After Bessent detailed the "economic war" tactics against Iran, oil prices took a sharp dive. This isn't because the conflict has reached its conclusion; rather, the US Treasury is expanding the categories of Iran-related activities that could face secondary sanctions in the future. So why did oil prices fall? It feels like it mirrors the "buy the rumor, sell the news" game played so often in our A-shares market.

In the latter half of this week, a lot of capital is likely getting ready to make its move. On Tuesday, after Bessent's speech, oil prices dropped. On Thursday, with Nvidia's earnings report, the market expects quarterly revenue to hit around $92 billion, which beats expectations (the forecast was around $78 billion at the start of the year). For Friday's debut, more and more sell-side analysts are betting against an immediate rate hike. The only uncertainty is whether the market needs confirmation that Nvidia's price increases can boost gross margins, and whether customers will slow down purchases due to higher system costs and financing expenses. But so far, things don't seem to be heading in a worse direction.

If no major surprises pop up, the neutral scenario points to the Fed holding off on a rate hike, the US-Iran talks ending without a deal but the geopolitical premium staying stable without escalating, oil prices oscillating in the $90-$100 range, and tech stocks experiencing high volatility driven by the IPOs of A-shares and YMTC. The most optimistic scenario would be the Fed suddenly turning dovish, Nvidia's capex guidance exceeding expectations, Anthropic's IPO prospectus validating that TaaS revenue is undervalued, the US and Iran reaching a phased agreement, and US Treasury yields falling, leading to a "Davis Double Play" for tech stocks. Though, honestly, not many would believe that optimistic scenario.

The result is that we need to get used to tech sector divergence and high volatility. Why is investing in tech so hard right now? Because the narrative has shifted from valuation storytelling to earnings certainty, and even within high-growth sectors, the winners are narrowing. Take liquid cooling, for example, which is seeing a wave of limit-up moves. The core driver is that Nvidia's semi-annual report has opened a formal window to observe revenue and profit changes, with liquid cooling project deliveries and overseas revenue growth boosting temperature control equipment income. In the tech sector, pure concept plays with no orders or cash flow will be abandoned by the market very quickly.

Actually, after every major sell-off, the leading themes tend to change. For instance, the "big optical" stocks that were heavily traded before didn't become the main rebound targets this time due to issues like speculative crowding and chip structure. Instead, the "small optical" names saw a decent bounce. After that bounce, capital continued to rotate within the tech sector, hunting for new targets. So whether you're buying tech funds or building your own ETF portfolio, you need to pay attention to the rotation from high to low and adjust your positions based on which core names are leading. After every big drop and every high-to-low switch, the core holdings will never be exactly the same, so adjustments are necessary. If you can't figure it out but still strongly believe in the tech sector, your only option is to hand over the reins to a fund manager.

Beyond liquid cooling, the CRO sector is also climbing, and among on-exchange ETFs, the ones with the biggest gains include the Hong Kong Stock Connect Healthcare ETF. This ETF is composed of 50% CXO and 20% innovative drugs, with WuXi-related companies accounting for over 38% of its weight. Why did CXO lead the gains on Tuesday? Let's first clarify the difference between CXO and innovative drugs. The market has been somewhat conflicted, wondering whether the innovative drug rally should prioritize the drug makers or the "picks and shovels" providers. These two shouldn't be viewed in isolation, as each has its own strengths. Innovative drugs offer high odds, with potential multi-fold returns if a blockbuster emerges, but their drawbacks include crowded positioning, inflated odds, and overseas pricing at just a quarter of domestic levels. CXO, on the other hand, benefits from cheap valuations, fast growth, and predictable earnings, though its downside is a relatively lower ceiling since it's a "tool seller" that can't capture the explosive gains of innovative drugs.

Market capital flows into healthcare at different stages based on which targets fit the current phase. Right now, CXO has the upper hand, essentially because being cheap plus high growth plus improving industry dynamics has triggered a rebalancing within the healthcare sector. For this wave, allow me a small moment of pride—after talking up healthcare for over two months, I've finally gotten a taste of the soup! I also want to thank you all for challenging me yesterday; I refused to believe I couldn't break through this hurdle of investing in pharma. This morning, I took a small position to test the waters, since CXO is in the early stages of a major uptrend, and ETFs like the Hong Kong Stock Connect Healthcare are still on the right side of the trend. What's also crucial is that this is a T+0 instrument, which is very important to me because intraday stop-loss and take-profit are incredibly convenient, so I can't take a big hit. It's not a windfall, but I'm grateful the market has shown me some mercy.

I'm writing this not to brag, but just to test my feel and get a pulse on the healthcare sector, so the money made isn't much. However, my approach could serve as a reference for ETF beginners: First, for industry ETFs you're interested in but not confident about, you can buy a small experimental position to truly experience the on-the-ground trading temperature, which is more effective than just watching. Second, if you have some trading skills, you can use the Livermore pyramiding method for sectors that have already established a trend. For example, when a sector breaks through a key resistance level, you could tentatively use 20% of your total capital as a base position. If the stock drops 10% after buying (20% position × 10% loss = 2% of total capital), stop out immediately. If the stock continues to rise, add to the position. This sounds contrary to the old adage of "add on dips to average down," but the core logic here is "test-confirm-add," using staged position building to amplify profits.

That said, this approach looks simple on paper, but you'll still step on landmines when you actually trade it. For instance, trying it during tech sector upheaval could lead to repeated stop-outs. So, how do I put this about trading? It does require a bit of talent... I can give you the method, but the final results depend on you. After a few rounds of trading and conversations with industry insiders, I feel like I've had a slight epiphany. Recently, I came across a quote from a healthcare-focused investor that really clicked: When a brand-new underlying technology emerges, find the "platform company." Wait until the market doesn't recognize it and the stock price falls to a sufficient margin of safety, then position yourself. As long as its position in the technology paradigm isn't shaken, once that technology breaks through in new scenarios, the market will price in all its commercial value across all scenarios at once. I'll share this with you, hoping we can all seize the days when "healthcare gets priced in all at once"! MACD golden cross signal formed, these stocks are performing well!