Draw a line in the upward trend of a long term semilog chart to see where we sit.When does a bear rally, bounce, sideways trend, continued upward trend become a market correction?
Just like to know, being a market novice.
I really would also like to know when was this current bear market officially called in 2007 and how long had the downward trend been in place since the high for the experts ( and there sure seems like a lot of those have gone quiet lately) to call the beginning of the bear market.
Depend which experts Wheepo.
most talking heads where saying stronger for longer all through 07 into 08 then called a bear end of 08 and still calling it?
Bottom line is they are backwards looking like most here.
Cheers,
But what was the date/ month, that looking back through history in 10 years time, was the time of correction that was widely accepted as the transition from the last bull to the current bear ?
wheep0
There are some general numbers on a bear aren't there, TH?Sorry wheepo "they" don't have a central agency that declares "a bear".
Down trends have to reverse sometime.... the historical norm for the stock market is an up-trend rather than a down-trend.So it is inevitable that at some point a down trend will reverse.
Well no, it's not inevitable......up trends paid for by debt have to reverse too some day, using the same logic?
If we are talking trends and reversals, we are now in a trend reversal of generational proportions. We can talk about the tags given to minor bumps along the way, but in this time scale the down trend has only just started, if only because parabolic trends are simply unsustainable?
For all those born after 1950 or so then it would be easy to assume that 'things' always revert to trend ie markets go up, but it has come at a cumulative cost that has to one day either be repaid, inflated away or defaulted apon. Up till now the first 2 options have been enough to sate the debtors at the door and satisfy the consumers debt financed consumption. (Funny that 1971 keeps popping up as the turning point for a parabolic rise in unrestrained credit growth/debt excess???)
Interesting (parabolic exhaustion?) charts from the Fed themselves - the big problem for them, and us, is that the expenses are greater than the incomes ie deficit. GDP growth required to fund these debts will have to be greater than, or a minimum of, 4.5% for the next several years, if not decades? Right now debt is still ballooning out of control and tax receipts are falling just as sharply. China is busy spending their accumulated reserves of US dollars on hard assets before they become worthless.
Yes, the world has gone parabolic, we now have to pay for it?
Well no, it's not inevitable......up trends paid for by debt have to reverse too some day, using the same logic?
If we are talking trends and reversals, we are now in a trend reversal of generational proportions. We can talk about the tags given to minor bumps along the way, but in this time scale the down trend has only just started, if only because parabolic trends are simply unsustainable?
For all those born after 1950 or so then it would be easy to assume that 'things' always revert to trend ie markets go up, but it has come at a cumulative cost that has to one day either be repaid, inflated away or defaulted apon. Up till now the first 2 options have been enough to sate the debtors at the door and satisfy the consumers debt financed consumption. (Funny that 1971 keeps popping up as the turning point for a parabolic rise in unrestrained credit growth/debt excess???)
Interesting (parabolic exhaustion?) charts from the Fed themselves - the big problem for them, and us, is that the expenses are greater than the incomes ie deficit. GDP growth required to fund these debts will have to be greater than, or a minimum of, 4.5% for the next several years, if not decades? Right now debt is still ballooning out of control and tax receipts are falling just as sharply. China is busy spending their accumulated reserves of US dollars on hard assets before they become worthless.
Yes, the world has gone parabolic, we now have to pay for it?
Well no, it's not inevitable......up trends paid for by debt have to reverse too some day, using the same logic?
If we are talking trends and reversals, we are now in a trend reversal of generational proportions. We can talk about the tags given to minor bumps along the way, but in this time scale the down trend has only just started, if only because parabolic trends are simply unsustainable?
For all those born after 1950 or so then it would be easy to assume that 'things' always revert to trend ie markets go up, but it has come at a cumulative cost that has to one day either be repaid, inflated away or defaulted apon. Up till now the first 2 options have been enough to sate the debtors at the door and satisfy the consumers debt financed consumption. (Funny that 1971 keeps popping up as the turning point for a parabolic rise in unrestrained credit growth/debt excess???)
Interesting (parabolic exhaustion?) charts from the Fed themselves - the big problem for them, and us, is that the expenses are greater than the incomes ie deficit. GDP growth required to fund these debts will have to be greater than, or a minimum of, 4.5% for the next several years, if not decades? Right now debt is still ballooning out of control and tax receipts are falling just as sharply. China is busy spending their accumulated reserves of US dollars on hard assets before they become worthless.
Yes, the world has gone parabolic, we now have to pay for it?
.................................................................................................
So I guess you are on a long term short/sell commodities, top up the gold and tinned food strategy for the rest of your trading days then.
GDP Growth will climb back, you are calling this view based on the bottom of the worst bear and financial crisis in 70 years with the fallout and figures associated with it..
Im sorry but I find it hard to accept , maybe im thick though, however you are over thinking and over dramatising the state of the world based on the worst figures seen for nearly a century and saying they will never improve to pay down these debts. Maybe a time will come again on this planet that the tomorrows`s will never be the same as the yesterdays, however that is certainly not now..
My view, just wish I had doubled my long term buys in Feb !
wheep0
You raise some great points Wheep0.
Do you think people are piling into US equities because the bear trend has broken or because they will provide a better yield than US treasuries?
The shape of the graphs is of course dependant on the vertical scale used.
How do they look on a log10 scale ?
Have a look at the Crash Course in Economics, Wheepo, it's worth a look. Quite a few charts that are exponential much like those above.
Here is a point on liquidity worth thinking over. Link here.
Morgan Stanley Analysis see link above said:Risky assets such as equities, credit and commodities have rallied over the past few months as excess liquidity has surged. The ‘wall of money' has dominated the (justified) concerns about the outlook for corporate earnings and the implications of deleveraging in the financial sector and the private household sector. Whether the rally in risky assets can continue remains to be seen - our European and US equity strategists are cautious and our EM equity strategist Jonathan Garner has become less bullish recently. In any case, our analysis suggests that there is plenty of liquidity around - and more coming - to support asset prices.
II think it's time to answer the question "Recovery or Dead Cat Bounce", it's neither, it is gradually morphing into a "bull run"...
Since the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) last issued its baseline projections in January 2009, the outlook for the budget deficit has deteriorated further. Enactment of stimulus legislation and omnibus appropriations, a worsening of the economic outlook, and other factors have increased CBO’s projections of the deficit by more than $400 billion in both 2009 and 2010 and by smaller amounts thereafter. As a result, if current policies remain the same, CBO now anticipates that the deficit will total almost $1.667 trillion
The U.S. Treasury must sell a record net $2 trillion in new debt in 2009 to fund a $1.8 trillion projected fiscal deficit, resulting from falling tax revenues, an economic stimulus package and sundry bank bailouts.
Maybe if you changed the scale on this chart it would turn into a surplus too
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?