S&P 500 streak at risk as AI trade takes another leg lower

The index's bid for a 10th consecutive weekly gain, a feat not seen since 1985, hit a wall as AI stocks dragged markets into their worst session in months.

Share

Add us on Google by Editorial Team Jun. 6, 2026

The S&P 500 dropped 2.64% on June 5, its worst single-day decline since October. The culprit: a broad and unforgiving sell-off in AI-related stocks that bled into nearly every corner of the market, including crypto mining equities.

That decline puts the index’s streak of nine consecutive weekly gains in serious jeopardy. A 10th straight week of gains would have been the first such run since 1985.

What happened and why it matters

The Nasdaq Composite took it even harder, falling 4.18% in what amounted to its ugliest session since April 2025.

Advertisement

The catalyst was, ironically, good news. A robust US jobs report shifted expectations around monetary policy, making it increasingly likely that interest rates stay elevated for longer than markets had priced in. US two-year Treasury yields surged 12 basis points to 4.16%, a move that hits growth stocks like a cold shower.

The damage was global. Korean chipmaker SK Hynix, a key supplier in the AI hardware supply chain, plunged 8.9%. The broader Kospi index fell 5.3%, underscoring that this was not a US-only phenomenon.

Crypto miners caught in the crossfire

The sell-off didn’t stay confined to traditional tech. Bitcoin miners with significant AI exposure, including Hut 8 and CleanSpark, saw double-digit declines in their share prices as their equities tracked the broader market downturn.

Bitcoin itself showed a brief moment of decoupling, ticking higher even as equities cratered. But the broader risk-off sentiment eventually weighed on digital asset markets as well.

What this means for investors

Rising Treasury yields also matter for crypto in a more fundamental way. When risk-free rates climb, the opportunity cost of holding non-yielding assets like Bitcoin increases. At 4.16% on the two-year, it’s meaningful enough to influence allocation decisions at the institutional level.

Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.