Bitcoin closed out Monday up roughly 2.7% at its best. Zcash added about 6%. Ethereum gained around 1.75%, Solana about 1.64%. On a day when oil kept pushing higher and equities stalled into chop, crypto was the asset class that found buyers.

Not one of those moves produced confirmation.

That distinction runs through Jake Sweeney's latest Pro Charts: Crypto session. The gains are real. The structural resolution is not. Every chart he walked through is still working inside a defined boundary, and until a candle closes outside one, this is a range being tested, not a trend being established.

Bitcoin Is Chopping Between Two Levels It Has Not Resolved

Three things are true about Bitcoin's chart, and the order matters.

Support is behaving the way it should. Price reclaimed the downsloping trend line drawn off the January pivot high, came back into it over the weekend, and held. Sweeney reads the manner of the hold as the important part: candles are wicking into the line while the bodies close well above it. That is a retest working, not support failing.

Resistance has not moved. A prior pivot low has capped price ever since the breakout, and Sweeney counts five failed attempts to clear it. Five rejections at one level is the defining feature of this range, and Monday did not change it.

Momentum is improving without confirming. RSI has crossed back above 50 and is ticking up, which Sweeney treats as room to run rather than a signal in its own right. He wants it pushing toward the 60 to 70 zone before the move counts as more than a bounce inside the range.

There is one more reason patience is warranted. Sweeney maps the 1.13 retracement of the decline from the cycle high down to the summer low and notes price has repeatedly wicked into that area from both sides, treating it as a zone rather than a line. A pivot sits just above. Clearing first resistance would not open clean air. It would put price straight into a second layer of supply.

Downside, the reference is the near-term pivot low that held over the weekend, with the reclaimed trend line just underneath. Losing that pivot on a closing basis puts the whole retest read in question.

Zcash Has the Cleanest Coil on the Board

Zcash was the strongest performer of the session and it also has the tightest structure. Price is coiling inside a wedge, pressed between an upsloping line drawn off the summer low pivot and a downsloping line Sweeney took from candle bodies rather than wicks. Since late June the pattern has been consistent: rejected at the highs, but making higher lows into each rejection.

That is compression with an upward bias, and Sweeney is watching for confirmation outside the wedge rather than assuming it. First resistance is the $526.05 pivot, which price has pierced twice on sharp moves off support only to get shut down by sellers. Above that, the downsloping trend line comes in near $575 to $578.20, with the pivot top at $588.38.

The distance matters less than it looks. Zcash moved about $31 against a $35 range on the session, so on comparable volatility those levels are inside a single day's reach.

Ethereum Is Rising Without Momentum Confirmation

Ethereum is the chart that argues against reading the day as broad strength. Price traded above its key horizontal resistance intraday, wicked higher, then closed back below it. That level, a pivot low, has capped Ethereum since late March.

Sweeney's larger concern is momentum. Price has been pushing higher while RSI has failed to match its prior peaks, and he wants to see momentum reclaim the mid-60s before treating any breakout as credible. A close above the horizontal would open a test of the upsloping trend line drawn off the recent high pivots, tested five or six times now and, in Sweeney's framework, increasingly vulnerable to a break. It sits just beneath the round $2,000 handle. Below, the rising support line is the first reference.

Solana Is Compressing. Cardano Is Trying to Stop Falling.

Solana's structure is constructive while the rising support that caught price near $74.36 on consecutive sessions holds, with the $72.64 shelf beneath it. But $77.38 is the immediate problem. It has shut price down since mid-July, and a close through it would put $78.97 and then the descending wedge boundary near $80 in play. Until then, higher lows are building pressure without producing a breakout.

Cardano is the exception, and a different setup entirely. Roughly ten consecutive down sessions have driven it into a support zone, where it caught a slight intraday bounce. Sweeney thinks a bounce is overdue, but the case rests on extension and location rather than the compression building in Bitcoin, Zcash and Solana. That is a weaker foundation. Two pivots sit overhead, including a June high, and the rising channel's lower band is the last reference if current support fails.

What Confirms and What Invalidates

The test is the same on every chart Sweeney covered: a candle close outside the boundary, not a wick through it. Bitcoin needs to clear pivot resistance with RSI holding above 50. Zcash needs a close outside the wedge and above $526.05. Ethereum needs a close above the horizontal with momentum finally participating.

The invalidations are equally defined. Bitcoin losing the near-term pivot low reopens the trend line below. Ethereum failing again while RSI stays soft keeps the divergence intact and argues the bid is narrower than the tape suggests. Zcash rolling over inside the wedge turns higher lows into another rejection.

Compression resolves eventually. Nothing in Monday's session says it resolved today.

Watch on YouTube

The Bond Market Is Sending a Different Message Than Stocks

Stocks did not have an especially dramatic session Monday. The more important move was happening somewhere else.

Long-term Treasury yields continued pushing higher while the US dollar weakened, a combination Gareth Soloway highlighted during Monday's Trading the Close as a more consequential signal than the modest losses in the major indices.

That divergence is the framework for the current market. Equities are still absorbing higher borrowing costs reasonably well, with parts of technology showing notable relative strength. But if yields continue rising while the dollar remains under pressure, the question becomes how long that resilience can hold.

The Bond-Dollar Divergence Comes First

Normally, a weaker dollar and lower Treasury yields can travel together when markets begin pricing easier monetary policy.

That is not the relationship Gareth is focused on now.

The dollar has been weakening while long-term yields rise. His interpretation is that the bond market may be demanding greater compensation for holding longer-duration US debt, rather than simply repricing stronger economic growth.

That difference matters because higher long-term yields can tighten financial conditions even without another Federal Reserve rate hike. They raise financing costs across the economy and increase the hurdle rate investors use when valuing risk assets.

For now, stocks have taken that pressure reasonably well. The charts will show whether that remains true.

The S&P 500 Is Pressing Into Megaphone Resistance

The S&P 500 finished the session modestly lower and near the day's lows, but the larger technical structure remains more important than the daily percentage move.

Gareth continues to track the index inside a broadening, or megaphone, formation defined by expanding upper and lower trend lines. The upper boundary comes through major prior highs, while the lower boundary connects several important market lows.

That puts the S&P in a difficult location.

Resistance sits near 7,830 on Gareth's chart, with the broader lower boundary much farther down around 7,350. There are support levels between those two points, but the immediate problem is overhead. Until the index can convincingly clear the upper side of the structure, the market remains vulnerable to rejection near resistance.

A breakout above that boundary would change the read. Failure there would keep the megaphone intact and leave the index trading inside an increasingly wide range.

Technology Is Absorbing the Pressure Better

The Nasdaq held up better than the S&P during the session, helped by strength across semiconductor and storage names.

That relative strength is worth watching because it shows where capital is still willing to concentrate despite pressure from long-term yields.

Gareth's explanation centers on the AI investment cycle. Large technology companies continue spending aggressively on computing infrastructure, which helps support demand for the hardware companies supplying that buildout. As long as those spending plans remain intact, portions of the semiconductor complex can behave differently from parts of the market that are more sensitive to financing costs.

That does not make technology immune to macro pressure. It means the pressure is being absorbed unevenly.

Microsoft showed the other side of that distinction.

After its earnings-related advance, the stock rallied into an area where a previous gap fill aligned with the 0.786 Fibonacci retracement of the prior decline. Two technical resistance factors converging in the same zone increased the significance of the level.

Microsoft rejected from that area.

The lesson is less about the individual trade than the location. A strong fundamental narrative does not remove technical resistance, and confluence gives traders a reason to pay closer attention when price reaches it.

Oil Has a Headline Catalyst but Still Needs a Breakout

Oil gained sharply as geopolitical tensions increased, but Gareth's chart remains contained within a wedge.

That creates a useful separation between headline momentum and technical confirmation.

Inside the wedge, price can continue swinging in either direction without producing a durable structural break. The more important signal would come from a confirmed move through one of the pattern boundaries.

Until then, the chart is still compressing.

Natural gas is similarly defined by levels rather than momentum, with Gareth watching resistance near $2.83 and support around $2.57.

Those boundaries matter more than individual daily moves while price remains trapped between them.

Gold and Silver Fit the Macro Story, but Price Still Has to Confirm It

Precious metals were firm as the dollar weakened and long-term yields climbed.

From Gareth's macro perspective, that makes gold and silver particularly interesting. If investors are becoming more sensitive to fiscal conditions, currency purchasing power, and the compensation required to own sovereign debt, hard assets become one place to look for confirmation.

Gold gained during the session but has not yet cleared its recent short-term highs. Silver pushed into resistance of its own.

That keeps both charts constructive without making the next move automatic.

The macro narrative may favor continued interest in precious metals, but the technical levels still decide whether that interest produces another breakout.

Bitcoin Has the Cleanest Trigger on the Board

Bitcoin may be the most clearly defined setup Gareth discussed.

Price has broken above a major multi-year trend line and has since drifted rather than immediately giving the breakout back. Gareth views that quieter consolidation as constructive because sellers have not been able to force price decisively back beneath the reclaimed structure.

The next level is 65,400.

A strong daily close above that area would strengthen the breakout and put the next major resistance zone near 75,000 in focus. Gareth identified that area through the convergence of previous pivot highs and lows.

Until 65,400 clears, however, the larger upside move remains a developing setup rather than a confirmed continuation.

That distinction is important because Bitcoin also provides a useful test of the broader macro thesis.

If concern over sovereign debt, currency purchasing power, and confidence in traditional financial assets continues to grow, Bitcoin is one of the markets where that narrative could begin showing up in price. The technical breakout says buyers are interested. The 65,400 level will tell us whether they are ready to press the move.

What Matters Next

The equity indices were not the most informative charts Monday.

The bigger question is whether rising long-term yields and a weakening dollar remain a background concern or begin forcing a broader repricing across risk assets.

The S&P's resistance near 7,830 is one place that pressure could become visible. Technology's relative strength shows where it has not yet taken control. Gold and silver offer another read on demand for hard assets. Bitcoin gives the market a particularly clean confirmation level at 65,400.

That is the hierarchy.

Watch the bond market first, then see whether the other charts continue confirming or rejecting the message it is sending.

Two charts carried more weight than the rest of the tape in Monday's Pro Charts Stocks session, and both are governed by lines drawn more than a year ago. Nick Valdez opened with the S&P 500 rejecting off a descending trend line that originates in July 2024. He closed with Meta pushing below an ascending trend line that has defined the stock since April 2024.

That pairing is the read. Index upside is capped by long-dated resistance at the same moment a mega-cap loses long-dated support. This is not a tape trading on headlines. It is a tape trading on structure, and the structure is old enough that most participants are working off the same lines.

Which is also why several of the session's cleanest levels never actually printed.

The Line Capping the S&P 500 Was Drawn in July 2024

Valdez notes the index has already cleared several older trend lines, but the one that matters now runs back to July 2024 and has been knocked against repeatedly since. Each touch reinforced it. The most recent rejection off that line defines current resistance.

Underneath the rejection, he flags what could be the early stages of a bull flag breakout: a move higher, a tight consolidation, and an initial push above the flag. The structure is constructive, but it has not resolved. A daily close back above the 2024 line would confirm the breakout attempt. Continued rejection would put the June 2026 breakout area, roughly 2.8% to 3% below current price, back in focus as potential support.

Valdez raises that retest as a question rather than a call. He is explicit that against the gains already accumulated, a drawdown of that scale is not structurally significant. It would be a normal retest inside an intact uptrend, not a break in the trend. What would change the read is failure at that area rather than a bounce off it.

Meta Is the Chart That Actually Broke

The Meta setup is the one that has already resolved, and it resolved to the downside.

The ascending trend line dates to April 2024, with the second touch establishing it. Valdez measures the rally off that structure at roughly 67% to 68%. Price then fell back and retested the line, bounced, retested again, and has now pushed below it. On the session he covered it, the stock was down about 3.84%, roughly $22.

That sequence matters more than the percentage. A multi-year ascending line that gets retested twice and then fails is not a routine pullback. It changes the technical burden. Buyers now have to reclaim a level that spent nearly two years acting as support. Valdez is not calling a top, and he is watching the lower-timeframe structure for where support forms next. But the line that defined the trend sits overhead now rather than underneath.

The Levels Nobody Got Filled On

The subtler thread running through the session is what happens when a level is too obvious.

SpaceX approached the $150 area, which Valdez identifies as the level trading actually opened at rather than the $135 IPO price. That level has already served as support once, on the retest following the pullback from $220. On the hourly chart, price came within about seven cents of it and stopped. His read is that the level may have been front run by shorts, with larger participants unwilling to deliver the fill everyone was waiting for.

Tesla shows the same behavior at $365, the pivot-top level Valdez is watching as support for any near-term cooldown. Price approached it and did not reach it, then pushed lower with enough force to shake out the traders who had parked limit orders there. The stock has been working off a trend line established from pivots in November 2025 and April 2026, and the bullish move that followed the third rejection attempt came off that structure.

The operational point is not that these levels are wrong. Both setups are reminders that heavily watched numbers can attract positioning before the exact price trades.

One More Line Doing the Same Work

Deckers carries the same character as the two charts anchoring the session. A descending trend line dating to December 2025 is converging near $89.41. Price broke slightly below it, and the next daily close capped right at the line rather than confirming the break, then pushed back above and came down for another retest. Same structure, same question: whether an old line holds on the next touch.

What Confirms and What Invalidates

The S&P 500 line from July 2024 is the single reference to watch. Sustained closes above it would validate the bull flag attempt. Continued rejection keeps that 2.8% to 3% retest in focus.

For Meta, reclaiming the April 2024 ascending line on a daily close would negate the break. Failure to reclaim it keeps the burden on buyers.

Old lines are doing the work right now. Trade the ones that have been touched the most.

Watch on YouTube

The equity market is not giving traders the same message as the bond and currency markets.

Major stock indexes remain structurally resilient, but Treasury yields continue pressing higher while the US dollar is weakening. That combination matters because it changes the interpretation of the move in rates. Rising yields accompanied by a strengthening dollar can fit a conventional growth narrative. Rising yields alongside a weakening dollar deserves more attention.

That is the macro tension Gareth Soloway highlighted in this morning's My Trading Game Plan Revealed. Equities have not broken, but the pressure developing underneath them is becoming harder to ignore.

The question is not whether stocks have to fall because yields are rising. They do not. The more useful question is how long equities can remain resilient if borrowing costs continue climbing while the dollar loses technical support.

The Bond Market Is Becoming the Directional Anchor

The most important chart on the board right now may not be the S&P 500.

Treasury yields continue to push higher even as expectations for additional Federal Reserve rate hikes remain limited. That tells traders the bond market is doing some of the tightening on its own.

Gareth framed it bluntly: "The markets are saying, damn the Fed, we're going to do it anyways."

The 10-year yield is approaching an important technical area, with 4.80% identified as the next major resistance if the advance continues. Longer-duration yields are showing similar pressure.

That does not automatically create an equity selloff. The S&P has continued to absorb the move surprisingly well. Futures pushed higher overnight before reversing sharply around 6:00 a.m. ET, but the broader technical structure has not yet collapsed.

Gareth still sees room for the S&P to work higher, with the 8,100 to 8,200 area remaining a potential technical objective if the bullish structure holds.

That is what makes the divergence useful.

The equity chart is saying the trend can continue. The bond market is saying the cost of continuing that trend is increasing.

If yields stall at resistance, equities get breathing room. If yields continue breaking higher, the burden shifts to stocks to prove they can keep absorbing tighter financial conditions.

The Dollar Makes the Yield Move More Interesting

The dollar adds another layer to the setup.

The Dollar Index is testing a trend line connecting important pivot lows from earlier this year. A confirmed break would weaken the current dollar structure and put the 98 to 97.80 area back in focus.

Normally, higher Treasury yields can support a currency because investors receive a more attractive return for holding assets denominated in that currency.

That relationship is not behaving cleanly here.

Yields are rising while the dollar is weakening, which is why Gareth is watching the move through the lens of growing concern around US debt and fiscal credibility rather than assuming yields are rising purely because of stronger economic growth.

That remains an interpretation, not a completed structural shift. But the divergence deserves attention.

A weaker dollar can also work through markets in different ways. It may provide an earnings translation benefit for multinational US companies while simultaneously increasing the cost of imported goods for domestic consumers.

The important signal for traders is simpler: if the dollar continues breaking down while yields continue climbing, the divergence becomes harder to dismiss as ordinary cross-market noise.

Gold Is Refusing to Follow the Traditional Script

Gold adds confirmation to the broader macro picture.

Higher yields are normally a challenge for a non-yielding asset such as gold because investors can earn more by holding interest-bearing instruments. Yet gold is finding buyers even as Treasury yields remain elevated.

That does not prove a de-dollarization thesis by itself. It does show that the usual relationship among rates, the dollar and precious metals is not functioning cleanly.

Silver is providing a more tactical chart.

Price is working around an important trend line while an early bull-flag structure begins to develop. The pattern is still immature, which makes confirmation important.

A mature breakout would strengthen the bullish read. Failure would shift attention back toward the prior breakout area, Gareth's "scene of the crime," where former resistance could be tested as support.

The value of the setup is that the chart offers two different scenarios without requiring traders to predict which one happens first.

Semiconductor Bounces Are About Location, Not Excitement

The semiconductor names Gareth discussed are showing the opposite problem.

After extremely sharp declines, several stocks are bouncing hard. Those rebounds can feel bullish because the percentage moves are large, but the more important question is where the bounce is occurring inside the prior decline.

SanDisk has rallied into its 50% Fibonacci retracement. Gareth is more interested in the 61.8% retracement near $18.35 to $18.40, with an additional gap-fill area near $19.23 above it.

That creates a hierarchy.

The current bounce is information. The higher Fibonacci zone is the decision point.

Micron is showing similar behavior. Following a roughly 41% decline from the prior high, the rebound has reached the 50% retracement. The 61.8% retracement represents the more important resistance area, while a higher gap-fill zone sits around the 78.6% level.

This is where patience changes the setup.

A trader chasing the rebound is reacting to the size of the bounce. A trader waiting for Fibonacci resistance is reacting to location.

Those are not the same trade.

Astera Labs Shows Why Confluence Matters

Astera Labs provided one of the cleaner examples of technical confluence on the board.

The stock fell roughly 51% from peak to trough before reaching a major gap-fill area. When Gareth applied a Fibonacci retracement from the larger advance, the 61.8% level converged with that same gap.

Two independent technical factors were identifying roughly the same area.

That does not guarantee a reaction. It does make the level more meaningful than either signal would be in isolation.

Price subsequently bounced from the zone, and the shorter-term structure is now beginning to resemble what Gareth described as an "in spirit of bull flag."

The next question is no longer whether support worked. It did.

The question is where the bounce begins running into meaningful supply.

Reversing the Fibonacci measurement from the recent high to the recent low places another 61.8% retracement beneath an overhead gap-fill area. That confluence becomes the next zone worth watching for a reaction.

Again, location matters more than the percentage gain that gets price there.

Oil Is Compressed. Bitcoin Still Needs Confirmation.

Oil remains caught inside a converging wedge, leaving the chart without a clean directional resolution.

Rather than forcing a geopolitical forecast onto the chart, the technical structure offers a simpler approach: respect the boundaries until price breaks them.

As long as crude remains trapped between those trend lines, consolidation remains the dominant condition.

Natural gas is also between levels. Price is attempting to stabilize after overnight weakness, with resistance above and longer-term trend support underneath. That leaves the immediate chart in a wait-and-see position even as Gareth remains constructive on the longer-term demand picture.

Bitcoin is dealing with a similar confirmation problem.

The cryptocurrency continues to hold an important longer-term breakout trend line and is trading higher, but one green session does not establish a fresh bullish leg.

Gareth's confirmation level is the prior high near $65,300.

A decisive break through that area would strengthen the argument that Bitcoin is beginning another leg higher. Remaining underneath it keeps the cryptocurrency inside consolidation.

That is the difference between movement and confirmation.

The Bigger Lesson Is Not to Make the Chart Agree With You

The common thread running through all of these markets is confirmation bias.

Gareth described the problem from his own early trading experience: once traders become attached to a position, they stop reading the chart objectively and begin looking for evidence that supports the outcome they already want.

That is dangerous because the market does not know the trader's thesis.

A trend line can break. A gap can fail. A Fibonacci level can be ignored. A pattern can invalidate.

The discipline is not in believing harder. It is in defining what evidence would prove the current read is weakening.

That is why today's charts are more useful when treated as decision points rather than predictions.

The 10-year yield has resistance near 4.80%.

The dollar is testing a major trend line.

The semiconductor bounces are approaching retracement levels.

Bitcoin still has to clear $65,300.

Each chart is asking the same question: what happens when price reaches the level that should matter?

Bottom Line

The most important divergence in the market is not between two stock sectors. It is between equities and the markets that influence financial conditions underneath them.

Stocks remain resilient. Treasury yields remain elevated. The dollar is weakening. Gold is refusing to behave as rising rates normally suggest it should.

None of those signals independently decides the next market move.

Together, they tell traders where to look for confirmation.

If yields begin rejecting resistance and the dollar stabilizes, the pressure underneath equities eases. If yields continue climbing while the dollar extends its breakdown, the divergence becomes more significant and the stock market's resilience faces a more demanding test.

Until one side resolves it, the better approach is not to predict the outcome.

It is to know which levels will tell you when the probabilities have changed.

Delta Learned to Survive Cycles by Becoming More Than an Airline

Delta Air Lines has spent the better part of two decades trying to solve a problem no airline can fully escape: the business is enormously sensitive to things management does not control.

Fuel moves. Labor costs rise. Demand disappears during recessions or global shocks. Aircraft deliveries slip. A technology failure can disrupt an entire network in hours.

Delta's answer has not been to eliminate that cyclicality. It has been to build more ways to withstand it.

That is the thread connecting DAL's emergence from bankruptcy, its Northwest Airlines merger, the unusual purchase of an oil refinery, its push into premium travel, and the expansion of its American Express partnership. The company that returned to the public market in 2007 still sells airline tickets, but today's Delta earns increasingly important revenue from loyalty, premium products, maintenance operations, partnerships and other businesses surrounding the flight itself.

The transformation matters because the latest numbers are testing whether that strategy actually works when one of the industry's biggest expenses moves sharply against it.

In the June quarter of 2026, Delta absorbed what management called the highest quarterly fuel expense in company history. Adjusted fuel expense jumped 77% from a year earlier. Yet adjusted revenue still climbed 14%, premium revenue grew 17%, loyalty revenue increased 19%, and American Express remuneration reached $2.4 billion. Adjusted net debt also declined to $13.6 billion.

That is the modern DAL story in one quarter: the external pressure never disappeared. Delta simply built more internal levers to fight it.

Bankruptcy Forced the First Reinvention

Delta's modern public-market history effectively restarted in 2007.

After going through Chapter 11, the company's old common stock was cancelled and new shares were issued as part of its reorganization. Regular-way trading in the new DAL shares was expected to begin on the New York Stock Exchange on May 3, 2007.

That distinction matters. This was not merely a company recovering from a difficult few years. Existing shareholders had been wiped out. Delta had received one of the clearest lessons a capital-intensive business can get about what happens when the balance sheet and operating environment move against it simultaneously.

The response was scale.

Delta completed its merger with Northwest Airlines on October 29, 2008, creating a much larger global network at a time when the airline industry was entering another difficult economic environment. The combination added Northwest's network and strengthened Delta's international footprint while creating more opportunities to spread fixed costs across a larger operation.

The merger became one of the defining steps in Delta's reconstruction, but it also established a pattern that would continue for years: when Delta identified a structural weakness in the airline model, management looked for another lever.

Then Delta Went After Fuel

The strangest example came in 2012.

Instead of accepting refining margins as another uncontrollable part of its fuel bill, Delta agreed to acquire the Trainer refinery near Philadelphia for roughly $150 million.

It was an unconventional decision because airlines generally buy refined fuel. They do not own the infrastructure producing it.

But the strategic logic was consistent with what Delta had already started doing elsewhere. The company could not control oil prices, but it could attempt to control another piece of the chain between crude and the fuel entering its aircraft.

The refinery never made Delta immune to energy prices. Nothing could. Its significance was more revealing than that.

Delta was becoming increasingly willing to own or influence pieces of the business that other airlines treated as external variables.

That same philosophy would eventually extend beyond costs and into revenue.

The Bigger Transformation Was on the Revenue Side

The most important change in Delta's business may be the one passengers barely notice.

An airline traditionally makes money by putting people in seats. Delta increasingly built an ecosystem around those passengers instead.

Premium cabins became more important. Sky Clubs expanded. Corporate relationships deepened. The fleet increasingly shifted toward aircraft and cabin configurations designed to support higher-value products. And the relationship with American Express turned SkyMiles into an economic asset well beyond the value of a single flight.

By 2025, American Express remuneration had reached $8.2 billion, up 11% from the prior year. Delta said diversified revenue streams represented 60% of total revenue for the year, while premium revenue increased 7%.

The trend accelerated into 2026.

During the June quarter, premium revenue increased 17% from the prior year and loyalty-related revenue grew 19%. American Express remuneration rose 16% to $2.4 billion for the quarter. Delta said diversified revenue streams represented 61% of total adjusted revenue.

That changes how DAL should be viewed.

The airline still needs full planes and healthy fares. But an increasingly valuable customer is not merely someone who buys a ticket. It is someone who buys premium seating, carries a Delta-branded credit card, earns and redeems SkyMiles, enters the broader partner ecosystem and continues generating economics for the company between flights.

That makes loyalty less of a marketing program and more of a business model.

The Pandemic Showed Why That Matters

Nothing tested that model like 2020.

When global travel collapsed, Delta lost the fundamental input on which the airline business depends: people willing and able to fly.

Fourth-quarter revenue fell roughly 65% from its 2019 level, and the company took on substantial debt to protect liquidity through a shutdown with no clear endpoint. The episode exposed the limits of every airline diversification strategy. When aircraft stop moving on that scale, there is no substitute large enough to make the core business irrelevant.

But the recovery also showed what Delta had built.

Travel returned, premium demand recovered, credit-card economics strengthened and the balance sheet began repairing itself.

By the end of 2025, Delta reported $14.1 billion in total debt and finance lease obligations after making $4.8 billion of debt and finance lease payments during the year. It generated a record $4.6 billion of free cash flow on an adjusted basis.

By the end of the June 2026 quarter, adjusted net debt had fallen another $709 million from year-end 2025 to $13.6 billion.

The balance sheet is therefore no longer simply a pandemic-recovery story. It has become part of the current operating framework.

Fuel Is Testing the Model Again

That brings the story back to where airline investing almost always ends up: fuel.

The June quarter gave Delta an unusually clean stress test. Adjusted fuel expense reached $4.4 billion, up 77% year over year, while the adjusted fuel price increased 75% to $3.93 per gallon.

Normally, that kind of move is exactly what makes airline earnings difficult to underwrite. Demand may remain healthy while the cost of producing every seat-mile rises underneath it.

Yet Delta still produced $1.4 billion of adjusted pre-tax income during the quarter.

The important question is not whether high fuel prices matter. They clearly do. The question is how much of that pressure Delta's other revenue engines can absorb before margins deteriorate materially.

Premium revenue, loyalty, the American Express relationship, maintenance revenue, corporate travel and capacity discipline all become more valuable when fuel works against the airline.

That is what investors should watch now.

DAL Is a Five-Part Business

The simplest framework for following Delta is to break the company into five moving parts.

Fuel determines the pressure. Energy remains one of the major expenses Delta cannot fully control. When fuel rises sharply, the rest of the business has to work harder.

Premium demand determines pricing power. Higher-value cabins and corporate travel can support revenue without requiring Delta to chase passenger growth purely through additional capacity.

Loyalty determines diversification. SkyMiles and the American Express partnership extend the customer relationship beyond the aircraft and create revenue streams that do not behave exactly like base airfare.

Capacity determines discipline. Adding seats can grow revenue, but excessive capacity can weaken pricing. The balance between the two matters more than raw passenger growth.

The balance sheet determines flexibility. Debt reduction gives Delta more room to absorb the next downturn, fuel shock or demand disruption without returning to the financial conditions that defined its bankruptcy and pandemic periods.

No single piece determines DAL by itself. The useful signal comes from how they interact.

What Matters Next

Delta's history can look like a sequence of unrelated events: bankruptcy, merger, refinery, premium expansion, pandemic, loyalty growth and debt reduction.

They are more connected than they appear.

Each step reduced Delta's dependence on one part of an inherently volatile airline model. The Northwest deal brought scale. The refinery addressed a piece of the fuel problem. Premium products increased revenue per customer. American Express and SkyMiles expanded the economics beyond the ticket. Debt reduction restored financial flexibility after the pandemic.

None of that makes Delta non-cyclical.

It makes Delta a more complicated cyclical.

That is the important framework for DAL today. Investors do not need fuel prices to stop mattering, economic cycles to disappear or air travel to become predictable. They need Delta's higher-margin and diversified revenue streams to keep offsetting enough of that volatility to protect earnings and cash generation.

The June quarter offered evidence that the strategy can withstand significant pressure. Fuel costs surged, yet premium, loyalty and broader revenue continued growing while debt moved lower.

For a company that once went through bankruptcy because the airline model left too little room for error, that evolution may be the most important part of the ticker's story.

Weak Retail Sales Changed the Fed Math. The S&P Chart Still Points Higher.

The most important thing about Friday morning's retail sales miss is not that the consumer weakened. It is that the market absorbed another soft economic print and the S&P 500 still refused to break down.

July retail sales fell 0.6% against expectations for a 0.1% increase, adding another piece of evidence that higher prices are beginning to pressure spending. That immediately changed the interest-rate conversation. Expectations for another Federal Reserve hike have backed away, while the S&P 500 continues to consolidate near its highs.

That creates the tension traders have to respect. The macro data are cooling, long-term Treasury yields remain elevated, and the dollar is weakening. Yet price action in equities still favors the upside until the chart says otherwise.

For Gareth Soloway, that keeps the larger S&P 500 target near 8,100 to 8,200 in play.

The Consumer Weakened, but the Market Did Not

The retail sales report was materially weaker than expected. Headline sales contracted 0.6%, with weakness extending into autos and online spending.

The immediate implication is straightforward: the consumer is showing more sensitivity to the combination of elevated prices and tighter financial conditions.

That matters because it feeds directly into the Federal Reserve debate. Recent inflation data had already reduced expectations for another near-term hike. Friday's consumer data pushed the market further in that direction, with Fed-funds futures assigning greater odds to the central bank remaining on hold.

But the more useful signal is what equities did with the information.

Instead of selling sharply on evidence of economic weakness, S&P 500 futures remained firm. That is consistent with the technical structure Gareth has been tracking: a strong advance followed by sideways consolidation rather than meaningful downside retracement.

That is the behavior of a market that has not yet given sellers control.

The S&P Bull Flag Keeps 8,100 to 8,200 in Play

The S&P 500 has spent several sessions moving sideways after its latest advance. Gareth continues to read that structure as a developing bull flag.

The reasoning matters more than the label. A strong market normally reveals weakness by giving back price when it gets the opportunity. Here, the index has been given multiple reasons to pull back and has largely consolidated instead.

As Gareth put it, the path of least resistance remains higher while that structure holds.

The bull flag is also developing inside a much larger technical framework. The index previously broke above a long-term parallel channel, returned to test the former upper boundary, and held it as support. That breakout-and-retest sequence keeps the broader bullish structure intact.

Gareth's larger technical and cycle work continues to point toward approximately 8,100 to 8,200 as the area where the current advance could become much more vulnerable.

That does not mean the market has to reach the zone or reverse immediately if it gets there. It means the risk-reward changes.

The closer the index gets to that projected cycle area, the less attractive chasing upside becomes and the more attention traders should give to signs of exhaustion. Gareth believes a significant correction could eventually develop from that region, potentially on the order of 10% to 20%.

Until price breaks the current structure, however, anticipating that correction too early remains the wrong side of the chart.

The Bond Market Is the Counterweight

Equities may be responding positively to lower expectations for additional Fed tightening, but the long end of the Treasury market is sending a less comfortable message.

Thursday's $25 billion 30-year Treasury auction cleared at 5.216%. For Gareth, elevated long-term yields are part of a much larger fiscal issue: investors are demanding greater compensation to hold U.S. government debt for three decades.

At the same time, the U.S. dollar has been weakening toward important technical support.

Those two developments create an unusual combination. A weaker dollar can support multinational earnings and financial assets, but it can also increase the cost of imported goods. Meanwhile, stubbornly high long-term yields tell traders that inflation and fiscal concerns have not disappeared simply because expectations for the next Fed meeting changed.

That is why the macro picture is not simply "weak data equals bullish."

The Fed may have more room to remain on hold, but the bond market is still forcing investors to price long-term fiscal and inflation risk.

AMAT Shows Why Location Can Matter More Than Earnings

Applied Materials offered a useful example of the same principle at the individual-stock level.

The company delivered strong earnings, but the stock had already traveled a considerable distance before the report. When a chart becomes heavily extended, strong fundamental news may no longer be enough to produce another clean leg higher because much of the optimism is already reflected in price.

Gareth is watching $481.75 as the first notable pivot area below the market. A deeper decline would bring the $458 to $460 region into focus, where an important rising trend line sits.

There is one complication with that lower level: it would represent another test of the same trend line.

Repeated tests matter because each interaction can absorb some of the buyers previously defending the level. A fourth test therefore deserves more caution than the first or second.

The lesson is broader than AMAT. Earnings tell traders what happened inside the company. The chart tells them how much of that information the market may already have priced in.

Reddit Is Running Into the First Real Test

Reddit surged after news that the stock would join the S&P 500, but the gap higher also moved price closer to clearly defined overhead resistance.

Gareth's first major level is around $178, where an unfilled gap creates resistance.

If momentum carries the stock decisively through that area, the next meaningful level sits near $186.

Rather than treating the index-addition news itself as the trade, the chart gives traders two locations where the reaction becomes more informative. A rejection would show sellers beginning to absorb the gap higher. Acceptance above resistance would tell a different story.

That is the advantage of having the levels before price gets there.

MongoDB Is Stretching the Rubber Band

MongoDB presents almost the opposite setup.

The stock has moved nearly vertically and is now approaching a longer-term trend line connecting prior pivot highs. Gareth's preferred analogy for charts like this is a rubber band: the farther price stretches from its underlying structure, the more important the eventual mean-reversion risk becomes.

The trend line alone is not the entire setup. The extension into it is what gives the level weight.

That same framework recently appeared in Dell. Gareth had identified the $505 to $510 region as a resistance zone. Dell briefly pushed through it to approximately $514 before reversing and moving back below $500.

The takeaway is not that every extended chart must reverse at resistance. It is that vertical price action changes the risk-reward once major resistance is reached.

MongoDB is now reaching one of those locations.

Financials Are Testing the Top of the Range

The Financial Select Sector SPDR Fund is also approaching an important decision point.

XLF remains inside a large rising parallel channel and is testing the upper boundary. Previous encounters with that trend line have produced meaningful rejections.

The same basic structure is visible in JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America, both of which are pushing into longer-term resistance.

That creates a sector-level confirmation worth watching. One bank hitting resistance is an individual setup. Several large financial names reaching comparable resistance while the sector ETF tests the top of its channel carries more information.

For now, the broader trend remains higher, but the current location makes further upside less attractive unless those resistance structures begin to break.

Gold, Silver and Oil Need Confirmation

The commodity charts are less resolved.

Gold is attempting to stabilize following Thursday's pullback, with the weaker dollar providing some support. The important question is whether the current consolidation develops into another bullish continuation pattern or loses structure and opens a deeper retracement.

Silver is dealing with a similar problem near resistance.

Crude oil is even more compressed. Price remains trapped inside a tightening wedge, leaving increasingly little room between support and resistance.

That compression changes the setup. When the boundaries of a wedge are wide, reactions from either side can offer useful information. Once the structure becomes extremely tight, the edge inside it deteriorates.

At this stage, the more important signal is the eventual break from the wedge rather than another move between its boundaries.

Natural gas has a cleaner number. Resistance remains around $2.83, with support near $2.57 if price fails to clear it. Fundamental concerns surrounding European inventories could become more important if price confirms a breakout, but the chart has not done that yet.

Bitcoin Is Still Holding the Line

Crypto remains under pressure, but Bitcoin continues to hold above the larger trend line Gareth has been watching.

That makes Bitcoin the directional filter for the rest of the complex.

Regulatory uncertainty continues to weigh on sentiment, particularly after further delays surrounding the Clarity Act. But weak sentiment by itself does not invalidate support.

As long as Bitcoin remains above its larger breakout structure, the bearish case has not fully taken control.

XRP is approaching another technically important area. Price is trading near $1, while a larger support zone sits around $0.95 to $0.96. That area matters because it brings price back into a structure that has been relevant across a much longer timeframe.

A reaction there would strengthen the support thesis. A decisive loss of the zone would change it.

The Bottom Line

Friday's Game Plan comes down to a conflict between macro deterioration and technical resilience.

Retail sales weakened enough to push expectations further away from another immediate Fed hike. At the same time, elevated long-term Treasury yields show that fiscal and inflation concerns have not disappeared.

The S&P 500 is choosing, for now, to focus on the first part of that equation.

Its bull flag remains intact, the longer-term breakout continues to hold, and Gareth's projected 8,100 to 8,200 cycle area remains in play while that structure survives.

That does not make the market low risk. It makes the hierarchy clear.

The immediate chart still favors higher prices. The larger cycle says the risk could increase substantially if the S&P reaches its next major objective. Traders do not have to choose between those two ideas. They simply have to recognize which one the market is confirming now, and which one may matter next.

SPY Confirmed. Tech Still Has Something to Prove.

Thursday produced plenty of upside movement, but the more useful read came from separating the charts that actually cleared resistance from the ones that merely arrived at it.

SPY finally confirmed its breakout above prior all-time highs after spending seven sessions working through that area. QQQ and the semiconductor ETF SMH are not there yet. Both are pressing important resistance, but neither has produced the same degree of follow-through.

That hierarchy matters more than the size of Thursday's move. The macro backdrop helped create volatility, but price still had to deal with the levels already sitting on the chart. The late-day software surge made that point particularly well: a buyout report sent the group sharply higher, yet Atlassian ran directly into long-term resistance and immediately gave back a large portion of the move.

The catalyst changed. The levels did not.

SPY Finally Earned Its Breakout

SPY spent much of the past week doing what often frustrates traders most after a breakout: almost nothing.

Price had moved above its prior all-time highs, but instead of immediately accelerating, it consolidated around the breakout area for seven daily candles. Thursday finally produced the follow-through Drew Dosek had been waiting for.

That shifts the technical read. The former breakout area near $760 now becomes an important support reference on future pullbacks rather than resistance that still needs to be cleared.

The intraday chart reinforced the same idea.

Recent sessions had repeatedly followed a gap-up-and-sell pattern. Thursday broke that sequence. Buyers stepped in after the opening gap and pushed the market higher before price eventually retraced toward the lower end of the day's range.

That pullback reached an inclining trend line Drew had been carrying forward from February 2025 and reacted directly from it.

The age of the line is precisely what made the reaction useful. Traders sometimes discard older trend lines because they appear disconnected from current price action. Thursday showed why Drew continues extending them. A line established more than a year ago became relevant again once price returned to it.

The point is not that old trend lines always work. It is that market structure can remain relevant far longer than the catalyst that originally created it.

QQQ and Semiconductors Have Not Confirmed Yet

SPY may have completed the breakout sequence, but technology remains one step behind.

QQQ closed just above a declining trend line Thursday, putting the index on breakout watch. One close over resistance, however, does not provide the same evidence as price clearing the level and beginning to establish separation from it.

Drew's focus now is follow-through.

If QQQ can remain above the declining trend line and begin pushing away from it, the previous all-time high pivot near $748.65 becomes the next technical area in focus. If price falls back beneath the line instead, Thursday's move starts looking more like another resistance test than a durable breakout.

SMH presents an even more important confirmation test because semiconductors have historically carried substantial weight within the broader technology trade.

The ETF spent much of Thursday above its declining trend line before fading somewhat later in the session. It is also dealing with its 50-day simple moving average near $592.49.

That gives the semiconductor chart two separate hurdles.

A sustained move above both the trend line and the 50-day moving average would strengthen the bullish technology read. Continued rejection would leave a meaningful gap between SPY's confirmed breakout and the still-unresolved structure underneath the semiconductor group.

Right now, SPY has confirmation. Tech is trying to earn it.

The Software Surge Showed Why Location Still Matters

The cleanest lesson of Thursday's session may have arrived at roughly 2:30 p.m. ET.

According to the material discussed on the show, reports that Silver Lake was in talks involving Workday triggered a sharp move in WDAY and an immediate sympathy bid across other software stocks, including Atlassian, ServiceNow and Adobe.

The interesting part was not simply that software rallied.

It was where some of those rallies stopped.

Atlassian surged with the group and ran directly toward a declining trend line connecting major pivots from December 2024 and May 2025. Price reached just under $225 before reversing sharply and falling back toward $206.

The move is a useful example of how catalysts and technical structure interact.

The headline created urgency. It changed the short-term order flow and forced rapid repricing across the sector. But when that repricing carried TEAM into a level where sellers had previously controlled the chart, price still reacted.

That keeps the area near $225 as important resistance.

If TEAM eventually establishes itself above that line, Drew has $235.97 as the next technical area on the chart, corresponding with a prior breakdown zone that has not yet been fully retraced. Until then, the late-day spike is better viewed as a resistance test than a completed breakout.

Extension Creates a Different Problem in NET and JPM

Thursday also offered the inverse setup.

Some charts are not struggling to break resistance after a long consolidation. They have already traveled a significant distance and are now reaching the upper edge of their existing structure.

Cloudflare is one of them.

NET has rallied more than 100% from its April lows and is now pressing the upper boundary of an inclining parallel channel near $352. Drew also described the stock as overbought across both the daily and weekly timeframes.

That does not mean the broader trend has failed. It changes the location.

A stock sitting near the top of a mature channel after a large advance presents a very different setup from one breaking out of a base. The technical evidence raises the probability that sellers or profit-taking begin to matter more near the channel ceiling.

Drew is watching the recent August 7 pivot area as a potential support zone if NET begins to retrace.

JPMorgan carries a similar structure on the weekly chart.

JPM has traded within an inclining parallel channel dating back to October 2023 and is now pressing the upper boundary while extended on the longer-term timeframe.

That puts the prior all-time high near $337.14 back in focus if the stock cools from current levels, followed by deeper channel-related support near $322.

The larger lesson is the same one showing up across Thursday's tape: direction alone is not enough. Location determines whether a move is beginning, confirming or becoming extended.

Yields and Metals Are Not Sending the Same Message

The 10-year Treasury yield slipped to roughly 4.649% in Drew's review but remained within a tight consolidation beneath resistance.

The interesting part was what precious metals did with that decline.

Gold and silver initially pushed higher before fading later in the session. Rather than accelerating as yields pulled back, both metals spent Thursday consolidating after recent upside moves.

Gold is holding above former resistance while Drew watches the next major level near $45.75 on the instrument shown during the episode.

Silver is dealing with a more visible supply zone.

Repeated upper wicks have formed when price pushes beyond roughly $66.30, suggesting sellers continue to respond there. Continued consolidation could give buyers more time to work through that supply, while a failure to hold the developing base would weaken the near-term breakout structure.

If silver eventually clears the area with confirmation, Drew has $67.99 as the next resistance level.

The key point is not that lower yields automatically mean higher metals. Thursday showed why the chart reaction still has to confirm the intermarket thesis.

Oil Is Compressing, Bitcoin Is Losing Time

Crude oil remains in compression beneath a declining trend line.

Thursday's high came close to the resistance line without producing a clean test or breakout, leaving the structure unresolved. Drew's broader read is that oil continues to coil, with the eventual break of the compression likely to provide more information than the swings taking place inside it.

On the downside, he is watching support around $78.48, $78.20 and $74.38.

Bitcoin has a more urgent technical problem.

The cryptocurrency is trying to remain above an inclining trend line while also drifting away from the neckline associated with a potential inverse head and shoulders structure.

That leaves Bitcoin in a weaker position than a chart already pressing through its trigger.

For the bullish pattern to become more compelling, price needs to reclaim the neckline and begin establishing itself above it. If that happens, the $72,000 to $74,000 region becomes a potential technical objective from Drew's framework.

Continued failure to reclaim the structure would keep breakdown risk elevated.

Bitcoin does not need another narrative right now. It needs the chart to improve.

AMAT Brings the Same Framework Into Earnings

Applied Materials was one of the remaining earnings names Drew highlighted after the close.

Before the report, AMAT had been drifting toward the lower boundary of a parallel channel that had already produced two prior reactions. Drew identified the channel floor near $464.80 as the more important swing level if weakness continues.

In after-hours trading discussed during the show, shares moved toward the psychological $500 area.

That creates two different levels of information. The round number can produce a short-term reaction, but the larger channel boundary carries more weight for the broader technical structure.

Friday's price action should show whether buyers can stabilize the stock closer to $500 or whether the earnings move begins carrying AMAT toward the lower channel support Drew has been tracking.

The Charts Are Separating Confirmation From Excitement

Thursday was not important simply because stocks rallied.

It was useful because different charts reached very different stages of their technical structures at the same time.

SPY finally produced confirmation above its previous highs. QQQ and SMH are testing whether they can follow. TEAM demonstrated how quickly a news-driven surge can stall when it reaches established resistance. NET and JPM show the opposite problem, where strong trends have already carried price toward the upper edge of their structures.

That is the hierarchy going into the next session.

A catalyst can accelerate price toward a level. It can even force price through one temporarily. What matters next is whether the market can hold the break, build separation and turn former resistance into support.

SPY has done that work.

Several of the charts underneath it have not.

Bitcoin pressed into a descending trend line on Thursday that has capped every rally attempt since October 2025. That one line, not any individual altcoin chart, is what decides the next several weeks across the complex.

Nick Valdez, Chief Crypto Strategist at Verified Investing, walked through the setup in Thursday's Pro Charts: Crypto session. Bitcoin is trading near $63,000 and approaching the underside of a line that most recently rejected price in May. If it establishes support there, the structure opens a path toward roughly $73,000. If it doesn't, the altcoin exposure that most portfolios are carrying has nothing underneath it.

That asymmetry is the whole read. Everything else on the board this session was confirmation of it: Ethereum rejected at double resistance, XRP scrapping to hold a dollar, Cardano losing its channel midpoint. None of it was independent strength.

The Line That Has Capped Bitcoin Since October

What makes this trend line sensitive is its length. It originates from the October 2025 highs and connects wick to wick across ten months of price action. Longer lines carry more weight because more participants are watching the same level, and because each successful rejection reinforces it as a reference point. Price respected the line in May. Thursday's session brought Bitcoin back to it.

Establishing support here is the condition, not the trade. Above the line, Valdez identifies the $66,900 to $67,000 area as the first hurdle that needs to clear before the higher objective becomes relevant. His upside reference sits near $73,000, roughly a $10,000 move from current levels, but the path there runs through that intermediate resistance rather than around it.

Why the Channel's Angle Changes the Read

Bitcoin is also still inside a descending parallel channel, and Valdez was specific about why that structure leans constructive rather than bearish. A descending channel that forms after an extended decline typically resolves upward. The pattern most traders confuse it with, the bear flag, is distinguished by angle: the consolidation needs to sit in that steeper 45 to 90 degree range to read as bearish continuation. A shallower drift down after a long move down is a different animal.

The distinction matters because it determines which direction you treat as the base case, and traders routinely mislabel one as the other. Valdez was direct that this is a probability assessment rather than a forecast, and that probability should drive position decisions instead of conviction about a project or its founder.

The counterweight is that Bitcoin has already failed to escape this channel twice, once on a three-candle attempt and again on four or five candles. Compression against resistance is not a breakout. The next push above may be the one that holds, or it may be the third failure.

The Altcoin Complex Isn't Generating Its Own Bid

Ethereum reached the level Valdez has been tracking and got turned away at double resistance. The session candle opened at the top of its channel, ran higher, and gave the entire move back to close slightly below, with another red candle forming behind it.

XRP has spent three sessions fighting for a dollar. It traded down to $0.9909, closed back above at $1.0046, pushed to $1.01 Thursday and dipped to $0.998 in the same session. Above it sits a trend line drawn from the February six-week low, which price has already lost. A separate descending trend line caught a wick and may offer some support. Valdez's position is that reclaiming and holding $1.00 comes first, and everything else is secondary to that.

Cardano lost the midpoint of its parallel and is showing bearish pressure. Valdez took partial profit Sunday and the chart is about six cents lower since. Solana still reads as a valid bull flag under the same angle screen, but it broke out of its descending channel only after 35 to 36 days of pressure against it, and a retest of that level from above would be unremarkable.

Where the Leverage Is Sitting

One risk worth watching sits in the small caps. On Pump.fun, up roughly 50% from the $0.002 area Valdez flagged previously, the recent high failed to eclipse the prior high, and the liquidation heat map shows a cluster of long liquidations sitting above that were never cleared.

That combination is the setup for a flush. Leveraged positions get closed out at a loss when price reaches those levels, exchanges collect, and there is a reasonable argument that price gets drawn toward them. Valdez sees a bull flag target just above $0.003 that would clear the cluster, followed by a move back toward $0.0025.

What to Watch Next

Bitcoin holding the descending trend line as support is the confirmation. Losing it, and then losing the channel bottom, is the invalidation. Between those two outcomes, $66,900 to $67,000 is the gate. On the alt side, XRP needs to reclaim a dollar and Solana needs to survive a channel retest before either chart says anything on its own.

Until then, the alt setups are not separate trades. They are leverage on a single question, and Bitcoin either holds the line or it doesn't.

This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. All trading involves risk. Past performance is not indicative of future results.

Watch on YouTube

Published by Verified Investing | U.S. Economic Metrics

Released: August 13, 2026 | Data Period: Week Ending August 8, 2026 | Source: U.S. Department of Labor

Key Takeaways

• Initial claims rose to 209,000, up 9,000 from the prior week's 200,000. That single-week move will draw attention. It shouldn't.
• The 4-week moving average is 199,000 — unchanged from the prior week and sitting at the low end of the year's range. That number is doing its job: absorbing the noise and telling you the labor market is still in a low-layoff regime.
• Continued claims fell 22,000 to 1,777,000 (week ending August 1), the more meaningful directional signal in this print. When people who lose jobs are getting rehired, the pool of ongoing claimants drains — though a drop like this can also reflect benefits running out, not only rehiring.
• The insured unemployment rate holds at 1.2%, consistent with a labor market that is not deteriorating on a structural basis.
• The 9,000-claim weekly jump does not override the trend. A single-week move at this magnitude is well within the normal volatility band for this series. The DOL itself notes claims are volatile week to week — which is precisely why the 4-week average exists.
• The real question is whether the 4-week average can hold below 200,000. At 199,000, it is sitting at a threshold that, if sustained, signals the labor market is tighter than the broader macro narrative currently assumes.
• This print doesn't arrive in a vacuum. It follows a weak July jobs report (payrolls fell 23,000, with May and June revised down a combined 103,000), the July CPI report (headline inflation at 3.4% year-over-year, core at 2.5%), and Thursday morning's July PPI report (flat month-over-month headline, though core PPI jumped 0.4%). Together, they're why the Fed's September debate right now is hold-vs-hike, not hold-vs-cut — and why that debate remains genuinely unsettled today.
• For Fed watchers: Low initial claims and falling continued claims give the Fed one less reason to worry the labor market is cracking, which argues against an urgent hike. They do not, on their own, build a case for a cut — that would take a lot more than one calm claims print.

What This Metric Measures, and Why This Print Matters

The Department of Labor's weekly initial jobless claims report is the highest-frequency labor market data the U.S. government produces. Released every Thursday morning, it counts workers filing for unemployment insurance for the first time — a direct, near-real-time read on the pace of layoffs.

Continued claims, reported with a one-week lag, measure workers still receiving benefits after their initial filing. Together, the two series tell a sequential story: initial claims show how fast people are entering unemployment; continued claims show how fast they're leaving it.

The 4-week moving average is not a secondary statistic. It is the more useful trend signal. Weekly claims data is volatile — weather events, holiday timing, state-level processing backlogs, and seasonal adjustment artifacts can swing any single week's reading by 10,000–20,000 in either direction without conveying any signal about the underlying labor market. The 4-week average is the filter. If you're not reading the average, you're reading noise.

This week's print matters because it lands hours after the July PPI report, a day after the July CPI report, and a week after a weak July jobs report — all of which have been reshuffling the rate debate. July CPI showed headline inflation at 3.4% year-over-year with core at 2.5%. Thursday's PPI report came in flat month-over-month, below the 0.2% expected, though core PPI (excluding food, energy, and trade services) jumped 0.4% for the month — an acceleration tied largely to a spike in portfolio management fees, which could feed into the Fed's preferred inflation gauge, core PCE, when that data lands August 26. Nonfarm payrolls, meanwhile, fell 23,000 in July, with May and June revised down by a combined 103,000. The Fed held its target range at 3.50%–3.75% in July on a 9–3 vote, with three officials — Hammack, Kashkari, and Logan — preferring an immediate quarter-point hike. Estimates of September's odds have moved within the same trading day and vary by source: some see hold as the more likely outcome after this week's data, while at least one major strategist desk still sees a hike as more likely. That disagreement is itself the point — the debate is hold-vs-hike, not hold-vs-cut. Any evidence this week that layoffs are accelerating, or just as relevant, that the labor market is holding up fine, shifts those odds — it doesn't move a cut into the conversation.

The data this week argues for the latter — a labor market holding up fine.

What Everyone Will Focus On vs. What Matters More

The headline is a 9,000-claim jump to 209,000. That is the number financial wires will lead with, framed as a potential early sign of softening. A +9,000 week sounds like deterioration.

What matters more is that the 4-week moving average didn't move.

199,000 this week. 199,000 last week. The average has been absorbing the modest volatility in the weekly prints, and its message is unambiguous: layoffs are not rising. The labor market remains in a low-churn, low-firing state.

The buried story here is not the initial claims figure at all. It's the continued claims drop.

Continued claims fell 22,000 — from 1,799,000 to 1,777,000 (week ending August 1, one week behind the initial claims data). That is the signal. Here is why the direction matters: in a labor market that is genuinely beginning to soften, continued claims rise even when initial claims are contained, because the pipeline from "recently fired" to "rehired" slows down. People collect benefits longer before landing a new job. That's the canary. It isn't singing this week. Continued claims are moving in the opposite direction.

The framework is simple. Initial claims measure the firing rate. Continued claims provide a read on how long workers remain in the insured-unemployment system and can offer clues about reemployment conditions — though a drop can also reflect benefits running out, not just people finding new jobs. When both stay low and the latter is falling, the labor market is not deteriorating — regardless of what a single-week initial claims print suggests.

The 199,000 Average: What That Level Actually Means

Context reframes a number. 199,000 on the 4-week moving average sits at the low end of the roughly 195,000–230,000 range this series has operated in through most of 2026. It is not a distressed reading. It is not a temporarily depressed reading masked by seasonal artifacts. It is a structurally clean, low-volatility, low-layoff number.

For reference, claims readings in the roughly 200,000–250,000 range have historically coincided with non-recessionary labor markets — though there's no official threshold separating "healthy" from "not"; this is a rule of thumb, not a Fed or BLS benchmark. Readings that stay persistently below 210,000 on the 4-week average are, in that framework, more consistent with a labor market shedding jobs slowly than one running large-scale layoffs — though as the July payrolls report showed (payrolls fell 23,000, with May and June revised down a combined 103,000), slow layoffs and slow hiring can coexist.

The 199,000 average is at the tighter end of that framework. It does not indicate an overheating labor market the way a 180,000 weekly print might. But it also does not indicate a labor market approaching the kind of claims deterioration — sustained moves above 250,000–260,000 on the 4-week average — that has historically preceded meaningful unemployment rate increases.

The 9,000 single-week jump to 209,000 doesn't change that calculation. A 209,000 weekly print with a 199,000 average is a claims picture with a normal week of noise layered on top — though, as above, claims data alone doesn't capture the hiring side of the labor market, where July's payroll report was weaker.

Continued Claims Tell the Rehiring Story

The 22,000 drop in continued claims — from 1,799,000 to 1,777,000 — deserves its own treatment, because it's being underreported relative to its analytical weight.

A quick caveat on what this number can and can't show: a drop in continued claims means fewer people are drawing benefits after their first week of unemployment. That's consistent with people finding new jobs, but it can also reflect benefits running out before a new job is found, or people leaving the labor force altogether. The claims data alone doesn't distinguish between those explanations — the rehiring read is an interpretation, not something the number proves by itself.

Continued claims have been the more stubborn of the two series throughout 2026. When continued claims have stayed elevated even as initial claims stayed low, the interpretation has been: people are losing jobs at a slow rate but taking longer to get rehired. That's a labor market where the flow in is slow but the flow out is also slow — not a clean bill of health, just a slow-churn holding pattern.

A 22,000 drop cuts against that narrative. It says the pool of people collecting ongoing benefits is shrinking — not because fewer people filed last week (initial claims actually rose), but because more people who were collecting are cycling off, presumably back into employment.

At 1,777,000, continued claims remain within the cycle's range rather than breaking below it cleanly. One week doesn't make a trend. But the direction here, combined with the stable 4-week average in initial claims, builds a picture of a labor market that isn't shedding jobs quickly — not the same as a labor market that's clearly strengthening.

The insured unemployment rate holding at 1.2% supports that read. At 1.2%, the share of the covered labor force collecting unemployment benefits is low relative to most of the post-2010 period, though it was even lower — below 1% — for stretches in 2022, so "low by any historical comparison" overstates it. In our own framework, a move toward 1.5%–1.7% would be a more meaningful signal of labor-market stress; that's an internal watch-level, not an official Fed benchmark.

What This Means For Traders

The following is provided for educational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice.

Watch the 4-week average, not the weekly print. In our framework — not an official Fed or DOL threshold — a 4-week moving average sustained above roughly 215,000 for two to three consecutive weeks would be the first meaningful signal that the firing rate is rising. A single 209,000 print with the average at 199,000 is not that signal. This kind of single-week move generally isn't something traders position around.

The continued claims trend is worth watching alongside payrolls, not instead of them. If continued claims reverse next week and move back above 1,800,000, the low-churn read from this week weakens. If they fall again — toward 1,750,000 — it adds to a picture of a labor market that isn't shedding jobs quickly. Either way, weekly claims are a narrower signal than the monthly jobs report; July's payrolls fell 23,000, with a combined 103,000 downward revision to May and June — a more direct read on hiring than claims data can offer.

For rate expectations: This print doesn't move the debate the way the headline might suggest, because the debate right now isn't hold-vs-cut — it's hold-vs-hike. The Fed held its target range at 3.50%–3.75% in July on a 9–3 vote, with three officials preferring an immediate quarter-point hike. This week's data cut in different directions: July CPI (3.4% year-over-year headline, 2.5% core) and Thursday's flat headline PPI reading both came in cooler than expected, but core PPI jumped 0.4% for the month on a surge in portfolio management fees — a detail that adds upside risk to the core PCE report due August 26, the Fed's preferred inflation gauge. Market pricing for September has moved within the same day and differs by source; we'd treat any single hold/hike percentage you see quoted today as a snapshot, not a settled number. Calm claims data reinforces the case for holding at the margin — a labor market that isn't cracking gives the Fed less reason to move at all — but it doesn't by itself build a case for a cut, and it doesn't resolve the hold-vs-hike question either.

What would move this toward "cut" territory (our own analytical framework, not an official benchmark): a 4-week claims average sustained above roughly 230,000–240,000, combined with continued claims moving back through 1,850,000 toward 1,900,000, would be a genuine shift toward labor-market deterioration — the kind of print that could eventually put a cut on the table. This week's data isn't close to that.

Rate-sensitive sectors — housing, utilities, and REITs — are more exposed to whether the Fed eventually holds, hikes, or cuts than this single claims print can tell you. This week's data doesn't resolve that question; it just removes one potential argument — an accelerating labor-market breakdown — from the case for easing.

The labor market isn't giving the Fed a clean signal either way. The latest claims data show no evidence of an acceleration in layoffs, but claims alone don't establish that the broader labor market is strengthening — July's payrolls report argues the opposite on the hiring side. That mixed picture, more than any single print, is the ceiling on both hike and cut expectations right now.

Next claims print: August 20, 2026. Watch whether the 4-week average holds at or near 199,000, and whether continued claims extend the decline or revert.

Source: U.S. Department of Labor — Unemployment Insurance Weekly Claims Report, Week Ending August 8, 2026 (released August 13, 2026); U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics — Employment Situation, Consumer Price Index, and Producer Price Index, July 2026; Federal Reserve — FOMC Statement, July 29, 2026.

This article is published for educational and informational purposes only. Nothing contained herein constitutes investment advice or a recommendation to buy or sell any security. Please consult a qualified financial professional before making any investment decisions.

Softer PPI Helps the Market, but the Charts Still Decide Where the Risk Is

Thursday morning handed the bulls another piece of favorable macro data. July producer prices were unchanged month over month, below expectations, while the annual rate cooled to 4.7%. Coming one day after CPI, the report gives the Federal Reserve more room to remain patient heading into its September meeting.

The charts are not responding uniformly, though.

The S&P 500 is consolidating constructively near its highs. The dollar is threatening support. Treasury yields and oil are backing off. Those pieces fit a more supportive macro backdrop for equities.

Then look underneath the index.

Cisco is rejecting after earnings from a major long-term technical area. Coherent and Cerebras are dealing with their own post-earnings volatility. Gold is approaching longer-term resistance after an enormous run. Bitcoin is holding a breakout but still refusing to produce the momentum many traders expected.

That is the more useful read from Gareth Soloway's Game Plan this morning. Macro conditions may be improving, but location still decides the trade.

PPI Gives the Fed More Room

The July Producer Price Index was unchanged from June, while economists had expected an increase. On a year-over-year basis, producer prices rose 4.7%, down from June's pace.

That does not resolve the inflation debate, particularly with some underlying measures remaining firmer than the headline. It does, however, make the case for another rate hike less urgent than it looked when inflation pressures were accelerating.

The next Federal Reserve meeting runs September 15-16, leaving more than a month of additional economic data before policymakers have to make that decision.

For markets, the important point is not that one PPI print guarantees anything from the Fed. It is that another softer inflation reading gives policymakers more flexibility, and the market is beginning to reflect that.

That backdrop matters because several other pieces of the macro board are moving in the same direction.

The S&P 500 Still Has the Constructive Structure

S&P 500 futures pushed higher around the inflation release, but the more important feature is the structure already sitting underneath price.

The index has been consolidating near resistance in what Gareth reads as a developing bull flag. Instead of giving back the prior advance aggressively, price has stayed compressed near the highs.

That generally keeps the upside case intact until the pattern says otherwise.

There is also a much larger technical structure underneath the market. A long-term parallel channel drawn from the COVID-era low through the 2021 highs had acted as resistance before eventually being cleared. That former ceiling now becomes an important macro support area if the market begins to weaken.

So the hierarchy is fairly clean.

The bull flag is the immediate setup. The old channel boundary is the larger structural backstop.

As long as price remains constructive near the highs, the chart continues to lean bullish. A failure of the short-term consolidation would not immediately destroy the longer-term structure, but it would shift attention back toward that larger support zone.

Dollar, Yields and Oil Are Helping the Equity Setup

The intermarket picture is providing another layer of support.

The U.S. Dollar Index is sitting on an upsloping trend line connecting major pivots from earlier in the year. Price has tested that area repeatedly and is beginning to resemble a bear flag pressing against support.

That makes the dollar an important confirmation chart.

A clean breakdown would reinforce the softer macro tone and could relieve pressure on dollar-sensitive assets. Holding support would keep that confirmation from arriving.

Treasury yields are also easing, with crude oil part of the reason.

Lower energy prices reduce one source of inflation pressure, which can feed into lower yield expectations. For equities, that combination is generally more constructive than rising oil and rising yields together.

Oil itself is less interesting as a directional trade right now. Price remains compressed inside a tightening wedge after reacting from both resistance and a prior gap-fill area. Instead of sitting at one clean edge of the structure, crude is now trapped between them.

That is a chart where patience has more value than prediction.

Cisco Shows Why Good News Is Not Enough

Cisco is the best example on the board of why a supportive market backdrop does not remove stock-specific risk.

The company reported strong earnings and revenue, with continued demand for AI networking infrastructure. But investors focused on pressure in gross margins, and the stock sold off.

The weekly chart makes that reaction more important.

Gareth can draw a long-term trend line from Cisco's dot-com-era high through the recent peak, then create a parallel channel that also captures major lows underneath price. The latest advance pushed directly into that upper boundary before reversing.

There is also a weekly topping tail at the recent high.

That gives the selloff technical context. Cisco did not simply fall because traders disliked an earnings report. It arrived at a major historical resistance structure with expectations elevated, then gave sellers a catalyst.

For the shorter-term chart, Gareth identified support below the current market around $109 to $107.50. Smaller levels sit above it, but that lower zone carries more technical significance in his framework.

The larger point is more important than any single number: when expectations are high and price is already sitting at resistance, "good" earnings can still produce weak price action.

Coherent and Cerebras Need Different Treatment

Coherent and Cerebras are also dealing with post-earnings pressure, but their charts are not identical.

Coherent dropped sharply after hours before finding buyers near a daily gap-fill area around $327. Below that, Gareth identified roughly $315 as the next meaningful support, with another larger gap lower on the chart.

Cerebras requires more caution because there is far less trading history available.

The company only began trading publicly in May, which means there are fewer established pivots and less historical price memory to work with. Gareth highlighted the area around $204 as the first nearby support, while the deeper low near $160 carries more significance on a broader timeframe.

That lack of history matters. Technical analysis becomes more useful when the market has had time to establish levels that buyers and sellers have repeatedly reacted to.

New issues simply have less information embedded in the chart.

The "Scene of the Crime" Is Still One of the Most Useful Concepts

SpaceX offered a cleaner lesson in trader psychology.

The stock repeatedly found support around $150. Buyers defended it several times before the level eventually failed.

Once support breaks, the psychology around that price changes.

Traders who bought near $150 and then sat through the breakdown may use a return to the same level as an opportunity to exit near breakeven. New short sellers may also recognize the former support as potential resistance.

That is what Gareth calls the scene of the crime.

SpaceX rallied back toward $150 and began rejecting the area in premarket trading.

There is nothing mystical about the level. It matters because traders remember where they became trapped.

That is the behavioral logic behind support turning into resistance.

Gold Is Mature. Bitcoin Still Needs to Prove Itself.

The same idea of location carries into commodities and crypto.

Gold has already delivered an enormous advance and is now moving toward a longer-term resistance area roughly between $4,400 and $4,500 on Gareth's chart.

That changes the character of the setup.

The question is no longer whether gold has bullish momentum. It clearly does. The question is whether the next marginal trade still has attractive location after such an extended move.

Gareth would rather see price reset toward stronger support than chase the metal into major resistance. The $3,900 area is one level he is watching if a larger retracement develops.

Silver is in a slightly different position. It broke a longer-term trend line, retested it, moved higher again, and is now pressing into another resistance area. A future pullback toward the reclaimed trend line would make that level worth watching as potential support.

Bitcoin remains the odd chart on the board.

Stocks are near highs. Precious metals have surged. Bitcoin, by comparison, has produced very little momentum.

Yet price is still holding above a recently broken descending trend line.

That leaves a gap between sentiment and structure.

Traders frustrated by Bitcoin's lack of movement may feel increasingly bearish, but frustration alone does not break technical support. As long as Bitcoin stays above the reclaimed trend line, the breakout remains intact. Losing it would materially weaken that read.

Until then, the chart deserves more weight than the mood surrounding it.

The Casino Is a Process Analogy, Not a Promise

Gareth returned several times this morning to the psychological side of trading.

His casino analogy is useful because a casino does not need to know the outcome of the next hand. It operates from a framework built around probabilities over many repetitions.

Trading requires the same separation between process and outcome.

A trend line can fail. A gap fill can break. A resistance level can be cleared. No technical setup removes uncertainty.

The goal is to identify conditions that improve or weaken a thesis, define where the analysis changes, and repeatedly make decisions from the same framework instead of reacting emotionally to every headline or candle.

That is also why today's softer PPI report should not become a blanket instruction to chase risk.

The macro backdrop improved. The S&P 500 still has constructive structure. The dollar and yields are giving bulls additional help.

But Cisco is sitting in a completely different technical location than the S&P. Gold is in a different phase of its move than Bitcoin. Oil is compressed rather than trending cleanly.

The data can change the backdrop.

The chart still tells you where you are.

This morning's CPI print did not do much to the broad tape. The market chopped, activity stayed light, nothing resolved at the index level. The commodity complex was more informative, where the print produced two clean technical breaks and left everything else structurally unchanged.

Gold and silver both cleared downsloping trend lines that had capped them for weeks. Oil, wheat, copper and natural gas cleared nothing. They are rallying, in some cases sharply, but each one is climbing into overhead supply rather than out of it.

That distinction is the read right now. A move that clears structure and a move that runs into structure look similar on a daily percentage basis and behave very differently from there. Complicating it further: Sweeney reads VIX fear as back at a pre-Iran-war low, which normally argues for risk-on pressure. The safe-haven trade broke out anyway.

Gold and Silver Have Done What the Rest Have Not

Gold had been knocking on a downsloping trend line repeatedly before the print, and the increasing frequency of those tests was the tell. Repeated tests can weaken resistance as sellers absorb successive attempts. This one gave way on the CPI number.

What comes next is a stack of resistance rather than open air. First is a shorter-term upsloping trend line off the July 3 pivot, now with four touches, sitting directly overhead. Above that, a wide-range red-bar candle that has flipped polarity several times marks the $4,477 to $4,480 zone. Clearing that puts the $4,500 round number in play.

Below, $4,311 is the nearer support, with the $4,268 pivot low beneath it.

Silver broke the same way, and now has an upsloping trend line off its pivot low carrying price higher. The more interesting behavior is around the $65 handle. Price stalled at $65.05 last Friday, pushed above, then spent three sessions trading beneath it without resolution. Intraday that level has been heavily traded, and today produced a bounce off support with a sequence of higher lows behind it. Above $65, the next reference is the candle top at $67.15.

Two breakouts in the same complex on the same catalyst. That is the cleanest structure on the board.

Oil Is Rallying Into Three Layers of Resistance

Energy is doing the opposite, and it is the more instructive chart.

War risk that built through late July looks priced in at this point. Oil sold off to roughly $74 to $75 a barrel last week and has since pushed back above $80. The rally is real. The problem is where it is headed.

Three separate trend lines sit overhead. The one capping price now is a downsloping line with five touches, hit twice in a single session today, with price consolidating beneath it. That break comes in near $83. Above it, a formerly upsloping trend line that flipped to resistance after price lost it on the sell-off, now with three touches, converges with the longer-term downsloping line in the $86 to $87 area.

A push higher does not get a clean runway. Jake's stated preference is for oil to work lower, and on the downside the reference is $75, with the early July lows at $72 to $70 beneath.

The rally off $74 is what a retracement into supply looks like. Whether it becomes more than that depends on $83.

Copper Is One Level Away

Copper printed a multi-year high at $40.97 last Wednesday and traded up to roughly $40.41 today. The immediate obstacle is $40.42, a pivot acting as resistance since the start of the month. Clear it and the $40.97 high comes back into play.

There is also a wedge forming off the January 30 high pivot, now on its fifth touch. Same dynamic as the metals, where successive tests preceded the break.

Downside support sits at $39.55, backed by an upsloping trend line with three touches, and then the $38 to $39 zone.

Wheat and Nat Gas Are Building Bases, Not Breaking Out

Wheat moved into its long-term downsloping trend line off the March 7 high pivot, hit those highs cleanly, and came back in. The nearer obstacle is a trend line off a February high pivot that price drove through, could not confirm above, then gapped down from. The next test is around $25 flat. Support is the better-defined side: the upsloping trend line off the January 2 pivot low creates a triangle zone between $23.60 and $24.14, with the $23.55 pivot low, which bounced Friday, just underneath.

UNG sits earlier in the same process. It bottomed at $9.53 to $9.55 on the third touch of a parallel channel, found support off the channel's inline, and has been recovering. The wide-range bar at $10.40 caps it.

Key Levels

What Would Confirm or Invalidate This

The metals breaks hold as long as gold stays above its trend line and silver holds the $65 handle it has been fighting over for three sessions. Losing $65 puts that break back in question quickly, since price has already shown it trades both sides of the level.

For everything else the confirmations are numbered: $83 on oil, $40.42 on copper, $25 on wheat, $10.40 on UNG. Until those go, the group is rallying inside its existing structure, not out of it.

Which leaves the divergence. Equity-market fear has drained back toward pre-conflict levels, which should push capital toward risk, and yet the haven trade is the one that broke out today.

That divergence does not need to resolve immediately. It does make the metals breakout harder to dismiss as a simple fear trade. Buyers cleared resistance even as equity-market fear continued to drain.

This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. All trading involves risk. Past performance is not indicative of future results.

Watch on YouTube

CPI Sparked the Rally. The Fade Told the Bigger Story.

CPI gave the market what it wanted Wednesday morning. It still wasn't enough to produce a convincing breakout.

Stocks opened higher following an inflation print that came in line with expectations, but the early strength faded as the session progressed. For Drew Dosek, that reaction matters more than the initial move. The S&P 500 has now produced the same basic sequence multiple times recently: gap higher, sell into the strength, attempt a modest recovery, then spend the remainder of the session struggling to regain momentum.

That leaves the broader market in an unusual position ahead of Thursday's PPI report. The indices are still holding near their highs, but the technical evidence underneath them has not confirmed a clean risk-on move.

The next move matters. The reaction to that move may matter even more.

The Gap-and-Fade Pattern Is Becoming the Signal

The S&P 500 finished Wednesday higher, but the closing percentage disguises what happened intraday.

Price gapped higher following CPI and then faded. Drew identified a similar sequence Tuesday and again on August 5. One occurrence can be noise. Repetition around the same area deserves more attention.

The important point is not that the S&P suddenly looks bearish. It doesn't. The index remains elevated and close to its highs.

The issue is confirmation.

SPY has yet to establish the kind of decisive breakout that would resolve the recent consolidation. Instead, buyers have repeatedly been handed early strength and failed to maintain it through the session.

QQQ is telling a similar story. The Nasdaq remains near the upper end of its recent range after several sessions of consolidation, but it has not separated convincingly from that structure.

That makes Thursday's PPI reaction particularly useful. Another favorable catalyst followed by another intraday fade would reinforce the pattern. A breakout that holds would begin changing it.

Semiconductors Still Haven't Confirmed Risk-On

SMH may be the cleaner confirmation chart.

The semiconductor ETF pushed through Drew's inclining trend line intraday Wednesday, but it couldn't hold the move into the close. Price finished back beneath the line near $586.12.

That failed hold keeps the breakout unconfirmed.

A daily close above the trend line would improve the near-term structure, with another declining resistance line sitting just overhead near $589.46 on Drew's chart. Clearing that area would also bring the 50-day simple moving average into the conversation.

That is why semiconductors matter beyond SMH itself.

If the broader market is going to turn an inflation-driven gap into a more durable risk-on move, semiconductor participation would strengthen the case. For now, the sector is testing resistance rather than confirming through it.

Yields Explain Why Equities Still Can't Relax

The 10-year Treasury yield provides the other side of the setup.

Yields declined Wednesday, but the candle produced a sizeable lower wick and recovered toward the 4.687% area that has repeatedly influenced price over the past several weeks. Drew's next resistance level above that sits near 4.809%.

That means equities haven't received a decisive rates tailwind yet.

CPI came in without the upside inflation surprise markets feared, but Thursday's PPI release gives traders another inflation input to process. More important than the number itself will be whether yields can finally break lower or continue finding buyers around support.

A renewed push in yields would keep pressure on the same growth and semiconductor names currently struggling to confirm breakouts. A sustained yield retreat would remove one of the obstacles standing in their way.

Gold Is Doing What Stocks Haven't

The contrast with gold is useful because its chart has already done something the equity indices have not: confirm through resistance.

Gold has now closed above Drew's $4,333 level for three consecutive sessions, turning former resistance into an important near-term support area. Beneath it, the lower boundary of the parallel channel sits near $4,245.

As long as that reclaimed structure holds, Drew's technical projection remains pointed toward approximately $4,575.

Silver is showing a similar structure. Price continues to consolidate above an established support trend line near $63.26, with $67.99 marking the next major resistance area on Drew's chart.

The difference between metals and equities is therefore less about direction than confirmation. Gold has cleared a level and held it. SPY and SMH are still trying to do the same.

Oil Has the Pattern, But Not the Breakout

Crude oil sits one stage earlier.

Price again tested a declining trend line Wednesday and failed to close through it. That line also functions as the neckline of the inverse head and shoulders structure Drew has been tracking.

Until price closes above it, the pattern remains developing rather than confirmed.

That distinction makes oil one of the cleaner charts to watch because the technical question is straightforward. The structure exists. The neckline exists. What is missing is confirmation.

Natural gas is further along after reclaiming and consolidating above the $2.75 area. Drew is watching approximately $2.90 next, followed by the larger $3.29 resistance area if the structure continues to strengthen.

Bitcoin Has Its Own Confirmation Problem

Bitcoin is wrestling with essentially the same issue as the equity market.

Drew is tracking a developing inverse head and shoulders pattern with a neckline around $66,779. A confirmed break through that neckline would activate a measured-move projection toward roughly $74,000.

But the pattern has not triggered.

The right shoulder also creates a clear thesis-changing area. A close below approximately $63,400 would damage the structure and weaken the bullish pattern Drew is watching.

That gives Bitcoin a defined range in which the next move carries considerably more information than the price action inside it.

Above $66,779, the inverse head and shoulders strengthens.

Below roughly $63,400, it deteriorates.

Between them, it remains a developing setup.

Earnings Are Creating Cleaner Levels Than the Indices

While the major averages remain compressed, earnings volatility is producing more defined technical structures in individual stocks.

One of Drew's strongest examples was SMC, which surged more than 19% after earnings while breaking a declining trend line that also served as the neckline of an inverse head and shoulders pattern.

The important level now becomes the broken structure underneath price.

Drew identified support around the midpoint of the parallel channel near $33, followed by the former declining trend line around $28.80. The inverse head and shoulders carries a measured-move projection near $40.70, with additional resistance around $43.13.

NBIS is another breakout candidate, but Drew wants additional confirmation. Price closed above its declining trend line, while a move through Wednesday's high near $259.44 would strengthen the breakout. The former trend line around $241 would then become an important area to monitor on a retracement.

COHR showed the opposite sequence after earnings.

Drew had identified its gap-fill area near $328 as support. The stock subsequently traded to approximately $326 after hours and reacted from the zone. A deeper support area remains near the lower boundary of its parallel channel around $295.

These charts share something the major indices currently lack: clearly defined technical levels where confirmation or failure can be judged without interpreting every intraday move.

One Trend Line Can Be Enough

The most useful lesson from Wednesday's show came from Drew's Cerebras chart.

Rather than adding indicators, Drew used a declining trend line connecting major pivots to show how one accurately drawn level can organize an entire sequence of price action.

The stock was initially rejected at the line. It eventually broke through, retraced to test the former resistance, held it as support, and accelerated higher.

That sequence matters because a trend line is not valuable simply because price touches it. Its value comes from watching how market behavior changes around it.

Resistance can become support. Failed breakouts can expose weak momentum. Successful retests can strengthen a breakout thesis.

The line provides the reference. Price provides the answer.

That same framework applies to much of Wednesday's market.

What Matters After PPI

CPI created movement Wednesday, but it did not settle the technical argument.

The S&P 500 again faded from early strength. SMH briefly cleared resistance and gave the breakout back. Treasury yields recovered well off their intraday lows. Gold, meanwhile, continues to demonstrate what actual technical confirmation looks like by holding above previously broken resistance.

That creates a simple framework heading into PPI.

Don't focus only on whether the market initially rallies or sells off on the number. Watch what happens after the first reaction.

If SPY can hold strength and SMH begins closing through resistance, the recent gap-and-fade pattern starts losing relevance. If another favorable catalyst produces another rally that cannot survive the session, the repeated failure itself becomes harder to ignore.

Wednesday's CPI move was the headline.

The close was the information.

Published by Verified Investing | U.S. Economic Metrics

Released: August 12, 2026 | Data Period: July 2026 | Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Key Takeaways

• Headline CPI rose +0.1% MoM SA in July and +3.4% YoY, rebounding from June's -0.4% drop. That rebound is the story the wires will run. It is not the story that matters.
• Core CPI rose +0.2% MoM SA and +2.5% YoY — the cleanest read on underlying inflation. The YoY core rate fell from June's already-low 2.6%.
• Energy did the dragging in June; in July it retreated further. Energy fell -1.5% MoM in July, contributing -0.11pp — the component suppressing the headline for the second consecutive month, not lifting it.
• Services less energy carried the monthly number. At +0.2% MoM, it delivered +0.14pp — effectively the entire headline gain.  While this marks a reacceleration from June's flat print, it remains a moderate pace consistent with earlier months in 2026, not a surge.
• Core goods returned positive: +0.2% MoM, contributing +0.04pp. The shift from June’s decline marks a stabilization in the goods basket, though the magnitude remains modest.
• Shelter contributed the dominant share of the services move, accounting for roughly two-thirds of the total headline gain per BLS. At +0.1% MoM, shelter is tied for the slowest monthly pace since early 2021, held down by a sharp drop in lodging costs.
• The read: headline disinflation looks intact from the surface. The internal composition is more complex — shelter is genuinely cooling, energy is still a headwind to the headline, but core goods are stirring. The next two prints will determine whether that goods move is signal or noise.

What This Metric Measures, and Why This Print Matters

The CPI-U measures price changes paid by urban consumers across a fixed basket of goods and services. It is the most widely cited inflation gauge in the U.S., directly tied to Fed communication, Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities pricing, Social Security cost-of-living adjustments, and the bond market's term premium calculus.

July's release matters for a specific reason that goes beyond the monthly number. June CPI fell -0.4% MoM — the largest monthly decline since the early COVID deflation episode — and opened a debate: was that a clean signal that the disinflation trend had decisively resumed, or was it an energy-and-base-effect artifact that would mean-revert in July?  The answer shapes how the market reads the Fed's next move and whether Chair Warsh's FOMC has cover to shift tone at the September meeting.

It also lands in the middle of a tariff regime whose pass-through has been, until now, gradual and limited on the goods side of the basket. If July is the month that changes that — even partially — it matters for every CPI print that follows.

What Everyone Will Focus On vs. What Matters More

What everyone will focus on: the headline bounced. June's -0.4% drop was dramatic enough to generate genuine rate-cut speculation across rates desks, and July's +0.1% rebound — modest as it is — will be framed as a 'CPI stabilizes' story.  YoY sits at 3.4%, down from June's 3.5% read, and the BLS lede emphasizes the shelter component's outsized role in the monthly gain.  The narrative will be: inflation stabilized, the disinflationary push paused, the Fed stays patient.

What matters more: the composition of this print is not a reacceleration. It is a beat-down headline built on a continuing energy drag, a shelter component that is decelerating — not accelerating — and a services ex-energy contribution that is a modest rebound from June's flat print, matching the soft pace seen earlier in the year.

Walk through the contribution math. The +0.1% headline breaks down as: services less energy +0.14pp, core goods +0.04pp, food +0.01pp, and energy -0.11pp (approx). Energy is still subtracting nearly a tenth of a point from the headline — for the second straight month. Strip it out and the ex-energy print is roughly +0.18%. That is not a hot number. It is a number entirely consistent with a Fed on hold, not a Fed that needs to tighten further.

The shelter story deserves specific attention because BLS flagged it as the dominant driver. Shelter rose +0.1% MoM — contributing roughly +0.05pp (about two-thirds of the total headline gain), given shelter's ~36% basket weight.  But +0.1% monthly on shelter is the slowest pace since early 2021. The framing that 'shelter drove the headline' is technically accurate and analytically misleading: shelter drove a small headline because shelter itself is cooling sharply.

The Shelter Deceleration Is Real — and Larger Than One Month

Shelter's deceleration is not a July quirk. It is a trend that has been building for two months. The +0.1% July print follows a sequence that has run progressively cooler from the April catch-up spike (+0.6%). Owners' Equivalent Rent, which comprises roughly 26% of the entire CPI basket, has been the structural floor under core inflation throughout 2024 and into 2025. Its deceleration is the most consequential single development in this release.

The arithmetic follows directly. OER running at +0.3% monthly in July (following +0.2% in June and +0.3% in May) — versus the +0.4–0.5% monthly pace that kept core CPI sticky through 2024 and into early 2025. If that pace holds or continues lower, the mathematical pressure on core YoY is relentless. Core CPI at 2.5% YoY is already below 2.6% for the first time this cycle. A shelter component running at this pace for another two to three months makes sub-2.0% core YoY a realistic destination, not a forecast.

That is the number the Fed is watching. Chair Warsh's FOMC inherited an inflation problem that was primarily a shelter problem. July's data is the clearest evidence yet that the shelter problem is resolving.

The Core Goods Signal: Small, but No Longer Zero

Through twelve-plus months of tariff exposure, core goods CPI had been a non-event — occasionally negative, rarely above +0.1%, consistently defying predictions of tariff pass-through. July changes that modestly. Core goods rose +0.2% MoM, contributing +0.04pp to the headline.

This is worth naming precisely because it is the category where further upside risk lives. The goods basket covers apparel, vehicles, household furnishings, medical equipment — all categories with meaningful import exposure. A single +0.2% month does not establish a trend. Two or three consecutive months would.

What makes July's goods move worth watching is the concurrent context. Brent crude has been elevated. Container shipping costs have stayed firm. And the global tariff regime — and the broader U.S. tariff regime remains an important potential source of goods-price pressure. The inputs for pass-through are present. Whether producers choose to exercise that pricing power is what the next two prints will reveal.

The baseline case is still that goods pass-through is limited by demand pressure absorbing margins before consumers. But July's +0.2% is the first month where the goods contribution (+0.04pp) was meaningfully positive rather than rounding to zero. That is a flag, not a thesis — yet.

Energy: Still Pulling the Headline Down, Just Less Than June

Energy fell -1.5% MoM in July, contributing -0.11pp.  For context: in June, energy was the primary factor behind the -0.4% headline collapse, contributing an estimated -0.44pp.  In July, the energy drag is real but smaller — consistent with crude prices that pulled back from May highs but stabilized rather than collapsed further.

The YoY energy picture is where the tension lives. Energy is up +14.7% year over year.  That base effect has been distorting the headline YoY rate upward throughout 2026, keeping the 3.4% headline artificially elevated relative to what the monthly run-rate implies.  Over the next three months, those comparables get easier — the June and July 2025 energy base was softer, meaning the YoY energy drag reverses unless prices spike again from here.

If Brent stays in the $87–90 range and the energy MoM contribution stays near zero or slightly negative, the headline YoY rate could mechanically compress toward 3.0–3.2% by October without any change in the underlying services or goods dynamics. That is a scenario where the headline-watchers and the core-watchers arrive at the same place from very different routes.

What This Means For Traders

The following is provided for educational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice.

The core thesis: July CPI is a soft print dressed in a rebound narrative. Headline bounced from June's dramatic decline, but the internals show a disinflation trend that is still intact — led by shelter's genuine deceleration and offset only partially by the first real core goods signal of the tariff cycle.

Watch shelter for the next two months. If OER continues printing at +0.2% or below, core CPI's YoY path to 2.5% is arithmetic, not forecast. That would be the most significant shift in the inflation narrative since the 2024 goods disinflation cycle. Rate-sensitive sectors — utilities, REITs, long-duration Treasuries — are priced for a Fed that stays patient. A sustained shelter deceleration changes that pricing.

Watch core goods in August and September. One month at +0.2% is a data point. Two consecutive months above +0.15% in goods is a regime shift — the first evidence of sustained tariff pass-through into consumer prices. That would put the Fed in a genuinely difficult position: a cooling services sector and a reaccelerating goods sector, pulling core in opposite directions. The September 1 ISM Manufacturing Prices index is the upstream warning indicator — if it stays elevated above 70, goods CPI pressure is building.

The September FOMC calculus. Warsh inherits a 3.4% headline and a 2.5% core. Neither number forces action. What would change the Fed's posture: two more months of shelter at +0.1% or below (opens the door to a September or November cut discussion) versus goods CPI continuing higher alongside any services rebound (locks the Fed in place through year-end). Watch the August CPI release on September 11 — it prints before the September 16 FOMC decision and will carry more weight than any Fedspeak between now and then.

The energy wildcard. Brent at $88–90 is a headwind to headline disinflation. A sustained move above $100 reverses the energy CPI tailwind entirely and reprices the 2026 rate path in a single week. A move below $80 — possible if the Iran conflict de-escalates — would accelerate headline disinflation mechanically and pull the YoY rate toward 3.0% by Q4 with no change in underlying dynamics.

The headline says inflation stabilized in July. The breakdown says the disinflationary engine is still running — just quieter than June's dramatic decline made it look. That distinction is the trade.

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics — Consumer Price Index Summary, July 2026 (USDL-26-1378, released August 12, 2026)

This article is published for educational and informational purposes only. Nothing contained herein constitutes investment advice or a recommendation to buy or sell any security. Please consult a qualified financial professional before making any investment decisions.

The stocks worth watching in the current tape are not the ones producing the largest single-session moves. They are the ones arriving at lines that were drawn well before the move happened.

Two of the names on today's Pro Charts: Stocks board are being sold back into the lower boundary of channels that have framed their entire trend, where support is a confluence of structure rather than a single line. Two others are pressing into overhead trend lines that have capped them for weeks, where the question becomes confirmation rather than location.

That creates two different trades to wait for: support that has to be reached, and resistance that has to be cleared. When price is already extended above a freshly reclaimed line, that line stops being the entry and becomes the invalidation.

FSLR: A Second Test of Channel Support, This Time With Fib Confluence

First Solar has been contained within an inclining parallel channel since the April 2025 low. At the end of July, price plunged into the bottom of that channel, bounced sharply, and ran nearly back to the fifty percent area of the channel before being rejected. It is now falling straight back toward the lower boundary.

What makes this test more interesting than the last one is that two factors converge. The bottom of the parallel and the 0.786 retracement of the leg from that low to the August pivot high land in the same place, near $211.65, per Drew Dosek's on-chart measurement. A fast decline into confluence can increase the odds of a sharper initial reaction compared with a slow drift into the same level.

If the level holds and buyers respond, the fifty percent area of the channel near $276 becomes the next technical objective. A decisive close beneath the lower boundary means the channel that has organized this chart since April 2025 is no longer intact, and the setup is invalidated rather than delayed.

BE: The Same Geometry, With a Demand Story Behind It

Bloom Energy shows nearly identical channel structure, though its parallel originates in December 2025 rather than April. The lower boundary has been touched three times and has held each time. The fourth contact would come in near $177.30.

The wrinkle is timing. BE showed near-term strength on the session, lifting out of three trading days of downward pressure that looked ready to resolve lower in the same manner as FSLR. That strength may delay the pullback, and the setup requires price to come down to the level rather than the reverse.

The fundamental backdrop may help explain some of that relative strength, with Bloom positioned around rising power demand from AI data centers. But the chart does not need the story to work. The lower channel boundary remains the technical decision point.

A fourth touch that holds keeps the channel and the trend intact. A break below $177.30 breaks a structure that has worked all year, which is a signal to stand aside rather than to average down.

CoreWeave: The Reclaimed Trend Line Is Now the Risk Line

CoreWeave reported earnings after Tuesday's bell and traded up as much as eighteen percent intraday, with the session move exceeding twenty percent. The percentage is not the important part. The structural change is.

Price reclaimed the near-term declining trend line connecting recent pivot highs. That line now sits near $100 and functions as the line in the sand. A close back beneath it puts the declining trend line overhead as resistance again and undoes what the earnings reaction accomplished.

Above current price, an inclining trend line drawn from pivot to pivot caps near $115. Rejection there leaves the name range-bound between $100 and $115, a poor location to initiate. Clearing $115 with follow-through opens the next pivot-high-to-pivot-high resistance at $136, and above that the chart thins out toward prior highs. Nothing about the size of the earnings move changes where those gates sit.

Dell: A Weekly Topping Tail on the Verge of Being Negated

Dell printed a weekly topping tail at $469.47 in June, and price worked roughly twenty percent lower from there. What has developed since is constructive rather than corrective. The weekly candles have built an orderly consolidation, the last two weeks have pushed into the top of that range, and the daily timeframe shows five or six sessions compressing beneath the same level.

A weekly close above $469.47 would negate the topping tail, and that matters mechanically as well as technically. Shorts initiated against that candle lose their reference point on a close above it, and the resulting covering can supply fuel for the next leg. The projection in that scenario is a test of the $500 handle, with scope to breach it.

Absent that weekly close, the topping tail remains valid and the consolidation remains unresolved.

Key Levels

What to Watch Next

The nearest binary is Dell's weekly close, which can resolve within days. Above $469.47 the topping tail is neutralized. Below it, the June signal still stands.

CoreWeave's $115 line is the second checkpoint, separating a name trading inside a range from one with open structure above it. FSLR and BE are both invalidated by a decisive close beneath the channel boundary rather than confirmed by proximity to it.

Dell can resolve first because its weekly close is approaching. CoreWeave needs $115. FSLR and BE need price to come to them. That is the hierarchy across all four charts: do not confuse a level worth watching with a setup that has already triggered. Mark the structure first, then let price decide whether there is anything to act on.

Watch on YouTube

CPI Clears the Way for Stocks, but Gareth's 8,200 Warning Has Not Changed

July CPI gave the market what it needed Wednesday morning: no upside inflation surprise.

Headline CPI rose 0.1% in July and 3.4% from a year earlier, while core CPI increased 0.2% for the month and 2.5% year over year. Those numbers were enough to keep pressure off Treasury yields and support another push higher in equity futures.

For Gareth Soloway, however, the important part is not simply that inflation came in benign enough for stocks.

It is what the reaction does to the larger market structure.

Lower yields, a dollar testing support, and continued liquidity appetite could give the S&P 500 room for another leg higher. Gareth continues to see a path toward roughly 8,100 to 8,200 if the current bullish consolidation resolves upward.

The twist is that he does not necessarily view that move as the beginning of another major bull-market expansion.

He is watching it as a potential final leg into a much more important market top.

CPI Removed a Problem. It Did Not Solve Everything.

The headline inflation numbers were relatively calm.

Shelter rose just 0.1% in July, although it still accounted for roughly two-thirds of the month's increase in headline CPI. Food prices rose 0.1%, while food away from home increased 0.3%.

Energy declined 1.5% for the month, but the year-over-year numbers remain elevated. The overall energy index is still up 14.7% from a year ago, with gasoline prices up 24.6%.

There are also pockets where inflation remains much hotter.

Airline fares jumped 2.2% in July and are now 25.5% above year-ago levels. Medical care increased 0.4% during the month.

That is why Gareth's read is less about declaring inflation defeated and more about what the report failed to do.

It did not give the Federal Reserve an obvious reason to become more aggressive.

With labor conditions also showing signs of softening, the hurdle for another rate increase remains high. The next FOMC decision arrives September 16, giving policymakers another month of economic data before they have to make that call.

For the market, that keeps liquidity expectations alive.

Watch the 10-Year and the Dollar

The clearest confirmation came from markets outside equities.

The 10-year Treasury yield moved lower following the CPI report, while the U.S. Dollar Index continued pressing into an important support area on its daily chart.

Those two charts matter because they help determine how easy financial conditions become.

Falling yields reduce competition from fixed income and ease financing pressure throughout the economy. A weaker dollar can also provide a tailwind for risk assets and multinational companies.

As Gareth put it during the show, the market still wants "free money."

That does not mean falling yields automatically produce higher stock prices. It means the combination of softer yields, dollar weakness, and sufficient liquidity keeps removing obstacles from the bullish equity case.

The dollar now becomes one of the more important confirmation charts.

If DXY loses its current support structure, it would strengthen the liquidity argument behind another S&P push. A dollar bounce, particularly if accompanied by rising yields, would make that path more difficult.

The S&P 500 Still Has an 8,100-8,200 Path

Gareth's broader S&P framework has not changed.

The index remains inside a bullish consolidation structure that can still resolve higher. If that happens, his technical work continues to point toward approximately 8,100 to 8,200 over the coming months.

That would represent another meaningful extension of the current advance, but this is where the longer-term warning enters the picture.

Gareth views the same zone as a potential area for a major cycle top.

In other words, the bullish and bearish arguments are not necessarily contradictory.

The market can remain bullish tactically while becoming increasingly vulnerable strategically.

That is the setup Gareth is watching: one more liquidity-supported push higher could ultimately create the conditions for a much larger reversal later.

For now, price still has to earn that upside.

As long as the current consolidation remains intact and yields and the dollar stay cooperative, the bullish path remains open.

Earnings Gaps Are Creating Better Levels Than Entries

The morning's strongest individual-stock moves were concentrated in AI and infrastructure names, but Gareth's approach was not to chase the gaps.

It was to map where those moves could eventually run into resistance.

CoreWeave was one of the clearest examples.

CRWV surged after reporting strong second-quarter results, but the more interesting technical level sits near $122. Gareth identified three separate factors converging around that area: a descending trend line, a prior pivot, and the 61.8% Fibonacci retracement of the previous decline.

That makes $122 more important than the size of Wednesday morning's gap.

A reaction there would tell traders much more about the sustainability of the move than buying into the initial earnings excitement.

Super Micro Computer presents a similar structure.

SMCI has several layers of resistance overhead, beginning around $36.75, followed by approximately $38.15 and then the larger $40.50 area.

The value of those levels is not that price must reverse from them.

It is that they give traders predetermined reference points instead of forcing decisions after volatility has already expanded.

NBIS Has Two Different Resistance Tests

NBIS also jumped sharply, but Gareth separated the chart by timeframe.

Near-term resistance sits around $230, an area backed by multiple prior pivots. Because price opened relatively close to that zone, Gareth viewed the $240 to $241 area as the more substantial overhead test if momentum continues.

The swing chart adds another layer.

That higher region overlaps with the lower boundary of a large gap created during the stock's previous decline from roughly $275 toward $240.

That makes the zone significant for a simple reason: traders who were trapped during the original breakdown may finally have an opportunity to exit closer to their cost basis.

That supply can matter when price returns.

It is the same reason gap fills repeatedly show up in Gareth's work. The blank space on the chart matters less than the positioning created around it.

CAVA Shows Why Price Still Comes First

Outside the AI trade, CAVA produced one of the stronger earnings reactions of the morning.

The company reported 31.3% year-over-year revenue growth, with same-restaurant sales increasing 9% and guest traffic up 5.3%.

That gives the fundamental story legitimate support, but Gareth still approached the chart through levels rather than the headline.

The first resistance area sits near $74.40, with a more important level around $76.75.

That is the part of the setup worth carrying forward.

Strong earnings can explain why a stock is moving. They do not tell traders where buyers and sellers are likely to collide next.

The chart does.

Oil Is Coiling While Gold and Silver Press Higher

Crude oil remains caught inside a narrowing wedge.

That technical compression reflects a market waiting for additional information from the geopolitical backdrop. Price is making lower highs and higher lows, leaving less room between support and resistance.

Until one side breaks, there is little reason to predict the direction.

A confirmed move outside the wedge would be far more meaningful than the noise inside it.

Precious metals are behaving differently.

Gold continues pressing into overhead resistance, while GDX has maintained its strength. Gareth is watching approximately 94 as the next technical objective for the gold miners ETF if the current move continues.

Silver may offer the more interesting structure.

It has already broken a major descending trend line, which means the next important event may not be another vertical move higher. It may be the retest.

A pullback into the former breakout line would test whether previous resistance can now function as support.

That is where the chart gets information.

Bitcoin Is Still Holding the Line That Matters

Bitcoin has been volatile over the past several sessions, but Gareth's larger technical read remains intact.

The key is the longer-term breakout trend line.

As long as Bitcoin continues holding above that structure, the bullish breakout has not been invalidated. A confirmed loss of the line would change the technical picture.

That framework also captures one of Gareth's recurring trading principles.

News can explain volatility. Price structure determines whether the thesis is still working.

The goal is not to ignore macro events, earnings, geopolitics, or company-specific headlines. It is to avoid allowing the narrative to override what price is actually doing.

The Game Plan

Wednesday's CPI report removed an immediate obstacle for the bulls.

Inflation did not reaccelerate enough to force a major repricing of monetary policy, Treasury yields softened, and the dollar remains under pressure near technical support.

That keeps Gareth's bullish S&P scenario alive.

If the current consolidation resolves higher, the 8,100 to 8,200 region remains the major upside area on his chart.

But that is also what makes this market increasingly interesting.

The next leg higher may not invalidate Gareth's longer-term bearish concerns. It may complete them.

For now, the game plan is to watch the transmission mechanism rather than the headline: yields, the dollar, and the S&P structure itself.

If those charts continue confirming one another, the market still has room to run.

If they begin to diverge, the road to 8,200 gets much harder.

The currency market spent Tuesday compressed inside narrow ranges, and that lack of movement is the setup. July CPI arrives Wednesday, August 12 at 8:30 a.m. ET, with July PPI following Thursday morning, and both prints could materially shift rate expectations.

That leaves the dollar index pinned between two lines close enough together to force a resolution within days. The DXY is sitting on an upsloping trend line from the January 27 low with a resistance shelf near 100 capping it above. Compression that tight into a scheduled catalyst offers little edge inside the range. The resolution matters more than the chop.

The dollar is not the whole story, but it is the hinge. Euro and pound are both pressed against descending trend lines from their January highs, with the pound the more advanced of the two, and the yen has spent the week reorganizing around an intervention-driven level flip.

The Dollar's Two Lines

The dollar had a legitimate run in late July, pushing above 101.61 and clearing prior resistance before the down sloping trend line off the May 13 high pivot stopped the advance. Coordinated yen-buying intervention accelerated the rollover that followed, and the dollar cut through the 100.643 handle, which was challenged repeatedly on the hourly before giving way at last Thursday's open.

The structure that matters now is the upsloping trend line from the January 27 low, currently on its third touch. Friday's candle broke below it without confirming and price reclaimed the line Monday. That line is the support keeping a dollar recovery alive; the 100 shelf is what has to break for the recovery to mean anything.

The conditional map is clean. If the shelf breaks, 100.314 sits just below a prior low pivot as the next technical reference, with 100.643 back in play above it. If the trend line fails instead, the June consolidation shelf at 99.179 is the reference. Price bounced off that level as support earlier in the summer and has not proven otherwise since.

The Yen: Intervention Left Structure Behind, Not Just a Gap

Japan's Ministry of Finance and the U.S. Treasury confirmed a joint yen-buying operation on August 3, the first since 2011, and the move produced a decline of roughly three to four percent in dollar-yen. The more durable outcome is structural: the trend line off the July low pivot that had been support is now resistance. Price closed above it once during the fall, broke well below the next session, and the flip has held since.

That leaves two levels of overhead supply: the upper end of the 159 range near 159.825, then the 160 handle. Clear both and the 164.64 pivot top becomes the next reference. Below, the November pivot top, a level that has flipped roles repeatedly, is near-term support.

Euro and Pound: The Same Trade at Different Stages

The euro is the laggard, capped by two descending trend lines: a short-term line from the July pivot with three to four touches, and a stronger long-term line from the January high pivot. Price wicked through both Friday and closed below, and Monday's attempt was halted again.

Timing matters here. Long-term trend lines weaken when tested in quick succession, and the January line has only been tested once since May 12. That makes the short-term line the more vulnerable of the two. If both break, 1.15946 is the next resistance. Support sits at 1.15030, with 1.14807 beneath it.

The pound has already done what the euro has not. It hit its long-term trend line four times in a single week, then cleared it with confirmation. Price is now working on the next line from the January 27 pivot, and the past two sessions have run the same script: an attempt to confirm above, then a wick back below. Confirmation is the trigger, with 1.35582 as the next major resistance above.

Support underneath is unusually well defined. The trend line from the June 24 low pivot has five touches, and price strengthened it by breaking below, failing the first reclaim, then recovering the line. That sequence leaves a more reliable level than a clean, untested one. The 1.34 area is dynamic support below it.

The ranking is the takeaway: the pound has the best price action of the group and the euro the weakest, which is the ordering to carry into a dollar break. The Australian dollar sits in between, grinding higher inside a parallel channel since late June with support at 0.7244.

What to Watch Next

The trigger is the data, and the DXY resolution is the signal rather than the individual crosses. A confirmed close below the January 27 trend line opens 99.179 and validates the euro and pound breaks. A break above the 100 shelf points to 100.314 and puts recent cross-currency strength on the defensive. Either read is invalidated by a failure to confirm, as Friday's dollar break demonstrated.

Key Levels to Monitor

Position Around the Line, Not the Print

The temptation into a data week is to guess the number. The more durable approach is to define what the chart has already established and let the print decide which side of the line matters. The dollar's structure is legible: one line below, one shelf above.

Quiet sessions before a catalyst are not dead time. They are when levels get drawn and confirmation criteria get set.

Watch on YouTube

The Market Is Waiting on CPI, but These Levels Already Define the Next Move

Tuesday looked quiet on the surface. SPY slipped roughly 0.3%, QQQ remained trapped inside its recent range, and the major indices continued the sideways trade that has defined the past several sessions.

The reason for that hesitation is obvious. July CPI arrives Wednesday morning, followed by PPI on Thursday, giving traders two consecutive inflation releases capable of changing expectations around the Federal Reserve's September meeting.

But waiting for the numbers does not mean waiting for the levels.

Drew Dosek's Trading the Close charts already establish the framework. SPY still has an unconfirmed breakout. Semiconductors have yet to fully confirm the broader market's strength. The 10-year Treasury yield remains elevated. And crude oil is compressing beneath one of the more consequential resistance structures on the board.

The data may provide the catalyst. Price will tell us whether it mattered.

SPY Still Has Something to Prove

The most important equity level is not today's modest decline. It is 773.41.

SPY recently pushed above its prior high, but that move has not produced the follow-through Drew wants to see. Price has repeatedly stalled around the breakout area rather than expanding cleanly above it.

That leaves the move unconfirmed.

A daily close above 773.41 would strengthen the near-term bullish structure and show that buyers are finally gaining acceptance above the prior range. It would not eliminate the possibility of a retest, but it would change the character of the consolidation.

Until then, SPY remains caught between a breakout attempt underneath and an inclining resistance line overhead.

That is why CPI matters technically. The number itself will generate the headlines. The more useful question is whether the reaction can finally push SPY through the level it has been unable to clear.

QQQ Is Consolidating, but Semiconductors Are the Better Tell

QQQ is sending a similar message.

Drew's chart has upside resistance at 729.36, while 704.32 marks the more important support below. As long as price remains between those levels, the Nasdaq trade is more consolidation than directional resolution.

The semiconductor ETF, SMH, makes that consolidation more interesting.

While the broader indices have spent time near their highs, semiconductor leadership has been less convincing. Drew uses SMH as an important confirmation signal for the technology complex, and that makes its relative position worth watching.

The logic is straightforward: if the broad indices are going to sustain another technology-led advance, stronger participation from semiconductors would reinforce that move. Continued hesitation in SMH would leave a divergence underneath the headline strength.

That does not make SMH a requirement for SPY to rise. It makes semiconductors a useful test of how broad and durable that strength actually is.

The 10-Year Yield Is the Macro Pressure Gauge

The other side of the equation is the bond market.

The 10-year Treasury yield has remained elevated near multi-month highs as traders head into CPI, with inflation concerns and higher energy prices keeping pressure on rates.

Drew's chart puts the next significant technical level near 4.809%.

That matters because a sustained push higher in long-duration yields would increase the valuation pressure already facing growth stocks. Technology does not automatically fall every time yields rise, but higher discount rates create a more difficult backdrop for the expensive areas of the market.

That makes the relationship between SPY and the 10-year particularly useful over the next several sessions.

If SPY confirms its breakout while yields stabilize, the equity structure strengthens.

If yields continue pushing toward Drew's next resistance area while SPY remains unable to clear 773.41, the market would be sending a very different message.

Oil May Matter More Than This Week's Inflation Print

Crude oil may be the chart with the biggest longer-term macro implications.

Price is pressing into a declining trend line that has already been tested repeatedly. Drew counts five touches, with the most recent tests arriving increasingly close together.

Repeated resistance tests do not guarantee a breakout. What they show is that sellers are being asked to defend the same area again and again while price continues to compress underneath it.

There is also a developing inverse head-and-shoulders structure beneath that resistance.

That combination creates a clear decision point. A confirmed break through the declining trend line would strengthen the bullish oil structure and activate the pattern's measured-move framework. Failure at the line would leave the larger consolidation intact.

The inflation connection is what makes this chart bigger than an ordinary commodity setup.

Oil has already moved higher amid renewed geopolitical uncertainty, contributing to the market's concern about inflation and Treasury yields. A sustained technical breakout would keep that pressure in focus even after this week's CPI and PPI numbers are released.

That is the more interesting macro question. Wednesday tells us where inflation was. Oil may help tell us where some of that pressure is headed.

Gold and Silver Are Testing Their Breakouts

Precious metals are at a different stage of the move.

Gold has pulled back after trading above $4,400 Tuesday morning, following a powerful advance across the metals complex. Drew's chart has price moving back into its parallel channel, which puts support around $4,237 in focus.

A reaction there would matter more than the pullback itself. Holding the lower portion of the structure would preserve the broader bullish setup while allowing some of the extension to come out of the chart.

Silver is working through a similar process.

Drew identifies $63.26 as near-term support following its breakout. Holding that area would keep $67.99 in focus as the next major resistance level.

Both charts reinforce the same lesson: a breakout is not only about getting above resistance. What happens on the first meaningful retest often tells you whether the market is actually accepting the new range.

Bitcoin Still Needs the Breakout

Bitcoin remains the least convincing of the three alternative-asset charts.

Price was trading around the mid-$64,000 area Tuesday morning, still below Drew's key resistance structure.

The first level is roughly $65,000, where reclaiming the inclining channel would improve the near-term picture.

The bigger technical trigger sits at $66,792.

That level represents the neckline of the developing inverse head-and-shoulders pattern. A confirmed breakout would activate a measured-move projection into roughly the $72,000 to $74,000 area.

Until that happens, it remains a developing setup rather than a completed bullish pattern.

That distinction is especially important in a market where several assets have already rewarded traders for anticipating breakouts. Bitcoin has not earned that assumption yet.

Alphabet Shows Why Failed Breakouts Matter

Individual stocks offered another version of the same lesson Tuesday: confirmation matters, but so does failure.

Alphabet recently broke above a declining trend line before the move reversed. At the same time, investors are reassessing the cash demands of the company's AI buildout. Alphabet reported approximately negative $5.9 billion in second-quarter free cash flow, with capital expenditures reaching roughly $44.9 billion.

The technical failure is what Drew is focused on.

A breakout attracts traders expecting continuation. When price falls back through the breakout level, some of those buyers become trapped. Their exits can add selling pressure to a move that was already weakening.

Drew's first support sits around $342.03, followed by the gap near $333.74 and a larger rising trend line around $327.63.

Rather than predicting which one must hold, the chart gives traders an ordered set of places to judge whether buyers begin responding.

The Best Trades on the Board Are Still About Confirmation

The same process appears in several of Drew's individual setups.

ONON is testing a longer-term trend line after a sharp earnings-driven decline. KKR broke higher and now has resistance around $113.51. Sea Limited closed above a January pivot at $131.51, but an elevated daily RSI increases the importance of follow-through. SMCI has an inverse head-and-shoulders structure with near-term resistance around $36.80 and a measured-move projection near $40.72.

Different tickers, same discipline.

A level is not important because somebody drew a line through it. It becomes useful when price reaches that line and forces the market to make a decision.

That is especially true this week.

The Bottom Line

CPI and PPI will dominate the headlines over the next two mornings, but the charts have already established what a meaningful reaction should look like.

For equities, 773.41 on SPY is the first confirmation level. QQQ remains inside its range, while semiconductor participation provides an important read on the quality of any technology-led move.

On the macro side, the 10-year yield and crude oil are the pressure gauges. A continued rise in yields would make the equity breakout harder to sustain, while a confirmed oil breakout could keep inflation concerns alive beyond this week's data.

Everything else is secondary.

The market does not need traders to predict the CPI number. It needs them to know which levels matter once everyone else starts reacting to it.

The commodity complex has repriced higher, and it has done so with unusual uniformity. Gold, silver, and palladium each resolved out of the same structure: a downsloping trend line capping a broad base, broken to the upside with an inverse head and shoulders sitting underneath it. That kind of repetition across separate but related metals charts is rarely coincidence.

The problem with a synchronized move is that it arrives at synchronized resistance. Gold has worked into its measured-move objective. So has silver. Both are now closing on congestion zones that have historically produced chop instead of clean continuation.

That sets up the hierarchy that actually matters here. The metals are in the mature phase of a breakout leg, testing overhead supply with their pattern objectives already collected. Oil is in the opposite position: the structure is still building, the right shoulder has not formed, and nothing has been paid out yet. Same direction across the complex, two very different stages of the same trade.

One Pattern, Repeated Across the Complex

Gold cleared its trend line and is up over eight percent since the prior update, per Lawton's on-tape measurement. Silver ran the identical sequence for roughly sixteen to seventeen percent. Palladium carved the same shape more quietly. One chart doing this is a setup. Three precious metals producing variations of the same breakout structure inside the same window points to broader strength across the complex rather than an isolated move.

That correlation also means weakness appearing across several of these charts at once would carry more weight than an isolated rejection.

Gold: The $4,500 to $4,550 Band

Gold's measured move projected into the $4,440 to $4,480 area, and price has reached it. Directly overhead sits a tight range from roughly $4,500 to $4,550, and the behavior in that band has been consistent: price pushes into it, gets rejected, retraces, pushes again. It has never passed cleanly through in either direction.

That argues for at least a minor corrective phase on the first approach rather than straight continuation. A break and hold above $4,550 puts $5,000 in view as the next technical objective. Rejection keeps gold pinned beneath a shelf it has already failed at repeatedly, and a move back inside the channel it just escaped would reverse the pattern's implication entirely.

Silver: $72 Is the Level That Matters

Silver delivered its measured move near $66 and now faces a reference zone between $71 and $72, with $72 per ounce as the number that matters. Price has paused there, rolled over from there, and bounced off it repeatedly. That is what makes it a real level rather than a round number on a chart.

Silver has also been the most violent chart in this group, trading well above $100 in late January and back into the mid-$50s by mid-July. The $72 shelf therefore sits far below the highs rather than near them, which makes resistance there a pause in a recovery rather than a ceiling. Through it with acceptance, and the prior highs re-enter the conversation.

Platinum and Palladium: Same Direction, Weaker Structure

Platinum never produced the clean inverse head and shoulders the others did. Price has pushed out above its upsloping parallel channel and is now sitting there, moving sideways rather than extending. Exits from a parallel channel often resolve back in the other direction, which is the bearish case. The competing read is a bull flag: a move higher followed by flat consolidation, which is the shape this is closer to. First resistance comes in around $1,800 to $1,850, with heavier chop near $1,950. Dropping back inside the channel is what would retire the flag read.

Palladium is the cleaner of the two: the same inverse head and shoulders as gold and silver, a measured move toward roughly $1,490, and a tight wedge underneath it. That kind of compression can produce an outsized move once price resolves decisively from the wedge. Resistance comes in at $1,500, and a return back inside the wedge neutralizes the structure.

Energy Is the Unfinished Setup

Natural gas broke above its own descending trend line and needs that break to confirm before it means much. Resistance sits near $2.90, with $3.20 the more meaningful objective if it clears.

Oil broke the downsloping trend line connecting its recent lower highs, and inverse head and shoulders patterns are beginning to form beneath it. The right shoulder has not finished building. Two reasonable shoulder placements both project a measured move into the $120 region, which lines up with the cycle high from March.

That is a projection, not a trigger. Until the right shoulder completes and the neckline gives way, oil is a structure to monitor over the coming weeks and months, not a confirmed setup. It is also why it sits at the front of the watchlist rather than the back of it.

Key Levels

What to Watch

For the metals, what comes next gets decided at the shelves: $4,550 on gold, $72 on silver, $1,500 on palladium, $2.90 on gas. Acceptance above them extends the thesis. Rejection across several of those levels at once would argue that the complex is transitioning from breakout to consolidation rather than beginning another immediate leg higher.

For oil, the trigger is the right shoulder and the neckline, not a resistance test. Knowing which of those two situations you are looking at is the whole exercise. A completed measured move into a known congestion zone and an unfinished structure with room to run are not the same setup, even when both charts point the same direction.

Watch on YouTube

The S&P 500 Is Ignoring the Warning From Yields. CPI Could Decide How Long That Lasts

The most important signal heading into the next CPI report is not the inflation number itself. It is how little damage the market has taken while the macro backdrop has become progressively less comfortable.

Oil has remained elevated. Treasury yields are sitting near their recent highs. Expectations for Federal Reserve policy have shifted. Yet the S&P 500 has barely moved away from major resistance.

That resilience matters.

A market sitting at resistance normally has plenty of excuses to pull back when yields rise and inflation concerns return. Instead, the S&P has gone sideways. Technically, that leaves a developing bull flag directly beneath a major trendline and creates a much cleaner test for the CPI reaction.

If stocks cannot sell off when the backdrop looks hostile, the question becomes what happens when the market finally receives a catalyst strong enough to force a decision.

The Bond Market Is Sending the Warning

The macro pressure is clearest in the 10-year Treasury yield.

Yields remain elevated even after some of the most extreme pressure in oil has eased. Gareth's concern is that the bond market is signaling something broader than a temporary energy shock. If inflation expectations were simply following crude higher and lower, easing oil prices should create more relief in yields.

So far, that relief has been limited.

That makes CPI the next important test.

A hotter inflation reading would reinforce the argument that price pressures remain difficult for the Federal Reserve to ignore. A softer report would challenge that view and could ease some of the pressure coming from the rates market.

The important part for traders is the reaction across assets, not merely whether CPI beats or misses an estimate.

Watch yields.

If inflation comes in hot but Treasury yields struggle to push higher, the bond market may already have discounted much of the concern. If CPI cools and yields still refuse to break lower, that would send a very different message.

The market's response will tell us more than the headline.

The S&P Is Building Pressure at Resistance

That brings us back to the S&P 500.

The index is pressing into a long-term resistance trendline extending from the pandemic-era lows through several major pivots. That level has already mattered repeatedly, which makes the current consolidation significant.

Price has reached resistance and, rather than selling off sharply, has moved sideways.

That creates the possibility of a bull flag.

The psychology behind the pattern is straightforward. Resistance is producing enough supply to stop the advance, but so far not enough to force meaningful downside. Buyers continue absorbing that supply instead of allowing price to retreat.

That does not confirm a breakout. It tells us pressure is building.

A confirmed move above the trendline would strengthen the bullish structure and put higher technical objectives back in focus. Failure to break through, particularly if accompanied by rising yields after CPI, would leave the resistance zone intact and raise the risk of a larger pullback.

Gareth's longer-term work continues to point toward the 8,100 to 8,200 region as an important upside area if the broader bull structure extends. That projection comes from comparing the index with the longer-term expansion in M2 money supply.

It is not the next trade. It is the larger framework.

First, the S&P has to prove it can clear the resistance directly in front of it.

Nvidia Shows Why Liquidity Still Matters

Nvidia offers another useful piece of the same puzzle.

The stock is attempting to stabilize after recent selling while investors digest a massive new financing initiative tied to the continued build-out of artificial intelligence infrastructure.

The bullish argument is obvious: enormous amounts of institutional capital remain willing to fund the AI expansion.

Gareth's concern is what happens underneath that headline.

If financing structures increasingly provide capital to vehicles that ultimately purchase the same hardware produced by Nvidia, the market has to distinguish genuine end-user demand from demand amplified by financing.

That does not make the AI build-out illegitimate. It makes the financing structure something worth watching.

The dot-com comparison is useful here, not because today's AI market is identical to the late 1990s, but because infrastructure booms can become vulnerable when projected future demand begins justifying increasingly aggressive capital commitments.

For traders, Nvidia therefore becomes more than an individual stock.

Its ability to hold technical support while financing activity continues to expand offers another read on whether investors still view the AI trade as durable growth or are beginning to question how much future demand has already been pulled forward.

Earnings Movers Are Reinforcing the Same Lesson

Individual stocks are creating another version of this environment: strong catalysts are producing violent moves, but chasing the initial reaction remains a poor substitute for having levels mapped in advance.

Sea Limited surged following earnings and pushed toward overhead technical resistance near $139. The importance of that level is not that price must reverse there. It is that the gap structure and nearby resistance give traders a defined area where the behavior of buyers and sellers becomes more informative.

On Semiconductor presents the opposite setup.

The stock suffered a large post-earnings decline and moved toward support in the low-$30 area. Gareth highlighted approximately $31.50 as an initial level, followed by a gap near $30.65 and the psychological $30 level underneath.

The lesson is patience.

Large earnings declines can create several sessions of pressure as institutional portfolios rebalance and leveraged positions are reduced. That means an apparently attractive first support level can arrive before the selling process has finished.

Instead of assuming a large decline automatically creates value, the better information comes from seeing where price finally stops responding negatively.

That is the logic behind Gareth's three-day framework following severe earnings moves.

Gold Is Extended, but the Breakout Still Matters

Gold presents the opposite problem.

Rather than trying to determine where a falling asset finally bottoms, traders are trying to decide how much upside remains after a major breakout.

Gold has surged into an important resistance region near $4,400 after clearing a large wedge structure. The move remains technically constructive, but price is also increasingly extended from nearby support.

That makes the CPI reaction particularly relevant.

If gold pulls back, Gareth is watching approximately $4,170 as the first major support area. A deeper retracement would bring the $3,900 region back into focus.

The GDX gold-miner ETF is approaching another notable level near $93.85, where an open gap creates overhead resistance. Given the magnitude of the recent move, the reaction around that zone should tell traders whether momentum is still strong enough to absorb supply or whether the sector needs time to consolidate.

Silver has already pushed through prior resistance near $64. The next test is whether it can hold above that breakout area rather than immediately losing it.

Again, confirmation matters more than the first move.

Oil Is the Chart Where Doing Nothing Makes Sense

Crude oil may offer the cleanest lesson in the entire market.

After its latest surge, oil is now caught inside a tighter wedge and sitting away from the more attractive extremes Gareth had been watching previously.

That leaves price in the middle.

There is no rule saying every chart needs a trade.

When an asset is sitting between defined support and resistance without a clear edge, waiting for the market to resolve the structure can be more valuable than manufacturing a directional opinion.

A break from the wedge would create new information.

Until then, the absence of a setup is itself part of the game plan.

CPI Is the Catalyst. The Reaction Is the Signal.

Tomorrow's inflation report arrives with several important markets already sitting at decision points.

Treasury yields remain elevated.

The S&P 500 is consolidating beneath major resistance.

Gold is extended after a powerful breakout.

Oil is tightening inside a wedge.

That makes this less about predicting the CPI number and more about watching which markets actually respond when the number arrives.

If yields rise and the S&P still refuses to break, equity resilience becomes harder to dismiss.

If inflation cools but yields remain stubbornly high, the bond market is telling traders that its concern runs deeper than one report.

And if the S&P finally clears resistance while the macro backdrop remains uncomfortable, the bull flag becomes much more important than the headlines surrounding it.

That is the game plan: map the pressure points before the catalyst arrives, then let price tell you which narrative the market actually believes.

Bitcoin has spent six sessions pressing the underside of an upsloping parallel channel and been turned away on every attempt. Today produced another rejection, price settling near $63,833. That is not a minor technical detail. It is the entire crypto tape compressed into one candle.

What separates this from an ordinary resistance test is the clock attached to it. Time cycle work on the weekly chart points to a projected pivot low in early October, and Bitcoin is running out of room to get there. Either it forces its way back inside the channel over the next several sessions and voids that projection, or the cycle plays out. Continued rejection here would put the developing breakouts across the altcoin complex under significantly more pressure.

Bitcoin: Two Levels, One Deadline

The near-term picture reduces to two numbers.

The first is $65,074, the channel threshold for Tuesday, August 11. Because the parallel is inclining, that level rises daily, and waiting costs money here. Reclaiming it resolves nothing on its own, but it neutralizes the near-term negative tone.

The second is $66,536, a declining trend line above the channel boundary. That one matters far more. A break above it triggers a near-term inverse head and shoulders pattern targeting the $72,000 to $74,000 range. It also does something less obvious. It pushes price far enough, fast enough, that the window for the projected October low expires.

Fail to reclaim either and the path of least resistance is lower. The weekly head and shoulders is still active, and its measured move reaches toward $37,508.

The Cycle Math Behind the Deadline

The timing is quantifiable rather than intuitive because of the weekly chart's cyclical symmetry.

The 2017 pivot high to the November 2021 pivot high measured roughly 1,428 days. From that pivot high to the subsequent pivot low took about 371 days. Run the same measurement from the most recent pivot high to the most recent all-time high and the span is identical at 1,428 days. Apply the second leg, and 371 days forward lands near October 12 of this year.

Hold that loosely. Cycles are a probability framework, not a schedule. But the framework produces a deadline. Bitcoin is compressed against the channel with limited time left to reach the downside measured move if the cycle repeats at all. Drew's read favors additional Bitcoin weakness from here, with early October becoming the higher-interest window for a potential reversal setup.

Solana: The Cleanest Setup, and Still Unconfirmed

Solana has the best-looking chart in the group and has not yet earned the trade.

Price broke above its declining trend line with one large green close, then stalled. No follow-through, no conviction. What has formed since is bullish consolidation, which is fine. The wicks are the problem. Every time price reaches the $77.70 area, sellers drive it straight back down.

The qualifier is a close above $76.75. That flips the declining trend line from resistance into support and changes the character of the setup. From there, a retrace into the consolidation zone or down onto the trend line becomes the next setup to watch, with the July pivot high at $84 as the first technical objective and the longer-dated declining trend line near $105 as a further projection if the structure holds. That upper line traces back to the June 2025 pivot low, and price flushed straight through the zone without ever retracing it.

Without the close above $76.75, the breakout is noise and the wicks were the tell.

Cardano's Recovery Versus XRP's Failure

The most useful relative-strength read here comes from putting Cardano and XRP side by side after the same flush.

Cardano recovered almost all of its decline. Price is retracing back toward its declining trend line, drawn from the August 2024 pivot through the February low, and consolidating underneath it. The last two sessions faded, which is not ideal, but the structure holds. Above 20 cents, with a close in the 21-cent range, initiates the breakout. Pivot lows near 24.5 cents are the next stop.

If Bitcoin sells hard instead, Cardano likely works into the 16.8-cent support zone by the back half of this month, where the trend line converges with a cluster of prior pivots. That would mark a third test of the trend line, adding significance to the area.

XRP did not recover. It flushed and kept flushing, and made a new low today while testing the recent low pivots. The trend line near $1.08 has rejected price repeatedly and remains the line in the sand. Below that, two horizontals matter: 85.2 cents, dating to July 2023, and 78.5 cents beneath it. Both intersect a declining trend line drawn from the April 2025 lows to the February pivot low. That convergence between roughly 78 and 85 cents is the stronger potential bounce zone, with $1.20 becoming a technical objective if Bitcoin turns higher.

What to Watch

Watch the sequencing, not the individual charts. Bitcoin's $65,074 reclaim comes first, $66,536 second. Solana's $76.75 close confirms the alt breakouts are real. Cardano's 21-cent close is the second confirmation. Nothing in the altcoin complex gets paid without Bitcoin clearing the way, which is why watching four charts independently is the wrong exercise this week.

Continued rejection at the channel and Solana and Cardano become failed breakouts rather than early entries, and the October cycle window starts becoming the dominant timing risk.

Two charts are sitting on the threshold of breaking higher. One is sitting on a deadline. The threshold does not resolve until the deadline does.

Watch on YouTube

The 10-Year Yield Is Becoming the Market's Pressure Point

Monday looked quiet on the surface. The S&P 500 finished nearly unchanged, the Nasdaq stayed inside consolidation, and volume remained light ahead of CPI and PPI later this week.

Underneath that calm session, one market was not waiting around.

The 10-year Treasury yield pushed through its May pivot at 4.687% and closed near 4.703%, putting the next resistance level around 4.809% back in focus. That move matters because equities are already showing signs of hesitation near their highs, while semiconductors are beginning to weaken underneath them.

The question heading into this week's inflation data is not simply whether stocks can make another high. It is whether the equity market can continue absorbing higher yields without its weakest groups beginning to break.

The S&P Is Holding, but SMH Is Sending a Different Message

The S&P 500 remains near the top of its range, where a bull flag has developed following an extended run.

Normally, that is constructive. Location makes this one more complicated.

Continuation patterns that develop after a large advance deserve more scrutiny because the market has already used considerable momentum getting there. For Drew, Thursday's low at 767.46 is therefore the immediate reference point. Staying above it keeps the consolidation intact. A daily close below it would weaken the pattern and bring 758.61 into focus as the next meaningful support.

The Nasdaq is telling a similar story, although without much urgency yet. Volume fell from roughly 31 million shares Friday to 25 million Monday, leaving the Qs consolidating between support near $704.32 and resistance around $729.79.

Semiconductors are where the picture becomes more interesting.

SMH fell roughly 2% and sold off hard into the closing minutes, finishing near the lows rather than recovering with the broader market. Price is now testing an inclining trendline near current levels. If that support gives way, the top of the prior parallel channel around $553.10 becomes the next chart level Drew is watching.

That makes SMH one of the cleaner tells in the market right now. The major indices are still holding together, but one of their most important leadership groups is showing noticeably more pressure.

Why the 10-Year Yield Matters Here

The 10-year yield closed above the May 19 pivot at 4.687%, settling near 4.703%.

The next technical level sits near 4.809%.

A push into that area would extend the recent stair-step advance and keep pressure on rate-sensitive parts of the market. That does not automatically mean equities have to fall. It does mean stocks need to prove they can continue digesting higher yields without their internal structure deteriorating.

That is why the relationship between the 10-year and SMH deserves more attention than Monday's nearly flat S&P close.

If yields continue higher while semiconductor support begins to fail, the broader market's apparent calm becomes less convincing.

IWM Is the Exception

The Russell 2000 is not behaving the way a simple higher-rates narrative would suggest.

Small-cap companies generally have greater sensitivity to financing conditions, yet IWM continues consolidating near its highs after breaking above a declining trendline from July 1.

One possible explanation is the financial exposure inside the index. Regional banks can benefit from certain aspects of a higher-rate environment, and their relative strength may be offsetting weakness elsewhere in the small-cap complex.

For now, that makes IWM a divergence rather than confirmation of the weakness showing up in semiconductors.

If it continues holding while yields rise, that relative strength matters. If financials begin weakening as well, the Russell loses an important source of support.

Gold and Silver Are Ignoring the Rate Headwind

Precious metals offered another useful divergence.

Higher Treasury yields would ordinarily create competition for non-yielding assets, yet gold and silver continued advancing.

Gold has moved back inside the rising parallel channel that has defined much of its structure since April 2025. The lower boundary near $4,227 is now the important support reference, while resistance sits around $4,575.

Silver has already cleared a declining trendline and closed above the July 6 horizontal pivot. That leaves $63.26 as near-term support and $67.99 as the next resistance level.

Beyond that sits a much larger inclining trendline near $81.23.

Drew's read remains cautious on chasing either metal after such an extended move. Strength can continue, but the farther price stretches from established support, the less attractive the risk-reward becomes for someone arriving late.

That is the broader lesson here: a strong chart does not automatically mean a good place to chase it.

Oil Is Testing the Same Ceiling Again

U.S. oil jumped more than 6% and is once again approaching resistance near $84.24.

This will be another test of a level that has already turned price away several times.

Repeated resistance tests matter because each attempt can consume some of the available supply sitting at the level. That does not guarantee a breakout, but it makes this next interaction more important than the first.

If price can establish itself above $84.24, the next major technical area sits near $96.44.

Natural gas is also moving higher after developing an inverse head-and-shoulders structure. Resistance sits around $2.90, followed by the larger declining trendline near $3.28.

The fundamental power-demand story around data centers may help explain interest in natural gas, but the chart still has to clear those levels before the technical structure improves further.

Three Stock Levels Drew Is Watching

The stock-specific setups reinforce the same theme running through the broader market: location matters more than the size of the move that came before it.

P: Strong Move, Major Resistance

P has surged into new highs after a sharp two-day advance, but price is also approaching the upper boundary of a parallel channel dating back to May 2023.

That resistance sits near $105.79.

With daily RSI around 75, the stock is extended as it approaches the level. A direct test would create an important decision point.

A gap above the channel would change the setup because price would begin the session beyond the resistance rather than fighting through it intraday. That is exactly why traders need to evaluate where price opens relative to a level instead of treating resistance as a static number.

AKAM: A Third Test of Channel Support

AKAM has declined sharply from its June highs and is now approaching the lower boundary of an inclining parallel channel.

The area Drew is watching sits roughly between $100 and $102.

This would be the third interaction with the lower channel boundary. Prior reactions give the level technical significance, while consolidation beneath $100 provides another nearby reference if price briefly undercuts the trendline.

The more important point is not that AKAM "has to bounce." It is that price is finally reaching an area where the chart offers a defined test after a large decline.

SE: Watch the Broken Channel Near $130

SE enters earnings having already fallen roughly 60% and broken beneath a major rising parallel channel.

Broken support can become resistance on a retracement, and the underside of that former channel is now converging with a prior pivot near $130.

That makes $130 the key zone Drew is watching after earnings.

The opening price matters. If SE rallies into that level from below, the former channel becomes a meaningful resistance test. If the stock gaps clearly above it, that resistance thesis weakens because price begins the session on the other side of the level.

The setup changes with the market. The level is the reference point, not a prediction.

Why Confirmation Matters More Than the Pattern

VRTX and OKLO offered the best reminder of that principle.

VRTX has developed an inverse head-and-shoulders structure near its highs, but Drew wants confirmation above $546.17 before giving the pattern greater weight. A prior attempt to break the neckline failed, which is exactly why identifying a pattern is not enough.

The market still has to validate it.

OKLO showed the other side of the equation. Its larger head-and-shoulders pattern eventually reached its measured objective, but only after months of price movement that included an enormous countertrend rally.

A technically valid projection does not tell you how cleanly price will travel toward it.

That is why Drew's approach is built around probabilities rather than perfection. Capturing the central portion of a move can be more valuable than trying to extract every final percentage point while absorbing increasingly difficult volatility.

The Bottom Line

Monday's flat indices hide a more important tension.

The 10-year yield is pressing higher. Semiconductors are weakening at support. The S&P and Nasdaq are still holding their structures, while IWM continues to show surprising relative strength.

CPI and PPI could provide the catalyst that resolves those divergences, but traders do not need to guess the data beforehand.

The levels are already there.

For the broader market, watch the S&P near 767.46, SMH at its current trendline, and the 10-year yield as it works between 4.687% and 4.809%.

If equities keep absorbing higher yields, the consolidation remains intact. If semiconductor support begins to fail while yields continue climbing, Monday's quiet session may turn out to have been less stable than it looked.

Oil pushed higher to start the week, and the risk complex paid for it. Semiconductors leaked lower. Airlines took the harder hit. The indices drifted down without anything structurally breaking.

That last part matters most. NVIDIA traded near 217 with defined pivot support at roughly 211 underneath it — a level the chart has established three separate times. Six dollars of room. That distance is the difference between an orderly digestion of a strong run and a move that forces real repositioning across the AI complex.

This is a levels tape, not a headline tape. Almost every name worth watching right now is pressed against a price that was drawn before the session opened.

Why 211 Is the Reference Point?

NVIDIA is the position everything else in the AI trade gets measured against, which makes its support structure a proxy for sector risk appetite rather than single-stock risk.

The level is built the way durable levels get built. Price set a pivot top, came down and briefly negated the pattern, then re-established the same zone twice more. Three reactions around the same price show that market participants have repeatedly treated the zone as important.

Holding keeps this in the category of a pullback inside an uptrend. Losing it does two things at once: it removes the last defined shelf beneath a crowded position, and it forces the broader index complex — NASDAQ and S&P alike — to find a new reference lower. The sector has been pushing down together. NVIDIA is the cleanest place to judge whether that pressure is becoming more serious.

The Rotation That Explains Tesla and SpaceX

The more interesting behavioral story is happening between two names with the same person's fingerprints on them.

SpaceX put in a large gain Friday, opened higher again, then faded as the session progressed. First serious resistance sits in the 149–150 zone, where a pivot top and pivot bottom line up on the same price and the tops have already been bucking against it. The 150 handle stacks a psychological layer on a structural one — the kind of combination that can make a first breakout attempt harder to sustain.

Tesla found support on a pivot-bottom trend line and rallied, several consecutive green dailies rather than a reflex bounce. Overhead is a pivot-top zone at 365 that has already rejected price once, broken down into the trend line, and been retested from below twice since.

The price action suggests some capital may be rotating between the two Musk-linked names. Tesla weakened after earnings while SpaceX attracted attention following its strong move, creating a plausible funding dynamic without proving that one directly caused the other. Read that way, Tesla's weakness looks less like a change of view on the company than a source of capital — and rallies into 149–150 on SpaceX stay a level test until price proves otherwise.

Oil's Second-Order Damage

Airlines are where a crude move stops being a headline and becomes an income statement.

Southwest Airlines pushed down hard on the oil surge and landed directly into support — the same zone it had already retested once. Price traded to around 45 even, with the next defined shelf at roughly 44.50. That is not much of a cushion. With only about fifty cents between them, the two supports effectively function as one decision zone.

Small in the broader picture, but useful: oil is transmitting through the tape, not just sitting in the news.

Confluence Is the Filter

These levels are worth watching because they are not single-factor lines. A Vertex Pharmaceuticals level flagged earlier at 542 rejected price on the ten-minute chart, a move Nick measured at roughly three and a half to four percent inside an hour — but 542 was not just a pivot high. It was also where the neckline of a completed head-and-shoulders pattern projected. Two unrelated reasons for sellers to be waiting at the same price.

One factor gets your attention. Two independent factors lining up at the same price make the level more meaningful. Bloom Energy is sitting under the same kind of stacked pivot-top structure now.

What to Watch Next

• NVIDIA ~211 — the decision point. Holding keeps this a pullback. A daily close below it puts the sector's reference point lower and invalidates the constructive read.
• SpaceX 149–150 — pivot confluence plus the round number. Staying capped here keeps the fade off Friday's gain intact. A rejection confirms it. Acceptance above the zone changes the read on the post-listing move.
• Tesla 365 — resistance until proven otherwise. Failure here keeps the rally range-bound, as expected. A clean reclaim would change the read and open the next pivot zone above.
• Southwest ~45 / 44.50 — holding the zone keeps this a normal reaction to the oil move. Losing both levels confirms fuel costs are being repriced into the group rather than shrugged off.

Levels do not predict. They organize risk — useful on a day when the macro is doing the pushing and the charts are doing the deciding.

NVIDIA is roughly six dollars from the level that can tell traders whether this remains an orderly pullback or develops into something more consequential. Until 211 resolves, it remains the clearest reference point on the board.

Watch on YouTube

Published by Verified Investing | U.S. Economic Metrics Released: August 7, 2026 | Data Period: July 2026 | Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Key Takeaways

• Nonfarm payrolls fell -23,000 in July — the first negative headline print of the cycle — but the number underneath is not what it appears. Government shed -53,000, mostly in local education. Private payrolls actually added +30,000.
• Temporary layoffs jumped 153,000 to 921,000, per the BLS. That is the single most important number in this report. Temporary layoffs are the leading edge of permanent job loss. At 921,000, this series is now running near levels that have historically preceded sustained unemployment rate increases.
• The unemployment rate fell to 4.1% from 4.2%, but the U-6 broad underemployment rate holds at 7.9%. The participation rate slipped to 61.4%. The headline improvement in unemployment is not signaling labor market strength — it is a participation and composition artifact.
• Wage growth collapsed. Average hourly earnings rose just +0.05% month-over-month — rounding to zero — against +0.29% in June. The year-over-year rate dropped to +3.15% from +3.41%. Real wage pressure on the inflation side of the Fed's mandate has effectively neutralized itself in one month.
• Two demographic groups saw unemployment improvement — teenagers (12.1%) and Hispanic workers (4.6%) — per the BLS. That is not a broad-based easing signal; it is a narrow compositional shift in a report with serious deterioration underneath.
• The three-month average payroll change is now -23,000. That figure will not survive the first revision cycle intact, but it frames the current trajectory: the labor market has moved from slow growth to contraction at the headline level.
• This print lands squarely in the window before Warsh's next FOMC decision. The zero-rounded wage print and the negative headline give the new Fed Chair his clearest data argument yet for a rate cut — while the temporary layoff spike tells him the risk of waiting is rising.

What This Metric Measures, and Why This Print Matters

The Bureau of Labor Statistics releases the Employment Situation Summary on the first Friday of each month. It covers two separate surveys: the establishment survey (which produces the payroll count) and the household survey (which produces the unemployment rate and participation figures). They measure different things, can diverge sharply in any given month, and together tell a more complete story than either does alone.

July's print is the first negative establishment survey headline of this cycle. That matters not because a single month defines a trend — it almost never does — but because it arrives after months of narrowing growth, and it arrives with an internal signal that demands immediate attention: 921,000 workers on temporary layoff.

The macro context amplifies everything. The Iran War is in its fourth month. Oil is running above $108. ISM Services Prices sat at 70.7 in April — tied for the highest since October 2022 — and ISM Manufacturing Prices at 84.6. Kevin Warsh is four months into his tenure as Fed Chair, inherited a services inflation problem his predecessor left unsolved, and now faces his first genuinely soft payroll print. Rate cuts in 2026 were not a base case entering this week. July's data is the most credible argument yet for putting them back on the table — not because the headline is tidy, but because the internals are deteriorating in ways that matter to both mandates simultaneously.

What Everyone Will Focus On vs. What Matters More

What everyone will focus on: The -23,000 headline and the unemployment rate falling to 4.1%.

The -23,000 will dominate the wires, and the unemployment rate drop from 4.2% to 4.1% will be cited as evidence the labor market hasn't broken. The consensus take will be that government layoffs — specifically local education, a notoriously seasonal and technically complex series — distorted the headline, and that private payrolls adding +30,000 shows the private economy is still marginally positive. That read is defensible. It is also incomplete in the direction that costs traders the most to miss.

What matters more: The temporary layoff surge, and what the wage print tells the Fed.

Temporary layoffs rose 153,000 to 921,000 in a single month. The BLS flagged it directly in the release lede — which is telling, because the BLS does not typically lead with labor market distress signals. Temporary layoffs are not background noise. They are the mechanism by which labor hoarding converts to permanent job loss. Companies that stop calling back temporary layoffs within two to three months begin counting them as permanent separations. At 921,000, this series is at a level that, historically, has not resolved benignly.

The wage story is the second buried signal. +0.05% MoM on average hourly earnings, rounding to effectively zero, against +0.29% last month. That is not a rounding error — it is a 0.24 percentage point deceleration in a single print. Year-over-year at +3.15%, the wage growth that had been keeping the Fed cautious on cuts is now functionally at or below where it needs to be to justify easing. The two things the Fed said it needed to see — softer labor demand and lower wage pressure — arrived in the same report.

The Government vs. Private Payroll Split

The -23,000 headline is built on a -53,000 government print and a +30,000 private print. That asymmetry matters.

Local government education is among the most seasonally volatile series in the establishment survey. July is the nadir of the academic calendar, and seasonal adjustment in education payrolls carries well-documented noise. A -53,000 government figure in July does not carry the same signal weight as a -53,000 private figure would. The seasonal factors for local education in July are large, and small mismatches between actual and expected seasonal patterns can produce outsized adjusted swings. That caveat belongs in the headline interpretation.

Private payrolls at +30,000 are not a clean read either. For context, the private economy was averaging well above +100,000 per month as recently as late 2025. +30,000 is not a catastrophe, but it is near-stall speed for a labor force of this size. Additions at this pace do not outrun population growth. They do not absorb the workers on temporary layoff who will roll into the permanent unemployed over the coming months. They do not constitute a labor market that is generating slack reduction.

The split matters for Fed communication. The dovish read is that government is the culprit and private is fine. The accurate read is that private added +30,000 against a backdrop of 921,000 temporary layoffs and zero wage growth, which is not fine — it is fragile.

The Temporary Layoff Signal

921,000 workers on temporary layoff is the number to hold.

The BLS defines temporary layoffs as workers who have been let go with expectation of recall within six months or upon completion of a specific project. In practice, the temporary layoff category is one of the most reliable leading indicators in the household survey. Companies carrying excess labor as their order books thin or confidence falls tend to put workers on temporary layoff before formally separating them. The jump from roughly 768,000 to 921,000 — a 153,000 increase in a single month — is a regime-level move, not a seasonal quirk.

For reference: when temporary layoffs crossed 800,000 on the way up in prior cycles, permanent job loss followed within two to four months with meaningful consistency. At 921,000, the series is not in early-warning territory anymore. It is in confirmation territory for anyone watching it seriously.

The question for traders and Fed watchers is whether this spike is idiosyncratic — driven by one sector or one large employer event — or structural. The BLS did not attribute the spike to a single source in the release. Until the sector-level household data clarifies the source, the prudent read is that this is broad-based enough to take seriously.

Wage Growth: The Fed's Other Problem, Temporarily Solved

Average hourly earnings came in at $37.62, up just +0.05% from June. Year-over-year: +3.15%.

One month does not break a wage trend. But the deceleration from +0.29% MoM to +0.05% MoM is too large to dismiss as noise. A +0.29% month compounds to roughly 3.5% annualized. A +0.05% month is effectively zero. The year-over-year rate dropped 26 basis points to +3.15% in a single print.

Why does this matter for the Fed? Because wage growth in the +3.5% to +4.0% range has been cited repeatedly as inconsistent with returning services inflation sustainably to target. At +3.15% YoY, that argument becomes significantly harder to make — particularly when ISM Services employment is running below 50 (contraction) and this payroll print shows private hiring at near-stall speed.

Warsh's dilemma entering July's data was: cut and potentially re-ignite services inflation, or hold and risk a labor market that's slowing faster than the models show. The wage print flips that calculus. Holding into zero wage growth and 921,000 temporary layoffs is no longer the obviously cautious choice. It starts to look like the riskier one.

The Unemployment Rate Arithmetic

The headline unemployment rate fell from 4.2% to 4.1%, and that number will be read as stabilizing. It deserves scrutiny.

The participation rate slipped to 61.4%. When participation falls and employment doesn't grow proportionally, the unemployment rate can mechanically decline because the denominator (labor force) shrinks. A falling unemployment rate accompanied by a falling participation rate is not the same signal as a falling unemployment rate accompanied by rising participation. The former reflects people leaving the active labor force — which is the less constructive version.

The U-6 broad underemployment rate holds at 7.9%. That figure captures marginally attached workers and those working part-time for economic reasons alongside the standard unemployed. At 7.9%, U-6 is not deteriorating sharply on a single-month basis, but it is not improving either — and it is the rate that actually captures underutilization in the current environment, where the temporary layoff category is absorbing workers who show up as employed until they formally separate.

Teenagers at 12.1% unemployment and Hispanic workers at 4.6% — both declining per the BLS — are the headline's demographic bright spots. Neither changes the structural read on where the labor market is headed.

What This Means For Traders

The following is provided for educational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice.

The rate-cut odds move first. This is the cleanest labor market argument for a September cut that the Fed has seen in this cycle. -23,000 headline, +0.05% wage growth, 921,000 temporary layoffs. Watch fed funds futures and the September FOMC pricing within the first trading session after this release. A move toward 70%+ probability of a September cut is the market's immediate verdict.

Watch the temporary layoff series in August NFP (released September 5). That is the confirmation or reversal print. If temporary layoffs stay above 900,000 or rise further, the probability of a sustained payroll deterioration increases substantially and changes the medium-term equity and credit calculus. If they reverse sharply toward 700,000 or below, the July spike was idiosyncratic and the rate-cut argument softens.

Rate-sensitive sectors reprice on wage data. The +3.15% YoY wage figure removes one of the key objections to easing. Utilities, REITs, and long-duration instruments have a cleaner fundamental argument than they did 48 hours ago. Watch whether the 10-year yield breaks its recent range to the downside on this print — that is the fixed income market's vote on whether it believes the wage deceleration.

The private vs. government split is the bull argument's foundation — and its weakness. If you are in the "this is just seasonal government noise" camp, the thesis holds only if private payrolls reaccelerate in August. +30,000 private in July cannot be the new run rate. Anything below +75,000 private in August and the narrative collapses regardless of what government does.

The thesis that changes everything: If August CPI (released September 12) shows services inflation re-accelerating alongside this softer payroll trend, the Fed faces the worst version of the stagflation trade-off — weakening employment and stubborn prices simultaneously. That is the scenario where no decision is a clean one and risk assets price in regime uncertainty, not just rate uncertainty. Watch ISM Services Prices on September 3 as the first read on whether that risk is materializing.

The temporary layoff number is 921,000. That is the figure that determines whether July's -23,000 is a revision-driven anomaly or the beginning of something that forces the Fed's hand before it is ready.

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics — The Employment Situation, July 2026, released August 7, 2026

This article is published for educational and informational purposes only. Nothing contained herein constitutes investment advice or a recommendation to buy or sell any security. Please consult a qualified financial professional before making any investment decisions.

A Doctors’ Network That Became Healthcare Infrastructure

In a world where most social networks compete for attention, Doximity built something quieter. The company became a digital utility for clinicians who have little time and even less patience for unnecessary friction. It is the app that can mask a physician’s personal number during a late-night patient call, turn a tangle of faxes into something searchable, and distill medical journals into a newsfeed a cardiologist can scan between cases. None of that sounds revolutionary in isolation. Together, those small efficiencies help explain why Doximity became much more important than the "LinkedIn for doctors" label that followed it into the public market.

By the time Doximity listed on the New York Stock Exchange, the platform had already been tested in an unusually demanding environment. Telehealth usage surged during the pandemic, and what began as a verified professional network increasingly looked like a toolkit for clinical communication and workflow. The company has said that a large majority of U.S. physicians are members, giving Doximity access to a professional audience that is both difficult to reach and unusually valuable to healthcare companies. The network mattered, but the deeper advantage was becoming part of how clinicians actually worked.

That is the central tension in DOCS stock analysis. Investors initially had plenty of reasons to view Doximity as a pandemic-era digital-health growth story wrapped around a professional social network. What the company increasingly became was different: a profitable, workflow-driven platform whose commercial value depended on keeping physicians engaged in useful tasks. The stock has still moved through the familiar cycles of exuberance, multiple compression and renewed optimism, but the more important question has remained consistent. Is Doximity simply a specialized advertising platform with good software attached, or has it built infrastructure valuable enough to make its commercial engine more durable over time?

The Day San Francisco’s “Medical LinkedIn” Went Public

Doximity’s origin story was built around physician convenience. Founded in 2010 by Jeff Tangney, an Epocrates cofounder, along with Nate Gross and Shari Buck, the company started as a secure professional network that verified identities and helped doctors find and communicate with one another. It paid attention to problems general-purpose platforms had little reason to solve, including hospital directories, paging systems and HIPAA-compliant communication. Those seemingly mundane decisions created something more useful than another profile-driven social network. They embedded Doximity inside work clinicians were already trying to complete.

The IPO made that specialized network legible to Wall Street. On June 24, 2021, Doximity priced its offering at $26 per share and began trading under the ticker DOCS. Shares more than doubled on their first day, closing near $53 for a roughly 104% gain. The move carried all the hallmarks of the 2021 IPO environment, when investors were willing to pay aggressively for software businesses with strong growth narratives. Doximity, however, brought something many newly public technology companies did not: substantial profitability alongside that growth.

Its S-1 outlined three complementary businesses: Marketing Solutions for life-sciences companies, Hiring Solutions for recruiters and health systems, and Workflow tools used by clinicians. The market could easily understand the first two because both had obvious monetization paths. The more important piece was the third. Workflow products gave physicians reasons to return even when they were not reading sponsored content or looking for a new job. That repeated professional usage strengthened the network, and the stronger network made Doximity more valuable to the customers paying to reach it.

That is where the early "Medical LinkedIn" comparison began to break down. LinkedIn monetizes professional identity and attention at enormous scale. Doximity was building around verified professional identity plus task completion inside one highly specialized industry. The difference was easy to overlook during an IPO cycle dominated by growth rates and software multiples, but it became more important once the pandemic boom faded and investors started asking which digital-health habits would actually survive normalization.

From Pandemic Essential To Everyday Habit

The next phase was about turning pandemic-era adoption into durable behavior. Doximity’s Dialer and Dialer Video features allowed clinicians to call or video patients securely from their own phones while protecting personal contact information. The products solved a real problem during the telehealth surge, but their value was not limited to lockdowns or virtual-care enthusiasm. They gave doctors another practical reason to open Doximity during the workday, strengthening the platform beyond networking and medical news.

That engagement also supported an unusually profitable business. For the fiscal year ending March 31, 2022, Doximity generated approximately $343.5 million in revenue and $154.8 million in net income. The company also carried roughly $708 million in cash and equivalents at fiscal year-end. That financial profile separated Doximity from many digital-health and software names that entered the public markets promising that scale would eventually produce profits. Doximity did not have to prove profitability could exist. It had to prove that profitable growth could persist after an extraordinary period for digital healthcare.

That became the harder test. The macro environment that had favored digital health in 2020 and 2021 began to normalize. In-person pharmaceutical sales activity returned, customers became more selective with marketing budgets, hospital staffing conditions shifted, and software valuations compressed as interest rates rose. The market stopped rewarding digital-health companies simply for participating in a large trend. Investors wanted evidence that pandemic adoption had created lasting economics rather than temporarily pulling demand forward.

Doximity responded by continuing to build around administrative friction. That strategy mattered because its three businesses were not as separate as they initially appeared. Workflow tools could deepen physician engagement. Greater engagement could make the platform more valuable to life-sciences marketers trying to reach specific specialists. A trusted professional network could also improve the value proposition for healthcare recruiters. Workflow was therefore not just another product category. It increasingly looked like the connective tissue supporting the economics of the broader platform.

By 2024, that identity had become easier to see in the product cadence. Secure communications, documentation assistance, scheduling and other workflow improvements addressed the unglamorous tasks that absorb time inside healthcare. Life-sciences marketing remained an important revenue engine, but the strategic logic was becoming clearer. Doximity did not necessarily need workflow to become the largest standalone business. It needed workflow to keep physicians engaged enough that the network retained its value to everyone paying for access to that audience.

Peaks, Reratings, And The End Of The Easy Story

Every public company eventually reaches the point where the market stops buying the original story at face value. For Doximity, that transition became obvious on August 9, 2022, when softer-than-expected guidance contributed to a roughly 20% single-session decline. The selloff was not simply punishment for one cautious outlook. It represented a larger change in what investors were willing to pay for growth and what they now demanded from companies that had benefited from pandemic-era acceleration.

The questions changed quickly. How durable would pharmaceutical marketing spending prove as normal sales activity returned? How much of Doximity’s growth had been pulled forward? Could Hiring Solutions navigate volatility in healthcare staffing? Would Workflow eventually become a meaningful monetization engine of its own, or was its primary role to strengthen engagement around the higher-value commercial businesses? Those were more difficult questions than the market faced in 2021 because they required investors to understand the relationships between Doximity’s products rather than simply extrapolate growth.

Product development offered part of the answer. In 2023, Doximity introduced DocsGPT, designed to help clinicians draft administrative material such as prior authorization letters more efficiently. The significance was not that Doximity suddenly became an artificial-intelligence company. It was that the company applied emerging technology to the same problem it had been attacking for years: unnecessary administrative time. In healthcare, where clinician attention is scarce and paperwork remains abundant, reducing friction can be more valuable than introducing a flashy consumer-facing feature.

That product philosophy helped distinguish Doximity from the broader digital-health narrative. Many companies spent the post-pandemic period trying to prove that a surge in virtual behavior had permanently expanded their addressable markets. Doximity’s stronger argument was more grounded. Physicians already had administrative work to complete, communications to manage and information to process. If Doximity could make those existing tasks easier while keeping users inside a verified professional ecosystem, it did not need healthcare behavior to transform completely. It needed clinicians to continue valuing saved time.

This is one of the most important lessons from Doximity’s public-market journey. The business was never simply about owning a directory of doctors, and it was never purely a telehealth story. Its commercial power came from combining verified access to a difficult-to-reach professional audience with products that gave that audience legitimate reasons to return. The market’s challenge has been determining how durable that combination is when growth expectations become less forgiving.

Reading The Stock Through Growth Expectations

The broad DOCS chart resembles many software names that entered the market in 2021. The IPO produced immediate enthusiasm, followed by a substantial rerating as interest rates climbed, technology multiples contracted and investors recalibrated what they were willing to pay for future growth. Doximity’s profitability helped separate the business from more speculative peers, but it did not insulate the stock from changing expectations. A profitable company can still experience severe multiple compression when the market decides its growth assumptions were too aggressive.

The June 2021 debut established the first extreme. Investors quickly assigned a premium valuation to a company combining software economics, a highly specialized network and profitability. The August 2022 guidance reset exposed the other side of that equation. Once investors questioned the pace and durability of growth, the stock no longer received the same benefit of the doubt. The business did not suddenly stop working, but the valuation framework around it changed.

That distinction is useful for analyzing DOCS because many of its largest moves have been connected to earnings, guidance and evidence about commercial demand. The key debate is not whether doctors suddenly stop using Doximity from one quarter to the next. It is whether physician engagement can continue translating into enough value for life-sciences companies, recruiters and health systems to support the growth rate embedded in the stock’s valuation.

For investors, that means the chart is best understood alongside changes in expectations. Strong results can matter because they reinforce the idea that Doximity’s specialized network deserves a premium. Conservative guidance can matter just as much because a high-quality business and an expensive stock are not the same thing. The public-market story has therefore become a recurring negotiation between business durability and the price investors are willing to assign to that durability.

How Professionals Should Frame DOCS Stock Analysis

The disciplined way to think about DOCS starts with utility rather than the stock multiple. Are clinicians continuing to use Doximity for the repetitive, high-frequency tasks embedded in their workdays? When physicians communicate with patients, manage documentation, check professional information or work through administrative tasks, does the platform save enough time to keep earning its place? Continued engagement is important not merely as a user metric. It is the foundation beneath the commercial businesses.

The second question is monetization concentration. Marketing Solutions has historically been the primary revenue engine, which means the quality and durability of life-sciences spending matter enormously. Doximity can have excellent physician engagement and still disappoint investors if its paying customers reduce campaign budgets or become less willing to pay a premium for targeted access. That makes commentary around customer demand, renewals and marketing budgets more important than broad claims about the size of the healthcare industry.

The third question is whether workflow strengthens the business economically, not just strategically. Products such as Dialer, documentation tools and scheduling can make the platform stickier, but investors should watch for evidence that deeper workflow integration improves retention, supports pricing, expands enterprise relationships or creates additional monetization opportunities. The strongest version of the Doximity thesis is not simply that doctors like the tools. It is that those tools strengthen the commercial value of the network.

The fourth consideration is financial quality. Doximity entered the public markets profitable and with meaningful cash generation, giving management flexibility that many software companies lacked during the valuation reset. That matters because a company generating cash can continue investing without relying heavily on outside capital, while also retaining flexibility for repurchases, acquisitions or other uses of capital. Strong margins do not eliminate execution risk, but they change the type of risk investors are underwriting.

Finally, investors should separate meaningful product advancement from technology narratives that happen to be fashionable. DocsGPT is relevant because administrative writing is a real pain point for clinicians, not because generative AI automatically creates value. The same test should apply to future launches. If a product saves measurable time, increases engagement or strengthens the value Doximity provides to paying customers, it can matter. If it merely attaches the company to a popular theme, it matters far less.

The Present Tense Of A Quiet Power

The best way to understand Doximity today is to stop treating it primarily as a social network. Its verified physician community remains a major asset, but the deeper investment question is whether the company can continue turning professional identity into workflow engagement and then turning that engagement into commercial value. That sequence is what separates Doximity from a simple medical directory and what makes the infrastructure comparison more useful.

For investors tracking DOCS, the headline growth rate is therefore only part of the story. The more important signals are whether physician engagement remains durable, whether life-sciences customers continue seeing enough value to support marketing spending, whether workflow products deepen the moat, and whether management can preserve the profitability that has differentiated Doximity since its IPO. Those factors determine whether the company is merely defending a valuable niche or continuing to strengthen an unusually difficult-to-replicate position inside healthcare.

The journey from the 2021 IPO to the post-pandemic reset provides the larger lesson. Markets often assign companies simple labels because simple labels make valuation easier. Doximity was a professional network, then a telehealth beneficiary, then a digital-health stock facing normalization. Each description captured part of the story and missed something important. The more durable asset was the relationship between verified identity, physician workflow and access to a professional audience that healthcare companies struggle to reach elsewhere.

That does not make Doximity immune to slowing growth, weaker customer budgets or valuation compression. It does explain what investors should measure when deciding whether the business continues earning a premium. Doximity’s impact was not turning medicine into another social network. It was recognizing that the more valuable opportunity was helping physicians complete work they already had to do. If the company keeps making itself harder to remove from that workflow, the quiet utility that built Doximity may remain its most important competitive advantage.

Interested in AMC? Read our take HERE.

Weak Jobs Send Yields Lower as S&P 500, Gold and Bitcoin Break Higher

The latest jobs report delivered a major downside surprise, but the market's response was not really about employment. It was about interest rates. The U.S. economy lost 23,000 jobs versus expectations for a gain of 83,000, yet equity futures surged as Treasury yields dropped and traders sharply reduced the probability of another Federal Reserve rate hike. That reaction framed Gareth Soloway's market read this morning: weaker economic data is once again being interpreted through the liquidity and rate backdrop rather than through the headline itself.

That is the key distinction for traders. A jobs miss of more than 100,000 relative to expectations would normally look negative for equities in isolation. Instead, the 10-year Treasury yield fell toward 4.6%, easing one of the biggest pressures on risk assets. The market is effectively saying that weaker labor data reduces the need for tighter monetary policy, and for now that rate effect is outweighing concerns about slowing economic growth.

The Labor Data Was Weaker Than the Unemployment Rate Suggested

The headline unemployment rate actually fell by one-tenth of a percentage point to 4.1%, which initially appears inconsistent with the loss of jobs. Gareth's focus was on labor force participation. When people stop actively looking for work, they are no longer counted as unemployed, which can push the unemployment rate lower even while the underlying labor market is deteriorating.

The labor force participation rate has fallen to 61.4%, down 0.7 percentage points since January. Prior payroll reports have also been revised lower, adding to the evidence that employment conditions have been cooling faster than the original releases suggested. May payroll growth was revised from 129,000 to 63,000, while June was revised from 57,000 to 20,000. The latest report therefore did not appear in isolation. It extended a pattern of softer labor data beneath the headline numbers.

The sector breakdown reinforced that weakness. Local government education lost 50,000 jobs, retail lost 19,000, and financial activities lost 14,000, while healthcare added 22,000. Average hourly earnings also rose just 3.2% year over year. Gareth's broader point is that heavy capital spending from the largest technology and AI companies continues to support parts of the economy and market while masking weakness elsewhere.

Why Stocks Rallied on Bad Economic News

The market is not reacting to the jobs number alone. It is reacting to what that number does to rates.

The weak report pushed Treasury yields lower and reduced expectations for another Federal Reserve hike at the September 16 meeting. With the market now assigning a greater probability to the Fed holding rates steady, financial conditions immediately looked less restrictive. That was enough to push buyers back into equities despite the weak economic backdrop.

As Gareth put it, "The markets are addicted to cheap money." That framing captures the transmission mechanism. Softer employment data reduces pressure on the Fed, lower rate expectations weigh on Treasury yields, and falling yields can support equity valuations and other liquidity-sensitive assets.

The risk is that this relationship eventually changes. If economic weakness becomes severe enough that investors begin focusing on deteriorating earnings rather than easier monetary policy, bad news may stop being good news. For now, however, the market is still rewarding weaker data because of what it implies for rates.

S&P 500 Breakout Puts 7,833 in Focus

The S&P 500 has broken above its recent consolidation, keeping the short-term structure bullish. The next level that matters is approximately 7,833, where a longer-term trendline comes into play. From current levels, that represents roughly another 1.5% of upside.

Gareth's framework is straightforward. As long as the breakout remains intact, 7,833 is the next major resistance area. Once price reaches that level, the risk-reward changes because the index would be running directly into a technical area where sellers may begin to reappear.

A confirmed move above 7,833 would open the chart further, with the next broader upside zone sitting around 8,000 to 8,100. Until then, 7,833 is the immediate decision point. Gareth remains constructive into that level, but his stance becomes more neutral once the market reaches the resistance rather than assuming the breakout continues indefinitely.

Dollar Weakness Adds Fuel to Gold

The jobs report also hit the U.S. Dollar Index, which sold off sharply after the release and is now testing a major trendline on the daily chart. That move matters because the dollar, Treasury yields, and precious metals are all moving together.

A weaker dollar and falling yields create a favorable backdrop for gold. Gold had already broken out of a long-term downsloping wedge, paused briefly, and is now extending higher. The first significant resistance level Gareth is watching sits around $4,375.

That level combines prior price structure with a historical base area, making it the first place where the breakout could face meaningful supply. The larger gold structure remains constructive, but $4,375 is where confirmation matters. A clean push through it would argue that the breakout has more room. A rejection would raise the odds of a near-term pullback after the recent surge.

Silver is also strengthening, but its confirmation level remains more clearly defined. Gareth wants to see a daily close above $64 followed by continued strength before treating the next major upside leg as confirmed. Until that happens, silver remains a stronger chart than it was previously, but not yet one where confirmation should be assumed.

Bitcoin Is Starting to Respond to the Same Macro Setup

Bitcoin is showing a similar technical shift. After spending an extended period inside a downsloping wedge, price is now breaking above that structure and moving through the $65,000 area.

Gareth's near-term lean is bullish, even though his longer-term view remains more cautious. The first meaningful resistance level is $67,000. If Bitcoin can work through that area, the next upside level comes in around $71,000, followed by a larger near-term objective near $77,000.

The important point is not simply that Bitcoin is rallying. It is that Bitcoin, gold, equities, Treasury yields, and the dollar are all responding to the same macro catalyst. Falling yields and a weaker dollar are increasing demand for assets that tend to benefit when liquidity expectations improve.

That makes Bitcoin's breakout more significant than an isolated crypto move. If the dollar continues weakening and yields remain under pressure, the macro backdrop stays supportive. If those relationships reverse, the Bitcoin breakout becomes more vulnerable.

Earnings Volatility Creates Several Technical Setups

Outside the macro picture, earnings continue to generate large individual-stock moves. Atlassian was one of the strongest examples, surging sharply after earnings following a long decline from its previous highs. Gareth identified resistance between approximately $167 and $176, where historical price structure could begin to slow the recovery.

Airbnb is also pushing higher following earnings, with trendline resistance near $170. Twilio has recovered as well, with an important inside pivot sitting near $275 to $276. These are not levels to chase simply because the stocks are moving. They are areas where the charts begin to offer more defined risk-reward.

The Trade Desk sits on the opposite side of the earnings spectrum. Following weaker earnings, revenue, and guidance, the stock fell sharply and returned to price levels last seen years ago. Gareth identified a downsloping trendline near $12 as the technical level that matters most from here.

Microsoft presents one of the cleaner swing setups among the mega-cap names. A gap fill near $507 sits just below the 78.6% Fibonacci retracement around $512. That creates a tight resistance zone between $507 and $512. When two independent technical factors converge in a narrow range, the area becomes more important than either level would be on its own.

Bottom Line

The jobs report was the catalyst, but the labor data itself was not the entire trade. The more important reaction came through Treasury yields, Federal Reserve expectations, and the U.S. dollar. Those moves helped push the S&P 500 higher, strengthened the breakout in gold, and supported Bitcoin's move out of its downsloping wedge.

That leaves traders with a cleaner framework for what comes next. The S&P 500 remains constructive toward 7,833. Gold is approaching resistance near $4,375. Silver still needs confirmation above $64. Bitcoin has $67,000 as its first major test, with $71,000 and $77,000 above it if the breakout continues.

The market is still treating weaker economic data as supportive because lower rates matter more than the slowdown itself. That is the relationship to watch. If yields remain under pressure and the dollar continues weakening, the current breakouts have room to extend. If that transmission begins to reverse, the bullish response to today's jobs report becomes much less durable.

Read yesterday’s gameplan report below:

https://verifiedinvesting.com/blogs/live-show-recap/my-trading-game-plan-revealed-08-06-2026-tech-chip-earnings-rout-nasdaq-divergence-and-high-probability-trading-setups

Rising Yields and Oil Pressure Stocks, but Buyers Are Still Defending Key Levels

Rising Treasury yields and a sharp rebound in oil put pressure on equities into the close, but the market never developed into a broad technical breakdown. That was the more important signal from today's Trading the Close. The 10-year Treasury yield continued pushing higher, oil rebounded roughly 4%, and the major indexes faded from their intraday highs, yet buyers continued defending several important areas beneath the surface.

For traders, that leaves the market in a more complicated position than the headline weakness suggests. Macro pressure is building, particularly from yields, but the technical damage across stocks remains contained. The next move will depend on whether those macro headwinds finally force major support levels to break or whether buyers continue absorbing the pressure.

The 10-Year Yield Remains the Main Macro Pressure Point

The clearest source of pressure remains the 10-year Treasury yield. On the hourly chart, yields have continued to consolidate bullishly while breaking above near-term resistance, keeping the door open for another push higher. Drew's next major resistance level sits at 4.687%.

That matters because the stock market has been forced to absorb rising yields without much room for error. Growth and technology stocks tend to become more sensitive when yields accelerate, and today's weakness across SPY and QQQ showed that pressure beginning to work through the major indexes.

Oil added another layer to the setup. U.S. crude bounced roughly 4%, holding support near $72.70 and beginning to work back toward resistance at $83.55. Rising oil and rising yields together create a less forgiving environment for equities because one reinforces inflation concerns while the other tightens financial conditions.

Neither development produced a decisive stock market breakdown today, but both remain important inputs heading into the next session.

SPY and QQQ Are Weakening, Not Breaking

The S&P 500 ETF finished slightly lower after an early push higher faded through the session. Technically, SPY remains below an inclining trendline that has acted as resistance, leaving the index trapped beneath an important ceiling rather than confirming another leg higher.

The distinction for traders is whether this remains consolidation or begins developing into a deeper pullback. Drew is watching the prior June 2 pivot around 760 as the next meaningful support if sellers gain control, while resistance remains near $773.62 along the inclining trendline.

QQQ showed slightly more weakness into the close, but its broader structure also remains intact. The Nasdaq 100 still has room before reaching major resistance at $730.25, while the horizontal level around $704.32 becomes the more important downside reference if technology continues to soften.

For now, neither index has done enough to confirm that sellers have taken structural control.

Semiconductors Are Showing More Resilience Than the Headline Suggests

One of the more constructive signals beneath the surface came from semiconductors. The SMH ETF recovered from early weakness and continues pressing against an inclining trendline rather than immediately rolling over from it.

That behavior matters because price has not returned to the lower portion of its parallel structure. Instead, SMH has continued consolidating close to resistance. The longer price can remain compressed near that upper boundary without breaking down, the more credible a bullish continuation becomes.

Drew is watching whether this consolidation develops into a bull flag capable of producing a push through resistance. On the other side, a move back below the upper portion of the parallel near $553.44 would weaken that read and shift attention back toward the lower end of the structure.

The semiconductor setup reinforces the broader market message: pressure is present, but buyers have not surrendered the important technical levels yet.

Memory Stocks Showed How Aggressive Buyers Still Are

The most dramatic example of dip buying came from memory and storage names.

SanDisk sold off sharply following earnings, dropping from the prior close before staging a significant intraday recovery. Despite finishing the day down 6.8%, buyers stepped in aggressively near the lows and erased a meaningful portion of the early decline.

That bounce does not make the chart bullish. SanDisk remains inside a bearish consolidation, and Drew continues to watch the lower parallel near 1,062 as the next major support if selling resumes. The concern is that this would represent another test of an already well-used level. Repeated tests tend to weaken support, making a break increasingly important if price returns there.

Below 1,062, Drew's next support sits around $935. The larger head-and-shoulders structure also remains unresolved, which means the longer-term bearish risk has not disappeared simply because buyers defended the intraday lows.

Western Digital showed a similar but weaker reaction. WDC dropped sharply and finished down roughly 13%, with price again testing a trendline that has already absorbed several hits. If that structure eventually fails, Drew is watching approximately $375 as the next area where buyers may attempt to stabilize the decline.

The key takeaway from both charts is not that memory stocks are suddenly strong. It is that even after severe earnings-driven selling, buyers are still willing to defend major technical areas aggressively.

Natural Gas Requires Patience More Than Prediction

Natural gas remains one of the more interesting longer-term setups from the show, but Drew's message was less about calling a bottom and more about respecting the volatility.

Price continues to trend lower beneath resistance around $2.75, with the next major support near $2.53. Natural gas has earned its reputation as the "widow maker" because extreme volatility can punish traders who become overleveraged or oversized before the technical setup is ready.

The longer-term fundamental backdrop is becoming more interesting because natural gas demand is increasingly connected to the power requirements of AI data centers. That does not automatically create a near-term technical bottom, but it does provide a potential demand catalyst if price eventually stabilizes.

For Drew, the lesson is position sizing and patience. A trader can have the correct long-term thesis and still lose money if the position is too large to survive the volatility required for that thesis to develop.

Earnings Are Punishing Stocks That Were Priced for Perfection

Datadog provided another example of why the earnings headline rarely tells the full story.

The company beat earnings expectations and posted strong revenue and cash-flow results, yet DDOG still finished down roughly 19%. The market had already priced in a significant amount of optimism, leaving little margin for anything short of an exceptional reaction.

The technical chart reinforced that weakness. Price pushed into a declining trendline connecting prior May and June pivots before rejecting sharply. Drew is now watching support around $215.88, with another level near $202.35 below it if the selling continues.

The more interesting scenario develops if DDOG stabilizes near that first support. A successful bounce from the area could help create the right shoulder of a much larger inverse head-and-shoulders structure.

That makes $215.88 more useful as a decision level than simply labeling today's earnings reaction bullish or bearish.

Motorola Shows Why Pattern Location Matters

Motorola Solutions moved sharply higher following earnings and is now testing the neckline area of a developing inverse head-and-shoulders pattern near the top of its chart.

A confirmed breakout in the $495 to $500 zone would activate a measured move toward approximately $622.97. Drew's caution, however, comes from where the pattern is forming.

Inverse head-and-shoulders formations are traditionally strongest when they develop after meaningful declines. When they form close to the top of a chart, the failure rate can increase because the structure is developing after an already extended move rather than following prolonged capitulation.

That does not invalidate the pattern. It simply makes confirmation more important. Drew is looking for sustained daily closes above roughly $492 before treating the breakout as valid.

This is the kind of setup where the pattern itself matters less than the context surrounding it.

Gold, Silver, and Bitcoin Still Need Confirmation

Precious metals remain sensitive to the same yield pressure affecting equities.

Gold stayed inside its current parallel structure, closing within the prior session's range rather than confirming another breakout. Drew's near-term support sits around $4,213, rising toward $4,217 in the following session. Continued strength in the 10-year yield would make holding that structure more difficult.

Silver has held up somewhat better but remains beneath resistance near $63.26. A clean break above that level would open the door toward approximately $67.99, particularly if Treasury yields begin to cool.

Bitcoin is also stuck in a confirmation process rather than a completed breakout. Price was rejected near the lower portion of its parallel channel, making roughly $64,877 the first level Drew wants to see reclaimed.

Above that, Bitcoin would still need to confirm back inside the channel and eventually clear the inverse head-and-shoulders neckline near $66,761. If those steps occur, the measured move points toward the $72,000 area.

The common theme across all three assets is the same: the technical opportunity exists, but confirmation has not happened yet.

The Bottom Line

Today's market was pressured by a combination of rising Treasury yields and stronger oil, but the more important technical signal was that the pressure still failed to produce broad structural breakdowns.

SPY and QQQ weakened without losing major support. Semiconductors continued consolidating near resistance. Memory stocks experienced violent earnings-driven declines but still attracted aggressive buyers at the lows. Even in individual setups such as Datadog and Motorola, the most useful information comes from the levels that determine whether the current move develops further or fails.

That leaves traders with a market that requires more patience than prediction. The macro environment is becoming less supportive, particularly if the 10-year yield continues toward 4.687%, but sellers still need to prove they can break the technical structures buyers have repeatedly defended.

Until that happens, the better framework is to respect the macro pressure without assuming that every red session has become a larger market breakdown.

Read yesterday’s article below:

https://verifiedinvesting.com/blogs/live-show-recap/trading-the-close-market-recap-08-05-2026-gold-silver-breakout-semiconductor-divergence-and-after-hours-tech-carnage

Bitcoin has spent recent months lagging badly behind the broader market. While the S&P 500 and Nasdaq have pushed to fresh highs, Bitcoin remains well off its own peak. A structural pattern now forming on its chart matters beyond Bitcoin itself: it is the reference point the rest of crypto is waiting on before making its own move.

One Level, Two Outcomes

Bitcoin's chart currently supports two opposing reads, and both hinge on the same price zone. An upsloping parallel channel broke down, price pulled back above it, and Bitcoin is now retracing toward that broken channel again, in the $65,000 to $66,000 area. Under the bearish read, a rejection there and a fall back below the zone is what confirms further downside, treating the area purely as a retest of failed former support.

Under the bullish read, that same zone doubles as the approximate breakout point for a developing inverse head-and-shoulders pattern. A confirmed close and hold above roughly $66,000, rather than a rejection, is the trigger that validates the pattern. From that breakout point, the measured move implied by the formation projects toward the $76,000 area, a roughly 13 to 14 percent advance. Zooming out to the weekly chart, the same broader structure can also be read as a bear flag: a down move followed by sideways-to-higher consolidation, a structure that frequently resolves lower rather than higher.

The analyst's lean favors the bullish resolution. That view is grounded less in the pattern alone and more in relative positioning: Bitcoin has fallen well behind equities during a period when broader risk appetite has otherwise held up. That divergence is being read here as an argument for a catch-up move once the technical trigger confirms, a market interpretation rather than a proven historical tendency. The working thesis calls for Bitcoin to gain roughly 10 to 15 percent if the breakout confirms.

Ethereum's Trendline Is the Nearer Signal

Ethereum offers a cleaner, more immediate read than Bitcoin does right now. Its own price action resembles an inverse head-and-shoulders, but the left shoulder sits lower than the head, which means it does not meet the strict definition of the pattern. That leaves the trendline breakout as the signal that actually matters: Ethereum is pressing into a downsloping trendline that has capped rallies for some time, and a confirmed close above it opens the path toward $2,000, a level Ethereum has repeatedly failed to hold for more than two months. Clearing both would be the clearest sign that Bitcoin's bullish case is playing out across the market rather than staying isolated to one chart.

Altcoins Are Reading Off Bitcoin, Not Setting Their Own Direction

XRP, Solana, and Cardano each show a version of the same setup: price pressing against a downsloping trendline, with resolution expected to follow Bitcoin's lead rather than move independently. XRP has a tentative inverse head-and-shoulders forming, though the right shoulder hasn't finished developing, and a meaningful support zone sits near the $1 psychological level, already tested once to the downside. Solana's structure mirrors XRP's: repeated tests of a downsloping trendline with no confirmed breakout yet.

Cardano is furthest along. It has already cleared a prior pivot resistance that had held for roughly two days, tracing back to a similar level tested in early July. The next resistance zone sits just under $0.24, and a confirmed push through it would extend Cardano's outperformance relative to the rest of the group in the near term.

The Operator Takeaway

The full thesis reduces to one dual-role level and a hierarchy beneath it. Bitcoin holding and closing above the $66,000 area confirms the inverse head-and-shoulders and opens the path toward $76,000; a rejection back below $65,000 confirms the bear flag instead and shifts the focus to downside risk. Ethereum's trendline break, followed by a sustained move through $2,000, is the nearest corroborating signal rather than an independent one. XRP, Solana, and Cardano are secondary confirmations at best, expected to follow rather than lead.

None of this is a prediction of where prices will land. It is a probability framework built on two competing technical structures, informed by how far Bitcoin has drifted from the broader market it usually leads. The lean toward the bullish resolution is a reasoned market read, not a certainty, and price action at that one level will do the confirming or invalidating. Until Bitcoin resolves it, the rest of the group is likely to stay in a holding pattern, waiting for their reference point to move first.

Click Below To Read Yesterday's Articles:

https://verifiedinvesting.com/blogs/pro-charts-stocks-etfs/nvidias-approach-toward-235-is-the-chart-that-matters-most-today

https://verifiedinvesting.com/blogs/pro-charts-commodities/golds-channel-reclaim-and-silvers-confirmed-breakout-what-still-needs-to-close

Watch on YouTube

Published by Verified Investing | U.S. Economic Metrics

Released: August 6, 2026 | Data Period: Week Ending August 1, 2026 | Source: U.S. Department of Labor

Key Takeaways

• Initial claims came in at 199,000, up just 1,000 from last week's 198,000. The number is clean, unspectacular, and right. No distortion story this week — just a low print.
• The 4-week moving average fell to 198,750, down from 203,250 the prior period. That is the lowest the average has been this cycle. This is the figure that matters — it strips the single-week noise and it is compressing, not drifting.
• Continued claims jumped 24,000 to 1,801,000 — the insured unemployment rate holds at 1.2%. That 24,000 move in a single week is worth watching. Initial claims say almost nobody is getting fired. Continued claims say the people who do lose jobs are taking longer to land somewhere new.
• The divergence between initial and continued claims is the real story. Low firings and rising duration of unemployment spells is the fingerprint of a labor market where demand is cooling at the hiring end, not the firing end.
• This is not a labor market in distress — but it is not one firing on all cylinders either. The low-layoff, slow-rehire configuration is the most important structural feature of claims data right now.
• The next read to watch is whether continued claims can hold below 1,810,000. A sustained push toward 1,850,000 would mark a meaningful regime change in the re-employment picture, even if initial claims stay pinned under 210,000.
• For the Fed, this print offers nothing new. A 199,000 initial claims number confirms that labor market deterioration is not underway — it does not confirm that conditions are loose enough to justify cuts.

What This Metric Measures, and Why This Print Matters

The Department of Labor's weekly initial claims report is the highest-frequency labor data the government produces. Initial claims count workers filing for unemployment insurance for the first time — a direct read on layoffs, released with only days of lag. The 4-week moving average smooths the considerable week-to-week volatility, and it is the number serious analysts anchor to.

Continued claims — reported with one additional week of lag, covering the week ending July 25 — count workers who have already filed and are still collecting. Together, the two series tell a sequential story: initial claims measure the rate of job loss; continued claims measure how quickly displaced workers find new employment.

This week's print matters because it is not noisy. There is no auto-retooling distortion, no holiday calendar quirk, no obvious seasonal artifact to pick apart. What you see is what you get: 199,000 initial claims, a 4-week average that just touched its cycle low, and a continued claims number that rose by 24,000 in a single week. The divergence between those two halves of the report is the whole article.

What Everyone Will Focus On vs. What Matters More

The headline — 199,000, slightly above the prior week's 198,000 — will get filed as "essentially unchanged" and forgotten. The 4-week average sitting at 198,750 will earn a line noting it is near cycle lows. Desks will characterize the labor market as "resilient" and move on.

What matters more is the 24,000 jump in continued claims.

Initial claims at 199,000 means layoffs are historically low. That is real and it is not nothing. But continued claims rising 24,000 in a single week to 1,801,000 means that the workers who are being displaced are not re-entering the workforce quickly. The pool of people collecting benefits is expanding even as the rate of new filings stays flat.

That combination — near-record-low initial claims alongside rising continued claims — is the labor market's most telling current configuration. Employers are not cutting. They are also not absorbing displaced workers back into payrolls at the rate implied by the initial claims number alone.

Think of it this way: the front door of the labor market is barely open (low firings). But the side door — re-employment — is moving slower than it was. Continued claims are the measure of that side door, and right now it is trending in the wrong direction.

The 4-Week Average at Its Cycle Low: What It Actually Confirms

The 4-week moving average dropped from 203,250 to 198,750. That is a meaningful move. It means that over the past month, the average week produced fewer initial claims than at any comparable point in this cycle. No layoff wave is building. No deterioration is imminent in the firing-rate data.

But cycle lows in the 4-week average are a condition, not a catalyst. When the average has been pinned in the 195,000–210,000 range for an extended stretch, individual weeks oscillating between 195,000 and 210,000 are not signal — they are noise within a stable regime. The regime is: employers are not cutting headcount. That has been true for months. This week's print reconfirms it. It does not extend or accelerate it.

What a cycle-low 4-week average cannot tell you is anything about the hiring side. Payroll growth, quit rates, job openings — those live in other reports. The claims series is only half the labor market picture. The continued claims number, rising, is the other half's verdict right now.

Continued Claims: The Number That Cuts Against the Headline

Continued claims rising 24,000 in a single week deserves directional respect. The prior week came in at 1,777,000. This week: 1,801,000. That is not a statistical rounding error. It pushes continued claims to their highest level in several weeks, running counter to the "everything is fine" read the initial claims headline invites.

The insured unemployment rate holds at 1.2% — historically low, no alarm there. But the direction of the underlying count is the point. Continued claims oscillating around 1,775,000–1,800,000 is one picture. Continued claims building toward 1,850,000 is a different one. This week's print nudges the series toward the upper end of that range.

The mechanism worth watching: if initial claims stay low but continued claims keep rising, it means the duration of individual unemployment spells is lengthening. Workers are not being terminated in large numbers, but when they do lose jobs, they are spending more weeks in the insured unemployment system before finding new work. That is a hiring-demand story, not a layoff story. And hiring demand is what cools first when growth slows.

What This Means For Traders

The following is provided for educational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice.

The initial claims number alone is not a trade. At 199,000 with a 198,750 4-week average, the layoff picture gives no new information to act on. It is confirming a known regime: employers are not cutting. That has been priced.

The continued claims number is the watchpoint. A sustained push above 1,810,000–1,825,000 in coming weeks would be the first clean evidence that the re-employment pipeline is tightening. That matters for rate expectations. The Fed's dual mandate makes initial claims and payrolls the primary labor market inputs, but a persistent rise in continued claims is how labor market deterioration announces itself before it shows up in NFP.

Watch the next two continued claims prints. If the 24,000 jump proves transient — next week reverts toward 1,775,000 — the thesis weakens and the low-layoff narrative holds cleanly. If continued claims print above 1,800,000 again on August 13, the divergence story becomes structural, not episodic.

For rate-sensitive instruments, a labor market running this clean on the firings side removes any urgency for the Fed to act. The continued claims creep, if it continues, is the data that would eventually shift that calculus — but not from a single week. The August 7 NFP release will be the next real pressure point on the labor market read. Claims are telling you the NFP won't be a disaster. They are not telling you it will be strong.

What changes the thesis: A confirmed move in the 4-week average above 215,000 would signal that the firings picture is actually shifting — that would be a genuine regime change. A continued claims print approaching 1,850,000 over the next two to three weeks would confirm that re-employment duration is extending materially. Either development would sharpen the case for earlier Fed easing. Neither is in the data yet.

Source: U.S. Department of Labor — Unemployment Insurance Weekly Claims Report, Week Ending August 1, 2026, released August 6, 2026.

This article is published for educational and informational purposes only. Nothing contained herein constitutes investment advice or a recommendation to buy or sell any security. Please consult a qualified financial professional before making any investment decisions.

Tech’s Reality Check: Why Good Earnings Are No Longer Enough

The technology sector is facing a sharp reality check this morning, creating a clear divide across the major indices. High-flying semiconductor and AI-adjacent stocks are suffering severe drawdowns even after reporting solid growth, reinforcing a lesson traders often learn near the end of extended rallies: when perfection is already priced in, good results are no longer enough.

In this morning’s My Trading Game Plan, Gareth Soloway, Chief Market Strategist at VerifiedInvesting.com, focused on what mattered beneath the earnings headlines. The market is not simply reacting to whether companies beat or missed estimates. It is repricing stocks whose valuations had moved far ahead of their underlying growth, while capital rotates toward more established companies and defensive areas of the market.

The Market Is Punishing Perfection, Not Poor Growth

The most important story of the morning is the heavy selling across memory storage and chip stocks, led by Western Digital and Sandisk. Both companies delivered meaningful growth, yet their shares are collapsing because the market had already priced in far more than a routine earnings beat.

A stock can fall sharply after reporting strong numbers when its price has appreciated faster than its earnings. After a six-to-twelve-month surge, investors are no longer asking whether the business is growing. They are asking whether the company can grow fast enough to justify an increasingly aggressive valuation. When the answer is merely “yes, but not faster than expected,” the premium can unwind quickly.

That dynamic is spreading through the broader semiconductor and AI trade. Micron, SK Hynix, and other high-momentum names are coming under pressure as traders reconsider how much future growth has already been pulled forward. The weakness is not necessarily a verdict on the long-term AI story. It is a reminder that even strong themes become vulnerable when price begins assuming flawless execution.

Gareth also pointed to the extreme analyst targets issued near the highs as a warning sign. When analysts begin raising price targets to increasingly unrealistic levels, the upgrades can reflect the emotional peak of a move rather than disciplined valuation work.

“When you see analysts becoming emotional, it tells you that it’s the extreme of a top and a bubble, and now you’re seeing the results.”

Sandisk received targets as high as $3,000 and $3,600 during the height of the rally. Professional traders often treat that type of euphoria as an inverse indicator. When Wall Street begins extrapolating extraordinary growth indefinitely, the market may already be much closer to exhaustion than opportunity.

Index Divergence Reveals the Rotation

The technology selloff is producing an important divergence between the major indices. The Nasdaq is under sustained pressure, while the Dow Jones Industrial Average is slightly higher and the S&P 500 is holding near the flatline.

That divergence reflects sector rotation rather than broad market strength. Money is leaving speculative, high-multiple technology names and moving toward companies with stronger cash flows, established businesses, and more defensive characteristics. Apple is increasingly trading like a defensive technology company because of its cash reserves and durable ecosystem, while Nvidia is holding up better than many AI-linked peers.

This rotation matters because it shows the market is becoming more selective. Investors are not abandoning equities altogether. They are separating companies with supportable valuations from stocks whose prices depended on uninterrupted hypergrowth.

From a technical standpoint, S&P 500 futures sold off sharply yesterday before moving sideways overnight. Price pushed into a key resistance area and was rejected, leaving the index caught between overhead supply and lower support. The next meaningful signal will come from whether buyers can reclaim resistance or whether continued weakness forces another test of support.

The Nasdaq 100 is showing a weaker structure. After falling 0.9% yesterday, the shorter-term chart continues to grind lower rather than producing a convincing recovery. When the broader market remains stable while technology steadily deteriorates, traders need to be far more selective about where they take long exposure.

Labor Strength Keeps Pressure on Rates

The technical picture is also being shaped by Treasury yields and the latest labor data. The 10-year Treasury yield remains above the important 4.6% area, keeping pressure on growth stocks whose valuations depend heavily on future earnings.

Higher yields raise the cost of capital and reduce the present value of future cash flows. That relationship makes the Nasdaq particularly sensitive to changes in the bond market, especially when technology valuations are already stretched.

Weekly jobless claims came in at 199,000, exactly in line with expectations. Gareth uses a straightforward historical framework to interpret the number. Claims near 200,000 signal a healthy labor market, readings around 250,000 suggest conditions may be starting to weaken, and sustained numbers above 300,000 have historically been associated with recessionary stress.

At 199,000, the labor market remains in the healthy range. Hiring may be slowing, but companies are not cutting workers at a pace that signals serious economic deterioration. Challenger job cuts also remain relatively contained, supporting the view that the labor market is cooling without collapsing.

That resilience complicates the interest-rate outlook. Markets entered the previous Federal Reserve meeting with elevated expectations for a September rate increase, but those odds have since fallen to slightly above 50%. The combination of stable employment, changing inflation expectations, and volatile energy prices will continue influencing yields and equity valuations.

Earnings Volatility Requires Trade-Type Discipline

The earnings selloff has produced several technical opportunities, but Gareth emphasized that traders must separate short-term reaction trades from longer-duration swing setups. A level suitable for a quick intraday bounce may not provide enough structural support for a position intended to last several days or weeks.

Day trades generally focus on immediate pivots, gap fills, and oversold reactions. Swing trades require more substantial chart structure, such as major historical highs, deeper gap fills, or multiple technical factors converging in the same area. Confusing those two timeframes can turn a controlled trade into an oversized loss.

Western Digital

Western Digital suffered a major premarket decline after closing the prior session near $520 and trading down toward $440.

The first day-trade level sits near $420, where price would meet a pivot low from July 28 and create a potential double-bottom structure. Gareth viewed that area strictly as an intraday opportunity because the broader chart still leaves room for additional downside.

The more meaningful swing area sits between $300 and $305. That zone aligns with previous pivot highs from February and March, the base of an earlier gap, and a descending trendline. The added structural confluence makes it more suitable for a longer-duration setup.

Sandisk

Sandisk is experiencing an even larger decline after entering the session near $1,200 per share.

The first intraday area sits near $1,125, where several recent pivot lows create immediate technical support. That level may generate a short-term reaction, but it does not carry the same weight as the deeper structure below.

The more compelling swing level sits near $775. That area corresponds with a major historical pivot high and would represent a much more complete reset after the stock’s extraordinary advance.

Datadog

Datadog entered earnings near its highs before getting hit with aggressive selling.

The first day-trade level is near $221, where price would complete an immediate gap fill. That type of level can create a fast reaction when an earnings decline becomes extended.

The stronger swing area sits near $145 to $146. Datadog still has a major unfilled gap beneath the current price, which creates risk for anyone trying to establish a longer-term position too early. Until that lower gap is addressed, the chart remains vulnerable to additional downside.

AppLovin

AppLovin remains under pressure after another sharp decline. The larger chart has formed a head-and-shoulders pattern that has already triggered and continues to play out.

The day-trade level sits near $300, where the stock completed a premarket gap fill. That area offers a logical location for an intraday bounce attempt but does not necessarily establish a durable bottom.

The stronger swing level sits near $171, where a major historical gap remains open. A decline into that area over the coming months would bring price into a far more significant structural support zone.

Celsius Holdings

Celsius reported weak earnings and guidance, sending the stock sharply lower. Unlike several of the other names, however, it is approaching a support zone defined by multiple technical factors.

Near $22.75, the chart brings together a gap fill, a double bottom, and a descending trendline. When three independent factors converge around one level, the odds of stabilization improve. That makes the area far more compelling than a level supported by only one chart reference.

Why Repeated Trendline Tests Become Dangerous

One of the most useful lessons from the session involved the way trendline support weakens over time. Newer traders often assume that every successful bounce makes a support level stronger, but repeated tests can have the opposite effect.

Each visit to a trendline absorbs part of the available buying demand. Gareth’s methodology counts the starting point as the first touch, followed by the second, third, and fourth tests. Those early interactions can still produce tradable reactions.

The fifth test carries significantly greater breakdown risk. Price may initially bounce, but the reaction is often weaker because buyers have already defended the same level several times. Once that demand is exhausted, the support structure becomes more vulnerable to failure.

The practical lesson is not to buy a trendline blindly simply because it worked before. Traders need to count the touches, evaluate the strength of each reaction, and recognize when repeated testing is shifting the odds toward a breakdown.

Gold Breaks Out While Silver Still Needs Confirmation

Outside equities, gold and silver are presenting two different technical setups.

Gold produced a major breakout yesterday and is now pausing near the highs. That pause does not damage the bullish structure. Large wedge breakouts often begin with an aggressive move driven by short covering and momentum buying, followed by a slower retracement toward the breakout area.

A controlled retest would allow traders to see whether former resistance can become support. Gareth compared the current structure with the breakout that preceded the 1980 cycle peak, while also noting that today’s macro environment is different because the Federal Reserve is not responding with the type of double-digit interest rates used under Paul Volcker.

The long-term technical structure remains constructive, but the next phase may involve consolidation rather than another immediate vertical move.

Silver, by contrast, rallied directly into resistance and was rejected. The chart remains weaker until price can decisively reclaim and close above $64. Until that happens, the resistance zone continues to define the trade.

Energy Offers Fewer Clean Setups

Crude oil is trading slightly higher as traders assess reports of a possible agreement involving the Strait of Hormuz. Some reports suggest Iran could collect transit fees while the United States plays a limited role in the arrangement.

The geopolitical implications are meaningful, but the chart does not currently provide a strong technical edge. When the fundamental narrative is fluid and the technical structure offers no clean setup, remaining on the sidelines is often the more disciplined decision.

Natural gas continues its prolonged decline. The level that matters is $2.57, where a longer-term trendline creates a potential launch point for a more substantial rally. Until price reaches or reacts to that area, the market remains stuck in a weak structure.

Bitcoin’s Breakout Still Needs Proof

Bitcoin is fighting to confirm a potentially important breakout. The cryptocurrency pushed toward $65,000 yesterday and managed to close above resistance, but one close alone does not complete the setup.

Confirmation requires Bitcoin to hold the reclaimed area during the following session. Instead, price has slipped back below $64,200, putting the breakout at risk.

The key level is now $64,000. Holding above that area would preserve the breakout structure and keep the bullish setup intact. A failure to hold would not end the broader bull case, but it would force Bitcoin to work back through the same resistance again.

This is where confirmation matters. The initial move showed that buyers could push through resistance. The current session will show whether they can defend it.

Bottom Line

The market is not punishing technology companies simply because their earnings were weak. It is punishing stocks whose valuations assumed that exceptional growth would continue without interruption.

That changes the way traders should approach the current environment. Strong businesses can still experience severe declines when expectations become detached from realistic outcomes, and immediate support levels may only provide short-term trades rather than durable swing opportunities.

The broader rotation into established companies shows that capital has not left the market entirely, but the speculative phase of the AI trade is being tested. Until high-multiple technology stocks prove they can hold deeper support and reclaim broken resistance, rallies deserve more scrutiny than confidence.

The game plan is to remain selective, distinguish between day-trade and swing-trade structures, and wait for technical levels with real confluence. With the next nonfarm payroll report due tomorrow morning, volatility may remain elevated, but the framework does not change: let price reach the level, demand confirmation, and avoid paying for perfection.

Gold and silver led commodities on Wednesday, and oil's sharp decline on renewed optimism over reopening the Strait of Hormuz was one of several supportive factors behind the move. Gold rallied on its largest bullish candle in recent memory by the analyst's read, pushing price back toward the floor of a rising channel it has held since last year. Silver confirmed a breakout from a multi-week declining trend line and is now testing toward a larger pivot high that has capped price since early July. The two setups are related but not identical, and the distinction between what has already confirmed and what is still pending matters for how each should be weighted.

Gold: A Channel Reclaim Still Awaiting Confirmation

Not all candles carry equal weight. A large directional candle reflects a much bigger shift in aggregate buying and selling pressure than a routine session, and the days that follow tend to reveal whether the move has staying power. Gold's session candle was, by the analyst's own chart read, the largest bullish candle in recent history on this timeframe, and it pushed price back toward the floor of a rising parallel channel that has generally held since the April 2025 lows.

The channel has one prior breach, in June, when price struggled for weeks to climb back inside it. A brief reclaim attempt on July 6 failed within a single session and price fell back below the channel the next day. This session's candle is materially larger than that July 6 attempt, which raises the odds the current move holds, but the setup is a reclaim in progress, not a confirmed breakout. A daily close below the channel floor near $4,211 would invalidate the reclaim and echo the July failure. A daily close above the recent high near $4,268 would confirm it. Until one of those closes happens, the reclaim remains unconfirmed either way.

Silver: One Level Confirmed, One Still Pending

Silver's setup involves two separate levels, and they are not in the same state. The break above the multi-week declining trend line has already confirmed: price has cleared that line and is holding above it. What has not yet confirmed is the larger pivot high near $63.26, set on July 6, which remains the ceiling silver needs to clear on a daily close basis. If that close happens, the setup projects a measured move toward $67.99, based on the analyst's chart-pattern calculation. Until then, silver sits between a confirmed short-term breakout and an unconfirmed larger one, and both facts are true at once.

A Supportive, Not Singular, Macro Backdrop

Falling oil prices and the prospect of easing inflation expectations are a supportive factor behind this week's metals strength, tied to progress in Strait of Hormuz negotiations that remained unresolved as of this session. But gold and silver are responding to more than one input at once, including dollar weakness and shifting expectations for the Federal Reserve's next move. Reading the oil decline as one contributing factor, rather than the sole explanation, is the more accurate framing and avoids overstating a single causal chain in a market driven by several overlapping forces.

What to Watch Next

Gold: a daily close below $4,211 invalidates the reclaim; a daily close above $4,268 confirms it. Silver: the trend-line break is already confirmed; a daily close above $63.26 would confirm the larger breakout and open the path toward $67.99, while a failure to close above it keeps silver range-bound just under multi-week highs.

Oil: The Backdrop Driving the Move

Oil's decline is the clearest link between this week's macro news and the metals rally. A declining trend line was pierced but not confirmed on a closing basis, and price has since fallen into layered support near $72.70, $69.64, and $68.64. A retracement toward $79-80 would retest the broken trend line from below; a breakdown in Hormuz talks, rather than a resolution, could send price spiking back toward $96.44.

Elsewhere in Commodities

Natural gas remains below a longer-term rising channel it has failed to reclaim on multiple attempts this year, with support near $2.75 already under pressure and a break lower risking a move to $2.53. The analyst also flagged AI data center power demand as a longer-term tailwind worth tracking, though that remains a forward-looking view rather than a confirmed near-term driver. Copper's weekly chart shows an extended run into resistance near $6.865-$6.875, and a pullback into the $6.40-6.50 zone would not be surprising given the pace of the advance.

The Bottom Line

Gold and silver are each mid-setup, not post-confirmation. One level in each metal has already resolved in the bulls' favor, and one has not. The discipline here is to treat the confirmed and unconfirmed levels as genuinely different things rather than rounding the picture up to a completed breakout, and to keep watching how oil and the broader macro backdrop evolve rather than assuming any single headline is doing all the work.

Watch on YouTube

Gold and Silver Break Out as Semiconductor Weakness Tests the Equity Rally

The major equity indexes paused after a sharp multi-day advance, but the more important development into Wednesday’s close occurred outside the headline averages. Gold and silver broke through near-term resistance as the dollar weakened and Treasury yields eased, while semiconductors continued to lag behind the S&P 500 and Nasdaq. That combination created a clear split in market leadership: precious metals showed improving technical confirmation, but the equity rally remained less convincing without participation from the sector that has led much of the broader bull cycle.

For traders, the central question is not whether the S&P 500 briefly reached another record. It is whether the internal structure beneath that high supports continued upside. Drew Dosek’s read on Trading the Close was that the metals breakout deserves attention because several related markets aligned behind the move, while persistent weakness in the semiconductor ETF keeps the broader index rally vulnerable to a near-term reversal.

Softer Labor Data Changes the Macro Backdrop

Weakening ADP employment data and softer JOLTS figures shifted expectations around the Federal Reserve’s September decision. Market pricing moved close to an even split between another rate increase and no change, reflecting growing uncertainty about how the Fed will balance inflation risk against signs of cooling in the labor market.

That uncertainty matters because gold and silver were already pressing against technical resistance when the data arrived. The releases did not create the setups, but they gave buyers a reason to act as Treasury yields eased and the U.S. dollar moved lower. The 10-year yield slipped toward near-term support around 4.542%, while the dollar fell back toward an important trendline near 99.55.

The alignment between metals, yields, and the dollar improved the quality of the breakout. Gold and silver were not moving in isolation. Their gains developed alongside weakness in two markets that often act as headwinds for precious metals, giving the move more structural support than a breakout driven by price momentum alone.

Gold Reclaims Its Rising Channel

Gold produced one of its strongest bullish candles in recent months and broke above the declining trendline that had contained the latest pullback. More importantly, the rally pushed price back into the rising parallel channel that has guided the broader advance since April 2025.

The key level is now $4,213, where the lower boundary of that channel sits. A sustained hold above that area would turn the former channel breakdown into a failed bearish move and strengthen the case that the larger uptrend has resumed. Losing it again would weaken the breakout and suggest that Wednesday’s rally was more reaction than structural change.

Drew’s focus was not simply on the size of the candle, but on the amount of technical repair accomplished in one session. Gold cleared its near-term declining resistance and reclaimed a larger trend structure at the same time. That gives the move more weight, but the next closes will determine whether buyers can defend the reclaimed channel rather than merely trade through it intraday.

Before Wednesday’s move, a deeper retracement below $3,500 remained possible within the broader chart structure. That downside scenario has not disappeared permanently, but it has moved further away from the immediate setup. As long as gold remains above $4,213, the stronger near-term read is that buyers have regained control of the channel.

Silver Confirms Its Own Breakout

Silver advanced more than 4% and confirmed a breakout above its short-term declining trendline. Price had been consolidating beneath that boundary in a compact bullish structure, and Wednesday’s move resolved the pattern to the upside.

The next important test sits near the July 6 pivot high at $63.26. That level represents the most immediate area where sellers could reappear after the breakout. A push through it would extend the sequence of higher highs, while rejection would test whether the broken trendline can hold as support.

Drew also used silver to reinforce an important part of trader psychology. He had accumulated physical silver near $50 because the consolidation supported a longer-term bullish thesis, but that did not eliminate the need to account for downside risk. The broader channel still allows for a much deeper retracement over time if the breakout fails and market conditions deteriorate.

That willingness to plan for being wrong is part of what separates a thesis from blind conviction. Wednesday improved the bullish case, but it did not make downside scenarios impossible. The trade framework remains tied to whether silver can hold its breakout and eventually clear the $63.26 pivot.

Newmont also benefited from the strength in metals, breaking above resistance near $98.93. Holding above that area would keep the mining stock positioned for a move toward the next major resistance near $108.84. Its breakout adds confirmation to the metals move, although gold and silver themselves remain the more important signals.

The S&P 500 High Came With a Warning

The S&P 500 reached another all-time high during the session but failed to close at the high. Price encountered an inclining resistance trendline drawn through major pivots from February and October 2025, leaving the index near resistance after six consecutive days of gains.

The rejection does not confirm a major reversal, but it raises the odds of consolidation or a short-term pullback. The first important support sits near the prior June high around 760.40. If buyers defend that breakout level, the broader trend remains intact even if the index gives back part of its recent advance.

Resistance near 773.41 remains the level bulls need to clear to restore momentum. Until that happens, the latest record should be treated as a test of resistance rather than proof that another sustained leg higher has begun.

QQQ showed more visible weakness, falling roughly 0.9% after the previous session’s large gap above resistance. The ETF is now trading inside a prior consolidation range, with resistance near $731.33 and support around $704.32. That support carries additional weight because a horizontal pivot and declining trendline converge in the same area.

Semiconductor Weakness Is the More Important Equity Signal

The most meaningful warning did not come from the S&P 500 or QQQ. It came from the semiconductor ETF, which remains below a broken inclining trendline even as the major indexes trade near record territory.

Semiconductors have been one of the primary leadership groups throughout the broader bull cycle. When the S&P 500 and Nasdaq rise without the group participating, the rally carries less internal confirmation. The indexes can continue higher temporarily, but persistent semiconductor weakness makes those gains more dependent on a narrower group of stocks.

SMH now needs to reclaim its 50-day moving average and the declining trendline converging near $600. A move back above that zone would repair much of the technical damage and weaken the bearish divergence. Until that happens, the semiconductor chart argues for more caution than the index headlines alone would suggest.

This is the central equity watchpoint from the session. The S&P 500 can hold above 760.40 and remain technically constructive, but a durable extension to new highs becomes more convincing if SMH begins leading again. Without that confirmation, the latest index breakout remains vulnerable to becoming a short-lived move rather than the beginning of another broad advance.

Oil Ignores the Geopolitical Headline

Oil offered another example of why price action matters more than the expected reaction to a headline. Reports of an attack on a Saudi tanker in the Red Sea initially produced a brief spike, but crude quickly surrendered the move and continued lower.

The inability to sustain gains showed that the existing technical trend remained stronger than the geopolitical catalyst. Oil is now approaching several support levels, beginning near $72.70, followed by trendline support around $70.59 and another technical level near $68.59.

Rather than assuming that geopolitical risk must push oil higher, traders can use those levels to judge where buyers actually return. A headline may create volatility, but sustained price movement still requires confirmation from the chart.

Natural gas remained weak after failing to reclaim former support near $2.75. Drew’s longer-term view remains constructive because electricity demand from artificial intelligence infrastructure could increase natural gas consumption, but the current chart has not yet confirmed that thesis.

Support near $2.53 is the more important level if weakness continues. The broader demand argument may become more relevant into winter, but the technical setup still requires patience. A long-term catalyst does not override a market that remains below resistance.

Bitcoin Holds a Clear Technical Line

Bitcoin continued testing the lower boundary of its broader parallel channel after several failed attempts to break higher since June 5. Those repeated rejections have also helped form the outline of an inverse head-and-shoulders pattern, giving traders a defined bullish setup if resistance eventually breaks.

The first requirement is a hold above trendline support near $64,796. Bitcoin then needs to clear approximately $66,781 to complete the right side of the pattern and confirm a breakout above the neckline area.

A successful move through resistance would open a technical path toward the $72,000 region. Until then, the pattern remains developing rather than confirmed. The chart has a recognizable bullish structure, but price still needs to prove that buyers can break the resistance responsible for the recent rejections.

Earnings Show Why Good Results Are Not Enough

The after-hours session reinforced a familiar earnings lesson: strong reported numbers do not guarantee a positive stock reaction. Expectations, positioning, and the technical premium already embedded in price often matter as much as the headline results.

Disney beat earnings expectations but missed revenue estimates, with strength in streaming and parks supporting the report. The stock moved above the declining trendline that had capped price since May and cleared the $100 level. The next test sits near longer-term resistance around $105.

That reaction was constructive because price improved technically despite the mixed report. Holding above the broken trendline would confirm that buyers are willing to defend the move rather than treat it as a temporary earnings spike.

Arista Networks provided the opposite lesson. The company beat expectations, but the stock fell sharply toward support near $188.98. Selling after a strong report suggests that investors had already priced in a high standard, leaving little room for anything short of an exceptional result.

The $188.98 area now matters because it aligns with a previously confirmed inclining trendline. A hold could stabilize the decline, while a break would show that the earnings reaction caused more meaningful technical damage.

CDW initially fell despite beating both revenue and earnings estimates after reporting weaker-than-expected margins. The decline carried price toward the midpoint of its parallel channel before buyers stepped in and produced a strong recovery.

That reversal showed the market reassessing the importance of the margin miss after the initial reaction. Support near $135.39 now becomes the level that determines whether the recovery can continue toward resistance around $160.63.

After-Hours Selling Breaks Key Support Levels

Western Digital fell sharply after earnings and broke below Fibonacci support near $459.47. The level had held several prior tests, but repeated contact can gradually reduce the amount of buying demand available there.

With that support broken, the next areas to watch sit near $400 and $373.99. The lower level carries more structural weight because it aligns with a longer-term rising trendline from November 2025.

SanDisk also experienced significant after-hours volatility and remained beneath its inclining trendline. The chart now risks developing a bearish continuation pattern if price cannot reclaim that lost structure.

Near-term resistance sits around $1,353, while deeper support is closer to $1,046. The large distance between those levels reflects the stock’s volatility, making the trendline reclaim more important than any single after-hours print.

AppLovin produced the sharpest decline of the group, falling roughly 25% after hours and briefly trading below $300. The immediate technical references are Fibonacci support near $317.15 and $262.64, with the psychological $300 area and an open gap adding another layer of interest between them.

After a decline of that size, the first bounce is less important than whether price can rebuild above broken support. Until the stock recovers key levels, the after-hours move represents technical damage rather than a routine earnings pullback.

Bottom Line

Wednesday’s strongest confirmed move came from precious metals, not the major equity indexes. Gold reclaimed its rising channel above $4,213, silver broke its declining trendline, and the move developed alongside a weaker dollar and easing Treasury yields.

The equity picture remains less complete. The S&P 500 is still near record territory, but its rejection at resistance and the continued breakdown in semiconductors argue against treating the latest high as broad confirmation. The index rally becomes more credible if SMH reclaims the $600 region and resumes its leadership role.

For the next session, the key framework is straightforward: gold needs to defend $4,213, silver needs to work through $63.26, the S&P 500 needs to hold 760.40, and SMH needs to repair its breakdown near $600. Metals have already strengthened their technical case. Equities still need their most important leadership group to do the same.

Earnings drove most of the action across the market on Wednesday. Shopify gapped up before fading off its highs, Palantir kept digesting a blowout print from earlier in the week, and Uber slipped on a mixed report and a softer-than-expected outlook. Against that noise, one setup stood out precisely because it had nothing to do with a press release: Nvidia's charts are working back toward the same resistance zone that produced the stock's all-time high in May. Paired with the semiconductor sector's own recovery attempt, that level is a useful read on whether risk appetite for AI-linked names is genuinely returning.

Nvidia: Working Back Toward a Known Resistance Zone

Nvidia set its all-time closing high near $235 on May 14 and has since pulled back to $211.94 as of Tuesday's close, roughly 10% below that level. On the weekly chart, the analyst draws a trend line from the prior all-time high through a more recent swing high, projecting into that same $235 zone. The setup also carries the outline of a lopsided inverse head-and-shoulders pattern, though the right shoulder has already broken low enough to arguably negate the formation.

That combination matters more for what it implies than for the pattern label itself. Whether or not the head-and-shoulders structure holds up, the $235 level is not in dispute: it is the same zone the market already used to set its high, which is why it is worth tracking as price works back toward it rather than as some fresh, unproven target.

The broader context adds a concrete benchmark rather than a general assumption. A group of semiconductor and AI-hardware names, Nvidia included, lost more than a trillion dollars in combined market capitalization between July 24 and July 29 on concerns about the pace of AI infrastructure spending, according to CNBC. The sector-tracking iShares Semiconductor ETF fell as much as 22% that month, its worst since 2002, before rallying roughly 17% over four sessions into early August, and Nvidia's own pullback and partial recovery has tracked that broader group closely rather than moving on its own. That gives $235 a second layer of meaning: a daily close above it would suggest the sector recovery has real follow-through, not just a short-covering bounce.

SpaceX: A New Chart Still Finding Its Footing

SpaceX is the more unusual case, simply because there is so little chart history to work with. The company only began trading publicly in June, and shares remain below their $135 IPO price after the company's first earnings report as a public entity, which showed sharp revenue growth alongside heavy AI-related spending. The stock's 52-week range runs from a low of $104.83 to a high of $225.64, and current trading sits well down in that range following the earnings reaction. The analyst's read leans on Fibonacci retracement levels measured off the stock's post-IPO swing, but with only a few months of trading history, the specific dollar levels behind that read could not be independently confirmed here and are flagged for the contributor to verify. What is confirmable is the broader picture: a newly public, volatile name still below its offering price, working through its first real test of investor conviction after a mixed earnings reaction.

What to Watch Next

For Nvidia, the confirming signal is a daily close above $235, flipping a former high into a support shelf. A daily close back below roughly $203, the stock's 50-day moving average, would not invalidate a future test of $235, but it would weaken the near-term bullish structure and suggest the move needs more time. For SpaceX, stabilization above its recent lows would support the idea that post-earnings selling has run its course, while a slide back toward the $104.83 low would put the entire post-IPO range back in question.

Also on the Radar: Uber, Palantir, and Shopify

Three other names moved sharply today, though all three moves were earnings-driven rather than chart-driven, which is why they sit behind Nvidia and SpaceX rather than as standalone theses. Uber's second-quarter adjusted earnings of $0.81 per share narrowly topped the $0.80 estimate, but revenue landed just below expectations and third-quarter guidance came in soft, and the stock slid toward $68, within roughly 4% of its 52-week low of $65.41 set in late July, a specific zone worth watching for signs of stabilization. Palantir is digesting a large post-earnings rally, trading near $163 with support at $148 and resistance at $163.50 marking its current consolidation. Shopify gapped up on its own earnings beat this morning, touching $164.97 before fading toward the mid-$140s, a pattern the analyst frames as a bear flag inside a broader uptrend.

The Nvidia Decision Point

Of the setups covered today, Nvidia's is the cleanest because it does not depend on how a single earnings report lands. The stock is working back toward a level the market has already used once to make a high, with a specific level below it that flags near-term weakness rather than ending the setup outright, and a sector-wide recovery attempt lending support rather than an isolated claim. A daily close above $235 would be the clearest evidence that buyers are willing to pay a new record price again. A daily close below $203 would suggest the move needs more time. Everything else, including whether the head-and-shoulders pattern technically survives, is secondary to that framework.

Watch on YouTube

The Market Rally Is Approaching Its First Major Test at QQQ $737

The market’s sharp rebound is beginning to reach the levels where momentum alone is no longer enough. The S&P 500 is pressing toward major resistance, the Nasdaq 100 has surged roughly 10% from last week’s lows, and several of the strongest technology stocks are approaching technically significant barriers. The rally remains intact, but the next phase will be defined by how price reacts when it reaches those decision points.

In this morning’s My Trading Game Plan Revealed, Gareth Soloway focused on the difference between recognizing strength and chasing it after the risk-to-reward profile has already changed. The most important level from the session sits near $737 to $738 on QQQ, where a major gap fill aligns with the 0.886 Fibonacci retracement. That confluence creates the clearest test of whether the Nasdaq’s vertical recovery can continue or is approaching short-term exhaustion.

The Nasdaq Rally Is Reaching Its Decision Zone

The S&P 500 continues to advance after breaking above a clearly defined wedge pattern. That breakout remains constructive as long as price holds above the former resistance structure, but the index is now moving toward a trendline extending from early 2024. That line places the next major resistance zone near 7,810, where traders should begin judging the quality of the move rather than assuming the current pace can continue indefinitely.

The first meaningful support remains near 7,620, the previous all-time high that price recently cleared. Former resistance frequently becomes support after a confirmed breakout, making that level the first place buyers would be expected to defend during a pullback. A failure to hold 7,620 would not automatically reverse the larger trend, but it would weaken the immediate breakout structure and bring lower trendline support back into focus.

The Nasdaq 100 presents an even more important setup because of the speed of its recovery. QQQ has rallied roughly 10% from last week’s lows, with much of the move concentrated in mega-cap technology names such as Microsoft, Meta, Alphabet, and Nvidia. That leadership has been powerful enough to repair a significant amount of chart damage in only a few sessions, but it has also pushed the index toward a level where upside becomes more difficult.

The $737 to $738 zone combines two independent technical factors. The first is an unfilled gap that remains overhead. The second is the 0.886 Fibonacci retracement of the previous decline. Either level could attract selling on its own, but their alignment makes the zone more significant. The rally does not become bearish simply because it reaches resistance, but this is where traders should stop evaluating the move by its recent strength and start evaluating the reaction at the level.

A clean daily close above $738 would show that buyers still control the structure and could extend the rally into new territory. A rejection from the zone would instead suggest that the rebound has reached its first major exhaustion point. That reaction matters more than the speed of the advance because it will reveal whether buyers are still willing to absorb supply after a double-digit move.

Falling Yields Are Supporting the Rally, but the Charts Still Decide

The technical recovery is being supported by a macro backdrop that has become more favorable for growth stocks. The latest ADP employment report showed 44,000 jobs added over the previous month, reinforcing the view that the labor market is cooling. That places additional weight on the official non-farm payrolls report and reduces some of the pressure on the Federal Reserve to maintain a more restrictive posture.

Oil prices and Treasury yields have also moved lower. Falling energy prices can ease inflation concerns, while a lower 10-year Treasury yield reduces borrowing costs and the discount rate applied to future earnings. That combination tends to benefit high-growth companies, which helps explain why the strongest market participation has remained concentrated in technology.

The bond market is also showing skepticism toward the idea of a September rate hike. Gareth’s read is that policymakers may be attempting to preserve a hawkish message without necessarily following through with another increase. Talking tough can influence financial conditions on its own, but the market will ultimately respond to economic data and Treasury yields rather than rhetoric alone.

A weaker U.S. dollar has added another layer of support to risk assets. The dollar is drifting toward an important trendline, and continued weakness would reinforce the liquidity conditions behind the current rally. However, macro support does not eliminate technical resistance. It explains why buyers have remained aggressive, but QQQ still has to prove it can clear $737 to $738 before the next leg becomes technically confirmed.

Earnings Movers Show Why Timeframe Matters

The same principle applies to individual stocks moving sharply after earnings. A technically important level can serve different purposes depending on the trader’s timeframe. A level capable of producing a short intraday bounce may not offer enough structural support for a multi-day or multi-week position.

AMD illustrated that distinction after falling approximately 8% in premarket trading despite reporting solid results. Guidance and margin concerns weighed on the shares, and the stock had entered the report close enough to record highs that the market was demanding near-perfect execution. When expectations are elevated, even respectable numbers can produce a sharp sell-the-news reaction.

Gareth identified a potential intraday bounce area just below $450, based on a trendline originating near the beginning of the prior decline. That level may create a temporary imbalance between buyers and sellers, but it should not automatically be treated as durable swing support. A day trader may only need a short-lived reaction. A swing trader needs a stronger structure capable of surviving additional volatility after the initial bounce.

Shopify offered the opposite setup after surging through its first major gap-fill level near $156. Once price moved through that resistance with significant momentum, the level no longer offered the same immediate rejection thesis. Attention then shifted to the next historical pivot near $171, where the size of the extension could begin working against late buyers.

The important lesson is not that Shopify must reverse at $171. The setup is that each additional move higher stretches price farther from its recent base, increasing the risk of exhaustion as it approaches the next established supply zone. Traders should judge the reaction at $171 rather than assuming either continuation or rejection in advance.

Disney Shows Why Confirmation Changes the Trade

Disney presented one of the clearest examples of how the same trendline can support two different theses depending on price behavior. The stock is approaching a declining resistance line near $106.50. On the first test, that line represents an area where sellers may reappear because it has previously capped the advance.

A rejection from $106.50 would keep the descending structure intact. However, a confirmed breakout above the line would change the read. At that point, the former resistance could become support during a later pullback, creating what Gareth describes as a return to the “scene of the crime.”

The sequence is what makes the setup useful. Price first breaks above resistance, then proves the breakout can hold, and finally retraces to test the same level from above. Traders are no longer guessing that resistance will break. They are waiting for the market to confirm the transition before treating the line as support.

This is where patience improves the setup. Buying directly beneath resistance assumes the breakout will occur. Shorting after price has already confirmed above the line ignores the structural change. Waiting for the breakout and retest allows the chart to define which side has taken control.

Uber Warns Against Trusting Overused Support

Uber’s post-earnings decline reinforced another major principle from the session: support does not necessarily become stronger every time price touches it. Repeated tests can gradually consume the demand sitting at a level, leaving the structure more vulnerable to a breakdown.

Uber fell roughly 5% to 6% and approached a long-term trendline near $66. On the surface, that line appears attractive because it has supported price several times before. The problem is that the current move represents approximately the sixth interaction with the same trendline.

Each test gives buyers another opportunity to defend the level, but it also gives sellers another opportunity to absorb the remaining demand. By the fifth or sixth touch, the probability of a clean breakdown becomes materially greater than it was on the first or second test. The line remains technically relevant, but it no longer offers the same quality of support.

The practical takeaway is that traders should not treat every touch of a familiar trendline as an equal opportunity. The history of the level matters. A fresh support zone with clear confluence can offer a stronger setup than a line that has already been tested repeatedly and is beginning to lose structural integrity.

Measured Moves Must Be Tied to Real Structure

The show also examined private-market price action associated with SpaceX and the effect of increased supply surrounding a lockup-related event. Because SpaceX is not publicly traded, the setup should be understood as an analysis of the private or secondary-market pricing presented during the session rather than a conventional exchange-traded stock chart.

The technical framework centered on a measured move. The prior advance covered approximately $75 over a three-day period. After price retraced that move, bounced, and began rolling over again, the same $75 distance was projected downward from the recent peak.

That calculation produced a potential downside zone near $95 to $97. The significance of the level came from the alignment between the measured projection and the fundamental pressure created by additional supply. The measurement does not guarantee a reversal, but it provides a logical area where the move may begin to exhaust if sellers continue pushing price lower.

Measured moves are most useful when they reinforce an existing structure rather than operate as isolated price predictions. The projection becomes more credible when it aligns with support, a prior pivot, a gap, or a catalyst capable of producing the expected flow of supply and demand.

Gold Confirms While Bitcoin Presses the Trigger

Gold has already completed the type of breakout Bitcoin is still attempting. After closing above resistance, gold followed with a strong confirmation candle, showing that buyers were able to hold the move rather than allowing price to fall immediately back beneath the breakout level.

The next major upside reference sits near $4,500. A move into that area could produce profit-taking or a throwback toward the former breakout zone. That would not necessarily damage the bullish structure. Retests are common after major breakouts and can provide the market with an opportunity to confirm that former resistance has become support.

Silver remains less decisive because it is still working beneath heavy resistance near $64. The metal needs a convincing break and close above that level before its chart carries the same confirmation visible in gold. Until then, gold remains the cleaner signal within the precious-metals complex.

Bitcoin is approaching a similar decision point beneath a descending trendline formed by several major pivot highs. Price has pressed into the line repeatedly from below, creating increasing pressure against resistance. Unlike Uber, where repeated tests are weakening support, Bitcoin’s repeated advances are forcing sellers to defend the same ceiling again and again.

The breakout has not yet occurred. A daily close above the descending trendline would provide the confirmation needed to activate upside projections near $71,000 to $72,000. A stronger extension could eventually bring $77,000 into view, but that target remains secondary until price first proves it can close above resistance.

Gold’s breakout provides constructive intermarket context, but it does not guarantee Bitcoin will follow. The Bitcoin chart must confirm on its own. The opportunity is not based on assuming the trendline will break. It is based on recognizing how much energy has built beneath the level and responding only when price resolves the structure.

The Bottom Line

The central message from today’s session was not that the rally is over or that traders should immediately bet against it. The market remains strong, yields are providing support, and several major assets are pressing toward technically bullish resolutions. The risk is that the speed of the rebound encourages traders to chase just as price reaches its most important resistance levels.

QQQ at $737 to $738 is the clearest test. A confirmed close above that zone would show that buyers can absorb the gap-fill supply and the 0.886 Fibonacci retracement after a 10% rally. A rejection would identify the first meaningful exhaustion point of the rebound and increase the odds of a broader pullback.

The same framework applies across the rest of the market. Disney needs confirmation before resistance can be treated as support. Uber’s overused trendline offers less protection than it once did. Gold has already confirmed its breakout, while Bitcoin is still pressing against the level that decides the next move.

The market has delivered the momentum phase. The next edge comes from watching how price behaves at resistance. Strength brought the major indices into these zones, but confirmation will determine whether the rally has another leg or whether buyers have finally reached the point where risk begins to outweigh reward.

Currency markets rarely hand traders a clean, one-variable story, but the last several weeks have come close. A coordinated effort to stabilize the Japanese yen has become one of the dominant forces reshaping USD/JPY, the U.S. Dollar Index, and the broader currency complex. That chain of influence matters more right now than tracking any single pair in isolation.

The setup began on the weekly Dollar Index chart. After a bearish 2025 that saw the dollar grind lower, the index spent several weeks pressing against the top of a rising parallel channel, even managing a brief breakout above it. That attempted reversal stalled around the same time a currency crisis was developing in Japan, and the analyst reads the yen intervention as a major contributing catalyst to the pullback that followed, alongside the usual mix of yield moves and risk sentiment that also weigh on the index.

The Yen Problem Behind the Dollar's Pullback

The Japanese yen has been losing value at a pace serious enough to draw direct U.S. involvement. One strategic consideration in the analyst's read: when Japan sells U.S. Treasury bonds to defend its currency, that selling pressure can push U.S. borrowing costs higher, an outcome policymakers would generally prefer to avoid. The alliance relationship between the two countries adds further logic to coordinated support, though the full range of motivations has not been officially detailed.

Whatever the precise mix of motivations, the intervention lines up with the dollar index falling back into a multi-month declining trend line on the weekly chart, its third test of that line. Traders often treat a third touch on a long-running trend line as raising the odds of a near-term bounce, since each test without a break reinforces the line's relevance. The level to watch on any recovery attempt is 100.58 on a daily closing basis.

USD/JPY: The Center of the Story

The clearest expression of this dynamic sits on the USD/JPY chart, which the analyst identified as the most important currency story of the year so far. The pair had been spiking as yen weakness accelerated, a pattern reminiscent of the carry-trade unwind from mid-2024 that coincided with a sharp, broad-based equity selloff when yen volatility spiked. That earlier episode is a useful reference point: Japan effectively functions as a global lending source for large institutional players, including well-documented yen-funded positions held by major investors, and disorderly yen moves have tended to spill into markets beyond currencies.

Price action above a prior high pivot is what the analyst flagged as raising investor concern this time, lining up with the intervention now visible on the chart. With the pair declining, the next levels of interest are 153.67 and, below that, 150.03, structural levels drawn from prior chart activity rather than confirmed targets. A daily close through 153.67 would signal the move toward 150.03 is underway.

Secondary Setup: GBP/USD Holding Its Line

Away from the yen story, GBP/USD presents the cleanest standalone technical picture among the remaining pairs, with drivers largely separate from the Japan narrative. The pair has maintained an inclining trend line through repeated tests, choppily consolidating higher rather than breaking down. The key support to track is 1.33 on a closing basis; holding above it keeps the setup intact for a potential push toward resistance at 1.39, a level drawn from pivots dating back to 2018 and reconfirmed in 2021. That resistance zone has proven difficult to clear historically, so a daily close above 1.39 would be needed to change that assessment.

Watchlist: Euro and Loonie

Two additional pairs round out the picture, each shaped by its own rate, growth, and commodity backdrop rather than the yen story directly. EUR/USD has already broken its inclining trend line, a divergence from sterling's relative strength, and is retesting that line from below near 1.15 to 1.158. A close back above it would invalidate the breakdown scenario and open a path toward 1.18; failure to do so keeps 1.11 in view. USD/CAD, meanwhile, was rejected at a trend line near 1.46 after briefly clearing a key pivot, and is consolidating with support near 1.395. A close back above 1.41, then 1.42 and 1.45, would support continued dollar strength against the loonie; a break of 1.395 would shift that balance.

What to Watch Next

The dollar's near-term path is tied closely to the yen intervention story, even if it isn't the only variable in play. A daily close above 100.58 on the Dollar Index, combined with USD/JPY holding above the pivot level flagged earlier as the concern trigger, would suggest intervention pressure has eased for now. A daily close below 153.67 on USD/JPY, by contrast, would confirm the downside path toward 150.03, with likely knock-on implications for dollar sentiment against the other majors covered here.

The Bigger Picture

None of these levels are predictions. They are probability-weighted reference points built from trend structure, pivot history, and a clear catalyst tied to policy behavior around a major currency. The value here isn't calling the exact bottom or top of any single pair, but recognizing which variable is doing the most work connecting these charts. For the moment, that variable is Japan: the dominant short-term catalyst tying the Dollar Index and USD/JPY together, while sterling, the euro, and the Canadian dollar keep responding to their own independent forces as well.

Watch on YouTube

Oil’s Collapse Fueled the Rally, but Semiconductors Will Decide Whether It Holds

Monday’s market rally was driven by a clear macro catalyst, but the more important signal is what happens next. Crude oil plunged as renewed Middle East peace talks reduced near-term supply concerns, easing inflation pressure and helping push the S&P 500 back toward its all-time highs. That relief gave growth stocks room to rally, especially across mega-cap technology, but the move is not fully confirmed. The durability of this rebound now depends on whether semiconductor stocks can break resistance while the 10-year Treasury yield remains contained.

That is the framework traders should carry into the next session. Falling oil created the conditions for equities to bounce, but it did not remove the technical risks sitting beneath the surface. The bond market remains near a key breakout level, the US Dollar Index recovered sharply from support, and semiconductor leadership has yet to clear the resistance that has rejected it for three consecutive sessions. Monday’s rally was constructive, but the next confirmation must come from the markets that typically lead risk appetite.

Oil Provided the Spark

US Oil fell 7.6% as geopolitical headlines reduced fears of a near-term supply disruption. The move mattered well beyond the energy market. Lower oil prices ease inflation expectations, reduce pressure on consumers and businesses, and give investors more flexibility to own growth stocks whose valuations are sensitive to interest rates. That transmission mechanism helped explain why the equity response was so strong.

Technically, oil rejected from a previously identified wedge pattern, reinforcing $85.25 as an important area of resistance. As long as price remains below that level, the chart supports the idea that Monday’s decline was more than a temporary headline reaction. However, geopolitical conditions can reverse quickly. A renewed escalation would put $96.44 back in play as the next major upside objective.

The oil breakdown also affected the Treasury market, where the 10-year yield pulled back toward 4.686%. That decline helped technology stocks because lower yields increase the present value investors place on future earnings. The key level now sits almost exactly at current price. A daily close above 4.687% would shift the Treasury chart toward 4.809%, creating a fresh headwind for equities and challenging the valuation support behind Monday’s rally.

The US Dollar Index added another complication. DXY initially weakened, contributing to the early risk-on move, but found support at an inclining trendline near 99.53 and recovered to finish higher. A stronger dollar and stronger equities can coexist temporarily, but the combination often becomes difficult to sustain. Either the dollar must lose support again, or equity markets will eventually have to absorb tighter financial conditions.

The S&P Breakout Is Constructive, but Not the Final Signal

The S&P 500 closed above a declining trendline that had acted as resistance, confirming a near-term breakout and moving the index closer to record territory. Support now sits near 742.64, with a more aggressive inclining trendline rising toward 749.94. Holding those levels would keep the breakout intact and preserve the bullish structure created by Monday’s session.

The Nasdaq-100 also rallied sharply, gaining 1.76% as technology stocks extended their recovery. QQQ is building a V-shaped rebound, but price still faces resistance near $704.32, where a previous distribution candle began. A daily close above $695.25 keeps the recovery constructive, while a failure back below that area would raise the risk that the rebound is losing momentum before reaching its larger resistance zone.

The more important chart is the Semiconductor ETF. SMH has now been rejected for three consecutive sessions at the boundary of an older parallel channel. That repeated rejection matters because semiconductor stocks often lead the broader technology sector and, by extension, the wider market. The S&P can approach all-time highs, but a sustained breakout becomes harder to trust when semiconductor leadership is still trapped beneath resistance.

The line in the sand for SMH is $547.40. A daily close above that level would confirm a breakout from a longer-term inclining parallel channel dating back to the April low. That would strengthen the case that Monday’s equity rally has real leadership behind it. Another rejection, especially if accompanied by rising yields, would suggest the S&P breakout is vulnerable to failure.

AI Strength Was Real, but the Charts Still Matter

The strongest individual moves came from companies tied to the AI monetization theme. The market has spent much of the past year rewarding businesses that are building AI infrastructure. Monday’s action showed investors shifting their attention toward companies capable of converting that spending into revenue, cash flow, and durable earnings growth.

Microsoft gained nearly 5% and confirmed its return inside a large parallel channel dating back to November 2022. The next important level sits near the channel’s median line around $500. Goldman Sachs also raised its price target to $640, which aligns closely with the upper boundary of the same long-term structure. That confluence supports the broader bullish thesis, but the daily RSI is already overbought, making consolidation near $500 more likely than an uninterrupted move higher.

Oracle rallied more than 9% as investors continued reassessing the company’s role in AI infrastructure and cloud demand. The stock pushed through parallel channel resistance near $142, but traders still need confirmation. A close inside that channel would strengthen the breakout and open the door toward $165.12. A failure to hold the channel would turn Monday’s surge into another test rather than a completed technical shift.

Meta also participated in the rally, although its setup remains more complicated. The stock has broken below and reclaimed its parallel channel several times, creating a major contention area near $642. It is also approaching a declining trendline that has rejected price on three prior tests. A breakout would put $657.97 in focus, but another failure would reinforce the idea that sellers still control the upper end of the structure.

Broken Levels Still Need Retests

One of Drew’s most useful lessons from the session came from the discussion of broken parallel channels. Traders often become emotional when a level that has worked repeatedly suddenly fails. The instinct is to assume the entire technical framework is broken, especially when price moves sharply against an existing position.

The better response is to understand how price behaves after a breakdown. When a major parallel channel fails, price frequently returns to test the underside of the broken boundary. That retest gives traders new information. A rejection confirms that former support has become resistance, while a reclaim can signal that the breakdown lacked conviction.

This is why technical discipline matters more than reacting to the initial move. A broken channel is not automatically a reason to panic, but it is also not something to ignore. Traders should wait for the retest, evaluate whether the level flips roles, and then update the thesis based on confirmation rather than emotion.

That same framework applies across Monday’s market. The S&P has broken above resistance, but it must now hold the breakout. Oracle has pierced its channel, but it must confirm the reclaim. SMH is challenging a major boundary, but the close above or below $547.40 will determine whether the move is real.

Earnings Add Volatility to Already Critical Charts

AMD reports after Tuesday’s close, and its chart is sitting near an important technical threshold. The stock has broken below an inclining parallel channel twice and is now holding near $560. That level matters because price moved quickly through much of the area below it, leaving limited historical structure to slow a decline.

If $560 fails, the next meaningful support does not appear until roughly $388.80. That does not mean AMD must fall directly to that level, but it does highlight the lack of nearby price memory. Earnings can override technical setups in the short term, so the better read will come from how price reacts to $560 after the report rather than from anticipating the initial move.

Palantir and Snap provided immediate examples of earnings volatility after Monday’s close. PLTR entered the report with a V-shaped recovery and a bull flag structure, then surged into resistance near $136 before pulling back. Continued strength would keep the top of its parallel channel near $147.94 in play, while failure to hold the post-earnings move would weaken the breakout case.

Snap rose to approximately $5.57 after reporting, but the larger technical challenge remains overhead. A declining trendline near $6.32 has capped the stock since late 2024. A daily close above that line would open a path toward $6.90, $7.60, and the channel median near $7.75. Until then, the post-earnings jump remains a test of resistance rather than a confirmed trend change.

Commodities and Bitcoin Are Showing Similar Tension

Gold continues to battle a declining trendline that has controlled recent price action. A confirmed close above the line would flip it into support and strengthen the setup for a move toward $4,209, where the lower boundary of an inclining parallel channel comes into play. The near-term structure is improving, but confirmation is still required.

Silver is forming a bull flag directly beneath resistance near $59.18. A breakout above that level would put the prior pivot high at $63.26 in focus. The pattern is constructive in the near term, but Drew’s broader framework remains cautious. The longer-term structure still leaves room for silver to eventually trade back below $50, making the current setup bullish tactically rather than structurally.

Natural Gas has reclaimed support at $2.75 and held above it for three consecutive daily closes. That improves the probability of a move toward the inclining trendline near $3.60 as the market begins looking ahead to winter demand. The risk remains unusually high, however, with deeper support not appearing until approximately $2.53.

Bitcoin is displaying a similar conflict between short-term improvement and broader weakness. The chart is forming an inverse head and shoulders pattern, but confirmation requires a reclaim of the parallel channel near $64,792 and a breakout above the neckline at $66,736. Until those levels are cleared, the broader structure still leaves the $50,000 area vulnerable to a future test.

The Third Hit Matters Because the Market Remembers

Rocket Lab provided the clearest educational example of the session. RKLB remains trapped beneath its major moving averages following a bearish crossover in March, and the stock continues to form lower highs. Any sustainable bullish shift would first require a reclaim of the 20-day and 50-day moving averages, followed by a challenge of the 200-day average near $16.35.

The more compelling setup sits below current price. The lower boundary of RKLB’s parallel channel comes in near $10.46, and the stock has already bounced from that line twice. A third test would carry more technical significance because the first touch established support and the second confirmed the channel.

By the third test, more market participants recognize the level. Algorithms, institutions, and discretionary traders are often watching the same structure, which can increase the probability of a stronger reaction. No support level is guaranteed to hold, but a third touch of a well-defined parallel channel can offer a cleaner setup than chasing price in the middle of a range.

The lesson extends beyond RKLB. The best trades often come from waiting for price to reach a level where the structure, psychology, and probability are aligned. That patience is more valuable than forcing a position because the market is moving quickly or a headline feels urgent.

Bottom Line

Monday’s rally began with oil, but semiconductors will determine whether it becomes something more durable. Falling crude reduced inflation pressure, Treasury yields eased, and mega-cap technology stocks responded with strong gains. The S&P also confirmed a near-term breakout, giving bulls a constructive foundation into the next session.

The confirmation is not complete. SMH must close above $547.40, the 10-year yield needs to remain below 4.687%, and the dollar’s rebound from support cannot accelerate without creating pressure elsewhere. Those are the signals that matter more than the headline rally.

The market is offering clear levels rather than clear certainty. Traders do not need to predict whether Monday started the next major leg higher. They need to watch whether leadership confirms, yields stay contained, and recent breakouts hold when tested. That is where the next high-probability read will come from.

Silver is the cleanest setup on the board this session. It is up roughly three percent, approaching a well-defined resistance line, and showing an improving momentum picture that gold has not yet matched. That combination makes it the directional anchor for this commodity roundup, with gold serving as a secondary confirmation chart and oil, copper, and natural gas rounding out the watchlist.

Silver: The Setup That Matters Most

Silver has not yet tested the downsloping resistance line that has capped its last several advances. A move of about fifty cents from current levels would mark a fourth test, a level to judge on a daily-close basis rather than an intraday touch. The prior test, on July 6, pierced the line intraday but failed to hold above it by the close, which is the pattern worth watching for going forward: silver has shown a repeated willingness to probe this level without yet converting it into a confirmed breakout. Above that line, the more significant resistance sits in the mid-fifty-five to mid-fifty-six dollar area, where silver was previously turned away in a wide-range session that left an unfilled gap behind it. That gap is the next magnet for price if the nearer resistance eventually gives way.

On the downside, the analyst has been buying into a pullback zone reinforced by a pivot top underneath, though the exact print of that zone was not specified in this session. That is a real gap in the setup, not a minor detail, since it is silver's primary support and should be confirmed against the chart before it is treated as an actionable level. What does strengthen the picture is momentum: the relative strength index has moved back above the midpoint and is putting in higher highs alongside price, after two prior attempts stalled just above fifty in the fifty-one to fifty-two range. That does not by itself confirm a breakout, but it does suggest buyers are building conviction on each attempt rather than simply riding a bounce. The setup would gain real confirmation from a daily close above the resistance line described above; a daily close back below the support zone, once that level is confirmed, would call the setup into question and shift the near-term bias back toward consolidation.

Gold: Supporting Chart, One Step Behind

Gold is tracing a similar wedge, gapping up roughly one percent before giving back part of the move, with resistance at $377.09 and support in a zone spanning roughly $368 to $369.02. Its RSI is also inching toward the midpoint after two recent attempts stalled just above it, but it has not shown the same follow-through as silver's. A confirmed close above $377.09 would open the path toward $384.59 and then $388.78; a break of support instead puts $361.37 in view. Gold is included here as a secondary, correlated chart rather than an equal thesis.

Watchlist

Crude oil sold off sharply this session after being rejected earlier at the $93.26 Fibonacci level, breaking down through trend-line support that now caps any bounce. Price printed a low of $75.21 before stabilizing near $76, with the next support at the $72.61 pivot.

Copper (CPER) is higher on the session but was turned back by a wide-range down candle at resistance. A close above it opens the door toward a gap fill at $40.60 and a double top at $40.78, both CPER-specific levels. An upsloping trend line has held on three tests, with broader support from roughly $38.50 toward $39-$40 on a pullback.

Natural gas remains the weakest of the group, trading in price-discovery territory to the downside, which makes support harder to define. The clearest trend-line test sits near $9.53; resistance above ties to a prior pivot from mid-January that was not given a specific number in this session.

The Takeaway

Of the five charts covered this session, silver offers the most complete combination of a defined resistance structure and improving momentum. Gold is tracking a similar pattern but a step behind. Oil, copper, and natural gas are each worth watching on their own levels, but none currently carry the same weight of evidence. The open item worth resolving before acting on any of this is silver's exact support print, which remains the missing piece of an otherwise well-mapped setup.

Watch on YouTube

Published by Verified Investing | U.S. Economic Metrics

Released: August 4, 2026 | Data Period: June 2026 | Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics — Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS)

Key Takeaways

• Quits rate frozen at 2.0% for a second straight month: That's the lowest sustained reading since 2020. Workers aren't leaving voluntarily — not because there are no openings, but because they don't trust what's on the other side. That's caution, not confidence.
• Openings declined but didn't break: Job openings fell 178K to 7,359K, with the openings rate slipping from 4.5% to 4.4%. A soft retreat, not a structural crack.
• Hires and layoffs both unchanged: Hires held at 5,348K (3.4% rate), layoffs at 1,766K — the textbook labor-hoarding signature. Employers aren't cutting. They're also not accelerating intake.
• Transportation and warehousing added 97K openings: Freight sector demand is a real-time economic signal. Whether those openings convert to actual hires in the July print is the follow-through test.
• The openings-to-hires spread is the metric to watch: Openings at 7.4M versus hires at 5.3M means employers are posting without committing. That spread — still roughly 2 million — tells you more about labor market conviction than the openings level alone.

What This Metric Measures, and Why This Print Matters

The Bureau of Labor Statistics releases JOLTS monthly, covering the last business day of the reference period. The survey captures four flows: openings (unfilled demand), hires (payroll additions), quits (voluntary departures), and layoffs (involuntary separations).

The Fed watches quits specifically because they're a direct proxy for worker bargaining power. When workers quit freely, they're confident enough to seek something better — and that confidence sustains wage pressure, which feeds services inflation. When quits stagnate, that pressure channel closes.

That transmission mechanism is exactly what makes June's print relevant. The labor market is supposed to be the Fed's constraint on cutting rates. June JOLTS keeps asking whether that constraint is still real — or whether the labor side is quietly resolving itself while energy-driven cost-push inflation does the heavier lifting.

The numbers don't resolve that tension. They extend it.

What Everyone Will Focus On vs. What Matters More

The 178K drop in job openings will lead the coverage. It's the headline-ready number, and directionally it's correct — openings have been declining from the 2022 peak above 12 million for two years running.

But the openings decline is the least interesting number in this report.

The quits rate is the story. Two consecutive months at 2.0% — the lowest level since the labor weakness of 2020. Before that, you have to look back to 2015–2016 to find sustained readings at this level outside a recessionary period.

Here's the tension: openings are still sitting at 7.4 million, historically elevated above pre-pandemic norms, yet workers won't move. Those two facts shouldn't coexist in a confident labor market. When openings are abundant, workers typically move toward them. The fact that quits have stalled tells you workers see the headline number and don't believe it. They aren't convinced the next job is more stable than the current one.

That's a behavioral signal. Specifically, it's a leading signal for quits → wage pressure → services inflation. When workers stop competing for available jobs, upward wage pressure from voluntary turnover weakens. That's a disinflationary force operating quietly inside a labor market that still looks healthy by the headline counts.

The BLS release used the phrase "little change" multiple times — for hires, separations, quits, and layoffs. Technically accurate. But three consecutive months of stagnation in key flow variables isn't stability. It's paralysis. And paralysis in labor flows, when it persists, eventually shows up in payroll growth.

The Quits Freeze: What 2.0% Actually Means for Inflation

At the peak of the Great Resignation in late 2021 and early 2022, the quits rate hit 3.0%. Every 0.1 percentage point on that rate represents roughly 160,000 workers per month choosing to move voluntarily. The difference between the 3.0% peak and today's 2.0% is approximately 1.6 million fewer voluntary separations per month — 1.6 million fewer workers demanding better pay to make a move, generating the competition-driven wage pressure that fed into services prices.

The quits freeze is, paradoxically, a disinflationary force. And it's operating in direct tension with the Iran War petroleum shock pushing energy costs higher.

That's the split the Fed is navigating in real time: a wage-pressure channel that's closing, and a cost-push channel still open. The labor market data argues for easing. Energy data argues against it. June JOLTS confirms which direction the labor side is leaning — it doesn't close the case, but it adds another month of evidence that the quits-to-wages-to-services pipeline is losing pressure.

Watch July CPI (scheduled for August release) specifically for services ex-energy deceleration. If that component starts moving lower while quits remain frozen, the labor market's contribution to services inflation is clearly diminishing. That's the confirmation the labor side of JOLTS is pointing toward.

Openings and Hires: Posting Without Committing

The openings-to-hires spread matters more than either number alone.

Openings at 7,359K versus hires at 5,348K leaves a gap of approximately 2 million positions posted but not filled. That spread has been narrowing from its 2022 extremes, but it remains elevated. Employers are still posting. They're more selective, slower to commit, or finding the candidate pool insufficient for what they need.

The transportation, warehousing, and utilities sector added 97K openings in June — the largest single positive swing in the report. Freight and logistics openings function as a leading economic signal: when that sector is actively seeking workers, it typically reflects anticipated throughput demand ahead. Whether those openings convert to actual hires in the July JOLTS print — due in September — is the follow-through test. Openings that don't convert to hires are signals of uncertainty about the demand outlook, not genuine labor tightening.

Federal government openings rose +39K. That directional shift is worth noting — a data point that sits awkwardly against the federal workforce reduction narrative from earlier in the year — but it's a secondary detail, not a thesis-driver. Watch whether it continues in July before reading too much into one month's move.

Layoffs: Low, But a Compressed Spring

Layoffs and discharges at 1,766K remain historically contained. Employers aren't cutting aggressively even as hiring has slowed to a crawl.

This is labor hoarding. When hiring slows but firing doesn't accelerate, claims stay low and payrolls grow slowly. Companies hold existing workers rather than cut and rehire — rational behavior when replacement costs are still perceived as high, even with the quits rate compressed.

The embedded risk: hoarding doesn't ease gradually. When sentiment shifts, the adjustment can be abrupt. Companies that held on through a slow period don't taper into layoffs — they execute them in a compressed window. That's the mechanism by which a flat JOLTS report in one month becomes a sharply negative claims print two months later.

The forward trigger is specific. If the 4-week moving average on initial jobless claims moves sustainably above 250K, labor hoarding is breaking down. June JOLTS doesn't show that break. But unchanged hires, unchanged quits, unchanged layoffs — that's not a stable equilibrium. It's a compressed spring. The flatness itself is informative.

What This Means For Traders

The following is provided for educational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice.

1. The quits rate is your Fed read. Two months at 2.0% means the wage-push channel into services inflation is losing pressure. If quits hold at or below 2.0% in July, the Fed's case for holding rates on purely labor grounds becomes harder to defend. The constraint on cuts is shifting toward energy and cost-push — not the labor market.

2. Watch the July JOLTS print for transportation sector follow-through. The 97K openings surge in transportation, warehousing, and utilities either converts to hires or it doesn't. If it converts, freight demand is real and supports a soft-landing read. If openings retreat without a hires gain, it was a noise print.

3. Track the openings-to-hires spread, not just the openings level. A spread that stays wide at roughly 2 million signals employers posting without committing — economic uncertainty expressed in hiring behavior. If the spread narrows in July, employers are gaining conviction. If it widens, watch out.

4. Claims are the real-time confirmation. JOLTS is coincident-to-lagging. Initial and continuing claims are live. Sustained weekly claims above 240K–250K would signal the labor hoarding is cracking and the JOLTS flatness was a false floor — not a stable base.

5. July CPI services ex-energy is the other half. JOLTS can't close the Fed equation alone. The quits freeze argues that labor-driven wage pressure is declining. The test is whether that shows up in services inflation deceleration. A confirmed move lower there, while quits remain frozen, validates the thesis that the labor market's inflationary contribution is waning.

6. What would change the thesis: Quits reversing toward 2.2%–2.3% would signal workers regaining confidence, wage competition rebuilding, and labor market tightening resuming. That scenario extends the hold on cuts and puts rate-sensitive sectors back under pressure. It would also represent the first durable upside quits move since the late-2021 peak — a regime signal, not noise.

The labor market is cooling slowly, orderly, without a visible crack. The quits freeze confirms the behavioral shift is real. And behavioral shifts in labor markets move slowly — until something changes the calculus and they don't.

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics — Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS), June 2026, released August 4, 2026. Available at: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.nr0.htm

This article is published for educational and informational purposes only. Nothing contained herein constitutes investment advice or a recommendation to buy or sell any security. Please consult a qualified financial professional before making any investment decisions.

Stocks Near Record Highs, but the Yen Is Revealing the Rally’s Hidden Risk

The S&P 500 is pressing toward a new all-time high, but the index itself was not the most important signal in Gareth Soloway’s morning game plan. Falling Treasury yields are giving artificial intelligence and other long-duration technology stocks room to lead again, while coordinated intervention in the yen is exposing the currency instability sitting beneath the rally. The equity structure remains bullish, but the macro foundation supporting it is becoming more fragile, not less.

That combination creates a market in which traders must separate price confirmation from the narratives surrounding it. The S&P 500 has broken an important resistance trendline and could continue toward a larger upside target near 7,800. At the same time, instability in the USD/JPY exchange rate, record sovereign debt loads and heavy intervention from policymakers show why the rally cannot be evaluated through equities alone.

The S&P 500 Breakout Is Real, but Confirmation Still Matters

The S&P 500 has broken above the downsloping trendline that capped the previous advance, putting a potential new all-time high directly in play. The move followed a powerful session in which the S&P 500 gained more than 1.5% and the Nasdaq advanced more than 2%, with artificial intelligence stocks once again providing much of the leadership.

“The S&P has broken out, likely will make a new all-time high,” Gareth said during the show. The important point is not simply that the index moved above resistance. It is that the breakout has held long enough to shift the near-term structure in favor of buyers, especially while bond yields are pulling back.

The next test is the prior double-top high. A daily close above that area would confirm that the market has converted former resistance into a continuation signal. A rejection that pushes the index back below the breakout area would change the read and raise the risk that the move was a bull trap rather than the beginning of another sustained leg higher.

Looking beyond the immediate high, an ascending trendline connecting the major pivot lows from 2023 creates a potential upside trajectory near 7,800. Because that trendline rises over time, the exact target will continue to adjust. The broader point is that the market has room to extend if the prior high is cleared and the yield environment remains supportive.

Falling Yields Are the Transmission Mechanism

The equity rally is not occurring in isolation. The 10-year Treasury yield has been retreating, reducing one of the primary valuation pressures that has weighed on growth stocks. When yields decline, investors are generally willing to pay more for companies whose expected cash flows sit further into the future, which directly benefits the mega-cap technology names that dominate the major indices.

That is why the renewed artificial intelligence trade matters beyond a handful of individual stocks. AI leadership carries enough index weight to pull the Nasdaq and S&P 500 higher, but that leadership becomes more sustainable when the bond market is cooperating. The stock market is not only reacting to earnings enthusiasm. It is reacting to a lower discount rate.

This relationship also defines one of the main risks to the bullish setup. If the 10-year yield reverses sharply higher, technology leadership could weaken even if corporate earnings remain strong. As long as yields continue to retreat, however, the equity breakout has a supportive macro transmission mechanism behind it rather than relying on momentum alone.

The Yen Is the More Important Macro Signal

While the major indices approach record territory, the more consequential macro development is occurring in the currency market. The sharp movement in USD/JPY forced intervention designed to stabilize the yen, revealing how quickly stress in one major currency can spread through the broader financial system.

“The U.S. jointly intervened because they know that if one domino falls, meaning one major currency like the dollar-yen, guess what happens to every other currency?” Gareth explained.

The intervention matters because Japan and the United States are both operating with historically elevated debt burdens. Japan’s debt-to-GDP ratio is near 240%, while the United States is above 130%. Servicing those obligations becomes increasingly difficult when interest expenses rise, leaving policymakers with limited choices between fiscal restraint, higher taxes, additional debt issuance and continued monetary support.

A disorderly decline in the yen would not remain a Japan-specific problem. Major currencies exist within an interconnected system of capital flows, government bonds and institutional leverage. A sudden loss of confidence in one currency can force investors to reposition across sovereign debt, equities, commodities and other currencies, creating volatility well beyond the original market.

That is what makes the intervention a hidden warning beneath the stock rally. Equities are reflecting lower yields and renewed risk appetite, while the currency market is signaling that policymakers remain deeply concerned about financial stability. Both signals can be true at the same time.

Why Hard Assets Remain Part of the Framework

The instability in global currencies strengthens the longer-term case for assets that cannot be created through monetary policy. Gold, silver and Bitcoin each respond differently to liquidity and risk appetite, but all three can benefit when investors question the long-term purchasing power of fiat currencies.

That does not mean they move higher in a straight line. Gold is currently compressing inside a tightening wedge, while silver remains trapped below a key resistance level. The macro thesis may be constructive, but the charts still require confirmation before traders assume the next leg has begun.

“Can gold finally break out of this wedge, which is getting tighter and tighter and tighter? This is remarkable, folks,” Gareth said.

The wedge is forcing a decision as volatility contracts. A close above the upper trendline would be an initial bullish signal, but Gareth emphasized that the first close alone may not be enough. A second close or strong follow-through would provide better evidence that the breakout is genuine rather than a temporary move designed to pull buyers in before reversing.

Gold’s direction will also remain tied to the same forces supporting equities. A continued decline in Treasury yields and weakness in the U.S. dollar would strengthen the bullish case. A yield reversal or renewed dollar strength could delay the breakout even if the longer-term currency thesis remains intact.

Silver has a different structure. The metal remains technically weak while it trades below $64 an ounce, but the extended consolidation has created room for a relief move back toward that level. The $64 area is the line that decides whether the move is only a bounce within a weak structure or the beginning of a more meaningful recovery.

Earnings Moves Require Different Time Horizons

The renewed equity strength is also colliding with earnings season, where large gaps can create opportunity without automatically creating attractive swing trades. Gareth’s approach was to separate short-term reaction levels from longer-term setups rather than treating every earnings move as a reason to chase.

Palantir surged more than 15% following its report, immediately creating a difficult risk-to-reward profile for anyone attempting to buy after the gap. The stock may continue higher, but entering after a parabolic move leaves little room for error if early buyers begin taking profits.

Gareth identified the descending trendline near $150 as a potential day-trade reaction area rather than a swing-trade entry. The reason is straightforward. Shorting Palantir for several days would be dangerous if price breaks through that trendline and confirms a larger breakout, while buying directly into the level would mean chasing an already extended move.

Restricting the setup to an intraday reaction allows traders to evaluate the level without assuming that a brief rejection will become a larger reversal. The level matters, but the time horizon determines how it should be used.

Caterpillar offered a more structured technical zone following its earnings move. Gareth identified resistance beginning near $930, where prior pivots align with the 50% Fibonacci retracement. The 61.8% retracement sits above near $960, creating a broader resistance window rather than a single exact price.

That confluence gives traders a defined area to evaluate how buyers respond after the earnings surge. A rejection inside the $930 to $960 window would show that overhead supply remains active. A sustained push through the entire zone would weaken the bearish reaction thesis and suggest the earnings move has enough strength to continue.

Spotify and Wayfair provided simpler examples of the same discipline. Spotify’s decline created a potential reaction level near $440, but the setup only becomes relevant if price reaches the level. Wayfair’s rally put the prior double top near $120 into focus, where buyers previously lost control and sellers may become active again.

The lesson across all four stocks is not that every resistance level should be shorted or every support level should be bought. It is that earnings volatility becomes more manageable when traders decide where they are willing to act before price reaches the level.

Optical Stocks Are Trading the Policy Shift

Another major source of volatility came from optical equipment and data-center stocks, including Applied Optoelectronics, Coherent, Lumentum and Ciena. The group surged as reports suggested the United States could restrict imports of certain Chinese optical equipment used in data centers.

The potential policy change creates a direct fundamental benefit for domestic suppliers. If Chinese equipment becomes unavailable or more difficult to source, U.S.-based manufacturers could receive a larger share of demand from data centers and hyperscalers building artificial intelligence infrastructure.

That fundamental narrative explains the sector-wide move, but it does not determine where the stocks become attractive or overextended. Headlines create urgency. The chart shows where previous buyers, sellers and trapped positions are likely to react.

For Applied Optoelectronics, Gareth highlighted the $149 to $150 area, which aligns with a major historical pivot. Coherent has a key reaction area near $350, while Lumentum is approaching psychological round-number resistance near $900. These are not automatic reversal calls. They are the areas where the strength of the move will be tested against established technical supply.

A clean break and hold above resistance would signal that the policy catalyst is strong enough to support further upside. A sharp rejection would show that much of the expected benefit may already be reflected in the price. The chart is forcing traders to distinguish between a compelling story and a compelling setup.

Oil and Natural Gas Are Losing Their Risk Premium

Energy markets are moving in the opposite direction as geopolitical risk premiums ease. Oil fell nearly 3% as traders priced in the possibility of negotiations between the United States and Iran and the absence of new physical supply disruptions.

The decline shifts attention toward technical support near $70 a barrel. That area represents the next meaningful zone where selling pressure could slow and buyers may begin testing whether geopolitical fear has been fully removed from the price.

The structure remains weak while oil is moving lower, so the level itself is more important than any assumption that the market must bounce. A hold near $70 could stabilize the chart. A decisive break below it would show that the market is pricing in a deeper reduction in supply risk.

Natural gas is also pulling back toward a longer-term trendline near $2.56 to $2.57. That zone offers a cleaner support test than attempting to react to every intraday dip. The setup remains constructive only if the trendline holds and produces evidence that buyers are defending it.

The Data Calendar Could Challenge the Entire Setup

The equity breakout, falling yields and commodity compression are all developing ahead of a heavy labor-market calendar. JOLTS, ADP private payrolls and Friday’s Non-Farm Payrolls report will shape expectations for the Federal Reserve’s September decision.

The market will not respond only to whether a number is strong or weak. It will respond to how the data changes the expected path of interest rates. A softer labor backdrop could reinforce the decline in Treasury yields and support technology stocks, while an unexpectedly strong set of reports could push yields higher and pressure the current leadership.

That makes the 10-year yield one of the clearest confirmation tools for the broader market. The S&P 500 can continue toward record highs while yields are falling, but a sharp yield reversal would challenge the valuation support behind the move. The bond market may determine whether the breakout develops into a sustained advance or loses momentum near the prior high.

Bottom Line

The S&P 500 breakout remains constructive, and the longer-term chart leaves room for an eventual move toward 7,800. The immediate confirmation comes at the prior all-time high, while the 10-year Treasury yield determines whether technology stocks continue receiving the valuation support that has powered the latest rally.

The deeper signal is coming from the yen. Coordinated intervention shows that policymakers are concerned about the consequences of instability in a major global currency, even as equity investors are adding risk. That tension strengthens the strategic case for hard assets, but gold, silver and Bitcoin still need chart confirmation before the macro thesis becomes a tradable breakout.

The market is not offering one simple message. Equities are bullish, yields are supportive and artificial intelligence leadership has returned, but currency stress remains active beneath the surface. The game plan is to respect the equity breakout while watching the bond and currency markets for signs that the foundation underneath it is beginning to shift.

Bitcoin has tried to break higher inside its longer-term parallel channel three separate times, and each attempt has been weaker than the one before it. First, a full daily close above the level. Then only candle bodies clearing it. Most recently, only wicks. That progression, not any single headline, is the most important signal in the market right now, and it is the reason the broader altcoin picture looks split between assets riding Bitcoin's uncertainty and the handful of names showing structure independent enough to matter.

This is a probability read, not a prediction. But the probability is shifting toward caution the longer Bitcoin fails to convert resistance into support.

A Breakout That Keeps Getting Weaker

The parallel channel Bitcoin has traded inside for months has two clean pivot points defining its structure, and price has respected both boundaries repeatedly. The concern is what has happened at the upper boundary specifically. Each attempt to clear it has shown progressively less conviction: a full close above, then only candle bodies above with wicks failing to hold, and now only intraday wicks poking through before price is rejected back inside the channel. That sequence points to sellers absorbing every rally attempt with slightly less resistance required each time, the opposite of what a healthy breakout looks like.

A pivot top just above current price is now the immediate ceiling. As long as that level rejects price on a daily close basis, the more probable path is a retest of the parallel channel's lower boundary, near $55,000. That is a structural read tied to a specific trigger, not a signal that has fired yet.

Why This Matters Beyond Bitcoin

Bitcoin's structure functions as the gating variable for the rest of the market. When Bitcoin's breakout attempts weaken, altcoin strength becomes more selective and more easily reversed. Independent structure on an altcoin chart is still worth tracking, but it carries less weight while Bitcoin itself is still fighting to turn resistance into support.

Ethereum and Solana: Two Different Stories Beneath the Same Ceiling

Ethereum's falling wedge resolved as expected, with price finding support at a zone defined by a prior pivot low and a cluster of candle bodies. That zone also lines up with a level near $1,929 to $1,930 that mattered during the 2021 to 2022 cycle, adding weight to it as support. On the weekly chart, price has already bounced off that zone and is currently trading above it. The level to watch now runs in both directions: it needs to hold as support on any pullback, and if it fails, that same zone flips into resistance on the next recovery attempt, with the psychological $2,000 mark as the following test above it.

Solana is showing a more constructive structure. Price is pressing against the upper bound of its own parallel channel in what reads as a bull flag, with a breakout target near $96 based on the measured move from the flag. Price has already tagged $96 once and been rejected, so this remains a developing pattern rather than a confirmed breakout. A daily close above $96 is what would confirm it.

Two Altcoins Worth Isolating

Most of the broader altcoin picture is secondary to Bitcoin's structure right now. Two names stand out because they either reinforce or directly test the Bitcoin thesis rather than simply adding noise to it.

Polkadot (DOT) is attempting to break a long-standing descending trend line on the weekly chart, but the pair remains down roughly 98% from its all-time high, and that context matters more than the attempted breakout itself. A rally toward the prior pivot low near $1.01 would represent the logical area for existing holders to reassess exposure rather than assume the downtrend has ended. This reinforces the cautious read on the broader market: even names attempting to turn structurally still carry a heavy prior downtrend to work through.

Cardano (ADA) is the clearest counterpoint in this session. A parallel channel drawn from prior swing highs and lows projects resistance near the 20 cent level, and sentiment around the asset has run sharply negative in recent weeks. Counter-trend setups have historically performed better when sentiment is most one-sided, which is what makes this worth isolating rather than dismissing. It does not override the Bitcoin-driven caution elsewhere, but it is a live test of whether a single name can move independently of it.

What Would Confirm or Invalidate the Bitcoin Thesis

The next decisive daily close, in either direction, is the only thing that changes this read. Until then, the setup stays exactly what it is: a weakening breakout pattern that has not yet failed outright, being tracked against one confirmation level above and one invalidation level below.

Watch on YouTube

Oil’s Collapse Fueled the Rally, but Semiconductors Will Decide Whether It Holds

Monday’s market rally was driven by a clear macro catalyst, but the more important signal is what happens next. Crude oil plunged as renewed Middle East peace talks reduced near-term supply concerns, easing inflation pressure and helping push the S&P 500 back toward its all-time highs. That relief gave growth stocks room to rally, especially across mega-cap technology, but the move is not fully confirmed. The durability of this rebound now depends on whether semiconductor stocks can break resistance while the 10-year Treasury yield remains contained.

That is the framework traders should carry into the next session. Falling oil created the conditions for equities to bounce, but it did not remove the technical risks sitting beneath the surface. The bond market remains near a key breakout level, the US Dollar Index recovered sharply from support, and semiconductor leadership has yet to clear the resistance that has rejected it for three consecutive sessions. Monday’s rally was constructive, but the next confirmation must come from the markets that typically lead risk appetite.

Oil Provided the Spark

US Oil fell 7.6% as geopolitical headlines reduced fears of a near-term supply disruption. The move mattered well beyond the energy market. Lower oil prices ease inflation expectations, reduce pressure on consumers and businesses, and give investors more flexibility to own growth stocks whose valuations are sensitive to interest rates. That transmission mechanism helped explain why the equity response was so strong.

Technically, oil rejected from a previously identified wedge pattern, reinforcing $85.25 as an important area of resistance. As long as price remains below that level, the chart supports the idea that Monday’s decline was more than a temporary headline reaction. However, geopolitical conditions can reverse quickly. A renewed escalation would put $96.44 back in play as the next major upside objective.

The oil breakdown also affected the Treasury market, where the 10-year yield pulled back toward 4.686%. That decline helped technology stocks because lower yields increase the present value investors place on future earnings. The key level now sits almost exactly at current price. A daily close above 4.687% would shift the Treasury chart toward 4.809%, creating a fresh headwind for equities and challenging the valuation support behind Monday’s rally.

The US Dollar Index added another complication. DXY initially weakened, contributing to the early risk-on move, but found support at an inclining trendline near 99.53 and recovered to finish higher. A stronger dollar and stronger equities can coexist temporarily, but the combination often becomes difficult to sustain. Either the dollar must lose support again, or equity markets will eventually have to absorb tighter financial conditions.

The S&P Breakout Is Constructive, but Not the Final Signal

The S&P 500 closed above a declining trendline that had acted as resistance, confirming a near-term breakout and moving the index closer to record territory. Support now sits near 742.64, with a more aggressive inclining trendline rising toward 749.94. Holding those levels would keep the breakout intact and preserve the bullish structure created by Monday’s session.

The Nasdaq-100 also rallied sharply, gaining 1.76% as technology stocks extended their recovery. QQQ is building a V-shaped rebound, but price still faces resistance near $704.32, where a previous distribution candle began. A daily close above $695.25 keeps the recovery constructive, while a failure back below that area would raise the risk that the rebound is losing momentum before reaching its larger resistance zone.

The more important chart is the Semiconductor ETF. SMH has now been rejected for three consecutive sessions at the boundary of an older parallel channel. That repeated rejection matters because semiconductor stocks often lead the broader technology sector and, by extension, the wider market. The S&P can approach all-time highs, but a sustained breakout becomes harder to trust when semiconductor leadership is still trapped beneath resistance.

The line in the sand for SMH is $547.40. A daily close above that level would confirm a breakout from a longer-term inclining parallel channel dating back to the April low. That would strengthen the case that Monday’s equity rally has real leadership behind it. Another rejection, especially if accompanied by rising yields, would suggest the S&P breakout is vulnerable to failure.

AI Strength Was Real, but the Charts Still Matter

The strongest individual moves came from companies tied to the AI monetization theme. The market has spent much of the past year rewarding businesses that are building AI infrastructure. Monday’s action showed investors shifting their attention toward companies capable of converting that spending into revenue, cash flow, and durable earnings growth.

Microsoft gained nearly 5% and confirmed its return inside a large parallel channel dating back to November 2022. The next important level sits near the channel’s median line around $500. Goldman Sachs also raised its price target to $640, which aligns closely with the upper boundary of the same long-term structure. That confluence supports the broader bullish thesis, but the daily RSI is already overbought, making consolidation near $500 more likely than an uninterrupted move higher.

Oracle rallied more than 9% as investors continued reassessing the company’s role in AI infrastructure and cloud demand. The stock pushed through parallel channel resistance near $142, but traders still need confirmation. A close inside that channel would strengthen the breakout and open the door toward $165.12. A failure to hold the channel would turn Monday’s surge into another test rather than a completed technical shift.

Meta also participated in the rally, although its setup remains more complicated. The stock has broken below and reclaimed its parallel channel several times, creating a major contention area near $642. It is also approaching a declining trendline that has rejected price on three prior tests. A breakout would put $657.97 in focus, but another failure would reinforce the idea that sellers still control the upper end of the structure.

Broken Levels Still Need Retests

One of Drew’s most useful lessons from the session came from the discussion of broken parallel channels. Traders often become emotional when a level that has worked repeatedly suddenly fails. The instinct is to assume the entire technical framework is broken, especially when price moves sharply against an existing position.

The better response is to understand how price behaves after a breakdown. When a major parallel channel fails, price frequently returns to test the underside of the broken boundary. That retest gives traders new information. A rejection confirms that former support has become resistance, while a reclaim can signal that the breakdown lacked conviction.

This is why technical discipline matters more than reacting to the initial move. A broken channel is not automatically a reason to panic, but it is also not something to ignore. Traders should wait for the retest, evaluate whether the level flips roles, and then update the thesis based on confirmation rather than emotion.

That same framework applies across Monday’s market. The S&P has broken above resistance, but it must now hold the breakout. Oracle has pierced its channel, but it must confirm the reclaim. SMH is challenging a major boundary, but the close above or below $547.40 will determine whether the move is real.

Earnings Add Volatility to Already Critical Charts

AMD reports after Tuesday’s close, and its chart is sitting near an important technical threshold. The stock has broken below an inclining parallel channel twice and is now holding near $560. That level matters because price moved quickly through much of the area below it, leaving limited historical structure to slow a decline.

If $560 fails, the next meaningful support does not appear until roughly $388.80. That does not mean AMD must fall directly to that level, but it does highlight the lack of nearby price memory. Earnings can override technical setups in the short term, so the better read will come from how price reacts to $560 after the report rather than from anticipating the initial move.

Palantir and Snap provided immediate examples of earnings volatility after Monday’s close. PLTR entered the report with a V-shaped recovery and a bull flag structure, then surged into resistance near $136 before pulling back. Continued strength would keep the top of its parallel channel near $147.94 in play, while failure to hold the post-earnings move would weaken the breakout case.

Snap rose to approximately $5.57 after reporting, but the larger technical challenge remains overhead. A declining trendline near $6.32 has capped the stock since late 2024. A daily close above that line would open a path toward $6.90, $7.60, and the channel median near $7.75. Until then, the post-earnings jump remains a test of resistance rather than a confirmed trend change.

Commodities and Bitcoin Are Showing Similar Tension

Gold continues to battle a declining trendline that has controlled recent price action. A confirmed close above the line would flip it into support and strengthen the setup for a move toward $4,209, where the lower boundary of an inclining parallel channel comes into play. The near-term structure is improving, but confirmation is still required.

Silver is forming a bull flag directly beneath resistance near $59.18. A breakout above that level would put the prior pivot high at $63.26 in focus. The pattern is constructive in the near term, but Drew’s broader framework remains cautious. The longer-term structure still leaves room for silver to eventually trade back below $50, making the current setup bullish tactically rather than structurally.

Natural Gas has reclaimed support at $2.75 and held above it for three consecutive daily closes. That improves the probability of a move toward the inclining trendline near $3.60 as the market begins looking ahead to winter demand. The risk remains unusually high, however, with deeper support not appearing until approximately $2.53.

Bitcoin is displaying a similar conflict between short-term improvement and broader weakness. The chart is forming an inverse head and shoulders pattern, but confirmation requires a reclaim of the parallel channel near $64,792 and a breakout above the neckline at $66,736. Until those levels are cleared, the broader structure still leaves the $50,000 area vulnerable to a future test.

The Third Hit Matters Because the Market Remembers

Rocket Lab provided the clearest educational example of the session. RKLB remains trapped beneath its major moving averages following a bearish crossover in March, and the stock continues to form lower highs. Any sustainable bullish shift would first require a reclaim of the 20-day and 50-day moving averages, followed by a challenge of the 200-day average near $16.35.

The more compelling setup sits below current price. The lower boundary of RKLB’s parallel channel comes in near $10.46, and the stock has already bounced from that line twice. A third test would carry more technical significance because the first touch established support and the second confirmed the channel.

By the third test, more market participants recognize the level. Algorithms, institutions, and discretionary traders are often watching the same structure, which can increase the probability of a stronger reaction. No support level is guaranteed to hold, but a third touch of a well-defined parallel channel can offer a cleaner setup than chasing price in the middle of a range.

The lesson extends beyond RKLB. The best trades often come from waiting for price to reach a level where the structure, psychology, and probability are aligned. That patience is more valuable than forcing a position because the market is moving quickly or a headline feels urgent.

Bottom Line

Monday’s rally began with oil, but semiconductors will determine whether it becomes something more durable. Falling crude reduced inflation pressure, Treasury yields eased, and mega-cap technology stocks responded with strong gains. The S&P also confirmed a near-term breakout, giving bulls a constructive foundation into the next session.

The confirmation is not complete. SMH must close above $547.40, the 10-year yield needs to remain below 4.687%, and the dollar’s rebound from support cannot accelerate without creating pressure elsewhere. Those are the signals that matter more than the headline rally.

The market is offering clear levels rather than clear certainty. Traders do not need to predict whether Monday started the next major leg higher. They need to watch whether leadership confirms, yields stay contained, and recent breakouts hold when tested. That is where the next high-probability read will come from.

Monday's session opened with stocks pushing broadly higher after President Trump said he had called off planned strikes on Iran and would resume negotiations, giving markets a fresh reason to add risk after last week's selloff. On the surface it looked like a clean, broad-based bounce. Underneath it, the tape is telling a more selective story.

The QQQ is up roughly 1.5% on the day despite opening flat, extending a bounce off last Wednesday's low that has now run more than 5%. But zoom out, and the Nasdaq-100 is still sitting roughly 6-7% below its all-time highs. The S&P 500 is also up close to 1.5% today and sits only about half a percent from its own record. Two indexes, same session, very different distances left to travel. That gap is the actual story of the day.

The Divergence That Matters

When the S&P is knocking on the door of new highs while the Nasdaq-100 is still meaningfully below its own, the natural read is that capital is rotating out of tech and into other parts of the market rather than lifting everything evenly. This is not a new phenomenon, but the size of the gap right now makes it a live signal rather than a footnote.

On the QQQ, the next levels of resistance sit at a gap fill near $705 and the psychological $700 mark. Both are realistic places for a pullback to develop over the next few sessions. On the SPY, the level to watch is the $760 area, the site of a prior double top and the current all-time high. If the S&P clears 760 on a daily close while the Qs continue to stall into 700-705, that is the rotation thesis confirming itself in price, not just in narrative.

Semiconductors Are Telling the Same Story

The SMH adds a second layer of evidence. Semiconductors broke down from a head and shoulders pattern, retraced partway back into that structure, and are now chopping around trying to decide on a direction. The chart opened today down roughly 2% intraday before recovering to positive territory, which is itself notable resilience.

The level worth watching on any further bounce is the $580 area, close to the pattern's neckline, where resistance has held meaningfully in the past. A rejection there argues for another leg lower. On the downside, $500 is the first psychological support, tested and defended last Wednesday, with $483 beneath it. Because semiconductors tend to lead tech rather than follow it, SMH's inability to reclaim its prior structure lines up with the same rotation read visible in the QQQ-SPY split.

Secondary Names on the Radar

A handful of individual setups are worth a compressed mention, though none carry the weight of the index-level divergence above. HIMS is up roughly 10% today and now more than 27% off Thursday's low, effectively flat versus a week ago; its head-and-shoulders measured move has already played out, and a retrace into the $33.30-$33.50 zone is the area to watch for renewed resistance. Oracle is rallying hard off its recent lows on the same de-escalation tailwind but remains down sharply from its all-time highs, with the next resistance of note at the $149-150 pivot high. GameStop fell sharply after agreeing to exchange roughly $1.4 billion of convertible notes for newly issued equity, reducing debt without cash but diluting existing shareholders; the gap near $17.45-$17.46 is the first support to watch, with $16 beneath it. Reddit broke down from a head-and-shoulders pattern following an earnings report that actually beat on revenue, earnings, and guidance, with the selloff tied instead to a sequential dip in U.S. daily active users and cautious search-referral commentary. The measured move points toward support near $120-125, where a nearby gap adds confluence, and the mixed signal in the report argues for watching this one rather than acting on it either direction right now.

What Would Confirm or Invalidate the Rotation Call

The read here is a probability, not a certainty, and it needs to be treated that way. Confirmation would look like the SPY clearing $760 on a daily close while the QQQ continues to stall at 700-705 and the SMH gets rejected again near $580. That combination of index-level and sector-level evidence, on closes rather than intraday touches, is what upgrades a triggered pattern into a confirmed one.

Invalidation would look like the opposite: the QQQ pushing cleanly through 700-705 on a daily close and the SMH reclaiming $580, which would argue the bounce is broadening rather than shifting away from tech. Either way, the next few sessions of closing prices, not this session's headlines, will do the talking.

Process Over Prediction

None of this is a call to chase the bounce or short tech outright. It is a framework for reading what the market is doing beneath a green day, and letting daily closes at a handful of specific levels decide whether the rotation is real or just noise inside a relief rally. That discipline, more than any single trade, separates a repeatable process from a reaction to headlines.

Watch on YouTube

Oil, Yields, and Forced Selling Are Driving the Market More Than the Headlines

The most important market signal from this morning’s My Trading Game Plan Revealed show was not any single geopolitical headline, central bank decision, or hedge fund collapse. Gareth Soloway’s broader read was that liquidity conditions are once again dictating price action across global markets. Falling oil prices are easing pressure on Treasury yields and supporting equities, coordinated intervention in the Japanese yen is exposing stress beneath the global financial system, and forced liquidations in semiconductors are creating violent moves that have little to do with the long-term value of the underlying companies.

That framework matters because the market is not processing each development independently. Oil affects inflation expectations, inflation expectations affect yields, yields influence equity valuations, and currency instability can force institutions to unwind leveraged positions across multiple asset classes. The headlines may appear unrelated, but the charts are showing the same underlying force: capital is being repositioned quickly as traders react to changing liquidity, leverage, and risk conditions.

Falling Oil Gives Equities Breathing Room

S&P 500 futures opened roughly six-tenths of a percent higher as oil prices plunged approximately 9% following reports of potential geopolitical de-escalation. The headline may have triggered the move, but Gareth’s focus remained on the technical structure. Oil had already rejected a multi-factor short level, completed a gap fill, and begun rolling over before the latest news accelerated the decline.

The relationship between oil and the broader market runs through inflation expectations. When energy prices decline, the market begins pricing less inflation pressure, which can pull Treasury yields lower and reduce the valuation strain on equities. That dynamic gave the S&P 500 room to rebound after last week’s sharp selloff and brief break beneath a major trendline extending from the 2021 pivot highs.

That breakdown never received proper technical confirmation, which changes the interpretation. Rather than treating the move as the start of a larger collapse, Gareth viewed it as a potential fakeout that trapped traders who reacted too quickly. The S&P is now pushing back toward resistance in the 5,755 to 5,760 area. A confirmed move above that zone would strengthen the bullish case, particularly if oil continues lower and yields remain contained.

Oil itself is approaching an important decision point. Gareth identified the $70-per-barrel area as the first major support zone over the coming weeks. A continued decline toward that level would likely keep downward pressure on inflation expectations and provide additional support for equities. A sharp reversal in oil, however, could quickly bring the yield problem back into focus and challenge the current market bounce.

The Bond Market Is Still Sending a Warning

The relief coming from lower oil prices does not erase the broader pressure in the bond market. The 10-year Treasury yield remains near 4.68%, while the 30-year yield is trading around levels last seen in 2007. Those readings are not simply reactions to near-term inflation data. They reflect growing concern about the amount of debt the United States must continue issuing and the lack of meaningful fiscal restraint.

The bond market is also showing skepticism toward the Federal Reserve’s rhetoric. Officials may continue discussing the possibility of tighter policy, but market-based probabilities for a September rate hike have retreated from above 70%. That suggests traders are not fully convinced the Fed will follow through unless incoming economic data forces its hand.

The upcoming employment numbers therefore carry more weight than another round of public comments from central bankers. Strong jobs data could revive expectations for tighter policy and push yields back toward recent highs. Weaker data would support the current decline in yields and help extend the equity rebound. The level of yields matters, but the more important signal will be how the bond market responds once the next major data point arrives.

Yen Intervention Reveals the Market’s Hidden Fragility

The sharp move in the U.S. dollar against the Japanese yen was one of the clearest examples of policy-driven liquidity in today’s market. Over the past several sessions, the dollar fell sharply against the yen and reached an important technical support trendline. Gareth attributed the move to coordinated intervention involving Japanese authorities and the United States, an unusual response that highlights how seriously policymakers view instability in the currency.

The concern extends beyond Japan. Global institutions have spent years borrowing cheaply in yen and using that capital to purchase assets in the United States and Europe. This carry trade works as long as the yen remains stable and borrowing costs stay low. A disorderly move in the currency can force those positions to unwind, creating selling pressure across equities, bonds, and other risk assets.

That is why the intervention matters more than the currency move itself. Policymakers are not simply defending a chart level. They are attempting to prevent a destabilizing chain reaction through the global financial system. Japan’s high debt burden also makes the situation more sensitive, because a loss of confidence in a major fiat currency could raise uncomfortable questions about other heavily indebted economies.

For long-term investors, this reinforces the case for diversification into hard assets such as gold. The bullish thesis does not depend on a single intervention or one day of currency volatility. It rests on the broader reality that central banks are increasingly being forced to manage the consequences of debt, currency weakness, and financial leverage at the same time.

Semiconductor Weakness Is a Deleveraging Event

The semiconductor sector is showing a different version of the same liquidity problem. Gareth highlighted the extreme volatility in Sandisk, which surged from approximately $1,000 to $1,400 in only two trading sessions before rapidly surrendering those gains. That type of movement is difficult to explain through normal shifts in company fundamentals. It is more consistent with forced buying, margin calls, and distressed liquidation.

The catalyst was the collapse of a highly leveraged hedge fund that had built aggressive long exposure to semiconductor stocks. The fund’s gains were amplified while the sector was moving higher, but the same leverage became destructive once prices reversed. As margin calls increased, larger institutions were forced to take control of the positions and liquidate assets into an already weak market.

Gareth referenced the old market saying that where there is one cockroach, there are usually more. The point is not that every semiconductor fund is in trouble. The risk is that one visible failure may reveal a broader concentration of leveraged positions using similar strategies. If additional funds are forced to reduce exposure, the selling can continue even after the underlying stocks appear technically oversold.

That environment can eventually create attractive swing-trading opportunities, but patience is essential. Gareth is watching the $1,000 area on Sandisk, where a major trendline and gap fill converge. The opportunity comes from allowing forced selling to exhaust itself and then evaluating price at a predefined support zone. Buying simply because the stock has fallen sharply would ignore the reason the decline is happening.

Technical Levels Still Decide the Trade

The importance of waiting for price to reach a defined level was also clear in Gareth’s discussion of the measured move setup. Using the stock associated with SpaceX as the example, he showed how technical analysis can provide a logical downside objective during a period of heavy selling and uncertainty surrounding a large share unlock.

The setup began with an initial decline of roughly $75. Price then retraced toward $150 before forming a lower high. Projecting the original $75 decline from that retracement produces a downside target near $96 to $97. That calculation does not guarantee a bottom, but it gives traders an objective area where the risk-and-reward profile may become more attractive.

The larger lesson is that the technical target remains useful regardless of whether the stock reaches it before or after the expected share unlock. Traders do not need to predict the exact timing of insider selling or guess how the market will interpret the event. They can wait for price to enter the calculated zone and then evaluate whether buyers are beginning to defend it.

That same discipline applies across the market. The headline creates volatility, but the chart defines the location. A technically valid level does not eliminate risk, yet it prevents traders from committing capital based solely on emotion, fear, or the urge to catch a falling asset.

Gold and Bitcoin Are Approaching Decision Points

Gold continues to trade within a large wedge pattern that is expected to reach its apex by the middle of August. The recent bounce in the U.S. dollar contributed to a pullback in gold, reinforcing the inverse relationship between the two assets. As the wedge tightens, price will have less room to move sideways, making a confirmed breakout or breakdown increasingly likely within the next several weeks.

Silver is showing more relative weakness and remains tied closely to historical cycle patterns. Gareth identified $54.80 as an important support area to watch. Natural gas, meanwhile, continues moving sideways and may require one additional decline toward structural spot-price support before producing a higher-quality swing setup.

Bitcoin is also nearing a level that could determine its next larger move. The cryptocurrency remains below important overhead resistance, and Gareth identified $63,000 as the line the bulls must reclaim on a daily closing basis. A sustained close above that level would improve the near-term structure and increase the probability of further upside.

Failure to reclaim $63,000 would leave Bitcoin vulnerable to another test of its recent lows. A larger head-and-shoulders structure could eventually produce a more severe decline toward $35,000, although that remains a lower-probability scenario unless support begins breaking decisively. Gareth’s approach remains patient, with a preference for beginning long-term dollar-cost averaging if Bitcoin falls toward $50,000 or lower rather than chasing the asset beneath resistance.

The Real Risk Is Leverage, Not Volatility

The hedge fund collapse offered a reminder that market volatility is rarely what destroys an account by itself. The more serious danger is excessive leverage combined with the belief that a winning streak will continue indefinitely. A strategy can look brilliant while the market is moving in the trader’s favor, but leverage leaves little room for error when conditions change.

Gareth reflected on the losses he experienced earlier in his career and the repeated realization that going all in was not a sustainable way to build wealth. The temptation to concentrate capital in one asset, one sector, or one aggressive strategy is common among both professional and retail traders. The semiconductor fund’s collapse shows that institutional experience does not eliminate the psychological pull of greed and overconfidence.

Consistent wealth creation is less dramatic. It comes from taking singles and doubles, respecting technical levels, controlling position size, and accepting that no setup is certain. Diversification also has to extend beyond holding several stocks within the same sector. A resilient portfolio can include equities, real estate, land, commodities, bonds, and a controlled allocation to cryptocurrencies.

The purpose of diversification is not to maximize returns during every market phase. It is to survive the periods when one asset class, one currency, or one strategy behaves in a way that few traders expected. That survival creates the ability to take advantage of future opportunities instead of being forced out of the market at the worst possible moment.

Bottom Line

The market is not simply responding to isolated headlines. Falling oil, elevated Treasury yields, coordinated yen intervention, and forced semiconductor liquidations are all expressions of the same underlying issue: liquidity is moving quickly through a highly leveraged global system.

The levels that matter now are clear. Oil is working toward support near $70, the S&P 500 is testing resistance around 5,755 to 5,760, Sandisk is approaching a major area near $1,000, and Bitcoin must reclaim $63,000 on a daily closing basis to improve its structure. Those levels will reveal whether the current moves are temporary reactions or the beginning of larger trends.

The framework is not to predict every headline before it arrives. It is to identify where the charts are forcing a decision, wait for confirmation, and keep risk controlled when liquidity is producing violent price swings. In this environment, the traders who remain patient and disciplined will be better positioned than those trying to outguess the next intervention, liquidation, or geopolitical development.

When The Theater Became The Show

AMC Entertainment once sold escapism. In 2021 it became the spectacle. At the height of the meme era, the world’s largest movie theater chain was thrust from the concession line to center stage, a battleground where retail traders met short sellers and turned a legacy business into a cultural moment. The point of no return arrived on June 2, 2021, when AMC closed at $62.55, up 95 percent in a single session. That spike did not just mint headlines. It gave the company something more valuable than viral fame, time.

The story makes sense only when you hold two truths together. AMC is a century-old operator built on real estate, film slates, and Friday night crowds. It is also a modern market narrative about identity, access, and voice. For traders and casual moviegoers alike, AMC became a place to gather, in auditoriums and in online forums, to argue over the future of theaters and the purpose of markets. The human stakes were visible in reopened lobbies, in workers returning to shifts, in a management team racing to secure cash, and in a shareholder base that wore branded hoodies and called itself an army.

This AMC stock analysis follows the path from a quiet listing before the streaming wars to a reinvention shaped by a pandemic, a meme spike, and a willingness to try unfamiliar tools. It is a story about survival, but also about what happens when a company leans into the culture that surrounds it.

A Bell, A Backer, And A Bet On Experience

AMC’s modern public life began in December 2013 after years under Dalian Wanda’s ownership. The company listed on the New York Stock Exchange following an offering priced at $18, a conventional start for an unconventional brand. The pitch was simple and physical. Better seats, better screens, better bars, all in more places. The exhibitor that began in the Midwest would be scaled to marquee markets across the United States and Europe.

The IPO arrived in a period of uneasy optimism for theaters. Streaming was not yet the default, but it was already on the march. AMC’s answer was to make the analog night out feel premium. Power recliners replaced creaky rows. MacGuffins bars and dine-in formats turned showtimes into full evenings. The company bet that choice and comfort could keep butts in seats even as living rooms got better screens and endless content.

From the start, AMC saw scale as strategy. The company had already been growing through deals, and public currency offered another tool. But the more interesting throughline was cultural. AMC leaned into moviegoing not as a transaction, but as a ritual. The red logo was not just a mark on a marquee. It was a promise of familiarity amid a fractured media landscape. That brand equity would become both ballast and fuel when the plot twisted.

Building The Giant, Then Meeting The Headwinds

The mid-2010s were AMC’s land grab. Acquisitions consolidated multiplexes into a global footprint. In the United States, the company stitched together suburban strongholds and urban flagships. In Europe, it added Odeon and UCI, expanding its reach and creating operating leverage. With scale came an upgraded playbook. Laser projection and IMAX partnerships raised the ceiling on ticket yield, while AMC Stubs A‑List, launched in 2018, brought subscription economics to the box office.

You could feel the company’s confidence in the pre-pandemic cadence. The model relied on tentpoles to lift traffic and concessions, and on the in-between weeks for recurring subscribers to smooth the troughs. In the December quarter of 2019, revenue was about $1.45 billion, a snapshot of a business that still depended on studio calendars yet had more tools to monetize attendance.

Then the projection light snapped off. The 2020 shutdown brought the existential question no operator had modeled at scale, zero shows. The December quarter of 2020 captured the shock, revenue near $162.5 million, and a P&L turned inside out. What got less attention, at least at first, was the way the crisis reset the narrative. The pandemic made moviegoing symbolic. It became shorthand for normal life returning, for date nights and shared laughter, for a medium that gains meaning when strangers gasp together.

When doors reopened, AMC leaned into that sentiment. It courted studios for event releases, doubled down on premium formats, and treated customer loyalty as a hedge against the next curveball. It was not a straight line back, but it was a line.

Pandemic Panic, Meme Surge, And A New Capital Toolkit

The crucible years delivered AMC’s defining moments. First came the scramble, emergency financings to shore up liquidity in late 2020 and early 2021 as auditoriums sat dark. Then the twist. Retail traders, congregating on message boards and apps, targeted heavily shorted names. On June 2, 2021, AMC’s 95 percent jump to a $62.55 close became the meme era’s most cinematic scene. The spike allowed AMC to sell shares at higher prices and raise lifeline cash.

Management did not treat the rally as a one-act play. In August 2022 the company issued AMC Preferred Equity units, known as APE, as a 1-for-1 dividend to expand its financing options. The move was controversial, but it created a path to tap capital markets without growing the common share count at that moment. A year later, after court proceedings and a shareholder vote, AMC executed a 1-for-10 reverse split and moved to convert APE into common shares in late August 2023, simplifying the structure and resetting the share price optics.

The operating story evolved in parallel. Event programming showed surprising muscle. The company partnered to distribute Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour in fall 2023 and found incremental revenue that did not depend on traditional studio distribution. Blockbusters like the Barbenheimer double bill reminded the industry that cultural phenomena can still turn into lines at the snack counter. By the December quarter of 2023, revenue was roughly $1.10 billion, and long-term debt stood near $4.50 billion, a reminder of progress and remaining weight.
The lesson was not that a meme could rescue fundamentals. It was that attention, wisely channeled, could buy time to rebuild them.

What The Chart Says After The Applause

Even after the reverse split in late August 2023, AMC’s trading retained a theatrical quality. The tape moved in bursts around headlines, court rulings, and unconventional releases. Gaps opened and closed as the market debated whether the capital structure changes reduced uncertainty or simply shifted it. The price action reflected two overlapping stories. One was about theaters, foot traffic, and the release calendar. The other was about a shareholder base that sees itself as a community and treats rallies as gatherings.

Technically, the stock’s history made clean trendlines slippery. Post-split levels forced traders to recalibrate familiar reference points. Volatility stayed elevated around earnings weeks, a sign that participants were still repricing cash runway and leverage against each quarter’s attendance and concession metrics. Liquidity in the options market added noise, sometimes amplifying directional moves into the close.

If you zoom out, the message of the chart is consistent with the business. Momentum shows up when there is a story to gather around, whether that is a surprise partnership or a studio slate that stacks weekends. Pullbacks tend to test whether cost cuts, pricing power in premium formats, and specialty content can cushion the lull between tentpoles. It is less a tidy pattern than a series of acts, and the intermission is never quiet.

The Trader’s Lens: What Matters To The Tape Now

For active readers doing AMC stock analysis, the signal sits where narrative meets math. The narrative is the company’s evolving role, not just as an exhibitor, but as a curator of event cinema, from concert films to anime to one-night fan screenings. The math is the cadence of cash generation and obligations that do not forgive lulls. As of the December quarter of 2023, revenue hovered near $1.10 billion, with long-term debt around $4.50 billion. That pairing sets the stakes for each film slate and each creative partnership.

Catalysts are more varied than they were before 2020. Theatrical windows are still in flux, but there is a growing recognition among studios that some titles need the communal lift. Specialty content has become a strategic lever rather than a novelty. Branded experiences, premium formats, and loyalty-driven upsell provide incremental dollars per guest when attendance is merely decent. The partnership muscle built during the Eras Tour release gives AMC a way to pitch and package events that are not dependent on a single studio’s calendar.
On the market side, community remains a factor. Retail participation can tilt order flow on big news days, yet the company’s willingness to use the market as a financing engine, from APE in 2022 to the reverse split and conversion in 2023, means that supply mechanics can intrude on momentum. That is neither an indictment nor a cheer. It is the reality of repairing a balance sheet in public.

The craft for traders is to separate hype from habit. Hype is the viral spike, habit is the slow accumulation of better experiences and smarter programming that nudges margins. Pay attention to management’s language on attendance mix between premium and standard formats, to non-studio content booked into shoulder weeks, and to any updates on refinancing or maturities. Those details decide whether rallies have follow-through or fade at the credits.

Curtain Call, Not Credits

AMC’s journey from IPO to impact has the shape of a movie the company might show. There is a classic setup, a crisis that seemed fatal, an unlikely twist, and a protagonist that walks out changed. The $18 listing in 2013 feels distant now, but the throughline holds. AMC’s edge is not a single format or promotion. It is an ability to tap into why people leave home to sit in the dark together, then to monetize that instinct with scale and experience.

The market will keep testing that proposition. Some quarters will thrill, others will drag, and the chart will reflect both. What is different today is that AMC understands the story it is in. It is a theater chain, a cultural venue, and at times a proxy for how connected retail investors can shape corporate options. That makes its next act unpredictable, and worth watching, popcorn in hand.

Click here to read our previous article on CRCL: https://verifiedinvesting.com/blogs/education/the-complete-ticker-from-ipo-to-impact-crcl-stock-analysis

The financial markets have just delivered one of the most exhausting, volatile, and action-packed weeks in recent memory. Between a highly anticipated Federal Reserve decision, a barrage of mega-cap technology earnings from Microsoft, Meta, Amazon, and Apple, and violent swings in the semiconductor sector, traders have been pushed to their absolute limits. However, as seasoned market participants know, extreme volatility breeds exceptional opportunity for those who rely on technical data rather than emotional impulses.

In this morning's My Trading Game Plan Revealed, Gareth Soloway, Chief Market Strategist at VerifiedInvesting.com, unpacked the aftermath of this historic week. From a massive $100,000 profit in the Smart Money portfolio to critical warnings about the precious metals sector, today's analysis provided a masterclass in probability-based trading, technical discipline, and market psychology.

The S&P 500: The Critical Rule of Confirmation

Despite the chaotic headlines and intraday swings, the S&P 500 is currently holding steady, transitioning from a flat to positive stance going into the open. However, the daily chart reveals a fascinating technical drama unfolding at a major macro trend line.

Connecting the bull market high of 2021 to the pivot high of 2025 creates a definitive line in the sand. Recently, the S&P 500 attacked this line twice, eventually closing below it by a fraction. For novice traders, a close below a major trend line often triggers panic selling. But professional technical analysis requires a crucial secondary step: confirmation.

"Confirmation to confirm a breakdown or breakout. We need another close below the low of that prior day," Gareth explained. Because the market failed to close below the prior day's low, the breakdown was never confirmed, and the market was effectively "saved."

This technical save means the broader bull market remains intact for now, but the underlying probabilities are shifting. Gareth outlined a powerful statistical rule regarding trend line tests that every trader should memorize:

• First Hit: An 80%+ probability of a bounce.
• Second Hit: A 70% probability of a bounce.
• Third Hit: A 60% probability of a bounce.
• Fourth Hit: A 50/50 coin toss.

The S&P 500 is currently on its third hit of this critical line. While the bounce was mathematically favored this time, the structural integrity of this support is weakening. If the index returns to test this level in the coming weeks and breaks, the downside target is severe, pointing toward the 7,000 level on the S&P 500. Understanding these shifting probabilities is what separates the casino from the gambler.

Semiconductors and the KOSPI Connection

The semiconductor sector provided some of the most explosive price action of the week. Following a brutal 50% to 60% correction in major names like Sandisk (S&DK), the sector staged a massive reversal. This move was heavily telegraphed by international markets, specifically the KOSPI (South Korean stock market).

Earlier in the week, the KOSPI experienced severe turbulence, being halted twice for massive downward moves. However, it eventually pulled back into a massive historical support zone. The subsequent bounce was staggering—an 18% overnight rally driven largely by heavyweights like Samsung and SK Hynix.

This global catalyst ignited US semiconductors, with names like Bloom Energy surging roughly 30%. For Sandisk, the technical setup was picture-perfect. The stock came down to pierce the $1,000 level—a massive psychological and even-number support—and has already gained 35% off that low.

However, traders must be wary of the shifting narrative. Financial media is already declaring the "AI trade" back intact, which inevitably lures retail investors into buying the dip. But the technical damage has been done.

"After a correction of 50%, 60% on Sandisk, the amount of investors that are stuck in those trades, they are going to be basically they're in panic mode," Gareth warned. These trapped buyers will likely use any significant bounce as an opportunity to unload their shares at breakeven, creating massive overhead supply.

For traders looking to capitalize on this relief rally, Sandisk presents a compelling short setup higher up. By utilizing multi-factor analysis, Gareth identified a confluence zone where a major trend line intersects with the 61.8% Fibonacci retracement. This creates a high-probability short entry target at approximately $1,800. If the stock reaches this level, the technical resistance will be formidable.

Mega-Cap Earnings: The Anatomy of a Topping Tail

Earnings season always acts as a magnifying glass for market psychology, and this week's mega-cap reports were no exception. While Microsoft made history by gaining half a trillion dollars in market cap, and Amazon surged roughly 10% (creating a day trade watch level near $270), Apple provided the most educational technical setup of the week.

Leading into its earnings report, Apple pushed up against major resistance, printing a very specific candlestick formation on the daily chart: a topping tail.

"That means institutions were dumping into retail, buying into earnings," Gareth noted.

A topping tail occurs when a stock pushes significantly higher during the trading session, only to be met with aggressive selling pressure that forces the price to close near its lows. It is a visual representation of smart money offloading shares to overly eager retail investors right before a major news event. Recognizing this pattern allowed the Verified Investing Smart Money portfolio to confidently short Apple, resulting in a profit of approximately $7,000 when the stock flushed after hours.

Looking ahead, Apple's chart presents two distinct actionable levels. For aggressive day traders, a pierce of the $300 level offers a potential intraday bounce play. For swing traders looking for a more robust setup, a parallel channel points to a much deeper buy zone around the $275 pivot low.

Other notable post-earnings movers include Roblox, which suffered an incredible fall, setting up a potential trading level around $35.50. Meanwhile, Reddit continues to bleed lower following its report, with a key day-trading pivot point resting at $140.

Currency Chaos and Precious Metals Divergence

While equities commanded the headlines, the currency and bond markets quietly flashed major warning signs. The USD/JPY (dollar-yen) pair took a massive tumble, signaling a sharp weakening of the dollar against the yen. Concurrently, the broader US Dollar Index (DXY) suffered a massive $1.75 drop over just two days, falling directly into a long-standing resistance-turned-support zone.

Historically, a plunging US dollar acts as rocket fuel for precious metals. Yet, gold's reaction was incredibly muted.

Despite the dollar's severe weakness, gold managed only a tiny bounce, peeking briefly above trend line resistance before being slammed right back down. This divergence is a glaring red flag for gold bulls in the immediate term. When an asset fails to rally on highly favorable macro news, it indicates underlying structural weakness or exhaustion.

Silver's chart is even more precarious. The white metal is currently trapped below two major trend lines, moving sideways and opening the door for significant downside resolution. Based on the technical probabilities, there is an 80% chance that silver pierces the $54 level, and a 70% chance it flushes all the way down to pierce $50 before a true bottom is found.

Adding pressure to the macro environment is the relentless climb of the 30-year Treasury yield. As the long end of the yield curve continues to push higher, it directly impacts borrowing costs, threatening to crush an already fragile housing market by making mortgages increasingly unaffordable.

The Future of Gold: Cycles and the $13,000 Target

Despite the short-term technical weakness in gold, the long-term macroeconomic setup remains one of the most compelling generational wealth opportunities in modern history. To help investors navigate this, Gareth has released an institutional-grade Gold Research Report, available completely free on the VerifiedInvesting.com dashboard.

The report dives deep into the five primary forces that drive gold prices: the exponential increase in US and global debt, the rapid expansion of the global M2 money supply, real interest rates, and the growing "mistrust of fiat" index.

One of the most fascinating revelations in the report is the concept of shortening market cycles. The cycle from the 1980 gold high to the 2011 breakout was a long, drawn-out period. However, because global debt and money printing are now accelerating at an exponential rate, the consolidation cycles for gold are becoming drastically shorter.

Based on this comprehensive data, the base case forecast projects the next major peak for gold will occur between 2029 and 2031, at an average price of $13,000. The interactive calculator provided with the report allows investors to adjust these five macro forces to see how changes in debt or money supply directly impact the future price target of the metal.

Bitcoin's Line in the Sand

In the cryptocurrency space, Bitcoin remains technically bullish, but the current price action demands strict vigilance. The chart has formed a clear cup and handle pattern, which traditionally resolves to the upside. If this pattern triggers, it opens the door for a breakout above $67,000, with secondary targets resting between $71,000 and $72,000.

However, this entire bullish thesis hinges on one critical support level: $63,000.

A look at the daily chart shows a precise trend line connecting multiple low pivots perfectly at the $63,000 mark. As long as Bitcoin holds this line, the bulls remain in control. But if the price breaks and closes below this level, the cup and handle pattern is invalidated, and traders should expect a swift retest of recent lows, or potentially much lower prices. Furthermore, broader cycle analysis suggests that the ultimate macro bottom for Bitcoin has not yet been established, urging caution for long-term accumulators.

The Psychology of the Casino

Perhaps the most valuable takeaway from today's market analysis isn't a specific price target, but rather the psychological framework required to survive and thrive in volatile conditions.

After 27 years of trading, Gareth emphasizes that success comes down to suppressing human emotion and relying entirely on logic and probability. Retail traders consistently lose money because they trade based on fear, FOMO (fear of missing out), and media narratives. Professional traders operate like a casino.

"I never worry about like, oh, darn, I missed it," Gareth stated, addressing the reality that traders will miss dozens of setups every single day. "It's about the three that I took, or the four that I took, or the one that I took that day. Was it a high probability? Did I make money on it?"

You don't need to catch every move in the market to be wildly successful. You simply need to wait patiently for the setups where multiple technical factors align—like the $1,800 short level on Sandisk or the $300 day trade level on Apple. By demanding a high-probability edge before risking capital, and accepting that losses are simply a mathematical cost of doing business, traders can remove the emotional weight of the markets.

As we close out this exhausting week and look toward the weekend, the focus should remain on preparation. Whether it's crude oil pushing higher on weekend geopolitical uncertainty, or the S&P 500 teetering on its macro trend line, the data is already mapping out the next major moves. By staying disciplined, honoring your stop losses, and letting the charts dictate your bias, you position yourself to consistently extract capital from the markets, regardless of which way the wind blows.

Read yesterday’s recap here: https://verifiedinvesting.com/blogs/live-show-recap/my-trading-game-plan-revealed-07-29-2026-fed-curveball-kospi-crash-and-high-probability-trade-setups

Published by Verified Investing | U.S. Economic Metrics Released: July 30, 2026 | Data Period: June 2026 | Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis

Key Takeaways

• Headline PCE fell -0.11% MoM — energy price declines dragged the top-line number negative, but that move tells you almost nothing about underlying inflation pressure.
• Core PCE rose +0.13% MoM, slowing from May's +0.33%, and sits at 3.29% YoY — still 129 basis points above the Fed's 2% target on the measure it watches most closely for underlying inflation.
• YoY core decelerated from 3.42% to 3.29% — directionally correct, but the pace of descent is 13 basis points per month. That does not get to 2% in 2026.
• Headline PCE YoY dropped from 4.08% to 3.67%, driven by the same energy move that flattered the MoM print — not a signal of broad disinflation.
• Personal spending rose +0.29% MoM against income growth of +0.20% MoM — consumers are still outspending their income gains, which supports continued demand-side price pressure.
• Core PCE has been above 3% for an extended stretch, and the gap between core and target is roughly what it was a year ago. The disinflationary trend has stalled, not accelerated.
• 2026 rate cuts are out of the base case. The new Fed Chair assumes command of a 3.29% core PCE economy with no clear mechanism for rapid disinflation.

What This Metric Measures, and Why This Print Matters

The PCE Price Index is the Federal Reserve's preferred inflation gauge. Core PCE — which strips out food and energy — is the measure the Fed watches most closely to judge underlying inflation pressure. That distinction matters right now because CPI has captured most of the public narrative, and the two indexes have occasionally told different stories in recent months.

PCE uses a chain-weighted methodology that adjusts for consumer substitution, and it weights shelter lower and healthcare higher than CPI. A PCE print can look softer than an equivalent CPI print in the same month — occasionally creating the impression of more progress than the Fed's own framework confirms.

The June 2026 print lands at a pivotal moment. Kevin Warsh took over as Fed Chair on May 15. Markets have been pricing a rate-cut timeline on the assumption that PCE would continue drifting lower toward 2%. Today's number tests that thesis. The short answer: the thesis survives, but barely. Core PCE is moving in the right direction. The pace is too slow to support a 2026 cut, and the headline number's negativity is almost entirely an energy artifact.

What Everyone Will Focus On vs. What Matters More

The dominant market read will be the negative headline PCE MoM print — -0.11%. Headline PCE going negative reads as a disinflationary win, and some coverage will frame this as evidence the Fed's work is nearly done. That read is wrong.

The headline went negative because energy prices fell. Energy is volatile. It does not tell the Fed whether the structural inflation problem — services, shelter, core goods — is resolving. The Fed knows this. The Fed looks at core.

Core PCE at +0.13% MoM is genuinely better than May's +0.33%. But one soft month inside an elevated regime does not break the regime. Here's the math the press line will underplay: a 0.13% monthly pace, annualized, is roughly 1.6%. A 0.33% monthly pace annualized is closer to 4%. One month at the lower pace does not offset the prior trend — and the YoY rate, which smooths this volatility, is still 3.29%. That is 129 basis points above where the Fed needs it.

What matters more than the headline drop: the YoY deceleration rate. Core PCE has come down from 3.42% in May to 3.29% in June — a 13-basis-point move. The prior move, April to May, was similarly modest. The disinflationary path is intact, but it is not accelerating. At this pace of descent, the Fed does not see 2% core PCE this year. That keeps 2026 cuts out of the base case more decisively than the negative headline print reopens them.

The Energy Distortion — and What's Under It

Headline PCE fell -0.11% MoM. Core PCE rose +0.13% MoM. The gap between those two numbers is almost entirely food and energy, with energy doing the heavy lifting on the downside.

This is the same dynamic that inflated May's headline number (+0.46% MoM against core's +0.33%). Energy was the culprit in both directions. Brent crude has pulled back from its May peak of $115.30 as Iran-war risk premium has partially compressed. When crude falls, gasoline and energy services prices fall in the PCE basket. The headline responds immediately. Core does not.

The takeaway is mechanical, not analytical: June's negative headline print is an energy story. It does not mean consumers are experiencing broad-based price relief. It means gasoline got cheaper. If crude stabilizes or bounces next month, headline PCE reverses — and any "disinflation is here" narrative built on June's -0.11% looks premature.

The core ex-energy picture is where the actual work of disinflation has to happen. At +0.13% MoM, June showed that work is progressing. It is not done.

The Spending-Income Gap

Personal income rose +0.20% MoM in June. Personal spending rose +0.29% MoM. Consumers are outrunning their income gains in nominal spending — and that gap keeps demand-side inflation pressure alive.

Disinflation requires either supply normalization, demand cooling, or both. Supply normalization is happening in some goods categories. Demand has not cooled on a sustained basis. The spending-income gap in June is not large in isolation, but it represents a pattern: the consumer who was drawing down savings to fund spending earlier this year has not stopped spending. Nothing in June's PCE changed that.

As long as nominal spending growth exceeds income growth, services inflation has a demand floor. That is not the profile of an economy moving quickly back to 2% core.

The YoY Trajectory

| Metric | May 2026 | June 2026 | Change | |---|---|---|---| | Headline PCE, MoM | +0.46% | -0.11% | −57 bps | | Core PCE, MoM | +0.33% | +0.13% | −20 bps | | Headline PCE, YoY | +4.08% | +3.67% | −41 bps | | Core PCE, YoY | +3.42% | +3.29% | −13 bps | | Personal Income, MoM | — | +0.20% | — | | Personal Spending, MoM | — | +0.29% | — |

The headline YoY moved 41 basis points in one month — a large swing. The swing is energy. Core YoY moved 13 basis points. That is the authentic disinflationary signal, and it is real but slow.

A useful frame: if core PCE falls another 13 basis points in July — to roughly 3.16% — the trajectory is intact. If July prints flat or moves higher, the gradual disinflation narrative cracks. One soft month like June does not establish a new trend. It interrupts the prior trend. Interruption and trend-break are different things. The August release will tell you which this was.

What This Means For Traders

The following is provided for educational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice.

The rate-cut story just got harder, not easier. Bond markets will likely rally on the negative headline and the softer core MoM print. That rally is probably a fade. Core PCE at 3.29% YoY — 129 basis points above target — is not an environment where a Fed chair with something to prove on inflation credibility begins an easing cycle. Watch 2-year Treasury yields. The 2-year has been rangebound between roughly 4.20% and 4.55% in recent weeks. A significant rally on this print that pushes the 2-year toward the lower end of that range, or through it, is pricing in a policy path this data does not support.

Watch July PCE (released late August) for trend confirmation. June's +0.13% core MoM either marks the beginning of a genuine deceleration toward the 0.10%–0.15% monthly pace consistent with the 2% target, or it is a one-month soft print inside a still-elevated regime. If July core MoM reverts toward +0.25%–0.33%, June was noise. If July holds near +0.13%, the disinflationary channel is reopening in a meaningful way.

Energy's next move determines the headline narrative. Brent crude's trajectory over July will drive August's PCE headline directly and mechanically. If Iran-war risk premium re-expands and crude rebounds toward $115, headline PCE snaps back positive and any "disinflation is here" narrative built on June evaporates. Watch crude as a leading indicator for next month's headline PCE before the BEA data drops.

The spending-income gap keeps services inflation pressure alive. Rate-sensitive consumer sectors — credit card issuers, auto lenders, retailers with revolving credit exposure — remain in an environment where consumer demand has not broken. That is not the setup for imminent Fed relief. It is the setup for continued higher-for-longer that pressures borrowing-dependent business models.

The new Fed Chair's first communications are the wildcard. Warsh inherits a 3.29% core PCE economy with a still-spending consumer and no clear mechanism for rapid disinflation. Any signal that he views 3.3% core as acceptable would move markets significantly toward the dovish re-pricing; any signal that it requires sustained restrictiveness would move the other direction. June's PCE gives him no cover for an early pivot — but it also gives the doves a data point to quote. Watch the next Fed statement for how he frames the word "progress."

The headline is negative. The story is that core PCE remains 129 basis points above target, the descent is measured in 13-basis-point monthly increments, and the Fed has no reason to move. June gives the doves a number. It does not give the Fed a reason to cut.

Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis — Personal Income and Outlays, June 2026 (released July 30, 2026). PCE Price Index data via BEA interactive tables.

Oil is the headline. Wheat is the trade that carries the better setup.

The conflict between Iran and U.S. forces in the Gulf has widened well beyond a single flashpoint, with strikes and counterstrikes reported across Kuwait, Jordan, Bahrain, and Oman since fighting broke out in late February. That kind of sustained, multi-front escalation produces a headline-reactive tape in energy and a slower, less obvious pressure building underneath it in agriculture. The oil chart is reacting to the first part of that story. The wheat chart, and the supply chain sitting behind it, is where the more interesting setup is forming.

Oil: Rejected At Resistance, Still Unconfirmed

Crude has been climbing inside a well-defined ascending channel off a major support zone near $71, and the recent push into the $93 resistance area was rejected in fairly clean fashion, with sellers stepping in and price settling back toward the middle of the range, currently trading in the mid-$80s. That is a developing structure, not a confirmed one. A daily close back above $93 would confirm the breakout attempt is real rather than a headline spike. A daily close back down toward the $71 support zone would suggest the opposite, that the market is fading the escalation rather than repricing around it.

The Overlooked Transmission Channel: Fertilizer

The more durable story is not oil itself. It is what the disruption to the Strait of Hormuz does to the fertilizer market, and from there, to global grain supply. IFPRI estimates roughly 30% of global fertilizer trade moved through the strait in 2024, while the WTO's methodology puts the effectively restricted share closer to 23.3%. Urea, the backbone of nitrogen fertilizer, is more exposed still. CSIS estimates roughly 35% of global urea exports transit the strait, and nitrogen fertilizer is the backbone of modern crop yields. When shipping through that corridor tightens, energy cargoes tend to get prioritized over lower-value chemical cargoes, so fertilizer flow gets squeezed first. That is a slower, more structural constraint than a single day's oil swing, and it shows up in grain markets with a lag.

Why Wheat, Specifically

China consumes far more wheat than it imports, with self-sufficiency running in the low-to-mid ninety percent range. That is not, on its own, a bullish setup. But it means the country's import behavior works less like a steady demand base and more like a release valve, a small share of total consumption that can still move markets if it shifts in timing or size. Nick's read is that recent Chinese import activity front-loaded ahead of expected disruption, with a weather-related hit to the domestic crop still working through the supply chain. That is an interpretation of trade-flow behavior rather than confirmed customs data, and should be treated as a working thesis rather than an established fact.

Layer that alongside separate supply pressure already building in the Black Sea grain corridor, and wheat is sitting at the intersection of two distinct supply shocks at the same time. That combination is why the wheat setup carries the better asymmetric opportunity right now, even though oil is the headline everyone is watching.

Wheat's Setup: The Level That Matters

Wheat is currently trading in the $6.50 to $6.80 per bushel range, off its two-year high just above $7.00 set on July 22. The structure taking shape is a developing inverse head and shoulders pattern, still unconfirmed, with price pulling back toward the neckline area for what looks like a retest rather than an immediate breakout. A daily close back above the $7.00 to $7.06 zone would confirm renewed upside momentum consistent with that bullish structure. A slide back toward the $6.50 pullback low would undercut the setup and put the pattern on hold.

None of this is a call for a specific chart pattern to complete on schedule. It is a statement of which market has the stronger case for a move, and where the lines are drawn.

Process Over Prediction

Wheat is the higher-conviction setup here: two converging supply shocks, a well-defined technical structure, and a confirmation level that is easy to track. Oil is the faster, more headline-reactive market worth watching for follow-through, but its next move depends more on the next escalation headline than on a clean technical trigger. Geopolitical conflicts can reverse or de-escalate quickly, and both setups should be traded on confirmation, not anticipation.

Read yesterday's Pro-Chart article below:

https://verifiedinvesting.com/blogs/pro-charts-stocks-etfs/procter-gambles-bear-flag-decision-point-is-the-real-earnings-story-this-week

Watch on YouTube

Crypto is catching a bid alongside the broader risk market today, but underneath the green candles sits a market at a genuine inflection point. Bitcoin, Ethereum, Cardano, XRP, and Solana are each sitting on or near a trend line that has been tested enough times to matter. None of them have broken cleanly yet, and that unresolved tension is the actual story.

Bitcoin remains the variable that governs the rest of the group. Until it resolves its own setup, the moves in the other four are best read as secondary confirmation rather than independent signals.

Bitcoin: The Wedge Still Needs a Close

Bitcoin has been coiling inside a wedge pattern, catching higher lows against a downsloping trend line that has already been tested and reclaimed once. Price broke below the trend line briefly, traded on it for several sessions, then reclaimed it, a sequence that argues against treating that break as a false signal. The wicks are reinforcing the line rather than pulling away from it, which gives the structure more weight.

The level that matters most is $63,991, a support zone that has been traded on heavily and has rejected two prior close attempts this week. A daily close above it would be a meaningful, if early, signal. The larger confirmation sits higher, at $66,100, marked by a wide-range red candle that has capped price. A close above that level, not just an intraday push through it, is what would shift Bitcoin from coiling to breaking out. Until then, momentum toward the mid-$60,000s remains unconfirmed.

Ethereum: Higher Lows, but RSI Disagrees

Ethereum is chopping inside a parallel channel, printing higher lows off its bottom trend line near $1,837 and $1,852, which is constructive. The complication is a bearish RSI divergence: price has made higher highs while RSI has made lower highs, a pattern worth watching rather than acting on. Resistance sits at the channel's midline, and above that, the $2,000 psychological level and a wide-range red candle from early June represent the levels that would need to give way for momentum to build.

Cardano: A Trend Line Under Repeated Pressure

Cardano is testing a downsloping trend line from its May 16 pivot high for a fourth time, with the gap between tests narrowing. Trend lines that get hit more frequently tend to break more easily, which favors the case for an eventual upside resolution. Near-term support sits at $0.1545, a level that was pierced briefly before price bounced back above it.

XRP: Two Levels Standing in the Way

XRP is capped by resistance at $1.12 and a separate downsloping trend line just above it, both of which have to give way before the setup changes character. A bottoming tail candle last month, a narrow-bodied session closing in the top quartile of its range with a long lower wick, is a bullish signal worth noting, though it did not mark the lowest close of the last ninety sessions, which tempers its weight.

Solana: Approaching a Multi-Year Line

Solana is closing in on a downsloping trend line stretching back to its February 1 pivot high, with hits becoming more frequent, a dynamic that again favors an eventual break. Price first needs to reclaim a prior pivot high, then clear $79.60 to open a path back toward the $80 range and the $83.41 shelf, an area of significant prior consolidation. Support on the way down sits at the recent two-day range, with a wide-range candle acting as a polarity flip level below that.

What Would Confirm or Invalidate the Setup

The hierarchy here is straightforward. Bitcoin's daily close relative to $63,991 and $66,100 is the primary signal for the group. A confirmed close above $66,100 would support continuation across the board; failure to hold $63,991 would argue for caution even where the other four assets look constructive individually. Ethereum's RSI divergence needs to resolve before its higher-low structure can be trusted. Cardano, XRP, and Solana all depend on their respective trend lines finally giving way after repeated tests, which is a matter of when, not necessarily if, but is not yet confirmed.

The Discipline Behind the Charts

None of these five setups is confirmed. That is the point. Trend lines that have been tested three, four, or five times are getting closer to breaking, but proximity to a break is not the same as the break itself. The edge in this kind of analysis comes from treating each level as a conditional trigger rather than a prediction, and from letting Bitcoin's own resolution set the tone for how much conviction the rest of the group deserves.

Markets reward patience with structure more than they reward being early. Watching these levels confirm or fail on a daily close, rather than reacting to the first wick through them, remains the more reliable way to trade what is still an unresolved setup across the board.

Watch on YouTube

Published by Verified Investing | U.S. Economic Metrics

Released: July 30, 2026 | Data Period: Q2 2026 (April–June) | Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis

Key Takeaways

• Real GDP slowed to +1.5% annualized in Q2 2026, down from +2.1% in Q1 — the economy is still expanding, but the deceleration is real and the composition matters.
• The GDP price deflator surged +6.3% annualized in Q2, the single most important number in this release and the one least likely to lead the headlines. At +4.3% YoY, the broad price level embedded in GDP is running at a pace that makes 2026 rate cuts structurally impossible.
• Imports increased in Q2, per the BEA — and imports are a direct subtraction in the GDP calculation. Import drag is the mechanical explanation for much of the deceleration from Q1 to Q2. Strip out the trade math and domestic demand looks different.
• Real GDP is +2.1% on a year-over-year basis, which means the economy has not stalled — but the 6.3% deflator means nominal GDP is running far hotter, and that gap is the inflation regime in plain numbers.
• The stagflation arithmetic is clear: 1.5% real growth plus 6.3% price pressure is not a soft landing. It is an economy producing less in real terms while prices accelerate — the worst policy combination for the Fed.
• This is an advance estimate — the BEA will revise Q2 twice more before the final print. Revisions of 0.3–0.8 percentage points are routine. The deflator, however, tends to be more stable across revisions than the growth component.
• Rate cuts in 2026 are off the table: a 6.3% annualized deflator under a new Fed Chair inheriting a petroleum-driven price shock forecloses easing. Watch the September FOMC for how Warsh frames the growth-inflation tradeoff publicly.

What This Metric Measures, and Why This Print Matters

Real GDP is the broadest single measure of U.S. economic output — the total value of all goods and services produced, adjusted for inflation. The BEA's advance estimate, released on the last business day of the month following each quarter's close, is the first official read on how the economy performed. It covers all three months of the quarter and will be revised twice more — a second estimate roughly one month later, then a third (final) estimate the month after that.

The advance estimate carries market weight precisely because it's first. Traders move on it before the revisions arrive.

What makes this Q2 print different from a standard growth-versus-expectations story is the GDP price deflator. The deflator is not CPI. It is not PCE. It is the broadest inflation measure in the U.S. statistical system — it covers every sector of the economy, not just consumer expenditures — and it ran at +6.3% annualized in Q2. That is not a narrow pipeline reading. That is economy-wide price acceleration embedded in the most comprehensive output dataset the government produces.

The macro context: the Iran War entered its second month during the April–June survey window. Brent crude peaked above $115 in early May and remained elevated through the quarter. Kevin Warsh took the Fed chair on May 15, inheriting an ISM Services Prices index at 70.7 — a four-year high — and an economy where the petroleum cost shock was propagating through every upstream production cost. The Q2 GDP deflator is the first full-quarter confirmation that the cost shock is embedded in the broad price level, not just in gasoline and CPI energy sub-components.

This is the data release that closes the debate on 2026 rate policy. The 1.5% real growth headline is the distraction. The 6.3% deflator is the verdict.

What Everyone Will Focus On vs. What Matters More

The consensus read on this release will be: growth slowed from 2.1% to 1.5%, the economy is cooling but not contracting, consumers are still spending. The soft-landing narrative will get one more inning.

That framing is not wrong. It is incomplete in a way that matters enormously for where rates go next.

The real GDP chart tells the growth story. Q1's 2.1% pace was solid. Q2's 1.5% is a step down — not a collapse, but a visible deceleration. The import drag is the mechanical driver: imports subtract from the GDP calculation, and when domestic demand pulls in more foreign goods (partly because tariff-anticipation front-loading effects began unwinding), the headline growth number compresses even if underlying demand hasn't fallen off a cliff. The BEA flagged this explicitly: "Imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, increased."

So the 1.5% print has an asterisk. Strip out the import subtraction effect and domestic demand likely ran faster than the headline implies. That is the nuance that supports the soft-landing camp.

But here is what the soft-landing camp is not talking about.

The GDP deflator at +6.3% annualized is the story this release is trying to hide in plain sight. This is not a trimmed-mean core measure stripping out volatile components. This is the full economy-wide price level change, goods and services, private and government, consumer and investment. When the broadest inflation measure in the statistical system runs at 6.3%, the question of whether the Fed can cut rates is not a close call.

The stagflation arithmetic: +1.5% real growth, +6.3% prices. Nominal GDP ran at approximately 7.8% annualized in Q2. That sounds strong until you realize that almost none of it is real — it is the economy producing marginally more output while prices accelerate at a rate not seen since 2022.

For the Fed, this is the worst possible configuration. Rate cuts require either a clear deterioration in growth or a sustained decline in inflation. Q2 delivered neither in combination — it delivered a growth deceleration that is not severe enough to force the Fed's hand on easing, paired with a price acceleration severe enough to make easing actively dangerous. Warsh steps into this precisely.

The Deflator at 6.3%: What Economy-Wide Inflation Actually Means

CPI and PCE get the headlines. The GDP deflator gets ignored. That is a systematic error.

CPI measures what a representative consumer basket costs. PCE measures consumer expenditures with a broader weight scheme. The GDP deflator measures the price level across the entire economy — consumer spending, business investment, government purchases, and net exports. It has no fixed basket; it re-weights as the composition of output shifts. That makes it the most comprehensive inflation signal in U.S. data, and the one least prone to fixed-basket substitution bias.

At +6.3% annualized in Q2, the deflator is not in Fed-comfortable territory by any historical standard. The Fed's 2% PCE target looks like a different economy from here. PCE and the GDP deflator diverge on methodology, and a hot deflator does not automatically imply an equally hot PCE — but they are correlated over multi-quarter horizons, and a +6.3% deflator print makes a Q3 PCE surprise to the upside more probable, not less.

The YoY deflator at +4.3% is the cleaner read for trend — it smooths the quarterly annualization math. +4.3% YoY on the broadest inflation measure is more than double the Fed's target and higher than where it stood when the Fed began its 2022–2023 tightening cycle in earnest.

The petroleum channel is the proximate cause. Brent crude averaging $108–113 through the quarter after peaking above $115 means energy costs are embedded in every production-side price in the economy — not just gasoline at the pump, but industrial inputs, freight, agricultural costs, and services margins where energy is a fixed overhead. The GDP deflator is picking up all of those second-order effects simultaneously. CPI energy sub-components show the first-order shock; the deflator shows the full economy's absorption.

Import Drag: The Mechanical Story Behind the 1.5% Headline

The BEA's own language was explicit: imports increased in Q2, and imports subtract from GDP by definition. This is not a bug in the accounting — it reflects that when the U.S. buys more from abroad, domestic production need not satisfy that demand. But it creates a gap between what the headline growth number shows and what domestic demand actually did.

Import surges can happen for two reasons: domestic demand is strong enough to pull in foreign goods, or front-loading dynamics drove a temporary import spike that deflates in subsequent quarters. The Q1 import surge — which was widely flagged as tariff-anticipation front-loading ahead of the 150-day global tariff implementation — left a mechanical hangover in Q2 as those inventory builds worked through the system.

The important question for the Q3 read: does the import drag reverse? If the tariff regime is holding and import volumes normalize, the subtraction effect shrinks and real GDP will mechanically recover some ground in Q3 even if domestic demand does not accelerate. That would produce a Q3 headline that looks like a growth rebound but is really just import-drag arithmetic unwinding. Watch the advance trade data and the inventory numbers — those are the leading indicators on whether the import subtraction flips back.

Real GDP +2.1% YoY: The Economy Hasn't Stalled, But the Composition Is the Point

Year-over-year, real GDP is up +2.1%. That is not recessionary. The U.S. economy, over the past four quarters, has grown at a pace consistent with its post-2010 trend average.

But the composition is not normal. Two percent real growth on top of a 4.3% YoY deflator means the economy is absorbing a significant and sustained price shock without tipping into contraction — which sounds resilient until you map it onto Fed policy options. A central bank inheriting this configuration — 2% real growth, 4.3% broad price inflation — has essentially no policy room to ease. Easing into 4.3% economy-wide inflation would be a repeat of the 2021–2022 error, and Warsh knows that better than anyone.

The YoY real GDP number is what the administration will cite. The YoY deflator is what the bond market will trade.

What This Means For Traders

The following is provided for educational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice.

1. The rate cut narrative just got harder to sustain. A 6.3% annualized GDP deflator closes the debate on 2026 Fed easing. Any position built on a dovish pivot before year-end should be stress-tested against this print. Watch the September FOMC statement — specifically how Warsh characterizes the growth-inflation tradeoff. A hawkish hold framing with explicit reference to the deflator would be the signal that the new regime is committed to not repeating 2021.

2. The September FOMC is now a critical date. September 16–17 is the next meeting with a press conference. Between now and then: Q2 GDP second estimate (late August), July CPI (August 13), July PCE (August 29). If PCE tracks the deflator's direction — even partially — Warsh's first meeting as chair becomes a hawkish consolidation, not a pivot. Easing requires a PCE number that moves materially toward 2% on a sustained basis. That is not consistent with a 6.3% deflator backdrop.

3. The import drag math matters for Q3 positioning. If import volumes normalize as the 150-day tariff regime settles in, Q3 GDP will mechanically recover some headline ground. A Q3 print of 2.0–2.5% is plausible on import-drag reversal alone — without any acceleration in domestic demand. That kind of "growth rebound" headline will read as soft-landing confirmation in October. Don't chase that read without checking whether the deflator is also decelerating. Growth up and deflator still hot is not a green light.

4. Watch the Q2 second estimate for deflator confirmation. The BEA's first revision (due late August) will refine both the real growth and deflator components. The deflator tends to be more stable across revisions than the headline growth number, but a revision from 6.3% toward 6.0% or below would matter for the bond market's pricing of terminal rate expectations. A revision to 6.5% or above would be the opposite signal — and would likely accelerate front-end rate repricing.

5. The petroleum channel is the variable to track forward. Brent crude is the transmission mechanism for the deflator staying elevated versus breaking lower. If the Iran War enters a de-escalation phase and crude pulls back toward $90–95, the Q3 and Q4 deflator path changes materially — and with it, the Fed's room to maneuver. If crude stays $105+, the deflator is sticky and the stagflation configuration extends into 2027. Energy prices are not a sideshow here. They are the primary lever on the GDP price level for the next two quarters.

6. The real GDP advance estimate will be revised. The 1.5% is not final. Revisions in the range of 0.3–0.8 percentage points are routine. If the second estimate revises toward 1.0% or below, the growth-deceleration story gets legs and markets will price more recession risk. If it revises toward 2.0%, the soft-landing trade gets a second wind. The deflator revision is the more important number to watch, but markets will trade the headline growth revision first.

Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis — Gross Domestic Product, Second Quarter 2026, Advance Estimate (Released July 30, 2026)

The Fed Held Rates, but the Bond Market Changed the Read

The Federal Reserve’s decision to leave interest rates unchanged was not the most important development from yesterday’s session. The real signal came from the bond market, where long-term yields surged as investors questioned whether the Fed has the credibility or discipline to control inflation without allowing government debt and spending pressures to worsen. Gareth Soloway’s framework from this morning’s My Trading Game Plan Revealed show was built around that disconnect. The Fed may control short-term rates, but the free market controls the long end of the curve, and that is where the clearest warning is appearing.

Markets initially responded positively to the decision to hold rates steady, especially with fears of a potential hike hanging over the announcement. That relief faded during Fed Chair Kevin Walsh’s press conference, when his promises to bring prices under control were not accompanied by a detailed plan. The late-session reversal was sharp, with the S&P 500 falling roughly 1.5% to 2% as traders reassessed the credibility of the Fed’s message. The market was not reacting to the rate decision itself. It was reacting to the possibility that the central bank’s words would not be strong enough to contain the forces driving inflation and long-term borrowing costs.

The Bond Market Is Sending the Stronger Warning

The most important confirmation came from Treasury yields. The 10-year yield closed near 4.7%, while the 30-year yield pushed to a new multi-year high, reaching levels not seen since 2007. That matters because the Fed directly influences the short end of the yield curve, but it cannot force long-term investors to accept unattractive returns. When 30-year yields rise despite a steady policy rate, the bond market is effectively demanding more compensation for inflation risk, fiscal instability, and the growing supply of government debt.

With federal debt approaching $40 trillion and spending continuing at an aggressive pace, investors are being asked to lock money away for three decades while accepting significant uncertainty about inflation and currency purchasing power. The result is a higher required yield, which creates pressure across mortgages, housing affordability, corporate financing, and equity valuations. This is the transmission mechanism traders need to understand. The risk is not simply that yields moved higher for one session. It is that the long end of the curve is beginning to reject the Fed’s reassurance.

The S&P 500 Is Sitting at a Structural Decision Point

The S&P 500 is reflecting that tension through a weakening technical structure. The index recently broke below a large wedge pattern and has started producing lower highs, although it has not yet completed the bearish sequence with a lower low. That leaves the market in an important transition phase rather than a confirmed long-term breakdown. Gareth’s approach is to respect the warning while waiting for the chart to complete the structure before treating it as fully bearish.

The most important level now comes from a long-term parallel channel connected to the bull market highs of late 2021 and early 2022. The S&P 500 is testing that trend line directly, making the next several daily closes more important than the initial sell-off. A confirmed breakdown would require a close below the line followed by another close beneath the low of the breakdown candle. That sequence would turn the prior breakout into a failed move, and failed breakouts often produce fast reversals in the opposite direction, with the next major technical bounce area sitting near 7,000.

That longer-term risk does not prevent Gareth from taking advantage of shorter-term opportunities. He disclosed that he is heavily long the market after yesterday’s decline because the sell-off created oversold conditions across several individual names and sectors. This is where timeframe becomes essential. A swing trader can participate in a 10% to 20% rebound without assuming that the broader market has entered a new sustained bull leg. The tactical long thesis remains separate from the larger warning being created by yields and the S&P’s weakening structure.

South Korea Helped Stabilize the Semiconductor Trade

The stabilization in South Korea’s KOSPI provided one of the clearest short-term catalysts for the rebound. The index had fallen roughly 40% from its highs and suffered consecutive limit-down sessions of close to 10%, creating direct pressure on the global semiconductor complex. Samsung and SK Hynix account for approximately half of the KOSPI, which means weakness in that market cannot be separated from the broader memory and semiconductor trade. When the index finally stabilized and closed down only about 1%, the pressure on US semiconductor stocks began to ease.

That shift arrived as several semiconductor names were reaching major historical support levels. SanDisk briefly traded below a key trend line near $1,000 and fell as low as $975 after hours before recovering toward $1,092, with the chart leaving room for a larger move toward $1,300. Arm Holdings also reversed violently after earnings, rallying roughly 25% from its after-hours low near $200. These moves did not eliminate the macro risks, but they showed how quickly deeply oversold stocks can respond once forced selling begins to exhaust itself.

Qualcomm offered the clearest example of Gareth’s probability-based approach. The stock fell sharply after earnings and retraced to support zones associated with the 2024 tariff sell-off and levels dating back to 2021. Gareth purchased shares at $146.87 in premarket trading, combining the technical support setup with a longer-term view that elevated memory prices are temporarily suppressing phone demand. As those costs normalize over the next three to nine months, improving demand could become a tailwind, while deeper technical support near $125 provides another major area beneath the current setup.

Microsoft and Meta Show What the Market Is Rewarding

The divergence between Microsoft and Meta revealed another important shift beneath the broader technology narrative. The market is no longer rewarding artificial intelligence spending automatically. Companies committing more capital to AI infrastructure without demonstrating improving returns are being punished, while businesses showing spending discipline and stronger future cash flow are receiving a much better reaction. That changes the earnings framework because the market is now evaluating not only who is spending on AI, but who can convert that spending into durable financial results.

Microsoft gave investors the combination they wanted by holding capital expenditures relatively steady while projecting improved cash flow. The stock responded with a V-shaped recovery and a bull flag breakout, leaving the trend firmly bullish unless the structure begins to deteriorate. Gareth identified the gap near $460 as the main area where a short-term fade could become attractive for day traders. Until price reaches that level or shows clear exhaustion, fighting the trend offers less favorable probability than respecting the strength.

Meta delivered the opposite message by increasing capital expenditure while issuing some of its weakest negative cash-flow projections in years. The stock is now testing a major trend line near $550, and its ability to reclaim that area will determine whether the earnings decline remains controlled or develops into a larger breakdown. The $520 pivot low could provide a short-term bounce, but failure there would expose gap-fill support near $500 and potentially much lower levels around $400. The lesson is not that all large technology stocks are weakening. It is that the market is separating disciplined operators from companies whose spending is becoming harder to justify.

Gold Is Reflecting the Same Fiscal Credibility Problem

The same doubts pushing long-term yields higher are also strengthening the long-term case for gold. The metal is compressing inside a large wedge pattern and approaching a potential breakout area as government debt, global liquidity growth, and fiat mistrust continue to build. Verified Investing’s new Gold Research Report attempts to quantify that process through a model incorporating federal debt issuance, global money-supply growth, real interest rates, and the pace of de-dollarization. The goal is not to make an emotional price prediction, but to estimate how quickly the interval between major gold peaks may be compressing.

Under baseline assumptions of approximately $2 trillion in annual US debt issuance and 7% global money-supply growth, the model projects the next major gold peak between 2031 and 2033 at slightly above $10,000. Gareth’s base case assumes faster debt growth, stronger money creation, and increasing central-bank demand, producing a projected peak between 2029 and 2031 near $13,000. More aggressive assumptions can push that estimate toward $16,000, although those outcomes depend on the inputs continuing to accelerate. Silver remains less compelling technically because it is still trading well below its own major breakout levels, leaving gold as the cleaner chart.

The Bottom Line

The market’s central problem is not that the Fed held rates steady. It is that long-term investors appear increasingly unwilling to accept the Fed’s assurances without demanding substantially higher yields. That pressure is creating a dangerous long-term backdrop for housing, equities, and government financing, while also strengthening the structural case for hard assets such as gold. The 30-year yield is now providing a clearer warning than the Fed’s official statement.

At the same time, the short-term setup is not uniformly bearish. The stabilization in the KOSPI, deeply oversold semiconductor stocks, and sharp post-earnings reversals are creating tactical long opportunities even as the broader structure weakens. That is the game plan Gareth is following: respect the bond market’s warning, watch for confirmation on the S&P 500, and use major technical levels to separate temporary rebounds from durable trend changes. The edge comes from keeping those timeframes separate rather than forcing one market narrative onto every chart.

Read yesterday’s My Trading Game Plan HERE: https://verifiedinvesting.com/blogs/live-show-recap/my-trading-game-plan-revealed-07-29-2026-fed-curveball-kospi-crash-and-high-probability-trade-setups

The Fed Held Rates, but Rising Yields Broke the Market’s Bounce

The Federal Reserve’s decision to hold interest rates steady was not the real story into Wednesday’s close. Markets expected the hold. What mattered was the rejection that followed, as Treasury yields pushed higher, the initial equity rally failed, and semiconductor weakness confirmed that risk appetite remained under pressure.

That reversal gave traders a clearer signal than the headline itself. The bond market was not pricing an easy path toward lower rates, and equities could not sustain their first bullish reaction to the press conference. By the close, the major indexes had given back the move, key technical levels had failed, and the market was left with a more defensive structure heading into the next session.

In Wednesday’s Trading the Close Market Recap, Verified Investing Pro Trader Drew Dosek focused on that shift. The central question was no longer whether the Fed held rates. It was whether rising yields, a stronger dollar, and deteriorating semiconductor charts were beginning to pull the broader market into a deeper correction.

The First Fed Move Was Not the Real Move

The Federal Reserve held rates steady in a 9-3 decision, with three members favoring a hike. That split reinforced the idea that inflation remains a live problem and that policymakers are not yet aligned around a more accommodative path.

Equities initially surged during the press conference as the market interpreted the Fed’s comments as less restrictive than feared. That move did not last. As traders processed the Fed’s continued commitment to its 2% inflation target and the likelihood that rates could remain elevated, the rally reversed sharply.

“The markets are going to behave how they will and price in where the rates should be,” Drew said while explaining the initial reaction.

The more important message came from what happened next. Stocks could not hold the breakout, Treasury yields moved higher, and the market closed with a broad red reversal candle. That type of price action often traps traders who chase the first post-Fed reaction without waiting for the bond market and the closing tape to confirm it.

The first move created excitement. The second move revealed positioning.

SPY and QQQ Confirmed the Damage

The S&P 500 ETF finished down 1.54% and broke below the consolidation area that had supported price over the prior four sessions. More importantly, SPY moved back inside the long-term parallel channel that began near the October 2022 lows.

That channel had previously acted as a framework for the broader advance. Once price appeared to break above it, the top of the structure was expected to become support. Wednesday’s move back inside the channel raises the risk that the breakout failed and that the former channel boundary may now act as resistance.

A lower close in the next session would strengthen that bearish interpretation and place the next major support near $710.31 in focus.

QQQ showed even greater weakness. After falling more than 2% in the previous session, the Nasdaq 100 ETF attempted to stabilize near $674.90 but ultimately lost that level. The next major support sits near $652.13.

That does not mean price must travel there in a straight line. Failed support often becomes resistance on a bounce, making the broken trendline near $695 an important area to watch if QQQ recovers. The broader structure remains weak until buyers can reclaim the levels lost during the post-Fed reversal.

Semiconductors Remain the Market’s Most Important Warning

The Semiconductor ETF provided the clearest confirmation that the risk-on trade was still deteriorating.

“Usually when folks are jumping into the SMH, it’s a risk-on scenario,” Drew said. “When they’re exiting, watch out because the rest of the markets are starting to do either rotation or the high flyers are in deep trouble.”

SMH has already declined 24.87% from its recent high. Before the Fed press conference, price appeared capable of bouncing from the midpoint of its parallel channel. The late-session reversal broke that setup and increased the likelihood of a move toward channel support near $475.75.

That level matters because similar semiconductor corrections have historically found support after declines of roughly 20% to 29%. In one comparable move, SMH fell near the bottom of its channel after a 28% to 29% decline and then rebounded roughly 26%. In another, a series of 20% to 24% pullbacks eventually produced a 20% recovery.

Those comparisons do not guarantee a bottom, but they show why the lower channel boundary deserves attention. SMH is approaching the type of drawdown where forced selling and institutional pain can begin creating asymmetric bounce opportunities.

The first rebound objective would sit near the upper section of the channel around $550. Above that, the neckline of the larger head and shoulders structure near $582.22 becomes the next major test.

The broader market will have a difficult time establishing a durable low if semiconductors continue breaking down. A meaningful SMH reversal would be one of the strongest early signals that risk appetite is returning.

Yields and the Dollar Are Driving the Pressure

The late-day move in the 10-year Treasury yield helped explain why equities could not hold their rally. The yield pushed above 4.687% resistance and is now pressing toward 4.809%.

That breakout matters because higher yields tighten financial conditions and reduce the relative appeal of long-duration growth assets. Technology stocks can bounce while yields rise, but sustaining those rallies becomes more difficult when the bond market continues demanding a higher return.

The US Dollar Index produced a similar signal. DXY initially fell before finding support near 100.86, the top of a long-term parallel channel that previously acted as resistance. Price broke above that channel and then returned to test the breakout level from above.

Holding 100.86 keeps the dollar’s breakout structure intact and opens a potential move toward the next trendline near 101.97. A stronger dollar combined with rising yields creates a difficult backdrop for precious metals and other assets that benefit from easier financial conditions.

This was the transmission mechanism behind Wednesday’s reversal. The Fed created the catalyst, but the bond and currency markets dictated which asset classes could hold their moves.

Gold and Silver Lost Their Initial Bid

Gold initially rallied as the dollar weakened, but the move failed at a declining trendline. Price remains inside a bearish consolidation, and Drew continues to view levels below $3,500 as the more compelling area for a higher-probability buying opportunity.

Silver followed a similar pattern. It failed to clear the midpoint of its parallel channel near $58.61, keeping downside risk toward the $50 area in play.

Geopolitical uncertainty can create temporary demand for precious metals, but the stronger dollar and rising-yield structure currently carry more technical weight. Unless those intermarket pressures ease, rallies in gold and silver may continue struggling at resistance.

Earnings Reactions Are Reinforcing the Same Message

Earnings season is creating large individual moves, but the strongest setups still fit the broader market theme: sharp declines are approaching technical support, while rallies are struggling to hold resistance.

VRT has fallen sharply over three sessions, pushing its daily RSI to 26.86. The 50% Fibonacci retracement of the larger move sits near $216, creating confluence between extreme oversold conditions and structural support. That makes the area a compelling bounce zone, provided price does not confirm a daily close below the current candle. A successful reversal would place $276 back in focus.

Qualcomm is approaching a similar decision area. Price traded near $150 after hours and came close to the bottom of its parallel channel near $139.42. With RSI approaching 30, that channel floor could produce a near-term bounce. The larger chart remains vulnerable, however, because a broad head and shoulders pattern continues to develop.

Microsoft’s after-hours rally also showed how quickly resistance can take control. The stock reclaimed $400 and pushed to $408.49 before being rejected at a descending trendline. That rejection keeps the technical focus on whether price can work toward the bottom of its parallel channel near $417 without another failed breakout.

The common thread is not simply earnings volatility. It is that traders are being forced to respect technical levels more closely because broad market conditions are no longer carrying every stock higher.

Oil Is Trading a Different Catalyst

US oil surged more than 7% as tensions in the Middle East intensified. The move placed immediate resistance at $86.38 in focus, with a larger upside level near $96.44.

Geopolitical energy moves can extend quickly, but they can reverse just as fast when headlines change or traders begin taking profits. A direct push toward the mid-$90s would likely attract institutional selling as the geopolitical premium becomes increasingly priced in.

Oil’s strength does not invalidate the broader risk-off message. It reflects a separate catalyst. That difference is important because not every asset rising on the same day is confirming the same market thesis.

The Levels That Matter Next

The next session should help determine whether Wednesday’s reversal was a temporary post-Fed shakeout or the beginning of a more sustained decline.

For SPY, the key question is whether price confirms the move back inside its long-term channel. For QQQ, the market needs to see whether buyers can reclaim $674.90 or whether price continues toward $652.13. For SMH, the bottom of the parallel channel near $475.75 is becoming the most important structural support zone.

The 10-year yield remains a central driver. Continued strength above 4.687% keeps 4.809% in play and would maintain pressure on growth stocks. DXY holding above 100.86 would add another layer of resistance for metals and risk assets.

These levels matter more than the next headline because they show where market participants are actually committing capital.

Bottom Line

The Federal Reserve held rates steady, but the market did not trade like financial conditions were becoming easier.

The post-Fed equity rally failed, the 10-year yield broke resistance, the dollar defended its breakout, and semiconductors continued leading the downside. That combination matters more than the rate decision itself.

The market is now approaching levels where sharp technical bounces can develop, particularly in SMH and heavily oversold earnings names. But a tradable bounce and a confirmed market bottom are not the same thing.

Until yields stop advancing and semiconductors begin reclaiming broken structure, rallies should be treated as tests rather than proof that the correction is over. The next major signal will come from whether buyers can defend the approaching support zones after the first post-Fed reaction has cleared.

Read yesterday’s Trading The Close Market Recap here: https://verifiedinvesting.com/blogs/live-show-recap/trading-the-close-market-recap-07-28-2026-dow-surges-while-tech-and-semiconductors-break-down-ahead-of-fed-mega-cap-earnings

Procter & Gamble opened sharply lower after its latest earnings report, gapping down from the prior close before reversing hard and clawing back nearly all of the loss in a single session. On the surface, that looks like a relief rally. On the chart, it looks like something more specific: a stock sitting at the exact decision point of a multi-month bear flag, with the next two to three daily closes likely to determine whether the recent bounce is the start of something or just a pause inside a larger downtrend.

That decision point, not the earnings headline itself, is the setup worth tracking this week.

The Setup: A Bear Flag Testing Its Midpoint

Procter & Gamble has been contained inside a well-defined descending parallel channel since March, and price is now trading right at the fifty percent level of that structure. Zooming out, the broader pattern is a bear flag, with the measured break point sitting near $136. Zooming in, the more immediate story is the sideways, choppy consolidation that has developed since early June, an attempt to build near-term bullish footing without ever fully escaping the larger bearish structure.

The earnings report added a fresh variable: management flagged rising input and freight costs, tied in part to higher oil prices, as a headwind to margins going forward, alongside a revenue miss. Shares gapped down toward the $141 range before buyers stepped in and pushed the stock back up through the session. That kind of reversal candle is not itself confirmation of a bottom or a breakdown. It is a session that landed the stock precisely on top of the level that matters most.

The Levels That Decide It

Daily closes above the $145 to $147 zone would mark a shift back into the upper half of the channel and modestly increase the probability of further upside, with the declining trendline near $150.69 as the next resistance to clear. Daily closes back beneath the midpoint, on the other hand, raise the probability that the stock is simply retracing before the bear flag resolves lower toward the $136 break point.

Neither outcome is confirmed yet. The distinction matters: a bounce off a headline is not the same as a technical trigger, and a technical trigger is not the same as a confirmed break. Both require a daily close, not an intraday touch, to carry weight.

Applied Digital: A Trend Line Failing in Real Time

A second, more advanced setup is developing in Applied Digital, the AI data center operator that reported a large earnings beat earlier this week. The stock has spent months inside an inclining channel, and an inclining trendline drawn from last year's low through the March pivot has acted as reliable support on multiple tests, including a bounce earlier in July.

That trendline is now failing. A daily close beneath today's low would confirm the breakdown and open the door toward the $20 area, with a possible brief undercut toward last quarter's pivot low near $19.08 before any stabilization. From there, the rising trendline itself, now closer to $27, becomes the resistance level any recovery attempt would need to clear. The setup illustrates a useful distinction: strong fundamental news and a weakening technical structure can coexist, and the chart, not the headline, is what defines the near-term risk.

Elsewhere on the Earnings Board

Three additional names are worth a compressed watch rather than a full breakdown. Generac is oversold on the daily timeframe following its own earnings reaction, with the $170 area as the parallel-channel support to watch if the current bear flag resolves lower, and $200 and $210 as the levels a bounce would need to reclaim. Caterpillar has produced three straight down days into a trendline dating back to late 2024, a level that has already proven itself as support on prior retests, with $735 to $737 as the zone to watch for a bounce attempt. SanDisk remains the most volatile of the group, down sharply from its June high and testing channel support near $950 to $1,000, with a head-and-shoulders structure implying a much deeper measured move if that support gives way. None of these carry the same immediacy as the Procter & Gamble decision point, but all three add context to a market where earnings reactions and technical structure are colliding across sectors simultaneously.

What to Watch Next

The next one to three daily closes on Procter & Gamble are the highest-priority signal in this group. A close above $145 to $147 shifts probability toward stabilization; a close back beneath that zone keeps the bear flag thesis intact with $136 as the eventual target. Applied Digital's confirmation trigger is simpler and more immediate: a daily close beneath today's low opens the move toward $20.

The Broader Point

Earnings season creates a flood of single-session reactions that get treated as verdicts. They rarely are. What actually matters is where those reactions land relative to the technical structure that was already in place, and whether the daily closes that follow confirm or invalidate it. Procter & Gamble's bounce, Applied Digital's trendline break, and the setups building across Generac, Caterpillar, and SanDisk are all examples of the same discipline: read the structure first, let the closes confirm or deny it, and avoid mistaking a single day's price action for a completed story.

Watch on YouTube

Fed Uncertainty Is Turning Today Into a Test of Trading Discipline

Today’s Federal Reserve decision is not important simply because rates may change. The real issue is that traders are heading into the announcement without the level of certainty that normally defines a Fed day. Markets are assigning a 62% probability to rates remaining unchanged and a meaningful 38% probability to a hike, creating two competing outcomes that must be priced at the same time. In this morning’s My Trading Game Plan Revealed, Gareth Soloway explained that this uncertainty is amplifying volatility across global markets and making disciplined technical execution more important than predicting the announcement itself.

Historically, the Federal Reserve has tried to communicate policy changes well in advance, allowing markets to enter decision day with a near-unanimous expectation. That is not the case today. The current target range sits between 3.5% and 3.75%, but the bond market is still assigning a substantial probability to an increase into the 3.75% to 4% range. Gareth expects the Fed to hold, but the larger lesson is that traders cannot dismiss the alternative simply because it is not the base case.

“Usually, by the day of, it’s almost zero chance that they’re going to do anything other than what the market expects,” Gareth said. “There’s a 62% chance that they will hold rates steady. That is what I expect. But it is worth taking into account. We have to be aware that there is a chance for a curveball.”

That curveball matters because markets are not positioned for surprise policy decisions as comfortably as they are for well-telegraphed ones. A hike would force rapid repricing across equities, bonds, currencies, commodities, and algorithmic strategies. Even a hold could produce violent movement if the policy statement or press conference signals that future decisions will remain difficult to anticipate. The trading edge, therefore, is not in claiming certainty before the announcement. It is in identifying the levels that will confirm how the market is processing the result.

The KOSPI Collapse Shows What Happens When Positioning Becomes Extreme

The overnight collapse in South Korea provides a useful example of why positioning and market structure often matter more than the headline. The KOSPI was halted limit down for a second consecutive session after falling roughly 44% from its peak, with the overnight move approaching 40%. The scale of the decline appears extraordinary, but Gareth’s read was less dramatic than the financial media narrative surrounding it.

The index had risen approximately 300% since April 2025, and more than half of its weighting is concentrated in only two companies. That means the KOSPI is not functioning as a balanced representation of South Korea’s broader economy. It is behaving more like a concentrated vehicle tied to a narrow group of heavily owned semiconductor stocks. Once those stocks reversed, the same concentration that accelerated the advance began magnifying the decline.

Leveraged exchange-traded funds added another layer of forced activity. During the rally, double- and triple-leveraged products required managers to buy additional underlying shares as prices rose, strengthening the upside feedback loop. When prices began falling, that mechanism reversed. Selling created more selling as funds mechanically adjusted their exposure, increasing the speed and severity of the decline.

“When bubbles form, they have massive corrections,” Gareth explained. “The market ran up incredibly for months and months, and now it’s having a normal correction.”

The chart is now approaching an area where panic and technical structure may begin to diverge. The KOSPI has broken through its 50% Fibonacci retracement and is testing the 61.8% retracement. That does not erase the damage or guarantee that the bottom is in, but it creates the type of deeply oversold technical zone where the probability of a sharp relief rally begins to rise. A 20% to 30% bounce would still leave the index well below its highs, yet it could produce a meaningful swing opportunity for traders willing to wait for confirmation.

Semiconductor Weakness Is Creating Better Setups, Not Better Stories

The KOSPI decline is closely connected to the semiconductor trade, where extreme optimism had already pushed many stocks to unsustainable levels. SK Hynix’s earnings reaction reflected that instability, with the stock initially collapsing, reversing into positive territory, and then flattening out. The price action illustrates a sector struggling to determine whether the earnings cycle still justifies its prior valuations.

One of Gareth’s most important observations involved the way investors interpret price-to-earnings ratios in cyclical companies. Retail investors often assume that a low PE ratio automatically makes a semiconductor stock inexpensive. In reality, cyclical companies frequently display their lowest PE ratios when margins and earnings are near their peak. Once the cycle turns and margins contract, earnings fall, the PE rises, and the stock can appear more expensive even after a significant decline.

“When margins are highest, that’s when PE is going to be lowest,” Gareth said. “When margins compress, that’s when the PE goes up, and you actually want to buy it at the worst PE. It’s very counterintuitive to a normal company because it’s cyclical.”

That framework changes how traders should view the current selloff. The opportunity is not created simply because semiconductor stocks are down. It is created when a severe decline reaches a technical level strong enough to improve the probability of a reaction. SanDisk offers one of the clearest examples. The stock has fallen approximately 50% to 55% from its highs and may ultimately reach a 60% drawdown, but price is approaching a major support zone near $1,000 where three separate technical structures converge.

That area includes horizontal support, a gradually rising trendline connecting prior pivots, and a steeper ascending trendline. The combination creates the type of multi-factor setup Gareth prioritizes. A confirmed reversal from that zone would open the door to a bounce toward the $1,285 to $1,300 area. The decline alone is not the signal. The signal is the decline arriving at a level where several independent technical factors begin pointing to the same conclusion.

VRT is developing a similar structure. The stock suffered a major earnings flush before recovering, but renewed selling would bring the $231 gap window back into focus. The stronger swing level sits closer to $200, where a psychological round number, a major pivot high, and a deeper gap fill align. That lower area provides more meaningful confluence than simply reacting to the first support level price touches.

The Two-Factor Rule Matters More When Volatility Increases

The central trading lesson from today’s market is Gareth’s two-factor rule. A setup becomes actionable only when at least two legitimate technical factors align near the same price. One trendline, one Fibonacci level, or one gap may create a reaction, but a single factor does not provide the statistical edge required for a high-conviction swing setup.

“What we found statistically is that when you have two factors that are legitimate, you have about a 75% chance of success,” Gareth said. “Not 100%. There’s no such thing. But if I can win three out of every four times, it’s golden.”

Oil demonstrates why that discipline is necessary. Crude is up roughly 7% as geopolitical tensions escalate, but the chart does not currently offer the same multi-factor opportunity that supported Gareth’s previous short near the highs. That earlier trade combined a 50% Fibonacci retracement with a major trendline. Today’s price action is compressing inside a large wedge, but the second confirming factor is missing. Without it, the correct decision is not to chase the breakout or blindly short the move. It is to wait.

Bloom Energy shows the opposite setup. The stock had already declined approximately 55% in one month before reporting earnings, bringing price into major support and lowering expectations significantly. When the company delivered solid results and raised guidance, the stock bounced sharply. The earnings report acted as the catalyst, but the technical setup existed because the stock had already reached a multi-factor support zone after an extreme drawdown.

Other earnings names do not yet offer the same quality. STX rose approximately 5% to 6% in premarket trading after strong results and improved guidance, but the chart lacks a clean swing structure. Aggressive traders may focus on the $814 to $815 gap-fill area, but that is a shorter-term reaction level rather than a high-conviction swing setup. SoFi has support near $15, yet it also lacks the multiple layers of confluence required for a longer hold. The discipline is in recognizing the difference.

Gold, Bitcoin, and the Levels That Will Confirm the Next Move

Gold is forming one of the market’s clearest compression patterns. Price is trapped between converging trendlines, creating a wedge that continues to narrow. As the range tightens, volatility is being stored rather than eliminated. By approximately August 14, the chart will have little room left to continue sideways, increasing the probability of a decisive breakout.

The direction remains unconfirmed, which is why Gareth is not treating the pattern as a prediction. His accumulation plan is centered near $3,500, where he would begin building exposure gradually rather than attempting to identify the exact bottom. Silver remains technically weaker and is moving sideways with a downside bias, but the $50 area stands out as a logical level for a starter position.

Bitcoin is also approaching a defined decision zone. Support sits between $62,500 and $63,000, and holding that range keeps the broader structure constructive. The upside trigger is a decisive daily close above $67,000. Clearing that level would confirm a breakout from the current consolidation and increase the probability of a move toward $71,000.

The important point is not whether a trader is bullish or bearish on Bitcoin, gold, semiconductors, or the Fed. The chart must be allowed to override the opinion. A thesis can remain valid for weeks and then become invalid in a single session when price closes through a major structural level. Traders who remain loyal to their original narrative after the chart changes are often the ones who turn manageable losses into major ones.

Position Sizing Is Part of the Setup

Today’s volatility also reinforces why position sizing cannot be separated from technical analysis. Retail traders often treat a support level as a demand to commit their entire position immediately. Gareth’s approach is different. When price reaches a major area such as gold near $3,500 or silver near $50, the first step is to initiate a smaller position and allow the market to provide additional information.

“The mindset of a great trader is not to hit the exact bottom and go all in,” Gareth said. “They start small positions. If the thesis is still there and it goes against them, they keep adding as long as the thesis holds.”

Legging into a position acknowledges that even a strong technical level may be temporarily breached before reversing. It gives the trader room to manage volatility without abandoning the original framework or exhausting capital at the first price. More importantly, it removes the psychological pressure of needing to be perfect. The objective is not to buy the exact low. It is to build exposure around a high-probability zone while the technical thesis remains intact.

Bottom Line

Today’s market is forcing traders to operate without the certainty they usually receive before a Federal Reserve decision. That uncertainty is contributing to violent moves in global equities, semiconductor stocks, commodities, and cryptocurrencies, but it is also creating better technical opportunities for those willing to wait.

The lesson from Gareth’s framework is straightforward: do not predict when the market can confirm. The KOSPI may be approaching a relief-rally zone, SanDisk may be nearing a major three-factor support cluster, gold is running out of room inside its wedge, and Bitcoin has clearly defined support and breakout levels. None of those setups requires blind conviction.

The edge comes from demanding multiple technical factors, waiting for price confirmation, and sizing positions so that one volatile candle does not control the outcome. On a day defined by uncertainty, disciplined execution matters more than correctly guessing the headline.

The currency market is approaching a decision point that traders should not ignore. The U.S. Dollar Index is compressing into a narrowing range on the daily chart, while USD/JPY is trading at its highest level since 1986, meaning the yen itself is at its weakest point in roughly four decades. Both stories are connected, and together they set the tone for how gold, Bitcoin, and oil are likely to trade over the coming weeks.

The dollar index functions as the measuring stick for nearly every other asset, and right now that measuring stick is squeezed between two converging trend lines on the daily chart. A resolution is close.

USD/JPY at a Four-Decade High

The standout development this week is in USD/JPY. The pair has pushed to its highest level since the late 1980s near 163, a level so rare that the last comparable stretch of dollar strength against the yen predates most current retail trading accounts entirely. On the long-term chart, an ascending trend line that previously acted as resistance on the way up has flipped into support underneath price, with the prior swing high near 160.40 serving as the reference pivot for that shift.

The scale of the move matters less than the location: price is holding above a support zone that has not been tested from this height in roughly four decades. That combination of historic significance and trend line support is why this pair deserves attention above the other currencies covered here. A close back below the 160.40 pivot would be the first real sign this extreme run is losing momentum, while continued closes above 163 would confirm the trend is still intact.

The Dollar's Decision Window

The DXY weekly chart shows a descending trend line that was briefly broken to the upside before price fell back beneath it and retested the same area. On the daily chart, the index has carved out a rising support line off its recent lows near 100.60 to 100.80, while that weekly trend line caps the upside closer to 102.50. DXY last traded near 101.50, sitting almost exactly between the two boundaries, and the chart is running out of room.

A confirmed daily close above 102.50 would mark a fresh multi-month high, reinforcing the USD/JPY breakout and pressuring the euro and pound. A confirmed close below 100.60 would be the first real crack in the current dollar trend, likely coinciding with near-term relief in gold, Bitcoin, and oil, though oil remains just as sensitive to supply and geopolitical developments as it is to the dollar.

Euro and Pound: Confirmation or Pushback

EUR/USD broke above a multi-month resistance line earlier this year, pulled back to retest it, and is now consolidating in the 1.1370 to 1.1400 zone, just above that former resistance. The pair has tested this area more than once without a clean rebound, which suggests buyers are not stepping in with much conviction. A confirmed close back below 1.1370 would open the door to the prior swing low as the next support reference, while a reclaim of 1.1450 would argue the euro is decoupling from dollar strength.

GBP/USD is running into resistance in the 1.3340 to 1.3360 zone after a series of lower highs, but it has also built a rising trend line off its recent lows near 1.3250 to 1.3260. A confirmed close below that rising support would point back toward the prior pivot low in the same region as the next level to watch, while a break above 1.3360 would suggest sterling is holding up better than the euro against continued dollar strength.

Both pairs are useful confirmation tools for the DXY thesis specifically because they sit near their own decision points at the same time. If DXY breaks higher while EUR/USD and GBP/USD both lose their support zones, that is a coherent, broad-based dollar move rather than an isolated one.

Key Levels to Monitor

What to Watch Next

The dollar index is the pivot point for the entire group. Its resolution out of the current trend line squeeze, expected within the next several weeks, is the single most important signal to watch, and it should be read alongside how EUR/USD and GBP/USD behave at their own decision levels rather than in isolation.

For USD/JPY specifically, the level to track is whether price holds above the 160.40 pivot on a closing basis. A breakdown through that zone from a four-decade high would be a significant structural event for the pair, while continued closes above 163 would suggest this extreme run still has room to extend.

Process Over Prediction

None of this is about calling an exact top or bottom. It is about recognizing that the dollar index is compressed into a decision zone at the same moment USD/JPY sits at a multi-decade extreme with a clearly defined pivot beneath it. When several major pairs approach decision points together, the outcome tends to matter beyond the currency market itself, since a broad dollar move typically shows up next in gold, Bitcoin, and, to a lesser extent, oil. The discipline is watching for confirmed closes rather than reacting to the first intraday move, and treating this as a probability-based setup rather than a forecast.

You can view yesterday's pro-chart videos below. 

https://verifiedinvesting.com/blogs/pro-charts-stocks-etfs/apple-rips-while-nvidia-wobbles-the-weeks-critical-levels

https://verifiedinvesting.com/blogs/pro-charts-crypto/five-crypto-charts-and-the-levels-that-decide-them

Watch on YouTube

Dow Strength Masks a Tech Breakdown Ahead of the Fed

The headline into Tuesday’s close was a 500-point rally in the Dow, but the more important signal was the rotation underneath it. Capital moved away from semiconductors and broader growth exposure while flowing into traditional equities, defensive names, and select mega-cap leaders. With the Federal Reserve decision and major technology earnings arriving tomorrow, the market is not moving as one. It is separating strength from weakness.

That divergence matters more than the positive index finish. The Dow gained 1.03%, while the semiconductor ETF fell 3.45% and the Nasdaq 100 declined 0.97%. The S&P 500 remained positive, but its sideways price action concealed clear pressure beneath the surface. As Drew Dosek explained during Trading the Close, selling was weighing on parts of the market even as buyers continued supporting the S&P 500 and Dow. The result was rotation, not broad-based risk appetite.

The Dow Rallied, but Technology Lost Leadership

Apple was one of the clearest beneficiaries of that rotation. The stock continued attracting capital while semiconductor names weakened, but it is also approaching a major technical test. Apple is trading near the upper boundary of a parallel channel dating back to January 2023, placing resistance around $339 to $340.

The S&P 500 is holding up better than the technology-heavy indexes, although the daily chart is developing a short-term bear flag. The constructive detail is the repeated late-session buying visible in three of the last four candles. Buyers have continued stepping in near the lows and pushing price higher into the close.

That support remains important near 734.01, where an older parallel-channel boundary has already produced two reactions. Minor support sits near 730, followed by the more consequential level at 710.31. The index has not broken down, but tomorrow’s catalysts will test whether late-day support can overcome weakening market breadth.

Semiconductor Weakness Confirms the Rotation

The semiconductor ETF delivered the clearest evidence that technology leadership is under pressure. SMH fell 3.45% and confirmed a breakdown from the rising parallel channel that began near the April 2025 lows.

Once confirmed support breaks, that level often becomes resistance. SMH now faces minor resistance near $544.61 and a larger structural barrier around $580.09. Continued weakness brings $508.58 into focus as the next major support level.

The Nasdaq 100 is showing a similar loss of momentum, although its closing action leaves room for a short-term bounce. QQQ finished directly above support at $674.90 and printed a narrow candle with a lower wick, showing that buyers defended the level into the bell.

QQQ has already broken below a larger trendline, which raises the probability of a retracement toward that broken structure. Markets rarely decline in a straight line, and former support is often retested as resistance. That places $695.25 as the logical upside test if the bounce develops. Below $674.90, the next major support sits near $652.13.

Earnings Reinforce the Value of Structure

The same technical framework was visible in several earnings reactions. Bloom Energy entered its report after falling roughly 50% from its June 25 high and reaching the lower boundary of a major parallel channel. The stock then jumped after hours toward $181.50.

Drew highlighted the setup because the risk was defined by the structure. Price had already experienced a sharp decline into major support, limiting how far a trader had to reach for a technical thesis. Even if the stock had broken the channel after earnings, broken parallel structures frequently attract a retracement, offering a framework for managing the position rather than reacting emotionally to the headline.

Seagate also rallied after earnings and is now approaching a major trendline resistance near $850. That line connects the November 2025 and January 2026 pivot highs and has repeatedly produced strong reactions. It should be treated as a decision level rather than an automatic breakout point.

Corning provided the opposite setup. After falling sharply from its June high, the stock bounced from a trendline connected to the April 8 low. With RSI near 30.67, GLW is deeply oversold and positioned for a relief rally toward the $150.14 gap-fill area.

These individual reactions support the broader market message. Capital is not rewarding technology uniformly. It is becoming selective, favoring stocks with clearly defined support while punishing names that lose important structure.

Silver Shows Why the Plan Matters More Than the Prediction

The strongest educational takeaway from the session came from Silver. The metal fell roughly 2% and continues moving toward a major support test near $50. Drew views that area as a potential accumulation level for physical silver, but the trade framework matters more than the level itself.

“The best way to trade, go in with a plan,” Drew explained. “I’m looking to buy this until it gets to the top of the parallel channel. But I’m going to also admit to myself, what if I’m wrong?”

That question separates disciplined trading from emotional trading. A trader who commits too much capital at $50 has little flexibility if support fails. A trader who begins with a smaller position preserves the ability to add at the next major support near $32.

The goal is not to predict the exact bottom. It is to define position size before volatility arrives. By planning for the possibility of being wrong, the trader removes the need to make emotional decisions while price is moving.

Gold remains under pressure beneath a declining trendline identified on July 22. The 10-year Treasury yield pulled back slightly, which would normally support precious metals, but technical resistance continues to control the chart. That is another reminder that price structure can outweigh the expected reaction to a macro input.

Tomorrow’s Catalysts Will Test the Rotation

The 10-year yield remains trapped between support at 4.543% and resistance at 4.715%. A resolution from that range could help determine the next broader move in equities, especially as the market processes the Federal Reserve decision.

Oil also broke below an important trendline after spending much of the session testing support. The broken line now becomes resistance near $86.47, while the next significant support rests near $72.70.

Bitcoin remains defensive after closing below a parallel structure. Bulls need a daily close back above $64,508 to repair the chart and restore positive momentum. Until then, the breakdown risk remains active.

Bottom Line

Tomorrow’s Federal Reserve decision and mega-cap earnings may determine the market’s next directional move, but Tuesday’s close already revealed where institutional capital is becoming more selective.

The Dow’s strength did not represent broad market confidence. It reflected rotation away from semiconductors and weaker technology exposure toward defensive leadership and technically stronger names. As long as that divergence continues, traders should judge the market by what is leading beneath the indexes, not by the headline point gain.

The operator takeaway is straightforward: respect confirmed breakdowns, identify where capital is rotating, and define the plan before price reaches the level. Tomorrow’s catalysts may create the volatility, but today’s structure already showed where the pressure is building.

Metals and energy are telling two different stories on the same chart page this session. Gold and silver are both carving out reversal structures after sharp pullbacks, while crude oil is unwinding a large extended move to the upside. That divergence matters: gold and silver are testing structures that have historically preceded upside reversals, while oil is breaking below levels that previously acted as support, favoring further downside before any stabilization.

Of the three, silver offers the cleanest developing reversal pattern, while oil currently provides the more immediate signal, since its support break is already confirmed rather than pending.

Gold: Channel Support Meets a Developing Reversal Pattern

Gold has spent recent sessions working inside a downsloping parallel channel, breaking above it and retracing back toward the channel line. That retrace is worth watching closely, since the first pullback after a channel breakout often acts as a meaningful test of whether the breakout holds as support.

Layered on top is a developing inverse head and shoulders pattern; not a textbook formation, but the shoulder-head-shoulder sequence is visible, and the measured move it implies projects roughly a 9% advance toward the $4,500 region if it completes. The more important reference point below current levels is the support zone near $3,885, tied to the late-October lows from last year. That level supports the broader bounce thesis, though the pattern still needs to confirm. Confirmation would come from a daily close back above the channel's trendline rather than an intraday poke through it.

Silver: The Cleanest Setup of the Group

Silver is working through a nearly identical structure to gold: a downsloping parallel channel with a break and retrace, with price testing a support zone near $54.50 almost precisely. That level is the line in the sand for the bounce case; a move back below it, particularly a full retrace to the channel's trendline, would put silver into the sub-$54 region and argue for waiting on further confirmation rather than treating the level as an automatic floor.

What separates silver from gold is the clarity of its own inverse head and shoulders pattern. The left shoulder, head, and right shoulder are more cleanly defined here, though the right shoulder has not fully formed. Should the pattern complete and break higher, the measured move projects roughly a 12% advance toward the $66 region. The pattern is invalidated if price breaks below the head, so until the right shoulder confirms, this remains a developing setup rather than a completed one.

Crude Oil: A Confirmed Break, Not Just a Pullback

Crude oil is the mirror image of the metals setup, and it is further along in confirming its move. The advance from its recent lows ran approximately 38%, a large enough run that a pullback would be expected on its own. What elevates this beyond a routine pullback is that price has already broken below a cluster of prior support levels in the $118 to $119 area, turning what was support into resistance on any bounce. That break favors a move toward the $105 to $108 range, with the $100 psychological level as the next major reference point. A bounce ahead of $100 is the more likely structural outcome, though whether oil eventually reclaims the broken zone or continues lower is an open question the next several sessions should help answer.

Secondary Watchlist

A few related setups are worth a brief mention without shifting focus from the primary thesis. Natural gas broke down from an ascending triangle and has based near $2.60 to $2.70, with next support near $2.50. Palladium and platinum are both giving mixed-to-bearish signals, with palladium contesting support near $1,085 against resistance near $1,400, and platinum working through a bear flag that favors continuation lower toward the $1,500 to $1,440 zone.

Confirmation, Invalidation, and the Bigger Picture

None of these setups are certainties, and the hierarchy above reflects that: silver is the cleanest pattern still developing, gold is a step behind it, and oil is the one where the technical break has already happened. For the metals bounce case, the signal to watch is a daily close back above the respective channel trendlines on gold and silver, alongside continued development of their inverse head and shoulders patterns. A daily close back below $3,885 on gold or $54.50 on silver would undercut the bounce thesis. For oil, a daily close back above the $118 to $119 zone would invalidate the breakdown case; absent that, the path of least resistance points toward $105 to $108 ahead of $100. The value in laying these out side by side is trading each as it confirms, not anticipating it prematurely.

Watch on YouTube

The NASDAQ Trendline That Will Decide Whether the Semiconductor Selloff Spreads

The semiconductor selloff is no longer just a reaction to crowded positioning or isolated earnings disappointments. Gareth Soloway’s central read from this morning’s My Trading Game Plan was that the assumptions supporting the artificial intelligence trade are beginning to face a more serious test. Rising competition, peak-cycle margins, and forced deleveraging are changing how the market values the companies that led the previous advance. The level that now decides whether this remains a concentrated industry unwind or develops into a broader technology correction is the multi-year trendline being tested by the NASDAQ 100.

That distinction is important because the damage beneath the major indices is already substantial. Several AI-adjacent companies have lost roughly half their value within weeks, even while the S&P 500 has remained comparatively stable. The headline is that semiconductor stocks are falling. The deeper signal is that capital is beginning to separate companies with durable earnings support from those whose valuations depended on unusually high margins, uninterrupted demand, and continued investor enthusiasm.

Semiconductor Margins Are Facing Their First Real Test

For much of the AI-led advance, semiconductor companies were treated as though exceptional growth and unusually strong margins could continue without meaningful competition. Gareth’s argument was that this expectation ignored one of the most reliable forces in business: high returns attract new supply.

When a product produces margins that are difficult to find elsewhere, competitors have a powerful incentive to enter the market. That process may take time, especially in technically complex industries, but it eventually affects pricing power. The current pressure from Chinese semiconductor manufacturers suggests that this competitive phase is moving from a theoretical future risk into a factor the market must begin pricing today.

Chinese companies are making progress in areas previously dominated by Western manufacturers, including lithography equipment and memory chips. The source article highlights Shanghai Yulin Cheng as a developing competitor in lithography systems and CXMT as a growing memory-chip producer challenging companies such as Micron and Sandisk. Even when those products do not yet match the highest-end technology available from established leaders, the direction matters because expanding supply can weaken the assumption that current profit margins will remain intact indefinitely.

This is where semiconductor valuation becomes counterintuitive. A low price-to-earnings ratio can look attractive, but cyclical companies often appear cheapest when their earnings are near a peak. If margins are temporarily elevated, the denominator in the valuation ratio is also elevated, making the stock look less expensive immediately before profitability begins to weaken.

The reverse can also be true. Cyclical semiconductor companies may appear expensive, or may not have meaningful earnings at all, near the bottom of the cycle. That is often when excess supply has already been absorbed, expectations have been reset, and future margin expansion becomes possible. The lesson is not that investors should automatically buy high-multiple chip stocks. It is that a low multiple alone does not prove a semiconductor stock is undervalued.

The market is beginning to reassess these companies through that cyclical framework. What looked like a permanent AI earnings boom is being tested by the same forces that have shaped earlier semiconductor cycles: new competition, expanding capacity, lower prices, and pressure on margins.

The NASDAQ Trendline Is the Market’s Decision Point

The semiconductor decline becomes a broader market problem only if it begins damaging the structure of the major technology indices. That is why Gareth focused on the long-term trendline now being tested by the NASDAQ 100.

The line connects a major high from the 2021 bull market with a later pivot high in October 2025. Price came down and tested that structure as the NASDAQ’s decline from its recent peak approached 9%. The market can trade through a trendline intraday without confirming a structural break. The closing price is what determines whether buyers successfully defended the level or whether the broader trend has begun to change.

A close on or above the trendline would keep the structure intact and favor a multi-day relief bounce. That would suggest the semiconductor damage remains severe but has not yet spread far enough to break the broader technology trend. A decisive daily close below the line would carry a different message. It would confirm that selling pressure has moved beyond individual AI names and into the index structure itself.

The next major downside area would then sit near the former highs established during 2025 and early 2026. Based on Gareth’s framework, that could produce another 1,500 to 2,000 points of downside and take the total NASDAQ decline toward approximately 15% from its peak. The exact outcome is not predetermined, but the trendline gives traders a clear way to separate an oversold correction from a more serious technical breakdown.

This is the most important level in the article because it organizes the rest of the market analysis. Semiconductor stocks have already experienced crash-like declines. The NASDAQ has not yet confirmed that the broader technology trend is broken. The closing action around this line will determine whether the current weakness remains concentrated or becomes the next leg of a larger market correction.

Leverage Is Accelerating the Decline

The speed of the selloff cannot be explained by weaker fundamentals alone. Gareth also pointed to the unwinding of leverage accumulated during the euphoric stage of the AI rally.

When prices rise consistently, leverage can appear to improve returns without adding immediate risk. Traders may control several dollars of stock for every dollar of their own capital, while institutions can increase exposure because volatility appears low and market leadership appears dependable. The risk becomes visible only after the trend reverses.

Once heavily owned stocks begin falling, margin calls and risk limits force investors to reduce positions. That selling is not always based on a fresh opinion about a company’s long-term value. It can be mechanical. Falling prices require additional capital, and investors unable or unwilling to provide it must liquidate. Those liquidations create further declines, which generate more margin pressure and another round of selling.

Corning illustrates how quickly that process can unfold. The company plays an important role in AI infrastructure because its fiber-optic products are used in data-center construction. Despite reporting solid earnings, slightly weaker forward guidance triggered a sharp premarket decline. According to the source material, the stock had fallen roughly 56% from its recent high in less than a month.

Sandisk experienced a similarly violent drawdown, losing approximately half its value over roughly the same period. Moves of that size in companies with large market capitalizations justify describing the price action as a crash within those individual stocks, even if the broader index has not experienced the same percentage decline.

The opportunity for disciplined swing traders appears when forced selling reaches major technical support. Gareth identified $120 as the key support area for Corning, with a hold opening the door to a retracement toward $148. The point is not that every stock down 50% should be bought. The edge comes from waiting until extreme downside momentum reaches a level where prior price structure supports a probability-weighted bounce.

Several levels in the original source material for Sandisk and Micron appear internally inconsistent and should be verified before publication. Those figures are not necessary to the central thesis. The more useful takeaway is that severe declines are approaching longer-term support zones, where traders can evaluate whether forced liquidation is becoming exhausted.

Rotation Is Happening Inside Technology

The weakness in semiconductors does not mean capital is leaving technology uniformly. Beneath the index, money appears to be rotating away from hardware and into software companies that were already heavily discounted.

Microsoft, Meta, and Oracle were among the names showing improving relative strength as semiconductor companies continued to fall. Oracle provides the clearest example of how far expectations had already been reset. After declining from approximately $250 to a recent low near $115, the stock began forming a technical setup that Gareth believes favors a snapback toward $140.

That rotation matters because it shows the market is not abandoning growth assets indiscriminately. Investors are distinguishing between groups. Semiconductor companies that benefited most from the AI infrastructure narrative are being repriced as competition and margin concerns increase, while software companies that had already experienced deep declines are beginning to attract capital.

This internal rotation also helps explain why the major indices have not fallen as sharply as some individual AI names. Strength in software and other large-cap companies can partially offset weakness in hardware. The NASDAQ trendline therefore remains the better market-wide signal. As long as the index holds that structure, the market may be rotating rather than fully breaking down.

Apple sits outside that rebound framework. Gareth’s chart read suggests the stock becomes more attractive as a potential short setup if it extends above $340. That reinforces the importance of treating each chart according to its own structure rather than assuming every large technology stock should respond the same way to sector rotation.

Bitcoin Is Showing the Most Important Relative Strength

Bitcoin may be providing the clearest evidence that this is not yet a broad liquidation across every risk asset. Despite the sharp declines in technology and semiconductor stocks, Bitcoin has maintained its structure comparatively well.

Since June, Bitcoin has outperformed the NASDAQ, S&P 500, gold, and silver based on the source article’s comparison. It remains below its recent highs, but it has not followed AI-related stocks into a similar collapse. As long as Bitcoin continues holding its key pivot support areas, Gareth’s technical framework leaves room for another move toward the $71,000 to $72,000 zone.

That relative strength is more useful than making a broad claim that Bitcoin has permanently decoupled from technology. One period of outperformance does not prove that the asset will behave independently during every equity decline. It does show that sellers are currently treating Bitcoin differently from the most crowded parts of the AI trade.

For macro traders, that creates an important confirmation signal. If the NASDAQ loses its long-term trendline while Bitcoin continues holding its structure, the divergence becomes more meaningful. It would suggest capital is not simply reducing all risk exposure. Instead, investors may be rotating toward assets whose positioning, supply dynamics, or institutional use cases differ from those of highly valued semiconductor companies.

The Bottom Line

The semiconductor selloff is exposing the weaknesses that were hidden during the strongest phase of the AI rally. Exceptional margins attracted competition, high earnings made cyclical valuations look deceptively cheap, and widespread leverage increased the speed of the decline once the trend reversed.

The market-level decision has not yet been made. That decision sits at the long-term NASDAQ 100 trendline. A daily close on or above it keeps the broader structure intact and favors a relief bounce, even if individual semiconductor stocks remain damaged. A decisive close below it would confirm that the weakness has spread beyond a crowded sector trade and into the larger technology trend.

Software rotation and Bitcoin’s relative strength show that capital is still distinguishing between assets rather than selling everything equally. The market is not reacting to one earnings report or one headline. It is repricing where future margins, positioning, and technical structure still justify risk.

That is the framework traders should carry forward. The semiconductor crash explains where the pressure began. The NASDAQ trendline will show whether it spreads.

Bitcoin remains the reference point for the rest of the crypto market, and its current chart is a study in indecision rather than direction. After breaking down from a large head and shoulders top and failing to sustain that decline, price has spent recent sessions locked inside a narrow consolidation. That compression tends to resolve directionally, and how it resolves will likely set the tone for Ethereum, XRP, Sui, and Hyperliquid as well.

Rather than treating each of these five charts as an isolated call, the more useful approach is laying out the specific levels that would confirm or invalidate the structure developing on each one. None of these setups are complete. That is exactly why the levels matter more than the story around them.

Bitcoin: A Neckline Retest Inside a Larger Range

Bitcoin's dominant pattern is still the large head and shoulders top that has defined its chart for months. Within that broader structure, price has carved out a potential inverse head and shoulders following a sharp bounce off its most recent low, a recovery move of roughly eleven to fifteen percent. That bounce has since compressed into a tight range just beneath the neckline of the shorter-term pattern. A daily close back below that range, followed by a neckline retest that fails to hold, would tilt near-term bias back toward the downside and in line with the larger bearish structure. A daily close that holds above the range instead supports the case that the shorter-term reversal has further room to run. This is the neckline that matters most right now, because every other chart here is, to some degree, waiting on Bitcoin to show its hand.

Ethereum: The Two Thousand Dollar Battleground

Ethereum has climbed inside an upward-sloping channel, adding more than thirty percent since the end of June. That advance now runs into the two thousand dollar level, a zone that has repeatedly acted as both support and resistance across Ethereum's trading history. A confirmed daily close above it opens the door toward the upper twenty-two hundred region. Losing the trend line that has supported this rally, by contrast, puts the seventeen hundred dollar area back in focus as the next support. Two thousand dollars is the fulcrum. Everything else on this chart is secondary to whether Ethereum can close above it and hold.

XRP: A Trend Line Under Pressure

XRP has lagged the broader market and is currently testing a descending trend line connecting its February and March pivot highs. A confirmed break would open the door to a further decline of roughly three percent, with the dollar level and the mid-nineties-cents zone standing out as the areas where a bounce becomes more likely. Both correspond to prior swing highs, which tend to carry weight as reference points once price revisits them. Holding above the trend line keeps structure more neutral; a confirmed break below it shifts bias toward those lower levels.

Sui: A Support Zone Beneath a Broken Trend Line

Sui has already broken its prior upward-sloping trend line, attempted a partial retracement, and continued lower without fully reclaiming that structure. The chart is now watching two support areas: a zone in the mid-sixty-cent range, and a lower pivot from around October 10. Both are drawn from prior price action rather than round numbers, which gives them more structural weight. A hold at either level would be the first sign selling pressure is exhausting itself. A break of both suggests the downtrend still has room to extend.

Hyperliquid: Watching the Trend Line Near Its Highs

Hyperliquid has decoupled from the rest of the group, trading closer to its own highs while the other four names sit well off theirs. The key structure is an ascending trend line that has supported price throughout its advance. A confirmed break in the mid-fifty-dollar region would open the door to a decline toward the thirty-seven dollar area, a level tied to a prior measured move. Until that trend line breaks on a confirmed basis, the structure remains intact and this stays a setup to monitor rather than act on preemptively.

Key Levels to Monitor

What to Watch Next

Bitcoin's neckline resolution is the variable to track first, since altcoins have historically taken direction from Bitcoin rather than setting it independently. The same discipline applies everywhere: confirmation requires a daily close, not an intraday touch. Sui has already broken its trend line and is now testing whether that break holds. XRP is still testing its trend line without a confirmed close beyond it, keeping it in the developing category. Hyperliquid's trend line has not broken at all.

Conclusion: Structure Before Conviction

Bitcoin decides the group first, since its neckline resolution is the input every other chart is implicitly reacting to. Ethereum offers the cleanest upside confirmation, provided it closes and holds above two thousand dollars. XRP and Sui are the weaker structures, one still testing a trend line and one already through it and searching for support. Hyperliquid remains the outlier and only turns bearish if its own trend line finally gives way. None of that is a prediction. It is a hierarchy built from where each chart sits, and it changes the moment a level confirms or fails.

Watch on YouTube

Flat Indexes, Weak Semiconductors: The Market’s Real Signal Into the Fed

The major indexes finished with little visible damage, but the close understated the weakness developing beneath the surface. Semiconductor selling intensified, several bullish chart structures failed, and investors appeared to reduce risk ahead of a dense stretch of mega-cap earnings and the Federal Open Market Committee decision. In the latest Trading the Close Market Recap, Pro Trader Drew Dosek focused less on the flat headline close and more on what the market’s internal structure was signaling underneath it.

The Macro Backdrop: Earnings, the Fed, and Geopolitics

This week brings earnings from several major technology companies, including Apple, Microsoft, Meta, Robinhood, and Arm. At the same time, renewed geopolitical tension in the Middle East continues to influence commodity prices and investor risk appetite. Those catalysts are arriving into a market that was already showing signs of hesitation, making position management more important than predicting the next headline.

The central event is Wednesday afternoon’s FOMC decision. The market remains focused not only on whether rates change at this meeting, but also on how officials frame the path into September. With no scheduled meeting in August, a pause now would shift more attention toward the next decision and the data released between meetings.

That uncertainty helps explain the muted action in the major indexes. Investors do not need to become outright bearish to reduce exposure before a binary event. As Drew explained, trimming positions ahead of major announcements can be a rational way to manage the risk of a sharper selloff if the market reacts poorly.

“It makes sense for investors to trim a little bit of their positions going into these big announcements coming up just to protect themselves in case we do see harder selling pressure.”

The S&P 500 and Nasdaq: Weakness Beneath the Close

The S&P 500 ended the session close to flat, but the intraday action was less constructive than the final number suggested. Sellers controlled much of the day before a late rally prevented the index from closing near the bottom of its range. That recovery softened the appearance of the session without resolving the resistance sitting overhead.

Price has now spent three consecutive sessions closing in a narrow range beneath a declining trend line. That type of compression below resistance can signal distribution when buyers repeatedly fail to produce a clean breakout. The next important support sits near 733.28 on the rising trend line that helped stabilize the prior two declines.

The Nasdaq, tracked through QQQ, is already showing more visible technical damage. After closing below its key trend line late last week, the ETF extended the breakdown during Monday’s session. The former support now becomes resistance near $695.64, while $674.90 remains the next meaningful downside level.

That divergence is important. The broader market has not broken decisively, but technology leadership is weakening ahead of the week’s largest catalysts. Until QQQ reclaims broken resistance or semiconductor selling stabilizes, the flat index close should not be mistaken for healthy internal structure.

Semiconductors Are the Market’s Main Pressure Point

The most important development into the close was the continued weakness in semiconductors. SMH fell 2.25% and tested the upper boundary of a rising parallel channel that has guided price since the April 2025 lows. Because chips remain one of the market’s most influential leadership groups, continued weakness in the sector has the potential to spread into the broader indexes.

Drew framed semiconductors as the group to watch for confirmation that the selling is becoming more systemic.

“Pay attention to the semis. That likely is going to start spilling out and bleeding over to the rest of the markets if the semis continue to remain under pressure.”

A deeper decline in SMH would bring the median line of the older parallel channel into focus near $508.20. On the upside, any relief rally would first need to work through resistance near the previous head and shoulders neckline at $578.24.

The fundamental pressure came from growing competition in the memory-chip industry. China’s CXMT entered the public market with a sharp initial surge, drawing attention to the threat of new supply in a business where AI-related demand has supported unusually strong margins. The market’s concern is not simply that another company entered the space. It is that additional production capacity could begin pressuring the margins currently supporting U.S. memory names.

As Drew put it:

“If you’re making 80-plus-percent margins, who doesn’t want a piece of that pie?”

That concern weighed on SanDisk and Micron before spreading into the broader chip complex. Nvidia fell nearly 5% and broke below the lows of a failed bullish consolidation. Failed breakouts matter because traders who entered on the initial move are often forced to exit once price reverses back through the pattern.

“What happens whenever you have a failed move on a chart, you have some of the biggest moves in the opposite direction,” Drew explained.

Nvidia’s break below its July 17 low puts the lower boundary of its parallel channel near $191.88 in play. Beneath that, the next major structural support sits near $179.74. AMD also confirmed a break from its own rising channel, leaving resistance near $544.23 and bringing lower support near $447.37 into focus.

Commodities: Risk Premiums Come Out of the Market

Commodity markets reflected the same broader theme of rapid repricing around uncertain catalysts. U.S. oil fell 9.52% as part of the geopolitical premium embedded in the recent advance came out of the market. Price is now approaching a support zone between $81.33 and $80.00.

Any renewed escalation in the Middle East could quickly restore part of that premium, but the technical map remains clear. Near-term resistance sits at $87.07, while the longer-term rising trend line projects closer to $96.44 if oil eventually resumes its advance.

Gold remains trapped below a declining trend line and still needs additional consolidation before a sustainable breakout develops. Resistance sits near $4,096, while downside support remains near $3,886.

Silver is showing stronger relative structure. Price broke above its declining trend line, retested the breakout area, and continued higher. The next resistance sits near $63.26, although the larger chart still leaves open the possibility of a retracement toward the longer-term trend line near $49.71.

Natural gas offered a reminder that an attempted breakout is not the same as a confirmed one. After consolidating near the top of its range and briefly pressing above trend line resistance, price failed to hold the move and slipped back to support near $2.75.

A loss of that level would bring the April low near $2.53 into view. To improve the technical structure, buyers need to push natural gas back above $2.90 and hold it there.

Bitcoin remained comparatively quiet over the weekend and continues to trade within a defined technical range. Daily closes above $64,536 are needed to preserve the current parallel channel, while the high pivot near $67,264 remains the next major resistance.

Software Strength Creates an Important Divergence

While semiconductors weakened, capital rotated into several software names. That relative strength does not erase the deterioration in chips, but it shows that investors are still willing to buy selective areas rather than abandon technology broadly.

Oracle gained 4.27% and closed above support near $118.86. The stock is attempting to build a base after a prolonged decline, with broken trend line resistance near $143.00 serving as the next major upside reference. If the current base gives way, support near $103.82 becomes more important.

Atlassian rose roughly 10% and pushed back toward the midpoint of its declining parallel channel. Repeated tests of that area suggest buyers are applying more pressure, with resistance near $120.09 ahead of the company’s August 6 earnings report.

Workday followed with a 9% advance and returned to the upper portion of its prior consolidation range. The recent sequence of higher lows supports a continued push toward $158.66 and potentially $173.58, provided the rising support near $135.03 remains intact into its August 20 earnings report.

The software rally is useful as a measure of rotation, but it is not yet enough to offset the weakness in semiconductors. The more important question is whether that strength broadens or remains concentrated in a small group of names.

Viewer Requests: Support Tests and Breakdown Risk

Lumentum was rejected from a declining trend line and returned to the lower boundary of its parallel channel. This is now the fourth test of the same support area, and repeated tests tend to weaken a level because each bounce absorbs additional demand.

Price also tested the area recently on July 17, reducing the time available for buyers to rebuild support. The setup therefore leans toward a breakdown, with the next major level sitting near $616.99.

Iris Energy confirmed a break below its rising trend line, turning the former support into resistance near $39.04. With several resistance levels now stacked above price, the chart continues to favor a move toward lower support near $30.76.

Wolfspeed presented a different type of setup. The stock has fallen sharply into a long-term trend line connecting major lows from September and March, while the daily RSI has moved below 30 and the candle is attempting to form a bottoming tail.

That combination creates the conditions for an oversold countertrend bounce. The first recovery level sits near $29.00, with additional upside toward $33.85 if buyers can generate follow-through from the trend line.

Bottom Line

The market did not suffer a decisive index breakdown into the close, but the leadership group did. Semiconductor weakness, failed bullish structures in Nvidia and AMD, and continued pressure in QQQ showed more deterioration than the flat S&P 500 finish suggested.

The Fed decision and mega-cap earnings now become confirmation events rather than isolated headlines. If semiconductors stabilize and reclaim broken resistance, the broader market can absorb the recent de-risking. If chip weakness continues, the selling is more likely to spread into the indexes and overwhelm the pockets of strength developing in software.

The operator takeaway is straightforward: do not confuse a quiet index close with a quiet market. The more important signal is coming from the sectors that led the advance, and into the Fed, those sectors are losing support.

Apple opened the week by doing what it has done for weeks now: pushing into uncharted territory. Shares cleared a multi-year trend line dating back to 2024 and printed a fresh all-time high, extending a move that has carried the stock roughly 24% higher since its late-June low. That kind of move invites a simple question. Is this breakout structurally sound, or is it stretched enough to fade?

The answer sits at a single trend line, and that is the level that matters this week. Nvidia's chart offers the counterweight. While Apple presses into price discovery, Nvidia is testing the same type of structure from the opposite side, with price currently piercing an upsloping support line intraday. One name is confirming strength. The other is asking whether its own uptrend still has support beneath it.

Apple: Three Levels, Not One

Apple's move through its long-term trend line shifts the stock from a defined range into open price discovery, and that changes how the setup should be read. There are three distinct levels in play here, and they should not be collapsed into one number. The first is the breakout trend line itself, which price just cleared. It currently sits near $336, and that is the primary decision level: a daily close back below $336 would say the breakout failed to hold.

The second is a separate, steeper trend line that sits beneath the breakout level and would act as near-term support if Apple does slip back under $336. That line is dynamic. It sits closer to $324 today, drifts toward $326 by tomorrow, and could migrate as high as $340 if Apple grinds higher for several more sessions before rolling over. The third layer is structural support further down: a prior pivot near $317, a gap-fill zone just beneath it around $315, and an older trend line in the $308 to $309 area that has acted as both resistance and support in past consolidation.

Nvidia: Piercing Support, Not Yet Broken

Nvidia's setup is the direct contrast, and the key distinction is that nothing has been confirmed yet. The stock has been riding an upsloping trend line off its April low, and price is currently piercing that line intraday, with the session still open. The trend line itself sits near $198, and a daily close back above that level would negate the near-term bearish signal and reassert the prior uptrend. A confirmed close below it, as opposed to an intraday dip, is what would open the door to the next support zone near $191, with a potential bounce area just above it around $195. On the upside, the level that needs to be reclaimed to shift sentiment back in the stock's favor is the recent pivot high near $203.

The two setups frame the week cleanly. Apple must hold above a level it just broke through, and Nvidia must hold above a level it is currently testing from below. Both outcomes hinge on the same mechanism: a daily close, not the intraday move itself.

Does the Rest of the Board Confirm It?

The remaining four names help answer whether this divergence is isolated to two mega-cap stocks or something broader. Broadcom argues against sympathy weakness: after a sharp intraday sell-off, price bounced off a trend line with three prior touches, suggesting semiconductors are not breaking down alongside Nvidia, at least not yet, with resistance building in the $395 to $410 zone if that strength continues. Delta Airlines makes the same case from outside technology entirely. The stock reclaimed its own trend line and needs a daily close above $87.64 to unlock its next resistance tier near $91, which would show strength this week is not confined to the two anchor names.

Nebius and IonQ sit apart from that question. Both are still digesting prior sharp moves rather than confirming or denying the mega-cap story. Nebius is holding support in the upper $170s while building toward resistance near $232 to $233, with a gap-fill target above $249 further out. IonQ gave back roughly half of last week's 13% gain and is testing resistance near $37.20 to $37.50, with support near $32.56.

What to Watch Next

The signal to track this week is straightforward: does Apple's next daily close hold above $336, and does Nvidia's next daily close reclaim $198? A close that holds Apple's breakout while Nvidia fails to reclaim its line would confirm this week's divergence and suggest mega-cap tech leadership is narrowing rather than broadening. A reversal of either signal, Apple slipping under $336 or Nvidia reclaiming $198, would meaningfully change that read. None of this is a forecast of where either stock finishes the week. It is a framework for what needs to happen on a closing basis before the probabilities shift, and trading that confirmation rather than anticipating it is what keeps a setup like this one honest.

Watch on YouTube

Oil’s 7% Reversal Shows Why Technical Confluence Matters More Than the Headline

The clearest signal from Gareth Soloway’s morning game plan did not come from the Federal Reserve or the week’s crowded mega-cap earnings calendar. It came from crude oil, where geopolitical headlines continued to encourage a bullish narrative even as the chart was pressing into major technical resistance. Oil dropped roughly 7% after reaching that resistance zone, validating Gareth’s short position and reinforcing the session’s dominant lesson: when the obvious narrative conflicts with a high-probability chart setup, price structure deserves priority. The decline also carried implications beyond the energy market, easing inflation pressure, pulling Treasury yields lower, and improving the near-term backdrop for equities ahead of several major catalysts.

Oil Reached the Level That Mattered

Tensions between the United States and Iran gave investors an easy reason to expect oil prices to continue higher. Gareth’s chart presented the opposite case. Crude had rallied into a 50% Fibonacci retracement measured from the prior high near $120 per barrel to the gap-fill area around $67. That retracement aligned with a long-term trendline, creating two separate resistance factors at nearly the same price. Neither factor guaranteed a reversal by itself, but their convergence substantially increased the likelihood that sellers would defend the area.

That confluence gave Gareth enough conviction to establish a short position through the United States Oil Fund ETF. When crude reversed sharply, the position generated approximately $24,000 in profit, or about 9% in three days. The value of the trade was not simply that it worked. It demonstrated how professional traders separate a compelling story from a defined setup. The geopolitical narrative explained why buyers were chasing oil, but the chart identified where that buying pressure was likely to run into trouble.

Technical confluence matters because markets often react most strongly where several independent signals point toward the same conclusion. A Fibonacci retracement can mark a potential reaction zone, while a long-term trendline can identify a level that has influenced price over a much longer period. When the two overlap, the area becomes more meaningful than either indicator would be on its own. Gareth was not betting that the headlines were irrelevant. He was recognizing that the bullish implications of those headlines had already carried price into a level where the risk of reversal had become unusually high.

Why the Oil Reversal Matters for Stocks

The decline in oil changes more than the outlook for energy traders. Energy costs feed directly into inflation expectations, so a substantial drop in crude reduces some of the pressure that had been building around future Federal Reserve policy. That shift was reflected in the 10-year Treasury yield moving lower as the market reconsidered how aggressively the Fed may need to respond to inflation. Falling yields generally support equity valuations, particularly in growth and technology stocks, because lower discount rates increase the present value assigned to future earnings.

That transmission helps explain why S&P 500 futures were positioned for a sharply higher open even as the market approached a week filled with earnings risk and a Federal Reserve decision. The index recently moved above the upper boundary of a major parallel channel that had contained price for more than a year. That former resistance line is now functioning as support, making it the level that controls the broader bullish structure. As long as the index remains above that boundary, buyers retain the technical advantage and the breakout remains intact.

A confirmed break back below the channel would change that read because it would turn the recent breakout into a failed move. The next major reference would then sit near 7,000, an area connected to the highs established in late 2025 and early 2026. The immediate takeaway is not that such a decline is inevitable, but that the channel boundary gives traders a clear dividing line between a healthy breakout and a more serious structural failure. The chart is forcing a decision at the same time that lower oil and lower yields are temporarily improving the macro backdrop.

The Dollar Adds Another Layer of Risk

The US Dollar Index is also pressing against an important resistance area. A breakout higher would create a headwind for equities by tightening financial conditions and reducing the value of overseas revenue earned by multinational companies. That becomes especially relevant during earnings season, when management teams are updating guidance and explaining how currency movements are affecting margins, demand, and reported results.

A stronger dollar would also work against part of the bullish effect created by lower oil and lower Treasury yields. That is why the equity outlook cannot be reduced to a single variable. Oil is helping the inflation picture, but the dollar could offset some of that benefit if it clears resistance and begins another sustained move higher. Gareth’s framework therefore leaves traders with two connected watchpoints: whether the S&P 500 can hold its reclaimed channel boundary and whether the dollar can break through overhead resistance.

Mega-Cap Earnings Require Patience, Not Prediction

Microsoft, Meta, and Apple report during a week when expectations are already high and positioning is crowded. These events can produce large gaps in either direction, making it difficult to define risk before the results are released. Rather than predicting the earnings reaction, Gareth focused on the levels that would become relevant after the initial volatility had passed. That approach turns an unpredictable event into a technical decision once price reaches a clearly defined area.

Apple is approaching a major resistance level created by a trendline that previously acted as support. After losing that line, the stock is now testing it from underneath, making the area near $337 a potential short zone. The setup is notable because Apple has recently benefited from avoiding the enormous artificial intelligence capital expenditures weighing on several competitors. That relative advantage has supported the stock, but it does not eliminate the technical supply waiting at former support.

Microsoft currently sits between meaningful levels, offering little advantage at its present price. The more important support area is near $347 if earnings trigger a substantial decline. Meta has already pulled back and would approach a long-term support trendline around $550 if the selling continues. A rally, however, would have to work through a descending trendline and a broader resistance zone. In each case, the discipline is the same: wait for price to reach a level that provides a measurable edge instead of taking exposure simply because earnings create excitement.

Cash Preserves the Ability to Act

The willingness to remain in cash was one of Gareth’s most important points from the session. Traders often treat inactivity as a failure to participate, especially during earnings season when large price moves create the impression that opportunity is everywhere. In reality, a market filled with movement is not necessarily a market filled with high-quality setups. When a stock is trading between major levels or heading into a binary catalyst, avoiding the trade can be the most disciplined decision available.

Cash protects capital, but it also preserves flexibility. A trader who commits money to a weak setup may be unable to act when an A+ opportunity appears later. The advantage is not merely defensive. Remaining liquid allows a trader to respond when price reaches a major support level, rejects confirmed resistance, or creates the type of multi-factor confluence seen in oil. The objective is not to maintain constant market exposure. It is to deploy capital when the chart offers enough evidence to justify the risk.

Cross-Asset Levels Worth Watching

Gold and silver are presenting different technical structures. Gold is again testing the upper boundary of a wedge pattern, leaving traders without confirmation until price establishes a sustained break in either direction. Silver remains weaker, with resistance concentrated between $63 and $66. Until price clears that zone, the metal remains trapped beneath overhead supply and lacks the confirmation needed to support a stronger bullish thesis.

Natural gas is consolidating inside a bearish flag following a decline. Because the pattern is forming against the direction of the preceding move, the structure favors another leg lower if price loses flag support. The measured move projects toward approximately $2.68. That target remains a technical projection rather than a certainty, but the pattern gives traders a defined structure to watch instead of relying on a general opinion about energy demand.

Bitcoin is consolidating beneath the $67,000 area, which remains the line controlling the near-term setup. Price has tested the region, pulled back, consolidated, and returned toward it without producing a confirmed breakout. A decisive move through $67,000 would clear the recent pivot structure and open room toward the $71,000 to $72,000 zone. The near-term chart leans constructive above that breakout level, although Gareth’s broader framework still allows for another deeper flush before a durable macro bottom is established.

The Profit Is Made When It Is Taken

The oil trade also created a lesson in position management. After earning approximately $24,000 in three days, the temptation was to hold the position in pursuit of a larger gain. That instinct is common because traders often become more emotionally attached to a position after it begins working. A profitable trade can create a false sense that the market now owes the trader an even larger move.

Gareth framed his approach through the idea of hitting singles and doubles rather than constantly swinging for home runs. A trader does not need to capture every dollar between the beginning and end of a move. The more repeatable objective is to identify a high-probability setup, take the portion of the move the chart provides, and lock in gains once the trade has delivered what was expected. Trying to catch the exact top or bottom frequently turns sound analysis into poor execution.

That mindset separates probability-based trading from gambling. Casinos do not expect to win every hand, but they operate with a measurable edge across a large sample of outcomes. Traders need the same perspective. No resistance level works every time, and no pattern guarantees its measured move. Consistency comes from taking setups with favorable probabilities, controlling risk when the market disagrees, and refusing to let greed change the plan after a trade becomes profitable.

Bottom Line

Oil’s reversal was the most important signal from Gareth’s morning game plan because it connected technical analysis, macro conditions, and trader psychology in one setup. The headlines encouraged investors to chase crude higher, but the combination of a 50% Fibonacci retracement and a long-term trendline identified where that move was likely to meet serious resistance. The subsequent 7% decline eased inflation pressure, helped pull yields lower, and improved the short-term equity backdrop heading into the Federal Reserve decision and a heavy earnings calendar.

The game plan from here is not to predict every earnings reaction or chase every market move. It is to identify the levels where several factors align, wait for price to reach them, and preserve capital when the setup is incomplete. The S&P 500 channel boundary, the dollar’s resistance zone, Apple near $337, Microsoft near $347, Meta near $550, and Bitcoin at $67,000 all provide defined areas where the market’s next decision becomes clearer. The narrative explains why traders are interested. The chart determines whether the trade is worth taking.

The dollar's story right now is not one story. Against the pound, it just staged a sharp bounce off a recent low and is running straight into a level that has acted as both support and resistance before, making it the most immediate decision point on the board. Against the euro, a defined reversal pattern is building toward a specific confirmation trigger, the cleanest directional setup of the three. Against the yen, the dollar has already pushed into territory not seen in decades, the most extended chart of the group, with no recent price history left to define where it stops.

A single dollar index number hides that nuance. Reading the pound, euro, and yen together, in that order of immediacy, gives a clearer picture of the broader dollar trend than any one pair in isolation.

The Pound's Rally Runs Into a Wall

The dollar's move against the British pound has been volatile. After breaking down through an upsloping trendline and falling roughly 1.6%, the dollar reversed hard, rallying close to 2% off those lows. That kind of round trip in a short window reflects real two-way conflict between buyers and sellers around a level that has mattered before.

That level sits in the 0.756 to 0.757 zone, a trendline that has flipped between support and resistance multiple times. It also lines up almost exactly with 0.75, a round psychological threshold marking the point where the dollar is worth about three-quarters of the pound. Confluence like this tends to draw outsized attention, which raises the odds of a real reaction rather than a clean break.

If the rally stalls into this trendline and psychological zone, that favors another leg lower against the pound. If it clears both cleanly, the bounce has more room to run. The location matters more than the bounce itself.

A Head and Shoulders Threat to the Dollar's Strength Against the Euro

The dollar's chart against the euro looks nothing like the pound chart. Rather than the sharp break-and-reverse move seen against the pound, the dollar has spent an extended stretch grinding higher along its own upsloping trendline, testing it repeatedly without a clean break in either direction. A head and shoulders pattern has formed underneath that grind, a classic reversal structure that favors a move lower for the dollar against the euro.

The two components of the setup play different roles. A break of the upsloping trendline would be an early bearish signal, worth noting but not itself confirmation of the reversal. The pattern is only confirmed by a break of the neckline, the structural trigger that would open the door to the measured-move target. That target, implied by the distance between the head and the neckline, points to a roughly 2% decline into a zone near 0.85 to 0.86, an area that has already seen extended sideways consolidation, which adds weight to it as a magnet for price.

The pattern itself, though not necessarily the broader bearish case, would be invalidated if the right shoulder pushes back above the head. Worth tracking closely, since head and shoulders setups often get abandoned prematurely on a trendline dip that never actually breaks the neckline.

Yen Weakness Reaches a Multi-Decade Extreme

If the pound and euro charts show a dollar still working through resistance, the yen chart shows a dollar that has already broken through. The dollar's value against the yen is sitting at levels not seen in decades, consistent with the persistent weakness that has shown up on this chart in recent sessions.

With price at a multi-decade extreme, there is no recent price history left to lean on for the next resistance level, so trendline analysis takes over. The relevant line points to resistance in the 165 to 166 range, where the advance would be expected to meet its next real test.

A currency at a multi-decade high is not automatically due for a reversal, and momentum can carry price further than seems reasonable. But the risk-reward math shifts the closer price gets to that 165 to 166 trendline, making it the zone to watch for the first real sign of exhaustion, rather than assuming the highs mark it in advance.

Watchlist: Australian and Canadian Dollar

Two secondary pairs are worth a shorter look. Against the Australian dollar, an inverse head and shoulders pattern points to a measured-move target near 1.54, which would mark a meaningful shift after a decline of roughly 15% from this year's highs. Against the Canadian dollar, the chart is genuinely mixed, with a bearish head and shoulders read competing against a bullish flag, and it stays a watch item rather than a conviction setup until one interpretation resolves with a clean break.

Key Levels to Monitor

Process Over Prediction

None of this is a call that the dollar's broader uptrend is finished. It is a map of where that trend is being tested right now, pair by pair, and what would need to happen for each test to resolve one way or the other. The pound is a level. The euro is a pattern still working toward its neckline. The yen is extension with no recent precedent to measure against.

Treating these as probabilities rather than certainties is the discipline that matters. The charts define where the next decision points sit, and confirmation comes on a daily close, not an intraday spike. What the market does when it reaches these levels is worth watching closely over the coming sessions.

Watch on YouTube

When Healthcare Arrived in a Shipper Box

The first time many Americans encountered Hims & Hers was not in a clinic, but on a doorstep. A discreet package, a direct message about hair loss, erectile dysfunction, acne, or mental health, and a way to seek treatment without waiting rooms or uncomfortable conversations made the experience feel closer to modern retail than traditional healthcare. In a culture that had long treated these conditions as embarrassing or private, Hims & Hers built its early identity around making care easier to discuss, easier to access, and easier to continue.

That consumer-friendly presentation was the visible part of a much harder business proposition. Hims & Hers was not simply trying to sell healthcare products online. It was attempting to prove that a company could combine the speed and convenience of direct-to-consumer retail with the clinical standards, regulatory obligations, and operational complexity of medicine. The market initially saw a digitally native health brand powered by advertising. What the company ultimately tried to build was a vertically integrated healthcare platform supported by subscriptions, provider networks, pharmacy infrastructure, personalization, and repeat patient relationships.

That difference defines the Hims & Hers story from its public-market debut onward. The central investor question was never whether the company could create attention around sensitive health categories. It was whether that attention could be converted into durable customer relationships, improving unit economics, responsible medical care, and enough operating leverage to support a much larger business. HIMS stock became a referendum on whether consumerized healthcare was a temporary pandemic-era trend or the foundation of a scalable model.

A SPAC Debut Built Around Consumer Access

Hims & Hers launched in 2017 as a direct-to-consumer telehealth platform focused on conditions many patients were reluctant to discuss in person. Hair loss and erectile dysfunction formed part of the original offering, while skincare, mental health, women’s health, sexual wellness, and weight management expanded the company’s reach over time. The model combined digital consultations, provider access, prescription fulfillment, and recurring delivery inside a branded consumer experience.

The company entered the public market through a merger with Oaktree Acquisition Corp., a special purpose acquisition company. The transaction closed in January 2021, and the combined company began trading on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker HIMS on January 21. The timing placed Hims & Hers directly inside the market’s enthusiasm for telehealth, digital consumer brands, and high-growth companies that appeared capable of reshaping established industries.

At the time, investors were largely being asked to buy into a future. The company had strong brand recognition, expanding revenue, and a clear cultural angle, but it was also spending heavily to acquire customers and build infrastructure. Like many companies that entered the market during the growth-stock boom, Hims & Hers benefited from an environment willing to assign high value to large addressable markets before profitability had been demonstrated.

The original market narrative therefore focused on access, convenience, and category disruption. What it underestimated was how much of the company’s eventual value would depend on less visible capabilities. Provider credentialing, prescription compliance, pharmacy capacity, customer retention, fulfillment efficiency, and clinical trust would ultimately matter more than the branding that first drew attention. The public debut introduced Hims & Hers as a consumer story, but the company’s long-term credibility would depend on whether it could become a healthcare operator.

What Investors Misunderstood After the Debut

The early investment case was easy to simplify. Hims & Hers appeared to be a pandemic-era telehealth beneficiary with strong marketing and a catalogue of treatments that could be sold through subscriptions. That framing helped the company attract attention, but it also made the stock vulnerable once the market turned against speculative growth companies and began demanding clearer evidence of profitability.

As valuations compressed through 2022, the market became less willing to reward revenue growth that required persistent advertising spending. Investors questioned whether Hims & Hers had a durable advantage or merely an effective customer-acquisition engine. If the company had to continuously spend large amounts to replace departing subscribers, then rapid top-line growth would have less value than it appeared to carry.

The stock’s weakness during that period reflected more than a broad retreat from high-growth names. It represented skepticism about the quality of the model itself. Investors needed evidence that customers would remain on the platform, purchase additional treatments, renew subscriptions, and become more valuable over time. They also needed proof that the company could control fulfillment costs, improve margins, and expand into new categories without allowing complexity to overwhelm the business.

That was the central misunderstanding. Hims & Hers was initially judged as though the brand and advertising were the business. In reality, those were the entry points. The more important question was whether the company could build an integrated system behind them that made each customer relationship more durable and each additional order more profitable. The market would not fully change its view until the financial results began showing that transition.

Building a Healthcare Platform Behind the Brand

The packaging and advertising made Hims & Hers visible, but the company’s infrastructure made the model possible. Behind the consumer interface, it developed provider networks, digital medical records, personalized treatment pathways, pharmacy fulfillment, and subscription systems designed to support recurring care. It expanded across all 50 states and entered selected international markets, including the United Kingdom, while growing its reported subscriber base beyond 2 million.

Vertical integration became a major part of the strategy. By controlling more of the pharmacy and fulfillment process, Hims & Hers reduced its dependence on outside operators and gained greater flexibility over treatment delivery, packaging, dosing, and customer experience. That control also gave the company more opportunities to improve gross margins and respond quickly when demand shifted toward new categories.

The significance of this buildout was easy to miss because infrastructure rarely creates the same excitement as customer growth. Yet it was the foundation of the company’s operating leverage. A direct-to-consumer healthcare business can acquire users quickly, but long-term economics improve only when the cost of serving those users falls relative to the revenue they generate. Pharmacy control, software, automation, retention, and repeat orders all contribute to that process.

The company’s evolution therefore moved in two directions at once. It became broader by adding new categories, but it also became deeper by controlling more of the treatment journey. That combination distinguished it from a pure marketplace that simply connects patients to third-party providers and pharmacies. Hims & Hers was attempting to own more of the customer relationship, from initial interest through consultation, prescription, fulfillment, renewal, and follow-up care.

The Financial Shift From Promise to Proof

The financial progression shows when the market began to receive evidence that the model was maturing. In the fourth quarter of 2021, Hims & Hers reported revenue of $84.7 million while continuing to post operating losses as it spent on growth, infrastructure, and customer acquisition. By the fourth quarter of 2022, revenue had nearly doubled to $167.2 million, while losses began narrowing as the company improved marketing productivity and gained efficiency from its growing fulfillment operation.

A more meaningful turning point arrived in the fourth quarter of 2023. Revenue reached $246.6 million, and the company reported its first small GAAP profit, with net income of approximately $1.25 million, or $0.01 per share. The size of the profit was less important than what it represented. Hims & Hers was showing that it could continue expanding while moving toward positive earnings, weakening the argument that growth depended indefinitely on heavy spending.

Momentum accelerated in 2024. Fourth-quarter revenue rose to $481.1 million, approximately 95% higher than the same quarter one year earlier. Operating income reached $18.6 million, while net income increased to $26 million, or $0.10 per diluted share. By the 12 months ended March 31, 2026, trailing revenue had reached roughly $2.37 billion, although trailing net income remained slightly negative, reflecting the continued tension between aggressive expansion and consistent profitability.

This financial arc changed the investment story. Revenue growth alone had never been enough to resolve the market’s concerns. What mattered was the simultaneous improvement in scale, margins, retention, and operating performance. The company was moving from a business judged mainly on advertising efficiency toward one increasingly evaluated on the economics of a larger healthcare platform.

The Strategic Pivots That Changed the Story

One of the most important decisions was to begin with categories where convenience and discretion carried unusual value. Hair loss, sexual health, acne, and mental health all involve conditions that many consumers find uncomfortable to discuss. By reducing the emotional and logistical friction around seeking care, Hims & Hers was able to create a stronger value proposition than simple home delivery.

The company then broadened those categories into longer care journeys. Skincare expanded beyond acne, sexual health offerings deepened across both men’s and women’s care, and mental health became a more substantial part of the platform. These moves increased the company’s addressable market while also creating more opportunities to serve existing users across multiple needs.

A second strategic pivot involved increasing control over fulfillment and treatment delivery. Ownership of more pharmacy capacity allowed Hims & Hers to react more quickly to demand, introduce personalized options, and reduce dependence on third parties. That flexibility became especially important as the company entered higher-value and more operationally demanding categories.

Weight management became the clearest example. Growing public interest in GLP-1 therapies created a major opportunity, but it also introduced greater regulatory, clinical, and supply-chain complexity. For Hims & Hers, the category was a natural extension of its access-driven model, but it tested whether the company could maintain medical rigor while operating at consumer speed. Success would strengthen the argument that the platform could expand far beyond its original categories. Missteps would expose the limits of applying retail-style growth tactics to heavily regulated care.

Why Vertical Integration Matters More Than the Brand

Hims & Hers is often described as a brand-led healthcare company, but the investment thesis increasingly depends on what sits behind the brand. Marketing can create a first purchase. It cannot, by itself, create high retention, recurring treatment, pharmacy efficiency, or improved margins. Those outcomes depend on how well the company manages the entire care experience.

The clearest advantage of vertical integration is control. When a company owns more of the treatment and fulfillment process, it can adjust product offerings, personalize care, respond to supply changes, and improve service without relying entirely on outside partners. That control also increases operational responsibility, because failures in sourcing, compliance, or clinical protocols become more directly tied to the company.

For investors, this creates both the opportunity and the risk. The company has the potential to capture more value per customer than a lightweight marketplace, but it must also manage the costs and complexity of a true healthcare operation. The model becomes more defensible as infrastructure improves, yet more vulnerable if expansion outruns clinical or regulatory discipline.

This is why Hims & Hers should not be evaluated only through subscriber growth or brand awareness. The more important measures are retention, customer-acquisition efficiency, gross margin, order frequency, pharmacy productivity, and the performance of new categories after their initial launch. Those metrics reveal whether the company is building durable economics or simply adding revenue through higher spending.

The Stock’s Rerating Reflected a Change in Evidence

The chart’s long period of weakness after the SPAC debut mirrored the market’s declining confidence in companies valued primarily on future growth. As speculative enthusiasm faded, HIMS had to earn investor attention through execution rather than narrative. The stock’s lower valuation reflected skepticism that the company could convert consumer interest into a profitable and defensible platform.

The character of the stock began to change as the financial results improved. The first GAAP profit in late 2023, accelerating revenue during 2024, positive operating income, and stronger gross profit gave investors more evidence that scale was improving the model rather than exposing its weaknesses. The rerating was not simply a reaction to faster growth. It was the market beginning to assign more value to the quality and durability of that growth.

That distinction is important when studying the company’s public-market journey. Early investors were buying the possibility that healthcare could be packaged and delivered differently. Later investors were evaluating whether the company had built enough infrastructure to support that possibility. The movement in the stock reflected the transition from a concept that required belief to a business increasingly supported by operating evidence.

Technical analysis can help show when investor conviction changes, but it must be grounded in actual price behavior. For HIMS, the larger lesson is that the stock’s strongest periods have been tied to moments when the company reduced uncertainty around scale, margins, or category expansion. The chart has been most constructive when the market believed the business was becoming more valuable per customer, not merely larger in total revenue.

The Metrics That Matter From Here

Customer economics remain one of the most important areas to watch. Hims & Hers relies heavily on subscriptions, which means small changes in retention, refill activity, and churn can have an outsized effect on profitability. If users remain on the platform longer and add more treatments over time, the company can spread acquisition costs across a larger revenue base. If retention weakens, growth becomes more dependent on continued marketing spending.

Margins provide another test. In the fourth quarter of 2023, gross profit reached $204.1 million on revenue of $246.6 million. In the fourth quarter of 2024, gross profit rose to $369.5 million on $481.1 million in revenue. These figures indicate substantial scale, but investors must continue assessing whether the mix of treatments, pharmacy costs, and new-category spending supports sustainable margin expansion.

Regulation is equally important, particularly in categories involving compounded medications and GLP-1 treatments. Changes in federal or state guidance, sourcing availability, prescribing standards, or supply conditions can alter the economics of these offerings quickly. A company operating in this space must communicate with precision because clinical and regulatory credibility are central to the value of the platform.

Brand strength still matters, but not as a substitute for execution. A trusted brand can lower acquisition costs, generate word-of-mouth growth, and encourage consumers to use the platform for additional needs. For a direct-pay company that does not rely on traditional insurance channels, consumer trust functions as a real economic asset. The challenge is converting that trust into long-lasting relationships without allowing marketing claims to run ahead of clinical substance.

What Matters More Than the Headline Today

The most visible Hims & Hers story today is its growth. The more important story is the quality of that growth and the amount of operational discipline required to sustain it. Trailing revenue of roughly $2.37 billion as of March 31, 2026, shows that the company has moved well beyond its early identity as a niche telehealth brand. The slightly negative trailing net income, however, shows that scale alone does not settle the investment case.

The next phase depends on whether the company can continue expanding treatment categories while preserving retention, margins, regulatory compliance, and customer trust. Weight management may increase revenue quickly, but the long-term value of that growth will depend on how responsibly and profitably the category is managed. International expansion may widen the market, but it will also introduce new regulatory and operational demands.

This balance is what investors should focus on rather than any single quarter or product announcement. Hims & Hers has already demonstrated that it can attract consumers and build a large subscription base. The harder challenge is proving that each stage of expansion makes the platform stronger rather than simply larger.

The Investor Lesson From Hims & Hers

Hims & Hers entered the public market as a highly visible consumer brand during an era that rewarded growth stories and digital disruption. The market initially focused on the company’s ability to advertise sensitive treatments and deliver them discreetly. It later became clear that the real value of the business would depend on something less glamorous: building the healthcare infrastructure needed to retain customers, manage prescriptions, fulfill orders, control costs, and expand responsibly.

The company’s journey offers a broader lesson about public-market storytelling. A compelling brand can attract attention, but attention is not the same as durability. Investors often misjudge young companies by treating the most visible part of the model as the most important part. In the case of Hims & Hers, the brand opened the door, while pharmacy control, subscription economics, clinical systems, and operating leverage determined whether the company could walk through it.

That is what transformed the HIMS story from speculation into a more credible investment case. The company did not merely make healthcare look more like retail. It attempted to build a healthcare operation capable of delivering retail-level convenience without abandoning the standards medicine requires. The next chapter will be determined by whether that balance continues to hold as the company becomes larger, more complex, and more exposed to regulatory and execution risk.

The Market Is No Longer Rewarding Strong Headlines - The S&P 500 Trend Line Will Decide What Comes Next

The market is becoming less willing to reward strong earnings when rising capital spending, inflation pressure, and technical resistance remain unresolved. That was the central message from Gareth Soloway’s latest My Trading Game Plan Revealed show. Yesterday’s broad sell-off may have followed disappointing reactions to Tesla and Google, but the deeper signal is that investors are beginning to question whether headline growth still justifies the cost required to produce it.

That shift places added importance on the S&P 500, which is now sitting just above a major trend line connecting the 2021 bull market high with more recent peaks. Price has tested that line twice over the past month and a half and bounced both times. A third test would carry more risk because repeated contact with support tends to weaken the level by consuming the demand waiting underneath it.

The market is also forming a bull flag, a structure that normally favors continuation after a strong advance. But the bullish interpretation only remains valid while the underlying trend line holds. A break below it would do more than create a routine pullback. It would turn the recent breakout into a failed bullish pattern, which would materially weaken the broader market structure.

“The more you hit a resistance level, the more it weakens and the odds start to go higher of a break back below,” Gareth explained during the broadcast. “And that would be very detrimental to the markets because it would be a failed bullish breakout. Failed patterns are very, very negative.”

The level that matters now is the trend line supporting the S&P 500’s recent advance. Holding it would preserve the bull flag and keep the broader uptrend intact. A decisive move through nearby resistance around 75.50 would then support another leg higher. A close below the trend line would change the read by confirming that buyers are no longer defending the structure that has supported the rally.

Strong Earnings Are No Longer Enough

The market’s changing response to corporate earnings is reinforcing that technical warning. Intel recently delivered what would normally be viewed as an impressive quarter. The stock initially surged as high as $113.75, but much of the move faded by the following morning, leaving shares with only a modest gain.

The market was not rejecting the earnings headline. It was reacting to the spending required to sustain the company’s growth.

“Any company that says they’re going to spend more money, even if they report stellar numbers, is basically getting sold off on that, or at least the upside is very, very limited,” Gareth said.

That reaction reflects growing skepticism toward the AI infrastructure build-out. Companies are committing enormous amounts of capital to chips, data centers, energy systems, and supporting infrastructure. Those investments may create long-term growth, but investors are becoming less patient with businesses that cannot show a clear path from spending to measurable returns.

This changes the earnings framework. Revenue growth and strong guidance still matter, but the market is now placing more weight on capital efficiency. A company can beat expectations and still disappoint investors if the cost of maintaining that growth continues to rise faster than the expected payoff.

AI spending is also creating a broader macroeconomic pressure point. Data centers require semiconductors, electricity, water, construction, and cooling infrastructure. Rising demand across those areas can keep costs elevated throughout the economy, especially because chips and energy are embedded in nearly every major industry. The risk is not simply that companies spend too much. It is that the spending itself keeps inflation sticky enough to limit how aggressively the Federal Reserve can ease policy.

Oil Is Helping, but It Cannot Solve the Yield Problem

Crude oil provided some relief this week after rejecting a major technical confluence. Using the move from roughly $120 per barrel down to the $67 low, the 50% Fibonacci retracement aligned with a descending trend line drawn from the March peaks. Oil reached that zone and turned lower, falling approximately 2.7% during the session.

“I told you yesterday that I added to my short above $92 a barrel,” Gareth said. “My average price on my short on oil is about $90 a barrel, now in the money on this pullback.”

The setup continues to point toward the $80 area if downside momentum holds. That matters beyond the energy market because oil remains an important contributor to headline inflation. Lower crude prices can ease pressure on transportation costs, consumer prices, and Treasury yields.

But oil is only one part of the interest-rate equation. The United States continues to issue significant amounts of debt, while corporations are also borrowing to fund AI infrastructure and capital investment. That combination creates sustained demand for capital and can keep yields elevated even when energy prices decline.

The market should not assume that falling oil automatically produces sharply lower rates. A meaningful collapse in yields would likely require a much deeper slowdown in economic activity or a recession severe enough to reduce borrowing and consumer demand. For now, lower oil is supportive, but it does not eliminate the structural forces keeping rates high.

Yen Weakness Remains the Larger Systemic Risk

The most important external risk may be developing in the foreign exchange market. USD/JPY continues to move higher, reflecting persistent weakness in the Japanese yen against the US dollar. That trend matters because the Bank of Japan has historically intervened when currency depreciation becomes too rapid.

Previous interventions have produced consequences well beyond Japan. Gareth pointed to an earlier episode in which the yen strengthened sharply after official action and the Nasdaq dropped approximately 15% over the following two weeks.

The transmission mechanism runs through the carry trade. Investors borrow in low-yielding currencies such as the yen and use that capital to purchase higher-yielding assets, including US technology stocks. The trade works while the yen remains weak and borrowing costs stay low. A sudden strengthening of the currency can rapidly erase those profits, forcing investors to unwind leveraged positions and sell the assets they previously purchased.

That makes yen intervention a market-wide liquidity risk rather than a regional currency event. The exact timing is uncertain, but the setup deserves attention because a reversal in USD/JPY could place immediate pressure on crowded equity positions.

Consumer and Corporate Signals Are Also Changing

American Express offered another indication that financial conditions may be tightening beneath the headline data. The company traditionally benefits from spending by higher-income consumers, but a larger share of its profitability is now coming from interest and fees tied to credit card balances.

That shift suggests consumers are becoming more reliant on debt rather than simply using cards for transactions and paying balances in full. When a premium credit card company increasingly earns money from unpaid balances, it points to rising financial stress extending beyond lower-income households.

From a technical perspective, American Express gapped lower, with support near $318 emerging as the closest chart level. The broader point, however, is more important than the individual setup. Consumer spending may remain resilient, but the quality of that spending is changing as more purchases are financed rather than paid off immediately.

Oracle presents the opposite type of uncertainty. The stock moved higher after news of a $7 billion government contract, but that amount alone is not large enough to transform the company’s financial outlook. The potential importance lies in whether the contract leads to additional government business and becomes the first step in a larger strategic relationship.

Oracle has already suffered a major decline from its previous highs, leaving the stock in a position where expectations are low and even modest improvements can matter. The chart should be watched for evidence of a durable structural reversal, but the contract itself is not enough to confirm that shift.

Gold, Silver, and Bitcoin Are Approaching Decision Points

Several major alternative assets are also compressing near important technical levels. Gold is trading inside a tightening wedge after rejecting a prior high. The pattern does not yet provide a directional signal, but the narrowing range suggests price is approaching a decision. A confirmed breakout would favor continuation, while deeper support remains concentrated around $3,500 to $3,600.

Silver remains trapped between resistance near $63 to $64 and support around $54. Its converging trend lines are expected to meet over the coming weeks, increasing the likelihood that the current range resolves with a larger directional move.

Bitcoin is showing more immediate weakness. The cryptocurrency has declined for three consecutive sessions after failing to clear resistance near $67,000. That failure leaves the market vulnerable to a deeper pullback toward $58,000, where buyers would need to defend the broader structure.

These charts share the same message as the S&P 500. Price is compressing near levels that will force traders to choose between continuation and structural failure. The next move will matter less because of its size and more because of which major level gives way first.

The Casino Does Not Chase the Headline

The most useful framework from Gareth’s analysis was not tied to any single stock or market. It was the difference between operating like the casino and trading like the gambler.

“Logic and charts beat hype and narratives every time,” Gareth said. “Early on, when I listened to all the nonsense, I was almost always on the wrong side of the trade. Now, occasionally, I’m on the wrong side. It happens. It’s just the law of probabilities, but at least I’m the casino, not the gambler.”

The gambler reacts to earnings headlines, chases momentum, and assumes good news must produce higher prices. The casino accepts that individual trades can fail while continuing to operate around a repeatable edge. That edge comes from combining technical levels, macro conditions, market psychology, and disciplined risk management.

This distinction is especially important when strong earnings no longer guarantee strong price reactions. The market is becoming more selective, which means traders must evaluate what price is doing rather than what the headline says it should be doing.

Bottom Line

The central market signal is that investors are becoming less forgiving. Strong earnings are being discounted when they require heavier spending, lower oil is not enough to eliminate pressure on yields, and yen weakness continues to create an external liquidity risk.

The S&P 500 trend line is where those concerns converge. Holding that structure would preserve the bull flag and keep the broader advance intact. Losing it would confirm that the market’s changing reaction to earnings is beginning to damage the chart itself.

Next week’s mega-cap earnings, Federal Reserve decision, and economic data will provide the catalysts. But the framework is already clear: ignore the strength of the headline and watch whether price can hold the levels that keep the bullish structure alive.

Rising Yields, Not Earnings, Were the Real Warning Into the Close

The market sold off today under the weight of geopolitical tension, rising oil prices, shifting Federal Reserve expectations, and several major earnings reactions, but the most important signal did not come from any single headline. It came from the bond market, where the 10-year Treasury yield broke above its mid-May pivot highs and pushed into resistance near 4.687%, extending its advance to four consecutive sessions. That move matters because higher yields tighten financial conditions, increase the discount rate applied to future earnings, and place additional pressure on growth stocks that were already struggling to hold technical support. The equity decline was not simply a reaction to earnings or escalating tensions in the Middle East. It reflected a broader repricing of risk as yields moved higher and expectations for Federal Reserve policy shifted in a more hawkish direction. That was the framework Pro Trader Drew Dosek focused on during today’s Trading the Close Market Recap.

The Bond Market Changed the Risk Calculation

The session began with several competing catalysts. Oil moved higher as tensions in the Middle East escalated, while fresh economic data altered the market’s expectations for interest rates. The key development was the sharp repricing in the expected Federal Reserve path. Before today’s data, markets placed an 89% probability on rates remaining between 3.5% and 3.75%. That probability fell to 64%, while expectations for a future rate hike increased.

That change in expectations was reflected directly in the 10-year Treasury yield. A move toward 4.687% does not guarantee that equities must fall, but it raises the pressure on valuations and makes it more difficult for weaker technical structures to hold. That was especially visible in the major indexes, where support tests have become more frequent and recent breakout attempts have failed to produce follow-through. The headline was volatility, but the more important signal was that the cost of capital was rising at the same time market structure was beginning to weaken.

SPY and QQQ Show the Technical Damage

The S&P 500, tracked through the SPY ETF, failed to confirm its recent breakout above a declining trendline. Price slipped back beneath that level and closed below an inclining support trendline, returning the index to a weaker near-term structure. The next major level sits near the upper boundary of the broader parallel channel at 732.54. That support has already been tested multiple times, and another move into the level would mark a third significant test. Repeated contact tends to weaken support because buyers are forced to defend the same area again and again. A clean hold could still produce a reaction, but a confirmed loss would shift attention toward the larger consolidation zone visible on the weekly chart.

The Nasdaq 100 showed a similar deterioration. QQQ closed above horizontal resistance yesterday but failed to hold the breakout today, and the more important concern is that the spacing between support tests has compressed. Instead of price returning to support after an extended period, the index is now revisiting the same structure every few sessions. As Drew explained, the market keeps returning to support, and it is doing so with increasing frequency. Each test absorbs more demand, so until QQQ begins holding reclaimed levels and creating distance from support, probabilities remain tilted toward further weakness.

Big Tech Confirmed the Pressure

The post-earnings reactions in Alphabet and Tesla added to the broader market weakness, but the charts showed two different setups. Alphabet pulled back into an inclining trendline stretching back to June 2025 and connecting with the March 2026 pivot lows. That line caught today’s decline, but the stock is now operating in the lower half of its parallel channel. The key level is $317.90. A daily close beneath that trendline would favor continuation toward the next support level at $301.32, while both areas could still produce a bounce toward the channel midpoint near $339.64.

Tesla found support at its 61.8% Fibonacci retracement, giving buyers a technically important area to defend. The stock, however, remains below declining trendline resistance between $327 and $328. A daily close above that zone would improve the structure and put $343 back in play. Until that happens, the Fibonacci support remains a reaction level rather than confirmation that the broader pullback is complete. The market’s response to both companies also reflected a wider concern around capital spending. Heavy investment becomes more difficult for investors to reward when Treasury yields are rising and the expected return on long-duration projects is being discounted at a higher rate. The earnings headlines mattered, but the rate backdrop determined how the market processed them.

Oil Strength Added Another Layer of Pressure

U.S. oil broke above its declining trendline as geopolitical risk increased, reinforcing pressure on inflation expectations and rate-sensitive assets. The next major resistance level sits near $96.44. A daily close above today’s high would strengthen the breakout and establish $86.83 as an important support level on a pullback, while deeper support remains near $81.33.

Oil’s strength also created a clear divergence across sectors. Lockheed Martin gained 10.54% after earnings and benefited from the geopolitical backdrop, but the rally stopped at the midpoint of a long-term parallel channel near $569.22. A move above that level would bring the pivot lows just below $600 into focus, while $535.49 remains the nearest support. American Airlines moved in the opposite direction despite reporting record second-quarter revenue. The stock found initial support near $13.41, but the market focused less on past results and more on the risk that higher fuel costs could compress future margins. The selloff also confirmed a failed breakout above a declining trendline dating back to June 2021. If a bear flag develops, the next major support sits near $11.95. A stronger recovery in airlines will likely require oil to lose momentum and break back below support. The contrast between defense and airlines showed how the same macro catalyst can create very different technical outcomes.

Gold and Silver Reinforced the Technical Message

Gold rallied through several resistance trendlines yesterday but failed to hold the move, and today’s rejection pushed price back into its prior bearish consolidation. The lesson was not that news does not matter. It was that a strong headline-driven move still has to survive the technical structure already in place. Gold entered a zone with substantial overhead resistance, so breaking through it intraday was not enough. The failure to hold those levels showed that sellers remained active and that the breakout had not been confirmed.

Silver also weakened, falling back inside the upper half of a long-term parallel channel dating to 2008. The next important level is $56.28. Continued downside momentum would put the area near $49 back in focus, particularly if silver fails to reclaim the recent breakout zone. Both metals reflected the same broader theme seen in equities: the initial move mattered less than whether price could hold above the level that triggered it.

Semiconductors Remain an Important Counter-Signal

Not every part of the market broke down. The SMH semiconductor ETF held neckline support, keeping a previously negated head-and-shoulders pattern from reasserting itself. That matters because semiconductors often act as a leadership group for the broader market. As long as SMH continues holding that structure, the market retains an area of relative strength beneath the surface.

Intel also showed resilience after hours. The stock has continued to respect a multi-decade trendline dating back to April 2010, with near-term support at $100.23. The next resistance levels sit at $116.77 and $122.20, with a move through the pivot high at $116.77 required before the larger breakout level comes into play. Semiconductor strength does not erase the weakness in SPY and QQQ, but it does provide an important counter-signal. If SMH begins losing support alongside the major indexes, the broader bearish read would become more convincing.

What Traders Should Watch Next

The next session will be determined less by fresh headlines than by whether today’s technical moves receive confirmation. The first watchpoint is the 10-year Treasury yield near 4.687%. A rejection from that area could ease some of the immediate pressure on equities, while a sustained breakout would keep financial conditions moving in the wrong direction for growth stocks.

The second is SPY support near 732.54. Another test will show whether buyers are still willing to defend the upper boundary of the parallel channel. The third is QQQ, which needs to stop repeatedly returning to support and begin holding reclaimed levels. Until that happens, the increasing frequency of support tests remains a warning. Oil is another important input because continued strength would reinforce inflation concerns while adding pressure to transportation and consumer-facing sectors. Traders should also continue watching semiconductor leadership. SMH holding support would preserve an internal area of strength, while a breakdown would remove one of the market’s more constructive signals.

Bottom Line

Today’s selloff was not primarily about one earnings report, one geopolitical headline, or one sector. The larger message was that Treasury yields broke higher at the same time the major indexes failed to hold important technical levels, and that combination changes the market’s risk profile.

The 10-year yield near 4.687%, SPY support near 732.54, and the accelerating support tests in QQQ now form the core framework into the next session. Until yields retreat or the indexes begin holding reclaimed levels, probabilities remain tilted toward further pressure rather than a durable recovery. The charts are not predicting the headlines. They are showing whether the market is strong enough to absorb them.

Bitcoin is again pressing into the lower boundary of the downward-sloping parallel channel it has traded within for weeks. In the session reviewed here, that test carried real weight: the same structure had already produced a clean bounce off support once before, and the market was heading into a daily close with the outcome undecided. Altcoins were broadly following Bitcoin lower, while one token moved sharply in the opposite direction.

That divergence is the story worth understanding. A single token surged more than 33% in hours, driven not by technicals but by pending legislation. The instinct is to chase that kind of move. The more disciplined read is to recognize what is actually driving Bitcoin's structure, treat the outlier pump as a legislative event rather than a technical setup, and let the dominant chart do the talking.

Bitcoin's Channel Test Is the Signal That Matters

Bitcoin has been confined to a downward-sloping parallel channel since early June, with a low on the 4th and a high roughly two weeks later defining its boundaries. The first retest of the lower boundary produced a rally of close to 15% off the low, which is why the current retest carries weight: if support holds again into the daily close, probability favors a move back toward the channel midpoint, a level the structure has already respected with rejection wicks.

The alternative is a channel breakdown. Momentum readings were already turning over into the decline, and a failure to hold the lower boundary opens a downside target of more than 10% from current levels. That outcome will not resolve intraday. Confirmation depends on where Bitcoin actually closes the daily candle, not on where it wicks.

Why the Altcoin Complex Is Following Bitcoin Lower

Ethereum, Solana, XRP, and Cardano are showing the same underlying pattern: support attempts that keep getting undercut as Bitcoin weakens. Ethereum has repeatedly rejected in the $1,930 to $2,000 zone across prior cycles and was being pushed back toward support near $1,820, with $1,797 as the next level if that fails. Solana is fighting to hold a zone tested multiple times in recent weeks, with a slide toward the middle of its own channel possible if that line breaks. XRP is approaching a defined support band, with $1.088 to $1.09 the more significant floor if $1.10 fails, and resistance stacked at $1.18, then $1.25 to $1.50 on any recovery. Cardano's setup is more structural: an inverse head-and-shoulders pattern failed to confirm at the neckline, and the breakdown pushed price toward support near $0.143, a reminder that patterns need confirmation at the final shoulder before they carry real probability.

The WLFI Pump: A Legislative Story, Not a Trading Signal

The token behind the move is World Liberty Financial, and the catalyst traces to a Senate Republican ethics provision added to the latest CLARITY Act draft this week. That provision would bar the president, vice president, members of Congress, and other senior federal officials from issuing or sponsoring digital assets while in office, with a sunset clause effective at noon on January 20, 2029, the end of the current presidential term. Given the token's political association, shifting odds on whether that provision survives in its current form appear to be the driver behind the pump.

The more important observation is why the pump should not be treated as tradable. The order book behind this token is thin, and in illiquid markets a single large buyer can move price disproportionately, which appears to be what happened here before the move began fading. A swing built on legislative odds and thin liquidity does not meet the same bar as the setups elsewhere on this board. Staying out reflects the absence of a defined, structural edge, not a view on the token's longer-term prospects.

Key Levels to Monitor

What to Watch Next

The single most important trigger is Bitcoin's daily close against the lower channel boundary. A held close keeps the case for a bounce toward the midpoint intact; a failed close opens the 10%-plus downside scenario and would likely drag altcoins further with it. Confirmation, not intraday movement, is what settles this. On the legislative side, any material movement on the CLARITY Act's ethics provision is worth tracking given its direct bearing on politically linked tokens like WLFI, but that provision is a headline to monitor, not a chart to trade. Bitcoin's channel test is the variable that matters most for this market right now; the altcoin complex is simply following its lead. Discipline here means watching the close that matters and declining to chase the one that doesn't.

Watch on YouTube

Oil Above $90 Is Forcing Markets to Reprice Inflation, Yields, and Big Tech

Oil’s breakout above $90 changed the market’s risk calculation. The move revived inflation concerns, pushed Treasury yields through resistance, and added pressure to technology stocks already being repriced for the rising cost of the artificial intelligence buildout. That was the central framework from Gareth Soloway’s latest My Trading Game Plan Revealed show: oil is no longer trading as an isolated commodity story. It has become the signal connecting inflation, Federal Reserve expectations, bond yields, corporate margins, and equity valuations.

West Texas Intermediate crude pushed through the $87 to $88 resistance zone and traded near $91.50, a move that coincided with a sharp reversal in S&P 500 futures. The market had been relatively stable before oil cleared $90, but that breakout forced traders to account for a renewed inflation threat. The next major technical level sits near $93.40, where the 50% Fibonacci retracement of the decline from the March high aligns with the next area of meaningful resistance.

That level matters beyond the energy market. Rising oil prices increase transportation, manufacturing, and operating costs across the economy, making inflation more difficult to contain. At the same time, weekly jobless claims fell to 187,000, reinforcing the strength of the labor market. The combination of firmer energy prices and resilient employment reduces the urgency for the Federal Reserve to ease policy and puts additional rate hikes back into the conversation.

The bond market is already reflecting that shift. The 10-year Treasury yield broke above 4.7%, clearing the prior highs from May. That move raises the discount rate applied to future corporate earnings, which creates the greatest pressure on stocks whose valuations depend heavily on profits expected years from now. The market is not simply reacting to one economic report or one earnings release. It is repricing the possibility that interest rates remain higher while corporate spending continues to rise.

Big Tech Is Losing Its Free-Cash-Flow Advantage

That pressure is particularly visible across mega-cap technology. For much of the past decade, the largest technology companies commanded premium valuations because they produced enormous free cash flow with relatively modest capital requirements. The AI infrastructure race is changing that model.

Alphabet reported strong operating results, but investors focused on the company’s plan to raise capital expenditures to roughly $200 billion this year, with additional spending expected beyond that. Tesla is dealing with a similar issue as higher investment needs combine with weaker earnings and declining free cash flow. The market is beginning to question how quickly these companies can convert unprecedented infrastructure spending into proportional returns.

That changes the technical read because these stocks are now facing pressure from two directions. Rising Treasury yields compress their valuation multiples, while rising capital expenditures reduce the cash-flow profile that previously justified those multiples. The charts are showing the market adjusting to that combination.

Tesla decisively broke below a major ascending trendline after its earnings report. The stock may find short-term intraday support near $337, but the more important swing level sits near $290. That area aligns with the lower boundary of the parallel channel built from the broken trend structure and represents the next high-probability zone where buyers are likely to become more aggressive.

Alphabet is approaching a separate multi-factor support level just below $320. A prior pivot high, an open gap, and an ascending trendline converge in the same area. That confluence makes the level more important than any one technical factor on its own and creates a cleaner area for traders to watch than trying to anticipate a bottom during the current decline.

Oil Is Creating Clear Sector Winners and Losers

The market impact is also visible in the widening divide between industries. Airlines are facing immediate margin pressure because jet fuel is one of their largest operating costs. American Airlines declined following earnings, but the company-specific report is only part of the story. Crude oil above $90 creates a broader headwind for the entire group by raising costs and reducing the market’s confidence in future profitability.

Defense stocks are benefiting from the opposite dynamic. Geopolitical escalation and expectations for sustained military spending have supported names such as Lockheed Martin and RTX. Lockheed Martin is approaching resistance near $551, while RTX is moving toward a double-top area near $215. The strength in those stocks reflects how capital is rotating toward sectors whose revenue outlook improves as geopolitical risk rises.

This divergence is the practical consequence of the oil breakout. Higher energy prices do not affect every company equally. They create direct margin pressure for transportation businesses, reinforce revenue expectations for energy producers, and strengthen the spending outlook for defense contractors. That is why the broader index can hide more useful information than the individual charts beneath it.

The Currency Market Adds Another Layer of Risk

The rise in Treasury yields has also supported the US dollar, creating additional pressure across global markets. The most important currency chart is USD/JPY, which has reached levels not seen since the mid-1980s.

For years, institutions have borrowed yen at low interest rates and used that capital to purchase higher-yielding assets elsewhere, including US equities. A sharply weaker yen increases the risk that Japanese policymakers intervene in the currency market. Intervention can force investors to unwind those carry trades quickly, creating selling pressure in the assets that benefited from the borrowed capital.

This does not mean intervention must happen immediately. It means the currency market has become another source of potential instability at the same time that oil and Treasury yields are already tightening financial conditions. The risk is the overlap. Several markets that previously supported risk assets are now moving against them at once.

Gold, Silver, and Bitcoin Are Responding to Dollar Strength

The stronger dollar is also influencing commodities and cryptocurrencies. Gold rejected sharply from the upper boundary of its wedge structure, while silver gave back roughly half of its recent four-day rally. The key support level for silver remains near $54, where the chart has a better chance of attracting buyers after the latest reversal.

Bitcoin pulled back after testing major resistance near $67,000. That level remains the barrier separating the current consolidation from the measured move of a larger inverse head-and-shoulders pattern. Probability favors a push toward the $71,000 to $72,000 area once price decisively clears and holds above $67,000.

Natural gas stands apart from the broader commodity weakness. The chart has strengthened alongside oil, but the longer-term thesis is also tied to electricity demand from AI data centers. A sustained increase in power consumption would strengthen demand for natural gas as utilities and private infrastructure operators expand generation capacity. The technical and fundamental backdrop supports a longer-term move toward $5, although that thesis is expected to develop over months rather than days.

The Game Plan Is to Let Price Reach the Level

The most important lesson from the session was not to react emotionally to every headline. Oil, yields, currencies, earnings, and geopolitical developments are all moving quickly, but the trading process remains the same: identify the levels where multiple technical factors align, then wait for price to reach them.

Tesla near $290, Alphabet below $320, oil near $93.40, and Bitcoin above $67,000 are valuable because each level is tied to a defined chart structure. They give traders a framework before emotion enters the decision. Buying early because a stock appears cheap or chasing a breakout because price is moving quickly removes that advantage.

The broader market framework now begins with oil. As long as crude remains above its former resistance zone, inflation expectations and Treasury yields are likely to keep pressure on expensive growth stocks and energy-sensitive industries. The opportunity is not to trade every move created by that pressure. It is to wait for the areas where that pressure drives price into high-probability technical confluence.

That is the edge of Gareth’s approach. The market does not need to become less volatile. Traders need to remain disciplined enough to let volatility bring the best setups to them.

Oil, gold, and silver are all testing resistance at the same time, and that overlap is not a coincidence. Escalating geopolitical tension is lifting energy prices while pulling safe-haven demand into precious metals, and all three charts are now pressing into levels that have defined their structure for weeks. Of the three, oil is the cleanest setup and the one that should be treated as the directional anchor for the group. Gold is the confirmation chart. Silver is the least developed of the three until its own resistance gives way.

Oil: The Directional Anchor

Crude's structure traces back to the spike that carried price to $119.48 during the initial escalation. Once that unwound, oil built a bounce off a rising support trendline and, in doing so, reclaimed the horizontal level at $85.75, which had capped price earlier and now functions as the floor under the current move. That reclaim is what separates oil from the other two charts. It is not just approaching resistance; it has already converted a former ceiling into support underneath it.

The barrier still in front of it is a longer descending trendline off the highs, being tested from below for the first time since this bounce began. Today's high tagged $88.61 before price pulled back, and that trendline steps down slightly to roughly $88.47 if it isn't cleared before tomorrow's session. Given that oil has already done the harder work of reclaiming $85.75, the higher-probability read favors this trendline eventually giving way rather than holding, which would open room toward $96.44 and the psychological $100 level. A close back below $85.75 is the level that would need to break for that read to change.

Gold: The Confirmation Chart

Gold is still trading beneath a rising parallel channel that has capped it since its spring low. Today's push tagged the channel's lower boundary from underneath, which is why that boundary is acting as resistance rather than the support it would represent if price were already trading inside the channel. Price has since pulled back beneath two lower resistance lines and is holding above a key pivot, with today's close near $4,098 keeping the near-term structure intact.

The zone that matters next sits between $4,145 and $4,160, where the channel boundary and a separate declining trendline overlap. That is a tougher confluence than oil's single trendline, so the more likely near-term outcome is another test or two before it resolves rather than a clean break on the next attempt. A close through that zone would confirm gold as validating the broader commodity strength oil is already showing; failure to clear it keeps gold as the weaker confirmation signal for now.

Silver: The Least Developed Setup

Silver is higher on the day but remains capped below its July 6 pivot high near $63.26, and of the three charts it has the least evidence yet that a breakout is underway. Until that level gives way, the higher-probability read is continued chop rather than a directional move. A longer-range downside reference sits near $49.64, well below current price and well below the $63.26 resistance, which makes it a broader structural marker rather than a level with near-term relevance.

Zoomed out, silver's history shows long, flat multi-year stretches followed by sharp expansions, a pattern that has repeated for decades. That context matters for positioning over a longer horizon, but it does not change the near-term read: silver is the chart to watch confirm last, not first.

Elsewhere in the Complex

A few secondary charts are worth a glance but sit outside the core thesis. Natural gas is testing a trendline near $2.90 that has capped every close since mid-July; a close above it would be the first step out of its current consolidation. Copper remains boxed in by a run of red weekly candles and hasn't cleared $6.60, so it stays a no-touch chart for now. Cattle's head-and-shoulders pattern has not yet triggered a confirmed neckline break; if it does, the measured-move target sits near $2.095, with support just above at $2.15.

The Operating Framework

Ranked by conviction, oil leads, gold confirms, and silver lags. Oil has already reclaimed its key level and is pressing the final barrier, which makes a break higher the more probable near-term outcome. Gold's tougher confluence zone means it is more likely to need additional tests before resolving, and its behavior should be read as confirmation of oil's move rather than an independent signal. Silver has the least to point to right now, and the honest read is that it stays rangebound until $63.26 is taken out. If oil clears its trendline while gold and silver lag, that divergence itself would be worth watching, since it would suggest the current move is more energy-and-policy driven than a broad commodities repricing.

Watch on YouTube

Semiconductor Strength Defies Rising Yields, but Light Volume Keeps Conviction in Check

The most important signal into Wednesday’s close was not the modest decline in the major indices. It was the disconnect underneath them.

The S&P 500 finished down 0.12% and the QQQ lost 0.51%, yet semiconductors moved higher even as the 10-year Treasury yield continued to rise. That is unusual. Higher yields generally pressure growth stocks, especially in a market where technology companies are spending heavily on artificial intelligence infrastructure and data centers.

Semiconductor strength did not confirm that pressure. SMH and SOXX instead pushed high enough to negate the head and shoulders patterns that had been developing on their charts.

That relative strength matters, but the lack of volume keeps it from becoming a high-conviction signal. The market is holding together while traders wait for earnings to provide direction, and until participation improves, price strength deserves respect without being chased.

Semiconductors Hold Up Against the Macro Backdrop

The semiconductor sector was the clearest source of strength in an otherwise mixed session.

As Drew Dosek explained during Trading the Close, the market is showing a disconnect between higher borrowing costs and continued demand for the companies supporting the AI buildout. Smaller technology firms remain sensitive to rising rates, but the largest companies investing in data centers have enough capital to absorb minor changes in financing conditions.

That helps explain why semiconductor stocks held firm even as yields moved higher.

SMH closed at $586.91, leaving former neckline resistance at $575.87 as an important support level. The bearish pattern has been negated, but volume has not yet confirmed broad institutional participation.

The S&P 500 traded 31.66 million shares, down from 34.32 million the prior session. SMH volume fell to 4.96 million shares from 7.13 million, well below the roughly 22 million shares traded during its last major directional move.

The message is not that the semiconductor advance should be dismissed. It is that the breakout still needs participation. Price is holding up better than the macro backdrop would suggest, but institutions have not yet shown enough urgency to confirm a durable trend.

SMCI Shows Why the Level Matters Before the Headline

Super Micro Computer provided the clearest example of Drew’s broader trading framework.

SMCI surged 19.84% following a stronger margin outlook and the announcement of a $60 billion backlog in fourth-quarter orders. The catalyst explains the size of the move, but the chart had already identified the area where probability favored a bounce.

Before the announcement, SMCI had fallen into the lower boundary of a parallel channel dating back to July 2025. That was the defined technical support zone.

“If you wanted to be a buyer, buy on the bottom of these parallels. You want to be a seller, sell on the top of those parallels. It’s as simple as that. We move ahead of the news,” Drew said.

The point is not that the chart predicted the backlog announcement. The chart showed where downside risk had become more limited and where buyers were most likely to respond.

Following the surge, SMCI ran into resistance at an inclining trendline. A daily close above $31.07 would confirm continued strength and raise the probability of a move toward the channel midpoint near $34.00.

Dell rallied 9.32% in sympathy and is now pressing against a weekly topping tail that has capped price since June. A daily close above $469.47 would clear that resistance and strengthen the weekly bull flag.

Together, SMCI and Dell showed where the strongest momentum was concentrated. The AI infrastructure trade remains active, but follow-through above resistance is now more important than the size of Wednesday’s gains.

Earnings Volatility Tests Technical Support

The after-hours session produced sharp moves across several large-cap technology names, but the common thread was the same: earnings drove volatility, while technical levels helped define where price began to stabilize.

Tesla fell toward $365 and traded as low as $360.50. The stronger support zone remains lower, where a declining trendline near $354.08 aligns with an open gap at $352.50. The confluence of those two factors makes that area the more important technical test.

IBM offered the clearest reaction. The stock initially fell to $199.77 before recovering above $210. Support at $201.50 attracted buyers almost immediately, showing that the level remained relevant despite the volatility of the initial earnings move.

The next test is resistance near $211.00, where a declining trendline has continued to cap price. A daily close above that level would shift the near-term structure more constructively.

Texas Instruments also sold off sharply, falling to $269 before recovering toward $281. The earnings move damaged the bullish consolidation that had formed near $294, leaving $277.42 as the most immediate support level.

The larger takeaway is that after-hours price action should not be judged by the first spike alone. Thin liquidity can exaggerate the initial reaction. The more useful signal comes from where price begins to find support and whether those levels hold once normal trading resumes.

Oil Becomes the Commodity Market’s Directional Anchor

Oil delivered the clearest commodity setup.

US oil rallied to $88.61 before rejecting from a declining trendline, then pulled back directly into support at $85.75. That level previously acted as resistance and has now flipped into support.

The reclaim gives oil a stronger structure than the other major commodities discussed during the show. Price is holding above a former ceiling while continuing to test the longer-term declining trendline overhead.

Probability favors another challenge of that resistance as long as $85.75 continues to hold. A confirmed breakout would leave $96.44 as the next major technical level.

Gold also strengthened, clearing a March pivot low, a declining trendline from the March 2026 high, and the lower boundary of a parallel channel. That move was technically significant, but price is now approaching a concentrated resistance zone between $4,150 and $4,171.

That narrow band of overhead supply makes consolidation more likely before the next sustained move. Oil has already established support beneath its advance. Gold is still working through resistance.

Failed Patterns Require a New Thesis

Reddit provided the session’s clearest example of why traders must adjust when a pattern stops working.

The stock fell 8.32% after repeatedly failing to complete a breakout through the upper section of a large M-shaped structure. Three tests of resistance suggested that buyers were building pressure, but the expected breakout never arrived.

Instead, price reversed sharply and moved back inside a broader weekly bear flag.

The important level now sits near the lower portion of that flag, between $160 and $176. A daily close beneath that structure would favor continued downside toward the lower channel boundary near $142.

The lesson is not that the original setup was unreasonable. The lesson is that probability changed when price failed to follow through.

Professional trading requires abandoning the old thesis once the chart no longer supports it. Patterns do not deserve loyalty. Price structure does.

Bitcoin Holds Near-Term Support Inside a Broader Bearish Structure

Bitcoin declined roughly 1%, but remained inside the parallel channel it reclaimed over the previous two sessions.

Support sits near $65,898, while $67,264 remains the immediate resistance level. A move above that range high would strengthen the near-term recovery.

The broader structure remains less constructive. Bitcoin is still trading inside a larger bearish consolidation, and the unresolved head and shoulders pattern continues to carry a measured move near $37,508.

That creates a clear hierarchy. The reclaimed channel supports the near-term bounce, but the macro chart has not yet reversed. Until Bitcoin begins producing higher highs across the broader structure, rallies into resistance remain vulnerable.

Bottom Line

Wednesday’s market held together better than the combination of rising yields and mixed index performance would suggest. Semiconductor strength was the most important signal, particularly after SMH and SOXX negated their bearish patterns.

The missing piece is volume.

The market is showing resilience, but not yet broad conviction. That makes follow-through more important than the initial move. Semiconductor participation, SMCI above $31.07, Dell above $469.47, and the reaction to key post-earnings support levels will provide the clearest evidence of whether institutions are beginning to commit.

Until then, the edge remains in respecting the levels, allowing earnings volatility to settle, and separating price strength from confirmed participation.

Wednesday's session split the market into two distinct stories, and both center on names testing structurally important levels. GE Vernova's earnings report pushed the stock through a long-term trend line that had defined its advance for months, while Dell's rally is pressing into the final stretch of resistance separating it from a fresh all-time high. Neither move happened in isolation from its chart. Both setups were already building before today's catalysts arrived, and in each case, the earnings tape did the work of forcing a decision the chart had already been leaning toward. With more earnings due from several major names later this week, today's price action is a useful preview of how quickly a catalyst can resolve a setup that's been consolidating.

GE Vernova: A Confirmed Break Now Testing Secondary Support

Before today, GE Vernova had been rallying off a Monday low and pressing back toward a daily bearish topping tail that had capped the stock on a prior session. That rally looked poised to challenge the high again. The earnings report reversed that entirely. Rather than confirming the topping tail as resistance to break through, the stock fell hard enough to take out the long-term trend line that had defined months of advance, turning a resistance test into a trend break in a single session.

GE Vernova's report beat on revenue but missed on earnings, as offshore wind margin pressure and elevated backlog costs weighed on the bottom line. Shares fell sharply on the session, down as much as 8% intraday, after closing yesterday at $1,078. The remaining question now is a shorter-term trend line anchored to a June 10 pivot low, which today's session tested for the third time.

Given the earnings miss, the already-broken long-term trend line, and a third test of that shorter-term line in the same week, the setup favors a downside resolution. A daily close below the shorter-term trend line confirms continuation. The earnings-driven pressure behind this move makes a close back above that line the less likely outcome.

Dell: Momentum Favors a Direct Test of the All-Time High

Dell moved in the opposite direction, extending an earnings-driven rally that pushed shares up double digits on the day. The stock is now working through the psychological $450 level and into a pivot near $460.50 that has already capped price on two separate sessions this week, giving that zone a confluence of round-number and technical resistance rather than either factor alone. Momentum remains below overbought extremes even after today's advance, and that combination favors Dell clearing $460.50 and making a direct test of $469.47, the site of a triple-top resistance structure. A daily close above that level would confirm the breakout as structurally real rather than a single strong session, since the stock has already been turned back from that same zone more than once, and a triple top carries more weight than a single rejection precisely because it shows three separate attempts by sellers to defend the same price.

Elsewhere on the Board

A few other names are worth a quick note, each showing a level tied to the same broader session. Western Digital was testing resistance at $587 to $589, backed by a 3/8 Fibonacci retracement from its prior advance, with continuation opening the door toward $638.72. Amazon is forming a developing double-top, with $226.31 as key support and a resistance ceiling near $249.86. Delta held its long-term parallel channel at $82.90 support for a fourth time this week, with oil's push toward $88.61 the macro pressure to watch for the airline sector broadly.

Both anchor setups now hinge on the same mechanic: the daily close, not the intraday swing, is what turns a chart pattern into a confirmed outcome. GE Vernova's earnings-driven breakdown carries the stronger probability read on the charts today; Dell's rally still needs to clear its own resistance before the breakout is confirmed rather than assumed. Treating an in-progress setup as a closed one is the mistake to avoid heading into Thursday's session.

Watch on YouTube

Oil’s $87 Rejection Could Decide the Next Move in Yields and Stocks

Crude oil’s push into resistance near $87 was the most important signal in Gareth Soloway’s morning game plan. The level matters well beyond the energy market because oil and the 10-year Treasury yield have been moving together. A sustained rejection in crude would ease part of the inflation pressure behind the recent rise in yields, giving equities and semiconductors room to stabilize.

That relationship mattered more than the day’s earnings headlines. Oil was testing former support that has turned into resistance, the 10-year yield had climbed alongside it, and the S&P 500 remained positioned above long-term trendline support. The market’s next meaningful move may begin with whether crude continues rolling over from this high-probability resistance zone.

Oil Reaches a High-Probability Exhaustion Point

Crude oil surged into the $87 to $88 area overnight, reaching a level that previously acted as major support before breaking down. That history changes the role of the zone. Former support often becomes resistance when price returns from below, and Gareth viewed the move into $87 as an opportunity to position for a pullback rather than chase the breakout narrative.

“I don’t follow the hype or the narratives. I follow the charts,” Gareth said during the show.

The setup was based on structure, not emotion. Oil had advanced directly into a major pivot zone after an extended move, creating the conditions for exhaustion. Gareth estimated that comparable setups produce a pullback roughly 70% of the time. The reaction began during the broadcast, with crude slipping back below $87 and moving toward $86.

The probability now favors a deeper retracement from this resistance zone, with $80 and $78 standing out as the more important downside references. The oil trade is not simply a commodity setup. It is the starting point for the broader macro framework.

Why Oil Is Pulling the 10-Year Yield

Oil and the 10-year Treasury yield have been closely aligned. When crude bottomed in July, the 10-year yield bottomed on the same day. As oil recovered, the yield climbed from roughly 4.36% to 4.65%.

The connection runs through inflation expectations. Higher energy prices raise transportation, manufacturing, and distribution costs throughout the economy. Persistent pressure in oil makes it harder for inflation to cool and gives the Federal Reserve less room to shift toward easier policy. Bond traders respond by demanding higher yields.

That transmission mechanism makes the rejection at $87 more important than the move in crude alone. A sustained pullback in oil would reduce one source of inflation pressure and support a cooling move in the 10-year yield. Lower yields would remove part of the valuation pressure facing growth stocks and the broader equity market.

The market is not only reacting to oil. It is reacting to what oil implies for inflation, monetary policy, and the cost of capital.

The S&P 500 Is Still Holding Its Structure

The rise in crude and yields weighed on S&P 500 futures overnight, but the broader technical structure remains intact. The index is consolidating above a long-term rising trendline that dates back to 2021, creating a defined battleground between buyers defending the larger uptrend and sellers pressing against recent momentum.

The current pattern resembles a bullish flag, with a sharp advance followed by sideways consolidation above support. The level that matters now is the upper boundary near 7,565. A decisive move through that resistance would confirm that buyers have regained control and favor an advance toward the measured objective near 7,800.

The strength of that setup improves if oil and yields continue retreating. Equities do not need a perfect macro backdrop, but they do need the pressure from rising energy costs and long-term rates to ease. That is why crude remains the first chart to watch.

Semiconductors Need Yields to Cooperate

Semiconductor stocks have also pulled back as the broader market digests higher yields. The recent bounce across the group appears incomplete, with several names still working through retracement levels near the 50% and 0.618 Fibonacci marks.

That does not make the sector structurally weak. It means the next move needs a catalyst strong enough to restore risk appetite. A decline in crude followed by a cooling 10-year yield would provide that catalyst and improve the probability of semiconductors resuming their advance.

This is where the cross-asset framework becomes useful. The semiconductor chart cannot be evaluated in isolation. Its next move is tied to what happens in oil, inflation expectations, and bond yields.

Earnings Volatility Is Secondary to the Technical Reaction

Tesla, Alphabet, ServiceNow, IBM, and Texas Instruments were all scheduled to report, creating the potential for sharp individual moves. Gareth’s approach was not to predict the earnings numbers. The better trade comes after the report, when price reaches a defined technical level and the market reveals how it is processing the information.

Super Micro Computer surged on reports of a $60 billion backlog, but the move came against a backdrop of lingering credibility concerns tied to accounting allegations and questions surrounding chip shipments to China. The headline was positive, but the gap higher was not an attractive chase. The more compelling setup would develop only after price extends into stronger resistance north of $31.50.

GE Vernova offered a clearer example of the chart warning before the fundamental catalyst arrived. The stock formed a double top and printed a prominent topping tail before reporting weaker earnings. That candle showed buyers pushing price to new highs before sellers took control and forced a weak close. GEV is now approaching support near $940, where a gap fill and rising trendline converge.

Texas Instruments was positioned near major trendline support around $280, while IBM carried an important psychological reference near $200. Those levels matter because the earnings reaction will show whether buyers are still willing to defend the existing structure. The report itself creates volatility. The chart determines whether that volatility becomes a trade.

Gold, the Dollar, and the Carry-Trade Risk

Outside equities, several larger macro charts were also moving toward decision points. The US Dollar remained in a modest bullish consolidation beneath resistance, leaving the currency market without a clean directional advantage. The more important signal was the continued strength in USD/JPY.

The dollar’s sustained rise against the Japanese yen points to ongoing stress in the global carry trade. A violent reversal in that relationship could force leveraged positions to unwind across multiple asset classes. That risk remains underappreciated because the move has developed gradually, but the size of the currency imbalance makes it relevant to the broader market framework.

Gold was pressing against a major descending trendline near 4,150 while approaching the apex of its wedge pattern. The chart is running out of room, making the next daily close increasingly important. Silver continued to lag gold and still faced meaningful overhead supply near 64 and 66.

Bitcoin was also pulling back after reaching resistance, but the retracement remained consistent with a healthy digestion of the prior rally. The level that matters for the next upside phase is $67,000, with a confirmed move above that area favoring a push toward $71,000.

The Real Edge Is Selectivity

The broader lesson from the session was not that every chart offered a trade. It was that most did not.

“If I look at 100 charts today, 97 of them, I will be like, no trade here,” Gareth said. “And that’s actually being good. That’s actually being a disciplined trader.”

That selectivity separates probability-based trading from emotional participation. Financial media is designed to make every move feel urgent, but urgency does not create edge. A professional trader waits for price to reach a level where the technical structure, market context, and probability align.

The crude oil setup met that standard. Price reached former support turned resistance after an aggressive advance, historical probabilities favored exhaustion, and the macro implications extended into yields and equities. Most of the other charts were still developing.

Bottom Line

The level driving the broader market framework is crude oil near $87. The rejection from that resistance zone favors a pullback toward $80 and potentially $78, which would reduce inflation pressure and support a cooling move in the 10-year Treasury yield.

That would improve the backdrop for the S&P 500 and semiconductors, both of which remain positioned near important technical structures. Earnings will create volatility across individual names, but the higher-value signal is still the cross-asset relationship connecting oil, yields, and equity pressure.

The game plan is not to react to every headline. It is to follow the sequence. Oil rejects resistance, yields cool, and equities gain room to recover. Until that relationship changes, crude remains the chart setting the tone for the rest of the market.

Stocks Rallied Into the Close, but Volume Did Not Confirm the Move

Stocks finished higher today, but the more important signal was what did not accompany the rally: meaningful volume.

The S&P 500 and Nasdaq 100 recovered key technical ground, while several bearish semiconductor patterns were temporarily negated by gap-ups above their necklines. On the surface, that looked like a bullish shift. Underneath the move, however, participation remained light as Treasury yields and oil prices continued higher.

Drew Dosek’s central takeaway on today’s Trading the Close was that price improved, but conviction did not. The rally may have been driven more by short covering than by institutions building fresh long exposure. That leaves the market stronger technically than it was yesterday, but still short of the confirmation needed to trust the move.

A Bullish Recovery Without Bullish Participation

The S&P 500 entered the session beneath the wedge structure that had separated bullish price action above from bearish price action below. After bouncing from the 742 area overnight, the index pushed back toward 750 and recovered much of the recent breakdown.

The Nasdaq 100 ETF, QQQ, also regained an important lower support area and moved back into the range of the prior breakdown candle. The next technical test sits near the $717.74 gap fill, where a declining trendline adds resistance.

Those recoveries matter, but volume changes how they should be interpreted.

The S&P 500 traded roughly 29 million shares, a light figure for a session that appeared to reverse several bearish developments. Low participation does not invalidate the rally, but it raises the probability that forced buying played a larger role than fresh accumulation.

That distinction is especially important after a gap above resistance. Traders positioned short are forced to buy back shares as price moves against them. Their exits can lift the market quickly, even when larger buyers are not aggressively stepping in.

The result is a rally that improves the chart without fully confirming the change in character.

Semiconductors Delivered the Clearest Example

The semiconductor sector showed the same dynamic through the VanEck Semiconductor ETF, SMH, and major memory names including Western Digital, Micron, and SanDisk.

Several of those charts entered the session with developing head and shoulders patterns. SMH then opened above its neckline, immediately weakening the bearish setup and pressuring traders who had positioned for a breakdown.

The move was technically meaningful, but participation again remained limited. SMH traded approximately 6.92 million shares, well below the roughly 22 million shares that accompanied a previous support reaction.

Price still respected the chart. SMH found support near $541, where the former upper boundary of the rising parallel channel from the April 2025 lows now acts as a breakout-retrace level. That is constructive structure, but the lighter volume makes the next daily close more important than today’s intraday recovery.

A sustained move above the neckline would continue to weaken the bearish pattern. A close back beneath it would restore the pattern’s relevance and show that today’s gap was primarily a positioning reset rather than a lasting breakout.

The individual semiconductor charts reinforce the same message:

• Western Digital recovered its neckline but is approaching resistance near $620 at the lower boundary of its rising channel.
• Micron tested its neckline near the session low before recovering, with channel resistance near $1,018.
• SanDisk closed above its neckline near $1,515 and now faces resistance near $1,600. The channel midpoint near $1,792 remains the larger upside reference.

The sector improved today, but the next session must show whether buyers can build on that recovery with stronger participation.

Yields and Oil Did Not Support the Equity Rally

The macro backdrop made the light-volume advance harder to trust.

The 10-year Treasury yield pushed toward 4.63%, bringing the July highs back into play and placing the May peak near 4.687% within reach. Higher yields increase financing costs and raise the discount rate applied to future earnings, creating pressure for long-duration growth stocks.

Technology shares rallied anyway.

Oil also continued higher amid escalating tensions in the Middle East. Resistance sits near $85.75, followed by a declining trendline near $88.34 from the April pivot high.

Rising oil prices increase pressure on consumers and complicate the inflation outlook. When equities advance while both yields and energy costs rise, the market needs strong participation to show that investors are willing to look through those headwinds.

That participation was missing today.

The divergence does not guarantee an immediate reversal, but it makes volume confirmation essential. Price has started to repair the technical damage. The macro environment has not.

Gold, Silver, and Bitcoin Are Sending Different Signals

Gold gained 1.84%, but the larger structure remains constrained beneath horizontal resistance near $4,082. Above that level, additional resistance sits near $4,098, $4,149, and $4,178 before gold can reclaim its former rising channel.

Silver showed better relative strength by breaking above a multiweek declining trendline. A confirmed close above $58.39 would strengthen the case for a move toward the prior pivot near $63.27. Even at that level, however, silver would remain within the boundaries of its broader bear flag.

Bitcoin continues to show the cleanest constructive structure of the three. After holding support inside its parallel channel near $64,297, Bitcoin advanced 1.73%. The next major test sits at the June pivot near $67,264, followed by a heavier resistance zone between roughly $70,700 and $73,000.

Bitcoin’s series of higher lows and successful support tests reflects more consistent accumulation than the light-volume recovery seen across equities.

News Moved Individual Stocks, but the Charts Still Defined the Reactions

Nebius Group surged after Nvidia announced a $2 billion investment, sending the stock through several resistance levels in one session. NBIS cleared the top of its parallel channel near $197.09, moved through gap-fill resistance around $200, and traded near $220 after hours.

The next major resistance level sits near $232.09.

Even during the news-driven advance, price paused at a declining trendline before continuing higher. That reaction reinforced one of Drew’s recurring points: major catalysts can accelerate a move, but technical levels still influence where price pauses, consolidates, or reverses.

Teradyne offered the opposite setup. The stock received an analyst upgrade and a $500 price target, but its chart remains below the rising trendline it lost during the July breakdown. After finding support near $319, TER is now retesting that former support near $383.67.

Broken support often becomes resistance. The analyst upgrade may improve sentiment, but the chart requires a daily close above the trendline before the prior bullish structure is restored.

Earnings Put Confirmation at the Center of the Next Session

Tesla reports after tomorrow’s close after bouncing from rising trendline support near $354 to $355. The next meaningful resistance sits near $407.

Alaska Airlines is testing support around $43.68 following its earnings reaction, while Freeport-McMoRan remains inside a tight consolidation. FCX needs to reclaim the $62.95 to $63 area, with $64 marking the next important barrier and $66.06 serving as the larger upside reference.

On the monthly chart, 3M continues to develop a broad inverse head and shoulders pattern. The stock has rallied more than 30% from its April 2025 retracement, but the structure remains incomplete beneath neckline resistance near $174.70.

A monthly close above that level would confirm the pattern and bring the longer-term measured move near $278.86 into focus, with psychological resistance near $200 and $250 along the way.

The Bottom Line

Today’s rally repaired several bearish technical developments, but it did not resolve the market’s larger question.

The S&P 500, QQQ, and semiconductor stocks reclaimed important levels while volume remained light. At the same time, Treasury yields and oil prices moved higher, adding pressure beneath the surface.

Probability favors treating today’s move as an early recovery attempt rather than a fully confirmed shift in trend. The next session needs to deliver stronger volume and sustained closes above the reclaimed semiconductor necklines. Without that participation, today’s strength is more consistent with short covering than durable institutional demand.

Price improved. Conviction still needs to catch up.

Four commodities are worth watching this week, but they are not equally important. Silver is the chart closest to resolution and the one to watch first. Gold's own resistance test will confirm or undercut the broader metals thesis depending on how it resolves. Natural gas, through the UNG fund, offers the strongest asymmetric setup of the group. Oil remains the least attractive of the four until its current range actually breaks.

That hierarchy matters more than any single level. Silver and gold are both under sustained pressure at resistance, and pressure applied unevenly in one direction tends to eventually give way in that direction. Whether that happens first in silver, and whether gold follows, is the question that should drive positioning across the metals complex this week.

Silver: The Primary Decision Point

Silver is trading right at its most important level. After an explosive move to a record high earlier this year, silver pulled back into a support zone built from a prior gap fill and a cluster of pivot highs, and that support has held well. The next resistance sits in the $60 to $62 range, and silver is sitting at the edge of that band right now.

A daily close above $62 would confirm continuation toward new highs and validate the bullish read on the entire metals complex. A daily close back below the support shelf that has held on recent tests would undercut the setup and argue for standing aside until the range clarifies. Further out, and only as a macro-timeframe reference rather than a near-term target, the $34.50 area marks an earlier gap fill from before this year's advance.

Gold: Confirms or Rejects the Broader Thesis

Gold has been building a wedge pattern since May, repeatedly testing the same overhead resistance and getting turned back each time. A level tested many times without a proportional number of tests on the support side is a level under pressure, and that imbalance favors an eventual break higher over a rejection lower.

Current market structure puts gold's support in the $3,960 to $4,040 range, an area that has been tested and defended multiple times in recent sessions. Resistance sits first near $4,100, with a more significant ceiling at $4,250 to $4,300. A sustained push through the lower resistance would open the path toward that higher band; a failure to clear it keeps this year's advance in a corrective phase rather than confirming a new leg higher. Gold is the confirming asset in this group, not the leading one. If silver clears $62 and gold breaks its own resistance in the same window, the metals thesis strengthens considerably. If gold stalls while silver breaks out, the move is narrower and the two charts should be treated separately.

The Natural Gas Trade: The Best Asymmetry in the Group

Natural gas and its related fund, UNG, present the most favorable risk-to-reward picture of the four. Natural gas is approaching a support zone that has already flipped between support and resistance multiple times, a pattern that increases confidence in its significance. A bear flag is forming off the recent high, but its current angle is steeper than the roughly 45-degree slope typically associated with a reliable continuation pattern, which lowers the probability of a clean breakdown from here.

UNG specifically stands out: downside to its next support runs to roughly 5%, while upside toward the prior descending trend line runs closer to 30%. A pullback into the zone where that trend line has previously flipped from resistance back to support would represent the more attractive area for renewed interest, contingent on that level holding again. A move up toward the descending trend line from the recent pivot high marks the area where reducing exposure makes the most sense.

Oil: Secondary Until the Range Breaks

Crude oil has been climbing as geopolitical escalation continues, trading inside a parallel range in place since April and defined by a pattern of lower highs and lower lows. Support anchors near $77, and price has already worked into an $85 to $95 target region, with further upside contingent on clearing the major descending trend line that has produced clean rejections on recent tests. If the broader range holds its current shape, that trend line's lower boundary sits in the neighborhood of $90 and moves lower with each session the range persists.

The higher-probability setup here is not the breakout itself but the retest that would follow one: a clean move above the descending trend line, followed by a successful retest of that broken level from above. Until that sequence plays out, oil is the range-bound chart of the group and the one that deserves the least conviction.

What to Watch Next

Silver's daily close relative to $62 is the single most important data point across all four charts this week. If it confirms, watch gold's move against $4,100 and then $4,250 to $4,300 for a follow-through that would broaden the metals thesis. In natural gas, the support zone's ability to hold on renewed tests is the confirmation point for the UNG setup. Oil stays lowest priority until a breakout above its range is confirmed by a retest, not merely a touch.

Process Over Prediction

Silver is the chart closest to resolution, gold will confirm or reject the broader metals move depending on how its own resistance test resolves, natural gas carries the strongest asymmetry of the group, and oil remains a wait-and-watch chart until its range actually breaks. None of this is guaranteed to play out in order. What makes it worth tracking is the discipline of ranking these setups by proximity to resolution and quality of risk-to-reward, rather than treating four different commodities as four equally weighted stories.

Watch on YouTube

Institutional Money Is Rotating Back Into Semiconductors - Here Is What Gareth Is Watching Next

Semiconductors delivered the clearest signal in Gareth Soloway’s morning Game Plan. After several sessions of intraday strength followed by weak closes, the group reversed higher as major Wall Street firms began arguing that chip stocks had become undervalued. Gareth’s read was not simply that sentiment had improved. It was that institutional money may have used the recent weakness to accumulate positions before shifting the public narrative in favor of the sector.

That rotation is already creating a clear split beneath the broader market. Semiconductors such as Micron, Marvell Technology, and Sandisk are catching bids, while Apple and several major software names remain under pressure. The headline is that technology stocks are moving. The more important signal is where capital is moving within technology, because that internal rotation may determine which parts of the market lead the next leg.

Semiconductors Are Showing the Institutional Footprint

Semiconductors attempted to rally last Friday and again on Monday, but both sessions ended with weak closes. That usually raises questions about buyer conviction, especially after an extended advance. The tone changed Tuesday morning when Morgan Stanley and other institutional firms began publishing more constructive views on chip valuations.

Gareth interpreted that timing as an institutional footprint. Large firms rarely announce their most bullish views before establishing positions. They tend to accumulate while a group is weak, then release a more favorable narrative after exposure has been built. That does not guarantee a sustained rally, but it raises the probability that the current move is more than a one-session bounce.

Micron is a useful example. Gareth still believes the larger cycle may have already reached a meaningful top, but that does not eliminate the possibility of a tradable rebound. The stock bounced above $900 after reaching the upper end of its support structure, and a recovery toward $1,000 remains technically possible if the sector continues to strengthen.

Marvell Technology is showing a similar reaction after falling roughly 40% into a major pivot and gap-fill area. The stock has since rebounded toward $206, reinforcing the idea that buyers were waiting near established support rather than chasing the prior rally. Sandisk is participating as well after finding demand around the $1,500 area.

The important point is not that every semiconductor chart has suddenly turned bullish. It is that several names reached technical support at the same time institutional commentary became more favorable. That combination gives the bounce more credibility than a rally driven by headlines alone.

Apple and Software Show Where the Capital Is Coming From

Capital moving into one part of technology often comes from another. While semiconductors recover, Apple and major software stocks are weakening, creating an internal rotation that is easy to miss if traders focus only on the major indexes.

Apple recently broke below a major trendline dating back to 2024. Once that support failed, the underside of the trendline became resistance near the $330 to $335 area. Gareth had identified that zone as a potential short setup, and the stock is now pulling back after testing it.

That move matters because it is occurring while semiconductor stocks strengthen. Apple is not declining because the entire technology complex is collapsing. It is weakening while capital rotates into a different part of the sector.

The same relationship is visible in software. Salesforce and ServiceNow have been under pressure as semiconductor names recover. Gareth pointed out that the recent low in Salesforce closely aligned with a high in Marvell, illustrating the seesaw effect between the two groups.

This is the deeper market signal. Technology leadership is changing internally, even though the broader indexes may not fully reflect it. Traders who recognize that rotation can avoid treating every technology stock as part of the same trade.

The S&P 500 Still Holds the Broader Bullish Structure

The S&P 500 remains constructive as long as it stays above a multi-year breakout line connecting the 2021 bull-market high with the 2025 high. Price previously broke above that boundary and has since tested it twice without losing the structure.

That type of breakout and successful retest is generally bullish. It suggests the old resistance line is beginning to function as support, giving the index a foundation even as leadership rotates beneath the surface.

The risk is not the current consolidation. The risk is a failure to hold the breakout line. A break back below it would turn the move into a failed breakout, which could open the door to a much larger correction.

That technical setup is developing while the 10-year Treasury yield holds slightly above 4.6% and the Federal Reserve prepares to meet next week. The market currently expects the Fed to leave rates unchanged, but the larger path will still depend on incoming inflation and economic data. For now, the chart remains more important than the speculation. The bullish structure stays intact until price proves otherwise.

Earnings Are Trading on Expectations, Not Reported Numbers

General Motors provided a useful lesson in how markets process earnings. The company beat revenue expectations by roughly $1.5 billion, exceeded earnings estimates, and reported signs that internal costs were easing. Despite those results, the stock remained relatively flat.

The muted reaction showed that investors were already looking beyond the reported quarter. Oil prices have been moving higher, and the market appears concerned that rising energy costs could pressure future margins and offset some of the recent cost improvements.

The market was not reacting to whether GM delivered a good quarter. It was reacting to whether those results could be sustained under a changing macro backdrop. That is why strong numbers do not always produce a strong stock reaction.

Other earnings gaps created more direct technical setups. 3M traded higher toward a pivot near $170, but Gareth was not interested in chasing the opening move. The level that mattered was the trendline near $177.50, where another push could run into enough resistance to create a short-term pullback.

Danaher presented the opposite setup after falling roughly 15% following earnings. Moves of that size in established large-cap companies often contain an emotional component, creating temporary gaps between price and fair technical value.

Gareth identified a potential day-trading zone between the gap fill near $164 and support closer to $161. A deeper decline below $159 would improve the risk-to-reward profile for a longer-duration position because it would align price with a more significant low-pivot structure. The difference is important: the first zone may support a short-term reaction, while the deeper level would offer a more attractive swing setup.

Gold Is Running Out of Room

Gold is forming one of the clearest pressure setups on the board. Price is compressing between converging support and resistance lines, creating a large wedge that should resolve before the pattern reaches its apex around August 15.

The significance of that date is not that gold must reverse or rally on August 15 itself. It is that the available trading range is steadily narrowing, making continued consolidation less likely as the trendlines converge.

An upside breakout would put approximately $4,375 in range based on the pattern’s measured move. A breakdown would first expose support near $3,900, followed by a larger level around $3,500.

The advantage of the setup is that traders do not need to predict the direction in advance. The pattern becomes actionable only after price confirms which boundary has failed. Until then, the compression is information, not a signal to force a position.

Silver is also catching a bid, but its structure is less clean. Price still faces heavy resistance between $64 and $67, along with a descending trendline that must be cleared before the bullish case strengthens. Failure beneath that zone would leave support near $54 as the primary downside reference.

Oil continues to push higher, but Gareth’s preferred resistance remains near $87 per barrel. Rather than chase the current advance, the cleaner setup would be a direct move into that predetermined level, where the chart offers a clearer probability of rejection.

Natural gas is less attractive. Price is holding a long-term trendline, but the recent consolidation resembles a bear flag. With support and bearish continuation signals competing against each other, the setup lacks the asymmetry Gareth wants before committing capital.

Bitcoin’s Pattern Points Toward $71,000 to $72,000

Bitcoin has broken above a large inverse head-and-shoulders structure that can also be viewed as a cup-and-handle pattern. With price near $66,500, the measured move points toward the $71,000 to $72,000 zone.

That target becomes more important because it aligns with a larger overhead trendline. Multiple technical factors pointing toward the same area increase the probability that price reacts there, even if momentum eventually carries Bitcoin higher.

The purpose of a measured move is not to predict the exact high. It provides a logical zone where the pattern has completed its technical objective and where traders should reassess the risk of remaining fully exposed.

That framework is especially relevant during a momentum-driven crypto rally. Greed can push price beyond a calculated target, but disciplined traders use those targets to manage risk rather than assume the upside will continue indefinitely.

The Chart Has to Matter More Than the Ticker

The central lesson from Gareth’s session was not limited to semiconductors, gold, or Bitcoin. It was the importance of separating the chart from the emotional attachment traders develop toward specific assets.

Gareth suggested a simple mental exercise: hide the ticker symbol and judge the structure without knowing whether the chart belongs to a stock, commodity, or cryptocurrency. Would the setup still look attractive based only on support, resistance, trend, and probability?

That exercise removes many of the biases that damage decision-making. Traders often become attached to a company’s story, a previous winning position, or a belief about where an asset should trade. The chart forces a more objective question: does the current structure still support the original thesis?

That logic applies to broken charts as well. Citigroup may eventually bounce back toward its breakdown line, but a rebound into former support would not automatically make the chart bullish. It could instead provide a more favorable area to evaluate renewed downside.

The same approach applies to stocks such as OKLO and Cameco. An 88.6% Fibonacci retracement helped identify the prior reaction area in OKLO, while Cameco is approaching a gap-fill zone that could produce a bounce. The value comes from waiting for price to reach a technically meaningful location rather than chasing it between levels.

Bottom Line

The dominant signal from Gareth’s Game Plan was the developing rotation back into semiconductors. Institutional commentary turned more constructive only after several chip stocks reached established support, suggesting large investors may have positioned during the recent weakness before shifting the narrative.

That rotation is coming at the expense of Apple and software, creating a split within technology that matters more than the movement of the headline indexes. The broader market remains constructive while the S&P 500 holds its multi-year breakout line, but a failure below that structure would materially change the read.

Elsewhere, gold is approaching a forced decision inside its wedge, Bitcoin’s breakout points toward the $71,000 to $72,000 zone, and earnings gaps continue to reward traders who wait for defined levels instead of reacting to headlines. The market is offering setups, but the edge still comes from selectivity. The chart has to reach the level before the probability becomes worth trading.

Crypto trading volume thinned out considerably to start the week, with a summer trading lull leaving the market with little to react to. Thin volume doesn't make a structure meaningless, but it does mean the boundaries being tested right now are more clearly defined than they are confirmed. The eventual breakout or breakdown will only mean something once it comes with a real close and real participation behind it, not before.

Bitcoin sits at the center of that dynamic right now. It is coiled inside a short-term parallel channel, and how it resolves from here is likely to set the tone for the rest of the complex. Ethereum is showing relatively more strength within its own structure, while Solana, BNB, and Zcash remain in wait-and-confirm mode at their respective trendlines.

Bitcoin: A Two-Factor Resistance Test

Bitcoin is working inside a short-term upsloping parallel channel drawn from the July 6 pivot low, with four touches on the lower boundary and two on the upper edge, still one hit shy of a fully confirmed channel. Price pushed above the $65,000 handle earlier in the session before giving back much of that move, and the level is now acting as a pivot point rather than a settled breakout.

The more important zone sits just above current price. A prior pivot low at $66,100 lines up closely with the top of the current channel, creating a two-factor resistance cluster. A premature downsloping trend line, currently on two touches and not yet the three needed for full confirmation, adds a third layer of resistance near $66,500 if Bitcoin can clear the channel and the pivot together.

To the downside, a prior pivot level near $63,945 has become a zone of recent indecision, with price dipping through it before the session closed as a standoff candle. The broader $65,000 handle carries its own significance as a level with polarity going back to 2024. Net positioning leans slightly bullish while price holds above the rising lower boundary of the channel, but the resistance cluster above is real, and a clean break of that zone, not an intraday poke through it, is what would shift the read from cautious to constructive.

Ethereum: The Stronger Setup in the Complex

Ethereum is showing the cleaner technical picture of the majors. Price is riding an upsloping trend line from early in the month, having already been rejected once by a longer-term downsloping trend line from May before confirming back above it. A retest of the rising trend line held without even a full touch, with support building in the $1,837–$1,890 zone.

Resistance is layered in a similar structure to Bitcoin's. Ethereum has struggled to reclaim $1,950–$1,956, a level tied to price action from early June, and a clean break there opens the door to the $2,000 handle and a prior consolidation shelf near $2,007. The RSI is grinding higher but hasn't produced the kind of sharp momentum move that would confirm a decisive shift, which keeps this as a setup to track rather than one to treat as resolved.

Altcoin Watchlist: Solana, BNB, and Zcash

The rest of the complex is in a similar holding pattern, with each asset testing a trend line rather than breaking decisively in either direction.

In the session reviewed, Solana was holding an upsloping trend line after being pierced briefly and reclaimed the following day, a reminder that a single close below a trend line isn't confirmation without a follow-through session. Resistance in that session clustered near $79.60, with a downsloping trend line just above adding further resistance around $80–$80.50. A clear break of both opens room toward a swing level near $83.41.

BNB is riding a downsloping trend line lower after repeated rejections, with a pivot low near $556 offering support and RSI still struggling to clear the midpoint of its range. A move back above $585–$592 would be needed to shift the near-term structure, with that same zone likely to draw sellers if reached.

Zcash pierced below its multi-touch parallel channel intraday, though the candle body closed back above the channel's lower bound near $523.60 in the session covered, keeping the breakdown unconfirmed for now. A reclaim of the channel would put resistance at its midline near $580 and at a pivot around $587.52, with room to extend toward $600 and a prior rejection point at $643 if momentum builds. Support below sits near $496.47.

What Would Change the Picture

Bitcoin's channel is the variable to watch across the complex. A confirmed daily close above the $66,100–$66,500 cluster would be the clearest signal that risk appetite is genuinely returning, not just drifting. A confirmed close below the rising lower boundary of the channel would argue the opposite, and would likely pressure Ethereum's resistance test and the altcoin trend lines in tandem, given how tightly correlated these setups are to Bitcoin's own structure. None of this resolves on an intraday wick; the signal that matters is where each of these levels closes, not where price briefly trades.

Worth watching alongside price itself is whether the altcoins begin moving independently of Bitcoin's resolution. If Solana, BNB, or Zcash break their own trend lines ahead of Bitcoin clearing its channel, that divergence would be a signal in its own right, since these setups have been trading in close correlation to Bitcoin's structure through this entire stretch of low-volume consolidation.

Watch on YouTube

Five charts, five different stages of the same underlying game: price pressing against a level that will decide the next several weeks of direction. Take-Two Interactive is the one worth watching first, because it is doing right now, in real time, exactly what a breakout retest is supposed to do: fighting to reclaim a neckline that recently rejected it.

The broader pattern across this group is instructive. Lumentum is coiling under a declining trendline after a strong bounce off support. Roblox and UPS are both digesting recent breakouts. Bloom Energy is the outlier, still working through a sharp decline that has not yet reached its likely support zone. None of these are calls to act immediately. They are structures worth tracking for the levels that would confirm or invalidate the next move.

Take-Two Interactive: Fighting to Reclaim the Trigger Line

Take-Two triggered an inverse head-and-shoulders pattern last week, then gave it back on a retrace that technically negated the formation. That kind of failed breakout usually ends conversations about the pattern entirely. Instead, price has come right back to test the same neckline near $241.34, and a daily close above that level would be meaningfully constructive, even without the full measured-move target the original pattern implied.

Resistance above sits at $265, and a daily close above that level would open the door toward the $300 area. On the downside, a failure to hold the neckline points back to support near $219.08, a zone reinforced by a prior pivot high that has already produced one bounce. The setup carries real volatility, a fact underscored by the initial pattern failure itself, which is why confirmation matters more here than usual. This is also a name with a defined catalyst on the calendar: the upcoming release of its next major title later this year continues to draw market attention to every technical development in the stock.

Lumentum: Breakout Setup at the Trendline

Lumentum has spent since October inside a wide parallel channel, and Friday's low near $650.82 tested the bottom of that range before the stock bounced sharply. The level in play now is a declining trendline resistance near $836.85. A daily close above that line, confirmed the following session, would open the path back toward the midpoint of the channel near $950, a significant move from current levels.

This would also mark the third test of that trendline, following its origin point and a mid-June pivot. A third rejection at resistance would carry more weight than the first two. In that scenario, the channel's lower boundary becomes the level to watch again, with deeper support layered near $616 and $597 if the channel breaks down entirely.

Watchlist: Roblox, UPS, and Bloom Energy

Roblox already confirmed its breakout in early July and has since moved into consolidation. In the session reviewed, the pullback toward the $48.43 support zone read as a potential support test rather than a warning sign, one that would preserve the broader breakout structure if it held. The level that would need to clear for continuation is $66.21, with the long-term trendline target near $85 the eventual destination if that resistance gives way.

UPS is running a standard breakout-and-retrace sequence after clearing a trendline dating back to a February pivot. Near-term support sits at $111, a level that would need to hold for the trendline break to remain intact. On the upside, a bounce from that zone points toward $124.74. A daily close back under the trendline, currently near $107.50, would be the signal that the breakout has failed.

Bloom Energy is the counterpoint to the other four names. The stock has declined more than 40% since late June, and the current bearish consolidation is expected to eventually resolve toward a fib retracement level near $166.47 before any substantial bounce. That target has not yet been reached and should be treated as a level to watch rather than a confirmed destination.

Key Levels to Monitor

What to Watch Next

The single most useful signal across this group is the Take-Two neckline. A confirmed daily close above $241.34 would suggest buyers are willing to defend a level that just failed once, which says more about underlying demand than the original breakout did. A close back below it, on the other hand, keeps the stock in a range-bound holding pattern until support near $219.08 is tested.

Process Over Prediction

None of these five setups are guaranteed outcomes. They are levels that define risk in both directions, which is the entire point of tracking them. Confirmation comes from daily closes, not intraday spikes through resistance or brief dips below support. The stock that broke its pattern and is now fighting to reclaim it, the one coiling under a third test of the same trendline, and the one still searching for the bottom of its decline are all telling a version of the same story: price is deciding, and the next few sessions will show which way it leans.

Watch on YouTube

The S&P 500 Wedge Is Forcing a Decision as Earnings Take Control

An earnings-heavy week is beginning with the S&P 500 compressed inside a tightening technical structure, semiconductor stocks testing support, and several headline-driven moves beginning to lose momentum. The individual charts are different, but Gareth Soloway’s central framework from this morning’s My Trading Game Plan was consistent across each one: separate the emotional narrative from the level that actually defines the trade.

That approach becomes especially important during a week when corporate earnings, geopolitical developments, and rapid sector rotations can pull traders in several directions at once. Rather than predicting every outcome, Gareth focused on the chart structures that would confirm whether recent weakness is stabilizing or beginning to accelerate.

“We rely on the charts to basically give us probability, which puts us in a position to not win every time, because I certainly don’t, but at least it makes us into the casino versus the gambler,” Gareth explained. That distinction framed the session. The market does not need to become predictable. Traders need clearly defined levels that tell them when the probability has changed.

The S&P 500 Wedge Defines the Broader Market

The most important chart of the session was the S&P 500. After two consecutive down days last week and a roughly 1% decline on Friday, futures bounced modestly Monday morning. That recovery offered some relief, but it did not resolve the larger structure forming on the daily chart.

The index remains compressed inside a developing wedge, with descending resistance connecting the June 2 all-time high to a series of lower highs. The lower boundary is rising beneath price, leaving the market with progressively less room to move. That compression matters more than the morning bounce because the eventual break could establish the next directional phase.

A breakout through the upper trendline would shift the structure back in favor of buyers and open a measured move toward approximately 7,700. Continued strength could eventually bring 8,000 into view, although the first confirmation would be a sustained move beyond the wedge rather than an immediate projection toward the furthest target.

The downside level carries equal weight. A break beneath the wedge’s rising support would expose the former all-time-high region near 7,000, an area established across late 2025 and early 2026. Because the wedge is visible across multiple time frames, a confirmed breakdown could draw additional systematic selling and increase the speed of the decline.

“If we come down to this trendline and break, it’s going to open up the floodgates,” Gareth said. “The algorithms are going to begin to sell, and we should see a very sharp drop to our former all-time highs going back to early 2026 and late 2025, and that would be around 7,000.”

The chart is therefore forcing a decision. A modest bounce inside the wedge does not change the broader read. Price must clear descending resistance or lose rising support before the market provides meaningful directional confirmation.

Apple and Semiconductors Are Trading Opposite Sides of the Rotation

Beneath the index, one of the clearest internal market signals is the rotation between Apple and the semiconductor group. Gareth described the relationship as “yin and yang.” Weakness in semiconductors has pushed capital toward Apple, while rebounds in chip stocks have tended to reduce demand for Apple as the perceived defensive technology trade.

That rotation has contributed to an extraordinary three-week move in Apple, adding roughly $1 trillion in market capitalization. The fundamental narrative is that Apple avoided the aggressive artificial-intelligence infrastructure spending undertaken by several semiconductor and cloud-computing companies. The chart, however, shows a move that has become increasingly vertical.

Gareth is positioned for an Apple pullback toward $315, where a former pivot high aligns with a significant gap fill. The thesis is not based only on Apple being extended. It also depends on whether semiconductor stocks can stabilize and attract capital back into the group. A stronger semiconductor bounce would remove part of the relative-demand advantage that has helped drive Apple higher.

Several semiconductor charts are beginning to test the levels needed for that rotation. Marvell Technology is bouncing from an important support area near $195, where a gap fill converges with a prior high pivot. Holding that zone leaves room for a recovery toward approximately $220 to $225.

Micron is showing a similar structure. The stock has started to stabilize after testing support slightly above $800, with a prior high pivot and secondary gap fill reinforcing the area. These supports do not automatically call for new all-time highs. They create the conditions for a mean-reversion bounce after a severe corrective move.

That is the more important interpretation. Apple’s extension and semiconductor support are not isolated setups. They are connected through the market’s recent capital rotation. Confirmation in one group could directly influence the probability of the setup in the other.

Sandisk Shows the Risk of Chasing Analyst Exuberance

Sandisk provided the session’s clearest example of how sentiment can become detached from technical risk. The stock has fallen approximately $1,000 from its recent high after one of the market’s most aggressive momentum runs.

As Sandisk climbed 100%, 200%, and eventually 300% on the year, analyst targets moved sharply higher, with some reaching $3,000 to $3,500. Those upgrades appeared after much of the move had already occurred, making them less useful as forward-looking analysis and more revealing as a measure of sentiment.

“Analysts, unfortunately, are human, and therefore they fall into the emotional trap,” Gareth said. “They get emotional about it, just like many of us do, and they throw out these ridiculous price targets, but it’s a topping signal.”

The lesson is not that every analyst upgrade marks an exact top. The signal comes from the combination of a historic price extension and increasingly aggressive targets arriving after the market has already repriced the stock. At that stage, the upgrades can confirm that optimism has become crowded rather than identify a new source of upside.

Sandisk has not yet reached the strongest support area on Gareth’s chart. A potential level begins to form near $1,200, although the structure would be cleaner if price first bounced and then rolled back toward that zone. That sequence would provide more information about whether sellers remain in control and whether support is attracting meaningful demand.

Oil’s Reversal Shows Why Levels Matter More Than Headlines

Crude oil offered another example of price refusing to follow the most emotionally compelling narrative. Escalating tensions involving the United States and Iran sent oil close to $85 per barrel overnight. Instead of extending higher, crude surrendered the move, briefly turned negative, and later recovered toward unchanged levels.

The reversal did not make the geopolitical risk irrelevant. It showed that the initial news-driven buying was insufficient to sustain a breakout. For Gareth, the stronger opportunity would come only if oil reaches the established resistance area near $87.

That level represents what Gareth calls the “scene of the crime.” Oil previously used the area as support during an earlier advance, testing it several times before eventually breaking below it. Once support fails, the same level can become resistance when price returns from underneath.

The important point is not that $87 guarantees a rejection. It is that the level provides a more defined probability setup than chasing an overnight move driven by escalating headlines. Until crude reaches that area, price remains vulnerable to the type of volatility and reversal seen during Monday’s session.

This is where patience becomes part of the analysis. Headline volatility creates urgency, but urgency does not create an edge. The edge appears when emotional price movement reaches a technically significant level and gives traders a structure against which the thesis can be judged.

Earnings Replace Economic Data as the Main Catalyst

The economic calendar is relatively light, with initial jobless claims on Thursday followed by purchasing managers’ index data and new-home sales on Friday. Corporate earnings will therefore carry more influence over individual stocks and could help determine which side of the S&P 500 wedge eventually breaks.

Wednesday is the heaviest session, with Tesla, Alphabet, ServiceNow, Texas Instruments, CSX, and IBM scheduled to report. Intel follows Thursday after the close, alongside several airline and defense-company reports.

IBM stands out because of the damage already reflected in its chart. The stock previously suffered a decline of more than 20% following a negative preannouncement. When a company reports after a move of that size, management sometimes uses the quarter to recognize multiple problems at once and reset expectations. The question is whether IBM signals that the worst of the deterioration has already been priced in.

That does not make the earnings result predictable. It changes the asymmetry. Expectations are far lower than they were before the original decline, and the stock is approaching technical support. A credible indication that conditions are stabilizing could produce a meaningful bounce, while another deterioration would test whether that support can absorb additional selling.

Earnings gaps can also create more precise intraday structures. Domino’s Pizza gapped higher Monday morning, placing a large gap-fill area near $367 to $368 into focus as possible resistance. AMC also opened higher following earnings, with a prior gap-fill area near $2.75 providing a level to watch if the initial rally continues.

The common thread is confirmation. A large earnings gap does not automatically establish the direction of the next move. The reaction becomes more useful when price reaches a prior pivot, gap fill, or other structure that reveals whether buyers or sellers are still willing to defend the move.

Gold, Silver, and Natural Gas Remain Under Pressure

Gold is holding near support around $3,900 after its recent decline. Losing that area would weaken the near-term structure and expose lower support zones, including the region between approximately $3,450 and $3,600. The exact path would depend on how price behaves at each intermediate level, but the chart remains vulnerable while buyers struggle to generate separation from $3,900.

The longer-term gold thesis remains separate from the current technical weakness. Verified Investing is preparing a Gold Institutional Report and interactive cycle calculator designed to examine how variables such as real interest rates and national debt may influence the next major cycle. That macro framework may remain constructive even while the short-term chart works through a deeper correction.

Silver is also showing mixed signals. It has repeatedly tested the area near $54 without producing a decisive breakdown, but the broader sequence of lower lows remains intact. The technical bias does not materially improve unless silver can eventually reclaim the larger resistance region between $63 and $64.

Natural gas may be the weakest of the commodity charts. Price is building a possible bear flag while sitting directly on support. Persistent pressure against the same floor can indicate that buyers are absorbing repeated tests without generating a meaningful bounce. A confirmed loss of that support would keep the bearish continuation structure intact.

Bitcoin Offers the Cleaner Bullish Structure

Bitcoin continues to look more constructive than the major commodity charts. Price is holding in the upper portion of its recent range while developing an inverse head-and-shoulders pattern.

The first level that matters is $65,000. A clean break above that resistance would confirm improving momentum and open a near-term move toward approximately $67,000. Beyond that, the full measured move from the inverse head-and-shoulders structure points toward the $71,000 to $72,000 region.

The setup remains conditional. An inverse head-and-shoulders pattern does not become actionable simply because the shape is visible. The neckline must break before the measured move gains technical validity. Until then, Bitcoin is building a bullish possibility rather than completing a bullish breakout.

Even so, its relative strength matters. While gold, silver, and natural gas continue to pressure support, Bitcoin is holding near resistance and attempting to complete a reversal pattern. That divergence makes the cryptocurrency one of the cleaner upside charts discussed during the session.

Yields and the Dollar Could Decide the Wedge

The final pieces of Gareth’s framework were the U.S. Dollar Index and the 10-year Treasury yield. Both remain capable of influencing whether the S&P 500 breaks its wedge higher or lower.

The Dollar Index is consolidating in a structure that increasingly resembles a bullish flag. A confirmed breakout would place approximately 103.40 in view as the next measured target. Dollar strength can tighten financial conditions and create pressure across commodities and other risk-sensitive assets, making the breakout level relevant beyond the currency market itself.

The 10-year Treasury yield is holding above 4.5%, with 4.7% acting as the more consequential threshold. A move through 4.7% would increase the pressure on equity valuations and could become the catalyst that pushes the S&P 500 through the lower boundary of its wedge.

That relationship completes the broader framework. Earnings will drive individual stocks, but yields and the dollar may determine whether those moves remain isolated or develop into a wider shift in risk appetite. The index is already compressed. A simultaneous breakout in yields or the dollar could provide the macro pressure needed to resolve that compression.

Bottom Line

The market is entering a catalyst-heavy week without a confirmed index direction. The S&P 500 remains inside a wedge, Apple is extended while semiconductor stocks test support, and several headline-driven moves are beginning to reverse near established technical levels.

The level that matters most is the boundary of the S&P 500 structure. A break above descending resistance would favor a move toward 7,700. A loss of rising support would expose the former all-time-high region near 7,000 and increase the risk of accelerated selling.

Until one side breaks, the better framework is not to predict the outcome. It is to recognize which individual charts are approaching decision points and wait for price to confirm the probability. That is how traders avoid becoming the gambler reacting to every headline and begin operating like the casino, with the level and the risk defined before the move arrives.

The Semiconductor Selloff Is Accelerating, but Gareth Is Now Mapping the Bounce

The semiconductor unwind has entered a new phase. The larger technical structure remains damaged, but the immediate opportunity is no longer as simple as pressing shorts into weakness. After a rapid flush across the sector, Gareth Soloway is beginning to cover bearish positions and identify the support zones where sharp counter-trend bounces could develop.

That was the central framework from this morning’s My Trading Game Plan Revealed. Fear is spreading across technology, the major indices are testing important support, and several crowded trades are being repriced at once. The key now is separating a longer-term bearish cycle from the shorter-term setups forming as price reaches defined technical levels.

The Semiconductor Trade Is Changing

Semiconductors became one of the clearest expressions of market euphoria. Stocks such as Sandisk and Micron attracted increasingly aggressive analyst targets after already delivering enormous gains. For Gareth, that behavior was not confirmation that the rally had further to run. It was evidence that expectations had become emotional.

“When the analysts get so emotional that they start jumping over each other to upgrade stocks to ridiculous price targets after they’ve already run 300% intrayear, it is a topping signal,” Gareth explained.

That signal has now played out through a sharp sector-wide reversal. The broader semiconductor cycle may still have substantial downside ahead, but markets rarely move in a straight line. Once selling becomes crowded and fear accelerates, the risk shifts from missing additional downside to pressing the move too late.

Gareth has covered most of his semiconductor shorts and is now mapping levels where 20% to 25% counter-trend rallies could begin. Micron is approaching a broad support zone between $815 and the gap fill near $750. Sandisk has support beginning around $1,285, with a deeper area near $1,200. Marvell has fallen more than 40% and is also entering a region where buyers could begin testing the decline.

These are not calls that the semiconductor correction is over. They are defined areas where the probability of a snapback improves after an extreme move.

The Nasdaq at 25,000 Is the Confirmation Level

The next question is whether the major indices can stabilize long enough for those semiconductor bounces to develop.

The S&P 500 is testing a major rising trendline tied to the bull-market structure that began in 2021. Price has already interacted with that support more than once, which weakens it with each test. A breakdown would create a failed-breakout structure and increase the risk that selling spreads beyond technology.

The cleaner level sits on the Nasdaq near 25,000. That area combines a major psychological number with multiple historical pivot lows, giving it greater technical significance than a round number alone.

If the Nasdaq holds 25,000, the market has a base from which oversold technology names could rebound. A confirmed break below it would change the structure and place the next major support near 24,000 in focus.

That makes 25,000 more than another chart level. It is the line separating a tradable flush from a broader deterioration in market structure.

Earnings Are Exposing the Sentiment Shift

Earnings season is reinforcing the change in psychology. Companies are being punished for results that would have been tolerated when risk appetite was stronger. The market is no longer rewarding a good story by default. It is demanding near-perfect execution.

Netflix broke through Gareth’s initial support near $68.70 after its report, leaving the next technical area near $64. Intuitive Surgical also gapped lower following weak guidance, but Gareth sees little reason to step in before price approaches its gap fill around $330.

Alcoa offers another example. The stock broke lower from a bear flag and is now moving toward support near $41. That zone previously acted as resistance before the breakout, making it a more credible area for a potential reaction if price reaches it.

The important signal is not that individual companies missed expectations. It is that the market’s tolerance for disappointment has collapsed. That is what happens when sentiment moves away from euphoria and toward capital preservation.

Extreme Fear Is Beginning to Create Better Setups

Gareth framed the current market through the movement of a pendulum. Extreme greed eventually creates the conditions for a reversal, but the swing rarely stops at neutral. It continues toward fear until traders who were previously bullish begin expecting prices to fall indefinitely.

Oracle is beginning to show that dynamic. The stock has been pulled lower by the broader change in sentiment and is approaching support near $120. That area is reinforced by the convergence of a descending trendline and horizontal support.

The setup becomes more attractive because the technical level is arriving as sentiment turns overwhelmingly negative. The opportunity is not based on buying weakness blindly. It comes from waiting for extreme fear to meet a support zone with multiple technical factors behind it.

That same psychological shift is becoming visible in precious metals.

Silver Is Nearing Gareth’s Downside Target

Silver has nearly reached Gareth’s projected downside target near $54 after trading around $120 during the earlier period of euphoria. The price move matters, but the change in retail expectations may be even more important.

“Today, for the first time, I’m seeing comments that people are saying they’ll buy it at $18 or $20,” Gareth said. “That’s the beginning of the end of the drop on silver.”

Those comments represent a sharp reversal from the belief that silver could only move higher. When traders begin projecting extreme downside after most of the decline has already occurred, it can signal that capitulation is advancing.

Silver could still break below $50, but Gareth views the region from approximately $54 to $46 as an accumulation zone for a larger macro bounce. The technical case strengthens if selling continues while retail expectations become increasingly bearish.

Gold is correcting as well, reaching approximately $3,959 with additional support below $3,900. A stronger US dollar is adding pressure to both metals as investors seek liquidity during the broader risk-off move.

Oil, Natural Gas and Bitcoin Are Sending Different Signals

Oil remains supported by renewed geopolitical tension, but the chart becomes less attractive if price pushes into resistance near $87. Gareth sees that area as a potential exhaustion point, with the possibility of a later retrace toward $70 or below.

Natural gas is more vulnerable. Price is holding support, but the developing bear flag shows that buyers have not created meaningful separation from the floor. Repeated tests weaken support, and failure to push higher by the middle of next week would increase the probability of a breakdown.

Bitcoin presents the most complicated structure. Its inverse head-and-shoulders pattern has not confirmed, and price has moved back below the neckline. That weakens the bullish setup, but Bitcoin has continued to show relative strength against stocks and precious metals.

The Nasdaq may determine what happens next. A hold near 25,000 could give Bitcoin enough support to reassert that relative strength. A breakdown in technology would make the failed neckline more important and increase the risk that crypto follows the broader market lower.

Bottom Line

The semiconductor bubble may still be deflating, but the tactical setup has changed. After a rapid decline, the better decision is no longer to chase weakness. It is to identify where extreme fear is colliding with major technical support.

Micron, Sandisk and Marvell are entering potential bounce zones, but the Nasdaq must defend 25,000 for those setups to gain stronger confirmation. Silver is approaching Gareth’s downside objective as retail sentiment begins to capitulate, while Oracle is nearing a multi-factor support area around $120.

The larger market remains vulnerable. The immediate opportunity, however, is becoming more selective and increasingly level-driven. The traders with the clearest advantage will be those who can stay bearish on the broader structure without remaining blindly bearish after price reaches support.

Semiconductor Weakness Is Testing the Market’s AI Leadership

The headline from Taiwan Semiconductor was not weak. TSMC reported record quarterly results, beat revenue and earnings expectations, and posted a gross margin near 67.7%. The stock still sold off, and that reaction became the most important signal into the close. Investors were not responding to a collapse in AI demand. They were questioning whether strong growth, record profitability, and rising capital spending were already reflected in semiconductor valuations.

That shift in expectations spread quickly through semiconductors, memory stocks, and data center infrastructure names. The broader market held up better, but the divergence between SPY and QQQ showed where the pressure was concentrated. For traders, the question is no longer whether the AI buildout remains real. It is whether semiconductor leadership can continue supporting the broader market when strong results are no longer enough to attract buyers.

TSMC’s Results Were Strong, but the Reaction Was the Story

TSMC delivered approximately $40.2 billion in quarterly revenue and record profit, while also raising its capital expenditure outlook as it expands production capacity. The fundamental picture remains strong. AI and high-performance computing demand continue to drive the business, and management’s forward outlook did not signal a sudden deterioration in demand.

The market’s response points to a different concern. Expectations surrounding AI infrastructure have become so elevated that even exceptional results may not be enough to extend valuations without interruption. Higher capital spending, the cost of expanding overseas production, and questions about how long record margins can persist are beginning to enter the discussion.

That is a more important takeaway than whether TSMC beat a single quarterly estimate. When a market leader sells off after producing record numbers, traders need to watch whether the weakness remains isolated or begins spreading through the rest of the sector.

On the chart, TSMC is running into resistance near $434.80, the midpoint of its parallel channel. If selling pressure continues, the first meaningful support area sits around the gap between $390 and $393. The lower boundary of the channel is deeper at $374.72.

Those levels matter, but TSMC is not the clearest warning signal. That distinction belongs to the semiconductor ETF.

SMH Is the Level That Matters Most

The VanEck Semiconductor ETF has been developing a large head and shoulders pattern, and price is now testing the neckline near $564.45.

A confirmed daily close beneath that level would change the sector’s technical structure. The neckline would begin acting as resistance, and the pattern’s measured move projects toward $460.25. That would represent a significant additional decline and would likely create pressure beyond semiconductor stocks themselves.

SMH matters because semiconductors have been one of the market’s primary leadership groups. When leadership weakens, the effect can spread through the Nasdaq, other high-multiple technology names, and eventually the broader indexes.

A single intraday break would not be enough to confirm the larger bearish pattern. The close matters. If SMH recovers and holds above $564.45, the sector could stabilize. If it begins closing beneath the neckline, traders should treat the weakness as a structural development rather than an ordinary pullback.

That is the central decision point coming out of today’s session.

QQQ Is Showing More Damage Than SPY

The index action reinforced the semiconductor message.

SPY declined modestly and tested its declining trendline near $747.88. The ETF recently confirmed a near-term breakout, but the follow-through has been weak. Price has returned to the same trendline repeatedly, suggesting buyers have not generated enough momentum to separate from the breakout area.

The immediate level is approximately $747.49. A close beneath that area would put the next rising trendline near $744.97 in focus. Large lower wicks show that buyers are still defending the zone, but repeated tests reduce the margin for error.

QQQ took the heavier hit because of its concentration in technology and semiconductor-related names. Support near $705.39 held into the close, but it has already been tested several times. Every additional test gives buyers another opportunity to defend the level, but it can also absorb more of the demand sitting there.

A loss of $705.39 would expose the next major support near $695.25.

The hierarchy is clear. SMH is the leading warning, QQQ is showing the most direct index pressure, and SPY is holding up better through rotation outside technology. SPY’s relative strength is constructive, but it does not erase the weakness underneath the surface.

Memory and Data Center Stocks Confirm the Pressure

The damage is most visible in stocks tied directly to memory, data storage, and AI infrastructure.

Western Digital has already confirmed a head and shoulders breakdown and fallen sharply from its highs. The prior neckline near $527 is now an area where a relief rally could encounter resistance. The larger measured move projects toward $212.58, although historical pivots between $315 and $300 may provide more immediate structural support before that target is reached.

Vertiv is another example of expectations resetting quickly. The stock fell more than 13% during the session and has declined substantially from its June high. Despite the selloff, momentum had not yet reached a traditionally oversold reading during Drew’s review.

The first support zone sits between $203.85 and $193.22. A bounce from that area would face resistance near $231.30, followed by Fibonacci resistance around $239.18. The important point is not to assume that a large percentage decline automatically creates a low. Price still needs to prove that buyers are willing to defend support.

Nvidia is holding up better, but its chart is also showing fatigue. NVDA tested resistance at $213.17 and formed a hanging man candle near that level. The candle reflects meaningful intraday selling pressure after an advance, but it needs confirmation before it becomes a stronger bearish signal.

Failure to reclaim $213.17 would keep a pullback toward $200 in play. Beneath that, the lower portion of the parallel channel sits near $193.41. A decisive move back above resistance would weaken the bearish interpretation and show that semiconductor leadership may be stabilizing.

Yields Remain the Macro Pressure Point

The 10-year Treasury yield continues to consolidate above its declining trendline, with 4.55% acting as the key near-term level.

A move back beneath 4.55% would reduce some of the valuation pressure on technology and other long-duration assets. Continued strength in yields, especially a push toward resistance near 4.687%, would make it more difficult for high-multiple technology stocks to regain momentum.

This is an important confirmation signal. Semiconductor weakness can remain a sector rotation if yields ease and the broader market continues holding support. If SMH breaks down while yields push higher, the pressure is more likely to spread.

Gold and silver are also reflecting a market with limited conviction around the macro outlook.

Gold is struggling near $4,098 after forming several bear flag structures. A confirmed loss of that level would put approximately $3,886 in focus. Drew also highlighted the concentration of long-term historical pivots beneath $3,500, an area that could become important if a broader liquidation develops.

Silver is holding near its own breakdown level. A daily close beneath the June 24 low at $55.62 would increase the probability of a move toward $49.85.

Neither metal has confirmed its full downside scenario, but both are close enough to major levels that traders should be watching the closes rather than reacting to intraday volatility.

Natural Gas and Energy Offer a Different Setup

Not every chart is breaking down with technology.

Natural gas traded between approximately $2.79 and $2.93 before recovering from the session low and forming a pronounced lower wick. Support remains near $2.75, while $2.90 is the immediate resistance level.

Repeated daily closes above $2.90 would improve the technical structure and create room for a test of the larger inverse head and shoulders neckline near $3.30. A confirmed breakout above that neckline would produce a measured-move projection near $4.00.

The fundamental backdrop also deserves attention. Natural gas could become increasingly relevant as data center operators search for dependable power sources capable of supporting rising electricity demand. That does not confirm the technical pattern, but it creates a potential demand catalyst behind a chart that is approaching an important trigger.

XOP is showing strength within the broader energy complex. The ETF broke above resistance, retraced to test the former resistance as support, and bounced. That structure keeps the midpoint of its channel near $172.30 in focus.

A later break above the major pivot near $191 would activate a much larger technical pattern with a projection toward $296.11. For now, XOP’s relative strength is evidence that capital is rotating rather than leaving the market uniformly.

Selective Strength Is Still Showing Up

Best Buy is breaking through a declining trendline that dates to November 2021. The stock consolidated near the line before pushing higher, giving the breakout more credibility than a single isolated move.

Resistance remains near the gap fill at $86.74, followed by the larger pivot at $93.13. The broken trendline near $77.87 becomes the primary support area if the broader market pulls the stock back.

Take-Two Interactive is more conflicted. The stock has formed an inverse head and shoulders pattern with a measured-move projection near $308.50, but it closed back beneath the neckline around $241.91.

A reclaim of that level would keep the bullish structure alive. Continued closes beneath the neckline would weaken the breakout and put support near $219.08 back in focus. With the next Grand Theft Auto release acting as a major future catalyst, TTWO is a useful reminder that a compelling narrative does not remove the need for technical confirmation.

The Bottom Line

The market did not receive bad results from TSMC. It received strong results and sold the stock anyway.

That reaction suggests the AI trade is entering a more demanding phase. Investors are beginning to separate continued business growth from the price already being paid for that growth. The first evidence of that adjustment is appearing in semiconductor leadership, memory stocks, and QQQ.

The next session comes down to three primary watchpoints. SMH needs to hold or reclaim the $564.45 neckline. QQQ needs to defend $705.39. The 10-year yield needs to remain contained near 4.55% rather than accelerating toward 4.687%.

If those levels hold, today’s weakness can remain a rotation and consolidation event. If semiconductors confirm a breakdown while QQQ loses support and yields push higher, the market may be moving into a broader structural correction.

That is what matters more than the earnings headline.

Bitcoin is showing something that does not appear on the chart very often: two separate inverse head-and-shoulders patterns pointing in the same direction. That kind of technical alignment is worth paying attention to, because it changes the probability picture for the entire crypto market, not just for Bitcoin itself.

The setup is straightforward. A smaller inverse head-and-shoulders structure has a measured move that projects to roughly $71,650. A second, slightly larger version of the same pattern projects to a very similar target near $72,000. When two independent readings of the same chart land in the same neighborhood, that overlap adds confidence to the level, even though neither target is guaranteed to be reached.

Zooming out, Bitcoin remains down close to 50% from the all-time high it set toward the end of last year. A bullish pattern forming after a steep drawdown is a different signal than the same pattern forming at new highs, suggesting a market that has built a base rather than one chasing momentum into a top.

Two Inverse Head-and-Shoulders Patterns on Bitcoin

Inverse head-and-shoulders patterns work because they capture a specific behavioral sequence: sellers push price to a low, buyers step in and push it back up, sellers try again and fail to make a new low, and buyers take control on the next leg higher. The neckline break confirms that sequence is complete. In this case, the neckline on the primary pattern has already broken and retraced, which is a normal part of pattern development rather than a sign of failure.

With both measured-move targets sitting just above $71,000, the setup keeps a run toward the $70,000 level in play over a near-term window. That is not a prediction of a specific date, but a probability-based target derived from pattern structure, and it should be treated as a level to monitor rather than a certainty.

Bitcoin as the Market's Directional Filter

Altcoins tend to take their cue from Bitcoin. When Bitcoin's chart improves, the rest of the market generally gets a tailwind, though a tailwind is not the same as a guarantee. That distinction matters here: several altcoins are showing their own bullish patterns independent of Bitcoin, but if Bitcoin's setup fails to confirm, those patterns lose a layer of support.

Ethereum: A Trend-Line Break Without a Confirmed Reversal Pattern

Ethereum's chart initially looks like it is forming the same inverse head-and-shoulders structure seen on Bitcoin, but the left shoulder prints slightly lower than the head, which invalidates the pattern under standard technical criteria. What is still intact is the broader trend line Ethereum is breaking out of, which is a separate and legitimate signal on its own.

The level that matters most for Ethereum going forward sits around the $2,000 mark. That zone has produced heavy consolidation going back to the start of the year and again in May, which makes it a well-established area of both support and resistance. A push through that level on a daily close basis would carry more weight than an intraday poke above it.

The Broader Altcoin Setup List

Beyond Bitcoin and Ethereum, three other charts are showing inverse head-and-shoulders formations with defined measured-move targets. XRP has a pattern the analysis does not love structurally (the left shoulder is imperfect) but still considers valid, with a trend line that has capped price since February and March pivot highs. SUI and PENGU both show cleaner versions of the same pattern, each projecting into zones with a documented history of consolidation.

Each of these levels sits inside a zone with a track record of heavy trading activity, which is exactly why they are worth watching rather than assuming. A pattern reaching resistance is not the same as a pattern breaking through it.

What Would Confirm or Invalidate This View

For Bitcoin, the level to watch is a daily close through the neckline zone with follow-through toward the $71,000 to $72,000 measured-move region. A failure to hold above the broken neckline on a closing basis would weaken the pattern and, by extension, the supportive backdrop it provides for altcoins.

For XRP specifically, the setup needs a daily close above the multi-month downsloping trend line. Two sessions have broken the line intraday without confirming on a close, which keeps the pattern unconfirmed for now. For Ethereum, the $2,000 area remains the line in the sand: reclaiming it on a closing basis would support the trend-line breakout thesis, while rejection there would leave the range-bound pattern from earlier in the year intact.

Process Over Prediction

None of this is a forecast. It is a read on probability built from repeatable chart structure: multiple inverse head-and-shoulders formations, overlapping measured-move targets, and a market that has already absorbed a steep drawdown. Bitcoin's setup is the center of gravity here because of how directly it filters what happens across the rest of the market.

The discipline is in tracking confirmation rather than assuming it. A close above the key levels strengthens the case. A failure to close above them does not invalidate the broader thesis outright, but it does call for patience before treating any of these targets as settled.

Watch on YouTube

Taiwan Semi’s Selloff Exposes the Cycle Risk Beneath the AI Boom

Taiwan Semiconductor delivered the type of headline earnings report that would normally support a strong move higher. Revenue and earnings exceeded expectations, yet the stock fell roughly 5% in early trading and pulled much of the semiconductor sector down with it. On this morning’s My Trading Game Plan Revealed, Gareth Soloway explained why the negative reaction carried more information than the earnings beat itself.

The market was not reacting to what Taiwan Semi earned during the previous quarter. It was reacting to what the report suggested about future spending, margins, and the quality of those earnings. That change in focus is important because semiconductor stocks have spent months being rewarded primarily for their exposure to artificial intelligence. The reaction to Taiwan Semi suggests investors are beginning to ask what that growth will cost and how long the sector’s unusually strong profitability can last.

What the Market Saw Beneath Taiwan Semi’s Earnings Beat

The first issue was Taiwan Semi’s planned capital spending. The company increased its projected capital expenditures from roughly $56 billion to a range of $60 billion to $64 billion. Spending at that scale may be necessary to meet future demand, but it also reduces free cash flow and raises the amount of growth required to justify current valuations.

That creates a more demanding setup for the stock. Investors are no longer evaluating AI demand in isolation. They are weighing that demand against the cost of expanding capacity, the time required for those investments to produce returns, and the possibility that the industry is spending aggressively near the strongest point of the cycle.

The second issue was margin pressure. Gareth has repeatedly warned that unusually high margins attract new competition and additional investment. Semiconductor companies may be benefiting from exceptional demand, but capitalism has not stopped operating simply because artificial intelligence is the dominant market theme.

“When you have any industry that has margins like the semiconductors, you are going to see more entrance into that sector, and that is going to hurt margins,” Gareth said.

Taiwan Semi’s forward outlook reflected that pressure. Even when demand remains strong, rising production costs, increased capacity, and greater competition can reduce the amount of profit generated from each dollar of revenue. That is how a company can report excellent current numbers while the stock falls on concerns about what comes next.

The quality of the earnings beat also required a closer look. According to Gareth’s breakdown, approximately $2 billion of additional profit was tied largely to non-operating income, including a semiconductor investment sale. That gain supported the bottom line, but it did not come from the company’s core manufacturing operations.

The headline beat therefore looked stronger than the underlying operating result. Institutional investors tend to separate repeatable business performance from one-time gains, especially when a stock already carries demanding expectations. For Taiwan Semi, a good quarter was not enough because the market had already priced in something close to an ideal outcome.

Micron Shows Why a Low P/E Can Be a Warning

The weakness quickly spread into memory and storage stocks, where Micron became one of the clearest examples of the semiconductor cycle turning against momentum. After reaching approximately $1,250 several weeks earlier, the stock fell toward the mid-$800s and briefly traded near $851 before attempting a limited bounce.

The immediate technical area Gareth identified sits between approximately $815 and $755. That zone combines a prior pivot high with a major gap fill, creating the type of support confluence that can produce a tradable reaction. A move into that range would not automatically mark the end of the broader decline, but it could create the conditions for a meaningful technical bounce.

The larger lesson is how traders should interpret Micron’s valuation. Its price-to-earnings ratio has fallen into the single digits, which can make the stock appear inexpensive under a traditional value framework. In a cyclical semiconductor business, however, a low P/E can mean the company is near peak earnings rather than priced near a durable bottom.

“If you look at past cycles on Micron, the high of the cycle is where the P/E is lowest,” Gareth explained.

At the top of a cycle, current and projected earnings are unusually strong. Those large earnings reduce the P/E ratio even as the stock becomes increasingly vulnerable to slowing demand or margin compression. Once the cycle turns, earnings expectations decline and the P/E can rise despite a lower stock price.

That pattern has appeared repeatedly in Micron’s history. During the 2017-2018 cycle, the stock rallied sharply, reached its lowest valuation near the top, and then lost roughly 75% of its value. Earlier memory cycles produced similar expansions and contractions. The precise numbers change, but the underlying behavior does not: peak profitability often creates the appearance of cheapness immediately before earnings begin to normalize.

This is why the selloff in semiconductors should not be dismissed as a single bad session. Taiwan Semi exposed pressure beneath the industry’s headline growth, while Micron shows how quickly the market can reassess a cyclical company once investors stop extrapolating peak conditions.

The Broader Semiconductor Damage

Other semiconductor and storage names are also approaching levels that could determine whether the current decline remains controlled or develops into a larger unwind. Sandisk has tested a low pivot from July 7 after previously trading above $2,000. A break of the nearby trendline would shift attention toward the next support zone around $1,300 to $1,290.

Seagate is approaching a major gap-fill area, while Arm Holdings has separate technical levels Gareth identified for shorter-term and swing-oriented setups. These stocks do not share identical chart structures, but they are responding to the same sector-level change: the market is becoming less willing to reward semiconductor exposure without questioning valuation and future profitability.

The next phase will depend on how these names behave when they reach support. A technical bounce is increasingly likely as more stocks become stretched to the downside, but a bounce would not by itself repair the damage. Traders need to watch whether former support levels are reclaimed or begin acting as resistance.

Economic Data Is Sending a Mixed Consumer Signal

The morning’s economic releases added another layer to the market framework. Headline retail sales were broadly in line with expectations, but the underlying data was weaker after stripping out categories tied more closely to necessities. That composition suggests consumers are continuing to spend, though more of that spending may be directed toward essential expenses rather than discretionary purchases.

The issue is not that the consumer has stopped spending altogether. It is that cumulative inflation continues to affect where household money goes. Groceries, energy, housing, transportation, and other recurring costs absorb a larger share of income, leaving less room for optional purchases.

Other data remained more resilient. The Philadelphia Fed Manufacturing Index came in above expectations, and weekly jobless claims remained low at approximately 208,000. That combination points to an economy that is slowing unevenly rather than collapsing across every category.

For the Federal Reserve, that creates a difficult mix. Consumer activity is showing stress beneath the headline, while manufacturing and employment data remain firm enough to limit the urgency for aggressive policy easing. Markets therefore have to balance weaker spending composition against an economy that has not yet produced widespread labor-market deterioration.

Why the S&P 500 Is Holding Up Better Than the Nasdaq

The semiconductor decline is also creating a divergence between the major indices. S&P 500 futures were down approximately 21 points before the opening bell, a relatively modest decline compared with the losses inside several individual technology names.

The S&P 500 remains positioned between descending resistance and rising support. Gareth sees the index as having a better chance of resolving higher than the Nasdaq because the S&P 500 is less concentrated in semiconductor stocks that are currently absorbing the heaviest selling.

The Nasdaq faces a more direct problem. When large chip companies lose substantial market value at the same time, their index weight becomes an anchor. Even strength elsewhere in technology may not fully offset that pressure.

This is where Apple has become an important piece of the rotation. The company did not participate as aggressively in the initial AI infrastructure spending race, and the market is now rewarding that relative restraint while questioning the capital requirements facing several competitors.

Apple’s strength, however, has pushed the stock toward a technically demanding area. After rising approximately 20% in three weeks and adding roughly $1 trillion in market capitalization, the stock is approaching major trendline resistance near $430.

Gareth identified that area as a potential swing-short location. The setup is also connected to sector rotation. If semiconductor stocks reach support and begin to bounce, some of the defensive capital that moved into Apple could rotate back toward beaten-down chip names. That would remove one source of recent demand from Apple just as the stock reaches resistance.

SpaceX and the Cost of Buying the Story

The recent trading in SpaceX provided a separate example of how market psychology can overpower price discipline. The stock came public near $150 and immediately attracted heavy retail attention. After several sessions of aggressive buying, price reversed and fell below $135.

The lesson was not simply that the IPO declined. It was that buyers paid the highest prices when excitement and social-media attention were strongest. Once the early demand faded, investors who chased the opening move were left holding losses while the stock became available below its initial offer price.

The company’s valuation and future share unlocks add to that risk. Early investors and insiders may eventually have an opportunity to sell shares acquired at substantially lower prices, adding potential supply to the market.

“Human nature, we don’t change. Greed and fear, greed and fear,” Gareth said. “Those are the emotions that drive stocks up and down or assets up and down. And that doesn’t change.”

The same framework applies during earnings season. Predicting the immediate reaction to a report is difficult because the market is evaluating expectations, guidance, positioning, and valuation at the same time. The professional approach is not to guess the reaction. It is to establish the levels that would become actionable after the volatility develops.

Netflix is one of the next major reports on the calendar. Gareth’s approach is to let the earnings move occur and then evaluate whether price reaches a meaningful technical level. A sharp post-earnings decline could eventually bring a major gap-fill area into play, but the chart needs to come to the level rather than forcing a trade around the announcement.

Gold, Silver, Oil, and Bitcoin Reach Decision Areas

Outside equities, gold is testing a major long-term rising trendline as the U.S. dollar strengthens. A confirmed break of that support would expose a deeper downside zone near the mid-$3,000s. For longer-term traders, that lower range could become an area to begin building exposure gradually rather than attempting to identify the exact low.

Silver is showing greater near-term weakness and is threatening support near $54, which aligns with previous pivot highs. A break below that level would shift the next major technical focus toward $50, with additional support lower in the $45 to $46 range.

Oil has already produced a bounce from its gap-fill support and reached Gareth’s first upside objective. If the move continues, the next resistance area sits near $87. That level could become more attractive for a bearish setup because it would place price into stronger overhead resistance after an extended recovery.

Natural gas continues to hold support and has printed several bottoming tails, showing buyers are responding when price moves into the lower end of its recent range. The structure remains constructive while that support continues to hold.

Bitcoin is pulling back alongside technology stocks and has returned to the neckline of a larger technical pattern. The immediate level defining the bullish read is $64,000. As long as Bitcoin remains above that area on a closing basis, the broader setup stays intact. A daily close below $64,000 would invalidate the near-term bullish thesis and force a reassessment.

Bottom Line

Taiwan Semi’s decline was not an irrational response to strong earnings. It was the market looking beyond the quarter and questioning how much capital will be required to sustain AI growth, whether current margins can survive increased competition, and how much of the sector’s future success is already reflected in stock prices.

Micron adds the cyclical warning. A low P/E does not necessarily mean a semiconductor stock is inexpensive. Near the top of a cycle, it can mean earnings are temporarily elevated and vulnerable to normalization.

The next opportunity may come when the sector reaches major technical support, but support alone is not confirmation that the cycle has bottomed. Traders need to separate a short-term oversold bounce from a genuine repair of market structure.

That is the framework now: watch how semiconductor stocks respond at support, whether broken levels are reclaimed, and whether capital continues rotating into defensive technology names such as Apple. The headline was an earnings beat. The real signal was that investors are beginning to price the cost and cyclicality beneath the AI boom.

SpaceX's stock did something in the session Lawton is breaking down that had little to do with broader market action. Shares traded through $135, the price at which the company's IPO was set earlier this year, on volume that dwarfed every other candle of the day. The volume, more than the price move itself, is the detail worth understanding.

Since debuting on the Nasdaq, SpaceX had traded as much as 66 to 67 percent above that $135 IPO price, in line with the stock's public post-IPO high. This session marked the point where a meaningful piece of that advance gave back, and the way it gave it back is more instructive than the fact that it happened.

This is a market-structure story about where order flow concentrated, not a call on where a roughly $1.8 trillion company goes from here.

A Volume Anomaly at the Level Everyone Was Watching

According to the chart Lawton walked through, the opening minute of trading in SpaceX saw a routine print of roughly 616,000 shares, unremarkable for a stock of this size. Price drifted down toward $135 over the course of the day without unusual participation behind it. Then, in a single candle right at that level, volume jumped to an estimated 3.5 million shares, roughly six times the opening minute's total.

That kind of concentrated volume at one specific, widely watched price rarely happens by accident. $135 wasn't just a chart level. Many IPO buyers were broadly anchored to it, which made it a plausible cluster point for protective sell orders. The tape can't say with certainty whether the volume came from stop-losses, broader systematic selling, or some mix of both, but a flush of that size concentrated at a single well-known price is consistent with orders clearing together rather than gradually. The stock fell roughly another 2 percent below $135 in the process before finding buyers.

This kind of setup is worth tracking beyond this one stock. Price levels tied to a specific, well-publicized transaction, an IPO price, a prior all-time high, a round psychological number, tend to attract disproportionate order flow precisely because so many participants are watching the same number for different reasons. Some are protecting a cost basis, some are testing the level for a breakdown, and some are simply reacting to others doing the same thing at the same time. The result is a volume signature that looks nothing like an ordinary session, even when the headline percentage move is unremarkable.

The Rebound, and What a Retest Would Confirm or Invalidate

SpaceX didn't stay at its lows. Following the spike and the additional slide that came with it, shares recovered to roughly $136.50 by the close, per the chart, effectively reclaiming the IPO price within the same session. A level that triggers a volume-driven flush and then attracts buyers back above it in the same session behaves differently than one that simply gets run over and abandoned. The first case suggests the selling pressure was largely mechanical and finite; the second suggests the market is still working through genuine disagreement about where the stock belongs.

The next real test is a retest of $135, and the standard to apply is a daily close rather than an intraday touch. A retest that holds on a closing basis, especially on volume lighter than this session's spike, would support the idea that the flush cleared out the level's overhang of orders rather than signaling more weakness underneath it. A retest that closes below $135 on heavy participation would suggest the level has flipped from support to resistance and that the market is reassessing the post-IPO advance rather than simply digesting it. Either outcome would carry more weight than the single-session move itself, because it would reflect sustained conviction rather than the kind of order-driven spike that produced this session's low.

Key Levels to Monitor

What This Means Going Forward

None of this is a directional call on SpaceX. It's a read on how one widely known price level behaved under pressure and what that suggests about where positioning sits. Volume shows where the crowd actually is, and this session showed a large cluster of orders sitting right at the IPO price rather than somewhere else on the chart.

The more meaningful test ahead isn't another chart pattern. SpaceX is expected to report its first quarterly results as a public company sometime in early August, with several outlets citing August 6 specifically, though the company has not officially confirmed that date as of this writing. That report, not any single session's price action, will be what actually validates or forces a repricing of the market's current valuation framework. Until then, $135 stays the cleanest reference point for whether the post-IPO advance is intact or starting to come apart.

Watch on YouTube

Cooler PPI Lifted the S&P 500, but Semiconductors Sent the Real Warning

The weaker-than-expected Producer Price Index gave markets the opening reaction bulls wanted. Treasury yields fell, equities gapped higher, and the S&P 500 extended its recent breakout. By the close, however, the inflation data was no longer the most important part of the session.

The more useful signal was the divergence underneath the major indexes. The S&P 500 finished higher and continued separating from a declining trendline it recently cleared, while the QQQ slipped and semiconductor weakness deepened. The broader market held together, but the technology leadership that has carried much of the recent advance did not confirm the move.

That left traders with a divided market into the closing bell. The S&P 500 structure remained constructive, but several semiconductor charts were pressing against important support levels and bearish formations. The next question is not simply whether the broader index can move higher. It is whether technology and semiconductors can stabilize enough to support that move.

The Inflation Reaction Faded, but the S&P 500 Held

The softer PPI report initially pushed the 10-year Treasury yield lower and gave equities an early lift. That reaction made sense. Cooling wholesale inflation can reduce pressure on interest rates, which is generally supportive for equity valuations.

The S&P 500 took advantage of that backdrop and finished the session higher. From a technical perspective, the index had already broken above a near-term declining trendline earlier in July. After spending several sessions testing the breakout area, price has started to create separation from that former resistance.

The lower wicks on recent daily candles also show that buyers have continued responding to intraday weakness. That does not guarantee the breakout will extend, but it suggests pullbacks are still being defended rather than immediately sold.

The next confirmation would be a daily close above the July 10 high. That would give the index stronger separation from the breakout zone and show that buyers can push price beyond the recent range. Until then, the S&P 500 remains constructive, but it is still working through confirmation rather than accelerating into a clean new leg higher.

Technology Did Not Confirm the Broader Market Strength

The QQQ and semiconductor ETF SMH told a different story. The QQQ finished slightly lower, while SMH suffered a more meaningful decline. That divergence mattered because technology and semiconductors have been central to the market’s recent leadership.

Both the QQQ and S&P 500 experienced a sharp afternoon selloff followed by a fast recovery. The reversal showed that buyers remained active into the close, particularly after the market failed to extend the intraday decline.

That recovery should not be ignored, but it also should not be mistaken for a complete reset of the technical picture. The QQQ remains caught between nearby resistance and support, while semiconductor price action continues to show greater structural weakness.

For traders, that creates a split read. The broader market is still holding its breakout, but the sector that has supplied much of the upside momentum is losing ground. If semiconductor weakness continues, the S&P 500 may have a harder time sustaining its advance without leadership rotating decisively into other sectors.

Semiconductor Charts Are the Main Warning

The most important technical development from the session was the continued deterioration across several semiconductor-related charts.

A number of individual names are forming or testing head-and-shoulders structures. These formations do not become actionable simply because the pattern is visible. The neckline and closing confirmation remain the deciding factors. Until those levels break on a daily close, the patterns are warnings rather than completed breakdowns.

That distinction is especially important after a sharp down day. Intraday moves can pierce support and still recover before the close. The larger bearish case strengthens only when price confirms below the neckline and fails to reclaim it.

Micron Technology is one of the charts requiring close attention after moving below an important neckline area. If the stock remains below that level, the pattern leaves room for additional downside. A reclaim would weaken the bearish interpretation and suggest the breakdown lacked follow-through.

The same framework applies to the broader semiconductor index. SOXX is approaching a key neckline near 533.74. A confirmed close below that area would shift attention toward support near the upper boundary of its longer-term parallel channel, just under 500.

This is why the semiconductor weakness matters more than the percentage decline alone. The sector is not simply pulling back after a strong run. Multiple charts are testing structures that could turn a routine consolidation into a more meaningful breakdown if support fails.

The 10-Year Yield Recovered From the PPI Drop

The bond market added another layer to the session.

The 10-year Treasury yield initially dropped after the softer inflation report, but it recovered much of that move and returned toward a major declining trendline near 4.55%. That trendline connects important highs from October 2023 and January 2025, making it a significant longer-term reference.

The yield had recently pushed through that resistance area, and the latest move brought it back toward the breakout zone. If yields continue holding above the trendline, the rate environment could remain a headwind for technology shares despite cooler inflation data.

That is the more important intermarket takeaway. The initial PPI reaction suggested rate relief, but the bond market did not sustain it. A yield that refuses to stay lower can limit how much support equities receive from a single inflation report.

Gold and Silver Faded the Inflation News

Precious metals followed a similar pattern. Gold rallied after the PPI release but gave back the move, leaving the near-term chart under pressure. Support near 3,886 remains the next important downside reference if weakness continues.

Silver also tested a declining trendline that has capped price since May. With resistance still holding, the metal remains in consolidation rather than confirming a new breakout. Immediate support near 55.09 is the first area to watch. A loss of that level would increase the probability of a deeper move toward 49.86.

The reaction in metals reinforced the broader message from the session. The inflation data produced an immediate move, but it did not create lasting technical confirmation across the markets most sensitive to rates and inflation.

Oil and Natural Gas Remain Range-Bound

Oil continues to struggle with resistance near 81.33 despite ongoing geopolitical uncertainty. A confirmed break above that area would open the next technical level near 85.75. Until then, the chart remains capped below a well-defined ceiling.

Natural gas is facing a similar decision. Price needs to clear its declining trendline to create a path toward 3.00. Failure to break that resistance keeps the market in consolidation, with support closer to 2.75.

Neither energy chart changed the main market thesis, but both reinforced the value of waiting for technical confirmation rather than assuming that a fundamental catalyst must produce a sustained breakout.

PayPal’s Rally Ran Into a Long-Term Technical Level

PayPal delivered one of the session’s largest individual moves after acquisition speculation pushed the stock sharply higher.

The notable part of the move was where it stopped. A long-term trendline drawn from the October 2023 pivot through the April 2025 low placed resistance near 61, close to the reported acquisition price under discussion.

That overlap does not prove the chart determined the proposed valuation. It does, however, show that the same area carrying fundamental significance also represented a major technical barrier.

For traders, the level is more important than the coincidence. A sustained break above the 60.50 to 61 area would strengthen the chart and suggest the market is pricing in a higher probability of a deal or improved valuation. Failure to hold the rally would bring lower support near 52 back into focus.

Dell Confirms the Warning From Its Weekly Topping Tail

Dell provided another example of how a warning candle can shape the weeks that follow.

The stock formed a large weekly topping tail near its June high after an extended advance. That candle showed a strong rejection from the highs and created an important resistance reference. Dell has since fallen more than 20% from that area, including another sharp decline during the latest session.

The next structural level sits near 378.66, the lower boundary of the recent consolidation. A daily or weekly close below that support would weaken the remaining range and put the next major level near 332.61 in play.

A topping tail does not predict the exact path lower, but it identifies the point where buyers lost control. Dell’s subsequent decline shows why those candles deserve attention when they appear after a prolonged run.

The Bottom Line

The cooler PPI report helped the S&P 500, but it did not produce broad confirmation across the market.

The S&P 500 remains above its recently broken trendline and continues to attract buyers on pullbacks. That keeps the near-term structure constructive. A close above the July 10 high would provide the next confirmation.

Technology and semiconductors are the unresolved part of the setup. The QQQ failed to participate in the broader market gain, SMH weakened further, and several semiconductor charts are testing neckline support within bearish formations.

That divergence is the key watchpoint into the next session. If semiconductors stabilize and the S&P 500 clears its recent high, the broader breakout gains credibility. If semiconductor support continues to fail while yields hold firm, the headline strength in the S&P 500 becomes increasingly difficult to trust.

Published by Verified Investing | U.S. Economic Metrics

Released: July 15, 2026 | Data Period: June 2026 | Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Producer Price Index

Key Takeaways

• Headline turned negative, but energy wrote the entire check: Final demand PPI fell −0.28% MoM in June 2026, the first monthly decline in recent months — driven entirely by a −6.4% crash in energy prices, which subtracted 0.29 percentage points from the headline.
• Core PPI did not confirm the relief: Core final demand (less foods, energy, and trade services) rose +0.13% MoM. The underlying trend did not cool. It held.
• Services are the quiet persistence story: Services contributed +0.13 pp to the June headline — offsetting nearly all of energy's drag on the non-goods side. Services PPI is up +4.6% YoY and hasn't shown a clean deceleration in months.
• YoY pressure remains severe: Headline PPI stands at +5.51% year-over-year. Energy is up +23.0% YoY. Core goods are up +7.8% YoY. These are not legacy war effects — they are live pipeline readings feeding into the CPI and PCE prints ahead.
• The BLS framing emphasizes the monthly decline; the relevant framing is that the decline is 100% energy. Strip energy and the pipeline is still running hot.
• Watch July 15 CPI: The same energy relief that pulled PPI negative in June will mechanical suppress the July 15 CPI headline. Do not mistake the weather for a regime change.
• Core PPI YoY at +5.06% is the number that matters for Fed framing: Warsh inherits a core producer price trend that has barely moved off its highs. Rate cuts in 2026 remain off the table.

What This Metric Measures, and Why This Print Matters

The Producer Price Index measures price changes from the seller's perspective at the wholesale level — before goods and services reach the consumer. Think of it as the front end of the inflation pipeline. When producer costs rise, they either flow through to consumer prices within weeks to months, or they compress margins until firms can no longer absorb them. Either path matters for markets.

The BLS releases PPI for final demand — the prices received by domestic producers for goods, services, and construction sold for personal consumption, capital investment, government, and export. Within that, the key analytical split is goods versus services, and headline versus core (less foods, energy, and trade services).

This print lands in a specific macro context. The Iran War has pushed energy prices to multi-year highs — Brent peaked at $115.30 in early May and has since partially retreated to the $108–113 range. Kevin Warsh took the Fed chair on May 15 with services prices at a four-year high. The question every June data release has to answer is: is inflation cooling structurally, or is it cooling only where crude oil tells it to?

June PPI answers that question directly. And the answer is the latter.

What Everyone Will Focus On vs. What Matters More

The BLS lede is accurate: final demand prices fell in June. After a +0.62% print in May and a +1.1% print in April, a −0.28% month is a reversal. Financial headlines will use words like "easing," "cooling," and "relief." Some will note that the 12-month rate of +5.51% remains elevated but frame the monthly decline as evidence that the pipeline is beginning to clear.

That read is wrong — or at minimum, premature.

Here is the contribution math:

| Component | MoM % | Weight | Contribution (pp) | |---|---|---|---| | Energy | −6.40% | 4.53% | −0.290 | | Foods | −0.58% | 5.57% | −0.032 | | Core Goods | −0.59% | 23.11% | −0.137 | | Services | +0.21% | 65.03% | +0.134 | | Residual | — | — | +0.048 | | Total Headline | −0.28% | | |

Energy alone accounts for −0.290 pp of the −0.277 pp headline decline. Foods added another −0.032 pp. Together, two volatile components that have nothing to do with underlying domestic cost pressure generated the entire monthly drop and then some.

Core goods contributed −0.137 pp — a modest relief. But services contributed +0.134 pp, nearly offsetting core goods entirely. Strip out energy and foods, and the remaining pipeline essentially went sideways.

The headline says the pipeline cooled. The breakdown says energy paused and everything else held.

Energy: The Swing Factor That Obscures Everything Else

Energy goods PPI fell −6.4% in June. That is a large single-month move, and it is doing all of the narrative heavy lifting in this report.

It is worth being precise about what drove it. The Iran War sent Brent crude to $115.30 in early May. June's price level — still in the $108–113 range at the time of survey collection — represents a partial pullback from that peak, not a resolution of the supply shock. The YoY comparison for energy tells the real story: +23.0%. Producers are still receiving 23 cents more per energy dollar than they were a year ago. The monthly volatility is noise inside a structurally elevated level.

This matters for interpreting every downstream report through the summer. When energy prices pull back month-over-month, they suppress PPI, CPI, and PCE headlines mechanically. That suppression is real in the sense that it affects measured inflation. It is not real in the sense that it reflects a change in underlying cost dynamics. The distinction is the entire game right now.

The playbook for traders: when the July 15 CPI headline prints soft, check the energy contribution first. If it is doing the same work it did here — absorbing the entire decline while core holds — the "inflation is cooling" trade is built on sand.

Core Goods: A Small Decline That Doesn't Break the Trend

Core goods (final demand goods less foods and energy) fell modestly in June, contributing −0.137 pp to the headline. After the energy distortion is removed, goods prices were not surging. That is a legitimate mild positive.

But context: core goods PPI is running +7.8% year-over-year. A month of modest monthly softness inside a +7.8% YoY trend is not a turning point — it is a data point. The tariff baseline matters here. After the Supreme Court's IEEPA ruling in March and the administration's subsequent 150-day global tariff, the goods pipeline was already carrying a structural cost floor that does not disappear because one month prints negative.

The categories to watch inside core goods are the tariff-sensitive inputs: industrial metals, electronic components, chemicals, nonferrous metals. If those categories are stabilizing, the goods pipeline may have found a near-term ceiling. If they are still running hot at the intermediate demand stages — particularly Stage 1 and Stage 2 processed goods — the pass-through to core CPI goods is still in transit.

The June print does not clear that question. It delays it by one month.

Services: The Number Nobody Is Talking About

Services PPI rose +0.21% MoM in June and contributed +0.134 pp to the headline. That contribution nearly cancelled the entire relief from core goods. For the 12 months ended June, services PPI is up +4.6%.

Services represent 65% of the final demand PPI weight. That is not a rounding error — it is the dominant component of the index. When services inflation holds at these levels month after month, the headline can move around based on energy and goods volatility, but the center of gravity of the pipeline does not shift.

This is the structural story of the current inflation regime. The Iran War created an energy price shock. The tariff regime created a goods price shock. Both of those were visible, dramatic, and have attracted most of the analytical attention. But services inflation was already elevated before either — and it has not responded to the deceleration in goods that the market keeps hoping for.

Core PPI (less foods, energy, and trade services) rose +0.13% MoM and stands at +5.06% YoY. That YoY rate has barely moved. Warsh walked into the Fed chair with a services-dominant inflation pipeline that has not yet shown a sustained deceleration signal.

What This Means For Traders

The following is provided for educational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice.

1. Don't trade the headline — trade the composition. The −0.28% MoM print will generate "PPI cools" coverage across financial media. The composition — energy doing 105% of the work, services holding steady, core unchanged — tells a different story. Positions built on a narrative of structural disinflation are exposed if energy stabilizes in July.

2. Watch July 15 CPI with the same decomposition discipline. The same energy pullback that suppressed PPI will show up in the CPI print. Before reacting to the CPI headline, pull the BLS table and check energy's contribution. If core CPI (less food and energy) remains at or above +3.5% MoM annualized, the headline relief is not a regime signal.

3. Services inflation at +4.6% YoY is the Fed's problem, not energy. Warsh's Fed can look through oil price swings — that is standard central bank doctrine. It cannot look through a 65%-weight component running at multi-year highs. Rate-sensitive sectors (utilities, REITs, long-duration tech) remain structurally exposed until services PPI shows two or three consecutive months of genuine deceleration, not just a flat print.

4. The thesis-breaker: what would change this read. Two consecutive months of services PPI at or below +0.10% MoM, accompanied by a confirmed deceleration in core CPI services, would begin to challenge the "pipeline still hot" thesis. A second consecutive month of core goods MoM going negative — driven by manufactured goods, not just energy passthrough — would add to that case. Until those conditions appear in the data, the June headline is an energy story, not an inflation story.

5. The next confirming print: June CPI on July 15, followed by the June PCE deflator later in July. The PCE deflator's services component is the Fed's actual preferred measure. If PCE core services stays above +4.0% YoY, the Fed does not have cover to cut regardless of what the headline PPI or CPI prints are doing.

The headline turned negative. The pipeline didn't.

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics — Producer Price Index, June 2026 (BLS News Release USDL-26-XXXX, released July 15, 2026). Available at bls.gov/news.release/ppi.nr0.htm

This article is published for educational and informational purposes only. Nothing contained herein constitutes investment advice or a recommendation to buy or sell any security. Please consult a qualified financial professional before making any investment decisions.

IBM’s Historic Selloff Exposes the Leverage Risk Beneath a Rising S&P 500

IBM’s 25% collapse was the most important signal from this morning’s market, but not because one legacy technology company disappointed investors. The size of the decline showed what can happen when crowded positioning, limited institutional cash, and forced deleveraging meet even a modest negative catalyst. That warning arrived while S&P 500 futures continued higher following cooler inflation data, creating a market where the index structure still looks constructive even as the risks beneath it become harder to ignore.

That contrast defined Gareth Soloway’s framework on today’s My Trading Game Plan Revealed. The broader market has not broken, and the major technical levels remain intact. At the same time, IBM demonstrated how quickly selling can accelerate when investors are already fully committed and have little liquidity available to absorb a shock. The lesson was not that one earnings warning predicts a broader collapse. It was that the current market may be more fragile than the major indexes suggest.

IBM’s Decline Was About More Than Earnings

IBM’s warning came in below expectations, but the size of the miss did not appear to justify a decline of roughly 25% on fundamentals alone. The stock suffered its largest one-day drop on record, falling into a support zone between approximately $215 and $218. That area mattered because it aligned with long-term technical support already visible on the chart before the earnings news arrived.

Gareth’s read was that the move reflected forced liquidation as much as a reassessment of IBM’s business. When institutional investors are heavily invested and carrying limited cash, a negative catalyst can trigger margin pressure, risk reductions, and algorithmic selling. Once that process begins, price can move far beyond what the initial news would normally imply because sellers are responding to liquidity needs rather than valuation.

That interpretation is reinforced by reports that hedge-fund cash exposure is near historic lows. The exact figure requires confirmation before publication, but the broader point remains relevant: institutions have less capital available to absorb sudden selling when portfolios are already fully deployed. IBM became a real-time example of how leverage can amplify a manageable disappointment into a much larger technical event.

The chart now defines the next phase. The $215 to $218 zone is the support area that stopped the initial decline, while the prior pivot near $240 to $244 becomes the first major resistance zone on a reflex bounce. A recovery into that area would not erase the breakdown, but it would be consistent with the type of retracement that often follows a forced-liquidation event. A failure to hold the support zone would keep the larger breakdown in control.

The S&P 500 Structure Has Not Broken

IBM’s collapse did not immediately spread into the broader market. S&P 500 futures moved higher after the Producer Price Index came in below expectations, reinforcing the view that inflation pressures may be cooling. The important point, however, was not the initial reaction to the data. It was that the index remained inside the same technical structure that has governed the market for months.

The S&P 500 is trading between major resistance near 7,725 and support near 7,325. Within that range, the most important feature is the long-term trendline connecting prior major highs. That line has been tested repeatedly, and each test has attracted buyers. As long as the index continues to hold above it on a closing basis, the broader bullish structure remains intact despite the weakness developing beneath the surface.

Repeated tests also create risk. Every additional approach places more pressure on the same level, and a confirmed break could trigger a faster move as systematic traders respond to the loss of support. Gareth’s downside framework places 7,000 as the next major area if the trendline fails and selling accelerates. That is not the active setup while support holds, but it is the level that becomes relevant if the current structure gives way.

The market is therefore not at a confirmed turning point. It is at a point where confirmation matters. IBM exposed the vulnerability created by leverage, but the S&P 500 has not yet validated that warning through a structural breakdown. Until that happens, the index can continue higher even while individual stocks experience severe dislocations.

Yields and the Yen Are the External Risks

The bond market delivered a more cautious signal than equities. Despite softer inflation data, the 10-year Treasury yield pulled back only modestly and continued to hold near its long-term trendline. If the market believed inflation had been fully neutralized, yields would likely be responding more aggressively. Their relative stability suggests that bond investors still see a risk of persistent inflation or a prolonged period of elevated interest rates.

That matters because higher yields continue to pressure equity valuations, particularly in technology and other long-duration assets. The risk is not a single move in the 10-year yield. It is the failure of yields to break lower even when inflation data provides a favorable catalyst. As long as the trendline holds, the bond market is not confirming the most optimistic equity-market interpretation of the data.

USD/JPY presents a separate but related risk. The pair is pressing into historically elevated territory while forming a large rising wedge. A similar setup in 2024 preceded intervention and a rapid unwinding of the yen carry trade. Because that trade often involves borrowing in yen to purchase higher-yielding assets elsewhere, a sudden strengthening of the yen can force leveraged positions to close across global markets.

The immediate signal has not triggered, but the setup deserves attention because of how quickly the transmission can occur. A sharp reversal in USD/JPY would not remain isolated to the currency market. It could pressure US technology stocks, raise volatility, and accelerate the type of forced selling already visible in IBM. The yen is therefore less important as a standalone chart than as a potential source of broader liquidity stress.

Semiconductor Divergence Adds Another Warning

The semiconductor sector is also beginning to show uneven participation. SK Hynix surged more than 25%, but comparable memory names posted much smaller gains. Micron, Sandisk, and Seagate all moved higher, yet none confirmed the strength of the sector leader. That divergence suggests investors may be rotating between individual names rather than increasing exposure to the entire group.

The muted response matters because strong sector moves are more reliable when multiple leaders participate. When one stock surges while related names lag, the move may reflect company-specific positioning rather than a durable change in sector demand. The same caution appeared in ASML, which reportedly delivered strong earnings but struggled to hold its early gains.

The market is also beginning to weigh whether software efficiency could reduce future demand for memory hardware. Reports that AI tools may lower memory requirements are still developing and should be verified carefully, but the concept has clear implications. If software allows companies to achieve similar performance with less hardware, some of the long-term demand assumptions supporting memory valuations may need to be revised.

None of this confirms a major semiconductor top. It does show that strong headlines are no longer producing equally strong follow-through across the group. That changes the read because leadership is narrowing at the same time leverage and interest-rate risks remain elevated.

The Framework Remains Probabilistic

Natural gas provided the clearest reminder that even well-formed technical patterns can fail. The chart had developed a cup-and-handle structure, which normally supports a bullish interpretation, but price broke lower instead. The failed setup did not invalidate technical analysis. It demonstrated why patterns must be treated as probability frameworks rather than guarantees.

A pattern becomes more useful when additional factors support it. Fibonacci levels, moving averages, gap fills, and established support zones can improve the quality of a setup, but no combination eliminates risk. The job is not to predict every move correctly. It is to define where the setup works, where it fails, and how much exposure is appropriate before the outcome is known.

That same framework applies to IBM and the S&P 500. IBM’s support zone creates the possibility of a reflex bounce, but it does not guarantee one. The S&P trendline remains constructive, but it is not permanent. USD/JPY presents a potential carry-trade risk, but that risk remains conditional until the chart confirms a reversal.

Bottom Line

The central message from today’s market was not that IBM’s collapse will automatically spread to the major indexes. It was that the decline revealed how quickly leverage can transform a modest disappointment into forced liquidation. That warning matters because the S&P 500 is still holding its structure while yields remain firm, semiconductor participation narrows, and USD/JPY approaches a level associated with prior carry-trade stress.

The market remains technically constructive as long as the S&P 500 holds its long-term trendline and the 7,325 support area. A confirmed break would shift the focus toward 7,000 and raise the probability that the liquidity pressure seen in IBM is becoming a broader market event. Until then, the index trend and the underlying risks are sending different messages, and traders need to respect both.

Tuesday's report showed headline CPI fell 0.4% month over month, and the dollar did what currencies typically do on a softer print: it sold off. The move was quick, and for a few minutes it looked like the kind of headline-driven drop that can snowball. It didn't. By the afternoon session, the greenback had clawed back nearly all of its losses.

Federal Reserve Chair Kevin Warsh testified before the House Financial Services Committee the same day, reiterating that the central bank has no tolerance for persistently elevated inflation despite the cooler print. The dollar absorbed both events, a softer data point and a still-hawkish Fed chair, without giving up its underlying structure. That is a more useful signal than either headline on its own.

Structural Support Was Never at Risk

The DXY dropped into the 100.60s intraday before staging one of its sharper recoveries of the past several sessions. That low kept price well above the upsloping trendline that has defined the dollar's recovery since its May 6 low, currently sitting near 100.154. The index sold off, but it never came close to that level. This trendline has held on three separate occasions to date, and Tuesday's selloff did not bring price anywhere near a fourth test.

A currency that sells off on a softer inflation print but stays well clear of its own support structure is telling a different story than one that breaks down. The first scenario is a headline selloff that never threatens structural support. The second is a genuine trend change. Tuesday's session, with the low landing more than 40 basis points above the trendline, falls clearly into the first category. Until this trendline gives way, the near-term bias in the dollar stays constructive by default.

Resistance Still Sits Overhead

The recovery ran into resistance at the 101.267 level, a pivot dating back to an April 3 low that has since flipped into overhead supply. Price poked above it intraday but was unable to hold the break and is on pace to close back beneath it. A daily close above 101.267 would open the door to the next level at 101.540, a higher pivot that has capped price on prior attempts.

If the trendline support does eventually fail, the dollar has a longer-term safety net in the 98.00 to 99.00 zone, anchored by a trendline running back to the June 1 swing low. That is not the base case following Tuesday's action, but it defines where the structural argument would need to be revisited. A break of the May trendline without an immediate reclaim would suggest the current recovery has run its course, shifting the conversation from resistance-testing to support-defending.

The Two Charts That Confirm the Thesis

The euro and the yen carry the most weight in the DXY basket, at roughly 58% and 14% respectively, and both moved in a way that supports the same read as the dollar index itself: a headline reaction that failed to threaten structural support. If the dollar's recovery were fragile or purely headline-driven, the pullback in these two pairs would likely have extended rather than stalled at defined levels.

The Two Levels That Decide This

Everything else is context. What actually resolves this setup is a daily close above 101.267, which opens the door to 101.540, against a daily close below the May 6 trendline near 100.154, which would shift the bias and put the longer-term 98.00 to 99.00 support zone back in play. The 10-year yield adds a secondary confirming signal: it broke below both the 4.560% and 4.536% support levels intraday, in that order, before recovering to hold above the key 4.5% threshold. That recovery is worth tracking alongside the two DXY levels above, not a substitute for them.

Watch on YouTube

IBM’s Collapse Was the Headline. The 10-Year Yield Was the Bigger Market Signal

IBM’s 25% decline dominated the session, but the more important signal into the close came from the bond market.

Softer inflation data initially pushed the 10-year Treasury yield lower, exactly as equity bulls would expect. The move did not hold. The yield found support at a major rising trendline and recovered, leaving rates elevated even as the inflation backdrop appeared to improve.

That refusal to break lower matters because it keeps pressure on equity valuations, particularly in technology. It also helps explain the unusual split beneath the indexes. The S&P 500 and Nasdaq held together, memory and semiconductor names showed relative strength, and several legacy technology stocks suffered severe repricing at the same time.

The indexes looked resilient. The market underneath them was far less stable.

The Yield Did Not Confirm the Inflation Story

Drew Dosek’s primary macro focus into the close was the 10-year yield’s reaction to the inflation release.

“Usually with inflation going down, we likely are having the 10-year yield coming down, but it’s staying elevated,” Drew said during Trading the Close.

The data gave yields a reason to break lower. Instead, buyers defended the existing trendline. That suggests the bond market is not yet convinced inflation pressure, fiscal risk, or longer-term borrowing costs are ready to ease meaningfully.

For equities, the next move in yields may matter more than the next economic headline. A confirmed break beneath trendline support would give growth stocks more breathing room. Another hold would keep the valuation pressure in place and increase the risk that weakness spreads beyond isolated names.

The Indexes Held, but the Breakouts Still Need to Prove Themselves

The S&P 500 remained above its declining trendline, but the breakout has been tested repeatedly over the last two sessions. Both daily lows reached the same area.

“The more and more that we hit that trendline, it weakens it despite a breakout scenario that’s occurring here on the SPY,” Drew explained.

That is the problem with the current structure. Price has broken out, but buyers have not created meaningful separation from the breakout level. Repeated tests increase the risk that SPY slips back inside the prior wedge.

As long as the trendline holds on a closing basis, the breakout remains intact and the all-time high stays in play. A close back beneath it would shift attention toward rising support near $744.29.

The Nasdaq 100 showed similar resilience, gaining 1.12% despite sharp declines in several major technology components. QQQ now faces gap-fill resistance at $725.51, followed by declining trendline resistance near $733.62. Support sits near the $711.78 gap fill and the larger $704.34 level.

The important takeaway is not simply that the indexes finished higher. It is that they absorbed substantial weakness without breaking structure. That relative strength is constructive, but it becomes less meaningful if yields remain elevated and the same index support levels keep getting tested.

IBM Exposed How Much Perfection Was Priced In

IBM delivered the session’s clearest example of positioning overwhelming the size of the fundamental disappointment.

The stock fell roughly 25% after the company warned that revenue would come in approximately 5% below expectations. Drew noted that IBM had not experienced a decline of similar scale since the 1987 crash period.

The market was not merely pricing the revenue shortfall. It was repricing expectations that had become too optimistic.

A move of that size against a comparatively modest miss suggests investors were positioned for a strong beat or continued upside guidance. Once that expectation failed, the absence of buyers allowed the stock to reset violently.

The chart still gave traders defined levels to work with. IBM repeatedly found intraday support near $217 to $218, where a rising trendline intersects the current selloff. That is the first area that needs to hold.

Repeated tests could weaken it. A break would expose support near $211.05, followed by the broader $203 to $199 zone surrounding the $200 psychological level.

The technical structure did not predict a one-day collapse. It identified where buyers were most likely to respond after the shock arrived.

Oracle May Be Showing the Other Side of the Software Reset

Oracle has already spent several weeks moving lower and confirmed a breakdown beneath its parallel channel. The next marked support sits near $118.86.

Unlike IBM, however, Oracle is beginning to show evidence that the selling may be stretched.

Daily RSI has fallen to approximately 25.5, while the weekly chart is showing bullish divergence. Price has made lower lows, but momentum has not confirmed those lows.

“We’re getting divergence telling me that price is trying to find a location to bounce,” Drew said.

That does not confirm a bottom. It does identify Oracle as a candidate for a snap-back move if buyers begin responding near support. Because the lower boundary of the former channel has broken, a rebound would likely encounter resistance near $143 to $144.

IBM and Oracle are at different stages of the same broader software repricing. IBM is absorbing the initial shock. Oracle is further into the decline and beginning to show signs of momentum exhaustion.

Semiconductors Held Up Better Than Legacy Technology

The semiconductor complex showed relative strength despite the damage elsewhere in technology. International memory names helped support the group, and the SMH ETF remained range-bound after pulling back from its session high.

Resistance sits near $627, where the July 2 candle and a declining trendline converge. Support remains at the $585.79 gap fill, followed by the larger $552.61 level.

That relative strength matters because it shows investors were not abandoning technology indiscriminately. Capital rotated toward areas with stronger earnings expectations and away from companies where valuations had left little room for disappointment.

CrowdStrike also remained constructive after rallying to new highs. The stock is testing the upper half of its rising parallel channel. A confirmed daily close above that area would strengthen the case for continued upside, with $205.25 becoming an important support reference.

Monolithic Power Systems showed the opposite structure. MPWR remains beneath the neckline of a head and shoulders pattern after retesting the area near $1,413. Unless the stock can reclaim the neckline with consecutive daily closes, the bearish measured move toward $1,110.26 remains active.

The contrast reinforces the session’s main message: this was not a simple risk-on or risk-off market. Strong structures continued to attract buyers, while stocks carrying high expectations were punished aggressively when those structures failed.

Oil Adds Another Variable for Yields and Equities

Oil cleared resistance near $75 to $76 and moved into the next major level around $81.33. A confirmed break above that resistance would open a path toward $85.75. A rejection would put the former breakout area near $75 back into focus as support.

Oil matters beyond the energy trade. Continued strength could complicate the improving inflation narrative and help keep Treasury yields elevated. A pullback would reduce some of that pressure.

That makes oil part of the same framework as the 10-year yield. Both markets are testing whether the softer inflation data can develop into a durable easing trend or whether price pressure remains more persistent than the headline suggests.

What Matters Next

The next session brings producer inflation data, but the bond market’s reaction will matter more than the release by itself.

A break in the 10-year yield beneath trendline support would validate the softer inflation signal and give technology room to stabilize. Another defense of support would keep rates elevated and leave the indexes vulnerable, particularly if SPY continues leaning on its breakout level.

IBM’s collapse was the loudest move of the day. The more important market message was the divergence around it. The indexes held, semiconductors attracted capital, software expectations reset, and yields refused to cooperate with the bullish inflation narrative.

That is the framework to carry forward. The market is still rewarding strength, but it is becoming far less forgiving when expectations and technical structure break at the same time.

Gold futures reversed sharply after running into a well-defined downsloping trend line for several sessions running, pulling back into the $3,900 zone and leaving the broader metals complex at an inflection point. The rejection does not break the uptrend on its own, but it puts a specific level in play, and how gold behaves near it will likely set the tone for palladium, platinum, silver, and copper.

The setups differ by metal and by direction. Palladium, platinum, and silver are each testing bullish structures, working to hold or confirm a breakout above a downsloping trend line. Copper sends the opposite message: it already broke down through its rising support line and is now facing that line as resistance near $6.75, a bearish signal running in parallel to gold's. Gold sits at the center of that split, having failed to clear resistance near $4,100 and now rejected at that trend line again.

Gold's importance rests less on being unique among the five charts and more on the weight of the level itself. The $3,902.50 zone is explicitly identified as the line in the sand, sitting at the origin of the current uptrend; a daily close below it would remove the support that has kept gold's structure bullish. Copper's breakdown is already flashing a similar warning in the industrial metals, and if gold's pivot gives way too, the case that the wider complex is turning grows meaningfully stronger.

Gold's Rejection and the Line in the Sand

Gold futures (GC1) spent several sessions testing a downsloping trend line, registering a pivot top followed by a second and third touch before price pushed toward $4,100. That move failed to hold, and price rolled back into the high $3,900s before pressing into the same trend line as resistance again, a sequence more consistent with distribution than a confirmed breakout.

The level to track is the $3,900 to $3,902.50 zone, the line in the sand and effectively the same pivot band the current rally leg originated from near $3,901.20; these read as one narrow zone from two reference points, not two separate levels. As long as gold holds above it on a daily close basis, the broader structure still favors the bulls, and a daily close below it would open room for a deeper pullback.

The more conservative read waits for a confirmed close back above the trend line, followed by a continuation move that clears the recent pivot high. At that point, the trend line would be expected to flip from resistance into support on any retest, the same break-continuation-retest sequence now playing out across the complex.

The Rest of the Complex: Palladium, Silver, Platinum, and Copper

Palladium, platinum, and silver are each testing a bullish structure, while copper confirms the opposite message. Palladium (PA1) closed above its downsloping trend line and is using that broken line as support; a slide below roughly $1,157 would invalidate the breakout and reopen support near $1,100 and $1,076.50, with continuation pointing toward a gap near $1,362.50 and resistance near $1,569. Platinum (PL1) closed above its own trend line but hasn't followed through with a close above the resistance zone near $1,644.10; only a confirmed close and hold above that zone, not the earlier trend-line break, would turn it into support.

Silver (SL1) remains technically in a downtrend, but a repeatedly tested support zone near $53.45 has held on each retest, and the chart is pressing against its own downsloping trend line. Copper (HG1) is the outlier: it has closed below its up-sloping trend line, the opposite move from palladium and platinum, turning that broken support into resistance near $6.75, with support below at $5.8455. Full levels are in the table below.

Key Levels to Monitor

What to Watch Next

Gold's daily close relative to $3,902.50 matters most for the group; holding it keeps the structure intact, while losing it would signal the complex is shifting toward a broader rollover. Copper's break already points that way, and if gold's pivot gives out too while palladium, platinum, and silver are still working through bullish structures, that split marks a real divergence rather than a uniform move. None of these levels are certainties, they mark the zones where a reaction is most probable, and the discipline is in waiting for daily closes and continuation moves rather than reacting to the first touch.

Watch on YouTube

Cooler Inflation Lifted Markets, but the Charts Still Have to Confirm It

The cooler CPI report changed the macro setup immediately. Treasury yields pulled back, the US Dollar weakened, and risk assets caught a bid. But Gareth Soloway’s central message from this morning’s My Trading Game Plan Revealed was not that one inflation report had cleared the path higher.

The market received a better catalyst. It has not yet delivered technical confirmation.

That difference is especially important in a market where the major indices remain between support and resistance, IBM is suffering one of its sharpest declines in years, and capital is rotating aggressively into the memory-chip companies benefiting from the artificial-intelligence spending cycle.

Lower Yields Give Equities Breathing Room

The CPI data came in cooler than expected across several important measures, reducing pressure on the Federal Reserve to tighten policy further. The immediate transmission mechanism was visible in the bond market.

The 10-year Treasury yield had recently rallied from trendline support near 4.36% to an overnight high around 4.64%. After the inflation release, it pulled back toward 4.56%. That decline matters because elevated yields have been one of the primary constraints on equity valuations.

The US Dollar also reversed lower from resistance. A softer dollar can support multinational companies by increasing the translated value of overseas revenue, but the more immediate market signal is broader: falling yields and a weaker dollar remove two sources of pressure from risk assets.

That creates a more constructive backdrop. It does not guarantee that stocks break higher.

The S&P 500 Is Still Waiting for a Decision

The broader market remains caught between clearly defined technical boundaries. Gareth described this as a form of market purgatory, with price trading between meaningful support below and resistance above.

The important point is not the exact middle of that range. It is that the index has not reached either area where the risk-reward becomes more attractive.

Trading aggressively in the middle of a range often means accepting poor positioning. Support offers a level where fear may become overextended. Resistance offers a level where optimism may have moved too far. Between those points, the market can generate movement without producing a clean setup.

The CPI report improved the probability of an upside resolution, but price still has to prove it. Until the index clears resistance or returns to support, patience remains part of the game plan.

IBM Reveals Where Corporate Spending Is Moving

The more important development beneath the index was the divergence inside technology.

IBM fell sharply after warning that customers were directing more of their budgets toward memory chips and other artificial-intelligence infrastructure needs. The headline suggested weakness in IBM’s data-center business, but Gareth’s interpretation went one level deeper.

The spending may not be disappearing. It may be moving.

Companies have limited capital-expenditure budgets. As demand for memory and AI infrastructure accelerates, spending allocated to legacy technology projects can be delayed or reduced. That creates a sharp divide between the companies losing budget share and those receiving it.

IBM’s decline brought the stock directly into a major rising trendline connecting several important pivot lows. That support was near $218, with the stock briefly trading around $217 before stabilizing.

After a decline of roughly 25% from peak to trough, the chart offered a potential mean-reversion setup. Gareth acquired shares near $221 while looking for a rebound above $230. The trade was based on technical support and the scale of the selloff, not on an assumption that IBM’s fundamental problems had disappeared.

The risk is straightforward. A bounce can develop as long as the macro trendline holds. A decisive break below it would weaken the setup and suggest that the market is pricing in something more serious than a temporary spending delay.

Memory Chips Are Receiving the Other Side of the Rotation

The companies benefiting from the spending shift moved in the opposite direction.

Strength in SK Hynix helped lift US-listed memory names, including Micron and Sandisk. Both produced large swings as traders repositioned around the idea that AI spending remains strong but is becoming increasingly concentrated.

This is why the technology sector cannot be treated as one uniform trade. IBM’s decline and the strength in memory stocks are part of the same story. One group is losing near-term budget priority while another is absorbing the capital.

That divergence is more useful than the headline question of whether technology was broadly higher or lower. It shows where institutions believe the strongest demand remains.

Bank Earnings Reinforce the Importance of Positioning

The bank reactions delivered the same lesson from a different angle: strong earnings do not automatically produce higher prices.

Goldman Sachs rallied as underwriting and capital-markets activity supported results. JPMorgan traded lower despite a strong quarter after entering the report near record highs and printing a major topping tail. The difference was not simply the quality of the earnings. It was how much optimism each chart had already priced in.

Bank of America entered the session with a more constructive pattern after breaking above the neckline of an inverse head and shoulders formation. That structure produces a projected area near $64 to $65, although the breakout still needs to hold.

The broader takeaway is that earnings are catalysts, not complete trading frameworks. The reaction depends on valuation, positioning, chart structure, and whether the results were strong enough to exceed expectations already embedded in price.

Gold, Oil, and Bitcoin Still Need Closing Confirmation

Outside equities, several major assets also reached decision points.

Gold bounced after testing the $4,000 area, but the closing candle matters more than the morning rebound. A close near the upper portion of the day’s range would support the case for a sustained recovery. A weak close would show that buyers could not maintain control even after receiving a favorable inflation catalyst.

Oil has already pushed through its initial target near $79 as tensions surrounding the Strait of Hormuz continue to support prices. The next technical reference is the gap near $84, followed by larger resistance around $87.

Bitcoin also rallied after the CPI release, but the breakout level remains near $64,000. A confirmed daily close above that area would strengthen the bullish structure. Failure to close above it would leave Bitcoin inside the same consolidation despite the intraday enthusiasm.

Bottom Line

The CPI report improved the macro environment by lowering yields and weakening the dollar, but the market is still demanding confirmation from price.

The index remains between major technical boundaries. IBM is testing whether long-term support can produce a mean-reversion bounce. Memory-chip companies are showing where AI-related capital is still flowing. Banks, gold, oil, and Bitcoin are all reinforcing the same message: the catalyst creates movement, but the close determines whether the structure actually changed.

The game plan is not to chase the first reaction. It is to identify where the market confirms it.

Published by Verified Investing | U.S. Economic Metrics

Released: July 14, 2026 | Data Period: June 2026 | Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Key Takeaways

• Headline CPI fell -0.4% MoM SA in June and +3.7% YoY — the largest single-month decline since April 2020's -0.8%. The wire coverage will treat this as a relief print. The energy contribution math tells you exactly how much relief is warranted.
• Energy fell -5.7% MoM and subtracted -0.43 percentage points from the headline — the entire monthly decline and then some. Energy is 7.5% of the basket. It generated essentially 100% of the June move.
• Core CPI printed -0.02% MoM, flat to the decimal. Core YoY fell to 2.8%, down from 3.0% in May. The underlying trend is cooling, but not because demand is collapsing — because energy is no longer heating it.
• Services less energy — 60% of the basket — contributed just +0.02pp. The dominant component of the index barely moved. That is not disinflation. That is stasis.
• Core goods went negative again: -0.09% MoM, +1.0% YoY. Fourteen months into a global tariff regime, with petroleum costs embedded everywhere in the supply chain, goods prices are still deflating at the consumer level.
• Food crept up: +0.21% MoM, +3.3% YoY. Slow, steady, and not the story today — but the one category outside energy showing consistent upward pressure.
• The read: the June headline is an energy print, same as it was in May, just inverted. The disinflation is real but shallow. Core is not accelerating and not collapsing. The Fed has a cleaner data window — and less excuse to move either direction.

What This Metric Measures, and Why This Print Matters

CPI-U is the Bureau of Labor Statistics' measure of price changes for a fixed basket of goods and services purchased by urban consumers. It covers roughly 93% of the U.S. population. The index moves bond markets, shapes Fed communication, and drives automatic adjustments to Social Security, Treasury TIPS, and federal benefit programs.

June's release matters for a specific reason. May CPI handed the market a 4.2% headline driven almost entirely by gasoline — Brent crude had peaked at $115.30 on May 4, and the petroleum shock was feeding directly into the energy index. The question June had to answer: did energy give back any of that move as crude pulled back into the $108–113 range, and what does the core actually look like once the energy noise clears?

Kevin Warsh, two months into the chair, now has his first month of genuinely clean data — a headline that does not demand an immediate explanation and a core that is not running away. That is a different policy problem than the one he inherited in May.

What Everyone Will Focus On vs. What Matters More

What everyone will focus on: -0.4% MoM, largest monthly decline since April 2020. The narrative writes itself — inflation is cracking, the Fed has room to cut, relief is arriving. BLS's own release notes the decline was driven by energy, but the "largest drop since COVID" framing will dominate the coverage cycle.

What matters more: this print is May, mirrored. May's headline was artificially hot because energy surged. June's headline is artificially cool because energy reversed. Neither month is telling you what the underlying inflation trend is doing.

The contribution math is unambiguous. Energy subtracted -0.43 percentage points from the June headline. Everything else combined — services less energy, food, core goods — netted to roughly +0.03pp. The basket ex-energy was nearly stationary.

That is the structure of this print: one volatile component dominated the index in both directions across consecutive months. The signal is in what energy is not covering up — and what it is not covering up is a reaccelerating core.

The Core: Flat, Not Fixed

Core CPI at -0.02% MoM is the closest thing to zero the series can print. The YoY rate fell to 2.81% from 2.96% in May, but that decline reflects the May 2025 base more than any acceleration of the current trend.

The composition is what matters. Services less energy — 60.2% of the total CPI basket — contributed just +0.02pp in June. At that weighting, a +0.02pp contribution implies a services-less-energy MoM of roughly +0.03%. The dominant inflation driver of the last three years is essentially dormant on a monthly basis.

Core goods at -0.09% MoM adds another data point to a sequence that has now run negative or flat for most of the last year. The YoY sits at +0.98% — below 1%. This is the category that was supposed to be the first casualty of the tariff regime, with upstream input costs unable to stay buried at the producer level indefinitely. So far, at the consumer level, they have. Goods deflation is still intact.

What this means practically: core inflation right now is neither a problem nor a solution. It is not confirming the "inflation is dead" read, because +2.8% YoY with services barely moving is not a rout. It is not confirming the "tariffs are feeding through" read, because goods are still deflating. It is sitting at stasis.

Energy: Two Months, One Story

May's +3.9% energy MoM added +0.29pp to the headline. June's -5.7% energy MoM subtracted -0.43pp. Net two-month contribution from energy: approximately -0.14pp. That is close enough to flat that the summer's CPI narrative has been almost entirely borrowed from crude oil's May peak and June retreat.

The June energy pullback is consistent with Brent crude trading down from the $115 peak toward the $108–113 range through June. The relationship between crude prices and CPI energy components runs with roughly a 3–5 week lag, so the June CPI capture reflects crude's behavior from mid-May through mid-June. If crude holds its current range or drifts lower, July's energy contribution will likely be muted — neither the tailwind it was in May nor the headwind it was in June.

The Iran War remains the primary volatility source. At second month, the petroleum cost shock has not escalated to a new high but has not resolved either. Any re-escalation that pushes Brent back toward $115+ will flip the energy contribution back to positive and rebuild the headline inflation narrative before the underlying core has changed at all.

Food: The Quiet Accumulator

Food rose +0.21% MoM in June, contributing +0.03pp — modest in isolation, but the third straight month of positive food inflation after May's +0.3% and April's +0.3%. Food YoY is running at 3.3%, above the overall headline core.

Food is 13.5% of the basket. It does not move markets the way energy does, but three consecutive months of above-trend monthly gains at a 13.5% weight starts to create a structural floor under headline CPI even when energy is subtracting. A prolonged food inflation sequence would complicate the "the headline is just energy" read.

The food-at-home versus food-away-from-home split matters for the transmission mechanism. Food-away-from-home is more labor-intensive and stickier; food-at-home is more exposed to agricultural commodity prices and supply chains. The brief does not break this out, but the sustained food print is worth tracking through the back half of 2026.

What This Means For Traders

The following is provided for educational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice.

The -0.4% headline is not a trend signal — treat it as the inverse of May. Two months of energy-dominated prints, opposite in sign, do not revise the inflation trajectory. Rate-sensitive trades built on "CPI is cracking" face the same risk as trades built on May's "inflation is back" — both are reading an energy oscillation as a structural shift.

Watch July CPI, releasing mid-August, for the first real read after two noisy months. If crude stays in the $108–113 range through July, the energy contribution will be close to neutral and the headline will converge toward core. That is when the services-less-energy trend — flat at +0.03% in June — either confirms stasis or shows a direction.

The level that matters in services less energy is +0.3% MoM. That was May 2026's reading, and it is the threshold that revives the "sticky services" narrative. June printed far below it. If July prints back at or above +0.3%, the "core is cooling" read from June gets qualified immediately.

Core goods at +1.0% YoY and falling is the tariff tell that has not arrived. The longer goods deflation persists at the consumer level despite upstream cost pressure, the more the market can dismiss tariff pass-through as a consumer-price threat. A reversal — core goods YoY moving back above +2% — would change that thesis. It has not happened yet.

The Warsh Fed's next decision point is the August 4–5 FOMC. June's clean, flat core gives Warsh no data pressure to move in either direction. The argument for cuts requires seeing services soften further; the argument for hikes requires seeing core re-accelerate. June provides neither. Hold is the path of least resistance through the summer unless the July CPI or NFP sequence breaks cleanly in one direction.

If Brent crude re-escalates toward $115+ before the July survey period closes, fade the core narrative and watch headline CPI expectations reset higher — not because underlying inflation changed, but because the energy component will flip the headline again. The Iran War is still the macro variable that drives the June-to-August CPI path more than any demand-side dynamic.

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics — Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U), June 2026, released July 14, 2026

This article is published for educational and informational purposes only. Nothing contained herein constitutes investment advice or a recommendation to buy or sell any security. Please consult a qualified financial professional before making any investment decisions.

Headline inflation dropped 0.4% MoM (vs -0.1% expected) and came in at +3.5% YoY (below forecast). Core CPI was completely flat MoM at 0.0% (vs +0.2% expected) and eased to +2.6% YoY. Cooler-than-expected numbers could boost rate-cut odds and market sentiment.

At the time of this analysis, Bitcoin had broken below the lower boundary of the inclining parallel channel that defined its trend for months and was retesting that boundary from underneath, getting turned back each time it tried to reclaim it. That failure kept a head-and-shoulders pattern on the daily chart fully intact, imperfect right shoulder and all. Since this session, price has continued lower, moving from the transcript's reference point near $82,000 into the low $60,000s, without yet reaching the support zone that would put the pattern's measured-move target into play.

The more useful question for traders isn't whether that pattern eventually resolves lower. It's when the underlying selling pressure is likely to run its course. That is where a separate, longer-term cycle study on the weekly chart becomes the more important piece of the analysis, one that points to a specific window later this year worth watching regardless of exactly how the price structure resolves.

The Setup: A Broken Channel Being Retested From Below

On the daily timeframe, Bitcoin lost the bottom boundary of its inclining parallel channel and has since failed to reclaim it on each attempt, with the channel's midpoint and upper boundary well out of reach. That failed retest is what keeps the head-and-shoulders pattern active. The measured move from that pattern targets $37,508.

Before price could reach that level, the first meaningful support zone sits between roughly $53,000 and $48,000, a range last defined by a March 2025 pivot low near $48,240. A daily close below $48,000 would confirm that this zone has failed to hold and open a clearer path toward the head-and-shoulders target. That is a statement about price structure only; it says nothing on its own about timing.

Reading the Cycle: A Separate, Longer-Term Timing Signal

Layered on top of, but analytically distinct from, the price structure is a cycle study measured on the weekly chart. The prior gap between Bitcoin's two most recent major pivot highs worked out to roughly 1,428 days, a span that, projected forward from the October 2025 all-time high, points toward the next major pivot high near September 3, 2029.

A shorter, related measurement looks at how long the prior decline phase lasted before Bitcoin found a bottom: roughly 371 days. That is a single prior-cycle analogue rather than an established recurring rule, and it should be treated with the appropriate caution that comes with a sample size of one. Applying that same span to the current decline points to a window near October 12, 2026, as a period worth watching for selling pressure to exhaust itself and a bottoming process to begin.

It's worth being precise about what this window does and doesn't tell traders. It is a timing estimate, independent of the price-target analysis above. Price could reach, overshoot, or fall short of the $37,508 target on a completely different timeline than the cycle study suggests, and the two claims should be evaluated separately rather than treated as confirming one another.

Why This Matters Beyond Bitcoin

Bitcoin functions as the directional filter for the rest of the crypto market: when it's under pressure, altcoins tend to struggle regardless of their own chart setups, and when it turns higher, the broader market typically follows. That relationship is why the October window carries weight beyond Bitcoin itself. Ethereum and XRP are both showing similar rejection behavior from their own downtrend structures, and a Bitcoin bottom on this general timeline would be the more likely catalyst for renewed strength across both.

Key Levels to Monitor

What Would Confirm or Invalidate Each Claim

The price target and the timing window rest on different evidence and should be checked independently. On price: a daily close below $48,000 strengthens the case for the $37,508 head-and-shoulders target, while a daily close back above the parallel channel's lower boundary, reclaimed decisively rather than briefly poked through, would weaken that target without necessarily changing the cycle read. On timing: the October window holds as a reasonable estimate as long as the broader decline phase remains intact; it would only be meaningfully challenged by a sustained reversal well ahead of schedule, not by short-term price swings in either direction.

Treating these as two separate questions, rather than assuming one confirms the other, is the more disciplined way to track this setup into the fourth quarter.

Watch on YouTube

Every selloff eventually reaches a point where price stops falling because sellers have exhausted themselves. Identifying that point usually starts with mapping where prior gaps and pivots sit on a chart, then watching how price behaves on return. A chart alone can't confirm whether that return marks real buying interest or another failed bounce; it can only frame the level worth watching.

That framework is showing up across several names heavily discounted from their highs. Rigetti, OKLO, and AppLovin share the same structural setup: each rallied sharply at some point, left a gap on the way up, and has since sold off back toward it. Each gap becomes a level worth watching on any return, a reference point rather than a guarantee.

Why Gaps Become Reference Points

A gap marks a price range where no trading occurred between one session's close and the next open, evidence of a sharp imbalance between buyers and sellers. That's narrower than it might sound: a gap doesn't mean trading was thin overall, and it doesn't prove a specific class of buyer is waiting to defend it. What it marks is the origin of a strong move, and traders tend to watch that origin if price comes back to test it.

A steep decline from a stock's highs adds context. A stock that already rallied 300% or more before pulling back has demonstrated real demand at some point. One grinding lower with no comparable prior strength has not. That doesn't guarantee a level holds, but it changes the odds worth weighing.

Rigetti: The Origin of the Last Real Move

Rigetti remains in a clear downtrend, with price failing to close above its downsloping trend line on each bounce attempt. The level in focus is $15.13, the origin of a gap from an earlier rally that took the stock roughly 30% higher, pulled back to nearly flat, then extended more than 84% further. That sequence is why $15.13 matters: it marks the start of the last leg where buyers pushed price higher before the current downtrend took hold. Ben frames a return there as roughly a 45% discount from the pivot high that preceded the decline, though the transcript doesn't specify that pivot price, so the figure isn't independently verifiable here.

OKLO: A Sequence of Prior Demand Levels

OKLO offers the cleanest version of this pattern. After gapping up from $43.63, the stock rallied more than 300% to a high near $194 before rolling over. An initial shelf at $50.08 has already given way, shifting focus to $45.11. If $45.11 also fails, the next levels in descending order are $43.63, the gap origin and more aggressive re-entry point, and $39.72, a deeper, more conservative level. Each marks a point where the stock previously showed real buying interest before its advance.

AppLovin: Two Gaps, One Sequence

AppLovin's chart shows a similar structure in stages. The stock broke below its first major gap zone near $445.93, a level that had capped a retest attempt before selling resumed. Below that, a second, unfilled gap sits at $417.45, an area of heavy prior consolidation. A daily close below $417.45 would open the door toward $366.49, with $312.25 beyond that. Two sequential gap levels, not one, is what makes this worth tracking closely.

A Different Stage: Microsoft's Consolidation

Microsoft isn't part of the same gap-support group; it isn't currently approaching a gap or pivot the way the other three are. It's useful as a contrast for a later stage of this process. After a roughly 23% pullback from its highs, the stock formed an inverse head-and-shoulders pattern and has moved into sideways, bullish consolidation, price action that more often reflects accumulation than distribution. A confirmed break of that pattern would put a resistance cluster near $429.80 back in focus, with the prior high near $465.13 as a further level if that also gives way.

What to Watch

Each level is a specific, testable condition rather than a forecast. A daily close that holds above $15.13 on Rigetti or above $45.11 on OKLO would support the case that buyers defend those levels again. A daily close below $417.45 on AppLovin would invalidate the current support case and shift attention to $366.49 and $312.25. On Microsoft, a confirmed break of the head-and-shoulders pattern would support the accumulation read already visible in price.

None of this depends on knowing who is buying at these levels or why. It depends on whether price behaves the way it has at comparable levels before, and on treating a level holding or failing as information rather than a foregone conclusion. That is a probability exercise, not a certainty, and it works only when confirmation is respected rather than anticipated.

Watch on YouTube

Semiconductor Weakness Reveals the Week’s Real Risk: Thinning Liquidity

This week is crowded with economic releases, earnings reports, and geopolitical headlines, but Gareth Soloway’s central message from Monday’s My Trading Game Plan Revealed was not about predicting every catalyst. It was about recognizing a market that is being asked to absorb more supply while capital remains expensive and leadership becomes increasingly concentrated.

The sharp decline in the newly listed SK Hynix shares, corresponding weakness in Micron and SanDisk, and the Nasdaq’s underperformance relative to the S&P 500 are all versions of the same signal. Liquidity is becoming less forgiving.

That matters more than any individual headline because it changes how traders should interpret the week ahead. CPI, PPI, retail sales, bank earnings, and semiconductor results will create volatility, but the market’s ability to absorb that volatility will depend on whether buyers still have the capital and conviction to defend the areas that have led the broader advance.

Elevated Yields Keep the Hurdle Rate High

The macro backdrop is adding pressure rather than providing relief.

Escalation in the Middle East has pushed crude oil higher, with Gareth continuing to watch the $79 area as an upside objective. Oil is not the main equity story by itself. Its importance comes through the transmission into inflation expectations, the dollar, and Treasury yields.

The 10-year Treasury yield remains near 4.6%, keeping borrowing costs elevated across the economy. That pressure is especially important for small and mid-sized growth companies, including emerging AI businesses that require significant capital spending before producing durable cash flow.

When the risk-free rate remains near 4.6%, investors demand more from speculative growth stories. Revenue projections that appeared sufficient under lower rates face a much higher hurdle, placing pressure on valuations even when the underlying technology remains compelling.

This week’s data will test that framework. CPI arrives Tuesday, PPI Wednesday, and retail sales Thursday. The difficult combination would be persistent inflation alongside weakening consumer demand. That would leave the market with fewer expectations for lower rates while raising new concerns about economic growth.

The Semiconductor Selloff Is a Liquidity Signal

Oil may have appeared to be the obvious headline entering Monday, but the larger market reaction came from semiconductors.

The newly listed SK Hynix shares fell approximately 15% overnight and were down more than 10% in U.S. premarket trading. The weakness spilled into Micron and SanDisk, putting direct pressure on Nasdaq futures.

The important point is not simply that one semiconductor stock declined. It is the amount of capital the market is being asked to absorb.

Roughly $28 billion in newly available shares creates another destination for money that had previously been concentrated in established memory and semiconductor names. Investors do not need to abandon the sector for that supply to matter. They only need to redistribute capital across a larger group of securities.

That redistribution can weaken the stocks that previously benefited from scarcity and concentrated demand. When new supply arrives at the same time investor appetite is fading, the market begins revealing which valuations depended on uninterrupted liquidity.

The index divergence reflected that pressure. Nasdaq 100 futures were down roughly 1% before the open, while S&P 500 futures were lower by approximately 0.4%. The S&P 500’s broader sector mix provided some insulation, but the sharper Nasdaq decline showed that the market’s former leadership was taking the heavier hit.

The S&P 500 Is Between Decision Levels

The S&P 500 remains in the middle of its current technical range, which means the chart is not offering a high-conviction signal at present prices.

Resistance sits near 7,725, derived from a trendline connecting the February 2025 pivot high with subsequent highs. Support remains near 7,320.

The more immediate structural issue is the rising support trendline beneath the market. Price has already tested that area twice. Another test should not automatically be interpreted as stronger support.

Repeated tests consume demand. Buyers who defended the first and second touches may be less willing or less able to absorb another round of selling. A brief reaction can still develop on a third test, but the probability of a breakdown increases as the level is challenged repeatedly.

That makes confirmation more important than anticipation. A successful defense would keep the broader structure intact. A decisive close below the trendline would show that the market is no longer absorbing pressure as efficiently as it did earlier in the advance.

SpaceX Shows the Risk of New Supply

The same liquidity issue is visible in recent IPO trading.

Despite heavy attention surrounding the SpaceX debut, the stock closed Friday near $145, below its opening price. That left many buyers from the first several sessions underwater while investors who obtained shares near the $135 pre-IPO price remained in a stronger position.

With shares near $143 in premarket trading, $135 becomes the first major decision level. It represents both a technical reference and the price associated with early institutional participation. A reaction from that area would be meaningful, but it should not automatically be treated as a durable long-term floor.

The larger risk comes after the upcoming earnings report, when the expected lock-up expiration could release substantial additional supply. Early employees and insiders may have cost bases far below the public-market price, meaning they can realize significant gains without needing to sell at the exact high.

That changes the framework around $135. It may produce a reaction, but the approaching earnings and lock-up catalysts make it a tactical support area rather than a clean long-term valuation signal. The risk is not simply whether $135 holds on the first test. It is whether demand can continue absorbing shares after additional supply becomes available.

Earnings Season Rewards Preparation, Not Prediction

Major banks begin reporting Tuesday, followed by ASML on Wednesday and Taiwan Semiconductor and Netflix on Thursday. Rather than attempting to predict each reaction, Gareth emphasized preparing the important chart levels before the reports arrive.

He describes this process as being a “trading prepper.”

The principle is straightforward. Earnings moves happen too quickly for traders to begin studying the chart after the release. By the time the market has processed the headline, guidance, and conference-call details, the first reaction may already be over.

Netflix provides a clear example. Consensus expectations sit near $0.79 per share on $12.57 billion in revenue, with the whisper estimate closer to $0.84. Even a result above those numbers would not guarantee a positive reaction. Forward guidance will determine whether investors believe the current valuation remains justified.

If Netflix sells off sharply, Gareth has identified gap-fill support near $68.70. The value of that level is not that price must bounce there. Its value is that the technical reference is known before the volatility begins. Traders can then evaluate the reaction rather than responding emotionally to the headline.

Costco is another chart requiring confirmation. The stock moved below a longer-term trendline dating back to 2023 late last week. The breakdown has not fully confirmed, but failure to reclaim that line would represent a meaningful change in structure for a company that has carried a persistent valuation premium.

Gold and Silver Remain Secondary Confirmations

The stronger dollar and elevated yields are also pressuring precious metals.

Gold is compressing inside a wedge, with the converging boundaries forcing the chart toward a decision. A downside break would bring the $3,500 to $3,600 area into focus. Until the wedge resolves, the compression itself is more important than trying to predict the direction of the eventual move.

Silver remains weaker. The chart has formed a bear flag and was rejected after returning to the original breakdown area. Support sits near $54, followed by the psychological $50 level. Gareth’s broader downside model extends toward approximately $46 to $45 if those supports fail.

Natural gas is testing the lower portion of a longer-term parallel channel after a decline that nearly invalidated its previous cup-and-handle structure. Late-summer seasonality may eventually support demand, but the chart still needs to prove that buyers are willing to defend the lower boundary.

These commodity setups are not the dominant story of the week, but they reinforce the broader message. A firm dollar and elevated yields continue to influence asset classes well beyond equities.

Revolutionary Technology Does Not Eliminate Valuation Risk

The semiconductor weakness also connects to Gareth’s broader warning about speculative cycles.

The bearish argument is not that artificial intelligence lacks economic value. Transformative technology and severe equity drawdowns can exist at the same time.

The internet changed commerce and communication, but many leading technology stocks still declined between 75% and 85% after the dot-com bubble peaked. Similar patterns appeared in solar stocks, cannabis stocks, and 3D-printing companies. The underlying themes had legitimate long-term potential, but prices moved too far ahead of sustainable fundamentals.

The same risk applies when semiconductor and AI valuations depend on continued capital inflows, limited supply, and uninterrupted investor enthusiasm. If new issuance keeps absorbing liquidity while yields remain elevated, some of the market’s strongest former leaders could experience much deeper resets.

Gareth’s expectation is that a number of high-flying technology and semiconductor stocks could eventually trade 75% below their peaks if the liquidity unwind continues. That is not a claim that every AI company will fail. It is a warning that technological importance does not make valuation irrelevant.

Bottom Line

The market is entering a catalyst-heavy week with less room for disappointment than the headline calendar suggests.

The real framework is the interaction between expensive capital, growing share supply, and narrowing leadership. The semiconductor selloff matters because it shows what can happen when the market is no longer willing to absorb every new offering without repricing the rest of the sector.

The key levels define where that pressure either stabilizes or spreads. The S&P 500 remains bounded by 7,725 resistance and 7,320 support, with its repeatedly tested trendline carrying increasing importance. SpaceX is approaching the $135 institutional reference as a future lock-up adds supply risk. Netflix has major gap-fill support near $68.70 if earnings produce a deeper reset.

This is not a week that requires predicting every economic print or earnings reaction. It requires knowing which levels change the read before the volatility arrives.

The edge is not prediction. It is preparation.

The U.S. dollar weakened today, but the more useful signal is not that every major currency moved together. It is that they did not.

DXY remains the directional anchor, yet the reactions beneath it are uneven. GBP/USD has produced the clearest confirmed breakout, USD/JPY is showing early yen strength, EUR/USD remains trapped without confirmation, and USD/CAD is still refusing to fully validate the dollar pullback. That divergence reveals more than the headline move in the dollar itself.

DXY Remains the Directional Filter

DXY spent the summer building pressure beneath a downsloping trend line before breaking through it on a sharp move. Price then converted that former resistance into support and advanced toward 101.977, the immediate resistance level now controlling the next directional move.

A daily close back above 101.977 would reassert upward pressure and keep the dollar’s breakout structure active. The importance of that level is not the limited distance between 101.977 and the 102 handle. It is whether buyers can reclaim the resistance zone that recently stopped the advance.

The more consequential test sits below current price. DXY has repeatedly held a rising trend line over the past two weeks while continuing to form higher closing lows. That trend line now intersects with horizontal support, creating a confluence zone that acts as the structural floor beneath the dollar’s recent advance.

As long as daily closes remain above that area, the higher-low sequence stays intact. A confirmed close below it would break the structure and provide stronger evidence that the current dollar weakness is becoming more than a routine pullback.

EUR/USD Still Lacks Confirmation

EUR/USD has been consolidating around 1.1412 for roughly two weeks. The pattern has some flag-like characteristics, but the structure is not clean enough to call it a confirmed bear flag.

The level that would change the near-term picture is 1.1495. A daily close above that resistance, followed by a break through the longer-term downsloping trend line overhead, would give the euro a more credible bullish shift.

Until then, EUR/USD is not confirming a sustained dollar breakdown. It remains caught between support and resistance, making it the least decisive chart of the group.

GBP/USD Has the Cleanest Breakout

GBP/USD has delivered the strongest technical confirmation among the four pairs. Price moved above a long-term trend line dating back to September and has now remained above it on a two-day closing basis.

That makes the pound the clearest relative-strength signal against the dollar, but resistance still sits directly ahead. The first level to watch is 1.34610. Beyond that, 1.36386 represents the more important swing-level test after rejecting price in late May.

A daily close above 1.36386 would provide the strongest continuation signal in the group. Until that happens, the breakout is constructive but still approaching an area where sellers previously regained control.

USD/JPY Is Showing Early Yen Strength

USD/JPY is developing a different type of setup. After reaching a fresh high near 162.840, the pair reversed below 161.950. That former breakout level now becomes resistance on any recovery attempt.

Because USD/JPY moves inversely with the value of the yen, continued trading below 161.950 would point to strengthening yen momentum. Near-term support has held around 161.264, while the longer-term rising trend line from the April 2025 low remains intact beneath price.

That makes this an early reversal signal rather than a completed trend change. The yen is beginning to strengthen, but USD/JPY has not yet broken the broader uptrend that carried it to the recent high.

USD/CAD Is the Outlier

USD/CAD has not confirmed the broader dollar pullback as cleanly as the pound or yen.

The pair advanced roughly 5% from its prior base in a sharp, nearly parabolic move before reaching resistance at 1.42352. That level has held so far, and price continues to form higher lows beneath it, although momentum appears to be fading.

A daily close above 1.42352 would keep the extension active. Another rejection would put the pair’s higher-low structure under its first meaningful test.

USD/CAD’s reluctance to reverse is important. It suggests the Canadian dollar has not developed the same relative strength visible in the pound or the early reversal forming in the yen.

What Matters Next

DXY remains the first chart to watch. A close above 101.977 would restore upward dollar pressure and challenge the bullish developments forming in GBP/USD and USD/JPY. A close below the dollar’s confluence support zone would break the higher-low structure and provide stronger confirmation that the pullback is becoming a broader reversal.

Among the individual pairs, GBP/USD has the cleanest confirmed breakout, while USD/JPY carries the clearest early reversal signal. EUR/USD remains unconfirmed, and USD/CAD is the holdout that has not yet validated broad dollar weakness.

The currency market is therefore not producing one uniform dollar-down trade. It is producing a hierarchy. The pound and yen are leading, the euro is waiting, and the Canadian dollar is lagging. That framework offers more value than treating every dollar pair as the same setup.

Watch on YouTube

Circle Internet Group: From Failed SPAC to the Public Market’s Stablecoin Test

When Circle Internet Group priced its IPO at $31 per share in June 2025, investors were not simply buying another fintech company. They were buying one of the clearest public-market vehicles tied to stablecoin adoption, digital payments, and the migration of traditional dollars onto blockchain networks. The initial thesis was easy to understand: as USDC circulation and usage expanded, Circle would become one of the primary financial infrastructure companies behind the digital-dollar economy.

That thesis was not wrong, but it was incomplete. CRCL is not a direct proxy for Bitcoin, and it is not yet a traditional software platform. Its current economics are driven largely by the reserves backing USDC, the interest earned on those reserves, and the amount of that income Circle retains after paying distribution partners. The longer-term opportunity depends on something more ambitious: whether Circle can use USDC to build a broader payments and financial-infrastructure platform that produces meaningful revenue beyond interest income.

That is what makes Circle’s public-market story important. The company has already helped move stablecoins from a crypto-native tool toward regulated financial infrastructure. The next stage is proving that the value created by that network will translate into durable economics for CRCL shareholders.

The Failed SPAC Was Only The Beginning

Circle’s first attempt to enter the public markets came through Concord Acquisition Corp., a special purpose acquisition company. The transaction was announced in 2021, when SPAC deals were still attracting aggressive valuations and investors were eager to gain exposure to crypto-related companies. The proposed transaction was later revised at a valuation of approximately $9 billion, but it never reached the finish line.

Circle and Concord terminated the deal in December 2022 after the registration statement had not been declared effective before the transaction deadline. At the time, the collapse could have been viewed as a major setback. Crypto markets were under pressure, risk appetite had deteriorated, and regulators were becoming more skeptical of both digital assets and the SPAC structure itself.

In hindsight, the delay may have strengthened Circle’s eventual public-market case. Rather than listing near the peak of speculative enthusiasm, the company spent the next several years proving that USDC could operate through market stress, developing regulatory systems, and the gradual adoption of blockchain-based settlement by larger financial institutions. By the time Circle returned with a traditional IPO, investors were no longer evaluating only a crypto concept. They were evaluating an operating financial business with a large reserve portfolio, established partnerships, and a product already moving billions of dollars across public blockchains.

The Banking Crisis Made Trust The Real Product

Circle’s most important test before the IPO came in March 2023, when Silicon Valley Bank failed. The company disclosed that approximately $3.3 billion of the reserves backing USDC were held at the bank. As markets questioned whether every USDC token remained fully backed and immediately redeemable, the stablecoin temporarily fell as low as $0.88.

The episode exposed an important weakness in the stablecoin model. USDC may move across blockchains around the clock, but the reserves supporting it still interact with the traditional banking system. Those reserves remain exposed to bank operating hours, counterparty risk, custody arrangements, and institutional failures. A digital dollar can move at internet speed, but it is only as reliable as the financial structure behind it.

USDC returned to its one-dollar peg after federal regulators announced that Silicon Valley Bank depositors would be made whole. Circle responded by emphasizing reserve transparency, shortening the duration of its reserve assets, and expanding relationships with larger financial institutions. The company survived the event, but the lesson went beyond operational resilience. Circle’s competitive advantage could not rest solely on transaction speed or lower costs. It had to rest on trust, liquidity, regulatory credibility, and confidence that redemptions would remain available when markets became stressed.

That realization shaped the company that eventually reached the New York Stock Exchange. Circle was no longer selling the market on the novelty of digital dollars. It was selling the reliability of the dollar behind them.

The IPO Put A Valuation On Stablecoin Economics

Circle ultimately chose a traditional IPO and began trading on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker CRCL on June 5, 2025. The company priced 34 million shares at $31 each, above its earlier proposed range, giving public investors direct access to a business model that had previously been difficult to isolate.

Before CRCL, investors looking for exposure to digital-asset infrastructure generally had to accept several businesses at once. Coinbase included trading, custody, subscriptions, and USDC-related economics. Traditional payment companies offered transaction networks but limited exposure to blockchain settlement. Banks provided access to interest income and deposit economics, but not to the growth of public blockchain activity.

Circle occupied the space between those models. It issued and redeemed USDC, managed the reserves backing the token, and developed infrastructure that allowed businesses and developers to move digital dollars across multiple blockchains. That scarcity helped attract investor attention, but it also created uncertainty over how the company should be valued. Was Circle a software company, a payments network, a financial institution, or a crypto-related stock?

The answer is that it contains elements of all four, but its current earnings still behave more like those of a rate-sensitive reserve business than a mature software platform. That is the central issue investors must understand before treating CRCL as a simple bet on the growth of stablecoins.

The Business Model Is More Complicated Than Earning Interest

Circle’s primary revenue engine begins with the reserves backing USDC. When customers exchange dollars for USDC, Circle places those funds into cash, short-dated U.S. Treasuries, repurchase agreements, and government money-market instruments. Those assets generate interest and dividend income while maintaining the liquidity needed to support redemptions.

The basic relationship appears straightforward. More USDC in circulation creates a larger reserve pool, and a larger reserve pool can generate more income. Higher short-term interest rates increase the yield earned on those assets, while lower rates reduce it. This means Circle’s revenue can rise because USDC circulation expands, because reserve yields increase, or because both occur at the same time.

The complication is that Circle does not retain all the income generated by the reserve portfolio. The company pays substantial distribution costs to partners that help make USDC available, liquid, and useful across exchanges and financial platforms. Coinbase is especially important. Its relationship with Circle allows it to receive payments tied partly to the amount of USDC held on Coinbase and partly to the broader economics generated by the stablecoin ecosystem.

This changes how investors should evaluate the company. USDC circulation can grow significantly without Circle retaining the same percentage of the additional reserve income. If more USDC is held through major distribution partners, the expenses associated with that growth may also rise. Network expansion still matters, but where the tokens are held and how the economics are divided matter almost as much.

For that reason, Circle’s total revenue and reserve income can overstate the amount of economic value available to the company itself. Investors also need to examine revenue less distribution costs, operating expenses, and the percentage of income coming from products beyond the reserve portfolio. Those figures provide a clearer view of whether Circle is building operating leverage or simply managing an increasingly large pool of interest-earning assets.

The First Earnings Reports Taught Investors How To Read CRCL

Circle’s first public earnings report demonstrated why the headline numbers can be misleading. In the second quarter of 2025, the company reported $658 million in total revenue and reserve income but posted a net loss of $482 million. That looked like a severe deterioration until investors examined the composition of the loss.

The quarter included approximately $591 million in IPO-related noncash charges, including stock-based compensation and an increase in the fair value of convertible debt caused by the rising share price. Adjusted EBITDA remained positive. The headline loss therefore did not provide a clean picture of the operating business.

The following quarters presented the opposite challenge. Circle reported approximately $214 million in net income during the third quarter and another $133 million in the fourth quarter. Those profits demonstrated that the company could generate substantial earnings, but the results were also affected by taxes, stock compensation, changes in the value of convertible debt, and gains on financial assets.

The early reporting history established an important lesson for CRCL investors: GAAP net income can be noisy in both directions. A large reported loss does not necessarily mean the underlying business deteriorated, and a strong reported profit does not automatically mean the core economics improved by the same amount. Investors have to separate reserve income, distribution costs, operating expenses, and one-time accounting effects before deciding whether the business is gaining strength.

The first quarter of 2026 provided a clearer view. Circle reported approximately $694 million in total revenue and reserve income, with roughly $653 million coming from the reserve portfolio and only $42 million coming from other revenue. After $407 million in distribution, transaction, and related costs, Circle was left with approximately $287 million in revenue less distribution costs. Operating expenses were about $242 million, and the company reported net income of $55 million.

Those figures describe a profitable and expanding business, but not yet a high-margin software platform. Reserve income continued to represent the overwhelming majority of Circle’s topline, while distribution costs absorbed a substantial portion of the total. Other products were growing, but they were not yet large enough to define the earnings story.

The Platform Strategy Will Determine What Circle Becomes

Circle is investing in payment rails, developer tools, wallets, cross-chain infrastructure, and institutional settlement networks. It is also developing products intended to connect banks, payment companies, and other financial institutions through stablecoin-based transfers. These initiatives matter because they could gradually improve the quality and durability of Circle’s revenue.

Reserve income can be highly profitable, but it remains exposed to the interest-rate cycle and requires Circle to share economics with distribution partners. Payments, transaction services, infrastructure products, and software tools could become more recurring and less dependent on short-term Treasury yields. They could also give Circle a stronger competitive moat by embedding USDC more deeply into the daily operations of businesses and financial institutions.

The market should not assume that transformation has already taken place. Reserve income still dominates the financial statements, while other revenue remains relatively small. Circle has built the foundation for a broader platform, but it has not yet demonstrated that those products can become a major earnings engine.

That creates both the opportunity and the execution risk. If Circle can expand fee-based and service-based revenue, the company may eventually deserve a valuation closer to a payments or financial-technology platform. If those products remain secondary, CRCL will continue to trade primarily as a function of USDC circulation, reserve yields, and distribution costs.

What Investors Misunderstood

The first misunderstanding was that CRCL represented a simple bet on stablecoin adoption. Adoption is necessary, but it is not enough. Investors also need to know how much of the reserve income Circle retains, how its distribution agreements evolve, and whether higher USDC circulation creates meaningful operating leverage.

The second misunderstanding was that falling interest rates would automatically break the investment thesis. Lower rates would reduce the yield earned on reserves, but reserve income also depends on the amount of USDC in circulation. If circulation grows quickly enough, a larger reserve base could offset part of the decline in yield. The relationship is not mechanical, and the company’s earnings cannot be projected accurately by looking at interest rates alone.

The third misunderstanding was that network growth would naturally produce software-like margins. Circle benefits when USDC becomes more widely used, but the partners helping to distribute and support that network also capture part of the economics. More circulation can produce more revenue and more associated costs at the same time.

Finally, investors may have viewed regulatory compliance primarily as a burden. Regulation does raise costs and may limit certain products, but it can also strengthen the position of established companies that already operate with reserve disclosure, institutional custody, and formal redemption standards. Circle’s regulatory-first approach became more valuable after the failed SPAC and the Silicon Valley Bank crisis because credibility became one of the most important competitive advantages in the stablecoin market.

What Matters More Than The Headline Today

The most useful CRCL metrics are not simply quarterly revenue and net income. Investors should track USDC circulation, the return earned on reserve assets, revenue less distribution costs, operating expenses, other revenue growth, and the share of USDC held through Circle’s own products rather than third-party platforms.

Those figures answer the questions that will determine the company’s future. Is the USDC network continuing to expand? Is Circle retaining more of the value created by that expansion? Are payments and infrastructure products becoming large enough to reduce dependence on reserve income? Can the business produce operating leverage if short-term interest rates decline?

Circle’s journey from a failed SPAC to a public company matters because it placed stablecoin economics directly in front of equity investors. The company helped prove that a blockchain-based dollar could become a serious financial product supported by transparent reserves, institutional custody, and regulated infrastructure. It also demonstrated that a widely used financial network does not automatically produce simple shareholder economics.

Circle earns substantial income from its reserves, but it shares a large portion of those economics with distribution partners. Its profits benefit from USDC growth, but remain sensitive to interest rates. Its payments and infrastructure products could create a more durable business, but they are not yet large enough to carry the investment case on their own.

The investor lesson is that network growth and shareholder value are related, but they are not the same thing. For CRCL to grow into a durable public-market winner, Circle must do more than expand USDC circulation. It must retain more value from that expansion and prove that the infrastructure surrounding its digital dollar can become an earnings engine of its own.

Liquidity Is Being Tested Across the Market, and the Next Break Could Set the Tone

The financial markets opened with a cautious, flat-to-lower tone this morning, but the quiet price action did not reflect the number of important decisions developing beneath the surface. In today’s My Trading Game Plan Revealed show, Gareth Soloway focused on a market being tested from several directions at once. Currency risk is building in the background, major indexes are sitting on important technical levels, and the semiconductor trade is being asked to absorb another major wave of supply.

The central issue is liquidity. The market has continued to reward risk-taking, particularly in technology and artificial intelligence names, but several of the forces that supported that advance are beginning to face pressure. The next move will depend less on the headlines themselves and more on whether key technical structures hold as that liquidity is tested.

The Yen Carry Trade Remains the Larger Market Risk

One of the most important risks Gareth highlighted is developing outside the stock market in the relationship between the U.S. dollar and the Japanese yen.

For years, large institutions have taken advantage of Japan’s low interest rates by borrowing in yen and moving that capital into higher-yielding assets, including U.S. Treasuries and technology stocks. The strategy works as long as borrowing costs remain low and the currency relationship stays favorable. The danger appears when that trade begins to reverse.

Japan is already dealing with a debt-to-GDP ratio near 250%, while Japanese government bond yields continue moving higher. That places the Bank of Japan in a difficult position. Allowing yields to rise creates pressure inside Japan’s heavily indebted financial system, but intervening in the currency market can disrupt the carry trade that has helped support global asset prices.

That is why the dollar-yen chart matters well beyond the foreign exchange market. A sharp reversal can force institutions to unwind leveraged positions and repatriate capital quickly. Similar dynamics in 2024 produced a fast decline across U.S. equities, with the Nasdaq suffering significantly more damage than the broader S&P 500.

The risk is not that history must repeat in exactly the same way. The risk is that the market is more leveraged today while many of the same currency pressures are returning. If the carry trade begins to unwind again, technology and other liquidity-sensitive assets are likely to feel the impact first.

The S&P 500 Is Testing Whether Its Breakout Can Hold

That macro risk is developing as the S&P 500 sits on one of the most important technical levels on its chart.

The index previously broke above a major trendline extending from the 2021 bull market highs and has since returned to test that line more than once. A retest after a breakout is normal. It becomes a problem only when price loses the level and fails to reclaim it.

Gareth’s point was that failed moves often create the largest reactions. A successful breakout attracts new buyers. If price then falls back below the breakout level, those same buyers become trapped and may be forced to exit. That can turn what initially looked like a healthy pullback into an accelerating decline.

As long as the 2021 trendline holds, the broader bullish structure remains intact and the S&P 500 can continue working toward resistance near 7,725. A sustained break below it would change the read. At that point, the market would no longer be testing support inside an uptrend. It would be confirming that the prior breakout failed.

The Nasdaq 100 remains in a stronger technical position because it is still trading well above its corresponding 2021 trendline. However, that strength also creates a vulnerability. If its shorter-term support breaks, the index has considerable room to fall before reaching the larger structural level below. That opens the possibility of a catch-up move to the downside, particularly if pressure builds across the semiconductor sector.

Semiconductors Face a Major Test of Demand

The debut of SK Hynix American Depository Shares introduces another important test for the artificial intelligence and memory trade.

The offering brings a large amount of new stock into the U.S. market. That does not necessarily create new institutional money. In many cases, investors must sell or reduce existing holdings to make room for a major new position. With SK Hynix offering direct exposure to one of the strongest areas of the AI hardware trade, the listing competes with existing semiconductor names for the same pool of capital.

That matters because signs of exhaustion were already appearing before the debut. Several leading semiconductor stocks rallied sharply early in the previous session before giving back a meaningful portion of those gains. Micron and Sandisk both showed aggressive intraday fading, suggesting buyers were becoming less willing to chase prices after extended moves.

The broader semiconductor ETF, SOXX, also printed bearish engulfing action on both the daily and weekly charts. That does not guarantee a larger reversal, but it shows a clear shift in control during the period. Buyers pushed price higher, only for sellers to take over and erase the advance.

SK Hynix is therefore more than another high-profile market debut. It is a test of whether the AI memory trade can absorb additional supply without weakening the existing leaders. Strong demand would reinforce the sector’s momentum. A surge followed by heavy selling would suggest investors are becoming less willing to pay increasingly aggressive prices for AI exposure.

The IPO Pattern Still Favors Patience

Gareth connected the SK Hynix launch to the recent SpaceX debut, which offered a useful example of how public investors can become trapped during heavily promoted listings.

SpaceX was offered to insiders at a lower price before opening higher in the public market. Retail enthusiasm then pushed the stock significantly above its opening level before the move faded. The result was a familiar IPO pattern: insiders received favorable pricing, early excitement drove demand, and public buyers entered after much of the initial upside had already occurred.

The larger issue is the difference in cost basis. Longtime insiders and early investors may hold shares at extremely low prices, giving them a strong incentive to sell when liquidity becomes available. Public buyers are entering at a completely different valuation and often carry far more downside risk.

That does not mean every IPO must collapse. It means traders should judge the price action rather than the story. A strong opening is not confirmation of sustainable demand. The more important signal is whether the stock can hold its opening range after the initial excitement passes.

SK Hynix will now face the same test. If the shares surge and retain those gains, institutional demand is likely strong enough to absorb the offering. If the move fades quickly, it would raise another warning about the durability of the broader semiconductor trade.

Individual Charts Still Reward Discipline

Even with these broader risks building, several individual charts continue to offer clear technical frameworks.

Netflix recently bounced from an important trendline after initially weakening on news surrounding its expansion into live programming and sports. Gareth remains cautious about the company’s underlying growth story, particularly after Netflix stopped reporting subscriber numbers. When a growth company stops disclosing a metric that previously supported its narrative, it can indicate that the metric is becoming less favorable.

That fundamental concern does not invalidate the technical setup. Netflix respected support, produced a profitable bounce, and continues to hold a structure that allows for additional upside. The lesson is that traders do not need to agree with a company’s long-term business direction to recognize a valid chart setup.

Tesla presents a different situation. The stock remains compressed inside a large wedge, with neither buyers nor sellers establishing control. The professional response is not to predict which direction the pattern will break. It is to wait.

A confirmed downside break could produce a fast 10% to 15% decline. An upside break could reopen the path toward the prior highs. Until price resolves the wedge, patience is the setup. Sitting out while the chart remains undecided is a position, not a missed opportunity.

Commodities Are Moving Through Different Phases

The commodity market is becoming increasingly divided.

Gold remains inside a tightening wedge, keeping the larger bullish structure intact while offering little reason to force a new position before confirmation. Gareth has already reduced part of his exposure, protecting gains while retaining participation if the pattern resolves higher.

Silver has taken on a weaker near-term structure after breaking below support. The chart now points toward $54, followed by $50 and potentially lower levels if selling continues. For shorter-term traders, that keeps downside pressure in control. For long-term investors who remain bullish on precious metals, those same levels may offer better areas to begin gradually building exposure.

The distinction is time horizon. A bearish short-term chart can create a more attractive long-term entry. The mistake is treating those two frameworks as if they are the same.

Oil also remains under pressure, with the longer-term chart reflecting concerns about weakening global growth. Natural gas, meanwhile, has fallen sharply after failing to complete a cup-and-handle breakout. That decline has brought price into a major support zone where a double bottom may begin to form. The setup is more attractive now than it was before the selloff because the market has moved closer to support and reduced the amount of capital at risk.

Bitcoin Is Testing Extreme Bearish Sentiment

Bitcoin may be developing one of the clearest sentiment setups in the market.

The chart is forming an inverse head and shoulders pattern with a potential breakout area near $63,000 to $65,000. A confirmed move through the neckline would produce a measured projection of roughly $7,000, placing the next major objective near $70,000. That level also aligns with a larger descending trendline, giving the move a clear technical destination.

The setup becomes more interesting when sentiment is added to the chart. Retail traders remain heavily bearish toward cryptocurrency, and extreme positioning often creates the conditions for sharp moves in the opposite direction. If Bitcoin breaks resistance, late shorts may be forced to cover while sidelined buyers chase the breakout.

That does not make the move automatic. The pattern still needs confirmation. But the combination of improving structure and deeply negative sentiment gives Bitcoin the type of imbalance that can fuel a powerful squeeze.

Bottom Line

Today’s market is not simply waiting for another headline. It is testing whether the liquidity that supported the advance can continue carrying increasingly extended positions.

The dollar-yen relationship remains the largest macro risk because a carry trade unwind could pressure assets far beyond the currency market. The S&P 500 is testing whether its breakout remains valid. The Nasdaq and semiconductor sector must prove they can absorb new supply without losing leadership. At the same time, individual setups in Netflix, Tesla, commodities, and Bitcoin continue to reward traders who wait for clearly defined levels.

The framework is straightforward. As long as support holds and breakouts confirm, the market can continue higher. If major levels begin failing together, the issue will no longer be isolated weakness in one stock or sector. It will be evidence that liquidity is leaving the broader market.

That is the decision now taking shape across the charts.

Gold and silver are telling two different stories right now, even though both sit at levels that will define their next move. Gold is coiled beneath a downsloping trend line it has tested three separate times without breaking. Silver, by contrast, has already delivered on a bearish pattern and may be setting up for another leg lower. Platinum and palladium are tracing the same structural setup as gold, which matters more than it might first appear.

The through-line across the complex is a single downsloping trend line pattern showing up on three separate metals at once. When the same structure repeats across unrelated assets, it stops looking like coincidence and starts looking like a market-wide behavioral signal worth respecting.

Gold: A Trend Line Tested Three Times

Gold has hit its current downsloping trend line on three separate occasions without a confirmed break. A daily close above that line opens the door to a move toward the recent pivot high, roughly 6% above current levels. That is a meaningful but contained move, not a run at record territory.

Gold remains roughly 26.5% below its all-time high, which means a full retest of that high would require a gain of about 36% from here. That is a wide gap to close, and it argues for treating any breakout as a move toward the near-term pivot first, not as the start of a run back to record levels. The near-term setup favors a retrace back toward the trend line followed by a push higher, rather than an immediate breakout without a pullback.

Silver: A Head-and-Shoulders That Already Worked, Now a Bear Flag

Silver's setup is further along. A head-and-shoulders top targeted a decline toward the $54-per-ounce area, and that level was reached: price came down, pushed back up without completing a full retrace, and rolled over again. That second leg down has now formed a bear flag, a tight sideways consolidation following the decline.

A confirmed daily close below that consolidation would open a path toward the $50–$52 range. Context matters here: silver is still up roughly 67% over the past year and has gained an extraordinary 326% or so from its Liberation Day lows to its all-time high. A pullback toward $50–$52 would be a correction within a historic advance, not a change in the multi-year trend.

Platinum and Palladium: The Same Pattern, Twice More

Palladium is testing an almost identical downsloping trend line to gold's, with four touches so far. A confirmed break above it points first toward a pivot high roughly 10% above current levels, then toward the psychological $1,400 mark, with $1,400–$1,500 as the broader resistance zone if momentum carries through.

Platinum is working through the same structure while consolidating in the $1,600 range. A daily close above its version of the trend line targets a move of roughly 13%, with resistance building near $1,950. The fact that gold, platinum, and palladium are all coiled beneath structurally similar trend lines at the same time is the more important observation than any single one of these levels in isolation. It suggests the setup reflects broad positioning across the metals complex rather than an isolated pattern on one chart.

What Would Confirm or Invalidate This View

For gold, platinum, and palladium, the signal to watch is a daily close above each respective trend line, ideally following a retrace back to that line rather than a breakout with no pullback. A failure to close above, or a rejection back into the range, keeps the sideways consolidation intact and delays any move toward the upside targets outlined above.

For silver, the signal is the opposite: a daily close below the current bear flag confirms continuation toward $50–$52. Silver holding above the flag and reclaiming its recent swing high would invalidate the bearish continuation case and suggest the correction is already complete.

The Bigger Picture: Process Over Prediction

None of these setups are certainties. They are probability-based reads on structure that has repeated across the metals complex before. Gold, platinum, and palladium sharing the same trend-line pattern at the same time is one of the reasons this setup carries more weight than a single chart in isolation. Cross-asset confirmation is one of the more reliable tools available to a technically disciplined trader.

Silver's case is different in kind: it is a pattern that already played out once and is now offering a second, related setup in the same direction. The discipline lies in waiting for the daily close that confirms or invalidates each level, rather than anticipating the move before the chart has actually made it.

Watch on YouTube

Stocks Rally as Yields and Oil Break Lower, But Semiconductors Still Need to Confirm

Today’s rally was not just an equity story. It started with pressure coming off the two markets that have been weighing on risk appetite: the 10-year Treasury yield and crude oil.

That was Drew Dosek’s main read on Trading the Close. Stocks did not rally in isolation. They rallied because yields backed away from resistance, oil rejected a key level, and the Dollar weakened enough to give risk assets room to breathe. That combination flipped the market tone green, but it did not erase every warning underneath the surface.

The headline was broad strength across the major indexes. The more important signal was that the market finally got relief from the macro pressure points that had been keeping traders cautious. Now the question is whether that relief turns into follow-through, or whether today’s move becomes another rally into resistance.

The Macro Setup: Yields and Oil Gave Stocks Room

The 10-year yield fell back beneath its declining trend line, which helped remove pressure from equities, especially growth and technology stocks. When yields are rising, long-duration assets tend to struggle because future earnings are discounted more aggressively. When yields ease, that pressure softens.

Oil added to the relief. US Oil fell nearly 4% after rejecting yesterday’s resistance near $75.56. Drew’s next support area sits near the declining trend line around $69.36. That matters because oil has been tied directly to inflation psychology. A break lower in crude can reduce some of the market’s concern around sticky inflation heading into next week’s data.

The Dollar also weakened. Drew noted that the Dollar had broken above an increasing parallel channel and retested it, but instead of bouncing toward $100.97 resistance, it failed at the retest and started to form a bear flag on top of channel support. If the Dollar falls back into that channel, it would add another layer of relief for equities and commodities.

That was the setup behind today’s rally. The market did not suddenly become risk-free. It simply got a better macro tape.

The S&P Breakout Was Constructive, But It Still Needs Follow-Through

The S&P chart delivered the cleanest technical signal of the day. Price closed above the declining trend line that had been shaping a wedge over the last couple of weeks. Drew also pointed out that the same setup was visible on the 10-minute chart, where price sold early, recovered, broke the trend line, retested it, and bounced.

That is the kind of action technicians want to see after a breakout. The level does not matter only because price crossed it. It matters because price crossed it, came back to test it, and buyers defended it.

The next confirmation is simple. Bulls need price to hold above today’s high area and keep the breakout intact. Drew’s key level is around $750.37 on the S&P chart he was tracking. If that area becomes support, the next major resistance sits near the rising trend line around $767.

That gives traders a clear framework. Above the breakout, the rally has room. Back below it, the market loses the cleanest part of today’s bullish case.

QQQ Participated, But SMH Is the Bigger Test

The Nasdaq 100 also had a strong session, with QQQ up 1.66% and pushing above its July 6 gap fill. That is constructive, but Drew was clear that QQQ is not through the main test yet. The next major resistance sits near the declining trend line around $735.51.

The more important warning came from semiconductors.

SMH was up more than 2.4%, but it closed near the lows of its daily candle. That is not the type of close bulls want to see from the sector that usually leads technology rallies. Drew also pointed to a bearish weekly structure, including a topping tail followed weeks later by an engulfing reversal candle.

That matters because broad market strength is more convincing when semiconductors lead. Today, they participated, but they did not confirm leadership. SMH would still need to push toward $640.86 just to test its declining trend line. Near-term support sits near yesterday’s gap fill at $593.42.

That is the difference between participation and leadership. QQQ bounced. SMH still needs to prove the move.

Natural Gas Breaks Down, Metals Catch a Bid

The commodity complex gave traders two very different messages.

Natural Gas broke down hard after storage surplus news, slicing through bullish consolidation and losing its first support area. Drew called NatGas the “widow maker” for a reason. It can move violently, ignore clean-looking setups, and punish traders who size too aggressively.

The failed flag structure now puts $2.90 in focus. If that level does not hold, Drew’s next support is the April low near $2.73. On the weekly chart, he is watching whether a broader inverse head and shoulders structure can still form. The $2.90 level is important because it may decide whether that larger constructive pattern survives.

Metals reacted more positively to the drop in yields and the Dollar. Gold pushed up more than 1%, but Drew still needs to see a break above the lower barrier of its inclining parallel channel near $4,155 before treating the move as confirmed. Support sits near $3,886.

Silver is more conflicted. It is pressing into a declining trend line near $60.42, a level it has now tested three times. A break through would improve the chart, but Drew also noted the bear flag forming around the 50% area of the parallel channel. His bigger framework remains patient: he would rather see silver pull back into the sub-$55 to $50 zone before getting more interested in physical accumulation.

High-Flyers Are Still Respecting Resistance

Several individual names showed why vertical moves into resistance need to be treated carefully.

SanDisk surged from yesterday’s close near $1,725 to an intraday high around $1,950. That is a major move, especially for a stock that began the year near $265. But Drew’s focus was not the percentage gain. It was the next technical test. The $2,000 area is both psychological resistance and part of the broader breakdown-retest zone. To change the structure, SNDK would need to get back inside its parallel channel above the declining trend line near $2,027.

Lumentum was another strong mover, up more than 11% after being up closer to 13% intraday. The next key resistance sits near $809.21. If cleared, Drew sees room toward the 50% area of the parallel channel near $930.38, with a higher level near $1,086. But the chart also has a possible left shoulder and head already in place. A rejection in this resistance zone could begin to form the right shoulder.

Onto Innovation gave the cleanest lesson of the group. The stock jumped 8.77% but rejected almost exactly at the 50% area of its parallel channel. Drew’s point was straightforward: when price moves vertically into a known resistance level, rejection risk increases. ONTO still has resistance near $331 and $345, with support near the lower channel around $281.97.

The lesson across these charts is not that momentum is bad. It is that momentum into resistance is different from momentum through resistance.

Costco and Microsoft Keep the Bigger Warning Alive

Not every large-cap chart confirmed the bullish tone.

Costco fell 4.21% and broke through several support structures. It lost an inclining trend line, fell below the 50% area of its parallel channel, and closed below a longer-term trend line. Combined with a weekly topping tail, the chart now needs a strong recovery to repair the damage.

Drew’s key weekly level is $925.40. A close back above that area would help preserve the bullish case. Without it, the complex head and shoulders structure remains a real concern. Nearer-term, the $891 pivot is the first bounce area to watch, while the stronger confluence sits lower, where the declining trend line meets the lower boundary of the parallel channel near the sub-$800 area.

Microsoft is also still carrying a larger bearish structure on the weekly chart. Drew sees a potential left shoulder, head, and right shoulder. The stock has bounced over the last two weeks, but it still needs to regain the inclining parallel channel near $417.59. To fully negate the bearish pattern, MSFT would need to clear the right shoulder pivot near $465.88.

If the neckline around $361 breaks, the measured move points much lower, toward $157. That does not mean price has to get there, but the pattern is large enough that traders cannot ignore it. Near-term support sits around $344.79.

That is why today’s rally needs context. Some charts improved. Others are still warning that the market is not fully repaired.

The Sector Lesson: Some Charts Do Not Respect Technicals Cleanly

Viewer requests brought Zoetis into the discussion, and the chart led to a broader point about sector selection.

ZTS is trading inside a declining parallel channel and sitting near a breakout retest area around $78.49. If that shelf fails, Drew’s next support is $62.32. Upside resistance sits closer to the $100 area near the 50% line of the channel.

The bigger takeaway was not just the level. It was Drew’s caution around healthcare and biopharma stocks. These names can be driven by binary events like drug trials, FDA decisions, and pipeline updates. A chart may show support, but one failed trial can gap a stock through every level on the screen.

That is a risk-management lesson. Technical analysis works best when price is being driven by supply, demand, psychology, and positioning. In sectors where a single headline can overwhelm the chart, the edge is harder to define.

Bottom Line

Today’s market looked strong because the macro pressure finally eased. Yields broke lower, oil rejected resistance, and the Dollar weakened. That gave the S&P enough room to break out and gave QQQ enough support to push higher.

But Drew’s read was not to blindly chase the rally. The S&P breakout still needs follow-through. QQQ still has resistance above. SMH has not confirmed leadership. Costco and Microsoft still carry bearish weekly structures. Natural Gas broke down hard, while metals improved but still need confirmation.

That is the real message from today’s Trading the Close. The rally was constructive, but confirmation still matters. The market gave bulls a better setup into the next session. Now price has to prove it can hold the levels that created the move.

Crypto is attempting a recovery, and Bitcoin's reaction to a recent support test is the clearest read on how much conviction is actually behind it. As the asset the rest of the market still takes its cues from, Bitcoin's next move will decide whether this bounce turns into something more, or fades back into the range it just broke out of.

After breaking below a key pivot near $58,032 and briefly pushing to new lows, Bitcoin found buyers at $57,646 and has climbed steadily since the start of July. That reclaim is the foundation underneath the broader question hanging over every altcoin chart: is this a real recovery, or a bounce inside a larger range.

Bitcoin's Support Reclaim, and the Resistance Still Overhead

Bitcoin's move higher since early July has been orderly rather than explosive. Price built a new key support level at $61,162, holding above the $60,000 threshold that has served as a psychological floor. On the daily chart, RSI has stayed above 30 throughout the advance and pushed just past 50, a healthy but not yet stretched reading. A continued push into the 60 to 70 zone on RSI would be a meaningful confirmation that this move has room left, particularly if it coincides with price testing resistance rather than retreating from it.

That resistance is well defined. A downsloping trend line drawn from the June sell-off has three clean touches, which is enough contact points to treat it as a valid level rather than a loose guideline. Price has pulled back slightly from that line in the most recent session, which is normal behavior ahead of a retest rather than a sign the setup has failed. Zoomed out, Bitcoin is still working inside the same broad range it has occupied for weeks, which is exactly why the next test of this trend line carries more weight than the bounce itself.

The Ceiling That Still Needs to Break

If Bitcoin pushes back up into the $63,700 to $63,800 area, it will be testing that downsloping trend line directly. Clearing it would put price in range of the pivot top at $64,695, the level where Monday's rally attempt stalled out. A trend line break followed by a daily close above $64,695 is the level structure that would upgrade this from a support bounce to something closer to a genuine trend change.

Where Altcoins Stand, Conditional on Bitcoin

Ethereum is pressing into intraday resistance near $1,848, with a downsloping trend line from its January high just above; clearing both would open room toward its next resistance zone, while support sits at $1,692 and $1,538. Solana's inverse head-and-shoulders pattern has not yet completed its measured move, needing $83.24, $83.91, and $87.42 to clear before the $90 target becomes realistic, with $76.69 as the support level currently under watch. XRP is coiling inside a long-term descending wedge, trend lines narrowing toward a directional move, with support near $1.07 and the $1.00 handle below that. Each of these levels can be tracked on its own chart, but a breakout in any of them carries more weight once Bitcoin has already cleared its own resistance first.

What Would Confirm or Invalidate the Recovery

Confirmation for Bitcoin would come from a daily close above the downsloping trend line followed by a close above $64,695, ideally with RSI extending into the 60 to 70 range rather than stalling near current levels. That combination would suggest genuine demand rather than a bounce inside an established range.

Invalidation would come from a failure to hold the $60,000 threshold on a closing basis, which would put the $57,646 support level back in play and cast doubt on the broader recovery narrative for altcoins that are waiting on Bitcoin's lead.

The Takeaway

Bitcoin's bounce off support is constructive, but it has not yet done the harder work of clearing the resistance that capped the last rally attempt. The bounce is only the first step. The real test is whether Bitcoin can clear the supply still sitting overhead.

None of this is a prediction about what happens next. It is a probability framework built around specific levels: if Bitcoin clears its trend line and closes above $64,695, the recovery case strengthens. If it fails to hold $60,000, the range-bound case strengthens instead. The discipline is in waiting for the confirmation rather than assuming the outcome in advance.

Watch on YouTube

Key Takeaways

• Initial claims fell to 215,000 for the week ending July 4, down 2,000 from the prior week’s 217,000. Clean print. No alarm.
• The 4-week moving average dropped to 218,750, down 3,750 from the prior week’s 222,500 — reversing a multi-week drift higher and pulling the average back toward the lower end of its recent range.
• Continued claims rose to 1,814,000 for the week ending June 27, up 8,000 from the prior week’s 1,806,000. That is the directional divergence worth tracking: initial claims ticking down while continued claims tick up.
• The insured unemployment rate holds at 1.2% — still historically suppressed, but continued claims are the number to watch. When people who file cannot find new work fast enough, continued claims accumulate. That is the early signature of a softening re-employment rate, not a layoff wave.
• The hiring freeze thesis remains intact. ISM Manufacturing Employment at 46.4 and ISM Services Employment at 48.0 — both in contraction — sit alongside claims data that shows no firing acceleration. Workers are not being let go. They are not being replaced when they leave, and new entrants are struggling to find footing.
• The policy box has not opened. No layoff wave means no justification for emergency rate cuts. Warsh inherited a labor market in stasis, not freefall — and the inflation picture (ISM Services Prices at 70.7 in April) has not meaningfully relented.
• Watch continued claims. If the week-over-week creep continues for another two or three prints, the re-employment rate deterioration becomes a confirmed trend — not noise around a holiday week.

What This Metric Measures, and Why This Print Matters

Initial jobless claims count the number of workers filing for unemployment benefits for the first time in a given week. The 4-week moving average smooths the week-to-week volatility — holiday distortions, state-level processing quirks, weather — and gives a cleaner read on the underlying trend. Continued claims, reported with a one-week lag, track workers who have already filed and are still receiving benefits. Together, they answer two distinct questions: how fast are workers being laid off, and how fast are laid-off workers finding new jobs?

The week ending July 4 is structurally noisy. Independence Day falls mid-week, state processing offices run on reduced capacity, and filers may delay by a day or two. That makes the 215,000 headline — already low — slightly more impressive on the surface, and slightly less reliable as a signal. The 4-week average at 218,750 is the more credible number this week.

The release lands in a specific macro context. Warsh has been at the helm since May 15. The April 28–29 FOMC closed without a rate change. Services prices remain elevated. The labor market has been characterized for months by a pattern that is unusual in historical terms: ISM employment sub-indexes in contraction while headline claims stay compressed. No mass layoffs. No re-acceleration in hiring. A freeze.

Today’s print does not break that pattern. But the continued claims number adds a wrinkle worth examining carefully.

What Everyone Will Focus On vs. What Matters More

Wire coverage will lead with the headline: claims down 2,000, near historical lows, labor market holding up. Some will note the 4-week average improvement. The framing will be resilience.

That framing is not wrong. It is incomplete.

The number that matters more is 1,814,000 — continued claims, up 8,000 on the week. Initial claims measure the firing rate. Continued claims measure the re-employment rate. When initial claims stay low while continued claims drift higher, you are not looking at a strong labor market. You are looking at a labor market where the exit door is nearly shut but the entry door is narrowing.

That divergence is the story. Workers are not being fired. But workers who are unemployed are staying unemployed slightly longer. The difference between those two conditions matters enormously for Fed policy, for consumer spending durability, and for the inflation trajectory. A low firing rate with a deteriorating re-employment rate is the signature of a labor market that is quietly softening from the inside — not cracking at the surface.

The hiring freeze that ISM data has been signaling for months is showing up here, just not in the headline number anyone is watching.

The Continued Claims Drift: Signal or Noise?

One week of continued claims rising 8,000 is not a trend. But it does not exist in isolation.

Continued claims were 1,766,000 on the April 25 week — the cycle low flagged in the prior article in this series. From that trough, the move to 1,814,000 represents a 48,000 increase over roughly ten weeks. That is not a spike. It is a grind. And grinds in continued claims data tend to be more durable than spikes, which are often reversed by revisions.

The holiday week complicates the read. July 4 mid-week processing delays can push some filings into the following week, which would mechanically reduce the initial claims count this week and inflate next week’s. That may mean next week’s initial print bounces modestly — and if it does, the 4-week average will absorb it cleanly. The continued claims number, reported with a one-week lag, is less susceptible to that specific distortion.

The threshold to watch: if continued claims push above 1,850,000 on a sustained basis — not a one-week spike — the re-employment softening becomes a structural read rather than holiday noise. At 1,814,000, we are not there. The direction is worth noting.

See the chart above for the weekly initial claims trend and the 4-week moving average over the prior 52-week window. The current 218,750 average sits comfortably below the upper band of the range established through the first half of 2026.

Labor Hoarding: How Long Does It Hold?

The defining feature of this labor cycle is that businesses are not firing workers they do not fully need. That is labor hoarding — a rational response when rehiring is expensive, when replacement workers are hard to find, and when companies believe the demand slowdown is temporary.

Labor hoarding keeps initial claims suppressed. It also keeps unemployment low, wages from falling, and consumer spending from collapsing. In that sense, it is stabilizing. But it has a shelf life.

When businesses conclude that the demand softness is not temporary — or when margin pressure from elevated input costs (ISM Manufacturing Prices at 84.6 in April; Brent still in the $108–113 range following the Iran War price shock) becomes acute enough — the hoarding decision reverses. When it reverses, it tends to move fast. Initial claims have historically gone from suppressed to elevated in a matter of weeks once corporate decisions shift. The 4-week moving average provides early warning but not much lead time.

The current continued claims drift may be the first faint sign that some of that hoarding is giving way at the margin. Workers leaving jobs voluntarily or involuntarily and finding the re-employment market slightly tighter than expected. Not a collapse. A change in direction.

That is what the data says. Not alarm — but not the all-clear either.

The Fed’s Problem With This Print

A print that keeps initial claims near historical lows and pulls the 4-week average lower does not give the Fed any new justification for rate cuts. No firing wave, no labor market distress, no demand-side collapse to offset the inflation picture.

That is not good news for anyone expecting relief. The Fed under Warsh is operating in a regime defined by two simultaneous pressures: an inflation picture that has not resolved (services prices at multi-year highs, a petroleum-driven cost shock still propagating through the system) and a labor market that looks fine on the surface while quietly deteriorating underneath. Neither condition points toward easing. Neither condition points toward tightening.

The policy box stays locked. Rate cuts in 2026 are not the base case.

What would change that calculus is a genuine deterioration in the labor data — initial claims moving sustainably above 250,000, continued claims breaking above 1,900,000, the 4-week average losing the 220,000–225,000 zone to the upside. None of that is happening yet.

See the chart above for the continued claims series alongside initial claims, showing the divergence between the two series that has developed since the April trough.

What This Means For Traders

The following is provided for educational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice.

The base case is still stasis. Initial claims at 215,000 with a 4-week average at 218,750 does not move the needle for rate expectations. The labor market is not breaking. It is not strengthening either. Traders pricing in cuts based on labor deterioration will need to wait for data that does not yet exist.

Watch continued claims over the next three prints. The 1,814,000 reading is not alarming in isolation. Three consecutive weeks moving higher — toward and through 1,850,000 — would be a different read. That would indicate the re-employment softening is structural, not holiday-driven, and would start to shift the labor-market component of the Fed calculus.

Next week’s initial claims print may bounce. July 4 mid-week timing tends to produce a low print followed by a modest reversal as delayed filings clear the following week. A move back toward 220,000–225,000 next week is not deterioration — it is arithmetic. The 4-week average is the right lens.

July 10 CPI is the bigger event. Today’s claims data holds the labor-market leg of the Fed’s framework roughly steady. CPI lands tomorrow. If services inflation shows further persistence — or if the goods component picks up with petroleum costs still elevated — the rate-cut case gets harder, not easier, regardless of what claims do.

The level that matters for a regime shift: 250,000 on the 4-week average. Below that, the “freeze” narrative holds and rate policy stays on hold. Above it, the conversation changes. The current reading is 31,250 points away from that threshold. Not imminent. Not impossible if the hoarding cycle breaks.

The freeze holds — for now. The cracks are spreading at the margin. Watch the continued claims series, not the headline.

Source: U.S. Department of Labor — Unemployment Insurance Weekly Claims Report, Week Ending July 4, 2026, released July 9, 2026

Five mega-cap names are sitting at genuine decision points right now, and the clearest is Nvidia, where price has spent the past several sessions retesting the exact neckline it broke down from during a head-and-shoulders top. The next daily close does real work: it either negates the pattern or confirms the breakdown still has room to run.

The other four round out a picture of a market working through fresh catalysts and older technical structure at once. SpaceX trades against its own IPO framework just as a major product launch hits the news cycle. Microsoft pushes into a gap left behind by an earlier breakout. Arm and Micron work through their own support and resistance tests. These are conditional reads, not forecasts, each with a defined condition for what confirms it and what invalidates it.

Nvidia: A Head-and-Shoulders Pattern at the Retest

Nvidia's chart shows a textbook head-and-shoulders top, complete with a clean break of the neckline that produced a continuation move lower. Price has since worked back up into that neckline, the level that decides everything: a daily close back above it, followed by continuation, negates the pattern; a rejection keeps it intact.

The level that matters most on the way up is $218.66, where a 61.8% Fibonacci extension lines up with a cluster of prior resistance. A daily close above that zone would call the bearish read into question and shift focus toward Nvidia's all-time high. Reject there instead, and the setup points back toward the $165.21 area on the downside.

SpaceX: A Support Test Against the IPO, With a Launch in Play

SpaceX's key reference levels come from the IPO itself rather than a long price history. Reuters reported that the company priced its IPO at a fixed $135 per share and merged with Elon Musk's xAI business in February, the deal that folded the Grok AI platform into SpaceX's public story alongside Starlink and its launch operations. The stock has traded above that $135 IPO price since debut, even as it currently sits below its post-IPO opening trade, and a Grok-related product rollout is now hitting the news cycle within that framework, the kind of setup where a headline can move price quickly against an already-drawn technical line.

The nearer-term support is the recent low, below the opening pivot. The more significant level underneath is the $135 IPO price itself, a zone where broader participation would plausibly show up on further weakness. A daily close below that level would suggest the launch is being treated as a sell-the-news event; holding above it keeps the constructive read intact.

Microsoft: Reclaiming a Trendline, Testing the Next Gap

Microsoft's chart shows repeated tests against a downsloping trendline, an eventual breakout, a pullback below it, a consolidation, and a fresh push higher. That old trendline resistance, now support, lines up with a pivot low near $356.42, the level that confirmed the current move.

With that support holding, the next level worth tracking is a gap near $399.94, an area likely to draw an initial rejection given the low pivots just above it. A daily close above that zone puts a 61.8% Fibonacci extension near $421.58 into focus, reinforced by a nearby gap. A daily close back below $356.42 would call the recent bullish structure into question.

Arm and Micron: Two Setups Lower on the Watchlist

Arm's daily chart is starting to show oversold conditions even as the broader structure stays more bearish. First support sits at $288.31; a daily close below opens a gap down to $256.73, with a secondary support band near $237.68 backed by a wide-range, high-volume candle. Each level marks a progressively deeper zone rather than a single line in the sand.

Micron's setup centers on a gap that has already filled: price ran roughly 40% off the $891.88 gap-close level before pulling back into that same gap, evidence buyers active there remain engaged. The nearer-term level worth tracking is $984.75, a spot likely to draw a short-term reaction. The level that matters most above that is the all-time high near $1,256.98: it's the resistance that needs to hold for this to stay a resistance zone, and a daily close above it would negate that read and clear the way for further upside instead. Fibonacci extensions near $1,116.20 and $1,213.58 sit in between as secondary markers on the way up.

Key Levels to Monitor

What to Watch Next

Nvidia's neckline retest matters most this week: a daily close back above it followed by continuation negates the head-and-shoulders top, while a rejection keeps the downside targets in the table in play. SpaceX's reaction to the Grok rollout, measured against the $135 IPO price rather than the recent low, will say a lot about how the market is pricing the AI side of the business post-merger. Microsoft holding $356.42 while working toward the $399.94 gap is the near-term tell on that chart, and Arm's response at $288.31 determines whether the deeper support levels come into play at all.

Process Over Prediction

None of these five setups is a forecast. Each is a probability read built from observable structure: necklines, gaps, trendlines, and Fibonacci confluence, with a defined condition for what confirms the thesis and what invalidates it. Nvidia's retest carries the highest conviction because it stacks multiple factors at one price zone, but the same discipline applies across all five: wait for the daily close, respect the level that negates the idea, and treat every chart as a conditional read, not a certainty.

Watch on YouTube

Oil, Yields, and the S&P Line in the Sand: Gareth’s Game Plan After the Iran Shock

Geopolitical headlines drove the overnight volatility, but Gareth Soloway’s read from this morning’s My Trading Game Plan Revealed was not built around the headline. It was built around the levels.

That was the main point of the session. Oil did not suddenly become important because the news changed. It was already sitting on a major gap-fill level. The S&P 500 is not important because futures sold off overnight. It is important because price is retesting a multi-year breakout line. Under the surface, yields, USD/JPY, and semiconductor weakness are the signals that decide whether this remains a contained headline reaction or becomes a broader market shift.

The market is not reacting to only one thing. It is testing a framework.

Oil Was the Headline, but the Gap Fill Was the Signal

The cleanest example came from crude oil.

Gareth pointed back to the gap-fill level he had identified days earlier. That level triggered before the latest escalation in the Middle East, and oil has now gained roughly 10% in two days.

The lesson is not that technical analysis predicts the news. The lesson is that charts often identify where large buyers are likely waiting before the catalyst arrives. In this case, oil had already filled the gap. Once price reacted from that level, the headline added speed to a move that the chart had already made possible.

That is why Gareth keeps coming back to the same process: strip away the narrative, find the level, and let price confirm or reject it.

Oil at $75 is not yet the biggest immediate risk for equities. Sustained oil near $80 to $85 would be a different story because it could keep inflation pressure alive and limit the Federal Reserve’s room to cut rates. For now, the more important read is that oil respected a technical level before the news gave the move a reason.

The S&P 500 Is Testing the Breakout

The level that matters most for the broader market is still the S&P 500’s multi-year breakout line.

Gareth is tracking the trendline that connects the 2021 into 2022 bull market high with the later major highs, including the 2025 pivot. The S&P recently broke above that structure. Now it is testing whether old resistance can hold as new support.

That is the decision point.

The line in the sand is the 7,315 area. Price has tested that zone twice and held. A third test matters because failed breakouts can change the structure fast. A daily close below that trendline would tell Gareth the breakout has failed, shifting the roadmap toward 7,000 first, then the major gap fill near 6,600 if selling expands.

That is the difference between normal volatility and structural damage. Holding the breakout keeps the bull case alive. Losing it turns the prior breakout into a trap.

QQQ Has Not Done the Same Work Yet

The NASDAQ 100 has a different setup.

QQQ has its own major trendline from the 2021 high through the October 2025 pivot, but unlike the S&P 500, it has not fully retested that line. Gareth’s explanation was straightforward: semiconductors kept the index elevated longer than the broader market.

That support is now starting to weaken.

The shorter-term QQQ trendline has held multiple times over the past week and a half. A daily close below that immediate support would open the door to a move toward 675. That is the level Gareth is watching if tech leadership starts to break down.

The important part is not just QQQ itself. It is what a break would say about semiconductor leadership. If the group that held the market up starts losing structure, the broader tape has less room for error.

The Bigger Risk Is Yields and USD/JPY

The headline focus is oil, but Gareth’s bigger near-term concern is the bond and currency market.

The 10-year Treasury yield has moved from 4.36% to 4.56% in roughly a week. That is a meaningful move. If yields continue toward the 4.7% area, high-multiple technology stocks become more vulnerable because valuation pressure increases as rates rise.

USD/JPY is the other major warning signal.

The pair is climbing again after pulling back from a major pivot. Gareth is watching it because USD/JPY sits at the center of the yen carry trade. When that trade unwinds quickly, it can force selling across risk assets. The August 2024 correction was the reminder. The NASDAQ fell roughly 15% in two weeks during that unwind.

That is why Gareth is not treating this as just an oil story. Oil matters, but yields and USD/JPY may matter more if they keep moving in the wrong direction.

Semiconductors Are Bounce Setups, Not Long-Term Safety

Semiconductors remain the battleground.

Gareth is not ignoring potential bounces. In fact, some of the cleanest short-term levels are in the chip names. But he separated the trade from the investment view.

Applied Materials is sitting above a major gap fill near the $500 psychological level. That confluence could create a technical reaction if price flushes into the zone.

Micron has already broken down and put in a major pivot top. Gareth is watching the $814 to $750 zone, where a prior pivot and gap fill create the next major area for a potential bounce.

Sandisk has a similar setup. After the recent breakdown, the $1,185 area stands out because it aligns with a gap fill, the origin of the prior blow-off move, and a key retracement zone.

Those are reaction zones, not long-term endorsements. Gareth’s larger warning remains that many of these semiconductor charts could face far deeper corrections over the next 12 months. That makes the framework very clear: respect the bounce levels, but do not confuse a technical reaction with a repaired long-term structure.

Delta Showed Why Intermarket Confirmation Matters

Gareth also used Delta Airlines as an example of stacking probabilities.

The chart was already extended. Price had rallied into a broken support trendline that had flipped into resistance. At the same time, oil was sitting on a major gap-fill support level with a high probability of bouncing.

That combination created the setup.

The logic was simple: if Delta is stretched into resistance and oil is positioned to bounce, airline stocks face pressure from both the chart and the input cost. That is the kind of intermarket confirmation Gareth looks for. It is not one signal in isolation. It is multiple markets pointing in the same direction.

Other Levels on Gareth’s Radar

A few additional levels stood out from the session.

Walmart is pulling back after forming a bearish inside bar. The $100 area is the level Gareth is watching because it lines up with a gap fill, a major round number, and longer-term trendline support.

Oracle is already deeply oversold. The $137 to $135 zone is the key support area, with a filled gap and double-bottom pivot sitting in the same region.

Alibaba and other beaten-down Chinese names are catching a bid after positive regulatory news. For Gareth, that move fits the same idea: deeply discounted charts can snap back when the technical setup and catalyst align.

Gold is not confirming the geopolitical fear trade yet. Despite the headlines, it failed to reach the upper end of resistance and is now testing support below $4,000. A break there would shift focus toward $3,600 to $3,500.

Silver is acting cleaner technically. It broke prior pivot support, retested that old support as resistance, and is now moving away from it. That is the structure Gareth wants traders to recognize: old support becoming new resistance.

Bitcoin is still a patience setup. Gareth sees the possibility of an inverse head and shoulders, but the pattern has not triggered. The right shoulder has to form, and price has to break the neckline. Until then, it is only potential. If Bitcoin fails and takes out the recent lows, the downside level remains $50,000.

Bottom Line

Gareth’s message was not to chase the headline. It was to let the chart decide whether the headline matters.

Oil worked because the gap fill was already there. The S&P 500 matters because it is testing the breakout line. QQQ matters because semiconductor strength is weakening. Yields and USD/JPY matter because they can pressure risk assets even if the oil move stays contained.

The framework is simple: hold the S&P breakout and the market can absorb the shock. Lose it, especially with yields and USD/JPY rising, and the move becomes more than headline volatility.

That is the difference between reacting emotionally and trading the roadmap.

USD/JPY pushed through its July 2024 highs this week, reaching levels not seen since 1986, before reversing sharply. What happened at that level is the part worth watching: a strong push higher gave way to a fast, stark retreat, followed by a partial recovery back toward the same zone.

For a pair that typically moves in narrow ranges compared to equities or crypto, a reversal of this size stands out. It puts a specific overhead level on the map and raises a fair question: can USD/JPY clear its recent highs, or does this area mark a ceiling worth respecting.

Why 165 Is the Level That Matters

A trendline drawn through the pair's two most recent multi-decade highs points to resistance in the 165 region. That level carries extra weight because it sits close to a round psychological number, and round numbers on major pairs tend to attract additional selling or profit-taking simply because so many participants are watching the same figure.

An attempt to frame a parallel channel off the upward-sloping support trendline underneath price didn't connect cleanly, so this setup rests primarily on the trendline-and-psychological-level convergence near 165 rather than a fully confirmed channel. If USD/JPY works its way back into that zone, the combination of technical resistance and a round number is where a pullback becomes more likely, though not guaranteed.

Beyond the Yen: A Mixed Dollar Picture

The broader dollar story isn't uniform. Several other major pairs show setups worth tracking as secondary, conditional reads rather than a co-equal thesis. Note: levels below are shown in the dollar-base framing used on the video (dollar strength expressed directly against each currency), not standard GBP/USD, EUR/USD, or AUD/USD quote convention.

GBP: Watching for a Breakdown Confirmation

The chart broke below its upward-sloping trendline and is trading near 0.75. A retrace back up to that broken trendline followed by rejection would keep the setup pointed toward the downside, with 0.73 the level to watch as the next target.

EUR: A Potential Bull Flag

Unlike the pound setup, the dollar hasn't broken its comparable trendline against the euro. Price has pulled back into a downward-sloping channel resembling a bull flag, favoring a move higher if it breaks up and out of that structure.

CNY and AUD: Bullish Continuation Setups

The dollar already broke out of a downward-sloping channel against the yuan and may be forming an additional bull flag on that move. Against the Australian dollar, a developing inverse head-and-shoulders pattern is the most technically advanced setup on the board: the right shoulder hasn't formed yet, but a completed break of the neckline would project a measured move of roughly 6%, toward the 1.54 area.

Key Levels to Monitor

• USD/JPY, ~165: trendline resistance through the recent multi-decade highs, reinforced by the round psychological number.
• USD vs. GBP, ~0.73: downside target if the broken-trendline retrace fails.
• USD vs. EUR, downsloping channel top: bull flag resolution point favoring upside if broken.
• USD vs. CNY, recent breakout zone: additional bull flag support for continued strength.
• USD vs. AUD, ~1.54: measured move target if the inverse head-and-shoulders completes and confirms.

What to Watch Next

For USD/JPY, the setup hinges on how price behaves if it revisits 165 again. A daily close that holds below that zone supports the pullback case; a daily close above it invalidates the resistance thesis and opens the door to a fresh push higher. Against the Australian dollar, the pattern stays conditional until the right shoulder forms and price confirms with a daily close through the neckline. Against the pound, a daily close back below the broken trendline after a retrace would strengthen the case for a move toward 0.73.

Process Over Prediction

None of these setups are guarantees, and that's the point. The USD/JPY rejection near multi-decade highs gives traders a defined level to measure against, not a forecast to act on blindly. The same discipline applies across the other pairs: each pattern either confirms with a daily close through its key level or it doesn't, and the plan should be built around that confirmation rather than around anticipating it. Reading currency charts this way keeps the focus on probability and structure rather than certainty, which is the only sustainable way to approach a market that rarely moves as much as it seems to promise.

Watch on YouTube

Trading The Close Market Review: Tech Rotation Was the Signal, Yields Were the Pressure Point

Today’s market was not just a down day for technology. It was a rotation day, and the charts had been warning that the most crowded parts of the market were vulnerable.

In today’s Trading the Close Market Recap, Pro Trader Drew Dosek broke down the pressure building under the surface: semiconductors finally reacting after an extended run, the 10-year Treasury yield breaking above key resistance, gold and silver failing at important technical levels, and oil showing how quickly a clean consolidation pattern can resolve when the right catalyst hits.

The headline was tech weakness. The real signal was broader than that. Overextended growth areas started losing momentum at the same time yields pushed higher, and that combination changed the tone of the close.

SPY and QQQ: Failed Breakouts Matter

The S&P 500 held up better than the Nasdaq, but the index still gave back an important technical signal. Yesterday’s close above a declining trendline looked like a potential breakout. Today, price failed to confirm and moved back into the wedge.

That does not automatically flip the chart bearish, but it does make confirmation matter more. Drew noted the market is still giving mixed signals near the top of the chart, including the early outline of a possible inverse head and shoulders pattern. The problem is that the pattern is not complete yet. The right shoulder still needs to form, and price still has to prove buyers can defend the structure.

For now, the key downside level is the inclining trendline support. A confirming move below that area would put the 742.47 breakpoint in focus. Below that, the next major support Drew highlighted sits near 730.99.

QQQ looked weaker. The tech-heavy ETF closed down 1.85%, showing the pressure was concentrated in growth and semiconductors. Near-term support sits at $704.32, the June 5 low. If that breaks, Drew’s next downside level is $695.25.

The important point is not that the market is collapsing. It is that failed breakouts change the burden of proof. Buyers had a chance to confirm strength, and they did not do it today.

Semiconductors: The Warning Came Before the Headline

The sharpest damage came in semiconductors. SMH dropped 3.78%, with selling tied to fresh concerns around China’s silicon push and pressure on Nvidia and memory names.

But Drew’s point was that the chart was already vulnerable before the news hit.

The semiconductor trade had gone parabolic, and the exhaustion signal Drew calls the “sleeper hold” had already appeared. That does not mean every extended move immediately reverses, but it does tell traders that momentum is changing. When a crowded sector starts reacting poorly to news after a major run, the chart often mattered before the headline did.

SMH now has near-term support around 570, with secondary support at 552.66. If the sector bounces, the first major area to watch is the gap fill near 604. That is where sellers may try to defend the breakdown if this turns into a relief rally rather than a full recovery.

Memory Stocks Are Not Moving Together

The memory names showed why sector-level analysis is not enough. SNDK, WDC, and MU are all tied to the same broader theme, but their charts are not saying the same thing.

SNDK is the weakest of the group. The stock is down roughly 30% to 35% from its highs and has now broken its parallel channel. Drew pointed to $1,817 as the first resistance area if the stock attempts a bounce. A move back toward the underside of the broken channel, above $2,000, would be the bigger test.

WDC is weaker, but not fully confirmed yet. It has closed outside its inclining parallel channel, but Drew wants to see a confirmed move below today’s low near $510 before treating the breakdown as validated.

MU remains the relative strength name. It has not closed outside its channel, and that matters. If MU bounces, gap fill resistance sits near $983, with a larger resistance zone near the 50% area of the channel between $1,150 and $1,200.

That divergence gives traders a cleaner framework. If the strongest name can stabilize, weaker names may bounce too. But if the strongest name starts losing structure, the broader semiconductor pressure becomes harder to ignore.

The 10-Year Yield Is the Macro Pressure Point

The move in yields was the transmission mechanism behind a lot of today’s action.

The 10-year Treasury yield pushed through key resistance at 4.84%, accelerating after a period of consolidation. Drew highlighted that breakout because it helps explain why growth stocks struggled and why precious metals came under pressure.

Higher yields do not need to be the only reason tech sells off, but they tighten the setup. When yields rise, high-multiple growth stocks have less room for error. That matters most when those same stocks are already extended technically.

The next major level for the 10-year is the declining trendline drawn from the October 2023 and January 2025 pivots. This is another test of that area, and repeated tests can weaken resistance. If yields continue pressing higher, the pressure on tech, semis, gold, and silver can continue.

Gold and Silver Failed Where They Needed to Hold

Gold gave bulls a chance yesterday by closing back inside its inclining parallel channel. Today, it failed to confirm and closed back underneath that structure.

That puts resistance back at the inclining trendline near $4,149. If gold keeps moving away from that level and back into its prior consolidation range, Drew’s read is that the failed breakout becomes more important. Downside support sits near $3,886.

Silver was weaker, falling more than 3% after rejecting its declining trendline for the third time. That trendline remains resistance near $61.80. If selling continues, the next support level Drew highlighted is $55.09.

The metals move connects directly back to yields. A rising 10-year puts pressure on non-yielding assets, and today both gold and silver reacted at technical levels where they needed to prove strength.

Oil Was the Cleanest Intraday Setup

While tech and metals weakened, oil gave one of the better examples of price action leading the news.

US Oil rallied roughly $2 after Middle East agreement headlines deteriorated in the afternoon. Drew pointed out that the chart had already been building bullish consolidation before the headline, with a clean bull flag forming on the 10-minute chart earlier in the day.

That does not mean charts predict news. It means price can show accumulation before the catalyst becomes obvious. When the headline finally hit, the pattern resolved quickly.

After the move, oil’s next resistance sits at $75.56. Near-term support is now $67.16, with another support level at $64.60.

Natural Gas Is Still Coiling

Natural gas did not have the same intraday headline move as oil, but Drew’s longer-term read remains constructive.

The weekly chart continues to show bullish consolidation inside a larger structure, including an inclining parallel channel and a potential inverse head and shoulders pattern. The key is that price has continued to chop sideways without breaking down through support.

For the larger setup to trigger, NatGas needs to clear $3.35 and $3.40. If that happens, the measured move points through $3.58 and toward the $4 area.

This is not an active breakout yet. It is a coiled setup that needs confirmation.

Bitcoin, Cloudflare, and Red Robin

Bitcoin remains in a vulnerable sideways chop. It is still trying to hold the inclining trendline that marks the lower boundary of a major parallel channel dating back to April 2021. Bulls need price to re-enter the channel and move away from the lower rail. If Bitcoin keeps stalling here, Drew’s downside level remains near $60,000.

Cloudflare was one of the few strong tech names, jumping 8.6% after analyst upgrades and higher second-quarter estimates. The stock pushed to new all-time highs, but it is also approaching the top of its long-term inclining parallel channel. Drew’s next resistance area sits near $278.19, and the extended RSI makes that area worth watching.

Red Robin was a viewer-request chart, and Drew’s read was patient. The potential cup and handle is not confirmed yet because the handle has not had enough time to form. The weekly candles are also showing selling pressure near the highs. If the stock can continue building healthy consolidation, the pattern could eventually point toward $10.91, but the setup still needs more development.

Bottom Line

Today’s close was about rotation, confirmation failure, and yield pressure.

Tech and semiconductors were the weak links, but the move was not isolated. The 10-year yield broke higher, gold and silver failed at important technical levels, and the S&P 500 gave back a potential breakout instead of confirming it.

For the next session, the watchpoints are clear: whether yields continue pressing toward trendline resistance, whether SMH can hold 570 or bounces into 604, whether SPY reclaims structure or loses wedge support, and whether gold confirms the failed breakout.

The market did not break everywhere today. It did become more selective. That is the important shift Drew was tracking into the close.

Cattle futures triggered a head and shoulders breakdown this week, and if it confirms, the measured move points to a meaningful decline from current levels. Confirmation isn't in yet, which matters for how much weight to put on this right now.

This is the kind of setup worth paying attention to regardless of whether you trade cattle futures directly, since the pattern speaks to where sentiment has shifted after an extended run higher, and that shift tends to show up in related markets before it shows up anywhere else.

Head and shoulders patterns are one of the more widely watched reversal structures in technical analysis because they capture a shift in control between buyers and sellers over time rather than a single reaction. That's part of why this one is worth tracking closely: it didn't form overnight, and it isn't resolving overnight either. The left shoulder marked the first sign that buyers were losing steam, the head marked the final push higher that failed to hold, and the right shoulder confirmed sellers had taken over the shorter-term trend.

The pattern built over recent weeks: a left shoulder, a head, and a right shoulder, with a neckline underneath connecting the two reaction lows. Price broke below that neckline this week, triggering the setup. A second daily close below the trigger day's low is still needed to confirm it. Until that happens, this is a triggered pattern, not a confirmed one, and the two shouldn't be treated as interchangeable.

The Levels to Watch

These levels are quoted in dollars per pound, consistent with how cattle futures were referenced in the source video. If the breakdown confirms, the measured move targets $2.12, near the low end of the broader parallel channel cattle has been trading within, roughly a nine percent decline from current levels. That would be a meaningful move for a commodity tied directly to consumer beef prices.

On the way down, $2.29 is the first level where price could catch traction. If it gets there, watch how price behaves: a bounce that stalls and rolls back over would keep the broader decline intact, while a stronger reaction could set up a retest of either the fifty percent retracement of the parallel channel or the neckline itself. Either retest would offer a cleaner read on whether sellers are still in control.

A daily close back above the neckline negates the pattern and the $2.12 target with it. That's the single most important level to keep marked on the chart over the next several sessions, since it's the line between this staying a live setup and getting invalidated outright.

The Beef Connection

Retail beef prices are near record highs right now, driven mainly by the smallest U.S. cattle herd in about 75 years, not by short-term swings in the futures market. USDA has pointed to tight cattle supply and slow herd rebuilding cycles as reasons high retail beef prices could persist for a while yet, since a herd this depleted takes years, not months, to rebuild. That context matters for how to read this setup: a confirmed breakdown in cattle futures is a signal worth tracking, but it wouldn't show up at the grocery store on any similar timeline. Futures can move well ahead of retail, and retail beef pricing runs on its own, slower clock tied to herd size and supply chains that take years to rebuild.

What to Watch Next

A daily close below the trigger day's low confirms the breakdown and opens the door to the $2.12 target. A daily close back above the neckline does the opposite and takes the setup off the table entirely. Until one of those two outcomes plays out, the chart is still in prove-it mode, and that's the right way to treat it: a pattern with real weight behind it, waiting on the market to say which way it goes.

That's the discipline worth carrying into any commodity chart showing a similar structure: patterns like this fail often enough that a trigger isn't a guarantee, but they carry enough history behind them to take seriously. The trigger-day low and the neckline will settle the question either way.

Watch on YouTube

Key Takeaways

• Job openings held at 7.594 million in May 2026, a gain of just 9,000 from April’s 7.585 million — the openings rate unchanged at 4.6%. (BLS JOLTS, June 30, 2026)
• The quits rate stayed flat at 1.9% for the second consecutive month — a historically suppressed reading that signals workers no longer believe better opportunities are waiting. This is the real story the headline obscures.
• Hires printed at 5.170 million (3.3% rate), matching April’s pace. Employers are not firing aggressively, but they are not adding headcount with any conviction either.
• Layoffs held at 1.708 million — low by historical standards, confirming the labor hoarding dynamic is still intact. Companies are sitting on workers they aren’t sure they need.
• The openings-to-unemployed ratio is compressing toward 1:1. That ratio was the Fed’s primary metric for labor market “tightness” through 2022–2024. Its normalization removes one of the structural arguments for maintaining restrictive policy.
• No single JOLTS series accelerated in May. Openings flat, quits flat, hires flat, layoffs flat. A labor market this frozen is not resilient — it is holding its breath.
• Watch the quits rate as the early-warning signal. A move below 1.8% would mark a threshold not seen since the 2020 lockdown period. That reading would change the Fed calculus — and the market’s.

What This Metric Measures, and Why This Print Matters

JOLTS — the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey — is the BLS’s monthly map of labor market flow. It captures not just how many jobs exist but how actively workers and employers are moving: openings as a proxy for employer demand, quits as a proxy for worker confidence, hires as the actual execution of that demand, and layoffs as the clearest signal of employer distress.

The Fed reads JOLTS closely because flow data is a leading indicator. NFP tells you what already happened. JOLTS tells you what employers are thinking and what workers are willing to risk.

This May print lands in a particular context. Kevin Warsh took over as Fed Chair on May 15, inheriting an economy where services inflation is still running near four-year highs and where the ISM Services Prices index printed 70.7 in April. The question the JOLTS data must answer is whether the labor market is tight enough to keep that inflation embedded, or loose enough to give Warsh cover to shift posture. May’s JOLTS gives a clear answer: the labor market is neither tightening nor breaking. It is in stasis — and stasis at suppressed quits with flat hires is not the same thing as strength.

What Everyone Will Focus On vs. What Matters More

The consensus read on 7.594 million openings will be: “still historically elevated, labor market resilient.” That framing is not wrong on the surface. Pre-pandemic, 7.6 million openings would have been a historically high figure worth flagging as tight.

But the level of openings is not the story. The behavior of openings is.

Every JOLTS series that moves a labor market — quits, hires, layoffs — printed flat or unchanged in May. The 9,000 increase in openings is statistical noise relative to a 7.6-million base; it represents a 0.1% move. What we have is a labor market that has reached a plateau and refuses to move in either direction.

The buried number is the quits rate: 1.9%, unchanged for two consecutive months, and down significantly from the 3.0%+ readings of the 2021–2022 overheated period. Workers quit when they have somewhere better to go. At 1.9%, they are not quitting — which means they do not believe better opportunities exist, or they are unwilling to take the risk of finding out. Either interpretation points to a labor market with less genuine dynamism than 7.6 million openings implies.

The hires rate at 3.3% confirms the same picture from the employer side. Employers are posting openings. They are not filling them at the rate that would indicate urgent demand. The gap between openings and hires is wide — and a wide gap sustained over multiple months is a signal that posted openings are increasingly precautionary, held open as optionality rather than as immediate hiring intent.

This is the distinction that matters: openings measure intent, quits measure confidence, hires measure execution. Right now, intent is holding, confidence is suppressed, and execution is stalled. That is not a tight labor market. That is a frozen one.

The Quits Rate: 1.9% Is the Number That Moves the Fed

The quits rate is the JOLTS series that carries the most forward-looking information on wage pressure. Workers quit into better-paying jobs. When quits run high, employers competing for scarce workers bid up wages. When quits fall, that bidding pressure dissipates.

At 1.9%, the quits rate is at levels last seen consistently in 2015–2016 — a period when the Fed was raising rates very gradually off the zero lower bound, not because inflation was hot, but because the economy had finally stabilized. The analogy is imperfect but directionally useful: a sustained 1.9% quits rate is not the labor market of an economy with embedded wage-price pressure.

The 2021–2022 quits surge — which peaked above 3.0% — was the structural driver of services wage inflation. Services wages run hot when workers can leave. They cool when workers stay put. May’s 1.9% quits rate, held for two consecutive months, suggests that cooling is underway on the labor side even as services prices remain elevated.

That divergence matters for the Fed’s sequencing problem. If services inflation is being sustained by something other than wage pressure — energy cost pass-through, margin preservation, or Iran-driven input costs — then JOLTS data cannot resolve it. The labor market is no longer the inflation engine. The question is whether Warsh reads it that way.

Hires and Layoffs: Labor Hoarding in Plain Sight

Hires at 5.170 million and layoffs at 1.708 million tell a consistent story: employers are neither aggressively adding nor aggressively cutting. They are holding.

When hiring slows but firing does not accelerate, initial jobless claims stay low. That is exactly what we have seen. The JOLTS data confirms that the low-claims environment is not a sign of labor market health so much as a sign of employer paralysis — nobody wants to be the first to fire workers they may need six months from now, and nobody is confident enough in demand to hire aggressively.

This dynamic has a shelf life. Labor hoarding ends when the cost-benefit calculation shifts: either demand recovers and hoarded workers become necessary, or margins compress enough that payrolls must be cut. With ISM Manufacturing Employment at 46.4 and ISM Services Employment at 48.0 in April — both in contraction — the survey data suggests the employment calculus is already tilting toward the second scenario. JOLTS layoffs have not responded yet. Watch whether they do.

The jolts-2026-05-01-trend.png chart captures the flatness of the openings trend over recent months. It also visually confirms that while the level remains elevated versus pre-2020 history, the direction has been sideways for long enough that “elevated” and “tightening” are no longer synonymous.

The Openings-to-Unemployed Ratio: The Fed’s Thermometer Is Normalizing

During the 2022 peak labor tightness, there were roughly two job openings for every unemployed worker — a ratio that alarmed Fed officials and drove the most aggressive rate-hiking cycle in four decades. That ratio has been compressing since mid-2023.

At 7.594 million openings against current unemployed population, the ratio is approaching 1:1. The Fed does not have a published target for this ratio, but the directional signal is clear: the labor market is no longer structurally imbalanced in the way that justified emergency rate levels. The argument for keeping rates restrictive based on labor market tightness is weakening with every flat-to-down JOLTS print.

This does not mean rate cuts are imminent. With services prices at four-year highs and a new Fed chair who ran on inflation credibility, the bar for cuts has shifted. But the JOLTS data is systematically removing one pillar of the “keep rates high” argument. The other pillar — services inflation — is still standing. That asymmetry is exactly what makes this macro moment difficult.

What This Means For Traders

The following is provided for educational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice.

1. The JOLTS quits rate is the series to track month-over-month, not the openings headline. A sustained move toward 1.8% or below would represent a material deterioration in labor market confidence — the kind of reading that historically precedes NFP weakness by 2–3 months. Watch the July 31 JOLTS release (June data) for any break from the 1.9% floor.

2. Rate-sensitive equities and the short end of the Treasury curve should be watching the openings-to-unemployed ratio, not the openings level. The ratio normalizing toward 1:1 removes a structural argument for maintaining current restrictive policy. If that ratio crosses below 1.0, the policy debate shifts in a way that the headline 7.6 million number does not capture.

3. The labor hoarding thesis has a breaking point. ISM Manufacturing and Services employment sub-indices are both below 50. JOLTS layoffs have not moved yet. If layoffs begin accelerating in the June or July JOLTS data, the “soft landing” framing collapses quickly. The threshold to watch: layoffs above 1.9 million in a single month would be an early signal that the hoarding phase is ending.

4. The Fed’s next data sequence is: June CPI (July 15) → June JOLTS (July 31) → July NFP (August 7). May’s JOLTS alone does not change the rate path. But if June CPI shows services prices beginning to roll — even modestly — and June JOLTS shows a quits rate at or below 1.8%, the case for the Fed to signal a shift becomes harder to dismiss. Watch those three prints in sequence, not in isolation.

5. The flat-JOLTS environment is not bullish for labor-sensitive sectors. Staffing firms, job-board platforms, and cyclical employers with high turnover all benefit from a high-quits, high-churn labor market. Sustained 1.9% quits with flat hires is exactly the wrong environment for those exposures.

The thesis is simple: 7.6 million openings is the number that will be reported. The number that matters is 1.9% — and it hasn’t moved in two months. A frozen labor market is not the same as a strong one. When it thaws, the direction it moves will determine everything.

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics — Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS), May 2026, released June 30, 2026. Available at bls.gov/news.release/jolts.nr0.htm

Gareth Soloway Says Semiconductor Weakness Is Testing the Market’s AI Leadership Trade

The headline this morning was DeepSeek. The bigger signal, according to Gareth Soloway, was the way the semiconductor trade was already behaving before the news hit.

In today’s My Trading Game Plan Revealed show, Gareth focused on the pressure building across the AI and semiconductor space, the key S&P 500 level that could define broader market risk, and the macro signals coming from yields and the dollar. The market was not only reacting to one chip headline. It was testing whether the leadership trade that carried the bull market is starting to lose structure.

That is the framework that matters now.

Semiconductors Were Weak Before the Headline

DeepSeek’s new chip announcement put immediate pressure on major semiconductor names, with Nvidia, Micron, SanDisk, and other AI-linked stocks selling off sharply in the early session. On the surface, that looks like a news reaction.

Gareth’s point was that the chart was already warning traders before the headline.

He noted that semiconductors bounced hard out of the gate in the prior session, then faded throughout the day. That type of action matters because it shows supply coming in while retail traders are still willing to chase strength. When a sector opens strong and gets sold into all day, the question becomes whether institutions are using liquidity to reduce exposure.

The DeepSeek headline did not create that concern from nothing. It gave the market a reason to accelerate what the chart was already hinting at.

That is why Gareth’s read was bigger than a one-day semiconductor move. His view is that the semiconductor cycle may be entering a different phase, where the market begins looking past current AI demand and starts pricing in future competition, supply growth, margin pressure, and weaker pricing power.

The Risk Is Margin Compression, Not Just Competition

The AI trade has been built on scarcity, demand, and premium margins. Companies tied to AI infrastructure have benefited from the belief that demand would remain strong and supply would stay tight for years.

DeepSeek challenges that story because it points toward cheaper alternatives and more efficient AI models. If models can deliver similar results with less expensive hardware, the market has to reconsider how long today’s margins can last.

That is the key point Gareth emphasized. The stock market does not wait for the current order book to disappear. It discounts what conditions may look like 12 months out.

That matters for names like Micron and Nvidia. Micron may have strong visibility into future demand, but if investors start looking beyond the current supply shortage and toward new capacity, cheaper chips, or margin pressure, the stock can still reprice lower before the fundamentals visibly weaken.

Gareth’s warning was clear: retail often buys late in the cycle because the story still sounds strongest near the top. The technicals are meant to keep traders from buying the narrative when the chart is already showing distribution.

Nvidia Is the Semiconductor Level to Watch

Nvidia remains one of the cleanest tells for the broader AI trade. Gareth pointed to a key support structure that has held before, but is now being tested again.

The important part is confirmation. A brief intraday dip below support is not the same thing as a confirmed breakdown. The level that matters is the daily close.

If Nvidia closes below support and confirms the breakdown, Gareth is watching downside risk toward $178 first, with $165 possible below that. Those levels matter because Nvidia is not just one stock. It has become a proxy for AI leadership, semiconductor momentum, and risk appetite in high-multiple growth.

If Nvidia loses structure, the read extends beyond Nvidia itself. It would suggest the market is beginning to question the leadership group that has carried the broader indexes.

The S&P 500 Is Sitting at a Bigger Decision Point

While the Nasdaq 100 is taking more direct pressure from semiconductors, Gareth’s broader market focus was the S&P 500.

The index is still holding up better than the tech-heavy Nasdaq, but it is sitting near a major technical area. Gareth highlighted a lower trendline connected to the 2021 highs, a level that previously acted as resistance and is now being tested as support.

That support test is important because of polarity. Former resistance often becomes support, but only if price can hold above it. The market has already tested this zone more than once. A failure back below it would change the structure.

If that level breaks, Gareth’s downside target is 7,000 on the S&P 500. From the current area, that would represent a meaningful decline and could shift the market from a controlled pullback into something more important.

The risk is not only the technical break. It is what that break would say about psychology.

Why the Wealth Effect Matters

Gareth tied the S&P 500 setup back to the consumer.

The lower and middle-income consumer has already been pressured by inflation, higher rates, and higher costs. The upper-income consumer has been more resilient because stock portfolios have remained elevated. That creates a wealth effect: when markets are near highs, higher-net-worth consumers feel more comfortable spending.

If the S&P 500 stops making new highs and begins rolling over, that psychology can change quickly. Falling portfolio values can slow discretionary spending, and if that spending slows, the market may begin pricing in a weaker economic backdrop.

That is why the S&P level matters. It is not just a chart line. It is a possible transmission point from market structure into consumer behavior.

Yields and the Dollar Are Adding Pressure

Gareth also tied the equity setup to two macro watchpoints: the 10-year yield and the U.S. dollar.

The 10-year yield was pressing near 4.5%, a level that matters for high-growth and high-multiple stocks. When yields push higher, the discount rate rises, and the market becomes less willing to pay premium valuations for future earnings. That is especially relevant when semiconductor and AI stocks are already under pressure.

The dollar is also sitting at a major resistance zone. Gareth noted that the DXY level has mattered repeatedly going back years, acting as resistance, then support, and now resistance again. That kind of market memory gives the level added weight.

If the dollar breaks above that zone, it could add pressure to multinational earnings, commodities, and risk assets. If it rejects there, Gareth is watching for a possible move back toward the 95 to 96 area.

The takeaway is that equities are not trading in isolation. Semiconductors are weakening at the same time yields are pressing higher and the dollar is testing a major level. That combination makes confirmation more important.

The Index-Debut Trap

Gareth also pointed to weak action around a highly anticipated Nasdaq 100 inclusion. In theory, index inclusion should create buying pressure because passive funds and ETFs that track the index need exposure.

The issue is that the stock failed to respond the way a strong name should respond.

If forced buying cannot produce sustained upside, that tells traders something. It suggests sellers may be using that liquidity to exit positions. That is a different read than simply saying the stock is down. The context is what matters.

The same logic applies across the tape. When bullish news fails to create bullish price action, the market is sending a warning. Strong stocks should respond to positive catalysts. When they do not, supply may be heavier than the headline implies.

Before publication, the exact company name and index-inclusion details in this section should be verified.

Bottom Line

Gareth’s framework today was not about chasing one DeepSeek headline. It was about recognizing that the AI leadership trade is being tested at the same time broader market support, yields, and the dollar are all sitting near important levels.

Semiconductors are the first signal. Nvidia is the key stock tell. The S&P 500 trendline is the broader market decision point. The 10-year yield near 4.5% and the dollar at long-term resistance are the macro confirmations.

As long as those pressure points remain unresolved, the market is forcing traders to respect confirmation. If semiconductors stabilize and the S&P holds support, the broader trend can stay intact. If Nvidia confirms a breakdown and the S&P loses its 2021 trendline support, Gareth’s 7,000 downside level becomes the next major framework for risk.

Bitcoin is approaching a possible breakout along a downsloping trendline that has been building for days. Price attempted a retrace toward that trendline, came close, and has since turned higher again, but the setup is not confirmed yet. It still needs a specific level to break and hold before the broader thesis is validated.

That matters beyond Bitcoin itself. Several major altcoins are working through the same structural setup, a downsloping trendline that has either just broken or is close to it, which means Bitcoin's next move is likely to set the tone for the rest of the market.

The Bitcoin Setup: What Would Confirm the Breakout

Bitcoin's downsloping trendline has been tested multiple times, and the trigger to watch is $64,255. This is not yet a confirmed breakout. A close above that level, with a continuation move rather than a single wick through it, would be needed to validate the setup and put the $65,000 zone in play next, an area with a meaningful amount of prior price consolidation that could act as short-term resistance.

Beyond that, the more important level sits at the $67,000 pivot high. Reclaiming that would begin to clear the structural resistance that has kept bears in control, opening a path toward the $73,000 area. From current levels, that would represent roughly a $10,000 move, but only if both the $64,255 trigger and the $67,000 pivot are cleared first. Nothing here is confirmed yet; these are the specific levels that would need to break for the thesis to play out.

Why the Altcoins Are Watching Bitcoin

Ethereum, Solana, Dogecoin, XRP, and Zcash are all sitting at their own versions of this same decision point: a downsloping trendline that has either just broken or is close to it. None of these setups exist in isolation. If Bitcoin fails to clear its trigger, the altcoin setups below become considerably less reliable.

Ethereum (ETH)

Ethereum has already produced a clean break of its downsloping trendline after basing just below $1,541.64, though it has not yet come back to retest that break. Reclaiming the $1,800 pivot zone would open the door toward $1,982, with resistance building near $1,848 along the way.

Solana (SOL)

Solana has reclaimed its prior pivot lows near $79, which now functions as the line in the sand for this setup. Holding above $79 on a daily closing basis keeps the bulls in control and would support a move toward the $90 to $91.98 zone. A daily close back below $79 would hand control back to the bears.

Dogecoin (DOGE)

Dogecoin has already broken out and continued higher. A pullback into the 7-cent support zone would be a constructive area for buyers to step back in, with $0.08 as the next resistance. Reclaiming $0.0818 opens a path toward $0.09.

XRP

XRP has spent months rejected by one of the longer downsloping trendlines on this list, dating back to a high near $3.66. After dipping below a prior low pivot and forming a bear flag, XRP has since reclaimed the $1.1267 support area. That reclaim is the specific chart behavior worth noting here: rather than continuing to break down after the flag, XRP moved back above prior support, which is a more constructive signal than the flag pattern on its own. The next resistance sits at $1.30, with $1.58 to $1.60 as the target tied to the longer-term upsloping trendline, and $1.8079 as the more significant resistance zone above that.

Zcash (ZEC)

Zcash broke out of its downsloping trendline but has not yet made a continuation move, so this setup is less confirmed than the others. A pullback toward the $378.47 support zone is the level worth watching for a potential reaction. Losing that would open the door to $303.45. On the upside, $511.17 is the resistance to clear, with $583.63 as the next objective above that.

Key Levels to Monitor