Amazon plunge continues $1T wipeout as AI bubble fears ignite sell-off

2026-02-0614:339290www.cnbc.com

Fears over AI spending have sparked a sell-off among tech stocks.

The logo and lettering of online retailer Amazon can be seen on the façade of Amazon Germany's headquarters.

Amazon shares sunk more than 9% on Friday after the company's hefty spending forecast surprised investors who were already wary that the artificial intelligence boom is at risk of becoming a bubble.

Big Tech companies have seen more than $1 trillion wiped from their market cap over the past week, as fears over AI spending sparked a sell-off.

Microsoft, Nvidia, Oracle, Meta, Amazon and Alphabet all saw their shares fall in the week up to the market close on Thursday, as the companies' earnings reports signaled huge continued capital expenditure spending from hyperscalers.

In total $1.35 trillion has been wiped from their valuations, according to FactSet data.

Plans to funnel $660 billion into artificial intelligence this year were announced by Big Tech companies, the Financial Times reported, a figure higher than the gross domestic product of countries like the United Arab Emirates, Singapore and Israel.

Shares of companies developing hardware for the AI build-out will likely encounter continued volatility as "sentiment contagion takes hold," Paul Markham, investment director at GAM Investments, told CNBC.

"Questions over the extent of capex as a result of LLM build-outs, the eventual return on that, and the fear of eventual over-expansion of capacity will be persistent," he added.

Amazon was among the firms announcing the biggest capex spending plans this earnings season.

"The key focus of [Amazon's] results was the capex guide of $200bn, up +56% on the year, ahead of market expectations and the highest amongst the hyperscalers," Mamta Valechha, consumer discretionary analyst at Quilter Cheviot, said Friday morning, adding that the spend was predominantly for its cloud unit, Amazon Web Services.

Stock chart icon

Read the original article

Comments

  • By blinding-streak 2026-02-0614:546 reply

    Question: does Amazon's retail business matter for analysts at all? It drives the majority of revenue for the company but a much, much smaller amount of profit. Does Wall Street care about Amazon's core business one iota?

    • By ecshafer 2026-02-0615:033 reply

      The margins on tech/cloud are just so astronomically higher than retail. Places like Walmart or Costco are fighting for <5% profit margins, IIRC its closer to 2%. Quick search says AWS has about a 35% profit margin and about 50-60% of the operating profit of amazon but 17% of the Revenue. With those numbers it makes sense to focus on AWS.

      IMO AWS should be spun out as a separate company.

      • By mbreese 2026-02-0615:103 reply

        This makes me wonder if Amazon the retailer requires having access to AWS services “at cost” in order to be profitable. If AWS was spun out completely, would Amazon proper be able to afford their AWS bill of AWS had a profit margin on it.

        I’m sure Amazon.com would be fine, but it would take a chunk out of their margins. I’m also sure that their X% ownership of the spun out AWS would cover the difference.

        • By mekdoonggi 2026-02-0615:151 reply

          Consider the reverse. If AWS didn't have a large guaranteed customer in the form of Amazon, would they still be able to develop their products with perfect knowledge of the needs?

          • By ivan_gammel 2026-02-0615:29

            If AWS becomes a separate business now, they may be able to build better products, given a bit less focus on one large customer (Idk if Amazon.com has any priority in their product roadmaps now)

        • By moralestapia 2026-02-0621:51

          I don't have the answer but this question has an answer, as Amazon's earning reports are public.

        • By erfburfl 2026-02-0615:21

          [dead]

      • By softwaredoug 2026-02-0615:10

        It doesn’t help that now other potential growth markets for AWS, like the EU, now are getting pushed to have more and more data sovereignty due to the administrations antipathy towards allies. Musk can whine all he wants about the EU, but that’s like complaining about customers that don’t want to buy your products instead of building a good product they trust and want to buy.

      • By tonyedgecombe 2026-02-0615:321 reply

        If they were separate businesses it would make no sense to merge them. It would be like Microsoft buying Walmart.

        • By qbrass 2026-02-0617:21

          Don't give them ideas.

    • By fmajid 2026-02-0623:16

      I'd run the numbers and AWS and Amazon's ad business together accounted for 100% of Amazon's market cap. The e-commerce division is essentially worthless as far as Wall Street is concerned, other than a loss-leader inventory source for the ad business.

    • By mlyle 2026-02-0615:011 reply

      Big revenue + small margins in a stable business, IMO, is a massive liability for the bottom line; any downturn in business and that becomes big revenue + big losses. Even if cloud is making money, it can wipe a lot of that out.

      From the point of view of running an enterprise that lasts, though, diversification is important. Financially diversification is probably, in general, bad for EPS. But if you want to run a lasting empire, it's best to not tie it to just a narrow thing.

      • By bluGill 2026-02-0615:071 reply

        That depends on the business. People are not going to stop eating so small margins in the grocery business isn't a negative - the revenue is mostly recurring and recession proof (some people might switch from buying meat to rice+beans, but other people are going to stop eating out and so it balances).

        • By mlyle 2026-02-0616:251 reply

          Just because people need a grocery store doesn't mean that you're guaranteed to make money running one.

          multiplying huge revenue by a small percentage to get a big positive number

          to multiplying huge revenue by a small negative percentage to get a big negative number

          So that's how Kroger managed to lose billions over the last couple of quarters, or how small changes in shoplifting/shrinkage based on store makeup can cause losses to some chains, etc.

          • By frumper 2026-02-0617:141 reply

            https://massmarketretailers.com/kroger-delivers-solid-quarte...

            They didn't lose money because of their grocery operations. Those margins have increased slightly.

            • By mlyle 2026-02-0618:511 reply

              They lost money because of their grocery delivery operations.

              Their margins have increased slightly if you ignore the part where their efforts at grocery fulfillment blew up.

              Just because an industry is essential doesn't mean that every firm in it makes money.

              • By frumper 2026-02-0620:31

                I agree, all kinds of grocery stores have failed over the years. Kroger's just isn't a good example of a failing store for a lot of reasons. They aren't a stellar investment, but they are also up from 1 year ago and 5 years, so investor's don't look like they agree with your summary of the business.

    • By legitster 2026-02-0614:59

      It definitely boosts their overall value as a company. If one share equals a slice of "what the company is worth now" + future growth, steady long-run revenue sets a solid baseline for the stock price.

    • By ottah 2026-02-0615:47

      Growth is all that matters. There is perceived to be much less potential growth in retail than there is in tech. You have to remember, most people literally think of computers in magical terms, and what's possible is usually more anchored by what they see in movies than what they experience in real life. So believing that Sam Altman is going to manage to capture all economic output of labor is seen as a realistic belief. Believing that Amazon will replace all retail in the world is obviously never going to happen.

    • By softwaredoug 2026-02-0615:03

      With tech companies, investors buy future growth, not stable businesses.

  • By mmastrac 2026-02-0615:05

    This insanity was going to break at some point. Now hopefully these trillions of dollars of losses might finally allow the price of old DDR4 memory I've been trying to acquire to finally recover.

  • By tucnak 2026-02-0614:434 reply

    They always say it's about "AI," but it never turns out to be about AI. I wonder what's it about this time?

    • By DaedalusII 2026-02-0614:533 reply

      wall street analysts are starting to realise that software companies shouldnt trade on a P/E of 300.

      DocuSign is currently valued at 30 times its annual earnings. Adobe is currently 16. Amazon is 28 -- has been as high as 50 recently. NVDA is 44.

      Investors are basically starting to realise that enterprise are not going to subscribe to software like DocuSign for 50 years. They'll probably just move to odoo or zohosign or something and save a lot of money. So its probably a better bet to put that capital into something like Nvidia or Tesla or whatever. it also looks like the US Fed isn't going to cut rates, so capital is getting more expensive.

      Of course, if you are a CEO its great to blame all this on AI and then tell your investors you are increasing AI in your business (see: salesforce whose stock price is down 42% in a year and is now trading at 25x earnings)

      • By bhouston 2026-02-0614:553 reply

        > software companies shouldnt trade on a P/E of 300

        You are playing pretty fast and loose with your definition of a "software company" when you include Amazon and NVIDIA in your list. Amazon is many things but it is not a "software company" and neither is "NVIDIA".

        • By master_crab 2026-02-0620:09

          I actually don’t even think it’s a IaaS company. I mean it is, but Amazon seems to always excel at operations: whether it’s organizing a retail business, operating a logistics company, or managing a hyperscaler, it just seems like its real secret sauce is running ops.

          (Which makes sense because all of their end user products suck)

        • By ecshafer 2026-02-0615:052 reply

          50% of amazon operating profit is from AWS. NVIDIA's GPUs aren't really that much better than AMD if it weren't for CUDA.

          Software company is a pretty good description for both.

          • By bhouston 2026-02-0616:381 reply

            AWS is not a software company either, it is a capital intensive computing infrastructure company. NVIDIA as well is a capital intensive computer hardware company.

            Just because software plays a role, doesn't make them software companies. It is like saying all companies are "electrical companies" because they require electricity to operate.

            • By franktankbank 2026-02-0617:282 reply

              Is a seal a sea creature or a land dweller? Well it eats at sea.

              • By bhouston 2026-02-0617:48

                Argh, we first ignored the fact that most of its income comes from being the lead e-commerce retailer to just focus on AWS and then we need to discount the fact that the majority of AWS is CapEx towards hardware / datacenter (expected CapEx this coming year is $200B), to just leave the software. Whatever.

              • By master_crab 2026-02-0620:06

                One thing is for sure: if the seal builds and manages hundreds of billions of dollars worth of computer infrastructure across seven continents, it isn’t just a software company.

          • By dd8601fn 2026-02-0615:234 reply

            I’ve heard the same about Nvidia, quite a few times, but have never really understood it.

            I don’t suppose you know a good “for dummies” explanation of why CUDA is such an insurmountable moat for them?

            Like, what is it about that software that AMD can’t produce for their own hardware, or for a most important subset, with these $1T market stakes?

            • By ecshafer 2026-02-0618:12

              CUDA is a GPGPU software layer that is very mature, and integrates with C,C++, Python, Fortran very well. AMD just never really got the same quality of GPGPU software in the last 20 years. 99% of scientific computing that uses GPUs (which is a lot since they are so much faster than CPUs for linear algebra) have gone to Nvidia because of this. All of the big AI libraries (Tensor Flow, PyTorch) basically ended up writing around CUDA, so they just didn't write things for AMD. Plus if you go and look at a job for signal processing or whatever at say Lockheed Martin or Raytheon, they specific CUDA.

            • By surgical_fire 2026-02-0615:41

              My understanding on this may be spotty (and I appreciate it if someone corrects me), but CUDA is not the software layer that allows you to use NVIDIA GPUs for AI processing?

              AMD may develop their own software layer, but a lot of things already work on CUDA, and the job to port this to a different platform may be non-trivial (or even possible depending on the level of feature parity).

            • By throwup238 2026-02-0615:431 reply

              > I don’t suppose you know a good “for dummies” explanation of why CUDA is such an insurmountable moat for them?

              Theoretically the moat isn’t insurmountable and AMD has made some inroads thanks to the open source community but in practice a generic CUDA layer requires a ton of R&D that AMD hasn’t been able to afford since the ATI acquisition. It’s been fighting for its existence for most of that time and just never had the money to invest in catching up to NVIDIA beyond the hardware. Even something as seemingly simple as porting the BLAS library to CUDA is a significant undertaking that has to validate numerical codes while dealing with floating point subtleties. The CPU versions of these libraries are so foundational and hard to get right that they’re still written in FORTRAN and haven’t changed much in decades. Everything built on top of those libraries then requires having customers who can help you test and profile real code in use. When people say that software isn’t a moat they’re talking about basic CRUD over a business domain where all it takes is a competent developer and someone with experience in the industry to replicate. CUDA is about as far from that as you can get in software without stepping on Mentor Graphics’ or Dassault’s toes.

              There’s a second factor which is that hardware companies tend to have horrible software cultures, especially when silicon is the center of gravity. The hardware guys in leadership discount the value of software and that philosophy works itself down the hierarchy. In this respect NVIDIA is very much an outlier and it shows in CUDA. Their moat isn’t just the software but the organization that allowed it to flourish in a hardware company, which predates their success in AI (NVIDIA has worked with game developers for decades to optimize individual games).

              • By franktankbank 2026-02-0617:411 reply

                Maybe nobody has reputably released non-fortran versions but they probably exist.

                • By throwup238 2026-02-0620:51

                  Lots of other versions exist including reputable ones like Intel’s MKL. The hard part isn’t reimplementing it, it’s validating the output across a massive corpus of scientific work.

                  BLAS is an example though, it’s the tip of an iceberg.

            • By DaedalusII 2026-02-0616:021 reply

              the first problem is a whole generation of people learned to code ai applications by fiddling around with the gpu in their gaming pc 10 years ago. so an entire generation of talent grew up with cuda

              the second problem is that so many libraries and existing software is cuda only. even some obscure hardware stuff. i discovered the hard way that some AMD thinkpads dont support thunderbolt transfer speeds on their usb-c ports, whereas nvidia ones do

              the third problem is that the cost to develop a cuda equivalent is so great that its cheaper for companies like google to make TPU and amazon to make Trainium. its literally cheaper to make an entire new chipset than it is to fix AMd. i dont see companies like apple/amzn/goog etc fixing AMDs chips

              • By staticman2 2026-02-0617:461 reply

                >its literally cheaper to make an entire new chipset than it is to fix AMd

                Is it? Or does AMD expect to make a profit and it's cheaper to make your own chips at cost?

                • By DaedalusII 2026-02-072:44

                  i mean its cheaper from an enterprise customer perspective. if a company is training an LLM, writing their training programs to use AMDs hardware instead of just using CUDA is so expensive and time consuming that it is cheaper to pay four times the price and use nvidia hardware. in this space its important to move fast, although that economic will shift over time

                  which is why nvidia hardware trades at a 4x premium to AMD

                  its not necessarily cheaper to make chips at cost either. nobody is making them, only designing them. so first you have to design your new chip, then you have to get a minimum order in with the chip fab so big it competes on unit economics, and then finally you have to get your dev team to write a CUDA equivalent software that is a problem so hard its only really been solved by apple, google, intel, and nvidia

                  only companies with big fab orders can get priority too.. if a company did all of the above and was ready to go, they probably wouldn't get fab capacity until 2030

        • By DaedalusII 2026-02-0615:361 reply

          youre right, i should say tech company. but at least my flawed epistemology reveals my humanity

          although one could argue disingenuously that nvda is a software company because the product they ultimately manufacture is a bunch of blueprints they email to tsmc or samsung who then actually make the chips

          • By AnimalMuppet 2026-02-0616:02

            > but at least my flawed epistemology reveals my humanity

            Plenty of AIs have flawed epistemology. But nice try.

      • By dotandgtfo 2026-02-0615:011 reply

        I've always found it confusing how run of the mill SaaS trades at multiples assuming decades of doing business. The amount of change in software businesses has been massive and being able to run a successful software business even for 15 years from 2010-2025 requires a great deal of strategy and foresight and more likely than not that's not enough. Considering how these dynamics have been accelerating as technology accelerates it just seemed so off that the market was landing on a 20-30x multiples for software businesses that don't have much moat (e.g. swathes of B2B CRUD apps).

        • By DaedalusII 2026-02-0615:331 reply

          Investor analyst looks at earnings growth and determines Customer Acquisition Cost (CAC) and Customer Acquisition Cost Payback Period (CACPP). They determine that ABC Software Corporation has no marginal manufacturing cost because it makes software that it sells online, so if it invested 90% of its profit margin into marketing it could grow its ARR by 140% a year. Then they extrapolate that for 30 years and say ok the NPV of 30 years of 140% ARR on current CAC, etc etc...

          If everyone in the industry benchmarks on more or less the same multiples, it becomes a good idea to buy any b2b crud saas trading at 10x earnings because if the big boys see it they'll probably bid it up to 30x

          the other classic move is to take a business which really isn't even a new technology, like revolut, and call it a tech business. now suddenly a bank can trade on a 50x earnings multiple instead of 15x like say a bank. many such cases~

          • By franktankbank 2026-02-0617:23

            Hes not admitting his crimes, hes bragging!

      • By koakuma-chan 2026-02-0615:171 reply

        Why would you put more money into Nvidia or Tesla right now? Don't you think they are priced in already?

        • By DaedalusII 2026-02-0615:28

          we are only examining the valuation metrics here, not comparing the companies themselves as investments.

          you could decide that if you are a very large company, building software internally to replace a SaaS product is a path forward. Or replacing a premium software like DocuSign with a cheap one like Zoho sign. or just building your own proprietary electronic signature app

          It is however impractical for big company to start manufacturing cars or designing competitive GPUs

          so the earnings of tesla and nvidia is theoretically more 'stable' than a software application company like salesforce, adobe, etc.

          this analysis ignores both the size of the company, and what it does, or whether or not any one of them is a good investment

    • By softwaredoug 2026-02-0615:051 reply

      Every tech company assumed they would be the benefactors, not victims, of AI. And investors now see that without the alleged AI growth, these companies at best look like stable utilities, not high growth stocks. At worse companies look like they make highly replaceable software as software stops being a moat.

      Moreover they look like large, inefficient organizations with a lot of human veto points that prevent innovation (requiring more human coordination is an anti moat now)

      • By symfrog 2026-02-0615:242 reply

        Was software ever a moat? Software typically only gave companies a small window of opportunity to turn a fleeting software advantage into a more resilient moat (network effects, switching costs etc.)

        • By softwaredoug 2026-02-0615:29

          Yes, I would argue good (stable, fast, easy to use) software was somewhat of a moat and much harder before coding agents.

          Stripe, Square, Shopify, Google, all thrived in some part because their services take a hard problem and make it easier to use. Now more people can take a hard problem and make it easier to use.

          All you have to do is look around (esp 5+ years ago) and see the many many BAD, unstable, hard to use, slow, etc versions of these companies

        • By tonyedgecombe 2026-02-0615:361 reply

          Windows was a moat but it looks more like an anchor now.

          • By symfrog 2026-02-0615:511 reply

            Windows' moat was not the operating system code, but that they were able to get distribution via IBM, and then grow an ecosystem of applications that were targeted at Windows, which created a snowball effect for further applications.

            • By softwaredoug 2026-02-0616:15

              Yes though still it was a big barrier to build an OS.

    • By mullingitover 2026-02-0614:532 reply

      The collapse of the yen carry trade.

      • By bhouston 2026-02-0614:571 reply

        I have read that numerous places and it seems plausible but it is beyond my investing experience.

        I think the new nominated Fed Chair is also a hard money advocate and is spooking USD alternatives (gold, silver, BTC, etc.) But hard money can be quite hard on the economy, so that could limit growth.

        • By robocat 2026-02-0615:101 reply

          We should just blame "the willies".

          Investment is all about belief. When the root cause is the willies, then we hallucinate reasons together.

          Crypto and memes have demonstrated us a lot about the drives of individual investors.

          Unfortunately it seems that professional investors are not that much more rational (from my limited personal experience with a small hedge fund, and from my years of looking at markets).

          My favourite term has always been "taking profits" which is generated by the technical analysis (I loath that term) of looking at the prices: taking an effect and publishing a cause (trying to sound smart).

          We are deeply irrational beings; often the more you go up a professional ladder the more rationalisation you see.

          During unstable periods, we see lots of weird side-effects and there is a lot that doesn't seem to make sense.

          Edit: a better meme could be "The use of AI by funds is destabilising markets"

          Disclaimer: I am not a professional investor. I am a cynic.

          • By mullingitover 2026-02-0615:201 reply

            Speculation involves belief, sure. However, there is hard math involved in markets as well, and the yen carry trade equation exists whether you believe in it or not.

      • By AnimalMuppet 2026-02-0616:071 reply

        Not saying you're wrong, necessarily, but as I type this the Dow is at 49,700. Would you expect the collapse of the yen carry trade to cause the Dow to collapse as well? Or is the Dow not high-growth enough for people to put yen-carry money into it?

        • By mullingitover 2026-02-0616:26

          > Would you expect the collapse of the yen carry trade to cause the Dow to collapse as well?

          USD devalued ~10% last year, so some of the losses are already priced into the DJI. When you account for that and sprinkle in ~3% inflation, it has lost value despite being up ~11% in the last year.

    • By renegade-otter 2026-02-0614:53

      Anecdotally, read somewhere that delivery people are going idle. The Orange One wrecked everything with tariffs, and the ripple of destruction is slowly taking its course. That's before we take into account massive outflows of cheap labor and fired government workers.

HackerNews