BREAKING: $BRUN will be added to the Russell 3000 effective 21st September, Monday. What does this mean? The Float Calculation: Passive index buying is based on a company's float aka the shares actually available for public trading, excluding those owned by insiders. BRUN currently has a free float of roughly 27.5 million shares out of its approximately 79.5 million total outstanding shares. The 10% to 15% Rule: Across all the mutual funds and ETFs that strictly mirror the Russell 2000 (such as the massive iShares Russell 2000 ETF), passive index managers collectively end up owning roughly 10% to 15% of a typical constituent's float. The Estimate: This means index funds will collectively need to sweep up an estimated 2.7 million to 4.1 million shares of BRUN to meet their required weightings. Given that BRUN's average daily trading volume is around 2 million shares, this forced buying will likely trigger a massive, highly visible volume spike right at Friday's closing bell, 18 Sep 2026. This is super bullish (at least in the short term).

We have Penguin saying no hike, then we have Pikachu @ren_stocks say we hike. Let me give my analysis. @JonkooTrades states that the FED would be making a mistake by hiking because the inflation we're saying is induced by a supply-side shock. I agree that it is induced by a supply-side shock. But I don't agree that the FED can't control inflation through the rates (demand-side). Let me illustrate this using a simple supply/demand chart that we all should be familiar with with Econ 101. I will also be sharing what I will happen to the markets depending on what the FED does below. On the FED controlling inflation through demand-side tools despite inflation coming from a supply shock A = the starting line This was the pre-war equilibrium. Aggregate demand and aggregate supply crossing where they'd settled. Prices stable, output where it should be. A → B = the oil shock Then the US Iran war took a chunk of oil supply offline. Oil is an input cost to almost everything, so when it gets scarce and expensive, producers can only offer the same output at a higher price. That's the red line: aggregate supply shifting left and up. The new equilibrium at B is the nasty kind. Price level jumps AND quantity falls at the same time. The textbook name for this is stagflation. This is the inflation print we're all looking at right now, and it did not come from too much demand. It came from too little supply. B → C = the FED's move Now the Fed has a problem. Its tools work on demand. A hike makes borrowing dearer so households and firms spend less. That's the blue line: aggregate demand shifting left. New equilibrium at C. Notice two things: 1. Price comes back down, roughly toward where we started (this depends on how dramatic the move is, but the idea is there) 2. Quantity falls again, now well below A So the FED can buy price stability, but the bill is paid in output and jobs. It's the trade off baked into the framework. Why this is still the reasonable play: The AS/AD model says a supply shock forces a choice. Accommodate (hold or cut) and you keep output but let the price level run, and the real risk is that expectations un-anchor and one shock becomes a wage price spiral. The 1970s are the cautionary tale here. Lean against it (hike) and you eat a recession but keep inflation credibility intact. What the FED is probably contemplating on: > The FED's mandate and its scar tissue from 2022 point to them eating a recession but keeping inflation in check. > At the same time, from Warsh's comments, it seems like he wants to wait for more data to come in before deciding on a move. Moreover, there may be underlying political pressure to not hike rates (although he may state otherwise) What I think will happen in the 3 scenarios: FED hikes: In my opinion, from what Ren has shared in the quoted post, it seems like this has already been priced in. From what I see, the consensus is a 50-75bps hike and if the FED really does this, the markets probably won't react much. In any case, it just reduces uncertainty and the markets will probably grind upwards FED holds: This will be a bullish case since the FED hiking is already a "base case". Markets will like this move. But at the same time, they can just continue to defy what the FED is doing (as we can see from the recent increases in 10Y and 30Y bond yields) FED cuts: Extremely unlikely given the recent comments on needing to keep inflation in check during the Jackson Hole meeting. I actually think the FED will hold rates where they are until they gather more data through the numerous task forces that has been set up, unless they have done so by the next FED meeting. Let's see what happens then. Thanks for reading!