FinancialAdvisor's College Class (FACC)

[AnderL]

lentiman, I see you subscribe to Secular and Cyclical cycles. Do you pay any interest to larger cycles, K-wave 50 year cycles, or wave interference of these cycles and how they impact the duration and magnitude of these cycles?

Just curious to see what your time line in on this one. I've seen evidence supporting that the average Secular Bear last about 14 years and if the Bear started in 2000 there should have been no reason the secular bull would return in 3 years. But my guess is that we should expect at least one more Cyclical Bull out around 2010 if there are larger cycles influencing the cycles identified here.

I'm not going to get into the fundamental reasons behind these cycles in this post as I would fill the capacity of this text box. I just wanted to get your opinion outside of what you have already posted.

FWIW - I do not entirely agree with your post about it being very difficult to find positive gainers in a bear market. The easy reason is inverse funds and shorting the markets and the other is sector rotation within cyclical and secular cycles. My reasoning is that the cyclical bull within the secular bull that ended in 2000 was primarily due to technological improvements that provided much need efficiency that helped the economic boom and partially enhanced the bobble. This last cyclical bull was created through reflation and peaked with energies and precious metals. IMO the next cyclical bull should peak with health care and consumer staples and the forefront. Unfortunately these sectors only do well in bear markets and I expect the broader market stop run practically flat to down through the next cyclical bull based on this assumption alone.