The past few weeks in financial markets have been challenging. Our team has spent considerable time modeling scenarios from worst case to best case, adjusting as policy signals shift. As we noted recently, Project 2025 outlined significant changes to government structure and economic policy, including controversial Cabinet appointments. However, recent decisions—such as adopting the Navarro approach to trade—have heightened concerns about economic stability.

Earlier this month Barack Obama spoke at a rally for Harris in Pittsburgh. What stood out to us was his direct criticism of Trump’s claims that he had created a great economy. It was the first time this falsehood by the Trump campaign has been highlighted so directly. The Harris campaign has tended to react to Trump’s protectionist, self-serving, and costly policy proposals rather than getting specific about the Biden/Harris long view and hammering home jobs gained and the inflationary impact of expanding tariffs.

Earlier this month Barack Obama spoke at a rally for Harris in Pittsburgh. What stood out to us was his direct criticism of Trump’s claims that he had created a great economy. It was the first time this falsehood by the Trump campaign has been highlighted so directly. The Harris campaign has tended to react to Trump’s protectionist, self-serving, and costly policy proposals rather than getting specific about the Biden/Harris long view and hammering home jobs gained and the inflationary impact of expanding tariffs.

As of this writing we have seen our former president convicted of federal crimes, our current president fumble during the first debate, Democrats circling the issue of the fumble like starving sharks (with a sense that their opinion matters), and Trump being shot at during a pre-convention rally. Not good.

Last quarter we reflected on the polarization we are experiencing around the globe and the current tendency to reject multiple and conflicting realities in favor of binary “this or that” solutions. Our view is that dependence on binary, good versus evil thinking and behavior is intrinsically flawed. Recognizing and embracing complexity is uniquely human, and it is a muscle that needs to be exercised.

Trying to make sense of the world feels like a fool’s errand, an impossible task, an uphill battle. It’s all so confusing, so complicated, and so complex. Is it human nature to seek answers and solutions? Probably. But what if there is no single, simple, yes or no answer?

We cannot begin a discussion of this quarter without acknowledging the tragedies taking place in Israel and Palestine, and increasingly across the world amid rising antisemitic and anti-Palestinian rhetoric and violence. Despite our years of work in human rights, seeing the way this crisis has unfolded is shocking. How do we begin to understand the loss of life? How do we begin to make sense of the permanent scars this will leave on those affected, both on the ground and afar? What will it mean and require for the thousands displaced to restart their lives? 

For many years, we have known that corporations capture data to categorize people based on various similarities, preferences, and patterns and then use targeted advertising to generate revenue. This has often been accomplished by providing us with “free information” through internet searches, offering simplicity and convenience in exchange for our personal data, and providing expanded and real time access to friends and family around the world.

There was a moment in our recent history that felt like real progress was happening—for women, people of color, LGBTQIA+ people, and many others. Perhaps the backlash we’re currently experiencing shouldn’t be surprising. Nevertheless, it can feel highly disappointing and frightening.

Mr. Smith’s claim that NorthStar Asset Management is trying “to persuade corporations to voluntarily surrender their First Amendment rights” is mistaken. This is not and has never been NorthStar’s position. NorthStar shareholder proposals asking companies to provide shareowners with a nonbinding vote on corporate political spending is an exercise of our right, as owners of the company, to hold corporations accountable for political spending decisions.