CMR is the leading provider of funding and management support for small to medium-sized businesses and entrepreneurs 

By Jeanny Yu, Bloomberg Markets Live strategist and reporter

Nearly a year after DeepSeek’s AI breakthrough rattled global markets, China is entering 2026 with a fresh wave of technological advances that are powering a stock rally, even as its economy remains fragile.

Thanks to fresh progress in sectors from commercial rockets to robotics and flying cars, Chinese tech shares have begun the new year with a bang. An onshore Nasdaq-like tech gauge has shot up almost 13% so far this month, while a measure of Hong Kong-listed Chinese tech firms has climbed nearly 6%. Both have outperformed the Nasdaq 100.

Enthusiasm about homegrown technologies has been the single biggest driver of China’s equities bull run since April, even as the world’s second-largest economy remained mired in a housing slump and anemic consumption. The momentum may gain further support in the coming months as DeepSeek rolls out a new AI model and China unveils a five-year economic blueprint prioritizing technological self-reliance.

“The stock market is telling us that what China is doing in technology sector is going to be very exciting going forward,” Mark Mobius, managing director of Mobius Emerging Opportunities Fund, told Bloomberg TV on Friday. “You must remember China’s goal now is to overtake the US in technology, in high-level chips, in all kinds of AI. So the money is going in that direction.”

Since DeepSeek shocked global markets with its cheap and equally well-performing AI models on Jan. 27 last year, fellow Chinese firms have accelerated efforts to develop their own versions. Adoption of generative AI has also surged among the country’s Internet giants from Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. to Tencent Holdings Ltd.

Elsewhere, Chinese robots have competed in marathons, sparred in boxing matches and performed folk dance routines. In manufacturing, large language models are being embedded into advanced equipment, such as flying taxis and precision machine tools. The developments are recasting China in investors’ eyes from a low-cost manufacturing base into a credible challenger to US tech leadership, just as global capital hunts for the next growth engine.

In a basket of 33 Chinese AI stocks tracked by Jefferies Financial Group Inc., the rally in the past year expanded their combined market value by about $732 billion, the brokerage said in a Jan. 13 report. Jefferies said it sees further upside because China’s AI’s market capitalization represents only 6.5% of the US’s.

The exuberance is spilling beyond the secondary market. A flurry of recent listing debuts of Chinese AI-related companies posted blockbuster gains, emboldening their peers to tap public markets. Among those in the pipeline are Xpeng’s flying-car unit, rocket maker LandSpace Technology and BrainCo, a potential rival to Neuralink Corp.

“Looking ahead, we anticipate that the next major breakthrough in AI will occur at the application layer,” said Joanna Shen, JPMorgan Asset Management’s emerging market and Asia Pacific equities investment specialist. “China, in particular, is well-positioned to lead this evolution, given its vast array of user cases across wearables, edge devices, and internet platforms.”

To be sure, the stellar rally has triggered concerns about stretched valuations. Cambricon Technologies Corp., an AI chipmaker that competes with Nvidia Corp., is trading about 120 times to forward earnings. A gauge tracking Chinese robots is trading at more than 40 times forward earnings, higher than the Nasdaq 100’s 25 times.

Beijing’s latest decision to tighten margin financing was also a sign of authorities’ growing unease with speculative excess, especially in pockets of the technology sector.

That said, some investors remain optimistic about the industry’s prospects due to advantages such as a low-cost base and strong state backing and planning. 

“China’s low-cost model for AI may well pay off faster” than its US peers, Gavekal Research’s technology analyst Tilly Zhang wrote in a note dated Jan. 16. “The ‘DeepSeek moment’ encouraged China to focus on a strategy of cheap, good-enough models.”

Expected within this quarter, the release of DeepSeek’s R2 model may provide the next catalyst. The new model, which will likely boast leading-edge performance at an ultra-low cost, “has the potential to disrupt the sector again, underscoring China’s position as the main rival to US AI supremacy,” Bloomberg Intelligence wrote in a recent note.

Details of China’s new five-year plan due for release in March, which places great emphasis on technological self-sufficiency, may offer stock bulls another reason to buy. 

Chinese stocks may further outperform their US counterparts if earnings growth continues to accelerate, especially in sectors with advanced technologies and strong exports, said Vivian Lin Thurston, portfolio manager at William Blair Investment. “I expect to see attractive investment opportunities in these industries as we have seen in 2025, including internet, AI, semiconductor-related hardware tech, robotics, automation and biotech.”

Authored by Jerry Rogers via American Greatness,

Over and over again, we’re told to be outraged.

An individual is detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). He is later released. And before the facts can catch their breath, Democratic politicians and activist megaphones are already screaming ‘abduction’, ‘fascism’, and ‘state violence’.

Cue the mob. Cue the cameras. Cue the chaos.

It plays out over and over again.

Remember the viral video of a woman screaming ‘I’m a U.S. citizen’ as ICE agents pulled her from a car in the Florida Keys? The media and politicians pounced – ICE ‘arrested an American citizen’. Turns out this person was detained by ICE because she refused to identify herself and was driving her boyfriend’s vehicle. Afterwards, reports disclosed that the boyfriend was in the country illegally. She chose not to comply. Perhaps she wanted the situation to escalate? Much of the debate about ICE has become political theater.

Let’s slow this down and apply something increasingly rare in modern politics: the facts.

ICE detains individuals pursuant to its lawful authority. That happens every day. Sometimes people are held. Sometimes they’re released. Detention and release are not evidence of wrongdoing by law enforcement—they are the process. But in today’s political climate, process doesn’t matter. Optics do. Rage does. And outrage is politicized and monetized.

What does make these encounters dangerous is not ICE. It’s the reckless rhetoric that surrounds them.

When Democratic elected officials tell people that law enforcement officers are ‘kidnappers’ or ‘stormtroopers’, when they suggest citizens have a moral duty to interfere with federal agents, they are not encouraging peaceful protest—they are inciting confrontation. And when mobs take that cue and physically obstruct officers doing their jobs, the risk to everyone involved skyrockets.

This is not complicated.

What happens?

Lawful orders are given. They’re ignored. Resistance follows. A crowd interferes.

Officers are forced to manage a volatile situation that never needed to exist in the first place.

If individuals simply comply with lawful commands—no dramatics, no resistance, no posturing—these could be routine encounters. No drama; no chaos, no violence. If the mob allows officers to do their work instead of inserting themselves into a federal enforcement action, there would be no spectacle, no video clips, no political fundraising emails.

But compliance doesn’t trend on social media.

What we’re witnessing is a dangerous feedback loop. Politicians inflame tensions with extreme language. Activists show up looking for confrontation. Law enforcement is placed in an impossible position. Then, when things escalate—as they predictably do—the very people who lit the fuse rush to the microphones to condemn the explosion.

That’s not leadership. That’s negligence.

No one is above the law, but justice isn’t served when the law is deliberately obstructed either. ICE officers are not free agents; they operate under rules, supervision, and due process constraints. Pretending otherwise may be politically useful, but it is factually false—and dangerously so.

If Democrats truly cared about safety, about de-escalation, about justice, they would stop encouraging resistance and obstruction.

They would tell their supporters the truth: you don’t get to decide, in the moment, which laws you’ll obey and which officers you’ll recognize as legitimate.

These incidents don’t have to happen. They are not inevitable. They are manufactured—by irresponsible rhetoric, by mob interference, and by a political class more interested in chaos than consequences.

And the next time it happens—and it will—remember who made it dangerous.

The Space Weather Prediction Center issued an alert Sunday afternoon after a powerful X1.9 solar flare erupted on the Sun, with the space weather event expected to produce an Earth-directed coronal mass ejection (CME).

Stefan Burns, a geophysicist and space weather forecaster, wrote on X that the X1.9 flare is "insane" and will produce a "huge coronal mass ejection."

Major X1.9 solar flare detected at 18:08 UTC (Jan 18) around AR 4341. Earth directed CME likely. More to follow. https://t.co/aqK4Q6XdAY pic.twitter.com/CJUq1SAsQt

— SolarHam (@SolarHam) January 18, 2026

"A huge coronal mass ejection has been launched toward Earth at high velocity. We will have a BIG solar storm impact in 2 to 3 days. Expect at least G3 geomagnetic storming. Early forecasts are liable to revision as more data comes in," Burns said.

This 1.9 X-flare that just exploded on the Sun IS INSANE. A huge coronal mass ejection has been launched out towards Earth at high-velocity, we'll have a BIG solar storm impact in 2-3 days, expect G3 geomagnetic storming minimum (early forecast liable to revision with more data). pic.twitter.com/v7uDX1JdIW

— Stefan Burns (@StefanBurnsGeo) January 18, 2026

Space Weather News' Ben Davidson streamed a live analysis on YouTube earlier about the X-class solar flare and what to expect...

The X-class flare can disrupt radio and navigation immediately. The larger risk comes from the expected CME in the coming days, which can trigger geomagnetic storms that affect power grids, satellites, aviation, and the modern economy built on chips and data centers.

The precious metals landscape in recent times has been nothing short of record-breaking. New highs in gold and silver, but some of that momentum has been blown off on Thursday after a softer tone from President Trump on Iran eased safe-haven demand. Platinum, palladium, and other metals, such as copper, also cooled today, but one strategic commodity has yet to move higher in the metals bull run.

That one strategic commodity that has yet to break out from multi-year lows is ammunition.

It's a consumable input to military power, law enforcement capability, and civilian deterrence, and remains deeply depressed relative to the broader hard-asset complex.

The ammunition industry remains stuck in a multi-year glut because of overproduction runs from the Covid period, when firearm and ammo demand went through the roof because the Democratic Party's dark-money NGOs unleashed protest and riots nationwide, and in some cases, burned entire city blocks down.

Los Angeles Riots 2025, Marxists Burn Waymos

Now, with renewed left-wing chaos emerging in Minneapolis and a clearer understanding of how violence is used as a political pressure against the Trump administration by unhinged left-wing activists, the setup becomes even clearer. Elevated social unrest risk is returning - all other metals are much higher, but ammunition prices for the most common round in America, 9mm, remain depressed around 20 cents per round.

Ammunition checks every box for why it's a strategic commodity: it only becomes valuable when chaos erupts or supplies are threatened.

It's probably time to reload.

Realtors, mortgage lenders, and other industry professionals: if three years of depressed transaction activity have you thinking about exiting, it may be worth holding that thought for now. A new Goldman note suggests that policy maneuvering by the Trump administration could partially unfreeze the housing market in the upcoming selling season, potentially reviving some activity.

The Trump administration is attempting to unfreeze a housing market paralyzed by elevated mortgage rates and high home prices, which have pushed affordability to generational lows.

Goldman analyst Arun Manohar penned a note on Wednesday asking clients: All hands on deck to fix US housing affordability?

Manohar highlighted several key housing policies under the Trump administration: a recently announced $200 billion MBS purchase program aimed at lowering mortgage rates, a proposed ban on institutional investors buying single-family homes, and additional measures designed to reduce the cost of homeownership.

Here's the note:

Affordability, particularly in the context of housing, has recently been a central focus for the Trump administration. In a national televised address delivered in December, the President announced forthcoming plans which he described as "the most aggressive housing reform plans in American history." According to media reports, President Trump is expected to introduce several initiatives aimed at enhancing housing affordability during his upcoming speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos. To date, two policies have been previewed, each of which has already had market moving impacts. In today’s Global Markets Daily, we discuss the impact of recently introduced policies and outline additional measures that may be under consideration.

GSE MBS purchase program has already pushed mortgage rates lower by 15bp

On January 8th, President Trump posted on social media that he has instructed his representatives to buy $200 billion of mortgage bonds. Subsequently, Director Pulte and Secretary Bessent have essentially confirmed that the buying is being carried out by the government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) – Fannie and Freddie. Although very limited details about the program are available so far, the agency MBS market has quickly priced in the program with production coupon spreads tightening around 14-15bp so far. We believe the spread tightening so far is consistent with a program of this magnitude and hence believe that it is fully priced-in. Mortgage rates have also declined in tandem and are now close to the lowest levels since September 2022 (Exhibit 1). This should improve affordability and improve sentiment in the housing market ahead of the key spring homebuying season. We believe that the cumulative decline of around 80bp in mortgage rates since June 2025 could boost existing home sales by at least 5-7% in 2026 vs. 2025. Moreover, it is possible that the administration could push new Fed leadership to provide additional support to housing by reinvesting monthly run-offs from the Fed’s portfolio back into MBS. However, as we noted recently, if the $200 billion purchase program is a one-off, and there are no other MBS purchase programs from the GSEs/Fed/Treasury, then MBS spreads are likely to end the year wider vs. current levels. Agency MBS nominal spreads are already tighter vs. their longer-term average, and OASs are at levels last observed during the Fed’s QE purchase program (Exhibit 2). Therefore, the key risk for the housing market is that the decline in mortgage rates over the past two days reverses by the end of the year.

Proposed ban on institutional investors from purchasing single family homes

The other major housing policy announcement from last week was President Trump’s intention to ban institutional investors from buying single-family homes. While the goal of this policy is to reduce competition from institutions and increase supply/reduce prices for individuals, we believe the national impact will be quite small. In aggregate, industry estimates show that institutional investors own less than 0.5% of total housing stock and around 2-3% of rental housing stock (Exhibit 3). Estimates from Cotality show that institutions owning 100+ units account for about 5% of recent home purchase activity. The rental housing market is largely dominated by smaller investors, who own around 79% of the total rental units. The impact could be slightly larger in some of the sunbelt metros where institutional investors have a greater presence. As prices of existing homes have soared in recent years, large single-family rental (SFR) operators have shifted towards built-to-rent homes, where they have better control over unit economics, rather than buying homes from MLS. These homebuilding operations provide much-needed supply, and we believe will not be included in any potential institutional purchase ban. Built-to-rent home volumes have averaged approximately 15k per quarter over the past year. Finally, Secretary Bessent spoke about the institutional SFR ban during an interview at the Economic Club of Minnesota last week and his comments suggest that the institutional SFR ban would not apply retroactively. While we need to see the actual language when and if Congress approves the legislation, it appears the administration would be comfortable with institutional SFR operators retaining the properties they already own. This removes a major headwind to the housing market.

Related:

• Goldman Reveals Housing "Affordability Illusion" When Factoring Other Costs

Whether the Trump administration can solve the U.S. housing affordability crisis, which largely emerged during the Bidenomics era, remains an open question. Lower mortgage rates would clearly provide a tailwind as the selling season typically begins in late February or early March, when buyers reemerge after winter, weather conditions improve, and house-hunting activity accelerates. As for the 50-year mortgage rate idea, that Trump administration proposal appears to have been shelved for now.

Authored by John Halpin via The Liberal Patriot,

National Politics Is A Graveyard

It’s time to face reality: two-party politics has failed. Americans want more and better choices than the ones Republicans and Democrats currently provide. Whether the two-party system stands or gets radically transformed in the future remains an open question, however.

As reported by Gallup, a record-high percentage of American adults at the end of 2025 self-identified as political independents, 45 percent, including majorities of both millennials and Generation Z plus a plurality of Generation X. In comparison, less than three in ten Americans self-identified as either a Republican or a Democrat in 2025, respectively.

People who cling to a fading notion of partisanship often assert that political independence is a youthful phase and that people’s party affinities deepen with age. While this may have been true in the past, Gallup’s numbers challenge the notion going forward—political independence tops partisan identification among every age cohort born from 1965 on.

The recent increase in independent identification is partly attributable to younger generations of Americans (millennials and Generation X) continuing to identify as independents at relatively high rates as they have gotten older. In contrast, older generations of Americans have been less likely to identify as independents over time. Generation Z, like previous generations before them when they were young, identify disproportionately as political independents.

As political independence increases steadily, the desire for a major third party has also climbed. Sixty-two percent of American adults in 2025 said that a new party is needed compared to only three in ten adults who feel that the “Republican and Democratic parties do an adequate job of representing the American people.” In contrast, 56 percent of U.S. adults felt the two parties adequately represented Americans in 2003.

The desire for a third party makes sense when you examine the sharp declines in public favorability towards both Republicans and Democrats. In the early 2000s, more than six in ten Americans held a favorable opinion of both parties at some point. By the end of 2025, only four in ten felt favorably about Republicans, and only 37 percent felt that way about Democrats.

If you look at the trajectories of the last three presidential terms, Trump-Biden-Trump, you can see how disdain for partisanship plays out. In each instance, the incumbent party’s president lost overall public support rapidly as independent supporters sided with the opposition against the incumbent, leading to frequent switches in party control of both the Congress and the presidency. Trump and Republicans came into office in 2017 with unified control of government only to lose the House in 2018 and both the presidency and Senate after the 2020 election. Biden came into office in 2021 with unified control of Congress and promptly lost the House in 2022, and then Democrats lost both the presidency and the Senate in 2024. Trump again started his second term with unified control of government yet looks on track to at least lose the House in 2026.

Who knows what will happen in 2028 at the end of the Trump era? Stability seems unlikely, however.

Neither party seems capable of building nor sustaining durable national majorities. Republican and Democratic leaders and their policy programs are widely disliked by both political opponents and many independents, as they each pursue purely partisan objectives when in power that further polarize and alienate the electorate. Since voters are essentially forced to choose between two failed parties every cycle, the system chugs along with Americans growing increasingly cynical about government and politics.

But if voters were offered an option beyond the two major parties, many Americans would gladly take it up.

Given the amount of money and anger floating around politics today, it’s genuinely puzzling why a viable third party has not started. Of course, with the stranglehold of Republicans and Democrats over election laws and regulations, third parties face enormous hurdles. Likewise, except for Libertarians, third parties tend to organize around mercurial figures like Ross Perot, RFK Jr., or Elon Musk rather than around a concrete set of ideas or a coalition of voting blocs united behind a common purpose pursued over time.

Perhaps the viability of third parties will change in the not-too-distant future. For example, one could imagine a mostly moderate, pro-business, anti-deficit, anti-culture war party emerging to appeal to disgruntled centrists. Perhaps an old-school conservative party might rise to attract ex-Republicans who dislike Trump’s transformations of the GOP, or perhaps a truly social-democratic, pro-labor party could bring together working-class ex-Democrats who disagree with the party’s cultural and economic turn. One could also imagine two fiery left- or right-populist parties cropping up separately (or combined) to challenge the two-party duopoly.

For any of these third parties to have a chance, however, America first needs a strong independent movement dedicated to changing state and federal laws that enshrine two-party politics. As Jesse Wegman and Lee Drutman argue, this means a switch from winner-take-all to proportional representation in national legislative elections, with the creation of multimember districts and the elimination of partisan gerrymandering (and U.S. Senate and presidential elections remaining constitutionally the same).

Proportional representation models vary by country, but basically all of them create a situation where political parties get legislative seats based on the percentage of the vote they receive in a given election, thus encouraging and rewarding multiparty competition. In the American House of Representatives under this scenario, you could hypothetically vote for the populist-right Patriot Party, the centrist Liberal Party, the enviro Greens, or the Christian conservative Family Party, and each would get seats if they meet certain thresholds of support. The House, in turn, would be required to form some coalition of parties to enact laws to send to their Senate counterparts and eventually the president, who would also have to work with more than his own party and the traditional opposition to get things done.

It’s not a perfect system and potentially creates its own problems with stability. But a politics based on proportional representation would certainly meet the American public where they are in terms of their own often complicated views and the limited party choices they get every election cycle.

Change of this nature would require sitting or future members of both parties voting to reform state and federal election laws to allow for proportional representation in the House. America does not need to become a parliamentary democracy to do this or go through elaborate constitutional amendments. Reformers just need some willpower and solid organization to overcome partisan strong-arming and resistance to change.

At some point, a dedicated group of independents and like-minded members of the two parties need to put their heads together, with serious philanthropic backing, to develop a real movement to create proportional representation in America—with policy designs, model legislation, federal and state lobbying efforts, and public communications and voter outreach.

This is a tall order, for sure, but not impossible given the rising public hatred of existing partisanship and politicians themselves seeing the writing on the wall about dysfunctional government. The U.S. Constitution does not mandate a two-party system. Legislative elections can be changed to support multiple parties if Americans and a new generation of leaders choose to do so. Any takers?