November 2025 Market Insights: WEALTH IN A CAPEX SUPERCYCLE: Fuller’s energy-intelligence fusion, McLuhan’s tool-building refrain, and in search of the Holy Grail

October 30, 2025

November Market Insights: Wealth In A Capex Supercycle

Fuller’s energy-intelligence fusion, McLuhan’s tool-building refrain, and in search of the Holy Grail

“Wealth is the product of energy times intelligence: energy turned into artifacts that advantage human life.” – attributed to Buckminster Fuller

Download this PDF here.

Wealth is the product of energy times intelligence: energy channeled into artifacts that enhance human life. American visionary Buckminster Fuller’s idea hints at a fire that powers value itself. As Canadian media theorist Marshall McLuhan warned, the tools we build can also build us. Our tools don’t merely enable prosperity; they reshape society. With artificial intelligence (AI) dominance now tied to national security and economic growth, policy moves—like U.S. President Donald Trump’s supply-side measures and 100 per cent expensing of capital expenditures (CapEx) through 2031—set the stage for a CapEx supercycle. Markets don’t peak simply because valuations are high; they peak when liquidity dries up. Investors should expect persistent, mispriced “bubble” calls from consensus for the rest of the decade.

We can learn from history. The Gilded Age of the 1890s offers a warning: the railroad bubble burst in 1893, triggering a financial crisis. Will there be a moment when the Holy Grail at the end of the quest, Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), is deemed unachievable, causing hyperscalers to be repriced? In my view, the reckoning won’t arrive for at least another five years. If it does at all.

We stand at a historical inflection point where energy and intelligence fuse. Fuller’s axiom feels prophetic: energy and AI are no longer separate inputs; they form a single dynamic that creates new foundations for value. The era of AI, blockchain, and digital infrastructure isn’t a sidestep from history; it’s a leap forward. As previous revolutions exhaust their engines, the next one begins. Each new revolution builds fresh infrastructure, steering productivity and innovation in a new direction. We are only now allocating capital to construct this new core infrastructure.

This isn’t speculative capital chasing glitter. It’s a global refactoring of the economy. At the nexus of abundant, cheaper energy and self-improving digital intelligence, the true engines of prosperity emerge including data centres the size of stadiums, ultra-fast algorithmic systems, and cross-border blockchains that store trust beyond borders. These platforms aren’t abstract trends; they’re the scaffolding of the coming decades. The infrastructure for the AI-driven digital economy is being built. Yes, we’re in the early innings. No, we’re not yet in a bubble.

We’re entering a CapEx supercycle, where policy and power collide with incentives that tilt investment toward physical assets and digital infrastructure, and affordable energy that underpins AI dominance. The road ahead requires redefining wealth—not as a simple ledger but as a dynamic state where energy efficiency, intelligence amplification, and global networks co-create value at unprecedented scales.

Why “AI bubble” talk misses the real problem

Pundits have pivoted from inflation fears to AI bubble fears. No one should be surprised.

Some observers claim the AI hype is outpacing reality. The opposite is closer to the truth: there isn’t enough computer power to meet escalating AI usage. We’re in an AI arms race. While AI investment as a share of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) isn’t extreme, hyperscalers allocate nearly 20 per cent of revenue to CapEx, well above historical norms. But with 100 per cent expensing of CapEx, what can historical norms tell us?

Bubbles don’t pop because of valuation; they pop when liquidity dries up. In a global reflation scenario where debt is inflated away, investors should ignore near-term bubble chatter. Valuations will matter eventually, just not yet.

To resolve today’s fiscal crisis, we must grow our way out—as was accomplished after the Second World War— by prioritizing broad-based supply-side expansion and non-inflationary growth. U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent has emphasized leveraging the full balance sheet of the nation to achieve this, advocating for running the economy hot with a re-rating in gold, integrating Bitcoin, purchasing equity in companies, and implementing policies that catalyze productive investment and real output.

Think of AI computers as highways and tokens as cars. In the past year, AI traffic surged roughly 100 times. Even with smarter signals and more lanes, demand outpaces supply. Companies effectively borrowed computing capacity from other operations to handle the surge. The old telecom-era view of exponential improvement is over. Today, only near-term upgrades from firms like Nvidia and AMD make highways faster, and even those improvements can’t keep up with the flood of new cars.

By 2030 we may have ten times more computing “power plants” but if demand stays the same, we’ll still be behind. Every new lane is instantly utilized. Those who claim excess AI capacity aren’t seeing the core issue: this isn’t a supply-dominant bubble—it’s a genuine shortage of computing power for the current surge in use. AI workloads exploded dramatically last year, akin to a city’s traffic swelling so fast that even better roads and signals can’t add enough lanes. The era of computers doubling in speed every few years is behind us; substantial, targeted improvements are now required simply to keep up.

In short, skeptics debate bubbles but the underlying reality is a pronounced underground shortage. AI developers are sprinting to close the gap, but for now, supply lags demand. There is no bubble, there’s a race to build enough “roads” before the next AI traffic jam.

Forget the bubble nonsense. AI is nowhere near overhyped. At 1.5 per cent of GDP, it’s only getting started. Railroad CapEx in the 1800s peaked at six per cent of GDP and reshaped the world but AI is scaling with an even loftier ambition.

The Holy Grail: The AGI energy arms race

Artificial General Intelligence (AGI)—the Holy Grail of AI—rests on a simple, brutal premise: an objective function that defines what a system should achieve. As ambitions scale, so does the energy bill. Today’s state of the art models gulp electricity on a scale comparable to entire cities, driven by a global web of data centres that swells with every training run, every inference, every new interaction.

AGI is not just smarter software; it’s a shift toward autonomous minds that set their own objectives. Where today’s AI follows human specified goals, AGI would learn, imagine new aims, adapt across domains, and tackle open-ended problems. The winner of this race won’t just win a market niche; it will gain leverage across industry, society, and geopolitics.

Energy is the common thread binding ambition to outcome. Cheap, secure energy becomes the strategic input that powers a generational CapEx boom. Canada, traditionally seen as a resource nation, could pivot toward becoming both a resource powerhouse and an AI powerhouse. But to get there, we must shed the biases and constraints of past generations and think at planetary scale.

AGI-grade capability will not merely increase, it will explode energy needs. Power becomes not a line item in a budget but the central driver of global capital expenditure. Trillions will flow into grid expansions, chip and storage manufacturing, hyperscale data centres, and secure digital infrastructure. For many regions, winning this race will be tantamount to national security and economic sovereignty—on par with the strategic quests that once defined energy and industrial dominance.

In the McLuhan sense, the “architecture of objective setting” is the medium through which intelligence shapes its own pursuits—and it will be as consequential as the outcomes we chase. We’re not far from the moment McLuhan warned about: Every tool we build has the potential to build us. In the coming five to seven years, a CapEx supercycle will unfold at the intersection of energy, intelligence, and infrastructure. The tools will metastasize into shapers of society, markets, and ambition itself.

The stakes extend well beyond technology and commerce. They threaten to redraw the global economic order and questions of sovereignty, depending on who builds, who powers, and who ultimately controls self-motivated, self-directed intelligence.

Today’s trajectory is already a story of relentless amplification: the tools we invent redefine what’s possible, which in turn amplifies the value, and the cost, of every dollar and watt spent. America’s data centres are primed to double their power usage in the next five years, while the grid must add roughly 95–100 gigawatts of new generation capacity. Grid constraints have become strategic bottlenecks: utilities plan years ahead, and regions with cheap, abundant power such as Texas and Quebec are becoming magnet zones for capital and invention. China is forging ahead, full steam. This isn’t a speculative bubble; it’s hard deployment, as tangible and unstoppable as the construction of railways and steel mills once were.

As I said, this is an arms race for global AI dominance. To fuel this race, we need gigawatts of capacity. This is an arms race that lasts until at least 2031. We are just getting started.

Not your 1990s bubble

The dot-com era left scars and lessons. It was a time of hollow hope, where hype outpaced product and profit. The collapse was brutal: most dot-com firms vanished, networks of fibre lay idle, and capital left behind “dark fibre” as a memorial to overreach. And yet the past isn’t a perfect mirror for today. When today’s giants, Google, Amazon, or Meta stumble, they absorb it within business as usual. Their platforms are indispensable, revenues diversified, cash flows robust. Failures don’t spell extinction; they catalyze reinvestment and expansion. We’re not chasing empty optimism; we’re fortifying digital ecosystems that anchor commerce, logistics, research, and governance. The risk isn’t a wipeout of hollow models but an accelerating transformation where capital, intelligence, and energy converge to shape us in the image McLuhan warned about.

Bubbles aren’t rare blips; they’re the norm. Every leap in computation draws in capital ahead of profits. With technology revolutions, railroads, canals, internet, blockchain, and AI, the cycle repeats: overinvestment, exuberance, and then the next foundational platform.

Serial bubbles are a feature, not a bug. Speculative capital funds the pipes, servers, and algorithms that will power real value when deployment catches up with hype. The dot-com bust seeded cloud platforms. The blockchain bust built enduring infrastructure. Today’s AI bubble is refining the backbone of computation, data, and intelligent automation that will outlive the hype.

Beyond bytes and code, power decides outcomes. Cheap, reliable energy has long dictated industrial dominance, and the digital era is no exception. AI and blockchain hunger for watts, and only those with abundant, low-cost energy will stay ahead. Investors should target utilities, renewables, and regional champions capable of delivering scale and resilience. The economics of platform growth now hinge on watts and efficiency, and who commands them will shape innovation and reap outsized profits. Regulatory policy has moved from backdrop to engine. Incentives for full expensing of capital equipment, reshoring of manufacturing and energy supply chains, and strategic protections compress investment cycles and demand speed and scale. National security is no longer peripheral; it’s central to how and where capital flows, defining economic sovereignty.

This transformation isn’t without nerve-wracking moments. AI shifting from headlines to core production provokes awe and anxiety alike. Technology isn’t a neutral instrument; it reorders competition, displaces labour, and reframes value creation. AI’s march is thrilling and unsettling as the prospect of self-improving systems invites profound questions about human limits and agency. AI is more than a tool; it’s a medium that will rewrite expectations, competitive landscapes, and the very process of value creation. The true visionaries grasp this: shaping the direction of development isn’t optional. It’s imperative to steer the trajectory, build safeguards, and design institutions that keep pace with rapid innovation.

Where does wealth anchor in this velocity of change? Gold has long stood as a hedge against instability, a universal store of value in volatile times. It remains relevant, yet Fuller’s warning echoes louder: that real wealth is ideas plus energy. In this transformative era, a new class of assets capitalizes on that fusion, led by Bitcoin, a platform for decentralized value rooted in proof-of-work and, in theory, resistant to inflation and manipulation. The smartest move blends the old with the new. Investors are layering conventional hedges with exposures to AI, computing platforms, energy grids, and digital currencies. Wealth shifts from mere scarcity to scale: the ability to amplify human ingenuity with machine power.

The infrastructure surge carries a crisp reality: deflationary forces ride alongside inflation of ambition. Overcapacity drives falling unit costs, squeezing late movers and rewarding those who optimize scale and efficiency. The marginal cost of computation and storage plunges, sometimes dramatically, yet this isn’t a threat; it accelerates value creation. When energy and intelligence scale together, the resulting value compounds faster than input prices erode. Leading platforms enjoy virtuous cycles: more capacity lowers costs, spurs adoption, and fuels further innovation. We are living in an era of exponential growth in innovation. The real risk is inertia. Wall Street is clutching its pearls but investors should recognize that delaying entry risks missing historic returns, policy incentives, and network effects. The moment to reposition portfolios is now, while critical applications stand at the edge of mass diffusion. Investors need to realize we are in a secular bull market. An S&P 500 target for 2026 of 8000 should be expected.

So what’s the play? This isn’t the bubble stage; it’s the accumulation phase. The window remains open to acquire scalable bets in energy infrastructure, chip foundries, power utilities, and data pipelines before their full value is priced in. Policy, technology imperatives, and the compounding advantage of network effects all favour those who move first and scale early. Market leaders will win by conquering three fronts at once: building platforms, securing cheap power, and catalyzing adoption in lagging sectors. Those who grasp the dynamics know the urgency to shape deployment, not merely ride its wave.

What should investors do?

Capitalize on the AI data centre supercycle. AI’s convergence with digital infrastructure has turned the data centre sector into the power grid of a new age, the nexus of energy and intelligence at scale. Growth hinges as much on watts and concrete as on code. Cheap energy is the indispensable competitive advantage. AI workloads are driving explosive demand for computation, with the sector potentially requiring 95–100 gigawatts of new electricity over the next decade. Some AI campuses may consume one to five gigawatts apiece. The challenges of energy procurement, on-site generation, and grid upgrades are pivotal for operators and investors alike.

If you’re looking for a way to participate, the story begins with energy and minerals, grid and utility capacity, and data centre or hardware exposure. The decades ahead will reward those who secure reliable supply chains for uranium, copper, natural gas, and other critical inputs. They will reward those who back energy generation, transmission, and storage. And they will reward those who remain exposed to the leading chipmakers and hyperscale data centre developers powering AI workloads. The strategy is simple in aim, if complex in execution: build real assets at scale, blend hardware, software, and energy plays, and enter early to ride a multi-year cycle—before margins compress and adoption broadens.

The way forward: seize the buildout

The convergence of AI, digital infrastructure, energy transition, and critical minerals is redrawing the investment map. To win, invest where energy and ideas intersect: core energy, minerals, grid-linked assets, and the hardware that will scale AI. The next era of growth is being written in datasets, grids, and chips—an era that will redefine how wealth is created and distributed. Ignore bubble chatter and embrace the CapEx supercycle. The platform for the next economic model is under construction, and those who recognize and act on this truth will find themselves not just along for the ride, but steering the buildout itself.

Investing is about patience. Hours are spent researching, reading, thinking, and waiting. When a big macro theme unfolds, you implement your plan and then wait. My thesis is that this CapEx supercycle ends early next decade. Ignore the calls for bubbles and recognize the size and magnitude of what stands in front of us. The window is not endless, but it’s wide enough for disciplined, patient capital to redefine the framework of wealth, energy, and intelligence.

Recent Posts

May Market Insights: Mastery and the Terror Premium

Mastery of energy, again

Winston Churchill, as first lord of the Admiralty, tied Britain’s fate to Persian oil. United States President Donald Trump’s war in Iran, centred on Operation Epic Fury, could do the same for the West by removing Iran’s nuclear shadow, resetting oil toward US$60, and finally unlocking a modern peace dividend.

“Mastery itself was the prize of the venture.” Winston Churchill’s 1912–13 case for converting the Royal Navy from coal to oil—enshrined in historian Daniel Yergin’s The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money, and Power captured the brutal clarity of a great power energy strategy: accept dependence to command the seas. That wager framed the last century. In 2026, as Epic Fury grinds through the Gulf and Brent trades above US$100, the question is no longer whether oil confers mastery, but who holds it: a revolutionary theocracy astride the Strait of Hormuz, or a West intent on stripping the terror and nuclear risk now priced into every barrel out of the energy system—finally collecting a long‑deferred peace dividend.

Churchill’s shift bound Britain’s prosperity to distant wells and narrow waterways, welding energy supply to national survival. He understood that control of energy was not an adjunct to power, it was the metric. In April 2026, with Hormuz contested and Iranian missiles demonstrating reach beyond the Middle East, the same dilemma confronts policymakers and markets. Does the West still want that prize, and what is it prepared to stake to reclaim it from a regime that has spent half a century turning oil, terror, and nuclear brinkmanship into interchangeable tools of coercion? Assume Trump’s campaign does what it is now on course to do: not merely reopen a chokepoint, but neutralize a nascent tactical nuclear threat which, left intact, would hardwire a doomsday premium into global energy prices for a generation.

Iran’s war with the West has done what decades of shocks, embargoes, and “maximum pressure” could not: it has made the hidden tax on energy legible even on a Bloomberg screen. Strip out the terror and nuclear‑risk premiums in a post‑Trump‑Iran settlement, and Brent does not belong north of US$100; it sits much closer to the US$60 level implied by underlying supply and demand and pre‑war bank research. The gap between where oil trades in a world held hostage by a nuclear‑ambitious theocracy at Hormuz and where it would trade if flows were secure and de‑weaponized is more than a volatility surface. It is the unclaimed peace dividend of globalization, the energy market analogue of the windfall that followed the end of the Cold War, when the removal of an existential nuclear standoff released capital, confidence, and capacity back into the real economy.

The choice now facing the West is whether to lock in that outcome. Ending the Cold War removed the Sword of Damocles that had hung over every investment decision for half a century; a successful conclusion to Iran’s nuclear extortion would do something similar for the 21st‑century economy, collapsing a structural risk premium that has quietly taxed households, corporates, and sovereigns alike. The question, as Churchill would have recognized, is whether the West is prepared not just to win on the battlefield but to consolidate that victory into a new era of energy mastery, and to treat the potential verified removal of Iran’s enriched stockpile and fuel‑cycle capabilities as a security gain on the scale of the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty or the dissolution of the Soviet arsenal.

For Europe, the stakes are not abstract. Iranian missiles and drones have already shown that European Union territory and NATO logistics hubs sit uncomfortably close to the new strike envelope, shattering the illusion that Gulf risk could be quarantined to energy prices alone. The deeper reckoning is with Europe’s own energy strategy. The choice by many Western governments to anchor industrial policy primarily on climate targets while neglecting cheap and secure supply—is now coming home to roost. Prosperity in an artificial intelligence (AI)‑driven economy rests on abundant, reliable energy rather than on cheap consumer imports, echoing Churchill’s insight that mastery of energy is mastery of power. That logic points north as well as east: Canada with its hydrocarbons, hydropower, and critical minerals—looks less like a peripheral supplier and more like a potential resource superpower if it can cut through regulatory thickets and build the infrastructure to deliver secure barrels, electrons, and metals to allied markets.

U.S. hard power, the security backstop European, Canadian, and the United Kingdom economies long treated as a law of nature, now looks more contingent, more politically conditional, and more thinly spread across theatres. One could easily imagine Washington reverting to a post‑First World War stance, turning inward to rebuild its real economy, and no longer willing or able to offer security as a global public good. A successful Trump‑led settlement that removes both the nuclear overhang and the Hormuz chokepoint as instruments of coercion would not only stabilize Atlantic world energy supply but also underwrite a more credible NATO deterrent at lower long‑run cost—replacing the ersatz “peace dividend” of underfunded defence with a genuine one built on reduced threat rather than wishful budgeting.

For investors, a decisive outcome in Iran would not just redraw maps in the Gulf; it would refashion term premia. As the nuclear and terror discounts bleed out of the curve, gilt yields and U.S. Treasuries alike would begin to reflect lower expected inflation and slimmer risk premia rather than recurring energy shocks. Credit spreads-particularly for energy‑intensive sectors and fragile sovereigns—would compress as balance of payments and default risks ease. Equity markets would reprice in turn: structurally lower input costs and a thinner geopolitical risk layer would lift margins in manufacturing, transport, and consumer names, even as oil majors and defence stocks surrender some of their crisis rent. For the Square Mile and Wall Street, the real prize is not another trade on US$120 Brent; it is the re‑rating that comes when a structural doomsday premium is finally taken out of the system and the peace dividend—deferred since the end of the Cold War and repeatedly eroded by Iran—at last starts to be paid in cash flows rather than communiqués.

Churchill’s ghost at Hormuz

On the first day of April 2026, as Brent traded just above US$100, the world was relearning what Churchill meant when he called mastery the prize. As first lord of the Admiralty, he forced the Royal Navy off domestic coal and onto Persian oil, then secured that lifeblood by buying control of Anglo‑Persian Oil. He knew the bargain: oil conferred speed and reach, but at the price of dependence on distant fields and fragile sea lanes. Hence his warning to Parliament in 1913 that “on no one quality, on no one process, on no one country, on no one route, and on no one field must we be dependent” and his insistence that safety and certainty in oil lay “in variety, and in variety alone.”

That decision created the modern energy system and placed Iran at its centre. Four decades later, as prime minister, Churchill confronted the second act of his own gamble when Iran’s prime minister Mohammad Mossadegh nationalized Anglo‑Iranian Oil Company’s assets. The 1953 coup that restored the Shah was less a morality play than a confirmation that control over Iranian oil would be contested by empires, nationalists, and, eventually, revolutionaries. Churchill’s instinct to secure supply at the source and to dominate the sea lanes that connected it to Britain established a strategic architecture with a simple premise: mastery of energy flows was indistinguishable from mastery of global power.

The twist came in 1979, when that architecture was seized by those it had previously constrained. The Iranian Revolution toppled the Shah and installed Ayatollah Khomeini’s theocracy—a regime that viewed the U.S. as the “Great Satan,” embraced terrorism as statecraft, and sat astride the Strait of Hormuz. Oil workers struck, production collapsed, and prices more than doubled. The world discovered that the geographic fulcrum Churchill had chosen could just as easily be pulled by a revolutionary fist. From that moment, the markets began to price an Iran terror premium. It was distinct from OPEC’s cartel pricing power or conventional war risk. It recognized that a state sponsor of terrorism—with a web of proxies and control over the narrow channel through which roughly a fifth of seaborne oil must pass—would periodically weaponize that position. Each tanker attack in the 1980s “Tanker War,” each Hezbollah bombing, each missile launched at a Gulf facility added a sliver to that premium. Over time, slivers hardened into a slab.

Churchill’s maxim was inverted. Variety still existed geologically, with new barrels from the North Sea, Alaska, and deepwater, but strategically the system was again anchored on a single actor most willing to turn energy into a cudgel. Where Churchill had sought safety through variety, the world lived with uncertainty concentrated in one revolutionary capital. And where he had seen mastery as the prize of bold, deliberate ventures, mastery of energy risk quietly migrated to a regime that treated terror as an operating model.

How terror became a line item

The terror premium is no longer an academic calculation; it is a visible spread. In calmer phases of the cycle, geopolitical risk barely nudges price forecasts. In crisis, as in early 2026, the gap between pre‑war expectations for oil and the levels seen when Hormuz is threatened yawns wider, and futures curves kink as traders try to price the possibility of disruption. Even if part of that is fear and temporality, the underlying message is obvious. There is a structural surcharge on every barrel to account for the probability that Tehran or one of its proxies will, at some point, take terrorist action.

That surcharge has a history. The 1973–74 oil embargo revealed how quickly geopolitics could quadruple prices, but Iran was then still an ally. The true discontinuity came with the 1979 revolution and the Iran‑Iraq War. The Tanker War saw mines in the Gulf, neutral shipping attacked, and U.S. naval forces drawn in to reflag and escort tankers. Washington’s 1984 decision to designate Iran a state sponsor of terrorism, off the back of Hezbollah’s bombing of U.S. Marines in Beirut, made explicit what markets had intuited: one of the central suppliers to the system was also its most committed saboteur.

Highlights from the 2026 Spring Economic Update

On April 28, 2026, Finance and National Revenue Minister François-Philippe Champagne released the 2026
Spring Economic Update (the Update). This was the first spring economic update after the federal budget was
moved to the fall in 2025. In the absence of a federal budget earlier this year and with the recent shift to a
majority government, Canadians have been awaiting clear direction on the federal government’s policy
focus and anticipated initiatives. Overall, the Update introduces relatively little that had not been previously
announced, while showing an improved fiscal outlook, with the projected deficit declining despite $37.5 billion
in net new spending.

April Market Insights: Bretton Woods 2.0, the New Great Game, and Trump

U.S. President Donald Trump’s second term is not just another burst of tariff theatre; it is the opening move in a new great game over energy, artificial intelligence (AI), and money. By neutralizing Iran and Venezuela, squeezing Cuba, binding Canada, and courting Russia, Washington is trying to re-anchor oil in U.S. dollars and push BRICS’ [1] monetary ambitions to the margins. Layered on top are digital rails—dollar-backed stablecoins, tokenized Treasuries, gold, and even a strategic bitcoin reserve—designed to harden, not retire, King Dollar. If it works, Bretton Woods 2.0 will arrive not as a conference, but as the unannounced sequel to a crisis-ridden decade, with the U.S. once again writing the rules.

Investment Insights Spring 2026

The Shifting (Global) Order We are living through a period of shifting order. Global alliances

March Market Insights: There is no Bronze Medal

“There’s only two cultures that are going to win in the next year. It’s going to be us or China.” The subtext of Palantir CEO Alex Karp’s widely cited speech from late 2025 sounds like tech‑bro theatre until you reflect on it. In artificial intelligence, there is no bronze medal. There will be a hegemon and a runner‑up. Everyone else will be a client.

Markets are not pricing that reality. Investors still treat the AI build-out as marginal cloud spend or another overhyped software cycle. They debate whether Big Tech is “exhausting its available capital” or whether capex “must mean revert,” as if infrastructure were optional and competition courteous. They are using valuation models from the wrong century for the wrong game.

AI is not an app store. It is a weapon system—and the operating system of the next industrial era. The capital going into it is not a bubble. It is rearmament.

The information contained herein has been provided for information purposes only. The information has been drawn from sources believed to be reliable. Graphs, charts and other numbers are used for illustrative purposes only and do not reflect future values or future performance of any investment. The information does not provide financial, legal, tax or investment advice. Particular investment, tax, or trading strategies should be evaluated relative to each individual’s objectives and risk tolerance. This does not constitute a recommendation or solicitation to buy or sell securities of any kind. Market conditions may change which may impact the information contained in this document.  Wellington-Altus Private Wealth Inc. (WAPW) does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information contained herein, nor does WAPW assume any liability for any loss that may result from the reliance by any person upon any such information or opinions.  Before acting on any of the above, please contact your financial advisor.