Black Monday

[dobby41]

Yeah I see what you mean. So what do you call it when over a 16 year period the market only moves sideways or only marginally up? That to me is not a bull market. That is a bear.

Are you saying that the S&P500 graph is wrong?
From '66 to '82 it shows (roughly)
6.4yr bull - up 143%
1.6yr bear - down 29%
2.5yr bull - up 76%
1.8yr bear - down 43%
12.9yr bull - up 845% (till roughly '87)
Doesn't seem like 16yrs of sideways to me??

[BobbyMorocco]

Are you saying that the S&P500 graph is wrong?
From '66 to '82 it shows (roughly)
6.4yr bull - up 143%
1.6yr bear - down 29%
2.5yr bull - up 76%
1.8yr bear - down 43%
12.9yr bull - up 845% (till roughly '87)
Doesn't seem like 16yrs of sideways to me??

https://www.advisorperspectives.com/...n-secular-bull

This page might help settle the debate. '68 to '82 most definitely a secular bear, but as always included cyclical bull and bear markets within it.

[dobby41]

https://www.advisorperspectives.com/...n-secular-bull

This page might help settle the debate. '68 to '82 most definitely a secular bear, but as always included cyclical bull and bear markets within it.

Thanks for that - very interesting perspective.

[BobbyMorocco]

No worries - While the market may have been going up in nominal value in the late 70's, the ridiculously high inflation at the time meant the sharemarket was essentially going backwards. That's well before my time so I can't really comment further but I think it helps to try and understand these things to try and gain some perspective. I'm still not really sure what secular cycle we are in at present and I guess it depends who you speak with. Some argue it's a secular bull and others argue that it's still just a cyclical bull within a secular bear.

[Filthy]

Some argue it's a secular bull and others argue that it's still just a cyclical bull within a secular bear.

long story short, it basically all depends on how far you zoom-in or zoom-out of the charts with your mouse lol



filthy

[BobbyMorocco]

long story short, it basically all depends on how far you zoom-in or zoom-out of the charts with your mouse lol



filthy

True that. If you zoom out as far as you can go it looks magnificent!

[IAK]

Don't panic Martin Hawes believes “the fundamentals are still in place”. World economies and companies’ profits are still growing strongly. Interest rates also remain low.

https://www.interest.co.nz/personal-...snt-looming-so

[arc]

Hope for the best.
But always ensure you are prepared for the worst.

This present cycle may be a minor hiccup in the bulls run, or it may be an early signal a bear has entered the arena.
Only time will tell.

[sonny n share]

Martin Hawes said he was selling up shares to 40% of portfolio in may 2016

Martin Hawes: Selling shares to beat the market | Stuff.co.nz
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opin...eat-the-market

[Baa_Baa]

Martin Hawes said he was selling up shares to 40% of portfolio in may 2016

Martin Hawes: Selling shares to beat the market | Stuff.co.nz
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opin...eat-the-market

Martin was not literally wrong imo, it is his timing that was off by quite a big margin. These FA / pseudo economist / advisor guys who get the spooks tend to call an early exit. Did he get paid for writing that article? (another perspective).

The logic seemed sound though, it's just a matter of timing. Who knows how many punters he sucked into an early exit missing the great bull market topping process. I wonder what he's got to say about that advice now, maybe it's 'I will attend chart school to learn about market sentiment'.

I doubt it, some 'advisors' are so entrenched in their ways, with loyal followers bolstering their egos, it's hard to imagine that they would diversify their inputs to broaden their enlightenment and consequent advice.