Offshore
Photo
WealthyReadings
Happy $TMDX yearly high 🔥
tweet
Happy $TMDX yearly high 🔥
$TMDX is back on a clear uptrend, setting up a new yearly high today.
We could have some short term volatility but with flight data as it is and without any black swan, closing above $145 in the next days/weeks sets us up for that new ATH sooner rather than later.
Time to sit and relax. Or to buy volatility if it happens. tweet
Offshore
Photo
WealthyReadings
$BABA is $GOOG + $AMZN + $META in China.
And yet it trades at lower mutliples than each of those companies individually, while the country is starting its AI revolution and its consumption boost.
That is the size of the opportunity ahead. https://t.co/g6FctNZBta
tweet
$BABA is $GOOG + $AMZN + $META in China.
And yet it trades at lower mutliples than each of those companies individually, while the country is starting its AI revolution and its consumption boost.
That is the size of the opportunity ahead. https://t.co/g6FctNZBta
tweet
Offshore
Photo
EndGame Macro
When Mutual Funds Have No Cushion Left
This is a picture of mutual funds running with almost no cushion left. Cash balances both in percentage terms and in actual dollars have fallen to levels we haven’t seen in nearly twenty years. Even during the hype periods of 2007 or late 2021, managers kept more cash on hand than they do now. When cash drops to 1.2%, it’s not because everyone suddenly became fearless, it’s because the system pushes them into staying fully invested whether they like it or not.
This is what happens when your job is tied to beating a benchmark every quarter. If the market keeps drifting higher and you’re sitting in cash, you underperform. Clients pull money. Boards ask questions. So instead of building a buffer when the macro turns soft, managers often do the opposite: they press the gas and hope they can unwind later. It’s less about conviction and more about career survival.
Why It Makes Sense… and Why It’s Dangerous
On the surface, the timing makes sense. The Fed has already started cutting, the market keeps telling itself a soft landing is possible, and liquidity narratives are everywhere. In that environment, holding cash feels like admitting defeat. So funds stay fully deployed, dips get bought instantly, and cash balances grind lower and lower.
But this is also the exact setup that has burned them before. In 2007, cash balances were near lows right before the credit markets cracked. In 2018, funds were similarly pinned when liquidity dried up into year end and forced selling accelerated. And in 2020, being fully invested meant managers had no flexibility when markets went vertical…down first, then up and they spent months chasing the rebound.
The risk isn’t just that something goes wrong. It’s that when it does, mutual funds can’t act as stabilizers. They don’t have cash to buy weakness, they become sellers. And when a large part of the market is forced to sell at the same time, normal pullbacks turn into air pockets. Liquidity disappears. Bid ask spreads widen. Temporary volatility starts to feel like something heavier.
So this chart isn’t just about positioning. It’s a reminder of how markets behave late in the cycle: everyone leans forward at the same time, the room gets crowded, and nobody notices the exit door until someone trips.
tweet
When Mutual Funds Have No Cushion Left
This is a picture of mutual funds running with almost no cushion left. Cash balances both in percentage terms and in actual dollars have fallen to levels we haven’t seen in nearly twenty years. Even during the hype periods of 2007 or late 2021, managers kept more cash on hand than they do now. When cash drops to 1.2%, it’s not because everyone suddenly became fearless, it’s because the system pushes them into staying fully invested whether they like it or not.
This is what happens when your job is tied to beating a benchmark every quarter. If the market keeps drifting higher and you’re sitting in cash, you underperform. Clients pull money. Boards ask questions. So instead of building a buffer when the macro turns soft, managers often do the opposite: they press the gas and hope they can unwind later. It’s less about conviction and more about career survival.
Why It Makes Sense… and Why It’s Dangerous
On the surface, the timing makes sense. The Fed has already started cutting, the market keeps telling itself a soft landing is possible, and liquidity narratives are everywhere. In that environment, holding cash feels like admitting defeat. So funds stay fully deployed, dips get bought instantly, and cash balances grind lower and lower.
But this is also the exact setup that has burned them before. In 2007, cash balances were near lows right before the credit markets cracked. In 2018, funds were similarly pinned when liquidity dried up into year end and forced selling accelerated. And in 2020, being fully invested meant managers had no flexibility when markets went vertical…down first, then up and they spent months chasing the rebound.
The risk isn’t just that something goes wrong. It’s that when it does, mutual funds can’t act as stabilizers. They don’t have cash to buy weakness, they become sellers. And when a large part of the market is forced to sell at the same time, normal pullbacks turn into air pockets. Liquidity disappears. Bid ask spreads widen. Temporary volatility starts to feel like something heavier.
So this chart isn’t just about positioning. It’s a reminder of how markets behave late in the cycle: everyone leans forward at the same time, the room gets crowded, and nobody notices the exit door until someone trips.
Mutual funds cash allocation down to a record low, 1.2% according to GS. https://t.co/HWHLrX4BKX tweet
Offshore
Video
EndGame Macro
Now imagine why it has to dangle 10.5% when Treasurys only pay 3.6%
tweet
Now imagine why it has to dangle 10.5% when Treasurys only pay 3.6%
Imagine a bank powered by Bitcoin. https://t.co/svrtfbuX2y tweet
Wasteland Capital
One of the reasons all these scammers & grifters on here, on CNBC or Wall Street succeed over time is that people are ashamed when they fall for the Ponzis, scams and pump-and-dumps.
People would rather not admit to themselves or to others that they were dumb, naive, or both.
tweet
One of the reasons all these scammers & grifters on here, on CNBC or Wall Street succeed over time is that people are ashamed when they fall for the Ponzis, scams and pump-and-dumps.
People would rather not admit to themselves or to others that they were dumb, naive, or both.
tweet
Offshore
Photo
EndGame Macro
Why Hassett Makes Sense for Trump Right Now
If you look at this race through Trump’s eyes instead of through Wall Street’s, the betting markets suddenly make perfect sense. Hassett isn’t leading because he’s the most academic or the most central bankerish. He’s leading because he checks the boxes Trump actually cares about.
For starters, he’s already inside the administration. Trump trusts people he’s worked with before, and Hassett has been in his orbit twice, running the Council of Economic Advisers in the first term and now running the National Economic Council. That relationship alone puts him ahead of guys like Warsh or Rieder who aren’t part of Trump’s inner ecosystem. Add the fact that Hassett has spent years defending Trump publicly, and suddenly his surge above 50% looks a lot less surprising.
But the real glue is policy. Hassett has been openly critical of the Fed for being too slow, too cautious, and too political. He’s repeatedly argued for faster, larger cuts, and he’s comfortable using rules based frameworks to justify them. For a White House dealing with rising delinquencies, heavier layoffs, and a fragile fiscal backdrop, a Fed chair who wants easier policy and can explain it in a neutral rules wrapper is incredibly convenient. Markets hear dovish. Trump hears I can deliver growth again. And crypto folks hear one of us, which doesn’t hurt politically given where that voter base is drifting.
What a Hassett Fed Would Actually Mean
A Hassett led Fed wouldn’t be boring. In a downturn, he’d probably cut faster and earlier than Powell would, and risk assets would love that…equities, duration, crypto, the whole lot. That’s the upside.
The trade off is independence and credibility. Hassett’s entire professional life has been inside conservative think tanks, GOP policy shops, and Republican campaigns. That doesn’t make him unqualified but it does mean the Fed would feel more like an extension of the administration than it has in decades. Markets would adjust to that reality quickly. Long term inflation expectations might drift higher. Bond investors would demand a little more premium. And every decision would be picked apart for political influence, fair or not.
There’s also the optics: an openly pro crypto chair who owns a big Coinbase stake may be perfectly ethical in practice, but the perception risk is real. Any crypto related regulatory move would instantly generate questions.
Still, if you think the economy is heading into a harder part of the cycle and a real funding crunch is somewhere on the horizon then having a chair who isn’t afraid to slam rates to the floor has value. Hassett would not hesitate the way Powell did in 2019–2020. He’d hit the gas early.
So yes, the markets probably have it right. Hassett is the candidate who best aligns with Trump’s goals, message, and instincts. But if he gets the job, expect a Fed that acts faster, cuts deeper and feels more political than at any point since the 1970s.
tweet
Why Hassett Makes Sense for Trump Right Now
If you look at this race through Trump’s eyes instead of through Wall Street’s, the betting markets suddenly make perfect sense. Hassett isn’t leading because he’s the most academic or the most central bankerish. He’s leading because he checks the boxes Trump actually cares about.
For starters, he’s already inside the administration. Trump trusts people he’s worked with before, and Hassett has been in his orbit twice, running the Council of Economic Advisers in the first term and now running the National Economic Council. That relationship alone puts him ahead of guys like Warsh or Rieder who aren’t part of Trump’s inner ecosystem. Add the fact that Hassett has spent years defending Trump publicly, and suddenly his surge above 50% looks a lot less surprising.
But the real glue is policy. Hassett has been openly critical of the Fed for being too slow, too cautious, and too political. He’s repeatedly argued for faster, larger cuts, and he’s comfortable using rules based frameworks to justify them. For a White House dealing with rising delinquencies, heavier layoffs, and a fragile fiscal backdrop, a Fed chair who wants easier policy and can explain it in a neutral rules wrapper is incredibly convenient. Markets hear dovish. Trump hears I can deliver growth again. And crypto folks hear one of us, which doesn’t hurt politically given where that voter base is drifting.
What a Hassett Fed Would Actually Mean
A Hassett led Fed wouldn’t be boring. In a downturn, he’d probably cut faster and earlier than Powell would, and risk assets would love that…equities, duration, crypto, the whole lot. That’s the upside.
The trade off is independence and credibility. Hassett’s entire professional life has been inside conservative think tanks, GOP policy shops, and Republican campaigns. That doesn’t make him unqualified but it does mean the Fed would feel more like an extension of the administration than it has in decades. Markets would adjust to that reality quickly. Long term inflation expectations might drift higher. Bond investors would demand a little more premium. And every decision would be picked apart for political influence, fair or not.
There’s also the optics: an openly pro crypto chair who owns a big Coinbase stake may be perfectly ethical in practice, but the perception risk is real. Any crypto related regulatory move would instantly generate questions.
Still, if you think the economy is heading into a harder part of the cycle and a real funding crunch is somewhere on the horizon then having a chair who isn’t afraid to slam rates to the floor has value. Hassett would not hesitate the way Powell did in 2019–2020. He’d hit the gas early.
So yes, the markets probably have it right. Hassett is the candidate who best aligns with Trump’s goals, message, and instincts. But if he gets the job, expect a Fed that acts faster, cuts deeper and feels more political than at any point since the 1970s.
*HASSETT EMERGES AS TOP PICK AS FED SEARCH NEARS END, PEOPLE SAY
*KEVIN HASSETT SEEN AS FRONTRUNNER IN TRUMP FED CHAIR SEARCH
First time anyone has traded above 50%. https://t.co/4EhCGxA6UY tweet
Offshore
Photo
AkhenOsiris
RT @trader_53: Wallstreetbets top tickers searched
"TPU" is #6
what a time to be alive https://t.co/xWRxu1w9oM
tweet
RT @trader_53: Wallstreetbets top tickers searched
"TPU" is #6
what a time to be alive https://t.co/xWRxu1w9oM
tweet
Offshore
Photo
AkhenOsiris
OpenAI $MSFT $NVDA $ORCL
HSBC updates OpenAI model:
HSBC’s US software and services team has today updated its OpenAI model to include the company’s $250bn rental of cloud compute from Microsoft, announced late in October, and its $38bn rental of cloud compute from Amazon announced less than a week later. The latest two deals add an extra four gigawatts of compute power to OpenAI’s requirements, bringing the contracted amount to 36 gigawatts.
Based on a total cumulative deal value of up to $1.8tn, OpenAI is heading for a data centre rental bill of about $620bn a year — though only a third of the contracted power is expected to be online by the end of this decade.
For what it’s worth, we can summarise a few of the assumptions HSBC is making for the estimates above:
Total consumer AI revenue will be $129bn by 2030, of which $87bn comes from search and $24bn comes from advertising.
OpenAI’s consumer market share slips to 56 per cent by 2030, from around 71 per cent this year. Anthropic and xAI are both given market shares in the single digits, a mystery “others” is assigned 22 per cent, and Google is excluded entirely.
Enterprise AI will be generating $386bn in annual revenue by 2030, though OpenAI’s market share is set at 37 per cent from about 50 per cent currently. Everyone else stays more or less where they are now, market share wise.
The bottom line is that, for OpenAI, it’s nowhere close to enough.
tweet
OpenAI $MSFT $NVDA $ORCL
HSBC updates OpenAI model:
HSBC’s US software and services team has today updated its OpenAI model to include the company’s $250bn rental of cloud compute from Microsoft, announced late in October, and its $38bn rental of cloud compute from Amazon announced less than a week later. The latest two deals add an extra four gigawatts of compute power to OpenAI’s requirements, bringing the contracted amount to 36 gigawatts.
Based on a total cumulative deal value of up to $1.8tn, OpenAI is heading for a data centre rental bill of about $620bn a year — though only a third of the contracted power is expected to be online by the end of this decade.
For what it’s worth, we can summarise a few of the assumptions HSBC is making for the estimates above:
Total consumer AI revenue will be $129bn by 2030, of which $87bn comes from search and $24bn comes from advertising.
OpenAI’s consumer market share slips to 56 per cent by 2030, from around 71 per cent this year. Anthropic and xAI are both given market shares in the single digits, a mystery “others” is assigned 22 per cent, and Google is excluded entirely.
Enterprise AI will be generating $386bn in annual revenue by 2030, though OpenAI’s market share is set at 37 per cent from about 50 per cent currently. Everyone else stays more or less where they are now, market share wise.
The bottom line is that, for OpenAI, it’s nowhere close to enough.
tweet