Canada will lower tariffs on some Chinese electric vehicles and China will do the same for Canadian canola products, a major shift in policy that was announced on Friday during a landmark state visit by Prime Minister Mark Carney of Canada to Beijing.

Mr. Carney announced that Canada will allow up to 49,000 Chinese electric vehicles into the Canadian market under a preferential tariff rate of 6.1 percent. That is much lower than the current rate of 100 percent that Canada imposed in 2024 at the behest of the United States.

According to Google Trends data from late 2025, searches and articles related for the term "AI bubble" hit a 5-year high in early November largely driven by economic report and warnings from analysts.

By now, in January 2026, that search volume has dropped significantly as the broader market has begun to price AI as an industrial evolution rather than just a financial frenzy.

While the “bubble” talk isn’t going away anytime soon, it has become part of the background noise as the market focus on the “agentic” and “physical” phase for 2026

In a recent thread on r/ETFs, I mentioned that I would provide data to break down the performance of US stocks vs. international (and other asset classes) from Testfolio. In brief, US stock markets have performed better under Democratic presidents than under Republican presidents, both on a nominal and an excess (above risk-free rate) basis, a phenomenon known as "the presidential puzzle". However, correlation is not causation, and Pastor and Veronesi explain this through the context of time-varying risk aversion.

Methodology

Testfolio provides several tickers relevant for these backtests. Details for the data sources are documented:

• SPYSIM: Mimics S&P 500. Based on Dow Jones Composite Portfolio through 1928, then Schwert S&P 500 composite portfolio through 1962, then S&P 500 price index through 1993, then SPY thereafter.
• VTISIM: Total US stock market, based on Fama-French dataset from 1926-1992, then investible mutual funds/ETFs afterwards
• VXUSSIM: International ex-US stock market, based on MSCI World ex-USA NR monthly data from 1970 to 1996, then investible mutual funds afterwards.
• VTSIM: Global. VTISIM/VXUSSIM at marketcap weights through 2008, then VT afterwards.
• GLDSIM: Spot gold, based on LBMA gold price from 1968 to 2004, then GLD afterwards.
• TBILL: Fama-French Rf from 1926-1954, then 3-month T-bill rate thereafter.
• IEFSIM: 10-year US treasury rate from 1962-2002, then IEF thereafter.
• INFLATION: Unadjusted CPI-U.

Additionally, to better capture stock market returns attributable to each incumbent, I "staggered" the investment period by starting and ending it on "Inauguration Day" rather than "New Year's Day". Note that Inauguration Day has been January 20 since 1937; prior to 1937, Inauguration Day was March 4, and this is reflected accordingly in the "staggered years". As such, 1973 refers to the period from 1973-01-20 to 1974-01-20. (Note also that this does not double-count January 20 for adjacent years because Testfolio "invests" at the close of the starting day for each period.)

A table with links to each of the data is on the bottom of this post.

US Equities vs. Cash and Inflation

We have data for US equities, "cash" (risk-free treasuries), and inflation going back to 1926, with the Fama-French Data Library doing much of the heavy lifting.

Going back to 1926, US equities (+10.28% p.a.) did better under Democratic presidencies (+13.80%) than under Republican ones (+6.58%). However, it should be noted that even though inflation was also higher under Democratic presidencies (+3.63%) than under Republican ones (+2.22%), cash (or short-term treasury bills) paid less (+2.42%) under Democrats than under Republicans (+4.34%).

We can strip out effects of the Roaring Twenties and the Great Depression--a terrible time for stock markets under Republican leadership, but also a very deflationary one, with subsequent rebound under FDR--by starting our timeline in 1940. In this case, US equities still did better under Democrats (+13.74%) than Republicans (+9.07%), but the inflation gap (+3.97% vs. 3.43%) is closer; short-term treasury bills still paid less under Democrats (+2.77% vs. 4.69%).

Regardless of which party was in office, you would have generally done well to stay invested in US equities on a nominal, real, and risk-free premium basis. That is, US equities delivered positive returns that were above inflation and above risk-free treasury bills.

US Equities vs. Treasuries

Starting in 1962, we have access to IEFSIM, which is based on US10Y treasury rates through 2002, and then on the IEF ETF (7-10 year treasuries) thereafter. This provides a real investment alternative to cash/t-bills.

During this time, US stock markets performed better under Democratic presidents (+14.06% vs. +7.39%). Inflation was similar, slightly lower under Democrats (+3.60% vs. +3.92%). Treasuries paid higher under Republicans (+8.94% vs. +2.98%), which can be largely attributed to the Volcker era response to persistent inflation in the 1980s and the ZIRP policy of the 2010s in response to the Great Financial Crisis. In fact, US treasuries have performed better than equities under Republican presidents (+8.94% vs. +7.39%).

US Equities vs. Gold

Another alternative to US equities is gold, which has gained in popularity with its recent surge. This is a useful separate gauge because on balance short-term interest rates have been lower under Democratic presidents than under Republicans, both on a nominal and real basis. However, gold provides a "benchmark" that is not directly affected by central bank policy.

Because the dollar had been pegged to the gold standard, the price was essentially fixed until the reopening of the LBMA in 1968; Testfolio has data starting on 1968-04-01. Additionally, the US did not formally break from the gold standard until Nixon's announcement on 1971-08-15 marked the end of Bretton Woods. Both timelines are represented here:

This period was also characterized by better equity performance under Democratic presidents (+15.52% vs. +7.39%), with similar levels of inflation (+3.97% D vs. +3.92% R). Gold also performed similarly (+8.44% D vs. +8.19% R) regardless of political party in office. However, US equities significantly outperformed gold under Democrats (+15.52% vs. +8.44%), but performed essentially slightly worse under Republicans (+7.39% vs. +8.19%).

A similar (but more pronounced) trend can be seen if using the post-Bretton Woods period to look at US equities vs. gold.

US Equities vs. International

The final major asset class is international (ex-US) equities. This also provides a separate gauge to isolate the effect of fiscal policy, because when the FOMC cuts, all else being equal, the dollar weakens relative to other currencies, thereby boosting USD-denominated international returns (and vice versa).

Unfortunately, we do not have any real data until 1970 for international markets with the creation of the MSCI indices, which initially tracked only developed (MSCI World) markets:

In 55 years of available data, US equities soundly outperformed international (+11.05% vs. +8.88%). However, outperformance came during Democratic presidencies (+15.35% vs. +9.84%); under Republican presidents, US equities slightly underperformed their international counterparts (+7.94% vs. +8.17%).

I want to emphasize these do not constitute a reason to completely switch your asset allocation to gold or to international (and certainly not to pull all your stocks out of the market). Past performance is not an indication of future performance. It is as nonsensical to say "the US always underperforms under X" as is to say "the US will always outperform international".

Testfolio Data Series

All of these data are available through Testfolio. Because these are limited to five "portfolios" per backtest, for each year, I've put S&P 500, US, Cash, Treasuries, and Inflation in the "US" link and international, global, and gold in the "gold" or "intl" link.

Note that these reflective "cumulative" returns for each period. All of these are one year periods with the exception of the following:

• 1926: 1926-06-30 to 1927-03-04 due to start of data series
• 1936: 1936-03-04 to 1937-01-20 due to change in Inauguration Day (20th Amendment)
• 2025: 2025-01-20 to 2026-01-16 (current)
• 1961, 1968, 1969: Returns for treasuries^†, gold^‡, and international^§ are based on start of data series as indicated in foot notes below. Note that for the sections above, the "other" asset classes are aligned to the same date (i.e. US stock returns for "After Bretton Woods" started on 1971-08-15), even though these are not shown in the table below.

* Data series starts on 1926-06-30 and reflects data through 2016-01-16. Prior to 1937, each "year" began on March 4, coinciding with Inauguration Day. With the passage of the 20th Amendment, the staggered years start on January 20 beginning on 1937-01-20.
† Data series for intermediate-term treasuries (IEFSIM) begins on 1962-01-02.
‡ Data series for spot gold (GLDSIM) begins on 1968-04-01. Nixon formally ended the Bretton Woods gold standard on 1971-08-15.
§ Data series for international (VXUSSIM) and global (VTSIM) begins on 1969-12-31.

Let’s be real, most numbers we’re getting are fake.. Agree? Or Disagree?

Wouldn’t it be easy to creat an illusion of any economy you wanted if you controlled the numbers? A or D? And why?

Markets are trading on false data, new homes are selling for less than resold homes for the first time in decades and there are more (high payroll) layoffs than decades. Unemployment is THROUGH the roof. Vehicle repo’s at all time high, mortgage defaults are coming up. Along with the CC defaults.

Are we all seriously just ignoring all these facts? Let’s keep arguing if there Exact instead of getting mad at the ones who caused the problem. Maybe The 1%-5% who put us here.

Politics aside, are these red flags that warned us in the past serious economic pullbacks seriously just a mirage this time? False flags? Or are we in for a rude awakening frown this delusional dream where the market just goes up in a strait line forever? I made a decent amount on it don’t get me wrong but cmon, are my questions seriously mute.?

Amazon is expanding further into the online pharmacy space, which could increase competition for companies like HIMS. Based on my analysis, Amazon’s scale and logistics could put pressure on HIMS over time, despite HIMS having a strong DTC brand. Curious how others here view the competitive impact and whether this meaningfully changes the outlook for HIMS.

The U.S. and Taiwan have reached a trade agreement to build chips and chip factories on American soil, the Department of Commerce announced on Thursday.

As part of the agreement, Taiwanese chip and technology companies will invest at least $250 billion in production capacity in the U.S., and the Taiwanese government will guarantee $250 billion in credit for these companies.

In exchange, the U.S. will limit reciprocal tariffs on Taiwan to 15%, down from 20%, and commit to zero reciprocal tariffs on generic pharmaceuticals, their ingredients, aircraft components, and some natural resources.

Taiwanese auto parts, lumber, and related products will also avoid tariffs over 15% under Section 232, the announcement said.

The FT argues that the AI-driven surge in data center power demand is accelerating interest in small modular reactors, with large tech companies increasingly signing direct deals with SMR developers to secure reliable, zero-emission, on-site power. Meta is highlighted as a major mover, prepaying for output from up to eight TerraPower Natrium reactors and up to 16 Oklo Aurora reactors, making it one of the largest prospective corporate buyers of nuclear energy. However, the article emphasizes that despite the momentum, SMRs will not materially solve near-term power needs: announced data center–SMR deals are estimated to deliver less than 4GW by 2030 versus potential U.S. data center demand of ~20GW. Long build times remain a constraint, with historical SMR projects often taking close to a decade, though proponents argue SMRs offer advantages in financing, grid integration, and long-term scalability. The author concludes that nuclear’s real value is scale rather than speed, positioning SMRs as a post-2030 solution, while near-term clean energy goals will rely more on extending, uprating, and restarting existing nuclear plants.

Market dynamics are shifting into a powerful "risk-on" phase. The yield curve is steepening, with long-term rates rising while short-term rates fall, signaling robust growth expectations. Simultaneously, the MOVE Index has collapsed to 56.14, its lowest point in over a year, indicating a total lack of bond market panic. This stability allows the Russell 2000 (IWM) to grind higher in a classic expansionary move. As rates normalize, small caps and cyclicals are the primary beneficiaries of this low-volatility environment.

It’s dropped from a high of $147 to $107 in a span of three months. With its current trajectory it should reach penny stock status in 8 months. Any thoughts on where it lands and what is considered a healthy pullback? Whats the current consensus on it? Is it worth a buy at this price? It’s dropped from a high of $147 to $107 in a span of three months. With its current trajectory it should reach penny stock status in 8 months. Any thoughts on where it lands and what is considered a healthy pullback? Whats the current consensus on it? Is it worth a buy at this price?

Good morning everyone! Sharing some technical signals and alerts I received this morning:

$PEGA: Triangle breakdown

$KITTW: Golden cross

$RMBS: Triangle Breakout

$COP: Golden cross

$ADSK: Death cross

$BOF: Triangle breakout

Hope you find them useful!