美股投资young

美股科技投资者 ai狂热者分享每日快讯. all in ai

303Following

772followers

Feed

Livestream

Feed

The semiconductor index has fallen below 10,000, hitting an intraday low of 9899, down 5%. A few days ago, I kept saying that the big surge on 11/9 was a rebound, not a reversal. Today confirmed that again. But you need to see clearly who is falling. SOXX dropped 5%, down 9%, down 6%, down 4.5%, hit a new intraday low at 159. QQQ fell nearly 2%, SPY down 1%. Looking at the equal-weighted S&P, it only dropped 0.3%. Financials are rising, energy is rising, healthcare is flat. US Treasuries are not being sold off either. The 10-year yield surged to 5.17% early but has now retreated to 5.13%, and PPI is slightly cooler than expected. Interest rates are falling back, most large-cap stocks haven’t moved much, funds are just continuing to withdraw from chips. The money that rotated from to and a couple of days ago all ran today, so the bigger the rise, the harder the fall. This is what I mean by a rebound, not a reversal. The political obstacle hasn’t been removed; the 11/17 earnings and 11/18 hearings haven’t landed yet. Every semiconductor rebound is met with some selling. So I see today as a test of the bottom, not a crash. The lower shadow on 11/12 was eaten up within an hour of the open, and next is to look for support downwards. SPY: The 750 to 752 area (lows on 10/30 and 11/2) has been broken, with an intraday low of 747.9. Below that is 745 (11/10 low), 741 (11/9 low), and finally 733 from 11/5, with the 200-day moving average at 729 providing support below. QQQ: The 200-day moving average at 681 has been broken, intraday low 672. Below that is 667 (11/10 low), 662 (11/9 low), then 654 and 647 from 11/5. SOXX: 147 broken, intraday low 145.6. Below that is 143 (11/10 low), 138 (11/9 low), and finally 130.75 from 11/5. Whether this test is successful depends on the 11/5 lows. SPY 733, QQQ 647, SOXX 130.75. If the pullback doesn’t break these, it’s a higher low, and the market will likely oscillate between the 11/5 low and 11/11 high, slowly forming a bottom. If broken, then this is not a test but a new leg down. Such tests usually don’t finish in one day; there will be several back-and-forth moves around next week’s earnings and hearings. No change in strategy. Those who reduced positions during the rebound don’t need to rush to buy now. Those who didn’t reduce, don’t cut at the lowest point here. No leverage, keep cash, scale in more as support levels approach. Around 11/5 is where I will really start to act. One more thing, the market hasn’t collapsed along with chips, which is the most reassuring part today. As long as this divergence remains, it’s still sector valuation compression, not a market-wide problem.

Today, the Philadelphia Semiconductor Index rose 6.7%, but this is a rebound, still far from a reversal. First, let's talk about how to distinguish them. A rebound happens when the price has fallen too much, shorts cover, and bottom-fishing capital enters, causing the price to bounce back somewhat; a reversal means the reason for the decline is gone, and capital is willing to hold long-term positions again. To judge which it is, don’t just look at how much it rose in one day; look at three things: whether the reason for the decline still exists, whether the previously broken support level can be recovered, and whether the price can hold during a pullback. Let's check these three points against the current situation. First, the reason still exists. This round of semiconductor sell-off is mainly the market pricing in the possibility that after the Democrats took office, data center approvals slow down and AI regulations tighten. Up to today, neither side has given any statement—no confirmation that it’s just a delay, nor any exclusion of continued tightening. The cause of the decline remains; what’s risen is just sentiment. Second, technically it has only reached the first hurdle. $SOXX gapped down on November 5; the previous day’s low was 147.23, but the high that day was only 143.73, leaving a gap. Today’s intraday high was 146.98, just a few cents short of filling the gap. The Philadelphia Semiconductor Index is similar: the low on 11/4 was 10064.73, today’s high was 10059.68, just a bit short. Filling the gap is the most common first target of a rebound, and usually there will be selling pressure there. Above that, there are two more hurdles: one is the July 29 low at 10447, which was support before the break but now acts as resistance; the other is the 20-day moving average, around 10900. Above that, the gap left on October 30 between 10957 and 11364 has not yet been touched. Third, there has not been a pullback yet. After a reversal, there is usually a pullback that does not break the previous low, followed by a higher high. The Philadelphia Semiconductor Index is still just over 30% below its highest close, having just bounced from the low; this step has not happened yet. also illustrates a point today: while the Philadelphia Semiconductor Index rose 6.7%, it fell nearly 5% due to a scandal. Capital is currently selective in buying, not fully returning. So I treat today as a normal oversold rebound, not a reversal signal. What would really make me change my view is a clear political statement, plus the price standing back above 10447 and the 20-day moving average, and a pullback that does not break support. If one of these happens, I will raise my confidence; if all happen, then I would call it a reversal. The biggest mistake at times like this is to treat a big one-day rise as a confirmed bottom and then leverage up to chase. Rebounds can make money fast, but pullbacks come fast too. Even with leaders, buy in batches, don’t use leverage, and wait for both the gap fill and political clarity to give the answer.

Jensen Huang has lost both his CEO position and his board seat this time. Looking back historically, when a founder leaves, the company usually doesn't collapse immediately; the stock price often can still rise for a while, and the real cost only becomes apparent after several years. The closest example is Steve Jobs in 1985. That year, he lost a power struggle with Sculley, whom he had brought in himself. In May, he was stripped of real power, and in September, he resigned and left. After that, not only didn’t fall but rose nearly tenfold thanks to the Mac he left behind, peaking in 1991. Then the reckoning began: with no new products to follow up, by the end of 1997, the stock price had dropped 81% from the 1991 high, the company nearly went bankrupt, and ultimately had to bring Jobs back. The products left by the founder can sustain the company for another five or six years. Once those run out, everyone realizes no one can clearly see the next step. The second example is . In January 2000, Bill Gates handed the CEO role to Ballmer, coinciding with the bursting of the internet bubble. The stock price fell from 32.72 that day to 11.07 in March 2009. By the time Nadella took over in February 2014, the stock was only at 29.97. Fourteen years of stagnation. During those fourteen years, made plenty of money; Windows and Office were cash cows year after year. But in search, mobile, and cloud waves, it either missed out or was several beats late. The business kept growing, but the market refused to give it any more imagination. I think is most likely to follow this path. Of course, some have held on. In 2011, Jobs handed to Cook. It wasn’t smooth at first; from September 2012 to April 2013, the stock dropped 44%, and the whole world said Apple was finished without Jobs. But from the day Cook took over until now, has risen more than thirtyfold. But Cook was personally chosen by Jobs, groomed for years, and the handover was planned. This time at , the board decided within days, and Jensen Huang never designated a successor. The Information said it bluntly: there is "no obvious candidate" inside the company. Others have returned to this path, but results took longer. Schultz returned to $SBUX in January 2008; the stock fell from 6.74 to 2.63 in November, halving again before recovering. Iger returned to $DIS in November 2022; he took over at 89, and by October next year, it was still at 77. Jobs returned to in 1997, but it took years until the iPod and iPhone. So who will guard now? The interim CEO is CFO Colette Kress. She sits next to Jensen Huang at every earnings call; Wall Street trusts her to stabilize orders and numbers for these quarters. On Kalshi, the top successor candidate is Ian Buck at 37%; he is a core figure of CUDA and has been at since 2004. Kress is second at 19%; CEO Rene Haas is third at 9%. Outside candidates like ’s Lisa Su and ’s Sanjay Mehrotra seem more like noise. Many analysts think the most realistic scenario is Kress managing money and operations, Buck handling technology and products, with both carrying the load together. The defense should hold. Orders are booked through next year, CUDA developers exceed 7.5 million, and cloud providers alone will spend over $700 billion in capex this year. These won’t disappear just because the CEO changes. The hard part is expansion. CUDA was pushed by Jensen Huang despite criticism for burning cash; later he bet on AI, shifted to selling full racks, and launched new generations yearly—every step was first seen and bet on by him. Such vision can’t be replaced by just picking a good CEO. Finding a Cook might not be hard; finding a second Jensen Huang is very difficult. What about the entire AI industry? Short-term orders won’t change. ’s CoWoS, SK Hynix and ’s HBM, ’s optical modules are all based on orders and capacity; customers want computing power, not who the CEO is. Two things will change. One, customers have reason to find a second supplier faster. This week, rose 44.7% from 11/5 to 11/12, rose 25%; the market is already betting on this. Two, there’s no one to lead. In recent years, the next steps for AI were basically announced annually by Jensen Huang on stage to the whole industry, and the entire supply chain expanded accordingly. With that voice weakened, everyone will hesitate more to expand capacity, and the valuation premium for "future growth" will be discounted first. My view remains the same: will likely remain the most profitable company in AI, with orders and dominance intact in the short term. But history tells me that in the years after a founder leaves, the stock price often doesn’t fall immediately but gradually stops rising. Don’t leverage up, don’t bet on 11/17, reduce on rallies as needed, and wait to see who the successor is and what the first guidance looks like before talking long term.