● AI Bubble Warning 2026, Big Tech ROI Crunch, Power Cost Shock, Winners and Losers Split
Warning of Entry into the “AI Trough of Disillusionment” in 2026: Is a Genuine Reset Approaching? (Gartner Framework + Big Tech ROI Pressure + Power/Regulatory Variables)
This report consolidates four items:
1) Why Gartner’s Hype Cycle framework implies potential entry into the AI “Trough of Disillusionment” in 2026.
2) How the market is shifting from indiscriminate AI spending to strict differentiation based on measurable ROI.
3) Why power pricing and community cost pressures tied to U.S. politics could further disrupt Big Tech cost structures.
4) Signals that markets are already bifurcating between “investment beneficiaries (semiconductors/power)” and “investment burdens (cloud/platforms).”
1) Key News Summary: What Is Different About Gartner’s “AI Trough of Disillusionment”
Key point
Gartner, through its Hype Cycle framework for technology maturity, flagged the possibility that AI could enter the “Trough of Disillusionment” in 2026, where expectations compress and adoption economics are scrutinized.
Hype Cycle translated into investor terms
1) New technology emerges -> “paradigm shift” narrative drives equity rerating
2) Peak expectations -> valuations lead fundamentals
3) Trough of disillusionment -> monetization falls short; weakness appears in reported numbers
4) Slope of enlightenment / plateau of productivity -> repeatable profit model validated; repricing follows
Why AI may face a sharper reset
Unlike technologies that can absorb longer commercialization timelines, AI directly affects operating budgets (IT, labor, marketing). If outcomes cannot be quantified, budgets may be reduced quickly. This creates conditions for a faster and more decisive reset rather than a gradual one.
2) The 2026 Rule Change: From “AI Premium” to “Prove ROI or Lose Budget”
Key point
The central variable becomes ROI. The 2023–2025 period rewarded “investment activity.” The 2026 regime is likely to emphasize realized financial impact.
Why this intensifies in a tighter macro environment
When rates are high or decline only gradually, markets often favor near-term cash flow over long-duration narratives. AI spending is therefore increasingly evaluated through income statements and cash flow rather than strategy alone.
Investor checklist (2026 focus)
As AI capex increases, markets may score companies more strictly on:
1) Whether revenue growth accelerates beyond the pace of capex expansion
2) Whether operating margins deteriorate or are defended
3) Whether free cash flow weakens
4) Whether unit economics improve (revenue per customer, retention/churn)
3) Big Tech Headwind #1: Power Pricing and Community Cost Pressure as an Added Burden
Key point
Rising electricity cost sensitivity in the U.S. has triggered political pressure on large technology companies to avoid shifting power-related costs to the public. Microsoft highlighted a “community-first AI infrastructure” approach, including measures framed around limiting power price impacts, replenishing water usage, and reducing reliance on tax incentives.
Why markets view this as negative for equities
Big Tech AI expansion already elevates capex and raises free-cash-flow concerns. If power, water, and community-related obligations function as quasi-tax costs, near-term earnings expectations may become more conservative.
Second-order effect: renewed bid for power infrastructure
As data center power consumption rises, market attention tends to rotate toward grid equipment, substations, energy storage (ESS), power semiconductors, distributed generation, and nuclear-related supply chains. Within the AI theme, the market may further separate “providers of capacity” from “users of capacity.”
4) Big Tech Headwind #2: “More Investment” Is No Longer Automatically Bullish (Meta, Oracle)
Meta
The creation of a dedicated AI infrastructure organization and references to multi-year investment horizons have been interpreted as prolonged cost pressure. The key issue is not profitability, but the timing and visibility of shareholder payback if cash generation is reinvested heavily into data centers.
Oracle
During data center expansion, increased leverage drew attention, alongside litigation alleging undisclosed incremental borrowing. This highlights heightened market sensitivity to balance-sheet risk and financing structure.
5) Why Software May Be More Volatile: AI Begins to Substitute for Paid Subscriptions
Key point
Traditional software and cloud names such as Palantir, Microsoft, Salesforce, Oracle, and Adobe have shown weakness as AI increasingly substitutes for CRM, design, documentation, and workflow automation, raising willingness-to-pay concerns.
Why advanced models increase substitution risk
AI is shifting from an assistive tool to delivering end-to-end outputs. As this occurs, the competitive set for software providers expands from other SaaS vendors to LLMs and agentic systems.
Resulting market bifurcation (critical)
1) Companies using AI features and packaging to defend existing subscription economics
2) Companies experiencing subscription erosion driven by AI-enabled alternatives
Both appear as software firms, but performance dispersion could widen materially.
6) Offset Tailwind: Alphabet as the Default AI Layer on Smartphones
Key point
If Gemini becomes embedded into iPhone Siri workflows, Alphabet’s influence could extend beyond Android into iOS usage patterns.
Core implication
Across the two dominant hardware ecosystems (Samsung and Apple), the AI intelligence layer could increasingly standardize on Google.
Market impact
This is not merely a partnership headline; it concerns control of the “AI interface layer” beyond search and advertising, potentially increasing both growth expectations and antitrust/regulatory scrutiny.
7) Underreported but High-Impact Considerations
Point A: A 2026 AI reset may reflect budgeting and accounting mechanics, not demand collapse
As companies move AI from pilot/R&D budgets into operating expense lines, spending becomes subject to quarterly performance evaluation. If ROI is not demonstrated, budgets can be cut in the next cycle.
Point B: Power/water/community issues are primarily permitting risk, not ESG messaging
Data centers depend on power, water, land, local approvals, and litigation risk. Delays in permits and buildouts can translate into slower capacity expansion and weaker growth guidance. Commitments that appear cost-increasing may function as time-saving measures to reduce approval friction.
Point C: The defining split may be “capex recipients vs capex payers,” not “AI vs non-AI”
Semiconductor and power infrastructure supply chains benefit from visible order flow as investment rises. Platforms and cloud providers may face valuation pressure if investment scales faster than monetization. Sector performance can diverge even within the same AI cycle.
8) Near-Term Earnings Season Watchlist
1) Companies quantifying customer-level monetization uplift rather than only reiterating continued AI investment
2) Disclosure of power procurement economics (long-term PPAs, self-generation, ESS) rather than only data center expansion pace
3) For software: pricing model evolution (bundling, per-seat, usage-based) rather than feature additions alone
4) Expansion funded by operating cash flow versus leverage-dependent growth
5) Whether regulatory exposure (antitrust, power pricing, community obligations) is incorporated into guidance
< Summary >
2026 may mark a transition toward the “Trough of Disillusionment” framework, with market standards shifting from expectation-driven valuation to ROI and cash-flow accountability. Power and community cost pressure in the U.S. could compound Big Tech financial burdens, potentially supporting relative strength in power infrastructure and semiconductor supply chains. Software may see sharper dispersion as AI substitutes for subscription value, while Alphabet may gain structural positioning by expanding the smartphone AI layer footprint.
[Related Links…]
- AI Trough of Disillusionment: 2026 Investment Watchpoints (NextGenInsight.net?s=AI)
- Data Center Power Competition: Grid, ESS, Nuclear Beneficiaries (NextGenInsight.net?s=power)
*Source: [ 소수몽키 ]
– 올해 증시 쇼크 못 피한다? 족집게 보고서의 경고, 이번에도 적중할까● KOSPI-5000-Rally-Deepens-Wealth-Divide
If the KOSPI Reaches 5,000, It May Accelerate Wealth Inequality Rather Than “Improve Korea” (with Policy Options)
This note covers three points:1) Why wealth inequality can widen mechanically as the equity market rises (structural drivers).2) Why the critical difference between high- and low-wealth households is not “information,” but investing experience and persistence.3) Practical options for households without investable surplus, including policy-enabled vehicles (public funds, trusts, and credit structures).
1) Key takeaway: Why the “equity rally paradox” can be particularly severe in Korea
1-1. The core issue in the “KOSPI 5,000” debate: not the index level, but participation
The more material question is:“If the KOSPI reaches 5,000, who captures the gains?”
Equity appreciation can resemble broad-based growth, but household outcomes depend primarily on ownership. Asset holders benefit automatically; non-holders fall behind in relative terms. This effect is amplified where equity ownership is highly concentrated.
1-2. Concentration by the numbers: top quintile ~ KRW 70 million in equities vs bottom quintile ~ KRW 0.7 million
Average equity holdings by net-worth quintile:
- Top 20%: more than KRW 70 million
- Bottom 20%: approximately KRW 0.7 millionThis implies a gap of more than 100x.
Implication: as the index rises, gains accrue disproportionately to households that already hold equities.
1-3. Why broader equity participation matters: labor income alone structurally lags capital compounding
A core mechanism is that, over time, capital returns can outpace wage growth and trend economic growth (r > g). Labor-based accumulation is slower, while capital income compounds.
In inflationary environments, cash and wage-reliant households face greater erosion of purchasing power, while asset holders are structurally advantaged. Volatility in rates, FX, inflation, asset prices, and recession risk typically raises the difficulty of “defending” outcomes without financial assets.
2) High-wealth vs low-wealth households: the differentiator is investing experience, not information
2-1. High-net-worth finance is built around continuous management
Financial institutions segment high-net-worth clients (e.g., VIP/VVIP) and provide dedicated services (advisory, research access, and networks). This environment supports repeated decision-making and continuous exposure to market opportunities.
For lower-wealth households, the reinforcing loop is often:cost-of-living pressure → limited time for financial learning → limited investing experience → widening wealth gap.
2-2. Why “expectations without positioning” matters
A recurring pattern is that households may express optimism about macro improvement, yet hold little or no exposure to the assets that reprice on that optimism.
In structural terms:If an individual correctly anticipates improved conditions but does not own the relevant assets (equities), the forecast does not translate into wealth accumulation.
This is the equity rally paradox: correct expectations without asset exposure still results in relative underperformance.
3) The binding constraint: “I want to invest, but I have no investable surplus”
3-1. Bottom-quintile cash-flow reality: consumption can exceed income
For many low-income households, discretionary savings are limited or negative due to essential expenses (housing, food, transport, education). In such cases, generic guidance (e.g., “study investing” or “invest for the long term”) is not implementable without addressing cash-flow constraints.
3-2. Policy proposal: enable credit-linked access to productive assets for low-income households
A key proposal is to expand policy mechanisms that resemble mortgage-style access, but for productive assets rather than housing.
Primary objection: equities are risky; credit expansion can transfer losses to households or the public sector.
Therefore, the proposed structure emphasizes not “any equity,” but government-backed, infrastructure-like investment vehicles with long-duration cash-flow profiles.
3-3. “National Growth Fund” concept: priority access for low-income households to AI data-center and infrastructure cash flows
A possible structure:1) The public sector sponsors long-term infrastructure projects (e.g., AI data centers) with contractual or quasi-stable cash flows.2) Package exposure via a fund structure (“National Growth Fund”).3) Create a priority participation track for low-income households to avoid further concentration.4) Use a trust/SPV to raise financing; participating households service interest costs under defined terms.5) As distributions accrue, household net asset value increases, transitioning toward effective ownership over time.
Objective: not only cash transfers, but enabling participation in the capital-income channel through ownership of growing productive assets.
4) Key points typically omitted in mainstream coverage
4-1. The KOSPI 5,000 debate is fundamentally about ownership structure, not index forecasting
Index-level debates often overlook distribution. With equity ownership gaps near 100x, rising indices can mechanically amplify wealth inequality.
4-2. The core driver is an “experience gap,” not an “information gap”
Information is widely accessible. The persistent difference is whether households can:
- participate repeatedly,
- absorb drawdowns,
- remain invested through cycles.
Dedicated wealth management works partly because it increases the probability of staying invested.
4-3. Financial education is necessary but insufficient for low-income participation
Education does not solve negative cash-flow constraints. Without investable surplus, “just invest” messaging can be ineffective.
Institutional vehicle design (credit/trust/priority allocation) is required alongside education.
4-4. AI infrastructure is a distributional battleground for capital income
AI data centers, power, and network infrastructure are not only technology themes; they are claims on durable cash flows. The central question is who owns those claims.
5) Minimal actions for individual investors
1) Replace episodic attention with a consistent market-monitoring routine.2) Build participation via small-scale exposure to reduce the experience gap.3) Prioritize staying power (cash-flow management) over aggressive leverage.4) Monitor policy and institutional developments (e.g., a National Growth Fund) and evaluate participation when access opens.
< Summary >
A move to KOSPI 5,000 may signal stronger asset prices, but in a market with concentrated equity ownership it can also accelerate wealth inequality. The key divide between households is investing experience and the ability to remain invested, not access to information. For low-income households, participation constraints are primarily cash-flow related; therefore, policy-enabled vehicles combining a public fund with trust/SPV and credit mechanisms may be required. AI data-center infrastructure is simultaneously a technology theme and a key arena for capital-income allocation.
[Related Posts…]
KOSPI 5,000 Era: Strategy Checklist for Retail Investors
AI Data Center Investment and Korea Capital-Market Opportunity Map
*Source: [ 경제 읽어주는 남자(김광석TV) ]
– 코스피 5000 시대, 한국 자산 격차가 폭발하는 이유 : 주가 상승의 역설, 빈부격차는 왜 더 커질까? | 경읽남과 토론합시다 | 이광수 대표 1편
● Gold Silver Surge KOSPI 5000 Hype Nasdaq Meltdown Fed Chaos Bond Shock
Gold and Silver: “Is It Too Late to Buy?”, KOSPI Retesting 5,000, and a Weakening Nasdaq — Key Points in Today’s Note
Today’s focus is limited to three items:
First, why gold and silver may be supported by structural drivers beyond headline geopolitical events.
Second, why KOSPI targets of 5,000 (and even 6,000) are being discussed, and why a pullback can still be consistent with a constructive trend.
Third, what to monitor when the Nasdaq weakens, including central bank independence, U.S. Treasuries, and earnings season dynamics.
1) Gold News Briefing: “War Risk” Alone Is an Incomplete Explanation
1-1. Near-term catalyst: geopolitical risk adds a “risk premium”
Geopolitical headlines (e.g., Venezuela, Iran, Greenland) typically generate rapid safe-haven demand for gold. These events function as triggers, but not as the primary underlying driver.
1-2. Long-term driver: U.S. debt, persistent deficits, and currency purchasing-power risk
The core thesis is that money creation is closely linked to debt expansion; when debt becomes excessive, incentives rise to dilute real debt burdens via inflation or financial repression.
In the U.S., the key issue is not only the absolute debt level but also the rising interest expense. Higher interest costs can entrench structural fiscal deficits and increase investor scrutiny of long-term dollar purchasing power.
1-3. Why gold reacts when foreign demand for U.S. Treasuries weakens
A key transmission mechanism is: reduced Chinese Treasury holdings (or net selling) raises the requirement for alternative buyers to stabilize yields; if this coincides with European and Japanese rate dynamics, U.S. yields can rise and investors may reprice systemic confidence in the rate/monetary framework—supporting gold.
Gold can respond more forcefully when Treasury demand credibility is questioned, rather than moving only as a simple inverse function of nominal yields.
1-4. Implementation: physical bullion vs ETFs vs the KRX gold market
(1) Taxes and cost structure
ETFs may face capital gains taxation depending on product classification and jurisdictional rules, while physical bullion typically embeds VAT at purchase and wider bid-ask spreads. Net performance can differ materially after frictional costs.
(2) Korea-specific factor: supply bottlenecks and localized premiums
In Korea, tightening import/distribution conditions can periodically create sharp local premiums. In such episodes, physical bullion may reflect both the underlying global price move and a local premium component.
(3) Practical risk: undocumented “cash bullion” and tax/compliance exposure
Purchasing bullion without proper documentation can create source-of-funds and cost-basis verification issues at sale. When prices rise significantly, large deposits from liquidation may draw scrutiny. Transaction records and provenance documentation are critical.
2) Silver News Briefing: “Leveraged Gold” With Additional AI-Driven Demand
2-1. Why silver typically moves more than gold
Silver often exhibits higher volatility than gold, partly due to a smaller market size. In risk-on phases, silver can outperform; in drawdowns, it can also underperform.
2-2. Core driver: industrial demand (AI, 5G, EV) and limited substitutability
Silver has both monetary and industrial characteristics, with industrial demand playing a larger role in the current cycle. Its high electrical conductivity increases its relevance in advanced electronics and electrification, implying relatively inelastic demand in certain applications even as prices rise.
2-3. Supply constraint: silver production is not easily scaled
A large portion of silver supply is produced as a byproduct of other metals rather than from primary silver mines. Given long development timelines (exploration, permitting, infrastructure, refining), supply cannot respond quickly to higher prices. Reports of declining exchange inventories (e.g., Shanghai, COMEX) reinforce a physical tightness narrative.
2-4. Gold/silver ratio: valuation argument and volatility implication
A common argument references a gap between historical averages (e.g., around 10:1) and elevated recent ratios (e.g., around 80:1) to suggest silver is undervalued. This is best treated as a potential volatility catalyst rather than a standalone valuation anchor.
3) KOSPI 5,000–6,000 Briefing: Speed Is the Issue; the U.S. Remains the Key Variable
3-1. Relative resilience can signal strength, but also near-term technical risk
If the Nasdaq declines sharply while KOSPI falls modestly, relative performance is supportive. However, a steep recent ascent also increases the probability of a consolidation. A pullback after rapid gains can be consistent with a healthier market structure.
3-2. KOSPI remains linked to U.S. equities, particularly the Nasdaq
Even if Korea outperforms temporarily, meaningful U.S. risk-off episodes can force global de-risking. Korea’s recent strength has been supported by semiconductors and AI-related demand, but U.S. technology volatility can transmit quickly through risk appetite and positioning.
3-3. The practical meaning of a “6,000 aspiration” from exchange leadership
A public “6,000” reference has signaling value, but the investable takeaway is conditional on market quality improvements: liquidity depth, governance standards, foreign investor access and confidence, and broader capital-market structure. Index targets should be interpreted within these constraints.
4) Weakening Nasdaq and U.S. Variables: Central Bank Independence and Treasury Yields
4-1. Political pressure vs the Fed: markets reprice policy credibility risk
Increased tension between the executive branch and the Federal Reserve is not purely political noise; it affects confidence in the rate-setting framework. Perceived threats to Fed independence can stress the dollar, Treasuries, and equities simultaneously.
4-2. Higher U.S. yields plus rising long-end Japanese yields: potential shift in global capital flows
Rising Japanese ultra-long yields (e.g., 40-year) can increase incentives for capital to remain in or return to Japan. This can reduce marginal demand for global risk assets, including U.S. growth equities, increasing volatility.
4-3. Earnings season: guidance dominates reported results
Markets can discount strong headline earnings if forward guidance weakens. Key swing factors include management commentary, margin outlook, free cash flow trajectory, capex plans, and M&A-related uncertainty.
5) Under-discussed but material points
5-1. Gold and silver are primarily a hedge against debt and monetary credibility, not only geopolitics
A geopolitical hedge framework is insufficient. The higher-level thesis centers on how highly leveraged sovereign debt systems adjust via inflation, rates, or institutional changes. This framing supports a portfolio-construction perspective rather than purely tactical timing.
5-2. Korea physical market microstructure can materially alter realized returns
Global spot moves alone do not determine outcomes. Spreads, VAT, distribution constraints, local premiums, and choice of dealer/liquidity venue can change realized performance.
5-3. Undocumented bullion is not a discount; it is latent tax and compliance risk
Apparent savings at purchase can translate into greater liabilities at sale if cost basis and provenance cannot be substantiated.
5-4. Silver may exhibit rising volatility due to “non-substitutable demand + constrained supply”
Where demand is difficult to reduce and supply is slow to scale, price can reprice through discontinuous moves rather than gradual equilibrium adjustments.
6) Investor checklist
1) How exposed is the portfolio to inflation and rate volatility?
2) For gold/silver exposure, has the decision among physical, ETF, and the KRX market incorporated taxes, spreads, and liquidity?
3) Even with a Korea-specific thesis, is Nasdaq drawdown correlation risk reflected in sizing and risk limits?
4) During earnings season, is guidance, capex, margins, and M&A uncertainty prioritized over backward-looking earnings beats?
< Summary >
Gold’s key driver is not geopolitics alone but U.S. fiscal trajectory and long-run monetary credibility.
Silver combines “high-beta gold” characteristics with incremental industrial demand from AI and electrification, while supply is slow to respond—raising volatility risk.
KOSPI 5,000–6,000 narratives have strengthened, but a pullback after a rapid rally can be structurally normal; the dominant external driver remains the U.S. (Nasdaq, Treasuries, Fed credibility).
For physical gold/silver, spreads, VAT, and tax documentation risk can dominate outcomes.
[Related links…]
- Interest rates and asset markets: key investor checkpoints for 2026 (NextGenInsight.net?s=interest-rates)
- FX volatility scenarios: how U.S. dollar strength affects Korean equities (NextGenInsight.net?s=fx)
*Source: [ Jun’s economy lab ]
– 금은 투자 지금이니? / 코스피 5000 다시 도전 /무너지는 나스닥
