Called $BZ bullish on Mar 6, 2026: $BZ rose 22% in 3 weeks.
View call →
CIO/PM, Single Family Office | Global Public Markets | Former Sell-Side Equity Research
Cite asCryptoQuant has tracked the directional calls on GOOG by @rickyho_1989 on X since Feb 2026: not yet scored on GOOG (as of Nov 11, 2026).
Other assets covered (12)
4 GOOG calls on record, a thin history.
Relative view by default: fewer than 30 GOOG calls or days on record.
Sentiment timeline shows relative sentiment within this analyst's history. A perma-bull showing 8 bullish : 2 bearish in a bear market sets that as their baseline. If you notice any errors, claim @rickyho_1989 to submit corrections.
Called $BZ bullish on Mar 6, 2026: $BZ rose 22% in 3 weeks.
View call →Hover the chart to read the thesis of that period · click a day to pin it
US Midterms 2026: Democratic Control of Congress, Political Gridlock, and the Implications for Global Markets The Democrats’ projected victory in both the House and Senate represents a significant shift in the American political landscape, particularly because the party managed to capture Senate seats in traditionally Republican states such as Texas, Kansas and South Carolina, suggesting that voter dissatisfaction with inflation, living costs and the administration’s handling of the economy has extended well beyond the usual competitive districts. However, I think the most important implication for financial markets is not that Democrats have gained control of Congress, but that the United States is entering a period of divided government in which legislative gridlock, fiscal negotiations and regulatory scrutiny will become increasingly important, potentially constraining President Trump’s ability to advance new legislation while leaving much of his executive authority over tariffs, foreign policy and existing regulations intact. The new congressional balance takes effect in January 2027, and while the Democrats will gain substantial oversight and legislative powers, they will not automatically gain the ability to reverse existing policies because Trump retains his presidential veto and most Senate legislation remains subject to the 60-vote threshold. From a macroeconomic perspective, the most consequential development could be the return of fiscal policy as a major source of market uncertainty, particularly when the United States is already struggling with substantial budget deficits, elevated interest expenses and an increasingly difficult Treasury financing environment. Democratic control could constrain additional deficit-financed tax reductions or discretionary spending initiatives, which might eventually help moderate Treasury issuance relative to a more expansionary policy baseline, but I would be reluctant to assume that political gridlock automatically translates into fiscal discipline because neither party has demonstrated a particularly strong willingness to address the structural imbalance between government expenditure and revenue. More importantly, negotiations over government funding and the debt ceiling could become considerably more contentious in 2027, introducing risks of shutdowns, delayed fiscal agreements and additional volatility in Treasury markets. For investors, the distinction between reducing future deficits and merely preventing further fiscal expansion is enormous, particularly when the existing debt stock and associated interest burden remain substantial regardless of which party controls Congress. This brings us to the bond market, which I believe will remain a more important determinant of equity valuations than the election result itself, because even if divided government reduces expectations for additional fiscal stimulus, that does not automatically mean long-term Treasury yields will decline. We need to distinguish between weaker growth expectations, which could pull yields lower, and a higher fiscal or political risk premium, which could push longer-dated borrowing costs higher even when growth is moderating. A prolonged confrontation over the debt ceiling could also create substantial volatility in short-dated Treasury bills and government liquidity without necessarily producing the same reaction across the entire yield curve. The real question is whether the new political configuration improves confidence in America’s long-term fiscal trajectory or simply introduces another layer of uncertainty into an already fragile bond market, and I think that distinction matters enormously when equity valuations remain sensitive to the discount rate applied to future earnings. The implications for technology and AI are particularly interesting because a Democratic Congress would have substantially greater authority to investigate large technology companies, examine AI safety practices and scrutinize the environmental and infrastructure costs associated with the enormous data-center expansion taking place across the United States. This could introduce additional uncertainty for hyperscalers such as Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet and Meta, particularly if congressional investigations increase pressure for stricter model evaluations, greater transparency, data-center permitting requirements or additional scrutiny of electricity and water consumption. The change in state governments also matters, particularly in Texas and Georgia, where data-center investment has become increasingly important and state-level permitting, electricity costs and infrastructure policy can influence project economics even without major new federal legislation. However, I would strongly distinguish regulatory friction from a deterioration in underlying AI demand, because the commercial incentives for enterprises to adopt increasingly capable AI systems remain intact, while additional permitting constraints could actually increase the value of existing power connections, operational data centers and secured infrastructure capacity. I remain structurally constructive on AI, although the election introduces another variable investors should incorporate into the timing and cost of future infrastructure deployments. Trade policy is another area where I would avoid overly optimistic conclusions because Democratic control of Congress does not automatically mean that Trump’s tariffs will disappear or that relations with China will normalize, particularly when considerable trade authority remains delegated to the executive branch and concerns surrounding advanced semiconductors, national security and technological competition have become increasingly bipartisan. Congress could increase scrutiny of trade measures, challenge particular policies or negotiate restrictions on future executive authority, but meaningful legislative changes would still face presidential opposition and existing legal constraints. Consequently, I would not interpret the election as an immediate catalyst for a substantial reversal in semiconductor export restrictions, a broad normalization of US-China trade or a reduction in geopolitical risk. Similar uncertainty applies to defense spending, healthcare, banking and cryptocurrencies, where congressional investigations and legislative bargaining could change the policy environment, although major statutory changes would require broader political agreement. For equities, I think the immediate reaction could be complicated because political gridlock can reduce the probability of major new legislation while simultaneously increasing uncertainty around budgets, regulation and executive policymaking, meaning that different sectors could experience very different outcomes. Highly regulated industries such as banking, pharmaceuticals and cryptocurrency-related businesses may face greater congressional scrutiny, while certain renewable-energy and healthcare initiatives could receive stronger legislative attention, although the ability to translate those priorities into law remains limited by the presidential veto. Technology companies may face additional headline volatility, particularly given the ongoing reassessment of AI capital expenditure and elevated valuations, but I would caution against assuming that a Democratic Congress necessarily undermines the earnings trajectories of companies benefiting from structural growth in computing, cloud infrastructure, semiconductors and automation. Ultimately, markets will continue differentiating businesses according to revenue growth, operating margins, cash generation, returns on invested capital and valuations, rather than permanently repricing entire industries based on which party controls Congress. My broader conclusion is that the Democratic sweep represents a meaningful political constraint on the Trump administration but does not fundamentally change the structural economic forces driving US markets, particularly the expansion of AI infrastructure, the extraordinary capital requirements associated with that investment cycle, persistent fiscal imbalances and the increasing sensitivity of equity valuations to long-term interest rates. The next two years could involve more congressional investigations, slower legislative progress, contentious fiscal negotiations and greater uncertainty surrounding sector-specific regulation, but those developments should be evaluated according to their actual impact on corporate earnings, capital expenditure and financial conditions rather than through a simple partisan framework. For investors, I would pay considerably more attention to the direction of Treasury yields, the sustainability of corporate earnings and the economics of AI infrastructure than to the political headlines themselves. Washington can influence market sentiment, but over the longer term, earnings, cash flow and the cost of capital will remain the variables that ultimately determine investment returns.
View original →INTEL $INTC JUST CRASHED 24% AFTER HOURS DESPITE BEATING EARNINGS EXPECTATIONS BY 30%. BRUTAL. Welcome to a market where even a strong quarter means NOTHING if your forward guidance disappoints. Intel's Q3'26 results were actually impressive. Revenue: $16.5B, +21% YoY Adjusted EPS: $0.52 vs. $0.40 expected Gross margin: 44.1%, +410bps YoY Data Center & AI: $7.3B, +78% YoY But then came the guidance. Q4 revenue: $15.5B midpoint vs. $17.1B expected. Q4 adjusted EPS: $0.25 vs. $0.43 expected. Gross margin expected to collapse from 44.1% to 38%. And the market absolutely HATED it. Here's what makes Intel particularly interesting. THE AI BOOM IS HELPING INTEL'S SERVER BUSINESS WHILE HURTING ITS PC BUSINESS. Exploding AI infrastructure demand is driving server CPU sales, but the same boom is contributing to soaring memory prices, making PCs more expensive and depressing consumer demand. Meanwhile, Intel Foundry remains deeply unprofitable, losing approximately $1.85B in Q3, despite reporting $6.7B in revenue, most of which comes from internal manufacturing activity rather than external customers. And here is my biggest concern. INTEL WAS TRADING AT 42.2x FY27 FORWARD EARNINGS BEFORE THE SELLOFF. That's an extraordinary valuation for a company still navigating a difficult turnaround, substantial manufacturing risks, persistent foundry losses and significant capital requirements. Even after a 24% decline, the stock would mechanically trade around 32x forward earnings, assuming estimates remain unchanged. And remember, Intel recently completed a $23B equity offering, introducing substantial shareholder dilution. I believe Intel's operational recovery is genuine, particularly in server CPUs, but improving fundamentals do not automatically make a stock attractive when the valuation already assumes a successful turnaround. We currently do NOT own Intel, and the 24% collapse alone is not enough to make us buyers. I remain much more comfortable owning established AI infrastructure winners such as $NVDA, $TSM, $GOOG, $AMZN and $SKHY. The AI boom is real. But not every semiconductor company deserves an AI valuation. The market rewards earnings today, but ultimately prices the earnings of tomorrow.
View original →Google's Gemini 4 Carbon just topped 15 of the 17 benchmarks presented against GPT-6 Astra and Claude Opus 5.5, reinforcing my conviction that Alphabet is becoming one of the strongest competitors in frontier AI. What makes these results particularly impressive is the performance across economically valuable capabilities, with Carbon scoring 96.2% on long-context reasoning against 71.8% for GPT-6 Astra, achieving 53.9% on enterprise automation against 41.4% for Astra, and demonstrating substantial advantages in cybersecurity, scientific reasoning and autonomous workflows. I would not declare Google the outright winner of the AI race, particularly when OpenAI still leads in certain software engineering evaluations and Anthropic retains an advantage in specific computer-use tasks, while benchmark settings can materially influence results, but the direction is increasingly clear: frontier AI is becoming more capable, competition is intensifying and the ability of these models to perform economically valuable work is improving rapidly. For Alphabet, the investment implications are particularly compelling because Google controls the entire AI stack, from proprietary TPUs and frontier models to cloud infrastructure, Search, Android, YouTube and enterprise distribution, allowing technological improvements to generate economic value across multiple businesses rather than relying exclusively on API monetization. And this reinforces my broader investment thesis because as intelligence becomes cheaper and more capable, consumption should accelerate, creating enormous opportunities for the companies controlling both the infrastructure and distribution of AI. Google does not need to win every benchmark to become one of the biggest economic winners of the AI revolution. Long $GOOGL. Long AI.
View original →WALL STREET JUST PUNISHED GOOGLE $GOOGL BY 9%. I THINK THE MARKET IS MAKING A MISTAKE. Alphabet missed Q3'26 earnings expectations, but look beneath the headlines and the numbers tell a very different story. Revenue: $127.6B, +25% YoY Google Cloud: $30.7B, +103% YoY Cloud operating profit: $11.1B Cloud operating margin: 36.2% Search revenue: $63.4B, +12% YoY Gemini users: 1 BILLION Meanwhile, Google's AI models are processing nearly 32 BILLION TOKENS PER MINUTE, more than quadrupling from a year ago. And here's the most interesting part. GOOGLE CLOUD IS GROWING 103% WHILE GENERATING A 36% OPERATING MARGIN. For an infrastructure business already generating more than $120B in annualized quarterly revenue, those economics are extraordinary. Yes, EPS missed badly at $2.12 versus $3.02 expected, but approximately $0.55 of that reflected unrealized equity investment losses. Even excluding those losses, earnings still missed expectations. And there are legitimate concerns. Search monetization is slowing as AI Mode grows. Quarterly capex reached $51.4B, free cash flow turned negative $9.1B, and management expects infrastructure spending to increase significantly in 2027. But consider what Google is actually telling investors. AI DEMAND IS GROWING SO FAST THAT GOOGLE CANNOT BUILD COMPUTING CAPACITY QUICKLY ENOUGH. The company has started renting third-party compute despite owning one of the world's most sophisticated AI infrastructure platforms. That is a capacity problem, not a demand problem. Google owns the chips, the models, the cloud, the distribution and the monetization infrastructure. Few companies can compete across the entire AI value chain. At 20.6x forward earnings before the selloff, the valuation was already reasonable. After a 9% decline, that would fall to approximately 18.7x, assuming earnings estimates remain unchanged. The market is focused on the cost of building AI infrastructure. We are focused on the enormous earnings potential of the platform being built. The risks are real, particularly cash conversion and Search monetization, but I believe the selloff creates an attractive entry point. The earnings missed. The AI thesis didn't. LONG $GOOGL. BUYING THE WEAKNESS.
View original →Alphabet ($GOOG) missed both revenue and EPS estimates, sending shares down 9% in after-hours trading. 😫
View original →
