Equity markets are once again in a euphoric run, with comparisons being drawn to two historic episodes of excess: the dot-com bubble of the late 1990s and the Roaring Twenties preceding the Great Depression.
While AI-driven tech giants continue to push indices to record highs, institutional portfolios remain heavily concentrated in equities.
Reminiscing About The Dot-com Bubble
At the turn of the millennium, the internet captured the imagination of investors worldwide. A similar story is unfolding today with artificial intelligence.
Wells Fargo Advisors notes that in both eras, "a small handful of stocks and sectors carried the S&P 500 to new record highs." In 2000, information technology and telecom accounted for nearly half the index; today, technology, communications, and consumer discretionary—again dominated by mega-cap tech—make up more than 55%.
The parallels extend to investor psychology. At the height of the dot-com mania, IBM famously declared: "The [internet] revolution has arrived. With stunning speed, it has swept all of us into a new kind of economy and a new kind of society."
Twenty-five years later, that sentiment goes almost word-for-word with the current AI narrative, where both Wall Street and Silicon Valley promote a transformative new age.
Valuations are also reaching extremes. During the dot-com bubble, Cisco (NASDAQ:CSCO) briefly became the world's largest company, trading at over 20 times forward revenue. Today, Nvidia (NASDAQ:NVDA) occupies a similar position, valued at nearly 15% of the US GDP. Both cases rest on exponential growth assumptions that may not withstand the test of time.
But the differences are equally telling. Wells Fargo points out that today's mega-cap leaders have robust balance sheets and cash flows, unlike many internet darlings of 1999, which were priced on dreams rather than earnings.
Yet in recent research, GQG Research warns that this quality is "backward-looking."
"The consequences of the current AI boom could be worse than those of the dotcom era, as its scale—relative to the economy and the market—is far greater," the firm warns, pointing at slowing growth, intensifying competition, and ballooning capital expenditures tied to AI infrastructure.
This time, the risks may be amplified not because the companies are weaker, but because the stakes are higher. Technology now represents a much larger share of the economy and index weightings. If the sector falters, the ripple effects could be broader than in 2000.
Black Swan Expert Expects 1929
While some liken today's surge to 1999, others see darker parallels to the 1929 crash. Mark Spitznagel, founder of Universa Investments and protégé of Black Swan author Nassim Nicholas Taleb, has built his reputation on thriving during times of crisis.
Spitznagel earned $1 billion in a single day during the 2015 "Flash Crash" and achieved notable gains during both the Lehman collapse and the Covid-19 meltdown.
Universa's approach is tail-risk protection—investments that lose modest amounts most of the time but deliver enormous payoffs in sharp downturns. This strategy enables clients, including pension funds, to remain invested in rising markets while protecting against market collapse. The irony, Spitznagel notes, is that bullish conditions make this insurance more affordable.
"I'm the crash guy—I remain the crash guy," he said for the Wall Street Journal, warning that today's conditions resemble the lead-up to the Great Depression.
He argues that repeated Federal Reserve rescues have created a fragile system: like extinguishing every small fire in a forest, it leaves too much tinder for a catastrophic blaze. The result, he fears, could be a "firebomb" worse than anything since 1929.
Despite his warnings, Spitznagel acknowledges the market could rise further first. He even sees scope for the S&P 500 to touch 8000 in the near term, a 20% gain from current levels. Historically, markets have often rallied strongly in the year before a crash, as in 1929.
The latest BofA Global Fund Manager Survey reinforces these concerns. Equity exposure is at its highest since 2007, just before the global financial crisis, while gold allocations remain near record lows at just 2.4%. Such positioning suggests investors are unprepared for a shock.
For Spitznagel, the danger lies in complacency: "The biggest risk to investors isn't the market—it's themselves." Yet he doesn't pick his words to explain the market dynamics.
"The markets are perverse. They exist to screw people," he concluded.
Read More:
Image: Shutterstock
- No comments yet. Be the first to comment!