Quote from efficiency:
I was referring to 1973-74. You know that. I know you know that.
I'm not suggesting that 2000 to October 2002 wasn't pretty, but there was no capitulation. Minimal impact to volume (albeit numerous buy and hold investors were decimated).
A bear market hnges upon how you define it. Magnitude, duration, etc.
After the week hiatus stemming from 9/11, some would consider THAT a bear market. Would it be silly to suggest it was a buying opportunity of a generation? The sharp drop was synthetic. Merely to allow the specialists and market makers to acquire inventory. The only time I've seen a reliable "V" bottom.
I had one clown suggest October 1987 was a buying opportunity. In retrospect yes, but at the time it didn't quite seem that way.
My view is Chinese water torture. Conistent erosion, slow but sure. Most sectors. Reduced liquidity. Reduced inflows. Media attention to the gloom. And..............eventually capitualtion.
True capitualtion would be single digit PE's. We haven't even had a reversion to the mean regarding that measure.
=============
Are you kidding ;
just remember buddy, the opposite of LUV isnt hate ,its indifference;
therefore dont think any one hates you here.
Efficiency;
you had some good points;
amoung them are not ''media gloom & doom'' that s a constant for many of them, negative in bull or bear markets.
Also would agree with 73-74 being a good example of a bear market ;
but may want to redefine your example of a bear market limited to capitulation & PE since you excluded 2000-02.
Investors Business Daily & thier institutional customers do just fine in defining a bear, includes 2000-02;
easier than trading them
Looks like energy stocks are starting strongly back up;
tech too maybe headed that way