加载中...
共找到 17,851 条相关资讯
With oil prices in mind, the Trump administration has deployed a haphazard approach to sanctions on Russia and Iran.
Mike Gitlin, CEO who manages $3 trillion, spoke to CNBC at CONVERGE LIVE with a message for Gen Z investors on oil and investing.
Investor's Business Daily is known for its powerful stock ratings that help investors make smart buys and sells. Now they're getting an update.
Signs of froth are everywhere, with the IPOs of Anthropic and OpenAI expected to be the biggest ever and investors desperate to find ways in.
Steak 'n Shake chief MAHA officer Michael Boes says the company is going seed oil-free and will roll out grass-fed beef nationwide on 'Maria Bartiromo's Wall Street.' #fox #media #breakingnews #us #usa #new #news #breaking #foxbusiness #business #economy #food #restaurant #steaknshake #health #nutrition #beef #grassfed #seedoilfree #industry #markets #leadership #mariabartiromo #wallstreet #company #innovation #lifestyle
Swiss International said that a flight from Delhi to Zurich had to abort its takeoff early on Sunday after an engine issue, adding that four passengers and one crew member were injured.
The S&P 500 posted a fourth consecutive weekly gain, hitting two new highs and continuing a powerful rally, with April up 9.8%. Nasdaq and Mag 7 stocks, especially Nvidia, led the market, signaling a strong risk-on sentiment and renewed tech leadership.
Fitz-Gerald Group principal Keith Fitz-Gerald discusses upcoming Big Tech earnings, highlighting market opportunities in technology and medicine, on ‘Maria Bartiromo's Wall Street.' #fox #media #breakingnews #us #usa #new #news #breaking #foxbusiness #stocks #market #finance #economy #wallstreet #nasdaq #sp500 #investing #technology #ai #artificialintelligence #bigtech #earnings #trading #money #business #keithfitzgerald #innovation #health
The average amount a borrower with negative equity carries on a vehicle has jumped more than 40% since 2021.
O'Leary Ventures Chairman Kevin O'Leary joins 'Varney & Co.' to push back on Elizabeth Warren's criticism, explain what markets want from President Donald Trump's Fed pick and reveal why he's focused on Bitcoin and Ethereum.
XRP ( CRYPTO: XRP ) is trading at $1.43, down nearly 45% year-to-date and stuck between $1.30 and $1.50 for the past month.
Dennis Lockhart, former president and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, talks about his impressions on incoming Fed Chair Kevin Warsh. He believes Warsh will face a challenging environment with pressure from the White House and American consumers to lower rates even as inflation remains persistent.
Thérèse Byars: Good afternoon, everyone. This is Thérèse Byars speaking and I'm the Corporate Secretary of FRMO Corp. Thank you for joining us today. The statements made on this call apply only as of today. The information on this call should not be construed to be a recommendation to purchase or sell any particular security or investment fund. The opinions referenced on this call are not intended to be a forecast of future events or a guarantee of future results. It should not be assumed that any of the security transactions referenced today have been or will prove to be profitable or that future investment decisions will be profitable or will equal or exceed the past performance of the investments. For additional information, you may visit the FRMO Corp's. website at frmocorp.com. Today's discussion will be led by Steven Bregman and Peter Doyle, Co-Chief Executive Officers. We're also joined by Jay Kesslen, General Counsel; and David Arndt, Chief Financial Officer. They will review key points related to the fiscal 2026, 3rd quarter earnings. And now I'll turn the discussion over to Peter Doyle. Peter Doyle: Thank you, Thérèse. Good afternoon, everyone. So 2 weeks ago, I never dreamed that I would be kicking off this call. And it's obviously with great sadness that that's the case. I'm going to give a little bit of background and tell you how I was introduced to Murray Stahl. I had the good fortune in my senior year of college of having a professor who was in the same graduate program is it's Warren Buffett at Columbia, and they learned under Ben Graham. And Ben Graham is considered to be the father of security analysis, the legend in the industry. And first of all, anyone that's in finance has read his books. And essentially, it was the professor would say trying to buy $1 worth of value for something less than $1. And I had read the Intelligent Investor, which was penned by Ben Graham prior to joining Bankers Trust Company where Murray was working. And I had no real business with Murray when I first started. It just so happened that I -- this is 1985, so 41 years ago. I happened to sit outside of his office. And he used to work late, and I was a young person trying to get ahead in the world, and I work late. So probably within the first week, maybe the second week at most, I wandered into his office just to introduce myself. And I very quickly realized that he was the smartest person I was ever speaking to -- had ever spoken to and 41 years later, that was still true. And I didn't realize at the time, although I figured it out fairly soon, that I had bumped into the equivalent of Ben Graham. And frankly, I think he rivals Ben Graham in professional and as a person, I think he far exceeded Ben Graham. So I know a lot of you feel like you know Murray from the calls. I know some of you met him in real life. He was an intellectual giant, he was generous beyond belief. He was empathetic and all of the good things that you think about him, you can multiply it by 1,000, 10,000, and it's still true. So it's heartbreaking for us. And I can tell you that we're grieving here at Horizon Kinetics, FRMO, and we're managing. But that said, Murray laid the foundations for us as investors, and he laid the foundations for the companies that we're involved with, and they're in great shape. So today, we're going to touch on all the things that Murray would have touched on today. The four works in progress the cryptocurrency business, the exchange space, Horizon Kinetics itself and then the various inflation hedges. We'll touch on them to varying degrees. So feel free if you want to share personal things and if we open it up to questions or you want to speak to us in person. I know you feel like you had -- you lost a loved one, and that's really what happened. Murray was the colleague, the works ballast, if you will, of both Steven and myself for 41 years, and it's not an easy time for us. So with that, I will turn it over to Steven and see if he wants to add anything or to jump in with the presentation. Steven Bregman: Sure. Well, I guess what I'll say is part of the presentation. You might appreciate that so we've been a couple of days -- well, it's been more than a week now. So it's... Peter Doyle: Steve, it's 2 weeks at 4:33 today. Steven Bregman: Okay. So people would ask us questions what are we doing and what are we thinking and depending on who the counterparty or client was, are we okay? Is Horizon okay? Employees might ask question. And that kind of -- look we're just in hours now. We can't even measure in days. We can measure in hours. There have been movies made, call it, 24 hours or 48 hours or 72 hours. And as you might appreciate, in the first days, among the many things we were doing was preparing for a memorial and making sure certain clients could come if they were flying into town and we couldn't turn them away and we limit the number of employees and where can we gather afterwards. And then all the steps you have to take to reshuffle or rationalize different reporting structures and responsibilities. So we've been doing all of this. And First thing I'll say about it is that at Horizon, which also ends up for force being impacting FRMO Corp. Everyone who raised their hand or to help or they helped without even raising their hand is doing it. And all of the original partners are gathered together and we're here, people who've worked with Murray since 1984 '85 in one case earlier. And we're rearranging our brain trust in a way. No one of us can be Murray Stahl and probably not three or four of us can be Murray Stahl. But we are all thinking -- we're of a like mind, at least as far as the goals and investment philosophy and values, business values and approaches. So in terms of what I might say to Peter and I both to employees, first of all, because our employees, by the way, they speak to clients and clients have the same questions and that the employees don't feel comfortable answering the questions to the clients and the clients can't feel uncomfortable. So one of the first things is that we told the employees, don't worry. We're not closing our doors. We're not hiring anybody. We're not selling ourselves because one of the things we've done over time, and as a strategic architect is we've created both at Horizon Kinetics and at FRMO Corp. just -- people use the term fortress balance sheet. That's true, an absolutely fortress balance sheet. And we're not in a hurry to do anything. What we want to do is do things right, the right way. So -- and that was by design. The -- and I want to talk a bit more about that actually, so you understand it. Because if you understand something, it's not something you have to try to remember. as you know it, it's not memorized. But -- so balance sheet basis, I'll talk about why we did what we did because it's very unusual. We're solid. That means we have time to do things as we judge them to be the right way and put one foot in front of the other and not step without looking or make drastic changes under pressure. The other thing is we're different in many ways is that our portfolios, whether it's the FRMO Corp. portfolio, whether it's the Horizon Kinetics corporate portfolio, whether it's our client portfolios, they are in a much better position, same as the balance sheet and very different qualitatively than they were, let's say, 10 years ago. But 10 years ago, we have good years and bad years as investment advisers. Not every security is the best security. But we might have some really excellent -- excellent investment securities, but they weren't strategic. Years ago, we weren't in a position decades ago to own strategic assets. And there's a different -- what does strategic asset mean? Now let me give you like one example just to differentiate. So a very large position just in investment portfolios we might be making at Horizon is Hawaiian Electric Power. It's a classic recovering utility. In this case, it didn't happen to be a failed utility, but sometimes they fail first and come out of bankruptcy and then their recovering utilities restructured. But we've invested in utility stocks when they are in this position for decades. In fact, Murray and I worked on -- with the persons I worked with them on independently Bankers Trust Company was creating a utility portfolio as a bond -- an element of a bond substitute strategy since bonds are wasting assets after inflation. We've been thinking about these things and working with them for a long, long time. Now the nice thing about a recovering utility is that you have a very high degree of confidence in what it will be earning, let's say, 4 years down the road or 5 years down the road and what the payout ratio will be and therefore, what the dividend will be. And it's extremely unusual, but it's a regulated utility. And it's actually a very easy calculation, not challenging. You have a certain rate base, the amount that the regulators deem they're allowed to charge to earn a return on. And lately, it's maybe in the 10% or 11% range for utility company. And therefore, you can multiply then-allowed rate of return by the rate base and know what they'll earn once they recover. So you can readily see that for Hawaiian Electric Power, you might make 2 or 3 or more times your money over a certain period of time. It will be a great investment. But once it is fairly valued, there's no more reason to own it. It's just an electric utility. So it's a fine investment, but it's not a strategic investment. And I think you know where we're going because TPL naturally is a strategic investment. There's a reason for it to be able to compound the value for generations as it has been, right? And it's actually, in a sense, more than a sense, it's actually has more future value potential perhaps now than it did years ago, 6, 7 years ago, it was primarily in terms of the revenue generation, just the oil and gas. Now it's a portfolio of different sorts of revenue. So in our accounts now, we have strategic holdings, not just one but many, and it could be Miami International Holdings, could be other securities, whether it's LandBridge or Permian Basin Royalty Trust and private ones and public ones. So Peter kind of joked a while, not so long ago, but it's not really a joke. He said our investment portfolios would probably better off the next 5 years, that we just kind of shut the door on them and walk away and didn't touch them. And they probably would be. But we have clients and realities of people need just take money out and do some liquidations or they just aren't comfortable with PPL haven't gotten to a certain high level, they want to put back that kind of thing. So we have the benefit of time and stability and strategic flexibility as we look at the balance sheet. And by the way, if you look at the Horizon story, of how it is that an investment adviser like Horizon Kinetics can have $100 million-plus balance sheet or [Technical Difficulty] Can. And it actually started with an idea before Horizon originally was even formed before we even had a name. Murray liked to regail people with a story about how once we determined that leaving Bankers trust and setting up under the aegis or umbrella of some existing investment advisory firm was just too risky. We thought we actually had to go out and create our own company. And our first strategic planning meeting was at -- that this is a Burger King story. He and I sat at the Burger King down the block or around the corner from our employer, Bankers Trust Company, the one at BT Plaza across from where the Trade Center stood. And we mapped out what kind of structure do we want for the future of our business. We understood it was going to be in an investment advisory business. We would try to be honest about it, abscond, albeit legally within proper regulatory and legal framework with clients of the private bank who somehow associated more strongly with us than with the institution. And at a certain point, Peter and Murray and I and everybody would collect a certain [indiscernible] of investment advisory accounts and then what? So what are we actually doing? So strategically, well, we're going to be in an inherently volatile business, right? And we might do well for some period of time and then the stock price goes down because it will. And then our revenues will go down because prices of securities go down and people withdraw money, they need money or they take an account away. So we want to do everything we can, recognizing what we're doing to immunize ourselves from that volatility. What can we do to do that? And we had a few ideas and they develop really long-term plans, especially considering that we didn't even have the business yet, and we didn't even have the capital between us to raise the money to start a business and put a deposit down on a commercial lease. So one thing we decided to do was if and when we got enough revenue that we could pay ourselves some modest salaries, we would take all the excess earnings and keep it on the balance sheet. And because we wanted to build up a balance sheet eventually that was big enough that the interest and dividends there upon would be able to pay not all of our expenses, but let's say, at least our rent or some portion of our other operating expenses or salaries that if there's a big downturn in the market, we could tighten our belts and not have to close our doors or sell ourselves and fire a bunch of people or more -- I shouldn't say more quickly. But way up here on the priority list was the idea that we don't want to under pressure have to sell stocks we want to hold on to or buy stocks we don't want to buy. And if you've ever been in this business as a professional, you can imagine the excruciating pressure that was applied to us on occasion to buy technology stocks during the dotcom bubble because we were underperforming by over 2.5 years, felt like 3, but just the most enormous amount. It was like calamitous of underperformance. We at the bottom and everyone else at the top because we just refused to buy Cisco and all the rest of the crowd. And likewise, during the great financial crisis when everything was falling and people thought they were looking into this, we had advisers for whom we managed accounts for them, threaten us and say, I need you to sell the stock and that stock because I don't want to see my clients look at their month-end statements and see that. And I said it's foolish we should be buying the security. And you know what, I can just take my accounts out of sell myself and nobody will ever look back. So that's kind of pressures I'm talking about. We wanted to avoid that. We knew it would come. And we didn't realize, well, how ambitious it was, and it seemed like a pipe dream because in order to have some millions of dollars of interest and dividend income, you have to have some tens of scores of millions of dollars of saved up after-tax capital. But Murray was tenacious that way. If the analysis worked out and the analysis were sound, -- and there's no reason not to do it, and you just keep adding. So there was a period of time, I don't know if Peter might remember better than I, we got salaries at a certain point, maybe it was $500,000 and just enough to live on. And then we kept them flat for years, maybe it's a step up. And until we figure out a more efficient way, it became a point when I get a big check at the end of the year. And I might never have seen a check that big in my life, maybe it was $100,000 or whatever it was $200,000, something like that. And I look at it, it was pleasant and I would look at it and I would say and I would maybe spend 10 seconds admiring it. And then I would put it down and I write something on two pieces of paper. One was the deposit slip to put it in the bank. And the other was a new check, which I write to Horizon put it -- to put back into Horizon whatever the after-tax number was. We gave ourselves a ratio. So of $100,000, $70,000 said buy back to Horizon. And it was hard. But that's how we built up the cash and securities at Horizon Kinetics. And then basically, it's the same thing we did in FRMO Corp. So we did that. We got there. So the -- another question our employees had and clients have was, well, now that Murray is gone, what are you going to do for ideas? And I'm not going to bore you with the long details of different ways of generating ideas on your own if you don't have strategic engagements, which we did. There are ways to find stocks. We have a research team, and they're engaged in doing it, too. But there's something different now about us, which is our strategic engagements with some of the exchanges, with companies in the energy field, with Board of Directors or you're looking with these companies, you're actually in the flow of engagement with other people. all sorts of things you don't know. And they might appreciate knowing some of the things you do or your perspectives because they're different than theirs. And they can be very collegial and very productive. And you're being presented with all sorts of interesting ideas. Some of them are private, some of them are public. and you're actually in the flow. And we have analysts who are regularly out there in the oil patch, visiting not just TPL, he's out there, visiting other business people and companies and that are doing deals and interesting things and the same with the exchanges. So at our investment committee meeting at Horizon just this Monday, one of our analysts, James, told us about just two or three coming public businesses or existing public businesses or private that we want to be aware of that we might be working with people on because he's out there interacting with them. One of our other analysts who actually lives in Texas and has been more oriented generally speaking, to the to the exchange groups and is quite familiar with the people at MIAX. And I once visited him with him to visit Greg Wojciechowski, the Head of the Bermuda Stock Exchange. We took a trip there because some people from representatives of an Indian securities exchange wanted to talk to MIAX, we introduced them to that idea about some product. So when you're in that -- once you're strategically associated with people like that -- and by the way, the story of how we got there is another interesting but i won't bore you with all that. We got there through a process. So that is a foot. And in fact, we're in the maybe step 8.5 of 10 through having nothing to do with TPL. But the fact is that we're down there in Texas. And there's someone who specializes in buying a certain kind of land, having nothing to do with mineral minings, nothing to do with oil. And there is a way of lending -- secured lending by land for development at a certain level of a certain type, which is a very persistent market advantage that if this works out, when we do a due diligence, we might be able to offer a private fund clients a proper kind of bond substitute investment, let's say, a 10% yield. Maybe that's something -- can be involved in. I'm not so sure it's appropriate. But ideas, we're not short of. In fact, one of the things we're short of is some research -- active research processing capacity, and we're actively discussing investing further in our research stack. So I just wanted to give you that to understand that we're fine. There's a lot of blocking and tackling and reorganization to do to make sure that we're on top of things. But it was worth giving you that sense of things so that you may be worried about. Now today, for instance, I can confess to you upfront, and I've learned -- I've learned in my life, particularly in more in the last 20 years than the 20 years prior, I've learned to not be so embarrassed or ashamed that some of my deficits or failings. We have been as busy -- I use this expression offhandedly with one of our only young to me, not young to the people who are as old as I. But she was a couple of generations behind me, and I offhandedly mentioned to her that we're as busy as one armed paper hangers. And I got the blankest stare and I realized, okay, I need to use more contemporary metaphor analogy. So we've been quite busy and in good ways, good busy. But for instance, I can tell you that I'm very glad we have, for instance, David Arndt, who is a properly trained and highly qualified and competent CFO, whereas I was not. My role as CFO, you know how that happened? It happened because when FRMO was created, that was one of my proudest professional achievements. We created a publicly traded company with $450. I can tell you the story another time. And we did it because we located -- actually, thanks to one of our Board members and an extremely able investor. We were introduced to one small public company. We had the idea that since we wrote about spin-offs -- Spin-Off Reports actually spin-offs, we thought what if we can get some small public traded company controlled by someone whom we could induce with the wisdom of the idea of just as a paper transaction, creating subsidiary, spinning it off, we had an idea for building a business from that. And as a facilitation fee, they could own some of that business. And why not give it a try? Some people would be up for that. Anyway, he introduced us to a fellow named Lester Tanner, who, among other things, was an extremely talented securities attorney. And he did it all for us. But anyway, we were capitalized with $10,000, and that was a gift from him. He just decided to put it on the balance sheet. So that's kind of -- it started quite a long time ago. Anyway, the idea of speaking with the process of investing as opposed to actual investment that comes first. Anyway, but the way I got to be a CFO was the $10,000, the purpose of that was we didn't have any expenses. Murray and I never took cash salaries. One day, the regulator said that you can't work for free. It's not recognized. So you can claim this debit equity and credit expense, but it's not a cash expense. You just have to recognize it on the income statement. But all we had at first was the cash on the balance sheet, and then we had a revenue stream and then a second one and the third one that we had negotiated. And the $10,000 was just for what we thought the annual auditing expenses would be. So we could cover our cost of being a publicly traded company until we had revenues. And we needed some internal accounting. So someone showed me what QuickBooks was, and they showed me how to make entries. And I had taken a couple of semesters of accounting in college. But -- and it was easy enough at first, but then we got a little more complicated. And then we started having accruals that had to be made and then reversals. And I kept up for a little while. And after a while, I really was no longer confident to do that. But now we have David Arndt, who -- he's actually the [ knowledgeable ]. So in terms of being willing to be publicly embarrassed, I have not had the time to prep properly for this meeting to answer any kind of detailed balance sheet questions and whatnot. But now we have him. So say it bad news or good news. Anyway, I will -- I'd like to make one observation at least that's sort of like I can talk about the balance sheet and what we're doing in a meaningful way. You might recall from -- maybe not every time, but it seems to me that most times, we have these shareholder meetings, conference calls. Murray would talk about some items in the balance sheet that he thought were important. And one of them was the -- that line item on the liabilities and stockholders' equity portion of the balance sheet, that's a securities sold, not yet purchased. And those -- as those who follow us might know, those are the -- our persistent selling short of so-called path-dependent ETFs, which by their nature because of a flaw in their structure will eventually continuously head towards 0. So the volatility in the marketplace and there's contango in the futures, particularly when it's leveraged. And $717,000 doesn't seem like a lot on our balance sheet. And you'll see that May 31, 2025, it was $1.3 million, and now it's as of February, it's $717,000. And it's not that we reduced it. In fact, we continue to sell short like every week. And in point of fact, the cumulative -- roughly speaking, the cumulative short sale proceeds over time from this program is a little over $9 million, quite -- it's over $9 million, less than $10 million. And so the -- those are proceeds each time we sell something short, those proceeds are up on the balance sheet. And in the short term, you might say, I can't use them because maybe the security goes against me for a little while. But eventually, not years past, it's yours. It's your cash. We used to never close the transaction of it. It's not a comprehensive difference, but if you take the difference between the market value and the short sale proceeds over time in the current market value, that's almost $9 million of profit. And on the balance sheet of our size, you might say it's not much, but it's like 2.5-odd percent of the total market value of a rather substantial balance sheet. It's not nothing. It's pretty big, and it didn't require any capital. We required some collateral, but we're like hugely over-collateralized. So in a sense, it's free money or it just requires the trading operations to do it, and we've got that. Anyway, I'll stop here. I just wanted to show that I'm a little tiny bit on the ball. And I will shut up now. And maybe David Arndt will do more of that some highlights that the financials that he decided would be worth just starting with and highlighting. So David, would you? David Arndt: Yes. Thank you, Steven, and thank you for the kind words as well. So hello, everyone. My name is David Arndt, Chief Financial Officer of FRMO. I'll briefly summarize a few key highlights of the company's financial results for the quarter, which included net income attributable to FRMO of $83 million, bringing year-to-date net income up to just shy of $57 million. These results were primarily driven by unrealized gains and losses in the following investments: TPL, which is our largest holding, both directly and in our private funds, increased 82% during Q3 and 40% -- is up 40% year-to-date. Our investment in Horizon Kinetics Holding Corporation, whose share price increased by over 20% during Q3 and MIAX, which although it decreased slightly during the third quarter, still remains a strong driver of year-to-date results, which -- and it has increased about -- by 80% from the prior year-end. Just as a reminder, MIAX also went public in August 2025 and has obviously been a strong strategic investment for the company. These unrealized gains were offset by losses in cryptocurrencies, where the company also has exposure both in direct and indirect ownership. This was led by Bitcoin, which decreased 26% during the third quarter and is down 36% year-to-date. Net income was also reduced by a significant income tax expense, primarily related to those increases in deferred taxes from the unrealized gains on the various investments. Consulting and advisory fees decreased in the third quarter versus the prior year. Those fees are related to our revenue participation agreement with Horizon Kinetics, who did not benefit from significant incentive fees in our third quarter compared to their earnings in our third quarter of the prior year. Regarding the balance sheet, the company's balance sheet is obviously a source of key strength with over $45 million of cash and a well-positioned portfolio of investments. As of February, we are debt-free due to the sale of our land and building to Synteq Digital, which had a small mortgage associated with that property. And that property was leased -- previously leased to a third party that was -- to a related party that was involved in that transaction as well. Investments in... Steven Bregman: Just make a note, David. David Arndt: Yes, yes, go ahead. Steven Bregman: Yes, David, just one note. It's a small thing, but we used to have to say that we couldn't technically say that FRMO was debt-free. Accurately, we had no net debt because we had this modest mortgage on this hosting facility in North Carolina versus all this cash we have. But now we actually have no debt. We actually are debt-free without any qualifications. It was minor. It was minor for us, but it puts us in an even smaller universe of companies. David Arndt: Correct. Yes. Investments in equity securities, limited partnerships and our other equity investments all experienced significant increases during the third quarter due to those unrealized gains that we discussed. And those also resulted in an increase to our deferred tax liability, which can fluctuate based on those investment balances. Just as a reminder, our financial statements consolidate the results of Horizon Kinetics Hard Assets, where FRMO owns just shy of 22%. And the stand-alone results of hard assets can also be seen in a relatively new footnote 12 in the financial statements as well. So that concludes the key highlights that I have for this quarter. I will turn it back over to Th r se, Steven or Peter to continue. Thérèse Byars: Peter, would you like to make any comments? Peter Doyle: So, this is Peter again. Sure. I'll just make a couple of quick comments. And I just want to share further what Murray has kind of instilled in us and has it coded into the DNA of the investors here at Horizon Kinetics/FRMO. So one of the great things and one of the advantages is the -- and Steven touched on this, is time horizon. And when you lengthen your time horizon, you give yourself a tremendous advantage. You're not operating in this dysfunctional world where they construct it where the world ends on 12/31 of any given year. And since that does not coincide with reality, you get very dysfunctional behavior. We do the opposite of that. We try to take advantage of that dysfunction. He also gave us the ability to scout out scarce resources and to find companies that have those resources, but they're frequently packaged in the right securities, so royalties, as an example, really have no operational risk, and they have a lot of optionality. And the last one I was going to touch on is optionality. Many of the securities that we have, have the ability to grow revenues or reduce costs through no effort of their own. So in the case of TPL, when we first bought that, fracking was not a thing. Fracking was developed by the oil and gas industry, but TPL benefited greatly from that. So you can see from the growth of the water business of TPL, the potential for data centers going on that land, there's tremendous optionality built into a lot of the things that we do. And just what Murray's aim was for FRMO, and I'm going to touch on the first question, he understood that in order to drive real value and to get a higher multiple for this other than trading at its cash value and its marketable securities, you needed an operating business. And that was the only way to achieve that. And we were slowly and continue to, and there's no reason for Steven and I to stop, continue to increase our stake in Winland. And I think we're close to now 47%. And I know Murray's intention was definitely to be at least 50% -- over 50% by December of this year, and that's still our intention. So our goal is to have an operating business grow the earnings, grow the revenues through an operating business. And we -- Steven and I earlier today, sat down with the crypto mining team, if you will, and they presented us with an opportunity that I think Murray would have certainly considered both Bitcoin and Litecoin mining right now is very challenging. It's barely profitable. But they had another coin where we could probably mine that coin, sell off a good chunk of it to buy Bitcoin and still fund the operations of buying the machines to mine that coin. So things are being looked at, things are being paid attention to and still very optimistic about what we're likely to be able to turn that crypto business into. So with that, Th r se, unless Steven wants to add something... Steven Bregman: Well, ready to jump -- I look at some of the questions, was relevant -- one of them is relevant to what you were talking about, Peter. One of the questions -- a number of them about Winland. And as Murray might be like to say when he was asked about an ancillary company, look, I don't represent -- I might paraphrase here. I don't represent Winland. It's not for me to speak for Winland. But part of the question was, is it not possible to move more quickly to acquire the remaining shares to get to over 50% in an orderly manner to move FRMO to its next phase of life as an operating company? If acquiring Winland is still -- the plan. So moving more quickly to get there, my sense of it is that we are actually moving in an orderly fashion. And the goal is to get to 50%. And I don't believe it's going to take us very long. But in fact, one aspect of an orderly fashion is to do it in a way that works best for FRMO Corp. And one pays attention to what fiscal year you want to complete it in, so you can efficiently combine financials and have to get audited. And if you go through all that process, yes, you absolutely want to do it in an orderly fashion. We're heading there. And we pretty much know when we're going to do it. And I think we have the resources put in the broad sense, not just the cash to do that, and we'll be hearing more about that. While since I'm on that, I see there are other questions about Winland. There are questions about Winland's revenue mix. One question, someone noticed that Winland's mining revenues have been a smaller and smaller mix of the total revenues, electronics and crypto making up 66% and 34% of revenues in 2021 and gradually shrinking down and kind of getting into some details about what it means about Winland's efficiency in some fashion. But it's not exactly like that. It's not that we're trying to organize a different mix. It's not that we're slowing down the job somehow, but the revenue -- the profitable revenue possibilities in cryptocurrency mining have their cyclicality. I know Murray has spoken at length about this over time. And our current approach of the halving and the predictable and historically empiric observable results around that time is that Bitcoin might fall because miners need to sell some of their accumulated Bitcoin to maybe get ready to buy more mining rigs and so forth and so on. That's just -- that's part of the cycle of what goes out of crypto mining. It's not a management decision other than our very careful and deliberate decision to not buy rigs in order to have market share in order to generate near-term revenues that will be unprofitable in 24 months. So we're very, very, very careful about not making capital expenditures and having more mining revenue just did not show that mining revenue has fallen. There's another question I saw about Winland Electronics. Someone's apparently following it closely. They see that the revenues and margins have been improving and ROA for some years since 2022. And he's looking at customer concentration and thinks it looks like a good business. And FRMO and Winland management has been actively managing the segment with growth, meaning the legacy and ongoing operating business of Winland with the sensors or are these just -- growth numbers just due to external tailwinds. He even taken -- this person has taken -- observed the development cost of enhancing Winland's INSIGHT SaaS product that's Software-as-a Service product has greatly reduced with modern AI. So those are all excellent questions. But I don't know if it would be appropriate. Our in-house counsel will tell us. A better person to answer that question would be Matt Houk, CEO of Winland. I don't know if it's appropriate for him to comment here at one of our earnings calls. But I will tell you that they operate that business as best they can. They're hardworking. They're very detail oriented. They have more spreadsheets in the Board meeting reviews of every angle at which to look at how the business is progressing and what the weaknesses are and what the strengths are and whatnot. They work very hard at that. And as well as they can manage that business, they are doing so. And there are even strategic opportunities for them, perhaps even in data centers. The data centers have a need to monitor constantly and remotely moisture content to the air, stuff like that, temperature. But they're doing what they're doing. They're not -- no one is managing them. They're managing themselves. But it's a question I'll ask of Winland. Somehow I suspect I'll be told it's not appropriate for someone else's CEO to come and speak at our earnings call. But of course, they probably have their own earnings calls. But our interest in Winland, as you know, has got broader goals. We like the business, and we think the business can probably be expanded. And if we can help try to expand strategically, there are opportunities for that. We will help them do that. Do you want to take a shot at any questions, Peter? Peter Doyle: No. I thought maybe we'll let Th r se read them and so people can hear them, and we'll answer them to the best of our ability. So just to remind you, Steven and I can tell you more or less when the Punic Wars were fought and who are the 2 sides. Murray could tell you why there was blunders by specific generals at a given time and why Cato the Elder might have called for the burning of Carthage. His recall on so many subjects are just -- it's going to be impossible to replicate. But we will do our best in answering all questions as they come. Thérèse Byars: One of the questions had to do with Murray's holdings of FRMO Corp. And David Arndt, if you would want to explain that? Could I turn it over to you for a moment? David Arndt: Yes. Sure. Thank you, Thérèse. So yes, as Thérèse mentioned, one of the questions we've received from multiple shareholders was regarding what appeared to be a change in Murray's ownership of FRMO between our 2025 annual financial statements and then our financials for the first quarter of 2026, where it appeared that his ownership increased by 857,000 shares. What occurred was that we thoroughly reviewed both the direct and beneficial ownership requirements of the table in our filing and discovered that some of the affiliated entities controlled by Murray and Horizon Kinetics were shares that were inadvertently excluded. So these other accounts should have been included in those prior periods as well. If Murray's ownership [indiscernible]. Peter Doyle: Are you there? Thérèse Byars: David, I think we lost you. Peter Doyle: So with regard to TPL and MIAX, I know there's concerns about that, and those are very strategic assets for us. I'm sitting here with Jay Kesslen, our counsel, and we are exploring all opportunities. I don't think that I can say much beyond that. And we are having discussions with both companies, and our hope is to be engaged at all times with those companies and potentially getting a board seat on either one or both of those companies. Steven Bregman: That is our intention. I think I can share this because it's a fact. It's not a projection. It's not a judgment. The CEO, Tom Gallagher, of MIAX came to Memorial along -- I think along with his in-house counsel, I think his Chief Operating Officer. They were example of people who wanted to be there and pay their respects. So that's one. Peter Doyle: So there's also a question regarding MIH, which Miami International Holdings and MIAX, and there is a difference between the 2 on the balance sheet. And one just really had to do with being temporarily restricted because it was part of the IPO and the other one was freely traded, and they're both now, I believe, freely traded. So there is no distinction any longer. Thérèse Byars: Thank you, Peter. David, do you have any more to say about Murray's Holdings of FRMO? David Arndt: No, I apologize. I lost power at my house for a moment. So again, apologies for that. No, depending on where I got cut off, essentially, it was just a reporting error. Those -- after our investigation, we determined that those shares were inadvertently excluded. They should have been there from the beginning from -- as part of the annual 2005 financial statement filings in prior periods. But the summarization is that Murray did not acquire 850-plus thousand shares between -- at the end of 2025 and the first quarter of 2026, and we are unaware of him selling any shares in any quantity in that period of time. Thérèse Byars: Okay. Thank you. There was a question I'd be interested in your feedback, Steven and Peter, was it goes like this. In 2019, FRMO shareholder letter, management describes the process where new asset classes are used as learning experiences. It is noted that every employee in all of Horizon Kinetics has the opportunity to develop new knowledge and skills in small experiments free from pressure of substantial loss of capital when expanding gradually into new asset classes. This process is noted as conferring the ability for employees to return to their former responsibilities or transfer to other related more successful projects should the current experiment fail. Could management please share some examples of how this is actually functioned within the Horizon Kinetics complex or still new as well, call it, now matured asset classes and other areas of interest for HK. Peter Doyle: Sure. I'll give you a few examples. Steven Bregman: Okay. Go ahead, Peter. Peter Doyle: Well, I'm going to give one that touches on it partially, but it's -- I think it's critical and reflecting on who we are. James Davolos recently did a podcast, and he went through how we started at the firm working as an assistant on the trading desk and then how we encouraged him to go to school while he was still working. And then as he grew his talents, he came back and moved into the asset management side, and he started the inflation beneficiary ETF. And so that's one very positive example of that. The second one I would say is that the cryptocurrency business, we sat down with 2 gentlemen today that still have responsibilities at HK among other responsibilities, but they also got into the mining aspect of the business, and they're running -- reconciling all of the cryptocurrency that we might be mining, making sure it's paid out correctly, securing the crypto currency that we have on the balance sheet, et cetera. And they've learned a whole different skill set. And that has been very successful for us. Steven Bregman: Actually, they are now at a level of expertise at an extremely small population right? They know cryptocurrency mining up, down forward, back and sideways in an operating sense from securing and sourcing equipment to negotiating it, testing it to negotiating leases with hosting facilities to visiting them around the country to managing rigs to monitoring them, setting up teams to do that. They had none of that a handful of years ago. Any more, Peter? I got some... Peter Doyle: [indiscernible]. Steven Bregman: Okay. So Winland. Matt Houk reminded me in the recent weeks. It completely slipped my mind. Matt Houk said, I'm the reason why Winland in its current form exists. And I said, you're joking. What are you talking about? And he came on originally, he wanted to work for us. We thought he could add some value. I think he'd been working at Goldman. Thérèse Byars: Yes, Goldman. Steven Bregman: He's got a math mind. Like he reads advanced mathematic books for fun when he's on the treadmill, believe it or not. But what should I do? I said, well, we'll find a place for you. You'll find a place. just hang around and what should I do in the meantime? I said, read our research, get to know what we're doing and just -- and he'd pop his head in my office every once in a while like late in the evening and say, I feel like I'm not pulling my weight. I just -- there's anything they could do, let me know. And I say, don't worry about it. You know what, I'm not worried about you. You know why? He said, no, why?. He's a very, very earnest person. Is it because you're worried about it. So I'm not worried about you. I'm worried about the people who don't worry about whether you're doing a good job or not, pulling their weight. But finally came in to me when he repeated the question plaintively. He said, well, is there anything you need? Like I said, well, we could use -- we could always use another publicly traded vehicle, kind of like at FRMO Corp. I explained how we built that up. That can always come in handy. He said, oh, okay. I had no idea. He told me that set him on a path. And he started scouring the stock market for some small company, some deep value kind of company. And he found Winland. It had all this extra cash on the balance sheet and it was trading below the level of cash, and they were bleeding cash because they're spending on R&D that they shouldn't have been spending on. And he managed to get hold of it. And here we are. Now you might say that's old, you're looking for new things. So Peter and I have been -- and Tom Ewing, we've been touching base and our operations managers touching base bit by bit with employees and making sure we know what's going on. So this weekend, I spent -- I was just touching base with Eric Sites. I mentioned earlier, about a trip to Bermuda with the new team up [ Boston ] Stock Exchange. I said, well, how are you doing? He said, fine. We talked a little bit and said, what s up, he said, well, I'm down here in Texas. I've been living here 5 years. And I've been doing some interesting things and developing relationships and working with Murray on some of these. And I said, like what? 3 hours went by. And so I said, can you write up kind of the pr cis of what you're working on. He said, sure. And he sent me a list of 4 or 5 different, very different business opportunities he's been working -- he's been working on. And he's actually very, very good. He's got a good personality as a kind of a business diplomat. He's got a soft touch and he seems to be good at developing relationships. And 2 or 3 of these are actually nearing a point where we might be able to do some real transactions with them, become investment products or something else. And one in particular might become an investment inside of our investment management business, an investment product for us. And others are a little more strategic in nature. James Davolos, our investment committee meeting is on Monday, reviewed about 3 of his. And we talked about a particular group he came across that might be interesting in terms of uranium. I won't say more than that. And it turns out that another one of our analysts actually follows that closely just on a personal basis. And we've now engaged him in being the person who can represent us in some meetings with people in that sector because he kind of has a good sense of what's going on. But we do that kind of stuff. It's a meritocracy in that if someone wants to, and we think they're at the right level for a certain engagement, we'll let them do that. Murray used to think of it as the communist Chinese idea, [ Maoism ]. Let 1,000 flowers bloom. You just don't know which ones will take root and keep growing. So that's part and parcel of the way we operate research and let's call it, career development. Thérèse Byars: Thank you. Are there any of the other questions that you would like to address because we could wrap this up and you could invite shareholders to submit more questions. Steven Bregman: Well, there's one that pops out and Peter and I might both take a crack at it. I'll say it's not a new question. It's a classic question. And it's touchy to answer, I don't know. Really, it's not -- that it's touch. It's more that there's a different conception in mind or understanding. And that has to do with education and discussion. So there are a couple of questions. I'm not looking at them, it's kind of casually go by memory that have to do with, are there things we can do or planning to do or will do with respect to the poor performance of FRMO Corp. And by that they mean with the stock. And where the disconnect or the difference in perspective comes is that it's the kind of question that sometimes I have to address, I know Peter certainly has to also. When we deal with individual, let's say, investment advisory clients and every time a significant holding goes down a lot, let's take TPL. We get a lot of questions saying, what's wrong with TPL and should I be concerned? And in many cases, it doesn't even matter how long the client has been with us and how many cycles they've gone through. I've got a client who has been with us for, I think, 20-plus years. And the last time TPL went down a lot, not so many months ago, he called me up, he said, should I be concerned? He loves us. He actually says, I love you guys. And I said, do we have to have this. And I didn't mean it. There wasn't an edge in my voice. I didn't mean it, and he understood, he understands me. I said, do we have to go through this again, Barry. He said, well, it would make me feel better. I took him through the reasoning. But sometimes what I'll do is this. I've had occasion to be in a room with a client once, I think, with someone came to evaluate Horizon Kinetics, the sub-advisory business and wanted to go through our process. And he asked -- I think he asked about TPL, and it being down so much, are you thinking of doing anything about it. And I was prepared for him. So I had 3 charts, I think, maybe it was 3, maybe 4. And the first chart, it showed TPL, TPL in bold letters, large letters up on top and a chart. And it showed a chart of TPL stock just cratering and coming down and it was flat for a while, not for a long time, but it just a snapshot. And I said, oh, so here we are. This is -- I see it's down, it's down 40%. I said, oh, I'm sorry, I didn't put the dates in. But people don't look at that, right? I said, this is from 12 years ago. Let me -- it was my mistake, I'm sorry. Here's the chart. I gave another chart, and it shows TPL going down even more, maybe it was 55%. I did it again. I don't know what's wrong with me. That was a chart from 8 years ago. Here's where we are today, and I gave him the chart of the entire period. And those prior declines, it's like they barely show in the long-term trend. And I said, look, it's not reflexive for us. We don't keep holding it just because we believe in it. We evaluate it. We evaluate it very carefully, and we think it's worth a lot more. So why should I sell it now? Let me get to other discussions which are complicated for them, but why can't you sell it and buy it back and that whole discussion, which is not necessarily here. So -- and there are periods of time when TPL or other investments simply flat for a long time. And so our response is I'm not concerned about the share price if financially, the company, its intrinsic value, its book value, its earnings capability, whatever particular measure you need is actually doing what it's supposed to do. And that's going up 10% or 15% a year, then I've got a compounding machine and the price will catch up. People can be discomforted by that and say, yes, that's fine for you, but I can die while I wait for this to happen. The thing is we can't do anything about that. That's the market. The market is doing that. Someone can tell us, we go round and round in circles on this logic. Why can't you buy back some shares to push the stock up? Separate from any academic study you can look up that tells you that, that only lasts for so long, we could buy it back, but there's not an awful lot of float, right? And if we do buy it back, some people say, what will you do to increase the float, so people will recognize the stock and therefore, give it a greater market value. So you see -- I see the complaint, and I understand the reason why. I'm not insensitive to it. But we come from a different perspective. That we do what we do. So for instance, we're working on -- actually have a mockup in front of me. It's an inactive mockup of a web page, a series of web page, a website actually for FRMO Corp because we've been remiss in not giving FRMO Corp its own more updated website. And we have our own IT department and Head of the IT department at Horizon Kinetics. Help me put a mockup together, and we can work with outside programmers to build us a website, not unlike the functionality of the Horizon Kinetics website. And among the things I thought I put on there, we still have to get everybody's input, but that's why we have the mockup. I put a stand-in title for the front page, strategic thinking/strategic assets, right? And I put together a table -- actually, just updated a table that our dear and extremely respected former Board member and shareholder, Lester Tanner, had started once. This is a history of FRMO Corp's growth in book value per share. Many be familiar with it and maybe you're signing, I don't know, but it starts on February 29 at 2000 with $10,000 I mentioned earlier, which rounded to $0.01 per share. And at the -- by May 31, 2020, 20 years later, $10,000 have become $115 million and the book value is from [ $0.01 ] to $1.61, that's 19% a year compounded for those 20 years. And as of May 31, 2025, 5 years beyond that, we're up to $353 million, $8.02 a share of book value, and that's a 20.5% annualized compounded after-tax accumulation for the most part of after-tax earnings and appreciation from our strategic assets. So I would ask not cognaciously, but really as part of a debate, a constructive debate, a thought experiment, what else would you have us do? I mean that's a really, really fine result. And we did it without leverage. And so all I can say, maybe Peter might have something else to offer is we can just keep doing what we know how to do best and not to step out of our circle of competence and continue to do things deliberately and know what -- which means try to know what we're doing and why, just like that Burger King discussion [indiscernible] before we do anything else. There's a story maybe I told someone recently this week, I was reminded of talking too much. I was reminded of I was on a bus 15 years ago or so or 20 years ago, they stayed with me, never left me. I don't know where it was. It could have been [indiscernible] in Manhattan. And I was on the bus already and the bus stopped somewhere and a woman got up and she stepped inside the bus, and she's beginning to -- about to pay her fare and the bus driver closes the doors and they start moving. And I was close enough I could hear her. She's asking him, "Is this the bus that goes to such and such a place." And he said, " No, no, it's not." What you want is the other bus and the next stop I get off on, you get off there and look back a block and it's this number, okay? This number, you get the number of the bus. And then after that, she got off, he just seemed dumbfounding. He couldn't reconcile this, and he was speaking out loud as this to himself, but loud enough that everybody in the bus could hear and about 20 iterations of this. He went on for a couple of minutes. And he's basically saying to himself out loud to all of us, "How could somebody get on a bus and not know where it's going? I don't understand it. Why would you -- if you don't know where you're going, why would you get on a bus before you stand and figure out what bus?" He went on and on like this. Basically, we have to know where we're going. If we think it's a good idea, we always entertain new ideas. But we're doing what we can. I don't know what to do at the stock price. I'll contest you other than maybe get more people to come and ask questions [indiscernible] and I hope that we answered them well. Peter? Peter Doyle: So maybe I'm an optimist, Steve, but my intention is to hang on to it. And if you studied the career of Warren Buffett, you have seen that I think from 1964 to 1982, he was compounding his book value at a very high rate and the stock went nowhere. I think you would have lost money as a shareholder, and then it took off. So returns come in a very episodic fashion. And we have intentions of trying to grow this business and compounding at the rate that it has historically. So I'm just going to conclude from my standpoint, one of my new roles in life is helping to spread the legacy of Murray Stahl and the lessons he gave us the way he lives his life. He is not replaceable and -- but he did give us the foundation. He did give us the skills and the tools to basically grow and make things better for our organizations. and that's our intention. And I can tell you that the sadness here is also offset somewhat by the willingness and the energy of the people to step in and to fulfill roles that they probably didn't think they would have, and that's been very gratifying to see. So again, I know a lot of you -- I'm not going to say like Murray Stahl. I know you felt love for Murray Stahl as did Steven and I. And if you like to reach out to us, talk to us, we'll happily share more private stories with you. But that's all I really have to say for today, Steve. Steven Bregman: Okay. On that topic or any of them? Should we wrap up or... Peter Doyle: Pretty much any... Steven Bregman: Okay. A couple of pop out to me, and I'll confess. I don't mind being honest about some things. They're easy ones. I picked a couple of easy ones. This one, Jay, are you allow to speak for us here? I'll tell you what the question is before you answer because it's about when FRMO reports its top 5 holdings, this person noticed the delineation between MIH restricted shares and MIAX. Can you explain the difference in how one could determine the value for the MIH shares? And for example, is there any fixed ratio of MIAX shares represented for restrict MIH shares? And I think this is no longer a consideration, but maybe you can explain it in a proper fashion. Jay Kesslen: Yes, that's correct, Peter, Steve. There were some shares that were previously restricted. All of the restriction on the Miami shares is lifted, so they're eligible to be traded. They still may carry the restricted legend on them, but that's a fairly simple process to have that removed. But as we sit today, all of the shares, Miami shares owned by FRMO are unrestricted. In fact, all of the shares owned by Horizon Kinetics are unrestricted or eligible to be unrestricted. Steven Bregman: I see one more. It looks like an easy one. If our analyst, James Davolos here because he is one of the specialty in energy, we talked to you about this for 10 or 15 minutes in a very rapid fashion. But then the question is, unlike the oil in Venezuela, Guyana oil is a very similar grade to that of the oil extracted from the Permian shale and the oil reserves have in Guyana have much lower breakevens. And do you have any thoughts on risks to Permian shale oil prices posed by the development of the oil industry in Guyana, especially now that threat of invasion by [indiscernible] Venezuela significantly reduced for years involvement [indiscernible]. No, I would say no. And no, for probably a lot of reasons, and James has had more reasons, more detailed reasons than [indiscernible]. But while you wait for development of some foreign oil fields and all the risks that go on with it, I'm not familiar with them. So I know they're ready to produce another 5 years. And then shipping them to us, if that's the question we import, we're a net exporter, although we do need certain kinds of oil for ourselves that we import within that whole mix. But I don't know that's something that's technically like at the wellhead cheaper than oil in West Texas. I think we're talking about importing it here, maybe that's not the question, whether it remains so once you have shipping costs and so forth. We have plenty of use for our oil here. And in fact, one of the challenges and opportunities in the United States is that all of the extra natural gas, the associated natural gas that comes up with oil, we don't have enough takeaway capacity for it, and we don't have enough consumption for it. And we don't -- it's problematic. It's one of the reasons why natural gas in the Permian Basin has been flat to negative prices for years now because there isn't enough pipeline taken at prices and basically it has to be paid to get rid of it. And it's a challenge for the oil producers here because if they can't get rid of the excess natural gas, they actually curtail some of the oil drilling. So -- and yet, now we have extra demand coming from 2 places. We have extra demand coming from data centers. We realize now they have to make their own off the grid sources of electric power and that will be predominantly the method of choice will be natural gas, coal-fired cogeneration -- natural gas-fired cogeneration plants. There's going to be a lot more natural demand for natural gas from there. We have LNG capacity, which is going up tremendously to ship to other nations overseas, predominantly Asia and Asian continent. So it just -- the oil market is way more complicated than that. And I don't see it. Maybe people are more likely think it is an issue, but it doesn't turn a couple. Thérèse Byars: Steve, if I remember correctly, Murray used to talk about it isn't just the oil in Texas. It's also the availability of water for certain of the processes for producing the electricity. Steven Bregman: Well, that goes to the center of the value of TPL, people listening, I presume they may know this, but maybe it should be mentioned that water is now the limiting factor. It always was. It just even people in the -- certainly, Wall Street wasn't where didn't think it through. And I think even an awful lot of $1 billion class data centers weren't really thinking it through is that water, not natural gas is really the limiting factor core data center build-out because not least for the cooling the data center itself, but the data center needs the electric power, which has to come from the own associated power plant and that requires -- that's a thermal plant. It burns stuff, makes heat to boil water to make steam direct turbines. And that whole process, it requires a cooling process, and you need water for that. And for those of you who don't know, and surprising the first time one comes across it often, if you go to U.S. Geologic service, they keep track of all the water users in the United States and where they are and where the aquifers are and where the aquifers are being extended and so forth. But they'll give you information about the largest water users, all the -- actually all the different users, whether it's factories, industrial, commercial, household, so forth and so on. And the largest water user in the United States, most by industry sector, most people would say it's agriculture, but it's not. It's electric power, it's utilities because they need the water to cool their plant. It doesn't matter actually whether it's nuclear or coal or natural gas. They all need water. Natural gas needs the least amount, natural gas-fired plants. So you can have a data center somewhere. You can have all the land you want. It's not near town. Nobody is bothering you as far as the politics goes. You found a significant source of long-term natural gas. You're ready to go but you don't have water and you dead in the water. And you really can't do it in farming areas because they're already -- it's already a different kind of crisis, it depends where or challenge, but they've overdrawn their aquifers for many, many years. There's been land subsidence and there could be permanent damage of the aquifers. So they don't want you there even if you're out in the middle of nowhere. So the geology and the geography and the engineering needs and so forth, they all kind of like a slope that all kind of leads toward -- not exclusively, but it leads towards the Permian Basin, where they have all of the right there, including an excess supply of the cheapest natural gas in the world. So and as far as TPL goes, water is the fastest-growing part of their business. And at some point, it will surpass the revenues from natural gas and oil. And there's a reason for that, I understand why, it has to happen. It has to happen because as wells in the Delaware Basin age and/or as you go deeper for the next layer of oil, the amount of water mixed in with the oil because that whole area was [indiscernible] increases. So without even doing anything, so long as there's continued drilling in the Delaware Basin, the ratio of water to oil that comes up will climb and climb and climb. It will climb from 3 -- which well in exactly have from 3 barrels of water per barrel of oil to 4 to 5 to 6. And for the drillers, getting rid of the oil and getting rid of the water is also a limiting factor. If they can't get takeaway capacity for that water, they have to stop drilling. Like where is it going to go, right? So they have to have -- and it's a growing business. They have to have somebody who's reliable, who's got the network to make alterations to what the volumes are or takeaway volumes are necessary at one well or another. They need a company that can both take away water, but also oddly deliver water to them, different kinds of water for injection into the well to actually do the fracking. And so that is a really important growing business and TPL is there, too. There's a reason we don't sell any shares. Thérèse Byars: Thank you very much, Steve. Are there any other questions you'd like to address? Steven Bregman: I was going through. Peter, anything pop out to you? Peter Doyle: I think we hit all of the ones that we could possibly answer with any degree of confidence. I think we're only leaving 1 or 2 that are there that I don't have any insight, but I would certainly research them and get back to whoever asked those questions. So... Steven Bregman: I like that. Yes. Yes. There are some questions there. I'm not sure I could do a responsible job of or answer with confidence or competence. But we do have the resources at Horizon Kinetics to compose some answers for the people who request response. Thérèse Byars: Was there more that you wanted to add? Steven Bregman: None. Thérèse Byars: Okay. So I just want to thank you both for stepping up and giving our shareholders this information and for the beautiful tributes to Murray. So if there's nothing else, would either of you like to give closing remarks? Steven Bregman: Yes, I'll do a bit of a sign off and maybe Peter wants to -- I can almost hear his words in my head at the end of Murray's words in my head at the end of a call like this, which is that we do thank you for showing up and for asking questions and for listening. And next time, we hope to be able to give you responses at a more detailed level. We have to start somewhere and we're starting where we can think we can provide appropriate answers. And next time we can do a better job, I hope. Thank you for being here. Peter Doyle: Yes, I have nothing further to add other than thank you. Steve and I will endeavor to make this successful. And as Steven pointed out, and I had also said, we're on rock-solid foundation, and we should be able to navigate this difficult time pretty easily as a result of that. And I think we'll have good things in the future. Thérèse Byars: Thank you both very much. I believe this is the end of the earnings call. So you may now disconnect.
The president feted the biggest holders of his namesake memecoin at Mar-a-Lago on Saturday, cheering on a crypto market still fighting through a monthslong slump.
The news doesn't stop when markets close. Hosts David Gura, Christina Ruffini and Lisa Mateo bring clarity, context and a bit of humor to the weekend's biggest headlines, LIVE from New York.
XRP ( CRYPTO: XRP ) has spent most of 2026 stuck waiting on one key catalyst: The CLARITY Act.
FOX Business' Jeff Flock joins 'Varney & Co.' to break down the Justice Department's criminal probe into soaring beef prices as Americans face sticker shock at the grocery store and experts point to a “perfect storm” driving costs higher.
For most of the past three months, the XRP price has been stuck between $1.28 and $1.45.
Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins discusses the Trump administration's plan to combat rising fertilizer costs impacting farmers and more on 'Varney & Co.' 00:00 The Looming Crisis: Fertilizer Prices & Food Costs 00:45 America's Fertilizer Advantage & Past Price Hikes 01:30 Short-Term Solutions for Fertilizer Shortages 02:15 Reshoring Fertilizer Production: The Long-Term Plan 03:18 USDA's Palantir Partnership: "One Farmer, One File"
The Strait of Hormuz oil shock has yet to crash demand as the rich world borrows from its stocks and pays up to secure supply. Traders are now sounding the alarm that a harsh adjustment is coming.