Stock Market Warning Signs: Checking a Veteran Trader’s Bearish Case Against the Data as the Fed Weighs a Rate Hike

Last updated: July 29, 2026, 1:50 p.m. Eastern Time

The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed up 537.24 points on Tuesday, July 28, its best session in weeks, and almost none of the day’s real story was in that number. Sherwin-Williams jumped roughly 8% on a second-quarter beat and dragged the blue-chip index higher. Coca-Cola posted volume growth in every reporting segment. Meanwhile the Nasdaq Composite finished lower, semiconductors kept bleeding, and South Korea’s KOSPI had just fallen 10.8% in a single session. Two markets were trading inside one tape.

Into that split screen, four minutes before the closing bell, Fox Business host Liz Claman put a question to Todd “Bubba” Horwitz, the founder and chief strategist of BubbaTrading.com and a former market maker in the OEX pit at the Chicago Board Options Exchange: why had he turned bearish? His answer ran through six connected claims — rising long-term interest rates, mortgage costs at a high, zero-percent financing from homebuilders, entrenched inflation, a two-tier consumer economy showing up in grocery aisles, and a labor market whose participation numbers were, in his phrasing, in bad shape. He predicted a “major meltdown.” Claman told him on air she thought he was being hyperbolic.

The disagreement is worth taking seriously, because most of it can be settled with published data. This article does that work claim by claim, using Census Bureau housing releases, Bureau of Labor Statistics employment figures, Treasury Department yield data, Freddie Mac’s mortgage survey, Bain and NielsenIQ grocery scanner data, and company filings. Some of what Horwitz said is corroborated by the numbers in ways that deserve more attention than they have received. Some of it is imprecise. One claim — his most quotable, about a stock being down 90% — is materially off.

And there is a larger point the segment did not reach, which is arguably the most consequential thing happening in U.S. markets this week. The most important near-term risk in July 2026 is not that the Federal Reserve is powerless while the economy sours. It is that the Fed’s next move might be up. At 2:00 p.m. Eastern on Wednesday, July 29 — after this article’s research cutoff — the Federal Open Market Committee was scheduled to announce a decision that futures markets could not confidently handicap, with roughly a one-in-three implied probability of a quarter-point rate hike and an expectation of open dissent on the committee. That is not a normal setup, and it reframes nearly every claim made in the segment.

Key Takeaways

• The segment: Todd “Bubba” Horwitz, chief market strategist at Bubba Trading, told Fox Business’s “The Claman Countdown” on July 28, 2026 that markets face a “major meltdown,” citing rates, housing, inflation, the consumer and jobs, while naming Strategy (MSTR), MP Materials (MP) and Kimberly-Clark (KMB) as long positions he personally holds.
• Where the data backs him: U.S. grocery unit sales have contracted for five straight months, down about 1.8% year over year in June 2026 according to Bain and NielsenIQ; June payrolls rose just 57,000 with April and May revised down a combined 74,000; labor force participation fell to 61.5%, the lowest since March 2021; new-home inventory stands at 9.3 months of supply.
• Where the data does not: Headline CPI fell 0.4% in June, the largest monthly drop since April 2020, with core at 2.6% year over year. Coca-Cola’s global unit case volume rose 5% in the second quarter. Strategy shares are roughly 77% below their 52-week high, not 90%. And MP Materials set a fresh 52-week low on July 29, the day after Horwitz said it had found its bottom.
• The bigger risk: The 2-month Treasury yield spiked 13 basis points on July 23 to 3.95%, pricing in a July rate hike that would lift the target range to 3.75%–4.00%. Market-implied odds of a July hike roughly tripled in a week, from about 12.8% to about 37.9%.
• What comes next: The FOMC decision landed at 2:00 p.m. ET on July 29, after this article’s cutoff. Strategy reports second-quarter results on July 30, Kimberly-Clark on August 4, MP Materials on August 6, and the July employment report is due August 7.

What Actually Happened in Markets on July 28

Start with the tape, because the on-air numbers and the closing numbers were not the same. With four minutes left in the session, Claman read out a Dow up 576 points, the S&P 500 up 22 and the Nasdaq Composite down 31. By the bell, the Dow had settled at 52,747.32, a gain of 537.24 points or 1.03%. The S&P 500 added 0.21% to close at 7,428.78. The Nasdaq Composite slipped 0.22% to 24,876.91. Those closing figures, not the live quotes, are the record.

The Dow’s advance was concentrated and earnings-driven rather than broad. Sherwin-Williams reported second-quarter adjusted earnings of $3.70 per share on sales of $6.79 billion, against a consensus near $3.52, and lifted its full-year adjusted earnings guidance to a midpoint of about $12. The stock rose roughly 8% and paced the index — the single largest contributor to the day’s blue-chip gain. Coca-Cola reported revenue of $13.38 billion, up about 6% year over year, with global unit case volume up 5% and growth in every reporting segment. Coca-Cola Zero Sugar volume climbed 16%.

Underneath that, the technology complex was doing something else entirely. Semiconductor shares sold off after heavy overnight selling in Asia. The Philadelphia Semiconductor Index fell about 11% over the week and was down close to 24% from its late-June high, which is a bear market by the conventional definition. In Seoul, the KOSPI crashed 10.8% in one session and was down roughly 34% over 25 trading days, with SK Hynix and Samsung Electronics — together about half the index — falling harder than the average. Horwitz’s observation that the Nasdaq “had fallen 351 points earlier” before recovering most of it captured a genuine intraday reversal, not a quiet drift.

So the two indexes were telling different stories on purpose. Money was rotating out of semiconductors and into cyclicals, staples and industrials that report cash earnings today rather than promise them in 2029. Falling oil prices helped: West Texas Intermediate crude slipped about 1.8% to roughly $81.12 a barrel and Brent fell about 2.1% to roughly $86.47, as the United States and Iran paused direct military strikes to allow room for talks. That pause matters more than it sounds, and it recurs throughout this article, because the oil price is the transmission belt connecting a Middle East conflict to the Treasury curve to the mortgage rate to the Fed’s July decision.

The Bear Case, Stated Plainly

Stripped of the television format, Horwitz made six distinct assertions. Separating them matters, because they are not equally supportable and they do not all point the same direction.

1. The rate structure has moved against households. His framing: the fed funds rate is down roughly 100 basis points over the last couple of years while the 10-year Treasury note is up about 150 basis points. “Not a good deal for the consumer.”
2. Mortgage rates are at a high and homebuilders are in distress. His evidence: the return of 0% financing on new homes, which he read as builders “trying to pass the debt on to somebody else” because they have “too much inventory.”
3. Inflation is high. Stated as a premise rather than argued.
4. The economy is K-shaped, and the split now shows up in groceries. His evidence: grocery stores seeing weaker sales and less participation.
5. The labor market is deteriorating. His forecast: the coming jobs report “won’t be very good,” and the ratio of employed people to those who cannot find work is “in bad shape.”
6. The Nasdaq has broken key technical support, and speculative technology has already cracked. His evidence: lower-priced AI, computer and quantum stocks down 50% to 60%, which he called “the first warning sign.”

Alongside the bearish case he named three long positions — Strategy, MP Materials and Kimberly-Clark — and disclosed that he owns all three. That disclosure is standard practice and, to his credit, unprompted. It is also relevant context for evaluating the calls, and it is treated as such later in this article.

The claims are examined below in that order, against primary data where primary data exists.

Claim One: The Rate Math, Checked

Horwitz’s directional point is correct and important. His numbers are approximate, and the approximation runs in a direction that understates the more interesting half of the story.

What the policy rate has actually done

The federal funds target range currently sits at 3.50%–3.75%. The Fed arrived there through six quarter-point cuts: three between September and December 2024, and three more in September, October and December 2025. The December 2025 cut passed on a 9–3 vote, the most dissents since 2019, with then-Chair Jerome Powell citing labor market weakness as the larger of the two risks to the dual mandate. That was the last change. The July 28–29 meeting is the fifth consecutive gathering without a move.

Measured from the pre-cut peak of 5.25%–5.50%, the cumulative easing is 175 basis points, not 100. Measured over exactly two calendar years — July 2024 to July 2026 — it is also 175 basis points, because the first cut did not arrive until September 2024. Measured over the trailing twelve months, it is 75 basis points. There is no reasonable window in which the answer is 100. Horwitz was working from memory on live television, and the error is not consequential to his argument. But the actual figure strengthens rather than weakens his point: the Fed has eased a great deal, and long-term borrowing costs went up anyway.

What the long end has actually done

Claman’s on-air figure was accurate. The 10-year Treasury yield was trading near 4.6% during the segment, and it stood at roughly 4.63% on the morning of July 29. It closed July 24 at 4.69%, a 52-week high, after touching 4.71% on July 23. The 30-year Treasury yield has pushed above 5.1%, and the 20-year briefly exceeded it at 5.20% — both near multi-year highs. The 3-month bill yields about 3.95%.

Put those two facts side by side and Horwitz’s core observation stands: the Federal Reserve has cut its policy rate by 175 basis points since September 2024, and over roughly the same stretch the 10-year Treasury yield has climbed by approximately a full percentage point from its September 2024 trough near 3.6%. His “up 150 basis points” overstates the move somewhat depending on the starting point chosen, but the qualitative claim — that the curve has moved against borrowers even as the Fed eased — is exactly right, and it is the single most useful thing said in the segment.

Why the gap exists, and why it matters more than the level

Short rates are set by the FOMC. Long rates are set by whoever is willing to buy thirty-year paper, and those buyers have been repricing three things at once.

The first is inflation risk, specifically energy. The Iran conflict has repeatedly pushed crude higher, and the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget noted on July 21 that rates were rising across nearly every maturity despite easing inflation in the prior month — attributing the pressure partly to the conflict and partly to the debt trajectory.

The second is supply. Treasury issuance is enormous and growing. The CRFB calculated that if yields stayed 45 basis points above Congressional Budget Office projections across the curve through the decade, it would add roughly $1.7 trillion to the national debt, pushing debt to 124% of GDP by fiscal 2036 versus 120% under the CBO baseline, with annual interest costs reaching $2.4 trillion — nearly two and a half times their fiscal 2025 level. Bond buyers are being asked to absorb a larger stock of paper, and they are charging for it.

The third is the disappearance of forward guidance, which is discussed in detail later. When the Fed stops telling the market where policy is heading, the market has to price its own distribution of outcomes, and distributions carry term premium.

For a household, the mechanism is simple and unforgiving. The 30-year mortgage tracks the 10-year Treasury, not the fed funds rate. Anyone who assumed that Fed cuts would translate into cheaper home loans has spent two years being wrong. That is the “not a good deal for the consumer” that Horwitz was pointing at, and it is real.

Claim Two: Mortgage Rates, Zero-Percent Financing and the Inventory Glut

This is where Horwitz was closest to a genuine scoop and furthest from precise language, which is a frustrating combination. The underlying situation he described is real and underappreciated. The specific mechanism he named is not quite what is happening.

The mortgage rate is at a high, by two measures

Freddie Mac’s Primary Mortgage Market Survey put the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage at 6.58% for the week ended July 23, 2026, up from 6.55% the prior week and the highest reading in roughly eleven months — since August 2025. Claman’s on-air characterization was accurate. Daily trackers ran higher still: by July 22 the daily 30-year rate had reached about 6.77%, the highest in a year. The gap between the weekly survey average and the daily quote is normal and reflects timing, not disagreement.

The driver was not the Fed. It was the bond market’s inflation and debt anxiety, amplified by crude oil. Mortgage rates rose because the 10-year rose, and the 10-year rose because buyers demanded more compensation.

The 0% financing claim: directionally right, literally wrong

Horwitz said builders are offering 0% financing again. The evidence points to something adjacent but different, and the difference matters for interpreting builder health.

What builders are actually doing at scale is buying down mortgage rates — paying lenders upfront so the buyer’s note rate starts below market. This is now the industry’s primary incentive tool, not an exception. As of mid-2025, roughly 64% of new homes sold by the largest builders carried a permanent buydown, with an average discount around 1.3 percentage points. In Texas, combined builder incentives on new construction run roughly $10,000 to $35,000, with rate buydowns the largest component. In parts of Utah the packages run $15,000 to $60,000. Buyers are being handed rates in the mid-4% to low-5% range against a 6.58% market — a substantial subsidy, but not zero.

This matters for two reasons. First, calling it “0% financing” invites the reader to picture something more extreme than reality, which makes the claim easy to dismiss. Second — and this is the part worth keeping — Horwitz’s interpretation was sound. Buydowns are expensive, they are paid by the builder, and they are a margin transfer disguised as a price. Census Bureau median price data does not capture them at all, because it records the contract price. Builders do capture them in the average selling prices reported in their financial statements. The published median price of a new single-family home therefore overstates what builders are actually netting. His instinct — that the financing gimmickry is a symptom of inventory pressure rather than generosity — is correct.

The inventory data is the real story

Census Bureau data released July 24 makes the case better than the television version did. Sales of new single-family homes at all stages of construction fell 5.3% year over year in June, to 54,000 homes — the third consecutive month of annual declines, and 18% below June 2019. Inventory rose to 491,000 homes, also a third straight monthly increase, tracking the three-month surge in mortgage rates. At the current sales pace that is 9.3 months of supply.

The regional detail is starker than the national aggregate. In the South, which absorbed 67% of June’s sales, inventory sits at 300,000 homes — up 71% from June 2019 while sales are down about 8% over the same span. In the West, sales plunged 25% year over year to just 9,000 homes, down 50% from 2019. Midwest inventory jumped 8% year over year and 49% from 2019, to 55,000 homes, a 16-year high.

Prices are adjusting, slowly. The median price of a new single-family home sold in June was $398,300, down 2.7% year over year, 3.8% from two years ago, and 13.5% from the October 2022 peak. The three-month average median of $408,800 sits where it first stood in October 2021. And again: none of that includes the buydown cost.

The equity market has already voted. Since mid-September 2024, the largest homebuilders’ shares have fallen between roughly 23% (D.R. Horton) and 51% (Lennar), with Lennar having deliberately sacrificed gross margin to hold market share. PulteGroup is the exception, down about 3%. Taylor Morrison was acquired by Berkshire Hathaway this year. When a sector’s most aggressive discounter is also its worst-performing stock, the discounting is not a strategy — it is a response.

One more datapoint that did not come up on air but belongs here: the United States added roughly 1.51 million housing units, net of demolitions, over the trailing twelve months — enough shelter for about 3.5 million people — against population growth of 757,000. Vacant units continued to climb. That is the arithmetic behind the glut, and it does not resolve in a quarter.

Claim Three: Is Inflation Actually High?

Horwitz asserted high inflation as a given. It is the one claim in the segment that the most recent official data does not support in its simplest form — and the one where the timing of the data creates a genuine trap for anyone reading it casually.

The June consumer price index, released July 14, was unambiguously soft. The headline index fell 0.4% on a seasonally adjusted basis for the month, the largest monthly decline since April 2020. That brought the annual headline rate to 3.5%, below the roughly 3.8% Wall Street had expected. Core CPI, which excludes food and energy, was flat on the month, putting the twelve-month core rate at 2.6% — down from 2.9% in May and below a 2.9% consensus. The drivers were a large drop in energy prices and easing services costs, particularly shelter.

Read literally, that is a disinflation report, and a good one. Core at 2.6% is not far from the Fed’s 2% objective.

Read carefully, it is more complicated, and this is where the bearish framing recovers some ground.

First, the distinction between headline and core cuts both ways. Headline at 3.5% is what households actually pay, and it is 150 basis points above target. Core at 2.6% is what policymakers watch for signal. When energy is the swing factor and energy is being driven by a shooting conflict, the two measures can diverge violently and reverse within a single month.

Second, and decisively: the June CPI measured June. Crude oil moved sharply higher through July as Middle East supply disruptions resurfaced, and mortgage rates and Treasury yields moved with it. The June energy plunge that pulled headline CPI down is, at minimum, partially reversing in the July data due in mid-August. Bill Adams, chief U.S. economist at Fifth Third Commercial Bank, framed the Fed’s problem as a genuinely mixed picture: tame home prices and rent increases and the fading effects of the 2025 tariff hikes on one side; rebounding energy prices, new tariffs, AI-related pressure on electronics prices, and labor supply bottlenecks pushing up the cost of services like home health and nursing care on the other.

Third, the Fed’s own leadership does not describe inflation as solved. In congressional testimony, Chair Kevin Warsh said, “We’ve all looked around and we’ve seen that prices are too high,” and told lawmakers that committee members “have no tolerance for persistently elevated inflation.” At the June FOMC press conference he said, “Persistently high prices are a burden for the American people,” while adding that “the recent past need not be prologue.” Reuters summarized his testimony as reiterating that inflation was too high.

So the honest verdict on claim three is split. If “high inflation” means the most recent monthly print, Horwitz was wrong — June was the best inflation report in years. If it means the level households face, the composition of the recent improvement, and the direction of travel into August, he was closer to right than the June headline suggests. The strongest version of his argument is one he did not make: that the June softness was borrowed from an energy market that has since turned, and that the Fed knows it.

Claim Four: The K-Shaped Economy and the Grocery Aisle

This is Horwitz’s best claim, and the one that most deserved the airtime it did not get. The specific evidence he cited — grocery stores seeing weaker sales and “less participation buying groceries” — is corroborated by industry scanner data, and the corroboration is unusually clean.

What the grocery data shows

Research from Bain & Company using NielsenIQ scanner data found that U.S. grocery unit sales have declined roughly 2% year over year through the first half of 2026, with June units down about 1.8%. That marked the fifth consecutive month of volume contraction. Bain’s own framing was that the slowdown is “genuine volume contraction” — meaning shoppers are buying fewer physical items, not simply paying different prices.

The mechanism matters. For most of the post-2021 period, dollar sales in grocery held up because prices rose faster than volumes fell. That arithmetic has broken down. Since February 2026, rising grocery prices have no longer been sufficient to disguise shrinking basket sizes. When a category as inelastic as food shows five straight months of unit decline, the constraint is income, not preference.

Bain’s consumer survey put numbers on the behavior: about 80% of Americans reported still trying to spend less, and 28% said they were actively cutting back on grocery spending. Among that group, 56% were trading down to cheaper brands, 49% were buying fewer items outright, and 44% were leaning harder on coupons and promotions. “Less participation buying groceries” is an awkward phrase, but it describes something real.

The policy channel nobody mentioned

Part of what is showing up in the scanner data is not a business cycle signal at all. Participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program dropped sharply following benefit reductions and stricter eligibility rules enacted in late 2025 and early 2026. In early 2026, more than half of SNAP households across both older and younger cohorts reported a decline in monthly benefits. Numerator’s tracking found SNAP-household grocery spend falling from roughly $233 in early October to $210 within two weeks, staying suppressed before a partial mid-November rebound — a pattern that did not repeat the same period in 2024, suggesting the pullback was a reaction to policy rather than seasonality. Traffic among SNAP shoppers fell across retailers, with the steepest drops in convenience and e-commerce channels.

This is an important qualification in both directions. It means some of the grocery volume decline is a deliberate fiscal choice rather than an organic signal of consumer distress — which weakens the “the economy is in trouble” inference. It also means a specific, identifiable slice of the population is spending less on food because it has less money for food, which is precisely what a K-shaped economy looks like from the bottom leg.

The counter-evidence, which is substantial

Coca-Cola reported second-quarter global unit case volume up 5%, with every reporting segment growing. Sparkling soft drinks volume rose 4%, Coca-Cola Zero Sugar was up 16%, Diet Coke up 7%. The relaunch of Mr. Pibb drove that brand’s volume up 20%. Those are unit volumes, not dollars — the same metric that is contracting in grocery aggregate.

How can both be true? Partly channel mix: Coca-Cola sells through restaurants, convenience, vending and international markets, not just U.S. supermarkets, and international segments carried real weight in the quarter. Partly product mix: a $2.29 twenty-ounce bottle is a different purchase decision from a $9 package of chicken breasts. And partly it is a reminder that “the consumer” is not one entity. Over the prior two years Coca-Cola’s average quarterly volume growth was only about 1.5%, with the bulk of its roughly 7.6% average organic revenue growth coming from price. A 5% volume quarter against that baseline is a genuine acceleration and a genuine argument against blanket consumer pessimism.

What the credit data says

Household balance sheets tell a similarly bifurcated story, and the bifurcation is the point.

Credit card credit has been improving at the margin. The 60-plus-day delinquency rate across all credit cards eased to about 2.97% at the end of the first quarter of 2026, from 3.09% a year earlier. Among prime-rated cardholders it fell to roughly 0.94%. Total balances stood at about $1.25 trillion, with growth in balances running at the slowest year-over-year pace in more than a decade — which is itself ambiguous, reflecting either discipline or tightened credit availability.

Auto credit is a different animal. The subprime auto loan delinquency rate reached roughly 6.8% at the start of 2026 — the worst reading in 32 years, a record extending back to January 1994, and above the peak of the Great Recession. Prime auto delinquencies remain low. The distress is concentrated, severe and confined to a specific cohort.

That is a textbook K. The top leg pays down cards, buys the Zero Sugar, absorbs a $6.58% mortgage or does not need one. The bottom leg falls behind on a car note, cuts units at the supermarket, and loses SNAP benefits in the same twelve-month window. Aggregate data averages the two into a picture that looks merely soft. Both the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis and the Atlanta Fed have published work in 2026 examining whether the K-shape holds up in the microdata, and the Minneapolis analysis found that spending growth among high-income consumers has outpaced low-income consumers across total spending, grocery spending and spending on necessities alike — a widening of consumption inequality.

Horwitz used the phrase “K-shaped economy” almost in passing. It carried more of his argument than anything else he said.

Claim Five: The Labor Market and What “Participation” Really Means

Horwitz predicted the jobs report due “in a week” would not be good, and said the relationship between employed people and those who cannot find work is “in bad shape right now.” The July employment report is scheduled for release on Friday, August 7, so his forecast is not yet testable. The June report, however, is on the record, and it is the strongest quantitative support in the entire segment.

What June actually showed

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that nonfarm payrolls rose by 57,000 in June — well below consensus. Revisions took another 74,000 jobs out of the April and May figures combined. Net of revisions, the three-month picture was worse than a single soft month would suggest, which is the pattern that tends to precede a genuine turn rather than a weather-and-noise dip.

The unemployment rate ticked down to 4.2%. That improvement was not good news. It happened because both the labor force and the participation rate declined — the mechanical result of people leaving the count, not of people finding work. The labor force participation rate fell 0.3 percentage point to 61.5%, its lowest level since March 2021. The employment-population ratio edged down 0.2 percentage point to 59.0%.

Job gains were narrow. Private education and health services and professional and business services carried the number. Leisure and hospitality posted the largest losses — a discretionary-spending sector, which connects directly back to the K-shape discussion above.

Reading it correctly

A falling unemployment rate driven by falling participation is one of the most commonly misread statistics in economics, and Horwitz was pointing at exactly the right thing even if his phrasing was loose. “The participation of jobs versus people that can’t be employed” is not a defined statistic. What the June data shows is that the household survey and the establishment survey are both weakening, and that the headline unemployment rate is currently flattering the labor market rather than describing it.

Two cautions are warranted. First, a 61.5% participation rate is influenced by demographics — an aging population lowers participation mechanically, and a three-tenths drop in a single month is large enough to invite revision. Second, participation figures also reflect immigration policy changes, which alter the size of the working-age population independent of labor demand. A single month is not a trend, and the BLS itself cautions against over-reading month-to-month household survey movements.

Still, the combination — 57,000 jobs, 74,000 stripped from prior months, participation at a five-year low, losses concentrated in consumer-facing services — is a soft labor market by any reasonable standard. On this claim, the data is with Horwitz.

What to watch on August 7

The July employment situation report will be the first major data release after the FOMC’s July decision, and its significance depends entirely on what the Fed did on July 29. If the committee held with hawkish dissents, a weak July payroll number becomes the doves’ ammunition for September. If the committee hiked, a weak payroll number becomes the first evidence in the case that it hiked into a slowdown. Either way, the release matters more than a typical summer jobs report.

The specific figures worth watching: the payroll headline against consensus, the size and direction of revisions to May and June, whether participation stabilizes or falls further from 61.5%, and average hourly earnings — because a labor market that is shedding workers while wages accelerate is a very different problem for a Fed weighing a hike than one where both are cooling.

Claim Six: Broken Support, and the Speculative Wreckage Underneath the Nasdaq

Horwitz’s closing argument was technical: the Nasdaq has broken key support levels, lower-priced AI, computer and quantum names have lost 50% to 60%, and that is “usually the first warning sign.” He added the observation that “nobody pays attention to the warnings until they finally affect them, and then it’s too late.”

The transcript renders one of his terms as “quant stocks.” In context — grouped with AI and computer names, and describing 50% to 60% declines — he almost certainly meant quantum computing stocks, and the distinction is worth correcting because the quantum cohort is where the damage has been most extreme and most measurable.

The drawdowns are real, and larger than he said

IonQ, Rigetti Computing and D-Wave Quantum were all sitting 60% to 76% below their 52-week highs as of late July, having shed a further 17% to 20% in a single week. These are not gentle corrections. The same names had surged 300% to 600% or more in late 2025 and early 2026 on quantum-supremacy headlines, government mandates and research announcements, with essentially no commercial revenue to underwrite the moves. At the Quantum.Tech World Conference on July 3, Bank of America drew what one account described as a cold line: the industry still lacks commercially relevant algorithms and fault-tolerant hardware before broad quantum advantage can emerge.

The semiconductor complex, one tier up in quality, is also in a bear market. The Philadelphia Semiconductor Index fell roughly 11% in the week ended July 24 and was down close to 24% from its late-June record, satisfying the conventional 20% threshold. The Invesco QQQ Trust, tracking the Nasdaq-100, is more than 10% below its most recent record high — a correction by the standard definition. The June 2026 AI selloff alone wiped more than $1.3 trillion from semiconductor market value in a matter of days.

Overseas the damage has been worse. South Korea’s KOSPI fell 10.8% on July 28 and was down roughly 34% over 25 trading days, having previously spiked around 300%. SK Hynix and Samsung Electronics, which together account for roughly half the index, fell harder than the average. When memory manufacturers in the world’s most AI-levered equity index lose a third of their value in five weeks, the market is repricing the capital cycle, not the news flow.

The index math behind the divergence

The rotation is visible in the year-to-date scorecard. The S&P 500 is up roughly 8.3% year to date and sits about 2.6% below its record close from June 2. The Nasdaq Composite’s year-to-date total return is about 7.8%, trailing the S&P 500’s roughly 9% total return. That is a reversal from May, when the Nasdaq Composite had gained roughly 16% on a price basis year to date. The S&P 500 and the Dow are on track to beat the Nasdaq for the first time since 2022.

This is the strongest structural evidence for Horwitz’s technical case. Leadership is changing hands. The names that carried the index for three years are now the ones being sold, and the buying is going into paint companies and soft drinks.

Where the technical claim is weaker

Two objections deserve stating.

The first is that “broken key support levels” is not a falsifiable claim without specifying which levels. Horwitz named none, and the Nasdaq Composite closed July 28 at 24,876.91 — down 0.22% on the day, roughly 5.5% off its June peak, and well within the range of a normal drawdown for the index. The Nasdaq-100 is in a correction; the Composite is not. Precision would have helped him here.

The second is the historical record of the “first warning sign” thesis. It is true that speculative froth typically cracks before broad indexes do — the 2000 experience, where lower-quality internet names peaked months before the broad market, is the canonical case. It is also true that speculative cohorts crack routinely without dragging anything else down. Small-cap biotech, SPACs, meme stocks and unprofitable growth names have each collapsed 50%-plus in isolated episodes since 2021 while the S&P 500 made new highs. The base rate for “junk cracked, therefore the market cracks” is considerably below one.

What distinguishes 2026 from those episodes is capital intensity. The AI trade is not merely a valuation story; it is a physical capital expenditure story with counterparties. Orders for computer and electronic products, electrical equipment, machinery including power generation equipment, fabricated metals and core capital goods have all surged on data center construction. That spending is now large enough to show up in durable goods orders and, by extension, in GDP and in prices. When a capex cycle of that scale slows, the effect propagates through real supply chains rather than staying in the equity market. That is a legitimate reason to take the semiconductor bear market more seriously than a typical speculative unwind — and it is a better argument than the one Horwitz made.

The transports, which nobody discussed

Claman noted in passing that the Dow Jones Transportation Average was down 127 points on the session. Neither party picked it up, and it may be the most quietly bearish number on the board.

The transportation average is down more than 20% from a late-April intraday peak, with the closing drawdown approaching bear market territory. J.B. Hunt Transport Services and Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings have both warned about challenging freight conditions and weak pricing eroding margins. Rising diesel costs are squeezing truckers including Ryder, J.B. Hunt and Old Dominion, while higher jet fuel pressures the airline components. Under classical Dow Theory, industrials making highs without confirmation from transports is a non-confirmation — and on July 28 the industrials rose 537 points while the transports fell.

Dow Theory is an imperfect and much-abused framework, and its signals have produced false positives for a century. But the underlying economics are not mystical: freight volumes are a physical measure of goods moving through the economy, and freight has been weak while fuel costs have risen. That is a margin squeeze on the real economy, and it is consistent with the grocery volume data, the labor market softness and the housing glut. The transports were making Horwitz’s argument for him, and the segment moved on.

The Risk the Bear Case Underweights: The Fed May Be About to Hike

Everything above concerns whether the economy is weakening. That framing contains a hidden assumption — that if things get bad enough, the Federal Reserve rides in. In July 2026 that assumption is not safe, and the bond market has stopped making it.

A different kind of Fed

Kevin Warsh became the 17th Chair of the Federal Reserve on May 22, 2026, and has changed how the institution communicates more than what it has done. He has eliminated forward guidance. The policy statement is materially shorter than under his predecessor. He has been described as a hawkish-leaning pragmatist with strong convictions about the FOMC’s decision-making process, and he has explicitly taken Alan Greenspan as a model — fewer communications, markets left to their own devices, and the price stability mandate prioritized over the employment mandate.

He has also said the Fed would treat the bond market’s signals as a key input into policy. That is not a rhetorical flourish; it creates a feedback loop. If the Treasury market prices a hike, the Fed treats that pricing as information. If the Fed then hikes, the market’s pricing is validated. Neither party is anchoring the other, which is precisely why term premium has widened.

What the bond market said on July 23

The single most striking market event of the past week was not in equities. On July 23, the 2-month Treasury yield spiked 13 basis points in one session and 15 basis points across the week, closing at 3.95%. That is the yield whose maturity window is dominated by the July 28–29 FOMC meeting and effectively nothing else. At 3.95% it sits at the upper end of where the Fed’s target range would be after a 25 basis point hike — 3.75% to 4.00% — and roughly 32 basis points above the effective federal funds rate.

Buyers of two-month paper were demanding to be paid for a hike that had not been announced. The 3-month yield also rose to about 3.95%, but its window includes the September meeting, so it prices one hike at either meeting rather than two.

Wolf Richter, who flagged the move, put the question sharply: would a “surprise rate hike” at the July meeting still be a surprise if the bond market priced it a week in advance? He also noted the historical rarity — the Fed has not sprung a genuine surprise hike on markets in decades, arguably not since Greenspan’s intermeeting move in 1994, which opened a tightening cycle and produced one of the worst bond years on record.

The odds and the dissent

Market-implied probability of a July hike roughly tripled in a week, from about 12.8% to about 37.9%, driven primarily by the oil-price channel and its inflation implications. Heading into the decision, pricing sat near a 64% chance of a hold and a 36% chance of a hike — a genuinely unusual level of uncertainty a day before an FOMC announcement, where the number is typically above 90% one way or the other.

The committee itself is visibly divided. Dallas Fed President Lorie Logan has said she thinks rates should be “modestly” higher. Cleveland Fed President Beth Hammack has indicated support for higher rates to return inflation to the 2% goal. Minneapolis Fed President Neel Kashkari and Governor Christopher Waller have both made statements supportive of tighter policy should inflation persist. Economists’ base case going into July 29 was a hold with at least two dissents in favor of a hike, from Hammack and Logan. At the June meeting, Warsh’s colleagues were reported to be evenly split on whether to raise rates at all this year.

Bill Adams of Fifth Third framed the communications question precisely: if the committee or Warsh offer even an inkling of guidance, it would likely be that the choice between holding and hiking in September is data dependent. Under the no-guidance regime, even that much would count as a signal.

Why this reframes the entire bear case

Consider what each scenario does to Horwitz’s argument.

If the Fed held on July 29 with hawkish dissents, the setup is largely unchanged: long rates stay elevated, mortgage costs stay near 6.6%, the housing glut persists, and September becomes a live meeting. His bearish thesis survives intact but without the catalyst he described.

If the Fed hiked, several of his claims get worse in a hurry. Mortgage rates would face renewed upward pressure into an already-glutted new-home market. Long-duration equities — precisely the AI and quantum cohort already down 60% to 76% — would face further multiple compression. The subprime auto borrower already delinquent at a 32-year high would face tighter credit. And Strategy, one of his three long positions, is a leveraged bet on an asset that has historically been sensitive to real rates and dollar liquidity.

In other words, the correct bearish thesis in July 2026 is not “the economy is weakening so stocks fall.” It is “the economy is weakening and the Fed may tighten into it, because the inflation the Fed cares about is being generated by a war rather than by demand.” That is a genuinely uncomfortable configuration, and it is the one the market spent Tuesday afternoon trying to price. Horwitz was directionally bearish for reasons that were mostly about the consumer. The bond market was bearish for a reason that was about the central bank.

The Three Ideas: What Horwitz Is Actually Long

Having argued that the market faces a major meltdown, Horwitz named three stocks he owns and would buy. He framed the apparent contradiction himself: “Even though I’m bearish, stocks will find different times to bottom.” That is a defensible trading posture rather than a logical error. What follows examines each position against the filings and the tape.

Strategy Inc. (Nasdaq: MSTR): A Leveraged Bitcoin Vehicle in the Middle of Rewriting Its Own Rules

This was the most consequential call in the segment and the one with the most verifiable problems in how it was described.

The claim. Horwitz called Strategy — which he referred to by its former name, MicroStrategy — “Michael Saylor’s company,” said it had been “absolutely destroyed,” said it was “down 90% a year ago,” noted earnings were coming “tomorrow,” and said he thought it had “a chance to really pop.”

Three corrections. First, Michael Saylor is Strategy’s executive chairman, not its chief executive; Phong Le serves as president and chief executive officer. The company has been named Strategy since its 2025 rebrand. Second, the earnings date is Thursday, July 30, 2026, not Wednesday. Third, and most materially: Strategy shares are not down 90%. They closed July 28 at $96.16 and traded at $96.63 at 1:42 p.m. ET on July 29, up 0.49% on the session. Against a 52-week high of $414.36, that is a decline of roughly 77%. Against the record high near $545 cited by outside analysts, roughly 82%. Market capitalization stands at about $35.23 billion, down 68.3% year over year. These are catastrophic numbers. They are not 90%, and the difference between a 77% drawdown and a 90% drawdown is the difference between needing a 335% gain to recover and needing a 900% gain.

What the company has actually become. Strategy holds 843,775 bitcoin acquired for an aggregate purchase price of approximately $63.69 billion, according to its regulatory filing dated as of July 26, 2026. That works out to an average cost basis of roughly $75,500 per coin. Bitcoin traded at about $64,364 at 5:15 a.m. ET on July 29. The treasury is therefore underwater by roughly 15% on cost — a fact that would be an accounting curiosity for a company with an operating business, and is an existential variable for one whose operating business generates $490.47 million in trailing twelve-month revenue against a trailing net loss of $12.77 billion and trailing earnings per share of negative $43.01.

The doctrine has broken. The story that made Strategy famous was permanent accumulation — never sell. That is over, and it ended in the open. In July the company sold approximately $216 million of bitcoin. It subsequently sold 32 coins at $77,135 each specifically to fund preferred stock obligations. Management has disclosed that bitcoin sales are now a permanent feature of capital allocation, available to support dividends on its Variable Rate Series A Perpetual Stretch Preferred Stock, ticker STRC, and to strengthen corporate liquidity. Reuters covered the shift on July 13 as a development that “shone a spotlight” on the broader cohort of public crypto-hoarding companies.

The preferred stack is the real story. Total annual dividend obligations on Strategy’s preferred shares have quadrupled since the start of 2026, to roughly $1.2 billion. That is a fixed cash claim, payable in dollars, against a company whose assets are volatile and whose software business does not come close to covering it. To service it, Strategy has built a dollar reserve — $3.0 billion as of July 12, $3.225 billion as of July 19, and $3.75 billion as of July 26 — funded partly by a common stock sale of roughly $466.7 million completed in early July.

The market is charging for the risk. STRC preferred shares have fallen far enough to push yields as high as 16%, with retail holders openly worried about a dividend cut. Strategy has responded by buying back the preferred: 288,930 STRC shares repurchased for approximately $25 million at an average price near $86.52, alongside an announced ongoing buyback policy. Buying back a 16%-yielding perpetual below par is arithmetically the highest-return use of a marginal dollar available to the company — which is also a statement about how the market prices its other options.

The reflexivity problem. Here is the loop that makes Strategy different from a leveraged bitcoin ETF. Lower bitcoin prices increase the strain on the balance sheet. Increased strain raises the probability of asset sales to meet preferred obligations. Asset sales from the largest corporate holder of bitcoin add supply to a market already absorbing record spot ETF outflows. Additional supply pressures the price. The loop closes. Analysts have already calculated that the new playbook has consumed a meaningful share of the company’s bitcoin sale capacity.

The context is not encouraging for the underlying asset either. Bitcoin peaked at $126,272 on October 6, 2025 and has since fallen roughly 49%. Total assets under management across U.S. spot bitcoin ETFs have dropped about 30.5% since the start of 2026, from roughly $117 billion to about $81.3 billion, including a record outflow streak of approximately $4.4 billion over thirteen trading days spanning late May and early June, and roughly $8 billion over eight consecutive weeks. Horwitz said bitcoin “looks like it wants to break above 65,000.” As of the morning of July 29 it had not; $65,000 remains the level immediately overhead rather than a base underneath.

What the sell side says. The consensus rating across 15 analysts is Strong Buy with an average twelve-month price target of $303.64 — implying roughly 214% upside from the current quote. That spread between price and target is itself informative. Either the analyst community is anchored to a net-asset-value framework that the market has abandoned, or the market is mispricing the equity by a factor of three. Both are possible. Neither should be read as a forecast. Standard Chartered, for its part, said in July that recent bitcoin weakness reflected uncertainty over Strategy’s evolving approach rather than a broken thesis, and reiterated a $100,000 bitcoin forecast — a house view, not a consensus.

The honest read. Horwitz’s trade is a bet that a deeply distressed, high-beta instrument — Strategy’s five-year beta is 3.54 — pops on an earnings catalyst. That is a coherent short-term trade and he did not pretend otherwise. What the segment did not convey is that the equity is no longer a straightforward proxy for bitcoin. It is a claim on the residual value of a bitcoin portfolio after a $1.2 billion annual preferred dividend stack is serviced, in a company that has just abandoned the accumulation doctrine that defined it, five weeks into a purchase pause, one day ahead of a report that follows an $8.3 billion quarterly loss. Whether that is cheap depends entirely on the price of bitcoin, and nobody knows the price of bitcoin.

MP Materials Corp. (NYSE: MP): Right Thesis, Wrong Bottom

The claim. Horwitz said he likes MP Materials, “which is rare earth materials, which is right here in Vegas,” noted the stock had “sold off quite a bit,” and said he believed it had found its bottom.

The geography is correct. MP Materials was founded in 2017 and is headquartered in Las Vegas, Nevada, though its productive asset — the Mountain Pass rare earth mine and processing facility — sits across the state line in San Bernardino County, California. The company runs two segments: Materials, which owns Mountain Pass, and Magnetics, which produces NdPr metal and manufactures NdFeB permanent magnets. It employs 998 people.

The bottom call did not survive twenty-four hours. MP Materials traded at $39.18 at 11:53 a.m. ET on July 29, down 5.09% from the prior close of $41.28. That price is exactly the low end of its 52-week range of $39.18 to $100.25 — meaning that on the trading day after Horwitz said the stock had found its bottom, it made a fresh 52-week low. That is a factual observation about a short window, not a verdict on the thesis. It is also precisely the risk in calling bottoms on television.

Why the stock is where it is. Two forces are pulling in opposite directions, and the negative one has been winning.

On the constructive side, MP Materials is the closest thing the United States has to a vertically integrated rare earth champion outside China. It has struck arrangements involving the Department of War, Apple and General Motors. First-quarter 2026 results genuinely surprised: earnings of 3 cents per share on sales of $90.6 million, against Wall Street expectations for a 3-cent loss on roughly $75 million. Trailing twelve-month revenue of $347.57 million is up 60.9% year over year, off a 2025 base of $275.46 million that itself grew 35.1%. Policy support has been explicit — President Trump signed an executive order on July 20 making it harder for defense contractors to obtain waivers to buy critical minerals from China.

On the negative side, the company is not yet profitable, posting a trailing net loss of $71.19 million and a 2025 loss of $85.87 million, and the forward price-to-earnings multiple of roughly 154 embeds a great deal of future execution. China placed MP Materials on its export control list on June 22, 2026, as part of a retaliation package that added ten American industrial suppliers to export controls and excluded 46 U.S. companies from government procurement. And on July 27, Reuters reported that the administration’s push to end reliance on Chinese critical minerals by January was colliding with the reality that American miners and processors are not ready — raising the possibility that Washington will have to permit continued Chinese supply, which would undercut the scarcity premium in domestic producers’ valuations.

The sell side is cutting. Analyst targets have been falling steadily even as ratings stay positive — a pattern that usually signals estimate compression rather than thesis abandonment. JPMorgan analyst Bill Peterson lowered his target to $60 from $75 on July 29 while maintaining an Overweight rating. Barclays cut to $65 from $69. Deutsche Bank cut to $61 from $70 ahead of the second-quarter report. Morgan Stanley’s Carlos De Alba moved the other way, raising to $71.50 from $70. Needham initiated at Buy with an $81 target. The blended consensus across 18 analysts is Strong Buy with an average target of $77.78.

Notably, every one of those targets sits far above the current price, and the most recent revision — JPMorgan’s, on the day of publication — was a cut of $15. Second-quarter results are due after the close on Thursday, August 6, 2026.

The honest read. The strategic case for a Western rare earth magnet supply chain is strong and is being underwritten by U.S. policy. The equity case is a different question: it depends on NdPr pricing, on magnet capacity coming online on schedule, on whether Washington relaxes the January deadline, and on whether Beijing escalates further. Horwitz’s instinct that a heavily de-rated policy-supported asset is worth owning is reasonable. His specific timing call was contradicted by the tape the next morning.

Kimberly-Clark Corporation (Nasdaq: KMB): The Defensive Logic Is Sound, the “Breakout” Is Not Yet Visible

The claim. Horwitz argued that “consumer staples continue to be needed, no matter what’s going on,” said Kimberly-Clark “looks really good” and appeared “to be breaking out to the upside.” Claman noted the stock was “down about 10% this year.”

The logic is the strongest of the three. If the K-shaped consumer thesis from earlier in this article is correct, the businesses that survive it are the ones selling diapers, tissue, feminine care and incontinence products — Huggies, Pull-Ups, Goodnites, Kotex, Poise, Depend. Kimberly-Clark’s beta is 0.28, meaning the stock has historically moved with roughly a quarter of the market’s volatility. It yields 4.54% on an annual dividend of $5.12, paid quarterly at $1.28, and it is a Dividend Aristocrat. In a portfolio positioned for a downturn, this is the internally consistent holding.

The fundamentals are softer than the story. Kimberly-Clark’s 2025 revenue fell 2.13% to $16.45 billion, and earnings dropped 20.59% to $2.02 billion. Trailing twelve-month revenue of $16.56 billion is essentially flat, up 0.1%, with net income of $2.12 billion down 14.0% and earnings per share of $6.36 down 13.3%. The stock trades at about 17.7 times trailing earnings and 15.3 times forward earnings. This is a business defending share in low-growth categories against private label, not one compounding.

The portfolio is also mid-transformation, which cuts both ways. Kimberly-Clark is integrating its acquisition of Kenvue, the Tylenol maker spun out of Johnson & Johnson, and has contributed its international tissue business into a $3.4 billion joint venture with Brazilian pulp producer Suzano. That venture launched as an independent company, Arbex, on July 1, 2026. Britain’s Competition and Markets Authority declined to refer the joint venture for an in-depth review on May 28, and the deal was reported to be on track for unconditional EU antitrust approval. Management, led by chairman and chief executive Mike Hsu and chief financial officer Nelson Urdaneta, has told investors the Kenvue integration is progressing and is targeting meaningful cost and revenue synergies. Integration risk on a transaction of that size is real, and synergy targets are management guidance, not results.

The “breakout” is not what the chart shows. Kimberly-Clark traded at $112.91 at 11:49 a.m. ET on July 29, down 0.16%, against a 52-week range of $92.42 to $137.46. That is roughly 22% above the low and roughly 18% below the high — the middle of the range, not a breakout to new highs. What is fair to say is that the stock has recovered off its low and that the sell side has been marking targets up: Barclays raised to $115 from $101 with an Equal Weight rating, UBS to $115 from $106 at Neutral, Wells Fargo’s Chris Carey to $110 from $100 at Equal Weight, and Piper Sandler to $121 from $115 with an Overweight. The consensus across 16 analysts is Hold, with an average target of $117.00 — about 3.6% above the current price. That is the sell side saying “fairly valued,” not “breaking out.”

Claman’s “down about 10% this year” was her characterization on air and is not independently verified here. Second-quarter results are scheduled for Tuesday, August 4, 2026.

The disclosure, and why it matters

Horwitz said plainly: “I do own all three of those.” He volunteered it, which is more than many television guests do, and it is the correct practice.

It is also information the viewer should use. A guest who owns a position and discusses it on national television has an interest in the audience’s reaction to that discussion. This does not imply anything improper; it is simply why disclosure exists. The appropriate response is not to discount the ideas but to verify them independently — which, in the case of a stock described as “down 90%” that is down 77%, and a stock described as having “found the bottom” that made a new 52-week low the following morning, turns out to matter.

Where the Bear Case Is Strongest

Four of Horwitz’s observations hold up under scrutiny, and three of them are not widely discussed.

The rate structure has genuinely moved against households. The Fed has cut 175 basis points since September 2024 and the 10-year Treasury yield has risen by roughly a percentage point over the same period. Mortgage rates are at an eleven-month high. The transmission channel that most people assume exists — Fed cuts, borrowing gets cheaper — has been broken for two years, and there is no mechanical reason it must repair itself. If the term premium is being driven by fiscal supply and geopolitical inflation risk rather than by expected policy, then further Fed easing would not fix long rates and might make them worse.

Grocery volume contraction is a serious signal. Five consecutive months of unit declines in the most inelastic consumer category in the economy is not a soft patch. It is a budget constraint binding. Some of it traces to SNAP benefit reductions rather than the business cycle, which is a real qualification — but a policy-induced income shock to low-income households is still an income shock, and it still shows up in demand.

The labor market’s headline is flattering it. A 4.2% unemployment rate that fell because participation dropped to a five-year low, on top of 57,000 payrolls and 74,000 of downward revisions, with losses concentrated in leisure and hospitality, is a weak report dressed as a decent one. Horwitz was right to distrust the headline.

The housing glut is structural, not cyclical. Inventory of 491,000 new single-family homes against 54,000 in monthly sales is 9.3 months of supply. Southern inventory is 71% above 2019 levels while sales are 8% below them. The country is adding roughly twice as many housing units as it needs for population growth. Prices have already fallen 13.5% from the 2022 peak before counting buydown subsidies, and homebuilder equities have fallen 23% to 51% since September 2024. This does not clear in two quarters, and rising mortgage rates make it worse.

Where the Bear Case Is Weakest

The inflation claim was wrong on the most recent data. June CPI fell 0.4% month over month, the largest decline since April 2020, with core at 2.6% year over year and both readings below consensus. Asserting “high inflation” two weeks after that print, without acknowledging it, is the kind of shortcut that costs an argument credibility even when the underlying concern is legitimate.

Corporate earnings are not cooperating with the meltdown thesis. Sherwin-Williams beat and raised full-year guidance to a roughly $12 midpoint. Coca-Cola grew volume 5% with every segment up. Those are two Dow components in cyclical and consumer-facing businesses reporting acceleration, not deterioration, in the same week Horwitz forecast a major meltdown. Sherwin-Williams did note there had been “no meaningful improvement in demand,” which is a fair caveat — but a company beating estimates and raising guidance into weak demand is demonstrating pricing power and cost control, which is the opposite of a margin collapse.

“Major meltdown” is not a forecast. It has no magnitude, no timeframe and no invalidation level. A prediction that cannot be wrong cannot be scored. Horwitz has made similar directional calls in other venues, and the discipline that separates a useful bearish view from a permanent one is specifying what would change your mind.

Two of the three stock calls contained verifiable errors. The 90% figure on Strategy overstates a 77% drawdown by a wide margin. The bottom call on MP Materials was contradicted by a fresh 52-week low the next morning and a $15 target cut from JPMorgan on the same day. Neither error invalidates the underlying reasoning. Both should have been caught.

The market internals cut both ways. Yes, the Nasdaq-100 is in a correction and semiconductors are in a bear market. But the S&P 500 sits about 2.6% below a June record and is up roughly 8.3% year to date. A rotation from expensive technology into cheaper cyclicals is a functioning market reallocating capital, and it is a materially different phenomenon from a broad de-rating. The Dow’s 537-point advance on the day of the segment was itself evidence of the rotation, not evidence against it — but it does mean money is moving within equities rather than out of them.

Historical Comparison: What “Warning Signs” Have and Have Not Predicted

Horwitz’s framework — speculative excess cracks first, then the broad market, then the economy — has an honorable history and a mixed record.

The strongest precedent is 2000. Unprofitable internet companies peaked in the first quarter of that year and were down 60% to 90% while the S&P 500 was still within a few percent of its high. Breadth deteriorated for months before the index broke. Anyone who took the froth’s collapse as a leading signal was early and eventually correct.

The counterexamples are more numerous. In 2014 and 2015 the energy complex collapsed, high-yield credit widened dramatically, and the S&P 500 went sideways rather than down. In 2021 and 2022 the SPAC and unprofitable-growth cohort fell 70% to 90% starting in February 2021, and the S&P 500 made new highs for another ten months before turning. In 2018 the crypto complex lost roughly 80% while equities set records into September. The pattern “junk cracked, therefore the index cracks” fires far more often than the index actually cracks.

What distinguishes each true signal from each false one is generally not the size of the speculative drawdown but whether the credit and capital-spending channels are implicated. In 2000 they were: telecom capex collapsed and took real investment with it. In 2021 they were not: the SPAC unwind touched almost no bank balance sheets.

By that test, 2026 looks more like the dangerous version than the benign one. The AI trade is a physical capital expenditure cycle, not merely a valuation phenomenon. Data center construction has pushed up orders for computer and electronic products, electrical equipment, machinery including power generation equipment, fabricated metals and core capital goods — all of which surged in the most recent durable goods report. That spending has become large enough to move the economy and, more awkwardly for the Fed, large enough to put upward pressure on prices for electronics and power. A slowdown in that cycle would propagate through real supply chains and real employment, not just through portfolios.

There is a second historical parallel worth naming, and it belongs to the Fed rather than to the equity market. In February 1994, Alan Greenspan’s Fed raised rates without preparing markets, and the resulting bond rout was among the worst on record. Warsh has explicitly taken Greenspan’s communications posture as a model and has dismantled forward guidance. The two-month Treasury market began pricing a hike on July 23. Whatever the July 29 decision turned out to be, the structural condition — a central bank that will not signal, in a market that must therefore guess — is one that historically produces larger moves in both directions.

The Risks Worth Watching, Ranked by Materiality

• Policy tightening into a slowdown. The core risk. If oil-driven inflation forces the Fed to hike while payrolls run at 57,000 a month, both mandates deteriorate simultaneously and there is no clean policy response.
• Energy and the Iran conflict. The pause in direct U.S.–Iran military strikes that pushed crude lower on July 28 is a pause, not a settlement. Shipping risk through the Strait of Hormuz and Red Sea disruption remain live. Every dollar of crude flows into headline CPI, into the 10-year, and into the mortgage rate.
• The AI capital expenditure cycle. A semiconductor index down 24% from its June high, a 10.8% single-day crash in Korea, and $1.3 trillion of semiconductor market value erased in June together suggest the market is repricing the durability of data center spending. Amazon, Meta, Apple and Microsoft all reported in the same week, and their capital expenditure commentary matters more than their earnings per share.
• Long-end Treasury supply. Debt is roughly $6 trillion larger than during the last serious yield scare. In that episode the 10-year reached 5% before demand appeared. There is no guarantee 5% clears the market this time.
• Housing inventory absorption. 9.3 months of supply, rising mortgage rates and builder margins already compressed by buydowns. Further rate increases extend the adjustment rather than accelerating it.
• Concentrated household credit stress. Subprime auto delinquency at a 32-year high. Prime credit is fine. The risk is that the stress migrates upward if unemployment rises from 4.2%.
• Rare earth policy reversal. If Washington permits continued Chinese critical mineral supply because domestic capacity cannot meet the January 2027 deadline, the scarcity premium embedded in U.S. rare earth equities compresses.
• Digital asset treasury reflexivity. Strategy’s shift to permanent bitcoin sales, combined with record spot ETF outflows and a $1.2 billion annual preferred obligation, creates a mechanical seller in a market with thinning bid support.
• Freight and transport margins. The Dow transports down more than 20% from their April peak, with carriers warning on pricing while diesel and jet fuel costs rise.

What Happened After the Segment Aired

The segment was published by Fox Business at 6:29 p.m. Eastern on July 28, 2026. The following developments occurred between then and this article’s research cutoff of 1:50 p.m. Eastern on July 29.

MP Materials fell 5.09% to $39.18 by late morning, setting a fresh 52-week low and directly contradicting the bottom call. JPMorgan analyst Bill Peterson cut his price target on the stock to $60 from $75 while maintaining an Overweight rating.

Strategy traded modestly higher at $96.63, up 0.49%, ahead of its July 30 earnings report. Bitcoin was quoted at approximately $64,364 at 5:15 a.m. ET, below the $65,000 level Horwitz identified as the immediate objective, and roughly 49% below its October 2025 record of $126,272.

Kimberly-Clark opened lower at $110.90, traded as low as $110.06, and recovered to $112.91 by late morning, down 0.16% from the prior close.

The 10-year Treasury yield stood at roughly 4.63%, a few basis points below its July 24 close of 4.69%.

And at 2:00 p.m. Eastern — after this article’s cutoff — the FOMC was scheduled to release its decision, with Chair Warsh’s press conference following at 2:30 p.m. Estimates of the probability of a rate increase varied meaningfully by source and by date, ranging from roughly 12.8% earlier in July to approximately 36% to 38% after the July 23 move in short-dated Treasuries, with some futures-derived readings continuing to show a high likelihood of no change. That dispersion is itself the story: a day before an FOMC meeting, the market did not know.

What Happens Next: The Confirmed Calendar

Who Todd Horwitz Is, and Why It Matters for Reading the Call

Context on the source is not a courtesy; it is part of the evidence.

Horwitz began trading in 1980 as one of the original market makers in the OEX options pit at the Chicago Board Options Exchange. He has traded at the major Chicago exchanges across a career approaching four decades and is a member of the Chicago Board of Trade. He founded BubbaTrading.com, where he serves as chief strategist overseeing market content, product development and trade ideas, and he hosts a daily podcast. He appears regularly on Fox, CNBC, BNN, Kitco and Bloomberg, and he has spent roughly eight years working as a trading educator and mentor.

Two things follow from that biography.

The first is that Horwitz is a floor-trained options and futures trader, not an equity analyst or an economist. That background produces a particular kind of expertise: pattern recognition on price and volatility, sensitivity to positioning and liquidity, and a healthy instinct for when a market’s internal behavior has changed. It is exactly the training that would make someone notice that low-quality technology names had lost 60% while the index was near a high, and treat that as information. It is not the training that produces precise recall of a company’s drawdown percentage or the Federal Reserve’s cumulative easing in basis points. The pattern of what he got right and what he got wrong in this segment maps closely onto that distinction.

The second is that Horwitz’s public commentary has a directional lean. He has been quoted elsewhere warning of a coming collapse and has publicly discussed the possibility of a 40% to 60% stock market decline. A viewer encountering him for the first time on July 28 would reasonably assume the bearish turn was new information. It is more accurate to describe it as a consistent posture that happened to align with a week of deteriorating market internals. That does not make the analysis wrong — permanent bears are occasionally right, and being right during the episodes that matter is worth a great deal. It does mean the appropriate weight to place on “he turned bearish” as a signal is lower than the framing of the segment implied.

None of this is a criticism of Horwitz personally. Television books guests who will say something definite in four minutes, and a career floor trader who will make a call is more useful to an audience than an economist who will not. The obligation runs the other way: the viewer’s job is to take the observations, discard the framing, and check the numbers. That is what this article has attempted.

The Policy Backdrop the Segment Did Not Have Time For

Four minutes of airtime cannot cover the fiscal and trade environment shaping every variable discussed above. It is worth sketching, because several of the pressures on rates and prices originate in Washington rather than in the business cycle.

Tariffs have been rebuilt on a different legal foundation. On July 23, 2026, the administration announced final action imposing tariffs of 10% to 12.5% on certain imports from 60 economies, in response to what it characterized as those countries’ failure to impose and enforce reciprocal measures. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget calculated that Section 301 and Section 338 tariffs replace less than 60% of the revenue lost from the earlier tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Two things follow: the fiscal hole is larger than the headline tariff rate suggests, and the goods-price impulse from tariffs continues even as the 2025 round fades from the year-over-year comparisons. Adams at Fifth Third listed new tariffs explicitly among the forces pushing prices up.

Fiscal governance has been disorderly. A partial government shutdown ran from February 14 until April 30, 2026, ending when the House passed a Department of Homeland Security funding bill. Congress is now working through a fiscal 2027 budget resolution that the CRFB estimated would allow more than $100 billion of new debt. For the Treasury market, the operative fact is not any single bill but the trajectory: the debt stock is roughly $6 trillion larger than it was during the last serious yield scare, and interest costs are on track to become the second-largest line item in the federal budget. That is what bond buyers are pricing when they demand 5.17% for thirty-year money.

Energy is a geopolitical variable, not a commodity variable. The U.S.–Iran conflict has been the dominant driver of both the July rate move and the July inflation risk. Crude fell on July 28 specifically because the two governments paused direct military strikes to create room for diplomacy. Capital.com senior market analyst Daniela Hathorn described markets as “far from pricing out the conflict entirely,” citing shipping risk through the Strait of Hormuz and continuing Red Sea disruption as upside risks to energy prices should negotiations deteriorate. Gold futures traded around $4,087 an ounce and silver around $57.45 on the morning of July 28, both down on the session as the risk premium unwound modestly.

Critical minerals policy is colliding with capacity. The administration’s target of ending reliance on Chinese critical minerals by January is, per Reuters reporting on July 27, running into the fact that American miners and processors are not ready. Trump signed an executive order on July 20 tightening the waiver rules that allow defense contractors to source materials from China. China retaliated on June 22 by adding ten U.S. industrial suppliers — MP Materials among them — to its export control list and excluding 46 U.S. companies from government procurement. This is the policy environment in which MP Materials trades, and it explains why the stock can be simultaneously a national priority and a fresh 52-week low.

AI infrastructure has become a macroeconomic force. Data center construction is now large enough to move national statistics. Orders for computer and electronic products, electrical equipment and components, machinery including power generation equipment, fabricated metals products and core capital goods all surged in the most recent durable goods report. Adams named AI-related pressure on electronics prices as one of the inflationary forces the FOMC must weigh. A separate Google study found AI being used in 68% of occupations representing 88% of U.S. employment, largely augmenting rather than replacing workers — which complicates the simplest version of both the AI-productivity story and the AI-job-loss story. The relevant point for markets is narrower: an investment boom of this scale is simultaneously supporting GDP and making the Fed’s inflation problem harder, which is the least convenient combination available.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did Todd Horwitz say about the stock market on July 28, 2026?

Appearing on Fox Business’s “The Claman Countdown,” the Bubba Trading chief market strategist said markets face “a lot of problems” and predicted “a major meltdown.” He cited rising long-term interest rates against a lower fed funds rate, mortgage rates at a high, homebuilders offering 0% financing to move excess inventory, high inflation, a K-shaped economy showing up in weaker grocery sales, and deteriorating labor force participation. He also said the Nasdaq had broken key support and that lower-priced AI, computer and quantum stocks had already fallen 50% to 60%.

Was he right about the stock market warning signs?

Partly. The grocery volume contraction, the weak June jobs report, the housing inventory glut and the divergence between the falling policy rate and the rising 10-year Treasury yield are all supported by published data. His inflation claim conflicts with the June CPI report, which showed a 0.4% monthly decline and core inflation at 2.6% year over year. His characterization of Strategy as “down 90%” overstated a roughly 77% drawdown from the 52-week high, and MP Materials made a fresh 52-week low the morning after he said it had bottomed.

What did the Federal Reserve decide at the July 2026 meeting?

The FOMC’s decision was scheduled for 2:00 p.m. Eastern on Wednesday, July 29, 2026, with Chair Kevin Warsh’s press conference at 2:30 p.m. That is after this article’s research cutoff of 1:50 p.m. Eastern, so the outcome is not reported here. Entering the meeting, the federal funds target range was 3.50% to 3.75%, unchanged since December 2025. Estimates of the probability of a quarter-point increase varied by source, running from roughly 12.8% earlier in July to approximately 36% to 38% after the July 23 spike in short-dated Treasury yields. Economists’ base case was a hold with dissents in favor of a hike.

Why would the Fed raise rates when the economy is slowing?

Because the inflation the Fed is worried about is being generated partly outside the domestic demand cycle. Rising crude oil prices tied to the conflict with Iran, new tariffs, AI-related pressure on electronics prices, and labor supply bottlenecks in services are all pushing prices up independently of how many jobs the economy is creating. A central bank prioritizing price stability, as Warsh has said he does, can face a situation where tightening is warranted on the inflation mandate even as the employment mandate weakens. That combination is what makes July 2026 unusual.

How high are mortgage rates right now?

Freddie Mac’s Primary Mortgage Market Survey put the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage average at 6.58% for the week ended July 23, 2026, up from 6.55% the prior week and the highest reading in about eleven months. Daily trackers reached roughly 6.77% on July 22. Mortgage rates follow the 10-year Treasury yield, which stood near 4.63% on July 29, rather than the Federal Reserve’s policy rate.

Are homebuilders really offering 0% financing?

Not literally, based on available evidence. The dominant builder incentive in 2026 is the mortgage rate buydown, in which the builder pays lenders upfront to lower the buyer’s note rate. As of mid-2025, roughly 64% of new homes sold by the largest builders carried a permanent buydown averaging about 1.3 percentage points of rate reduction. Combined incentive packages run roughly $10,000 to $35,000 in Texas and $15,000 to $60,000 in parts of Utah. The economic substance of Horwitz’s point — that builders are subsidizing financing because they are carrying too much inventory — is supported by Census Bureau data showing 9.3 months of supply.

Why is Strategy (MSTR) stock down so much?

Strategy holds 843,775 bitcoin at an average cost near $75,500 per coin, against a bitcoin price around $64,364 on July 29 — leaving the treasury roughly 15% underwater. Bitcoin itself is down about 49% from its October 2025 record of $126,272. Compounding that, annual dividend obligations on the company’s preferred shares have quadrupled since January to roughly $1.2 billion, and the company has abandoned its long-standing pledge never to sell bitcoin, disclosing that sales are now a permanent part of capital allocation. Shares traded at $96.63 on July 29 against a 52-week high of $414.36.

When does Strategy report second-quarter earnings?

Thursday, July 30, 2026. Investors will be focused on the pace and policy of bitcoin sales, coverage of the roughly $1.2 billion preferred dividend obligation, the trajectory of the company’s U.S. dollar reserve — which stood at $3.75 billion as of July 26 — and any change to the five-week pause in bitcoin purchases.

Why did MP Materials stock fall?

MP Materials dropped 5.09% to $39.18 on the morning of July 29, a fresh 52-week low. JPMorgan analyst Bill Peterson cut his price target to $60 from $75 the same day while keeping an Overweight rating. The stock has been pressured by China’s addition of the company to its export control list on June 22, by Reuters reporting on July 27 that the U.S. may need to permit continued Chinese mineral imports because domestic capacity cannot meet a January deadline, and by a forward price-to-earnings multiple above 150 that leaves little room for execution delay. Second-quarter results are due after the close on August 6.

Is Kimberly-Clark a defensive stock?

By the conventional measures, yes. Its beta of 0.28 implies roughly a quarter of the market’s volatility, it yields about 4.54% on a $5.12 annual dividend, and it sells consumer staples with inelastic demand. The fundamentals are less flattering: 2025 revenue fell 2.1% and earnings fell 20.6%, and trailing net income is down 14.0%. Analysts rate it Hold with an average target of $117.00 against a July 29 price of $112.91. It trades near the middle of its 52-week range of $92.42 to $137.46, not at a breakout. Second-quarter results are due August 4.

What is a K-shaped economy, and is the U.S. in one?

A K-shaped economy is one in which higher-income households continue to gain while lower-income households fall behind, so that aggregate statistics average two divergent experiences into one misleading number. The evidence in 2026 is substantial: research from the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis found spending growth among high-income consumers outpacing low-income consumers across total spending, grocery spending and necessities alike. Subprime auto delinquencies hit a 32-year high while prime credit card delinquencies improved. U.S. grocery unit sales contracted for five straight months even as Coca-Cola reported 5% volume growth. Some analysts now argue the pattern is flattening into an “L” as even higher-income households trade down.

What should investors watch next?

The Federal Reserve’s July 29 statement language and the number and identity of dissenters; capital expenditure guidance from Amazon, Meta, Apple and Microsoft, which drives the semiconductor complex; Strategy’s July 30 report; the July employment report on August 7, particularly the revisions and the participation rate; and the July consumer price index in mid-August, which will show whether the energy rebound reversed June’s decline. Beyond the calendar, the single most informative real-time indicator is the 10-year Treasury yield, because it sets mortgage rates, discounts equity valuations and reflects the market’s judgment on both inflation and the debt.

Final Assessment

Todd Horwitz went on national television the afternoon before one of the least predictable Federal Reserve meetings in years and said the market was flashing warning signs. Checked against the data, he was substantially right about four things, wrong about one, imprecise about two, and — most interestingly — bearish for reasons that were mostly the wrong ones.

The four he got right matter. Long-term borrowing costs have risen through 175 basis points of Fed easing, which breaks the mechanism most investors assume protects them. Grocery unit volumes have contracted for five consecutive months, which does not happen in a healthy consumer economy. The June labor report added 57,000 jobs, revised away 74,000 more, and produced a lower unemployment rate only because participation fell to a five-year low. And the new-home market is carrying 9.3 months of inventory into rising mortgage rates while builders quietly subsidize financing to move it. Those are not sentiment observations. They are published measurements, and collectively they describe an economy where the bottom half is contracting while the aggregate looks merely soft.

What he got wrong is smaller but instructive. June inflation was the best print in years — a 0.4% monthly decline in headline CPI and core at 2.6% — and asserting high inflation without engaging that is the kind of shortcut that lets a listener dismiss a good argument. Strategy is down roughly 77% from its 52-week high, not 90%. MP Materials had not found a bottom; it made a new 52-week low the next morning while JPMorgan cut its target by $15.

The more important gap is conceptual. Horwitz built a bear case around consumer and labor deterioration, which implicitly assumes that if conditions worsen enough, the Federal Reserve responds. In July 2026 that assumption is unsafe. Kevin Warsh has dismantled forward guidance, prioritized price stability over employment, and told markets he will treat bond market signals as policy input. On July 23 the two-month Treasury yield spiked 13 basis points to 3.95% — a level consistent with a target range of 3.75% to 4.00% — and market-implied odds of a July hike roughly tripled inside a week. Dallas Fed President Lorie Logan has said rates should be modestly higher; Cleveland’s Beth Hammack has argued the same. The genuinely uncomfortable configuration is not a weakening economy. It is a weakening economy in which the central bank may tighten anyway, because the inflation it fears is coming from a war rather than from demand.

Against that, the constructive case is real and should not be waved away. The S&P 500 sits about 2.6% below a June record and is up roughly 8.3% year to date. Sherwin-Williams beat and raised guidance. Coca-Cola grew volume 5% in every segment. Credit card delinquencies improved. The rotation out of semiconductors and into cyclicals is a market allocating capital rather than fleeing it, and rotations of that kind have historically been healthier than the alternative. A semiconductor bear market alongside a stable broad index is a description of leadership changing hands, which is uncomfortable but not the same thing as a meltdown.

What remains genuinely unknown is narrow and consequential: what the FOMC decided at 2:00 p.m. on July 29, how many governors and presidents dissented, whether Warsh offered any signal about September, and whether crude oil resumes climbing if the U.S.–Iran pause fails. Those four variables will determine more about the next two quarters than any consumer survey.

The most useful thing to take from the segment is not the meltdown call. It is the observation buried inside it: the Federal Reserve cut, and borrowing got more expensive anyway. Everything downstream of that — the housing glut, the buydowns, the compressed builder margins, the de-rating of long-duration technology, the pressure on a leveraged bitcoin treasury company — follows from a bond market that has stopped taking the central bank’s word for it. Whether that resolves calmly depends on inflation, on the deficit, and on a conflict in the Persian Gulf. It does not depend on whether anyone was bullish or bearish on a Tuesday afternoon.

Sources

• Fox Business, “Markets are sending some warning signs, expert says,” The Claman Countdown, July 28, 2026
• TheStreet, Stock Market Today live coverage, July 28, 2026
• Sherwin-Williams Form 8-K, second quarter 2026 earnings release, SEC EDGAR
• The Sherwin-Williams Company reports 2026 second quarter financial results
• Benzinga, “Sherwin-Williams Tops Q2 Despite ‘No Meaningful Improvement in Demand'”
• CNBC, Coca-Cola second quarter 2026 earnings
• Federal Reserve, FOMC statement, June 17, 2026
• Federal Reserve, FOMC minutes, June 16–17, 2026
• Federal Reserve, Monetary Policy Report to Congress, July 2026
• CNBC, July 2026 FOMC meeting live coverage
• Fortune, on divisions inside the FOMC ahead of the July 2026 meeting
• Wolf Street, “Bond Market Just Flipped to ‘Rate Hike in July’,” July 23, 2026
• Wolf Street, on long-term Treasury yields, inflation and new debt, July 25, 2026
• Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, “The 10-year Treasury Yield Eclipsed 4.6%,” July 21, 2026
• Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, on Section 301 and 338 tariffs replacing IEEPA revenue
• Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, 10-Year Treasury Constant Maturity Rate (DGS10)
• Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, 30-Year Fixed Rate Mortgage Average (MORTGAGE30US)
• Freddie Mac, Primary Mortgage Market Survey
• Fox Business, Freddie Mac 30-year fixed mortgage rate reaches 11-month high
• Wolf Street, on daily mortgage rates reaching 6.77%, July 22, 2026
• Wolf Street, analysis of Census Bureau June 2026 new residential sales data
• Wolf Street, on growth of the vacant housing stock, July 28, 2026
• American Enterprise Institute, on permanent rate buydowns and new home prices
• Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Situation Summary, June 2026
• Bureau of Labor Statistics, The Employment Situation — June 2026 (full release)
• CNBC, June 2026 jobs report coverage
• Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, “Unemployment Falls, Job Growth Slows in June”
• CNBC, June 2026 consumer price index report
• CBS News, June 2026 CPI report coverage
• Bain & Company, “The US Grocery Slowdown Is Real”
• Grocery Dive, on grocery volumes contracting for a fifth consecutive month
• CNBC, U.S. grocery spending slows in hit to food companies
• Numerator, on SNAP spending and food restrictions in 2026
• Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, “Have U.S. consumers gone K-shaped? A review of the data”
• Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, “K-shaped Economy or Not? Evidence from a Payments Survey”
• The Motley Fool, on subprime auto loan delinquencies reaching a 32-year high
• Wolf Street, credit card delinquencies and balances in Q1 2026
• Wolf Street, subprime and prime auto loan delinquencies in Q1 2026
• Seeking Alpha, quantum computing stocks hit hard as tech turns risk-off
• Investing.com, quantum computing stocks outlook after the selloff
• Wolf Street, on the KOSPI’s 10.8% single-day decline, July 28, 2026
• Wolf Street, on AI data center investment in the durable goods orders data
• The Motley Fool, on the S&P 500 and Dow outpacing the Nasdaq in 2026
• Advisor Perspectives, S&P 500 snapshot for the week ended July 24, 2026
• Advisor Perspectives, Treasury yields snapshot, July 24, 2026
• Yahoo Finance, on the Dow Jones Transportation Average nearing a bear market
• Strategy Inc. (MSTR) market data and financial summary
• TheFly, on Strategy’s regulatory filing disclosing 843,775 bitcoin as of July 26, 2026
• TheFly, on Strategy’s $3.75 billion U.S. dollar reserve as of July 26, 2026
• TheFly, on Strategy’s $25 million STRC preferred repurchase and buyback policy
• Reuters, “Strategy bitcoin sales shine light on faltering crypto hoarding companies,” July 13, 2026
• Barron’s, on Strategy buying back its STRC preferred stock
• The Wall Street Journal, “The Investors Riding Along With Strategy’s Bitcoin Rollercoaster”
• Fortune, bitcoin price on July 29, 2026
• CoinDesk, on Strategy’s bitcoin position moving underwater
• MP Materials Corp. (MP) market data and financial summary
• MP Materials announces date for second quarter 2026 financial results
• TheFly, on JPMorgan lowering its MP Materials price target to $60
• Reuters, on U.S. critical minerals capacity and the 2027 deadline, July 27, 2026
• Reuters, on the executive order tightening defense supply chain waiver rules, July 20, 2026
• CNBC, on China’s export controls and procurement exclusions targeting U.S. firms
• The Wall Street Journal, “The Cutthroat Battle to Become America’s Rare-Earth Champion”
• Kimberly-Clark Corporation (KMB) market data and financial summary
• Kimberly-Clark to announce second quarter 2026 results on August 4, 2026
• Reuters, UK watchdog clears the $3.4 billion Suzano–Kimberly-Clark joint venture
• Business Wire, “Introducing Arbex: a New Global Leader in Tissue and Hygiene”
• Bubba Trading, biography of Todd “Bubba” Horwitz

This article is provided for general informational purposes and does not constitute financial, investment, tax, or legal advice.

Affiliate disclosure: Businessfinance.news may earn compensation from qualifying actions completed through selected links on this website, at no additional cost to the reader. Affiliate relationships do not influence our editorial reporting, analysis, or conclusions.