Closing Bell - Closing Bell 9/9/26

Episode Date: September 9, 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.

Thanks very much. Welcome to closing bell. I'm Scott Wobner, live from Post 9 here at the New York Stock Exchange. This make-a-break hour begins the markets. Today's oil and yield-induced sell-off. Let's show you the scorecard with 60 to go in regulation today. As you can see, we're read across the board. We've pretty much been there for most of the day with stocks down. Brent, moving over $100 a barrel. That's been a considerable story over 101. There's WTI, not that far behind. And here's the story with yields, which, actually spiked as the Treasury announced the size of its first bond buybacks. Maybe they're a bit smaller than the market was hoping for. We'll have more on that in just a moment. Elsewhere, Apple's iPhone event taking place today, live report coming up there, the stock turning around. So we'll talk about what all of that means for shares moving forward. And how about meta shares? They're higher. The company rolling out its new AI agent, well received to say the least, by the street. It does take us to our talk of the tape, whether stocks are on suddenly shaky ground or not. Let's ask our panel. CNBC contributor, Trivari, it's Adam Parker, Barrett's Chris Veron. It's good to have both

you guys with us. Are we on shaky ground or not? No. No? Why do you think the commentary is like, well, risk rewards worse, corporate buybacks, they're going to disappear. There's no earnings to save the day. Got oil up, yields up. Isn't that shakier ground or no? I think there's this like, you know, historical. Well, I didn't even mention that. Yeah. kind of September calendar thing that a lot of people mention. Yeah. It isn't really statistically significant. We need a lot more years.

And I think a big difference between this year and previous years is in the history of forward estimates, which have existed since 1978, the animals were always too optimistic in January. And on average, their numbers had to come down a lot. And typically after Labor Day, people come back, they sharpen their pencils, and they realize, oh, no, my numbers are way too high. And they have to cut them. This year, really the last couple years, but all year the numbers have to be. keep coming up. And as you know, there's a ton of bullet bracket from conferences in every sector.

Right now, you know, it's Goldman Tech and City and Morgan Stanley Industrial. It's all over. And I just don't think you're going to see down revisions to the earnings like you've seen in some of the previous years. And that's all that matters right now, despite the fact that this is like Scott Robner of Citadel Securities, who's very well respected. I know you have for sure you have a great amount of respect for him. The highs are in for the month. Midmonth really starts the seasonal weakness. Blackout window starts on the 12th. Options expiry on the 18th, quarter end on the 30th. These are all historically very large risk transfer events. How would you respond to that?

Now, again, that's short term. He's talking more tactical. He's talking about the month of September, not a change in the trend of the market. Yeah, so, look, I'm not very good. I don't have any skill in making those calls. You know, those things you mentioned, you have quarters end. Every quarter you have options expiry around that same day every month. I think some months it's good, sometimes it's bad.

I'm sure the guy's a gazillionaire for making that call right more than I would be, so I don't really have any two-week disagreement on that call, and I'm sure Citadel's got the talent to monetize that more than I do. But if I look out farther, I think the earnings trajectory is higher. I think the 27 earnings are higher, and I still think that the tech estimates are just going to be the absolute power of the growth is so high. It's going to be hard for these stocks to be bad stocks. That's kind of the tug-of-war right now, isn't it?

It's this mental game of, I know September, generally bad. I see oil going up. I see yields backing up. I don't have earnings to save the day right now, but the earnings story is so compelling that why should I get so negative now when the story is still so good from an earning standpoint? Scott, I'm struck for a market that's, what, 2% off the highs? There's a lot of bearishness out there. It's easy at the moment to kind of talk yourself down that road, whether it's oil, whether it's rates, whether it's deficit, whether it's war. But I just kind of take a step back and look. I mean, the largest stock in the world is about to make a new high. Invita is right on the goal line. Some of the former leaders of the AI story

are kind of back in gear here. Look at Micron about to break out. Sandisk about to break out. Meta, which I showed at the top of this. Meta coming alive. There's been kind of this resurgence of the funders, as we called it, whether it's meta, whether it's Apple, Nvidia. The banks are still in fairly good consistent across the board. Credit conditions relatively benign. So I think in this tug of war, in trying to understand is what we're going through right now, of this seasonal decay that's, you know, expected, or is at the start of some topping process? I lean more towards the former, not the latter. Thanks are good, credits firm, trend are generally pretty good. I think if you got any weakness between now and, say, month end, maybe 7,50,

70, 300, worst case, I'm a buyer of that, I think the long-term story is still intact. I mean, I'm sure there's going to be plenty of attention on the yield curve. Stay with me for a second. I want to get a little bit more on that as we learn today the size of these Treasury bond buybacks and the market reaction, I'd say, is interesting to say the least. Steve Leasman, our senior economics reporter, joins us. Now, what are you making of the way the market reacted immediately after learning the size of the buybacks from Treasury? Well, that my reporting was pretty good, Scott, that the market was looking for more. A little concerning as to whether the Treasury was aware of how market expectations had built.

and I'll give you the tail of the tape if you don't remember it, Scott, or if our viewers don't, which is on August 19th, the Treasury surprised the market by announcing it was going to double the size of off-the-run long-term securities from two to at least $4 billion. Scott Bessett, the Treasury Check Committee came on our air, and said it could be even more than that. I was able to report they could use the Treasury General account, essentially the government checking account, to use that kind of built expectations, Scott. And so what I was hearing were numbers in the $8 to $10 billion. It said they came out with $6 billion.

But just to be clear, this is not the end of the story. The Treasury Secretary does have some firepower to use here, and he could build it up depending upon how he wants to act. He does certainly keep the market on edge as to whether or not sometime the next time around he could come in and buy more than the $6 billion. I mean, presumably he will do that. Wouldn't that be your expectation now moving forward? guess there's also, we're less than 10 days away from the Fed decision. I'm wondering how

Kevin Warsh and crew are watching what the Treasury is doing and how the market's reacting. Well, right now, they can sit back and watch it. There's no particular effect on the Fed's balance sheet of what's happening that should pressure the federal funds rate. What this will result in, depends upon how it happens, is a potential increase in reserves at the Federal Reserve. But because they're in this big, ample reserve regime, if the Treasury goes out and buys $100, $150 billion of treasuries, it won't have a big impact on the federal funds rate right now. I don't think the Fed needs to sterilize this at all. And I think they have to think about, I think what you're getting at is the politics of all this, Scott, which is here you have a Treasury

secretary who is bent on keeping rates down or reducing rates on the long end. You had mortgages head up towards 7% today. And the Fed, well, they're in a place where in order to do their job, they may have to hike rates. So we're in a situation where the Treasury and the Fed are potentially across purposes here. On that notion, I'm, I guess a little surprised at how many people that I've been speaking with think there's actually a good chance that the Fed could hike rates next week. call me crazy. I just can't see that happening, despite the fact that the market is what, at 60 percent? And I mean, what's your gut tell you about that percentage, whether it's legit?

Is it that high because we're just in this uncertainty period because of the lack of forward guidance? What do you think? I'm going to make a distinction, Scott. I hope it's not too wonky for you, but it's not the forward guidance thing we're missing. It's the reaction function stuff we're missing. the Fed should not regularly be in the business of telling what it's going to do irrespective of the data. What it should be, in the opinion of many people I talk to, be in the business of telling what it's going to do relative to the data. And that's what we're missing here. And that's a big reason for the uncertainty. Certainly these are uncertain times.

And we're not clear if inflation is going away here to stay, going up. There's all kinds of stuff going on. I'll give you one example, which is the Fed would technically or theoretically, like to look through one-off price increases from energy or from tariffs. But tariffs appear to be a daily event coming from the Trump administration, and certainly oil prices seem to be headed higher. So to what extent are these now one-off events the Fed should be addressing, or sorry, ignoring? And then you have the CPI report on Friday, Scott, which is pretty interesting in that

Kevin Warsh has tried to get the market off of the idea of reacting to a single a single report. But here we are. Friday is the decisive day for what the Fed does next week. And you can imagine, as one person told me, if it's 0.24, it rounds down to 0.2. And if it's 0.26, it winds up to, rounds up to 0.3. So here we are that kind of, you know, what is that, the 100th place when it comes to inflation. So this is not where Kevin Worse wants to be. And I think it kind of leads back to him. And the fact that we don't. have a framework from the Fed chairman. Yeah, yet, yet.

Great stuff as always, Steve. I appreciate the insight so very much. Steve Leesman, our senior economics, correspond. Is there Fed risk in this bull market at this point of a mistake? Scott, I think the debate is, and we're having it ourselves, is the market kind of unsettled here because the Fed won't hike and they should? Or is the market unsettled because the Fed's about to hike into what to slow down? When you look at, like, industrials or discretionary?

Listen, I know the markets at the coin toss here. Look at two-year yields versus Fed funds. Two-year yields are about 50 dips above Fed funds right now. That is not screaming hike. Go back four years ago, March of 22, ahead of the first hike. The two-year yield was trading 175 dips above Fed funds. That's a screaming message that they were behind the curve and had a go. You had a similar message, actually, into the 94 surprise hike from Greenspan.

Two-year yield was very deviated from Fed funds. That's not the setup today. I think if they go once, it's not the end of the world. It actually may put what I think a seasonal low in for stocks here, but we'll see. You've maintained that you think the Fed is, I shouldn't use the word irrelevant, but you haven't put much credence into what the Fed's going to do 10 days from now to influence your investing decisions. Is that fair?

Did I characterize it? Isn't a well-respected guy just tell you it's 50-50 for the next two months, and he doesn't know? What am I supposed to do? Like sell all my stocks or totally preposition my portfolio? Are you worried that if they did hike next week, does that upend your everything's looking pretty good idea? I'm with Chris. I think it creates a one-day sell-off that's sharp and then a good opportunity to buy stuff and had a microns print, which is going to be monster, which you already heard, and then probably a pretty good slew of October earnings.

So I just think that the earnings is still the main story. And I think, you know, honestly, we'll see what the 28 numbers look like. But if I'm guessing right now, they're way too low. And the tech complex is going to drive that. It's more than half the earnings grows. So if you just say to yourself, let's say tech grows, whatever, it's 50 this year, 25 next year, 20 the year after. Do you think tech's going to be 40% cheaper in 18 months? Independent of all the tariff stuff and the, like, it's just proven to be the most important factor.

And I think Chris made a great point about, you know, some of the consumer stuff too. you're not seeing income statement issues for low on consumers in terms of 90-day credit card linguacies and other stuff. So, you know, things will change. We'll have to, you know, shift as the data shift. But right now, I think the risk award is to upside to the earnings, not downside. Adam, I would add to that, if you look at credit here, I mean, credit's still pretty benign. And, you know, we always take the approach of, is the bad stuff actually acting bad? I mean, all year people worried about tech IG spreads.

Tech IG spreads are contracting here. You look at some of the weak names all year, the alternative asset managers, they've stabilized. Well, because software did too. The oracles, the coreweaves, have all gotten better. Gents, we'll leave it there. I appreciate it, as always. All right, we'll see again soon. Watching shares of Apple, of course, today.

The company revealing its latest iPhones, the first big event for new CEO, John Turnus, McKenzie Segalis, Live and Cupertino with more. The stock price action has been quite interesting, hasn't it, as they were doing this unveiling? And the market was trying to get its arms around what it was seeing. Yeah, we saw the shares swing lower and then swing the gains as people finally got their hands on this new iPhone lineup. I was just down in the Steve Jobs theater behind me, testing out Apple's first ever foldable phone. Now, the big hardware advancement here is the crease, or really the lack of one.

So Apple emphasizing that creaseless design, I couldn't see it when I held the phone just a couple minutes ago. My colleague, Kif Lesswing could, but it is clearly a step forward versus many foldables already on the market. Now it starts at 1999, the same as Samsung's foldable version, and it goes on sale October 23rd. This is John Turner's first product event as CEO, of course, with a focus firmly on the high end, with Apple only releasing a pro and pro-max version of the 18 series, meaning that you cannot buy a new iPhone from this latest lineup for less than $1,200. Now, the other big theme today was Personal Intelligence, which introduced several quality-of-life features, including one that is raising eyebrows called Siri Recap, which uses ambient listening

throughout the day to generate these high-level notes from your conversations that you can then pull up later across Apple devices. That is a pretty meaningful expansion of what Siri and now the Apple Watch can do. Scott? All right, Mac, we'll watch the stock right to the finish. Thanks so much. This is McKenzie Segalis. Now let's bring in Yorkville Ives, the partner, Dan Ives.

He's with us at Post-Nine. What's your initial reaction? I thought that was, I mean, in terms of his first launch, I call it A-minus for Ternus, because this is all going to be about innovation in Cupertino. What are going to be the hardware innovations? I think when you look at the foldable, you'd have to go back to really AirPods. I mean, almost 10 years ago in terms of the first true, like, foreign factor that I believe could actually significantly move the needle.

And I think this is the start of Apple, realizing that they are the toll collector. on the AI consumer highway. You said A-minus, so you took some points off the score. For what? When it comes to AI strategy, and we've seen WWDC, and they hinted at it here, it's really when do they go, when do they take the curtains on, or when do they finally go full blast on the AI strategy, everything we've seen in terms of, you know, the Gemini

and everything that they've created behind Apple Park, when do you actually now start to see that, to one that's going to be an incentive because the reality is 300 million iPhones today have been based on our having not upgraded in over four years. But because you've had all of those non-upgrades, when do they have to deliver what you want them to deliver on the AI front to initiate a surge of upgrades? Like you've announced some expensive phones.

They may look great, but if they don't have what you say they need, where's the timeline in your mind? I view it as almost a two-step process. The first step is if you look at the launch and really how they're launching iPhone 18, they're going to sort of, you know, I drip this out in terms of the actual AI technology, and I think some of the enhancements.

So I think that's important because this is not just a one-year cycle because you go to the 20th anniversary next year for iPhone, that is going to be even probably more significant because what everyone's waiting for, when do you actually have an AI-enabled device for consumers? And we've said, I mean, I think 20% in the world, ultimately, will access AI through an Apple device. What do we think about the prices? I think given memory prices, they could have raised more if they wanted to.

I think part of when McKenzie talked about, I think the stock may be reactions, investors may be fearing it was even going to be more expensive in terms of the price increases. If you look at churn and what they've typically done, you expect minimum. minimal churn. I call it $100, you know, call it 9% type price increase, but they have to manage their own margins. And when you look at memory prices, that's not something that's going to curtail anytime soon. Do you think that they have endless pricing power? I don't. And I think they recognize that. I think that's why investors, you know, you can look at Cook's legacy and obviously the Hall of Fame CEO. The one thing that Apple, I think, hasn't got enough credit for is understanding that. where they could raise prices, where they'd have to eat it,

where ultimately partners within the supply chain we're going to have to eat it, because the one thing that they can't have is churn at certain price increases. And I think give what we see with memory right now. It's a tug of war. They're toe in the line. But now the stage is set for the Turner's chapter, which will be judged on hardware innovation,

but also judged ultimately on the AI strategy. And that's why the baton was handed from Cook to Ternus. at this time. Let's talk about the foldable phone for a minute. Gene Munster, I know you know well. We've been on the show together says the new foldable duo is sick. No seam, ultra thin, 50% larger screen than the Pro Max. My take, they're going to sell more than I thought before seeing it. I was thinking it would account for 5% of revenue in 27. Now I think likely to be 10% issue is going to be price. Now, we have the price. But what about that review? Does it lead to a greater share of revenue than we first thought. Now that we've seen it, do you agree with Munster?

Oh, agree with Munster and I'll even further. I mean, it could be 15 to 20 percent. That big? Of, if you think about pro max or pro users, when you look at the innovations on this, this is something many have been waiting for it. Because again, it goes back to, you haven't had a true change from a hardware perspective, on a mass. You'd have to go back to AirPods. Like a truly innovative thing to drive revenue? Because Vision Pro is niche and obviously super expensive. So now no one has an install base like Apple, 1.5 billion iPhones, 2.5 billion iOS devices. And you call it a sleeping giant, but now it comes down to consumers who are waiting for,

okay, what's next? Now then it comes down to as they roll out the AI capabilities, not just in the US, but obviously around the world, when does the Alibaba relationship start to kick in China? These are all steps. Internist recognizes this had to be an A-A-a-minus, because if it's a B or a C's sort of coming out, you know, in terms of that first sort of launch, that's something investors would put them in the penalty box, and he did exactly what he needed to do. Okay, hang with me for a minute.

I want to get to the other AI talker of the day. It's certainly that. An anthropic researcher quitting over AI fears. Kate Rooney joins us with more on this. Still developing story. Tell us more. Scott, so the latest. latest is this anthropic researcher sparking this debate, the safety debate with a tweet. He did

step down from the AI giant this week. And in his words, AI companies, both Anthropic and Open AI, quote, are racing to self-improving super intelligence and gambling with our lives. He says the people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade. He says this is not a marketing stunt. He says many executives and senior researchers will actually couch their phrasing in the press to sound sensible, but he says he hears behind the scenes at the same time people express fear privately. Quote, no other human activity poses this level of danger. Another top anthropic alignment researcher agrees.

Responded to that tweet, he said that he puts the chance of AI causing human extinction within the next decade. He puts it at greater than 10%. The concern is partially, Scott, how they're actually building the next generation of AI as it increasingly helps build itself as the tech gets better. It can actually be harder to control, and some say harder to shut down. In an emergency, also there is this risk around alignment. So essentially, if AI doesn't have the same goals as humans, obviously that could be an issue.

It does come, of course, as Anthropic is actively in the IPO process with the SEC filed confidentially. It's been a big topic here at the Goldman Sachs conference in San Francisco. We also got some headlines, Scott, just crossing as well about Anthropic, disclosing yet another hacking incident. This is, again, in a testing phase of a model escaping a sandbox. It looks like these headlines just coming out. But it speaks to the cybersecurity risk and just how powerful this tech is becoming. It's quite capable, but also a lot of risk involved here. All right, Kate, thank you very much for that. That's Kate Rooney. I'll turn back for a comment from Dan Ives. You hear these headlines? You wonder why people are skeptical about data centers in their backyard or of the power of AI in general that they don't trust it?

What do we do with that? Yeah, I disagree. I mean, I understand the concerns, but what I've seen, especially over the last year, year and a half, I disagree. I think what Daria, what they're doing, Anthropic, what we're seeing with Open AI? You disagree with what? In terms of the fears that this is something that's going to be, you know, so dramatic in terms of what we've seen in terms of a negative for AI in this country. You're disagreeing with a researcher from inside who just quit? Look, I believe I get the angle.

I'm just saying someone like myself, maybe a year ago, year and a half ago, there was that definite concern. But I've seen, at least personally, the industry is taking, I think, a much bigger sort of role in terms of safety. You are starting to see a lot more guard rails put in. You need to be, you need to see more put in, no doubt. And we've talked about the data center debate and others. You said that you told me last week that the industry is doing a terrible job. It goes back to that PR issue, everything we're talking about. they self-created a lot of this.

But you have seen changes, not just from a PR perspective, but I think what they're actually doing in terms of real action. Look, room wasn't built in a day. They created a lot of this. We're talking about a fourth industrial revolution, the most innovation we've ever seen. Not just in our lifetime. You'd have to go back to the last 100 years.

But this is the time for the tech industry, concerns like this, to self-regulate, but not have the politicians regulate because that's where I think innovation. Right. People hear this and say, How can you have the industry itself self-regulate if they can't even fully identify or come to an agreement on what the real severity of the issues may be? We'll continue this conversation another time. I have to leave it there, Dan. Thanks. It's Dan Ives from just getting started. Coming up next.

The IPO race is heating up. Speaking of Anthropic, reportedly targeting an October debut. A question still swirl, though, around when Open AI could make that move. We'll talk about that next. All, welcome back, Anthropic, heading for an October IPO, according to Reuters. recent reporting. That is the Open AI debut remains an open question. For more, we're joined by venture capitalist Rick Heitzman, founder and partner of First Smart Capital. It's good to have you back. Hey, thanks for having me. Man, there's like more than ever that feels that AI is in the news all the time. And maybe not for the greatest reasons either. We'll get to that in a minute. Anthropic October. Makes sense. Makes sense. Supposedly Morgan Stanley, Goldman leading him out

in October and Open AI jostling to get ahead of them. What about the, well, Are they really jocelyn to get ahead of them? That doesn't sound realistic, does it? I think they're trying to because as the second player, who perceive the second player in the market, they want to get ahead of them to get their numbers out sooner and get to that capital sooner, but it seems like anthropic beat them to the punch.

What do you make of the departures from OpenAI, which have more dominated the conversation than talk of the actual IPO, and how could they speed up the process at the same time that they're losing, key individuals? So they want to speed up the process to get out before anthropic. Their numbers aren't as strong on a revenue basis or profitability basis, so they want to be able to get out and capture people's imagination first as the leader, as perceived to being a follower. At the same

time, it's really hard to do your S-1 if your key leadership keeps changing. And I think that's the challenge that you're talking about. But you're still posing it as, well, they want to do this, they want to do that. Are you telling me that you don't. think the ship has sailed? I don't think the... Anthropic is going first. I think Anthropic is going out in, call it, four to six weeks, and I think OpenAI might

still be trying to get out around the same time, if not before them. These guys have slipped a couple of times also. So they've pushed it out. If you remember, they were talking about April, May, and even over the summer at some point. So if I was Open AI, I'd be trying to be ready and prepared in case Anthropic

slips again. How is the overall IPO market feel to you, right? now. I think they feel strong. I think when people will see the numbers from both open AI and anthropic, they're going to understand how real this is, how real the revenue is, how real the growth is. We haven't seen companies grow like this ever before, and it's going to capture people's imagination, and I think that's going to bleed into other AI adjacent companies. You do. So, I mean, in some respects, the biggest games in town are going to steal a lot of the thunder and the audience, or is there still enough to

go around and enough excitement from the smaller players around the periphery of AI to play a game too. Going back to the analogy we've used before in the early days of the internet, it was the Amazon's, the Netscapes, the Yahoo's, who were the real icebreakers that opened up the market and opened up people's and investors' imaginations to what could be in the future. And beyond that, folks were able to say, oh, this might not be the biggest company, but you could build a lot of big companies around a generational megatrend like AI. You think there's room for everybody? Not everybody.

I mean, I've been even talking about, like, we talk about Open AI and Anthropic and others that are at the sort of the top of the stack. Are we still in the process of figuring out who among them is going to be the real winner? Or is there room for a collective group of large players and everybody can have their own piece of the pie? It depends on the market segment. I think if you think about AI infrastructure, some of the neoclows like CoreWeave, those markets are developing faster because you have to develop the infrastructure market faster so the application layer develops. So those markets are maturing quicker and those winners are established.

But on both the infrastructure and application level, that'll break up. There'll be new players like call it the instincts of the world on the application side. They'll also be the legacy players. or we think about meta putting out muse as an agent or Gemini. And then there will also be the new but new trillion-dollar emergent players of the Anthropic and Claude and OpenAI and ChatGPT who will all play in that share. But we believe from the application layer, we're really in the early endings and there's going to be big winners that come out. Speaking of meta, I mean, what is up 7% on what you were just talking about. Is it surprise you the market reaction?

Having played with it, it surprises me a little bit. I was underwhelmed by the meta-muse product. I'm an instinct user. I'm not an investor, but they're an emergent agent that's message-based. I feel like that's by far the best product. But I also use Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, all of these other products. And I think instinct is best, and I think Muse is maybe even a step behind bought in Chat-GPT. Is there any at all risk of what we're witnessing with this backlash to data centers and AI and what the, you know, the anthropic research are quitting and just that's now in the conversation?

Like, should we be more fearful? Things like that. Is there any relationship to that issue to market performance or no? I think that this is just grinding the hype train. So I think any press is good press for Anthropic going into it. an IPO and making sure that's in the news. I actually think the bigger risk of being fearful about AI is being fearful about AI. So everybody who's a dumerist and trying to say, hey, we can't let AI take over the world. We don't want data centers. We don't want those things. It's probably

slowing down the U.S. AI train to the benefit of China and to the benefit of other people who are embracing new technologies faster. I mean, some people suggest that, you know, the industry in which You play in a lot. Tech has done a terrible job in spreading the message that you just said. I 100% agree. We talked about this earlier this year. I was in front of Congress talking about it. You were.

Yes. And no one really has done a really good job of why AI is good. There's a million reasons why AI is bad. There might be potential job losses. There might be implications of building data centers. But what we've seen, even so far, is the number of jobs created on the labor side has increased. Even on the software side, the number of computer programming jobs has increased, even as the cursor and coding agents have emerged. So there's actually been more job creation than job loss, and this is probably more positive as earning spike and investments increased for the economy in the whole and even individuals than with the current general belief is in the market, especially among voters going into the midterm.

Interesting. Great to get your insights, as always. Rick, thanks. Thank you. That's Rick Heitzman. NFL team valuations. They're soaring. No big shock there to new records. We're breaking down CNBC's exclusive NFL valuations list next. We're also going to be joined exclusively by the Jacksonville Jaguars owner, Shad Khan. That's coming up next. CNBC rolling out its annual NFL valuations list today. Just as the new season kicks off tonight, CNBC's senior sports reporter Mike Ozanian down in Jacksonville today with the Jaguars owner Shad Khan, his team placing

22nd at $9.35 billion. These numbers just keep Mike getting bigger and bigger and quicker. Yes, they do, Scott, and thanks for having a shot. Thanks for coming on CNBC. Great to be here. So as Scott said, the average team is now worth over $10 billion, nearly $10.4 billion, 35% more than last year. We just saw the Seahawks sell for $9.6 billion, 59% more than the commanders three years ago.

the commanders sold for 30% more than the Broncos did the year before that. What's going on in the NFL? Well, I think what's going on is sports valuations are going up. But I think the real point, the big story is NFL is still greatly undervalued compared to the other sports. So I think the run-up for the NFL is almost endless at this point. And the fundamentals, the economic fundamentals of the NFL, the competitive balance, which is unparalleled in any sport, NFL,

and then the impact NFL has in a community, like we do in Jacksonville, where NFL you can unite the fan base, the community behind the team for good to move the needle in a good way, what we've been able to do in the city, the growth, the development, all of that really taken the power of the NFL.

That's unique. Let's talk about your team, the Jacksonville Jaguars. There was some guy who values, sport teams when you bought the Jags in 2011. Oh yeah, I think it was me. He said you overpaid at $770 million. Now I have you pegged at $9.35 billion. That's an 18% annualized rate of increase. If we took that 18% out for another 15 years, that would put the Jags at $112 billion. Yes or no, Shad. It's going to be a big number. It's going to be a big number, okay? Who would have

taught then, you know, in 2000? well, the Jags would be worth what you're saying they are today. Okay? And you're a conservative guy, very conservative guy, who thought maybe, you know, I did overpay a little bit more. So I think, you know, with the wealth creation and the sport and all the other things I mentioned, I mean, NFL is an immediate zone. Scott, you got a question for Mr. Khan.

I do. I do. It's great to have you on our program. Mike and I look at those numbers, and I think we both have the same reaction like many others probably do. Who in the world can afford these things anymore? It's become obviously more difficult the way that the NFL rules for buying teams is set up. Private equity now has a play in that, of course, at 10% only. How close do you think we are to expanding the rules to allow private equity to take bigger positions in teams as these valuations just continue to go up at the clip that they are?

Yeah, I think all of those are great questions, which one has to ponder, and really then respond to them accordingly. But if you look at the latest sale, like the Seattle Seahawks, I mean, they were a bunch of competitive groups. And so the current rules right now are working and working well. But there are times, and I think we've seen this after successive sales, well, there are things that could be refined. You want to keep the value, the foundation of the NFL to have one owner who can speak for the team, the finances to be really unleveraged, so to speak, plenty of equity to align the interest of the owner and the team with the league and the sport. So the rules will change. I think that's what keeps the game really strong.

and vital, and same thing, the financial rules will have to change to keep it relevant. Sean, let's talk about what is this new stadium need for the Jaguars as a team, as a business, and for the city of Jacksonville. Well, what it means for us is it's going to be a world-class environment, largest closed dome stadium in state of Florida. So we can hold events, non-football day events. It is a public-private partnership with the City of Jacksonville and the Jaguars. It's going to generate the multiplier effect.

A lot of other events, not football-related, the sales revenue, the hotels, all the taxes. It's going to be a great economic force for the City of Jacksonville. Thanks, Sean. I appreciate it. And the non-game day revenue, I think, is really, really important for the NFL teams. And, you know, you've seen that in a bunch of the new stadiums, that it really elevates the Ibetah for a team significantly. Guys, we'll leave it there. I appreciate that.

Mr. Khan, best of luck this season. Thanks, Scott, thank you. Got yourself a good football team, too. So we'll see what happens actually on the field as well. Mike, thanks to you as well. For the full team valuations list, you can head to CNBC.com. Be sure to tune in tomorrow. Alex Sherman live from Australia.

That's right. Australia with the NFL Commissioner, Giddell and Netflix's chief content officer, that is ahead of tomorrow's matchup between the Rams and the 49ers. Coming up next, more on the meta's major move that we told you about earlier, the market zone, closing bell market zone. Mike Santoli in New York Life's Julia Herman are here to break down these crucial moments of the trading day. Oliver Renick standing by live from the Cibo Global Markets in Chicago to play some options action in a moment. Michael, your thoughts on this day begin where?

You know, the market keeps kind of piling up things for the tape to try and withstand. We did it again in terms of the S&P 500, not buckling, you know, below last week's low, even as yields and oil moved against it. I do think you have to squint and look at the Treasury market and say 10-year yields up four-ish basis points on a day when there was some disappointment in the size of the Treasury buyback, perhaps, but you also had oil up by almost 4%. So arguably, that's not the most dramatic reaction and maybe not so decisive. I do think nobody wants to lean too hard in one direction ahead of these two inflation prints we have coming into a bond market that's already priced in,

perhaps a lot more fed than we had been thinking a couple months ago. Four minutes away. Is that where you begin tonight? We're absolutely going to begin with all that on the macro front. And then, of course, break down the Apple and meta announcements too with Patrick Moorhead, Alex Kanshowitz and others. All right, look for you and Mel in just a little bit. Thanks for that to Chicago. We go. Oliver Renix playing options action. What's where are you playing today? Looking at Meta shares, Scott, pushing towards a 20% move in six sessions. Options activity is following suit with trading volume almost three times the 30-day average today.

The company launches its AI agent for consumers that they describe as a first step towards personal superintelligence. Five of top seven trades by dollar amount today were bullish, and two were priced neutral as call buying outpaste to put buying two to one. The biggest trade of the day was someone buying 4,000 of the 670 strike calls expiring October 2nd for almost $6.5 million. Those contracts cost over $20 each and only had 250 open contracts coming into today. That means this was someone opening a new position, and they need meta to add 5.5% over the next three and a half weeks. All right, Oliver, appreciate that very much. That's Oliver Renick. Julia Herman with me at Post 9, as we said. Oil up, yields up, stocks down.

Is that relationship going to exist for a while, do you think? Well, honestly, we're most focused on how incredibly resilient U.S. equities have been to both $100 oil and the 10-year Treasury above 4.8. At this point, what can probably do more to change the investor playbook happens next Wednesday on whether or not the Fed begins a tightening cycle from there. What do you think? Well, we believe that the Fed has space to remain. on hold. And yes, that holds even in this higher oil environment. And our key reason for that is

because the labor market's in equilibrium, not necessarily in a situation to withstand a sustained hiking cycle. But if the Fed does hike, we are certainly on the alert for the areas in portfolio positioning that might need to move a little bit more defensive, given that in a hiking cycle, the labor market would be a little bit more vulnerable. I've been hearing a lot lately that the risk reward for stocks has changed. Look at yields and bonds. They're now to the point where they're so attractive. Maybe that's where the opportunity now is. How would you address that? Well, it's a balance, right? You know, on the surface, it's still a relatively difficult time for bonds because we still expect ongoing rates volatility and spreads are still quite compressed. But when we think

from a total portfolio allocation perspective, now that the income is really coming through on the on the bond side of a portfolio. It opens up opportunities on the equity side to consider the less love sectors out there. Financials, for example, would be one of our preferred picks if long rates continue to move rates tighter from here. We've seen discretionary hasn't done well with rates up. Industrials haven't done well with rates up.

How do you see those groups? And of course, I mean, I'll ask you about tech just because, you know, how can you not? Right. Well, the potential for a hiking cycle from here takes the wind out of some of the clear risk on more sick. sectors out there. At the margin would tend to favor staples over discretionary, for example, and cyclical sectors like industrials would be a little bit less favored. In tech, though,

the takeaway is a little bit less clear because we have such high earnings quality in so many portions of the tech story. Even in semiconductors, for example, which are traditionally more cyclical, we have seen outstanding earnings growth that would make them theoretically more in the bucket of high quality, more defensive. All right, we'll leave it there. Julia, thanks for being here. Appreciate that very much. We count down to the close here. It's going to be across the board. Brent over 100 101, WTI on the rise, yields backing up. The Treasury tells us how much they're going to be doing in their bond buybacks. They still backed up. So we'll watch that relationship very closely. As I said, stocks are going to close lower all in the day as well.

That'll do it for us. As they ring that bell, I'll see you tomorrow. I'll send it into overtime.