The Bull Market Continues: FTSE at 10,000 by end 2012

I've been following Robert N for well over a year.

As a deeply bearish sceptic, who agrees pretty much with everything emptyend says about our financial prospects, I am well pleased that I have listened to and agreed with much of Robert's technical analysis.

It has emboldened me to have a higher equity content versus bonds & gold than I otherwise would have.

I am still not convinced that this is a new bull market rather than a bear market rally but with due respect to emptend I will definitely be looking for the answer to both the technical analysts as well as the fundamentalists.

I think we can all agree that the one place we will not get an answer is from the politicians!

Can we hear the views of other technical analysts on where we go from here?

hugoc

Agreed, however I will not enter into a TA/FA debate next time. This is a TA column and will I limit my replies to questions about TA methods.

Can I suggest a little Time Out, chaps - unti the next report, at least? :-)

Really enjoyed watching from the sidelines, though. Fascinating to see both sides of the TA / FA  debate.

400% in 4 years?

.......oh, right,......now you want to imply you are being conservative???

I'm quite sure people can do the maths comparing the compounding effects of inflation at 10% (or indeed 20%, which was touched, IIRC) with the effects of inflation at 1% or so.....

I'm sure you've wasted enough of your time - I know I have!

400% in 4 years?

if I'm asked first how I arrive at what might seem to some an overly ambitious target, it allows me to explain for instance that following the 72-74 bear market, when it looked like the world was ending (a 75% decline) we got a Coppock signal and the market went up five-fold in the following four years.

Q.  And inflation in the 1970s was.....?????

A. .......rampant ...... in total contrast to today!

Sure, but if I'm asked first how I arrive at what might seem to some an overly ambitious target, it allows me to explain for instance that following the 72-74 bear market, when it looked like the world was ending (a 75% decline) we got a Coppock signal and the market went up five-fold in the following four years. Most people wouldn't have known that, so I've been able to provide something which hopefully is educational, or at least factual, and maybe allow people to reconsider the target I've set. By the way, the title wasn't mine. I submitted the piece without a title (as I always do) and Stockopedia titled it. All I did was to say in the report where I think the market is going.

I will have to respectfully ask you that if your fundamental analysis is coming up with a different answer, that you firstly accept that there is a basis for my forecast, and many of the targets I've set have been accurate, and secondly, this column is not the place for engaging the TA v FA argument as it could go on forever, and I really don't have time for every report to end up in a debate.

In reply to Robert Newgrosh (post #39)

Might I just add, it seems some people are determined to take my columns and turn them into a debate on TA v FA. As I said when I started, this is not the idea. I very much welcome questions relating to what I've said in the report,

Sure. That isn't my objective either - and I'd rather not spend time on it also!

However, if you are going to publish pieces with "crowd-pleasing" titles like:

"The Bull Market Continues: FTSE at 10,000 by end 2012"

then you really can't complain if people take issue with you when they disagree with the basis for that view!!!

ee

Might I just add, it seems some people are determined to take my columns and turn them into a debate on TA v FA. As I said when I started, this is not the idea. I very much welcome questions relating to what I've said in the report, i.e. how I've arrived at my targets or conclusions, and then hopefully the reports are educational for those who wish to learn more about the subject, but I really don't have time to be endlessly defending my methods from attack, which given the overall accuracy, seem unwarranted.

Just to repeat, Coppock signalled on 15 May, and I published that it was a bull market on 15 May. That's looking backwards?

The argument at £0.10 only works with hindsight.

Rather like TA then?????!!!!

 

 

No decent technical analyst buys into an established downtrend.

My point was that most TA people prefer to trumpet how good TA is by looking BACKWARDS!!      .....and I see from post 34 that you are no different!

Since you have (rashly) suggested that this "bull market" will reach 10,000 by 2012 we now have the opportunity (for a change) to see how a TA approach works in real time......but I'll be keeping my powder dry.

Thats all.

ee

In reply to Robert Newgrosh (post #30)

Hi Robert,

Just to put your quote in context, for those that don't know; it came from a book on 'successful' traders. A colleague, who seems to buy every book relating to stockmarket investing that comes out, and avidly follows certain gurus, tells me that several feted traders in the book had quite a bad time the year before last. Of course, many of us saw the paper value of our investments fall as well. I personally haven't crystallised any losses, and I fully expect the end result to justify that. Anyway, I just pass that on for some perspective.

My main point is to emphasise that if you are a short term trader then you very much do look at the market action to dictate your activity. You are a real fool if you don't.  However, iIf you actually understand a company, as opposed to merely knowing what its ticker is, then you will make the big money by backing your opinion ahead of the market.

I wouldn't like to comment on whether New Skills Ltd would do better in a bull or bear market environment.

Buffy

"Rather like TA then?"

What nonsense. No decent technical analyst buys into an established downtrend.

And if you meant the "hindsight" bit, Coppock signalled on 15 May, and I published that fact on 15 May.

In reply to emptyend (post #32)  So the fundamental analysts will be happy to buy in when the fundamentals all look good, i.e. near the top? The simple fact is, the technical analysts are 30% up on them so far with regard to the FTSE100.

To take the RBS example, when it was £5, £4, £3, £2, £1, £0.80, £0.60, £0.40, £0.20 anyone who had an opinion that it was "too cheap" or "good value" or "surely it can't go any lower" would have lost serious money. The argument at £0.10 only works with hindsight.

Rather like TA then?????!!!!

Actually I spent a vast amount of my time in 2007/8 arguing with people on TMF* who were inclined to make the sort of guesses you suggested.....and saved many of them a substantial amount of money (as I'd guess a number of them would attest). I always believe in arguing with people who are peddling ideas that may well prove to be expensive for their followers....which is why I am here!  :-)

*eg.....

http://boards.fool.co.uk/Message.asp?mid=10827069

http://boards.fool.co.uk/Message.asp?mid=11026871

http://boards.fool.co.uk/Message.asp?mid=11022470

http://boards.fool.co.uk/Message.asp?mid=11247109

http://boards.fool.co.uk/Message.asp?mid=11272193

ee

In reply to Robert Newgrosh (post #30)

And I'll repeat my question: "Why have so many fundamental analysts been wrong about this bull market?"

The answer to that is straightforward - the "bull market" is built on sand ....and a mountain of borrowed money. The start of the rally was very much needed in order to rebuild confidence but it has been sustained somewhat longer than the few months most expected (including me) by the near-zero interest rates and the perceived lack of other investment opportunities (which, incidentally, has also driven other asset markets like art and antiques higher too!).

 Normally stock markets would look through these events to the underlying situation but in this case there is a global case of "The Emperor's Clothes"........it is in no-one's near-term interest (not even mine!) to point out that the stock market "Emperor" is actually naked! But the fact still remains......ultimately the countries (especially the UK) that have bailed out their banks will need to start paying down debt - and THAT will mean a squeeze on the corporate sector and on consumers. The pace of the squeeze is one that will be a hot debating point in the upcoming election.....but there is no doubt that a squeeze will be applied!

And if the new Government don't bite the bullet and tighten up (raising taxes and cutting spending) then you can be certain that the markets will do their job for them.....by cutting the UK's credit rating (as already threatened ...and implicitly endorsed by the EEC criticisms!) and raising the cost of financing the UK's debt ....ie...long term interest rates will start to rise sharply if the new Government doesn't take action - and THAT will put an end to your "bull market".

So...enjoy the suspension of reality whilst it lasts .....but please don't keep trying to induce others to ignore the underlying reality -otherwise the fall will be much harder and the pain very much worse for the individuals who bought in late!

ee

To take the RBS example, when it was £5, £4, £3, £2, £1, £0.80, £0.60, £0.40, £0.20 anyone who had an opinion that it was "too cheap" or "good value" or "surely it can't go any lower" would have lost serious money. The argument at £0.10 only works with hindsight.

In reply to emptyend (post #29)  The quote is from Market Wizards, one of the most highly regarded investment books of all time.

And I'll repeat my question: "Why have so many fundamental analysts been wrong about this bull market?"

In reply to Robert Newgrosh (post #28)

One of the most important things I ever read was:"Don't put your opinion ahead of market action"

....well thats a load of trite codswallop if ever I heard some!

It is only by opposing market action that one can hope to make serious returns......seliing RBS at £6 or so and buying it back at 10p when everyone appeared to think it was going to be allowed to go bust etc etc

....or pick any one of dozens of similar examples that occur on a regular basis (Ashtead, Taylor Woodrow come immediately to mind - as does Barclays at 50p or Soco indeed in 1999 etc etc).

If you don't have an opinion (and I fully accept that many don't or can't) then you shouldn't be investing in the market! And THAT is another reason why the elevation of TA (in general, not Coppock) is dangerous - because using pretty pictures that everyone can recognise merely fools people into thinking that not only they "know" what is happening in the market but that they can also make money out of it (and should therefore punt in shares of companies about which they actually know nothing at all!)

Anyway....I've made my point (again). If the overclaiming stops then I won't have to keep repeating it! :-)

ee

"Why shouldn't it be?" Probability, that's why. I'm sure the world seemed like it was ending when Coppock signalled in 1975 following a 75% fall, but you got a multi-year bull market. Based on previous Coppock signals, the probability of just a 10 month bull market is low. One of the most important things I ever read was:

"Don't put your opinion ahead of market action"

In reply to Robert Newgrosh (post #26)

So you have to ask, just ten months on from the signal, is it likely that's all we'll get?

Why shouldn't it be?

It is utterly unprecedented for governments globally to rack up so much debt in order to stop the financial meltdown and bail everyone out. At some point that debt is going to have to start being paid down. Why shouldn't that start in the UK after the election?

What has happened is that markets were puffed up by private debt in the 2000-2007 period - and that they were rescued by puffing them up again with public debt during 2008-9.......

......there won't be a way of puffing them up again when the air starts leaking from the public debt balloons (and if it doesn't start leaking then that will be because someone has punctured Greece or Ireland....or the UK....or Portugal...or China etc etc)

ee

I agree it's only directly relevant at the onset of a bull market, but I think it tells you a bit more. Since it's based on such a long period of data, any signal tends to have implications for a significant amount of time. Look at the bull markets that followed the signals in 2003 & 1995 - they were multi-year. So you have to ask, just ten months on from the signal, is it likely that's all we'll get?

NB re Coppock: as I noted in my thread last year, it only tells you one thing: that a market bottom has passed. Well, that was a useful thing to get some reassurance on last May but now it is history. Coppock will only be useful again once we pass the end of the next BEAR market.

As Robert says, it doesn't look like we've passed the end of this bull yet! [but I'm being cautious, selective in my choice of stocks and building up my cash reserves, currently].

Graham's record?: http://www.investopedia.com/university/greatest/benjamingraham.asp

Benjamin Graham came to the United States as a one-year-old immigrant from England in 1895. He grew up in Manhattan and Brooklyn, New York. His father died when he was nine years old and the family's hard times, economically speaking, left Graham with a lifetime preoccupation with achieving financial security.

He graduated from Columbia University in 1914 and went to work immediately for a Wall Street firm, Newburger, Henderson & Loeb, as a messenger. By 1920, he was a partner in the firm.

In 1926, Graham formed an investment partnership with Jerome Newman and started lecturing at Columbia on finance, an endeavor which lasted until his retirement in 1956. It is reported that Graham was wiped out personally in the stock market crash of 1929, but the investment partnership survived and gradually recouped its position. (For more insight, see The Greatest Market Crashes.)

Ben Graham learned some valuable lessons from this experience and, in 1934, co-authored a hefty textbook titled "Security Analysis", which is widely considered an investment classic. The Graham-Newman partnership prospered, boasting an average annual return of 17% until its termination in 1956

and:

In 1984, [Warren] Buffet returned to Columbia to give a speech commemorating the fiftieth anniversary of the publication of "Security Analysis". During that speech, he presented his own investment record as well as those of Ruane, Knapp, and Schloss [other successful investment managers who were students of Graham at Columbia]. In short, each of these men posted investment results that blew away the returns of the overall market. Buffett noted that each of the portfolios varied greatly in the number and type of stocks, but what did not vary was the managers' adherence to Graham's investment principles

This is a very important point:

The only fly in the ointment there is whether Buffett is privy to information that isn't available to ordinary private investors...

 

I think to a certain extent it is true. One of the lessons Graham tries to hammer home is that investment is hard work. You REALLY have to research your investments thoroughly - it's not enough to just add up a few columns of figures (though that's part of the process).

That's why I and many others here focus mainly on smallcaps. These tend to be under-researched and it is possible to establish a dialogue with management - but you also have to have the discipline not to be taken in by spin/schmooze. Superior knowledge is what gives you an edge over the "herd" - but, as Anna Morrell has pointed out in her recent article on behavioural finance, it is also too easy to think you know more than you do. It is a very difficult balance to strike between being confident and contrary against being plain obstinate and seeing a company and its valuation through rose tinted glasses. It is a constant learning process - which is one of the most enjoyable aspects of investing for me.

Nevertheless, the greatest successes - e.g. ee with Soco, Dana & Aminex, my own investments in Extract, URU and NGL come from being conifdent enough to go AGAINST the herd, buying when others are selling, when all the BB chatter is negative (or better, there is little chatter :0)) , with confidence that the value of what you are buying is underpinned by some hard assets but also offers considerable upside in the right circumstances. Finding investments with low probability of losses and high probability of gains is part of the key - and much easier said than done.

I have found learning about such issues brings me greater profits than paying much attention to charts - though I have studied and used some TA techniques for a while and on occasion. I too noted the Coppock signal last May and used it to my advantage, as described on this contemporaneous thread: http://boards.fool.co.uk/Message.asp?mid=11534946&sort=whole

Cheers,

Mark

Coppock has worked 8 times out of the last 9, so why is it "dangerous" to use it? Surely stating a fact about its success rate isn't "overclaiming". I'd like to see a fundamental method for timing an entry into bull markets that can beat it. Why have so many fundamental analysts been wrong about this bull market?

Not sure about Graham's track record, but certainly Buffett has a great one, and he learned his approach from Graham. The only fly in the ointment there is whether Buffett is privy to information that isn't available to ordinary private investors...

In reply to dodge1664 (post #19)

We really need each poster to maintain a demo portfolio based on their ideas before making any judgement. I suspect Emptyend's record is pretty good, but even then there is only a hard-to-follow scattering of posts made in various places.

C'mon dodge.....it isn't THAT hard to follow, as I rarely trade or open or close positions!

I'm not calling for demo portfolios or anything of the sort.....but I'm simply stating that the adherants of TA (including Coppock) are prone to repeated and dangerous overclaiming of the benefit of using it - and I'd very much rather that they didn't, because the facts simply don't support the strength of the claims made.....and so gullible punters are likely to lose money by getting sucked into believing there is a magic route to making money by investing in the stock market!

I agree the thrust of Marben's comment in that, having decided what to invest in on the basis of fundamentals, TA might be of some minor help in fine-tuning the timing of entry and exit points (because there are people out there who believe in it and use it and so there may be tiny short-run performance gains to be gleaned from rushing or waiting, according to what other investors are expected to do).......but the total returns from investing in a stock or in the market as a whole are rarely much influenced by the few days before a position is opened or closed.

For the record, if you wish to get an idea of my performance, over 90% of the portfolio (excluding pensions, which are in managed funds) over the last 11 years has been in three stocks and the opening/raising of those positions are referred to here, here and here......and prior to the post on SOCO my average in-price was 55p, having bought at between 30p and 80p in 1999/2000. You can work out rough numbers from there, if you've nothing better to do.....  ;-)

cheers

ee

Whilst TA has its place as an adjuct to proper investment methods, which may aid in timing, I would suggest that any serious investor should heed these words from Benjamin Graham, who most acknoweldge knows a thing or two about investment and which fit precisely with my own experience over many years of investing:

Since our book is not addressed to speculators, it is not meant for those who trade in the market. Most of these people are guided by charts or other largely mechanical means of determining the right moments to buy and sell. The one principle that applies to nearly all these so-called "technical approaches" is that one should buy because a stock or the market has gone up and one should sell because it has declined. This is the exact opposite of sound business sense everywhere else, and it is most unlikely that it can lead to lasting success in Wall Street. In our own stock-market experience and observation, extending over 50 years, we have not known a single person who has consistently or lastingly made money by thus "following the market." We do not hesitate to declare that this approach is as fallacious as it is popular. We shall illustrate what we have just said—though, of course this should not be taken as proof—by a later brief discussion of the famous Dow theory for trading in the stock market.

[my bold]From "The Intelligent Investor"

Ask yourself another question: why are so many "noted" TA practictioners so keen to sell books, seminars, courses etc, rather than spending their time making money from application of the techniques they promote?

Regards,

Mark

It seems to me that you really need at least a 20 year track record before you can really claim to have a system of beating the market. I've seen systems work for years at a time before they went horribly wrong and wiped out all the accumulated profit. The same goes for bulletin board posters using FA methods. We really need each poster to maintain a demo portfolio based on their ideas before making any judgement. I suspect Emptyend's record is pretty good, but even then there is only a hard-to-follow scattering of posts made in various places.

In reply to emptyend (post #16)  Actually, I liquidated my entire pension fund at the same time as you did. I started publishing bearish reports from Jan 2008, not Oct 2008.

Did Gulf keystone have strong 'fundamentals' before it took off? I thought it just struck oil... read the boards here to see the low sentiment on it's fundamentals at the time.

Personally I wouldn't ever invest without all the tools at my disposal. Small things like a stock being above its 200day moving average are good indicators that help me judge whether the market is accumulating or not. I'll miss some bargains, but I won't sit with my capital in lost or dead unfavoured stocks for long periods of time - and this is about capital allocation... it's not about chasing momentum or being right, it's about putting it where it's likely to get a return.

I think investment is about probability - put your chips where there's a good probability of return - good companies large and small with strong fundamentals and good relative strength. It keeps things simple. Life is too complicated enough with wives, children, lovers and the rest to get yourself into tricky or marginal situations when investing.

In reply to StockHound (post #15)

It is a bit of a digression to talk about individual stocks but, since you've raised it, I point you to the recent example of Gulf Keystone which was "technically" so weak in the middle of last year that loads of people gave up on the stock prior to it taking off in August.

Check back to last July on the bulletin boards favoured by the TA crowd if you don't believe me.

Of course you are correct that stocks can be right out of favour despite solid fundamentals - and trying to make short-term trades on a fundamental basis can be very expensive. SOCO is a recent case in point.....racing away steadily in recent months but completely out of favour for most of 2009. There has been no material change in the fundamentals over this period - just the passage of time and a swing in sentiment (driven by the realisation that the time for major fundamental news is now getting very close)......

....but the original article wasn't making a short-term suggestion - it was looking forward to 2012....and making an extremely ambitious claim.

ee

[ps.....I notice various claims from Mr Newgrosh in post 14 to have predicted the fall of 2008/9 in October 2008 with the FTSE at 4980. I would merely point out that I sold my entire pension fund in October 2007 when the FTSE was at 6700, reporting this on TMF at the time....which was rather earlier than the claims being made on a TA basis]

You lot are all like squabbling schoolgirls.... settle down.

There's a perceived wisdom that the whole city tries to push that fundamental analysis is the be all and end all. But I know for FACT that the majority of city analysts get their analyses WRONG - with buy notes out when stocks are sells, and sells out when stocks are buys. It's better to do the opposite of what these folk say - and many trading strategies do extremely well just by being contrarian...

Analysts are NOT traders. And it's traders that make the money - those getting their hands dirty in the thick of actually allocating capital. Soros was never a fundamental analyst - he had a great one in Rogers next to him, but he made the calls based on timing, technical and emotional reasoning.

I know through experience that blindly holding a stock for it's fundamental value can lose you your shirt. And banging the table when the tides are against you is completely idiotic. It's not worth holding a stock if it's technically weak - the market is right, not your analysis, so get over it and move on - more money is lost from pride and the inability to take a loss than anything else... so lose your pride and just get on with it.

I suggest the pure 'fundamentalists' (isn't that a word for a terrorist?) - should all take a cold bath and maybe pick up a book on TA just to balance out your arguments. And for the pure technicians maybe you could balance your own book with a little more fundamental analysis.

Good/Evil/whatever - find some balance and perspective the lot of you.

In reply to nigelpm (post #13)  Nigelpm, you really need to go back to my report on 4 Oct 2008 when FTSE stood at 4980. I said it could fall to 3300, i.e. a further move down of 1680 points. That was a very ambitious prediction which I didn't see anyone else making. The subsequent low was 3460, so we got 1520 of the 1680 expected move, in other words 90% which is pretty accurate. I called the bull market on 15 May 2009 based on Coppock with FTSE at 4348 and it has risen around 30% since then.

Just picking out a couple :

8th March 2009

Currently the Dow stands at 6626 and FTSE at 3530. At the rate the market has been falling, it could make the 3300 level before my next column. I should also point out that when targets are set, they tend to be minimum targets. So 3300 is not a prediction that this is where the market will bottom out - it could go further - and I'll review that as and when we get there.

12th April 2009

So how does the recent rally look in the overall picture on P&F? Well, on the Dow, S&P500 and FTSE100 it doesn't constitute evidence of a reversal. No method is infallible, but I can only call it as I see it, and so far I don't see the evidence we need to conclude that a new bull market has begun.

-------------------------------

I'm not seeing any prediction let alone anything that turned out to be remotely reasonable.

In reply to Robert Newgrosh (post #11)

I would just point out that, prior to 2007, the received "wisdom" in the market was that you couldn't go wrong buying dividend-paying stocks, especially the banks.

Now people have lost their shirts, they know differently.

I agree that Coppock has a much better track record than most other indicators - but it can and has failed before.....and who is to say that the current indication won't be another failure (even if, as with the banks, history might suggest otherwise?).

There is a difference between "evidence" and observation of the past. I agree entirely that some TA techniques are better than others - and that TA is better applied only to matters such as FX and indices that are not much influenced in the short run by fundamentals. However, that does NOT make them 100% reliable! Stating without ANY qualification, as you did in the article in great big capitals, that "this is still a bull market" implies otherwise - and seeks to convert a strong probability (as you see it) into a certainty....which it most certainly is not!

rgds

Please let's not turn TA into "I believe/don't believe" There are many, many TA techniques which I wouldn't touch with a barge pole, and a few excellent ones, especially Point & Figure. This is based on over 20 years of observation of what works and what doesn't. The danger is when you start saying "TA works" or "TA doesn't work". It's not like that. Some patterns/signals work with a high probability, others are close to 50/50. Let's stick to the evidence and forget the faith bit. Coppock has only failed once in over 40 years, therefore it IS a valid technique. No faith or belief, just evidence that you can't ignore.

It's on www.tradeandtested.co.uk which isn't in fact my site but they publish the reports. There's loads of fundamental stuff on there as well (which is written by someone else) so hopefully something for everyone.

In reply to Robert Newgrosh (post #6)

Hi Robert,

I had a look for your track record on new-skills.co.uk, but couldn't see it. Can you provide a link?

thanks.

In reply to emptyend (post #1)

I have to agree with you EE - I just don't see the Ftse breaching 6500 let alone getting anywhere near 10,000. The next two-three years are going to be one's of austerity as interest rates climb, impacting on both government and personal debt financing, and, one hopes, a concerted effort to tackel the country's finances. Add to this a potentially weakening sterling should the forthcoming elections not result in a majority government of one colour or another, and the ingredients are all these for the main markets going the other way. 5500 imv fully values where we are currently on the economic front, if anything the market has surged higher and faster than I expected given the economic doldrums we , and the rest of Europe, are in.

In reply to emptyend (post #1)

Afternoon ee

Like you, Im not a TA believer but whether we like it or not, enough people do believe it (especially via the blackbox trading strategies) that it will have an impact on the market. I, howeever, being a bear of little brain and having looked at so many different TA "strategies" cant seem to find anything that would give me enough confidence to back it. So I remain a FA disciple.

Comign back to the article, I wouldnt really be that surprised to see the FTSE do well. I cant see any real strength in the UK economy but that doesnt really matter that much when it comes to the FTSe. Is there anyother large market that has a greater exposure to the international economies than the FTSE? IIRC something like 60% of the FTSE's earnings come form overseas. With the flood of mining companies and the like listing here, the FTSE is more and more linked to the growth of the emerging economies. Add in the benefit of inflation proofing provided by commodities and thats a pretty healthy backdrop for the FTSE. Then there is the question of high dividends on offer... A big drop in Sterling would make FTSE's eps look very nice. So, hate the UK economy but love the stocks?

emptyend, Surely it isn't a question of belief but EVIDENCE. My entire record of monthly reports is available on the web going back to October 2006. They have a high accuracy (why don't you check?) and they are based on charts. Are you suggesting I've been lucky all that time? Undeniable evidence is right there for you, month after month, but you simply refuse to acknowledge it. Why?

"However, the E/$ chart looks a little clearer, with a small rounding bottom pattern".....ah yes - the Carla Bruni effect....

History might not repeat itself, but it sure does rhyme.

People do believe this stuff... people have even been killed for their opinions on technical analysis.. most notably Nikolai Kondratiev... shot by firing squad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Kondratiev

And there are hundreds (thousands?) of hedge funds making a killing using statistical analysis (TA?) on market movements.

In reply to Robert Newgrosh (post #2)

...mmmmm

Rather assumes that one actually believes this stuff has value - which (in general) I don't.

If the past really DID get replicated, then we'd all be rich wouldn't we? It would just be SO EASY........

....that even idiots could do it.

In reply to emptyend (post #1)  As I've mentioned before, the target isn't a guess, but based on the extent of previous bull markets which were signalled by Coppock. Also, it is very important to be mindful of the fact that if FTSE manages to taks out the all-time high at around 6900, there would be no resistance in it's way from there on, and a run up to the psychological level of 10,000 would be perfectly reasonable.

The evidence from the stockmarkets remains compelling - THIS IS STILL A BULL MARKET. And for those of you who've just joined us, my target still remains 10,000 on FTSE by the end of 2012.

Well that is a very clear opinion........

....and not one that I'm particularly inclined to agree with. Indeed I think there is a fair chance it could end in a flood of tears within that timescale, though the path of the market in my view will depend significantly on whether the present band of incompetants get reelected or not.

Still - I'll be surprised if the market can get near the target mentioned - unless sterling plummets towards the 1.00-1.20 range on the dollar. I wouldn't rule that out, but sensible management of the economy should result in a stronger pound and a much more subdued/negative equity market than Newgrosh suggests. Somewhere along the line, the debt mountain must start to be aggressively reduced - and that probably won't fuel the economic expansion that 10,000 FTSE points would/should demand.

ee