A signal unsettling veteran traders: Companies like Cisco return to their peak after 25 years.

``` Cisco, Intel, Qualcomm, and Texas Instruments—these star stocks from the Internet bubble era are returning to the market's spotlight in a way that makes older generations of traders uneasy, after more than a quarter-century of quiet. Last Thursday, Cisco's stock price surged double digits after its latest earnings report, setting a historic closing high. It has been over 25 years since the company last reached such a peak. Meanwhile, Intel, Qualcomm, and Texas Instruments also successively set new records. This scene is sparking a new round of market debates about a repeat of the Internet bubble and making some seasoned traders who lived through that period deeply uneasy. The current strong rally in semiconductor stocks has pushed the Philadelphia Semiconductor Index (SOX) into what technical analysts widely consider "extremely overbought" territory. At the same time, Goldman Sachs' head of hedge fund business Tony Pasquariello admitted that the current trading environment is "almost intoxicatingly exuberant," and said he has spent the entire week repeatedly comparing today’s market with the late 1990s. Michael Burry, the prototype for "The Big Short," directly wrote on social media that the current market "feels like the last months of the 1999-2000 bubble." Familiar faces back at the top; historical parallels raise alerts Cisco was once the world's most valuable company at the peak of the Internet bubble. However, since hitting its historical closing high on March 27, 2000, it only surpassed that record again on December 10 last year—more than 25 years later. Intel's situation is similar. According to Dow Jones market data, the stock only surpassed its August 31, 2000 all-time high on April 24 this year; at that time, Intel was the second largest U.S. company by market capitalization. "It's an eerily strange coincidence that today's biggest winners are Qualcomm, Intel, and Cisco," said Steve Sosnick, chief strategist at Interactive Brokers. During the bubble era, Sosnick was an options market maker for Timber Hill, the predecessor of Interactive Brokers. Brent Donnelly, president of Spectra Markets, was a day trader at the time. He said: "It's really incredible to see Cisco and Intel back at the top. Both stocks have just broken through their highs from 2000." Semiconductor index deviation from moving average hits highest since 2000 Technical data is further heightening market caution. According to MarketWatch's analysis based on FactSet data, earlier this week, SOX was at one point 63.8% above its 200-day moving average—the largest deviation since the early phase of the Internet bubble's burst in April 2000. For comparison, when SOX hit the bubble top in March 2000, it was 111.2% above its 200-day average. Meanwhile, Bespoke Investment Group has tracked the Nasdaq Composite since ChatGPT's launch and compared its trend to that after the Netscape browser IPO—commonly considered the start of the Internet era. The similarity of the two periods is striking. According to this framework, the current point in the Nasdaq cycle corresponds roughly to May 1998. Bubble debate: Significant differences between now and then While historical parallels have triggered wide discussion, many market participants point out there are important differences between now and the Internet bubble era. The most direct difference is valuations. FactSet data shows the current SOX forward P/E ratio is 27.7, while at the 2000 bubble peak it was as high as 52.1. Sosnick notes that today's rally has come with a substantial improvement in earnings expectations; this earnings season is one of the strongest in years, and valuation multiples have not reached the extreme levels of the bubble era. Donnelly also points out that the U.S. government recently invested in Intel, and the influence of geopolitical factors on tech stocks is far more complex than before. He also believes today's retail investors are more sophisticated—when the market saw a sharp correction in April 2025, retail investors bought the dip instead of chasing highs. Bears, however, cite more direct historical analogies. Some analysts list three "fatal signals" from the 2000 bubble: Cisco, at a P/E of 196, was considered a perpetual buy; companies could raise hundreds of millions based solely on user growth and narrative; retail investors swarmed a handful of star stocks until the Fed tightened liquidity. The analyst argues that, in 2026, all three signals have reappeared. Even in a bubble, it’s hard to exit easily Kimberly Caughey Forrest, founder and chief investment officer at Bokeh Capital Partners, personally experienced the full Internet bubble—starting as an equity research analyst in October 1999, just as the bull market entered its final frenzied phase. She believes the bubble's end stemmed from the market’s mistaken assumption that spending on telecom networks and computer hardware would keep growing at the initial build-out pace, which was not the case. In the current AI infrastructure build cycle, Forrest points out, most spending is concentrated in a few giant companies competing for AI leadership. "If one steps back, will the others stop investing?" she asks. "We'll have to wait and see." Craig Johnson, chief market technician at Piper Sandler, is relatively optimistic. He likens the current AI infrastructure build-out to the Internet era’s upgrade from dial-up to fiber-optic, believing "we’re beginning the next upcycle in faster communications—a brand new upgrade cycle." However, even if investors are convinced they’re in a bubble, it’s not easy to act. Donnelly notes that anyone who exited in 1999 might have missed the parabolic surge in the Nasdaq’s final bubble stage. "It’s very hard to pull the trigger, because even if we are in the last wave of the bubble, we could see substantial gains," he says. Risk Warning and Disclaimer The market is risky and investments need caution. This article does not constitute personal investment advice and does not take into account individual users’ specific investment objectives, financial situations, or needs. Users should consider whether any opinions, views, or conclusions in this article fit their specific circumstances. Investment actions taken accordingly are at one's own risk. ```