In Depth Analysis of Historical Market Bubbles and Behavioral Finance

In Depth Analysis of Historical Market Bubbles and Behavioral Finance

Market bubbles, characterized by unsustainable asset price surges followed by dramatic collapses, are complex phenomena influenced by a myriad of factors. Behavioral finance provides valuable insights into the psychological aspects that contribute to the formation and bursting of these bubbles. 


In this article, we delve into the fascinating world of stock market bubbles through the lens of behavioral finance. Join us as we analyze the behavioral dynamics behind the following famous stock market bubbles, offering insights that not only enrich our understanding of past events but also inform current investment strategies:

  1. The Dutch Tulip Mania
  2. The South Sea Bubble
  3. The Mississippi Company Bubble
  4. Roaring Twenties Stock Market Bubble
  5. The Great Financial Crisis
  6. The Cryptocurrency Bubble
  7. Chinese Stock Market Bubble

 1. The Dutch Tulip Mania (1636-1637)

The Dutch Tulip Mania of the 17th century stands as one of the most remarkable and infamous episodes in the history of financial bubbles. During this period, the prices of tulip bulbs in the Netherlands soared to astonishing levels, creating a speculative frenzy that eventually led to a spectacular collapse. Tulips, originally imported from the Ottoman Empire, gained popularity in the Netherlands for their vibrant colors and unique patterns. Over time, tulips became status symbols, and the market for these exotic flowers grew. However, it was in the early 1630s that the Dutch Tulip Mania took root. 

The primary driver behind the Tulip Mania was the pervasive herding behavior among investors. As the tulip market gained momentum, more and more people were drawn to the prospect of quick and substantial profits. The fear of missing out (FOMO) became a powerful force, with individuals from all walks of life, from wealthy merchants to ordinary citizens, participating in the speculative fervor.

Image of the dutch tulip mania

Source: Cornell University

The uniqueness of Tulip Mania lies in its engagement with tulip bulbs as if they were commodities or financial assets. Participants traded through contracts termed “tulip  futures,” enabling the buying and selling of tulip bulbs at scheduled future dates. This added a layer of speculation, as investors weren’t acquiring the physical tulip bulbs but instead speculating on their prospective prices. 

But what were the behavioural factors which intensified the tulip mania:

The Behavioural Factors Involved

Herding Behaviour

Investors were driven by a fear of missing out on potential profits as tulip prices skyrocketed. The herd mentality led to an exponential increase in demand and prices. 


Investors were overly confident in the tulip market’s ability to deliver sustained returns. This overconfidence blinded them to the lack of intrinsic value in tulip bulbs. 

Speculative Excess

Tulip bulbs became a speculative asset detached from any fundamental value. The market became driven solely by expectations of ever increasing prices. 

The bubble burst when investors realized the absurdity of tulip bulb prices, leading to a sudden and dramatic market collapse.

2. The South Sea Bubble (1720)

The South Sea Bubble of 1720 was a financial bubble that gripped England, leaving behind a trail of financial ruin and valuable lessons.  Established in 1711, The South Sea Company was created to engage in trade with South America. In 1719, the company proposed a scheme to take over a significant portion of the national debt in exchange for its shares, creating an enticing opportunity for investors. As news of potential profits spread, the stock prices of the South Sea Company soared, setting the stage for one of the most infamous bubbles in financial history. 

Herding behavior played a pivotal role in the South Sea Bubble as the stock prices of the South Sea Company experienced a surge, attracting a swarm of investors eager to partake in the speculative fervor. The promise of quick and substantial profits fueled a collective belief that investing in the South Sea Company guaranteed a pathway to wealth. 

Investors exhibited excessive optimism regarding the South Sea Company’s prospects, anchoring their expectations to its promising future. This led to an overestimation of potential returns and an underestimation of associated risks. Consequently, the company’s stock prices became disconnected from any fundamental value, propelled more by speculative optimism than economic reality. 

The lack of comprehensive information about the South Sea Company facilitated speculative excess and the spread of misinformation. Driven by the excitement of potential profits, investors lacked a clear understanding of the company’s actual operations and financial health, contributing to the formation of the speculative bubble. 

The zenith of the South Sea Bubble occurred in early 1720 when the company’s stock prices reached unprecedented levels. However, the bubble burst as reality set in. It became evident that the South Sea Company’s proposed scheme to take over the national debt was unsustainable, revealing that the true value of the company was significantly lower than its inflated stock prices. The bubble burst when the true value of the South Sea Company was revealed, leading to a catastrophic market crash.

3. The Mississippi Company Bubble (1719–1720)

In the early 18th century, France witnessed a financial frenzy known as the Mississippi Company Bubble, spearheaded by John Law. The company granted a trade monopoly and exclusive rights to exploit France’s North American territories, capturing the imagination of investors, leading to a speculative mania and subsequent economic collapse. 

John Law, a Scottish economist, founded the Mississippi Company in 1717, aiming to capitalize on France’s colonial prospects, particularly in the Mississippi River region. With promises of immense profits from New World ventures, the Mississippi Company’s shares became highly coveted. Investors, enticed by the potential for quick wealth, engaged in a frenzied buying spree, causing stock prices to skyrocket. The success of the initial ventures and Law’s financial ideas fuelled speculative excess. Investors, ignoring traditional valuation metrics, traded shares at exorbitant prices, contributing to a euphoric atmosphere.

The Mississippi company share price

Source: Forbes

The Mississippi Company Bubble was not merely a result of economic factors; it was significantly influenced by behavioral biases. As well as herding behaviour (which we witnessed as a core factor in The Dutch Tulip Mania) there were also further significant behavioral biases that drove irrational and speculative behaviour

Herd mentality in government policy

The French government, to prevent a mass sell-off, engaged in herding behavior by issuing more and more paper money to stabilize the market. This herding behavior by the government exacerbated the crisis, contributing to hyperinflation and worsening the economic fallout when the bubble burst. 

Recency bias

Investors were influenced by the recent successes of the Mississippi Company, particularly in its initial ventures. This led them to project these successes into the future, underestimating the potential risks. The recency bias contributed to a false sense of security and heightened confidence, fuelling further investment without a realistic assessment of the company’s long-term prospects. 

As the company struggled to deliver on its promises and the true economic situation emerged, confidence waned. Efforts to prevent a sell-off led to the issuance of more paper money, worsening the crisis. The bursting of the bubble resulted in panic, a saw Law fleeing France, his economic theories discredited, and the French government grappling with economic turmoil and public outrage. The Mississippi Company Bubble serves as a cautionary tale, highlighting the dangers of unchecked speculation, the consequences of grand promises built on shaky foundations, and the need for prudent economic principles to avoid the pitfalls of bubbles and subsequent economic collapses.

4. Roaring Twenties Stock Market Bubble (1920s): Prelude to the Great Depression  

The catastrophic crash of 1929 marked the onset of the Great Depression. Following World War I, the United States witnessed economic prosperity propelled by technological advancements and increased industrial production, contributing to a flourishing stock market. Speculative enthusiasm and a prevailing belief in an ever rising market drove stock prices to unprecedented heights. This era was characterized by excessive buying, often facilitated by borrowed money. 

Rampant speculation saw investors engaging in margin trading, amplifying both potential gains and risks. The pervasive “get-rich-quick” mentality fueled an unsustainable economic bubble. 

The Crash, famously known as Black Tuesday (1929), unfolded on October 29th, causing panic selling that resulted in a market collapse. This event wiped out substantial wealth and marked the beginning of the Great Depression. 

But what were the factors which contributed to this famous market crash? 

Contributing Factors


Borrowing to invest intensified losses. 

Economic Realities

The boom lacked support from fundamental economic factors. 

Bank Failures

The crash triggered a chain of bank failures, exacerbating the crisis. However, just like all bubbles, this one was also fuelled by behavioral biases. 


Overly optimistic expectations about continuous market growth were fuelled by recent successes. Investors, influenced by the prosperous backdrop, projected recent trends  into the future. Overoptimism created a false sense of security and contributed to a market disconnect from economic fundamentals. The recency bias further intensified confidence, masking the potential risks. 

Loss aversion

Investors, facing the prospect of financial losses, demonstrated loss aversion by holding onto their stocks despite warning signs. Many were reluctant to sell at a loss. This reluctance intensified the market decline, as investors sought to avoid realizing losses, contributing to the severity of the crash. 

This historic episode underscores the enduring relevance of behavioral finance lessons in navigating financial markets and preventing catastrophic economic downturns. 

Unsure about these financial terms? Explore our resource library!

5. The Great Financial Crisis (2008-2009) 

The Great Financial Crisis (GFC) of 2008–2009 stands as one of the most significant economic upheavals in recent history. It was marked by a severe credit crunch, widespread bank failures, a collapse in housing markets, and a subsequent global recession. But what were the causes of this historical crisis?

The Causes of The Great Financial Crisis

Subprime Mortgage Crisis: Risky lending practices in the U.S. housing market, led to a housing bubble. When home prices declined and subprime borrowers defaulted, a chain reaction was triggered with the consequence of financial distress. 

Financial Derivatives

Many investors had a limited understanding of intricate financial instruments. As the underlying assets, namely subprime mortgages, experienced a decline, these financial instruments incurred substantial losses, triggering widespread panic. 

Over reliance on debt

Financial institutions, seeking higher returns, heavily leveraged their positions, amplifying the impact of market fluctuations. As asset values declined, institutions faced insolvency, contributing to the crisis’s severity. 

Global Interconnectedness

Globalization led to interconnected financial markets, spreading the impact of the crisis beyond the United States. Financial contagion quickly spread worldwide, affecting banks, businesses, and economies globally. 

The Behavioral Biases Involved

The Global Financial Crisis (GFC) of 2008 was not only fueled by economic factors but also significantly influenced by behavioral biases. Investor overconfidence, herd mentality, and a disregard for risk were key behavioral elements that contributed to the excessive risk-taking and financial imbalances leading to the crisis. 

  • Overconfidence: Overconfidence among investors and financial institutions in the perpetual rise of housing prices and the stability of complex financial instruments. This overconfidence led to excessive risk-taking and the underestimation of potential downsides. 
  • Herding behavior: Investors and institutions tended to follow the crowd, especially in buying mortgage-backed securities, contributing to the housing bubble. Herding behavior intensified market trends and amplified the eventual crash when sentiment shifted. 
  • Fear and panic: When the crisis unfolded, fear and panic gripped financial markets, leading to a rapid sell-off of assets. The mass liquidation of assets further depressed prices and worsened the economic downturn. 
  • Loss aversion: Investors and institutions, faced with substantial losses, exhibited loss aversion by holding on to declining assets. Reluctance to recognize losses and write down assets exacerbated the crisis, delaying the recovery process. 

The GFC resulted in a global economic recession, widespread unemployment, and a significant loss of wealth. Governments implemented unprecedented measures to stabilize financial markets and stimulate economic recovery, shaping the subsequent decade’s economic landscape. The GFC highlighted the need for enhanced financial regulation, risk management, and a deeper understanding of behavioral factors in financial decision-making. It underscored the importance of addressing both systemic and behavioral vulnerabilities to prevent and mitigate future financial crises.

6. The Cryptocurrency Bubble (2017) 

The Cryptocurrency Bubble of 2017 was a speculative frenzy that gripped the emerging market of digital currencies, reaching unprecedented levels of investor enthusiasm. The surge in prices of cryptocurrencies, particularly Bitcoin, was fuelled by a combination of technological optimism, fear of missing out (FOMO), and the promise of quick, substantial returns. 

The Causes

  • Technological Optimism: Enthusiasm for blockchain technology and its potential applications in various industries fuelled interest in cryptocurrencies. Investors saw cryptocurrencies as revolutionary assets, contributing to the rapid influx of capital into the market. 
  • Media Hype and FOMO: Extensive media coverage and hype surrounding the exponential price growth of cryptocurrencies generated fear of missing out among investors. FOMO-driven investments led to a surge in demand, causing prices to skyrocket. 
  • Speculative trading and ICOs: Speculative trading, fueled by Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs), allows new projects to raise capital quickly. The ICO boom attracted speculative investments, with many projects lacking fundamental value. 

Behavioral biases, such as overoptimism, speculative excess and FOMO were also at play…

Overoptimism and speculative excess

Overoptimism about the transformative potential of blockchain technology led to inflated expectations. Cryptocurrency prices are detached from fundamental value, driven by speculative excess and overestimation of future adoption. 

Fear of missing out (FOMO)

The fear of missing out on potential gains fuelled a rush of retail investors into the market. FOMO-driven buying further inflated prices, creating an unsustainable market dynamic.

bitcoin plunges across 2017 and 2018


The Bursting of the Bubble (2018)

The cryptocurrency bubble burst in 2018 as reality set in and regulatory scrutiny increased. Prices tumbled, wiping out substantial market capitalization, and many ICOs faced legal challenges. The correction exposed the speculative nature of the market and prompted a reevaluation of the true value of cryptocurrencies. The bursting resulted in significant financial losses for investors and a reassessment of the legitimacy and long-term viability of various projects. It also prompted increased regulatory scrutiny in the cryptocurrency space. 

The bursting of the cryptocurrency bubble resulted in significant financial losses for investors and a reassessment of the legitimacy and long-term viability of various projects. It also prompted increased regulatory scrutiny in the cryptocurrency space. 

The Cryptocurrency Bubble of 2017 emphasized the need for caution, due diligence, and a realistic evaluation of the underlying technology and market dynamics. It highlighted the impact of behavioral factors like herding, over-optimism, and FOMO on market dynamics and underscored the importance of a balanced and informed approach to investing in emerging and volatile markets.

7. Chinese Stock Market Bubble (2015) 

The Chinese Stock Market Bubble of 2015 was a tumultuous episode marked by an explosive surge in stock prices on the Shanghai and Shenzhen exchanges. Fuelled by a mix of speculative trading, margin lending, and government interventions, the bubble reached unprecedented heights before a swift correction led to widespread financial repercussions. But what were the causes of this stock market bubble?


The Causes

  • Retail Investor Frenzy: A surge in retail investor participation, often fuelled by speculation and the prospect of quick profits. The influx of individual investors contributed to the rapid escalation of stock prices. 
  • Margin Lending: Widespread use of margin trading, allowing investors to borrow money to buy stocks, amplifying both gains and losses. Margin lending intensified market volatility, magnifying the impact of both upward and downward price movements. 
  • Government Interventions: Efforts by the Chinese government to stimulate the stock market, including interest rate cuts and suspensions of trading. While initially boosting investor confidence, these interventions contributed to market distortions and created an artificial sense of stability. 

There were also several behavioural finance factors at play…


The Behavioral Finance Involved

  • Herding: A significant portion of retail investors engaged in herding behavior, following the trend of rising stock prices. Herding intensified market movements, creating a self-reinforcing cycle of buying and contributing to the formation of the bubble. 
  • Overoptimism and Speculative Fervour: Overoptimism about the Chinese economy and the belief that stock prices would only rise further. Speculative fervor led to inflated valuations detached from economic fundamentals. 
  • Government Confidence Impact: The government’s efforts to project confidence and stability influenced investor sentiment. Government interventions created a false sense of security, with investors relying on official support rather than independent analysis. 


The Bursting of the Chinese Stock Market Bubble

In mid-2015, the Chinese stock market bubble burst, leading to a dramatic and rapid decline in stock prices. Government interventions failed to stabilize the market, resulting in widespread panic selling, financial losses, and a significant economic impact. 

The bursting of the Chinese stock market bubble resulted in substantial financial losses for investors, damaged investor confidence, and had broader implications for the Chinese economy. The event prompted a reassessment of market regulations and the role of government interventions in financial markets. 

The Chinese Stock Market Bubble of 2015 emphasized the challenges associated with speculative excess, the impact of behavioral biases on market dynamics, and the limitations of government interventions in sustaining unsustainable market trends. It underscored the importance of regulatory measures to prevent excessive speculation and maintain the integrity of financial markets. 



In conclusion, the recurring theme across historical financial bubbles, be it the Tulip Mania, the South Sea Bubble, the 2008 Global Financial Crisis, or the 2017 Crypto Bubble, underscores the pivotal role of irrational behavior in precipitating these events. Whether driven by overconfidence, herd mentality, or a pervasive fear of missing out, it becomes evident that human psychology plays a central role in the formation and bursting of speculative bubbles. Recognizing and understanding these behavioral biases is crucial for investors and policymakers alike to navigate the complexities of financial markets and mitigate the risks associated with irrational exuberance. 



ONE-SIGNAL was developed after numerous years of research on stock market bubbles and the behavior of investors as individuals and in masses. The development of these bubbles is attributed to three psychological factors, being greed, envy, and speculation. Conversely, fear, lack of confidence, and disappointment will cause these bubbles to burst. Based on this, Ara Yalmanian developed ONE-SIGNAL, a non-discretionary system that applies the contrarian investing approach using sentiment indicators. The algorithm systematically analyses market sentiment to recognize emotions associated with bubble formations and predicts subsequent movements. We believe that sentiment indicators are the best metric to systematically and objectively analyze stock market behavior and predict price movements in every phase of the market. This is based on years of proprietary research and successfully testing our findings in the markets. 

Due to our unique approach, the system pinpoints sentiment trends and follows them until the exaggeration phase, to then change direction strategically. We are the only trading signal software provider to purely rely on sentiment indicators. As a result, we promote a smarter trading technique and a more efficient overall trading strategy. 

Get Started Now!

Sign Up With ONE-SIGNAL Today

This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice, endorsement, or recommendation. The content within is intended to be general and should not be construed as professional financial or investment advice. Readers are encouraged to conduct their research and consult with a qualified financial advisor before making any investment decisions. The author and publisher of this article disclaim any liability for financial decisions made based on the information provided herein. Investments carry inherent risks, and individuals should exercise caution and diligence when considering investment options.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *