Copyright ©2026 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

This article was written by

Follow

Analyst’s Disclosure: I/we have a beneficial long position in the shares of PONY either through stock ownership, options, or other derivatives. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

Seeking Alpha’s Disclosure: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. No recommendation or advice is being given as to whether any investment is suitable for a particular investor. Any views or opinions expressed above may not reflect those of Seeking Alpha as a whole. Seeking Alpha is not a licensed securities dealer, broker or US investment adviser or investment bank. Our analysts are third party authors that include both professional investors and individual investors who may not be licensed or certified by any institute or regulatory body.

This article was written by

Follow

Analyst’s Disclosure: I/we have no stock, option or similar derivative position in any of the companies mentioned, and no plans to initiate any such positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

Seeking Alpha’s Disclosure: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. No recommendation or advice is being given as to whether any investment is suitable for a particular investor. Any views or opinions expressed above may not reflect those of Seeking Alpha as a whole. Seeking Alpha is not a licensed securities dealer, broker or US investment adviser or investment bank. Our analysts are third party authors that include both professional investors and individual investors who may not be licensed or certified by any institute or regulatory body.

NEW YORK — Wall Street’s most closely watched measure of investor anxiety ticked higher Friday, as renewed selling in the technology sector pushed traders to pay up for protection against further market swings.

The CBOE Volatility Index, widely known as the VIX or “fear gauge,” was trading at 19.34, up 0.45 points, or 2.38%, extending a climb that began the previous session as megacap technology stocks came under fresh pressure.

A modest but telling move

The VIX’s rise on Friday builds on an increase that was already underway Thursday. The index closed Thursday at 18.89, up 1.40% on the day, even as the broader S&P 500 finished essentially flat. That divergence — a rising fear gauge alongside a steady headline index — is often a signal that investors are growing more cautious beneath the surface of the market, even when the major averages aren’t moving dramatically.

Understanding what these moves actually mean requires looking at what the VIX measures in the first place. The VIX measures expected S&P 500 volatility over the next 30 days, derived from S&P 500 index option prices across a wide range of strike prices, reflecting how much movement traders are paying to hedge against rather than predicting a specific market direction. A high VIX reading means traders are bidding up insurance — when stocks drop sharply, investors rush to buy put protection, and that demand for hedges lifts option premiums and, in turn, the VIX itself.

Where Friday’s reading falls historically

At just above 19, Friday’s level remains within what market professionals consider a normal trading range, even as it ticks higher. Readings of 15 to 25 reflect a normal market with two-way flow, while readings of 25 to 30 mark rising stress often associated with earnings or policy surprises, and readings above 30 indicate the kind of high stress typically seen during sharp risk-off episodes.

That context matters for putting Friday’s move in perspective: the VIX remains well below levels associated with genuine panic, even as it rises from the unusually placid readings the market saw earlier in the year. The index’s 52-week low of 13.38 was set on December 24, 2025, while its 52-week high came on March 9, 2026.

What’s driving the renewed caution

The uptick in volatility tracks closely with a broader retreat in technology shares that has rattled markets over the past several sessions. Megacap names that have powered much of this year’s market gains have come under renewed selling pressure, driven in part by concerns over rising costs tied to the artificial intelligence buildout. Apple, Nvidia, Microsoft, Amazon and Meta Platforms all posted losses this week as megacap technology shares remained under pressure.

That weakness has stood in contrast to strength in a different corner of the tech sector. Micron surged after reporting strong earnings and issuing a robust revenue outlook, lifting other chip-related stocks including Sandisk, Applied Materials and Western Digital. The split between companies benefiting from surging memory demand and those facing higher costs because of it has left investors trying to sort winners from losers within the same broad sector — exactly the kind of uncertainty that tends to push hedging demand, and the VIX, higher.

A global dimension to the unease

The volatility hasn’t been confined to U.S. markets. Trading overseas showed even sharper swings tied to the same underlying worries about technology valuations. Trading in South Korea was temporarily halted after an 8% decline in the benchmark Kospi index triggered a circuit breaker designed to curb panic selling, with the index ultimately closing down 5.8%.

A market strategist pointed to a broader shift in how investors are approaching the AI trade after a long rally in related shares. “The long-term investment case for AI remains compelling, but investors are becoming far more selective about which companies can justify the valuations the market has assigned to them,” said David Makaryan, a senior partner at Alpha Pacific Group.

A pattern of swings rather than a single event

This year’s volatility readings have themselves been something of a rollercoaster, reflecting how quickly sentiment has shifted on Wall Street in recent months. Headlines from earlier in June captured that whiplash directly: the “fear gauge” tumbled as traders bid up SpaceX shares in mid-June, only to “punch back” days later as a “crash up” in chip stocks reversed. Other recent commentary noted that the volatility index was signaling calm on Wall Street even though “that’s not how traders feel,” underscoring a gap between the VIX’s headline number and the underlying nervousness many investors describe.

How to think about a VIX in the high teens

For everyday investors trying to make sense of the number, market commentary generally treats VIX readings in the high teens as unremarkable on their own, but worth watching if they continue to climb. Volatility tends to cluster and then fade — once a specific catalyst passes, option demand typically cools and the VIX drifts back toward its long-run average, generally cited as somewhere between 18 and 20. That would put Friday’s reading right around the historical norm, even as the short-term trend has been upward.

With megacap technology names continuing to face scrutiny over AI-related spending and valuations, and with memory chip stocks pulling in the opposite direction on strong earnings, traders are likely to keep a close eye on the VIX in the sessions ahead as a barometer of how much further the current bout of sector rotation has to run. A sustained move higher from current levels would suggest the unease rippling through tech stocks is spreading more broadly across the market; a pullback back toward the high teens would suggest Friday’s bump was simply another short-lived spike in what has already been a volatile year for Wall Street’s fear gauge.

This is the forum for daily political discussion on Seeking Alpha. A new version is published every market day.

Please don’t leave political comments on other articles or posts on the site.

The comments below are not regulated with the same rigor as the rest of the site, and this is an ‘enter at your own risk’ area as discussion can get very heated. If you can’t stand the heat… you know what they say…

More on Today’s Markets:

Moderation Guidelines:

We remove comments under the following categories:

• Personal attacks on another user account
• Anti-Vaxxer or covid related misinformation
• Stereotyping, prejudiced or racist language about individuals or the topic under discussion.
• Inciting violence messages, encouraging hate groups and political violence.

Regardless of which side of the political divide you find yourself, please be courteous and don’t direct abuse at other users.

For any issue with regards to comments please email us at : moderation@seekingalpha.com.

Seeking Alpha’s Disclosure: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. No recommendation or advice is being given as to whether any investment is suitable for a particular investor. Any views or opinions expressed above may not reflect those of Seeking Alpha as a whole. Seeking Alpha is not a licensed securities dealer, broker or US investment adviser or investment bank. Our analysts are third party authors that include both professional investors and individual investors who may not be licensed or certified by any institute or regulatory body.

The New York Mets have fired manager Carlos Mendoza after a dismal 34-47 start to the 2026 season, the team announced Friday, ending his tenure after three years at the helm.

Andy Green was named interim manager for the remainder of the season as the Mets, currently in last place in the National League East, look to salvage what has become a disappointing campaign. The team enters a series against the Philadelphia Phillies 15 games behind division-leading Atlanta and 9.5 games out of the final wild card spot.

Mets president of baseball operations David Stearns acknowledged Mendoza’s positive impact while citing the need for change. “Carlos has led the organization with passion and grace and is beloved by everyone who works with him on a daily basis,” Stearns said in a statement. “Carlos’ impact on our players, staff, and culture over the last three seasons has been transformative. Unfortunately, we know we are falling short and change is necessary to move forward.”

Owner Steve Cohen echoed the sentiment while expressing disappointment with the team’s performance. “I want to express my deepest gratitude to Carlos Mendoza for his leadership and unwavering commitment,” Cohen said. “He represented this organization with integrity and dedication throughout, and I wish him and his family all the best. Our commitment to bringing our fans a championship-caliber team has not changed. There is no sugar coating it: this season has been a disappointment and our fans deserve better than what we’ve delivered.”

Mendoza’s Tenure

Mendoza, 46, was in his third season as manager. He led the Mets to an improbable National League Championship Series appearance in 2024, guiding the team from one of the worst records in the majors in June to within two games of the World Series.

However, his second season saw a dramatic collapse, with the Mets squandering an early lead and missing the postseason. This year’s campaign has been even more disappointing, with the team falling to a season-high 13 games under .500 following a four-game sweep by the Chicago Cubs.

The Mets entered the season with World Series expectations after a transformative winter under Stearns. Significant roster changes, including departures of key veterans, failed to produce the anticipated results as injuries and underperformance plagued the team.

Roster Overhaul and Challenges

Stearns’ first major move was dismissing most of Mendoza’s coaching staff after the previous season. The front office then executed multiple trades and free agent signings to reshape the roster around stars Juan Soto and Francisco Lindor.

Acquisitions included second baseman Marcus Semien, center fielder Luis Robert Jr., and several pitchers. However, injuries to key players including Soto, Lindor, and others have severely impacted performance.

The pitching staff has struggled significantly, with several starters posting high earned run averages. The team’s overall ERA in June ranks among the worst in the majors, contributing to the disappointing record.

Offensive production has been inconsistent, with multiple regulars missing extended time due to injuries. The lack of consistent contributions from the revamped lineup has hampered the team’s ability to compete.

Interim Manager Green

Andy Green, a former major league player and coach, takes over as interim manager. His experience and familiarity with the organization provide continuity during the transition.

Green will manage a team facing significant challenges but also opportunities to evaluate younger players and test different approaches. His leadership during the remainder of the season could influence future managerial decisions.

The Mets’ front office will conduct a thorough search for a permanent replacement while Green handles day-to-day operations. The organization’s commitment to winning remains unchanged despite the current struggles.

Fan and Organizational Reaction

Mets fans have expressed frustration with the team’s performance after high expectations entering the season. The early struggles and recent losing streak have tested supporter patience.

Owner Cohen’s statement acknowledged the disappointment while reaffirming commitment to building a championship team. The organization’s substantial investments reflect serious intentions to compete at the highest level.

The decision to part ways with Mendoza, Stearns’ original choice as manager, represents a significant acknowledgment that changes were necessary. The front office will now focus on identifying the right leader to guide the team forward.

Broader MLB Context

Managerial changes during the season are not uncommon when teams underperform relative to expectations. The Mets’ situation reflects the high-pressure environment of major market franchises with championship aspirations.

The timing of the move allows the organization to evaluate candidates during the remainder of the season while giving Green an opportunity to demonstrate his capabilities. The decision balances immediate needs with long-term planning.

Other teams have made similar midseason adjustments with varying results. The effectiveness of such moves depends on numerous factors including roster talent, coaching staff quality and organizational support.

Looking Ahead

The Mets face the Philadelphia Phillies in their next series, providing an immediate test for the interim manager and roster. Performance in remaining games will influence both short-term evaluations and long-term planning.

The front office will conduct a comprehensive review of the season while beginning the search for a new manager. The organization’s direction under Stearns and Cohen suggests continued commitment to building a competitive team.

Fan expectations remain high despite current challenges. The Mets’ history of dramatic turns and passionate supporter base provides context for the current situation.

The decision to move on from Mendoza represents a significant moment for the franchise. The coming months will reveal how the organization responds to the challenges and opportunities presented by this change.

VANCOUVER — Group G reaches its conclusion Friday with a match that, on paper, should be a mismatch between a European football power and World Cup newcomer New Zealand. In practice, it has become a contest both teams desperately need to win simply to survive the group stage.

Belgium and New Zealand meet at BC Place in a fixture loaded with stakes neither side anticipated entering the tournament. The top two spots in Group G remain up for grabs for both teams, and the winner of the match will advance to the next stage of the competition.

Belgium’s underwhelming start

For a nation that finished third at the 2018 World Cup, Belgium’s opening two results have been a source of growing frustration rather than confidence heading into the knockout rounds. Belgium’s most recent result was a 0-0 draw with Iran, played with 10 men for a significant portion of the match after Nathan Ngoy’s dismissal. Prior to that, Belgium drew 1-1 with Egypt in its World Cup opener.

The lack of scoring threat has been particularly striking given the talent on Belgium’s roster. Across this tournament and the previous edition four years ago, Belgium has scored just two goals in five matches, one of which was an own goal from Egypt’s Mohamed Hany in the team’s opening 1-1 draw. Belgian players have had 69 shots since last scoring from open play in 2022, with Kevin De Bruyne involved in 40% of those attempts.

That profligacy was on full display in Belgium’s most recent outing. Despite Ngoy’s second-half red card, 10-man Belgium managed 23 unsuccessful shots in the goalless draw with Iran — the most shots without scoring in a World Cup match for Belgium since a 28-shot scoreless effort against Saudi Arabia in 1994.

What’s at stake for the Red Devils

The math facing Belgium is straightforward but unforgiving. Belgium currently sits third in the standings after its underwhelming draws with Egypt and Iran, but three points against New Zealand would still send the team through. A draw could be enough depending on the result of Egypt vs. Iran, while a loss would almost certainly mean elimination.

Manager Rudi Garcia’s side does carry one significant advantage into the match: momentum away from the World Cup stage, if not on it. Belgium has won two and drawn three of its last five matches overall, with no defeats in that sequence, having beaten Tunisia 5-0 and Croatia 2-0 in June friendlies.

New Zealand’s historic opportunity

For New Zealand, appearing at just its third men’s World Cup and first in 16 years, Friday represents a chance to make history regardless of the long odds. New Zealand’s most recent result was a 3-1 defeat to Egypt, a match in which the team conceded three times after taking an early lead. Its only World Cup win in the sequence dating back five matches came against Chile, a 4-1 friendly result in March, with defeats also coming against England and Haiti in pre-tournament warmups.

The pattern of conceding leads has become a defining and troubling theme of New Zealand’s tournament so far. New Zealand has taken the lead in three of its eight all-time World Cup matches but won none of those, drawing two and losing one. New Zealand is just the second team in World Cup history to fail to win any of its first three World Cup matches in which it led, joining Bulgaria, which failed to win its first six such matches under the same circumstance.

Despite the defensive concerns, there have been flashes of attacking quality that suggest New Zealand isn’t simply outclassed. Motherwell winger Elijah Just scored both of New Zealand’s goals in its 2-2 draw with Iran, with Chris Wood turning provider in that match by claiming two assists.

The numbers favor Belgium heavily

Statistical models give Belgium an overwhelming edge heading into kickoff. The Opta supercomputer ran 25,000 pre-match simulations of the contest, with Belgium winning 81.0% of them. New Zealand achieved a first World Cup victory in only 6.9% of the data-led simulations, while a draw accounted for 12.1% of scenarios.

New Zealand’s broader World Cup history offers little encouragement for an upset. New Zealand remains unbeaten in just two World Cup matches against European opposition, having managed 1-1 draws against Slovakia and Italy at the 2010 tournament in South Africa, and is yet to win at the finals in eight all-time attempts.

Key absences and team news

Belgium will be without one of its starting defenders due to suspension. Lille center back Nathan Ngoy was dismissed against Iran and will miss the New Zealand match, with Arthur Theate expected to deputize in his place. Zeno Debast, who would ordinarily be the alternative replacement, has been dealing with a fitness issue of his own.

New Zealand manager Darren Bazeley, meanwhile, appears set to stay the course with the same group that has competed in both matches so far. Bazeley has selected the same starting XI for both of New Zealand’s matches at the tournament and has an entirely fit roster to choose from for Friday’s finale.

A first-ever meeting between the two nations

Friday’s match carries the added intrigue of uncharted territory between the two football nations. New Zealand and Belgium have no recorded head-to-head meetings at senior international level, making this a genuinely historic first encounter. The gulf in World Cup experience between the sides is stark, with Belgium appearing in the tournament for the 14th time, with a best finish of second place in 1978, while New Zealand is making just its third overall appearance.

The bigger picture in Group G

The match’s outcome will be shaped in part by what happens simultaneously in the group’s other fixture. If Egypt beats Iran in the concurrent match, Belgium cannot finish higher than second in the group, but whoever finishes as runner-up would face a favorable matchup against either Australia or Paraguay in the next round.

With kickoff approaching at BC Place, the script appears largely written on paper: a heavily favored Belgian side searching for the cutting edge that has eluded it through two matches, against a New Zealand team simply trying to make history by winning a World Cup match for the first time in program history. Whether Belgium’s individual talent finally translates into goals, or New Zealand once again proves resilient enough to make the night uncomfortable, Friday’s result will determine which of the two nations’ World Cup journeys continues into the knockout stage.

This article was written by

Follow

Analyst’s Disclosure: I/we have no stock, option or similar derivative position in any of the companies mentioned, and no plans to initiate any such positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

Seeking Alpha’s Disclosure: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. No recommendation or advice is being given as to whether any investment is suitable for a particular investor. Any views or opinions expressed above may not reflect those of Seeking Alpha as a whole. Seeking Alpha is not a licensed securities dealer, broker or US investment adviser or investment bank. Our analysts are third party authors that include both professional investors and individual investors who may not be licensed or certified by any institute or regulatory body.