Why the +10% move matters This is not a random bounce. It reflects capital rotating back into the AI memory bottleneck trade. HBM is now structurally tight. If Micron’s HBM4 ramp accelerates meaningfully into 2026, ASP strength plus mix shift could drive: • higher gross margins • sustained pricing power • multi-year visibility Memory is no longer purely cyclical. It is partially strategic infrastructure. --- Is $450 “easy”? That depends on three variables: 1️⃣ HBM4 execution If Micron secures incremental AI GPU share and ramps without yield issues, earnings revisions will follow quickly. 2️⃣ Supply discipline If competitors avoid overbuilding, margins hold. If supply floods in 2027, multiples compress. 3️⃣ Valuation expansion Memory typically trades mid-cycle multiples. To justify $450, th

1. What matters most this quarter? With revenue expected at $1.77B and transaction revenue softening, focus shifts to quality rather than headline growth. Key areas: Subscription and services stability at ~$723M USDC yield contribution Derivatives traction Operating expense discipline If recurring revenue mix rises further, valuation becomes less tied to spot volatility. 2. Does Bitcoin’s pullback help or hurt? At ~$69K, Bitcoin is consolidating after a sharp unwind. If leverage has indeed flushed out and large holders are accumulating, volatility may compress before the next directional move. For Coinbase, two scenarios: Bull case Stabilising BTC plus ETF flows revive retail and institutional activity into Q2. Bear case Muted volatility suppresses trading volumes despite price stability.

$Oracle(ORCL)$   Oracle’s 9.6% surge reflects renewed conviction that its AI infrastructure narrative is gaining credibility rather than remaining aspirational. 1. Will OpenAI funding progress sustain Oracle’s rebound? Improved funding visibility reduces counterparty risk and signals continued demand for large AI training clusters. That supports: Multi-year capacity contracts Higher cloud backlog Better utilisation of new data centres However, sustainability depends on execution. If AI workload growth translates into durable OCI revenue acceleration, the rally can extend. If spending normalises or shifts toward competitors, multiple compression risk returns. 2. Can large-scale financing cement leadership? Heavy capital deployment helps O

Alphabet’s aggressive capital programme signals one clear message: scale will decide the AI hierarchy. 1. Why borrow when cash is abundant? Alphabet holds substantial liquidity, yet tapping global debt markets achieves several objectives: Locks in long-duration funding before rates potentially reprice higher Preserves cash flexibility for acquisitions and strategic pivots Optimises capital structure while debt remains comparatively cheap The 100-year GBP issuance is particularly strategic. It reflects confidence in long-term cash flow durability from Search, Cloud, and AI infrastructure. 2. What is the $185B funding? Primarily: Data centres and hyperscale expansion Custom silicon such as TPUs AI infrastructure to defend Search and accelerate Cloud Model training and inference capacity This

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