The prevailing narrative of an overvalued artificial intelligence sector is often misplaced, according to Tom Lee, Managing Partner and Head of Research at Fundstrat Global Advisors. In a recent segment on CNBC’s “Closing Bell,” Lee engaged with interviewer Scott Wapner to dissect the current market dynamics, particularly focusing on the resilience and underlying strength of the AI trade amidst broader economic concerns and a fluctuating market. His commentary offered a nuanced perspective, challenging conventional wisdom about market bubbles and highlighting the unique characteristics driving the AI revolution.
Lee asserted that the AI trade is "still in really good shape fundamentally." This conviction stems from the clear visibility of significant AI spending across industries and the continuous innovation and "gain of function taking place with the models." This perspective posits that the substantial investment in AI is not speculative but rather a response to tangible advancements and widespread adoption, suggesting a sustained period of growth and development. The fundamental drivers for AI, from enhanced computational power to increasingly sophisticated algorithms, continue to yield practical applications and efficiencies that businesses are eager to integrate.
One common criticism leveled against the AI sector is its perceived exorbitant valuations. Wapner raised this point, prompting Lee to draw a compelling comparison. While many might consider AI stocks expensive, Lee highlighted Nvidia, a bellwether for the AI chip market, noting it "still only trades at 29 times forward earnings. I mean, it's still cheaper than Costco." This direct comparison serves to ground the discussion, illustrating that even leading AI innovators, despite their rapid growth and market dominance, may not be trading at bubble-like multiples when viewed against other established, high-performing companies. It suggests that the market is still in the process of accurately pricing the long-term potential of these transformative technologies.
The conversation further delved into specific AI players, with Palantir being brought up as an example of a stock that might be considered "too rich." Lee, however, reframed this, categorizing Palantir as an "N=1 company... developing products that really seem like magic for the companies that adopt it." This "N=1" designation implies a unique, founder-led business with proprietary technology that delivers unparalleled value, making traditional valuation metrics less applicable. He likened Palantir's current position to Tesla in 2018, a company then considered incredibly expensive but which subsequently became a massive performer. This historical parallel suggests that groundbreaking innovation, even when initially met with skepticism over valuation, can ultimately justify its premium through sustained growth and market disruption.
Beyond the specifics of AI companies, Lee offered a broader analysis of recent market wobbles. He attributed these fluctuations, in part, to fund managers "taking shots at the leaders" when their own portfolios underperform. This phenomenon is exacerbated by the S&P 500's impressive 80% gain over the past three years, a benchmark that only 21% of fund managers have managed to beat. This creates immense pressure for fund managers to "chase into year-end," often leading to reactive and sometimes counterproductive trading behaviors. Such market dynamics, Lee implies, are more a reflection of institutional pressures and short-term performance anxieties than a fundamental weakness in the underlying economy or the leading sectors.
The sheer capital expenditure required for AI infrastructure also came under scrutiny, with concerns about companies tapping debt markets to fund their ambitious build-outs. Lee addressed this by stating that "AI is proving to be a scale gain." He emphasized that the development of competitive AI models, like those from OpenAI, demands immense scale and a vast quantity of specialized chips. This is not a domain where small garage startups can easily compete. Instead, it mirrors the historical development of other critical infrastructure sectors such as telecommunications, energy, and internet fiber, where a handful of major players dominate due to the massive capital and technological requirements. This concentration of power among a few well-resourced entities ensures that the investments, while substantial, are directed towards building foundational capabilities that will underpin future economic growth, further justifying the long-term outlook for these industry leaders.
