33 replies to this topic

[vitaminm]

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

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

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

[vitaminm]

http://etfstocks.typ...spydiaqqqq.html



http://www.marketwat...ular-2009-07-30

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

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

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

Edited by vitaminm, 05 December 2010 - 11:19 PM.

[vitaminm]

one may look at Japanese market since 1989 and compare with nasdaq

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

http://etfstocks.typ...spydiaqqqq.html



http://www.marketwat...ular-2009-07-30

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

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

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

Edited by vitaminm, 05 December 2010 - 11:41 PM.

[IYB]

If you study the secular bull markets of history, of any nation (the basket cases excluded), they all started from extreme low valuations,

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.

Exactly, NAV. And if you further study the secular bear markets of history, they all end in one particular way...with the public thoroughly disinterested in stocks, and disbelieving that they have any merit as a viable investment vehicle. At the end of a secular bear market valuations (as you mention) are are at a minimum, but so also speculation and in fact public participation in any form is at a nadir. We are slowly grinding towards those kinds of extreme attitudes {you can see that in the "thinness" of markets}, but still have a very long way to go.

[SemiBizz]

Exactly IYB, At the bottom, there is a big flat ocean floor, as prices don't move. And the securities business is characterized as "dirty". A few more Madoffs and we'll be there.

[IYB]

Exactly IYB,

At the bottom, there is a big flat ocean floor, as prices don't move.

And the securities business is characterized as "dirty".

A few more Madoffs and we'll be there.

Yep. Thanks SB. When I was starting out in this biz in the early 70's, I remember my first mentor telling me over lunch on day in '74 that when he watching the tape he had the distinct feeling that only G-o-d himself could be on the buy side of the trades that day- the implication being that no mortal in his right mind could possibly want anything to do with those nasty things....

[inamosa]

Just follow the price....

Exactly. Follow your own words.

I don't think I need to comment on this thread further as the points are pretty clear for those who take the time to absorb them and don't skip things.

Price is king - as it was in '74, as it was in '09, and as it is today.

Edited by alysomji, 06 December 2010 - 12:25 AM.

[NAV]

Just follow the price....

Price is king - as it was in '74, as it was in '09, and as it is today.

I don't think there will ever be an argument from my side, on the fact that price is king. Clearly that was not the topic of discussion.

You failed to answer my question on how you determined that it was a #4 and not #1, #2 or #3. I would still love to hear an explanation from you.

[NAV]

If you study the secular bull markets of history, of any nation (the basket cases excluded), they all started from extreme low valuations,

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.

Exactly, NAV. And if you further study the secular bear markets of history, they all end in one particular way...with the public thoroughly disinterested in stocks, and disbelieving that they have any merit as a viable investment vehicle. At the end of a secular bear market valuations (as you mention) are are at a minimum, but so also speculation and in fact public participation in any form is at a nadir. We are slowly grinding towards those kinds of extreme attitudes {you can see that in the "thinness" of markets}, but still have a very long way to go.

True. And the biggest irony of secular bottoms is that when the biggest opportunity of the lifetime comes by, most will by busy struggling to pay their bills, fighting to survive the harsh economic realities associated with a secular bottom. It's like the hisenburg's uncertainity principle in physics or in plain english "You can't have the cake and eat it too". I am yet to find in history a time where a major secular bottom occurred, when public eagerness to invest in stocks was high and there was large sideline money waiting to be invested. I think few if any will posting or participating on most message boards when we get there.

Edited by NAV, 06 December 2010 - 12:58 AM.

[inamosa]

You failed to answer my question on how you determined that it was a #4 and not #1, #2 or #3. I would still love to hear an explanation from you.

I placed a condition: that the 2007 highs need to be cleanly broken on the Nasdaq for a new secular bull in a major part of its components to be basically confirmed. I'm not talking about the Dow here or the S&P for that matter.

Nor am I guaranteeing anything or forcing you to believe in anything. If you want to believe at that point that #1, 2 or 3 are still viable, please go right ahead.

Edited by alysomji, 06 December 2010 - 01:14 AM.