Article
The stock market moves on two primary emotions: fear and hope. It is more than a collection of financial instruments; it is a mirror of collective human behaviour and sentiment.
What is the current mood in the market? Some specific numbers can offer insights, and as I have written before, understanding these signals is essential.
December 2024
Today, I see a level of hope in the market that puzzles me. If I analyse it sector by sector, in some areas, this optimism is justified when viewed through a long-term lens. But in many others, it feels misplaced.
I am not suggesting there is a need to panic. However, I do think there is a need to ask questions. When I look at the stock market, I approach it with the same mindset I would use when shopping in a store: What am I getting for the price I am paying? Answering this requires applying a healthy dose of common sense and rational evaluation.
Continue reading
Enter your email to unlock this article and join the newsletter. You can unsubscribe anytime.
Disclaimer
This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute financial advice, a recommendation to buy or sell any securities, or a guarantee of future market performance. The views expressed are solely those of the author, who may also be an investor. Investing in financial markets involves risk, and each reader should make their own decisions independently and, if necessary, consult with a licensed professional.
Summary
Common questions on this article's topic
Was the stock market overvalued in December 2024?
What does it mean to approach the stock market like shopping in a store?
Why increase cash allocation when markets are high?
Is market optimism always a warning sign?
How should investors think about sectors differently during a potential bubble?
What is the difference between prudence and fear in investing?
If you have any thoughts, questions, or feedback, feel free to drop me a message at mail@richardgolian.com.
Related articles
I am building an AI system to predict the S&P 500. It runs on my own machine, uses free public data — yfinance, FRED, the Shiller dataset — and grades every forecast against reality. This series documents the build itself: the decisions, the methodology, the mistakes. What I will eventually share from the running system is a separate question, and an honest one.
If I take a certain risk, how much can I gain — and how much can I lose?
Interesting opportunities often appear where nothing seems to be happening.
More articles
Yesterday I could not tear myself away from the computer. When I lifted my head, it was half past eight in the evening. I had been sitting alone upstairs for about three hours.
Will AI take my job? A certified Google trainer told me in June 2024 that my profession would cease to exist. Twenty-two months later, my job title has not changed — but ninety percent of what I do during the day is different. I have delegated more of my thinking to AI agents than I thought possible. I am not afraid. This is why, and what it means for anyone asking the same question.
One hour. Fifty-five minutes. That is how long it took to build what a Czech software firm had quoted at over €50,000. I built it with Claude Code. Not a prototype. Not a proof of concept. A working tool — the one the company actually needed. By the evening of the same day, it was running on staging. This is not about Claude Code. It is about what Claude Code exposes.
I have conducted roughly one hundred and fifty practical interviews over the past four years. Fifty for data specialist roles. A hundred for advertising and performance marketing specialists. Almost every one of them involved sitting down with a candidate over a practical task — something close to a real problem we actually need to solve at the company. Not theory. Not trivia. Applied problem-solving. Over time, I started noticing a pattern.
Before you can teach AI to understand anything, you need to see what it is hiding from you.
The moment other people needed access to it, the problem changed completely. It was no longer about whether the agent could learn. It was about who gets to teach it.
I wanted to build an agent that doesn't just assist. One that acts.
This is what I learned about local vs cloud AI, and why I switched to Claude Code.
What happened — and how can it be reversed?