Stocks got off to a strong start, with futures particularly high, but there was some profit-taking right out of the gate, especially at majors like Tesla and Apple.
For tax reasons, many investors waited until the new year to take profits, and some high flyers struggled today. Tesla’s delivery numbers have been weak, and Apple has faced demand issues in China, resulting in price cuts. Both were beaten.
Tech stocks as a whole have faced some challenges, but have shown resilience by bouncing off their lows, indicating that there is still solid demand.
Close Changes:
S&P 500: -0.2%
Nasdaq Comp: -0.2%
DJIA: -0.3%
Russell 2000: +0.1%
Toronto TSX Comp: +0.7%
Technically, I don’t like what I’m seeing on the Nasdaq, although after breaking the post-Powell low, there was a bounce. He will have to do that on Friday.
Foreign exchange trading carries a high level of risk that may not be suitable for all investors. Leverage creates additional risk and exposure to loss. Before deciding to trade forex, carefully consider your investment goals, experience level and risk tolerance. You could lose some or all of your initial investment; don’t invest money you can’t afford to lose. Educate yourself about the risks associated with foreign exchange trading and seek advice from an independent financial or tax advisor if you have any questions.
Advisory warning:
FOREXLIVE™ is not an investment advisor, FOREXLIVE™ provides references and links to selected news, blogs and other sources of economic and market information for informational purposes and as an educational service to its clients and potential clients and does not endorse the opinions or recommendations of blogs or other sources of information. Clients and prospects are advised to carefully consider the opinions and analyzes offered on blogs or other information sources in the context of the client’s or prospect’s individual analysis and decision-making. None of the blogs or other sources of information can be considered as records. Past performance is no guarantee of future results and FOREXLIVE™ specifically hereby acknowledges clients and potential clients to carefully review all claims and statements made by advisors, bloggers, money managers and system providers before investing any funds or opening an account with any Forex dealer. . Any news, opinion, research, data or other information contained on this website is provided on an “as is” basis as general market commentary and does not constitute investment or trading advice, and we do not intend to represent all relevant or available public information in related to a specific market or securities. FOREXLIVE™ expressly disclaims any responsibility for any lost principal or profit that may arise directly or indirectly from the use or reliance on such information, or in connection with any content presented on its website, or its editorial choices.
Disclaimer:
FOREXLIVE™ may receive compensation from advertisers appearing on the Website, based on your interaction with advertisements or advertisers.
The US dollar was a strong player to start the new year, it turned out, but I think it was more about movements in capital flows than economic data. Initial jobless claims were lower than expected, a good sign for the US labor market, but this is a holiday-warped week. Figures on construction spending and the latest PMI were slightly softer. Again, I don’t think these were the drivers of the market move. The big driver of the US dollar’s movement today was capital flows, and it was a broad, strong move in the US dollar today.
The inventors explore the picture from 2024 to 2025 and all the winners were denominated in dollars like Mag7 trade and AI.
Surprisingly, commodity currencies have held up well despite a rough start in Chinese markets, suggesting that capital flows are a key driver. However, oil and gold were strong, proving there is some hope for global growth even without China’s help.
The USD/JPY pair was reluctant to move higher, even with Treasury yields starting lower and then rebounding, possibly due to concerns over a potential intervention or rate hike by the Japanese authorities. That was the 2024 trade, and we’ll see if it happens this year.
The biggest losers were the euro and the pound, which fell by around 1%. The pound was particularly hard hit as rates eased below the December low of 1.2475 and the pair fell another 100 pips from there with barely a bounce. The same thing happened in the euro a little later, as it fell as low as 1.0226 before a 40-point jump.
Both will be under the microscope at the start of the year, but the rush from Europe to the US shows how much of the market is positioned.
Foreign exchange trading carries a high level of risk that may not be suitable for all investors. Leverage creates additional risk and exposure to loss. Before deciding to trade forex, carefully consider your investment goals, experience level and risk tolerance. You could lose some or all of your initial investment; don’t invest money you can’t afford to lose. Educate yourself about the risks associated with foreign exchange trading and seek advice from an independent financial or tax advisor if you have any questions.
Advisory warning:
FOREXLIVE™ is not an investment advisor, FOREXLIVE™ provides references and links to selected news, blogs and other sources of economic and market information for informational purposes and as an educational service to its clients and potential clients and does not endorse the opinions or recommendations of blogs or other sources of information. Clients and prospects are advised to carefully consider the opinions and analyzes offered on blogs or other information sources in the context of the client’s or prospect’s individual analysis and decision-making. None of the blogs or other sources of information can be considered as records. Past performance is no guarantee of future results and FOREXLIVE™ specifically hereby acknowledges clients and potential clients to carefully review all claims and statements made by advisors, bloggers, money managers and system providers before investing any funds or opening an account with any Forex dealer. . Any news, opinion, research, data or other information contained on this website is provided on an “as is” basis as general market commentary and does not constitute investment or trading advice, and we do not intend to represent all relevant or available public information in related to a specific market or securities. FOREXLIVE™ expressly disclaims any responsibility for any lost principal or profit that may arise directly or indirectly from the use or reliance on such information, or in connection with any content presented on its website, or its editorial choices.
Disclaimer:
FOREXLIVE™ may receive compensation from advertisers appearing on the Website, based on your interaction with advertisements or advertisers.
Facebook Vice President of Global Public Policy Joel Kaplan and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg leave the Elysee Presidential Palace after meeting with French President Emmanuel Macron on May 23, 2018 in Paris, France.
Chesnot | Getty Images
Facebook parent Meta replaces president of global affairs Nick Clegg with Joel Kaplan, the company’s current political vice president and former Republican Party staffer.
The shakeup comes three weeks before President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration and is the latest sign of how tech companies are positioning themselves for a new administration in Washington.
Clegg, a former British deputy prime minister, said he was stepping down and called the new year the right time to move on. He will be replaced by Kaplan, who will assume the title of Chief Global Affairs Officer.
Kaplan was an aide to former President George W. Bush and appeared on the NYSE in December alongside Vice President-elect JD Vance and Trump. As a personal friend, he also attended Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings in 2018, which caused controversy at the social media company.
“I look forward to spending a few months handing over the reins – and representing the company at a number of international meetings in the first quarter of this year,” Clegg wrote in a memo to his employees posted to Facebook on Thursday shared.
Clegg joined the company in 2018 after a career in British politics with the Liberal Democrats, and he helped Meta withstand incredible scrutiny, particularly over the company’s influence on elections and its efforts to create damaging to control content. Clegg also helped the company navigate the Cambridge Analytica scandal, in which Facebook shared user data with outside political consultants. He also represented the company in Washington and London, often at artificial intelligence panels and congressional hearings.
“My time at the company coincided with a significant realignment of the relationship between ‘Big Tech’ and societal pressures, manifested in new laws, institutions and norms impacting the sector,” Clegg wrote.
In his memo, Clegg said former Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin would replace Kaplan as Meta’s vice president for global policy. He mentioned that Kaplan will work closely with David Ginsburg, the company’s vice president of global communications and public affairs.
“Nick: I’m grateful for everything you’ve done for Meta and the world over the last seven years,” Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg said in a statement. They “have built a strong team to advance this work. I am pleased that Joel will be taking on this role next as he has extensive experience and insight into leading our policy work over many years.”
Semafor first reported the news.
REGARD: Meta: For this reason, Rosenblatt Securities has set an $811 price target on the stock
The former UK Deputy Prime Minister, who joined Meta in 2018, will be replaced by long-time republican operative Joel Kaplan, whom he described as “the right person for the right job at the right time.” Read More
Axios reports that US President Biden has been presented with options for a potential attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities if Tehran moves toward nuclear weapons before January 20.
The meeting took place “several weeks ago” and Biden “did not give the go-ahead for a strike during the meeting and has not done so since,” the sources said.
To me this looks more like contingency planning in case Iran decides to take advantage of the lame duck session than any real steps towards conflict.
The report also ominously says this:
Iran has increased its uranium enrichment to 60%, close enough to the 90% level needed to produce nuclear weapons that Iran’s advanced centrifuges could achieve within days.
It then warns that it would take at least a year to develop the warhead.
It will be interesting to see how Trump handles Iran.
Foreign exchange trading carries a high level of risk that may not be suitable for all investors. Leverage creates additional risk and exposure to loss. Before deciding to trade forex, carefully consider your investment goals, experience level and risk tolerance. You could lose some or all of your initial investment; don’t invest money you can’t afford to lose. Educate yourself about the risks associated with foreign exchange trading and seek advice from an independent financial or tax advisor if you have any questions.
Advisory warning:
FOREXLIVE™ is not an investment advisor, FOREXLIVE™ provides references and links to selected news, blogs and other sources of economic and market information for informational purposes and as an educational service to its clients and potential clients and does not endorse the opinions or recommendations of blogs or other sources of information. Clients and prospects are advised to carefully consider the opinions and analyzes offered on blogs or other information sources in the context of the client’s or prospect’s individual analysis and decision-making. None of the blogs or other sources of information can be considered as records. Past performance is no guarantee of future results and FOREXLIVE™ specifically hereby acknowledges clients and potential clients to carefully review all claims and statements made by advisors, bloggers, money managers and system providers before investing any funds or opening an account with any Forex dealer. . Any news, opinion, research, data or other information contained on this website is provided on an “as is” basis as general market commentary and does not constitute investment or trading advice, and we do not intend to represent all relevant or available public information in related to a specific market or securities. FOREXLIVE™ expressly disclaims any responsibility for any lost principal or profit that may arise directly or indirectly from the use or reliance on such information, or in connection with any content presented on its website, or its editorial choices.
Disclaimer:
FOREXLIVE™ may receive compensation from advertisers appearing on the Website, based on your interaction with advertisements or advertisers.
Star Trek fans have always enjoyed the franchise’s tech-based socialist utopia, so it’s only fitting that the cancellation of Lower decks has exposed capitalism’s biggest lie: If you build it, they will come. That is, we spend our lives telling ourselves that the only way to be successful is to demonstrate your talent and do great work. For this Star Trek fan: Lower decks was a near-perfect show, but its cancellation reveals two bitter truths: being great doesn’t mean being profitable, and modern trekkers simply have no idea what they want.
Do fans want Star Trek: Lower Decks?
Paramount was understandably reluctant to discuss the numbers that motivated them to cancel Star Trek shows early discovery And Lower decksboth of which unexpectedly had to turn their fifth season into their final season. The main assumption about Lower decks is, even though it is much cheaper to produce than shows like Strange New Worldsit didn’t get enough views or acquire enough new subscribers for Paramount+. And while Paramount’s poor handling of the NuTrek division is partly to blame, I can’t help but feel that my fellow fans simply don’t know what they really want from this franchise.
Star Trek characters like Michael Burnham love children’s stories like Alice’s Adventures in Wonderlandtherefore I think it is only suitable for viewing Lower decks regarding another children’s fable: Goldilocks and the Three Bears. While discovery ended strong, initially turning off new fans because it focused so much on old lore that it confused existing canon regarding everything from the Klingons to Spock’s tangled family tree. To put it simply: early discovery stumbled because it tried to concentrate on it too much trusted characters and events rather than trying something new.
For comparison: Picard had the opposite problem. Patrick Stewart himself reportedly wanted to avoid too many connections with this show The next generationwhich is just one reason why the first two seasons were a hot mess. It was only after the failure of the earlier seasons that Paramount and Stewart gave the fans what they wanted and turned the third season into a TNG reunion. Before that murderous final season, however PicardThe biggest mistake was constantly trying to get something done completely new rather than focusing on what made its titular character so great in the first place.
The next big Star Trek series was Lower decksand managed to find the Goldilocks balance that fans craved. Each season was full of hilarious callbacks to beloved characters from Q to Harry Kim, and the show always had great Easter eggs for older fans (I almost spit out my drink when I saw the giant skeleton of Spock Two, an obscure one). cartoon series Character). At the same time, the series introduced and proved amazing new characters like Boimler and Mariner Lower deckslike Goldilocks’ bed of choice, was “just right” in its ability to focus on something old and something new at the same time.
So much potential
Another thing that the show did “just right” was that it struck a balance between silly comedy and creating a killer canon. Every episode of Lower decks provided some light-hearted laughs, but the show was never afraid to change the canon in a big way (I particularly liked the return of Nick Locarno). And the series finale ended with Starfleet having a stable wormhole to the multiverse, which is more or less an open invitation for future Trek writers to definitely get involved wild with all the juicy storytelling potential.
As a Star Trek fan who fell in love with the franchise during the first season of TNG, “potential” is the word I most associate with Lower decks. The series lived up to its full potential by combining groundbreaking comedy with exciting stories that pushed the boundaries of this franchise. Honestly, if Star Trek is about infinite variety in infinite combinations, Lower decks deserves a permanent spot in Stovokor as it is the only NuTrek show (sorry, Strange New Worlds) to fully embrace this Vulcan ideal.
Unfortunately, the show’s early cancellation means that the fan base either doesn’t appreciate the best that NuTrek has to offer or, even worse, has no idea what to really expect from this venerable franchise. Star Wars is understandably under fire for not giving fans what they want, but the general assumption is that Disney executives are (for whatever reason) ignoring a tried-and-true, fan-favorite formula in favor of theirs own brand of action figure-optimized content chokes our throats.
However, Star Trek is in a far worse situation now, with seemingly no one knowing what they want from this franchise and a world where fans have rejected it Lower decks is one in which the franchise is doomed to die a slow death. With any luck, Paramount will bring Mike McMahan’s groundbreaking show back in one form or another to get our favorite sci-fi universe back on track. Otherwise, the term “Star Trek Into Darkness” wouldn’t simply describe the worst film in the series. It also details how Gene Roddenberry’s universe is dying at the hands of negligent executives who can’t stop disappointing the fan base.
