I think the bigger force at the long end is the term premium rather than just expectations for another Fed hike. Persistent fiscal deficits and heavy Treasury issuance mean investors need to absorb more duration, while inflation uncertainty makes them demand higher compensation for holding 10Y and 30Y bonds. That can push long yields higher even if the Fed eventually pauses. So I am watching Treasury supply, auction demand and the term premium closely. If those pressures persist, a Fed pause may bring limited relief to long yields, keeping valuation pressure on equities, especially long-duration growth stocks.
I think the long end can stay elevated, or even move higher, even if the Fed stands pat. The key issue is that the 10Y/30Y are increasingly being driven by more than the expected Fed path. Fiscal deficits, heavy Treasury issuance and a rising term premium can keep pushing long-term yields higher without another rate hike. A Fed pause may relieve some pressure at the front end, but it does not automatically solve the supply-demand imbalance further out the curve. If investors demand more compensation to hold duration, the curve could steepen through higher long-end yields. For equities, that matters because a 5%+ 10Y keeps the discount-rate hurdle high, particularly for expensive growth stocks. My base case: Fed pause ≠ long-end relief. I would watch Treasury auctions, term premium and infl
The higher FY2028 target is encouraging, but I do not think US$20B alone is enough to carry MRVL significantly higher. The key question is whether earnings can catch up with the AI narrative. I would watch AI-related revenue growth, margins and whether hyperscaler demand remains strong enough to justify the current expectations. A raised target improves confidence, but once the market prices in strong growth, execution matters more than guidance. If Marvell keeps beating estimates and raising forecasts, the rally can continue. If growth merely meets the new target, valuation could become the bigger constraint. For me: bullish on the business, but increasingly selective on the share price.
A. AI & Technology 🤖 I’ll be watching AI policy most closely, especially any changes around chip export controls, data-centre power infrastructure, AI regulation and government incentives for domestic semiconductor production. These could have significant implications for the entire AI supply chain, from Nvidia and AMD to hyperscalers, utilities and data-centre operators. Around the midterms, even shifts in expectations for future policy could move valuations before any legislation actually changes.
C for me: ⚡ Data centres, power & infrastructure. AI models may change leaders quickly, but every serious competitor still needs compute, memory, networking, cooling and electricity. That makes the infrastructure layer particularly interesting because it can benefit regardless of whether OpenAI, Meta, Anthropic or another player ultimately wins the model race. I’m also watching D closely. The scale of AI capex is becoming enormous, so eventually revenue and free cash flow must justify it. Spending hundreds of billions is bullish for infrastructure suppliers, but not necessarily for the companies writing the cheques. My preferred approach is therefore to follow the bottlenecks: GPUs → HBM → networking → cooling → power. As one constraint gets solved, capital tends to move towards the n
I’d rather own the index here. The handful of mega-cap leaders may continue outperforming, but buying them after a strong run means accepting much greater concentration and valuation risk. If earnings or guidance disappoint, the same stocks carrying the market could also lead the correction. An index lets me participate in the AI and tech rally while retaining exposure to financials, industrials, healthcare and other sectors that could take over leadership if the rally broadens. I wouldn’t completely avoid the winners, but I prefer them as part of a diversified portfolio rather than making a concentrated bet. At record highs, diversification may look boring, but I’m happy to trade some upside for less single-stock risk. 📈
The answers are: 1A, 2B, 3C, 4B, 5A, 6B, 7B, 8B, 9C, 10B For Q9, the 2× ETF rises about 20% on Day 1, then falls about 18.18% on Day 2. Starting from 100: 100 → 120 → about 98.18, resulting in a small loss despite the underlying index returning to roughly its starting point. This demonstrates volatility drag from daily resetting.
I’d separate these into earnings-backed and expectations-backed record highs. My top three are TSMC, NVIDIA and Johnson Controls. TSMC and NVIDIA remain at the heart of AI compute demand, while JCI shows how AI spending is spreading into cooling and physical data-centre infrastructure. Its $21 billion backlog is particularly attractive. I’m more cautious on Lumentum after its huge run, and on MPC and VLO because today’s exceptional refining margins may not last indefinitely. CRWD and FTNT have strong fundamentals too, but their valuations leave less room for disappointment. 🥇 TSMC 🥈 NVIDIA 🥉 JCI I wouldn’t chase a stock simply because it is making new highs. At these valuations, I want earnings, cash flow and guidance to keep justifying the price. A great company can still be a poor inves
I think the market is worried about both sides of the equation at once: future supply rising while AI demand may arrive later than expected. Toshiba’s expansion raises the possibility that today’s HDD scarcity and pricing power eventually weaken. But analysts argue the reaction may be excessive. Morgan Stanley’s industry checks suggest Toshiba’s expansion is unlikely to eliminate the HDD shortage through 2028. The bigger risk may actually be demand timing. Morgan Stanley estimates a sizeable US data-centre power shortfall through 2028. If data centres cannot get powered on schedule, customers could delay equipment deliveries, hitting memory, storage and optical suppliers before Nvidia or Broadcom. That creates an awkward combination: more supply being planned for the future, but uncertaint
For now, I’d call it a headline running ahead of the order. Musk confirmed that TSMC and Terafab are in discussions, but there is still no disclosed contract value, capacity commitment or firm timeline. That makes TSMC’s record high partly a bet on what the relationship could become rather than revenue already secured. That said, I can understand why the market likes TSMC here. If Terafab needs enormous leading-edge capacity, TSMC is difficult to avoid. Even a multi-foundry strategy could leave it as a major beneficiary. Intel is the more interesting side of the trade. Musk previously said Terafab planned to use Intel 14A, so bringing TSMC into the discussion weakens the idea that Intel has a privileged position. My verdict: positive signal for TSMC, negative negotiating signal for Intel,