In 2007, at the ripe old age of 26, Jared Kushner made a big splash in the New York City real-estate industry when he bought 666 Fifth Avenue, for what was then a record-setting $1.8 billion. Kushner Companies, which Jared took over after his father, Charles, went to prison—for, among other things, a very classy revenge scheme that involved hiring a prostitute to seduce his brother-in-law for cooperating with a federal probe against him—invested $500 million in the property and financed the rest through debt. Even without the rapidly approaching financial crisis, which Jared failed to see coming, the deal looked crazy; with the building almost completely occupied, the revenue coming in covered just two-thirds of Kushner Cos.’s costs. When the global financial crisis did hit, the family was forced to sell the tower’s retail space for $525 million. By 2009, 666 Fifth was reportedly “making just 69 cents on rent for every $1 it owed.” By 2011, the skyscraper was “teetering near insolvency,” and almost half of the office space was sold to Vornado Trust Realty for an $80 million capital injection, with the company later acquiring more of the tower the following year. As of today, Kushner Cos. has less than two years to come up with $1.2 billion, when 666’s interest-only mortgage is due.

All in all, it’s a less than stellar set of circumstances for a deal that was supposed to demonstrate Jared’s investing genius—purportedly his primary qualification for holding one of the most powerful positions in the White House, beyond marrying the president’s daughter. It’s also particularly stressful given that Kushner Cos. was apparently this close to receiving a big bailout from a billionaire who is one of the richest, most powerful men in Qatar. Which perhaps helps to explain, in part, why the White House has taken such a curiously vengeful position toward Doha in the midst of the Qatari diplomatic crisis currently roiling the Middle East.

The Intercept’s Ben Walsh, Ryan Grim, and Clayton Swisher report that beginning in 2015, before Kushner sold his stake in 666 Fifth Avenue to work in the White House, he and his father, Charles, negotiated directly with former Qatar prime minister turned billionaire investor Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim al-Thani, a.k.a. H.B.J., to refinance the property. Of H.B.J., the former emir of Qatar once said, “I may run this country, but he owns it.” According to The Intercept, the billionaire “ultimately agreed to invest at least $500 million” through his investment firm Al Mirqab, on the condition that Kushner Companies secure additional outside refinancing. And in the wake of the election, the president’s in-laws had no shortage of people wanting to do business with them for, oh, no particular reason at all. One such party was an opaque Chinese insurance firm called Anbang, with ties to Beijing’s political elite. Unfortunately, Anbang pulled out in the wake of deafening cries of conflicts of interest, and with them, went H.B.J. All of which casts the president’s recent behavior toward Qatar—a key U.S. ally that hosts a major U.S. military base—in a somewhat troubling light.

On June 5, Saudi Arabia, the U.A.E., Egypt, and Bahrain suddenly “cut diplomatic and commercial ties with Qatar . . . accusing it of supporting terrorism, meddling in their internal affairs and advancing the agenda of regional foe Iran”—all allegations Qatar denies. The following day, Trump stunned lawmakers on both sides of the aisle by unexpectedly joining in on the Qatar-bashing. “During my recent trip to the Middle East I stated that there can no longer be funding of Radical Ideology. Leaders pointed to Qatar - look!” he tweeted. And: “So good to see the Saudi Arabia visit with the King and 50 countries already paying off. They said they would take a hard line on funding extremism, and all reference was pointing to Qatar. Perhaps this will be the beginning of the end to the horror of terrorism!”

On June 9, mere hours after Secretary of State Rex Tillerson called for an end to the blockade of Qatar, Trump trashed the sovereign state again, alleging that it has “historically been a funder of terrorism at a very high level.” According to a “close associate of Tillerson,” the secretary was “convinced that the true author of Trump’s statement was U.A.E. ambassador Yousef Al Otaiba, a close friend of Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner,” and that, in the associate’s words, “Rex put two-and-two together and concluded that this absolutely vacuous kid was running a second foreign policy out of the White House family quarters. Otaiba weighed in with Jared and Jared weighed in with Trump.” (A White House official responded to that conclusion by saying “Tillerson may initially have had a view, then the president has his view, and obviously the president’s view prevails.”) Weeks later, The Intercept notes, Trump went after Qatar again during a private fundraiser, making fun of its name as only a man with a superior grasp on diplomacy could: “We’re having a dispute with Qatar—we’re supposed to say Qatar. It’s Qatar, they prefer. I prefer that they don’t fund terrorism.”

Of course, we don’t know for sure if the administration’s stance on Qatar was the result of one man—albeit, a very powerful one—deciding not to do a deal with the Kushners and Jared deciding to punish the whole country. Certainly, neither the Kushners nor the Trumps are known for holding grudges or retaliating against people they believe have wronged them. But as a source told The Intercept, if the Qataris had foreseen the blockade—and Trump’s subsequent support of it—coming, they most certainly would have put up the money for 666 Fifth Avenue, even despite knowing it would be a money-losing proposition, as “It would have been much cheaper.”

A spokesperson for Kushner Cos. told The Hive, “Kushner Companies began discussions around 666 5th Avenue with Hamad Bin Jaber, a well-established commercial real estate investor in New York City, more than two years ago. Kushner Companies recently terminated those talks, and is currently reassessing the financing structure of the overall project. The company remains in active discussions with a number of potential investors around the property's redevelopment.”

If you would like to receive the Levin Report in your inbox daily, click here to subscribe.

Tax reform might be more of a 2018 dream

Remember Trump’s big plan for tax reform? The absolute most minor details of which were revealed in a one-page, double-spaced, bullet point outline in April? Which the president subsequently, through the power of his mind, turned into a bill that he said was making great progress through Congress, which no one from Congress has actually seen, on account of this being a figment of his imagination? Its prospects aren’t so hot. Per Bloomberg:

Several obstacles await lawmakers, including an ongoing health-care fight, divisions among Republicans on the basic parameters of a tax bill, and a maelstrom of upcoming deadlines to keep the government running and avert a catastrophic default on U.S. debt. Republican leaders had hoped to spend July working on what House Speaker Paul Ryan has called a once-in-a-generation bid to overhaul the U.S. tax code. But the Senate remains bogged down with the president’s call for undoing Obamacare. With no clear endgame for that effort, observers question the prospects for tax legislation, which can’t move procedurally until health care is off the agenda.

“The longer the health-care debate drags out, the harder it’ll be to get to the finish line on tax reform,” Brookings Institution senior fellow William Galston told Bloomberg. “Health care and tax reform are linked in very concrete ways.” G. William Hoagland, a senior vice president at the Bipartisan Policy Center, was slightly less sanguine in his assessment. “There’s a train wreck coming,” he told reporter Sahil Kapur. “I don’t see a tax bill in 2017 at all. Not at all. Not comprehensive tax reform. No way.”

Republicans caught between rock and populist place

As you may recall, Donald Trump ran for president on a populist platform in which he vowed to fight the “global power structure” that he claimed had “robbed [the] working class” and lined the “pockets of a handful of large corporations and political entities.” So it will be interesting to see how he and his G.O.P. brethren respond to the news that on Monday, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau—which Republicans like Jeb Hensarling would have people believe regularly dons a ski mask and robs financial institutions at gun point—adopted a rule that would allow class-actions lawsuits against banks and credit card companies, which have “figured out a way to use the fine print of their contracts to force consumers into private arbitration, a secretive process where borrowers have to go up on their own against powerful companies with deep pockets.” Per the New York Times:

The Chamber of Commerce and other pro-business groups have belittled the rule as nothing more than a gift to class-action lawyers, who tend to be Democratic donors. But as much as Republicans deplore the consumer protection agency, they may find it difficult to kill a rule that could have wide populist appeal. Across the country, judges, prosecutors and regulators have decried arbitration clauses for allowing corporations to circumvent the courts and for taking away the only tools citizens have to fight illegal or deceitful business practices.

Finance Camp for kids already creating young Donald Trumps

Is your child attending camp this summer? Is it one where they spend their days swimming, playing Capture the Flag, doing arts and crafts, singing around bonfires, and roasting s’mores? If you answered yes, we’re sorry to report that you’ve effectively set your kid back years when it comes to being named C.E.O. of a Fortune 500 company or starting their own hedge fund. Next year, you ought to consider “Junior Money Matters,” which the Wall Street Journal reports is an actual real camp in Denver that kids ages 7 to 11 travel to for a week in which they “spend seven hours a day studying things like the U.S. current-account deficit and supply and demand dynamics.” While a few attendees may be there against their own will—the Journal notes that on the third day of of the week-long session, one camper was crying in a corner—most are at J.M.M. because they know that if you wait until you’re 10 to start learning about financial markets and economics, it’s probably too late. Spencer Smith, a 9 year-old who told reporter Akane Otani he wants to “work with money” when he’s older, explained thusly: “When you train puppies, it’s better to train them when they’re younger. It’s the same with people.” Eight year-old Kashious Vela, who is known as Kash, didn’t beat around the bush. “I like money,” he said. “And you could get really rich.”

Wells Fargo looks forward to paying $142 million settlement to victims

Over the weekend, a federal judge gave preliminary approval to Wells Fargo’s $142 million class action settlement with customers who were affected by the banks’ sham accounts scandal, in which upwards of 2 million fake accounts were created in customers names without their knowledge, as employees attempted to keep up with management’s absurd sales goals that drove at least one person to drink (hand sanitizer). While the settlement may not be final until 2018, C.E.O. Tim Sloan said the court ruling was a “major milestone in our efforts to make things right for our customers,” which was probably a better way to go than that of his predecessor John Stumpf, who, before being forced to resign, characterized the scandal as a work of a few (5,300) bad apples.

Brexit finally goes too far

Queuing. Complaining about the weather. Putting on stiff upper lips. Offering people cups of tea in literally any situation. Eating full English breakfasts. These are the things that residents of the United Kingdom hold dear and which get them through their cold, rainy lives in the British isles. Unfortunately, the decision last July to exit the European Union, i.e. to “brexit,” is threatening to impact one of these traditions in an extremely negative way. We’ll let CNN Money be the bearer of the bad news:

The price of classic “full English” breakfast could spike by nearly 13% if Britain crashes out of the European Union, according to accounting firm KPMG. Failing to agree a new trade relationship before leaving the EU in March 2019 would force the U.K. to trade under rules set by the World Trade Organization. “If the U.K. leaves the EU without a trade deal or transitional agreement, we can expect both higher prices and a huge spike in red tape at the borders,” said KPMG executive Bob Jones.

KPMG estimates that many of ingredients essential to a typical English breakfast would increase, with orange juice and olive oil being hit hardest, with prices on their respective imports rising 34 percent and 30 percent, respectively. The cost of baked beans, which come by way of the U.S. and Italy before entering the U.K., would also increase. The price of milk, eggs, and bread, Fortune notes, would remain flat because those items can be “easily sourced” in the U.K., which is something but obviously not enough.

Elsewhere!

Steven Mnuchin rushes to reassure the rich he won’t raise their taxes (The Hive)

Deutsche Sees Trouble Ahead for the World’s ‘Frothy’ Stock Markets (Bloomberg)

U.S. Trade Partners Watch Warily as Trump Considers Steel Tariffs (NYT)

Goldman Sachs is worst-selling fund manager in 2017 (Financial Times)

Trump Treasury may reopen this loophole for companies stashing cash overseas (CNBC)

26-Year-Old’s Stock-Picking Game Acquired By News Network Cheddar (W.S.J.)

The Private Equity Firm That Quietly Profits on Top-Selling Drugs (Dealbook)

China Hedge Funds Bounce Back From Their Worst Year Since 2011 (Bloomberg)

Activist Loeb keeps up performance pressure on Nestle— source (Reuters)

Chuck Schumer calls for crackdown on ‘snortable chocolate’ (NYP)