The viral long-form article titled 'Why I No Longer Buy Nasdaq'—I’ve verified every number in it.

Original article: A lengthy post titled 'Why I No Longer Buy Nasdaq?' published by a netizen on September 3, 2026. This piece is a line-by-line data verification and commentary, with snapshot data as of the U.S. market close on September 3, 2026. Core argument in one sentence: Profitability within the Nasdaq Index has become highly polarized—the index is being propped up solely by Apple and NVIDIA; new capital is no longer flowing into broad Nasdaq index funds via dollar-cost averaging, but instead shifting toward VGT (Vanguard Information Technology ETF) and individual semiconductor stocks. Existing Nasdaq positions are held—not sold—“This is my last act of stubbornness.” Her four-part evidentiary chain: ① A chart comparing the Nasdaq’s top ten holdings shows only Apple and NVIDIA outperformed the index; ② The semiconductor supply chain (Micron, AMD, Intel, Lam Research, Applied Materials) has “generally risen 5 to 10 times more than the Nasdaq this year”; ③ By sector classification, VGT “perfectly avoids” Amazon, Google, Meta, and Tesla—and has clearly outperformed the broader market this year; ④ A brief cultural critique of these companies serves as an emotional footnote explaining her “inability to fall in love” with them. What makes this article distinctive: Its data is largely factual—far more rigorous than typical clickbait articles that fabricate numbers. Precisely because the data is real, however, several issues—exaggerated claims, selective omissions, and timing-based distortions—deserve closer scrutiny. I. Line-by-line verification: Which claims hold up? Claim from original text Verification conclusion (U.S. market close, Sep 3) ① Apple and NVIDIA outperformed the Nasdaq Composite; Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Meta, and Tesla all underperformed ✓ Accurate. Nasdaq Composite YTD return: +14.6% (verified using ONEQ, an ETF tracking the index): Apple +21.1%, NVIDIA +22.7% — both outperformed; Microsoft +6.1%, Google +9.6%, Amazon +12.2%, Meta −7.3%, Tesla −16.3% — all underperformed. ② Semiconductor stocks “have generally risen 5 to 10 times more than the Nasdaq this year” △ Directionally correct, but numerically exaggerated and based on a selectively curated list (see Section II). ③ VGT has “clearly outperformed major market indices this year” ✓ Accurate. Per Vanguard’s official data, VGT’s NAV rose +26.0% YTD (as of Aug 21), versus +14.6% for the Nasdaq Composite and +16.8% for QQQ; over the past 60 days, VGT gained +5.1% vs. QQQ’s +1.4%. ④ Amazon belongs to Consumer Discretionary, Google/Meta to Communication Services, and Tesla is not classified under Information Technology—so VGT “perfectly avoids” them ✓ Correct per GICS classification—but “avoidance = superior performance” is a separate issue (see Section IV). ⑤ Corporate culture critique: Meta is toxic, Amazon is hyper-competitive, Tesla is stingy, Google is losing top talent — Subjective preference, unverifiable; discussed in Section V. A quick note on a data trap: The “YTD −84%” figure for VGT displayed on some domestic trading platforms is false. VGT executed an 8:1 stock split on April 21, 2026. Vanguard explicitly states that “historical prices are not adjusted for splits,” so unadjusted data sources misinterpret the split as a catastrophic price collapse. If you ever see VGT appear to have halved—or halved again—on your trading platform, check the corporate action history before drawing any conclusions.

When you invest in stocks, do you find stock selection harder—or is timing your entries and exits the bigger challenge?

Thus, the world ordinary investors perceive has already undergone a layer of 'attention filtering.' In their research on investor trading behavior, Barber and Odean found that individual investors are significantly more likely to buy stocks that attract attention—such as those frequently featured in news headlines, those experiencing sudden spikes in trading volume, or those exhibiting unusually large single-day price moves. What deserves deeper reflection here isn’t merely that “retail investors favor popular stocks.” It’s a more fundamental question: Even before formal analysis begins, which stocks we consider at all is already partly determined by attention. There are thousands of publicly listed companies in the market. You cannot possibly research them all. So financial media, trending topics, rankings, gain/loss leaderboards, and social media algorithms effectively perform the first round of stock screening on your behalf. This constitutes a highly concealed risk in modern investing: You think you’re choosing stocks—but you may actually be making only a secondary selection from a candidate pool pre-selected by others. Moreover, the goals of investment platforms and investors don’t necessarily align. Investors truly seek long-term wealth growth. But financial content platforms aim for clicks, dwell time, and engagement; trading platforms benefit from higher user activity and trading volume. Indeed, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has recently held dedicated discussions on broker-dealers’ and investment platforms’ use of behavioral nudges, personalized recommendations, gamified design, and other “digital engagement practices,” raising a critical question: Are algorithms optimizing for client benefit—or also for the platform’s own revenue? So today’s ordinary investor faces not just “information asymmetry.” They face something more contemporary: Attention incentive misalignment. Many actors in the market want you to know more. But they don’t necessarily want you to trade less. III. You aren’t solving a problem with a single correct answer—you’re co-pricing with a professional system. Ordinary investors easily fall into a misconception: “If I study hard enough, I’ll uncover opportunities the market hasn’t yet discovered.” The problem is that “the market” isn’t an abstract number. The counterparty to any trade could be: a mutual fund, an insurance company, a quant firm, a market maker, industrial capital, a professional research team—or an investor equipped with far richer data and infrastructure. And even professional institutions struggle immensely to beat the market consistently. SPIVA data from S&P Dow Jones shows that in 2025, 79% of actively managed U.S. large-cap funds underperformed the S&P 500. Extending the scope to institutional accounts yields no fundamental improvement: Over the ten-year period ending December 2025, at least 80% of equity-focused institutional strategies—after fees—underperformed their respective benchmarks. This isn’t meant to argue that “professional investing is meaningless.” Rather, it underscores this point: Outperforming the market is inherently extremely difficult. So if an ordinary person works full-time during the day and spends just one hour each evening scanning news, research reports, and candlestick charts—yet sets as their goal consistent outperformance of professional institutions—that may itself be the very first flaw in their investment design. Yet there’s another often-overlooked reversal: While ordinary investors lack institutional-grade information and tools, they possess a freedom that institutions do not. Fund managers must contend with rankings.

Are Basic Materials Stocks Lagging Dow (DOW) This Year?

Aug 25, 2026

Dow Inc. and CF Industries significantly outperformed the Basic Materials sector this year with returns exceeding 68%, defying expectations of lagging performance due to improved analyst sentiment and earnings estimates.