Connect with us

Business

Retail investors drive stocks to a pre-Christmas all-time high—and Wall Street eyes a moment to sell

Published

on


S&P 500 futures ticked downward 0.22% this morning, an indicator that some traders decided overnight to lock in their gains from yesterday’s close, when the index reached a new all-time high of 6,901. The peak was entirely predictable, given that U.S. Federal Reserve chairman Jerome Powell delivered a new dose of liquidity, as expected, via Wednesday’s 0.25% interest rate cut.

Nasdaq 100 futures were down 0.51% this morning, premarket, as traders picked winners and losers in the tech sector. Oracle lost another 1% overnight. It’s down more than 9% over the last five sessions after reporting revenue below expectations and capital expenditure above expectations. Alphabet (Google) by contrast was up 0.26% in overnight trading.

The bigger picture is the fact that the S&P 500 has now risen 17.33% year to date.

The trigger for that came from Powell telegraphing 175 basis points of cuts since last year. But the markets have also been driven by retail investors—individuals, as opposed to financial institutions—buying into exchange-traded funds and individual tech stocks, according to Arun Jain and his colleagues at JPMorgan.

In the week up to December 10, retail investors ploughed $7.8 billion into stocks, above the $6.3 billion weekly average. “Retail investors continued to favor ETFs (+$6.3B) over Single Stocks (+$1.5B),” they told clients in a note seen by Fortune.

“2025 is set to be a record year for retail traders in terms of flows (tracking at ~1.9x the 5y avg), 53% above the levels seen last year and 14% above the previous peak during the retail mania of 2021,” they said.

Retail investors probably did very well in the markets this year because they tended to buy the dips—there was a 38% gain between the market’s April low and yesterday—they bought ETFs, and they bought gold (up 65% year to date), the JPM team said.

Retail trading volume has doubled since 2010, according to the Financial Times, and individual investors are now more active than mutual funds and hedge funds.

Retail investors are so enthusiastic for risk assets that some people on Wall Street are starting to worry about it. The Bank of International Settlements—a sort of bank for central banks—published a paper recently arguing that retail traders now represent the dumb money in the market.

“Retail investors continued to pour money into U.S. equity funds, even as institutional investors gradually withdrew,” the bank wrote. “Appetite for precious metals may underscore market participants seeking at least some safe asset exposure in the event that things turn sour. But part of the surge can also be traced to investors trying to take advantage of the momentum in search of price appreciation, consistent with elevated risk-taking.”

Michael Hartnett and his colleagues at Bank of America see it as as sell-signal. Their “Bull & Bear Indicator”—a gauge that measures “investor fear and greed” from technical market data such as fund flows—now stands at 7.8, just below the “extreme bullishness” level that suggests it might be a good time to cash out:

Here’s a snapshot of the markets ahead of the opening bell in New York this morning:

  • S&P 500 futures were down 0.22% this morning. The last session closed up 0.21% to hit a new record high of 6,901. 
  • STOXX Europe 600 was up 0.37% in early trading. 
  • The U.K.’s FTSE 100 was up 0.38% in early trading. 
  • Japan’s Nikkei 225 was up 1.37%. 
  • China’s CSI 300 was up 0.63%. 
  • The South Korea KOSPI was up 1.38%. 
  • India’s NIFTY 50 was up 0.51%. 
  • Bitcoin went to $92K.
Join us at the Fortune Workplace Innovation Summit May 19–20, 2026, in Atlanta. The next era of workplace innovation is here—and the old playbook is being rewritten. At this exclusive, high-energy event, the world’s most innovative leaders will convene to explore how AI, humanity, and strategy converge to redefine, again, the future of work. Register now.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Former ambassador: China is winning the biotech race. Patent reform is how we catch up

Published

on



The United States is at risk of losing one of the most important technology races of the 21st century: biotechnology. A 2025 report from a bipartisan, congressionally chartered commission warns that China is closing in on a win, and the United States has only a narrow window to respond.

The report, released by the National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology, offers dozens of recommendations, ranging from increasing federal investment and expanding domestic manufacturing to reducing reliance on Chinese suppliers and improving interagency coordination. But one issue receives too little attention. If the United States wants to compete, it must restore trust in the intellectual property rights that enable inventors to turn bold ideas into revolutionary products.

Patents make high-risk innovation financially viable. They allow startups to protect their discoveries, attract capital, and grow. Without reliable patent rights, promising research gets shelved — or picked up and advanced abroad.

This isn’t theoretical. The United States led past waves of innovation — like the explosion of biotech startups after the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and the 19th-century surge of invention that brought us the telephone and automobile — precisely because it backed inventors with clear, enforceable IP rights.

In biotech, the stakes are higher. The field is transforming how we treat disease, grow food, and manufacture everything from chemicals to advanced materials. And with artificial intelligence accelerating discovery, the pace is exponential. As the Commission notes, tools like AlphaFold from GoogleDeepMind can now model hundreds of millions of protein structures in days, a task that once took years.

China saw this future coming. For more than two decades, it has treated biotechnology as a national strategic priority, pouring money into research, building vast biomanufacturing capacity, and acquiring foreign IP through both legal and illicit means.

Today, Chinese firms produce many of the ingredients U.S. drugmakers rely on. According to the Commission, nearly 80% of American drugmakers depend on Chinese contractors for part of their supply chain.

In a crisis, that kind of reliance could leave Americans without access to critical medicine. The Commission outlines a scenario in which Chinese researchers develop a breakthrough cancer therapy and withhold it during a crisis over Taiwan.

Supply chains collapse. Doctors ration care. The White House faces an impossible choice: hold the line on foreign policy or secure access to lifesaving medicine.

The situation is fictional, but the threat is real.

It doesn’t stop there. The report warns that if China stays on its current path, it could soon control the biological data, manufacturing platforms, and AI tools driving the next generation of industrial and defense technologies.

When innovation stays on U.S. soil, so do the jobs, data, and supply chains that protect our citizens. If the technologies that define the future are instead developed under adversarial regimes, the United States risks dependence on foreign powers not only for products but for strategic capabilities. Falling behind wouldn’t just cost the United States market share. It would endanger national security and global influence.

The Commission is right to emphasize the need for a stronger domestic biotech sector. But efforts to achieve that goal will fall short unless we fix the foundation that enables innovation in the first place.

That foundation, our IP system, is under serious strain. Over the past decade, court decisions have blurred the boundaries of what qualifies for patent protection — what is “patent eligible” — especially in medical diagnostics, synthetic biology, and AI-enabled research.

And even when patents are granted, protecting them has become harder. A little-known administrative body called the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) lets big corporations repeatedly try to invalidate competitors’ patents, forcing startups into expensive and drawn-out legal battles.

At the same time, a 2006 Supreme Court decision made it harder for courts to issue legal orders called injunctions — which stop infringers from continuing to use others’ inventions — even in cases of clear wrongdoing.

These trends have a chilling effect. Investors hesitate to fund science unless they can count on the underlying IP rights. In biotech, where it can cost billions of dollars and more than a decade to develop a single product, that hesitation can kill entire pipelines of innovation.

The good news is that Congress has tools to change course. Three bipartisan proposals in the House and Senate would help. One bill would restore clarity to patent eligibility standards. Another would reform PTAB procedures to curb duplicative challenges to patents. A third would make it easier for courts to block infringers by issuing injunctions.

Together, these reforms would reduce uncertainty, restore balance, and make the United States a more attractive place to innovate and invest.

We still have significant advantages: world-class research institutions, deep capital markets, and a free market that rewards bold ideas. But as the Commission warns, our lead is slipping — and time is short. To stay ahead in the race for biotech dominance, we need to fix the IP system that makes American innovation possible.

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.

Join us at the Fortune Workplace Innovation Summit May 19–20, 2026, in Atlanta. The next era of workplace innovation is here—and the old playbook is being rewritten. At this exclusive, high-energy event, the world’s most innovative leaders will convene to explore how AI, humanity, and strategy converge to redefine, again, the future of work. Register now.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Fists, not football: There is no concussion protocol for domestic violence survivors

Published

on



It’s fall in America, and that means football. With football comes questions and concerns about concussions in athletes. How long does it take to fully recover from a concussion? What happens if an athlete returns to play too soon after a concussion? How many concussions are too many?

But it’s not just sports where concussions occur. The most common cause of concussion in NCAA athletes is a car accident. The most common cause of a concussion overall is a fall. And a hidden demographic of people experience brain injuries at an alarming rate: domestic violence survivors.

Every minute, 32 people in the United States experience violence at the hands of an intimate partner. Roughly half of American women and 40% of American men will experience domestic violence at least once in their lives. Most incidents go unreported. One study found that just one in five victims sought medical help immediately after suffering a head injury. Nearly all these injuries involve a blow to the neck or head. 

Current research indicates that more than 75% of domestic violence survivors suffer one or more traumatic brain injuries. In my experience, the most common response to the question, “How many concussions have you suffered,” is “Too many to count.” 

On any given Sunday, you will see up to 30 medical professionals standing on the sidelines of a professional football game. At a high school game, you are likely to see paramedics within eyesight of the players on the field. There are no medical providers who stand outside the home of domestic violence survivors waiting for an injury to occur. There is no concussion protocol for those who are abused.

In addition to repeated impacts to the head, domestic violence survivors often suffer strangulation, being choked, resulting in decreased oxygen to the brain, loss of bladder and bowel function, seizures, and sometimes death.

The long-term consequences of repeated concussion and strangulation include sleep disturbancedizzinesspersonality changes, and memory problems. The most common complaint of a domestic violence survivor who suffers one or more concussions is headaches. One silver lining is that these symptoms are treatable.

Thanks to widespread education and awareness campaigns, athletes have benefited from a sea change in how brain injuries are recognized and treated. We need to bring that same standard of care to survivors of domestic violence by establishing a concussion protocol tailored to their needs.

We must ensure domestic violence survivors receive concussion screenings when they reach the doctor’s office or emergency department — regardless of whether they exhibit clear signs of a traumatic brain injury. New technologies can make brain injury screening simple and accurate. 

Diagnostic tests, like Abbott’s Alinity i TBI test, can help providers evaluate people for traumatic brain injuries with a small blood sample, by measuring two blood biomarkers in the brain. We recently implemented this testing capability at the WVU Rockefeller Neuroscience Institute. We’re one of the first to adopt the brain injury test, where results come back in just 18 minutes. That quick turnaround is especially useful in situations where a provider may have limited time with a survivor who is hesitant to seek medical care. Finally, we must offer everything we provide to athletes: cognitive screening, concussion rehabilitation, and VIP treatment.

At the WVU Rockefeller Neuroscience Institute in Morgantown, we design a comprehensive, tailored treatment plan for each patient, which may also include psychiatry, physical rehabilitation, and speech and vision therapy. Personalized approaches like this one help resolve subtle, lingering problems and prepare patients to protect their brain health after they check out of the hospital. Survivors of domestic violence are our VIPs.

Society has rightly taken steps to ensure athletes receive top-notch treatment whenever they experience a traumatic brain injury. Survivors of domestic violence are every bit as deserving of that level of attention and care.

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

FAA head hasn’t sold his stake in an airline despite promises to do so, Democratic Senator claims

Published

on



The head of the Federal Aviation Administration has not sold off his multimillion-dollar stake in the airline he led since 1999 despite a promise to do so as part of his ethics agreement, according to a Democratic senator.

In a letter to Bryan Bedford this week, Sen. Maria Cantwell said he vowed to sell all his shares in Republic Airways within 90 of his confirmation but 150 days have now passed. In Bedford’s financial disclosures, he estimated that his Republic stock was worth somewhere between $6 million and $30 million.

Republic completed a merger last month with another major regional airline, Mesa Air Group. Republic’s stock closed Thursday at $19.02, nearly double what it was before the deal was announced in April.

“It appears you continue to retain significant equity in this conflicting asset months past the deadline set to fully divest from Republic, which constitutes a clear violation of your ethics agreement. This is unacceptable and demands a full accounting,” Cantwell said in the letter.

Bedford declined a request for comment, and an FAA spokesperson said he plans to respond directly to Cantwell.

The agency has been in the spotlight since January, when an airliner collided with an Army helicopter over Washington, D.C., killing 67 people. The investigation has already highlighted shortcomings at the FAA, which failed to recognize an alarming number of close calls around Reagan National Airport in the years beforehand.

Then, in the spring, technical problems at the center that directs planes into New Jersey’s Newark Liberty International Airport highlighted a fragile and outdated system relied on by air traffic controllers.

And in the fall, a longstanding shortage of controllers led to thousands of flight cancellations and delays during the longest government shutdown ever as more controllers missed work while going without a paycheck.

Bedford has pledged to prioritize safety and upgrade the nation’s outdated air traffic control system. Congress approved $12.5 billion for that project, and last week the FAA picked the company that will oversee the work.

Join us at the Fortune Workplace Innovation Summit May 19–20, 2026, in Atlanta. The next era of workplace innovation is here—and the old playbook is being rewritten. At this exclusive, high-energy event, the world’s most innovative leaders will convene to explore how AI, humanity, and strategy converge to redefine, again, the future of work. Register now.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.