BRP's US-listed shares crashed the most on record as the US cash session began, after the jet ski and snowmobile maker withdrew its financial outlook.
The company warned that changes in the US tariff environment surrounding steel, aluminum, and copper could result in a $500 million hit before any mitigation efforts.
BRP wrote in a statement:
For BRP, the amendment mainly leads to a 25% tariff on the total value of imported snowmobiles and the majority of ORV models, replacing the previous 50% tariff on applicable metal content only. The Company currently estimates the potential incremental tariff cost related to this amendment to be in excess of $500 million for the remainder of the year, before any mitigation measures that could partially offset these impacts.
BRP CEO Denis Le Vot stated:
Like many manufacturers, we are operating in a highly volatile and unpredictable tariff environment that continues to create uncertainty across the market.
Despite the material burden of these tariff changes, we expect that, with our solid balance sheet, the agility of our teams and the strong start of the year, we will be able to manage our business through this challenge and continue to push BRP forward.
BRP shares crashed 33% at the start of the US cash session, the most on record with Bloomberg trading data going back to August 2013.
BRP shares are sharply retracing the bull run that began in April 2025 and peaked in February. The shares are in a deep bear market so far this year, down 25%.
Bloomberg data tracking Wall Street analysts shows 12 "Buys," 9 "Holds," and zero "Sells." The average analyst 12-month price target is $82.
Stifel analyst Martin Landry warned, "The magnitude of the impact is mind-blowing, but it is likely the worst-case scenario."
Tyler Durden Wed, 04/15/2026 - 10:50Oil largely held onto a sharp drop from this week’s highs as the US and Iran seek further talks to end a war that has brought the vital Strait of Hormuz waterway to a near-halt.
President Trump told a Fox Business anchor he sees the war “very close to over” and told ABC “you’re going to be watching an amazing two days ahead.”
The global oil market has been jolted by the conflict, which triggered an unprecedented supply shock, and while week to week shifts in domestic inventory and supply may not be the crucial market-movers they were before the war (and headline roulette), they remain key in seeing how the US energy market is 'coping' with the new demand from overseas... and if there is any domestic demand destruction from soaring gas prices...
API
Crude +6.1mm
Cushing
Gasoline +626k
Distillates -3.36mm
DOE
Crude -913k (+900k exp) - first draw in 8 weeks
Cushing -1.73mm - biggest draw since Jan 3rd
Gasoline -6.33mm - biggest draw since Mar 2023
Distillates -3.12mm
Inventories across the entire oil energy complex saw unexpected drawdowns last week with crude's first decline in stocks since Feb 13. Gasoline stocks plunged by the most since March 2023...
Source: Bloomberg
The SPR saw its biggest drawdown since Dec 2022...
Source: Bloomberg
Crude production actually declined last week... as Refineries trimmed crude processing for the third straight week. With that, intake has been curtailed by a little over half a million barrels a day since the end of March.
Source: Bloomberg
Crude exports jumped over 1 million barrels a day to the highest level since September 2025 as the world continues to draw on US oil as the Iran war disrupts global flows.
That oil export jump pushed total oil and fuel exports to the highest level ever.
Most of the gains came as crude shipments jumped above the key 5 million barrels a day mark to the highest since September 2025, according to data from the US government.
In aggregate it meant the US sent almost 13 million barrels per day overseas last week, when also adding refined fuels.
Source: Bloomberg
WTI Crude prices rallied on the report...
Finally, despite chatter of energy independence and no need for Hormuz flows, the real constraint on Trump is domestic gas and diesel prices (as its a global energy complex), which are looking set to fall from near record-highs as WTI and RBOB prices have eased...
“The broad-based pullback is driven by growing market optimism that diplomacy, not escalation, is now dominating,” said Ole Hvalbye, commodities analyst at SEB AB.
Should escalation risks fade, supply from the Middle East may see a “tiered recovery,” according to ANZ Group Holdings Ltd. Some 2 million to 3 million barrels a day were likely to be restored in the first four weeks, followed by additional volumes, analysts including Daniel Hynes said in a note.
Tyler Durden Wed, 04/15/2026 - 10:40Submitted by QTR's Fringe Finance
The Pattern Day Trader rule was one of those regulations that managed to sound official, responsible, and protective while being, in practice, deeply confusing and almost comically out of touch with how people actually learn to trade. And now, it looks like it’s finally on its way out the exit. Crypto News wrote today:
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Tuesday approved FINRA’s proposed rule change eliminating the Pattern Day Trader designation, the $25,000 minimum equity requirement, and all related day-trading buying power provisions under FINRA Rule 4210. The accelerated approval removes longstanding restrictions that have governed retail day trading for decades.
The SEC simultaneously approved new intraday margin standards requiring broker-dealers to monitor and address real-time risk exposure in customer margin accounts. The regulatory shift represents a substantial change to day-trading accessibility and compliance frameworks for retail investors in U.S. equity markets.
At its core, the PDT rule, at one point designed to save people from themselves, declared that if you made four or more day trades within a rolling five-business-day window, you would be labeled a “pattern day trader.”
This meant you got hit with a requirement to maintain a minimum account balance of $25,000. If you didn’t have that amount sitting in your account, you were effectively benched. Your ability to trade frequently was restricted, your account functionality clipped, and your participation in the market suddenly conditional on whether you had what, for many people, is a significant chunk of savings just casually lying around.
I could see the rule’s purpose in 1957, when you had to walk your orders to a live broker chain smoking cigars on Wall Street to make them — the idea of placing more than one trade a year must have looked like high-speed Roulette on crack cocaine doing 120mph doing I-95 in a modified golf cart. But for f*ck’s sake…it’s 2026. People daytrade on the toilet. I saw someone daytrading mid-roll at jiu jitsu the other day. 18 year old kids are trading cow dung futures at 11pm on Friday nights from their college town bars. Like it or not, daytrading and 0DTE are the markets now.
When I first started trading, this rule felt like a trap I kept stepping into over and over again. I was doing what anyone new to markets does: experimenting, entering and exiting positions, trying to understand price movement in real time instead of just reading about it. And then, without fail, I’d hit the invisible tripwire. Suddenly my account would be flagged, and I’d be locked out of making additional trades. It didn’t feel like protection; it felt like being told you’re allowed to learn how to swim, but only if you already own a boat.
The cycle repeated itself enough times that it stopped being frustrating and started being absurd. You weren’t being guided away from risk, you were being arbitrarily stopped from participating in the very process that teaches you how to manage it.
What makes the whole thing even harder to take seriously is the broader context of what modern “markets” have become today. During the same time brokerages have been carefully counting how many intraday stock trades you make, entire platforms have emerged where you could effectively bet on outcomes so specific and bizarre they sound like satire.
We are talking about markets where people can take positions on things like how many times Eric Swalwell will fart on MSNBC during his next appearance, or whether a sports announcer will use the word “toboggan” during an NBA broadcast. These are barely satire, and close examples of the kind of hyper-niche, almost performance-art-level speculation that is now perfectly acceptable. And yet, somehow, the line of responsibility was drawn at a small retail trader buying and selling Microsoft too many times during a day. That was the danger. That was what needed controlling.
Then there’s crypto, which exists in a parallel universe where the concept of trading hours, regulatory guardrails, and frankly even clear definitions of value often feel optional. You can trade crypto assets 24 hours a day, seven days a week, from anywhere, at any time, with price swings that make traditional equities look like Yo Gabba Gabba. You can make dozens of trades in a single night if you feel like it, driven by momentum, panic, excitement, drunkenness, a tweet you saw five minutes ago or all of the above.
There is no equivalent mechanism that steps in and says, “Hold on, you’ve been a bit too active for your account size.” There is no $25,000 gatekeeper deciding whether you are worthy of participation. And yet, despite all of that volatility and freedom, the system somehow survives without collapsing under the weight of small traders clicking buttons too frequently. Which raises the obvious question: if that environment can exist, why exactly was the traditional equities market so concerned with rationing out trades like they were a scarce resource reserved for the financially initiated?
🔥 50% OFF FOR LIFE: Using this coupon entitles you to 50% off an annual subscription to Fringe Finance for life: Get 50% off forever
The underlying logic of the PDT rule always rested on a premise that doesn’t hold up under scrutiny, which is that frequent trading is inherently dangerous, but only if you are not already wealthy. If you have $25,000 in your account, you are presumed capable of handling the risks of rapid trading, as though the act of having that money confers discipline, knowledge, or emotional control. If you don’t, then the exact same behavior suddenly becomes irresponsible and in need of restriction.
It’s a framework that quietly equates capital with competence, ignoring the reality that someone can have a large account and no strategy, or a small account and a careful, methodical approach to learning. Instead of addressing risk through education, transparency, or better tools, the rule defaulted to a blunt instrument: a hard cutoff that didn’t adapt to individual behavior or intent.
In practice, what it did was create friction at the wrong point in a trader’s journey. Beginners, who arguably benefit the most from being able to engage, test ideas, and learn from quick feedback loops, were the ones most likely to be restricted. Meanwhile, more experienced or better-funded participants operated without those same constraints, not because they were necessarily making better decisions, but because they had already crossed an arbitrary financial threshold.
The result was a system that didn’t eliminate risk so much as redistribute opportunity, favoring those who least needed the protection while limiting those who were still figuring things out.
The strange part is how long something so mismatched with modern market behavior managed to stick around, especially as everything else changed. Trading became commission-free, access expanded through apps, information moved at the speed of social media, and entirely new asset classes blurred the lines between investing, speculation, and entertainment. In that environment, the idea that the number of trades you could make in a week should be capped unless you met a fixed dollar requirement started to feel less like prudent regulation and more like a relic that had outlived the world it was designed for.
So yes, the Pattern Day Trader rule deserves every bit of the criticism it gets, and then some. It wasn’t just inconvenient; it was conceptually flawed, inconsistently applied in a broader financial ecosystem, and oddly patronizing in the assumptions it made about who should be allowed to participate and how.
And if it is finally fading into irrelevance, replaced by systems that trust individuals a bit more and gatekeep a bit less, then it’s hard to feel anything but satisfaction. Not relief exactly, because most people just learned to work around it or avoid it, but a kind of quiet acknowledgment that one of the more nonsensical speed bumps in modern finance is no longer pretending to be a necessary feature.
Good riddance, indeed.
--
QTR’s Disclaimer: Please read my full legal disclaimer on my About page here. This post represents my opinions only. In addition, please understand I am an idiot and often get things wrong and lose money. I may own or transact in any names mentioned in this piece at any time without warning. Contributor posts and aggregated posts have been hand selected by me, have not been fact checked and are the opinions of their authors. They are either submitted to QTR by their author, reprinted under a Creative Commons license with my best effort to uphold what the license asks, or with the permission of the author.
This is not a recommendation to buy or sell any stocks or securities, just my opinions. I often lose money on positions I trade/invest in. I may add any name mentioned in this article and sell any name mentioned in this piece at any time, without further warning. None of this is a solicitation to buy or sell securities. I may or may not own names I write about and are watching. Sometimes I’m bullish without owning things, sometimes I’m bearish and do own things. Just assume my positions could be exactly the opposite of what you think they are just in case. If I’m long I could quickly be short and vice versa. I won’t update my positions. All positions can change immediately as soon as I publish this, with or without notice and at any point I can be long, short or neutral on any position. You are on your own. Do not make decisions based on my blog. I exist on the fringe. If you see numbers and calculations of any sort, assume they are wrong and double check them. I failed Algebra in 8th grade and topped off my high school math accolades by getting a D- in remedial Calculus my senior year, before becoming an English major in college so I could bullshit my way through things easier.
The publisher does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information provided in this page. These are not the opinions of any of my employers, partners, or associates. I did my best to be honest about my disclosures but can’t guarantee I am right; I write these posts after a couple beers sometimes. I edit after my posts are published because I’m impatient and lazy, so if you see a typo, check back in a half hour. Also, I just straight up get shit wrong a lot. I mention it twice because it’s that important.
Tyler Durden Wed, 04/15/2026 - 10:25Following stellar equity trading results from Goldman and JPMorgan, this morning Bank of America reported that its traders also pulled in the business’s highest quarterly revenue in more than a decade, riding a wave of volatility that pushed the firm’s stock-trading desk to an all-time record. Bank of America said Q1 profit rose 17% from a year earlier, while net income came in at $8.58 billion. That amounted to $1.11 a share, above analyst estimates of $1.01. Revenue was 7% higher at $30.27 billion, driven by solid net interest income, sales and trading and investment banking fees.
Revenue from equity trading climbed 30% to $2.8 billion in the first quarter, beating expectations, while fixed-income trading, which fell short of a consensus of analyst estimates, rose less than 1% to $3.5 billion, similar to Goldman's FICC miss. Bank have benetted from a volatile quarter, when the Iran war sent oil prices surging and concerns about artificial intelligence and private credit whipsawed stocks. Trading desks were already on a roll since President Donald Trump won the 2024 election, as his policy moves often spurred reactions across stocks, commodities and rates. The total trading haul helped push revenue to $30.3BN, above the $29.92BN consensus estimate, while adjusted EPS rose 25% to $1.11 a share, also beating the $1.01 analyst estimate. Overall, Bank of America’s net income was up 17.3% to $8.16 billion.
Here are the Q1 highlights
Last month, BofA Co-President Dean Athanasia said that he was feeling good about net interest income, expecting growth of at least 7%. Well, the final number was even stronger, and the bank reported NII of $15.7 billion, up 9% from the first quarter of 2025 (more below). Just as importantly, BofA raised its full-year NII forecast, now expecting it to grow 6%–8%, up from previous estimates of 5%–7%, driven by strong first-quarter performance, and suggesting the Fed's rate cuts won't negatively impact the bank.
Balance sheet metrics were also solid
Turning to asset quality, aside from some concerns about Private Credit (see below), the results were solid with BofA's net charge-offs down 3% to $1.41 billion, below the estimate of $1.42 billion while the provision for credit losses also dropped to $1.34 billion, and also below estimates of $1.5 billion, and down $143MM YoY. As BBG notes, the number "came in way below estimates, offsetting larger-than-expected numbers for some of its peers. Overall, the combined tally is tracking lower than feared, helping soothe concerns about private-credit contagion into financials.” BofA also announced a net reserve release of $72MM in 1Q26 vs. net reserve build of $28MM in 1Q25 and $21MM in 4Q25. Meanwhile, the allowance for loan and lease losses of $13.1B represented 1.09% of total loans and leases. Nonperforming loans (NPLs) of $5.8B decreased $0.3B from 1Q25, and were flat to 4Q25, as higher consumer NPLs, driven by residential mortgage relief extended for borrowers impacted by 2025 California wildfires, were mostly offset by lower commercial NPLs.
In its earnings presentation, BofA highlighted solid growth across most segments...
... and noted that every segment contributed to YoY growth.
Looking at the bank's high margin trading businesses, results here were stellar in equities, and subpar in credit. Total revenue ex net DVA of $7.1B increased 8% from 1Q25, driven by higher sales and trading revenue, partially offset by the absence of gains related to leveraged finance positions in 1Q25. Sales and trading revenue of $6.4B increased 13% from 1Q25; excluding net DVA, up 12%
As an aside, noninterest expense of $4.4B increased 15% vs. 1Q25, driven by higher revenue-related expenses and investments in the business, including people and technology. Lastly, average Q1 VaR tumbled to just $47MM in 1Q26 as even trading desks retrenched.
Momentum in markets was coupled with a comeback in dealmaking: this boosted investment-banking revenue to $1.89 billion, above the average estimate of $1.79 billion. Fees for advising on mergers and acquisitions rose to $553 million. The bank’s equity-capital markets business generated $353 million in revenue, while debt-underwriting revenue totaled $986 million, with both beating estimates. Analysts had expected revenue of $312 million and $963 million, respectively.
The second-largest US bank said that net interest income, a key source of revenue for the company, rose 9% to $15.7 billion. Analysts had expected a 6.5% increase for NII, the revenue collected from loan payments minus what depositors are paid. Net Interest Yield dropped from 2.08% to 2.07% as a result of declining interest rates.
The company’s loan balances rose 8.5% to $1.21 trillion at the end of the first quarter, above analysts’ estimates of $1.19 trillion. Lending has been a key focus for investors, with interest rates holding steady.
Bank of America’s noninterest expenses were up 4.3% to $18.5 billion from a year earlier. Charges and costs are another focal point for investors, with persistent inflation putting pressure on spending. Analysts had expected a 4% increase to $18.47 billion.
Earlier in the week, JPMorgan and Citigroup reported earnings that were boosted by record trading results. Wall Street banks have also been tallying and detailing their exposure to the private-credit industry, with many investors on edge over valuations and the growing impact of artificial intelligence.
Commenting on the state of the US consumer, CEO Brian Moynihan said consumer spending points to a “resilient American economy", while also warning of risks. Earlier, JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon said "the U.S. economy remained resilient in the quarter, with consumers still earning and spending and businesses still healthy." Wells Fargo CEO Charlie Scharf: “While markets have been volatile, we still see continued resiliency in the underlying economy and the financial health of the consumers and businesses we serve remains strong, though the impact of higher oil prices will likely take some time to materialize."
Turning to the number one topic in banking these days, Bank of America disclosed $20 billion of private credit exposure, noting that typical advance rates on private credit and broadly syndicated loans are between 70% to 75%. The company said the underlying collateral of those loans are showing “strong” earnings and are often senior in the credit stack. BofA also noted that it has less than $2 billion in lending to BDC companies which have been the epicenter of the private credit meltdown.
Bank of America’s results also offered a look at how US consumers fared during the first three months of the year with investors eager to hear details on the national economy from bank executives whose firms cater to America's consumers and businesses. The bank noted that total credit and debit-card spending was up 6% in the first quarter, while consumers are facing pressure from higher gas prices: spending on gas was up 16% in March from a year earlier.
“We remain watchful of evolving risks,” CEO Brian Moynihan said in a statement. “However, we saw healthy client activity, including solid consumer spending and stable asset quality, indicating a resilient American economy.” Earlier this week, JPMorgan, Citigroup and Wells Fargo also said consumer spending was holding up despite surging gas prices.
Shares of Charlotte, North Carolina-based Bank of America, rose about 4% to $55 in early trading Wednesday, a two month high. They’ve gained 45% in the 12 months through Tuesday, outpacing the 9.8% increase in the S&P 500 Financials Index.
The full BofA Q1 presentation is below (pdf link)
The Presentation Materials_1Q26 by Zerohedge
Tyler Durden Wed, 04/15/2026 - 10:24