To The Moon

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.

I would wait for both Nvidia earnings and Jackson Hole to clear. Nvidia’s fundamentals remain exceptional, with consensus revenue around $92bn and Rubin potentially becoming the next major growth driver, but expectations are already demanding. A routine beat may not be enough, especially after four consecutive negative post-earnings reactions. The reported 15%+ server price increases also show Nvidia retaining pricing power despite soaring memory costs, although that could pressure customers’ AI returns. For me, the better risk/reward is to avoid chasing before two major catalysts. If Nvidia delivers strong guidance and Warsh does not trigger another yield shock, I would add afterwards. Suppliers, especially memory and AI infrastructure names, remain attractive as a secondary way to play t

I would rather own the AI sellers than the AI spenders from here. Big Tech is committing enormous capital to AI infrastructure, creating strong demand for chips, memory, networking, power and data centres. The advantage of suppliers is that they can benefit regardless of whether Alphabet, Meta, Microsoft or Amazon ultimately wins the AI platform race. The spenders face a tougher test. Investors increasingly want evidence that huge AI CapEx translates into sustainable revenue, margins and free cash flow. Strong growth alone may no longer justify ever-rising investment. Among the spenders, Alphabet would still be my favourite because its Cloud business provides a clearer path towards AI monetisation. My positioning: AI sellers first, Alphabet second. The key risk is a slowdown in hyperscale

My pick is Apple (AAPL). Rothschild & Co Redburn’s upgrade from Neutral to Buy, with the target jumping from $260 to $400, is one of the more interesting calls this week. The thesis rests on the upcoming premium foldable iPhone and Apple potentially becoming a stronger AI “fast follower”. I would not interpret the broader wave of upgrades as proof that “smart money” is uniformly bullish, though. AI semiconductors are already one of the market’s most crowded trades, so expectations are extremely high. For AAPL, I like the ecosystem, pricing power and potential new product cycle, but at current valuations execution matters. A $400 target becomes credible only if the foldable iPhone expands revenue rather than simply cannibalising existing models, while Apple finally demonstrates meaning

A) Copper & Mining gets my vote, with BHP as the one I would be most comfortable buying. The copper rally still has fundamental support rather than being purely momentum-driven. Electrification, grid investment and AI infrastructure are increasing demand, while supply remains constrained. S&P Global expects data-centre copper demand alone to rise from 1.1m tonnes in 2025 to 2.5m by 2040. I prefer BHP over the more concentrated copper miners because it combines growing copper exposure with diversification. Copper already contributed more than half of BHP's adjusted EBITDA last year, and management expects copper production to rise substantially over the longer term. Valuation is the main concern after the rally, so I would accumulate rather than chase aggressively. Bonus pick: Visa

I would wait for both Nvidia and Jackson Hole to clear rather than add before the print. The issue is no longer whether Nvidia can beat consensus. Current estimates vary by source, roughly around $92bn revenue and $2.09 EPS, and options imply about a 6% post-earnings move. More importantly, Nvidia has fallen after each of its past four earnings reports despite consistently beating expectations.  The long-term case remains compelling. The analyst consensus is still Strong Buy, with the $304.73 mean target implying about 46% upside from Monday's close. But this week combines two separate risks: Nvidia determining whether AI spending expectations remain credible, then Warsh potentially moving long-term yields at Jackson Hole.  I would therefore keep Nvidia rather than sell, but hold

I would wait rather than chase the insider buy. The more important signal has already arrived in the numbers: Alibaba’s cloud and AI-services revenue grew 45%, but quarterly net profit fell 75% as capex surged 75% to RMB67.68bn.  That actually strengthens both sides of the debate. Bulls can point to genuine cloud reacceleration, while bears can argue that Alibaba is effectively buying that growth at a very high near-term cost. The HK$80bn placement adds dilution and raises the hurdle further. Alibaba now needs to demonstrate that AI infrastructure produces attractive incremental returns, not merely faster revenue. Management is targeting roughly a mid-teens return on AI investment over three years.  So I would treat the CEO purchase as a confidence signal, not a buy signal. The m