'bout non-cyclical markets -> Berney V
Hey, Berney, we've a huge container in front of our house and trow away all these items you would keep if you would keep staying here but you cannot take them with you when you go away and don't know where you can sleep next night.
Of course, I'm happy to know with whom I will sleep next night, so we have the minor problem. In the meantime my main-problem with places to stay there is that they never have ISDN and mostly (at least in Europe) local-call-fees of about 24,- DM per hour.
About cyclical trends. Some thoughts, not ordered, not refined, just "brain""storming" (this term is a double-lie):
Typical representants for cyclical companies are carmakers. I did not check this - but I would bet, when you take maybe the 20 most successful carmakers (which have the best ROI during this period), you will find out that "cyclical" is like most theories only that far valid till someone tries to prove it.
The most liked stocks in this thread are from "hitech"-"sector" (this term is mostly a lie). Some of them have very linear or parabolic characteristics (GE, DELL), some have huge down-breaks like Intel. Of course they aren't cyclical - but to say more, when they have dips, they haven't dips the same time. And that's clear, cause f.e. a period of weakness of IBM came hand in hand with a strong time of Microsoft/Intel. There is no however defined "congruence" in sectors. Of course, you will find examples looking like congruent - but you know, one single example is enough to make clear, that a theory is wrong - not vice versa. :)
Bigger thought, some argue that economy itself has cycles. Human beeings are worried that something could not have a "higher order", and so they invent/create cyclical developements out of occasionally ups and downs. (it's not easy to write books about chaos, but books filled with theories and rules are best to sell.) Then, when obviously the reality is not nice enough to follow the theories, some forget this "one-counterexample-rule" and talk from "the counterexample that confirms the rule". A stupid joke - I would prefer jokes based on disregard of political correctness.
However, we all remember "anticyclical" (hahaha! - most "products" of "science" are jokes itself) periods, and non-cyclical cycles like your since a few years unloved good running US-economy.
Cycles are surely in most peoples heads, sometime in front of their eyes, but not provable by facts. This is - btw - the source where my aggressiv optimismn comes from: this long tech-valley we got through is the expression of the publics dissatisfaction - a lot of people hate it if economy is stabil. But - IMO - the have NO CHANCE to change fundamentals. They only have a fair chance to lose their money as we all have. ;)
Let's say it simple: For my understanding of these items it's not enough to have sometimes a down and sometimes a up-period. Either you can describe a graph using a periodical function, then this graph is cyclical, or you tryed it, but have experienced a counterexample, and than this graph is evidently not cyclical.
Business-sciencists like to overwork their mathematics after each counterexample till the description is conform again with the unloved reality. This is, in my simplest words, bullshit. But it's human style, n'est-ce pas? We know that since Galileo. Do you remember how tricky astronoms of this era described the movement of planets? That was a similar level of understanding as todays business-theories.
As always, my good friends, Dudes, this all is only my humble opinion. I'm very amused by these mountains of unlogic in our world, cause I only have the choice to be amused or to be desperated. |
