u/Comprehensive_Tea388

Micron just reported one of the strangest earnings prints I’ve seen from a chip company.

Revenue hit $54.23B, up 379% YoY. GAAP gross margin was 86.8%, and net income came in at $37.70B, a roughly 69.5% net margin. For context, Micron was doing just $11.32B of quarterly revenue a year ago.

It gets weirder: management is guiding next quarter to $61.5B of revenue at the midpoint, implying another ~13% sequential increase. And despite all of that, MU finished Friday down 2.05%.

If a memory-chip company can print nearly 87% gross margins, almost 70% net margins, guide revenue higher again, AND still sell off, what exactly is the market pricing in?

See what the underlying data is saying across stocks, insiders, Congress and institutions at WalnutMarkets.com

Source: Micron Investor Relations — Fiscal Q4 2026 results

August PCE came in softer than expected today: +0.3% MoM and 3.4% YoY versus roughly 3.7% expected. Markets immediately cut the odds of an October Fed hike to about 37%, down from 51% yesterday and nearly 71% a week ago. ([reuters.com](https://www.reuters.com/business/us-stock-futures-inch-up-yields-ease-inflation-report-looms-2026-09-30/))

Normally that should be good news for bonds. Instead, the 10-year yield still climbed to about 5.27% and the 30-year hit 5.63%. Meanwhile the Nasdaq finished +0.24%, the S&P -0.25%, and the Dow -0.86%. Nine of 11 S&P sectors were down, and Nasdaq breadth was ugly: 54 new highs versus 212 new lows. ([reuters.com](https://www.reuters.com/business/us-stock-futures-inch-up-yields-ease-inflation-report-looms-2026-09-30/))

That feels like the bigger Q4 question now. If softer inflation and lower Fed-hike odds still can’t bring long-term yields down, maybe the pressure is coming from deficits, Treasury supply and term premium more than the Fed itself.

What actually gets the 10-year back below 5% from here? Or can it go higher?

Dig deeper into market and stock setups at Walnut Markets:

https://walnutmarkets.com

Source:

Reuters — S&P 500 dips, Nasdaq higher after data shows moderate inflation rise

https://www.reuters.com/business/us-stock-futures-inch-up-yields-ease-inflation-report-looms-2026-09-30/

Micron reports Wednesday after the close, and Wall Street is already expecting a monster quarter: roughly $50.9B in revenue and $31.5 in adjusted EPS. That’s after Q3 revenue came in at $41.46B and sent the stock up about 12% after hours. MU is already around $1,082, so the bar is obviously high.

What makes this one a lot more interesting to watch than other earnings is the memory supply story. Micron says some data-center customers are getting less than half the memory they want, HBM is consuming far more wafer capacity than conventional DRAM, and management still doesn’t have clear visibility on when supply actually catches demand. They’ve also signed 16 strategic customer agreements covering more than $22B in commitments through 2030.

So Wednesday is really a test of whether the memory supercycle is still accelerating or whether expectations have finally caught up to reality.

If Micron beats again, what matters more to you: the headline numbers, HBM demand, or whether management still says supply stays tight beyond 2027?

Dig deeper into MU on Walnut:

app.walnutmarkets.com/ticker/MU

Source:

S&P Global Market Intelligence — Micron: a look at memory ahead of Q4 earnings

Oracle dropped 3.5% today and Blue Owl fell 3.6% after Oracle issued a force-majeure notice tied to delays at a massive New Mexico data-center project being built for OpenAI. Blue Owl already has about $3B of equity in the project, and the delay is reportedly tied to securing enough power to bring the site online.

That caught my attention. The six biggest U.S. tech companies are projected to spend roughly $1T on AI infrastructure in 2027, but lenders are starting to ask harder questions about who eats the cost when projects get delayed, power doesn’t show up, or construction runs over budget.

For the last two years the AI trade has mostly been about demand for GPUs, and more recently memory. What if the next constraint is actually financing, electricity and getting these data centers built on time?

If that happens, who gets hit first: cloud providers, data-center developers, utilities, or the chip names everyone assumes are insulated?

Warren Buffett officially stepped down on Friday as Berkshire chairman after more than 60 years. Howard Buffett takes over as non-executive chairman, while Greg Abel continues running the company as CEO. Berkshire is still sitting on roughly $365B in cash.

What makes the timing interesting is Berkshire had already started changing before Buffett left. In Q2, it bought $23.5B of stocks and sold just $3.7B, ending a 14-quarter streak as a net seller. Alphabet is now its third-largest stock holding, and the cash pile finally started coming down.

So this is probably the real post-Buffett question: does Berkshire stay the ultra-patient capital allocator we all know, or does Abel start deploying that cash much more aggressively?

If you owned BRK.B today, which would you rather see: a huge acquisition, more stock buying, buybacks, or just keep the cash?

Today’s tape was weirder than the indexes made it look.

The 10-year Treasury closed around 5%, Brent dipped below $100 slightly, and markets are already pricing roughly a 55% chance of another Fed hike in October. Yet the S&P finished +0.2% and Nasdaq +0.4%, helped by semis. Underneath that, breadth was ugly: declining stocks outnumbered advancers by about 1.8-to-1 on the NYSE.

Then Bitcoin ripped almost 6%, while COIN, MSTR and HOOD jumped roughly 9%. So despite 5% Treasury yields, $100 oil and a global rate-hike cycle, money is still finding its way into some of the highest-beta assets in the market.

The fact pattern is sending mixed signals, or maybe this is the new normal. What do you think: is this still a healthy risk-on market underneath all the macro noise, or are a handful of tech/crypto names masking much weaker breadth?

Yesterday, the Fed delivered its first rate hike in more than three year's and the 10-year Treasury pushed above 5%. Today, the 10-year fell back to about 4.93%, Brent crude eased to roughly $105, and stocks had their best day in weeks: S&P 500 +1.1%, Nasdaq +1.7%, Dow +0.6%.

That’s a pretty clean reminder that the Fed funds rate isn’t the only rate the market cares about. The Fed actually tightened, but financial conditions eased anyway because long-term yields and oil both came down. Tech immediately caught a bid.

So maybe 5% really is the line everyone’s watching. If the 10-year stays below it, does this rally keep going even with another Fed hike potentially coming later this year?

Today felt like two separate market fears hitting at once.

The 10-year Treasury briefly broke 5% for the first time since 2023, while Brent crude stayed above $105, and traders pushed the odds of a 25 bps Fed hike this week to around 90%. At the same time, AI names got hammered after industry leaders called for slowing development: NVDA fell 3.4%, MU more than 5%, AMD and AVGO more than 4%, and the Philadelphia Semiconductor Index dropped 5.9%.

The S&P only fell 0.5% and Nasdaq 0.6%, which is actually pretty resilient considering both the bond market and the AI trade were under pressure at the same time.

If 5% on the 10-year becomes normal instead of temporary, expensive growth stocks probably need much stronger earnings to justify current multiples. And if AI spending slows at the same time, that’s a very different setup than the one that carried the market higher all year.

What matters more from here: 5% Treasury yields, oil at $105, or the possibility that AI CapEx cools?

Nasdaq futures are down about 1.1% tonight, S&P futures -0.5%, while Treasury bond futures are green. That’s the part I’m most interested in watching this week. For the past month, stocks and bonds have often sold off together as inflation, oil, and long-term yields moved higher. Tonight they’re moving in opposite directions.

Everyone’s focused on whether the Fed hikes Wednesday, but the bigger question might be what the 10-year does afterward. A hike doesn’t automatically mean higher long-term yields. If the market thinks the Fed is slowing growth, the 10-year could actually fall. And if the Fed holds but the 10-year still pushes through 5%, that would tell us the pressure is coming from more than just Fed policy.

So Wednesday might be less about the decision itself and more about whether the bond market agrees with it.

What’s your base case: Fed hold + yields fall, Fed hold + yields keep rising, or another hike?

The bond selloff is starting to hit housing more directly. As the 10-year Treasury pushes toward 5%, U.S. mortgage rates are back near 7%. Existing home sales fell to a 3.98M annual pace in August, the weakest in 14 months, while inventory climbed to 1.62M homes. Yet the median existing-home price still rose 1.6% YOY to about $429K.

Canada is dealing with the same higher rate pressures, but the damage is very local. Toronto and Vancouver are still correcting, while Montreal has held up better, and Calgary is somewhere in between. The U.S. is fragmented, too... some metros are falling while others are still posting YOY gains.

That’s what makes the bond move important. Higher long-term yields raise mortgage costs almost everywhere, but local supply, jobs, migration, and construction decide whether that turns into lower prices or just fewer transactions.

If the 10-year stays near 5% and mortgage rates remain elevated, does housing adjust through lower prices, or just fewer transactions?

Everyone is watching whether the Fed hikes next week, but I’m starting to think the bigger story is what’s happening at the long end of the bond market.

The 10-year Treasury touched roughly 4.98% this week before pulling back to ~4.93%. The 30-year is around 5.36%, its highest level in more than 20 years. Treasury even bought back about $5.2B of longer-dated bonds yesterday, and yields still climbed. Meanwhile U.S. debt has passed $40T, deficits remain huge, Brent is still above $100, and August CPI was 3.4%. That’s a lot of pressure pushing in the same direction.

The Fed controls the overnight rate, not the 10-year. If investors start demanding a permanently higher return to own long-term U.S. debt, mortgages, corporate refinancing, and government interest expense all stay expensive even if the Fed eventually eases. The average 30-year mortgage is already around 6.8%. At some point, a risk-free Treasury yielding 5%+ starts competing pretty aggressively with equities for capital.

So maybe the real risk isn’t simply “the Fed hikes again.” It’s that inflation, oil, deficits, and massive bond issuance keep long-term yields elevated regardless of what the Fed does.

If the 10-year settles above 5%, what feels most vulnerable to you: housing, highly leveraged companies, growth-stock valuations, or the government’s own interest bill?

August CPI rose 0.4% MOM, much hotter than July’s 0.1%, and markets immediately pushed the odds of a 25 bps Fed hike next week to about 85%. The 10-year Treasury briefly touched 4.99%, basically 5%. Yet the S&P 500 still gained about 1.0%, Nasdaq +1.2%, and Dow +1.1%.

Oil is still part of the problem, too. Brent hit nearly $110 intraday and is still above $104, up more than 8% on the week. So right now we’ve got hotter inflation, 5% bond yields, $100+ oil, and stocks still buying the dip. Hmm...

At what point does this stop being a “resilient market” and start being in denial?

The 10-year Treasury yield climbed to about 4.94% today, its highest since 2023, and now basically sitting on the doorstep of 5%. The 30-year is already around 5.36%, its highest level in roughly two decades. At the same time, Brent crude surged above $100, which is keeping inflation pressure alive.

This is likely near where the market setup gets uncomfortable. Higher yields mean more expensive mortgages, higher corporate borrowing costs, and a much more competitive “risk-free” alternative to stocks. Treasury even expanded its long-bond buybacks to $6B, and yields still moved higher, which tells you how strong the selling pressure is.

Stocks can probably tolerate 5% if earnings keep growing fast enough. But if oil stays above $100 and the Fed has to stay hawkish, the valuation math gets a lot harder.

What breaks first if the 10-year actually clears 5%: housing, growth stocks, or the broader economy?

Brent jumped 3.4% today to $101.21, its highest level since May, after another escalation around the Strait of Hormuz. At the same time, the 10-year Treasury moved back to about 4.84%, and the S&P 500 fell 0.5% while Nasdaq lost 0.6%. Gold was up nearly 1%.

The timing is rough for the Fed. A Reuters poll still has most economists expecting rates to stay at 3.50%-3.75% through year-end, but that conviction is weakening, and markets are already pricing the possibility of more hikes if inflation stays sticky.

Feels like the market is back to the same uncomfortable setup: growth is holding up, oil is surging, inflation isn’t dead, and long-term yields are rising again.

What breaks first: oil, inflation, or the soft-landing trade?

Brent jumped 3.4% today to $101.21, its highest level since May, after another escalation around the Strait of Hormuz. At the same time, the 10-year Treasury moved back to about 4.84%, and the S&P 500 fell 0.5% while Nasdaq lost 0.6%. Gold was up nearly 1%.

The timing is rough for the Fed. A Reuters poll still has most economists expecting rates to stay at 3.50%-3.75% through year-end, but that conviction is weakening, and markets are already pricing the possibility of more hikes if inflation stays sticky.

Feels like the market is back to the same uncomfortable setup: growth is holding up, oil is surging, inflation isn’t dead, and long-term yields are rising again.

What breaks first: oil, inflation, or the soft-landing trade?

Andrew Macdonald, Uber’s COO, disclosed an open-market purchase of 70,000 UBER shares for about $5.3M at an average price near $75.83. It’s his first reported purchase since becoming COO last year. The timing is interesting because Uber just announced plans to cut roughly 10% of its workforce while redirecting capital toward its autonomous-driving push.

One insider buy doesn’t make a thesis, but $5M+ from a senior operating executive is at least worth paying attention to. Especially when it comes right after a pretty aggressive cost reset.

Would you read this as confidence that the restructuring improves margins, or is the robo-taxi spend still the bigger risk?

The US added 162,000 jobs in August versus the roughly 56,000 expected, while unemployment held at 4.1%. That was enough to push the odds of a September Fed hike back to around 58 to 60%. The S&P 500 fell 0.4%, Nasdaq -0.3%, and Dow -0.5%, while the 2-year treasury yield jumped to about 4.37%.

So we’re back in one of those markets where a strong economy can actually be bad news because it gives the Fed more room to tighten. Add oil above $92 Brent, and the inflation problem isn’t exactly disappearing either.

What would you rather have right now: stronger growth with another rate hike or weaker growth with the Fed staying put?

The Fed is starting to look divided, and the market loved it.

Stocks ripped today after Fed Governor Christopher Waller said he’d lean toward holding rates steady unless inflation surprises again. That pushed September hike odds down from about 63% to roughly 50%. The S&P 500 gained about 1.0%, Nasdaq 1.3%, and the Dow 1.2%, while the 10-year Treasury yield fell back toward 4.76%.

What makes this interesting is that Warsh was sounding much more hawkish just a few days ago. So now you’ve got oil still elevated, inflation still sticky, jobs data due tomorrow, and two very different Fed messages hitting the market within the same week.

If tomorrow’s jobs report is weak, does that basically kill the September hike or does the Fed stay focused on inflation anyway?

The alt data crowd starts with "who bought what?" but the harder question is whether that person has a real track record. Most Congress trading tools list disclosed transactions and stop there. They don't tell you whether that politician has actually outperformed after buying their own stocks.

There's also a timing problem a lot of people miss. Many Congress trading backtests credit the strategy with buying on the transaction date before the trade was public. No real follower could have done that. Congress filings have a lag between the transaction and the disclosure, and by the time retail sees it the move may already be priced in. A backtest that uses transaction dates instead of disclosure dates is going to look a lot better than what you'd actually achieve.

The questions I think matter more than "what did they buy?":

- Does this politician actually outperform? Not "do they trade a lot" but "have their disclosed positions beaten the market after the filing went public?"

- Is this trade already too old? The lag between transaction and disclosure can be weeks. What changed in that window?

- What happened after similar signals in the past? Not anecdotes, but measured outcomes across multiple horizons.

The shift from "interesting transaction data" to "does this actually help identify outperforming opportunities" is the real question for anyone using Congress trade data. Curious how others here evaluate that.