bigwave

@WolfgangRichtEU @RonDeSantis And this is the way to distort free markets because the gooberment knows best.

@RonDeSantis Dear Ron, You need EV mandates and subsidises. Florida is like the middle age when it comes to electrification, and this is the future. Learn from Europe! All the best, Wolfgang

I’ve always opposed EV mandates, rejected the idea that EVs will save the world, and preferred traditional engines for vehicles like the F-150 I used to drive. That said, it’s clear that Teslas are absolutely top-notch products. It’s not hard to see how they’ve developed a dedicated following.

It is "free"

I am the Chairman and CEO of Vornado Realty Trust. Eighty-four years old. Seven buildings in Midtown Manhattan. I said what I said. I said "tax the rich" is the equivalent of a racial slur. I said it at REBNY. Into the microphone. Eight hundred people. Median net worth in that room was north of $240 million, I know because our CFO ran the guest list through a Bloomberg terminal as a joke, and then it wasn't a joke. And when I said it, twelve people applauded. The rest nodded. One woman in the third row mouthed, "Finally." I saw her. Sharon, my communications advisor, Columbia, $430,000 a year, very bright, Sharon wants me to walk it back. She drafted something. "Mr. Roth's comments were intended to highlight the emotional impact of political rhetoric on business communities." I read it. I put it in the trash can on my desk. Not the recycling. The trash. Here's my clarification: I understated it. "Tax the rich" is worse than a slur. A slur is just a word. It doesn't come with a CBO score. Nobody is introducing a bill called the Racial Slur Implementation Act of 2026. But there are seventeen active proposals in Congress, I had Sharon count them, seventeen proposals designed to take more of my money. My money. Mine. Money I acquired by being better at acquiring Manhattan commercial real estate than anyone alive for four consecutive decades. That is not a crime. That is a record. I pay property taxes on $18.2 billion in assessed assets. $412 million a year. Say it again: four hundred and twelve million. I carry that number. It's the first thing I think about when I see a protest sign. I think: I pay more in property tax than the entire annual budget of the city of Fort Lauderdale. I looked this up. Fort Lauderdale: $408 million. Steve Roth: $412 million. I am a small city. And the city doesn't get screamed at. My effective tax rate last year was 11.4 percent. I say this because I believe in transparency and because I'm not ashamed of it. The rate reflects the legal structure of real estate investment trusts, depreciation schedules Congress established in 1986, and carried interest provisions that both parties have voted to preserve for forty years. I did not write these laws. I organized my entire financial existence around them with the help of nine full-time tax professionals who have offices on the 38th floor of 888 Seventh Avenue, which I also own. Their office is in my building. Their work protects my buildings. This is not a loophole. Sharon calls it a loophole. I've told her: a structure maintained by nine attorneys across four decades is not a loophole. A loophole is something you slip through once. This is architecture. This is the foundation. This is the building. Last Tuesday, same as every Tuesday, I walked past 1290 Sixth Avenue. My building. And there was a man. Same man as last week. Same sign: "Billionaires Pay Your Fair Share." He was standing on my sidewalk. My literal sidewalk — my company owns the ground lease. He was maybe thirty. He was wearing a jacket I would estimate cost $60. My lunch that day was $114. For one. I am telling you this not to boast but because these are facts. He has decided I'm his enemy. Based on a number he saw on a Forbes list. He doesn't know what I pay. He doesn't know what my buildings cost this city in construction jobs and lease revenue and foot traffic. He knows one number. He has made one judgment. I see him every Tuesday. I've started to notice things. He brings coffee from the cart, not the Starbucks. He has a backpack that looks heavy. He doesn't look unhealthy. He looks like he probably works somewhere, but not on Tuesdays. I've wondered: does he have a job? Does he have a building? Does he have anything that depends on him the way 4,200 employees depend on me? I suspect not. And yet he has opinions about my tax rate. I gave $22 million to charity last year. The Met. NYU Langone. Mount Sinai. I gave a building to NYU. Not money for a building — a building. The Steven Roth Residence Hall. It houses 400 students. That man with the sign has never housed 400 students. He hasn't housed one. He gives cardboard. I give structures. This is not a comparison I'm making to flatter myself. It's just arithmetic. When I said what I said at REBNY, I was saying what every person in that room believes and none of them will say publicly because they have communications advisors and the communications advisors all went to Columbia and they all say "unhelpful." I'm eighty-four. I'm too old for helpful. I'm too old to perform restraint for people who hate me for something I can't change. I didn't choose to be rich. I chose to be good at one thing for a very long time, and this is what happened. You don't punish someone for that. You don't legislate against someone for that. My net worth fluctuates between $3.8 and $4.1 billion depending on the quarter. I fluctuate more in a fiscal week than that man on my sidewalk will earn in his life. Both of these are facts. Only one of them is considered polite to say. They want me to apologize. I'll be dead in ten years. Twenty if I'm lucky. And they'll still be renting my buildings.

@CryptoMikli This guy is so full of shit.

@BillAckman @X I would drag it on as long as possible and file whatever counter claim to recover costs. This is a case where a lower pays winners legal fees would have prevented this lottery ticket lawsuit by Rhonda.

I am reaching out to the @X community for advice with the likely risk of sharing TMI. I have been sufficiently upset about the whole matter that I have lost sleep thinking about it and I am hoping that this post will enable me to get this matter off my chest. By way of background, I started a family office called TABLE about 15 years ago and hired a friend who had previously managed a family office, and years earlier, had been my personal accountant. She is someone that I trusted implicitly and consider to be a good person. The office started small, but over the last decade, the number of personnel and the cost of the office grew massively. The growth was entirely on the operational side as the investment team has remained tiny. While my investment portfolio grew substantially, the investments I had made were almost entirely passive and TABLE simply needed to account for them and meet capital calls as they came in. While TABLE purchased additional software and other systems that were supposed to improve productivity, the team kept increasing in size at a rapid rate, and the expenses continued to grow even faster. While I would periodically question the growing expenses and high staff turnover, I stayed uninvolved with the office other than a once-a-year meeting when I briefly reviewed the operations and the financials and determined bonus compensation for the President and the CFO. I spent no time with any of the other employees or the operations. The whole idea behind TABLE was that it would handle everything other than my day job so that I would have more time for my job and my family. Over the last six years, expenses ballooned even further, employee turnover accelerated, and I became concerned that all was not well at TABLE. It was time for me to take a look at what was going on. Nearly four years ago, I recruited my nephew who had recently graduated from Harvard and put him to work at Bremont, a British watchmaker, one of my only active personal investments to figure out the issues at the company and ultimately assist in executing a turnaround. He did a superb job. When he returned from the UK late last year after a few years at Bremont, I asked him to help me figure out what was going on with TABLE. When I explained to TABLE’s president what he would be doing, she became incredibly defensive, which naturally made me more concerned. My nephew went to work by first meeting with each employee to understand their roles at the company and to learn from them what ideas they had on how things could be improved. He got an earful. Our first step in helping to turn around TABLE was a reduction in force including the president and about a third of the team, retaining excellent talent that had been desperate for new leadership. Now here is where I need your advice. All but one of the employees who were terminated acted professionally and were gracious on the way out (excluding the president who had a notice period in her contract, is currently still being paid, and with whom I have not yet had a discussion). The highest compensated terminated employee other than the president, an in-house lawyer (let’s call her Ronda), told us that three months of severance was not enough and demanded two years’ severance despite having worked at the company for only two and one half years. When I learned of Ronda's request for severance, I offered to speak with her to understand what she was thinking, but she refused to do so. A few days ago, we received a threatening letter from a Silicon Valley law firm. In the letter, Ronda’s counsel suggests that her termination is part of longstanding issues of ‘harassment and gender discrimination’ – an interesting claim in light of the fact that Ronda was in charge of workplace compliance – and that her termination was due to: “unlawful, retaliatory, and harmful conduct directed towards her. Both [Ronda] and I [Ronda’s lawyer] have spoken with you about [Ronda’s] view of what a reasonable resolution would include given the circumstances. Thus far, TABLE has refused to provide any substantive response. This letter provides the last opportunity to reach a satisfactory agreement. If we cannot do so, [Ronda] will seek all appropriate relief in a court of competent jurisdiction.” The letter goes on to explain the basis for the “unsafe work environment” claim at TABLE: “In early 2026, Pershing Square’s founder Bill Ackman installed his nephew in an unidentified role at TABLE, Ackman’s family office. [His nephew]—whose only work experience had been for TABLE where he was seconded abroad for the last four years to a UK watch company held by Ackman—began appearing at TABLE’s offices and conducting interviews of employees without a clear explanation of his role or the purposes of these interviews. During this period, he made a series of inappropriate and genderbased [sic] comments to multiple employees that created an unsafe work environment. Among other things, [his nephew] made remarks about female employees’ ages (“Tell me you are nowhere near 40”), physical appearance (“Your body does not look like you have kids”), as well as intrusive questions about family planning and sexual orientation (“Who carried your son? Who will carry your next child?”). These incidents were reported to senior leadership at TABLE and Pershing Square. Rather than being addressed appropriately, the response from senior management reflected, at best, willful blindness to the inappropriateness of [his nephew]’s remarks and, at worst, tacit endorsement.” The above allegations about my nephew had previously been brought to my attention by TABLE’s president when they occurred. When I learned of them, I told the president that I would speak to him directly and encouraged her to arrange for him to get workplace sensitivity training. The president assured me that she would do so. When I spoke to my nephew, he explained what he actually had said and how his actual remarks had been received, not at all as alleged in the legal letter from Ronda’s counsel. I have also spoken to others at the lunch table who confirmed his description of the facts. In any case, he meant no harm, was simply trying to build rapport with other employees, and no one, as far as I understand, was offended. Ironically, Ronda claims in her legal letter that TABLE didn’t take HR compliance seriously, yet Ronda was in charge of HR compliance at TABLE and the person who gave my nephew his workplace sensitivity training after the alleged incidents. In any case, Ronda, as head of compliance, should have kept a record or raised an alarm if indeed there was pervasive harassment or other such problems at the company, and there is no evidence whatsoever that this is true. So why does Ronda believe she can get me to pay her nearly $2 million, i.e., two years of severance, nearly one year of severance for each of her years at the company? Well, here is where some more background would be helpful. Over the last two months, I have been consumed with a major family medical issue – one of my older daughters had a massive brain hemorrhage on February 5th and has since been making progress on her recovery – and I am in the midst of a major transaction for my company which I am executing from a hospital room office next to her . While the latter business matter is publicly known, the details of my daughter’s situation are only known to Ronda because of her role at our family office. Now, let’s get back to the subject at hand. Unfortunately, while New York and many other states have employment-at-will, there has emerged an industry of lawyers who make a living from bringing fake gender, race, LGBTQ and other discrimination employment claims in order to extract larger severance payments for terminated employees, and it needs to stop. The fake claim system succeeds because it costs little to have a lawyer send a threatening letter and nearly all of the lawyers in this field work on contingency so there is no or minimal cash cost to bring a claim. And inevitably, nearly 100% of these claims are settled because the public relations and legal costs of defending them exceed the dollar cost of the settlement. The claims are nearly always settled with a confidentiality agreement where the employee who asserts the fake claims remains anonymous and as a result, there is no reputational cost to bringing false claims. The consequences of this sleazy system (let’s call it ‘the System’) are the increased costs of doing business which is a tax on the economy and society. There are other more serious problems due to the System. Unfortunately, the existence of an industry of plaintiff firms and terminated employees willing to make these claims makes it riskier for companies to hire employees from a protected class, i.e., LGBTQ, seniors, women, people of color etc. because it is that much more reputationally damaging and expensive to be accused of racism, sexism, and/or intolerance for sexual diversity than for firing a white male as juries generally have less sympathy for white males. The System therefore increases the risk of discrimination rather than reducing it, and the people bringing these fake claims are thereby causing enormous harm to the other members of these protected classes. So what happened here? Ronda was vastly overpaid and overqualified for the job that she did at TABLE. She was paid $1.05 million plus benefits last year for her work which was largely comprised of filling out subscription agreements and overseeing an outside law firm on closing passive investments in funds and in private and venture stage companies, some compliance work, and managing the office move from one office to another. She had a very good gig as she was highly paid, only had to go into the office three days a week, and could work from anywhere during the summer. Once my nephew showed up and started to investigate what was going on, she likely concluded that there was a reasonable possibility she would be terminated, as her job was in the too-easy-and-to-good-to-be-true category. The problem was that she was not in a protected class due to her race, age or sexual identity so she had to construct the basis for a claim. While she is female and could in theory bring a gender-based discrimination claim, she reported to the president who is female and to whom she is very close, which makes it difficult for her to bring a harassment claim against her former boss. When my nephew complimented a TABLE employee at lunch about how young she looked – in response to saying she was going to her 40-year-old sister’s birthday party, he said ‘she must be your older sister’ – Ronda immediately reported it to our external HR lawyer. She thereby began building her case. The other problem for Ronda bringing a claim is that she was terminated alongside 30% of other TABLE employees as part of a restructuring so it is very difficult for her to say that she was targeted in her termination or was retaliated against. TABLE is now hiring an external fractional general counsel as that is all the company needs to process the relatively limited amount of legal work we do internally. In short, Ronda was eminently qualified and capable and did her job. She was just too much horsepower for what is largely an administrative legal role so she had to come up with something else to bring a claim. Now Ronda knew I was a good target and it was a good time to bring a claim against me. She also knew that I was under a lot of pressure because on March 4th when Ronda was terminated, my daughter had not yet emerged from consciousness, she was not yet breathing on her own, and my daughter and we were fighting for her life. I was and remain deeply engaged in her recovery while at the same time I was working on finishing the closing for the private placement round for my upcoming IPO. Ronda also knew that publicity about supposed gender discrimination and a “hostile and unsafe work environment” are not things that a CEO of a company about to go public wants to have released into the media. And she may have thought that the nearly $2 million she was asking for would be considered small in the context of the reputational damage a lawsuit could cause, regardless of the fact that two years of severance was an absurd amount for an employee who had only worked at TABLE for 30 months. She also likely considered that I wouldn’t want to embarrass my nephew by dragging him into the klieg lights when her claims emerged publicly. So, in summary, game theory would say that I would certainly settle this case, for why would I risk negative publicity at a time when I was preparing our company to go public and also risk embarrassing my nephew. Notably, she hired a Silicon Valley law firm, rather than a typical NY employment firm. This struck me as interesting as her husband works for one of the most prominent Silicon Valley venture firms whose CEO, I am sure, has no tolerance for these kinds of fake claims that sadly many venture-backed companies also have to deal with. I mention this as I suspect her husband likely has been working with her on the strategy for squeezing me as, in addition to being a computer scientist, he is a game theorist. My only advice for him is to understand more about your opponent before you launch your first move. All of the above said, gender, race, LGBTQ and other such discrimination is a real thing. Many people have been harmed and deserve compensation for this discrimination, and these companies and individuals should be punished for engaging in such behavior. Which brings me to the advice I am seeking from the X community. I am not planning to follow the typical path and settle this ‘claim.’ Rather, I am going to fight this nonsense to the end of the earth in the hope that it inspires other CEOs to do the same so we shut down this despicable behavior that is a large tax on society, employment, and the economy and contributes to workplace discrimination rather than reducing it. Do you agree or disagree that this is the right approach?

@adamfeuerstein While you are at it, why not call Celgene management idiots as well.

Please. This is nonsense. You figured out a way to swap castor oil for albumin making it easier to administer paclitaxel, a standard chemotherapy. Same side effects. Look at the label. The best thing you did, for you, was secure new patents for an old chemo. That’s how you sold Abraxane for billions of dollars to Celgene. Chemo and patent law loopholes made you rich. That’s @DrPatrick legacy.

@TiffanyFong O really?

i am blowing all super small accounts.

@rtnarch What happened to learning the Laffer Curve?

Europe is so fucked. CA and Bernie want to copy the idiocy, so USA can be fucked too. Is wild to see the lessons of failed taxation and socialism not learned.

@grok @PeterAttiaMD So you do all that education and "burn out" at the end..... right. If you believe that, you are a moron.

@dropkickng @PeterAttiaMD No, Peter Attia quit his general surgery residency at Johns Hopkins with two years remaining (after about three years), due to burnout. He did not complete it and is not board-certified.

The following email is what I sent my team last night. I sent a similar version to my patients, also. *** You’ve put your trust, your credibility, and your hard work into what we have built together, and I take that responsibility seriously. You deserve a complete and honest account of what did and did not happen. I apologize that I did not get this out sooner, but I want to be thorough. The purpose of the DOJ releasing these documents is clear: to identify individuals who participated in criminal activity, enabled it, or witnessed it. I am not in any of those categories, and there is no evidence to the contrary. To be clear: 1. I was not involved in any criminal activity. 2. My interactions with Epstein had nothing to do with his sexual abuse or exploitation of anyone. 3. I was never on his plane, never on his island, and never present at any sex parties. That said, I apologize and regret putting myself in a position where emails, some of them embarrassing, tasteless, and indefensible, are now public, and that is on me. I accept that reality and the humiliation that comes with it. *** I want to start by directly addressing the email thread that I’ve been asked about the most. In June 2015, I sent Epstein an email with the subject line “Got a fresh shipment.” The email contained a photograph of bottles of metformin, a medication I had just received from the pharmacy for my own use. The subject line referred to the picture of the bottles of medication. He replied with the words “me too” and attached a photograph of an adult woman. I responded with crude, tasteless banter. Reading that exchange now is very embarrassing, and I will not defend it. I’m ashamed of myself for everything about this. At the time, I understood this exchange as juvenile, not a reference to anything dark or harmful. At that point in my career, I had little exposure to prominent people, and that level of access was novel to me. Everything about him seemed excessive and exclusive, including the fact that he lived in the largest home in all of Manhattan, owned a Boeing 727, and hosted parties with the most powerful and prominent leaders in business and politics. I treated that access as something to be quiet about rather than discussed freely with others. One line in that exchange, about his life being outrageous and me not being able to tell anyone, is being interpreted as awareness of wrongdoing. That is not how I meant it at all. What I was referring to, poorly and flippantly, was the discretion commanded by those social and professional circles–the idea that you don’t talk about who you meet, the dinners you attend and the power and influence of the people in those settings. What I wrote in that email reads terribly, and I own that. *** I met Epstein in 2014 through a prominent female healthcare leader while I was raising funds for scientific research. At that time, he was widely known in academic and philanthropic circles as a funder of science and moved openly among credible institutions and public figures. Between summer 2014 and spring 2019, I met with him on approximately seven or eight occasions at his New York City home, regarding research studies and to meet others he introduced me to. I never visited his island or ranch, and I never flew on any of his planes. When I was at his home, it was either meeting with him directly, meeting with small groups of scientists, doctors, or business leaders, and once at a dinner in 2015 with a number of guests including prominent heads of state. In retrospect, the presence and credibility of such venerable people in different orbits led me to make assumptions about him that clouded my judgment in ways it shouldn’t have. I was not his doctor, though several times I answered general medical questions and recommended other providers to him. Shortly after we met, I asked him directly about his 2008 conviction. He characterized it as prostitution-related charges. In 2018, I came to learn this was grossly minimized (more on this below). I was incredibly naïve to believe him. I mistook his social acceptance in the eyes of the credible people I saw him with for acceptability, and that was a serious error in my judgment. To be clear, I never witnessed illegal behavior and never saw anyone who appeared underage in his presence. *** In November 2018 I read the Miami Herald investigative article. I was repulsed by what I learned. Nauseated. It marked a clear and irreversible line between what I knew before and what I understood afterward. At that point, I told him directly he needed to accept responsibility for what he did. Hoping to provide the victims from the Herald piece with support, I contacted a residential trauma facility to understand what funding comprehensive care for many victims would require. (Those communications were between me and the facility and were therefore not part of the document release.) I spoke with him and shared that information and insisted that he fund their care, beginning with residential treatment and followed by lifelong therapy. In hindsight, even attempting to facilitate accountability was a mistake and once again reflected just how naïve I was at the time. Once the full scope of his actions was clear, disengagement should have been the only appropriate response. My intent does not change that, and I regret not drawing that boundary immediately. *** Nothing in this letter is meant to minimize the harm suffered by the young women Epstein abused. Their trauma is permanent. I am not asking for a pass from you. I am not asking anyone to ignore the emails or pretend they aren’t ugly. They simply are. The man I am today, roughly ten years later, would not write them and would not associate with Epstein at all. Whatever growth I’ve had over the past decade does not erase the emails I wrote then. I recognize that my actions and words have consequences for the people I care deeply about, including all of you. I regret the cost this has placed on you, and I take responsibility for it. I won’t ask anyone to defend me or explain this on my behalf. If you have questions or concerns, I’ll address them directly with you, my team.

@PeterAttiaMD Dropping out of residency at John Hpkins in your 5th year? Sounds like an Epstein scandal. Drop out is more likely asked to leave.

@rtnarch Keep your place in WA and come to FL. You will never go back, except for summer.

Morons in WA trying to eclipse wealth tax idiots in CA. Stunning.

@NYCMayor Just listen to the police -- how hard can that be?

This morning, an ICE agent murdered a woman in Minneapolis—only the latest horror in a year full of cruelty. As ICE attacks our neighbors across America, it is an attack on us all. New York stands with immigrants today, and every day that follows.

It's really happening this time. CA is full on Laffer Curve wsj.com/real-estate/lu…

The White House posted this! 🫳🏼🎤

🚨🚨🚨🚨This is HUGE! 🏡

Nothing positive you can say about your leader?

@TiffanyFong Well, hello there

I’m blowing small accounts.

I won‘t hold my breath for the CBS News report acknowledging such a dire prediction has not come to fruition.

The Minnesota Somali fraud exposes everything that is wrong with government. Politicians and their administrators spend other people’s (taxpayers’) money to advance their own interests —getting themselves and their party elected and reelected by supporting an ethnic group which votes as a block — under the guise of supporting a purported good, in this case child daycare, autism care and ‘healthcare’ broadly defined. When this fraud is combined with a system which allows one voter to ‘verify’ up to eight other voters who do not have to show state or federal ID, at best you destroy the American people’s confidence in our democratic voting system, and, at worst, you have rigged elections. The only way this stops is for the people responsible to suffer severe criminal consequences and for there to be a Federal internal audit system where private citizen bounty hunters who find fraud earn rewards equal to a percentage of the grift identified. The time to fix our broken system is now.