Dear Friend,

Every Tesla built in the last decade.

Every Starlink dish.

Every AI satellite Elon sends up.

One small company gets paid on all of it.

Elon's been paying them since 2012.

When NVIDIA tried to buy them, Elon fought the deal.

Now he's filed for 1,000,000 satellites.

That could mean a 100X bigger bill.

Dylan believes this stock takes off October 24th.

See Elon's 100X AI stock here >>

The Buck Stops Here,

Kelly Maguire
Behind the Markets

Conagra’s Turnaround Is Starting to Show Up in the Numbers

Author: Thomas Hughes. Posted: 10/3/2026.

Conagra’s (NYSE: CAG) dividend cut wasn’t pretty, but it was the right move at the right time, enabling a quicker turnaround for this value play. On the surface, the cut supports debt reduction, supply chain upgrades and brand investments. It also has a deeper implication, and the results are already evident: improved margins. Conagra’s turnaround efforts center on brand recovery and revenue growth, as well as earnings quality, which improved in Q1 fiscal year 2027 (FY2027), earlier than analysts or even the company had anticipated. In the words of CEO John Brase, the company is showing “measurable progress across the business.”

The new dividend payment is reliable, yielding approximately 5% with shares near long-term lows. The risk today is that dividend increases won’t resume for years, but increases could resume as early as next year if the company continues building momentum. Today’s catalyst, however, is growing confidence in the payment and turnaround efforts, as reflected in analyst and institutional trends. For these investors, a sub-10x current-year earnings multiple and roughly 5% dividend yield make this market-leading consumer staple potentially compelling at current levels.

Institutions See Value Before Analysts Do

The man who predicted the 2008 collapse now issues new warning. (Ad)

During the 2008 financial crisis, 485 US banks failed. Martin D. Weiss called 484 of them, a 99.8% accuracy rate.

Now Weiss says the banking system faces a new kind of stress, one that could touch nearly every bank in America, large or small.

See Weiss's full banking warning now and learn how to prepare.

Institutional activity is noteworthy because this group, which owns about 84% of the floating shares, has bought on balance in most quarters over the past two years, even as the stock declined. More importantly, activity ramped up as the share price moved lower, with trading volume peaking as shares approached historically low levels and triggering a rebound just above the multidecade support target. This suggests support at a critical level, though it does not rule out further downside while the market waits for Conagra’s turnaround to unfold.

Analysts' trends are less obviously bullish. The consensus of 18 tracked analysts is Reduce, and the average price target suggests limited upside from recent trading levels. Bullish signals include increased coverage, a consensus price target that has edged slightly higher over the past month and six Sell ratings among the 18 analysts, suggesting bearish sentiment may be stabilizing rather than reversing. While analysts do not provide a catalyst for a rebound today, their ratings reinforce the bottom signaled by institutional activity and could begin to improve as the quarters progress.

Chart action is highly suggestive that a solid floor is in place. Volume has spiked to record-high levels, and the long-term monthly chart shows deeply oversold conditions and early signs of accumulation. While downside risk remains, the market is unlikely to move significantly below the $12 level. If it does, that level would likely trigger a robust buying response.

Conagra Beats Expectations But Keeps Guidance Conservative

Conagra’s Q1 FY2027 wasn’t great, but it beat expectations, especially on the bottom line, which matters most. Net revenue was $2.6 billion, down 1.4% year over year, slightly outperforming consensus as pricing offset the impact of lower volume. Organic revenue fell 1.1%, with a 1% pricing gain offset by a 2.1% volume loss. By segment, the company demonstrated the strength of its operating model and growth avenues: Domestic Grocery and Refrigerated declined 2.6% and 2.1%, respectively, while International and Foodservice grew 2.7% and 3.2%, respectively. Within this result, foreign exchange accounted for 20 basis points of the total decline, while mergers and acquisitions accounted for about 50 basis points.

Weak Growth Overshadows Conagra’s Structural Improvement

Margin news was also better than expected, with gross margin declining less than forecast and SG&A improving more than expected. The net result was a 4.3% increase in adjusted earnings, or 41 cents per share, up 5.1% year over year and more than 10 cents above expectations. The bad news is that management only reaffirmed its guidance despite Q1 FY2027’s strengths, setting the stage for potential outperformance in the coming quarters.

Other pertinent details include reduced debt and interest expense. Capital management and improved earnings quality helped reduce total debt, with net debt declining 2.5% and interest expense falling 2.14%, freeing up future cash flow. With these trends in place, investors can expect debt reduction to accelerate in future quarters, keeping the company on track to reach its fiscal year-end goals.

Conagra’s risks center on consumer trends and the timing of its turnaround. As positive as the Q1 FY2027 release was, signs of persistent weakness remain, including negative organic growth and free cash flow. However, the market is misjudging the stock by punishing its lack of growth while overlooking strong execution and signs of stabilization. The company is on the cusp of returning to systemwide growth with stronger margins, reduced debt and improved cash flow, creating the foundation for an accelerated earnings recovery and a stronger capital-return profile.

Why Equal-Weight Funds Hide A Yield Curve Catch

Author: Jeffrey Neal Johnson. Posted: 9/27/2026.

Investors rotating out of the broad market to escape concentration risk in top-heavy technology equities may walk straight into a different macroeconomic risk. With a handful of mega-cap names dominating the index, the instinct to diversify through an equal-weight strategy seems logical.

However, adopting this approach mechanically trades technology-sector exposure for greater interest-rate sensitivity, leaving portfolios vulnerable to Treasury yield spikes and margin compression. Understanding how the structural differences between traditional and equal-weight funds influence performance in shifting monetary environments can help investors align index exposure with current macroeconomic realities. Index-construction mechanics can alter risk profiles more than many investors realize, making the underlying data essential for proper portfolio positioning.

From Tech Volatility to Treasury Yield Vulnerability

The 14-Word Loophole That Could Keep Trump in Power Until 2033 (Ad)

A former U.S. Presidential Advisor claims there is a clear path to the presidency in 2028, built around a 14-word loophole buried in the Constitution.

Rickards recently walked through the full scenario, and the conversation was recorded for a limited time.

Watch the free recording and hear the full 2028 scenario now

The SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (NYSEARCA: SPY) holds roughly a 48% aggregate allocation to technology and tech-adjacent services. The fund has about $818.87 billion in assets under management, and its performance is increasingly influenced by the capital expenditure cycles of artificial intelligence (AI) companies and consumer hardware providers. Investors often turn to the Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight ETF (NYSEARCA: RSP) to reduce that technology exposure to about 16%.

While this rebalancing achieves greater diversification, it increases exposure to capital-intensive sectors such as financials, which account for approximately 19% of the portfolio. This fundamental shift changes the portfolio's behavior. Investors are no longer holding a proxy for the broader U.S. economy, but rather a distinct basket of equities that responds differently to macroeconomic headwinds.

The Trillion-Dollar Top-Heavy Reality

The traditional market-cap-weighted index carries significant concentration risk. Apple Inc. (NASDAQ: AAPL) and NVIDIA Corporation (NASDAQ: NVDA) command a combined weight of nearly 15.7% within the standard index. The top four holdings alone represent nearly 25% of the SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust, creating an environment in which a localized correction in specific technology names can have an outsized impact on the entire portfolio.

Valuations for these mega-cap leaders remain elevated. Apple trades at a trailing price-to-earnings ratio of about 38, while NVIDIA trades near 28. Recent filings show insiders at both companies reducing their exposure. An NVIDIA executive recently liquidated approximately $6.7 million in stock, and an Apple senior vice president offloaded over 6,000 shares in September 2026. These transactions may reflect routine diversification, but they also highlight profit-taking at elevated valuation levels.

Because the SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust charges a highly efficient net expense ratio of 0.09%, investors essentially pay for its concentration through single-stock risk rather than management fees. The top-heavy structure means broad-market returns rely heavily on the continued earnings execution of a few dominant technology hardware and software providers.

The Mid-Cap Value Fund in Disguise

To mitigate this concentration risk, the equal-weight approach caps individual equity exposure at around 0.20% to 0.25% between quarterly rebalances. The Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight ETF carries a slightly higher net expense ratio of 0.20% to support this mechanical adjustment, shifting the fund from a broad-market tracker toward a mid-cap value vehicle.

The equal-weight fund's fundamental profile also shifts away from growth. The portfolio trades at a noticeable discount, with a price-to-earnings ratio near 20.6, compared with the market-cap-weighted fund's multiple of 25.5. It also provides a higher dividend yield of roughly 1.52%, compared with the SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust's 0.99%. That difference reflects its structural bias toward value and income-generating sectors.

Investors seeking an evenly distributed version of the broad market are actually buying a fundamentally different asset class. This value-tilted portfolio carries a unique set of macroeconomic vulnerabilities that become especially apparent when monetary policy tightens or inflation expectations rise.

The Tug-of-War Between Yields and Margins

An equal-weight strategy's vulnerability can surface during periods of rising interest rates. Sectors such as utilities, financials and real estate require steady capital expenditures and rely heavily on favorable debt markets to maintain operating margins.

When the 10-year Treasury yield spikes, borrowing costs can rise disproportionately for the smaller constituents of the Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight ETF. This higher cost of capital can compress returns while also competing directly with the dividend yields offered by these value-oriented sectors, making them less attractive than government bonds.

Mega-cap technology components are largely insulated from rising borrowing costs. Apple generates about $112 billion in net income, while NVIDIA produces approximately $120 billion. NVIDIA operates with a net margin of about 63.6% and a return on equity near 96%. These cash-rich businesses can self-fund operations and execute substantial shareholder-return programs, such as Apple's $100 billion buyback authorization.

Higher rates do not directly impair Apple's or NVIDIA's ability to fund research and development. In a rate-driven sell-off, the cash generation of top-heavy technology stocks can act as a defensive asset, while the equal-weight portfolio may bear more of the macroeconomic shock because it has greater exposure to debt-dependent sectors.

Strategic Portfolio Positioning for Q4

Navigating this dynamic requires tracking specific macroeconomic indicators rather than reacting solely to technology valuations. The primary signals for allocating between these two index strategies are the 10-year Treasury yield and Federal Reserve dot-plot projections. A steepening yield curve or hawkish monetary policy commentary can increase capital-cost constraints for debt-reliant sectors, shifting the fundamental advantage back toward the cash-rich balance sheets of technology leaders.

A flattening yield curve paired with valuation exhaustion in the technology sector favors the broad-market stability offered by an equal-weight strategy. If artificial intelligence capitalization multiples compress or consumer hardware cycles falter, the traditional index could suffer disproportionately because of its top-heavy construction. During a localized technology correction, an equal-weight portfolio may act as a shock absorber, relying on its broad distribution across 500 equally weighted names to weather the volatility.

Investors evaluating their broad-market exposure must weigh their outlook for monetary policy against their tolerance for single-stock concentration. Those expecting sustained higher borrowing costs and elevated Treasury yields might consider maintaining traditional market-cap exposure to benefit from market leaders' cash-rich balance sheets. Cautious investors anticipating a broader technology pullback might consider initiating a position in an equal-weight fund if yield-curve pressures begin to subside, helping insulate their portfolios from both concentration risk and rate shocks.