There is, in fact, a higher power that watches over all of us. It’s a power that’s neither unnecessarily vengeful nor overtly forgiving. It’s a power that overwhelmingly sits quietly in perceived peace while it constantly collects data and records it in detail. The power can sit for decades and lull people into believing there’s nothing out there—that our actions have no ramifications.

Then the power stirs. Oftentimes it’s just a ripple, like a sleeping ogre rolling over to get comfortable. Occasionally the ogre rises, and suddenly: “will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my fiscal house! And you will know my name is the U.S. Bond Market when I lay my vengeance upon thee!”

Wait, what did you guys think I was talking about?

Side note... hopefully no one is offended by that paragraph. I mean no irreverence and am a big fan of religion and am a practicing catholic myself. I thought that the characterization underscores the point that even men who view themselves above others (Trump?) have to listen when the bond market speaks. Now back to the letter.

The Fed held rates steady, but the Treasury kind of eased. That sentence is an oversimplification of a complex issue, but it’s true. The Treasury assisted the Bank of Japan in its attempts to prop up the yen. Their explanation, if asked, would be that a weak yen was past the point where it would start to hurt U.S. manufacturers by giving Japanese products an unfair price advantage. Nice explanation, but it’s a crock.

The real reason is that the Treasury did the math. If the BOJ gets any more frustrated about the declining yen, they might sell all or part of their $1.1 trillion of U.S. Treasuries to support it. We can’t have that. The sleeping giant is already rolling over, as evidenced by the move from 3.98% yields in February to roughly 4.7% today. This level reflects irritation with the growing amounts of Treasury supply coming to market to fund massive deficits. A geopolitical conflict lasting months longer than anyone anticipated only makes this problem worse.

So did the Treasury really “ease”? Not by a strict definition, but running interference on a potential market-driven bond sale is a close cousin of purchasing the bonds yourself. The gold and silver markets did this math in real time, which is why we’ve seen outsized moves in precious metals.

This is what we’ve been waiting for. At least the start of it. My thesis has long been that if ten-year yields jump above 4.95% or 5.00%, rumblings would begin that the Fed is preparing to reinstate “not QE.” And yes, that’s a jab at the short-end bond purchases they are already engaged in that they refuse to call QE.

I guess it’s time to mention the labor data on Friday. It was mostly awful, but not entirely. It reflected a drop in non-productive government jobs, which is great. It also showed a small pickup in private sector jobs and a slight downtick in the unemployment rate to 4.1%. I’m not trying to paint it as good because it wasn’t, but it was less than awful. The best part is that it gives a reprieve to Fed Chair Kevin Warsh, who can now watch and wait for inflation to move lower on its own instead of deploying a policy tool that would be mostly ineffective. Equities predictably liked the outcome because it makes a Warsh policy mistake less likely.

The fundamental takeaway for the week is that we may be restarting the dollar debasement trade that acted as a massive tailwind for precious metals and equities. Normally I’d say real estate and Bitcoin would be part of that trade, but real estate is currently dealing with pent-up supply entering the market, while Bitcoin is dealing with rumblings of a massive hack that has introduced real safety concerns into the equation.
- Jim Iuorio -

As a side note, I’m fighting every impulse to make fun of him for laughing like Arnold Horshack from Welcome Back, Kotter. I’m taking the high road. But I do have real concerns over the hubris that develops when you are a 19-year-old Ivy League valedictorian. I question your ability to question your own ability. I’ll take a grinder from a public school any day of the week, but I digress.

The winners of the week were Microsoft and Amazon, while the losers were Meta and Apple. Both of the winners showed a clear path toward AI monetization while expanding profitability even alongside massive capex. To be fair, Microsoft’s massive run-up was also boosted by being under-owned after a 35% pullback, but we are talking fundamentals here. The most important takeaway from the price action wasn’t specific to one ticker. It’s simply that the clock has either run out or is about to run out. Put up or shut up. Put your cards on the table. Insert whatever overused metaphor you prefer. This is a long-winded way of telling you what you already know: the game has changed, and the rotation can get bumpy. The Mag 7 names still account for an incredible 32% of the S&P 500 market cap. That is an extreme level, and we don’t like extremes. Enjoy the ride.

Interested in seeing our trades? Try the full version for 14 days for a buck — entries, targets, stops, all of it. Cancel anytime if it's not for you.

Of course, tech earnings weren’t the only story. The rates picture is becoming interesting (or ominous). Is there a word that fits right between interesting and ominous? If there is, let’s pretend I used it. Yields are screaming higher, particularly on the long end. This would be fine if it were happening because of an accelerating economy and attractive risk propositions elsewhere, but I don’t think it is. The fact that the dollar moved lower while ten-year yields shot higher at the same time signals a supply issue. The bond market is telling us to spend less money. The problem is that politicians rarely listen to casual suggestions from the bond market. It usually takes a moment where the bond market cuts the switch and beats the spenders into submission. We saw it during the Liz Truss moment in the UK, and we are angling toward that now.

What does it mean for equities? Even if yields were rising for the right reasons, stocks might still be annoyed by it. It’s much easier to rally equities when the risk-free rate is unattractive. The second we start to worry that yields are rising for the wrong reasons, that negative effect intensifies. We are approaching that line.

The third item worth mentioning is the massive yen intervention conducted by the Bank of Japan. This belongs on our radar, even if it doesn’t take center stage just yet. The yen is the world’s funding currency (in the context of the yen carry trade). Global markets borrow in yen and convert that capital into other currencies to chase opportunities worldwide. Usually that capital flows into dollars and Treasuries, but my thesis for the last few years is that a ton of it ended up in tech stocks. The BOJ knocked USD/JPY down roughly 3.9%, initially finding support at the 200-day moving average at approximately 158 (it broke through on Friday). I don’t think that is enough to cause the world to head for the exits. I don’t expect real panic until we see the low 150s, but that’s just a gut feel.

The last thing I’ll say is that I am thoroughly impressed with Kevin Warsh. His “no guidance” policy is the right move. The trading world already knew the Fed’s medium-term guidance was mostly worthless, but everyone was forced to trade off it in the short term anyway. If you have 100 market participants and every single one thinks the guidance is nonsense, but also believes the other 99 will trade off it, no one has a choice. Standing in front of the herd is uncomfortable when you think they are about to stampede.

- Jim -
Interested in seeing our trades? Try the full version for 14 days for a buck — entries, targets, stops, all of it. Cancel anytime if it’s not for you.

❝

“I don’t understand. The market has to be rigged. They beat on earnings per share, they beat on revenue, and the stock is down. Why would the stock be down if they beat earnings?”

My response was always another question: Did they beat on GAAP earnings, or did they beat on non-GAAP earnings?

For those unfamiliar with the distinction, GAAP stands for Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. These are the standardized accounting rules companies use to prepare their U.S. financial statements. Non-GAAP does not technically stand for “Non-Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.” It refers to financial measures that are calculated differently from the comparable GAAP figures.

Companies are permitted to report non-GAAP results because those numbers can provide additional information about how management views the company’s underlying or ongoing operations. A company may exclude restructuring expenses, acquisition-related costs, stock-based compensation or other items it believes make the GAAP result less representative of its core business.

However, companies cannot simply present adjusted figures without explanation. SEC rules require a material non-GAAP measure to be reconciled with the most directly comparable GAAP measure. In earnings releases and certain SEC disclosures, the GAAP figure must generally be presented with equal or greater prominence. The SEC has also warned against inconsistent or poorly explained adjustments, excluding normal recurring expenses and using adjustments that effectively create a company’s own tailored accounting rules.

There is a legitimate use for non-GAAP reporting. Investors and sell-side analysts routinely use adjusted earnings, EBITDA and similar figures when calculating valuation multiples and comparing companies with different acquisition histories, capital structures or accounting peculiarities. The problem begins when the adjusted figure is treated as though it were the company’s main earnings data.

While a company can’t give undue prominence to its non-GAAP earnings, the financial media can. The SEC’s presentation requirements govern the company’s report; they do not have jurisdiction over an independent news organization, television network or market-data platform to give GAAP and non-GAAP results equal billing. As a result, a headline or earnings graphic may simply say that a company “beat earnings,” even when the earnings estimate being referenced was based on an adjusted, non-GAAP number.

Intel’s second-quarter 2026 report is a perfect example. The company reported $16.1 billion in revenue and non-GAAP earnings of $0.42 per share, both of which beat analysts’ estimates. However, Intel’s GAAP result was a loss of $2.16 per share. Intel disclosed both figures in its earnings release, but a headline or market graphic showing only an “earnings beat” is an incomplete picture.

This image from TradingView shows Intel beating EPS estimates and revenue estimates handily, yet the stock finished the following session down roughly 7.9%. There’s a good chance that investors were more focused on the less-than-stellar GAAP earnings report.

Actual (GAAP) showed the same revenue number, but in terms of EPS, it showed a loss of $2.16 per share versus earnings of $0.42 in non-GAAP.

This is why investors should never stop at the words “earnings beat.” Ask which earnings figure beat expectations, what expenses were listed as “one-time charges”, how the adjusted result compares with the GAAP number, and what management guidance looked like.

As with many things in trading, whether the company beat or missed earnings isn’t necessarily binary. The story behind the story usually answers the “why” question active investors always seem to ask.

– Bobby –

To read Jim’s three cents — try full membership for $1 for 14 days. Click here.

Quick note: Of the four existing positions we carried through last week’s stock market weakness, only McCormick & Company [MKC] moved against us, and even that position was stopped out for a small profit. Our other three longs continued moving in our direction, while our newest entry, Nucor [NUE], reached its first profit target. All of this happened while all four major U.S. indices finished the week lower—the Russell for a fourth consecutive week, the Dow for a third, and the S&P 500 and NASDAQ for the second week in a row. This is just another example of why we pick the stocks we pick.

This week we got the CPI and PPI for June, and it was great news. Inflation was in full retreat. Month over month was negative on the headline and completely flat excluding food and energy. I suppose this doesn’t need to be said, but I’ll say it anyway. It was oil and gas. So now that oil has worked its way out of the CPI, we can relax and concentrate on more positive drivers, right? Right? If only it were that easy. Tensions in Iran reignited, and oil shot from the high $60s in early July to $81 by July 17th. Here’s the good news. Oil averaged $102 a barrel in May and $84 in June. Yes, the economy and the market would have loved crude hovering around $70 for the whole month of July, but the real question is whether the low $80s really wreck all we’ve gained. The answer is probably not, but the gain has put itself right back in the “things to worry about” category. If I had to put a number on when things start to get dicey, it would be WTI in the mid $90s. There’s no math behind that, just a gut feeling.

What’s not a gut feeling is that the bond market isn’t panicking about inflation. Two-year breakeven inflation expectations sit at 2.43%. Five-year is lower than that. Most importantly, the Fed funds market has moved expectations for a Fed tightening in July back down to just 14%, down from 35% before the inflation data came out. Thank God. I believe tightening would be a mistake, with one small caveat. M2 money supply and the Fed’s balance sheet keep moving higher at a rate that’s almost alarming. Of course, the Fed could slow its “not QE” bond purchases, or the federal government could slow its deficit spending, or we could teach raccoons to work the jobs no one wants to do, but none of those things seem likely. My belief is that the disinflationary effect of AI productivity is an effective counterbalance to irresponsible money creation.

Ten-year yields liked, but didn’t love, the inflation data. Yields went from 4.6% down to a low of 4.52% before bouncing back. The reason is probably the nagging worry that we’re moving toward a point where overspending becomes a real concern. Wars are expensive. A lot of bonds to be sold.

Let’s be clear, oil and a possible return of inflation aren’t the only things to fret about. Micron (MU) rallied 300% in three months, up to a market cap of $1.2 trillion at its late June highs, only to give back a big chunk of that over the next two weeks. IBM lost 25% of its value in a day. I know we’re all aware of that, but it’s worth repeating. 25% in a day. This isn’t some highly volatile startup; it’s a blue-chip, old-school American stalwart. When things start to get crazy, I start to get more cautious. There’s no law saying a rotation with broadening market breadth has to be seamless and without incident. From a strictly fundamental standpoint, I still favor the S&P and Russell over the Nasdaq. In May, the top 7 stocks made up 35% of the S&P’s market cap. That’s never happened before, not even close. Twice before it reached 26% (1980 and 2000), but never above 30%. For reference, 35% was the May high before dropping to 32%, and it has now crept back to 32.5-33%. It doesn’t have to move consistently in one direction. As a matter of fact, it’s probably better if it doesn’t.

Lastly, it’s important to remember that corrections can happen with price or time. At its July 17th lows, the Nasdaq was back at May 6th levels. Is two and a half months a significant sideways correction? Some would say yes, but at unfilteredinvestor.com we have Mike and Bobby’s technicals to give us clearer answers than just gut feel.

Most of the time I write about risk or macro themes in this space. This one’s different. This is a genuinely exciting development, and I want to walk through why.

What’s Actually Launching

CME announced the plan on June 30, with July 27 as the target date. The initial lineup: 55 standard-sized contracts and 22 Micro-sized contracts, drawn from the S&P 500, Nasdaq-100 and Russell 1000. Names confirmed so far include AAPL, MSFT, AMZN, GOOGL, META, NVDA, TSLA, MU, PEP and SPCX.

Standard contracts control 100 shares. Micros control 10 shares — a 10x scale-down. If you want to scale into a position instead of risking it all at one price, or size a hedge more precisely than a 100-share increment allows, that’s what the Micro is built for. Every contract is cash-settled. No physical delivery, no share transfer. At expiration, the contract settles against the official closing price of the underlying stock on its primary listing exchange, and that’s it.

The listing cycle follows the same quarterly pattern as /ES and /NQ: March, June, September, December, with two nearest contract months listed at any given time. Trading terminates at 3:00 p.m. CT on the third Friday of the contract month. Tick size is $1.00 per 0.01-point move on the standard contract and $0.10 per 0.01-point move on the Micro.

Trading hours mirror the rest of the equity index complex: nearly 23 hours a day, Sunday through Friday, 5:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. CT, with a 1-hour daily maintenance break. Some of these stocks already trade pre-market and after-hours on their home exchanges — but even those windows have gaps overnight. The future on the stock doesn’t. That means you can react to news on Nvidia or Apple in the middle of the night, instead of waiting for the next pre-market opportunity.

Why Now

The backdrop matters here. CME's own 2026 numbers show combined equity derivatives average daily volume running at 8.6 million contracts, with average open interest of 11.7 million. The equity futures side alone accounts for 7.2 million of that volume, up 12% year-over-year, with record average open interest of 5.4 million. Equity derivatives demand isn't a story anymore — it's the baseline.

Retail and institutional traders alike have gotten more sophisticated over the past several years. 0DTE options went from a niche play to a mainstream one. Micro E-mini futures pulled a generation of traders into the futures market who never would have touched a full-size /ES contract. That sophistication built an appetite CME is now filling: something with more precision than a broad index future, and more simplicity than an options position (with a strike, an expiration, and decay working against every decision).

Single Stock futures sit right in that gap. Tim McCourt, CME’s Global Head of Equities, FX and Alternative Products, has framed it as giving clients a sharper way to manage single-name price risk without giving up the capital efficiency of a cleared, centralized market*. That’s a fair summary of what excites me about this and what should excite you.

The Core Advantages

Start with the advantage that matters most: capital efficiency.

Single Stock futures carry a regulatory minimum margin of 15% of notional value — a floor set by the CFTC and SEC, independent of any single stock’s day-to-day volatility. Compare that to a Reg T margin account, where you’re typically posting about 50% of the notional to hold a leveraged stock position, or a cash account, where you’re posting 100%.

Here’s the math, using Nvidia as the example CME itself has used. Assume NVDA is trading at $200, the single-stock futures contract is priced at the same level, and you’ve got $20,000 to work with.

That $17,000 doesn’t have to sit idle. It can fund other positions, sit in T-bills, or serve as dry powder. That’s the capital efficiency argument in one table, and it scales — a desk managing single-name exposure across a book, or an individual trader sizing into a Micro contract, benefits from the same math.

A few other advantages stand out beyond the margin math:

• Shorting without the friction. No stock borrow, no hard-to-borrow fees, no locate requirement. Going short is exactly as easy as going long.

• Operational simplicity. Cash settlement means no share delivery and no corporate-action bookkeeping to manage personally — CME handles that at the contract level.

• An elegant complement to index futures. You already know how to trade /ES and /NQ. Adding a name-specific single stock future position — long the index, short a name you think lags, or the reverse — is a natural extension, not a new skill set.

• A linear payoff. No premium bleeding off, no theta working against you while you wait to be right. P&L moves dollar-for-dollar with the stock, scaled by the multiplier.

Realities Worth Mentioning

None of this comes free, and I’d rather be straight about it than oversell it.

Liquidity on day one won’t match a stock that’s traded for decades. That’s true of every new product CME has ever launched, including /ES back in 1997 and the Micro E-mini contracts more recently — both went on to become some of the most liquid products in the world, but neither showed up that way on day one. Liquidity builds with participation, and participation builds with usefulness. Expect the largest names — Nvidia, Apple, Tesla — to develop volume first, with the rest of the list following as market makers and institutional desks get comfortable.

Leverage cuts both ways. A 15% margin requirement means a smaller move in the underlying stock produces a proportionally larger move in your account. That’s not a reason to avoid the product — it’s the entire point of a futures contract — and it’s manageable with the same position sizing and stop discipline you’d apply to any leveraged position. This is responsible leverage through education and discipline, not leverage for its own sake, and that distinction is what separates traders who last from traders who don’t.

Expiration and rollover are part of the deal. These are quarterly contracts, not perpetual positions. If you want to carry NVDA exposure past the third Friday of the contract month, you roll the position forward — standard futures hygiene, the same muscle memory anyone trading /GC or /CL already has.

The Micro contracts exist specifically to solve the accessibility question. A 10-share multiplier lets a trader scale into a position, test a thesis, or manage size around an earnings date without committing to a full 100-share equivalent.

Comparing the Three Ways to Get Exposure

Each of these tools still has a place. Stock ownership makes sense if you want dividends and voting rights on a long horizon. Options make sense if you want defined risk or you’re expressing a volatility view rather than a purely directional one. But if what you want is precise, capital-efficient, easily reversible directional or hedging exposure to one name, this is a better-designed tool for that specific job.

Who This Is Built For

Institutions get a cleaner hedging tool. A desk that needs to hedge single-name exposure inside a broader equity book, or finance a concentrated position more efficiently than through securities lending, now has a cleared, capital-efficient way to do it.

Active traders get a new way to express a view overnight, around earnings, or in a relative-value trade — long the Nasdaq via /NQ or /MNQ, short a single name you think lags the group or may miss on earnings, all inside the same futures account and margin framework.

Retail traders get an on-ramp through the Micros. If you’ve already made the jump to /MES or /MNQ, a Micro Single Stock future on a name you follow closely isn’t a big leap. Same account, same margin logic, same broker relationship — just another line in your trading journal.

There’s also a potential basis-trading angle here once liquidity builds — worth its own conversation down the road, not something I’ll get into until the basis actually develops.

Bottom Line

This is a well-designed launch. CME isn’t reviving the single-stock futures product that fizzled out in the U.S. two decades ago — it’s building a modern version, engineered for a market that already trades index futures, Micros, and 0DTE options at record volume. The capital efficiency is real, the operational simplicity is real, and the fit alongside products traders already use is real.

Liquidity will take time to build, and leverage demands the same discipline it always has. Neither of those is a reason to sit on the sidelines — they’re reasons to prepare. Read through CME’s FAQ at cmegroup.com/ssf, run a few scenarios through CME’s trading simulator before you go live, and think through where a Single Stock future might replace — or complement — a position you’re already managing with stock or options.

This is a real expansion of the toolkit, and I’ll be trading it myself as soon as the liquidity’s there. -Bobby Iaccino -

^{* (CME Group press release, June 30, 2026)}

I know — this isn’t markets. We spend most of our time here and on The Unfiltered Investor talking about stocks and commodities, active investing, and what’s actually moving prices. But if you’ve listened to the show for any length of time, you know we go off-script on health and wellness every now and then. This is one of those times.

This one actually started at my nephew’s wedding. My cousin was there — she’s eco-conscious, legitimately thoughtful about it, not performative — and she asked me how I lost the weight. When I told her it was centered around eating beef, she came at me hard. Started laying out the case for almonds as a protein source over beef, the environmental angle, the whole thing. I get it. She cycles in and out of plant-based eating when she’s trying to drop weight herself. I’ve watched the pattern for years. It usually doesn’t work. And when it does work, the weight comes right back. So instead of going back and forth at a wedding reception, I told her I’d write it up. Here’s my answer, with the numbers behind it.

Before I get into it: what I’m sharing about my own results is anecdotal. My wife and I lost a combined 65 pounds over 2 years eating this way — she dropped 35, I dropped 30. No calorie-counting apps. No meal prep spreadsheets. No injections. Best of all. No salads. We ate mostly beef and the results were consistent. That’s our experience. But some of what I’ve included here isn’t just personal — the research on satiety hormones, nutrient bioavailability, and water use is real, and I’ve linked the sources below. Draw your own conclusions.

1. Satiety: Beef Ends the Conversation

A solid serving of beef fills me up and I’m done. Not “done until I start thinking about food again in 90 minutes” — actually done. Hours pass and I’m not thinking about snacks. That’s the game-changer for weight loss. When hunger stays quiet, your calorie deficit takes care of itself without a willpower battle.

Almonds are a different story. They feel fine going down, but hunger comes back faster. And because they’re calorie-dense, you can eat a significant amount before realizing you’ve gone sideways on your intake. To hit even a comparable protein load, you’re looking at close to a pound of almonds — and that volume still doesn’t produce the same lasting fullness.

2. The GLP-1 Connection — Natural Ozempic Without the Needle

GLP-1 (glucagon-like peptide-1) is the hormone that Ozempic and Wegovy are synthetically replicating. It slows digestion, reduces appetite, improves blood sugar response, and extends the feeling of fullness. You know the drug. Here’s what most people don’t know: food triggers your body’s own GLP-1 production.

High-protein meals — specifically from animal sources like beef — are among the most effective natural GLP-1 triggers. A 2013 study published in Obesity found that GLP-1 and PYY levels were significantly higher after a high-protein breakfast than after high-carbohydrate or high-fat meals. ^[1] Almonds stimulate some GLP-1 release too, but the effect is milder and shorter-lived. Beef produces a stronger, longer-lasting signal. Obviously nowhere near what the injections deliver, but real enough to make a difference across days and weeks. That’s a big part of why the hunger stays away longer.

3. Nutrition Per Calorie — Beef Is Doing More Work

A pound of beef delivers roughly 78g of complete, highly bioavailable protein — the kind your body actually absorbs and uses efficiently. It also comes with B12, heme iron, zinc, and creatine. ^[2] That combination matters for weight loss because muscle retention is what keeps your metabolism from tanking when you’re in a caloric deficit. You want to lose fat, not muscle. Beef supports that.

Almonds have real nutritional value — magnesium, vitamin E, fiber, and healthy fats. Nothing wrong with them. But there’s no B12, absorption rates on some nutrients are lower due to phytates, ^[3] and you need more volume to approach comparable protein. More volume usually means pairing with other foods, which adds up fast.

4. Water Use — The Story Is More Complicated Than It Looks

This one’s for her specifically. The blue water footprint — irrigation from surface water and groundwater — for almonds is actually higher than most people assume. A peer-reviewed study using California almond data found a blue water footprint of roughly 5,290 liters per kilogram of almonds, which works out to approximately 575 gallons per pound. ^[4] Beef comes in at roughly 250 gallons per pound in the mid-range estimates. The “almonds are better for water” narrative is more complicated once you isolate blue water — the scarce kind — versus total water that includes rainfall. Something worth knowing before the argument gets made.

On Plant-Based and Weight Regain

I’ve watched her cycle in and out of plant-based eating for years and the pattern is consistent — weight comes off, then comes back. Turns out the research reflects that experience. A review published in Frontiers in Nutrition noted that long-term data on compliance to plant-based diets and weight regain are “still largely lacking,” and that weight regain was observed in nearly half of the weight-loss studies reviewed. ^[5] That doesn’t mean plant-based can’t work. It means the sustainability piece is the real problem, not the initial weight loss.

Bottom Line

Almonds aren’t bad. They’re a legitimate food. But they’re not my weight-loss tool, and the data backs that up. Beef delivers a stronger GLP-1 response, better nutrient density, superior bioavailability, and longer-lasting satiety. Combined, those factors make a caloric deficit easier to maintain without grinding through it.

65 pounds between my wife and me over 2 years. No injections. No obsessive tracking. Beef as the foundation. It’s not complicated — it’s just how our bodies responded. That’s our anecdote. The research linked below is yours to evaluate.

One More Thing

I’m not here to debate anyone. If you don’t eat meat for ethical reasons — if cruelty to animals is your line and you won’t cross it — I respect that completely. That’s a principled position and I have no argument with it. This wasn’t written to convert anyone or win an argument about lifestyle choices.

I wrote this because someone pushed back hard at a wedding and I think the data tells a different story than what she was arguing. That’s it. You do what works for you. I’ll do what works for me.

What I can tell you is that I’m 3 months away from my 60th birthday and I’m at my college freshman weight, with more muscle than I had then. That’s the only endorsement I’ve got.

Sources

[1] van der Klaauw AA, et al. “High protein intake stimulates postprandial GLP1 and PYY release.” Obesity, 2013. onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.20154

[2] USDA FoodData Central / Nutrient Equivalence of Plant-Based and Cultured Meat (MDPI Nutrients, 2025). ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12735960

[3] Ibid. Plant-based foods contain anti-nutrients such as phytates that reduce bioavailability of iron and zinc compared to meat sources.

[4] Marston L, et al. “Water-indexed benefits and impacts of California almonds.” Ecological Indicators, 2018. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X17308592

[5] Jardine MA, et al. “Plant-based diet for obesity treatment.” Frontiers in Nutrition, 2022. frontiersin.org/journals/nutrition/articles/10.3389/fnut.2022.952553

This week, one recommendation was stopped out for a full loss, and two for small losses. FactSet Research Systems (FDS) traded below its stop on Tuesday, so that position has been closed. We will look for new entries. Dover Corporation (DOV) closed below $219.95, stopping us out at $219.83 for a small loss. We’ll also look for reentry opportunities there. Take-Two Interactive (TTWO) was triggered on a buy stop at $221.09, but then closed below that same level on Friday. We exited at $220.45, also for a very small loss.

The biggest result of the week came from Monster Beverage (MNST). Rather than exiting portions of the trade at the three targets provided on the way up, the entire position was exited at a price above our third target on a huge gap higher, producing a significant upside result and a profit that more than offset the week’s small stop-outs.

– Bobby –

For the full newsletter with trade ideas, got to: www.theunfilteredinvestor.com

JIM’S THREE CENTS -

Apparently, the fears of an imploding labor market were overblown. The latest BLS print came in at 115,000 jobs created, the second consecutive beat, and it appears to have given us a reprieve from the stagflation fears that gripped markets five weeks ago. The market’s read is simple: no stagflation, no problem. I mostly agree, with a few caveats.

The quality of the jobs being created is a little suspect. Heavy on health care. Heavy on couriers. Hard-charging parents who just wrote a six-figure check for private college tuition probably aren’t thrilled that their kid landed a delivery route. Hopefully, that’s just me doing my job, which is to find the cracks. But it’s worth noting.

The best case from here is a labor market that stays strong enough, combined with some resolution on Iran. More on that in a moment. Outside the labor market, the broader economy looks fine, maybe better than fine. Tax relief on the personal side and deregulation on the corporate side are real tailwinds. The rise in gas prices probably offsets a chunk of that refund check, but at least there’s something cushioning the blow. I’ll take it.

The BLS number wasn’t the only bright spot this week. ISM data also showed resilience. On balance, I’m bullish on the economy.

This week, Bob and I both spoke at a conference in Palm Beach. His key point: even with a full resolution of the Iranian conflict, the new floor for oil is probably around $77. That may not be the disaster it sounds like. Elevated prices should incentivize producers globally to ramp up. Bob’s view, and I share it, is that we’re roughly a year away from a potential oversupply situation. The UAE’s exit from OPEC makes that case even stronger. They’re currently producing around 2.5 million barrels per day against a capacity closer to 4 million. If they push toward that ceiling, others will follow to compete. Cheap oil is coming. It’s just not coming overnight.

Now, here’s something we need to worry about. Actually, “worry” is probably too strong a word, so let’s call it something to watch.

On April 30th, the Bank of Japan intervened in currency markets, pushing the yen up by roughly 2% in a single session. More than a week later, it held most of that move. The yen is still a beaten currency, down about 50% against the dollar over the last 15 years, but this flash of strength deserves attention.

For years, the yen has been the world’s funding currency. Institutions borrow in yen at low rates, sell those yen for dollars or another currency, and deploy that capital into higher-returning assets. That’s the carry trade. The traditional assumption was that this flow supported U.S. Treasuries, since that’s where the dollars often ended up. This time around, the evidence points to a meaningful portion of yen carry going into tech stocks instead.

The risk is this: there’s a level, probably considerably higher than where the yen sits today, where short yen positions become too painful to hold and have to be covered. If that happens, you could see a knee-jerk selloff in both bonds and tech. It’s not a pressing concern right now. But it’s a real vulnerability, and it should be on your radar. Be ready to pivot…and that’s my 3 cents. – Jim –

MIKE’S KEY TECHNICAL LEVELS

KEY THOUGHTS -

We have focused on stocks and the overbought levels for the past couple of weeks. That remains true; now both daily and weekly cycles are at tops, and overbought conditions persist. We are still patiently looking for a pullback, or at least a pause in the rally, to relieve some of the overbought conditions, and then we’ll reassess the situation and revise our stock forecast. In the meantime, we are shifting our focus to the Bloomberg Commodity Index. You can track this index on many platforms using the [BCOM] symbol. The weightings and components of the BCOM index are in the chart below. Currently, the BCOM index has broken through the highs set in 2022 when inflation was at elevated levels. Last week, the BCOM closed strongly above a major support level. Before you assume this is just due to the rally in crude driven by the ongoing conflict in Iran, note that the index broke above a very key resistance level as far back as October 2025 and has been in a strong rally ever since. Energy accounts for close to 30% of the index; however, precious and industrial metals account for 34.5%. Copper recently broke above a key resistance level, and both Silver and Gold, which remain well off their January highs, are showing signs of life and might attempt to test key resistance levels. Grains, which make up slightly over 21% of the index, are also showing signs of life. Soybeans recently tested a key resistance level; Wheat broke above short-term resistance and is retesting a key support level; and Corn is currently testing its weekly 200 SMA and a key resistance level. Also, live cattle futures have broken out to new all-time highs. There is plenty of potential upwards pressure on the index, and we could see a continued break higher in the coming weeks. From a technical perspective, the BCOM has a potential weekly double top pattern, so a pullback or at least a pause in the rally would not be out of the question. This pause/pullback could also set up a massive monthly cup-and-handle pattern. If this pattern were to trigger, the next major target area, as predicted by the cup-and-handle, is the index highs from 2011. This is more than 25% above the current level. We bring this up because stocks remain at very elevated levels, and if money starts rotating out of the stock market and into commodities over the next few months, there will be plenty of opportunities to ride the commodity train higher. A continued run higher in many of these commodities will also put upward pressure on inflation measures, and longer-term yields could continue to rise. Reminder: the cup-and-handle pattern is not yet fully formed and has not triggered. This is something that we will be watching over the coming weeks, and we will keep everyone advised.

-MIKE-

Key Thoughts -

The NQ and ES continued higher this week after a sideways correction, and the RTY retested its April 21st high area. Entering next week, the ES, NQ, and RTY are all approaching weekly potential cycle tops and remain in very short-term overbought conditions on a weekly basis. In addition, this rally has focused on the mega-caps and has not been broad-based. The SPY/RSP ratio (the ratio between the cap-weighted SPY and the equal-weighted RSP) has not only completed its double bottom pattern but also closed above the 62.5% harmonic, which signals we could still see some more imbalanced price action favoring the mega caps in the near future. The next pullback from overbought conditions (and the rally that follows) will be very telling. Will the market begin a broader-based rally, or will the bounce remain more concentrated in the large-cap stocks? A more sustainable rally would need to be broad-based, while a cap-weighted rally would lead to more instability. Also of note, as of the writing of “Key Thoughts”, the RSP has not yet closed at new highs, while the SPY has well surpassed its prior highs.

This next pullback will be key to seeing whether the ES and NQ can remain above prior highs on a weekly closing basis, or whether those prior highs will not support the ES and NQ on the retest. Either way, we will have more information on the stability of this rally once the ES, NQ, and RTY drop out of extremely overbought conditions.

-MIKE-

Unfilteredinvestor.com

Early Saturday morning, the U.S. and Israel launched a massive coordinated military operation against Iran — dubbed “Operation Epic Fury” — targeting senior leadership, nuclear infrastructure, military command centers, and intelligence assets simultaneously. Three separate gatherings of top Iranian officials were struck at once. By midday, President Trump confirmed what Israeli officials had been saying for hours: Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s Supreme Leader since 1989, is dead.

Here’s what makes this unlike anything we’ve seen before. The target wasn’t a head of state. It wasn’t a defense minister or a general. It was a man his followers considered the living voice of God on earth — the final word on every matter, spiritual and political, in the Islamic Republic. You can replace a president. You can replace a prime minister. You cannot replace a figure whose authority is rooted in divine interpretation. That’s not a leadership transition. That’s an existential crisis for an entire religious and political order.

Iran’s response was predictably chaotic. Tehran fired over 100 ballistic missiles and nearly 200 drones at U.S. military bases spread across Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia (and of course, Israel). And here’s the twist — those countries are now effectively part of the coalition, whether they formally signed up or not. Iran attacked them, not the other way around. Saudi Arabia, which was already accelerating oil exports ahead of the strikes, has condemned the attacks in the strongest possible terms and explicitly reserved the right to respond militarily. When Iran hits Riyadh, you’ve made your coalition for them.

And for anyone spending energy on the politics of whether Trump should have gone to Congress for a declaration of war — set that aside. The last time Congress formally declared war was in 1942, against Romania, Bulgaria, and Hungary during World War II. Korea didn’t have one. Vietnam didn’t have one. Neither did Afghanistan or Iraq. This is hardly a new precedent, regardless of which side of the aisle you sit on.

For crude oil, expect a rally when markets open Sunday night — early estimates put the move at $3 to $5 a barrel, possibly more. But the ceiling is genuinely unknowable right now. The Strait of Hormuz — the artery for roughly 20% of global crude supply — is reportedly “practically closed” with tankers stacked up on both sides. Iran pumps about 3.3 million barrels a day, but its real leverage has always been geographic, not volumetric. That said, Saudi Arabia’s positioning here could actually complicate the bullish case for oil. If Riyadh doubles down on its alignment against Iran, an OPEC+ production increase that was already being floated could get announced alongside assurances that the Gulf states stand ready to offset any Iranian supply disruption. That’s the paradox — this could end up being more bearish for prices than the headlines suggest.

Trump made clear the campaign is far from over. “The heavy and pinpoint bombing will continue, uninterrupted throughout the week, or as long as necessary,” he posted Saturday. That open-ended timeline is where markets start getting uncomfortable in a broader sense. Short term, aerospace and defense names should see a bid. Beyond that, all bets are off.

I’ll be honest — I was fully prepared to write today’s piece about Nvidia. The company absolutely crushed earnings, and then did something strange: the stock barely moved post-close and then actually fell from there. That counterintuitive reaction was a story worth telling. Then this happened. Nvidia’s earnings are a footnote now.

As for our three trade recommendations this week — they’re all double bottom setups, which means the market has to recover before we even think about entering. I genuinely couldn’t be more comfortable with that right now. In environments this uncertain, you don’t bottom fish. You don’t know where the bottom is. You let the market show its hand first, and you trade the move back up. That discipline matters most when everything else is telling you to panic. Stay patient.

• Bobby Iaccino

But there are two small problems. First, many of those new jobs came from health care, private education, and social services. All three are heavily tied to government spending. So while technically part of the private sector, they don’t reflect an economy accelerating through organic consumption and independent growth.

Second, nobody believes the data anymore. Lucy has pulled the football away too many times for us not to be wary of government statistics, particularly this specific series. For two years in a row, the revisions have been massive, showing that earlier reports were way off. At the very least, I would say that the trading world pays more attention to ADP and JOLTS than it used to, and both those numbers were soft.

Oddly enough, we now trust CPI data far more than NFP. I can’t fully explain it, but I feel the same way. The CPI numbers were excellent. A 2.4% year-over-year reading is almost too low for a Fed that seems comfortable monetizing away public debt. My argument for the past 18 months has been that when they say “2%,” they really mean closer to 2.7%. I base that on the long-term average that the chairman has referenced on several occasions.

So why didn’t equity markets rip? There are two reasons. The first, as we said before, is mistrust of the numbers. The second is that the S&P is butting up against a huge psychological level. Before I go on, I’ll say that I make no trades unless the technical analysis that Mike, Bob, and I do at UnfilteredInvestor.com dictates it. That being said, you’d have to be blind not to see the obvious psychological level that 7,000 is. It’s as if the market is telling us, “Yeah, things are fine, and the story is compelling, but we’re going to need a little more oomph to kick us through that 7000 level.” In short, we seem to be on our way to that point, but there’s still some confirmation needed. When we look at Mike Arnold’s analysis, you’ll see that he’s identified above 7020 on a closing basis as the first sign of a breakout. But I’ll leave the specifics to him.

On Tuesday’s “Futures Edge,” we had Tracey Shucart on to discuss energy markets. Most of you know that crude has been my big idea for 2026, and (thank God) she agrees. My take was more about an accelerating domestic economy, while hers was more about aging wells nearing their golden years, and a long period when crude traded at levels that were not a huge tailwind for exploration and expansion. One thing we did agree on is that we both loved “Landman.” It’s a genius show, and the Billy Bob Thornton character actually gives a great explanation as to why there’s a sweet spot for oil prices. It’s probably around 70 dollars. One more thing I’d mention about crude is that its underperformance of the last three years was against a dollar that was cratering against most other commodities. In real terms, crude has gone way lower than it appears. Side note: If you live in a state like Illinois, don’t expect to see any real savings at the pump. They will take those savings through an increased gas tax. Illinois hiked its gas tax from 19 cents a gallon a few short years ago to 48 cents now. Your money is their money, and that’s the end of the discussion.

Lastly, gold and silver. The ratio between the two collapsed from 104 back in May to a low of 47 two weeks ago. Silver had been way over its skis and needed a come-to-Jesus moment. Right now, I’d favor gold over silver because of ongoing central bank buying. I expect that ratio to drift back toward 80, which is roughly in line with the post-2020 average…that’s my 3 cents… -Jim

-

When 77% of NFL fans speak no Spanish and 89% know maybe two words tops, booking an entirely Spanish-language performance is a mismatch. Bad Bunny’s a massive artist—I get it. But his decision not to perform a single song in English for the biggest stage in American sports created a show most viewers couldn’t connect with, myself included.

I can’t engage with lyrics I don’t understand. My wife—a former competitive Latin dancer who actually loves this music—turned to me afterward and said “well, that was underwhelming.” Even someone predisposed to enjoy it found it flat.

For contrast: my all-time top halftime show is Prince. Rounding out the top five: Dr. Dre with Snoop, Eminem, Kendrick Lamar, and Mary J. Blige; Michael Jackson; U2; and Springsteen. Special mention to Bruno Mars with the Red Hot Chili Peppers in 2014. Those performances connected because the audience understood what was happening.

The Super Bowl has surpassed the World Series as America’s signature cultural event. It should reflect that. I love soccer—I watch constantly, especially during the World Cup. But I don’t expect FIFA to cater to Americans during international tournaments. The reverse shouldn’t be controversial.

The only moment I connected with during Bad Bunny’s performance was “God Bless America”—the only moment I’m certain I connected with, since I couldn’t understand anything else.

We’ll get back to economics, finance, and policy in the next few posts. But I had to write this. -Bobby-

-This is Jim's article from the opening of this week's Unfiltered Investor newsletter, which can be found here: Theunfilteredinvestor.com. This week’s issue was 22 pages of analysis, levels, and trade ideas.-

On Sunday, news broke regarding the President’s attempt to fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook. The market’s initial reaction was a decline in the dollar. This makes sense in that it appears to be another step in Trump’s attempt to reshape the Fed into the dovish entity that he prefers. Stocks should like a weaker dollar and a more dovish Fed no? Maybe not if it sends a global message of banana republic bullshit. I’m not saying that’s what happened, but I am saying that stocks were reluctant to rally, so it may be something we should be concerned about.

At The Futures Edge: Finance Unfiltered, we’ve been hammering one point for months: when Powell flips dovish—or actually eases—the ten‑year yield will hand him an instant grade: no spin, no lag, just the bond market’s verdict.

Think back to fall 2024. Between September and December, the Fed cut rates a full 100 basis points, and ten‑year yields screamed higher. That was the market’s way of slapping Powell’s hand—an unmistakable “failing grade.” Translation: inflation was still enemy number one, and the cut was a mistake.

This time looks very different. At Jackson Hole on August 22nd, Powell kicked the door wide open for a September cut—and ten‑year yields dropped. Of course, that’s the opposite signal. The bond market is saying, “Yes, the time is right.” To hell with tariff‑driven inflation, and to hell with an elevated PPI.

In last week’s note, we walked through why PPI has an inconclusive transmission to consumer prices. Sometimes it passes through, sometimes it doesn’t. And when it does, the lag can be significant. Maybe that lag buys us enough time for supply‑driven inflation solutions to take root.

As a side note, the dollar weakened sharply, while stocks, metals, and Bitcoin all ripped higher. Is that a conflicting signal? Maybe—but if I’m choosing sides, I’m siding with bonds.

The explanation for the risk‑asset surge is simple: markets are rallying not out of confusion but out of optimism. They may be signaling that things aren’t so bad after all, and that pro‑growth policy coupled with lower rates will be a tailwind for an accelerating economy. It’s been our thesis that the rocky transition period of 2025 would give way to better times in 2026. I’ll remain optimistic—but we’d be foolish not to watch for any sign of inflation’s return.

The “Woke” Market Effect

Powell’s Fed wasn’t the only interesting story last week. Thanks to headlines from Target and Cracker Barrel, we were reminded of the flood of “woke” initiatives that spread through corporate America from 2020 to 2024.

It’s not “political” to point out that being overtly political can drive customers away and dampen investor appetite for shares. There’s data to back this up. My personal opinion isn’t the focus here, but I’ll share it briefly—as it’s illustrative of what may be happening on a larger scale.

For years, I’ve avoided buying products from companies that use advertising to educate me on controversial issues or make me a better person. Even if I 100% agree with their message, that’s not what I’m paying for. If I go to a restaurant, I don’t want the waitress handing me a pamphlet about her preferred candidate; just smile and bring me my beer—and definitely not Bud Light.

Gillette was an early offender, telling us what a man should be—enough said.

At my own restaurant, Brandt’s of Palatine, Bud Light sales dropped more than 70% right after their controversial ad campaign—and they’ve never recovered. What’s interesting is that nobody at the bar talked or argued about it. There were no rants—just a quiet shift away from a brand that seemed to alienate a loyal customer base. It’s a lot easier to change your beer than to quit the NFL or abandon a core product you can’t easily replace.

The bigger point: if you’re going to go “woke,” your customer loyalty had better be rock solid to begin with. For hard data, look no further than TGT or NKE, both down over 30% the past five years while the S&P gained nearly 90%. Or consider Disney and Budweiser, which have spent half a decade trading sideways with almost no gains.

Finally—and this is my larger concern—the real risk is not that companies choose these campaigns on their own, but that they may have felt pressured by the government. If that’s the case, the problem is much bigger—and far more troubling.

Let’s talk about the most critical and least understood data point in finance. No, it’s not CPI or NFP. As a matter of fact, those numbers are just components of something much bigger. We are talking about R-star or R*, and it’s commonly referred to as the neutral interest rate. The neutral rate is the mythical, unknown interest rate that neither stimulates nor represses the broad economy. Think of it as the perfect RPM for your engine where you're getting maximum efficiency without overheating or stalling. The problem? Unlike your car's tachometer (apologies to all you “I’m not a car person” people), we can't actually see where R-star is. We can only guess based on how the economy responds to different rate levels.

For decades, economists pegged R* around 2.5% in real terms (that's after adjusting for inflation). Add in 2% target inflation, and you get a 4.5% nominal fed funds rate as "neutral." But that was the old world. The one before massive government debt, before demographic shifts, before technology disrupted every traditional economic relationship. That R-star is as outdated as an analysis of crude oil without looking at shale production.

Why am I bringing this up today? Because with the latest CPI print of 2.9% and core PCE at 2.8%, we're basically at target when you consider the lagged effects of shelter costs. More importantly, the economic data is screaming that we're way too restrictive. The Fed funds rate currently sits at 4.25-4.5%, but most every indicator I watch suggests neutral has dropped dramatically.

Here's my read: R-star in today's economy is probably closer to 0.5-1% in real terms, not the 2.5% the old models suggest. Why? Three massive structural changes:

1. Debt saturation - Government debt to GDP is over 120%. Corporate debt levels are near records. Consumer credit card rates are above 20%. High rates in this environment aren't just restrictive, they're crushing. Every basis point above neutral causes exponentially more pain than it did twenty years ago.

2. Demographic reality - We've got 10,000 baby boomers retiring every single day. Retirees are savers, not borrowers. They need income, not growth. This massive demographic shift naturally pushes R* lower. Japan wrote this movie already, and we're following the same script.

3. Technology's deflationary hammer - AI, automation, (Jim writes and speaks on this DAILY), global supply chains - they're all structurally deflationary. We're fighting forces that naturally want to push prices lower, and we're doing it with a fed funds rate from a different era.

Some argue the Fed may avoid cutting rates simply to prove it’s immune to political influence. Sometimes, real independence means taking the same course political leaders favor—not to appease them, but because objective economic analysis points to the same conclusion.

Just look at the evidence stacking up. Bank failures last year were at 5% rate. Commercial real estate faces mixed market conditions. Auto loan defaults are rising. Credit card delinquencies are accelerating. These aren't signs of an economy handling "neutral" rates. These are distress signals from an economy that's being strangled by overly restrictive policy. I am not predicting a recession, but a slowdown that, if we're not careful, could result in a recession sometime in 2027.

The latest PCE at 2.8%? That's success! We've won the inflation fight. But we're like a boxer who keeps punching after the bell. With real rates (fed funds minus PCE) at nearly 1.5-1.7%, we're probably 100-150 basis points above neutral. That's not fine-tuning; that's overshooting. No, I'm not on board with what Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said on Bloomberg this week. I don't believe the Fed should do a 50 basis point cut followed by a series of rate cuts, but 25 basis points to start a potential series leading to a total of 75 basis point of rate cuts is what I'm prescribing.

Here's what worries me the most: The lag effect. Monetary policy works with a 12-18 month delay. Some have suggested that lag has shrunk closer to 6 to 12 months, but that's still a lag. If it's still 12-18 months, then the full impact of having rates at 5%+ hasn't even hit yet. We're seeing cracks now, but the real damage comes later.

The Fed thinks they're being "data dependent," but they're looking at backward data and forecasting future inflation pressures based on tariffs. CPI and PCE tell you where you've been, not where you're going, and tariffs may deliver one-time price hikes, a few quarters of inflation that then slows, or no inflation at all. The forward-looking indicators are all flashing a slowdown. When you're above R*, that's exactly what you get.

Trading this is straightforward. The Fed will cut, and they'll cut more than the market expects. Why? Because once they start cutting, the data will deteriorate faster than expected (it always does), and they'll realize neutral is much lower than their models suggest. We'll go from 4.25-4.5% to 3% faster than anyone expects.

The bond market gets this partially right - they're pricing in cuts. But they're not pricing in the magnitude of cuts needed to get to the new R-star. If neutral is really 2.5-3% nominal (0.5-1% real plus 2% inflation), we may need 150-200 basis points of total cuts just to stop being restrictive.

My bottom line is this: The latest CPI and PCE data confirm goods inflation has been conquered. Services inflation is still fighting, but it’s on the ropes. Meanwhile, the Fed funds rate sits 150+ basis points above any reasonable estimate of the new, lower R-star. The Fed needs to cut, not to stimulate, but just to get back to neutral. The longer they wait, the harder the economy will crash into the wall they've built.

Remember, in trading, being early and being wrong look the same - until they don't. The Fed's about to learn that being late with cuts when you're above R-star is far more dangerous than being early. Position accordingly.

JIM’S THREE CENTS

Last month, at The Unfiltered Investor, we seriously questioned the strength of the labor data. The ADP was outright trash, and the NFP seemed like perfumed trash dressed up by the excessive amount of non-productive government jobs. The zombies cheered the data, but we did not. Turns out we may have been on to something.

On Friday, we saw the latest NFP, and there was no hint of perfume in the data. Not only was the current headline bad, but the last three months’ worth of data were revised significantly lower. Does this mean Trump was right and that Powell should have been lowering rates? Of course it does. Perhaps the most alarming part of Friday’s events was the prospect of President Trump firing the director of the Bureau of Labor Statistics in response to the data. The left is screaming that it’s an authoritarian “kill the messenger” move to punish her after she revealed the deleterious economic effects of his unorthodox policies. The right is pointing out that the department has been dramatically overstating jobs for years, and these most recent mistakes have probably kept the Fed from giving the economy the rate cuts it needs. This is a high-stakes game. I side with swift changes within the department. Could Trump have framed it differently and made it seem more reasonable? Umm…yes. Trump does this thing where he intentionally makes reasonable decisions seem crazy and dictatorial in order to infuriate his opponents in hopes that, after the fact, he can make them look delusional and crazed. I hate it.

The market told us, in no uncertain terms, that an ease is appropriate. I’m not referring to the short end of the curve that immediately priced in close to an additional 25 basis point cut this year. I’m referring to the abrupt collapse of ten-year yields from 4.4% to 4.24% after the data. Back in September, upon the last cut to the Fed funds rate, ten-year yields shot higher. This was a clear signal that the market disagreed with the Fed and that the fear was still focused on a resurgence of inflation.

This time it’s dramatically different. The ten-year is saying “hell yes” to a rate cut at the soonest opportunity. Interestingly, this came the day after the higher-than-expected PCE report. Despite that, the bond market is saying forget inflation—we have bigger fish to fry at the moment.

The stock market, however, has a slightly different take. It seems like equities are saying, “You clowns are restricted to waiting for the September meeting not to look panicked.” That leaves a month and a half of rates being far too high for the current economic environment.

It’s a common misconception that “stocks like low rates.” The reality is that stocks like low rates if they can convince themselves that the rates are slightly lower than the economic conditions dictate. The opposite is also true. If rates are too high, stocks may struggle to reconcile this.

Prior to the employment data, I intended to write about the dollar and its potential resurgence. Of course, this trade has been called into question. If rates are going lower, the dollar should stay relatively weak. The outlying factor with the dollar is: if this year’s plunge was more about an unwind of the “buy America” trade, then the resurgent strength in the dollar may have legs and need to be contended with. We will know more on Monday and Tuesday. 100 in the dollar index is a big deal and should be a major inflection point.

Prior to Friday morning’s data, things looked pretty good. Big tech earnings were good. The most interesting takeaway is that the AI capex trade is accelerating. One of my main focuses (probably for years) will be to try and locate names that will benefit from the AI trade but haven’t been massively inflated. I know that’s easier said than done, but we have the advantage of having Bob and Mike on our team. The “tell” of the week was probably when AMZN posted good numbers and was rewarded with a beating. This suggests that there were too many comfortable longs in the market. This was a metaphor for the broader market as well. Complacency had crept in and made us vulnerable. My mantra has been to buy puts when nobody else wants them.

It would be derelict to not mention copper. Well, it wasn’t fun. As I had said after copper’s big run up, it was time to hedge. And I did, but only a little. I wasn’t expecting a 30% drop that felt like a prison love affair. These things happen, particularly when you have the human headline bomb as the president. We live and learn. AND THAT’S MY THREE CENTS. -JIM-

On Tuesday, the 22nd, a trade deal with Japan was announced. This was the biggest event of the week. The Nikkei soared, U.S. equities climbed, and the VIX dropped sharply. But perhaps the loudest sound was the silence from those formerly vocal economists who were so quick to opine. The Japan trade deal offers a few key takeaways. First, Japan ranks fifth among the U.S.'s import sources, but is historically significant for its high-end vehicles and electronics. Second, its location in Asia matters—this trade war has always been building toward a showdown with China, and aligning China’s neighbors adds both psychological and geographical pressure. Finally, the deal serves as a promising template for a potential agreement with the EU. This has been a clear win for the administration. No caveats needed. I’ve long contended that 2025 would be a tumultuous transition period and that 2026 would reap the benefits. It seems this period of adjustment has been more condensed than I anticipated.

Google reported earnings on Wednesday, the 23rd, which markets viewed positively. Many of you are aware that Google is a significant holding of mine, and I'd like to explain why. More importantly, the CIA knows why, too—along with everything else I’ve searched over the last decade. If I’m going to be surveilled, at least I’ll profit from it. Tesla’s earnings, however, disappointed. If the market could afford to have one big-tech miss, it would probably be Tesla, given the current turmoil surrounding Musk and, to a lesser extent, the electric vehicle sector. Next week is a big event week, and I’ll cover it in the upcoming look-ahead.

Gold, another significant holding of mine, is showing concerning signs. I don’t like the long wick down forming on the weekly candle and may hedge some of my longs. The fundamental story remains solid, but that doesn’t preclude a market-driven position adjustment.

Lastly, options on the S&P 500 are relatively cheap following this week’s volatility drop. I buy protection when others think it’s unnecessary. I’ve spent a decent amount on put options in SPY this week, hoping they won’t be needed. Sleeping easy matters. Have a great trading week. -Jim-

If you need some help with trade ideas, check out our newsletter at unfilteredinvestor.com

Every month, we face the same maddening cycle. ADP drops its private payrolls data two days before the official Bureau of Labor Statistics report. Markets react. Analysts scramble to adjust their predictions for Friday's non-farm payroll number. And every month, they get blindsided by massive divergences that make no sense.

June 2025 was a perfect example. ADP reported private payrolls lost 33,000 jobs, crushing expectations for a 100,000 gain. Two days later? BLS said total nonfarm payrolls added 147,000. A 180,000-job difference that left everyone scratching their heads.

Here's what most people don't understand: ADP and BLS have a 96% correlation over the past decade, but that statistical relationship completely breaks down month-to-month. The two series regularly deliver contradictory signals that whipsaw markets and confuse policymakers trying to read the economy.

Source: publicly available at https://www.advisorperspectives.com/ Note: I added trend lines and inserted last month's BLS nonfarm payroll estimate as a bright orange bar to deliberately highlight that this represents an estimate of the actual release. Advisor Perspectives published this chart before the official BLS release.

Why They Diverge

The problem isn't random noise—it's fundamental methodology. ADP captures weekly payroll data from 25 million workers. BLS surveys 122,000 employers representing a third of all nonfarm jobs. They're measuring different things during the same reference week.

ADP counts workers on payrolls whether they got paid or not. BLS focuses on who actually received a paycheck. During strikes, hurricanes, or other disruptions, these differences explode into massive divergences.

Federal Reserve economists proved this in a landmark 2019 study. Using advanced statistical modeling, they found that combining both data sources reduces measurement error by roughly 20%. Neither series tells the complete story on its own.

The Real Problem

Markets still treat ADP as a preview of BLS, despite ADP explicitly stating their report "is not intended to forecast the Bureau of Labor Statistics monthly jobs report." Old habits die hard, as Wells Fargo's Sarah House puts it, but ADP changed its methodology in 2022 specifically to stop trying to predict BLS.

The result? Monthly confusion as active investors react to ADP data that has zero predictive power for what's coming Friday.

The Bottom Line

These divergences aren't a bug—they're a feature. Having multiple independent measures of job growth makes our understanding of the labor market more robust, not less. But until markets stop expecting ADP to predict BLS, we'll keep getting whipsawed by data that measures different aspects of the same complex labor market.

The monthly dance continues, but now you know why the music never matches.

-Bobby-

Current Market Dynamics

The crude oil market finds itself in a particularly challenging position as we move through 2025. OPEC has continued to slash its demand forecasts, with the organization lowering its global oil demand growth projections for both 2025 and 2026 by approximately 100,000 barrels per day, citing escalating trade tensions as a primary factor. This trend represents a significant shift from earlier, more optimistic projections. At the same time, they have scheduled the complete eradication of their production cuts.

Tariffs and Market Impact

While conventional wisdom might suggest that tariffs create inflationary pressure, the reality for crude oil markets is more nuanced. The escalating trade tensions and proposed tariffs have actually contributed to falling oil prices, with benchmark crude trading near three-year lows around $70 per barrel. The tariffs are functioning more as economic disruptions (a tax) rather than price drivers, creating uncertainty that dampens overall demand rather than inflating commodity prices.

The Critical Canada-Brazil Connection

However, the one area where tariffs could potentially create genuine inflationary pressure is in crude oil supply chains, particularly given the recent escalation of trade tensions with both Canada and Brazil. Canada, which sends nearly all of its crude oil to the United States, faces ongoing tariff pressures with President Trump recently announcing plans to raise tariffs to 35% starting August 1. Meanwhile, Brazil has been threatened with a 50 percent tariff, which is particularly concerning given that Brazil's crude oil and fossil fuel exports to the US were worth about $8.8 billion in 2023.

This situation is troubling because crude oil represents the one commodity where the substitution effect cannot easily occur. Unlike manufactured goods or agricultural products, oil infrastructure is built around specific pipeline networks and refinery configurations. Canada produces about 4.3 million barrels of petroleum products that are exported to the US per day, with these flows dependent on established pipeline infrastructure. Additionally, both Canada and Brazil are expected to each increase petroleum liquids production by 0.3 million barrels per day through 2025, making these supply relationships even more critical.

The inability to quickly substitute oil sources means that any disruption to these established trade relationships could create genuine supply constraints and price pressures in ways that other commodities cannot. This makes the current trade tensions with these two major oil suppliers particularly significant for future energy costs.

Gold Market Analysis: Fed Policy and Consolidation Patterns

The Inflation-Fed Dynamic

If trade wars drive crude oil prices higher, as discussed previously, the implications for gold become particularly compelling. Rising oil prices would likely sustain inflationary pressures, potentially halting the current disinflationary trends that have emerged from the slowing economy caused by tariff uncertainties. This creates a unique scenario where the Federal Reserve remains focused on rate cuts, with market consensus suggesting Fed rates will finish 2025 at 3.86%, while the US administration also appears supportive of lower rates.

Fed Policy Constraints

The critical factor for gold's trajectory lies in understanding what could completely collapse gold prices - and that would be a Federal Reserve shift from neutral/easier policy to neutral/tighter policy. However, a potentially slowing economy due to trade tensions will likely keep the Fed from moving off neutral toward tightening, as policymakers remain cautious about economic growth risks. This environment creates a supportive backdrop for gold, as the relationship between interest rates and gold prices has historically been inverse, with lower rates typically supporting higher gold prices.

Technical Consolidation Patterns

Recent price action in gold demonstrates classic consolidation behavior that supports a continued bullish medium-term outlook. Over recent weeks, gold has moved from overbought to oversold conditions with a decline of only 4.8%, then back to overbought territory with a gain of less than 2.2% - this represents textbook sideways consolidation. Gold became heavily overbought when it touched $3,500 in April, leading to a rectangular consolidation pattern that has allowed the overbought condition to fully unwind, as shown by technical indicators like the MACD and RSI.

This type of sideways movement is healthy for sustained bull markets. J.P. Morgan Research maintains bullish forecasts with prices expected to average $3,675 per ounce by Q4 2025 and climb toward $4,000 by mid-2026, supported by continued central bank and investor demand. The fact that gold is demonstrating this consolidation pattern while maintaining its overall bullish structure suggests the medium-term uptrend remains intact, positioning the metal well for the next leg higher once the current consolidation phase completes. -

There have been a bunch of videos and articles over the last 12 to 18 months about how consumers are detached from the real economy, thriving right under their noses. People who pretend economics is a science and not a philosophy look at average folks complaining on social media platforms about how tough their lives have gotten as “misguided” and “not versed in the real economic data.” The only one I'll mention by name is Paul Krugman. Here are some headlines steeped in sarcasm by the worst example of a Nobel laureate in economics that I can think of:

Paul Krugman New York Times opinion September 7, 2023:

“I'm OK, but things are terrible.”

Paul Krugman New York Times September 19th, 2024:

“Inflation is down; disinflation denial is soaring”

OK, I lied about him being the only one I would name. Here's another headline by Scott Simon at NPR from October 12th of 2024:

“The numbers show the economy is doing great. Why isn't public perception

catching up?”

Do you smell elitism? Because I do…

Despite some positive economic indicators in the United States, many Americans remain pessimistic about the economy. The disconnect between official data and public sentiment has puzzled “experts” and impacts political dynamics as the 2024 election approaches.

Economic Indicators vs. Public Opinion

Some economic measures paint a relatively positive picture:

- Inflation has been declining (but is still positive, which means prices are still going up)

- Wages have been rising (but not enough to catch up to the jump in inflation post-pandemic)

- Unemployment remains low - and this is where we get to the center of the shrubbery maze.

Unemployment remains low, but what does the breakdown look like? If only 4.1% of active labor participants are out of work, why would Americans think the economy is bad? While it's true there’s an inflation hangover of about 20%, that wages have not made up for yet, consumers continue to spend. So, is the only explanation the “vbes?”

Of course not; the explanation is in the data. I started to look through the data in the last nonfarm payrolls release, took a break, and realized I had just gotten an e-mail from Jeffrey Tucker, Founder, Author, and President at Brownstone Institute and an opinion columnist for the Epoch Times. I realized he completed this task already and likely did it better than I ever could. Here's what he wrote in an opinion piece titled “Another Look at the Jobs Report” (emphasis added by me):

“The September jobs report was released last week, the last one before the election. Without knowing anything else, you could anticipate that there would be some hidden problem. An easy prediction is that the job creation numbers would be wonderful. Indeed they were, and the corporation press went wild with celebration before forgetting about the report by the afternoon…I started digging in right away, and immediately noticed several features. First, nearly half of the new jobs were part-time jobs. Second, government employment made up a substantial number of the new hires. Third, there has been no net job creation among native-born workers, but rather an overall loss of half a million, even as 1.4 million foreign-born workers had been hired…A site called Truflation reran the numbers minus government jobs. The result: the unemployment rate did not fall but rose. The sheer number of government jobs was far beyond my initial eye-balling. The result is not good. The real unemployment rate rose from 4.2 percent to 4.5 percent. Could it be that the government hired vast numbers of people solely to boost the employment numbers prior to the election? If so, that’s the first time I’ve seen this particular trick being deployed.”

The Reality

It's not vibes, whatever the hell that means. People are actually struggling, and they are still spending out of frustration. If you have to work that hard holding down two jobs or a full time job and a side hustle, you won't deprive your family or yourself of simple pleasures earned from you excessive labor. That's why credit card delinquencies are up, and credit card debt is rising. Yes, it's true they have not entirely moved up into the danger zone yet, but they are moving up, just like inflation is not still in the danger zone. However, prices are still rising. Until you see a “-“ sign in front of your monthly inflation numbers, don't let anyone tell you (politician, family member or friend) that prices are down because the growth rate of inflation is lower than it was 6 months ago. Imagine if you gained 60 lbs. / 6 months at a rate of 10 lbs. per month, and then the following three months, you only gained 2 lbs. per month for a total of 6 lbs. of weight gain. That's what this inflation situation equates to, and when you combine that with most people working two and sometimes three jobs and the government making up for the rest of the job gains, you end up with a bad economy for consumers. Not for stocks and not based on mostly government produced economic data. Based on what honest people are going through. The economy may look good on paper and for the stock market, but it doesn't reflect the reality for many Americans.

We often lose sight of the counterparty to the trade who's literally buying your dollars with their gold. That person wants a lot more dollars to part with their gold because they know the dollars are declining in value fast.

We can prove this thesis conclusively by looking at the dollar index. No, not that idiotic "dollar index" that measures the currency against the euro and the yen. What difference does it make how many yen you can buy? No one in this country gets a side hustle job because they need to buy more yen. Let's look at the actual dollar index. Let's call it "Jim's Dollar Index" (JDI). Yeah, I don't love the name either, but I'm just riffing here.

JDI is a measure of ten things that actually matter when pinpointing the dollar's value, spread across different areas and sectors. Five items are nutritional necessities: bread, beef, eggs, butter, and beer. Two of the items are common energy sources: gas and electricity. The remaining three are investable assets: the broad stock market, gold, and home prices. The AVERAGE price increase of these ten items is 40% over the last 3.5 years. This suggests that the dollar has lost 30% of its value, not that these things have rallied because of some speculative fervor.

Why does this matter?

Well, it matters quite a bit when we, the ordinary God-fearing traders and investors, are trying to spot speculative bubbles and markets poised for dramatic pullbacks. I don't see bubbles. There cannot be the "everything bubble" that some suggest exists. Bubbles are less about price and more about the size and quality of leverage buyers use. The real estate bubble didn't fully inflate in 2007 until massive leverage was spread across all socioeconomic levels of the economy. The scene in "The Big Short" where they interview the stripper with six homes? Those were real stories. It was full-on nuts. That's not what we are experiencing now.

The sad reality is that your gains in investment assets are not what they appear to be. We're mostly just treading water. However, if treading water keeps us afloat, well, I suppose we have to keep treading water.

The good news is that I believe these assets are pretty safe as long as we have a government that keeps spending like the drunkest sailor in the bar.  And yes, even a regime change probably doesn’t change the equation.

My trade: I will increase my longs if silver futures trade above $33.