Author

admin

Browsing

Capital One Financial’s application to acquire Discover Financial Services in a $35.3 billion all-stock deal has officially been approved by the Federal Reserve and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the regulators announced on Friday.

“The Board evaluated the application under the statutory factors it is required to consider, including the financial and managerial resources of the companies, the convenience and needs of the communities to be served by the combined organization, and the competitive and financial stability impacts of the proposal,” the Fed said in a release.

Capital One first announced it had entered into a definitive agreement to acquire Discover in February 2024. It will also indirectly acquire Discover Bank through the transaction, which was approved by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency on Friday.

Under the agreement, Discover shareholders will receive 1.0192 Capital One shares for each Discover share or about a 26% premium from Discover’s closing price of $110.49 at the time, Capital One said in a release.

Capital One and Discover are among the largest credit card issuers in the U.S., and the merger will expand Capital One’s deposit base and its credit card offerings. 

As a condition of the merger, Capital One said it will comply with the Fed’s action against Discover, according to the release. The Fed fined Discover $100 million for overcharging certain interchange fees from 2007 through 2023, and the company is repaying those fees to affected customers.

The OCC said it approved Capital One’s application on the condition that it would take “corrective actions” to remediate harm and address the “root causes” of outstanding enforcement actions against Discover.

After the deal closes, Capital One shareholders will hold 60% of the combined company, while Discover shareholders own 40%, according to the February 2024 release.

In a joint statement, Capital One and Discover said they expect to close the deal on May 18.

This post appeared first on NBC NEWS

It was another erratic week in the stock market. There were several market-moving events sprinkled throughout this short trading week, including earnings, escalation of tariff wars, and Chairman Jerome Powell’s remarks at the Economic Club of Chicago. This extended to wild swings in the bond market as well.

We had several positive earnings from banks and Netflix, Inc. (NFLX). Others, such as UnitedHealth Group, Inc. (UNH), disappointed, sending the Dow Jones Industrial Average ($INDU) lower by 1.33%.

Chairman Powell stated that tariffs could increase inflation. This would cause economic growth to slow down and unemployment to increase. The hope is that inflation is transitory, and, after it becomes stable, the Fed can continue to focus on its dual mandate of maximum employment and price stability.

It’s an insecure time for investors, and many feel the pain. You’re probably wondering how long this pain will go on for. In an uncertain environment, the best you can do is turn to the bond market.

It’s All About Bonds

The recent wild swinging market activity can be encapsulated in the price action of Treasury yields. Since 2024, yields have been swinging up and down. In the past year, the 10-year Treasury yield has ranged from 3.60% to 4.81%, and when the range is this wide, it’s an indication of economic instability. Not to mention, economic instability could result in a weaker economy.

The daily chart of the 10-Year US Treasury Yield Index ($TNX) gives you an idea of the range of yields in the last year. More recently, the yield has risen from 3.89% to 4.59%, and has now pulled back to its 50-day simple moving average (SMA).

FIGURE 1. DAILY CHART OF 10-YEAR TREASURY YIELDS. Yields have been seeing some large up and down swings.Chart source: StockCharts.com. For educational purposes.

Generally, when stock prices fall, bond prices rise. Since bond yields move inversely to bond prices, you’d expect yields to fall. This scenario isn’t playing out. Instead, we’re seeing yields move erratically while bond prices remain suppressed. There needs to be stability in bond yields before a stock market recovery, and one way to do that is to monitor the chart of the Merrill Lynch Option Volatility Estimate, referred to as the MOVE Index ($MOVE).

The MOVE Index tracks bond volatility. Think of it as the bond counterpart to the Cboe Volatility Index ($VIX). The chart below displays the $MOVE/$VIX relationship, with the correlation between the two in the lower panel.

FIGURE 2. THE MOVE INDEX VS. VIX. A high correlation between the MOVE Index and VIX suggests interest rates and stock prices are tightly connected. A lower correlation would indicate stability in equities.Chart source: StockCharts.com. For educational purposes.

The two have been highly correlated since the end of March, which indicates that stocks and interest rates are tightly connected. This means the wild up and down swings in equities could continue. When the two are less correlated, we can expect equities to start settling down. Looking at the above chart, a correlation of 0.80 would be sufficient for signs of stability.

Both $VIX and $MOVE have come back slightly, but their correlation is at 0.93, which is relatively high.

Be sure to save both charts displayed in this article to your ChartLists. They could alert you to stability in the stock market ahead of other indicators.

The Bottom Line

Until stability returns, you could do the following:

  • Stay on the sidelines and keep some dry powder.
  • Invest in risk-off instruments such as gold and silver.
  • Park some of your money in defensive sectors.

Equities could slide lower before stability returns. If this happens, you could pick up some growth stocks for a bargain.

An empowered investor comes out ahead after market instability. So monitor the market closely and, when the time is right, make wise investment decisions.

End-of-Week Wrap-Up

  • S&P 500 down 1.50% on the week, at 5282.70, Dow Jones Industrial Average down 2.66% on the week at 39,142.23; Nasdaq Composite down 2.62% on the week at 16,286.45.
  • $VIX down 21.06% on the week, closing at 29.65.
  • Best performing sector for the week: Energy
  • Worst performing sector for the week: Consumer Discretionary
  • Top 5 Large Cap SCTR stocks: Palantir Technologies, Inc. (PLTR); Elbit Systems, Ltd. (ESLT); Anglogold Ashanti Ltd. (AU); Just Eat Takeaway.com (JTKWY); Kinross Gold Corp. (KGC)

On the Radar Next Week

  • Earnings season continues with Haliburton (HAL), Tesla (TSLA), Boeing Co. (BA), International Business Machines (IBM) and others reporting.
  • 30-Year Mortgage Rates
  • March New Home Sales and Building Permits
  • April S&P PMI
  • April Consumer Sentiment
  • Fed speeches from Jefferson, Harker, Kashkari, and others.

Disclaimer: This blog is for educational purposes only and should not be construed as financial advice. The ideas and strategies should never be used without first assessing your personal and financial situation, or without consulting a financial professional.

Reflecting on the price action over this shortened holiday week, I’m struck by how the leadership trends have not really changed too much. We’ve observed bombed-out market breadth indicators, and the S&P 500 remains clearly below its 200-day moving average despite a strong upside swing off the early April market low.

But how much as the leadership of this market changed over the last couple weeks? I would argue that conditions remain fairly consistent over that period, and are still not overwhelmingly bullish.

Defensive Sectors Still Outperforming Offense

Here’s one of my favorite charts for analyzing offense vs. defense, a chart that holds a place of honor on my Market Misbehavior LIVE ChartList. We’re comparing the Consumer Discretionary and Consumer Staples using both cap-weighted and equal-weighted ETFs.

When the ratios are going higher, investors are favoring “things you want” over “things you need”, which implies optimism for economic growth. When the ratios slope lower, that suggests more defensive positioning as investors are skeptical of growth prospects.

We can see that the cap-weighted version of this ratio made a peak in January, while the equal-weighted version made its own top in February. Both ratios have been in a fairly consistent downtrend of lower highs and lower lows, even through last week’s sudden spike on tariff policy changes.

How bullish do I want to be when these ratios are sloping lower? Generally speaking, I’ve found that until investors start believing in the upside potential of Consumer Discretionary over the relative defense of Consumer Staples, it’s best to remain on the sidelines.

Using the RRG to Visualize Offense vs. Defense

While I often refer to relative strength ratios of sector ETFs vs. the S&P 500 index, I also enjoy leveraging the power of Relative Rotation Graphs (RRG®) to monitor a series of relative strength ratios in one simple but powerful visualization.

Here, I’m showing the 11 S&P 500 economic sectors relative to the S&P 500, and I’m highlighting Consumer Discretionary and Consumer Staples to monitor their relative positions. If you click “Animate” for this visualization, you’ll see that toward the end of 2024, offense was clearly outperforming defense. The XLY was in the Leading quadrant, the XLP was in the Lagging quadrant, and the rotations suggested a classic bull market configuration.

Fast-forward to February and March and you’ll see how Consumer Discretionary rotated into the Weakening and then Lagging quadrant. Meanwhile, Consumer Staples strengthened during that same period. At this point, the RRG is telling me defense over offense, in a classic bearish configuration.

Sticking With Groceries, Guns, and Gold

So, given the bearish leadership configuration in spite of a sudden bounce of the April market low, where can we find potential opportunities? I’ll highlight three ideas that I’ll summarize as “Groceries, Guns, and Gold.”

Playing off the “things you need” theme implied above, grocery retailer Kroger Co. (KR) has managed to pound out a fairly consistent pattern of higher highs and higher lows. With improving momentum and a new 12-month relative high this week, this is a chart continuing in a clear uptrend despite broad market weakness.  By the way, KR was one of the Top Ten Charts for April 2025 I presented with Grayson Roze!

Defense stocks like Northrop Grumman Corp. (NOC) have experienced an upside resurgence given geopolitical instability in 2025. From a technical perspective, I love how charts like NOC have rallied since mid-February, while most stocks, as well as our equity benchmarks, have been trending lower! There’s a significant resistance level to overcome around $550, but a confirmed break higher could open the door to further gains.

Gold has experienced an incredible run so far in 2025, finishing the week up 26% for the year compared to the S&P 500’s 10% loss over the same period. Similar to the chart of NOC, Newmont Corporation (NEM) is addressing a key resistance level from a major high in October 2024. But, so far in 2025, NEM has been scoring higher highs and higher lows, potentially building momentum for a break to a new all-time high.

It can be super tempting to consider the April low as “the bottom” and go all-in on growth stocks and offensive plays. But, given the lack of leadership rotation in April, I’m inclined to stick with charts that remain in strong uptrends during uncertain times.

RR#6,

Dave

P.S. Ready to upgrade your investment process? Check out my free behavioral investing course!


David Keller, CMT

President and Chief Strategist

Sierra Alpha Research LLC


Disclaimer: This blog is for educational purposes only and should not be construed as financial advice. The ideas and strategies should never be used without first assessing your own personal and financial situation, or without consulting a financial professional.

The author does not have a position in mentioned securities at the time of publication. Any opinions expressed herein are solely those of the author and do not in any way represent the views or opinions of any other person or entity.

Harvard’s brewing conflict with the Trump administration could come at a steep cost — even for the nation’s richest university.

On April 14, Harvard University President Alan Garber announced the institution would not comply with the administration’s demands, including to “audit” Harvard’s students and faculty for “viewpoint diversity.” The federal government, in response, froze $2.2 billion in multi-year grants and $60 million in multi-year contracts with the university.

According to CNN and multiple other news outlets, the Trump administration has now asked the Internal Revenue Service to revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status. If the IRS follows through, it would have severe consequences for the university. The many benefits of nonprofit status include tax-free income on investments and tax deductions for donors, education historian Bruce Kimball told CNBC.

Bloomberg estimated the value of Harvard’s tax benefits in excess of $465 million in 2023.

Nonprofits can lose their tax exemptions if the IRS determines they are engaging in political campaign activity or earning too much income from unrelated activities. Few universities have lost their non-profit status. One of the few examples was Christian institution Bob Jones University, which lost its tax exemption in 1983 for racially discriminatory policies.

White House spokesperson Harrison Fields told the Washington Post that the IRS started investigating Harvard before President Donald Trump suggested on Truth Social that the university should be taxed as a “political entity.” The Treasury Department did not reply to a request for comment from CNBC.

A Harvard spokesperson told CNBC that the government has “no legal basis to rescind Harvard’s tax exempt status.”

“The government has long exempted universities from taxes in order to support their educational mission,” the spokesperson wrote in a statement. “Such an unprecedented action would endanger our ability to carry out our educational mission. It would result in diminished financial aid for students, abandonment of critical medical research programs, and lost opportunities for innovation. The unlawful use of this instrument more broadly would have grave consequences for the future of higher education in America.” 

The federal government has challenged Harvard on yet another front, with the Department of Homeland Security threatening to stop international students from enrolling. The Student and Exchange Visitor Program is administered by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which falls under the DHS.

International students make up more than a quarter of Harvard’s student body. However, Harvard is less financially dependent on international students than many other U.S. universities as it already offers need-based financial aid to international students in its undergraduate program. Many other universities require international students to pay full tuition.

The Harvard spokesperson declined to comment to CNBC on whether the university would sue the administration over the federal funds or any other grounds. Lawyers Robert Hur of King & Spalding and William Burck of Quinn Emanuel are representing Harvard, stating in a letter to the federal government that its demands violate the First Amendment.

Harvard, the nation’s richest university, has more resources than other academic institutions to fund a long legal battle and weather the storm. However, its massive endowment — which has raised questions during the recent developments — is not a piggy bank.

Harvard has an endowment of nearly $52 billion, averaging $2.1 million in endowed funds per student, according to a study by the National Association of College and University Business Officers, or NACUBO, and asset manager Commonfund.

That size makes it larger than than the GDP of many countries.

The endowment generated a 9.6% return last fiscal year, which ended June 30, according to the university’s latest annual report.

Founded in 1636, Harvard has had more time to accumulate assets as the nation’s oldest university. It also has robust donor base, receiving $368 million in gifts to the endowment in 2024. While the university noted that more than three-quarters of the gifts averaged $150 per donor, Harvard has a history of headline-making donations from ultra-rich alumni.

Kimball, emeritus professor of philosophy and history of education at the Ohio State University, attributes the outsized wealth of elite universities like Harvard to a willingness to invest in riskier assets.

University endowments were traditionally invested very conservatively, but in the early 1950s Harvard shifted its allocation to 60% equities and 40% bonds, taking on more risk and creating the opportunity for more upside.

“Universities that didn’t want to assume the risk fell behind,” Kimball told CNBC in March.

Other universities soon followed suit, with Yale University in the 1990s pioneering what would become the “Yale Model” of investing in alternative assets like hedge funds and natural resources. Though it proved lucrative, only universities with large endowments could afford to take on the risk and due diligence that was needed to succeed in alternative investments, according to Kimball.

According to Harvard’s annual report, the largest chunks of the endowment are allocated to private equity (39%) and hedge funds (32%). Public equities constitute another 14% while real estate and bonds/TIPs make up 5% each. The remainder is divided between cash and other real assets, including natural resources.

The university has made substantial portfolio allocation changes over the past seven years, the report notes. The Harvard Management Company has cut the endowment’s exposure to real estate and natural resources from 25% in 2018 to 6%. These cuts allowed the university to increase its private equity allocation. To limit equity exposure, the endowment has upped its hedge fund investments.

University endowments, though occasionally staggering in size, are not slush funds. The pools are actually made up of hundreds or even thousands of smaller funds, the majority of which are restricted by donors to be dedicated to areas including professorships, scholarships or research.

Harvard has some 14,600 separate funds, 80% of which are restricted to specific purposes including financial aid and professorships. Last fiscal year, the endowment distributed $2.4 billion, 70% of which was subject to donors’ directives.

“Most of that money was put in for a specific purpose,” Scott Bok, former chairman of the University of Pennsylvania, told CNBC in March. “Universities don’t have the ability to break open the proverbial piggy bank and just grab the money in whatever way they want.”

Some of these restrictions are overplayed, according to former Northwestern University President Morton Schapiro.

“It’s true that a lot of money is restricted, but it’s restricted to things you’re going to spend on already like need-based aid, study abroad, libraries,” Bok said previously.

Harvard has $9.6 billion in endowed funds that are not subject to donor restrictions. The annual report notes that “while the University has no intention of doing so,” these assets “could be liquidated in the event of an unexpected disruption” under certain conditions.

Liquidating $9.6 billion in assets, nearly 20% of total endowed funds, would come at the cost of future cash flow, as the university would have less to invest.

Harvard did not respond to CNBC’s queries about increasing endowment spending. Like most universities, it aims to spend around 5% of its endowment every year. Assuming the fund generates high-single-digit investment returns, spending just 5% allows the principal to grow and keep pace with inflation.

For now, Harvard is taking a hard look at its operating budget. In mid-March, the university started taking austerity measures, including a temporary hiring pause and denying admission to graduate students waitlisted for this upcoming fall.

Harvard is also issuing $750 million in taxable bonds due September 2035. This past February, the university issued $244 million in tax-exempt bonds. A slew of universities including Princeton and Colgate are also raising debt this spring.

So far, Moody’s has not updated its top-tier AAA rating for Harvard’s bonds. However, when it comes to higher education as a whole, the ratings agency isn’t so optimistic, lowering its outlook to negative in March.

This post appeared first on NBC NEWS

Alphabet’s Google illegally dominated two markets for online advertising technology, a judge ruled Thursday, dealing another blow to the tech giant and paving the way for U.S. antitrust prosecutors to seek a breakup of its advertising products.

U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Alexandria, Virginia, found Google liable for “willfully acquiring and maintaining monopoly power” in markets for publisher ad servers and the market for ad exchanges, which sit between buyers and sellers. Websites use publisher ad servers to store and manage their ad inventories.

Antitrust enforcers failed to prove a separate claim that Google had a monopoly in advertiser ad networks, she wrote.

Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google’s vice president of regulatory affairs, said Google will appeal the ruling.

“We won half of this case and we will appeal the other half,” she said in a statement, adding that the company disagrees with the decision about its publisher tools. “Publishers have many options and they choose Google because our ad tech tools are simple, affordable and effective.’

Google’s shares were down around 2.1% at midday.

The decision clears the way for another hearing to determine what Google must do to restore competition in those markets, such as sell off parts of its business at another trial that has yet to be scheduled.

The Justice Department has said Google should have to sell off at least its Google Ad Manager, which includes the company’s publisher ad server and ad exchange.

However, a Google representative said Thursday that Google was optimistic it would not have to divest part of the business as part of any remedy, given the court’s view that its acquisition of advertising tech companies like DoubleClick were not anticompetitive.

Google still faces the possibility that two U.S. courts will order it to sell assets or change its business practices. A judge in Washington will hold a trial next week on the Justice Department’s request to make Google sell its Chrome browser and take other measures to end its dominance in online search.

Google has previously explored selling off its ad exchange to appease European antitrust regulators, Reuters reported in September.

Brinkema oversaw a three-week trial last year on claims brought by the Justice Department and a coalition of states.

Google used classic monopoly-building tactics of eliminating competitors through acquisitions, locking customers in to using its products and controlling how transactions occurred in the online ad market, prosecutors said at trial.

Google argued the case focused on the past, when it was still working on making its tools able to connect to competitors’ products. Prosecutors also ignored competition from Amazon.com, Comcast and other technology companies as digital ad spending shifted to apps and streaming video, Google’s lawyer said.

The ruling was issued as a district court in Washington, D.C., held its fourth day of an antitrust trial between Meta and the Federal Trade Commission, in which the government similarly accused the company then known as Facebook of monopolizing the social networking market through its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp.

A Google representative said the partially favorable ruling in its case Thursday could point to success for Meta, as well, in defending its acquisitions from the government’s antitrust allegations.

This post appeared first on NBC NEWS

When markets get more volatile and more unstable, I get the urge to take a step back and reflect on simple assessments of trend and momentum.  Today we’ll use one of the most common technical indicators, the 200-day moving average, and discuss what this simple trend-following tool can tell us about conditions for the S&P 500 index.

Nothing Good Happens Below the 200-Day Moving Average

I’ve received a number of questions recently as to why I’m not way more bullish after the sudden rally off last Wednesday’s low.  I love to respond with Paul Tudor Jones’ famous quote, “Nothing good happens below the 200-day moving average.”

To be clear, the 200-day moving average is almost 500 points above current levels, so it would take quite a rally to achieve that price level any time soon.  But with the VIX still well above the 30 level, that means the market is expecting wide price swings and big moves could be very possible.

But generally speaking, any time I see a chart where the price is below a downward-sloping 200-day moving average, I feel comfortable making the basic assumption that the primary trend is down.  And until the SPX can regain this long-term trend barometer, I’m inclined to treat the market as “guilty until proven innocent.”

Tracking the 200-Day With the New Market Summary Page

The new and updated version of the StockCharts Market Summary page features a table of major equity indexes and includes a comparison to the 200-day moving average for each index.  I’ve sorted today’s table in descending order based on this metric, which allows us to compare the relative position of different indexes and focus on which areas of the equity market are showing real strength.

We can see that only the Dow Utilities remain above the 200-day moving average, even with the strong bounce we’ve observed over the last week.  The S&P 500 is about 8% below its 200-day moving average, and for the Nasdaq Composite it’s over 11%.  So this basically implies that the S&P could see another 8% rally, drawing in all sorts of investors, yet still remain in a bearish phase based on its position relative to the 200-day.

Three Stocks Facing a Crucial Test This Week

One chart I’m watching closely this week involves three key growth stocks that are actually very near their own 200-day moving average.  If these Magnificent 7 stocks have enough upside momentum to power through the 200-day, then there could definitely be hope for the S&P 500 and Nasdaq to follow suit in the coming weeks.  

Note in the top panel how Meta Platforms (META) powered above the 200-day last Wednesday after the announcement of a 90-day pause in tariffs.  But after closing above the 200-day for that one day, META broke right back below the next day.  META has closed lower every trading day since that breakout.

Neither Amazon.com (AMZN) nor Tesla (TSLA) reached their own 200-day on last Wednesday’s rally, and both are now rapidly approaching their lows for 2025.  And if mega cap growth stocks like META, AMZN, and TSLA are unable to power above their 200-day moving averages, why should we expect our growth-dominated benchmarks to do the same?

With a flurry of news headlines every trading day, and an earnings season that could paint a disturbing picture of lowered expectations for economic growth and consumer sentiment, I feel that there is more downside to be had before the great bear market of 2025 is completed.  But instead of trying to predict the future, I choose to simply follow the trends.  And based on the shape of the 200-day moving average for these important charts, the primary trend appears to still be down.

RR#6,

Dave

PS- Ready to upgrade your investment process?  Check out my free behavioral investing course!

David Keller, CMT

President and Chief Strategist

Sierra Alpha Research LLC

Disclaimer: This blog is for educational purposes only and should not be construed as financial advice.  The ideas and strategies should never be used without first assessing your own personal and financial situation, or without consulting a financial professional.  

The author does not have a position in mentioned securities at the time of publication.    Any opinions expressed herein are solely those of the author and do not in any way represent the views or opinions of any other person or entity.

On April 17 (Thursday), Judge Leonie Brinkema of the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled against Google (NASDAQ:GOOGL) in the antitrust case concerning its advertising technology business, casting a shroud of uncertainty over the future of the tech giant’s online advertising business.

Brinkema will now need to determine what remedies to impose on Google to restore fair market competition. The plaintiffs sought to force Google to divest its Ad Manager, which includes the company’s publisher ad server and its ad exchange, to restore competition in the market. This outcome is far more likely following Judge Brinkema’s ruling.

This is a developing story happening alongside a similar case against Meta Platforms (NASDAQ:META), which is being sued by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for allegedly monopolizing social media through its acquisition of Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014.

This trial against Google began in September 2024, and the plaintiffs in the lawsuit comprise the Department of Justice (DOJ) and attorneys general from eight states.

The plaintiffs argued that Google’s dominance in ad tech allowed it to charge higher prices and take a larger share of ad sales. They accused Google of stifling competition by controlling the technology used to place ads on websites across the internet.

The ruling against Google marks a significant step in one of numerous anti-competitive cases brought against Google in the past few years, both in the US and internationally.

It follows an earlier ruling in August 2024 in which Google was found to have an illegal monopoly in the online search market in the US. That case will move into the remedies phase next week, with a court date of April 21, 2025.

“This is a game-changer,” wrote Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, one of the plaintiffs in both cases. “As Judge Brinkema writes in her decision, Google was in direct violation of the Sherman Act by dictating how digital ads are sold and the terms under which its rivals can compete.

‘With this victory in hand, we can hopefully work now towards restoring a fair, free, and competitive digital advertising marketplace. This decision is the first step in opening up competition so that Connecticut businesses and consumers will pay less for advertising – and therefore less for goods and services. We will no longer be under the thumb of a gigantic multinational conglomerate.”

US District Judge Amit Mehta, who ruled against Google in the August 2024 case, has considered imposing structural remedies that could involve forcing Google to divest its Chrome business, although Google has argued divestiture would hurt consumers. Instead, the company has suggested allowing browser companies to have multiple default agreements with various search engines.

Regulators have been digging into various aspects of Google’s business, including its advertising technology, search practices and mobile operating system.

In addition to the current case, Google is also facing scrutiny from antitrust regulators in Europe, the UK and other jurisdictions. The outcomes of these cases could have far-reaching implications for Google’s business model and the tech industry as a whole.

Today’s ruling signifies a major development in the ongoing scrutiny of Big Tech’s market dominance, which echoes efforts to dismantle AT&T’s (NYSE:T) phone monopoly in the 1980s. The eventual outcome of that case led to AT&T’s breakup into seven independent enterprises, which laid the groundwork for some of today’s major telecommunications and internet services providers, including Verizon (NYSE:VZ) and Lumen Technologies (NYSE:LUMN). It also gave cable companies like Comcast room to expand into internet services.

Whatever outcome Judge Brinkema decides, the ruling could reshape the online advertising landscape and have far-reaching implications for both the company and the broader tech industry.

Securities Disclosure: I, Meagen Seatter, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.

Keep reading…Show less
This post appeared first on investingnews.com

As gold and silver continue to prove their worth as sound investments, market participants should know how precious metals investments are taxed in the US.

While the majority of gold and silver investing comes with a certain degree of taxation, there are different levels of tax based on how market participants decide to invest in these precious metals, how long the investments are held for and the investors individual tax bracket.

Read on for a breakdown of the taxes associated with investing in gold and silver bullion, ETFs and stocks, as well as the forms involved with reporting precious metals investments.

In this article

    How are physical gold and silver taxed?

    Gold and silver bullion, coins and bars are seen as collectibles by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in the US. Thus, physical gold and silver, no matter the form, are subject to a higher rate of capital gains tax when they are sold. The same is true for fellow precious metals platinum and palladium.

    While long-term capital gains would typically carry a top bracket of 20 percent, collectibles can be taxed at a higher 28 percent.

    The total an investor will owe in capital gains tax when selling physical gold and silver is based both on their income bracket and the length of time they held the asset.

    The long-term capital gains tax on physical gold and silver is equal to an investor’s marginal tax rate, up to a maximum of 28 percent due to their status as a collectible, meaning those in higher tax brackets still only have to pay 28 percent on long-term gains from physical precious metals sales.

    It is worth noting that the 28 percent maximum is only for long-term capital gains, which applies to metals that an investor has held for more than one year. Short-term capital gains on precious metals held for less than one year are taxed at ordinary income rates.

    For example, a person in the highest tax bracket purchased 100 ounces of physical gold at US$1,800 per ounce and two years later sold their holdings for US$2,000 per ounce. While they are in the 37 percent tax bracket, they would pay 28 percent tax on the capital gains made from these sales. As they earned US$20,000 in capital gains, that would translate to US$5,600 in income tax.

    However, if the investor sold the gold at the same gain just 11 months after they purchased it, it would count as short-term capital gains, and the investor would be taxed at 37 percent and owe US$7,400.

    Investors who are in one of the tax brackets below 28 percent are taxed at the standard rate of their bracket when selling their solid gold and silver assets, whether they are held short- or long-term.

    Similarly to other investments, precious metals sold at a loss can be used to offset capital gains.

    How are gold and silver ETFs taxed?

    Like all other exchange-traded funds (ETFs), gold ETFs and silver ETFs act in the same manner as individual stocks, meaning that investing in these ETFs is similar to trading a stock on an exchange. There are two main types of gold and silver ETFs: those that track the prices of those metals and those that track gold or silver stocks.

    ETFs that follow metals prices provide exposure to either physical gold or silver, or gold or silver futures contracts. It is important to keep in mind that investing in these ETF platforms does not allow investors to own any physical gold or silver — in general, even an investment in an ETF that tracks physical gold or silver cannot be redeemed for the tangible metal.

    ETFs that invest in gold or silver companies provide exposure to gold- and silver-mining stocks, as well as gold- or silver-streaming stocks.

    In terms of taxation, capital gain taxes from selling gold and silver ETFs is determined by the ETF’s holdings, the investors tax bracket and how long they held the asset for.

    Funds will often supply investors with tax forms that they can use to fill out their income tax. The webpage for a fund should have a document describing how income tax is handled for that fund, which is worth reading before investing in it.

    Long-term capital gains from selling shares of gold and silver ETFs are subject to a 28 percent maximum federal income tax rate if they hold physical precious metals and 20 percent if they hold stocks. While long-term capital gains would typically be capped at 20 percent maximum rate. This is because the holdings are considered collectibles, as described in the section above. Short-term gains made from selling gold or silver ETFs are subject to a maximum federal rate of 37 percent.

    Additionally, these gains could get slapped with a 3.8 percent net investment income tax for high net-worth investors, and a state income tax may also apply.

    Futures-based commodity ETFs can come with their own set of rules that you can learn about here. Briefly, they are often taxed in a 60/40 hybrid, with 60 percent treated as long-term gains and 40 percent treated as short-term gains. Additionally, this is calculated at the end of each tax year, whether a sale is made or not.

    ETFs that hold stocks are taxed in the same way as traditional securities, which you can read more about below.

    How are gold and silver stocks taxed?

    In terms of tax on gold and silver stocks, long-term gains from selling are subject to the standard 20 percent maximum federal rate, while short-term gains will face a maximum federal rate of 37 percent. For investors in higher income brackets, there is the potential for gold and silver stock investments to also be hit with the 3.8 percent net investment income tax as well as state income tax.

    Unlike physical precious metals and ETFs that hold them, precious metals stocks are not classified as collectibles, which is why the long-term capital gains tax is capped at 20 percent instead of 28 percent.

    Stocks sold at a loss are important as well as they can be used to offset capital gains when filing income tax.

    How to report taxes on physical gold and silver investments

    Market participants who sell precious metals in the US for a profit are required to report that profit on their income tax return, regardless of whether or not the dealer has any reporting obligation.

    When selling gold and silver investments in the US, there are two different sets of reporting guidelines — one applies to the dealer through which a person sells and the other applies to the investor who is selling the asset.

    It is important to note that taxes on the sale of gold and silver will not be due the moment that the sale is made, and the tax bill for all of these sales is due at the same time as a standard income tax bill.

    For investors selling precious metals, capital gains or losses need to be reported on Schedule D of Form 1040 when making a tax return.

    Investors will first need to detail their precious metals transactions on Form 8949, including the length of time the investments were held. This form must be filed alongside Schedule D. Investors then use this information alongside the 28% Rate Gain Worksheet included in the Schedule D instructions.

    Depending on the type of metal being sold, Form 1099-B may have to be submitted to the IRS by the broker when the sale closes, as such transactions are considered income. As for when a broker will need to file Form 1099-B, there are specific rules that determine which sales of precious metals require the dealer to file this form that apply to transactions over a 24 hours period.

    For gold sales, reportable items include specific gold coins, including the 1 ounce Canadian Gold Maple Leaf and Gold Kruggerand, and gold bars and rounds of at least 0.995 fineness. As for quantity, only sales of more than 25 gold coins and or more than 1 kilogram in gold bars and rounds will require the form.

    Sales of 0.999 fine silver bars and rounds totaling over 1,000 ounces qualify. For silver coins, US coins with above 90 percent silver are reportable, but Silver American Eagle coins are not. Sales of silver coins exceeding US$1,000 will require a form.

    When it comes to selling gold and silver overseas, market participants must follow the laws as they apply to the sale of gold and silver investments in that particular country.

    The information in this article does not constitute tax advice, and investors should work with a tax professional or program to help them make sure everything is reported accurately.

    Securities Disclosure: I, Lauren Kelly, currently hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.

    Keep reading…Show less
    This post appeared first on investingnews.com

    OpenAI is in talks to pay about $3 billion to acquire Windsurf, an artificial intelligence tool for coding help, CNBC has confirmed.

    Windsurf, formerly known as Codeium, competes with Cursor, another popular AI coding tool, as well as existing AI coding features from companies like Microsoft, Anthropic and OpenAI itself.

    Bloomberg was first to report on the potential deal, which CNBC confirmed with a person familiar with the matter who asked to remain anonymous since the talks are ongoing.

    OpenAI is rushing to stay ahead in the generative AI race, where competitors including Google, Anthropic and Elon Musk’s xAI are investing heavily and regularly rolling out new products. Late last month, OpenAI closed a $40 billion funding round, the largest on record for a private tech company, at a $300 billion valuation.

    OpenAI on Wednesday released its latest AI models, o3 and o4-mini, which it said are capable of “thinking with images,” meaning they can understand and analyze a user’s sketches and diagrams, even if they’re low quality.

    Should a deal take place with Windsurf, it would be by far OpenAI’s biggest acquisition. The company has made several smaller deals in the past, including the purchase last June of analytics database provider Rockset and video collaboration platform Multi. In 2023, OpenAI bought Global Illumination, which had been “leveraging AI to build creative tools, infrastructure, and digital experiences,” according to a blog post when the deal was announced. Terms weren’t disclosed for any of those transactions.

    Windsurf is among the tools, alongside Cursor and Replit, that developers have flocked to in recent months to “vibe code,” a term that refers to having AI models quickly assemble code for new software. Andrej Karpathy, a former OpenAI co-founder, coined the term in a post on X in February. Earlier this month Microsoft, whose Visual Studio Code text editor is widely used among programmers, announced an Agent Mode feature with similar capability.

    The startup’s investors include Founders Fund, General Catalyst, Greenoaks and Kleiner Perkins. TechCrunch reported in February that Windsurf was raising a funding round at a $2.85 billion valuation.

    — CNBC’s Jordan Novet contributed to this report.

    This post appeared first on NBC NEWS

    With so many articles and videos on popular media channels advising you not to look at your 401(k) during this market downturn, avoiding taking the other side is tough. If you are close to retirement or retired, isn’t a market downturn a good excuse to look at your 401(k)? After all, you’ve stashed away hard-earned money to enjoy those big post-retirement plans.

    The stock market is well-known for its uncanny ability to throw you surprises, but the recent headline-driven price action is especially difficult to navigate. While it’s true that, over the longer term, the broader market tends to trend higher, if you’re not in a position to patiently wait for that to occur, you may want to reevaluate your portfolio sooner rather than later. The “set-it-and-forget-it” strategy can work at times but not always.

    Is the Stock Market Headed Lower?

    Let’s look at where the overall stock market stands by analyzing the S&P 500 ($SPX), starting with the daily chart.

    FIGURE 1. DAILY CHART OF S&P 500. After falling below its 200-day moving average, the S&P 500 is struggling to remain above its 5400 level. Will it hold? Chart source: StockCharts.com. For educational purposes.

    It’s clear the S&P 500 is trending lower and that the 50-day simple moving average (SMA) has crossed below the 200-day SMA, further confirming the downward trend of the index. After reaching a high of 6147.43 on February 19, 2025, $SPX started its decline, falling below its 50-day SMA and then its 200-day SMA.

    Although the index tried to bounce back to its 200-day SMA, it failed to break above it and fell to a low of 4835.04 on April 7, 2025. Since then, the S&P 500 has been trying to bounce back. It filled the April 4 down gap, but has been stalling around the 5400 level since then, on lower volume. It’s almost as if investors are sitting on the sidelines for the next tariff-related news which could send the S&P 500 higher or lower.

    Going back, the 5400 was a support level for the September 2024 lows, between the end of July and early August, and in mid-June. There have also been price gaps at this level during those times. The chart of the S&P 500 has a horizontal line overlay at the 5400 level. This could act as a resistance level for a while, or the index could soar above it, in which case this level could act as a support level.

    Save the chart in one of your ChartLists and watch how the price action unfolds for the next few weeks.

    Where’s the Breadth?

    It’s worth monitoring the Bullish Percent Index (BPI) of the S&P 500. The chart below displays the S&P 500 BPI ($BPSPX) in the top panel and $SPX in the bottom panel.

    FIGURE 2. BULLISH PERCENT INDEX FOR THE S&P 500. The $BPSPX recovered after falling below 12.5. Even a move over 50 should be eyed with caution. Chart source: StockCharts.com. For educational purposes.

    The recent slide in the S&P 500 took the $BPSPX to well below 12.5. It has reversed and is above 30, which is encouraging. A rise above 50 is bullish but, as you can see in the chart, the last time $BPSPX crossed above 50 (dashed blue vertical lines), it turned back lower, only to start its descent to the lowest level in the past year. Save your excitement until the $BPSPX is over 50 and a turnaround in the $SPX is in place.

    This could take a while, which is why, if you’re close to retirement or already retired, you may have to consider selling the rip, or if the situation turns bullish, buy the dip. It may be time to unwind some positions, so evaluate your portfolio and make decisions that are aligned with your lofty retirement plans.

    So, heck yeah! Look at your 401(k) now!


    Disclaimer: This blog is for educational purposes only and should not be construed as financial advice. The ideas and strategies should never be used without first assessing your own personal and financial situation, or without consulting a financial professional.