CoreWeave is re-evaluating its financing approach.
CoreWeave is re-evaluating its financing approach.
And just like that, mortgage rates are back under immense pressure thanks to a hotter-than-expected inflation report.
As I pointed out yesterday, CPI was the big one to watch this week, and it didn’t go the way mortgage shoppers wanted.
The 10-year Treasury yield jumped 12 basis points to around 4.99%, which is a huge move for one morning.
Long story short, inflation isn’t dead yet and now the Fed is under even more pressure to hike, and potentially hike 50 bps!
The result will be markedly higher mortgage rates today, likely back to around 7.25% or 7.30%, up from about 7.15% on Friday.
Consumer prices rose 0.4% in October versus the 0.3% economists had expected, per the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
While slower than September’s 0.6% increase, it was still bad news for bonds, which hate inflation.
In addition, core CPI, which strips out volatile food and energy prices, rose 0.3%, also above the 0.2% economists were looking for.
That was the third month in a row at 0.3%, and that has the bond market (and the Fed) concerned that more hikes are needed.
Something I’ve mentioned a lot in the past is that one report isn’t enough to make a trend, but now that we’ve got three in a row, it begins to look like a pattern.
[Compare mortgage rates and monthly payments side by side with my mortgage rate calculator.]
Shortly before the report was released, Fed Governor Christopher Waller said that if core CPI came in at 0.3%, he’d support a half-point hike in December.
Most were expecting a 25-bp hike next month and it was largely baked in. But now there’s a possibility the Fed gets more aggressive.
Of course, the odds of that 50-bp hike remain very low, for now.
At last glance, CME FedWatch put it at just 11.7%, while a 25-bp hike is currently 88.3%.
Still, a 50-bp hike wasn’t even on the table before the CPI report was release, which would explain why bond yields are back near 5% again.
The Fed doesn’t set mortgage rates, but when the market expects more hikes, bond investors demand higher yields, and mortgage rates follow bond yields up.
Whether the Fed hikes that much or not, it’s a major setback for mortgage rates, which had enjoyed a really good spell over the past month.
In fact, they were inching closer and closer to a 6-handle again before we got a hot jobs report Friday and hot CPI today.
The average 30-year fixed fell from a rate of around 7.625% in early October to nearly 7.125% last week thanks to a combination of a tech selloff and cheaper oil prices.
Things were clearly trending lower and it almost appeared like the worst was behind us, yet again.
It really seemed like we could have moved even lower this week and beyond, but today’s CPI report had other ideas.
I always say nothing moves in a straight line, especially mortgage rates, so maybe it’s just the expected ebb and flow.
The worry though is this latest CPI report could be the start of another uptrend in rates, especially if odds rise for a 50-bp hike next month.
You start to wonder where the relief will come from if tech already sold off and the war is relatively clam.
As always, keep an eye on the economic data as it’s released, and another eye on the Middle East conflict.
Lastly, watch the stock market to see if the tech rout ratchets up again or cools off for the year.
If we get another flight to safety, that could help mortgage rates move lower, though it might be less impactful thanks to this latest inflation report.
(photo: atramos)
Direct link to offer
Standard offer is normally $149/$249 and 10k points for three night stay. It’s often possible to get a better than listed deal by calling in and asking, more on that here. Nobody goes into a timeshare presentation expecting to buy one, so make sure you’re good at saying no and have a plan with your partner to get out of there. If you’re not confident in doing that probably a good idea to give these offers a miss.
Hat tip to avsterbone
United Airlines CEO Scott Kirby took home about $32.3 million in total compensation last year, according to Fortune’s reporting on United’s proxy statement. He says people like him should be paying more, starting with a tax on the wealth they already hold.
In a wide-ranging interview with The New York Times in mid-October, Kirby said wealth inequality “has become a danger to our society” and called for a national wealth tax, plus inheritance taxes that “get close to 100% at some level.” “I would pay them,” he added.
The remarks drew swift pushback, much of it aimed at his paycheck. Fox Business asked United how Kirby squared his pay with his warnings about inequality; the company didn’t respond.
Kirby doubled down a few days later on CNBC’s Squawk Box, framing the idea as a matter of fairness.
“I think a wealth tax… is just about fairness…. If you’re wealthy enough, you can put money aside, and by the way, I think it would apply to me, put money aside, let it grow forever, never realize income on it, you can let it grow forever and it never gets taxed,” he said.
That is the gap Kirby wants to close. The federal system taxes income: in 2025, the top rate of 37% applied to single filers’ taxable income above $626,350, according to the IRS. Investments that rise in value but are never sold aren’t taxed.
Kirby’s view stands out because of who holds it. He runs a company on the 2026 Fortune 500 that brought in $59.1 billion in revenue last year.
He stressed that these were personal views and that he has no interest in politics or policymaking. If it were up to him, he said, he would prefer a system “where we had lower income taxes, and higher taxes, or some kind of taxes, on the gain in wealth.”
In practice, the idea draws pointed objections. Mariana Trujillo, managing director of government finance at the Reason Foundation, a libertarian-leaning think tank, tells Fortune it would undercut the very growth it’s meant to share.
“Taxing accumulated wealth discourages investment and entrepreneurship — the very forces that have made our lives better than those of our grandparents and great-grandparents. Economic progress, not the state, has driven improvements in our material condition. A wealth tax discourages the very thing it aims to promote,” she says.
Trujillo draws a sharp line between the two ideas Kirby floated. An inheritance tax hits wealth once, when it changes hands. An annual wealth tax hits it every year, and she argues that gives the wealthiest Americans, and their capital, a reason to leave.
“An annual wealth tax is entirely different from an inheritance tax…. People move out of states and countries for tax reasons. National wealth taxes failed in Europe, where countries including France, Sweden, and Germany abandoned them amid concerns about capital flight, administrative costs, and disappointing revenues.”
A few European countries have held on: Norway, Spain, and Switzerland still levy net wealth taxes, according to the Tax Foundation.
Trujillo also had a message for Kirby himself. “If Kirby believes his wealth could be better used to improve others’ lives, he is free to put it toward that purpose,” she said. “But I hope he recognizes that his compensation reflects the perceived value of his contributions to his company and, therefore, to society at large. Wealth does not need to be redistributed to be productive; it is already the result of creating value for others.”
Kirby has argued that a state-by-state approach is doomed. “We should have a national wealth tax—it won’t work by state because people will just move,” he told the Times, as Fortune reported.
California just tested a state version. In the Nov. 3 election, voters rejected Proposition 40, the so-called billionaire tax, which would have imposed a one-time 5% tax on the net worth of state residents worth more than $1 billion. The Associated Press called the race on Nov. 9, with 52.8% of voters opposed, according to CalMatters.
The measure had high-profile backers, including six Nobel Prize–winning economists who argued it could kick-start similar efforts elsewhere. But opponents spent about $378 million against it, while the yes campaign raised $33.5 million, and Silicon Valley voters broke against it even as Los Angeles and San Francisco voted yes.
Trujillo sees the result as a verdict on the idea itself. “California’s wealth tax proposal failed at the ballot box for good reasons: first, because voters recognized it may reduce government revenue as people leave, and second, because they saw it as discouraging investment and innovation, which make our lives better.”
Kirby says the emails he received about his comments split about evenly for and against. If California is any guide, the rest of the country isn’t far off.
Never advice, and always do your research and figure out what works for you.
source
401(k)s, IRAs, and taxable accounts have a habit of piling up over the years. People change jobs. They dabble in new investments. They try out different advisors.
So every now and then, it’s good practice to weigh the pros and cons of consolidation, including access to tax-smart tools, low fees, and automated investing. We break down a few considerations below to help guide your thinking, compare options, and make the right call for your specific situation.
It all comes down to this, doesn’t it? Will Advisor B outperform Advisor A? Will they help my investing generate more gains?
We couldn’t agree more, albeit with a big clarification: Returns are a major part of performance, but they’re only one piece of the pie. Taxes and fees can take a bigger bite out of your investments than you may realize. So before we help you compare returns, let’s first look at these two other pieces.
To maximize your returns, minimize your taxes. And tax-savvy advisors like us take advantage of three strategies to do just that. If your old investments can’t access these benefits, it may be time for a change of address.
Investing fees fall into two main buckets. There’s the advisor fee, which goes to whoever manages your investments on your behalf (like us!). Then there are fund fees, also known as “expense ratios” or “fund operating expenses.” These are charged by the investment funds themselves that make up your portfolio.
So what’s a reasonable amount to pay for each? The average advisor charges roughly 1% of the assets they manage for you. Our annual fee for investing comes in well below that average.
A 401(k) with even a modest fee may cost you tens of thousands of dollars over time. The savings from rolling into a Betterment IRA of low-cost ETFs, meanwhile, can add up to a more comfortable retirement.
On the fund front, the average cost of an ETF is 0.16%, about one-fourth of the cost of the average mutual fund. The biggest ETF in our Core portfolio, for example, charges 0.02%.
We make it easy to see the fund fees for each investment at Betterment. Simply navigate to the Holdings tab of any goal, where you can toggle between the “Fund fees per year” expressed as a percentage of your assets or a dollar amount.
Some advisors are less than forthcoming about the fees tied to their services or the investments they choose. So ask questions, and consider it a red flag if they don’t make it easy to understand your all-in costs.
Here’s where things get tricky, because comparing apples-to-apples returns between different providers and their various portfolios can be difficult. Some may be selling apples, while others may be selling a low-cost, globally-diversified assortment of fruit.
But you can level-set somewhat by comparing portfolios with 1) similar allocations of stocks and bonds and 2) similar levels of diversification. U.S. equities have outperformed international markets since the Great Recession, but those tables were turned for extended stretches in the 80s, 90s, and 2000s, and they very well could turn again.
For many investors, it’s important to know what they’re investing in—and to feel excited about it. So if your old 401(k)’s “2050 Target Date Fund” doesn’t exactly set your heart aflutter, try scoping out alternatives. It’s why we build easy-to-understand portfolios appealing to a wide range of interests from socially responsible investing to innovative technology. Each one can be customized to your specific target date and easily updated when life happens and circumstances change.
Consolidating more of your retirement accounts under the same roof unlocks several benefits. Asset location, as previously covered, is one. Asset allocation, or the ratio of different asset types like stocks and bonds, is another. It’s best when accounts serving the same goal add up to your preferred asset allocation, and that can be hard to accomplish when they’re spread across multiple advisors. At Betterment, you can nest multiple accounts under the same goal and easily set one asset allocation for all of them.

If you’re considering moving tax-advantaged accounts like 401(k)s, 403(b)s, and IRAs, keep a few more things in mind.
Account compatibility – Deciding what kind of account to move to can make for a dizzying decision, but in a nutshell:
Here’s a simplified version of the IRS’s infamous rollover chart to help:
| Roll to | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Roth IRA | Trad. IRA | Trad. 401(k) | Roth 401(k) | ||
| Roll from | Roth IRA | ✓ | X | X | X |
| Trad. IRA | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | X | |
| Trad. 401(k) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
| Roth 401(k) | ✓ | X | X | ✓ | |
Some important qualifiers depend on your exact move, so we suggest studying the full chart carefully. A big one to call out is that any traditional (i.e. pre-tax) funds moved to a Roth (i.e. after-tax) account must be included in your taxable income for that year and taxed accordingly. It’s one reason why we highly recommend working with a tax advisor, especially if your specific case isn’t so cut and dry.
Access – After you leave a job, your 401(k) from that job is still yours, and you can still change its investments, but you can no longer contribute to that specific 401(k) account.
Avoiding taxes – In most cases, you can move tax-advantaged accounts to a new provider and pay zero dollars in taxes, but if you simply cash them out and pocket the money before the age of 59 ½, those funds are subject to a 10% early withdrawal tax on top of ordinary income tax, with few exceptions.

Moving taxable accounts potentially comes with (surprise, surprise) tax implications. The first thing to do is suss out which of your old assets can be moved “in-kind” to a new provider. This means the new provider is able to accept the new assets, either slotting them into your new portfolio as-is or selling them on your behalf and reinvesting the proceeds.
Some assets first need to be sold before you can transfer the funds. In these cases, you can first work with a new provider (like us!) and a tax advisor to estimate the potential tax hit. Then, if you decide to move ahead, you’d work with your old provider to liquidate those assets before transferring the funds.
The process of actually packing up and making a move can be complicated. It doesn’t help that it takes two advisors to tango, and your old provider may not make things easy. But we do everything possible on our end to help streamline the process.
That includes letting you quickly initiate a transfer or rollover in the Betterment app. Some transfers can be serviced entirely online, whereas other transfers and most rollovers require some paperwork.
If you’re considering moving $20k or more, our Licensed Concierge team is available at no cost to walk you through all the considerations above, size up whether a move is in your best interest, and should you decide to switch, help move your old assets to Betterment.
Because whether moving to a new house or a new advisor, it never hurts to have a little help.
Before going public at a record $1.77 trillion, SpaceX detailed plans in its S-1 of building a lunar economy by setting up factories on the moon to make AI satellites. For Musk’s vision to turn into reality, someone needs to figure out how to transport equipment to the moon, generate electricity there, and keep communication lines connected to Earth.
NASA is putting money on the table to do it at scale. The federal space agency announced on Nov. 7 it selected eight companies including SpaceX, Blue Origin, and Lockheed Martin Space to compete for contracts worth up to $10 billion to transport equipment and infrastructure to the moon. It’s part of NASA’s goal of building a permanent lunar outpost for astronauts to inhabit.
“We are building the Moon Base mission by mission,” NASA administrator Jared Isaacman said in the announcement. “When our astronauts return to the Moon, they will arrive with the first elements of the Moon Base already waiting for them on the surface.”
The billions in potential contracts show how intertwined the ambitions of federal space programs and the private space sector have become even as they embrace distinct goals, with NASA focused on establishing a place where astronauts can live and work, and SpaceX eyeing lunar space for manufacturing.
NASA declined to comment, and SpaceX did not respond to Fortune’s request for comment.
NASA wants to carve out its first permanent outpost on the moon, starting with its first phase of robotic explorations of its south pole to identify promising locations for future infrastructure in 2029, according to its Moon Base website.
Then, between 2029 and 2032, NASA plans to build up power systems, cargo transportation, and communications networks to “support long-term operations” on the moon. After 2032, the agency will focus on making the outpost livable for astronauts so they can do more ambitious research and do “future journeys deeper into the solar system.”
The challenge of getting equipment and supplies up there is why NASA is enlisting outside help. It said the eight companies selected under the Commercial Lunar Payload Services program will be eligible to compete for lunar delivery missions over the next decade, building and operating landers to carry scientific instruments, technology, and other infrastructure.
This is on top of NASA’s existing lunar-related contracting program. NASA said it awarded Blue Origin, Impulse Space, and Arrow Science and Technology a combined $1.3 billion for separate mission tasks. Those tasks include verifying communications systems between the moon and Earth, finding ways to move cargo between the two, and sending drones to survey the lunar surface before astronauts get there.
NASA is also trying to solve the problems of generating electricity and maintaining communication lines. It picked SpaceX to launch satellites aboard a Starship to space in 2028 to test the technology that’ll help astronauts and mission controllers stay connected. The agency also awarded several companies (including the Blue Origin owned Honeybee Robotics) to work on power generation and wireless power transfer for a planned Mini-Communications and Solar Tower (miniCAST).
But for SpaceX, these contracts could eventually pave the way for space operations that go beyond shipping astronauts and cargo onto the moon. In its S-1, the company said it intends to build factories on the moon that would use moon-extracted raw materials to manufacture AI satellites, while shipping chips from Earth.
SpaceX said using those lunar materials and taking advantage of the moon’s weaker gravity could “significantly reduce costs and terrestrial resource constraints.” SpaceX also envisions a “lunar mass driver,” which would use “electromagnetic acceleration” to propel satellites without rockets. SpaceX also sees a business opportunity in mining and exporting lunar minerals, estimating the moon has more than 1 million tons of “rare materials” that could go into quantum computing systems and nuclear energy.
But the company’s main goal appears to be setting up a constellation of satellites capable of performing AI computing in space, potentially allowing the company to expand its computing capacity without relying on power-intensive and controversial data centers on Earth.
“This roadmap positions the Moon not only as a potential gateway to Mars and space exploration, but as the first space-based industrial economy at scale,” the S-1 said. “Over time, this infrastructure has the potential to position the Moon as a strategic industrial and transportation node.”
Limited Time Deals
BofA Rewards is Bank of America’s tiered rewards program. If you keep enough in deposits or investments with BofA or Merrill Edge, you can qualify for perks like a bonus on your credit card rewards. We covered the details in The New BofA Rewards: $100k Assets Now Get 50% Credit Card Rewards Bonus, $1M Required for 75% Bonus.
If you’ve reached BofA Rewards Preferred Honors ($100K+) or Premier ($1M+) status, there’s a new perk you can claim for free for a limited time. It’s GHA DISCOVERY Titanium status.
Offer link (login required):
The main perks of Titanium status are:
What hotels are part of the Global Hotel Alliance (GHA)? Its member brands include Kempinski, Capella, Anantara, Pan Pacific, Marco Polo, Niccolo, The Sukhothai, OUTRIGGER, Viceroy, NH Collection, and others.
Here is the official hotel directory if you want to see what’s available. There aren’t many properties in the U.S., but there are more in Europe.
The offer ends on January 7, 2027. The status lasts through the end of the calendar year after you claim it. If you wait and claim it between January 1 and 7, 2027, your Titanium status will last through the end of 2028. If you claim it now, it’ll only last through the end of 2027. So if you don’t have a stay coming up where you’d use it, I’d wait until January.
If you already have $100K or more with BofA or Merrill Edge and have reached Preferred Honors, you might as well pick up free GHA Titanium status.
HT: FM.
Moody’s has lowered its Canadian home price forecast but still expects modest gains, with Toronto and Vancouver lagging.
Construction equipment rental company EquipmentShare.com (EQPT -21.28%) stock crashed 21% through 10:40 a.m. ET Tuesday despite beating on earnings last night.
Analysts had forecast EquipmentShare to earn $0.12 per share on $1.4 billion in Q3 sales. The company actually earned $0.16 per share on sales of nearly $1.5 billion, according to data from StreetInsider.com.
Image source: Getty Images.
So why are investors so upset with EquipmentShare today? After all, the company grew its revenue by 55% year over year, with rental revenue, in particular, up 49% and equipment sales revenue surging 76%. Net earnings nearly tripled to $20 million.
Still, that was less than half the company’s “adjusted” net income number ($46 million). So while EquipmentShare’s adjusted profit may have been $0.16 per share, its actual earnings calculated under generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) were just $0.03 per share.
Free cash flow was even worse. Much worse. Operating cash flow so far this year is negative $179 million. Subtract from that the cost of buying equipment to rent (net of equipment sold), purchases of “property and other fixed assets,” and capitalized software costs, and I’d put EquipmentShare’s total cash burn so far this year at more than $1.1 billion, and on course for $1.5 billion in cash burn for the year.
$12.76-$3.45 (-21.28%)
NASDAQ · As of 10:51 AM ET 11/10/26
EquipmentShare is burning cash like mad. Regardless of what the company says its “profit” might be, this doesn’t give me a lot of confidence in its quality of earnings. Earnings beat or no earnings beat, I’d probably avoid this stock.
With the earnings quality in question, it’s just too risky.
When our analyst team has a stock tip, it can pay to listen. After all, Stock Advisor’s total average return is 853%* — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 204% for the S&P 500.
They just revealed what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy right now, available when you join Stock Advisor.
See the stocks ›
*Stock Advisor returns as of November 10, 2026.
Rich Smith has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.