There are several possible interpretations of Steele’s comment: A daring and extravagant fashion might indicate that stock market profits were being spent on gaudy display, a sign of the conspicuous consumption which accompanies every speculative episode. On the other hand, one might see in the rising headdress of the moneyed man’s mistress (or later of the rising hemline of the 1920s flapper) an indication of the moral laxity of speculative periods, when the spirit of self-interest is dominant and more sober virtues are despised. It appears more likely, however, that Steele was suggesting that market values – evanescent, ephemeral, and extravagant – were as much a reflection of passing fashion as female modes of attire. A fashionable style, like a speculative movement, is subject to a popular consensus and follows a trend until it reaches a point of extravagance from which it can only retreat.

According to the text, the correlation between headdresses and share prices, pointed out by Steele,

Item 4 can be explained by the fact that fashion and speculative movements alike are subject to popular consensus.