Legendary Investor: 'Absolutely No Way' for Walsh to Cut Rates, AI Bull Market Could Last 1-2 More Years

marsbitPublished on 2026-05-08Last updated on 2026-05-08

Abstract

Billionaire hedge fund manager Paul Tudor Jones says incoming Fed Chair Wash is highly unlikely to cut rates and could even consider raising them, citing FOMC pushback and persistent inflation. He remains bullish on the AI-driven stock market rally, comparing it to historical tech revolutions like Microsoft's founding (1981) and the commercialization of the internet (1995). Jones believes this AI bull market is only about 50-60% complete and could continue for another 1-2 years, though he warns the current period resembles the late stages of the 1999 dot-com bubble, setting the stage for a potential sharp correction if valuations become extreme. He also cautions that AI requires eventual government regulation to mitigate long-term risks.

Source: Jinshi Data

Billionaire hedge fund manager Paul Tudor Jones made a significant statement in an interview with CNBC on Thursday, predicting that incoming Fed Chair Walsh is not only unlikely to cut interest rates but may even consider raising them. Meanwhile, he remains optimistic about the AI-driven U.S. stock bull market, believing it is in a middle stage with another 1-2 years of gains possible, though it will ultimately face the risk of a sharp correction.

No Hope for Walsh to Cut Rates, Possibly Even a Rate Hike

Regarding the policy direction of the incoming Federal Reserve Chair Walsh, Jones stated unequivocally: "Will he cut rates? Absolutely no way."

Walsh has previously expressed a dovish leaning, with the Fed's benchmark rate currently held in the 3.5%-3.75% range, unchanged since last December. However, his inclination towards easing will face significant resistance from the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) – the most recent meeting saw the highest number of dissenting votes in nearly 34 years, with most regional Fed presidents opposing the statement's hint at possible further easing "after three rate cuts by the end of 2025."

Jones believes that even a rate hike could be justified in the current environment: "I would consider raising rates, of course depending on the data, but I would definitely consider it. And I think he will be constrained before the midterm elections."

The current policy backdrop is complex: the labor market is stabilizing, but inflation remains persistently above the Fed's 2% target due to the war in Iran and Trump's tariff policies. According to CME Group's FedWatch tool, futures traders expect the Fed to keep rates unchanged this year, with probabilities for cuts or hikes being roughly equal and both relatively low.

Drawing Parallels to Historical Tech Waves, AI Bull Market Has 1-2 Years Left

Regarding the stock market, Jones is firmly bullish on the AI-driven rally, revealing he has recently increased his holdings in related stocks. He compares the current AI development to two major historical tech revolutions: "I think the emergence of the Claude large model in January this year is equivalent to the founding of Microsoft in 1981; and the current stage of AI proliferation is similar to the release of Windows 95 in 1995 and the acceleration of internet commercialization."

Jones noted that both those technological revolutions ushered in sustained "productivity miracles" lasting 4 to 5.5 years, driving long-term stock market gains. "This current AI bull market has probably run about 50% to 60% of its course. If I had to pick a timeframe, it could last another 1 to 2 years."

In recent years, U.S. stocks have continued hitting new highs driven by AI transformation expectations, with mega-cap tech stocks related to AI infrastructure leading the gains. Chips, cloud computing, and generative AI companies have become magnets for capital, pushing the S&P 500 index to repeated all-time highs.

Analogous to Pre-1999 Dot-com Bubble, U.S. Stocks May Face Sharp Correction Risk in Future

Despite his bullish short-term outlook, Jones draws a parallel between the current market and the prelude to the 1999 dot-com bubble – about a year before it peaked in early 2000. He warns: "Imagine the market going up another 40%, the total market cap to GDP ratio could reach 300% to 350%, and at that point, there will inevitably be a breathtakingly sharp correction."

As a macro trader, Jones said he employs a basket allocation strategy, while also emphasizing: "I always like to look for historical precedents, and this is a very unique period."

Additionally, he issued a warning about the long-term risks of AI: "The government will eventually need to step in with regulation. If left unchecked, artificial intelligence could pose a danger to humanity."

Jones gained fame for successfully predicting and profiting from the 1987 "Black Monday" stock market crash. He is also a co-founder of the non-profit organization Just Capital, which rates U.S. public companies based on social and environmental metrics.

Related Questions

QAccording to Paul Tudor Jones, what is the likelihood of the incoming Fed Chair Walsh cutting interest rates?

AAccording to Paul Tudor Jones, the likelihood of the incoming Fed Chair Walsh cutting interest rates is absolutely none. Jones stated: 'He will cut rates? Absolutely not.'

QWhat historical technological revolutions does Paul Tudor Jones compare the current AI boom to?

APaul Tudor Jones compares the current AI boom to two historical technological revolutions. He compares the emergence of Claude's large model in January of this year to Microsoft's founding in 1981. He then compares the current stage of AI proliferation to the period following the release of Windows 95 in 1995, which accelerated the commercialization of the internet.

QHow much longer does Paul Tudor Jones believe the AI-driven bull market can continue?

APaul Tudor Jones believes the AI-driven bull market can continue for another 1 to 2 years. He estimates the current bull run is about 50% to 60% complete.

QWhat market period does Jones use as a cautionary analogy for the potential end of the current AI bull market?

AJones uses the period preceding the 1999-2000 dot-com bubble as a cautionary analogy. He warns that the market could resemble 1999, roughly a year before the peak in early 2000, and ultimately face a sharp correction.

QWhat long-term risk associated with AI does Paul Tudor Jones highlight?

APaul Tudor Jones highlights the long-term risk that artificial intelligence could pose a danger to humanity if left unchecked. He warns that 'government will ultimately have to step in to regulate it, and if left unchecked, artificial intelligence could be dangerous to humans.'

Related Reads

GitHub, Transfixed by AI

On the night of February 9th, GitHub suffered a major outage caused by a simple configuration change—reducing a cache refresh interval from 12 to 2 hours—that triggered a cascade of failures. This was not an isolated event, but part of a broader pattern. In early 2026, GitHub experienced at least 8 major incidents, failing to meet its promised 99.9% availability. These outages stemmed from structural issues: explosive growth in load, tight service coupling, and insufficient protection against abnormal traffic. This unprecedented load is driven by AI Agents. In 2025, GitHub handled ~1 billion commits. By 2026, weekly commits reached 275 million, projecting to ~14 billion for the year—a 14x increase. AI tools like Claude Code now contribute 4.5% of all public repository commits, with weekly submissions surging 25x in just three months. AI-generated pull requests jumped from 4 million to 17 million per month in half a year. Unlike human developers, AI Agents work continuously, generating commits at a scale that overwhelms infrastructure designed for human rhythms. The surge also shattered GitHub's business model. Copilot's flat-rate pricing, based on assisting human developers, became unsustainable as Agentic AI sessions consumed resources worth hundreds of dollars for a few dollars in fees. In response, GitHub imposed usage limits and, by June 1st, shifted to a pay-per-use "AI Credits" system. Facing this new reality, GitHub realized a 10x scaling plan was insufficient. It announced a need to *redesign* its architecture for 30x current scale—decoupling services, adding fault isolation, and improving change management to prevent cascading failures. Other platforms like Stripe and AWS are facing similar challenges with AI Agents. Fundamentally, GitHub is transitioning from a human collaboration platform to an "exhaust pipe" for automated AI workflows. Its detailed post-mortem reports aim to maintain trust during this turbulent rebuild. The February outage was not just a technical glitch, but a signal of the software industry's entry into a new, AI-driven era.

marsbit11m ago

GitHub, Transfixed by AI

marsbit11m ago

Both Suffer Massive Losses Exceeding $90 Billion, Which Is in Greater Peril: Strategy or Bitmine?

Facing massive paper losses exceeding $90 billion each amidst a sharp market downturn, "Digital Asset Treasury" (DAT) giants Strategy and Bitmine find themselves in a precarious position, but with different underlying risks. Strategy, heavily invested in Bitcoin (BTC), faces significant financial strain. Its strategy relies heavily on debt, including convertible notes and preferred stock (STRC) requiring substantial dividend payments. With its cash reserves dwindling and BTC offering no staking yield for cash flow, Strategy's high leverage makes it vulnerable. A continued price decline could force asset sales to meet obligations, potentially creating a negative feedback loop. Its market value has already fallen sharply. In contrast, Bitmine, an Ethereum (ETH) holder, appears on firmer financial ground. It primarily funds its purchases through equity offerings (like ATM programs), avoiding debt pressure. It also generates income by staking a large portion of its ETH holdings. While not immune to market drops and shareholder dilution concerns, Bitmine maintains more flexibility, recently announcing a new preferred share offering to raise further capital. The core divergence lies in their financing: Bitmine uses equity (investor money), while Strategy uses debt (borrowed money). Consequently, Bitmine currently faces less immediate liquidity pressure than Strategy, which must navigate the dual challenge of servicing debt/dividends and a declining core asset (BTC) price.

marsbit18m ago

Both Suffer Massive Losses Exceeding $90 Billion, Which Is in Greater Peril: Strategy or Bitmine?

marsbit18m ago

Where the AI Bubble Really Is: Which Layer of Players Are Naked

AI Bubble: Where It Really Is and Who's Swimming Naked This analysis dissects the AI industry not as a single entity but as a five-layer pyramid, arguing that bubbles are concentrated in specific tiers, not uniformly distributed. **Key Distinction from the 2000 Dot-com Bubble:** Unlike 2000, where companies had stock prices before revenue, today's leading AI players have massive, contract-backed revenue driving their valuations. Core infrastructure demand is real, with every GPU running at full capacity for paying customers. **The Five-Layer Pyramid & Bubble Assessment:** * **L0 (Fab/Manufacturing) & Top L4 (Leading AI Apps): NO BUBBLE.** Companies like TSMC, NVIDIA, major cloud providers (Microsoft, Google, Meta, Amazon), and top AI labs have real revenues and orders. Supply is tightly constrained by TSMC's disciplined capacity control and physical limits like power/land for data centers, preventing a supply glut. * **L1 (Memory): BATTLEGROUND.** Sky-high HBM margins could signal a new structural cycle or a classic "boom before bust." The oligopoly of three major players may enforce supply discipline, making this a high-stakes bet. * **L2 (Interconnect/Optical Modules): BUBBLE TERRITORY.** Companies like Lumentum and AAOI have seen stock surges (4-10x) far outpacing revenue growth. This hardware segment has lower physical barriers to expansion than fabs, allowing speculation. It mirrors the 2000 bubble's epicenter—optics. * **L3 (Infrastructure/"GPU Landlords"): VULNERABLE.** GPU leasing companies profit from the current compute shortage but own no long-term moat. Their business model relies on a temporary bottleneck that will ease as big tech expands and new tech (e.g., potential space-based data centers) emerges. * **L4 Long Tail (VC-backed Startups): STRONG BUBBLE SIGNALS.** VC funding concentration in AI is twice that of the 1999 peak. Many startups with little revenue use the valuation logic of successful giants to justify their own, creating high risk of a "valuation crunch" when funding dries up. **Critical Risks to Monitor:** 1. **GPU Depreciation & Accounting:** Companies extending the assumed useful life of GPUs artificially boost profits. The true economic life depends on future generational leaps from NVIDIA. 2. **"GPU Credit" & Off-Balance-Sheet Leverage:** Emerging structures where shell companies borrow to buy GPUs and lease them out (with chipmakers sometimes investing) move debt off major balance sheets. This echoes the "vendor financing" of 2000 and the securitization risks of 2008, though currently small-scale. 3. **TSMC Abandoning Caution:** If the primary supply bottleneck (TSMC's conservative capacity planning) breaks, runaway supply could trigger a bust. 4. **Algorithmic Efficiency Breakthrough:** A major leap in software efficiency could drastically reduce the need for raw compute hardware, undermining the investment thesis. **Conclusion:** The AI boom is expensive and has frothy areas, but its core is underpinned by real demand and physical supply constraints. The bubble risk is layered: most present in optical components, GPU leasing, and the long-tail startup ecosystem, while the foundational chip manufacturing and leading application layers remain relatively solid—for now.

marsbit31m ago

Where the AI Bubble Really Is: Which Layer of Players Are Naked

marsbit31m ago

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片