The chart isn't to show you'll make money holding SPY indefinitely (though all indications are you would). The point is the current 'bubble' has only recently departed from ordinary SPX trend. The take-away being, after a pivot into a bubble (which I argue coincides with Nov 2016), be bullish for anything beyond a few days time frame until growth slows. Red weeks are rare. And then get scared when growth slows and then flat-lines.
But during the 2007 to 2009 turndown, the market dropped 42 percent below the trendline. How can this be of any help other than demonstrating buy and hold success?
Are you suggesting that the market should be bought at 42 percent below the trendline and sold at 50 percent above?
Or are you suggesting that one may continue selling rallies until 42 percent below trendline and continue buying dips until 50 percent above?
It's not prescriptive at all. Here's the zoomed in version: The point is to contrast the 2016 pivot with the 1994 pivot and 1924 pivot. These coincide with Coolidge, Clinton / Republican Revolution, and Trump election. And that markets love ineffectual government, of which those three are quintessential examples of. That would mean the current market movement is similar to the market movement in late 1995 or late 1925. Which is to say, bullish as hell.
I understand but I think you have the analysis a bit off. The three time periods are not of ineffectual govt but rather quite the opposite.
We can agree to disagree on that point. But look at the legislative failures so far this year (and I bet we get one more before the year is out), the amount of time occupied by Monica Lewinsky, and...well...Coolidge.
Not sure there have been a lot of legislative failures except for Healthcare and they are getting rid of individual mandate now. Tons of regs relaxed and/or removed and this would be considered effectual govt. Coolidge is the Gold standard in conservatism and stayed out of the way of the markets and the Republicans were able to keep Clinton from doing harm. Pretty effectual governance.
Let's not count our chickens on tax reform. I'm pretty sure senators subject to suburban voters heard the notice they were served loud and clear. Collins, Rubio, and Mike Lee are all suspect for getting it passed. Corker is off board, and I wouldn't put it past McCain, when asked for a thumbs up / thumbs down, giving an 11th hour middle finger. Flake is also still in question, and it's conceivable moderate concessions will move Rand Paul or Ted Cruz away from it. Murkowski and Flake could back away from it too. Being handed government and a mandate to build a wall, tear down ACA, and lower corporate taxes and failing to do any is pretty ineffectual in my book. RE: Coolidge, I agree with you, but apparently we're working with different definitions of effectual. I'd call Wilson and (especially) FDR effectual governments. I'm looking at assertive vs. passive governments here. And Gingrich / Clinton got nothing but banal, bipartisan legislation through. Each kept the other from altering the status quo. What they did pass (DADT, Federal mandatory minimums, deficit limits, child tax credits...) have fallen by the wayside as relics of their time or emerged as hindrances to ours.
%% And dont forget the DOJ- IRS settled[$] with the TEA party massive lawsuit. Stock Traders Almanac [By Hirsch] said a good new FED head is worth a $10 billion tax cut.I also agree with Modern Trader magazine , 2017 issue, this bull market started before NOV 2017......