SEPTEMBER MARKET INSIGHTS: BULL MARKETS, PEACE DIVIDENDS, AND THE FEDERAL RESERVE’S NEXT WAR

September 4, 2025

Investing at the crossroads of history

“A wise man will make more opportunities than he finds.” – Francis Bacon, The Essays (1597)

The edge of transformation

Bacon’s wisdom, that true prosperity is won by strategic preparation, not by accident, serves as the north star for sophisticated investors navigating the closing months of 2025. As we approach the U.S. Midterm Elections looming in 2026, a remarkable convergence of geopolitics, technology, and policy is setting the stage for a potentially historic bull market.

It’s impossible to ignore the historical parallels between today and another moment of profound transition, the early 1990s. U.S. President Donald Trump’s diplomatic efforts are channeling the “peace through strength” ethos that defined U.S. foreign policy at the end of the Cold War. Much like the peace dividend of that era, which allowed capital to flow from the military-industrial complex into innovation and new industries, Trump’s new deals aim to lower global tension, cut risk premiums, and unlock resources for economic expansion. The 1990s bull run was powered by a once in-a-generation innovation wave and the release of pent-up productivity, but also by a demographic tailwind as a new cohort of workers and consumers entered the market. Investors today should study that era closely as the demographic backdrop is strikingly similar with a surging younger population and heightened entrepreneurial dynamism. Yes, history doesn’t repeat, but in markets it certainly rhymes. A secular bull market fueled by innovation, favorable demographics, and the tangible rewards of peace may well define the decade ahead.

Trump’s unmistakable imprint—radical deregulation, deep tax cuts, and aggressive “deal diplomacy” from Ukraine to the Middle East—is fueling speculation about a peace dividend and risk asset explosion. Bitcoin’s roaring breakout, a surging S&P 500 (with 7,500 in sight for the second quarter of 2026), and the prospect of a new golden era for housing and tech seem inevitable, all while Jerome Powell’s Federal Reserve remains famously reactive.

Yet beneath the surface, sophisticated investors must look beyond the headlines and the consensus: deflationary forces are gaining momentum (notably, lower oil prices are poised to undercut cost pressures further), the U.S. labour market and gross domestic product (GDP) data paint a picture of an economy losing steam, and the case for sharply lower rates is building, though that path won’t guarantee easy profits for all.

What will set successful investors apart is their ability to look five to six quarters ahead, piercing the fog of Wall Street’s persistent group think. Consensus is a powerful, and often misleading, force—rarely has it been truer than today. The incessant churn of market narratives on trading desks often blurs the vital reality that the real economy is not the same as risk assets. As the pace of economic activity slows and traditional metrics signal caution, liquidity injections, the arrival of a peace dividend, and rate cuts can catalyze risk assets to new highs. This divergence allows for robust multiple expansion, as lower rates and geopolitical breakthroughs reset the denominator for asset valuations. In the face of pervasive skepticism and noisy short-term data, disciplined investors who anticipate, rather than react, will capture the opportunities of a secular bull market driven by innovation, demographics, accommodative policy, and the compounding logic of renewed risk-appetite.

The current investment landscape is uniquely defined by the blending of Trump’s “Art of the Deal” with the timeless strategic principles of Sun Tzu’s “Art of War,” creating a hybrid playbook for both global leaders and sophisticated investors. Trump’s approach uses the public spectacle, aggressive negotiation, and visible power plays characteristic of modern deal-making, yet the underlying strategic logic often mirrors Sun Tzu’s emphasis on preparation, asymmetry, and psychological advantage. Rather than relying solely on brute force, Trump’s “peace through strength” negotiations, in Ukraine, the Middle East, and much of his domestic policy, combine the subtlety of positioning for invisible victories (avoiding costly conflict, reaping dividends through diplomatic breakthroughs) with the very visible assertion of leverage meant to drive outcomes in public view.

For investors, this synthesis means tracking both the quiet, compounding effects of structural change and the headlines of market-moving deals: the art is in knowing when to act behind the scenes and when to capitalize on the spectacle, as both can deliver outsized gains in an era where strategy and showmanship are inextricably linked.

I. The flawed lens of economic data: BLS and beyond

Before unpacking the bullish setups, it’s critical to pierce the illusion built on traditional economic indicators. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is producing headline job data that, while superficially robust, contains cracks beneath the surface. Participation rates remain below pre-pandemic highs, full time work gains have stalled, and much of the payroll growth is part-time or gig-based, distorting traditional measurements of economic health.

Similarly, GDP prints are painted with an increasingly revisionist brush. Inventory adjustments, net export volatility, and government spending have all masked tepid underlying demand. Productivity numbers, when properly deflated for tech-induced efficiency gains, show growth, but not uniformly or robustly across sectors.

These flaws have led to a dangerous consensus that the economy is stronger than it is, a mistake that, for investors, can create as much risk as ignoring an oncoming recession.

II. Deflationary undercurrents and a realistic view of growth

The irony of this phase is stark: while animal spirits soar in equity and crypto markets, the real economy is fighting mounting deflationary pressure. Key sectors such as retail, manufacturing, and goods logistics are seeing outright declines in pricing power. Technology is not only fueling productivity, it’s creating a persistent drag on aggregate prices. Automation, optimization, and global supply chain improvements are pushing input and final goods costs ever lower.

These trends are set to intensify as the cost of energy, particularly oil, resumes its downward trajectory, removing a historic driver of headline inflation. With oil prices expected to weaken further, the deflationary impulse through the global economy will only grow, putting additional pressure on already softening wage and price dynamics.

Meanwhile, consumer debt burdens remain. Housing affordability, despite headline rallies in stocks, is challenged by the high cost of capital and wages that aren’t keeping up with the cost of living. These structural headwinds will not be solved by easing monetary policy alone.

Most crucially for those eyeing the horizon, my base case is not a recession, but a material growth slowdown. As we saw in post-WWI and WWII eras, it is possible for optimism and asset rallies to coexist with economic slowdowns.

III. The limitations of policy: The Federal Reserve is behind the curve

If investors are to profit from these historic times, they must first acknowledge monetary policy’s lags. It is tempting to assign mystical powers to the Federal Reserve, but central banking operates on a significant delay, typically 18 to 24 months to see the full transmission of a rate hike or cut.

By this logic, the full brunt of the last tightening cycle has not yet been felt. At the same time, the future risk is not from overheating, but from undershooting potential, leaving policy too tight as deflation gathers strength. The Federal Funds Rate (FFR) should, in equilibrium, be at the “natural rate” (r*), a level thought to be between 2 per cent and 2.5 per cent in a structurally slow-growth, tech-driven environment. With the market still digesting the lagged effects of policy, there is real risk in waiting for the data to turn before acting.

That is why, despite the consensus for a slow, cautious approach, the Federal Reserve should cut 50 basis points at its September meeting, frontloading accommodation to avoid a deeper slowdown and to support a soft landing.

IV. The consensus trap and the perils of myopia

A core mistake among Wall Street investors is their habit of taking cues from the Federal Reserve after the fact, rather than forecasting and discounting the future. The prime example? The housing sector. Despite high mortgage rates, investors have poured into homebuilders and related equities on the thesis that lower rates are coming, and housing shares have already staged massive rallies, well ahead of actual Federal Reserve cuts.

This phenomenon will likely repeat across the risk asset landscape. As consensus grows around the inevitability of large cuts, markets will move well before the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) acts. The lesson is vital: investing in risk assets is about the future, not the past. Those who wait to see confirmation or validation in lagged data rarely drive the best returns in historic cycles. To be clear, Trump reset the four-year cycle with the events surrounding Liberation Day in April of this year. A bull run into the midterms should be on everyone’s bingo card.

V. Peace dividend, bull market, and digital wealth

This backdrop of supply-side reforms—including peace dividend anticipation, deflationary oil, and monetary recalibration—creates conditions for powerful rallies in equities, crypto, and housing. A viable deal between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin over Ukraine (potentially mirrored by Middle East arrangements) dramatically changes risk calculus. The prospect of “risk off” war-time premiums evaporating spurs capital inflows into cyclicals, infrastructure, and financials. Energy and materials sectors rebound.

Bitcoin is front and centre in this next phase. Not simply as an “inflation hedge,” but as a barometer of risk tolerance, monetary credibility, and the world’s appetite for digital assets as alternatives to fiat currencies. The current surge of digital assets reflects not only fear of central bank mistakes, but optimism about peace, policy-driven growth, and a technological future that transcends borders.

All this culminates in a projected S&P 500 bull run to 7,500 by the second quarter of 2026—a potent mix of earnings expansion, multiple rerating, and unprecedented flows from both retail and institutional pools. No, the era of U.S. exceptionalism is not over. The combination of rate cuts and a credible peace dividend lays the foundation for multiple expansion, further propelling risk assets even as the underlying economy is only treading water. This is the hallmark of a true secular bull market: liquidity and sentiment outpacing real economic activity for those bold enough to see past today’s consensus.

VI. The Art of War and the Art of the Deal: Wisdom for modern capital

The strategic lens for investors in 2025 is more valuable than ever. Sun Tzu calls for invisible, anticipatory preparation, knowing not just oneself and the environment, but the adversaries and their incentives. Underneath, Trump’s Art of the Deal is about the spectacle—a visible, negotiated advantage—turning conflict and risk into public upside.

This synthesis is today’s playbook for navigating the blurred line between diplomacy and markets. The peace dividend is not guaranteed, but possible when leaders act boldly and investors read through the data, discount the future, and position for structural change, not just cyclical turns.

We are, unmistakably, living in historic times. The compounding impact of unconventional policy, radical innovation, demographic shifts, and modern dealmaking is rewriting every forecasting model. Markets will reward those who see the world as it is becoming, not as it was.

VII. Contested independence: The Federal Reserve, Treasury, and the future of monetary policy

The evolution of the Federal Reserve’s independence is the central contest shaping monetary policy in the U.S. The next act of this contest is already coming into view: expect the Federal Reserve to evolve in character, with its autonomy likely to be reduced in service of broader fiscal objectives. The growing national debt, lasting political pressure, and a global shift toward fiscal dominance are creating the stage for an era where the central bank’s policy may be increasingly coordinated with U.S. Treasury needs.

If a pre-1951 dynamic reasserts itself, where the Federal Reserve operates largely in support of federal refinancing, yield curve control shifts from theoretical risk to a practical policy tool. By explicitly or implicitly anchoring rates along the maturity spectrum, the Federal Reserve can help ensure cheap and predictable refinancing of government debt. The precedent of World War II and the Korean War periods illustrates how monetary policy, in the face of massive fiscal needs, was deliberately subordinated to the needs of government financing.

This coming world of fiscal dominance recasts the Federal Reserve’s mission. Rather than focusing solely on inflation and employment, monetary policy will be pressured to serve as a cost-containment engine for the Treasury. Lower rates and a managed yield curve would be the expected outcome, placing upward pressure on risk assets and rewarding those who anticipate the policy pivot.

The question is no longer whether the Federal Reserve will defend its independence, but how far and how fast political realities will force a rollback. Advocates of independence will warn about the dangers to price stability and the loss of the Volcker-era credibility. Critics, pressed by the sheer weight of debt service and fiscal math, will argue it is irresponsible not to coordinate.

In sum, investors should prepare for a regime where the Federal Reserve’s autonomy is diminished, yield curve control is not only on the table but actively engineered, and the world is unmistakably in an era of fiscal dominance. This shift will leave an indelible mark on interest rates, inflation probabilities, and the true long-term cost of capital throughout all asset classes. To ignore it is to ignore the central axis of the new investment era.

VIII. Actionable guidance: Investing for the next cycle

Anticipate the future, don’t wait for the Federal Reserve. Markets move fast. By the time Powell acts, asset prices will have already recalibrated. Focus on forward indicators and discount the coming policy easing not just current conditions.
Emphasize secular growth, but hedge for volatility. With a slowdown (not a recession) as the base case, start getting exposure to high-quality cyclicals, the artificial intelligence (AI) theme, gold, and digital assets.
Question the data. Consumer Price Index (CPI), Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) and GDP numbers are flawed—supplement headline metrics with private, real-time data and on-the-ground intelligence. The four-year cycle has been reset.
Position for a 2 per cent terminal FFR—with r* in focus. The only solution to our current debt crisis is economic growth and negative real rates of interest. Prepare for the Federal Reserve to lose some of its autonomy. Yes, yield curve control is on the horizon.
Embrace risk, selectively. Housing is a microcosm, few expected the stock rallies given high rates, but anticipation is everything. Apply this logic to under owned asset classes and regions that stand to benefit earliest from the new cycle. Yes, demographics are important.
Lean into the structural themes:

AI: The defining engine of productivity, automation, and disruption. AI consumes energy, the economy with the lowest cost energy has a huge competitive advantage.
Crypto: Beyond Bitcoin, digital assets are foundational to next-generation finance. The tokenization of Real-World Assets (RWA) will be a major theme.
Housing: Lower rates and peace-induced capital flows will drive further upside even as affordability pressures persist.
Finance: Lenders, fintech, and capital markets firms stand to benefit as peace and policy reduce volatility.
Gold: The ultimate hedge, still relevant as policy shifts, geopolitical risks linger, and currency regimes face fresh credibility tests.

Conclusion: Prosperity awaits the prepared

For investors, to profit from peace is to prepare for prosperity. The coming years are unlikely to mirror the past. Policy lags, deflationary pressure (especially from falling oil prices), data flaws, and the evolving reality of fiscal dominance and reduced central bank independence mean Wall Street’s playbook must evolve with history’s tide. Growth will slow, not collapse, but the market will discount this well in advance.

The wisest investors will see beyond the Federal Reserve’s next step, beyond incomplete statistics, and recognize the scale of opportunity when peace, policy, and technology align. Those who invest with vision, embracing AI, digital assets, housing, finance, and gold, will reshape the future, not merely endure it. Real discipline in this cycle means looking five or six quarters ahead, resisting the gravity of consensus, and remembering that the economy itself is not the same as the returns earned from risk assets. If history is any guide, the widening gap between economic growth and asset performance will keep rewarding those with the conviction to anticipate what’s next.

Act boldly, invest with discipline, and remember, in a world remade by the Art of War, the Art of the Deal, and the shifting balance of power at the Federal Reserve, peace has never been more profitable.

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.