Closing Bell - The U.S. vs China

Episode Date: August 11, 2025

The big battle between the U.S. and China taking center stage – and on two major fronts today. We discuss a  deal for Nvidia and AMD to sell chips in China -- but with a catch – with Intelligent Alpha’s Doug Clinton. And we speak to the CEO of a company trying to shake-up the market for rare earths. Plus, Solus’ Dan Greenhaus weighs in on the race for the next Fed chair. And, cannabis stocks are flying high in today’s session. We tell you why. 

All right, Brian, thanks so 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 with the U.S. versus China on two major fronts today. A deal for Nvidia and AMD to sell chips there, but with a catch. And one company trying to shake up the market for rare earths and the big backer behind those efforts. We'll get to both in just a moment. We'll show you the scorecard first with 60 to go in regulation today.

It has, as Brian said, been a tight range for stocks most of the day-to-day as investors await tomorrow's CPI data. You see the majors here not doing all that much. Sectors are pretty split as well. Discretionary is leading, materials lagging. And speaking of materials, it does take us to our talk of the tape today, the race for rare earths in high demand for things like drones and EVs, but a market all but cornered by the Chinese. Not if one American company gets its way. Vulcan elements announcing a $65 million fundraise today led by Altimeters Brad Gersner. John Maslin is that company CEO and co-founder, he does join us now. We're so pleased to have you. Welcome and congratulations on this raise. Thanks for having me. Led by Ultimiter, as I said, how'd that

relationship come to be? We've had conversations for several months. Brad Gersner, Eric Kriesman, at the company. They understand hardware. They understand deep tech. And we're really excited to have them as our partner as we get ready to scale this company up. What do you do with the cash? Tell me about your scaling ideas. So what we're going to do, do is we are going to go and build our commercial facility with several hundred tons online over the next couple of years and several thousand tons by the end of this decade. Can you build, I mean, we are essentially talking about building a U.S. industry from scratch. Are we not? And can you do that in reasonably short order?

It's a good question. Some people think that this is buy a piece of equipment, press a button, make a magnet. It is not that. This is phenomenally complex. advanced manufacturing, and that's why you need an extremely technically and intellectually dense team. You need technicians. You need engineers. You need PhDs. You need people who have experience in rarest, but also material science, powder metallurgy, batteries, aerospace. And that's the team that we have, and that's the team that we're going to scale to get this done. How long does it take to make, let's say, one magnet? It can be as quick as an hour or a couple of hours. At the end of the day, though, it's about

how many magnets can you produce at scale every month? And are they consistent? Are they reliable? Are they actually meeting the requirement that the customer needs? It's funny. You have a really interesting background. A former Navy officer. You co-founded this company while at Harvard Business School. Is that right? Correct. When you were an officer in the Navy, were you already thinking about this sort of thing? I mean, where does this idea come from? And even just a transformation from being an officer in the Navy to going to HBS? So when I was in the Navy, I was a supply officer thinking about our supply chains. How do we make sure that we have the resilience that is needed across shipbuilding and

across the Defense Department writ large? When I went to Harvard Business School, I started thinking about what are the critical components that will define the 21st century technology race? And what I learned and what I realized was it's three components. It's chips, batteries, rare with magnets. And the way that I like to think about it personally is if you think about your own body, a semiconductor is like your brain, a battery is like your heart, and a rareth magnet is like your spine. It converts electricity and emotion.

Everyone was focused on semiconductors and batteries, which are important, which we need to fix, but no one was paying attention to the third leg of that stool, the rareth magnets. And if we don't onshore, if we don't have availability of all three, we're not going to be able to deliver on the technologies that we need, drones, robotics, data centers, defense applications. People get it now. But I love this quote that you had in the story that ran today because people didn't get it then. And then is not all that long ago, as you say in 2023 as you're starting this company, quote, when you talked about rare earth magnets a couple of years ago, they would look at you like you're insane. People actually understand

the strategic importance of onshoreing this now. Tell me more about that. When you originally said, hey, I want to go and start a rareth magnet company. People would say a magnet like on your refrigerator. And you had to give people a lot of education saying, no, these go into motors, they go into sensors, actuators, generators. Every major piece of hardware that the defense department uses, we need a magnet in. Every piece of our economy ranging from cars to MRIs to data centers. And so as we've gone through and we've educated people and the April 4th, ban on Chinese exports of rarer has happened, people now realize these are as important as semiconductors. These are as important as batteries. And we need companies that are executing extremely

seriously to go and get this done as quickly as possible. I know you have a grand vision. I mean, China controls 90% of this market. What kind of time frame are we legitimately talking about to where that 90 starts to go down and your market share starts to go up to where the U.S. becomes a legitimate and real player here? I think by 2029 we have a really good shot at being able to take a significant amount of market share with Vulcan elements specifically focuses on is defense, aerospace, critical economic industries, making sure that we have the magnets and the components that are required for the critical parts of our entire economy.

So 65 million was being announced today. You're valued at 250 million now. How much capital is this going to take, John? Depends on how fast and how hard we want to scale, it's going to take more capital to get to, you know, the grand vision of several thousand tons by the end of this decade. But we're going to take this capital. We're going to be stewards of that capital. And we're going to make sure that we have a minimum of several hundred tons online over the next couple of years. Can you raise enough as a private company and how are you thinking of your trajectory? So what I would say is if you have the track record where you're executing where you can say things like on time, on budget, you're putting

product into customer hands, the answer is yes, because there is a huge supply, demand, and balance in this market right now. And if you're going and actually delivering, putting your money where your mouth is, the answer is yes, the capital is there. We'll follow your story. I appreciate you joining us first year today. John, thank you. That's John Maslin. He's the Vulcan Element CEO, and as we said, the co-founder, now to that other piece of China-related news today, that deal between the Trump administration, Nvidia and AMD, which will allow for those companies to sell their chips into that country. Tell us more, Amon Javvers. Yes, Scott, that's right. I mean, we are expecting to see some news later this afternoon

with this executive order, I should mention, that the president, I'm told by a White House official, has already signed extending that China deadline by 90 days. So that's something the market had been looking for throughout the day today. We do expect to see that publicly, not clear whether that's going to come out before or after market closed today. And then, of course, as you mentioned, this deal on chips. I'm told by folks close to the president that the way he looks at this is that this is its one-off. That is, there's no precedent that they're trying to set here. Now, officials not willing to rule out the idea of doing this in other industries where they need export licenses

and then asking that company to kick back 15% or 20% of the revenue to the U.S. government. But they don't intend, they say, to be setting a precedent here. They view this as a one-off in terms of chips. being very tightly linked to national security to AI and the rest. So they say it's a unique situation with NVIDIA and AMD. They don't expect to be repeating anytime soon, but nobody here is going to go on the record and say they would never do that type of deal

in another situation, Scott. Sure, but what some have worried would be a slippery slope, so to speak, doesn't sound like that might actually be the case. It doesn't sound like they're envisioning it right now, right? I mean, now the question is, as we go along, you know, you still have, you know, three plus years left in the administration as they go along, do they say, hey, wait a second,

you know, this is actually a pretty good source of revenue in a revenue-constrained world for the U.S. government. Maybe we want to do that. But what they're saying today is there's no intent to set a precedent here to be sort of selling export licenses to American companies through this revenue-sharing arrangement. Yeah, it's interesting nonetheless. Amon, thanks for the update. Amen, Javers Northlawn of the White House for us. Let's bring in Nvidia shareholder now, Doug Clinton of Intelligent Alph. It's good to see you. You see an announcement like this come out of D.C. today. You say what? The summer of deals in Techland. We keep seeing new deals. I mean, we talked about rarer metals just a minute ago.

MP Materials was kind of one of the deals that almost kicked off. The deal train that we've been on, then we had Apple. Now we have Nvidia. I think from an Nvidia perspective, as a shareholder, the terms are sort of irrelevant. I mean, 15% whatever. What's important is we know now with certainty that they will be coming back to the Chinese market. And that's tens of billions of dollars that we can now write back into models for NVIDIA. So the deal is a good one, I think, for NVIDIA and good for shareholder. What does it say if the stock's not really doing anything on the announcement? Do you think there was anticipation that this was going to be figured out in some form or fashion?

I do. I mean, this is even three months ago, we sort of talked about what could happen with these chips once the first ban happened. And the ultimate assumption we came to was a deal will eventually get done. We don't know what it'll look like, but somehow we'll figure out something here. And so I think largely that was consensus in the market, but now that we have it done, it takes a risk off the table. The H20 is far different from Blackwell or whatever is going to be the latest and greatest of the next few years. Does that matter to you at all?

And do you think they would ever reach a deal to be able to sell their more advanced chips there? I doubt that you'd ever see the full-powered Blackwell chips there. And even the H-20, which is, I think, more than a year old now, right? used to be closer to their top-of-line product, but it was essentially pulled down a little bit. It was pulled back in terms of the power that the chip was able to deliver to customers. And so what I think we'll probably see is sort of a trend like that. Invidia puts out a new chip every year. I bet Blackwell eventually comes out with a B-20, and maybe that's next year or the year after,

and that replaces the age. So we've had all the mega-caps report earnings except for this one, and that's going to be within the next couple of weeks. What are your expectations now? I think based on the commentary we've seen from the mega caps, who are their biggest customers, they're continuing to spend on infrastructure, they're continuing to invest in AI. I think the quarter probably looks fine based on what the commentary has been so far. Is this stock, I mean, I know this sounds like a ridiculous question.

Is it a buy until you hear from the companies that they're going to scale back their capax? I mean, the numbers that are being thrown out are so astronomically large. How do you think about that? We did an analysis on this. It's funny. If you look back to last year, what were the consensus street estimates for CAPEX amongst the MAG6 going into 2026? They've gone up by $100 billion so far this year. And so I think that just gives to show you kind of the order of magnitude that the market was missing in terms of how much could be invested here. Do I think we're off by another $100 billion? Probably not that scale. But I think you're going to continue to see these CAPX numbers go up because we know that more inference, right? usage, which is what we're seeing right now, needs more chips. What was your big takeaway from the mega cap earnings that we've gotten already? Beyond what they're spending? Stability.

I think it's sort of played out this theme of these companies have great underlying businesses. They're spending a lot on AI. They're starting to benefit from AI beyond the mega caps. I thought was actually the more interesting story. Such as what? Well, you look at the broader AI trade. The last three months in May, the AI trade sort of bottomed out. Everybody hated AI at that point.

And now we've ripped back. You know, some of these stocks are up 100%, like CoreyWee, for example. And now I think what we've seen, as they've sort of reported quarters, some of them are showing real AI momentum, some of them aren't. And so we've had a ton of companies up 30%, and then a few even today, C3AI, Monday, right, down 20, 30%, because they're just not showing that momentum. I think we're going to continue to see that bifurcation going forward. You think the stocks that have been up by the, you know, huge amounts that you suggest,

these parabolic moves. Do you think those are justified or what some have tried to say were more reflexive than fundamentally based? I think it's some of both, actually. And that's what you get in technologically driven bull markets. I think you're going to see that the fundamentals are strong and investors are probably paying a little more than they should for fundamentals. And so I think if you're in on the AI trade, the question sort of becomes timing, duration, how much do you want to try to play these maybe short-term moves? These stocks will ultimately have versus the long-term trend, which I still think we're in this two to four-year bull market. You still have questions about Apple, as I think many investors do. The biggest one being what?

Well, Intelligent Alpha, we use AI to do our portfolio management. We don't own Apple. We haven't owned Apple or Amazon. The biggest issue, I think, with our models is that it just knows AI is not part of Apple's story right now, nor is it really of Amazon. Those have been the two outsiders, the stocks we do own in the mega caps, Microsoft, meta, Google, and InVIDIA, the strong AI companies. I think Apple just needs to show something with AI. It's been a question for a year now. They probably won't answer it for another year. And I think eventually, after the deal euphoria goes down, that's the overhang for the stock. People are throwing their arms in the air saying, what's he talking about with Amazon and the relationship with Anthropic? I mean,

that's a significant relationship that they have. And in terms of how Amazon is, you know, is seeing AWS, for example. I mean, they see that being as much of an AI marketplace as the actual retail marketplace that put the company on the map in the first place. I think the trouble for them, Scott, though, is you look at the growth numbers for AWS relative to Azure, relative to GCP with Google,

and they're just not in the same league right now. They're still the huge player in the space. But I don't think that their partnership with Anthropic, who also works with Google, by the way. I don't think that's exclusive enough or sort of unique enough to them to really drive an AI bid for the stock. You still think that this group of stocks leads between, let's say, now and the end of the year? Is this what powers that next big leg, if there is one to be had in this market? I think it is as scary as it is with concentration, all the things everybody talks about, earnings multiples.

I think these are still the stocks you want to own. InVIDIA and Alphabet of the two that we own the biggest of. I mean, the concentration is actually unbelievable when you break it down. by the numbers. That doesn't give you any bit of pause at all? You have to put context to it because it's, I think it's about 38% concentration for the top 10 stocks of the S&P 500. But they also contribute a little over 30% of earnings. And these are the best companies in the world. So they should trade at some premium. I don't think it's out of order. You know, the concern is, you know, how big can they get, right? You look back at history, what happened in the dot-com era and some of the concentration then.

But I'll give you a stat on that, too. The top 10 companies, over 20% concentration, 10% of earnings. So much higher multiples in that era that we're seeing today. I'm going to ask you one more question. And it's about a stock that seemingly hasn't gotten any AI boost whatsoever. It's Adobe. Yes. You guys own it.

We did. I had a conversation on halftime today with another investor who's been in that stock and it's been rolling down the hill. Because if you show the chart, that's what it looks like. What's the story here? Did they turn it around? This other investors suggested that their earnings are just fine. the questions about AI or the lack thereof are overblown.

How do you respond? I think that Adobe is actually sort of symptomatic of the broader SaaS ecosystem, where every investor is sort of asking this question, is AI going to fundamentally change SaaS? Will people be able to- Isn't it already? These things. To some extent, I think Adobe, they've tried to build in some tools, right?

AI is really kind of part of their UI as they use their tools for their users. And so I think they've done a good job building it in. They haven't done a good job accelerating their monetization from AI. And I think that's still the fundamental challenge for them and other SaaS companies. How can you actually make more money from it, not just embed it in your product and charge the same amount? We'll talk to you soon. Doug, thanks. That's Doug Clinton, Intelligent Alpha founder and CEO.

Let's send it now to Steve Kovac for a look at the biggest names moving into the close. Hey, Steve. Hey, there's Scott. Yeah, Tesla shares their hire after the company formally submitted an electricity license request to a British energy regulator. Now, if that's approved, it would allow the EV giant to compete in the UK market as soon as next year. Shares are up about 4% now. Elf Beauty shares are also in the green on an upgrade to overweight from equal weight at Morgan Stanley. Analysts expect upside from solid-based business growth and the acquisition of Haley Bieber's skincare brand Road.

Shares are up now better than 13%. And finally, core weave shares are moving higher after J.P. Morgan lifted its year-end price target on the stock to $135.5. from the prior 66. That's an applied 4% upside from Friday's close. The bank says shares require a risk tolerance amid volatile trading, but they expect continued momentum in the cloud infrastructure company's pipeline. Shares are up now better than 6%, almost 7% now, Scott. All right. Steve, thanks. Steve Kovac. We're just getting started here on the bell up next. New names emerging in the race now for the next Fed share. Steve Leesman, standing by with those details. We're live at the New York Stock Exchange. You're watching closing bell on CNB.

see. Welcome back to the bell. New details emerging in the search for the next Fed chair. Steve Leesman here with more as we learn about some more names, Steve. Yeah, same source on these names, Scott Bloomberg, reporting that Michelle Bowman, the Fed Vice Chair for Supervision, Lori Logan, the Dallas Fed President and Phil Jefferson, the Vice Chair of the Federal Reserve Board, all in apparent contention or being thought of as potential for vice chair. That would bring the list of names we've heard to eight. I have contacted the Treasury to ask for any confirmation that these names are under consideration.

Don't have any of that yet, so we cannot confirm this. But it is interesting. It does appear Scott Bessett, the Treasury Secretary, who's in charge of all this, is casting a wide net or at least interviewing a widely divergent group of people, I'd say. Lori Logan, as you remember, she ran the desk at the New York Fed, kind of on the hawk side when it comes to rates and inflation or has been. Phil Jefferson, an academic economist from North Carolina, until he was tapped by the Biden administration

to be vice chair, not been especially outspoken compared to other Fed vice chairs, for example, Stan Fisher or Richard Clarenda in terms of leading the way on some of the economic policy, but can't say exactly what role he's played inside the Fed, perhaps a more active role. And then, of course, Mickey Bowman, who has been a Fed vice chair for supervision,

and over the weekend, of course, talked about the idea of three rate cuts and the tariffs are something going to be a one-time price increase in the Fed auto-address, the job market and the weakness of the job market there, Scott. So, Logan, as you described as leaning a little hawkish, right, from the New York Fed. Bullard, who I think we would agree leans a little hawkish. What about Jefferson? How would you characterize his views on monetary policy?

Well, a little bit straight down the middle. He's been very much in line with the Fed chair, so I don't know that I described the Fed chair, maybe a little on the dovetish side, perhaps. But again, Scott, all of these guys, all of these folks during the pandemic and the inflation afterwards have been pretty much on the hawkish side. It's a little hard to find a dove.

Right now, the doves are sort of distinguishing themselves as being the Trump appointees and not necessarily the Biden appointees being especially hawkish, more cautious in terms of wanting to see what happens with inflation. There's an interesting dynamic right now on the Fed. And maybe we'll get some more of that in our coverage next week that begins with

Jackson Hole. But right now, it's an interesting moment. There's some pivoting going on, perhaps some politicking going on. You have a couple folks calling for rate cuts in September. But then, you know, Alberto Mussolam on Friday, he said the Fed should hold Pat because he's concerned about the Fed not hitting its target and for inflation to come. Of course, you have those inflation numbers tomorrow that I think are very consequential, Scott. I think that, you know, there's been this big debate out there the tariff inflation is coming or the tariff inflation is not coming

and July should be a month where we should see it if it's going to be there and the question is not only is it there but does it spill over into other areas or do you have this relative pricing effect which has been an argument for the administration perfectly economically

plausible that when some prices go up other prices go down to offset it so that you have an okay economic an okay inflation report tomorrow. Lastly, how unusual is it, if at all, to learn of a list like this, which continues to grow while the sitting Fed chair still has several months left in their term? Yeah, all of this is happening pretty early. I did check, Scott, I think the other Fed chairs don't hold me to this exactly. I think in general, the rhythm of these things was a Fed chair

who would be leaving in January and a replacement sort of announced the prior October with maybe some speculation going on. I remember one time a speculation about Powell, his name may be coming out in August of that year. So I guess with the Fed Chair's term up in May, this is pretty early.

The idea that he may be named, nominated, even sit on the board would be very unusual. And again, Scott, this becomes, a longer discussion about what exactly does the president want to do with the Fed? A total overhaul? Does he simply want a loyalist in that position? What does he want? And that would really categorize who he would pick. And I could go down the run there and tell you who's who, in my opinion, but perhaps that's a discussion for another day. And we'll have it then. Steve, thanks. Steve Leesman, our senior economics correspondent. Let's bring in Solace

Alternative Asset Management's Dan Greenhouse joining us now. I mean, you made the argument that you think the Fed absolutely should cut in September, and maybe they already should have. Yeah, I, that's a, that's correct characterization. I would take issue with my good friend, Steve Leesman, and how he framed some of this. And a lot of people do this. They talk about, they frame it as in the Trump appointees think one way and everyone else thinks another. And I don't think that's fair. I'm not a Trump appointee, and I've been making the case for some time that some rate reductions are in order. Neil Duda, not a Trump appointee, has been making the case for some rate reduction.

So I reject the political motive here. There are... Well, I mean, it's inescapable that both Waller and Bowman, who were appointed by President Trump, have come out publicly and urged for rate cuts. And I don't mean to suggest... I don't think Steve's making a political comment in suggesting that.

That is the truth. Yeah, I don't mean to suggest that he's making a political comment. I mean, the description of them suggests that as Trump appointees, they might be wanting to do the administration's bidding. And I'm not saying Steve was saying that. I'm saying there's a general view out there

that, of course, the Trump appointees want rate reductions. And all I'm saying is... Based on what they've said themselves. As in terms of coutowing to the administration... Well, I'm saying Waller and Bowman have made the case publicly they want rate cuts. That's right. And I'm saying Waller's case in particular for rate reductions is grounded in sound, legitimate economic thought and arguments.

I'm just making a semantic argument. I don't like that they get characterized as the Trump appointees favoring rate reductions. There is a solid case for reducing rates by someone who was appointed by Trump or someone who was not appointed with Trump. What's the most solid case for doing so right now? Clearly, the labor market is slowing down outside of what we'll call tariff-induced inflation, which I've been arguing for some time, and I think I'm not alone, is, for lack of a better word, one time in nature. And I understand you want to be careful that this doesn't seep into broader inflation expectations

and affect how the consumer and society views things more generally. Job growth slowing is different than job losses picking up. Sure, but I don't need job losses to justify rate reductions. I think the rate right now is modestly restrictive, but maybe even a little bit more than modestly restrictive. That's fair. I think the Fed Chair has said as much. So we agree. And so I think what we're talking about is I think you could justify, let's say, two rate reductions this year to try to normalize policy and get it back into a neutral plane.

And from an investor standpoint, which is ultimately what we're trying to do here, that would be a positive outcome. not because rates are lower, but because the restrictiveness has been removed, I'm sorry, not because rates are lower, therefore stocks must go higher, but the damage that perhaps modestly restrictive rates are doing to the economy and eventually corporate profits would be reduced. The pool of prospective Fed chairs is growing. Obviously, that's why we just had the update with Steve. Is there somebody on the list now of the eight that he counted that would be the most, quote-unquote,

market-friendly? I think for a variety of reasons, Christopher Waller at this point, is probably based on my conversations with people around the street, Christopher Waller is probably the quote-unquote favorite. He has the sterling economic credentials. He has been making the case for rate reductions, which on balance investors prefer, lower rates, better than higher rates, and has been doing so grounded again in sound thought and theory, and is not viewed as someone who is in bed with the administration. To counter it with someone, not to pick on her, but perhaps tomorrow we announced Judy Shelton was the head of the Federal Reserve. That would carry from an investor

standpoint, more political weight, so to speak, than someone like Chris Waller. Now, how reliant do you feel like the market's going to be on rate cuts to have a sizable move between now and the and the year? I don't think we, and I've been of this view for some time. Tweeking rates, every time I'm on with someone and we talk about rates, they go, oh, who cares about 25 basis points? And that comment is made jokingly, but it is true. 25, 50 basis points doesn't really matter. It's the direction of travel, of course, that matters. So with that said, if you begin the process of reducing rates to take those tail-risk outcomes off the table, so to speak, or at least reduce the probabilities of those tail-risk outcomes,

that's positive for risk assets, all-all-s-equal, and ultimately would be viewed positively by markets. I know it's positive for risk assets, but are they necessary for risk assets? No, I have not thought for a year or two that rate cuts were necessary. First of all, you've got the AI train right now driving the broader landscape from the AI names on down through Eaton, G, Vernova, etc., etc. That is, largely speaking, rate independent, although some of the cap-X that's going to be necessary and the fundraising that's going to be necessary going forward, since we can't fund all this at a free cash flow, that will be done at lower rates,

hopefully. And so that's a positive. But that train rolls on nonetheless. And to the extent that rates are a problem for the consumer, particularly the lower income consumer, and we have seen very little evidence of that, lower rates are positive. And so you start to, maybe you'll start to see some broadening out, assuming the economy holds in. So I think it, again, I don't know if it's enough for a substantial rally, but I don't think it's necessary, but it is nice to have. But you said the market's not reliant on getting rate cuts, but you yourself have grown a little more cautious on the state of the market in the here and now, haven't you? Yeah. Well, first of all, underneath the headline, there are some stuff of concern.

First of all, the index is basically at a record high, the NASDAQ as well, and less than half of the index is above its short-term moving average. Short-term moving average is. Something like 12, 13, 14% of the index is nowhere near a high when the index is at a high. I looked back at 2022, that was about 4.5. Again, 12% now. That was about 4.5, 5.5% in 2019. So a much greater portion of the index is nowhere near a high when the overall index is. So clearly there's something going on beneath the headline, evidenced most acutely by the equal-weight index, which is basically flat over the last month and a half. Is a broadening of the market

is a bigger move by the equal weight part of this market? Is that reliant on rate cuts? I don't think it's reliant, but I think right now you do have, there are legitimate tariff concerns. I mean, there are a number of companies that have talked about. We've had no problems as of now. We've been over this the last couple of weeks that I've been on and other people as well.

But a number of companies have said when you look out over the back half of the year, some of those tariff impacts are going to start to be felt. We've done and we've put in place tariff mitigating strategies for now, but over the next six months, let's say, it's going to be harder, based on their words, for a lot of these companies to continue these mitigation strategies. And so I think from a broad market standpoint, a number of companies, a number of investors right now are, well, we've had a great rally, terrific earnings season. Why don't we take a little bit of a breather here in front of the Fed meeting in the middle of next month? What are mitigation strategies, passing it on to you and me? Well, no, first of all, there were three main things that you were doing.

You were building of inventories in front of the tariff announcements. You were sourcing from different places. And you were extracting some concessions, if you will, like if you're Walmart and you have pricing power, I'm sorry, bargaining power. You can extract some concessions from your suppliers. And so a lot of companies were doing some version of those three things over the last couple of months. But that had a finite runway, of course, at some point some percentage of these tariffs are going to get passed on. Goldman has a report out today, Jan and his terrific economics department, talking, about what he's seen so far and what's likely coming down the pike, I think it's impossible

to believe that you won't see additionally, because we did see some in the June CPI, some additional impacts. And all I'm saying from the broad market standpoint is after a terrific rally, I have the feeling a lot of investors are saying, let's wait and see. Okay. All right, that's fair. It's good to talk to you. Thanks for being here. James Greenhouse. Up next, mapping out the next leg of this rally, if there is to be one. Investco's Brian Levitt and wealth enhancements, Iaco, Yoshioca. We'll find out where they see stocks heading from here. Back on the bell. New high briefly for NASDAQ today.

Otherwise, not much conviction on the tape as we approach to close. So is there a catalyst to take stocks higher into year end? Let's ask Investco's Brian Levin and Wealth Enhancements, Iaco, Yoshioca. Good to have you both with us. How would you answer that question, Brian? Yeah, I think there's a catalyst. So the way I would categorize this is we're still in the middle of this market cycle. I don't have credit spreads blowing out.

I don't have bankers tightening lending standards, so I feel good. What we're dealing with right now is economy's slowing a bit. Usually when you're slowing, you tend to get some policies, and we're debating that right now. So that's why it's feeling like a little bit, I wouldn't say challenge near all-time highs, but that's why people are grappling with this. Reality, when you're in a slowdown type of environment, it favors higher quality mega-cap stocks, and that's the large composition of the broad index. That's the way it's been for a while.

What tells you, though, that this is not a late cycle bull market, you know, finished by a bigger slowdown and rate cuts and some of the hallmarks? Yeah, I would be a lot more concerned if spreads were blowing out, if bankers were tightening lending standards, if this was an over-levered economy. None of that seems apparent. We all want broadening out. You and I have talked about it on this show. The way you get broadening out is policy easing and a re-accelerate.

of the leading indicators, improvement, in sentiment. And I think we'll get there. We'll get there without a recession, in my opinion. We're in a slowdown, even below-trend type of an environment, largely because of the policy mix that we're grappling with right now from both the trade perspective and from the Federal Reserve. What helps you out, I guess, as well, Aya, but I love your view on it, the idea that any dips are going to be shallow and quickly bought by investors

who still believe the hype? We think so. You know, it's tough. The economy is slowing down. We are seeing a moderation. But, you know, as Brian mentioned and as Dan mentioned, you know, we structurally, the markets are just being led by very strong companies. And we've seen, you know, second quarter earnings growth with 12% year-over-year earnings growth and 6% revenue growth. It's still a really strong market.

And I think that that's going to continue to continue to. get bought because we are not seeing that over leveraged, you know, corporate credit issue really creeping into the equity market. Brian, like I asked Greenhouse a moment ago, does, is the market reliant on rate cuts? It sounds like at least you believe that part of it is. Part of it is, yeah. For broadening out, you would like it. A big part of it.

Like everything but. Everything might have part of it. Yeah. Well, there's certainly other parts of the market. I mean, one of the bigger surprises here in the financial sector doing well is the capital market seem to be opening up a bit. Industrial's doing well, playing off the artificial trade. But yeah, for those parts of the market, smaller capitalization or those parts that are more reliant on short-term funding, yeah. So we're in a stage right now where the economy's

slowing and the Fed's a little bit restrictive. When people talk about rate cuts, it almost sounds as if they're saying we need the Federal Reserve to come to a significant rescue here. What I'm suggesting is policy should be more accommodative in an environment when the economy is slowing. You look at what the two-year treasury rates telling us, you know, the Fed funds rate should probably be 50 to 75 basis points lower. I always think about the gunlock rule of thought that two-year guides the Fed. Right. And right now the Fed, of course, is waiting for greater clarity. The challenge you have is the longer you wait for greater clarity, more issues can emerge in the economy. Waller perspective.

Yeah, but I don't, look, it's not an over-levered, over-excess economy, so we're not talking about a huge deterioration and activity. What we're talking about is this idea of a broadening of a market where it's not just a handful of names that continue to lead the market capitalization weighted index. Aya, how about that? Is this market, is this a market that's going to be more reliant on rate cuts moving forward? We've gotten everything we can out of what we have to work with. Now we need a little bit of help.

You know, Scott, I don't think the market has been that reliant on rate cuts, you know, even last year, and I don't think it will be as reliant on rate cuts going forward. I know that certain parts of the market are a little bit more sensitive to rate cuts, small caps, as was mentioned before. But, you know, in general, the U.S. market, S&P 500, is not as reliant on those rate cuts because a lot of the cap-X that we're seeing is coming out of free cash flow, and that growth is going to continue. We'll leave it there.

Aya, thanks. Brian, we'll see you soon. Thank you. Up next, we track the biggest movers into the close today. Steve Kovacs back with us for that. What's on your list? Oh, boy, we got it all, Scott. A right-wing online video platform, the summer box office, and a struggling AI name.

We'll show you what those names are after when closing bell returns after this. our less than 15 from the closing bell back to steve coveck now for the stocks that he is watching tell us yes sc3 a i shares they're sinking big time after the enterprise a software company issued preliminary quarterly results they did that early that show a larger than expected drop-off in revenue compared to the same time last year, as well as a wider loss of the same period last year. Shares were down about 26 percent, and they're on track for their worst day on record. Meantime, Rumble shares, they're moving higher after the right-wing video platform reported a better-than-expected loss for Q2. Also said it's weighing an

acquisition of AI Cloud Computing Group northern data to integrate into its own operations. Shares are up now three and a half percent. AMC shares are also in the green on the back of better than expected Q2 results at theater chain's revenue increased by the most in nearly two years amid a rebounding box office. shares have been volatile though they were up more than 15 percent now up nearly three percent Scott. All right Steve thank you Steve Kovac still ahead. Cannabis names flying high this afternoon the details are coming up the bell will be right back. Welcome back. Welcome back. Another story we're following unfolding at the White House.

Amen Javers joins us once more, Amen. Yeah, Scott, that's right. And our roving camera on the street here outside the White House just caught a glimpse of the Intel CEO, Lit Bhutan, walking into the White House at the Southwest Gate, heading for his meeting this afternoon with President Trump. Remember, President Trump has called for his ouster, and there you see the video. The man walking in on the right-hand side, our eagle-eyed producer, M.C. Welland's Spots, is Alan Thompson. He's the Intel VP of Government Affairs, man with the glasses there in the blue suit and the near camera. and that's the Intel CEO there in the dark suit. This is going to be a dramatic meeting. We will likely not see it on camera, Scott, but the president has called for Liputan to step down from Intel as CEO because of alleged ties to China,

said he's been too sympathetic to China, needs to resign from his post. Now, the question here is, how does Intel handle this? As you see the CEO walking through the security gate there at the southwest side of the White House. If you're intel, how do you convince the President that you are not sympathetic to China, that you should be allowed to remain in your job?

Do you even need to justify yourself to the President of the United States? Does the President have a role here in calling for the ouster of individual CEOs? There's a whole lot at stake in this meeting, and obviously we're just seeing it getting underway here at the White House just in the past couple of minutes, yeah, interesting.

If not a little awkward to say the least, Amen, thanks. You'll bring us up to date as we have any more developments. That's Amon Javris. We're in the market zone now on the closing bell. CNVC senior markets commentator. Mike Santoli is here to break down these crucial moments of this trading day.

Brandon Gomez is watching the cannabis stocks for us. Tonight in McKeel watching crypto space, and there are plenty of moves there. Michael will begin with you. Do we settle anything today? It doesn't really feel like it. It's been a while, actually, where the market has had an obvious loss of momentum, right? We're trading in the S&P 500 levels first reached over two weeks ago. And so, you know, there's always a couple of ways you can digest a huge rally, which did culminate in late July.

One is you get a pull back, put a scare into people, or sometimes it's the average stock kind of recedes a little bit. That's what we're seeing. You're seeing far fewer stocks in a strong short-term uptrend. But the overall S&P manages to hang in there, right? Tesla today, you know, it doesn't ever need a reason, but it was doing its part to keep things moving. So I don't think we settled anything. People are pretty comfortable and whether people get over-capital. confident is the question. Don't think that's necessarily an acute issue right now, but CPI might

add some spikes to the mix. You've had downsides of prizes on CPS for several months in a row, and everyone I think is leaning on the possibility of a bit of a hotter number tomorrow, so we'll see how that plays out. Well, we're watching data closer than ever, too, as we know for a variety of reasons. Brandon Gomez, tell us more about cannabis stocks today. Hey, Scott. Yeah, look, it was a massive surge in cannabis names. We've been here before, though. Trump, once again, voicing his support to reclassify cannabis as a less dangerous drug. Now, this would align it with steroids or Tylenol with codeine rather than more dangerous drugs like heroin LSD.

Now, it could blaze a new trail for the industry, but investors shouldn't light up with celebration just yet. Despite Trump saying today that a decision could come in the next few weeks, experts say reclassification isn't a quick hit. It takes the Attorney General, the DEA, many layers. I spoke with the Tilray CEO, Erwin Simon, earlier. he said he'd expect the process to take a year, adding his confidence so that Trump gets things done. Now, if it happens, it could open the door to billions in new investment and tax

benefits, but while renewed support is a breath of fresh air for the industry, there are still some high hurdles to overcome, Scott. All right, Brandon, thank you very much. That's Brandon Gomez. Tenaa McKeel. Tell us about crypto, which is on the move once again. Yeah, hey, Scott, crypto off to a stronger start this week versus what we're seeing in the stock market. Bitcoin wavering around $120,000 to inching closer to its all-time high, above $123,000, Ether, trading around its highest level since December 2021, and that's after hitting $4,000 on Friday. That level historically, very challenging for investors, both psychologically and technically.

We got it briefly in December, and then very early last year, although those were, you know, just kind of blips above the 4K level. Look at stocks, though, that are tied to crypto, Coinbase, Galaxy, the Heath Treasury stock, Bitmine, all seeing nice gains today and have held up, even with the way the broader market has pulled back. Investors were expecting a cooldown this month. Traders are watching the inflation data, of course, but I think regardless of what we get there, I suspect crypto will show some resilience, given the favorable regulatory shifts

and institutional interests that we're seeing. Micro Strategy and Bitmine reporting big Bitcoin and ETH purchases today, respectively. ETHETFs last week, we saw more inflows there than Bitcoin ETFs. And we also, this week, have bullish set to IPO and Circles' first earnings. So still, it's got a lot of action and potential catalysts in the industry to support any macro-related stumbles. Tenaia, thank you. Tenaena, McKeel, with the latest on crypto. Back to Michael.

What do you make of this Bitcoin move, whether it coincides, matches up with some of the activity we've seen in other areas of the market that have caught your attention? It does. It matches up with, you know, some of the hotter parts, the fast money parts of this market. I was just looking early at some of the most active, you know, Tena mentions Bitmine. It's been a monster. It's traded more than its shares outstanding today alone. So it just sort of shows you that kind of turnover. So crypto-crypto-related is moving.

I mean, Bitcoin itself is given up a few thousand dollars from the over-the-weekend highs. So I don't know what to make of it. You have gold with this kind of quirky move related to the tariffs on-off question. Robin Hood's been at, I think it hit another new high today. Exactly. That correlates. It totally correlates. They're talking about.

you know, this bullish IPO. That's the name of the company. It upsized it. Right. So there's just appetite for the stuff that's, you know, maybe it's low probability, high reward, or it's just super aggressive. It is out there. I don't see it really pervading everything else. Not, you know, not to say that the rest of the market is not looking on the bright side. It is. But it's interesting how it remains kind of in these isolated pockets of hyperactive trading. And and everything else is kind of in the okay, you know, bucket. NASDAQ 100, no doubt, has been carrying the load for a while today. There's been a little bit of an attempt to rotate back in the other direction.

And, you know, the question becomes, is concentration, good, bad, or just is? And I think it mostly just is. I thought it was really interesting today. You probably saw it, too. The Bank of America Fund Manager survey, 91% of those asked say the market is overvalued, Yet, it was still the most bullish fund manager survey since the beginning of the year. They're kind of trading by it.

You're trading the market you have. And so I think that what it tells you is nobody is aggressively long and bullish because of valuation. You kind of tolerate overvaluation in the aggregate market. Either people tell themselves, look, I'd rather concentrate in the other 493 or the equal weighted S&P. but also being, you know, as bullish as they've been in six months or five months, doesn't mean that they're super, super bullish on a longer term scale. You know, I mean, the cash levels are down, but it's not as if they have massive overweights or expecting great growth.

So I think that's what happens. When the market kind of outperforms expectations for four months and basically rips higher in the face of all this uncertainty, everyone basically says maybe the market knows a little more than I do. And it is always funny where they say, The most crowded trade is Big Cap U.S. Tech, and they get it because they're also in it. Yeah, exactly. They realize they're not unique in that sense.

And they continue to like it, which is why it's so crowded. Mike, thank you. That's Mike Santol. It tells me to ring it's red as you see. I'll send him to know over time. I'll see tomorrow. Here's Morgan.