Live from the NASDAQ market site in the heart of New York City's Times Square, this is Fast Money.Here's what's on tap tonight.
A new milestone for the S&P, the benchmark index crossing the 6,000 mark for the first time just nine months after breaking 5K.How much more room is left to run for stocks and can anything derail this rally.
And a China setback from fears over new tariffs to stimulus that failed to impress.The country facing a slew of potential issues.Is the run in those markets over or is there more opportunity to be had?
Plus, Elon's monster return on his election investment.Why the chart master thinks it's time to sell Apple.And are we in for a wave of mega mergers in the media business?
I'm Melissa Lee coming to you live from Studio B at the Nasdaq on The Desk Tonight. We start off with a record week for markets.The S&P 500 crossing the 6,000 mark for the first time ever in today's session, the closing just below that level.
It is up nearly 5% since Monday, its best week in a year.The Dow hitting a record of its own today, topping 44,000.It was, incidentally, the first day with NVIDIA in the index.Those weren't the only milestones.
The Nasdaq also hit an all-time high during the session, and even small caps are soaring.The Russell 2000 putting in its best week since 2020, closing less than 2% from its record.
Of course, all this coming on the heels of Donald Trump's election win, plus that quarter-point rate cut by the Fed yesterday.So, do markets now have the assurance they need to keep grinding higher, Tim?
Well, look, I think we have a case, if you think about the Fed from their last meeting and where they were focused on the other side of their mandate, which is the labor market, the job market, which looks fine.
We even had services data this week, earlier in the week, that was fine.
Outside of concern about where bond yields start to worry equity markets, and we've had actually a little bit of a pullback over the last 24 hours in the 10 years, so it's not runaway yields.
And I think the markets, considering just how high yields can go in the short run, even all this policy dynamic could be deficit unfriendly and all the stuff we talk about all the time doesn't happen overnight.
So back to equities, the question really is what part of the market do you want to invest in here?
Because I do think it's going higher and I do think you've got a backdrop that's not just seasonal, but a backdrop where I think there's a bit of a chase.I think before the election, the paying trade was higher.
I think you have a case where if you look at, you mentioned small caps. Small caps have outperformed the S&P by 9.5% since July 10th, when you saw kind of the little bit of that semi-peak in the semiconductor trade.
So the broadening of the market that's also absolutely been banks, but then this industrial trade that has some defense elements to it.So anyway, I just think the market overall has lots to consider.
But I think if you look at where the Fed may be in a place that they weren't back in September when it seemed clear on rates, that's really the story.And I think that's the seed Powell planted tomorrow.
The Fed is always the issue for the equity market.
do not hate small caps anymore.
Well, I look I don't think I ever said I hate small caps I think I said something equal is idiotic though why are we even talking about yeah, yeah, there's no yeah, I'm not I don't hate anything or anyone, but I do think you have a case where you know there's always a lot of talk about small caps.
And I think it's more because of what it indicates about the nature both of the economy and the market.I don't think you have to own small caps.And I think there's probably a disproportionate amount of time spent on small caps.
But there's some really talented small cap managers.So let me dig myself out of this hole.
Plus over 40 percent of them are profitable companies in the small cap universe.Over 40 percent are unprofitable.So not that he needs agrees with me.
Not that he needs any defending.
He's just spent five minutes talking about small caps.Neither one of us want to talk about this. Anyway, best week in a year for the markets.We didn't really give much back.
So you said about a year it took us to go from 5,000 to 6,000.It took us three years to go from 4,000 to 5,000.So this was sped up dramatically.Clarity, closure, confidence.The market has it all.Does it go higher?Is that the next question?
Where do we go from here?I think seasonality, Tim touched on it, seasonality is very much in the corner of the bowls. If I had to pick my poison, I would like to see the market come back in a little bit.
But it really shows no signs of pulling back at all.
Yeah, there's also the buyback dynamic.Historically, 10.5% of annual purchases happened in the month of November.So you've got that sort of working potentially for the markets too, Mike.
Yeah, I mean, obviously that's going to create some measure of support.I mean, look, if everybody agreed, and I think we did, that if Trump got elected, that was going to be generally viewed as a positive for equities.
Maybe we didn't anticipate quite the same red wave that we got.
So that would suggest that the Trump trade is effectively on a little bit of steroids here because he's basically more empowered to make the kinds of changes I think that investors might have been looking for.
So that, combined with the season, combined with the buybacks that you mentioned, And not a whole lot of catalysts between now and the inauguration that would necessarily be a place where we have cause to worry.
It's hard to see how the market doesn't continue to go higher, even though we are at relatively high valuations, it should be said.
Yeah, I mean, like everyone else said, you know, you essentially have a Fed that's reassuring us in terms of growth potential.You have a Fed that's reassuring us in terms of the unemployment in the labor market.
You have them still saying, listen, we're not going to declare victory on inflation.However, we're clearly trending in the right direction.And then you now have a regime in place that is
you know, likely going to be moving towards reshoring, moving towards defense, moving towards domestic production.
You know, I think the pushback, I think Tim or Steve maybe said earlier, is the deficit concern, but essentially, you know, or some inflationary pressures, but those things are stimulative for asset prices.
You know, it's really hard to fight that trend.
I do think perhaps the deficit issue may come back to bite us, but that's probably something that you probably look at three to six months down the road once, you know, there's a little bit more framework around what these policies are going to be.
And of course, you have the China war that will likely loom its head and present risks there in idiosyncratic ways.But for now, and I don't think it will last, but for now, you at least have the Fed
and the regime in place in a situation where you're not looking to raise rates.Now, whether that pivots might be the entry point where I start to worry about risk and risk assets.But for now, you don't have those opposing forces at odds.
And until you do, I do think the trend is up.
Basically, right now, we're in a period where we can believe what we want to believe, and we can believe the best of things, the best of the worlds.As Bono had mentioned, the Fed is on our side.It's not going to raise rates.
It's going to lower rates.We've got the regime in place.We don't know what the details are.We don't know the extent, the actual extent of deregulation.
We don't know the actual extent of any of the Trump measures that he is—so we can just sort of think, oh, it's going to be pro-market, Tim.
What happens when we're outside of this magical bubble that we're in where we don't have the exact clarity and we don't have to tackle what does this mean for GDP?What does this mean for profits of multinational companies, etc?
Well, we're going to and and we're going to have to to understand really where the growth is going to come from and it's also a week where copper actually traded down 5% and oil traded down 4% so this doesn't send a great message about growth some of this is a
an inverse dollar trade.Some of this is just a global dynamic.But I actually think commodity prices are probably going to go higher in the environment we're talking about.
But I think for the equity market, there's no question you have to believe corporate profits are going to grow.And so the estimate for 25 is somewhere, you know, 5 to 6 percent.That number could go higher.
Certainly, that's the number we've had for this quarter of earnings.It's been a solid quarter.It's not been, you know, bombastic, but it's a case where I do think the earnings story, the valuation story with tons of liquidity.
And look, this is a trading show.So I'm happy just to talk about the next couple of weeks, even though you're right to ask the long-term question.
And Bono was right to say, I don't think deficit dynamics are entering into anybody's picture as they're allocating a dollar towards the equity market today.And I think that's smart.
And just think about what we do know, though.We know we're not taxing unrealized capital gains.We know the corporate tax rate is going lower, not higher.We know that individuals is probably either staying the same.
So we know there's a lot of pro growth that's coming down.So we climb that wall of what we don't know.We don't know what the impact is going to be, but we know what's not going to happen.
Yeah, I think the corporate income tax thing is a good point.I don't know if it's going to come down, but it certainly isn't going to go back up to the kind of numbers that they were previously talking about.
With respect to oil, you know, it's an interesting thing here because, of course, I mean, we are at peak U.S.production, you know, ever right now.
We are looking at an incoming administration that is generally going to be viewed as much more friendly to the oil and gas business. And I think one of the things we can take away from that is that we're the world's largest oil producer.
If we're going to be pushing on that, then if there was any handicapping that there would be, you know, some limitations on oil and gas production domestically, that concern has been alleviated.
So that would actually help us understand why we see, you know, oil and gas prices dropping.And in support of that idea, I would say look at the oil services industry within the energy complex.
There are a number of names there that were up double digit percentages this week.So what does that tell you?It suggests that you are going to see a real effort essentially to increase U.S.production.
So, you know, if you're looking at something like a Schlumberger, you know, which is sort of middle of the pack, I think, this week in terms of performance for oil service index, that really is focusing on basically the supply side driving oil prices lower rather than the demand side.
All right, for more on what the Fed's next steps could be, we're joined on set by Ben Emmons.He's FedWatch Advisor's co-CIO and founder.Ben, great to have you with us.Good to be back.So what do you anticipate for the Fed?
And what do you anticipate for rates?Because they haven't been behaving, so to speak.
No, definitely not.And we've talked about this on the show before.It definitely still looks like it's going to be higher rather than lower.
I think what happened today of this week really was not only the ISM services index, you said Tim, it's really I think a point for rates to start accelerating higher.
that people price in this policy that Trump now has a basically blanket on, because the red sweep is really giving him that, then you can expect that GDP is going to lift more higher above 3%, maybe to 4% to 5% range in a certain period of time.
So interest rates went up not only nominal rates, but real interest rates.That combination I typically look at, Seth told me, lots of growth being priced in.
And then it's kind of taken back, because for the Fed, this does mean high growth means high inflation.And indeed, Powell made a note of the inflation expectations, like we've got to watch that.
But they're still in this mode of risk management, in the sense of we can't let the unemployment rate go higher either.And they keep their eye on the ball.
So my sense is this Fed wants to maybe skip December, but keeps the optionality, as even Powell more or less said, to cut rates at some point.
In terms of the move higher, that is built on the notion that there will be just all sorts of spending going on, especially in the Trump administration.
Is that view overstated in that the guy who is now in the lead, supposedly, for Treasury Secretary Besant, he and the other guy who was in the lead also, John Paulson, they have been outspoken critics of spending. of just overspending.
Elon Musk is in there.He has the president's ear, obviously, and he's saying, you know what, we can cut a lot of fat out of this government.So, you know, do you think maybe we're just sort of pricing that in too much?
Maybe.I think two ways to think about it.So you have the government efficiency department, as they call it, and they want to cut 2 trillion of spending.That's the number thrown out there.
If you take that number itself, about 7%, 8% of GDP, it's a pretty significant cut.And if you look back in 2011, when we made it actually a law of sequestration, which was 10% of GDP, in 2012, the economy was flat on its back.
You know, I think a tradeoff here for the Treasury Secretary to consider that.On the other hand, it's the corporate tax rates and lower income taxes that somehow have to be accounted for.
So I think where it comes down to is the next Treasury Secretary once again has to listen to this advisory committee and say, yeah, we're going to probably have to manage the deficit by issuing more long-term bonds instead of all these T-bills, and do that dynamic, which drives up rates.
And trying to manage the deficit that way until we grow ourselves completely out of it.And that's to be seen.We don't know that exactly.But I do think that the deficit is a key issue that this next Treasury Secretary has to address.
You think of the policy. You know, it's really about pro-growth, so to try to grow out of the deficit.But the Treasury Secretary has to manage it mechanically with more maturity issues.
We've never had pro-growth with this kind of deficit.And again, it's refreshing to think about a Treasury Secretary that will do the right thing.And I'm not saying that either of the two gentlemen mentioned wouldn't be on that track.
But we all know that it's made a lot more sense to issue short and hold off on the long until the world comes down.But I want to get back to the Fed that we had yesterday.
I thought I heard Powell say that, you know what, I think projections have changed since September.And where is there a surprise for markets here that you have not a Fed that's ready to hike, but a Fed that is not?
I mean, I know you alluded to they'd kind of rather not do anything in December, but they're probably gonna.But I think projections have changed since September.What do you think?
Yeah, I think, Tim, if you take the statement and they took out that word further in front of inflation, he dismissed that.We don't want to give full guidance.But I think markets did look at it saying, like, you don't take that out for nothing.
It's basically preparing on that what's going to happen next year is going to change our projections.And we're going to have to start preparing. basically factoring that in into the SCP in December.
And I think that you see higher projections of growth, probably somewhat lower for unemployment, which is what they want.But they cannot really reconcile that with massive amount of rate cuts against it.
So I think this Fed is moving towards this pace of cuts, probably slower even, based on that projection.So I would think that Doppler shows us fewer cuts than what they projected in September.That would be the change.
But the other thing that he did say is I want to mention the last point. They do want to get to neutral not too fast.And he did repeat that.I think that's still the case, that they want to drop rates so fast.
And that's, I think, why that speaks to their projections.They're going to be stronger growth outlook.You don't have to move to neutral too quickly.
Ben, great to see you.Thank you for coming by.Thank you.Ben Emmons of FedWatch.Steve?
I think you're only as good as your last trade, right, in this business when you're a trader.And Powell is going to be known whether or not he soft lands this economy.
So this seems to be a different Fed to me, where they don't even want to allow the boom-bust cycle of the economy, where he's trying to totally avoid the recession.Whether or not he can do that remains to be seen.
But he's- Has any Fed ever, though, I hear, I agree with you- It just seems different.Has any Fed ever said, yeah, we're right at it, we're ready to throw a reception on the table?
Yeah, they wanted to stop the economy.That was Powell's whole idea about raising rates.He wanted to kill inflation, so he had to kill the economy as well.And I think he's figured out how to thread the needle to a certain extent now.
Maybe he was even shocked.He was shocked that there was no inflation when he first came in.And then he was shocked that he couldn't kill inflation. So I think he's gone around and around in the circle here, but he seems to be navigating it well.
I don't know what his next move is, but he definitively does not want a recession where we used to be OK with it.
I don't think anybody knows what the next move is going to be given.We don't know what the policies are going to be.And as Fed Chair Powell said, they have to be reactionary to what goes on.
So in that discussion, embedded in a discussion about rights and where they are headed is, do you believe what Trump, the Trump administration will do?Will that be?
A, inflationary, and or B, will they just spend so much money that rates are going to go higher because we've got to issue a lot of debt, Bonowen?
Yes, so I definitely think it's likely going to be more inflationary.And I 100% agree with the notion that no one knows what the next move is.
And I think the Fed has essentially all but admitted to that, which is why they've reiterated that they're going to be data dependent.They're not going to make moves and adjust. in anticipation of what policy might be.
I think, you know, for perhaps some of us, after having them lag for so long with the first bout of inflation, perhaps what I'm hearing is that we want them to be a little bit more anticipatory in terms of how they are going to approach monetary policy.
But he's pushed back pretty aggressively against that notion.And, you know, this data dependent process, although perhaps a bit longer than he would have liked, seems to have steered us in the right direction.
And I think at this point in the game, it's hard to argue that perhaps he should be trying to make sense of what may be when January still is not even here.
Mike, we've got to go, but I have to address the decline in the VIX that we've seen over this past week.I mean, it's a remarkable decline, about 30 percent or so.
And I'm wondering what your interpretation is in terms of are we just – are we overlooking the volatility that should be priced into the market ahead?
No, I think one of the reasons the vict was as elevated as it was was because of uncertainty going into the election and actually also just an expectation of higher than average rates of correlation in and around the event.
Now that we've actually seen it come and go, you would actually expect this basically to happen in the same way that you see a vol crush coming out of something like an earnings announcement for a single stock.
That's effectively what this has been, I think, for the broad market.You know, it was the big one for the year.It's come, it's gone, and I would not expect the kind of volatility to recur unless we get some other kind of geopolitical event.
All right.Coming up, Tesla topping the $1 trillion mark for the first time in over two years.How CEO Elon Musk's support of President-elect Trump could help pave the way for the EV maker next.Plus, slicing into Apple.
The tech giant sitting out its this week's post-election rally.And the technicals may be getting to the core of the problem.The details when Fast Money returns. Welcome back to Fast Money.
Tesla crossing the $1 trillion market cap threshold today for the first time since 2022.It has added nearly $250 billion in value just since Election Day.That's quite a return on the investment Elon Musk made on the president-elect.
According to Bloomberg, his net worth now tops $300 billion.Tesla putting in its best week since January 2023, rallying 29%.How much did he spend on donations to Donald Trump as well as down-ballot candidates?
north of $130 million, so a nice return there.My co, don't bet against Elon Musk.I mean, he's got the ear of the president.He was on the phone call today on speakerphone with Ukraine's Zelensky.I mean, he's there.He's in the nexus of power.
He is.I think, you know, there was, I think, a sense that there was a potential threat to his businesses if Trump did not win simply because he had gotten so involved in this political race.
I mean, we'd heard some political commentators suggesting that maybe he had gotten a little too involved, that some of his, you know, contracts and things like that should be examined.Those threats have obviously been alleviated.
That said, the valuation on Tesla, and everybody will know, I'm a big fan of the product, big fan of the company, A little bit challenging to chase it, I think, at these levels, because Tesla is still, at this point, mostly a car company.
Got great robotics coming down the pipeline, but boy, it's been quite a run.I don't know that I'd be adding to positions here.
Right now, it's more than 100 times forward.Other trillion-dollar tech companies are 20 to 40-ish or so forward P.E., so it's quite a premium.
If you think about all the regulation that will be cut, it's probably in the sweet spot of where Tesla conducts business, right?Robotaxi, huge amount of regulation.Batteries.Maybe subsidies cut though.
Subsidies cut, but I think they have the least to worry about.I think the other, they have 48% market share.GM has 9%, Ford has around 8%.I think they're already there.They'd love to have the subsidies. They'd also love to have the carbon credits.
Carbon credits were $9 billion since 2009 because they'd like to sell those too.I think they have less to lose and more, much more to gain than the rest of the rest of the field is.
But I think the regulatory headwinds that Tesla faces for all of its collective businesses will be alleviated.
You could also have a seat at the table when it comes to AI regulation.But I mean, in terms of you know, GM was up a lot this week.
And the notion that they roll back some of the regular, you know, the environmental regulations and ICE comes back, which is more profitable for Ford and GM, that's great.And what they're better at.
And GM's never been better at their ICE business.And I think that is interesting.It also just means that they're there.I would go back to the other part of the move in Tesla, though, is the move before elections.How about
since they made an earnings announcement where actually their costs went down, their profitability went up.
I mean, there's an argument that in a world where, again, back to the Elon influence, I actually think that it's a case where also you add that onto the fundamentals of the company.I hate the Ford multiple.I hated it at 50 times.
I don't want to go out and buy this car.I'm just saying part of the move in Tesla I don't think is all about the Elon White House story.
I think it's about Tesla, which two weeks ago changed the story around profitability in the timeline because anyone Even the analyst community was saying, it's going to be a rough five quarters.Well, I'm not so sure based upon what we just heard.
A lot has changed, Bonowin.So maybe more than 100 times forward is worth it.What do you think?
There's no way you're going to get me to get on this show and justify it.
and justify paying a hundred times and people that's the right thing to do.
You know, I think the others made a decent point here in terms of you've already seen a very significant rather, I think it was 17 to the tune of 17, 18, maybe it was even 20% on the back of earnings.That was a concern.
We were concerned about whether or not they were going to be the only incumbent.You've seen their competitors pull back. We're worried about price cuts and promotional activity.All of that has kind of been alleviated.
I think we actually have seen the fundamental rally, so to speak, in the name.This most recent rally in the span of two days is very much that he ended up being on the right side of the political bet.
And while I don't advise buying into that, I do think
For the Tesla Bulls, it very much is on brand because a lot of the premium, the 100 times for multiple that you're mentioning, is because of Elon's must lack of fear of being bold and living on the edge.
A lot of good points there.A lot more fast money to come.Here's what's coming up next.
Could a bad apple spoil the whole portfolio?Why the chart master is reducing exposure to an underperforming tech giant, and whether you should do the same.Plus, trouble in the China trade?Stocks heading lower as tariff fears hang overhead.
How the new administration could target the mainland, and what it means for investing overseas.You're watching Fast Money, live from the NASDAQ MarketSide in Times Square.We're back, right after this.
Welcome back to Fast Money.Apple lagging the market this week, gaining less than 2% compared to a nearly 5% gain for the S&P.Shares of the iPhone maker 4.5% from its all-time high just weeks ago.
The chartmaster pointing out that Apple is underperforming the broader tech sector as well and has been since late 2022.He thinks there's more downside to come and says to continue to reduce exposure.Grasso, do you agree?
Yeah, to a certain extent it had a tremendous move and it was based on the phone.I don't think you saw the, you know, they said super cycle versus significant cycle.I actually just ordered my new phone.But I have a 13.So I waited three iterations.
I think I'm okay waiting three iterations and I think a lot of people are waiting.Once there was that stall for AI, it gave them the red flag and said, you know what, I'll wait for my upgrade.But I think come the spring,
They're going to order a lot more upgrades.So maybe this is a delayed effect on the name.
I think China remains an overhang.But to kind of circle back to Carter's point, on a relative basis, it's really hard to argue against him.
Now, whether or not you want to just shed your Apple position in a vacuum, I think, is a bit tougher to make that call.Clearly, I think there are better pockets in the technology complex to be invested in.
I think I'm very supportive of that notion coming from Carter.The China overhang alone and the lack of AI, as Steve mentioned, to me removes a lot of the catalysts that would lead to a short-term upside.
We dealt with the China issue before.I mean, it's been an ongoing issue.Does it get any worse in a Trump administration when it comes to Tim Cook, who goes to visit China regularly?It certainly doesn't get better.
Yeah, I think it could.But I like Apple here.I'm not going to argue with Carter's chart.That head and shoulders dynamic relative, again, it's a relative call he's making.And there's no questioning it has underperformed.
In fact, over the last three months, Apple's done pretty much what Tesla did today.So it's been an underperformer.
My view on Apple, especially as this is truly as an investor in Apple versus a trader in Apple, the sentiment around Apple isn't terribly high.We haven't priced in a whole lot of anything.
This is a company that mints money, spins off cash, has the ability to be very defensive in a down market, and we haven't priced in at any A. I'm going to argue that since that peak in really in 2021, stocks done nothing.
Yeah, it broke out up that 190 level, but up to 225, you've done almost nothing.I think you can be longer.
Options traders, though, don't necessarily see eye to eye with the chart master there.Benny Apple can test its all time highs as soon as next Friday.So Mike, what are you seeing?
Yeah, I mean, actually, what we saw today is very much in line with what we've been seeing over the course of the last month or so, which is that call buying has definitely outpaced put buying.
If we ignore the activity that we saw today and we just take a look at options that expire at least next week and beyond, four of the top five most active contracts were calls.The most active ones were those that expire at the end of next week.
The 230 strike was actually the most active.More than 37,000 of those traded for about $1.35.
And I would point out that that price, what you're paying for upside call options that expire about a month out, is about as low as it has been over the course of the last five years.
So for those people who are wondering whether they can press their longs, but are a little bit concerned about the fact that we're towards the upper end of valuation, concerned about China or whatever, you know, buying calls is probably a good way to go because they're as inexpensive as they've been in five years.
That's interesting.Coming up, China stocks getting hit as investors brace for more tariffs in the next administration.Our next guest, though, is more worried about an all-out trade war.
Longview Global's DeWard Drick McNeil will join us next to lay out what to expect and the impact it could have on U.S.-China relations.Fast Money is back in two.
Missed a moment of fast?Catch us anytime on the go.Follow the Fast Money podcast.We're back right after this.
Welcome back to Fast Money Stocks.Closing out a big week after the election.All three indices notching fresh record closes with the Dow topping 44,000 for the first time and the S&P briefly trading above 6,000.Luxury retail stocks getting hit today.
Hermes, LVMH and others with sizable losses.Highly anticipated China stimulus failing to meet investor expectations with doubts it'll be enough to push consumers to start spending again.
Sticking with China, ETFs tied to the country resuming their march lower today with fears of a strict tariff, adding to the stimulus concerns.The K-Web Internet ETF tumbling nearly 7%.The iShares large cap in China ETFs down more than 5% each.
CNBC contributor Dvorak McNeil will join us now for more on the trade jitters.He's Longview Global's Managing Director, Senior Policy Analyst, and formerly served in the Obama administration.Dvorak, always great to see you.
Hi, Melissa.Welcome back.
Good to see you.Thank you.Good to be back.In terms of tariffs, that's what everybody is concerned about.You are actually concerned about a potential trade war.What does that look like in your view?
Well, Melissa, I think we've been talking a lot about terror, sort of us to China and what may happen there.What worries me is a larger trade war that is not just what we intend to do to China, but what are the retaliatory steps that China may take?
And what I'm not hearing a lot of is also this broader look that the Trump campaign spoke about with 10% across the board tariffs, which, Melissa, will hit allies like our European trading partners.
And if we look at Germany, for example, Germany's economy is already on life support.So if they are hit, then we'll have additional concerns about what's happening in the EU
In all of these countries, China, as well as our allies and partners, will respond with their own set of tariffs on us.And therefore, now we have this global trade war that I fear, Melissa.
Focusing in just a bit on China, though, first, what sort of retaliatory measures?We've always talked about sort of tit-for-tat, in a way, measured responses in relationship to what we do to them.They will do something commensurate and vice versa.
Is that a bad assumption in this new scenario?
Commensurate may not be the way to look at it.I mean, I think they certainly have some things that they could do with respect to the agricultural sector.
I've talked a lot about how they control critical minerals and may be able to do something there.But look, we import far more from them than they do from us.
So they're going to have limited bandwidth in terms of how they can match us tariff for tariff. I think we should expect some of that, but we should look to other things.I don't know what they will do to U.S.companies.Many U.S.
companies will likely try and front run some of this by surging imports.Today, Melissa, we heard from Steve Madden's CEO, Edward Rosenfeld, who said they are already starting to draw down some of
their imports from China as a preemption for what they think is coming with Trump tariffs.I don't know how China is going to respond to Steve Madden's attempts to do this.
So there are a whole range of possibilities here, and I think we should be talking about all of them.And so far, the conversation has just been about what we will do to China.China has agency.
They will likely try and do things to us and to our businesses as well.
Hey, George, Tim, yeah, and in fact, China's exports last night were significantly better than expected, which is probably the other side of the trade you're talking about, which is that Chinese exporters might be trying to push as much as they can before that starts to happen.
And so as we speak of this, and this is where you are, I'm curious, or this is what you've started to talk about here, I'm curious your view on is that bazooka, which we clearly haven't seen, why wouldn't you hold off on that bazooka if you're China until you get into the Trump administration and you actually know what you're up against?
and if you actually need to fire a bigger fiscal gun if you're China, and whether you're going to admit that's because of Trump or not, there's no sense in doing it now.
So if markets are expecting something out of China, my view is now, I think you're now on hold.
I think you're absolutely on hold, Tim.
And you said this the last time that we spoke here, that traders, investors are pretty much coming to terms with the fact that this bazooka fiscal spending, juice and consumption is not going to happen this year.
The package that we heard overnight, that's a debt swap, Tim, and that's because China is really in the short term more concerned about local government debt.
But they also are aware that you're not going to do it with exports in terms of trying to get growth in 2025 if you have these tariffs.
And so then you will likely have no choice but to try and use domestic consumption as one of the growth drivers, because your exports, that's not going to be a real good tool if you're under this trade war scenario.
Dworczyk, always great to get your analysis.Thank you.
DeWardrick McNeil, Longview Global.Michael, your thoughts either on Chinese equities or this potential trade war that DeWardrick was outlining?
So, you know, I think there was a lot of hyperbole about tariffs that was launched during the during the campaign.I mean, if Elon really does have Trump's ear on this, You know, he obviously operates big businesses.He has to deal with supply chains.
He's going to be practical about that.And I think a lot of his other advisors are going to recognize that as well.
So while I can understand that domestic companies that are relying heavily on China might accelerate their purchases in anticipation of potential tariffs, I actually expect that the response
in reality is going to be more measured and that they are probably going to pay some of those increases and try to take a look at them a little bit more methodically.That's the first thing I would say.
The second is that, of course, our balance of trade with our trading partners has always been operating at a significant deficit.So this is a battle that, I mean, maybe there are no winners, but we would be a smaller loser.
Just echoing what Mike's saying there, when you look at automobiles, Europe imposed a 10% tax on USA products, but we imposed a 2.5% on them.Agricultural, 8.5% versus 2.5% here.We're just trying to even these things out.
This is not happening in a vacuum.So I wouldn't worry. Other than the face value of this, we're just trying to get in line.
Mexico this week actually finished higher, and the biggest trade tariff dynamic that we hear about is Mexico going to get pushed back.
Maybe it's because it's all going to Mexico, but if you look at election night where Mexico was trading, Pesos down 2.5%, Mexico was down 4%, closes the week higher, that's interesting.
Coming up, a big week for the country in the markets.We are homing in on a couple of charts that saw particular strength, including one that just notches best week in a year, the names when Fast Money returns. Welcome back to Fast Money.
Let's get to our charts of the week.Bitcoin hitting a new all-time high today on expectations for a crypto-friendly Trump administration.Ether having an even better run up, more than 16% since Monday.
Proxy plays including Coinbase and Robinhood soaring this week as well.Steve.
So, just the headlines that we've seen out of Trump, crypto capital of the world, strategic Bitcoin reserve, and mining mainland in the U.S.
wants everything done from A through Z. So, of course, that's going to be the reason why you get a catalyst with a Trump victory.
You stay with this crypto trade, though.
I think you have the setup to have Bitcoin, let's get parabolic here, probably double in the next couple of years.
Quite a prediction, all right.Check out the ARK Innovation ETF shares hitting levels not seen since late last year.ARK Invest CEO Kathy Wood told us earlier this week that she is bullish on tech regardless of who won the election.
The fund has erased its year-to-date losses since then.It's 16% weekly gain.It's best in a year.Winners this week, Tempest AI at more than 60%, Coinbase, as well as Palantir.Bonowin.
I mean, not only do you have potential deregulation and more friendly administration, but you've also got the potential of the carry trade back on.
You do, and good for Cathie Woods.Listen, I think she's been an easy target over the last couple of years, and she's held firm in some of her positioning.You look at that ARK Holdings list, and as you mentioned, Coin, Robinhood, Palantir.
Now, we should make a little bit of differentiation between some of those.I think Palantir, for one, in terms of the growth that they're seeing around government contracts and the revenue from that,
is material, and you would expect that a reassuring and protectionist type of regime to actually be supportive of that.As Steve has mentioned, I think you have a lot of positive dynamics for Bitcoin.
I'm going to halt on calling for a double, but I definitely think that you have one, a supportive government of Bitcoin and altcoins, and two, you essentially have some bond yield volatility, which
serves as another catalyst for investment into alternative investment.So I think those two things coupled lead to at least a positive trend line in the short to medium term.
Coming up, media stocks on the move all week, earnings and potential M&A on the radar for the industry.Should we expect a boom in dealmaking in the months to come?We'll discuss that next.More Fast Money in two. Welcome back to Fast Money.
Netflix hitting fresh all-time highs before pulling back to end the day with a slight loss.The streaming giant up more than 60% this year.That's in sharp contrast to one of its biggest entertainment rivals.
Disney heads into next Thursday's earnings report up just 10% on the year, and well off its spring highs.With a new regulatory regime likely incoming, could potential M&A action shock this name and the rest of the industry back to life?
Wall Street Journal media reporter Joe Flint joins us now with more.Joe, great to have you with us, and I guess You know, the first question is, who needs it?Who needs to combine at this point?
I mean, a lot of the streamers, perhaps, some of the local broadcasters who are top on your list.
Well, I think those are good places to start.Local broadcasters in particular would like to see a relaxation of FCC ownership rules so they can get bigger, Nexstar, Sinclair, Tegna, groups like that, bigger or sell.
And to your point about streamers, there's always been a lot of talk about consolidation or partnerships between streaming services such as peacock in a Paramount Plus or a Max with someone.
So we'll see if actually things get moving, you know, come next year.
Do you think Donald Trump's sometimes adversarial stance against certain media channels will play into how he views media consolidation?
Trump's He tried to block the AT&T-Warner merger, in large part it's been reported about his concerns about CNN.So you can't rule that out.
Now, whether that will turn out to be more bluster than really get in the way of deal-making remains to be seen, but it is something to be considered.
Joe, it's Tim.Thanks for joining us.I get the sense that the lack of M&A or consolidation in media has been a function of no one really knows what the assets are worth.
And I look at some of the deals and I look at also some of the smart media-focused private equity money like a red bird.
And I feel that the sum of the parts dynamics, whether you're looking at some of the assets that we know are out there on the block. Just give me your sense on, is there value out there?
And I know we're kind of supposed to be the analyst side of this, but you're in the middle of this stuff.I get the sense that one deal will trigger many deals because I just think there's a lot of undervalued assets.
I think there's something to be said for that.Certainly if you were to talk to David Zaslav, the CEO of Warner Discovery, he would tell you, as he said on their earnings call yesterday, their stock is undervalued.
I think libraries are still very valuable, movies, TV shows, that sort of thing.What's really been hit badly are cable networks.
And cable networks still generate a lot of cash, but cord cutting, as everyone knows, and advertising money going to other platforms has really hurt that business and the perception that it is a strong, stable business rather than a slow-melting ice cube.
What do you think happens to the cable networks of Comcast?Just asking for a friend.
Well, it'll be interesting.
If they do decide to spin them off into a separate company, will they then use that company to try to gobble up other cable networks and sort of create a major cable network owner, which would certainly be a place that would generate a lot of cash?
But I could also see them staying put.I tend to view Comcast as somewhat conservative in terms of how they make their moves.But the fact that they actually disclosed this tells me they are giving it serious thought.
All right, Joe, great to have you.Thank you so much for joining us.Joe Flint, Wall Street Journal.Tim, we started off with Disney.Disney reports next week.What are you anticipating?
Look, streaming's profitable, so to speak.If we can keep this going, I think the stock, talk about undervalued, maybe not.But in terms of the drivers for the stock, for sure.
Up next, Final Trades. Final trade time, Mike.
Yeah, Advance Auto completed their sale of World Pack to Carlisle this week.That gives the new CEO, Shane O'Kelley, liquidity he needs, implying huge moves on earnings.That's what I'm looking at.
I think peak oil output domestically.Ultimately, I don't want to speculate on what way oil is going to go.But the servicers, I think, would tend to be the beneficiaries, OIH.
Tim Seymour.Coinbase.Brian Armstrong also kind of traded into this election, also successfully.I think Coinbase goes higher.Steve.I felt like Bono and forgot his final trade there.
Maybe, maybe, maybe a little bit.Grayscale, Ethereum, Mini, Trust, ETH.Ride that wave.
All right, thanks for watching Fast.What a week it was.Matt Davani with Jim Cramer starts right now.
All opinions expressed by the Fast Money participants are solely their opinions and do not reflect the opinions of CNBC, NBCUniversal, their parent company or affiliates and may have been previously disseminated by them on television, radio, internet or another medium.
You should not treat any opinion expressed on this podcast as a specific inducement to make a particular investment or follow a particular strategy, but only as an expression of an opinion.
Such opinions are based upon information the Fast Money participants consider reliable but neither CNBC nor its affiliates and or subsidiaries warrant its completeness or accuracy, and it should not be relied upon as such.
To view the full Fast Money disclaimer, please visit cnbc.com forward slash fastmoneydisclaimer.
Sign in
