Connect with us

Finance

We must finance a new wave of industrialization in the US

Published

on

We must finance a new wave of industrialization in the US
A blend of equity, private debt and public investment drove the country’s growth in the Industrial Revolution. To remain globally competitive, the U.S. needs more creative financing of large infrastructure projects, writes Gregory Bernstein, of The New Industrial Corporation.

Adobe Stock

At JPMorgan Chase, revenue recently surged 21%, to $7 billion. The bank has never had a better fourth quarter. The equities business at Goldman Sachs raked in $13.4 billion for 2024, another record-setting result. Morgan Stanley far exceeded analysts’ expectations in the fourth quarter, as well. Despite some temporary shocks caused by policy uncertainty from the new administration, 2025 has also shown strong performance so far. But Wall Street’s blockbuster results obscure a larger, structural problem with the finance community’s approach to the many serious challenges we face today — playing a reactive game of whack a mole with each new crisis that pops up. 

Whether it’s the apocalyptic images of whole neighborhoods razed by wildfires in Los Angeles (or hurricane-battered cities like Houston and Tampa before that); the economic dislocations caused by American tariffs on our largest trade partners and further inflation; or the intense uncertainty surrounding the emergence of generative AI, perpetual crisis seems to be the new normal. And the finance community — while flush and in the mood for dealmaking — is trapped in a reactive stance, unable to take a more proactive, thoughtful and strategic approach that anticipates the ways in which our world is transforming.

What would that approach look like? 

Advertisement

First, it would acknowledge the need for significant industrialization: lithium processing facilities, modular nuclear reactors, biomanufacturing plants, compute capacity and novel electrical assembly operations. For far too long, Wall Street’s capital has flowed primarily to digital and consumer-focused assets, while heavy industry — increasingly indispensable to economic security — has struggled to attract the scale of financing required to thrive in the new, globally hypercompetitive era that’s now upon us.

Second, it would recognize that the benefits of these investments — though they will take years to materialize — are essential to whether we continue to win, and that to meet the moment, Wall Street needs to quickly align itself with this long-term vision. 

Third, a better approach can help realize a new industrial asset class: the bio-manufacturing plants, the networks of data centers we desperately need, and the specialty manufacturing for tool and die making. But only if we figure out how to finance them. 

If capital markets fail to support new industrial projects — from new semiconductor foundries to clean energy infrastructure — the U.S. risks falling behind, ceding industrial and technological leadership to foreign competitors. Our ambitions will only be realized if private investment, public policy and industry innovation work in tandem, and work fast. 

History reminds us of what’s at stake if we don’t adapt and how entire nations have fallen behind in worst-case scenarios.

Advertisement

Germany’s shift to renewable energy starting in the early 2000s was not immediately matched by its financial sector, which was slow to finance renewable projects. It took years before banks and investors fully backed the transition, leaving much of the early capital needs to government subsidies. Similarly, despite the rapid adoption of mobile payments worldwide in the 2010s, many Indian banks were initially slow to invest in digital infrastructure. This misstep allowed third-party tech players like Paytm to dominate the market while major banks had to play catch-up.

But history has also shown that when markets adjust to emerging challenges, those ready to think creatively and embrace change stand to gain the most.

To remain resilient, the United States needs to pivot to new models of blended finance to invest in new industrial infrastructure. Established financial players, alongside venture firms, family offices and institutional investors have a vital role to play in marshaling resources for this new era. We can meet this challenge by providing targeted products that address the needs of this “missing middle” — those ventures too large for venture capital alone but not yet suited to traditional public markets. 

We’ve done it before. Finance can be an adaptive industry. Consider the rise and dominance of investment banking in the 1980s, spurred by deregulation, relaxed antitrust laws and lower taxes. Or Wall Street shifting to accommodate the rise of personal technology in the 1990s. Similarly, the growth of the internet and new methods of electronic trading demolished barriers to entry and spawned thousands of lucrative hedge funds.

In facing another industrial revolution, we would do well to remember the lessons of an earlier success, beginning in the 1870s. With European powers asserting new imperial dominance abroad, the U.S. faced pressure to strengthen its economic foundations at home. This competitive landscape spurred the American government and private sector to adopt innovative financing models, particularly in building the transcontinental railroads that became the backbone of economic growth and innovation. Blended financing that combined equity, private debt and public investment enabled these massive infrastructure projects to materialize, creating a resilient economy capable of holding its own amid turbulent geopolitical shifts.

Advertisement

If the private sector, policymakers and investors fail to evolve now, the promise of this new era will remain elusive. A commitment to reshaping American manufacturing with a focus on innovation and productivity could hold the key, but only if we recognize the urgency and act accordingly. As we enter a new age as a nation, America is faced with a choice: Either continue with the status quo that only reacts to the latest dislocation or adapt by adopting an economic model that unlocks a new industrial revolution.

Finance

Robinhood Is Becoming a Full-Service Financial Platform. Is the Stock a Buy? | The Motley Fool

Published

on

Robinhood Is Becoming a Full-Service Financial Platform. Is the Stock a Buy? | The Motley Fool

Founded in 2013, Robinhood (HOOD +2.80%) changed the brokerage industry with its free trading model. Today, the broker’s product lineup has expanded well beyond stocks to include products like cryptocurrencies and prediction markets. With a focus on smaller investors, Robinhood is living up to its goal to “democratize finance for all.” But is becoming a full-service financial platform enough to make the stock a buy?

Robinhood is growing quickly

Although it was founded in 2013, Robinhood didn’t go public until 2021. In its first earnings release in the second quarter of that year, it had $102 billion in custody. In the first quarter of 2026, roughly five years later, that figure had grown to $307 billion, and it is now called total platform assets, given the broadening of the company’s business. The company has rapidly become a major player in the finance industry, building off its early success in attracting younger traders interested in stocks.

Image source: Getty Images.

There’s no question that management deserves a great deal of credit for what Robinhood has achieved. But that alone doesn’t make the stock worth buying. Notably, Robinhood is being afforded a premium valuation, with a price-to-earnings ratio of 45x, compared to P/Es of 39x for Interactive Brokers (IBKR +0.96%) and 18x for Charles Schwab (SCHW 2.97%). A growth investor may be able to justify Robinhood’s valuation, but a value investor likely wouldn’t be interested.

What’s going on with Robinhood’s customer base?

There’s another issue to consider here as well. With a focus on new investors, Robinhood may be taking on more risk than its long-established peers, such as Charles Schwab. This potential risk was highlighted in Robinhood’s solid first quarter 2026 results. Risk-taking is the big issue.

Advertisement

While Robinhood’s transaction-based revenue jumped 7% year-over-year in the quarter, that growth was largely driven by prediction markets, which boosted “other” revenue by 320%. Cryptocurrency-related revenue, however, fell by 47%. This is notable because it suggests that aggressive investors shifted to what is the current hot trading idea.

Robinhood Markets Stock Quote

Today’s Change

(2.80%) $2.95

Current Price

$108.15

The problem is that Robinhood has never lived through a deep market downturn, such as the dot-com crash or the bear market associated with the Great Recession. Until it has, it is hard to know what its customers will do when every market seems to be heading lower, and losses are piling up. In other words, what will its customers do when there’s no new hot investment idea to jump on? There is a very real possibility that fear drives less experienced investors to get out of the market and stay out. Risk-averse investors will likely want to wait for Robinhood to be stress-tested before buying it.

Robinhood is not a bad company, but it is still quite young

None of this is meant to suggest that Robinhood is a bad company. It has done incredible things in a very short period of time. But that short period of time is a problem because the vast majority of it has been good for the stock market and investing. Robinhood’s stock is expensive, and the company has yet to face a deep, prolonged market downturn. Only the most aggressive growth investors will likely be interested in it for now.

Charles Schwab is an advertising partner of Motley Fool Money. Reuben Gregg Brewer has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Interactive Brokers Group. The Motley Fool recommends Charles Schwab and recommends the following options: long January 2027 $43.75 calls on Interactive Brokers Group, short January 2027 $46.25 calls on Interactive Brokers Group, and short June 2026 $97.50 calls on Charles Schwab. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Finance

Personal Finance: SpaceX IPO bends the rules | Chattanooga Times Free Press

Published

on

Personal Finance: SpaceX IPO bends the rules | Chattanooga Times Free Press

Elon Musk made history again this month with the largest public offering of a company in the history of the known universe. Space Exploration Technologies, better known as SpaceX, began trading June 12 on the Nasdaq exchange under the ticker symbol SPCX. In the first three days, the stock soared by 50%, blasting the rocketeer past Amazon into fifth place among America’s largest companies.

While the public liftoff was impressive for its size and the hype surrounding it, what truly set this transaction apart was how Musk used his leverage to succeed in changing the rules during the final countdown and advance his own interest at the expense of shareholders.

Space Exploration Technologies is a truly intriguing collection of assets with a history of big accomplishments and even bigger ambitions. At its core is Starlink, a profitable satellite internet and data transmission operation. In the offering document, Musk imagines a network of massive orbiting data centers, which is not entirely crazy and is likely to face less political opposition from nearby residents.

SpaceX also includes the familiar rocket launch enterprise and an artificial intelligence startup called xAI with its Grok AI assistant. While private investors and Starlink have provided operating cash flows to fund the space operations, SpaceX needs substantial additional funding to support its galactic expansion plans. That requires selling shares of this privately held company to the public in an initial public offering.

The process involves a syndicate of investment banks that facilitates the sale of shares held by the company’s founders or private investors at a specific price, the proceeds of which allow early investors to cash out and provide a large injection of capital. Once the shares are sold to public buyers, they change hands on a market exchange at a price determined by supply and demand.

Advertisement

The prospect of the largest initial offering ever ignited a frenzy of interest. It also allowed Elon Musk to leverage the buzz of a monster IPO to convince Wall Street to bend the rules.

To win the listing, the Nasdaq stock exchange agreed to substantial waivers of its own listing rules. While new companies must typically wait at least three months before they become eligible for inclusion in the popular Nasdaq 100 index, Nasdaq jettisoned this “seasoning” period and allowed SpaceX to enter the index after only 15 days. This tech-heavy index serves as the benchmark for over $1.4 trillion in fund assets that will now be required to sell other holdings to make room for SpaceX in their portfolios. Estimates range from $8 to $15 billion in forced purchases that will create artificial demand for the stock. It also means that many passive investors in retirement funds will end up owning the stock, like it or not.

Nasdaq also waived its own liquidity rules. Ordinarily, at least 10% of the company’s shares must be offered to the public, called the “float,” or percentage, of the total stock value that trades publicly. SpaceX floated only 4.3% of its stock, with private shareholders retaining 95.7%. Using some arithmetic legerdemain, Nasdaq created a “multiplier,” triple-counting the float for companies in the top 40 by total market value. Presumably for firms whose founders’ initials are E.M.

To its credit, S&P Global Inc. considered but ultimately refused to loosen its own standards for joining the S&P 500 index, concerned about the potential reputational damage. The S&P 500 is the benchmark for $20 trillion in assets and opted to retain its 12-month seasoning period as well as a four-quarter profitability hurdle. SpaceX may one day dock with the S&P 500, but the countdown has not started.

Aside from eliciting waivers and exceptions for index inclusion, SpaceX massively advantages its visionary but mercurial founder. In its surprisingly entertaining prospectus, the company boosted Musk’s control far beyond his ownership stake. The shares issued to the public are called Class A shares, and each carries one vote on matters of corporate governance. However, Musk’s stake resides in so-called Class B shares, each with 10 votes, giving Musk 84% voting control.

Advertisement

There are a few other little gems. The prospectus requires that any disputes between shareholders and the company must be settled privately through arbitration. Lawsuits, including the type of class action suits that tend to hold management’s feet to the fire, are expressly prohibited. And speaking of fire, Musk may only be fired by himself.

Some of these more restrictive provisions have been used before. For instance, in its initial offering, Google essentially pioneered the idea of multiple share classes that vested voting control with the founders. SpaceX propels contempt for shareholder rights into a higher orbit.

Separate from the structural disadvantage to public shareholders is the question of valuation. SpaceX lost nearly $5 billion in 2025 and another $4 billion just last quarter. The initial offering of loss-making companies is hardly new, especially in technologically emerging fields. SpaceX has reached the stratosphere.

With no profits to measure, a useful metric is the ratio of the total value of all the company’s stock divided by last year’s revenues, called the price to sales ratio. When the unprofitable Amazon went public in 1996, its total market value was three times its 1995 sales. Google’s 2004 offering priced at 15 times sales, Facebook at a hefty 28 times, and even Musk’s own Tesla launched at a multiple of 15 times sales. SpaceX cleared the tower at an otherworldly 95 times sales, soaring to 130 by the end of day two as the frenzy intensified. During the first full trading day, it comprised 75% of all stock purchases by individual investors. In the prospectus, Musk expatiates on his plan to colonize Mars. He’s halfway there.

There is no precedent for a public offering of this size, with such a long and speculative arc toward profitability and so few shareholder protections. SpaceX is a pure play wager on a precocious space cadet with interstellar aspirations astride a solid rocket booster. Enjoy the ride.

Advertisement

Christopher A. Hopkins, CFA, is a co-founder of Apogee Wealth Partners in Chattanooga.

Continue Reading

Finance

Financial adviser warns, ‘stay away from the hype’ of an IPO

Published

on

Financial adviser warns, ‘stay away from the hype’ of an IPO

BURLINGTON, Vt. (WCAX) – Initial public offerings, better known as IPOs, may seem like big investment opportunities, but a financial adviser is warning they could be a risky addition to your portfolio.

Dan Cunningham of the investment management company One Day in July, said he recommends that people stay away when a company starts selling initial shares on the stock market.

Most recently, Elon Musk’s SpaceX became the biggest IPO ever, but Cunningham said people shouldn’t get caught up in the hoopla.

“They generate a lot of excitement, but when you look at long term results, IPOs have not been a good investment. So we really try to encourage people to stay away from the hype. You are really betting on the future and taking an enormous amount of risk by buying IPO shares in many cases,” Cunningham said.

According to Cunningham, the good news is that, over the long term, the market and most retirement funds that mirror it will balance out.

Advertisement

Copyright 2026 WCAX. All rights reserved.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending