Investor Michael Burry has launched a sharp attack on prediction markets such as Kalshi, saying that they are effectively gambling platforms operating through a regulatory loophole and warning that retail users are vulnerable to unfair trading practices.

Burry speaks as prediction markets face growing scrutiny from researchers, lawmakers and investors over whether the platforms provide a level playing field for ordinary users and whether they should be regulated more like traditional sports betting or financial markets.

The hedge fund manager, best known for predicting the 2008 U.S. housing market collapse and whose story was chronicled in The Big Short, shared his views in a series of posts on X, shifting his focus from financial markets to the rapidly expanding prediction market industry.

“Kalshi as with all prediction markets is in a regulatory loophole within an extremely heavily taxed and excessively regulated industry that is gambling no matter what anyone calls it,” Burry wrote.

Questions Over Regulation

Prediction markets allow users to buy and sell contracts tied to the outcome of future events, ranging from elections and economic data to sporting events and weather forecasts. Unlike conventional sportsbooks, platforms such as Kalshi operate under the oversight of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) because they structure their offerings as event contracts rather than traditional wagers.

That regulatory distinction has enabled prediction markets to expand rapidly across the United States, even as sports betting remains subject to state-by-state regulation.

Critics argue that, regardless of their legal structure, many event contracts function much like conventional gambling products. Burry echoed that criticism, saying the current framework allows prediction markets to operate outside many of the restrictions imposed on traditional gambling operators.

Burry also challenged claims by Kalshi that its markets are better equipped to detect insider trading than traditional financial markets.

Kalshi Chief Executive Tarek Mansour has argued that suspicious trading activity is easier to identify on prediction platforms because of the transparency of their markets and transaction data.

Burry rejected that argument.

“Kalshi presents the ability to gamble and cheat, and the loophole allows all of it in every state,” he wrote.

He added that the industry’s rapid growth reflects regulatory gaps rather than superior market design.

“Of course it is number 1 by a mile and will keep growing as long as society steps aside and lets these horrific base human weaknesses run roughshod over all and any logical, moral and decent challenge.”

In another post, Burry argued that prediction markets lack sufficient safeguards against manipulation.

“There is nothing preventing cheating in prediction markets. Cheating, the only activity as old as gambling, with the same power to drive humans to extremes.”

Burry’s criticism follows renewed debate over whether retail participants can compete fairly against professional traders on prediction platforms.

Last week, the Roosevelt Institute published research estimating that ordinary users have collectively lost nearly $600 million on Kalshi since 2018. The think tank noted that a relatively small group of sophisticated traders has captured most of the profits, leaving casual participants at a structural disadvantage.

Kalshi has disputed aspects of the criticism, maintaining that its markets are transparent and operate under federal oversight.

The debate bolsters one of the industry’s central questions: whether prediction markets primarily serve as information-discovery mechanisms or whether they increasingly resemble speculative gambling platforms where experienced traders consistently outperform retail participants.

Burry is not alone in raising concerns about the industry’s regulatory framework.

Distressed debt investor Thomas Braziel has also argued that prediction markets face significant regulatory risks, describing their business model as a form of regulatory arbitrage designed to avoid state gambling laws. He has warned that future regulatory changes could materially affect the industry’s growth.

The criticism comes as prediction markets continue to expand rapidly.

Trading volumes on leading platforms, including Kalshi and Polymarket, have surged over the past year as users increasingly speculate on elections, economic releases, geopolitical developments and sporting events. The sector has attracted growing interest from retail traders seeking alternatives to traditional investing and sports betting.

At the same time, lawmakers have introduced several proposals aimed at tightening oversight of event contracts, particularly those tied to sports and elections. Some bills would prohibit certain categories of prediction contracts altogether, while others seek to establish clearer regulatory boundaries between financial products and gambling.

BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, has been sued by investors who allege the firm used improper accounting practices that artificially inflated the net asset values (NAVs) of more than 70 equity mutual funds, causing shareholders to pay excessive management fees and incur larger tax liabilities.

The proposed class action, filed on Monday in New York state court in Manhattan, claims BlackRock improperly treated accrued dividend income and realized capital gains as fund assets even though those amounts were legally required to be distributed to shareholders within the same tax year.

According to the complaint, the accounting treatment overstated the value of the funds, reducing the number of mutual fund shares investors received when purchasing units while simultaneously increasing the asset base on which BlackRock collected management fees.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages on behalf of investors who held BlackRock’s actively managed and index equity mutual funds during the past three years.

At the center of the lawsuit is the calculation of a mutual fund’s net asset value, or NAV, which determines the price investors pay to buy or sell fund shares. The plaintiffs argue that BlackRock included dividend income and realized capital gains in the NAV even after those amounts had effectively become liabilities because they were required to be distributed to shareholders before the end of the tax year.

According to the investors, this accounting approach produced several financial consequences.

First, an inflated NAV meant investors received fewer mutual fund shares for every dollar invested than they otherwise would have.

Second, because management fees are calculated as a percentage of assets under management, the allegedly overstated NAV resulted in investors paying higher fees than they should have.

Third, shareholders allegedly incurred higher tax liabilities because they effectively purchased fund shares that already contained undistributed taxable gains and dividends, a phenomenon commonly referred to as “buying a dividend.”

The complaint argues that while mutual fund companies routinely warn investors about purchasing shares shortly before dividend distributions, BlackRock failed to disclose what the plaintiffs describe as a more fundamental issue.

“The ‘Buying a Dividend’ disclosure conceals the far broader and more damaging reality: that the NAV of the respective BlackRock Funds are artificially inflated by accrued income and gains every day,” the lawsuit states.

The investors accuse BlackRock of violating the Securities Act of 1933, arguing that the company’s registration statements and disclosures failed to accurately describe how the funds’ net asset values were calculated.

The lawsuit targets one of the largest players in the global asset management industry. BlackRock managed $13.89 trillion in assets at the end of March, including approximately $7.66 trillion in equity investments, making it the world’s largest asset manager.

The company has previously noted that more than half of its assets are held in retirement accounts, where tax treatment differs from that of taxable investment accounts. The lawsuit, however, primarily concerns investors exposed to tax consequences arising from mutual fund distributions.

The case could attract attention across the asset management industry because mutual fund pricing and tax treatment are governed by long-established accounting and regulatory standards.

Mutual funds are generally required under U.S. tax rules to distribute substantially all of their taxable income and realized capital gains annually to avoid being taxed at the fund level. Investors who purchase shares before those distributions can receive taxable payouts that partly represent gains earned before they became shareholders.

While this “buying a dividend” effect is widely disclosed throughout the industry, the plaintiffs argue that BlackRock’s alleged practice went beyond normal fund accounting by embedding liabilities into daily NAV calculations.

If the claims succeed, the litigation could prompt greater scrutiny of how mutual fund companies account for accrued income, calculate net asset values, and disclose the tax implications of purchasing fund shares before distributions. The lawsuit also comes at a time of heightened legal and regulatory scrutiny of major asset managers as investors increasingly challenge fee structures, disclosures and fund valuation practices across the investment industry.

OPEC has lowered its forecast for global oil demand growth in 2026 for the third consecutive month, underscoring growing concerns that geopolitical tensions, disrupted trade flows and a slowing global economy will weigh on fuel consumption.

In its monthly oil market report released on Monday, OPEC projected world oil demand will grow by 780,000 barrels per day (bpd) in 2026, down from its previous forecast of 970,000 bpd. The latest revision represents a reduction of 190,000 bpd and marks the third straight downgrade this year.

Even after the revision, OPEC continues to project a less severe impact on oil demand than the International Energy Agency (IEA), maintaining that the global economy has remained relatively resilient despite months of conflict involving Iran and disruptions to one of the world’s most important energy corridors.

“The global economic growth dynamic in the first half of 2026 has remained broadly resilient,” OPEC said in the report.

The organization added that an easing of geopolitical tensions could improve the outlook later this year.

“Potential moderations in geopolitical tensions may provide some upside for global growth in the second half of 2026 if energy markets and trade flows stabilize further,” it said.

Iran Conflict Continues To Shape Oil Outlook

OPEC’s latest assessment comes as the conflict involving Iran continues to dominate energy markets. The war effectively shut the Strait of Hormuz for months, disrupting millions of barrels of crude exports from the Middle East and triggering sharp increases in oil prices.

Although shipments had begun recovering after an interim peace agreement between the United States and Iran, renewed military exchanges in recent days have once again raised concerns over the security of the strategic waterway.

The renewed hostilities have already pushed oil prices higher as traders price in the growing risk of fresh supply disruptions. The Strait of Hormuz normally carries roughly one-fifth of global oil consumption, making any threat to shipping a major source of volatility for energy markets.

While trimming its near-term outlook, OPEC became more optimistic about longer-term demand. The group raised its forecast for 2027 oil demand growth to 1.94 million bpd, an increase of 210,000 bpd from its previous estimate, suggesting it expects energy consumption to rebound more strongly once geopolitical disruptions ease and global trade normalizes.

The stronger 2027 projection also reflects expectations that emerging-market demand will remain resilient despite the rapid expansion of renewable energy and electric vehicles.

The report showed OPEC+ has begun restoring production after output was curtailed during the conflict.

Crude production from OPEC+ members averaged 36.28 million bpd in June, roughly 3 million bpd higher than in May, according to secondary sources used by OPEC to monitor production. The increase shows Gulf producers gradually restarting output that had been suspended during the Iran war.

Earlier this year, OPEC+ had agreed to begin unwinding voluntary production cuts from April. However, the closure of the Strait of Hormuz prevented several producers from increasing exports to their agreed quotas, delaying implementation of the supply agreement.

The May production figures also reflect the departure of the United Arab Emirates, which formally exited both OPEC and OPEC+ on May 1.

The report also highlighted tightening U.S. oil inventories, another factor supporting crude prices. According to U.S. Department of Energy data, crude oil held in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) declined by about 3 million barrels last week to 316.5 million barrels, the lowest level since April 1983.

The latest decline forms part of a previously announced U.S. plan to release 172 million barrels from the reserve.

Since the U.S.-Israeli war against Iran began in late February, SPR inventories have fallen by 98.9 million barrels as of July 10. Total U.S. crude inventories, including both commercial stocks and the SPR, have declined by 123.9 million barrels to 730.8 million barrels, their lowest level since 1984, highlighting how geopolitical disruptions and government stock releases have significantly tightened available supplies.

Lower inventories generally reduce the market’s ability to absorb unexpected supply shocks, making oil prices more sensitive to geopolitical developments.

Maritime Blockade Raises New Supply Concerns

Adding to the uncertainty, the U.S. military is preparing to enforce a maritime blockade targeting Iran.

The U.S. Navy-led Joint Maritime Information Center (JMIC) said the blockade will take effect at 2000 GMT on July 14, covering Iranian ports, oil terminals, and coastal waters.

Under the advisory, vessels suspected of entering or leaving blockaded areas without authorization could be intercepted or seized.

“Any vessel suspected of entering or departing the blockaded area without authorization is subject to interception, diversion, and capture. Non-compliant vessels may be legally compelled with force,” the advisory said.

The center added that neutral commercial traffic transiting the Strait of Hormuz to and from non-Iranian destinations would continue to be permitted, in an effort to minimize broader disruptions to global shipping.

The combination of renewed military tensions, tighter global inventories, and continued uncertainty over shipping routes is likely to keep oil markets highly volatile in the coming months. While OPEC believes the global economy remains resilient enough to support continued demand growth, its third consecutive downgrade implies that geopolitical risks and slower economic activity are increasingly tempering the pace of global oil consumption.