Stock Trends Mid-Quarter Review: How the Year-End 2025 Themes Are Performing in Q1 2026

1. The Macro Backdrop: Rotation, Not Collapse

External macro commentary through January–February 2026 consistently emphasized a market that was evolving rather than breaking: leadership was broadening beyond a narrow mega-cap narrative, real-asset and cyclically sensitive areas were participating, and higher-multiple growth groups were experiencing more selective sponsorship.

This is precisely the environment where the Stock Trends discipline becomes decisive — particularly the distinction between persistent Bullish () structures and weakening or transitional () phases. When markets rotate, the investor’s edge comes from recognizing when leadership is persisting versus when it is merely pausing or fading.

2. Large-Cap Institutional Momentum: Persistence Confirmed

Several of the institutional-style leaders highlighted in the year-end thesis remain structurally strong in the current dataset. This is the central validation of the year-end framework: persistence mattered.

Coherent Corp. (COHR-N) continues to reflect durable strength within a mature but intact Bullish structure. In Stock Trends terms, this is the kind of name where a short-term pullback is less important than the continued integrity of the trend classification and relative-strength backdrop.

Tower Semiconductor Ltd. (TSEM-Q) remains a sustained Bullish structure and continues to represent the kind of semiconductors participation we expected to see if Q1 broadened into “infrastructure” and “enablers” rather than only the most crowded narratives.

Ciena Corporation (CIEN-N) has quietly been one of the strongest structural performers among communications/networking exposures — a reminder that leadership often broadens into adjacent groups before it becomes obvious in mainstream coverage.

Meanwhile, the real-asset theme that was building at year-end continued to show persistent leadership across select miners. Both Coeur Mining, Inc. (CDE-N) and Hecla Mining Company (HL-N) remain important confirmations that “broadening participation” wasn’t just an abstract macro idea — it manifested in trend persistence within specific groups.

Conclusion on the institutional set: the majority of large-cap / institutionally relevant leaders remain in Bullish () structures midway through Q1. That supports the primary year-end thesis: when a stock demonstrates multi-week persistence under strong momentum conditions, continuation probability into the next quarter increases.

3. Where the Framework Flagged Risk: Growth and High Beta Softening

The year-end editorial also warned about an important asymmetry: strong Alpha rankings are most powerful when confirmed by trend persistence. Where trend persistence weakens, the framework is designed to signal caution — not because a stock must “fail,” but because the market is rotating sponsorship.

MongoDB, Inc. (MDB-Q) now reflects a weakening structure relative to the year-end posture. This is not necessarily a bearish verdict — it is a classification shift that tells disciplined investors that momentum is cooling and that position sizing and timing matter more.

Tesla, Inc. (TSLA-Q) shows a similar theme: a market leader that remains widely followed but is not expressing the same degree of sustained trend leadership as it did during stronger phases. In rotation markets, these are the situations where investors should demand renewed confirmation rather than assume continuation.

First Solar, Inc. (FSLR-Q) also illustrates how the model distinguishes between a constructive long-term story and a short-to-intermediate term reality where relative strength and trend quality may be weakening.

4. High Alpha Smaller Names: Mixed, but Instructive

One of the most useful lessons from the year-end framework is that Alpha signals are not meant to be followed blindly — they are meant to be integrated with trend confirmation and risk management. Some higher-volatility names did sustain leadership, while others naturally exhibited more variance.

Axogen, Inc. (AXGN-Q) remains a constructive example of a smaller-cap leader that has continued to exhibit Bullish characteristics. The broader lesson is simple: Alpha without persistence is speculation; Alpha with persistence becomes leadership.

5. What the Data Says About the Stock Trends Framework

Midway through Q1 2026, the updated dataset supports several clear conclusions:

• Institutional persistence largely held. Many year-end leaders remain structurally Bullish.
• Metals and networking confirmed the rotation theme. Participation broadened beyond the narrowest mega-cap narratives.
• Trend transitions flagged softening early. Where leadership cooled, the model reflected that shift through classification changes.
• RSI and trend age provided context. High RSI alone did not guarantee continuation — persistence mattered.

6. The Deeper Insight: The Market Rotated — and Stock Trends Helped Navigate It

The most important outcome is not whether every highlighted stock advanced.

The real outcome is that the Stock Trends framework continued to do what it is designed to do: identify structural persistence and structural softening before narrative headlines catch up.

Markets in early 2026 did not move in a straight line. They rotated. And rotation is exactly what a disciplined trend framework is built to navigate.

7. Looking Ahead to the Remainder of Q1

The current dataset suggests that leadership remains constructive — but selective. Bullish persistence is still concentrated in areas like real assets and select infrastructure/hardware participation, while parts of high-beta growth are consolidating.

As Q1 continues, the key questions become:

• Will Weak Bullish () names recover into renewed Bullish () leadership?
• Or will real assets and infrastructure continue to define the broadening leadership regime?

We will evaluate those answers with the same discipline Stock Trends has always applied: follow the trend, respect the rotations, and let relative strength confirm where sponsorship is strongest.

Final Assessment

The year-end editorial was not about prediction. It was about probability and persistence.

Halfway through Q1 2026, the updated data shows that the year-end framework largely held: institutional momentum persisted in key areas, leadership broadened into real assets and networking, and the model signaled early rotation risk where sponsorship cooled.

That is exactly how the Stock Trends discipline is designed to function. And so far in 2026, it has functioned well.

1. Institutional Persistence: The Core Thesis

At year-end, leadership was concentrated in select infrastructure, networking, semiconductor, and real-asset names. The thesis was simple: if trend persistence continued, probability favored further strength into Q1.

Below is the updated ST-IM Alpha comparison from 2025-12-26 to 2026-02-13.

ST-IM Comparison: Year-End 2025 vs Mid-Q1 2026

Stock	Trend YE	Trend Now	RSI YE	RSI Now	Alpha13 YE	Alpha13 Now	Δ Alpha13	Composite YE	Composite Now	Δ Composite
Coherent Corp. (COHR-N)			172	154	0.47	0.21	-0.26	0.32	0.18	-0.14
Tower Semiconductor Ltd. (TSEM-Q)			170	128	0.34	0.21	-0.12	0.29	0.21	-0.08
Ciena Corporation (CIEN-N)			163	156	0.32	0.19	-0.13	0.28	0.18	-0.11
Coeur Mining Inc. (CDE-N)			100	149	0.41	0.21	-0.20	0.31	0.20	-0.11
Hecla Mining Company (HL-N)			166	152	0.20	0.20	0.00	0.18	0.19	+0.01
Axogen Inc. (AXGN-Q)			183	139	0.25	0.15	-0.10	0.27	0.15	-0.12
MongoDB Inc. (MDB-Q)			131	103	0.29	0.09	-0.20	0.25	0.08	-0.17
Tesla Inc. (TSLA-Q)			103	102	0.20	0.11	-0.09	0.18	0.11	-0.08
First Solar Inc. (FSLR-Q)			118	88	0.19	0.10	-0.09	0.18	0.07	-0.11

What the Alpha Normalization Means

Notice that Alpha scores moderated across most names. That is expected after strong Q4 advances. Normalization does not imply failure. The critical distinction is whether the trend classification remained  or transitioned to .

The rotation signals were not narrative-driven — they were structural.

2. Performance vs ST-IM Expectations

Now we compare realized performance since year-end against the ST-IM forward forecasts from 2025-12-26.

What This Confirms

• Where persistence remained (), realized returns tracked or exceeded ST-IM expectations.
• Where classification shifted to , realized returns materially underperformed forecasts.
• The model did not predict headlines — it quantified probability and adjusted as structure changed.

The year-end framework emphasized probability and persistence. Midway through Q1 2026, the data shows:

• Institutional leadership largely held.
• Real-asset participation broadened successfully.
• High-beta growth softened exactly where trend structure deteriorated.

Markets rotated. Stock Trends identified where sponsorship persisted and where it weakened.

That is disciplined trend investing in action.