Archive for Stock Market News – Page 2

Netflix-Warner deal would drive streaming market further down the road of ‘Big 3’ domination

By David R. King, Florida State University 

When it comes to major U.S. industries, three tends to be the magic number.

Historically, auto manufacturing was long dominated by Chrysler, Ford and General Motors – the so-called “Big Three,” which at one point controlled over 60% of the U.S. auto market. A dominant trio shows up elsewhere, too, in everything from the U.S. defense market – think Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Northrup Grumman – to cellphone service providers (AT&T, T-Mobile and Verizon). The same goes for the U.S. airline industry in which American, Delta and United fly higher than the rest.

The rule of three also applies to what Americans watch; the glory days of television was dominated by three giants: ABC, CBS and NBC.

Now, in the digital age, we are rapidly moving to a “Big Three” dominating streaming services: Netflix, Amazon and Disney.

The latest step in that process is Netflix’s plan to acquire Warner Bros. for US$72 billion. If approved, the move would solidify Netflix as the dominant streaming platform.

When streams converge

Starting life as a mail DVD subscription service, Netflix moved into streaming movies and TV shows in 2007, becoming a first-mover into the sphere.

Being an early adopter as viewing went from cable and legacy to online and streaming gave Netflix an advantages in also developing support technology and using subscriber data to create new content.

The subsequent impact was Netflix became a market leader, with quarterly profits now far exceeding its competitors, which often report losses.

Today, even without the Warner Bros. acquisition, Netflix has a dominant global base of over 300 million subscribers. Amazon Prime comes second with roughly 220 million subscribers, and Disney – which includes both Disney+ and Hulu – is third, with roughly 196 million subscribers. This means that between them, these three companies already control over 60% of the streaming market.

Netflix’s lead would only be reinforced by the proposed deal with Warner Bros., as it would add ownership of Warner subsidiary HBO Max, which is currently the fourth-biggest streamer in the U.S. with a combined 128 million subscribers. While some of them will overlap, Netflix is likely to still gain subscribers and better retain them with a broader selection of content.

Netflix’s move to acquire Warner Bros. also follows prior entertainment industry consolidation, driven by a desire to control content to retain streaming service subscribers.

In 2019, Disney acquired 21st Century Fox for $71.3 billion. Three years later, Amazon acquired Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer for $8.5 billion.

Should the Netflix deal go through, it would continue this trend of streaming consolidation. It would also leave a clear gap at the top between the emerging Big Three and other services, such as Paramount+ with 79 million subscribers and Apple TV+, which has around 45 million. Paramount+ was also a rival bidder for Warner Bros., and while it is protesting Netflix’s deal for Warner Bros., it likely will need to pursue other options to remain relevant in streaming.

Why industries come in threes

But why do industries converge to a handful of companies?

As an expert on mergers, I know the answer comes down to market forces relating to competition, which tends to drive consolidation of an industry into three to five firms.

From a customer perspective, there is a need for multiple options. Having more than one option avoids monopolistic practices that can see prices fixed at a higher rate. Competition between more than one big player is also a strong incentive for additional innovation to improve a product or service.

For these reasons, governments – in the U.S. and over 100 other countries – have antitrust laws and practices to avoid any industry displaying limited competition.

However, as industries become more stable, growth tends to slow and remaining businesses are forced to compete over a largely fixed market. This can separate companies into industry leaders and laggards. While leaders enjoy greater stability and predictable profits, laggards struggle to remain profitable.

Lagging companies often combine to increase their market share and reduce costs.

The result is that consolidating industries quite often land on three main players as a source of stability – one or two risks falling into the pitfalls of monopolies and duopolies, while many more than three to five can struggle to be profitable in mature industries.

What’s ahead for the laggards

The long-term viability of companies outside the “Big Three” streamers is in doubt, as the main players get bigger and smaller companies are unable to offer as much content.

A temporary solution for smaller streamers to gain subscribers is to offer teaser rates that later increase for people that forget to cancel until companies take more permanent steps. But lagging services will also face increased pressure to exit streaming by licensing content to the leading streaming services, cease operations or sell their services and content.

Additionally, companies outside the Big Three could be tempted to acquire smaller services in an attempt to maintain market share.

There are already rumors that Paramount, which was a competing bidder for Warner Bros., may seek to acquire Starz or create a joint venture with Universal, which owns Peacock.

Apple shows no immediate plan of discontinuing Apple TV+, but that may be due to the company’s high profitability and an overall cash flow that limits pressures to end its streaming service.

Still, if the Netflix-Warner Bros. deal completes, it will likely increase the valuation of other lagging streaming services due to increased scarcity of valuable content and subscribers. This is due to competitive limits that restrict the Big Three from getting bigger, making the combination of smaller streaming services more valuable.

This is reinforced by shareholders expecting similar or greater premiums from prior deals, driving the need to pay higher prices for the fewer remaining available assets.

The cost to consumers

So what does this all mean for consumers?

I believe that in general, consumers will largely not be impacted when it comes to the overall cost of entertainment, as inflationary pressures for food and housing limit available income for streaming services.

But where they access content will continue to shift away from cable television and movie theaters.

Greater stability in the streaming industry through consolidation into a Big Three model only confirms the decline in traditional cable.

Netflix’s rationale in acquiring Warner Bros. is likely to enable it to offer streaming at a lower price than the combined price of separate subscriptions, but more than Netflix alone.

This could be achieved through additional subscription tiers for Netflix subscribers wanting to add HBO Max content. Beyond competition with other members of the “Big Three,” another reason why Netflix is unlikely to raise prices significantly is that it will likely commit to not doing so in order to get the merger approved.

Netflix’s goal is to ensure it remains consumer’s first choice for streaming TV and films. So while streaming is fast becoming a Big Three industry, Netflix’s plan is to remain at the top of the triangle.The Conversation

About the Author: 

David R. King, Higdon Professor of Management, Florida State University

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

 

As AI leader Nvidia posts record results, Warren Buffett’s made a surprise bet on Google

By Cameron Shackell, The University of Queensland; Queensland University of Technology 

The world’s most valuable publicly listed company, US microchip maker Nvidia, has reported record $US57 billion revenue in the third quarter of 2025, beating Wall Street estimates. The chipmaker said revenue will rise again to $US65 billion in the last part of the year.

The better than expected results calmed global investors’ jitters following a tumultuous week for Nvidia and broader worries about the artificial intelligence (AI) bubble bursting.

Just weeks ago, Nvidia became the first company valued at more than $US5 trillion – surpassing others in the “magnificent seven” tech companies: Alphabet (owner of Google), Amazon, Apple, Tesla, Meta (owner of Facebook, Instagram and Whatsapp) and Microsoft.

Nvidia stocks were up more than 5% to $US196 in after-hours trading immediately following the results.

Over the past week, news broke that tech billionaire Peter Thiel’s hedge fund had sold its entire stake in Nvidia in the third quarter of 2025 – more than half a million shares, worth around $US100 million.

But in that same quarter, an even more famous billionaire’s firm made a surprise bet on Alphabet, signalling confidence in Google’s ability to profit from the AI era.

Fortune Live Media, CC BY-NC-ND

Buffett’s new stake in Google

Based in Omaha, Nebraska in the United States, Berkshire Hathaway is a global investing giant, led for decades by 95-year-old veteran Warren Buffett.

Berkshire Hathaway’s latest quarterly filing reveals the company accumulated a US$4.3 billion stake in Alphabet over the September quarter.

The size of the investment suggests a strategic decision – especially as the same filing showed Berkshire had significantly sold down its massive Apple position. (Apple remains Berkshire’s single largest stock holding, currently worth about US$64 billion.)

Buffett is about to step down as Berkshire’s chief executive. Analysts are speculating this investment may offer a pre-retirement clue about where durable profits in the digital economy could come from.

Buffett’s record of picking winners with ‘moats’

Buffett has picked many winners over the decades, from American Express to Coca Cola.

Yet he has long expressed scepticism toward technology businesses. He also has form in getting big tech bets wrong, most notably his underwhelming investment in IBM a decade ago.

With Peter Thiel and Japan’s richest man Masayoshi Son both recently exiting Nvidia, it may be tempting to think the “Oracle of Omaha” is turning up as the party is ending.

But that framing misunderstands Buffett’s investment philosophy and the nature of Google’s business.

Buffett is not late to AI. He is doing what he’s always done: betting on a company he believes has an “economic moat”: a built-in advantage that keeps competitors out.

His firm’s latest move signals they see Google’s moat as widening in the generative-AI era.

Two alligators in Google’s moat

Google won the search engine wars of the late 1990s because it excelled in two key areas: reducing search cost and navigating the law.

Over the years, those advantages have acted like alligators in Google’s moat, keeping competitors at bay.

Google understood earlier and better than anyone that reducing search cost – the time and effort to find reliable information – was the internet’s core economic opportunity.

Google founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page in 2008, ten years after launching the company.
Joi Ito/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY

Company founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page started with a revolutionary search algorithm. But the real innovation was the business model that followed: giving away search for free, then auctioning off highly targeted advertising beside the results.

Google Ads now brings in tens of billions of dollars a year for Alphabet.

But establishing that business model wasn’t easy. Google had to weave its way through pre-internet intellectual property law and global anxiety about change.

The search giant has fended off actions over copyright and trademarks and managed international regulatory attention, while protecting its brand from scandals.

These business superpowers will matter as generative AI mutates how we search and brings a new wave of scrutiny over intellectual property.

Berkshire Hathaway likely sees Google’s track record in these areas as an advantage rivals cannot easily copy.

What if the AI bubble bursts?

Perhaps the genius of Berkshire’s investment is recognising that if the AI bubble bursts, it could bring down some of the “magnificent seven” tech leaders – but perhaps not its most durable members.

Consumer-facing giants like Google and Apple would probably weather an AI crash well. Google’s core advertising business sailed through the global financial crisis of 2008, the COVID crash, and the inflationary bear market of 2022.

By contrast, newer “megacaps” like Nvidia may struggle in a downturn.

Plenty could still go wrong

There’s no guarantee Google will be able to capitalise on the new economics of AI, especially with so many ongoing intellectual property and regulatory risks.

Google’s brand, like Buffett, could just get old. Younger people are using search engines less, with more using AI or social media to get their answers.

New tech, such as “agentic shopping” or “recommender systems”, can increasingly bypass search altogether.

But with its rivers of online advertising gold, experience back to the dawn of the commercial internet, and capacity to use its platforms to nurture new habits among its vast user base, Alphabet is far from a bad bet.


Disclaimer: This article provides general information only and does not take into account your personal objectives, financial situation, or needs. It is not intended as financial advice. All investments carry risk.The Conversation

Cameron Shackell, Adjunct Fellow, Centre for Policy Futures, The University of Queensland; Queensland University of Technology

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

Week Ahead: NAS100 braced for Nvidia showdown

By ForexTime 

  • NAS100 ↑ 19 % year-to-date
  • Nvidia accounts for almost 15% of NAS100 weight
  • Most valuable company in the world with $4.5 trillion valuation
  • China exposure, data center and Q4 guidance in focus
  • Shares could move 6.2% ↑ or ↓ post earnings

Some normality may return to markets after Trump signed a bill to end the longest government shutdown in US history.

However, storm clouds could be on the horizon due to the resumption of federal economic data.

Any nasty surprises could inject more volatility into a week already packed with key data and earnings from Nvidia – the world’s most valuable company.

Monday, 17th November

  • CAD: Canada CPI, housing starts
  • JPY: Japan industrial production, GDP
  • NZD: New Zealand food prices
  • NAS100: US Empire State manufacturing, Fed speeches

 

Tuesday, 18th November

  • AUD: RBA meeting minutes
  • US30: Home Depot earnings, Fed speeches

 

Wednesday, 19th November

  • EUR: Eurozone CPI
  • JP225: Japan machinery orders, trade
  • ZAR: South Africa CPI, retail sales
  • GBP: UK CPI
  • NAS100: FOMC minutes, Nvidia earnings

 

Thursday, 20th November

  • CN50: China loan prime rates
  • EU50: Eurozone consumer confidence
  • ZAR: South Africa rate decision
  • US30: Fed speeches, Walmart earnings.

 

Friday, 21st November

  • CAD: Canada retail sales
  • EUR: Eurozone HCOB manufacturing PMI, ECB President Christine Lagarde speech
  • JPY: Japan CPI, S&P Global manufacturing PMI
  • GBP: UK S&P Global manufacturing PMI, retail sales
  • NAS100: US University of Michigan consumer sentiment, S&P Global manufacturing PMI, Fed speeches

 

FXTM’s NAS100 which tracks the benchmark Nasdaq100 index is almost 20% year-to-date.

But growing chatter around an AI bubble amid massive investments and circular business deals has sparked multiple selloffs.

Nvidia is slated to report quarterly results next Wednesday which could be a make-or-break moment for the AI rally.

 

Watch out for these 3 key factors:

1) Nvidia earnings

All eyes will be on Nvidia’s latest quarterly earnings after US markets close on Wednesday, November 19th.

For a company that remains at the heart of the A.I. hype, investors will be looking for another round of solid earnings that would justify its nearly 120% rebound from 2025 lows. Any fresh updates on Blackwell deliveries, exposure to China and guidance for Q4 will be in sharp focus.

Essentially, the bar remains very high for Nvidia with very little room for disappointment.

The AI chip giant expected to post earnings of $1.25 a share, and a rise in quarterly revenue to $55 billion – marking a 57% increase from a year ago.

 

 What does this mean for the NAS100?

Nvidia is the biggest constituent in the Nasdaq 100, accounting for roughly 14%.

  • Should Nvidia’s earnings satisfy investors’ lofty expectations and portray an encouraging business outlook, this could push the NAS100 higher.
  • If Nvidia’s earnings disappoint in the slightest, this could trigger a selloff in the NAS100.

 

2) Government reopening data dump

After a 43-day shutdown that began on October 1st, investors have been kept in the dark regarding the US economy.

It’s worth noting that the shutdown is expected to have cost the economy $15 billion a week with the Congressional Budget Office projecting it to lower real GDP growth in the current quarter by 1.5%.

Markets may be injected with heightened levels of volatility as the government resumes releasing economic figures as soon as next week.

Note: These reports include the September and October jobs report, among others. 

  • Should data flag weakness in the US economy, this could hit US equities before prices potentially rebound on Fed cut bets.
  • Stronger than expected data could boost US equities before they slip on cooling Fed cut expectations.

 

3) Technical forces

The NAS100 remains in a bullish channel on the daily charts but concerns around an AI bubble and easing Fed cut bets continue to fuel downside pressures.

  • Should the 50-day SMA prove reliable support, prices may rebound back toward 25700 and 26300.
  • Weakness below 24700 may trigger a selloff toward the 100-day SMA around 24000.

 


 

Forex-Time-LogoArticle by ForexTime

 

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

Airports Sound Alarm: New Strategy Targets Dangerous Drone Incursions

Source: Streetwise Reports (11/6/25)

DroneShield Ltd. (DRO:ASX; DRSHF:OTC) is rolling out a new airport counter‑drone framework as incursions continue disrupting major aviation hubs. The company is partnering with SRI Group to deliver independent threat assessments for airport operators worldwide.

DroneShield Ltd. (DRO:ASX; DRSHF:OTC) has announced the publication of a new white paper titled Best Practices for Counter-Drone Deployment at Civil Airports, part of a broader effort to address the growing threat of drones to civil aviation. The white paper was released alongside a strategic partnership with SRI Group, an aviation security and technology advisory firm led by former U.S. Transportation Security Administration (TSA) Deputy Administrator John Halinski. According to DroneShield, the initiative aims to guide airport operators and regulatory bodies in implementing practical, technology-driven frameworks to counter drone-related disruptions.

SRI Group will support the initiative by providing airport operators with vendor-neutral Counter-Unmanned Aircraft Systems (C-UAS) Threat and Risk Assessments. The assessments are designed to identify vulnerabilities, guide mitigation strategies, and offer independent insights that inform procurement decisions. In September 2025, Copenhagen Airport, the busiest aviation hub in Scandinavia, was forced to shut down for nearly four hours due to unauthorized drone activity. The incident caused 77 flight cancellations and 217 delays, underscoring the urgency of airport drone threat mitigation.

“This is about more than technology, it’s about leadership,” said DroneShield CEO Oleg Vornik in the announcement. Halinski added that DroneShield’s efforts “show a real commitment to the safety of airports and the passengers they serve.” The partnership will also be on display at the upcoming Airports Council World Annual Assembly in Canada, where airport executives can begin the drone threat assessment process and receive tailored recommendations from SRI Group.

In a separate development, DroneShield received the 2025 Platinum Innovators Award from Military and Aerospace Electronics for its Radio Frequency Artificial Intelligence (RFAI) capability. The award follows the company’s 2024 win for its Immediate Response Kit (IRK), marking two consecutive years of top-tier recognition. RFAI is a core component of DroneShield’s suite of software-defined systems, using advanced artificial intelligence to convert raw radio frequency data into actionable intelligence. The system’s adaptability enables ongoing improvements through AI model training.

DroneShield has also reported significant operational milestones for the third quarter of 2025. Quarterly revenue reached AU$92.9 million, marking a 1,091% year-over-year increase, with cash receipts totaling AU$77.4 million. Year-to-date secured revenues have reached AU$193.1 million, compared to AU$57.5 million for all of 2024.

Security Pressures Drive Growth in Counter‑Drone Detection

According to a 2024 report from Markets and Markets, the Global Drone Detection Market was valued at US$659.4 million in 2024 and was described as the “initial layer of airspace defense in counter UAS operations,” enabling operators to identify unauthorized drones, classify intent, and initiate timely responses. The report stated that military and defense organizations accounted for “nearly 79% of the global Drone Detection Market in 2024,” with government and law enforcement agencies representing 14% and critical infrastructure operators contributing around 7%. North America held a 55% share driven by defense investments and regulatory initiatives, while Europe followed with 22%, emphasizing civil integration of counter‑UAS technologies.

The same report noted that airports, border zones, and major infrastructure were increasingly integrating anti‑drone systems due to unauthorized incursions. It also stated that drone detection ecosystems incorporated “radar, radio frequency sensors, electro-optical and infrared cameras, acoustic arrays, and artificial intelligence analytics” to enhance situational awareness. Markets and Markets added that system providers were focusing on “enhancing detection accuracy, minimizing false alarms, and optimizing system interoperability” as part of sector competition.

On November 3, Bell Potter Securities reiterated its Buy rating on DroneShield and maintained a 12-month price target of AU$5.30 per share.

On November 1, the Economic Times described how the Indian Army conducted a drone and counter‑drone exercise called Vayu Sananvay‑II to stress‑test operational readiness under contested electronic warfare conditions.

Officials said the effort “strengthen[ed] the Indian Army’s response capability against evolving aerial threats” and allowed experimentation with indigenous technologies. The Defense Ministry stated that the exercise validated preparedness for next‑generation warfare by integrating aerial and ground assets and testing multi‑domain command and control.

Concerns around elevated security environments continued through global reporting. On November 3, The U.S. Sun detailed how unidentified drones were observed twice in 24 hours above the Kleine‑Brogel air base in Belgium. Belgian Defense Minister Theo Francken said the flights were “not a typical overflight, but a clear mission targeting Kleine Brogel,” and he urged additional counter‑UAS resources after jammer responses “proved ineffective.” He explained that security forces increased vigilance as the incidents involved “larger drones flying at higher altitudes” over a strategically sensitive location. The reporting referenced multiple recent drone‑related disruptions affecting European airports and military installations.

Analyst Endorsements Support Long-Term Value Proposition

On October 1, Shaw and Partners reiterated its Buy rating on DroneShield, emphasizing the company’s position at the forefront of AI-powered counter-drone technology. Analyst Abraham Akra highlighted the DroneSentry platform as “best in class,” citing its integration of artificial intelligence to reduce operator burden and accelerate detection times. He noted that the combination of passive radio frequency (RF) sensing and AI enables scalable, cost-efficient systems, particularly well-suited for mobile applications.

Akra also drew attention to DroneShield’s strategic fit with regional defense initiatives, including a proposed multi-country “drone wall” in Eastern Europe. He identified the company as a leading contender to supply technology for such programs as they continue to take shape.

On November 3, Bell Potter Securities reiterated its Buy rating on DroneShield and maintained a 12-month price target of AU$5.30 per share. The report, authored by analyst Baxter Kirk, projected a total expected return of 38.4% and highlighted several key drivers of confidence in the company’s outlook.

According to Bell Potter, DroneShield had secured a US$25.3 million contract from a defense customer in Latin America. Kirk wrote that before this contract signing, the firm’s CY25 revenue forecasts of US$200 million were “97% secured.”

Kirk emphasized DroneShield’s technological advantage, stating, “We believe DRO has the market-leading counter-drone offering and a strengthening competitive advantage owing to its years of experience and large R&D team, focused on detection and defeat capabilities.” He also noted the broader industry context, pointing out that 2026 could represent “an inflection point for the global counter-drone industry” as governments allocate increased funding for soft-kill solutions.

The report referenced the company’s active sales pipeline of US$2.55 billion and the expectation that “material contracts” could result over the following three to six months. Bell Potter’s valuation was based on a blended discounted cash flow model, combining both base and bull case scenarios. The target price of AU$5.30 represented a 19% upside to the share price at the time of publication.

Expanding Threats, Expanding Opportunity

DroneShield is positioning itself as a first responder to the rising operational risks posed by drone incursions in civil aviation, as outlined in its October 2025 Investor Presentation. The newly launched SentryCiv product, offered as a subscription-only solution for civilian infrastructure such as airports, plays a central role in the company’s strategy to expand its presence in non-military markets. SentryCiv was designed to be cashflow positive from the outset, and management expects the civilian segment to account for up to 50% of overall revenue within five years.

Software-as-a-service (SaaS) is becoming increasingly important to DroneShield’s business model, with third-quarter SaaS revenues growing by 400% year-over-year. The company aims to integrate multiple SaaS modules into its deployed hardware, including products like DroneSentry-C2 and DroneOptID. This shift is supported by growing demand from government and infrastructure clients for modular, software-driven counter-UAS systems that can evolve alongside the threat landscape.

From a strategic standpoint, DroneShield continues to build out its global manufacturing footprint. A new 3,000-square-meter production facility in Sydney is being established, with European and U.S. facilities expected to follow in 2026. These expansions are aimed at increasing annual production capacity from the current US$500 million equivalent to US$2.4 billion by the end of 2026.

Streetwise Ownership Overview*

DroneShield Ltd. (DRO:ASX; DRSHF:OTC)

Retail: 77.68%

Substantial holders over 5%: 21.02%

Management and Insiders: 1.3%

*Share Structure as of 10/27/2025

 

The company’s AU$2.55 billion pipeline includes more than 300 potential projects across geographies and customer types, including 307 expected to materialize in 2025 and 2026. With the release of its latest white paper, strategic partnerships, SaaS-driven offerings, and recent recognition for technical innovation, DroneShield appears to be consolidating its position as a go-to integrator and thought leader in counter-drone strategy.

Ownership and Share Structure1

Recent filings reveal that Vanguard Group has become a substantial shareholder in DroneShield, holding a 5.45% stake, Fidelity Management and Research holds approximately 7.49% and State Street Corporation holds approximately 5.35%.

Management and insiders hold 1.30%, according to the company.

DroneShield has 905.97 million outstanding shares and 863.8M free float traded shares. Its market cap is AU$3B. Its 52-week range is AU$0.58–AU$6.70 per share.

 

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 Droneshield.
  2. James Guttman wrote this article for Streetwise Reports LLC and provides services to Streetwise Reports as an employee.
  3.  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.

1. Ownership and Share Structure Information

The information listed above was updated on the date this article was published and was compiled from information from the company and various other data providers.

ERIC, TSM & AMX lead Latest Top Stocks Scored to our Watchlist

By InvestMacro Research

The fourth quarter of 2025 is underway and earnings reports are coming in. I wanted to highlight some of the top companies that have been added to our Cosmic Rays Watchlist in the past couple of weeks.

Quick Overview: 

The Problem: Finding Stock Ideas to fill out a diversified portfolio of different Sectors, Industries amid the various Market Caps.

What is our Watchlist: The Cosmic Rays Watchlist is the output from our proprietary fundamental analysis algorithm. This list scans dividend-paying companies every quarter (from the NYSE & Nasdaq stock exchanges) and analyzes numerous fundamental metrics to weigh these stocks against their peers and sectors. The ones that come out with a 50 point score or more are then added to our watch list. From there, we do a deeper dive, focusing on their story, their potential for future earnings, and momentum. We also use a trend-following trading strategy or other technical analytics to help us buy and sell at the appropriate times.

Be aware the fundamental system does not take the stock price as a direct element in our rating so one must compare each idea with their current stock prices (i.e., this is not a timing tool).

Most studies are consistently showing overvalued markets and that has to be taken into consideration with any stock market idea. As with all investment ideas, past performance does not guarantee future results. A stock added to our list is not a recommendation to buy or sell the security.

Here we go with 5 of our Top Stocks scored in Q3 2024:


Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited (TSM):

TSM Net Income

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited (Symbol: TSM) was recently added to our Cosmic Rays WatchList. TSM scored a 67 in our fundamental rating system on October 20, 2025.

At time of writing, only 4.31% of stocks have scored a 60 or better out of a total of 14,496 scores in our earnings database. This stock has made our Watchlist a total of 5 times and rose by 10 system points from our last update.

TSM is a Mega Cap stock and part of the Technology sector. The industry focus for TSM is Semiconductors.

TSM has beaten its earnings-per-share estimates for the past four quarters and currently pays a 1% dividend with a 32% payout ratio. TSM’s stock price has had a banner year with over a 45% gain year-to-date.

Company Description (courtesy of SEC.gov):

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited, together with its subsidiaries, manufactures, packages, tests, and sells integrated circuits and other semiconductor devices in Taiwan, China, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Japan, the United States, and internationally.

Company Website: https://www.tsmc.com


 

Asset vs Sector Benchmark:*P/E Ratio (TTM)*52-Week Price Return
– Stock: Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited (TSM)30.3648.45
– Benchmark Symbol: XLK41.4430.6

 

* Data through October 27, 2025


América Móvil, S.A.B. de C.V. (AMX):

América Móvil, S.A.B. de C.V. (Symbol: AMX) was recently added to our Cosmic Rays WatchList. AMX scored a 80 in our fundamental rating system on October 16, 2025.

At time of writing, only 0.61% of stocks have scored a 80 or better out of a total of 14,496 scores in our earnings database. This stock has made our Watchlist a total of 4 times and rose by 87 system points from our last update.

AMX is a Large Cap stock and part of the Communication Services sector. The industry focus for AMX is Telecommunications Services.

AMX has narrowly missed its last two quarterly earnings per share expectations while AMX currently pays a 2.5% dividend with a 60% payout ratio. AMX’s stock price has made a huge leap this year in its year-to-date gain.

Company Description (courtesy of SEC.gov):

América Móvil, S.A.B. de C.V. provides telecommunications services in Latin America and internationally. The company offers wireless and fixed voice services, including local, domestic, and international long-distance services; and network interconnection services. It also provides data services, such as data centers, data administration, and hosting services to residential and corporate clients; value-added services, including Internet access, m

Company Website: https://www.americamovil.com


 

Asset vs Sector Benchmark:*P/E Ratio (TTM)*52-Week Price Return
– Stock: América Móvil, S.A.B. de C.V. (AMX)18.4236.93
– Benchmark Symbol: XLC20.4231.1

 

* Data through October 27, 2025


Community Trust Bancorp, Inc. (CTBI):

Community Trust Bancorp, Inc. (Symbol: CTBI) was recently added to our Cosmic Rays WatchList. CTBI scored a 54 in our fundamental rating system on October 17, 2025.

At time of writing, only 7.60% of stocks have scored a 50 or better out of a total of 14,496 scores in our earnings database. This stock is on our Watchlist for the first time and rose by 28 system points from our last update.

CTBI is a Small Cap stock and part of the Financial Services sector. The industry focus for CTBI is Banks – Regional.

This stock currently has a 4% dividend with a payout ratio around 40%. CTBI has beaten its earnings per share estimates three out of the past four quarters, with the last quarter narrowly missing. Latest research opinions are mixed, with a Buy opinion, a Bullish opinion, and a few Neutrals. CTBI is up by approximately 1% year-to-date.

Company Description (courtesy of SEC.gov):

Community Trust Bancorp, Inc. operates as the bank holding company for Community Trust Bank, Inc. that provides commercial and personal banking services to small and mid-sized communities. The company accepts time and demand deposits, checking accounts, savings accounts and savings certificates, individual retirement accounts and Keogh plans, and money market accounts.

Company Website: https://www.ctbi.com


 

Asset vs Sector Benchmark:*P/E Ratio (TTM)*52-Week Price Return
– Stock: Community Trust Bancorp, Inc. (CTBI)9.570.82
– Benchmark Symbol: XLF19.6213.0

 

* Data through October 27, 2025


Synchrony Financial (SYF):

Synchrony Financial (Symbol: SYF) was recently added to our Cosmic Rays WatchList. SYF scored a 82 in our fundamental rating system on October 17, 2025.

At time of writing, only 0.61% of stocks have scored a 80 or better out of a total of 14,496 scores in our earnings database. This stock has made our Watchlist a total of 10 times and rose by 20 system points from our last update.

SYF is a Large Cap stock and part of the Financial Services sector. The industry focus for SYF is Financial – Credit Services.

This stock has a 1.65% dividend with an approximate payout ratio of 13%. Overall, SYF has beaten its earnings per share estimates three out of the last four quarters, with the last quarter narrowly missing. Analyst research opinions are mixed, with a Buy opinion, a Bullish opinion, and a few Neutrals.

Company Description (courtesy of SEC.gov):

Synchrony Financial, together with its subsidiaries, operates as a consumer financial services company in the United States. It provides credit products, such as credit cards, commercial credit products, and consumer installment loans.

Company Website: https://www.synchrony.com


 

Asset vs Sector Benchmark:*P/E Ratio (TTM)*52-Week Price Return
– Stock: Synchrony Financial (SYF)8.0836.21
– Benchmark Symbol: XLF19.6213.0

 

* Data through October 27, 2025


Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (ERIC):

Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) (Symbol: ERIC) was recently added to our Cosmic Rays WatchList. ERIC scored a 63 in our fundamental rating system on October 16, 2025.

At time of writing, only 4.31% of stocks have scored a 60 or better out of a total of 14,496 scores in our earnings database. This stock is on our Watchlist for the first time and rose by 60 system points from our last update.

ERIC is a Large Cap stock and part of the Technology sector. The industry focus for ERIC is Communication Equipment.

Ericsson has an approximate dividend of 3% with a payout ratio near 40%. Ericsson has beaten its earnings per share estimates for the last three quarters running.

Company Description (courtesy of SEC.gov):

Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ), together with its subsidiaries, provides communication infrastructure, services, and software solutions to the telecom and other sectors. It operates through four segments: Networks, Digital Services, Managed Services, and Emerging Business and Other. The Networks segment offers radio access network solutions for various network spectrum bands, including integrated high-performing hardware and software. Thi

Company Website: https://www.ericsson.com


 

Asset vs Sector Benchmark:*P/E Ratio (TTM)*52-Week Price Return
– Stock: Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) (ERIC)14.7712.25
– Benchmark Symbol: XLK41.4430.6

 

* Data through October 27, 2025


By InvestMacro – Be sure to join our stock market newsletter to get our updates and to see more top companies we add to our stock watch list.

All information, stock ideas and opinions on this website are for general informational purposes only and do not constitute investment advice. Stock scores are a data driven process through company fundamentals and are not a recommendation to buy or sell a security. Company descriptions provided by sec.gov.

What the US$55 billion Electronic Arts takeover means for video game workers and the industry

By Johanna Weststar, Western University; Louis-Etienne Dubois, Toronto Metropolitan University, and Sean Gouglas, University of Alberta 

Electronic Arts (EA) is one of the world’s largest gaming companies. It has agreed to be acquired for US$55 billion in the second largest buyout in the industry’s history.

Under the terms, Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund (a state-owned investment fund), along with private equity firms Silver Lake and Affinity Partners, will pay EA shareholders US$210 per share.

EA is known for making popular gaming titles such as such as Madden NFL, The Sims and Mass Effect. The deal, US$20 billion of which is debt-financed, will take the company private.

The acquisition reinforces consolidation trends across the creative sector, mirroring similar deals in music, film and television. Creative and cultural industries have a “tendency for bigness,” and this is certainly a big deal.

It marks a continuation of large game companies being consumed by even larger players, such as Microsoft’s acquisition of Activision/Blizzard in 2023.

Bad news for workers

There is growing consensus that this acquisition is likely to be bad news for game workers, who have already seen tens of thousands of layoffs in recent years.

This leveraged buyout will result in restructuring at EA-owned studios. It adds massive debt that will need servicing. That will likely mean cancelled titles, closed studios and lost jobs.

In their book Private Equity at Work: When Wall Street Manages Main Street, researchers Eileen Appelbaum and Rosemary Batt point to the “moral hazard” created when equity partners saddle portfolio companies with debt but carry little direct financial risk themselves.

The Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) is looking to increase its holdings in lucrative sectors of the game industry as part of its diversification strategy. However, private equity firms subscribe to a “buy to sell” model, focusing on making significant returns in the short term.

Appelbaum notes that restructuring opportunities are more limited when larger, successful companies — like EA — are acquired. In such cases, she says, “financial engineering is more common,” often resulting in “layoffs or downsizing to increase cash flow and service debt.”

Financial engineering combines techniques from applied mathematics, computer science and economic theory to create new and complex financial tools. The failed risk management of these tools has been implicated in financial scandals and market crashes.

Financialization and the fissured workplace

The financialization of the game industry is a problem. Financialization refers to a set of changes in corporate ownership and governance — including the deregulation of financial markets — that have increased the influence of financial companies and investors.

It has produced economies where a considerable share of profits comes from financial transactions rather than the production and provision of goods and services.

It creates what American management professor David Weil calls a “fissured workplace” where ownership models are multi-layered and complex.

It gives financial players an influential seat at the corporate decision-making table and directs managerial attention toward investment returns while transferring the risks of failure to the portfolio company.

As a result, game titles, jobs and studios can be easily shed when financial companies restructure to increase dividends, leaving workers with little access to these financial players as accountable employers.

Chasing incentives and cutting costs

The Saudi PIF has stated a goal of creating 1.8 million “direct and indirect jobs” to stimulate the Saudi economy. But capital is mobile, and game companies will likely follow jurisdictions that have lower wages, fewer labour protections and significant tax incentives.

Some Canadian governments are working to keep studios and creative jobs closer to home. British Columbia recently increased its interactive media tax credit to 25 per cent.

The move was welcomed by the chief operations officer of EA Vancouver, who said “B.C.’s continued commitment to the interactive digital media sector…through enhancements to the … tax credit … reflects the province’s recognition of the industry’s value and enables companies like ours to continue contributing to B.C.’s creative and innovative economy.”

This may buffer Vancouver’s flagship EA Sports studio, but those making less lucrative games or in regions without financial subsidies will be more at risk of closure, relocation or sale. Alberta-based Bioware — developer of games including Dragon Age and Mass Effect — could be at risk.

Other ways of aggressively cutting costs might come in the form of increased AI use. EA was called out in 2023 for saying AI regulation could negatively impact its business. Yet creative stagnation and cutting corners through AI will negatively impact the number of jobs, the quality of jobs and the quality of games. That could be a larger threat to EA’s business and reinforce a negative direction for the industry.

Game players have low tolerance for quality shifts and predatory monetization strategies. Research shows that gamers see acquisitions negatively: development takes longer, innovation is curtailed and creativity is stymied.

Consolidation among industry giants may cause players to lose faith in EA’s product — and games in general, given the many other entertainment options that are available.

Creative control and worker power at risk

Some have raised concerns that the acquisition could affect EA’s creative direction and editorial decisions, potentially leading to increased content restrictions.

While it’s still unclear how the deal will influence EA’s output, experiences in other industries might be a sign of things to come. For instance, comedians reportedly censored themselves to perform in Saudi Arabia.

The acquisition may also have a chilling effect on the workers’ unionization movement. Currently, no EA studios in Canada are unionized. Outsourced quality assurance workers at the EA-owned BioWare Studio in Edmonton successfully certified a union in 2022, but were subsequently laid off. Fears of outsourcing, layoffs and restructuring could discourage future organizing efforts.

On the other hand, the knowledge that large financial players are making massive profits could galvanize workers, especially considering that before the buyout, EA CEO Andrew Wilson was paid about 264 times the salary of the median EA employee.

The deal certainly does nothing to bring stability to an already volatile industry. Regardless of any cash injection, EA remains very exposed.The Conversation

About the Authors: 

Johanna Weststar, Associate Professor of Labour and Employment Relations, DAN Department of Management & Organizational Studies, Western University; Louis-Etienne Dubois, Associate Professor, School of Creative Industries, The Creative School, Toronto Metropolitan University, and Sean Gouglas, Professor, Digital Humanities, University of Alberta

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

 

A billion-dollar drug was found in Easter Island soil – what scientists and companies owe the Indigenous people they studied

By Ted Powers, University of California, Davis 

An antibiotic discovered on Easter Island in 1964 sparked a billion-dollar pharmaceutical success story. Yet the history told about this “miracle drug” has completely left out the people and politics that made its discovery possible.

Named after the island’s Indigenous name, Rapa Nui, the drug rapamycin was initially developed as an immunosuppressant to prevent organ transplant rejection and to improve the efficacy of stents to treat coronary artery disease. Its use has since expanded to treat various types of cancer, and researchers are currently exploring its potential to
treat diabetes,
neurodegenerative diseases and
even aging. Indeed, studies raising rapamycin’s promise to extend lifespan or combat age-related diseases seem to be published almost daily. A PubMed search reveals over 59,000 journal articles that mention rapamycin, making it one of the most talked-about drugs in medicine.

Connected hexagonal structures
Chemical structure of rapamycin.
Fvasconcellos/Wikimedia Commons

At the heart of rapamycin’s power lies its ability to inhibit a protein called the target of rapamycin kinase, or TOR. This protein acts as a master regulator of cell growth and metabolism. Together with other partner proteins, TOR controls how cells respond to nutrients, stress and environmental signals, thereby influencing major processes such as protein synthesis and immune function. Given its central role in these fundamental cellular activities, it is not surprising that cancer, metabolic disorders and age-related diseases are linked to the malfunction of TOR.

Despite being so ubiquitous in science and medicine, how rapamycin was discovered has remained largely unknown to the public. Many in the field are aware that scientists from the pharmaceutical company Ayerst Research Laboratories isolated the molecule from a soil sample containing the bacterium Streptomyces hydroscopicus in the mid-1970s. What is less well known is that this soil sample was collected as part of a Canadian-led mission to Rapa Nui in 1964, called the Medical Expedition to Easter Island, or METEI.

As a scientist who built my career around the effects of rapamycin on cells, I felt compelled to understand and share the human story underlying its origin. Learning about historian Jacalyn Duffin’s work on METEI completely changed how I and many of my colleagues view our own field.

Unearthing rapamycin’s complex legacy raises important questions about systemic bias in biomedical research and what pharmaceutical companies owe to the Indigenous lands from which they mine their blockbuster discoveries.

History of METEI

The Medical Expedition to Easter Island was the brainchild of a Canadian team comprised of surgeon Stanley Skoryna and bacteriologist Georges Nogrady. Their goal was to study how an isolated population adapted to environmental stress, and they believed the planned construction of an international airport on Easter Island offered a unique opportunity. They presumed that the airport would result in increased outside contact with the island’s population, resulting in changes in their health and wellness.

With funding from the World Health Organization and logistical support from the Royal Canadian Navy, METEI arrived in Rapa Nui in December 1964. Over the course of three months, the team conducted medical examinations on nearly all 1,000 island inhabitants, collecting biological samples and systematically surveying the island’s flora and fauna.

It was as part of these efforts that Nogrady gathered over 200 soil samples, one of which ended up containing the rapamycin-producing Streptomyces strain of bacteria.

Poster of the word METEI written vertically between the back of two moai heads, with the inscription '1964-1965 RAPA NUI INA KA HOA (Don't give up the ship)'
METEI logo.
Georges Nogrady, CC BY-NC-ND

It’s important to realize that the expedition’s primary objective was to study the Rapa Nui people as a sort of living laboratory. They encouraged participation through bribery by offering gifts, food and supplies, and through coercion by enlisting a long-serving Franciscan priest on the island to aid in recruitment. While the researchers’ intentions may have been honorable, it is nevertheless an example of scientific colonialism, where a team of white investigators choose to study a group of predominantly nonwhite subjects without their input, resulting in a power imbalance.

There was an inherent bias in the inception of METEI. For one, the researchers assumed the Rapa Nui had been relatively isolated from the rest of the world when there was in fact a long history of interactions with countries outside the island, beginning with reports from the early 1700s through the late 1800s.

METEI also assumed that the Rapa Nui were genetically homogeneous, ignoring the island’s complex history of migration, slavery and disease. For example, the modern population of Rapa Nui are mixed race, from both Polynesian and South American ancestors. The population also included survivors of the African slave trade who were returned to the island and brought with them diseases, including smallpox.

This miscalculation undermined one of METEI’s key research goals: to assess how genetics affect disease risk. While the team published a number of studies describing the different fauna associated with the Rapa Nui, their inability to develop a baseline is likely one reason why there was no follow-up study following the completion of the airport on Easter Island in 1967.

Giving credit where it is due

Omissions in the origin stories of rapamycin reflect common ethical blind spots in how scientific discoveries are remembered.

Georges Nogrady carried soil samples back from Rapa Nui, one of which eventually reached Ayerst Research Laboratories. There, Surendra Sehgal and his team isolated what was named rapamycin, ultimately bringing it to market in the late 1990s as the immunosuppressant Rapamune. While Sehgal’s persistence was key in keeping the project alive through corporate upheavals – going as far as to stash a culture at home – neither Nogrady nor the METEI was ever credited in his landmark publications.

Although rapamycin has generated billions of dollars in revenue, the Rapa Nui people have received no financial benefit to date. This raises questions about Indigenous rights and biopiracy, which is the commercialization of Indigenous knowledge.

Agreements like the United Nations’s 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity and the 2007 Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples aim to protect Indigenous claims to biological resources by encouraging countries to obtain consent and input from Indigenous people and provide redress for potential harms before starting projects. However, these principles were not in place during METEI’s time.

Some argue that because the bacteria that produces rapamycin has since been found in other locations, Easter Island’s soil was not uniquely essential to the drug’s discovery. Moreover, because the islanders did not use rapamycin or even know about its presence on the island, some have countered that it is not a resource that can be “stolen.”

However, the discovery of rapamycin on Rapa Nui set the foundation for all subsequent research and commercialization around the molecule, and this only happened because the people were the subjects of study. Formally recognizing and educating the public about the essential role the Rapa Nui played in the eventual discovery of rapamycin is key to compensating them for their contributions.

In recent years, the broader pharmaceutical industry has begun to recognize the importance of fair compensation for Indigenous contributions. Some companies have pledged to reinvest in communities where valuable natural products are sourced. However, for the Rapa Nui, pharmaceutical companies that have directly profited from rapamycin have not yet made such an acknowledgment.

Ultimately, METEI is a story of both scientific triumph and social ambiguities. While the discovery of rapamycin has transformed medicine, the expedition’s impact on the Rapa Nui people is more complicated. I believe issues of biomedical consent, scientific colonialism and overlooked contributions highlight the need for a more critical examination and awareness of the legacy of breakthrough scientific discoveries.The Conversation

About the Author:

Ted Powers, Professor of Molecular and Cellular Biology, University of California, Davis

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

Why aren’t companies speeding up investment? A new theory offers an answer to an economic paradox

By David Ikenberry, University of Colorado Boulder 

For years, I’ve puzzled over a question that seems to defy common sense: If stock markets are hitting records and tech innovation seems endless, why aren’t companies pouring money back into new projects?

Yes, they’re still investing – but the pace of business spending is slower than you’d expect, especially outside of AI.

And if you’ve noticed headlines about sluggish business spending even as corporate profits soar, you’re not alone. It’s a puzzle that’s confounded economists, policymakers and investors for decades. Back in 1975, U.S. public companies reinvested an average of 25 cents for every dollar on their balance sheets. Today, that figure is closer to 12 cents.

In other words, corporate America is flush with cash, but it’s surprisingly stingy about reinvesting in its own future. What happened?

I’m an economist, and my colleague Gustavo Grullon and I recently published a study in the Journal of Finance that turns the field’s conventional wisdom on its head. Our research suggests the issue isn’t cautious executives or jittery markets – it’s about how economists have historically measured companies’ incentives to invest in the first place.

Asking the wrong Q

For decades, economists have relied on a simple but appealing ratio – Tobin’s Q, named after the famous economist James Tobin – to gauge whether companies should ramp up investment.

They calculate this by dividing a company’s market value – what it would take to purchase the firm outright with cash – by its replacement value, or how much it would cost to rebuild the company from scratch. The result is called “Q.” The higher the Q, the theory goes, the more incentive executives have to invest.

But reality hasn’t conformed to fit the theory. Over the past half-century, Tobin’s Q has gone up, yet investment rates have gone down sharply.

Why the disconnect? Our research points to one key culprit: excess capacity. Many U.S. companies already have more factories, machines or service capability than they can use. By not correcting for this issue, the traditional Tobin’s Q will overstate the incentive that companies have to grow.

To see this, consider a commercial real estate company that owns a portfolio of office buildings. In recent years, with the rise of e-commerce and remote work, many of their properties have been running well below capacity. Now suppose a few new tenants start paying rent and begin absorbing a portion of that empty space. Stock prices will rise in response to seeing these new cash flows, which in turn will lead Q to rise.

Traditionally, this increase in Q would suggest that it’s a good time to invest in new buildings – but the reality is quite different with idle capacity still in the system. Why pour money into building another office tower if existing ones still have empty floors?

This key idea is that what matters isn’t the average value of all assets – it’s the marginal value of adding one more dollar of investment. And because capacity utilization has been steadily eroding over the past half-century, many firms see little reason to invest.

That last point may come as a surprise, but the U.S. economy, with all its factories and offices, isn’t nearly as abuzz with activity as it was after, say, World War II. Today, many sectors operate well below full throttle. This growing slack in the system over time helps explain why companies have pulled back on their rate of investment, even as profits and market values climb.

Why has capacity utilization fallen so much over the past half-century? It’s not entirely clear, but what economists call “structural economic rigidities” – things such as regulatory hurdles, labor market frictions or shifts in cost structure – seem to be part of the answer. These factors can drag businesses into a state of chronic underuse, especially after recessions.

Why it matters

This isn’t just an academic debate. The implications are profound, whether you closely follow Wall Street or just enjoy armchair economic policy debates. For one thing, this dynamic might help explain why tax cuts haven’t spurred investment the way supporters have hoped.

Take the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which slashed the top corporate tax rate from 35% to 21% and introduced full expensing for equipment investments. Supporters promised a wave of new investment.

But when my colleague and I looked at the numbers, we found the opposite. In the four years before the tax cuts, publicly traded U.S. firms had an aggregate investment rate, including intangibles, of 13.9%. In the four years after the tax cut, the average investment rate fell to 12.4% – in other words, no evidence of a bump.

Where did those liberated cash flows go? Instead of plowing this newfound cash after the tax cuts into new projects, many companies funneled it into stock buybacks and dividends.

In retrospect, this makes sense. If a company has excess capacity, the incentive to invest should be more muted, even if new machines are suddenly cheaper thanks to tax breaks. If the demand isn’t there, why buy them?

Even with the most generous tax incentives, the core challenge remains: You can’t force-feed investment into an economy already swimming in excess capacity. If companies don’t see real, scalable demand, tax breaks alone aren’t likely to unlock a new era of business spending.

That doesn’t mean tax policy doesn’t matter – it does, especially for smaller firms with real growth prospects. But for the large, well-established firms that make up the lion’s share of the economy, the bigger challenge is demand. Rather than trying to stimulate even more investment, policymakers should prioritize understanding why demand is sagging relative to supply and reducing economic rigidities where they can. That way, the capacity generated by new investment has somewhere useful to go.The Conversation

About the Author:

David Ikenberry, Professor of Finance, Leeds School of Business, University of Colorado Boulder

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

 

Speculator Extremes: EAFE, Nasdaq, FedFunds & WTI Crude lead Bullish & Bearish Bets

By InvestMacro 

The latest update for the weekly Commitment of Traders (COT) report was released by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) on Friday for data ending on August 26th.

This weekly Extreme Positions report highlights the Most Bullish and Most Bearish Positions for the speculator category. Extreme positioning in these markets can foreshadow strong moves in the underlying market.

To signify an extreme position, we use the Strength Index (also known as the COT Index) of each instrument, a common method of measuring COT data. The Strength Index is simply a comparison of current trader positions against the range of positions over the previous 3 years. We use over 80 percent as extremely bullish and under 20 percent as extremely bearish. (Compare Strength Index scores across all markets in the data table or cot leaders table)


Extreme Bullish Speculator Table


Here Are This Week’s Most Bullish Speculator Positions:

MSCI EAFE MINI

Extreme Bullish Leader
The MSCI EAFE MINI speculator position once again comes in as the most bullish extreme standing this week as the MSCI EAFE-Mini speculator level has advanced to a maximum 100 percent score of its 3-year range.

The six-week trend for the percent strength score totaled a rise of 20 percentage points this week. The overall net speculator position was a total of 14,698 net contracts this week with a boost by 9,259 contract in the weekly speculator bets.


Speculators or Non-Commercials Notes:

Speculators, classified as non-commercial traders by the CFTC, are made up of large commodity funds, hedge funds and other significant for-profit participants. The Specs are generally regarded as trend-followers in their behavior towards price action – net speculator bets and prices tend to go in the same directions. These traders often look to buy when prices are rising and sell when prices are falling. To illustrate this point, many times speculator contracts can be found at their most extremes (bullish or bearish) when prices are also close to their highest or lowest levels.

These extreme levels can be dangerous for the large speculators as the trade is most crowded, there is less trading ammunition still sitting on the sidelines to push the trend further and prices have moved a significant distance. When the trend becomes exhausted, some speculators take profits while others look to also exit positions when prices fail to continue in the same direction. This process usually plays out over many months to years and can ultimately create a reverse effect where prices start to fall and speculators start a process of selling when prices are falling.

 


Nasdaq

Extreme Bullish Leader
The Nasdaq speculator position comes in second this week in the extreme standings. The Nasdaq-Mini speculator level resides at a 91 percent score of its 3-year range.

The six-week trend for the speculator strength score came in at a small gain of 2 percentage points this week. The overall speculator position was 36,082 net contracts this week with an addition of 2,237 contracts in the weekly speculator bets.


Lean Hogs

Extreme Bullish Leader
The Lean Hogs speculator position comes up number three in the extreme standings this week with the Lean Hogs speculator level sitting at an 85 percent score of its 3-year range.

The six-week trend for the speculator strength score totaled a decrease of -5 percentage points this week. The overall speculator position was 76,068 net contracts this week with a rise of 6,359 contracts in the speculator bets.


Live Cattle

Extreme Bullish Leader
The Live Cattle speculator position comes next in this week’s bullish extreme standings. The Live Cattle speculator level is at a 83 percent score of its 3-year range. The six-week trend for the speculator strength score was a gain of 2 percentage points this week.

The speculator position was 106,277 net contracts this week with an edge higher of 136 contracts in the weekly speculator bets.


Ultra U.S. Treasury Bonds


The Ultra U.S. Treasury Bonds speculator position rounds out the top five in this week’s bullish extreme standings. The Ultra Long T-Bond speculator level sits at a 78 percent score of its 3-year range. The six-week trend for the speculator strength score was a dip by -8 percentage points.

The speculator position was -248,945 net contracts this week with a decline of -6,783 contracts in the weekly speculator bets.


Extreme Bearish Speculator Table


This Week’s Most Bearish Speculator Positions:

Fed Funds

Extreme Bearish Leader
The Fed Funds speculator position comes in tied as the most bearish extreme standing this week with the FedFunds speculator level sitting at a minimum 0 percent score of its 3-year range.

The six-week trend for the speculator strength score was -70 percentage points this week. The overall speculator position was -393,823 net contracts this week with a drop of -76,769 contracts in the speculator bets.


WTI Crude Oil

Extreme Bearish Leader
The WTI Crude Oil speculator position also comes in tied as the most bearish extreme standing this week as the WTI Crude speculator level is at a minimum 0 percent score of its 3-year range.

The six-week trend for the speculator strength score was a drop by -22 percentage points this week. The speculator position was 109,472 net contracts this week with a reduction by -10,737 contracts in the weekly speculator bets.


Sugar

Extreme Bearish Leader
The Sugar speculator position comes in as third most bearish extreme standing of the week. The Sugar speculator level resides at a 1 percent score of its 3-year range.

The six-week trend for the speculator strength score was a dip by -6 percentage points this week. The overall speculator position was -74,738 net contracts this week with a change of -4,445 contracts in the speculator bets.


US Dollar Index

Extreme Bearish Leader
The US Dollar Index speculator position comes in as this week’s fourth most bearish extreme standing. The USD Index speculator level is now at a 2 percent score of its 3-year range.

The six-week trend for the speculator strength score was a decrease by -6 percentage points this week. The speculator position was -6,105 net contracts this week with a slide by -117 contracts in the weekly speculator bets.


5-Year Bond

Extreme Bearish Leader
Next, the 5-Year Bond speculator position comes in as the fifth most bearish extreme standing for this week. The 5-Year speculator level is at a 5 percent score of its 3-year range.

The six-week trend for the speculator strength score was a small gain of 2 percentage points this week. The speculator position was -2,463,971 net contracts this week with an advance of 44,412 contracts in the weekly speculator bets.


Article By InvestMacroReceive our weekly COT Newsletter

*COT Report: The COT data, released weekly to the public each Friday, is updated through the most recent Tuesday (data is 3 days old) and shows a quick view of how large speculators or non-commercials (for-profit traders) were positioned in the futures markets.

The CFTC categorizes trader positions according to commercial hedgers (traders who use futures contracts for hedging as part of the business), non-commercials (large traders who speculate to realize trading profits) and nonreportable traders (usually small traders/speculators) as well as their open interest (contracts open in the market at time of reporting). See CFTC criteria here.

Breaking New Ground in Mortgage Innovation

Source: John Newell (8/25/25)

John Newell of John Newell & Associates explains why he thinks Beeline Holdings Inc. (BLNE:NASDAQ) is positioned for a potential reversal.

While many financial companies are struggling in today’s higher-rate environment, Beeline Holdings Inc. (BLNE:NASDAQ) is carving out a niche with AI-driven mortgage technology, a novel home equity platform, and a growing base of loyal customers.

The stock, now in the early stages of a technical base, is catching attention as both fundamentals and charts begin to align.

About the Company

Beeline is a digital-first mortgage and home equity platform that integrates lending, title, and AI-driven sales tools.

Its proprietary technology, including the “Bob” AI agent and the Hive automation engine, allows the company to close loans in 14–21 days, about half the industry average.

In Q2 2025, Beeline reported revenue of US$1.7 million, up 27% sequentially, while reducing debt by US$2.7 million and cutting recurring monthly expenses by US$0.3 million. Adjusted EBITDA losses narrowed to US$2.8 million compared to US$3.5 million in Q1, reflecting the early benefits of cost discipline and efficiency gains.

What makes Beeline stand out, however, is its new Beeline Equity platform. This product allows homeowners to sell fractional equity stakes in their homes, unlocking liquidity without taking on new debt, interest payments, or monthly obligations. Management expects the product to be a major contributor to revenue beginning with its full launch in October.

Management Team

Beeline is led by CEO Nick Liuzza, a fintech veteran who previously co-founded Linear Title, which was later sold for a 250x return on investment.

COO Jess Kennedy and CFO Chris Moe bring decades of operational and financial expertise, while CMO Jason Johnson and CTO Cameron Slabosz add marketing and technical depth.

The team has already proven its ability to scale fintech businesses, and its founder-led commitment is a central reason analysts believe Beeline can capture outsized market share in a slow-to-evolve mortgage industry.

Share Structure

Beeline has approximately 19.6 million shares outstanding and a market capitalization of just US$32 million at recent prices around US$1.63. Ladenburg Thalmann initiated coverage with a Buy rating and a US$4.50 price target, citing unique product offerings, cost discipline, and significant upside from the equity product launch.

With US$5.2 million in debt already paid down in 2025 and full debt elimination expected by October, the balance sheet is rapidly strengthening. This sets the stage for operating profitability, which management believes is achievable by January 2026.

Technical Analysis

The stock collapsed from a 52-week high near US$30 into the low single digits, but is now stabilizing and forming a base between US$1.00 and US$1.80. This structure suggests institutional accumulation.

Key breakout levels and upside targets:

  • First Target: US$2.20, confirmation of a breakout.
  • Second Target: US$3.80, aligning with prior resistance.
  • Third Target: US$4.50, matching Ladenburg’s price target and near declining 200-day average.

Momentum indicators have flattened, selling pressure has eased, and volume spikes in July hint that the worst may be behind. A sustained move through US$2.20 could open the door for a recovery rally.

Technical Indicators

Momentum indicators such as RSI are neutral, consistent with a consolidation phase. Meanwhile, MACD has flattened, reflecting reduced downside momentum.

Importantly, selling volume has contracted significantly, suggesting supply may be exhausted and setting the stage for an upside resolution.

Pattern Consideration

The stocks’ trajectory into the March peak was near-vertical, followed by an equally sharp collapse.

If the principle of “same way up, same way down” holds, the reverse could also apply: a strong breakout could fuel a recovery rally back toward prior levels faster than many expect.

Finally

Beeline Holdings appears to be transitioning from a falling-angel scenario into a base-building stage.

With supply drying up and buyers beginning to test resistance, the stock is positioned for a potential reversal.

A confirmed breakout through US$2.20 would set the stage for a technical recovery toward US$3.80–US$4.50.

Conclusion

Beeline Holdings is not without risk. The company must execute on its product launches, maintain regulatory compliance, and manage a challenging housing market. But the opportunity is compelling: an AI-driven mortgage platform gaining traction, a unique equity release product tapping into a US$36 trillion market, and a stock trading at just over US$30 million market cap.

For speculative investors, the setup is attractive: improving fundamentals, supportive management, a tightening share structure, and a technical chart pointing toward higher levels. At the current closing price, Beeline, US$1.48, merits a Speculative Buy recommendation.

Investors can read more information here on the company’s website

Beeline Holdings Inc. (BLNE:NASDAQ) closed for trading at US$1.48 on August 22, 2025.

 

Important Disclosures:

  1. For this article, the Company has paid Street Smart, an affiliate of Streetwise Reports, US$3,000.
  2. As of the date of this article, officers and/or employees of Streetwise Reports LLC (including members of their household) own securities of Beeline Holdings Inc.
  3. Author Certification and Compensation: [John Newell of John Newell and Associates] was retained and compensated as an independent contractor by Street Smart for writing this article. Mr. Newell holds a Chartered Investment Management (CIM) designation (2015) and a  U.S. Portfolio Manager designation (2015). The recommendations and opinions expressed in this content reflect the personal, independent, and objective views of the author regarding any and all of the companies discussed. No part of the compensation received by the author was, is, or will be directly or indirectly tied to the specific recommendations or views expressed.
  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 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.

John Newell Disclaimer

As always it is important to note that investing in precious metals like silver carries risks, and market conditions can change violently with shock and awe tactics, that we have seen over the past 20 years. Before making any investment decisions, it’s advisable consult with a financial advisor if needed. Also the practice of conducting thorough research and to consider your investment goals and risk tolerance.