Key Takeaways

Soloway's S&P 500 target is around 8,000 by year end. He traces a long-term trend line back to the 2022 pivot lows and expects the index to reach that level "by year end," possibly even "by the midterms," as long as support holds.

He watches specific support levels, not a single crash signal. A daily close below 7,575 would move him to neutral; a break of 7,450 would turn him bearish toward 7,000, roughly a 2.5% to 8% range of warning before his outlook actually changes.

He is bottom-fishing beaten-down value names instead of chasing AI stocks. "I'm not chasing Nvidia up here, but I'm actually doing bottom fishing on names like Clorox and Nike," he says, disclosing these as his own current positions, not recommendations.

He sees index concentration rivaling levels that preceded past collapses. "The concentration has just gotten out of control," he says, pointing to the equal-weighted S&P sitting 6% below its own highs even as the market-cap-weighted index made a new record.

His risk philosophy is about limiting losses, not maximizing gains. "It's not so much about how much I can make, it's how much I cannot lose," he says, describing a practice of taking partial profits and rebalancing rather than staying fully invested through uncertainty.

S&P 500 Price Target: Gareth Soloway on 8,000 and the Support Levels That Could Break It

With the S&P 500 near record highs even as Treasury yields sit at multi-decade highs, Gareth Soloway, chief market strategist at Verified Investing, gave Wealthion a specific technical framework rather than a simple bullish or bearish call. His target is roughly 8,000 by year end, but he is equally focused on the support levels that would change that view, and on why he personally is not chasing the names driving the rally. These are his attributed, independent views, not investment advice.

What is Soloway's S&P 500 price target?

Around 8,000, tracing a long-term trend line back to major pivot lows in 2022. He expects the index to reach that level "by year end," and even floats the possibility of getting there "by the midterms," provided the market holds above what he calls his neutral zone. His case for continued, if limited, upside rests on better-than-expected inflation data (PCE) alongside still-strong economic data and robust corporate earnings, which he argues make the S&P "arguably cheaper now than it was at the beginning of the year," even near record highs.

What support levels is he watching for a reversal?

A specific, tiered framework rather than one crash signal. A daily close below 7,575 on the S&P 500, about a 2.5% drop from current levels, would move him into what he calls a "neutral zone" extending down to roughly 7,450, where he says he would be "kind of more, you know, let's wait and see." A break below 7,450 would make him "very nervous" of a sharper drop toward 7,000. Above 7,575, he maintains a neutral-to-bullish stance toward his 8,000 target.

Why is index concentration worrying him?

Because the strength, in his view, is far narrower than the headline index suggests. "The concentration has just gotten out of control," he says, comparing it to levels that preceded past market collapses. His specific evidence: the equal-weighted S&P 500 (RSP) sat roughly 6% below its own highs even as the standard, market-cap-weighted index notched a fresh record, which he attributes largely to a small handful of dominant technology names. He argues that excluding AI-related capital spending, "we probably would be" in a recession already, pointing to weakness in housing and consumer-facing retailers as evidence the strength is concentrated rather than broad-based. For more on this theme, see Wealthion's piece on why the index is not what it used to be and will the AI bubble burst.

Why is he avoiding AI stocks right now?

Because of valuation and positioning, not because he doubts the long-term trend. "I'm not chasing Nvidia up here, but I'm actually doing bottom fishing on names like Clorox and Nike," he says, disclosing his own current trading positions, which he is careful to generalize as his personal approach, not a recommendation. His thesis is that high interest rates disproportionately push capital toward AI-linked companies, since their spending plans are largely insensitive to rate changes, while beaten-down, dividend-paying value names get left behind; he expects some rotation back into those names if rates eventually moderate. He also disclosed a smaller, shorter-term position in a major utility and renewable-energy company, framed explicitly as a tactical bounce trade tied to the broader power-demand theme around AI data centers and nuclear buildout, not a long-term conviction call. As always, these are his disclosed personal positions, offered as examples of his process, not investment advice.

Could gold fall to $3,500?

Possibly, in Soloway's near-term technical view, even though he remains structurally bullish long term. He flags a trend line dating back to mid-2025 that gold has now broken below, with $4,100 as his first key level to watch: a daily close under that, he says, likely revisits lows near $3,950, and a break of that level could extend toward $3,500. He is explicit that this is a near-term, technical read, not a change in his long-term view: "looking at the long term, like five years out, ten years out, how do you not like physical assets" given ongoing deficit spending, he says, adding that a drop to $3,500 is actually a level at which he would look to buy physical metal. For more on gold's recent pullback, see Wealthion's piece on why gold corrected from its record and why purchasing power matters more than the gold price.

Is $50 silver a buying opportunity?

That is Soloway's working thesis. He expects silver's current pullback, after a roughly 65% prior-year gain, to extend toward the $50 level, a price that has acted as resistance in both 1980 and 2011 and which he expects the market to revisit before any sustained move higher. He frames the drawdown as healthy, "weeding out the weak hands" who chased the rally late, and says $50 is the level at which he personally plans to re-enter, while being candid that he is comfortable missing the trade entirely if it does not get there. For related context, see Wealthion's piece on what drives the silver price.

Where does he see Bitcoin's next entry point?

Around $67,000, based on a pattern he has watched play out across prior cycles. He describes an inverse head-and-shoulders technical pattern that recently confirmed a higher high, which he takes as a signal the prior low is likely in. Still, based on the typical shape of past Bitcoin cycles, he expects one more significant pullback, potentially to around $67,000, a level tied to prior chart pivots, before what he considers a more durable move higher, and says he would be "a big buyer" if that level is reached. For a broader framework on crypto versus gold, see Wealthion's piece on gold and Bitcoin as answers to different questions. As always on Wealthion, this is Soloway's attributed technical analysis, not investment advice; these are volatile assets, and his specific price levels may not play out as described.

What Investors Should Watch

• The 7,575 and 7,450 support levels on the S&P 500: Soloway's tiered framework for moving from bullish to neutral to bearish.
• The 10-year Treasury yield relative to 5.5%: the level he calls the next resistance that could trigger a broader selloff.
• Earnings reactions from mega-cap leaders: strong numbers met with muted stock reactions, which he says can signal institutional distribution before the headlines catch up.
• Gold's $4,100 and $3,950 levels: his near-term technical thresholds ahead of a possible move toward $3,500.
• Bitcoin's pattern around $67,000: the level he is watching for what he considers a more durable entry point.

FAQ

What is Gareth Soloway's S&P 500 price target? Around 8,000, which he expects to reach by year end based on a long-term technical trend line, provided the index holds above his defined support levels.

What support levels is Soloway watching? A daily close below 7,575 moves him to neutral; a break of 7,450 would make him bearish toward 7,000. Above 7,575, he remains neutral to bullish toward his 8,000 target.

Could gold fall to $3,500? Soloway thinks it's possible in the near term, watching $4,100 and then $3,950 as intermediate levels, though he remains structurally bullish on gold over a five-to-ten-year horizon given ongoing deficit spending.

Is $50 a realistic target for silver? Soloway believes silver's current pullback could extend toward $50, a historically significant resistance-turned-support level from 1980 and 2011, which he sees as a likely buying opportunity if reached.

What is Soloway's Bitcoin price target? He is watching for a potential pullback toward $67,000 as his preferred entry point, based on recurring patterns across prior Bitcoin cycles, despite believing the prior cycle low is already in.

Which expert and interview does this article reference? This article draws on Wealthion's interview with Gareth Soloway, chief market strategist at Verified Investing: "S&P 500 to 8,000? A Brutal Market Reversal Ahead."

If you want a professional read on how to position your own portfolio for both upside and reversal risk, you can request a free portfolio review from an advisor who understands real assets at wealthion.com/advisors.

Full Transcript

Speakers: Maggie Lake (Wealthion host) and Gareth Soloway (chief market strategist, Verified Investing). ASR errors corrected (names, terms, figures) and filler removed; meaning preserved. A mid-interview Wealthion membership message has been noted rather than reproduced. Specific trading positions he discloses are presented as his own attributed examples, not recommendations.

Gareth Soloway (cold open): The concentration has just gotten out of control. In fact, it's rivaling past concentrations that really led us up to some meteoric collapses. No one's expecting a drop. Everyone just assumes every dip is a buying opportunity. And that also makes me very nervous. I do realize that this ends really badly when it ends.

Maggie Lake: Is it time to chase returns or preserve wealth? We have US stocks near record highs, but yields keep rising, the 10-year at a 24-year high. What's your thinking on this market action?

Gareth Soloway: Oil has come back a bit from recent highs, yet the 10-year has stuck around 5.3% to 5.35%, and we made a new all-time high on the S&P just yesterday. Why haven't we sold off more? A couple of reasons keep me bullish into year end, though I don't see a ton of upside, maybe to around 8,000. The PCE inflation data came in a little better than expected, even as economic data stays strong. A good economy elevates yields, but it also supports earnings, and earnings have been robust, arguably making the S&P cheaper now than at the start of the year because of that growth. That's kept Wall Street and retail buying despite yields. With France's yields starting to spike too, alongside Japan and the US, there will eventually be a breaking point, but right now a 5.3% 10-year yield seems sustainable for the market.

Maggie Lake: It's the rally everyone loves to hate. Is the economy genuinely strong, or is this really just the AI trade holding everything up, especially with weakness visible in housing and parts of retail?

Gareth Soloway: I do worry about that. The concentration has gotten out of control, rivaling levels that preceded past collapses. Look at the equal-weighted S&P, the RSP: even as the headline S&P made a new high yesterday, the RSP is still down 6% from its own highs. That's the concentration story, gains concentrated in names like Nvidia. A $5 trillion company like Nvidia effectively eclipses 100 to 200 S&P companies combined in index weight. Honestly, if you stripped out AI capex spending, we'd probably already be in a recession by many people's standards. Housing is suffering, which hits Home Depot, Lowe's and other consumer names as households get squeezed by gas and oil prices, and a lot of those stocks are trading below their 50-day moving averages, a warning sign that something could give if conditions don't improve.

Maggie Lake: People point to the dot-com bust when market internals look this narrow, arguing it eventually collapses under its own weight. Others in tech argue AI's efficiency gains will spread to smaller and mid-size companies over time. Where do you come down, and what are you watching for signs either way?

Gareth Soloway: I see it in my own business running Verified Investing: AI has made me meaningfully more efficient, though it takes real effort to learn how to use well. That efficiency should flow to corporate profits, but it also means fewer new hires are needed for the same growth, which raises real questions about job losses and, eventually, consumer spending, the core driver of the US economy. It's a genuine give and take. I don't think the breaking point is near-term, I still see some upside left, but I am concerned longer term about this level of concentration, especially with so much money flowing passively into index funds every month with no one expecting a drop. That dynamic resembles the late 1990s and other periods before major declines.

Maggie Lake: How does the S&P look technically? You've mentioned an 8,000 target. For investors who feel exposed to the AI trade and are considering rotating into beaten-down value names, does that strategy look like it could work here?

Gareth Soloway: That's actually how I'm positioned right now. I'm not chasing Nvidia or AI-adjacent cybersecurity names up here; I'm bottom-fishing names like Clorox and Nike, beaten-down, dividend-paying names that have stood the test of time but have fallen hard. It's not a glamorous style of investing, but my thesis is that high rates are pushing even more capital into AI names because their spending plans aren't rate-sensitive, a major hyperscaler isn't going to scale back capex because rates ticked up slightly, while value names get left behind. If rates moderate and we see a pullback, I'd expect money to rotate out of AI names into some of these beaten-down plays. On the S&P itself, technically it still looks okay: we saw a double top get rejected recently as rates pushed higher, but we remain above my neutral zone. As long as we hold above 7,575, I'd expect further upside toward a longer-term trend line from the 2022 pivot lows, which lines up around 8,000 by year end, possibly even by the midterms. Historically, markets have performed well under political gridlock, so I don't see strong evidence that midterm uncertainty alone threatens that path.

Maggie Lake: For those who can't see the chart, what exactly defines that neutral zone?

Gareth Soloway: A daily close below 7,575, about a 2.5% drop from current levels, would put us in a neutral zone extending down to roughly 7,450. In that range I wouldn't be bullish or bearish, just watching. A break below 7,450 is where I'd get genuinely nervous about a sharper drop toward 7,000. Above 7,575, I stay neutral to bullish. I do think stock-picking matters more than broad exposure right now; I have a hard time paying up for something like a major refiner trading like a momentum tech stock purely because of crack-spread dynamics, those kinds of vertical moves make me want to stay on the sidelines or short, not chase.

Maggie Lake: Do you have any AI or AI-adjacent exposure, say in energy?

Gareth Soloway: I've been nibbling on a major utility and renewable-energy name that's taken a real beating since its spring highs, playing for a shorter-term bounce rather than a long-term conviction call. Uranium and nuclear-linked names have also been hit hard lately, but I don't think that narrative is going away, data centers need power, and small modular reactor buildout is coming, so I look to step into these names on discounts rather than avoid them entirely.

[Wealthion membership message noted.]

Maggie Lake: With markets moving quickly once sentiment shifts, and retail investors often ending up as exit liquidity for professional traders, what else are you watching for signs that risk is building, since the VIX doesn't seem to be giving reliable signals anymore?

Gareth Soloway: You're right about the VIX, it's been stuck around 15 for a long time with only brief upticks, not giving a clear signal right now. Heading into earnings season, I'd watch how market leaders react to their own numbers. When a major memory-chip company recently posted strong results and the stock barely moved, that's a warning sign. When we hear from the largest technology companies, watch the reaction: if the numbers are excellent but the stocks don't rally sharply, that can signal institutional money quietly distributing into strength, something retail typically doesn't have time to react to once it's obvious. Capital-expenditure guidance matters too, but any sign of a slowdown there would likely move prices too fast for most investors to react in real time, so the earnings reaction itself, before the broader narrative catches up, is the better early signal.

Maggie Lake: Let's turn to the surge in Treasury yields. What's driving it, and how worried should we be about the speed of the move, not just the level?

Gareth Soloway: Going back to the 1980s, 15% to 16% rates make today's levels look almost low by comparison, but the key difference is the amount of debt outstanding now versus then. Scaling for that difference, today's debt load makes current rates feel more like 2% rates would have in the 1980s. And it's not just government debt, corporate debt matters too, including very large recent bond issuances tied to AI infrastructure buildout. Add up public, private, consumer and mortgage debt, and rate increases on the 10-year carry outsized impact, potentially the "straw that breaks the camel's back." We're piercing the 2007 high on this chart now; if we break out meaningfully, I'd expect resistance near 5.5%, which would likely push conditions into that neutral zone I described for stocks. This feels like a genuinely pivotal point for the 10-year.

Maggie Lake: A lot of people thought 5% was the line in the sand, both for the administration and for equity investors. Are you surprised we haven't seen more reaction?

Gareth Soloway: I am surprised, honestly. Part of it reflects a post-2009, post-COVID mindset, especially among younger investors, that markets simply don't go down, reinforced by automatic monthly investing that keeps a steady bid under the market regardless of valuation. Inflation data coming in a bit better than feared, plus strong ISM and PMI readings, is giving the market comfort that earnings and valuations remain justified as long as the economy holds up. But rising costs everywhere, gas, groceries, even reports of rising water utility costs, add pressure that eventually breaks something. Until then, I think we're riding the wave, but carefully: I'm in names like Clorox and a small Nike position, not chasing risk, because I genuinely believe this ends badly when it ends.

Maggie Lake: It sounds like you're actively adjusting position sizing and time horizon to stay nimble.

Gareth Soloway: Absolutely. Being a shorter-term swing trader helps here, I'm watching multiple screens daily, catching up each morning on overnight action in Asia and Europe. There's nothing wrong with taking some money off the table: it gives you dry powder for an eventual correction and cushions the portfolio if an unexpected shock hits, and there's always some unexpected risk out there. Missing some upside is a reasonable trade-off for avoiding a much larger drawdown; it's better to miss 10% than risk a 20% loss.

Maggie Lake: For people who can't watch markets as closely as you do, gold and silver often come up as a natural hedge, though performance has been frustrating lately. What are you seeing?

Gareth Soloway: Gold is at risk of a technical breakdown right now. There's a trend line going back to mid-2025 that connects several touchpoints through this year, and price has now broken below it. I'm watching $4,100, where we're trading currently; a daily close below that likely revisits lows near $3,950 from July, and a break of that could extend toward $3,500. That said, if your time horizon is longer and you're looking at ongoing deficit spending with no fiscal restraint in sight, gold remains one of the best places to be; $3,500 is actually a level where I'd look to buy physical metal rather than just trade it. Longer term, five to ten years out, it's hard not to like real assets given the complete lack of political appetite for fiscal discipline, the brief DOGE spending-cut effort and its quick reversal when cuts actually started to bite is a good example of that. Gold has stood the test of time as a store of value for thousands of years, and I'll stick with that view long term, even though I think Bitcoin has a role too as something like digital gold.

Maggie Lake: How much of silver's pullback is simply momentum unwinding versus a real change in fundamentals, especially after a roughly 65% gain last year?

Gareth Soloway: A good portion is momentum and positioning. Industrial demand could soften somewhat if the economy slows, but mainly, when a rally gets this hyped, people with no prior history in precious metals pile in chasing quick gains, which is usually a sign of a top, not unlike people flipping houses right before the 2007 top. This drawdown has been weeding out those weaker, late-arriving hands and bringing the market back to investors who were in it for the right reasons originally. I still think $50 is the likely downside level here, possibly briefly piercing it: $50 acted as resistance in both 1980 and 2011 before eventual breakouts, and there's a technical tendency for price to revisit a prior resistance level before a sustained move higher. That's the level I'm personally waiting for; if I miss the trade, I'm fine with that, I've missed plenty of trades over my career and will miss more, but I have my levels and my discipline.

Maggie Lake: Patience really matters here, cash and flat positions are valid choices too. Are we now in an environment of recurring mini-bubbles, given meme stocks, crypto, altcoins, silver and memory chips have each seen these parabolic moves?

Gareth Soloway: I think that's partly a function of how many more participants have entered the markets. After 2009, retail investors mostly stayed away for roughly a decade after being burned in the financial crisis. COVID brought them back, followed by the crypto boom and meme-stock mania, drawing in enormous amounts of capital now sitting on the sidelines waiting for the next opportunity, which fuels these sharp, concentrated moves once something catches on. We saw something similar with dot-com stocks in the late 1990s, though trading technology and access were far more limited then. Now everyone has a phone and dozens of trading apps, even prediction markets and betting platforms have become mainstream, which is itself a warning sign of excessive risk appetite, though it also explains why this dynamic feels more pervasive today.

Maggie Lake: Do you actively hunt for the next momentum surge, or stay out of that entirely?

Gareth Soloway: For fun, sure, everyone dreams of catching the next huge mover, but by the time something's on my radar, it's usually already made its major move. I keep an eye out just in case, but mostly I operate in between the extremes: institutions like BlackRock or Goldman Sachs will always have more capital than I ever will, and that's fine, I just want to catch my share the way a small fish benefits from a larger predator's activity, which is more than enough to be successful.

Maggie Lake: What's your read on crypto right now? Is it waking up, and could it be the source of the next momentum surge?

Gareth Soloway: I think there's a defined bottom in place for Bitcoin. Looking at the chart, after the 2025 highs we saw a descending pattern of lower highs and lower lows, but recently we finally made a higher high, which is the technical signal that changed my view from treating pullbacks as quick trades to viewing deeper dips as real buying opportunities. That said, based on how past Bitcoin cycles have unfolded, I'd expect one more significant pullback before a more durable move higher, potentially down to around $67,000, a level that lines up with prior major chart pivots following a classic bullish reversal pattern. If we get there, I'd be a significant buyer. Until proven otherwise, I believe the cycle low is in, and I expect a good entry opportunity in the coming months.

Maggie Lake: How do you think about liquidity here? If crypto is waking up broadly, including the AI-agents-need-digital-currency narrative, do you stick with Bitcoin for liquidity, or look at other parts of the ecosystem that might outperform in a broader rally?

Gareth Soloway: Liquidity in Bitcoin remains solid, and it's starting to return to other coins as sentiment improves, though many altcoins had extremely thin volume at bear-market lows. I don't think we'll see the kind of indiscriminate "altcoin season" we used to, investors got burned too badly and are now more selective, increasingly asking whether a given token has a genuine use case or edge, much like equity investors differentiate between speculative and fundamentally sound companies. Overall I remain net bullish given how much skepticism still exists, but I expect further pullbacks before new all-time highs.

Maggie Lake: You clearly blend technical analysis with narrative and fundamentals. How do you balance a longer-term bearish view on debt and structural pressures with operating inside what's still a relentless bull market day to day?

Gareth Soloway: It's genuinely one of the hardest things to do. Early in my career, around late 2006 and early 2007, I remember warning family members that something felt wrong beneath the surface of the market, and for almost a year afterward I looked wrong as prices kept climbing before the eventual collapse. You can see warning signs forming without knowing exactly when they'll matter, and reacting purely on emotion is dangerous; it takes real discipline to weigh the evidence logically instead. I get comments online questioning the legitimacy of economic data entirely, but my response is that it doesn't matter what I personally believe about the numbers, if markets are reacting to them, I have to trade the market in front of me, not some abstract future I expect eventually. That doesn't mean ignoring longer-term views entirely, I can take gains from being long stocks now and gradually rotate some of that into gold as a longer-term hedge, but day to day I trade the market that actually exists, not the one I eventually expect.

Maggie Lake: That's a useful distinction, holding a fundamental view while still having to operate in the market actually in front of you, which has arguably made this a harder environment for long-term investors too, since being overly cautious about debt levels would have meant missing a substantial rally.

Gareth Soloway: Exactly right, and think about how long certain well-known bears have been warning of a reckoning; I do think they'll eventually be proven right, but timing is everything, and in the meantime it puts investors in a genuinely difficult spot. Social media pushes people toward extremes, either certain collapse or permanent boom, and normal human emotion makes it hard to resist those narratives, which can put you on the wrong side of a trade. That's why I rely heavily on charts: price action doesn't carry a narrative, it simply reflects what happened, and grounding decisions in that, while staying aware of the broader picture, gives you a better shot at being positioned correctly.

Maggie Lake: That also speaks to a mindset around position sizing and avoiding the urge many retail investors have to go all-in on a single name.

Gareth Soloway: Exactly, I made that mistake myself over 20 years ago, trying to turn a small account into real money quickly, getting it right occasionally, then blowing up the account and starting over. My wealth only really started compounding once I committed to proper diversification and smaller position sizing, counterintuitive as that feels when you're starting with limited capital, since it takes longer but prevents the account-destroying losses that come with overconcentration.

Maggie Lake: It sounds like you're constantly rebalancing and taking partial profits rather than staying fully committed to any one position, given how uncertain the timing of a turn can be.

Gareth Soloway: That's essentially my approach. If we do see a downturn, which could come at any time given factors like oil prices, I want to know where I'm still positioned to benefit and where I should be trimming. Maybe a position only returns 20% instead of 50% because I've taken some profit along the way, maybe I'm also collecting a dividend in the meantime, but I'm not fully exposed to a sharp reversal either. Ultimately it's not about maximizing what I can make, it's about managing what I can't afford to lose, and that mindset genuinely changes how you invest.

Maggie Lake: Gareth, what a pleasure catching up with you today. Thank you so much for your time.

Gareth Soloway: Thank you, it was a wonderful conversation. I appreciate it.

This article is educational and is not investment, tax, or legal advice. It does not recommend any security. Advisory services are provided by Greylock Peak Investments, LLC, a subsidiary of Wealthion. Wealthion is compensated for advisor introductions; see the Solicitor's Disclosure Document, ADV Part 2A and Form CRS. That arrangement does not influence editorial coverage.