The index is trading in its medium-term ascending channel on the four-hour timeframe between the EMA200 and EMA50. However, if the index corrects upward towards the specified supply zone, it is possible to sell Nasdaq with better risk-reward.
In recent days and weeks, the Nasdaq Composite Index once again approached its historic highs, even setting a new all-time record. However, following the latest jobs data and the Federal Reserve meeting, the index experienced a price correction.
Unlike many previous bullish phases that were driven largely by short-term momentum or emotional reactions, the current upward trend in the Nasdaq reflects structural maturity and market stabilization. Institutional capital inflows and strong corporate earnings have together painted a picture of a more stable and predictable future for this index.
According to recent financial data, U.S. equity funds received over $6.3 billion in net inflows during the final week of July—marking the first positive inflow after three consecutive weeks of outflows.
The key engine behind this growth continues to be the robust performance of tech companies. Firms such as Meta, Microsoft, and AI-oriented companies like Nvidia and Broadcom posted exceptionally strong earnings reports. These results not only exceeded analysts’ expectations but also fueled significant gains in their stock prices, contributing to the Nasdaq’s momentum. Despite some sector-specific concerns—for instance, regarding Qualcomm in the semiconductor space—the broader tech sector has sustained its upward trajectory and even extended that momentum to adjacent industries, especially those involved in cloud and AI supply chains.
Meanwhile, advisors to Donald Trump revealed that he plans sweeping reforms at the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). This announcement followed the July jobs report, which showed only 73,000 new jobs and sharp downward revisions to prior months’ figures.
On Truth Social, Trump accused the current BLS Commissioner, Erica McEnturfer, of politically manipulating employment data and ordered her immediate removal. Secretary of Labor Lori Chavez-DeRemer subsequently announced that Deputy Commissioner William Witrofsky would serve as acting head. Trump emphasized that economic data must be accurate, impartial, and trustworthy—and not politically skewed.
Following this leadership change, a broader debate has emerged around how employment statistics are collected and reported. While statistical revisions have long been a routine, non-political process since 1979, there are now growing questions about whether a better system for gathering and publishing this critical data could be developed.
As a nonpartisan branch of the Department of Labor, the BLS publishes its monthly employment report at 8:30 AM Eastern on the first Friday of each month. The data is gathered from surveys of around 629,000 business establishments.
Analysts have cited several reasons for the frequent need for revisions:
• Late responses from firms
• Delays from large corporations that distort preliminary figures
• Recalculations due to seasonal adjustments (e.g., holidays or weather)
• Demographic shifts impacted by immigration or deportation
• Annual revisions based on finalized tax records
With a relatively light economic calendar in the U.S. this week, traders have turned their focus to the latest developments in trade negotiations—particularly talks with countries that have yet to finalize trade agreements with Washington.
Although the U.S. has reached deals with key partners including the UK, EU, Japan, and South Korea, no formal agreement has yet been made with China to extend the current trade truce, which is set to expire on August 12.
The new U.S. tariff plan proposes a baseline 10% rate for most countries, but some—like India and Switzerland—face much higher rates of 25% and 39%, respectively. However, since implementation of the tariffs has been postponed until August 7, there’s still time for further negotiations and possible rate reductions. Sources close to the White House suggest the administration is eager to continue talks.
What’s now becoming clear is the sheer magnitude of the proposed tariff shifts—far beyond pre-trade-war averages. These changes could have more severe consequences than previously estimated, potentially pushing up U.S. inflation while simultaneously threatening global growth. As such, markets may be entering a fresh wave of volatility.
Compounding these concerns is the U.S. Treasury’s upcoming bond issuance schedule, which could add to market instability.
Also on the radar is the ISM Services PMI for July, due Tuesday. Its results will be closely watched for signs on the U.S. dollar’s direction and the Fed’s potential actions at its September meeting.
Notably, as of July 18, 2025, the widely-followed Buffett Indicator—measuring the ratio of market capitalization to GDP—was 2.3 standard deviations above its historical average. This level surpasses even the dot-com bubble era of the early 2000s. The indicator is now firmly in the “overvalued” zone, which often precedes market corrections or even crashes. For context, during the 2008 financial crisis, it was roughly 1.5 standard deviations below the historical norm.
In recent days and weeks, the Nasdaq Composite Index once again approached its historic highs, even setting a new all-time record. However, following the latest jobs data and the Federal Reserve meeting, the index experienced a price correction.
Unlike many previous bullish phases that were driven largely by short-term momentum or emotional reactions, the current upward trend in the Nasdaq reflects structural maturity and market stabilization. Institutional capital inflows and strong corporate earnings have together painted a picture of a more stable and predictable future for this index.
According to recent financial data, U.S. equity funds received over $6.3 billion in net inflows during the final week of July—marking the first positive inflow after three consecutive weeks of outflows.
The key engine behind this growth continues to be the robust performance of tech companies. Firms such as Meta, Microsoft, and AI-oriented companies like Nvidia and Broadcom posted exceptionally strong earnings reports. These results not only exceeded analysts’ expectations but also fueled significant gains in their stock prices, contributing to the Nasdaq’s momentum. Despite some sector-specific concerns—for instance, regarding Qualcomm in the semiconductor space—the broader tech sector has sustained its upward trajectory and even extended that momentum to adjacent industries, especially those involved in cloud and AI supply chains.
Meanwhile, advisors to Donald Trump revealed that he plans sweeping reforms at the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). This announcement followed the July jobs report, which showed only 73,000 new jobs and sharp downward revisions to prior months’ figures.
On Truth Social, Trump accused the current BLS Commissioner, Erica McEnturfer, of politically manipulating employment data and ordered her immediate removal. Secretary of Labor Lori Chavez-DeRemer subsequently announced that Deputy Commissioner William Witrofsky would serve as acting head. Trump emphasized that economic data must be accurate, impartial, and trustworthy—and not politically skewed.
Following this leadership change, a broader debate has emerged around how employment statistics are collected and reported. While statistical revisions have long been a routine, non-political process since 1979, there are now growing questions about whether a better system for gathering and publishing this critical data could be developed.
As a nonpartisan branch of the Department of Labor, the BLS publishes its monthly employment report at 8:30 AM Eastern on the first Friday of each month. The data is gathered from surveys of around 629,000 business establishments.
Analysts have cited several reasons for the frequent need for revisions:
• Late responses from firms
• Delays from large corporations that distort preliminary figures
• Recalculations due to seasonal adjustments (e.g., holidays or weather)
• Demographic shifts impacted by immigration or deportation
• Annual revisions based on finalized tax records
With a relatively light economic calendar in the U.S. this week, traders have turned their focus to the latest developments in trade negotiations—particularly talks with countries that have yet to finalize trade agreements with Washington.
Although the U.S. has reached deals with key partners including the UK, EU, Japan, and South Korea, no formal agreement has yet been made with China to extend the current trade truce, which is set to expire on August 12.
The new U.S. tariff plan proposes a baseline 10% rate for most countries, but some—like India and Switzerland—face much higher rates of 25% and 39%, respectively. However, since implementation of the tariffs has been postponed until August 7, there’s still time for further negotiations and possible rate reductions. Sources close to the White House suggest the administration is eager to continue talks.
What’s now becoming clear is the sheer magnitude of the proposed tariff shifts—far beyond pre-trade-war averages. These changes could have more severe consequences than previously estimated, potentially pushing up U.S. inflation while simultaneously threatening global growth. As such, markets may be entering a fresh wave of volatility.
Compounding these concerns is the U.S. Treasury’s upcoming bond issuance schedule, which could add to market instability.
Also on the radar is the ISM Services PMI for July, due Tuesday. Its results will be closely watched for signs on the U.S. dollar’s direction and the Fed’s potential actions at its September meeting.
Notably, as of July 18, 2025, the widely-followed Buffett Indicator—measuring the ratio of market capitalization to GDP—was 2.3 standard deviations above its historical average. This level surpasses even the dot-com bubble era of the early 2000s. The indicator is now firmly in the “overvalued” zone, which often precedes market corrections or even crashes. For context, during the 2008 financial crisis, it was roughly 1.5 standard deviations below the historical norm.
Disclaimer
The information and publications are not meant to be, and do not constitute, financial, investment, trading, or other types of advice or recommendations supplied or endorsed by TradingView. Read more in the Terms of Use.
Disclaimer
The information and publications are not meant to be, and do not constitute, financial, investment, trading, or other types of advice or recommendations supplied or endorsed by TradingView. Read more in the Terms of Use.