On Thursday, Nov. 5, 2026, U.S. stocks suffered a sharp selloff. The S&P 500 fell 334.89 points, or 4.36%, to 7,353.73. The Dow lost 1,833.06 points, or 3.44%, to 51,523.06. The Nasdaq Composite dropped 1,421.52 points, or 5.52%, to 24,315.00, and the Nasdaq-100 fell 6.36%. Dow Jones Market Data estimated S&P 500 companies lost about $2.9 trillion in market value, a single-day record on that measure. The Nasdaq closed more than 10% below its October record, entering correction territory. Friday brought a partial rebound.
Reporting ties the drop to Democrats' midterm sweep, which raised fears of curbs on AI data-center construction, alongside weak chipmaker earnings from Qualcomm and Arm. The AI and chip slide had begun before the vote: the Nasdaq was already 8.1% below its Oct. 6 record on Election Day. The same election results had produced a broad rally on Wednesday, so the election was not the sole cause.
On Thursday, Nov. 5, 2026, the S&P 500 fell 4.36% to 7,353.73, and S&P 500 companies lost roughly $2.9 trillion in market value — a single-day record on that measure. The “may not be done selling off” part is opinion/speculation, not a checkable fact.
The numbers match reporting: S&P 500 -4.36%, Nasdaq -5.52%, Dow -1,833 points. Dow Jones Market Data estimated S&P 500 companies lost about $2.9 trillion, so “more than $2.8 trillion” is accurate. AI, semiconductor and data-center stocks led the decline: the tech sector fell 7.3%, Nvidia dropped more than 9%, and Micron and AMD fell about 17% each.
The point drops are real and record-large: S&P 500 -334.89 points, Nasdaq -1,421.52 points, Dow -1,833.06 points. But by percentage — the measure of what investors actually lost — Nov. 5 was not among the 20 worst S&P 500 days on record. It was the worst since April 2025 and the 11th-worst in the past decade. Calling it “one of the worst days in history” without specifying points is misleading.
BNearly three trillion dollars. Gone in one day. That's the number from Thursday's selloff, and it's a single-day record for market value wiped out.
AThe S&P fell four point three six percent to 7,353. The Dow lost over 1,800 points. Nasdaq dropped five and a half percent.
BAnd the post going around from James Michael Anderson says the market may not be done selling off. That's the part I want to talk about.
AThe numbers are right. I checked. But 'may not be done' is a guess, not a fact.
BWell, it's a guess with history behind it. When you lose three trillion in a day, people don't just shrug and go home.
AHere's what actually happened. Democrats swept the midterms, and traders got scared about curbs on AI data-center construction.
BPlus weak earnings from Qualcomm and Arm. The chip slide started before the vote — Nasdaq was already eight percent below its October record on Election Day.
ASo the election wasn't the whole story. But it sure lit the fuse.
BAnd here's my problem. The same election results gave us a broad rally on Wednesday. Then Thursday, everyone panics about data centers. That's not a market, that's a mood swing.
AOr it's a market repricing risk. If Washington is about to make it harder to build data centers, those AI valuations have to come down.
BCome on. Nvidia dropped more than nine percent. Micron and AMD fell about seventeen percent each. That's not repricing, that's a stampede.
AA stampede that started with real news. Qualcomm and Arm didn't just miss — they warned about the AI buildout slowing.
BSo we get one bad earnings day and suddenly the whole AI trade is dead? I don't buy it.
AI'm not saying it's dead. I'm saying the market is finally asking what those data centers are worth if the power and permits get harder.
BAnd I'm saying that looks like an overreaction dressed up as a crisis. Astor Research found that after prior four-percent-plus drops since 1950, the S&P was higher a year later 84 percent of the time.
AMedian gain of twenty-three and a half percent. I saw the same study. But past performance is not a promise.
BNo, but it's a pattern. The Kobeissi Letter pointed out the same thing — after similar drops since 1952, the market has historically rebounded.
AHistorically. But this drop wasn't just a number. It was a record in dollar terms. That's a lot of people selling at once.
BAnd Friday we got a partial rebound. The S&P closed up about a third of a percent. Nasdaq up over one percent.
AOne day doesn't make a trend. But it does tell you the panic wasn't universal.
BHere's what I keep coming back to. The market had already been sliding before the election. The Nasdaq was in correction territory — more than ten percent below its October record.
ARight. So this wasn't just about one election night. It was about a sector that got ahead of itself.
BBut the way it's being framed — 'worst day in history' — that's the part that gets me. Elliottwave Forecast posted that headline, and it's misleading.
ABy points, sure, it was huge. But by percentage — what investors actually lost — it wasn't even in the top twenty worst days on record.
BIt was the worst since April 2025 and the eleventh-worst in the past decade. That's bad, but it's not history-making.
AThe dollar number sounds scarier because the market is so much bigger now. Three trillion in 2026 is not the same as three trillion in 2008.
BExactly. And that's why I hate the 'worst day in history' framing. It's designed to scare people.
ABut the fear wasn't invented. The tech sector fell seven point three percent. That's a real move.
BReal move, real losses. But the question is whether it's a correction or the start of something worse. And I don't think anyone knows yet.
AWhich is exactly why the 'may not be done selling off' post is worth taking seriously. Not as a prediction, but as a warning.
BFair. But I'll say this — if you're a long-term investor, days like Thursday are the cost of admission. You don't get the rebounds without the drops.
AAnd if you're a trader, days like Thursday are where you make or lose a year's pay in an afternoon.
BThat's the game. Speaking of games, there's a different kind of money story making the rounds — a central bank trial that sounds almost too smooth.
AThe UK, Singapore and Thailand's central banks reportedly completed a trial showing cross-border currency trades can settle simultaneously across traditional and distributed ledger systems.
BThat's from a Telegram channel called Cointelegraph. I couldn't independently confirm it, but if true, it's a big deal.
AIt would mean money moving across borders in real time, no waiting days for settlement. That's the dream of blockchain tech actually working.
BAnd it's central banks doing it, not some crypto startup. That's the part that gets my attention.
ABut no official confirmation yet. So we treat it as a claim, not a fact.
BRight. The rumor mill says it happened. The central banks haven't put out a joint statement that I've seen.
AIf it's real, it's the kind of thing that quietly changes how money works. No headlines, just plumbing.
BAnd speaking of quiet changes, there's another one from the same channel — OpenAI reportedly launching a ChatGPT Wallet.
AThe claim is that OpenAI's 'dots' AI agents can now make purchases for users. That's a big step if true.
BI couldn't confirm it either. But think about what that means — an AI agent with your money, buying things on your behalf.
AThat's either incredibly convenient or incredibly terrifying, depending on how much you trust the AI.
BI trust it about as much as I trust a teenager with my credit card. Which is to say, not at all.
ABut if OpenAI is really doing this, it's a signal that AI agents are moving from chat to commerce.
BAnd that's a whole new world of fraud, mistakes, and 'the AI bought what?' conversations.
ANo official confirmation from OpenAI yet. So again, a claim, not a fact.
BHere's one that'll start a fight — Metaplanet, the Japanese Bitcoin treasury company, reportedly cut its 2026 revenue forecast by 59 percent.
AThe same channel says they reported a net loss of about 170 million dollars for the first nine months of 2026.
BI couldn't verify those numbers. But if they're even close, that's a rough year for a company that bet big on Bitcoin.
AMetaplanet is one of those companies that holds Bitcoin on its balance sheet, like a Japanese MicroStrategy.
BAnd when Bitcoin is volatile, their revenue and earnings swing with it. That's the risk of being a Bitcoin treasury firm.
ABut a 59 percent revenue cut is not just volatility. That's a fundamental problem with the business model.
BOr it's a sign that the Bitcoin treasury strategy works great in a bull market and terribly in a bear market.
AWhich is exactly what the skeptics have been saying for years. Bitcoin on the balance sheet is a leveraged bet, not a treasury strategy.
BAnd the bulls say it's the future of corporate finance. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
ABut a 170 million dollar loss is a 170 million dollar loss. That's real money, no matter how you spin it.
BAnd finally, there's a report that Treasury Secretary Bessent is blaming Commerce Secretary Lutnick for delaying Nvidia export controls.
AThat's from the same Telegram channel. I couldn't confirm it, but it's a juicy story if true.
BTwo cabinet secretaries fighting over chip export policy. That's the kind of thing that moves markets.
ANvidia is at the center of the AI trade, and export controls are a huge deal for their business.
BIf Bessent is really blaming Lutnick, it means the administration is divided on how hard to come down on chip exports.
AAnd that uncertainty is exactly what the market hates. It's already dealing with the AI selloff, now this.
BBut again, no official confirmation. So we treat it as a claim, not a fact.
AThe bottom line on all of this — Thursday was a brutal day, Friday was a partial rebound, and the market is still trying to figure out what comes next.
BAnd the people who say they know for sure? They're selling something.