Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-13-2015, 12:21 PM
 
Location: moved
13,641 posts, read 9,696,571 times
Reputation: 23447

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn Miller View Post
We are still in the 2000 secular bear. They last approximately 16-18 years so we're not even close to done.
A secular bear market lasts on the order of a decade, but precise reckoning is impossible. 9 years, meaning from spring of 2000 to spring of 2009, MAY have been the totality of it – or not. We can't be sure. Just because 1966-1982 was a secular bear market, does not imply that the next secular bear market must be 16 years long. It could be shorter, it could be longer. It could be something else entirely. We can't be sure that a 50% drop isn't coming next year. We can't be sure that a 50% drop isn't coming for another decade. Eventually we'll see another 50% drop; of that we can be sure. And another. And so on. But when? Clever and strategic anticipation tends to be neither clever nor strategic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
it was a lump sum check and yes it failed.
I wouldn’t be so sure. There's no way to run a contrary experiment to see what would have happened had there been no stimulus. Things might have been better, or worse, or unchanged. We don't know. And because we don't know, there's inadequate ground to assert that the stimulus was a failure. If one person receives a vaccine, while another does not, and neither succumbs to the disease against which the vaccine is supposed to protect, well, that alone is no proof that the vaccine was useless.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-13-2015, 12:28 PM
 
106,557 posts, read 108,713,667 times
Reputation: 80058
i am only talking about that one time stimulus check that tax payers got not, the stimulus package including the qe's. the checks we know failed because consumer spending did not jump as they predicted it would.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2015, 02:58 PM
 
2,560 posts, read 2,300,508 times
Reputation: 3214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn Miller View Post
1987 was part of the secular bull. The 25% drop wouldn't intimidate me. I'd still be far wealthier than people my age and I would know that the money I added during the downturn would grow even faster.
We are still in the 2000 secular bear. They last approximately 16-18 years so we're not even close to done.
You have no way of knowing if the secular bear is done or not. By most definitions it is becasuse it is now significantly above the 1500 plus level of the breakout. It may go back and test that level and we'd still technically (by most definitions) be in bull yet, and a secular one at that.

You listen to too much Bob Brinker.

Last edited by Burkmere; 02-13-2015 at 03:39 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2015, 03:00 PM
 
319 posts, read 303,450 times
Reputation: 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Burkmere View Post
You have no way of knowing if the secular bear is done or not. By most definitions it is becasuse it is now significantly above the 1500 plus level of the breakout. It may go back and test that level and we'd still technically (by most definitions) by in bull yet.

You listen to too much Bob Brinker.
Just come out and say "it's different this time" like they did in 1929 and 2007.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2015, 03:23 PM
 
2,560 posts, read 2,300,508 times
Reputation: 3214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn Miller View Post
Just come out and say "it's different this time" like they did in 1929 and 2007.
What's different this time? I'm over 60. I think I've seen a little more than you have in a couple of your lifetimes. And I don't live in my Mom's house trading 1,000 at a time. LOL.

It's not your fault. You just have:

1. No perspective
2. Limited experience

But are young and will pick up both of those.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2015, 03:34 PM
 
106,557 posts, read 108,713,667 times
Reputation: 80058
well what is different now is we have zero historical data on what the outcomes were when interest rates were low and stock valuations are high.

this condition happening together is uncharted territory going forward.

in the past a 15% drop in stocks in a 50/50 mix was whole again in just 2 years based on the historical average interest rate on bonds
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2015, 03:37 PM
 
319 posts, read 303,450 times
Reputation: 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
well what is different now is we have zero historical data on what the outcomes were when interest rates were low and stock valuations are high.

This condition happening together is uncharted territory going forward.

In the past a 15% drop in stocks in a 50/50 mix was whole again in just 2 years based on the historical average interest rate on bonds
2000.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2015, 03:38 PM
 
Location: moved
13,641 posts, read 9,696,571 times
Reputation: 23447
Every time is a little bit "different this time". But we've seen enough cycles to realize that simultaneously....

- There are sufficiently strong historical patterns to enable us to weave a compelling narrative IN HINDSIGHT
- There is rarely (if ever) enough accurate prediction to give actionable trading advice.

This is why academic research on market-behavior can be scientifically correct, yet perfectly useless.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2015, 03:40 PM
 
2,560 posts, read 2,300,508 times
Reputation: 3214
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohio_peasant View Post
Every time is a little bit "different this time". But we've seen enough cycles to realize that simultaneously....

- There are sufficiently strong historical patterns to enable us to weave a compelling narrative IN HINDSIGHT
- There is rarely (if ever) enough accurate prediction to give actionable trading advice.

This is why academic research on market-behavior can be scientifically correct, yet perfectly useless.
Well said.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2015, 03:07 AM
 
Location: Purgatory
6,380 posts, read 6,269,198 times
Reputation: 9915
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn Miller View Post
By a vast margin inside the market. I'd say a ratio of approximately 5:1 or more.
If this was true, you would not want a crash.

"Thou protest too much."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:27 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top