It felt like a speech, if delivered on X.com, laden surely with community notes.
US Vice President JD Vance, taking the stage in Munich, to eviscerate totalitarianism in Europe. But not in Moscow, especially after its savage invasion of Ukraine. Instead, in Ukraine’s allies in the European Union. The “enemy within”, as he called it, in Europe, is jailing opponents, and afraid of its own voters.
For the vast majority of the audience, both in Munich – and the rest of Europe – this is the tweet where the reader comments take a conspiratorial, Red-Bull-mother’s-basement-barefoot-at-3-a.m. turn, and you tune out. But while Munich had been hoping to hear greater detail on the Trump administrations publicly morphing peace plan for Ukraine, they were battered with a bizarre, post-truth litany of culture-war complaints and a bid to sow serious doubt about electoral integrity across Europe.
First up was the suggestion Romania’s recently annulled presidential vote was somehow a bid to deny voters their choice. To be clear, Romania annulled only the first round of a presidential vote last year in which a far-right pro-Russian candidate very narrowly won a place in a second-round spin-off, because courts agreed with evidence from Romania’s intelligence agencies that there had been significant interference from Russia. Vance was objecting to the rule of law in Romania, and pro-Russian sentiment and electoral interference being tackled.
It is really not clear who he was referring to when he said his European allies were censoring their opponents, or “putting them in jail – whether that’s the leader of the opposition, or a humble Christian praying in her own home, or a journalist trying to report the news.” It sounded like Eastern Germany in the 1950s – a world geographically just a few hundred kilometers to the north, where these Soviet-era horrors are still living memories.
Vance said, “Old entrenched interests” were “hiding behind ugly Soviet-era words like misinformation and disinformation.” To be clear, many in the room would have hailed from the brutal occupation of the former Soviet Union. They didn’t need to be lectured on how authoritarianism spouts falsehood to excuse the poor and cruel governance of the minority.
Germany’s defense minister, Boris Pistorius, quickly replied Vance’s words were “unacceptable.” He opposed “the impression that Vice President Vance has created that minorities are being suppressed or silenced in our democracy. We know not only against whom we are defending our country, but also for what.”
Vance then launched into a wide-ranging diatribe about freedom of speech being shackled in Europe. He cited a case of a man arrested for praying silently near an abortion clinic in the UK. New laws in Britain mean political activity is prohibited within 150 meters of abortion clinics to prevent women being harassed when seeking medical help – not quite the same thing. Abortion is less of a hot button issue in Europe than in the United States, and happens with much less controversy.
Vance’s complaints struck at the heart of a key difference in the role of free speech in Europe and the United States, a much fresher democracy. In Europe, free speech is paramount and enshrined in law, but so is responsibility for the safety of citizens. Some European legal systems suggest this means you cannot falsely shout there is a “fire” in a crowded theater and escape punishment if the resulting stampede causes injury simply because you had the right to shout “fire.” In the United States, the First Amendment means you can shout whatever you want. In the smartphone and post-9-11 era, Europe has prohibited some extremist activity online. It is still illegal to advocate for the Nazis in Germany, and it should not be controversial or mysterious why. The wildly rebellious press across Europe are a vibrant sign of its free speech. And the fringe parties Vance objected to being absent in Munich are growing in their popularity. Nobody is really being shut down.
Vance had clearly long prepared this tirade as a starting gun for the second Trump administration’s bid to refuel populism across Europe. The continent he spoke to is a little wiser now, after Trump’s first term with some populist experiments already ending in electoral disaster – like in the United Kingdom, where the Conservative Party has been ejected from power.
Vance spoke to a room acutely aware of the threat far-right populism poses to mainstream and moderate ideology, and the challenges of immigration that have swept across Europe that Vance railed against with barely veiled xenophobia.
But the real figure looming large across the room he feverishly addressed was Kremlin head Vladimir Putin. The sins the audience and Europe were accused of are, in reality, occurring in Russia. Putin was not mentioned. Ukraine was only mentioned fleetingly. The bad guys were the United States’ own allies. And the real threat to western democracy was itself.
It should not take an extensive grasp of history to know it is ugly to talk this way in Munich. Europe has been here before. As George Orwell said as the dust of the last big land war settled in 1949, the “final most essential command” of the Party was to “reject the evidence of your eyes and ears.” Vance asked for that, and made it sound like a virtue.
At first whiff, it sounds repulsive: sniff the essence of an ancient corpse.
But researchers who indulged their curiosity in the name of science found that well-preserved Egyptian mummies actually smell pretty good.
“In films and books, terrible things happen to those who smell mummified bodies,” said Cecilia Bembibre, director of research at University College London’s Institute for Sustainable Heritage. “We were surprised at the pleasantness of them.”
“Woody,” “spicy” and “sweet” were the leading descriptions from what sounded more like a wine tasting than a mummy sniffing exercise. Floral notes were also detected, which could be from pine and juniper resins used in embalming.
The study published Thursday in the Journal of the American Chemical Society used both chemical analysis and a panel of human sniffers to evaluate the odors from nine mummies as old as 5,000 years that had been either in storage or on display at the Egyptian Museum in Cairo.
The researchers wanted to systematically study the smell of mummies because it has long been a subject of fascination for the public and researchers alike, said Bembibre, one of the report’s authors. Archeologists, historians, conservators and even fiction writers have devoted pages of their work to the subject — for good reason.
Scent was an important consideration in the mummification process that used oils, waxes and balms to preserve the body and its spirit for the afterlife. The practice was largely reserved for pharaohs and nobility and pleasant smells were associated with purity and deities while bad odors were signs of corruption and decay.
Without sampling the mummies themselves, which would be invasive, researchers from UCL and the University of Ljubljana in Slovenia were able to measure whether aromas were coming from the archaeological item, pesticides or other products used to conserve the remains, or from deterioration due to mold, bacteria or microorganisms.
“We were quite worried that we might find notes or hints of decaying bodies, which wasn’t the case,” said Matija Strlič, a chemistry professor at the University of Ljubljana. “We were specifically worried that there might be indications of microbial degradation, but that was not the case, which means that the environment in this museum, is actually quite good in terms of preservation.”
Using technical instruments to measure and quantify air molecules emitted from sarcophagi to determine the state of preservation without touching the mummies was like the Holy Grail, Strlič said.
“It tells us potentially what social class a mummy was from and and therefore reveals a lot of information about the mummified body that is relevant not just to conservators, but to curators and archeologists as well,” he said. “We believe that this approach is potentially of huge interest to other types of museum collections.”
Barbara Huber, a postdoctoral researcher at Max Planck Institute of Geoanthropology in Germany who was not involved in the study, said the findings provide crucial data on compounds that could preserve or degrade mummified remains. The information could be used to better protect the ancient bodies for future generations.
“However, the research also underscores a key challenge: the smells detected today are not necessarily those from the time of mummification,” Huber said. “Over thousands of years, evaporation, oxidation, and even storage conditions have significantly altered the original scent profile.”
Huber authored a study two years ago that analyzed residue from a jar that had contained mummified organs of a noblewoman to identify embalming ingredients, their origins and what they revealed about trade routes. She then worked with a perfumer to create an interpretation of the embalming scent, known as “Scent of Eternity,” for an exhibition at the Moesgaard Museum in Denmark.
Researchers of the current study hope to do something similar, using their findings to develop “smellscapes” to artificially recreate the scents they detected and enhance the experience for future museumgoers.
“Museums have been called white cubes, where you are prompted to read, to see, to approach everything from a distance with your eyes,” Bembibre said. “Observing the mummified bodies through a glass case reduces the experience because we don’t get to smell them. We don’t get to know about the mummification process in an experiential way, which is one of the ways that we understand and engage with the world.”
Two years ago, two days of protests were enough to force Georgia’s government into an embarrassing U-turn. It had tried to introduce a “foreign agents” bill – which critics likened to legislation passed by President Vladimir Putin to stifle dissent in Russia – but backed down after fierce demonstrations sparked by the bill’s first reading.
“We fought it off like hell, used every instrument at our disposal,” recalls Ana Tavazde, one of tens of thousands who demonstrated against the bill, which would have forced media and other organizations receiving more than 20% of their funding from abroad to register as “agents of foreign influence” or be fined.
But the protesters’ victory was short-lived. The government revived the bill last year – and this time would not back down. The parliament approved it in May, despite huge opposition on the streets.
After the ruling Georgian Dream party – which declared victory anew after a disputed election in October – delayed the country’s long-awaited European Union membership bid until 2028, Tavazde was one of thousands of Georgians to take to the streets once again. The government invested in water cannons, according to local media reports, and started making mass arrests.
Since then, Georgia’s government has shown little sign of shifting its course, which many in the former Soviet country feel is taking the country back into the Kremlin’s orbit. And with the protest movement now approaching its third month, it is not clear what can break the stalemate.
Multiple opposition politicians have been publicly beaten, some in broad daylight. Hundreds of protesters have been arrested, of whom more than 300 allege suffering beatings, torture and other ill-treatment at the hands of law enforcement, according to Amnesty International. The police’s presence at rallies has been bolstered by masked men, who do not wear uniforms displaying their department and rank.
Extreme measures
“Today, almost a year later, you would say this has become a really nasty authoritarian regime.”
Pro-Western Salome Zourabichvili, who described the elections as “rigged” and called on Georgians to protest in October, was replaced as president by far-right former soccer star Mikheil Kavelashvili in mid-December. The government imposed further restrictions on freedom of assembly at the end of the year.
At the start of February, it proposed more extreme measures that would increase detention periods and fines for certain offenses, such as disorderly conduct or disobeying law enforcement officers, and limit the areas in which protests can be held, local outlet OC Media reported.
On February 5, the party announced it would be introducing unspecified laws targeted at the media and civil society and expelled 49 opposition MPs from Parliament. Three Georgian Dream MPs resigned, supposedly to form a new “healthy opposition ” – with the approval of the ruling party’s parliamentary speaker. On the same day, the prime minister called for “a sort of Nuremburg trial” to investigate the rule of UNM, the opposition party which governed from 2003 to 2012. The Georgian government has been approached for comment, but did not respond.
Journalist Mzia Amaglobeli is facing up to seven years in prison if convicted of assaulting a police officer. The founder of two independent publications, Batumelebi and Netgazeti, she was detained after allegedly slapping a police officer at a protest last month. The European Parliament has claimed Amaglobeli was “unlawfully arrested” and that the charges against her are “politically motivated.”
Soon after her detention, Amaglobeli started a hunger strike, which she has now been on for 34 days, to demand her release. When asked on February 4 how Amaglobeli’s hunger strike could end, Georgian Dream’s chairman said: “Hunger usually leads to death.”
The International Federation of Journalists has urged the Georgian government to “release Amaglobeli immediately and to stop its crackdown on journalists and independent media.”
Staying on the winning side
For many in this ex-Soviet country, the idea of pivoting towards Russia – which invaded in 2008 and continues to occupy 20% of Georgia’s territory – is unthinkable. Over 80% support EU membership, according to polls, and every party’s campaign platform for the October election included the pursuit of EU membership. Campaign posters for Georgian Dream even merged its logo with the gold stars of the EU flag.
So why has the government turned away from such a popular policy?
“I think he just kind of assumes that Moscow is going to win this war,” Mitchell added, referring to Bidzina Ivanishvili, Georgian Dream’s founder and honorary chairman.
“And he’s going to stay on the winning side.”
Bidzina Ivanishvili made his fortune in the years following the collapse of the Soviet Union in Russia in the 1990s and is estimated by Bloomberg to be worth $7.7 billion – a quarter of Georgia’s GDP in 2023. Protesters, some of whom have donned masks of his face at protests, see him as pushing Moscow’s agenda in this ex-Soviet country despite no longer holding any elected position.
Chugoshvili was one of several Georgian Dream politicians who resigned in 2019 after the parliament did not pass an amendment which would have made the electoral system fully proportional. “It was obvious that (Georgian Dream) was becoming obsessed with control,” said Chugoshvili, who co-founded Egeria Solutions, an NGO which has worked on European integration projects, after leaving the party.
“Georgian Dream and Bidzina plan to stay in power for ever. And they cannot do this while integrating into the EU and NATO.”
“Some local outlets are totally funded by USAID or affiliated organisations,” said Ostiller.
“They have no back-up, no savings. They will close, and if funding returns, reopening them will be far more difficult.”
Culture war rhetoric
In a country where the conservative Georgian Orthodox Church exerts massive influence, Ivanishvili has also leaned into “culture war” politics, observers say.
The results of last year’s elections, in which Georgian Dream claimed to receive about 54% of the vote, have been widely disputed; however, the party undoubtedly still has some support.
“It’s probably got a solid 35 to 45%,” Mitchell estimated. “They’re popular enough that they still have a base.”
But for a younger generation, who have only known Georgia as committed to EU and NATO membership and Russia as a threat, the anti-Western rhetoric doesn’t seem to land, and the government’s moves towards authoritarianism don’t seem to inspire fear. Protests are continuing into their third month.
Since protests broke out on November 28, Keren Esebua has been on the streets almost every night in Zugdidi – a city located just 60 kilometres (37 miles) from Abkhazia, a breakaway Georgian region occupied by Russia since 2008.
“I lost my home in Sukhumi, in Abkhazia, in 1993. And I was here in Zugdidi, blocking the way for Russian troops in 2008 when I was 19.
“I’m not giving Russia any kind of opportunity to swallow up Georgia again.”
The split screen is horrifying. On one side, a White House whose policy is in turns strident, revisionist, and then – it seems, sometimes – in urgent need of clarification. On the other, Ukraine, where President Volodymyr Zelensky is outside, looking in, on peace talks, while hundreds die daily on frontlines where Moscow is winning, and children are frequently pulled from the rubble of Russian airstrikes.
As Ukraine’s brutal war nears its third year, the two visions risk becoming irreconcilable.
The White House’s contradictory positions will be partly to blame here. We have seen a startling week in which the US Secretary of Defence Peter Hegseth said Ukraine could not join NATO or get its pre-2014 borders back. He either broadcast a key plank of US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin’s secret peace deal inadvertently or gave away a key part of Ukraine’s diplomatic negotiating hand to the shock of Europe.
Ukraine’s allies may have all known that, in reality, it would not join NATO soon, or get its borders back to when the east and Crimea were in its hands, but had kept that as a concession to make to Russia during, not before, negotiations.
It keeps coming.
US Vice President JD Vance told the Wall Street Journal, apparently, the US might send troops to Ukraine, in extremis – that it would use “tools of leverage” both military and economic. Did he really unveil the polar opposite of Hegseth’s comments in Brussels that no American soldiers would go to Ukraine? Why did he not mention Russia at all, when addressing European allies in Munich about largely fictional totalitarianism in western democracies? Also, did Trump misspeak when he said there would be “high-level people” from Russia, Ukraine, and the US in Munich for a key security conference – or did he mean Saudi Arabia?
Moscow and Kyiv didn’t seem to think anyone of that level is going to Munich for those kind of talks. Or are there secret talks happening that Trump cannot keep quiet?
During this short period of whiplash, by the worst battlefield estimates, up to 5,000 troops have been killed or injured on the frontlines in Ukraine. Romania and Moldova have complained of Russian drones interfering in their airspace. At least 13 civilians have died and 72 been injured in Russian attacks on Ukraine. A Russian drone has been fired at Chernobyl nuclear plant, Ukraine said Friday.
A war is happening – and Russia is winning it, at huge cost for Ukraine – while the White House seems to work out what it really thinks in public.
Behind these vacillating positions on NATO membership, Ukraine’s borders and and US troops in Ukraine, lies the darker truth that we simply do not know what Trump and Putin have spoken about, in what Trump has said was more than one call since he came to the White House.
Firstly, it is important to reflect on the precedent here: Trump has swept away three years of isolation of the Kremlin from the West without concessions. He got Marc Fogel released – in exchange, it seems, for Alexander Vinnik, accused of running a multibillion-dollar cryptocurrency exchange, gifting Moscow a moment of staggeringly warm rehabilitation for an American television audience. But there have been no concessions so far, in public, from Russia to Ukraine.
Instead, we had the bizarre revisionism of Trump suggesting Russia invaded because Ukraine was about to join NATO.
To repeat, three exhausting years in, Russia invaded Ukraine unprovoked in 2022 out of some strategic sense of concern it needed to project strength along its borders, and mistakenly thinking the invasion would take a matter of weeks, and be welcomed with open arms.
Ukraine wanted warmer relations with the European Union and dreamed of perhaps joining NATO one day, but in the same way Zelensky probably dreamed one day as a young boy of joining the Beatles. Neither was going to happen any time soon.
The revisionist notion that Russia acted to stop Ukraine’s NATO membership is a Kremlin talking point. And it is clear now Trump has spent more time talking to Putin than Zelensky. He even suggested that Zelensky’s time in office might soon end, as he needs to eventually hold elections, and his poll numbers are “not particularly great, to put it mildly”.
It’s hard to understate the impact of the world’s most powerful man suggesting a wartime commander lacks a current mandate and might soon need to step aside. Perhaps this is part of the private plan – it is certainly what Putin wants, as elections would undoubtedly be a mess and produce a mandate that was questioned. It is, above all, potentially catastrophic to Ukrainian morale – soldiers must agree to continue to risk their lives for a president whose key financial backer considers a lame duck.
This is where the two split screens collide.
Trump’s world is one where off-the-cuff statements can be massaged, and his telegenic cabinet overturn the paradigms of global security hourly, without major consequence. Their echo chamber just reassuringly feeds back the corrected version of policy. On the other side of the screen, Ukrainians die, lose territory, see apartment blocks reduced to rubble, consider desertion, and watch the backbone of their western support dissolve.
This is all a symphony of chaos to the Kremlin. They know what their objectives are, which, simply put, amount to whatever they can get. And that is a lot when the key adversary they actually fear, the United States, is so publicly unsure what it wants, why it wants it, and what its red lines are.
Peace talks have started, but the sands are not just shifting for Ukraine, they risk becoming quicksand.
DETROIT — As President Donald Trump threatens to further increase tariffs on U.S. trading partners, the greatest impact for the auto industry outside of North America would be additional levies on South Korea and Japan.
The East Asian countries produced a combined 16.8% of vehicles sold last year in the U.S., including a record 8.6% from South Korea and 8.2% from Japan, according to data provided to CNBC by GlobalData.
They were the largest vehicle importers to the U.S. outside of Mexico — and they have little to no duties compared with the 25% tariff Trump has threatened imposing on Canada and Mexico.
Automakers such as General Motors and South Korea-based Hyundai Motor export vehicles tariff-free from South Korea. The country overtook Japan and Canada last year to become the second-largest exporter of new cars to the U.S., based on sales.
It trails only Mexico, which represented 16.2% of U.S. auto sales in 2024, GlobalData reports.
“Obviously Hyundai has a massive amount of exposure. Behind it is GM … with relatively large volume models,” said Jeff Schuster, global vice president of automotive research at GlobalData. “There’s a lot of risk potentially here, but it’s limited, really limited, to those two players.”
Imports from Japan are currently subject to a 2.5% tariff for automakers such as Toyota Motor, Nissan Motor and Honda Motor. Vehicles from Japan represented about 1.31 million autos sold last year in the U.S.
Japan’s percentage of sales has actually decreased in recent years, while South Korea’s exports and sales have continued to rise from less than 845,000 in 2019 to more than 1.37 million in 2024.
South Korea has 0% tariffs on cars despite Trump renegotiating a trade deal with the country during his first term in 2018. That accord was touted for improving vehicle imports to South Korea, but it did little to address vehicle exports to the U.S.
The deal also has done little for increasing automotive exports to South Korea, according to data from the International Trade Commission. U.S. passenger vehicle exports to South Korea have actually decreased by roughly 16%.
Separate from cars, tariffs on trucks exported from South Korea and Japan to the U.S, as well as elsewhere, are 25%.
A tariff is a tax on imports, or foreign goods, brought into the United States. The companies importing the goods pay the tariffs, and some experts fear the companies would simply pass any additional costs on to consumers — raising the cost of vehicles and potentially reducing demand.
South Korea-based Hyundai is the largest exporter of vehicles to the U.S., followed by GM and then Kia Corp., a part of Hyundai that largely operates separately in the U.S.
GM has notably increased its imports from South Korea in recent years. Its U.S. sales of South Korean-produced vehicles — largely entry-level models — have risen from 173,000 in 2019 to more than 407,000 last year, according to GlobalData.
GM is the largest foreign direct investor in Korea’s manufacturing industry, according to the automaker’s website. It has invested 9 trillion South Korean won (roughly $6.2 billion) since establishing the operations in 2002.
GM produces its Buick Encore GX and Buick Envista crossovers, as well as the Chevrolet Trailblazer and Chevrolet Trax crossovers, at plants in South Korea. The company has touted the vehicles as being a pinnacle for the automaker’s profitable growth in lower-margin, entry-level vehicles.
“We’re taking out costs of programs, improving profitability and creating vehicles that customers love, like the new Chevy Trax and the Buick Envista,” GM President Mark Reuss said during the company’s investor day in October. “Trax and Envista have helped raise our share of the U.S. small SUV market to its highest level since 2007.”
Hyundai did not immediately respond when asked about potential tariffs on South Korea. GM and Kia declined to comment.
Terence Lau, dean of the College of Law at Syracuse University who previously worked as a trade expert for Ford Motor, said the automotive industry is built on free trade. If tariffs are implemented, the industry can adjust, but it takes time.
“The car industry can adjust to anything. Really, it can. It’s always going to make product that customers want to buy, because personal mobility and transportation is a human need all around the world,” he said. “What the car industry cannot do well is pivot on a dime.”
Lau argued that a single-digit tariff can be a “nuisance,” but once they hit 10% or more, that’s when additional costs can really began eating into the margin or products.
Ford Motor CEO Jim Farley last week argued that if Trump is going to implement tariffs affecting the automotive industry, it should take a “comprehensive” look at all countries to even the playing field in North America.
Farley singled out Toyota and Hyundai for importing hundreds of thousands of vehicles annually from Japan and South Korea, respectively.
“There are millions of vehicles coming into our country that are not being applied to these [incremental tariffs],” Farley said during the company’s fourth-quarter earnings call with investors. “So if we’re going to have a tariff policy … it better be comprehensive for our industry.
“We can’t just cherry-pick one place or the other because this is a bonanza for our import competitors.”
The White House did not respond for comment on potential tariffs on South Korea.
Trump on Thursday signed a presidential memorandum laying out his plan to impose “reciprocal tariffs” on foreign nations, but did not go into detail regarding what countries could be targeted.
As a presidential candidate, Trump floated the possibility of imposing across-the-board tariffs on all U.S. imports. But he also advocated for Congress to pass what he called the “Trump Reciprocal Trade Act,” which would empower him to slap tariffs on the goods of any country that has higher tariffs on U.S.-made goods.
— CNBC’s Kevin Breuninger contributed to this report.
Fragrance brand Brown Girl Jane’s perfume bottles sit on shelves at Sephora near some of the most storied labels in the fashion and beauty world, including Prada and Dior.
For the Black-owned brand, getting a retailer to bet on it was just the start, Brown Girl Jane CEO and co-founder Malaika Jones said. She said Sephora has supported the company so it can better compete with well-known brands with huge marketing budgets and glossy celebrity endorsements.
Brown Girl Jane got a $100,000 grant last year to help grow its business through Sephora’s Accelerate program, which aims to boost founders who are people of color. Sephora spotlighted the fragrance brand in an email to customers in early February, putting itin front of potential shoppers who don’t know its name. Brown Girl Jane’s sales more than doubled after Sephora began carrying the company’s fragrances online and at select stores about a year ago.
Brown Girl Jane’s sales have more than doubled since the brand got picked up by Sephora last year. The beauty retailer took the 15 Percent Pledge, an effort to add more Black-owned brands to shelves.Courtesy Brown Girl Jane
While Sephora has put its weight behind its brand incubator, much larger retailers like Walmart and Target recently scaled back similar efforts focused on finding and funding more brands founded by people of color.Without that support from the retailers themselves, brands like Brown Girl Jane could face a tougher time getting on shelves — and succeeding once they get there.
“For small brands, but for any brands, really, it’s a constant fight for relevance and for visibility,” Jones said. “And so when you don’t have that commitment or even that understanding from the retailer side, it becomes quite difficult for small brands to survive — even when they’ve made it on shelves.”
When retailers launched supplier diversity programs — many of them in the months after police killed George Floyd in 2020 — top industry leaders including Walmart CEO Doug McMillon and Target CEO Brian Cornell spoke out about the institutional barriers thatpeople of color face, including when financing their businesses. Now, as more retailers drop diversity, equity and inclusion programs, Black-owned brands may find it harder to clear those hurdles.
In January, Target dropped specific DEI pledges that it made four years ago after Floyd was murdered a short distance from its Minneapolis headquarters. Among those goals, the big-box retailer hadcommitted to adding products from more than 500 Black-owned brands to its shelves or website and spending $2 billion with Black-owned businesses by 2025.
Late last year, Walmart confirmed that it was ending key diversity initiatives, including winding down the Center for Racial Equity, a nonprofit that the retailer started and funded with $100 million to tackle racial inequities. It had chosen finance as one of those focus areas, noting the gap in funding for Black entrepreneurs.
Gutting those efforts could jeopardize a valuable pathway for Black founders to build their businesses and reach the millions of shoppers who browse the websites and aisles at the nation’s largest and best-known retailers.
Not every major retailer has dropped DEI initiatives. Sephora, Costco and E.l.f. Beauty, among others, have reaffirmed their commitments. And the most prominent effort to increase the share of Black-owned brands on retail shelves, the 15 Percent Pledge, still has major backers.
Companies from Google to Ford and Tractor Supplyhave rolled back their initiatives to boost representation of people of color, women and LGBTQ+ people, as political backlash and pressure from conservative activists has intensified. The trend only accelerated afterPresident Donald Trump issued an executive order banning DEI programs in the federal government and describing the efforts as “dangerous, demeaning, and immoral race- and sex-based preferences.”
It’s a sharp change from about five years ago, when companies released a wave of announcements committing to fighting inequity. They made bold pledges to add more diversity to their workforces and C-suites, seek out Black and minority vendors and donate to philanthropic causes that fought racism and supportedexpanded opportunities for marginalized groups.
Fear of litigation, activist investor scrutiny and political pressure has caused companies to backpedal or keep their initiatives below the radar, said Jon Solorzano, an attorney at Vinson & Elkins who advises companies on DEI.
One of those lawsuits targeted The Fearless Fund, an Atlanta-based venture capital fund dedicated to awarding grants to businesses founded by Black women to bridge a longstanding funding gap. Only 1.3% of the more than $345 billion raised by venture-backed startups in 2021 went to Black founders, according to Deloitte and Venture Forward’s 2023 report. About 2.4% went to startups led by female founders and 2.1% of that total went to startups led by Hispanic founders.
American Alliance for Equal Rights, a conservative group founded by Edward Blum, sued The Fearless Fund in 2023, accusing it of discriminating against non-Black business owners. Blum previously fought against race-based college admissions, a campaign that led to the Supreme Court’s ruling that affirmative action policies are unconstitutional — which some companies cited last year in ending their DEI initiatives.
As part of a settlement reached last year, The Fearless Fund shut down its grant program.
Solorzano said that lawsuit had a chilling effect and will “seriously undermine some of these [supplier] initiatives.” He said he expects more corporations to scrub numbers from their diversity programs, including supplier programs focused on increasing Black- and minority-owned brands on shelves.
Yet ending or scaling back efforts to seek out merchandise that reflects the diversity of U.S. consumers could put a company at risk, too, he said. Not only could companies face boycotts, but also they could miss out on fresher items and brands that help them stand apart from competitors.
Even as some retailers walk back diversity pledges, Sephora, Costco and E.l.f. Beauty, have doubled down on those efforts not as a feel-good move, but as a meaningful part of their business strategies.
Sephora, a 15 Percent Pledge memberwhich is owned by LVMH, has increased the percentage of Black-owned brands on its shelves from 3% in 2020 to about 10% as of 2025, said Artemis Patrick, CEO of Sephora North America. In its hair category, 15% of the brands are Black-owned.
Shoppers walk by a Sephora store in San Diego.Kevin Carter / Getty Images
Sephora started Accelerate in 2016 with a focus on female founders. The six-month incubator helps mentor business owners, connects them to investors and gives them the opportunity to launch at Sephora.
The retailer pivoted the program in 2020 to focus on Black and other minority founders to address “the need of the evolving consumer and where we truly did feel like we had an assortment gap,” Patrick said.
So far, more than 33 Black- and minority-owned brands have gone through the incubator, she said.
“Our business is really good and the fact that we’ve been really focused on diversifying our assortment, I think there’s a strong correlation,” she said.
She added “it would be very strange in a beauty category to not be driving diversity in your assortment that meets the needs of your clients.”
At Costco’s annual meeting last month, 98% of shareholders rejected a proposal that requested a report on the risk of Costco maintaining diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.
A Costco in Cranberry Township, Pa.Gene J. Puskar / AP file
In a proxy statement ahead of themeeting, the warehouse club’s board of directors said diversity benefits its business and helps it better serve a wide range of customers.
“Among other things, a diverse group of employees helps bring originality and creativity to our merchandise offerings, promoting the ‘treasure hunt’ that our customers value,” it wrote.
Costco’s board added that diversity across its suppliers “fosters creativity and innovation in the merchandise and services that we offer our members.”
Tarang Amin, CEO of popular Gen Z makeup brand E.l.f. Beauty, called the company’s diversity “a key competitive advantage in terms of our results” in an interview with CNN earlier this month. He said the company’s employees are 74% women, 76% Gen Z and millennial and over 44% diverse and “reflect the community we serve.”
Nearly five years ago, Aurora James challenged companies in an Instagram post to dedicate more of their shelf space to Black-owned businesses. That idea, which she proposed days after Floyd’s murder, started the 15 Percent Pledge.
“So many of your businesses are built on Black spending power,” she wrote at the time. “So many of your stores are set up in Black communities. So many of your posts seen on Black feeds. This is the least you can do for us. We represent 15% of the population and we need to represent 15% of your shelf space.”
Sephora was the first company to sign the pledge. About 22 companies are active participants in the pledge, including Macy’s and Nordstrom, according to the nonprofit. The 15 Percent Pledge has a directory of Black-owned brands on its website. It also awards grants to businesses and raises money to back Black-owned businesses through an annual gala, which drew celebrities, actors and business leaders including Kim Kardashian, Kelly Rowland and Jesse Williams earlier this month.
Some of the changes inspired by the pledge are visible on shelves.
Sephora has more than tripled the Black-owned brands on its shelves in the past five years. In the email to customers, it noted that number had spiked from eight to 30 since it took the Fifteen Percent Pledge in 2020.
Those brands include makeup, shampoos and more backed by small entrepreneurs and celebrities, including Fenty Beauty by Rihanna, Pattern by Tracee Ellis Ross and Sienna Naturals, which was co-founded by Hannah Diop and actress Issa Rae.
Nordstrom, which also signed on to the 15 Percent Pledge, has now added more Black-owned brands, too, including Buttah Skin, Briogeo and Honor the Gift.
And Macy’s, another 15 Percent Pledge participant, has had an accelerator for over a decade which was launched to support underrepresented brand owners and founders. The Workshop, which started in 2011, offers grant funding and education for companies seeking to make it on retailers’ shelves and websites.
James, who herself is a Black founder of a luxury brand called Brother Vellies, said she’s disheartened to see companies back away from supporting smaller Black- and minority-owned suppliers.
“The idea is not about giving preferential treatment,” she said. “The idea is about making sure that we cast our net wide enough that we’re not just looking at the obvious channels.”
By relying more on big conglomerates, retailers miss out on funding smaller U.S. business that create jobs and stimulate the local economy, she said.
“In a time when I think small business all across America is suffering, to specifically target groups of founders and say, ‘You can’t get access or opportunity,’ just feels like a blow to all small businesses across America,” she said.
She said the reversal of DEI by some companies show their commitments never ran deep.
“Target never took the pledge. Walmart never took the pledge,” she said. “I don’t think that they were ever really that serious about what they were doing.”
Not every company has stuck with the pledge. Gap did not renew with the group late last year — but said in a statement that it’s not backing away from DEI efforts. Over the past year, the company has gone through major changes as part of a turnaround led by Richard Dickson, its new CEO.
In a statement, the denim and apparel retailer, which also includes Old Navy and Athleta, said the pledge looked different for the company because it sells and manufacturers its own brands. It said it “joined the pledge with the goal of increasing our diverse access and pipeline programs, and we met and exceeded that goal.”
A Gap spokesman declined to share specific goals, but said they focused on recruiting talent from diverse backgrounds.
This week, Gap rolled out a limited-time initiative to support Black businesses by selling shirts and hoodies from six Black designers from Harlem’s Fashion Row online and in select stores.
Walmart and Target have downplayed concerns that they will start to carry fewer Black-owned brands. A Walmart spokesperson pointed to the company’s Supplier Inclusion Program, which focuses on adding products from smaller vendors. She said the company also works with banks and lenders to expedite payments for orders or connect suppliers to loans.
Even as Target phases out DEI goals for Black-owned businesses, the discounter will keep offering Black-owned and minority-owned brands, a spokesman said. On its website, it’s promoting its collection of Black History Month items. He said Target will offer its Forward Founders program two times per year, which is designed for early-stage consumer packaged goods companies across categories including beauty, food and pets.
When Target launched Forward Founders in 2021, the company said the program was “designed to help Black-owned businesses increase their potential for long-term success in retail.”
Since last year, Target’s website has said the program is “evolving” — noting that founders no longer fill out an application for programs and Target will reach out to them if they’re “a strategic fit.” A spokesman said the company’s changes to its DEI initiatives do not affect its programs to boost founders, but did not offer more detail.
Some Black founders have warned against boycotting Target and other retailers that have walked back DEI efforts, saying it could further hurt Black-owned businesses.
In an Instagram post, social media personality, actress, and entrepreneur Tabitha Brown said “it’s definitely heartbreaking to feel unsupported.” But Brown, who has an active contract with Target, encouraged shoppers to use their dollars strategically when shopping Target’s shelves.
She’s developed merchandise with Target, including a collection of clothing, swimwear and home decor. Target also carries Donna’s Recipe, a haircare brand she co-founded.
“You can still go into those stores, if you choose to, and buy specific brands that you want to support. And let the other things not get your money,” she said.
She said if sales of Black-owned brands fall, retailers will remove them from their shelves.
“And then what happens to all the businesses who worked so hard to get where they are?” she said.
Handbag designer Brandon Blackwood said he worries that it will be harder for the next founder like him to get picked up by a major retailer.
Brandon Blackwood’s brand took off in 2020 when he made a tote labeled with three words instead of a logo: “End Systemic Racism.” The bag went viral.Nico Daniels / Courtesy Brandon Blackwood
His brand took off in 2020 during the Black Lives Matter movement, after he made a tote decorated with three words instead of a logo: “End Systemic Racism.” The bag gained traction through social media.
Yet he said major retailers that picked up handbags from his brand at the time, including Neiman Marcus, Bloomingdale’s and Nordstrom, “helped put my product in front of a lot of people that wouldn’t necessarily have seen it.”
“That really helped us and that really helped our brand awareness,” he said.
If retailers drop supplier diversity initiatives, he said it will thin out choices for customers.
For Brown Girl Jane, winning the confidence and business of major retailers — and particularly, Sephora — has been game changing, said Jones, the company’s co-founder and CEO. The brand got picked up first by Nordstrom in 2021. Now, Macy’s, Saks Fifth Avenue and Bloomingdale’s also sell its fragrances.
Sephora is its the biggest wholesale deal so far: The beauty retailer carries some exclusive scents, including Carnivale, a fragrance that sells for $102 and blends together juicy mango, sandalwood and creamy vanilla.
Jones said the company’s annual revenue is now in the $5 million to $7 million range. Roughly half of the company’s sales come from wholesale.
She described getting picked up by Sephora last year as a “vote of confidence,” but said they’ve also been “the biggest champion and a true partner of the brand.”
And she said that customers of all races desire her brand — and others from Black founders. About 40% of Brown Girl Jane’s customers are white, she said.
By backing away from DEI, she said companies also send a message to their buyers that casting a wide net for new brands doesn’t matter.
“It’s one thing to say ‘Ok, yeah. They [buyers] can still find who they find,’” she said. “But we know that without intentionality, a lot of these brands are just going to be overlooked.”
With prices rising rapidly and showing no signs of slowing anytime soon, some of the nation’s biggest grocery store chains — including Trader Joe’s, Walmart and Costco — have begun limiting the amount of eggs individual consumers can buy.
This time last year, the average price for a dozen eggs was around $3, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. By last month, it had risen to around $5.
And egg prices are expected to climb this year by 20.3 percent, according to the latest outlook from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Market analysts blame the price hikes on the highly infectious bird flu that has decimated the chicken population and reduced egg supplies during the winter holiday season, when the demand is strong. More than 13 million hens have been lost or slaughtered since December as a result of the bird flu outbreak, according to the Agriculture Department’s latest Egg Markets Overview.
Trader Joe’s is dealing with the shortages by limiting the amount of eggs customers can buy.
“Due to ongoing issues with the supply of eggs, we are currently limiting egg purchases to one dozen per customer, per day, in all Trader Joe’s stores across the country,” a spokesperson said in a statement. “We hope these limits will help to ensure that as many of our customers who need eggs are able to purchase them when they visit Trader Joe’s.”
Walmart is limiting bulk buyers to two 60-count cartons per purchase “to help ensure more customers can have access to eggs,” a spokesperson said.
“Although supply is very tight, we’re working with suppliers to try and help meet customer demand, while striving to keep prices as low as possible.”
There are no restrictions on purchasers of smaller quantities of eggs, the spokesperson said.
At Sam’s Club, purchasers are allowed to buy two cartons of each brand of eggs on the shelves, a spokesperson said.
But at Kroger and Aldi there is a two dozen eggs per trip limit, while Whole Foods and Costco are capping egg purchases at three one-dozen cartons per person in select stores.
A sign asks customers to limit their purchases of eggs at a grocery store Monday in South Pasadena, Calif. Frederic J. Brown / AFP – Getty Images
Meanwhile, the White House found itself taking flak again from Democrats demanding that President Donald Trump fulfill his campaign promise to immediately start reducing the price of groceries.
“Over the last several weeks, you have done nothing to address these rising costs,” the Congressional Dads Caucus said in a letter Thursday to Trump. “Moreover, your flurry of executive actions has hampered the government’s response to effectively address the underlying causes of this crisis. Eggs are a basic necessity for families in our districts, and the financial burden caused by these surging prices must be resolved.”
In some areas of New York, “the average price of a dozen eggs has reached more than $8 in some stores,” said Tony Hernandez, spokesperson for Rep. Jimmy Gomez, D-Calif., who leads the group that fired off the letter.
In response to the harsh criticism from congressional Democrats, a White House spokesperson, Anna Kelly, blamed the egg crisis on the ‘Biden Administration’s slow and ineffective response to the bird flu outbreak, which began in 2022.’
“Moms and dads across the country gave President Trump a mandate to take every action to drive down costs, and he is delivering,’ Kelly said in emailed statement.
Trump and Brooke Rollins, who is the president’s pick to head the Agriculture Department, ‘will refocus the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) on its core mission: protecting the health of the United States’ plants, animals, and natural resources,’ Kelly wrote.
In New York City, some bodegas have taken to selling eggs one at a time because their customers can’t afford to shell out $10 or more to buy a dozen eggs, a price that is not unusual in the very expensive city.
“These people don’t have enough money to buy a dozen eggs, so I have to sell them separately,” Fernando Rodriguez, 62, owner of Pamela’s Green Deli in The Bronx, told the New York Post.
Consumers sharply curtailed their spending in January, indicating a potential weakening in economic growth ahead, according to a Commerce Department report Friday.
Retail sales slipped 0.9% for the month from an upwardly revised 0.7% gain in December, even worse than the Dow Jones estimate for a 0.2% decline. The sales totals are adjusted for seasonality but not inflation for a month, in which prices rose 0.5%.
Excluding autos, prices fell 0.4%, also well off the consensus forecast for a 0.3% increase. A “control” measure that strips out several nonessential categories and figures directly into calculations for gross domestic product fell 0.8% after an upwardly revised increase of 0.8%.
With consumer spending making up about two-thirds of all economic activity in the U.S., the sales numbers indicate a potential weakening in growth for the first quarter.
Receipts at sporting goods, music and book stores tumbled 4.6% on the month, while online outlets reported a 1.9% decline and motor vehicles and parts spending dropped 2.8%. Gas stations along with food and drinking establishments both reported 0.9% increases.
Stock market futures held in slightly negative territory following the release, while Treasury yields lost ground. Traders raised bets that the Federal Reserve could cut interest rates again as soon as June.
“The drop was dramatic, but several mitigating factors show there’s no cause for alarm. Some of it can be chalked up to bad weather, and some to auto sales tanking in January after an unusual surge in December due to fat dealer incentives,” said Robert Frick, corporate economist with Navy Federal Credit Union. “Especially considering December was revised up strongly, the rolling average of consumer spending remains solid,” Frick added.
Inflation remains ahead of the Fed’s 2% goal. The consumer price index posted a 0.5% gain in January and showed a 3% annual inflation rate. However, the producer price index, a proxy for wholesale prices, showed some softening in key pipeline inputs.
In other economic news Friday, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that import prices accelerated 0.3% in January, in line with expectations for the largest one-month move since April 2024. On a year-over-year basis, import prices increased 1.9%.
Fuel prices increased 3.2% on the month, also the biggest gain since April 2024. Food, feeds and beverage costs rose 0.2% following a 3% surge in December.
Intel’s stock price has struggled for most of 2024, even as most of its semiconductor cousins were thriving. Why pay attention to Intel Corp. (INTC) now?
The stock showed up on my StockCharts Technical Rank (SCTR) scan, which is a good enough reason to analyze the stock. The scan is provided at the end of the article.
Vice President JD Vance emphasized the increase in US AI systems manufacturing in the AI summit in Paris. Since Intel is the largest domestic AI chip producer, the stock price got a much-needed boost. gave INTC a boost.
Previously, INTC has been beaten down hard. Weak earnings didn’t help, and the stock has been acting like a sinking ship with no lifeboat since the second half of 2024 (see chart below). But things may be shifting as it looks like the lifeboat may have appeared, bringing the stock a little closer to the surface.
The daily chart of INTC stock below gives a good picture of the price action.
FIGURE 1. DAILY CHART OF INTEL STOCK. The stock has closed higher for four consecutive days. It’s now hitting its first resistance against the 200-day moving average. Look for a breakout off of this level.Chart source: StockCharts.com. For educational purposes.
Note the following points in the chart:
The stock price has risen for four consecutive days with increasing volume.
Thursday’s close is battling against its 200-day simple moving average (SMA) resistance.
The SCTR score has crossed above the 76 level, the first criterion of my scan.
Intel’s relative performance (price relative/relative strength) against the VanEck Semiconductor ETF (SMH) is now in positive territory (13.02%).
With all the positive technicals, does it mean INTC stock is a buy at these levels? A break above the 200-day SMA would check one box. Beyond that, I would look at the November 2024 high (see weekly chart below).
FIGURE 2. WEEKLY CHART OF INTC STOCK. After a steep fall in mid-2024, Intel’s stock price is showing signs of recovery. A break above its early November high would be the first sign of a move higher.Chart source: StockCharts.com. For educational purposes.
A break above this high could mean that INTC could float toward its 52-week high. However, there are resistance hurdles to cross — the July 2024 high and January to March 2024 consolidation — before reaching the December 2023 high.
The bottom line: I’ll be monitoring Intel’s stock price closely. I’ve set an alert to notify me when the stock price crosses $26.25. If the indicators in the daily chart still indicate buying pressure is still strong and the trend is bullish, I’ll consider adding INTC to my portfolio.
SCTR Scan
[country is US] and [sma(20,volume) > 100000] and [[SCTR.us.etf x 76] or [SCTR.large x 76] or [SCTR.us.etf x 78] or [SCTR.large x 78] or [SCTR.us.etf x 80] or [SCTR.large x 80]]
Disclaimer: This blog is for educational purposes only and should not be construed as financial advice. The ideas and strategies should never be used without first assessing your own personal and financial situation, or without consulting a financial professional.
Not everyone likes to take a contrarian stance. Most people prefer to move with the market, not against it. But for those who thrive on going against the grain, extreme market movements — whether a rally or selloff — present opportunities.
Wednesday morning was one of those sessions. The Consumer Price Index (CPI) report came in hotter than expected, sending markets into an early plunge before trading mixed later in the day. This presented an ideal opportunity to hunt for stocks that might be bottoming.
My first move was to check the StockCharts’ Advancers & Decliners tool on my Dashboard for a real-time picture of market activity.
FIGURE 1. ADVANCERS & DECLINERS TOOL SECTORS VIEW. The hardest hit were Real Estate and Utilities.
The Real Estate and Utilities sectors were the most affected in the early part of the trading day. I needed a second angle to view the sector action. So, I switched over to the Sector Summary tool.
FIGURE 2. SECTOR SUMMARY TOOL. Percentage-wise, real estate had lost the most at the time of viewing.
After deciding to focus on the Real Estate sector, I ran a bearish New 52-Week Lows scan to see what I might find.
FIGURE 3. IMAGE OF SCAN PAGE AND RESULTS. I found two homebuilder stocks: DHI and LEN.
DR Horton Inc. (DHI) and Lennar Corp. (LEN), two of the biggest US homebuilders, were making new 52-week lows.
Full transparency: If you notice the super-low SCTR scores, well, they’re making new 52-week lows … and I’m searching for a bottom, not only price-wise, but in terms of a turnaround from extreme technical weakness.
But how were they compared to their industry peers? To analyze their relative performance, I switched over the PerfCharts to get a comparative view, adding SPDR S&P Homebuilders ETF (XHB) as an industry proxy in addition to a third major homebuilder—Toll Brothers, Inc. (TOL). TOL wasn’t on the list, but, as one of the major homebuilders showing relative strength despite its decline, I included it for comparison.
FIGURE 4. PERFCHARTS COMPARING XHB, DHI, LEN, AND TOL. TOL is the only stock outperforming its industry peers.
TOL is the only stock outperforming its peers, with LEN and DHI leading XHB downwards.
Back to my objective, I’m looking for stocks within the industry that might be close to bottoming out. But before I can do that, I must assess whether the industry might be bottoming out and if the current market response to the newly released CPI figures may be overextended or justified by underlying valuations.
FIGURE 5. WEEKLY CHART OF XHB. The index topped, but will it bounce or continue its decline?
If you look at XHB’s rising prices from the beginning of 2024 through October, in contrast to the Relative Strength Index’s (RSI) decline from above the 70 threshold, the bearish divergence is clear, confirming XHB’s topping action. The RSI is below the 50-line but nowhere near oversold territory.
Looking at sector breadth, the Real Estate Bullish Percent Index (BPI) is currently favoring the bulls, as over 50% of stocks within the sector are triggering Point & Figure “buy” signals. Although homebuilders don’t appear to be participating in this rally, will the broader sector eventually help lift the industry (in other words, are homebuilders bottoming)?
The critical level to watch here is $97 to $101 (see blue highlight), two swing lows that should serve as technical support. To broaden the viable support range, I overlaid an Ichimoku Cloud. If XHB falls below either the swing low or the cloud, then, technically, there’s plenty of downside to go. If it bounces, then a bullish case might take shape.
With this in mind, look at all three stocks (TOL, LEN, and DHI) side by side.
FIGURE 6. ACP CHARTS OF TOL, LEN, AND DHI. TOL, the better-performing stock, is nearing a critical support level.
The blue horizontal lines in each chart mark recent swing lows, all of which are (or were) critical support levels. TOL is about to test that level, while LEN and DHI have already fallen below theirs.
FIGURE 7. DAILY CHART OF TOL. Watch how price responds to these two support levels.
TOL is nearing support at the $120 December swing low. A closer look at the RSI reveals a slight bullish divergence, with the indicator rising from the 30-line even as TOL briefly dips below $120 before staging a strong bounce. Meanwhile, the Chaikin Money Flow (CMF) has fallen into negative territory. However, this dip is less pronounced than in December, when TOL’s price may have formed a bottom.
If TOL closes below $120, the more critical support level is $110. This is the longer-term support level shown in the weekly chart. If TOL remains above this threshold and proceeds to advance, then it’s likely that a bottom may be in place. Check volume and momentum to confirm the reversal if or when it happens.
FIGURE 8. DAILY CHART OF DHI. I’m using a measured move approach to determine where it might find support before the next swing low.
If you reference the weekly charts in Figure 6, you’ll see that DHI had fallen below critical support at $135 and is still falling. The next major level of support would be the October 2023 low at $100. However, given the near-symmetry of each swing, you might expect DHI to bounce at the “measured move” level near the $118 range.
The CMF is well below the zero line, indicating that selling pressure is driving the stock’s decline. However, the RSI presents a bullish divergence, with its recent lows trending higher even as the stock continues to fall. Still, without a definitive bounce and a shift in the CMF — a key volume indicator — there’s no clear confirmation that a bottom is in place.
Lastly, let’s switch over to a daily chart of LEN.
FIGURE 9. DAILY CHAFT OF LEN. In the near term, there’s no support in sight.
The next support level for LEN may be the November 2023 low of $101. In the near term, however, there doesn’t seem to be much in sight to prevent LEN’s descent. That said, a few volume-based signals suggest the selling pressure may not be entirely one-sided.
The Accumulation/Distribution Line (ADL), shown rising above the current price (see green line), indicates that money flows are increasing; a bullish sign for LEN.
The volume of selling pressure, according to the CMF, is significantly easing.
The Money Flow Index (MFI), which tracks volume and momentum, is climbing even as LEN continues to decline, indicating a bullish divergence.
While there’s no sign of bottoming, you may want to continue monitoring the stock for signs of stabilization.
At the Close
This piece demonstrates an attempt to spot bottoming opportunities during Wednesday’s market selloff. By tracking sector performance with StockCharts tools—namely, Advancers & Decliners and Sector Summary—I spotted Real Estate as one of the hardest-hit areas. A New 52-Week Lows scan flagged LEN and DHI, which I compared to TOL using PerfCharts to gauge relative strength. While these stocks haven’t confirmed a bottom yet, there are hints of a shift.
It’s worth adding LEN, DHI, and TOL to your ChartLists and keeping an eye on them. Once they stabilize and bottom out, it could signal an early entry point well before the next uptrend takes shape.
Disclaimer: This blog is for educational purposes only and should not be construed as financial advice. The ideas and strategies should never be used without first assessing your own personal and financial situation, or without consulting a financial professional.
