33 replies to this topic

[thespookyone]

The Naz? Well, so far you are roughly at the .5 retrace of the drop, and the move off the bottom looks corrective. Wouldn't spend the new secular bull money quite yet.

Edited by thespookyone, 05 December 2010 - 07:34 PM.

[milbank]

So, to state what seems to be obvious from what has been said. . . to you alysomji, Don and Gary, the March 2009 bottom was "THE Bottom" for this bear. Is that correct?

Edited by milbank, 05 December 2010 - 07:37 PM.

[CLK]

Looks like a sideways to down market over the next 6 months,
which would put us in a cyclical bear within a secular bear.

Still makes trading the short term no easier by expecting the
market to be higher in 5 years. Just as tough as it always has been.

We made a sharp retracement in May, any new highs following
should not go far due to divergences.


I still don't think many traded this last bounce from the lows, before the
gap up. I didn't see any posts saying going long now in after hours. Half
of the move was over at the gap, and by then the premiums(if trading options)
were overpriced, leaving little room for profit, from there on out.

I'd like to see people prove they can trade profitably here in real time.

[arbman]

Anecdotal; it is concerning that this secular bull talk is happening as we are around the 52 wk highs though, the froth is in the air whether any secular bottom is in or not. Although the bullish attitude is necessary for higher prices, it seems there are just too many leveraged positions...

[Gary Smith]

So, to state what seems to be obvious from what has been said. . .
to you alysomji, Don and Gary, the March 2009 bottom was "THE Bottom" for this bear. Is that correct?

Correct for me, but predictions on this board are nothing but philosophical entertainment, mine included. Anyone that looks upon them more than that are deluding themselves. For me the actual low was December 16, 2008 at 2:15 PM when the loudest bell I've ever heard as a trader was rung via the Fed statement and the flight into riskier assets first began after the 2008 meltdown.

[milbank]

Thank you Gary for your input this evening. Thanks to aly, IYB, spooky and arb as well for this thought provoking thread.

[IYB]

So, to state what seems to be obvious from what has been said. . .
to you alysomji, Don and Gary, the March 2009 bottom was "THE Bottom" for this bear. Is that correct?

For a select group of leaders, yes and that's an important point. For the broad list, though, not by a long shot, imho. While the primary trend remains up right now, the secular bear will drag on for years yet with some deep and very scary cyclical declines yet ahead.

[NAV]

So, to state what seems to be obvious from what has been said. . .
to you alysomji, Don and Gary, the March 2009 bottom was "THE Bottom" for this bear. Is that correct?

Correct for me, but predictions on this board are nothing but philosophical entertainment, mine included. Anyone that looks upon them more than that are deluding themselves.

Can't agree with you more

[NAV]

Once it takes out the 2007 high, it will have officially made a higher low (2009 vs 2000) and higher high (201? vs 2007).

How can you determine a secular cycle by just looking at technicals ? A higher low and higher high merely means that the market has started uptrending. An uptrending behaviour could mean any one of the following

1) Simple A-B-C correction.
2) A complex A-B-C-X-A-B-C correction (below 2000 highs)
3) Cyclical bull market (below or above 2000 highs)
4) Secular bull market

How did you come to the conclusion that it was 4) and not 1), 2) or 3)


If you study the secular bull markets of history, of any nation (the basket cases excluded), they all started from extreme low valuations, typically with P/E under 10. We have never seen such dirt cheap valuations in this bear market yet. That does not mean we will have to see lower lows than 2009. We could still trade above 2009 lows and yet achieve P/E under 10, if the earnings accelerate faster than the stock prices. We could also see the exact opposite wherein we make highs above 2000 with P/E reaching the sky, if the earnings do not catch up with the money printing. In that case the rally would be a currency phenomenon and not a earnings phenomenon.


The secular low in valuations can come in various ways here. We could get a lower low than 2009, while the earnings hold up. Or we could get a higher low than 2009, with earnings accelerating upwards. Or we could get a pure currency driven rally to test the 2000 highs (if benny goes on a money printing hyperdrive) while the valuations soar, owing to earnings not catching up with the prices, in which we could see another cyclical bear market to bring valuations down. There are various paths to acheive low valuations. At this point it's just educated guessing as to which path the market could take. But again, the secular considerations should not really prevent anyone from being invested in the markets. We could always have a pure currency driven rally (notwithstanding high valuations) which can ruin folks who stay in cash.

All these cyclical/secular stuff is good for intellectual discussions or for writing history books. Just follow the price....

[vitaminm]

as long as 5ma>13ma>26ma. one may watch blue line!

http://charts.inside...s...KIC&org=stk