Advertise on podcast: Smart Investing with Brent & Chase Wilsey

Prediction market company, Kalshi, kind of admits to gambling If you’re unfamiliar with Kalshi, it operates a prediction market that allows people to wager on the outcome of an incredibly wide range of events. These include everything from football games to the words the Federal Reserve chairman might use in a speech and even the weather. Kalshi operates under the premise that these are event contracts, generally with a yes-or-no outcome, rather than traditional bets. Its markets are available nationwide to anyone 18 or older.   To me, one of the more interesting developments is Kalshi’s $2 million donation to the National Council on Problem Gambling (NCPG). From my research, I have been unable to find another brokerage or investment advisory firm that has made a comparable donation to the organization. Kalshi’s contribution is reportedly the second-largest the NCPG has ever received, behind the NFL’s $6.2 million donation in 2021.   The NCPG’s helpline received approximately 377,000 calls, texts, and chats in 2025, highlighting the scale of the gambling issue in this country. Kalshi also requested that the NCPG hire additional staff to implement so-called responsible trading programs and develop responsible trading training materials to distribute throughout its network.   I find this interesting because it raises a fundamental question: If prediction markets are simply a new form of financial trading, why is there a need for responsible trading programs specifically designed to address problem gambling?   From my perspective, Kalshi’s involvement with the NCPG raises questions about how the company views its own customers and the potential risks associated with its business model. While the company may not explicitly characterize its platform as gambling, I believe it recognizes that some of its users are engaging in behavior that closely resembles it.   The distinction between an event contract and a traditional bet may matter from a regulatory standpoint, but does it fundamentally change the behavior of the person putting money at risk?   I think that’s the bigger question here. Whatever terminology the industry uses, there is a meaningful difference between investing in a business based on its earnings and long-term prospects and wagering money on the outcome of a football game, a weather event, or a few words in a Fed chairman’s speech.   From my point of view, Kalshi’s donation comes at an interesting time, and I feel like it’s an admission that they are in the gambling business rather than the investment business.   SpaceX Is Making a Big Bet on Wireless, but I’m Skeptical It Will Become a Major Player Anytime Soon SpaceX’s latest spectrum deal is another example of Elon Musk’s ambition to expand into industries far beyond the company’s original business. The deal involves SpaceX acquiring a portfolio of wireless spectrum from Grain Management, an investment firm focused on digital infrastructure. The transaction is subject to Federal Communications Commission approval and includes up to 14 megahertz of paired spectrum in the 800 MHz band, according to SpaceX. While the move into wireless communications sounds exciting, I’m skeptical SpaceX will become a major competitor to Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile anytime soon.   Earl Lum, founder of EJL Wireless Research, described the idea as “one of the top three dumbest ideas” he has encountered in his four decades in the industry. Lum argues that replicating traditional outdoor cellular coverage would require three-sector antennas with 5-watt power outputs. Installing this equipment on residential properties would mean rooftop poles and municipal permitting requirements similar to those involved in building conventional cell sites. In other words, SpaceX could end up dealing with many of the same headaches as traditional cell towers without gaining the same performance benefits. Alternatively, using lower-power, 1-watt indoor femtocells would restrict coverage largely to individual homes, making it difficult to create a seamless mobile network.   AT&T CEO John Stankey has pushed back on SpaceX’s small-cell strategy, arguing that a patchwork of residential femtocells cannot overcome the enormous infrastructure and capital requirements of a traditional wireless network. AT&T has characterized satellite-to-cell technology as a solution for the last 2% of coverage gaps, rather than a replacement for the networks serving the other 98%.   T-Mobile CTO John Saw echoed those concerns, emphasizing that strong wireless networks require infrastructure built site by site, from neighborhoods and office buildings to stadiums and subway tunnels. Verizon’s leadership has also pointed to the physical limitations satellites face when competing with terrestrial networks.   I think the more realistic near-term opportunity is for SpaceX to complement existing networks rather than replace them. Satellite connectivity could become a valuable backup and extend coverage, but that doesn't automatically mean SpaceX can compete on capacity, reliability, and performance across the broader wireless market. Especially considering the company’s still relatively small footprint. SpaceX’s roughly 80 MHz of spectrum holdings pale in comparison to established carriers. T-Mobile alone controls nearly 400 MHz, while the three major U.S. carriers collectively hold more than 1,020 MHz.   Another consideration is how much SpaceX is already investing in other businesses. The company is spending billions developing Starship, expanding and maintaining the Starlink satellite constellation, and building massive AI data centers through its combination with xAI.   None of these investments are necessarily bad decisions. Starship could transform the economics of space launches, Starlink has a compelling growth opportunity, and AI infrastructure could become a valuable business. However, each requires enormous amounts of capital and comes with significant execution risks. For example, Evercore projects SpaceX’s AI capital expenditures will approach $53 billion in the second half of 2026.   SpaceX has an impressive track record, and I wouldn't dismiss its ability to disrupt established industries. But I also wouldn't assume every new venture will be equally successful.   My takeaway is that investors may be getting ahead of themselves when assessing the threat to traditional wireless carriers. Acquiring spectrum is only one step toward building a competitive wireless business. SpaceX still needs to deploy infrastructure, attract customers, and compete on price and performance while managing several other massive investments. These are no easy feat and it takes time. Pivotal research analyst Jeff Wlodarczak states, “Our view is that Starlink mobile reaches a low-double-digit share of U.S. wireless over our forecast period (13% in 10 years).”   For now, I would be careful about assuming SpaceX will take substantial market share from Verizon, AT&T, or T-Mobile anytime soon. The long-term opportunity may be real, but the timeline, capital requirements, and eventual returns remain uncertain.   AI Boom Faces a Growing List of Risks There are several developments in the artificial intelligence industry worth watching, and not all of them are positive. Between growing concerns about the safety of AI models, mounting debt among data center operators, questions about whether revenue growth can justify current valuations, and the possibility of future memory chip oversupply, the industry is facing a number of challenges that investors should not ignore.   First, Anthropic outlined how AI models could potentially infiltrate internet-connected devices, such as smart ovens and Android TV boxes, harness their computing power to run themselves, and spread to other devices. While these capabilities could eventually lead to useful applications, they also highlight some of the security risks associated with increasingly capable AI systems. The more autonomy these models gain, the more important it becomes to understand what they can do, what access they have, and whether their actions can be controlled. Anthropic warned in a blog post that the AI model could be “challenging to shut down” because it would have “no centralized point” that could be switched off.   At the same time, OpenAI is facing a lawsuit from eight states over concerns about ChatGPT's safety. These legal challenges highlight the growing pressure on AI developers to demonstrate that their products have appropriate safeguards. I believe AI has tremendous potential, but the technology is advancing quickly enough that safety, accountability, and the ability to manage unintended consequences need to remain part of the discussion.   There are also growing financial concerns surrounding the AI boom. CoreWeave, a major provider of cloud computing infrastructure for AI, has seen the cost of insuring its debt against default rise to distressed levels. Yields on CoreWeave’s debt have also continued to rise, with the yield to maturity on its 9.75% bond maturing in 2031 climbing to 15.78%this past week. This is worth watching because the AI infrastructure buildout requires enormous amounts of capital, and companies are taking on substantial financial obligations in anticipation of continued demand. If revenue growth or customer demand falls short of expectations, highly leveraged companies could find themselves in a difficult position.   Anthropic's latest reported revenue figures add another layer to the discussion. The company generated $16.8 billion in revenue during the third quarter, up from $11.6 billion in the second quarter and $4.7 billion in the first quarter. Those are impressive numbers, but the rate of sequential growth slowed in the third quarter. DA Davidson analyst Gil Luria described the results as "not what anyone wanted to see

The Trillion-Dollar Math of AI We have officially entered the era of trillion-dollar math, and some of the numbers being thrown around should make investors stop and think. A recent Barron’s article highlights the extraordinary financial assumptions behind the AI boom. Anthropic is reportedly targeting a valuation around $2 trillion while the company has projected enormous future infrastructure commitments. The business lost $42 B last year on $4.6 B in revenue. While revenue has improved substantially this year and as of July the company has an annual run rate of $65 billion, it expects to spend $518 B on cloud computing and infrastructure obligations in the coming years. At the same time, a Brookings estimate puts the total AI infrastructure buildout from 2025 to 2032 at roughly $10.3 trillion. The question isn't whether artificial intelligence is going to change the economy. I believe it will. The question is whether investors are assuming that AI adoption, revenue growth, margins and cash flow will all grow fast enough to justify the valuations being placed on these companies. This is where I think the discussion about regulation becomes important. A new Wall Street Journal poll found that more than half of those surveyed support safeguards on artificial intelligence, while nearly two-thirds believe the development of the technology should be paused. We already accept that certain industries are too important, too complex and potentially too dangerous to simply tell companies to regulate themselves. The FDA regulates about 3.6 trillion worth of food, medical, and consumer products using a risk-based approach because mistakes can directly affect people's health and safety. The FAA regulates aviation because an error involving an aircraft can have catastrophic consequences. NHTSA oversees vehicle safety and is now dealing directly with the challenges created by automated driving systems and robotaxis. The agency is developing new safety standards while also trying to allow autonomous vehicle technology to advance. And look at the banking system. The Federal Reserve, OCC and FDIC require banks to have appropriate risk-management frameworks in place. None of this means I believe the government should regulate every AI application or try to pick winners and losers. Far from it. But there is a difference between regulating an industry and regulating the specific high-risk applications of a technology. If an AI system is helping write an email, the consequences of an error are relatively small. If an AI system is making a medical decision, controlling an aircraft, operating an autonomous vehicle, approving a loan or managing a critical financial system, the consequences can be dramatically different. That is the type of regulation I think makes sense: risk-based oversight rather than blanket regulation. The financial side deserves the same scrutiny. When a company is valued at $1 trillion or $2 trillion, investors aren't just betting on today's business. They are betting on years of extraordinary growth and future cash flows. If those assumptions are wrong, the consequences won't be limited to a handful of venture capital investors. AI has become such a large part of the public markets that a major repricing could affect the entire market. AI is real. Technology works. The economic opportunity is enormous. But that doesn't mean every AI company is worth whatever valuation the market assigns to it. We've seen this movie before with railroads, the dot-com boom, and other transformative technologies. Technology can be revolutionary while the investments made around it can still be terrible. That's why I'm less interested in whether AI is the next great technological revolution and more interested in what investors are actually paying for that revolution. Technology can be real. The opportunity can be real. And the valuation can still be completely wrong.   How reliable is the jobs report? Look at the revisions One of the biggest things investors should understand about the monthly jobs report is that the headline number is not a final number. It is an estimate, and in some cases, it is an estimate based on a surprisingly small amount of information. The September establishment survey is a perfect example. The initial collection rate was just 53.1%. That means barely more than half of the reporting locations had provided information by the time the initial estimate was produced. BLS continues collecting responses after the first release, which is why the initial employment, hours and earnings numbers are revised over the following two months. This is important because the establishment survey is what produces the headline nonfarm payroll number. BLS surveys roughly 119,000 businesses and government agencies representing about 622,000 worksites. The survey is designed to provide information on employment, hours and earnings, but the first estimate is necessarily based on incomplete responses. So when you see an initial September payroll estimate, you shouldn't treat it as though BLS counted every job in the economy. It didn't. The data is collected from a sample and then used to estimate employment across the broader economy. BLS itself acknowledges that the most recent two months are based on incomplete returns and are considered preliminary. The unemployment rate is calculated differently. It comes from the household survey, not the establishment survey. BLS and the Census Bureau survey roughly 60,000 households and determine whether individuals are employed, unemployed or outside the labor force. The unemployment rate is the number of unemployed people divided by the total labor force. To be counted as unemployed, someone generally must be without a job, available to work and actively looking for work. That distinction matters. Someone who wants a job but has stopped looking is generally not counted as unemployed and instead is considered outside the labor force. That is one reason why looking only at the unemployment rate doesn't tell you everything about the health of the labor market. The establishment survey also has another complication: businesses that are newly created cannot immediately be captured in the survey because they aren't yet on the sampling frame. BLS therefore uses a birth-death model to estimate the employment impact of new and closing businesses. Those estimates are eventually reconciled against much more complete unemployment-insurance tax records through the annual benchmark revision. With numbers like these, it's no wonder we are seeing so many revisions. The better approach is to look at the trend, multiple months of data, labor-force participation, the employment-population ratio, wages, hours worked and subsequent revisions rather than treating the first headline payroll number as the most important fact. I still don't understand why, with all of the advancements in technology, there isn't a better way to collect this information and produce more accurate numbers from the start. We have technology that can process enormous amounts of data almost instantly, yet we're still relying on a system where nearly half of the establishments haven't responded when the initial jobs estimate is released. With the importance these numbers have for the economy, markets and Federal Reserve policy, it seems like there should be a better way.   What happens when everyone has an AI agent managing their investments? A recent Barron’s highlighted the growing use of AI-driven investing. Since Robinhood launched agentic trading in May, more than 150,000 customers have opened agentic trading accounts, and AI agents are now using Robinhood’s tools nearly 30 million times a day. Public says customers created 20,000 AI agents within a month of making them available to all users, with more than $200 million in assets now overseen by AI agents. The results from the article were kind of silly to me because it was over a 3-day period using just $500 on Claude Opus 5, ChatGPT-5.6 Sol and Gemini 3.1 Pro. Claude had 3-day return of 2.9%, ChatGPT was down 0.7% and Gemini was up 0.9%. Again, I don’t think the results tell us much given the short time period, but it made me think: If everyone uses AI to make investment decisions, won't everyone eventually be using the same strategy? If millions of AI agents have access to the same earnings reports, financial statements, economic data, analyst estimates and market information, it seems reasonable that they will identify many of the same opportunities. And that creates a fascinating problem. If every AI agent determines that a stock is undervalued at $50, investors could all try to buy it at $50. That buying pressure pushes the stock higher, eventually eliminating the very opportunity the AI identified. This is actually similar to the argument surrounding index investing. Imagine if every investor simply bought and sold index funds and nobody made individual decisions about what companies were attractive or unattractive. In that world, the flow of money into and out of the index would essentially become the sole factor in determining where prices move. Of course, we aren't there. Active investors, institutional investors, arbitrageurs, short sellers and other market participants still analyze individual companies and create price discovery. But AI agents could create a similar dynamic if their use becomes widespread. Instead of everyone simply following an index, we could eventually have millions of AI agents analyzing the same information and reaching similar conclusions. There's another interesting point from Barron's testing. When AI agents were asked to construct a traditional 60/40 portfolio, Claude, ChatGPT and Gemini all gravitated toward many of the same low-cost Vanguard and iShares index funds. That shouldn't be surprising. If you ask several systems to find the most efficient way to build a diversified portfolio, t

Would you let your credit card do your spending for you? That sounds like a very silly question, but the reality is that credit card companies like Mastercard now have AI bots that can shop for you.   This is crazy to me. People already have enough trouble controlling their spending on credit cards, and now credit card companies are rolling out programs that can do even more shopping for you.   Mastercard has teamed up with a startup called Alchemy, allowing AI to make purchases on your behalf. The credit card companies try to make this sound safe by emphasizing that you can set restrictions, such as how much the AI can spend and what types of products it can purchase. But the bot can still make purchases on its own without consulting you every time.   I suppose there could be some positives. Maybe the AI can find better prices on goods and services or save you time by handling routine purchases. But I still believe there is potentially more harm than good.   There is also a major legal question: If an AI bot makes an inappropriate or unauthorized purchase, who is responsible?   Right now, if you find fraudulent charges on your credit card, you can contact the credit card company. In many cases, the company will investigate the transaction, cancel the card, issue you a new one, and you generally aren't responsible for unauthorized charges.   But what happens when you have authorized the credit card company to let an AI bot make purchases for you? If the bot makes a purchase you don't want, it could become much more difficult to determine whether that transaction was fraudulent or whether you simply gave the AI too much authority.   With billions and even trillions of dollars being invested into artificial intelligence, it appears that many companies are trying to find ways to turn those enormous investments into profits. As the AI revolution continues, we're entering some pretty unknown waters, and I think we need to be careful about giving AI systems the authority to spend our money for us.   Could now be the time to start looking at office real estate? For years, office real estate has been one of the most unpopular areas of the market. Remote work, rising interest rates, concerns about vacancies and, more recently, AI have all weighed heavily on office properties.   But I think there are some signs that the story may be starting to change. Office usage in 10 major cities, according to the Kastle index, has reached a post-pandemic high of roughly 67%. On busy days, badge swipes at prime office buildings are regularly within 10% of pre-pandemic levels.   At the same time, the amount of office space available is shrinking. Older buildings are being demolished or converted into housing and other uses, while tenants are leasing more space. It’s currently estimated that there is only 19.7 million square feet of office space under construction nationally, close to the lowest level on record. This comes as Cushman & Wakefield say tenant are chomping up the most space since 2020.   And despite concerns that AI will eliminate the need for office workers, some of the biggest AI companies are actually taking significant amounts of office space. Anthropic, the company behind Claude, recently signed a long-term lease for a 16-story Manhattan building with space for approximately 1,700 desks. This is more than triple Anthropic’s New York based employees at the beginning of the year.   Manhattan is particularly interesting. Prime office space is leasing for roughly $95 per square foot, about 6% above pre-pandemic levels, while some premier locations can command more than $300 per square foot. More than 80% of the 7.7 million square feet of prime office space currently under construction is already leased. The interesting part for investors is that office REITs still appear to be priced for a very different future.   SL Green & BXP are trading about 50% below pre Covid levels, while Hudson Pacific Properties is down about 95%. Based on expected 2026 funds from operations, all three are also trading at lower valuation multiples than they did before the pandemic.   That doesn’t mean office real estate is suddenly without risk. A recession could hurt demand, and higher interest rates could make refinancing existing debt much more expensive. AI could also eventually have a meaningful impact on the number of office workers. But this is exactly why I think it is worth starting to look.   When an industry has been beaten down for years, you don't necessarily need everything to return to the way it was before. You just need the fundamentals to improve enough that the current valuation no longer makes sense. For us, I would not be interested in buying physical office buildings or taking on the risks of individual properties. If we were going to invest in this area, we would only look at publicly traded REITs with strong balance sheets, manageable debt, quality properties and attractive valuations. Sometimes the best opportunities are found in areas that investors have spent years avoiding.   The Fed Has a Tough Decision Ahead Inflation is still sticky, and I think the Federal Reserve has a difficult road ahead.   The good news is that inflation came in lighter than expected in August. The Fed’s preferred inflation gauge, the Personal Consumption Expenditures index, rose 3.4% over the last year, while core PCE, which excludes food and energy, rose 3.0%. That was below economists’ expectations of 3.7% and 3.3%, respectively.   But 3.0% core inflation is still well above the Fed’s 2% target. And there is another problem that could make inflation more difficult to control: energy.   We are starting to see oil shipments improve as more crude makes its way through alternative routes and the Strait of Hormuz becomes more navigable. In fact, crude shipments through the Strait of Hormuz reached a seven-day average of 13.5 million barrels per day as of Monday, matching the prewar baseline. More broadly, crude oil shipments from the Middle East, which includes the Persian Gulf and Red Sea, have at times exceeded prewar levels. As of Monday, the region’s seven-day average reached 19.5 million barrels per day, well above the prewar baseline of roughly 17 million barrels per day.   That sounds like great news, but there is a major distinction between getting crude oil moving again and getting refined products to the market. Refined product shipments through the Strait of Hormuz are averaging just 677,000 barrels per day over the past seven days as of Monday, compared with 3.6 million barrels per day before the war   Diesel, gasoline and other refined products remain extremely tight. Refining capacity has been damaged, inventories are low and refiners around the world are already operating under significant pressure. That means even if the price of crude oil comes down, consumers may not see the same relief at the pump because the bigger problem is increasingly what happens after the crude reaches the refinery.   This is particularly concerning because diesel touches almost everything in the economy. Trucks, agriculture, construction and manufacturing all depend heavily on diesel. Higher diesel prices eventually work their way through transportation and production costs and can ultimately show up in the prices consumers pay.   And the Fed isn't dealing with a weak economy that gives it an obvious reason to cut rates aggressively. Second-quarter GDP was revised up from 1.5% to 2.2%, and ADP reported that private employers added 90,000 jobs in September, above expectations.   So here is the Fed’s problem: inflation is still above target, the economy is growing, the labor market is still producing jobs, and there are elevated inflation concerns coming from the refined fuel crisis.   The latest inflation report is certainly encouraging, but I don't think we can declare victory. If crude shipments continue to improve, that will help. But until refined products become more readily available and fuel prices start coming down, inflation could remain stubbornly above the Fed’s 2% target.   For now, I think the biggest thing to watch isn't just the price of crude oil. Watch what is happening with diesel, gasoline and refining capacity. That may tell us much more about where inflation is headed next.   Will Chinese Company Huawei Take Business From Nvidia? I’m still concerned about the price of Nvidia’s stock and its valuation, but I do not want to see the company lose business to a Chinese competitor called Huawei.   If you go back to the Biden administration, you may remember that China was restricted from buying Nvidia’s most advanced AI chips. Chinese companies, including Huawei, were also restricted from accessing the advanced equipment needed to manufacture more sophisticated chips.   Huawei has not given up. In fact, the company plans to introduce two new AI chips next year, with additional products reportedly planned for 2028 and 2029.   The chipmaking technology Huawei is using today is still behind Nvidia’s, but the company is moving aggressively to close that gap. Huawei also has the support of Beijing and other Chinese technology companies, which could give it additional resources to develop a domestic AI chip ecosystem.   For Nvidia, the question is how quickly Huawei can catch up and whether restrictions on China ultimately create a long-term competitor rather than simply limiting China’s access to Nvidia’s technology.   The Nasdaq climbed in September, but the market underneath it is becoming concerning The Nasdaq Composite gained about 2% in September, continuing to outperform much of the broader market. The problem is that when you look beneath the headline numbers, the market is telling a very different story.   On Wednesday, for example, the Nasdaq was up while new 52-week lows were overwhelming new hi

Will Rising Interest Rates Hurt Private Debt and Private Equity? It is hard to tell for sure because private investments are, by definition, private, and we don't have the same level of transparency that we have with publicly traded investments. However, with the 10-year Treasury crossing the 5% mark, common sense would tell you that higher interest rates could put even more strain on an already strained private debt and private equity market.   Private equity funds frequently use leverage, meaning they borrow money to enhance potential returns. The typical holding period for a private equity investment is generally seven to 10 years, but an increase in interest rates raises the cost of borrowing for private equity firms, which can reduce profits and ultimately investor returns.   Many private equity funds are already facing potential losses in software companies because of concerns that artificial intelligence could disrupt or even put some of these businesses out of business. Private equity firms may want to sell these investments quickly, but as interest rates rise, other investors may become less willing to take on additional risk because the risk-free return available from Treasury securities has become more attractive.   The longer these private investments remain in a fund, the longer the fund may have to carry its debt and pay interest, which can further reduce investor returns. PitchBook estimated that the average private equity return in 2025 was around 7%, the lowest in 14 years, despite decent economic growth and relatively stable interest rates.   For investors who own publicly traded private equity firms, the results have also been difficult. Companies ranging from Apollo Global Management to Blue Owl have seen significant declines in their stock prices year to date. If interest rates remain elevated, there could continue to be pressure on the business models of these firms.   For private debt, the story is not necessarily better, even if your broker tells you that it is "stable." The same basic principle applies to private debt as it does to publicly traded bonds: when interest rates rise, the value of existing debt generally falls.   With private debt, you may not see that decline reflected in a daily market price because the investments are not publicly traded. That does not mean the underlying economic impact isn't occurring. If a private debt fund eventually needs to sell assets, refinance debt, or deal with defaults, those underlying losses can become much more visible. One problem can potentially lead to another as lenders and borrowers are forced to deal with higher financing costs and declining asset values.   At Wilsey Asset Management, we have been cautious about private equity and private debt for years. We understand why these investments are attractive and why brokers sell them, particularly because they can generate significant fees and commissions. However, we believe investors need to understand the risks, especially in an environment where interest rates remain elevated.   One of the biggest concerns with private investments is liquidity. Unlike publicly traded stocks and bonds, investors in many private funds cannot simply sell their investment whenever they want. Withdrawals may be limited to certain periods, sometimes only once a quarter, and funds can impose additional restrictions when too many investors try to withdraw money at the same time.   If interest rates remain high for an extended period, the combination of higher borrowing costs, lower valuations, weaker exit opportunities and limited liquidity could create a difficult environment for private equity and private debt investors. The fact that you don't see the losses on a daily statement doesn't necessarily mean the risk isn't there.   Is the New Siri AI Already Obsolete? Is it possible that Apple’s latest update to its famous Siri has already turned it into a follower rather than a leader?   The new Siri AI assistant is supposed to be able to do things like book travel plans, fill out online forms, cancel appointments, and even file complaints with customer service. But in today’s fast-moving world of technology, there are already services out there, like Instinct, and Meta has built a new AI platform called Muse that runs in the AI cloud, meaning you don’t necessarily need to be inside a specific app to use it.   Many of these services can connect to your Gmail account and communicate with your iMessage or WhatsApp. Instinct and Muse can go beyond simply setting appointments. They can look at your existing appointments, identify conflicting travel arrangements, and then cancel the conflict and rebook the necessary reservations for you.   They can also look for reliable restaurant recommendations nearby and book a reservation for you without you having to do much of anything. With Instinct, it can even create an account on a website, navigate the site, find locations and times for events being promoted, and add those events to your calendar for you.   Currently, Siri AI can’t freely surf websites and is largely limited to working through apps on the iPhone. If services like Instinct and Muse are able to outperform Siri while Apple continues to keep its AI experience primarily within the iPhone ecosystem, users could eventually start asking themselves why they need to pay such a high price for Apple’s newest phones when cheaper Android phones may offer access to more capable AI assistants.   Apple has built its reputation on being a technology leader. The question is whether Siri will remain one.   Would you trust Facebook with your personal and financial information? This is an important question because this is the direction AI appears to be heading. Meta, which owns Facebook, recently released its new AI agent, Muse, and to complete tasks and make life easier for you, it will need deep access to your personal information.   Within the first five days of its release, Muse was downloaded 600,000 times, which on the surface sounds like a lot. However, keep in mind that there are roughly 3.6 billion users across Meta’s platforms, which makes 600,000 downloads sound like a very small number.   The bigger question is: Do we trust Mark Zuckerberg and Meta with privileged information based on the company’s track record?   Yes, they use words that sound good when describing Muse, such as “safe,” “secure,” and “private.” They also say Muse will run on a digitally walled-off virtual machine that other agents cannot access. OK, that sounds good, but let’s look at the track record.   Six years ago, Meta agreed to pay a $5 billion fine to the FTC over user privacy violations related to what became known as the Cambridge Analytica scandal. About a year later, information belonging to 533 million users was leaked. Then, in 2023, the company was hit with a record $1.3 billion fine related to the transfer of European users’ data to U.S. servers. Still fresh in our minds is the recent $18 billion settlement involving allegations that Meta harmed teenagers.   The cost of using Muse could be as much as $100 per month, depending on how much you use it. If you only have light usage, it could be free. When you register for Muse, a warning pops up saying, “May make mistakes or take unexpected actions, so review all its work.” All I can say to that is: Wow!   If this is how companies are going to make money from AI, by gaining access to all of your personal information so they can set appointments, send emails, manage your finances, pay bills, and handle other things that make your life easier, I’ll just say no thank you. I’ll do it myself.   How about you? Would you trust an AI agent with that much access to your personal and financial information?   Lawsuits are starting to form against the makers of GLP-1 drugs It’s no surprise to me that there are concerns about potential side effects from the popular weight-loss drugs known as GLP-1s. At this point, the potential connection between these drugs and certain vision problems is still being investigated, but there are some developments that investors and patients should be aware of.   The concern involves a condition known as NAION, or non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy, which can cause sudden vision loss. In Denmark, where drug company Novo Nordisk is headquartered, 27 patients on the diet drugs were awarded as much as $1.5 million due to NAION and there are still 38 more pending cases in the country. There are also now warning labels on the drugs in the UK, Japan, and Australia. The FDA in the United States is currently reviewing the concerns but at this time are not placing a warning label on the drugs.   European regulators have concluded that NAION is a very rare side effect of semaglutide, affecting about 2 in 10,000 people. Unfortunately, it appears this side effect can occur even after taking the drug for just 6 to 12 months. They have recommended that patients experiencing sudden or rapidly worsening vision seek medical attention immediately, and that treatment be stopped if NAION is confirmed.   The risk appears to be very small, but when you are talking about potentially permanent vision loss, even a rare side effect deserves attention. For someone taking these medications for diabetes or significant obesity-related health risks, the potential benefits may be an important part of the risk-benefit discussion with their doctor. But for someone simply looking to lose 10 or 20 pounds, I think it is reasonable to ask whether the potential risks are worth it.   Ask yourself this question: If you lost your vision, what would you be willing to pay to get it back?   From an investment standpoint, this is also something I would be watching closely. If lawsuits continue to build and regulators impose additional warnings or restrictions, it c

Why I’m Glad the Fed Increased Interest Rates on September 16 On Wednesday, September 16, at 2 p.m. Eastern, the Federal Reserve announced its decision to increase interest rates by 0.25% to the range of 3.75% to 4% from 3.5% to 3.75%. This was the first rate hike since July 2023. Your initial reaction might be, “Why would you want the Fed to increase interest rates?” Generally, higher rates are viewed as bad for stocks because they can slow the economy and make bonds more attractive relative to equities. But I think this time is a little different, and investors need to think outside the box. The new Federal Reserve Chairman, Kevin Warsh, has made it clear since taking over that he intends to be tough on inflation. We recently received the latest Consumer Price Index report, and inflation remains nowhere near the Fed’s 2% target. We also continue to see a very strong jobs market, which could be viewed by Chairman Warsh as evidence that the economy remains strong enough to handle a modest increase in interest rates. I believe the rate hike actually sent an important message to the markets: Chairman Warsh means what he says. If he wants to establish credibility as an inflation fighter, this was an opportunity to show investors that he is willing to make the difficult decisions necessary to prevent inflation from becoming a bigger problem down the road.   The consumer remains stronger than expected The latest retail sales numbers are another sign that the U.S. consumer remains surprisingly strong. Retail sales increased 1.2% in August and are now up 6.0% from a year ago. But what I find even more interesting is what happens when you take gasoline stations out of the equation. Gas station sales increased 21% year over year due to higher gas prices, but sales excluding gasoline stations were still up 4.9% year over year, showing that the strength in consumer spending is not simply the result of higher gas prices. Even excluding both motor vehicle and parts dealers and gasoline stations, sales were up 5.6% from a year ago. What really stands out is how broad the annual growth has been. Electronics and appliance stores were up 7.8%, sporting goods, hobby, musical instrument and book stores were up 10.7%, miscellaneous retailers were up 14.0%, furniture and home furnishing stores were up 1.9%, clothing stores were up 4.3%, general merchandise stores were up 4.5%, building materials and garden equipment were up 5.1%, and restaurants and bars were up 5.8%. Interestingly every major category that is tracked in the report showed an annual increase. Another factor worth mentioning is the timing of Amazon Prime Day. The promotional event occurred earlier this year, which pulled some spending forward into June and created a tougher comparison for July. As that distortion faded, non-store retail sales rebounded sharply in August, rising 2.6% from July. The Census data show nonstore sales up 9.9% from a year earlier. The other number I am watching is the retail “control group,” which excludes several volatile categories and is used in calculating consumer spending for GDP. That measure jumped 1.4% in August, its strongest monthly increase since September 2024. There has been plenty of discussion about consumers becoming more cautious, inflation remaining elevated and higher gasoline and diesel prices putting pressure on household budgets. Those are legitimate concerns. But the actual spending data continue to tell us that consumers are still opening their wallets. For now, the consumer looks much stronger than some of the economic headlines would suggest. The bigger question is whether this strength can continue if inflation and energy prices remain elevated and households continue to draw down savings. That will be something I’ll be watching closely over the next several months.   How to Talk to Your Parents When They’ve Been Scammed Like many people, when we find out that someone we love or care about has been scammed, our first reaction is to get angry and immediately want to step in and fix the problem. The problem is that many scammers are extremely good at what they do. Whether it’s a romance scam or one of the countless other types of scams, these people are professionals at building trust and relationships with their victims. Remember, a scammer may have spent weeks, if not months, building a relationship with the person they are scamming. If you come in like a bull in a china shop, you could face resistance. You may hear things that make no sense to you, such as your parents saying that you don’t want them to be happy or that they know exactly what they’re doing. That’s why you should not start by accusing them of being foolish or saying they don’t know what they’re doing. Doing that can immediately put them on the defensive and make it much harder to help them. Instead, you need to build trust with your parents and let them know that you are on their side. Say things like, “I’m here to protect you.” Be especially careful if you believe the scammer has driven a wedge between you and your parents. That can be an intentional tactic designed to keep you from intervening and stopping the scam. Always talk calmly to your parents, or anyone else who is being scammed, and try to help them identify inconsistencies in the scammer’s story. If you notice something that doesn’t make sense, point it out without attacking them. For example, if money was wired to an account but the name on the account doesn’t match the name the scammer has been using, that could be an important detail to discuss. You should also try to get other trusted people involved. A banker, accountant, financial advisor, relative, or another person your parents trust may be able to help them see the situation differently. The goal is not to prove that you are right. The goal is to protect someone you love. If you handle the situation correctly, you may be able to prevent your parents from losing their entire nest egg. But if you come on too strong, you could push them further toward the scammer and make it even harder to help them.   There aren’t as many low-interest mortgages in the United States as you may expect In the United States, there are roughly 86.4 million open mortgages, representing approximately $13.1 trillion in mortgage debt. When interest rates and mortgage rates were extremely low in 2021, it seemed like almost everyone was refinancing their mortgages into rates around 3%. Apparently, that wasn’t quite the case. Some homeowners may have sold their homes and purchased new ones, taking on a higher mortgage rate in the process. Today, homeowners with a mortgage rate below 3% account for roughly 20% of all mortgages. That’s actually less than the 22% of mortgages with rates above 6%. The largest group, at 33%, has mortgage rates between 3% and 4%. For years, we’ve been told that the housing market is being held back because so many homeowners are sitting on extremely low mortgage rates and don’t want to give them up. But nearly half of all mortgages have rates above 4%, which may mean that the mortgage-rate “lock-in effect” isn’t quite as widespread as we’ve been led to believe. Maybe the housing market simply wasn’t as strong as we thought.   Do we need government regulation on artificial intelligence? I’m not, and never have been, a big fan of government regulation, but there are certain things in history that just make sense to regulate. On a smaller scale, who would think it makes sense not to have an age limit for a driver’s license? Another regulation that makes sense is having a legal drinking age. Can you imagine if it were perfectly acceptable for a 12-year-old to drink whenever they wanted? On a much bigger scale, during the arms race, the United States and the Soviet Union negotiated arms control agreements. Those agreements may have helped prevent the world from experiencing a nuclear war. But what about AI, or artificial intelligence? It seems like it could be incredibly beneficial, but just like nuclear power can be beneficial while nuclear weapons can lead to devastating consequences, AI has the potential to be used for both tremendous good and tremendous harm. Unfortunately, we can’t simply stop the development of artificial intelligence. There are many potential benefits including increased productivity and we also can’t afford to fall behind China in the development of AI. If the United States were to completely step away from AI while China continued to advance, we could lose significant economic and technological influence around the world. That’s why I believe we need reasonable guardrails around artificial intelligence. Ideally, the United States and China should work toward establishing some basic rules that both sides agree to follow. The goal shouldn’t be to stop AI or prevent innovation. The goal should be to make sure we develop useful and efficient AI while reducing the risk that uncontrolled AI could cause catastrophic consequences.   Financial Planning: Should You Take Your Pension Lump Sum Sooner? If you are approaching retirement and have a pension with a lump-sum option, it is important to understand how interest rates may affect your benefit. Traditional pensions are defined benefit plans, meaning the monthly annuity payment is generally determined by factors such as years of service and compensation. A lump-sum option, however, is calculated by determining the present value of those future pension payments using an applicable interest rate. Generally, higher interest rates result in lower lump-sum values. Therefore, if rates are expected to rise, retiring sooner could potentially result in a larger lump sum. However, every pension plan is different, including the interest rates used and how far back the plan looks when determining the applicable rate. Before making a retirement decision based

Another big cost for data centers: insurance! You always hear about the obvious expenses involved in building data centers: incredibly expensive chips, massive energy requirements, cooling systems, and the cost of constructing the facility itself. But there’s another major expense that doesn’t get nearly as much attention: insurance. Once completed, a large data center can be worth anywhere from $20 billion to $50 billion or more. Meta’s data center project in Northeast Louisiana, for example, is expected to cost more than $50 billion and will house thousands of servers along with extremely valuable power and cooling infrastructure. In the rush to build data centers, many hyperscalers and other companies have located facilities in areas where real estate is relatively inexpensive. The problem? An estimated 40% of U.S. data centers are located in tornado-prone areas. I guess some companies didn’t think quite that far ahead. For insurance companies, this could become a massive market. The potential insurance premiums associated with data centers could eventually be 4–5 times the current global aviation insurance market. Data centers could become some of the most valuable insured assets in the world. And insuring them won’t necessarily be cheap. An average cost of around $20 billion for a data center will exceed the insurance cost for bridges, tunnels, and skyscrapers. There’s very little historical data showing how these massive facilities will perform during extreme weather events such as tornadoes and hurricanes. Companies also want coverage for risks like equipment failures, business interruption and even terrorism, all of which can add significantly to premiums. So, there’s yet another enormous cost that hyperscalers must absorb on top of the hundreds of billions of dollars they’re already spending to build out AI infrastructure. The big question I still have is: How are companies ultimately going to recover all of these costs? The AI infrastructure buildout is becoming more expensive by the day. I’m sure glad we own an insurance company in our portfolio.   AI has taken scamming seniors to a whole new level The Federal Trade Commission estimates that roughly $196 billion was lost to fraud, with nearly half of that or about $82 billion coming from people over the age of 60. It’s now estimated that roughly 37% of fraud involves artificial intelligence. The cases are frightening because scammers can now use AI to identify targets, make their pitches more convincing, execute scams faster, and target thousands of people at a scale we’ve never seen before. With AI, scammers can create what appears to be legitimate proof of identity, including realistic passports, driver’s licenses, websites, and other documents. Gone are the days when scams are easy to spot because of grammatical errors, thick accents on phone calls, or obviously fake videos. And it goes far beyond dating scams. Imagine getting a phone call saying that your daughter witnessed a major drug deal and has been taken by traffickers unless you come up with $20,000. That sounds unbelievable, until they put your daughter on the phone, and you hear her voice, panicked and pleading for help. The problem? It isn’t actually your daughter. It’s an AI-generated voice that sounds just like her. So how do you protect yourself from AI fraud? One major red flag is a demand for cryptocurrency. Another is the pressure to keep the situation secret. Scammers often tell you not to contact anyone because they want to isolate you and prevent someone else from recognizing the scam. Scammers are becoming so bold that some will even show up in person pretending to be federal agents with fake badges and credentials. Remember this: The federal government will not demand that you hand over cash, cryptocurrency, gold bars, or other assets simply because someone claims to be a federal agent. If someone claims to be a federal agent and wants to meet at your home, you can always ask to meet at their office instead. A legitimate agent should have no problem with that. If someone is pressuring you to act immediately, keep it secret, and hand over money or valuables, stop and verify who you are dealing with before doing anything. AI is making scams more convincing than ever. The best defense may be simply slowing down long enough to question what you're being told.   The Housing Market Has a Rate Problem Existing-home sales fell 2% in August to an annualized pace of 3.98 million homes, the lowest level since June 2025. Sales are now down 1.2% from a year ago and have remained stuck around the 4 million annualized level for much of the past few years. Historically, a more normal housing market has been closer to 5.2 million existing home sales annually. At the same time, we are finally seeing more inventory. There were 1.62 million existing homes for sale in August, up 5.9% from a year ago and the highest level since 2019. That represents about 4.9 months of supply, which is the highest level in over a decade. This gives buyers more choices and more negotiating power than they've had in quite some time. But here's the problem: home prices aren't falling. The median existing home price rose 1.6% from a year ago to $429,100. So, buyers are dealing with a combination of high home prices and high borrowing costs. And I think one of the most important things to watch is the 10-year Treasury. A lot of people assume mortgage rates are primarily determined by the Federal Reserve. That's not really the case. The 30-year fixed mortgage is heavily influenced by longer-term Treasury yields, particularly the 10-year Treasury. The 10-year Treasury recently approached 5%, reaching its highest level since 2023. As the 10-year moves higher, mortgage rates generally move higher as well. The 30-year fixed mortgage climbed over 7%. The last time the 30-year fixed mortgage was at 7% or higher was May 26, 2025, when it reached 7.02%. That's a big deal for affordability. A buyer who could comfortably afford a $500,000 mortgage at 5.5% has a substantially different purchasing power at 7%. Higher rates can push buyers to either purchase a less expensive home, put more money down, or simply stay on the sidelines.   I don't think the current data points to a traditional housing crash. We don't have the same combination of excessive speculation, massive overbuilding, and widespread distressed selling that characterized 2008. Instead, we're seeing a housing market that is essentially frozen by affordability. The big question going forward isn't just what the Fed does. Watch the 10-year Treasury. If the 10-year moves meaningfully lower, mortgage rates could follow, and housing activity could improve. But if the 10-year stays near 5% or moves above it, don't be surprised if 30-year mortgage rates remain around 7% and housing continues to struggle. For buyers, the good news is that inventory is improving, and negotiating power is coming back. The bad news is that the cost of financing remains extremely high. Housing may finally be shifting from a seller's market toward a buyer's market, but that doesn't necessarily mean homes are getting cheaper.   How will Apple stock do under new CEO John Ternus? Apple has turned a new page in its history books with Tim Cook stepping down after 15 years at the helm. Cook did a tremendous job managing the business and growing the stock mainly by improving the supply chain to overseeing the launch of products like the Apple Watch and AirPods. During his 15-year tenure, Apple stock increased roughly 2,680%, which is a phenomenal return for investors. This reminds me of another major business story that was incredibly successful: General Electric under the leadership of Jack Welch. Welch ran GE for 20 years, from 1981 to 2001. During his tenure, GE stock increased roughly 4,000%. Yes, that was over five more years than Cook's tenure at Apple, but I doubt Apple would have produced another 1,300% return if Cook had stayed for five additional years. At the end of both CEOs' tenures, however, their companies had one major similarity: very high valuations. The comparison is a little scary. When Jack Welch left GE in 2001, the stock was trading at roughly 30 times earnings. This was during the dot-com bubble, when the S&P 500 was trading at about 36 times earnings. When Tim Cook left Apple, Apple was trading at roughly 37 times earnings, while the S&P 500 was around 29 times earnings. Those are very high valuations, especially considering we're also experiencing what could be an AI bubble. When Welch stepped down in 2001, his hand-picked successor, Jeffrey Immelt, took over. From 2001 through 2017, GE stock generated a total return of roughly -27%. Yes, investors actually lost 27% over 16 years. Apple is an incredible business with an enormous ecosystem, tremendous cash flow, and some very valuable brands. But Ternus is taking over at a time when expectations are extremely high. Apple does have some interesting things coming. The company announced a new foldable iPhone on September 9, along with an updated Siri and other AI improvements. But I personally didn't think the event was a big deal. The bigger question is whether consumers are really willing to spend around $2,000 on a new, foldable iPhone. And perhaps even more importantly, will AI actually create the upgrade cycle that Apple investors are expecting? There are also potential headwinds from significantly higher chip costs, which could push up the prices of iPhones and other Apple devices. I remember talking to people years ago about potentially selling some GE stock and diversifying. The response I often heard was, "Don't touch my GE stock." I'm hearing very similar stories about Apple today. The big question is whether history repeats itself with Apple like it did with General Electric. I don't know if it will. But I am pretty confident about one

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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,