But that's exactly what you're saying in essence, you just don't realize it. There has NEVER in history been a major bear market during an era of stagnation that ended with average dividend yields lower than 6%. At the March 2009 bottom, the yield on the S&P was 3.75%. So if your assertion is that we have seen the end of the bear market or that the March 2009 bottom was the final bottom, you are indeed saying "this time its different" and that we are in a "new normal". Also, a quick perusal of your "recommendations" reveals a pretty dismal prognostication record for the overall markets, given there were indeed some guys I know who called exactly not only the 2008 collapse, but for the historic 2009 countertrend rally before it happened, and are now all unanimously bearish. But let's recap: Here's you in May 2009 recommending shorting banks, a mere 2 months into the most powerful rally since the First Great Depression... http://www.thestreet.com/video/10498657/hey-shorty-short-the-banks.html Here's you in June 2009 saying you sold all your stocks, only 3 months into the rally, so that you could buy--wait for it--natural gas via UNG...:eek: http://www.thestreet.com/video/10510222/i-sold-all-my-stocks.html So there you were calling for selling or shorting when you should have been buying or holding long. And nowhere did I see you calling for the markets to collapse in 2008, or for the most powerful rally since the Great Depression before it actually occurred. And now that it has almost completely run its course you up your target? Typical perma-bull behavior, always piling on at the end. Now, to show you how it's done, here's True Contrarian's Steven Jon Kaplan's letter from September 7, 2008, just days before the collapse began, calling the collapse: http://truecontrarian.com/08_09_07.htm Here's from Feb 16, 2009 calling the rally before it happened: http://truecontrarian.com/09_02_16.htm And here's him from March 8, 2009 re-confirming his call for the most powerful rally since the Great Depression, just two days after the markets had bottomed: http://truecontrarian.com/09_03_08.htm And now? Well, let's just say look out below. http://truecontrarian.com/ Now, is it possible that this rally continues up to 1200, 1250 or even 1300 before it ends and the bear reasserts itself? Sure. Given how hyped and manipulated this rally is now at its end, it's perfectly possible to see one final orgiastic blow off top. But make no mistake, it won't be based on any of your so-called "fundamentals", and then it's lights out.
That is correct. But I'm talking about the larger secular bear market. The current era of stagnation began in 2000 and will not end for at least another 5 to 10 years based on historical standards (unless of course you again wish to argue against yourself that "this time its different). The bull market from 2003 to 2007 was a cyclical bull market within the context of a long term secular bear market, just as the historic rally from last year through now was yet another cyclical bull in a secular bear. If you look at any era of stagnation and secular bear markets (1929-1945, 1965-1982), you find that there are several cyclical bull runs that occur. This time is no different. In other words, neither March 2003 nor March 2009 were the final bottoms for this era of stagnation.
First off, you are very selectively picking oiut my picks and then misinterpreting them. The short the banks was intended as a very very short-term trade. I was also recommending, for a long term trade, going long the preferreds of the banks, which went up over 100%. Also, during that same time period, I was recommending GNW at $1, STEC at $5, AGO at $9, TGB at $1.70, CYCC at 80 cents, the list goes on and on of stocks i recommended during this period that are up 500-1000% or more. Check out HUSA which I recommended at a dollar and is now over $20, for instance. All on videos or in articles at thestreet.com or at WSJ.com.
So, I'm not sure I understand - would you have recommended people short in March, 2003? Clearly that was one of the greatest opportunities in history to make money and the bull market that started then lasted for over 4.5 years.
Fact remains, nowhere did I see you suggesting an impending collapse for the markets before it happened, nor did I see you suggesting an impending breathtaking historic rally before it happened. And your choice of selling all your stocks 3 months into the rally to buy UNG(!) is simply dumbfounding. And while you obviously made a bunch of buy recommendations along the way, that's not particularly impressive for a perma-bull. After all, even a broken clock is right twice a day, so it was inevitable that if you keep recommending people buy stocks, eventually you'll be right. And in any case, if you are similarly not calling for an impending bear market, then you will once again be on the wrong side of history, sorry.
I don't think diviend yields are indicative -- people view holding equities as a different thing than the past. There is better corporate governance and assymetric taxes on diviends.
Nope, I'm saying that neither the 2003 low nor the 2009 low were the ultimate lows for the markets during the current era of stagnation. That doesn't mean one should have just remained short the whole time. There is a big difference between investing during eras of stagnation versus eras of prosperity. During an era of stagnation (1929-1945, 1965-1982, 2000-2018 est.) there are several volatile and powerful cyclical bull and bear markets, with each successive cyclical bear leading to lower lows than the one that preceded it. One could theoretically remain short for the entire era (that started in 2000) and be profitable, but it is not the optimal strategy. The only way to properly trade during such eras is to trade both sides, i.e. to go long for the cyclical bulls and then sell and go short for the cyclical bears. Once we enter another era of prosperity (likely 2020 +/- a couple years), buy and hold will once again be a viable strategy. Until then, during the current era we will see each successive cyclical bear lead to lower lows, and each successive cyclical bull lead to lower highs on an inflation adjusted basis. So yes, going long in 2003 was the correct course of action. Then flipping to short in 2007-2008 was correct, going long last year, and now once again going short is the correct course of action. And probably some time around 2012 or so it will once again be time to go long again for the next cyclical bull, and so on until the current era of stagnation ends near the end of this decade.
Then essentially your argument is "this time it's different". Sorry, that argument has never flown before and it doesn't fly now. People always go out of their way to find ways to explain how things are different now, and how that's why well established historical precedents are no longer relevant. That's what we heard when tech stocks were going nuts and it was explained that old forms of valuation no longer applied, or when real estate was going nuts and it was explained that historical price/rent ratios were outdated, etc. etc.. Here's a news flash--it's never different this time.