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

    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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. Jul 11

    July 10th, 2026 | People Missed Dot-Com, Data Centers Next Door, Crypto’s Power Threat , Why Flights Stay Expensive, Deflating the Portfolio Balloon, AI Boom or Bust, Simple vs. Compound Loans & More

    Did you ever wonder why so many people didn't get out before the dot-com crash? It's an important question to ask yourself, especially if you believe you'll know exactly when to get out before any potential correction in today's AI and semiconductor stocks.   The reality is that the dot-com bubble burst only 25 years ago. Human nature hasn't changed since then. Investors today are no smarter than investors were back then, and the same emotions that drove the bubble are showing up again. There were four major reasons so many people lost money during the tech bust.   The first was that investors stopped focusing on earnings and price-to-earnings ratios. Instead, they justified sky-high valuations by looking at metrics like website traffic, page views, click-through rates, and the number of "eyeballs" on a screen. The assumption was that if revenue kept growing, profits would eventually follow. Many ignored the reality that businesses also have expenses, competition, and execution risk.   The second reason was FOMO or the fear of missing out. Between 1995 and 2000, the Nasdaq surged roughly 400%. As people watched friends, coworkers, and investors make fortunes on tech stocks and IPOs, more and more money poured into the market. Institutional investors and retail investors alike stopped worrying about valuations. They simply saw stocks going up and didn't want to miss the ride.   The third reason was the belief that "this time is different." You heard it everywhere: "You just don't get it. This is the new economy." Investors argued that traditional valuation metrics no longer mattered because the only thing that counted was gaining market share. Profitability could always come later.   The fourth reason was the assumption that capital would never dry up. Few investors paid attention to where companies were getting their money. Many businesses were surviving on venture capital rather than sustainable profits. When funding slowed and investors became more selective, those companies had no profitable business model to fall back on. Many quickly went bankrupt.   At the peak of the bubble, investors stopped asking basic questions. What am I paying for this company's earnings? What am I paying for its cash flow? In many cases, there weren't any. Yet investors convinced themselves the speculative frenzy would continue indefinitely.   The biggest lesson is a humbling one. We like to believe we'll recognize the top and get out before everyone else. But investors in 2000 believed the same thing. Human psychology hasn't changed, which is why bubbles continue to repeat throughout history.   Don’t Build That Data Center in My Backyard The race to build AI infrastructure is running into an obstacle that many investors probably didn't see coming: local communities.   Across the country, residents are protesting and filing lawsuits to stop new AI data centers from being built in their neighborhoods. One of the biggest concerns is something most people never think about, the constant noise. Data centers operate around the clock, with cooling fans, chillers, and backup generators creating a continuous hum 24 hours a day. That may not sound like a major issue until you have to live next to it.   New York has become one of the focal points of this debate. While the state has plenty of available land for development, many communities are pushing back. Governor Kathy Hochul is even considering legislation that would place a moratorium on the construction of large data centers in certain areas.   Public opinion reflects that growing resistance. According to recent polling, 44% of Americans oppose additional data center construction, while only 21% support it. When the question becomes more personal and whether people would support a data center being built in their own community, opposition jumps to 57%, while support falls to just 14%.   Residents also question the long-term economic benefits. Building a data center may create thousands of construction jobs, but once the facility is complete, permanent employment may fall to just 100 to 200 workers. At the same time, these facilities consume enormous amounts of electricity. In some regions served by smaller utilities, a single data center could account for as much as 25% of total power demand, raising concerns about higher electricity costs and increased strain on the grid.   The political landscape is becoming more challenging. Lawmakers in states including Arizona, Illinois, and Ohio have restricted or eliminated tax incentives that were previously used to attract data center investment.   Even the companies building this infrastructure recognize the growing risk. The hyperscalers are expected to spend nearly $1 trillion on AI infrastructure this year, but increasing public opposition could slow those plans. Nebius Group, for example, warned in its 2025 annual report that rising resistance to data center projects in certain communities could become a headwind for future expansion.   Investors have spent a great deal of time focusing on AI demand, chips, and software. However, another risk is emerging that deserves attention: if communities continue saying, "Not in my backyard," the pace of AI infrastructure growth may not be as smooth as many expect.   Is Crypto Weakening One of America's Most Powerful Weapons? One of the United States' greatest geopolitical advantages isn't its military, it's the U.S. dollar.   Roughly 90% of global foreign exchange transactions involve the U.S. dollar. That dominance gives the United States enormous leverage. When the U.S. imposes financial sanctions and cuts countries off from the dollar-based financial system, it becomes far more difficult for them to conduct international trade, finance military operations, or access global markets.   That advantage is beginning to erode. Countries that have long opposed the United States such as Russia, Iran, and North Korea are increasingly turning to cryptocurrencies to bypass traditional financial channels. According to reports, their use of virtual currencies for cross-border transactions surged from roughly $12.5 billion in 2024 to more than $100 billion in 2025.   Crypto gives sanctioned nations another way to move money. It can be used to purchase drones, weapons, military components, and fuel, while also helping finance operations such as smuggling oil and paying suppliers outside the traditional banking system.   North Korea has become one of the world's most aggressive crypto thieves, using hacking and other cybercrimes to steal digital assets that can then be converted into funding for its military and weapons programs.   Part of the challenge is that cryptocurrency wallets are identified by long strings of letters and numbers rather than names. While blockchain transactions are publicly visible, identifying the person or organization controlling a wallet can be extremely difficult without additional intelligence. That makes enforcement of financial sanctions much harder.   Even terrorist organizations such as Hamas have, at times, solicited donations in cryptocurrency, illustrating how digital assets can be used to circumvent traditional financial controls.   This is why I believe cryptocurrency has become more than just an investment story, it has become a national security issue.   If Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies were to experience a significant decline in value, it would reduce the purchasing power of those holding large crypto reserves, including sanctioned actors that rely on digital assets. While it would not eliminate their ability to use crypto, it could make this alternative financial system less effective and increase the relative importance of the dollar-based financial system.   The stronger the role of the U.S. dollar in global commerce, the more effective financial sanctions remain as a non-military tool of foreign policy. With cryptocurrencies becoming more widely adopted, policymakers will need to consider the risk of weakening one of America's most effective forms of economic leverage.   Even with oil off its recent peak, you still may not see cheaper airline tickets. You might assume that with the decline in oil prices, jet fuel costs are also declining, and airlines will pass those savings on to travelers through lower ticket prices. Oil and jet fuel prices have indeed come down, but don't expect airlines to slash fares anytime soon.   The reason is simple: demand remains strong. Even after airlines raised fares eight times since the start of the conflict in the Middle East, analysts say the average round-trip domestic ticket climbed roughly 19% to about $638 yet demand barely changed. In other words, consumers have shown they are willing to pay higher prices to travel. If people keep buying tickets, airlines have little incentive to lower fares and give up those higher profit margins.   Supply is also likely to remain constrained. Airlines aren't rushing to add flights because keeping capacity tight helps support higher ticket prices. The bankruptcy and downsizing of low-cost carriers such as Spirit Airlines has also reduced competition on many routes, making it easier for the remaining airlines to maintain pricing power.   To be fair, airline pricing should be viewed over a longer time horizon. From 2019 through 2025, overall consumer prices rose about 26%, while average airfares actually declined roughly 3.5%. So, despite the recent increases, airline tickets are still relatively inexpensive compared with the broader rise in inflation over the past six years.   The bottom line is that lower fuel costs alone don't guarantee lower ticket prices. As long as travel demand remains healthy and airlines keep capacity in check, consumers may not see much relief at the checkout screen.   Letting Air Out of the Investment Portfolio Balloon Before It Pops At one point or another,

  7. Jul 2

    July 2nd, 2026 | AI Profit Pressure, Private Equity in Youth Sports, Strategy Bitcoin Trouble, Upper-Middle-Class Financial Worries, Jobs Report, AI Investment Bubble Concerns, Trump Accounts & More

    Competition for AI Is Coming From a Surprise Source That Could Pressure U.S. Companies' Prices and Profits  We tend to focus on the major AI companies in the United States and assume they will be the long-term winners. However, one competitor that cannot be ignored is China. Chinese companies are making rapid progress in artificial intelligence, and they could become a serious challenge to U.S. firms.  Don’t forget that China is a communist country and the government can put in a lot of capital to win the AI race. That ability to heavily fund AI development could help Chinese companies narrow the gap with, or even surpass, some American competitors in certain areas.  According to Artificial Analysis, which evaluates the capabilities of large language models, China's Z.ai ranked among the top three globally with its latest model release. Another concern is cost. Z.ai is reportedly offering models at less than half the price of many American rivals. Lower prices could make it easier for the company to gain market share while putting pressure on the pricing and profit margins of U.S. AI companies.  I certainly don't want to see American companies lose ground to Chinese competitors. However, as investors, we have to evaluate the competitive landscape objectively. U.S. AI companies have already committed hundreds of billions of dollars to infrastructure and development. If competition forces prices lower, it may take much longer for these companies to generate the profits needed to justify today's lofty stock prices and valuations.    The Business of Kids' Sports Is Changing and it May Not Be for the Better  Private equity has made its way into nearly every corner of the economy, and now it's becoming a major force in youth sports. The Aspen Institute has estimated that youth sports are now a $40 billion industry in the U.S, which is likely why private equity is now targeting the space. That's raising serious concerns about what happens when maximizing investor returns becomes more important than giving kids affordable opportunities to play.  As private equity firms buy up leagues, tournaments, training facilities, and sports complexes, critics argue the result is less competition, higher registration fees, and fewer affordable options for families. The average cost of youth sports has increased dramatically in recent years, leaving many children priced out of participating simply because their families can't afford it.  One thing that stands out is that this has become one of the rare issues drawing concern from both Republicans and Democrats in Congress. Burgess Owens, a Republican from Utah and former professional football player, pointed out “Investment is important, but it’s when the mission is our kids, not investors. We’re seeing too much of this. We’re going to lose the soul of our nation if we don’t get this right.” He also acknowledged that while some investors are doing it the right way, bad actors need to be kept out. While there are differences over how to address the problem, there appears to be broad bipartisan agreement that rising costs and reduced consumer choice deserve closer scrutiny.  Youth sports should be about developing character, teamwork, friendships, and healthy competition, not creating another industry where financial engineering determines who gets to participate. If the trend toward consolidation continues unchecked, more families may find themselves priced out of opportunities that should be available to every child, regardless of income.    Bitcoin Company Strategy Is in Trouble  Strategy, formerly known as MicroStrategy, changed its name after the company essentially became a leveraged bet on Bitcoin rather than a software business. As management shifted its focus almost entirely to buying Bitcoin, it dropped the "Micro" from its name to reflect that new identity.  CEO Michael Saylor spent years promoting Bitcoin and telling investors that owning Strategy stock was one of the best ways to benefit from its rise. To finance those Bitcoin purchases, the company repeatedly issued low-interest convertible bonds.  The next major maturity comes on September 15, 2027, when approximately $1 billion of convertible notes become due. If you're unfamiliar with convertible bonds, they allow a company to borrow money at lower interest rates because investors have the option to convert the bonds into stock instead of receiving cash repayment. For that to happen, however, the stock price must trade well above the conversion price.  In this case, the conversion price is about $183 per share, about double the current stock price of roughly $90. Unless the stock stages a dramatic recovery, those bonds are unlikely to be converted into shares, meaning Strategy would need to repay the $1 billion in cash.  The stock has fallen nearly 79% over the past year, and Bitcoin's decline has only magnified the losses. Bitcoin itself has dropped roughly 50% from its peak, falling below $60,000 depending on the day. When Bitcoin was making new highs, investor excitement seemed endless. Now that prices have been cut roughly in half, much of that enthusiasm has disappeared.    Michael Saylor has also been noticeably absent from major interviews in recent months. Whether that is because demand for his appearances has faded or because the company's performance has made those appearances more difficult is open to interpretation. Strategy stock reached a high of around $473 in late 2024 and now trades near $90.  We've discussed this company many times before. The concern has always been that Strategy is not creating meaningful operating growth as it is primarily just borrowing money to buy Bitcoin. Unlike a traditional operating company, it is not relying on expanding products or services to drive future earnings.  At the moment, there does not appear to be a clear catalyst that would significantly lift either Bitcoin or Strategy's stock price. If the shares remain well below the conversion price as the 2027 maturity approaches, investors are likely to become increasingly concerned about how the company will repay its debt. That uncertainty could continue to put pressure on the stock.    Upper-middle-class Americans may not be as financially secure as they would like  Upper-middle-class Americans, generally defined as households earning between $150,000 and $250,000 per year, may be in a stronger financial position than most, but many are becoming increasingly pessimistic about the future.  You may be surprised to learn that 86% of upper-middle-class Americans do not believe their children will have a better life than they have. Just seven years ago, in 2019, that figure was only 64%.  Many upper-middle-class households are also losing confidence in the economic system and the government. They increasingly feel that the odds are stacked against them, making it harder to continue moving ahead financially. In the most recent Wall Street Journal survey, 65% of affluent Americans said they believe the system is rigged against them, more than double the 29% who felt that way in 2017.  The news isn't much better for the middle class, generally defined as households earning between $65,000 and $235,000 annually. Only 25% said they have been able to save beyond an emergency fund. Roughly one in four also reported carrying credit card debt that they are unable to pay off in full each month.  Despite these concerns, there has still been significant upward mobility. About 75% of people in today's upper-income group said they now belong to a higher economic class than the one they grew up in. Among middle-class Americans, roughly half said they also grew up in a lower economic class than where they are today.  Views on higher education are changing as well. About one-third of middle-class Americans no longer believe a four-year college degree is the best path to financial success. Rising tuition costs, growing student debt, and the availability of alternative career paths have caused many to rethink the traditional college route.  No matter which income group people belong to, there is often a desire to improve their financial situation and move up economically. That ambition is a healthy part of human nature and is often what drives people to work harder, save more, and invest for the future. While constantly striving for more can sometimes make it difficult to feel fully satisfied, the pursuit of improvement can also provide a strong sense of purpose and accomplishment.    Did The Recent Jobs Report Tell the Whole Story?  At first glance, this weeks jobs report looked fairly uneventful. The U.S. economy added 57,000 nonfarm payroll jobs in June, and the unemployment rate fell to 4.2%. This was below the estimate of 115k, but it does follow three strong months of payroll growth.  After looking through the report, there are several numbers that raise some important questions.  The first is the labor force. About 720,000 people left the labor force in June, pushing the labor force participation rate down to 61.5%, the lowest since March 2021. Even more troubling is that if we exclude the Covid-era, it was the lowest labor force participation rate in exactly 50 years. When people stop looking for work, they are no longer counted as unemployed, which can make the unemployment rate appear stronger than it otherwise would.  Another surprising number was leisure and hospitality, which lost 61,000 jobs. June is typically one of the strongest hiring months of the year for hotels, restaurants, entertainment, and travel-related businesses. The Bureau of Labor Statistics attributed much of the decline to weaker-than-normal seasonal hiring, but it's still worth asking whether this reflects a temporary statistical issue or an early sign that consumer spending is beginning to s

  8. Jun 26

    June 26th, 2026 | iPhone 18: Pay More, Strong Dollar Returns, Can Google Challenge Nvidia? Dow's Alphabet Warning, Fed Backs Bank Strength, Quantum Computing Explained, Accessing Home Equity & More

    Want the New iPhone 18 This September? Be Prepared to Pay More…. A Lot More The iPhone 18 is expected to be released in just a few months, and if current estimates are accurate, consumers could be facing some serious sticker shock. One of the biggest reasons is the ongoing battle for semiconductor components. The rapid buildout of AI data centers has created enormous demand for memory chips, and data center operators are willing to pay almost any price to secure supply. That is creating challenges for companies like Apple, which rely heavily on DRAM (dynamic random-access memory) and NAND flash storage.   According to industry estimates, the cost of 12GB of DRAM used in the iPhone 17 was about $39. For the iPhone 18 Pro, that figure could rise to approximately $145. NAND flash storage costs are also expected to surge. The 256GB of flash storage that cost Apple around $13 in the iPhone 17 is projected to cost roughly $51 in the iPhone 18, an increase of nearly 300%.   Apple may also introduce a redesigned camera system that could cost about 50% more than the cameras used in previous models, adding even more pressure to manufacturing costs.   Apple currently earns an estimated gross margin of roughly 44% on the iPhone 17. If the company attempts to maintain those margins while absorbing these higher component costs, the price of a high-end iPhone 18 could climb to around $1,300 or more.   The big questions are: Will Apple absorb some of these higher costs and accept lower profit margins? Or will consumers decide that the latest upgrade isn't worth the higher price and keep their current phones for another year?   Either scenario could create headwinds for Apple's earnings. Lower margins would hurt profitability, while slower upgrade cycles could reduce unit sales. Both outcomes could put pressure on Apple's stock in the months ahead.   Bad News: The Dollar Is Strong Again Some people may read that headline and think, "What's the problem? Isn't a strong dollar a good thing?" Not necessarily. A strong dollar sounds positive, but the reality is more complicated. The U.S. dollar is now at its strongest level since May 2025. While that may feel good on the surface, a stronger dollar can create challenges for the economy.   When the dollar rises, American products become more expensive for the rest of the world to buy, which can worsen our trade deficit. At the same time, imported goods become cheaper for Americans. Consumers may enjoy lower prices on foreign products, but it also means more money flows overseas instead of supporting domestic businesses.   Over the long term, that can weaken U.S. manufacturing, increase our reliance on imports, and contribute to growing debt levels.   What's driving the dollar higher? Two major factors stand out. First, the new Federal Reserve leadership signaled a more hawkish stance at its most recent meeting. Nine of the 19 officials now expect at least one rate hike before year-end. Higher interest rates generally make the dollar more attractive to global investors. Second, the AI investment boom continues to fuel U.S. economic growth. However, the enormous capital required for AI infrastructure is leading companies to borrow heavily to finance those investments. This increased demand for capital competes with U.S. Treasury bonds for investor dollars, which could keep long-term interest rates elevated or even push them higher.   The AI boom has already increased speculation and risk in the equity market. Now it may also be creating additional risks in the bond market. Wherever you're investing, make sure you understand the relationship between risk and reward before committing your capital   Can Alphabet/Google Take Some of Nvidia's Market Share? Nvidia currently controls roughly 90% of the AI computing chip market. Whenever a company dominates an industry to that extent, it creates an opportunity for competitors to enter with comparable products at lower prices. That's exactly what Alphabet's Google is attempting to do with its artificial intelligence chips.   Google originally developed its custom AI chips for internal use, but it quickly realized there was a much bigger opportunity. With demand for AI infrastructure exploding, Google is now producing more chips and making them available to outside customers.   Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang has repeatedly stated, both publicly and privately, that increased competition will not have a meaningful impact on Nvidia's business. But what else can he say? Competition almost certainly will affect Nvidia to some degree. The company may eventually lose some market share and could be forced to lower chip prices to maintain its dominant position.   Google has significant financial resources to support its AI ambitions. In western New York, for example, Google reportedly provided a $3.2 billion financial guarantee tied to the Lake Marina AI data center project. Nvidia has used similar strategies in the past to strengthen relationships with customers and partners.   This type of financing does concern me. When you provide financing to a company that is also purchasing your products, you take on two risks. If that customer runs into financial trouble, you could lose both future product sales and repayment on the financing arrangement.   I also suspect Nvidia has substantial leverage with many of its customers. Companies may worry that reducing purchases from Nvidia today could limit their access to future chip allocations if demand remains strong.   Google isn't the only company challenging Nvidia. Competitors such as AMD, Broadcom, and newer entrants like Cerebras Systems are all looking for ways to gain a foothold in the rapidly growing AI chip market.   Nvidia stock has delivered incredible returns over the past several years. The question investors should be asking is whether increasing competition and the possibility of future chip oversupply could eventually take some of the shine off Nvidia's valuation.   The Dow’s Alphabet Move Is a Sign of Weakness, Not Strength The Dow Jones is once again proving why it has become one of the most outdated and least useful stock market indexes in America.   This week S&P Dow Jones Indices announced that Alphabet will be added to the Dow, replacing Verizon. The financial media is treating it like the Dow is finally modernizing itself for the AI era. I see it differently. This is not leadership. It is not vision. It is not smart index construction. It is the Dow doing what it has done for years: showing up late, after everyone else has already made the money.   The Dow is supposed to represent the most important companies in the American economy. But unlike the S&P 500, it is not rules-based. There is no formula, no discipline, no objective threshold that decides who gets in and who gets kicked out. Instead, a committee at S&P Dow Jones decides when the index should change and which companies “feel right” for the list. That sounds harmless until you realize what it really means: the Dow is not a market index so much as a committee-curated museum exhibit that occasionally swaps out an old display piece for whatever has already become impossible to ignore.   That is exactly what is happening with Alphabet. Google has been one of the most dominant businesses on earth for well over a decade. It has been central to digital advertising, cloud computing, mobile software, and now artificial intelligence. None of that is new. The AI spending boom did not start yesterday. The Magnificent Seven did not suddenly become important last week. These companies have been driving market returns, corporate profits, and capital spending for years. Yet only now does the Dow decide it needs more exposure to big tech? That is not being ahead of the curve. That is a lagging indicator pretending to be a benchmark.   And the timing could not be more ridiculous. Instead of adding these companies before the market fully priced in their dominance, the Dow is adding them after the entire world has piled into the trade. After valuations expanded. After AI enthusiasm exploded. After mega-cap concentration became one of the biggest risks in the market. In other words, the Dow ignored the most important trend in the market for years and is now buying into it once the trade is crowded. The Dow will now hold five of the Magnificent Seven—Alphabet, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, and Nvidia—which together will account for roughly 18% of the index. This is not modernization. That is panic buying in a suit.   What makes it even more absurd is that the Dow still uses a price-weighted structure, which is one of the silliest relics in finance. A stock’s influence in the index is determined by its share price, not by the actual size of the company or its economic importance. Think about how insane that is. In a supposedly elite index of America’s biggest companies, weighting is still distorted by something as arbitrary as the sticker price of one share. A stock split can change a company’s importance in the Dow more than a change in its business fundamentals. This also leads to more concentration with high priced stocks like Goldman Sachs accounting for roughly 13% of the entire index and Caterpillar making up around 12%. This compares to low priced stocks like Verizon or Nike which each only currently account for about 0.5% of the index.     So now the Dow wants to have it both ways. It wants the credibility of owning AI and mega-cap tech leaders, but it wants to keep the same outdated structure and the same slow-moving committee process that made it miss the trend in the first place. It wants to look relevant without actually fixing what makes it irrelevant. Replacing Verizon with Alphabet may make the Dow look smarter for a headline or two, but it actually exposes the problem. The Dow did not identify the future. It waited until the future was obvious, t

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