NextFin News - The S&P 500 has logged 27 record closes this year and the VIX has sunk to its lowest level of 2026, but Jessica Noviskis, portfolio strategist at Marquette Associates, warns that the very optimism carrying U.S. equities higher is what now leaves them exposed. In a televised market interview on Sept. 7, Noviskis argued that elevated expectations have set a bar that may be difficult for markets to clear.
The tension is simple and uncomfortable: a market that prices only the good outcomes has nowhere to go but sideways or down when reality arrives merely adequate. With the benchmark index closing at an all-time high of 7,798.99 on Aug. 13 and the Cboe Volatility Index touching 14.1 in late August, the setup heading into the historically weakest month of the year is one of crowded conviction rather than cautious positioning. The question is not whether corporate America is healthy. It is whether healthy is good enough.
The Setup: Records, Low Volatility, and a Crowded Trade
U.S. equities have spent 2026 climbing a wall of worry that refused to materialize. The S&P 500's 27th record close of the year came on Aug. 13 at 7,798.99, capping an August gain of more than 2%. That rally unfolded against a backdrop that would normally unsettle investors: a Federal Reserve holding its benchmark rate at 3.50%–3.75% with a median projection pointing to one increase before year-end, and geopolitical turbulence in the Middle East pushing oil prices higher. Pre-tax profits reached $4.8 trillion in the second quarter, the highest share of the economy since at least 1950.
Instead of hedging, investors have done the opposite. The VIX — the 30-day implied-volatility gauge on S&P 500 options — fell to as low as 14.1 on Aug. 28, its lowest reading of the year. Citadel Securities' Scott Rubner noted in a client report at the end of August that September options were the cheapest of the year, making downside protection unusually affordable at precisely the moment the calendar turns hostile. September is the worst month for the S&P 500 on average, down 0.6% across the historical record and positive in only 45% of years, according to Carson Group strategist Ryan Detrick. Bank of America data stretching back to 1928 show an average September loss of 1.17%, with the index falling in 56% of those years.
That combination — all-time highs, rock-bottom volatility, and the onset of the mid-August-to-mid-October window that BTIG's Jonathan Krinsky has flagged as historically prone to downside volatility — is what gives Noviskis's warning its force. The asymmetry she described in a May televised market appearance captures the setup in a single line:
"We are entirely pricing markets off of the good things that are happening, and ignoring the risks and the war and the potential for inflation and maybe rate hikes."
Attributed to Noviskis, an OCIO portfolio strategist at Marquette Associates, the May remark frames the same imbalance she highlighted in September: when the price of an asset embeds only favorable outcomes, the distribution of future returns becomes skewed to the downside even if nothing fundamental breaks.
Why High Expectations Are a Risk, Not a Compliment
The bull case for U.S. stocks is not weak — it is arguably at its strongest in years, and that is the point. Analysts project S&P 500 earnings growth of roughly 14% to 15% for calendar 2026, and the second-quarter reporting season delivered an 84% beat rate with 25.6% year-over-year earnings expansion, far above the five-year average of 7.1%. Yardeni Research's Ed Yardeni raised his year-end 2026 S&P 500 target to 8,250, citing what he called phenomenal analyst estimates; HSBC lifted its forecast to 7,650 and noted the benchmark could top 8,000.
But expectations are not a floor; they are a hurdle. When 84% of companies are already beating estimates, the marginal surprise needed to push prices higher grows harder to find. A market that has absorbed the best possible earnings news has priced perfection into the multiple, and perfection is a fragile input. The risk is not that corporate America collapses. The risk is that it performs well — and the market falls anyway, because well was not quite good enough.
This is an expectations-gap problem, and it shows up in the valuation data. The S&P 500 trades at roughly 21 times forward earnings, within its long-term average range, which is why the broad index does not look bubble-priced on headline metrics. The distortion is underneath: the industrials sector now carries a forward price-to-earnings ratio above 30, well above its long-term average near 20, as the AI infrastructure buildout rerates old-economy names alongside the technology leaders. Meanwhile, the Shiller cyclically adjusted price-to-earnings ratio has climbed above 35 — a level reached only twice since 1871, both times followed by significant drawdowns, including the 2021 peak that preceded a bear market.
The valuation spread tells the same story from another angle. A headline P/E near 21x says the market is fairly valued in aggregate. A sector trading 50% above its own historical multiple says parts of the market are being paid for as if the current growth rate is permanent. That is the precise condition under which an expectations gap opens: not when everything is expensive, but when the expensive parts have already been granted the future.
The Mechanism: How an Expectations Gap Becomes a Drawdown
The transmission channel from crowded expectations to lower prices runs through three steps, and it does not require an earnings recession. First, a guidance miss or a merely in-line print from a high-profile company forces analysts to trim forward estimates. Second, because valuations were anchored to those higher estimates, the multiple compresses even if the absolute earnings number is healthy. Third, cheap protection stops being cheap: the term spread between six-month and one-month S&P 500 options had already reached the 96th percentile of the past year by late August, according to Cboe data, signaling that longer-dated hedging demand was building beneath the surface calm.
That sequence is self-reinforcing. As volatility reprices, portfolios that ran with low hedges face margin and risk-budget pressure, which can force de-grossing into a falling market. The drawdown, in other words, is not caused by deteriorating fundamentals. It is caused by the gap between fundamentals and the bar those fundamentals must clear. This is why the 84% beat rate is not reassuring — it is the evidence that the bar is high.
The Federal Reserve adds a second, independent channel. Markets have swung between pricing a roughly 56% and a 60.4% chance of a quarter-point rate increase at the September meeting, according to the CME's rate-probability tool, after Fed Chair Kevin Warsh struck a hawkish tone at the Jackson Hole symposium. A hike is not the base case for most strategists — Deutsche Bank, for one, expects 50 basis points of increases split between the September and December meetings — but the mere presence of a live tightening meeting introduces a binary event risk that low-volatility positioning is not built to absorb. The 10-year Treasury yield sat near 4.67% in late August, in the 92nd percentile of the past year, which pressures equity multiples independently of any calendar effect.
The mechanism also has a historical analog. In 2021, the Shiller CAPE last breached 35 at a market peak, and the subsequent bear market was not triggered by an earnings collapse in real time but by a repricing of the multiple that had been granted to a pandemic-distorted profit cycle. The current setup is not identical — today's earnings growth is broad and real rather than base-effect driven — but the structure is the same: a valuation metric at an extreme, a consensus that has extrapolated the current trend indefinitely, and volatility priced as if the trend cannot be interrupted.
The Counter-Thesis: This Time the Setup Is Different
The strongest argument against the vulnerability call is that September's bad reputation was earned in years when markets limped into the month, and 2026 is not limping. Detrick has pointed out that nearly 70% of S&P 500 stocks sit above their 200-day moving average, breadth is wide, earnings growth is broad-based, and volatility is contained — close to the opposite of the setup that produced the historically weak Septembers. In that reading, seasonality is a rear-view mirror, and momentum plus earnings momentum is what actually drives the next leg. The SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust was up 5.47% over the trailing month and 12.82% year to date as of late August, a very different starting point than the weak Augusts that preceded the historically bad Septembers.
There is real force to this view. The 2026 rally has been carried by actual earnings, not just multiple expansion, and the S&P 500's forward P/E near 21x is not at dot-com extremes on a headline basis. Ten of 11 sectors grew earnings in the second quarter, almost all at double digits, and a market that broadens beyond the megacap leaders is a healthier market. Healthy markets do not always obey the calendar, and breadth near 70% above the 200-day average has historically shown up before strong months rather than weak ones.
But the counter-thesis rests on a premise that Noviskis's warning directly challenges: that breadth and earnings momentum can offset a bar that has been raised faster than fundamentals can climb. The 84% beat rate is the problem, not the rebuttal — it is the evidence that the hurdle is already high. And breadth measured against the 200-day moving average captures price momentum, not the distance between price and achievable earnings. If estimates stop rising, momentum breadth becomes a coincident indicator rather than a leading one.
There is also a second weakness in the counter-thesis. The low-volatility environment that makes breadth look durable is itself the thing most likely to reverse first. The 96th-percentile steepness of the VIX term structure means the market is already paying up for protection further out even while near-dated options are cheap. That is not the signature of a market that believes its own momentum; it is the signature of a market hedging a regime change it cannot yet name.
What Would Prove the Call Wrong
The vulnerability thesis has a clean falsifying signal. If the September Federal Open Market Committee meeting passes without a rate increase, and third-quarter earnings guidance keeps S&P 500 forward earnings growth at or above 12%, then the expectations gap closes on the upside and the record highs extend rather than reverse. In that scenario, the market was not pricing perfection — it was pricing a reality that simply had not arrived yet. A sustained move in the VIX back above 18 without a corresponding drop in the S&P 500 would also weaken the thesis, signaling that hedging demand is absorbing supply rather than forcing deleveraging.
What to Watch and Who Is Exposed
For investors, the implication is asymmetric rather than apocalyptic. The structurally strong parts of the market — companies with visible earnings growth and pricing power — are less exposed to an expectations reset than the names that have been rerated on narrative alone. The industrials sector, with its above-30 forward P/E, has more distance to fall if the AI capex story stumbles than a megacap technology leader already delivering the earnings. Fixed income sits at the center of the trade: a September hike would likely lift short-end yields and pressure equity multiples, while a hold would validate the soft-landing path that equities have priced.
The time-horizon split matters. In the short term, sentiment and positioning dominate, and the cheap-volatility trade argues for buying protection while it is still inexpensive. Over the medium term, earnings will decide: if guidance holds, the pullback is a buyable dip. Over the long term, the structural case for U.S. equities — productivity gains from AI, resilient corporate profitability — is separate from the cyclical expectations gap and survives a volatility spike. This is the cyclical-versus-structural distinction at the heart of the call: the vulnerability is cyclical, a function of positioning and the height of the bar, while the structural bull case for American corporate earnings remains intact.
Three signals should guide the next month: the September Fed decision and its accompanying projections; the third-quarter earnings guidance cycle, with particular attention to whether the 84% beat rate can be sustained; and the VIX term structure, where a sustained inversion or a jump in six-month implied volatility would confirm that hedging demand is turning into selling pressure. A fourth, quieter signal is estimate revisions: if analysts begin trimming 2026 EPS forecasts from the current 14%–15% growth assumption, the multiple has less earnings to lean against.
The market's vulnerability is not that the story has broken. It is that the story has been priced as if it cannot break — and in markets, that is usually the one assumption that does.
Explore more exclusive insights at nextfin.ai.
