A flaw in standard bubble tests makes technology-driven price booms look speculative; after projecting out observable measures of technology adoption, the 2020–2025 AI rally shows no evidence of a speculative bubble while the dot‑com peak remains a genuine speculative episode.

Main Finding

Standard real-time bubble tests (Phillips et al. 2015, PSY) systematically flag explosive prices during the adoption phase of a general-purpose technology (GPT) even when no speculative bubble exists. Embedding a hump-shaped technology adoption shock into a Campbell–Shiller present-value model, the authors show that the technology-driven present-value term makes fundamentals locally explosive. Projecting prices onto observable technology proxies (TFP, IT investment, patent grants) and applying PSY to the residual restores correct test size and preserves power. Empirically, after this technology adjustment the 2020–2025 AI rally shows no evidence of speculation at conventional levels, while the dot‑com episode is decomposed into a fundamentally driven run-up plus a genuine speculative peak confined to Dec 1999–Mar 2000.

Key Points

• Theoretical mechanism
  • Start from the Campbell–Shiller log-linear present-value identity. Introduce a deterministic, hump-shaped technology component δt in dividend growth (adoption → peak → maturation).
  • This generates a technology present‑value term Tt = Σρ^j δt+1+j that is forward‑looking and can be convex during early adoption.
  • Even with no bubble (bt = 0), the fundamental price ft = dt + constant + Tt can exhibit locally explosive dynamics during adoption (super‑unit‑root behavior over a finite window).
  • If required returns respond to technology, the effect generally persists and can be amplified when technology lowers discount rates.
• Identification / microfoundation
  • A production-economy microfoundation yields ∆dt = c + γ′Xt + εt with Xt = (TFP, log IT investment, patent grants)′ and shows Tt ≈ β′Xt + stationary noise. Thus observable technology proxies span the technology-driven fundamental component to first order.
  • Under plausible identification (block separability, patent lag, IT Euler equation), the bubble is separable from Xt and lies in the residual.
• Practical decomposition
  • Estimate a cointegrating regression of log prices (or log price–dividend ratio) on technology proxies in a pre-bubble training period (DOLS, FMOLS, or first-difference specifications considered).
  • Remove the fitted technology component; apply the PSY right-tailed unit‑root/explosive test to the residual price series.
• Monte Carlo and simulation evidence
  • Calibrated simulations (postwar U.S. equity) containing only technology-driven fundamentals (no bubble) make unadjusted PSY reject the null at extremely high rates (e.g., 93% for detrended log prices, 100% for the P/D ratio at 5% nominal).
  • The proposed adjustment restores rejection rates to nominal levels and preserves timely detection when a genuine bubble coexists with a technology shock (avoids premature firing during technology-only phase).
• Empirical results
  • NASDAQ/dot‑com: Unadjusted PSY flags two explosive episodes (May 1996 and Nov 1999–Mar 2000). After adjustment, the early signal disappears and the speculative episode narrows to Dec 1999–Mar 2000.
  • AI rally (2020–2025): Explosive signals vanish after the technology adjustment at conventional significance levels. Firm-level evidence for the Magnificent Seven shows explosive signals in Microsoft, Alphabet, NVIDIA disappear after adjustment.
• Robustness and diagnostics
  • Results robust to alternative hump functional forms (triangular, Gaussian, Beta, Gamma-like), different cointegration estimators (DOLS, FMOLS), 121 alternative training windows, and placebo tests.
  • Identification diagnostics: Granger causality, PCA of firm-level price gaps, placebo covariates, and training‑window stability tests support separability of proxies from speculative residual.

Data & Methods

• Theoretical model
  • Campbell–Shiller present-value framework with deterministic hump δt in dividend growth (Assumption 1–4).
  • Derivations show recursion for Tt, drift µt of fundamentals, and conditions for local convexity/explosiveness.
  • Production-side microfoundation derives observable state Xt and links Tt ≈ β′Xt + ηt.
• Econometric approach
  • Cointegrating regression of log price (or log price–dividend ratio) on technology proxies during a pre-adoption training period; residual interpreted as price variation orthogonal to technology fundamentals.
  • Estimators: DOLS, FMOLS, first-difference specifications. PSY right-tailed unit‑root/explosive test applied to residuals.
  • Monte Carlo: calibrated to postwar U.S. equity moments to quantify size distortion and power.
• Empirical datasets
  • Aggregate U.S. equity indices (S&P 500, NASDAQ Composite) and firm-level prices for the Magnificent Seven.
  • Technology proxies: total factor productivity (TFP), IT investment, patent grants; additional supporting series cited in literature (compute expenditures, R&D intensity).
• Robustness checks
  • Four shapes of δt, multiple estimators, overlapping controlled experiments with genuine bubbles, alternative training windows (121 windows), Granger causality and placebo tests, PCA.

Implications for AI Economics

• For bubble surveillance and policy
  • Widely used real‑time bubble detectors (PSY) can generate false positives during GPT adoption. Policymakers relying on these tests risk mistaking rational, forward‑looking repricing for speculative excess and possibly intervening prematurely in a technology diffusion process that supports long-run growth.
  • Bubble-detection frameworks should incorporate observable measures of technology adoption (TFP, IT investment, patents, and related measures like compute/R&D) and test residuals conditional on those fundamentals.
  • Real-time monitoring should use the technology-adjusted procedure to improve size control and reduce Type I errors, while preserving power to detect genuine speculation.
• For interpreting the AI-era rally
  • After removing the technology-driven component spanned by TFP, IT investment, and patents, there is no statistical evidence of a speculative bubble in 2020–2025 at conventional significance levels — consistent with a fundamental repricing as AI adoption is priced in.
  • This contrasts with the dot‑com episode, where only the terminal phase appears speculative; most of the earlier run-up was consistent with technology-driven fundamentals.
• For asset pricing and growth research
  • Empirical work on the valuation effects of GPTs should account for the forward‑looking present‑value imprint of adoption; failure to do so can bias inference about risk premia, expected returns, and bubble incidence.
  • The paper highlights the importance of linking production-side measures of technological diffusion to asset‑pricing analyses — especially when evaluating market responses to disruptive technologies like AI.
• Caveats and research directions
  • The main theoretical setup uses a deterministic hump for clarity; the authors present a stochastic extension that increases the size-distortion bound but further empirical work could explore fully stochastic diffusion processes and feedbacks from finance to innovation.
  • Identification rests on the separability of the technology state from speculative valuation. In environments where valuations materially affect innovation (e.g., financing of R&D), richer structural models and instruments may be needed.
  • Future work: cross-country tests, higher-frequency compute/R&D indicators, models of interplay between financial booms and adoption speed, and operationalizing technology-adjusted surveillance in central bank toolkits.

Practical takeaways: when evaluating whether rapid price appreciation around a new GPT (like generative AI) is a bubble, first control for observable technology adoption measures via a cointegration/projection step. Apply explosive‑root tests to the residual; this reduces false positives and yields more trustworthy real‑time signals for policy and investment decisions.