The VIX sits under 20 in early May 2026. Markets have calmed after the initial flare-up in the US-Iran conflict earlier this year. Oil prices remain elevated but have pulled back from their March peaks.

That calm could vanish quickly if the conflict turns into a drawn-out war and crude oil climbs toward $200 per barrel.

The VIX measures expected volatility in the S&P 500 over the next 30 days. It rises when investors anticipate larger price swings and greater uncertainty. In normal times it trades between 12 and 20. During major crises it has regularly exceeded 40 and sometimes 80.

A sustained move to $200 oil would qualify as a major crisis. The Strait of Hormuz handles about one fifth of global oil supply. A prolonged closure or repeated attacks on infrastructure there would create a genuine supply shock. Prices at that level would feed directly into higher inflation, squeeze corporate profits outside the energy sector, and raise the odds of a recession.

History offers some guidance, though no perfect match exists

The 1973 oil embargo triggered a brutal bear market. The 1990 Gulf War saw sharp but shorter-lived volatility.

In the current environment an oil price doubling to $200 would combine geopolitical fear with clear economic damage.

If the war drags on for months with no clear resolution sustained high oil prices would start to show up in weak economic data. Consumer spending would suffer. Companies would issue pessimistic guidance. Central banks would face the difficult choice between fighting inflation and supporting growth. That combination usually produces elevated volatility for an extended period.

However, markets have shown resilience to Middle East flare-ups in the past. Many past oil spikes proved temporary and prices eventually fell as new supply came online or demand adjusted. A genuine prolonged disruption at this scale would be different. The economic pain would be more widespread and the uncertainty harder to resolve.

Investors watching this scenario should consider what it means for their portfolios. High VIX levels create expensive but potentially valuable hedging opportunities. They also signal that sharp moves in either direction become more likely.

The exact peak is impossible to predict. Volatility tends to overshoot in the heat of a crisis and then gradually decline as the situation clarifies. Still $200 oil in a long-running Iran war points toward a period of significantly higher market swings than anything seen so far since 2020.

In the first quarter of 2026, Alphabet reported net income of 62.6 billion dollars. The figure looked like another blowout result for the company behind Google Search and YouTube. A closer look showed something else. More than half of that profit, roughly 37 billion dollars, came from net unrealized gains on non-marketable equity securities. The biggest contributors were Alphabet’s stakes in SpaceX and Anthropic.

This was not operating profit from ads, cloud services, or hardware. It was an accounting entry. Under the rules that apply to certain equity investments, changes in the estimated fair value of private-company holdings flow straight through to the income statement each quarter. No shares were sold. No cash changed hands. The paper value of two investments simply rose, and the accounting rules turned that increase into reported profit.

Core operations still delivered strong results

Revenue reached 109.9 billion dollars, up 22 percent from a year earlier. Operating income came in at about 39.7 billion dollars. Google Cloud grew 63 percent to 20 billion dollars. Those numbers reflect real business momentum, especially in AI-related demand. Yet the headline net income number owed its scale largely to the investment portfolio.

Alphabet did not stumble into this position. Its SpaceX stake dates to 2015, when the company invested roughly 900 million dollars for what is now approximately a 6 percent ownership. SpaceX’s valuation has climbed into the hundreds of billions. The Anthropic position is newer but larger in impact. Alphabet holds around 14 percent of the AI startup after several rounds of funding and has committed additional capital, reportedly up to 40 billion dollars in a combination of cash and cloud credits. The AI boom has driven Anthropic’s valuation sharply higher.

These are not small side bets from Google Ventures, the company’s long-running VC arm. They are direct, strategic corporate investments large enough to move quarterly earnings. GV and CapitalG continue to back early-stage startups, but the SpaceX and Anthropic holdings sit at a different scale. They give Alphabet meaningful exposure to reusable rocketry and frontier AI models without requiring it to build or operate those businesses itself.

The structure brings real advantages. It diversifies the company beyond advertising, which still accounts for the bulk of revenue but faces ongoing pressure from AI search tools and regulatory scrutiny. The investments also create strategic ties. Anthropic runs much of its training and inference on Google Cloud, which helps reinforce that business line. The gains themselves provide extra financial flexibility for Alphabet’s heavy capital spending on data centers and chips.

Reliance on unrealized gains introduces new volatility

Private valuations are set by funding rounds, internal appraisals, or third-party models rather than daily public-market trading. A shift in investor sentiment toward space or AI could reverse those gains in a future quarter just as quickly as they appeared. The holdings are also illiquid. Alphabet cannot sell large blocks without potentially affecting the valuations or waiting for an IPO or secondary transaction.

Investors who own Alphabet stock are now buying a hybrid. They own the world’s dominant search and advertising business, a fast-growing cloud operation, and a sizable venture-style portfolio. The stock price reflects both the steady cash flow from operations and the optionality embedded in SpaceX and Anthropic. When those companies eventually go public, some of the paper value could convert into cash or tradable shares. Until then, the mark-to-market accounting will keep adding swings to the reported numbers.

Alphabet is not the only large technology company making big strategic bets. Amazon and Microsoft have similar venture arms and direct investments. What stands out here is the sheer size of the impact on a single quarter’s profit. In effect, one of the largest operating technology companies on the planet now functions partly as a venture capitalist. Its success depends not only on product execution and ad market health but also on the performance and valuations of the private companies it backed years ago.

The first-quarter results make that shift impossible to ignore. Google remains the search and advertising powerhouse it has always been. Increasingly, however, it also operates as a sophisticated investor in the next wave of ambitious technology. That dual identity is now central to how the company creates and reports value.

Warren Buffett, the man who once delivered newspapers as a boy in Omaha, has placed one of his final bets as CEO of Berkshire Hathaway on a newspaper stock in America.

For those who have followed Buffett’s career from the beginning, there’s an undeniable poetic quality to the move. The boy who woke before dawn to deliver newspapers in the 1940s, chose to close out his tenure as CEO by placing a bet on a newspaper.

In a 13F filing disclosed on February 17, 2026, Berkshire revealed it had initiated a new position in The New York Times Company (NYSE: NYT) during the fourth quarter of 2025, purchasing approximately 5.07 million shares valued at around $352 million. It was Berkshire’s only new stock purchase of the quarter and it came during Buffett’s final months at the helm before stepping down from the role he held for nearly six decades.

Why The New York Times, and Why Now

Though Buffett has not commented publicly on the purchase, analysts and market observers have pointed to several compelling factors behind the move.

The most obvious is the Times’ successful digital transformation. The company has built one of the most robust subscription businesses in all of media, with millions of digital subscribers and consistent year-over-year growth. Recent quarters have shown revenue increases in the double digits, driven by a model that generates recurring income, the kind of cash flow Buffett has always prized.

Beyond subscriptions, the Times has diversified intelligently. Its portfolio now includes podcasts like “The Daily” (one of the most popular in the world), the cultural phenomenon of Wordle and its expanding games platform, cooking and product review verticals, and The Athletic for sports coverage. Each of these extends the brand’s reach and creates additional revenue streams, reducing reliance on any single product.

Then there’s the moat. The New York Times carries one of the most recognized media brands on the planet. It has significant pricing power, deep consumer loyalty, and a competitive position that is extraordinarily difficult to replicate.

It’s worth noting the scale. At roughly $352 million, the NYT stake represents approximately 0.1% of Berkshire’s equity portfolio which is a rounding error by the conglomerate’s standards.

If you bought CRISPR () Therapeutics stock in 2021, you were told you were buying the future of medicine. Gene editing would cure every disease, cancer, diabetes, and eventually rewrite the human genome itself.

Five years later, the stock is down roughly 64 percent. Shares trade near levels first seen in 2018. And a growing number of investors are asking a question that would have seemed absurd just a few years ago: has CRISPR already been left behind?

The Believers

CRSP attracted a devoted following. Cathie Wood’s ARK Invest made it a flagship holding, accumulating millions of shares at prices well above today’s levels. Wood repeatedly told investors that gene-editing companies represented a multi-trillion-dollar opportunity, comparing the CRISPR revolution to the early days of the internet.

She was far from alone. Institutional holders piled in during the 2020–2021 biotech boom. Retail investors on Reddit forums and fintwit hyped the stock as a generational buy.

Wall Street analysts set price targets as high as $200 or more during the peak. Prominent biotech investors argued the market was dramatically undervaluing the entire gene-editing sector. The thesis was simple: if you could edit human DNA to eliminate disease, the total addressable market was essentially infinite.

What Went Wrong

The problems were not with the science. They were with the business.

In 2025, it generated only $116 million in revenue, far below initial expectations, due to high treatment costs (around $2.2 million per patient) and complex administration processes.

Meanwhile, CRISPR Therapeutics reported a 2025 loss of $6.47 per share, up from $4.34 the prior year. Quarterly revenue came in at just $864,000 in Q4, missing estimates. The company holds over $1.9 billion in cash, but it burns through capital on R&D and clinical trials with no clear path to profitability in the near term.

For many early investors, the trade became a slow-motion loss, with each “buy the dip” averaging down into further decline. To make it worse, the stock made a death cross on Friday.

Is AI to Blame?

Artificial intelligence is not replacing CRISPR technology. It is, however, reshaping the entire landscape of drug discovery and biotech development in ways that directly affect the investment thesis.

AI-driven drug discovery firms like Recursion Pharmaceuticals and Insilico Medicine are compressing development timelines from years to months.

None of this makes CRISPR irrelevant. Gene editing remains one of the most powerful tools in medicine. But AI introduces a critical problem for CRSP investors: it democratizes and accelerates the entire field. When AI can help any biotech startup design better gene editors, optimize delivery systems, and predict clinical outcomes faster, the competitive moat around any single CRISPR company narrows.

CRISPR Therapeutics itself has not prominently positioned itself as an AI-integrated company. Its pipeline relies on classic CRISPR/Cas9 approaches, ex vivo therapies, and lipid nanoparticle delivery for in vivo targets. While the company may be using computational tools internally, there is no public emphasis on proprietary AI capabilities in its earnings reports, pipeline descriptions, or investor presentations. In a market that increasingly rewards AI integration, this absence is notable.

The Risk-Reward Calculus Has Changed

This is the core question for investors: if AI is accelerating drug discovery across the entire biotech sector, does CRSP still offer asymmetric upside?

The bull case requires believing the pipeline will produce positive data in cancer, diabetes, and other indications. It requires believing the company can navigate its cash burn without dilutive capital raises. And it requires believing that CRSP’s first-mover advantage in approved CRISPR therapies will hold as AI-designed competitors enter the field.

The bear case is simpler: CRSP is an unprofitable biotech trading on hope, with a single commercial product that is ramping slowly in a market where AI is rapidly lowering barriers to entry for competitors.

The honest answer is that AI has not made CRISPR technology irrelevant. It has made the investment case more complicated. A technology that was supposed to be a once-in-a-generation monopoly on gene editing now exists in an ecosystem where AI can design better editors, competitors can iterate faster, and the barriers to developing rival therapies are falling.

Should Investors Get Out?

There is no universal answer, but the framework for making the decision is clear.

If you bought CRSP because you believed it was the only company that could cure genetic diseases, you need to update that thesis. It is not the only company, and AI is helping ensure it never will be. Base editing firms like Beam Therapeutics and Intellia Therapeutics are advancing their own platforms. AI-designed editors are emerging from startups and academic labs. The competitive landscape for the future looks nothing like it did in 2021.

If you bought CRSP as a long-term bet on gene editing as a field, the thesis may still hold, but the vehicle might be wrong. A basket approach across multiple gene-editing and AI-biotech companies could offer better risk-adjusted returns than a concentrated position in a single unprofitable company.

If you are holding because you are underwater and hoping for a recovery, that is the most dangerous reason of all. The stock has broken every major technical support level. The fundamentals have deteriorated relative to expectations. And the competitive environment has shifted against concentrated bets on any single platform.

The future of medicine may still run through gene editing. The question is whether it still runs through CRSP.

The events in Puerto Vallarta following the reported killing of Nemesio Oseguera Cervantes (El Mencho), leader of the Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG), on February 22, 2026, have caused significant localized disruptions. These include flight cancellations, airport suspensions, and shelter in place orders, resulting from retaliatory cartel actions such as road blockades, burning vehicles, and clashes across Jalisco state.

The broader stock market, including major U.S. indices like the S&P 500 and Nasdaq, will remain unaffected. The disruption is confined to tourism in western Mexico and does not represent any type of economic shock anywhere else in the world.

Most importantly, there have been no signs of cartel members hunting or directly targeting American tourists or other foreign visitors in the reported violence. The only meaningful escalation risk to broader markets would arise if cartels were to kill a large number of American tourists, potentially prompting a U.S. military response such as troops on the ground under the current administration. At present, no such developments have occurred or appear imminent.

The retaliatory actions by CJNG affiliates have primarily involved road blockades with burning vehicles, arson on public infrastructure such as buses and stores, armed clashes with security forces, and general disruptions like airport shutdowns.

Niche sector impacts include the following:

• Airlines with Mexico routes
  Carriers like Air Canada (TSX: AC), United Airlines (NASDAQ: UAL), Delta Air Lines (NYSE: DAL), American Airlines (NASDAQ: AAL), and Alaska Air Group (NYSE: ALK) have canceled or suspended flights to Puerto Vallarta International Airport due to the security situation and airport closure. This creates short term revenue pressure and potential volatility for stocks with heavy exposure to Mexican leisure travel. The effect remains limited, as Puerto Vallarta routes form a small portion of overall operations.

• Airport and tourism operators:
  Grupo Aeroportuario del Pacífico (NYSE: PAC), which manages PVR and other Pacific airports, could see near term volatility from halted operations and reduced passenger traffic if disruptions persist. Recent pre event data showed strong traffic trends (for example, Puerto Vallarta up in January 2026), but prolonged unrest might delay recovery. Some market commentary views this as a potential mispricing opportunity for tourism linked stocks if normalization occurs swiftly.

If the situation resolves quickly through restored security, airport reopenings, and resumed travel, the impact should remain minimal and sector specific. At this stage, the broader stock market appears well insulated from these developments.

On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court delivered one of the most consequential economic rulings in years. In a 6-3 decision, the Court ruled that the president cannot use a 1977 emergency powers law to impose tariffs.

The sweeping tariffs President Trump imposed were originally justified by declaring national emergencies around fentanyl inflows and trade deficits.

What Tariffs Are Affected?

The ruling directly invalidates some of the biggest trade measures of the past year:

• 25% tariffs on most imports from Canada and Mexico

• 10%+ tariffs on many imports from China

• 10%+ “reciprocal” tariffs applied broadly across dozens of countries

Tariffs imposed under other laws remain untouched. These include Section 232 (national security), Section 301 (unfair trade practices), and Section 122 (temporary balance of payments measures), all of which have clearer congressional backing.

The Refund Question: Up to $200 Billion on the Line

Here’s where it gets interesting. Because these tariffs have now been ruled illegal, importers who paid them have grounds to demand their money back.

Estimates range from $160 billion to over $200 billion in potential refund claims. The Court didn’t order refunds or lay out a process. Instead, it kicked those details to lower courts, including the US Court of International Trade. But the legal door is wide open.

One important caveat: refunds would go to importers, not directly to consumers. Whether businesses that passed those costs along to customers would share any refunds remains to be seen. Either way, the fiscal and administrative headache for the government could be enormous.

The Trump administration moved fast. Reports indicate the president signed a new 10% global tariff under different legal authority almost immediately after the ruling came down. The playbook going forward leans on Sections 232, 301, and 122, laws that give the executive branch more defensible ground for trade restrictions.

Congress could also step in and pass legislation explicitly authorizing these kinds of tariffs, giving the president the “clear congressional authorization” the Court said was missing.

Meanwhile, existing trade deals and ongoing negotiations with China, the UK, Japan, and others are now in flux. Supply chains that adjusted to the old tariff regime may need to adjust again. Costs in affected sectors could shift unpredictably.

This ruling is a significant check on executive power when it comes to trade. The Court drew a clear line: emergency powers designed for foreign threats don’t extend to setting tariff policy without Congress signing off.

But it’s not the end of tariffs. It’s a redirection. The administration still has multiple statutory tools at its disposal, and the political will to use them hasn’t changed. What has changed is the legal landscape, and with it, the rules of engagement for how trade policy gets made.

Our Prediction for What Happens Next in the Markets

Although the initial reaction was slightly positive for markets, we believe the market is done reacting to tariff announcements. The muted response after Trump signed a new 10% global tariff almost immediately after the ruling tells you everything you need to know. Markets have priced in the noise. This is undoubtedly a historical ruling by the courts, but our prediction is that Wall Street will forget about it in less than a week. The tariff fatigue is real, and traders have moved on to pricing other risks.

He recently wrote an article titled: “It’s Official: The World Order Has Broken Down”

We are summarizing this roughly 7,000 word article so you don’t have to read the entire thing yourself.

Here’s what you need to know.

Dalio argues that the post 1945 world order has officially broken down, citing declarations from leaders at the 2026 Munich Security Conference. He frames this as Stage 6 of his “Big Cycle,” a period where rules collapse, might makes right, and great powers clash.

His most striking claim: Economic wars precede military ones by roughly a decade.

Before all-out wars are declared, there is typically about a decade of economic, technological, geopolitical, and capital wars where conflicting powers test the limits of each other’s power.

If you map it to today, the US and China have been in escalating trade, technology, and capital wars since roughly 2018. He warns that timeline should concern anyone paying attention.

He identifies five types of wars that tend to escalate in sequence with each one raising the stakes for the next.

What’s relevant for markets
The practical implication is that we’re likely in a sustained period of elevated geopolitical risk premiums, which means structurally higher volatility. The shift from a rules based order to a power based order creates more uncertainty, more tail risk, and more frequent regime changes in markets. Tariff escalations, sanctions, capital controls, and supply chain disruptions all feed directly into the kind of volatility dislocations we trade around.

While this currently only for margin accounts, I will work to see is there’s a viable modification for IRA accounts.

Opening orders is mechanical based on the previous day’s closing price and offer a very high ROI and profit probability. At about 8% TROC with each open, this strategy can return 100% using a constant allocation size and triggered 12x per year.

Read more