Author

admin

Browsing

Reflecting on the price action over this shortened holiday week, I’m struck by how the leadership trends have not really changed too much. We’ve observed bombed-out market breadth indicators, and the S&P 500 remains clearly below its 200-day moving average despite a strong upside swing off the early April market low.

But how much as the leadership of this market changed over the last couple weeks? I would argue that conditions remain fairly consistent over that period, and are still not overwhelmingly bullish.

Defensive Sectors Still Outperforming Offense

Here’s one of my favorite charts for analyzing offense vs. defense, a chart that holds a place of honor on my Market Misbehavior LIVE ChartList. We’re comparing the Consumer Discretionary and Consumer Staples using both cap-weighted and equal-weighted ETFs.

When the ratios are going higher, investors are favoring “things you want” over “things you need”, which implies optimism for economic growth. When the ratios slope lower, that suggests more defensive positioning as investors are skeptical of growth prospects.

We can see that the cap-weighted version of this ratio made a peak in January, while the equal-weighted version made its own top in February. Both ratios have been in a fairly consistent downtrend of lower highs and lower lows, even through last week’s sudden spike on tariff policy changes.

How bullish do I want to be when these ratios are sloping lower? Generally speaking, I’ve found that until investors start believing in the upside potential of Consumer Discretionary over the relative defense of Consumer Staples, it’s best to remain on the sidelines.

Using the RRG to Visualize Offense vs. Defense

While I often refer to relative strength ratios of sector ETFs vs. the S&P 500 index, I also enjoy leveraging the power of Relative Rotation Graphs (RRG®) to monitor a series of relative strength ratios in one simple but powerful visualization.

Here, I’m showing the 11 S&P 500 economic sectors relative to the S&P 500, and I’m highlighting Consumer Discretionary and Consumer Staples to monitor their relative positions. If you click “Animate” for this visualization, you’ll see that toward the end of 2024, offense was clearly outperforming defense. The XLY was in the Leading quadrant, the XLP was in the Lagging quadrant, and the rotations suggested a classic bull market configuration.

Fast-forward to February and March and you’ll see how Consumer Discretionary rotated into the Weakening and then Lagging quadrant. Meanwhile, Consumer Staples strengthened during that same period. At this point, the RRG is telling me defense over offense, in a classic bearish configuration.

Sticking With Groceries, Guns, and Gold

So, given the bearish leadership configuration in spite of a sudden bounce of the April market low, where can we find potential opportunities? I’ll highlight three ideas that I’ll summarize as “Groceries, Guns, and Gold.”

Playing off the “things you need” theme implied above, grocery retailer Kroger Co. (KR) has managed to pound out a fairly consistent pattern of higher highs and higher lows. With improving momentum and a new 12-month relative high this week, this is a chart continuing in a clear uptrend despite broad market weakness.  By the way, KR was one of the Top Ten Charts for April 2025 I presented with Grayson Roze!

Defense stocks like Northrop Grumman Corp. (NOC) have experienced an upside resurgence given geopolitical instability in 2025. From a technical perspective, I love how charts like NOC have rallied since mid-February, while most stocks, as well as our equity benchmarks, have been trending lower! There’s a significant resistance level to overcome around $550, but a confirmed break higher could open the door to further gains.

Gold has experienced an incredible run so far in 2025, finishing the week up 26% for the year compared to the S&P 500’s 10% loss over the same period. Similar to the chart of NOC, Newmont Corporation (NEM) is addressing a key resistance level from a major high in October 2024. But, so far in 2025, NEM has been scoring higher highs and higher lows, potentially building momentum for a break to a new all-time high.

It can be super tempting to consider the April low as “the bottom” and go all-in on growth stocks and offensive plays. But, given the lack of leadership rotation in April, I’m inclined to stick with charts that remain in strong uptrends during uncertain times.

RR#6,

Dave

P.S. Ready to upgrade your investment process? Check out my free behavioral investing course!


David Keller, CMT

President and Chief Strategist

Sierra Alpha Research LLC


Disclaimer: This blog is for educational purposes only and should not be construed as financial advice. The ideas and strategies should never be used without first assessing your own personal and financial situation, or without consulting a financial professional.

The author does not have a position in mentioned securities at the time of publication. Any opinions expressed herein are solely those of the author and do not in any way represent the views or opinions of any other person or entity.

The week that went by was a short trading week with just three trading days. However, the Indian equities continued to surge higher, demonstrating resilience, and the week ended on a positive note. In the week before this one, the Nifty was able to defend the 100-week MA; last week, it surged higher and closed just at the 50-week MA. The trading range got narrower; the Index oscillated in a 665.35-point range. The volatility, too, cooled off; the India Vix declined by 23.08% to 15.47. While staying largely stable with a strong underlying bias, the headline Index closed with a net weekly gain of 1023.10 points (+4.48%).

There are a few technical levels that need to be closely observed. The Nifty resisted the 100-day moving average (DMA) at 23395 before breaking out above that level. Zooming out to the weekly chart, the Nifty has closed at the 50-week MA, currently placed at 23885. This point and the 200-DMA at 24050 create an important resistance zone for the Nifty. While there is room for Nifty to move higher towards the 24000 level, there are strong possibilities of the markets consolidating between the 23900 and 24000 levels. While no major drawdowns are expected, there is a high chance that the upmove may at least take a breather around this level. It is important to watch Nifty’s behavior against this level.

The coming week may start on a stable note; the levels of 24,000 and 24,210 are likely to act as resistance points. The support will come lower at 23500 and then at 23345, which is the 20-week MA.

The weekly RSI is 53.94; it has formed a 14-period high, indicating a bullish trend. The weekly MACD has shown a positive crossover; it is now bullish and trades above its signal line.

The pattern analysis on the weekly chart shows that the Nifty has returned to the important level of the 50-week moving average, which it previously violated when it initiated its corrective move. This level and the 200-DMA placed at a short distance at 24050 are likely to offer resistance. This would mean that the markets are entering a major resistance zone; unless 24050 is taken out on the upside, we can expect the markets to consolidate, showing minor retracements over the coming days.

Overall, it is time for one to focus on protecting the gains at higher levels. While one may continue staying invested on the long side, new purchases must focus on the pockets that have shown the improvement of relative strength at lower levels and show strong signs of reversing their trend. Effective rotation into sectors that show improvement in their relative strength and protecting gains in the pockets that have run up hard would be important. A cautiously positive outlook is advised for the coming week.


Sector Analysis for the coming week

In our look at Relative Rotation Graphs®, we compared various sectors against CNX500 (NIFTY 500 Index), which represents over 95% of the free float market cap of all the stocks listed.

Relative Rotation Graphs (RRG) show the Nifty PSU Bank and Consumption sector Index has rolled inside the leading quadrant. The Commodities, Financial Services, Banknifty, Infrastructure, and Metal Index are also placed inside the leading quadrant. While the Metal Index is showing a weakening of relative momentum, these groups are likely to relatively outperform the broader Nifty 500 index.

There are no sectors inside the weakening quadrant.

The Pharma Sector Index has rolled inside the lagging quadrant. The IT index also continues to languish inside this quadrant, along with the Midcap 100 index. The  Realty and the Media Indices are also inside the lagging quadrant; however, they are seen sharply improving their relative momentum against the broader markets.

The Nifty PSE, Energy, and FMCG Indices are inside the improving quadrant; they are expected to continue improving on their relative performance over the coming week.


Important Note: RRG charts show the relative strength and momentum of a group of stocks. In the above Chart, they show relative performance against NIFTY500 Index (Broader Markets) and should not be used directly as buy or sell signals.  


Milan Vaishnav, CMT, MSTA

Consulting Technical Analyst

www.EquityResearch.asia | www.ChartWizard.ae

Alphabet’s Google illegally dominated two markets for online advertising technology, a judge ruled Thursday, dealing another blow to the tech giant and paving the way for U.S. antitrust prosecutors to seek a breakup of its advertising products.

U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Alexandria, Virginia, found Google liable for “willfully acquiring and maintaining monopoly power” in markets for publisher ad servers and the market for ad exchanges, which sit between buyers and sellers. Websites use publisher ad servers to store and manage their ad inventories.

Antitrust enforcers failed to prove a separate claim that Google had a monopoly in advertiser ad networks, she wrote.

Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google’s vice president of regulatory affairs, said Google will appeal the ruling.

“We won half of this case and we will appeal the other half,” she said in a statement, adding that the company disagrees with the decision about its publisher tools. “Publishers have many options and they choose Google because our ad tech tools are simple, affordable and effective.’

Google’s shares were down around 2.1% at midday.

The decision clears the way for another hearing to determine what Google must do to restore competition in those markets, such as sell off parts of its business at another trial that has yet to be scheduled.

The Justice Department has said Google should have to sell off at least its Google Ad Manager, which includes the company’s publisher ad server and ad exchange.

However, a Google representative said Thursday that Google was optimistic it would not have to divest part of the business as part of any remedy, given the court’s view that its acquisition of advertising tech companies like DoubleClick were not anticompetitive.

Google still faces the possibility that two U.S. courts will order it to sell assets or change its business practices. A judge in Washington will hold a trial next week on the Justice Department’s request to make Google sell its Chrome browser and take other measures to end its dominance in online search.

Google has previously explored selling off its ad exchange to appease European antitrust regulators, Reuters reported in September.

Brinkema oversaw a three-week trial last year on claims brought by the Justice Department and a coalition of states.

Google used classic monopoly-building tactics of eliminating competitors through acquisitions, locking customers in to using its products and controlling how transactions occurred in the online ad market, prosecutors said at trial.

Google argued the case focused on the past, when it was still working on making its tools able to connect to competitors’ products. Prosecutors also ignored competition from Amazon.com, Comcast and other technology companies as digital ad spending shifted to apps and streaming video, Google’s lawyer said.

The ruling was issued as a district court in Washington, D.C., held its fourth day of an antitrust trial between Meta and the Federal Trade Commission, in which the government similarly accused the company then known as Facebook of monopolizing the social networking market through its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp.

A Google representative said the partially favorable ruling in its case Thursday could point to success for Meta, as well, in defending its acquisitions from the government’s antitrust allegations.

This post appeared first on NBC NEWS

Capital One Financial’s application to acquire Discover Financial Services in a $35.3 billion all-stock deal has officially been approved by the Federal Reserve and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the regulators announced on Friday.

“The Board evaluated the application under the statutory factors it is required to consider, including the financial and managerial resources of the companies, the convenience and needs of the communities to be served by the combined organization, and the competitive and financial stability impacts of the proposal,” the Fed said in a release.

Capital One first announced it had entered into a definitive agreement to acquire Discover in February 2024. It will also indirectly acquire Discover Bank through the transaction, which was approved by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency on Friday.

Under the agreement, Discover shareholders will receive 1.0192 Capital One shares for each Discover share or about a 26% premium from Discover’s closing price of $110.49 at the time, Capital One said in a release.

Capital One and Discover are among the largest credit card issuers in the U.S., and the merger will expand Capital One’s deposit base and its credit card offerings. 

As a condition of the merger, Capital One said it will comply with the Fed’s action against Discover, according to the release. The Fed fined Discover $100 million for overcharging certain interchange fees from 2007 through 2023, and the company is repaying those fees to affected customers.

The OCC said it approved Capital One’s application on the condition that it would take “corrective actions” to remediate harm and address the “root causes” of outstanding enforcement actions against Discover.

After the deal closes, Capital One shareholders will hold 60% of the combined company, while Discover shareholders own 40%, according to the February 2024 release.

In a joint statement, Capital One and Discover said they expect to close the deal on May 18.

This post appeared first on NBC NEWS

On April 17 (Thursday), Judge Leonie Brinkema of the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled against Google (NASDAQ:GOOGL) in the antitrust case concerning its advertising technology business, casting a shroud of uncertainty over the future of the tech giant’s online advertising business.

Brinkema will now need to determine what remedies to impose on Google to restore fair market competition. The plaintiffs sought to force Google to divest its Ad Manager, which includes the company’s publisher ad server and its ad exchange, to restore competition in the market. This outcome is far more likely following Judge Brinkema’s ruling.

This is a developing story happening alongside a similar case against Meta Platforms (NASDAQ:META), which is being sued by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for allegedly monopolizing social media through its acquisition of Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014.

This trial against Google began in September 2024, and the plaintiffs in the lawsuit comprise the Department of Justice (DOJ) and attorneys general from eight states.

The plaintiffs argued that Google’s dominance in ad tech allowed it to charge higher prices and take a larger share of ad sales. They accused Google of stifling competition by controlling the technology used to place ads on websites across the internet.

The ruling against Google marks a significant step in one of numerous anti-competitive cases brought against Google in the past few years, both in the US and internationally.

It follows an earlier ruling in August 2024 in which Google was found to have an illegal monopoly in the online search market in the US. That case will move into the remedies phase next week, with a court date of April 21, 2025.

“This is a game-changer,” wrote Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, one of the plaintiffs in both cases. “As Judge Brinkema writes in her decision, Google was in direct violation of the Sherman Act by dictating how digital ads are sold and the terms under which its rivals can compete.

‘With this victory in hand, we can hopefully work now towards restoring a fair, free, and competitive digital advertising marketplace. This decision is the first step in opening up competition so that Connecticut businesses and consumers will pay less for advertising – and therefore less for goods and services. We will no longer be under the thumb of a gigantic multinational conglomerate.”

US District Judge Amit Mehta, who ruled against Google in the August 2024 case, has considered imposing structural remedies that could involve forcing Google to divest its Chrome business, although Google has argued divestiture would hurt consumers. Instead, the company has suggested allowing browser companies to have multiple default agreements with various search engines.

Regulators have been digging into various aspects of Google’s business, including its advertising technology, search practices and mobile operating system.

In addition to the current case, Google is also facing scrutiny from antitrust regulators in Europe, the UK and other jurisdictions. The outcomes of these cases could have far-reaching implications for Google’s business model and the tech industry as a whole.

Today’s ruling signifies a major development in the ongoing scrutiny of Big Tech’s market dominance, which echoes efforts to dismantle AT&T’s (NYSE:T) phone monopoly in the 1980s. The eventual outcome of that case led to AT&T’s breakup into seven independent enterprises, which laid the groundwork for some of today’s major telecommunications and internet services providers, including Verizon (NYSE:VZ) and Lumen Technologies (NYSE:LUMN). It also gave cable companies like Comcast room to expand into internet services.

Whatever outcome Judge Brinkema decides, the ruling could reshape the online advertising landscape and have far-reaching implications for both the company and the broader tech industry.

Securities Disclosure: I, Meagen Seatter, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.

Keep reading…Show less
This post appeared first on investingnews.com

As gold and silver continue to prove their worth as sound investments, market participants should know how precious metals investments are taxed in the US.

While the majority of gold and silver investing comes with a certain degree of taxation, there are different levels of tax based on how market participants decide to invest in these precious metals, how long the investments are held for and the investors individual tax bracket.

Read on for a breakdown of the taxes associated with investing in gold and silver bullion, ETFs and stocks, as well as the forms involved with reporting precious metals investments.

In this article

    How are physical gold and silver taxed?

    Gold and silver bullion, coins and bars are seen as collectibles by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in the US. Thus, physical gold and silver, no matter the form, are subject to a higher rate of capital gains tax when they are sold. The same is true for fellow precious metals platinum and palladium.

    While long-term capital gains would typically carry a top bracket of 20 percent, collectibles can be taxed at a higher 28 percent.

    The total an investor will owe in capital gains tax when selling physical gold and silver is based both on their income bracket and the length of time they held the asset.

    The long-term capital gains tax on physical gold and silver is equal to an investor’s marginal tax rate, up to a maximum of 28 percent due to their status as a collectible, meaning those in higher tax brackets still only have to pay 28 percent on long-term gains from physical precious metals sales.

    It is worth noting that the 28 percent maximum is only for long-term capital gains, which applies to metals that an investor has held for more than one year. Short-term capital gains on precious metals held for less than one year are taxed at ordinary income rates.

    For example, a person in the highest tax bracket purchased 100 ounces of physical gold at US$1,800 per ounce and two years later sold their holdings for US$2,000 per ounce. While they are in the 37 percent tax bracket, they would pay 28 percent tax on the capital gains made from these sales. As they earned US$20,000 in capital gains, that would translate to US$5,600 in income tax.

    However, if the investor sold the gold at the same gain just 11 months after they purchased it, it would count as short-term capital gains, and the investor would be taxed at 37 percent and owe US$7,400.

    Investors who are in one of the tax brackets below 28 percent are taxed at the standard rate of their bracket when selling their solid gold and silver assets, whether they are held short- or long-term.

    Similarly to other investments, precious metals sold at a loss can be used to offset capital gains.

    How are gold and silver ETFs taxed?

    Like all other exchange-traded funds (ETFs), gold ETFs and silver ETFs act in the same manner as individual stocks, meaning that investing in these ETFs is similar to trading a stock on an exchange. There are two main types of gold and silver ETFs: those that track the prices of those metals and those that track gold or silver stocks.

    ETFs that follow metals prices provide exposure to either physical gold or silver, or gold or silver futures contracts. It is important to keep in mind that investing in these ETF platforms does not allow investors to own any physical gold or silver — in general, even an investment in an ETF that tracks physical gold or silver cannot be redeemed for the tangible metal.

    ETFs that invest in gold or silver companies provide exposure to gold- and silver-mining stocks, as well as gold- or silver-streaming stocks.

    In terms of taxation, capital gain taxes from selling gold and silver ETFs is determined by the ETF’s holdings, the investors tax bracket and how long they held the asset for.

    Funds will often supply investors with tax forms that they can use to fill out their income tax. The webpage for a fund should have a document describing how income tax is handled for that fund, which is worth reading before investing in it.

    Long-term capital gains from selling shares of gold and silver ETFs are subject to a 28 percent maximum federal income tax rate if they hold physical precious metals and 20 percent if they hold stocks. While long-term capital gains would typically be capped at 20 percent maximum rate. This is because the holdings are considered collectibles, as described in the section above. Short-term gains made from selling gold or silver ETFs are subject to a maximum federal rate of 37 percent.

    Additionally, these gains could get slapped with a 3.8 percent net investment income tax for high net-worth investors, and a state income tax may also apply.

    Futures-based commodity ETFs can come with their own set of rules that you can learn about here. Briefly, they are often taxed in a 60/40 hybrid, with 60 percent treated as long-term gains and 40 percent treated as short-term gains. Additionally, this is calculated at the end of each tax year, whether a sale is made or not.

    ETFs that hold stocks are taxed in the same way as traditional securities, which you can read more about below.

    How are gold and silver stocks taxed?

    In terms of tax on gold and silver stocks, long-term gains from selling are subject to the standard 20 percent maximum federal rate, while short-term gains will face a maximum federal rate of 37 percent. For investors in higher income brackets, there is the potential for gold and silver stock investments to also be hit with the 3.8 percent net investment income tax as well as state income tax.

    Unlike physical precious metals and ETFs that hold them, precious metals stocks are not classified as collectibles, which is why the long-term capital gains tax is capped at 20 percent instead of 28 percent.

    Stocks sold at a loss are important as well as they can be used to offset capital gains when filing income tax.

    How to report taxes on physical gold and silver investments

    Market participants who sell precious metals in the US for a profit are required to report that profit on their income tax return, regardless of whether or not the dealer has any reporting obligation.

    When selling gold and silver investments in the US, there are two different sets of reporting guidelines — one applies to the dealer through which a person sells and the other applies to the investor who is selling the asset.

    It is important to note that taxes on the sale of gold and silver will not be due the moment that the sale is made, and the tax bill for all of these sales is due at the same time as a standard income tax bill.

    For investors selling precious metals, capital gains or losses need to be reported on Schedule D of Form 1040 when making a tax return.

    Investors will first need to detail their precious metals transactions on Form 8949, including the length of time the investments were held. This form must be filed alongside Schedule D. Investors then use this information alongside the 28% Rate Gain Worksheet included in the Schedule D instructions.

    Depending on the type of metal being sold, Form 1099-B may have to be submitted to the IRS by the broker when the sale closes, as such transactions are considered income. As for when a broker will need to file Form 1099-B, there are specific rules that determine which sales of precious metals require the dealer to file this form that apply to transactions over a 24 hours period.

    For gold sales, reportable items include specific gold coins, including the 1 ounce Canadian Gold Maple Leaf and Gold Kruggerand, and gold bars and rounds of at least 0.995 fineness. As for quantity, only sales of more than 25 gold coins and or more than 1 kilogram in gold bars and rounds will require the form.

    Sales of 0.999 fine silver bars and rounds totaling over 1,000 ounces qualify. For silver coins, US coins with above 90 percent silver are reportable, but Silver American Eagle coins are not. Sales of silver coins exceeding US$1,000 will require a form.

    When it comes to selling gold and silver overseas, market participants must follow the laws as they apply to the sale of gold and silver investments in that particular country.

    The information in this article does not constitute tax advice, and investors should work with a tax professional or program to help them make sure everything is reported accurately.

    Securities Disclosure: I, Lauren Kelly, currently hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.

    Keep reading…Show less
    This post appeared first on investingnews.com

    Target CEO Brian Cornell will meet with the Rev. Al Sharpton this week in New York as the retailer faces calls for a boycott and a slowdown in foot traffic that began after it walked back key diversity, equity and inclusion programs, the civil rights leader told CNBC Wednesday.

    The meeting, which Target asked for, comes after some civil rights groups urged consumers not to shop at Target in response to the retailer’s decision to cut back on DEI. While Sharpton has not yet called for a boycott of Target, he has supported efforts from others to stop shopping at the retailer’s stores.

    “You can’t have an election come and all of a sudden, change your old positions,” said Sharpton. “If an election determines your commitment to fairness then fine, you have a right to withdraw from us, but then we have a right to withdraw from you.”

    The civil rights leader said he would consider calling for a Target boycott if the company doesn’t confirm its commitment to the Black community and pledge to work with and invest in Black-owned businesses.

    “I said, ‘If [Cornell] wants to have a candid meeting, we’ll meet,’” Sharpton said of the phone call Target made to his office. “I want to first hear what he has to say.”

    A Target spokesman confirmed to CNBC that the company reached out to Sharpton for a meeting and that Cornell will talk to him in New York this week. The company declined further comment.

    In January, Target said it would end its three-year DEI goals, no longer share company reports with external diversity-focused groups like the Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equity Index and end specific efforts to get more products from Black- and minority-owned businesses on its shelves. 

    Just days after the announcement, foot traffic at Target stores started to slow down. Since the week of Jan. 27, Target’s foot traffic has declined for 10 straight weeks compared to the year-ago period, according to Placer.ai, an analytics firm that uses anonymized data from mobile devices to estimate overall visits to locations. Target traffic had been up weekly year over year before the week of Jan. 27.

    The metric, which tallies visits to brick-and-mortar locations, does not capture sales in stores or online, but can indicate which retailers are drawing steadier business. While Target has been struggling to grow its sales for months as shoppers watch their spending, the stretch of declining visits came as some civil rights groups and social media users criticized the DEI decision and urged shoppers to spend their money elsewhere.

    Target declined to comment on the figures, saying it doesn’t discuss third-party data.

    At the convention earlier this month for his civil rights organization, the National Action Network, Sharpton said the group would call for a boycott of PepsiCo if the company didn’t agree to meet with the organization within 21 days. In February, the food and beverage company behind brands like Doritos and Mountain Dew announced it would end its DEI workforce representation goals and transition its chief DEI officer role into another position, among other changes.

    This week, leaders from Pepsi met with Sharpton and his team. He did not confirm whether Pepsi made any commitments, but did say it was encouraging that Pepsi’s CEO Ramon Laguarta attended. He added that the two will continue their discussions.

    Sharpton’s meetings with companies including PepsiCo and Target — and his openness to boycotts — mark one of the first meaningful efforts to push back against the war conservative activists like Robby Starbuck have waged on DEI. Starbuck, a movie director-turned-activist, has urged companies to drop DEI policies in part by sharing what he considers unflattering information about their initiatives with his social media followers. He has successfully pressured a wide range of corporate giants to rethink their programs.

    With its decision to roll back DEI efforts, the cheap chic retailer Target joined Walmart, McDonald’s, Tractor Supply and a slew of others that scrapped at least some DEI initiatives as they grew concerned that the programs could alienate some customers or land them in the crosshairs of President Donald Trump, who has vowed to end every DEI program across the federal government.

    Target’s decision contrasted with Costco, which shook off pressure from conservative activists to maintain its DEI programs. Shareholders of the membership-based wholesale club soundly rejected a proposal in late January that requested a report on the risks of DEI initiatives.

    NAN has called for so-called “buy-cotts” at Costco, and has brought people to stores in Tennessee, New York and New Jersey. It gave them gift cards to shop with at the warehouse club.

    In the month of March, Target’s store traffic declined 6.5%, while the metric rose 7.5% year over year at Costco, Placer.ai data show.

    Target’s challenges run deeper than DEI backlash, and resistance to its policy change only added to its issues. The discounter’s annual revenue has been roughly flat for four years in a row as it’s struggled to drive consistent sales gains.

    Margins have been under pressure, as consumers buy more of groceries and necessities and less of more profitable categories like home goods and clothing. And the company has pinned its problems on a laundry list of problems in recent years, including having the wrong inventory; losing money from theft, damaged goods and other types of inventory losses; backlash to its collection for Pride Month and pricier costs from rushing shipments.

    Competition has grown fiercer too, as big-box rival Walmart has remodeled stores, launched new private brands and attracted more high-income shoppers.

    In February, Target gave weak guidance for the first quarter and said it expected sales to grow 1% for the full year. 

    In his meeting with Cornell, Sharpton said he will ask for Target to follow through on pledges it made after police killed George Floyd in the company’s hometown of Minneapolis.

    “You made commitments based on the George Floyd movement … what changed?” said Sharpton. “Are you trying to say … everything’s fine now, because the election changed? That’s insulting to us.”

    In the wake of Floyd’s murder, Cornell said the event moved him.

    “That could have been one of my Target team members,” Cornell said in 2021 at an event hosted by the Economic Club of Chicago, recounting his thoughts as he watched the video of Floyd taking his final breaths.

    At the time, he said it motivated him to step up Target’s efforts to fight racial inequities.

    “We have to be the role models that drive change and our voice is important,” he said at the event. “We’ve got to make sure that we represent our company principles, our values, our company purpose on the issues that are important to our teams.”

    This post appeared first on NBC NEWS

    French luxury group Hermès will raise its U.S. prices from the start of May in order to offset the impact of President Donald Trump’s tariffs, the company’s finance chief said Thursday.

    The company — which earlier this week overtook rival LVMH as the world’s biggest luxury firm by market capitalization — is best-known for its Birkin and Kelly handbags, along with colorful scarves retailing for hundreds of dollars. Other products include jewelry, watches, shoes, perfume and make-up.

    “The price increase that we’re going to implement will be just for the U.S. since it’s aimed at offsetting the tariffs that only apply to the American market, so there won’t be price increases in the other regions,” Eric du Halgouët, Hermès’ executive vice president for finance, said during an analyst call that followed the firm’s first-quarter results release on Thursday.

    Hermès said prices will rise from May 1 and aim to “fully offset” the impact of the universal 10% tariff imposed by the White House in early April, rather than the 20% duties the European Union may face unless it can negotiate a new deal during Trump’s 90-day reprieve.

    U.S. consumers are expected to contend with higher prices on a host of items, ranging from electronics and clothes to cars and houses, as the impact of tariffs bites.

    In its first-quarter results, Hermès reported 11% sales growth in the Americas, which accounted for nearly 17% of its sales revenue in the first three months of the year.

    First-quarter revenue growth came in at 7% on a constant currency basis overall, just shy of consensus expectations of an 8% to 9% increase, Deutsche Bank analysts said in a note. It also represented a slowdown from 17.6% growth in the fourth quarter of 2024.

    The Deutsche Bank analysts said that the results were nonetheless “robust,” with weakness driven by watches and perfume sales, while Citi described them as “a respectable outcome.”

    Hermès shares dipped 1.3% in Thursday morning deals, taking its value to 244.5 billion euros ($278.2 billion) — just shy of LVMH’s 245.7 billion euros — according to a CNBC calculation of LSEG data.

    LVMH, controlled by France’s billionaire Arnault family, unsuccesfully tried to acquire Hermès a decade ago. Despite drawing level in market cap, Hermès’ annual revenue is less than a fifth that of sprawling LVMH, which owns luxury brands Louis Vuitton and Dior, alcohol business Moët Hennessy, U.S. jeweler Tiffany and beauty chain Sephora.

    LVMH on Tuesday reported an unexpected decline in first quarter sales, flagging a fall in its dominant fashion and leather goods division.

    Analysts have predicted the luxury sector will be less impacted by tariffs than other retailers due to their ability to pass on increased import costs to a high-spending clientele. However, they would encounter major headwinds from a broad pullback in consumer spending as a result of weaker global economic growth or recessionary fears.

    This post appeared first on NBC NEWS

    Moving average strategy, trend trading, and multi-timeframe analysis are essential tools for traders. In this video, Joe demonstrates how to use two key moving averages to determine if a stock is in an uptrend, downtrend, or sideways phase. He then expands on applying this concept across multiple timeframes to gain a significant edge when trading pullbacks.

    In addition, Joe provides insights into the current state of commodities, highlighting areas showing signs of improvement, and covers major indices. Finally, he addresses viewer-submitted symbol requests, including LMT, BABA, and more, offering his technical analysis on each.

    The video premiered on April 16, 2025. Click this link to watch on Joe’s dedicated page.

    Archived videos from Joe are available at this link. Send symbol requests to stocktalk@stockcharts.com; you can also submit a request in the comments section below the video on YouTube. Symbol Requests can be sent in throughout the week prior to the next show.

    When markets get more volatile and more unstable, I get the urge to take a step back and reflect on simple assessments of trend and momentum.  Today we’ll use one of the most common technical indicators, the 200-day moving average, and discuss what this simple trend-following tool can tell us about conditions for the S&P 500 index.

    Nothing Good Happens Below the 200-Day Moving Average

    I’ve received a number of questions recently as to why I’m not way more bullish after the sudden rally off last Wednesday’s low.  I love to respond with Paul Tudor Jones’ famous quote, “Nothing good happens below the 200-day moving average.”

    To be clear, the 200-day moving average is almost 500 points above current levels, so it would take quite a rally to achieve that price level any time soon.  But with the VIX still well above the 30 level, that means the market is expecting wide price swings and big moves could be very possible.

    But generally speaking, any time I see a chart where the price is below a downward-sloping 200-day moving average, I feel comfortable making the basic assumption that the primary trend is down.  And until the SPX can regain this long-term trend barometer, I’m inclined to treat the market as “guilty until proven innocent.”

    Tracking the 200-Day With the New Market Summary Page

    The new and updated version of the StockCharts Market Summary page features a table of major equity indexes and includes a comparison to the 200-day moving average for each index.  I’ve sorted today’s table in descending order based on this metric, which allows us to compare the relative position of different indexes and focus on which areas of the equity market are showing real strength.

    We can see that only the Dow Utilities remain above the 200-day moving average, even with the strong bounce we’ve observed over the last week.  The S&P 500 is about 8% below its 200-day moving average, and for the Nasdaq Composite it’s over 11%.  So this basically implies that the S&P could see another 8% rally, drawing in all sorts of investors, yet still remain in a bearish phase based on its position relative to the 200-day.

    Three Stocks Facing a Crucial Test This Week

    One chart I’m watching closely this week involves three key growth stocks that are actually very near their own 200-day moving average.  If these Magnificent 7 stocks have enough upside momentum to power through the 200-day, then there could definitely be hope for the S&P 500 and Nasdaq to follow suit in the coming weeks.  

    Note in the top panel how Meta Platforms (META) powered above the 200-day last Wednesday after the announcement of a 90-day pause in tariffs.  But after closing above the 200-day for that one day, META broke right back below the next day.  META has closed lower every trading day since that breakout.

    Neither Amazon.com (AMZN) nor Tesla (TSLA) reached their own 200-day on last Wednesday’s rally, and both are now rapidly approaching their lows for 2025.  And if mega cap growth stocks like META, AMZN, and TSLA are unable to power above their 200-day moving averages, why should we expect our growth-dominated benchmarks to do the same?

    With a flurry of news headlines every trading day, and an earnings season that could paint a disturbing picture of lowered expectations for economic growth and consumer sentiment, I feel that there is more downside to be had before the great bear market of 2025 is completed.  But instead of trying to predict the future, I choose to simply follow the trends.  And based on the shape of the 200-day moving average for these important charts, the primary trend appears to still be down.

    RR#6,

    Dave

    PS- Ready to upgrade your investment process?  Check out my free behavioral investing course!

    David Keller, CMT

    President and Chief Strategist

    Sierra Alpha Research LLC

    Disclaimer: This blog is for educational purposes only and should not be construed as financial advice.  The ideas and strategies should never be used without first assessing your own personal and financial situation, or without consulting a financial professional.  

    The author does not have a position in mentioned securities at the time of publication.    Any opinions expressed herein are solely those of the author and do not in any way represent the views or opinions of any other person or entity.