For most of his career, Mark Zuckerberg's instinct to copy competitors has worked. He copied Snapchat's Stories format — Instagram Stories now has over 500 million daily users. He copied TikTok's short-video format with Reels — it is now one of Meta's fastest-growing revenue products. He spent $19 billion on WhatsApp and turned it into an indispensable global messaging service. The formula was reliable: find what works elsewhere, execute it at scale, win. This week, the market tested whether that formula still holds when the thing being copied is a multi-decade, multi-trillion-dollar enterprise infrastructure business. The verdict, delivered in 48 hours, was not encouraging.&nbsp;Wednesday: The Best Day In Six Months&nbsp;Bloomberg reported on Wednesday that Meta was developing an internal initiative called Meta Compute — a plan to rent out spare AI computing capacity to outside customers and compete directly with Amazon Web Services, Microsoft Azure, and Google Cloud. Wall Street responded enthusiastically. Meta stock jumped 8.8 percent on the day, its strongest single-session gain in six months. Investors liked the narrative: Meta has built one of the world's largest AI infrastructure footprints, spending between $125 billion and $145 billion in capital expenditure in 2026 alone. If even a fraction of that infrastructure could be monetised as a cloud service, the revenue upside was enormous. The stock closed at a fresh recent high. The cloud trade looked like a winner.&nbsp;Thursday: Down 5 Percent. Here Is What Changed&nbsp;Wolfe Research ran the numbers overnight. A genuine cloud computing business — one with the infrastructure, reliability, and enterprise relationships needed to compete with AWS and Azure — would not be built from Meta's existing spare capacity. It would require massive additional investment. Wolfe estimated that Meta's 2027 capital expenditure would need to rise to $200 billion, up from prior estimates of $160 billion, to support a real cloud business. More critically, that investment would come before any meaningful cloud revenue showed up on Meta's income statement. Margins would fall first. And at $200 billion in annual capex, Meta would almost certainly need to raise external capital — a prospect that changes the investment case entirely. Meta shares fell 5 percent on Thursday as the market processed what ‘building an AWS’ actually costs.&nbsp;SoftBank Crashed The Party In 24 Hours&nbsp;The second blow came from an unexpected direction. One day after Meta's cloud plans leaked, SoftBank announced SB Neo — a US venture that will rent out AI chips and data centre capacity, with a target of 10 gigawatts of capacity by 2030. OpenAI is reportedly an early customer. The compute rental trade, which had looked like a differentiated Meta strategy on Wednesday morning, had become a crowded market by Thursday afternoon. The speed at which a competitor entered the same space — not months later, not years later, but within 24 hours — illustrated exactly how replicable the underlying idea is. Renting compute is not a moat. It is infrastructure economics, and infrastructure economics favours the players who have been doing it longest.&nbsp;The Core Problem: Meta Is A Compute Buyer, Not A Seller&nbsp;Analyst Richard Windsor identified what may be the most fundamental flaw in the Meta Compute thesis: Meta does not have spare compute to sell. Today, Meta buys GPU and data centre capacity from companies like CoreWeave and Nebius because Meta's own AI workloads exceed its in-house infrastructure. A company that is a net buyer of compute capacity cannot simultaneously position itself as a compute vendor without building an entirely new layer of infrastructure on top of what it already needs for its own operations. The plan, as Windsor described it, conflates having large infrastructure with having surplus infrastructure — and those are very different things.&nbsp;Collateral Damage: CoreWeave, Nebius, And The Chip Names&nbsp;The market's reaction was not limited to Meta. CoreWeave — which currently supplies AI compute capacity to Meta — fell 14 percent on Wednesday as investors concluded that a Meta cloud business would eventually reduce Meta's dependence on outside suppliers. CoreWeave's junk-rated bonds began selling off. By Thursday, the stock had fallen further, with more than $7.5 billion in combined market capitalisation erased across the two sessions. Nebius, another compute supplier, dropped 17 percent. Chip-adjacent names including Micron were dragged into the selloff as the market recalibrated who wins and who loses if Meta becomes both a compute consumer and a compute competitor.&nbsp;What $200 Billion In Capex Really Means&nbsp;The number that should concern Meta shareholders most is not the stock move. It is the capex trajectory. A company already spending $125 billion to $145 billion annually on infrastructure, now potentially facing a $200 billion capital expenditure requirement, with margins under pressure before new revenue arrives, and a possible capital raise on the horizon — that is not a cloud opportunity. That is a spending spiral. At that level of capital commitment, the pressure to find offsetting savings elsewhere becomes intense. Spending pressure of that magnitude is historically how hiring freezes start, how restructuring programmes are launched, and how layoff announcements get prepared. For Meta's tens of thousands of employees, the Meta Compute announcement may have felt like good news on Wednesday. The Wolfe Research note made Thursday considerably less comfortable.

Meta jumped 8.8% on Meta Compute cloud news, then fell 5% next day. Wolfe Research: $200B capex needed. SoftBank launched a rival in 24 hours. CoreWeave lost $7.5B in market cap. Full breakdown.

For most of his career, Mark Zuckerberg's instinct to copy competitors has worked. He copied Snapchat's Stories format — Instagram Stories now has over 500 million daily users. He copied TikTok's short-video format with Reels — it is now one of Meta's fastest-growing revenue products. He spent $19 billion on WhatsApp and turned it into an indispensable global messaging service. The formula was reliable: find what works elsewhere, execute it at scale, win. This week, the market tested whether that formula still holds when the thing being copied is a multi-decade, multi-trillion-dollar enterprise infrastructure business. The verdict, delivered in 48 hours, was not encouraging. Wednesday: The Best Day In Six Months Bloomberg reported on Wednesday that Meta was developing an internal initiative called Meta Compute — a plan to rent out spare AI computing capacity to outside customers and compete directly with Amazon Web Services, Microsoft Azure, and Google Cloud. Wall Street responded enthusiastically. Meta stock jumped 8.8 percent on the day, its strongest single-session gain in six months. Investors liked the narrative: Meta has built one of the world's largest AI infrastructure footprints, spending between $125 billion and $145 billion in capital expenditure in 2026 alone. If even a fraction of that infrastructure could be monetised as a cloud service, the revenue upside was enormous. The stock closed at a fresh recent high. The cloud trade looked like a winner. Thursday: Down 5 Percent. Here Is What Changed Wolfe Research ran the numbers overnight. A genuine cloud computing business — one with the infrastructure, reliability, and enterprise relationships needed to compete with AWS and Azure — would not be built from Meta's existing spare capacity. It would require massive additional investment. Wolfe estimated that Meta's 2027 capital expenditure would need to rise to $200 billion, up from prior estimates of $160 billion, to support a real cloud business. More critically, that investment would come before any meaningful cloud revenue showed up on Meta's income statement. Margins would fall first. And at $200 billion in annual capex, Meta would almost certainly need to raise external capital — a prospect that changes the investment case entirely. Meta shares fell 5 percent on Thursday as the market processed what ‘building an AWS’ actually costs. SoftBank Crashed The Party In 24 Hours The second blow came from an unexpected direction. One day after Meta's cloud plans leaked, SoftBank announced SB Neo — a US venture that will rent out AI chips and data centre capacity, with a target of 10 gigawatts of capacity by 2030. OpenAI is reportedly an early customer. The compute rental trade, which had looked like a differentiated Meta strategy on Wednesday morning, had become a crowded market by Thursday afternoon. The speed at which a competitor entered the same space — not months later, not years later, but within 24 hours — illustrated exactly how replicable the underlying idea is. Renting compute is not a moat. It is infrastructure economics, and infrastructure economics favours the players who have been doing it longest. The Core Problem: Meta Is A Compute Buyer, Not A Seller Analyst Richard Windsor identified what may be the most fundamental flaw in the Meta Compute thesis: Meta does not have spare compute to sell. Today, Meta buys GPU and data centre capacity from companies like CoreWeave and Nebius because Meta's own AI workloads exceed its in-house infrastructure. A company that is a net buyer of compute capacity cannot simultaneously position itself as a compute vendor without building an entirely new layer of infrastructure on top of what it already needs for its own operations. The plan, as Windsor described it, conflates having large infrastructure with having surplus infrastructure — and those are very different things. Collateral Damage: CoreWeave, Nebius, And The Chip Names The market's reaction was not limited to Meta. CoreWeave — which currently supplies AI compute capacity to Meta — fell 14 percent on Wednesday as investors concluded that a Meta cloud business would eventually reduce Meta's dependence on outside suppliers. CoreWeave's junk-rated bonds began selling off. By Thursday, the stock had fallen further, with more than $7.5 billion in combined market capitalisation erased across the two sessions. Nebius, another compute supplier, dropped 17 percent. Chip-adjacent names including Micron were dragged into the selloff as the market recalibrated who wins and who loses if Meta becomes both a compute consumer and a compute competitor. What $200 Billion In Capex Really Means The number that should concern Meta shareholders most is not the stock move. It is the capex trajectory. A company already spending $125 billion to $145 billion annually on infrastructure, now potentially facing a $200 billion capital expenditure requirement, with margins under pressure before new revenue arrives, and a possible capital raise on the horizon — that is not a cloud opportunity. That is a spending spiral. At that level of capital commitment, the pressure to find offsetting savings elsewhere becomes intense. Spending pressure of that magnitude is historically how hiring freezes start, how restructuring programmes are launched, and how layoff announcements get prepared. For Meta's tens of thousands of employees, the Meta Compute announcement may have felt like good news on Wednesday. The Wolfe Research note made Thursday considerably less comfortable.

Meta stock surged 8.8 percent on Wednesday — its best single day in six months — after Bloomberg reported plans for ‘Meta Compute,’ a cloud business to sell spare AI capacity. By Thursday it was down 5 percent. Wolfe Research found that a real cloud business would push Meta's 2027 capex to $200 billion. SoftBank announced a competing product the very next day. And an analyst pointed out that Meta doesn't actually have spare compute to sell. Wall Street's one-day love affair with the idea lasted exactly 24 hours.

Zuckerberg built a fortune copying others! This time he is failing miserably

Meta AI has 1.2 billion monthly active users. That number sounds impressive until you understand how it was achieved: not by building a product people chose to use, but by embedding an AI assistant directly into WhatsApp, Instagram DMs, and Facebook feeds — apps that billions of people were already using every day. Users did not download Meta AI. They did not sign up for it. It appeared, uninvited, inside their existing conversations and search bars. Compare that to ChatGPT, which has 900 million weekly active users who actively chose to visit a standalone product — and which holds 76.85% of the AI search market. For professional tasks like coding, research, legal analysis, and writing, ChatGPT remains far superior. Meta AI is widely described as useful for quick queries and social integration, but not much else.&nbsp;$83.5 Billion In Cumulative Losses And Counting&nbsp;Meta's Reality Labs division — which houses its AI, VR, AR, and metaverse operations — has accumulated approximately $83.5 billion in operating losses across 21 consecutive quarters. In 2025 alone, Reality Labs burned $19.2 billion. In Q1 2026, it lost another $4.03 billion while generating just $402 million in revenue — a ratio of roughly $10 lost for every $1 earned. Meta has now laid off more than 1,000 Reality Labs employees as it pivots resources from the metaverse to AI, but the losses continue to mount with no breakeven point in sight.&nbsp;$145 Billion In AI Spending — With No Cloud Business To Show For It&nbsp;Meta has raised its 2026 capital expenditure forecast to between $125 billion and $145 billion — an increase of over 60% year-on-year. This money is going into data centres, Nvidia GPUs, and AI infrastructure. Google, Amazon, and Microsoft are spending similar amounts — but each of them has a cloud computing business that immediately monetises that infrastructure by selling compute capacity to other companies. Meta has no cloud business. Its revenue is almost entirely advertising. Every dollar spent on AI infrastructure is a bet that it will eventually make ads more targeted and platforms more engaging. That may happen. But right now, Meta AI, business agents, WhatsApp paid messaging, and early commerce initiatives are not generating meaningful revenue. The AI spending is improving the existing ad business — not building a new one.&nbsp;The Moderation Crisis Nobody Is Pricing In&nbsp;While Meta pours billions into AI infrastructure, the AI it has already deployed is actively destroying trust with the people who use its platforms. Meta's own Oversight Board confirmed in June 2026 that the company's account bans lack due process and transparency. Thousands of creators, small business owners, and ordinary users have had their accounts suspended or permanently deleted by AI moderation systems that falsely flag normal content — including family photos — as violations. A Change.org petition against wrongful Meta account bans has gathered nearly 56,000 signatures. Meanwhile, AI-generated bot accounts with blue tick verification badges continue to operate freely on the same platforms. Meta has gutted its human moderation teams in favour of AI enforcement — and the AI is getting it catastrophically wrong at scale.&nbsp;Zuckerberg's Answer On AI Returns&nbsp;When Meta reported its Q1 2026 earnings and revealed the raised capex guidance, analysts pressed Mark Zuckerberg on what measurable return on investment the company's AI spending was actually delivering. His answer was notable: he described it as ‘a very technical question.’ For a company spending up to $145 billion in a single year on capital projects — more than the GDP of most countries — that answer is not reassuring. Meta's CFO said the 2025 AI investment cohort ‘paid off,’ but what that means in practice is that ad targeting improved. It does not mean Meta AI as a product generates revenue. It does not mean the $145 billion in infrastructure will produce a new business line. It means the existing advertising machine got slightly better.&nbsp;What The Market Is Choosing To Ignore&nbsp;Meta's stock has fallen approximately 27.5% from its all-time high of $796.25 in August 2025, trading at around $577 as of mid-June 2026. But even after that correction, the market is still valuing Meta at roughly $1.46 trillion — a price that assumes the AI spending will eventually pay off, that Meta AI will become a competitive product, and that the moderation crisis will resolve itself. The data suggests a different picture: a company that has burned nearly $90 billion on Reality Labs over seven years with no return, that is spending $145 billion on infrastructure it cannot monetise through a cloud business, whose flagship AI product was force-embedded into existing apps rather than adopted on its own merits, and whose AI moderation system is actively destroying the creator and small business ecosystem that drives its advertising revenue. The market may be right that Meta's ad business is strong enough to survive all of this. But calling Meta AI a success — when its users did not choose it, its moderation is failing, its losses are approaching $90 billion, and its CEO calls ROI ‘a very technical question’ — requires ignoring a substantial amount of evidence to the contrary.

Meta AI has 1.2B users it didn't earn, $83.5B in cumulative losses, $145B capex with no cloud business, and a moderation crisis destroying creator trust. Here's the data.

Meta AI has 1.2 billion monthly active users. That number sounds impressive until you understand how it was achieved: not by building a product people chose to use, but by embedding an AI assistant directly into WhatsApp, Instagram DMs, and Facebook feeds — apps that billions of people were already using every day. Users did not download Meta AI. They did not sign up for it. It appeared, uninvited, inside their existing conversations and search bars. Compare that to ChatGPT, which has 900 million weekly active users who actively chose to visit a standalone product — and which holds 76.85% of the AI search market. For professional tasks like coding, research, legal analysis, and writing, ChatGPT remains far superior. Meta AI is widely described as useful for quick queries and social integration, but not much else. $83.5 Billion In Cumulative Losses And Counting Meta's Reality Labs division — which houses its AI, VR, AR, and metaverse operations — has accumulated approximately $83.5 billion in operating losses across 21 consecutive quarters. In 2025 alone, Reality Labs burned $19.2 billion. In Q1 2026, it lost another $4.03 billion while generating just $402 million in revenue — a ratio of roughly $10 lost for every $1 earned. Meta has now laid off more than 1,000 Reality Labs employees as it pivots resources from the metaverse to AI, but the losses continue to mount with no breakeven point in sight. $145 Billion In AI Spending — With No Cloud Business To Show For It Meta has raised its 2026 capital expenditure forecast to between $125 billion and $145 billion — an increase of over 60% year-on-year. This money is going into data centres, Nvidia GPUs, and AI infrastructure. Google, Amazon, and Microsoft are spending similar amounts — but each of them has a cloud computing business that immediately monetises that infrastructure by selling compute capacity to other companies. Meta has no cloud business. Its revenue is almost entirely advertising. Every dollar spent on AI infrastructure is a bet that it will eventually make ads more targeted and platforms more engaging. That may happen. But right now, Meta AI, business agents, WhatsApp paid messaging, and early commerce initiatives are not generating meaningful revenue. The AI spending is improving the existing ad business — not building a new one. The Moderation Crisis Nobody Is Pricing In While Meta pours billions into AI infrastructure, the AI it has already deployed is actively destroying trust with the people who use its platforms. Meta's own Oversight Board confirmed in June 2026 that the company's account bans lack due process and transparency. Thousands of creators, small business owners, and ordinary users have had their accounts suspended or permanently deleted by AI moderation systems that falsely flag normal content — including family photos — as violations. A Change.org petition against wrongful Meta account bans has gathered nearly 56,000 signatures. Meanwhile, AI-generated bot accounts with blue tick verification badges continue to operate freely on the same platforms. Meta has gutted its human moderation teams in favour of AI enforcement — and the AI is getting it catastrophically wrong at scale. Zuckerberg's Answer On AI Returns When Meta reported its Q1 2026 earnings and revealed the raised capex guidance, analysts pressed Mark Zuckerberg on what measurable return on investment the company's AI spending was actually delivering. His answer was notable: he described it as ‘a very technical question.’ For a company spending up to $145 billion in a single year on capital projects — more than the GDP of most countries — that answer is not reassuring. Meta's CFO said the 2025 AI investment cohort ‘paid off,’ but what that means in practice is that ad targeting improved. It does not mean Meta AI as a product generates revenue. It does not mean the $145 billion in infrastructure will produce a new business line. It means the existing advertising machine got slightly better. What The Market Is Choosing To Ignore Meta's stock has fallen approximately 27.5% from its all-time high of $796.25 in August 2025, trading at around $577 as of mid-June 2026. But even after that correction, the market is still valuing Meta at roughly $1.46 trillion — a price that assumes the AI spending will eventually pay off, that Meta AI will become a competitive product, and that the moderation crisis will resolve itself. The data suggests a different picture: a company that has burned nearly $90 billion on Reality Labs over seven years with no return, that is spending $145 billion on infrastructure it cannot monetise through a cloud business, whose flagship AI product was force-embedded into existing apps rather than adopted on its own merits, and whose AI moderation system is actively destroying the creator and small business ecosystem that drives its advertising revenue. The market may be right that Meta's ad business is strong enough to survive all of this. But calling Meta AI a success — when its users did not choose it, its moderation is failing, its losses are approaching $90 billion, and its CEO calls ROI ‘a very technical question’ — requires ignoring a substantial amount of evidence to the contrary.

Meta AI has 1.2 billion monthly users it did not earn, force-embedded into WhatsApp and Instagram. Reality Labs has burned through $83.5 billion in cumulative losses. The company is spending $145 billion on AI infrastructure with no cloud business to monetise it. Its own Oversight Board says its AI moderation lacks due process. And when asked about AI returns, Mark Zuckerberg called it ‘a very technical question.’ Here is the data the market is choosing to ignore.

Meta AI is a lost cause but the market refuses to see it yet! Here's why

Asian stock markets saw sharp declines on Friday as a global selloff in technology shares intensified, resulting in South Korea's main stock index, KOSPI, falling over 8 per cent, forcing authorities to temporarily halt trading through a circuit breaker mechanism. Japan's Nikkei 225 index also fell nearly 5 per cent amid fears of recent surge in the artificial intelligence-related stocks has run too far and too fast. In addition, Hong Kong's Hang Seng also declined 2.4 per cent, the blue-chip CSI300 index of China fell by 2.9 per cent, and the Shanghai Composite lost over 2 per cent. Friday's losses came after another broad selloff across Asian markets earlier this week. The MSCI Asia-Pacific index, excluding Japan, declined 3.8 per cent, marking the biggest weekly decline in more than a year. This followed a strong rally in regional markets earlier in the quarter.<h3>Why the sudden fall of Asian stock markets?</h3>The development unfolded after American technology giant Apple announced to jack up prices of some of its product lines by as much as 20 per cent. It raised prices across its iPad and MacBook, citing a rise in chip costs due to the recent global AI surge. Apple has also increased prices across TVs and HomePods. Additionally, the Asian market tanked as the South Korean government announced to tax unrealised gains on equities, which weighed on sentiment for AI and chip-related stocks. Following the announcement on Thursday, it triggered panic across markets, prompting investors to opt to reduce their exposures in AI and tech stocks. The Nasdaq Composite index in the US fell by 0.5 per cent overnight. Similarly, Apple's shares declined by more than 6 per cent. Competitor Dell declined 5.5 per cent, and the rest of the other big tech stocks in the US also ended lower. In Asia, shares of SK Hynix tumbled more than 8 per cent on Friday, while TSMC and Samsung recorded losses between 2 and 5 per cent.&nbsp;Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/technology/ai-is-making-xbox-consoles-more-expensive-here-s-why-microsoft-raised-prices-1782460762910">AI is making Xbox consoles more expensive. Here's why Microsoft raised prices</a><h3>Shortages of graphics and memory chips</h3>The decline comes as companies worldwide continue to grapple with rising costs and shortages of graphics and memory chips. The global semiconductor industry is largely dominated by major players such as SK Hynix, Samsung and Micron Technology. These manufacturers have increasingly prioritised the production of high-bandwidth memory (HBM) chips used in AI data centres because they generate higher profits. As a result, production capacity for chips commonly used in consumer electronics—including smartphones, personal computers, laptops and other devices—has been significantly reduced. The shift has contributed to a shortage of consumer-grade chips, driving up prices across the electronics sector. The situation, often referred to as the "RAMageddon" shortage, has prompted companies such as HP Inc., Dell Technologies and ASUS to increase prices. Shortly after Apple announced price hikes on Monday, gaming giant Xbox also revealed price increases of up to 25 per cent, marking its second such move within a year. Industry experts also underscored that Asian stock markets have come under intense pressure in recent months due to geopolitical tensions, soaring oil prices, and growing competition from China, along with concerns over artificial intelligence (AI) valuations. Reacting to the recent development in Asia's overall stock market, Harsha Vardhana VM, Founder and CEO of Atom Financial Services Group, said the current selloff is driven not only by a single factor but several challenges hitting the markets simultaneously. "Oil is probably the most straightforward piece. Once the US-Iran conflict pushed crude past $100 a barrel, the damage spread quickly and widely. South Korea, Japan, and India do not produce enough oil domestically to absorb that kind of price move without feeling it. Companies saw their costs go up. Households started pulling back on spending. And then the Federal Reserve, watching energy keep inflation elevated, found itself with fewer reasons to cut rates. A cautious Fed means a stronger dollar, and a stronger dollar is generally bad news for Asian currencies and the foreign investors who hold Asian assets. So what started as a geopolitical shock in the Middle East ended up sitting in the profit margins of a Korean steelmaker or an Indian airline. That is how connected these things are," Harsha Vardhana VM said.&nbsp;WATCH: https://www.wionews.com/videos/france-intercepts-suspected-russian-shadow-fleet-tanker-at-sea-1782474149108/embed<h3>AI rally loses momentum</h3>The technology sector, which powered most of the market of Asia gains in 2025, has also become a source of concern. South Korea and Taiwan benefited enormously from the booming demand for semiconductors and AI-related technologies. However, investors are now having several questions about whether stock prices accurately reflect company earnings. According to Vardhana, valuations in the semiconductor sector became increasingly disconnected from fundamentals. "The AI story is a bit more uncomfortable to tell, because it involves markets getting carried away with a genuinely real theme. South Korea and Taiwan had a spectacular 2025. The world wanted semiconductors, and these were the countries that made them. But at some point, the valuations stopped reflecting what companies were actually earning and started reflecting what investors hoped they would earn. When Broadcom came out in early June with AI chip revenue that fell short of expectations, it was not a disaster on its own. But it was enough to remind everyone that the earnings story had not quite caught up to the price story, and valuations were stretched too. In markets priced the way those were, that reminder tends to be expensive," he said. "Most of the coverage around the Asian selloff has focused on oil prices and chip stocks, and those are fair explanations as far as they go. But there is a bigger and more unsettling story sitting underneath all of it that is not getting the attention it deserves. For a long time, the Asian growth story rested on a fairly comfortable assumption. Countries like South Korea, Taiwan and Japan had built real advantages in industries the world depended on. What 2026 is starting to reveal is that some of that advantage was genuinely earned, and some of it was there simply because China had not yet decided to show up and compete for it," he added.<h3>China's growing competitive challenge</h3>Beyond short-term concerns over oil prices and technology stocks, Vardhana believes a more significant structural shift is taking place across Asia. For decades, countries such as South Korea, Taiwan and Japan built strong competitive advantages in sectors ranging from semiconductors and batteries to automobiles and shipbuilding. However, China is increasingly challenging that dominance. "What 2026 is starting to reveal is that some of that advantage was genuinely earned, and some of it was there simply because China had not yet decided to show up and compete for it. South Korea is the place where this is most stark. The country built its entire economic identity around a handful of industries. Semiconductors. Displays. Batteries. Automobiles. Shipbuilding. For decades, these were South Korean industries, and that was more or less taken for granted. Chinese firms have reportedly now overtaken South Korea in seven of those eight categories. Not nibbled away at the edges. Overtaken. And the money knew this before the headlines did. Foreign investors had been quietly selling out of Samsung for months before the big crash. &nbsp;The 12.2% single-day fall in the KOSPI in March was not a shock to anyone who had been paying attention. It was more like a conclusion that markets had been slowly writing for a while and finally signed off on," Vardhana said. He added that China's own equity markets have their problems; however, separate from the role of the Shanghai Composite on any given day, the competitive pressure that Chinese manufacturers are putting on the rest of the region is not a cyclical thing. Vardhana noted that it does not ease when sentiment improves or when a ceasefire stops, as it is a slow, structural reshaping of who makes what and at what price. That is the part of this story worth sitting with.<h3>What does it mean for India?</h3>India faces a different set of challenges. While the country has benefited from domestic growth drivers such as interest rate cuts, recovering consumption and government-led infrastructure spending, valuations remain demanding. Vardhana warned that Indian equities have little room for disappointment. "India is caught in the crossfire even though its problems are different in nature. The domestic fundamentals, rate cuts, a recovering consumption cycle, and a government capex push are still intact. But at a forward P/E of 23 times, there is no room for earnings to disappoint in the second half of the year. Clients with heavy exposure to global tech funds or IT-heavy portfolios should be looking at rebalancing toward domestic consumption and quality financials. Gold deserves a place in the allocation while oil and geopolitical risk remain elevated. And anyone waiting for FII flows to rescue Indian markets in the near term should probably plan around domestic conviction instead," he further said.

Industry experts highlighted that Asian stock markets have come under intense pressure in recent months due to geopolitical tensions, soaring oil prices, and growing competition from China, along with concerns over artificial intelligence (AI) valuations. 

Asian stock markets saw sharp declines on Friday as a global selloff in technology shares intensified, resulting in South Korea's main stock index, KOSPI, falling over 8 per cent, forcing authorities to temporarily halt trading through a circuit breaker mechanism. Japan's Nikkei 225 index also fell nearly 5 per cent amid fears of recent surge in the artificial intelligence-related stocks has run too far and too fast. In addition, Hong Kong's Hang Seng also declined 2.4 per cent, the blue-chip CSI300 index of China fell by 2.9 per cent, and the Shanghai Composite lost over 2 per cent. Friday's losses came after another broad selloff across Asian markets earlier this week. The MSCI Asia-Pacific index, excluding Japan, declined 3.8 per cent, marking the biggest weekly decline in more than a year. This followed a strong rally in regional markets earlier in the quarter. Why the sudden fall of Asian stock markets? The development unfolded after American technology giant Apple announced to jack up prices of some of its product lines by as much as 20 per cent. It raised prices across its iPad and MacBook, citing a rise in chip costs due to the recent global AI surge. Apple has also increased prices across TVs and HomePods. Additionally, the Asian market tanked as the South Korean government announced to tax unrealised gains on equities, which weighed on sentiment for AI and chip-related stocks. Following the announcement on Thursday, it triggered panic across markets, prompting investors to opt to reduce their exposures in AI and tech stocks. The Nasdaq Composite index in the US fell by 0.5 per cent overnight. Similarly, Apple's shares declined by more than 6 per cent. Competitor Dell declined 5.5 per cent, and the rest of the other big tech stocks in the US also ended lower. In Asia, shares of SK Hynix tumbled more than 8 per cent on Friday, while TSMC and Samsung recorded losses between 2 and 5 per cent. Also read: AI is making Xbox consoles more expensive. Here's why Microsoft raised prices Shortages of graphics and memory chips The decline comes as companies worldwide continue to grapple with rising costs and shortages of graphics and memory chips. The global semiconductor industry is largely dominated by major players such as SK Hynix, Samsung and Micron Technology. These manufacturers have increasingly prioritised the production of high-bandwidth memory (HBM) chips used in AI data centres because they generate higher profits. As a result, production capacity for chips commonly used in consumer electronics—including smartphones, personal computers, laptops and other devices—has been significantly reduced. The shift has contributed to a shortage of consumer-grade chips, driving up prices across the electronics sector. The situation, often referred to as the "RAMageddon" shortage, has prompted companies such as HP Inc., Dell Technologies and ASUS to increase prices. Shortly after Apple announced price hikes on Monday, gaming giant Xbox also revealed price increases of up to 25 per cent, marking its second such move within a year. Industry experts also underscored that Asian stock markets have come under intense pressure in recent months due to geopolitical tensions, soaring oil prices, and growing competition from China, along with concerns over artificial intelligence (AI) valuations. Reacting to the recent development in Asia's overall stock market, Harsha Vardhana VM, Founder and CEO of Atom Financial Services Group, said the current selloff is driven not only by a single factor but several challenges hitting the markets simultaneously. "Oil is probably the most straightforward piece. Once the US-Iran conflict pushed crude past $100 a barrel, the damage spread quickly and widely. South Korea, Japan, and India do not produce enough oil domestically to absorb that kind of price move without feeling it. Companies saw their costs go up. Households started pulling back on spending. And then the Federal Reserve, watching energy keep inflation elevated, found itself with fewer reasons to cut rates. A cautious Fed means a stronger dollar, and a stronger dollar is generally bad news for Asian currencies and the foreign investors who hold Asian assets. So what started as a geopolitical shock in the Middle East ended up sitting in the profit margins of a Korean steelmaker or an Indian airline. That is how connected these things are," Harsha Vardhana VM said. WATCH: https://www.wionews.com/videos/france-intercepts-suspected-russian-shadow-fleet-tanker-at-sea-1782474149108/embed AI rally loses momentum The technology sector, which powered most of the market of Asia gains in 2025, has also become a source of concern. South Korea and Taiwan benefited enormously from the booming demand for semiconductors and AI-related technologies. However, investors are now having several questions about whether stock prices accurately reflect company earnings. According to Vardhana, valuations in the semiconductor sector became increasingly disconnected from fundamentals. "The AI story is a bit more uncomfortable to tell, because it involves markets getting carried away with a genuinely real theme. South Korea and Taiwan had a spectacular 2025. The world wanted semiconductors, and these were the countries that made them. But at some point, the valuations stopped reflecting what companies were actually earning and started reflecting what investors hoped they would earn. When Broadcom came out in early June with AI chip revenue that fell short of expectations, it was not a disaster on its own. But it was enough to remind everyone that the earnings story had not quite caught up to the price story, and valuations were stretched too. In markets priced the way those were, that reminder tends to be expensive," he said. "Most of the coverage around the Asian selloff has focused on oil prices and chip stocks, and those are fair explanations as far as they go. But there is a bigger and more unsettling story sitting underneath all of it that is not getting the attention it deserves. For a long time, the Asian growth story rested on a fairly comfortable assumption. Countries like South Korea, Taiwan and Japan had built real advantages in industries the world depended on. What 2026 is starting to reveal is that some of that advantage was genuinely earned, and some of it was there simply because China had not yet decided to show up and compete for it," he added. China's growing competitive challenge Beyond short-term concerns over oil prices and technology stocks, Vardhana believes a more significant structural shift is taking place across Asia. For decades, countries such as South Korea, Taiwan and Japan built strong competitive advantages in sectors ranging from semiconductors and batteries to automobiles and shipbuilding. However, China is increasingly challenging that dominance. "What 2026 is starting to reveal is that some of that advantage was genuinely earned, and some of it was there simply because China had not yet decided to show up and compete for it. South Korea is the place where this is most stark. The country built its entire economic identity around a handful of industries. Semiconductors. Displays. Batteries. Automobiles. Shipbuilding. For decades, these were South Korean industries, and that was more or less taken for granted. Chinese firms have reportedly now overtaken South Korea in seven of those eight categories. Not nibbled away at the edges. Overtaken. And the money knew this before the headlines did. Foreign investors had been quietly selling out of Samsung for months before the big crash. The 12.2% single-day fall in the KOSPI in March was not a shock to anyone who had been paying attention. It was more like a conclusion that markets had been slowly writing for a while and finally signed off on," Vardhana said. He added that China's own equity markets have their problems; however, separate from the role of the Shanghai Composite on any given day, the competitive pressure that Chinese manufacturers are putting on the rest of the region is not a cyclical thing. Vardhana noted that it does not ease when sentiment improves or when a ceasefire stops, as it is a slow, structural reshaping of who makes what and at what price. That is the part of this story worth sitting with. What does it mean for India? India faces a different set of challenges. While the country has benefited from domestic growth drivers such as interest rate cuts, recovering consumption and government-led infrastructure spending, valuations remain demanding. Vardhana warned that Indian equities have little room for disappointment. "India is caught in the crossfire even though its problems are different in nature. The domestic fundamentals, rate cuts, a recovering consumption cycle, and a government capex push are still intact. But at a forward P/E of 23 times, there is no room for earnings to disappoint in the second half of the year. Clients with heavy exposure to global tech funds or IT-heavy portfolios should be looking at rebalancing toward domestic consumption and quality financials. Gold deserves a place in the allocation while oil and geopolitical risk remain elevated. And anyone waiting for FII flows to rescue Indian markets in the near term should probably plan around domestic conviction instead," he further said.

Industry experts highlighted that Asian stock markets have come under intense pressure in recent months due to geopolitical tensions, soaring oil prices, and growing competition from China, along with concerns over artificial intelligence (AI) valuations.&nbsp;

From South Korea to Japan: Why are Asian stock markets bleeding billions? Expert reveals shocking details

fall-of-asian-stock-markets

Fall Of Asian Stock Markets, News on Fall Of Asian Stock Markets, stories on Fall Of Asian Stock Markets, articles on Fall Of Asian Stock Markets, Fall Of Asian Stock Markets stories at Wion, Fall Of Asian Stock Markets news, Fall Of Asian Stock Markets latest news

fall of-asian-stock-markets

Zuckerberg built a fortune copying others! This time he is failing miserably

Meta AI is a lost cause but the market refuses to see it yet! Here's why

Why are Asian stock markets bleeding billions? Expert reveals shocking details