Here is why the prices of the DJIA (Dow-Jones Industrial Average) stocks might get dialed back a bit. They are rich by historical standards, and the market/finance process is not really working very well for most folks now at these prices. The biggest dividends are less than 4.5 % (Verizon, IBM and Exxon), and the average of all the dividends is only 2.53%. That is pretty close the *posted* rate of inflation, which is around 2%. This is a real problem. (And my studies suggest the true level of inflation is closer to 6 or 7%, but that is another discussion.)
Invest in this stuff, at these prices, and you *must* have capital appreciation, or the investment process does not work well, in that it is not doing much better than inflation.
The average dividend yield of DJIA stocks is 2.53%, according to the "indexarb.com" website data I have reproduced here. That is *below* the zero-risk yield on the US 10-year Treasury bond, which is around 2.85%, moving to over 3% pretty soon (according to Federal Reserve comments.) This means you are maybe being unwise if you buy DJIA stocks, because you are taking on *more* risk, for *less* return. And that is just a bad trade.
Folks are doing this trade, because of the money-tsunami (from the Central Banks - see M1 above), and because they know bond-prices will fall (and fall *hard*) as interest rates rise from the current low levels. The fund managers and the guys running pension operations and life-co's have no real choice but to hold their noses and buy this stuff, even at these prices. But the trade is maybe not a good trade
As an independent owner/operator trader, you can just walk away, and tend your garden. You need the stock price to rise, for stocks to make investment sense, at these yields. This capital appreciation might happen, because it tends to mostly always happen. And with the world's Central Banks creating money, this process can continue. But if (when?) the Central Banks take their foot off the M1 gas-pedal, you might get the same response as if you lift your foot off the pedal of your fancy rear-engined sports car, traversing a curve. (Hint: you will track a tangent to the curve, right toward the ditch (or wall or rock-face), as the car's tires break traction from the road-surface..). This is why market corrections happen. A market-correction is the response that occurs, when valuations get stretched beyond reason, because of monetary conditions that are called "accommodative". This just means they are fire-hosing money at the economy to deal with some problem the government created.
Look at history. This *always* happens - from the "Bellum Nummarius" (the Roman "Money War", when some Senators were caught minting their own private runs of silver coins at the mint at Cyzicus), to the royal coin-debasers of the Middle Ages, to Tudor England (Henry VIII and his silver-washed debased coins - see image below), to the US Confederacy, to almost every single country in South America and Africa, and to Germany in the 1920's Weimar Republic. Almost every nation has hacked their own money supply worse than Bitcoin or Etherium ever can or will ever be able to enable, with serious and problematic consequences.
And this money-problem is part of the revolution I am talking about. In order to get secure, honest, "un-hackable" money, we may have to change the nature of money radically, since returning to using gold disks is probably not an option. But we need to fix this hacked-money problem, since the governments with their fiat currencies are a major source of economic destabalization and failure, as history has shown down thru the centuries. Perhaps we are on the threshold of a solution? We need some form of honest, non-hackable, real money - which is provably free from government debasement and degradation - either at the internal circulating supply level, or at the external, exchange-rate level.
One of my real concerns, as an economist, is that the US markets may *not* re-price domestic asset financial markets, and instead, re-price the US-dollar external exchange rate. This would seriously stimulate the US economy, but would have the effect of destabilizing the rest of the world - especially Asia and Africa, which basically operate using US dollars. And if the value of the US-dollar falls too quickly, it will damage many foreign export-oriented firms, and cause serious economic problems for many marginally profitable, Third-World enterprises that are export-oriented. And a wave of business failures could break supply chains, and could provoke a serious global recession. It would be better if the US got their money supply under control, and avoided an "economic war" with their trading partners.
If something has to give, better it be the US stock market falling 30%, than the value of the US-$ falling 30%. History suggests one or the other is becoming more likely each day, as the US money supply expansion continues.