To The Moon

You’ve raised some very pertinent questions — and given the current backdrop, there is a plausible case for what you call the comeback of “old-giant” stocks (i.e., the more traditional, value and cyclical names) — though with important caveats. Below I’ll address each of your three questions in turn.

---

1. Temporary rally or the start of a broader shift?

Evidence favouring a broader shift

Several market-analyses show that the 2025 environment is seeing capital rotate away from big tech/growth and towards value/cyclical/“old economy” sectors. For example, one article notes the dominance of tech is fading, and sectors with tangible earnings and real-economy exposure are gaining. 

The reasons cited include: higher interest-rates/real-yields diminishing the attractiveness of long-duration growth, inflation/commodity pressures boosting cyclicals and value, and the maturing of the economic cycle. 

Sector rotation appears to be broadening rather than a narrow blip (e.g., industrials, energy, materials, even some consumer staples/defensives are getting attention). 

Why it still might be temporary or prone to reversal

Shifts in market leadership often happen in cycles; growth may stage a comeback once valuations, sentiment or policy support change. For example, tech has historically been the winner in recoveries from downturns. 

Even if leadership rotates, that doesn’t mean tech is “dead” or old-economy always wins — rather the market may decentralise leadership and diversify. 

Macro risks (e.g., recession, policy missteps, inflation spurts) could reverse the rotation back to defensives or tech.

My view

I lean toward this being more than just a short‐term rally, i.e., the early stages of a meaningful shift in leadership. The underlying drivers (valuation fatigue in tech, inflation/interest rate dynamics, cycle maturity) suggest this is structural to some degree. However — I would not assume the old-economy sectors will simply outperform without interruption, or that tech/growth will be sidelined forever. It’s likely to be a more diversified market regime, with multiple sectors vying for leadership rather than one dominant theme.

---

2. Are traditional “old giant” stocks the safer bet in the current market?

Arguments for ‘safer’

Traditional/old-economy stocks often have stronger earnings visibility, cash flows, and dividends, which matter more in an environment of higher rates and greater uncertainty.

In a maturing economic cycle (with less explosive growth ahead), companies that rely less on rapid growth assumptions may be more resilient.

If interest rates remain elevated or inflation lingers, value/cyclical names tend to perform relatively well. 

Arguments against seeing them as categorically “safer”

“Traditional” does not equal “immune”. Cyclicals (like industrials, energy, materials) are more exposed to economic downturns, commodity swings, global trade disruptions, etc.

Valuation gaps may already be narrowing, meaning upside may be more limited compared with more growth-oriented stories that still have large scope for innovation/expansion.

Being “safe” may mean lower upside risk-reward; if tech/growth recovers strongly, old-economy may underperform.

My judgement

Yes — relative to high-flyers in tech/growth that appear richly priced and more vulnerable to disappointments, many traditional stocks represent a reasonable defensive tilt or portfolio anchor in the current market. But I would not replace growth entirely or treat traditional stocks as “bullet‐proof”. The prudent approach is balance: allocate core exposure to stable traditional names, but retain some exposure to high-growth/high-upside names (tech/growth) to keep optionality.

---

3. Which traditional industries have the most upside potential this year?

Based on the current environment, the industries I believe show particularly interesting upside — among the “old giants” — are:

Industrials / Infrastructure / Manufacturing

There is strong impetus behind infrastructure rebuilds, reshoring, supply-chain redesign, and equipment demand. One piece notes that industrials are benefiting from the transition tied to AI/data-centres (power, manufacturing infrastructure) and general cycle expansion. 

Energy / Materials / Commodities

If inflation remains elevated and real-asset price support stays in place, energy & materials can benefit. Also the link to global growth (emerging markets) supports these. 

Financials

With higher rates (yield curve) and possible easing or stabilising of monetary policy, banks and financial institutions could benefit from net interest margins, improved credit. The rotation commentary includes financials as a sector gaining favour. 

Consumer Staples / Defensive “Old Economy”

If volatility picks up or growth disappoints, consumer staples and other defensive old-economy names might hold up well — though their upside might be moderate rather than explosive.

International/Global Traditional Sectors

Some “old economy” companies outside the U.S. (industrial, manufacturing, commodity exporters) may have the added upside of global catch-up or currency tailwinds. The rotation articles point to non-U.S. value/old economy names benefiting. 

---

Final Summary

In sum:

I believe the shift toward traditional “old giant” stocks is likely more than a brief rally, though not guaranteed to persist uninterrupted.

Traditional industries are relatively safer compared with richly priced growth stocks, but “safer” does not mean risk-free or standout upside.

If I were choosing which traditional industries to overweight now, I’d lean toward industrials/infrastructure, energy/materials, and financials, with a smaller allocation to defensives and global old-economy names.