American Resilience
*|MC:SUBJECT|*
͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌    ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­

American Resilience Model Portfolio

Monthly Portfolio Review: February 2026

Publication date: March 2, 2026

Current portfolio holdings

FOR SUBSCRIBER USE ONLY. DO NOT FORWARD OR SHARE.

Executive summary

  • Tech stocks came under pressure in February as investors reacted to various AI-related risks and rotated capital toward other sectors.

  • With large-cap tech weak, the S&P 500 declined approximately 0.8%.

  • The American Resilience portfolio delivered a 1.6% return in February. On a year to date basis, the portfolio’s total return is 6.1%, versus 0.7% for the S&P 500.

  • Performance was led by the newest position in the portfolio, Circle Internet Group (CRCL), which advanced 40% since its mid-month addition, following a sentiment-reversing fourth quarter earnings report.

  • Union Pacific (UNP) and Williams (WMB) also generated double-digit returns as investors gravitated toward AI disruption-proof infrastructure plays.

  • S&P Global (SPGI) and Oracle (ORCL) performed relatively poorly as investors shied away from perceived AI risks.

  • Over the weekend, the United States began a military assault on Iran, killing the ayatollah and severely disabling the Iranian military.

  • Early indications suggest modest pressure on stocks overall and upside momentum in energy and gold.      

Performance review

The American Resilience portfolio generated a total return of 1.6% in February, versus the S&P 500 Index return of -0.8%. On a year to date basis through the end of the month, the portfolio has returned 6.1%, versus 0.7% for the S&P 500.


The top performing portfolio positions in February were Circle Internet Group (CRCL), which returned 40% (since its addition to the portfolio on 2/10/2026); Union Pacific (UNP), which returned 13%; and Williams (WMB), which returned 11%.


The worst performing positions in the portfolio this month were S&P Global (SPGI), which returned -16%; Oracle (ORCL), which returned -12%; and Thermo Fisher Scientific (TMO), which returned -10%.

AI upheaval


The most notable market development in February revolved around uncertainty about how AI will reshape industries as well as the broader economy.


For much of last year, AI-related anxieties focused on whether the technology sector was overbuilding data center capacity. Investors also worried that more efficient, decentralized AI models—exemplified by China’s DeepSeek—could compress margins for AI hardware and equipment suppliers, such as NVIDIA (NVDA).


In February, however, the concern evolved. The question is no longer whether the AI opportunity is overstated. Instead, investors are beginning to grapple with how powerful AI may be—and what that power means for existing business models.


As we noted in the 76report in early February (Software as a Sell-Off), fears that next-generation AI platforms could undermine established software vendors have gained momentum. That narrative accelerated through January and carried into February.


The core concern is straightforward: advanced AI platforms—such as Anthropic’s Claude—may reduce the need for complex, high-cost enterprise software systems. Generative AI can increasingly write customized code at minimal incremental cost and perform functions for which businesses currently pay substantial subscription fees.


Whether this disruption unfolds gradually or rapidly remains an open question. But markets have begun to price the risk aggressively.


The divergence is visible in the iShares Expanded Tech-Software Sector ETF (IGV), which holds many large-cap software and services names now viewed as most exposed to AI disintermediation. IGV declined another 10% in February after falling 15% in January, a sharp underperformance relative to broader technology indices.

Software ETF (IGV) vs. NASDAQ Composite

(Total Return - Last 6 Months)

AI deflation risk?


Anxiety around AI broadened beyond the software sector in late February after Citrini Research published a widely circulated memo titled “The 2028 Global Intelligence Crisis.”


Written as a hypothetical dispatch from June 2028, the report outlined a deflationary cascade in which rapid AI adoption triggered mass white-collar layoffs, pushed unemployment above 10%, and drove the S&P 500 38% below its October 2026 peak. The memo went viral almost immediately, reportedly attracting more than 22 million views on X.


The so-called AI “scare trade” erupted on Monday, February 23, weighing heavily on software, payments, and delivery shares. Even long-established enterprise players like IBM (IBM) experienced extreme volatility, with IBM suffering its worst single-day decline in 25 years, falling 13% in one session.


The Citrini framework was provocative because it flipped a widely held assumption.


For the past two years, investors have viewed AI-driven productivity gains as unambiguously positive—disinflationary, margin-expanding, and supportive of higher equity multiples. The memo instead framed productivity as destabilizing: too much efficiency, too quickly, leading to demand destruction and systemic stress.


We intend to explore these themes in greater depth in an upcoming 76report. While we acknowledge that AI will be disruptive—and in some cases painful—our base case remains that broad-based efficiency gains ultimately support real growth and create room for easier monetary policy, as opposed to sustained deflationary collapse.


Sector rotation


With AI platforms like Claude and ChatGPT dropping impressive new capabilities seemingly every week, investors are desperately trying to sort out winners from losers. In February, fears around AI helped drive a rotation from technology shares altogether.


We noted last month that the S&P 500 Equal Weight Index substantially outperformed the market-cap weighted index in January, returning 3.3% versus 1.5%. Similarly, S&P Value outperformed S&P Growth, returning 2.4% versus 0.5%.


This pattern of sector rotation away from large-cap tech only intensified in February. The S&P 500 Equal Weight Index again outperformed the market-cap weighted index, returning 3.6% versus -0.8%. S&P Value again outperformed S&P Growth, returning 2.3% versus -3.4%.

S&P 500 vs. Equal Weight, Value, Growth

(Total Return - February 2026)

For much of the past two years, enthusiasm around AI has led investors into technology shares. Now the opposite is happening.


Investors are worried that AI will hurt profitability within the sector, and they are looking elsewhere, especially at business models anchored by physical assets that cannot be cheaply replicated by the likes of Claude.


Technology was among the worst performing sectors in February, declining 4%. The Financials sector also declined 4%, for related reasons.


Payment processors traded poorly because of perceived AI disruption risk (they were named specifically in the Citrini report). Alternative asset managers and banks were hit by concerns around their exposure to private credit markets, which in turn have high exposure to software companies.

Utilities and Energy led returns in February, significantly outperforming the broader index. Both sectors advanced 10%.


Utilities, along with other defensive, rate-sensitive sectors like Consumer Staples and Real Estate, were aided by a decline in long-term interest rates. Yields on 10-Year Treasuries dipped below 4% for the first time since October 2025.


The decline in long-term interest rates is notable as they had been creeping up over the course of the prior three months. One reason for the prior rise is that Trump’s nominee for Fed Chair, Kevin Warsh, is an outspoken critic of Quantitative Easing.


Warsh has expressed interest in gradually unwinding the Fed’s balance sheet holdings of long-term bonds, which in principle could lead to upward pressure on long-term yields.


However, with the AI-driven deflation narrative becoming more prominent, yields on 10-Year Treasuries dropped sharply in February, approximately 30 basis points.

10-Year Treasury Yields—Last 12 Months

(Source: FactSet)

Energy stocks were assisted by a sharp recovery in crude oil prices, which had drifted below $60 per barrel toward the end of 2025.


Crude oil prices continued to move up in February. They advanced in January, following the events in Venezuela, which were seen as potentially disruptive to supplies in the short-term. In February, crude again moved higher in anticipation of a potential military intervention in Iran.

Crude Oil - Last 12 Months

Operation Epic Fury


As we write, we are in the early stages of Trump’s decision to launch a full-scale attack on Iran. Ayatollah Khamenei has been confirmed killed, along with other senior leaders of the regime. Much of Iran’s military capability appears to have been decimated.


While Iran has responded with various missile attacks across the region, leading to some damage and casualties, its ability to mount a substantial retaliation is questionable.


The situation remains fluid. Early indications suggest modest pressure on stocks heading into the new week. Oil prices appear significantly higher given the potential closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Gold is stronger with the rise in geopolitical uncertainty.


We will of course monitor events closely and respond in due course as the situation develops.

Portfolio highlights


The top performing stocks in the portfolio in February were Circle Internet Group (CRCL), which returned 40% (since its 2/10/2026 addition to the portfolio); Union Pacific (UNP), which returned 13%; and Williams (WMB), which returned 11%.


The largest performance detractors in February were S&P Global (SPGI), which returned -16%; Oracle (ORCL), which returned -12%; and Thermo Fisher Scientific (TMO), which returned -10%.

Shares of CRCL soared after the company reported fourth quarter earnings results that solidified the long-term business case.


As we explained in our initial discussion of the CRCL opportunity (Capitalizing on the Tech Downturn) as well as our post-earnings follow-up (Tech and Crypto Snap Back), we believe CRCL should not have been included in the harsh software-led sell-off.


Market sentiment can move a stock up or down, but ultimately fundamentals tend to prevail. When CRCL reported fourth quarter results on February 25, attention shifted away from sweeping sector narratives and toward the company’s substantial operational progress.


Notwithstanding the difficult environment for crypto, stablecoins continue to attract capital and gain adoption. CRCL stands to benefit from AI as more transactions, payments, and financial services move online and become automated, increasing demand for trusted, regulated digital dollars.


UNP shares performed well in February on the heels of a solid earnings report in late January. Management reaffirmed expectations for mid-single-digit EPS growth in 2026, driven less by macro tailwinds and more by productivity gains, pricing discipline, and cost control.


Earnings growth is expected to accelerate further in 2027 as longer-term strategic initiatives begin to bear fruit.


UNP also likely benefited from investor aversion to AI disruption risk. Railroads are hard-asset, network-based businesses with high barriers to entry. They own physical infrastructure, rights-of-way, and irreplaceable logistics corridors.


If anything, AI and automation should over time enhance scheduling, routing, fuel efficiency, and safety, rather than threaten the core franchise. In a market concerned about digital disruption, UNP’s tangible assets and pricing power provide a stabilizing contrast.


Like UNP, WMB owns indispensable and irreplaceable industrial infrastructure as the largest natural gas pipeline operator in the United States. Shares of WMB benefited in February from a solid fourth quarter earnings report and a successful investor day event.


Management reinforced confidence in the company’s long-term growth framework, highlighting durable demand across its natural gas transmission and processing footprint and a strong backlog of expansion projects.


The business continues to generate steady cash flow, supported by largely fee-based contracts and strong operating performance. Management’s outlook calls for continued earnings growth driven by disciplined capital allocation, incremental project roll-ins, and modest margin expansion.


With improving fundamentals, a constructive multi-year demand outlook tied to power generation and LNG exports, and a strong balance sheet, investors appear increasingly confident in WMB’s ability to compound value through the cycle.


SPGI was among a number of information services providers that participated in the AI disruption-related weakness this month. However, the company’s core businesses remain solid.


The Ratings segment continues to benefit from healthy debt issuance, including refinancing activity and financing tied to AI infrastructure buildouts. The Indices segment is also delivering double-digit growth, driven by rising assets linked to S&P benchmarks and strong derivatives trading activity.


Looking ahead, tokenization and the expansion of private markets could further strengthen SPGI’s position. As more assets move into digital formats and investors rely on AI-driven analysis, demand for trusted benchmarks, credit ratings, and high-quality financial data should persist.


ORCL remained under pressure as investors shy away from its aggressive AI infrastructure strategy. While sentiment has become negative, its core database business remains deeply embedded in mission-critical systems. AI adoption should increase demand for its secure, high-performance data infrastructure.


ORCL’s growth strategy carries some well-flagged risks, but from a valuation perspective, it is now trading at less than 14 times consensus earnings forecasts for fiscal year 2027. We view the stock’s risk-reward profile as highly favorable.


Shares of TMO declined in February following several months of strong outperformance. Investors appeared to focus on conservative 2026 guidance, which calls for organic revenue growth at the lower end of the 3–4% range and 6–8% adjusted EPS growth, along with a softer first quarter due to tougher comps.


That said, the outlook still implies margin expansion and accelerating growth through the year. In addition, there are early signs of improving biotech funding and better momentum in academic and government channels, which could support a demand rebound as 2026 progresses.

Key metrics

Valuation detail

Performance detail

Company snapshots

Oracle Corporation (ORCL)

S&P Global (SPGI)

Stryker (SYK)

Texas Instruments (TXN)

Arch Capital Group (ACGL)

Costco Wholesale (COST)

Circle Internet Group (CRCL)

Eaton (ETN)

GXO Logistics (GXO)

Meta Platforms (META)

NVIDIA (NVDA)

Thermo Fisher Scientific (TMO)

Union Pacific (UNP)

Visa (V)

Vulcan Materials (VMC)

Williams Companies (WMB)

The 76research American Resilience Model Portfolio is designed to provide exposure to growth businesses that operate with competitive advantages in structurally attractive markets. The objective is to identify businesses that can survive and thrive across different macroeconomic environments and whatever geopolitical crises may unfold. The holdings are intended as long-term investments to drive portfolio compounding with minimal need to realize taxable gains. Emphasis is placed on critical markers of business quality such as barriers to entry, physical scarcity of assets, balance sheet strength, effective capital allocation and durable long-term growth drivers. These assessments are paired with careful consideration of valuation and risk.    

FOR SUBSCRIBER USE ONLY. DO NOT FORWARD OR SHARE.