Posted on

Sydney Mansion Aims to Be the First Australian Home to Sell for More Than A$200 Million

A Sydney waterfront mansion that has just hit the market could set a countrywide price record as the first home to sell for A$200 million (US$129.77 million).

Located in the affluent suburb of Point Piper, the sprawling home sits on a lot that’s equivalent to “four normal housing blocks” and features 98 meters (321.5 feet) of water frontage along the harbour, according to an announcement on Wednesday from Ken Jacobs, director of Australia Pacific of Forbes Global Properties, who has the listing in association with real estate agent Brad Pillinger.

“The estate is Australia’s most iconic residence and ranks amongst the best in the world, combining both privacy and space, exuding elegance and comfort, while featuring gun-barrel views of the Sydney Opera House and the Harbour Bridge,” Jacobs said in a statement.

The residence is expected to sell for A$200 million or more, Pillinger added. “There is no comparable property in Australia.”

The home, named Wingadal, as it’s located on Wingadal Place, was built for Aussie Home Loans founder John Symond, who purchased the property in 1999. It took eight years to complete the mansion, which was designed by architect Alec Tzannes, according to the listing agency.

“Wingadal is a highlight of my career in residential design and architecture,” Tzannes said. “The timeless design on the Point Piper peninsula offers a unique appreciation of Sydney Harbour from a variety of angles, rotating around an axis that lines up perfectly with the Sydney Harbour Bridge.”

The colossal home has enough internal space to entertain up to 500 people, and underground parking provides space for 20 cars, plus eight more can fit inside the garage.

The four-level home has four bedrooms as well as a two-bedroom apartment. There’s also a 2,500-bottle wine cellar, a home theater that seats 22, two commercial kitchens and a swimming pool.

“Wingadal has been a special home for my family over the past two decades, and now I’m looking forward to spending more time traveling overseas,” Symond said in a statement. “While being an exceptional family home, we have also enjoyed hosting many important events for charities and other worthwhile causes.”

This is not the first time Symond has tried to sell his waterfront estate. In 2016, he listed the home in hopes of selling it for at least A$100 million, which would’ve been a price record for the country at that time Mansion Global reported . The current benchmark was set in 2022, when a baronial-style estate, also in Point Piper, sold for A$130 million, according to The Sydney Morning Herald .

Posted on

Worried About a Stock-Market Correction? Here’s How to Lock in Recent Gains

S&P show trades falling

The past five years have been good to stock-market investors. The S&P 500 index has climbed an annualised 12% during that period, outstripping the 9% annualised gain over the past 40 years. This year alone the index is up 6.9% as of April 26, tacking on to the 24% gain in 2023.

But signs are emerging that the stock market could be due for a breather. As of April 25, the S&P 500 went 133 trading days without a decline of at least 10%, according to PNC Institutional Asset Management. To be sure, that’s still short of the 172-day average since 1928. But the S&P 500 has jumped 24% in the past six months (about 180 days), which buttresses arguments for a correction.

What’s more, the multiyear ascent has arguably sent stocks to overvalued levels. The S&P 500’s forward price-to-earnings ratio—a gauge of market valuation based on earnings estimates for the next 12 months—registered 20 as of April 26, exceeding the five-year average of 19.1 and the 10-year average of 17.8, according to FactSet.

“A correction is certainly possible,” says Jack Ablin , chief investment officer at wealth-management firm Cresset Capital, pointing to the high valuations and the prospect that rate cuts will come later than expected thanks to inflation that has been higher than expected.

Given the danger of a stock-market correction, commonly defined as a 10% to 20% drop, how can investors guard the profits they have made in recent years?

Wait and see

Assuming you have a well-diversified portfolio and aren’t counting on the money from your stocks to finance an imminent expense, financial advisers say the best strategy is to hang tight.

Corrections generally don’t stick around long. Since 1985, declines between 10% and 20% for the S&P 500 have lasted only 97 days on average—three-plus months—according to a CFRA analysis of S&P data.

It then has taken the market an additional 101 days on average to recover the ground lost during the correction. So in about six months, investors tend to be back where they were before the correction.

“If there’s a shallow correction of 5% to 10%, we recommend riding it out,” says Karim Ahamed , an investment adviser at wealth-management firm Cerity Partners. “Eventually the market recovers. The idea of selling out and climbing back in is difficult to achieve. You’re more likely to stay on the sidelines with your losses crystallising.”

The S&P 500 did fall more than 5% in recent weeks, from March 28 to April 19.

Sell losers

Some people, though, simply find it impossible to do nothing if they fear a correction is looming. At the least, they want to protect the gains they have earned so far. What’s the most prudent way for them to reduce their market exposure?

Keep in mind that most actions you can take to guard your stock profits carry a cost. The easiest method, selling stocks, subjects you to capital-gains taxes unless you are selling from a tax-advantaged retirement account. That tax rate varies according to your income, but will likely be 15%.

One way to limit the burden is through tax-loss harvesting, says Amanda Agati , chief investment officer of PNC’s asset-management group. That is when you sell stocks at a loss, lowering your net capital gain. If you have any dogs in your portfolio—stocks with poor fundamentals—you can unload those.

If you do sell stocks, you could put the proceeds into a money-market fund for now, financial pros say. Many such funds yield 5% or more, far higher than rates over the past 15 years. Or if you want to increase the safety of your overall portfolio, you could put the money into safe government bonds. Three-year Treasury notes yield around 4.75%.

Play defence

If you are going to unload stocks, but don’t want to sell right away, you can put in a stop-limit sell order through your brokerage. That order can automatically sell your shares if they slide to a level you designate (they can go below it, too), protecting you from big drops.

Say you bought 100 shares of Tesla at $140, and they are now trading at $165. If you don’t want your profit to disappear in a downturn, you could enter a stop-limit sell order with your brokerage at $150 for some or all of your shares. Those shares can be sold if the price reaches $150, securing some of the gains.

You also might shift your holdings more toward defensive stocks, such as utilities and consumer-staple companies, which generally outperform during market downturns, says Michael Sheldon , executive director of wealth-management firm RDM Financial Group.

PNC’s Agati suggests an emphasis on quality stocks, those with high recurring revenues, strong and dependable profit margins, high cash flow and low debt. These stocks—such as AutoZone and Visa , she says—have lagged behind the leaders of the market’s surge over the past year.

Consider options

Advisers also suggest looking at “put” options to protect your stock gains. Puts give you the right but not the obligation to sell a security at a preset price by a preset deadline.

Note that we’re talking about a risk-reduction approach here, not the kind of risk-taking—to try to amplify returns— that has been rampant in the options market. The simplest strategy could be to purchase a put option on a market-index exchange-traded fund, such as one based on the S&P 500. You could buy puts on individual stocks rather than an index ETF, but that may get expensive and complicated as each option carries a purchase premium.

Here’s how the ETF strategy would work: First, buy an option that would let you sell the ETF at a price below the current one, protecting you from declines beneath that level. You wouldn’t have to sell the ETF, and you wouldn’t even have to own it. As the S&P 500 falls, the put option gains in value, and you can sell it.

Say on April 16 you wanted to protect 100 shares of SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (SPY) from a decline of more than 10%. With the ETF trading at $505 a share, you could buy an option that covers 100 shares for $1,050, or $10.50 a share. You’re paying a premium equal to 2% of your position.

The option’s expiration date is December, and its strike price is $455 a share, or 10% below the current value. The strike price is the price at which you could exercise the option. But generally you sell the option rather than exercising it, so you don’t have to dump any shares, especially if you don’t own them.

If the market doesn’t go down 10% by December, you let the option expire worthless, and you’re out the $1,050 you paid for it. If the market drops more than 10%, you can sell your option at a profit whenever you want until December.

While it might be more lucrative to sell it early, Ablin recommends holding until expiration if you’re using the option to protect your portfolio. “Think of it like homeowner insurance,” he says. “You pay a premium, like a deductible for insurance, and your coverage runs for a term.”

Keeping the option until expiration extends your coverage for the longest possible period.

By using options, you don’t have to sell any of your stocks, which are typically the best asset to generate strong long-term returns. “If you have the wherewithal to hold the S&P 500 for 10 years, your odds of making money are over 90%,” Ablin says.

Posted on

Less Is More: The Case for ‘Slow Productivity’ at Work

You’re oh so busy. You’re on Slack and email and back-to-back Zoom calls , sometimes all at once . Are you actually getting real work done?

Cal Newport doesn’t think so.

“It’s like, wait a second, none of this mattered,” says the Georgetown University computer science professor and crusader for focus in a distracted age.

Newport, 41, says we can accomplish more by shedding the overload. He calls his solution “slow productivity”—and has a book by the same name —a way for high achievers to say yes to fewer things, do them better and even slack off in strategic doses. Top-notch quality is the goal, and frenetic activity the enemy.

This, he told me, is the thing that can save our jobs from AI and layoffs, and even make shareholders happy.

I had questions. Can we really be less is more at work, or have we grown addicted to constantly crossing endless tasks off our to-do lists? What will our bosses think?

After all, so many of us yearn for a burnout cure-all that will preserve our high-achiever status, and this isn’t the first you-can-have-it-all proposition we’ve heard. Champions of the four-day workweek promise we can ditch an entire workday just by working smarter. Remote-work die-hards swear it’s a win for employers and employees. Few dreams are more seductive than bidding goodbye to hustle culture, while still reaping the benefits of said hustle.

Newport acknowledges that saying no to preserve our productivity can be a delicate act. He knows that entrepreneurs have more flexibility, but says those of us who answer to managers can carve this out too. We might even find we have more power and value to our employers.

“You should take that value out for a little bit of a spin,” he suggests. He offers some pointers.

Less is more

The way we work now is a “serious economic drag,” Newport says. Knowledge workers have devolved into a form of productivity that’s more about the vibes—stressed!—than actually making money for the company. Data from Microsoft finds that lots of us spend the equivalent of two workdays a week on meetings and email alone.

One mistake we make, Newport says, is taking on too many projects, then getting bogged down in the administrative overload—talking about the work, coordinating with others—that each requires. Work becomes a string of planning meetings, waiting on someone from another department to give us a go-ahead.

Newport recommends giving priority to a couple projects, then bumping the others to a waiting list in order of importance. Make that list public, say, in a Google doc you share with bosses and colleagues.

“When workloads are obfuscated behind black boxes, it’s just people throwing stuff at each other, it’s very dangerous to say no,” Newport says.

If someone comes to you with more work, have them consider where it should go on your list, Newport says.

When you do say yes, double the estimated timelines you set to complete a project. That’s how long it’ll take to do it well, he says. And try what he calls a “one for you, one for me strategy.” Every time you book an hour-long meeting, block an hour for independent work on your calendar.

Be the one to trust

It’s a foreign and bracing approach for those of us who reflexively say yes to work requests. Newport’s philosophy requires transparency and confidence. Instead of “let me see how fast I can turn that around!”, try, “This request will take six hours. I’ll have that time in three weeks.”

This could be heresy at some companies. The trick is in the delivery, he says. Never make it seem like work tasks are a burden you shouldn’t have to face. Instead, stress that you’re trying to be as effective as you can for the team and the company. Be positive, and deliver on the timelines you promise. You’ll be seen as someone who’s organized and on top of your game.

We think bosses want someone who’s always accessible—fast to respond, fast to jump into action, Newport says. But what bosses really want is to know that a project they hand you will get done.

Bite-size shirking

Quiet quitting permanently is a bad idea, Newport says, but a little bit is good.

Don’t feel guilty, he adds. You’re working under a new, better system. We weren’t meant to work all out , every day, without seasonal shifts and pauses.

Pick a time—say, the month of July—to slow down. Don’t volunteer for extra work. Don’t offer Mondays as a possibility for meetings. Take on an easier project for cover.

He also recommends taking yourself out to a monthly movie during the workday. Say it’s a personal appointment, and enjoy the sense of control and creativity it brings.

You don’t have to nail a manifesto to the wall, he adds, or try to change the whole company culture. Instead, quietly carve out change for yourself.

Coming into your power

The catch: You have to be really good at the part of your job that matters. And you have to get big stuff done. Remember, this is about being a happier high performer, not slacking.

“There’s no hiding,” Newport says.

I suspect this terrifies a lot of people. They’ve gotten good at being always on and typing up yet another meeting agenda. Tackling a major project or goal is often harder, and comes without a guarantee that you’re going to nail it.

Scary or not, real work is becoming imperative. AI is coming for the rote parts of our jobs. Leaders are sussing out the “nonsense” projects and roles in their ranks as they cut jobs, Newport says. No boss wants to be left with a team of people who are aces at responding to emails.

Mastering a valuable skill puts you in control. Newport writes of people who leave corporate America behind and move where they want , working remotely as contractors, charging wild fees for fewer hours of work. The more you shed the work that doesn’t matter, and spend that time getting better at the stuff that does, the more leeway you’ll get.

“The marketplace doesn’t care about your personal interest in slowing down,” Newport writes. “If you want more control over your schedule, you need something to offer in return.”

Figure that puzzle out, and you might just be able to have it all—high achievement, and your sanity.

Posted on

Picasso Painting of Muse Dora Maar Comes to Auction for the First Time

A portrait by Pablo Picasso of his lover and muse Dora Maar will be sold at auction for the first time at a Phillips evening sale in May in New York and is estimated to realize as much as US$18 million.

Buste de femme au chapeau, 1939, depicts Maar, whom Picasso met in 1935 and remained with for a decade. Buste de femme remained in Picasso’s personal collection until he died in 1973, when Galerie Beyeler in Switzerland took ownership of the piece and kept it  alongside other works from the artist’s Femmes au chapeau series, according to Phillips.

The piece has been in the same collection for the last 30 years, according to Jean-Paul Engelen, president, Americas, and worldwide co-head of modern and contemporary art for Phillips.

According to Phillips, the painting, only 24 inches by 15 inches, employs techniques from Cubism, and contains elements familiar to Picasso’s paintings of Marr, “including his distinctive rendering of her eyes, strong line of her nose, and radical combinations of frontal and profile views.”

Untitled (ELMAR), 1982, by Jean-Michel Basquiat.
Phillips

Phillips’ modern and contemporary evening sale on May 14 will also include three previously announced works by Jean-Michel Basquiat, including a large painting from the early 1980s, Untitled (ELMAR) , 1982, that could sell for more than US$60 million.  

Barclay L. Hendricks’ 1977 work, Vendetta.
Phillips

Also in the sale is Barclay L. Hendricks’ 1977 work, Vendetta, with an estimate between US$2.5 million and US$3.5 million. The painting was featured in the artist’s first career retrospective, and toured across the U.S. from 2008 to 2009. Hendricks’ works rarely come to auction, and Engelen expects increased interest given a recent exhibition of the artist’s works at the Frick Collection in New York.

A 1978 Donald Judd “stacks” sculpture set in stainless steel and yellow fluorescent Plexiglas.
Phillips

Lastly, two sculpture “stacks” from Donald Judd will be sold. A 1978 set in stainless steel and yellow fluorescent Plexiglas, described as a “signature” piece by the artist completed when he was near the top of his career, is estimated to sell for between US$5.5 million and US$7.5 million. The second is a 1994 six-part set composed of Cor-ten steel and black Plexiglas finished just before the artist’s death early that year. It carries an estimate of US$2 million to US$3 million.

Posted on

Packard Foundation Pledges $480 Million to Ocean Conservation Over the Next Five Years

Over the next five years, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation will be committing US$480 million to an initiative dedicated to ocean conservation.

The foundation made the announcement on April 17 during the closing ceremony of the ninth Our Ocean Conference, held in Athens, Greece.

“Ocean science and conservation are core to the Packard Foundation’s DNA,” wrote Meg Caldwell, interim vice president of environment and science, in an email. “The next phase of the Packard Foundation’s commitment to ocean health, the 10-year (2023-33) Ocean Initiative, aims to protect and restore ocean ecosystems for people and nature, now and in the future.”

The support from the funding will be focused in four countries, Chile, China, the U.S., and Indonesia, which were selected because of their “biological significance, human dependence on ocean ecosystems, and opportunities to affect positive changes,” Caldwell says.

The foundation’s ocean initiative will specifically address three primary threats: climate change, unsustainable overfishing, and habitat loss. These issues not only harm ocean ecosystems, but also the countless people who rely on the ocean for “their livelihoods, nutrition, and cultural heritage, disproportionately impacting Indigenous peoples and coastal communities,” Caldwell says.

Caldwell emphasises the need to include these groups of people in the conversations and actions regarding ocean conservation.

“Weak governance and seafood supply chains that put profit ahead of people compound these threats, allowing human rights abuses and inequities to persist,” she says.

The foundation plans to address these threats by funding work within three systems: civil society, to strengthen “the engagement of ocean-reliant communities” to create more inclusive solutions; seafood supply chains, to end illegal fishing, overfishing, and human rights abuses; and governance, to enact reform that will protect both the ocean and the reliant communities.

The Packard Foundation is also a part of the Ocean Resilience and Climate Alliance, which is a philanthropic initiative working to address the climate crisis and its damage to the ocean. ORCA’s mission is “to provide a surge of more than US$250 million dollars in grants over four years to catalyze work across a handful of immediate ocean-climate priorities,” according to their website.

Posted on

Anglo American Rejects $39 Billion BHP Bid, Setting Up Likely Bidding War

LONDON— Anglo American on Friday rejected a $39 billion takeover proposal from rival BHP, saying the bid “significantly undervalues” the company and setting the stage for a potential bidding war.

London-listed Anglo American said the unsolicited proposal, which was made earlier this month and which became public this week, features an unattractive structure that is too uncertain and complex .

Anglo American Chairman Stuart Chambers said the company stands to benefit from its portfolio of assets, including copper, that are likely to experience growth from trends around the energy transition. BHP’s bid, Chambers said, is opportunistic and dilutive for shareholders.

BHP’s all-share offer valued Anglo American at about $38.8 billion, and would have been contingent upon Anglo American spinning off shareholdings in two South African-listed units. The proposal represented a premium of about 31%, not including the South African-listed units, based on Tuesday’s closing prices.

Some analysts had predicted Anglo would find the bid too low and are expecting BHP to return with another. BHP has until May 22 to make a firm offer, though the deadline can be extended. Industry participants expect other large miners to also take a run at Anglo, whose share price has dropped since 2022 as lower commodity prices have ripped through the industry.

A tie-up between BHP and Anglo American, which would be the largest mining deal on record, would illustrate the growing importance of copper, a metal essential to clean-energy products , to a sector that has long relied on Chinese industrialisation to boost profits.

Copper represents some 30% of Anglo American’s output, while BHP counts a majority stake in Chile’s Escondida, the world’s biggest copper mine, among its assets. BHP bought Australian copper-and-gold miner Oz Minerals for $6.34 billion in May last year, representing its biggest acquisition since 2011.

Copper prices are up some 15% so far this year, reflecting expectations that demand for the metal will rise as the world decarbonises and supply will be constrained. Electric vehicles and wind farms use copper in much greater quantities than gasoline-powered cars and coal-fired power stations.

Anglo American has been reviewing its assets in recent months, and has held early conversations with potential buyers for its storied De Beers diamond unit, which it values at more than $7 billion, The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday.

Activist firm Elliott Investment Management holds a stake in Anglo American worth roughly $1 billion, accumulated over several months and before BHP’s move on the miner, according to a person familiar with the matter. The firm is widely known for its campaigns to push companies for change to boost their stock prices. Its view of the Anglo American holding couldn’t be learned.

That said, a jump in Anglo American’s share price following BHP’s takeover offer indicates Elliott has already profited from its holding, potentially reducing any incentive for it to take any action until the outcome of BHP’s bid becomes clearer.

Anglo’s stock on Friday traded above the implied value of BHP’s offer, indicating the market expects a higher bid to emerge.

Posted on

Tesla Stock Rose Again. Three Reasons for the Jump.

Tesla stock surged again on Thursday, bringing the two-day gain to more than $28 a share, up 17.4%.

Shares closed at $170.18, up 5%, while the S&P 500 and Nasdaq Composite fell 0.5% and 0.6%, respectively.

First quarter earnings are still at work. Tesla stock rose 11.8% on Wednesday after first-quarter results reported Tuesday evening weren’t great, but were good enough. Tesla earned 45 cents a share, down from 85 cents a year earlier, but given Telsa’s disappointing 387,000 units delivered in the first quarter, investors feared a worse outcome.

More important than the bottom line earnings, Telsa said it was accelerating the development of its l ower-priced vehicle that was originally slated for late 2025. A new vehicle will help get Tesla’s growth rate up.

A second reason for the big stock gain is Contemporatry Amperex Technology Co. , which is better known as CATL.

It’s the world’s largest EV battery maker and unveiled a battery at the Beijing Auto show on Thursday that can get up to 375 miles of range with a 10-minute charge and go more than 600 miles on one charge.

The cost of the battery has to be right, but those specs are impressive and alleviate a lot of range and charging anxiety.

Tesla buys batteries from CATL.

Another reason for the Thursday is the stock charts. Tesla stock was badly beaten up coming into earnings and has some room to run before hitting resistance around $175. “Many eyes are on that [level] I’m sure,” says CappThesis founder Frank Cappelleri .

He isn’t making a fundamental call on Tesla stock. Cappelleri is a market technician who looks at stock charts to get a sense of where shares of any company can go over the short and medium terms.

Support and resistance represent levels where investors, and traders, have bought and sold shares in the past.

Tesla stock is down 32% year to date after the epic two-day run.

Posted on

The Uglification of Everything

I wish to protest the current ugliness. I see it as a continuing trend, “the uglification of everything.” It is coming out of our culture with picked-up speed, and from many media silos, and I don’t like it.

You remember the 1999 movie “The Talented Mr. Ripley,” from the Patricia Highsmith novel. It was fabulous—mysteries, murders, a sociopath scheming his way among high-class expats on the Italian Riviera. The laid-back glamour of Jude Law, the Grace Kelly-ness of Gwyneth Paltrow, who looks like a Vogue magazine cover decided to take a stroll through the streets of 1950s Venice, the truly brilliant acting of Matt Damon, who is so well-liked by audiences I’m not sure we notice anymore what a great actor he is. The director, Anthony Minghella, deliberately showed you pretty shiny things while taking you on a journey to a heart of darkness.

There’s a new version, a streaming series from Netflix, called “Ripley.” I turned to it eagerly and watched with puzzlement. It is unrelievedly ugly. Grimy, gloomy, grim. Tom Ripley is now charmless, a pale and watchful slug slithering through ancient rooms. He isn’t bright, eager, endearing, only predatory. No one would want to know him! Which makes the story make no sense. Again, Ripley is a sociopath, but few could tell because he seemed so sweet and easy. In the original movie, Philip Seymour Hoffman has an unforgettable turn as a jazz-loving, prep-schooled, in-crowd snob. In this version that character is mirthless, genderless, hidden. No one would want to know him either. Marge, the Paltrow role in the movie, is ponderous and plain, like a lost 1970s hippie, which undercuts a small part of the tragedy: Why is the lovely woman so in love with a careless idler who loves no one?

The ugliness seemed a deliberate artistic decision, as did the air of constant menace, as if we all know life is never nice.

I go to the No. 1 program on Netflix this week, “Baby Reindeer.” People speak highly of it. It’s about a stalker and is based on a true story, but she’s stalking a comic so this might be fun. Oh dear, no. It is again unrelievedly bleak. Life is low, plain and homely. No one is ever nice or kind; all human conversation is opaque and halting; work colleagues are cruel and loud. Everyone is emotionally incapable and dumb. No one laughs except for the morbidly obese stalker, who cackles madly. The only attractive person is the transgender girlfriend, who has a pretty smile and smiles a lot, but cries a lot too and is vengeful.

Good drama always makes you think. I thought: Do I want to continue living?

I go to the Daily Mail website, once my guilty pleasure. High jinks of the rich and famous, randy royals, fast cars and movie stars, models and rock stars caught in the drug bust. It was great! But it seems to have taken a turn and is more about crime, grime, human sadness and degradation—child abuse, mothers drowning their babies, “Man murders family, self.” It is less a portal into life’s mindless, undeserved beauty, than a testimony to its horrors.

I go to the new “Cabaret.” Who doesn’t love “Cabaret”? It is dark, witty, painful, glamorous. The music and lyrics have stood the test of time. The story’s backdrop: The soft decadence of Weimar is being replaced by the hard decadence of Nazism.

It is Kander and Ebb’s masterpiece, revived again and again. And this revival is hideous. It is ugly, bizarre, inartistic, fundamentally stupid. Also obscene but in a purposeless way, without meaning.

I had the distinct feeling the producers take their audience to be distracted dopamine addicts with fractured attention spans and no ability to follow a story. They also seemed to have no faith in the story itself, so they went with endless pyrotechnics. This is “Cabaret” for the empty-headed. Everyone screams. The songs are slowed, because you might need a moment to take it in. Almost everyone on stage is weirdly hunched, like a gargoyle, everyone overacts, and all of it is without art.

On the way in, staffers put stickers on the cameras of your phone, “to protect our intellectual property,” as one said.

It isn’t an easy job to make the widely admired Eddie Redmayne unappealing, but by God they did it. As he’s a producer I guess he did it, too. He takes the stage as the Emcee in a purple leather skirt with a small green cone on his head and appears further on as a clown with a machine gun and a weird goth devil. It is all so childish, so plonkingly empty.

Here is something sad about modern artists: They are held back by a lack of limits.

Bob Fosse, the director of the classic 1972 movie version, got to push against society’s limits and Broadway’s and Hollywood’s prohibitions. He pushed hard against what was pushing him, which caused friction; in the heat of that came art. Directors and writers now have nothing to push against because there are no rules or cultural prohibitions, so there’s no friction, everything is left cold, and the art turns in on itself and becomes merely weird.

Fosse famously loved women. No one loves women in this show. When we meet Sally Bowles, in the kind of dress a little girl might put on a doll, with heavy leather boots and harsh, garish makeup, the character doesn’t flirt, doesn’t seduce or charm. She barks and screams, angrily.

Really it is harrowing. At one point Mr. Redmayne dances with a toilet plunger, and a loaf of Italian bread is inserted and removed from his anal cavity. I mentioned this to my friend, who asked if I saw the dancer in the corner masturbating with a copy of what appeared to be “Mein Kampf.”

That’s what I call intellectual property!

In previous iterations the Kit Kat Club was a hypocrisy-free zone, a place of no boundaries, until the bad guys came and it wasn’t. I’m sure the director and producers met in the planning stage and used words like “breakthrough” and “a ‘Cabaret’ for today,” and “we don’t hide the coming cruelty.” But they do hide it by making everything, beginning to end, lifeless and grotesque. No innocence is traduced because no innocence exists.

How could a show be so frantic and outlandish and still be so tedious? It’s almost an achievement.

And for all that there is something smug about it, as if they’re looking down from some great, unearned height.

I left thinking, as I often do now on seeing something made ugly: This is what purgatory is going to be like. And then, no, this is what hell is going to be like—the cackling stalker, the pale sociopath, Eddie Redmayne dancing with a plunger.

Why does it all bother me?

Because even though it isn’t new, uglification is rising and spreading as an artistic attitude, and it can’t be good for us. Because it speaks of self-hatred, and a society that hates itself, and hates life, won’t last. Because it gives those who are young nothing to love and feel soft about. Because we need beauty to keep our morale up.

Because life isn’t merde, in spite of what our entertainment geniuses say.

 

Posted on

Personal Wardrobe of the Iconic Late Fashion Designer Vivienne Westwood Goes up for Auction

The personal wardrobe of the late fashion designer Vivienne Westwood, who is credited for introducing punk to fashion and further developing the style, is headed to auction in June.

Christie’s will hold the live sale in London on June 25, while some of the pieces will be available in an online auction from June 14-28, according to a news release from the auction house on Monday.

Andreas Kronthaler, Westwood’s husband and the creative director for her eponymous fashion company, selected the clothing, jewellery, and accessories for the sale, and the auction will benefit charitable organisations The Vivienne Foundation, Amnesty International, and Médecins Sans Frontières.

The more than 200 lots span four decades of Westwood’s fashion, dating to Autumn/Winter 1983-84, which was one of Westwood’s earliest collections. Titled “Witches,” the collection was inspired by witchcraft as well as Keith Haring’s “graphic code of magic symbols,” and the earliest piece being offered from it is a two-piece ensemble made of navy blue serge, according to the release.

“Vivienne Westwood’s sense of activism, art and style is embedded in each and every piece that she created,” said Adrian Hume-Sayer, the head of sale and director of Private & Iconic Collections at Christie’s.

A corset gown of taupe silk taffeta from “Dressed to Scale,” Autumn/Winter 1998-99, will also be included in the sale. The collection “referenced the fashions that were documented by the 18th century satirist James Gillray and were intended to attract as well as provoke thought and debate,” according to Christie’s.

Additionally, a dress with a blue and white striped blouse and a printed propaganda modesty panel and apron is a part of the wardrobe collection. The dress was a part of “Propaganda,” Autumn/Winter 2005-06, Westwood’s “most overtly political show” at the time. It referenced both her punk era and Aldous Huxley’s essay “Propaganda in a Democratic Society,” according to Christie’s.

The wardrobe collection will be publicly exhibited at Christie’s London from June 14-24.

“The pre-sale exhibition and auctions at Christie’s will celebrate her extraordinary vision with a selection of looks that mark significant moments not only in her career, but also in her personal life,” Hume-Sayer said. “This will be a unique opportunity for audiences to encounter both the public and the private world of the great Dame Vivienne Westwood and to raise funds for the causes in which she so ardently believed.”

Westwood died in December 2022 in London at the age of 81.

Posted on

Australian Inflation Stays Strong, Highlighting Challenge Facing RBA

SYDNEY—Australian consumer price inflation remained strong in the latest quarter, illustrating the challenge the country’s central bank faces in bringing inflation back to target and adding uncertainty around the timing of interest-rate cuts.

The consumer-price index rose by 3.6% in the March quarter from a year earlier, meaning the annual inflation rate is now more than half of its peak at the end of 2022, data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics showed. Still, CPI rose by 1.0% on a quarterly basis, accelerating from the 0.6% increase recorded for the three months through December.

The ABS’s monthly CPI indicator rose 3.5% in the 12 months to March.

Housing and education were again among the main drivers of inflation in the March quarter. “Rents continue to increase at their fastest rate in 15 years,” Michelle Marquardt, head of price statistics at the ABS, said on Wednesday.

Central banks around the world are finding the last mile in their battle to tame inflation to be the hardest since they began raising interest rates at an unprecedented clip in the aftermath of the Covid-19 pandemic. That challenge has led to a redrawing of expectations around when central banks will start to loosen policy and provide borrowers with relief on debt costs.

In the U.S., stubborn inflation persisted in March, derailing the case for the Federal Reserve to begin reducing interest rates in June. Higher-than-expected CPI rattled asset classes, pushing stocks down on the day that the report was released and driving up bond yields.

Many of the drivers of inflation in the U.S. also confront the Reserve Bank of Australia in its deliberations around when to pivot toward a dovish stance on rates. Global energy prices are higher on geopolitical tensions, which is significant for Australia as a large importer of crude oil.

Still, Australia also faces domestic price pressures in areas such as healthcare and housing that complicate the RBA’s efforts to get inflation back into its 2% to 3% target band by the end of next year and muddy the outlook for interest rates.

The next few months are likely to witness such events as a reasonably big rise in the minimum wage of Australian workers and the delivery of generous income tax cuts midyear. These will coincide with a federal budget that is likely to include new spending measures designed to take the pain out of rising living costs.

As a result, economists are divided over whether the RBA will be confident enough that inflation is under control to cut interest rates this year, and some think it will be the last major central bank to loosen policy.

The Australian dollar strengthened against the greenback as investors bet on the RBA staying on hold for longer in the wake of the CPI data. Australian government bonds slumped in response to the strong inflation data, with both 2- and 10-year yields rising after the release.

Westpac on Wednesday scrubbed its call that the central bank would lower interest rates in September, instead seeing a maiden cut in November.

“All told, the data reinforce our conviction that the RBA is unlikely to cut rates before 4Q,” said Abhijit Surya, Australia and New Zealand economist at Capital Economics. “If anything, the slew of upside surprise raise the risk that the bank will feel the need to hike rates further.”