Portfolio President | D-Wave Moves to Nasdaq July 27 — What QBTS Holders Get

D-Wave Moves to Nasdaq July 27 — What QBTS Holders Get

Portfolio President — Fri, 24 Jul 2026 13:49:55 +0000

D-Wave Quantum will leave the New York Stock Exchange after Friday’s closing bell and begin trading on Nasdaq on Monday.For shareholders, the transfer is mostly an administrative event. The company remains D-Wave, investors continue to own the same common stock and the ticker remains QBTS. D-Wave said it expects the transition to occur without any disruption to trading.The exchange transfer does not add revenue, reduce losses or accelerate the development of D-Wave’s quantum systems. It gives the company a listing venue more closely associated with technology stocks at a time when its commercial bookings are rising but its share price remains sharply lower in 2026.

The NYSE Listing Ends Friday

D-Wave notified the NYSE on July 14 that it had decided to withdraw its listing voluntarily and transfer it to Nasdaq.

Its NYSE listing and trading will end after the market closes on Friday, July 24. QBTS will then begin trading on Nasdaq when the market opens on Monday, July 27, according to the company’s Form 8-K.

There is therefore no additional trading gap beyond the usual weekend closure. Nasdaq said D-Wave had met its listing requirements, while the company said it expected a smooth transition.

The move should not be confused with a delisting caused by a failure to meet exchange rules. D-Wave’s filing describes it as a board-authorized, voluntary transfer.

What Changes for QBTS Holders

The listing venue changes from the NYSE to Nasdaq. The ticker does not.

Investors do not need to sell their NYSE-listed shares and purchase a separate Nasdaq security. Existing brokerage positions should continue to appear under QBTS, although the exchange identifier displayed beside the stock may change.

The transfer also does not alter the company’s operations, contracts, management, financial statements or shareholder rights. D-Wave is moving the marketplace where its shares trade, not restructuring the business.

It does not guarantee admission to the Nasdaq-100 or another major index. Index inclusion has separate eligibility and selection requirements. Nor does a Nasdaq listing automatically bring higher demand or a higher valuation.

Why D-Wave Wants Nasdaq’s Audience

Companies usually transfer listings to improve their fit with an exchange’s investor base, brand or market ecosystem.

D-Wave’s explanation centered on technology. Chief Executive Alan Baratz described Nasdaq as the marketplace for companies “shaping the future of technology” and said D-Wave was aligned with the innovation associated with the exchange.

That positioning is understandable. Nasdaq is home to many of the technology companies and institutional investors D-Wave wants as peers and shareholders.

Yet the timing also invites a more useful question: Why emphasize the listing venue when the stock is struggling?

QBTS closed at $16.72 on July 20, approximately 36% below its $26.15 close on December 31, 2025. Shares traded around $17.10 late Thursday, leaving them down roughly 35% this year.

The transfer gives D-Wave another opportunity to present itself to technology-focused investors. It does not resolve the market’s debate over the valuation of early-stage quantum companies.

D-Wave’s Bookings Rose While Its Stock Fell

D-Wave’s first-quarter bookings reached a record $33.4 million, up 1,994% from $1.6 million a year earlier.

The total included a $20 million agreement for Florida Atlantic University to purchase an Advantage2 annealing quantum computer and a $10 million, two-year Quantum Computing as a Service agreement with an unnamed Fortune 100 company.

Remaining performance obligations rose 563% year over year to $42.4 million, providing a clearer pipeline of contracted revenue. D-Wave expects approximately 54% of that amount to be recognized within 12 months.

Bookings, however, are not current revenue. First-quarter revenue fell 81% to $2.9 million because the prior-year period included a large system sale. Operating expenses increased 125% to $56.5 million, while the adjusted EBITDA loss widened to $32.8 million.

That gap between future orders and present financial results helps explain why the stock can fall even while the company announces larger contracts. Investors still need evidence that bookings can become recurring revenue quickly enough to support D-Wave’s valuation and development spending.

The broader sector faces the same skepticism. A July 22 Motley Fool analysis calculated that insiders at IonQ, Rigetti and D-Wave had recorded more than $988 million of net stock sales over five years, including $331.3 million at D-Wave. The analysis acknowledged that insider selling may reflect compensation and tax obligations rather than a negative view of the business.

FinanceFeeds previously examined that valuation tension in its D-Wave $37 bull case and $13 bear case.

What to Watch After July 27

D-Wave will report its second-quarter results on August 6, making earnings a more meaningful catalyst than the exchange transfer.

Investors should watch how much of the $33.4 million bookings total begins converting into revenue, whether remaining performance obligations continue to rise and whether operating expenses stabilize after the Quantum Circuits acquisition.

Progress on the Florida Atlantic system installation and the Fortune 100 cloud agreement will also matter. Both contracts contributed heavily to the first-quarter bookings surge.

D-Wave will trade beside more technology companies starting Monday. What determines the stock afterward will remain the same: contract conversion, cash consumption and evidence that commercial quantum demand can support the valuation.

The sign above the trading floor changes. The investment case does not.

UK FCA Moves to Ban Father and Son After High Court Finds…

Portfolio President — Fri, 24 Jul 2026 13:49:53 +0000

The UK Financial Conduct Authority has decided to ban Alec Finch and Robert Finch from working in the financial services industry after the High Court found they engaged in fraud and misused client money while running insurance broker AFL Insurance Brokers Limited.

The regulator has issued Decision Notices against both men following the High Court’s September 2023 judgment. The proposed bans remain provisional because both Alec and Robert Finch have referred the FCA’s decisions to the Upper Tribunal, where they will have the opportunity to challenge the regulator’s findings.

The FCA said the case highlights its continued focus on protecting client assets and removing individuals it considers unfit to work in regulated financial services.

High Court Found Fraud and Misuse of Client Money

According to the FCA, the High Court found that Alec Finch and his son Robert Finch failed to act with honesty and integrity during their time at AFL Insurance Brokers Limited.

The regulator said the pair used client money to fund the firm’s operating expenses rather than safeguarding those funds in accordance with regulatory requirements.

When the owners later sought to sell AFL, the FCA said they created false financial records that overstated the firm’s financial position, misleading the prospective buyer as well as the company’s accountants and auditors.

The regulator said the false records concealed the misuse of client money and left AFL with a significant client money deficit.

“The High Court found that the Finches were the driving force behind every part of this serious fraud. They painted a false picture of a successful business and used client money for their own benefit – which they knew was wrong,” said Therese Chambers, Joint Executive Director of Enforcement and Market Oversight at the FCA.

“We will not tolerate serious misconduct and will take action to remove wrongdoers from the industry.”

Decision Notices Referred to the Upper Tribunal

The FCA stressed that the Decision Notices are not yet final because both individuals have exercised their right to refer the regulator’s decisions to the Upper Tribunal.

As a result, the findings contained in the notices remain provisional and reflect the FCA’s current view of the conduct and how it believes that conduct should be characterised until the Tribunal reaches its own conclusions.

The enforcement action follows civil litigation that began in August 2020, when the buyer of AFL commenced High Court proceedings against Alec Finch and Robert Finch seeking damages arising from alleged fraud during the sale of the business.

The FCA’s enforcement case is based on the High Court judgment handed down on 27 September 2023.

Financial Penalties Waived Because of Hardship

In addition to the proposed industry bans, the FCA said it would ordinarily have imposed significant financial penalties on both individuals.

However, the regulator decided not to levy fines after Alec Finch and Robert Finch each provided verifiable evidence demonstrating that any financial penalty would cause serious financial hardship.

According to the FCA, Alec Finch would otherwise have been fined £121,200, while Robert Finch would have faced a penalty of £169,800.

Former FCA Firm No Longer Authorised

AFL Insurance Brokers Limited subsequently changed its name to Ambon Brokers Limited and is no longer authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority.

The case serves as another reminder of the FCA’s continued scrutiny of firms’ handling of client money, an area that remains central to the regulator’s supervisory and enforcement priorities. Misuse of client assets is regarded as one of the most serious breaches of the UK’s financial services rules because it directly undermines customer protection and market confidence.

If the Upper Tribunal upholds the FCA’s decisions, Alec Finch and Robert Finch would be prohibited from performing regulated activities in the UK financial services industry.

Brent’s Break Above $100 Lasted One Session. The…

Portfolio President — Fri, 24 Jul 2026 13:49:51 +0000

Brent crude oil settled above $100 a barrel on Thursday for the first time in two months after Houthi forces said they struck two Saudi tankers in the Red Sea, then gave back part of the move within a session.

The global benchmark closed at $100.69, a gain of about 7% and a fifth consecutive session of gains, before easing to $98.64 by Friday press time, down 2.04% per OilPrice.com data. West Texas Intermediate slipped 1.67% to $90.65.

The Move, the Level, and the Immediate Fade

The retreat is smaller than it looks. Brent remains up more than 13% on the week, and the three-week move is the more striking number. Brent settled at $71.57 on 1 July, per CNBC, putting the rally at more than 40% in three weeks.

That starting point explains the violence of the move. The United States and Iran signed a memorandum of understanding on 17 June to end the conflict and reopen the Strait of Hormuz, which had been closed for most of the period since late February, apart from a brief reopening to commercial shipping in April under a two-week ceasefire. The market spent early July pricing peace. What has happened since is the unwinding of that trade rather than a fresh shock.

Brent rallied through the week from around $86 to a peak above $102 on Thursday before settling at $100.69 and easing back below $100 on Friday. Source: TradingView

What Actually Escalated in the Red Sea

Houthi forces claimed responsibility for attacks on two Saudi oil tankers, framing them as enforcement of the blockade of Saudi ports the group declared on 20 July. That converts the threat this publication covered on Wednesday, when three tankers turned around without a shot fired, into something the market can no longer treat as theoretical.

The diplomatic track closed at the same time. Washington and Tehran have both ruled out near-term talks. President Donald Trump threatened “major military punishment” over further attacks on vessels in the Red Sea and told Axios he was weighing a “massive attack” on Iran, per Bloomberg.

The compounding matters more than any single item. Attacks on shipping continue around Hormuz, US strikes on Iran have continued, and Asian buyers are weighing longer and costlier routes.

Investor Takeaway

The escalation is maritime and reversible, but the off-ramp that faded the price twice this month has now closed on both sides.

Premium and Shortfall, Not One or the Other

Until this week the rally was a risk premium on barrels that were still moving. That is no longer the whole picture, and the reason has nothing to do with the Middle East.

Kazakhstan halted crude transfers to the Caspian Pipeline Consortium terminal at Novorossiysk after four drone strikes in four days hit tankers loading there. The attacks came from Ukraine, targeting a terminal on Russia’s Black Sea coast. CPC carries roughly 80% of Kazakh crude exports and more than 1% of global supply, moving about 70.5 million tonnes in 2025 from the Tengiz and Kashagan fields, with Chevron, ExxonMobil, Eni and Shell among the producers using it.

Kazakhstan has rerouted some volume through the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, so this is not a clean loss of the full amount. But it is barrels physically stopped rather than threatened.

The distinction matters for how the move behaves from here. A premium can evaporate in a session on a headline, as Friday demonstrated. A physical disruption clears only when the barrels return. The market is now carrying both from two conflicts that have nothing to do with each other, which is why the fade has been partial rather than complete.

Why the Inflation Impulse Outlasts the Price

This is where a move of more than 40% in three weeks becomes something other than an energy story. Crude feeds into headline inflation through fuel and transport costs with a lag measured in weeks, not hours, so a price that round-trips $100 in a single session still leaves its mark on the next print. Central banks that had been weighing the timing of cuts are looking at an input that has moved more than 40% since the start of the .month

The counterweight is that few forecasters expect the level to hold. J.P. Morgan Global Research projects Brent averaging $86 a barrel in the third quarter, $80 in the fourth and $78 at year-end, all substantially below spot. The EIA’s July outlook was lower still. Those forecasts were built on a reopened Hormuz and returning production, so they describe the world before this week rather than the one after it.

The pattern this month has been sharp premiums that decay rather than persist, and Friday fits it. The 2022 precedent is more precise than that. Brent spiked to $127 within two weeks of Russia’s invasion and gave the spike back within days but held above $100 for roughly six months and cleared only when displaced Russian barrels found new buyers in India and China rather than when the war ended. Premiums built on fear unwind on headlines. Premiums built on barrels that have stopped moving unwind when the barrels find another route.

Investor Takeaway

The market is pricing disruption from two unrelated wars at once, which means a Middle East de-escalation alone would not clear the supply side.

PayPal, Robinhood and Coinbase Earnings Could Reprice…

Portfolio President — Fri, 24 Jul 2026 13:49:48 +0000

Three companies with different exposure to digital assets will report second-quarter results over four days next week, creating a concentrated test of whether stablecoins, prediction markets and crypto services have become material earnings drivers rather than additions to established businesses.

PayPal is scheduled to report on July 28, followed by Robinhood on July 29 and Coinbase after the market closes on July 30. Robinhood will hold its earnings call at 5:00 p.m. ET, while Coinbase plans a question-and-answer session at 2:00 p.m. PT.

The important question is not which company produces the largest headline revenue beat. Investors will be watching a different line at each business: whether PayPal can turn PYUSD and crypto payments into measurable transaction growth, whether Robinhood’s prediction markets are becoming a larger economic engine than crypto trading, and whether Coinbase can protect the roughly $1.35 billion stablecoin revenue stream now exposed to the stablecoin-rewards fight in Washington.

Three Reports, Three Tests of the Crypto Revenue Model

The reporting sequence covers three stages of the digital-asset economy. PayPal represents crypto integration inside a global payments company. Robinhood combines crypto trading with event contracts, equities, options and interest income. Coinbase remains the most direct public-market exposure to crypto trading, stablecoin adoption and blockchain services.

That distinction matters because the same market environment can affect each company differently. Rising token prices can support Coinbase transaction revenue and Robinhood crypto volumes, but PayPal needs digital assets to generate payment activity rather than speculation. Prediction markets can reduce Robinhood’s dependence on crypto cycles, while Coinbase’s USDC economics depend on balances, interest rates and the regulatory treatment of customer rewards.

BigBear.ai also reports on July 30, with its release expected at approximately 4:15 p.m. ET and its call at 4:30 p.m. ET. Although it is not crypto-exposed, the defence technology company adds another retail-heavy stock to an already crowded post-market session.

PayPal Must Show That PYUSD Is More Than a Strategic Asset

PayPal enters earnings in the shadow of a reported $53 billion takeover proposal from Stripe and Advent International. Reuters reported that PayPal’s board considered the $60.50-per-share offer inadequate, although the company had not formally announced a completed rejection when the report was published. The earnings release could strengthen PayPal’s negotiating position if its core checkout, Venmo and transaction-margin figures show improvement, or increase pressure if growth remains weak.

For crypto investors, the line to watch is not a separately disclosed PYUSD revenue figure because PayPal has not historically broken one out. The relevant evidence will instead come from transaction growth, merchant adoption and management’s commentary on stablecoin settlement and crypto payments.

PayPal has expanded support for crypto-funded payments and has positioned PYUSD as settlement infrastructure rather than only a token held by traders. A quarter in which total payment volume grows but management offers little evidence of stablecoin or crypto-payment adoption would suggest that PYUSD remains strategically useful but financially immaterial. Clear growth in merchant settlement, cross-border use or Venmo integration would support the argument that the asset can contribute to PayPal’s broader payments turnaround.

Robinhood’s Prediction Markets Face Their First Major Revenue Test

Robinhood’s second-quarter report may provide the clearest evidence that prediction markets are becoming a meaningful public-company business. The company reported that users traded 3.2 billion event contracts in April and 3.9 billion in May. May event-contract volume rose 22% from April, while Robinhood App crypto volume was $5.9 billion and remained 50% below the previous year’s level.

Those units cannot be compared directly because crypto volume is reported in dollars and event activity in contracts. The earnings question is therefore whether the growth appears in transaction-based revenue and whether management begins offering greater visibility into prediction-market monetisation.

Robinhood said customers traded more than 12 billion event contracts during 2025, but the second quarter of 2026 includes a much larger monthly run rate. If prediction markets produce material revenue while crypto trading remains subdued, Robinhood will have shown that it can capture speculative retail activity without relying entirely on Bitcoin and altcoin turnover. A weak contribution despite billions of contracts would raise a different concern: prediction markets may generate engagement and volume without producing economics comparable with crypto, options or interest income.

Coinbase’s $1.35 Billion USDC Business Meets the CLARITY Act

Coinbase presents the most consequential test because stablecoin revenue is already material. The company reported $1.349 billion of stablecoin revenue for 2025, up 48% from $910 million a year earlier. Coinbase said the increase came from higher USDC balances on and off its platform, partly offset by lower interest rates.

The figure is sometimes described as USDC rewards revenue, but Coinbase’s filing calls it stablecoin revenue. It is generated primarily through the company’s arrangement with Circle and depends on income earned from the reserves backing USDC. Customer rewards are a related expense and distribution tool, not the same accounting line.

That distinction has become central to the Senate’s CLARITY Act negotiations. Updated legislation would restrict rewards paid merely for holding idle stablecoins while allowing certain activity-based incentives, with regulators expected to define the boundary. Senator Cynthia Lummis released updated draft text on July 22 as lawmakers sought an agreement before the legislative window narrowed.

Coinbase therefore needs to show that USDC balances and stablecoin revenue can remain strong even if future rules limit how platforms attract deposits. A decline caused by lower rates would be manageable if balances continue growing. A decline in both balances and revenue would suggest that the regulatory dispute is beginning to affect customer behaviour before legislation is completed.

The Number That Could Reprice the Whole Cohort

The most important number across the three reports will be the proportion of revenue generated outside traditional crypto trading.

For PayPal, that means evidence that digital-asset payment services are contributing to transaction growth. For Robinhood, it means prediction-market revenue becoming visible beside crypto trading. For Coinbase, it means stablecoin and subscription revenue offsetting volatility in transaction fees.

A strong showing would support higher valuations for platforms that have diversified beyond spot trading, including companies building perpetual futures, stablecoin payments and tokenised markets. FinanceFeeds recently examined that competition after KuCoin said Meta had overtaken Coinbase in stock perpetual futures.

A broad miss would carry a harsher message. It would suggest that the sector has added new products faster than it has added durable revenue. By Thursday evening, investors should have a clearer answer on whether stablecoins and prediction markets are beginning to stabilise crypto-exposed earnings or merely adding new volume statistics to businesses still governed by the trading cycle.

Super Micro SMCI Stock: $58 Bull Case vs $15 Bear Case

Portfolio President — Fri, 24 Jul 2026 13:49:46 +0000

The $60 billion number that sent Super Micro Computer up as much as 27% is not revenue, is not booked, and by the company’s own admission is not entirely firm. Supermicro’s preliminary fiscal Q4 2026 update says total new orders “in excess of $60 billion” arrived in a single quarter, then adds in the same filing that these are orders “some of which may not constitute firm commitments and may be subject to cancellation or delays.” At the same time the company said revenue would land “near the low end” of its $11.0 billion to $12.5 billion guidance. So the quarter that produced a record order book also produced disappointing revenue. SMCI closed at $31.20 on 23 July 2026, against a consensus 12-month target of $37.81, a Street high of $58 and a Street low of $15 across 19 analysts whose consensus rating is Hold.

Here is the calculation that almost nobody ran, and it is the one that matters. On 9 June 2026 Supermicro announced $7.0 billion of equity and equity-linked financing, explicitly to buy components for roughly $39 billion of AI server orders from more than 20 customers. That is the company’s own stated funding ratio: about 18 cents of fresh capital raised per dollar of order backlog. Apply that same ratio to the $60 billion of new orders disclosed six weeks later and you get a working-capital requirement of roughly $10.8 billion — against the $1.3 billion of cash Mizuho says is actually on the balance sheet. The market bid the stock up 27% on the order number. It does not appear to have priced the raise that arithmetic says has to follow. That is the entire SMCI investment case in one line: this company wins business faster than it can finance it.

Key facts

• SMCI closed at $31.20 on 23 July 2026; consensus target $37.81 (+21%), high $58, low $15 — StockAnalysis, July 2026
• Analyst split is 3 Strong Buy, 2 Buy, 11 Hold, 1 Sell, 2 Strong Sell — a majority-Hold book — StockAnalysis
• New orders in fiscal Q4 2026 exceeded $60 billion, taking backlog to record levels, but carry an explicit cancellation caveat — Supermicro preliminary Q4 FY2026 update
• Gross margin guidance was raised to 15%-17% from 8.2%-8.4%, attributed to “a favorable customer and product mix” — Supermicro
• Revenue is expected “near the low end” of the $11.0bn-$12.5bn range — the order beat came with a revenue miss — Supermicro
• The June $7.0 billion raise sent the stock down nearly 28% in one session, its worst day in over two months — TechTimes, 10 June 2026
• Full fiscal Q4 and FY2026 results land Tuesday 11 August 2026 at 5:00 p.m. ET — Supermicro

What Supermicro actually disclosed, and what it left out

The 21 July preliminary update did three things at once, and the market read only the first.

It disclosed more than $60 billion of new orders in the June quarter, pushing backlog to a record as fiscal 2026 closed. It raised gross margin guidance for that quarter from 8.2%-8.4% to 15%-17%. And it warned that revenue would come in near the bottom of an $11.0 billion to $12.5 billion range.

Read together, that is a stranger picture than the headline suggests. Margin nearly doubled while revenue disappointed. The company attributes the margin move to “a favorable customer and product mix” — which is an honest answer and also a fragile one. Mix means the margin came from which deals happened to close in the quarter, not from a structural improvement in what Supermicro can charge. A server assembler that ships more complete rack-scale systems and fewer bare components books a better margin on the same underlying business. That is welcome. It is not the same as pricing power, and it does not necessarily repeat.

What the update did not include is the part that would settle the argument: customer names. Traders looking for confirmation wanted to know who placed $60 billion of orders, and the release does not say. It is the single most consequential omission, because the difference between a handful of hyperscale commitments and a long tail of soft intent is the difference between the bull case and the bear case.

The one customer relationship that is public is the largest. CEO Charles Liang posted on X in June, after SpaceX’s IPO, that Supermicro would build another gigawatt-scale facility for the combined SpaceXAI entity.

“A big congratulations to SpaceX’s greatest IPO and proud to co-build another new Gigawatt AI datacenter for @SpaceX and @XAI within a year! This will be our fastest TTO yet, and easily one of the biggest and most advanced datacenters in the world!”

— Charles Liang, Chief Executive Officer, Supermicro, on X

SpaceX acquired xAI in a stock-only transaction in February 2026, forming the combined SpaceXAI. Liang has previously said his team built the original Colossus cluster with xAI in 122 days. Speed of deployment is Supermicro’s genuine competitive moat, and it is why the company keeps winning these builds against larger, better-capitalised rivals. Notably, Supermicro has never confirmed that SpaceXAI is the source of the record backlog.

Quick take: Orders are not revenue and this order book is not contractually firm. The margin beat came from mix, not pricing. And the quarter that set an order record also missed on revenue. Every part of this release cuts both ways.

The bull case: how SMCI gets to $58

The high end of the Street sits at $58, roughly 86% above the 23 July close. Getting there requires three things to be true at once.

First, the backlog has to convert. A meaningful share of $60 billion turning into shipped revenue over the next several quarters would transform a company that guided to $11-12.5 billion for a full quarter. Even partial conversion re-bases the revenue line by a wide margin.

Second, the margin has to hold near the new range. This is the swing factor that dwarfs everything else. Supermicro’s bear thesis for two years has been that it is a low-margin box assembler in a market where Nvidia captures the economics — a dynamic visible across the whole AI supply chain, and one we examined when TSMC raised chip prices up to 10% and Nvidia, AMD and Apple all paid it. A durable 15%-17% gross margin would falsify that thesis outright. On roughly $12 billion of quarterly revenue, the difference between an 8% and a 16% gross margin is close to a billion dollars a quarter in gross profit.

Third, the financing has to be manageable. If Supermicro can fund working capital with debt or vendor terms rather than repeated equity, dilution stops eating shareholder returns.

Sell-side buyers exist. Loop Capital’s Ananda Baruah raised his target to $70 from $50 with a Buy rating, and Rosenblatt’s Sajal Dogra carries a Buy at $45. Even Barclays, which stayed at Equal Weight, lifted its target to $45 from $29 — a 55% increase from a firm that declined to upgrade, which tells you the numbers moved more than the conviction did.

The structural argument underneath all of this is that AI infrastructure spending is still accelerating and the constraint is deployment speed, not demand. That thesis is being tested in real time — as we covered when AMD bought its way into Anthropic with 2 gigawatts and up to $5 billion, capacity is now being secured years ahead through balance-sheet commitments rather than purchase orders.

The bear case: how SMCI gets to $15

The Street low of $15 implies a 52% decline, and the path there is not exotic. It is working capital.

Supermicro must buy components before it can ship systems. GPUs, memory and power infrastructure are paid for up front; customers pay on delivery. The bigger the order book, the larger the cash hole between the two. This is the classic engineering-and-construction trap: a firm wins a contract far larger than its balance sheet, and the win is what kills it, because financing the build consumes more capital than the margin returns.

Mizuho’s Vijay Rakesh put the number on it directly.

“With >$60B of new orders and just $1.3B of cash on its BS, SMCI could see some potential near-term capital raises.”

— Vijay Rakesh, Managing Director, Mizuho Securities

Rakesh, who rates the stock Hold with a $34 target, also attributed the soft revenue to “component/memory shortage headwinds and shell construction delays” — meaning Supermicro is constrained on both ends at once, unable to source parts fast enough and unable to get buildings ready fast enough. Neither problem is solved with a larger order book.

Shareholders already know what the fix costs. The June raise was $7.0 billion: roughly $1.25 billion of common stock, roughly $3.75 billion of depositary shares each representing a 1/20th interest in 7.0% Series A mandatory convertible preferred with a $1,000 liquidation preference, and an at-the-market programme of up to $2.0 billion of common stock expected to begin no earlier than Q3 2026. The preferred pays a 7% annual dividend and converts by 1 June 2029 into between 30.3040 and 36.3640 common shares apiece. The stock fell nearly 28% in a single session on the announcement.

That is the mechanism that produces $15. Not a demand collapse — a shareholder being diluted repeatedly to finance someone else’s data centre, while paying a 7% coupon for the privilege.

The funding gap the market has not priced

Put the two disclosures side by side and the tension becomes arithmetic rather than opinion.

Metric	June 2026 raise	July 2026 disclosure
Orders being funded	~$39bn, from 20+ customers	>$60bn in new orders, Q4 alone
Capital raised / required	$7.0bn announced	~$10.8bn at the same ratio (our calculation)
Cash on balance sheet	—	~$1.3bn (Mizuho estimate)
Share price reaction	−28% in one session	+15% to +27%

The ~$10.8bn figure is our own arithmetic, applying the company’s stated $7bn-per-$39bn funding ratio to the newly disclosed $60bn. Supermicro has not published a funding requirement for the new backlog.

The same shareholder base sold the stock 28% lower when it was told what growth costs, then bought it 27% higher when it was told how much growth there is. Those two reactions are not reconcilable unless you assume the second raise never comes, and the June disclosure is the company’s own evidence that it does.

There is a further wrinkle. The $7 billion was raised against roughly $39 billion of orders. The $60 billion figure is new orders received during the fourth quarter. If those are largely incremental to the $39 billion rather than a restatement of it, the funding requirement is larger still. Supermicro has not clarified the overlap, and the 11 August call is where that question gets asked.

This is the same scepticism now being applied across the AI trade generally. As we reported this week, Alphabet fell 7% and Tesla dropped 14.5% as Wall Street punished AI spending — the market has begun charging companies for capital intensity rather than rewarding them for ambition. Supermicro is more exposed to that repricing than almost any peer, because it carries the inventory risk without owning the intellectual property.

The governance overhang has not gone away

Any SMCI valuation has to carry a discount that has nothing to do with AI demand.

The company has been through a delayed annual filing, an auditor departure, and continuing export-control scrutiny. In March 2026, a Supermicro co-founder was arrested in an alleged $2.5 billion AI chip smuggling case, which we covered in detail when Super Micro Computer’s co-founder was arrested over alleged AI chip smuggling. Those matters are separate from the trading business, but they are not separate from the multiple: a company with a disclosure history gets less benefit of the doubt when it announces a $60 billion number it declines to substantiate.

That is a large part of why 11 of 19 analysts sit at Hold. The rating distribution is not a view on AI demand. It is a view on verification.

Quick take: The consensus $37.81 target sits just 21% above spot, and the Hold-heavy book reflects a Street that believes the demand and doubts the disclosure. The bull case needs customer names. The bear case only needs another financing.

What to watch on 11 August

Full fiscal Q4 and FY2026 results are scheduled for Tuesday 11 August 2026 at 5:00 p.m. ET. Three disclosures decide which case is right, and they are all answerable that day.

Customer concentration. If the filing reveals that a small number of customers account for most of the $60 billion, the order book becomes credible and concentrated at the same time — bullish for revenue, and a new risk to underwrite.

The margin bridge. Management needs to explain what in the mix drove 8.2% to 15%-17%, and whether it recurs. An answer built on rack-scale system content is durable; an answer built on one favourable contract is not.

The financing plan. This is the one that moves the stock. If management guides to another raise, expect a repeat of June’s 28% reaction. If it can fund the backlog with debt, vendor terms or customer prepayments, the bear case loses its mechanism.

Our base expectation is that Supermicro converts a meaningful portion of the backlog and raises capital again to do it, which caps the equity story well below $58 without validating $15 either. For comparison on how differently the market treats a company that owns its economics, see our Nvidia NVDA stock bull and bear case — the same AI demand, a fundamentally different position in the value chain.

Frequently asked questions

Why did SMCI stock jump in July 2026?
Supermicro disclosed more than $60 billion of new orders in fiscal Q4 2026 and raised gross margin guidance to 15%-17% from 8.2%-8.4%. Shares rose between 15% and 27% depending on the window measured. The same release also said revenue would land near the low end of the $11.0-12.5 billion guidance range.

Is the $60 billion order book guaranteed revenue?
No. Supermicro states directly that some of the orders “may not constitute firm commitments and may be subject to cancellation or delays.” They are expected to be delivered over future quarters, and the company has not disclosed which customers placed them or over what timeframe.

What is the SMCI price target for 2026?
The consensus 12-month target is $37.81 across 19 analysts, about 21% above the $31.20 close on 23 July 2026. The high is $58 and the low is $15. The consensus rating is Hold, with 11 of 19 analysts at Hold and three at Sell or Strong Sell.

Will Super Micro need to raise more money?
Mizuho’s Vijay Rakesh has flagged the risk explicitly, citing roughly $1.3 billion of cash against more than $60 billion of orders. Supermicro raised $7.0 billion in June 2026 to fund components for around $39 billion of orders. Applying that ratio to the new backlog implies a substantially larger requirement, though the company has not published a figure.

Why is Supermicro’s gross margin so low compared with chipmakers?
Supermicro assembles and integrates servers rather than designing the silicon inside them. The GPU vendor captures most of the value, leaving the integrator with a thinner spread on a much larger revenue base. That is why the jump to 15%-17% matters so much: if it holds, the entire bear thesis on the business model weakens.

What is Supermicro’s connection to SpaceX and xAI?
CEO Charles Liang said on X in June 2026 that Supermicro would co-build a new gigawatt-scale AI data centre for SpaceX and xAI, which merged into SpaceXAI in February. Liang has said his team previously built the Colossus cluster with xAI in 122 days. Supermicro has not confirmed whether SpaceXAI is behind the record backlog.

This article is informational analysis only and is not financial, investment, or trading advice. Equity valuations are volatile and can lose substantial value rapidly. Analyst price targets are estimates, not guarantees, and the calculations identified as our own are inferences from published company disclosures rather than company statements. Do your own research and consult a regulated financial adviser before making any investment decision.

China’s Gold Reset Could Become Gold Prices’…

Portfolio President — Fri, 24 Jul 2026 13:49:43 +0000

For most of the past two decades, the biggest drivers of gold prices have been easy to identify. Investors watched the Federal Reserve, inflation, real interest rates, geopolitical crises and central-bank purchases. Those forces remain important today, but another trend is quietly emerging that could prove just as significant over the coming decade.

China is changing how its citizens and financial institutions invest in gold.

Over the past year, some of the country’s largest banks have begun shutting down retail access to Shanghai Gold Exchange trading services, regulators have intensified their crackdown on leveraged and off-exchange precious metals products, insurers have been allowed to add gold to long-term investment portfolios for the first time, Hong Kong has expanded access to gold through its retirement system, and Chinese households continue buying bars, coins and physically backed exchange-traded funds at record levels.

None of these developments guarantees higher gold prices. Nor do they amount to a nationwide ban on paper gold, despite some headlines suggesting otherwise. Retail investors can still access several forms of gold investment, including futures, ETFs and physical bullion. The more important story is that China appears to be steering capital away from leveraged short-term speculation and toward longer-duration ownership.

If that trend continues, the world’s largest precious metals consumer could gradually replace fast-moving speculative money with one of the most stable sources of demand the gold market has ever seen: long-term household savings and institutional capital.

Considering China’s population exceeds 1.4 billion people and household deposits have reached unprecedented levels, even relatively small changes in asset allocation could have implications that extend well beyond the country’s borders.

China Isn’t Banning Gold. It’s Rewiring Its Gold Market

The narrative that China is “banning paper gold” has spread quickly across financial media and social platforms during July. Like many simple narratives, it contains an element of truth but misses the larger picture.

China has not prohibited retail investors from owning gold derivatives. Nor has it abolished the Shanghai Gold Exchange or outlawed futures trading.

Instead, several of the country’s largest commercial banks have announced that they will stop providing retail clients with access to precious metals trading through the Shanghai Gold Exchange. Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, the world’s largest commercial bank by assets, confirmed that it would terminate its agency precious metals trading service for individual customers after settlement on July 24. Customers were instructed to close positions, sell holdings or take physical delivery before the service ended.

The announcement followed similar decisions by other major lenders.

Postal Savings Bank of China announced that it would discontinue its individual Shanghai Gold Exchange business, while Ping An Bank and China Guangfa Bank progressively increased margin requirements before withdrawing from the retail market. In some cases, margin requirements reached 100% or more before services were ultimately closed, effectively eliminating leverage even before the products disappeared.

The pattern suggests that the banks are not reacting independently to unrelated commercial decisions. Instead, China’s banking system appears to be reducing its role as an intermediary for retail precious metals speculation.

Importantly, the affected products include both deferred settlement contracts, which are widely regarded as leveraged trading instruments, and several Shanghai Gold Exchange spot contracts capable of physical delivery. That distinction has led to some confusion. While commentators have described the measures as an attack on “paper gold,” the banks are actually withdrawing from a broader range of exchange services rather than targeting derivatives alone.

Retail investors still have alternatives.

Shanghai Futures Exchange gold contracts continue trading. Gold ETFs remain available. Physical bullion, bars and coins continue to be sold throughout the country. Gold accumulation plans offered by financial institutions also remain accessible. Rather than eliminating gold investment, the changes reduce one specific distribution channel through which retail investors previously accessed the market.

The question therefore becomes not whether Chinese investors will continue buying gold, but how they will choose to own it.

The End Of Cheap Leverage

One of the clearest themes emerging from China’s recent regulatory actions is a growing hostility toward leverage in precious metals markets.

Before exiting the business altogether, several banks repeatedly increased margin requirements on retail precious metals contracts. Investors who once controlled relatively large positions with borrowed money suddenly found themselves needing to post substantially more capital. As leverage disappeared, many of these products became far less attractive for speculative trading.

The regulatory direction extends beyond the banks themselves.

Earlier this year, authorities in Shenzhen warned investors against unauthorized precious metals trading platforms offering deferred settlement, leveraged transactions and contracts that merely settle price differences without physical delivery. Regulators argued that many of these arrangements operated outside approved financial markets while exposing investors to significant risks.

Taken together, the measures point toward a broader policy objective.

Chinese regulators appear increasingly uncomfortable with highly leveraged retail participation in precious metals markets, particularly where products resemble speculative financial instruments rather than long-term stores of value.

This approach differs markedly from previous gold bull markets.

Historically, rising prices often attracted increasing leverage as traders borrowed more aggressively to amplify returns. That process helped accelerate rallies but also intensified corrections whenever markets reversed and forced liquidations began.

China’s current direction points toward a market supported by investors committing fully funded capital instead.

That distinction matters because fully funded buyers generally behave very differently from leveraged traders. Someone purchasing a kilogram of physical gold or making regular contributions to a long-term accumulation plan is typically less sensitive to daily price movements than an investor financing speculative positions through borrowed money.

Reducing leverage may therefore dampen short-term trading activity while simultaneously encouraging a more stable ownership base.

From Trading Gold To Owning Gold

The distinction between trading gold and owning gold lies at the heart of China’s evolving strategy.

For years, many retail investors treated gold primarily as a trading instrument. Deferred settlement contracts, margin financing and bank-mediated exchange access allowed individuals to speculate on short-term price movements with relatively little capital committed upfront.

The latest regulatory changes appear to favour a different model.

Instead of encouraging leveraged participation, the financial system increasingly directs investors toward products that represent outright ownership or longer-term investment. These include physical bars and coins, gold accumulation plans, physically backed exchange-traded funds and institutional allocations designed to remain invested for years rather than weeks.

The difference may seem subtle, but its implications for market structure could be profound.

Speculative money tends to enter and leave markets rapidly. It amplifies rallies, accelerates declines and often disappears during periods of uncertainty. Long-term savings behave differently. Pension assets, insurance portfolios, household savings and strategic allocations generally enter markets gradually and remain invested across multiple economic cycles.

If China’s financial reforms succeed in shifting even a modest proportion of domestic savings toward those longer-duration forms of ownership, the country’s contribution to global gold demand could become more persistent than cyclical.

That possibility becomes especially interesting when viewed against the sheer scale of China’s savings pool.

The country possesses one of the world’s largest concentrations of household wealth, banking deposits and institutional assets. Gold currently represents only a small fraction of those financial resources. Even incremental changes in allocation could translate into billions of dollars of additional demand over time.

Whether that happens will depend on where investors redirect the capital previously committed to bank-mediated precious metals trading.

The evidence emerging over the past year suggests that many are already choosing physical bullion and physically backed investment vehicles.

China’s Physical Gold Demand Is Already Surging

China’s regulatory changes would matter far less if investors were abandoning gold altogether.

The opposite appears to be happening.

While banks have been withdrawing from retail Shanghai Gold Exchange services, Chinese demand for physical investment gold has accelerated to levels rarely seen in recent years. According to the World Gold Council, mainland Chinese investors purchased 206.9 tonnes of gold bars and coins during the first quarter of 2026, a 67% increase from the same period a year earlier. China alone accounted for nearly 44% of global bar and coin demand during the quarter.

The surge reflects more than simple momentum buying.

Chinese households have faced a combination of slowing property markets, volatile domestic equities, persistent geopolitical uncertainty and growing interest in preserving purchasing power. Gold has increasingly emerged as an alternative store of wealth, particularly as record prices have failed to discourage demand.

Historically, retail investment demand often weakens when gold reaches new highs. Chinese investors have largely ignored that pattern. Instead, they have continued accumulating bullion despite prices trading near record levels throughout much of the past year.

That resilience suggests buyers are motivated less by short-term speculation than by longer-term portfolio allocation.

Unlike leveraged traders seeking quick profits, households purchasing bars and coins typically intend to hold them for years. Their buying is therefore less sensitive to day-to-day volatility and less likely to reverse rapidly during market corrections.

If China’s banking reforms encourage more investors to migrate toward outright ownership rather than leveraged trading, that behavioural shift could gradually make domestic gold demand more stable over time.

Gold ETFs Are Becoming A Second Engine Of Demand

Physical bars and coins represent only part of the story.

Chinese investors have also embraced physically backed gold exchange-traded funds at an unprecedented pace.

According to the World Gold Council, domestic gold ETFs attracted approximately RMB112 billion in net inflows during 2025, equivalent to around US$15.5 billion. Assets under management climbed to roughly RMB242 billion while collective holdings exceeded 248 tonnes, more than doubling during the year.

Unlike many speculative financial products, physically backed gold ETFs generally acquire bullion to support newly issued shares. Every significant inflow therefore translates into additional physical gold held within the investment structure.

That distinction matters because ETFs allow investors to gain exposure to bullion without arranging storage, insurance or transportation. They also make recurring investment plans easier to implement, particularly for younger investors building long-term portfolios.

The combination of growing bar demand and record ETF inflows suggests Chinese investors are already diversifying how they own gold. Some prefer holding bullion directly, while others choose regulated investment vehicles backed by physical metal.

Either route represents a very different form of participation from leveraged deferred contracts designed primarily for short-term trading.

China Has Opened The Door To Institutional Gold Buyers

Perhaps the most significant development has received far less attention than the retail banking changes.

In February 2025, China’s National Financial Regulatory Administration launched a pilot programme allowing ten insurance companies to invest part of their portfolios in gold for medium and long-term asset allocation.

The approved participants include some of China’s largest financial institutions, among them China Life, Ping An Life, China Pacific Life, Taikang Life and New China Life.

The pilot permits investment across several segments of the domestic gold market, including Shanghai Gold Exchange spot contracts, benchmark price contracts, over-the-counter transactions, leasing arrangements and selected deferred products.

The decision marked an important change in regulatory thinking.

For years, gold occupied a relatively limited role within China’s institutional investment framework. By allowing insurers to treat gold as a strategic portfolio asset rather than simply a trading instrument, regulators effectively acknowledged bullion’s role as a long-term reserve asset capable of diversifying portfolios exposed to interest-rate risk and equity volatility.

It is important to distinguish these institutions from pension funds.

Although life insurers manage retirement-related products and long-duration liabilities, they are not pension funds in the legal sense. Nevertheless, both types of institutions share similar investment objectives. They seek stable returns over decades rather than quarters, making them natural candidates for strategic allocations to assets such as gold.

The amounts involved could eventually become significant.

China’s insurance industry manages tens of trillions of yuan in assets. Even modest portfolio allocations would represent meaningful additional demand relative to the size of the global gold market.

Hong Kong’s Pension Reform May Offer A Glimpse Of What’s Next

Mainland China’s insurance reforms have been accompanied by another development just across the border.

In July 2026, Hong Kong’s Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Authority simplified the approval process for gold exchange-traded funds within the city’s compulsory retirement system. Rather than requiring individual approval for each eligible product, gold ETFs can now qualify through a broader approval framework.

The reform does not require pension funds to buy gold.

Nor does it mean every Hong Kong worker will automatically gain exposure to bullion.

Investment decisions remain with fund managers, trustees and the individual investment options available within each retirement scheme. Gold ETFs also remain subject to allocation limits.

Nevertheless, the regulatory change is important because it removes one of the administrative barriers preventing retirement assets from accessing gold.

Over time, if more trustees choose to include physically backed gold ETFs within diversified retirement portfolios, recurring monthly pension contributions could become another source of steady demand.

Unlike speculative capital, retirement savings rarely move in and out of markets based on short-term price fluctuations. Contributions arrive continuously through payroll deductions, creating a fundamentally different pattern of investment.

Whether similar reforms eventually appear in other jurisdictions remains uncertain, but Hong Kong may provide an early indication of how retirement systems begin integrating gold into diversified long-term portfolios.

China’s Household Savings Could Matter More Than Its Population

Much attention has focused on China’s population of more than 1.4 billion people, but demographics alone do not explain why the country’s gold market deserves such close attention.

The more important figure may be the size of Chinese household savings.

Chinese households collectively hold well over RMB160 trillion in bank deposits, one of the largest pools of savings anywhere in the world. At the same time, domestic insurance companies oversee tens of trillions of yuan in long-term assets, while Hong Kong’s Mandatory Provident Fund system manages more than HK$1.5 trillion.

Gold currently represents only a small fraction of those financial resources.

That is what makes the structural story so compelling.

The gold market does not require every Chinese household to begin buying bullion. It does not require insurance companies to allocate 10% of their portfolios to precious metals, nor does it depend on retirement funds making dramatic strategic changes.

Even relatively modest shifts could prove meaningful.

If only a small percentage of China’s vast savings base gradually migrates toward bars, coins, physically backed ETFs or strategic institutional allocations over the coming decade, the resulting demand could exceed that created by many previous investment cycles.

Unlike speculative inflows chasing momentum, that capital would likely arrive gradually through recurring savings, portfolio rebalancing and long-term asset allocation decisions.

For the gold market, slow money may ultimately prove more powerful than fast money.

Why This Gold Bull Market Could Look Different

Gold has experienced several powerful bull markets over the past half century, but each has been driven by a different catalyst.

The inflation crisis of the 1970s pushed investors toward hard assets as fiat currencies lost purchasing power. The Global Financial Crisis fuelled demand for safe havens as confidence in the banking system deteriorated. During the pandemic, unprecedented monetary stimulus and record-low interest rates helped lift gold to new highs, while the most recent rally has been underpinned by central-bank purchases, geopolitical tensions and expectations that interest rates would eventually decline.

The emerging Chinese story is fundamentally different.

Rather than depending on a macroeconomic shock or a monetary policy cycle, it centres on the gradual reallocation of domestic savings. If more Chinese households, insurers and retirement-related assets begin treating gold as a permanent portfolio allocation rather than a trading instrument, demand could become less dependent on the next Federal Reserve meeting or the next geopolitical headline.

That would represent a structural rather than cyclical source of support.

Markets often underestimate structural shifts because they develop slowly. Individual policy changes rarely move prices on their own. Instead, their effects accumulate over years as investor behaviour gradually changes.

China’s recent gold reforms appear to fit that pattern.

There Are Reasons To Be Cautious

The bullish argument should not be overstated.

Several important uncertainties remain.

First, there is no guarantee that capital leaving bank-operated Shanghai Gold Exchange services will automatically flow into physical bullion or physically backed ETFs. Some investors may simply leave the gold market altogether or redirect money into equities, fixed-income investments, property or bank deposits.

Second, higher gold prices themselves could eventually reduce retail demand. Although Chinese investors have continued buying near record highs, sustained price increases have historically discouraged jewellery purchases and slowed investment demand in many markets.

Third, China’s economy continues facing challenges that could influence household investment behaviour. Slower economic growth, changes in employment, consumer confidence or property prices may all affect how much discretionary capital households allocate to precious metals.

Finally, global gold prices remain influenced by factors extending well beyond China. US monetary policy, central-bank purchases, the strength of the US dollar, inflation expectations, geopolitical risks and investment flows into global gold ETFs will continue shaping the market.

China may become an increasingly important driver, but it is unlikely to become the only one.

The Market May Be Looking In The Wrong Direction

Much of the financial commentary surrounding gold remains heavily focused on interest rates.

Every inflation report, employment release and Federal Reserve meeting immediately triggers fresh forecasts for bullion prices. That attention is understandable given the historical relationship between real yields and gold.

Yet markets sometimes become so focused on cyclical developments that they overlook slower structural changes unfolding beneath the surface.

China’s evolving gold market may represent one of those changes.

The country’s largest banks are retreating from retail precious metals trading. Regulators are making leveraged speculation progressively less attractive. Insurance companies have begun incorporating gold into long-term investment portfolios. Hong Kong has expanded the pathway through which retirement assets can gain exposure to physically backed gold ETFs. Chinese households continue accumulating bars, coins and ETFs despite record prices, while the People’s Bank of China has steadily expanded its own gold reserves.

Viewed individually, each development appears relatively modest.

Taken together, they suggest China is quietly reshaping the composition of gold demand.

The distinction between speculative demand and strategic allocation may prove increasingly important over the coming decade.

Speculators trade around prices.

Long-term investors accumulate through them.

That difference influences not only how much gold is purchased but also how long it remains off the market before changing hands again.

The Long-Term Bull Case

Perhaps the strongest argument for gold does not involve inflation, recession or geopolitics at all.

It is that one of the world’s largest pools of savings appears to be entering the early stages of a structural transition.

China has not banned paper gold. It has not instructed 1.4 billion people to buy bullion. Nor has it transformed the global gold market overnight.

What it has done is arguably more important.

It has begun changing the financial architecture through which Chinese investors gain exposure to gold. Leveraged retail trading has become less accessible. Long-term ownership has become easier. Institutional participation is expanding. Retirement-related investment channels are gradually opening. Meanwhile, physical demand remains exceptionally strong despite record prices.

Whether these developments ultimately translate into materially higher gold prices remains impossible to predict with certainty.

Markets rarely move in straight lines, and gold will continue responding to interest rates, currency movements, inflation expectations and geopolitical events.

But structural investment trends often matter most precisely because they attract relatively little attention while they are unfolding.

If China’s financial reforms gradually redirect even a modest share of the country’s enormous savings base toward physical bullion and long-term gold ownership, the implications could extend far beyond China’s domestic market.

The next great gold bull market may not begin with a financial crisis.

It may begin with millions of investors quietly choosing to own gold differently than they did before.

97-year-old aerospace manufacturer files Chapter 11 bankruptcy

Portfolio President — Fri, 24 Jul 2026 13:49:40 +0000

Despite production rates in the aerospace industry climbing modestly in 2025, according to a Deloitte report, certain manufacturers, such as Magellan Aerospace Middletown, are still struggling and filing for bankruptcy.

Iconic aerospace products manufacturer Magellan Aerospace Middletown Inc. filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy to stabilize its business, operations, and finances and determine if sufficient changes will allow it to better compete in the market and continue as a stand-alone entity, according to court documents.

Magellan Aerospace Middletown seeks to preserve the business as a going concern, maintain employment, and continue customer relationships, according to a declaration by the company’s sole independent director, Michael Goldberg. The debtor will consider all alternatives, including a potential sale or other value maximizing transactions.

The company manufactures jet engine nacelle, exhaust components, and heat-resistant space products for the commercial, military, and space sectors. Among the products the company has produced were heat shields for NASA’s Apollo and Space Shuttle space programs.

Magellan Aerospace Middletown filed for bankruptcy protection after contracts were canceled.

Monty Rakusen / Getty Images

Aerospace company files bankruptcy

The Middletown, Ohio-based debtor filed its petition in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ohio, listing $10 million to $50 million in assets and $50 million to $100 million in debts, on July 22.

Magellan Aerospace Middletown is 100% owned by Magellan Aerospace USA, which has not filed for bankruptcy. Mississauga, Ontario-based Magellan Aerospace Corporation is the parent company of Magellan Aerospace USA,

The debtor has no secured debt and no public debt. All of its obligations are unsecured debt, consisting of over $82 million.

Magellan Aerospace Middletown’s largest unsecured creditors include The Reynolds Group, owed over $170,000; Mound Manufacturing Center inc., owed over $113,000; Fidelity 401K, owed over $87,000; Duke Energy, owed over $53,000; MSC Industrial Direct Co., owed over $49,000; CT Security Services, owed over $49,000; and Trimech Enterprise Solutions Corp., owed over $39,000.

Debtor reports net losses

The debtor, which employs 109 workers, reported a net loss of $8.5 million on about $26.3 million in annual revenue in 2025, and a net loss of $2.8 million on $16.8 million in revenue in 2026 through June 30.

Magellan Aerospace Middletown’s annual revenue has decreased year-on-year as a result of a winddown of contracts, beginning in 2020. The company had secured jet exhaust systems contracts with Airbus on its A340, A318, and A380, as well as the Boeing 747 and 767 aircrafts.

Production of the A340, A380, and 747 ended, which led to the canceling of those contracts.

Company founded in 1928

Magellan Aerospace Middletown was founded as Aeronautical Corporation of America in 1928 by future Ohio senator, Robert Taft, son of former President William Howard Taft. The company evolved over the years as an aircraft manufacturer and acquired Longden Aircraft Company in the late 1950s, which it sold in the early 1990s.

The original company began manufacturing its first product, the single-seat C-2 Scout personal airplane, in 1929, and two years later launched the two-seat version, C-3, in 1931. By the mid-1930s the company led the U.S. in light aircraft production, according to court papers.

In World War II the company produced products for the military, returned to civilian aircraft production after the war until exiting the light aircraft business in 1951 to focus on high-strength engine and airframe structures for the commercial, military, and space sectors.

The company became a subsidiary of Magellan Aerospace Corporation in the mid-1990s.

Aerospace sector growth projected

Research firm Deloitte expects growth in the aerospace production sector in 2026, according to Aerospace Manufacturing and Design.

“The commercial aerospace sector appears poised to continue growth, aided by rising fleet utilization, continued fleet growth, and steady gains in both passenger and cargo demand,” according to Deloitte’s 2026 aerospace and defense outlook.

Outdoor giant now closing 91 stores in Chapter 11 bankruptcy

Portfolio President — Fri, 24 Jul 2026 13:49:38 +0000

True boat lovers reject the popular saying that the two happiest days of a boater’s life are the day they buy the boat and the day they sell it. For them, happiness is putting the boat in the water and sailing off, never-ending expenses included.

That devotion drove a boom in boat sales during the Covid pandemic, as many Americans turned to the water to escape. After seeing a spike in sales during the crisis, when most other industries struggled, the recreational boating market is now feeling the impact of consumers’ discretionary spending cuts.

In fact, most boat owners make less than $100,000 a year, often purchasing smaller and more affordable vessels. This makes the industry “particularly sensitive to shifts in consumer confidence and credit availability,” according to IBIS World’s Boat Sales & Repair in the U.S. report.

According to Deloitte’s State of the US Consumer July 2026 report, discretionary spending intentions grew for a third straight month in June; however, they remain below the 2021 baseline.

The full-year 2025 data from NMMA reveal that new boat retail unit sales dropped 8.8% year over year to 215,237 units, down from 236,070 units in 2024.

Amid these shifts in consumer behavior, the largest U.S. boating retailer, West Marine, recently filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and closed 59 stores. More recently, the boat retailer confirmed an additional wave of closures.

West Marine closes another 32 stores

West Marine Inc., the largest boating and marine supplies retailer in the United States, recently confirmed plans to close an additional 32 retail locations, bringing the total number of stores slated for closure to 91, reported BoatBlurb.

The latest 32 closures join the previously announced 59 closures and are part of the company’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy restructuring.

The company disclosed several factors pushing it into bankruptcy, includingsupply chain disruptions, extreme weather events, and shifts in consumer behavior, according to its official press release.

West Marine aims for Chapter 11 to help it strengthen its balance sheet, reduce debt, and improve financial flexibility.

“We recently made the difficult decision to close select store locations. While this change wasn’t easy, our commitment to you hasn’t changed one bit — West Marine is open, stocked and ready to help with everything you need to get back on the water,” the company states on the store closure web page.

West Marine closes a total of 91 stores in Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

Smith Collection/Gado/Getty Images

West Marine’s total 91 locations closed:

Alabama (1)
Mobile: 5004 Dauphin Island Pkwy.
California (7)
Chula Vista: 630 Bay Blvd.

Monterey: 2024 Del Monte Ave.

Oceanside: 1719 Oceanside Blvd.

Pittsburg: 4645 Century Blvd.

Redding: 2607 Bechelli Lane

Sacramento: 9500 Micron Ave #116

Santa Barbara: 132C Harbor Wy.
Connecticut (2)
Branford: 33 Business Park Dr.

Norwalk: 99 Water St.

Delaware (1)
Rehoboth Beach: 18914 Rehoboth Mall Blvd.
Florida (18)
Bonita Springs: 28520 Bonita Crossings Blvd.

Fernandina Beach: 474347 E. State Road 200

Jacksonville: 14180 Beach Blvd.

Orlando: 7478 S. Orange Blossom Trl.

Palm Coast: 250 Palm Coast Pkwy. NE

Port Charlotte: 4265 Tamiami Trail

Venice: 1860 Tamiami Trail S

Winter Haven: 1107 3rd St. SW

Deerfield Beach: 110 N. Federal Hwy.

Cutler Bay: 19407 S. Dixie Hwy.

Miami-Westchester: 8687 Coral Wy.

Pinecrest: 11735 S. Dixie Hwy.

Delray Beach: 2275 South Federal Hwy., Ste. 220

Punta Gorda: 700 Tamiami Trail

Melbourne: 1001 W. New Haven Ave.

Jensen Beach: 3554 NW Federal Hwy.

Spring Hill: 1279 Wendy Ct.
Georgia (1)
Savannah: 7700 Abercorn St.
Illinois (2)
Fox Lake: 2 W. Grand Ave.

Winthrop Harbor: 1707 7th St.
Louisiana (2)
Lafayette: 2668 Johnston St.

Mandeville: 1803 N. Causeway Blvd.
Massachusetts (3)
Marblehead: 32 Atlantic Ave.

Vineyard Haven: 52 Beach Rd.

Danvers: 139 Endicott St.
Maryland (5)
Baltimore: 2700 Lighthouse Point E

Edgewater: 3257 Solomon’s Island Rd.

Ocean City: 12638 Ocean Gateway

Rock Hall: 21386 Rock Hall Ave.

North East: 475 N. Mauldin Ave.
Maine (2)
Portland: 127 Marginal Way

Southwest Harbor: 11 Apple Lane
Michigan (7)
Bay City: 4128 Wilder Rd.

Grand Haven: 810 Jackson St.

Muskegon: 2492 Henry St.

Petoskey: 105 West Mitchell St.

St. Clair Shores: 25050 Jefferson Ave.

Troy: 789 E. Big Beaver Rd.

Holland: 12513 James St.
Minnesota (1)
Minnetonka: 12350 Wayzata Blvd.
Missouri (1)
Osage Beach: 3872 Osage Beach Pkwy.
North Carolina (2)
Oriental: 1104 Broad St. Ext.

Raleigh: 3027 Capital Blvd.
New Jersey (4)
Cape May: 791 Route 109

Eatontown: 178 State Route 35 S

Toms River: 213 Route 37 East

Lodi: 100 Route 17 South
Nevada (1)
Reno: 2505 Mill St.
New York (6)
Irondequoit: 1850 Ridge Rd. East

Port Washington: 16 Soundview Marketplace

Watertown: 21214 Pioneer Plaza Dr.

Buffalo: 2192 Niagra St.

Huntington Harbor: 56 New York Ave.

Riverhead: 1089 Old Country Rd.
Ohio (4)
Cleveland: 1577 Saint Clair Ave. NE

North Olmsted: 24781 Lorain Rd.

Sandusky: 207 E. Water St.

Toledo: 6176 N Summit Bldg. F
Oregon (2)
Tigard: 15230 SW Sequoia Pkwy.

Portland: 12085 N. Parker Ave.
Pennsylvania (1)
Bensalem: 2126 Street Rd.
South Carolina (5)
Anderson: 3501-2 Clemson Blvd.

Murrells Inlet: 12078 Highway 17 Bypass

North Myrtle Beach: 1288 Highway 17 N

Port Royal: 1347 Ribaut Rd.

Columbia: 142 Harbison Blvd.
Tennessee (1)
Knoxville: 7812 Kingston Pike
Texas (1)
Lewisville: 4850 SH 121
Virginia (2)
Glen Allen: 10819 W. Broad St.

Alexandria: 601 South Patrick St.
Vermont (1)
Burlington: 861 Williston Rd.
Washington (7)
Bellingham: 3560 Meridian St.

Bremerton: 5971 State Hwy. 303 NE

Everett: 1716 West Marine View Dr.

Port Townsend: 2428 Washington St.

Spokane: 5306 East Sprague Ave.

Bellevue: 13211 Northup Wy.

Olympia: 1530 Black Lake Blvd SW Suite C
Wisconsin (1)
Greenfield: 4141 S 76th St.

Source: Notice of Filing Store Closing List, West Marine

West Marine Chapter 11 bankruptcy details and canceled auction

West Marine signaled it is preparing for a potential Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing to restructure its debt and lease obligations, TheStreet Co-Editor-in-Chief Daniel Kline reported in May 2026.

Since then, the outdoor giant filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, closed 59 stores, and now an additional 32.

“West Marine has been a trusted partner to the boating community for decades, and we remain deeply committed to that mission. The actions we are taking today will allow us to optimize our operations and rationalize our footprint, so that we can focus on continuing to serve our customers and community well into the future,” stated CEO Paulee Day, when the company filed for Chapter 11.

To support ongoing operations through the Chapter 11 process, West Marine reached an agreement with its secured lenders to use its cash collateral. The lenders also agreed to provide new financing to support the company’s exit from Chapter 11.

After filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, West Marine also filed customary first-day motions with the Bankruptcy Court requesting authority to continue operations without disruption, which includes meeting employee payroll and benefits.

The company’s restructuring process faced its first major hurdle when an asset auction was canceled after no qualified bids emerged, reported SGB Media on July 7, 2026.

The boating and fishing retailer confirmed it plans to continue with its pre-arranged reorganization plan that includes the closure of around one-quarter of its locations and an exchange of debt for equity.

Under the pre-petition reorganization plan filed in Delaware’s bankruptcy court, lenders will convert roughly $251.2 million in term loan claims into 100 percent of the new equity interests in the reorganized company. The Restructuring Support Agreement (RSA) was backed by 100 percent of its FILO (First In, Last Out) lenders and 96.2 percent of its term loan lenders.

The document also states that the total outstanding obligations amount to $429.3 million.

“Under the current reorganization plan, general unsecured creditors face a “death-trap” provision that will result in little to no financial recovery. The total amount owed to these unsecured creditors — which includes major vendors like Garmin International ($8.57 million), Virtual Supply ($5.8 million), and Sierra International ($4.7 million) — ranges between $99.3 million and $109.2 million,” reports SGB Media.

West Marine confirmed that vendors and suppliers will be paid in full for all goods and services provided after the May 17, 2026, bankruptcy filing date. Only the debts incurred before filing are subject to losses.

The Combined Confirmation Hearing, initially set for July 30, has been postponed to Aug. 11.

What West Marine consumers should know regarding closures

Consumers who own a gift card or placed an order for pickup at one of the stores scheduled for closure should know that they can still use the gift card at the closing store up to the closure date, online, or at any other West Marine location.

The retailer also noted that all orders placed before June 12, 2026, can be picked up at a closing West Marine store location.

Consumers can’t return or exchange merchandise at closing stores, as all sales are final at any closing store.

Shoppers can still place orders online and in store, and warranties and product support will be honored.

Regarding the West Advantage Rewards program, the company shared that members’ accounts will remain active, and loyal customers can continue to use their account benefits.

What’s next for West Marine?

West Marine had more than 200 retail locations across North America before announcing its Chapter 11 filing. This suggests the retailer will soon be left with about 110 operating stores.

In addition to closing stores with unprofitable leases, West Marine plans to transform and build its business around West Marine Pro, its wholesale and professional division, that drives more than 40% of its total revenue, writes Marine Industry News.

West Marine Pro provides service to marine technicians, marina operators, fleet managers, boat builders and government organizations responsible for maritime assets.

The boat giant also plans to remodel its remaining stores to better serve professional customers by allocating more space for high-volume marine parts, while scaling back non-essential/discretionary retail products.

The retailer also plans to connect its store inventory to its website and Pro app. This lets commercial clients scan barcodes, view wholesale prices, and check local stock in real time.

New Dollar Tree store feature sparks customer backlash

Portfolio President — Fri, 24 Jul 2026 13:49:36 +0000

Maybe you’ve heard the joke about Dollar Tree. In my neck of the woods, people like to call it “No-Longer-a-Dollar Tree.”

There’s a reason for that.

Dollar Tree has spent the past few years transforming itself from a true single-price retailer into a chain with merchandise spanning multiple price points.

The strategy has helped the company broaden its assortment, bring in higher-quality products, and improve sales. But it’s also changed one of Dollar Tree’s defining characteristics.

It used to be that you could walk into a Dollar Tree and know exactly what each item would cost. Now, it’s a crapshoot.

The company’s management team has made clear that the shift is central to its long-term strategy.

During its first-quarter 2026 earnings call, Dollar Tree CEO Michael Creedon said the company is continuing to “expand and modernize our assortment through multi-price,” adding that the expanded assortment “continues to perform well and remains a meaningful growth driver.”

He also called the expansion “a key enabler” that allows Dollar Tree to improve quality and introduce products that wouldn’t have been possible under a single price point.

But while the multi-price strategy may be working financially, it’s creating a more complicated shopping experience for customers who have long associated the brand with simple, predictable pricing.

Dollar Tree customers grapple with new frustrations

Dollar Tree now carries products priced from its $1.25 opening price to as much as $10 in many locations.

And while the company says roughly 85% of its sales still come from products priced at $2 or less, higher-priced merchandise has become increasingly common throughout stores.

That, combined with a lack of price tags in some stores, leaves customers wondering what they’re going to pay when they pick up an item to purchase.

While some Dollar Tree products are clearly marked, shoppers have increasingly complained on social media about inconsistent labels or difficulty identifying prices on merchandise throughout the store.

And for a chain built around value and convenience, it’s easy to see how uncertainty over pricing can quickly become a source of frustration.

To address the issue, Dollar Tree has begun installing price scanners in more stores, USAToday reported. The devices are designed to eliminate guesswork, allowing shoppers to scan items themselves before heading to the checkout.

The rollout, however, has sparked another round of debate online.

Many shoppers view the scanners as evidence that the retailer has drifted too far from its roots.

Some social media users questioned why a store called Dollar Tree now needs price scanners at all, arguing that the feature wouldn’t be necessary if pricing had remained simple.

Others, however, said the scanners are a helpful addition because they can at least help prevent surprises at the register.

Shoppers have had mixed reactions to the addition of price scanners in Dollar Tree stores.

Image source: Shutterstock

A brand caught between growth and identity

The backlash over price scanners highlights a broader challenge facing Dollar Tree as it continues reinventing itself.

From a business standpoint, the multi-price strategy gives the retailer more flexibility to offset rising costs and compete across more categories. Company executives have repeatedly emphasized that the strategy lets them offer higher-quality goods.

More Retail:

The problem is that Dollar Tree’s identity was built on simplicity. For decades, customers walked into stores expecting every item to cost essentially the same amount. That predictability became part of the brand’s appeal.

Today’s stores offer a wider selection than ever before, but they also require shoppers to pay closer attention to shelf tags and product labels.

The addition of price scanners may solve a practical problem. But it also serves as a visible reminder that the retailer has fundamentally changed.

As Dollar Tree continues expanding its multi-price assortment, it faces a delicate balancing act.

The multi-price strategy may strengthen sales. But if longtime customers begin to feel that the chain no longer delivers the straightforward bargain-hunting experience they remember, Dollar Tree risks alienating the loyal shoppers who helped build the brand in the first place.

As one customer told USA Today, “I to this day will not pay for anything in there over $2. It’s not because I can’t, it’s just because I think it’s greed.”

Intel stock forecast after boosting its guidance: time to buy?

Portfolio President — Fri, 24 Jul 2026 13:49:29 +0000

Intel stock jumped in the extended hours as the company published strong financial results and boosted its forward guidance. INTC soared to $110, a significant increase from this month’s low of $89.65. What next for these shares?

Intel stock jumps after strong earnings

INTC shares jumped after the semiconductor giant published strong financial results, helped by its data center business.

Its revenue jumped by 25% in the second quarter to $16.1 billion, with its gross margin soaring to 40.45 as chip prices jumped.

Lip-Bu Tan, the CEO hailed the results as the strongest revenue growth in over 15 years, driven by its CPUs, ASICs, and advanced packaging. In a statement, Dave Zinsner, the CFO said:

“AI-driven compute continues to strengthen, and to support expected growth this year and next across products and foundry, we are meaningfully increasing our investments in equipment, clean room space, and substrates.”

Most importantly, the management expects that the business will continue growing in the near term, helped by the unprecedented demand for its products.

The management expects that its revenue in the current quarter will jump to between $15.8 billion and $16.7 billion. This is a bigger number than the average revenue estimate of $15.1 billion. It also expects that its earnings-per-share (EPS) will be 31 cents, also higher than the expected 28 cents.

Intel’s turnaround strategy is working

These numbers mean that the company’s turnaround strategy is working, which may push analysts to upgrade it. Analysts are already highly bullish on the company, with UBS and Susquehanna having a target of $115. KeyCorp has a target of $155, while Stifel has $120.

These developments come after the company made some major strides in the past two years. It replaced its CEO, raised capital, including from Nvidia and the US government, and made more announcements.

For example, it recently announced a large deal with Apollo Global to acquire its remaining stake in its Irish fabrication company. It also inked a major deal with Tesla and SpaceX to participate in the Terafab project. Most recently, it announced a deal that will see it manufacture chips for Apple, the second-biggest company in the world.

At the same time, the company has become a major player in the growing AI agent industry.

INTC stock price technical analysis

Intel stock chart | Source: TradingView

The daily chart reveals that the INTC stock has rebounded from a low of $89.68 to over $110 today. It has moved above the important resistance level of $100, its lowest level on June 5.

The stock sits above the 100-day Exponential Moving Average (EMA). It also jumped above the Major S/R pivot point of the Murrey Math Lines tool.

Therefore, these results mean that the stock may continue rising in the near term as bulls target the key resistance at $150. This target coincides with the ultimate resistance of the Murrey Math Lines tool.

The post Intel stock forecast after boosting its guidance: time to buy? appeared first on Invezz