February 2026 concluded with global markets experiencing a divergence between actual performance and investor expectations, driven by the receding AI frenzy, geopolitical uncertainties, and fluctuating inflation outlooks amid intense trading battles. Results from a large-scale poll covering three major assets—the Nasdaq 100 index, New York crude oil, and London gold—revealed surprising outcomes: with over 5,000 participants, only gold saw more than 70% of voters correctly predict its closing range, while the other two assets witnessed a majority of investors misjudging the market, vividly illustrating the capital market axiom that "expectations often outpace reality."

I. Nasdaq 100: Over-optimism Backfires, Only 16% Correctly Predicted Closing Range A total of 1,567 participants voted on the Nasdaq 100's end-of-February closing price, with the following distribution: - Above 25,500: 282 votes (18%) - 25,000–25,500 (inclusive): 749 votes (48%—highest vote count) - 24,500–25,000 (inclusive): 249 votes (16%—correct range) - Below 24,500 (inclusive): 287 votes (18%)

Nearly half of participants were confident the index would hold above 25,000, yet only 16% selected the actual closing range. Key reasons: In the first half of February, AI-related stocks like NVDA 3xLongSG261006 surged, leading many to anticipate the Nasdaq breaking 26,000. However, the trend reversed sharply in the latter half when short-seller Michael Burry warned of demand volatility risks in AI supply chain commitments, coupled with NVDA 3xLongSG261006 falling over 9% in two sessions, dragging the index down. The Nasdaq 100 ultimately closed in the 24,500–25,000 range, cooling overheated bullish sentiment.

II. New York Crude Oil: Geopolitical Narratives Overridden by Supply-Demand Realities, Only 27% Predicted Correctly The poll on New York crude oil's February closing price attracted 1,467 votes, distributed as: - Above $70: 538 votes (37%—highest vote count) - $65–$70 (inclusive): 389 votes (27%—correct range) - $60–$65 (inclusive): 430 votes (29%) - Below $60 (inclusive): 110 votes (7%)

Nearly 40% of voters expected oil to exceed $70, but only 27% identified the actual range. Driving factors: Escalating Middle East tensions and stronger-than-expected U.S. inflation data fueled bets on geopolitical premiums, yet oil's fundamentals prevailed—OPEC+ production cuts fell short of expectations, and U.S. shale output grew steadily, preventing a tight supply-demand balance. Prices settled between $65–$70, balancing sentiment and reality without the sharp moves bulls or bears anticipated.

III. London Gold: Over 70% of Investors Correct, February's Sole Consensus Trade The London gold poll saw 2,428 participants, with results as: - Above 5,600: 93 votes (4%) - 5,300–5,600 (inclusive): 476 votes (20%) - 5,000–5,300 (inclusive): 1,693 votes (70%—highest and correct range) - Below 5,000 (inclusive): 166 votes (6%)

Over 70% of voters accurately predicted gold's range, making it the only asset with majority consensus. Underlying causes: Unlike the misjudgments in other polls, gold benefited from clear drivers—hot U.S. PPI and CPI data pushed back Fed rate cut expectations, boosting inflation-hedge demand, while geopolitical risks and equity volatility heightened safe-haven appeal. Gold's dual role fostered broad market agreement, with prices firmly ending in the 5,000–5,300 range.

Market Insights The poll results encapsulate February 2026's global market dynamics: AI hype led investors to overlook fundamentals; geopolitical noise outpaced supply-demand realities; and only gold, with its transparent logic, achieved true consensus. Capital markets perpetually oscillate between expectation and reality—February's voting serves as a stark reminder that investing hinges on deep fundamental understanding and respect for market rhythms, not speculative chasing of short-term trends.