The British pound was on track to record its biggest weekly gain against the US dollar in 12 weeks on Friday.
The currency was supported by easing domestic political concerns and weaker-than-expected US labour market data, which weighed on the dollar.
Sterling rose 0.1% to $1.3357 during the session.
The move brought its weekly gain to 1.2%, marking its strongest weekly performance against the dollar since early April.
The dollar came under pressure after the latest US employment data showed that the economy added fewer jobs than expected last month.
The softer labour market figures reduced expectations that the US Federal Reserve would continue raising interest rates.
Political concerns begin to fade
Earlier in the week, British financial markets showed signs of unease after Andy Burnham, the only Labour lawmaker to publicly express interest in replacing outgoing Prime Minister Keir Starmer, gained support for a potential leadership challenge.
Burnham had previously said that the country needed to get “beyond this thing of being in hock to the bond markets.”
His remarks raised concerns among some investors, who feared that he could move away from the government’s existing borrowing commitments.
However, market sentiment improved after Burnham reaffirmed his commitment to the country’s current fiscal rules.
Those rules include balancing day-to-day government spending through tax revenues and reducing debt as a share of economic output.
His reassurance helped ease investor concerns over fiscal discipline.
Pound slips slightly against the Euro
Against the euro, sterling edged lower to 85.73 pence.
The previous day, the British currency had touched 85.47 pence against the single currency, its strongest level in a year.
Despite easing hostilities in Iran and the gradual resumption of oil supplies from the Middle East, financial markets continue to assign a greater probability to a Bank of England interest rate hike than a rate cut later this year.
Bank of England signals remain in focus
Attention also remained on comments made by Bank of England rate-setter Catherine Mann on Thursday.
Mann said that looser financial conditions since the Bank’s June policy meeting would be an important factor when policymakers meet again in July.
She also stated that she would be prepared to support a rate increase if higher inflation expectations following the US-Iran war reduce the likelihood of inflation returning to the Bank’s 2% target.
Money market futures currently imply around a 70% chance of a Bank of England rate hike by the end of the year.
Before the Middle East conflict, investors had expected the central bank to deliver two interest rate cuts during 2026.
Recent developments, however, have prompted markets to reassess that outlook in favour of tighter monetary policy.
Anyone deciding between BloFin and Bybit for copy trading wants the same thing: which one lets me mirror a trader more precisely, vet that trader’s record more thoroughly, and keep more of the profit.
Most comparison pages that rank for this question answer with a generic score or a feature checklist that leaves the copy-trading row blank.
This one settles it with the specifics that actually matter, taken from each exchange’s official help center and verified in June 2026.
The short answer up front. The two platforms now tie on the entry point: both require 100 USDT to copy a trader.
BloFin pulls ahead on flexibility and vetting: it offers three copy modes instead of two, surfaces risk-adjusted trader metrics (Sharpe, Sortino, Calmar) that Bybit’s leaderboard leaves out, runs native spot copy alongside futures, and has an accessible VIP fee path.
Bybit pulls ahead on scale and precision: a slightly cheaper base futures fee, a longer track record, a larger roster with deeper liquidity, and more granular per-order risk parameters.
Neither platform is the right answer for everyone, so the rest of this guide shows where each one wins.
How we compared the two
A copier decides on six things: the minimum capital to copy one trader, the copy modes and position-sizing controls, the per-order risk settings, the depth of the trader analytics used to pick a lead, the profit share paid to that lead, and the cost and depth of the venue underneath.
Minimums, modes, and fee figures here come from each platform’s own help center and fee schedule, not from third-party aggregators.
Where one platform clearly wins a category, it is named. Where it does not, it is not.
Head-to-head comparison
Feature
BloFin
Bybit
Minimum to copy a trader
100 USDT
100 USDT (a Master Trader may require higher)
Copy amount range
From 100 USDT, up to 100,000 USDT
From 100 USDT, balance-dependent
Number of copy modes
3 (Smart Copy, Fixed Amount, Fixed Ratio)
2 (Smart Copy, Advanced Copy)
Risk-adjusted leaderboard metrics
Yes (Sharpe, Sortino, Calmar)
Yes (Sharpe, Sortino only)
Per-copy take-profit / stop-loss
Yes
Yes (stop-loss ratio and take-profit ratio per order)
Margin mode choice per copy
Cross or isolated
Follow lead, cross, or isolated
Leverage control
Copy lead or set fixed
Follow lead, fixed, or custom
Customizable max slippage per order
Not stated in help center
Yes (default 0.5% to 1.5%)
Profit share to lead
Standard 10%, up to 20%
Tiered by trader rank, 10% to 15%
Spot copy trading
Yes (futures and spot)
Futures only (USDT perpetuals)
Futures taker fee (base, VIP 0)
0.0600%
0.0550%
VIP 1 futures taker / maker
0.0500% / 0.0060% (50,000 USDT held assets)
0.0400% / 0.0180% (100,000 USDT held assets)
Trader roster and track record
Smaller, growing
Larger, longer-running
All figures verified against support.blofin.com and the Bybit help center in June 2026.
Minimum to copy a trader
This one is a tie. The minimum funds to copy a single trader is 100 USDT on both platforms.
Bybit’s help center states that the floor to copy a Master Trader is generally 100 USDT, and an individual Master Trader can set a higher required minimum. BloFin’s effective minimum to copy a trader is also 100 USDT.
Because the entry point is the same, capital is not the deciding factor between these two.
A copier with 100 USDT can open on either platform, and a copier who wants to spread a small balance across several traders faces the same per-trader floor on both.
The split between BloFin and Bybit shows up in the controls, the trader analytics, and the venue underneath, not in how much you need to start. The sections below cover those.
Copy modes and position sizing
Both platforms let you decide how your funds track the lead. They differ in how many ways they let you do it.
BloFin offers three modes:
Smart Copy. Leverage, margin mode, and trade sizing sync automatically with the lead. It is the one-click, set-and-forget option, recommended for beginners.
Fixed Amount. Each copied trade uses the same set USDT margin, regardless of the lead’s order size. This keeps per-trade exposure predictable when a lead uses large or inconsistent position sizes.
Fixed Ratio. Each copy scales by a multiplier of the lead’s order, so position size grows or shrinks with how much the lead invests. Margin per order equals the multiplier times the lead’s order value divided by your leverage.
Bybit offers two modes:
Smart Copy Mode. Bybit sizes each copy by a fixed ratio calculated from the Master Trader’s order cost and available balance, and your leverage follows the Master Trader. This is the recommended mode for beginners.
Advanced Copy Mode. You set a fixed margin for each copied order and choose your own leverage (follow the trader, fixed, or custom per contract). This is the mode for experienced copiers who want manual control.
BloFin’s three discrete modes give a copier one more sizing method than Bybit’s two. In practice, BloFin’s Fixed Amount and Fixed Ratio map closely to Bybit’s Advanced Copy Mode, while both platforms’ Smart Copy options behave the same way: automatic sizing with the lead’s leverage. The extra mode is a real edge for BloFin, but it is a modest one rather than a structural difference.
Per-order risk controls
Both platforms let copiers cap risk at the order level, and Bybit’s published controls are more granular.
On BloFin, each copy carries its own take-profit and stop-loss, a choice of cross or isolated margin, and the option to copy the lead’s leverage or set your own fixed leverage.
On Bybit, copiers can set a stop-loss ratio per order, a take-profit ratio per order, a maximum position margin per contract, a maximum daily position limit, and a customizable maximum slippage per order.
Bybit’s default slippage threshold varies from 0.5% to 1.5% by trading pair, and a copy order is skipped if the entry price moves beyond that threshold.
Bybit also offers Perp Copy Stop Loss, which unfollows a Master Trader once accumulated losses hit a set amount.
On the number of published risk parameters, Bybit is ahead, particularly with its customizable per-order slippage cap and daily position limit. BloFin covers the essentials that most copiers actually use: take-profit, stop-loss, margin mode, and leverage.
Trader analytics on the leaderboard
Picking a lead is the most important decision a copier makes, and the two platforms give you different information to make it.
Both leaderboards show the basics: ROI, win rate, total followers, and maximum drawdown.
BloFin’s leaderboard goes further, reporting risk-adjusted metrics next to those figures: the Sharpe ratio (return against total volatility), the Sortino ratio (return against downside volatility), and the Calmar ratio (return against maximum drawdown).
Bybit displays Sharpe and Sortino ratios as well, but does not surface a Calmar ratio.
In some cases, Bybit also reports Sharpe or Sortino values as ∞, which can make comparisons between traders less informative.
The difference matters when two traders post similar ROI. The one who earned it with steadier, lower-volatility trades should show a higher Sharpe and Sortino; the one who generated returns while taking deeper drawdowns should show a lower Calmar.
While Bybit users can assess volatility-adjusted performance through Sharpe and Sortino, they lack a direct measure of how efficiently returns were generated relative to maximum drawdown.
For a copier evaluating an unfamiliar lead, BloFin’s inclusion of the Calmar ratio provides an additional lens on risk-adjusted performance that is not readily available on Bybit.
Profit share to the lead
Copy trading layers a profit share to the lead trader on top of normal trading fees.
On BloFin, the standard profit share to the lead is 10%, currently up to 20% for eligible traders.
On Bybit, the share is tiered by the Master Trader’s rank on the platform, 10% at the entry tiers, rising to 15% for gold-ranked leads.
The ranges are close: Bybit’s ceiling is slightly lower, while BloFin’s standard rate matches Bybit’s entry tier at 10%.
Either way, the profit share is usually the larger cost component for a copier, ahead of per-trade fees.
Fees on the underlying trades
Copy trading does not waive normal trading fees. Every copied trade pays the same maker or taker fee as a direct trade, plus the profit share.
BloFin futures taker (base, VIP 0): 0.0600%
Bybit futures taker (base, VIP 0): 0.0550%
On the base futures taker rate, Bybit is cheaper by 0.0050%.
For a copier turning over 100,000 USDT in notional per month, that gap is roughly 5 USDT, small next to the profit share but real at high volume.
This is a clear, honest win for Bybit at the base tier.
Higher up the ladder, the picture shifts in both directions. BloFin’s VIP 1 is reached by holding 50,000 USDT in assets (the easiest of its three entry routes; the others are volume thresholds) and drops the futures rate to 0.05% taker and 0.006% maker.
Bybit’s first tier opens at a 100,000 USDT balance or a 30-day volume threshold and prices futures at 0.04% taker and 0.018% maker.
So at VIP 1, Bybit is cheaper on taker, and BloFin is cheaper on maker, and the real difference is the bar: BloFin’s asset threshold is half of Bybit’s.
For a copier with under 100,000 USDT to park, BloFin’s discount opens first; for one above it, Bybit’s VIP taker pricing takes the edge.
Trader roster, track record, and liquidity
Bybit has run consumer copy trading longer and operates one of the larger derivatives venues in crypto, which gives it three advantages here: a longer track record, a larger roster of Master Traders to filter on win rate, drawdown, and follower count, and deeper liquidity for execution.
For a copier shopping for a strategy rather than copying someone they already know, a larger roster means more filtering options.
BloFin’s roster is smaller and growing. Its up-to-20% profit share is partly a tool to attract strong lead traders.
For a copier who already knows which trader they want to follow, roster size is moot.
For one still searching, Bybit’s larger pool is the stronger starting point.
Spot copy trading
BloFin extended copy trading to spot markets alongside its futures product, which is uncommon among crypto-native venues that built copy trading on perpetuals first. Bybit’s copy trading covers USDT perpetuals only.
For a copier who wants long-only spot exposure without funding-rate risk, BloFin’s spot copy option is a genuine difference.
Most copy trading still runs on perpetuals because that is where leads publish their trades, but the spot route opens a different risk profile.
Proof of reserves and transparency
Both exchanges publish proof of reserves with Merkle-tree verification, which lets a user check that customer balances are backed one-to-one.
Industry trackers such as CoinGecko list overall venue volume and trust signals worth checking before committing capital, since copy-execution quality scales with how liquid the underlying venue is.
BloFin states a 1:1 reserve policy with ratios above 100%, customer assets held separately from corporate funds, and third-party on-chain tracking through Nansen.
Bybit publishes a monthly Merkle-tree proof of reserves that has been audited by Hacken since 2024, a program tested in practice when the venue absorbed a roughly $1.5 billion ETH theft in February 2025, replenished reserves, and kept withdrawals open. Both meet the current industry standard.
Which one fits which copier
Choose BloFin if you are:
Wanting to vet a lead on risk-adjusted metrics (Sharpe, Sortino, Calmar), not just ROI and win rate
Looking for one more position-sizing mode than Bybit offers
Interested in spot copy trading alongside futures
Able to hold 50,000 USDT in assets and want the accessible VIP 1 fee path
Wanting a standard 10% profit share to the lead, with a published 20% ceiling for eligible leads
Choose Bybit if you are:
Shopping a larger roster of Master Traders with a longer track record and deeper liquidity
Already trading on Bybit and want to add copy trading without moving funds
Optimizing for the lowest base futures taker fee at base tier
Wanting the most granular per-order risk controls, including customizable slippage and a daily position limit
Beyond copy trading: the venue underneath
A copier picking between the two is also picking the venue. Three differences sit outside the copy product.
BloFin’s BTC and ETH perpetuals run to 150x leverage against Bybit’s 100x, a spec that matters less than it markets, since copy positions inherit the lead’s sizing anyway.
Both venues offer demo modes, though Bybit’s demo does not extend to copy trading.
Liquidity cuts the other way: Bybit’s derivatives book runs roughly an order of magnitude deeper by daily volume, which is the single biggest venue-level advantage for a copier following high-frequency leads.
Venue fact
BloFin
Bybit
Max BTC perp leverage
150x
100x
Demo trading
Yes (spot and futures)
Yes (does not cover copy trading)
Spot copy trading
Yes
No (USDT perpetuals only)
Proof of reserves
1:1 Merkle, Nansen-tracked
Monthly Merkle, Hacken-audited
Risks to weigh either way
Copy trading is not a guaranteed path to profit. Past leaderboard returns are not predictive, and copiers tend to underperform the lead they follow because their orders fill on a slight delay at slightly worse prices, a gap that compounds during volatility.
The Bitget copy trading guide explains copy trading as automatically mirroring another trader’s positions, and notes that the copier inherits the lead’s risk profile, not just the upside.
Before allocating on either platform, verify a lead’s full track record and drawdown depth rather than recent wins, diversify across traders if capital allows, and set stop-loss controls on every copy.
FAQ
What is the minimum to start copy trading on BloFin or Bybit?
Both require 100 USDT to copy a single trader, so they tie on the entry point. On Bybit, an individual Master Trader can set a higher required minimum than the 100 USDT floor.
Does BloFin or Bybit have more copy trading modes?
BloFin has three modes (Smart Copy, Fixed Amount, Fixed Ratio). Bybit has two (Smart Copy Mode and Advanced Copy Mode). Both platforms’ Smart Copy options size positions automatically and follow the lead’s leverage.
Which exchange has lower copy trading fees?
Bybit has a marginally lower base futures taker rate, 0.0550% versus BloFin’s 0.0600%. On top of trading fees, both charge a profit share to the lead, which is the larger cost for most copiers. BloFin’s profit share is standard 10% (up to 20%); Bybit’s is tiered by trader rank, 10% to 15%.
Can I copy multiple traders at once on both platforms?
Yes on both. Because each platform sets the same 100 USDT floor per trader, the capital needed to diversify across several leads is the same on BloFin and Bybit. Diversifying across, say, three traders takes at least 300 USDT on either one.
Does BloFin or Bybit offer spot copy trading?
BloFin supports both futures and spot copy trading natively. Bybit’s crypto copy trading covers USDT perpetuals only.
Which platform gives better data for vetting a lead trader?
BloFin’s leaderboard reports Sharpe, Sortino, and Calmar ratios alongside ROI, win rate, and maximum drawdown. Bybit also displays Sharpe and Sortino ratios, but does not provide a Calmar ratio. As a result, BloFin gives copiers one more risk-adjusted lens for distinguishing between traders with similar returns but different risk profiles.
Which platform gives copiers more per-order risk controls?
Bybit exposes more published parameters, including a stop-loss ratio per order, take-profit ratio per order, maximum position margin per contract, daily position limit, and a customizable maximum slippage per order (default 0.5% to 1.5%). BloFin covers take-profit, stop-loss, margin mode, and leverage per copy.
The short version
Both platforms start at the same 100 USDT to copy a trader, so the choice comes down to what happens after you fund the account. BloFin is the better fit for a copier who wants more ways to size each copy, risk-adjusted analytics (Sharpe, Sortino, Calmar) to vet a lead, native spot copy alongside futures, and an accessible VIP fee path. Bybit is the stronger choice for a copier who wants the longest track record, the largest roster to filter, the deepest liquidity, the lowest base futures fee, and the most granular per-order risk controls. The right pick depends on whether deeper controls and trader analytics matter more to you than roster size and base-tier pricing.
Information as of June 2026. Both exchanges update copy trading products frequently. Crypto trading carries risk of total loss. This article is editorial and is not investment advice. Confirm minimums, fee schedules, and feature availability on each exchange’s official help center before allocating capital.
Investor Michael Burry, best known for his successful bet against the US housing market portrayed in The Big Short, has reportedly opened a short position in Micron Technology (MU), arguing that the memory chip maker’s recent rally has been driven by speculative enthusiasm rather than fundamentals.
According to a post published on his Substack, Burry shorted Micron shares at $1,051.87 on July 1 while simultaneously adding to five existing long positions.
The move comes as Micron remains one of the best-performing semiconductor stocks of 2026 despite a recent pullback.
Micron shares have gained more than 240% since the start of the year, although the stock has declined around 10% over the past month after reaching a high of $1,255 following its June 25 earnings report.
Burry questions Micron’s valuation and cyclical history
In his Substack post, Burry argued that Micron’s rally reflects investor psychology rather than long-term business fundamentals.
Burry said he shorted the stock because of “fear of missing out, greater fool theory, [and] public commitment bias.”
He also highlighted the company’s long history of volatility.
“Micron defines cyclical like no other,” Burry wrote, noting that the company has experienced 34 drawdowns of more than 30% over the past 42 years.
He added that Micron shares are now trading further above their 200-day moving average than at any time since 1984, “not even during the dot-com peak.”
Burry also criticized the company’s historical profitability, stating that Micron’s median return on invested capital of 4% and median return on equity of 7% are “frankly terrible.”
He further argued that “one quarter in every three, Micron is a destroyer of capital,” pointing to decades of uneven returns and periods of negative free cash flow.
Although options could have provided another way to express a bearish view, Burry said, “the puts seemed expensive,” adding that he “will look to add puts should the stock settle down and bring volatility down.”
Bearish view extends across semiconductor sector
The Micron position forms part of Burry’s broader negative outlook on artificial intelligence-related semiconductor stocks.
Earlier this week, he disclosed short positions in Nvidia, Applied Materials and the iShares Semiconductor ETF (SOXX), saying AI-related chip stocks could face a 30% correction.
In a separate June 30 Substack post, Burry expressed concern over plans by Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix to invest more than $500 billion in a new semiconductor hub.
“The proximate cause of today’s rally is big spending announced out of Korea,” Burry wrote. “Well, I see that as the beginning of the end.”
Market sentiment toward memory stocks has also weakened more broadly.
Micron shares fell 5% on Thursday after falling nearly 11% on Wednesday alongside sharp losses in SanDisk.
Some market participants linked the decline to reports that Meta is considering selling excess cloud capacity, while another report indicated that Apple is seeking additional memory supply from China.
Commenting on the industry, Swissquote senior analyst Ipek Ozkardeskaya said, “China makes up around 15% of Apple’s sales and other companies could follow these steps as they also see their profits being squeezed by an unreasonable jump in memory chip prices.”
Burry adds to long positions
While increasing his bearish exposure to semiconductors, Burry also disclosed that he added to several existing investments.
According to his Substack post, he increased holdings in PayPal, Sprouts Farmers Market, Zoetis, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Summarizing his latest positioning, Burry wrote: “Yesterday I shorted one stock even though it was down a good amount because I think I have a pretty good idea how this resolves. I also added to five positions. This time may be different, but not nearly different enough.”
Nvidia enters the second half of 2026 facing growing pressure to defend both its market leadership and investor confidence.
While the company remains the world’s largest by market capitalisation, its stock has lagged several semiconductor peers this year as investors broaden their focus across the artificial intelligence (AI) supply chain.
The company continues to benefit from strong demand for AI processors.
However, questions are emerging over whether Nvidia can sustain its dominance as its largest customers increasingly develop competing technologies and as Apple closes the gap in market value.
Apple closes the gap in market value
Nvidia has remained the world’s most valuable listed company by market capitalisation for 258 consecutive days after reclaiming the top position from Microsoft in late June last year.
Although the streak is among the longest this century, it remains well behind Apple’s longest run as the market leader.
Apple held the top position for 1,344 consecutive days between 2013 and 2018.
Furthermore, Apple is closing the gap with a $4.53 trillion valuation after a 13% gain in 2026.
Nvidia currently has a market capitalization of $4.72 trillion, after a paltry 3% gain in the year so far.
Nvidia continues to strengthen its core business
Nvidia has maintained a consistent pace of technological innovation through annual upgrades to its AI processors.
The company expects to ship its latest Vera Rubin hardware in volume during the second half of the year.
It is also expanding beyond data centre chips with a recently announced processor aimed at the consumer PC market.
Over the longer term, Nvidia is looking towards emerging opportunities such as robotics, although faster commercial adoption could help address investor concerns about the longevity of the AI investment cycle.
On the manufacturing front, Nvidia has largely avoided significant production disruptions.
The company continues investing in key suppliers while securing long-term agreements for critical components, including memory chips.
Chief Executive Officer Jensen Huang has also balanced political demands for greater investment in the United States while securing manufacturing capacity from Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing.
Shareholder returns mirror Apple’s strategy
Nvidia has increasingly adopted a shareholder return strategy similar to Apple’s.
Apple returns nearly all of its free cash flow through share buybacks.
Nvidia plans to return around 50% of its free cash flow through dividends and buybacks this year, with management indicating that this proportion could increase over time.
The approach reflects growing confidence in the company’s cash-generating ability while rewarding long-term shareholders.
Software ecosystem remains a competitive advantage
The next challenge will be proving that CUDA remains equally effective in AI inference, the process of running trained AI models.
Competition is increasing in this area.
Cerebras Systems claims its integrated hardware and software platform delivers faster inference performance than Nvidia.
At the same time, Alphabet and Amazon are developing custom AI chips for external customers while continuing to purchase Nvidia processors for their own AI infrastructure.
The trend highlights an increasingly complex competitive landscape in which some of Nvidia’s biggest customers are simultaneously becoming rivals.
Consumer expansion could become the next growth driver
For Nvidia to replicate Apple’s long-term durability, the company may need to extend its ecosystem beyond enterprise AI infrastructure.
Its expansion into consumer PCs and, eventually, robotics could help build a more integrated hardware and software ecosystem that encourages customer loyalty, similar to Apple’s tightly connected product portfolio.
Successfully creating such an ecosystem could reduce customer switching while opening additional revenue streams beyond data centres.
The stock briefly traded above the $200 level after opening higher before reversing direction.
Despite remaining one of the primary beneficiaries of AI-related investment, Nvidia has underperformed several semiconductor companies in 2026.
The semiconductor sector has delivered strong gains during the first half of the year.
The VanEck Semiconductor ETF advanced more than 70% during the first six months of 2026, marking its strongest first-half performance since the fund launched in 2000.
Following the rally, several leading semiconductor stocks experienced profit-taking.
Investor interest has also shifted across different segments of the AI supply chain.
Memory chip manufacturers have benefited from supply constraints and rising demand, while companies specialising in central processing units (CPUs) have attracted increased attention amid expectations that next-generation agentic AI systems will require significantly greater computing resources.
Micron has emerged as one of the biggest beneficiaries of the memory cycle.
Advanced Micro Devices and Intel have also gained as investors anticipate stronger CPU demand alongside continued AI infrastructure expansion.
This broader investor interest has created a more competitive investment landscape for Nvidia despite sustained demand for its graphics processors.
Despite its modest 3% gain in 2026, some investors believe Nvidia could deliver a significantly stronger performance during the second half of the year if AI spending continues to accelerate into 2027.
NVDA currently trades at approximately 21.5 times forward earnings, broadly in line with the S&P 500.
In the previous two years, however, the company’s valuation reached more than 40 times forward earnings by year-end.
Supporters of the stock argue that continued AI infrastructure investment could justify a higher valuation once investors begin pricing in expected spending beyond 2026.
Whether Nvidia can regain stronger momentum will likely depend on its ability to maintain technological leadership, defend its software ecosystem, expand into new consumer markets, and demonstrate that long-term AI demand remains intact amid intensifying competition across the semiconductor industry.
As US stocks continue to trade near record highs, investors are once again debating whether markets have entered bubble territory.
Elevated valuations and persistent geopolitical tensions have fueled concerns that equities may have become disconnected from fundamentals.
Increasingly, however, market strategists argue that the more important question is not whether there is a stock market bubble, but whether an earnings bubble is forming.
The distinction is significant because corporate profits have continued to exceed expectations.
Earnings forecasts have risen sharply across sectors, helping justify higher valuations even as some investors warn that current estimates may prove difficult to sustain.
Earnings growth has accelerated beyond previous recoveries
Wall Street analysts are forecasting approximately 25% earnings growth for 2026 and nearly 18% growth for 2027, according to Bloomberg data.
Several investors note that the pace of earnings upgrades is among the strongest since the post-pandemic recovery.
Technology has led the upgrades, with earnings forecasts rising by more than 30% this year.
Communication services have also seen upgrades exceeding 20%, while energy earnings expectations have increased for different sector-specific reasons.
Importantly, analysts say earnings growth is broadening beyond a handful of mega-cap technology companies into other industries.
The rapid increase in earnings expectations has also helped keep equity valuations from expanding as quickly as stock prices.
US stocks currently trade at roughly 20 times forward earnings estimates, according to Bloomberg data.
While elevated, that multiple remains below levels reached during the 2020 recovery and well below valuations recorded during the dot-com bubble.
“We are in the middle of the strongest earnings upgrade cycle since the commodity supercycle,” said Arun Sai, senior multi-asset strategist at Pictet Asset Management in a Financial Times report.
Some investors warn an earnings bubble may be emerging
Not everyone believes current earnings expectations are sustainable.
Ben Inker, co-head of asset allocation at GMO, said forecasts for the coming years have risen unusually quickly.
Forecasts for the next year’s profits have increased by almost 20% in just six months, representing the fastest rise since 2021.
“What we are due for, in the market, is the eventual realisation that they will not come true,” Inker said.
Capital Economics also warned this week that “AI-related equity markets may be approaching a point where earnings expectations and capital expenditure assumptions become difficult to sustain” and that any correction could “trigger a broad equity market pullback”.
Sarah Ketterer, chief executive of Causeway Capital Management, also noted that low valuation multiples may not necessarily indicate attractive buying opportunities if companies are approaching peak earnings.
Semiconductor cycle remains central to the debate
Much of the current discussion centers on semiconductors, where extraordinary demand driven by artificial intelligence has fueled record earnings.
The industry has historically been highly cyclical.
Companies such as Micron Technology have previously traded at very low earnings multiples during peak earnings periods because investors anticipated future oversupply.
This cycle appears different in the near term because supply constraints remain significant.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. has outlined approximately 40% growth in capital expenditure, while Samsung Electronics plans to invest $73 billion in capital spending and research and development.
SK Hynix and Micron are also expanding production capacity.
However, much of that additional manufacturing capacity is not expected to become operational until 2027 or 2028.
As a result, current supply shortages are expected to continue supporting earnings over the next 12 to 18 months.
Memory industry revenue illustrates the scale of the expansion.
The sector generated roughly $200 billion in revenue during 2025, with forecasts pointing to approximately $600 billion in 2026 and nearly $800 billion in 2027.
Even so, some analysts believe long-term earnings projections may already reflect excessive optimism.
AI spending is supporting broader corporate earnings
Beyond semiconductor companies, analysts point to another important development.
Large technology companies including Alphabet, Meta Platforms and Microsoft are no longer simply accumulating cash through share buybacks and balance sheet expansion.
Instead, they are deploying substantial capital into AI infrastructure, particularly data centers.
Analysts estimate that data center investment now represents more than 2% of US gross domestic product through new capital expenditure.
Those investments create broader economic activity by generating demand for construction, electrical work, logistics, and industrial materials.
The resulting economic multiplier has contributed to improving earnings across industries beyond technology.
This has created an unusual backdrop in which consumer spending remains pressured by higher borrowing costs while corporate earnings continue to strengthen.
Concentration and valuations remain warning signs
Despite improving earnings, concerns remain about market concentration.
According to Bank of America, the “AI Big 10” now account for approximately 41% of the S&P 500, a concentration similar to technology and telecommunications companies during the dot-com era.
The group includes Nvidia, Microsoft, Alphabet, Amazon, Meta Platforms, Apple, Tesla, Broadcom, Micron and Advanced Micro Devices.
The Nasdaq Composite rose 21.4% during the second quarter of 2026, marking its strongest quarterly performance since the post-pandemic rebound.
The gains were fueled largely by continued investment in AI infrastructure, semiconductor companies and enthusiasm surrounding SpaceX’s public listing.
Some strategists also point to traditional valuation measures as evidence of stretched markets.
The cyclically adjusted price-to-earnings ratio (CAPE), popularized by economist Robert Shiller, has climbed above 40 for the S&P 500.
Analyst Joachim Klement of Panmure Liberum argues current conditions differ from the dot-com bubble because today’s leading AI companies generate substantial profits.
However, he also warns that investors may now be paying premium valuations on earnings that are themselves unusually elevated.
Key risks investors are watching
Despite strong earnings momentum, investors continue monitoring several potential risks.
Inflation remains a primary concern. Any renewed acceleration in price pressures could prompt the Federal Reserve to keep interest rates higher for longer, increasing financing costs while slowing consumer demand.
Oil prices also remain an important variable. Rising energy costs would support profits for energy producers but could pressure consumers and businesses across much of the economy.
The biggest market risk, however, remains a slowdown in earnings growth itself.
If earnings growth falls materially below current expectations while investors simultaneously reduce the valuation multiples they are willing to pay, markets could face both earnings downgrades and multiple compression at the same time.
Investors are also closely watching whether earnings strength continues expanding beyond technology and whether AI-related capital spending remains sufficient to justify current expectations.
For now, corporate earnings continue to provide support for elevated equity valuations.
Whether those expectations prove sustainable may ultimately determine whether today’s market represents justified optimism—or the early stages of an earnings bubble.
