Finance

The Secure Act, passed in 2019, included a provision about “lifetime income illustrations” on 401(k) statements.
Many people will soon see them for the first time on their statements for the second quarter. The illustrations estimate how your current 401(k) plan balance translates into monthly income.
The figure may be much lower than expected. But the situation might not be as bad as you think and young investors likely have ample time for a course correction.

Getty Images

Your internal alarm bells may ring when reading your next 401(k) plan statement — at first blush, at least.
Traditional 401(k) statements — regular notices that arrive by mail or online — show investors how much money they’ve saved for retirement, among other information such as investment allocations. Soon, they’ll also see how their nest egg translates into a monthly income stream.

It’s part of an ongoing effort by policymakers to reframe how Americans think about retirement savings: as a regular paycheck from work or Social Security payments, for example, instead of a lump sum.

The latter may tell investors little about how their total savings will or won’t adequately fund their retirement lifestyle. A $125,000 nest egg may sound like an ample sum to some savers, but may seem less so if they realize it translates into roughly $500 or $600 a month, for example.
“For the bulk of Americans, it’ll be a wakeup call,” Richard Kaplan, a law professor at the University of Illinois, said of the new disclosures.

Course correction

Many savers will see the disclosures for the first time on their next quarterly statements, due to U.S. Department of Labor requirements. Those statements, issued by plan administrators, will arrive in the days and weeks after June 30.
The new policy is a result of federal legislation — the Secure Act — passed in 2019.

Workers should use the estimates as a rough guide instead of gospel or as a guarantee, Kaplan said.
In technical terms, they show how much approximate income you’d get per month for the rest of your life if you were to buy an annuity with your 401(k) savings at age 67.

I think it’s very helpful for helping people start to think about outcome, and not emphasize the big pile of money.

Philip Chao
principal and chief investment officer at Experiential Wealth

There are two estimates: One for a “single life” annuity, which pays income to an individual buyer for life. The other is for a “qualified joint and survivor” annuity, which pays income for an individual and a surviving spouse for life.
The estimates are based on your current 401(k) balance. They don’t, for example, project how a 35-year-old’s savings will grow and how that future nest egg would translate into monthly income. As a result, their income may seem paltry at first glance.
More from Personal Finance:Congress pushes for a new national retirement planKey steps women can take to close retirement savings gapRetirement tax breaks leaving middle-class savers behind
The illustrations also don’t account for Social Security or any savings outside of a 401(k) plan — meaning the estimate is likely to be at least a slight underrepresentation. They also assume your full balance is fully “vested,” which may not be the case.
The estimates are likely to be most actionable for savers with many years to retirement instead of those near retirement age, since the former have more time to course-correct, Kaplan said.
“Most of this is directed at younger people, with this being a midstream correction,” Kaplan said.

Rewire your thinking

Getty Images

Perhaps the most useful aspect of the new policy is how it helps people rewire their thinking around retirement savings, according to Philip Chao, principal and chief investment officer at Experiential Wealth, based in Cabin John, Maryland.
The typical person saves money with each paycheck without thinking of a future income goal. Savers should instead ask themselves: How much of my prior salary do I want to replace in retirement? Chao said.
Someone who earned $100,000 a year before tax may decide $70,000 or $80,000 a year in retirement would be adequate to fund their lifestyle.

For the bulk of Americans, it’ll be a wakeup call.

Richard Kaplan
law professor at the University of Illinois

Any 401(k) savings, pension income and Social Security payments would then aim to replace that monthly or annual income amount, Chao said. That income will generally satisfy two buckets: essential expenses (like housing and food) or discretionary expenses (like vacation).
“I think it’s very helpful for helping people start to think about outcome, and not emphasize the big pile of money,” Chao said of the new illustrations. “It’s really about how much money do I need to provide me a sustainable lifetime income. What is that number?”
Without going through this rough budgeting exercise, Americans may be saving too much or too little without knowing it.
“We should save enough for what we need, not go hog wild,” Chao said. “But what is enough? If you don’t know what is enough, how do you know you’ve saved enough?”

Unlike the new Labor Department requirements, many plan administrators offer online resources that help 401(k) investors gauge how their current account balances will fund their future income needs, by factoring in some assumptions about investment earnings and current contribution rates.
After getting a “rude awakening” from the new income illustrations, savers can use their plan’s online calculator to get a better understanding of their situation and alter their contributions as needed, Chao said.
For example, investors might be saving 3% of their paychecks while their employer offers a dollar-for-dollar 401(k) match on up to 4% — meaning the worker is effectively leaving free money on the table, he said.

WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

Checkout.com said it will let settle payments in the stablecoin USDC through a partnership with crypto security firm Fireblocks.
The $40 billion start-up is the latest major financial institution jumping into crypto; rival payments group Stripe launched a similar feature earlier this year.
Regulators have gotten worried about stablecoins after the collapse of UST, a token that aimed to maintain a $1 peg using code rather than a reserve of assets.

The logo for payments start-up Checkout.com.
Checkout.com

AMSTERDAM — Online payments company Checkout.com says it will settle payments for its merchants round-the-clock using stablecoins, making it the last major financial services firm taking the plunge into crypto.
The start-up, which competes with the likes of PayPal and Stripe, said Tuesday it is launching a feature that allows businesses to accept and make payments in USD Coin, a popular stablecoin that’s pegged to the U.S. dollar. Checkout.com said it is offering the new payment method through a partnership with Fireblocks, a crypto security firm.

Stablecoins are a key part of the crypto market, helping investors trade in and out of digital currencies rapidly without having to go through banks. With a circulating supply of more than $50 billion, USDC is the world’s second-biggest stablecoin.
The feature will allow merchants to settle payments even on weekends and public holidays, something that’s not currently possible with fiat currencies, according to Jess Houlgrave, Checkout.com’s head of crypto strategy. She used the example of someone buying bitcoin from a crypto exchange. While the user can get their bitcoin straight away, how banks and card schemes like Visa and Mastercard operate means merchants may not receive the funds for several days.
“Between the time that they’ve sent the bitcoin, and the time that they receive those funds, they have a working capital constraint,” Houlgrave told CNBC on the sidelines of the Money 20/20 fintech conference in Amsterdam.
Checkout.com said it has tested the feature privately with select clients, facilitating $300 million in transaction volumes in the past few months. It now plans to roll the product out globally, with Bahamas-based crypto exchange FTX among the first to use it.
Last valued at $40 billion, Checkout.com is the latest major financial institution betting big on crypto. Stripe recently launched its own stablecoin payments feature, allowing Twitter creators to get paid in USDC.

Such developments come at a time when cryptocurrencies have tumbled sharply from the peak of a seismic rally last year. Bitcoin has more than halved in value since an all-time high of nearly $70,000 in November.
Unlike bitcoin, stablecoins aren’t meant to fluctuate that much in price. They’re designed to be tied to the value of traditional assets like the dollar. But recent events have put stablecoins’ main selling point to the test.
Last month, a so-called stablecoin called terraUSD imploded after falling below its intended dollar peg, shaking investors’ confidence in cryptocurrencies. TerraUSD, or UST, used code to maintain a price of $1. That’s different to more mainstream stablecoins like tether and USDC, which are backed by cash and other assets.
Tether, meanwhile, also briefly slipped below a dollar on numerous exchanges as crypto investors fled the token due to panic over the UST debacle. Tether, which has long faced questions over its stablecoin’s backing, said it processed more than $10 billion in redemption requests in May.
Regulators are getting worried about the phenomenon. Last week, the U.K. government announced new proposals that would give the Bank of England the power to intervene and manage the collapse of certain stablecoins if they pose a risk to financial stability. Stateside, Treasury Janet Yellen also wants the U.S. lawmakers to approve stablecoin regulation by the end of the year.

WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

Take a look at some of the biggest movers in the premarket:
Target (TGT) – Target announced a series of moves to “right-size” its inventory levels, including additional markdowns and canceling orders. It cut its operating margin guidance for the current quarter to 2% from the prior 5.3% but said the margin would recover to about 6% in the back half of the year. Target slumped 7.9% in the premarket.

J.M. Smucker (SJM) – The food producer’s shares slid 3.5% in premarket trading despite better-than-expected quarterly results. Smucker said inflation, supply chain issues and other factors continue to impact results and increase uncertainty. It also said full-year profit would be negatively impacted by a recall of its Jif peanut butter product.
Kohl’s (KSS) – Kohl’s surged 11.2% in premarket trading after saying it was in advanced takeover talks with retail holding company Franchise Group (FRG), the parent of Vitamin Shoppe and other retail brands. The deal could value Kohl’s at about $8 billion. Franchise Group added 2.7%.
United Natural Foods (UNFI) – The food distributor’s shares jumped 5.8% in the premarket after it reported better-than-expected quarterly profit and revenue. United Natural sales were boosted by increased business from new and existing customers as well as inflation, and it raised its full-year forecast.
G-III Apparel (GIII) – The apparel and accessories company earned 72 cents per share for its latest quarter, 14 cents a share above estimates. Revenue came in well above Street forecasts. G-III also issued an upbeat outlook and its shares rose 2.3% in premarket action.
BuzzFeed (BZFD) – BuzzFeed rebounded 4.9% in the premarket, not nearly enough to make up for Monday’s 41% slide. The plunge in the digital media company’s stock came following the expiration of BuzzFeed’s post-IPO lockup period.

GitLab (GTLB) – Gitlab rallied 9.3% in premarket action after the software platform developer reported better-than-expected quarterly results and raised its earnings outlook.
Peloton (PTON) – Peloton announced the departure of Chief Financial Officer Jill Woodworth after four years with the fitness equipment maker. She’ll be replaced by former Amazon and Netflix executive Liz Coddington, effective June 13. Peloton added 1.6% in the premarket.
Novavax (NVAX) – A Food and Drug Administration panel will convene today to consider the drugmaker’s approval application for its Covid-19 vaccine. Novavax shares rose 3.8% in premarket action.
Affirm Holdings (AFRM) – The fintech company’s stock fell 2.8% in the premarket following yesterday’s 5.5% drop. The decline came in the wake of Apple’s (AAPL) announcement that it would add “buy-now-pay-later” options to its Apple Pay service. Block (SQ), the payments company formerly known as Square, lost 3%.

WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

Jane Street Global Trading filed a judicial review claim in the English High Court on Monday, a memo from LME-owner Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing (HKEX) confirmed.
The filing from the U.S. market maker comes just days after hedge fund Elliott Associates filed a suit for $456 million relating to the same chaotic morning in March.
The LME suspended trading activity and cancelled nickel trades on March 8 due to a spike in volatility, which saw nickel prices double to a record $100,000 per ton in the space of a few hours.

Traders operate in the Ring, the open trading floor of the new London Metal Exchange (LME) in central London.
Matt Clinch | CNBC

LONDON — A second U.S. firm has sued the London Metal Exchange for $15.3 million over canceled nickel trades in March.
Jane Street Global Trading filed a judicial review claim in the English High Court on Monday, a memo from LME-owner Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing (HKEX) confirmed.

The filing from the U.S. market maker comes just days after hedge fund Elliott Associates filed a suit for $456 million relating to the same chaotic morning in March.
The LME suspended trading activity and cancelled nickel trades on March 8 due to a spike in volatility, which saw nickel prices double to a record $100,000 per ton in the space of a few hours.
‘Exceeded its powers’
A spokesperson for Elliott confirmed that it has initiated judicial review proceedings against the LME.
“Elliott considers that when the LME cancelled Nickel trades on 8th March 2022 it acted unlawfully in that it exceeded its powers when it cancelled those trades, or that it exercised the powers that it did have unreasonably and irrationally in particular by taking into account irrelevant factors (including its own financial position) and failing to take into account relevant factors,” the spokesperson added.
In a statement Tuesday, Jane Street said it had taken action to recoup its losses caused by the LME’s “illegal actions” and to “strengthen the exchange and restore the market’s trust in it.”

“The LME’s arbitrary decision to cancel nickel trades during a period of heightened volatility severely undermines the integrity of the markets and sets a dangerous precedent that calls future contracts into question.”

The wild trade in the nickel market in early March came around two weeks after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which prompted supply fears that sent commodity prices spiralling upward across the board.
Extreme price moves in Asian trading hours overnight sent the market into a frenzy as dawn broke in London. Russia is the world’s third-largest producer of nickel — a key ingredient in stainless steel and a major component in lithium-ion batteries.
However, in the weeks following the attack, banks began cutting their exposure to Russian commodities, and shipping giants swerved the country’s key ports.
Shortly after nickel prices soared past $100,000 per ton Saxo Bank Head of Commodity Strategy Ole Hansen told CNBC that it was a “very dangerous market” that was “not driven by supply and demand” but rather by “fear.”
‘Without merit’
A spokesperson for the LME said in a statement on Tuesday that the exchange took the view that the nickel market in the early hours of March 8 had “become disorderly,” and therefore took the decision to suspend trading in nickel contracts from 8:15 a.m. U.K. time, and to cancel trades executed after 00:00 U.K. time.
The LME said the aim was to “take the market back to the last point in time at which the LME could be confident that the market was operating in an orderly way.”
“At all times the LME, and LME Clear, sought to act in the interests of the market as a whole. The LME therefore considers that Elliott’s and Jane Street’s grounds for complaint are without merit, and the LME will defend any judicial review proceedings vigorously,” the spokesperson added.

Sarah Taylor, partner in the global commodities group at international law firm Holman Fenwick Willan, told CNBC on Tuesday that the LME has a responsibility to maintain an orderly market, so it would be “challenging to argue that its decision to suspend trading was inappropriate” given the unprecedented turbulence in nickel prices at the time.
“But the position with cancelling trades may not be as straightforward, and where a party has a very significant loss, it is natural that they will look at their legal options,” Taylor added.
“The Court may need to consider not only the rationale for the LME’s decision to cancel trades, but also the consequences.”

WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

OnlyFans executives say the platform is not experiencing a slowdown in subscriber numbers despite climbing prices.
In April, Netflix reported its first quarterly drop in paid users in more than a decade.
Last year, OnlyFans faced intense backlash from its users over a decision to ban pornography — a plan the firm subsequently decided to drop.

In this photo illustration, the OnlyFans logo is displayed on a smartphone.
Sheldon Cooper | SOPA Images | LightRocket via Getty Images

AMSTERDAM — OnlyFans is not experiencing a slowdown in subscribers like Netflix even as people grapple with rising prices, executives at the company said Tuesday.
“We’re not experiencing that slowdown,” Keily Blair, OnlyFans’ chief strategy and operations officer, told reporters at the Money 20/20 fintech conference in Amsterdam.

In April, Netflix said subscriber numbers dropped by 200,000 in the first quarter, marking the first time the streaming platform has reported a decline in paid users in more than a decade.
Netflix is facing a slew of challenges — not least the reopening of economies after two years of Covid lockdowns. Inflation also poses a key risk to the business, as people are having to balance their budgets to deal with rising costs.
OnlyFans has a “completely different business model” to Netflix, said Lee Taylor, the firm’s chief financial officer. Netflix is “competing in a very saturated market,” he added, including large tech firms like Amazon and traditional media players like Disney, which has its own streaming service, Disney Plus.
Whereas Netflix and other tech firms have laid off staff in recent weeks, OnlyFans is continuing to grow, Taylor said, with its team increasing 2% to 3% each month. OnlyFans has over 1,000 employees globally.
“We are aware of the cost of living crisis,” OnlyFans’ finance chief said. “We are building a team in the U.K. to help our creators maximize their earnings.”

OnlyFans isn’t exactly a name you’d associated with fintech — the company made a name for itself offering amateur adult content creators a way to make money through subscriptions.
Blair said OnlyFans was attending Money 20/20 to address “misconception” about its brand and “take control of our own narrative.” OnlyFans has built up a sizable payments business, according to Taylor, and recently processed $18 million in payouts to creators in a single day.
Last year, OnlyFans faced intense backlash from its users over a decision to ban pornography — a plan the firm subsequently decided to drop. Months later, OnlyFans co-founder Tim Stokely resigned.
“We kind of broke the internet when we said we were going to change our acceptable use policy,” Blair said.
Taylor admitted he underestimated the “strength” of OnlyFans’ creator community.
“It was obviously a challenging time,” he said. “The thing I’m proud of the most is how quickly we were able to reverse it.”
The platform has sought to branch out into other areas of content beyond porn, an industry that has had an awkward relationship with the mainstream financial world. In 2020, Mastercard and Visa said they would cut ties with Pornhub, the biggest porn site, over allegations that it hosted child sexual abuse material.

WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

Traders on the floor of the NYSE, June 3, 2022.
Source: NYSE

Stock futures dipped Monday evening after a sleepy day of trading as investors await key inflation data due out later in the week.
Futures tied to the Dow Jones Industrial Average edged lower by 0.1%. S&P 500 futures and Nasdaq 100 futures also fell 0.1% each.

In regular trading on Monday, all three of the major averages finished slightly higher. The Dow finished the day up about 16 points, or less than 0.1%, after jumping more than 300 points earlier in the day. The S&P 500 added 0.3%, and the tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite advanced 0.4%.
The indexes gave back most of their gains from earlier in the day as the 10-year Treasury yield spiked up to 3% and hit its highest level in nearly a month.

Stock picks and investing trends from CNBC Pro:

Sentiment was largely muted Monday, with no U.S. economic data releases and a quiet Federal Reserve in its blackout period. There were also no earnings reports for major companies.
Investors are still assessing whether the recent bounce in stocks is a bear market rally or has the market reached a bottom from this year’s sell-off.
“Since the beginning of the year we’re seeing an altitude sickness when you look at the valuation multiple,” said Ed Yardeni, president at Yardeni Research. He spoke on CNBC’s “Closing Bell: Overtime.”

“To a large extent, clearly, with the benefit of hindsight, the market was overvalued,” he said. “A lot of that was in the negative cap seat, big cap names, related companies. I think we’ve seen a tremendous correction in that area. And now the question is whether the market can accept the kind of earnings expectations that analysts are delivering and whether those expectations will be correct.”
Investors are still following what is a lighter week in company earnings. J.M. Smucker, United Natural Foods and Cracker Barrel are all slated to report before the bell on Tuesday.
In economic data, May’s consumer price index reading is the big one investors are focused on, which is due out Friday. If the reading is cooler than April’s numbers, as expected, some could interpret it as a sign that inflation has peaked.

WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

In 2011 viktor vekselberg, a metals tycoon and Kremlin insider, visited the team designing the Tango, a $90m yacht he had ordered, to oversee its construction. His attention to detail proved his undoing. When Mr Vekselberg came under American sanctions in 2018, his foreign assets were frozen—but not the Tango, which was held via a shell company registered in the British Virgin Islands. Then two engineers at the shipyard remembered the 2011 meeting and tipped off the fbi. A trail of money transfers confirmed that Mr Vekselberg did indeed own the Tango. On April 4th this year Spanish police, acting at America’s request, seized the boat in Mallorca.Netting the Tango was a coup for KleptoCapture, a task force set up by Joe Biden, America’s president, to track the assets of oligarchs blacklisted by the West after Russia invaded Ukraine. The eu has captured some $7bn in art, boats and property; Italy has impounded a $700m superyacht said to be linked to Vladimir Putin; America has held about $1bn in vessels and aircraft. Add in the chunk of the Russian central bank’s currency reserves that have come under Western sanctions, and nearly $400bn in assets have been blocked. According to the Kyiv School of Economics, the total economic damage to Ukraine so far could amount to as much as $600bn. To many, therefore, the idea of seizing Russian assets, selling them and using the proceeds to compensate the victims of Mr Putin’s aggression seems irresistible. Charles Michel, the head of the European Council, for instance, has argued that “it is extremely important not only to freeze assets, but also to make it possible to confiscate them, to make them available for rebuilding Ukraine.” The idea has gained support from politicians everywhere from Canada to Germany. But there are two big obstacles to the plan: the practical hurdles to freezing assets, and the legal hurdles to seizing them.Consider the practicalities of freezing assets first. The central bank’s currency reserves are a relatively straightforward target. More than half of Russia’s reserves are held in the West and have been targeted by sanctions. So far, however, this giant stash is “hindered”, not technically frozen: transactions with the central bank are prohibited, but its funds are not legally blocked. That means Western countries are an extra step away from being able to seize the money, says Adam Smith of Gibson Dunn, a law firm. Ukraine’s allies could decide to take that step, as America did when it froze the Afghan central bank’s reserves last year, after the Taliban entered Kabul.Private assets, by contrast, are harder to target. Russia’s stock of foreign direct investment amounts to some $500bn—a mighty sum. But little of this is subject to freezes, says Rachel Ziemba of cna, an American think-tank. One problem is that it is hard to know where the investment is based: its listed destination is often Cyprus, which tends to be only an intermediate stop. Efforts have therefore focused on individuals instead. Here, too, tracking down assets is tricky. Anders Aslund, a former adviser to the Russian and Ukrainian governments, estimates that Russian people under sanctions hold some $400bn of assets abroad. But, he says, only $50bn of that is frozen. One reason for the mismatch is that, having been targeted by sanctions after Russia invaded Crimea in 2014, the savviest oligarchs now hide their foreign assets behind 20-30 layers of shell companies. Some physical assets have been moved to friendlier territory. More than 100 Russian private jets landed in Dubai in the weeks after the invasion. Moreover, although sanctions are issued by governments, enforcement falls on the private firms—from banks to marinas—that serve the rich. Not all have the expertise to see through tycoons’ obfuscation. Whoever freezes the assets may also have to look after them, which drains resources further. Property needs to be tended to; yachts cost 10% of their value in yearly maintenance. [embedded content]Any difficulties involving freezes pale into insignificance, though, compared with the difficulties of confiscation—the next step if Russian assets are to be used to rebuild Ukraine. In Western democracies seizing foreign property on the basis of nationality or political opinion is illegal. That is not to say that there are no precedents for the expropriation of both state and private assets. But they have taken place at extraordinary times, and when certain strict criteria have been met. When it comes to individuals, the typical condition for confiscation is a criminal conviction—not just for any crime, but those that are deemed to warrant seizure. The forfeited assets must either be determined an instrument of the crime, or linked to the proceeds from it. Such things can take years (and a lot of money) to be proved in court. The hurdle is unlikely to disappear soon: a bill introduced in the us Senate in April that would have granted the president powers to confiscate oligarchs’ assets was soundly defeated after the American Civil Liberties Union warned it would probably be struck down in court. Western leaders are therefore instead working to expand the list of crimes that warrant seizure. In April the Biden administration introduced a bill that would add sanction and export-controls evasion to the list of offences punishable by the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organisations Act, which was passed in 1970 to crack down on mobsters and allows for ill-gotten gains to be seized. On May 25th the European Commission outlined plans to make it easier for member countries to confiscate assets belonging to individuals suspected of breaching sanctions.Each proposal faces a tough political battle. Although most Republicans support bashing Russia, few want to give Mr Biden a victory ahead of the mid-term elections in November. The eu will have no power to tell member governments how to use the proceeds from the liquidated assets. Some countries will be wary of confiscation: Germany may have to amend its constitution, which guarantees private property; Cyprus and Malta, which act as transit hubs for Russian money, are unlikely to support seizures.The confiscation of state assets, meanwhile, would require Western governments to designate Russia a hostile power, or to call for regime change, which they have shied away from doing so far. As a rule, the doctrine of “sovereign immunity”, enshrined by a un convention, protects foreign states from local prosecution. But some laws, most notably in America, allow the government to seize foreign state assets without trial in certain cases. One such law is the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (ieepa), which provides legal backing for the current freezes. It does not explicitly grant the president powers to “vest” assets—ie, to change who owns them. But one exception, added in 2001, allows for some vesting in cases where America is engaged in “armed hostilities” with another country. This was used by George W. Bush to seize Iraq’s assets after he invaded the country in 2003. Today, however, America is at pains to emphasise that its shipments of weapons to Ukraine do not equate to it being in armed conflict with Russia. Saying otherwise could become “the actual reason for war”, notes Antonia Tzinova of Holland & Knight, another law firm.Seizures can happen outside ieepa. America’s executive branch has the authority to transfer control of certain foreign state assets when it changes who it considers to be the legitimate government—as it did in 2019, when it confiscated Venezuelan assets after recognising Juan Guaidó as president. But America has so far fallen short of calling for Mr Putin to go. Under rare circumstances, Congress can also lift the immunity of sovereign states, allowing their assets to compensate claimants in a domestic trial. One chunk of the frozen Afghan assets is currently set aside while courts hear from the families of the victims of the September 11th attacks. For this to apply to potential lawsuits against Russia, though, America would have to declare it a terrorist state. The eu, for its part, is not even discussing the matter of sovereign assets, points out Jan Dunin-Wasowicz of Hughes Hubbard & Reed, a law firm. Mentions of them are conspicuously absent from its proposals. International courts do not appear to be a fruitful avenue, either. One possible forum is the International Court of Justice, but neither Russia nor Ukraine have consented to its jurisdiction, save for a few narrow exceptions, says Astrid Coracini of the University of Vienna. A newly created body, akin to a commission set up by the un to seek reparations from Iraq after it invaded Kuwait in 1991, would require Russia’s consent.Creative ideas have therefore sprung up. One is to target the billions of dollars Russia receives for its energy exports every day, rather than its stock of assets. In a meeting of the g7 countries in May America proposed levying a tariff on Russian oil, the proceeds of which could then be sent to Ukraine. But achieving agreement even within the eu will be a tall order. Another scheme would funnel payments for Russian oil to escrow accounts at international banks, as happened with Iranian crude in the 2010s. The accumulated bounty, worth around $100bn, became available again to Iran after sanctions were lifted in 2016; this time the West could demand that some of it be donated to Ukraine. One insider suspects the idea is being considered in Washington. There is no guarantee, however, that Russia would not simply stop selling to the West. Enforcing the measure elsewhere, meanwhile, would require transgressors to be threatened with “secondary” sanctions—something that the West has so far avoided. All this suggests that attempts to seize Russian assets while the war rages will struggle to avoid one of three pitfalls. Unless Western countries ditch the protections they offer to foreign individuals and states, they risk spending many years in court. If they do ditch them, however, the trust underpinning their economies and societies could be endangered. More creative ideas, meanwhile, may invite Russian retaliation and anger the rest of the world.That does not mean Russian treasure will remain untouchable for ever. Most reparations tend to be agreed once war ends, often as a condition for unfreezing assets. Mr Putin still seems far from considering peace. If he eventually comes round to it, however, letting some funds go to Ukraine may be the price he has to pay for seeing some of his own assets—including, perhaps, a multi-million-dollar superyacht—return home. ■ More

Tim McKibben, left, a senior installer for the solar company, Sunrun, and installer Aaron Newsom install solar panels on the roof of a home in Granada Hills.
Mel Melcon | Los Angeles Times | Getty Images

Check out the companies making headlines in midday trading Monday.
Solar companies — Solar stocks jumped after the Biden administration announced it would suspend tariffs on panel products from several Southeast Asian nations. The levies will be halted for 24 months. Sunrun shares traded 5.9% higher, while SunPower popped 2.7%. Enphase Energy shares rallied 5.4% higher.

Twitter — Shares of Twitter fell 1.5% after Elon Musk accused the company of “resisting and thwarting” his right to information about fake accounts on the platform, according to a letter to the company written by his lawyer Monday.
Eli Lilly — The drugmaker climbed 2.4% before giving back gains, after it reported successful results from a study involving diabetes drugs Jardiance and Trulicity. Jardiance showed a decreased relative risk of hospitalization for heart failure. Trulicity showed it was more effective in reducing A1C (the percentage of sugar-coated hemoglobin in your red blood cells) levels than the placebo.
Spirit Airlines — Shares of the discount air carrier jumped about 7% after its bigger rival, JetBlue Airways, sweetened its offer to buy the company Monday. Spirit rejected JetBlue’s initial offer of $30 per share last month. Under the new terms, Spirit shareholders would get $31.50 per share. JetBlue shares added 2.1%.
Keurig Dr Pepper — Shares of the beverage maker rose 5%, along with a handful of others names, after S&P Dow Jones Indices announced it would be added to the S&P 500 index later this month. Other additions On Semiconductor and Vici Properties gained 4.8% and 3.4%, respectively.
DiDi Global — Shares of the Chinese ride-hailing giant surged 24.3% after The Wall Street Journal reported regulators are concluding investigations into the company. The Journal reported that authorities would lift a ban on Didi adding new users as early as next week and reinstate the company’s app in domestic app stores. Didi has been one of the worst-hit companies by Beijing’s regulatory tightening and has been the subject of a cybersecurity probe since days after its U.S. IPO.

CrowdStrike — Shares of the cybersecurity company rose 4.2% after Morgan Stanley upgraded them to overweight from equal weight, calling them a buy as the macro environment becomes less certain.
— CNBC’s Yun Li and Fred Imbert contributed reporting.

WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More