Power Lunch - Power Lunch 4/20/26

Episode Date: April 20, 2026

CNBC’s Kelly Evans and Brian Sullivan take you through the heart of the business day bringing you the latest developments and instant analysis on the stocks and stories driving the day’s agenda. ���Power Lunch” delves into the economy, markets, politics, real estate, media, technology and more. The show sits at the intersection of power and money. “Power Lunch” gives viewers a full plate of CNBC’s award-winning business news coverage, plus a healthy dose of personality from the show’s anchors and the network’s top-notch roster of reporters and digital journalists. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Stocks are down to touch, but overall investors still appear to be betting the U.S. and Iran can reach a deal as the clock ticks down to the end of the two-week ceasefire tomorrow. We'll get a power lunch. What was supposed to be a cooling off period appears to be heating up the U.S. firing and seizing an Iranian ship after Iran attacked other ships don't remove in moments. You're going to hear exclusive insights from an oil tanker company operating there and around the world. And stocks are barely budging even after 10. in the Middle East continue to escalate. We'll break down the key scenarios and tackle a critical question of who is really in charge in Iran right now. Plus airline stocks are lower with American,

the biggest loser. After the carrier dismissed the idea of merging with rival United, the pressures faced by the industry as jet fuel prices continue to climb. All right, welcome, everybody. We have got a packed hour ahead to kick off your week. But let us start, of course, with the latest in the Gulf region and whether ships are truly transiting through the strait. Your first guest runs one of the largest pureplay tanker companies in the world. He has ships all over the globe. Joining us now exclusively is Herb Bjorn Hansen. He is the founder, chair, and CEO of Nordic American tankers. Herb Bjorn, thank you very much for joining us. Would one of your ships be able and willing safely today to go through the Strait of Hormuz?

Let me make this comment. Safety over the crew is the main concern. And in my judgment, there is no question the Strait of Hormuz will be open. Will it take a few days? Will it take a week or maximum a month? And we feel very, very good about it because there is so much pressure building now that the Hormuz simply have to be open. and Iran and the U.S., they must come together, and they simply have to come together to ensure that the strait is open. China has now entered the scene, and they have said to the market, get it right.

But right now, Herbjorn, would one of your ships, your crew, your crew for the safety, are they able to go through the Strait of Hormuz? Absolutely, but we need to have the go ahead from IMO, an international UN organization. And as far as I understand, that is the only organization that has a direct contact with the authorities in Iran. And if IMO, the UN organization says yes, then we can go ahead and transit the Homo. And we have ships, as you say, all around the world. And this question is not a big question commercially for us. It is a big question related to the safety of the crew. But in my judgment, there is no question for moves will be opened sooner than later.

And I have predicted that. And time will tell when it will happen. I expect it will happen soon. Why is that, Herbjorn? Because the two parties, they simply have to find an agreement because the international pressure is so tough from all over the world that they cannot keep it locked when you think about that 20% of all the oil in the world is passing through the strait of Hormuz. Therefore, both Iran and the U.S. must comply with the international pressure that is building. And that pressure is much, much higher and larger than people seem to understand. Well, that pressure seems to be bringing the Iranians maybe closer to the situation you've described.

Although our expert last hour said he thought Iran might continue to try to use its influence in the Strait of Hormuz going forward. Is that possible that even while one conflict, you know, maybe winds down, could they still, could this flare up? And if so, does that give you any concern? Well, I think Iran has a history of thousands of years. And America also has a long history, but the two parties simply have to agree. And we, as a company, we don't give advice to politicians because we are not involved in politics. But we provide for the crew and we provide for safety. And in my judgment, and time will tell if I'm right, in my judgment, there is no question.

It will be open. I have been in this situation before. In the early 70s, we had the same situation. and also at the time when the Suez Canal was closed. We had the same situation. And presently, the market for our ships and the rates we achieve, they are very, very strong rates. And speaking of the Suez, your fleet is primarily composed of Suez-Max-sized tankers.

Jewish-max-only, only. Only that. So how much of your business has. transformed in the last month, Herbjorn, to the Red Sea and the new Saudi loading port of Jan Bu. Do you still need the Strait of Hormuz like you used to one month ago? I think the answer to your question is yes. Hormuz is an extremely important part. It is an international waterway.

and in an international waterway, the rules must be for all waterways. And there is no jurisdictional possibility that the Strait of Hormuz can be closed. But in these circumstances, I fully appreciate that the parties agree that in my judgment, there is no question that Iran and America, they will have to comply, and they will be subdued through the international pressure, which is now mounting, and which I see all over the place. I have no special intelligence except for the fact that I am concerned about the crew, and we communicate with our crew 24 hours a day.

The one special intelligence you would have outside of what the crew is actually seeing on the water, I would say on the ground, but on the water, is insurance. would you be able to get insurance to take a ship through the Strait of Formos right now? Absolutely. Insurance is no problem whatsoever. I have direct contact with the biggest insurance, marine insurance company in the world, and we are very well covered, and all insurance elements are firmly in place. No question.

Herbie Owen Hansen, Nordic American tankers, really important. and insightful interview to kick off the program. Herb Your Honor, really appreciate your time. Thank you very much. Thank you for having me. Thank you. And turning to the markets, which are lower today, but we're coming off of Friday's record highs. As we mentioned, tensions between the U.S. and Iran escalated over the weekend. Traders are betting the two countries seemingly will reach a compromise. Here with more is Julian Emanuel, Senior Managing Director at Evercore and Stephanie Link, chief investment strategist and portfolio manager at Hightower. She's also a CNBC contributor. Julian, a striking rally off of the lows.

Are there any caveats you would add to that? Well, look, I mean, it says two things. Number one, as your previous guest just mentioned, the expectation is the straight will open sometime this summer. Maybe it stays, maybe it's weeks, but that elevated energy prices are likely to fall to where you see the futures curve in July. But look, the other aspect is that the 13 days,

off of the March 30th low were among the most forceful 13 days worth of rally that we've seen since 1982. And frankly, the medium term and longer term picture from that kind of thrust is very positive regardless of what happens in the near term. Stephanie, you want to respond to that? Yeah, I mean, I feel like it's deja vu, right? I mean, the trade is open, the market goes up. The trade is closed.

The market goes down. So I do hope that your previous guest is right, that it was. will open. I hope it is sooner rather than later, because the longer this drags on, then that will eventually put pressure on the economy and the consumer. But right now, we're not seeing that. And to be honest with you, I'm actually surprised that we're not down more, just what Julian just said. I mean, we're up 12% since the S&P is since March 30th. And the NASDAX up 15%. And the sentiment indicators, all of them, fear and greed, S&P oscillator, RSI, they're all extended. So I wouldn't be surprised to see a little push pull here in the short term. However,

What's encouraging is we are seeing a broadening out in the markets. It's like one week the MAG7 does well, but then the next week and the industrial sector does well. The industrial metals are at all time highs. Discretionary is picking up. I think that's very healthy, and I'm excited about that. And that's why I think you want to have a diversified portfolio. Whether we see a pause, whether we do pull back, I think that's when you want to buy. Kelly, you and I've talked about this.

You want to buy when there's uncertainty. When there is certainty, we are going to be much higher and you're going to miss a lot of the opportunities. And I'd say one last thing is that the banks, Pepsi, J.B. Hunt, all of them talked about how the consumer has been resilient. I mean, I lost count as to how many bank executives said the word resilient on the consumer. Credit quality is good. Loan growth is good. That's all very, very healthy. And then J.B. Hunt said that we're actually approaching an upcycle, which they're very conservative about. So I feel good. If we do see a bit of a pullback on a day-to-day noise, I think you want to be buying.

Yeah, Julie and I will see your stats and maybe raise you just a bit because I love your work, by the way, and I frequently steal your stats. We in the media are very focused on like simple things, like January 1st, so year-to-date, the market has done this. On a rolling 12-month period, so one year ago to today to today, the NASDAQ is up 50%. The S&P 500 is up 35%. It's actually one of the greatest rolling 12-month periods in recent market history. What do we make of that? I'm trying to understand who the buyers are. So, Brian, this is actually a tribute to the fact that the public has been the most resilient

investor, because if you took that 12-month and put it to 13-month, you would get the majority of the sell-off. that we saw during the tariff tantrum last year. And so those statistics would look less good than they look now that that's dropped off. But the point here is that as it was last year when you had the volatility in and around April, same as this April, the public has been steadfast. They have been buyers. And based on what happened last year, institutions played catch up much more rapidly this time

Because to go back to that, Julie, not to step on you. And I described it last week, kind of as the Pavlovian response, right, where sort of you ring the bell and then you buy. And that's, we have been trained the last number of years that whenever there is a dip, you buy. When the market goes down, you buy. I mean, it still holds true and it's been true this time. Do you see any situation in the next couple of quarters or months or years where the situation will not be true? Because to your point, every time the market has gone down, the smart money is bought and the smart money has profited.

There's going to be a recession sometime in our lives. And at that time, that's when you're not going to want to buy the dip. Economic cycles have not been repealed. They've changed with policy changes. They've changed with liquidity. There's almost $8 trillion in money market funds. But it will happen at some point. And, you know, one will have to be more cautious about buying the dip.

But for now, we think, the structural bull market has further to go in 2026. And Stephanie, I was going to, you know, mention that you always want to be buying when there's more uncertainty. And, you know, by the time where it's the coast is clear, it's gotten away from you. Because I know you like to lean against stuff that is a little too popular, or like look for those value opportunities.

What do you do with the market now, the way that it's come riproaring back? If you were on the sidelines to Tom Lee's point last hour, where he said he thinks a lot of retail investors actually got out of the market and might not be in it right now. Yeah, and that just speaks to what I said earlier that we are seeing a diversified rally. And on any given day, you could see one sector do well and another sector do poorly. So you try to buy the dips. That's our whole thing, right?

We buy low, sell high. But I think, you know, I was buying back in March. I'm still buying on bad days. But I think you want to own mission critical technology and software. That's synopsis. That's service now. I like Marvell. I've been buying that for a while. I've been adding to some discretionary because I do think if the straits do open, oil is going to fall. Consumer discretion should do good. Target is kind of at a consensus, a not favorite, even after it's had a 30% move year to date, but it's still down 51% from 2021 levels. I like Dix, sporting goods. They are doing an amazing job turning around foot locker. And then the financials. I was adding to Morgan Stanley last week after their phenomenal quarter. I've not ever seen them. put up a 27% ROTCE.

And finally, you know I sold Chevron. I am watching SLB. They report this week. I really like that story. But that quarter is going to be ugly. And I think if it sells off, I'd be inclined to be adding to that. Yes, the old Slumber's Day reports on this Friday. So Julian Emanuel, back to you, 20% of the S&P 500 reporting their earnings this week.

You love large cap tech. You're still confident, obviously, in that story. What do you want and need to hear from earnings and guys? guidance this week to keep that bullish bias. We want to see double beats. It's very important that these companies beat on both the earnings number and the revenue number, and we're confident that large cap tech, which has a history of doing so, will do so once again.

In terms of guidance, you basically want to hear sort of the narrative that despite the macro uncertainties, the longer term picture, particularly as it relates to the AI adoption and build-out cycle is robust and that no, credit is not a concern. And for us, the public is likely to re-engage in large-cap tech. I think last week's tale of a company that was a shoe manufacturer, a sneaker manufacturer, putting AI on its name and seeing the stock go up 500 percent, tells you that animal spirits with regard to technology are waiting to be expressed this summer. All right. Thank you both. I saw that in the, I think it was Yardinni too last night.

Well, you can't spell Julian, you can't spell Stephanie, you can't spell Brian. Without. Without an AI. You can't spell Kelly. Well, that's all you know. What's your middle name? Don't answer that. Noreen. Your middle name is Noreen? Yes. I'm still getting a tease about it. That's an RBI right there. I definitely had to pass it on too. Share the teasing with my daughter. After the break, the Iran war enters a critical phase. Who's really in control in Tehran and any deal stick. We'll break down all the scenarios with Wolf Research's head of policy next. All right, you just heard our guests from Nordic American tankers. Time now for more original

reporting and maybe real intel about what is happening in the Persian Gulf. And yes, the straight of four moves, because we understand that many of the headlines have been confusing lately. One day there's a ceasefire. The market soars. The next day, there's some ships from Iran firing on other ships and headlines at the ceasefire is fragile. It's a complicated issue. But let's give you what my sources are telling me right now. And that is that there are multiple parties saying they are in control of Iran. The White House negotiating with one group, while another group or groups, we don't know, likely led by the violent Revolutionary Guard, who control the weapons, by the way, and can assert that they, not the other group, are the ones in charge. Then of course, that group,

violent one, they try to prove it by firing on ships. This is why you will often hear or read seemingly conflicting headlines because the situation on the ground in Iran and maybe on the water is conflicted. And it may be for some time. Let's welcome in Tobin Marcus. He has head of policy at Wolf Research. He has a new note out today titled, Everyone Wants a Deal, but at what price? And in it, he wrote about this very idea saying, quote, can the Iranian regime as a whole be said to want a deal in coherent fashion if the IRGC, the Revolutionary Guard, is openly feuding with the political leadership running the diplomatic track. What if the factions of the regime all want a deal? But there is no consensus on strategy or concessions and are negotiations

viable while both sides are escalating. These are excellent questions. Tobin Marcus of Wolf Research. Joining us now, Tobin, I've been reporting on this for more than a month. And I know some people are like, well, of course, that's the case. It's not because you read the papers, you read whatever, there's headlines about ceasefires. What are you hearing about the real state of leadership or lack thereof in Iran? Yeah, Brian, thanks for having me. So look, it is clearly a complicated picture. They're both in some fragmentation in the regime, and then the sourcing of the various people who are trying to report on it is similarly fragmented,

as people are doing their best to get information out of a country that's on, you know, in the of a war and under a bit of a media blackout as well. So, I mean, our thinking about this has been since the selection of the younger Haminae, Motaba Hamine, as supreme leader, our interpretation of that decision was that it represented a consolidation of IRGC control. He was sort of a chosen candidate of the IRGC as we understood it, not somebody who had such singular force of personality or such deep networks himself, that he was going to be a sort of singular leader astride the country the way that the two previous Supreme leaders had been, but rather someone who sort of had the support of the security services. And so as we've been watching these negotiations, I certainly think

there are differences of opinion about exactly what the acceptable price for a deal is. But I do think there is conceptual buy-in to the notion of seeking a deal, you know, both from the civilian leadership and from the IRGC. Or else I don't think that these negotiations would be happening. So, you know, I think they, yeah, go ahead. And I was to say, Tobin, your job in part is to connect the dots between what we just talked about, sort of the political landscape and what it means for the stock market. So with everything you've written about, what Kelly has talked about, what I've just reported and talked about, should investors be ready, be prepared for the fact that there may be headlines that are

conflicting, confusing, and scary over the next days, weeks, and months? Yeah, absolutely. The environment is going to be very noisy. I think our guiding thesis in the period since the ceasefire was announced was that it seems like everybody now is trying to find a way to end the war. You can look at the red lines substantively about what is or is not acceptable in a deal that are being laid out by both sides. They still look very mutually irreconcilable. You know, President Trump is promising terms that are extremely favorable to America. The Iranians are, you know, asking for very different. set of parameters. But as long as everyone is at the table and they prefer diplomacy to hot war, that's probably going to be good enough to keep this on a positive trajectory, such that the worst is behind us. But yeah, I mean, the headlines are going to be very noisy. There certainly is risk there. Any given round of talks could kind of fail to produce a great

outcome in the room, as we saw last week and with the first round of his on butt talks. There are some senators. I think Tillis is one of them sort of threatening that if this goes 60 days, they might apply more pressure to constrain the president. I don't know if that's just politics. Yeah, I have a hard time seeing Congress actually doing anything to meaningfully constrain the president using the authorities that they're disposable, which are, on the one hand, cutting off funding for the war, right? Power of the purse is sort of their essential power here.

And on the other hand, the war powers resolution, which you, as you alluded to, there's this 60-day clock after the initiation of a conflict where the president is supposed to start winding things down if they don't have congressional authorization, they have another 30 days to do that after we hit that 60-day mark, which is going to come up next week. So theoretically, we're at the point where President Trump needs congressional authorization, but we've never really seen that be binding in the past. And it's hard to see the Congress, as it's currently constituted, sort of unifying around any way to restrain the president here. On a totally separate note, but speaking of Senator Tillis, how is this going to play out with his blocking so far of

Warsh's nomination. I think those hearings are starting tomorrow. Yeah, Worse will be testifying tomorrow. We've encountered some confusion already about whether or not a vote is tomorrow. It will not be. A vote will happen once they figure out that they have the votes, which means clearing Tillis's objections out of the way. So I take him completely at his word. I mean, he's said, he's not intending to ask Warsh any questions at that hearing because he has no concerns about Worse's qualifications for the job. The only thing he wants to say is that this investigation into Powell needs to be wound down to satisfy his concerns about Fed independence before he's comfortable voting for anybody. And he alone can hold up the entire process. So I do think

they're going to need to satisfy him. We'll hear from Worse. In the meantime, we'll be watching that closely for his views about monetary policy. But we're not going to be able to move the ball forward on the nomination until they can get, um, tell us back on side. We've seen, you know, look at what Warsh is going to say tomorrow. And I believe as it regarded this question of the DOJ investigation, he said that the Fed should, um, cooperate because questions of kind of the public purse were different than questions of monetary policy. What does that tell you? Yeah, he took a bit of a gentle shot there without sort of getting, you know, too far off sides. Yeah, I mean, his prepared remarks were

interesting. I think that, that one, you know, read to me as being aimed at the audience of one. I think he needed to say something to align with President Trump there. I do also think he's sincere. Certainly he's been a consistent advocate of the view that when it comes to, you know, cultural matters, the fed sort of dalliances in green policy, that those are out of bounds and sort of a misstep by the institution that undermines their public trust. So I think that's an authentic view, but not what he's going to want to focus on tomorrow. Right. Although, but they rarely get to pick their focus, you know, and now we hear, ah, they're going to focus on his wealth and discrepancies. And that's what the journal says anyway. So much more to come.

Democrats will be poking at him. You know, we'll be watching for the more substantive exchanges. I was struck by. There was definitely more focus on the inflation side of the mandate than the employment side of the mandate in those remarks, which was notable. And I think it reflects its authentic views. Big shift from maybe the past decade or so. Tobin, thanks. Tobin Marcus, Wolf research. On deck, another major twist in the ever-changing story around the Gulf will tell you what it is and what it means for energy. Next. A major move from one of the world's top oil producers, Kuwait has halted crude shipments, declaring force majeure as the Strait of Hormuz disruption.

prevents tankers from entering the Persian Gulf, making it impossible to meet delivery obligations. So what does this mean for global oil supplies and oil prices, which are on the move higher again today? Joining us on set to discuss is Vikas Dwavetti, Global Energy Strategist at Macquarie. Good to have you here. Thanks for having me. So is Kuwait declaring this because, look, as we understand it, the longer the straight is effectively shut down, the more people are going to have to kind of shut in production because stuff can't come in, stuff can't leave, they've run out of storage.

capacity. So what's the next move now? Yeah, the next move is really on the hands of the consumers to figure out ways to get oil that they're not getting from the Middle East. And this is also going to be a source of diversifying your imports, right, because there was too much concentration risk in a lot of the consumers, where if something like this happened, they were going to be down and out pretty bad. It's taken a little while for a force measure. We would have guessed it would have happened earlier. But here we are. And, you know, Kuwait is unfortunate, unlike UAE, which has an outlet through their own pipeline.

Saudi has a massive pipeline. Oman is just on the other side of the pinch point. Kuwait doesn't have any of those sort of options. And who are their customers primarily? Mostly Asia, still, just like most of the Middle East. What I'm trying to understand, Vekis, and we all want to be optimistic about the outcome here. I don't want my haters be like, oh, you're so negative all the time. And the other half is, I'm too positive.

I have no idea. Anyway, the difference between the paper market and the physical market. Yeah. It is shocking to me. Absolutely, yeah. And how we're at 86, 88 in change. We're not at 158 in change, despite the fact that let's be clear. Even if we see our buddy Herborn Hanson at the top of the show going full bore through the straight tomorrow,

it's going to take four to six weeks to get a semblance of normalcy. Yeah. Minimum. minimum, that's on the early side. I'm trying to be optimistic. Yeah, look, we're optimistic. We think it'll be sort of two to three months to normalize, and the feedback we get from our clients

and a lot of the other market participants is that is irrationally optimistic, no chance. So six weeks would be even... So why aren't we at $125 a barrel? I don't want to be there. I don't want to say, I know what the damage it will do to families and gas prices, whatever. But trying to look at supply demand and disruptions

supply shocks, and it's, the math sometimes is hard for me, but, you know, I'm just a TV anchor. Yeah, no, look, it's a great question, right? It should be higher. And by every, like, mechanical and fundamental process of the market, it should be higher, the futures price. The physical price is reflecting that reality a lot better. But, you know, when we think about crude oil, we think about, like, you have a impulse, right? You have something that happened, and then you have a series of shock absorbers. The shock absorbers could be futures markets. It could be the shape of the curve. It can be the physical markets like the internal derivatives paper that links the two together. Everything is doing the work, right, except for the actual futures contract. So that's where the

shock absorber isn't working. And, you know, as we've talked to a lot of our clients who are in it, as well as we are. I mean, we trade physically. There's not an easy explanation as to why. There's a lot of theories. What are the theories? Well, the theories are that there's a lack of buyers, that it was already too front-loaded. So nobody wants to buy. A lot of the initial length got burned badly. So there's a reluctance.

There's the risk, right, of headlines and both sides coming out and saying anything positive. And, you know, oil falls $10 a barrel. So how do you manage that with any kind of sizing? There's conspiracy theories that there's other actors. involved that are selling. We know the Treasury Department said they're not selling. A lot of people say, well, somebody is, and they're doing it very aggressively. Who else could be selling?

I mean, were we talking about other nation states? Or could there just be other players in the energy markets who are seeing this opportunistically and saying, yeah, it's a great time to sell? Yeah, it could be any of those. That's the problem with kind of narrowing down who it might be. If you're a large consumer, a large importer, and you have some balance sheet, this would be a good opportunity to use that balance sheet to keep futures low. If we see peace, true peace for a couple of months, again, being optimistic,

yeah. We had 65 a barrel? Are we back to 65? Yeah, maybe not in a couple of months, but in short order. Yeah, the market is still vastly oversupplied. And I think the- Not right now, but in a normal world. Yeah, in a normalized world, we are oversupplied.

And the narrative out there that there's been too much damage to the market, we disagree with. We think things will pop back to normal much faster. Maybe not as aggressively as your estimate of six weeks. That's not my estimate. I'm trying to be optimistic. Yeah. Okay. You know, but we're thinking more like two months, maybe three, not.

We've heard CEOs and others in the industry say it could take a year. We disagree with that. I've heard two years on the product side. Do you think there's going to be a bigger increase or effect on gasoline and diesel? and jet fuel? Products will take longer. Let's say oil takes three months. Products would take probably another three months on top. But two years is really catastrophic. And it doesn't fit the fact pattern that we certainly have. Maybe with Qatar LNG, but not with oil. Not with refined products. Gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, et cetera. That won't take two years.

But it'll still be a ways from now, it sounds like. Yeah, yeah. We can think about it as six months after All of this is kind of settled out. All right. Every day, though, new headlines. Vecas Tuvedi McCoy Group Global Energy Strategist. Vecis, really appreciate you coming on set. I know you're based down there in Houston, so thanks for taking the trip all the way to Jersey for us.

Absolutely. Thanks for having me. Just a reminder, folks, sign up for our energy-related newsletter called Power Insider. Weekly piece at a key news meeting power players and more. You can use that QR code. Sign up today. It will roll out every Wednesday. If the guy that writes it can get to it.

Let me know. I'll help you. Really? Well, if you give me any more chocolate, no. Coming up, merger talks grounded. American Airlines saying no to United, and we'll talk about what it means for the industry next. Shares of American Airlines are falling today, nearly 5%. After the company flatly rejected talks of a potential merger with United.

Let's bring in our airline industry reporter, Phil, about flatly rejected, Phil. What does that tell you? It tells me it was dead in the water from the beginning with American. And that's not a surprise. There's nobody within American Airlines, at least on the executive side. Now, there may be some employees, but at least on the executive side, there's nobody who think that this thing is going to go anywhere.

At least that's the situation as of right now. So when you look at this idea of a merger between United and American, a couple of things keep in mind. American making this letter very public late on Friday afternoon. It was well after the market closed. the merger idea with United Airlines. Meanwhile, you've got a couple of senators who are requesting details about any talks between American and United. Let's be clear here. There are no talks. United has not made a formal overture to American Airlines. So there's no talks. But if it happens,

you've got a couple of senators who are saying, yeah, we're not crazy about this idea. Let us know what you think and what you're thinking in terms of discussions. And the Q1 earnings calls this week, that'll be the first time we hear from Scott Kirby. Robert Isam, because they're going to get a lot of questions on this. And while there may be, hey, well, we don't really have anything to talk about right now, it's out there. And so you will hear more than a few analysts talk about this. United reports its results after the bell tomorrow. Then Scott Kirby is on the analyst call on Wednesday morning. American Airlines reports its results on Thursday morning. And then shortly after that, you will hear Robert Isam on the American

conference call. We should also point out, we're going to be talking with both of these CEOs over the next couple of days. And we've got a lot of airline CEOs lined up for results this week in terms of exclusive and first on interviews, Ben Minnacucci tomorrow. We're going to be talking with him exclusive. We'll talk with Scott Kirby on Wednesday. And we'll talk with Robert Isam and Bob Jordan on Thursday as well. So lots of interviews, guys, the Kirby one is going to be interesting because it's out there. And I think he's going to have to address it in some fashion, whether or not he chooses to say, well, you know, nothing formal to announce at this point. We'll have to wait and see.

Did you catch our discussion with Jonathan Cantor, Phil? We were, you know, he was arguing that the industry needs more regulation. And I was questioning, where are all the profits if it's sort of an oligopoly? And maybe the answer is with the biggest players only, the only ones who have positive stock performance over the past five years. But I'd love to hear them all way in all of these executives on, on why. it seems that kind of investors lose, the consumer is always mad, and regulators think that they, you know, have too much power and can't combine. You know, it feels like that one of those things has to be wrong. Yeah. Consumers are going to complain, period, about airlines. It's a favorite

topic for them to complain about. So I'm not saying they're not right sometimes, but they're always going to complain in some fashion. In terms of whether or not the airlines can be profitable, they can be profitable, both United and Delta. They generate most of the profits within the airline industry. So it's not like these are companies that cannot be profitable. But his argument was you shouldn't let a smaller player tie up with one of the bigger ones now. And I was wondering what, you know, the alternative is if Spirit's going to go back. So I don't know if, if American over a five-year period is struggling, I don't know if it is. It's probably putting it too strongly. I thought they had a lot of debt, you know, just a big sense. Yeah. They're struggling to,

they're struggling to turn a profit here. With regard to Spirit, Kelly, one thing to keep in mind, That's the totally separate end of the industry, and it's a very, very small percentage of the seats in the United States. You never want to see an airline go out of business, but if Spirit were to go out of business and they're in bankruptcy right now, it's really, really small. Who would benefit the most likely the other low-cost carriers, though there might get some business that goes to the larger carriers. But you're talking about a different business model there relative to Delta United and American. Sort of like we all agree that there's a problem, but, you know, what should be done? Anyway, I know we have to go, but for later this week, perhaps, Phil, Phil, Phil, as we hear from all of those CEOs, appreciate it. Okay.

Phila Beau. All right, let's get now to Christina Parsonabalus with a CNBC news update. Brian, FBI director Cash Patel today filed a lawsuit against the Atlantic seeking $250 million for what he claims is a defamatory article detailing his alleged abuse of alcohol. In response, the Atlantic said that it stands by its reporting and will vigorously defend against what it calls a meritless lawsuit. Talks have reportedly been extended between Caesars and billionaire Tillman. for Tata, I should say, for his proposed $18 billion takeover. That's according to Bloomberg.

This executive, who is currently the ambassador to Italy, I should say, owns the Golden Nugget Casino chain as well as Landry's restaurants and plans to combine them with Caesars to create an even bigger casino giant. And NASA may not have its new space suits ready for the lunar landing scheduled for 2028. The agencies, Inspector General, warned today the suits being developed by Axiom Space may not be ready until 2031, if the comeback. has similar delays to past spacesuit development. Axiom has yet to respond.

Brian, it seems like these plans are hanging on by a thread. I watched The Martian last night, by the way, an extremely good movie, one from Matt Damon 12 years ago. Worth a re-rarch. Christina, thank you very much. Thank you for sharing that. You're very welcome. All right, coming up, from the Earth to the Moon.

Speaking of astronauts, USA, where Earth surging more than 40% this month. It made a deal today. Tell you who and why. Well, we got a big story around the world of rare earth minerals. Shares of USA rare earths are popping. You're up 12% right now. You're buying Brazilian rare earth miner Sarah Verde. And a deal worth $2.8 billion.

The deal will give USA rare earth access to four critical minerals and help fight off China's dominance in the industry. CEO Barbara Humpton was on CNBC earlier today. And she talked about why this deal is important. The world has become too dependent on a single source. and it's high time to break that dependency. A year ago, USA Rare Earth formed and has been through a journey of pulling together the best in the industry. This announcement of Sera Verde is brilliant because what it allows us to do is have access to a producing mine

that produces the four magnetic rare earths that are going to be serving our industry. USAR expects to complete the deal later on this year. Now the stock is up today, but keep in mind it is still down by about half from its October high. And just a reminder, as we've talked about for months, this company and some others in this rarer space have yet to make any revenue, not earnings, any revenue, any set. They're pre-revenue, as it is known just something to keep in mind. And coming up, Quantum Leap, Ion Q pacing for its best month in more than a year. It's a $47 stock now. And our next guest says there's still time to get in.

It's power check time. We're looking under the radar for stocks you may want to pay attention to. And we'll start with IONQ, which is up 50% and 64, really, over the past month. Sylvia Jablonsky is here. She's the CIO and co-founder of Defiance ETF. It's good to see you. We've got IONQ, coherent and lamentant. We'll try to quickly get through all of them.

IonQ is one where people, is it a story stock or is, you know, are there real profitability there? Well, there's real profitability there now, which is great. You know, the company's finally revenue positive. They had massive growth last year. They're looking for 80% growth this year. And right now they have a backlog of 370 million in revenues. which is three times, you know, what they're doing right now that hasn't come to fruition yet. So I think it's the idea that they're, that quantum computing is coming to fruition.

There's a lot of investment in quantum computing from governments, different sectors like drugs, technology, defense, things like this, and it's a leader in the space. All right. So you say, you know, it's one you can kind of own and hold, I guess, to put, if I can put words into your mouth. Coherent and Lumentum, this, you're saying, we've had Lamentum CEO on a number of times. Yes. They kind of do the light. You say this is the next generation of AI infrastructure.

You think there's upside in both of these? I do. So I think just the general theme, photonics is huge, and these are the top two players in that theme. And going back to quantum, photonics pretty much feeds quantum computing, 6G connectivity, sensing, things like this. And so you have a problem, essentially.

You need to move data through GPUs, and in order to do that, you have to have photons or lasers to do it. So this is a critical aspect, a pick and shovel of AI. If AI grows, this has to exist. So hyper-scalers are investing. Cap-X is going there.

And so the two companies, you have coherent, you know, $5 billion plus last year, 35% margins. You have Lamentum, which is $533 million. They had 58% year-over-year growth over the quarter. And they're very much leaders in this space, and they're needed to move AI forward and solve this electrical connectivity problem. Yeah. So these are areas where, as to put Gene Munsters, kind of quote him from last hour, he said, you know, yes, Iran, matters, but he said the AI trade matters more. I mean, I guess that's self-evident looking at the behavior of some of these stocks on the whole market right now. It is. And if you just see what's

happening and who's getting into these plays, you're talking about Nvidia, right? Two billion dollars of investment in both coherent and Lumentum separately. And now the announcement of Ising, which is essentially working through error fixing, let's call it, for quantum computing. So you see everything that is going to be needed to build out AI and the largest players are investing in these different spaces. And they're not overcrowded yet. Just to kind of put you on the spot because you're here and why not. Do you have any concern about the speed with which we've come off the lows and just the fact that here we are, we're basically, even with today's slight declines, we're basically back at record highs. Yeah, we're back at record highs.

And I think that that's, you know, I think that's the backdrop of the economy. The economy's good. We're looking for double digit about 14 percent, I think, is where we're trending for earnings right now. You know, these companies are delivering. Yes, capex spending is high. We have to see how that monetizes. But consumer spending, sentiments, good, markets are steady. I do think a lot depends on geopolitics, though.

You know, where that goes will determine essentially where the market is and the type of volatility that we'll see in days to come. All right. Sylvia, great to have you here. Thanks. Appreciate it. Sylvia Jablonski with Defiance ETFs. All right, folks, big day. We'll see what happens in the final hour. Thanks a lot for watching Power Lunch.