Wall Street Plunged into 'AI Phobia': An Indiscriminate Sell-off Is Spreading

marsbitОпубликовано 2026-02-11Обновлено 2026-02-11

Введение

Wall Street is experiencing a widespread "AI panic," triggering indiscriminate sell-offs across sectors perceived as vulnerable to AI disruption. The fear intensified recently when a tax-strategy tool from startup Altruist Corp. caused sharp declines in shares of major wealth managers like Charles Schwab, Raymond James, and LPL Financial. This reflects a broader market shift from focusing on AI winners to hastily dumping stocks of companies—from small software firms to large financial services—deemed at risk of being replaced by AI-driven products. Similar sell-offs occurred earlier in software, insurance, and asset management after AI companies like Anthropic and Insurify launched new tools. While some investors see this as an overreaction, citing the slow pace of technological adoption historically, others warn that AI’s rapid advancement is fueling legitimate anxiety. High market valuations have made stocks particularly sensitive to any negative signals, amplifying the volatility. The key uncertainty remains how quickly and deeply AI will reshape industries, leaving the market in a state of cautious speculation.

Source: Jinshi Data

On Wall Street, growing fears about artificial intelligence are hammering the stocks of companies that could become its targets of disruption, from small software firms to large wealth management companies, none have been spared.

The latest round of selling erupted on Tuesday when a tax strategy tool launched by a little-known startup, Altruist Corp., caused shares of Charles Schwab Corp., Raymond James Financial Inc., and LPL Financial Holdings Inc. to fall by 7% or more.

This marked the steepest decline for some of these stocks since the market crash triggered by the trade war last April. But it is just the latest example of the "sell first, ask questions later" mentality—a mindset that is rapidly taking hold as the hundreds of billions of dollars poured into AI begin to translate into commercial products, sparking anxiety that AI could disrupt entire industries.

"Companies with any potential disruption risk are being sold off indiscriminately," said John Belton, a fund manager at Gabelli Funds.

Over the past few years, advancements in AI technology have been at the forefront of Wall Street, with tech stocks leading the gains. As this rally pushed stock prices to record highs, questions have persisted about whether this is a bubble about to burst or whether it will trigger a productivity boom that reshapes the American corporate landscape.

But since the beginning of last week, a series of AI product launches has triggered a noticeable market shift. Instead of focusing on picking winners, investors are quickly trying to avoid holding any company facing even the slightest risk of being replaced.

"I don't know what's going to happen next," said Will Rhind, CEO of Graniteshares Advisors.

"Last year's story was that we all believed in AI—but we were looking for applications, and as we keep discovering applications that seem increasingly powerful and persuasive, it is now leading to disruption."

For some time, the software industry has been troubled by concerns about AI. Last week, when a new tool from Anthropic PBC triggered sharp declines in stocks across industries such as software, financial services, asset management, and legal services, these worries began to shift more broadly to other sectors.

The same fears hit U.S. insurance broker stocks hard on Monday after the online insurance marketplace Insurify launched a new app using ChatGPT to compare auto insurance rates. On Tuesday, wealth management stocks became the next victim, as the product Hazel launched by Altruist—which helps financial advisors create personalized strategies for clients—dragged these stocks down.

Wealth management stocks plunge on AI risk concerns

Altruist CEO Jason Wenk said he himself was surprised by the scale of the stock market reaction, which wiped tens of billions of dollars from the market value of several investment firms. But he said it sends a strong signal about the competitive threat his company poses.

"People are beginning to realize—the architecture we used to build Hazel, it can replace any job in wealth management," he said in an interview. "Usually these jobs are done by entire teams. And now, AI can effectively do these jobs for just $100 a month."

AI companies like OpenAI and Anthropic have already made solid progress in the field of software engineering with products that help developers simplify and debug code processes, and are now entering other industries.

However, many questions remain about how this technology will be adopted. Take banking, for example, which has periodically faced challenges from electronic services and other technologies, but these have ultimately failed to undermine its dominance.

Gabelli fund manager Belton is one of the skeptics about how Wall Street has shifted from worrying about an AI bubble to fearing its imminent disruption of large parts of the economy.

"There will be winners and losers in every industry," Belton said. But he added: "A rule of thumb is that technological disruption often takes longer to materialize than expected."

This pullback may also reflect widespread anxiety about the sharp rise in stock prices over the past few years, driven by the AI spending boom and an unusually resilient U.S. economy. This has already pushed valuations too high and made investors more sensitive to concerns about a reversal.

"As long as they emit a signal that the market perceives as somewhat negative, the stock will fall 10%, which would never happen in a market that hasn't reached current trading levels," said Graniteshares' Rhind.

For Ross Gerber, CEO of Gerber Kawasaki, the anxiety about AI losers that has been hitting parts of the market over the past week is premature. He said it is still too early to say exactly what the impact will be.

"We can try to extrapolate how AI will change the world in five years, but we just don't know," he said. "The market is trying to judge this while we are still at the beginning of this infancy."

Связанные с этим вопросы

QWhat is the main reason behind the recent sell-off in Wall Street stocks, particularly affecting companies like Charles Schwab and Raymond James?

AThe sell-off is primarily driven by growing fears that new AI products, such as Altruist Corp's tax strategy tool Hazel, could disrupt traditional business models in industries like wealth management, leading investors to indiscriminately dump stocks perceived as vulnerable to AI-driven disruption.

QHow did the launch of Altruist Corp's Hazel tool impact the stock prices of major financial firms?

AThe launch of Hazel caused significant stock price declines, with companies like Charles Schwab Corp., Raymond James Financial Inc., and LPL Financial Holdings Inc. falling by 7% or more, marking some of their worst drops since the market crash triggered by the trade war in April of last year.

QWhat shift in investor behavior is observed as AI products become commercially available?

AInvestors have shifted from focusing on picking AI winners to rapidly avoiding any companies that face even the slightest risk of being disrupted by AI, adopting a 'sell first, ask questions later' mentality.

QAccording to Jason Wenk, CEO of Altruist, why is AI seen as a threat to the wealth management industry?

AJason Wenk stated that AI tools like Hazel, built with advanced architectures, can replace various jobs in wealth management that are typically done by entire teams, performing these tasks effectively for as low as $100 per month.

QWhat skepticism do some experts, like John Belton of Gabelli Funds, express about the current AI-driven market disruption fears?

AJohn Belton expresses skepticism, noting that technological disruption often takes longer to materialize than expected, and while there will be winners and losers in every industry, the current panic may be premature given the early stage of AI adoption.

Похожее

Breaking: OpenAI Undergoes Major Reorganization, President Brockman Assumes Command

OpenAI has announced a major internal reorganization just months before its anticipated IPO. The company is merging its three flagship product lines—ChatGPT, Codex, and the API platform—into a single, unified product organization. The most significant leadership change involves co-founder and President Greg Brockman moving from a background technical role to take full, permanent control over all product strategy. This follows the indefinite medical leave of AGI Deployment CEO Fidji Simo. Additionally, ChatGPT's longtime lead, Nick Turley, has been reassigned to enterprise products, with former Instagram executive Ashley Alexander taking over consumer offerings. The consolidation, internally framed as a strategic move towards an "Agentic Future," aims to break down internal silos and create a cohesive "Super App." This planned desktop application would integrate ChatGPT's conversational abilities, Codex's coding power, and a rumored internal web browser named "Atlas" to autonomously perform complex user tasks. The reorganization occurs amid significant internal and external pressures. OpenAI has recently seen a wave of high-profile departures, including Sora co-lead Bill Peebles and other senior technical leaders, leading to concerns about a thinning executive bench. Externally, rival Anthropic recently secured funding at a staggering $900 billion valuation, surpassing OpenAI's own. Google's upcoming I/O developer conference also poses a competitive threat. Analysts suggest the dramatic restructure is a pre-IPO move to present a clearer, more focused narrative to Wall Street—streamlining operations and demonstrating decisive leadership under Brockman to counter internal turbulence and intense market competition.

marsbit58 мин. назад

Breaking: OpenAI Undergoes Major Reorganization, President Brockman Assumes Command

marsbit58 мин. назад

Two Survival Structures of Market Makers and Arbitrageurs

Market makers and arbitrageurs represent two distinct survival structures in high-frequency trading. Market makers primarily use limit orders (makers) to profit from the bid-ask spread, enjoying high capital efficiency (nominally 100%) but bearing inventory risk. This "inventory risk" arises from passive, fragmented, and discontinuous order fills in the limit order book (LOB). This risk, while a potential cost, can also contribute to excess profit if managed within control boundaries, allowing for mean reversion. Market makers essentially sell "time" (uncertainty over execution timing) to the market for price control and low fees. In contrast, cross-exchange arbitrageurs typically use market orders (takers) to exploit price differences or funding rates, resulting in lower nominal capital efficiency (requiring capital on both exchanges) and higher transaction costs. Their risk exposure stems from asymmetries in exchange rules (e.g., minimum order sizes), execution latency, and infrastructure risks (e.g., ADL, oracle drift). These exposures are active, exogenous gaps that primarily erode profits rather than contribute to them. Arbitrageurs essentially sell "space" (capital sunk across venues) for localized, immediate certainty. Both strategies engage in a trade-off between execution friction and residual risk. Optimal systems allow for temporary, controlled risk exposure rather than enforcing zero exposure at all costs. Their evolution converges towards hybrid models: arbitrageurs may use maker orders to reduce costs, while market makers may use taker orders or hedges for risk management. Ultimately, both use different forms of risk exposure—market makers exposing inventory, arbitrageurs immobilizing capital—to extract marginal, hard-won certainty from the market.

链捕手58 мин. назад

Two Survival Structures of Market Makers and Arbitrageurs

链捕手58 мин. назад

Who Will Define the Rules of the AI Era? Anthropic Discusses the 2028 US-China AI Landscape

This article, based on Anthropic's analysis, outlines the intensifying systemic competition between the U.S./allies and China for AI leadership by 2028. It argues that access to advanced computing power ("compute") is the critical bottleneck, where the U.S. currently holds a significant advantage through chip export controls and allied innovation. However, China's AI labs remain competitive by exploiting policy loopholes—via chip smuggling, overseas data center access, and "model distillation" attacks to copy U.S. model capabilities—keeping them close to the frontier. The piece presents two contrasting scenarios for 2028. In the first, decisive U.S. action to tighten compute controls and curb distillation locks in a 12-24 month AI capability lead, cementing democratic influence over global AI norms, security, and economic infrastructure. In the second, policy inaction allows China to achieve near-parity through continued access to U.S. technology, enabling Beijing to promote its AI stack globally and integrate advanced AI into its military and governance systems, altering the strategic balance. Anthropic contends that maintaining a decisive U.S. lead is essential for shaping safe AI development and governance. The core recommendation is for U.S. policymakers to urgently close compute and model access loopholes while promoting global adoption of the U.S. AI technology stack to secure a lasting strategic advantage.

marsbit3 ч. назад

Who Will Define the Rules of the AI Era? Anthropic Discusses the 2028 US-China AI Landscape

marsbit3 ч. назад

Торговля

Спот
Фьючерсы
活动图片