What a weak ass recover $SOXX with 10yrs treasury dragging. But it's ok. I want to share a little bit history and thought about this AI Infra sell-off. In 2012, three of ASML’s most important customers helped finance the technology they would eventually depend on: EUV. Intel acquired 15% of ASML, TSMC 5%, and Samsung 3%. Together, they committed approximately €1.38 billion toward EUV and 450mm lithography development over 2013–2017. The customers shared development risk, while ASML retained control over development and its intellectual property. That arrangement helped align the equipment supplier’s technology roadmap with its customers’ Future Manufacturing NEEDs. It was primarily an R&D program; the equity subscription proceeds were returned to existing shareholders through a special buyback. If you're interested, check That history provides context for the current AI infrastructure cycle: investment across this supply chain depends on companies making commitments years before the final computing capacity becomes available. Demand commitments travel in this direction: Hyperscalers and AI companies → NVIDIA, AMD and Hyperscalers → foundries and memory manufacturers → equipment suppliers such as ASML. ASML’s order growth requires customers to turn their forecasts into equipment commitments, then this is ASML contract liabilities at Sept 27: €9.30 billion, versus €3.57 billion in June Meanwhile, all foundries expansion in high speed: - TSMC’s Fab 20 in Hsinchu and Fab 22 in Kaohsiung are locations for its multiphase 2nm expansion - TSMC’s Phoenix campus, at 5088 West Innovation Circle, is expanding beyond its operating N4 fab into additional facilities for more advanced processes. - Samsung’s Taylor campus in Williamson County, Texas, near Samsung Highway and FM 973, represents an initial minimum investment of $17 billion - Intel’s Fab 52 at its Ocotillo campus in Chandler, Arizona ASML’s warning that planned equipment supply falls short of customer demand through 2028. Here is my thought, we have power constraints in states where could persist in some regions no access to electronicty, while chip constraints tighten after 2028, maybe even early. If powered capacity accelerates faster than chip supply, late 2028 could mark another swing — from securing electricity to securing the silicon needed to use it. The last argument I’m thinking about is that $CRWV, or whichever sensibly leveraged neoclouds, may be a drop of bad blood. Hyperscalers would be happier if they went bankrupt. Moreover, it’s kinda good for the AI infra trade if $CRWV gets abandoned by hyperscalers.

My conspiracy theory: This recent market crash looks more like Wall Street hunting Wall Street than a fundamental deterioration. A lot of fund managers who allocated capital back in May are now sitting on negative returns. These guys manage clients’ money, and with year-end approaching, the pressure to deliver performance is only getting worse. Now, here is why I think something else is going on. Sure, the macro environment isn’t as good as we expected. Frontier model companies’ ARR, the Iran deal, data center delays and financing, the energy crisis, CPI, Treasury yields… the list goes on. But how much of this is actually new information? Most of these risks were already known and arguably priced in back in July. It’s not like Wall Street suddenly discovered them in October. Yet the market staged a dramatic recovery throughout August and September. So what changed? Did fundamentals suddenly improve in August and deteriorate again in October? Or are we just using the same old narratives to explain price movements after the fact? That’s the part I keep questioning. What we can see is the price action. What we can’t see is what’s happening behind the scenes: positioning, leverage, liquidity, and the pressure institutional managers are facing. When performance starts falling behind, someone has to cut exposure. Those forced sales create opportunities for someone else. And the more crowded the positioning, the easier it becomes to push the market into a chain reaction. Among all the possibilities I can think of, — institutional players hunting each other’s positions — is one I can’t ignore. We saw something similar back in July. Maybe this selloff is about deteriorating fundamentals. But I’m not convinced the market suddenly learned something it didn’t already know two months ago. Sometimes the market isn’t selling because the story changed. The story changes because the market is selling.