Entrance interior of the Tokyo Stock Exchange, March 29, 2024. File photo, not November trading. Suicasmo / Wikimedia Commons · CC0 1.0.
By Evan Liu
Asian markets moved in different directions on November 4. Japan’s Nikkei 225 lost 1.42%, closing at 62,188.63, while South Korea’s KOSPI recovered from a steep intraday fall to finish 0.62% higher at 5,683.80. The contrast matters to Asian technology suppliers: a sharp fall in shares is not, on its own, evidence that customers have cut orders.
The session coincided with U.S. election results and renewed concern about the returns from artificial-intelligence investment. Political uncertainty can change how much investors will pay for future earnings. It does not establish that new restrictions have taken effect or that a data-center project has been canceled.
One region, different market pressures
The Nikkei’s official daily series confirms the Japanese closing level. In South Korea, the recovery in the broader index did not mean every technology company had recovered: Samsung Electronics and SK hynix still closed slightly lower. Gains elsewhere in the market helped the index.
This is why an index and an industry cannot be treated as interchangeable. Companies selling memory, manufacturing equipment and finished servers face different demand, costs and competition. A market can rise even while some of its most prominent chipmakers fall.
Domestic buying, foreign investment flows and local policy also influence prices. The day’s performance should therefore not be attributed entirely to a single event in Washington. A common shock can produce different results because the companies and investors in each market are different.
Why AI expectations travel across borders
U.S. data-center spending reaches Asian manufacturers through purchases of processors, memory, servers and related equipment. Taiwan, South Korea and Japan occupy different positions in that network. A change in expected spending can move their shares before any change appears in reported sales.
Investors also have to assess the cost of building and operating those facilities. Electricity, financing, construction and equipment all affect whether an investment earns enough to justify its cost. More spending can benefit suppliers without guaranteeing a satisfactory return for the buyer—or every supplier.
The same distinction applies to share prices. A company can report higher revenue and still suffer a falling share price if investors previously expected even faster growth. A rebound can occur without an immediate improvement in its operations.
What would show a real change?
The evidence to follow is corporate spending guidance, project schedules, supplier orders and reported revenue. Announced budgets are not completed spending, and a delayed project is not necessarily a canceled one. Each development needs to be assessed separately.
Financing conditions matter too. Changes in borrowing costs and exchange rates can alter the economics of a project or the value investors assign to future profits. These influences can operate alongside political uncertainty.
The November 4 session shows that expectations were unsettled. It cannot settle the longer-term question of whether the AI investment cycle is weakening. If customers reduce budgets and suppliers subsequently report fewer orders, that would be stronger evidence. If spending and deliveries remain firm, the price swings may instead reflect a reassessment of valuations. One trading day cannot distinguish those outcomes.
Sources and editorial note
Edited bilingual edition of Evan Liu’s November 4 contribution. Repetition condensed; central analysis retained. Figures describe November 4, not live prices.
Evan Liu — original contribution / 刊物原稿
Nikkei: official historical daily data
Aju Press: November 4 closing prices and market context