interest

Mark Walter isn’t selling the Dodgers, right?

He is selling the Lakers. He is selling his share of Chelsea, the Premier League team. He is looking into selling the Sparks.

And now he is looking into selling his share of the Cadillac Formula One racing team, as Sportico first reported Monday.

But keeping the Dodgers, right? “No matter what,” Walter told the California Post last week.

Wait a second, though. In August, Walter’s TWG Global holding company issued a statement that was definitive in two specific aspects: the Dodgers were “not being sold” and his company was “not considering exiting its stake in the Cadillac Formula 1 team.”

So I reached out to Walter’s company and to his personal spokesman, asking how to reconcile the definitive statement denying interest in a Formula One sale with the news of a possible sale and, in light of that development, whether the denials of interest in a Dodgers sale should remain credible.

No one at the company emailed me back, and the spokesman declined to comment. Someone in contact with Walter, speaking on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to comment, advised me to wait and see if a Formula One deal actually materializes and, if so, for what value.

Amid federal investigations into whether the insurance companies Walter controls might have violated laws designed to protect investors, and as he is a defendant in multiple civil lawsuits filed by investors that allege fraud and breach of contract, Walter is selling off assets from his sports empire.

He could generate a significant share of the more than $20 billion he might need to recapitalize the insurance companies and satisfy state regulators. It is uncertain how that might influence the federal investigations and civil lawsuits.

The Lakers sold for $12.5 billion — the valuation for the entire team, not for Walter’s controlling share.

Walter is seeking $3 billion for his interest in the Formula One team, according to Sportico, and $700 million for the Sparks, according to Bloomberg. The sale of the Chelsea stake, owned jointly by Walter and Dodgers co-owner Todd Boehly, generated about $1.27 billion, according to the Financial Times.

The sale of the Dodgers could generate $10 billion to $13 billion, The Times has reported.

None of this is to say Walter is not genuine in his proclamation that he is not selling the Dodgers. He said the Dodgers would win, and they have: three championships within six years, after three in the previous 56. The shine has been restored to an L.A. crown jewel.

But things can change. Potential Dodgers bidders, including Times owner Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, are considering offers should Walter decide to sell. Some have inquired discreetly and been told what everyone has been told: the team is not for sale. Commissioner Rob Manfred said the league is keeping an eye on developments surrounding Walter’s insurance empire.

“As always when we have an investigation — external, law enforcement, whatever — we monitor that,” Manfred said at the World Series. “That’s where we are right now. We’re just watching what’s going on right now.”

And that is indeed where we are right now: We don’t know what’s going to happen with the feds, and in the courts. For today, and for the immediate future, the Dodgers are not for sale. But plans can change, as Walter’s Formula One team just learned.

Rates will remain 3.75-4 percent even as inflation continues to rise.

The United States Federal Reserve is set to hold interest rates steady in its final monetary policy decision before the US midterm elections.

The central bank will maintain rates at 3.75-4 percent, following a 10-2 vote, in line with expectations.

CME FedWatch, which tracks the likelihood of monetary policy decisions, indicated that there was more than a 90 percent chance rates would remain unchanged.

“Economic activity is expanding at a strong pace,” the Fed said in its press release announcing the decision on Wednesday. “While uncertainty remains elevated owing, in part, to geopolitical developments, domestic spending has been resilient. Productivity growth is strong, and capital investment is robust. Job gains have kept pace with the workforce, and the unemployment rate has changed little.”

The Fed noted how inflation continues to rise.

It also added, “The accumulation of more information will help the Committee determine the policy stance appropriate to ensure a timely return of inflation to the Committee’s 2 percent goal.”

The most recent Consumer Price Index (CPI) report showed the annual inflation rate increasing to 3.7 percent in September, up from 3.4 percent in August, with energy prices largely accounting for the monthly surge.

There were signs earlier this month that the central bank would maintain benchmark interest rates, with the Fed’s chair for supervision, Michelle Bowman, advocating a “wait and see” approach.

“I don’t feel any urgency for taking further action at this point,” she said at this month’s International Monetary Fund-World Bank meetings in Bangkok, Thailand. “We really need to take some time and understand how things will evolve.”

The decision comes before Thursday’s release of the Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) Price Index report, which is used by the central bank to assess inflation and inform its decisions.

Today’s Fed announcement follows an interest-rate hike rise last month, amid surging inflation – the first increase by the central bank since July 2023. The move drew criticism from US President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly pressed the Fed to cut rates since taking office. At the time, he wrote on Truth Social that “interest rates in the United States should be 1% or less.”

The Fed’s next monetary policy meeting is scheduled for December 8-9, when it will give its final rate decision of the year.

Current forecasts point to a quarter-point interest rate increase.

Buying a home in California requires a colossal amount of money — and coming up with a 20% cash down payment of $180,000 for a median price home is a staggering hurdle for many would-be buyers.

That down payment amount is based on the statewide median $900,000 price tag for a house, according to recent data from the California Assn. of Realtors. In Los Angeles County, the median price for a single-family home is $935,000. In Orange County, it’s $1.5 million.

Proposition 37 on the Nov. 3 ballot would allow the state to amass a $25 billion down payment assistance program for middle-class households. For perspective on the enormity of the measure before voters, one of the state’s existing down payment programs, California Dream For All, launched several years ago with $500 million, just 2% of the funding involved in Proposition 37.

The ballot measure would allow qualified prospective homebuyers to borrow up to 17% of the sales price of a new home, contributing 3% of the down payment from their own funds.

The program would not be funded by taxpayers, but instead by the interest charged to borrowers on their down payment loans, also referred to as second mortgages. The measure has garnered widespread support, including from Gov. Gavin Newsom, statewide unions and mayors from Santa Monica to San José.

“Prop. 37 is a historic opportunity to expand homeownership opportunities for generations of working families — at zero cost or risk to taxpayers,” Newsom said in a statement.

But Proposition 37 carries a significant caveat: Any home purchased through the program must be new construction, which could limit its potential reach because of the high cost of building, some critics said.

Also, the proposition does not spell out the terms or interest rates on the loans, which would be worked out if the measure is approved. And some have questioned whether there will be sufficiently robust interest from investors to buy the state-issued bonds that will be used to fund the down payment loans.

The concept of down payment assistance is not new. Cities and states, including California, have long offered such programs to low- and middle-income homeowners, either in the form of loans or grants, and there are reportedly more than 2,700 such programs across the country.

Nevada, Connecticut, Massachusetts and New York all have programs to help homebuyers afford a down payment. Since 2021, New York has dispersed $70 million in down payment assistance. In Massachusetts, more than $146 million has been doled out in down payment help to homebuyers since 2020.

How the program would work

Under Proposition 37, down payment loans would work like any other, and would carry an interest rate and payback period — all of which would be determined by the California Housing Finance Agency.

To qualify, borrowers would need to have lived in the state for at least a year and earn no more than 200% of the local median income; in Los Angeles County, for example, that equates to a family of four earning no more than $216,200 a year.

Borrowers don’t have to be first-time homebuyers, which is often a requirement of down payment aid programs. But they would need to live in the home.

The program would restrict the price of qualifying homes, depending on the county where someone is trying to buy. A general estimate, though, is that would-be homebuyers would be limited to houses costing between $1 million and $1.5 million and the homes, more importantly, would need to be new construction.

While Proposition 37 has little opposition, and is supported by unions, chambers of commerce and organizations representing builders, the League of Women Voters opposes the ballot measure, concerned it would saddle residents with too much debt and that the terms of these loans are opaque, the details worked out only after the vote.

New homes only

Only buyers of newly-built homes would be eligible for these loans. That could include existing commercial buildings that had been converted into homes, such as condos or townhomes.

This provision is uncommon as many existing down payment assistance programs don’t strictly limit the type of home someone can buy — only the sale price. Bob Hertzberg, former Senate Majority Leader and the architect of the proposal, said he wanted Proposition 37 to spur new construction.

“The problem is we have to increase supply,” Hertzberg said. The shortage of homes in the state is estimated to range anywhere from 840,000 to upwards of 3 million.

By creating more demand for new homes, he said, the hope is that builders will respond en masse.

But some groups are wary of this logic. One analysis, funded by the Proposition 37 campaign, estimated that this program could result in the building of 190,000 homes in the state, although the report’s author said it was “impossible to know” the true number given the various factors that impact housing.

Matthew Lewis, director of communications for California YIMBY, an organization that advocates making it easier and cheaper to build homes, said high prices make it clear that the demand for homes already exists and that Proposition 37 does little to address a bigger issue: the cost of building.

“In concept, [Proposition 37 is] a great idea,” Lewis said. “The thing we’re concerned about is, California is still way behind on its housing production goals, so there’s the risk of an unintended consequence of instead of having 10 people bidding on a house, now you’ve given a couple folks down payment assistance, and so there’s now 12 people bidding on the same house.”

To drive builders to construct eligible homes, the measure would allow them to opt into a “qualified builder” option. As long as they adhere to price caps, agree to certain labor requirements and fix repairs that arise, they’re protected from lawsuits from buyers concerning defects 10 years after construction of the home.

Homebuilders say even given some relief from litigation, they aren’t sure Proposition 37 would push construction into overdrive.

“There are so many more things the state, city and county could do to help add more supply [of homes],” said Paul Schon, a developer who builds apartments in L.A. County. He said tackling permitting times and red tape involved in building would have a greater impact. “This is minor,” he said.

Interest rates could be a tough sell

Many down payment assistance programs offer interest-free loans to homebuyers, including an existing program run by CalHFA.

But in order to be self-funding, the fixed-rate loans offered through Proposition 37 would carry interest. If passed, the state would issue revenue bonds, selling them to investors and using that money to issue loans to homebuyers. The investors are repaid with the interest paid on the loans.

According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, CalHFA would decide the total amount of bonds to issue and over what period of time.

Revenue bonds are generally viewed as riskier than other types of government bonds, in part because they’re backed by the promise of revenue from a specific project — in this case, payment by individual borrowers. That means interest rates on these loans could be higher than borrowers might like or be able to afford.

Hertzberg said he’s talked to investors who may be willing to buy these bonds at cheaper rates, given the crushing issue the funding is trying to solve. This would keep interest rates down for borrowers. He said he’s appealing to foundations and socially-minded tech leaders.

One of the biggest financial backers of the measure is the political nonprofit Building a Better California, which has been fighting the billionaire’s tax with help from wealthy donors, including Google co-founder Sergey Brin.

Hertzberg, for his part, refused to name any organization or person who may be interested in buying the bonds that would fund this program.

This article is part of The Times’ equity reporting initiative, funded by the James Irvine Foundation, exploring the challenges facing low-income workers and the efforts being made to address California’s economic divide.

Management is targeting loan and deposit expansion, notably in Texas and through Innovation Banking, with outlook for growth in net interest income, reduction in noninterest expense, and active pursuit of revenue synergies in wealth and commercial banking.

WASHINGTON — Investments in pharmaceutical companies made on behalf of President Trump increased significantly after he returned to the White House last year, with his portfolio adding millions of dollars in stock in firms that benefited from a Republican-backed law that shields certain medications from Medicare price negotiations, according to a report from congressional Democrats.

The report, released Friday by the Joint Economic Committee’s minority arm, found that Trump’s pharmaceutical stock holdings grew from a maximum reported value of $1.7 million in 2024 to as much as $56.2 million at the end of 2025. The report said that included up to $39.1 million worth of stock held in companies that benefited from exemptions to Medicare’s drug price negotiation program, which came through a provision in the Republicans’ 2025 tax and spending law.

Additional analysis of Trump’s financial disclosures provided by committee Democrats showed that his investment portfolio bought as much as $2.55 million in shares of pharmaceutical companies benefiting from the exemptions on three dates before he signed the legislation in July 2025. That included up to $950,000 in purchases on July 1, 2025, the day the Senate passed the bill. His portfolio also bought as much as $1 million in AbbVie stock in August 2025, after the bill became law.

The Republican president’s wealth has grown since he took office last year through a web of business interests, many of which have benefited from the policy moves of his administration. The White House has repeatedly denied any ethics issues and accused Democrats of “attempts to fabricate conflicts of interest.”

The report also noted that the exemptions policy could leave some Medicare beneficiaries paying thousands of dollars more for certain cancer treatments and other medications than they would have if Medicare had been allowed to negotiate lower prices.

The findings come as Trump has made lowering prescription drug costs a central part of his healthcare policy, striking deals with pharmaceutical companies that his administration says will make medications more affordable for Americans, although drug pricing is based on a complicated set of factors.

Recent polling from the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research shows that most Americans think Trump is profiting off the presidency in unethical or illegal ways and is focused more on his wealth than on helping people like them.

Democratic Sen. Maggie Hassan, who leads the Joint Economic Committee’s minority arm, called the report’s findings “outrageous and yet typical from this president, who makes the American people foot the bill again and again for his own gains.”

Davis Ingle, a White House spokesperson, said Trump’s stock and bond portfolio is independently managed by third-party financial institutions. He denied any conflict of interest.

“Neither President Trump nor any member of his family has any ability to direct, influence, or provide input regarding how the portfolio is invested or when investments are bought or sold,” Ingle said in a statement.

A law from President Biden’s Democratic administration allowed Medicare for the first time to negotiate prices for some of the costliest prescription drugs. Republicans’ 2025 tax and spending bill expanded an existing exemption for medications developed to treat rare diseases or conditions, delaying when certain costly drugs could become eligible for negotiations or excluding them entirely, according to healthcare research nonprofit KFF.

Also known as the orphan drug exclusion, the carve out allows drug companies to continue charging lucrative prices that might otherwise have been reduced through Medicare negotiations.

Supporters of the change argued that a broader exemption would encourage drug companies to develop treatments for rare diseases. Critics say it allows makers of blockbuster medications to avoid negotiations that could lower costs for Medicare and its recipients.

The report estimated that Medicare beneficiaries receiving the cancer drugs Keytruda, manufactured by Merck, and Opdivo, by Bristol Myers Squibb, could pay roughly $5,000 more annually than they would if Medicare negotiated prices for the medications. Trump’s portfolio includes stock in both firms.

The report also said that Trump’s portfolio continued to buy and sell pharma company stocks throughout the first eight months of 2026, adding as much as $3.5 million in stock wealth in the sector.

All recent U.S. presidents have dumped their stocks before assuming office, put their money in broadly diversified funds or set up a “blind” trust so they couldn’t even know what they owned.

Trump has put his broader business interests in a trust managed by his sons. But the arrangement rejects the conflict of interest protections that his recent predecessors in office had instituted.

Hussein writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Bernard Condon in New York contributed to this report.