Kevin Garrett - Integrated Financial Group

LIV Golf is reportedly losing its funding.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund is planning to stop backing the league after 2026. The CEO confirmed the season continues as planned — but didn’t say much about what comes after.

The numbers are hard to ignore. Over $5 billion invested since 2022, broadcast rights generating just $2.7 million in reported income, and total losses exceeding $1.1 billion since launch. This is what a business looks like when capital is doing the work that revenue is supposed to do.

It’s a pattern that shows up in other sovereign-backed ventures — from the SoftBank Vision Fund to state-sponsored soccer clubs — where patient capital reshapes an industry before the economics are tested. At some point the funding becomes more measured, and what was built has to stand on its own.

LIV did change professional golf. Purses went up, players gained real leverage, and the sport’s economics shifted. That part is probably lasting.

But there’s a difference between changing an industry and building a sustainable business inside it. When the capital picture shifts, that distinction is what gets tested.

Today’s Supreme Court ruling limiting the administration’s tariff authority wasn’t a big surprise to me. I’ve been saying in my meetings for months that the rationale for the tariffs was on thin legal ice. The question I had was whether the Supreme Court, which has consistently sided with the administration, would support them or push back. When sweeping economic policy leans on expansive executive interpretation, the judiciary often pushes back.

I don’t expect this to be the end of trade policy debates. Legal challenges may continue for years under different statutes. The administration has signaled that there are alternative ways to maintain the tariff policies that they want, including the House modifying the International Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA).

Trade policy will remain a political tool, and further legal challenges are likely to unfold over time. There is also the question of the government paying back the taxes that have been collected, which I think ultimately will be tied up in court for years to come.

Markets responded constructively on Friday morning because uncertainty declined. Tariffs function as a consumer tax on imported goods. Even the federal government acknowledged this week that 90% of tariffs are absorbed by the consumer. This follows other studies by independent sources that have the number between 91-96%. Limiting them eases pressure on supply chains and input costs. That’s incrementally supportive for corporate margins.

But it’s important to separate narratives from data.

Tariffs primarily affect goods. Goods are not the dominant driver of inflation today. Services account for roughly 60% of the CPI basket, and over the past year, services inflation — housing, healthcare, insurance, wage-intensive sectors — has contributed more to headline inflation than goods. Goods disinflation has already been occurring in many areas. That helps explain why bond markets did not price tariff policy as a structural inflation spiral.

On the Treasury side, another common concern is foreign demand. The foreign share of U.S. debt ownership has declined over the past decade, largely because total federal debt has expanded significantly. In absolute terms, foreign investors still hold more than $9 trillion in Treasuries — near record levels.

There’s also a quieter dynamic worth noting. If reduced tariffs modestly lower consumer prices, disposable income improves at the margin. Even a small lift in household savings expands the domestic pool of capital available to purchase government debt. That supports bond market resilience over time.

None of this changes the fiscal math. Deficits are still elevated. Debt-to-GDP remains historically high. Over time, those numbers matter.

What Friday’s ruling does reinforce is something more foundational. Institutional guardrails are functioning, and the separation of powers is intact. Major economic policy can be tested and reviewed. Markets operate within a framework of rules, not impulses.

For investors, that framework carries more weight than any single headline. When institutions are credible, risk premiums tend to stay contained. When rules are predictable, capital is deployed more confidently. That stability supports long-term returns far more than short-term political wins or losses.

NOTE:: I often post more real-time comments on the markets, investing, financial planning as well as some lifestyle posts that I find interesting and want to share on my LinkedIn page: www.linkedin.com/in/KevinGarrettifg.

Kevin Garrett - Integrated Financial Group Financial Strategist for Business Owners, Women in Transition & Professional Athletes | Exit & Liquidity Planning | Stock Options | Legacy Wealth Architect