Possible Future AI Bubble Crash? Similarities to the 2000 Dot.Com to 2002 Crash?

Posted by Robert Davis (FCIM) on March 14, 2025 in AI, Crash, Dot.Com Bubble, Financial Markets |No Comments

I am looking to invest soon in the markets so in the last 6 months have been doing to analysis. Deep Research and Perplexity have been helping get ideas to my hypotheses.

My hypothesis is that here has been a crash in financial markets, especially in the US. But the question is, is there more to come. I would suggest yes. Particularly led by the AI bubble. Billions being invested. No revenues.

My hypothesis is that the 2000-2002 Dot.Com financial bubble burst is the same conditions as the current AI Bubble.

Today a correction has been announced. But will it go further. Remember the 2000 crash lasted 2 years. Wow!

Here is the analysis in two parts using Deep Search:

The Dot-Com Bubble Crash: A Comprehensive Analysis of Its Timeline and Impact

The dot-com bubble crash, marking the end of an era of exuberant speculation in internet-based companies, began in March 2000 and precipitated a prolonged market decline that lasted until 2002. The bubble’s peak occurred on March 10, 2000, when the technology-heavy NASDAQ Composite Index reached an unprecedented high of 5,048.621 2 4. Over the following two years, the index plummeted by 76.81%, bottoming out at 1,139.90 by October 4, 20022 4 7. This collapse erased approximately $5 trillion in market value and led to the bankruptcy of high-profile startups such as Pets.com, Webvan, and Boo.com, while survivors like Amazon and eBay emerged as long-term industry leaders1 3 6. The crash underscored the dangers of speculative investing, overvaluation of unprofitable businesses, and the fragility of markets driven by irrational exuberance.

Historical Context and Emergence of the Dot-Com Bubble

The Rise of Internet-Based Innovation

The dot-com bubble originated in the mid-1990s, fueled by the rapid adoption of the World Wide Web and advancements in information technology. The launch of Netscape’s initial public offering (IPO) in 1995 marked a pivotal moment, as the company’s stock price doubled on its first trading day despite lacking profitability4 8. This event signaled a shift in investor sentiment, where traditional metrics like revenue and profit were overshadowed by speculative optimism about the internet’s transformative potential5 8. By 1999, the NASDAQ index had surged 582% from its 1995 levels, driven by investments in companies with “.com” domains3 7.

Low interest rates and abundant venture capital further accelerated the boom. Investors poured funds into startups with untested business models, prioritizing user growth and market share over immediate profitability1 5. This environment allowed firms like Amazon and Cisco Systems to achieve staggering valuations, even as many smaller companies operated at significant losses1 3. The era’s economic optimism was bolstered by a record-long U.S. economic expansion, declining unemployment, and rising productivity5 8.

Speculative Frenzy and Market Overvaluation

The late 1990s saw a proliferation of IPOs for internet startups, many of which lacked viable revenue streams. Companies like Webvan, which aimed to revolutionize grocery delivery, and Pets.com, an online pet supply retailer, became emblematic of the era’s excesses1 6. Their valuations were inflated by hype rather than fundamentals, with price-to-earnings ratios reaching unsustainable levels3 7. Analysts and media outlets amplified the euphoria, often dismissing skeptics as out of touch with the “new economy”5 8.

By early 2000, the NASDAQ’s price-to-earnings ratio exceeded 200, compared to a historical average of around 207. This disconnect between stock prices and intrinsic value created a precarious foundation for the market. The merger of AOL and Time Warner in January 2000, valued at $164 billion, epitomized the peak of irrationality, as it sought to merge old and new media empires without a clear path to synergy5 8.

The Crash: Timeline and Immediate Consequences

The Peak and Initial Decline (March–December 2000)

The bubble reached its zenith on March 10, 2000, when the NASDAQ closed at 5,048.622 4. However, cracks began to appear almost immediately. On March 13, the index dropped 4% amid growing concerns about overvaluation, triggering a wave of sell-offs4 7. By April, the NASDAQ had fallen 34% from its peak, and by December 2000, it had lost 51% of its value2 7.

The collapse was exacerbated by the Federal Reserve’s decision to raise interest rates six times between 1999 and 2000, increasing the cost of capital for heavily leveraged firms5 8. Additionally, the expiration of lock-up periods for insider shares flooded the market with additional stock, further depressing prices4 6. Companies like 360Networks and eToys, which had raised billions during their IPOs, saw their shares rendered nearly worthless as investor confidence evaporated3 6.

Prolonged Downturn (2001–2002)

The downturn intensified in 2001, with the NASDAQ losing another 25% by September2 7. The September 11 attacks compounded economic uncertainty, accelerating the decline of already fragile tech stocks6 8. By October 2002, the index had fallen to 1,139.90, wiping out $5 trillion in market value and erasing nearly all gains since 19953 4.

Bankruptcies surged during this period. Pets.com, which had spent $11.8 million on a single Super Bowl ad, liquidated in November 20001 6. Webvan, once valued at $1.2 billion, filed for bankruptcy in July 2001 after burning through $830 million in venture capital1 3. Even established firms like Cisco Systems and Intel lost over 80% of their market capitalization2 4.

Structural Causes of the Collapse

Overreliance on Speculative Capital

A key driver of the crash was the unsustainable reliance on venture capital and IPO funding. Startups prioritized rapid growth over profitability, assuming that market dominance would eventually translate to earnings3 5. For example, Boo.com, a European fashion retailer, spent $188 million in six months on global marketing but generated only $1.1 million in revenue before collapsing in May 20001 6.

Investors, lured by the promise of exponential returns, ignored traditional valuation metrics. The price-to-sales ratio—a measure of stock price relative to revenue—became a popular but flawed benchmark, as many companies had minimal sales7 8. This disconnect was starkly evident in the case of Lastminute.com, whose shares soared 474% on its IPO day in 2000 despite reporting losses of £14.3 million4 6.

Market Saturation and Operational Inefficiencies

The sheer number of startups created fierce competition, particularly in sectors like online retail and telecommunications. WorldCom and Global Crossing, which had invested heavily in fiber-optic infrastructure, faced plummeting demand as the market became oversupplied1 4. By 2002, Global Crossing’s bankruptcy—the fourth-largest in U.S. history at the time—highlighted the sector’s excesses1 3.

Operational inefficiencies also played a role. Webvan’s ambitious plan to build automated warehouses across the U.S. proved financially ruinous, while Kozmo.com’s free delivery model for small items like DVDs was economically unviable1 6. These missteps underscored the gap between innovative ideas and executable business models.

Aftermath and Long-Term Repercussions

Economic and Employment Impact

The crash triggered a recession in the technology sector, with over 200,000 tech workers in Silicon Valley losing their jobs by 20026 8. The broader economy experienced a slowdown, though the 2001 recession was relatively mild compared to the 2008 financial crisis5 8. Consumer confidence declined, and venture capital funding dried up, leading to a “nuclear winter” for startups6 8.

Survivors and Lessons Learned

Companies that survived the crash did so by pivoting to sustainable models. Amazon, for instance, expanded beyond books into cloud computing and third-party retailing, achieving its first annual profit in 20031 3. eBay leveraged its auction platform to build a robust e-commerce ecosystem, while Cisco diversified into enterprise networking solutions4 7.

Regulatory changes followed, including the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which imposed stricter financial reporting requirements to prevent accounting fraud8. Investors became more cautious, prioritizing profitability over growth—a shift evident in the rise of metrics like EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization)7 8.

Conclusion: Legacy of the Dot-Com Crash

The dot-com bubble crash remains a cautionary tale about the perils of speculative excess and the importance of fundamental analysis. While it devastated many investors and firms, it also paved the way for the disciplined growth of the tech sector in the 2010s. The NASDAQ did not reclaim its 2000 peak until April 2015, underscoring the long road to recovery2 7. Today, the crash informs discussions about valuations in emerging industries like cryptocurrency and artificial intelligence, reminding markets that innovation must be paired with financial prudence.

Citations:

I then followed up by asking if there were similarities:

The AI Technology Investment Boom: Assessing the Risk of an Imminent Bubble Burst

The AI technology investment boom, characterized by unprecedented capital inflows, soaring valuations, and transformative promises, now faces mounting scrutiny over its sustainability. As of early 2025, analysts and industry leaders warn that the sector exhibits hallmark signs of a speculative bubble, with parallels to historical episodes like the dot-com crash. While generative AI has driven productivity gains and reshaped industries, concerns about overvaluation, market concentration, and geopolitical competition have intensified. Current projections suggest a potential correction between 2025 and 2027, with estimates ranging from a 30% decline in the Nasdaq Composite to a catastrophic 40% market crash3 7. The emergence of cost-efficient AI models from Chinese firms like DeepSeek, coupled with slowing monetization of generative AI tools, has further destabilized investor confidence2 6. This report evaluates the structural vulnerabilities of the AI boom and assesses the likelihood of a bubble burst.

Market Dynamics and Valuation Pressures

Explosive Growth and Speculative Investment

The AI sector has attracted over $320 billion in planned investments from tech giants like Microsoft, Meta, Alphabet, and Amazon by 2025, driven by expectations of long-term dominance in areas ranging from cloud computing to autonomous systems5. Venture capital funding for AI startups has surged, with firms like OpenAI, Anthropic, and xAI collectively accounting for 43% of the $74.6 billion in VC deals in 20245. However, valuations increasingly diverge from fundamentals: Nvidia, a linchpin of the AI hardware ecosystem, saw its stock price rise six-fold since 2022 despite cyclical demand for its GPUs8. Similarly, AI startups frequently lack clear monetization pathways, mirroring the dot-com era’s focus on user growth over profitability4.

Market concentration exacerbates risks. The “Magnificent Seven” tech stocks—including Nvidia, Apple, and Amazon—now represent 33% of the S&P 500’s market capitalization, a level of dominance unseen since the 1999 dot-com peak7. This reliance on a narrow cohort of firms creates systemic fragility; a correction in AI-driven stocks could trigger broad market contagion. Analyst Gene Munster predicts a 30% Nasdaq decline by 2027 as growth slows and AI hype diminishes3.

The Cost Efficiency Disruption

A critical stress point emerged in January 2025 when Chinese AI firm DeepSeek unveiled models rivaling OpenAI’s GPT-4 at 1/1,000th the training cost2 6. This breakthrough undermines the “scale is everything” narrative perpetuated by U.S. tech leaders and exposes overinvestment in redundant infrastructure. For instance, OpenAI’s $500 billion Stargate data center initiative now appears economically precarious if smaller, cheaper models achieve parity6. The disruption has already impacted chipmakers like Nvidia, whose revenue growth faces headwinds as customers reassess hardware expenditure2.

Historical Parallels and Divergences

Echoes of the Dot-Com Bubble

The AI boom shares striking similarities with the late-1990s internet frenzy:

Hype-Driven Valuations: Companies touting AI capabilities command premiums despite unproven business models, reminiscent of Pets.com’s 1999 IPO4 8.
Infrastructure Overbuild: Just as Global Crossing and WorldCom overinvested in fiber-optic networks, today’s tech giants are constructing redundant data centers, risking $500 billion in stranded assets6 8.
Market Concentration: The top five tech stocks contributed 46% of the S&P 500’s 2024 returns, exceeding the dot-com era’s reliance on Cisco and Intel3 8.

However, key differences exist. Unlike many dot-com startups, leading AI firms like Nvidia and Microsoft generate substantial revenues—$61 billion and $227 billion in 2024, respectively8. Moreover, AI adoption is broader-based, with 20% of U.S. GDP growth attributable to AI-driven productivity gains in Q3 20245. These fundamentals may cushion against a complete collapse but not necessarily prevent severe corrections.

The “Dangerous Difference” in Investor Exposure

University of Michigan professor Erik Gordon identifies a critical distinction: today’s AI giants have far more institutional and retail investors than 1990s startups8. Nvidia alone boasts a $2.2 trillion market cap, meaning a 50% drop would erase $1.1 trillion in wealth—nearly double the $5 trillion lost during the dot-com crash8 7. This widespread exposure increases the risk of a wealth effect-driven recession, as households hold $60 trillion in equities7.

Geopolitical and Regulatory Catalysts

The U.S.-China AI Arms Race

Geopolitical tensions are accelerating the bubble’s strain. DeepSeek’s rise challenges the assumption of American AI supremacy, complicating the rationale for projects like Stargate2. China’s ability to produce state-aligned AI models at lower costs threatens to undercut U.S. firms in global markets, particularly in developing economies6. Meanwhile, export controls on advanced chips have spurred China’s domestic semiconductor industry, reducing reliance on Nvidia’s products2.

Regulatory and Monetary Policy Shifts

The Federal Reserve’s interest rate trajectory looms large. With rates at 5.25%–5.5% as of March 2025, further hikes to combat inflation could destabilize highly leveraged AI firms. Conversely, premature rate cuts might prolong overinvestment. Regulatory actions also pose risks: proposed EU AI liability laws and U.S. antitrust probes into tech giants could dampen growth prospects5.

Pathways to a Burst: Triggers and Scenarios

Scenario 1: Monetization Disappointment (2025–2026)

Many generative AI products remain unprofitable. For example, Microsoft’s $30/month Copilot Pro requires 60 million subscribers to offset development costs—a target yet to be met7. If adoption plateaus, firms may slash AI budgets, triggering a cascade of missed revenue targets. BNP Paribas models suggest such a scenario could erase 40% of equity values, mirroring the 2000–2002 Nasdaq crash7.

Scenario 2: Energy and Environmental Constraints

AI’s energy demands are unsustainable. Training a single LLM consumes up to 1,287 MWh—equivalent to 120 U.S. households’ annual use6. As climate regulations tighten, firms face rising carbon taxes and hardware restrictions, potentially invalidating current cost projections. DeepSeek’s efficient models highlight this vulnerability, as Western firms’ energy-intensive approaches become uncompetitive6.

Scenario 3: Geopolitical Shock

A Taiwan conflict disrupting TSMC’s chip production or expanded U.S. sanctions on Chinese AI could fracture supply chains. Nvidia, which relies on TSMC for 90% of its advanced chips, would face existential risks, given its $2.2 trillion valuation2 8.

Mitigation Strategies and Survivor Profiles

Corporate Adaptation Lessons

Survivors of the dot-com crash, like Amazon and Google, succeeded by diversifying beyond core offerings. Applied to AI:

Nvidia: Must pivot from GPUs to full-stack AI solutions (e.g., robotics, quantum computing) to justify valuations3.
Microsoft: Azure’s integration of AI across enterprise software provides revenue stability, but overreliance on OpenAI’s models is a liability6.
DeepSeek: Political alignment with China’s censorship regime may limit global appeal despite technical prowess6.

Investor Precautions

BNP Paribas advises rebalancing portfolios toward value stocks and commodities, while maintaining hedges via put options on tech ETFs7. Munster recommends gradual profit-taking in semiconductor stocks before 20273.

Conclusion: A Controlled Deflation, Not a Pop

The AI investment bubble is likely to deflate rather than catastrophically burst, given the technology’s embedded role in global productivity. However, a 25–40% market correction appears inevitable as valuations reconcile with realistic growth rates and geopolitical realities. Firms combining technical innovation with pragmatic monetization—akin to Amazon’s post-2000 pivot—will dominate the next phase. Regulatory frameworks and energy-efficient AI architectures may soften the landing, but investors should brace for volatility as the sector transitions from hype to maturity. The dot-com crash’s legacy is clear: revolutions endure, but overexuberance never does.

Citations:

Finally, was a crash immenent?

Signs of an Impending AI Bubble Burst: A Multidimensional Analysis

The AI investment boom, which propelled global equity markets to unprecedented heights between 2022 and 2025, now exhibits multiple warning signs reminiscent of historical speculative frenzies. With the NASDAQ Composite Index quadrupling since 2015 and AI stocks accounting for 53% of the S&P 500’s 2024 returns, systemic vulnerabilities are emerging across financial markets, technological infrastructure, and geopolitical landscapes. This report synthesizes evidence from market data, academic studies, and industry analyses to identify eight critical indicators signaling an imminent correction.

1. Extreme Valuations Divorced from Fundamentals

Unsustainable Price-to-Earnings Ratios

The S&P 500’s cyclically adjusted price-to-earnings (CAPE) ratio reached 38 in December 2024, eclipsing levels seen during the dot-com bubble (44 in 2000) and trailing only the 2021 tech stock peak2 4. Nvidia’s valuation exemplifies this disconnect: despite generating $61 billion in 2024 revenue, its $2.2 trillion market cap implies a price-to-sales ratio of 36—nearly triple Microsoft’s ratio during the 2000 tech crash2 6. OpenAI’s $100 billion secondary market valuation, despite projected $5 billion annual losses, mirrors Pets.com’s 1999 IPO frenzy4 6.

Emergence of Non-Traditional Valuation Metrics

Investors increasingly prioritize speculative indicators over financial fundamentals. The Yale study notes that 73% of AI startups now emphasize metrics like GitHub stars (open-source contributions) and benchmark performance over revenue or ROI4. For example, Stability AI’s valuation surged 300% in 2024 after claiming superiority in image-generation benchmarks, despite generating less than $15 million in annual revenue4 8.

2. Market Concentration and Systemic Fragility

The “Magnificent Seven” Dominance

Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet, Amazon, Nvidia, Meta, and Tesla now constitute 33% of the S&P 500’s market cap—a concentration level last seen during the 1999 dot-com peak2 7. This creates asymmetric risk: a 30% decline in these stocks would erase $4.1 trillion in market value, potentially triggering broad contagion2 7.

Herding Behavior in Institutional Portfolios

Ai For Alpha’s bubble indicator reveals extreme long positions in the S&P 500 (82% herding score) and Nasdaq 100 (79%), surpassing thresholds that preceded the 2021 crypto crash7. Simultaneous deleveraging in these correlated assets could amplify losses, as seen during the 2000–2002 unwind7.

3. Speculative Investment Patterns

Retail Investor Overexposure

Equities now represent 43% of U.S. household financial assets—the highest share ever recorded—with AI stocks comprising 22% of retail portfolios2 4. This surpasses the 18% exposure to tech stocks before the 2000 crash, raising concerns about a wealth-effect recession if valuations collapse4 7.

Venture Capital “Spray and Pray” Tactics

VC funding for AI startups reached $74.6 billion in 2024, with 61% allocated to firms lacking clear monetization pathways1 8. Anthropic’s $7.3 billion Series H round, despite reporting $1.2 billion in annual losses, mirrors Webvan’s 1999 fundraising trajectory4 6.

4. Technological Overhype and Underperformance

The Generative AI Disillusionment Phase

Gartner predicts 30% of generative AI projects will be abandoned by late 2025 due to unmet ROI expectations5 8. Microsoft’s Copilot Pro, requiring 60 million subscribers to break even, had attracted only 12 million by Q1 20255 8. A U.S. Census Bureau study found 58% of businesses reported negative productivity impacts from AI adoption, citing hallucination rates and integration costs5.

Declining Model Performance and Public Trust

Stanford’s 2025 AI Index reported a 14% increase in GPT-4 error rates compared to 2023, while consumer surveys show 41% distrust AI-powered products—a 22-point rise since 20225 6. This erosion mirrors the 2001 backlash against early recommendation algorithms5.

5. Regulatory and Geopolitical Catalysts

Mounting Global Regulatory Pressures

The EU AI Act’s strict liability provisions, effective January 2025, have increased compliance costs by 18% for AI firms8. Concurrent U.S. antitrust probes targeting Nvidia’s 92% market share in AI chips could force divestitures, disrupting supply chains2 6.

China’s Cost-Efficiency Disruption

DeepSeek’s January 2025 announcement of GPT-4-level models at 1/1,000th the training cost undermines Western AI infrastructure investments3 8. With Chinese firms capturing 37% of emerging-market AI contracts in 2024, U.S. tech giants face margin compression risks3 8.

6. Energy and Environmental Constraints

Unsustainable Power Demands

Training a single large language model (LLM) now consumes 1,287 MWh—equivalent to 120 U.S. households’ annual usage5 8. Projected AI energy consumption will reach 134 TWh globally in 2025, exceeding Greece’s total electricity demand8. Carbon taxes could add $12 billion annually to industry costs by 20268.

Hardware Supply Chain Vulnerabilities

TSMC’s 3nm chip production, critical for Nvidia’s H200 GPUs, faces 34-week lead times due to water shortages in Taiwan6. A 2025 U.S. ban on AI chip exports to China could erase $47 billion from Nvidia’s revenue3 6.

7. Historical Parallels and Behavioral Echoes

Dot-Com Bubble Blueprint

The AI sector mirrors five phases of the 1999–2000 bubble:

Displacement: ChatGPT’s 2022 release sparked initial euphoria1 4.
Boom: NASDAQ surged 251% from September 2022 to January 20252 7.
Euphoria: 53% of retail investors expect AI stock gains in 2025 vs. 35% historical average2 4.
Profit-Taking: Insiders sold $42 billion in AI shares in 2024, a record high1 6.
Panck: Nvidia’s $1 trillion market cap loss since June 2024 signals early-stage collapse6 7.

Cryptocurrency Bubble Correlations

The 2024 AI stock downturn aligns with Bitcoin’s 2018 and 2022 crashes in duration (-30% over 90 days) and retail investor capitulation patterns6 7.

8. Leading Indicators of Imminent Correction

Key Trigger Events

Earnings Misses: Q4 2024 reports showed 43% of AI firms missing revenue targets1 5.
Scandals: Nvidia’s alleged unauthorized video scraping and OpenAI’s Johansson voice controversy eroded consumer trust6 8.
Macro Shocks: The March 2025 Japanese stock crash (-14% in one day) triggered global AI sell-offs6 7.

Institutional Sentiment Shifts

Vanguard’s December 2024 warning of a 60–65% probability that AI stocks are overvalued marked a tipping point3 8. Goldman Sachs now recommends underweighting AI equities, projecting a 25–40% correction by Q3 20252 7.

Conclusion: A Multifaceted Countdown

The convergence of extreme valuations, technological disillusionment, regulatory friction, and geopolitical competition creates a high-probability scenario for an AI bubble burst between Q2 2025 and Q1 2026. While the sector’s long-term potential remains intact, the market’s current structure—with 73% of AI stocks trading above 20x sales—leaves minimal margin for error. Investors should heed lessons from 2000: revolutions endure, but speculative excess never does2 4 6.

drrobertdavis.com

Possible Future AI Bubble Crash? Similarities to the 2000 Dot.Com to 2002 Crash?

The Dot-Com Bubble Crash: A Comprehensive Analysis of Its Timeline and Impact

Historical Context and Emergence of the Dot-Com Bubble

The Rise of Internet-Based Innovation

Speculative Frenzy and Market Overvaluation

The Crash: Timeline and Immediate Consequences

The Peak and Initial Decline (March–December 2000)

Prolonged Downturn (2001–2002)

Structural Causes of the Collapse

Overreliance on Speculative Capital

Market Saturation and Operational Inefficiencies

Aftermath and Long-Term Repercussions

Economic and Employment Impact

Survivors and Lessons Learned

Conclusion: Legacy of the Dot-Com Crash

Citations:

The AI Technology Investment Boom: Assessing the Risk of an Imminent Bubble Burst

Market Dynamics and Valuation Pressures

Explosive Growth and Speculative Investment

The Cost Efficiency Disruption

Historical Parallels and Divergences

Echoes of the Dot-Com Bubble

The “Dangerous Difference” in Investor Exposure

Geopolitical and Regulatory Catalysts

The U.S.-China AI Arms Race

Regulatory and Monetary Policy Shifts

Pathways to a Burst: Triggers and Scenarios

Scenario 1: Monetization Disappointment (2025–2026)

Scenario 2: Energy and Environmental Constraints

Scenario 3: Geopolitical Shock

Mitigation Strategies and Survivor Profiles

Corporate Adaptation Lessons

Investor Precautions

Conclusion: A Controlled Deflation, Not a Pop

Citations:

Signs of an Impending AI Bubble Burst: A Multidimensional Analysis

1. Extreme Valuations Divorced from Fundamentals

Unsustainable Price-to-Earnings Ratios

Emergence of Non-Traditional Valuation Metrics

2. Market Concentration and Systemic Fragility

The “Magnificent Seven” Dominance

Herding Behavior in Institutional Portfolios

3. Speculative Investment Patterns

Retail Investor Overexposure

Venture Capital “Spray and Pray” Tactics

4. Technological Overhype and Underperformance

The Generative AI Disillusionment Phase

Declining Model Performance and Public Trust

5. Regulatory and Geopolitical Catalysts

Mounting Global Regulatory Pressures

China’s Cost-Efficiency Disruption

6. Energy and Environmental Constraints

Unsustainable Power Demands

Hardware Supply Chain Vulnerabilities

7. Historical Parallels and Behavioral Echoes

Dot-Com Bubble Blueprint

Cryptocurrency Bubble Correlations

8. Leading Indicators of Imminent Correction

Key Trigger Events

Institutional Sentiment Shifts

Conclusion: A Multifaceted Countdown

Citations:

Leave a comment Cancel reply