Have We Seen This Movie Before? THE THREE MAJOR POINTS 1. Rates 2. Fed policy 3. Earnings + productivity High rates did not stop the Internet boom – and have not stopped the AI boom. Both cycles saw the Fed tighten, then ease, while stocks kept advancing. Earnings and productivity can overwhelm P/E pressure from higher rates.   OPEN – “BUT INTEREST RATES ARE TOO HIGH!” Welcome to Stock Talk. Last week, we made the optimistic case that maybe when comparing the current AI cycle with Dot.com,  we are looking at the right movie – the dot-com cycle, but the wrong scene. Maybe this is not March 2000. Maybe it is closer to the summer or late 1998. Given all of the recent headline news on interest rates globally, this week, let’s tackle one of the biggest arguments against that idea. I hear it all the time: “Stocks cannot keep going higher because interest rates are too high.” Really? Because long term interest rates in the US and globally have been rising for the last few years, and stocks have been enjoying >10% annual gains. Investors, something very similar happened during the early years of the Internet boom. Interest rates were high. The Federal Reserve tightened. Bond yields moved all over the place. And yet stocks kept going up. So today I want to compare the first three-and-a-half years after two major technology launches: Netscape – December 19, 1994. And ChatGPT – November 30, 2022. And we are going to keep it simple. Three points: One, higher interest rates did not stop either tech cycle at first. Two, in both cycles the Fed changed policy direction, but the economy and stocks kept growing and appreciating. Three, stocks survived higher rates for the same reason they may survive them today: earnings and productivity. POINT ONE – HIGH RATES DID NOT KILL THE INTERNET BOOM Let’s go back to December 19, 1994. Netscape launches. The browser world of the internet begins. And look at interest rates. They were not low. They were…

What If We’re Not in 2000 Yet? The Four Optimist Reasons 1. Cycle clock 2. Productivity 3. Earnings 4. Valuation Bespoke’s launch-to-launch analogue maps today closer to Sept. 1998 than March 2000. AI adoption is broadening and could lift output per worker. Today’s leaders have real profits and strong earnings momentum. Expensive, yes—but earnings and balance sheets are far stronger than at the 2000 speculative peak. MAYBE WE’RE LOOKING AT THE WRONG YEAR Welcome to Stock Talk. For the last year, we’ve asked a lot of questions about the similarities between today’s AI boom and the dot-com bubble. And there are plenty. Huge technology spending. Excitement over a revolutionary new technology. Semiconductor stocks soaring. And investors worry that we’ve seen this movie before. But today, we’re going to turn that argument upside down. What if the AI bears have the right movie, but the wrong scene? What if this is another 1995-2000 dot-com-like technology cycle…but instead of being in March 2000, near the end, what if we’re closer to September 1998? That would make an enormous difference. And a fascinating chart from Bespoke Investment Group gives us a reason to consider exactly that. Today, I’m going to give you four reasons for optimism: One: The market clock may say 1998—not 2000. Two: Productivity may be entering its strongest phase. Three: Today’s stock prices have something many dot-com companies didn’t have, real earnings. And four: Today’s earnings make this very different from the speculative peak of 2000. And that brings us close to Ed Yardeni’s “Roaring 2020s” thesis. POINT ONE — THE CLOCK MAY SAY 1998, NOT 2000 VISUAL 1 — Bespoke page 13: Nasdaq Composite after Netscape launch vs. ChatGPT launch. Launch dates, 944-day returns, and the March 2000 endpoint. Nasdaq Composite Netscape Cycle ChatGPT Cycle Launch 12/19/1994 11/30/2022 First 944 days +128.5% +141.1% Relative point in cycle ~Sept. 1998 ~Sept. 2026 Final dot-com peak 3/10/2000 ??? Let’s start with the most important chart. Netscape launched on December 19, 1994. That helped open the Internet age to millions of people….

The Three Major Points Stocks — technology leadership broke, the money didn’t disappear. It moved. Interest rates — the Fed controls the short end. The market controls long end. The dollar — can tell us whether global money is becoming easier or tighter. COULD A FED “FAMILY FIGHT”, AND LAST WEEK’S JACKSON HOLE SPEECH, END THE AI PARTY? For almost two years, we have compared today’s AI investment boom with the Dotcom boom of the late 1990s. And there is good reason. The similarities keep showing up. Technology spending is booming. Semiconductor stocks had been market leaders. Investors believe a new technology is going to change the world. Optimism is high because investors expect years of future growth. But history gives us an important warning. The Internet did change the world. Yet the Nasdaq still peaked in Mid March of 2000. Why? One big reason was that money became more expensive. The Federal Reserve had started raising interest rates in 1999. By May of 2000, the Fed funds rate had risen to 6.5 percent. Eventually, that pressure hits aggressive growth stocks. Technology. The Nasdaq. Semiconductors. Given last week’s hawkish Jackson Hole Speech, the Federal Reserve may be approaching another important decision point. While the Fed previously voted to keep rates at 3.5 to 3.75 percent, three officials wanted to raise rates. Fed Chairman Kevin Warsh described the debate as a real “family fight.” And at Jackson Hole late last week, Warsh made it clear that inflation remains too high and that rate increases  are possible if the data does not improve substantially. So today I want to ask a simple question: Could another Federal Reserve tightening cycle eventually cool today’s AI enthusiasm, just as Fed tightening helped end the Dotcom boom? And if that happens, where might the money go? Only three points today. Let’s keep it simple. Stocks. Rates. And the dollar. POINT ONE — STOCKS: THE DOTCOM BUBBLE ENDED, BUT INVESTING DID NOT Here is the first lesson. When the Nasdaq peaked in March 2000, investors did not…

The Three Major Points 1. Leadership changes 2. AI may become industrial 3. Follow the money After Dotcom 2h2000+, technology topped first as interest rates rose. Investors moved toward GARP, materials, miners and commodity markets. China powered the 2000s supercycle. A Supercycle 2.0 could be broader: AI, grids, electrification, deglobalization, defense meet constrained supply. The key question is not if AI disappears. It is what the next leadership groups would become, the physical inputs AI and the global economy must buy. WHAT COMES AFTER AI? For almost two years on at Oak Harvest and on Stock Talk, we’ve spent a lot of time talking about AI. AI chips. Data centers. Semiconductors. Electricity. And hundreds of billions of dollars of capital spending. Who wins, who loses.  Who spends. Who receives. But today I want to ask a different question: What comes AFTER AI?  First, I’m not saying AI is ending tomorrow or in 2026. I’m asking something investors should always ask: If today’s stock market winners slow down or even stop winning — where might the money go next? I’m old enough to have seen this movie before. After the dot-com top in late 1q2000, technology stocks stopped leading. But the stock market didn’t disappear. Leadership changed. Back then, pretty dramatically because the Federal Reserve brought down the hammer in 2000 when Y2K proved a non-event. And for roughly the next six years, some of the biggest winners weren’t companies selling software, hardware or chips. They were companies selling stuff: copper, steel, gold, oil, chemicals and mining equipment. In other words, we started living in Mohanna’s world, a Material World. Why does this history matter today? Because basic materials have started showing better relative strength just as semiconductor leadership has cooled. Jesse Colombo’s recent Bubble Bubble Report also points out that XLB, the S&P 500 materials ETF, has been near one of its lowest RS versus SPY since the 2000. Janus Henderson takes the idea one step further. Their natural-resources team argues that a broader ‘Supercycle 2.0‘ may be emerging, driven…

The Three Major Points 1. Earnings are winning 2. Rates are compressing P/E 3. 2027 is an EPS x P/E equation Earnings expectations have accelerated fast enough to overpower higher long-term rates – so far. The market can rise while becoming cheaper if EPS grows faster than price. That is exactly what FactSet shows. 2027 outcomes depend on both earnings and the multiple: roughly 8,500 in a constructive case, 8,000 in a base case, and near 6,500 if EPS disappoints while rates stay high. VISUAL 1 – Opening comparison: S&P 500 vs. 10-Year Treasury since April 7, 2025 Word-for-Word Broadcast Script OPEN – TWO THINGS THAT RARELY HAPPEN TOGETHER ARE For most of the last year and a half, investors have been watching two lines moving higher. Stock prices – and interest rates, at the same time. Normally, that’s not the combination stock investors ask for.Go back to April 7, 2025, near the tariff-panic market lows. The S&P 500 closed around 5,062.The 10-year Treasury yield was about 4-0-4.15 percent. Today. Let’s check it out. The S&P 500 is around 7,800, near record highs. But instead of falling, the 10-year Treasury yield has climbed toward 4.7 percent. That makes a roughly 55 percent increase in the S&P 500 while the 10-year Treasury yield increased by about half a percentage point. How can that happen? And why has it happened in the last 5 quarters? One word: earnings. Today we’re going to look at the tug-of-war between earnings and interest rates, and what that battle could mean for the S&P 500 through year-end 2026 and into 2027. And we’re keeping this simple – three points. First- EARNINGS ARE WINNING For years on Stock Talk, and at Oak Harvest, we’ve said something very simple: Over longer time periods, earnings drive stock prices. Interest rates determine how much investors are willing to pay for those earnings. Right now, earnings are doing some very heavy lifting. FactSet’s August 7 Earnings Insight shows Q2 S&P 500 earnings growing an extraordinary 50.4 percent year over year. Now,…

AI’s Possible “Y2K Liquidity Moment” – and Why Earnings Still Matter More THE FOUR MAJOR POINTS 1. The Scorecard 2. Earnings > Headlines 3. AI Capex vs. Dot-Com 4. A Y2K-Style Liquidity Fuse? Oak Harvest stayed constructive through 2H25, forecast a harder and more volatile 2026, identified the late-1Q “7th inning stretch,” and expected a strong 3Q/summer rally. Q2 earnings and revenues are materially stronger than expected. The market is expensive, but current prices are being supported by rapidly rising EPS rather than P/E expansion alone. Both cycles are infrastructure booms led by semiconductors. The key difference: today’s leaders have real profits and cash flow, while much of the speculative frontier remains private. Late-1999 Y2K liquidity helped extend the dot-com melt-up. July 31’s U.S.-Japan yen intervention is not the same policy tool, but could it become a short-term global-liquidity catalyst? OPEN – WE HAVE SEEN THIS MOVIE BEFORE Investors, for over 15 months, long before many others, the Oak Harvest investment team had been asking whether the AI cycle is rhyming with the dot-com boom. Recall, we have said this from a positive messaging standpoint.  If it’s a bubble, and it’s early in the cycle, you want to be long equities.  This summer, that comparison got more interesting – not less. We have extremely strong earnings. We have an AI infrastructure boom and have started a semiconductor capex upturn. We have a stock market making new highs with expanding market breadth. And now we have something we have not had in decades: coordinated U.S.-Japan intervention to support the yen. Everyone the last time that happened was? Specifically on June 17, 1998, during the Asian financial crisis, mid Dot.com. So today I want to ask a question that hit me this weekend: did Kevin Warsh and global policymakers just create an AI-cycle version of the late-1999 Y2K liquidity window – the kind of liquidity event that helped fuel the final dot-com sprint into March 2000? I am not saying they did. I am saying the setup is important enough that investors…

The Three Major Points 1. “Smartest investor” unwind 2. Capex and semiconductors 3. How the cycle breaks Vilar/Amerindo after March 2000 and Aschenbrenner/Situational Awareness in July 2026 show that a correct technology thesis can still fail when concentration, leverage, liquidity and valuation collide. Both cycles required a physical infrastructure buildout. The dot-com cycle centered on fiber and telecom equipment; the AI cycle centers on semiconductors, memory, networking, data centers, power and cooling. Both cycles faced rising rates, a strong dollar, higher oil and tighter liquidity. The major difference is that today’s leaders produce substantial earnings and cash flow, although massive capex is now consuming much more of that cash.   WHEN THE “GENIUS” TRADE BREAKS Every great investment cycle creates a hero, or two. Someone who sees the future early, makes an early and correct investment, and starts looking like the smartest investor in the world. The cycle grows, and then others see it as well and it accelerates, many times going parabolic. Then the cycle turns. Liquidity disappears. De-Leveraging takes control. And the trade that proved how early and smart the investor was, becomes the trade that nearly destroys or totally destroys the fund. At best, they are known as a one hit wonder, at worst, investors lose most if not all of their capital and the manager become a history lesson. That happened in the dot-com era in 1998-2000. And it happened again in the AI cycle just last week. Today, we are going from the dot-com bubble to AI – and asking a simple question: what can retirees learn when the cycle’s “smartest investor” trade breaks? THREE POINTS, TWO CYCLES Let’s frame this once again, as our team has for almost a year and a half. I want to make three comparisons. Dot.com 1998-2000 versus AI 2025-current. First off, early in my career, I lived, analyzed, invested, and escaped the Dotcom bubbles implosion in the late 90’s.  I lived and worked in San Fran for a number of years through and into the height of the Dotcom…

The Three Biggest Threats to Retirement Portfolios Right Now: Inflation. Interest Rates. Energy Prices. Three Key Takeaways These aren’t three separate risks—they’re connected. Rising energy prices fuel parts of inflation, inflation influences the Federal Reserve, and higher interest rates affect nearly every investment retirees own. This was filmed before the Fed made their decision yesterday, we expect they are struggling with what to do.  How can raising rates lower energy prices?  They can’t. The biggest risk to retirees isn’t market volatility. It’s losing purchasing power over time. Inflation quietly erodes retirement income even when your portfolio appears stable. Successful retirement investing isn’t about predicting the next Fed meeting. It’s about understanding how these three forces interact and position your portfolio accordingly. It gets back to planning for your needs, not your greeds. OPENING Good evening, everyone. If you’re retired—or approaching retirement—you’ve probably noticed something, particularly in 2026 every week the financial news seems to focus on a different headline. One week it’s inflation. The next week it’s the Federal Reserve. Then it’s oil prices.It can feel overwhelming. But after managing equity portfolios for more than 35 years, and working here at OHFG for over 8 years, I’ve learned something important. Retirement portfolios usually aren’t hurt by just one problem. They’re hurt when several problems begin feeding off one another. Today, I want to discuss what I believe are the three biggest risks retirees should be watching right now. Not because they’re guaranteed to derail the market…But because together, they influence almost every investment you own. And by the end of today’s video, I think you’ll understand why Wall Street is watching them so closely. THREAT #1: Inflation – The Silent Wealth Killer Let’s begin with inflation. Inflation doesn’t usually announce itself with dramatic headlines. Instead…it quietly chips away at your purchasing power. Even though we think of the 1970’s as the inflation decade, inflation remains an ongoing silent problem. Every trip to the grocery store…Every prescription refill…Every insurance premium… Every utility bill. Even though inflation has come down from its…

Three Key Takeaways A great company doesn’t automatically make a great investment. The price you pay often matters more than the company you buy. Markets reward companies that exceed expectations—not simply companies with exciting stories. When expectations become unrealistic, even outstanding businesses can disappoint investors. This isn’t really a story about SpaceX. It’s a story about investor expectations. History has seen this movie before—from the dot-com era to Tesla’s early years—and the lessons haven’t changed. OPENING Good evening, everyone. This week’s topic is SpaceX and it’s recent IPO. But before we begin…I want to make something very clear. This isn’t really a story about SpaceX. It’s a story about investor expectations. It’s a story about IPO investing and getting caught up in the swirl or excitement of whats “hot”. I’ve been managing money for about 35 years, Charles on our investment team probably close to 40 years. Between the 5 OHFG investment team members, We’ve seen a lot of economic and investing cycles in our times. We’ve learned one lesson that has probably saved us more money than any valuation model. A great company doesn’t automatically make a great stock. These are quite often two completely different things. In fact…many of history’s greatest companies have also been terrible investments…if you bought them at the wrong price. Cisco in 2000.Amazon during parts of the dot-com era, it’s stock declined around 95% before fnding its footing and becoming the company and stock its grown into.Tesla after periods of tremendous enthusiasm. And today…perhaps SpaceX..This isn’t about criticizing innovation..or the company. How many jobs has Elon Musk created in his business lifetime vs me?  That’s an easy answer, We all know who wins that award. SpaceX may become one of the greatest businesses ever created.  And hopefully to public shareholders, it becomes one of the rare multi decade stock return compounders, Because that’s The question investors should always ask. Am I paying too much for a business? Because in investing…expectations often matter more than excitement.   POINT ONE THE COMPANY MAY BE GREAT…BUT EXPECTATIONS…

Good evening, everyone. Here’s something that does not seem to make sense to many investors about the US stock market, S&P500, the last 2 months. Over the last 6-8 weeks, nearly every major Wall Street strategist has raised their year-end target for the S&P 500. Citi.Goldman Sachs.Morgan Stanley.J.P.Morgan.Barclays. Most now see the market finishing 2026 somewhere between 7,800 and 8,100. There actually are a few optimists that have ratcheted targets up to nearly 8500. So here is the obvious question. If now stocks should be worth more, why has the market not already ripped higher? After managing equity portfolios for more than 35 years, I would tell you there are likely two big reasons. Neither has anything to do with weak earnings. But both have to do with real-time market valuations. So here we go, the first point – Overall S&P500 EARNINGS look OUTSTANDING, accelerating and heading higher 2-3q26, BUT CASH FLOW IS UNDER PRESSURE. Let’s start with the good news. Corporate America is making money. FactSet estimates second-quarter S&P 500 earnings growth at 23.6%. If that proves accurate, it would be the second consecutive quarter above 20% earnings growth. Goldman Sachs also expects another strong quarter, supported by a solid macro backdrop and the ongoing AI investment boom. That is the bullish part of the story. But it seems like investors are already looking beyond earnings. They are asking a second question: how much cash are these companies actually keeping? Today’s AI leaders are spending enormous amounts of money on data centers, GPUs, networking equipment, and power infrastructure. Those investments may create major future growth, but they can reduce free cash flow today. Goldman notes that hyperscaler capital spending estimates rose by more than 100 billion dollars after last quarter’s reports. Investors are no longer asking only whether AI revenue is growing. They are asking whether this spending produces an acceptable return on capital. That is the critical distinction. Earnings can rise. Revenue can rise. But if every dollar is immediately reinvested, shareholders may not see the cash flow…