Over the past week, quite a bit of digital ink was spilled editorializing around the disparate signals from stocks and bonds in the US.

Rates have repriced dramatically this month as traders had no choice but to acknowledge the policy implications from a succession of hot data, culminating in what BMO’s US rates team aptly described as an “impressive” read on retail sales.

Prior to a head-spinning reversal, the 2s10s inversion reached new cycle extremes Wednesday at almost -92bps. Two-year US yields ended last month at 4.20%. They’re 4.62% now. Terminal rate pricing was ~4.85% a week and a half ago. Now it’s making a run at 5.25%. And the recession call inherent in rate cut speculation for the back half of this year is undergoing a serious rethink.

“I took profits on two-thirds of the fixed-income positions in my ‘terminal mis-priced too low’ trades, but my goodness, they just don’t stop,” Nomura’s Charlie McElligott said Wednesday.

This isn’t completely lost on equities, but you can understand why some observers see a disconnect. One of those observers is JPMorgan’s Marko Kolanovic who, in a new note, called prevailing sentiment in stocks indicative of “exuberance and greed.”

“[The] divergence between equity and bond markets is odd [and] leadership has also been upside-down given yields moving higher,” he wrote, adding that stocks aren’t just ignoring the old “Don’t fight the Fed” adage, equities are “also taunting the Fed with crypto, meme stocks and unprofitable companies responding best to Fed communications.” He also noted that retail volumes are running hot, “with 20% of all market volume coming from retail orders.”

Kolanovic doubts the disparity between 2s and the Nasdaq 100 is sustainable. “Based on historical regressions, the move in two-year interest rates since the Fed meeting should result in a ~5- 10% selloff in the Nasdaq, which is actually up ~3% since, and for high-beta tech the divergence is much larger,” he wrote Wednesday.

As indicated by the annotations and the outlier nature of the red dot on the scatterplot, Marko suspects the divergence between short-end rates and the Nasdaq is stretched to the breaking point and could revert.

You might suggest any disconnect between bonds and stocks is explainable by way of a Goldilocks narrative which says that as long as the economy holds up, rates are rising for the “right” reasons, and equities are just responding to an improving macro outlook and dwindling hard landing odds. But that doesn’t line up very well with earnings growth, which turned negative this quarter, nor does it square with margin compression and the generally challenging operating environment for corporates struggling to cut costs which in some cases are rising faster than sales.

Bottom line: You can certainly argue that, all caveats aside, the juxtaposition between tech (any tech, really) and the across-the-board hawkish repricing in rates documented above, is something to be wary of, if not necessarily panicked about.

Compared to stocks, “the risk-reward of holding bonds at this level of short-term yields” is better “than any time since the financial crisis,” Kolanovic went on to say, adding that “this relationship is not just theoretical, but often enforced by pensions selling opportunistically and at month-end, or in the context of defined benefit plans’ rebalances.”