OTC: BRINKER:
I can't figure him out. I would have thought he couldn't have picked a more perfect opportunity than the past few weeks to make the call.
"I think i read in one of lens posts that the average upside in a cyclical bull within an overal secular bear was 53% and we were already there."
That is basically correct. From the multi-year low on October 10, 2002 until the the high on March 7, 2005, the DOW (the standard yardstick) gained 53% - the same as the average of all the previous cyclical bull markets within a secular bear market.
However, the gain TODAY is only +43% from October 10, 2002. So, if it turns out that March 7th WAS the high, then we have retraced part of those gains already.
IF the March 7th high of 11027 turns out the be THE high, it will have been a 29 month cycle (EXACTLY AVERAGE) and a +53% gain (EXACTLY AVERAGE). Some of the other indexes have exceeded the early March highs, but the DOW is the one that is used to make comparisons and it has not surpassed the high on March 7th and thus the cyclical bull (using the DOW) may well end up being a "perfect" clone of past cyclical bulls.
Now...the average declines between cyclical bull markets are 16 months and -36%. That would mean (assuming March 7th as the peak) a low in July, 2006 of 7057 on the Dow. It is not me predicting it, it is just the way the numbers work out.
IF we are in a secular bear market... and IF the high was on March 7th... and IF the loss between cyclical bulls is as average as the gain was during the cyclical bull, then by the time it is over next summer, it will have seemed like the end of the world!
Len
Warren Buffet: 5 minutes and 17 seconds of pure, unadulterated, bulletproof, flawless logic.
____________________________________________
