Closing Bell - Closing Bell 8/25/26

Episode Date: August 25, 2026

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, Melissa Lee 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.

Guys, thanks so much. Welcome to closing bell. I'm Scott Wobner, live from Post 9 here at the New York Stock Exchange. This maker breakout begins with the countdown to Nvidia. It's earnings 24 hours away now. So much riding on that report for that stock for the AI trade and maybe the next leg of this bull market. We'll ask our experts what is really at stake coming up. In the meantime, here is the scorecard with 60 to go in regulation. We're green across the board. Tech is leading as that critical report does loom large. Elsewhere, AMD got an upgrade today. those shares higher. Marvell popping ahead of its own earnings later this week. That's a nice move, up 5% poor weave hire as well. So we're watching all sorts of tech names today. Wow, Dick's sporting goods, though, is the worst day ever, down 30%. Its earnings report falling short, guidance no good.

Investors not liking that one bit. We will do, we will have more on that as well in our show today. It does take us to our talk of the tape, all that lies ahead for your money this week. There's so much on our plates for more. Let's welcome in Lizanne Saunders, Schwab Center for financial research chief investment strategist. Welcome back. Thanks, Scott. Nice to be here. Are we just sort of in a holding pattern here before we get NVIDIA and then ultimately we hear from Chair Worse at the end of the week? Yeah, but I think it's also consistent with the kind of churnin rotation that the market's been in for quite some time. I think rotation in and of itself is the new momentum trade. And I think increasingly there's a lot of money sort of playing

those rotations, whether it's the institutional side, the commodity trading advisors, systematic funds, the long short hedge fund community playing off each other's positions. You get these really swift moves that sometimes might appear to just be churn waiting for, to your point, NVIDIA earnings, the Jackson Hole speech. But I think it's just part and parcel of the mechanics of the market these days. Do you think that this week is pivotal in how this market trades from here because of what lies ahead? depends on what NVIDIA says. It depends on what Warsh says. You know, InVIDIA, for all the discussion about concentration within the market, there's actually become less concentration when you look at the influence of a cohort like the Magnificent 7. But where you do still see significant concentration is at the earnings level. So if you look at 2026 year over your estimated earnings for the S&P 500, and you look at the top 10 stocks providing those are, you. InVitya is number one, and it's 18% of overall S&P expected earnings growth in 2026 relative to 2025.

You add micron, which is another 14%. That gets you to 32%. That's a third of expected earnings growth this year coming from two stocks. So we may have alleviated some of the concentration problem as it relates to the weights within the indexes, but it's still there from an earnings standpoint, which is why it's such a pivotal report tomorrow. It doesn't usually, you know, trade that well on the back of earnings, but some are suggesting that this report has more to do with everything else than it does in Vidia itself. I mean, we know the report's going to be good. We know the commentary from Jensen Wong is likely to be good, but there are hundreds of stocks, quite literally, that could move based on what they do and what he says, because they're all so tied in the ecosystem. That in and of itself is why this report looms so large. Right. And the ecosystem has gotten so much more diverse and broad, and it's why you're seeing plays down the cap spectrum into other sectors that, at least on the surface, might seem to only be peripheral beneficiaries. And I think that's been the name of the game in an environment where the monolithic decision of yes or no to the MAG 7 has given way to more connectivity between prices and fundamentals and a broader swath of opportunity. not just in the AI and AI-related space, but obviously in the energy space as well.

I just think that there's a lot of money looking for different and shiny new objects than what was the case, say, last year. Are you feeling pretty good, though, about where the market is? I mean, there's a lot going on. There's, you know, the momentum factor hasn't traded all that well. Now we have this worry in the bond market, the intervention by Treasury. We still got to figure out what's happening with Iran, whether that situation is going to get worse before it, to get better. So there's a lot here. The reason why I think the market's traded so well in the face of a lot of that is because the earnings story is so compelling that it just trumps everything

else. For now, the one note of caution regarding that is when you get earnings growth to such an elevated level, especially absent what can cause earnings to jump significantly. When you're coming out of recession, you've got the base effects accruing to the benefit of the earnings growth rate. That's obviously not the case this time. The base effect in the case of last year was still strong earnings growth. The one thing to be mindful of is that better or worse can often matter more than good or bad. So at some point, we're going to price in the inflection point. There's going to be less of that extrapolation out into the future. And it's one of the reasons why periods where the S&P earnings growth has been more than 20 percent has not been disastrous for the equity

market, but kind of low, single-digit, more middling kind of returns, because, because of that function on the part of equities to price in that inflection point, to understand when things stop getting better and they start getting worse. We may not be imminently at that point, but I think that's another reason for some of the churn is it's increasingly on maybe more radar screens than it was a quarter or two ago. What do you expect from Warsh on Friday? I mean, do you feel, given the role you have and the way that you look at markets like you need more from this Fed than you've gotten to this point? Well, we don't maybe know what we need, but we certainly all want to hear more. I would expect

there to be certainly many comments tied into what the theme of the meeting is and the influence of new technologies and AI and disruption. I would hope he would provide a little more information in detail on the task forces and the framework that he's thinking about. I certainly hope he would address either directly or maybe indirectly the announcement. in the last week by Besson and how that ostensibly is at odds with what his view is about the desire to and in his mind need to shrink the balance sheet in order to open up the possibility for easier monetary policy, not to mention the fact that he actually mentioned that he thought the long end of the bond market was doing some of the Fed's job for it.

So I think that the pressure is going to be on for him to address what has become the elephant in the room. So that's certainly what I'm going to be listening for. Yeah, I mean, on a scale of, say, one to ten, where are yields right now in your realm of whatever worry, if any, you have about backing up yields and the impact it could have on stocks? I'd say somewhere in the middle. I think it's been orderly so far. Level is less important, but speed and when moves become disorderly. I think from a level perspective, you know, comfortably above 475, if it looks like we're quickly on our way to 5%. I think that's when you probably face a bit. bit of trouble in the equity market. In the meantime, I think we can absorb this environment where the reality is, I think, yields, longer-term yields are just moving back to something that might be

defined as normal. Off the base of the post-pandemic, post-global financial crisis, you know, 10-year yield gets to less than a percent. So some of this is a move to more normal pricing in the bond market. If it becomes disorderly and the speed picks up, then I think we have to consider the risk to be a bit more elevated into the equity side of things. Yeah, that's where people seem to be focused on the swiftness of the move and any indication at the long end that you may be getting, you know, somewhat either untethered now or the risk only increasing that you do. And that obviously creates larger issues, right?

Yeah, and Scott, you know, what else is important is we have to think sometimes in a more secular way. We're back in an environment where bond yields and stock prices are moving. inversely to one another. And that comes after the great moderation period from the late 1990s up until the inflation spike driven by the pandemic in 2022. During that period of time, bond yields and stock prices moved in the same direction because bond yields were keying more off the growth side of the equation, less so off the inflation side of the equation. So higher yields typically meant higher growth without the attendant risk or concern about inflation, kind of nirvana for equities. We're back in a negative correlation, which brings back memories of what we called the

temperamental era from the mid-60s to the mid-to-late 90s, where for that 30-plus year period, bond yields and stock prices moved in the opposite direction, because what was triggering bond yield moves tended to be more on the inflation side of the equation, not the growth side of the equation. So higher yields, because inflation had been let out of the bag again without necessarily better growth, not great for the equity market. That also changes the disciplines around diversification, the great moderation era, which gave rise to simplistic allocations like 6040 because you had that relationship. I think we may be in a more secular way looking a little bit more like that period from the mid-60s to the mid-90s. Well, I mean, some are debating the

viability of the 60-40 now, right? Just given where bond yields are, where bonds seem to be trading, there's a lot of cash on the sidelines, too, you know, by some estimates, $8 trillion. in money markets, whether the 60-40 is going to be a thing or not anymore. I don't know that it needs to be a thing, Scott, because even individual investors that are not ultra-wealthy have access to asset classes to a much greater degree than anything we've seen in the past. We've sort of democratized asset allocation and the education around that. I also still think bonds are deserving of a home in portfolios might still be dominated by

equities. But as far as the cash and money market mutual funds, keep in mind that that's only about 11 or 12 percent of total market capitalization. Put that in contrast to a period like early 2009 when it was more than 60 percent. So you can talk about the level of money and money market funds, but as it relates to firepower, you have to put it in the context of the size of the equity market. So that's why I think it doesn't hold water to say there's a ton of cash on the sideline and that's going to be fuel for the equity market at some point. Not only is some of that money sticky, but it has less firepower because the size of the market has grown exponentially. Some are suggesting it's, I mean, forget the equity market.

It's hard to get some of that cash to go into bonds just because of the way that people view the market today. And as you said, of course, and it is a great point that you make, the democratization of investing, that alternatives are available to individual investors, people who are on the Schwab platform, that probably never had an opportunity to invest, like some of their hedge fund, you know, counterparts and what have you. So I'm glad you made that point, and great insight as always. Lizanne, we'll see you soon. Thank you.

Lizanne Saunders of Schwab. Joining me now, Capital Wealth Planning is Kevin Simpson, Newberger's Shannon's Sococia, Shannon's a CNBC contributor. It's good to have you both. Okay. So Josh Brown would tell you we have two Fed shares speaking this week. The real Fed chair, Kevin Worse, on Friday, but the AI Fed chair, Jensen Wong on Wednesday. Who matters more right now? You know, that's a tough question and it shouldn't be.

Historically, we wouldn't even have this debate, but I think that the earnings report tomorrow from NVIDIA supersede everything else that happens this week. And that's not to discount Kevin Warsh's speech on Friday because it's huge. And I think where interest rates are headed are probably more important than where earnings are going. But what Jensen Wahn talks about tomorrow in that earnings report, And you said it earlier. I think the beat is a given. That's the price of admission. But what he says about the report, the margins, the Rubin, and really the whole ecosystem, I think to me that's more important because this market is trading on the AI trade, Scott, more so than it's trading on interest rates at the moment.

We're not suggesting that, you know, what he says won't have a direct impact on Nvidia. Of course it will. But the way that that stock tends to trade around its earnings, you know, in the immediate aftermath and the way that other parts of the market have traded, I just feel like it's the hundreds of other things that are potentially at stake, which carries maybe more weight in terms of what he might say and how those other things trade, and then how people view the trajectory of the market from here. So I totally agree with you, and I think this quarter more than ever, but one of the reasons that Invidia tends to not have this enthusiasm post-report,

I think is in their choosing to report so late that we get a lot of the run-up, a lot of the anticipation from the other companies so that you're sort of thinking about what NVIDIA is going to do because we've seen so much from it before. This thing's running down into the print, right, after this really nice rebound, this has been down seven straight days heading into today. Okay, it's green now, but it hasn't looked good lately. Well, from a price perspective, I think you can buy it before the print, but who knows? We know the implied move tomorrow is going to probably be five or six percent one way or the other.

But I'm expecting this to be a good report, and I think it all comes to. down to the margin, Scott, we're going to see a 70-something in terms of what their margins are. 75% or higher, the stock will move. Anything in the low 70s, I think the stock will sell off. But we have been accumulating it into the print. Shan, which matters more to you and you think this market right now? I think it's neither worse nor Bessent, but I agree it's Envidia. But I think it's for a different reason than what Kevin just articulated.

If you think about the pressure on the long end of the yield curve, it's not coming just from fiscal concerns and this fiscal sustainability argument. It's becoming as a result of real competition for treasuries. And you can see that real competition from treasuries from investment-grade credit and all of the issuance that we've had. So if Nvidia comes out and they give new life, if you will, to this CAPEX, this justification for continuing. cap-x and spending, that's going to come from the debt side of the equation increasingly, given the cannibalization already of free cash flow. And I think that's going to put greater pressure on the long end of the curve. And I think that regardless of what Warsh says on Friday, I think that Bessence in coming into September is going to be under a significant amount of

pressure. If we see the continuation of this enthusiasm around AI spending, that's going to continue to put pressure on the long end of the curve from both an issuance perspective, but also a perspective. And I think that we're going to continue, Scott, over the next six weeks, to be talking about the long end of the treasury curve, regardless of whether Besson has the TGA or not. Oh, I don't doubt that one bit. We'll be talking about it at minimum to the next Fed meeting and then beyond. And we may be talking about it sooner as the way that, you know, stocks trade if you continue to have a backup. How are you thinking about this whole issue? Well, you know, I'm not a bond trader, but I pay a lot of attention to the bond market. And I think there was a

A pivot last week before Bessett came in and made what I thought was a pretty brilliant chess move, whether it works or not remains to be seen. But we were pushing yields. We were seeing yields on the 10-year, getting close to 5 and a quarter. When you see a yield on the 30-year getting up to 5.5. Now, we're not there now. It's probably 5.17. But if it gets there, Scott, then you see quants coming in.

It has nothing to do with whether you're bullish or bearish on the equity markets. It's institutions, it's insurance companies, it's large pools of money that they're their quant formulas are going to move out of equities and into fixed income at those levels. Fortunately, we're not there. Well, I mean, this seems to be having an impact as the backup was going on on cyclical areas of the market, right? Industrials, for example, hadn't traded all that well. They were down last week. They were down yesterday.

They're down again today. I mean, it does matter for various sectors of the equity market. The Russell 2000 is up today. yields are softer today. Backup in yields is not good for that trade. There's been a lot of stuff working that doesn't really feel like being upset by having this fixation on the bond market now.

Yeah, I don't know necessarily that the bond market needs to have lower rates. I think we can support rates through it a little bit higher as long as the earnings are there to support it. And maybe that's the test that we're at right now. Maybe earnings are just so good that it's less important.

I like what you said about the industrials. And I wonder if that has something to do with what we hear from Nvidia tomorrow. If the buildout is there, if the money's there to support it, we may see them rally. But if the politics of things and the overbuild becomes a reality, even if it's not a reality, it just becomes the narrative, then I think those stocks could continue to be under pressure. What about, Shan, before I let you go, this data center backlash? And I think you can make a correlation between the way that some of these stocks have traded

and the fact that that issue appears to be percolating. a little bit heavier to say the least. Absolutely. And Scott, I'm so glad you made that segue because I was going to do the same exact thing. I think that's why you're seeing some of this pressure and industrials. I also think that it's deflating a little bit of this cyclical balloon because fundamentally the need to build out this infrastructure is reliant on power. But I don't think it's going to be the first thing in this election cycle, Scott, that creates some concern and consternation. And so I think we're entering into this period

where post-labor day, midterms are on the horizon. We're going to hear a lot about affordability. We're going to hear a lot about data centers. We're going to hear a lot about AI fear. And I think that's going to create some volatility, which in our mind creates some buying opportunity, especially for those that haven't participated thus far this year. All right. Pippa Stevens is going to have a much closer look at this in a moment in the stocks that are moving within that space.

Guys, thanks so much. Shan, we'll see you soon. Kev, I'll have you back on the desk. I'm sure of that. How about shares of Dick Sporting goods? As we came on the air, we showed you, what was it, 30%, let's look again, because it is the worst day ever. The question is why? Why is this reaction, Brandon Gomez, so dramatic today?

Yeah, Scott, look, and you were talking about it earlier today, but it's on pace for, as you said, it's worst day on record falling after Q2 earnings missed and weakness at Foot Locker prompted the company to cut its full year outlook. Now, while Dick's stores remained comparatively strong with comp sales up almost 5%. Foot Locker Coms fell 3.6% amid a, quote, challenging athletic footwear and apparel marketplace. Now, Stephanie Link with you earlier today, put it simply. Foot Locker is a mess, pointing out it's now 30% of total revenue to Dix, which otherwise had a pretty good quarter. And that it's starting to look like it's going to take a long time to turn the tide on Foot Locker. And look, it's not just Dix operational issues this quarter.

Athesier stocks like Nike, Lulu, Decker's, among the names lower in sympathy. You'll remember two, on running this quarter, cratered 20% when it reported mixed earnings and lowered guidance. Reiterating, again, Scott, broader concerns around consumer spending and what we're going to be seeing in the coming quarters. Specifically, though, as it relates to, you know, athletic footwear, there seems to be an issue industry-wide. Yeah, and, you know, I'm curious to see, too, how the current quarter performance, because you do have that back-to-school shopping that often does end up leading some of these stocks. Steve will put out a note saying which companies they expect to lead in the back-to-school shopping, Nike, topping off that list. So again, we'll have to see how the commentary comes out this quarter. But, yeah, again, you're hearing it over and over and over again.

I appreciate that look. And, of course, your insight, Brandon, thank you, Brandon Gomez. I said Pippa Stevens was going to have more on these AI power names. They looked mixed the last time I saw them. Hey, Pips, what can you tell us here about this trade today? Hey, Scott, well, the growing data center backlash is leading to cooling sentiment for the AI Picks and Shovels trade names. like Quanta, Vertive, G.E. Vernova, and Eden, all in the red for the last week with Vertev now more than 30% below its May high, Quanta down 23% since its peak. Now, these names especially

in focus as the midterms approach and more states implement data center oversights, meaning it could become an overhang for the group for the time being. But longer term, the Bulls point to solid project pipelines and data center growth. And even if actual build doesn't meet some of the most bullish forecasts, you still need the picks and shovels names for data centers, which is on top of grid upgrades that are already needed from aging power, infrastructure, and broader electrification. As Deutsche Bank put it, infrastructure buildout is not losing momentum, but numbers are coming up against increasingly difficult comps against a continuously expanding spending base. Scott?

All right, Pippa, thank you, Pippa Stevens. We're just getting started. Coming up next, Wall Street legend Stanley Drucken Miller issuing a warning to Washington, calling the Treasury's intervention in the bond market a mistake. Former counselor to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Joe LaVorna. Way's in next. All right, welcome back. Yields down today, but the conversation around the Treasury's intervention in the bond market continues to heat up. Investing legend, Stanley Drucken Miller calling that move a quote, mistake in a Wall Street Journal op-ed. It's notable as much for the stature of the man leveling that criticism and the fact that Mr. Druckenmiller was once a mentor to Secretary Bessent while at Soros Management.

For more, we're joined by SMBC America's chief economist and former counselor to Secretary Besant, Joe LaVorne. It's nice to have you on this topic. Welcome to our show. Thank you. What did you make of the op-ed? Well, I mean, there's two titans of finance that have a bit different view. Stan has always been against these sort of things, and to his credit for many decades, as preached the need to wrestle control of an unwieldy government budget, getting more fiscal prudence. But the Secretary, with these buybacks, Scott, is looking to liquefy those parts of the curve where there's not a lot of demand to encourage the hedge funds and the other levered accounts that buy those bonds,

that have become much more important in Treasury auctions and purchasing to be able to do so. So it's not, you know, the perception, which probably is correct, trying to slow perhaps the rise in long-term meals. But I think it's more than that. So I understand where Stan's coming from, but also understand where the Treasury Secretary is coming from. And his role he has to make sure that markets really function well. Because as you know, in the past, when we've gone into September, when there's a shortage of reserves, you get stress in the funding markets, and perhaps the Treasury Secretary is getting ahead of it, and that's a good thing. But it was back in June of 2024, when Secretary Besson argued against doing this very same thing as he criticized the former

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen of having, quote, taken control of monetary policy through instruments from the Treasury. Isn't that the very same thing that he was criticizing then that he's doing himself? No, I think it's different because back then there was a more noticeable change in the the Irish maturity of the debt. I look at this as being a temporary phenomenon, one that is designed to improve reserve conditions in the markets, to liquefy those pockets that need extra demand, and don't look at it as being as significant. So I think there, I think do things got there a bit different. I mean, there is the idea that Mr. Druckenmiller puts forth in the op-ed as sort of why now. It's not like the proverbial sky was falling where you needed somebody to step in and do something,

where he says, quote, and I want you to read you what he wrote, just to remind our viewers what I'm referencing, and I'd love for you to respond. So, quote, there were no failed auctions, no dealer balance sheet seizure, no forced unwinds, nothing resembling treasuries in March of 2020 or guilt's in September 2020, the sort of genuine dysfunctional episodes that justify official action. Volatility was contained, trading was orderly, not a malfunction, but the machine doing its job. Is he wrong? Yeah, no, he's exactly right. I thought that was really eloquently put.

But again, the whole point is to provide liquidity to the markets. The financing needs right now, the Treasury are quite significant. And I think the Treasury Secretary wanted to get out ahead of that. Because in the past, when there has been a crisis, and these things come up very quickly, the Treasury has had to come in both Democrat and Republican and try to fix things. So again, I don't look at this as being, you know, this big deal everybody's making it out to be. I would downplay it because in reality, market rates ultimately, Scott, are going to follow the economic fundamentals. If the economic fundamentals are strong as I believe they are, you're probably

the interest rates rise further. But in the short term, if the buybacks, as I said, are adding liquidity to the market, that's not a bad thing. So I think in some ways, you know, the goals and ambitions of both money managers, former money manager Besson, of course, staying right now, you know, they're kind of moving in parallel. I don't think there's as much disagreement, perhaps says the media would make it that out to be. Well, Drunken Miller says explicitly let the bond market speak. Isn't Secretary Besson trying to alter the speech? Not really because I think Kevin Warsh in his role,

another disciple of Stan Drunken Miller is trying to wien the market off of forward guidance and let there be some risk premium and let the market give information. That, to me, no pun intended, Trump's, whatever the Treasury Secretary might be trying to do. But doesn't this in some ways complicate what the Fed chair himself is trying to do? You got the feeling from listening to Chair Worse that he wasn't so unhappy with the fact that yields were backing up at the long end. If it was almost helping him do his job and he didn't have to raise rates, the market was working like markets work. Now this complicates that, doesn't it? No, because the market was selling off in anticipation that the Fed wasn't going to hike in July, Scott.

going to hike by September. So I don't think it was because, you know, the market is going to do it on its own without the Fed actually following through on it. But the reason it's different than what you said back in June 24 and why the Treasury is not usurping control from the Fed is because the money right now is going to come out of the Treasury General account. So they'll run that money down a bit, but it's not a permanent operation. It's not like an operation twist that could go on for months or quarters. So again, it's a really more technical operation. And for those reasons, I think that, you know, it's not what people are making it out to be. It's designed to enhance the functioning of the markets more so than it is to depress interest rates and keep them from

rising because they'll rise if the economy is strong as I believe it is. Sure, but the market was functioning just fine. That seems to be the point. As some say, this amounts to this amounts to political intervention as well ahead of the midterms trying to get interest rates down. The The housing market is obviously going through a period of being frozen. Those in the industry use that word, not my word. So this was as much political as anything else. How would you respond to that? Well, look, last week, the rates were 375, and the secretary announced the buyback.

They fell to 365. And then in short order, they ended the week where they started. And the press said, oh, the secretary has no credibility. And now today they're back at 365. So does that mean the Treasury Secretary has more? credibility. I think all this has to be put in the greater context. I understand the political aspect of it, but you have to remember this time of the year going into quarter end and going into when we have big financing needs by the government, this is one of these problems

really creep up. It happened back in, what happened last year, going into the fourth quarter that had to do a mini QA. And remember, it happened back in a bad way back in September 19. So again, I think these operations, it's my guess. I've not talked to the secretary about this, But my guess is his approach was in part to get ahead of a potential problem so that there isn't a crisis so that the machine, as Stan said, continues to function freely and operational. What if it doesn't work? And in part, you know, whether it's Mr. Druckenmiller or Citadel, which was speaking on this topic yesterday when they say, quote, this amounts to financial repression at the margin. The real issue here is a Congress that seems wholly and an administration, just because they're the administration. there now that seems wholly unwilling to deal with the $40 trillion deficit that we do have.

Yeah, but this is true on both sides of the political aisle, Scott. There's no, there's no political will or capital to meaningfully cut government spending. So, you know, this is something that we've lived with regardless of party. And as you probably know, the Congress's approval ratings are lower than anyone individuals in most cases. But again, to say, as you mentioned another firm, you know, we're talking at 10 basis point range in the 10-year note over the past week. I mean, come on, this is nothing. This isn't a big deal. Why are we getting ourselves so worked up over? It's not about the movement in the yield itself. It's about the statement that this whole thing makes in and of itself. It is a, it's a statement that if we

don't like where interest rates are going, we will intervene to try and deal with that rather than let market forces deal with that. That's the crust of the argument. It's not 10 basis points. But I think you're confusing, people are confusing a fundamental story with a technical operation, because I think interest rates are going to rise. But if they're going to rise because of demand for capital in the U.S. is so strong because we're doing so well. You mentioned housing. It's 3% of the economy. The remaining 97% of the economy is doing extraordinarily well. You've got a Kaptex boom. You've got very strong consumer spending. This morning we had retail sales from the prior 52 leaks up over 9%. So, you know, again, I think people are saying, oh, we're trying

to intervene in the market and make it do something it's not supposed to do when someone we've lost the price mechanism. I just think that at this point is just really hyperbolic and overstating the reality of what's happening. I mean, let's see the next few quarters where rates are, what happens with inflation. Do you get this supply-side boost from the president's policies and deregulation and tax cuts and things of that sort? But I just think right now we've got to take a deep breath. And I understand what's saying we're saying, we're coming. from he wrote a very good piece, but I see what the Treasury Secretary is trying to do. And it's not unusual people who disagree about these things. This is what makes markets.

And there are a lot of great investors who have different views of how things are supposed to operate. As you know, you see it in stock prices all the time. We'll leave it there. Joe, thanks for the time. I appreciate it. Thank you, Scott. It's Joe LeBorna. We have news crossing on OpenAI. Kate Rooney has that for us. What do we know here, Kate? Hey, Scott, we're just learning that OpenAI's head of data centers is leaving the company. This is according to the Wall Street Journal.

out to Open AI, no comment yet the journal citing people familiar with Mattel, Matter. Chris Malone is the name of this gentleman. He joined this company around the time where they launched Stargate. If you remember that massive, very ambitious data center effort with Oracle and SoftBank. He was leading this entire multi-hundred multi-billion dollar effort over at OpenAI, but it does add to a string of recent departures. We've talked a lot about Denise Dresser, Chief Revenue Officer. You had Brad Leicap, Fiji Simo, all left for a variety of reasons. but it is the latest example of some of the executive turnover and volatility at a time when this company has filed confidentially to go public from what we're hearing.

It could be closer to 2027, but strategically a very important part of the business as they really try to ramp up compute, try to get more access to compute and spend a lot to do so. But again, Chris Malone reportedly leaving opening eye, Scott. So if someone looks at this and then what we just showed on the wall that we made of the recent departures from the company, is it a stretch to suggest that this feels like a company in some degree of disarray or not? Yes, Scott, from people that I'm talking to, but part of the deal when you invest in OpenAI is a certain level of volatility, whether that's executive volatility, whether that's management volatility, the growth of the business, the speed of the business.

And from what I've heard from sources, it is a place where they hire quickly, but they also fire quickly. Again, we don't know what happened with Chris Malone if he left in his own. abolition. If he was fired, we don't have details in terms of his exit. But you compare that to their largest rival Anthropic, which still has its seven co-founders that are still there. This is sort of par for the course. When you talk to open AI investors who say they might have been surprised by certain departures, yet they have come to expect this. And as long as the key people, meaning Sam Altman, Greg Brockman at this point and the CFO, Sarah Fryer, are still at the helm ahead of an IPO. They're comfortable with it. But it does highlight, I mean, compute is such an important part of

their business. So in a vacuum, this might not be a headline, but given everything we know about the company lately, it is significant. I mean, is it wrong to think that this in and of itself would be something that could just delay the IPO, despite, you know, Sam Altman and Sarah Fryer of being there? These are key people who have left recently that you don't normally see that in a company that is fast approaching what we think would be an offering. Unprecedented, I would say, is the name of the year when we talk about any of these AI companies. And I've talked to I talked to somebody close to Open AI last week who said, again, if this were just an your average software company or if this were, you know, an airline or something going public,

where it operated in a much more traditional way. A lot of these would be red flags, but the people that are close to the company say they just have come to expect this and you have that volatility, that turnover in a way that is just completely uncommon at other competitors. In terms of the timeline, just throwing anything off, I would say no. I mean, the bigger bear case for Open AI is if for some reason they weren't able to build that computer. If there were some sort of huge bottleneck that we didn't know about that was a part of this story, that would be the bigger issue and the bigger hang up, meaning that compute is so directly

correlated to revenue, the more compute they build, the more they can grow their revenue. So if that were a hang-up and that were part of the story here, but I think in a vacuum, this one executive likely won't have much of an implication when we look at IPO timing. All right, Kate, thank you very much. Kate Rooney. Coming up, United Airlines shares, taking off. It's revealing today its largest international expansion ever. New planes, new routes, our Phil Leboe, he has the latest coming up. United Airlines taking the wraps off some of its snazzy. New planes, our Phil Leboe, got a boarding pass.

He joins us now with more, new planes, new routes. Tell us more, Phil. Big day for United, Scott. When you look at what they're announcing or what they did announce today, 10 new destinations, many in southern Europe, smaller cities. Think Valencia, Spain, or Lugliana, Slovenia, couple in Sardinia. These are popular places, but not places that traditionally you would be flying directly to from the U.S. Well, not anymore. Starting next summer, that's when United will be adding these routes from various cities in the United States on the new United Airbus A321 XLR, including 20 first-class Polaris privacy suites.

So yes, it's a single aisle that will have first-class, business class, international seats on them. at a time when jet fuel prices continue to remain high. They're not as high as they were in March, but they're certainly not as low as many people thought there might be perhaps a month or two ago. We talked with Scott Kirby this morning. We asked him, what's his outlook for jet fuel as he looks over in the next six months? Here's what he had to say. I don't think that we get back to where we were at the beginning of 26. Personally, I hope I'm wrong. I hope it gets lower. But I think we stay much elevated. The good news is I think that we're going to be able to pass all of that on in 27. still feel pretty confident that United Airlines is going to have double-digit margins in

2027, which is sort of the North Star that we're shooting for financially. And by the way, Scott Kirby also believes that airfares, they are likely to stay elevated, perhaps even go a little bit higher because there is so much demand out there. Take a look at United Cheers over the last 10 years. Scott, the reason we're showing you this, Scott Kirby this weekend. The 29th will be his 10-year anniversary of going from American to United. Now, he wasn't CEO right away. He was brought in essentially CEO in training and then took over the top job five years ago.

Look at the return on United Shares over the last 10 years. Wow, impressive. I thought we were going to see you in those nice new seats, Phil. I did that earlier today. Now it's time for them to actually fly paying customers. Yeah, all right. Well, I'm glad you got your boarding pass. Phil, thank you.

Phil LeBow. Josh Harris, the billionaire owner of the NFL's Washington Command, and the NBA's Philadelphia 76ers sat down exclusively with CNBC Sports Senior reporter Mike O'Zanian had some comments about the Lakers' recent pending sale. Listen. There's just scarcity value, right? There's only in the LA Lakers, right? You know, one of the as existential NBA franchise's biggest media market in the world. I'm not surprised by the 12 and a half billion. If you think about 10 billion, 14 months ago and 12 and a half billion, now it's 25% growth. I bought the commanders at 6 billion, and everyone said it was the highest price on planet Earth.

And I think that now it looks like a good, attractive deal. I think that the Lakers are worth every bit of $12 billion. Mike Ozanian joins me now. Wow, shocker. He thinks, hey, this is the owner of the team that I love, the commander. But, I mean, sure he thinks that the Lakers are every bit worth the $12.5 billion they're going to be sold for because that rising tide lifts every boat, including the ones that he owns. You know, Scott, you and I have gone back and forth on, is there a bubble in sports a lot recently as these team valuations and prices continue to skyrocket? But you know what? I talked to sports bankers about what Josh had said and about what you've asked about a sports bubble. And to a man, they all say particularly in the NFL and also the NBA, the amount of capital that is looking to buy into sports,

whether it be managing partners or limited partners, is immense. And they all say they've never seen anything like it. I asked Josh in the interview, and I said 20 times revenue for the Lakers. I said, you know, when you bought the 76ers, it was like less than a quarter of that. That was the multiple you pay. And he said, I'm telling you, he said, He said the revenue opportunities for the NBA and the NFL with things like NBA Europe, with the NFL going overseas, getting more revenue from streaming and other sources,

he says justifies those multiples. The $6 billion does look to his point like an attractive deal, given where everything is. And oh, by the way, they're building a new stadium down there, which is only going to increase the value of the overall franchise, because at least from the renderings that I've seen, it's going to be a spectacular place. Spot on, Scott. And also he's doing that, as you know, with the other teams that he owns.

The 76ers are going to get a new arena that they're going to share with the flyers. He's also expanding his stadium where Crystal Palace plays soccer in England. He's building out the footprint in Newark where the devils play. So real estate, mixed-use, real estate, being able to engage the family. more, being able to get the fans to come around more often, outside of when just games are in the stadiums or arena, are another big way that not just Josh, but a lot of teams are looking to grow revenue. Yeah, nice get.

Thanks, Mike. Thank you. Thank you. Mike Ozanian. Up next, we track the biggest movers as we head into the close. Now, the closing bell market zone, Mike Santoli and Northern Trust, Joe Tenios, are here to break down these crucial moments of the trading day. Oliver Renick standing by live from Cibon.

global markets in Chicago. We'll play options action in a minute. Michael, I'll go to you first. Thoughts on the day and what lies ahead? Yeah, I mean, market couldn't do a much better job of just watching and waiting so far this week, S&P, up a quarter of a percent, down a quarter percent yesterday, up a quarter of a percent today. If your big fear coming into the week was that we were going to have to worry about, you know, long-term yields getting dislocated, undercutting equity values, and maybe the further sell-off in the semis weren't going to be able to be absorbed by the rest of the tape. Didn't really give you much. on any of those fronts in terms of those concerns bearing out.

So that's a net positive. It's this sort of low intensity pullback off the highs. We're 2% off the highs down seven, eight days in a row or thereabouts for the S&P 500. But really not to too much net effect. I would argue maybe the markets on track to get off a little bit easy ahead of these big catalysts, but that's what bull markets do sometimes. You look in an overtime at those catalysts that you just mentioned? We are, as well as, by the way, delving into one of the huge,

big movers of the day. That's Dick's sporting goods with an analyst who was bullish before and remained so. So we'll have her make your case. Yeah. Worst day ever. All right. Look forward to hearing that. Thank you, Mike Santoli. All right, Oliver, at the CBO. What do you see there? Options are pricing less than a 1% move for the S&P 500 from here until the weekend, Scott. It's so calm that UBS options strategy has put out a note today saying it's the most fragile market since December 2024. Even bonds are settling in a bit, as Mike mentioned. with the TLT trading its highest all month. But when it comes to thinking about what could go wrong,

nobody does it better than gold bugs. The precious metal is on pace for its best month since 2008. Miners, the best ever. And despite one big bull taking some profits yesterday, gold options remain very bullish. In GLD, at least four times as many calls were bought today as puts, and the most commonly purchased contract by volume was the 440 strike call expiring Friday.

that needs gold to gain another 3%. All right. Oliver, thank you. Oliver Renick. All right, Joe, how are you feeling about this week and what lies ahead with both NVIDIA and the Fed Chair speaking end of week? I'm feeling pretty good, but I think you hit the nail on the head there. It's really NVIDIA's earnings, and of course, all eyes are on Kevin Warsh and what comes this Friday. I mean, as I just process everything that we've been dealing with over the last few days, you have tariffs with Canada.

You have renewed conflict, if you will, in Iran, and that doesn't seem to be going away anytime soon, there is tension and interest rates continuing to move a little bit higher and a lot of controversy around what Bessent is doing with respect to trying to manage interest rates. It's a lot to process. But if I were really looking for one thing, I would say it's what's going to happen this Friday, Jackson Hole, and the guidance we're going to get from from Kevin Warsh. Well, I thought you were going to say it's Wednesday because earnings have trumped everything that you mentioned to this point. For the most part, we're not that far off from all-time highs, even with all the consternation in the market about the very topics in which

you just spoke. Yeah. And look, let's be very clear. Earnings without question has been our saving grace. And I suspect that you're going to have just another solid set of results coming from in video, which is only going to perhaps cool some of the anxiety around AI and this cap-back spending and what exactly is happening there. And then ultimately, all eyes are going to be moving back forward towards the Fed and what you can

expect to see from Kevin Warsh. But look, earnings have been carrying this market, and I don't think that's going to slow down or stop anytime soon. What's on the line do you think for, for Nvidia, in terms of the AI trade? It may not be just about Nvidia, as we've been talking about all hour. It's tens, hundreds of stocks that lie in the balance, maybe. I think people look to Nvidia as sort of a bell. I think we lost his audio. Jok Tanius. Well, I guess that just sometimes happens. right to the finish. Obviously going to be a green day for stocks. So yields down a little bit, but really it's all about what lies ahead, isn't it? Invitya tomorrow. We're going to run you right into that report tomorrow on closing bell, trying to get to set up even further for that

chair war speech on Friday. Don't forget Marvell earnings on Thursday as well. That's another big earnings report of the week. Not talked about the same light, obviously, as NVIDIA, but important his own right.