The Herding Instinct
How Crowd Behavior Inflates Growth-Stock Valuations and What Contrarian Signals to Watch
Perseus Capital Research
3,400%
Palantir’s Ascent
From $6 to $208 in 24 months
77%
Momentum Traders
Of mutual funds chase performance
$4B+
Insider Selling
At Palantir’s peak valuation
34%
Mag 7 Concentration
S&P 500 weight in 2026
Executive Summary
The hidden force inflating your portfolio
Core Thesis
Herding bias — the tendency of investors to mimic the portfolio decisions of others rather than act on independent analysis — is among the most persistent and destructive forces in equity markets. This research note examines how herding dynamics have driven valuation excesses in growth stocks across recent market cycles, from the meme-stock mania of 2021 to the AI euphoria of 2023–2025. Drawing on five decades of academic research, six post-COVID case studies (including an in-depth analysis of Palantir Technologies), and philosophical frameworks from Kierkegaard to Soros, we present an actionable framework for identifying herding-driven mispricings, deploying contrarian strategies, and building institutional processes that resist crowd-following behavior.
Our analysis shows that herding episodes follow a remarkably consistent pattern: an initial catalyst (new technology, monetary stimulus, or viral narrative) attracts early adopters, whose returns draw momentum-chasing capital, which inflates valuations beyond any fundamental justification, which ultimately collapses when the marginal buyer disappears. Palantir’s journey from $6 to $208 — a 3,400% ascent driven by all four herding mechanisms operating simultaneously, even as insiders sold over $4 billion — is the defining case study of this cycle. The investors who profit are not those who follow the herd — they are those who recognize where the herd is going before it arrives and, critically, who exit before the stampede reverses.
Theoretical Basis
6 intellectual traditions from cascades to reflexivity
6 Case Studies
Real-world herding episodes with Palantir deep-dive
Contrarian Framework
5-step process to position against the crowd
Theoretical Foundations
From information cascades to reflexive markets
The academic study of herding in financial markets draws on three converging intellectual traditions: information cascade theory, behavioral finance, and market microstructure. Banerjee (1992) and Bikhchandani, Hirshleifer, and Welch (1992) laid the theoretical groundwork by demonstrating that rational agents may optimally ignore their own private information and instead follow the observed actions of predecessors — even when doing so leads to collectively irrational outcomes. Their models showed that cascades are inherently fragile: built on a chain of inferences rather than independent signals, they can collapse as quickly as they form.
Scharfstein and Stein (1990) extended this logic to professional money managers, introducing the concept of “reputational herding.” Their model demonstrated that fund managers facing career risk have a rational incentive to mimic the portfolio decisions of other managers, because deviating from the consensus and being wrong carries a far greater reputational penalty than conforming and being wrong together. This insight — that individual rationality can produce collective irrationality — remains one of the most powerful explanations for why institutional investors systematically crowd into the same positions.
Devenow and Welch (1996) distinguished between “rational” herding (driven by information externalities, payoff externalities, or principal-agent problems) and “irrational” herding (driven by psychological biases such as conformity, fear of missing out, and social proof). Modern behavioral finance has increasingly recognized that both mechanisms operate simultaneously in real markets. Shiller’s (2000) concept of “irrational exuberance” and his later work on narrative economics (2019) formalized the idea that compelling stories serve as coordination devices that synchronize investor behavior far more effectively than any individual piece of fundamental information.
Empirically, the measurement of herding has advanced significantly since Lakonishok, Shleifer, and Vishny (1992) introduced the LSV herding measure, which quantifies the tendency of institutional investors to cluster on the same side of trades. Wermers (1999) refined this approach and documented significant herding among mutual funds, particularly in small-cap growth stocks. More recently, Gabaix and Koijen’s (2022) Inelastic Markets Hypothesis has provided a framework for understanding why herding produces outsized price effects: because the effective supply of shares is far more inelastic than classical models assume, even modest coordinated flows can move prices dramatically — and the reversal, when herds scatter, is equally violent.
These economic models find deep resonance in classical philosophy. Gustave Le Bon’s The Crowd (1895) argued that individuals absorbed into a collective lose their capacity for independent reasoning and become susceptible to contagion, suggestion, and emotional extremes. Søren Kierkegaard’s critique of “the public” anticipated information cascade theory by over a century: he wrote that “the crowd is untruth” because it allows individuals to evade personal responsibility for their judgments by sheltering in consensus. Keynes’s famous beauty contest analogy (1936) — in which rational investors focus not on which stock is most attractive, but on which stock they believe others believe is most attractive — remains the most elegant description of herding’s self-referential logic. And George Soros’s theory of reflexivity (1987) formalized the idea that investor perceptions do not merely reflect reality but actively reshape it, creating feedback loops where the act of buying drives the narrative that justifies more buying.
Connecting the Theoretical Threads
Information Cascades (Banerjee, 1992; Bikhchandani et al., 1992)
Rational agents follow predecessors, ignoring private signals — cascades are fragile and prone to sudden reversal.
Reputational Herding (Scharfstein & Stein, 1990)
Career risk drives fund managers to mimic peers; deviating from consensus and losing is penalized more than conforming and losing.
Narrative Economics (Shiller, 2019)
Viral stories — dot-com, housing, AI — synchronize investor behavior into self-reinforcing cycles of crowd-driven pricing.
Inelastic Markets (Gabaix & Koijen, 2022)
Coordinated flows produce outsized price moves because effective share supply is far more inelastic than classical models predict.
Crowd Psychology (Le Bon, 1895; Kierkegaard, 1846)
Individuals in crowds lose independent judgment; “the crowd is untruth.” Contagion, suggestion, and emotional extremes override reason.
Reflexivity (Soros, 1987; Keynes, 1936)
Investor perceptions reshape reality, creating feedback loops where buying justifies the narrative that justifies more buying.
The Four Primary Mechanisms
How crowds systematically inflate
The Cascade Effect
Informational Herding & Analyst Consensus
90%+
Buy consensus = herding signal
The most extensively documented form of herding occurs through sell-side analyst coverage. Welch (2000) showed that analyst revisions exhibit significant positive autocorrelation: an upgrade by a prominent analyst triggers a cascade of subsequent upgrades, regardless of whether the underlying fundamentals have changed. Hong, Kubik, and Solomon (2000) demonstrated that analysts who deviate from the consensus experience shorter careers and lower compensation, creating a powerful incentive to cluster around the median estimate. When 90%+ of analysts covering a growth stock have “Buy” ratings and targets within a narrow band, this is not confirmation of quality — it is a herding signal. Stocks in the top decile of analyst consensus tend to underperform those in the bottom decile by 3–5% annually (Barber et al., 2001).
The Feedback Loop
Momentum Herding & Performance Chasing
77%
Of funds chase momentum
Jegadeesh and Titman’s (1993) documentation of the momentum anomaly inadvertently described one of the market’s most powerful herding mechanisms: investors systematically buy recent winners and sell recent losers, creating self-reinforcing price trends. Grinblatt, Titman, and Wermers (1995) confirmed that 77% of mutual funds are momentum traders. Daniel and Moskowitz (2016) documented that momentum crashes are particularly severe when herding has compressed the short side — momentum strategies lost 73.4% in a single quarter during the 2009 reversal.
The Viral Effect
Social Herding: Retail Contagion
197M
GME daily volume at peak
The post-2020 market cycle introduced a fundamentally new dimension of herding: social media-driven retail contagion. Barber, Huang, Odean, and Schwarz (2022) documented that retail order flow, channeled through zero-commission platforms like Robinhood, exhibited levels of coordination unprecedented in market history. Cookson, Engelberg, and Mullins (2023) showed that consensus on platforms like Twitter and StockTwits predicted price inflation followed by reversal. Unlike institutional herding, social herding operates through attention cascades and identity signaling. Investors buy not because they’ve analyzed fundamentals but because holding a particular stock signals membership in a community — creating a herding dynamic resistant to fundamental information.
The Structural Effect
Passive Flow Herding & Index Concentration
$500B
Annual passive flow into Mag 7
Perhaps the most systematic and least recognized form of herding is the mechanical buying driven by passive index funds. Sushko and Turner (2018) documented that passive investing’s share of global equity assets has risen from under 10% in 2005 to over 50% by 2025. Because cap-weighted index funds allocate in proportion to market capitalization, they create a self-reinforcing loop: as a stock’s price rises, its index weight increases, triggering more buying. Ben-David, Franzoni, and Moussawi (2018) showed that stocks added to major indices experience abnormal returns of 3–5% purely from mechanical flow. The Magnificent Seven’s rise to 34% of the S&P 500 was amplified by approximately $500 billion in annual passive buying that mechanically overweighted these stocks as their prices rose. This is herding in its purest form: buying because others have bought, with the “others” being an algorithm that follows market capitalization.
Post-COVID Case Studies
Six herding episodes in real time
The period from 2020 through early 2026 has provided an extraordinary natural laboratory for observing herding behavior at scale.
GME
Peak: $483 (Jan 2021)
~$28
94%
AMC
Peak: $72 (Jun 2021)
~$3
96%
GameStop’s January 2021 short squeeze remains the defining example of social herding in modern markets. What began as a fundamentally-grounded thesis about a turnaround candidate became a coordinated mass buying event driven by social identity, anti-institutional sentiment, and viral amplification. At its peak, daily trading volume exceeded 197 million shares — more than the entire float.
AMC Entertainment followed an identical pattern, rising from $2 to $72 before settling near $3 by early 2026. The critical lesson is that social herding creates price dynamics almost entirely detached from fundamental value. Neither company’s business fundamentals justified anything close to their peak valuations.
The investors who profited were those who recognized the herding dynamic early and exited before the herd reversed — a window measured in days, not months.
Actionable Insight
When a stock’s price movement is driven primarily by social media volume, short interest mechanics, and community identity rather than earnings revisions, the position is a herding trade, not an investment. Position size must reflect the binary nature of the outcome, and holding periods must be measured in days, not quarters.
Palantir Technologies
The Anatomy of a Herding Transformation
PLTR
Peak: $207.52 (Nov 2025)
~$129
38% from peak
~$490B
Market Cap at Peak
$4.48B
2025 Revenue
~230×
Trailing P/E
~109×
Forward P/E
$4B+
Insider Sales
114%
Morningstar Premium
Palantir Technologies represents perhaps the purest illustration of how a legitimate fundamental thesis can be captured, distorted, and ultimately overwhelmed by herding dynamics. The company’s journey from universally despised to universally adored — without a corresponding transformation in its business proportional to its valuation change — is a textbook case of what Soros called reflexivity in action.
The Contrarian’s Opportunity
2022–2023
In late 2022, Palantir traded near its all-time low of $5.92. The company was universally dismissed: analysts overwhelmingly rated it “Sell” or “Hold,” institutional ownership was minimal, and the prevailing narrative was that Palantir was a government contractor with limited commercial viability, chronic stock-based compensation issues, and no path to GAAP profitability. The crowd had abandoned the stock entirely.
Yet the fundamentals told a different story. In February 2023, Palantir reported its first-ever quarter of positive GAAP net income ($31 million). Revenue was accelerating. The government business was durable, with long-term contracts providing a stable base, and the commercial segment was beginning to show genuine traction. For contrarian investors willing to ignore the consensus and perform independent analysis, PLTR at $6–10 represented a legitimate fundamental opportunity.
This was the Kierkegaardian moment: the independent thinker standing against the crowd’s verdict. Kierkegaard wrote that “the individual who has not the courage to defend his own soul—even against the multitude—is not fit to be an individual.” The investors who bought Palantir in 2023 were exercising precisely this kind of intellectual courage — their thesis was based on private analysis, not public consensus.
~$6
Stock Price
Sell/Hold
Analyst Rating
$31M
First GAAP Profit
The AI Narrative Captures the Herd
2024
The transformation from fundamental play to herding vehicle occurred in 2024, when Palantir’s launch of its Artificial Intelligence Platform (AIP) intersected with the broader AI mania. The stock surged 340% in 2024 alone.
The critical shift was not in the business — which was genuinely improving — but in who was buying and why. Early buyers were contrarian fundamental investors. The 2024 buyers were increasingly momentum-chasers, narrative-followers, and passive index funds.
This is the phase that Keynes’s beauty contest analogy describes with surgical precision. The question shifted from “What is Palantir worth?” to “What will the crowd pay for Palantir next quarter?” This is the moment when a fundamental investment becomes a herding trade.
+340%
Annual Return
Sep 2024
S&P 500 Added
Dec 2024
Nasdaq 100 Added
Peak Euphoria and the Reflexivity Trap
Mid-2025
By mid-2025, Palantir’s herding dynamics reached their most extreme. The stock had risen over 3,400% from its December 2022 low. Its market capitalization exceeded $400 billion — placing it among the world’s most valuable companies — despite annual revenue of just $4.48 billion. The trailing P/E ratio exceeded 230×; the 12-month average exceeded 490×.
Analyst consensus had flipped almost entirely to “Buy.” Palantir was added to the S&P 500 (September 2024) and Nasdaq 100 (December 2024), triggering billions in mechanical passive buying. Retail investors on Reddit and StockTwits maintained “extremely bullish” sentiment. The narrative driving the herd was compelling in its simplicity: “Palantir is the AI operating system for the Western world.” Le Bon would have recognized this immediately: the crowd’s beliefs are sustained not by evidence but by repetition and emotional resonance.
Soros’s reflexivity theory explains the mechanism precisely: the rising stock price attracted media coverage, which drew retail investors, which increased trading volume, which attracted analyst coverage, which drove institutional buying, which pushed the price higher still. The company itself benefited from the reflexive loop: a high stock price reduced the dilutive impact of stock-based compensation, attracted top talent, and provided currency for acquisitions — real business improvements driven by perception rather than operations.
>$400B
Market Cap
230×
Trailing P/E
$4.48B
Revenue
The Insider Divergence
2024–2026
Nassim Taleb’s concept of “skin in the game” provides the most damning contrarian signal in Palantir’s herding cycle. Taleb argues that the most reliable indicator of conviction is whether the person advocating a position bears the consequences of being wrong. By this standard, Palantir’s insiders have been systematically removing their skin from the game. In 2024, insiders sold over $4 billion in stock. CEO Alex Karp sold $1.9 billion; co-founder Peter Thiel sold approximately $1.5 billion — roughly a third of his remaining stake. In the weeks between November 2025 and January 2026, executives sold another 700,000+ shares. Karp filed plans to sell an additional $1 billion in 2025.
The divergence is stark: while retail investors and momentum-chasing institutions were buying at $150–$200, the people with the deepest knowledge of the company’s actual prospects were selling billions. Thiel, notably, has redeployed capital away from Palantir and Nvidia entirely, establishing new positions in Meta, Tesla, and Apple — a revealed preference for “AI users” over “AI builders” that directly contradicts the herd’s thesis.
Meanwhile, Michael Burry — history’s most famous contrarian — disclosed $912 million in PLTR puts (66% of his portfolio) and publicly targets $50–60 per share, estimating Palantir’s fair value at roughly $46. Taleb would frame the question simply: “Whose money is where their mouth is?” The retail herd is buying the narrative. The insiders are selling the reality. Historically, when this divergence reaches extremes, the insiders are right.
$1.9B
Karp Sales
$1.5B
Thiel Sales
$50–$60
Burry’s Target
The Valuation Disconnect
At ~$129 per share and a ~$307 billion market capitalization, investors are paying approximately 68× trailing revenue and ~230× trailing earnings for a company with $4.48 billion in annual revenue and 4,100 employees. The forward P/E stands at ~109×. Even on the most optimistic 2026 guidance of $7.2 billion in revenue, the stock trades at roughly 43× forward revenue — a valuation that historically has never been sustained by any software company of comparable scale. Morningstar estimates PLTR trades at a 114% premium to intrinsic value. Alpha Spread’s DCF model suggests a base-case intrinsic value of $27 per share — roughly 80% below the current price. None of this means Palantir is a bad company. Its AI platform is genuinely innovative, its government contracts are strategically important, and its revenue growth of 70% in Q4 2025 is exceptional. But as Benjamin Graham wrote: “The intelligent investor is a realist who sells to optimists and buys from pessimists.” In 2023, the pessimists were selling Palantir at $6. Today, the optimists are buying at $129. The fundamental quality of the business has not changed by a factor of 20× — but the crowd’s enthusiasm has.
Actionable Insight
Palantir is the archetypal case of a legitimate fundamental thesis overwhelmed by herding. The contrarian opportunity in 2023 was to buy when the herd was absent. The contrarian question in 2026 is whether the herd’s current valuation can be sustained when insiders are selling billions, the trailing P/E exceeds 230×, and history’s most famous short seller has made it his largest position. Contrarian signals to watch: insider selling acceleration, any deceleration in revenue growth guidance, loss of government contract renewals, and any shift in the AI narrative that reduces Palantir’s perceived uniqueness.
Summary
Post-COVID herding events and contrarian signals
Scroll for full table
| Herding Event | Contrarian Signal |
|---|---|
| GameStop ($4 → $483 → $28) | Social volume / float ratio divergence |
| AMC ($2 → $72 → $3) | Insider selling vs. retail buying |
| ARKK ($159 → $49) | Flow-to-fundamentals gap |
| Nvidia ($140 → $3.6T cap) | Universal buy rating; record HF crowding |
| SPAC Boom (600+ SPACs) | Redemption rates above 50% |
| Bitcoin ($69K → $16K → $100K+) | On-chain metrics vs. price momentum |
| Mag 7 Concentration (34% of S&P) | Equal-weight vs. cap-weight spread |
| Palantir ($6 → $208 → $129) | Insider selling vs. retail buying; P/E compression |
| Zero-Day Options Boom | Put/call ratio extremes; 0DTE volume |
Five-Step Framework
Five steps to position against the herd
Drawing from both the academic literature and the post-COVID case studies, we present a systematic investment process.
The Crowd Positioning Audit
Before initiating or adding to any growth-stock position, map the crowd’s positioning using four metrics: (a) analyst consensus — percentage of Buy/Hold/Sell ratings and clustering of price targets; (b) institutional ownership concentration — the Herfindahl index of holder overlap across top 20 funds; (c) short interest as a percentage of float and days to cover; and (d) social media sentiment scores from platforms like StockTwits and Reddit. When all four metrics signal extreme consensus in one direction, the position is a herding trade.
Lakonishok, Shleifer & Vishny (1992); Wermers (1999)
The Narrative Stress Test
For every growth-stock investment thesis, identify the core narrative driving the herd and construct a falsifiable hypothesis. For Nvidia: “AI compute demand will grow faster than supply for 5+ years.” Then actively seek evidence that could break the narrative — efficiency improvements, competitive entrants, demand saturation, regulatory action. The DeepSeek episode demonstrated that even the strongest herding narrative can be disrupted by a single credible counterexample.
Shiller (2019): Narrative Economics
The Flow Decomposition Analysis
Decompose a stock’s recent price appreciation into three components: (a) fundamental — driven by earnings revisions, revenue surprises, and margin expansion; (b) multiple expansion — driven by sentiment and positioning changes; and (c) passive/mechanical — driven by index rebalancing, ETF flows, and options market gamma effects. When the majority of appreciation comes from (b) and (c) rather than (a), herding is the dominant driver and reversal risk is elevated.
Gabaix & Koijen (2022): Inelastic Markets
The Contrarian Timing Framework
Herding-driven mispricings can persist for months or years, and being early is indistinguishable from being wrong. Use a two-condition entry rule: (1) the herding metric must reach an extreme threshold (e.g., analyst consensus >90% Buy, hedge fund crowding in the top decile), AND (2) a fundamental catalyst must emerge that challenges the narrative (e.g., earnings miss, competitive disruption, insider selling). The combination of extreme positioning plus a narrative-breaking catalyst creates the highest-probability contrarian entry points.
George & Hwang (2004); Daniel & Moskowitz (2016)
Position Sizing & Exit Protocol
Because herding-driven positions carry binary risk, position sizing must reflect this asymmetry. Limit any single contrarian position to 2–3% of portfolio value. Use trailing stops calibrated to the stock’s herding-adjusted volatility (typically 1.5–2× normal ATR). Pre-commit to adding on confirmation and exiting on thesis violation, and document both conditions before trade entry.
Thaler & Sunstein (2008); Greenblatt (2006)
Current Opportunities
Applying the framework to today's markets
Using our five-step framework, we identify several categories of herding-driven opportunities that exist as of early 2026.
Post-ARKK Disruptive Tech
Screen for >20% growth, improving margins, insider buyingSmall/Mid-Cap Quality Growth
Overweight equal-weight indices; active small-cap allocationEuropean Technology
Increase allocation to European tech leadersPost-SPAC Value Plays
Systematic screen: growth >20%, margins >40%, insider buyingClean Energy (Post-IRA Uncertainty)
Selective solar/storage positions at 5-year valuation lowsChina Tech (Post-Crackdown)
Gradual re-entry via quality names with HK listingsEach of these opportunities shares a common structure: the herd has moved decisively in one direction, creating a systematic deviation between price and intrinsic value large enough to compensate for the risk of early entry.
Institutional Applications
The limits to contrarianism
Career Risk & Benchmark Anchoring
Shleifer and Vishny’s (1997) work demonstrates that even managers who correctly identify herding-driven mispricings may be unable to profit from them because of career risk, redemption pressure, and benchmark constraints. A fund manager who underweights the Magnificent Seven during their ascent will underperform the benchmark, lose assets, and potentially lose their job — even if they are ultimately proven correct.
Creating “Herding Budgets”
The institutional solution is to create explicit allocations specifically earmarked for contrarian positions with 2–3 year time horizons and performance evaluation isolated from benchmark-relative metrics. Cremers and Petajisto’s (2009) work on Active Share demonstrates that funds with the highest Active Share produce the best long-term returns, but also experience the most significant short-term drawdowns relative to benchmarks.
Reforming Benchmark Construction
Perhaps the most insidious form of institutional herding is benchmark construction itself. When passive indices become the primary benchmark and those indices are increasingly concentrated in a handful of names, the benchmark itself becomes a herding device. The solution is to adopt multiple benchmarks — equal-weighted indices, factor portfolios, and absolute return targets — to reduce the gravitational pull of cap-weighted herding.
Key Takeaway
The most profitable response to herding is not to eliminate it from your own behavior — that is psychologically impossible — but to build institutional processes that systematically identify where herds are forming, measure the deviation between herding-driven prices and fundamental value, and deploy capital when the herd reverses. The investors who consistently profit from herding are not contrarians by temperament; they are contrarians by process.
“The crowd is untruth.”
— Søren Kierkegaard, A Literary Review (1846)
Conclusion
Swimming against the current
The post-COVID era has provided an extraordinary demonstration of herding’s power to inflate and destroy wealth at scale. From meme stocks that turned social identity into a price driver, to ARK Innovation’s self-reinforcing inflow loop, to Nvidia’s four-mechanism herding convergence, to Palantir’s transformation from contrarian value play to reflexivity-driven phenomenon, each episode follows the same fundamental pattern: a compelling narrative synchronizes investor behavior, creating self-reinforcing flows that drive prices far beyond fundamental justification, until the narrative breaks and the reversal is equally violent.
Five decades of theoretical and empirical work — from Banerjee’s information cascades to Gabaix and Koijen’s inelastic markets framework — confirm that herding systematically distorts asset prices in predictable ways. But the deepest insights come from thinkers who predate modern finance. Le Bon understood that crowds develop a mind of their own. Kierkegaard saw that the crowd allows individuals to evade responsibility for their own judgment. Keynes recognized that markets reward those who predict the crowd’s behavior, not those who analyze fundamental value. Soros formalized the insight that markets are not merely reflective but reflexive. And Taleb demonstrated that the ultimate test of conviction is skin in the game.
In a market increasingly dominated by passive flows, algorithmic momentum, and social media amplification — a market where Shiller’s narrative economics accurately predicted that viral stories would drive prices more powerfully than spreadsheets — the ability to think independently is not merely an intellectual virtue. It is the single most valuable edge an investor can possess.
References
Academic and practitioner sources
Disclaimer: This material is prepared for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice, a recommendation, or an offer to buy or sell any security. Perseus is not a registered investment adviser. All investments involve risk, including the possible loss of principal. Past performance is not indicative of future results. Please consult a qualified financial professional before making investment decisions. View full disclosures.
© 2026 Perseus Capital LLC. All rights reserved.
Continue Reading
Related insights
The Anchoring Trap: How Reference Points Distort Investment Decisions
Investors frequently anchor to purchase prices, 52-week highs, and analyst targets. We examine how this cognitive bias creates systematic mispricings and how disciplined value investors can exploit them, with five detailed post-COVID case studies.
The Disposition Trap: Loss Aversion, the Disposition Effect, and the Hidden Cost of Holding Losers
Investors sell winners too quickly and hold losers too long, costing 3–4% annually. We trace this bias from Kahneman and Tversky through five post-COVID case studies — Meta, Intel, 2022 bonds, Chinese tech, and Boeing — and present a five-step framework for breaking free.
The Overreaction Premium: Mean Reversion, Market Panics, and the Systematic Exploitation of Sentiment Extremes
Markets systematically overshoot in both directions, generating a 5–10% annualized contrarian premium. We examine six post-COVID case studies — from the 2022 energy euphoria to the Liberation Day panic of April 2025 — and present a five-step framework for exploiting overreaction-driven mispricings.
Want to discuss our research?
We welcome conversations with those who share our interest in disciplined value investing and behavioral finance.
Get in Touch