Pedro (@pedrodlcarmo) na getquin

Is the market behaviour changed forever?

Thesis: The rise of individual investors, "buy the dip" culture, and the dominance of passive investing via ETFs has fundamentally changed the dynamics of the stock market. Market recessions and crashes could never be the same this point onwards.

1) Zero-commission trading platforms have made it easier for investors to coordinate or pile into specific trades. For instance, $GME (+0,09%) rallies in 2021 showed how retail investors can disrupt market dynamics.

2) The widespread belief in “buy the dip” could limit the depth of crashes. When every "Average Joe" sees a correction as an opportunity to buy, it can create short-term support levels in the market. This was evident in 2020, when retail investors aggressively bought after the COVID-19 crash, leading to a rapid recovery in stocks.

HOWEVER, if retail investors exhaust their liquidity during smaller dips, they may not have enough capital to buy during a true market crash, potentially leading to a delayed, more violent downturn.

3) Passive investing via ETFs and index funds has grown significantly in the past two decades. Passive flows and retail enthusiasm often ignore underlying fundamentals such as earnings and valuations.

Based on the three point above, is it easier to believe that:

Crashes may initially appear milder or more delayed due to retail buying, but the eventual downturn could be sharper and more violent when liquidity runs out.
Recoveries could be faster due to the continued dominance of passive flows and retail optimism about long-term growth.

Do you agree with this analysis?

Ph1l1pp@Ph1l1pp

1Semana

The example you described works only in a relatively positive market sentiment. However, it fails to account for the macroeconomic environment. We are already seeing poor labor market data and inflation—once a real recession hits, markets will be heavily affected as there will be no ‘excess’ money left to invest. Under a Trump presidency, I see this recession happening, even though I trust his and Elon Musk’s economic competence. Meanwhile, under Biden and Harris, around 2 million new government jobs were created, making up about 60% of all newly added jobs. Additionally, the 6–7 million (up to 10 million, depending on the source) migrants, 60–70% of whom are illegal, further strain the economy. Elon Musk, with his Department of Governance Efficiency, aims to reduce this oversized government apparatus, which includes well-paid permanent jobs. This would worsen already weak labor market data (more than 80% of published labor data is later revised downward)—e.g., October’s 233,000 jobs figure was revised

••

Mostrar resposta