Jim, "I think it market bottomed in October 1990 abut really didn't get cranked up until we bombed or there abouts..."
The long-term market behavior does not seem to depend
on any unessential events like small local wars.
If you look at the $SPX chart, in log scale,
stockcharts.com[h,a]daclyymy[d19900101,20010918][p][vc60] ,
the following trends are apparent:
1) .. 90.91.92.93 years - steady growth with
_fixed_ rate of about 10%/year;
The Gulf War made just a little temporal dent, with no
interruption to the overall trend;
2) then something happen during 1Q94 - the whole 94
year was flat.
3) End of 94 started a new trend: 95,96,97,98,part of 99 -
almost 5 years of 30%+/year growth bubble, clearly not
sustainable in the long run;
4) GS tries to "slow down" the US economy - 2000 is
flat, and today we are down, overregulated.
Interesting, if we assume that the 90-94 trend was
economically optimal and sustainable (which I doubt BTW)
the S&P500 index would be at about 850 today, which
seems to be getting close and close.
Also, if you look at the year-back chart,
stockcharts.com[h,a]waclyymy[d20000601,20010918][p][vc60]
the trend is down with the same exponent,
about -30%/year, and it is not interrupted much by
abrupt changes in Fed money policies, and I hope
that the recent dent will disappear shortly too.
Many individual stocks are heading linearly down
(in log scale), AMD, SMSC, CSCO, name it, and
the WTC disaster does not seem to make any difference
to the trend. It looks that the $SPX can dive a bit
deeper, but will return to the trend at 1100 in November,
or to 1000 in Jan.2002.
It looks like the whole market behavior is
reduced to a simple linear-feedback regulator (PID)
model, where the grows or decay depends on a
single parameter - some feedback gain. It is also
clear that the rate of Fed's money is not the main
controller of this gain. So, the question is, what is it,
which can be changed overnight, but maintains investor's
mindsets for years.
What do you think?
Regards,
- Ali |
