Distinction Matter - Subscribed Feeds

Over the last seven days the Ukrainian military has launched over one thousand drones against targets in Russia. Most of these were shot down by Russian air defenses. There are no reports of any serious damage.

The biggest effect the week long drone attacks achieved was to shut down air traffic in Moscow for several hours.

After waiting a few days the Russian military responded in kind.

Over the last three days a record number of drones and missiles were launched against military installations and production facilities in Ukraine (archived):

Russia stepped up missile-and-drone assaults on the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv and other regions, killing at least 12 people overnight into Sunday after President Trump last week declined to impose further sanctions on Moscow over its refusal to halt its invasion.

Russia attacked with a total of 367 drones and missiles—one of the largest single-night raids of the war, according to the Ukrainian Air Force—in a second consecutive day of pounding strikes that sent civilians running for shelters in the middle of the night.

Over three days the Russian forces used some 1,000 heavy drones plus 58 cruise- and 31 ballistic-missiles to attack Ukraine.

The Russian attacks are overwhelming (archived) the western provided air defenses:

A YEAR AGO, for 30 drones to strike Ukraine in a single night was considered exceptional. Now Russia is saturating Ukraine’s air defences with hundreds of them. On May 25th the Kremlin pummelled the country, with what it called a “massive strike” against Ukrainian cities, featuring 298 drones, probably a record.

Russia is using more missiles, too: 69 were fired on the same night. As a result, Ukraine is once again stepping into the unknown. If the current ceasefire talks fail, which seems highly probable, air-defence units will need to ration their interceptors. More Russian missiles and drones will get through, to strike towns, cities and critical industry.
…
Last year the Kremlin was producing around 300 Shahed drones a month; the same number now rolls out in under three days. Ukrainian military intelligence says it has documents that suggest that Russia plans to increase its drone production to 500 a day, suggesting that attack swarms of 1,000 could become a reality.

The Russian forces are now using the sixth iteration of the Shahed drones. These now carry a 90 kilogram explosive load, fly much higher than previously and are less sensitive to electronic countermeasures (machine translation):

The tactics of using “Shahids” are also changing.

‘Now their UAVs are attacking in swarms. Before the attack, ten or fifteen “Shaheds” cut several circles at a distance from the target, at a great distance and altitude of up to four thousand meters, actually out of the zone of destruction of our air defense. Then the “Shaheds” attack targets, diving from a high altitude. At the same time, they are clearly controlled remotely, which indicates that the UAVs are equipped with EW-protected communication complexes with command posts. Because of the new tactics, the effectiveness of eliminating enemy UAVs by means of our air defense systems is sharply reduced, ‘ said officer N., who serves in the Air Defense of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

To be more terrifying Shahid drones now have the wailing sound (1st vid) of Stuka sirens attached to them.

Number of Shahed drones launched against Ukraine
(Bigger)

While the drones keep the air defenses busy ballistic missiles and cruise missiles push through.

Ukraine has reportedly eight Patriot missile systems which cover the capital Kiev. (On Saturday at least one (2nd vid) was destroyed in a Russian attack.)

Ammunition for Patriot air defenses are running out:

Lockheed Martin, which builds the Patriot systems and their PAC-3s, is increasing its output to 650 missiles per year. But this is about 100 fewer than projected Russian production of ballistic missiles, with a Ukraine government source estimating the Kremlin has a 500-missile stockpile. It usually takes two PAC-3 interceptor missiles to intercept a Russian ballistic missile.

Supplies for other air defense systems have also run dry (archived):

The growing number of projectiles; their diversity (drones, cruise and ballistic missiles); and the complexity of their flight paths are overwhelming Ukraine’s air defense capabilities. In 2024, Ukraine managed to mitigate damage by implementing a multi-layered system combining numerous light mobile units equipped with anti-aircraft guns, medium and long-range missile batteries, helicopters, fighter jets and a network of jammers spoofing satellite coordinates received by incoming projectiles. In 2024, the destruction or diversion rate for Shahed drones often exceeded 90%. That is no longer the case; today, the rate sometimes drops to 30%.
…

A source told Le Monde that Ukraine no longer has missiles for its two SAMP/T batteries and “has not received a single missile in a year and a half” for the short-range Crotale air defense system.
…
‘We are running out of missiles,’ said Ihnat. ‘There are several Patriot divisions around Kyiv. But they cannot provide 100% protection against ballistic missiles. One battery only covers a radius of 25 kilometers. The Russians have found countermeasures: Iskander missiles perform evasive maneuvers in the final phase, avoiding the Patriot’s trajectory calculations. In addition, the Iskander can release decoys capable of fooling Patriot missiles.’

The relentless improvement of weapons and tactics has given rise to a breathless duel between sword and shield. The sword clearly has the upper hand today. Under attack, Ukraine has responded by ramping up its own aerial campaign against Russia, currently launching over 100 drones per night. The escalation appears inexorable.

It is an escalation which the Ukraine has no chance to win.

But there are still propagandists who claim to differ (archived):

Russia’s battlefield strength in Ukraine has started to wane and it could run into serious shortages of manpower and weaponry by next year, even as President Donald Trump retreats from pressure on Moscow to end the war, according to senior U.S. and European officials and military experts.

These reports border on being laughable (archived):

When Russia failed to deliver a knock-out blow in 2022 and to split Ukraine down the middle, Putin had a choice between a reduced war and a war on civilians across Ukraine. He went with the war against civilians—not to be seen as backtracking and to compel Ukrainians to surrender. This decision also backfired. The brutality of the Russian occupation coupled with countless assaults on civilians and civilian .

However, no numbers to support such statements are ever delivered.

As of end of April the UN reported some 13,000 killed civilians killed in Ukraine during more than three years of war.

During a night in which Russia fires more than 350 drones and ballistic missiles while Ukraine uses all air defenses it has against those, a loss of 12 civilians, as reported yesterday, is tragic but a very, very low rate.

In July 1943 the U.S. and Britain launched a week long air raid on the city I live in. Some 50,000 died and 200,000 were wounded; half of its houses burned down.

It shows how ridiculous claims like these are:

(bigger)

The picture General Kellogg attached to demonstrated the claimed “indiscriminate killing of women and children at night” shows the burning Antonov aircraft manufacturing facility in Kiev which was hit Friday night. The facility had been used to produce fixed wing drones for the Ukrainian military.

At the front line Russian troops use first-person-view (FPV) drone directed through fiber wire and thus insensitive to electronic counter measures. Up to 40 kilometers behind the front line Russian drones, controlled through flying radio relay station, manage to harass Ukrainian logistics. Beyond that long range drones, like the Shaheds, engage industrial targets in swarm attacks.

There are also more and more specialized drones to drop bombs or mines. Others, flying high, are used for reconnaissance and to direct artillery. Still others are launched (vid) to directly attack incoming enemy drones.

A Ukrainian soldier describes the consequences (machine translation):

“Meat assaults, when the Russians threw their own into frontal attacks on our positions without the support of drones, although still sometimes occur, but less and less often. Now the assaults mostly start in a different way. First, the Russians launch reconnaissance drones. Then our positions are bombarded with KAB and tightly covered with artillery. Then the Russians immediately lift into the air shock FPV drones, which accurately crumble everything that is left to move after the shelling. They have more and more fiber-based attack drones, which are not hindered by any anti-drone means. And only after that they throw assault groups of 4-5 soldiers on motorcycles and ATVs, or just on foot, whose task is to get to our strongpoints and clear the positions. At the same time, if a year ago we had a clear advantage in UAVs, now we have at least parity, and in some areas the Russian Federation has a very significant advantage. Especially worryingly, the range of strikes is increasing. Drones are already hitting for several tens of kilometers, destroying our logistics in entire directions, ” says UAV platoon sergeant K.

Over the last weeks Russia has introduced several drone innovations. It has increased their production to never before seen levels. It is unlikely to stop here.

Anyone who thinks of countering it should consider where Russian drone capabilities will be next year and beyond.

Reprinted with permission from Moon of Alabama.

Folks who believe the current political atmosphere is uniquely hateful have forgotten the boundless vitriol prevailing a few decades ago. During the George W. Bush administration, Republicans relied on push-button rage to suppress all criticism of the war on terror. After I appeared on a 2006 Fox News panel and criticized the Bush administration’s secret illegal financial surveillance regime, I was peppered with hostile emails including this gem: “Every know-nothing lying jackass like you should be rounded up and gassed with the Iraqi poison gas that does not exist according to you.”

I’ve never enjoyed poison gas so I eschewed following that suggestion. Unfortunately, most media outlets remained reticent about publishing frontal attacks on President Bush’s most outrageous policies. So, with a hat tip to Monty Python and Jonathan Swift, I sought to satirize my seditious thoughts into print.

On August 27, 2006, the Los Angeles Times ran my “Modest Proposal: Coerce Congress to Tell the Truth.” That piece was accepted and deftly edited by assistant op-ed editor Matt Welch, who is now the Editor at Large for Reason Magazine. Following is a tweaked version of that piece.

What about Congress?

Do Americans deserve the truth about their members of Congress? If so, citizens should be entitled to use the most advanced fact-finding methods approved by the US government.

Many people are unaware of the revolutions sweeping American jurisprudence. In June, the Supreme Court condemned the Bush administration’s torture of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and declared that the president is “bound to comply with the Rule of Law.” The Bush White House was outraged and is browbeating Congress to enact legislation overturning that court ruling and unleashing its interrogators.

Last month, Assistant Attorney General Steven Bradbury notified Congress that the administration seeks to use “coerced confessions” in military tribunals at the Cuba base. Bradbury stressed that “there are gradations of coercion much lower than torture.” Those “gradations” veered away from a 400-year trendline against using brute force to determine facts in judicial proceedings.

Congress will likely pass Bush’s Enemy Combatant Military Commissions Act, approving heavy-handed measures to get the truth from people suspected of bad things. Under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, American citizens should be permitted to use the same methods to pry the truth out of their congressmen, many of whom are also suspected of bad things.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has approved a dozen extreme interrogation methods previously banned by the Pentagon, including hooding, forced nudity, and exploiting fear of dogs. When photos from the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq leaked out in 2004, Sen. James Inhofe proclaimed that he was more “outraged by the outrage” than by the pictures of detainees forced to pile into a naked pyramid and a US Army private female dragging a naked Iraqi guy wearing a dog collar.

Inhofe should be blindfolded, put in a straitjacket, and left in a room full of crazed chihuahuas until he explains why the US military should not be constrained to follow the Anti-Torture Act of 1996.

The most iconic Abu Ghraib photo showed an Iraqi man covered in a shroud, standing on a box, with wires attached to his body as if he were awaiting electrocution. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist spearheaded the coverup of the CIA’s use of secret prisons that pummeled detainees. Frist could be similarly wired and attired and compelled to balance atop a rickety box until he explains why he believes the Geneva Convention prohibition on making detainees “disappear” is null and void.

Exposure to extreme cold is another favorite tactic for US interrogators, despite occasional detainee deaths from hypothermia. Sen. Joe Lieberman has been the biggest Democratic apologist for Abu Ghraib in the Senate. He could be strapped to a block of ice until he explains how scandals over Bush’s torture regime helps the US win hearts and minds in the Muslim world.

But if you really want the whole truth and nothing but the truth, then you can’t go wrong by replicating the Spanish Inquisition. Waterboarding involves strapping a person to a board and pouring water down their throat and over their nostrils to make them feel like they are drowning. CIA Director Porter Goss assured Congress that waterboarding is a “professional interrogation method,” not torture. CIA agents proved their professionalism by waterboarding one detainee more than 80 times—and didn’t kill him once.

Citizens should be permitted to bring splintery planks, leather straps, and water tanks to interrogate any member of Congress who denies the Iraq war is becoming a debacle. Any public interrogations of elected representatives should strictly follow the same rules that Bush proposes for military tribunals. Anyone could make anonymous accusations against a member of Congress, and no representative would be allowed to see or cross-examine their detractors. Secret evidence would be allowed but only if it incriminated the accused. Medical doctors would be on hand for any interrogation, ready to formally certify that any resulting fatalities were accidental.

Some people may object that giving Gitmo-style equal treatment to members of Congress could tarnish the dignity of democracy. But that is rather quaint, considering all the outrageous tactics that Congress has already rubber-stamped for Bush’s war on terror. Besides, no one is forcing politicians to approve the use of coerced confessions for everyone else in the world. They still have time to avoid reaping what they sow.

No Shame on Capitol Hill

My mockery failed to shame Congress into decency. In the following weeks, legislators rushed to approve Bush’s barbaric interrogation wish-list. The Boston Globe reported that “because of the Bush administration’s restrictive policy on sharing classified information with Congress, very few of the people engaged in the debate will know what they’re talking about.” Fewer than 50 members of Congress knew what actual interrogation methods were being debated. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.)—Trump’s first attorney general—boasted, “I don’t know what the CIA has been doing, nor should I know.” Legal analyst Dahlia Lithwick declared, “We’ve reached a defining moment in our democracy when our elected officials are celebrating their own blind ignorance as a means of keeping the rest of us blindly ignorant as well.”

On September 30, Congress passed the Military Commissions Act (MCA), retroactively legalizing torture that occurred prior to December 30, 2005. The act also blocked torture victims from suing the US government. In the weeks before the midterm elections, the Republican Party vilified any Democratic member of Congress who failed to vote for the MCA as a terrorist lover. House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill) claimed that Democrats who opposed the MCA had “voted in favor of new rights for terrorists.” Hastert’s cachet suffered after a federal judge condemned him as a “serial child molester” and sent him to prison for bank fraud.

Shortly after the MCA was signed, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales announced that there was no such thing as habeas corpus rights for American citizens. Gonzales previously declared that President Bush enjoyed a “commander-in-chief override” regarding laws prohibiting torture.

The following year, the New York Times published classified documents revealing that the Bush torture program explicitly imitated Soviet interrogation methods from the Cold War, including manacling detainees in painful poses for long periods and pummeling them into submission. Gen. Barry McCaffrey complained, “We tortured people unmercifully. We probably murdered dozens of them during the course of that, both the armed forces and the CIA.” But shortly after Barack Obama became president, he effectively issued a blanket pardon for all US government torturers and torture policymakers (this means you, Dick Cheney).

In 2014, the Senate Intelligence Committee finally released a 600-page summary of its report on the CIA torture regime. CIA abuses included death resulting from hypothermia, rape-like rectal feeding of detainees, compelling detainees to stand long periods on broken legs, and thrashing them to stay awake for seven days and nights straight. In some cases, interrogators didn’t know the language of the person they were questioning so they compensated by beating the hell out of them. Psychologists aided the torture regime, offering hints on how to destroy the will and resistance of prisoners. Many detainees were innocent but that didn’t save their skin.

Ironically, after all the shocking disclosures about the Bush-era torture regime, some people still consider my 2006 Los Angeles Times satire to be in bad taste. Instead, plenty of folks likely agree with the conclusion of the Iraqi poison gas email dude: “The reason this country is so screwed up is because of arrogant liberal bastards like you who think they are just so much smarter than anyone else…. Your whole pathetic agenda is to attack the president. I think it is time for you to commit yourself you need serious help.”

Reprinted with permission from Mises.org.

 Appointment of president of the Pontifical Academy for Life

The Holy Father has appointed the Reverend Msgr. Renzo Pegoraro, until now chancellor of the Pontifical Academy for Life, as president of the same Academy.

Curriculum vitae

The Reverend Msgr. Renzo Pegoraro was born on 4 June 1959. He received priestly ordination on 11 June 1989 and was incardinated in the diocese of Padua. He graduated in medicine and surgery on 12 November 1985, from the University of Padua. He obtained a licentiate in moral theology in 1990 from the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, and an advanced diploma in bioethics from the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart. He has served as secretary general of the Lanza Foundation of Padua and as lecturer in bioethics at the Theological Faculty of Triveneto. Since 2000 he has held the role of professor of nursing ethics at the “Bambino Gesù” Paediatric Hospital of Rome. From 2010 to 2013 he was president of EACME (European Association of Centers of Medical Ethics). Since 1 September 2011 he has served as chancellor of the Pontifical Academy for Life. He has published numerous books, articles and essays.

HERE IS THE NEW PRESIDENT SIX YEARS AGO AT A TALK GIVEN AT A HOSPICE EVENT IN SAVANNAH!

As retirement approaches—or begins—investors often find themselves at a crossroads: How can you preserve the wealth you’ve accumulated while still ensuring it continues to grow? Striking the right balance between growth and safety in your retirement portfolio is one of the most important financial decisions you'll make.

The key is understanding the trade-offs and creating a retirement portfolio strategy that aligns with your long-term financial goals, income needs, and tolerance for risk.

The Growth vs. Safety Trade-Off

In retirement planning, growth refers to investments that have the potential for capital appreciation—such as stocks or equity mutual funds. These investments help your portfolio outpace inflation and support income needs over time.

Safety, on the other hand, focuses on preserving capital and minimizing risk. Conservative investments like bonds, money market funds, and annuities provide more stability, but typically offer lower returns.

The challenge is that favoring too much safety can leave your portfolio vulnerable to inflation and longevity risk (the risk of outliving your money), while leaning too heavily on growth can expose you to market volatility.

Why You Still Need Growth in Retirement

While your working years may be behind you, your portfolio still needs to work for you. Many retirees will spend 20–30 years or more in retirement, and during that time, your cost of living will likely rise.

Growth-oriented investments help combat inflation and ensure that your portfolio can support your lifestyle throughout retirement. Without a growth component, your nest egg may erode faster than expected.

The Role of Asset Allocation

Asset allocation is the foundation of a well-balanced retirement portfolio. It refers to how your investments are divided among asset classes—typically stocks, bonds, and cash equivalents.

A typical retirement portfolio might include:

• Equities for long-term growth
• Fixed income like bonds for income and stability
• Cash equivalents for liquidity and emergency needs

Adjusting this mix as you age or as your financial situation changes is key to maintaining the right balance. For example, a 65-year-old retiree may choose a 60/40 or 50/50 stock-to-bond allocation, depending on their goals and risk tolerance.

Conservative Investments for Stability

Retirement portfolios often include more conservative investments to reduce volatility. These include:

• Bonds: Offer regular interest payments and are generally less volatile than stocks. Bond laddering—buying bonds with staggered maturities—can help manage interest rate risk.
• Annuities: Provide guaranteed income for life or a set period. While they can lack flexibility, they can be a helpful tool for covering essential expenses.
• Dividend-paying stocks: These can offer a blend of income and potential growth, especially from companies with a history of consistent payouts.

Rebalancing and Adjusting Over Time

Markets change, and so should your portfolio. Regular rebalancing—adjusting your asset allocation to match your goals—helps you stay on track. For instance, if your stock allocation grows significantly during a bull market, it may expose you to more risk than intended.

Additionally, consider shifting to more conservative investments as you move deeper into retirement, especially if your spending increases or your health needs change.

Managing Risk Without Sacrificing Opportunity

Balancing growth and safety isn’t about avoiding risk altogether—it’s about managing it wisely. With the right strategy, you can:

• Generate income to cover your expenses
• Preserve capital to support your legacy goals
• Participate in market gains without excessive exposure

A financial advisor can help you evaluate your current strategy, clarify your retirement goals, and adjust your allocation as needed to reflect both current conditions and your future needs.

Ready to fine-tune your retirement portfolio strategy?

Contact RIA Advisors today to schedule a consultation. Our experienced fiduciary team will help you strike the right balance between growth and safety, so you can move forward with confidence.

FAQs

How much risk should I take with my retirement portfolio?

This depends on your age, financial goals, and risk tolerance. Most retirees benefit from a mix of growth and conservative investments.

Are bonds a safe choice during inflation?

Some bonds lose value during inflation, but short-term bonds or Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS) can help preserve capital.

Do I still need stocks in retirement?

Yes. Equities help your portfolio grow over time and protect against inflation. They can be balanced with more stable investments.

What’s the benefit of using annuities?

Annuities can provide a guaranteed income stream, which can help cover essential expenses in retirement without relying on market returns.

How often should I rebalance my portfolio?

It’s smart to review your allocation at least annually or after major life events. A financial advisor can help monitor and adjust as needed.

The post How to Balance Growth and Safety in Your Retirement Portfolio appeared first on RIA.

After a bout of relative market tranquility, investors were rudely awakened Friday with a barrage of new tariff actions targeting the EU and Apple. Via Truth Social, Trump recommended a 50% tariff on European Union imports starting June 1, 2025, and a 25% tariff on all iPhones made outside the US.

Regarding the EU, the new 50% tariff replaces the 20% tariff on EU goods set in April. At that time, the EU proposed retaliatory tariffs. Therefore, the new tariff increases the odds of a deeper trade war with the EU nations. The EU as a whole is one of our top trade partners. In 2024, the US exported $370 billion of goods to the EU, while we imported $605 billion, resulting in a US goods trade deficit with the EU of $235 billion. Conversely, we have a trade surplus of $109 billion with the EU in the service sector.

Trump also proposed a 25% tariff on all iPhones manufactured outside the country. If you recall, Apple's CEO, Tim Cook, negotiated with Trump and secured exemptions from steep Chinese import tariffs in April 2025. The new proposed tariffs could significantly increase iPhone prices if implemented and fully passed through to consumers.

What To Watch Today

Earnings

• No notable earnings reports

Economy

Market Trading Update

Last week, we discussed how the rally had repaired much of the previous damage following the correction. As we noted:

"This past week, the market continued its advance. There is little reason to be bearish with key overhead resistance levels broken. However, as shown, the markets are reaching decently overbought levels after being extremely oversold. This suggests that at least for now, the "easy money" has been made. With the market above the 200, and above the 50 and 20-DMA, pullbacks should be between 5600 and 5800. Investors can use such a pullback to increase portfolio equity exposures and reduce hedges accordingly. Conversely, 5000 to 5200 becomes the next critical target if those lower supports are violated. Notably, such would require some unexpected event to unfold."

Several times this past week, we discussed that the market was due for a corrective pullback after reaching more overbought conditions. On Friday, the market gave way early in the morning on fresh comments by President Trump instituting 25% tariffs on Apple (AAPL) on any product not manufactured in the U.S. and 50% tariffs on the EU, as trade talks are not going well. As is always the case, amid a bull run, sellers are still unwilling to sell over fear of "missing out" on rising asset prices. It takes some "event" to bring sellers into the market, which we saw early on Friday.

However, by late afternoon, markets bounced off the 200-DMA and clawed their way higher as comments from Scott Bessent took the sting out of Trump's announcements. Most importantly, he made two significant statements to alleviate concerns over the recent yield rise. First, he expects the US budget deficit "to be something with a 3% in front of it by 2028," with revenue from tariffs to be used to solve the deficit. This is crucial as the CBO projections of never-ending deficits do not consider the effects of policy changes that can lead to economic growth. Tax cuts, deregulation, the coming productivity boost from Artificial Intelligence, or the infrastructure demand for power can significantly impact future growth rates.

Secondly, he specifically mentioned the SLR. The Supplementary Leverage Ratio (SLR) is a rule imposed after the 2008 financial crisis that increased bank capital requirements. This is particularly interesting to the bond market, where reversing that requirement will allow banks to purchase more Treasury Bonds. Bessent noted in his interview that the Treasury is close to "moving the SLR requirement and could see that move by the summer." That shift in the SLR requirement is very bond-friendly and will work to bring rates lower. (For more, read our Daily Market Commentary from last week.)

Even with Bessent's comments, that market remains overbought short-term, and a further consolidation process is likely into next week. At the end of this week, we removed our short-market hedge, added to bonds, and reduced equity exposure. If the market is going to consolidate, we can allow cash to act as the primary hedge. However, if the 200-DMA is violated, the 50-DMA will become the next critical support. From a bullish perspective, the 20 and 50-DMAs are now sloping positively, which should provide rising support levels. Overall, we suspect that the market will stabilize. Of course, there are always risks to be aware of, so increased cash levels are essential now.

We are not "bearish" on the market because buybacks remain a powerful market influence over the next month. The recent surge has been the largest since the October 2022 market lows. However, those will begin to fade in the middle of June, which could weigh on markets into the Q2 earnings reports.

For now, this seems to be an "unstoppable" bull market, and investor spirits have become substantially more bullish. However, all rallies eventually end. That doesn't mean a "crash" is coming, and as noted last week, the market is holding the 200-DMA for now. This suggests the previous correction phase is likely complete with support gathering at slightly lower levels. However, there is never a guarantee, so we have taken some recent gains and raised cash levels. We will be patient for a much better entry point soon.

The Week Ahead

Despite being a holiday-shortened week, we will have a good amount of data and Fed speak to digest. In addition, NVDA's earnings on Wednesday may generate some equity market volatility. As we share below, NVDA is potentially on the verge of a MACD sell signal.

The FOMC minutes will likely further stress that most members are concerned about tariff-related inflation. It will be interesting to see if they address how the recent bout of higher yields impacts their economic outlook. PCE prices and personal income and spending are due on Friday. Expectations are for a slight decline in spending but an increase in income, which alludes to consumers saving or paying down debt. PCE prices are expected to increase by 0.2%.

The Anchoring Problem And How To Solve It

“Anchoring is a heuristic revealed by behavioral finance that describes the subconscious use of irrelevant information, such as the purchase price of a security, as a fixed reference point (or anchor) for making subsequent decisions about that security.” – Investopedia

“Anchoring,” also known as the “relativity trap,” is the tendency to compare our current situation within the scope of our limited experiences. For example, I would be willing to bet that you could tell me exactly what you paid for your first home and what you eventually sold it for. However, can you tell me exactly what you paid for your first soap bar, hamburger, or pair of shoes? Probably not.

The reason is that the home purchase was a major “life” event. Therefore, we attach particular significance to that event and remember it vividly. If there was a gain between the purchase and sale price of the home, it was a positive event, and therefore, we assume that the next home purchase will have a similar result. We are mentally “anchored” to that event and base our future decisions around very limited data.

Today, investors are trained by the financial media to “anchor” to a fixed point in the market. Such is why investors consistently measure performance, relative to the market, from January 1st to December 31st. Or, worse, we measure performance from the peak of an advance. For example:

• The market is up 140% from the March 2020 lows.
• The market is down 10% from the 2025 peak.
• Or, the market is down 6% for the year.

READ MORE...

Tweet of the Day

“Want to achieve better long-term success in managing your portfolio? Here are our 15-trading rules for managing market risks.”

Please subscribe to the daily commentary to receive these updates every morning before the opening bell.

If you found this blog useful, please send it to someone else, share it on social media, or contact us to set up a meeting.

The post The EU And Apple Hit With Tariffs appeared first on RIA.