I already published the detailed Netflix Earnings Review this week. Click here to read.

Next week, things will get wonderfully busy:

Nearly 40 more earnings reviews will then be sent out in the weeks ahead.

The seasonal discounts for annual plans are ongoing. I take great pride in sending high-quality, data-driven, non-sensationalist coverage on every name in the coverage network. These articles are a labor of love… and I enjoy every second analyzing and writing them for you. If you’d like to vastly streamline the time it takes to keep with your holdings, subscribe here.

As a reminder, earnings “reviews” are highly detailed. Earnings “round-ups” and “summaries” are 30,000 ft. views for companies outside of the core coverage network. For this specific round-up, the American Express piece is more detailed, as the commentary on credit and economic health is highly instructive for many other names.

Demand:

AXP met revenue estimates & roughly met its approximately 9% Y/Y growth guidance.

Profits, Margins & Returns:

Balance Sheet:

Annual Guidance & Valuation:

AXP is expected to compound EPS at an 11% clip for the next two years. I think estimates will be mostly stable following this report.

“For now, we're assuming 2025 billings growth will be similar to the full year 2024 number. However, if spend growth continues at the elevated Q4 level throughout this year, we would expect to come in at the higher end of our revenue range, all else being equal.

CEO Stephen Squeri 

Credit & Economic Health Commentary:

“We exited the year with increased momentum… driven by stronger spending from our consumer and commercial customers during the holiday season. We maintained our best-in-class credit performance.”

CEO Stephen Squeri 

“U.S. Consumer spend was up 9% year-over-year in the quarter as strong holiday spend drove momentum versus Q3… Notably, all generations saw an uptick in spend this quarter compared to Q3.”

CFO Christophe Le Caillec

“We continue to make strides in our International business… Q4 spend results were strong across our businesses, and we feel good about the spend acceleration we saw. While growth in Q1 will be impacted by the grow-over from leap year in 2024. So far, the first 3 weeks of January look more in line with Q4 trends.”

CFO Christophe Le Caillec

“We continued to see healthy loan growth and we achieved record net card fees. We achieved these results while maintaining our best-in-class credit performance.”

CFO Christophe Le Caillec

“We saw an improvement in small business sentiment in the fourth quarter, which linked to stronger organic spending by our small business customers through the holiday season.” –

CEO Stephen Squeri

Brief Thoughts:

Credit thankfully looks as good as you would expect for a company that caters to highly affluent individuals like this one. It’s good to see both DQ and NCO rates for the company well below 2019 levels and good to hear their brightening point of view towards consumer and economic health entering 2025.

Intuitive Surgical creates robotics systems for various surgeries. Its first system (now on version 5) is called da Vinci and features robotic arms and tools for general surgeries. Its newer system, called Ion, is more purpose-built for lung procedures.

Demand:

ISRG provided preliminary guidance on January 15th, which called for about $2.41 billion in quarterly revenue, which it met. Analyst estimates only moved from $2.20 billion to $2.24 billion following the news, so this was still a beat. ISRG also guided to 18% Y/Y procedure growth, which it met. ISRG sells both the machine and consumables and the more surgeries performed, the higher the revenue.

Profits & Margins:

The only items in the pre-announcement were demand related.

Balance Sheet:

Annual Guidance & Valuation:

ISRG reiterated the same 2025 guidance that it provided in its preliminary earnings release. It expects 14.5% Y/Y procedure growth for da Vinci vs. about 15% to 16% growth expected by analysts (depending on the source). ISRG is a consistent guidance sandbagger – especially when offering new annual guidance. Systems revenue is expected to rise due to a mix shift away from leased machines to outright purchased machines, while average selling price is also expected to rise Y/Y. 

It also expects a 67.5% GPM, which missed 68.3% estimates. Tariffs, which weren’t included in guidance, could negatively impact GPM. Finally, it expects about 12.5% Y/Y operating expense growth vs. about 10% growth in 2024. Based on current estimates, analysts expect 16% EPS compounding over the next two years. I think profit estimates will slightly decline following this report.

5 years into Nu’s Mexico entrance, the company has now crossed 10 million customers while maintaining 100% Y/Y growth. We’re spoiled by the consistent financial performance this company churns out, which can lead investors (myself included) to take for granted wildly impressive, scaled growth like this. For context, SoFi’s business is one of the most (if not the most) impressive member growth stories for banks in the USA. And? At a similar scale to Nu Mexico, it’s sporting 35% Y/Y customer growth. These markets are not apples-to-apples; competition in Latin America is surely less intense than in the USA and the financial service opportunities are far less established. But regardless, Nu truly is one of a kind.

In just 5 years, Nu has racked up a 12% population market share and a 23% share of adults with bank accounts in Mexico. While that’s impressive, the runway remains extremely long. As of now, 42% of Mexicans still have no access to financial services compared to about 3% in Brazil, per Fiserv. Furthermore, credit card penetration rate in Mexico is 12% vs. 50% in Brazil. Despite this, GDP per Capita is HIGHER in Mexico than it is in Brazil by about 30% while Mexican smartphone adoption rate is somewhere between 60%-80%, which is comparable to Brazil. It’s also similar to other nations like Poland and South Africa with far higher financial service adoption rates. 

Usage of cash is much more popular in Mexico vs. Brazil, which means that the cash displacement opportunity is commensurately larger. To account for this, Nu has successfully grown its Mexicann brick and mortar cash withdrawal and deposit locations (through partners) to 30,000. While this isn’t its most exciting product there, it does ensure that Nu can work with customers who are very early on in their product journeys. That should engender loyalty and customer stickiness.  It also positions Nu to cross-sell its other products (savings accounts, credit cards etc.) with little incremental cost. Nu has presence in 98% of municipalities there, including many without any traditional bank branches. This inherently gives Nu a leg up vs. all legacy competition and allows it to serve consumers that others can’t even reach.

All of this says that Mexicans boast serious potential, while having the level of affluence and technological modernization needed for this to be a massive growth market in the years to come. And Nu clearly has the products, brand and momentum to capture this opportunity. Recall that a few quarters ago, Nu shared an update on Mexico progress vs. Brazil the same number of years into operations. It’s promising to see this market taking off even more quickly than its home nation did.

Cost of funding and operating in Mexico is currently higher than Brazil, so growth here is currently a margin headwind. For context, it’s at a roughly 40% return on equity in Brazil and in the high 20% range for the company as a whole. I think all of this data shows us exactly why this is a concession Nu is eager to make. Mexico is rapidly morphing into another Brazil; I expect it to keep rapidly scaling with improving margins and rising economies of scale. Front-loading investments to ensure you take a large piece of the pie makes perfect sense.

As time passes… it is becoming glaringly obvious that the Mexican banking modernization opportunity will be dominated by two players: MercadoLibre… and Nu.

In other international news, Nu seems to be nearing more global expansion. Leadership has been adamant that Brazil, Mexico and Colombia are simply their first three of many more markets to come. News this week points to the next expansion markets soon being announced.

In an interview with Reuters this week, Co-Founder/CEO David Vélez revealed that Nu is considering moving its business headquarters to the United Kingdom. This move could enable easier international expansion, as the UK's governing bodies will require regulatory compliance that mirrors countries across Europe and North America more closely than Brazil. It would also give Nu access to a lot more quality talent in that nation and neighboring countries.

As part of the Reuters interview, Vélez confirmed that this is meant to position Nu for global expansion beyond its first three (of many) countries in the not-too-distant future. Specifically, investors were told to expect more market debuts within the next two years. When asked which ones, he poured cold water over European expansion and said the UK news is solely based on compliance and talent. There are no plans to expand in Europe for now. Conversely, when asked about the USA, he didn’t push back at all and said this:

“When a U.S. administration suddenly sees fintech as being good for consumers and more competition, that makes it more attractive."

Co-Founder/CEO David Vélez

In light of the $150 million investment in Singapore-based Tyme Group, I think Southeast Asia and more Latin American countries (hopefully Argentina soon) are the other most likely areas of footprint expansion. Nu thrives by offering vastly broader financial inclusion with less predatory and expensive products than consumers have available in its 3 Latin American markets. There are many, many more consumers across the globe that this value proposition should resonate with. Even in the USA, there are still nearly 50 million under-banked Americans. And while I think the competitive landscape and relative efficiency in the USA will make it harder to win here, Nu seems determined to give it a go. I wouldn’t bet against them, but regardless of whether an American initiative works, I think success across the rest of Latin America and other parts of the world is quite likely. 

It has already clearly already demonstrated that its model works outside of Brazil in the compelling Mexican and Colombian markets. I realize these are all Latin American countries, but the cultural, economic and lifestyle differences between the three are quite stark when compared to the USA vs. Canada for example. Nu winning across Latin America tells me that it can win in most places.

Compass Point, one of the few SoFi bears, reiterated an underperform rating this week and raised their price target to $6. To the company’s credit, they were right about SoFi throughout 2022 and 2023. They rightfully called out risks to capital market liquidity and tech platform growth, which both become more challenging amid rapid rate hikes. But? They didn’t change their opinion in the slightest as hawkish macro policy convincingly flipped to dovish. Instead, they chose to fight the Fed and SoFi as an interest rate sensitive name with a great team and track record for execution.

Fair Value:

The analyst continues to take issue with the company’s fair value accounting practices, which candidly is getting tiresome. He says capital ratios and profits would be lower without its elected form of fair value accounting. CECL-style accounting front-loads expected credit losses, while fair value accounting recognizes those losses on the income statement as they play out throughout the course of a loan. I have responded to this criticism many, many times over the years in this newsletter. My reasoning will be the same as it has always been, so if you’ve read these pieces in the past, you will notice overlap.

First, fair value accounting is more transparent than CECL-style accounting. It requires creditors to realize loan value changes on a quarterly basis, which greatly diminishes the risk of pent-up unrealized losses vs. companies provisioning loss estimates at the beginning of the term. We’re not very far removed from risks of unrealized losses leading to a regional banking crisis for institutions like Silicon Valley Bank. Fair value accounting greatly diminishes this challenge (as does Galileo’s real-time asset and liability management tool). In my mind, it makes far more sense to incur potential losses based on actual observed repayment history, rather than your best guess of borrower and macro health over the course of a loan. 

The next complaint about this form of accounting is that it allows SoFi to set fair value premiums on its loans that prop up its profits and capital ratios and enable more loan growth. As I’ve said many times, the assumptions baked into SoFi’s fair value markings are intentionally conservative. For example, they assume negative GDP growth and 5% unemployment, which are both far more pessimistic than reality today. These markings are also audited by an independent 3rd party and, most importantly, consistently validated by capital market loan sales. These loan buyers, with demand levels consistently called strong or better by leadership, have better access to the data underlying these assets than you do, I do or any SoFi analyst does. And? They’ve shown a uniform willingness to pay hefty gain on sale margins in excess of fair value loan markings for nearly $4 billion in total loan principle to date. Thinking we know better than them is ill-advised and arrogant, in my opinion.

“We have loan funding commitments for Q4 and 2025 with several other partners besides Fortress.”

CFO Chris Lapointe

Compass continues to argue that a forced change from fair value accounting to CECL would lead to material hits to its ramping net income and capital ratios that would force it to slow down lending or raise more money. That’s true, but this will never happen. Fair value accounting is GAAP accounting and there is zero regulatory momentum to speak of when it comes to requiring this change. But let’s entertain this worst-case, never-going-to-happen risk for a moment. What would happen? Results would suffer for a few quarters as it moved from real-time loss realization to front-loading all of it. Comps would then normalize.

At the same time, this highly unlikely outcome would only weigh on results for a few quarters. As long as losses are being incurred at some point, the end result for 18 month personal loans is the same. $10 - $8 is $2… and $10 - $4 - $4 is also $2. Loans would not suddenly become less profitable solely from this… profit realization timing would just change.

The more pressing risk would come from this diminishing its overall capital ratio cushion and slowing down its capacity to originate loans.

While this is possible, it’s also why the rapid proliferation of its lending platform is so important. It has a long list of capital market liquidity suppliers eager to invest in its loans. And now? It is able to originate loans for its balance sheet to sell down the road, as well as allowing partners to originate loans through SoFi’s site and immediately assume the credit risk. This is for customers within and outside of SoFi’s credit bands. This highly unrealistic regulatory change would simply mean that it needs to lean more heavily on capital market sales, which it can do. I’m frustrated that I’m required to rebut this again, as I think this risk is about as probable as me growing 5 inches as I approach age 30. Still, in the event that this does occur (I’d love to be 6 feet tall), the resulting headwinds would create transitory turbulence, not structural decline.

Picking on Credit Vintages:

Compass explicitly called out SoFi’s underperforming 2022 vintages as evidence of worsening credit quality.. What they neglected to mention is that SoFi has addressed this several times. The vintage performance directly led to it tightening credit origination bands and getting a lot pickier on approvals. And since this decision, the company has consistently reiterated expectations of 7%-8% life of loan loss rates. Those statements have come with increasingly confident language too.

The analyst also entirely ignored the extensive vintage analysis SoFi has given us recently to explain why it will stay under that 8% limit. Last quarter, leadership concretely told us that Q4 2022 - Q4 2024 vintages boast a 3.3% cumulative loss rate, with 51% of outstanding principal remaining. This is more than 30% better than 2017, which is the last time loss rates approached 8%. The lead vs. 2017 performance is the largest for its newest vintages. 

“Newer vintages have returns of 2x vs. 2017 with ROE over 30%.”

CEO Anthony Noto

Of the remaining principal for vintages Q1 2020 - Q2 2024, loss rates would need to be nearly 30% worse than the 2017 peak to breach its target. It has never seen loss rates remotely close to that bad; macro is now improving. Compass is willfully cherry-picking a small subsection of backward-looking data and skipping all of the positive context we’ve been offered that explain why its view is wrong. Why is it doing this? Because using this extremely specific lens of credit quality measurement is the only way to justify his bearish mindset here and he seems determined to stay negative on the name.

Valuation:

Compass called out the valuation premium while again using tangible book value (TBV) per share to explain. He also thinks TBV is overstated due to fair value accounting and current loan markings, but we’ve already addressed and discarded that idea above.

There’s zero mention of SoFi deserving a premium based on its rate of profit growth that far exceeds peers. TBV makes it look expensive because its profit ramp, which feeds retained earnings and TBV, has only recently begun. And with that in mind, using traditional valuation metrics that work for the JP Morgan’s of the world just doesn’t make sense here. What makes sense? Using a growth multiple framework. You can argue that doesn’t make sense because lending is cyclical and growth is volatile. I’d just point us to SoFi’s last 5 years of continued top-line expansion across a wide range of macro backdrops. Market share gains have a way of buffering innate industry cyclicality (and the fun part of the cycle for SoFi’s business has also now begun).

SoFi trades for 80x forward GAAP EPS (60x 2025 GAAP EPS) and is expected to compound EPS at a 94% clip for the next two years. If history is any indication, it will beat those estimates. But assuming it doesn’t, the PEG ratio still sits at a very modest 0.85x. From an EBIT point of view, here’s how it looks vs. other growth companies:

Other Notes:

Compass sees Galileo revenue accelerated from a low-to-mid teens rate to roughly 22.5% in 2026. This segment successfully picking back up would be great for sentiment, asset light revenue growth and likely its valuation multiple. SoFi is predominantly a bank today in my mind (which is fine if profit and revenue growth remain so strong), and Galileo’s success could quickly change that for the better. 

The analyst also noted that SoFi’s personal loan market share for 721+ FICO customers has gone from 11% 3 years ago to over 28% as of Q2 2024. Overall market share has gone from 4% to 13.4% over that time. He thinks market share will continue to rise. He thinks quarterly personal loan volume will rise from $4.9 billion to $7.0 billion per quarter by 2026, which represents a nearly 20% volume CAGR. Home lending growth will be faster (tiny base) and student lending should be too thanks to extremely easy comps from the now-expired loan moratorium. SoFi’s multi-year guidance calls for mid-teens revenue growth for lending, and take rates on these loans should be stable or even a bit better with improving borrower demand and liquidity. Compass seems to think they’ll do even better than that (are you sure you’re bearish, Giuliano?).

Conclusion:

None of the bearish risks presented are new or anything that make me at all hesitant here. I viewed this as a very positive update from Compass. They’ve been pessimistic for quite some time, and this price target boost is a small, small divergence from that underlying theme.

This week, the SEC reversed "SAB-121," which made it difficult for banks to be Bitcoin and crypto custodians by forcing them to treat wildly volatile digital currency as balance sheet liabilities. This penalizes holding crypto by increasing reserve requirements & pressuring capital ratios for those choosing to do so. That means lower capacity to lend and grow. Banks weren’t explicitly prohibited from being Bitcoin Custodians, but this rule made doing that extremely uncompelling. With this going away, many more financial institutions will likely be eager to re-evaluate entering the space.

I think SoFi will be one of those institutions. As a reminder, it was essentially forced to divest its crypto business as a condition for receiving its charter. To me, this piece of news... & everything else we've seen recently... continues to boost the likelihood that SoFi will  re-enter the space. Regulators under the current administration are clearly eager to create more relaxed rules here, which could mean this turns into yet another direct revenue source for SoFi in the coming quarters. And it’s not just that. Crypto has been a gaping hole in SoFi Invest’s product offering as interest in the space exploded and this company has been forced to watch from the sidelines. If that changes, it will surely improve monetization, and also top-of-funnel momentum by cutting the number of customers simply unwilling to use it because it doesn’t have crypto. While I don’t invest in or talk about crypto much, I do like when it turns into more financial tailwinds for holdings.

Jet Blu added Venmo as a checkout option this past week. This joins other wins like Lululemon, Ticketmaster, Booking.com, eBay and more. Why does this matter? I’m glad you asked. Venmo doesn’t struggle with traffic or demographics. It boasts a massive, young, affluent and loyal user base of more than 80 million people who live on and love Venmo. The struggle has been with monetization.  PayPal has simply not taken this cult-like following and turned it into more of a compelling financial driver. Until very recently, peer-to-peer payments (which are mainly free) were the only real source of Venmo volume and the vast majority of funds entering the platform immediately exited it. Venmo needs to do a much better job of marketing products, growing its business profile roster (merchants love Venmo’s local, personal feed for sponsored listings) and monetizing all of this traction. One of the best ways to do that is by supporting more checkout adoption, which should be very easy considering PayPal checkout’s leading adoption scale. This is how Venmo can keep funds in the ecosystem for longer, collect more net interest income and more meaningfully cross-sell more products like its credit cards to generate higher margin interchange revenue too. That’s why announcements like Jet Blu’s matter.

Aside from rapid growth for its cards, thanks to making them a more prominent piece of the app, rising checkout integration momentum is the clearest sign of Venmo finally turning a financial corner. This should be a much bigger piece of PayPal’s revenue and profit engine… and that’s the plan under new CEO Alex Chriss.

PayPal’s Chief Product Officer (CPO) John Kim is leaving the company at the end of March. Kim has an impressive resume that includes serving as Expedia’s President of Marketplace and Vrbo. He’s well regarded. Interestingly, Kim was hired just weeks before Chriss was named as the new PayPal CEO. That’s candidly something I found a bit odd and I was surprised that Kim lasted so long as new leadership overhauled the team. I think this is likely just Chriss wrapping up the talent transition work, and it’s good to see that Kim will stay with the firm for another 2 months. That speaks to the breakup being relatively amicable.

Zuck took to Threads to unveil expectations and spending plans for 2025. He continues to see Meta AI being the leading free GenAI assistant and Llama 4 leading the frontier model charge. At the same time, the firm plans to build an internal application for automating a lot of the manual coding still happening within the firm. All of this will entail a 2 Gigawatt datacenter as well as exiting 2025 with an expected 1.3 million GPUs.

To fund all of this, Meta plans to spend $62.5 billion in annual CapEx while “significantly growing AI teams.” The $62.5 billion figure is a full 22% ahead of consensus estimates, as Meta gears up to make 2025 “a defining year for AI.” While $62.5 billion is a hefty expense, I say “go for it”. They’ve clearly demonstrated an ability to create elite models, apps and AI-infused hardware. They get constant praise from industry leaders like Jensen Huang, Satya Nadella and Databricks’s CEO Ali Ghodsi and have all of the resources needed to lead enterprise and consumer AI charges. As Zuck put it, “let’s go build.” 

It’s ironic to me that this news resulted in the stock reaching new all time highs on Friday. We’re just a few years removed from above-consensus forward-looking spend guidance resulting in the stock cratering by more than 50%. This just goes to show you how starkly sentiment has changed and how much easier monetary policy has gotten too. Meta has morphed from the mega-cap destined to be left behind in AI (with a founder hell-bent on spending on the Metaverse), into the de facto open source leader in the space. It has gone from the likely loser to the betting favorite. It has demonstrated clear proof of concept for these investments taking hold and also now exists within an exogenous backdrop of rate cuts, better liquidity and rewarding future, speculative growth.

As an aside, I’m glad this news came after the release of a new model from a Chinese vendor called Deepseek Version 3, which supposedly delivers vast training efficiency gains over other models. Meta clearly doesn’t see this as a reason to deviate from its current course in the least, and is another reason why being the open source leader is key: Developers do a lot of the work for you and inherently make you a lower cost provider. Models are racing to commoditization, and within that realm, cost advantages will become increasingly paramount.

Unsurprisingly, Meta is developing the next iteration of its Ray Ban smart glasses. More interestingly, it’s also looking to expand into more AI-infused wearable devices including watches and headphones. It’s also launching new smart glasses with Oakley for athletes. A few years ago, Apple came for Meta’s ad business with cross-app data sharing restrictions that created immediate, rapid signal loss. Meta overcame those daunting headwinds via hefty investments in core AI to use its data to do more with less. Now? Meta is coming for everything that Apple makes and is determined to control 100% of its own destiny rather than relying on ecosystem players like this one.

Meta is a strategic investor in a $10 billion mega-funding round for Databricks. Databricks offers a cohesive platform (built on top of Apache Spark) for ingesting, organizing and storing data at massive scale, with several analytics tools and a notebooks product for workflow collaboration between developers. It also offers a secure, gated community for AI app development that boasts safe data handling to minimize leakage and software to help facilitate model customizing. It competes with companies like Snowflake.

With this in mind, Meta and Databricks are a perfect pair. Meta doesn’t need to invest in model providers such as Anthropic or OpenAI like other mega caps do. Why? Because it can build its own, open source them, and let others build on top of them to be that aforementioned low-cost provider of world-class models. But how can it strengthen this positioning and continue to be the bonafide leader in enterprise AI (per Jensen)? By partnering with elite data lake houses.  This will provide access to incremental relevant insight and visibility over how enterprise customers are actually using its models within platforms like Databricks. This means it can learn & iterate more quickly, which matters a lot within the global race of building the best model. “Thousands of customers” use Llama models through Databricks, and now all of that traffic will more directly lead to learning, improving and winning.

“We're seeing an explosion in open source models. The thing that really changed the market was when Meta released Llama. We immediately saw thousands of customers using them."

Databricks CEO Ali Ghodsi

Meta’s Threads app, and its rapidly growing base of 275 million monthly active users (MAUs) will debut ads in the USA and Japan in the coming weeks. Ad load will ramp slowly as always and this will not immediately turn into a financial growth driver for the company. But? It could easily do that in the coming years. Meta has already spent most of what it needs to spend to build this app and now has a critical mass of engaged users. Time to turn on the money faucet. It’s the same playbook this company has run for every other app it owns.

OpenAI, with support of the U.S. government, announced the Stargate Project, which entails a $500 billion investment through 2028 to create AI infrastructure in the USA. There were some doubts cast about the true amount of secured funding.

The UK launched an investigation into Apple’s & Alphabet’s ecosystems. Add this to the pile.

Home Depot will now deliver goods through Uber and DoorDash. Uber will also now deliver groceries for Wegmans.

Raymond James sees fulfillment utilization and lengthy secular trends supporting more profitable MercadoLibre growth after a period of hefty credit and logistics investments. It sees tailwinds more than counteracting macro weakness in Brazil and thinks profit estimate revisions will turn positive throughout 2025. It upgraded the stock to overweight.

TD Cowen downgraded Celsius to hold and cut its price target to $29 due to growth concerns. This note would have made more sense a year ago.

The head of Starbucks China, Belinda Wong, will step down after 25 years. This is likely part of new CEO Brian Niccol’s overhaul of the team there, although Wong may just have been ready to retire.

CrowdStrike and Cognizant (system integrator) announced an AI enterprise security partnership. Cognizant will use Falcon for its clients.

Alphabet is investing another $1 billion in Anthropic. This brings its total investments to $3 billion vs. $8 billion for Amazon.

RBC channel checks across its 3rd party sources point to Shopify’s Q4 outperforming expectations.

JMP praised The Trade Desk’s connected TV positioning and open internet niche while speaking positively about future growth in a bullish initiation for the firm this week ($150 price target).

Jefferies initiated Duolingo with a hold rating ($370 price target). It called execution impressive, but is less confident in future growth outside of language learning. It wants to see more proof of traction there. I think it will come.

Good news and bad news. The good news is DraftKings reported a nearly 12% hold rate in New York this past week, which marks another great week for the books. The bad news? It’s because my beloved Detroit Lions got upset at home by the Commanders. I’m not bitter (yes I am).

Consumer & Employment Data:

Output Data:

Inflation Data: