The broader AI market is being called a bubble by some and a revolution by others. But there is a separate question worth asking specifically about Meta: is this stock, right now, a bubble of its own making, inflated by hype around an AI bet that has yet to show a measurable intelligence of its own?&nbsp;The Capex Number That Shocked Wall Street&nbsp;When Meta reported its Q1 2026 earnings, the headline revenue numbers were strong, $56.31 billion in quarterly revenue, a 33% year-on-year jump, with advertising revenue of $55.02 billion driving almost all of it. But what moved markets was something else entirely: Meta announced it was raising its 2026 capital expenditure forecast to between $125 billion and $145 billion. That is up from its January guidance of $115 to $135 billion, and represents an increase of over 60% compared to what it spent the previous year. Meta's stock fell 8 to 10% in early trading the following day. Investors were not celebrating the revenue beat. They were staring at a capex number that is, by any measure, staggering.&nbsp;The Human Cost Nobody Is Pricing Into Meta's Stock&nbsp;There is another dimension to Meta's AI story that Wall Street is largely ignoring: the catastrophic real-world consequences of deploying a cheap, low-quality AI system at billion-user scale with essentially no human oversight left to catch its errors. Meta has systematically laid off its human content moderation teams, the people who used to review appeals, reinstate wrongly banned accounts, and apply judgment to edge cases. What has replaced them is an AI system that creators, journalists, and small business owners across the world describe as erratic, opaque, and unaccountable. Accounts with years of original content, verified identities, and legitimate income streams are being terminated or restricted without warning and without any realistic path to appeal, while some reporting that fake accounts with blue tick verification badges continue to operate freely on the same platforms. The engineers building this system, referred to internally in some circles as working in conditions resembling a content gulag, are reportedly producing training tasks so rudimentary they resemble puzzles designed for toddlers. That is the training data feeding an AI that is now making consequential, life-altering decisions about whether a creator's account survives, whether a small business keeps its primary sales channel, whether a journalist's archive disappears overnight. The gap between the simplicity of what is going into Meta AI and the seriousness of what it is doing to real people is not a technical footnote. It is a liability, legal, reputational, and financial, that does not yet appear anywhere in Meta's $145 billion capex plan.&nbsp;Spending More Than It Earns On AI, With No Cloud To Show For It&nbsp;The core problem with Meta's AI spending is structural. Google, Amazon, and Microsoft are also pouring hundreds of billions into AI infrastructure, but each of them has a cloud computing business that can immediately monetise that infrastructure by selling compute capacity to other companies. Meta has no such business. Its revenue is almost entirely advertising. That means every dollar it spends building data centres and buying Nvidia chips is a bet that AI will eventually make its ads more targeted, its platforms more engaging, and its users more sticky. That may well happen. But right now, it is a hypothesis, not a revenue line.&nbsp;The Zuckerberg ROI Quote That Should Concern Investors&nbsp;When Meta's Q1 2026 earnings call touched on what all this AI spending was actually delivering in terms of return on investment, Mark Zuckerberg's response was notable. Asked about measurable ROI from the AI build-out, Zuckerberg reportedly described it as "a very technical question." For a company spending $145 billion in a single year on capital projects, that answer is not reassuring. And the earnings quality underneath the headline numbers is softer than it appears: Meta's reported GAAP EPS of $10.44 was significantly inflated by a one-time $8.03 billion tax benefit linked to the Trump administration's tax policy. Strip that out and the underlying EPS was approximately $7.31, a number that tells a much more cautious story about actual profitability growth.&nbsp;Michael Burry's Warning&nbsp;The investor made famous by The Big Short, Michael Burry, has specifically flagged Big Tech's accounting treatment of AI hardware as a concern. His argument is that companies including Meta are extending the stated useful life of their computing assets, primarily Nvidia chips, which reduces annual depreciation charges and makes earnings look better than they are. Burry's estimates suggest Meta could be overstating its earnings by as much as 20.8% by 2028 if this accounting treatment continues. Whether or not that proves correct, the concern highlights that Meta's profitability picture may be softer than its headline numbers suggest.&nbsp;Where The Stock Stands&nbsp;Meta's stock hit an all-time high of $796.25 per share in August 2025. As of mid-June 2026, it is trading at $577.22, a decline of approximately 27.5% from that peak. At a market capitalisation of around $1.46 trillion and a business that remains almost entirely dependent on advertising revenue, Meta is not cheaply priced for a company whose AI bet has yet to prove itself operationally as well ass financially. The AI market at large may or may not be a bubble. But Meta's specific combination of enormous spending, advertising-only revenue, unproven AI returns, and a moderation crisis affecting millions of real users makes it a stock with a bubble story entirely its own.

Meta is spending $145 billion on AI in 2026 with no cloud business to monetise it. Its stock is down 21% from its ATH. Here's why Meta could be a bubble all on its own.

The broader AI market is being called a bubble by some and a revolution by others. But there is a separate question worth asking specifically about Meta: is this stock, right now, a bubble of its own making, inflated by hype around an AI bet that has yet to show a measurable intelligence of its own? The Capex Number That Shocked Wall Street When Meta reported its Q1 2026 earnings, the headline revenue numbers were strong, $56.31 billion in quarterly revenue, a 33% year-on-year jump, with advertising revenue of $55.02 billion driving almost all of it. But what moved markets was something else entirely: Meta announced it was raising its 2026 capital expenditure forecast to between $125 billion and $145 billion. That is up from its January guidance of $115 to $135 billion, and represents an increase of over 60% compared to what it spent the previous year. Meta's stock fell 8 to 10% in early trading the following day. Investors were not celebrating the revenue beat. They were staring at a capex number that is, by any measure, staggering. The Human Cost Nobody Is Pricing Into Meta's Stock There is another dimension to Meta's AI story that Wall Street is largely ignoring: the catastrophic real-world consequences of deploying a cheap, low-quality AI system at billion-user scale with essentially no human oversight left to catch its errors. Meta has systematically laid off its human content moderation teams, the people who used to review appeals, reinstate wrongly banned accounts, and apply judgment to edge cases. What has replaced them is an AI system that creators, journalists, and small business owners across the world describe as erratic, opaque, and unaccountable. Accounts with years of original content, verified identities, and legitimate income streams are being terminated or restricted without warning and without any realistic path to appeal, while some reporting that fake accounts with blue tick verification badges continue to operate freely on the same platforms. The engineers building this system, referred to internally in some circles as working in conditions resembling a content gulag, are reportedly producing training tasks so rudimentary they resemble puzzles designed for toddlers. That is the training data feeding an AI that is now making consequential, life-altering decisions about whether a creator's account survives, whether a small business keeps its primary sales channel, whether a journalist's archive disappears overnight. The gap between the simplicity of what is going into Meta AI and the seriousness of what it is doing to real people is not a technical footnote. It is a liability, legal, reputational, and financial, that does not yet appear anywhere in Meta's $145 billion capex plan. Spending More Than It Earns On AI, With No Cloud To Show For It The core problem with Meta's AI spending is structural. Google, Amazon, and Microsoft are also pouring hundreds of billions into AI infrastructure, but each of them has a cloud computing business that can immediately monetise that infrastructure by selling compute capacity to other companies. Meta has no such business. Its revenue is almost entirely advertising. That means every dollar it spends building data centres and buying Nvidia chips is a bet that AI will eventually make its ads more targeted, its platforms more engaging, and its users more sticky. That may well happen. But right now, it is a hypothesis, not a revenue line. The Zuckerberg ROI Quote That Should Concern Investors When Meta's Q1 2026 earnings call touched on what all this AI spending was actually delivering in terms of return on investment, Mark Zuckerberg's response was notable. Asked about measurable ROI from the AI build-out, Zuckerberg reportedly described it as "a very technical question." For a company spending $145 billion in a single year on capital projects, that answer is not reassuring. And the earnings quality underneath the headline numbers is softer than it appears: Meta's reported GAAP EPS of $10.44 was significantly inflated by a one-time $8.03 billion tax benefit linked to the Trump administration's tax policy. Strip that out and the underlying EPS was approximately $7.31, a number that tells a much more cautious story about actual profitability growth. Michael Burry's Warning The investor made famous by The Big Short, Michael Burry, has specifically flagged Big Tech's accounting treatment of AI hardware as a concern. His argument is that companies including Meta are extending the stated useful life of their computing assets, primarily Nvidia chips, which reduces annual depreciation charges and makes earnings look better than they are. Burry's estimates suggest Meta could be overstating its earnings by as much as 20.8% by 2028 if this accounting treatment continues. Whether or not that proves correct, the concern highlights that Meta's profitability picture may be softer than its headline numbers suggest. Where The Stock Stands Meta's stock hit an all-time high of $796.25 per share in August 2025. As of mid-June 2026, it is trading at $577.22, a decline of approximately 27.5% from that peak. At a market capitalisation of around $1.46 trillion and a business that remains almost entirely dependent on advertising revenue, Meta is not cheaply priced for a company whose AI bet has yet to prove itself operationally as well ass financially. The AI market at large may or may not be a bubble. But Meta's specific combination of enormous spending, advertising-only revenue, unproven AI returns, and a moderation crisis affecting millions of real users makes it a stock with a bubble story entirely its own.

Meta is spending up to $145 billion on AI infrastructure in 2026 alone. Its stock has already dropped 21% from its all-time high. Revenue is growing fast but profits are not keeping pace.&nbsp;

5 reasons why 'Meta' could be the BIGGEST BUBBLE of AI era

SpaceX's Nasdaq debut valued the company at roughly $1.8 trillion, enough to rank it above Walmart, ExxonMobil, and most of the world's largest banks by market capitalization. There's just one inconvenient detail buried in the IPO filings: SpaceX lost $4.9 billion in 2025.&nbsp;Growing Fast, Losing Faster&nbsp;On the surface, SpaceX's revenue growth looks impressive. The company brought in $18.7 billion in total revenue in 2025, up 33 percent from the year before, a growth rate most established companies would envy. But costs grew even faster than revenue, producing a net loss of $4.9 billion for the year. In other words, SpaceX is spending significantly more money than it makes, even as its top line expands rapidly.&nbsp;Where the Money Is Going&nbsp;Much of SpaceX's spending goes into capital-intensive, long-horizon bets: building and launching Starship, the massive next-generation rocket central to Musk's Mars ambitions; expanding the Starlink satellite constellation, which requires continuously manufacturing and launching new satellites to replace those that deorbit; and building out AI infrastructure and data centers, a business that is still in its early stages. These are not businesses that turn profitable overnight, they require years of sustained investment before, if ever, they generate returns proportional to the capital poured in.&nbsp;What Analysts Are Saying&nbsp;This is precisely why some analysts are sounding the alarm on SpaceX's valuation. Morningstar analysts have questioned whether the $1.8 trillion price tag is justified, with some estimates suggesting a fair value closer to $800 billion to $1.1 trillion, roughly half to two-thirds of what investors paid at IPO. That is not a small discrepancy. It implies that, in Morningstar's view, SpaceX's stock could be overvalued by $700 billion to $1 trillion or more.&nbsp;The Stakes Are Bigger Than One Stock&nbsp;Because of the scale of this IPO, the consequences of a valuation correction would not be contained to SpaceX shareholders alone. Analysts have warned that if valuations fail to hold, it raises concerns about potential losses for pension funds, individual retirement accounts, and university endowments, many of which are believed to have taken positions in the offering given its scale and profile. A trillion-dollar miss is not just a headline; it would ripple through retirement accounts and institutional portfolios far beyond Silicon Valley.&nbsp;The Bull Case Investors Are Betting On&nbsp;To be fair, SpaceX's defenders have a coherent argument: the company dominates global orbital launch, Starlink is profitable and growing toward tens of millions of subscribers, and the AI infrastructure business, while small today, could become significant if SpaceX's data-center ambitions materialize. Investors who bought into the IPO are effectively betting that today's $4.9 billion loss is the cost of building businesses that will generate outsized profits years from now, the same bet early Amazon and Tesla investors made during their own loss-making years.&nbsp;Whether that bet pays off, or whether SpaceX becomes a cautionary tale about IPO-era valuations getting ahead of fundamentals, will now be tracked every quarter, in public, for the first time in the company's history.

SpaceX's IPO filings reveal $18.7B in revenue but a $4.9B net loss. With fair value estimates as low as $800B, is SpaceX's $1.8 trillion valuation justified?

SpaceX's Nasdaq debut valued the company at roughly $1.8 trillion, enough to rank it above Walmart, ExxonMobil, and most of the world's largest banks by market capitalization. There's just one inconvenient detail buried in the IPO filings: SpaceX lost $4.9 billion in 2025. Growing Fast, Losing Faster On the surface, SpaceX's revenue growth looks impressive. The company brought in $18.7 billion in total revenue in 2025, up 33 percent from the year before, a growth rate most established companies would envy. But costs grew even faster than revenue, producing a net loss of $4.9 billion for the year. In other words, SpaceX is spending significantly more money than it makes, even as its top line expands rapidly. Where the Money Is Going Much of SpaceX's spending goes into capital-intensive, long-horizon bets: building and launching Starship, the massive next-generation rocket central to Musk's Mars ambitions; expanding the Starlink satellite constellation, which requires continuously manufacturing and launching new satellites to replace those that deorbit; and building out AI infrastructure and data centers, a business that is still in its early stages. These are not businesses that turn profitable overnight, they require years of sustained investment before, if ever, they generate returns proportional to the capital poured in. What Analysts Are Saying This is precisely why some analysts are sounding the alarm on SpaceX's valuation. Morningstar analysts have questioned whether the $1.8 trillion price tag is justified, with some estimates suggesting a fair value closer to $800 billion to $1.1 trillion, roughly half to two-thirds of what investors paid at IPO. That is not a small discrepancy. It implies that, in Morningstar's view, SpaceX's stock could be overvalued by $700 billion to $1 trillion or more. The Stakes Are Bigger Than One Stock Because of the scale of this IPO, the consequences of a valuation correction would not be contained to SpaceX shareholders alone. Analysts have warned that if valuations fail to hold, it raises concerns about potential losses for pension funds, individual retirement accounts, and university endowments, many of which are believed to have taken positions in the offering given its scale and profile. A trillion-dollar miss is not just a headline; it would ripple through retirement accounts and institutional portfolios far beyond Silicon Valley. The Bull Case Investors Are Betting On To be fair, SpaceX's defenders have a coherent argument: the company dominates global orbital launch, Starlink is profitable and growing toward tens of millions of subscribers, and the AI infrastructure business, while small today, could become significant if SpaceX's data-center ambitions materialize. Investors who bought into the IPO are effectively betting that today's $4.9 billion loss is the cost of building businesses that will generate outsized profits years from now, the same bet early Amazon and Tesla investors made during their own loss-making years. Whether that bet pays off, or whether SpaceX becomes a cautionary tale about IPO-era valuations getting ahead of fundamentals, will now be tracked every quarter, in public, for the first time in the company's history.

SpaceX's IPO filings show $18.7 billion in 2025 revenue but a net loss of $4.9 billion. With Morningstar pegging fair value as low as $800 billion against an IPO valuation of $1.8 trillion, the gap raises hard questions about whether SpaceX stock is overpriced.

SpaceX lost nearly $5 billion last year. So why is it worth more than Walmart?

If you placed an order for SpaceX shares ahead of its Nasdaq debut, you were not alone, you were one of roughly $100 billion worth of company. Retail investors flooded brokerages with orders for SPCX stock, betting on a piece of Elon Musk's space empire as it transitioned from the world's most valuable private company to a publicly traded one.&nbsp;A Generous Allocation, On Paper&nbsp;SpaceX's IPO structure stood out from the start. Typically, retail investors, ordinary individuals buying through apps like Robinhood, Fidelity, or Schwab, receive only 5 to 10 percent of shares in a major IPO, with the rest going to institutional funds, pension managers, and large asset managers. SpaceX's bankers set aside up to 30 percent of the offering for retail buyers, a figure widely reported as historically generous and seemingly designed to let everyday investors share in the company's growth.&nbsp;The Math Doesn't Work Out&nbsp;But generosity on paper does not survive contact with overwhelming demand. With total retail orders reportedly exceeding $100 billion against a 30 percent slice of an offering that itself raised just over $30 billion, the arithmetic is brutal. Even in the best case, the pool of shares available to retail investors represents a tiny fraction, likely in the low single digits, of what was actually requested. Reports describe the situation starkly: investors who ordered thousands of dollars worth of stock may be allocated only a handful of shares, or in some cases, none at all.&nbsp;Financial commentators have not been shy about characterizing this dynamic. One widely circulated analysis described the process as ‘the great fleecing of retail investors,’ arguing that the headline-grabbing 30 percent retail allocation functions more as a marketing tool to generate hype and demand than as a genuine pathway for small investors to build meaningful positions.&nbsp;What Happens to Investors Who Don't Get Shares&nbsp;For the vast majority of retail applicants who receive partial or zero allocations, the only remaining option is to buy SPCX shares on the open market after trading begins, at whatever price the stock settles at post-debut. Given the frenzy surrounding the listing, that price could be significantly higher than the $135 IPO price, meaning latecomers may end up paying a premium for the same exposure that early institutional allocants got at the offering price.&nbsp;A Familiar Story With Higher Stakes&nbsp;This pattern, massive retail enthusiasm, modest actual allocations, and a scramble in the secondary market, is not new to IPOs. But the scale here is unprecedented. With SpaceX's valuation already drawing scrutiny from analysts who question whether $1.8 trillion is justified, retail investors who chase the stock in the open market after missing their IPO allocation may be taking on outsized risk at exactly the moment the stock is most likely to be overpriced.

Retail investors placed over $100 billion in orders for SpaceX's IPO chasing a 30% retail tranche — but most will receive only a tiny fraction of what they requested.

If you placed an order for SpaceX shares ahead of its Nasdaq debut, you were not alone, you were one of roughly $100 billion worth of company. Retail investors flooded brokerages with orders for SPCX stock, betting on a piece of Elon Musk's space empire as it transitioned from the world's most valuable private company to a publicly traded one. A Generous Allocation, On Paper SpaceX's IPO structure stood out from the start. Typically, retail investors, ordinary individuals buying through apps like Robinhood, Fidelity, or Schwab, receive only 5 to 10 percent of shares in a major IPO, with the rest going to institutional funds, pension managers, and large asset managers. SpaceX's bankers set aside up to 30 percent of the offering for retail buyers, a figure widely reported as historically generous and seemingly designed to let everyday investors share in the company's growth. The Math Doesn't Work Out But generosity on paper does not survive contact with overwhelming demand. With total retail orders reportedly exceeding $100 billion against a 30 percent slice of an offering that itself raised just over $30 billion, the arithmetic is brutal. Even in the best case, the pool of shares available to retail investors represents a tiny fraction, likely in the low single digits, of what was actually requested. Reports describe the situation starkly: investors who ordered thousands of dollars worth of stock may be allocated only a handful of shares, or in some cases, none at all. Financial commentators have not been shy about characterizing this dynamic. One widely circulated analysis described the process as ‘the great fleecing of retail investors,’ arguing that the headline-grabbing 30 percent retail allocation functions more as a marketing tool to generate hype and demand than as a genuine pathway for small investors to build meaningful positions. What Happens to Investors Who Don't Get Shares For the vast majority of retail applicants who receive partial or zero allocations, the only remaining option is to buy SPCX shares on the open market after trading begins, at whatever price the stock settles at post-debut. Given the frenzy surrounding the listing, that price could be significantly higher than the $135 IPO price, meaning latecomers may end up paying a premium for the same exposure that early institutional allocants got at the offering price. A Familiar Story With Higher Stakes This pattern, massive retail enthusiasm, modest actual allocations, and a scramble in the secondary market, is not new to IPOs. But the scale here is unprecedented. With SpaceX's valuation already drawing scrutiny from analysts who question whether $1.8 trillion is justified, retail investors who chase the stock in the open market after missing their IPO allocation may be taking on outsized risk at exactly the moment the stock is most likely to be overpriced.

Small investors placed more than $100 billion in orders for SpaceX's IPO, chasing a 30% retail tranche that was unusually generous on paper. But with demand this overwhelming, most retail buyers are set to receive only a tiny fraction of what they applied for.

'$100 billion in orders, almost no shares': How SpaceX's IPO left retail investors empty-handed

Taiwan has overtaken India to become the fifth-largest stock market in the world, driven by the significant surge in the revenue of the semiconductor giant Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company. According to Bloomberg, Taiwan's stock market capitalisation reached $4.95 trillion in market capitalisation, overtaking India at $4.92 trillion, behind only the US, China, Japan and Hong Kong.&nbsp;<h2>What is driving Taiwan's rise?</h2>Taiwan's meteoric rise is driven by the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC), which now accounts for 42 per cent of the benchmark index TAIEX or Taiwan Stock Exchange Capitalisation. The chipmaker's shares have rallied 46 per cent this year, driven by the massive demand in the AI ecosystem, which many analysts are terming as the “NVIDIA proxy effect”. NVIDIA does not manufacture its own hardware; it designs chips. It is reliant heavily on TSMC for its hardware manufacturing. Every time NVIDIA secures a multibillion-dollar contract, its revenue flows into TSMC, triggering immediate and massive rallies. While Foxconn assemble the complex physical AI servers and AI factories that house NVIDIA's components. Taiwan's financial regulator recently changed the regulation about domestic funds that invest in a single stock can hold up to 25 per cent of their net asset in any listed company, up from the previous 10 per cent. This will further attract investors to TSMC.Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/indigo-crew-fixes-passenger-broken-glasses-viral-video-1779791617316">IndiGo crew member fixes passenger’s broken glasses mid-flight, internet applauds</a><h2>Is India really falling behind?</h2>India is falling behind in total market capitalisation of its stock market, mostly driven by the record outflow in the Foreign Institutional Investors, driven by the rising crude oil prices and a depreciating Indian domestic rupee. It has lost $380 billion in market cap from its peak valuation of $5.3 trillion in January 2026. The Benchmark NIFTY 50 has fallen by 8.08 per cent, while the BSE Sensex has fallen by 10.8 per cent. However, Wall Street is divided on the valuation of Taiwan and AI buildout. Analysts view the Indian market valuation as more grounded in long-term national growth compared to Taiwan's highly concentrated, hyper-rewarding technology bets.&nbsp;

Taiwan has overtaken India to become the world’s fifth-largest stock market, driven by TSMC’s AI-fuelled rally and strong semiconductor demand linked to NVIDIA.

Taiwan has overtaken India to become the fifth-largest stock market in the world, driven by the significant surge in the revenue of the semiconductor giant Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company. According to Bloomberg, Taiwan's stock market capitalisation reached $4.95 trillion in market capitalisation, overtaking India at $4.92 trillion, behind only the US, China, Japan and Hong Kong. What is driving Taiwan's rise? Taiwan's meteoric rise is driven by the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC), which now accounts for 42 per cent of the benchmark index TAIEX or Taiwan Stock Exchange Capitalisation. The chipmaker's shares have rallied 46 per cent this year, driven by the massive demand in the AI ecosystem, which many analysts are terming as the “NVIDIA proxy effect”. NVIDIA does not manufacture its own hardware; it designs chips. It is reliant heavily on TSMC for its hardware manufacturing. Every time NVIDIA secures a multibillion-dollar contract, its revenue flows into TSMC, triggering immediate and massive rallies. While Foxconn assemble the complex physical AI servers and AI factories that house NVIDIA's components. Taiwan's financial regulator recently changed the regulation about domestic funds that invest in a single stock can hold up to 25 per cent of their net asset in any listed company, up from the previous 10 per cent. This will further attract investors to TSMC. Also Read: IndiGo crew member fixes passenger’s broken glasses mid-flight, internet applauds Is India really falling behind? India is falling behind in total market capitalisation of its stock market, mostly driven by the record outflow in the Foreign Institutional Investors, driven by the rising crude oil prices and a depreciating Indian domestic rupee. It has lost $380 billion in market cap from its peak valuation of $5.3 trillion in January 2026. The Benchmark NIFTY 50 has fallen by 8.08 per cent, while the BSE Sensex has fallen by 10.8 per cent. However, Wall Street is divided on the valuation of Taiwan and AI buildout. Analysts view the Indian market valuation as more grounded in long-term national growth compared to Taiwan's highly concentrated, hyper-rewarding technology bets.

Taiwan has overtaken India to become the world’s fifth-largest stock market, driven by TSMC’s AI-fuelled rally and strong semiconductor demand linked to NVIDIA.

Taiwan overtakes India to become world’s fifth-largest stock market

taiwan-stock-market

Taiwan Stock Market, News on Taiwan Stock Market, stories on Taiwan Stock Market, articles on Taiwan Stock Market, Taiwan Stock Market stories at Wion, Taiwan Stock Market news, Taiwan Stock Market latest news

taiwan stock-market

5 reasons why 'Meta' could be the BIGGEST BUBBLE of AI era

SpaceX lost $4.9bn in 2025, so why is it worth $1.8tn?

SpaceX IPO: $100bn retail orders, but tiny allocations

Taiwan overtakes India to become world’s fifth-largest stock market