Skip to main content

How Permabulls and Permabears Distort Financial News

The financial media employs hundreds of analysts, commentators, and strategists. They publish thousands of recommendations daily. Yet if you listen carefully, you'll notice something odd: many of them seem to have made their minds up about the market and rarely change their position.

Some analysts are perpetually bullish. Markets rise. They predict further rises. Markets fall. They predict rebounds. No matter what the evidence shows, they maintain an unshakeable belief that stocks will go higher. These are permabulls—people whose default assumption is that the market will always rise, eventually. On the opposite side are the permabears—analysts convinced that disaster is always imminent, that a crash is coming next month, that valuations will collapse any day now.

This bias is one of the most powerful distortions in financial news. It affects which stories get coverage, how information is interpreted, and what recommendations you receive. Understanding permabull and permabear bias is essential to reading financial news critically, because without recognizing it, you'll unconsciously absorb a distorted worldview about how markets work and when you should invest.

Quick definition: Permabull and permabear bias refers to the tendency of financial analysts and commentators to maintain consistent bullish or bearish positions regardless of changing market conditions or new evidence, filtering all information through a predetermined lens rather than updating beliefs based on data.

Key takeaways​

  • Confirmation bias runs deep in financial analysis — analysts seek information that confirms their existing view and downplay contradictory evidence
  • Permabulls always find reasons to buy, even at market peaks — they rationalize high valuations and dismiss warning signs as temporary noise
  • Permabears always predict crashes, missing the gains — they sound wise when markets fall but consistently miss major rallies
  • Career incentives reward consistency, not accuracy — analysts who flip their view lose audience trust and credibility
  • The media amplifies extreme voices — balanced, uncertain analysts get less airtime than confident permabulls and permabears
  • This bias costs you money — overweighting perpetually bullish or bearish analysis leads to poor entry and exit timing
  • Recognizing the bias requires tracking an analyst's full history — a few correct calls can obscure a long history of being wrong

How Confirmation Bias Creates Permabull and Permabear Positions​

Confirmation bias is a fundamental cognitive distortion in human thinking. Once you believe something, you unconsciously seek information that confirms your belief and dismiss information that contradicts it. You notice the evidence for your position and downplay the evidence against it.

Financial analysts are human, which means they suffer from confirmation bias like everyone else. But in their case, the consequences are magnified because they have an audience and their recommendations affect real money.

Imagine an analyst named Sarah who became famous in 2010 for a bold call: "Tech stocks will drive growth for the next decade." She was right. Tech stocks did drive significant market gains. She built a reputation as a tech bull. She became well-known, attracted investor clients, and earned significant income from her analysis.

Now it's 2024. Tech valuations are high. There are genuine warning signs: earnings growth is slowing, sentiment is shifting, valuations are historically stretched. But Sarah has spent 14 years building an identity as the tech bull. Admitting that tech might be overvalued means admitting she was wrong. It means undermining her reputation. It means potentially losing clients.

So what does Sarah do? She finds reasons to be bullish anyway. She focuses on the bullish signs (AI is revolutionary, disruption continues) and downplays the bearish signs (high valuations, slowing growth, rising competition). She interprets ambiguous news as bullish and seeks out analysis that supports her position.

This is confirmation bias at work. Sarah isn't being deceptive. She genuinely believes she's right. But her belief is being filtered through a biased lens, and over time, her analysis becomes systematically distorted.

The Permabull's Toolkit: Rationalizations for Every Market Condition​

If you've ever read a financial news article from a permabull during a market decline, you've seen a masterclass in rationalization. Permabulls have an excuse for every downturn.

When markets fall slightly: "This is a healthy correction. Buy the dip. Markets always come back."

When markets fall 10%: "This is a buyable pullback. Investors who sold are making a mistake. History shows corrections are always temporary."

When markets fall 20%: "This is fear-driven selling. Fear is when opportunities emerge. Smart investors buy into this weakness."

When markets fall 30%: "This is a generational buying opportunity. Asset prices haven't been this low in years. This is exactly when great fortunes are built."

Notice the pattern: no matter what happens, the permabull has a narrative that supports buying. The toolkit is comprehensive.

When earnings miss expectations, the permabull says, "This means the Fed will cut rates, which is bullish." When unemployment rises, the permabull says, "Lower unemployment might have caused inflation, but now the Fed can ease." When the Fed raises rates, the permabull says, "This is necessary to kill inflation, after which rates will fall and stocks will rally."

The beautiful thing about this toolkit is that it's nearly impossible to disprove. Every piece of information can be interpreted as ultimately bullish. A permabull can maintain their position indefinitely, no matter what the market does.

This wouldn't be a problem if these were just personal predictions with no audience. But permabulls have platforms. They write articles for major financial publications. They appear on television. Their recommendations are read by millions. And their career incentives are never to change their mind dramatically, because changing your fundamental view destroys your brand.

The Permabear's Mirror Image: Always Predicting the Next Crash​

Permabears operate from the opposite psychological direction, but with identical distortion. They are convinced that the market is always overvalued, that a crash is always imminent, that disaster is always one month away.

The permabear's toolkit is equally comprehensive:

When markets rise moderately: "This is a bear market rally. The overall trend is down. Wait for the next leg of the decline."

When markets rise 10%: "This is a suckers' rally. Professional investors are using the bounce to sell. The crash is coming."

When markets reach new highs: "Valuations are insane. The market is completely disconnected from reality. This can't possibly last."

When markets fall: "See? I was right all along. This proves the market was overvalued. The crash I predicted is here. It will get worse."

Notice that permabears make the same prediction—crash soon—whether markets rise or fall. If they're right, they claim vindication. If they're wrong, they revise the timing and make the same prediction again.

A famous permabear predicted a 50% stock market crash in 2012. The market rose substantially instead. Did this analyst admit being wrong and change their view? No. Instead, they said the crash was delayed, that valuations were even worse, that it was coming next year. They made the same prediction in 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018. The prediction was eventually right in 2020 (during COVID), and the analyst claimed vindication, ignoring that they had been wrong for eight consecutive years.

This is the permabear's advantage over permabulls: eventually, markets do crash. A permabear making crash predictions for long enough will eventually be right, and they can then claim vindication. The cost of being wrong 80% of the time is worth it for the 20% of the time when they're right, because the media amplifies the correct calls and forgets the incorrect ones.

Why Media Amplifies Extreme Voices​

Here's a key insight into financial news: the media doesn't make editorial decisions based on accuracy. It makes them based on engagement.

A headline saying "Market Likely to Continue Its Long-Term Upward Trend" is true based on historical data. It's also boring. Few people read it.

A headline saying "Crash Coming: Market Overvalued, Decline Imminent" is sensational. It generates millions of clicks, shares, and views. It's also probably false. But it generates engagement.

Similarly, an analyst who says "Markets are probably fairly valued right now, there are reasons to be somewhat bullish and somewhat bearish, the path forward is uncertain" is being accurate. But this analyst gets no airtime. They're not interesting.

An analyst who confidently predicts that the market will rise 20% next year is wrong half the time, but they're invited back on television because they're entertaining and confident. An analyst who predicts a 50% crash is also usually wrong, but they're invited back because their prediction is sensational.

The media, therefore, systematically amplifies permabulls and permabears while ignoring balanced analysts. This creates a feedback loop. The balanced analysts, seeing that confidence and extremism are rewarded while balanced analysis is ignored, gradually shift toward more extreme positions themselves to stay relevant.

Over time, the financial media becomes dominated by permabulls and permabears, with thoughtful, uncertain analysts pushed to the margins. You encounter a distorted version of financial opinion, one that is much more extreme and certain than the actual state of expert knowledge warrants.

The Incentive Problem: Career Rewards Consistency Over Accuracy​

Financial analysts face a unique incentive structure that rewards consistency over accuracy.

When an analyst builds a reputation, that reputation is their most valuable asset. A tech bull analyst can sell subscriptions to tech investors. A gold bull analyst can sell gold mining investment advice. A crash predictor can sell market-timing services and expensive hedges.

If an analyst changes their view—says they were wrong about tech, or wrong about the need for crash protection—they lose their audience. The people who subscribed based on the old view feel betrayed. New investors wonder if the analyst is reliable.

So analysts face constant pressure to maintain consistency. This doesn't mean they're consciously lying. It means that when evidence suggests they should change their view, they find reasons not to. They interpret ambiguous information as supporting their existing position. They dismiss contradictory evidence as temporary noise. They gradually build an identity around their position that makes changing it psychologically difficult.

The analyst doesn't wake up and think, "I'm wrong, but I'll maintain my position anyway because it's profitable." Instead, they genuinely convince themselves that the evidence supports their position. Confirmation bias does the work. Over time, their analysis becomes systematically distorted, but they believe it's accurate.

This is why many analysts maintain the same position for decades, adapting the rationale as conditions change but never fundamentally shifting their view.

How Permabull and Permabear Bias Affects Investment Decisions​

These biases cost you real money because they distort the information you receive and the recommendations you follow.

If you listen to permabulls during bull markets, you become overconfident and buy too much near market peaks. When the inevitable correction comes, you panic and sell near the bottom. If you listen to permabears during bull markets, you miss out on years of gains because you're waiting for the crash that doesn't come.

A concrete example: in 2019, permabears predicted a severe market crash. The market rose substantially instead. Investors who took the bearish advice sat in cash, missing 20-30% of gains. When the market fell 30% in 2020 (during COVID), they felt vindicated. But they had already lost years of bull market gains waiting for the crash.

Permabull bias leads to the opposite problem. Investors who follow bullish advice are overexposed when markets peak. They own too much at the worst possible time. When a substantial crash comes, they have insufficient cash to buy the dip.

The solution is not to ignore both permabulls and permabears entirely. Permabulls are right that markets have historically trended upward. Permabears are right that valuations matter and crashes eventually happen. But their biases distort the timing and magnitude of these correct underlying principles.

Decision tree​

How to Identify Permabull and Permabear Bias​

Recognizing permabull and permabear bias requires tracking an analyst's full history, not just their recent calls.

Look at their past predictions: What did they predict last year, two years ago, five years ago? Did they change their view when evidence shifted, or did they maintain the same position? Do they explain why their past predictions didn't come true?

Notice the rationalizations: When their prediction is wrong, do they admit it and shift their view, or do they find an explanation for why they were "right in principle" but wrong on timing? Do they revise their predictions while claiming consistency with their earlier view?

Check their track record: A permabull might make one correct bullish prediction during a strong bull market and claim vindication. But what was their recommendation during the bear market? A permabear might make one correct crash prediction and claim vindication. But did they predict crashes that never happened?

Look at the magnitude of their errors: A permabull who predicted 20% gains when the market actually gained 10% was overconfident but directionally correct. A permabull who predicted 20% gains when the market fell 20% was catastrophically wrong.

Notice consistency even when evidence changes: The clearest sign of permabull or permabear bias is when an analyst maintains the same position even as fundamental conditions change.

Real-world examples: Permabulls and Permabears Through the Cycles​

Example 1: The Tech Permabull (2000) A famous tech analyst maintained that Cisco was "the best stock in the world" in 2000, at the peak of the dot-com bubble. When tech crashed 80%, he maintained his bullish stance. When Cisco fell from $80 to $10, he said it was a buying opportunity. When it fell further to $8, he said it was an even better opportunity. Years later, Cisco recovered somewhat, and he claimed vindication, ignoring that investors who followed his advice at $80 were sitting on 75% losses.

Example 2: The Crash Permabear (2010-2020) An economist spent a decade predicting a financial crash. In 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020, they predicted imminent financial collapse. The market rose substantially in most of these years. In 2020, during COVID, the market did crash—temporarily. The analyst claimed vindication, saying their decade of predictions had been proven correct, despite being wrong about timing for 90% of the period.

Example 3: The Housing Permabull (2006) Analysts were perpetually bullish on real estate in 2006. When housing prices started declining in 2007, they said it was a temporary pause. When prices fell further in 2008, they said housing always recovers. When prices crashed 50%, they said it was generational opportunities. Investors who followed this advice at the peak lost enormous sums.

Common mistakes: Confusing a Lucky Call with Superior Analysis​

A major mistake in reading financial news is giving too much credit to analysts for occasional correct predictions while ignoring their numerous incorrect ones.

A permabear who predicted crashes for ten years, got it wrong nine times, and got it right once will get enormous media coverage for that one success. The media will claim they were a "visionary" or "ahead of the curve." But if you examine their full record, they were wrong 90% of the time.

Similarly, a permabull who recommends buying tech stocks might be right more often than not during a long bull market, but this doesn't prove superior skill. A broken clock is right twice a day. If your strategy is to be bullish during a rising market, you'll be right most of the time, but this tells us nothing about your skill or whether you would be right during a bear market.

FAQ: Permabull and Permabear Bias​

How can I tell if an analyst is a permabull or permabear?​

Check their recommendations over the past three to five years. If they've maintained the same bullish or bearish stance regardless of market conditions, they're likely biased. Look at how they explain past predictions that were wrong—do they blame external factors, or do they acknowledge their error?

Aren't some markets genuinely one-directional for long periods?​

Yes. In a strong bull market, being bullish is often right. In a bear market, being bearish is often right. But permabulls and permabears maintain their view even when conditions change, which is the bias. A skilled analyst adapts as conditions change.

Should I completely ignore analysts who have been wrong frequently?​

Not entirely. Permabears who are frequently wrong about crash timing might still be right about valuation risks being elevated. Permabulls who overestimate gains might still be right that stocks rise over the long term. But you should weight their recommendations less heavily and be skeptical of their specific predictions.

How do I find analysts who are less biased?​

Look for analysts who have publicly changed their minds when evidence warranted. Look for those who acknowledge uncertainty rather than expressing false confidence. Look for those who have been right about different things in different time periods, showing adaptability rather than consistency at any cost.

Isn't some level of bias inevitable?​

Yes. All humans have some confirmation bias. But you can find analysts who make sincere efforts to counteract their biases by seeking opposing views, maintaining humility about their own limitations, and explicitly updating their views when evidence changes.

How can I use permabull and permabear analysis without being hurt by their bias?​

Use them as data points rather than gospel. If a permabull recommends buying, that's one data point. If a permabear recommends avoiding, that's another. Make your own assessment based on multiple perspectives and your own analysis rather than deferring entirely to any single analyst.

What does a balanced perspective on markets actually look like?​

A balanced analyst will note that: markets historically rise over long periods (validating the permabull view), but valuations matter and periods of decline do occur (validating the permabear view). They'll acknowledge elevated risks during expensive periods while also recognizing that expensive markets can get more expensive. They'll be willing to change their overall stance as conditions change.

Summary​

Permabull and permabear bias are among the most distorting influences in financial news. Analysts who maintain consistent bullish or bearish positions regardless of changing conditions filter all information through a predetermined lens, creating systematic distortion in the analysis they publish. The media amplifies these extreme voices because they generate engagement, and career incentives reward consistency over accuracy, making it psychologically difficult for analysts to change their fundamental view. Recognizing permabull and permabear bias requires examining an analyst's full history, noticing their rationalizations for wrong predictions, and understanding that occasional correct calls don't prove superior analysis. By tracking the full track record and weighting perspectives accordingly, you can use financial analysis more productively.

Next​

→ Survivorship bias in news