Archive for Stock Market News

Week Ahead: Nvidia finale to wrap up earnings season

By ForexTime

  • Nvidia shares only ↑1% year-to-date, 10% away from ATH
  • Hyperscale spending and fiscal Q1 2027 guidance in focus
  • Shares could move 5.7% ↑ or ↓ post earnings
  • Analysts remain bullish with 12M target price at $258
  • Technical levels – $210, $195, 200-day SMA

As the most valuable company in the world, Nvidia’s earnings carry widespread implications.

But the focus for Q4 is unlikely to be about whether results smash forecasts.

It may revolve around management’s ability to convince investors that the AI spending spree is paying off amid growing fears over AI disrupting established business models.

Earnings from this tech titan along with global data may set the tone for March:

Monday, 23rd February

  • EUR: Germany Ifo Business Climate (Feb); ECB President Christine Lagarde speech
  • USD: Chicago Fed National Activity Index (Jan, Dec); US Factory Orders (Dec); Dallas Fed Manufacturing Index (Feb); Fed Governor Christopher Waller speech

Tuesday, 24th February

  • EUR: Eurozone New Car Registrations (Jan); France Business Confidence (Feb)
  • GBP: UK CBI Distributive Trades (Feb)
  • USD: US ADP Employment Change Weekly; Fed Golsbee Speech; President Donald Trump delivers the State of the Union Address
  • Crude (WTI, Brent): US API Crude Oil Stock Change (w/e Feb 20)
  • CNY: China loan prime rates

Wednesday, 25th February

  • AUD: Australia Inflation Rate (Jan)
  • EUR: Germany GfK Consumer Confidence (Mar); France Consumer Confidence (Feb)
  • Crude (WTI, Brent): US EIA Crude Oil Stocks Change (w/e Feb 20)
  • Major Earnings: Nvidia (after markets close)

Thursday, 26th February

  • JPY: BoJ Takada Speech; Japan Industrial Production (Jan); Retail Sales (Jan)
  • EUR: Eurozone Economic Sentiment (Feb); Spain Business Confidence (Feb)
  • USD: Initial Jobless Claims (w/e Feb 21)

Friday, 27th February

  • GBP: UK Gfk Consumer Confidence (Feb)
  • CHF: Swiss Retail Sales (Jan); GDP Growth Rate (Q4); KOF Leading Indicators (Feb)
  • EUR: Germany Inflation Rate (Feb); France Inflation Rate (Feb); Germany Unemployment Data (Feb); Spain Inflation Rate (Feb)
  • CAD: Canada GDP Growth Rate (Q4)
  • USD: US PPI (Jan)

Nvidia remains among the biggest drivers of the AI rally, with its earnings acting as a litmus test for the health of the entire AI industry.

Interestingly, the Magnificent 7 index is down 6% YTD despite tech titans posting positive earnings. This could be due to concerns about AI capex spending, stretched valuations and lofty expectations.

Even if Nvidia delivers exceptional results, investors need to be convinced that all the AI spending will pay off down the road.

When will earnings be published

Nvidia releases its Q4 Fiscal Year 2026 earnings after US markets close on Wednesday 25th February.

Market expectations

The tech giant is forecast to post earnings per share of $1.53 compared to $0.89 a year ago – representing a 72% jump.

Quarterly revenues are expected to rise $65.9 billion from $39.3 billion in the prior year – representing a 67% increase. 

As highlighted earlier, there is little room for error with exceptional results needed to justify its whopping $4.6 trillion valuation.

What to watch

  • Blackwell Ramp: Updates on the new architecture and supply constraints
  • Guidance: Q1 2027 outlook is critical. Street expects $71.6B in revenue
  • Margins: Rising memory costs could pressure profitability

How will Nvidia shares react to earnings

Markets are forecasting a 5.7% move, either Up or Down, for Nvidia stocks on Thursday post earnings. 

This is equivalent to a move of roughly $260 billion, bigger than the entire market cap of many large companies in the S&P500 and Nasdaq 100. 

How will wider markets be influenced?

Over the past 12 months, the Nasdaq 100 has shown an 83% positive correlation with Nvidia shares.

But more interestingly, over a rolling 5-day period over the past 2 years:

  • US500: +60%
  • UK100: +56%
  • Meta Platforms: +87%
  • Apple: +80%
  • Amazon: +84%
  • Broadcom: +82%
  • ASML holdings: +60%

 

Analyst forecasts

According to Bloomberg consensus, over 90% of analysts are bullish on Nvidia with the 12 month price target at $257.76 – roughly 25% away from current prices.

Technical forces

Prices may continue to consolidate within a range until the earnings are published.

  • A solid breakout above $195 may open a path toward $210 and potentially higher.
  •  Weakness below the 100-day SMA could trigger a decline back toward the 200-day SMA and $170.


 

Forex-Time-LogoArticle by ForexTime

 

ForexTime Ltd (FXTM) is an award winning international online forex broker regulated by CySEC 185/12 www.forextime.com

The Arsenal Beneath Our Feet: Inside the US Defense Industrial Base Consortium

Source: Jason Williams (2/17/26) 

America is rebuilding its defense supply chain from the ground up, and a select group of mining companies now sits at the center of national security.

For decades, the U.S. defense conversation focused on jets, missiles, ships, and software — the visible hardware of military might.

What almost nobody talked about was the industrial engine underneath it all…

The Quiet Machine Behind American Power

The mines, processors, refiners, manufacturers, and logistics chains that turn rocks in the ground into weapons, infrastructure, and strategic leverage.

But that engine now has a name that’s finally entering the public conversation: the U.S. Defense Industrial Base Consortium.

At its core, the Consortium exists to strengthen, coordinate, and secure the Defense Industrial Base — often shortened to the DIB.

You can think of it as the full ecosystem of companies that supply materials, components, technology, and production capacity essential to U.S. national defense.

This includes not just traditional defense contractors, but the upstream producers that make everything else possible.

And in today’s geopolitical reality, upstream means minerals.

Why Washington Suddenly Cares About Where Materials Come From

For years, globalization made supply chains cheap, efficient, and fragile. Critical inputs were sourced wherever costs were lowest, often from geopolitical rivals.

That worked… until it didn’t.

Trade wars, sanctions, hot conflicts, cyber warfare, and industrial espionage exposed a dangerous truth…

The U.S. military cannot be stronger than its weakest supply chain link.

When rare earths, uranium, silver, or specialty metals come from hostile or unstable jurisdictions, national security becomes a hostage to foreign policy.

The Defense Industrial Base Consortium was built to fix that problem.

Its mission isn’t flashy, but it’s existential…

Identify vulnerabilities, coordinate domestic capacity, accelerate permitting and production, and align private companies with national defense priorities long before a crisis hits.

This isn’t about hypothetical future wars. It’s about readiness — today.

Why Membership Is a Strategic Asset, not a Press Release

For companies inside the Consortium’s orbit, participation is far more than symbolic…

It acts as a signal flare to Washington, the Pentagon, and capital markets that a company is strategically relevant.

Membership opens doors to federal coordination, long-term procurement visibility, and policy alignment that non-members simply don’t get.

It also places companies inside the conversation when rules are written around permitting reform, domestic sourcing mandates, stockpiling programs, and defense funding priorities.

In plain English, Consortium-aligned companies stop being “just another miner” or manufacturer. They become infrastructure.

That distinction matters when governments are deciding who gets funding, who gets fast-tracked, and who becomes indispensable.

And that brings us to a new and very important development: mining companies are now stepping into the defense spotlight.

Apollo Silver Corp: Silver as a Strategic Metal Again

One of the more interesting names to emerge in this shift is Apollo Silver Corp. (APGO:TSX.V; APGOF:OTCQB).

Silver rarely gets framed as a defense metal in popular discourse, but it absolutely should.

It is critical to advanced electronics, missile guidance systems, secure communications, solar-powered defense infrastructure, and a growing range of aerospace and energy applications.

Modern warfare is digital, electrified, and sensor-dense — and silver sits at the center of that reality.

Apollo Silver’s alignment with the Defense Industrial Base Consortium reflects a broader recognition that precious metals are no longer just financial hedges or industrial afterthoughts.

They’re strategic inputs.

Domestic silver supply, especially from stable U.S. jurisdictions, reduces exposure to foreign bottlenecks at a time when defense systems are becoming more metal-intensive, not less.

This is silver growing up. And investors who still think of it as a shiny relic are missing the plot.

MP Materials: Rare Earths, Real Power

If Apollo Silver represents the rediscovery of an old strategic metal, MP Materials Corp. (MP:NYSE) represents the hard lesson of losing an entire supply chain.

Rare earth elements are essential to fighter jets, precision-guided munitions, radar systems, drones, and electric propulsion.

For years, the U.S. outsourced this capability almost entirely. The result was a near-total dependence on China for materials that underpin modern warfare.

While it’s yet to become an official member, MP Materials and its government investment reflects a national effort to reverse that mistake.

By rebuilding domestic mining, processing, and magnet production capacity, MP isn’t just supplying materials — it’s restoring strategic autonomy.

This is what “onshoring” looks like when it actually matters. Not slogans. Capacity.

Energy Fuels: Nuclear Security Starts at the Mine

The third pillar in this emerging defense-miner alignment is Energy Fuels Inc. (EFR:TSX; UUUU:NYSE.American).

Nuclear energy sits at a strange intersection of civilian infrastructure and national defense.

Uranium fuels power grids, but it also underpins naval propulsion, deterrence credibility, and long-term strategic stability.

A nation that cannot secure its nuclear fuel cycle cannot fully secure its defense posture.

Energy Fuels’ participation in Defense Industrial Base initiatives reflects a recognition that uranium independence is not optional. It is foundational…

From fueling reactors to supporting advanced nuclear technologies, domestic uranium production is a national security imperative hiding in plain sight.

This is less about profits next quarter and more about sovereignty next decade.

The Bigger Picture Most Investors Are Missing

Here’s the part the market is still slow to price in…

The Defense Industrial Base Consortium represents a structural shift in how America thinks about industry.

Efficiency is no longer king. Resilience is. Redundancy is. Domestic capacity is.

That shift doesn’t happen overnight, but once it starts, it doesn’t reverse easily…

Defense supply chains are sticky. Relationships last decades. Contracts roll forward. Strategic suppliers become embedded.

For investors, that means something profound…

Companies aligned with national defense priorities often enjoy longer runways, stronger political tailwinds, and a margin of safety that purely commercial players don’t.

Apollo Silver, MP Materials, and Energy Fuels aren’t just operating in hot commodity markets. They’re operating in markets that Washington has decided it cannot afford to lose.

And historically, when that happens, capital follows policy.

This Isn’t a Trade—It’s a Theme

Let’s call this what it is…

The Defense Industrial Base is being rebuilt in real time, under pressure, with urgency. The Consortium is the connective tissue making that rebuild possible.

Mining companies inside this orbit are no longer background players. They are strategic assets.

The smartest investors won’t wait until everyone else starts calling these companies “defense stocks.”

By then, the easy money is gone.

 

Important Disclosures:

  1. As of the date of this article, officers, contractors, shareholders, and/or employees of Streetwise Reports LLC (including members of their household) own securities of Energy Fuels Inc.
  2. Jason Williams: I, or members of my immediate household or family, own securities of: Apollo Silver Corp. My company has a financial relationship with: None. My company has purchased stocks mentioned in this article for my management clients: None. I determined which companies would be included in this article based on my research and understanding of the sector.
  3. Statements and opinions expressed are the opinions of the author and not of Streetwise Reports, Street Smart, or their officers. The author is wholly responsible for the accuracy of the statements. Streetwise Reports was not paid by the author to publish or syndicate this article. Streetwise Reports requires contributing authors to disclose any shareholdings in, or economic relationships with, companies that they write about. Any disclosures from the author can be found  below. Streetwise Reports relies upon the authors to accurately provide this information and Streetwise Reports has no means of verifying its accuracy.
  4.  This article does not constitute investment advice and is not a solicitation for any investment. Streetwise Reports does not render general or specific investment advice and the information on Streetwise Reports should not be considered a recommendation to buy or sell any security. Each reader is encouraged to consult with his or her personal financial adviser and perform their own comprehensive investment research. By opening this page, each reader accepts and agrees to Streetwise Reports’ terms of use and full legal disclaimer. Streetwise Reports does not endorse or recommend the business, products, services or securities of any company.

For additional disclosures, please click here.

Why is US health care still the most expensive in the world after decades of cost-cutting initiatives?

By Patrick Aguilar, Washington University in St. Louis 

In announcing its “Great Healthcare Plan” in January 2026, the Trump administration became the latest in a long history of efforts by the U.S. government to rein in the soaring cost of health care.

As a physician and professor studying the intersection of business and health, I know that the challenges in reforming the sprawling U.S. health care system are immense. That’s partly for political and even philosophical reasons.

But it also reflects a complex system fraught with competing interests – and the fact that patients, hospitals, health insurance companies and drug manufacturers change their behaviors in conflicting ways when faced with new rules.

Soaring costs

U.S. health care is the most expensive in the world, and according to a poll published in late January 2026, two-thirds of Americans are very worried about their ability to pay for it – whether it’s their medications, a doctor’s visit, health insurance or an unpredictably costly medical emergency.

Disputes over health policy even played a central role in the federal government shutdown in fall 2025.

Trump’s health care framework outlines no specific policy actions, but it does establish priorities to address a number of longtime concerns, including prescription drug costs, price transparency, lowering insurance premiums and making health insurance companies generally more accountable.

Why have these challenges been so difficult to address?

Drug price sticker shock

Prescription drug costs in the U.S. began rising sharply in the 1980s, when drugmakers increased the development of innovative new treatments for common diseases. But efforts to combat this trend have resembled a game of whack-a-mole because the factors driving it are so intertwined.

One issue is the unique set of challenges that define drug development. As with any consumer good, manufacturers price prescription drugs to cover costs and earn profits. Drug manufacturing, however, involves an expensive and time-consuming development process with a high risk of failure.

Patent protection is another issue. Drug patents last 20 years, but completing costly trials necessary for regulatory approval takes up much of that period, reducing the time when manufacturers have exclusive rights to sell the drug. After a patent expires, generic versions can be made and sold for significantly less, lowering the profits for the original manufacturer. Though some data challenges this claim, the pharmaceutical industry contends that high prices while drugs are under patent help companies recover their investment, which then funds the discovery of new drugs. And they often find ways to extend their patents, which keeps prices elevated for longer.

Then there are the intermediaries. Once a drug is on the market, prices are typically set through negotiations with administrators called pharmacy benefit managers, who negotiate discounts and rebates on prescription drugs for health insurers and employers offering benefits to their workers. Pharmacy benefit managers are paid based on those discounts, so they do not have an incentive to lower total drug prices, though new transparency rules enacted Feb. 3 aim to change payment practices. Drugmakers often raise the list price of drugs to make up for the markdowns that pharmacy benefit managers negotiate – and possibly even more than that.

In many countries, centralized government negotiators set the price for prescription drugs, resulting in lower drug prices. This has prompted American officials to consider using those prices as a reference for setting drug prices here. In its blueprint, the Trump administration has called for a “most-favored nation” drug pricing policy, under which some U.S. drug prices would match the lowest prices paid in other countries.

This may work in the short term, but manufacturers say it could also curtail investment in innovative new drugs. And some industry experts worry that it may push manufacturers to raise international prices.

Policy experts have questioned whether TrumpRx will bring down drug prices.

In late 2025, 16 pharmaceutical companies agreed to most-favored nation pricing for some drugs. Consumers can now buy them directly from manufacturers through TrumpRx, a portal that points consumers to drug manufacturers and provides coupons for purchasing more than 40 widely used brand-name drugs at a discount, which launched Feb. 5. However, many drugs available through the platform can be purchased at lower prices as generics

Increasing price transparency

Fewer than 1 in 20 Americans know how much health care services will cost before they receive them. One fix for this seems obvious: Make providers list their prices up front. That way, consumers could compare prices and choose the most cost-effective options for their care.

Spurred by bipartisan support in Congress, the government has embraced price transparency for health care services over the past decade. In February 2025, the Trump administration announced stricter enforcement for hospitals, which must now post actual prices, rather than estimates, for common medical procedures. Data is mixed on whether the approach is working as planned, however. Hospitals have reduced prices for people paying out of pocket, but not for those paying with insurance, according to a 2025 study.

For one thing, when regulations change, companies make strategic decisions to achieve their financial goals and meet the new rules – sometimes yielding unintended consequences. One study found, for example, that price transparency regulations in a series of clinics led to an increase in physician charges to insurance companies because some providers who had been charging less raised their prices to match more expensive competitors.

Additionally, a 2024 federal government study found that 46% of hospitals were not compliant. The American Hospital Association, a trade group, suggested price transparency imposes a high administrative burden on hospitals while providing confusing information to patients, whose costs may vary depending on unique aspects of their conditions. And the fine for noncompliance, US$300 per day, may be insufficient to offset the cost of disclosing this information, according to some health policy experts.

Beyond high costs, patients also worry that insurers won’t actually cover the care they receive. Cigna is currently fighting a lawsuit accusing its doctors of denying claims almost instantly – within an average of 1.2 seconds – but concerns about claims denial are rampant across the industry. Companies’ use of artificial intelligence to deny claims is compounding the problem.

Curbing the rise in health insurance premiums

Many Americans struggle to afford monthly insurance premiums. But curbing that increase significantly may be impossible without reining in overall health care costs and, paradoxically, keeping more people insured.

Insurance works by pooling money paid by members of an insurance plan. That money covers all members’ health care costs, with some using more than they contribute and others less. Premium prices therefore depend on how many people are in the plan, as well as the services insurance will cover and the services people actually use. Because health care costs are rising overall, commercial insurance companies may not be able to significantly lower premiums without reducing their ability to cover costs and absorb risk.

Nearly two-thirds of Americans under age 65 receive health insurance through employers. Another 6.9% of them get it through Affordable Care Act marketplaces, where enrollment numbers are extremely sensitive to premium costs.

Enrollment in ACA plans nearly doubled in 2021, from about 12 million to more than 24 million, when the government introduced subsidies to reduce premiums during the COVID-19 pandemic. But when the subsidies expired on Jan. 1, 2026, about 1.4 million dropped coverage, and for most who didn’t, premiums more than doubled. The Congressional Budget Office projects that another 3.7 million will become uninsured in 2027, reversing some of the huge gains made since the ACA was passed in 2010.

When health insurance costs rise, healthier people may risk going without. Those who remain insured tend to need more health services, requiring those more costly services to be covered by a smaller pool of people and raising premium prices even higher.

The Trump administration has proposed routing the money spent on subsidies directly to eligible Americans to help them purchase health insurance. How much people would receive is unclear, but amounts in previous proposals wouldn’t cover what the subsidies provided.

To sum it up, health care is extremely complicated and there are numerous barriers to reforms, as successive U.S. administrations have learned over the years. Whether the Trump administration finds some success will depend on how well the policies are able to surmount these and other obstacles.The Conversation

About the Author:

Patrick Aguilar, Managing Director of Health, Washington University in St. Louis

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

 

FXTM’s RUS2000 set for fresh records?

By ForexTime 

  • RUS2000 up roughly 8% YTD, less than 1% away from records
  • Small caps leaving large caps in the dust thus far in 2026
  • US NFP + CPI could trigger market volatility
  • Key levels at 2735, 2700 and 2650

FXTM’s RUS2000 is trading 1% from its all-time high!

AND

One of the best-performing US indices in the FXTM universe….

  • US400: ↑ 8.5% YTD
  • RUS2000: ↑ 8% YTD
  • US30: ↑ 4.4% YTD
  • US500: ↑ 1.5% YTD
  • NA100: 0.5% YTD

WHY?

  • Small caps have hit the new year sprinting, outpacing their large-cap counterparts thanks to compelling valuations and growth prospects.
  • Unlike the US500/NAS100 which has a greater exposure to China risk, the RUS2000/US400 is heavily focused on the US economy.
  • Small caps are drawing strength from the rollout of significant tax refunds, manufacturing subsidies and high sensitivity to US interest rates.

WHAT COULD MOVE THE RUS2000 THIS WEEK?

·      January NFP report – Wednesday 11th February

Markets expect the US economy to have created 68,000 jobs in January with the unemployment rate to hold at 4.4%.

The RUS2000 is forecasted to move ↑ 0.9% or ↓ 1.3% in a 6-hour window after the January NFP report.

·      US CPI report – Friday 13thh February

This report will be a key test of whether inflation is continuing to cool at a gradual pace.

The RUS2000 is forecasted to move ↑ 1.2% or ↓ 1.3% in a 6-hour window after the CPI report.

Traders are currently pricing at a 23% chance of a Fed cut by March with this jumping to 47% by April.

POTENTIAL SCENARIOS:

BULLISH: A solid breakout and daily close above 2700 may open a path toward the all-time high at 2735 and 2750.

BEARISH: Weakness below 2700 could trigger a selloff toward 2650 and the 50-day SMA at 2595.


 

Forex-Time-LogoArticle by ForexTime

 

ForexTime Ltd (FXTM) is an award winning international online forex broker regulated by CySEC 185/12 www.forextime.com

The Bull Market Is Ending

Source: Adrian Day (1/13/26)

Global Analyst Adrian Day looks at the U.S. stock market and “the great rotation” underway.

The Great Rotation in equities is underway, with the U.S. large-cap tech sector losing its dominance as other sectors, markets, and asset classes take over.

And dominance it is: Nvidia Corp. (NVDA:NASDAQ) alone has a larger valuation than the entire markets of Canada or the U.K. That alone might make one scratch one’s head. The U.S. market had a good year: up 17% (for the S&P) is hardly shabby. But this was barely half of the international markets (per MSCI World ex-US Index) while specific long-ignored asset classes came to the fore: copper equities rose 82% while gold and silver jumped 155% (per iShares Copper Miners ETF and VanEck Gold miners ETF).

There Are Many Signs of a Top

Signs of a top in U.S. stocks abound. The most obvious sign is extreme valuation. By most measures, the market is more expensive today than it was in 2022, 2008, 2000, and even 1929.

There are many illustrations we could provide of this, price to earnings, price to sales, price to book, the Schiller CAPE ratio, and more. This is a fact, not conjecture.

Of course, markets can stay overvalued for long periods, as indeed has this one, but there are signs that the “end is nigh.” Market concentration is a record (the gap between the index and an equal-weighted index, for example, has never been great).

Market speculation is extreme, with margins up over 40% in the last year, record foreign and retail participation, and new speculative vehicles (such as 3x ETFs and one-day options) created to feed the appetite. Simply the length of this bull market (see graph) should give pause. Investor David Snyder has a list of 27 “boxes to check for near the end of the secular bull market,” and he says that now all 27 are checked.

The Market Leaders Are Now Rolling Over

That alone should give pause. Market action is also signaling something is up, with the S&P index only barely etching out a new high in the last two months, while leader Nvidia is down meaningfully over this period. One by one, in September, October, and November, the Magnificent Seven have been topping Microsoft Corp. (MSFT:NASDAQ), Apple Inc. (AAPL:NASDAQ), and Amazon.com Inc. (AMZN:NASDAQ). Yes, the Great Rotation is underway. There is an old saying that a market bottom may be an event, but a top is a process. We are experiencing that process unfolding now.

Foreign Markets Taking the Lead From the US

The most obvious beneficiaries have been, and will likely continue to be, both international markets and commodity stocks. Even after that huge outperformance, international equities are still the cheapest they have been relative to the U.S. for 50 years. We expect this outperformance to continue for a few years, as it usually does when foreign markets outperform by a wide margin.

Relative leadership moves in a long cycle: this period of U.S. dominance has lasted nearly 15 years — the U.S. bull market has been going on longer, of course, 17 years now, almost a record — while the previous period of international dominance lasted seven years.

It would be highly unusual for foreign markets to outperform the U.S. by only one year. To return to long-term values relative to the U.S., international markets would have to triple (assuming the U.S. stays flat). And foreign equities are getting help from economic fundamentals, and many foreign economies are growing faster than the U.S., while a decline in the dollar leads many U.S. investors to look abroad.

Commodity Stocks Were 2025’s Top Performers

As for commodity equities, despite the huge rallies last year, they remain close to 100-year lows relative to the stock market. So there is plenty of scope for a return to more average relative valuations. The traditional factors that can lead to higher resource prices — including significant underinvestment over a period — are certainly in place. So too is the likelihood of higher inflation and a lower dollar. Resource cycles tend to be long, so, again, we should not expect the copper and gold outperformance to be a one-off.

But there is now something else. For the AI sector to be successful — and meet current goals — natural gas, uranium, copper, and silver must all go up significantly. The commodities are the gold miners’ picks and shovels for the AI sector. Planned AI capex for this year and next is $2 trillion, with 850 data centers slated to be built in the U.S. over the next five years. Even if projections are cut in half, there will still be a massive pick-up in demand for these commodities, and the inability of production to keep up will mean higher prices.

Other Parts of the Market Have Lagged and Are Undervalued

Other sectors of the market remain at extreme levels of relative undervaluation: value is at its cheapest relative to growth in more than 50 years. Value stocks would need to compound at 20% per year more than growth stocks for five years to return to their long-term relative valuations. Small caps are also undervalued relative to large caps.

So as the leaders of the long U.S. bull market roll over, the emphasis should be on value and small-cap stocks, on sectors that have lagged, but most of all on international markets and commodity stocks.

Do You Want To Be Shocked?

We referred to the potential end of the secular bull market.

Most would consider that this got underway in early 2009, after the Great Financial Crisis. But if one takes a longer-term view, one could argue that the bull market started far earlier, and we have seen a growing “financialization” of the economy for nearly 40 years.

One analyst who looks at markets through a very long telescope is Robert Prechter of the Elliott Wave Theorist.

He has produced a stunning graphic showing how stock market valuations in this period have become progressively more extreme, but significantly well above the 60-year period before.

When he showed an earlier version of what he calls the “Pluto chart” in his presentation at the New Orleans conference, it was met with audible gasps.

Writes Mr.. Prechter, from EWI’s Elliott Wave Theorist, November 14, 2025, “at the end of last month, investors were paying 7.85 times the book value of S&P 400 Industrial companies, and they were content with a measly 1.16% annual dividend yield from companies in the S&P 500 Composite Index. T-bills pay more than triple that amount. Clearly, there is no income reason to buy stocks; the only reason to buy them is a belief that other investors will bid prices even higher than they already are. [This chart] is a snapshot of today’s unprecedented degree of financial optimism.”

Call It What You Like, This Is Bullish for Gold

When the Federal Reserve launched its new Treasury buying program last month, Chairman Jerome Powell and others went out of their way to emphasize that this was not QE. Well, QE or not, something dramatic occurred at the end of the year, as the Fed started purchasing Treasuries at a frantic pace, $160 billion in “reverse repos” during the month, most of it in the last few days of the year, with an unprecedented $100 billion plus on the last day of the year.

This is a multiple of the Fed’s target for $40 billion a month in its “Reserve Management Purchases” program announced after its last meeting.

To be sure, the reverse repo purchases are a separate program. But both represent the Federal Reserve purchasing Treasuries and adding liquidity. The press dutifully reported that this was to “steady the markets over year-end.”

Was it perhaps connected with the then-pending Venezuela operation?

There is speculation that it could be tied to a major bank unable to meet margin calls on a large short silver position.

QE or note QE, such massive liquidity injections are wildly bullish for gold, even more so than lower interest rates, and the market’s action since the Fed announcement bears that out.

TOP BUYS this week include Metalla Royalty & Streaming Ltd. (MTA:TSX.V; MTA:NYSE American) Midland Exploration Inc. (MD:TSX.V), Lara Exploration Ltd. (LRA:TSX.V), and Kingsmen Creatives Ltd. (KMEN:SI).

 

Important Disclosures:

  1. As of the date of this article, officers and/or employees of Streetwise Reports LLC (including members of their household) own securities of Metalla Royalty & Streaming Ltd., Midland Exploration Inc., Apple Inc., and Lara Exploration Ltd.
  2. Adrian Day: I, or members of my immediate household or family, own securities of: Metalla Royalty & Streaming Ltd., Midland Exploration Inc., Lara Exploration Ltd., and Kingsmen Creatives Ltd. My company has a financial relationship with: None. My company has purchased stocks mentioned in this article for my management clients: Metalla Royalty & Streaming Ltd., Midland Exploration Inc., Lara Exploration Ltd., and Kingsmen Creatives Ltd. . I determined which companies would be included in this article based on my research and understanding of the sector.
  3. Statements and opinions expressed are the opinions of the author and not of Streetwise Reports, Street Smart, or their officers. The author is wholly responsible for the accuracy of the statements. Streetwise Reports was not paid by the author to publish or syndicate this article. Streetwise Reports requires contributing authors to disclose any shareholdings in, or economic relationships with, companies that they write about. Any disclosures from the author can be found  below. Streetwise Reports relies upon the authors to accurately provide this information and Streetwise Reports has no means of verifying its accuracy.
  4.  This article does not constitute investment advice and is not a solicitation for any investment. Streetwise Reports does not render general or specific investment advice and the information on Streetwise Reports should not be considered a recommendation to buy or sell any security. Each reader is encouraged to consult with his or her personal financial adviser and perform their own comprehensive investment research. By opening this page, each reader accepts and agrees to Streetwise Reports’ terms of use and full legal disclaimer. Streetwise Reports does not endorse or recommend the business, products, services or securities of any company.

For additional disclosures, please click here.

Adrian Day Disclosures

Adrian Day’s Global Analyst is distributed for $990 per year by Investment Consultants International, Ltd., P.O. Box 6644, Annapolis, MD 21401. (410) 224-8885. www.AdrianDayGlobalAnalyst.com. Publisher: Adrian Day. Owner: Investment Consultants International, Ltd. Staff may have positions in securities discussed herein. Adrian Day is also President of Global Strategic Management (GSM), a registered investment advisor, and a separate company from this service. In his capacity as GSM president, Adrian Day may be buying or selling for clients securities recommended herein concurrently, before or after recommendations herein, and may be acting for clients in a manner contrary to recommendations herein. This is not a solicitation for GSM. Views herein are the editor’s opinion and not fact. All information is believed to be correct, but its accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The owner and editor are not responsible for errors and omissions. © 2023. Adrian Day’s Global Analyst. Information and advice herein are intended purely for the subscriber’s own account. Under no circumstances may any part of a Global Analyst e-mail be copied or distributed without prior written permission of the editor. Given the nature of this service, we will pursue any violations aggressively.

Week Ahead: Will US30 hit 50,000 milestone?

By ForexTime 

  • US30 ↑ almost 3% year-to-date
  •  Trading less than 2% away from 50,000 milestone
  • Big bank earnings + US CPI = fresh volatility
  • JPMorgan & Goldman Sachs = nearly 16% of US30 weight
  • Technical levels: 50,000, 48,800 & 48400

Even as the clock ticks down to the key NFP report and Supreme Court ruling on Trump’s tariffs this afternoon, investors are bracing for more volatility in the week ahead.

All eyes will be on Wall Street bank earnings to US inflation data, speeches by Fed officials and geopolitical developments:

Monday, Jan 12

  • USD: Fed Barkin, Fed Williams and Fed Bostic speeches
  • AUD: Australia Westpac Consumer Confidence Change (Jan)

 

Tuesday, Jan 13

  • GBP: UK BRC Retail Sales Monitor (Dec)
  • US30: US Inflation Rate (Dec); ADP Employment Change Weekly; Fed Musalem & Barkin Speeches, JPMorgan Chase earnings
  • WTI: US API Crude Oil Stock Change (w/e Jan 9)

 

Wednesday, Jan 14

  • CNY: China Balance of Trade (Dec)
  • USD: US PPI (Oct & Nov); Retail Sales (Nov); Existing Home Sales (Dec); Fed Paulson & Williams Speeches, Beige book
  • US500: Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citigroup earnings.
  • WTI: US EIA Crude Oil Stocks Change (w/e Jan 9)

 

Thursday, Jan 15

  • GBP: UK GDP (Nov); Industrial and Manufacturing Production (Nov)
  • EUR: Eurozone Industrial Production (Nov)
  • USD: US Initial Jobless Claims (w/e Jan 10)
  • US30: Goldman Sachs earnings
  • TWN: TSMC earnings

 

Friday, Jan 16

  • GER40: Germany CPI
  • USD: US Industrial Production
  • NZD: New Zealand food prices, BusinessNZ manufacturing PMI

 

Our focus is on FXTM’s US30 which tracks the benchmark Dow Jones Industrial Average index.

This index ended last year gaining 13% and has kicked off 2026 on a positive note – recently hitting an all-time high above 49,600.

Given how prices are trading near records, the question is whether bulls can keep up the momentum – especially with the 50,000 milestone in sight.

Here are 3 themes to keep a close eye on:

1) US bank earnings

Fourth-quarter earnings season unofficially kicks off on Tuesday 13th January, led by the largest US banks.

JPMorgan Chase, the country’s biggest lender, leads the pack, followed by Citigroup, Bank of America and Goldman Sachs among others.

US banks are expected to report solid earnings thanks to investment banking activity and elevated trading activity across commodities, fixed income and equity markets.

It is worth noting that financials make up almost 29% of the US30’s weight with JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs accounting for nearly 16%!

So, the upcoming earnings from US banks could spell fresh volatility.

  • Markets are forecasting a 3.3% move, either Up or Down, for JPMorgan Chase stocks post-earnings
  • Markets are forecasting a 4.0% move, either Up or Down, for Goldman Sachs stocks post-earnings.

 

 

2) US December CPI – Tuesday 13th January

The incoming US Consumer Price Index (CPI) may impact bets around Fed cuts in the first few months of 2026.

Markets are forecasting:

  • CPI year-on-year (December 2025 vs. December 2024) unchanged at 2.7%.
  • Core CPI year-on-year to rise 2.7% from 2.6%.
  • CPI month-on-month – 0.3%
  • Core CPI month-on-month – 0.3%

Signs of rising inflation pressures may reduce bets around the Fed cutting interest rates.

US30 is forecast to move 0.9% up or 0.8% down in a 6-hour window after the US CPI report.

Note: The US retail sales reports, PPI, Biege book and speeches by Fed officials may impact the US30.

 

3) Technical forces

The US30 remains bullish on the daily charts with prices trading above the 50, 100 and 200-day SMA.

  • A solid breakout above 49,500 could inspire a move toward the psychological 50,000 milestone and higher.
  • Should prices slip below 48,800, this could trigger a selloff toward 48,400.


 

Forex-Time-LogoArticle by ForexTime

 

ForexTime Ltd (FXTM) is an award winning international online forex broker regulated by CySEC 185/12 www.forextime.com

The Annual Tax Loss Fire Sale: Ten Bargains for the New Year Bounce

Source: Dominic Frisby (12/24/25) 

Dominic Frisby of The Flying Frisby shares how you can profit from December’s forced selling and why you need to be out by March.

In Canada and the U.S., the tax year ends on December 31. This creates a flurry of selling as the year draws to a close. Why? Investors want to realise losses which they can then offset against gains elsewhere and so reduce their tax bill.

This creates considerable selling pressure, especially amongst small-cap stocks, and they can become quite oversold. The selling can be quite indiscriminate in the last few days before Christmas, but it abates as soon as the year ends, and the stocks often rally — particularly if there is a reason for them to rally (such as them being cheap or, better, some positive newsflow or generally better market conditions for the sector in which that company operates: eg Bitcoin rallies a bit, so all Bitcoin related companies rally).

Some years this works better than others, some picks work better than others. But manage your risk — don’t take on position sizes which are too large, be prepared to sell if the trade goes against you, etc. — and the trade can work well.

You want to be exiting your positions by February-March, so the trade has a nice structured timescale around it.

Note: Companies often do badly because they are not very good companies, so that means you are often buying not-very-good companies. Be under no illusions.

The trade seems to work particularly well with small-cap Canadian resource stocks, so you will need a broker who deals in such things. I use Interactive Investor. If you want to open an account, use this affiliate link (I get a fee, and you get a year’s free trading.)

Anatomy of a tax loss candidate

The ideal candidate wants to have spiked at some point in the last couple of years so that it sucked in a lot of buyers at higher prices. It wants to have been flat or declining for some time, so that buyers will now hate it and want it out of their portfolio, happy to sell at any price just to get rid of the wretched thing.

It wants to be really oversold so there is room for a rebound.

Ideally, they want to have some cash so they are not coming to market for capital in the New Year and thereby killing any rally with a raise.

It’s better if the company has genuine assets and is a genuine business, not some lifestyle company. That lowers risk and betters chances of positive, real newsflow in the New Year.

Take a look at this chart of Company Unknown. You can see that three times this year it spiked above $10. Now it is trading at 84c. How many people have lost money, I dread to think. It has been a proverbial clusterfook.

If you bought anywhere above $2 or $3 — and especially up near $10 or $13 – you will HATE this company.

Meanwhile, there is a huge potential loss for you to realise. So you sell it and take the loss.

But look also at the volume — that has been quite high since the sell off (short sellers covering, increased stock coming to market as it became free trading, but also capitulation). There is a story there, too. Note also the volumes when the stock went from 80c to $1.80 in October.

It’s tailing off again.

This stock could easily rise 50% — and that would only take it to $1.25, which is nothing in the context of the greater volatility.

I’ve read the chatboards. Investors hate this stock. It is not a good company. It’s even been associated with scams.

But all we are looking for is a New Year bounce.

Imagine owning Company Unknown 2, meanwhile. It’s been falling for five years!

It was a $7 stock, now it’s 60c. Investors have had five years of relentless grind lower. It’s a copper company with resources in the Southwestern U.S. That should be a golden ticket in current markets.

Investors will be furious. No surprise they’re selling.

But it’s got capital. There’s some newsflow coming early next year. It looks like it has made a low around 50c. Could this be a dollar stock by March? Why not? The world needs copper. This company has lots of it.

You get the point.

Selling in my view will climax this Friday, December 19, and Monday, December 22,  but you have until New Year’s Eve to buy. (Most will have left their desks by Tuesday of next week I’d say).

The timeframe for the exit is February to March.

With all that in mind, here are 10 tax loss selling ideas for 2025-2-26:

I have been on a 2-day marathon scanning charts. Here are the best ten I could find.

This has been a hard year to find candidates, I must say, largely because resource stocks have had such a good time of it.

Crypto Treasury Companies, on the other hand, have had a terrible year, so — with a bit of help from Bitcoin (it needs to rebound) — they could enjoy a nice bounce.

I’ll tell you my ideas and then at the end of today’s piece, tell you the ones I am going for.

Tech

(NB $ = USD, unless otherwise stated).

1. Strategy Inc. (MSTR:NASDAQ)

Billionaire genius Michael Saylor’s Strategy has had a rotten time of it lately. Once trading at a premium to its Bitcoins, it’s now trading at a slight discount to them. If you want a long-term position in this company, now might not be a bad time to acquire it.

Trading at or near its lows for the year, it has properly puked.

It will only rally if Bitcoin rallies — and that particular engine has run out of steam — but it’s a prime candidate for a rebound.

2. SOL Strategies Inc. (HODL:CSE; STKE:NASDAQ).

To think I was CEO of this company once upon a time, in its earlier incarnation as a privacy company, Cypherpunk Holdings. The company changed focus a year or two ago and is now a Sol staking company.

Basically, it sinks or swims with Solana.

Earlier this year, it got to $34. Now it’s under $2. A proper puke job. One to sell and realise a loss. And so one for us to buy.

Like Strategy and Bitcoin, we will need some help from Solana. If it doesn’t rally, this remains dead in the water. But if it does, it makes a lovely flip.

This could quite easily go above $5.

3. Strive (ASST:NASDAQ) is the third of my crypto treasury ideas.

That’s the one with the chart above — Unnamed Company. I stress this trade is not about quality. It is unfortunately merging with Semler Scientific, which other readers and I hold (Semler is another tax loss candidate by the way, but there are better ones).

Again, with some help from Bitcoin, it could be a nice flip.

Here’s another tech-related idea for you.

4. Healwell AI (AIDX:TSX)

Three years ago, this was a CA$3 stock. Now it’s 85c. But it’s now a top pick of Canadian broker, Haywood Securities, which has put a target of $4.50, now that it has cleaned up its balance sheet and refocused its activities on AI.

We don’t need it to get that high. Pick it up in the low 80s and aim to flip at 1.20 is what I am looking to do.

Oil and Gas

I was looking for names in the oil and gas space as I think oil could prove a winner next year, but while oil itself has been weak, the stocks themselves have not been the disaster I have been looking for.

5. Vermilion Energy Corp. (VET:TSX; VET:NYSE) is not a bad option.

It looks like it made its low in April at CA$7. It was a CA$35 stock in 2022, so there are losers over that time frame, and this year it’s “only down” about 15% which means it is not a mega tax loss candidate. But if oil and gas rally, so will this.

I see it as quite a low-risk bet, although I don’t see mega gains either

6. SM Energy Co. (SM:NYSE)

This $2 billion market company is perhaps a bit larger than ideal, but its chart — going from $50 to $17 — fits the bill.

The reason for the declines is largely lower oil prices. Its production has increased, though its margins have been compressed, so profitability is in doubt. There are also doubts about its reserves.

Such things need not bother us. We are here for a good time, not a long time.

Just as the treasury companies sink or swim with Bitcoin (and Solana), these will need some help from oil and gas prices, but oil to me looks like it’s making a long-term low at $55.

A rally early next year will give this the filip it needs. A decline, though, won’t.

Uranium

7. Lightbridge Fuels (LTBR:NASDAQ) has been a big winner for readers.

I think we first wrote it up at $3 or thereabouts, and it was a great tax loss trade last year, too.

This uranium fuel tech company, with a market cap $420 million, is up and down like the proverbial, and it has just had one of its down phases, hence my adding it to this list.

Really, the chart doesn’t quite fit the bill, but it sort of does and it keeps on giving, so I include it here, if you can get it in the $12 range, here’s hoping in 2026 it will do its thang.

Mining

8. As mentioned, we have a shortage of good mining candidates, but Arizona Metals Corp. (AMC:TSX.V; AZMCF:OTCQX) is a beauty — Company Unknown 2 above.

This CA$80 million cap copper development play has been a right dog, and it has a lot of disgruntled shareholders, but it has some news flow to come early next year in the form of PEA plus about CA$15 million in cash. The chart to me looks like it has bottomed at 50c, which would make an ideal buy point.

I would have expected it to reach there, but it spiked a bit yesterday for some reason, so maybe it won’t go back there before year’s end.

9. NexMetals Mining Corp. (NEXM:TSX.V; NEXM; NASDAQ) Can’t really tell you much about this Botswana critical metals miner, except to say that it was a $50 stock 4 years ago and now it’s a $5. No surprise it’s now looking for a new CEO.

The declines have been relentless and inexorable, and now it’s near its lows. But this CA$180 million market cap company has some $90 million in cash, and some heavyweight promoters, including Frank Giustra, behind the scenes, so it fits our bill well.

Here’s the four-year chart of grimness.

10. I really shouldn’t be giving airtime to companies like this. It’s too small and too illiquid. But South Star Battery Metals Corp. (STS:TSX.V; STSBF:OTCBB) has a humdinger of a chart and plenty of cash — this CA$14 million market company just completed a highly dilutive, full warrants and all, raise CA$6.7 million.

That stock comes free trading in February 2026, so you don’t want to be around for that. Exit this one earlier than the others. But at 13c, it’s tempting.

What will be the trigger for this graphite miner? Lord knows, but the company could start by updating its presentation, which hasn’t been touched since February. What a joke.

Phew. That was some work. I need to go and get some fresh air.

Summary

So there are ten ideas here. Obviously, you can’t go for all of them. Maybe pick three or four — one from each category.

The risk with the treasury companies is that Bitcoin itself continues its declines, and we are unfortunately in crypto winter again, so that is not unlikely. Strategy is the safer option; Sol and Strive will see the bigger gains but also the bigger losses if they don’t work.

Healwell AI is tempting me too.

Oil-wise, I lean towards SM Energy.

And as for the miners, they all have their allure, but probably avoid South Star unless you are feeling really reckless.

A reminder. Don’t chase these things. Leave a stink bid under the market and let the price come to you. You have between now and New Year’s Eve to get your limit order filled.

The usual disclaimers all apply, but I should say this. If you are not an experienced trader, you might be better off not playing this game.

As always, watch your position sizes and manage your risk.

Good luck!

If you’d like to read more from Dominic, you can sign up for The Flying Frisby here.

 

 

Important Disclosures:

  1. As of the date of this article, officers, contractors, shareholders, and/or employees of Streetwise Reports LLC (including members of their household) own securities of NexMetals Mining Corp.
  2. Dominic Frisby: I, or members of my immediate household or family, own securities of: Strategy Inc., Sol Strategies, Healwell AI, Vermilion Energy Corp.,  SM Energy Co., NexMetals Mining Corp., and South Star Battery Metals Corp. . My company has a financial relationship with: None. My company has purchased stocks mentioned in this article for my management clients: None. I determined which companies would be included in this article based on my research and understanding of the sector.
  3. Dr. John Wolstencroft: I, or members of my immediate household or family, own securities of: ishares US treasury 1-3 year ETF, Volta, Aberdeen Diversified, Black Rock World Mining, Van Eck global mining ETF, Aberdeen Asian Income.. My company has a financial relationship with:None. My company has purchased stocks mentioned in this article for my management clients: None. I determined which companies would be included in this article based on my research and understanding of the sector.
  4. Statements and opinions expressed are the opinions of the author and not of Streetwise Reports, Street Smart, or their officers. The author is wholly responsible for the accuracy of the statements. Streetwise Reports was not paid by the author to publish or syndicate this article. Streetwise Reports requires contributing authors to disclose any shareholdings in, or economic relationships with, companies that they write about. Any disclosures from the author can be found  below. Streetwise Reports relies upon the authors to accurately provide this information and Streetwise Reports has no means of verifying its accuracy.
  5.  This article does not constitute investment advice and is not a solicitation for any investment. Streetwise Reports does not render general or specific investment advice and the information on Streetwise Reports should not be considered a recommendation to buy or sell any security. Each reader is encouraged to consult with his or her personal financial adviser and perform their own comprehensive investment research. By opening this page, each reader accepts and agrees to Streetwise Reports’ terms of use and full legal disclaimer. Streetwise Reports does not endorse or recommend the business, products, services or securities of any company.

For additional disclosures, please click here.

Dominic Frisby Disclosures: This letter is not regulated by the FCA or any other body as a financial advisor, so anything you read above does not constitute regulated financial advice. It is an expression of opinion only. Please do your own due diligence and if in any doubt consult with a financial advisor. Markets go down as well as up, especially junior resource stocks. We do not know your personal financial circumstances, only you do. Never speculate with money you can’t afford to lose.

The US already faces a health care workforce shortage – immigration policy could make it worse

By Bedassa Tadesse, University of Minnesota Duluth 

As Americans gather for holiday celebrations, many will quietly thank the health care workers who keep their families and friends well: the ICU nurse who stabilized a grandparent, the doctor who adjusted a tricky prescription, the home health aide who ensures an aging relative can bathe and eat safely.

Far fewer may notice how many of these professionals are foreign-born, and how immigration policies shaped in Washington today could determine whether those same families can get care when they need it in the future.

As an economist who studies how immigration influences economies, including health care systems, I see a consistent picture: Immigrants are a vital part of the health care workforce, especially in roles facing staffing shortages.

Yet current immigration policies, such as increased visa fees, stricter eligibility requirements and enforcement actions that affect legally present workers living with undocumented family members, risk eroding this critical workforce, threatening timely care for millions of Americans. The timing couldn’t be worse.

A perfect storm: Rising demand, looming shortages

America’s health care system is entering an unprecedented period of strain. An aging population, coupled with rising rates of chronic conditions, is driving demand for care to new heights.

The workforce isn’t growing fast enough to meet those needs. The U.S. faces a projected shortfall of up to 86,000 physicians by 2036. Hospitals, clinics and elder-care services are expected to add about 2.1 million jobs between 2022 and 2032. Many of those will be front-line caregiving roles: home health, personal care and nursing assistants.

For decades, immigrant health care workers have filled gaps where U.S.-born workers are limited. They serve as doctors in rural clinics, nurses in understaffed hospitals and aides in nursing homes and home care settings.

Nationally, immigrants make up about 18% of the health care workforce, and they’re even more concentrated in critical roles. Roughly 1 in 4 physicians, 1 in 5 registered nurses and 1 in 3 home health aides are foreign-born.

State-level data reveals just how deeply immigrants are embedded in the health care system. Consider California, where immigrants account for 1 in 3 physicians, 36% of registered nurses and 42% of health aides. On the other side of the country, immigrants make up 35% of hospital staff in New York state. In New York City, they are the majority of health care workers, representing 57% of the health care workforce.

Even in states with smaller immigrant populations, their impact is outsized.

In Minnesota, immigrants are nearly 1 in 3 nursing assistants in nursing homes and home care agencies, despite being just 12% of the overall workforce. Iowa, where immigrants are just 6.3% of the population, relies on them for a disproportionate share of rural physicians.

These patterns transcend geography and partisan divides. From urban hospitals to rural clinics, immigrants keep facilities operational. Policies that reduce their numbers – through higher visa fees, stricter eligibility requirements or increased deportations – have ripple effects, closed hospital beds.

While health care demand soars, the pipeline for new health care workers could struggle to keep pace under current rules. Medical schools and nursing programs face capacity limits, and the time required to train new professionals – often a decade for doctors – means that there aren’t any quick fixes.

Immigrants have long bridged this gap – not just in clinical roles but in research and innovation. International students, who often pursue STEM and health-related fields at U.S. universities, are a key part of this pipeline. Yet recent surveys from the Council of Graduate Schools show a sharp decline in new international student enrollment for the 2025-26 academic year, driven partly by visa uncertainties and global talent competition.

If this trend holds, the smaller cohorts arriving today will mean fewer physicians, nurses, biostatisticians and medical researchers in the coming decade – precisely when demand peaks. Although no major research organization has yet modeled the full impact that stricter immigration policies could have on the health care workforce, experts warn that tighter visa rules, higher application fees and stepped-up enforcement are likely to intensify shortages, not ease them.

These policies make it harder to hire foreign-born workers and create uncertainty for those already here. In turn, that complicates efforts to staff hospitals, clinics and long-term care facilities at a moment when the system can least afford additional strain.

The hidden toll: Delayed care, rising risks

Patients don’t feel staffing gaps as statistics – they feel them physically.

A specialist appointment delayed by months can mean worsening pain. Older adults without home care aides face higher risks of falls, malnutrition and medication errors. An understaffed nursing home turning away patients leaves families scrambling. These aren’t hypotheticals – they’re already happening in pockets of the country where shortages are acute.

The costs of restrictive immigration policies won’t appear in federal budgets but in human tolls: months spent with untreated depression, discomfort awaiting procedures, or preventable hospitalizations. Rural communities, often served by immigrant physicians, and urban nursing homes, reliant on immigrant aides, will feel this most acutely.

Most Americans won’t read a visa bulletin or a labor market forecast over holiday dinners. But they will notice when it becomes harder to get care for a child, a partner or an aging parent.

Aligning immigration policy with the realities of the health care system will not, by itself, fix every problem in U.S. health care. But tightening the rules in the face of rising demand and known shortages almost guarantees more disruption. If policymakers connect immigration policy to workforce realities, and adjust it accordingly, they can help ensure that when Americans reach out for care, someone is there to answer.The Conversation

About the Author:

Bedassa Tadesse, Professor of Economics, University of Minnesota Duluth

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Whether Netflix or Paramount buys Warner Bros., entertainment oligopolies are back – bigger and more anticompetitive than ever

By Matthew Jordan, Penn State 

News of Netflix’s bid to buy Warner Bros. last week sent shock waves through the media ecosystem.

The pending US$83 billion deal is being described as an upending of the existing entertainment order, a sign that it’s now dominated by the tech platforms rather than the traditional Hollywood power brokers.

As David Zaslav, CEO of Warner Bros. Discovery, put it, “The deal with Netflix acknowledges a generational shift: The rules of Hollywood are no longer the same.”

Maybe so. But what are those rules? And are they being rewritten, or will moviegoers and TV audiences simply find themselves back in the early 20th century, when a few powerful players directed the fate of the entertainment industry?

The rise of the Hollywood oligopolies

As Hollywood rose to prominence in the 1920s, theater chain owner Adolf Zuker spearheaded a new business model.

Cartoon of man straddling three different horses and cracking them with a whip.
Lew Merrell’s 1920 cartoon for Exhibitors Herald, a film industry trade publication, depicts Adolf Zukor performing the feat of vertical integration.
Wikimedia Commons

He used Wall Street financing to acquire and merge his film distribution company, Famous Players-Lasky, the film production company Paramount and the Balaban and Katz chain of theaters under the Paramount name. Together, they created a vertically integrated studio that would emulate the assembly line production of the auto industry: Films would be produced, distributed and shown under the same corporate umbrella.

Meanwhile, Harry, Albert, Sam and Jack Warner – the Warner brothers – had been pioneer theater owners during the nickelodeon era, the period from roughly 1890 to 1915, when movie exhibition shifted from traveling shows to permanent, storefront theaters called nickelodeons.

They used the financial backing of investment bank Goldman Sachs to follow Zucker’s Hollywood model. They merged their theaters with several independent production companies: the Vitagraph film distribution company, the Skouras Brothers theater chain and, eventually, First National.

But the biggest of the Hollywood conglomerates was Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, created when the Loews theater chain merged Metro Pictures, Goldwyn Pictures and Mayer Pictures.

At its high point, MGM had the biggest stars of the day under noncompete contracts and accounted for roughly three-quarters of the entire industry’s gross revenues.

By the mid-1930s, a handful of vertically integrated studios dominated Hollywood – MGM, Paramount, Warner Brothers, RKO and 20th Century Fox – functioning like a state-sanctioned oligopoly. They controlled who worked, what films were made and what made it into the theaters they owned. And though the studios’ holdings came and went, the rules of the industry remained stable until after World War II.

Old Hollywood loses its cartel power

In 1938, the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission sued the “Big Five” studios, arguing that their vertically integrated model was anti-competitive.

After the Supreme Court decided in favor of the U.S. government in 1948 – in what became known as the Paramount Decisionthe studios were forced to sell off their theater chains, which checked their ability to squeeze theaters and squeeze out independent producers.

With the studios’ cartel power weakened, independent filmmakers like Elia Kazan and John Cassavetes flourished in the 1950s, making pictures like “On the Waterfrontthat the studios had rejected. Foreign films found their ways to American screens no longer constrained by block booking, a practice that forced exhibitors to pay for a lot of mediocre films if they wanted the good ones, too.

By the 1960s, a new generation of filmmakers like Mike Nichols and Stanley Kubrick scored big with audiences hungry for something different than the escapist spectacles Hollywood was green-lighting. They took risks by hiring respected writers and unknown actors to tell stories that were truer to life. In doing so, they flipped Hollywood’s generic formulas upside down.

A decade ago, I wrote about how Netflix’s streaming model pointed to a renaissance of innovative storytelling, similar to the period after the Paramount Decision.

By streaming their indie film “Beast of No Nation” directly to subscribers at home, Netflix posed a direct threat to Hollywood’s blockbuster model, in which studios invested heavily in a small number of big-budget films designed to earn enormous box office returns. At the time, Netflix’s 65 million global subscribers gave it the capital to produce exclusive content for its expanding markets.

Hollywood quickly closed the streaming gap, developing its own platforms and restricting access of its vast catalogs to subscribers.

Warner Bros. bought and sold

In 2018, AT&T acquired Time Warner, the biggest media conglomerate of the time, and DirectTV. It hoped to merge its 125 million-plus telecommunication customers with Time Warner’s content and create a streaming giant to compete with Netflix.

Then came the COVID-19 pandemic, and the theatrical model for film distribution collapsed.

The pressure on AT&T’s stock led the company to sell off HBO and WarnerMedia to Discovery in 2022 for $43 billion. Armed with the HBO and Warner Bros. libraries – along with the advertising potential of CNN, TNT and Turner Sports – CEO David Zaslav was bullish about the company’s potential for growth.

Warner Bros. Discovery became the third-largest streaming platform in terms of subscribers behind Netflix and Disney+, which had gobbled up 20th Century Fox.

But the results have been bad for audiences.

In 2023, Zaslav rolled out a bundled streaming platform called Max that combined the libraries of HBO Max and Discovery+, which ended up confusing consumers and the market. So it reverted back to HBO Max because consumers recognized the brand.

Zaslav then decided it was more cost effective to cancel innovative projects or write off completed films as losses. Zaslav often claims his deals are “good for consumers,” in that they get more content in one place. But conglomerates who defend their anti-competitive practices as signs of an efficient market that benefit “consumer welfare” frequently say that, even when they are making the product worse and limiting choices.

His deals have been especially bad for the television side, yielding gutted newsrooms and canceled scripted shows.

Effectively, in only three years, the Warner Bros. Discovery merger has validated nearly all the concerns that critics of “market first” policymaking have warned about for years. Once it had a dominant market share, the company started providing less and charging more.

Meet the new boss – same as the old boss

If it does go through, the Netflix-Warner Bros. merger will likely please Wall Street, but it will further decrease the power of creators and consumers.

Like other companies that have moved from being a growth stock to a mature stock, Netflix is under pressure to be profitable. Indeed, it has been squeezing its subscribers with higher fees and more restrictive login protocols. It’s a sign of what tech blogger Cory Doctorow describes as the logic of “enshittification,” whereby platforms that have locked in audiences and producers start to squeeze both. Buying the competition – HBO Max – will mean Netflix can charge even more.

After the Netflix deal was announced, Paramount joined forces with President Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, the Saudi Sovereign Wealth fund and others to announce a hostile counteroffer.

Now, all bets are off. Whichever platform acquires Warner Bros. will have enormous power over the kind of stories that get sold and told.

In either case, Warner Bros. would be bought by a direct competitor. The Department of Justice, under the first Trump administration, already pushed to sunset the Paramount Decision, claiming that the distribution model had changed to such an extent that it was unlikely that Hollywood could ever reinstate its cartel. It’s hard to imagine that Trump 2.0 will forbid more media concentration, especially if the new parent company is friendly to the administration.

No matter which bidder becomes the belle of Trump’s ballroom, this merger illustrates how show business works: When dominant platforms also own the studios and their assets, they control the fate of the movie business – of actors, writers, producers and theaters.

Importantly, the concentration is taking place as artificial intelligence threatens to displace many aspects of film production. These corporate behemoths will determine if the film libraries spanning a century of Hollywood production will be used to train the machines that could replace artists and creatives. And with each prospective buyer taking on over $50 billion in bank debt to pay for the deal, the new parent of Warner Bros. will be looking everywhere for profits and opportunities to cut costs.

If history is any guide, there will be struggles ahead for consumers and competing creatives. In a media system that has veered back to following Hollywood’s yellow brick rules of the road, the new oligopolies are an awful lot like the old ones.The Conversation

About the Author:

Matthew Jordan, Professor of Media Studies, Penn State

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

 

The marketing genius of Spotify Wrapped

By Ishani Banerji, Clemson University 

Even before this year’s Spotify Wrapped dropped, I had a hunch what mine would reveal.

Lo and behold, one of my most-listened-to songs was an obscure 2004 track titled “Rusty Chevrolet” by the Irish band Shanneyganock. I heard it first thanks to my son, whose friend had been singing it on the swings at school. My son found it utterly hilarious, and it’s been playing in our house nonstop ever since.

Like parents all over the world, I rue how my son’s musical tastes have hijacked my listening history. But I’m also tickled to learn that our household is probably one of the few even listening to it.

Spotify Wrapped is an annual campaign by the popular streaming music platform. Since 2015, the streaming service has been repackaging user data – specifically, the listening history of Spotify’s users over the past year – into attractive, personalized slideshows featuring, among other data points, your top five songs, your total listening time and even your “listening personality.” (Are you a “Replayer,” a “Maverick” or a “Vampire”?)

As a consumer behavior researcher, I’ve thought about why these lists get so much attention each year. I suspect that the success of Spotify Wrapped may have a lot to do with how the flashy, shareable graphics are connected to a couple of fundamental – and somewhat contradictory – human needs.

Individuality and belonging

In 1991, social psychologist Marilynn Brewer introduced what she coined “optimal distinctiveness theory.”

She argued that most people are torn between two human needs. On the one hand, there’s the need for “validation and similarity to others.” On the other hand, people want to express their “uniqueness and individuation.” Thus, most of us are constantly striving for a balance between feeling connected to others while also maintaining a sense of our own distinct individuality.

At Thanksgiving, for example, your need for connection is likely more than satisfied. In that moment, you’re surrounded by family and friends who share a lot in common with you. In fact, it can feel so fulfilled that you may start craving the opposite: a way to assert your individuality. Maybe you choose to wear something that really reflects your personality, or you tell stories about interesting experiences you’ve had in the past year.

In contrast, you may feel relatively isolated when you move to a new town and feel a stronger need for connection. You may wear the styles and brands you see your neighbors and co-workers wearing, pop into popular cafes and restaurants, or invite people over to your home in an effort to make new friends.

Have it your way

When people buy things, they often make choices as a way to satisfy their needs for connection and individuality.

Brands recognize this and usually try to entice consumers with at least one of these two elements. It’s partly why Coca-Cola started releasing bottles featuring popular names on the labels as part of its “Share a Coke” campaign. The soft drink remains the same, but grabbing a Coke with your name on it can cultivate a sense of connection with everyone else who has it. And it’s why Apple offers custom, personalized engravings for products such as its AirPods and iPads.

Spotify Wrapped works because it nails the balance between competing needs: the desire to belong and the desire to stand out. Seeing the overlap between your lists and those of your friends fosters a sense of connection, and seeing the differences is a signal of your (or your kids’!) unique musical taste. It gives me a way to say, “Sure, I’ve been listening to ‘Soda Pop’ nonstop like everyone else. But I’m probably the only one playing ‘Rusty Chevrolet’ on repeat.”

The Wrapped campaign is also smart marketing. Spotify turns listeners’ unique, personal listening data into striking visuals that are tailor-made for posting to social media accounts. It’s no wonder, then, that the Wrapped feature has led to impressive engagement: On TikTok, the hashtag #SpotifyWrapped garnered 73.7 billion views in 2023. The annual campaign has earned numerous honors, including a Cannes Lion and several Webby Awards, otherwise known as the “Oscars of the Internet.”

It’s been so successful that it’s inspired a wave of copycats: Apple Music, Reddit, Uber and Duolingo now release similarly personalized “year-in-reviews.”

None, however, has managed to achieve the same level of cultural impact as Spotify Wrapped. So what’s on your list? And will you brag, hide or laugh at what it says about you?The Conversation

About the Author:

Ishani Banerji, Clinical Assistant Professor of Marketing, Clemson University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.