Nasdaq rises for 11 consecutive days! Why didn't the Seven Sisters all come back together?

This round of recovery validated the forward-looking judgment for Q2, dividing the repair sequence into three categories, following the rhythm of “first layering, then expanding.”

Written by: DaiDai, Frank, MSX Mai Tong

Fifteen days, the Nasdaq experienced a rollercoaster.

At the end of March, market divergence over the seven sisters was still significant, with high valuation pressures not yet cleared, and funds still finding it hard to truly move away from core technology assets; but by April 15, the Nasdaq Composite index had risen for 11 consecutive trading days, breaking the longest streak since November 2021, and the S&P 500 also hit a new all-time high.

If you only look at the index, it seems like a familiar tech rebound story, but upon closer inspection, you’ll find that the driving forces behind this rally are not just the tech stocks themselves—expectations of easing Middle East tensions, lower-than-expected PPI data, and strong early earnings season performance all contributed simultaneously. In other words, this is not just a rebound driven by sentiment; it’s a synchronized occurrence of index recovery, risk appetite revival, and earnings expectations re-pricing.

What’s more noteworthy is that within the seven sisters, their movements are not uniform—some have already led the trend back, some are filling positions, and others still have not clearly broken out of a trend. Previously, MSX’s Q2 outlook also predicted that this round of the seven sisters might not all return together, and that there’s a high probability of a sequential repair order (see extended reading: “Oil prices surge, rates struggle to fall, the seven sisters stumble: Q2 US stock excess returns, which main themes should be watched?”), breaking down into three layers: Alphabet (GOOGL.M), Amazon (AMZN.M), NVIDIA (NVDA.M) are more suitable for early focus; Microsoft (MSFT.M), Apple (AAPL.M), Meta (META.M) are better for continued observation; Tesla (TSLA.M) remains volatile and driven by strong events.

This judgment seemed restrained at the time, even lacking strong “opinions.”

But now, the market’s evolution precisely reflects this “layer first, then expand” rhythm.

1. Which group returns first, and why?

Returning to late March, market divergence over the seven sisters was very pronounced.

On one side was the concern that high valuation pressures had not yet been cleared; on the other, the reality that funds found it difficult to truly move away from core tech assets. The most discussed question then was “Will Big Tech come back?” But in hindsight, that question was too broad. The real question was never “Will they come back,” but rather “Who comes back first, and why?”

Today, half a month later, the answer has already written itself in the market.

Looking at the performance from late March to April 15, Alphabet (GOOGL.M), Amazon (AMZN.M), Meta (META.M), and NVIDIA (NVDA.M) led the gains, followed by Microsoft (MSFT.M) and Apple (AAPL.M), while Tesla (TSLA.M) lagged significantly, further confirming that this is not a synchronized rally but a layered repair ranking.

Among the first to recover are Alphabet, Amazon, and NVIDIA, each with different logic but a common point: they re-established market confidence that “investment can still lead to growth” earlier:

Alphabet’s (GOOGL.M) recovery logic is the clearest: the resilience of its core advertising cash flow provides valuation support at the bottom, and AI’s penetration into search and cloud services sustains the growth narrative. It was purely based on fundamental verifiability that funds were first trusted again;

NVIDIA’s (NVDA.M) position needs little explanation: as long as AI remains the main theme of this tech cycle, NVIDIA is always the core anchor. Market controversy has never been about “AI needing computing power,” but rather “how long can this growth rate be maintained?” So, at least for now, whether it’s cloud providers’ capital expenditure plans or demand signals for training and inference, they continue to support NVIDIA’s recovery logic;

Amazon’s (AMZN.M) change is particularly worth noting: in this cycle, market patience with Amazon was not high—concerns about slowing e-commerce growth persisted, and AWS faced competitive pressures. But as cloud margins continued to improve, AI capex investments began to translate into visible revenue signals, and overall profitability expectations were gradually accepted, Amazon entered the recovery zone earlier than many expected. Its return was not driven by a single catalyst but by multiple signals reaching the market’s re-pricing threshold simultaneously;

In other words, the companies that the market revalues first are not necessarily the most “stable,” but those that earlier convinced funds that “investment can still generate growth, and recovery can continue to trend.”

The sequence of the seven sisters’ first and subsequent recoveries is fundamentally about who reclaims the explanatory power earlier, not about emotional strength.

2. The repair is spreading, not narrowing

More importantly, this recovery is not confined to the first batch of names.

Microsoft, Apple, and Meta, which were initially more suitable for continued observation, have now clearly caught up. In other words, the market is not just focusing on the first movers but is expanding to the second layer after confirming the first phase of recovery.

This is crucial. Because if it were just a short-term emotional rebound, the market would typically be rougher: a rapid surge followed by a quick retracement, fast and with limited sustainability. But that’s not what we see now. The current pattern resembles a process where the index recovers first, then funds return to core assets, and within those assets, further sorting occurs. Companies that can sustain valuations with their performance, whose investments can still support growth, remain in the recovery sequence; those that are more driven by sentiment will fall behind in the divergence.

Therefore, the seven sisters’ recovery is more like a “sequential widening” rather than a “group rally.”

The key signal is that this recovery is not limited to the first batch of names.

Microsoft, Apple, and Meta, which were initially more suitable for continued observation, have now clearly caught up. In other words, the market is not just doing a quick rally with a few names, then stopping, but is expanding to the second layer after the first phase of recovery is confirmed.

This has a bigger significance than it appears. Because if it were just a short-term sentiment rebound, the market would be more volatile: a sharp rise, then a quick retracement, with limited persistence. But the current structure is clearly different—more like the index leading the recovery, then funds returning to core assets, and within those assets, further sorting.

This means that companies whose performance can support valuations, whose investments can still support growth, will stay in the recovery sequence; those driven more by sentiment will fall behind in the divergence.

This is why this rally resembles a “spread of recovery” rather than a “rebound ending,” preventing the entire group from quickly stalling after a surge, instead first repairing the initial batch, then expanding to the second, and continuing to filter who can stay in the trend during expansion.

Objectively, this structure indicates that the market is re-pricing core assets in a more patient manner.

However, it’s important to note that Tesla remains the most unique variable in this ranking.

It certainly has resilience and enough market attention. But so far, Tesla still behaves more like a high-volatility, event-driven asset rather than a core position that has stabilized into the trend recovery sequence. The market’s valuation of Tesla is often based on expectations of trading and event-driven factors—progress in autonomous driving policies, Robotaxi timelines, Elon Musk’s public statements—rather than stable earnings realization.

This is not to say Tesla has no trading value; quite the opposite, its volatility itself offers trading opportunities. But its existence highlights that this round of the seven sisters is not a tidy, synchronized return—some have already returned to the trend, some are still catching up, and others remain on the edge of the trend. Calling this “the entire group returning” is too coarse; understanding it as “the recovery sequence has already been laid out” is closer to the market reality.

3. How far can this recovery go?

At this point, it’s more relevant to ask not whether this rally has gone too far, but whether there is still a foundation for further expansion.

From institutional perspectives, the answer is leaning positive. BlackRock Investment Institute has upgraded its view on US stocks from neutral to overweight, citing, among other reasons, the resilience of corporate earnings, especially in tech. Citigroup also raised its US stock outlook to overweight. The S&P 500’s first-quarter earnings growth forecast has been revised upward from 12.7% pre-Middle East conflict to 13.9%. This indicates that the support for this recovery is not just risk appetite revival but also the fact that earnings expectations have not collapsed.

This is especially critical for the seven sisters’ main recovery theme. Because the logic of this rally has never been based on sentiment or liquidity alone but on the fundamental question of whether core tech companies’ earnings can still be realized. Continued upward revisions of earnings forecasts mean the foundation of the recovery remains solid, and whether it’s the first batch already in place or the second batch catching up, there’s still room to follow the trend.

Of course, variables remain. The IMF has downgraded global growth prospects due to Middle East conflicts and rising energy prices, warning that prolonged conflicts and sustained high oil prices could push the global economy closer to adverse scenarios. This suggests that the biggest external disturbance after this rally may not be the internal logic of the seven sisters failing but external macro factors—oil prices, inflation, and geopolitics.

But so far, the market’s response is leaning positive: indices leading the recovery, core tech layered repair, expanding outward after the first batch, rather than a group surge followed by quick stall. As long as this structure persists, this rally is more like an ongoing process rather than a story nearing its end.

In conclusion

The 10-day rally of the Nasdaq is not just about how long the index has risen.

It’s more like the market using the actual performance to answer the most heated debate at the end of March: whether the seven sisters will all return together or will they first be separated into a sequence.

The answer is now very clear.

Honestly, the market has never lacked retrospectives or post-hoc summaries. What’s truly scarce is whether, during the greatest divergence, someone can first identify the key points. The Q2 outlook at the end of March did not chase after a more lively, more viral conclusion but instead laid out the most critical aspects of this rally upfront: the seven sisters will not all return together; the market will first differentiate the repair sequence; and what truly determines the future space is not who bounces back fastest in the first wave but who can continue to stand firm in subsequent earnings, trends, and risk appetite.

Ultimately, whether it’s the earnings differentiation during earnings season or the new wave of expansion outside core tech, what truly matters is those judgments that can clarify the market’s focus earlier—rather than waiting until the rally is over and then patching a seemingly logical explanation.

Before the next turning point arrives, let’s continue to identify the market’s key points and stay targeted.

Let’s encourage each other.