(Yicai) Jan. 21 -- While this year's economic indicators paint a seemingly perfect "Goldilocks" scenario, with moderate growth, cooling inflation, and balanced financial conditions, the investment landscape beneath the surface tells a different story, marked by growing divergence between winners and losers.

The traditional Goldilocks economy theory, which suggests conditions are "just right" for broad market gains, may no longer hold true in the current technology-driven economy, particularly due to artificial intelligence reshaping industry dynamics.

It's rational for forecasts to converge on this year as a classic Goldilocks year, with inflation easing without recession, growth remaining resilient, and policymakers having regained maneuvering room. Financial conditions are neither overly tight nor loose enough to fuel excess, with macro signals aligning neatly with standard frameworks.

This conclusion is not reckless as it aligns with core research data. Yet assuming the economic system operates as in prior cycles demands scrutiny, for the underlying system has shifted fundamentally.

The Goldilocks framework is empirical: for decades, easing inflation (without recession) and reduced policy pressure boosted markets, lowering volatility, lifting risk appetite, and limiting structural dispersion. Macro balance reliably translated to market balance, making broad portfolios and basic diversification prudent, but this equilibrium depends on a system that no longer exists.

Structural asymmetry, not cyclical weakness, undermines the theory, with AI-led productivity not benefiting all equally. It reshapes cost curves selectively, concentrates margins, and accelerates winner-take-most dynamics, creating a paradox: stable aggregate data, resilient indices, and contained volatility mask fractured outcome distribution.

Investors face quiet disappointment with calm headlines and steady benchmarks contrasting with narrow, uneven returns tied to a handful of positions. This is 2026's core contradiction -- surface Goldilocks coexisting with deep bifurcation, amplified by lagged policy calibration, as noted with investors like Cathie Wood.

Policy inertia, not aggressive tightening, is the issue. In a productivity-driven disinflationary environment, unchanged nominal rates push up real interest rates as inflation falls faster than expected. Capital grows costlier, pressuring marginal businesses and widening valuation gaps via selective discounting. Policy prolongs the facade, masking bifurcation without breaking the system.

When surface stability decouples from structural outcomes, traditional intuitions fail. Low-volatility assets may be slow-moving, not resilient; diversification loses protective power as median stocks underperform indices; low volatility signals comfort, not robustness. Risk manifests as underperformance, not dramatic swings.

Key implications lie in abandoning taken-for-granted strategies. Broad index exposure masks median underperformance, diluting returns. Label-based low-volatility allocations lack protection, as price stability does not equal earnings durability.

Macro signal timing lags structural shifts, and consensus strategies face mounting dispersion risk. These fail quietly, not catastrophically, making the facade deceptive.

The solution is architectural discipline, not tactical caution. Anchor portfolios address hidden structural risks, each targeting a traditional strategy flaw.

Anchor 1: AI Make-or-Break -- Generic AI exposure is a liability. Only a few firms convert AI into sustained margins and cash flow, while the rest incur costs without benefits. This anchor concentrates on proven AI value and avoids ambiguity, tolerating volatility.

Anchor 2: Compute × Energy Collision -- Digital growth faces physical constraints (power, cooling, grid stability) that tighten even in smooth markets. This anchor monetizes inevitable bottlenecks, resilient to sentiment and macro swings.

Anchor 3: Technology Sovereignty/Policy Gravity -- Prolonged policy misalignment with productivity shifts builds quiet pressure, so governments later spend rigidly on strategic priorities (tech, infrastructure, security). This anchor captures policy trends without betting on timing.

In this year's bifurcated regime, balance is a trap. Anchors impose structure: upside is earned, stability is rooted in inevitability, and policy risk is hedged structurally; they guard against complacency from misleading surface signals.

This year may feel like a Goldilocks year, but surface calm does not guarantee balanced outcomes. The real test is recognizing that stability and bifurcation are no longer opposites and that structural shifts from AI, physical constraints, and policy will determine returns.

The author of this article is Lu Duowei, an investor, researcher, and founder of FJ Insights. He previously worked at international financial institutions and sovereign wealth funds, focusing on global structural trends, AI economics, and frontier technology innovation.

Editor: Martin Kadiev