Inflation Prints | GLP-1 Evolves | China Goes Local

The market got what it wanted… and didn’t trust it anyway.

Stocks bounced hard after softer inflation data finally hit the tape, snapping a four-day slide.

The S&P pushed higher, the Nasdaq led, and AI names reclaimed ground that looked shaky just 24 hours ago.

On the surface, it read like relief.

Underneath, it traded like a test.

The CPI print gave markets permission to breathe, not to believe.

The data arrived late, incomplete, and distorted by the shutdown… enough to cool rate fears, not enough to reset the cycle.

That nuance mattered. 

Yields eased, but didn’t collapse. Risk rallied, but selectively.

Micron’s guidance sharpened the divide.

The AI trade didn’t come back as a blanket bid, it came back as a sorting mechanism.

Memory surged on visible demand and constrained supply, while questions around capital intensity, financing durability, and project timelines stayed unresolved elsewhere.

That same hierarchy showed up across the tape.

This wasn’t a pivot day.

It was a permissions check, and the market is still asking who clears it.

Investor Signal

Relief rallies are now auditions.

Capital is willing to re-engage, but only where execution, funding, and approval already exist.

Softer data buys time, it doesn’t lower the bar.

Watch who holds after the headline fades. That’s where positioning is being rebuilt.

One of the biggest potential winners? Mode Mobile.

Mode’s EarnPhone hit 50M+ users even before global satellite coverage. With SpaceX eliminating "dead zones", Mode's earning technology can now reach billions more, putting them a step closer to potential IPO.

Accredited investors get in at $0.50/share - up to 120% bonus

Mode Mobile recently received their ticker reservation with Nasdaq ($MODE), indicating an intent to IPO in the next 24 months. An intent to IPO is no guarantee that an actual IPO will occur. The Deloitte rankings are based on submitted applications and public company database research, with winners selected based on their fiscal-year revenue growth percentage over a three-year period. The offering is only open to accredited investors.

Elliott’s billion-dollar stake in Lululemon isn’t a vote on athleisure demand. It’s a verdict on discipline.

The fund surfaced a potential operator, former Ralph Lauren CFO Jane Nielsen, whose career arc is built around restoring order when brands mistake reach for strength.

Lululemon didn’t lose relevance because yoga went out of fashion.

It lost authority.

Licensing sprawl, novelty collaborations, cluttered merchandising, and aggressive markdowns chipped away at the signal that once justified premium pricing.

Competitors like Vuori and Alo didn’t need to out-innovate, they stayed narrow while Lululemon went broad.

The drawdown reflects that drift.

Shares are down sharply from their peak, not on collapsing sales, but on eroding trust that management would protect margins when pressure arrived.

Elliott’s thesis isn’t expansion.

It’s contraction... fewer distractions, tighter assortments, cleaner pricing.

Nielsen’s track record supports the approach.

At Coach, she helped halt discount dependency and stabilize North American sales.

At Ralph Lauren, pulling back promotions restored brand gravity — and equity followed.

This is the same playbook, applied late cycle.

Investor Signal

Activist capital is repricing discipline as an asset.

Expect pressure to rise across consumer brands where volume chasing diluted pricing power.

Execution is replacing imagination as the margin driver.

The steady sell-down of Western brand control in China is pragmatism.

Starbucks, Burger King, and others are handing operational control to local partners not because China shrank, but because distance became a liability.

China is no longer a market where brand equity travels intact from headquarters.

It’s an operating environment that rewards speed, regulatory fluency, and local discretion.

Domestic partners adjust menus, pricing, supply chains, and labor dynamics faster than global managers can approve slide decks.

The shift marks a reversal from the last decade.

China was once an extension market where premium Western brands scaled almost by default.

Today, execution risk dominates.

Luckin overtook Starbucks. Burger King’s unit economics lag peers. The message landed.

What companies are keeping matters. 

IP, licensing fees, and royalty streams stay put.

What they’re surrendering is control, because control without proximity now increases risk rather than reducing it.

This isn’t retreat. It’s risk outsourcing.

Investor Signal

Expect more control-light structures where Western firms monetize brands while local operators absorb execution and regulatory exposure.

Equity is being traded for relevance in markets where speed beats scale.

I’ve never been more nervous to hit “send.”

What I’m about to share could destroy my standing in crypto.

Critics will say I’ve lost it. Some colleagues may walk away.

But I don’t care.

I uncovered something so important about the 2025 crypto market that I stopped everything and wrote a book about it — a roadmap to what I believe could be the biggest wealth opportunity of the decade.

The evidence is so strong, I’m giving the entire book away for free.

If I’m right, this will change how you see crypto forever.

Claim your FREE copy before I change my mind.

Instacart’s slide didn’t come from a miss or a slowdown. It came from scrutiny.

Reports of regulatory interest in its AI pricing tools have turned a margin lever into a liability.

The issue isn’t whether Instacart technically sets prices, it’s whether the system enables discrimination that feels invisible, continuous, and unfair.

Identical items, same store, different totals.

Optimization crossed a perceptual line.

Instacart built this capability deliberately.

Its acquisition of an AI pricing firm was pitched as a way to test demand elasticity in real time.

That logic worked… until regulators and consumers started asking where experimentation ends and extraction begins.

This isn’t isolated.

Algorithmic pricing is spreading across retail, travel, ticketing, and services.

In a slowing growth environment, margin defense has replaced expansion.

But once personalization starts feeling targeted, trust erodes quickly.

The broader shift is structural. AI pricing isn’t being challenged on efficacy. It’s being challenged on permission.

Investor Signal

Algorithmic pricing is moving from advantage to oversight risk.

Platforms that rely on opaque optimization should expect regulatory drag and margin normalization as permission replaces capability.

Copper’s rally is a constraint story.

Supply pipelines are thin, permitting timelines stretch, and new mines are smaller, lower-grade, and harder to finance.

Demand is no longer hypothetical.

AI data centers, electrification, grid upgrades, and industrial decarbonization are pulling copper forward faster than capacity can respond.

Minor disruptions now have outsized effects because there’s no buffer left.

What’s changed is behavior.

Copper isn’t selling off on growth scares.

It’s holding because replacement isn’t immediate.

That’s a structural shift from cyclical metal to strategic input.

Producers with approved projects, logistics access, and political clearance are gaining leverage.

End-users without secured supply are absorbing volatility downstream.

This isn’t a boom chasing momentum.

It’s a market pricing execution risk into the curve.

Investor Signal

Copper is trading like rare earths… scarce, geopolitical, and rationed by execution risk rather than demand elasticity.

Expect sustained premiums for producers with pipeline visibility, and margin compression for manufacturers unable to secure multiyear supply contracts at current pricing.

According to Dr. David Eifrig, a former Goldman Sachs VP, three powerful men inside the highest levels of the U.S. government are advancing a strange plan that could impact your wealth in a MAJOR way. And in the process, it could spark the biggest gold frenzy in over half a century. 

Dr. Eifrig urges you to move your money to his No. 1 gold stock immediately (1,000% upside potential.) He warns if you wait a second longer, you could get priced out. 

Get the full details here before it's too late.

Eli Lilly’s oral GLP-1 didn’t win on headline weight loss. It won on persistence.

Patients retained most of their progress after transitioning off injections, reframing the obesity market around maintenance rather than peak effect.

That distinction matters.

The biggest weakness in injectable GLP-1s isn’t efficacy.

It’s churn.

Patients stop, weight returns, and payers shoulder repeat costs.

Pills don’t replace injections, they extend the lifecycle.

The data reframes the GLP-1 market.

Patients who stop injections typically regain most lost weight, creating a retention problem that oral therapies can solve.

While pills appear to cause less initial weight loss than shots, their needle-free format extends adherence, widens access, and shifts the competitive battlefield toward pricing, payer acceptance, and lifetime value rather than peak efficacy alone.

Goldman Sachs forecasts oral drugs capturing 24% of the 2030 weight loss market, with Eli Lilly's pill taking 60% of that segment.

The Trump administration pricing deal sets starting doses at $149 per month through TrumpRx, well below injectable list prices near $1,000.

Investor Signal

GLP-1 competition is evolving from weight-loss magnitude to patient retention economics.

Pills that preserve outcomes while improving adherence will capture disproportionate long-term value.

Expect oral therapies to pressure injectable pricing power as payers prioritize sustained results over peak performance.

The market didn’t use softer inflation to chase risk indiscriminately.

It used it to confirm preferences already forming: certainty over leverage, visibility over vision, throughput over promise.

The rally worked because it followed structure, not because it reset expectations.

Late cycle doesn’t end with crashes.

It ends with compression.

Margins get thinner. Narratives get questioned. Capital concentrates where timelines are short and outcomes are enforceable.

Today didn’t change that trajectory. It reinforced it.

The question isn’t whether risk can bounce.

It’s whether it can clear friction when relief wears off.

Markets are no longer clearing on price, they’re clearing on permission.

From oil tankers stopped at sea to missiles pre-positioned in Asia, trade rerouted into regulatory gaps, and AI rationing critical chips, demand still exists everywhere but access does not.

This cycle isn’t about scarcity or growth, it’s about who gets cleared to operate, ship, and scale.