Author

admin

Browsing

The S&P 500 ($SPX), Nasdaq Composite ($COMPQ), and DJIA ($INDU) are trading below their 200-day simple moving averages (SMAs). It doesn’t paint an optimistic picture, but the reality is that the stock market’s price action is more unpredictable than usual.

When President Trump imposed an additional 25% tariff on steel and aluminum imports from Canada, the stock market sold off. However, the selloff eased in afternoon trading, when there was a narrative shift in the tariff and Ukraine/Russia tensions front. But that changed towards the end of Tuesday’s close, with the broader indexes closing lower.

Navigating a headline-driven market is challenging. The Cboe Volatility Index ($VIX), the market’s fear gauge, eased a little on Tuesday, but has risen relatively steeply since February 21. All investors should monitor this closely, especially in a market that fluctuates several times on any given trading day.

Percentage Performance

It’s also important not to lose sight of the bigger picture. From a percentage performance point of view, how much damage has been done? To answer this question, it helps to view a PerfChart of the three broader indexes, S&P 500, Nasdaq, and Dow (see chart below).

FIGURE 1. ONE-YEAR PERFORMANCE OF S&P500, DOW JONES INDUSTRIAL AVERAGE, AND NASDAQ COMPOSITE. All three indexes are displaying weakening performance, but are still in positive territory.Chart source: StockCharts.com. For educational purposes.

Over the last year, the performance of the three indexes is in positive territory. The Dow is the weakest of the three, with a 6.87% gain. During the April 2024 low, performance was negative, but during the August low, the Dow skirted the zero level but was able to hang on. Given the trend in the performance of all three indexes is pointing lower, investors should be cautious when it comes to making decisions.

Value Performance

The daily chart of any of the three indexes is bleak. The one that looks the bleakest is probably the tech-heavy Nasdaq. Tech stocks have taken a beating of late, and the Nasdaq has been trading below its 200-day SMA for a few days (see chart below).

The bottom panel displays the percentage of Nasdaq stocks trading below their 200-day SMA. As you can see, it’s below 30%, which indicates an oversold level. There are no signs of reversal on this chart. In August, when the Nasdaq slipped below its 200-day SMA, it quickly recovered.

On Wednesday morning, investors will be tuned in to the February CPI data. Be sure to save the PerfChart in Figure 1 and the chart of the Nasdaq Composite in Figure 2 to your ChartLists. Click on the charts to see the live chart. Monitor them closely, since we’re likely to see a seesawing stock market for a while.

Closing Position

Note that when viewing a PerfChart, you can also compare the performance of different sectors or industry groups in addition to the broader indexes. All you have to do is change the symbols on the chart. If you see confirmed signals of a reversal in any asset class or group, it may be time to reevaluate your portfolio allocations.


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

The gold standard hasn’t been used in the US since the 1970s, but during Donald Trump’s first term from 2017 to 2021 there was some speculation that he could bring it back.

Rumors that the gold standard could be reinstated during Trump’s presidency centered largely on positive comments he made about the idea. Notably, he suggested that it would be “wonderful” to bring back the gold standard, and a number of his advisors were of the same mind — Judy Shelton, John Allison and others supported the concept.

Now that Trump is back in the White House, some are again wondering if he will return the country to the gold standard. Speaking on his War Room podcast back in December 2023, Steve Bannon, Trump’s former chief strategist, said he believes the president could ditch the US Federal Reserve and bring back the gold standard in his second term in office.

More recently, the Heritage Foundation included a whole chapter on the Federal Reserve in its Project 2025 (a proposed blueprint for Trump’s second term), and mentioned the option of eliminating the Federal Reserve to make way for a return to the gold standard.

While Trump has publicly disavowed Project 2025, its creators say he is privately supportive of the initiative, and he has implemented many of their suggestions. Additionally, the chapter’s author, Paul Winfree, is a former member of Trump’s 2016 transition team and 2017 administration.

Since re-entering office, Trump has also shown interest in the physical gold stored in Fort Knox, Kentucky. The president and Elon Musk have repeatedly questioned whether some of the gold may have been stolen, and Musk has suggested an audit of the 147 million ounces of gold stored in the vault. It remains to be seen whether the audit will take place, but it has added an extra unknown to the gold space.

Read on to learn what the gold standard is, why it ended, what Trump has said about bringing back the gold standard — and what could happen if a gold-backed currency ever comes into play again.

In this article

    What is the gold standard?

    What is the gold standard and how does it work? Put simply, the gold standard is a monetary system in which the value of a country’s currency is directly linked to the yellow metal. Countries using the gold standard set a fixed price at which to buy and sell gold to determine the value of the nation’s currency.

    For example, if the US went back to the gold standard and set the price of gold at US$1,000 per ounce, the value of the dollar would be 1/1000th of an ounce of gold. This would offer reliable price stability.

    Under the gold standard, transactions no longer have to be done with heavy gold bullion or gold coins. The gold standard also increases the trust needed for successful global trade — the idea is that paper currency has value that is tied to something real. The goal is to prevent inflation as well as deflation, and to help promote a stable monetary environment.

    When was the gold standard introduced?

    The gold standard was first introduced in Germany in 1871, and by 1900 most developed nations, including the US, were using it. The system remained popular for decades, with governments worldwide working together to make it successful, but when World War I broke out it became difficult to maintain. Changing political alliances, higher debt and other factors led to a widespread lack of confidence in the gold standard.

    What countries are on the gold standard today?

    Currently, no countries use the gold standard. Decades ago, governments abandoned the gold standard in favor of fiat monetary systems. However, countries around the world do still hold gold reserves in their central banks. The Fed is the central bank of the US, and as of February 2025 its gold reserves came to 8,133.46 metric tons.

    Why was the gold standard abandoned?

    The demise of the gold standard began as World War II was ending. At this time, the leading western powers met to develop the Bretton Woods agreement, which became the framework for the global currency markets until 1971.

    The Bretton Woods agreement was born at the UN Monetary and Financial Conference, held in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, in July 1944. Currencies were pegged to the price of gold, and the US dollar was seen as a reserve currency linked to the price of gold. This meant all national currencies were valued in relation to the US dollar since it had become the dominant reserve currency. Despite efforts from governments at the time, the Bretton Woods agreement led to overvaluation of the US dollar, which caused concerns over exchange rates and their ties to the price of gold.

    By 1971, US President Richard Nixon had called for a temporary suspension of the dollar’s convertibility. Countries were then free to choose any exchange agreement, except the price of gold. In 1973, foreign governments let currencies float; this put an end to Bretton Woods, and the gold standard was ousted.

    What is the US dollar backed by?

    Since the 1970s, most countries have run on a system of fiat money, which is government-issued money that is not backed by a commodity. The US dollar is fiat money, which means it is backed by the government, but not by any physical asset.

    The value of money is set by supply and demand for paper money, as well as supply and demand for other goods and services in the economy. The prices for those goods and services, including gold and silver, can fluctuate based on market conditions.

    What has Trump said about the gold standard?

    While it’s perhaps not common knowledge, Trump has long been a fan of gold.

    In fact, as Sean Williams of the Motley Fool has pointed out, Trump has been interested in gold since at least the 1970s, when private ownership of gold bullion became legal again. He reportedly invested in gold aggressively at that time, buying the precious metal at about US$185 and selling it between US$780 and US$790.

    Since then, Trump has specifically praised the gold standard. In an oft-quoted 2015 GQ interview that covers topics from marijuana to man buns, Trump said, “Bringing back the gold standard would be very hard to do, but boy, would it be wonderful. We’d have a standard on which to base our money.”

    In a separate interview that year, he said, “We used to have a very, very solid country because it was based on a gold standard.”

    According to Politico’s Danny Vinik, “(Trump has) surrounded himself with a number of advisors who hold extreme, even fringe ideas about monetary policy. … At least six … have spoken favorably about the gold standard.” Shelton and Allison, mentioned above, are not alone. Others include Ben Carson and David Malpass. The last two, Rebekah and Robert Mercer, eventually distanced themselves from Trump, but had a strong influence before that.

    Emphasizing how unusual Trump’s support for the international gold standard is, Joseph Gagnon, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, told the news outlet, “(It) seems like nothing that’s happened since the Great Depression.” Gagnon, who has also worked for the Fed, added, “You have to go back to Herbert Hoover.”

    Back in 2017, Politico also quoted libertarian Ron Paul, another gold standard supporter, as saying, “We’re in a better position than we’ve ever been in my lifetime as far as talking about serious changes to the monetary system and talking about gold.”

    What does Project 2025 say about the gold standard?

    In its chapter on the Federal Reserve, Project 2025 discusses the pros and cons of a return to the gold standard or other commodity-backed monetary system. The chapter’s author, Paul Winfree, weighs several monetary reform options, listing the gold standard as the second most effective option ‘against inflation and boom-and-bust recessionary cycles.’

    Project 2025 aims to severely reduce the current powers of the Federal Reserve, including its ability to purchase federal debt and other financial assets as well as bail out big financial institutions. Winfree also proposes removing maximizing employment from the Fed’s mandate.

    The document offers several paths to a potential gold standard, including gold-convertible treasury instruments or a parallel fiat dollar and gold standard system to make a transition easier. However, Winfree writes, ‘We have good reasons to worry that central banks and the gold standard are fundamentally incompatible—as the disastrous experience of the Western nations on their ‘managed gold standards’ between World War I and World War II showed.’

    On the more extreme end, the policy playbook also explores dismantling the Federal Reserve in favor of the gold standard alone. In the view of Project 2025, this would reduce the risk of inflation because there would be no central bank to print money and bail-out the banks. On the other hand, Winfree states that the two-year election system means they should be cautious about causing too much disruption to financial markets and the economy.

    While the Trump Administration 2.0 has yet to implement any of the Project 2025 recommendations on the Federal Reserve discussed above, the president did sign an Executive Order in mid-February that would give the Executive Branch oversight and control of regulatory agencies like the Fed. However, the order does provide an exemption for the central bank’s ability to set interest rates.

    Would it be feasible for the US to return to the gold standard?

    Trump’s first term as president passed without a return to the gold standard, and the consensus seems to be that it’s highly unlikely that this event will come to pass — even with him at the helm once again.

    Even many ardent supporters of the system recognize that going back to it could create trouble.

    As per the Motley Fool’s Williams, economists largely agree that moving to a lower-key version of the gold standard in 1933 was “a big reason why the US emerged from the Great Depression,” and a return would be a mistake.

    This is the take of Kevin Bahr, chief analyst of the Center for Business and Economic Insight. ‘History has shown that the gold standard was highly ineffective in dealing with inflation and economic downturns. Although the gold standard can limit the printing of money which could cause inflation, the printing of money is not always the reason that inflation occurs,’ explains Bahr. ‘Inflationary pressures caused by World War I resulted from supply shortages and the ramp-up in demand for certain products and resources caused by the war effort. Simply having a fixed money supply tied to gold didn’t solve the problems; consequently, countries bailed from the gold standard to gain more control over monetary policy and inflationary pressures.’

    Bahr also states that the gold standard would not have prevented the most recent bout of inflation that followed the global COVID pandemic. Quite the opposite, in fact. ‘Rather, the lack of a gold standard helped countries deal with the effects of inflation. The gold standard could have exacerbated the inflationary problem by preventing any central bank actions,’ he wrote.

    But if Trump or a future president did decide to go through with it, what would it take?

    According to Kimberly Amadeo at the Balance, due to trade, money supply and the global economy, the rest of the world would need to go back to the gold standard as well. Why? Because otherwise the countries that use the US dollar could stand with their hands out asking for their dollars to be exchanged for gold — including debtors like China and Japan, to which the US owes a large chunk of its multitrillion-dollar national debt.

    Is there enough gold to return to the gold standard?

    The fact that the US doesn’t have enough gold in its reserves to pay back all its debt poses a huge roadblock to returning to the gold standard. The country would have to exponentially replenish its gold reserves in advance of any return to the gold standard.

    ‘The United States holds around 261.5 million troy ounces of gold, valued at approximately $489 billion. The total US money supply exceeds $20 trillion, necessitating about 272,430 metric tons of gold at current market prices,’ explained Ron Dewitt, Director of Business Development at the Gold Information Network, in a June 2024 LinkedIn post.

    ‘The supply remains insufficient, even including global gold stocks, which total around 212,582 metric tons.’

    In addition, it’s understood that returning to the gold standard would require the price of gold to be set much higher than it is currently. What would the price of gold need to be worth if the US returned to the gold standard? Financial analyst and investment banker Jim Rickards has calculated the gold price would need to jump up to at least US$27,000 an ounce.

    That means the US dollar would be severely devalued, causing inflation, and since global trade uses the US dollar as a reserve currency, it would grind to a halt. Conversely, returning to the gold standard at a low gold price would cause deflation.

    What would silver be worth if the US returned to the gold standard? It’s not a guarantee that silver would follow in gold’s footsteps if a gold standard was re-established due to its many industrial and technological applications. While silver has a long history as a precious metal and played an important role as currency for much of human history, its value today is intrinsically linked to that demand as well.

    What would happen if the US returned to the gold standard?

    Returning to the gold standard would have a huge impact on all levels of the US economy and make it impossible for the Fed to offer fiscal stimulus. After all, if the US had to have enough gold reserves to exchange for dollars on an as-needed basis, the Fed’s ability to print paper currency would be incredibly limited.

    Supporters believe that could be the perfect way to get the US out of debt, but it could also cause problems during times of economic crisis. It’s important to remember that because 70 percent of the US economy is based on consumer spending, if inflation rose due to the gold price rising, then a lot of consumers would cut spending.

    That would then affect the stock market as well, which could very well lead to a recession or worse without the ability of the government to soften that blow via money supply. ‘Transitioning to a gold standard during an economic crisis would severely limit monetary policy options and could lead to economic instability,’ Dewitt warned.

    For that reason, a return to the gold standard would also expose the US economy to the yellow metal’s sometimes dramatic fluctuations — while some think that gold would offer greater price stability, it’s no secret that it’s been volatile in the past. Looking back past the metal’s recent stability, it dropped quite steeply from 2011 to 2016.

    Moreover, speaking to Congress on this issue in 2019, Fed Chair Jerome Powell warned against a return to the gold standard.

    “You’ve assigned us the job of two direct, real economy objectives: maximum employment, stable prices. If you assigned us (to) stabilize the dollar price of gold, monetary policy could do that, but the other things would fluctuate, and we wouldn’t care,” Powell said. “There have been plenty of times in fairly recent history where the price of gold has sent a signal that would be quite negative for either of those goals.”

    As can be seen, returning to the gold standard would be a complex ordeal with pros and cons. The likelihood of the US bringing back the gold standard is slim, but no doubt the question will continue to be up for debate under future presidents.

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

    This post appeared first on investingnews.com

    Energy transition company Condor Energies (TSX:CDR,OTC Pink:CNPRF) said on Tuesday (March 10) that it has secured its second critical minerals mining license in Kazakhstan.

    The Kolkuduk license, awarded to the firm by the Kazakh government, grants Condor exclusive rights to explore and mine solid minerals across a 6,800 hectare site for a six year term.

    Kolkuduk is situated near Condor’s existing 37,300 hectare Sayakbay critical minerals license, with both sites located in a geothermally active region known for its rich mineralized brine deposits.

    According to data from the Kazakh geology ministry, a previously drilled well in the Kolkuduk territory encountered brine deposits containing lithium concentrations of up to 130 milligrams per liter. Historical wireline logs and core samples indicate a 1,000 meter brine reservoir, suggesting significant potential for resource development.

    Additional minerals identified in the region include rubidium, strontium and cesium.

    “Condor’s focus on developing critical minerals in Kazakhstan aligns with the strategic focus of multiple countries to accelerate the development of diverse, secure, and sustainable supply chains of critical minerals,’ said Condor President and CEO Don Streu in the company’s release, emphasizing the strategic significance of its licenses.

    “Kazakhstan is one of the select group of minerals-producing countries identified as strategic to these efforts.’

    Critical minerals have emerged as a cornerstone of global energy security and economic policy, with countries seeking to secure reliable sources for technologies such as batteries, renewable energy infrastructure and advanced manufacturing.

    Condor’s expansion into critical minerals exploration complements its existing natural gas production operations in Uzbekistan and its liquefied natural gas (LNG) transportation fuel business in Kazakhstan.

    Last year, the company signed its first LNG framework agreement with Kazakhstan Temir Zholy National Company (KTZ), the country’s national railway operator, and Wabtec (NYSE:WAB), a US-based locomotive manufacturer. The deal lays the groundwork for using LNG to fuel Kazakhstan’s rail locomotive fleet, a major step in reducing reliance on diesel fuel.

    KTZ and Wabtec have been working to retrofit existing locomotives and incorporate LNG into new builds as part of a broader fleet modernization initiative. Under the agreement, Condor will serve as the primary LNG supplier and distributor, coordinating production volumes with the rollout of LNG-powered rail locomotives.

    The LNG initiative is also poised to play a critical role in the expansion of the Transcaspian International Transport Route, a vital corridor for freight movement between Asia and Europe. Condor has already completed front-end engineering for its first modular LNG facility, with detailed engineering slated to commence soon.

    The facility, to be built near Aktobe, Kazakhstan, will have an annual production capacity of 120,000 metric tons of LNG, equivalent to 450,000 liters of diesel per day.

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

    This post appeared first on investingnews.com

    Willem Middelkoop, founder of Commodity Discovery Fund, shared his thoughts on the commodities space, saying that an ‘era of shortages’ is arriving.

    He believes that will propel prices up from today’s rock-bottom levels, creating investment opportunities.

    Middelkoop also discussed geopolitics, looking at recent moves from the Trump administration.

    Watch the interview above for more of his thoughts on those topics.

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

    This post appeared first on investingnews.com

    Another Prospectors & Developers Association of Canada (PDAC) convention has come and gone.

    The 2025 iteration of the biggest mining event globally was a success, with more than 25,000 attendees converging on the Metro Toronto Convention Center over the four day event.

    Several key themes emerged at this year’s PDAC, with the most prevalent being the need for more exploration and funding, government support for the mining sector and the growing importance of critical minerals.

    Setting the tone for the event, Mike Henry, CEO of BHP (ASX:BHP,NYSE:BHP,LSE:BHP), underscored in an hour-long keynote address the vast amount of critical minerals that will be needed in the years ahead.

    ‘In copper alone, we anticipate 70 percent growth in demand by the middle of this century. Billions of people depend on our industry’s ability to deliver the critical minerals the world needs in a timely, reliable and cost-effective manner,” he said.

    The CEO went on to underscore the abundant resource potential offered by Canada, Australia and Chile, while also noting the massive investments needed to propel the energy transition and global decarbonization.

    “Done well, the meeting of the world’s growing need for critical minerals can transform communities, economies and countries for the better, and one need look no further than Canada or Australia or Chile, three resource-rich nations that have harnessed their resource endowment for the effective benefit of the people,” Henry said.

    He added that this continued effort requires capital, offering investors strong returns by supporting the right companies, commodities and standards. As Henry explained, for copper alone an investment of US$250 billion will be needed over the next five to 10 years to keep pace with “surging local demand.”

    When extrapolated to include other in-demand metals, that number balloons to US$800 billion between now and 2040.

    The need for exploration investment was also reiterated by Kevin Murphy, director of metals and mining research with S&P Global Commodity Insights. During his presentation, he noted that mining exploration spending has dropped sharply from its highs in 2011 and 2012, with gold remaining the top target, followed by copper, uranium and lithium.

    “I would consider exploration the canary in the coal mine for the mining industry in general; it’s the base of the pyramid, where mines are at the top and a huge amount of exploration, in theory, should be at the bottom,’ said Murphy. “If we look at where we currently are in exploration spending compared to historic amounts, we’re actually down a fair bit.”

    Over the last decade, exploration expenditure has also shifted focus, from greenfield to mine site exploration.

    “if you go back into the ’90s, even the early 2000s, generative, purely generative exploration, looking for new deposits. That was actually the preferred place to put your money,” explained Murphy.

    “That has shifted greatly, so much so it’s now the least preferred. People are exploring their mines. They’re exploring assets with resources already proven, and they are moving further and further away from doing generative exploration.”

    According to Murphy, greenfield exploration dropped significantly in 2024, raising concerns about long-term supply, particularly for copper, where major new discoveries have slowed. Gold has long focused on mine site exploration, while lithium and uranium, as younger commodities, are targeting assets with proven but undeveloped resources.

    With financing challenges persisting in 2025 and market uncertainty growing, exploration budgets are expected to shrink further, except possibly for gold amid policy shifts.

    Capital investment and supply growth

    To ensure the long-term success of the energy transition and mineral pipeline, most presenters and panelists at PDAC agreed that capital investment is imperative.

    During a lithium panel discussion, the vast amount of lithium needed for the electric vehicles (EVs) and energy storage was underscored as a crucial indicator of the amount of CAPEX the sector needs in the years ahead.

    Lithium has been especially challenging, as the market swung into over supply in 2023 pushing prices down, also new technologies considered to still be in infancy are having issues ramping up output.

    Near-term lithium supply faces challenges as key projects, especially in China, Chile, and Africa, struggle with delays due to financing, environmental, and permitting issues, Siddarth Subramani, director of lithium at Hatch told PDAC attendees.

    He added that many projects are also ramping up slower than expected due to the industry’s lack of maturity.

    In Argentina, lithium production is expected to grow from 75,000 tons to 300,000 metric tons by 2027, but technical and execution challenges could hinder this. A significant supply gap may emerge, pushing prices higher, but not enough to drive long-term production expansion.

    A similar tone was struck during the Benchmark Summit, an event that coincides with PDAC. The day-long symposium focused on the supply chain of raw materials needed for the energy transition.

    Increasing copper production will be pivotal in achieving global carbon reduction goals, as well as ensuring the energy transition can continue its implementation rate. To meet this demand, the globally diversified miner is looking to Latin America, especially Argentina and Chile, which represents a significant growth opportunity for copper supply in the coming years if the supportive policy environment continues.

    During his address to Benchmark Summit guests, Tony Power, CEO of Anglo American’s (LSE:AAL,OTCQX:AAUKF) Peruvian operations, highlighted the growth potential Anglo’s Los Bronces asset in Chile possesses, describing it as the ‘gift that keeps giving.”

    As Anglo works to expand the asset through underground development, Power was also forthcoming with the challenges that are facing the copper sector.

    “It’s not getting cheaper to make copper mines. It’s getting more and more expensive,” said Power. “So the only way to offset that is the price of copper to go up to be able to sustain that capital investment.”

    The impact of AI

    While financing and supplying the energy transition were obvious themes, the unexpected demand forecasted by AI data centers and generative technologies emerged as an equally important focus at the world’s largest mining-centric conference.

    The world’s growing adoption of AI paired with mass electrification are projected to push electricity demand up by 80 percent by 2050, a factor many energy transition reports did not take into consideration.

    Getting ahead of this demand several tech companies penned nuclear power agreements deals in 2024. While the headline making deals brought attention to the nuclear sector, little attention was paid to the required upstream growth needed to supply U3O8 to those reactors.

    Per Jander, director of Nuclear Fuel at WMC underscored the magnitude of nuclear energy needed to meet the ever growing global electricity demand.

    Unlike traditional data centers, AI facilities require immense power and advanced cooling systems, such as liquid cooling, due to their high-intensity computing needs. This sector is still in its early stages, yet demand is already surging, with AI operations consuming 50 terawatt-hours annually, explained Jander.

    “Then 100 terawatt hours by 2027,” he said, adding that he got that figure from Deepseek. “So it comes from itself.”

    Additionally, Jander also asked several AI assistants which energy source they preferred.

    “Three out of four said I want fusion,” said Jander, noting he didn’t limit the AI to specific energy types. “But one … said that (it) wanted to use nuclear power.”

    Uranium isn’t the only sector expected to see a demand spike from the AI data center proliferation.

    Noting that electrification is already pushing copper towards deficit, Micheal Meding, VP and GM at McEwen Copper (TSX:MUX,NYSE:MUX) believes AI electricity needs could tip that scale further.

    “Data centers require huge amounts of copper and require a lot of energy, that energy needs to be generated and transported,” he said during a copper panel discussion at the Benchmark Summit. “So I think we haven’t really understood how much of this metal is going to be needed in the future.”

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

    This post appeared first on investingnews.com

    Tesla’s selloff on Wall Street intensified on Monday, with shares of the electric vehicle maker plunging 15%, their worst day on the market since September 2020.

    On Friday, Tesla wrapped up a seventh straight week of losses, its longest losing streak since debuting on the Nasdaq in 2010. The stock has fallen every week since CEO Elon Musk went to Washington, D.C., to take on a major role in the second Trump White House.

    Since peaking at $479.86 on Dec. 17, Tesla shares have lost over 50% of their value, wiping out over $800 billion in market cap. Monday marked the stock’s seventh worst day on record.

    Tesla led a broader slump in U.S. equities, with the Nasdaq tumbling almost 4%, its steepest decline since 2022.

    The downdraft in Tesla’s stock on Monday was tied to uncertainty surrounding President Donald Trump’s plans on tariffs. Canada and Mexico are key markets for automotive suppliers, and increased tariffs, with the potential for a trade war, will likely impact production and lead to higher prices.

    Tesla is also dealing with brand erosion due to Musk’s incendiary political rhetoric and his extensive work with the Trump administration, where he’s leading up the so-called Department of Government Efficiency. Musk, the world’s wealthiest person, has become the public face of the administration’s effort to dramatically shrink the federal government’s workforce, spending and capacity.

    Meanwhile, Musk has used his social network X to level accusations against judges whose decisions he didn’t like and promoted false Kremlin talking points about Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

    Activists and former Musk fans have protested at Tesla facilities throughout the U.S., and Tesla vehicles and facilities have been the apparent targets of vandalism and arson attempts. Repeated arson attempts and instances of vandalism occurred at a Tesla store and service center in Loveland, Colorado, most recently on March 7, police told CNBC.

    Ben Kallo, an analyst at Baird, told CNBC’s “Squawk on the Street” on Monday that recent reports of vandalism could hurt demand.

    “When people’s cars are in jeopardy of being keyed or set on fire out there, even people who support Musk or are indifferent Musk might think twice about buying a Tesla,” Kallo said.

    Analysts at Bank of America’s wrote in a report on Monday that Tesla new vehicle sales plummeted by about 50% in Europe in January from a year earlier, partly owing to growing distaste for the brand. The firm also noted that some prospective customers are waiting for the new version of the Model Y.

    Tesla’s Model Y, which is a small SUV, remained the best-selling battery electric vehicle globally in January. It was followed by China’s Geely Geome, which surpassed the Tesla Model 3 sedan for the month.

    Global sales of electric vehicles, including fully electric and plug-in hybrid models, increased 21% in January from a year ago, even as Tesla’s sales declined. The growth was driven by demand in Europe, according to Bank of America.

    — CNBC’s Jesse Pound contributed to this report.

    This post appeared first on NBC NEWS

    Three separate outages appeared to hit Elon Musk’s X social media site Monday as he claimed it was suffering a ‘massive cyberattack.’

    Downdetector.com first registered thousands of reports of trouble accessing or using the site around 5:30 a.m. ET. It took about an hour before those issues subsided.

    Then, around 9:30 a.m., the issues appeared to flare up again, with as many as 40,000 outage reports detected. It again took about an hour for that incident to dissipate.

    Finally, around 11:10 a.m., the issues cropped up again, according to Downdetector.

    A representative for X couldn’t immediately be reached for comment.

    Musk said Monday afternoon on X that there had been a ‘massive cyberattack’ against the site.

    ‘We get attacked every day, but this was done with a lot of resources. Either a large, coordinated group and/or a country is involved,” he said. He didn’t post any evidence of a cyberattack.

    Experts said the outage was consistent with a distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack, a rudimentary but sometimes effective hacker tactic to overwhelm a website with traffic, effectively knocking it offline.

    Isik Mater, the director of research at NetBlocks, a company that tracks global internet connectivity, told NBC News that X had suffered intermittent outages since Monday morning. While establishing a DDoS attack with certainty can be difficult, Mater said, Musk’s claim was plausible.

    “It’s difficult to be certain, but given the pattern of three observed outages, a denial [of] service attack targeting X’s infrastructure can’t be ruled out,” she said. “It’s certainly one of the longest X/Twitter outages in our records.”

    Musk said in an interview Monday afternoon on Fox Business that the outage was due to “a massive cyberattack to try to bring down the X system with IP addresses originating in the Ukraine area,” a reference to internet protocol addresses. IP addresses, strings of numbers assigned to all internet-connected devices, include codes indicating their countries of origin.

    Large DDoS attacks usually rely on large armies of hacked devices from around the world. The IP addresses of the devices used against X aren’t public, and they are unlikely to be a reliable indication of where the attacker was based.

    This post appeared first on NBC NEWS

    It’s happening: Southwest Airlines will start charging passengers to check bags for the first time.

    It’s a stunning reversal that shows the low-cost pioneer is willing to part with a customer perk executives have said set it apart from rivals in more than half a century of flying in hopes of increasing revenue.

    Southwest’s changes come after months of pressure from activist Elliott Investment Management. The firm took a stake in the airline last year and won five board seats as it pushed for quick changes at the company, which held on for decades — until now — to perks such as free checked bags, changeable tickets and open seating.

    For tickets purchased on or after May 28, Southwest customers in all but the top tier-fare class will have to pay to check bags, though there will be exceptions. Elite frequent flyers who hold “A-List Preferred” status will still get two bags and A-List level members will get one free checked bag. Southwest credit card holders will also get one free checked bag.

    “Two bags fly free” is a registered trademark on Southwest’s website. But its decision to about-face on what executives long cast as a sacrosanct passenger perk brings the largest U.S. domestic carrier in line with its rivals, which together generated $5.5 billion from bag fees last year, according to federal data.

    Southwest executives have long said they didn’t plan to charge for bags, telling Wall Street analysts that it was a major reason why customers chose the airline.

    “After fare and schedule, bags fly free is cited as the No. 1 issue in terms of why customers choose Southwest,” CEO Bob Jordan said on an earnings call last July.

    But Southwest has changed its tune.

    “What’s changed is that we’ve come to realize that we need more revenue to cover our costs,” COO Andrew Watterson said in an interview with CNBC about the baggage fee changes. “We think that these changes that we’re announcing today will lead to less of that share shift than would have been the case otherwise.”

    In September, Southwest’s then-chief transformation officer, Ryan Green, told analysts that its analysis showed Southwest would lose more money from passengers defecting to rivals if it started charging for bags than it would make from the fees.

    “The fact that free bags is a key driver of choice creates the risk that customers may choose the competition if we change the policy,” he said.

    Southwest said last month that it had parted ways with Green.

    The airline also said Tuesday that it will launch a new, basic economy fare, something rivals have offered for years.

    Southwest, in addition, will change the way customers earn Rapid Rewards: Customers will earn more of the frequent flyer miles depending on how much they pay. Redemption rates will vary depending on flight demand, a dynamic pricing model competitors use.

    And flight credits for tickets for tickets purchased on or after May 28 will expire one year, or earlier, depending on the type of fare purchased.

    It’s the latest in a string of massive strategy changes at Southwest as its performance has fallen behind rivals.

    Last July, Southwest shocked passengers when it announced it would ditch its open seating model for assigned seats and add “premium” extra legroom options, ending decades of an single-class cabin.

    The airline is also looking to slash its costs. Higher expenses coming out of the pandemic have taken a bite out of airline margins.

    Last month, Southwest announced its first mass layoff, cutting about 1,750 jobs roughly 15% of its corporate staff, many of them at its headquarters, a decision CEO Jordan called “unprecedented” in the carrier’s more than 53 years of flying.

    “We are at a pivotal moment as we transform Southwest Airlines into a leaner, faster, and more agile organization,” he said last month.

    Earlier this year, Southwest announced the retirement of its longtime finance chief, Tammy Romo, who was replaced by Breeze executive Tom Doxey, and its chief administrative officer, Linda Rutherford. Both executives worked at Southwest for more than 30 years.

    Southwest has also cut unprofitable routes, summer internships and employee teambuilding events its held for decades.

    This post appeared first on NBC NEWS

    Dick’s Sporting Goods on Tuesday said it’s expecting 2025 profits to be far lower than Wall Street anticipated, making it the latest retailer to forecast a rocky year ahead as consumers contend with tariffs, inflation and fears around a potential recession. 

    In an interview with CNBC, Executive Chairman Ed Stack said the company’s exposure to China, Mexico and Canada for sourcing is very small, but it recognizes that falling consumer confidence could impact spending.

    “I do think it’s just a bit of an uncertain world out there right now,” said Stack. “What’s going to happen from a tariff standpoint? You know, if tariffs are put in place and prices rise the way that they might, what’s going to happen with the consumer?”

    On a call with analysts, CEO Lauren Hobart insisted the company is not seeing a weak consumer, and said its guidance is based on the overall uncertain environment.

    “We definitely are feeling great about our consumer,” said Hobart. “We are just reflecting an appropriate level of caution given so much uncertainty out in the marketplace.”

    Shares of the company opened about 2% lower.

    Despite the weak guidance, the sporting goods retailer posted its best holiday quarter on record. Its comparable sales rose 6.4%, far ahead of the 2.9% growth that analysts expected, according to StreetAccount. 

    Here’s how Dick’s did in its fiscal fourth quarter compared with what Wall Street was anticipating, based on a survey of analysts by LSEG:

    Earnings per share: $3.62 vs. $3.53 expected

    Revenue: $3.89 billion vs. $3.78 billion expected

    The company’s reported net income for the three-month period that ended Feb. 1 was $300 million, or $3.62 per share, compared with $296 million, or $3.57 per share, a year earlier.  

    Sales rose to $3.89 billion, up about 0.5% from $3.88 billion a year earlier. Like other retailers, Dick’s benefited from an extra week in the year-ago period, which has skewed comparisons. But unlike many of its peers, Dick’s still managed to grow both sales and profits during the quarter, even with one less selling week. 

    In the year ahead, Dick’s is expecting earnings per share to be between $13.80 and $14.40, well short of Wall Street estimates of $14.86, according to LSEG. It anticipates net sales will be between $13.6 billion and $13.9 billion, which at the high end is in line with estimates of $13.9 billion, according to LSEG. Dick’s expecting comparable sales to grow between 1% and 3%, compared with estimates of up 2.5%, according to StreetAccount. 

    The gloomy earnings outlook comes after a wide array of other retailers gave weak forecasts for the current quarter or the year ahead amid concerns about sliding consumer confidence and the impact tariffs and inflation could have on spending. Kohl’s also offered a weak outlook for the year ahead on Tuesday, leading its shares to plummet 15%.

    Some retailers blamed an unseasonably cool February for a weak start to the current quarter, but most recognized they’re also operating in a tough macroeconomic backdrop, and it’s harder than ever to forecast how consumers are holding up. In February, consumer confidence slid to its lowest levels since 2021, the jobs report came in weaker than expected and unemployment ticked up. Over the last few years, a strong job market has led many economists to brush away concerns about rising credit card delinquencies and debt, but those cracks could grow deeper if unemployment continues to rise. 

    On Monday, some of those concerns triggered a stock market sell-off, extending losses after the S&P 500 posted three consecutive negative weeks. The Nasdaq Composite saw its worst day since September 2022, while the Dow lost nearly 900 points and closed below its 200-day moving average for the first time since Nov. 1, 2023.

    Beyond the uncertain macroeconomic environment, Dick’s plans to invest more heavily in its “House of Sport” concept and e-commerce in the year ahead, which it also expects will weigh on profits. The massive, 100,000-square-foot stores are a growth area for the company and include features like rock climbing walls and running tracks. 

    In the year ahead, Dick’s plans to spend $1 billion on a net basis building 16 additional House of Sport locations and 18 Field House locations, which take some of the experimental elements of the House of Sport but fit it into the size of a traditional Dick’s store. 

    The strategy comes at a strong point for sports in the country, which is expected to be a tail wind for the business. The 2026 World Cup will be held in North America, women’s sports are more popular than ever, and consumers are increasingly focused on health and wellness. 

    “We’re going to have a moment here in the next three or four years, from a sports standpoint, that I think is going to put sport on steroids,” said Stack. “We’re going into a sports moment right now, and we are investing very heavily into that sports moment over the next several years because this is going to last through [2030] and maybe beyond.”

    — Additional reporting by CNBC’s Courtney Reagan.

    This post appeared first on NBC NEWS