A familiar streak, with an important difference
Four consecutive years of double-digit equity gains are reviving comparisons with the late 1990s. The resemblance is easy to see: a long run of strong returns invites questions about whether investor enthusiasm has moved ahead of business realities. But a familiar pattern doesn't make two periods equivalent. The last comparable stretch ran from 1996 to 1999, and Nasdaq’s three-year rolling returns show a much larger rise then than investors have seen in the current run.
That difference matters because comparisons can flatten important distinctions. A sequence of strong annual gains tells you that prices have risen substantially; it doesn't, by itself, tell you why they rose, how concentrated the advance has been, or what expectations are already reflected in prices. A rolling three-year measure offers one way to compare the scale of the move across periods, but it can't answer every question about valuation, business prospects, or market risk.
Here's the thing: the chart is most useful as a check on an argument, not as a verdict. If the claim is that the current market has already recreated the full scale of the late-1990s Nasdaq surge, the comparison described here pushes back. It doesn't establish that prices are cheap, that gains will continue, or that an eventual decline would be mild.
What the comparison can—and can't—show
The gap between the two periods is useful counterevidence to some bubble calls, but it isn't proof that today's market has room to climb. Nicholas Colas of DataTrek’s chart also highlights that past bubbles built over time and tended to cluster in technology. That history gives readers a broader frame: large speculative moves can develop through sustained enthusiasm and concentration, rather than appearing fully formed after a few strong sessions.
Still, a pattern from the past isn't a timetable. Similar systems typically have features that become clearer in hindsight, while investors living through a market have to make sense of incomplete and sometimes contradictory signals. The evidence here suggests the market may be farther from the 2000 dot-com peak than some narratives imply. “May” is doing real work in that sentence. The chart supports a relative comparison; it doesn't identify a turning point.
This is more significant than it looks, because the choice of comparison shapes the story people tell about risk. A chart showing a smaller rise can temper the claim that the present move matches the most extreme part of the earlier episode. But it can't show that a market is safe simply because it hasn't repeated a previous surge. Different paths can still lead to heightened risk, and the absence of one historical pattern doesn't rule out another.
Keep the counterevidence in view
My read is that market explanations offered after a volatile day often sound more certain than the facts allow. Crude oil above $110 a barrel, concerns about CoreWeave, and rising unease around private credit defaults all weigh on sentiment, but none alone settles where the bull market stands. Those are separate pressures, with different routes into investor thinking. Treating them as a single explanation for the market's next move would make the story tidier than the evidence.
News and prices also operate on different clocks. A concern can be real and still fail to determine what stocks do in the short run, because investors may already be weighing it against other information. That doesn't make the concern irrelevant. It means a volatile session rarely provides a clean diagnosis of a longer market trend.
(And this is the part most people overlook.) A chart that challenges a bearish view doesn't automatically validate a bullish one, just as a troubling headline doesn't settle the case for a downturn. The task is to test claims against evidence that could weaken them. Otherwise, the chart becomes decoration for a conclusion reached in advance.
Look for evidence that cuts the other way
Confirmation bias makes it easy to circulate charts that fit a bullish or bearish view. When I revisit something I’ve written that leans too far either way, I look for evidence against it—especially from a source I respect and a chart that challenges my assumptions. That’s harder than finding support for a view, and more useful.
If you're working in this space, that habit can help keep a market narrative from hardening into a forecast. Ask what evidence would make the comparison less persuasive. Is the chart measuring the same kind of move? Does it address the specific claim being made, or only one part of it? Those questions won't remove uncertainty, but they can make the limits of an argument easier to see.
Useful discipline. Not certainty.
Colas’ comparison isn’t conclusive. Still, testing market fears against data that cuts the other way can sharpen the discussion. As I wrote five days ago, “Are we in the 6th, 8th, or 9th inning? I don’t know, but I suspect the beginning of this bull is further away than the end.” The sentence offers a judgment, not a measurement. The chart can inform that judgment, but it can't tell readers how many innings remain.
What to watch in the argument
For readers weighing the bull-market debate, the practical implication is to keep the claim tied to the evidence. The current run has lasted long enough to invite a historical comparison; the cited Nasdaq measure shows that the earlier rise was substantially larger. Both points belong in the discussion. Neither settles the outlook.
That said, comparisons remain valuable when they're used with restraint. A historical chart can reveal that a popular analogy leaves out a meaningful difference. It can also encourage a closer look at how a market advance developed and where enthusiasm has gathered. What it can't do is turn uncertainty into a precise answer about what happens next.
The better question, then, isn't whether today's market is identical to the late 1990s. It isn't. The question is whether the evidence being used to describe today's risks is balanced, and whether the comparison is being asked to prove more than it can. For now, the chart offers a reason to question the strongest bubble claims, while leaving the central uncertainty intact: a smaller rise than the earlier episode doesn't guarantee that the current one has further to run.
Previously:
5 Steps to Take Right Now (October 12, 2026)
1. I paid $5.15 per gallon for self-serve BP Ultimate; filling the tank cost $95. The detail sits apart from the market comparison, but it puts one household expense in view alongside the broader discussion of sentiment. A single purchase can't establish a trend in energy costs or explain the market's direction. It does, however, show how a headline price can feel immediate even when its broader significance remains uncertain.
The post Top? Beware Your Confirmation Bias appeared first on The Big Picture.