Thread: Will 2005 be Bullish?

Mixed signals.M1 falling and M2 rising.Apprehension.

We need a catalyst to lift this market. I'm waiting until the FOMC before considering another move. Too much risk right now.

saraho wrote:

For the past 120 years, every year ending in a "5" has been up. However, in the past 32 years, 60% of all years in which January was down was also a down year.

Which trend will hold? What do your indicators say?

Had 2 post this::P



Market Headlines, from Comstock funds,


July 3, 1929- “Moody’s says returns are in line with industrial activity.�



October 16, 1929- “Fisher sees stocks permanently high� New York Times (Note: Irving Fisher was the leading economist of the time)



November 2, 1968- “The Boom That won’t Stop� (Business Week)



January 1, 1973- “Not A Bear Among Them� (Barron’s annual roundtable)



October 26, 1987- “Why Greenspan Is Bullish� (Fortune)



September 1999- “Dow 36,000: The Right Price For Stocks� (Atlantic Monthly)



April 27, 2000- “…relax, the over-all market probably won’t tank.� (Business Week)

http://www.aireview.com/index.php?ac...=6&id=1233

Thanks for justifying my thoughts.

saraho wrote:

For the past 120 years, every year ending in a "5" has been up. However, in the past 32 years, 60% of all years in which January was down was also a down year.

Which trend will hold? What do your indicators say?

Also, the first year of a second term president is typically weak. And, we have to see who wins the Superbowl. That used to be a good indicator (NFC win = bullish, AFC win = bearish) but as with other trends, as soon as someone noticed it, it went flakey.

tsptalk wrote:

Also, the first year of a second term president is typically weak. And, we have to see who wins the Superbowl. That used to be a good indicator (NFC win = bullish, AFC win = bearish) but as with other trends, as soon as someone noticed it, it went flakey.

Sorry to disappoint you, Tom, but your indicators just don'tcorroborate your statements.

With respect to the first year of a second term president, at least since 1950, the market was up 60% of the time. (1957 -14%, 1965 +9.1%, 1973 -17.4%, 1985 +26.4%, 1997 +31%).

Secondly, the superbowl predictor has also fallen to less than 50% in recent years.

http://www.maa.org/mathland/mathtrek_7_3_00.html

Whether it is bullish or bearish, each new day is another roll of the dice.

Place your bets, Winston Wolf.

Good luck in your investments.

saraho wrote:

tsptalk wrote:

Also, the first year of a second term president is typically weak. And, we have to see who wins the Superbowl. That used to be a good indicator (NFC win = bullish, AFC win = bearish) but as with other trends, as soon as someone noticed it, it went flakey.

Sorry to disappoint you, Tom, but your indicators just don'tcorroborate your statements.

Maybe it was first terms in general. But I was just trying to be facetous. As with any of these off the walltrends (Superbowl, year ending in 5, etc.)it is difficult to base your investments decisions on them.

Has anyone else noticed that Saraho disagrees with everything I say? I guess someone has to keep me honest.

tsptalk wrote:

Maybe it was first terms in general. But I was just trying to be facetous. As with any of these off the walltrends (Superbowl, year ending in 5, etc.)it is difficult to base your investments decisions on them.

Has anyone else noticed that Saraho disagrees with everything I say? I guess someone has to keep me honest.

Hey, that's totally false! I usually agree with you.

saraho wrote:

I usually agree with you.

I disagree.

Seems to me that she has made her point every time she has disagreed with you? I think it's healthy to get another opinion (tastefully put) on market probabilities. I've been a member a pretty long time, but don’t contribute much sense I lost my butt in July 2004. Just murking and trying to get an idea of which way to go. It's still a great service and I'm always in the background watching.

NNUUT:^