signaling they're not keen on cutting rates."
𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗪𝗮𝗿𝘀𝗵 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗻𝗼𝗯𝗼𝗱𝘆 𝗼𝗻 𝗺𝗮𝗰𝗿𝗼 𝗫 𝗶𝘀 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵.
Per JPMorgan Asset Management chief global strategist David Kelly, cited by CNBC: "I think this is a renewed declaration of independence. This is a shot across the bow at Kevin Warsh." Per KKM Financial CEO Jeff Kilburg on CNBC's "Power Lunch": "This is a new quarterback hitting the portal. This was the rest of the players letting him know, we're not going to let you lead us here." Per Claudia Sahm, chief economist at New Century Advisors and creator of the Sahm Rule recession indicator, cited by Fortune, an early cut is "completely off the table. He doesn't have the chops to make that argument persuasively on day one, and nobody would, because the data aren't there yet." Per Christopher Hodge, chief US economist at Natixis CIB, cited by CNN: "Warsh is in the unfortunate position, through no fault of his own, to probably be the least influential Fed chair in a long time. He's going to have a really hard time convincing the other members of the rate-setting committee to cut rates quickly."
𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗵 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘃𝗼𝘁𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝘆 𝗪𝗮𝗿𝘀𝗵 𝗶𝘀 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗰𝗮𝗴𝗲𝗱.
Per the FOMC composition data, the rate-setting committee has 12 voting members. Per CNBC and Fortune, three sitting Reserve Bank presidents (Hammack, Kashkari, Logan) just publicly opposed any easing bias even before Warsh takes the chair. Per Wikipedia FOMC entry, Christopher Waller and Michelle Bowman (Trump first-term appointees) plus Stephen Miran plus Warsh equals 4 dovish votes. To force a rate cut, Warsh needs 7 of 12 votes. Three Reserve Bank presidents just announced they will not provide those votes. Per Fortune, "Wednesday's three-way committee split makes that path look near-impossible." The committee has structural opposition lined up before Warsh's chairmanship has even begun. The June 16-17 meeting under Warsh is now mathematically constrained to hold or a 25bp cut maximum, not the 50-100bp aggressive cuts that Trump publicly wants.
𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗹𝗹 𝗴𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗼𝗿 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝗴𝗲.
Per Fox Business and Yahoo Finance, Powell announced at his final press conference that he will remain on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors after his chair term expires May 15. Per CNBC: "I've said that I will not leave the board until this investigation is well and truly over with transparency and finality, and I stand by that. I'm encouraged by recent developments, and I'm watching the remaining steps in this process carefully." Per the same coverage, Powell's term as a Governor lasts until January 31, 2028. Per CNBC analysis: "Powell has spoken strongly about Fed independence. By remaining as a governor, he continues to influence the board as a member. He also denies Trump an opening to appoint another member to the board." Per the same source, counting Warsh, Trump would have three appointees on the seven-member Board of Governors. Powell staying denies Trump the ability to add a fourth dovish governor and tilt the board majority. The structural constraint compounds: caged FOMC plus blocked governor seat equals neutered Warsh chairmanship through 2027.
𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗸𝗲𝘁 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗻𝗼𝗯𝗼𝗱𝘆 𝗶𝘀 𝗱𝗼𝗰𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴.
Per the Yahoo Finance live coverage, SoFi CEO Anthony Noto told Yahoo Finance on Wednesday: "I do think there will be a greater propensity to want to deliver rate cuts." Per the CME FedWatch tool data cited via Yahoo Finance, "77.5% probability the Fed stays on hold through the end of 2026" was the pre-meeting positioning. The market has been pricing approximately 50bp of cuts under Warsh into year-end 2026. The 4-dissent meeting just structurally invalidated that pricing. The 10-year Treasury yield traded near its session high of 4.414% per CNBC during the meeting. The 2-year yield touched session lows. That curve steepening is the first market acknowledgment of the hawkish containment, but it has not yet fully priced 12 months of caged Warsh chairmanship. The trade is the curve.
𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗜𝗿𝗮𝗻 𝘄𝗮𝗿 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗴𝗳𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗹𝗼𝗰𝗸𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘄𝗸𝗶𝘀𝗵 𝘃𝗼𝘁𝗲𝘀.
Per the FOMC statement, as cited by Yahoo Finance, the inflation language changed from "Inflation is somewhat elevated" to "Inflation remains somewhat elevated, in part reflecting the recent increase in global energy prices." Per Brent at $115 per barrel on Wednesday, the highest since June 2022 per Trading Economics, and gasoline at $4.18 per gallon nationwide per AAA via NBC News, the energy CPI transmission is structural through Q3. Per Art Hogan, chief market strategist for B. Riley Wealth, cited by CNBC: "The Fed meeting was clearly about the risk that the Iran war has brought to both sides of the central bank's mandate. One gets the sense that there will be several meetings at least before we see any rate changes by the FOMC, agnostic to who the Chair of the Fed is." Per Skanda Amarnath, executive director of Employ America, cited by Fortune: "The facts of the matter have moved decisively in the hawkish direction." The hawkish dissents were not just political. They were data-justified by Brent at $115, and the May CPI print sequence was locked in by oil pricing.
𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗰𝗮𝗽𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘄𝗸𝗶𝘀𝗵 𝗰𝗮𝗴𝗲.
Long Treasury 10Y yield curve steepener (pay 10s, receive 2s) on the structural hawkish surprise that has not fully priced in the curve. Long USD/JPY puts on the Fed-BOJ convergence hawkish trade, since the BOJ went 6-3 hawkish Tuesday and the Fed went 8-4 hawkish today, the carry trade unwind compounds. Short long-duration Treasuries (iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF TLT) on the structural easing bias defense by three Reserve Bank presidents. Short rate-sensitive equity baskets: utilities (XLU), REITs (XLRE), homebuilders (XHB), small caps (IWM Russell 2000) on the rate cut delay through Q3. Long gold above $4,720 on the structural policy uncertainty premium that compounds with geopolitical tail risk. Long Strategy (MSTR) and Bitcoin (BTC) on the Powell governor stay narrative, Powell blocking Trump's third governor appointment denies the dollar debasement scenario that Hayes' $125,000 BTC thesis depends on, but the institutional flight from policy uncertainty remains structural. Long financials (JPMorgan JPM, Bank of America BAC, Citigroup C) on the hawkish hold supporting net interest margins through year-end.
𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗹𝗲 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀 𝗠𝗮𝘆 𝟭𝟱 𝘁𝗼 𝗝𝘂𝗻𝗲 𝟭𝟳.
Does Warsh's first FOMC meeting, June 16-17, see another 4+ dissent vote that mathematically prevents the rate cut Trump is demanding, structurally constraining Warsh's chairmanship before it operationally begins? Or do the three hawkish Reserve Bank presidents reverse course under chairmanship pressure and vote for the easing bias to maintain committee unity? The vote distribution at the first Warsh meeting determines whether the dollar holds, gold breaks $4,800, and BTC sees $90K or $70K first. Reply with your base case for the June FOMC vote split.
𝙎𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙘𝙚𝙨. 𝙀𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙮 𝙛𝙞𝙜𝙪𝙧𝙚 𝙘𝙞𝙩𝙚𝙙 𝙞𝙨 𝙙𝙧𝙖𝙬𝙣 𝙛𝙧𝙤𝙢 𝘾𝙉𝘽𝘾 𝙡𝙞𝙫𝙚 𝙘𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙜𝙚 (𝘼𝙥𝙧𝙞𝙡 𝟤𝟫 𝙁𝙊𝙈𝘾 𝙙𝙚𝙘𝙞𝙨𝙞𝙤𝙣, 𝙅𝙚𝙛𝙛 𝘾𝙤𝙭 𝙧𝙚𝙥𝙤𝙧𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙤𝙣 𝙙𝙧𝙖𝙢𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙘 𝙨𝙥𝙡𝙞𝙩, 𝙋𝙤𝙬𝙚𝙡𝙡 𝙥𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙨 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙛𝙚𝙧𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙚 𝙘𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙜𝙚, 𝙅𝙚𝙛𝙛 𝙆𝙞𝙡𝙗𝙪𝙧𝙜 𝙆𝙆𝙈 𝙁𝙞𝙣𝙖𝙣𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙡 𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙧𝙮 𝙤𝙣 𝙋𝙤𝙬𝙚𝙧 𝙇𝙪𝙣𝙘𝙝, 𝘿𝙖𝙫𝙞𝙙 𝙆𝙚𝙡𝙡𝙮 𝙅𝙋𝙈𝙤𝙧𝙜𝙖𝙣 𝘼𝙨𝙨𝙚𝙩 𝙈𝙖𝙣𝙖𝙜𝙚𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙖𝙣𝙖𝙡𝙮𝙨𝙞𝙨), 𝘾𝙉𝙉 𝙡𝙞𝙫𝙚 𝙗𝙡𝙤𝙜 (𝘼𝙥𝙧𝙞𝙡 𝟤𝟫 𝙛𝙚𝙙𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙡 𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙚𝙧𝙫𝙚 𝙘𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙜𝙚 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝘾𝙝𝙧𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙤𝙥𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙃𝙤𝙙𝙜𝙚 𝙉𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙭𝙞𝙨 𝘾𝙄𝘽 𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙧𝙮, 𝙙𝙞𝙨𝙨𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙧𝙚𝙘𝙤𝙧𝙙 𝙖𝙣𝙖𝙡𝙮𝙨𝙞𝙨), 𝙁𝙤𝙧𝙩𝙪𝙣𝙚 (𝘼𝙥𝙧𝙞𝙡 𝟤𝟫 𝙋𝙤𝙬𝙚𝙡𝙡 𝙙𝙚𝙛𝙞𝙚𝙨 𝙏𝙧𝙪𝙢𝙥 𝙘𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙜𝙚 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝙎𝙠𝙖𝙣𝙙𝙖 𝘼𝙢𝙖𝙧𝙣𝙖𝙩𝙝 𝙀𝙢𝙥𝙡𝙤𝙮 𝘼𝙢𝙚𝙧𝙞𝙘𝙖 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝘾𝙡𝙖𝙪𝙙𝙞𝙖 𝙎𝙖𝙝𝙢 𝙉𝙚𝙬 𝘾𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙪𝙧𝙮 𝘼𝙙𝙫𝙞𝙨𝙤𝙧𝙨 𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙧𝙮), 𝙁𝙤𝙭 𝘽𝙪𝙨𝙞𝙣𝙚𝙨𝙨 (𝘼𝙥𝙧𝙞𝙡 𝟤𝟫 𝙁𝙊𝙈𝘾 𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙚 𝙙𝙚𝙘𝙞𝙨𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙘𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙜𝙚), 𝙔𝙖𝙝𝙤𝙤 𝙁𝙞𝙣𝙖𝙣𝙘𝙚 𝙡𝙞𝙫𝙚 𝙪𝙥𝙙𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙨 (𝘼𝙣𝙩𝙝𝙤𝙣𝙮 𝙉𝙤𝙩𝙤 𝙎𝙤𝙁𝙞 𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙧𝙮, 𝙁𝙊𝙈𝘾 𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙡𝙖𝙣𝙜𝙪𝙖𝙜𝙚 𝙘𝙝𝙖𝙣𝙜𝙚𝙨, 𝙙𝙞𝙨𝙨𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙗𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙠𝙙𝙤𝙬𝙣), 𝙆𝙞𝙥𝙡𝙞𝙣𝙜𝙚𝙧 (𝘼𝙥𝙧𝙞𝙡 𝙁𝙚𝙙 𝙢𝙚𝙚𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙡𝙞𝙫𝙚 𝙘𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙜𝙚), 𝙍𝙚𝙪𝙩𝙚𝙧𝙨 (𝙋𝙤𝙬𝙚𝙡𝙡 𝙜𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙣𝙤𝙧 𝙙𝙚𝙘𝙞𝙨𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙘𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙜𝙚), 𝙏𝙧𝙖𝙙𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙀𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙤𝙢𝙞𝙘𝙨 (𝘽𝙧𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙘𝙧𝙪𝙙𝙚 𝙥𝙧𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙣𝙜), 𝘼𝘼𝘼 𝙫𝙞𝙖 𝙉𝘽𝘾 𝙉𝙚𝙬𝙨 (𝙜𝙖𝙨𝙤𝙡𝙞𝙣𝙚 𝙥𝙧𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙣𝙜), 𝘾𝙈𝙀 𝙁𝙚𝙙𝙒𝙖𝙩𝙘𝙝 𝙩𝙤𝙤𝙡 (𝙥𝙧𝙚-𝙢𝙚𝙚𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙥𝙤𝙨𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙙𝙖𝙩𝙖), 𝙒𝙞𝙠𝙞𝙥𝙚𝙙𝙞𝙖 𝙁𝙊𝙈𝘾 𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙥𝙤𝙨𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙧𝙮, 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙤𝙛𝙛𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙡 𝙁𝙚𝙙𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙡 𝙍𝙚𝙨𝙚𝙧𝙫𝙚 𝘼𝙥𝙧𝙞𝙡 𝟤𝟫, 𝟤𝟢𝟤𝟨 𝙥𝙤𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙮 𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩.
