The Great AI Shock: McCall’s Three Stocks to Avoid

“The Great AI Shock, Three Popular AI Stocks to Avoid Right Now” is the third bonus report in Matt McCall’s “Trump’s $16 Trillion Chess Move” presentation for The Oxford Club, and it is the pitch’s risk-flavored sweetener. Every strong investment package pairs a buy thesis with a sell warning, and this report is that pairing: a warning that some of the market’s favorite AI names are exposed to a coming shock. For the specifics, our “The Eighth Magnificent Stock: McCall’s Bonus Pick Decoded” article is worth a read.

Here is what the phrase means in the pitch’s structure, what we can and cannot verify, and our honest read.

What the Pitch Actually Says

The report’s claims are kept deliberately thin: three “popular” AI stocks, unnamed, which the report argues should be avoided “right now.” The phrase “The Great AI Shock” frames whatever correction, repricing, or competitive disruption the report foresees as a single coming event. The pitch does not preview the three names or the mechanism of the shock, which means the report’s entire value is behind the paywall, and the phrase itself is doing all the pre-sale work.

The Context Around the Warning

The pitch’s broader framework is McCall’s “innovation curve”: “First, the technology works. Then, the smartest money moves. Only later does Wall Street catch on.” A “shock” in this framework is what happens when Wall Street’s version of the story diverges from the technology’s actual trajectory, and the stocks priced for the wrong version reprice violently. McCall’s credentials for distinguishing the two are quoted at length in the presentation: a decade of over 1,000 television appearances on Fox Business, CNBC, and CNN; Nvidia called at $3.70 (“a gain of nearly 6,300%” to its peak); AMD at $2.14 (“more than 250x at its recent peak”); Bitcoin at $640 in 2014; and “more than 50 different stocks that went on to gain 1,000% or more over two decades.”

Notably, the same man who made those calls is the one warning that parts of the AI trade are priced for a fall, and he concedes the base rate honestly: “Of course, not all of my calls and recommendations turn out to be 10x and higher… It’d be insane to believe that and pretend like there aren’t losers along the way.”

Why a Minerals Pitch Carries an AI Warning

The pairing makes marketing sense: the presentation’s audience is being asked to rotate attention from one theme (AI, crowded) to another (critical minerals, early), and a “three AI stocks to avoid” report is the bridge. The pitch’s main event, the deep-sea mining play with Executive Order 14285’s offtake language and the only U.S.-flagged harvesting vessel, is framed as the “before Wall Street catches on” side of the curve; the Great AI Shock is the “after” side, the crowded trade everyone already owns. Our The Metals Company fingerprint piece and deep-sea mining explainer cover the main event; the sibling XAI Boom campaign covered McCall’s AI-adjacent picks from the same house.

What History Says About Crowded-Trade Warnings

Skepticism about popular AI names has a track record worth examining, because “overvalued” alone has never been a catalyst. Prior crowded-era warnings that proved profitable were specific: the dot-com short case worked when the buyers’ funding structure (customer-financing and dilution dependence) broke, not when the valuations looked rich; the cleanest unwinds combine stretched prices with a mechanical trigger like funding, accounting, or supply. A forward-looking AI-shock thesis is therefore only as good as its mechanism: which customers slow down, which capital spending gets cut, which index flows reverse. The pitch does not preview its mechanism, which is honest of it, in a way (the names and the mechanism are the product), but it means the reader cannot pre-judge the report from the teaser alone. That is the honest state of play: the framework is sound, and the proof waits behind the paywall.

Our Honest Read

A sell-side warning inside a buy-side pitch deserves a specific kind of scrutiny. The honest strengths: contrarian sell calls are rarer and often more credible than buy calls in newsletter marketing; McCall’s history includes genuinely early identification of the AI trade’s winners, which lends weight to a claim that he can distinguish winners from tourists; and the report is positioned as protection (“avoid”) rather than short-selling, which is responsible framing for a retail audience. The honest cautions: “three popular AI stocks” could fit dozens of candidates, so the phrase is unfalsifiable until the names are revealed; “the shock” is undated and unmechanized in the pitch; and a bonus report bundled with a subscription is an incentive to make the list dramatic. We break down that angle in our “The Musk Stampede Master List: The Bonus Report Explained” piece.

The right posture for a reader is the one the pitch’s own candor block models: take the framework (some of the AI trade is priced beyond its technology curve) seriously, and treat the specific names as claims to verify, not authority to obey.

For the analyst, see our profile of Matt McCall.

The full presentation and the complete offer (the chess move report, the Musk Stampede Master List, the Eighth Magnificent Stock, and this report, plus a year of the McCall Innovation Report at $99 with a 90-day refund) are available through this link.

The Great AI Shock decodes as: a crowded-trade warning, from an analyst with a documented record of being early on the AI trade, with the names held back as the product. The framework deserves respect; the list deserves verification.

NewsletterVetter is an independent publication. We receive compensation from some of the services we review through affiliate links. Nothing on this site is investment advice. Always do your own research.