To The Moon

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