To: Jon Koplik who wrote (113570 ) 2/17/2002 6:11:28 PM From: Wyätt Gwyön Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 152472 they might be trying to force the data to fit their model could be, could be. we should try to keep in mind that he was just quoted in a blurb and his remarks might have been taken out of context. having said that, i also think the idea of a "four-year cycle" is pretty silly. it is just an arbitrary data mining nugget as far as i can tell. since there is no logically compelling reason why a cycle should be four years (instead of three or eight or five-point-two), you would need a much larger sample of events to convince me of those claims. on the other hand, while short-term returns are a crap shoot, imho it is quite simple to calculate expected returns on the market over an extended period of time based on valuation data, so it is hardly surprising (to me) that the market is not performing well. if more people looked at expected returns, i think they wouldn't get so wound up about "missing the boat", which causes more and more people to pile into momo stocks when they start to rise--the classic sucker's rally. of course, that seems unlikely, because the same people who fuel the sucker rallies were also piling in during the speculative bubble. if market history teaches us anything, it is that all speculative participants will gain a different perspective on things before a new bull can walk the planet. imho from my perspective, i just don't see the market returning much better than "no-brainer" alternatives, so to me staying away from equities is a no-brainer. talking about this or that cycle based on some arbitrary data mining just complicates a pretty simple picture in my book.