OMITTED

What the news leaves out.

← Omitted front page

AI Stocks Rebound Despite Nvidia Struggles

7 sources · updated 2026-11-10
Nvidia
Photo: Coolcaesar / Wikimedia Commons · CC BY-SA 4.0 · file · licence
Left 43% Center 43% Right 14%
3 left · 3 center · 1 right

What happened

On Monday, Nov. 9, U.S. stock indexes rebounded sharply after last week’s tech selloff, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average rising about 1,000 points, roughly 2%, and the S&P 500 and Nasdaq also gaining around 2%. AI‑linked shares broadly rallied: major cloud platforms, data‑center builders and many semiconductor makers advanced, and the Philadelphia Semiconductor Index logged its strongest daily gain in months. Nvidia was a notable outlier, falling about 5%–6% after its board began probing CEO Jensen Huang’s admitted affair with a woman suspected of Chinese intelligence ties, as investors weighed possible leadership uncertainty and any export‑control implications. In the options market, a trader closed a large existing Nvidia call spread and opened a new, more aggressive bullish call spread centered on February 2027 expiries, including the purchase of 52,000 call options at a $195 strike, a position worth roughly $57 million in premium. Analysts at several major banks argued the prior AI selloff looked overdone and highlighted opportunities across the wider AI ecosystem even as they flagged risks from potential regulation, election outcomes and slower data‑center spending by big cloud companies.
Sourcing check · Mostly on the record · 7 articles

2 of 4 articles cite a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report.

What these terms mean and how they're counted
On the record · names a source 2 of 4
On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: Brent Kochuba and Nadia El Bilassy
Primary evidence · cites a document or data 4 of 4
Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: market data, exchange data, company announcement
Credits another outlet 0 of 4
The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
Unnamed sources 1 of 4
The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
How it developed
When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Nov 9, 18:15 UTC by New York Post, naming its source. First document in the first report, from New York Post (market data).
Not counted 3
Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
Omitted — what each side leaves out

Unpacked

The biggest gap is how much the AI selloff and rebound are tied to politics. Right‑leaning coverage explicitly links last week’s rout to a midterm "blue tsunami" and the risk of "extreme regulation of data center developments" under a Democrat‑controlled Congress, while left‑leaning pieces discuss AI momentum and the Nvidia scandal without mentioning elections or regulatory threats at all. That difference changes whether a reader sees Monday as a mainly stock‑specific story about Nvidia’s CEO or as a referendum on Washington’s impact on the AI buildout. A secondary pattern is in word choice: right‑leaning reporting dramatizes the swing as a "historic tech rout" capped by a "cherry on top" scandal, whereas left‑leaning commentary leans on trader’s jargon like the "dead-money nature" of Nvidia and focuses on upgrades and price targets. Both sides are emotional in different ways, but one centers political jeopardy and the other centers portfolio positioning. None of the coverage answers a basic question: if regulators or law enforcement extend Huang’s situation beyond Nvidia’s internal probe, how much of the AI data‑center buildout could actually be disrupted across the industry?
Bottom line

Right‑leaning outlets like the New York Post tell readers last week’s AI slump and Monday’s 1,035‑point Dow rebound are mainly a story about a post‑midterm "blue tsunami" and the threat of stricter data‑center rules, while left‑leaning coverage largely skips that political frame and treats Nvidia’s CEO scandal and stock‑specific moves as the central drivers.

The receipts — 1 fact one side's coverage lacks
  • A trader executed a more than $100 million Nvidia options roll, including the purchase of 52,000 February 195‑strike calls worth about $57 million in premium, increasing upside exposure despite the controversy. numberin CNBC · absent from right-leaning coverage
The Left View
Left‑leaning coverage centers Nvidia’s corporate and governance risk inside a broader question about the durability of the AI trade. CNBC’s Jim Cramer characterizes Nvidia shares as having a "dead-money nature" and says a sub‑10% decline would be "lucky," emphasizing the board’s investigation into whether Jensen Huang "knowingly or unknowingly" enabled GPU shipments to China because of his relationship with Alice Huang, whom he describes as an accused Chinese spy. That coverage also focuses on stock‑specific catalysts across the AI and tech complex — upgrades for AMD, bullish calls on neocloud firms like CoreWeave and Iren, and positive views on SAP, Meta and Apple — framing Monday as a stock‑picker’s market where some AI names may re‑accelerate even if Nvidia stumbles. Another CNBC piece highlights a giant, explicitly bullish Nvidia options roll as evidence that sophisticated traders are positioning for a rebound despite expensive volatility, while Bloomberg’s programming, as signaled by its guest list, places the Nvidia slump within a macro lens that includes portfolio construction, Federal Reserve policy and overall market structure rather than partisan politics.
The Right View
Right‑leaning coverage portrays Monday’s rally as a dramatic reversal after a "historic tech rout" driven by AI fears, and links that prior slump squarely to U.S. politics. The New York Post stresses that last week’s drawdown followed a midterm "blue tsunami" and growing concern that a Democrat‑controlled Congress could impose "extreme regulation of data center developments," threatening the AI boom. In this telling, the Nvidia scandal is "the cherry on top" for investors already inclined to pull back from AI stocks, with the internal probe into whether Huang was targeted by a foreign intelligence effort raising questions about his future at the company but not fundamentally changing the sector’s prospects. The article underscores macro drivers — upcoming CPI data, fears of a December rate hike, and strong overall earnings breadth — and it highlights gains in rival chipmakers, hyperscalers and AI‑adjacent plays like Constellation Energy, while citing big Wall Street firms such as Morgan Stanley and UBS arguing that the AI rout has been overdone and that regulatory worst‑case scenarios are unlikely.
Our Take (balanced)
From the left‑leaning side, the strongest argument is that Nvidia’s underperformance is rooted in concrete company‑specific risks: an admitted affair entangled with possible Chinese intelligence links, a board investigation into any knock‑on effects for GPU flows to China, and the "key man" risk around Huang’s future, all of which justify investors demanding a higher risk premium even as the rest of AI bounces. From the right‑leaning side, the strongest argument is that the bigger driver of AI stock volatility is the policy and macro backdrop — a post‑midterm shift toward a Democrat‑controlled Congress that could tighten data‑center regulation, plus inflation and rate uncertainty — and that Monday’s across‑the‑board gains, alongside bullish calls from major brokerages, suggest last week’s politically driven selloff overshot fundamentals. The unresolved tension is whether Nvidia’s slump is mainly an idiosyncratic governance and export‑control story in an otherwise intact AI boom, or whether it should be read as an early sign that geopolitical and regulatory scrutiny could weigh more broadly on the sector’s leaders despite the latest rally.

7 sources

More stories

The week's bottom lines, in your inbox

One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.