[xkjkls]

I agree that based on historical prices, a large number of assets appear to be at the high end of valuation, but I don't know if it is already correct to call that a "bubble".

I prefer the Cliff Asness bubble definition, "the term bubble should indicate a price that no reasonable future outcome can justify."

Looking at a lot of those markets, it is definitely possible to see future outcomes that make the current prices justified.

The stock market? After the tax cuts, Shiller P/E is on the low side of the 20s now. With another few years of solid earnings growth, there's definitely a possibility of justifying these prices.

The bond market? Look at 90s Japan. That could easily justify those possibilities.

Art and real estate? We have more rich people who want to have their capital flee countries like Russia/China than ever. That is a trend likely to continue.

So I'd refrain from using "bubble". Valuations are stretched, but not absurdly so.

[sdljfslkjfdsj]

they don't ring a bell at the top. i reiterate this is the largest & most systemic of all bubbles of all time.

[xkjkls]

Everything doesn't "pop" though. I agree that we should expect lower longterm returns over the next few years. However, the difference between the NASDAQ in 2000 and "we expect the average annual return on the S&P 500 to be 4% for the next ten years"