Smart Investing with Brent & Chase Wilsey

Brent & Chase Wilsey
  • 4.0 (17)
  • Investing
  • Updated Weekly

Smart Investing is the radio show where Brent and Chase try to make investing easier to understand. They demonstrate long-term investment strategies to help you find good value investments.

  1. 3d ago

    September 4th, 2026 | AI Capex Bubble Bursts, A Market Like 1901, Jobs Report Beats Expectations, Sports Betting as Investing, Big Food Battles Diet Drugs, Be Your Own Bank? & More

    The AI Capex Bubble Is Starting to Look Crazy I keep coming back to the same question when I look at the incredible amount of money being poured into artificial intelligence: Where is all of this capital ultimately going to earn a return?   Since the beginning of 2024, roughly $500 billion has been spent on chips, $350 billion on power infrastructure, $200 billion on construction and $100 billion on networking. That's approximately $1.1 trillion of AI infrastructure spending in less than three years. For perspective, the entire S&P 500 spent roughly $575 billion on capital expenditures in 2021 right before ChatGPT even existed.   And the spending is accelerating.  In 2021 The four major hyperscalers—Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet and Meta— spent about $125 billion on new plants and equipment. It’s now estimated that they will spend $1 trillion, which is about half of total capital spending for the S&P 500 and the companies could spend roughly $3.7 trillion through 2029. Add companies such as Oracle, OpenAI, SpaceX and others, and total AI spending could approach $6 trillion by the end of the decade.   Those numbers are almost difficult to comprehend. And here's where I think the historical comparisons to railroads and the internet become interesting. Yes, those were enormous infrastructure buildouts too. But the economic opportunity created by those technologies was incredibly clear.   The railroad connected producers with consumers, opened new markets, lowered transportation costs and allowed goods to move across the country. The internet created entirely new businesses and fundamentally changed commerce, advertising, communications and how we work.   I don't see AI in quite the same light. I see enormous potential, but I don't yet see the same obvious economic expansion that will ultimately justify trillions of dollars of infrastructure spending.   And now we're starting to hear another argument: "Look at the cloud. Look at how much money the cloud is generating. That's proof the AI infrastructure will earn a return."   I'm not sure I buy that. That's a little like building railroads and then saying: "Look at how much money we're making selling railcars. Look at the demand for locomotives and railroad equipment. Clearly the railroad investment is paying off." The problem is that's not where the ultimate economic return came from. The return came from transporting goods and people. The railroad was valuable because businesses used it to create economic activity.   The same is true of the internet. The real economic payoff wasn't simply selling servers and networking equipment. It came from everything built on top of the internet. So with AI, I think the ultimate question is not: "How much revenue are Nvidia, the cloud companies and data-center operators generating?" It's: "How much NEW economic value is being created by all of this computing capacity?"   That's a much harder question. Because if we're essentially spending trillions of dollars building increasingly powerful computers, data centers and power infrastructure so companies can sell more computing capacity to other companies that are also spending billions on AI infrastructure, we need to be careful about confusing activity with economic returns.   And this is where the bubble argument gets interesting. A recent Barron's article points out that historically, transformative technology booms have been able to absorb enormous amounts of capital before eventually running into trouble. Its "rule of 25" suggests that previous infrastructure booms became particularly vulnerable when investment approached roughly 25% of GDP. The railroad boom saw about $2.5 billion of rail spending before the 1873 panic and GDP was about $10 billion a year. Internet infrastructure saw about $1.5 trillion of investment before the bust and back then GDP was only about $6 trillion. For today's roughly $30 trillion U.S. economy, that would be around $7.5 trillion before we saw problems.   That's being used as evidence that the AI boom has plenty of room to run. And maybe it does. But here's the funny part. We're increasingly hearing very smart people say: "Yes, this is going to end badly." "Yes, there is too much capital being deployed." "Yes, there will eventually be excess capacity." "Yes, the financing is getting complicated." But then comes the qualifier: "Just not yet." That might be the most dangerous phrase in investing. Because that's exactly how bubbles work.   When I look at $1.1 trillion already spent, and potentially $6 trillion by the end of the decade, increasingly creative financing structures and companies racing to build capacity before we fully understand the ultimate demand, it starts to feel less like a normal technology cycle and more like a capital spending boom.   Maybe the bubble doesn't burst this year. Maybe it doesn't burst next year. But when almost everyone agrees there is a bubble and the only disagreement is about when it ends that's usually when I start paying very close attention. The technology can be real. The demand can be real. The companies can be profitable. And it can still be a bubble.   The Stock Market Today Resembles the Stock Market of 1901 Some people believe they are witnessing something completely different in the stock market today and that what is happening now has never happened before. They believe the market will continue rising forever, and that there is simply no way they can lose. History tells us otherwise.   Time and time again, we see the same patterns repeat themselves. Surprisingly, the stock market of 1901 had many of the same characteristics we are seeing today. For starters, there was a tremendous amount of trading back then like there is today. In 1901, the turnover rate on the New York Stock Exchange reached 319%, meaning stocks were changing hands roughly every 16 weeks.   They also had something that resembles today's prediction markets. Back then, they were called bucket shops, where people could bet on whether a stock would move up or down. Many were led to believe they were participating in the same type of opportunity as wealthy investors. In reality, they were speculating and many people who didn't know better confused gambling with investing.   Leverage was also widely used. Investors could put up as little as $10 and control as much as $300 worth of stock. That kind of leverage could produce enormous gains when markets were rising, but it could also lead to devastating losses when they turned.   And this is where human psychology comes into play. People's emotions are often far stronger than their logic. The more the market rises, the more people begin to believe it will continue rising and that a crash is unlikely to happen anytime soon.   When investors become excited because they are making easy money, they can lose sight of the difference between investing and gambling. The problem is that gambling can feel like investing when you're winning.   The market's performance in the early 1900s is a good example. The stock market rose 19% in 1900, another 20% in 1901 and 5% in 1902. Then came 1903, when the market declined 23%. But the good times returned, and over the next three years the market gained roughly 69%. Then came the Panic of 1907, and the stock market fell roughly 30% that year.   The lesson isn't that today's market will follow the exact same path. It won't. The lesson is that human behavior hasn't changed much in more than a century. Greed, fear, leverage, speculation and the belief that "this time is different" have been part of financial markets for generations.   As the saying goes, history may not repeat itself, but it definitely rhymes. Investors would be wise to study those rhymes and remember that making money in a rising market doesn't necessarily mean you're investing wisely. Sometimes, it simply means you haven't experienced the other side of the cycle yet.   The Jobs Report Was Much Stronger Than Expected Today’s jobs report was a big surprise. The U.S. economy added 162,000 jobs in August, well above the roughly 53,000 expected and the strongest monthly gain in five months. Even more importantly, July was revised from a loss of 23,000 jobs to a gain of 21,000. June was also revised higher, meaning the previous two months were collectively revised up by 55,000 jobs.   The unemployment rate remained at 4.1%, but there was an interesting development underneath that number: the labor force increased by 683,000 people, while household employment increased by 569,000. The labor-force participation rate also rose from 61.4% to 61.6%. It is still down by 0.5% since January, but it’s a positive to see it moving in the right direction.   So, we had substantially more people entering the workforce without the unemployment rate increasing. That's a pretty good sign.   There was also a significant difference between industries. Food services and drinking places added 59,000 jobs, while local government education added another 42,000 and construction added about 22,000.  Health care, which has been a large source of employment growth, saw a gain of just 13,000, compared with the monthly average of 32,000 over the prior 12 months.   On the other hand, the information sector continued to lose jobs as information-related industries reported a loss of 23,000, putting the 12-month average at a loss of 8,000. This is worth watching given the impact of automation and AI on certain white-collar industries.   Another positive: the average workweek increased to 34.4 hours, the highest level since March 2024. More hours worked can be just as important economically as more workers being hired.   But there is one area that isn't quite as strong: wages. Average hourly earnings increased just 3.1% from a year ago. That's a healthy increase, but wage growth continues to moderate, and this marked the lowe

  2. Aug 28

    August 28th, 2026 | K-Shaped Recovery, Alternative Investment Traps, Dividend Stocks? Dynamic Pricing, AI Disrupts Publishing, GM Loses Ground & More

    The K-Shaped Economy May Be Improving If you’re unfamiliar with the term, the upper arm of the “K” represents higher-income Americans, who are spending more and generally doing better. The lower arm represents lower-income consumers who have been struggling with higher prices and tighter budgets. But there are signs the lower end of the K-shaped economy may finally be improving. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent recently argued that the K-shaped economy is over and that we’re moving toward what he calls a “C-shaped economy,” where lower-income workers are beginning to catch up. That may sound like a bold statement, but there are some encouraging signs behind it. Economists have pointed to stronger hiring in the spring and early summer, which has allowed more Americans to change jobs. Changing jobs often comes with higher wages, giving lower- and middle-income households more income to spend. There has also been improvement in wage growth at the lower end of the income spectrum as after-tax wages grew at an average 5.2% annual pace in July for lower-income households. This marked the first time since December 2024 that after-tax wage growth for lower-income households surpassed higher-income households. Higher-income workers are still seeing strong wage growth as well. So, I wouldn't say the K-shaped economy has completely disappeared, but the bottom of the K may be starting to move upward. Another positive is the impact of the Big Beautiful Bill. Provisions such as no tax on overtime and no tax on tips can put more money directly into workers' pockets. This led to good refunds for many people and some people have also changed their withholding to increase their take-home pay rather than waiting for a large refund at tax time next year. That makes perfect sense. Why give the government an interest-free loan of thousands of dollars when you could have an extra couple hundred dollars in your paycheck every month? There are other encouraging signs. Data shows the share of households paying off their credit card balances each month is increasing, while savings remain above 2019 levels when adjusted for inflation. We’re also seeing some evidence that consumer spending is becoming less concentrated among higher-income households. In the month of July, spending on credit and debit cards rose 5.4% for lower-income households year over year compared to growth of 4.3% for higher-income households. That’s important because consumer spending accounts for roughly 70% of U.S. GDP. If lower-income consumers are finally seeing their incomes improve, paying down debt and rebuilding their financial cushion, that could broaden economic growth beyond the wealthier consumer. I’m not ready to declare the K-shaped economy dead. There are still significant differences between how higher- and lower-income Americans are doing, and housing affordability remains a major problem. But perhaps the more important point is this: The bottom half of the K may finally be starting to move upward. If that continues, it could create a much healthier economy in the second half of the year, with GDP growth potentially around 2.5% in the third and fourth quarters. Maybe the economy isn't completely C-shaped yet, but it may be starting to bend in that direction.   How to protect yourself when someone tries to sell you alternative investments You may already know this, but there are some brokers out there who are very good salespeople and unfortunately, they may be more concerned about their commission than your financial well-being. It’s estimated that over the next three to four years, another $2 trillion of client assets could flow into alternative investments. I’ve talked at length about the high fees, which can be 2% or more, and the fact that your money could be tied up for 10 years or longer. Even when you are allowed to get your money back, the redemption process can be very slow. If you still believe an alternative investment makes sense for you, here are some questions you should ask the person selling it to you. First, what is the manager’s track record? Don’t just take their word for it. Verify the track record and make sure you understand what they actually managed. Someone who successfully managed a small fund may not have the same results when they are suddenly managing multiples of that amount. Second, how will I receive my tax information? A lot of investors are surprised at tax time when they receive a K-1 instead of a 1099. K-1s can make your taxes more complicated and often arrive much later than a 1099. That can mean waiting to file your taxes or even having to file an extension. Understand the tax reporting before you invest. Third, how do I get my money out? Ask exactly what the redemption rules are. How long is the lockup? How much notice do you have to give? Are there penalties or restrictions Don’t assume you can access your money whenever you want. Fourth, what happens if things go wrong? What recourse do you have if the investment loses money or the manager does something wrong? You may discover that you signed an arbitration agreement that prevents you from taking the firm to court. In some cases, the investment may even be governed by laws outside the United States. Fifth, how much does the broker and their firm get paid? Ask directly: “How much do you earn if I invest in this? Does your firm receive additional compensation for recommending it? If so, how much?” And there are two other questions I think everyone should ask. “Knowing my financial situation, do you really think it makes sense for me to tie up my money for 10 years?” And perhaps most importantly: “Anything you are telling me verbally, please put it in writing.” If they won’t put it in writing, you should seriously question what you’re being sold. I believe alternative investments are much riskier than people are led to believe and you need to understand the fees, liquidity, tax consequences, and incentives of the person selling them to you. Never let a salesperson rush you into an investment you don’t completely understand.   Should You Invest in Dividend-Paying Stocks or Not? Over the last 15 years, the dividend yield on the S&P 500 has been cut roughly in half from more than 2% to just over 1%. Some investors may say, “Who cares? My total return is much higher, and I don’t need the dividends.” But they may be missing an important part of investing, especially as they get older and closer to retirement. Dividend-paying stocks can provide a valuable source of cash flow. Qualified dividends also receive favorable tax treatment compared with ordinary income. That tax advantage, particularly when compared with interest from U.S. Treasuries or CDs, is worth considering. Another benefit investors sometimes overlook is dividend growth. Many companies increase their dividends over time, sometimes every year, as their earnings and cash flow grow. This can potentially provide investors with a growing stream of income. Investors appear to be taking notice. Morningstar has reported that dividend-focused funds have attracted billions of dollars in new money over the past two years. Using dividend funds is one option, but at Wilsey Asset Management, we prefer investing in individual companies because we believe it can provide a higher yield while giving us more control over the companies we own. Of course, a high dividend yield alone doesn't make a stock a good investment. We look at several factors to manage risk, including: The company’s payout ratio based on earnings and cash flow to make sure the dividend is sustainable. The company’s debt and interest expense to make sure it isn’t overly burdened by high-interest payments. The valuation of the company to make sure investors aren't paying too much for its earnings. Investors should also remember that dividends are never guaranteed. Companies can cut or even temporarily suspend their dividends when their business requires them to preserve cash. For that reason, diversification is important. We believe investors should consider owning at least 12 to 15 different dividend-paying companies across multiple industries rather than relying heavily on just a few stocks. Dividend investing isn't just about the yield today. It’s about the potential for income, dividend growth and total return over time. As investors get closer to retirement, that income can become a much more important part of the overall investment strategy.   You could be paying more for products because of something called dynamic pricing. Most people assume that when they see a price online, everyone else is seeing the same price. That may no longer be the case. With AI and the enormous amount of data companies can collect, retailers can learn a surprising amount about you. They may know your browsing history, location, the type of device you’re using, your purchase patterns and even how long your cursor stays over a particular product. They can also potentially determine whether you’re a college student, a businessperson, or a senior citizen. They may also know what competing apps or websites you use. The thinking is simple: If you’re not shopping around, a retailer may believe you’re more willing to pay a higher price. You may be thinking, Isn’t this illegal? According to the Federal Trade Commission, it appears to be somewhat of a gray area. The FTC has recently addressed the use of consumer data to personalize prices and has said that businesses need to be transparent about what information they’re using and when they’re using it to personalize an offer. My guess is this will be like many other disclosures: We’ll see them, but most people won’t take the time to read them. So, what can you do to protect yourself? Shop around. Before making a purchase, compare the same product on at least two or three different websites. Don’t a

  3. Aug 21

    August 21st, 2026 | AI Boom Leverage, Oil Supply Risks, Travel Boom, Healthcare Stocks, Treasury Bond Buybacks, Home Insurance Deductible & More

    The AI boom is starting to look a lot more leveraged than investors realize There is a growing risk in the AI infrastructure buildout that isn’t getting nearly enough attention: how much of this spending is being financed, and how much of the risk is sitting off the balance sheet.   The headline numbers around capital expenditures are already staggering, but what concerns me more is what sits underneath them: joint ventures, off-balance-sheet financing arrangements and leases that haven’t even commenced yet.   In other words, some of the financial obligations associated with this AI buildout aren't necessarily showing up in today's debt figures. And the spending is enormous. Goldman Sachs analysts estimated that hyperscalers have combined lease commitments for data centers, R&D facilities, offices and equipment of $1.5 trillion, up from about $200 billion five years ago. This includes about $1 trillion of “uncommenced” lease commitments, which are not yet shown in financial statements but will result in future payments. This pairs with consensus forecasts that hyperscaler capital spending alone will surpass $1 trillion per year from 2027 onward and there are with no clear signs of moderation. According to a multi-asset credit strategist at PIMCO, the AI capex cycle is, adjusted for inflation, on track to be the largest investment cycle since the 19th-century railway construction.   The problem is what happens if the revenue doesn't grow fast enough to justify the investment. This is where Steve Eisman’s warning is particularly interesting. Eisman, who became famous for betting against the housing market ahead of the financial crisis, believes the AI boom has become increasingly dependent on just two companies: OpenAI and Anthropic. According to Eisman, those two companies account for roughly 70% of AI-related revenue at Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet's Google and Oracle, and potentially 25%–35% of their overall cloud revenue.   That creates a concentration risk that investors shouldn't ignore. If OpenAI and Anthropic continue growing rapidly, the economics of all this infrastructure can work. But what if they don't?  Eisman believes one of the biggest threats could come from China.   Chinese open-source and open-weight AI models are significantly cheaper, and if they continue gaining market share, the industry could face something that investors haven't really modeled into these enormous infrastructure investments: an AI price war.   If the price of AI inference and cloud computing falls dramatically, the companies that have spent hundreds of billions building capacity could find themselves with a serious problem.   The infrastructure doesn't disappear just because pricing does. The debt doesn't disappear. The leases don't disappear. And the depreciation expense certainly doesn't disappear.   Another major concern given all the commitments from OpenAI is the turnover the company has seen. The company recently announced that Chief Revenue Officer Denise Dresser is leaving less than a year after joining the company. Dresser had brought more than a decade of Salesforce experience and was viewed as someone with important enterprise expertise as OpenAI tried to compete with Anthropic.   She isn't the only senior executive to leave. Fidji Simo stepped down from her product and business role, and several other executives including COO Brad Lightcap departed earlier this year.   Executive turnover doesn't necessarily mean something is wrong. Fast-growing companies go through enormous amounts of change. But when two companies are potentially responsible for such a large percentage of the revenue supporting an enormous AI infrastructure investment cycle, leadership stability becomes much more important.   There are a lot of things that need to go right to justify the enormous amount of spending in the AI space. And increasingly, there seem to be more and more question marks that investors need to consider. I’m not saying the AI boom is over. I’m saying investors should spend a lot more time asking who is financing this boom, who is ultimately responsible for the obligations, and what happens if the economics of AI change.   Refined oil could be in jeopardy over the next 6 to 12 months U.S. refineries are currently operating at historically high utilization rates at around 96.5%. Aside from July 25 of this year, when utilization briefly reached 97.2%, the last time refineries were operating at this level was in 2018, when utilization hit 96.6%.   Part of the problem is our own doing. California politicians deserve a significant amount of blame. Over the past 20 years, nine of the 12 refineries that have closed in the United States have been located in California. At the same time, the push toward electric vehicles led many refiners to avoid investing the billions of dollars required to build new refining capacity. Now, we not only lack significant new capacity, but some existing refineries are also in need of repairs and upgrades.   That leaves us particularly vulnerable considering we are in hurricane season, which runs from June 1 through November 30. A major hurricane hitting the Gulf Coast could knock out anywhere from 10% to 30% of U.S. refining capacity, depending on the severity and location of the storm. That could put enormous pressure on already-tight supplies of gasoline and diesel.   And supplies are already below normal. Global inventories of refined fuels, which primarily consists of gasoline and diesel, are estimated to be roughly 130 million barrels below normal levels for this time of year.   This isn't just a U.S. problem. Gasoline and diesel are globally traded commodities, and the global refining picture has changed significantly because of the war in Ukraine. Ukraine has reportedly knocked out roughly 30% of Russia's refining capacity, while Russia has also reduced exports of refined products as it prioritizes its own domestic needs.   The United States is a free market, and American businesses can trade refined products on the global market. U.S. refineries currently export roughly 900,000 barrels per day of gasoline, while diesel exports recently reached a record 1.9 million barrels per day.   This is why having millions of barrels of crude oil doesn't necessarily solve the problem. You can have all the oil in the world, but if you don't have the refining capacity to turn it into gasoline and diesel, that oil is of limited use to consumers.   As an investment firm, we're always looking for the other shoe that could drop. This is one that concerns me. If we get a major hurricane over the next few months and refining capacity is reduced even temporarily, the impact on gasoline and diesel supplies could be significant. A disruption lasting only a week could be enough to send energy markets into a tizzy, particularly given how tight inventories already are.   The irony is that we spent years aggressively pushing toward electric vehicles while underinvesting in traditional refining capacity. EV adoption hasn't progressed as quickly as many expected, but the refining infrastructure we depend on for gasoline and diesel hasn't magically expanded either.   Now we're heading into hurricane season with historically high refinery utilization, below-normal refined fuel inventories, limited new refining capacity and a global market that is already facing disruptions. That's a combination worth paying attention to.   Americans are traveling more than ever If you’ve noticed how busy airports have been lately, there’s a reason: Americans are traveling more than ever, and there’s little sign of that slowing down. One reason is wealth. Americans collectively hold roughly $100 trillion in wealth. They’re also living longer and, perhaps more than any previous generation, are choosing to spend their later years enjoying life, traveling, and creating experiences.   Back in the 1970s, 80s, and even the 90s, Americans seemed more content to stay home, spend time with family, and enjoy their homes. Fast-forward to today, and travel has become a much bigger priority.   Trips to Europe reached a record 24 million in 2025. While some Europeans certainly aren’t thrilled with the influx of American tourists, those visitors are having a major economic impact. Americans accounted for roughly 15% of luxury sales across Europe.   Of course, not everyone is happy about the crowds. Barcelona, which sees roughly nine times as many visitors as it has residents, has seen protests against tourism, including protesters spraying tourists with water. I guess on a hot day, that might not be the worst thing.   The change in travel habits is pretty remarkable. As recently as 1990, only about 5% of Americans had a passport. Today, that figure is around 50%, giving Americans far more ability to travel internationally.   So who is doing all this traveling? Women 55 and older account for roughly 24% of travelers to Europe and other international destinations. I don’t know about you, but that doesn’t surprise me.   What does this mean going forward? If this trend continues, it could have a meaningful impact on the economy. Airlines, hotels, restaurants, and other businesses tied to travel should continue to benefit from Americans prioritizing experiences.   I do believe we’ll eventually see an increase from the historically low levels of spending on home remodeling and repairs. But I also wonder if that trend could eventually be constrained as people choose to spend $10,000 on a trip to Europe rather than $10,000 on a kitchen remodel. And with all these Americans traveling around the world, I have to wonder how many have taken the time to see the incredible places we have right here in the United States.   I’m talking about the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, the giant redwoods of Northern California, or our nation’s capita

  4. Aug 14

    August 14th, 2026 | Earnings Optimism, AI Financing, SpaceX Patience, Retail Rebound, Inflation Cooling, Crypto Selling, Mortgage Choices & More

    Second Quarter Earnings Give Me Some Optimism  I call all my clients on their yearly anniversary with our firm to have a discussion about their past performance and where I see their portfolio going over the next six to 12 months. I’m very pleased to report that I expected a more subdued performance in 2026 than what we’re experiencing so far. However, stronger-than-expected returns can also make projecting what comes next a little more difficult. Even with the nice year-to-date returns we’ve seen, I’m still telling my clients that I believe we can add a little bit more to their portfolios by December 31 of this year.  So, what is giving me this optimism?  For one, many of the companies in our portfolios have not become overpriced. On top of that, second-quarter earnings have come in rather strong, and the guidance from many of the stocks we own has also been positive going forward.  When looking at the overall market, some people may think it’s simply AI and technology companies that are doing well. That is not the case. Recent numbers show that during the second-quarter earnings season, 86% of companies have beaten their earnings estimates. That is well above the recent average of 78%.  Historically, when good times seem to last too long, analysts often begin cutting their earnings estimates. But that doesn’t appear to be happening right now. In fact, earnings estimates for the next quarter have actually risen by 0.3%.  There are certainly some concerns. The consumer has been dipping into savings to keep spending going, and the recent jobs market has been somewhat lackluster. However, the vast majority of people still have jobs, and at this point, there doesn’t appear to be any sign of widespread layoffs in the near future.  With all that said, I think the green light is still on for investors to continue putting money to work. But, as always, I believe investors need to be very cautious about overpaying for public companies that are being bought based more on emotion and excitement than strong financial fundamentals.  For me, that remains one of the most important things to watch as we move through the rest of 2026. Strong earnings are encouraging, but valuation still matters.     The AI boom is getting increasingly dependent on financing  There is no question that AI is creating enormous demand for computing power, data centers and semiconductors. But the latest move from Nvidia and Wall Street raises an important question: How much of this growth is being driven by genuine economic demand, and how much is being enabled by increasingly creative financing?  Jensen Huang has been pushing the idea that AI data centers are essentially a new class of infrastructure or what Nvidia calls “AI factories.” Now Nvidia has partnered with some of the biggest names on Wall Street, including Apollo, BlackRock, Blackstone, Brookfield, Goldman Sachs and KKR, to create financing platforms that could provide more than $500 billion of capital for AI infrastructure.  On the surface, this makes a lot of sense. AI companies need enormous amounts of capital to build data centers and purchase Nvidia's chips, while investors are looking for ways to participate in the AI boom.  But there is a risk that deserves much more attention: circular financing.  If Nvidia helps finance the companies that buy Nvidia's products, and those purchases generate revenue for Nvidia, which in turn increases Nvidia's valuation and ability to support additional financing, the system can begin to reinforce itself.  That doesn't automatically make the investments bad. But it does make it more difficult to determine how much of the demand is truly coming from customers who can generate sufficient returns on the infrastructure they are building.  And that leads to the bigger question: Can the economy actually absorb this level of investment? We are talking about hundreds of billions of dollars going toward data centers, power generation, networking equipment and AI chips. The capital is available, but ultimately the infrastructure has to generate enough economic output and cash flow to justify the investment. That is where I become more cautious.  Another concern is details were extremely light as we don’t know who the borrowers will be, what the rates will look like, where facilities will be built, and when this is supposed to start.  Intel's announcement is another interesting piece of the puzzle. Intel originally announced a $15 billion stock offering, but quickly increased it to approximately $20 billion, selling shares at $95 each. The proceeds are earmarked for general corporate purposes, including capital expenditures and working capital.  There is also an interesting irony here. We are increasingly financing AI infrastructure as though these assets will have long, productive lives. But AI technology is improving incredibly quickly.  Today's most advanced GPU, server or data center configuration can become obsolete much faster than traditional infrastructure. A power plant or building might remain useful for decades. A generation of AI computing equipment may have a much shorter economic life. That creates a unique risk.  What happens if we finance billions of dollars of AI infrastructure over 10 or 15 years, but the technology improves so rapidly that the equipment becomes economically obsolete much sooner?  The financing doesn't disappear just because the technology does.  I am not saying that the technology isn't transformative. I believe AI could absolutely create enormous economic value, but economic value and investment returns are two very different things.  The biggest question for investors over the next several years may not be whether AI works. It may be whether the amount of capital being committed to AI infrastructure can ultimately earn an adequate return. When companies, investors and lenders all believe they need to keep spending because everyone else is spending, that is when I start paying very close attention to the financing structure. The technology may be revolutionary, but the financial engineering surrounding it deserves just as much scrutiny.    Will Investors Really Be Patient Holding Their SpaceX Stock?  The common advice I hear when it comes to SpaceX is simple: “Don’t worry about it. Just hold the shares, don’t look at them, and you’ll be glad you did 10 years from now.”  It’s certainly possible that this advice will prove to be correct. But I question whether human emotions can really handle that kind of long-term commitment when it comes to an investment as volatile and intangible as a stock like this.  Think about everything that can happen over the next 10 years. There will be negative news, disappointing developments, changing expectations and plenty of commentary that investors simply won’t be able to ignore.  And there’s another issue: a significant amount of additional stock could become available over the coming months. Even after the recent unlock of just over 911 million shares on August 6, which was greater than the 639 million shares sold in the IPO, there is still a substantial amount of potential supply coming to the market.  On August 20, another 319 million shares could become available, followed by roughly 700 million shares in September and another 700 million or so in October. In November, an additional 28% of shares will become available, and by December, all remaining shares held by standard pre-IPO investors and employees will be eligible for release.  The final major unlock comes from Elon Musk’s stake in June 2027.  That is a tremendous amount of potential supply entering the market in a relatively short period of time, and it raises an important question: Will investors have enough conviction to keep holding if the increased supply puts significant pressure on the stock?  The idea of investing alongside Elon Musk is certainly attractive, especially when you consider his ambitious vision for SpaceX from building data centers in space to eventually manufacturing on Mars. But ambitious visions don’t necessarily make it easy to hold a stock through extreme volatility.  We’re already seeing what can happen. Some investors appear to have panicked and sold shares for as little as $105 after the stock had climbed as high as $225.  It’s easy to say you’ll stay the course when the stock is going up. It’s a completely different experience when you watch it fall every day and start asking yourself: What if this isn’t going to work? What if SpaceX doesn’t look nearly as attractive 10 years from now?  I believe the investors who have already sold may be a preview of what we could see over the next nine months. I’m not convinced there are enough investors willing to look 10 years into the future and maintain that level of conviction while hundreds of millions of additional shares are released.  So, here’s the question: Can you honestly say you would hold SpaceX no matter what, even if the stock fell to $60 or $70 a share and stayed there for an extended period? I’d love to hear what you think. How much patience do you really have with an investment like SpaceX?    Retail sales look better than the headline suggests  The headlines are focused on the 0.6% month-over-month decline in retail sales in July, the first monthly decline in nine months and the largest drop since May 2025.  That sounds concerning, but there are some important factors behind the monthly decline that deserve attention. One of the biggest was nonstore retailers, which fell 2.2% from June. That category is heavily influenced by online shopping, and the decline appears to be largely a timing issue related to Amazon Prime Day.  Amazon moved Prime Da

  5. Aug 7

    August 7th, 2026 | Robotaxis Park Badly, Higher Rates Ahead, Luxury Stock Decisions, Paramount Deal Drama, Automakers Need Diversification? Weak Jobs Report, Understanding NUA Benefits & More

    Apparently, self-driving cars don’t know where they shouldn’t park Self-driving cars are proving to be remarkably safe on the road and, so far, have demonstrated a better safety record than human drivers in many situations. However, like all technology, they still lack common sense. They may be able to navigate traffic, but they don't always understand where they can and more importantly, cannot park.   Over the past year and a half or so in Austin, Texas, Waymo's fleet of roughly 300 robotaxis has accumulated nearly $10,000 in parking tickets. While autonomous vehicles are doing well when it comes to following maps and traffic laws, they can become confused in situations that require human judgment. Reports indicate they sometimes struggle to follow directions from first responders, stop in places that block traffic, park in handicap spaces, or fail to recognize tow-away zones.   One notable incident in 2025 involved a Waymo vehicle that stopped on the side of a road in northern Austin while blocking an active railroad crossing. Police reportedly weren't sure how to move the vehicle, so they called a tow truck to remove it. There have also been reports of Waymo vehicles stopping in front of parking garage entrances and parking lot access points for no obvious reason, preventing other drivers from entering or exiting.   These issues will likely be resolved as the technology improves. Still, they highlight an important limitation. These robotaxis can process enormous amounts of data and make incredibly complex driving decisions, but it doesn't possess the instinctive common sense that people rely on everyday. For now, that's one area where humans still have an advantage over machines.   Why Interest Rates Could Stay Higher Than Many Expect One of the biggest debates in financial markets today is where interest rates are heading. While recessions can temporarily push yields lower, there are several long-term structural reasons why interest rates may remain elevated compared to what investors became accustomed to after the 2008 financial crisis.   The first and perhaps most important issue is the federal government's fiscal position. U.S. federal debt has climbed to roughly $40 trillion which is about 120% of GDP, a level that is historically very high outside of major wars or national emergencies. For much of the post-World War II period, debt-to-GDP remained well below current levels before accelerating sharply after the financial crisis and again during the pandemic.   Just as concerning is the federal deficit. The government continues to run annual deficits exceeding 5% of GDP, meaning debt is growing faster than the economy itself. As long as Washington continues borrowing at a pace that exceeds economic growth, the debt burden becomes increasingly difficult to stabilize. More Treasury issuance means investors must absorb a growing supply of government bonds, which can place upward pressure on yields unless demand keeps pace.   Another factor is the Federal Reserve's balance sheet. During the financial crisis and the pandemic, the Fed became one of the largest buyers of Treasury and mortgage-backed securities, helping suppress long-term interest rates through quantitative easing.   While the Fed has begun reducing its holdings, its balance sheet remains enormous by historical standards. Federal Reserve assets of about $6.7 trillion are currently equal to roughly 21% of U.S. GDP. Before the2008-09 financial crisis, the Fed's balance sheet averaged only about 6% of GDP, meaning it remains more than three times larger than its pre-crisis norm. Although assets have declined from the April 2022 peak of approximately $9 trillion, or roughly 35% of GDP, the balance sheet is still exceptionally large compared to history. Another comparison that is troubling is Fed holdings currently amount to about 26.5% of all assets held by U.S. commercial banks versus the norm of about 10% before the financial crisis.   Continuing to shrink the balance sheet would allow private markets to play a larger role in determining interest rates while reducing the Federal Reserve's extraordinary footprint in financial markets. A return toward more normal market functioning would likely mean less artificial downward pressure on long-term yields.   History also provides perspective on where Treasury yields could ultimately settle. Since 1958, the 10-year Treasury yield has averaged roughly 1.92 percentage points above inflation. That is simply a long-run average and there have been periods when the spread exceeded 5 percentage points and others when it turned negative, but it does give some guidance on a normalized level for the 10-year treasury.   When it comes to mortgage rates, they are closely tied to Treasury yields as well. Historically, the spread between the 30-year fixed mortgage rate and the 10-year Treasury yield has generally averaged about 1.5%to 2%, reflecting credit risk, servicing costs, and other factors. Post Covid, this spread did spike to over 3%, but that 1.5% to 2% range seems to be pretty consistent going back to 1990. If Treasury yields remain structurally higher because of persistent deficits, elevated debt levels, and a still-large Federal Reserve balance sheet, mortgage rates could also remain above the exceptionally low levels many homeowners became accustomed to.   None of this means rates cannot decline during economic slowdowns or recessions. They almost certainly will at times. But investors expecting a permanent return to near-zero interest rates may be overlooking the structural forces now shaping the bond market. High government debt, persistent fiscal deficits, continued Treasury issuance, and a Federal Reserve balance sheet that remains well above historical norms all suggest that the era of ultra-cheap money may prove to be the exception rather than the rule.   Should You Buy or Sell That Luxury Brand Stock? Luxury brand stocks that sell high-end handbags, jewelry, and other luxury goods have been in a bear market for the past couple of years. After aggressively raising prices during and immediately following the pandemic, it appears the buying frenzy for luxury products has faded.   There may be one bright spot beginning to emerge, particularly in the jewelry category. Richemont, the parent company of Cartier, Van Cleef & Arpels, and Buccellati, reported a 24% year-over-year increase in jewelry sales in its most recent quarter. If you don't recognize those brands, don't worry, the important takeaway is that they sell some of the world's most expensive jewelry, and demand in that segment has remained surprisingly resilient.   Luxury giants, including Kering, the parent company of Gucci, as well as LVMH and Hermès have suffered steep declines over the past few years. LVMH has fallen from more than $900 per share to around $500, while Kering has dropped from over $900 to roughly $300 as Gucci's sales have struggled.   During the pandemic, some consumers even purchased luxury handbags with the expectation that they would appreciate in value. While a handful of extremely rare bags have done just that, those cases are the exception rather than the rule. If you're buying a luxury handbag, buy it because you genuinely enjoy it not because you expect it to become a profitable investment.   The same caution applies to the stocks. My view is that the surge in luxury spending during and immediately after COVID was fueled by an extraordinary amount of stimulus money and excess savings, creating an artificial spike in demand. As those conditions have faded, so has the appetite for expensive discretionary purchases.   While there may be periods of recovery, especially in categories like jewelry, I don't expect the luxury sector to return to the pandemic-era buying frenzy anytime soon. That makes me cautious on both the products themselves as investments and the stocks that depend on that level of consumer spending.   The Paramount deal just can't stay out of the news Next month will mark one year since Paramount began its pursuit of Warner Bros. What started as an unsolicited bid eventually turned into an agreement for Paramount to acquire Warner Bros. in an $81 billion deal. However, the transaction continues to face significant legal hurdles.   Several state attorneys general have raised antitrust concerns, forcing the deal into the court system. In the meantime, Paramount has agreed to pay a $650 million per quarter "ticking fee" if the deal is not completed by September 30. On top of that, the company's legal bill has already reached roughly $160 million, and the case hasn't even gone to trial yet.   The costs only increase from here. If the merger is ultimately blocked or isn't completed by June 2027, Paramount would owe Warner Bros. a staggering $7 billion breakup fee.   Paramount is pushing to begin the trial by November 4, but the attorneys general seeking to block the deal want to delay proceedings until next April. Paramount does have some leverage, as it has major operations and thousands of employees in states such as California, New York, and New Jersey. Even California Governor Gavin Newsom has encouraged the state's attorney general to find an out-of-court resolution.   For investors, this has been an extremely nerve-racking situation. Paramount shares are currently trading around $8, down roughly 41% year to date after starting the year near $13.40 per share. Every delay adds more uncertainty, more legal expenses, and more ticking fees.   There are also strong incentives for the companies involved to get the deal across the finish line. Warner Bros. CEO David Zaslav could reportedly receive compensation worth more than $800 million if the transaction is completed, giving him a significant financial incentive to see the merger succeed.   This will likely continue to test shareholders' patience. As the legal battl

  6. Jul 31

    July 31st, 2026 | Chip Deals May Not Be Secure, Why Index Investing Disappoints, The Economy Is Stronger Than You Think, Leverage Risks, Here Come the Robots & More

    Those Long-Term Chip Deals May Not Be as Secure as Investors Are Led to Believe When you listen to memory chip companies like Samsung Electronics, SK Hynix, and Micron Technology discuss their businesses, they often make it sound like customer contracts—some extending as long as five years—are essentially set in stone. Unfortunately, that's not entirely true. Yes, these companies have long-term agreements in place, but contracts in this industry are often renegotiated when market conditions change. If demand for memory chips weakens significantly, chip manufacturers have a strong incentive to work with their customers rather than strictly enforce every contractual commitment. The reason is simple: preserving long-term customer relationships is often far more valuable than maximizing short-term revenue. Imagine a customer that suddenly doesn't need as many chips because its own sales have slowed. If a supplier forces that customer to accept unwanted inventory, those chips may simply sit in a warehouse until demand recovers. By the time the customer needs additional chips, it may choose to reduce future orders or move business to a competitor that proved to be more flexible during difficult times. Competitors are always looking for opportunities to gain market share. If one supplier refuses to work with its customers, another is usually willing to offer better pricing or more favorable terms. Losing a major customer over a rigid interpretation of a contract can cost far more in future profits than making temporary concessions during a downturn. This isn't just theory and it has happened before. During the COVID-era, many long-term agreements were adjusted as demand shifted. Rather than forcing customers to take products they no longer needed, suppliers often renegotiated delivery schedules and purchasing commitments to preserve long-term partnerships. The same principle applies across many industries. Companies frequently modify or delay large commercial agreements when business conditions change. While contracts provide a framework, successful businesses understand that maintaining trust with key customers is often more important than enforcing every clause to the letter. Investors should remember that a signed contract does not necessarily guarantee future revenue will be recognized exactly as originally planned. Management teams often emphasize the value of their long-term agreements during earnings calls, but those agreements can evolve if market conditions deteriorate. At the end of the day, great businesses understand that customer relationships are built over years but can be damaged in a matter of weeks. In many cases, giving a customer flexibility during a downturn is a much better investment than insisting on strict contract enforcement. That's why investors should view long-term chip contracts as valuable, but not invincible.   Why Index Investing Could Leave You Disappointed Long Term I often hear people say, "Just buy the S&P 500 and forget about it. You'll be fine." While that sounds simple, investing is rarely that easy. Many investors don't fully understand how an index works or why it has performed so well in recent years. The S&P 500 has been driven largely by a handful of technology and AI companies. By blindly investing in the index, many people are simply participating in a momentum strategy without realizing it. Very little thought is given to what those 500 companies are actually worth. There is no effort to trim positions that have become extremely expensive or overly concentrated. As valuations climb, the index simply gives those companies an even larger weighting, leaving investors with greater exposure to the stocks that have already gone up the most. Some people respond by saying, "I won't put everything in the S&P 500. I'll diversify into other index funds." But once you go down that road, investing becomes much more complicated and you’ll likely underperform the S&P 500. Should you own an international index? A European index? A bond index? A growth index? A value index? Small-cap funds? REITs? There are hundreds of ETFs and mutual funds to choose from. Now you have another challenge: deciding how much to allocate to each one. When your portfolio declines will you understand why? More importantly, will you know what to do next? Many investors don't, and that uncertainty often leads to emotional decisions at exactly the wrong time. This is why I prefer managing a portfolio of individual value-oriented stocks, combined with money market funds and selected real estate investment trusts (REITs). That approach still provides diversification, but I understand what each investment is worth and why I own it. In my view, that's a much better foundation than owning five or ten different index funds without truly understanding what's inside them or how they're valued. Another common argument for index investing is lower fees. While fees certainly matter, they shouldn't be the only factor. The number that ultimately matters is your total return after all fees and expenses. A lower fee doesn't automatically translate into better long-term performance. If you own index funds, take some time to look under the hood. Do you really understand what you own? Do you know which sectors dominate your portfolio, which companies make up the largest holdings, and how expensive those businesses are today? If the answer is no, don't assume you'll be comfortable when the market experiences its next major decline. Investors who don't understand what they own are often the first to panic, and that confusion can lead to costly investment mistakes.   The U.S. economy is still in much better shape than many people think. This week brought three major events for investors: GDP, PCE inflation, and the Federal Reserve meeting. While the headlines may have sounded mixed, the underlying data still paints a healthy consumer. Second-quarter GDP grew at a 1.5% annualized rate, below economists' expectations. At first glance, that may seem disappointing. But when you look under the hood, the economy continues to show resilience. Consumer spending, which accounts for nearly 70% of U.S. GDP, increased 3.2% after a weak first quarter where it only climbed 0.5%. That tells me the American consumer is still in good shape, and that's one of the biggest reasons the economy continues to avoid the recession that so many have been predicting. Major drags on the headline GDP figure included government spending, which reduced growth by 0.14 percentage points, as well as the more volatile components of trade and the change in private inventories, which subtracted 1.01 and 0.67 percentage points, respectively. Inflation remains the biggest challenge. The Fed's preferred inflation measure, core PCE, increased 3.3% over the past year. While that's an improvement from where we've been, it's still well above the Federal Reserve's 2% target. I continue to believe inflation will remain sticky until energy prices become more stable. Energy impacts transportation, manufacturing, and virtually every supply chain, so it's difficult to see inflation falling sustainably while energy costs remain volatile. The Fed, as expected, left interest rates unchanged. What stood out wasn't the decision, it was the growing disagreement among policymakers. The 3 dissents that voted for a 25-basis point increase highlight just how uncertain the economic outlook remains. When inflation is still elevated but the economy continues to grow, there isn't an easy policy answer. One thing I do like so far is Kevin Warsh’s changes at the Fed. I like the simplified statement, the encouragement of differing viewpoints, and rather than projecting absolute confidence in economic forecasts, he has acknowledged the uncertainty surrounding them. That's a refreshing change. Economic forecasting has never been an exact science, and I would rather have a Fed Chair who recognizes the limitations of those projections than one who pretends they are precise. What's surprising is how quickly some of the talking heads have claimed Warsh already has a credibility problem. I don't see it that way. Credibility isn't about making bold predictions that later need to be revised. It's about being honest about what we know, what we don't know, and allowing incoming data to guide policy. The takeaway for investors is simple: don't let one headline drive your investment decisions. The economy continues to expand, consumers are still spending, inflation remains stubborn, and the Fed is navigating a difficult policy environment. Looking beneath the surface is often where you'll find the real story.   Leverage Is Fuel... Until It Becomes the Fire The last few weeks have been a reminder that leverage looks like a wonderful tool on the way up... but it’s a devastating one on the way down. FINRA's new margin rules have effectively replaced the 25-year-old Pattern Day Trader rule, allowing traders with as little as $2,000 to make unlimited day trades using intraday margin. While this opens the door for more retail participation, it also means more investors have access to leverage, something that has historically magnified both gains and losses. This is a big problem considering FINRA margin debt climbed 49% year over year to another record in June of roughly $1.5 trillion. This comes as investor net credit balances have fallen to a record negative $1.06 trillion. In other words, investors collectively owe more on margin than they have sitting in cash accounts. For comparison’s sake, in March 2000 this measure stood at a negative $0.13 trillion. That's an aggressive setup if volatility returns. We also saw this past week the spectacular collapse of Leopold Aschenbrenner's AI-focused hedge fund, Situational Awareness, which shows what can happen when conviction is paired with excessive leverage. The near 25-year-old Aschenbrenner was painted as a genius

  7. Jul 24

    July 24th, 2026 | Netflix Losing Its Edge, U.S. Oil Running Low, Bank Stocks Worth Buying? Cheaper New Homes, Trading Frenzy Continues, Investment Scam Warning, Conservation Easements & More

    Netflix Is Struggling to Stay on Top…. and the Stock Reflects It For years, Netflix has been the dominant force in streaming, consistently taking market share from its competitors. However, recent data suggests the competition is beginning to chip away at that lead.   Netflix reported earnings last week, and the results showed a company that is executing well. Profits continue to grow, customer cancellations remain among the lowest in the industry, and the company is still producing blockbuster franchises like Bridgerton and Stranger Things that attract millions of viewers.   The concern in the report wasn't profitability, it was engagement. Viewer engagement measures how much time subscribers spend watching content and how often they complete a movie or series. The more engaged customers are, the less likely they are to cancel their subscription in favor of another streaming service. That's why this metric is so important.   Netflix still accounted for 7.8% of total TV viewing in April, making it the largest subscription streaming platform. However, that was its lowest share since May 2025, suggesting competitors are gradually gaining ground.   The stock has reflected those concerns, declining roughly 40% over the past year despite continued earnings growth. I've always liked what Netflix co-founder Reed Hastings had to say as he frequently emphasized the importance of staying focused and keeping the business simple. That's a philosophy that has served our investment firm well over the years.   Now, with increasing competition from Disney, HBO Max, YouTube, and others, Netflix is reportedly exploring additional subscription offerings similar to what Amazon and Apple provide. Personally, I think that would be a mistake.   At this year's Emmy Awards, Netflix earned 111 nominations. Instead of expanding into new subscription services, why not invest even more heavily in creating award-winning shows and movies? If they produced enough quality content to earn 120 or even 130 Emmy nominations next year, subscriber engagement would likely take care of itself.   Sometimes the best strategy isn't to do more, it's to do one thing exceptionally well. What do you think? Have you canceled or considered canceling your Netflix subscription? Or do you still believe Netflix offers the best streaming service?   U.S. oil supplies are falling to concerning levels U.S. oil inventories have fallen to levels that should be a concern. The current U.S. oil stockpile is just under 410 million barrels. On a seasonal basis, we have not seen inventories this low since 2018. The seasonal comparison is important because summer is one of the highest-consumption periods of the year.   The U.S. consumes about 20.6 million barrels of oil per day, produces approximately 13.9 million barrels per day, and relies on imports for roughly 7 million barrels per day. At the same time, the United States exports about 4 million barrels of oil per day, likely because companies can receive higher prices for that oil in international markets. If we somehow stopped producing and importing oil entirely, the current commercial stockpile would last roughly 20 days.   The Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which has been reduced to approximately 317 million barrels, is also at its lowest level since 1983. At current consumption rates, that reserve would represent roughly 15 days of consumption.   Replenishing U.S. oil inventories to higher levels could take many months or even years. Now with WTI oil around $90 a barrel that higher price could actually be a good thing.   You may be wondering why I would say that, especially since higher oil prices often mean higher gas prices at the pump, but higher gas prices may encourage consumers and businesses to reduce their energy consumption. A lower consumption rate could help slow the decline in inventories and give the U.S. a chance to rebuild its oil supplies.   Over the last six months, have you found yourself reducing your energy usage? And do you plan to reduce your consumption going forward?   Banks Had a Great Quarter, Is It Time to Invest? Last week, the banks reported financial results that topped estimates for both earnings and revenue. They also showed improved efficiency as expenses declined as a percentage of revenue. After such a strong quarter, you might think the coast is clear and it’s time to invest in the banking sector.   For the cautious investor, however, it’s important to look at the other side of the coin. I’m not expecting the banks to fall dramatically but returns going forward could be more muted because of several factors.   First, there is net interest margin, which measures the difference between what a bank earns on its assets and what it pays depositors and debt holders to borrow money. Banks now have very large balance sheets, so even if net interest margins decline, the dollar amount of profits can remain substantial. However, further pressure on margins could still become a headwind for future earnings growth.   There are also other risks for conservative investors to consider. The ongoing situation with Iran could create additional uncertainty. The AI boom could experience a rough patch, and while the economy and labor markets appear strong right now, investors cannot ignore the possibility of an economic slowdown.   Rising interest rates could also prove difficult for banks if rates move significantly higher from current levels, potentially putting pressure on their profit margins. The good news is that bank valuations are not excessively high, which could help limit the downside risk in the event of a market pullback.   To be clear, we are not anticipating a major decline in the banks we hold in our portfolio. However, investors should make sure the banks they own have very strong balance sheets. Strong capital positions and manageable debt can help reduce downside risk if the economic environment becomes more challenging. A strong quarter is certainly a positive sign for the banks, but investors should remember that great earnings today do not always guarantee great returns tomorrow. Valuation, balance-sheet strength, and the economic environment will all play an important role in determining future returns.   Are new homes actually a better deal than existing homes? There is an interesting trend developing in the housing market: the median price of a newly built home is now lower than the median price of an existing home. Historically there has been about a 20% premium for new homes.   At first, that sounds surprising. New homes are typically more expensive, so how can they now be cheaper? One major reason is that the type of new homes being built and sold has changed. Builders are increasingly focusing on smaller homes, townhomes, and more affordable developments. Townhouses now account for about one in five new single-family homes, which is the highest share since the National Association of Home Builders began tracking the data in 1985. In many cases developers are focusing on attainable homes for the middle-class which means the homes are roughly 1,200 to 2,000 square feet on smaller lots. As a result, the median price of a new home can look lower than the median price of an existing home, even though that doesn't necessarily always mean buyers are getting more house for their money.   In other words, the comparison isn't always apples to apples. A new townhome or smaller home may have a lower price than an older, larger single-family home. That can make new construction appear to be a better deal, but buyers need to carefully consider what they are actually comparing.   There are some real advantages to buying new. Builders are offering incentives such as mortgage-rate buydowns and assistance with closing costs. These lower rates make the monthly payment lower and more achievable than a comparable existing home. New homes typically require less maintenance, come with modern finishes and new appliances, are more energy efficient, and often come with warranties.   But there are risks and a big one many people may not consider is lower resale value. Many of these new home developments only provide a handful of floorplans and they are built on a smaller parcel of land, which leads to less distinctive homes. If you go to sell your home within a few years, you may also be competing against the homebuilder if new homes are still being built in the community.   The bottom line: new homes may offer some of the best deals in the housing market right now, but buyers need to look beyond the headline numbers. Compare the size, location, price per square foot, HOA fees, upgrades, and the total monthly cost. A new home may be a better deal than an existing home, but make sure you understand exactly what you are getting for your money.   Stock Trading Is Off the Charts! There is a frenzy happening in the stock market right now. With individuals buying and selling stocks, along with institutional investors constantly trading, Wall Street is generating enormous trading fees. But one has to ask the question: Does all of this activity make sense?   U.S. average daily trading volume in equities and options hit a record in the second quarter, with 73 million options contracts and 20 billion shares traded. Think about that number for a minute: 20 billion shares of stock changing hands over just three months. Let that sink in.   We have not seen this much activity in individual stocks since the end of the dot-com bubble, and we all know how that turned out.   The good news is that, with this frenzy of stock trading, more people are beginning to seek professional help managing their portfolios. The bad news is that many brokers are really just salespeople who may not have a strong investment philosophy or truly understand what they are doing. They will simply ride the wave until the crash comes, j

  8. Jul 17

    July 17th, 2026 | META's Stock: Hidden Risks, Spring Home Sales Disappoint, AI's Steel Demand, Inflation Isn't Finished, Consumers Ignore Higher Gas, Social Security Changes Ahead & More

    META's stock surged last week, but investors shouldn't ignore the risks. Meta shares climbed last week as Wall Street became increasingly optimistic about the company's AI strategy. The stock was up about15% for the week and erased the year-to-date losses. Investors are betting that Meta's enormous spending on AI infrastructure, custom chips, top engineering talent, and next-generation models will lead to faster revenue growth, stronger advertising tools, and new revenue streams over the next several years. The market clearly believes Meta has positioned itself as one of the leaders in the AI race. But while investors were celebrating, Europe reminded everyone that even great companies face meaningful risks. The European Commission announced preliminary findings that Facebook and Instagram may violate the Digital Services Act because of what regulators call "addictive design" features, including infinite scrolling, autoplay videos, and recommendation algorithms that encourage users to stay engaged for longer periods. If the findings become final and Meta does not make sufficient changes, the company could face fines of up to 6% of its global annual revenue, along with potential changes to how its platforms operate across Europe. Meta has disputed the findings and says it has already implemented significant protections for younger users. This could amount to a fine of around $12 B, but the bigger problem I see is a potential hit to ad revenue if they must change their business practices. Europe is an important part of their business considering it accounts for about 23% of overall company sales. We also can't forget the legal liability Meta is facing in the United States, which could ultimately total as much as $1.4 trillion. That number may sound shocking, but it stems from multiple lawsuits brought by numerous states and plaintiffs. The first major cases are scheduled to go to trial in August, with California, Colorado, New Jersey, and Kentucky leading the way. The lawsuits allege deceptive business practices, and potential penalties range from $2,000 to $20,000 per violation. Given Meta's massive user base, those fines could accumulate rapidly if the courts rule against the company. Beyond civil penalties, the states are also seeking disgorgement of profits, which would require Meta to surrender profits earned from the alleged misconduct during the relevant period. If Meta performs poorly in these initial cases, another 25 states have similar lawsuits waiting in the wings, significantly increasing the company's legal exposure. There are already signs that these legal challenges carry real financial risk. New Mexico recently won a $375 million judgment against Meta, and a separate federal trial is scheduled to begin early next year. The AI opportunity is also far from guaranteed. Today, investors are rewarding companies that appear to be winning the AI race, but the competitive landscape is becoming more crowded every quarter. OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Microsoft, xAI, and others are investing billions of dollars to develop better models and attract developers. Meta has responded aggressively by spending heavily on infrastructure and recruiting top AI researchers, but there is no guarantee those investments will generate returns that justify the enormous capital being deployed. A big problem is today's leader in AI can quickly become tomorrow's follower if innovation slows. I also believe that all of these companies will not succeed in this space, which will mean enormous amounts of wasted capital for the losers. Wall Street seemed to be focused almost entirely on Meta's AI upside last week, and that optimism may continue to drive the stock higher. But investors should remember that valuation is increasingly dependent on AI execution while regulatory scrutiny remains elevated. If AI spending fails to produce the expected returns or regulators force changes that weaken engagement, today's bullish narrative could change quickly. Meta remains one of the strongest companies in technology, but even great businesses are not risk-free. As investors, it's important to weigh both the opportunities and the risks, not just the headlines driving the stock higher today.   The spring home sales season disappointed in June The spring home-selling season ended on a disappointing note. Through May, existing home sales had been showing signs of improvement, and many real estate professionals were becoming more optimistic about the housing market. However, June's data told a different story. The conflict involving Iran contributed to higher inflation expectations and pushed mortgage rates higher, weighing on buyer demand. Existing home sales fell 2.4% in June to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 4.09 million homes, well below economists' expectations for a 0.7% increase. Despite the monthly decline, the longer-term trend remains somewhat more encouraging. Existing home sales were still up 2.8% compared with a year ago, suggesting that underlying demand has not disappeared. There continues to be pent-up demand from prospective buyers, but many seem unwilling to make such a large financial commitment while borrowing costs remain elevated, even as housing inventory continues to improve According to Freddie Mac, the average 30-year fixed mortgage rate was 6.43% last week. If mortgage rates remain near these levels, many prospective homebuyers may continue to delay their purchases, preventing a stronger recovery in the housing market.   Another Hidden Cost of AI: Steel Most people know that the AI buildout has driven up demand for advanced computer chips, contributing to higher prices for smartphones, laptops, and other electronics. They also know that AI data centers require enormous amounts of electricity, putting upward pressure on utility rates as more power is diverted to support AI infrastructure. But there's another cost that receives far less attention: steel. Steel is a critical component of every data center. Industry estimates suggest that new data centers will consume roughly 1 million tons of steel annually, representing approximately $1.4 billion in demand. Steel is used throughout these facilities from the structural columns, roof joists, and roof decking to the server racks that house thousands of AI processors. This growing demand has ripple effects throughout the economy. Higher steel demand can contribute to increased costs for automobiles, household appliances, commercial buildings, bridges, and countless other products that rely on steel. The impact doesn't stop there. Steel production is one of the most energy-intensive manufacturing processes. A single electric furnace steel mill can consume anywhere from around 50 to 200 megawatts of electricity per day, competing for the same power resources as AI data centers. As both industries demand more electricity, utilities face increasing pressure to expand generating capacity. Ultimately, who pays for that increased demand? The answer is often the consumer. Higher electricity demand can translate into higher utility bills for households and businesses as utilities invest in additional generation and transmission infrastructure. In regions where electricity supply is already tight, the competition for power is becoming even more apparent. For example, PJM Interconnection, the nation's largest regional transmission organization, plans to begin conducting supplemental power auctions with electricity generators in September to help secure additional supply. Auctions reward the highest bidders, meaning electricity increasingly flows to those willing to pay the most. As large industrial users and AI data centers bid aggressively for power, consumers could face higher electricity prices if supply fails to keep pace with demand. AI will likely bring enormous productivity gains and economic benefits over the long run. However, it is also creating secondary inflationary pressures that extend well beyond semiconductors. Steel, electricity, construction materials, and other critical inputs are all experiencing increased demand, and those costs eventually work their way through the economy. As the AI revolution accelerates, these indirect costs are likely to become an increasingly important part of the inflation story.   Inflation Is Cooling... But Don't Pop the Champagne Yet The latest CPI report was another encouraging sign that inflation is moving in the right direction. Headline CPI declined 0.4% in June, marking the largest monthly drop since 2020, while the annual inflation rate slowed to 3.5% from 4.2% in May. Core inflation, which excludes food and energy, was flat on the month and eased to 2.6% year over year. Much of the improvement was driven by a sharp decline in gasoline and broader energy prices. While this is welcome news, I'd caution against declaring victory over inflation. One of the biggest challenges with inflation is that it doesn't always show up in the headline numbers immediately. It often works its way through the economy in waves, especially when it comes to energy. A good example is my own pool service. My pool guy recently raised his prices, likely for two reasons: higher chemical costs and the increased cost of driving from house to house. Those are both directly tied to energy markets. Even if gasoline prices temporarily fall and help bring down CPI for a month, businesses often adjust prices more slowly because they have to account for prior cost increases and the uncertainty of where energy prices are headed next. That's why I think investors should remain cautious. The recent improvement in inflation was helped significantly by lower oil and gasoline prices following a temporary easing in geopolitical tensions. But with conflict in the Middle East once again threatening energy supplies and oil prices recently moving higher, that relief could prove short-lived. The trend is encouraging, and the Federal Re

See All (300)

Ratings & Reviews

4
out of 5
17 Ratings

About

Smart Investing is the radio show where Brent and Chase try to make investing easier to understand. They demonstrate long-term investment strategies to help you find good value investments.

Information

You Might Also Like