A sharp October left the Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF — ticker QQQM — at $284.34 on Friday, October 30, 2026, after a 7.07% monthly decline that included a single-session drop of 3.46%. For Steven Fiorillo, the author of a Seeking Alpha article published November 1, that combination is a buying opportunity rather than a warning. He recommends buying QQQM and reads the pullback as indiscriminate selling driven by fears about capital expenditure.
What October Did to the Fund
The monthly loss and the closing price describe a fund that gave back ground quickly, with the last session of the month contributing a meaningful share of the damage. QQQM tracks the Nasdaq 100, so its fortunes are tied to the index’s largest companies rather than to a broad cross-section of the market.
Fiorillo’s explanation for the move is not that the underlying businesses deteriorated. In his view, investors sold broadly because of concerns about CapEx — the spending commitments that sit behind much of the current technology build-out. The distinction matters to his thesis: if the selling was indiscriminate, then the fund’s price may have moved further than its holdings’ fundamentals warranted.
The Valuation Argument
The case rests partly on what buyers would pay for the fund’s largest positions. According to the article, QQQM’s top holdings trade at 15.7 times earnings-weighted next-year earnings. That figure is an earnings-weighted measure applied to the top holdings, not a simple average across the entire portfolio.
Fiorillo also expects the largest positions to deliver double-digit EPS growth. Put together, the argument is that a portfolio trading at that multiple, with those growth expectations, looks more attractive after a 7.07% decline than it did before one. The brief does not specify which companies make up the top 10 or how the 15.7x figure was calculated, so the metric should be read as the author’s stated valuation reference rather than a full portfolio multiple.
Concentration Cuts Both Ways
QQQM is not a diversified bet on the wider economy. Technology accounts for 59.2% of the fund, and the top 10 holdings make up 46.6% of assets. Those two numbers explain both the appeal and the risk: a handful of names drive a large share of returns, and a single sector dominates the portfolio.
That concentration amplifies volatility. It also ties the fund closely to the same AI and CapEx cycle that Fiorillo says sparked October’s selling. If CapEx worries were enough to knock 7.07% off the fund in a month, further headlines on the same theme could produce similar moves. The author acknowledges this exposure rather than dismissing it.
The Price Target and the Second Buy Level
Fiorillo’s base case is a recovery to $314.12, the fund’s 52-week high, within 12 months. From the October 30 close of $284.34, that target implies roughly 10.5% upside. It is a forecast, not an observed outcome, and the brief provides no detail on the path the author expects the fund to take.
His plan also includes a second entry point. If QQQM falls to $270 or lower, he recommends buying more. That level sits below the October close and suggests the author is prepared for further weakness rather than assuming the pullback is finished. The two numbers — $314.12 on the upside and $270 as an add level — frame the recommendation as a staged approach rather than a single all-in call.
Disclosures Behind the Call
Fiorillo discloses long positions in META, NVDA, AMZN, GOOGL, MSFT and AAPL. Those are among the mega-cap technology names that dominate a Nasdaq 100-tracking fund, which means the author has a direct financial interest in the thesis he is presenting. Readers should weigh the recommendation with that in mind.
The article is described as personal opinion, not investment advice. That disclaimer is standard for opinion pieces, but it is also the correct frame here: the recommendation rests on one author’s reading of a monthly decline, a valuation metric and a set of growth expectations, not on a guarantee about future prices.
What the Bull Case Hinges On
Three things have to hold for the recommendation to work as intended. First, the October selling needs to have been driven by sentiment about CapEx rather than by a change in the earnings power of the fund’s largest holdings. Second, the double-digit EPS growth Fiorillo expects from those holdings needs to materialize. Third, the market needs to be willing to pay a higher multiple for that growth within the next 12 months.
None of those conditions is assured. The brief does not identify the specific CapEx fears involved, the composition of the top 10 holdings, or the basis for the 15.7x calculation. It also does not describe the author’s portfolio size or performance. What it does provide is a clear set of reference points: a 7.07% October decline, a $284.34 close, a 3.46% single-session drop, a 15.7x earnings-weighted multiple on top holdings, a 59.2% technology weight, a 46.6% top-10 weight, a $314.12 target and a $270 add level.
For investors weighing QQQM after the pullback, those figures define the debate. The fund’s concentration is what makes the decline painful and what makes the recovery potential meaningful. Whether October’s selling was indiscriminate or justified is the question the author answers one way — and the market will answer another.
