Connect with us

Government

Weekly Market Pulse: Perception vs Reality

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times… Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities   Some see the cup as half empty. Some see the cup as half full. I see the cup as too large. George Carlin   The quote from Dickens above is one that just about..

Published

on

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times…

Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities

 

Some see the cup as half empty. Some see the cup as half full. I see the cup as too large.

George Carlin

 

The quote from Dickens above is one that just about everyone knows even if they don’t know where it comes from or haven’t read the book. But, as the ellipsis at the end indicates, there is quite a bit more to the line than the part everyone remembers.

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way – in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.

The book is set during the French Revolution but it does a pretty good job of describing our current condition. How you see the world is a function of your circumstances, some of which you control and many of which you don’t. There has never been one America, one that everyone perceives the same, but it certainly seems that today there are more versions of it than there have been in the past. This is true within a lot of spheres but maybe none so much as the economic one. COVID has made the divide between rich and poor, blue collar and white collar, that much more stark. There is the America of work from home and there is the America of essential workers. There is the America of shareholders and homeowners and there is the America of paycheck to paycheck. Or, increasingly during COVID, from stimulus payment to stimulus payment or unemployment check to unemployment check. The economy is in a very different state depending on your position in this hierarchy. For those of us who are able to keep doing our jobs from our spare bedroom, the last 18 months has, for many, been a boom time. For those in service businesses that were victims of the shutdowns, the last 18 months has been a time of high anxiety.

In truth, for many Americans the high anxiety is not new. COVID merely accelerated trends that were already in place. Economic growth is ultimately about two things: workforce growth and productivity growth. Both have been weak for at least a decade and really quite a bit longer. The workforce has grown pretty steadily but the participation rate has been in decline for two decades. It did stop falling for a period from about 2016 to 2020 and had even started to rise again but COVID brought that short term trend to an end.

This, almost by itself, is why US economic growth has been unsatisfying for so long. This is also the genesis of today’s “labor shortage”. We can see the effect weekly in jobless claims which recently dropped below 300k for the first time since the arrival of COVID. I heard someone say a few weeks ago, when the weekly total was 335k, that it was improving but still “elevated”. I’ve been doing this a long time and I’m getting old but my memory has not failed yet and that just didn’t seem right to me. So, I checked the history and indeed a level of 335k is actually pretty average even during the boom of the late 90s. In fact, since 1980 there have been 384 weeks with claims less than 300k and only 25.5% of them happened prior to 2014. There have been 247 weeks with claims less than 275k but only 3.6% of them happened before 2014. And there have been 162 weeks with less than 250k and none of them happened before 2014. That tells me that employers have been very reluctant to fire workers for a long time before COVID and the only reason I can think of for that is that they fear they can’t replace them.

Why is this happening? That is a question with many answers – it isn’t just one thing and I don’t think you can say that all of it is “bad”. Baby  boomers retiring is not something that is bad (in most cases) and that is certainly part of this. Some portion of this, especially since the onset of COVID, is about couples reassessing their life and deciding that the cost of a two income household is actually pretty high in ways that aren’t all economic. Some portion of it is due to the opioid epidemic (although I don’t think that is as large a part as is commonly believed). Some of it is due to an increase in the time people spend in collage; 13.1% of the population has a masters degree up from 8.6% in 2000. There is also an anger – call it wealth inequality or elite snobbery or envy or just a sense of fairness, it’s all the same – that manifests itself in the political arena. The election of Donald Trump and the popularity of Bernie Sanders and socialism at the same time are merely two sides of the same populist coin. Both sides of the political aisle recognize that the average American worker is angry and increasingly adopting a Johnny Paycheck attitude toward their employers. Where they differ is in the solutions – although in some areas there seems little difference. The divide between Bernie Sanders’ and Donald Trump’s views on immigration is not discernible to the naked eye. And there is a reason you’ve seen almost no change in trade policy since the election of Joe Biden.

It is ironic too that the provision of fiscal largesse during COVID may have finally pushed the economy to a tipping point. With help wanted signs everywhere, labor appears to have finally gained the upper hand. 10,000 workers went on strike at Deere last week and 1400 are out at Kellogg. There may or may not be an intentional work slowdown/sickout going on at Southwest Airlines. 32.000 nurses are considering a strike against Kaiser Permanente. American Airline pilots are picketing in Miami. A strike was barely averted in Hollywood by backstage workers after they got basically everything they asked for. It isn’t just union workers either as the Quits rate proved last week. I’ve written in the past about the surge in new business formations since the onset of COVID and that is part of this too. There’s a lot going on in the labor market right now and how it impacts the economy is almost impossible to say. At this point rising prices are eating up wage gains but that may not last and if it doesn’t then workers gains may turn into profit margin losses. Or it may be the spur for investments that improve productivity. Companies aren’t racing to perfect self-driving vehicles because they’ll be safer. They’re doing it because truck drivers are expensive and Uber drivers want health insurance.

Productivity growth has also been weak but the change is less dramatic than in the labor market. Since 2000 annual productivity growth has averaged 1.9% down from 2.7% from 1995 to 2000, a period of high investment and innovation. That doesn’t seem like a big change but compounded over many years it has an impact. I think a better way to look at productivity growth is through investment in capital goods. Core capital goods (ex-defense and ex-transportation) show why productivity growth has stalled:

Core capital goods orders peaked in 2000 and didn’t exceed that peak for over 20 years. As you can see though, orders have recently broken through that old top. This may be the most important economic development in two decades.

I included the George Carlin quote above because it describes how I, as an investor, have to think about the economy. I am a pragmatist and have no expectations as to how things will unfold in the future. I don’t know why people are quitting their jobs and not taking jobs that are available. I assume there is some wage level where workforce participation would rise again but I don’t know what that level is other than to say that it is higher than what is being offered today (and it certainly isn’t just about wages). I would also say that if that wage level is so high that businesses can’t stay profitable when paying it, they will do something else, they will substitute capital for labor, they will find ways to operate with fewer employees. Which may be why core capital goods orders are running higher right now. But I don’t know that and to be a good investor I can’t make assumptions. It is what it is.

This problem of perception versus reality is important for investors. Your reality does not necessarily bear on how the economy is perceived by the majority. Even objective reality doesn’t really matter for the markets in the short run – which can be a lot longer than you think. Markets tell us how the majority perceives it, not necessarily its real condition today. We have to invest based on that perception, not on reality, until we believe the gap between the two is so large that the current perception becomes untenable and has to shift to something new. And we need to understand that it is often the perception that creates the reality, the markets that shape the economy rather than the other way round.

At Alhambra, it is Jeff Snider’s job to describe the objective reality of the economy – how it really is. He is, however, human and so his perception of the economy is skewed by his own experiences and relationships. But he knows that and I know that and I think he does a pretty good job of describing the way things really are. We don’t always agree on how he describes it, the language he uses, but in general I think he gets a lot more right than most of the people in our business trying to decipher the myriad human relationships that create an economy. But the reality he describes does not always align with how we invest. It is at turning points, when the gap between Jeff’s reality and the market’s perception get too wide, that his research bears most on our investment choices.

Right now, the dominant narrative in markets is about inflation. Jeff and I agree that what is happening today is not real inflation (a monetary phenomenon) but rather rising prices that are a result of the supply side nature of the last recession. And in particular it is a condition created by government intervention, as first the Trump administration and now the Biden administration applied demand side government solutions to a – mostly – supply side problem. In short, the real problem right now is not actually supply but rather that demand is excessive due to the largesse of government “stimulus” (there are exceptions to that such as semiconductors). It was certainly necessary to support those who were truly hurt by the pandemic shutdowns. Service workers who were put out of work by government diktat certainly deserved a helping hand from that government. But the payments to those who didn’t need it – and that was and continues to be (child tax credits) a large cohort – were unnecessary, counterproductive and now hurting those who actually needed assistance. Rising prices hurt the poorest among us the most.

But the fact that today’s rising prices are from fiscal and not monetary excess is largely irrelevant to the markets and to individuals dealing with them. Investors are reacting to the “inflation” just as they would if it were driven by monetary factors. They are buying commodities, TIPS and other assets they perceive will protect them from it. And in doing so, they change markets in ways that can affect the nature of the future economy. As an investor it doesn’t matter if commodities are rising for the “wrong” reason. What matters is that they are and if you aren’t allocated there you’re missing a source of return for your portfolio. It also doesn’t really matter whether some individual commodity isn’t participating in the rally or if the general commodity indexes are rising mostly because of energy. Investors aren’t focused on whether platinum or iron ore is going up. They are focused on “commodities”, on the idea that in inflationary times “commodities” go up and they want to own them.

There is also an emerging perception, a narrative about economic growth right now, that it is accelerating as the delta variant fades. You can argue that COVID is a hoax or that delta didn’t really have much of an impact or that we’re going to get another wave in winter or whatever you want. But if the majority believes that economic growth is going to accelerate, that’s how they’re going to invest and you’re argument won’t make you a plug nickel. Investors right now are selling gold and buying copper. They aren’t doing that because they think the economy is going to slow. They aren’t selling bonds because they think growth is slowing either. Yes, they aren’t selling TIPS at the same rate as nominal bonds but that makes sense if you are worried about inflation and also think the economy is going to accelerate. We saw this last year when rates rose too; nominal rates initially went up a lot faster than TIPS yields. But eventually TIPS caught up because growth did accelerate. Will we see the same thing again? I don’t know but it certainly isn’t outrageous to think so and a lot of people do.

Our economy, the global economy, is undergoing a profound shift right now. Some of the trends that were in place prior to COVID have accelerated (labor market) and some may be reversing (investment and productivity). I do not believe there is any way to know how these changes will shape our economy and markets in coming years. Periods of economic upheaval like the last twenty years are always disconcerting, disorienting to those going through them. But similar periods in the past have also produced great innovations, big changes to the social and economic fabric of a nation. What those changes are will be revealed by the markets, through the perceptions and actions of investors, long before they are obvious. It’s going to be an interesting time for sure.


The emerging narrative about a Q4 economic acceleration gained some credence last week as the copper/gold ratio rose over 4%. Despite that move, I am not changing our economic environment assessment yet. The current level is about as high as it has been able to get since 2008 and absent a shift to a declining dollar I question whether it can go much higher. I am also skeptical of shifting to rising growth until we see a more decisive move higher in TIPS yields. The emerging economic acceleration narrative is exactly that – still emerging.

 

 

Job openings fell in August but are still historically high. Hires also fell but quits continued to rise. None of this is actually news since we’ve gotten plenty of other data on the labor market since August. But it does confirm what we already believed about the labor market.

The inflation data was wholly unsurprising and added nothing to the ongoing inflation debate.

The retail sales data was a big upside surprise though and will feed the accelerating growth narrative even though an inflation adjusted view isn’t as robust. Consumer sentiment continues to support the slowdown view but the idea that we’re near or entering recession – as some prominent economists speculated last week – seems a bit over the top.

 

We get more housing data this week and it will be interesting to see if there is any pickup. Based on my very unscientific method of talking to realtors and homeowners around the country, the housing market is cooling rapidly.

 

 

Stocks were up last week but the inflation side of the portfolio did even better with real estate and commodities both producing higher returns for the week. Non-US stocks also outperformed as the dollar fell slightly.

Growth took the lead for the week but the trend back to value seems intact.

 

 

Cyclicals and inflation sensitive sectors (real estate, materials) led the way last week.

Please note that I’ve added some new items at the bottom of this chart.

 

 

I have said many times that an investor’s job is not to predict the future but to interpret the present. Predicting the future is impossible but interpreting the present accurately isn’t as easy as it sounds. Today’s debate about inflation and economic growth and labor shortages certainly prove that by my reckoning. Is there a labor shortage? Is this inflation or is it some transitory thing that will fade as fiscal stimulus fades? Are those who had their unemployment benefits run out applying for open jobs? Is economic activity accelerating as delta fades or was the slowdown caused by something else? These are all questions about the state of the economy today, not in the future. And frankly, we don’t have very good answers for them. What markets are doing today, how people react to these things, will impact the outcome. What looks like a supply/demand imbalance causing prices to rise today could shift to something more permanent and monetary if it causes people to lose confidence in the Fed and subsequently the dollar. The long term health of the economy may improve because workers who refuse to work today cause companies to invest in productivity enhancing technology. Perception creates reality. Invest accordingly.

Joe Calhoun

 

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Problems After COVID-19 Vaccination More Prevalent Among Naturally Immune: Study

Problems After COVID-19 Vaccination More Prevalent Among Naturally Immune: Study

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis…

Published

on

Problems After COVID-19 Vaccination More Prevalent Among Naturally Immune: Study

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

People who recovered from COVID-19 and received a COVID-19 shot were more likely to suffer adverse reactions, researchers in Europe are reporting.

A medical worker administers a dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine to a patient at a vaccination center in Ancenis-Saint-Gereon, France, on Nov. 17, 2021. (Stephane Mahe//Reuters)

Participants in the study were more likely to experience an adverse reaction after vaccination regardless of the type of shot, with one exception, the researchers found.

Across all vaccine brands, people with prior COVID-19 were 2.6 times as likely after dose one to suffer an adverse reaction, according to the new study. Such people are commonly known as having a type of protection known as natural immunity after recovery.

People with previous COVID-19 were also 1.25 times as likely after dose 2 to experience an adverse reaction.

The findings held true across all vaccine types following dose one.

Of the female participants who received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, for instance, 82 percent who had COVID-19 previously experienced an adverse reaction after their first dose, compared to 59 percent of females who did not have prior COVID-19.

The only exception to the trend was among males who received a second AstraZeneca dose. The percentage of males who suffered an adverse reaction was higher, 33 percent to 24 percent, among those without a COVID-19 history.

Participants who had a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (confirmed with a positive test) experienced at least one adverse reaction more often after the 1st dose compared to participants who did not have prior COVID-19. This pattern was observed in both men and women and across vaccine brands,” Florence van Hunsel, an epidemiologist with the Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb, and her co-authors wrote.

There were only slightly higher odds of the naturally immune suffering an adverse reaction following receipt of a Pfizer or Moderna booster, the researchers also found.

The researchers performed what’s known as a cohort event monitoring study, following 29,387 participants as they received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. The participants live in a European country such as Belgium, France, or Slovakia.

Overall, three-quarters of the participants reported at least one adverse reaction, although some were minor such as injection site pain.

Adverse reactions described as serious were reported by 0.24 percent of people who received a first or second dose and 0.26 percent for people who received a booster. Different examples of serious reactions were not listed in the study.

Participants were only specifically asked to record a range of minor adverse reactions (ADRs). They could provide details of other reactions in free text form.

“The unsolicited events were manually assessed and coded, and the seriousness was classified based on international criteria,” researchers said.

The free text answers were not provided by researchers in the paper.

The authors note, ‘In this manuscript, the focus was not on serious ADRs and adverse events of special interest.’” Yet, in their highlights section they state, “The percentage of serious ADRs in the study is low for 1st and 2nd vaccination and booster.”

Dr. Joel Wallskog, co-chair of the group React19, which advocates for people who were injured by vaccines, told The Epoch Times: “It is intellectually dishonest to set out to study minor adverse events after COVID-19 vaccination then make conclusions about the frequency of serious adverse events. They also fail to provide the free text data.” He added that the paper showed “yet another study that is in my opinion, deficient by design.”

Ms. Hunsel did not respond to a request for comment.

She and other researchers listed limitations in the paper, including how they did not provide data broken down by country.

The paper was published by the journal Vaccine on March 6.

The study was funded by the European Medicines Agency and the Dutch government.

No authors declared conflicts of interest.

Some previous papers have also found that people with prior COVID-19 infection had more adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination, including a 2021 paper from French researchers. A U.S. study identified prior COVID-19 as a predictor of the severity of side effects.

Some other studies have determined COVID-19 vaccines confer little or no benefit to people with a history of infection, including those who had received a primary series.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention still recommends people who recovered from COVID-19 receive a COVID-19 vaccine, although a number of other health authorities have stopped recommending the shot for people who have prior COVID-19.

Another New Study

In another new paper, South Korean researchers outlined how they found people were more likely to report certain adverse reactions after COVID-19 vaccination than after receipt of another vaccine.

The reporting of myocarditis, a form of heart inflammation, or pericarditis, a related condition, was nearly 20 times as high among children as the reporting odds following receipt of all other vaccines, the researchers found.

The reporting odds were also much higher for multisystem inflammatory syndrome or Kawasaki disease among adolescent COVID-19 recipients.

Researchers analyzed reports made to VigiBase, which is run by the World Health Organization.

Based on our results, close monitoring for these rare but serious inflammatory reactions after COVID-19 vaccination among adolescents until definitive causal relationship can be established,” the researchers wrote.

The study was published by the Journal of Korean Medical Science in its March edition.

Limitations include VigiBase receiving reports of problems, with some reports going unconfirmed.

Funding came from the South Korean government. One author reported receiving grants from pharmaceutical companies, including Pfizer.

Tyler Durden Fri, 03/15/2024 - 05:00

Read More

Continue Reading

International

‘Excess Mortality Skyrocketed’: Tucker Carlson and Dr. Pierre Kory Unpack ‘Criminal’ COVID Response

‘Excess Mortality Skyrocketed’: Tucker Carlson and Dr. Pierre Kory Unpack ‘Criminal’ COVID Response

As the global pandemic unfolded, government-funded…

Published

on

'Excess Mortality Skyrocketed': Tucker Carlson and Dr. Pierre Kory Unpack 'Criminal' COVID Response

As the global pandemic unfolded, government-funded experimental vaccines were hastily developed for a virus which primarily killed the old and fat (and those with other obvious comorbidities), and an aggressive, global campaign to coerce billions into injecting them ensued.

Then there were the lockdowns - with some countries (New Zealand, for example) building internment camps for those who tested positive for Covid-19, and others such as China welding entire apartment buildings shut to trap people inside.

It was an egregious and unnecessary response to a virus that, while highly virulent, was survivable by the vast majority of the general population.

Oh, and the vaccines, which governments are still pushing, didn't work as advertised to the point where health officials changed the definition of "vaccine" multiple times.

Tucker Carlson recently sat down with Dr. Pierre Kory, a critical care specialist and vocal critic of vaccines. The two had a wide-ranging discussion, which included vaccine safety and efficacy, excess mortality, demographic impacts of the virus, big pharma, and the professional price Kory has paid for speaking out.

Keep reading below, or if you have roughly 50 minutes, watch it in its entirety for free on X:

"Do we have any real sense of what the cost, the physical cost to the country and world has been of those vaccines?" Carlson asked, kicking off the interview.

"I do think we have some understanding of the cost. I mean, I think, you know, you're aware of the work of of Ed Dowd, who's put together a team and looked, analytically at a lot of the epidemiologic data," Kory replied. "I mean, time with that vaccination rollout is when all of the numbers started going sideways, the excess mortality started to skyrocket."

When asked "what kind of death toll are we looking at?", Kory responded "...in 2023 alone, in the first nine months, we had what's called an excess mortality of 158,000 Americans," adding "But this is in 2023. I mean, we've  had Omicron now for two years, which is a mild variant. Not that many go to the hospital."

'Safe and Effective'

Tucker also asked Kory why the people who claimed the vaccine were "safe and effective" aren't being held criminally liable for abetting the "killing of all these Americans," to which Kory replied: "It’s my kind of belief, looking back, that [safe and effective] was a predetermined conclusion. There was no data to support that, but it was agreed upon that it would be presented as safe and effective."

Carlson and Kory then discussed the different segments of the population that experienced vaccine side effects, with Kory noting an "explosion in dying in the youngest and healthiest sectors of society," adding "And why did the employed fare far worse than those that weren't? And this particularly white collar, white collar, more than gray collar, more than blue collar."

Kory also said that Big Pharma is 'terrified' of Vitamin D because it "threatens the disease model." As journalist The Vigilant Fox notes on X, "Vitamin D showed about a 60% effectiveness against the incidence of COVID-19 in randomized control trials," and "showed about 40-50% effectiveness in reducing the incidence of COVID-19 in observational studies."

Professional costs

Kory - while risking professional suicide by speaking out, has undoubtedly helped save countless lives by advocating for alternate treatments such as Ivermectin.

Kory shared his own experiences of job loss and censorship, highlighting the challenges of advocating for a more nuanced understanding of vaccine safety in an environment often resistant to dissenting voices.

"I wrote a book called The War on Ivermectin and the the genesis of that book," he said, adding "Not only is my expertise on Ivermectin and my vast clinical experience, but and I tell the story before, but I got an email, during this journey from a guy named William B Grant, who's a professor out in California, and he wrote to me this email just one day, my life was going totally sideways because our protocols focused on Ivermectin. I was using a lot in my practice, as were tens of thousands of doctors around the world, to really good benefits. And I was getting attacked, hit jobs in the media, and he wrote me this email on and he said, Dear Dr. Kory, what they're doing to Ivermectin, they've been doing to vitamin D for decades..."

"And it's got five tactics. And these are the five tactics that all industries employ when science emerges, that's inconvenient to their interests. And so I'm just going to give you an example. Ivermectin science was extremely inconvenient to the interests of the pharmaceutical industrial complex. I mean, it threatened the vaccine campaign. It threatened vaccine hesitancy, which was public enemy number one. We know that, that everything, all the propaganda censorship was literally going after something called vaccine hesitancy."

Money makes the world go 'round

Carlson then hit on perhaps the most devious aspect of the relationship between drug companies and the medical establishment, and how special interests completely taint science to the point where public distrust of institutions has spiked in recent years.

"I think all of it starts at the level the medical journals," said Kory. "Because once you have something established in the medical journals as a, let's say, a proven fact or a generally accepted consensus, consensus comes out of the journals."

"I have dozens of rejection letters from investigators around the world who did good trials on ivermectin, tried to publish it. No thank you, no thank you, no thank you. And then the ones that do get in all purportedly prove that ivermectin didn't work," Kory continued.

"So and then when you look at the ones that actually got in and this is where like probably my biggest estrangement and why I don't recognize science and don't trust it anymore, is the trials that flew to publication in the top journals in the world were so brazenly manipulated and corrupted in the design and conduct in, many of us wrote about it. But they flew to publication, and then every time they were published, you saw these huge PR campaigns in the media. New York Times, Boston Globe, L.A. times, ivermectin doesn't work. Latest high quality, rigorous study says. I'm sitting here in my office watching these lies just ripple throughout the media sphere based on fraudulent studies published in the top journals. And that's that's that has changed. Now that's why I say I'm estranged and I don't know what to trust anymore."

Vaccine Injuries

Carlson asked Kory about his clinical experience with vaccine injuries.

"So how this is how I divide, this is just kind of my perception of vaccine injury is that when I use the term vaccine injury, I'm usually referring to what I call a single organ problem, like pericarditis, myocarditis, stroke, something like that. An autoimmune disease," he replied.

"What I specialize in my practice, is I treat patients with what we call a long Covid long vaxx. It's the same disease, just different triggers, right? One is triggered by Covid, the other one is triggered by the spike protein from the vaccine. Much more common is long vax. The only real differences between the two conditions is that the vaccinated are, on average, sicker and more disabled than the long Covids, with some pretty prominent exceptions to that."

Watch the entire interview above, and you can support Tucker Carlson's endeavors by joining the Tucker Carlson Network here...

Tyler Durden Thu, 03/14/2024 - 16:20

Read More

Continue Reading

International

Shakira’s net worth

After 12 albums, a tax evasion case, and now a towering bronze idol sculpted in her image, how much is Shakira worth more than 4 decades into her care…

Published

on

Shakira’s considerable net worth is no surprise, given her massive popularity in Latin America, the U.S., and elsewhere. 

In fact, the belly-dancing contralto queen is the second-wealthiest Latin-America-born pop singer of all time after Gloria Estefan. (Interestingly, Estefan actually helped a young Shakira translate her breakout album “Laundry Service” into English, hugely propelling her stateside success.)

Since releasing her first record at age 13, Shakira has spent decades recording albums in both Spanish and English and performing all over the world. Over the course of her 40+ year career, she helped thrust Latin pop music into the American mainstream, paving the way for the subsequent success of massively popular modern acts like Karol G and Bad Bunny.

In late 2023, a 21-foot-tall bronze sculpture of Shakira, the barefoot belly dancer of Barranquilla, was unveiled at the city's waterfront. The statue was commissioned by the city's former mayor and other leadership.

Photo by STR/AFP via Getty Images

In December 2023, a 21-foot-tall beachside bronze statue of the “Hips Don’t Lie” singer was unveiled in her Colombian hometown of Barranquilla, making her a permanent fixture in the city’s skyline and cementing her legacy as one of Latin America’s most influential entertainers.

After 12 albums, a plethora of film and television appearances, a highly publicized tax evasion case, and now a towering bronze idol sculpted in her image, how much is Shakira worth? What does her income look like? And how does she spend her money?

Related: Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson's net worth: How the new TKO Board Member built his wealth from $7

How much is Shakira worth?

In late 2023, Spanish sports and lifestyle publication Marca reported Shakira’s net worth at $400 million, citing Forbes as the figure’s source (although Forbes’ profile page for Shakira does not list a net worth — and didn’t when that article was published).

Most other sources list the singer’s wealth at an estimated $300 million, and almost all of these point to Celebrity Net Worth — a popular but dubious celebrity wealth estimation site — as the source for the figure.

A $300 million net worth would make Shakira the third-richest Latina pop star after Gloria Estefan ($500 million) and Jennifer Lopez ($400 million), and the second-richest Latin-America-born pop singer after Estefan (JLo is Puerto Rican but was born in New York).

Shakira’s income: How much does she make annually?

Entertainers like Shakira don’t have predictable paychecks like ordinary salaried professionals. Instead, annual take-home earnings vary quite a bit depending on each year’s album sales, royalties, film and television appearances, streaming revenue, and other sources of income. As one might expect, Shakira’s earnings have fluctuated quite a bit over the years.

From June 2018 to June 2019, for instance, Shakira was the 10th highest-earning female musician, grossing $35 million, according to Forbes. This wasn’t her first time gracing the top 10, though — back in 2012, she also landed the #10 spot, bringing in $20 million, according to Billboard.

In 2023, Billboard listed Shakira as the 16th-highest-grossing Latin artist of all time.

Shakira performed alongside producer Bizarrap during the 2023 Latin Grammy Awards Gala in Seville.

Photo By Maria Jose Lopez/Europa Press via Getty Images

How much does Shakira make from her concerts and tours?

A large part of Shakira’s wealth comes from her world tours, during which she sometimes sells out massive stadiums and arenas full of passionate fans eager to see her dance and sing live.

According to a 2020 report by Pollstar, she sold over 2.7 million tickets across 190 shows that grossed over $189 million between 2000 and 2020. This landed her the 19th spot on a list of female musicians ranked by touring revenue during that period. In 2023, Billboard reported a more modest touring revenue figure of $108.1 million across 120 shows.

In 2003, Shakira reportedly generated over $4 million from a single show on Valentine’s Day at Foro Sol in Mexico City. 15 years later, in 2018, Shakira grossed around $76.5 million from her El Dorado World Tour, according to Touring Data.

Related: RuPaul's net worth: Everything to know about the cultural icon and force behind 'Drag Race'

How much has Shakira made from her album sales?

According to a 2023 profile in Variety, Shakira has sold over 100 million records throughout her career. “Laundry Service,” the pop icon’s fifth studio album, was her most successful, selling over 13 million copies worldwide, according to TheRichest.

Exactly how much money Shakira has taken home from her album sales is unclear, but in 2008, it was widely reported that she signed a 10-year contract with LiveNation to the tune of between $70 and $100 million to release her subsequent albums and manage her tours.

Shakira and JLo co-headlined the 2020 Super Bowl Halftime Show in Florida.

Photo by Kevin Winter/Getty Images)

How much did Shakira make from her Super Bowl and World Cup performances?

Shakira co-wrote one of her biggest hits, “Waka Waka (This Time for Africa),” after FIFA selected her to create the official anthem for the 2010 World Cup in South Africa. She performed the song, along with several of her existing fan-favorite tracks, during the event’s opening ceremonies. TheThings reported in 2023 that the song generated $1.4 million in revenue, citing Popnable for the figure.

A decade later, 2020’s Superbowl halftime show featured Shakira and Jennifer Lopez as co-headliners with guest performances by Bad Bunny and J Balvin. The 14-minute performance was widely praised as a high-energy celebration of Latin music and dance, but as is typical for Super Bowl shows, neither Shakira nor JLo was compensated beyond expenses and production costs.

The exposure value that comes with performing in the Super Bowl Halftime Show, though, is significant. It is typically the most-watched television event in the U.S. each year, and in 2020, a 30-second Super Bowl ad spot cost between $5 and $6 million.

How much did Shakira make as a coach on “The Voice?”

Shakira served as a team coach on the popular singing competition program “The Voice” during the show’s fourth and sixth seasons. On the show, celebrity musicians coach up-and-coming amateurs in a team-based competition that eventually results in a single winner. In 2012, The Hollywood Reporter wrote that Shakira’s salary as a coach on “The Voice” was $12 million.

Related: John Cena's net worth: The wrestler-turned-actor's investments, businesses, and more

How does Shakira spend her money?

Shakira doesn’t just make a lot of money — she spends it, too. Like many wealthy entertainers, she’s purchased her share of luxuries, but Barranquilla’s barefoot belly dancer is also a prolific philanthropist, having donated tens of millions to charitable causes throughout her career.

Private island

Back in 2006, she teamed up with Roger Waters of Pink Floyd fame and Spanish singer Alejandro Sanz to purchase Bonds Cay, a 550-acre island in the Bahamas, which was listed for $16 million at the time.

Along with her two partners in the purchase, Shakira planned to develop the island to feature housing, hotels, and an artists’ retreat designed to host a revolving cast of artists-in-residence. This plan didn’t come to fruition, though, and as of this article’s last update, the island was once again for sale on Vladi Private Islands.

Real estate and vehicles

Like most wealthy celebs, Shakira’s portfolio of high-end playthings also features an array of luxury properties and vehicles, including a home in Barcelona, a villa in Cyprus, a Miami mansion, and a rotating cast of Mercedes-Benz vehicles.

Philanthropy and charity

Shakira doesn’t just spend her massive wealth on herself; the “Queen of Latin Music” is also a dedicated philanthropist and regularly donates portions of her earnings to the Fundación Pies Descalzos, or “Barefoot Foundation,” a charity she founded in 1997 to “improve the education and social development of children in Colombia, which has suffered decades of conflict.” The foundation focuses on providing meals for children and building and improving educational infrastructure in Shakira’s hometown of Barranquilla as well as four other Colombian communities.

In addition to her efforts with the Fundación Pies Descalzos, Shakira has made a number of other notable donations over the years. In 2007, she diverted a whopping $40 million of her wealth to help rebuild community infrastructure in Peru and Nicaragua in the wake of a devastating 8.0 magnitude earthquake. Later, during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, Shakira donated a large supply of N95 masks for healthcare workers and ventilators for hospital patients to her hometown of Barranquilla.

Back in 2010, the UN honored Shakira with a medal to recognize her dedication to social justice, at which time the Director General of the International Labour Organization described her as a “true ambassador for children and young people.”

On November 20, 2023 (which was supposed to be her first day of trial), Shakira reached a deal with the prosecution that resulted in a three-year suspended sentence and around $8 million in fines.

Photo by Adria Puig/Anadolu via Getty Images

Shakira’s tax fraud scandal: How much did she pay?

In 2018, prosecutors in Spain initiated a tax evasion case against Shakira, alleging she lived primarily in Spain from 2012 to 2014 and therefore failed to pay around $14.4 million in taxes to the Spanish government. Spanish law requires anyone who is “domiciled” (i.e., living primarily) in Spain for more than half of the year to pay income taxes.

During the period in question, Shakira listed the Bahamas as her primary residence but did spend some time in Spain, as she was dating Gerard Piqué, a professional footballer and Spanish citizen. The couple’s first son, Milan, was also born in Barcelona during this period. 

Shakira maintained that she spent far fewer than 183 days per year in Spain during each of the years in question. In an interview with Elle Magazine, the pop star opined that “Spanish tax authorities saw that I was dating a Spanish citizen and started to salivate. It's clear they wanted to go after that money no matter what."

Prosecutors in the case sought a fine of almost $26 million and a possible eight-year prison stint, but in November of 2023, Shakira took a deal to close the case, accepting a fine of around $8 million and a three-year suspended sentence to avoid going to trial. In reference to her decision to take the deal, Shakira stated, "While I was determined to defend my innocence in a trial that my lawyers were confident would have ruled in my favour [had the trial proceeded], I have made the decision to finally resolve this matter with the best interest of my kids at heart who do not want to see their mom sacrifice her personal well-being in this fight."

How much did the Shakira statue in Barranquilla cost?

In late 2023, a 21-foot-tall bronze likeness of Shakira was unveiled on a waterfront promenade in Barranquilla. The city’s then-mayor, Jaime Pumarejo, commissioned Colombian sculptor Yino Márquez to create the statue of the city’s treasured pop icon, along with a sculpture of the city’s coat of arms.

According to the New York Times, the two sculptures cost the city the equivalent of around $180,000. A plaque at the statue’s base reads, “A heart that composes, hips that don’t lie, an unmatched talent, a voice that moves the masses and bare feet that march for the good of children and humanity.” 

Related: Taylor Swift net worth: The most successful entertainer joins the billionaire's club

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending