Hello from London,

You are probably more exposed to a looming market crash than you think. Nobody knows for sure whether a really painful downturn is on the way, let alone when. But there’s a growing chorus of voices warning that trouble is likelier than not. Jamie Dimon, of JPMorgan Chase, talks of a serious market correction coming within the next couple of years. The Bank of England says much the same, worried that valuations of AI firms are overdone. A few days ago we published a powerful essay by Gita Gopinath, a former chief economist at the IMF, warning that a crash could wipe out $35 trillion (yes, I’ve spelled out that word to make sure you read it right) in wealth globally.

Ms Gopinath’s thoughtful essay is well worth studying if you want to understand the pessimists’ case. She sets out why a big slide in the value of America’s stockmarkets would be so much more painful for the wider economy than, say, the dotcom slump of a quarter-century ago. The short version: far more American households than before, as well as lots of foreign investors, are directly exposed. That means a bigger risk to consumption in the wider economy.

Are these warnings overdone? You could make a case that huge valuations of the big AI firms today will turn out to be justified, because the technology is already—somehow—bringing big improvements to how businesses and the economy run. You could argue that it doesn’t matter that AI firms are ever more entwined with each other, and that the failure of one bit of a chain, say, need not cause difficulties for the other firms in it.

But pay attention to other examples of problems in the markets. We also just wrote about the debacle of First Brands, a small Ohioan maker of windscreen-wipers and spark plugs, that was somehow able to borrow more than $10bn before its rapid collapse in September. That is not an AI story, but it tells you something about the complacency among investors. They should have spotted danger signs in that company, but rushed to lend even so. That’s a sign that markets are overheating. If investors are piling into one firm irrationally, it’s not crazy to imagine that this is happening more widely. A story we published today explains why Wall Street is fearful of more lending blow-ups.

Last week I asked for your views on the ceasefire in Gaza and the Donald Trump-backed proposals for a peace deal. As ever, our inbox bulges. Mostly you were sceptical, and this was before fighting flared up and Israel suspended aid on Sunday. Fiona Curlet speaks for many, saying that she is “not hopeful” and expects that, with the hostages returned, Israel will find reasons to resume attacks in Gaza. Austin Sullivan is no more encouraged, noting that “Hamas shows no signs of relinquishing its power” and has resumed executions of rival Palestinians. Gerardo Duque, from Mexico, suggests that the vagueness of the peace plan (which may have helped the first phase to begin) will eventually undermine it. Janice Kopinak, however, is an optimist. She suggests that this proposal “might go a long way to ensuring that peace lasts”, assuming that Arab and other Muslim countries provide security on the ground in Gaza. I fear you’re more hopeful about that last point than I am, Janice. For next time, I’d like your views on those AI firms. Are they dangerously overvalued, and do you worry that there’s a big correction coming? Or are all the warnings of doom and gloom overstating the dangers? Write to me at economisttoday@economist.com.

Finally, you can watch the latest episode of The Insider, The Economist’s new video series, on our hub. On Tuesday we will have the first Inside Economics show, where our editors will discuss the unsustainable levels of debt in the rich world. Tune in at 6pm London time (1pm New York time), or watch afterwards on demand.