Daily Commentary

MarketMinder’s View: First, the data: The RatingDog China General Manufacturing purchasing managers’ index (PMI) rose to 50.3 in January from December 2025’s 50.1 (readings above 50 indicate expansion). This gauge (which focuses on smaller, export-oriented private firms) was a bit better than the National Bureau of Statistics’ official PMI (which includes larger, state-owned firms and clocked a 49.3 reading last month). RatingDog’s reading only met analysts’ expectations, but this point seems worth cheering to us: “Total new orders expanded for the eighth straight month while new export orders rebounded, primarily buoyed by increased demand from overseas buyers, particularly Southeast Asia.” This is a forward-looking positive for Chinese manufacturing since today’s orders are tomorrow’s production. Oh, and strong export demand for the world’s number one goods exporter provides another bit of evidence that trade war fears haven’t hit as hard as many anticipated. Beyond the data roundup, the article shares a whole lot of negativity toward China, rehashing economists’ warnings around deflation and lackluster government stimulus. Now, we aren’t saying these folks are correct or incorrect. But it is worth noting sentiment toward the world’s second-largest economy remains low even as it has contributed to global GDP growth alongside these worries for months.

MarketMinder’s View: As this piece touches on some political themes, please note MarketMinder is nonpartisan and prefers no politician or political party over another. Our interest is solely with the titular theme: the “sell America” trade. The article posits the recently weakening US dollar reflects a broader shift: “The move away from the United States is being driven by more fundamental concerns: unease about the safety of U.S. markets at a time of geopolitical upheaval, threats against the nation’s central bank, ballooning government debt and worries over the fundamental rule of law. Some investors also feel whipsawed by the White House’s pattern of erratic policymaking.” Some are valid points, particularly as it pertains to tariffs and central bank independence. But most of them strike us as false fears. For instance, US government debt is manageable right now—per the St. Louis Federal Reserve, federal interest payments are around 18% of federal tax revenue. That is admittedly the highest since the early 1990s, though double-digit ratios didn’t prevent a decade-long expansion, either. As for “weak dollar” chatter, the worries here seem overstated, too, especially since a currency’s relative strength isn’t inherently good or bad for the broader economy or markets—nor is present weakness very unique, considering the dollar nearly parallels its movement in 2017/2018. Lastly, even if the article’s claims were true, this wouldn’t be reason to “sell America.” Markets price popular investing trends like this near instantly, so acting on any of the well-known developments here is tantamount to acting on old information. Our takeaway from this piece is that some negative sentiment toward US assets lingers—not as much compared to overseas, but analyses like these suggest US markets still have some wall of worry to climb.

MarketMinder’s View: This is a good piece that will make you say “oof.” It also mentions a lot of companies and funds, so of course we remind you MarketMinder doesn’t make individual security recommendations. The broad premise is what matters here. In recent years, one of investors’ biggest gripes is that because startups stay private much longer than they used to, most gains accrue to the initial investors, with little left for retail investors once the company holds an initial public offering (IPO). This perception has led some folks to covet “pre-IPO” stocks, and the financial industry is obliging … with overly complicated, high-fee products! (Even in this form, it seems IPO stands for “It’s Probably Overpriced.”) This piece shines the spotlight on some of them and their many drawbacks. “The most common form of access is often called a special-purpose vehicle. Some managers of SPVs, knowing they’re among the few ways to buy into coveted pre-IPO companies, charge fees that would make a bandit blush. SPVs can bear upfront fees that could hit 5% to 12% or more, say industry executives. Some also charge performance fees that take 10% to 30% of any gains. The highest costs are hard to overcome, says Tom Callahan, chief executive of Nasdaq Private Market. ‘You better hope that company 10X’es or your return will be eroded away in fees,’ he says.” As the article goes on to note, selling can be impossible, adding the risk of illiquidity to the high costs. Other vehicles purport to be lower-cost but carry hefty exit fees. And one, which looks utterly cockamamie, is selling a cryptocurrency purporting to give you a stake in a debt obligation that somehow will mirror the return of a certain company that makes rocket ships. Its structure effectively foists a “100% entry charge” for an opaque security that doesn’t actually tell you how it will “‘reference the economic performance’ of the stock.” But overall, the lesson here is simple: Don’t let greed and fear of missing out drive you into illiquid, overpriced investment vehicles. Remember your long-term goals and remember that IPOs aren’t surefire winners.