Nasdaq’s Worst Week Since April: Correction or Collapse?
- Claire Carpenter
- Nov 11, 2025
- 2 min read
November has brought bleak outlooks to the tech industry. Losing a cumulative total of 3% for the week, the Nasdaq has recorded its steepest weekly decline since April. What caused this? What does it mean for the future of the tech sector? Investors are eyeing this entire ordeal with unease–and rightfully so.
The historic sell-off was likely sparked by concerns over valuations, or estimates of how much an investment is worth. Investors have consistently seen growth in the tech sector since April, thanks in part to the technological advancements of generative AI. This continuous growth is good, though the pace and height of this growth is a legitimate cause for concern. Without consistent data from government agencies like the Bureau of Economic Analysis or U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, unease surrounding the validity of the slim data we have only increases investor anxiety.
Unfortunately, this may not be the last we’re seeing of the decline. On Tuesday, November 4th, Goldman Sachs Chief Executive David Solomon and Morgan Stanley CEO Ted Pick both spoke on the issue at an economic summit in Hong Kong. Acknowledging the likelihood of inflated stock value, Solomon predicts there will be a 10% to 20% drawdown in equity values in the next few years. While the current overvaluation can be partially attributed to lack of current data, it also can be attributed to the continuous large-scale spending we’re seeing on AI technology. With Silicon Valley mega firms planning to spend $400 billion on artificial intelligence development, it's easy to be curious about when this will be monetized.
In the short run, this volatility may persist– especially considering how much longer the government shutdown may persist. However, the current and future drops in tech giants’ stock valuations may result in a more grounded, accurate environment. In a sense, the correction may be a necessary reset, forcing firms to justify their valuations with tangible performance instead of more high-cost speculative spending.
Sources:
Comments