For the men and women who trade in shares, this is a familiar dance. The numbers are good, yes, but they are only the first verse of a longer ballad. The real chorus lies in the shadows, where a new rocket named Neutron stirs, its launch date a whispered promise for later this year. Investors, like farmers tending to a drought-stricken field, hold their breath. They know the rain will come, but they question if the soil is ready.
But hark! A peculiar event is on the horizon, a veritable fairy tale in the autumn air, promising to sprinkle magic dust upon Realty Income’s stock and liberate it from its gloomy dungeon. If the fabled interest rate cut arises this September, our longsuffering protagonist may finally awaken from its snoozing slumber.
CoreWeave’s business model is as niche as my obsession with artisanal kombucha: it’s an AI infrastructure provider with a cozy relationship with Nvidia. But here’s the kicker-their Q2 revenue tripled to $1.21 billion, which sounds impressive until you realize they’re burning through $251 million in operating cash flow each quarter.
They’re also acquiring Core Scientific for $9 billion in stock, which is like buying a second home… in a country that doesn’t exist yet. The logic? “We need more power infrastructure.” Sure, darling. Because nothing says “financial stability” like spending $20 billion on capex and ending the quarter with $11.2 billion in debt.
What, then, should investors ponder as they stand on this precipice of possibility?
Now, when stocks embark on such epic voyages-an odyssey through charts so steep they could give mountaineers vertigo-they often find themselves whispered about in hushed tones among contrarian investors and financial pundits alike. The question arises: will Nvidia perform another stock split? After all, it’s done so before, six times no less, including one as recently as 2024. But why, you might ask, do companies engage in these peculiar rituals? Let us explore this topic with the same level of seriousness one might apply to explaining why teapots whistle or why toast always lands butter-side down.
Enter Lisa Shalett, chief investment officer at Morgan Stanley, armed with warnings as sharp as Molière’s wit. She decries this concentration not merely for its audacity but for the peril it portends. For what are these stocks if not vain peacocks preening before an admiring crowd? Their valuations soar beyond reason, much like Cyrano’s nose-impressive yet absurd. “Such concentration,” she laments, “breeds volatility and invites calamity.” Indeed, history whispers her fears into the ears of those who listen: the dot-com bubble stands ready to bow once more.
Consider the 68-day streak, a phenomenon as rare as a soul unburdened by sin. Since 1957, only eight such epochs have transpired. Each time, the S&P 500 ascended, as if guided by some unseen hand. But what hand? The hand of reason, or the delirium of collective madness?
This particular quarterly performance, due no later than the 14th day of August, offered a glimpse into the portfolios of those entrusted with £100 million or more. It revealed, in careful strokes, the stocks that had been added to or subtracted from by the most esteemed stewards of wealth.
The question hangs like a specter in the chamber of investment, a riddle wrapped in the enigma of numbers. One might say the choice is as simple as selecting a loaf of bread-yet the loaves here are baked in the fires of speculative frenzy.
Sure, the last five years haven’t been the windfall folks were expecting, and this year’s been a downright dreary affair for the company’s stock. But let me tell you-Apple has been through rough patches before, where its stock took a dive faster than a squirrel in a hailstorm. It’s rebounded before, and I wouldn’t bet my boots it won’t again.