In our view, the second quarter was defined by strong but uneven US equity performance. The S&P 500 delivered a solid rebound in April, posting its best monthly gain since November 2020 and moving to fresh record highs before volatility re-emerged in June. The Nasdaq followed a similar pattern, with technology leadership driving the upside early in the quarter before investors began questioning the durability of the move. For example, the same AI and mega-cap growth stocks that helped propel the market higher also became sources of late-quarter fragility as valuation, positioning, and capital-spending concerns intensified. The result was a quarter that looked particularly strong at the index level but more complicated beneath the surface.
Market breadth improved late in the period, which was an important shift from the narrower leadership that dominated much of the prior rally. The equal-weight S&P 500 outpaced the cap-weighted index by roughly 300 basis points, suggesting investors were beginning to move beyond the largest technology companies and into a broader set of cyclical, small-cap, and economically sensitive names. Small caps and semiconductors were especially notable examples of this broadening-out dynamic. That said, the improvement in breadth should not be interpreted as an all-clear signal: leadership remained heavily tied to AI infrastructure, earnings momentum, and liquidity-sensitive growth areas, leaving the market vulnerable if those themes were to weaken.
Investor sentiment swung sharply risk-on as the quarter progressed. For example, we witnessed a renewed appetite for higher-beta areas of the market: small caps, semiconductors, and unprofitable growth stocks all rallied as investors became more comfortable adding cyclical and duration-sensitive exposure. That shift helps explain the speed and force of the rally, as systematic strategies, momentum investors, and under-positioned allocators were all pulled back into equities as price action improved. However, the same positioning backdrop also created downside risk. When sentiment becomes one-sided, even modest disappointments in earnings, inflation, or AI monetization can trigger rapid de-risking because the marginal buyer has already moved in.
Corporate earnings were the clearest fundamental support for the rally. Q1 S&P 500 earnings growth came in near 28% year-over-year, well above expectations and the strongest pace since the post-pandemic earnings rebound in 2021. The quality of the earnings surprise mattered as much as the magnitude: beat rates were high, margins remained resilient, and forward estimates moved higher in several growth-oriented sectors. Still, the results were highly bifurcated. The Magnificent 7 continued to grow earnings at a faster rate than the rest of the index, with large technology and communication services companies accounting for a disproportionate share of the upside. In practical terms, the earnings backdrop was strong, but not yet evenly distributed across the broader market.
AI remained the dominant investment narrative, supported by a historic hyperscaler capital-spending cycle. Amazon, Microsoft, Alphabet, and Meta are expected to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on data centers, GPUs, networking equipment, power infrastructure, and related AI capacity in 2026, with combined estimates approaching or exceeding $700 billion. This spending supported the semiconductor, memory, power, cooling, and data-center infrastructure ecosystem, but it also raised a new set of investor questions. Markets increasingly moved from asking whether AI demand is real to asking whether that demand can produce adequate returns on invested capital. Concerns around monetization, open-source competition, inference costs, token efficiency, environmental constraints, and regulatory oversight all became more prominent as the scale of the investment cycle became clearer.
Within technology, semiconductors were the standout leadership group. The Philadelphia Semiconductor Index delivered extraordinary performance, reflecting tight supply, strong AI-related demand, and investor preference for companies perceived as direct beneficiaries of the infrastructure buildout. Memory, advanced packaging, GPUs, networking chips, and power-efficient compute all benefited from the view that AI capacity remains constrained. Software, by contrast, had a more uneven recovery after a weak first quarter. Investors rewarded companies that could demonstrate direct AI monetization, durable seat growth, or margin expansion, while punishing those where AI appeared more likely to pressure pricing, require higher investment, or disrupt legacy business models.
The Magnificent 7 reversal in June highlighted how fragile market leadership had become. The group collectively shed roughly $2.3 trillion in market value during the month as investors reassessed the cost of AI infrastructure spending and the timing of returns. Microsoft and Nvidia were among the notable decliners, while Apple and Amazon also came under pressure. This was not simply a valuation reset; it reflected a deeper narrative shift. For several years, the largest technology companies were viewed as asset-light, cash-generative compounders. In 2026, the market increasingly began treating them as capital-intensive infrastructure investors, where free cash flow, balance-sheet usage, and return on capital matter much more than the AI narrative alone.
Consumer data were mixed and reinforced the uneven nature of the expansion. Retail sales and payrolls remained resilient enough to support a soft-landing narrative, but household confidence weakened materially. The University of Michigan consumer sentiment index fell to 44.8 in May, a record low in the survey’s history, as consumers cited high prices, energy costs, and inflation uncertainty as major pressures. The weakness was especially pronounced among lower-income households, where food, fuel, rent, and borrowing costs consume a larger share of disposable income. This created a widening K-shaped spending pattern: higher-income consumers continued to support travel, services, and premium categories, while lower-income consumers became more price-sensitive and increasingly focused on essentials.
Macro and policy risks also shaped the quarter. The US-Iran conflict created recurring headline risk through oil prices, supply-chain concerns, and inflation expectations, while the Federal Reserve remained constrained by above-target inflation. The market had entered the quarter hoping for a clearer path toward easing, but policy communication became more hawkish as officials emphasized inflation persistence and reduced the usefulness of forward guidance. A shift away from predictable policy signaling increased the importance of incoming data and made equities more sensitive to inflation prints, wage data, energy prices, and Fed commentary. In that environment, strong earnings could support equities, but the discount-rate backdrop remained a source of volatility.
Sources: Cetera, Charles Schwab, CNBC, FactSet, Federal Reserve, Futurum Group, University of Michigan, 24/7 Wall Street.
Authored by Kimberly Woody
For more news, information, and analysis, visit the ETF Strategist Content Hub.
This report has been prepared for informational purposes only. It may include content generated or assisted by artificial intelligence (AI) tools. While the information presented is based on sources believed to be reliable, it should not be construed as personalized investment advice, considered a recommendation or solicitation for the purchase or sale of any security or strategy. Strategy Holdings, Attributions and/or Sectors mentioned are as of the date indicated, subject to change, and should not be relied upon as current. This does not constitute legal or professional advice and is not tailored to the investment needs of any specific investor. Registration of an investment adviser does not imply any certain level of skill or training. Due to rapidly changing market conditions and the complexity of investment decisions, supplemental information may be required to make informed investment decisions, based on your individual investment objectives and suitability specifications. Investors should seek tailored advice and should understand that statements regarding future prospects of the financial market may not be realized, as past performance does not guarantee and/or is not indicative of future results. Content may not be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in whole or in part by any means without written permission from Globalt. Regarding permission, as well as to receive a copy of Globalt’s Form ADV Part 2 and Part 3, contact Globalt’s Chief Compliance Officer, 3200 Windy Hill Road SE, Suite 1550E, Atlanta GA 30339. You can obtain more information about Globalt Investments and its advisers via the Internet at adviserinfo.sec.gov, sponsored by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The opinions and some comments contained herein reflect the judgment of the author, as of the date noted.
Globalt Investments LLC (“Globalt” or the “Firm”) was founded in 1990. It has been registered with the SEC as an Investment Adviser pursuant to the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 since 1991. Effective October 1, 2023, Globalt is a limited liability company owned by the employees and succeeding the “Globalt Investments” which had been a separately identifiable division of Synovus Trust Co. N.A. (its former affiliate since 2002). Globalt is no longer affiliated with Synovus. Globalt’s registration with the SEC does not imply any level of skill or training and should not be mistaken for an endorsement.
