Lately, aside from technology, other sectors have shown relatively poor profitability.
Whether in A-shares or Hong Kong stocks, the technology sector has demonstrated the strongest profit-making effect.
Whether it's the STAR Market Chip ETF, Semiconductor ETF, Electronics ETF, or the Hong Kong Stock Connect Information Technology ETF we mentioned on May 21st, their ability to attract capital has been robust.
Especially compared to the Hang Seng Tech Index, the performance of the Hong Kong Stock Connect Information Technology ETF has been dominant.
The primary reason is that the Hong Kong Stock Connect Information Technology ETF leans towards hard technology, with semiconductors accounting for 27.5% and heavily weighted in two wafer giants, SMIC and Hua Hong. It tends to follow the trends of the U.S. stock market, which is currently driven upward by technology.
For example, Lenovo recently experienced a sharp surge within just a few days, largely due to its association with the AI factory concept. Related companies like HP and Dell also saw significant gains. Lenovo holds a substantial weight of 13.29% in the Hong Kong Stock Connect Information Technology ETF, benefiting from this rally.
Moreover, ChangXin Memory Technologies recently passed its IPO review. What's even more striking?
ChangXin reported a profit of 33 billion yuan in the first quarter, while the entire STAR 50 Index, excluding companies with performance losses, generated a profit of only 16.1 billion yuan. This means ChangXin's earnings surpassed those of two STAR 50 Indexes combined.
However, it's important to highlight the risks at this juncture.
When most people believe "this time is different," it often turns out to be the same.
The listings of ChangXin and Yangtze Memory Technologies could significantly impact the liquidity of the A-share market, similar to previous mega-IPOs.
Furthermore, technology is cyclical. In 2024, while banks soared, technology stocks declined steadily. Although the trend has reversed now, it's uncertain when the tables might turn again.
Once international capital expenditures on AI decrease and AI infrastructure expansion slows, the profit growth in the technology sector may not sustain its current large-scale expansion.
What will happen to high-flying tech stocks then? The lessons from the new energy sector in 2022 are still fresh.
I don't deny that technology is the future, but AI development isn't achieved overnight. Progress often follows a winding path and ascends in a spiral.
Don't let enthusiasm cloud judgment. Carefully weigh risks and opportunities.
The U.S.-Iran conflict is likely to fizzle out soon.
The former U.S. president posted several messages on his social media platform, claiming that an agreement with Iran was "basically finalized" and would be announced imminently.
However, within hours, Iran directly refuted this, stating no such agreement existed.
The next day, the former president softened his tone, backtracked, and added a criticism:
"Don't listen to those losers who comment without knowing the facts."
Upon this news, international oil prices fell. Traders, instead of anticipating peace, expected the situation to deteriorate.
The sequence of events isn't particularly complex.
The former president initially launched strikes to target Iran's nuclear facilities, aiming for Iran's "unconditional surrender," as he stated at the time.
The rhetoric was strong, and missile strikes were intense, significantly damaging several of Iran's uranium enrichment facilities.
But then, a stalemate emerged:
Iran didn't collapse, key uranium enrichment technologies weren't fully disabled, and Iran retained the ability to leverage the Strait of Hormuz, a global oil lifeline.
The strikes occurred but failed to inflict sufficient pain or compel submission.
Thus, the current situation unfolded:
The White House seeks an exit strategy, while Iran aims to unfreeze its assets and ease sanctions. Both sides face their own challenges, leading to negotiations.
Reports indicate a proposed plan on the table:
A 60-day ceasefire, during which the U.S. would release some frozen Iranian assets, and Iran would commit to suspending uranium enrichment activities.
It sounds reasonable, but the issue lies in mutual distrust regarding implementation.
Interestingly, opposition to the former president's approach comes from within his own party.
Republicans argue that any agreement seen as conceding to Iran raises the question: Why start this conflict in the first place?
In simpler terms: If this was the outcome, why begin?
Why are Republicans more anxious than opponents?
Because they initially supported the strikes. A humiliating retreat would contradict their earlier stance on American strength.
With midterm elections approaching, voters disdain empty rhetoric without resolve.
Thus, a paradoxical scene emerges:
The White House wants to end the conflict, while Republicans urge the president not to rush into compromise.
A recent article in *The Atlantic*, roughly translated, is titled:
"Tactical Excellence, Strategic Incompetence"
Its core argument:
The U.S. military executed flawlessly—missiles were precise, operations efficient.
But from the outset, no one clearly defined what constituted victory.
Destroy nuclear facilities? Partially achieved.
Overthrow Iran? Unprepared and incapable.
Make Iran abandon its nuclear program permanently? Impossible.
Result: A tactically impressive war lost due to vague strategic objectives.
Often, news focuses on today's strikes, casualties, or oil price movements.
Yet, what truly determines a conflict's trajectory is the simplest question before it begins:
What do you actually want?
With clarity, an end becomes possible;
Without it, more missiles are just expensive fireworks.
The current situation is a consequence of this lack of clarity.
Iran, in fact, grew more unified due to external invasion. This conflict, in a way, strengthened Iran internally.
This is a fact the former president's team is most reluctant to admit yet hardest to conceal.
For the global economy:
Short-term, if a ceasefire is signed, oil prices will likely drop as risk premiums dissipate.
Medium-term, troubles are just beginning.
If Iran secures asset unfreezing and eased sanctions through negotiations, its oil export capacity could recover, increasing global crude supply and theoretically pushing prices down.
Conversely, a strengthened Iran could amplify its regional influence in the Middle East—empowering groups like Yemen's Houthis, Lebanon's Hezbollah, and Iraq's Shiite militias. The Strait of Hormuz, through which a third of the world's seaborne oil passes, could face disruptions.
Oxford Economics simulated that if international oil prices remain near $140 per barrel for two consecutive months, coupled with tightening financial conditions and supply chain disruptions, it could drag the eurozone and some emerging markets into a mild recession.
Thus, the market's stance on this war is conflicted:
On one hand, hoping for a swift ceasefire to normalize oil prices;
On the other, fearing a hasty peace leaves a more unstable Middle East as a long-term risk.
Reflecting on the former president, his position is delicate.
Pre-war, he mobilized voters with a tough stance;
Now, to conclude, he must persuade the same people to accept an incomplete victory.
Hence, his social media tone grows increasingly contradictory—sometimes claiming an agreement is nearly finalized, other times instructing negotiators not to rush, and then criticizing detractors as losers.
Internally, the White House lacks consensus on how to end the conflict and is unprepared for external backlash.
Historically, several U.S. interventions in the Middle East—Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya—followed a similar script:
Grand beginnings with lofty goals, midway realization of unsustainable costs, and a quiet retreat with face-saving measures.
The result: regional order disrupted without a new one established, leaving a mess for successors.
If the U.S.-Iran conflict ends according to the current script, it will repeat this cycle.
Therefore, without a clear exit strategy, don't fire the first shot.
This applies to nations, companies, and anyone making significant decisions.
It also applies to investing: Make decisions before buying, plan your trades, and trade your plan.
Overcome greed, aversion, delusion, impulsive ideas, overconfidence, and potential failure.
This fundamental logic has remained unchanged throughout history.
MACD golden cross signals have formed, and these stocks are performing well.
Comments