Is This 1987 All Over Again? What’s Driving the Market Meltdown?

Financial markets are supposed to capture the wisdom of the crowd, but on Monday the crowd ran in all directions waving its hands in the air screaming. Japan’s stock market fell the most in 37 years with a 12% plunge that wiped out all its gains for the year, while in the U.S. the VIX index of implied stock volatility briefly had its biggest rise ever. Panic hit.

The selloff was triggered by Friday’s jobs data prompting a sudden switch in the economic narrative from soft landing to hard landing. Add to the mix a period of deflating hype about artificial intelligence and a Bank of Japan rate rise designed to strengthen the yen. News that Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway had sold half its Apple shares and boosted its cash pile added to the pain.

But the triggers couldn’t possibly justify the scale of the moves. When a new trigger arrived, in the form of better-than-expected data on the service sector, markets partially rebounded and the Vix fell sharply — again, far more than the data could justify.

The selloff—which at one point had chip maker Nvidia down 15%—was so big because investors had been all-in betting that things would work out well. Now things have calmed a bit, the question is whether the unwind of these bets, and the leverage behind them, is done. If it resumes, will the selloff feed back into higher savings and a weaker economy or, worse, hit the financial system?

The extreme examples of past effects from big market falls are 1987’s crash, 1998’s Long-Term Capital Management blowup and 2008’s global financial crisis. History is never perfect, but so far this looks more like a (much milder) version of 1987 than it does the other two.

In 1987, the stock market had its biggest one-day fall ever, with the S&P 500 down more than 20% on Black Monday in October. Investors had built up excessive leverage after a stunning 39% gain in the year to August’s high, and the crash led both to big margin calls and to badly designed automated trading that exacerbated the selling. But the Federal Reserve poured liquidity into the banks, brokers didn’t default and the market made back all its losses within two years. The economy was fine.

The good news was that 1987 was all about markets: They went up, they went back down, no one else was hurt. The S&P made 36% in the eight months to its August 1987 peak, similar to the 33% it rose in the eight months to the end of June this year. As in 1987, this year’s gains came in spite of tight monetary policy and higher bond yields. Just like today, in 1987 investors were on edge and ready to sell to lock in the unexpected profit. The losses are smaller so far, but lucrative trades have reversed , just as they did for the market as a whole in 1987.

In 1998, the situation was much worse, although stocks recovered more quickly. Highly levered hedge fund LTCM was crushed when Russia’s domestic debt default created a flight to safety. LTCM was big enough that it threatened to bring down Wall Street institutions. The Fed cut rates three times and pulled together a group of banks to rescue the firm and wind down its trades slowly. Stocks took just four months to recover, but the easy money helped stoke the dotcom bubble, which popped two years later and led to a mild recession—and gigantic losses for investors in tech stocks.

We don’t know yet if any hedge funds have been taken out by the big moves in markets, which have brought heavy losses for those engaged in the “ carry trade ” of borrowing cheaply in yen and buying higher-yielding currencies such as the Mexican peso or dollar. Large swings in Treasurys on Monday might also have hurt, given the large positions hedge funds hold. Traders are betting that the Fed will slash rates, with a super-sized cut of 0.5 percentage points priced into futures for the September meeting (and far more earlier in the day).

The really bad outcome would be a repeat of 2008, but it seems highly unlikely. True, some large U.S. banks failed last year, due to bad bets on government bonds. But banks are much less leveraged than they were, and the system is less exposed to a liquidity crisis, as private lenders have taken on much of the risk that used to sit in banks. Big losses are entirely possible, and private funds could hit trouble, but that would take time and wouldn’t create the same system-wide crisis.

The ideal would be that excess in the stock market unwinds as in 1987 without creating wider trouble, hopefully more gradually than in 1987. AI enthusiasm could deflate stock prices much more—even after falling 30% from its June high, Nvidia has still doubled in price this year. But the market is already much closer to normal, with Monday’s falls leaving the Nasdaq 100 index up only 6% this year, and the S&P 7%.

If panic continues to abate, the Fed cuts and nothing breaks in the financial system, we should count ourselves lucky. But it would be good if investors could remember the sinking feeling they had on Monday morning, and try to be a bit wiser and less speculative.

President Donald Trump’s imposition of tariffs on trading partners have moved analysts to reduce forecasts for U.S. companies. Many stocks look vulnerable to declines, while some seem relatively immune.

Since the start of the year, analysts’ expectations for aggregate first-quarter sales of S&P 500 component companies have dropped about 0.4%, according to FactSet. The hundreds of billions of dollars worth of imports from China, Mexico, and Canada the Trump administration is placing tariffs on, including metals and basic materials for retail and food sellers, will raise costs for U.S. companies. That will force them to lift prices, reducing the number of goods and services they’ll sell to consumers and businesses.

This outlook has pressured first-quarter earnings estimates by 3.8%. Companies will cut back on marketing and perhaps labour, but many have substantial fixed expenses that can’t easily be reduced, such as depreciation and interest to lenders. Profit margins will drop in the face of lower revenue, thus weighing on profit estimates. The estimates dropped mildly in January, and then picked up steam in February, just after the initial tariff announcements.

“We are starting to see the first instances of analysts cutting numbers on tariff impacts,” writes Citi strategist Scott Chronert.

The reductions aren’t concentrated in one sector; they’re widespread, a concrete indication that the downward revisions are partly related to tariffs, which affect many sectors. The percentage of all analyst earnings-estimate revisions in March for S&P 500 companies that have been downward this year has been 60.1%, according to Citi, worse than the historical average of 53.5% for March.

The consumer-discretionary sector has seen just over 62% of March revisions to be lower, almost 10 percentage points worse than the historical average. The aggregate first-quarter earnings expectation for all consumer-discretionary companies in the S&P 500 has dropped 11% since the start of the year.

That could hurt the stocks going forward, even though the Consumer Discretionary Select Sector SPDR exchange-traded fund has already dropped 11% for the year. The declines have been led by Tesla and Amazon.com , which account for trillions of dollars of market value and comprise a large portion of the fund. The average name in the fund is down about 4% this year, so there could easily be more downside.

That’s especially true because another slew of downward earnings revisions look likely. Analysts have barely changed their full-year 2025 sales projections for the consumer-discretionary sector, and have lowered full-year earnings by only 2%, even though they’ve more dramatically reduced first-quarter forecasts. The current expectation calls for a sharp increase in quarterly sales and earnings from the first quarter through the rest of the year, but that’s unrealistic, assuming tariffs remain in place for the rest of the year.

“The relative estimate achievability of the consumer discretionary earnings are below average,” Trivariate Research’s Adam Parker wrote in a report.

That makes these stocks look still too expensive—and vulnerable to declines. The consumer-discretionary ETF trades at 21.2 times expected earnings for this year, but if those expectations tumble as much as they have for the first quarter, then the fund’s current price/earnings multiple looks closer to 25 times. That’s too high, given that it’s where the multiple was before markets began reflecting ongoing risk to earnings from tariffs and any continued economic consequences. So, another drop in earnings estimates would drag these consumer stocks down even further.

Industrials are in a similar position. Many of them make equipment and machines that would become more costly to import. The sector has seen about two thirds of March earnings revisions move downward, about 13 percentage points worse that the historical average. Analysts have lowered first-quarter-earnings estimates by 6%, but only 3% for the full year, suggesting that more tariff-related downward revisions are likely for the rest of the year.

That would weigh on the stocks. The Industrial Select Sector SPDR ETF is about flat for the year but would look more expensive than it is today if earnings estimates drop more. The stocks face a high probability of downside from here.

The stocks to own are the “defensive” ones, those that are unlikely to see much tariff-related earnings impact, namely healthcare. Demand for drugs and insurance is much sturdier versus less essential goods and services when consumers have less money to spend. The Health Care Select Sector SPDR ETF has produced a 6% gain this year.

That’s supported by earnings trends that are just fine. First-quarter earnings estimates have even ticked slightly higher this year. These stocks should remain relatively strong as long as analysts continue to forecast stable, albeit mild, sales and earnings growth for the coming few years.

“This leads us to recommend healthcare and disfavour consumer discretionary,” Parker writes.

Is This 1987 All Over Again? What’s Driving the Market Meltdown?

Past routs offer lessons after Black Monday Morning