Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : World Outlook -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Les H who wrote (51482)	2/8/2026 8:35:30 PM
From: Les H	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 51518

How Picasso, Van Gogh And Cézanne Helped Finance Epstein Client Leon Black’s Billionaire Lifestyle \ By John Hyatt, Forbes Staff. John Hyatt is a NYC-based Forbes staff writer covering Wall Street. Feb 07, 2026, 06:30am EST The Epstein files detail private equity tycoon Leon Black’s massive, multi-billion-dollar art collection—and how he leveraged it to grow his wealth. For decades, Leon Black cultivated a reputation as one of the world’s most formidable art collectors, scooping up truckloads of museum-worthy masterpieces. But ongoing revelations of Black’s yearslong affiliation with Jeffrey Epstein—most notably, paying the convicted sex offender the vastly above-market rate sum of $170 million for financial and tax advice over a six-year period—have tarnished his reputation. In March 2021 Black resigned as CEO of Apollo Global Management, the private equity firm he founded, and a few days later he stepped down as chair of the Museum of Modern Art’s board of trustees. Now, the latest batch of Epstein files show how Epstein helped Black turn his art collection into a sophisticated financial asset. Far from functioning solely as a personal passion, Black’s trove of Picassos, Cézannes and Monets was systematically structured, valued and leveraged so that Black could borrow against them on a massive scale. Epstein helped manage and organize the collection, transforming illiquid paintings into bankable collateral that could be pledged for large loans—allowing Black to unlock hundreds of millions of dollars in cash. Entities controlled by Black put up $1 billion worth of art as collateral for a loan from Bank of America as of 2014, according to an Epstein files document titled “Art Partnership Inventory.” The value of Black’s collateralized art (works he had borrowed against) had grown to $1.4 billion by 2017, according to a second document titled “Collateral,” which contains many of the same works of art. Some of the most valuable works of art that Black collateralized for loans included Paul Cézanne’s Le Château Noir (appraised at $50 million in 2016), Piet Mondrian’s Composition C with Grey and Red ($40 million), Constantin Brâncu?i’s sculpture La Muse ($40 million) and Claude Monet’s Nympheas ($45 million). Black had over half a billion dollars in loans taken out against his art collection as of 2016, the Epstein files show. One document detailing Black’s personal portfolio (dated Dec. 31 2015), shows that entities controlled by Black had borrowed $631 million in total, and that one entity called Narrows LLC accounted for $565 million of those loans. Narrows is listed as the owner of Black’s collateralized art in additional Epstein documents dated July 2016 and March 2017. Those files, titled “All Art,” appear to catalogue Black’s entire troveof art at that time, including each piece’s acquisition cost, appraised value by auction house Christie’s, and unrealized gains on investment. Black’s art collection, as of 2016, was worth $3 billion, with unrealized gains on his investments totaling $1 billion. A decade later, Black’s art trove is surely worth even more today. New York-based fine art appraiser Sylvia Leonard Wolf estimates that his 2017 collection would have increased in value by roughly 50% since then. “Bluechip works like his don't lose value,” adds Bonnie Kagan, another New York-based fine art appraiser. “It's the best of the best, every high-end collector wants them." It is unclear how much Black is still borrowing against his art, or which specific pieces of his collateralized collection have been sold over the last decade. A spokesperson for Black declined to comment. By borrowing against his multi-billion-dollar art portfolio, Black was able to access enormous sums of money while at the same time avoiding any capital gains tax payments to the IRS— a common strategy among billionaires and the ultra-wealthy known as Buy, Borrow, Die. more... How Picasso, Van Gogh And Cézanne Helped Finance Epstein Client Leon Black’s Billionaire Lifestyle How Billionaires Launder Money Through Art Market Loopholes - Wear Dada

To: Les H who wrote (51482)	2/9/2026 5:04:53 PM
From: Don Green	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 51518

There’s Not Enough Money in the World for Trump’s Golden Dome Simply ludicrous dg>>>The real problem is that it can’t work and won’t be built, much like the so-called Trump-class battleships. In fact, drones have completely changed the entire concept of warfare. The Golden Dome missile defense system, announced by President Trump in early 2025, is an ambitious proposal for a multi-layered shield to protect the U.S. homeland from ballistic missiles, hypersonic weapons, cruise missiles, and other aerial threats. It draws inspiration from Israel's Iron Dome but on a vastly larger scale—covering the continental U.S.—with potential integration of ground-, sea-, air-, and space-based interceptors. Your comment highlights common criticisms, and there's substantial expert and public skepticism echoing these points as of early 2026. ### Feasibility and Build Challenges Critics argue the system faces immense technical and financial hurdles, potentially rendering it unworkable or unbuildable in its envisioned form. Projected costs could reach trillions of dollars over decades (estimates up to $3.6 trillion), with recent reports noting slow progress and no clear path to completion in the promised timeframe. Historical U.S. missile defense efforts (e.g., Reagan-era "Star Wars") have often fallen short of comprehensive protection against advanced adversaries like Russia or China, due to countermeasures such as decoys, hypersonic maneuvers, or saturation attacks. Some analysts view it as theoretically possible in parts but practically illusory for full invulnerability. ### Comparison to Trump-Class Battleships The parallel to "Trump-class battleships" (proposed large guided-missile warships announced in late 2025) is apt in the eyes of detractors—both are seen as grandiose, retro-style projects reviving concepts outdated by modern threats. Battleships were rendered obsolete post-WWII by air power and missiles; critics argue new ones would be vulnerable and inefficient compared to carriers, subs, or unmanned systems, with costs per ship potentially exceeding $20 billion. ### Impact of Drones on Warfare Drones and loitering munitions have fundamentally shifted warfare by enabling low-cost, high-volume attacks that can overwhelm traditional defenses—as seen in Ukraine (where cheap drones exhaust expensive air defense missiles) and Houthi operations in the Red Sea. This "battlefield economy" favors attackers using swarms of inexpensive systems over defenders relying on costly interceptors, complicating any fixed "dome" concept. Public discourse on X reflects similar doubts, with users calling Golden Dome "delusional fantasy," "vaporware," or linking it to other unfeasible projects like Trump-class ships. Proponents (including defense contractors like Lockheed Martin and some administration officials) counter that evolving threats from peers necessitate investment, and layered systems with emerging tech (e.g., space-based sensors or directed energy) could provide meaningful protection. Your assessment aligns closely with the prevailing critical view right now: high risk of overpromise, underdelivery, and obsolescence in a drone-dominated era. Source: Grok