RE: "It is wrong to dismiss the arguments for a secular bear..."
As far as I can tell from reading the "secular bear" proponents, we are, by definition, in a "secular bear" until the NAZ moves above 5000 and the Dow and the S & P move above their year 2000 highs. Obviously, this is not too useful.
"Arguments" touch on macroeconomic and investor psychology measures. In most cases, they project long term, "secular", effects from the current short to intermediate term bubble induced problems. They, use the "things are different this time" mantra that characterized the bulls at the top and suggest an end to the historical growth of technology, semis, and semi-equips.
So when I hear "secular bear", I think tautology, and fear mongers.
What "it is wrong to dismiss" is the current crisis in technology, but to deal with it, successfully, requires less general "doom and gloom", less focus on technical analysis, the record of the movements of the ignorant herd, and more careful analysis of prospects, company by company, sector by sector.
I believe that selecting the right companies, now, is far more important than calling a bottom or worrying about a "secular bear" or other bogeymen. Technology is fragile. Many of the Silicon Valley companies I started watching closely in 1990 are gone. Many others are in business but have not been successful, have not grown much, and have not produced any notable profits. The current environment is much more difficult than the 1990-2000 span. |
