I had been close to selling my positions back in July due to arguments like the ones repeated in your articles. The mentality that says,

"Every boom is followed by a bust."

"Better safe than sorry."

"Gains are nothing unless realized."

And, of course, the constant fearmongering that consists of comparing the current situation with the dotcom-bubble, or even with the 1929 crash.

The thing is:

Who is posting this stuff?

It's people like the author if this article, who crank out a new article per day. And who get paid for eyeballs.

This applies not only to "top contributors" on Medium, but also to financial news sites and blogs. Fear just sells very well, as the spammy ads prove that say "Your capital might be at risk" (Duh! Of course it "might be" at risk. That's the whole point of investing - putting your money on the line in the face of uncertain knowledge about the future.)

These doomsday perspectives have sold well in 2016, they sold well in early 2020, and they will always sell well. Of course nobody wants to lose their money. But what about the other risk? The risk that you sit on your assets, and don't put them to use because you believe that the crash is around the corner?

Look at the statements made in this article:

"Stocks are overvalued. No doubt about it."

1. How could you possibly know this?

2. It seems impossible that this should be true of every single stock in the market.

3. The market as a whole disagrees with this assessment.

To make such clear-cut claims in the face of obvious counter-arguments is just an appeal to our irrational desire to have simple answers. You might as well sell Manuka honey to cure COVID.

To be honest, it seems to me quite immoral to make money by spreading ideas which, when followed, can cost your readers literally millions.

Now, of course, the author will say, "I'm just providing a viewpoint. You must do your own due diligence, and I am cannot be held responsible for your wins or losses".

But that already tells you much about the value of such articles.

I don't expect an author of financial advice to make financial guarantees. But I would expect him to at least say,

"I've been predicting a crash since July (or whatever). The market has risen by x % since then, and some popular stocks by as much as y %. Anyone who followed my advice would have lost out on these gains. This includes myself. It hurts, of course. And I have struggled with the thought that I might have misjudged the situation, and perhaps should course-correct now to avoid even greater losses. But here is why, even after these months of new data, I am again coming to the same conclusions: ..."

That I don't see any of this makes it seem to me that the author just doesn't give a f*** about the validity of his advice. And that he's only interested in collecting as much eyballs as possible, happily hitting that fear button again and again if that is what's necessary. Because that is what pays the bills for him - and the welfare of his readers is none of his concerns.

My conclusion from all of this:

Anyone who really wants to harden their investment strategy against wishful thinking is much better advised to read a bunch of books on history's stock market crashes.

The people who write books work for months and years.

They don't crank out unfinished ideas or opinions.

And they are much more conscious that, once their book is published, it will be there for people to judge ten, twenty, fifty years from now.

Plus, a book gives you a lot more data to compare against the current situation. Some which will point towards a similary, and some which will point away from it.

Your takeaway from such homework will be nowhere as clear-cut as the claims made in the headlines of clickbaity articles.

But they will be much closer to ground-truth. And something to give you a firm foundation for decisions that will make or break your financial future. Decisions that you will be able to stand by in the face of distraction - and to adapt in the face of new data.