Gurus Looking Down on the Banking Sector

GuruFocus.com
·6 min read

- By Dilantha De Silva

Third-quarter 13-F filings of major investment management companies have been hitting the market over the last couple of weeks.

Investors monitor these regulatory filings not only to find lucrative investment ideas that are loved by gurus but also to gauge a measure of market sectors that are going out of favor among the best brains in the industry.


From my analysis of the recently-submitted documents that I have read, many gurus have divested large portions of their holdings in the financial services sector during the third quarter. The notable guru sells that I want to highlight are listed below:

  • John Paulson (Trades, Portfolio)'s Paulson & Co. sold out of the position in TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. (NASDAQ:AMTD)

  • Warren Buffett (Trades, Portfolio)'s Berkshire Hathaway, Inc. (BRK.A) (BRK.B) reduced the stakes in JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE:JPM), M&T Bank Corp. (NYSE:MTB), PNC Financial Services Group (NYSE:PNC) and Wells Fargo & Co. (NYSE:WFC)

  • Leon Cooperman (Trades, Portfolio)'s Omega Advisors sold out of the stake in JPMorgan


  • Sold out of the stake in JPMorgan

    Sold out of the stake in JPMorgan

    George Soros (Trades, Portfolio)'s Soros Fund Management sold out of the stakes in Truist Financial Corp. (NYSE:TFC), Bank of America Corp. (NYSE:BAC), Bank of New York Mellon Corp. (NYSE:BK), Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (NYSE:GS), JPMorgan, Legg Mason, Inc. (NYSE:LM), PNC Financial, U.S. Bancorp (NYSE:USB) and Wells Fargo



Buffett added to his stake in Bank of America, but in general, the gurus I follow seem to agree that prospects for the banking sector are not promising.

Value investors have historically preferred investing in this sector because of the stability of returns associated with banks and the attractive dividend yields. Considering the fact that even Buffett is reducing his exposure to the sector, the time may have finally come for value investors to look for other investment opportunities.

Cheap for a reason

In an article published on Nov. 15, I highlighted a couple of adverse developments for banks.

  1. The ultra-low interest rate environment is projected to remain the same through at least the end of 2022.

  2. The surging popularity and cost-effectiveness of borrowing from bond markets instead of seeking funds from banks is siphoning off another traditional banking profit source.



These two points account for just the beginning of troubles for the industry. The second wave of the pandemic is crippling global economic activities once again, which is already proving to be an obstacle for banks - especially since the economy never did truly recover from the first wave.

Heightened health risks will likely prompt monetary policymakers around the world to limit the ability of banks to hike dividends and execute stock buybacks. Such a limitation would trade economic stability and prevent banking collapses, but would not be good for investors in the stocks of said banks. The success of the industry depends on how soon business activities will return to normalcy, but even a return to normal will still see long-term issues for banks due to the continued increase of corporate debt and the long-term decline of interest rates.

Also, the market seems to be pricing in a new fiscal boost of at least $2 trillion in the U.S. Such a boost, if it ever actually happens, would undoubtedly serve the best interests of Americans and the economy. However, what this also means is that businesses might find even less reason to go to banks, especially since the government has already promised to bridge the gap between available funding and their funding requirements.

There is one more negative sign regarding the expected return from bank stocks. According to data compiled by Ned Davis Research, banks tend to underperform the market when commercial traders have a net long position in bond futures. At the end of the third quarter, these "smart money" traders had a record high net long position in bonds, and if history repeats itself, banks might be in for a rough patch in the coming months.

When all these negative developments are factored into an analysis of banks, it's not difficult to understand why the financial services sector is the second cheapest from a Shiller price-earnings perspective.

Gurus Looking Down on the Banking Sector
Gurus Looking Down on the Banking Sector

Source: GuruFocus

There are many reasons to suggest that the sector is cheap for a reason, and investors need to be cautious before investing in bank stocks despite the very attractive earnings multiples at which stocks are trading.

The counter-argument

Even though there are many troubling signs, some analysts believe that things might soon take a U-turn if the global economy begins to expand at a stellar rate. In this case, the cheap valuation levels might soon disappear, leading to handsome returns for investors who were brave enough to bet on this sector amid the turbulent industry conditions. In an interview with CNN Money, CFRA director of equity research Ken Leon said:


"Banks are attractive as value stocks today, and they tend to do well when there is confidence in a cyclical rebound in the U.S. economy. They are undervalued, so for those investors who are looking out 12 months, they could be very interesting investments."



The liquidity positions of the major U.S. banks have not deteriorated considerably despite the challenges faced in the last few months, which is another promising sign. Back in 2008, many banks found it difficult to cope with the global financial crisis because of their weak balance sheets. The unprecedented measures taken by regulators to strengthen the banking system is to praise for the strong position banks are in today. It's reasonable to assume that banks will not collapse this time around even though government institutions had to bail out some companies during the last recession, but the question is whether the sector would be able to report meaningful growth over the next few years.

Takeaway

The macroeconomic outlook for banks is troubling, and many gurus have already decided to reduce their exposure to this business sector that was once a darling of many value investors. This is an ominous sign, as many of these investors who are divesting banks have a reputation for being a step ahead of the general investing public when it comes to identifying operating conditions for certain industries. The high dividend yields associated with banks and the cheap valuation multiples might lure value investors, but to play it safe, I think the best way forward is to allocate only a very small portion of an investment portfolio to this sector to keep concentration risk low.

Disclosure: The author does not own any shares mentioned in this article.

Read more here:

  • Homebuilders Are Poised to Climb Higher

  • Tudor Investment Boosts Its Disney Stake

  • Seth Klarman Bets on Micron Technology



Not a Premium Member of GuruFocus? Sign up for a free 7-day trial here.

This article first appeared on GuruFocus.

Latest Stories

  • Republican lawmaker calls for Kyle Rittenhouse, who is on trial for murder, to be elected to Congress

    Anthony Sabatini’s comment sparks demands for his resignation

  • There's a very simple, extremely plausible reason Trump won't admit Biden won

    President Trump lost his bid for re-election by 6 million votes and counting, and 74 electoral votes, and his legal team is consistently losing its court battles to disqualify President-elect Joe Biden's voters. And yet he persists, even as a growing number of Republicans are urging him to concede — or at least allow the Biden team to start its transition. So why does Trump keep slogging on? One theory being pushed by some of his supporters and allies is revenge."Trump told an ally that he knows he lost, but that he is delaying the transition process and is aggressively trying to sow doubt about the election results in order to get back at Democrats for questioning the legitimacy of his own election in 2016, especially with the Russia investigation," CNN reports, citing a source familiar with Trump's thinking. Pointing to "those who he claims undercut his election by pointing to Russian interference efforts," Trump "has suggested it is fair game to not recognize Joe Biden as the president-elect.""Will anyone be honest enough to acknowledge that most of what is happening right now has more to do with payback for how the Democrats behaved after 2016 then [sic] about legitimate claims of fraud in the election?" asked Erick Erickson, a sometime Trump critic on the right. Washington Post columnist Daniel Drezner responded by efficiently dismantling this "false equivalence between 2016 and 2020."The simpler explanation is that Trump always alleges fraud when he loses — and even when he wins — and that's just who he is: a sore loser.> Not just the 2016 Iowa caucuses, but popular vote in 2016, Arizona Senate race in 2018, and the results in 2012, when Trump was tweeting from the sidelines. It's not "revenge for the Russia investigation," Trump just says everything he loses was stolen. https://t.co/ZpViWOCpKh> > — Dave Weigel (@daveweigel) November 21, 2020The Washington Post complied a highlight reel of Trump's fraud claims.One piece of evidence bolstering this theory comes from Trump himself, who told CNN's Chris Cuomo in August 2015 that National Review's Rich Lowry is "probably right. I am the most fabulous whiner. I do whine because I want to win. And I'm not happy if I'm not winning. And I am a whiner. And I'm a whiner and I keep whining and whining until I win."More stories from theweek.com I was wrong about Mitt Romney Biden is stealing the spotlight. Trump can't stand it. Reporter Carl Bernstein names 21 GOP senators who 'repeatedly expressed extreme contempt for Trump'

  • Republican Sen. Kelly Loeffler, a candidate in the Georgia runoff, tested positive for COVID-19 and is quarantining

    Loeffler is currently campaigning in a high-stakes race that could determine control of the Senate at the start of President-elect Joe Biden's term.

  • Australian PM says misinterpretation of interests behind China tension

    Tension between Australia and China has been driven by incorrect assumptions shaped by rivalry between China and the United States but Australia has its own interest and independent views, Prime Minister Scott Morrison said on Monday. Australia's relationship with China soured in 2018 when it became the first country to publicly ban China’s Huawei from its 5G network, and worsened this year when Australia called for an enquiry into the origins of the novel coronavirus.

  • Wisconsin police arrest 15-year-old boy for Mayfair Mall shooting, say 'bullets started flying' during altercation

    While witnesses described the shooter as a white man in his 20s or 30s, Wauwatosa Police Chief Barry Weber said the suspect is an Hispanic teenager.

  • Iowa congressman notorious for racist remarks asks Kamala Harris if she was descended from slave owners

    Outgoing Republican Steve King has long history of offensive remarks

  • GOP Sen. Pat Toomey: Trump trying to pressure state legislatures to overturn election is 'inconsistent' with democracy

    Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) is speaking out against President Trump's attempt to get state legislatures to "dismiss the will" of voters, calling this idea "inconsistent" with a democratic society.The Pennsylvania Republican on Monday reiterated his belief that Trump should "accept the outcome" of the 2020 election that he lost to President-elect Joe Biden after exhausting all of his legal options in the key battleground state. Toomey also slammed the president for calling on state legislatures to overturn the results of the election due to baseless allegations of widespread voter fraud."The idea that a sitting president would try to, I don't know, pressure, cajole, persuade, state legislators to dismiss the will of their voters and select their own group of electors and send them to the Electoral College, it's completely inconsistent with any kind of truly democratic society," Toomey told CNBC. "So that shouldn't be going on, in my view."After holding a meeting with Michigan lawmakers at the White House on Friday before the certification of the vote in that state, Trump called on the "the Courts and/or Legislatures" to "do what has to be done to maintain the integrity of our elections." Those Michigan lawmakers who Trump met with, however, after the meeting said they haven't "been made aware of any information that would change the outcome of the election in Michigan," a state Biden was projected to win.Toomey previously shot down Trump's claims of widespread voter fraud in Pennsylvania during the election, saying he's not aware of "any significant wrongdoing." And over the weekend, after a key Trump campaign lawsuit was dismissed in Pennsylvania, Toomey congratulated Biden and said Trump "should accept the outcome of the election and facilitate the presidential transition process." > Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA), who endorsed, campaigned for and supports Trump, says the time has come: "At some point, you exhaust those possibilities. I think the president has reached that point in PA, he appears to have reached that point in GA, Michigan wasn't even close..." pic.twitter.com/wlyzUD2Ydz> > -- The Recount (@therecount) November 23, 2020More stories from theweek.com I was wrong about Mitt Romney Biden is stealing the spotlight. Trump can't stand it. Reporter Carl Bernstein names 21 GOP senators who 'repeatedly expressed extreme contempt for Trump'

  • China beat the coronavirus with science and strong public health measures, not just with authoritarianism

    I live in a democracy. But as Thanksgiving approaches, I find myself longing for the type of freedom I am seeing in China. People in China are able to move around freely right now. Many Americans may believe that the Chinese are able to enjoy this freedom because of China’s authoritarian regime. As a scholar of public health in China, I think the answers go beyond that.My research suggests that the control of the virus in China is not the result of authoritarian policy, but of a national prioritization of health. China learned a tough lesson with SARS, the first coronavirus pandemic of the 21st century. How China flattened its curveBarely less than a year ago, a novel coronavirus emerged in Wuhan, China, with 80,000 cases identified within three months, killing 3,000 people. In late January 2020, the Chinese government decided to lock down this city of 11 million people. All transportation to and from the city was stopped. Officials further locked down several other cities in Hubei Province, eventually quarantining over 50 million people.By the beginning of April, the Chinese government limited the spread of the virus to the point where they felt comfortable opening up Wuhan once again. Seven months later, China has confirmed 9,100 additional cases and recorded 1,407 more deaths due to the coronavirus. People in China travel, eat in restaurants and go into theaters, and kids go to school without much concern for their health. Juxtapose that to what we are experiencing in the U.S. To date, we have confirmed over 11 million cases, with the last 1 million recorded in just the last one week alone. In September and October, friends from China sent me pictures of food from all over the country as they traveled around to visit friends and family for the mid-autumn festival and then the seven-day National Day vacation week. I envied them then and envy them even more now as Americans prepare and wonder how we will celebrate Thanksgiving this year. What China learned from SARSWe Americans are told that the freedoms Chinese now enjoy come at the expense of being subject to a set of draconian public health policies that can be instituted only by an authoritarian government. But they also have the experience of living through a similar epidemic.SARS broke out in November of 2002 and ended in May of 2003, and China was anything but prepared for its emergence. It didn’t have the public health infrastructure in place to detect or control such a disease, and initially decided to prioritize politics and economy over health by covering up the epidemic. This didn’t work with such a virulent disease that started spreading around the world. After being forced to come to terms with SARS, China’s leaders eventually did enforce quarantine in Beijing and canceled the week-long May Day holiday of 2003. This helped to end the pandemic within a few short months, with minimal impact. SARS infected approximately 8,000 worldwide and killed about 800, 65% of which occurred in China and Hong Kong. The Chinese government learned from SARS the important role public health plays in protecting the nation. Following SARS, the government improved training of public health professionals and developed one of the most sophisticated disease surveillance systems in the world. While caught off guard for this next big coronavirus outbreak in December 2019, the country quickly mobilized its resources to bring the epidemic almost to a halt inside its borders within three months. What can the US learn from China?Knowing that there were no safe or proven treatments or an effective vaccine, China relied on proven nonpharmaceutical interventions to conquer the epidemic. First and foremost was containing the virus through controlling the sources of infection and blocking transmission. This was accomplished through early detection (testing), isolation, treatment and tracing the close contacts of any infected individual. This strategy was aided by the three field hospitals (fancang) the government built to isolate patients with mild to moderate symptoms from their families. Strict quarantine measures were also central to preventing the spread of this epidemic, as it was with the SARS epidemic in 2003. This was paired with compulsory mask-wearing, promotion of personal hygiene (hand-washing, home disinfection, ventilation), self-monitoring of body temperature, universal compulsory stay-at-home orders for all residents, and universal symptom surveys conducted by community workers and volunteers. What else could the US have done to be prepared?SARS exposed serious weaknesses in China’s public health system and prompted its government to reinvent its public health system. COVID-19 has exposed similar shortcomings in the U.S. public health system. To date, however, the current administration has taken the exact opposite approach, devastating our public health system. The Trump administration made major cuts to the budgets of the National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The last budget submitted by the Trump administration in February 2020, as the pandemic was beginning, called for an additional reduction of US$693 million to the CDC budget. This affected our ability to prepare for a pandemic outbreak. In the past, this preparation included international partnerships to help detect disease before it reached our shores. For example, the CDC built up partnerships with China following the SARS epidemic, to help contain the emergence of infectious disease coming from the region. At one point the CDC had 10 American experts working on the ground in China and 40 local Chinese staff, who mostly concentrated on infectious disease. Trump started slashing these positions shortly after taking office, and by the time COVID-19 broke out, those programs were whittled down to a skeleton staff of one or two. [Research into coronavirus and other news from science Subscribe to The Conversation’s new science newsletter.]The Declaration of Alma Ata guaranteed health for all, and not just health for people governed under a specific type of bureaucratic system. The U.S. has been, and can be, just as dedicated to protecting the health of its people as China under its authoritarian government. We demonstrated this during the Ebola epidemic, with the launch of a whole government effort coordinated by Ron Klain, who has been appointed White House chief of staff under President-elect Biden.This effort, which included a coordinated response with both African nations and China, improved preparedness within the U.S. and ultimately helped to save hundreds of thousands of lives around the world. A reduction in funding for our public health infrastructure, under the Trump administration, was a divestment in the health of the American people and should not have happened. A new administration that places public health at the helm, once again, will I hope prove to us that health is not just something that can be protected under an authoritarian government, but is in fact a right for all.This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts. It was written by: Elanah Uretsky, Brandeis University.Read more: * Poor US pandemic response will reverberate in health care politics for years, health scholars warn * Experts agree that Trump’s coronavirus response was poor, but the US was ill-prepared in the first placeElanah Uretsky does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

  • Mexico denies deal made to nab capo in return for ex-defense minister

    Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador on Monday denied that Mexico had agreed to capture a cartel leader for the United States in order to secure the return of ex-defense minister Salvador Cienfuegos from U.S. custody. Reuters reported last week that Mexico agreed with U.S. Attorney General William Barr to seek the arrest of a high-level Mexican drug cartel leader as part of a deal to get U.S. drug trafficking charges against Cienfuegos dropped. "There is no deal in the shadows," Lopez Obrador said at his regular news conference, referring to the Reuters story as well as other media reports that Mexico had threatened to expel U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration agents over Cienfuegos' arrest.

  • Wong, Chow and Lam: Three young Hong Kong activists facing jail

    Three prominent Hong Kong activists are facing jail after pleading guilty on Monday to inciting an "illegal assembly" outside the city's main police station during last year's huge pro-democracy protests.

  • I was wrong about Mitt Romney

    The Donald Trump phenomenon is purported to have divided friendships, families, and even marriages. I can attest to this fact in my own suburban Washington household, for this perhaps peculiar professional reason: It has occasioned my wife, the longtime sufferer of all my hot takes, to ask approximately one-thousand times whether I finally feel bad about all the mean things I said about Mitt Romney.The short answer is, yes!Romney, now the junior senator of Utah, has displayed rare courage and integrity throughout this hell-year. Alone among Republican senators (indeed, alone among any senator in history), he crossed party lines to vote to convict President Trump on the charge of abusing his power by pressuring a foreign government to interfere in our election. And — not alone, exactly, but hardly in plentiful company — he has forthrightly condemned the president for stonewalling the Biden transition and undermining our democracy.These actions have taken real guts. If I were wearing a cap, I would doff it; if I were to meet Romney in person, I would thank him. With this virtual pen in hand, I am applauding him.However: The long answer to the above question is … Heck no!Let me explain why I’m torn.First, it’s essential to remember how radically different our political landscape looked in the Before Times. The outright bigotry and racism of the 2016 Trump campaign had not yet been contemplated, let alone assimilated; for decades, those things were hinted at, dog-whistled, wink-winked — but they were not, in any overt sense, options on the menu given to Republican primary voters. Consequently, it needs to be said that it’s silly to retroactively credit figures in the party for not behaving that badly.So, what was it that bugged me so badly about mainstream, milquetoast Mitt?In 2007 and 2008, Romney, then the moderate one-term governor of Massachusetts (as well as the son of a famously moderate governor of Michigan) ran a primary campaign that was, I still maintain, preposterous. It was predicated on the notion that frontrunner John McCain (who, after a tumultuous summer in ’07, eventually won the GOP nomination) was too moderate. He compromised too often with Democrats (with Russ Feingold on campaign finance reform; with Ted Kennedy on immigration; with Joe Lieberman on climate change).I understand the imperatives of strategy in winning a primary, when you must appeal to the base before pivoting to the center. But — as I said then and will say again now — I refuse to listen to such an appeal from mainstream milquetoast Mitt. He did not play the Mr. Conservative act lightly; he played it, as he plays everything, stiffly. The act failed. It deserved to fail.Then came 2012. Romney was now something of a frontrunner. He had lost the 2008 primary — but so had McCain, badly, in the general election against President Obama. It was now, in the sequential custom of Republican politics, “Mitt Romney’s turn.” So now he was the one who had to beat back attempts to protect his right flank. Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee (am I forgetting anyone? It feels like I’m forgetting someone!) — they all took their shots at Romney; they all exposed weaknesses or wounded him; and they all, one after the other, failed as he had four years before.Without aid of Google, I remember calling Romney a “rancid imposter” (yikes!). With aid of Google, I see that I called his 2012 campaign “breathtakingly cynical, borderline nihilistic” (I hadn’t seen nothin’ yet!). I haven’t forgotten about the catastrophic 47 percent video. And I sure haven’t forgotten about the way Romney comported himself in the first innings of the Benghazi fiasco (reminder: He really was breathtakingly cynical).But, with the benefit of both hindsight and five years of Donald Trump, here’s what I’ve come to appreciate about Mitt Romney, a man of obvious high character and basic decency, that wasn’t clear to me then, but should have been: He was trying to hold together a party that was morally coming apart at the seams. Indeed, Romney could see for himself that it was thirsting for a demagogue very like Trump (whose endorsement, it must be noted, Romney accepted). “It’s very easy to excite the base with incendiary comments,” he said in February 2012. “We’ve seen throughout the campaign that if you’re willing to say really outrageous things that are accusatory and attacking President Obama that you’re going to jump up in the polls. You know, I’m not willing to light my hair on fire to try and get support. I am who I am.”It took guts to say that then. I didn’t acknowledge it at the time. I should have.When the notional threat of Trump became a reality in 2016, Romney, again, took a stand. In March of that fateful year, Romney warned against nominating a “con man, a fake.” Every word of the speech was born out by the reality of the Trump administration. Not just the bits about Trump’s warped character — but the red flags over Trump’s desire for a trade war and his embrace of prodigious debt.Of course, Romney being Romney, he sullied his righteous stand by agreeing to dine with Trump during the transition, under the guise of possibly being nominated for secretary of state. Predictably, Romney was humiliated. But that was the last time.Very much on his own shingle, Romney won a Senate seat in Utah. From there, he has become one of the bravest and most constructive voices in Republican politics. And while I may regret the excessive tone of some of my criticisms of Mitt Romney’s past, I can say that I look forward to applauding him more often in the future.“Sorry, Mitt”? Not quite.Instead: Go, Mitt, go!More stories from theweek.com Biden is stealing the spotlight. Trump can't stand it. Reporter Carl Bernstein names 21 GOP senators who 'repeatedly expressed extreme contempt for Trump' There's a very simple, extremely plausible reason Trump won't admit Biden won

  • Republicans dash to defend perilous 2022 Senate map

    GOP leadership is moving quickly to lock down incumbents in key swing states.

  • How the governors of Iowa, Utah, and North Dakota pivoted and issued public health orders to contain recent coronavirus surges

    The governors cited alarming increases in coronavirus cases that prompted new mandates and caused them to change their stances.

  • Nebraska man arrested for allegedly shooting 4 people, killing 2, at a Sonic Drive-In restaurant, police say

    Roberto Carlos Silva Jr., 23, was charged with two counts of first-degree murder and one count of first-degree arson, authorities said on Sunday.

  • Special Report: Ortega media enrich his family, entrench his hold on Nicaragua

    In early 2010, Nicaragua's Canal 8, an independent television network, had a new owner. The goal: not only ensure positive coverage, but also secure outright control of media properties by Ortega and allies.

  • G20: Trump defends withdrawal from Paris accord

    It was a move that took effect on Nov. 4, a day after the presidential election won by Democrat Joe Biden, who has said he will rejoin the agreement as soon as he takes office. Trump said, without providing evidence, that the air in the United States was 7% cleaner than when he took office, and that U.S. renewable energy capacity had increased by more than 30% even as the United States became the top U.S. and natural gas producer in the world. "Every day we're proving that we can protect our workers, create new jobs, and safeguard the environment without imposing crippling mandates and one-sided international agreements on our citizens," he said. Trump's comments were streamed to the virtual gathering on Sunday (November 22).

  • Trump supporter who ‘forcefully exhaled’ on protesters faces charges, Virginia cops say

    The incident was caught on video.

  • Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan is 'embarrassed' his GOP is helping Trump make the U.S. look like 'a banana republic'

    Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan (R) is no longer sure Trump will "do the right thing" and acknowledge his loss to President-elect Joe Biden, but he's certain Biden will be sworn in Jan. 20, 2021, he told CNN's Jake Tapper on Sunday's State of the Union. Hogan, who has been critical of Trump, said he voted for the late President Ronald Reagan this year.Pressuring state legislators in Michigan and other states to "somehow change the outcome with electors was completely outrageous," Hogan said. "We used to go supervise elections around the world, and we were the most respected country with respect to elections. And now we're beginning to look like we're a banana republic. It's time for them to stop the nonsense. It gets more bizarre every single day, and frankly, I'm embarrassed that more people in the party aren't speaking up."> Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan says he is "embarrassed that more people in the party aren't speaking up" regarding President Trumps' refusal to concede https://t.co/2wEl0kWIoX CNNSOTU pic.twitter.com/ht8v9oi0O5> > -- CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) November 22, 2020John Bolton, Trump's former national security adviser, was also critical of both Trump and his Republican Party, but he did offer some advice to those Republican officials scared of Trump. "Look, for those who are worried about Trump's reaction, there's strength in numbers," he said. "The more who come out and say, 'He doesn't represent us, he is not following a Republican game plan here,' the safer they will be." > "The Republican Party is not going to be saved by hiding in a spider hole. We need all of our leaders to come out and say, 'the election is over.' We're not talking about an abstract right for Trump to use his legal remedies. We've past that," John Bolton says. CNNSOTU pic.twitter.com/pUFsiFj7PC> > -- State of the Union (@CNNSotu) November 22, 2020More stories from theweek.com I was wrong about Mitt Romney Biden is stealing the spotlight. Trump can't stand it. Reporter Carl Bernstein names 21 GOP senators who 'repeatedly expressed extreme contempt for Trump'

  • US national security adviser warns China not to use military force against Taiwan

    The United States’ national security adviser has warned China not to use military force against Taiwan, a day after an unannounced visit to the democratic island by a two-star Navy admiral overseeing US military intelligence in the Asia-Pacific. Robert O’Brien cautioned Beijing while touring the Philippines and Vietnam, where he spoke to his counterparts about tackling China’s growing assertiveness in the South China Sea, a region of vital shipping routes where it has made multiple disputed territorial claims. The Chinese Communist Party also claims Taiwan, a democracy of 24 million, even though it has never ruled there. It has threatened to annex the island, and in recent months has stepped up military intimidation through air incursions and invasion simulations. “We have very close ties with Taiwan. The president has made it very clear that any attempt to cause Taiwan to unify with China with anything other than persuasion or democratic election, is something that would be extraordinarily consequential for the People’s Republic of China,” said Mr O’Brien. “I can’t imagine anything that would cause a greater backlash against China around the entire world if they attempted to use military force to coerce Taiwan,” he told reporters. The US does not have formal diplomatic ties with Taipei but it views Taiwan as a democratic ally in the strategic Indo-Pacific region. It is Taiwan’s biggest arms supplier. The Trump administration has beefed up support for Taiwan in recent months - approving several big weapons sales and dispatching senior officials, including Alex Azar, the US health secretary. This weekend Reuters reported that Rear Admiral Michael Studeman, the director of the J2, which oversees intelligence at the US military’s Indo-Pacific Command, had made a secretive visit. He is believed to be one of the most high-ranking US officers known to have visited Taipei in recent years. The increased US backing for Taiwan has riled China amid rising tensions between Washington and Beijing over the South China Sea, the crackdown on the pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong and an ongoing trade dispute. On Monday, the Chinese foreign ministry hit back with a warning of its own, demanding the US “immediately stop” all official exchanges and military contacts with Taiwan and signalling that China would make “legitimate and necessary responses” without giving further details. “China firmly opposes official exchanges and military contacts between the US and Taiwan in any form. This position has been consistent and clear. We urge the US side to fully recognise the high sensitivity of the Taiwan issue,” said spokesman Zhao Lijian.

  • AOC calls out Kyle Rittenhouse's $2 million bail release as 'protection of white supremacy'

    "Does anyone believe Rittenhouse would be released if he were Muslim," AOC wrote on Twitter.