So what exactly is a secular bear market? At what times is it in force?
From what I gather, it has little to do with low PE's or anything to do with inflation or interest rates. What it DOES have to do with is THIS: A crash or semi-crash following a major market high that entails lows not seen in at least eight years is part of what the experts will term a secular bear market until the final market bottom that precedes the bull surge to new all-time highs.
So on this basis, the entire period from the 1929 highs to the 1949 lows was termed a cyclical bear since the 1949 lows were still lower than the 1929 highs. The Dow didn't surpass the 1929 highs until 1954 but the "experts" cuts off a cyclical bear at the low point prior to the time when the ensuing bull phase will take the stock over the previous record highs.
Similarly, 1966 to 1982 was termed a secular bear in the infinite wisdom of the "experts" because the low on 8/12/82 was below the 2/9/66 high and the rally carrying the Dow from the 1982 lows back over the highs doesn't count as part of a secular bear.
What this means is that in the eyes of "the experts," they have the right to hijack many years if not decades of generally upside action following a crash or semi-crash until the indices are on the final bull market phase to record highs.
Now folks here have said truthfully that following the 1929 crash, it took 25 years for the Dow to get up to the old highs. But the crash was an 89% affair that took the Dow from 381 to 41.
In order to get back to the old highs, the Dow would now have to go up over NINE-FOLD. Now I ask you - while the market is in the process of doing just that over the next quarter century, should everything except the final run-up to new highs be deemed part of a cyclical bear market?
Because if that INDEED is the working classification of a cyclical bear as it seems to be, then it is just an empty term with little significance. If an index is working its way to a nine-fold increase over 22 years, should I be staying out just because "the experts" are classifying most of the period as a cyclical bear?
For whatever reason, market participants LOVE to LUMP THINGS together even when they shouldn't at all be lumped together. I have found that the LESS LUMPING you do, the better off by far you are.
There was NO general 20-year downtrend in 1929-1949 given that the initial three-year downside shock was followed on balance by 17 years of upside activity that took the Dow from a low of 41 in 1932 to a low of 162 in 1949. NO WAY should that 17-year period be included as a secular bear market although there is a very specific period from Jan. 1937 to Apr. 1942 that IS a secular bear, the only true secular bear in the 112-year history of the Dow.
In looking at my lack of success with options and the stock market so far, I have decided that while I will write a book, it will not be on how to make money in the stock market. No having failed at that to such an extend I am the laughingstock of the message board, I have decided I will write a dictionary.
What will be unique about my dictionary is that it will be written on one of the "magic slates" you all have used as a child. The great thing about my dictionary is that after buying it, people will be able to change it to define words as whatever they want! And if anyone challenges their usage of a word, they can whip out their AJD Magic Slate dictionary, make a few quick alterations, and the proudly say "see, the AJD dictionary agrees with me!"
I figure to sell a million of them at least.
What you "gather" is always wrong because you post first, without doing any actual research or fact checking, & then, when shown your errors, spend message after message making idiotic excuses instead of admitting that, yet again, all your assumptions were fallacious & crazy.
It's really very simple. Had you ever studied the relevant subjects, you'd already know all this.
Secular markets have everything to do with valuations & real, adjusted value viz a viz other investment classes. Once more, reality is exactly the opposite of your uninformed, uneducated, baseless, unsupported, erroneous assumptions.
Everyone else understands these things intuitively, but even with educational & informative post after post from your betters, you still don't get this or anything else, which explains why you've lost more than everything.
A secular market trend lasts typically 15 to 20 years & is composed of three or more cycles of about two to five years, the majority of which are with the secular trend.
When valuations are increasing due to relatively high money flow into stocks over many years, then equities are in a secular bull market trend. When the reverse is true, then the secular trend is bearish for stocks.
Within the secular trend, there will be cyclical counter-trends, such as when a technical rally occurs during a secular bear market, as in 2003-7 of the current one.
Money will flow into stocks when managers with billions to invest think that future total returns will be better in equities (from dividends & price appreciation) than from fixed income or other investment classes. When most of them think that stocks have gotten overvalued, with average P/Es over 20, for instance, then money will flow out of them on balance for the next decade or two, until average P/Es are in single digits & stocks look attractive once again. Then the secular & cyclic trends repeat.
How many time does this need to be explained to you before you grasp this simple fact?
It's not done by "lumping", imbecile.
It's objective. When valuations start to expand & money flows out of fixed income instruments back into stocks & stays there through at least three cycles, then it's a secular bull market.
As in 2000, when we're coming off a 16-20 year long secular bull, it's easy for an expert to predict a new secular bear. In that case, they happened to be right. You on the other hand have NEVER, EVER been right about anything in your entire miserable, pitiful, pathetic, pointless, meaningless, worse than worthless existence.
Did your mom repeatedly drop you on your head as a baby? You probably reminded her of your dad.
Wouldn't surprise me.
Don't you think maybe you should go with what works, ie lumping?
Those who do what the Other People who make money in the market do will make money. Those, like you, who go your own imaginary, pretend way, lose & lose & lose & lose.
So join the winners & lump away. Unless you prefer existence in the losers' circle, which indeed appears to be the case, having spent 66 years there.