This rebound does not yet qualify as a durable risk-on turn. It has many hallmarks of a positioning reset, not renewed conviction. The scale of the bounce in the S&P 500 looks impressive on the surface, but the underlying signals are less convincing. Elevated implied volatility, below-average participation, and the sharp move in Goldman’s short-bias basket all point to short covering and mechanical flows, rather than long-only re-engagement. When rallies are led by what investors were forced to buy back, rather than what they want to own, follow-through tends to be fragile. The AI angle matters here. The market is increasingly questioning winner-takes-most dynamics, especially in software, where pricing power, differentiation, and customer lock-in are far less assured than in AI infras

This is not a clean rotation moment, but rather a sequencing question. Gold reclaiming the $5,000/oz handle after a violent pullback is consistent with trend consolidation, not exhaustion. The structural drivers remain intact: central-bank accumulation, fiscal dominance risk, and portfolio hedging demand. From that perspective, JPMorgan’s view, as articulated by strategist Jason Hunter of JPMorgan, is internally consistent. Copper leading in Q2 also makes sense tactically. Copper is more sensitive to: inventory restocking, China demand stabilisation, infrastructure and grid spending tied to electrification and AI capex. That argues for selective rotation into copper-linked cyclicals, but not wholesale liquidation of gold. Historically, in late-cycle or policy-uncertain environments, gold a

This looks far more like post-earnings digestion than the start of a structural bank rotation. For DBS Group, the sell-off is understandable. The Q4 miss was driven by net interest margin compression, not a deterioration in asset quality or franchise strength. With rates normalising, NIM pressure is a sector-wide reality rather than a DBS-specific flaw. Fee income growth of +13.5% shows the underlying business mix is holding up well. Context matters. After a ~60% rally and fresh highs, expectations were elevated. Any earnings disappointment was likely to trigger profit-taking, especially as investors recalibrate forward ROE assumptions in a lower-rate environment. Crucially, capital returns change the risk profile. A 38% jump in total dividends to S$3.06, with visibility on capital return

This week, I would stay tactical, selective, and patient. Index level: I would avoid chasing strength after record highs. Momentum is extended and flow-driven. Prefer buying only on pullbacks into support and taking profits quickly. If volatility compresses, range trading beats directional bets. Big Tech positioning: Alphabet: Relatively resilient. I would consider adding on weakness not tied to fundamentals. Apple: Defensive relative play. Comfortable holding, but not chasing. Amazon and Microsoft: Stay cautious. CapEx repricing likely not finished. Meta: Trim into rallies rather than add. Tesla: Trading vehicle only. Treat bounces as sell opportunities. Risk mindset: Smaller size, defined risk, and partial cash. The easy upside is behind us. I would let price come to me rather than forc

What the market is drawing right now is a clear capital discipline versus capital intensity divide, rather than a simple “good earnings, bad earnings” story. Alphabet and Amazon both delivered strong top-line momentum, but investors reacted very differently to their spending trajectories. Google’s swift recovery after the initial selloff suggests the market is comfortable that its AI CapEx is translating into visible monetisation via Search, YouTube, and Cloud. In contrast, Amazon’s sharp drawdown reflects concern that AWS-led AI investment is front-loaded, margin-dilutive in the near term, and harder to model, especially with free cash flow already under pressure. The same logic applies to Microsoft. The CapEx surge confirms Azure’s AI demand strength, but the stock’s 15 percent pullback

The breakout is undeniably powerful, but whether it fuels an immediate follow-through gap higher depends on who is doing the buying next. What we are seeing now looks like a classic late-cycle momentum chase. A large portion of the move is driven by sidelined capital capitulating, CTAs and trend followers flipping long, and systematic exposure rebuilding after the recent drawdown. That dynamic can still push indices higher in the near term, especially when positioning rather than fundamentals is the marginal driver. That said, history suggests that breakouts to psychological milestones often invite short-term consolidation rather than a straight vertical continuation. With a substantial portion of annual returns already front-loaded, upside from here is likely to be more selective and narr

$Amazon.com(AMZN)$  Unlikely, barring a sharp macro shock. Amazon at $200 would imply the market is treating this as a structurally impaired business rather than a margin-depressed one. The results do not support that view. Why a $200 breakdown is not the base case AWS momentum is real. A 24% growth rate, the fastest in over three years, suggests AI workloads are finally scaling beyond pilots. The $10B+ annualised run rate from Trainium and Graviton signals early monetisation, not just speculative capex. FCF weakness is self-inflicted, not cyclical. The 70%+ collapse is driven by deliberate front-loading of data centres, chips and LEO satellites. This compresses near-term cash flow but expands long-duration earnings optionality. Capex optics

This looks less like a clean regime shift and more like a classic relief rally layered on fragile foundations. Equities: The breadth and magnitude of the rebound point to forced positioning rather than fresh conviction. CTA de-risking, short covering and options gamma effects likely amplified the move, especially in Big Tech. That explains the speed. It does not yet explain durability. A true risk-on reversal typically follows stabilising macro signals, not precedes them. Precious metals: Gold and silver rallying alongside equities is telling. In a healthy risk-on phase, gold usually lags. Here, gold strength suggests continued demand for protection against policy uncertainty and liquidity stress. Silver’s outsized move looks more like a volatility snapback after capitulation, not a clean

AI capex is now non-optional, but monetisation will not be evenly shared. Most bullish post-earnings. Microsoft stands out. It has the clearest monetisation flywheel: Azure usage, Copilot attach rates, and pricing power embedded in existing enterprise spend. Heavy capex, but returns are visible and recurring. Structural winner. NVIDIA remains the toll collector. Even as growth normalises, its ecosystem ensures it captures value regardless of which hyperscaler wins share. Amazon. Strategically sound, tactically messy. Amazon is investing for unit economics control, but monetisation lags capex. Prefer on pullbacks, not strength. Apple at current levels. Apple is a hold, not a bottom-fish. Strong balance sheet and buybacks limit downside, but AI monetisation remains indirect. Bottom line. AI

$Amazon.com(AMZN)$  A sustained move to $200 would require a material narrative break, not just capex anxiety. On current evidence, that looks unlikely without a broader market drawdown. Why the downside is limited. AWS accelerating to 24% growth, alongside disclosed $10B+ annualised revenue from Trainium and Graviton, reinforces that Amazon is not spending blindly. This is strategic capex aimed at controlling AI unit economics long term. Investors may dislike the near-term free cash flow collapse, but the market has historically tolerated negative FCF when AWS growth reaccelerates. What is pressuring the stock. The issue is timing mismatch. Capex is front-loaded while monetisation lags. A 50% YoY capex guide for 2026, well above consensus, c

This episode has many capitulation characteristics, but it is not yet a high-confidence macro bottom. What argues for a tradable bounce. The scale and speed of liquidations, $1.7B wiped out in a day with hundreds of thousands of forced exits, is typical of late-stage deleveraging. When leverage is flushed this aggressively, short-term selling pressure often exhausts itself. The rebound toward the mid-$60k range fits a mechanical reset narrative rather than renewed speculation. From a tactical perspective, this increases the odds of a counter-trend rally over days to a few weeks. What argues against a durable bottom. This was not an idiosyncratic crypto shock. It coincided with broad risk aversion across equities, rates, and commodities. In macro-driven drawdowns, Bitcoin rarely bottoms bef

This looks less like a clean risk-on regime shift and more like a classic post-deleveraging reflex rally. Equities. The breadth and magnitude of the rebound suggest forced selling has largely run its course for now. Big Tech leadership points to short covering and systematic re-risking rather than fresh conviction. A true risk-on turn would normally be accompanied by stabilising real yields and follow-through volume over several sessions. Precious metals. Gold and silver rising alongside equities is not a textbook “liquidity flood” signal. Instead, it is consistent with a rebound after margin-driven liquidation. Silver’s outsized move, in particular, reflects how violently it was sold into previously. This behaviour aligns more with volatility normalisation than renewed risk confidence. Cr

$Amazon.com(AMZN)$  Not necessarily, but the risk of a $200 test is now non-trivial. Here is the clean framework. What the market is grappling with Amazon delivered a genuine upside surprise on growth. AWS at +24% is a re-acceleration, not noise, and $10B+ annualised Trainium and Graviton revenue confirms Amazon is monetising its own silicon earlier than many expected. The issue is capital intensity. A 59% jump in PPE capex, plus guidance for 2026 capex +50% YoY and ~40% above consensus, reframes Amazon as an infrastructure builder first and a cash generator later. The 70%+ free cash flow collapse is not cyclical volatility. It is the direct consequence of front-loading AI, logistics, and LEO satellite investment. Why $200 becomes a line in t

This move looks more like a leverage cleanse than true capitulation, which matters for how durable any rebound may be. What the liquidation tells us A US$1.7B long wipe-out in 24 hours signals forced deleveraging, not discretionary selling. When price rebounds immediately after such events, it often reflects relief from margin pressure rather than renewed conviction. Spot volumes have improved, but not at levels typically associated with long-term bottoms. Is this a tradable bottom For short-term traders, yes, this can be tradable. Post-liquidation bounces are common once funding resets and open interest collapses. However, tradable does not mean structural. Without sustained spot inflows, rallies risk fading. Macro still matters The broader backdrop is risk-off. Tight financial conditions

The recent drawdown reflects a classic regime reset rather than a collapse in fundamentals. What is driving the sell-off The shock from new AI automation tools has accelerated fears of faster-than-expected disruption, compressing multiples across application software. Valuations were still elevated after the October rally, leaving the sector vulnerable once growth durability was questioned. Systematic de-risking and crowded positioning amplified the move, which explains why the Nasdaq 100 fell far less than pure-play software. Will software continue to dip Near term, volatility likely persists. Earnings revisions and guidance clarity will matter more than narratives. However, a broad 26 percent drawdown already prices in material margin pressure and slower monetisation, which may prove ove

How to view Silver’s plunge This was a liquidity and positioning unwind, not a collapse in the long-term thesis. Silver had significantly outperformed gold and became the most crowded expression of the precious-metals trade. When geopolitical risk eased and U.S. data stayed firm, silver absorbed the bulk of the deleveraging. Its higher beta means sharp drops are a feature, not a bug. The speed of the fall suggests forced selling and margin pressure, not a reassessment of structural demand. Could Silver fall to $60 or $50 $60 is plausible in a full sentiment washout, especially if real yields firm and gold consolidates. $50 would likely require a broader macro shock: a sharp USD surge, aggressive rate repricing, or a disorderly unwind across commodities. Possible, but not the base case. Bel

This looks more like a positioning and narrative shock than the start of a structural bear phase for software. What is really driving the selloff The catalyst was not earnings deterioration but perceived disruption risk. The announcement by Anthropic reframed Al from “software tailwind” to “software margin threat”, particularly for legal tech, workflow automation, fintech tooling, and parts of asset management. That narrative shift hit a sector that was already crowded, richly valued, and sensitive to duration. Once selling began, ETF and factor unwinds amplified the move. Six consecutive down sessions, coupled with sharp index-level drawdowns, suggest forced de-risking rather than fresh fundamental discovery. Does software continue to dip Near term, volatility can persist. When thematic l

Advanced Micro Devices: reset or opportunity? This looks less like the end of the Al story and more like a valuation and expectations reset. The sell-off was driven by guidance, not execution. The earnings beat confirmed solid operations, but management did not deliver the near-term Al inflection the market had aggressively priced in. With China demand removed and MI300 ramp visibility pushed out, investors recalibrated from “immediate Al winner” to “cycle participant with timing risk”. That said, calling this the end of AMD’s Al optimism is premature. Three points matter: 1. Crowded trade unwind AMD had become a consensus Al proxy outside Nvidia. When guidance failed to accelerate, positioning, not fundamentals, did the damage. A 17 percent drawdown in one session has clear capitulation c

Alphabet vs Amazon: whose earnings best prove AI monetisation? Alphabet Alphabet’s proof point is Search + Cloud. If Gemini features lift ad yield and engagement without compressing margins, and Google Cloud shows faster growth with improving operating margins, that is direct evidence AI is monetising at scale. Risk: high AI capex diluting margins if revenue lift lags. Amazon Amazon’s test is AWS. Clear signs that AI workloads are driving reacceleration in AWS growth and margin expansion would validate monetisation more cleanly. Enterprise contracts, higher attach rates, and operating leverage make AI revenue easier to attribute. Verdict • Cleaner AI monetisation signal: Amazon (AWS is a paid, usage-driven platform). • Bigger strategic payoff if it lands: Alphabet (AI defending Search mar

Here are the major developments around Alphabet Inc. ahead of its earnings release on 4 February 2026, focusing squarely on your questions about AI momentum, Google Cloud, and competitive pressures on margins. The consensus view heading into the print reflects strong fundamentals mixed with heightened expectations and execution risk.  Can AI Momentum Meaningfully Reaccelerate Google Cloud Growth This Quarter? Yes — but with important caveats. • AI-driven demand is supporting robust Google Cloud expansion. Consensus estimates before the earnings release project ~34 – 36 per cent year-on-year Cloud revenue growth in Q4, with approximately $16 billion in sales, signalling continued acceleration. This is notable given the hyper-competitive landscape against AWS and Azure.  • Cloud ba