周二跌势凌厉：Raymond James Financial 下跌 8.8%（为 2020 年 3 月以来最差单日），Charles Schwab 下跌 7.4%，LPL Financial 下跌 8.3%（为 4 月以来最差交易日）。持仓看起来偏向单边，因为 Schwab 在 24 位分析师中仅有 1 个卖出评级，而 UBS 指出未来 12 到 24 个月存在异常高的不确定性。保险方面，S&P 500 保险指数周一下跌 3.9%（为 10 月以来最差），但周二反弹 0.8%；软体方面，一档主要 ETF 在连续 8 个交易日下跌、累计跌 15% 后，又在 3 天内上涨 7.2%。
证据指向一种反复出现的统计模式：最初的 AI 头条会造成放大的单日回撤，之后部分或全部板块出现均值回归，这表明既存在真实的颠覆风险，也存在过度反应风险。据报导，KKR、Ares、Apollo 与 Carlyle 等私募市场与另类管理机构已收复上周失地，而高管强调他们已评估 AI 机会与风险权衡超过 5 年，意味著公开市场的重新定价可能是滞后且间歇性的，而非线性的。净含义是：投资者正在重新定价预期中的费率压缩、效率传导与市场份额转移，但当前波动显示，对时点与幅度的不确定性仍高于对长期结果的信心。
On February 11, 2026, wealth-management stocks sold off after Altruist announced an AI tax-planning tool that can generate tailored strategies and documents in minutes, reinforcing a market narrative that AI may disintermediate advisory businesses. The reaction follows a sequence of AI-driven sector shocks over the prior week across software, private credit, and insurance brokerage, showing a rapid rotation pattern where each new AI launch triggers repricing in adjacent financial and service industries.
Tuesday’s declines were sharp: Raymond James Financial fell 8.8% (its worst day since March 2020), Charles Schwab dropped 7.4%, and LPL Financial lost 8.3% (worst sessions since April). Positioning looked one-sided because Schwab had only 1 sell rating among 24 analysts, while UBS flagged unusually high uncertainty over the next 12 to 24 months. In insurance, the S&P 500 insurance index fell 3.9% on Monday (worst since October) but rebounded 0.8% on Tuesday; in software, a major ETF that had dropped 15% over an 8-session losing streak then rose 7.2% in 3 days.
The evidence points to a recurring statistical pattern: initial AI headlines produce outsized single-day drawdowns, then partial or full mean reversion in some groups, suggesting both genuine disruption risk and overreaction risk. Private-market and alternative managers such as KKR, Ares, Apollo, and Carlyle reportedly recovered last week’s losses, while executives emphasized they have assessed AI opportunity-risk tradeoffs for 5-plus years, implying public-market repricing may be lagged and episodic rather than linear. Net implication: investors are repricing expected fee compression, efficiency pass-through, and market-share shifts, but current volatility indicates uncertainty about timing and magnitude remains higher than confidence in long-run outcomes.