To The Moon

A $1.3T wipeout grabs headlines, but it doesn't automatically mean the AI story is broken. The market had become extremely crowded, valuations were stretched, and stronger-than-expected jobs data reduced hopes for near-term rate cuts. That combination was enough to trigger a sharp repricing. The key question is whether AI demand is slowing. So far, hyperscaler capex, data centre buildouts, and AI infrastructure spending remain intact. If earnings and spending plans hold up, this may prove to be a valuation reset rather than the start of a fundamental downturn. As for the SpaceX IPO, capital could rotate temporarily, but long-term liquidity is driven far more by monetary policy and corporate earnings than a single listing. Personally, I would be far more interested in buying quality names a

I'd be careful treating Rocket Lab or AST SpaceMobile as "SpaceX proxies". The bull case is straightforward: a successful SpaceX IPO could bring massive attention and fresh capital into the space sector, lifting related names through sentiment alone. That's what many traders are betting on. The bear case is that expectations may already be priced in. If investors can finally buy SpaceX directly, capital could rotate out of RKLB, ASTS, Virgin Galactic and Redwire rather than into them. History is full of "sell-the-news" events following highly anticipated listings. Between the two, RKLB has a clearer business model today with launch services, spacecraft systems, and growing government contracts. ASTS offers larger potential upside if its direct-to-cell network succeeds, but execution risk r

Tech’s $160 Billion Liquidity Vacuum: Is the AI Trade Dead or Just Reloading? "Are my tech stocks fundamentally broken?" "Is the great AI supercycle finally over?" "Did I just buy the exact top of the market?" These are the panicked questions flooding the community over the last 48 hours. Recently, the market experienced a massive, structural capital event: Google announced an $84.5 billion capital raise, and right on its heels, SpaceX stepped in to raise another $75 billion. Both offerings were massively oversubscribed. The immediate aftermath? A violent, across-the-board sell-off in AI, power, optical networking, and data center stocks. But before you hit the panic sell button, let's unpack the actual mechanics of this market rotation. 1️⃣ The Great $160 Billion Liquidity Vacuum When ret

Friday’s Beta-Driven Bloodbath: Are We Reliving 2022 or Just Shaking Out Weak Hands? Friday delivered a sudden, brutal shift in market sentiment, functioning as a textbook "Beta-driven sell-off" that caught aggressive momentum traders completely off guard. The highest-flying tech and AI names took the deepest cuts, while low-beta, defensive sectors showed relative resilience. Triggered by an unexpectedly hot non-farm payrolls report, the market violently re-priced the macroeconomic landscape, suddenly forcing the dreaded threat of end-of-year rate hikes back into active discussion. Before hitting the panic button and liquidating your portfolio, we need to separate structural, systemic risk from a routine institutional liquidity flush. 1️⃣ The Ghost of 2022 vs. A Temporary Policy Micro-Adju

SpaceX’s $1.8 Trillion Gravity Well: Is the Space Stock Sector About to Crash or Ignite? The gravitational pull of the upcoming SpaceX IPO is violently disrupting the entire space-proxy sector. As SpaceX prepares for a listing that could value it at a staggering $1.8 trillion, retail darlings like Rocket Lab (RKLB), AST SpaceMobile (ASTS), and Virgin Galactic (SPCE) have been slammed with aggressive profit-taking. But with prominent short-seller Steve Eisman publicly trashing SpaceX’s valuation and rumors swirling of institutional short positioning, traders are facing a massive directional dilemma: is the space sector a bubble ready to burst, or is this the ultimate shakeout before the next tech supercycle? ### 1️⃣ The "Black Hole" Liquidity Effect When a mega-unicorn like SpaceX hits the

🚨 Bitcoin Breaks Down: The "Never Sell" Pledge Shattered Bitcoin just took a massive hit, tumbling over 5% today and slicing through the $62,000 support level. This breakdown marks its lowest point since February, bringing the brutal one-week drawdown to roughly 16%. The Catalyst: A Crisis of Confidence The selloff was directly triggered by a shockwave from Michael Saylor's firm. By offloading a significant Bitcoin position, they broke their famous 'never sell' pledge. This unprecedented move has severely dented market confidence, leaving retail and institutional holders alike questioning the core narrative. The Institutional Play: Pair Trading the Weakness Smart money is actively exploiting this divergence. Macro, quant, and cross-asset funds are heavily deploying structural pair trades:

Disclaimer: Nothing I say or post should be considered financial advice. Please do your own due diligence before making any investment decisions. Finally, the sell off has started. I anticipated this will happen sooner or later. With such inflated valuations, some warranted and some not, they are bound to retrace at some point. However, I do think this is just the start of an avalanche.  To add on, the most anticipated IPO of the year, SpaceX is releasing on 12 June. So I do anticipate there might be a wide market sell off and the money is going to be thrown into SpaceX. So strap in, lock tight, we are going to have a bumpy ride.[Observation]    

Mathematical Money | June 6, 2026 Closed two MSFT long-dated calls this week. The first one was a January 2027 $480 call. I bought it on May 11 at $19.88. I closed it on June 2 at $43.64. The contract more than doubled in just under four weeks. About $4,750 in realized profit. The second was a June 2027 $360 call. I'd been holding that one since April. Bought at $79.06, closed at $115.45. Up about 46% over seven weeks. Another $3,640 realized. Total realized profit on the MSFT LEAPS book this week: roughly $8,400. Now let me show you the more important part — what happened next. The Rule That Triggered Them This is the same rule I wrote about in mid-May when I harvested half of the SPY LEAPS book. When a long-dated long position more than doubles, you take some of it off the table. The rea

I’m bullish on $SpaceX(SPCX)$ because I see it as much more than a rocket company. Starlink, satellite internet, launch services, and the broader space economy give it multiple long-term growth drivers that few companies can match. At the same time, the risks are real. SpaceX is still reporting GAAP losses, and a $1.75 trillion valuation already reflects very high expectations. The lack of immediate S&P 500 $S&P 500(.SPX)$ inclusion could also reduce near-term buying pressure from passive funds. My view is that if Starlink keeps growing and SpaceX maintains its technological lead, the company could become a k

Just three days ago, the S&P 500 was celebrating fresh all-time highs as AI stocks went into overdrive. Investors were acting as if nothing could stop the rally. Then came Fri  The S&P 500 suffered its biggest one-day decline since October 2025, despite one of the strongest U.S. jobs reports in the last 18 months. On the surface, it makes no sense. Strong economy. Strong hiring. Strong consumer spending. Shouldn't stocks be soaring? Even President Donald Trump questioned the reaction, saying stocks should be going up, not down. But here's what the market is really telling us. The market no longer wants a strong economy. It wants lower interest rates. For months, investors convinced themselves that slowing employment would force the Federal Reserve to cut rates aggressively. Wh

I hope you can see that technical analysis is helpful, especially for timing entries on stocks that are bottoming. Here’s the dilemma every value investor faces: a software stock might be undervalued at $100. Do you buy at $50? At $20? Both are undervalued. But if the stock continues falling to $10, even buying at $20 yields a 50% loss and feels expensive in hindsight. Stage Analysis helps you avoid this trap by waiting for price confirmation before committing. Some will argue that by the time Stage 2 begins, the price is already much higher. True. But the trade-off is that you’re buying with more certainty and not catching a falling knife without knowing where the bottom is. The cost of not waiting can be far greater losses. That said, don’t rely on technical analysis alone unless you hav

Eh boss, morning morning! Come come, sit down lah, one kosong prata and kopi-O coming! While I fry your prata, let me tell you one helluva story about this company,$Amphenol(APH)$  !  AI whole supply chain now like big big war! Nvidia selling the big big guns, Microsoft and Meta building the factories. But this Amphenol guy? He is the one supplying the bullets, the wires, the connectors — everything to connect the whole army together! No connection, your super powerful GPU also become expensive metal brick only. Useless lah! This Amphenol, from PC time, handphone time, until now AI time, every wave they are there. Not the superstar, but always the one who collect money properly. Steady pom pi pi. Boss, they sell three things mainly: Conne

For me, this looks more like a sentiment and positioning shock than a fundamental change to Bitcoin's long-term thesis. If the report about Michael Saylor's selling is accurate, the bigger issue is credibility. Markets can forgive selling, but they dislike broken narratives. That said, a 16% weekly drop is not unusual by Bitcoin standards. The AI-long/BTC-short pair trade is interesting. If AI stocks continue correcting, some funds may unwind both legs, which could actually help Bitcoin. Correlations often behave differently once crowded trades start reversing. My approach would be simple: Long-term believer: accumulate gradually on weakness rather than trying to catch the exact bottom. Short-term trader: respect the downtrend until momentum stabilises. Leveraged holder: consider reducing

A $1.3 trillion wipeout is dramatic, but it does not automatically mean the AI investment thesis is broken. To me, this looks like a valuation reset rather than a fundamental collapse. The key issue is that semiconductor stocks had become one of the most crowded trades in the market. When strong payroll data pushes rate-cut expectations further out, high-multiple growth stocks are usually the first to be repriced. As for the SpaceX IPO, it could temporarily divert capital and attention, especially from speculative AI and space-related names. However, liquidity shifts tend to be short-term, while earnings and cash flow ultimately drive long-term returns. My framework: • If you are overexposed to AI and semis, trimming risk is reasonable. • If you missed the rally and have a multi-year horiz

If I had to choose between chasing the IPO narrative and shorting the sector, I'd do neither aggressively. The risk with "SpaceX sympathy trades" is that investors often assume capital will flow into the entire space sector. In reality, a blockbuster IPO can attract money away from smaller names as investors rotate into the perceived winner. Between RKLB and ASTS, I find RKLB easier to justify fundamentally. RKLB already has launch revenue, a growing space systems business, and a clearer path to scaling. ASTS is exciting, but ASTS remains heavily dependent on execution, regulatory milestones, and future network deployment. As for the bearish case, Steve Eisman's valuation concerns are understandable. Space stocks have benefited from narrative expansion, and when sentiment turns, high-durat

The Retailer That Thinks It’s Software The most interesting battle on Wall Street today is not being fought over artificial intelligence, semiconductors, or cloud infrastructure. It is being fought over dog food. Chewy has become the centre of a surprisingly fierce ideological divide. One camp sees a mature online pet retailer trapped in a slowing consumer environment. The other sees a company that has quietly completed a multi-year transformation into a highly automated, subscription-driven platform whose economics are only now becoming visible. What fascinates me is that both sides are looking at the same company and arriving at completely different conclusions. The market narrative remains stubbornly anchored to customer growth. Yet I believe the more important story is unfolding beneat