In partnership with
The 10 Best Cheap Stocks to Buy Now
The market is expensive… historically expensive.
Most of the biggest stocks are already fully priced. Capital has crowded into the same mega-cap names — making true value harder and harder to find.
By early 2026, institutional money had stayed concentrated. Smaller companies had been overlooked. And beaten-down names had been left behind.
But here's the real question…
When the broader market is this expensive — which stocks are still cheap enough to offer real upside?
Our new report reveals 10 undervalued stocks trading under $10 per share — from companies too small for institutional money managers to touch… to out-of-favor names already working their way back.
If you're looking for real value in an overpriced market, start here.
>> THE CAPITAL MEMO
Thursday, April 16, 2026 · Issue #6
Good morning. TSMC reported before dawn. Revenue of $35.9 billion, profit up 58% year over year, and the capex number I flagged yesterday got revised to the high end of the January range. The AI buildout is not slowing. Then there's the other story: $1.3 trillion in private equity buyout capital sitting undeployed, and the clock is running.
READING THE CAPEX
TSMC Raises the Number
Yesterday I asked you to watch one number from TSMC. The capex guidance. In January the company set a 2026 range of $52 billion to $56 billion, up roughly 30% from the $40.9 billion it spent in 2025. On this morning's call, CFO Wendell Huang revised that guidance upward. TSMC now expects 2026 capex to land toward the high end of the range. That revision is a confidence signal. When a foundry raises spending this aggressively, it means customers have already signed wafer supply agreements to fill the capacity being built.
Quick recap for anyone who missed yesterday. Capital expenditure is really two different things. There's growth spending, which builds new capacity. And there's maintenance spending, which just replaces what's wearing out. The market tends to treat all of it as growth. That is usually wrong, and the gap matters. A dollar of real growth spending generates future cash flow. A dollar of maintenance spending generates nothing new. It just preserves what already exists. Apply that lens to TSMC.
TSMC disclosed that 70% to 80% of its 2026 capex goes to advanced process technologies. Those are the 3-nanometer and 2-nanometer nodes where AI chip demand is concentrated. The remaining 10% to 20% goes to specialty technologies and advanced packaging. At the high end of the range the company now expects to hit, well over $40 billion is flowing into leading-edge capacity in a single year.
Semiconductor fabs are where the maintenance problem gets extreme. Each process node costs more than the last and becomes obsolete faster. A 5-nanometer fab built in 2021 is already approaching the end of its competitive window for cutting-edge AI chips. In semiconductors, equipment doesn't wear out before it becomes obsolete. The market moves past it first. Fabs that still produce working chips get displaced by newer fabs that produce chips customers actually want to buy.
TSMC guided depreciation up by high-teens percent in 2026. That is the old capex waves hitting the income statement. Revenue grew 35.1% in Q1, well ahead of depreciation growth, which means TSMC is, for now, outpacing its own maintenance burden. The capex-to-depreciation ratio remains healthy. But the company is simultaneously building fabs in Arizona, Japan, and Germany. Each of those carries higher construction and operating costs than its home base in Taiwan. Those overseas fabs will pressure margins for years before they contribute meaningfully to revenue. Alphabet's capex funds the servers. TSMC's capex builds the fabs that make the chips inside those servers. The same $180 billion flowing out of Alphabet's balance sheet is flowing into TSMC's order book. One company's maintenance is another company's revenue.
THE MAIN EVENT
The Deployment
On Monday I mentioned that private equity entered 2026 with $3 trillion in dry powder. That number needs context.
The $3 trillion-plus figure, per Preqin, includes all private capital strategies: buyout, growth equity, venture capital, infrastructure, and private debt. Buyout dry powder, the money earmarked specifically for acquiring companies, is about $1.3 trillion, according to Bain's 2026 Global Private Equity Report. That is still the largest pool of committed, uninvested buyout capital in the industry's history.
What matters more is the age of the money.
The aging problem. Nearly a quarter of that $1.3 trillion has been sitting undeployed for four years or more. Most private equity fund agreements give the general partner a five-year investment period to put the money to work. After that, the fund can no longer make new investments. When capital reaches year four of a five-year window, the GP faces a choice: deploy into whatever is available, return the capital to investors, or negotiate a fund extension that strains the relationship with the people who gave you the money.
None of those options is attractive. Deploying under time pressure leads to overpaying. Returning capital damages the GP's track record and makes the next fundraise harder. Extending the fund signals to limited partners that the GP couldn't find deals good enough to justify their commitments. Deal discipline deteriorates as the clock runs down.
The exit backlog. The capital stuck in uninvested funds is only half the pressure. On the other side of the ledger, the industry is sitting on roughly 32,000 unsold portfolio companies worth $3.8 trillion, according to Bain. Average holding periods at exit have stretched to about seven years, up from five to six years between 2010 and 2021. Distributions to limited partners as a percentage of net asset value have been below 15% for four consecutive years. That is an industry record.
LPs can't commit to new funds because they haven't gotten money back from old ones. GPs can't raise new capital because they haven't returned old capital. So they hold their existing portfolio companies longer, hoping for a better exit environment. Meanwhile, the companies themselves age. Management teams get tired. The strategic window for a sale narrows. The Bain report notes that 40% of all buyout-held companies have now been held for more than five years, up from 29% in 2019.
The Harford mechanism: In the research I cited last Friday, Harford (2005) found that merger waves form when economic or regulatory shocks combine with available liquidity. What we have in 2026 is the reverse of a typical wave. The liquidity is abundant. $1.3 trillion in buyout dry powder, much of it aging. But the shocks cut the wrong direction: tariff uncertainty, elevated funding costs, and the open question of what AI does to the cash flows of the mid-market companies PE owns. The money wants out but the environment says wait.
Where the money is going anyway. Despite the caution, deals are getting done. And they are getting done in a specific pattern that the research would predict. Add-on acquisitions now account for over 75% of total buyout activity, per Bain. An add-on is a bolt-on acquisition made by a company the PE fund already owns. Buy a platform company, then bolt on smaller competitors to build scale. It's a way to deploy capital incrementally without underwriting an entirely new business. It also avoids the full diligence burden of evaluating a new management team and a new business model.
This is exactly the pattern Fich, Nguyen, and Officer (2018) found creates value in M&A. Small deals relative to the acquirer. The academic evidence supports what GPs are doing instinctively. The risk is when deployment pressure pushes firms beyond add-ons and into large platform deals that they might not have pursued if the clock weren't ticking.
What this means for the banks. Goldman reported Monday that investment banking fees surged 48% year over year. That surge is, in significant part, this dry powder starting to move. Every dollar of PE capital that gets deployed generates advisory fees, financing fees, and trading revenue for the banks that facilitate the deal. JPMorgan, Goldman, and Morgan Stanley are all fighting for positioning in what could be a multi-year deployment cycle as $1.3 trillion in buyout capital works its way into the economy.
But the CDX Financials Index I flagged yesterday, Wall Street's new tool for shorting private credit, is the shadow side of the same story. Private credit funds supplied much of the leverage for the deals PE made during the 2020-2024 boom. If those companies underperform, the credit risk surfaces in the BDCs and private credit portfolios. The CDS index exists because someone thinks that risk is materializing.
THE FRAMEWORK
How to Read a PE-Backed Deal
When a PE-backed acquisition crosses your screen this year, ask four questions drawn from this week's research.
1. What year is the fund? A fund in year two of its investment period can afford to wait for the right deal. A fund in year four cannot. The vintage tells you how much of the deal was driven by conviction and how much by calendar pressure.
2. Is it a platform or an add-on? Add-ons have better academic support. Platform deals carry more risk and require more things to go right. If a GP is making a large platform acquisition with a year-four fund, the deployment pressure is doing the talking.
3. Where is the leverage coming from? Is the deal financed through broadly syndicated loans, private credit, or a club deal with sovereign wealth fund co-investment? The source of capital tells you who is bearing the credit risk and how much scrutiny the underwriting received.
4. What is the exit thesis? A PE deal is only as good as its exit. If the plan is to sell to another PE fund (a so-called secondary buyout), the value creation relies on multiple expansion or financial engineering rather than operational improvement. If the exit thesis involves an IPO, ask whether the IPO window will be open in five years. Nobody knows, which is exactly the point.
THE WEEK SO FAR
This has been a week about one question asked four different ways.
Monday, we asked whether companies return capital wisely. The buyback research says: sometimes, but they're terrible at timing it.
Tuesday, we graded JPMorgan's capital allocation. The scorecard showed where discipline lives inside a large bank.
Wednesday, we looked at the gap between what companies call growth spending and what is really just maintenance of existing capacity. Alphabet's $185 billion capex number looks different through that lens.
Today, we followed the capital upstream to its source: $1.3 trillion in buyout dry powder looking for a home, with a clock ticking on a quarter of it.
Capital allocation is a system. Buybacks, organic investment, M&A, and capital returns all compete for the same dollar. The companies and funds that treat them as a system outperform the ones that treat them as line items. The academic research is clear on that. So is the track record.
Tomorrow wraps the week. Have a good Thursday.
— Marques
Marques Blank is the founder of Blank Capital (fractional CFO and FP&A advisory) and Blank Capital Partners Former Northrop Grumman and Citibank. CMA, MBA, Series 65.
This newsletter is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice. Research cited: Bain & Company (2026). Global Private Equity Report. · Preqin (2026). Private Equity in 2026. · Fich, E.M., Nguyen, T., & Officer, M. (2018). Large wealth creation in mergers and acquisitions. Financial Management, 47(4), 953-991. · Harford, J. (2005). What drives merger waves? Journal of Financial Economics, 77(3), 529-560. · Mauboussin, M.J., & Callahan, D. (2022). Underestimating the Red Queen. Consilient Observer: Counterpoint Global Insights, Morgan Stanley Investment Management.
Sponsored
Strategic Trader
The Trading Tool That Delivered 4,942% Returns: Join the only service dedicated to stock warrants to claim your free report on Wall Street’s best kept secret!