正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

加载此视频时出现问题。这可能是由于临时网络问题，或视频可能不可用。

India needs an educated PM 🔥 In May 2009, UPA won LS elections Next day, Share market went mad and hit peak with Nifty getting upper circuit of 20% Experts said : "Share market salutes Dr Manmohan Singh" 🫡 Sensex jumps 17.24% 🔼 Realty index up 25.37% 🔼 ICICI... show more

Amock_

108,772 subscribers

42,485 次观看 • 1 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

财经新闻政治

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

May 2009 : UPA won Loksabha Next day : Share market hit Peak Nifty : Upper circuit 20% 🔥 Dr Manmohan Singh was 1000x better PM than over hyped Modi • Sensex jumps 17.24% 🔼 • Realty index up 25.37% 🔼 • Capital Goods index up 23.47% 🔼 • Bank index up 20.27% 🔼 • Oil & Gas index up 19.57% 🔼 • BHEL up 33% 🔼 • L&T up 30% 🔼 • ICICI up 25% 🔼 • HDFC up 24% 🔼 Those golden days of India

May 2009 : UPA won Loksabha Next day : Share market hit Peak Nifty : Upper circuit 20% 🔥 Dr Manmohan Singh was 1000x better PM than over hyped Modi • Sensex jumps 17.24% 🔼 • Realty index up 25.37% 🔼 • Capital Goods index up 23.47% 🔼 • Bank index up 20.27% 🔼 • Oil & Gas index up 19.57% 🔼 • BHEL up 33% 🔼 • L&T up 30% 🔼 • ICICI up 25% 🔼 • HDFC up 24% 🔼 Those golden days of India

Amock_

75,036 次观看 • 11 个月前

🚨The BIGGEST THREAT in the WORLD is NATO. Prof. Jeffrey Sachs : NATO Expansion Backfired 📑Going back into history, recent history ... Yes ... what, what provoked NATO to expand eastward? And what foolishness provoked NATO to, play footsie with Ukraine? Well, this is the core of, the crisis that we're in today. 🚨Well, the United States and Germany cheated. 🚨They just cheated, because they deny what I just said, but everybody can find every fact of this on the website called National Security Archive, maintained by George Washington University. 🔼🚨 Everything I just stated is in documentary, confirmation on that website. 🔼🔼🔼🔼🔼🔼 But what happened was the Soviet Union ended in December 1991, and that's when the so-called neocons took over in the United States. ............................................................................ They said, "We're alone. We're the sole superpower. We can do whatever we want." ............................................................................... Mm. And in fact, in Germany and the United States in 1992 and 1993, they said, ...................................................................... "Now it's time for NATO enlargement." ....................................................................... It's unbelievable how they cheated directly, and German, Russia protested this from the start. This wasn't some incidental issue. Of course. This was core to their security. Something again, our officials absolutely refuse to countenance, but they know it full well. 🚨We are led by liars. 🔼🔼🔼🔼🔼 Wow. That's the basic point. We are led by secrecy and by lies. 🔼🔼🔼🔼🔼🔼🔼🔼🔼 What does mean And so a promise that was made was broken, and that is why we have the war in Ukraine. And European leaders knew it, knew we were aiming to war. Our CIA director, Burns, knew we were crossing the reddest of red lines, as he said in a memo in 2008 to Condoleezza Rice. But the security establishment went ahead in the United States and pushed NATO enlargement, not just to Central Europe. The first, members were Hungary, Czech Republic, and Poland, and then to, Russia's, closer to Russia's, greatest, security, concerns with seven new NATO members in the year 2004, which was, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia. Seven countries. But then at the Bucharest NATO summit in 2008, they said, 🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨 "We're gonna go to Ukraine and to Georgia." 🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨 Now, people need to understand what that means. ................................................................................................ We, NATO, which was not supposed to move one inch eastward, was going to surround Russia in the Black Sea. 🔼🔼🔼🔼🔼🔼🔼🔼🔼🔼🔼🔼🔼🔼 Because the idea, very clear, based on a map, was that there would be Ukraine, Romania, Bulgaria, Türkiye, and Georgia surrounding Russia in the Black Sea. Now, if there's any doubt, Judge, about any of the purpose of this, it's spelled out completely, explicitly, vividly by Zbigniew Brzezinski in 1997 in two places. One is a book called The Grand Chessboard, and the other is an article called a, Geopolitical Strategy for Eurasia or something like that in the council, in the Foreign Affairs journal of the Council on Foreign Relations. 🚨He says in 1997, "NATO will expand to Ukraine." 🔼🔼🔼🔼🔼🔼🔼🔼🔼🔼🔼🔼🔼 This is a plan. This is what people need to understand, and it's a cheat. A cheat- Right ... and a plan. And- Right ... finally, one, and then, and I'll, then I'll stop my, point on this. 🚨The subtitle of Brzezinski's book in 1997 explains everything. 🔼🔼🔼🔼🔼 The subtitle is American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperative. The idea has been America will run the world. And in the book, Brzezinski says Ukraine is what he labels a geopolitical pivot. A geopolitical pivot for Brzezinski in a chessboard analogy is a piece that is strategic for you, not because you care about the piece, but because you care about what the piece can attack. 🚨So Ukraine being next to Russia is a geopolitical pivot. 🚨In other words, if I could put it in plain English the United States is gonna use Ukraine to weaken, divide, perhaps break apart Russia. 🚨And Brzezinski names another geopolitical pivot, just out of curiosity, Iran, as a second one. Mm. In other words, our government is playing games, literally. And by games, I mean the great game. Who runs the world? Not a very interesting question, 'cause it can get us all blown up. It doesn't have anything to do with your wellbeing or my wellbeing. It's a kind of madness, but it's based on lies.

🚨The BIGGEST THREAT in the WORLD is NATO. Prof. Jeffrey Sachs : NATO Expansion Backfired 📑Going back into history, recent history ... Yes ... what, what provoked NATO to expand eastward? And what foolishness provoked NATO to, play footsie with Ukraine? Well, this is the core of, the crisis that we're in today. 🚨Well, the United States and Germany cheated. 🚨They just cheated, because they deny what I just said, but everybody can find every fact of this on the website called National Security Archive, maintained by George Washington University. 🔼🚨 Everything I just stated is in documentary, confirmation on that website. 🔼🔼🔼🔼🔼🔼 But what happened was the Soviet Union ended in December 1991, and that's when the so-called neocons took over in the United States. ............................................................................ They said, "We're alone. We're the sole superpower. We can do whatever we want." ............................................................................... Mm. And in fact, in Germany and the United States in 1992 and 1993, they said, ...................................................................... "Now it's time for NATO enlargement." ....................................................................... It's unbelievable how they cheated directly, and German, Russia protested this from the start. This wasn't some incidental issue. Of course. This was core to their security. Something again, our officials absolutely refuse to countenance, but they know it full well. 🚨We are led by liars. 🔼🔼🔼🔼🔼 Wow. That's the basic point. We are led by secrecy and by lies. 🔼🔼🔼🔼🔼🔼🔼🔼🔼 What does mean And so a promise that was made was broken, and that is why we have the war in Ukraine. And European leaders knew it, knew we were aiming to war. Our CIA director, Burns, knew we were crossing the reddest of red lines, as he said in a memo in 2008 to Condoleezza Rice. But the security establishment went ahead in the United States and pushed NATO enlargement, not just to Central Europe. The first, members were Hungary, Czech Republic, and Poland, and then to, Russia's, closer to Russia's, greatest, security, concerns with seven new NATO members in the year 2004, which was, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia. Seven countries. But then at the Bucharest NATO summit in 2008, they said, 🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨 "We're gonna go to Ukraine and to Georgia." 🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨 Now, people need to understand what that means. ................................................................................................ We, NATO, which was not supposed to move one inch eastward, was going to surround Russia in the Black Sea. 🔼🔼🔼🔼🔼🔼🔼🔼🔼🔼🔼🔼🔼🔼 Because the idea, very clear, based on a map, was that there would be Ukraine, Romania, Bulgaria, Türkiye, and Georgia surrounding Russia in the Black Sea. Now, if there's any doubt, Judge, about any of the purpose of this, it's spelled out completely, explicitly, vividly by Zbigniew Brzezinski in 1997 in two places. One is a book called The Grand Chessboard, and the other is an article called a, Geopolitical Strategy for Eurasia or something like that in the council, in the Foreign Affairs journal of the Council on Foreign Relations. 🚨He says in 1997, "NATO will expand to Ukraine." 🔼🔼🔼🔼🔼🔼🔼🔼🔼🔼🔼🔼🔼 This is a plan. This is what people need to understand, and it's a cheat. A cheat- Right ... and a plan. And- Right ... finally, one, and then, and I'll, then I'll stop my, point on this. 🚨The subtitle of Brzezinski's book in 1997 explains everything. 🔼🔼🔼🔼🔼 The subtitle is American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperative. The idea has been America will run the world. And in the book, Brzezinski says Ukraine is what he labels a geopolitical pivot. A geopolitical pivot for Brzezinski in a chessboard analogy is a piece that is strategic for you, not because you care about the piece, but because you care about what the piece can attack. 🚨So Ukraine being next to Russia is a geopolitical pivot. 🚨In other words, if I could put it in plain English the United States is gonna use Ukraine to weaken, divide, perhaps break apart Russia. 🚨And Brzezinski names another geopolitical pivot, just out of curiosity, Iran, as a second one. Mm. In other words, our government is playing games, literally. And by games, I mean the great game. Who runs the world? Not a very interesting question, 'cause it can get us all blown up. It doesn't have anything to do with your wellbeing or my wellbeing. It's a kind of madness, but it's based on lies.

Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

27,489 次观看 • 1 个月前

🚨 THE S&P 500 IS REPEATING 1972 CRASH The S&P 500 keeps pushing to new all-time highs. But here’s what almost everyone is missing: The last time a handful of stocks carried the market, it ended in a 50% crash. It was 1972. They called them the Nifty Fifty. Coca-Cola. IBM. Xerox. Polaroid. You could buy them at any price, they said. Nothing could stop them. While the rest of the market was already falling, the index looked fine because those fifty names were holding it up. Then 1973 hit. Oil spiked. Inflation stuck. The Fed could not ease. The Nifty Fifty broke. The stocks everyone said you could own forever got destroyed. The S&P 500 fell almost 50%. Now look at today. It's not fifty names anymore. It's seven. The Magnificent Seven now make up over 34% of the entire index . $25 trillion in market cap. More than the GDP of every country on earth except the US . And the setup is the same. 84% of the other stocks are already down. Oil is above $100. The Strait of Hormuz disruption was the largest oil market shock in history. Inflation is back at 4.8%. Energy prices are driving it. The Fed already hiked in September. Another hike is on the table. The same conditions that broke the Nifty Fifty are lining up again. But this time, the weight is concentrated in seven stocks, not fifty. When those seven break, there is nothing underneath to hold the index up. The names change. The setup does not. And this time, it's worse. I’ve been trading markets for over 10 years. When the names holding this up break, I’ll post the level worth buying here like I always do. Turn notifications on. If you’re not following yet, you’ll understand why that was a mistake later.

🚨 THE S&P 500 IS REPEATING 1972 CRASH The S&P 500 keeps pushing to new all-time highs. But here’s what almost everyone is missing: The last time a handful of stocks carried the market, it ended in a 50% crash. It was 1972. They called them the Nifty Fifty. Coca-Cola. IBM. Xerox. Polaroid. You could buy them at any price, they said. Nothing could stop them. While the rest of the market was already falling, the index looked fine because those fifty names were holding it up. Then 1973 hit. Oil spiked. Inflation stuck. The Fed could not ease. The Nifty Fifty broke. The stocks everyone said you could own forever got destroyed. The S&P 500 fell almost 50%. Now look at today. It's not fifty names anymore. It's seven. The Magnificent Seven now make up over 34% of the entire index . $25 trillion in market cap. More than the GDP of every country on earth except the US . And the setup is the same. 84% of the other stocks are already down. Oil is above $100. The Strait of Hormuz disruption was the largest oil market shock in history. Inflation is back at 4.8%. Energy prices are driving it. The Fed already hiked in September. Another hike is on the table. The same conditions that broke the Nifty Fifty are lining up again. But this time, the weight is concentrated in seven stocks, not fifty. When those seven break, there is nothing underneath to hold the index up. The names change. The setup does not. And this time, it's worse. I’ve been trading markets for over 10 years. When the names holding this up break, I’ll post the level worth buying here like I always do. Turn notifications on. If you’re not following yet, you’ll understand why that was a mistake later.

MARMOT

49,752 次观看 • 1 天前

Vanguard founder Jack Bogle explains his nuanced view on index funds vs. ETFs: Jack Bogle, the man who created the index fund, clarifies that his concerns aren't with broad index investing itself. His issue is with how ETFs tempt investors to behave badly and how the industry has weaponized the ETF structure for gimmicks. He starts by noting just how dominant index funds have become: “The dominance of index funds, which accounts for 28% of the market, is partly due to ETFs representing more than half of that share." But here's where he draws the line: “I have nothing against broad ETFs per se, but rather the narrow, managed ones and the way people misuse the broad versions." On broad ETFs vs. traditional index funds: they're the same thing Bogle makes clear that structurally, there's no meaningful difference between a Vanguard S&P 500 ETF and what he calls a "TIFF" (Traditional Index Fund), a term he coined to distinguish them: "They both own exactly the same portfolio and are part of the same portfolio, meaning their returns will be identical. Both types cost around five or six basis points at the Admiral class level." He explains Vanguard's pricing: Below roughly $10,000 invested, you'll pay 10 to 12 basis points, but once you cross the Admiral threshold, "the funds are identical." So what's the real problem with ETFs? Behavior. The ability to trade intraday creates temptation: "My slight bias against ETFs stems from the temptation to trade in the middle of the day when trouble arises." He points out how pointless this reactive trading is: "Getting out in the middle of the day is often a reaction to market volatility, such as the market dropping 300 points and then recovering in the second half of the day. This 'bouncing around' is meaningless in the long run." What he actually endorses: Bogle is clear that broad market index funds, whether structured as ETFs or traditional funds, all serve investors well: "Broad market index funds, including the S&P 500, total bond market, total US stock market, international, and even emerging market funds, are all acceptable 'total market funds'." Where the industry lost the plot: His sharpest criticism is reserved for what the ETF industry has become: "The industry has become a marketing business focused on 'crazy' or 'stupid' ideas that no one else has thought of." He offers specific examples: An emerging cancer ETF" he once criticized in the Wall Street Journal, today's "cloud computing" ETFs, and leveraged products offering 100%, 200%, or even 300% exposure, letting investors bet on the market going up or down by three times. His verdict on these: "The sense behind these types of investments is beyond my comprehension."

Vanguard founder Jack Bogle explains his nuanced view on index funds vs. ETFs: Jack Bogle, the man who created the index fund, clarifies that his concerns aren't with broad index investing itself. His issue is with how ETFs tempt investors to behave badly and how the industry has weaponized the ETF structure for gimmicks. He starts by noting just how dominant index funds have become: “The dominance of index funds, which accounts for 28% of the market, is partly due to ETFs representing more than half of that share." But here's where he draws the line: “I have nothing against broad ETFs per se, but rather the narrow, managed ones and the way people misuse the broad versions." On broad ETFs vs. traditional index funds: they're the same thing Bogle makes clear that structurally, there's no meaningful difference between a Vanguard S&P 500 ETF and what he calls a "TIFF" (Traditional Index Fund), a term he coined to distinguish them: "They both own exactly the same portfolio and are part of the same portfolio, meaning their returns will be identical. Both types cost around five or six basis points at the Admiral class level." He explains Vanguard's pricing: Below roughly $10,000 invested, you'll pay 10 to 12 basis points, but once you cross the Admiral threshold, "the funds are identical." So what's the real problem with ETFs? Behavior. The ability to trade intraday creates temptation: "My slight bias against ETFs stems from the temptation to trade in the middle of the day when trouble arises." He points out how pointless this reactive trading is: "Getting out in the middle of the day is often a reaction to market volatility, such as the market dropping 300 points and then recovering in the second half of the day. This 'bouncing around' is meaningless in the long run." What he actually endorses: Bogle is clear that broad market index funds, whether structured as ETFs or traditional funds, all serve investors well: "Broad market index funds, including the S&P 500, total bond market, total US stock market, international, and even emerging market funds, are all acceptable 'total market funds'." Where the industry lost the plot: His sharpest criticism is reserved for what the ETF industry has become: "The industry has become a marketing business focused on 'crazy' or 'stupid' ideas that no one else has thought of." He offers specific examples: An emerging cancer ETF" he once criticized in the Wall Street Journal, today's "cloud computing" ETFs, and leveraged products offering 100%, 200%, or even 300% exposure, letting investors bet on the market going up or down by three times. His verdict on these: "The sense behind these types of investments is beyond my comprehension."

Black Edge

13,757 次观看 • 4 个月前

$75B leaves the market in a single day. Larry McDonald calls it a "colossal sucking sound." SpaceX at $75B raised. Google front-ran it with an $80B mandatory convertible - a structure where conversion to equity is automatic, not optional, a classic sign of aggressive capital raising. Then Anthropic and OpenAI queue up next. McDonald's argument on The Master Investor Podcast: the "sideline cash" narrative is wrong. Most of that money is corporate capital, not investor dry powder. The probability of "a serious hit to the market - not an '87 but significant - is very high." His portfolio advice: rotate out of cap-weighted S&P 500 index and into equal-weight or globally diversified equity. At 50% tech and AI concentration vs financials at 24% before 2008, the index is carrying more risk than most 401K holders understand. What the macro bear says about your portfolio: Source: The Master Investor Podcast with Wilfred Frost -

$75B leaves the market in a single day. Larry McDonald calls it a "colossal sucking sound." SpaceX at $75B raised. Google front-ran it with an $80B mandatory convertible - a structure where conversion to equity is automatic, not optional, a classic sign of aggressive capital raising. Then Anthropic and OpenAI queue up next. McDonald's argument on The Master Investor Podcast: the "sideline cash" narrative is wrong. Most of that money is corporate capital, not investor dry powder. The probability of "a serious hit to the market - not an '87 but significant - is very high." His portfolio advice: rotate out of cap-weighted S&P 500 index and into equal-weight or globally diversified equity. At 50% tech and AI concentration vs financials at 24% before 2008, the index is carrying more risk than most 401K holders understand. What the macro bear says about your portfolio: Source: The Master Investor Podcast with Wilfred Frost -

Podcast Alpha

53,655 次观看 • 4 个月前

🚨 WARNING: THE NEXT 24 HOURS WILL CRASH GLOBAL MARKETS!! Most investors don't see what's coming. Read this before buying stocks. 3 AI and space giants are going public in the same year with a combined valuation approaching $4 trillion: 1. The biggest IPO wave in decades - SpaceX could become the largest IPO in history, raising up to $75 billion($SPCX will debut on Nasdaq on June 12) - OpenAI has already filed a confidential S-1 and is targeting a valuation above $1 trillion - Anthropic is also considering a public listing at a valuation of around $1 trillion 2. The S&P 500 is currently being carried mostly by the Mag 7 and AI-related stocks (Nvidia, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, etc.), which make up roughly 33-35% of the index These 3 IPO could create a massive liquidity drain as investors move $75-200+ billion into SpaceX, OpenAI, and Anthropic shares Funds and investors would likely sell existing positions in today's market leaders to free up capital, with Nvidia, Microsoft, and Google among the first likely to feel the pressure On top of that, the S&P 500 has so far resisted fast-tracking these unprofitable giants into the index, meaning the capital rotation effect could put even more pressure on existing index components 3. History shows a concerning pattern At the peak of every major market bubble, capital became concentrated in a small group of "can't lose" companies: - The Roaring Twenties - The Nifty Fifty era - Japan's 1980s asset bubble - The Dot-Com Bubble of 1999-2000 Today, capital concentration in the tech sector is once again near historical extremes 4. After an IPO, early investors get the opportunity to lock in profits Historically, lock-up expirations have often increased selling pressure on newly public stocks During the Dot-Com era, even some of the highest-quality companies suffered massive drawdowns: - Amazon: -95% - Microsoft: -65% - Intel: -80% - Oracle: -80% - Yahoo: -97% A great business doesn't protect investors from overvaluation IPOs at these kinds of valuations, while many AI companies are still deeply unprofitable, are often a sign of market euphoria I've said this before, and the cycle is still playing out exactly according to plan Turn on notifications and drop your thoughts below The next phase is gonna be very important

🚨 WARNING: THE NEXT 24 HOURS WILL CRASH GLOBAL MARKETS!! Most investors don't see what's coming. Read this before buying stocks. 3 AI and space giants are going public in the same year with a combined valuation approaching $4 trillion: 1. The biggest IPO wave in decades - SpaceX could become the largest IPO in history, raising up to $75 billion($SPCX will debut on Nasdaq on June 12) - OpenAI has already filed a confidential S-1 and is targeting a valuation above $1 trillion - Anthropic is also considering a public listing at a valuation of around $1 trillion 2. The S&P 500 is currently being carried mostly by the Mag 7 and AI-related stocks (Nvidia, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, etc.), which make up roughly 33-35% of the index These 3 IPO could create a massive liquidity drain as investors move $75-200+ billion into SpaceX, OpenAI, and Anthropic shares Funds and investors would likely sell existing positions in today's market leaders to free up capital, with Nvidia, Microsoft, and Google among the first likely to feel the pressure On top of that, the S&P 500 has so far resisted fast-tracking these unprofitable giants into the index, meaning the capital rotation effect could put even more pressure on existing index components 3. History shows a concerning pattern At the peak of every major market bubble, capital became concentrated in a small group of "can't lose" companies: - The Roaring Twenties - The Nifty Fifty era - Japan's 1980s asset bubble - The Dot-Com Bubble of 1999-2000 Today, capital concentration in the tech sector is once again near historical extremes 4. After an IPO, early investors get the opportunity to lock in profits Historically, lock-up expirations have often increased selling pressure on newly public stocks During the Dot-Com era, even some of the highest-quality companies suffered massive drawdowns: - Amazon: -95% - Microsoft: -65% - Intel: -80% - Oracle: -80% - Yahoo: -97% A great business doesn't protect investors from overvaluation IPOs at these kinds of valuations, while many AI companies are still deeply unprofitable, are often a sign of market euphoria I've said this before, and the cycle is still playing out exactly according to plan Turn on notifications and drop your thoughts below The next phase is gonna be very important

WhaleTwits

109,802 次观看 • 4 个月前

🚨 THIS IS HOW AI BUBBLE WILL CRASH S&P 500 Read the post carefully before buying stocks 3 AI and space giants are going public in the same year with a combined valuation approaching $4 trillion: 1. The biggest IPO wave in decades - SpaceX could become the largest IPO in history, raising up to $75 billion( $SPCX will debut on Nasdaq on June 12) - OpenAI has already filed a confidential S-1 and is targeting a valuation above $1 trillion - Anthropic is also considering a public listing at a valuation of around $1 trillion 2. The S&P 500 is currently being carried mostly by the Mag 7 and AI-related stocks (Nvidia, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, etc.), which make up roughly 33-35% of the index These 3 IPO could create a massive liquidity drain as investors move $75-200+ billion into SpaceX, OpenAI, and Anthropic shares Funds and investors would likely sell existing positions in today's market leaders to free up capital, with Nvidia, Microsoft, and Google among the first likely to feel the pressure On top of that, the S&P 500 has so far resisted fast-tracking these unprofitable giants into the index, meaning the capital rotation effect could put even more pressure on existing index components 3. History shows a concerning pattern At the peak of every major market bubble, capital became concentrated in a small group of "can't lose" companies: - The Roaring Twenties - The Nifty Fifty era - Japan's 1980s asset bubble - The Dot-Com Bubble of 1999-2000 Today, capital concentration in the tech sector is once again near historical extremes 4. After an IPO, early investors get the opportunity to lock in profits Historically, lock-up expirations have often increased selling pressure on newly public stocks During the Dot-Com era, even some of the highest-quality companies suffered massive drawdowns: - Amazon: -95% - Microsoft: -65% - Intel: -80% - Oracle: -80% - Yahoo: -97% A great business doesn't protect investors from overvaluation IPOs at these kinds of valuations, while many AI companies are still deeply unprofitable, are often a sign of market euphoria I've said this before, and the cycle is still playing out exactly according to plan Turn on notifications and drop your thoughts below The next phase is gonna be very important

🚨 THIS IS HOW AI BUBBLE WILL CRASH S&P 500 Read the post carefully before buying stocks 3 AI and space giants are going public in the same year with a combined valuation approaching $4 trillion: 1. The biggest IPO wave in decades - SpaceX could become the largest IPO in history, raising up to $75 billion( $SPCX will debut on Nasdaq on June 12) - OpenAI has already filed a confidential S-1 and is targeting a valuation above $1 trillion - Anthropic is also considering a public listing at a valuation of around $1 trillion 2. The S&P 500 is currently being carried mostly by the Mag 7 and AI-related stocks (Nvidia, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, etc.), which make up roughly 33-35% of the index These 3 IPO could create a massive liquidity drain as investors move $75-200+ billion into SpaceX, OpenAI, and Anthropic shares Funds and investors would likely sell existing positions in today's market leaders to free up capital, with Nvidia, Microsoft, and Google among the first likely to feel the pressure On top of that, the S&P 500 has so far resisted fast-tracking these unprofitable giants into the index, meaning the capital rotation effect could put even more pressure on existing index components 3. History shows a concerning pattern At the peak of every major market bubble, capital became concentrated in a small group of "can't lose" companies: - The Roaring Twenties - The Nifty Fifty era - Japan's 1980s asset bubble - The Dot-Com Bubble of 1999-2000 Today, capital concentration in the tech sector is once again near historical extremes 4. After an IPO, early investors get the opportunity to lock in profits Historically, lock-up expirations have often increased selling pressure on newly public stocks During the Dot-Com era, even some of the highest-quality companies suffered massive drawdowns: - Amazon: -95% - Microsoft: -65% - Intel: -80% - Oracle: -80% - Yahoo: -97% A great business doesn't protect investors from overvaluation IPOs at these kinds of valuations, while many AI companies are still deeply unprofitable, are often a sign of market euphoria I've said this before, and the cycle is still playing out exactly according to plan Turn on notifications and drop your thoughts below The next phase is gonna be very important

Leni

553,019 次观看 • 4 个月前

This is the most SHAMELESS structural manipulation of a major index I've ever seen. SpaceX is preparing what could be the largest IPO in history. Target valuation: $1.75 trillion. That would make it the sixth-largest company in America on day one. And Nasdaq wants the listing so badly they're literally CHANGING how the Nasdaq-100 works. In February, Nasdaq published a "consultation" proposing sweeping changes to how companies enter the index. The timing is pure coincidence, of course. Just like it's pure coincidence that SpaceX has reportedly made fast index inclusion a CONDITION of listing on Nasdaq. Here's what they're proposing: A new "Fast Entry" rule would let any newly listed company whose market cap ranks in the top 40 of current Nasdaq-100 members get added to the index after just 15 trading days. No seasoning period. No liquidity requirements. Completely exempt from the standards every other company had to meet. Currently, new public companies typically wait up to a year before they're eligible for major index inclusion. That waiting period exists for a reason. It lets the market establish real price discovery. It protects passive investors from being forced into untested, illiquid stocks. And Nasdaq wants to throw all of that out. For ONE listing. But the Fast Entry rule isn't even the worst part... The real scandal is the 5x float multiplier. Right now, the S&P 500 uses a free-float adjusted methodology. If only 5% of a company's shares are available for public trading, the index weights you at 5% of total market cap. That's common sense. You weight a company based on what investors can actually buy. Nasdaq's current methodology already uses total market cap rather than free-float for weighting. But for very low-float stocks, they at least had a 10% minimum float threshold. Under the new proposal, that threshold DISAPPEARS entirely. Instead, any stock with less than 20% free float gets weighted at FIVE TIMES its actual float percentage, capped at 100%. Do the math on SpaceX: If SpaceX IPOs at $1.75 trillion and floats 5% of its shares, there would be roughly $87.5 billion worth of stock available for public trading. Under Nasdaq's proposed 5x multiplier, the index would weight SpaceX at 25% of its total market cap. That means passive funds would be forced to buy as if SpaceX were a $437.5 billion company. But only $87.5 billion of stock actually exists in the market. You are forcing hundreds of billions in passive buying into a $87.5 billion float. QQQ alone manages nearly $400 billion. The total Nasdaq-100 ecosystem represents over $1.4 trillion in exposure across ETFs, mutual funds, structured notes, and derivatives. Every single passive vehicle tracking this index would be REQUIRED to buy SpaceX at whatever price the market dictates. On Day 15. With zero price discovery. Zero track record as a public company. And a float so thin you could read through it. So what this actually does is it creates a structural wealth transfer mechanism. The passive bid from index funds pushes the stock price higher. That higher price benefits exactly one group of people: the insiders and early investors who own the other 95% of the shares. And when lock-up periods expire 90 to 180 days later? Those insiders sell into the artificially inflated passive bid. Your 401(k) is the exit liquidity. This is the fundamental corruption of indexing. Indexing used to be brilliant. Low cost. Efficient. You were free-riding on the price discovery done by active managers. The index reflected the market. Now the index IS the market. Trillions of dollars flow blindly into whatever the index tells them to buy. And the people who control the index methodology are changing the rules to serve the interests of a single IPO candidate. The S&P 500 requires companies to have at least 50% of shares available for public trading. It requires 6 to 12 months of seasoning. It uses free-float adjusted weighting so passive investors aren't buying phantom liquidity. Nasdaq is doing the exact opposite. 15 days. No float requirement. 5x multiplier on insider-held shares. Every passive investor in QQQ, QQQM, and every fund benchmarked to the Nasdaq-100 should understand what's about to happen: The rules are being rewritten to benefit IPO issuers and early-stage insiders, and your capital is the tool being USED to enrich them. 45 years in this business and I've watched Wall Street find creative new ways to separate retail investors from their money in every cycle. But usually they at least try to be subtle about it. This one they put in a PDF and called it a "consultation." What's your take?

This is the most SHAMELESS structural manipulation of a major index I've ever seen. SpaceX is preparing what could be the largest IPO in history. Target valuation: $1.75 trillion. That would make it the sixth-largest company in America on day one. And Nasdaq wants the listing so badly they're literally CHANGING how the Nasdaq-100 works. In February, Nasdaq published a "consultation" proposing sweeping changes to how companies enter the index. The timing is pure coincidence, of course. Just like it's pure coincidence that SpaceX has reportedly made fast index inclusion a CONDITION of listing on Nasdaq. Here's what they're proposing: A new "Fast Entry" rule would let any newly listed company whose market cap ranks in the top 40 of current Nasdaq-100 members get added to the index after just 15 trading days. No seasoning period. No liquidity requirements. Completely exempt from the standards every other company had to meet. Currently, new public companies typically wait up to a year before they're eligible for major index inclusion. That waiting period exists for a reason. It lets the market establish real price discovery. It protects passive investors from being forced into untested, illiquid stocks. And Nasdaq wants to throw all of that out. For ONE listing. But the Fast Entry rule isn't even the worst part... The real scandal is the 5x float multiplier. Right now, the S&P 500 uses a free-float adjusted methodology. If only 5% of a company's shares are available for public trading, the index weights you at 5% of total market cap. That's common sense. You weight a company based on what investors can actually buy. Nasdaq's current methodology already uses total market cap rather than free-float for weighting. But for very low-float stocks, they at least had a 10% minimum float threshold. Under the new proposal, that threshold DISAPPEARS entirely. Instead, any stock with less than 20% free float gets weighted at FIVE TIMES its actual float percentage, capped at 100%. Do the math on SpaceX: If SpaceX IPOs at $1.75 trillion and floats 5% of its shares, there would be roughly $87.5 billion worth of stock available for public trading. Under Nasdaq's proposed 5x multiplier, the index would weight SpaceX at 25% of its total market cap. That means passive funds would be forced to buy as if SpaceX were a $437.5 billion company. But only $87.5 billion of stock actually exists in the market. You are forcing hundreds of billions in passive buying into a $87.5 billion float. QQQ alone manages nearly $400 billion. The total Nasdaq-100 ecosystem represents over $1.4 trillion in exposure across ETFs, mutual funds, structured notes, and derivatives. Every single passive vehicle tracking this index would be REQUIRED to buy SpaceX at whatever price the market dictates. On Day 15. With zero price discovery. Zero track record as a public company. And a float so thin you could read through it. So what this actually does is it creates a structural wealth transfer mechanism. The passive bid from index funds pushes the stock price higher. That higher price benefits exactly one group of people: the insiders and early investors who own the other 95% of the shares. And when lock-up periods expire 90 to 180 days later? Those insiders sell into the artificially inflated passive bid. Your 401(k) is the exit liquidity. This is the fundamental corruption of indexing. Indexing used to be brilliant. Low cost. Efficient. You were free-riding on the price discovery done by active managers. The index reflected the market. Now the index IS the market. Trillions of dollars flow blindly into whatever the index tells them to buy. And the people who control the index methodology are changing the rules to serve the interests of a single IPO candidate. The S&P 500 requires companies to have at least 50% of shares available for public trading. It requires 6 to 12 months of seasoning. It uses free-float adjusted weighting so passive investors aren't buying phantom liquidity. Nasdaq is doing the exact opposite. 15 days. No float requirement. 5x multiplier on insider-held shares. Every passive investor in QQQ, QQQM, and every fund benchmarked to the Nasdaq-100 should understand what's about to happen: The rules are being rewritten to benefit IPO issuers and early-stage insiders, and your capital is the tool being USED to enrich them. 45 years in this business and I've watched Wall Street find creative new ways to separate retail investors from their money in every cycle. But usually they at least try to be subtle about it. This one they put in a PDF and called it a "consultation." What's your take?

George Noble

870,016 次观看 • 7 个月前

Global funds are holding a massive 225k short position against Indian index futures, betting on a market crash. But the market isn't falling. Why? Wall Street's valuation models are 12 months out of date. 1/ Foreign bears are focused on sluggish single-digit profit growth in headline Nifty 50 numbers. But beneath the surface, a structural industrial boom is underway. 2/ The catalyst? India's Real Effective Exchange Rate (REER) reset from an overvalued 119 down to a fair value of 103 by March 2026. Flat dollar revenues are converting into massive rupee profits for local exporters. 3/ The result: Mid-caps are seeing 34% YoY growth and small-caps are hitting 25%. Capital is migrating straight into physical logistics, heavy infrastructure, automotive production, and shipping. 4/ On top of that, India has outgrown its label as a standard emerging market. As the US decouples from China, Western capital increasingly views India's scale and digital infrastructure as a mandatory geopolitical hedge. 5/ While foreign funds stack up shorts, domestic Indian investors are fighting back with 163k long contracts. If the bears are forced to panic buy to cover their losses, it sets up a massive, violent upward squeeze. #IndianStockMarket #Nifty #Macroeconomics #ShortSqueeze #FII

Global funds are holding a massive 225k short position against Indian index futures, betting on a market crash. But the market isn't falling. Why? Wall Street's valuation models are 12 months out of date. 1/ Foreign bears are focused on sluggish single-digit profit growth in headline Nifty 50 numbers. But beneath the surface, a structural industrial boom is underway. 2/ The catalyst? India's Real Effective Exchange Rate (REER) reset from an overvalued 119 down to a fair value of 103 by March 2026. Flat dollar revenues are converting into massive rupee profits for local exporters. 3/ The result: Mid-caps are seeing 34% YoY growth and small-caps are hitting 25%. Capital is migrating straight into physical logistics, heavy infrastructure, automotive production, and shipping. 4/ On top of that, India has outgrown its label as a standard emerging market. As the US decouples from China, Western capital increasingly views India's scale and digital infrastructure as a mandatory geopolitical hedge. 5/ While foreign funds stack up shorts, domestic Indian investors are fighting back with 163k long contracts. If the bears are forced to panic buy to cover their losses, it sets up a massive, violent upward squeeze. #IndianStockMarket #Nifty #Macroeconomics #ShortSqueeze #FII

Rohit Srivastava

11,035 次观看 • 4 个月前

🚨 WARNING: THIS IS HOW AI BUBBLE WILL CRASH S&P 500 Read the post carefully before buying stocks. 3 AI and space giants are going public in the same year with a combined valuation approaching $4 trillion: 1. The biggest IPO wave in decades - SpaceX could become the largest IPO in history, raising up to $75 billion ($SPCX will debut on Nasdaq on June 12) - OpenAI has already filed a confidential S-1 and is targeting a valuation above $1 trillion - Anthropic is also considering a public listing at a valuation of around $1 trillion 2. The S&P 500 is currently being carried mostly by the Mag 7 and AI-related stocks (Nvidia, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, etc.), which make up roughly 33-35% of the index These 3 IPO could create a massive liquidity drain as investors move $75-200+ billion into SpaceX, OpenAI, and Anthropic shares Funds and investors would likely sell existing positions in today's market leaders to free up capital, with Nvidia, Microsoft, and Google among the first likely to feel the pressure On top of that, the S&P 500 has so far resisted fast-tracking these unprofitable giants into the index, meaning the capital rotation effect could put even more pressure on existing index components 3. History shows a concerning pattern At the peak of every major market bubble, capital became concentrated in a small group of "can't lose" companies: - The Roaring Twenties - The Nifty Fifty era - Japan's 1980s asset bubble - The Dot-Com Bubble of 1999-2000 Today, capital concentration in the tech sector is once again near historical extremes 4. After an IPO, early investors get the opportunity to lock in profits Historically, lock-up expirations have often increased selling pressure on newly public stocks During the Dot-Com era, even some of the highest-quality companies suffered massive drawdowns: - Amazon: -95% - Microsoft: -65% - Intel: -80% - Oracle: -80% - Yahoo: -97% A great business doesn't protect investors from overvaluation The next few days will be INSANE, but don't worry - I'll break down every move as it happens, like I always do. Like it or not, I called every major top and bottom of the last decade publicly. I'll call this one too. Many people are going to wish they followed me before June 12, 2026. Soon, you'll understand why.

🚨 WARNING: THIS IS HOW AI BUBBLE WILL CRASH S&P 500 Read the post carefully before buying stocks. 3 AI and space giants are going public in the same year with a combined valuation approaching $4 trillion: 1. The biggest IPO wave in decades - SpaceX could become the largest IPO in history, raising up to $75 billion ($SPCX will debut on Nasdaq on June 12) - OpenAI has already filed a confidential S-1 and is targeting a valuation above $1 trillion - Anthropic is also considering a public listing at a valuation of around $1 trillion 2. The S&P 500 is currently being carried mostly by the Mag 7 and AI-related stocks (Nvidia, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, etc.), which make up roughly 33-35% of the index These 3 IPO could create a massive liquidity drain as investors move $75-200+ billion into SpaceX, OpenAI, and Anthropic shares Funds and investors would likely sell existing positions in today's market leaders to free up capital, with Nvidia, Microsoft, and Google among the first likely to feel the pressure On top of that, the S&P 500 has so far resisted fast-tracking these unprofitable giants into the index, meaning the capital rotation effect could put even more pressure on existing index components 3. History shows a concerning pattern At the peak of every major market bubble, capital became concentrated in a small group of "can't lose" companies: - The Roaring Twenties - The Nifty Fifty era - Japan's 1980s asset bubble - The Dot-Com Bubble of 1999-2000 Today, capital concentration in the tech sector is once again near historical extremes 4. After an IPO, early investors get the opportunity to lock in profits Historically, lock-up expirations have often increased selling pressure on newly public stocks During the Dot-Com era, even some of the highest-quality companies suffered massive drawdowns: - Amazon: -95% - Microsoft: -65% - Intel: -80% - Oracle: -80% - Yahoo: -97% A great business doesn't protect investors from overvaluation The next few days will be INSANE, but don't worry - I'll break down every move as it happens, like I always do. Like it or not, I called every major top and bottom of the last decade publicly. I'll call this one too. Many people are going to wish they followed me before June 12, 2026. Soon, you'll understand why.

DANNY

42,087 次观看 • 4 个月前

Don't be surprised when you see an ETF fall 30% in ONE day. Everyone in this market is playing the same game: They know prices are stretched, but they stay fully invested because they're convinced they'll be the first ones out the door when things go wrong. Millions of investors all standing next to the same exit, all believing they'll beat everyone else through it. But there's a BIG problem with that plan. On the way up, nobody complained because we were all drunk on making money. But the car also runs in reverse. Look at the mechanics underneath this market: There is record leverage, zero DTE options everywhere, levered ETFs stuffed with the same crowded names, and a mountain of trend-following money. If the market rises X, the CTAs have to buy Y. But what happens when it goes DOWN? Two weeks ago, I said the trap door was going to open under these crazy tech stocks, and that the best short opportunities of my 45 year career were in semis, Mag 7, and the consumer. Two weeks later, the semiconductor index is down nearly 20% from its record. That is bear market territory. The Nasdaq fell almost 3% this week. Micron dropped more than 10% in a single day. I also said the next $10 to $15 in crude was UP while retail speculators sat record short. Crude went from under $72 to over $82 and the shorts got carried out on stretchers. AI is the BIGGEST bubble the world has ever seen. My good friend Julian Garran at MacroStrategy Partners estimates the malinvestment at 17 TIMES what we saw in dot com. Tell me about the cash flows. Tell me about the return on investment. WHERE IS IT? Tech-related names are roughly 40% of the index. When this train wreck finishes, it takes the indices down with it. My positioning: I own resource and energy stocks, hedged, and I am short consumer discretionary and tech. That trade works whether the market goes up or down. And if you're going to panic, panic early.

Don't be surprised when you see an ETF fall 30% in ONE day. Everyone in this market is playing the same game: They know prices are stretched, but they stay fully invested because they're convinced they'll be the first ones out the door when things go wrong. Millions of investors all standing next to the same exit, all believing they'll beat everyone else through it. But there's a BIG problem with that plan. On the way up, nobody complained because we were all drunk on making money. But the car also runs in reverse. Look at the mechanics underneath this market: There is record leverage, zero DTE options everywhere, levered ETFs stuffed with the same crowded names, and a mountain of trend-following money. If the market rises X, the CTAs have to buy Y. But what happens when it goes DOWN? Two weeks ago, I said the trap door was going to open under these crazy tech stocks, and that the best short opportunities of my 45 year career were in semis, Mag 7, and the consumer. Two weeks later, the semiconductor index is down nearly 20% from its record. That is bear market territory. The Nasdaq fell almost 3% this week. Micron dropped more than 10% in a single day. I also said the next $10 to $15 in crude was UP while retail speculators sat record short. Crude went from under $72 to over $82 and the shorts got carried out on stretchers. AI is the BIGGEST bubble the world has ever seen. My good friend Julian Garran at MacroStrategy Partners estimates the malinvestment at 17 TIMES what we saw in dot com. Tell me about the cash flows. Tell me about the return on investment. WHERE IS IT? Tech-related names are roughly 40% of the index. When this train wreck finishes, it takes the indices down with it. My positioning: I own resource and energy stocks, hedged, and I am short consumer discretionary and tech. That trade works whether the market goes up or down. And if you're going to panic, panic early.

George Noble

90,367 次观看 • 2 个月前

🚨 S&P 500 IS SETTING UP FOR A 20% CRASH The index has been weakening for weeks, but most people still see it as a normal pullback. I think the bigger move is still ahead. Wave 6 may have already marked the top. Now the macro backdrop is getting worse: → June CPI hit 3.5% → Energy prices are rising again → The Fed held rates at 3.50%-3.75% → 3 FOMC members wanted a hike → Markets now price a real chance of another hike this year That's a problem for an index this concentrated. Five stocks are carrying the entire market: → Apple → Nvidia → Amazon → Microsoft → Meta $SPX has 503 companies, but a handful of mega-caps are doing most of the work. Now the leaders are starting to crack. Meta dropped 8% in one day after earnings, while AI spending keeps climbing. We've seen this setup before. 2018: Fed hikes → nearly 20% SPX drawdown 2022: Fed tightening → 25% peak-to-trough decline If the Fed hikes again, the AI trade could reprice fast. My target: ~$7,800 → ~$6,200 That's a 20%+ correction. I've called all of the S&P selloffs this year, I know what im talking about. The next market call matters more. Follow + turn notifications on. I'll post the next major move before it becomes obvious.

🚨 S&P 500 IS SETTING UP FOR A 20% CRASH The index has been weakening for weeks, but most people still see it as a normal pullback. I think the bigger move is still ahead. Wave 6 may have already marked the top. Now the macro backdrop is getting worse: → June CPI hit 3.5% → Energy prices are rising again → The Fed held rates at 3.50%-3.75% → 3 FOMC members wanted a hike → Markets now price a real chance of another hike this year That's a problem for an index this concentrated. Five stocks are carrying the entire market: → Apple → Nvidia → Amazon → Microsoft → Meta $SPX has 503 companies, but a handful of mega-caps are doing most of the work. Now the leaders are starting to crack. Meta dropped 8% in one day after earnings, while AI spending keeps climbing. We've seen this setup before. 2018: Fed hikes → nearly 20% SPX drawdown 2022: Fed tightening → 25% peak-to-trough decline If the Fed hikes again, the AI trade could reprice fast. My target: ~$7,800 → ~$6,200 That's a 20%+ correction. I've called all of the S&P selloffs this year, I know what im talking about. The next market call matters more. Follow + turn notifications on. I'll post the next major move before it becomes obvious.

Ulun

128,192 次观看 • 2 个月前

The taxation regime of gas and oil exploration in this country is not understood which has led to an enormous amount of misinformation. Here are the facts: 1. Oil and gas companies pay 30 cents tax on their profits just like every other company in Australia. That means that Australians already have 30% ownership. 2. Oil and gas companies pay a super profit tax on their profits known as the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax. The PRRT has collected very little revenue to date for two reasons a) there has been an enormous amount of capital invested in getting these projects up resulting in large depreciation offsets and b) the gas was foolishly sold forward at very cheap prices when the projects were given the go ahead. A lot of these contracts will roll off over the next decade resulting in larger profits and a larger tax for taxpayers. 3. 70-80% of gas and oil exploration in Australia is unsuccessful. Offshore gas exploration is not a multi million dollar business- it’s a multi billion dollar business. The idea that taxpayers should fund 30% of offshore oil and gas exploration is absurd. The last person to come up with that idea was Gough Whitlam. Needless to say no banks would lend against such a proposition. has always had a policy to abolish the PRRT and replace it with a 5-10% royalty on Sales. Combined with the 30% company tax that will guarantee that Australians share in over 40% of the profits of any offshore oil and gas project. That’s an excellent return given taxpayers incur no risk. I’ve done up a table in comments showing the share Australians will receive based on operating profit margin before tax. David Pocock, the Greens and One Nation are all wrong on this. The formers 25% export tax will wipe out most of the profits made eliminating the incentive to further explore for gas. One Nation offering to fund 30% of exploration costs for mostly foreign owned companies will expose taxpayers to billions of dollars in subsidies with no guarantee of return. Australia desperately needs sensible economic reform. Unfortunately none of the parties in Canberra have a clue how to make this happen.

The taxation regime of gas and oil exploration in this country is not understood which has led to an enormous amount of misinformation. Here are the facts: 1. Oil and gas companies pay 30 cents tax on their profits just like every other company in Australia. That means that Australians already have 30% ownership. 2. Oil and gas companies pay a super profit tax on their profits known as the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax. The PRRT has collected very little revenue to date for two reasons a) there has been an enormous amount of capital invested in getting these projects up resulting in large depreciation offsets and b) the gas was foolishly sold forward at very cheap prices when the projects were given the go ahead. A lot of these contracts will roll off over the next decade resulting in larger profits and a larger tax for taxpayers. 3. 70-80% of gas and oil exploration in Australia is unsuccessful. Offshore gas exploration is not a multi million dollar business- it’s a multi billion dollar business. The idea that taxpayers should fund 30% of offshore oil and gas exploration is absurd. The last person to come up with that idea was Gough Whitlam. Needless to say no banks would lend against such a proposition. has always had a policy to abolish the PRRT and replace it with a 5-10% royalty on Sales. Combined with the 30% company tax that will guarantee that Australians share in over 40% of the profits of any offshore oil and gas project. That’s an excellent return given taxpayers incur no risk. I’ve done up a table in comments showing the share Australians will receive based on operating profit margin before tax. David Pocock, the Greens and One Nation are all wrong on this. The formers 25% export tax will wipe out most of the profits made eliminating the incentive to further explore for gas. One Nation offering to fund 30% of exploration costs for mostly foreign owned companies will expose taxpayers to billions of dollars in subsidies with no guarantee of return. Australia desperately needs sensible economic reform. Unfortunately none of the parties in Canberra have a clue how to make this happen.

Gerard Rennick

25,352 次观看 • 4 个月前

🚨 THIS IS HOW THE S&P 500 WILL CRASH The stock market has stopped growing. And the next Fed rate hike will break it. The upcoming Anthropic IPO is just the final cash grab before the bubble pops. Here’s how the multi-trillion-dollar trap snaps: Right now, just 7 tech companies (Mag 7) make up over 34% of the entire S&P 500. When Anthropic ($2T target) goes public, institutions will need massive liquidity to buy in. That money isn't sitting in bank accounts. They will be forced to sell what they already own: Their bloated, overweight positions in Nvidia, Microsoft, Google, and Amazon. As Mag 7 drops, the entire S&P 500 goes down with them. And here is where the trap locks: S&P 500 rules require sustained profitability for index inclusion. Anthropic isn't profitable, so it won't be added to the index to support it. Capital drains out of the index, and zero passive ETF inflows come in to replace it. The sequence is inevitable: Extreme Concentration → Forced Rebalancing → Liquidity Shock → Bubble Pops We've seen this playbook before: • The Nifty Fifty (1972) • Japan’s Asset Bubble (1989) • The Dot-Com Crash (2000) This mega-IPO is not an opportunity for retail investors. It is the ultimate exit liquidity for early insiders before the crash. You have been warned. Remember, I've called every major market turn for the last 10 years, including Bitcoin's crash from $111K in October. I'll post the warning BEFORE the next leg down begins. Stay close.

🚨 THIS IS HOW THE S&P 500 WILL CRASH The stock market has stopped growing. And the next Fed rate hike will break it. The upcoming Anthropic IPO is just the final cash grab before the bubble pops. Here’s how the multi-trillion-dollar trap snaps: Right now, just 7 tech companies (Mag 7) make up over 34% of the entire S&P 500. When Anthropic ($2T target) goes public, institutions will need massive liquidity to buy in. That money isn't sitting in bank accounts. They will be forced to sell what they already own: Their bloated, overweight positions in Nvidia, Microsoft, Google, and Amazon. As Mag 7 drops, the entire S&P 500 goes down with them. And here is where the trap locks: S&P 500 rules require sustained profitability for index inclusion. Anthropic isn't profitable, so it won't be added to the index to support it. Capital drains out of the index, and zero passive ETF inflows come in to replace it. The sequence is inevitable: Extreme Concentration → Forced Rebalancing → Liquidity Shock → Bubble Pops We've seen this playbook before: • The Nifty Fifty (1972) • Japan’s Asset Bubble (1989) • The Dot-Com Crash (2000) This mega-IPO is not an opportunity for retail investors. It is the ultimate exit liquidity for early insiders before the crash. You have been warned. Remember, I've called every major market turn for the last 10 years, including Bitcoin's crash from $111K in October. I'll post the warning BEFORE the next leg down begins. Stay close.

MARMOT

115,651 次观看 • 25 天前

The S&P 500 just hit an all-time high. But consumer sentiment just hit an all-time low. Both happened in the same week. Think about this. On April 15, the S&P 500 closed above 7,000 for the first time in history. Traders were celebrating on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange. The Nasdaq posted its longest winning streak since 2009 - 12 consecutive days of gains. And 5 days earlier, the University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment Index dropped to 47.6. The LOWEST reading in the survey's 74 year HISTORY. Lower than the 2008 financial crisis. Lower than the COVID crash. Lower than the worst of the post-pandemic inflation surge. Lower than anything recorded since Harry Truman was president. Every single demographic group declined. Every age bracket. Every income level. Every political affiliation. Every component of the index (current conditions, future expectations, personal finances, buying conditions) ALL fell. 1 year inflation expectations spiked to 4.8%, up a full percentage point from March. That's the steepest single-month jump since April 2025. Business expectations crashed 20% in a single month. And 98% of the survey was completed BEFORE the ceasefire was announced. These people aren't pessimistic because of headlines. They're pessimistic because of their grocery bills, their gas prices, and their shrinking purchasing power. Meanwhile, Wall Street is throwing a party. Morgan Stanley's Mike Wilson went on CNBC and declared "the lows are in." He said the market is rotating back into pro-cyclical names and that we should expect things to "resolve constructively." Resolve constructively? The ceasefire expires Wednesday. Iran just re-closed the Strait of Hormuz AGAIN. Brent crude is back near $98. The US Navy is still blockading Iranian ports. Peace talks in Pakistan collapsed over the weekend after Iran refused to abandon its nuclear program. And the stock market is priced for a happy ending. Here's what 45 years on Wall Street have taught me: When markets and consumers disagree this violently, one of them is wrong. The S&P 500 is trading at all-time highs because 7 mega cap tech stocks (powered by AI narratives) account for nearly half the index's market cap. Those stocks run on their own dynamic independent of anything, including the war in Iran. That's a market being dragged to record highs by a handful of names while the real economy deteriorates underneath. Can you call this a healthy market? Software stocks are down 28% this year. The broader SaaS index is down nearly 40%. Private credit is imploding. Gas prices are surging. Consumer buying conditions for big-ticket items are collapsing. But the S&P hit 7,000 so everything must be fine. I remember in 2000, consumer sentiment peaked in January. Two months later the Nasdaq topped. Within a year it had lost 39%. In 2007, the S&P 500 hit its record in October. Consumer sentiment had been falling since July 2007. 3 months later we were in recession. The pattern is always the same: Consumers feel the pain before it shows up in the indices. The market ignores them until it can't.

The S&P 500 just hit an all-time high. But consumer sentiment just hit an all-time low. Both happened in the same week. Think about this. On April 15, the S&P 500 closed above 7,000 for the first time in history. Traders were celebrating on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange. The Nasdaq posted its longest winning streak since 2009 - 12 consecutive days of gains. And 5 days earlier, the University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment Index dropped to 47.6. The LOWEST reading in the survey's 74 year HISTORY. Lower than the 2008 financial crisis. Lower than the COVID crash. Lower than the worst of the post-pandemic inflation surge. Lower than anything recorded since Harry Truman was president. Every single demographic group declined. Every age bracket. Every income level. Every political affiliation. Every component of the index (current conditions, future expectations, personal finances, buying conditions) ALL fell. 1 year inflation expectations spiked to 4.8%, up a full percentage point from March. That's the steepest single-month jump since April 2025. Business expectations crashed 20% in a single month. And 98% of the survey was completed BEFORE the ceasefire was announced. These people aren't pessimistic because of headlines. They're pessimistic because of their grocery bills, their gas prices, and their shrinking purchasing power. Meanwhile, Wall Street is throwing a party. Morgan Stanley's Mike Wilson went on CNBC and declared "the lows are in." He said the market is rotating back into pro-cyclical names and that we should expect things to "resolve constructively." Resolve constructively? The ceasefire expires Wednesday. Iran just re-closed the Strait of Hormuz AGAIN. Brent crude is back near $98. The US Navy is still blockading Iranian ports. Peace talks in Pakistan collapsed over the weekend after Iran refused to abandon its nuclear program. And the stock market is priced for a happy ending. Here's what 45 years on Wall Street have taught me: When markets and consumers disagree this violently, one of them is wrong. The S&P 500 is trading at all-time highs because 7 mega cap tech stocks (powered by AI narratives) account for nearly half the index's market cap. Those stocks run on their own dynamic independent of anything, including the war in Iran. That's a market being dragged to record highs by a handful of names while the real economy deteriorates underneath. Can you call this a healthy market? Software stocks are down 28% this year. The broader SaaS index is down nearly 40%. Private credit is imploding. Gas prices are surging. Consumer buying conditions for big-ticket items are collapsing. But the S&P hit 7,000 so everything must be fine. I remember in 2000, consumer sentiment peaked in January. Two months later the Nasdaq topped. Within a year it had lost 39%. In 2007, the S&P 500 hit its record in October. Consumer sentiment had been falling since July 2007. 3 months later we were in recession. The pattern is always the same: Consumers feel the pain before it shows up in the indices. The market ignores them until it can't.

George Noble

26,409 次观看 • 5 个月前

🚨 SOMETHING VERY BAD IS HAPPENING The top 10 stocks now make up around 40% of the S&P 500 AI-related stocks (direct AI + infrastructure) account for up to 50% The market has basically turned into one massive bet on artificial intelligence This is an overvalued AI bubble that's already inflating the entire market Big Tech - Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Meta, and others - has been pouring massive amounts of money into AI infrastructure throughout 2025-2026 For 2026, projected hyperscaler capex is around $560-725 billion, with some estimates as high as $800-900 billion That's comparable to the telecom boom of the late '90s The money is flowing into data centers, chips, and energy infrastructure But here's the problem - monetization is lagging way behind Many AI projects, including OpenAI, are still losing money Competition is growing with open-source models, while regulatory risks and energy constraints are also becoming bigger issues Investors are paying for a future trillion-dollar AI market that still isn't showing up in actual profits Stocks have been climbing on expectations, not current results On top of that, the Shiller CAPE Ratio is sitting around 41x To put that into perspective: That's one of the highest readings in history, getting close to the peak of the 2000 dot-com bubble at 43x+ That's why I think the S&P 500 could eventually drop 20-30% or more, similar to what happened in 2000-2002, when the index lost nearly 50%, although today's market is more mature It's gonna be painful, there'll be a crash, and there'll be temporary damage But AI technology is real The models will keep getting better, computing will get cheaper, and adoption will continue to grow. The infrastructure being built today isn't going anywhere After crash, AI will keep transforming the economy on a much healthier and more sustainable foundation, without all the speculative excess I've said this before, and everything is still playing out exactly according to plan Turn on notifications. If you're not following me yet, you might realize later that it was a mistake because I warned you Bookmark this. The next phase is gonna be very important

🚨 SOMETHING VERY BAD IS HAPPENING The top 10 stocks now make up around 40% of the S&P 500 AI-related stocks (direct AI + infrastructure) account for up to 50% The market has basically turned into one massive bet on artificial intelligence This is an overvalued AI bubble that's already inflating the entire market Big Tech - Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Meta, and others - has been pouring massive amounts of money into AI infrastructure throughout 2025-2026 For 2026, projected hyperscaler capex is around $560-725 billion, with some estimates as high as $800-900 billion That's comparable to the telecom boom of the late '90s The money is flowing into data centers, chips, and energy infrastructure But here's the problem - monetization is lagging way behind Many AI projects, including OpenAI, are still losing money Competition is growing with open-source models, while regulatory risks and energy constraints are also becoming bigger issues Investors are paying for a future trillion-dollar AI market that still isn't showing up in actual profits Stocks have been climbing on expectations, not current results On top of that, the Shiller CAPE Ratio is sitting around 41x To put that into perspective: That's one of the highest readings in history, getting close to the peak of the 2000 dot-com bubble at 43x+ That's why I think the S&P 500 could eventually drop 20-30% or more, similar to what happened in 2000-2002, when the index lost nearly 50%, although today's market is more mature It's gonna be painful, there'll be a crash, and there'll be temporary damage But AI technology is real The models will keep getting better, computing will get cheaper, and adoption will continue to grow. The infrastructure being built today isn't going anywhere After crash, AI will keep transforming the economy on a much healthier and more sustainable foundation, without all the speculative excess I've said this before, and everything is still playing out exactly according to plan Turn on notifications. If you're not following me yet, you might realize later that it was a mistake because I warned you Bookmark this. The next phase is gonna be very important

Leni

70,362 次观看 • 3 个月前

Elon Musk's SpaceX made an $8 billion deal to get into the phone business. The next day, AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile lost over $55 billion in market value. In July, AT&T CEO John Stankey went on CNBC and got asked about Starlink. "They're coming to the game very late," he says in the video below. Newcomers, he adds, would have to catch up with infrastructure investment "that's been going on for decades." In August, SpaceX president Gwynne Shotwell laid out the plan on an earnings call. Starlink would put cell equipment on its dish mounts and add tiny base stations where needed, instead of building towers. "I anticipate us being able to acquire quite a few of their customers," she said. What Starlink still lacked were its own mobile frequencies, the low-band kind that travel far and get inside buildings. On October 8, SpaceX signed a contract to buy them from Grain Management. The Wall Street Journal put the price at $8 billion in cash. Next morning the carrier stocks crashed. AT&T fell 9.81%, a drop it hadn't seen since 2000. Verizon lost 8.75%, its worst day in 24 years. T-Mobile went down 13.27%. Counting the $17 billion EchoStar purchase in September 2025, SpaceX has now committed about $25 billion to frequencies in 13 months. Most of the people it wants to sign up are paying AT&T, Verizon or T-Mobile today. AT&T or SpaceX, which one would you rather hold for the next five years?

Elon Musk's SpaceX made an $8 billion deal to get into the phone business. The next day, AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile lost over $55 billion in market value. In July, AT&T CEO John Stankey went on CNBC and got asked about Starlink. "They're coming to the game very late," he says in the video below. Newcomers, he adds, would have to catch up with infrastructure investment "that's been going on for decades." In August, SpaceX president Gwynne Shotwell laid out the plan on an earnings call. Starlink would put cell equipment on its dish mounts and add tiny base stations where needed, instead of building towers. "I anticipate us being able to acquire quite a few of their customers," she said. What Starlink still lacked were its own mobile frequencies, the low-band kind that travel far and get inside buildings. On October 8, SpaceX signed a contract to buy them from Grain Management. The Wall Street Journal put the price at $8 billion in cash. Next morning the carrier stocks crashed. AT&T fell 9.81%, a drop it hadn't seen since 2000. Verizon lost 8.75%, its worst day in 24 years. T-Mobile went down 13.27%. Counting the $17 billion EchoStar purchase in September 2025, SpaceX has now committed about $25 billion to frequencies in 13 months. Most of the people it wants to sign up are paying AT&T, Verizon or T-Mobile today. AT&T or SpaceX, which one would you rather hold for the next five years?

Lorn

82,759 次观看 • 3 天前

Bill Gates funded fake butter made out of fossil fuels has officially hit the market and is being used in products right now The company was able to use the GRAS loophole to start selling. They self-affirmed GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe) status from the FDA “A new butter is hitting the market that's not made from cow's milk but rather fossil fuels. The biotech company Savor uses a petrochemical process to pull gas from the air and turn it into an animal-free butter. The process, called Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, turns carbon monoxide and hydrogen into hydrocarbons that will then be infused with oxygen to make fatty acids. People have come up with alternative food, but what we're seeing is that it's hard to get more than a small market share, and those foods just don't taste the same. Savor made an advance in the chemistry. It's ultra-different in terms of the environmental footprint, but it's as good as those real animal fats. It's a totally non-agricultural method for producing food. The fats that Savor makes are made by a thermochemical process. They are the only foods in the world so far that are made entirely without photosynthesis. If you aren't already shocked, you'll definitely be surprised to learn that the Germans were attempting to do something very similar in 1939. AP News published an article close to a century ago about how German scientists were developing a way to turn coal into margarine using the exact same Fischer-Tropsch process. While they never followed through with production because extracting the edible oil was inefficient, history may end up repeating itself with Savor Foods.” As of today products featuring the “butter” became available, such as handcrafted vegan chocolates at select patisseries in San Francisco. Broader retail distribution is still scaling, with joint development agreements underway with CPG companies for wider food applications (e.g., replacing cocoa butter or lard) Expansion Plans: Savor is building toward price parity with traditional dairy butter through a new pilot facility in Batavia, Illinois (producing several metric tons). More recipes and menu items are rolling out throughout 2025, with potential for full consumer market entry in 2026 as production ramps up

Bill Gates funded fake butter made out of fossil fuels has officially hit the market and is being used in products right now The company was able to use the GRAS loophole to start selling. They self-affirmed GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe) status from the FDA “A new butter is hitting the market that's not made from cow's milk but rather fossil fuels. The biotech company Savor uses a petrochemical process to pull gas from the air and turn it into an animal-free butter. The process, called Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, turns carbon monoxide and hydrogen into hydrocarbons that will then be infused with oxygen to make fatty acids. People have come up with alternative food, but what we're seeing is that it's hard to get more than a small market share, and those foods just don't taste the same. Savor made an advance in the chemistry. It's ultra-different in terms of the environmental footprint, but it's as good as those real animal fats. It's a totally non-agricultural method for producing food. The fats that Savor makes are made by a thermochemical process. They are the only foods in the world so far that are made entirely without photosynthesis. If you aren't already shocked, you'll definitely be surprised to learn that the Germans were attempting to do something very similar in 1939. AP News published an article close to a century ago about how German scientists were developing a way to turn coal into margarine using the exact same Fischer-Tropsch process. While they never followed through with production because extracting the edible oil was inefficient, history may end up repeating itself with Savor Foods.” As of today products featuring the “butter” became available, such as handcrafted vegan chocolates at select patisseries in San Francisco. Broader retail distribution is still scaling, with joint development agreements underway with CPG companies for wider food applications (e.g., replacing cocoa butter or lard) Expansion Plans: Savor is building toward price parity with traditional dairy butter through a new pilot facility in Batavia, Illinois (producing several metric tons). More recipes and menu items are rolling out throughout 2025, with potential for full consumer market entry in 2026 as production ramps up

Wall Street Apes

271,606 次观看 • 11 个月前