Art Cashin has been on a floor broker on the NYSE for UBS for as long as I can remember. His daily missives on CNBC are the highlight of their broadcast day.
“Back On The Cycle – David Rosenberg, formerly chief economist at Merrill Lynch and now at Gluskin Sheff was a guest host on CNBC’s Squawkbox this morning. During the discussion he alluded to an 18 year cycle in the market. Not to quibble but many traders have thought of it as the 17.6 year cycle. Here’s how I outlined it back in May 2002: Yesterday, as the elders were being asked about the hiding place of the great Bull Market one of the fogeys mentioned the “near 18 year cycle.” Like the fat and lean years, it refers to so-called “easy” times to make money in the market versus times requiring much harder work. The fogeys suggested it was near 18 years because it was approximately 17 years, 7 months. For ease of explanation to the juniors, one of the fogeys decimalized the number as 17.6 years so they could use their calculators. He then postulated this example – Let’s say the markets topped out in about February 2000. Let’s call that 2000.2. Subtract 17.6 and your back in about July 1982 (1982.60). The Dow was around 900. So you could see why those were a fat (easy) 17 years. Take away 17.6 again and you are back around January of 1965 and the Dow is around 900. (Yup – just like 1982.) Many twists and turns in those 17 years. Lots of chances to make money. But you had to work for every penny. Take away 17.6 again and you are back around May of 1947. The war is over. The Dow is around 170. Lots of prosperity ahead. Take away 17.6 and you are back around Sept of 1929 and the Dow is around 350. He began to go on. The juniors had had enough. Folks don’t like to hear that you can do well only if you do your homework everyday. Having lived through two of those cycles, we can attest to the work cycle.”
Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.