September’s producer price index came in much hotter than economists forecasted on Thursday, underscoring the continued inflationary pressure from energy amid the U.S. war with Iran.

The measure of underylying inflation pressures climbed 1.3% in September and 6.3% on an annual basis, marking its largest 12-month advance since late 2022, according to data released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Economists polled by Dow Jones forecasted an advance of 0.6% on the month and 5.5% annually.

Beyond CoreWeave, several major NVIDIA-backed "neoclouds" and GPU cloud providers including Lambda Labs, Nebius, Crusoe Energy, and IREN are facing severe market scrutiny, growing massive debt pressure, or slow AI revenue growth.

What happens to NVIDIA and all the other ai hardware companies like the ones in South Korea

​

The long-term trend in Treasury yields appears to be turning increasingly bullish, with the 30year yield potentially heading toward 8% over the coming year or months. As the chart shows, yields have broken out of a multi decade downward channel and are now pushing above a key resistance level that held for years.

A short-term pullback toward 5.25% is still possible, but it may not change the bigger picture. If this breakout holds, it could signal a structural shift toward higher long t borrowing costs, driven by persistent inflation, rising government debt, and investors demanding greater compensation for holding long-term bonds.

The Federal Reserve cold also face a difficult challenge trying to keep borrowing costs contained if market forces continue pushing yields higher.

Whyy this matters for the stock market A sustained rise in long-term Treasury yields could put pressure on stock valuations, particularly high-growth technology stocks like those n the Nasdaq, as higher bond yields make future corporate earnings less valuable n today's dollars. It could also increase mortgage rates, raise borrowing costs 4 businesses and consumers, n put additional pressure on the broader economy.

Tha key takeaway is that even if yields experience a temporary pullback, the long-term technical picture suggests the risk of significantly higher borrowing costs remains on the table. A move toward 8% wold be a major development for financial markets. re u prepared?

https://ibb.co/SDszFQC1

I've been looking into what my options are in defensive investments and touched on the normal consumer staples, healthcare, real estate, etc. but then as I started reading into quality stocks (basically solid, consistent financials, low debt, and performance), I see that Vanguard offers VFQY which appears to have a similar, just less tech-heavy composition than VOO.

It's traded leading/lagging VOO in the last few years, and sure, the expense ratio is ~4x as much, but what am I missing about why to or not to invest in it? This seems like a more reasonable, diversified allocation of sectors than VOO currently is, no?

So when I was a child, my parents put money aside for me after selling our first house. This money has since been in a wealth management service. Now that I am older and have started to get into investing, is it recommended that I take this money out and invest it myself in lower risk ETF's? I don't really understand it all too much, but I'd imagine that the fee's tied with the wealth management service would be far higher than managing it myself.

Any advice would be helpful!

fitch had q3 redemption requests at 13 of the 15 perpetual nontraded BDCs averaging 9.8% of shares, against the usual 5% quarterly cap. so if you asked out, you got roughly half. at the same time Cox Capital's tender for BCRED was $20.65 a share against an aug 31 NAV of $23.60, about 12.5% under, and in july they were bidding around 25% under NAV on HLEND.

i get that a tender buyer wants a discount for liquidity, and Cox says its prices track where the public BDCs trade. but if the fund says 23.60 and the only cash bid outside the fund is 20.65, at some point the gate is part of the price. for people who hold these or compare them against the listed BDCs, which number do you actually use?

I've been considering investing £600 per month over the next 15 months (£9,000 total), initially focusing on the Mag7

However, I'm also interested in other high-growth companies, particularly in AI, semiconductors and technology infrastructure.

Given current valuations, earnings expectations and potential catalysts through January 2028, I'm curious whether MAG7 will continue outperforming or whether there are more attractive opportunities elsewhere.

Which companies or sectors do you believe have the strongest growth potential over the next 15 months, and what's your investment thesis?

Interested in discussing valuations, growth drivers and potential risks rather than seeking personal financial advice.

Does anyone have experience submitting multiple ACATs at once to the same outgoing brokerage? Is there a chance this will screw things up, or should it be OK? Clearing firm is Apex. I've heard lots of different things about what's allowed, e.g. are you allowed to have any ACH transactions on the account while waiting? Thank to anyone who can share their experience.

I'm still very new to this, so I don't know anything. If what we're seeing actually is a bubble, it has to pop. And I know that if you're lucky enough to not be affected by it, a crash in the market is the perfect time to invest since the price is so low. Of course, when it comes to bubbles, it's risky since you never know if a company will ever recover. The dot com crash claimed the lives of hundreds of new tech companies that had been riding that artificial wave. But many of the survivors that rose from the ashes not only recovered, but went on the become the largest companies in the world today. The crash weeded out the companies that weren't actually sustainable, leaving only the companies that were sustainable and profitable on their own to be left. Of course, the survivors were also artificially inflated and crashed as a result, but because they were actually sustainable and profitable on their own, they were able to grow at a normal pace that was more reflective of the companies value and the growth of the industry, and eventually surpass their previous peak. And now, our modern world is completely built around these companies, so no wonder they're the biggest ones. Does that make sense? Did I get that mostly right?

Well, my point is that yes, when (if) the AI bubble bursts, many companies will likely meet their end, but the demand for AI won't just stop there. Just like with the dot com companies, it will continue growing and growing as our world and infrastructure becomes more reliant on it, and somebody has to fill that demand. Seeing as NVIDIA is the most prominent company doing what they are, at least as far as I know, I imagine it would likely be one of the companies to bounce back just like Amazon, Google, Microsoft, etc. did after 2002. And if that ends up being the case, wouldn't that mean that the potential crash could be the perfect opportunity to invest in them? Or, if that's too many eggs in one basket, would it make more sense to get something a little bit more diversified within the sector? Like would it be more reliable if it followed the sector more, or would that actually be worse?

But also, I don't know. Am I missing something important? Is there something I'm not seeing that actually makes this a bad idea, if not just risky one? Or do you think my prediction is accurate or likely? I'm pretty cautious with these kinds of things, so if there isn't a significant likelihood of me at least breaking even, I won't put that much money on it, if I do at all. Anyway, that's my question. I'm still learning, and that is exactly why I'm posting this. I wanna learn where I'm wrong and improve my understanding, so if I am laughably wrong about this, please let me know, I want to hear. Just don't be a dick about it, obviously.

I am a buy-and-hold index investor. I don’t want to own SpaceX. Is it possible to own the S&P 500 without SpaceX? How could I neutralize that one stock without tax consequences, without active trading (such as renewing options), and without selling VOO? I don’t wanna participate in the gains or losses of SpaceX at all. For example, is there an inverse ETF for SpaceX that I could hold long-term? Would that work?

TL;DR: Having an advantage in the real world vs waiting for a greater fool to regain it.

Imagine if in the past, people who paid into pyramid schemes or chain letters called that contribution "buying an asset," and referred to the paid amount as its price or value.

For example, in a chain letter, someone sends $10 to the person ahead of them on the list, signs their name at the bottom, and claims: 'I bought an asset worth $10.' The next participant comes along, sends $20 to the previous one, signs the list, and says: 'Now I own an asset worth $20.' And the media headlines proclaim: 'Asset Value Surges by 100%!'

In reality, there is only a list of participants waiting for payments from others. Nothing else. People would say such individuals and the media had lost their minds. Participants hand their money over to others and claim to own an asset worth the exact amount they just gave away, while the media treats this as a booming new asset class.

This is exactly the way of speaking that has been normalized today when it comes to Bitcoin. Mainstream media like Forbes and Bloomberg run headlines such as "Harvard Now Owns Nearly Half a Billion Dollars Worth of Bitcoin" and "Birth of a New Asset Class."

However, when we look at everything associated with the name "Bitcoin," we can easily see that no asset worth half a billion dollars exists in Harvard's possession, and that Harvard had nothing to buy, but is merely waiting for a payment from others.

Take the blockchain first. Did Harvard buy that? No, it is a shared file containing records of digital addresses and their associated numbers, which anyone can download from the internet. Did it buy the computer network that maintains that file? No, that consists of devices owned by independent individuals and private companies. Did it buy a digital address or a private key? No, anyone can generate those for free. Did it buy the number next to that digital address? No, numbers are abstractions from an infinite mathematical set and cannot be owned. Finally, did it buy the software that determines the network's operating rules and updates the numbers next to the addresses? No, that is freely available as open-source code.

As we can see, there was nothing for Harvard to buy, no asset to own. Bitcoin is merely a cryptographically based list of participants who handed over their assets to others (or spent electricity to maintain that list) and are now waiting for payments from others to acquire assets again. What is called the "value" or "price of Bitcoin" is simply the last payment, converted into fiat currency and divided by the number next to the payer's address.

Harvard is one of the participants on the waiting list, not the owner of a new asset class.

What does it even mean to own an asset?

Put simply, it means having an advantageous position in the real world. Suppose you hold wheat and oil. You have an advantage over those who don't hold them because you can satisfy others' needs for food or energy. They will come to you and offer you something, rather than going to those with empty hands. That is a clear advantage.

It is similar in the financial world when you hold US dollars, bonds, or stocks. With dollars, you have an advantage because you hold an instrument of someone else's debt. All dollars are issued as loans by commercial banks or the Fed to the private sector or the government. Those debtors must come to you and offer something to obtain dollars, pay off their debt, and avoid foreclosures or bankruptcy.

With bonds and stocks, you have an advantage because you can offer others the right to future cash flows: interest, principal, dividends, or proceeds from an eventual liquidation of the company.

On the other hand, with chain letters or Bitcoin, no such advantage exists. You have nothing to offer anyone except showing them a name on a waiting list as proof that you paid into the scheme, only that with Bitcoin, instead of a name, you show a larger or smaller number.

Bitcoin is, therefore, a digital record of participation in a scheme where you wait for another participant's payment in order to regain real-world advantage, that is, some form of tangible or financial asset. And all that talk about crypto assets, digital money, revolution, decentralized finance, and a store of value is merely propaganda by which existing participants try to extract as much assets as possible from others.

According to the Financial Times, Anthropic generated $16.8 BILLION in revenue in Q3, up 46% from $11.5 billion in Q2 and that's nearly $5.3 billion in additional quarterly revenue in just THREE months. Anthropic also told investors it was profitable on an adjusted basis AND cash flow positive during the quarter. This is a pretty big deal because one of the biggest concerns surrounding AI companies has been whether they can actually turn this massive demand into a sustainable business, especially when they're spending billions of dollars training models and running inference.

And this is where things get even more interesting. Anthropic is planning to spend MORE THAN $500 BILLION on computing and AI infrastructure over the next decade. Think about that for a second. That's an average of more than $50 billion annually, although the actual spending will likely vary significantly from year to year. All of that money has to go somewhere. We're talking about GPUs, memory, networking equipment, optical components, data centers, power infrastructure, and everything else required to support increasingly powerful AI models. This is exactly why I continue to be so bullish on the broader AI infrastructure trade.

Alright here’s my current situation: 31yrs
Income $120k annual
HSA: $2600 (+$100 per paycheck)
Savings: $17k
401k: $65k (+9% per paycheck, employer match max is 4%)
Roth: $61k (I max out contributions)
Brokerages: $32.9k
Own my house, value ~$200k (I have about $82k equity) and looking to buy new home though it pains me to think of leaving my 3.125% mortgage. No other debt.
Also probably will buy engagement ring soon. So some big purchases in the nearish future potentially.

Welcome any thoughts, advice, insults, jokes! Also any recommendations on whether to finance or use cash/sell off in brokerage to pay for these bigger purchases?