[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

I like the example that HLS gave. Note that there were a number of cycles during the period of 1965 to 1984. Accumulating stocks during the bear portions of these cycles would have paid off handsomely, even in 1984.

These long periods or trends are considered secular trends. The markets have been in a secular bear trend since 2000. We are into the second cyclical bear market in this trend. I’m betting that accumulating shares during the cyclical bear markets will pay off in the long run. I am also hedging my bets with alternative investments and not all-in on stocks (currently about 50% of portfolio).

You guys who can predict where the market is 3, , and 12 months from now have the luxury of staking your future on that knowledge and can act on those instincts.

I however know that I personally do not have those capabilities. I will always be wrong in the short run, but comfortable in the fact that I don’t have to be right all the time either.

To each his own.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

I like the example that HLS gave. Note that there were a number of cycles during the period of 1965 to 1984. Accumulating stocks during the bear portions of these cycles would have paid off handsomely, even in 1984.

These long periods or trends are considered secular trends. The markets have been in a secular bear trend since 2000. We are into the second cyclical bear market in this trend. I’m betting that accumulating shares during the cyclical bear markets will pay off in the long run. I am also hedging my bets with alternative investments and not all-in on stocks (currently about 50% of portfolio).

You guys who can predict where the market is 3, , and 12 months from now have the luxury of staking your future on that knowledge and can act on those instincts.

I however know that I personally do not have those capabilities. I will always be wrong in the short run, but comfortable in the fact that I don’t have to be right all the time either.

To each his own.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=4plexowner]”period from 2000 to 2003″

IMO that is when the bear market SHOULD have begun – the markets would have corrected by now and we would likely have a healthy, growing economy today

instead, our politicians and bankers fueled the next bubbles by taking interest rates to 1% and holding them there

now we get to correct the original bull market plus the past 8 years of artificial stimulus

that is, unless they succeed in fueling another bubble even bigger than the equity and RE bubbles – I’m not holding my breath[/quote]

I thought we were talking about the stock market here. Stocks went through a cyclical bear market that lasted over 2.5 years, dropping about 45% from mid 2000 through March 2003
What are you talking about ?

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=4plexowner]”period from 2000 to 2003″

IMO that is when the bear market SHOULD have begun – the markets would have corrected by now and we would likely have a healthy, growing economy today

instead, our politicians and bankers fueled the next bubbles by taking interest rates to 1% and holding them there

now we get to correct the original bull market plus the past 8 years of artificial stimulus

that is, unless they succeed in fueling another bubble even bigger than the equity and RE bubbles – I’m not holding my breath[/quote]

I thought we were talking about the stock market here. Stocks went through a cyclical bear market that lasted over 2.5 years, dropping about 45% from mid 2000 through March 2003
What are you talking about ?

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=4plexowner]”period from 2000 to 2003″

IMO that is when the bear market SHOULD have begun – the markets would have corrected by now and we would likely have a healthy, growing economy today

instead, our politicians and bankers fueled the next bubbles by taking interest rates to 1% and holding them there

now we get to correct the original bull market plus the past 8 years of artificial stimulus

that is, unless they succeed in fueling another bubble even bigger than the equity and RE bubbles – I’m not holding my breath[/quote]

I thought we were talking about the stock market here. Stocks went through a cyclical bear market that lasted over 2.5 years, dropping about 45% from mid 2000 through March 2003
What are you talking about ?

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=4plexowner]”period from 2000 to 2003″

IMO that is when the bear market SHOULD have begun – the markets would have corrected by now and we would likely have a healthy, growing economy today

instead, our politicians and bankers fueled the next bubbles by taking interest rates to 1% and holding them there

now we get to correct the original bull market plus the past 8 years of artificial stimulus

that is, unless they succeed in fueling another bubble even bigger than the equity and RE bubbles – I’m not holding my breath[/quote]

I thought we were talking about the stock market here. Stocks went through a cyclical bear market that lasted over 2.5 years, dropping about 45% from mid 2000 through March 2003
What are you talking about ?

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=4plexowner]”period from 2000 to 2003″

IMO that is when the bear market SHOULD have begun – the markets would have corrected by now and we would likely have a healthy, growing economy today

instead, our politicians and bankers fueled the next bubbles by taking interest rates to 1% and holding them there

now we get to correct the original bull market plus the past 8 years of artificial stimulus

that is, unless they succeed in fueling another bubble even bigger than the equity and RE bubbles – I’m not holding my breath[/quote]

I thought we were talking about the stock market here. Stocks went through a cyclical bear market that lasted over 2.5 years, dropping about 45% from mid 2000 through March 2003
What are you talking about ?

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=4plexowner]”15 months into the bear market”

and your point is what?

we just finished a 25 year bull market in US equities – the average bear market lasts 1/4 the time of the preceding bull market

let’s see, 25 over 4, carry the naught (remember Jethro Bodine doing math on Beverly Hillbillies?) – that’s 6+ years of bear market which takes us to 2013 or so

to think that a 25 year bull market can be corrected in 15 months is fairly amusing

but that’s why the average investor typically losses their ass in the equity markets – they don’t understand what they are doing and aren’t willing to take the effort to learn – instead they follow the advice of some trusted adviser who has a vested interest in separating them from their money[/quote]

Does that 25-year bull market you are referring to include the period from 2000 to 2003 ?
From what I remember that was a fairly destructive bear market. At the time it was the worst bear market since the early 1970’s. I guess that didn’t count.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=4plexowner]”15 months into the bear market”

and your point is what?

we just finished a 25 year bull market in US equities – the average bear market lasts 1/4 the time of the preceding bull market

let’s see, 25 over 4, carry the naught (remember Jethro Bodine doing math on Beverly Hillbillies?) – that’s 6+ years of bear market which takes us to 2013 or so

to think that a 25 year bull market can be corrected in 15 months is fairly amusing

but that’s why the average investor typically losses their ass in the equity markets – they don’t understand what they are doing and aren’t willing to take the effort to learn – instead they follow the advice of some trusted adviser who has a vested interest in separating them from their money[/quote]

Does that 25-year bull market you are referring to include the period from 2000 to 2003 ?
From what I remember that was a fairly destructive bear market. At the time it was the worst bear market since the early 1970’s. I guess that didn’t count.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=4plexowner]”15 months into the bear market”

and your point is what?

we just finished a 25 year bull market in US equities – the average bear market lasts 1/4 the time of the preceding bull market

let’s see, 25 over 4, carry the naught (remember Jethro Bodine doing math on Beverly Hillbillies?) – that’s 6+ years of bear market which takes us to 2013 or so

to think that a 25 year bull market can be corrected in 15 months is fairly amusing

but that’s why the average investor typically losses their ass in the equity markets – they don’t understand what they are doing and aren’t willing to take the effort to learn – instead they follow the advice of some trusted adviser who has a vested interest in separating them from their money[/quote]

Does that 25-year bull market you are referring to include the period from 2000 to 2003 ?
From what I remember that was a fairly destructive bear market. At the time it was the worst bear market since the early 1970’s. I guess that didn’t count.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=4plexowner]”15 months into the bear market”

and your point is what?

we just finished a 25 year bull market in US equities – the average bear market lasts 1/4 the time of the preceding bull market

let’s see, 25 over 4, carry the naught (remember Jethro Bodine doing math on Beverly Hillbillies?) – that’s 6+ years of bear market which takes us to 2013 or so

to think that a 25 year bull market can be corrected in 15 months is fairly amusing

but that’s why the average investor typically losses their ass in the equity markets – they don’t understand what they are doing and aren’t willing to take the effort to learn – instead they follow the advice of some trusted adviser who has a vested interest in separating them from their money[/quote]

Does that 25-year bull market you are referring to include the period from 2000 to 2003 ?
From what I remember that was a fairly destructive bear market. At the time it was the worst bear market since the early 1970’s. I guess that didn’t count.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=4plexowner]”15 months into the bear market”

and your point is what?

we just finished a 25 year bull market in US equities – the average bear market lasts 1/4 the time of the preceding bull market

let’s see, 25 over 4, carry the naught (remember Jethro Bodine doing math on Beverly Hillbillies?) – that’s 6+ years of bear market which takes us to 2013 or so

to think that a 25 year bull market can be corrected in 15 months is fairly amusing

but that’s why the average investor typically losses their ass in the equity markets – they don’t understand what they are doing and aren’t willing to take the effort to learn – instead they follow the advice of some trusted adviser who has a vested interest in separating them from their money[/quote]

Does that 25-year bull market you are referring to include the period from 2000 to 2003 ?
From what I remember that was a fairly destructive bear market. At the time it was the worst bear market since the early 1970’s. I guess that didn’t count.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=4plexowner]”for those making 100K or more”

just curious – how many families making $100K or more are interested in living in the $400K Clairemont house?

we’re most likely talking 3/1, 1000 SQFT with 1 car garage – built in 1950’s and most likely needs serious updating

to each their own[/quote]

Count me in as one of those who would buy there at that income level. (Well, an historical version me anyway).

When we bought a 3/1 1100 sf house in Clairemont back in the mid 1990’s we made a combined 80K (probably the equivalent of 120 K in today’s dollars). When we moved out in 2000 we made well above 100K, but still felt comfortable there.

Regarding areas, Mount Streets are actually pretty nice in many respects. West Clairemont in areas adjacent to Bay Ho and Bay Park can be quite nice as well. Some areas are indeed “ghetto”.

One major downer is the local high school. I wouldn’t plan on staying in public school beyond 5th grade.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=4plexowner]”for those making 100K or more”

just curious – how many families making $100K or more are interested in living in the $400K Clairemont house?

we’re most likely talking 3/1, 1000 SQFT with 1 car garage – built in 1950’s and most likely needs serious updating

to each their own[/quote]

Count me in as one of those who would buy there at that income level. (Well, an historical version me anyway).

When we bought a 3/1 1100 sf house in Clairemont back in the mid 1990’s we made a combined 80K (probably the equivalent of 120 K in today’s dollars). When we moved out in 2000 we made well above 100K, but still felt comfortable there.

Regarding areas, Mount Streets are actually pretty nice in many respects. West Clairemont in areas adjacent to Bay Ho and Bay Park can be quite nice as well. Some areas are indeed “ghetto”.

One major downer is the local high school. I wouldn’t plan on staying in public school beyond 5th grade.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=4plexowner]”for those making 100K or more”

just curious – how many families making $100K or more are interested in living in the $400K Clairemont house?

we’re most likely talking 3/1, 1000 SQFT with 1 car garage – built in 1950’s and most likely needs serious updating

to each their own[/quote]

Count me in as one of those who would buy there at that income level. (Well, an historical version me anyway).

When we bought a 3/1 1100 sf house in Clairemont back in the mid 1990’s we made a combined 80K (probably the equivalent of 120 K in today’s dollars). When we moved out in 2000 we made well above 100K, but still felt comfortable there.

Regarding areas, Mount Streets are actually pretty nice in many respects. West Clairemont in areas adjacent to Bay Ho and Bay Park can be quite nice as well. Some areas are indeed “ghetto”.

One major downer is the local high school. I wouldn’t plan on staying in public school beyond 5th grade.

[Author]

Posts