A sharp market decline can make an ETF look like a bargain, but a lower price does not automatically mean a better investment. 📉 If your portfolio includes broad-market funds, Nasdaq-100 ETFs, or semiconductor-focused ETFs, the recent AI selloff is a reminder that each fund carries different risks, even when they benefit from the same technology trend. Nvidia, AMD, Broadcom, and TSMC have reported strong demand across parts of the AI supply chain, yet concerns about valuations, massive infrastructure spending, debt, and future profitability continue to influence investor sentiment.

The important question is whether the businesses inside your ETF can turn that demand into sustainable earnings and free cash flow. For a busy investor, identifying the exact market bottom is less useful than understanding what a fund owns, how concentrated it is, and whether its exposure still fits a long-term investment plan. A pullback may create an opportunity, but only if the underlying business case and the price paid justify the risk.

A semiconductor ETF can fall much harder than a diversified market fund, even when AI demand remains strong. 🔎

Discover the five questions to ask before buying the dip, including how to assess concentration, cash flow, valuations, and the financial risks behind the AI infrastructure boom.

Imagine setting aside $500 a month for $WDC ( ▲ 0.4% ) for five years, buying a fixed dollar amount on a schedule, a method called dollar-cost averaging. In our example the buy happens on the first trading day on or after the 9th of each month, from Nov 2021 through Oct 2026 (the first buy lands on Tuesday, Nov 9, 2021): 60 buys, $30,000 in total.

WDC closed at $41.93 on Oct 27, 2021 (adjusted for the SanDisk spin-off) and at $380.88 on Oct 27, 2026, a price gain of about 808.3%, or roughly 55.5% a year compounded (the steady yearly rate that would give the same total gain). In that example the $30,000 would have been worth about $238,500 at the Oct 27, 2026 close (about 7.95 times the money put in), and a single $10,000 invested on Oct 27, 2021 would have become about $90,830. Price only: no dividends, fees or taxes, and these are examples, not forecasts.

The highest close of the five years was $746.23 on Jun 18, 2026, so the Oct 27, 2026 close sat about 49.0% below it. The lowest close of the five years was $22.83 (adjusted) on Dec 28, 2022, about 45.6% below the $41.93 start.

Caution: past pace rarely continues. WDC fell from its $746.23 closing high on Jun 18, 2026 to $343.67 at the Oct 23, 2026 close, then rebounded to $380.88 by the Oct 27 close, a reminder that prices can pause or pull back sharply even after a massive multi-year run.

WDC shows the article's point in one stock: a strong business can still pull back about half from its high, and steady monthly buying through the dip is what turned $30,000 into about 7.95 times the money.

When technology stocks fall sharply, the temptation is to look for the one company that has dropped far enough to become a bargain. But if your investments are built around exchange-traded funds, the more useful question is different: Is the selloff making an entire sector more attractive, or is it exposing risks that a rising market had made easier to overlook?

That distinction matters because an ETF can hold dozens or hundreds of companies and still be heavily influenced by a relatively small group of technology leaders. A broad market fund, a Nasdaq-100 fund, and a semiconductor ETF may all provide exposure to the technology boom, but they do not carry the same concentration, volatility, or business risks.

The recent AI-related pullback offers a useful reminder. Semiconductor stocks have faced considerable pressure even as several major companies reported strong revenue growth, expanding demand, and encouraging business results. At the same time, concerns about inflation, interest rates, enormous infrastructure spending, and the ability of AI customers to turn their investments into profits have made investors less willing to pay high prices for future growth.

For someone who cannot spend every day tracking earnings calls and market headlines, the goal is not to guess the exact bottom. It is to understand what an ETF actually owns, what could drive its recovery, and what might prevent that recovery from happening.

Not every technology-focused ETF provides the same exposure. The difference becomes especially important when a single industry experiences a sharp correction.

A broad S&P 500 ETF spreads investments across companies from multiple sectors. Technology remains an important influence because large companies such as Nvidia $NVDA ( ▼ 0.64% ), Apple $AAPL ( ▲ 1.63% ), and Microsoft $MSFT ( ▼ 1.2% ) have substantial market value, but the portfolio also includes businesses outside the semiconductor and AI infrastructure industries.

A Nasdaq-100 ETF offers a more concentrated exposure to large nonfinancial companies listed on the Nasdaq. It includes major technology businesses and other growth-oriented companies, making its performance sensitive to changes in investor expectations for future earnings, interest rates, and technology spending.

A semiconductor ETF concentrates much more directly on the companies supplying the computing infrastructure behind AI. Depending on its index and weighting method, it may hold chip designers, manufacturers, and equipment suppliers. That creates an opportunity to participate in industry growth, but it can also produce larger declines when semiconductor valuations or expectations change.

The gap between the broader market and the semiconductor sector has been wide. At the Oct 27, 2026 close, the PHLX Semiconductor Index (SOX) was about 21.5% below its Jun 22, 2026 high, while the Nasdaq-100, the S&P 500, and Nvidia had seen their own pullbacks. Semiconductor equipment makers were hit harder: Lam Research $LRCX ( ▲ 2.28% ) was about 44% below its Jun 30, 2026 high and Applied Materials $AMAT ( ▲ 0.57% ) about 45% below its Jun 30, 2026 high.

These figures illustrate the difference between owning a diversified market fund and investing in a narrower industry fund. A semiconductor ETF may fall much further than a broad-market ETF during a sector selloff, even when the underlying industry's long-term demand remains promising.

That is not necessarily evidence that semiconductor ETFs are bad investments. It means the concentration is doing exactly what concentration can do: magnifying both the opportunities and the risks.

One of the more interesting parts of the selloff is the gap between business performance and share-price performance.

Nvidia has generated substantial free cash flow. Apple also produces significant cash flow, while Microsoft has indicated that it expects to remain free-cash-flow positive over the foreseeable future. Advanced Micro Devices $AMD ( ▼ 1.77% ) is another important participant in the computing market. These companies are not interchangeable, and their financial results and valuations differ, but their inclusion in the AI and technology investment theme helps explain why a blanket judgment that all technology businesses are deteriorating would be too simplistic.

There were also strong results elsewhere in the supply chain. On Oct 15, 2026, TSMC reported third-quarter revenue of $46.72 billion, up 41.2% from a year earlier in US dollars, and guided fourth-quarter revenue to $52.3–54.3 billion, roughly 58% higher year over year at the midpoint, a sign that demand for advanced chips remains healthy. On Sep 2, 2026, Broadcom reported AI semiconductor revenue of $16.7 billion for its fiscal third quarter (ended Aug 2), up 221% year over year, and guided the next quarter to about $21.7 billion, up 236%, which points to AI demand that is still building.

Those figures support the argument that demand for AI infrastructure remained strong in recent quarters. However, strong growth does not settle the valuation question. An excellent business can still be a disappointing investment if its share price already assumes years of exceptional performance.

This is particularly important for ETF investors. A fund's return depends not only on whether its holdings grow their earnings, but also on how much investors are willing to pay for those earnings. If expectations become too optimistic, a company can report impressive results and still see its share price decline because investors expected even more.

That helps explain why the price of a semiconductor ETF can fall despite encouraging industry data. Investors may be reassessing the prices they previously paid, the time required for infrastructure spending to produce returns, or the possibility that future growth will be less profitable than anticipated.

For a long-term investor, the useful response is to distinguish between a weaker business outlook and a lower valuation. The two can happen together, but they are not the same thing.

The investment case for AI infrastructure rests on a simple premise: companies need computing capacity to develop, train, and operate increasingly demanding AI systems. Semiconductor manufacturers, chip designers, networking businesses, data-center operators, and equipment suppliers all have potential roles in meeting that demand.

The difficulty is that building this infrastructure requires enormous amounts of capital before all the expected revenue arrives.

Microsoft, Oracle, Alphabet, and Amazon together reported about $2.3 trillion in contracted cloud revenue not yet earned in their mid-2026 filings, roughly double the level a year earlier, according to Bank of America and the companies' own reports. That is real demand, though much of it turns into revenue over several years.

A backlog is valuable only to the extent that the commitments can be fulfilled and customers can meet their obligations. Some AI infrastructure demand ultimately depends on AI businesses generating enough revenue to support their own spending. If those customers cannot turn their computing investments into commercially sustainable products, the companies supplying the infrastructure could face delays, cancellations, or weaker returns.

This is why the financial position of each business matters as much as the industry's overall growth.

Oracle faces substantial debt and weak current free-cash-flow generation. There are also concerns about the growing capital expenditures of companies such as Meta Platforms $META ( ▲ 1.8% ) and Alphabet. Amazon's spending requirements were another part of the wider infrastructure debate.

These pressures do not automatically mean that these companies will fail to earn attractive returns on their investments. Capital spending can depress cash flow today while supporting greater capacity and revenue in the future. But the expected return on that spending must eventually justify the cost.

For ETF investors, this creates an important distinction between the companies building and financing AI infrastructure and the companies selling the tools that make it possible. Both groups may benefit from the same technological trend, yet their balance sheets, cash-flow profiles, and exposure to execution risk can differ considerably.

A technology ETF may contain both types of businesses. Understanding that mix is more useful than assuming every company associated with AI will benefit equally.

One argument is that semiconductor demand remained stronger than available supply, with GPU prices rising and major chip companies continuing to report strong results. If demand persists while supply remains constrained, companies with the capacity to deliver essential computing products may retain pricing power and growth opportunities.

However, the benefits are not evenly distributed across the industry.

Nvidia supplies important AI computing products, while AMD competes in computing and accelerator markets. Broadcom has a significant role in AI-related semiconductor and networking infrastructure, and TSMC manufactures chips for customers across the industry. Lam Research and Applied Materials provide equipment used in semiconductor manufacturing.

An ETF holding several of these businesses can spread company-specific risk across different parts of the supply chain. But diversification within one industry does not eliminate the industry's shared risks. If customers reduce spending, manufacturing capacity expands too quickly, or expectations for AI investment weaken, several holdings can fall together.

There is also a difference between having a product that customers need and earning an attractive return on the capital required to supply it. A company can face strong demand while spending heavily to increase production capacity. Supply constraints can support revenue, but the financial outcome still depends on costs, execution, competition, and the durability of demand.

That is why a semiconductor ETF should not be purchased solely because its holdings are essential to AI. The stronger investment case is one in which demand, competitive positioning, profitability, and valuation all make sense together.

The selloff also raises questions about the newer companies building specialized AI cloud infrastructure. Nebius Group $NBIS ( ▼ 4.84% ) is one example.

These businesses are trying to provide the computing capacity that AI developers and enterprises need. Their opportunity comes from rapid demand growth and the ability to deploy infrastructure faster than customers could build it independently. But the model can require substantial upfront spending on equipment, facilities, and computing capacity before the full financial benefits appear.

That makes free cash flow and balance-sheet discipline particularly important.

Nebius says it is pursuing a more disciplined approach to its finances while expanding rapidly. Its leadership describes itself as focused on building a sustainable business that ultimately generates earnings and cash. The company has also referred to plans to bring substantial next-generation computing capacity online in 2027.

Those ambitions could support future growth, but plans are not the same as completed infrastructure or realized revenue. Execution, financing, access to chips, customer commitments, and the ability to keep equipment productive will all influence the outcome.

This is where ETF investors need to pay attention to portfolio construction. A broad technology ETF may offer limited exposure to a newer AI cloud provider, while a specialized AI infrastructure fund may carry greater exposure to similar businesses. The latter could benefit more if these companies execute successfully, but it could also be more vulnerable if funding costs rise or customers fail to generate sufficient revenue.

The potential rewards are tied to genuine business opportunities. The risks are equally real, particularly when growth requires large investments before profitability is established.

Another theme is the importance of deploying computing capacity quickly. Nvidia's leadership described how faster data-center installation could help customers turn infrastructure into productive computing capacity sooner.

The economic logic is straightforward. If a data center costs billions of dollars to build, delays can postpone the revenue that the infrastructure is intended to generate. Faster deployment may allow customers to begin earning revenue sooner, improve equipment utilization, and reduce the time that expensive assets sit idle.

For suppliers such as Nvidia, solutions that help customers deploy computing systems more quickly may strengthen demand for their products. For data-center operators, faster installation could improve the economics of expensive infrastructure.

But the benefits should not be confused with guaranteed profitability. Faster deployment requires coordination across chips, networking, power, cooling, facilities, and supply chains. Bottlenecks in any of those areas can delay the entire project.

For an ETF investor, this theme is a reminder that AI exposure extends beyond the most recognizable chip designers. Depending on the fund, exposure may include semiconductor equipment manufacturers, networking suppliers, data-center businesses, and other companies supporting the infrastructure buildout.

Still, the fund's holdings should be examined individually. Not every company associated with faster AI deployment captures the same share of the economic value, and not every supplier has the same ability to turn higher demand into sustainable free cash flow.

Even when the long-term business outlook remains intact, financial conditions can influence what investors are willing to pay for growth.

Investors have raised concerns about rising oil prices, inflation, and the possibility of higher borrowing costs. The U.S. 10-year Treasury yield stood at 4.99% at the Oct 27, 2026 close, down from about 5.3% on Oct 5, while market expectations of a near-term Federal Reserve rate increase had eased.

These figures are time-specific snapshots, not current forecasts. Their broader relevance is that changing expectations for interest rates can move stock valuations even before company fundamentals change materially.

Growth companies often derive a significant portion of their perceived value from earnings expected years into the future. When market interest rates rise, those future earnings may become less valuable in present-value terms, placing pressure on valuations. Higher borrowing costs can also affect companies that depend on external financing to fund expansion.

The effect varies by business. A profitable company with substantial free cash flow may be better positioned to withstand tighter financial conditions than a capital-intensive business that needs continual financing. Yet even profitable companies can experience sharp share-price declines when investors reduce the valuation multiples they are willing to pay.

For broad-market and technology ETF holders, the key is to understand how sensitive the portfolio is to interest rates, expensive growth stocks, and companies that rely on substantial future investment.

A market decline driven partly by valuation changes may create opportunities. A decline driven by deteriorating earnings, rising debt burdens, or weakening customer demand may require a more cautious assessment. Sometimes both forces operate at the same time.

A severe selloff creates pressure to make a decision quickly. One headline says the AI boom is over, while another argues that the decline is a rare buying opportunity. Both may sound convincing when prices are moving sharply.

The problem is that short-term market timing requires two difficult decisions: when to exit and when to return. Selling after a steep decline can lock in losses, while waiting for complete certainty can mean missing part of a recovery.

According to Dow Jones Market Data, the semiconductor index has historically spent about 54 days on average in bear-market territory before climbing out. This summer it took just 21 days, rising 21% from its Jul 29, 2026 low. Recoveries vary, but they have come more than once. That figure should be treated as a historical observation, not a timetable for the next recovery. Market declines vary in their causes, severity, and duration, and nothing establishes that every selloff follows the same pattern.

The practical lesson is not that every decline should be bought immediately. It is that waiting for an unmistakable all-clear signal can be just as difficult as buying during uncertainty.

For investors who use ETFs to build long-term wealth, a planned approach may be more useful than reacting to every market move. Regular contributions can reduce the pressure to identify the exact bottom, while diversification can limit dependence on any single company. However, recurring purchases do not prevent losses, and they are not a substitute for choosing an appropriate allocation.

If a technology ETF already represents too large a portion of a portfolio, a selloff may be a reason to reassess risk rather than automatically add more. If the allocation is appropriate, the investment horizon is long, and the underlying exposure still fits the plan, a decline may be an opportunity to continue investing according to a pre-established strategy.

Before adding to a technology or semiconductor ETF, consider five questions.

1. What does the fund actually own? Review the largest holdings, sector weights, and index methodology. A fund marketed around technology or AI may have very different exposure from another fund with a similar label.

2. How concentrated is the portfolio? A fund holding hundreds of securities can still be dominated by a few large companies. Check whether its performance depends heavily on Nvidia, Apple, Microsoft, or other mega-cap stocks.

3. Are the underlying businesses generating cash? Revenue growth and strong demand matter, but free cash flow, capital expenditures, debt, and profitability help reveal how much of that growth is translating into financial strength.

4. Is the valuation reasonable? A price decline alone does not establish that an ETF is cheap. Consider the valuations of its largest holdings and whether their expected growth justifies the prices investors are paying.

5. Can the investment survive a longer downturn? Money needed within the next few years generally should not depend on a rapid recovery in volatile equities. A long investment horizon can provide more time to recover from market declines, but it cannot guarantee a positive outcome.

Tip: Before buying a technology ETF after a sharp decline, review its top holdings, concentration, valuation, and exposure to capital-intensive businesses. Then decide whether the fund still fits your long-term allocation instead of relying on the size of its recent drop.

The AI selloff highlights a tension that investors will continue to face: a technology can have enormous potential while the companies building it carry very different financial risks. Strong results from Nvidia, AMD, Broadcom, and TSMC support the case that demand for computing infrastructure has been substantial. The capital requirements facing companies such as Oracle, Meta, Alphabet, and newer infrastructure providers show why growth alone is not enough.

Other companies including Bloom Energy (BE), Reddit (RDDT), SoFi (SOFI), PayPal (PYPL), and Robinhood Markets (HOOD), were also part of the upcoming earnings calendar discussed. Their inclusion is a reminder that the broader market's reaction can be influenced by company-specific results and expectations beyond semiconductors. There is not enough detail here about these companies to draw a separate conclusion about their valuations or investment prospects.

For ETF investors, that is precisely why the portfolio matters more than any single headline. A broad-market fund, a Nasdaq-100 fund, and a semiconductor-focused fund can respond differently to the same market shock because they own different businesses and carry different concentrations of risk.

The most useful question is not whether the AI selloff has reached its bottom. No one can establish that with certainty in advance. The better question is whether the companies inside the ETF can turn demand into sustainable earnings and cash flow, and whether the price paid for that potential leaves room for disappointing outcomes.

A falling share price is not proof that a business has failed. Strong earnings are not proof that a stock is cheap. And a promising industry does not guarantee that every ETF tracking it will deliver attractive returns.

For a busy investor, the objective is to build a portfolio that can withstand uncertainty without requiring constant predictions. Understand what the fund owns, keep risk aligned with the time available to invest, and evaluate the underlying businesses rather than allowing fear or excitement to dictate each decision.

Ready to Revolutionize Your Wealth?

Here's what's waiting for you:

As the world becomes increasingly digital, this question will be on the minds of millions seeking new income streams in 2026.

The answer is—Absolutely!

Thank you for taking the time to read today’s email! Your support is what allows me to send out this newsletter for free every day. 

 What do you think of the new format? Please provide your feedback in the poll below, and if you find the newsletter valuable, feel free to share it with other investors!

Disclaimer: This newsletter is for informational purposes only and should not be considered financial advice. Please consult with a financial advisor before making any investment decisions.