Aggregator

Aggressive HOAs are running out of money and foreclosing on more residents than ever before

NY Post

1 week 6 days ago

America’s homeowners associations are running out of money — and patience.

Lauren Elkies Schram

After Blockbuster IPO, China's Memory Giant CXMT Plans Second Chip Plant In Beijing

Zero Rss

1 week 6 days ago

After Blockbuster IPO, China's Memory Giant CXMT Plans Second Chip Plant In Beijing

CXMT, China's largest chipmaker by output and certainly by market value thanks to its blowout IPO pricing one week ago, which saw its stock surge more than 7x from its offering price of 8.66 yuan per share, is considering building a second memory-chip plant in Beijing and is in financing talks with a tech manufacturing hub backed by the local government, Reuters reported citing source familiar.

The move ‌comes as CXMT, which is currently the world's 4th largest maker of DRAM memory but has ambitions to become the world's largest, seeks to boost production amid a global chip shortage driven by debf-funded AI infrastructure spending. It highlights intensifying competition among Chinese local governments to attract CXMT, as the memory chipmaker pursues a major expansion following its $8.6 billion IPO last month, the largest mainland Chinese semiconductor listing on record.

Reuters previously reported that CXMT was building new plants in Shanghai and Hefei and was in discussions with authorities elsewhere about another facility.

Those projects, when fully operational, could double its capacity to more than 600,000 wafers per month. The new Beijing 12-inch plant would be built in Yizhuang, about 20 km (12 miles) southeast of central Beijing, where CXMT already operates a ⁠fab producing dynamic random access memory (DRAM) chips. CXMT currently operates two 12-inch DRAM fabs in Hefei and one in Beijing, each with capacity of about 100,000 wafers per month, the Reuters sources said.

CXMT is seeking at least 60 million yuan ($8.9 million) in support from the development zone's governing body, also known as the Beijing Economic-Technological Development Area, and other state-owned tech companies have also expressed interest in participating in the financing, they said.

The talks are at an early stage and the size and structure of any funding package could change, the sources said. It was not immediately clear whether the funding would come directly from the development zone's administrative authority or through its investment vehicles.

Reuters adds that the planned capacity and total investment for the proposed fab were not immediately known. Building a fab that can produce leading-edge DRAM chips usually costs more than $10 billion.

The discussions began before CXMT's stock market debut last week, which provided ‌the company ⁠with fresh capital for an expansion drive during a memory-chip upcycle fueled by demand from AI infrastructure, data centres and consumer electronics.

The company has become a key pillar of Beijing’s drive to build a self-sufficient chip industry and narrow the gap with the U.S. in strategic technologies such as AI amid a fierce tech rivalry between the two superpowers.

Although CXMT is the world's fourth-largest DRAM producer, it remains far smaller than Samsung Electronics, SK Hynix and Micron whose combined global market share approached 90% in the first quarter, according to data from ⁠Counterpoint Research.

Within China, however, CXMT's growing dominance has enabled it to raise prices for customers such as Huawei, Reuters reported last month.

CXMT has been in the news over the past couple of months due to reports that have suggested that Apple is interested in buying the firm's memory chips. The global memory shortage has affected the Cupertino, California-based consumer electronics giant's supply chain as it has been unable to secure supplies without having to face price hikes.

Yet, as wccftech reports, others have suggested that CXMT's ability to target the global memory market is limited, as the firm has to primarily meet the needs of China's domestic memory market. US sanctions on China, which limit its ability to procure high-end chips and manufacturing equipment, have come at a time when Beijing is aiming towards semiconductor self-sufficiency despite the capital and knowledge-intensive nature of the industry.

Today's report follows one that surfaced last week and claimed that CXMT was making progress with its LPDDR6 memory chips. These are among the latest in the world, and the sources suggested that the Chinese firm was eager to target the gap left by Samsung and Micron. The two are focused on making high-bandwidth memory (HBM) chips, and CXMT hopes to utilize the gap they've left to establish itself as a player in the global memory market. The sector is currently dominated by the two firms plus Korea's SK hynix, which control the vast majority of the market share.

The company's rise has been closely linked to the "Hefei model," under which the capital of Anhui province has used state funding to nurture strategic technology companies... because as we said a year ago, it is only a matter of time before the AI arms race is directly funded by the governments of China and the US directly.

Beijing and Shanghai have also provided CXMT with funding and other support, as the cities seek a larger share of the economic and strategic benefits generated by the company's growth.

CXMT's Beijing-based fab, operated by Changxin Jidian, was founded in 2020 and received funding from E-Town Capital, a state-backed investment arm of the Yizhuang development zone, and its ⁠affiliate Beijing E-Town Technology, according to corporate records.

The Beijing development area is a manufacturing base for technology and chip companies, including contract chipmaker SMIC, chip equipment maker Naura Technology and smartphone and electric-vehicle maker Xiaomi.

The area is also positioning itself as a hub for robotics and AI. Last year, it hosted what organisers described as the world's first humanoid robot half-marathon, part of an effort to promote and test embodied-AI technologies.

News of China's aggressive push to boost memory output is one of the reasons for the weakness in memory and chip stocks in early trading, and also slammed Korea's Kospi which slumped 5% with Samsung / Hynix both tumbling -9%.

Additionally, the market is again focused on Chinese open-source model releases, with BABA +4% on new Qwen model this weekend as well as DeepSeek V4 Flash model launched Friday.

As reported earlier, BABA’s latest Qwen 3.8 Max Model was released overnight (stock closed +7% in HK) - a 2.4t parameter model (smaller than Kimi K3 @ 2.8t ) but looks relatively comparable on benchmarks (I.e. broadly Opus + level) and will go open-weight release next week.

The model is also far cheaper: API tokens are priced at $2/m input & $6/m output (cheaper than Kimi K3 @ $3/M input & $15/M ⁠output)... & 80% cheaper than current GPT flagship 5.6 Sol's output tokens.

Qwen3.8-Max by @Alibaba_Qwen has reshaped the cost-performance Pareto frontier in Frontend Code Arena, with pricing of $2 per input MToken and $6 per output MToken.

Top models on the Pareto frontier:
- Claude-Opus-5
- Kimi-K3
- Qwen3.8-Max
- GLM-5.2
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash

Congrats… https://t.co/3S4tW1KmlI pic.twitter.com/CiWU7Hh4BD

— Arena.ai (@arena) August 3, 2026

According to The Block's data dashboard, Kalshi, Polymarket, and Polymarket US posted $50.59 billion in combined monthly trading volume in July, marking a 7.8% increase from June's $46.95 billion monthly volume.

Kalshi remained in the lead, and recorded $37.7 billion in the past month. This marks a 14% month-over-month growth.

Notably, the monthly data indicates a shift in volume between Polymarket and Polymarket US. While Polymarket's monthly volume contracted 26% to $7.9 billion, the U.S. platform saw its volume rise 54% to $5 billion. The combined volume of Polymarket and Polymarket US decreased from $14 billion to $12.9 billion.

The U.S. platform, regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, dropped its initial waitlist restrictions in May, opening the platform to all U.S. users. This allowed U.S. traders who had previously bypassed regional blocks to participate legitimately on the platform.

Earlier this year, Rutgers University statistician Harry Crane estimated that U.S. traders drove about 30% of Polymarket's main, offshore platform volume during the 12 months ending April 30, 2026.

World Cup boost

July's overall surge in volume can be attributed to the FIFA World Cup, which started on June 11 and ended on July 19. Kalshi's prediction market on the final match between Spain and Argentina alone drew roughly $1.9 billion. Polymarket's bet predicting the World Cup winner attracted around $4 billion.

Since the end of the World Cup, however, open interest on the three prediction market platforms has dropped significantly, from around $2 billion at the start of July to $1.2 billion by the end of the month.

Despite a hopeful bounce to end the month, it was a bloodbath for most assets. It was the Nasdaq’s worst July in 22 years, bonds’ biggest July yield spike since 2005, and oil’s biggest July jump in over 30 years.

Leaving investors with one big trillion-dollar question: is the momentum crash over?

As I discussed on Thursday on the Real Investment Show, the average retail investor portfolio is likely faring far worse than the broad market index. The momentum crash we just lived through was the fastest on record. It ended last Thursday with a $45 billion hedge fund handing its entire public equity book to Citadel in a single block trade.

None of it should have been a surprise. On June 22, in The Technical Backdrop: When Flows Meet a Hawkish Fed, I wrote that a market running on flows, leverage, and shrinking leadership could melt up into July. It could also reverse hard the moment those mechanical buyers turned into sellers. The close of that piece was blunt, and was published on the exact day momentum peaked. It is also named the mechanism.

“Lastly, watch the long end of the curve. If Warsh’s signal keeps the ten-year climbing, the most expensive, most crowded, most rate-sensitive corner of this market, the same one soaking up forty cents of every dollar, is the corner that pays for it first.“

The most crowded corner of this market, the one soaking up forty cents of every S&P 500 dollar, would pay for rising yields first. That is precisely what happened. Two weeks ago, Momentum Meltdown Catches Traders By Surprise flagged the same divergence in miniature. Last week, The AI Capex Bill Comes Due walked through the $800 billion megacap air pocket. The only question left is whether the correction is finished or whether this was the first act.

Momentum Crashed. The Average Stock Did Not.

Start with the magnitude, because the numbers are without precedent. Morgan Stanley’s sector-neutral momentum index fell 17.4% over four sessions, the worst four-day stretch in the history of the series. The comparable declines were roughly 11% after the dot-com peak and again in the 2022 inflation bear, and 14% after the Covid crash. The technology and media slice of that basket dropped 36% in four days, against a prior record near 20% set in the 1999 to 2001 unwind.

You can see the same thing in instruments you can actually trade. The iShares Momentum ETF fell 18.0% from its June 22 peak to its July 29 low, and semiconductors, measured by SOXX, surrendered 29.0% over those same twenty-five sessions. Momentum broke. The equal-weight S&P 500 closed at a record high on July 28. Right in the middle of the wreckage.

While for many retail investors, it may “feel” like a market crash, it wasn’t. It was a rotation, and leveraged traders were liquidated.

None of that is new. In More Market Wisdom: Jesse Livermore, Part 2, we walked through how leadership rotates across cycles. The Nifty Fifty became the laggards of the late 1970s. Technology dominated the late 1990s, then delivered a lost decade. Energy was close to unownable from 2014 through 2020, then led the market in 2021 and 2022. Staying rigidly committed to yesterday’s leaders is the most reliable path to underperforming in the next cycle.

Diversification is what converts that rotation from a portfolio problem into a portfolio feature. We covered the practical version in Momentum Strategies, and Physics: Mass And Velocity Matter, and the structural version in The Passive Aggressive Market, where investors rotate hard between factor ETFs and still call it passive investing. Last week priced the difference. Own the equal-weight index, and you made a record high on July 28. Own the momentum factor, and you gave back 18%.

Leverage Was The Mechanism. Rates Lit The Fuse.

During Thursday’s meltdown, I called Michael Lebowitz, and we discussed that it “felt” as if someone was being liquidated. It turned out that a hedge fund, Situational Awareness, which ran leverage roughly 4x its equity base through total return swaps, was the victim. Within a day, it liquidated nearly 3/4 of its holdings.

It is the structure that matters. Prime brokers hold the physical shares while the client takes the economic exposure, so the position never appears in a public filing, and no single broker sees the whole book. Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, and Bank of America were the counterparties here.

Here is the crucial point: When the collateral fell far enough, the “Prime Brokers” decided to sell. Not the fund.

We have written that sentence before, in Margin Debt Surges As Bulls Leverage Bets:

That process is at the discretion of the broker-dealers that extended that leverage in the first place.

So what tipped the collateral? Rates. After the FOMC meeting this past week, the front end of the curve barely flinched. The long end did the damage, with the 30-year closing that day at 5.20%, its highest level in 19 years. Nothing in this market is more sensitive to the long end than an unprofitable growth stock bought with borrowed money.

The backdrop was already stretched thin. Margin debt set another record in June at $1.50 trillion, up 49% from a year ago, while the net investor credit balance sank to a record negative $1.06 trillion. That is the thinnest cushion against forced selling ever recorded, a point we walked through in Margin Debt Risk: The Ratios That Mislead Investors.

The timing in the chart below is what matters. Leverage actually fell from January into March. Then it went vertical. Margin debt jumped 23.0% in the three months through June, and the credit cushion thinned by $268 billion over that same stretch. That build topped out precisely as momentum did.

Situational Awareness was not the only leveraged buyer in that corner, either. Citadel’s desk put levered ETF assets at a record $218 billion in June, up roughly 60% from the end of March, with semiconductor-linked leverage nearly tripling. We mapped where that money was pointing in A Supply Tsunami Is Coming.

The Daily Shot tracks a slightly wider universe, and its version shows the round trip. Net market exposure across US levered and inverse ETFs peaked near $436 billion in mid-June, about 3.4 times its level in the summer of 2021. It has since fallen 27%, and fund assets are down 25% from their peak.

That is the retail mirror of the de-grossing of the reported prime desks. It also explains why Thursday had so much fuel. Two dollars in a 3x fund carries six dollars of market risk, so when that complex shrinks, the selling is mechanical, and then it stops.

The Fundamentals Never Broke

Here is where the opportunity argument lives, and it deserves a fair hearing. Microsoft grew Azure revenue 43% in constant currency, above a 40.2% estimate, and surpassed $100 billion in annual Azure revenue for the first time. Amy Hood told the Street that capital spending will grow again in fiscal 2027. Amazon lifted its 2026 capex plan toward $220 billion on an AWS-driven beat.

That scorecard kills the simple version of the story. Amazon spent the most of anyone, $53 billion against $45 billion of operating cash flow, printed the worst free cash flow in the group, and jumped about 9% after hours. Alphabet spent less, burned less, and fell 7%.

So, why the difference? It clearly was not an issue of “cash flows” as the narrative suggests. What separated them was evidence that the spending is already earning inside the operating line.

AWS grew 37% with segment operating income up 64% and margin back to 39.4%.
Azure grew 43% with remaining performance obligations at $678 billion.

However, Meta went the other way, with operating income down 8% and the margin down from 43% to 31%. After that, the market did the talking with Microsoft rising 15.5% on Thursday, and Meta falling 8.0% in the same session. This wasn’t surprising after Meta missed by more than a $1 per share, guided Q3 revenue to the low end, and declined to commit to a 2027 spending figure.

The market is not punishing capital spending, nor rewarding cash flow. It is paying for proof that the spending is already earning inside the operating line. Read that again, because it is the entire trade.

Both halves of that scorecard are distorted by a single timing mismatch, which I laid out in “AI Capex Depreciation Risk Is The Catch To Record Earnings.” Cash leaves now, so free cash flow understates these businesses. Depreciation lands later, so operating income flatters them. Roughly $760 billion in spending this year is offset by only about $211 billion in recognized depreciation.

So is the market mispricing Alphabet, which is investing, against Apple, which is not? Partly, yes. Alphabet was sold on an in-line core quarter, not a broken one, and 82% cloud growth against a contracted backlog is not a sign of a business in trouble. But that is not a free option either.

Consensus already assumes free cash flow snaps back from roughly $16 billion this year to $387 billion by 2029. That snapback is an assumption, not a result. And Microsoft just stretched the useful life of its data centers from fifteen years to twenty-five, which cuts reported depreciation without changing a single server. Demand is REAL. What broke was the financing stacked on top of it, and who pays the depreciation bill remains unsettled.

Is The Correction Over? The 2000 Playbook Says No.

So, for the one question everyone wants an answer to: “Is it safe to go back into the ‘momentum’ waters?”

BTIG’s Jonathan Krinsky called time on the momentum crash Thursday morning, and on the bounce I think he’s right. Goldman’s high-minus-low momentum index had fallen 23% below its 200-day average after sitting 40% above it in mid-June. It has rarely spent much time beyond 20% below that line in twenty-five years. Stretched is stretched. A dislocation that extreme produces a Thursday almost mechanically, and Microsoft’s print gave buyers a reason to show up at once.

However, a bounce is not a bottom. Krinsky’s own 2000 comparison is the useful part of that note. One month past the dot-com peak, the SOX had fallen 35%. It then rallied roughly 37% and still went on to test its 200-day moving average. Semiconductors closed Thursday 23.0% below the June 22 peak, 11.1% under the 50-day moving average, but still 25.6% above the 200-day.

Sit with that last figure for a second. Even after the fastest momentum crash on record, SOXX trades a quarter above its own long-term trend line. Trapped longs from June do not sell on the first bad day. They sell into the first rally that gets them close to even.

What Should Investors Do Now

Okay, what do we do now heading into the seasonal weak months of August and September? First, treat this bounce as a gift for repositioning, not an invitation to re-risk. The forced seller is gone. But Citadel holds a large block of the same paper and has no obligation to keep it. Secondly, if the 30-year keeps threatening a multi-year breakout, that adds to the risk, and that one variable decides whether the AI complex gets a durable bid or another leg lower.

However, there are opportunities in the rubble, and the following is a quick screen to start from, grouped by what each name actually does in the buildout. Look at the last column before anything else, because Friday rewrote it. Five names now sit above where they were at the momentum peak, and the top two are Microsoft and Amazon, the two heaviest spenders in the group. While some of the selling was certainly due to the liquidation of Situational Awareness, not all of it was. Everything that builds, supplies, or finances the buildout, without yet showing a return, is still down 10% to 47%.

Two things follow. The levered bucket is already flushed, so the case for trimming it is no longer about valuation; it is about which balance sheets survive a retest. And the builders and suppliers are where contracted revenue meets washed-out prices, which is the part of this list I would spend the weekend on.

My read is a tradable rally that fails that potentially fails, particularly if rates continue to push higher this week. If I’m wrong, I’m wrong by buying quality early. That’s the cheaper mistake. We continue to suggest using strength to upgrade quality, cutting names whose only thesis was price momentum, and holding cash to act on a retest of support.

Trade accordingly.

Tyler Durden Mon, 08/03/2026 - 13:00

Tyler Durden

Aggregator

zero rss