Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Bob Brinker: Market Savant & Radio Host -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Gary105 who wrote (16914)	10/22/2002 2:37:10 AM
From: Tim Bagwell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

Gary, Thanks for the link to Arch. A man who can play both short and long sides is a man after my own heart. But I can't take anyone serious who relates it to astrology. Then again, there's a fair chance he can beat Brinker. You're other comment on the possibility that the bottom occurs at the first cyclical bull is interesting. However, that was not the case for Japan's bear market which is the latest history we have. I'm not one to attach too much significance to the 1930's era bear market since it was under such different circumstances. I think the 1974 bear market probably has more relevance to today. It's also one that did not bottom near the beginning and the decline is similar to what we see today.

To: Gary105 who wrote (16914)	10/22/2002 9:12:53 AM
From: Wyätt Gwyön	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

in some secular bears, the bottom occurs at the end of the first cyclical bear (in other words at the beginning of the first cyclical bull) well before the secular bear is over. A classic example is the 1930s yes, but at the first bottom in the early 30s, the dividend yield on the DOW was over 10%, as opposed to around 2% today. stocks were insanely cheap back then, so there was an ex ante fundamental logic to buying them even though it was a bear market. whereas today, with stocks still insanely expensive, it would be the height of irony for a 2% dividend yield (even as many of the highest dividend payers are seeing balance sheet deterioration and having their bonds shellacked) to serve as a fundamental buying point for "the bottom".