주식 시장 거품: 미디어의 모순된 내러티브와 지표

### 마켓 워치 주식 시장 거품에 대한 기괴한 이중 발언
* 📈 주류 언론은 주식 시장이 **닷컴 버블, GFC, 1929년과 같은 역사적 버블**과 비교하며 거대한 거품에 빠져 있음을 인정하고 있습니다.
* 🛑 그러나 그들은 폭락으로 끝나지 않고 **느린 디플레이션**으로 끝날 가능성이 높으며 **폭락 확률은 평균보다 낮다**고 주장합니다.
* 🧐 '버핏 지표'(GDP 대비 시장 가치 비율)는 사상 최고치에 근접했지만, 이들은 **시장이 공정하게 평가되던 시기에도 폭락 확률은 더 낮았다고 주장**합니다.
* 📊 하버드 연구를 기반으로 한 State Street Associates의 예측에 따르면 향후 2년 내 **40% 하락할 확률은 5년 평균 예측보다 18% 낮습니다.**
* 📉 예측 모델에 따르면 시장의 후행 2년 가격 상승률이 **100%일 때 폭락 확률은 50%**에 가깝고, **150%일 때는 폭락이 거의 확실**하다고 합니다.
* ❓ 역사적 기준으로 볼 때 이 모델의 예측은 결함이 있는 것처럼 보입니다. 예를 들어 **1974년과 1987년과 같은 주요 시장 폭락은 100% 또는 150% 상승이라는 기준**을 충족하지 못했습니다.
* 🤔 이 모델의 논리는 **과거 충돌 사례와 일치하지 않아** 그 타당성에 대한 의문이 제기되고 있습니다.
* 💬 버블 경고에도 불구하고 이 기사는 **주식을 계속 매수할 것**을 제안하여 혼란스럽고 모순적인 이야기를 만들어 냈습니다.

주식 시장은 거대한 거품에 빠져 있지만 주류 언론은 폭락할 가능성이 낮다고 주장합니다.

hello full of Robo capitals hope you're well. So the mainstream media is coming out and admitting that the stock market is in a massive bubble, but you won't believe how they're spinning this. Let's get right into this article from Market Watch and be prepared my friend, hope you're sitting down for this one. Yes, we are in a stock market bubble. So that's a big change of the narrative, that's a stretch for the mainstream media to even admit that. But they say no, it's not likely to end with a crash. So yes, we're in this massive bubble. It's just like what we saw on the dot-com bust. It's just like what we saw in the GFC. It's like what we saw, let's just say, in 1974. It's just a massive, massive bubble like we saw in 1929 maybe. But even though every single time it ended in a crash, this time is different. And this is what they're trying to get you to believe. Check this.

out, and what's really shocking is the evidence that they give for their position. In this case, Market Watch. This's a guy named Mark Hbert so stocks down 40% would pop this market bubble. Okay, that's I could have figured that one out, but slow deflation is more likely than a quick crash. By the way, when have we had a slow deflation, a just a very slow grind down, nothing to see here, no big deal when when, and by the way, down 40%. When have we seen that when the stock market was in a bubble that it just gradually comes down? This is just like inflation or this is just like uh the FED fighting inflation or the FED raising interest rates. When have they ever orchestrated or engineered a soft landing? Never. So why is that our base case right now? This is what I ask the mainstream media. And why is it that your base case is that it's just a gradual decline, just a gr like there's you don't even notice like we'll be down

40%, but you won't even, it'll just be like nothing. By the way, how could stocks be down by 40% and how could that not impact an already shaky economy. Let's get into the article here. So they say the probability of the US Stock Market crashing is below average right now. How is this possible, I wonder if they ever read the article after they wrote it. It's like I'm sure you've got some of those friends that just a lot of times they don't make any sense and you're like literally asking yourself, I wonder if that person actually hears the words that are coming out of their mouth. There's just, there's no way. Look at this, they're saying we are in a massive stock market bubble but somehow the probability of the US Stock Market crashing is below average. So not below average in other times where there was a bubble but just below average, period. So if we use the Buffet indicator as an example and we, I think that is at what now, let me actually look that.

up. So, Buffett indicator here. So, the Buffett indicator right now. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, what's happening? Let's see if this is more straightforward. Yes, I know what it is. Okay. So, look at the Buffett indicator right now. So, it's very close to an all-time high. So, this is GDP versus market cap of the S&P 500 or the Dow, the US Stock Market. Okay, we'll assume it's the Dow, but the bottom line here is we are close to an all-time high. So, what this person is saying is when you look at even times when the PE ratios were below 15 or when the Buffett indicator was just kind of right in the middle here. So, right now it's almost 200%, so it's 188.18% ratio market value to GDP 53% higher than the long-term trend. So, here's the historic trend, this dotted line. So, what they're saying is even when you look at this historic trend, the probabilities of a crash right

now are below average even at times when the market was fairly valued. Even times when the market was, let's say, at 12. I'm talking about the PE Ratio was at 12. Or now we're what, 22, 25, something like that. And even at times when the Buffet indicator would signal that the stock market is fairly valued. Even when you look at those times, we are still at a lower probability of a stock market crash now than then. I again, how can you say this with a straight F? That doesn't even make sense. Huh. This is according to the froth forecast compiled by Street State Street Associates, which are based on research by Harvard. Oh, there you go, Harvard University. Okay, I should have looked at that as soon whenever you see an Ivy League school, just completely ignore anything past that statement because it's all just going to be economic drill. The probability of a 40% decline at some point over the next two years. Okay, the operational definition of a crash that they use, they're saying now it's

18% lower than the trailing 5-year average forecast probability of 26%. So then the question becomes, okay, how are they coming to this conclusion? Look right here. They say that when the trailing two-year price run-up of the market is 100% – excuse me, when the trailing 2-year price run-up, yes, is 100%. 100%. For example, the probability of a subsequent crash is close to 50%. When the trailing price run-up is 150%, then a crash is nearly certain. So what this leads you to believe, and they say right now we've had a run-up of basically 50%, that's what they're showing here. So what this leads you to believe is, oh well, hey look, this is in a bubble, but let's just bye bye bye bye bye like Jim Cramer teaches us, because it doesn't matter, because the probability is so low that the stock market crashes that I might as well load up, even though at the exact same time they're saying that they see a stock.

market decline of 40%. Oh, but it's just going to happen so smoothly and softly that it's not even going to impact your portfolio. Oh man, so anyway, getting back to their, we'll call it rationale, you would assume that they've gone back throughout Market crashes in history with the United States, and it shows that, wow, 1974, wow, doc, wow, GFC, wow, all these times the market really ran up the prior two years and then it crashed. But if we actually go to the S&P 500, which I thought I had that up, let's look at market trends. That one's really easy to see, and we're going to go ahead and do nominal. Well, let's look at a log chart there. Actually, let's do this. Let's just take off the log chart, but we're going to zoom in here a bit so we can see specific time periods. So let's start looking at the 1970s because as you guys know from watching my videos, we had a huge stock market crash right here going into

1974. In fact, think about this. This was a time of very high inflation, obviously. And these are nominal, nominal numbers. So think about how much you would have lost when you adjust for the rate of inflation as far as your purchasing power. So right here, we're at 118. Okay. And the stock, this is by any definition, this is a massive stock market crash when it's basically down by 50% in nominal terms. So in real terms, you're down much more than that. So based on this guy's what he's saying, you would expect that, Oh, well then the market must have been up by at least 100% the last two years or the two years prior. Okay. This was 1972. So let's go back to even 1970, you know, at the depths of the last downturn. And you're at 72. But we're at 118. So the increase wasn't even 100%. So I, I realize that they're not saying that you have to have 100% and 150%, but if those are the metrics.

they're using well then you would assume that we would have seen something like that in the United States stock market in the past well maybe we have let's go over to uh Black Monday shoot over to 19 87 boom I think most people would consider that a stock market crash see how one day it goes down by what 20 25% something like that maybe even more it went down by more than 25% went down by Boy almost 100 so probably call it 30% something like that okay but uh here again you would assume that well this has got to be I mean this was obvious right so this would have been one of those times where it was up by 150% and then like they're saying there's a 100% chance that that sucker's coming down but it starts at 329 before it rolls over so then let's go back to 1985 and here we are we're right around 200 so 200 excuse me so 200 in 1985 October and we fast forward

to 1987. And we're at 329. Wait a minute, that's not a 100% increase, let alone 150% increase. But yet, by their own metrics, they would have said there's a very low probability that we have a stock market crash here. Why? Because the stock market wasn't even up 100%. The stock market, let's just say, 200. Let's say it was up 80%. So they would have said, Nope, nope, nope, low probability, low probability. Remember, the stock market, they admit, was up 50%. So if you look at some of the, let's go to the dot, maybe that was up 150%, definitely a stock market crash. But again, we start here at, let's say, 1500. So let's go back two years to 98. And we're at, I mean, call it, I guess it dipped super low, but I mean, they're, I don't know that they're referencing the low point of the past two years. So let's just say it's at 1000. And we go up to

1500. So that's an increase, not of 100%, not of 150%, but an increase of what, 50%, which is the exact same increase that we've had over the past two years. So they would have told you, using their method, if you want to even call it that, the probability of a stock market crash in August of 2000 was also extremely low. In fact, they would have said it was below average. Let's go to the GFC. I can do this all day long. So again, no one, the stock market, absolutely, this was a mega crash. And we peak out here, let's say right around 1500. Once again. And let's go back two years, we're at 1,200. We're at 1,200. So this wasn't even an increase of 50%, this was an increase of, let's say, 35%. So if they're giving an 18% chance of a stock market crash now due to the fact that we're up 50% over the last two years during just before the GFC, they

would have given that like a 3% probability. So, I don't know how they can put any weight whatsoever in this model. How can they look at this and say, Yeah, this is something that you should actually factor into your decision-making process. I mean, this is just pure garbage, but this is what they're trying to get you to buy into. It's like bizarre double speak. It's almost like Orwellian that they're sitting there telling you the stock market's in a bubble, but don't worry about it because it's not going to crash. But our methods are, pardon my French, dog. And you guys know in accounting, dog in, dog out, as I always say. But even though that's the case here, somehow this means that you should continue to buy the stock market. I mean, it just, it's not even coherent, really. And then they give some other example as to, you know, cap weighted is just because we're in the mag 7, just basically because we're the stock market is held.

up by Nvidia. That doesn't mean that there's any more of a risk that the stock market crashes again. How you square that Circle, I'll never know. Ah, geez, but there you go. Bye, bye, bye, bye, bye. And let me be very clear that you've got to. I've been saying on this channel. One of the things that I've learned over the last couple months is it doesn't matter what you think. Like, I think the stock work's in a massive bubble. I'm sure most of you on this live stream think the exact same thing. But if you're setting up your portfolio or if you're making shorter-term bets, if you're a trader, let's say, it doesn't matter what you think. It only matters what the market thinks. And that's how you have to position yourself. So in my personal portfolio that I have with Rebel capitalist Pro, one of my model portfolios is a little more aggressive. I have bets in there that probably surprise a lot of people, but they're not based on my opinion.

can assure you of that they're based on my opinion of what I think. The market thinks and that's it. Sounds bizarre. It sounds weird. But I think especially if you're betting short term and trading as counterintuitive as that may seem. It's what you got to do. So enjoy the rest of your afternoon guys. As always make sure that you're standing it for freedom, liberty, free market capitalism. And remember the stock market is in a massive, massive bubble. But it's not something that you should worry about at all. In fact, don't change your position size like Jim Cramer says. Bye bye bye bye bye. You got nothing to worry about. All right guys, we'll see you in the next video.

You Won't Believe What They're Saying About The Stock Market Now

This is an official George Gammon channel. I'll discuss the current news related to Macro, Personal Liberty, and helping YOU build wealth and thrive in a world of out of control central banks and big governments.  Videos will come out 2-3 times a day (time permitting).  

Rebel Capitalist

주식 시장 거품에 대한 주류 언론의 시각

주류 언론은 현재의 주식시장 버블을 인정하면서도 과거 패턴과 달리 폭락으로 이어질 가능성에 대해서는 경시하고 있습니다.

그들은 이러한 유형의 연착륙에 대한 전례가 없음에도 불구하고 급격한 폭락보다는 느린 디플레이션이 발생할 가능성이 더 높다고 주장하고 있습니다.

또한 언론은 미국 증시 폭락 확률이 평균보다 낮다고 주장하고 있어 증시가 대규모 거품에 빠졌다는 평가와 모순됩니다.

국내총생산과 주식시장의 가치를 비교하는 버핏 지표는 현재 188.

18%로 사상 최고치에 근접해 있습니다.

하버드 대학교의 예측에 따르면 주식 시장이 높은 주가수익비율로 고평가된 것으로 여겨지지만, 주식 시장 폭락 가능성은 저평가된 시기보다 낮다고 합니다.

이 예측은 시장의 잠재적 거품에도 불구하고 폭락 가능성이 낮음을 시사하는 지난 2년간의 가격 상승을 기반으로 한 것입니다.

연사는 역사상 시장 폭락의 영향, 특히 1974년 폭락과 당시의 높은 인플레이션에 초점을 맞춰 논의합니다.

그들은 이 폭락 기간 동안 명목 및 실질 용어 손실이 상당했음을 강조하며 100% 미만의 상승률을 보인 전년도 시장 성과와의 상관관계에 의문을 제기합니다.

일관성 없는 주식 시장 폭락 예측

1987년 미국 주식시장 폭락은 일반적인 폭락 지표와 달리 폭락 전 상승률이 훨씬 낮았습니다.

큰 폭의 하락에도 불구하고 이 폭락은 상승률에 기반한 일반적인 예측 모델을 무시했습니다.

이러한 폭락 예측 모델의 불일치는 그 신뢰성과 효과에 대한 의문을 제기합니다.

주식 시장 폭락 확률 예측에 대한 비판

발표자는 주가 상승률을 기준으로 주식 시장 폭락을 예측하는 방법이 신뢰할 수 없다고 주장하며 이를 비판합니다.

과거 데이터를 사용하여 이 방법의 예측이 얼마나 크게 빗나갔는지 보여줍니다.

발표자는 이 방법에 의존하여 의사 결정을 내리는 것이 터무니없고 일관성이 없다고 말하며 "순수한 쓰레기"에 비유합니다.

주식 거래에서 시장 인식의 중요성

한 금융 전문가에 따르면 트레이딩 결정을 내릴 때는 개인 의견이 아닌 시장 인식이 중요하다고 합니다.

이 전문가는 직관적이지 않더라도 시장 시각에 맞춰야 한다고 강조합니다.

주식 시장에 거품이 있다고 믿더라도 걱정하거나 포지션을 바꾸지 말라고 조언합니다.