> it's easy to tell that you're young ...
>
> .. and thus easy to tell that you're old?
maybe. but if your professional activities mean you know more about finance than i do, maybe by the same token i'm more sen- sitive to language than you are.
> it's quite possible that you're correct in the sense that
> the markets will continue to rise for longer than any bear
> can bear. it's also quite possible that you're wrong.
>
> I guess that just about covers it? Ted Byfield: 100% correct.
>
> When are you starting a mutual fund?
see what i mean?
> if your goal is just to cop as many bucks as possible in
> the short-term, fine, but do shut up about it.
>
> This isn't about money, Ted; this is about trying desperately to
> box Doug into making irrational claims about the end of the bull
> market. He hates to do it, but he can't help himself. He feels
> that the market is out of whack and it *must* go back to where it
> came from for no other reason than ... well, I guess for no other
> reason. His latest one was simply that it had entered "old age"
> - -- and we know what happened to Brezhnev when _he_ got old -- as
> if there's something natural or organic going on here.
and you disagree. gee.
> It's especially funny when he does it for no reason whatsoever
> (Doug: why *did* you wake up that day and declare that the bull
> market was like Brezhnev?) and then the market goes up 15%.
did you understand what i said about contingency?
> It's easy to tell that you're old, Ted: you don't think that's
> funny.
the current state of things doesn't make me feel young, no.
> if your goal is something bigger, though, then maybe talk
> about that.
>
> I know you come and go on this list, but I've said several times
> what I think is driving this bull market: a slick combination of
> tax policy, wherein the government gives a huge incentive for people
> to put money into their retirement plans which are run by people
> whose job it is to wake up in the morning, put on a suit, and go
> *buy* stocks -- they buy all day long, they wouldn't know what to
> do with cash if they sold, so they keep on buying; and an acute
> supply/demand situation wherin M&A activity and buybacks gobbles
> up stock faster than silly Linux companies can print more.
i think *that* analysis is pretty funny.
> Until either of those things change (and perhaps both), I don't
> see a significant change in the direction of this market.
neither do i; but i know there's a difference between what i see and what is. a pre-reaganite distinction, maybe.
> Doug's claim that the bull market is "showing signs of old age" is
> just some "reversion to the mean" swag that I think doesn't hold
> up. So you'll excuse me for needling him about it now and again.
but that's not all you're doing. be honest.
> Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 16:27:21 GMT
> From: Jordan Hayes <jmhayes at j-o-r-d-a-n.com>
> if your goal is something bigger, though, then maybe talk
> about that.
>
> Ok, here's something else: if the direction of the move over the
> last 7 weeks was negative instead of positive, every Chicken Little
> who has a way to hit the transmit key would be crying about the
> disaster and bloodbath taking place in the market -- but as it goes
> up by that amount, we don't hear the same magnitude of statements
> about it. Shouldn't we? We're just talking about a shift of
> polarity. If the market going up 15% in 7 weeks doesn't make
> everyone rich, why should a 15% downward move make everyone poor?
ah, but we do, we do, from innumerable people like you.
> With the addition of Microsoft and Intel to the DJIA and companies
> like Yahoo being added to the S&P 500, it seems clear that the
> _indexes themselves_ are on a PR campaign -- just think where the
> DJIA would be today if they had added Microsoft and Intel 5 years
> ago?
higher earlier, hence less proportional gain.
> Of course, Sunday Morning Curmudgeon that you are, you failed to
> comment on that idea that we're not in a bull market at all (and
> thus unsucceptible to a bear market). I'm not sure what to make
> of it, but it does seem that the "market news" has become quite
> like the "other news" in that it focusses in on specific items too
> deeply (the way we do about disasters and other anomolous events)
> to give a broad perspective on the market.
what's your point?
cheers, t