What the Stock Market Taught Us This Year: Don’t Fall for These Investing Traps
2023 has been a year in which investors have been more influenced by perception than reality. And that means opportunities in 2024.
2023 has been a year in which investors have been more influenced by perception than reality. And that means opportunities in 2024.
The uncertainty around near-term interest rates has dominated the story of the stock market in 2023. Perhaps not since the 1970s—when runaway inflation and sky-high interest rates were the crisis du jour—has monetary policy affected investment outcomes in such a pronounced way.
Yet look more closely, and it would seem that Wall Street has been more influenced by perception than reality: Company and individual balance sheets remain mostly healthy, businesses are battle tested and unemployment remains low. Similarly, the malaise surrounding the economic environment belies what we are seeing. Cruise ships are sold out, restaurants are packed, holiday shopping was off to a strong start and 82% of S&P 500 companies reported a positive earnings surprise in the third quarter.
Still, a nervous atmosphere has undercut stock performance. Scores of share prices have been lacklustre as company fundamentals have been eclipsed by macroeconomic conjecture. We have lost the trees in the forest.
But as someone once declared, “It is a market of stocks, not a stock market.” This is a wise reminder that no matter the conditions, there are investment opportunities to be had. In fact, the more economic obfuscation, the more sectors are hammered, the more stocks are orphaned, the better the odds of long-term investment success.
After a year of hand-wringing through monetary policy guesswork and market fluctuations, many wonder how best to maneuvre in the new year. Here’s our advice: Avoiding some of the biggest market traps can be a winning strategy.
“Don’t fight the Fed” is a well-known market mantra. The idea is to buy stocks when the Fed is lowering interest rates and sell when the Fed is raising them.
This psychology has dominated the stock market all year, creating a futile guessing game. Are they still raising rates? For how much longer? Will rates fall soon? Will it be a hard landing or a soft landing? But this Fed obsession, reacting to every pronouncement, simply sucks up time. It has all been noise. Despite the fear and uncertainty, dire predictions didn’t come true.
What that means is that sectors that sold off because of heightened fears—including banks, some industrial names and anything real estate related—could be well-positioned for investors willing to take a longer-term view.
After surviving a midyear crisis, for instance, the banking sector is already beginning to show signs of recovery as market anxiety subsides. Similarly, oversold housing-related stocks should rebound once people adjust to the new rate environment, and the U.S. housing shortage, exacerbated by the pandemic, drives new construction.
It doesn’t mean every sector that got hit by investor angst is ripe for buying. Commercial real estate is an obvious example. But it does mean that if you invested by watching the Fed like a tennis match, and then reacting to every volley, you will get it wrong.
The selloff in many areas has inflicted pain that has been concealed by the cap-weighted dominance of a few celebrity stocks in the S&P 500 index. A handful of tech and tech-related stocks, weight-loss drugs and artificial-intelligence providers offer the sum total of stock-market outperformance this year. Beyond these headliners, there is less and less attention on individual names.
Those tech behemoths, dubbed the “Magnificent Seven,” account for more than 30% of the index and 87% of its return through October. Let us say that again: Just seven stocks represent one-third of the S&P 500 index. Some now consider Google parent Alphabet, Amazon.com, Apple, Facebook parent Meta Platforms, Microsoft, Nvidia and Tesla to be defensive businesses that can grow through any economic cycle.
We’ve seen this before, and the lesson is always the same: Winner-takes-all can dominate over shorter time frames but is rarely a winning bet in the long run. At some point, this narrow market supremacy will end, to the benefit of many overlooked issues.
In other words, these hyped celebrity stocks have more downside than upside from here. There are more-compelling opportunities to be had.

For example, the small-fry stocks found in the Russell 2000 index are among the most neglected shares waiting to get their due. The index has been languishing in a bear market since 2021—partially driven by their perceived economic sensitivity and partially driven by Wall Street indifference.
The result is that the total market cap of the Magnificent Seven is now three times the size of every single stock in the Russell 2000 index combined—making just seven stocks the equivalent of 6,000 small-cap names. On average, 47 analysts follow the typical Magnificent Seven stock versus just five for a small-cap name. Nine percent of smaller companies have no followers at all.
Here’s the silver lining: Less coverage means more market inefficiency means more opportunities. Stock prices trade on fundamentals. And when those solid fundamentals shine through, share prices rise. Additionally, when tepid U.S. growth inevitably picks up, small-caps are poised to strongly outperform as they have done every other time in the past.
The upshot is that you can go ahead and buy the hype if you want to, blinded by the celebrity names. But that’s not where the upside opportunities are likely to be.
This time is different. Except it hardly ever is.
That’s a lesson investors rarely learn. Case in point: the extremely low interest rates that have persisted for much of the past two decades. Over the past 50 years, U.S. interest rates have averaged 5.98%. Today’s 5.5% rate seems high compared with the 0.25% paid during the recession of 2008, but no comparison to 1980 when rates topped out at 20%.
Similarly, at the start of the new millennium, a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage was 8.08%—basically in line with 2023 levels, but significantly higher than the bargain 2.96% rate that could be had just two years ago.
Higher interest rates now feel like a shock to our systems because we got anchored to some extreme lows. When considered in the full context of a longer history, though, they are in line.
Now people are anchored to the S&P 500 beating everything else. But just as we have seen with interest rates in 2023, the trend will revert to the mean, even if it takes a while.
Although it may feel uncomfortable, it is often easier to invest at the extremes—when valuations are crushed, buy signals are blaring and the bad news is priced in. Such conditions have the greatest profit potential, but the inherent volatility makes investors nervous.
This angst is playing out in the price action surrounding earnings announcements. FactSet reports that stocks are getting hit harder for negative earnings surprises. In turn, this drives up their volatility. In the third quarter, an earnings miss cost the typical company 5.2% in market value—more than twice the 2.3% average over the past five years.
Instead of running for the exits, we view volatility as our friend and actively seek to take advantage of the price movements. Everyone says they want to buy low, but when the opportunity arises, many wait for the dust to settle and miss the moneymaking moment.
The market has turned more optimistic as the year winds down and we see plenty of value-beneath-the-surface stocks.
But even if investors have found some trees, they still have some concerns about the forest. Two terrible wars, congressional dysfunction, a border emergency and mounting unrest lurk over our economy as well as those around the globe.
In these unnerving moments, we are comforted by the faith in the resiliency of our capitalist democracy from capitalism’s own Yoda, Warren Buffett. He wrote in the 2012 Berkshire Hathaway shareholder letter, “Of course, the immediate future is unknown; America has faced the unknown since 1776…. Periodic setbacks will occur, yes, but investors and managers are in a game that is heavily stacked in their favour.”
Indeed, our markets have overcome a Great Depression, multiple recessions, global and regional conflicts, a modern-day pandemic and all other kinds of unforeseeable blows. Through it all, America has endured, and we have every reason to believe she will continue to do so.
Mellody Hobson is co-CEO and president, and John W. Rogers Jr. is founder, co-CEO and chief investment officer, of Ariel Investments.
From making unpopular decisions to learning when to listen, leaders from five businesses reveal what nobody prepared them for — and how running a company has challenged their expectations.
Technology and semiconductor shares fell sharply as investors questioned the debt financing the AI infrastructure boom and confronted higher rates and Chinese competition.
Technology and semiconductor shares fell sharply as investors questioned the debt financing the AI infrastructure boom and confronted higher rates and Chinese competition.
A sharp technology sell-off has exposed a new anxiety on global markets: whether the enormous borrowing behind the artificial-intelligence infrastructure boom can generate sufficient returns as interest rates rise and Chinese competition intensifies.
The artificial-intelligence investment boom has powered technology shares, semiconductor manufacturers and data-centre operators to extraordinary heights. Last week, investors were given a reminder that much of this expansion is being built with borrowed money.
The technology-heavy Nasdaq Composite fell 4.5 per cent over the week ended October 16, its weakest performance since late June. Semiconductor shares suffered an even deeper correction, with the Philadelphia Semiconductor Index losing about 11.4 per cent.
The selling spread quickly through global markets. Micron Technology fell 14.6 per cent over the week, while South Korea’s Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix dropped approximately 18 per cent and 24 per cent respectively.
This was more than a routine bout of profit-taking. Investors were reassessing three interconnected risks: higher interest rates, the rapidly expanding debt burden attached to AI infrastructure and the prospect of stronger competition from Chinese memory-chip manufacturers.
Artificial intelligence requires a physical infrastructure network of enormous scale. Data centres must be built, advanced processors purchased, power supplies secured and cooling systems installed before customers begin generating meaningful revenue from them.
Technology companies are increasingly supplementing their own cash with corporate bonds, syndicated loans, equipment leases, private credit and project-level financing.
JPMorgan describes the emerging funding model as a combination of conventional corporate borrowing and project finance tied to individual data-centre assets. In Australia, the Reserve Bank estimates that syndicated loans accounted for approximately three-quarters of data-centre financing during 2025 and 2026 to date.
The numbers are becoming large enough to affect broader credit markets. The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas has cited Wall Street estimates suggesting AI-related investment-grade bond issuance could approach US$300 billion in 2026 alone.
That borrowing is not automatically problematic. Debt can be an efficient way to finance long-lived infrastructure when future revenue is sufficiently predictable. The concern is that AI technology, customer demand and computing economics are changing much faster than the repayment schedules attached to the assets.
A data centre financed today may carry debt for years. Investors must therefore make assumptions about future utilisation rates, electricity prices, chip performance, customer concentration and the amount businesses will ultimately pay for AI computing.
When interest rates rise, those assumptions become less forgiving.
September’s US inflation data intensified the pressure. Consumer prices increased 3.7 per cent over the year, ahead of market expectations and up from 3.4 per cent in August.
The hotter reading reduced confidence that interest rates would fall quickly and pushed bond yields higher. That matters particularly for companies whose valuations depend on profits expected well into the future, as well as highly leveraged infrastructure operators that may need to refinance.
CoreWeave has emerged as a closely watched test case. The specialist cloud-computing company has accumulated substantial debt and lease obligations to build AI capacity, while relying on a concentrated group of large technology customers.
Its shares fell sharply during the sell-off, while the cost of insuring its debt against default climbed. CoreWeave has argued that its contracted backlog more than covers its obligations and that financial markets do not always understand its business model. Nevertheless, its securities have become a proxy for investor confidence in debt-funded AI infrastructure.
Oracle, another major investor in AI computing capacity, fell 8.8 per cent in Friday trading, while CoreWeave dropped 15.5 per cent.
The question is shifting from how much AI infrastructure can be built to how profitably it can be operated.
Interest rates were not the only catalyst. Reports of advances by Chinese memory-chip producer ChangXin Memory Technologies raised concerns that lower-cost Chinese products could increase competition across the global semiconductor industry.
Memory chips are essential to AI systems, but the industry is historically cyclical. Periods of tight supply and high pricing can encourage rapid investment, eventually producing oversupply and falling margins.
The prospect of a well-funded Chinese competitor expanding its technological capabilities unsettled investors in Samsung, SK Hynix and Micron. It also demonstrated that AI-related demand does not insulate chipmakers from conventional competitive pressures.
That combination—slower rate cuts, more expensive financing and potentially cheaper supply—challenged the assumption that every company exposed to AI would enjoy continually expanding margins.
The sell-off does not establish that the AI boom is ending. Demand for computing power remains strong, the largest technology companies continue to generate formidable cash flows and many infrastructure projects are backed by long-term customer contracts.
What has changed is the market’s willingness to overlook the price and financing structure of that growth.
The most resilient companies are likely to be those able to fund investment from operating cash flow, secure long-duration customers and demonstrate that new capacity will earn returns comfortably above its financing costs.
More speculative operators may face greater scrutiny, particularly where debt is expensive, customers are concentrated or expected revenue depends on demand that has not yet materialised.
For Australian investors, the lesson extends beyond US technology shares. Local data-centre operators, infrastructure funds, electricity suppliers and property groups are increasingly exposed to the same investment cycle.
Artificial intelligence may remain one of the defining growth themes of the decade. But last week’s correction showed that enthusiasm for the technology does not eliminate financial discipline.
The next stage of the AI boom will be judged not only by computing power, model performance or demand for chips, but by something more traditional: whether the assets being financed can generate enough cash to repay the money borrowed to build them.
Nasdaq Composite: Down 4.5 per cent for the week ended October 16, 2026
Philadelphia Semiconductor Index: Down approximately 11.4 per cent
Micron Technology: Down approximately 14.6 per cent
Samsung Electronics: Down approximately 18 per cent
SK Hynix: Down approximately 24 per cent
US September inflation: 3.7 per cent annually
Estimated 2026 AI-related investment-grade issuance: Approximately US$300 billion
A thoughtful timber-led renovation in Byron Bay has reimagined an existing house as a warm, resort-style family sanctuary grounded in natural materials.
Australian shares fell on Thursday as Wall Street weakness, rising oil and persistent rate concerns weighed on most of the market. The S&P/ASX 200 declined 0.72 per cent to 8,702. The All Ordinaries lost 0.66 per cent to finish at 8,897. Mining stocks were hit particularly hard, while real estate also dragged on the index. …
Continue reading “ASX falls 0.7 per cent as miners and property stocks retreat”