Recently, a spectacular "drama" has unfolded in the US tech world. First, Bill Gates' charity fund completely sold off all its Microsoft shares, followed by two top Wall Street tycoons arguing fiercely over Microsoft's future.

On one side, the founders' family fund is "retreating," on the other is fierce debate among top investors. Some believe AI will overturn Microsoft's Office empire, while others see Microsoft as the biggest winner in the AI era.

What exactly is going on? Let's take a look together.

| Gates Foundation Clearance: Not Bearish, But to "Spend Money"

According to the latest filing from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Gates Foundation Trust sold all remaining 7.7 million Microsoft shares in the first quarter of 2026, cashing out about $3.2 billion.

Since then, this fund, solely managed by Bill Gates, no longer holds any Microsoft shares. From $10.7 billion a year ago to zero now, the move has been very decisive.

But this doesn't mean Bill Gates himself doesn't think much about Microsoft.

It should be made clear that the fund is the one clearing out, not Gates personally. Bill Gates himself still holds about 103 million shares of Microsoft stock, valued at around $43 billion, and has not moved at all.

| Why sell? Actually, it's not necessarily because of 'not optimistic'

On the surface, Microsoft's founder's charity fund selling all its shares sounds like a major "bearish" signal. But market analysts believe the logic behind this is actually quite ordinary, mainly for the following three reasons:

Concentration risk: The primary task of a charity fund is to do charity, and betting more than a quarter of its assets on a single stock (even if it is self-established) is too risky.

Liquidity Needs: Last year, Gates announced that the foundation would complete its mission and close within 20 years, with all assets going to charitable spending. This means the foundation has entered a "monetization countdown," needing nearly $10 billion in cash annually to allocate donations, which must be converted into stock.

Asset Allocation: This is more like a fund manager making routine asset allocation adjustments, rather than founders expressing pessimistic judgments about the company.

Interestingly, the foundation sold Microsoft money and then bought giants from traditional industries such as Berkshire Hathaway, scrap management companies, and Canadian National Railway. This shows their investment strategy has shifted from "pursuing high growth" to "stable cash flow" models.

| Wall Street's Top Showdown: The "Long and Short War" between Ackman and Hohn

When the Gates Foundation exited, Microsoft's stock instead became a "battlefield" for top hedge funds. Sir Christopher Hohn, founder of the well-known UK hedge fund TCI, nearly liquidated his position at Microsoft, while Bill Ackman of the US hedge fund Pershing Square was aggressively bottom-fishing.

Bearish (Hohn): He worries that the rapid evolution of AI could give rise to a new generation of productivity platforms, shaking Microsoft Office's long-standing market dominance; At the same time, he expressed a cautious attitude toward the growth prospects of Azure cloud business. While reducing his Microsoft shares, he also put his stake on Google.

Ackman: He directly retorted to Hohn, saying he was "wrong." His logic for building positions is very strong: first, M365 has over 450 million active users, with a deep moat that is difficult to replicate; second, Azure grew 39% last quarter, and Microsoft is heavily investing in infrastructure (annual capital expenditure budget raised to about $190 billion); Finally, he believes Microsoft is undervalued, and its economic interests in OpenAI (about $200 billion) are not fully reflected in the current stock price.

The core disagreement in this open battle actually lies in judgments about AI: Hohn believes AI is Microsoft's "disruptor" and will erode its software barriers; Ackman believes AI is Microsoft's "enhancer," and Copilot and multi-model architecture will make Microsoft the biggest beneficiary of enterprise-level AI.

However, Microsoft's stock price has still fallen more than 15% this year, and market doubts about whether it can turn its massive AI investment into commercial returns have not dispelled.

Kingtech Perspective | AI Commercialization Enters 'Validation Phase'

The Gates Foundation's liquidation and TCI reduction are more based on their own funding horizons, risk appetite, and considerations of crowding in a single sector, rather than simply denying Microsoft's fundamentals. On the contrary, the involvement of long-term capital like Ackman shows that there is still a strong consensus in the market on Microsoft's long-term value.

Currently, Microsoft's forward P/E ratio is about 21 times, below the recent historical average. The market's valuation divergence precisely reflects investors' weighing between "short-term capital expenditure pressure" and "long-term AI growth potential."

Focus on leading AI applications with deep moats

In the AI wave, enterprise-level software giants (such as Microsoft), with massive existing users and deeply embedded workflows, possess strong risk resistance and monetization potential. When AI moves from "storytelling" to "building practical implementation," the value of these companies will be reassessed.

Focus on AI infrastructure and the computing power industry chain

No matter how the competitive landscape of AI applications changes, the demand for computing power and cloud infrastructure remains certain. Microsoft's capital expenditure plan of up to $190 billion directly benefits upstream chip manufacturers, servers, and data center industry chains.

Massive capital expenditures and concerns about AI uncertainty may cause fluctuations in Microsoft's stock price, but in the long run, as long as Microsoft continues to hold the M365 moat and successfully builds Azure into the super foundation of the AI era, it remains one of the most noteworthy core assets in the tech sector. For ordinary investors, understanding the real logic behind institutional portfolio adjustments is far more important than blindly following trends.