summary：
The market is holding its breath.On this particular morning, September 26, 2025, European... The market is holding its breath.
On this particular morning, September 26, 2025, European shares are a mixed bag of indecision, a reflection of a continent grappling with moderating GDP growth and unemployment figures that stubbornly refuse to return to pre-pandemic norms. Resilient sectors like technology and healthcare, exemplified by the steady performance of SAP and Siemens Healthineers, stand in stark contrast to the turbulence in energy and finance. But the nervous glances aren't directed at Frankfurt or Paris. All eyes are on the United States, awaiting the release of inflation data that will dictate the Federal Reserve's next move and send ripples across the entire global system.
This is the classic setup for volatility. A known unknown is on the horizon, and investors are positioning themselves for the shockwave, or the sigh of relief. Yet, beneath this surface-level tension, a far more interesting and significant divergence is taking place. It’s a quiet schism in psychology, a fundamental split in how the very concept of risk is being processed. The most telling data point doesn’t come from a central bank or a market index, but from a survey.
An April 2025 study by Fidelity Investments of just over 2,000 self-directed US investors revealed a fascinating cognitive dissonance. A significant majority, 64%, expressed confidence that their personal portfolios would perform the same or better in the coming months. Simultaneously, nearly half of that same group predicted the overall market would perform worse.
Read that again. A majority believes their ship will rise on a falling tide.
This isn’t just optimism; it’s a statistical anomaly in sentiment. It suggests a belief in one’s own exceptionalism that runs counter to broad market logic. It’s the kind of discrepancy that, as an analyst, forces you to dig deeper. This isn't just noise. It's a signal that the investor class is no longer a monolith. It has fractured into two distinct tribes, operating with different rulebooks, different information sources, and profoundly different definitions of danger.
A Market Bifurcated by Memory
The Great Experience Divide
The data cleanly bifurcates the market along a single axis: time. The behavior and outlook of an investor with less than five years of experience is now fundamentally, quantifiably different from that of a tenured investor with a decade or more under their belt. The schism is not about wealth or age, but about scar tissue.
The newer cohort is aggressively bullish. They are five times more likely to be planning their first foray into margin and options trading. For them, market dips are not threats; they are invitations. This is reflected in Fidelity’s trading data, which showed a buy-sell ratio of 1.83 during the market upheaval in April. They are buying when others are fearful. Forty-eight percent are explicitly seeking higher-growth stocks, and a staggering 72% report familiarity with non-traditional assets like crypto. Their information diet is also unique: more than a third of these investors make most of their decisions based on social media. One in three.
The tenured cohort presents an entirely different profile. They prioritize limiting losses over chasing parabolic gains. They seek stability. Crucially, 69% of them view market volatility not as a crisis, but as an expected and normal feature of the landscape. They’ve seen it before. They remember the S&P 500’s precipitous fall during the 2008 financial crisis, a drop of about 57%—to be more exact, a 56.8% decline from its 2007 peak to its 2009 low. They remember the COVID-19 panic in March 2020, the fastest 30% decline in history. For them, a 5% drop after an event like Hurricane Katrina is a historical footnote, not a cataclysm. Their decisions are informed by the visceral memory of loss, and their primary information source is not a trending hashtag. Only one-in-ten state that social media is their primary decision-making tool.
This is where I have to pause. I've looked at hundreds of these sentiment studies over the years, and while there's always been a spectrum of risk tolerance, this stark a divide based on experience is a relatively new phenomenon. The data suggests two parallel realities co-existing in the same market. One group is playing a high-stakes video game where the "buy the dip" cheat code has always worked. The other is navigating a treacherous landscape where they know, from experience, that a bear market can wipe out years of gains in a matter of months.
Of course, we must apply a methodological critique here. The Fidelity study polled 2,007 "self-directed" investors. This term itself introduces a selection bias. These are individuals who have actively chosen to manage their own capital, which may pre-select for higher confidence or a greater appetite for risk compared to the general population that uses financial advisors. We should be cautious about extrapolating these percentages to the entire retail investing world.
Still, the trend is undeniable. The data on "successful" investors—a self-described category, it must be noted—acts as a control group. These individuals are far less likely to sell during dips, are more likely to view volatility as expected, and prioritize a stock's historical performance (a hard data point) over general market sentiment or news coverage. Their behavior almost perfectly mirrors that of the tenured cohort. The correlation is clear: experience fosters a set of behaviors that participants themselves define as successful.
What we're witnessing is a massive, real-time experiment in risk perception. The newer investor, emboldened by a decade where monetary easing consistently placed a floor under the market, sees volatility as opportunity. The tenured investor, remembering times when the floor gave way to an abyss, sees it as a threat to be managed. One is guided by fear, the other by a fear of missing out. The VIX index (often called the market's 'fear gauge') measures the former, but we lack a robust, real-time index for the latter.
The pending US inflation report is not just a number. It is a catalyst that will be poured into these two very different psychological containers. The reaction will not be uniform. It will be bifurcated, and the collision between these two opposing reactions is, itself, a primary source of the very volatility they are reacting to.
*
An Anomaly in the Sentiment Data
The most dangerous variable in the market right now isn't inflation, geopolitical tension, or central bank policy. Those are known risks that can be modeled. The true unknown is the behavioral impact of an entire generation of investors whose market thesis has never been seriously tested by a prolonged, systemic downturn. Their confidence in their own performance, even while acknowledging broad market risk, is not a sign of skill but a symptom of a historically brief and forgiving frame of reference. The tenured investors are a known quantity; their playbooks are written in the ink of past crises. The newer cohort is the systemic wildcard, and their reaction function in the face of a true market failure remains the most significant and unpriced risk of all.
Reference article source：