Closing Bell - Closing Bell: 11/17/25

Episode Date: November 17, 2025

From the open to the close, “Closing Bell” and “Closing Bell: Overtime” have you covered. From what’s driving market moves to how investors are reacting, Scott Wapner, Jon Fortt, Morgan Brennan and Michael Santoli guide listeners through each trading session and bring to you some of the biggest names in business. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Brian, thanks so much. Welcome to closing bell. I'm Scott Wobner, live from Post 9, here at the New York Stock Exchange. This maker break hour begins with AI anxiety, and whether NVIDIA's earnings might calm the market this week or only frazzle it further. We'll ask our experts over this final stretch. I want to show you the scorecard here with 60 to go in regulation because it has gotten more red over the last 20 minutes or so. We are red, in fact, across the board, at least by 1% for the majors. There's the S&P down 1.3%.

You saw what the others are doing as well. Here's NVIDIA down 3% showing what were modest losses. Yeah, it's accelerating a little bit again as we look forward to those earnings coming midweek. Alphabet is a big winner. At least it was. It's still higher off the best levels, though, of the day. It is on news that Berkshire Hathaway has taken a large position in that stock. We'll closely follow that.

They're still selling. Berkshire is down there. Apple steak. Shares are red. the FT reporting today that a succession announcement could come as soon as next year. We'll dive in deeper on that story as well. Oracle's down again. That stock becoming a real flashpoint for the AI buildout concerns.

Look at it. It's down 3%. Banks, they're weaker as well after hitting record highs last week. We're watching private equity too because Blue Owl is a major decliner at this hour. We're going to have more on that story coming up in just a few. and of course we're watching Bitcoin, its sell-off continues. So almost everywhere you look, there are some green pockets here or there, but it is not a pretty picture on Wall Street today.

It takes us to our talk of the tape this critical week for your money and how much is really riding on it. Let's welcome in our guests. CNBC contributor Triverriots Adam Parker, Anastasia Amaroso, is the Partners Group chief investment strategist and Robin Hood, CIO, Stephanie Gild. It's good to have everybody with us. What is the market trying to figure out here?

I feel like this is like fear and greed at the same time. There's just so much polarization when I'm doing my meetings. If you even look at the M&A market, it's like a huge pipeline. People are trying to get stumped, but there's also restructuring's done. You look at the market people are buying really high beta, you know, kind of dreamy stuff, but they're also trying to get more defensive. So I feel, you know, look good in the last 24 hours. You've got big firms coming out with bold calls for the airport.

market and you've got really smart guys like good luck and you know saying we got a problem so it's just it to me there's just a lot of polarization and uncertainty and as you pointed out we've got a couple of data points this week uh you know september jobs and invidia's earning so it's a it's a weird time and i think the right move is um you know to try to find things that aren't correlated to the i i trade within the equity market am anesthesia of geoffrey gunlocked adam is is highlighting he says, quote, the health of the equity market in the United States is among the least healthy in my entire career. Talks about where he sees a next crisis coming from, but one can only surmise that he certainly is addressing how concentrated this market has been. But in your mind, what is the market cycling through here?

What is stuck in its brain that has it concerned? Yeah, I mean, I think Adam sort of hit the nail on the head, which is there's a lot of people out. there who are wondering whether we are in AI bubble, for example, if we are in the market bubble, and yet those same people will tell you we're not in one, and they continue to participate in this. And I think one of the questions right now in the mind of investors is valuations. So I assume what Jeffrey is talking about is, let's say, looking at the Schiller PE multiple, you look at it, it's about at 38, which is above where it was in 2000, but if you extrapolate the max seven stocks out of that, we're actually looking at a 28 times multiple.

which is below that 36 that we saw in 2000. So investors can then look at the Mac 7 and say, well, that's trading at 74 times Schiller PE. But Scott, I compare that 200 to 254 where it was in 2000. So that's what it was to see. That's what they worry about. But to me, Nvidia might actually be a positive data point for the market this week. We're going to see it.

We're going to have to wait a couple of days. Steph, you know, for every gunlock, there's a Pascarello of Goldman Sachs who says, my baseline view is still net positive. I'm not convinced this is the start of something rotten. The core of my argument, financial conditions are easy, U.S. growth is set to accelerate, and the flow of capital is supportive of stock prices. So in your mind, what are we battling here? I think it's two things.

One is that we are in a place where we haven't seen economic data in a while, and we don't know what it actually means. The only data that we had, for example, from a jobs perspective, was Challenger data. And actually, I don't think it looked that bad. It was 62% of layoffs this year come from the government and government-related things. I think the other thing we're battling with is what are rates going to do? And right now, I think we're in a moment that is very similar to what happened to Europe in post-2008, where they had to worry about countries like Germany versus Spain and Greece.

And now we have to worry about potential inflation from tariffs versus potential slowdown from real cost cutting that may be starting from the tech sector. So we're watching them, you know, all of the sectors, as we always do. financials are weak today. I mentioned the private equity names, the alt managers, for example. Leslie Picker has been following that for us, and she joins us now because we're flagging this move today, Les, in Blue Owl, which was one of the subjects of this Wall Street Journal piece this morning that people are talking about today, the title of which reads, Wall Street blows past bubble worries to supercharge AI spending frenzy.

This is a firm that has high hopes. around data center uh... its growth story is leverage to that story in in some ways and the market is uneasy about this because of what well the market is uneasy that the the marks uh... the mark to market that these private credit firms are sharing uh... may not be fully reflective at each point in time of what's actually

happening under the surface uh... and one thing i would add to Scott, in addition to the Wall Street Journal article, which is kind of feeding into this theme that people are already kind of nervous about with regard to just the overall debt loads and data centers. Another headline for Blue Owl today is one that's in the FT, which involves the merging of two funds. This is a little bit technical, but bear with me. So Blue Owls essentially merging one of its earliest private credit funds, Blue Owl Capital Corporation 2, which has about a billion dollars in assets. It's targeting wealthy individuals with a larger fund called

OBDC, which has 17 billion. Now, as a result of this, they're saying that essentially the smaller fund is going to be essentially facing losses of about 20%, because that is what is happening for OBDC, which is trading at a discount of 20% to NAV. So essentially, if the deal is approved by shareholders, the merging of the two would see some of those wealthy investors face about 20% losses there. Now, OBDC does have a higher dividend rate, so they would benefit from that. And there's also this 98% portfolio overlap, so it could save costs in the long run. This is also something that was highlighted in the earliest documents showcasing the fund, which said basically that it would seek a liquidity event within about three or four years of

completion of this offering. But those headlines kind of combined are just kind of perpetuating additional jitters around the private credit space today, Scott. You know, Leslie, we just had delivering alpha where you led a couple of conversations with some really smart investors. We referenced Jeffrey Gunlock's comments in a podcast a few moments ago, part of which read, quote, the next big crisis in the financial markets is going to be private credit. It has the same trappings as subprime mortgage repackaging had back in 2006. you, of course, got a bit of a different perspective, to say the least, from the interviews that you had on the stage where we both were the other day. Do you want to talk about both the concern that Jeffrey Gunlock may have and what you heard directly from those you talked to?

Yeah. So the concern that Jeffrey Gunluck has is one that's been pretty popular over the past few years, which I think is partially why the publicly traded alts that traverse in the private credit. space do tend to react to headlines like this very quickly. What the private credit managers would tell you in kind of their defense of their industry is that they have seen a cycle before. It just hasn't been at scale. And also the investors who are broadly invested with them. Now, obviously that's changed more recently with the advent of retail semi-liquid funds like the one I just shared with you. But broadly speaking, in the industry, you have a lot of institutional investors that they have their capital tied up for a long period of time, as opposed to a bank, which, you know, historically in a traditional sense, has depositors that serve as their basis for funding.

And they will say, private credit managers will say, oh, we're levered far less than even the traditional banking system. Therefore, if there is some sort of potential crisis or issue, it won't be as much of a problem. But we are, Scott, starting to see some concerns around just the way that the mark-to-market work. There was a bankruptcy and a home renovation company where a lot of the private credit managers who were invested in it, some of their BDCs, were marking the asset at 100%. And then a month later, it was essentially bankrupt. So that had everybody kind of scratching their heads as to why it went essentially from 100 to zero without any kind of notice given as the asset itself was deteriorating. You know, we're watching all these stocks, you know, the private credit players, ALTS managers, private equity, however you want to refer to them.

They're all under some pressure. We'll follow that. Leslie, thanks so much for that reporting, but there's Blue Owl, and that's Leslie Picker, of course, setting that up. I mean, what do you make of this? You know, two things. One, I think it is what you hit toward the end there. I think it's good luck to comments on private credit.

I think it's a concerns we had two, three weeks ago with Zion Bank and First Brands, It's a cockroach of sorts and people piling on that concept. I think these stocks also were crowded. I think people love the alts generally, and you've seen them sell off pretty sharply this quarter across the board, even the KKR Blackstone, et cetera, because people know there's a big M&A cycle. CEOs and CFOs are trying to hit that window. I think ultimately this will be pretty good entry points for the bigger alts. But whenever there's going to be a concern, these guys are going to sell off.

So, look, are you saying, is this a good at your point in a 12-month view? I think it is, but am I going to buy it for this week? Probably not. I mean, so it's, you know, I'm sure there's credence to what you're saying about the weakness in the market. Maybe there's some uneasiness about those who have hitched their wagon to the data center plays in a really big way, maybe all coming together at once. I think there are two things going on. First of all, it's been a little bit fashionable to worry about, you know, kind of excessive, growth and to worry about bubbles. And if you look at private credit, for example, this was an

asset class 10, 15 years ago that had about $600 billion in asset center management today, encompassing all the different strategies, about $1.7 trillion in AUM. And not only that, but you do have some middle market loans that are also now packaged into CLO's collateralized loan obligations. And so that's why you have these conversations about ratings. So it makes sense that it tracks the scrutiny. But I will say, Scott, that in order for this to be a systemic risk, You need to have a systemic shock event, like, for example, the Federal Reserve, for example, increasing interest rates. We had that happen in 2022, and yes, we have seen default rates rise, but you've not seen meaningful losses for private credit. And now we're on the other side of that, where the Federal Reserve is actually keeping rates steady or I think there's another rate cut.

So I actually think that's supportive. Can I just say one other quick thing, which is the data center trade, for example? Well, most of that should be actually financed through investment-grade corporate issues from the likes of Amazon. So I think those concerns are a little bit overblown. I'm just a little worried about the private. I actually think the issues we're starting to see a result of the fact that we had zero interest rates for so long.

And I just think it was like taking candy from a baby. And there's no way that all of those loans were like as strong as they could have been. And I'm actually really worried about it. I'm also worried about the data center thing because I think there was an article in the FT last week about how all of the bids that are going around are kind of influencing the real demand. And so I've actually been a little nervous about the markets in the short term, and we started increasing cash last week. Oh, you did.

In our Robin Hood Strategy's portfolio. It's all time horizon. I mean, data center capEx is $450, $500 billion. It's probably going to a trillion by 2027. I don't think Jensen's going to say anything that derails that path. The expectations are high, but I expect the growth to be high there. And, you know, Sure. There's always squishy stuff with pick loans and other stuff. Do you think it could be higher than 50% because that's actually like what is expected now for the next two years? Well, that's 100% cumulative in 18 months. And I think you look at what these guys say, $3,4 trillion, which could be crazy by 2030.

We all know the end of this cycle is going to be when they overbuilded the data center. We all want to be smart enough to recommend selling equity six to nine months before that. We just don't know. Is it Oracle CDS? Is it Open AI inthropics revenue? Is it units times pricing for the chip maker? We're all tracking the same things. But I kind of feel like of what you set up here, I'm kind of most with Tony P, which is despite the fact that all the things bug me that we're talking about, I think we're headed higher because we still have two pillars that are. I think it'll be a double-shed bed, and I think you'll see air productivity come through in the next 12 months, and that's probably going to offset skittishness. And I don't think valuation really matters at all for companies where they're growing this fast and margins are going up. So the private credit thing will matter. It'll waste some companies underneath with their concerns.

I just know me, like my advisor called me and said, though I want to invest in a 13% unlevered private credit product, my PA, and I was like, you know, no way, but it'll probably grow, like you said, $1.7 trillion. It'll probably be $3 or $4 trillion before the private credit. Who knows? Because every ultimate of the guys... I know, but I'm out of the Wall Street Journal story.

It's one quote really sort of stuck with me that I wanted to read for our viewers. It's from the co-founder of Blue Owl, Mark Lipschult. He's a frequent guest on this network. Quote, we're talking about numbers. He's talking about, you know, data centers and the build out and spending and all that. Quote, we're talking about numbers that are so large, even in the low cases. Does it even matter if you keep counting after you get to one trillion of capital expenditure in the next couple of years?

I just read that, and it makes me want to think of you dance until the music stops, right? And you never know if and when the music is going to stop. And maybe a place for an awfully long time and all of these people who are willing. way smarter on this issue than me, are going to be correct. But it makes you sit back and think because history often rhymes if it doesn't repeat. Bulls and bears make money. They get slaughtered. So that's what I'm worried about.

And I think one of the most important things you can worry about it, but you could also track things. And the things that you track, you track APEX, but you also track cloud revenues. You also track the revenues of the companies, Adam, that you mentioned, Open AI, XAI, and a myriad of others that are making money actually generating more revenue than they have before. So as long as the economy-wide adoption rate of artificial intelligence keeps on going up, it's at 10%, but if he keeps on going, the music doesn't stop. All right. Well, maybe we get, I don't know, a reality check. We get a calming effect from

NVIDIA this week when that company reports its earnings. I guess the question, Christina parts and levels, is what does the market need to hear from this company this week, especially on the call? Because that's what's going to matter most. Yeah. So the obvious is obviously a strong $2 billion beat in guidance that could validate, like you said, the entire AI trade and really be the catalyst for tech heading into your end. But here's to answer your question. If InVedia comes out too strong, it could actually amplify concerns that AI spending has gotten excessive and unfundable, which you guys were just talking about. We're already seeing anxiety around these massive data center

buildouts and whether credit markets can support it. Again, you guys are talking about that. But on the flip side, if it's just a modest beat, let's say it's just $2 billion, they're guiding $2 billion higher to, which I can't believe I'm just throwing out like that. But investors might read that as the first sign of growth, which is normalizing faster than expected. So what could actually move the needle is if CEO Jensen Wong provides more details on that order pipeline. At the GTC conference just in D.C. at the end of October, Jensen Wong showed hundreds of billions in cumulative orders stretching through next year. Many were not expecting that number on stage. So if an Invidia can give investors more clarity on the longer term backlog the way competitors like AMD just did with their.

one trillion dollar ten and broadcom talking about multi-year visibility that could shift sentiment to the upside for invidia shareholders okay yeah christina thanks for that setup that's perfect christina parts of no she's right it's goldilocks you need goldilocks on the hyperscale capax it can't be so hot people freak out it can't be so low people think the trades over i don't think jensen's first time at the rodeo so i assume he'll get this right uh on wednesday um and i i just think that when you look out it's all about horizon i have no idea how to make a thing three-week stock market call, and I know most people don't. But one thing I've learned through the last 20 years is I don't listen to fixed income guys talk to me about equity market

valuations, because they're always going to get bearish earlier than the equity guys, and they're always going to be too early. That I have experience in. So, you know, the alarms are out there, people are worried, but I think the bias is higher unless the path toward the Fed changes, or unless the path toward growth changes, and I don't think this week you're going to hear that. So I'll buy this. I'll buy this week. I don't think anybody, the past to the Fed might not be changing, but I think there's been some forks in the road, right? Related to where we might be between now and the end of the year and end of the next year. Why don't you give me the last point?

Yeah, I think for me, we've just been decided that I'm not going to be smart enough to know exactly when the music stops. So we've been reducing our exposure to some of these AI trade names, taking some profits and focusing on things like health care and aerospace. Rightfully so, because health care by leaps and bounds is having the best run, certainly, of the month. We'll see everybody soon. Good to see you. Thanks so much for being here. Adam, Anastasia and Stephanie, of course, the Bitcoin sell-off. That's intensifying as well. McKenzie Segalo is tracking that action for us. Hey, Mack. Hey, Scott. So Bitcoin breaking below 92K, down more than 27% since hitting its latest all-time high last month. Institutional buying, once a critical source of support propping up Bitcoin's price floor, it's not there. Those spot ETS just saw their worst week of outflows since February. RBC pointing out that Bitcoin isn't a safe haven. during market sell-offs. Instead, it's been moving in lockstep with the S&P 500. And Scott, crypto-pegged equities also taking it on the chin in trade today. Digital asset exchanges, Coinbase, Bullish, and Robin Hood, all plunging lower,

along with those digital asset treasury names like Tom Lee's Bitmine immersion and strategy. That was really the big trade of the summer, and retail has gotten burned as these names remain in sell-off mode. Add in force liquidations, shallow liquidity, and the fact that neither retail nor institutions are buying the dip, And that's part of why we're seeing Bitcoin continue to fall today. Yeah, pretty nasty looking chart. Mackenzie, thank you, McKenzie Sagalos. We're just getting started here.

Up next, life after Tim Cook, Apple reportedly stepping up its succession plan, which means Kovac and Kantowicz debate his milestones and his misses. We are live at the New York Stock Exchange. You're watching Closing Bell on CNBC. Welcome back. We're watching Apple shares today. On a report, the company is preparing for CEO Tim Cook to step down as early as next year. The financial time says Apple's board is, quote, intensifying preparations for a succession plan. Cook became CEO in 2011.

Joining me to discuss big technology founder Alex Kanchowitz and Steve. CNBC technology correspondent, Steve Kovac. It's great to have you both with us. Steve Kovac, I begin with you. I mean, investors can be only happy with what Tim Cook has done as CEO. The stock performance is up 1,900 percent, so that's one. Apple's market cap was $350 billion when he became CEO. Well, it's $4 trillion today. Yeah, you can't be disappointed with those numbers. And we can also talk about the wins that Cook has to get there. Look, Steve Jobs gave him the alley-oop of the iPhone. Tim Cook took that and he slammed, dunked it, Scott. And part of that is not just expanding

the iPhone to other places where it wasn't sold, especially in China, on China Mobile, that huge carrier. It's also leveraging that big install base that he ended up building into the services business, Scott, which is now a $100 billion annual business and continuing to grow at double-digit percentage rates. So that is the big driver right there behind that stock chart that we're looking at. Yeah, I mean, it's a good point. Yes, the stock has done incredibly well. The growth of the services business, can you speak to that, which is talked about, but I don't think understood enough how Tim Cook's grown this thing into like a Fortune 50 company all by itself? It's massively impressive. And especially when you look at it compared to divisions like

the iPhone, which for a couple years did stagnate. Now it's back on a path of growth, but the services business is something that has had consistent growth on a large base. It continues to get stronger, and you've seen those investments pay off for Apple. And in turn, that has helped Apple achieve a larger multiple and be seen as something that's not just a hardware company, but something that has software potential in terms of growth and expansion and making money off of the devices that it sells. Steve, if somebody was to say, yeah, but Apple's too dependent on the iPhone, and they should have really tried to diversify themselves away from it? What would the response be?

Oh, boy. Well, they've tried, and that really hasn't worked. I mean, they tried it. Think back to the Apple Watch, which had a bigger promise than it is now. They've since learned and dialed it back. And then the Vision Pro, if we had anything that we could say was a loser in the Tim Cook era, right now it's the Vision Pro. Maybe it gets better, but right now it's very clear. It's not a big seller. It did not usher in a new wave of computing or anything like that. And it seems like they're going to kind of take it in a different direction going with what meta is doing with those, the smart glasses as opposed to a more sort of immersive experience. So, you know, it's not a perfect run, but boy, it is very, very impressive. Look at all that just line up

of products and services we're showing you. The only thing you can have a critique about in a significant way there is that Vision Pro, Scott. Yeah. And Apple Intelligence, I guess. Well, I was going to get to that for sure. Because if you look at the, the so- called hits and misses, you certainly would be able to go on and on about the hits. Maybe too dependent on an iPhone is a miss, but AI seems to be an undeniable, I guess, miss, although TBD. I was also looking at the graphic up there, and the whole pot is there. And that, to me, and I know this is sort of the nitpick of all nitpicks where Tim Cook has been

able to grow this company the way that he has, but to me, part of being a leader of one of these companies is positioning your company for the next wave, the next iteration of technology, the next paradigm shift. And what we've seen with the Vision Pro, the HomePod, and now Apple Intelligence, is Tim Cook has done a great job with the bread and butter, the iPhone, the MacBooks. But he has done less of a good job when it comes to these computing shifts like AI. Now, we haven't seen the entire world flip to AI the way that they flipped from desktop to mobile a couple years ago. But you need to put your company in position. And part of that is, do I change the culture and make it a culture that is amenable to building AI devices. I don't think Apple

is there yet right now. And so we're going to judge Cook as one of the best CEOs of all time when he does step down. But then the next five years are going to matter a lot. Did he set them up in position to win in the AI battle? And that's an open question. What kind of CEO, if you will, Steve, do you think would make sense, if in fact you believe anyway that Tim Cook is going to leave as early as next year, right? I mean, Steve Jobs more. of like a, you know, a product CEO, the visionary CEO. Tim Cook, an executor, supply chain expertise. His track record obviously speaks for itself, but what next? Yeah, and that would be John Turnus. So if indeed John Turnus does become the next CEO, which, as the Financial

Times reported, it seems to be accelerating more and more that way. He's a product guy. He's in charge of all the hardware, and they have some interesting hardware in their pipeline, Whether it's foldable phones, a 20th anniversary edition of the iPhone, believe it or not, in a couple years, and things like that. And maybe it is time now that Cook has kind of extended his operational ability, maybe as far as he can get all those products that we just showed you growing to the max or as close to the max as you can get, it might be time for to flip back to a more product-focused executive. Keep in mind, they have a new chief operating officer now that's Sabi Khan. he kind of follows in the same lineage as Tim Cook as a good operator. He has that whole operations organization under his thumb right now. Jeff Williams, who is seen as the potential Cook successor, he's retiring.

And in fact, he's probably out of the building right about now. So it's very clear, at least these tea leaves that we can read, that maybe they're thinking of a more product-focused executive. And by the way, Scott, Tim Cook doesn't have to leave. He can stick around as executive chairman much the same way Jeff Bezos did and handle some of those other issues, whether it's geopolitical issues with China or the president and tariffs and things like that, which he has much better experience than one of his team members like John Turnus. You got a last point on what next, who next? I don't think you go with the hardware executive. And you mentioned at the beginning, services is the thing that matters.

It's the software. It's the things that are not the physical molecules. It's the stuff that you move about on the internet. I think for that you need someone who's more software focused, more services focus, and that is a risk for Apple if they decide that they want to continue to go in this hardware direction, that they're not going to be able to shift as quickly as they need to be in this new era. All right, that's Kovac and Cantewitz, and we're happy to have you both back together anytime we can get you. Thank you. Still ahead. Retail taking center stage, some key names reporting earnings this week, including Home Depot. We will run you through what to watch for. We'll be right back.

We're getting some news out of the Federal Reserve. Steve Leesman joining us now with those details, Steve. Hey, Scott, Fed Governor Chris Waller, one of the leading contenders to replace Fed Chair, Jay Powell, saying he supports a rate cut at the December meeting, quote, as a matter of risk management. And he's unlikely to change his mind. He says he's concerned that the restrictive monetary policy the Fed has now is weighing on the economy, especially for lower. and middle income consumers. He says the December cut will provide additional support against weakening in the labor market. The September job report, which we're supposed to get on Thursday, he says,

unlikely to change his view that another cut is in order. The labor market's still weak and near stall speed. And data show that labor demand has fallen more than the labor supply, according to his read of it. He said, if that was not the case, you would have acceleration and wage growth and you would have an increase in job openings. That's not been the case. He says, inflation through September showed small effects from tariffs. And when he takes that out, he says you account for those tariff effects.

Inflation is relatively close to the 2% target. He sees slower economic growth and modest wage increases. That tells him inflation is not going to be a problem. We're not going to be accelerated from here. Also likes the idea that inflation expectations are well anchored. Talking about GDP says it's likely slowed in the second half. And he was talking previously about this difference between the weak labor market and strong GDP growth. He thinks GDP growth is going to come down.

Points out the booming stock market does not reflect financial conditions for most Americans. The market is driven substantially, he says, by AI-related businesses. And one more thing, the cost of housing and autos continues to be an ongoing challenge for consumers. We've kind of known, Scott, that Waller is on the dove-ish side of things. He wants to cut rates, has wanted to cut rates. The trouble that we're having is that he's not so far convincing many of his other colleagues other than Stephen Myron as well as Mickey Bowman. So we're looking at, Scott, I just want to double check this is still accurate. It looked like a 39% probability of that rate cut.

It's come way down. And Waller is not convincing the market nor many of his colleagues at this point. All that said, because you've made the point, Steve, that the chair, doesn't have the votes. I think that's how you put it last week. So what does he do between now and then to wrangle the votes if he does in fact agree

with Waller that we need to cut rates to be on the safe side for more unraveling in the labor market? I think he hopes that the data makes the case for him. I think that you're going to get some data. We don't know. Scott, every

I don't know, half hour or so, I update the BLS website as to when stuff's coming. It has not updated at all today. We're hoping some possibility you get a piece of the October jobs report, even while Carol Levitt said that was not the case. There's been some talk about maybe getting a piece of the October jobs report, hoping to get the November jobs report on time and maybe an inflation report or two. That could really be definitive for members of the FOMC to say,

hey, we've got a jobs problem we have to address, or we have a bigger inflation problem than we thought we had. One of those two things could bring some of those folks in the middle over to one side or the other, and Powell could cobble together the votes he needs for that rate cut or not. Yeah, good point. Steve, thank you. Steve Leesman, our senior economics correspondent. What does this mean for the markets?

Are we poised for an end-of-year run, despite this new bout of volatility that we've been witnessing over the last week or so. Straticus is head of technical and macro research. Chris Verone is here at Post 9 with some answers. So what do you think? I mean, I know you track the charts, but I mean the Fed factors into the fundamental story here, too. The market agrees with Waller here. When you look at the weakness we've seen on a relative basis in consumer discretionary, we've seen cyclicals weak and relative to defensive. So if we're going to use the market as our gauge to how the economy is perceived here, I think there's certainly been a change in character over the last

two or three months. We've talked about it, you well, with health care turning up, with utilities, really assuming their leadership. So there's certainly a more defensive streak. We're sitting here with the two-year yield roughly 355, 360. I mean, that's still two cuts below where the policy rate is. So our view is the Fed better get on board here because you're getting the messages of a weakened economy through the lens of discretionary, through the subtle turn of improvement in staples and utilities and health care. Why has the long end, though, been backing up? Yeah, I think that's the tricky part of the call here. When you look at 30-year yields, they've backed up modestly since the last Fed meeting. Well, we were under 4% on the 10-year.

Don't forget. Yeah, and 10s have rallied 4-20. I would be very surprised if we saw tens much above 434-35 in this environment. To me, that's the top end of the range. I'm a buyer of bonds there. I think ultimately the Fed will have to cut. It's the question of whether the bond market forces it sooner and more aggressive than they would like. What are we trying to figure out? I asked this question 43 minutes ago at the top of the program. What's the market caught between here? I think the market's caught between two things. Is this simply a flush of weak hands in crowded AI beta positioning,

or is it a fundamental rethink of the shape of the economy? I still want to give the benefit of the doubt to this market. We're in an uptrend. Leadership has generally been pretty good all year. I don't think the breadth or the internals are as bad as advertised. but I wonder if we need some type of a flush to wake up the Fed. And, you know, we undercut or we're about to undercut that, call it 6640 level here on S&P. Underneath that, there's really not much to about 6450.

So do you need that oversold condition to really wake up the Fed into the December meeting? That would be my suspicion. How do you feel about the role that NVIDIA could play one way or the other? Yeah, you know, it's funny, it's not, believe it or not, it's not NVIDIA or the sendings I'm particularly worried about. Those aren't top formations. Those are stocks that are up a lot that might need to consolidate or correct. What I'm worried about is the names that have actually been putting in big distributive top formations in tech over the course of the year. Look at legacy software.

Look at Salesforce. Look at Workday. Look at Service Now. Those are the ones where if Nvidia falters here, I want to be very, very careful. I don't own any of the real weak top formation. But I mean, some of those hadn't participated anyway. Like Salesforce is not – let's throw that up again, guys, please. Look at year-to-date, Salesforce.

It's not like you had some massive run-up. You've got to be worried about. These guys have been left out in the cold. That's the point. If the good stuff starts to falter, it's the bad stuff that really bears all the big things. Take financials as an example. The banks have been the best in the sector all year. What has been weak?

Private capital, alternative asset managers. If the banks begin to falter here, it's not banks, I want to short. It's the Apollos and the Blackstone's that I think they're... But they're already down a lot. Yeah, I think all the big mistakes in this business happened trying to catch bottoms We're trying to catch calls in big tops. Those private capital stocks are weak across the board here. I think it's another message that the Fed ought to heed.

Finally, health care. You're a big believer? I am. I think what makes health care... Everybody's on like the same side of the boat now on this trade. You know, I think what's fair, though, is what makes health care a little bit different is you had this kind of conditional sentiment set up for probably 18 months where people were so bearish, but we needed some spark.

And I think finally the last couple of months, what have you seen that's different? The new high list is actually expanding in health care. It's also global. The European names are breaking out just like the U.S. one. So I can't say this is just some idiosyncratic U.S. policy move because you're seeing it globally. I also think really importantly, the bar of expectations relative to tech or relative to financials, is low in health care. The outflows from the U.S. have been just persistent all year. And look at maybe most importantly, the leader is back.

has decisively broken out here after, what, an 18-month pause. So I think you're getting the leadership and health care back in gear with very, very low expectations. All right. Good stuff, Chris, thanks. Thank you. That's Chris Ferone. Coming up next, Intelligent Alpha's Doug Clinton. He joins us back once again. The Market Zone is next.

All right, we're now the closing bell market zone. CBC Senior Markets. Commentator Mike Santoli is here to break down these crucial moments of the day. trading day. Plus, Courtney Reagan with What to Watch for from Home Depot's report. That's before the bell tomorrow. Leslie Picker is tracking the record-setting Alphabet action today following Berkshire Hathaway's big bet on that stock. And intelligent, excuse me, Alphas, Doug Clinton. He owns that name. He'll weigh in on that and more. Mike Santoli, you first. What's the problem in this market? It's the same as it was, I think, the last week or so, but the headlines keep kind of scraping

against the raw nerves of this market. So you've been mentioning them, just a little bit of caution around the kind of private credit story. I think the Amazon debt deal is actually not very big. It doesn't really change the story, especially relative to how much debt Amazon already has out. But again, everybody's then fixated on, are we excessively and unwisely capitalizing the AI trade? And then I think the lack of traction in Bitcoin has everybody just sapping conviction from many

trades and this idea that there might be portfolio stress out there that we just note in where it's going to go next. All that being said, the S&P at the lows today, more or less went back to Friday's lows, which went back to the prior Friday's lows. In other words, we're spending a lot of time at the bottom end of this range, but so far no worse than that. Okay. Courtney, what about Home Depot? Hey, Scott. So Home Depot shares are down about 10% in the last three months, about 8% year-to-date. It's a similar performance to competitor lows over that same period, but both well-underperforming the SMP 500 over those times. Now, the straight expecting comparable sales to grow about 1.4% for Home Depot on earnings of $3.84 and $41.1 billion in revenue.

All of those metrics are up from last year, but the tone feels more downbeat from the street. Steefo, for example, took down its Home Depot and Lowe's estimates for the second half of this year, but also all the way through 2027 due to the delaying. housing recovery. And Stiefel also questioning Home Depot's recent $20 billion in investments in pro businesses. T.D. Cowan also questioning how much high rates that are still high and tight housing has impacted home improvement overall. Now, Home Depot says it would raise prices for some items as a result of tariffs. It said that in August, which was a slight reversal from earlier in the year when it said it, quote, generally did not intend to raise prices from tariffs. So investors want to know, did they do it? How did consumers?

handle it. And then lastly, there's traffic data from firmplacer.a.I. They say Home Depot Q3 in-store foot traffic is down about 0.4% year over year. Scott? All right, court, thank you very much. We'll see what happens. Leslie Picker, tell us more about alphabet. Berkshire's big buy. Market likes it. Yeah, the market certainly likes it. Shares of alphabet gaining, although off the highs of the session, following that 13F revealing Berkshire's stake on Friday evening. Berkshire is known for its value-oriented stock picks, and Alphabet at nearly 27 times forward earnings might not immediately come to mind as a potential target for the firm. However, as my colleague Unlea points out on CNBC.com, Alphabet is trading at a lower multiple than many of

its AI-driven mega-cap peers, such as Microsoft, Broadcom, and Invidia. The stake is a sizable one, though. 17.9 million shares worth about $4.3 billion at the end of the quarter. It's up 17% over the first six weeks of Q4, thanks in part to today's move. Google's parent company is now a top 10 Berkshire Hathaway holding and the firm's biggest new tech position since its original Apple investment. So somewhat historic there, Scott. Yeah, which they've been selling down, the Apple one. Leslie, thank you. That's Leslie Picker.

Doug Clinton, I turn to you. I mean, you own alphabet. If nothing else, this puts some kind of a floor under the stock. Right. I mean, if you get the Berkshire Hathaway seal of approval on a hotly debated name, it's certainly going to help. I think it does. I mean, I think maybe Warren Buffett, or at least his team, if not him, saw probably what we saw in Q3 and Q2, which was at that point the sentiment on Google had just bottomed out. I mean, you couldn't get more negative. Everybody thought Open AI was going to destroy search. Google had no chance at winning the AI race. Now I think the narrative is almost completely shifted,

where Google may actually have a leg up at this point on Open AI, and I think that's starting to get priced into the stock. You don't feel like the jury's still out on that question? I think it's neck and neck. I mean, when we started the year, I think it was clear open AI was here and Google was here. They were very much disparate in terms of the race, but I think Google has caught up this year because their models, Gemini 2.5, has been a great release. It is pretty remarkable, Mike. You know, the day of the so-called Eddie Q sell-off, we hotly debated that for days, whether,

you know, this great moat or whatever you want to call it that alphabet seemed to have on search was going to quickly be eroded. And here they've come back. The stock chart looks incredible from that day till now. It does. And I think, you know, Alphabet has this advantage of being able to kind of parcel out the applications that they can say they're utilizing their AI capabilities with. I mean, today you saw the attribution of some of the weakness in the travel names was because

Google went out and said, here, let us help you book your trip and Expedium booking start to fall. And so, you know, I don't know how far that takes you. You obviously have to prove it. But at a time when people are kind of bristling against the idea that OpenAI is just naming huge numbers and saying ultimately, after we consume all this capital, we're going to have products that bring it back to us. Yeah, I think off of it's in a good spot. That said, Berkshire reports they owned it buying it last quarter. We know what the chart had done. So clearly they were buying it in there.

A lot of people were buying it. And it feels like a more comfortable, less valuation risk in there as well. Buying it large, as we say. NVIDIA, okay, you own that too. What do you think is riding on that this week? I think a lot is riding on. There's always a lot riding on NVIDIA earnings. But I think for this one in particular,

Jensen has already set this bar, this $500 billion number that he mentioned at GTC. If you do the math, there's like 10 percentage points of growth upside to next year's numbers based on that estimate that Jensen put out there. And that doesn't contemplate any additional revenue coming in next year. And so I think what it boils down to is the streets at $62 billion for Q4 guidance. Typically, Nvidia guides 2 to 3% above where the streets at. I think they do at least that.

It's probably enough for the stock to survive. What makes you nervous about the AI trade? Are you thinking about things that the market seems to be caught up in right now, or do you think that's overblown? We've been saying we were due for a pullback. we've gotten that. I mean, you look at a core weave. They're down 40% just from the beginning of this month. Nebius, kind of similar story. And so the really hot AI stocks have cooled down a lot. The MAG6 is a little bit less so. I mean, the index now with today, I think we're only down

about 5% from the highs. And so I think this is sort of a needed reality check. I don't think the trade's over, as I've been saying, I think we still have two to four more years left in this AI market. So you're not, you're not worried about CapEx being too big. You're not worried about debt raises or anything like that. By the way, do you guys own Oracle? We do not own Oracle. Okay. Are you worried about those issues at all? Worried in the sense that certainly we're paying attention to those, but I think ultimately for us, it all boils down to the same thing with AI, which is either, whether it's Google or Open AI or some other company that comes from behind, either these companies figure out a way to monetize their models in a really big way and create

value from all the infrastructure that they're building, or they don't. We're not. We're not going to see that this year, we're not going to see that next year, but I think we'll start to see that maybe as we go into 27 and really get people deploying these models at scale because there's a ton of demand. Can't you monetize it while at the same time overbuilding? You can, but I think right now what we're seeing is we don't have enough built, period, right? So demand is wholly outstripping supply at the moment, and so we need to build a lot. Maybe as we get into 27, 28, when we have some of these longer duration projects, they get rolled back a little bit, but I think with the demand we're seeing right now,

we need to build into it. In other words, I mean, the jury's going to be out on this for a long time. Well. Because the answers are unknowable in the near term. And we've gone in different phases when people are willing to look on the bright side and essentially say that we are in scarcity and we know that these companies can afford it for now, and that's fine. I'm almost more interested.

First of all, I also think it's healthy that the market is trying to sift around and figure out who's better or worse positioned, right? You saw what happened to meta. It's kind of a vote of no confidence on that. on their plans, and yet Alphabet gets rewarded. So it's, you know, it's an answer to the criticism of a couple of months ago, which is the AI trade is all one way, and everyone's saying winners all around. So that's a net possibility.

I think for the overall market, you kind of need it maybe to get its footing before too long, because we see what happens when the market tries to rely on the other areas, in particular, I'm focused on the cyclicals. Consumer cyclicals are ugly again today. There's definitely some unsettled sense around exactly how resilient the consumer is at a time when the Fed. Most of the rhetoric is wait and see. So I think that's one of the battles we're fighting right now as the tech trade really tries to sort of rationalize its outlook to the end of the year. And let's be honest.

And the 20 seconds that we have, health care is only going to take you so far, right? I mean, yeah, it looks great because it's done nothing. I mean, look, I think you look at the MAG6. You've said this before. They're offense and defense. They've got the AI tailwind. If the economy ends up a little bit tough, they've got great balance sheets. I think you win either way.

All right. We will leave it there because they're going to ring the bell. It's been an interesting start to the week, to say the least. And it's going to be red across the board. The S&P 500 down about 65 points. That's almost a one-time. It's the Russell that is the weakest today, almost 2% of the downside. But the Dow's given back about one and a quarter percent as well.

I'll send the end of overtime with Morgan and John.