Should You Invest in the US Stock Market Now?
With its formidable economic power on one hand, and a noticeable concentration of market influence within a select group of large technology companies on the other, the American equity market presents a multifaceted picture. As you evaluate where to allocate your capital, the question of whether to invest significantly in the US or to diversify globally often arises.
This article aims to provide an analysis of the inherent strengths that continue to characterize the American market, alongside the potential limitations that warrant careful consideration.
The United States continues to represent one of the most compelling equity markets globally, offering a combination of structural resilience, demographic vitality, and corporate innovation that few other regions can match.
Among developed economies, the U.S. stands out for its favorable demographic profile. Its population is expected to grow steadily over the next two to three decades, driven by both natural increase and sustained immigration. This demographic momentum supports long-term consumption, labor force expansion, and economic growth — all critical pillars for corporate profitability and equity market performance.
In contrast to the US, many other developed nations face a different demographic challenge: stagnant or even declining populations. Think of countries like Japan or several nations in Western Europe (e.g., Germany, Italy). In contrast, many other developed nations face stagnant or declining populations. This trend historically correlated with weaker equity returns, as these countries face fewer workers, less consumption and potential strain on public finances.
From mid-2008 through 2024, the S&P 500 delivered an impressive average annual return of 11.9%. This figure significantly outperformed international developed market equities, as highlighted by J.P. Morgan Private Bank. To put this in perspective, the MSCI EAFE index—which tracks developed markets outside the U.S. and Canada—returned a more modest 3.6% per year over the same period. This sustained outperformance clearly underscores the strength and resilience of the U.S. market, particularly in the years following the global financial crisis.
Beyond performance, the U.S. equity market is unparalleled in terms of scale and diversity. U.S. stocks currently account for nearly two-thirds of the global investable equity universe. The largest publicly listed companies in the world — including the so-called 'Magnificent Seven' — are all American, and collectively they represent a market capitalization that exceeds the combined value of entire national indices such as the FTSE 100.
The U.S. continues to foster an environment conducive to innovation and enterprise. A culture of entrepreneurship, relatively light regulatory frameworks, and a deep base of domestic investors have allowed many high-growth companies to scale rapidly and reward shareholders in the process. From technology to consumer services, American firms dominate global rankings for profitability, market share, and brand influence.
While U.S. stocks have outperformed their international counterparts for much of the past 14 years — well above the historical average of 8-year cycles of relative strength — some analysts caution that this leadership may be nearing an inflection point. However, even amid concerns about elevated valuations and political uncertainty, many still view the U.S. as a high-quality market that offers select opportunities at more attractive entry points, particularly following recent corrections.
As Paul Christopher, head of global investment strategy at the Wells Fargo Investment Institute, notes: the U.S. remains 'a quality market that looks like a bargain.' The recent market volatility, while unsettling, may in fact enhance the attractiveness of American equities for long-term investors seeking quality assets with global reach.
While the United States remains a dominant force in global equity markets, investors should also be mindful of several risks and structural limitations that may impact future returns. Historical trends, elevated valuations, and policy-related uncertainties warrant a more cautious and measured approach.
According to research from Hartford Funds, U.S. stocks have typically outperformed for cycles averaging approximately eight years. However, the current cycle of U.S. equity dominance has lasted over 14 years — significantly longer than the historical norm. This extended period of relative outperformance raises questions about how much further U.S. equities can continue to lead before mean reversion occurs and international markets regain momentum.
U.S. equity valuations, particularly in the technology sector, remain elevated by historical standards. The S&P 500 currently trades at a price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio of around 25 — well above both its 15-year average and significantly higher than the European market average of 16.
According to analysis by Schroders, this puts U.S. valuations approximately 19% above their long-term trend. Elevated valuation multiples can limit future upside and increase the risk of market corrections, especially if earnings growth begins to slow or macroeconomic conditions deteriorate.
While valuation metrics are not precise predictors of short-term market movements, they are a useful indicator of long-term return potential. High multiples suggest that a significant portion of future growth is already priced in, leaving limited room for upside surprises and increasing sensitivity to disappointments.
Another key risk factor is the heightened level of economic and monetary policy uncertainty in the U.S. market. Indicators such as the Economic Policy Uncertainty Index highlight that investor confidence has been affected by an unpredictable policy environment, particularly around monetary decisions and geopolitical dynamics.
The U.S. Federal Reserve's recent stance of maintaining interest rates until clearer economic signals emerge has added to the market's cautious tone. Uncertainty over future rate hikes, inflation trends, and labor market dynamics creates a challenging environment for both corporate planning and investor decision-making. Additionally, external risks such as trade tensions, fiscal policy shifts, and geopolitical instability may weigh on investor sentiment and market performance.
A significant portion of the U.S. market's growth over the past decade has been driven by a relatively small group of high-performing technology companies. While these firms have delivered exceptional returns, their high valuations also imply concentrated risk. Any significant pullback in this sector could have an outsized impact on broader market indices, particularly given the heavy weighting of tech stocks in benchmarks like the S&P 500 and Nasdaq.
Investing in the U.S. stock market remains the number one option for many investors, underpinned by strong economic fundamentals, a deep and liquid equity market, a favorable demographic outlook, and an unmatched track record in corporate innovation. The long-standing dominance of American equities — particularly since the global financial crisis — reflects a combination of structural strengths that continue to attract global capital.
However, this strong performance also comes with important caveats. Elevated valuations, prolonged cycles of outperformance, and heightened macroeconomic uncertainty suggest that future returns may be more moderate than in the past. The U.S. market's heavy reliance on a narrow group of technology giants further increases the potential for volatility, especially in the face of shifting monetary policy or geopolitical risks.
In this context, it might be wise to think about diversifying their investments outside the U.S. market. While it remains a cornerstone of global equity investing, diversification across geographies, sectors, and asset classes is increasingly prudent.
For long-term, quality-focused investors, the U.S. still offers attractive opportunities — particularly when selective and valuation-conscious. But pairing U.S. exposure with investments in other regions, such as Europe, may help mitigate risks and enhance portfolio resilience in an increasingly complex global landscape. In the next article, we'll focus on the European market.
This article was originally posted on FX Empire
Weekly Data for Oil and Gold: Price Review for the Week Ahead
Portugal: Persistent Political Fragmentation to Test Growth and Fiscal Prospects
Monster's Comeback Continues
Should You Invest in the US Stock Market Now?
Forced Buying That Starts a New Market Phase
Paycom Grows on Big Money Support

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
6 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Chart of the Week: Wall Street Has Claimed Bitcoin—Now What?
"Wall Street is coming for bitcoin." That phrase used to spark both hope and fear across crypto circles. Today, it's no longer a future threat or a bullish promise—it's just reality. The original premise of bitcoin (or crypto in general)—an asset that is censorship-resistant and doesn't answer to any traditional financial institution or government—is fading fast as Wall Street giants (as well as powerful political figures) continue to establish their strong foothold in the digital assets space. During the early years of the digital assets revolution, bitcoin was celebrated as uncorrelated and unapologetically anti-establishment. TradFi asset classes like S&P 500 would rise and fall—bitcoin didn't care. What bitcoin did care about were the flaws in the traditional financial system, which are still here to this day. A major example in BTC's history that's not-so-talked about anymore is the 2013 Cyprus banking crisis. The crisis, which occurred due to overexposure of banks to overleveraged local property companies and amid Europe's debt crisis, saw deposits above 100,000 euros get a substantial haircut. In fact, 47.5% of uninsured deposits were seized. Bitcoin's response was to move sharply upward to, for the first time in its history, cross the $1,000 threshold. After a prolonged bear market over the collapse of Mt. Gox, the idea of mass adoption grew, with Wall Street's entry into the sector seen as a stamp of validation for bitcoin as it meant more liquidity, mass adoption and price maturity. That changed everything. The price might have matured, as evidenced by waning volatility. But let's face it—bitcoin is now just another macro-driven risk asset. "Bitcoin, once celebrated for its low correlation to mainstream financial assets, has increasingly exhibited sensitivity to the same variables that drive equity markets over short time frames," said NYDIC Research in a report. In fact, the correlation is now hovering near the higher end of the historical range, according to NYDIG's calculations. "Bitcoin's correlation with U.S. equities remained elevated through the end of the quarter, closing at 0.48, a level near the higher end of its historical range." Simply put, when there is blood on the street (Wall Street that is), bitcoin bleeds too. When Wall Street sneezes, bitcoin catches a cold. Even bitcoin's 'digital gold' moniker is under pressure. NYDIG notes that bitcoin's correlation to physical gold and the U.S. dollar is near zero. So much for the 'hedge' argument—at least for now. So why the shift? The answer is simple: to Wall Street, bitcoin is just another risk asset, not digital gold, which is synonymous with "safe haven." Investors are repricing everything from central bank policy whiplash to geopolitical tension—digital assets included. "This persistent correlation strength with U.S. equities can largely be attributed to a series of macroeconomic and geopolitical developments, the tariff turmoil and the rising number of global conflicts, which significantly influenced investor sentiment and asset repricing across markets," said NYDIG. And like it or not, this is here to stay—at least for a short to medium-term. As long as central bank policy, macro, and war-linked red headlines hit the tape, bitcoin will likely move in tandem with equities. "The current correlation regime may persist as long as global risk sentiment, central bank policy, and geopolitical flashpoints remain dominant market narratives," NYDIG's report said. For the maxis and long-term holders, the original vision hasn't changed. Bitcoin's limited supply, borderless access, and decentralized nature remain untouched. Just don't expect them to impact price action just yet. For now, the market sees bitcoin as just another stock ticker. Just balance your trade strategies accordingly. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data


Boston Globe
33 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
US tariffs on European goods threatens world's largest trade relationship
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The EU's executive commission, which handles trade issues for the bloc's 27-member nations, said its leaders hope to strike a deal with the Trump administration. Without one, the EU said it was prepared to retaliate with tariffs on hundreds of American products, ranging from beef and auto parts to beer and Boeing airplanes. Advertisement U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told CNN's 'State of the Union' program on Sunday that 'the EU was very slow in coming to the table' but that talks were now making 'very good progress.' Here are important things to know about trade between the United States and the European Union. US-EU trade is enormous The European Commission describes the trade between the U.S. and the EU as 'the most important commercial relationship in the world.' Advertisement The value of EU-U.S. trade in goods and services amounted to 1.7 trillion euros ($2 trillion) in 2024, or an average of 4.6 billion euros a day, according to EU statistics agency Eurostat. The biggest U.S. export to Europe was crude oil, followed by pharmaceuticals, aircraft, automobiles, and medical and diagnostic equipment. Europe's biggest exports to the U.S. were pharmaceuticals, cars, aircraft, chemicals, medical instruments, and wine and spirits. Cars from German car maker Audi destined for export were on freight wagons at the Bremerhaven port in April. Focke Strangmann/Getty EU sells more to the US than vice versa Trump has complained about the EU's 198 billion-euro trade surplus in goods, which shows Americans buy more stuff from European businesses than the other way around. However, American companies fill some of the gap by outselling the EU when it comes to services such as cloud computing, travel bookings, and legal and financial services. The U.S. services surplus took the nation's trade deficit with the EU down to 50 billion euros ($59 billion), which represents less than 3% of overall U.S.-EU trade. What are the issues dividing the two sides? Before Trump returned to office, the U.S. and the EU maintained a generally cooperative trade relationship and low tariff levels on both sides. The U.S. rate averaged 1.47% for European goods, while the EU's averaged 1.35% for American products. But the White House has taken a much less friendly posture toward the longstanding U.S. ally since February. Along with the fluctuating tariff rate on European goods Trump has floated, the EU has been subject to his administration's 50% tariff on steel and aluminum, and a 25% tax on imported automobiles and parts. Trump administration officials have raised a slew of issues they want to see addressed, including agricultural barriers such as EU health regulations that include bans on chlorine-washed chicken and hormone-treated beef. Advertisement Trump has also criticized Europe's value-added taxes, which EU countries levy at the point of sale this year at rates of 17% to 27%. But many economists see VAT as trade-neutral since they apply to domestic goods and services as well as imported ones. Because national governments set the taxes through legislation, the EU has said they aren't on the table during trade negotiations. 'On the thorny issues of regulations, consumer standards and taxes, the EU and its member states cannot give much ground,' Holger Schmieding, chief economist at Germany's Berenberg bank, said. 'They cannot change the way they run the EU's vast internal market according to U.S. demands, which are often rooted in a faulty understanding of how the EU works.' European fashion houses are weighing how they would react to higher US tariffs. Taylor Weidman/Bloomberg 'Consequence for many companies' Economists and companies say higher tariffs will mean higher prices for U.S. consumers on imported goods. Importers must decide how much of the extra tax costs to absorb through lower profits and how much to pass on to customers. Mercedes-Benz dealers in the U.S. have said they are holding the line on 2025 model year prices 'until further notice.' The German automaker has a partial tariff shield because it makes 35% of the Mercedes-Benz vehicles sold in the U.S. in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, but the company said it expects prices to undergo 'significant increases' in coming years. Simon Hunt, CEO of Italian wine and spirits producer Campari Group, told investment analysts that prices could increase for some products or stay the same depending what rival companies do. If competitors raise prices, the company might decide to hold its prices on Skyy vodka or Aperol aperitif to gain market share, Hunt said. Advertisement Trump has argued that making it more difficult for foreign companies to sell in the U.S. is a way to stimulate a revival of American manufacturing. Many companies have dismissed the idea or said it would take years to yield positive economic benefits. However, some corporations have proved willing to shift some production stateside. France-based luxury group LVMH, whose brands include Tiffany & Co., Luis Vuitton, Christian Dior and Moet & Chandon, could move some production to the United States, billionaire CEO Bernaud Arnault said at the company's annual meeting in April. Arnault, who attended Trump's inauguration, has urged Europe to reach a deal based on reciprocal concessions. 'If we end up with high tariffs, ... we will be forced to increase our U.S.-based production to avoid tariffs,' Arnault said. 'And if Europe fails to negotiate intelligently, that will be the consequence for many companies. ... It will be the fault of Brussels, if it comes to that.' 'Road could be rocky' Some forecasts indicate the U.S. economy would be more at risk if the negotiations fail. Without a deal, the EU would lose 0.3% of its gross domestic product and U.S. GDP would fall 0.7%, if Trump slaps imported goods from Europe with tariffs of 10% to 25%, according to a research review by Bruegel, a think tank in Brussels. Given the complexity of some of the issues, the two sides may arrive only at a framework deal before Wednesday's deadline. That would likely leave a 10% base tariff, as well as the auto, steel and aluminum tariffs in place until details of a formal trade agreement are ironed out. The most likely outcome of the trade talks is that 'the U.S. will agree to deals in which it takes back its worst threats of 'retaliatory' tariffs well beyond 10%,' Schmieding said. 'However, the road to get there could be rocky.' Advertisement The U.S. offering exemptions for some goods might smooth the path to a deal. The EU could offer to ease some regulations that the White House views as trade barriers. 'While Trump might be able to sell such an outcome as a 'win' for him, the ultimate victims of his protectionism would, of course, be mostly the U.S. consumers,' Schmieding said.


Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Forced labor in the shrimp industry, and a whistleblower's efforts to expose it
Joshua Farinella, formerly the general manager of the plant in Amalapuram, India. Ben Blankenship/The Outlaw Ocean Project Farinella's dream quickly turned into a nightmare. He soon discovered that the plant's largely female employees were effectively trapped on the compound, routinely underpaid, and forced to live in inhumane, unsanitary conditions. The managers were also misleading auditors and processing shrimp with banned antibiotics. It soon dawned on him that he'd been hired as an American face to 'whitewash' a forced-labor factory. Over several months, Farinella meticulously gathered evidence that he brought to The Outlaw Ocean team. The results of that investigation are the subject of the fifth episode of The Outlaw Ocean Podcast, Season 2. The podcast is available on all major streaming platforms. For transcripts, background reporting, and bonus content, visit Female workers in full PPE work grueling hours processing shrimp at Choice Canning Plant #4. Some reported they had not had a day off work in over two years. Ben Blankenship/The Outlaw Ocean Project In recent years, India has exploded as the dominant source of shrimp for much of the world, with support from its government through subsidies and loosened foreign investment restrictions. In 2021, India exported more than $5 billion of shrimp globally and was responsible for nearly a quarter of the world's shrimp exports. Choice Canning is one of the largest Indian suppliers in the market, with corporate offices in two big Indian cities, Kochi and Chennai, as well as in Jersey City, N.J. Choice Canning categorically denied Farinella's claims and said that the company never underpaid workers, prevented them from leaving without permission, or maintained subpar living conditions. On any given day, there might be more than 650 workers at the plant, typically hired by third-party contractors. Hundreds of the workers lived locally in Andhra Pradesh and went home at the end of each day. The rest were migrant workers recruited from impoverished corners of the country who lived at the plant. A security guard was usually posted outside near the building's front door. Farinella found migrant workers living on the compound in deplorable circumstances, like shared beds with bedbug-infested mattresses. There were also dangerous conditions, including a secret dorm above the plants' ammonia compressors. He realized there were hundreds more people living on site than the paperwork accounted for, and they could not freely leave. At Choice Canning plant #4 in Amalapuram, India, in a hidden, off-books men's dorm located on top of an ammonia compressor shed, some workers were forced to sleep on the floor because of a lack of beds. Joshua Farinella At 3 a.m. on November 11, 2023, a manager sent Farinella a WhatsApp message informing him that a woman had been found running through the plant's water treatment facility. 'She was searching for a way out of here,' the manager wrote. 'Her contractor is not allowing her to go home.' The woman made it as far as the main gate but was turned back by guards. Forbidding workers to leave their plants is a violation of the Indian constitution and also likely violates the country's penal code, according to the The rear wall of the factory grounds, as seen here through the plant's security cameras, was the site of a reported escape by one of the migrant workers. After the incident, the plant management ordered the walls to be "repaired" so that no other workers could get out. Ben Blankenship/The Outlaw Ocean Project On January 3, 2024, reported that a group of about 70 workers, many of them women, marched to a police station in the Andhra Pradesh province to demand that action be taken against a labor contractor at their workplace, the nearby Choice Canning shrimp factory. The workers alleged that the plant's labor contractor stole approximately $2,600 in wages, equivalent to about two years of an average worker's salary. They also demanded a manager be charged for abusive language under Indian legislation that seeks to prevent hate crimes against members of underprivileged castes — many of the workers were members of India's lowest caste, called Dalits, or untouchables. After local media covered the incident, Choice Canning's human resources officer emailed Farinella to say they had already properly paid a contractor, who then withheld payment from the workers. Following police intervention, the contractor repaid roughly $1,600 to the workers. Farinella was concerned when he found workers sleeping on the floor, but he said he and others struggled to get authorization to improve conditions. A few weeks later during a recorded conversation with two labor contractors for Choice Canning, he discovered that 150 workers had not had a day off in a year. It was also hard, he said, to tell how long employees spent working. A human resources executive admitted candidly in a Zoom meeting recorded by Farinella how she planned to modify attendance records and timecards in preparation for an upcoming audit by a German supermarket chain. Workers peel shrimp at an off-books peeling shed for Choice Canning in Amalapuram, India in February of 2024. Joshua Farinella Processing seafood is a race against the clock to prevent spoilage, so the Choice Canning plant in Amalapuram runs more or less 24/7. There's also not a lot of automation in shrimp processing, so this means that the factory relies on an enormous amount of labor to deliver 40 shipping containers full of packaged shrimp every single day. The same week that the whistleblower documents were published by After leaving his job at Choice Canning in February 2024, Farinella returned to the United States and filed whistleblower complaints to several federal agencies. These complaints allege a variety of food safety violations, including that the company knowingly and illegally exported shrimp that had tested positive for antibiotics to major American brands in violation of federal law. The shrimp processed at the plant came from nearby aquaculture farms like this one. Farinella said it was often unclear which farms supplied the plant because deliveries from certified and uncertified farms were routinely commingled. Ben Blankenship/The Outlaw Ocean Project Farinella's whisteblowing has had impact. In 2024, the US Department of Labor placed India's shrimp industry into the 'forced labor' category in its This April, President Trump signed an executive order promoting domestic fishing and seafood production, including by raising tariffs on Indian shrimp. The US shrimp industry commended the decisions, suggesting that federal agencies and the administration may be responding — directly or indirectly — to the types of abuses Farinella exposed. But for Farinella himself, his decision to speak out has come with a personal cost. 'Now when I submit a resume, I can't even get the courtesy of a rejection email,' he said in a recent interview. Still, he has been struck by the impact his decision to reveal the industry's dirty secrets has had. 'I was very surprised with how quickly it took off and how many people were paying attention to it,' he said. Maybe, he still hopes, he has helped push the industry toward necessary change.