Actually, I think he's a bit mistaken in his analysis. First, back in 1999, most people followed the market by watching CNBC. Even though Internet was available, unless you were a day trader like me, you got your information mainly through old skool outlets.
He also states that everyone was euphoric and talked about stocks back then but that is not the case now. What he seems to conveniently forget is that, in 1999, the main channel of communication was through word of mouth. But who the hell does that now? It's all done through social media now. Does he not look at Twitter/X or other popular platforms? It's a never-ending buzz awash with people talking about Nvidea and Bitcoin. You can't say that ain't no hysteria.
I think the key point was that in 1999 everyone was involved in the stock market somehow and there was broad participation. If that was the case today, surely people would be talking about it non-stop both on X and in real life.
He also look at various data points (COT report, S&P equal weighted index at low levels indicating low breadth (participation), etc.) which indicates that the participation in this rally is not at a point where everyone is long.
, I think the market hysteria now is worst than the one in 1999. Back then it was just sheer greed. Now, it has morphed into some cult-ish voodoo state of mind. We live in some really strange times.
Could be. I wasn't around, so I won't make any objections to that.
I think (maybe I can research it and give a more qualified view) a big difference from then and now is the amount of passive funds frequently flowing into the market.
My impression is that in present time, everyone in Norway is saving for their pension or just general investment through passive index funds. I know that was most certainly not true as late as 10 years ago. The public had little to no knowledge about stocks.
This could partially explain why there's always a bid in the indices.
I believe the common man in the US have been investing in stocks for much longer, but I'm sure that even in the US a lot of the money have shifted from actively managed funds to passive investments.
I'm sure it's a worldwide phenomena.