Nikkei/SP500/Nasdaq

I don't think you can overlay these charts and say OK, Nikkei rallied X months after its top so S&P should also rally after X months, that's nonsense. The only thing it tells you is that after a bubble markets don't come back for possibly decades, even if there are impressive rallies . After a few years the market settles in a trading range which is likely for S&P over the next 5 years. That said I too think we are going to have a nice rally sometime this year. I think there could well be a very unexpected solution to the Iraqi conflict. I think Saddam is just going to flee, that would be the smartest thing to do given the determination of the US.

 

I disagree that it's nonsense, but you are entitled to your opinion. I could really care less where the market goes from here...I just find the charts interesting.l

 

I mean it's nonsense to make a trade for the next few months based on the assumption there should be a rally as the charts overlay seems to imply. It can give you a clue of what could happen, that's it, I suppose that's how you see it too.

 

that's why I always say, you gotta get your head together. When your heads together it all makes sense. When you're not thinking right, you can't even see it when it's right there staring at you.

When you look at the market you are looking at yourself.

 

When was the Kobe earthquake? a few years back now wasn't it...

 

we are oversold and as soon as the war starts or sadam leaves all the us indexes and the dollar are going to rally.

 

1995


and dustin,

just to make sure i'm understanding this correctly, the starting position for the nikkei, in your graphs, is sometime in 89 and for the US markets about 3/2000?

if that's the case, then holy smokes, the similarity is beyond eery!

 

it would certainly sound like an outrageous claim -- like "nonsense" -- if you heard it, wouldn't it? but in dustin's comparative graph, i count 10 turning points that occur within days of each other; surely we can't just offhandedly dismiss that kind of evidence as pure nonsense, can we?

 

Looking closer I must admit the similarities are striking, but can you explain it "scientifically" so to speak?