According to the Googles, there have been approximately 14,000 trading days since the Nasdaq Composite was founded, and it has fallen four-percent or more 147 days, meaning that we get a decline like this roughly every 100 trading days, which means about twice a calendar year, very roughly.
That's newsworthy, but also not extremely unusual.
The more interesting detail than nasdaq overall is just what sectors are having bad days and how concentrated that is. Seems to be predominantly AI companies, which is very relevant to the HN crowd.
deadmutex 6 hours ago [-]
> meaning that we get a decline like this roughly every 100 trading days, which means about twice a calendar year, very roughly.
Stock volatility is typically clustered. So, we can't make this type of claim. Just like this statement is flawed: Chicago experiences below freezing weather 10% of the time, so every 10 days you see below freezing weather.
4 hours ago [-]
YetAnotherNick 6 hours ago [-]
It happened in 2016, 2018, 2020, 2022, 2025 and 2026, so 6 out of last 11 years. Not sure if I would count it as too rare.
nilamo 6 hours ago [-]
That's every other year, which is quite different from 2+yearly, which is exactly the point the gp was making.
ajross 5 hours ago [-]
I think "every other year" is 100% of a piece with grandparent's point, which is that this is "newsworthy but not notable".
Markets move. Sometimes they move more than normal. This is one of those times.
Will it keep moving? Will it crash? Maybe! But what it has done right now is not that.
compiler-guy 6 hours ago [-]
"Four times every two years" isn't exactly the same as "twice every year", but also reflects a similar, "not that unusual" answer.
Although I didn't claim "twice every year like clockwork" in my top-level comment either. It's just a very basic statement of the base rate.
Make it eight-times every four years or sixteen-times every eight years. Or maybe "Four-times every other year, in a clustered fashion".
I don't think any of that really changes the point.
furyofantares 6 hours ago [-]
It does change the point! If it happened roughly twice a year, it's not as noteworthy when it happens than if tends to happen every other year, but four times.
It's more noteworthy when it happens the more clustered it tends to be. If it were typical that we'd go ~7 years with none then have ~16 in a single year, it would be huge news when it happens.
paulpauper 5 hours ago [-]
Corrections (down 10% or more): about one per year on average. The Nasdaq is more volatile than the S&P 500, which has a correction closer to every 1.5 to 2 years.
Choad_20261104 4 hours ago [-]
[dead]
what 6 hours ago [-]
Every other year is much less frequent than twice a year?
If the bank collapse in Paraguay hadn’t happened today, and stocks hadn’t initially risen yesterday, I’d tend to agree with you. This is odd enough to potentially have a better explanation than everyone got happy and then sad all of a sudden.
method_capital 5 hours ago [-]
Paraguayan banks don't mean a whole lot in the global financial markets.
Fargren 4 hours ago [-]
The fall of the bank didn't cause Nasdaq to fall. But the opposite direction, or both events having a common cause? Entirely possible.
JumpCrisscross 5 hours ago [-]
Paraguayan banks with close ties to a politician with, in turn, ties to the Trump family absolutely hint at money moving around.
golden-face 4 hours ago [-]
I thought the bank collapsed on Monday? And it was only like a 3 billion dollar bank? So note huge.
shermantanktop 4 hours ago [-]
Read enough of these “explanations” of what the market did and a portrait emerges of extreme emotional volatility combined with a fantastic imagination. The market is insanely happy because x went up, which means the Fed will do y, and so pork belly futures will do z. Oh no! Now it is sad! But for the same reason?
throwaway2037 3 hours ago [-]
For the same reason, spot FX commentary is utter garbage, yet there seems to be unlimited amounts of it.
grey-area 5 hours ago [-]
Statistics about up and down days or particular periods of the stock market can say whatever you want, because they're so easy to cherry-pick.
It is at levels only seen three times in the last century.
JumpCrisscross 5 hours ago [-]
To be fair, there is no theoretical model for estimating natural CAPE. I’d argue the world of the post 1990s deserves a higher CAPE than the one which preceded it, though we’re trying hard in American to undo that stability.
nly 58 minutes ago [-]
And has been since 2016
4 hours ago [-]
dataviz1000 5 hours ago [-]
It seems what happens, because of regime change, is investors will take profit moving to cash, and in the coming weeks reposition. For example, Elon is going to have to pay for Doge so he is a political loser. Moving out of SpaceX is pragmatic and expect those who do drive up demand for something else in the coming weeks.
At the end of the day, everyone's retirement is tied to the SP500 and it will always go up.
AnimalMuppet 4 hours ago [-]
> At the end of the day, everyone's retirement is tied to the SP500 and it will always go up.
Not when more retired boomers are pulling more money out than GenZ/Alphas are putting in.
selectodude 3 hours ago [-]
That’s literally impossible. The market requires a buyer and a seller. If the retired boomers pull their money out, it’ll move the markets to a place that is attractive and affordable for the Gen Alpha.
dataviz1000 3 hours ago [-]
> retired boomers
That isn't where the money propping up the SP500 is coming from. It is a ponzi scheme, yes. It is held up by $40,000,000,000,000 in national debt. That can is getting kicked down the line to one or two generations that haven't been born yet.
You and I don't need to worry about it because we will be long gone by then.
All we know is that Elon isn't getting any more freshly minted currency.
david-gpu 3 hours ago [-]
You are not taking into account foreign investors. Plenty of countries have a healthy population pyramid and are quickly industrializing.
stubish 3 hours ago [-]
Indexes are essentially 'the rich getting richer'. Great news for wealth disparity if true. But I suspect boomer inheritances will become intergenerational wealth given average number of children and rising age people inherit at.
mywittyname 6 hours ago [-]
It's funny: for all the "pattern recognition" people try to apply to markets, they often miss the very basic ones. "Record highs" are incredibly common, and "corrections" also happen regularly.
June had two similar NASDAQ corrections, July had one as well. Sept was flat, but October was a straight downward trend. On the flip side, April to June was a constantly increasing.
The last time the NASDAQ was this low was all the way back in April 2026...
woah 5 hours ago [-]
By definition it is either at a record high or in a correction, especially with inflation
abirch 4 hours ago [-]
I get what you're saying, however, a correction is technically a 10% drawdown from a recent high: https://www.schwab.com/learn/story/market-correction-what-do... so you can be neither in a correction nor at an all-time high. You can be down 0.01% to 9.99%
davidhunter 3 hours ago [-]
What about 6% or more?
gottorf 6 hours ago [-]
Probably more helpful to see the Z-score.
qurren 4 hours ago [-]
Also, I wonder who defines these "territories"
People seem to call it a "correction" to make themselves feel better but they're all just crashes to me, and crashes are normal
paulpauper 6 hours ago [-]
it's the same pattern too. except for 2000 or 2008 it tends to come back really fast too .
haemdahl 3 hours ago [-]
[dead]
chasd00 7 hours ago [-]
Happens every time Democrats win office, then it slowly trickles back up. The anti-datacenter vote screws up a lot of plans but the lack of power generation had already screwed up much of them anyway. He who shouldn't be named said that all these software people are in for a rude awakening when they try to scale real world infrastructure at the rate they're use to scaling virtual software infrastructure.
enjoyyourlife 6 hours ago [-]
Additionally voters rebuffed data centers in every ballot measure
There's always market volatility in the time surrounding elections, no matter which party dominates. Once the uncertainty settles down, the markets usually do as well.
tencentshill 5 hours ago [-]
Trump is/was the very agent of uncertainty himself. Destroyed years of corporate plans and preparations every waking hour with random tariff announcements. Literally a one-man recession.
SoftTalker 5 hours ago [-]
Trump was certainly an outlier, but the observation holds.
Trump (come January anyway) is a lame duck now, especially with a blue Congress. He won't get anything substantial through Congress and everyone's attention will will rapidly shift to who is running in 2028. Nobody on the R side will be seeking or hoping for his endorsement; his leverage over them has been neutralized; they will be working on new messaging to get their traditional voters back. That campaign started on Wednesday.
grey-area 4 hours ago [-]
Sure, he's also a self-centred fool who hates being ignored and thinks he can run again in 2028. I expect him to bomb Iran in the next few days, and congress/senate to be too slow/weak to stop him.
SoftTalker 2 hours ago [-]
I don't think so. I would not be a bit surprised if impeachment proceedings were started on January 3 (though I think it not to be the best use of their time, they certainly aren't going to listen to me).
fullshark 4 hours ago [-]
[dead]
jiggawatts 5 hours ago [-]
I’m surprised his tariffs didn’t have a bigger impact, I fully expected them to crater the US economy.
mandeepj 5 hours ago [-]
The economy toppled the regime; At least, what Red leaders are saying. You are missing out.
Always does. They forgot the organizing principle of Bill Clinton's campaign: It's the economy, stupid!
A lot of people liked Trump's brash and swaggering personality but not to the point that they stopped caring about their pocketbook.
jpadkins 4 hours ago [-]
is it possible you were mislead?
selectodude 3 hours ago [-]
The American consumer might be the most resilient thing on the planet. Blows my mind but there you have it.
4 hours ago [-]
UltraSane 3 hours ago [-]
They were basically just a national sales tax.
asdff 5 hours ago [-]
He’s great if you are in his circle due to the prolific insider trading opportunities. Might be the most lucrative presidency ever for some people in this country.
evidenceisfasci 6 hours ago [-]
[dead]
jerlam 2 hours ago [-]
This election was different in that the polling leading up to the election was more incorrect than usual, but in the opposite way as previous recent elections. People made financial decisions based on those bad polls. This wasn't the usual midterm backlash.
lesuorac 2 hours ago [-]
What plan did people make that falls apart when Democrats aren’t in office for a couple months?
Forgeties79 5 hours ago [-]
This is a myth. You can see in both 2018 and 2020, both of which saw Democrat victories, that NASDAQ composite actually went up within 24 hours. Same with the dow. You also see the nasdaq still up a week later in 2018. It was like 2% down in 2020 a week later, which is not meaningful for this argument especially given Covid is a confounding factor. I stopped doing research after this point for specific examples.
There is no meaningful trend or change that happens after elections. Some sector see some weird shifts that correct generally within days
dgellow 5 hours ago [-]
You can say Elon
horns4lyfe 5 hours ago [-]
Who are you talking about?
johnsimer 5 hours ago [-]
Elon Musk, on the Dwarkesh podcast
apt-apt-apt-apt 5 hours ago [-]
Voldemort, presumably
johsole 3 hours ago [-]
> He who shouldn't be named
You had a good comment until this line.
ajross 2 hours ago [-]
> Happens every time Democrats win office
With all respect, that's ridiculous analysis. Even if that were true, the election was the day BEFORE yesterday! You're telling me that the entire world of trading and investment was unable to see the obvious news on their televisions and needed to wait an entire trading day before issuing the sell orders? No one was able to front run this?
That's just silly, sorry.
Choad_20261104 4 hours ago [-]
[dead]
bryanlarsen 6 hours ago [-]
The fate of the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act will be highly instructive. It's a bill that's fabulous for renewable energy, good for affordability, good for fossil fuel interests, and could likely pass with a filibuster-proof and veto-proof majority if the Dems don't sabotage it.
Almost all of the interconnect backlog is renewables, so this helps renewables far more than it helps fossil interests, but some progressives want to sabotage the bill because it could theoretically help fossil fuel interests. Yet, there's no way a "better" bill would get past filibuster or Trump's veto.
We'll find out if Democrats let the perfect be the enemy of the good enough. Whether they're willing to compromise to get things done.
HelloMcFly 6 hours ago [-]
[dead]
paulpauper 6 hours ago [-]
Too much leverage if I had to guess. Stop losses got triggered at the correction threshold.
chollida1 7 hours ago [-]
Alot going on today. a 4% drop in a day is pretty darn big.
3 different pods are being liquidated that i've heard of. And the data center trade has been unwound in just 2 days is a pretty violent shock.
Lots of rumors about situational awareness also in alot of trouble. I feel for this guy a bit. He did really well to get a good slug of Anthropic shares that made his investors alot of money.
But since about July when it was clear that Anthropic was done going up like a rocket ship his investors have probably been hounding him about how he's going to make money outside of Anthropic.
his first foray into the public markets was a disaster and might set a record for fastest wipe out from start to finish that forced him to have to sell his public book escape a wind up.
But due to Anthropic taking a possible IPO valuation cut he's had to go back to the public markets at the worst time and if rumours going around today are correct, he's looking at how to liquidate his public portfolio for the second time in the quarter.
TheAlchemist 5 hours ago [-]
> And the data center trade has been unwound in just 2 days is a pretty violent shock.
It's very very far from being unwound. If (or when) it does, many companies in the space will be down 90-100%. Definitely not today.
kunai 3 hours ago [-]
The writing is on the wall. They lost. No amount of whining from SV people who don't go outside, who do not live in the real world, and who are high on their own supply of agents and harnesses who vibe-code all day in their small EA/rationalist bubbles and produce very little of actual economic value for normal people and who are so arrogant they are attempting to impose their dystopian will upon people will change this.
Investors are not rationalists or effective altruists. They chase the money. If the fundamentals and DD does not math to allow data centers to be profitable, and governments honor the people's will, they will jump ship and quicker than you think. And if governments do not honor the people's will (which is firmly in opposition to the odious people behind this push) then we have far bigger problems to worry about.
Tadpole9181 1 hours ago [-]
> And if governments do not honor the people's will... then we have far bigger problems to worry about.
Oh, yeah, sure. They'll get right on that. Patriot act is going away any day now. Climate change and healthcare and judicial / law enforcement reform going to be addressed any second.
louiereederson 7 hours ago [-]
Do you have sources to share on this besides Reddit?
paulpauper 5 hours ago [-]
it's just panic selling, with Ai as the ad hoc justification.
chollida1 5 hours ago [-]
> Do you have sources to share on this besides Reddit?
Gives a decent list. Though most of the ones i know of are from contacts on the sell side who are assisting with wind downs.
And I don't think i mentioned reddit, you might be replying to the wrong thread?
LightBug1 3 hours ago [-]
Sorry, I don't read twitter. Do you have another link?
paulpauper 5 hours ago [-]
there are like a zillion of these pod shops and tiny firms. doesn't mean much. wake me up when a big fund fails
actualeff0rt 5 hours ago [-]
I work in quant trading - I can guarantee you at least 4/7 of the firms on that list are well-known, well-respected, and would count as "big funds". Can't comment on the actual pods that apparently went bust though, but generally you should expect the average pod at these places to be at least reasonably good considering the sink-or-swim environment they are perpetually in.
empath75 4 hours ago [-]
Pods can go broke on a 4% _rise_ in the stock market. They make levered bets and it's easy to get way on the wrong side of one.
chollida1 5 hours ago [-]
Those are Billion dollar funds, those are large fish:)
Troluce and Axebrook had more than $1.5B pulled from them by Millennium.
Walleye is a $17B AUM fund.
> there are like a zillion of these pod shops and tiny firms. doesn't mean much. wake me up when a big fund fails
I get that not everyone knows the industry but consider this your wakeup call:)
paulpauper 5 hours ago [-]
I mean if you have 1000+ firms, statistically , some will fail no matter what? Like, selling to many calls in a rally, or too many puts in a correction etc.
chollida1 5 hours ago [-]
I agree with the first part of your sentence but to be fair you said to wake you up when a big firm failed and i was only pointing out that, several big firms have failed as I pointed out:)
I fully understand that very few people on hackernews actually are in the capital markets and i happen to be one so I'll always have a far better understanding than outsiders like your self.
I'm just trying to provide some colour to people regarding what's happening today and why fund closures are magnifying this.
1970-01-01 4 hours ago [-]
4% isn't much in context. It wouldn't make the list of 20 biggest drops over the last 20 years.
OrangeDelonge 1 hours ago [-]
The drop was 5.5% and from what I can see, its number 5 on the list of biggest Nasdaq drops in a single day in history.
next_xibalba 7 hours ago [-]
> And the data center trade has been unwound in just 2 days is a pretty violent shock
Is this true? Coreweave is down ~66% over the last 6 months, with that decline occurring somewhat linearly over that period (i.e. not last 2 days). Very similar chart for Applied Digital.
georgeecollins 6 hours ago [-]
Thinking a 5% drop in one day is a big deal is recency bias. Other people have pointed out that statistically it is not that rare. We just have been living through an amazing run for equities.
I am not saying I know it will be fine or I know it will be terrible. I am saying I have lived through many 5%+ drops and they happen on the way up and down.
chollida1 6 hours ago [-]
> Thinking a 5% drop in one day is a big deal is recency bias
In the past 5 years the S&P 500 has dropped 5% 1 time. the Nasdaq has done it 3 times.
You are ofcourse welcome to your own definition of a big deal but to me something that happens that rarely is a big deal.
At worst you'd have to agree that hte language is defensible:)
dcrazy 4 hours ago [-]
I think the argument is that we have been in a massive everything bubble since summer of 2020, so you have to look back farther to truly understand the rarity of a 4% drop.
excorxism 1 hours ago [-]
The index isn't even the story.
Chips/Memory/data center everything AI has got absolutely destroyed this month.
Look at LITE, FLEX, FIX, TER, WDC, the Kospi.
empath75 4 hours ago [-]
> Alot going on today. a 4% drop in a day is pretty darn big.
Yeah, but it's up 50% in the last 5 years. 4% drop puts us back where it was, oh, in July of this year.
grey-area 3 hours ago [-]
Only has to fall by 33% to go back 5 years then.
A few days at > 10% and that's perfectly doable in a week. Unlikely I'll grant you but this is a large move at the top of a bull market amid huge concentration and weakening fundamentals. There are reasons to pay attention to it.
achandra03 7 hours ago [-]
> He did really well to get a good slug of Anthropic shares that made his investors alot of money.
His wife is chief of staff to Dario isn't she? Not saying this guy isn't smart but let's call a spade a spade here.
kgwgk 7 hours ago [-]
Last I heard he was buying options... but maybe he ended up buying the dipping dip.
He's an overconfident dipshit who made a few large, successful bets that made heaps of money; but he didn't practice any sort of risk management with his portfolio, and kind of did the opposite.
And despite that failure, he made immense personal wealth and will definitely have the opportunity to run more money in the future.
I'd love to fail as badly as he did.
paulpauper 5 hours ago [-]
Lots of rumors about situational awareness also in alot of trouble. I feel for this guy a bit. He did really well to get a good slug of Anthropic shares that made his investors alot of money.
What is there to feel for him? he took huge bets and lost , although he will still be wealthy no matter how much $ his clients lose. How he got so much attention and money is a mystery; just another example of mediocrity being rewarded. No wonder so many people think society is rigged or screwed. We see in Washington or on Wall Street . The same reckless people keep failing forward, keep being immune to the consequences of their actions and incompetence.
coffeebeqn 5 hours ago [-]
It’s giving me Cathie Wood vibes during Covid years. Bet everything on the bubble and look like a genius while the bubble inflates. Afterwards not so much
paulpauper 6 hours ago [-]
The Nasdaq rebounds so fast though. it's not that big of a deal. bought the dip. I think it's just noise. markets sometimes look for any reason to sell
cmiles8 7 hours ago [-]
Given the election result the AI bailout ain’t coming, combined with growing concern AI spending has gotten too forward on its skis. That’s freaking out the markets.
BeratnaGas 5 hours ago [-]
Congressional approval isn't required for an AI bailout.
paulpauper 5 hours ago [-]
that is right. Trump did this with intel, metals, and other sectors and companies in 2025-2026 . what happens is $ for something else is appropriated for direct investment
Terr_ 4 hours ago [-]
AFAICT there's a lawsuit over the Intel thing in Paisner v. Tan, but I'm not sure what its current outlook is.
Not AI stocks. They went the other way and fell further today.
plaidfuji 5 hours ago [-]
> Given the election result the AI bailout ain’t coming
And why should it have? Ridiculous to pre-emptively talk about a bailout before a crash has even materialized. Who exactly was going to be bailed out?
thephyber 3 hours ago [-]
It's not ridiculous. Wall Street does this all of the time. It's managing risk and that involves forecasting what will happen in the future.
Maybe you don't like the possibility of Wall Street planning on a bailout, but they are constantly doing that and they also plant stories / narratives in the media encouraging it and they likely whisper in the ears of their politicians that it will "help save the economy" or whatever the FUD of the day is.
It's interesting reading the panic then in the comments, and yet now the nasdaq is up 65% from those lows, even with today's drop.
notfried 5 hours ago [-]
I wonder if Anthropic would pull its IPO plan. Considering the past few weeks, this seems like the worst period they could go public in. Not that it may get any better, but perhaps OpenAI deciding to wait next year was more reasonable.
stubish 3 hours ago [-]
I guess it depends on when they need to start paying for all the promises. They have run out of investors willing to take an IOU.
t1234s 6 hours ago [-]
Depending on how long the bloodbath goes on this could be a massive buy moment similar to: dot bomb, 9/11, 2008, covid panic.
AI is not going anywhere and will only grow more and more.
InsidiousWombat 5 hours ago [-]
AI isn't, but companies might. The share of tasks you need frontier AI is ever-shrinking and ones where open weight ones are enough is ever-growing.
It won't drop off by a cliff, migrating from existing tooling/vendor that works might just not be worth it, but it seems that there will be less and less money in the frontier
fauigerzigerk 5 hours ago [-]
True, but open weights models need data centers too. So it depends on which companies we're talking about.
paulpauper 5 hours ago [-]
agree. good dip buying opportunity
thephyber 3 hours ago [-]
Or it could be a "catch a falling knife" opportunity. Too early to tell yet.
But if you look at where the money leaving tech stocks is going, it seems to be rotating into defensive stocks. If that momentum continues, we may have hit a local maxima for a while.
2OEH8eoCRo0 5 hours ago [-]
Bags getting heavy?
Tadpole9181 7 hours ago [-]
> Plummets
Still +4% YoY.
24/7 sensationalist news is just exhausting.
dcrazy 7 hours ago [-]
+4% YoY and -4% in a day are vastly different in timescale.
nothercastle 7 hours ago [-]
And at 4% suddenly not keeping up with inflation or treasuries
overfeed 4 hours ago [-]
Ironic, how some people act like they don't understand gradients when it comes to AI-related share prices.
Tadpole9181 6 hours ago [-]
Intel lost 50% of its value in a week. But it's up 50% from last year.
Anyone paying attention knows the market is in a weird place, and large swings today are the small swings of the past. It's hardly a "plummet" when the amortized line for the past month, including today, is mostly a linear decline.
We've had a couple of single-day 4% drops over the past few months too. Oh no, the market is the lowest it's been in... 3 months!? This is the largest decline we've seen in... 4 months!?
Could it be a market correction? Could it be a full-on collapse? Sure.
But is a single 4% drop worth a headline "plummeting into correction territory"? Not really.
kgwgk 6 hours ago [-]
> Could it be a market correction?
That term has a very specific meaning in that context.
Reporting on the stock market generally is overwrought (stocks always "soar!", "plummet!", "rocket!") because the kind of typical events are inherently repetitive. Sports reporting is the same.
That said, the Nasdaq hasn't seen a lot of -4.8% days recently. This particular article isn't egregious.
6 hours ago [-]
paulpauper 6 hours ago [-]
Agree. it's not that big of a deal. i will be buying dip
zamadatix 7 hours ago [-]
Seriously, according to the headlines I've seen shared here since June you'd think the market got wiped out 5 or 6 times.
This is a bigger jump, but it's also immediately after elections and other activity so I'd expect higher volatility than normal.
7 hours ago [-]
MaxPock 6 hours ago [-]
Are we still in the golden age ?
10xDev 7 hours ago [-]
No new frontier (Astra / Fable) releases in a while. Actually none since the “pacing the frontier” post. Safety maxxers might cause an AI winter if this is what’s holding them back.
runako 6 hours ago [-]
> No new frontier (Astra / Fable) releases in a while.
Am I crazy? Wasn't Astra released just over a month ago? And wasn't Fable 5.1 released around the same time?
How often do we expect frontier models to be released?
paimapi 6 hours ago [-]
GPT-5.6 Sol was July 9 > GPT-6 Sol was September 22 (75 days)
Fable 5 was June 9 > Fable 5.1 was September 1 (85 days)
Opus 5 was July 24 > Opus 5.5 was September 22 (61 days)
Yeah, we're not due for a model refresh until the end of month if current release roadmaps of 2-3 months hold.
m_w_ 6 hours ago [-]
Leaks, for what they're worth, indicate that the next GPT model is soon (tomorrow rumored), and that Fable 5.5 is already ready-to-go. That said Fable is likely being held to drown out said GPT release, since Anthropic is already ahead w/ Opus 5.5.
cavemandaveman 7 hours ago [-]
Presumably it's more directly the fear of data center projects being blocked
jLaForest 6 hours ago [-]
even if frontier AI development stops where it is today, i would have a hard time calling this an AI winter. I cant imagine AI wont be a major part of my dayjob for the forseeable future
momocowcow 5 hours ago [-]
We’re back to the same level as 6 months ago. Super scary stuff
ambicapter 4 hours ago [-]
So scared right now.
paxy 6 hours ago [-]
Tuesday - "Market falls because of election"
Wednesday - "Market soars because of election"
Thursday - "Market plummets because of election"
Can we at least agree that no one has any idea what is going on?
delecti 5 hours ago [-]
All of them can be true, while still not providing any predictive utility.
ricksunny 6 hours ago [-]
Everyday “Our newspaper makes
money by editorializing every tick change in the [$index] market by attributing unverifiable context and not referencing the previous tick we editorialized.”
mancerayder 4 hours ago [-]
The trick with news media is the word As.
"Market drops 3% as Foo"
fauigerzigerk 5 hours ago [-]
OK, they are jumping up and down but they're doing it in the most efficient way possible. It has been proven time and time again!
233mhz 5 hours ago [-]
The current stock market is astrology for white dudes who have too much money. Nothing matters, nothing makes sense, just vibes
johnsimer 5 hours ago [-]
What about black dudes, asian dudes, or other other colors of rich dudes? What would you say the stock market is for them?
roodypoo2 1 hours ago [-]
Please go back to Reddit
mancerayder 4 hours ago [-]
Reddit has entered the chat.
Thanks to whoever added that sub, now we have rubbish like this.
lenerdenator 6 hours ago [-]
> investors accelerated their move away from technology stocks on fears of a data-center buildout slowdown.
So, approximately how many of those investors are going to lose their jobs and their money for betting on data center buildout while also going about the data center buildout in the most obnoxious, exploitative, electorate-alienating way possible?
bjourne 2 hours ago [-]
Great! The false belief that stocks must endlessly increase in value is a cancer on society. More wealth for the billionaire class does not mean more wealth for you.
sowbug 48 minutes ago [-]
By "value," do you mean real or nominal?
burger_moon 5 hours ago [-]
Would paying for the interconnections and transmission infra have been cheaper than the sum of value lost to the market in one day?
paxy 5 hours ago [-]
What does "sum of value lost" mean?
Yesterday Nvidia's market cap was 4.89T. Today it is $4.45T. What happened to the $440 billion? Do you think we could have built factories with it?
burger_moon 5 hours ago [-]
If the market cap is based on future earnings growth (forward thinking) and those earnings are now couched by a lose of ability to build data centers then these tech companies could have issued shared or offered bonds to build out the interconnections they require. So, yes.
4 hours ago [-]
fauigerzigerk 5 hours ago [-]
I doubt it would have stopped politicians from exploiting the issue, but the answer to your question is yes. Companies could have spent more money on energy infrastructure, which would have increased their cost and - all other things being equal - lowered their share price.
That said, a lower share price is not a cost to the company, except perhaps in terms of stock based compensation.
somewhereoutth 2 hours ago [-]
Stocks are priced on the margin, which means the last sale sets the price, and so the market cap for the whole float. The $440B never really existed. But it could have been used as collateral for loans which would turn it into 'real' money. However when the price falls, those loans may be called in, and so the 'real' money is destroyed. If these loans have to be be paid off by selling the stock, then we enter a deleveraging spiral.
Theoretically the market cap should equal the present value of expected future returns (dividends and buybacks, not speculation), modulo risk, but that assumes a perfect market.
elmer2 4 hours ago [-]
This always happens when Democrats come into power. More regulations means more hiring over seas, higher gas prices, and a worse economy. Clinton was the exception, because he had more fiscally conservative policies.
When we were coming out of Covid, Biden just needed to ease regulations temporarily and do anything to get businesses functioning again. Instead, he listened to his radical base and punished companies with more regulations and taxes. Immediately shutting down the Alaskan pipeline was another mistake.
The end result was the start of the shitty economy and job market we see today.
eli_gottlieb 26 minutes ago [-]
I remember the Biden years being quite good for finding a job, and the Trump years being quite bad.
thephyber 3 hours ago [-]
This is revisionism.
It's a "shitty economy" today because
(1) Interest rates were generationally low for an extended period of time from 2009 - 2022. We will likely never see that kind of sugar rush again in our lifetimes.
(2) Trump made a deal with OPEC+ during the early days of Covid to drastically cut supply for some fixed time interval. That agreement hurt our economy coming out of Covid.
(3) Consumers completely changed their behaviors and the supply chain had lots of random kinks in the flow of goods. Some countries still maintained closed borders. Ports had months log backlogs of ships waiting to offload cargo as shipping containers were in short supply where they were needed.
(4) The price of eggs and pork were massively inflated because of avian+swine flu outbreaks which we normally deal with by killing the entire flock.
(5) The west coast had a massive drought and a terrible fire season. This was awful for farming/ranching and we still haven't rebuilt the cow herds that shrunk from those years.
(6) Capitalism demands constant efficiency improvements. If they can avoid a full time hire by instead using independent contractors, they will. If they can create an industry of gig workers instead of long term contracts, they will. The entire economy has been rebalancing risk and uncertainty on the backs of workers and away from companies. This causes all sorts of drops in quality of life, consumer sentiment, financial security among the society.
Biden's regulatory regime had almost nothing to do with the efficiency of the economy during his term. Just because he didn't open more of Alaska's wilderness to fresh drilling or because he didn't approve the KeyStone XL pipeline didn't have any noticeable effect on the US economy (except perhaps to keep some more truck drivers employed).
goatlover 4 hours ago [-]
His "radical base" would be centrists in Europe and Canada. It's so annoying to constantly her right-wingers denounce the Democratic party as being overrun by "radical leftists" when it's mostly a moderate neoliberal party with some progressive and more recent DSA types. And the Democrat's economic policies are normal ones in most advanced economies. Bernie and AOC are basically the 21st century equivalent of FDR.
jayGlow 3 hours ago [-]
the American economy is stronger than both Canada and the EU. the US consistently has more growth and GDP per capita than Europe. what defines something as an advanced economy?
zbentley 7 minutes ago [-]
Macroeconomic strength is famously … let’s say “only tenuously correlated” with things like quality of life, social mobility, household-level economic stability, and lots of other aspects of social welfare (e.g. education, health risks and access to treatment, sustainable demographic trends and infrastructure practices).
I’m not saying Europe is automatically better on those axes, but even the least charitable assessments have it very competitive with the US on several.
All of which is to say: “well if our politics are so backwards how come we have so much economic/military power?” is a structurally useless question to ask, because those things are not correlates the way people think they are. It’s like asking “if your car is so much safer than mine, how come mine is so much faster?”
jasonmp85 4 hours ago [-]
[dead]
jdlshore 4 hours ago [-]
> The end result was the start of the shitty economy and job market we see today.
The current economy being Biden’s fault, and not tariffs, corrupt tax cuts for the rich, and oil blockades, is certainly a take.
Judging by the recent elections, I’d say most US voters don’t agree with that take.
Vaslo 6 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
goatlover 4 hours ago [-]
Too bad there wasn't more right-wing resistance to the war in Iran.
IAmGraydon 4 hours ago [-]
Interesting. So how do you explain yesterday? The market just wanted to pause for a day?
Rendered at 00:48:43 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
That's newsworthy, but also not extremely unusual.
The more interesting detail than nasdaq overall is just what sectors are having bad days and how concentrated that is. Seems to be predominantly AI companies, which is very relevant to the HN crowd.
Stock volatility is typically clustered. So, we can't make this type of claim. Just like this statement is flawed: Chicago experiences below freezing weather 10% of the time, so every 10 days you see below freezing weather.
Markets move. Sometimes they move more than normal. This is one of those times.
Will it keep moving? Will it crash? Maybe! But what it has done right now is not that.
Although I didn't claim "twice every year like clockwork" in my top-level comment either. It's just a very basic statement of the base rate.
Make it eight-times every four years or sixteen-times every eight years. Or maybe "Four-times every other year, in a clustered fashion".
I don't think any of that really changes the point.
It's more noteworthy when it happens the more clustered it tends to be. If it were typical that we'd go ~7 years with none then have ~16 in a single year, it would be huge news when it happens.
A more interesting stat is the current CAPE.
https://www.thetrading.tools/shiller-cape
It is at levels only seen three times in the last century.
At the end of the day, everyone's retirement is tied to the SP500 and it will always go up.
Not when more retired boomers are pulling more money out than GenZ/Alphas are putting in.
That isn't where the money propping up the SP500 is coming from. It is a ponzi scheme, yes. It is held up by $40,000,000,000,000 in national debt. That can is getting kicked down the line to one or two generations that haven't been born yet.
You and I don't need to worry about it because we will be long gone by then.
All we know is that Elon isn't getting any more freshly minted currency.
June had two similar NASDAQ corrections, July had one as well. Sept was flat, but October was a straight downward trend. On the flip side, April to June was a constantly increasing.
The last time the NASDAQ was this low was all the way back in April 2026...
People seem to call it a "correction" to make themselves feel better but they're all just crashes to me, and crashes are normal
See https://www.cnbc.com/2026/11/04/data-center-ballot-measures-...
Trump (come January anyway) is a lame duck now, especially with a blue Congress. He won't get anything substantial through Congress and everyone's attention will will rapidly shift to who is running in 2028. Nobody on the R side will be seeking or hoping for his endorsement; his leverage over them has been neutralized; they will be working on new messaging to get their traditional voters back. That campaign started on Wednesday.
https://x.com/JeffFlake/status/2118355575356727470
https://x.com/tedcruz/status/2118125881067487633
A lot of people liked Trump's brash and swaggering personality but not to the point that they stopped caring about their pocketbook.
There is no meaningful trend or change that happens after elections. Some sector see some weird shifts that correct generally within days
You had a good comment until this line.
With all respect, that's ridiculous analysis. Even if that were true, the election was the day BEFORE yesterday! You're telling me that the entire world of trading and investment was unable to see the obvious news on their televisions and needed to wait an entire trading day before issuing the sell orders? No one was able to front run this?
That's just silly, sorry.
Almost all of the interconnect backlog is renewables, so this helps renewables far more than it helps fossil interests, but some progressives want to sabotage the bill because it could theoretically help fossil fuel interests. Yet, there's no way a "better" bill would get past filibuster or Trump's veto.
We'll find out if Democrats let the perfect be the enemy of the good enough. Whether they're willing to compromise to get things done.
3 different pods are being liquidated that i've heard of. And the data center trade has been unwound in just 2 days is a pretty violent shock.
Lots of rumors about situational awareness also in alot of trouble. I feel for this guy a bit. He did really well to get a good slug of Anthropic shares that made his investors alot of money.
But since about July when it was clear that Anthropic was done going up like a rocket ship his investors have probably been hounding him about how he's going to make money outside of Anthropic.
his first foray into the public markets was a disaster and might set a record for fastest wipe out from start to finish that forced him to have to sell his public book escape a wind up.
But due to Anthropic taking a possible IPO valuation cut he's had to go back to the public markets at the worst time and if rumours going around today are correct, he's looking at how to liquidate his public portfolio for the second time in the quarter.
It's very very far from being unwound. If (or when) it does, many companies in the space will be down 90-100%. Definitely not today.
Investors are not rationalists or effective altruists. They chase the money. If the fundamentals and DD does not math to allow data centers to be profitable, and governments honor the people's will, they will jump ship and quicker than you think. And if governments do not honor the people's will (which is firmly in opposition to the odious people behind this push) then we have far bigger problems to worry about.
Oh, yeah, sure. They'll get right on that. Patriot act is going away any day now. Climate change and healthcare and judicial / law enforcement reform going to be addressed any second.
Sources for what specifically?
If you meant for pods and funds blowing up:
https://x.com/SpecialSitsNews/status/2118415084280242230
Gives a decent list. Though most of the ones i know of are from contacts on the sell side who are assisting with wind downs.
And I don't think i mentioned reddit, you might be replying to the wrong thread?
Troluce and Axebrook had more than $1.5B pulled from them by Millennium.
Walleye is a $17B AUM fund.
> there are like a zillion of these pod shops and tiny firms. doesn't mean much. wake me up when a big fund fails
I get that not everyone knows the industry but consider this your wakeup call:)
I fully understand that very few people on hackernews actually are in the capital markets and i happen to be one so I'll always have a far better understanding than outsiders like your self.
I'm just trying to provide some colour to people regarding what's happening today and why fund closures are magnifying this.
Is this true? Coreweave is down ~66% over the last 6 months, with that decline occurring somewhat linearly over that period (i.e. not last 2 days). Very similar chart for Applied Digital.
I am not saying I know it will be fine or I know it will be terrible. I am saying I have lived through many 5%+ drops and they happen on the way up and down.
In the past 5 years the S&P 500 has dropped 5% 1 time. the Nasdaq has done it 3 times.
You are ofcourse welcome to your own definition of a big deal but to me something that happens that rarely is a big deal.
At worst you'd have to agree that hte language is defensible:)
Chips/Memory/data center everything AI has got absolutely destroyed this month.
Look at LITE, FLEX, FIX, TER, WDC, the Kospi.
Yeah, but it's up 50% in the last 5 years. 4% drop puts us back where it was, oh, in July of this year.
A few days at > 10% and that's perfectly doable in a week. Unlikely I'll grant you but this is a large move at the top of a bull market amid huge concentration and weakening fundamentals. There are reasons to pay attention to it.
His wife is chief of staff to Dario isn't she? Not saying this guy isn't smart but let's call a spade a spade here.
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/09/11/leopold-aschenbrenners-situa...
He's an overconfident dipshit who made a few large, successful bets that made heaps of money; but he didn't practice any sort of risk management with his portfolio, and kind of did the opposite.
And despite that failure, he made immense personal wealth and will definitely have the opportunity to run more money in the future.
I'd love to fail as badly as he did.
What is there to feel for him? he took huge bets and lost , although he will still be wealthy no matter how much $ his clients lose. How he got so much attention and money is a mystery; just another example of mediocrity being rewarded. No wonder so many people think society is rigged or screwed. We see in Washington or on Wall Street . The same reckless people keep failing forward, keep being immune to the consequences of their actions and incompetence.
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/esg/lutnick-defends-trumps-int...
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/64069897/Paisner_v_...
socialize the losses
we truly have learned nothing :/
And why should it have? Ridiculous to pre-emptively talk about a bailout before a crash has even materialized. Who exactly was going to be bailed out?
Maybe you don't like the possibility of Wall Street planning on a bailout, but they are constantly doing that and they also plant stories / narratives in the media encouraging it and they likely whisper in the ears of their politicians that it will "help save the economy" or whatever the FUD of the day is.
It's interesting reading the panic then in the comments, and yet now the nasdaq is up 65% from those lows, even with today's drop.
AI is not going anywhere and will only grow more and more.
It won't drop off by a cliff, migrating from existing tooling/vendor that works might just not be worth it, but it seems that there will be less and less money in the frontier
But if you look at where the money leaving tech stocks is going, it seems to be rotating into defensive stocks. If that momentum continues, we may have hit a local maxima for a while.
Still +4% YoY.
24/7 sensationalist news is just exhausting.
Anyone paying attention knows the market is in a weird place, and large swings today are the small swings of the past. It's hardly a "plummet" when the amortized line for the past month, including today, is mostly a linear decline.
We've had a couple of single-day 4% drops over the past few months too. Oh no, the market is the lowest it's been in... 3 months!? This is the largest decline we've seen in... 4 months!?
Could it be a market correction? Could it be a full-on collapse? Sure.
But is a single 4% drop worth a headline "plummeting into correction territory"? Not really.
That term has a very specific meaning in that context.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_correction
[ For the record, the link I originally included: https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/stock-market-today-dow-sp-5... ]
That said, the Nasdaq hasn't seen a lot of -4.8% days recently. This particular article isn't egregious.
This is a bigger jump, but it's also immediately after elections and other activity so I'd expect higher volatility than normal.
Am I crazy? Wasn't Astra released just over a month ago? And wasn't Fable 5.1 released around the same time?
How often do we expect frontier models to be released?
Fable 5 was June 9 > Fable 5.1 was September 1 (85 days)
Opus 5 was July 24 > Opus 5.5 was September 22 (61 days)
Yeah, we're not due for a model refresh until the end of month if current release roadmaps of 2-3 months hold.
Wednesday - "Market soars because of election"
Thursday - "Market plummets because of election"
Can we at least agree that no one has any idea what is going on?
"Market drops 3% as Foo"
Thanks to whoever added that sub, now we have rubbish like this.
So, approximately how many of those investors are going to lose their jobs and their money for betting on data center buildout while also going about the data center buildout in the most obnoxious, exploitative, electorate-alienating way possible?
Yesterday Nvidia's market cap was 4.89T. Today it is $4.45T. What happened to the $440 billion? Do you think we could have built factories with it?
That said, a lower share price is not a cost to the company, except perhaps in terms of stock based compensation.
Theoretically the market cap should equal the present value of expected future returns (dividends and buybacks, not speculation), modulo risk, but that assumes a perfect market.
When we were coming out of Covid, Biden just needed to ease regulations temporarily and do anything to get businesses functioning again. Instead, he listened to his radical base and punished companies with more regulations and taxes. Immediately shutting down the Alaskan pipeline was another mistake.
The end result was the start of the shitty economy and job market we see today.
It's a "shitty economy" today because
(1) Interest rates were generationally low for an extended period of time from 2009 - 2022. We will likely never see that kind of sugar rush again in our lifetimes.
(2) Trump made a deal with OPEC+ during the early days of Covid to drastically cut supply for some fixed time interval. That agreement hurt our economy coming out of Covid.
(3) Consumers completely changed their behaviors and the supply chain had lots of random kinks in the flow of goods. Some countries still maintained closed borders. Ports had months log backlogs of ships waiting to offload cargo as shipping containers were in short supply where they were needed.
(4) The price of eggs and pork were massively inflated because of avian+swine flu outbreaks which we normally deal with by killing the entire flock.
(5) The west coast had a massive drought and a terrible fire season. This was awful for farming/ranching and we still haven't rebuilt the cow herds that shrunk from those years.
(6) Capitalism demands constant efficiency improvements. If they can avoid a full time hire by instead using independent contractors, they will. If they can create an industry of gig workers instead of long term contracts, they will. The entire economy has been rebalancing risk and uncertainty on the backs of workers and away from companies. This causes all sorts of drops in quality of life, consumer sentiment, financial security among the society.
Biden's regulatory regime had almost nothing to do with the efficiency of the economy during his term. Just because he didn't open more of Alaska's wilderness to fresh drilling or because he didn't approve the KeyStone XL pipeline didn't have any noticeable effect on the US economy (except perhaps to keep some more truck drivers employed).
I’m not saying Europe is automatically better on those axes, but even the least charitable assessments have it very competitive with the US on several.
All of which is to say: “well if our politics are so backwards how come we have so much economic/military power?” is a structurally useless question to ask, because those things are not correlates the way people think they are. It’s like asking “if your car is so much safer than mine, how come mine is so much faster?”
The current economy being Biden’s fault, and not tariffs, corrupt tax cuts for the rich, and oil blockades, is certainly a take.
Judging by the recent elections, I’d say most US voters don’t agree with that take.