美股内存股强劲反弹,闪迪因何大涨26%

投研日志2026-07-31 tarihinde yayınlandı2026-07-31 tarihinde güncellendi

Özet

7月暴跌的警告仍未离去。内存股在上半年曾出现抛物线式上涨,价格已包含极高的盈利预期。

7月30日,美股AI和半导体大涨。其中,闪迪在暴跌后形成高波动的V形修复,但远未收复7月跌幅。

  当地时间7月30日,美股强劲反弹,人工智能(AI)和半导体成为主线。

  道琼斯工业平均指数收于52208.06点,涨613.92点,涨幅1.19%;标普500指数收于7437.63点,涨121.48点,涨幅1.66%;纳斯达克综合指数收于25122.18点,涨679.24点,涨幅2.78%。

  “七巨头”涨势分化明显。微软大涨15.51%,收于451.10美元,强劲财报和云业务增长缓解了市场对AI资本开支的担忧。英伟达涨2.65%,亚马逊涨3.90%,特斯拉涨3.53%;苹果跌1.41%,谷歌母公司字母表跌(Alphabet)0.91%,Meta Platforms(脸书母公司)跌7.95%。

  内存和AI半导体领涨。美光涨18.36%,收于874.66美元;闪迪涨25.99%,收于1279.96美元;西部数据涨15.37%,希捷涨11.41%,博通涨4.73%。安硕半导体交易型基金涨8.50%,费城半导体指数当日涨约8%。

  闪迪在暴跌后形成高波动的V形修复,但远未收复7月跌幅。盘中一度最高达到1365美元,较前收盘最高上涨34.37%,收报1279.96美元,单日上涨264.1美元。

本轮回弹来自整个AI与半导体板块,而非闪迪单独发布了重大利好。微软财报显示Azure增长强劲,市场重新相信大型科技公司的AI投入正在转化为收入和利润,带动存储器、处理器及半导体设备股集体反弹。

  此外,无论是在芯片股还是内存股范围内,闪迪在过往波段中的涨幅和跌幅都是最夸张的,以6月30日收盘价2273.73美元计算,即使7月30日暴涨26%,其股价截至当天仍累计下跌43.71%。换句话说,本次暴涨更多是在修复前期踩踏,而不是重新回到原来的价格中枢。

  闪迪已确定于8月5日公布2026财年第四季度及全年业绩。在业绩窗口临近时,空头止盈、投资者抄底和期权对冲容易互相强化。

  微软最新季度收入及利润均超过市场预期,Azure及其他云服务收入同比增长43%,微软云收入增长27%至593亿美元;公司同时表示,2026年资本支出预期没有改变。对内存产业而言,这组数据的重要性在于:全球最大的AI基础设施买家仍在扩建算力,而新增服务器不只需要GPU,也需要高带宽存储器(HBM)、服务器DRAM和企业级固态硬盘。此前市场担心云厂商削减投资,微软的业绩至少暂时打消了这一疑虑。

  HBM需要更复杂的堆叠和封装,占用更多晶圆产能;生产商将产能优先分配给HBM和服务器DRAM,又进一步挤压传统DRAM与NAND闪存供应。彭博援引产业人士判断,全球基础晶圆供给相对需求仍存在两成以上缺口,紧张状况可能延续数年。这也是美光、SK海力士和三星能够维持定价权的核心原因。

  7月暴跌的警告仍未离去。内存股在上半年曾出现抛物线式上涨,价格已包含极高的盈利预期。近期市场担忧主要集中在三点:其一,微软、Meta、Alphabet和亚马逊的AI投入规模越来越大,但自由现金流和投资回报能否同步增长仍待验证;其二,三星、SK海力士和美光均在加快扩产,2027年以后供给增加可能削弱议价能力;其三,中国内存厂商长鑫存储的扩张和上市,使市场重新评估成熟DRAM领域的竞争格局。此外,高利率和长端美债收益率上升,也被认为会放大高波动科技股的估值压力。

İlgili Okumalar

Why Are Leveraged ETFs like 7709 Inherently Negative EV Products?

This article argues that the SK H力士 2x Leveraged ETF (7709) is fundamentally a negative expected value (EV) product, rather than simply a "double SK H力士" investment. Its core issue stems from its daily rebalancing mechanism to maintain a 2x leverage target. After a price move, the fund must buy more after a rise or sell after a fall to readjust its leverage, creating a systematic pattern of buying high and selling low. This introduces a "delay loss": it always reacts to past price changes, missing potential gains from adjusting earlier during an uptrend and suffering greater losses from adjusting later during a downtrend. While more frequent intraday rebalancing would improve returns in strong, smooth trending markets by reinvesting profits or cutting losses sooner, it also dramatically increases volatility drag (frictional losses) during choppy, oscillating markets due to more frequent high-buy/low-sell trades. The author draws a parallel to an option seller who delta hedges (short gamma), which involves similar "buy high, sell low" dynamic hedging. However, unlike an option seller who receives upfront premium (IV and theta) as compensation for this risk, the leveraged ETF investor receives no such compensation. Instead, they bear all the path-dependent volatility decay, plus additional costs like swap/derivatives financing, management fees, and trading slippage. Thus, the product's return profile can be framed as: 2x directional return minus realized variance drag minus financing costs minus derivatives costs minus management fees minus transaction costs. For the investor to profit, SK H力士's price must not only rise significantly but do so in a strong, sustained, and smooth trend to overcome these inherent structural costs. High volatility and frequent price reversals are particularly damaging. The article also notes that while the ETF has no explicit liquidation line like perpetual futures, avoiding a sudden "blow-up," its net asset value can still decay towards zero over time through this combination of volatility drag and fees. For experienced traders, directly managing leverage via perpetual contracts may offer more control and potentially lower costs than this packaged, mechanistic product.

marsbit6 dk önce

Why Are Leveraged ETFs like 7709 Inherently Negative EV Products?

marsbit6 dk önce

'Backstabbing' or 'Win-Win'? How Likely Is TradeXYZ to Break Away from Hyperliquid and Go Solo?

The article discusses the growing debate over whether TradeXYZ, which dominates Hyperliquid's HIP-3 market with over 90% of its volume, might break away to build its own independent trading platform. This possibility is fueled by TradeXYZ's immense market influence and the common industry trend of successful projects seeking more control and profit capture. Key arguments for a potential split include TradeXYZ's overwhelming contribution to Hyperliquid's metrics and the financial incentive to retain all transaction fees, as it currently splits them 50/50 with Hyperliquid. The piece draws parallels to other cases, like Anthropic's "Claude Code" competing with its former partner Cursor, suggesting "betrayal" can occur when business leverage shifts. However, strong counterarguments suggest a split is unlikely or would be detrimental. TradeXYZ relies on Hyperliquid's high-performance infrastructure and its platform as a primary user acquisition channel. Building a comparable system would be challenging. Furthermore, the founders of both projects share a history of trust and mutual admiration. The analysis concludes that a separation would likely be a lose-lose scenario: Hyperliquid would lose a major growth narrative and trading volume, while TradeXYZ would face technical hurdles, user migration issues, and reputational damage, potentially allowing competitors to seize market share. The most rational path is seen as continued collaboration, with TradeXYZ potentially negotiating better terms while leveraging Hyperliquid's established strengths.

marsbit15 dk önce

'Backstabbing' or 'Win-Win'? How Likely Is TradeXYZ to Break Away from Hyperliquid and Go Solo?

marsbit15 dk önce

The Artificial Intelligence Economy Could Accelerate the Establishment of Dominance for Dollar-Pegged Stablecoins

Economists from the ASEAN+3 Macroeconomic Research Office (AMRO) suggest that the winner in the artificial intelligence (AI) race may not be the country developing the most powerful AI model, but the one whose currency underpins these models and their infrastructure. Their thesis outlines a potential cycle where AI-related costs—such as energy for data centers, infrastructure, and usage fees—are denominated in U.S. dollars. As AI grows into a massive industry, this could significantly increase global demand for U.S. dollar liquidity (first channel of dollar dominance). A second channel involves the currency used for payments between AI agents, expected to become widespread in logistics, inventory, and treasury management. Dollar-pegged stablecoins could provide the programmable settlements required for such agent commerce. These two channels may converge, creating a self-reinforcing "dollar loop" where AI computational payments are settled in stablecoins. Stablecoins could gain an early advantage over alternatives like CBDCs due to existing network effects, further entrenching dollar dominance. This would also boost demand for U.S. Treasury bonds used as collateral for stablecoin reserves. The report warns ASEAN+3 nations of over-reliance on this dollar loop and suggests developing regional data centers and tokenized money based on local currencies to participate in the AI economy without reinforcing dollar dependency.

cryptonews.ru18 dk önce

The Artificial Intelligence Economy Could Accelerate the Establishment of Dominance for Dollar-Pegged Stablecoins

cryptonews.ru18 dk önce

Base Claims Its Distribution Advantage Can Outlast Robinhood Chain's Initial Surge

Base, a layer-2 blockchain, argues that its established distribution network will outlast Robinhood Chain's initial popularity surge. While Robinhood Chain quickly attracted 230,000 daily active users and over $9 billion in DEX volume (primarily from meme coins) shortly after launch, its core feature of tokenized stocks saw minimal use. Base acknowledged shortcomings in focusing on social blockchain products and lagging in areas like perpetual contracts, predictions markets, and on-chain tokenized stocks—a move Robinhood got right. In response, Base highlights its nearly three-year head start in building infrastructure. It emphasizes its x402 payment protocol, which has processed 187.8 million agent payments, its $3.9 billion in stablecoin deposits (mostly USDC), and its integration with partners like Visa, Shopify, and JPMorgan for institutional and merchant settlements. Base contends these capabilities for corporate payments and stablecoin liquidity represent a more durable and defensible ecosystem than Robinhood's retail trading metrics. Coinbase plans to launch its own on-chain, share-backed tokenized stocks on Base, which would directly challenge Robinhood's key differentiating feature. Base's strategy bets that its deep-rooted distribution and institutional partnerships will prove harder to overcome than Robinhood's early, meme-driven volume, which may fade after the initial launch hype.

cryptonews.ru21 dk önce

Base Claims Its Distribution Advantage Can Outlast Robinhood Chain's Initial Surge

cryptonews.ru21 dk önce

İşlemler

Spot
活动图片