I think the July AI selloff was part forced liquidation, part overdue repricing, but the liquidation probably amplified what would otherwise have been a healthier correction. AI fundamentals did not suddenly collapse. Demand for compute, cloud infrastructure and enterprise AI remained strong. What changed was the market’s willingness to pay increasingly high multiples while hyperscaler capex kept rising faster than near-term monetisation. Forced selling then turned a valuation reset into a sharper decline as crowded positions were unwound. The subsequent broad rebound across Nvidia, software and cybersecurity supports this view. I would not interpret the recovery as a return to “buy anything AI”, though. From here, earnings growth, margins and evidence of returns on AI spending should inc
I’m watching CRWD most closely. Unlike some of the more extended names, CrowdStrike’s momentum indicators are still recovering, which could leave more room if buyers continue to follow through after the earnings surge. The key test is whether it can consolidate above the post-earnings breakout rather than quickly filling the gap. NVDA is my second watch. Its earnings confirmed that AI infrastructure demand remains powerful, but margin pressure from higher memory costs gives the market something tangible to debate. For me, CRWD offers the more interesting risk/reward after this rally: strong fundamental momentum without looking quite as technically stretched as CRM, NOW or FTNT. I would watch for consolidation rather than chase another vertical move.
Q1: Nvidia’s guidance makes me more constructive on AI hardware into September. Q3 revenue guidance of $108bn and Data Centre growth of 117% YoY show the capex cycle remains powerful. But I would wait for Jackson Hole before adding aggressively because a hawkish Warsh could compress valuations even if earnings remain strong. Q2: I think META/SNAP is the start of a broader regulatory theme, not a one-off. Meta’s settlement comes amid thousands of lawsuits involving Meta, Snap, TikTok and Google, while parts of Meta’s settlement specifically encourage competitors to adopt similar protections. Smaller platforms may feel the compliance burden more heavily. Q3: AI capex drives the earnings, but Fed policy determines the multiple investors are willing to pay for those earnings. So I remain bull
My pick is Nvidia. Thursday finally broke its four-quarter post-earnings losing streak, with NVDA +8.74%, backed by revenue more than doubling YoY and a supply-constrained FY28 outlook. That looks more durable than simply catching a sector re-rating. Software is the more interesting tactical trade. Salesforce +22.58%, CrowdStrike +20.50% and Okta +28.63% showed that AI may expand enterprise software demand rather than destroy SaaS. Salesforce’s AI-related ARR reached $3.9bn, while CrowdStrike is seeing AI expand both cyber threats and security spending. But after 20–29% one-day gaps, I would not chase immediately. So: NVDA for conviction, software on a pullback, and Intel/Broadcom only as secondary catch-up trades. The key question now is whether software can hold Thursday’s gains once the
Marvell beat, raised guidance, and still broke. Q2 revenue rose 37% YoY to $2.74bn, while Q3 guidance of $3.15bn topped consensus. Yet MRVL fell 1.49% in regular trading and nearly 8% after hours. The issue was expectations: after a 184% YTD rally, investors wanted more, particularly from the Google custom-chip deal. Management indicated its bigger contribution comes in FY29 rather than FY28. My pick is Broadcom. It offers the strongest combination of custom AI silicon, networking and optical exposure without relying on one part of the supply chain. Marvell still has an excellent growth story, but valuation and expectations make execution risk high. For higher-risk upside, I prefer upstream optics such as Lumentum or Coherent. AI clusters need increasingly more optical connectivity regardl
Jackson Hole runs Aug 27–29, with Warsh’s first keynote as Fed Chair tonight. The official theme is “Financial Innovation: Implications for Payments and Policy”, putting payments, tokenisation, crypto and stablecoins unusually close to centre stage. Thursday may already have front-run the dovish trade: QQQ +1.37%, gold +1.12% and Bitcoin +2.96%. When equities, gold and BTC rise together, I read it less as three separate fundamental stories and more as a liquidity/weaker-dollar trade. My focus is the rate signal. Warsh has deliberately avoided conventional forward guidance, so even subtle language on inflation, yields or future tightening could trigger a large repricing. I’m watching BTC most closely. The symposium’s focus makes crypto especially sensitive, but if Warsh turns hawkish, BTC m
A: Gold. If I could hold only one through year-end, I would choose gold. Bitcoin has greater upside potential, especially if liquidity improves and investors return to risk assets, but its volatility makes the outcome much more dependent on market sentiment. Gold gives me a better balance of upside and protection. Geopolitical uncertainty, central-bank demand and concerns over inflation and fiscal deficits should continue supporting its role as a defensive asset. Bitcoin could easily outperform in a strong risk-on environment, but if markets are hit by another inflation, rates or geopolitical shock, I would rather own gold. For a relatively short holding period through year-end, Gold offers the better risk-adjusted choice for me.
A: Gold. If I could hold only one through year-end, I would choose gold. Bitcoin has greater upside potential, especially if liquidity improves and investors return to risk assets, but its volatility makes the outcome much more dependent on market sentiment. Gold gives me a better balance of upside and protection. Geopolitical uncertainty, central-bank demand and concerns over inflation and fiscal deficits should continue supporting its role as a defensive asset. Bitcoin could easily outperform in a strong risk-on environment, but if markets are hit by another inflation, rates or geopolitical shock, I would rather own gold. For a relatively short holding period through year-end, Gold offers the better risk-adjusted choice for me.
I would wait for the data. Moderna’s rally shows the market is shifting from a short-covering story towards assigning real value to intismeran, and a potential $9.2bn peak-sales opportunity would clearly transform the company’s outlook. But peak sales are still a model, not realised demand. With LTM revenue around $2.23bn and declining, paying up after another 14% jump leaves little room for disappointing efficacy, regulatory delays or slower commercial adoption. Merck offers the more diversified route to the same oncology opportunity, but with less upside sensitivity if intismeran succeeds spectacularly. For Moderna, I would rather miss the first part of the move and add after stronger clinical data validate the revenue thesis. At $158+, evidence matters more than analyst targets.
I would wait for the data rather than chase the oil-driven growth rally. The demining of Hormuz is genuinely positive, and Iran-Oman talks on a temporary shipping corridor could further reduce the geopolitical premium. But actual oil flows remain far below pre-war levels, while attacks on vessels continue. At the same time, Bessent’s expanded sanctions covering shipping, gold, digital assets and other sectors could tighten Iran’s financial pressure substantially. So cheaper oil is bullish for growth and inflation expectations, but I would want confirmation from shipping flows and diplomacy before rotating aggressively. I would keep core growth exposure, avoid chasing energy after geopolitical spikes, and retain some energy as a hedge. The risk premium has compressed, not disappeared.