With 10Y yields knocking on 4.80%, and threatening to blow out to 5% - if not beyond - there was plenty of interest in the outcome of today's 3Y auction, especially since tomorrow the Treasury starts the new and improved bond buybacks. And now that the auction has priced, we can say that there was plenty of demand.
The sale of $58BN in 3Y paper priced at a high yield of 4.474%, which was up from 4.291% in August and the highest since July 2024. It also stopped through the When Issued 4.475% by one basis point; it was the third stop through in a row indicating there is hardly any shortage of demand for the short end.
The bid to cover was 2.722, virtually unchanged from last month's 2.712 and better than the 2.621 recent average.
Internals were less solid: foreign buyers took down 62.15%, modestly below last month's 64.24% and below the recent average of 65.51%. And with Directs awarded a red hot 26.9%, the most since February, Dealers were left holding 10.91%, down from 11.74% in July and the second lowest of 2026.
Overall, this was a solid auction, and one which suggests that the bond market is hardly worried about Friday's CPI report or that the Fed will go full hawk next week when there is roughly a 50% chance Warsh hikes rates.
Tyler Durden Tue, 09/08/2026 - 13:30Submitted by QTR's Fringe Finance
Putting aside my skepticism of SpaceX for a moment, there is something worth paying attention to in the latest report about the people who made fortunes backing the company: they are now putting serious money into psychedelics.
And while I can’t necessarily get behind backing Elon Musk’s idea of elephants performing Les Miserables on the moon, or whatever other “lofty” goals are in the SpaceX S-1, I can get behind these follow up investment ideas.
Back in January when absolutely no one was talking about the sector, I officially hung my balls out there and name it my “Best Idea” sector for 2026. I was writing about these stocks years ago ago, first in January 2025, calling the psychedelic names “stocks to watch” for the year. Then, in July 2025, urging patience in these positions.
In April, after the administration’s executive order supporting psychedelic research, I reiterated my bullish stance and argued that we were moving from the phase where these therapies were ignored into the phase where institutions would be forced to engage with them seriously. That transition appears to be underway.
So far, the group has wildly outperformed the market, with the AdvisorShares Psychedelic ETF (PSIL) beating the S&P 500 by about +32% this year. Other individual companies I pointed out at the beginning of this year are beating the market by about +79% and +171%.
That doesn’t mean every name is going to work, or that the easy money hasn’t already been made in some of them. But the broader thesis continues to get validation, and the latest evidence suggests that capital is still finding its way into the space.
The biggest validation came in July, when Eli Lilly agreed to acquire AtaiBeckley for approximately $2.8 billion upfront, with another $1 billion contingent on development and regulatory milestones.
That is not a small biotech taking a flyer on an experimental treatment. That is one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world committing billions of dollars to a psychedelic-derived drug pipeline. Lilly’s interest is centered on BPL-003, a treatment being developed for treatment-resistant depression.
🔥 85% OFF FOREVER IF YOU SUBSCRIBE TODAY: I am again offering an 85% discount to anyone that wants to become a Fringe Finance annual subscriber today. It’s a discount you can keep and stays applied for as long as you wish to remain a subscriber: Get 85% off forever
To me, that is major commercial validation. It doesn’t guarantee that the drugs will work, that regulators will approve them, or that shareholders in every psychedelic company will make money. But it does tell you that Big Pharma is beginning to see enough potential in this area to write very large checks.
And now, according to the Wall Street Journal, more people with money are pouring into the space. The Journal reports that Antonio Gracias and Steve Jurvetson, both of whom made fortunes from early bets on SpaceX, have spent millions supporting efforts to bring psychedelic medicine into the mainstream.
Gracias put $25 million into Lykos Therapeutics after the FDA rejected its application for MDMA-assisted therapy for PTSD. The company was subsequently renamed Resilient Pharmaceuticals and has been working to address the issues regulators raised.
Gracias has also donated $16 million to support psychedelic research at Harvard. Jurvetson and his wife, Genevieve, have backed psychedelic research and drug trials, while other wealthy supporters include Steve Cohen, David Bronner, and members of the Pritzker family, the WSJ reported.
This is philanthropic money, not necessarily money buying publicly traded psychedelic stocks. But it is still capital being directed toward the same broader objective: getting these treatments researched, developed, approved, and eventually into the medical mainstream.
And that is what I find interesting. For years, psychedelics were treated by much of the investment community as a fringe idea…right up my alley. Now you have major pharmaceutical companies making multibillion-dollar acquisitions, wealthy backers funding research, and companies continuing to advance clinical programs.
The sector appears to be gradually moving from a speculative story toward something that looks more like a legitimate pharmaceutical industry.
Of course, there is still a tremendous amount of risk here.
Any time an investment thesis depends on the FDA, you are dealing with an outcome that can change quickly and dramatically. Lykos is a perfect example. Its MDMA application was rejected, and the company had to be recapitalized and restructured. Questions around trial design, adverse-event reporting, safety, and the difficulty of conducting blinded psychedelic studies are real issues, not details investors can simply wave away.
There is also a difference between a promising treatment and a successful commercial product. Even if a drug gets approved, companies still have to figure out reimbursement, treatment infrastructure, physician adoption, and whether the economics actually work. So I am not suggesting that every psychedelic name is a buy, or that the sector should be chased indiscriminately after its run.
But I do think there is still a long way to go in the sector.
The Lilly deal was a major milestone. The continued flow of private money is another. And the fact that people who have already made fortunes on “unconventional”, long-duration bets are willing to fund this area suggests that the opportunity is still attracting serious attention.
The market has already started to recognize that something is happening here. My view is that the broader story may still be in its early innings.
--
QTR’s Disclaimer: Please read my full legal disclaimer on my About page here. This post represents my opinions only. In addition, please understand I am an idiot and very often get things wrong and lose money. I may own or transact in any names mentioned in this piece at any time without warning, meaning if I’m long I could sell or if I’m short I could cover at any time.
Contributor posts, guest posts and curated posts have been hand selected by me, but have not been fact checked and are the opinions of their authors. They are either submitted to QTR by their author or reprinted under a Creative Commons license with my best effort to uphold what the license asks, or with the permission of the author.
I cannot guarantee the accuracy of any or all facts and figures included in this article though I made an effort to get them right. I have been wrong before and will be wrong again, and encourage you to always double check, do your own research and speak to a licensed financial professional, which I am not. I’ve never worn a bow tie or suspenders in my life.
This is not a recommendation to buy or sell any stocks or securities, just my opinions. I often lose money on positions I trade/invest in. I may add any name mentioned in this article and sell any name mentioned in this piece at any time, without further warning. None of this is a solicitation to buy or sell securities. I may or may not own names I write about and are watching. Sometimes I’m bullish without owning things, sometimes I’m bearish and do own things I’m bearish on. Just assume my positions could be exactly the opposite of what you think they are just in case. If I’m long I could quickly be short and vice versa. I won’t update my positions with my readers and any of my positions can change immediately as soon as I publish, with or without notice and at any point I can be long, short or neutral on any position.
Starting in 2026, I have been attempting to no longer actively trade (read my story here). My goal is for my investing/saving to be done by recurring contributions mostly to sector ETFs and a few select equities, trusted third parties who oversee my accounts, and advisors. Such advisors or funds, through individual equities, options, index funds, mutual funds, ETFs, or other securities, may have positions in, exposure to, or holdings of names mentioned herein that I know nothing about. Basically, It is possible I could own, have exposure to, or not own anything, at any point.
In an attempt to lead a healthier lifestyle, I’ve also excluded myself from fantasy sports, sports betting, online and in-person casinos and prediction markets.
The truth is, you are on your own. Do not make decisions based on my blog. I exist on the fringe. If you see numbers and calculations of any sort, assume they are wrong and double check them. I failed Algebra in 8th grade and topped off my high school math accolades by getting a D- in remedial Calculus my senior year, before becoming an English major in college so I could bullshit my way through things easier. Hence, why I am a writer first, analyst second.
The publisher does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information provided in this page. These are not the opinions of any of my employers, partners, or associates. I did my best to be honest about my disclosures but can’t guarantee I am right; I write these posts after a couple beers sometimes. Many times I edit after my posts are published because I’m impatient and lazy, so if you see a typo, check back in a half hour.
Finally, and again, I just straight up get shit wrong a lot. I mention it multiple times because it’s that important you understand.
Tyler Durden Tue, 09/08/2026 - 13:10