I gather from a recent discussion that the notion that the stock market is currently in a secular bear market is an unfamiliar one. This article for financial planners presents the case:
http://tinyurl.com/ojkmj
http://tinyurl.com/ojkmj
sgeeeee said:Seems like pretty faulty logic to me.
1) If we manipulate the stock market data in a certain way, we might assume that we are in a secular bear market.
2) If we are in a secular bear market, the market will provide below average performance for some time.
3) We don't know how much below average or how long, but it could be a lot for a long time -- or maybe not.
4) Indexing will only provide market returns.
5) So you should use active management.
Notice how point 5 has nothing to do with the first 4 points.
I wonder what their motives are? :
riskaverse said:by Kenneth R. Solow, CFP®, CLU, ChFC, and Michael E. Kitces, MSFS, CFP®, CLU, ChFC, REBC, RHU, CASL
While I thought we were in a secular bear market, after seeing who agrees with me, I'm reevaluating my position.
Cute n' Fuzzy Bunny said:Cute n' Fuzzy Bunny, BSA, FBI, CS, LE, FOS, YNGT
yakers said:The Fed Model is fairly popular right now and that would indicate that stocks are not overvalued right now.
That's okay. We've been overestimated by far more sophisticated investors than you.NYCGuy said:. . . Sorry if I overestimated the crowd here.
Does the quality of the responses depend on the degree to which they agree with your post?NYCGuy said:I found the other responses to be disappointing in quality. I was hoping for more thoughtful rebuttals. Sorry if I overestimated the crowd here.
Cute n' Fuzzy Bunny said:BSA = Bull**** artist
FBI = female body inspector
CS = cub scout
LE = liar extraordinaire
FOS = full of ****
YNGT = you'll never get this
a pond full of crocodiles
My first post was serious. I happen to think the article is bunk. I explained why. If NYGuy did not understand or disagreed with my analysis, he could have asked for clarification or offered an alternative point of view. He chose instead to make condescending remarks about the posters on this board. That approach is not likely to produce more discussion.modhatter said:I don't see the need for the degrading "tone" here. I think NYGuy posted a most interesting article for you to read, that merited some serious discussion, and not the dribble that was posted.
NYCGuy said:I found the other responses to be disappointing in quality. I was hoping for more thoughtful rebuttals. Sorry if I overestimated the crowd here.
REWahoo! said:I found your qualifications to be disappointing in quality. I was hoping for more thoughtful acronyms. Sorry if I overestimated your capabilites here.