Canada’s inflation rate edged up to 3% as the Middle East conflict continued to push up gasoline prices, while core measures of price growth remained subdued.
Home Blog
Canadian inflation ticks up to 3% amid higher gas prices
T-Mobile Offering Up to $260 Discount for Existing Customers (YMMV)
T-Mobile Retention Offers
🔄️ Update: More people in our DDG Facebook Group report getting these discounts today.
T-Mobile is being super generous in recent days, offering up to $260 discount to some customers. These retention offers are going out to those looking to cancel their phone service. You can simply jump on a chat or call to see what they offer you.
The discounts may vary based on your plan, number of lines, whether you have paid off your devices etc. If you have a bunch of free lines for examples, they might be happy to see you leave, and won’t offer any discounts.
Some of the offers reported include:
Let me know in the comments if you try this out and get a similar offer!
Elon Musk Just Uttered 3 Massively Bullish Words for Micron, Sandisk, and SK Hynix
It has been a historic period for memory and storage stocks. Once relegated to a bucket of lowly valued “commodity” stocks, the agentic AI revolution has spurred an absolutely massive increase in memory and storage demand.
Not only has demand increased, but the technology has also evolved from an interchangeable commodity to a strategic enabler for AI systems. The agentic era has therefore spurred massive stock price increases for memory and storage giants Micron (MU +2.30%), SK Hynix (SKHY +0.40%), and Sandisk (SNDK +7.40%).
However, those huge gains gave way to a big pullback in July because of profit-taking, fears of more efficient models from China, short-seller skepticism, and the “blow-up” of the AI-focused hedge fund Situational Awareness. Even after a bounce back in August, these stocks remain 15% to 30% below their June highs.
Is the recent pullback a harbinger of more pain and a “bubble bursting,” or an opportunity to buy the dip? Last week, Elon Musk wrote a three-word sentence on his social media that strongly points to the latter.
Today’s Change
(2.30%) $21.83
Current Price
$971.66
Key Data Points
Market Cap
$1.1TMarket cap calculated using publicly traded shares outstanding only. Does not include unlisted, private, or dual-class non-traded shares. Implied market cap may vary.
Day’s Range
$956.20 – $984.00
52wk Range
$113.46 – $1255.00
Volume
801.3K
Avg Vol
50M
Gross Margin
72.60%
Dividend Yield
0.05%
“Few realize this”
Last week on X, a private technology executive noted, “Memory, not compute, is the rate limiter of the Agentic Era,” to which Elon Musk replied, “Few realize this.”
Memory, not compute, is the rate limiter of the Agentic Era.
— Peter H. Diamandis, MD (@PeterDiamandis) August 14, 2026
Few realize this
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) August 14, 2026
In the first wave of generative artificial intelligence, the environment was dominated by simple questions or prompts directed at the AI system, which would then find the answer. That relatively simple AI application places a lot of onus on the GPU and its massively parallel-processing capabilities.
However, in the agentic AI era, in which AI is tasked with planning and executing tasks independently, the game has changed. Now the focus has pivoted to planning, thinking, data retrieval, testing, and retesting agentic outputs. That has exponentially expanded CPU-heavy “planning” tasks.
Not only that, but each “task” also requires vast amounts of storage and memory. In a recent blog post from Micron, the company wrote that every single agent instance requires:
- State and KV/context staging — keeping track of where it is in its reasoning loop.
- Tool outputs and queues — buffering results from API calls and code execution.
- Container/sandbox memory — isolated runtime environments for safe execution.
- Vector/index data — for retrieval-augmented generation and semantic search.
- OS and runtime overhead — the base cost of keeping thousands of environments alive.
Each one of these requirements entails memory to support it. Micron also notes that much of the memory for these workloads isn’t traditional “commodity” DRAM, but specialized, high-capacity, high-bandwidth DRAM.
These smarter memory architectures require more capital equipment to produce; for instance, memory makers have noted that high-bandwidth memory requires at least three times as much capital equipment per bit to produce as traditional server DRAM.
That means the supply of advanced memory required for agentic AI is becoming harder to meet, just as demand is exploding, which is why DRAM prices have boomed.
Not to be outdone, NAND flash, which stores information even when a system is turned off, though it is slower than DRAM, is also growing fast. That’s because massive KV-cache memory chains for long-context agents — basically, the prior context AI agents must “remember” to produce more tokens — require a lot of data to be offloaded to NAND-based SSDs. Both Micron and SK Hynix produce NAND along with DRAM, while Sandisk is a NAND “pure play.”
Image source: The White House.
Inference has catapulted memory to the forefront
Training even the best frontier models requires a lot of memory, but that amount is ultimately capped at the amount needed to fill a GPU. In other words, GPUs can only read so much memory at once, so training a model requires a lot of GPUs, along with a requisite amount of memory.
However, as we enter an era in which more and more consumers and enterprises use agentic AI as a daily habit, the demand for memory appears almost endless. If an AI agent operates over a long period of time, it will have to constantly read and write the KV cache ad infinitum.
That’s why researchers at Goldman Sachs just released awe-inspiring estimates of future AI token usage. By 2030, the investment bank estimates that agentic AI will consume roughly 120 quadrillion tokens per month: 24 times the token usage of early 2026.
Thus, it’s no wonder that Elon Musk highlights memory as the biggest silicon-based constraint for AI moving forward. Even as more supply comes online in 2028, it appears the demand will be there to absorb it. Thus, the current memory up-cycle may last longer than many investors realize.
Citizens reiterates Allogene stock rating on trial progress
Citizens reiterates Allogene stock rating on trial progress
Conflicts of Interest in Continuation Funds
The CV transaction price is the outcome that matters most for all the CV participants. It is the litmus test that determines the fairness of the CV transaction. But how do we judge the fairness of the transaction price?
Incoming investors in the CV face the risk of adverse selection. Are they paying too much to buy equity in overpriced assets? (If so, that might explain why the assets cannot be sold at a price acceptable to the GP in a traditional exit.) Selling LPs, in contrast, face the risk of inadequate consideration for their interests. Are they leaving money on the table by selling the assets for less than they are worth? These questions are particularly difficult to answer because price discovery in CV transactions is neither objective nor fully independent.
The contrast with public markets is instructive. Public markets offer price discovery that is continuous, observable, and objective. Private funds, in contrast, typically hold their portfolio of assets for years before disposing of them. In the meantime, the assets are illiquid. There is no trading to offer an objective and observable market price. The market price comes into view only in an eventual traditional exit, which transfers both ownership and control to a third-party buyer (or to the investors in an IPO).
Unlike a traditional exit, however, the CV allows the GP to retain control (and some equity) even after the transaction. Furthermore, the GP plays a central role in forming the CV and establishing the transaction price. To be sure, the process typically involves a sophisticated third-party lead investor who negotiates the price and other terms with the GP. In addition, the GP may obtain a fairness or valuation opinion from an independent provider. Nonetheless, the GP directs the process: It solicits bids, selects the winning bid, and negotiates with the winning bidder (i.e., the lead investor) to settle on a price and agree to the other terms of the CV. This arrangement makes the price discovery process significantly less than fully independent.
Nor is the process objective. In the absence of an observable and independently established market price, the most theoretically sound way to establish the intrinsic price of an asset is to forecast its future sale price and discount that back to present value. That approach, however, introduces subjectivity and reliance on models to estimate future value and risk. No matter how skilled and astute the GP is and no matter how scrupulous its due diligence is, its assumptions remain subjective and its predictions remain subject to error. Intrinsic value is based on the asset’s future prospects and eventual sale price. But those projections cannot be tested or verified at the time of the CV transaction; only time will tell.
As a result of these challenges, we cannot simply rely on the transaction price to judge the fairness of a CV transaction. Instead, we must also rely on the fairness of the process. Did the GP vigorously and effectively solicit bids? Did it seek to drive a hard but fair bargain in its negotiations with the lead investor, faithfully discharging its duties of care and loyalty?
Although the price discovery process can never be completely independent or objective, the GP can strive to attain those objectives as closely as possible. We judge the fairness of the CV by the extent to which the process succeeds in approximating those goals.
A simple analogy drawn from the philosophy of procedural justice may be helpful. Imagine that 10 individuals want to divide a cake equally. The outcome will be fair if the cake is indeed divided into 10 equal pieces and distributed to each of the individuals. We have a clear and measurable standard by which to judge the fairness of the outcome.
But suppose instead that we are engaged in a different activity whose outcome cannot be measured directly. We have no independent criterion or clear standard by which to judge the outcome. We can, however, design a clear and fair process to be followed. Then, we can judge the fairness of our actions by how well we follow the process, whatever the outcome. Stated another way, procedure substitutes for output as a means to judge the fairness of the activity. While not a perfect analogy, it bears relevance to the challenge of judging the fairness of a CV transaction.
UWM sued for allegedly misleading investors on hedge strategy
United Wholesale Mortgage investors are accusing the company and its leaders of securities fraud over their public statements, or lack of, regarding the lender’s ill-fated hedge.
Processing Content
Shareholder Doug Bond filed a class action lawsuit against UWM Holdings Thursday in a Michigan federal court, seeking to cover investors who bought the company’s securities between March 9 and Aug. 5. It is one of two lawsuits announced by investor plaintiff firms this week, as the fallout of UWM’s failed acquisition of Two Harbors
The new lawsuit focuses on the time between a March UWM press release projecting annual revenue and the Aug. 5 second quarter earnings report, in which the lender disclosed its $603.2 million interest rate derivatives loss. UWM also then announced
The complaint focuses on Chairman, President and CEO Mat Ishbia’s comments during an Aug. 6 earnings call, a Zoom meeting in which he answered pre-submitted questions from analysts. Ishbia addressed
“We were over-hedged, if you think of it that way, protecting against the Two Harbors transaction,” he said on the call.
Bond’s lawsuit argues UWM failed to tell investors that it over-hedged itself in anticipation of the Two Harbors deal. The lender, in a first-quarter earnings filing in May, quietly noted that it occasionally hedges to mitigate MSR risk, and that it held $27.5 billion in notional “other interest rate derivatives.”
The complaint, which names Ishbia and Chief Financial Officer Rami Hasani as defendants, accuses the firm of misleading investors with positive statements, causing significant shareholder losses.
The filing also claims UWM isn’t shielded by the statutory safe harbor provided for forward-looking statements, as executives knew the financial disclosures were misleading.
UWM’s stock was trading at $4.04 per share on March 10. It fell to approximately $1.20 per share following last week’s earnings, and was trading at $1.62 mid-afternoon Friday.
A spokesperson for UWM didn’t respond to a request for comment on the lawsuit.
UWM continues its fracas with Two Harbors
While Two Harbors is on the verge of finally being acquired by retail giant CrossCountry Mortgage, it is fending off accusations from its spurned suitor.
UWM
Two Harbors fired back this week, denying the accusations. The rival firm pointed to UWM’s own fading stock, and raised similar questions over its financial disclosures.
“The loss highlights the dire condition of UWMC’s balance sheet, liquidity and also casts doubt on its risk management and other governance practices,” Two Harbors said.
[FL, In Branch Only] First Federal Bank $200 Checking Bonus
![[FL, In Branch Only] First Federal Bank $200 Checking Bonus](https://globalinvestmentstrategy.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/first-federal-bank-200-768x810.png "[FL, In Branch Only] First Federal Bank $200 Checking Bonus")
Offer at a glance
- Maximum bonus amount: $200
- Availability: FL, In Branch only
- Direct deposit required: Yes, $1,000+
- Additional requirements: None
- Hard/soft pull: Unknown
- ChexSystems: Unknown
- Credit card funding: Unknown
- Monthly fees: $9, avoidable
- Early account termination fee:
- Household limit: None listed
- Expiration date: September 30, 2026
The Offer
Direct link to offer
- First Federal Bank is offering a checking bonus $200:
- Receive qualifying direct deposit(s) totaling at least $1,000 in a single calendar month, within 60 days of opening your account
The Fine Print
- $200 Checking Bonus is available to new First Federal Bank customers who open a new personal Enhanced Checking Account through a representative at a branch or through a representative-assisted channel during the promotional period ending September 30, 2026.
- Accounts opened through the bank’s self-service online account opening process are not eligible.
- To qualify, customer must receive qualifying direct deposit(s) totaling at least $1,000 in a single calendar month within 60 days of account opening.
- Qualifying direct deposits are ACH deposits of payroll, pension, Social Security, or government benefits from an employer, pension administrator, or government agency. Person-to-person transfers, mobile payment transfers, remote deposits, ATM deposits, and transfers from other bank accounts do not qualify.
- Account must remain open, active, and in good standing for at least 90 days from account opening.
- Bonus will be credited within 30 days after all eligibility requirements are met.
- Limit one bonus per customer tax ID.
- Bonus may be subject to tax reporting.
- Offer may be subject to change at any time.
- All bank account bonuses are treated as income/interest and as such you have to pay taxes on them
Avoiding Fees
Monthly Fees
The $9 monthly account cycle service charge will be waived for any statement cycle in which 20 or more debit card purchase transactions post to the account. This promotional fee waiver is available for new First Federal Bank customers who open a new personal Enhanced Checking account through a representative at a branch or through a representative-assisted channel during the promotional period ending September 30, 2026. Accounts opened through the bank’s self-service online account opening process are not eligible.
Early Account Termination Fee
I wasn’t able to find a fee schedule.
Our Verdict
There is also a $400 business checking that can be done.
Hat tip to ShawntheShawn
Useful posts regarding bank bonuses:
Blanche defends reflecting pool prosecutor who angered Trump
US Attorney General Todd Blanche defended Jeanine Pirro for dismissing a federal vandalism case in a decision that angered President Donald Trump, saying the top prosecutor in Washington, DC, should be judged fairly.
Blanche, a former personal lawyer for Trump who was sworn in last week as head of the Justice Department, took Pirro’s side after she decided not to prosecute a former Olympian initially charged with vandalizing the lining of the Reflecting Pool in front of the Lincoln Memorial.
He said Pirro, the US attorney for Washington, DC, was pursuing other cases of alleged vandalism — and claimed Trump backs her, too.
“I absolutely support US Attorney Pirro, as does President Trump,” Blanche said on NBC’s Meet the Press. “Now, that’s different than whether the president is extraordinarily frustrated at what happened in that case. And I don’t in any way fault him for that.”
Trump has previously lashed out at Pirro, a longtime ally of the president, after her office said in a court filing that “botched” construction work was primarily to blame for damage to the coating of the pool.
Trump has repeatedly blamed the damage on vandals, without providing evidence.
Asked whether he’d promise that the Justice Department would always act independently of the White House, Blanche said, “No, I can’t pledge that,” arguing he can’t obligate himself to oppose policy goals set by the president. Instead, Blanche said, he and federal prosecutors “will act with integrity.”
“We will prosecute without fear or any sort of favor,” he told NBC. The Justice Department traditionally decides what cases to prosecute without White House interference.
Read More: Trump Says He Is Undecided on Keeping Pirro as Top DC Prosecutor
Blanche sought to shift attention to other cases of alleged vandalism at national monuments in the capital, saying Pirro “is doing a phenomenal job of enforcing that.”
“And I think judging her on a single case because of the evidence that we had is not fair,” Blanche told NBC.
While Blanche didn’t cite specific incidents, Pirro’s office last week charged a Kentucky woman with vandalism for spraying the World War II memorial on the National Mall with graffiti.
Blanche said he’d consider Trump’s opinion if the president pressed for the Reflecting Pool case to be revived.
“Will I take the president of the United States’ view on something into consideration? Yes, of course,” he said. Even so, “the president does not expect any of his leaders, including me, to just say ‘Yes’ to him no matter what he says.” he added.
California’s 10% ticket resale price cap dies in Senate committee, as StubHub’s state lobbying spend hits $3.4M this year
California‘s bid to cap live event ticket resale prices at 10% above face value is dead for this legislative session.
The California Senate Appropriations Committee held AB 1720 on its suspense file on Thursday (August 13), one day before the deadline for the state’s fiscal committees to report bills to the floor.
A companion ticketing measure, AB 1349, was released from suspense at the same hearing and can now proceed to a Senate vote.
AB 1720, the California Fans First Act, was introduced in February by San Francisco Assemblymember Matt Haney, as reported by MBW.
It would have limited the resale price of concert and live event tickets to 10% above face value, with the ceiling covering fees, and would have capped the fees charged by resale marketplaces.
The bill was narrowed by amendment in May, limiting its reach to independent venues with capacities of 3,000 or fewer, plus certain nonprofit venues.
An independent venue was defined in the Haney bill as a space that derives a majority of its revenue from ticket events, is not majority owned by a publicly traded company and does not operate venues in more than 10 states.
Professional sports and a range of other athletic events were exempt from AB 1720.
The California Department of Justice put the cost of enforcing the measure at around USD $1.6 million in fiscal year 2026–27, $1 million the year after, $812,000 in 2028–29 and about $582,000 a year thereafter.
The state’s Department of Finance opposed the bill at an Appropriations hearing on August 3, citing those enforcement costs and the potential burden on California courts.
Haney said in a statement that he is “going to keep working with the coalition of fans, artists, and venues who recognize the urgency of this issue and continue pushing for solutions that put tickets back in the hands of the people they were intended for.”
“This isn’t a fringe idea, and it isn’t partisan,” said Haney.
“From Kid Rock to Noah Kahan, artists across genres have called for solutions to runaway ticket resale practices. Independent venues have spoken out. Fans have demanded change.
“AB 1720 would have helped remove the incentives that fuel predatory ticket resale while still allowing someone who can’t attend a show to resell their ticket and recover their costs.”
Matt Haney, California State Assembly
“Several states and countries have already adopted resale caps because they recognize the urgency of this issue. AB 1720 would have helped remove the incentives that fuel predatory ticket resale while still allowing someone who can’t attend a show to resell their ticket and recover their costs.”
AB 1720 dies with the two-year session and cannot carry over, so Haney would need to introduce a new bill when the Legislature reconvenes in December.
“This is a disappointing outcome,” said Ron Gubitz, Executive Director of the Music Artists Coalition, which campaigned for the bill. “Every fan, at every show, needs to be protected. Period.”
“We’re grateful for the work Asm. Haney has put into this fight,” Gubitz added. “He’s been a fierce advocate for fans, artists, and venues alike.”
“Every fan, at every show, needs to be protected. Period.”
Ron Gubitz, Music Artists Coalition
AB 1720 was also backed by the National Independent Venue Association (NIVA), the National Independent Talent Organization and the Future of Music Coalition, alongside Live Nation Entertainment.
NIVA said in March that it was “proud to help architect” both AB 1720 and AB 1349.
StubHub reported close to $2.6 million in California lobbying expenses between April and June, according to state filings reviewed by The Hollywood Reporter.
That took the company’s California lobbying spend to $3.4 million for the calendar year and made the April-to-June quarter its heaviest on record in the state, THR reported.
Citing the Capitol Morning Report, THR said the outlay made StubHub the second-largest lobbying spender in California for the quarter, behind Pacific Gas & Electric and ahead of Chevron, Verizon, AT&T and OpenAI.
More than $1 million of that quarterly outlay went to the Ticket Policy Forum, a coalition whose members include StubHub, SeatGeek, Vivid Seats and TickPick.
SeatGeek reported about $40,000 in California lobbying this year and Vivid Seats reported $500, while Live Nation reported about $91,000.
Asked about the legislation before the hearing, StubHub said its platform “exists to give fans access to live events on their own terms through a secure, verified marketplace — including fans who couldn’t get tickets during the original on-sale, or who want the option of grabbing a great deal as prices shift closer to the event.”
“We believe that more choice, flexibility, and access put fans first and help everyone get into the events they love,” StubHub said.
“California is one of the biggest concert markets in the country. If California goes in terms of consumer protections around ticketing, we think the rest of the nation will soon follow.”
Stephen Parker, National Independent Venue Association
NIVA Executive Director Stephen Parker characterized StubHub‘s spending as an act of “desperation.”
“California is one of the biggest concert markets in the country. If California goes in terms of consumer protections around ticketing, we think the rest of the nation will soon follow,” Parker said.
Ticket Policy Forum Executive Director Brian Berry argued that rising prices originate on the primary side and that the bill would have entrenched Ticketmaster by regulating resale alone.
“Capping only resale does nothing to address this source of rising ticket prices. AB 1720 would let the Live Nation-Ticketmaster monopoly keep raising costs unchecked while jeopardizing the benefits fans stand to gain as remedies are decided in the ongoing Live Nation-Ticketmaster antitrust case,” said Berry.
“AB 1720 would let the Live Nation-Ticketmaster monopoly keep raising costs unchecked while jeopardizing the benefits fans stand to gain as remedies are decided in the ongoing Live Nation-Ticketmaster antitrust case.”
Brian Berry, Ticket Policy Forum
Robert Herrell, Executive Director of the Consumer Federation of California, told ABC7 that “this bill by Assemblymember Haney only harms the competition to the monopoly.”
“That’s going to end badly, and history shows us again and again and again that the losers are consumers who want to see shows and don’t want to have to pay an arm and a leg to go see a show,” said Herrell.
Geoff Vetter, a spokesperson for the Coalition for Ticket Fairness, said: “We’ve seen time and again how efforts to restrict resale backfire. AB 1720 does nothing to address what tickets cost when they first go on sale.
“Instead, it restricts the competitive resale market and will further consolidate power with Ticketmaster and Live Nation.”
“At a time when Ticketmaster and Live Nation are already facing an ongoing federal antitrust case over their market power, California should be encouraging more competition, not less.”
Geoff Vetter, Coalition for Ticket Fairness
“At a time when Ticketmaster and Live Nation are already facing an ongoing federal antitrust case over their market power, California should be encouraging more competition, not less,” Vetter added.
Resale price caps have passed elsewhere in the US over the past year or so, with Maine, Vermont, and Washington, D.C. all adopting limits.
Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey moved in July to put a 110% ceiling into her state’s supplemental spending bill.
A federal jury in Manhattan found in April that Live Nation and Ticketmaster had illegally monopolized US ticketing, and a coalition of states is pressing for a breakup of the company.
House Democrats opened a probe in July into StubHub CEO Eric Baker over his stake in a fund that backs brokers reselling tickets on his own platform.
AB 1349, authored by Los Angeles Assemblymember Isaac Bryan, targets speculative ticket sales, bot and queue circumvention, and deceptive ticketing websites.
It cleared all three Senate policy committees unanimously, and must now clear the Senate floor and return to the Assembly for concurrence in the Senate’s amendments before the August 31 deadline for both houses to pass bills.Music Business Worldwide