Longer term readers know I like having property and casualty insurers in a portfolio. They don’t neatly fit into the H.E.A.T. Formula like some other industries do, but I look at them as an Edge over owning bonds. P&C companies take in your premiums and invest them in bonds. Unlike most bond funds out there, who are really just trying to hug an index, they actually try to make money managing your bonds. In my mind, it’s getting access to a solid bond manager with an equity kicker. AI has been crushing some areas of the market, and rightly so, but when I saw P&C stocks sell off the other day it looked like more of an opportunity to me than anything else…..

Wall Street had an “AI flashback” on February 9th — and it hit one of the most boring, cash-generative corners of the market: property & casualty insurance. The spark wasn’t a hurricane, a mega-loss event, or a surprise reserve charge. It was distribution fear. Specifically: the launch of AI-powered, ChatGPT-integrated quote/comparison experiences that let consumers shop for home and auto insurance through a natural conversation — no forms, no calls, no “middleman friction.” Insurify rolled out what it described as an industry-first ChatGPT insurance comparison app (built on a database of ~196M quotes and 70k+ reviews), and OpenAI approved the first insurer-built AI app inside ChatGPT (from Spain’s Tuio) for home quotes and soon in-chat purchasing. That was enough to smoke the broker-heavy names and yank the entire group lower: the S&P 500 Insurance Index dropped ~3.9% (biggest drop since Oct 2025), with Willis Towers Watson -12% (worst session since 2008) and other major brokers down ~high-single digits to ~10%+.

Here’s the problem: the market sold “insurance” like it sold “software.” One headline → one basket → one liquidation. And just like the software tape, the first-order move is understandable… but the second-order conclusion is where the opportunity lives.

The noise is the idea that “AI just killed insurance.” No, it didn’t. What got hit here wasn’t underwriting. It was the perception that distribution can be disintermediated — and investors immediately treated that as an existential threat to everyone in the value chain. But the early tools being discussed are overwhelmingly personal lines (home/auto) shopping experiences — the most commoditized end of the market, where price comparison is already culturally normal. Even Wolfe’s analysts called the broker selloff “overblown,” arguing the ChatGPT development is happening on personal lines while the big brokers they cover are more exposed to commercial lines (where complexity, negotiation, and bespoke risk still matter). In other words: the tape is pricing a future where “AI replaces humans everywhere” immediately — and that’s usually where markets overshoot.

The real news is more precise (and more bullish for the right side of the chain): AI is becoming a distribution layer. That’s it. Not magic — a new interface. When people can ask an AI, “Find me the best policy for my house and bundle it with auto,” the front door changes. The winners won’t necessarily be the companies with the best commercials… they’ll be the companies that control pricing, data, underwriting discipline, and claims economics — because the AI layer can increase shopping, compress customer acquisition costs, and push volume toward whoever can quote fastest and price risk best. The pain today is concentrated in the businesses whose value is most tied to being the human router of the transaction (brokers/intermediaries).

That’s why this is setting up a very specific “dip-buy” framework:

If the market keeps throwing out P&C writers with the brokers, that’s the mistake.
P&C carriers don’t make money because a form exists. They make money because they (1) price risk, (2) manage loss costs, and (3) compound float. If AI reduces friction and expands quote velocity, the carrier’s edge becomes more important — not less. And the carriers that already run lean, automate underwriting, and modernize claims can actually widen their moat in a “quote-everything, compare-everything” world.

1) P&C writers with underwriting discipline + scalable systems
The insurers that can quote quickly, price accurately, and manage claims efficiently are positioned to benefit if AI pushes more consumers to shop (and shop more often).

2) Carriers with strong direct-to-consumer capabilities
If the “front door” becomes ChatGPT/AI, the carriers with clean digital binds, fast underwriting, and tight feedback loops win share.

3) Infrastructure players behind the “quote layer”
Think: claims automation, fraud detection, data enrichment, risk scoring, telematics/IoT inputs — the plumbing that turns AI convenience into underwriting profit.

1) Broker/intermediary models most exposed to commoditized personal lines
If AI collapses quote discovery into a single chat window, the easiest commissions to compress are the ones tied to high-volume, low-complexity products.

2) Any “human-only” distribution model with no tech leverage
If a firm’s edge is simply manpower + relationships in areas where AI can standardize the workflow, margin pressure rises.

3) Late adopters with legacy stacks
In a faster-shopping world, slow quoting and slow claims becomes visible — and visibility is the enemy of mediocre economics.

This isn’t “AI destroys insurance.” It’s “AI changes how insurance is bought.” Those are not the same trade.

The market’s first reaction was to treat the whole sector like a melting ice cube. But the value is not evenly distributed between brokers and writers — and if volatility keeps punishing the P&C writers alongside the intermediaries, that’s where I’m interested in buying the dip. The brokers may have a longer narrative fight ahead. The writers have a simpler job: price risk better, settle claims faster, and let AI bring them more shots on goal.

You may get a P&C ETF from us at some point so stay tuned. We also include P&C stocks in portfolios we recommend to wealth management clients, if you are interested in hearing more please reach out.

If you’ve felt like the market is playing AI whack‑a‑mole, you’re not imagining it.

Last week, the “AI disruption” narrative hit software and business analytics.
Monday it hit insurance brokers.
Yesterday, it hit wealth managers… and spilled into the big banks that run large wealth franchises.

Different headlines. Same movie.

Wall Street is re-pricing a single idea in real time: high‑margin, predictable, fee‑like business models don’t deserve “sleep-at-night” multiples in a world where AI agents can replicate the front-end experience. When the market decides your product is “a workflow,” the next question is brutal…

“How much of this margin is a tollbooth… and how much is truly defensible?”

And here’s the part most people miss: this can happen without the index falling.
The S&P 500 can sit near all‑time highs while entire pockets of the market get put through the woodchipper—because money doesn’t leave the market… it rotates to the next “safe” place.

Yesterday’s “victim” was wealth management (and the banks with heavy wealth exposure).

Names that are objectively great businesses—think sticky client relationships, recurring asset-based fees, and operating leverage—sold off hard anyway. Not because investors suddenly discovered these companies are bad… but because investors suddenly decided their multiples were pricing in a world that no longer exists.

That’s the distinction.

AI doesn’t have to kill a business to wreck a stock.
It only has to inject enough uncertainty that investors demand a higher risk premium.

And wealth management is the perfect target for the narrative because it looks, on the surface, like an AI agent’s dream job:

Whether AI can actually replace trust, regulatory compliance, custody, suitability, and the “human risk manager” role is a different question… but markets aren’t waiting for the answer.

They’re selling first.

Everyone loves to say “stock picking is back” like it means finding hidden gems.

In 2026, stock picking looks uglier: it’s about avoiding sudden single‑stock debacles while index-level measures lull investors into thinking nothing is wrong.

The most important stat isn’t the VIX.

It’s dispersion.

Even with the S&P holding up, the spread between winners and losers has widened dramatically. That’s why “everything feels broken” under the surface while the index doesn’t confirm it. This is what a market looks like when correlations break down at the stock level but rotation keeps the index afloat.

Look at the hit list so far:

What do they share?

They’re all high‑margin, “predictable,” premium‑multiple businesses—the kinds of stocks investors bought for years because they felt like bonds with upside.

But AI changes the psychology.

For three years, investors were sold a story: AI will raise productivity, widen moats, and create infinite growth.

Now the same investors are waking up to a second-order effect:
AI may commoditize the very predictability they were paying up for.

That doesn’t mean “Armageddon.”
It means multiples reset.

And when a stock is priced for perfection, “not perfect” looks like a cliff.

Markets are finally treating AI like a credible disruption risk across industries—not just a theme for chipmakers and cloud platforms. And once the market starts seeing disruption risk, it doesn’t apply it gently…

It applies it like a blunt instrument.

High multiples + high certainty = fragile.

So even if the underlying business remains strong, the market will demand:

The market is acting like these businesses go to zero.

That’s not how disruption works in regulated, trust-based, enterprise-scale industries. Most of these companies will adapt. Some will even use AI to improve efficiency and deepen the moat.

But “adapt” isn’t the point in the short run.

Repricing is.

Here’s where it gets interesting.

The same force that’s crushing these sectors can also create the next violent move in the opposite direction: positioning.

After weeks of rotation out of software and parts of Big Tech—and after hedge funds and fast money lean into the “AI eats software” narrative—positioning can get extreme:

When that happens, the market becomes vulnerable to a snap-back rally for a simple reason:

If everyone is already on the same side of the boat, the next surprise doesn’t have to be good. It only has to be “less bad than feared.”

One decent earnings print, one reassuring guidance line, one “we’re not seeing demand destruction,” one comment that AI is additive, not subtractive… and shorts scramble.

That’s how you get:

This is why you can simultaneously believe:

Both can be true.

Bottom line:
AI isn’t just changing business models. It’s changing what investors are willing to pay for “predictability.” And in 2026, that repricing is happening sector by sector—one headline at a time.

Today’s stock is Robin Hood (HOOD). HOOD Is one of the 20 holdings in MEMY, which means we look at it as one of the top 20 asymmetrical thematic plays in the market (my opinion). They had earnings last night and are currently down over 7% raising the obvious question, do they still belong in the top 20?

Yes — based on what we just learned from this print, I’d keep HOOD in the top 20 (i.e., it still qualifies as an “asymmetrical thematic play”), but I’d be very explicit about what changed vs. what didn’t.

What the market is punishing (mostly “noise,” but not irrelevant):

What looks intact:

The real “risk” signal to watch (this is the part that can change the thesis):

My take: yes — because the downside explanation is “mix,” while the upside remains “platform compounding + new revenue lines + financialization of everything.” That’s exactly what a MEMY position is supposed to look like: you can get short-term drawdowns, but you’re holding something with multiple shots on goal.

I’d reconsider HOOD as a “top-20 asymmetry” if you see any two of the following start to persist:

Our next webinar…..

Fri, Feb 20, 2PM EST

How to position your portfolio before Washington admits it has non‑human technology, and where the first trillion dollars of “alien alpha” could flow.

You’re not crazy if you believe in UFOs or UAP (unidentified anomalous phenomena). 

In fact, you want to be ready for the day when we’re told, for real, that we’re not alone.

You won’t read about it in the Wall Street Journal or hear about it on CNBC — yet. 

But “Disclosure Day” is coming. 

And the reality of UAP could trigger a shift in global markets that — no hyperbole — makes the Internet boom and the AI explosion seem tiny.

Matt Tuttle, CEO of Tuttle Capital Management ($4 billion AUM), is an ETF rebel who’s spent decades trading big, unexpected market moves.

He created his H.E.A.T. investing framework—Hedges, Edges, Asymmetry, Themes—to turn left-field events into high-conviction opportunities.

Now, he's deploying that exact playbook on the one catalyst almost no one's positioned for...

In a free live “Disclosure Day” briefing, Matt will explain:

✅ Why this isn’t about tinfoil hats. A move from rumor to reality could shift seismic capital across defense, energy, materials, and data – with clear winners and losers.

✅ The “Disclosure Debris:” How small hints can move big money before any big speech from Washington. And why hearings, leaks, and half‑answers already matter more than one big moment if you want a shot at alien alpha.

✅ Early matters – even if you might feel a bit crazy: A simple way to look at UFO news that lets you stay sane, stay skeptical, and still be in position if this really is the next trillion‑dollar theme.

✅ Who could win, who could lose, and when it’s too late: Which sectors of defense, energy, and materials might see money rush in first, and how to think about bet size before everyone on TV is yelling about UFO trades.

✅ The one belief shift that could change how you see every headline about UFOs and tech: The real question isn’t “is this true?” but “what if enough other investors decide it is?”

✅ A 30‑day playbook for the month after confirmation: A practical way to think about reallocating, hedging, and positioning if Washington ever admits more than it already has – without abandoning your own risk limits.

PLUS . . .  you’ll get a free copy of Matt’s Why The UAP Thematic Frontier May Be Closer – And Far Larger – Than You Might Think briefing.

The H.E.A.T. (Hedge, Edge, Asymmetry and Theme) Formula is designed to empower investors to spot opportunities, think independently, make smarter (often contrarian) moves, and build real wealth.

The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the Chief Executive Officer and Portfolio Manager for Tuttle Capital Management (TCM) and are subject to change without notice. The data and information provided is derived from sources deemed to be reliable but we cannot guarantee its accuracy. Investing in securities is subject to risk including the possible loss of principal. Trade notifications are for informational purposes only. TCM offers fully transparent ETFs and provides trade information for all actively managed ETFs. TCM's statements are not an endorsement of any company or a recommendation to buy, sell or hold any security. Trade notification files are not provided until full trade execution at the end of a trading day. The time stamp of the email is the time of file upload and not necessarily the exact time of the trades. TCM is not a commodity trading advisor and content provided regarding commodity interests is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as a recommendation. Investment recommendations for any securities or product may be made only after a comprehensive suitability review of the investor’s financial situation.© 2025 Tuttle Capital Management, LLC (TCM). TCM is a SEC-Registered Investment Adviser. All rights reserved.