Archive

February 11, 2026

Browsing

The S&P 500 ($SPX) just logged its fifth straight trading box breakout, which means that, of the five trading ranges the index has experienced since the April lows, all have been resolved to the upside.

How much longer can this last? That’s been the biggest question since the massive April 9 rally. Instead of assuming the market is due to roll over, it’s been more productive to track price action and watch for potential changes along the way. So far, drawdowns have been minimal, and breakouts keep occurring. Nothing in the price action hints at a lasting change — yet.

While some are calling this rally “historic,” we have a recent precedent. Recall that from late 2023 through early 2024, the index had a strong start and gave way to a consistent, steady trend.

From late October 2023 through March 2024, the S&P 500 logged seven consecutive trading box breakouts. That streak finally paused with a pullback from late March to early April, which, as we now know, was only a temporary hiccup. Once the bid returned, the S&P 500 went right back to carving new boxes and climbing higher.

New 52-Week Highs Finally Picking Up

If there’s been one gripe about this rally, it’s that the number of new highs within the index has lagged. As we’ve discussed before, among all the internal breadth indicators available, new highs almost always lag — that’s normal. What we really want to see is whether the number of new highs begins to exceed prior peaks as the market continues to rise, which it has, as shown by the blue line in the chart below.

As of Wednesday’s close, 100 S&P 500 stocks were either at new 52-week highs or within 3% of them. That’s a strong base. We expect this number to continue rising as the market climbs, especially if positive earnings reactions persist across sectors.

Even when we get that first day with 100+ S&P 500 stocks making new 52-week highs, though, it might not be the best time to initiate new longs.

The above chart shows that much needs to align for that many stocks to peak in unison, which has historically led to at least a short-term consolidation, if not deeper pullbacks — as highlighted in yellow. Every time is different, of course, but this is something to keep an eye on in the coming weeks.

Trend Check: GoNoGo Still “Go”

The GoNoGo Trend remains in bullish mode, with the recent countertrend signals having yet to trigger a greater pullback.

Active Bullish Patterns

We still have two live bullish upside targets of 6,555 and 6,745, which could be with us for a while going forward. For the S&P 500 to get there, it will need to form new, smaller versions of the trading boxes.

Failed Bearish Patterns

In the chart below, you can view a rising wedge pattern on the recent price action, the third since April. The prior two wedges broke down briefly and did not lead to a major downturn. The largest pullbacks in each case occurred after the S&P 500 dipped below the lower trendline of the pattern.

The deepest drawdown so far is 3.5%, which is not exactly a game-changer. Without downside follow-through, a classic bearish pattern simply can’t be formed, let alone be broken down from.

We’ll continue to monitor these formations as they develop because, at some point, that will change.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION TO U.S. NEWSWIRE SERVICES OR DISSEMINATION IN THE UNITED STATES

Questcorp Mining Inc. (CSE: QQQ,OTC:QQCMF) (OTCQB: QQCMF) (FSE: D910) (the ‘Company’ or ‘Questcorp’) is pleased to announce an upsize to its previously announced non-brokered private placement to up to 15,000,000 units (each, a ‘Unit’) at a price of $0.20 per Unit for gross proceeds of up to $3,000,000 (the ‘Offering’). Each Unit will consist of one common share of the Company (each, a ‘Share’) and one-half-of-one share purchase warrant (each whole share purchase warrant, a ‘Warrant’). Each Warrant will entitle the holder to acquire an additional common share of the Company at a price of $0.30 for a period of thirty-six months following closing of the Offering, provided that holders will not be permitted to exercise Warrants until 60 days following closing of the Offering.

The Company expects to utilize the proceeds of the Offering for exploration work at the Company’s La Union Gold and Silver Project and North Island Copper Project, and for general working capital purposes.

The Units to be issued under the Offering will be offered for sale pursuant to the listed issuer financing exemption under Part 5A of National Instrument 45-106 – Prospectus Exemptions, as amended by CSA Coordinated Blanket Order 45-935 – Exemptions from Certain Conditions of the Listed Issuer Financing Exemption (collectively, the ‘Listed Issuer Financing Exemption‘), in all provinces of Canada, except Quebec, and other qualifying jurisdictions, including the United States. The Units offered under the Listed Issuer Financing Exemption will be immediately ‘free-trading’ under applicable Canadian securities laws.

There is an offering document (the ‘Offering Document‘) related to this Offering that can be accessed under the Company’s profile at www.sedarplus.ca and at the Company’s website at https://questcorpmining.ca/. Prospective investors should read this Offering Document before making an investment decision.

In connection with completion of the Offering, the Company may pay finders’ fees to eligible third-parties who have introduced subscribers to the Offering. Completion of the Offering remains subject to receipt of regulatory approvals.

This press release is not an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy the securities in the United States or in any jurisdiction in which such offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful prior to qualification or registration under the securities laws of such jurisdiction. The securities being offered have not been, nor will they be, registered under the United States Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and such securities may not be offered or sold within the United States or to, or for the account or benefit of, U.S. persons absent registration or an applicable exemption from U.S. registration requirements and applicable U.S. state securities laws.

About Questcorp Mining Inc.

Questcorp Mining Inc. is engaged in the business of the acquisition and exploration of mineral properties in North America, with the objective of locating and developing economic precious and base metals properties of merit. The Company holds an option to acquire an undivided 100% interest in and to mineral claims totaling 1,168.09 hectares comprising the North Island Copper Property, on Vancouver Island, British Columbia, subject to a royalty obligation. The Company also holds an option to acquire an undivided 100% interest in and to mineral claims totaling 2,520.2 hectares comprising the La Union Project located in Sonora, Mexico, subject to a royalty obligation.

Contact Information

Questcorp Mining Corp.

Saf Dhillon, President & CEO

Email: saf@questcorpmining.ca
Telephone: (604) 484-3031

This news release includes certain ‘forward-looking statements’ under applicable Canadian securities legislation. Forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements with respect to the intended use of proceeds from the Offering; closing of the Offering; and filing of the Offering Document. Forward-looking statements are necessarily based upon a number of estimates and assumptions that, while considered reasonable, are subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties, and other factors which may cause the actual results and future events to differ materially from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Such factors include, but are not limited to general business, economic, competitive, political and social uncertainties, uncertain capital markets; and delay or failure to receive board or regulatory approvals. There can be no assurance that such forward-looking statements will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such statements. Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. The Company disclaims any intention or obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by law.

Neither the Canadian Securities Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in the policies of the Canadian Securities Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release.

To view the source version of this press release, please visit https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/283532

News Provided by TMX Newsfile via QuoteMedia

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Rising geopolitical tensions, intensifying competition for critical minerals and the accelerating breakdown of the postwar global order were some of the key themes at the Vancouver Resource Investment Conference (VRIC) in late January, as investors grappled with what a volatile world means for capital, commodities and security of supply.

In a wide-ranging panel moderated by Jesse Day, legendary mining financier Frank Giustra joined retired US Army Colonel Douglas Macgregor and geopolitical analyst Dr. Pascal Lottaz to examine flashpoints from Iran to Greenland, and why resource investors can no longer separate geopolitics from the metals that underpin modern economies.

Giustra, president and CEO of Fiore Group and co-chair of the International Crisis Group, opened the discussion by warning that tensions with Iran are approaching a critical threshold, driven by competing US and Israeli objectives.

“Israel would like to see Iran taken out as a major regional power,” Giustra said. “The US would like to see a different Iran — one it could do business with and that has stable relations with its neighbours. Those objectives are not the same.”

He added that the presence of a US carrier strike group in the region underscores the risk of escalation, but questioned whether military action would achieve Washington’s goals. “Iran is simply too large for a strike to have the intended effect,” he said, pointing to the absence of a coherent long-term policy.

Colonel Macgregor was more blunt, warning the US is “on the precipice of war” with Iran and arguing that Washington’s strategic thinking mirrors failed efforts elsewhere.

“This is the same mindset that committed us to war in Ukraine,” Macgregor said. “Destroy the country, divide it, dominate it, and take its resources. It failed there, and it will fail in Iran.”

Dr. Lottaz, an adjunct researcher at Waseda University in Tokyo and host of the ‘Neutrality Studies’ channel, said unpredictability has become the defining feature of US foreign policy.

“What Israel does is done in conjunction with the US — they are effectively one team,” Lottaz said. “Carrier groups sitting offshore are not just deterrence. They are also sitting ducks. Ships can sink.”

Greenland, minerals and power politics

The panel then turned to Greenland, a region increasingly viewed through the lens of critical minerals and Arctic security.

Giustra dismissed claims that Greenland poses an immediate security risk from Russia or China, arguing instead that resource competition is the real driver. “Greenland has always been open for business,” he said.

“The idea that the US needs to own it to access minerals is simply false.”

Instead, Giustra described Washington’s posture as coercive. “It’s essentially putting a gun to Greenland’s head and saying, ‘We want to buy you.’”

For mining investors, Greenland represents both opportunity and risk.

The island hosts significant deposits of rare earth elements, graphite and other strategic metals essential to clean energy technologies, defence systems and advanced manufacturing. But political uncertainty, including pressure from major powers, complicates development timelines and capital allocation.

Macgregor argued that US ambitions in Greenland and Venezuela reflect more optics than strategy. “This administration loves big gestures,” he said. “But unless you control what happens on the ground, nothing really changes.”

Europe’s energy crisis and deindustrialization

Lottaz traced Europe’s economic strain, particularly Germany’s deindustrialization, back to energy policy decisions, including the shutdown of nuclear power and the loss of Russian gas supplies.

“Political leadership in Europe is increasingly detached from national interests,” he said. “What matters more is positioning within EU and transatlantic institutions.”

That disconnect has direct consequences for resource markets, particularly energy-intensive industries such as metals refining, steel production and battery manufacturing, which depend on stable, affordable power.

Macgregor added that many global institutions, including NATO and the European Union, are approaching “block obsolescence,” forcing investors to rethink long-held assumptions about stability.

Critical minerals and the risk of conflict

As the discussion widened, Giustra pointed to critical minerals as one of the most dangerous fault lines in the emerging world order.

“The intense competition between China and the West over critical minerals is a major factor,” he said. “These are not just economic assets — they’re strategic weapons.”

China currently dominates processing of rare earth elements, lithium chemicals and battery-grade materials, giving it leverage over Western supply chains. Efforts by the US, Europe and allies to secure alternative sources — from Greenland to Africa to South America — are reshaping investment flows across the mining sector.

Giustra warned that history shows transitions between declining and rising powers are rarely peaceful. “The danger of conflict during a shift in world order is extremely high,” he said. “We may already be setting the stage for something far worse.”

Is there room for optimism?

Despite the grim outlook, Lottaz offered cautious optimism, arguing that even strained international systems retain some restraining influence.

“Everyone still claims to operate under the UN Charter, even when they violate it,” he said. “That tells us the idea of international law still matters.”

He also pointed to restraint in conflicts such as Ukraine, noting that NATO has avoided direct war with Russia. “There is still rationality at work. No one wants Armageddon.”

Macgregor closed with a stark reminder for investors and policymakers alike. “Rules only exist if someone enforces them,” he said. “As American power recedes, we’re entering a far more competitive and uncertain world.”

For the resource sector, that uncertainty translates into higher geopolitical risk, but also strategic opportunity. As governments scramble to secure supply chains for energy transition metals, defence materials and critical infrastructure, mining projects once considered peripheral are moving to the centre of global power politics.

Securities Disclosure: I, Georgia Williams, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

LOS ANGELES — The world’s biggest social media companies face several landmark trials this year that seek to hold them responsible for harms to children who use their platforms. Opening statements for the first, in Los Angeles County Superior Court, begin this week.

Instagram’s parent company Meta and Google’s YouTube will face claims that their platforms deliberately addict and harm children. TikTok and Snap, which were originally named in the lawsuit, settled for undisclosed sums.

“This was only the first case — there are hundreds of parents and school districts in the social media addiction trials that start today, and sadly, new families every day who are speaking out and bringing Big Tech to court for its deliberately harmful products,” said Sacha Haworth, executive director of the nonprofit Tech Oversight Project.

At the core of the case is a 19-year-old identified only by the initials “KGM,” whose case could determine how thousands of other, similar lawsuits against social media companies will play out. She and two other plaintiffs have been selected for bellwether trials — essentially test cases for both sides to see how their arguments play out before a jury and what damages, if any, may be awarded, said Clay Calvert, a nonresident senior fellow of technology policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute.

It’s the first time the companies will argue their case before a jury, and the outcome could have profound effects on their businesses and how they will handle children using their platforms.

KGM claims that her use of social media from an early age addicted her to the technology and exacerbated depression and suicidal thoughts. Importantly, the lawsuit claims that this was done through deliberate design choices made by companies that sought to make their platforms more addictive to children to boost profits. This argument, if successful, could sidestep the companies’ First Amendment shield and Section 230, which protects tech companies from liability for material posted on their platforms.

“Borrowing heavily from the behavioral and neurobiological techniques used by slot machines and exploited by the cigarette industry, Defendants deliberately embedded in their products an array of design features aimed at maximizing youth engagement to drive advertising revenue,” the lawsuit says.

Executives, including Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, are expected to testify at the trial, which will last six to eight weeks. Experts have drawn similarities to the Big Tobacco trials that led to a 1998 settlement requiring cigarette companies to pay billions in health care costs and restrict marketing targeting minors.

“Plaintiffs are not merely the collateral damage of Defendants’ products,” the lawsuit says. “They are the direct victims of the intentional product design choices made by each Defendant. They are the intended targets of the harmful features that pushed them into self-destructive feedback loops.”

The tech companies dispute the claims that their products deliberately harm children, citing a bevy of safeguards they have added over the years and arguing that they are not liable for content posted on their sites by third parties.

“Recently, a number of lawsuits have attempted to place the blame for teen mental health struggles squarely on social media companies,” Meta said in a recent blog post. “But this oversimplifies a serious issue. Clinicians and researchers find that mental health is a deeply complex and multifaceted issue, and trends regarding teens’ well-being aren’t clear-cut or universal. Narrowing the challenges faced by teens to a single factor ignores the scientific research and the many stressors impacting young people today, like academic pressure, school safety, socio-economic challenges and substance abuse.”

A Meta spokesperson said in a recent statement that the company strongly disagrees with the allegations outlined in the lawsuit and that it’s “confident the evidence will show our longstanding commitment to supporting young people.”

José Castañeda, a Google Spokesperson, said that the allegations against YouTube are “simply not true.” In a statement, he said, “Providing young people with a safer, healthier experience has always been core to our work.”

The case will be the first in a slew of cases beginning this year that seek to hold social media companies responsible for harming children’s mental well-being.

In New Mexico, opening statements begin Monday for trial on allegations that Meta and its social media platforms have failed to protect young users from sexual exploitation, following an undercover online investigation. Attorney General Raúl Torrez in late 2023 sued Meta and Zuckerberg, who was later dropped from the suit.

Prosecutors have said that New Mexico is not seeking to hold Meta accountable for its content but rather its role in pushing out that content through complex algorithms that proliferate material that can be harmful, saying they uncovered internal documents in which Meta employees estimate that about 100,000 children every day are subjected to sexual harassment on the company’s platforms.

Meta denies the civil charges while accusing Torrez of cherry-picking select documents and making “sensationalist” arguments. The company says it has consulted with parents and law enforcement to introduce built-in protections to social media accounts, along with settings and tools for parents.

A federal bellwether trial beginning in June in Oakland, California, will be the first to represent school districts that have sued social media platforms over harms to children.

In addition, more than 40 state attorneys general have filed lawsuits against Meta, claiming it is harming young people and contributing to the youth mental health crisis by deliberately designing features on Instagram and Facebook that addict children to its platforms. The majority of cases filed their lawsuits in federal court, but some sued in their respective states.

TikTok also faces similar lawsuits in more than a dozen states.

This post appeared first on NBC NEWS