The US Stock Market in 2026, It's Almost Too Easy, and That Makes Me Nervous

marsbitPublicado a 2026-05-08Actualizado a 2026-05-08

Resumen

The U.S. stock market's performance in 2026, particularly in the semiconductor memory sector, has generated significant returns that make some investors uneasy. A popular sentiment contrasts the perceived skill required for success in China's A-shares with the apparent ease of profiting from simply holding U.S. stocks. The primary driver is a global memory chip boom. Stocks like Micron, Seagate, Western Digital, and especially SanDisk (spinning off from WDC in 2025) have skyrocketed, with some gains exceeding 500% or even 2200%. Korean giants Samsung and SK Hynix, dominating their domestic index, have also surged. This rally is fueled by an AI-driven demand surge for memory like HBM (High-Bandwidth Memory), critical for AI chips. Tech giants like Google and Microsoft are placing massive, "unpriced" orders, while analysts continuously upgrade forecasts. SK Hynix reported its 2026 HBM capacity is already sold out. Despite record profits and sky-high margins (e.g., SK Hynix's 72% operating margin), major memory manufacturers are deliberately restricting capital expenditure and capacity expansion, controlling over 90% of DRAM supply. This supply discipline sustains high prices but draws parallels to cartel behavior. The situation presents two narratives. The bullish case sees AI demand as a structural, long-term shift with a prolonged supply gap. The bearish case, exemplified by short-seller Citron's failed bet against SanDisk, warns of a classic commodity cycle where prices e...

「Making money in the A-share market proves you have skill, luck, courage, competence, foresight, insight, and patience.

Making money in the US stock market only proves you have money in the US stock market.」

This has become the reality for most US stock traders in 2026.

Those who quietly bought US memory stocks, uninstalled the app, and went to relax, logged back in one day to find their accounts had multiplied several times over.

Spurred by the US market, A-share memory stocks are also taking off.

Crypto enthusiasts have shifted from discussing memecoins and altcoins to talking about US stocks: 「I live every day in fear of US stocks rising and BTC falling」.

New account holders pose the soul-searching question in group chats: Why is making money in US stocks so easy?

1. Who's Actually Rising in the US Stock Market?

The clear capital theme in the 2026 global market is storage.

Justin Sun was among the first to tout the storage sector in late 2025.

As netizens calculated, if you had bought US memory-related stocks at the time Sun made his call:

If you bought Micron, you'd be up +222%; if you bought Seagate, up +256%; if you bought Western Digital, up +280%; if you bought SanDisk, up +515%.

If you had invested 500,000 yuan in SanDisk stock a year ago, you would now have 15 million yuan.

What exactly is 'storage'?

Memory chips are the components in computers and phones responsible for 'remembering' things, divided into two types: DRAM handles short-term memory, used to temporarily store data while programs run; NAND handles long-term memory, where your phone's photos and files are stored. Choosing between 128G and 256G for a phone—that capacity is NAND.

Globally, the companies capable of producing these two things number no more than five.

The stocks of these five companies have surged this way over the past year:

SanDisk, spun off from Western Digital in February 2025, an old company making USB drives and SSDs, saw its stock price peak at a 22-fold increase.

Micron, a cyclical stock shunned by fund managers for a decade, rose over 550% in a year, with gross margins pulled from 18% to 56%. Apple's gross margin is about 43%, already considered a high-water mark for profitability in tech. Micron is now higher.

SK Hynix is up 123% this year. Samsung is up 94%.

Seagate, Western Digital, both at all-time highs.

Then there's South Korea.

Samsung and SK Hynix together account for over 30% of the weighting of South Korea's KOSPI index. In 2025, they drove the entire Korean stock market up 76%, clinching the annual champion title among major global indices.

Two memory makers' explosive performance lifted an entire nation's stock market.

On the price side, it's even more direct. DDR4 memory chips, $1.45 at the start of 2025, peaked at $17 in February 2026, an almost 12-fold increase in a year. Kingston 16GB memory sticks in Huaqiangbei rose from 200 yuan to 800 yuan. Part of the reason your recent phone or computer purchase was more expensive lies in these stocks you didn't buy.

SK Hynix's Q1 2026 net profit exploded by 398%, with an operating margin of 72%. Samsung Electronics' overall operating profit skyrocketed 755% year-on-year.

Sell 100 yuan worth of memory, 72 yuan is profit, 28 yuan is cost. This isn't doing business anymore; this is mining.

2. Institutions Have Lost Their Minds Even More Than Retail

In a typical market, institutions are the ones in sharp suits, expressionlessly saying "we are bullish long-term on fundamentals," while retail investors are the ones shouting "to the moon!" in group chats.

In the 2025-2026 storage sector, the institutions went crazy first.

Google, Microsoft, Amazon began placing "price-unlimited, quantity-unlimited" open orders with Micron.

The term "price-unlimited" is worth pondering. It means you name your price, we pay it, no haggling. This procurement method usually appears in wartime scenarios when governments buy military supplies.

In 2025-2026, it appeared in tech companies buying memory sticks.

Broadcom locked in supply through 2028.

SK Hynix said at an investor conference: "Our 2026 HBM production capacity is completely sold out."

Completely. The entire year.

HBM is high-end memory specifically designed to work with AI chips. For every AI chip Nvidia sells, a piece of HBM must accompany it. Globally, only SK Hynix, Samsung, and Micron can make HBM, with SK Hynix holding about 57% market share. "Completely sold out" means one of the most critical components in global AI infrastructure has no spares for the entire year of 2026.

Then came the analysts.

Within three months, Wall Street's consensus estimate for SanDisk's 2026 EPS was revised up by 172%. Citigroup predicted a 144% year-on-year increase in the average price of server DRAM in 2026. Nomura said the supercycle would last at least until 2027, with meaningful supply increases earliest in 2028. Melius upgraded Micron to Buy after the stock had already risen hundreds of percent, adding "still 41% upside over the next 12 months," without blushing or losing breath.

DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis publicly stated that the overall memory supply chain is constrained, hampering massive AI deployment. Intel CEO Dr. Randhir Thakur (Note: The article uses "陈立武", likely a mistake or alias; actual CEO at the time is Pat Gelsinger, but the translation follows the text) said memory shortages won't ease before 2028.

Then SK Hynix secretly filed with the SEC to issue ADRs in the US, aiming to raise up to $15 billion. A company with fully sold-out capacity and a 72% profit margin decided to go raise more money in New York, reasoning that the Korean market gives too low a valuation, while US investors understand AI better and are willing to pay a higher price.

The A-share market followed suit.

DeMingLi hit limit-up, BIWIN Storage surged, Longsys rose 41%. Small player Shannon Semi's Q1 net profit was preliminarily estimated to grow 6714% to 8747%, a quadruple-digit increase. Topics in finance groups shifted from "Is CSI 300 still worth buying?" to "Which to buy, Micron or SK Hynix?" People who didn't know how to spell HBM two months ago started explaining how High Bandwidth Memory works in group chats.

Even many matchmaking groups started discussing memory stocks.

3. The Most Ironic Scene

On February 24, 2026, Citron Research announced it was shorting SanDisk, giving three reasons.

First, memory is cyclical. 2008, 2012, 2018—each period of high profitability ended in a crash. Existing capacity is already double the 2018 peak. Supply release is just a matter of time.

Second, SanDisk sells a commodity.

"Nvidia has a moat; SanDisk is just a commodity." Nvidia's moat is its CUDA software ecosystem; almost all global AI models run on it, making switching costs extremely high.

SanDisk's SSDs? Samsung could make an identical one tomorrow, possibly cheaper.

Third, major shareholder Western Digital is massively selling SanDisk shares at a 25% discount to the market price.

Selling their own stock at a 25% off. Needing cash urgently is one possibility; another is thinking it will be cheaper later. Neither scenario is called being bullish on future prospects.

Two trading days later, SanDisk rebounded and later continued to hit new all-time highs. Citron's report circulated in various finance groups, becoming meme material.

One question was skipped by everyone: Whose accounts did those shares sold at a 25% discount ultimately end up in?

4. Making Money in US Stocks, As Easy as Breathing?

The world's three most profitable memory companies, at the peak of their profits, collectively chose not to expand production.

SK Hynix's 2025 capital expenditure related to HBM fell 50% year-on-year, officially citing concerns about oversupply in 2027. Samsung's 2026 DRAM capacity growth is only about 5%, far below demand growth.

The entire industry's capital expenditure growth is only 14%, while historically during each expansion phase it's typically 30% to 50%.

Three companies controlling 92% of global DRAM capacity simultaneously choosing not to expand production has a name in any other commodity market: supply-side coordination. OPEC did this with oil, resulting in the 1973 oil crisis. The concentration in the memory chip market is even higher than OPEC's; the combined market share of these three is something thirteen oil-producing nations can't achieve.

Investors interpreting "manufacturers' restraint in expansion" as a positive is logically not wrong; prices can indeed be sustained longer. But what this structure means for the buyers on the other end isn't in any analyst report.

Two plausible narratives can be told about this rally.

The first: AI's demand for memory is a structural shift. AI models in the inference era need to remember increasingly long contexts, requiring memory in orders of magnitude more. The three major memory makers control 92% of capacity, new fabs won't be operational until 2027 at the earliest, and the gap won't disappear before then.

The second: It's just like every other time in history. The 2000 dot-com bubble narrative was "the internet changes everything," which was true. The 2008 subprime narrative was "housing prices won't fall nationwide," which also held up based on historical data back then. The real problem is never whether the story is right, but whether the price has already discounted that story.

The memory industry has an ironclad rule, unbroken for 30 years: Prices rise slowly, but fall fast.

During the 2018 supercycle, from peak to halving took less than two quarters.

No one knows which day this cycle's peak will be. Including those selling shares at a 25% discount, or rather, especially those selling shares at a 25% discount, because they are selling chips—and selling chips to those who are currently believing the story is the most efficient.

The last time you bought a phone, upgrading the memory from 128G to 256G cost you an extra three or four hundred yuan. That three or four hundred yuan traveled through an industry chain, distributing profits layer by layer, and a tiny portion of it ultimately appeared in SK Hynix's 72% operating margin, in Samsung's 755% profit growth, and in all those stocks you didn't buy.

It also, of course, finally aggregates into the moment you open any social media app and see others' soul-searching question: Why is making money in US stocks so easy?

Preguntas relacionadas

QWhat is the main investment theme driving the global capital markets in 2026, according to the article?

AAccording to the article, the main investment theme driving global capital markets in 2026 is the storage sector, specifically storage memory chips.

QHow did the profitability of leading storage companies like SK Hynix compare to that of Apple in 2026, as mentioned in the article?

AThe article states that in 2026, Micron Technology, a leading storage company, achieved a gross margin of 56%, which was higher than Apple's gross margin of approximately 43%. SK Hynix's operating profit margin was reported to be 72%.

QWhy did Citron Research issue a short report on SanDisk in February 2026, and what was the subsequent market reaction?

ACitron Research issued a short report on SanDisk on February 24, 2026. Their main arguments were that the storage sector is cyclical, SanDisk's products are commodities without a strong moat, and its major shareholder, Western Digital, was selling shares at a 25% discount. The market's initial reaction was a price dip, but SanDisk's stock rebounded after two trading days and continued to reach new highs, making the report a subject of memes in financial chat groups.

QWhat is HBM memory, and why is its supply critically tight in 2026?

AHBM (High Bandwidth Memory) is a high-end type of memory specifically designed to work with AI chips, like those from Nvidia. The article explains that in 2026, the supply of HBM was critically tight because SK Hynix, which holds about 57% of the market, stated its entire 2026 HBM production capacity was already sold out for the year. This shortage is a key bottleneck for global AI infrastructure deployment.

QAccording to the article, what is a unique and potentially concerning behavior of the top three storage companies during the 2026 market boom?

AA unique and potentially concerning behavior highlighted in the article is that during the peak of profitability in 2026, the top three global storage companies (Samsung, SK Hynix, and Micron) collectively chose not to significantly expand their production capacity. Their capital expenditure growth was much lower than historical norms during expansion periods. This lack of supply increase, while supporting high prices, creates a market structure reminiscent of coordinated supply-side control, similar to OPEC in the oil market.

Lecturas Relacionadas

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.

marsbitHace 15 min(s)

GitHub, Transfixed by AI

marsbitHace 15 min(s)

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.

marsbitHace 22 min(s)

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

marsbitHace 22 min(s)

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.

marsbitHace 35 min(s)

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

marsbitHace 35 min(s)

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片