Is the market nearing a new high?

[Browser]

The media is all a-twitter about the stock market these days, with the S&P 500 closing above 1500. The previous two high water marks were Oct 9,2007 when it closed at 1565 and 3/24/2000 at 1527. But they always forget about inflation. I did a little calculating and found this:

$1 in the S&P 500 in March, 2000 has now turned into just 73-cents in terms of year 2000 dollars. Inflation has accounted for 27% of the returns of the S&P 500 over the last 14 years. We would need to be at 2055 on the S&P 500 today to match the real value of that $1 in stocks back in March, 2000.

$1 in the S&P 500 in October, 2007 has now turned into 84-cents in 2007 dollars. Inflation has accounted for 16% of the returns of the S&P 500 over the last five years. We would need to be at 1785 on the S&P 500 today to match the real value of that $1 in stocks back in October, 2007.

[gmtret]

To answer your question, I don't know and I don't care. No snark intended.

[Johm221122]

I considered it an all time high and I followed my investment plan. Yesterday, I cut equity by 5% and cut two managed funds.Can't wait for next milestone and all time high and cut equity by another 5%.
John

[centrifuge41]

Did you include dividends? In nominal terms, if you include dividends, the S&P 500 had exceeded 2007 highs.

[johnep]

Where the market goes from here I do not know. However, there is an interesting saying "as goes January so goes the year (for the market)". In 37 of last 39 years when market had a positive gain in January, there was a positive gain for the year. The market is up more than 5% right now with 3 trading days left.

[The Wizard]

This question is ALMOST like asking if the sun is coming up this morning. Even if it's cloudy and we can't see it.
Point is: the market has achieved new highs numerous times over the past 100 years.
Now then, a better question might be: should one DO ANYTHING about this? Or should one just STAND THERE?

[nisiprius]

Did you include dividends?.

Indeed.

The previous two high water marks were Oct 9,2007 when it closed at 1565 and 3/24/2000 at 1527. But they always forget about inflation.

And "they" always forget about dividends. Please.

Agreed, it's not a new high, but it's nowhere near as bad as you said.

Go to morningstar.com, type VFINX into the quote box, "chart", adjust starting point as close as possible to 3/24/2000--I was able to get it to that exact date--and find that $10,000 would have grown to:

Vanguard 500 Index Inv: $12,361.59
S&P 500 TR: $12,512.98
Vanguard Prime Money Market Inv: $13,370.77

Now I go to the BLS inflation calculator--a blunt instrument since they don't tell you whether they mean the start or end of the year, but what the heck--and I find that $12,512.98 today had the purchasing power of $9,385 in 2000. Not what the cheerleaders for stocks would like to have you believe, but 94% of what you started with isn't terrible, and a far cry from your 73%.

Of course, in a money market account, you'd have had $13,370.77, worth $10,028 in year-2000 dollars, i.e. almost exactly the same as what you started with. And in any reasonable portfolio including both stocks and bonds, you'd have had real gains.

[camper]

But did we not add any new money along the way? Who puts all their money into the market on one day and never adds to it or rebalances?

[Browser]

Why include dividends? We're talking about the price of the S&P 500 index here, in inflation adjusted terms. If you want to change the subject then start your own thread. I was interested in comparing the real price currently to the price at the previous highs. That's a different issue.

[HomerJ]

The media is all a-twitter about the stock market these days, with the S&P 500 closing above 1500. The previous two high water marks were Oct 9,2007 when it closed at 1565 and 3/24/2000 at 1527. But they always forget about inflation. I did a little calculating and found this:

$1 in the S&P 500 in March, 2000 has now turned into just 73-cents in terms of year 2000 dollars. Inflation has accounted for 27% of the returns of the S&P 500 over the last 14 years. We would need to be at 2055 on the S&P 500 today to match the real value of that $1 in stocks back in March, 2000.

$1 in the S&P 500 in October, 2007 has now turned into 84-cents in 2007 dollars. Inflation has accounted for 16% of the returns of the S&P 500 over the last five years. We would need to be at 1785 on the S&P 500 today to match the real value of that $1 in stocks back in October, 2007.

Note that the price points don't include all the dividend checks you've received over the years from the S&P 500 Index Fund.

13 years of 2% dividends negates your inflation calculations.

[HomerJ]

Why include dividends? We're talking about the price of the S&P 500 index here, in inflation adjusted terms. If you want to change the subject then start your own thread. I was interested in comparing the real price currently to the price at the previous highs. That's a different issue.

$1 in the S&P 500 in March, 2000 has now turned into just 73-cents in terms of year 2000 dollars. Inflation has accounted for 27% of the returns of the S&P 500 over the last 14 years. We would need to be at 2055 on the S&P 500 today to match the real value of that $1 in stocks back in March, 2000.

Because $1 invested in the S&P 500 in March 2000 is worth more than 73 cents in 2000 dollars... because of dividends. We do not need to be at 2055 in order for that $1 of stocks in March 2000 to be worth more than $1 today in 2000 dollars.

[Browser]

OK. How about this: In order to exceed the high reached by the S&P 500 in March, 2000 of 1527 in real (inflation adjusted) terms, the S&P 500 today would need to be higher than 2055. In order to exceed the high reached by the S&P 500 in October, 2007 of 1565 in real (inflation adjusted) terms, the S&P 500 today would need to be higher than 1785. Therefore, the current nominal price of the S&P 500 (1500) is NOT a new high in real terms.

[SSSS]

Why include dividends? We're talking about the price of the S&P 500 index here, in inflation adjusted terms. If you want to change the subject then start your own thread. I was interested in comparing the real price currently to the price at the previous highs. That's a different issue.

I don't see any reason to ignore dividends. That's like ignoring a stock split and saying "wow, look at this amazing stock that halved / doubled in one day!"

[Buckeye]

Adjusted for inflation the market is nowhere near its 2000 high. For that rare breed who invested all his money in 2000 and started spending all his dividends for income indeed has seen his nest egg shrink WRT inflation.

[athrone]

What happens when you include taxes on dividends and capital gains?

[Browser]

Although it wasn't the point of my original post, $1 invested in the S&P 500 in March 2000 and left to grow with dividends reinvested is now worth 93-cents in terms of 2000 dollars. The S&P 500 would need to be at 1611 today for you to still have that $1 (adjusted for inflation) in the S&P 500. It would have to be at 1592 today for you to still have $1 (adjusted for inflation) in the S&P 500 that was invested in October, 2007. So we're still shy of a new high even if you consider re-invested dividends.

[Rodc]

Adjusted for inflation the market is nowhere near its 2000 high. For that rare breed who invested all his money in 2000 and started spending all his dividends for income indeed has seen his nest egg shrink WRT inflation.

Yes, if you spend your profits you have less than if you don't.

[Rodc]

Why include dividends? We're talking about the price of the S&P 500 index here, in inflation adjusted terms. If you want to change the subject then start your own thread. I was interested in comparing the real price currently to the price at the previous highs. That's a different issue.

I think what you are hearing is folks don't think your point is worthwhile to discuss.

[nisiprius]

Yes, the media are all-a-twitter (or Twitter is all a-media?) over a fairly meaningless milestone, but what do you expect?

It is not meaningful when the Dow crosses something that happens to be a round number, it's not meaningful when the clock ticks from 23:59:59 to 00:00:00 on New Year's Day, it was not meaningful when Roger Bannister ran 1609.7561 meters in 0.06667 hours.

SInce I am personally a buy-and-hold investor in the total market, affected by inflation, what is most meaningful to me is total return of the total market, adjusted for inflation. By that measure an S&P 500 investment is back to about 93% of what it was in 2000, and Total Stock is, let's see, $13,192.24, CPI-U in March of 2000 was 171.2 and is now 229.601, so that's equivalent to $9825. We're 98% of the way back.

What's the gist of the news stories? The stock market is back to its former highs? Well, not quite true the way I want to measure, but close. The stock market has been doing quite well lately? Yes, it has. Will it display "momentum" and soar or will it display "mean reversion" and fall? Is it overvalued, undervalued, or just right? I don't know.

The money I invested in the stock market in 2000 would have done just as well in a money market fund, but, after all, some of my money was invested in 1999 and 1994 and 2002.

[Leif Eriksen]

I don't know, but I do care. But since I don't know I guess I'll just follow the plan. Sell high, buy low, per my re-balance bands.

[Browser]

It's not all bad that the general stock market hasn't gone anywhere in 14 years (at least in real terms); depends on how you look at it. On balance, it's been a good time to be putting your money into the market as an accumulator. You want things to be rotten when you're buying. But not such a good time if you've been trying to live off systematic withdrawals though. The guy who retired in 2000 would have been a lot better off with 100% in bonds; actually with 100% in T-Bills or CDs.

[fishnskiguy]

This thread got me to look and see how our retirement nest egg has done over the years.

After discovering this forum (actually, the old M* forum) back in 2000, we had our IPS in place and our 25/75 stock/bond allocation in place by early 2001. Over the ensuing years we pulled a total of about 7% out for various home improvement projects and a new car, but pretty much replaced that with new money from my post retirement jobs as a ski instructor and fly fishing guide.

Today our portfolio is 129.8% larger than our 2001 portfolio after adjusting for inflation.

Wow! I had a good idea that we were keeping our heads above water, but never would have guessed that we had done that well.

We did rebalance into stocks during the two bear markets, but not completely. I had a dollar figure I would not let our bond portfolio drop below, and in both bear markets, we rebalanced out of bonds and hit the minimum before the stock market completely bottomed, but we did not miss the bottom by much.

During the recoveries we did not rebalance out of stocks, with the exception of VG Precious Metals and Mining Fund which I have rebalanced vigorously both ways. Accordingly, our stock allocation has increased from a minimum of 19% in early 2009 to 26% today. I intend to let it get to 30% before we rebalance out.

Chris

[crowd79]

The market is nearing an all-time high. Time to be cautious. A big correction is badly needed.

[jebmke]

The market is nearing an all-time high. Time to be cautious. A big correction is badly needed.

Reads like a fortune cookie insert.

[Browser]

This thread got me to look and see how our retirement nest egg has done over the years.

After discovering this forum (actually, the old M* forum) back in 2000, we had our IPS in place and our 25/75 stock/bond allocation in place by early 2001. Over the ensuing years we pulled a total of about 7% out for various home improvement projects and a new car, but pretty much replaced that with new money from my post retirement jobs as a ski instructor and fly fishing guide.

Today our portfolio is 129.8% larger than our 2001 portfolio after adjusting for inflation.

Wow! I had a good idea that we were keeping our heads above water, but never would have guessed that we had done that well.

We did rebalance into stocks during the two bear markets, but not completely. I had a dollar figure I would not let our bond portfolio drop below, and in both bear markets, we rebalanced out of bonds and hit the minimum before the stock market completely bottomed, but we did not miss the bottom by much.

During the recoveries we did not rebalance out of stocks, with the exception of VG Precious Metals and Mining Fund which I have rebalanced vigorously both ways. Accordingly, our stock allocation has increased from a minimum of 19% in early 2009 to 26% today. I intend to let it get to 30% before we rebalance out.

Chris

I'd like to know what you were invested in. Long term Treasuries look like they were the best bond asset you could have been in during that period. Through the end of 2011 they had a real compound return of about 85%. If you had been invested 75% LTT and 25% in VG Precious Metals you could have gotten about 150% cum return. Doesn't sound like a typical allocation would have done it.

P.S. I did a calculation and it looks like the real CAGR over this 12-year period would have need to be almost 7%. Since annual inflation averaged about 2.5%, you would have needed a nominal compound annual return of nearly 10%.

[fishnskiguy]

This thread got me to look and see how our retirement nest egg has done over the years.

After discovering this forum (actually, the old M* forum) back in 2000, we had our IPS in place and our 25/75 stock/bond allocation in place by early 2001. Over the ensuing years we pulled a total of about 7% out for various home improvement projects and a new car, but pretty much replaced that with new money from my post retirement jobs as a ski instructor and fly fishing guide.

Today our portfolio is 129.8% larger than our 2001 portfolio after adjusting for inflation.

Wow! I had a good idea that we were keeping our heads above water, but never would have guessed that we had done that well.

We did rebalance into stocks during the two bear markets, but not completely. I had a dollar figure I would not let our bond portfolio drop below, and in both bear markets, we rebalanced out of bonds and hit the minimum before the stock market completely bottomed, but we did not miss the bottom by much.

During the recoveries we did not rebalance out of stocks, with the exception of VG Precious Metals and Mining Fund which I have rebalanced vigorously both ways. Accordingly, our stock allocation has increased from a minimum of 19% in early 2009 to 26% today. I intend to let it get to 30% before we rebalance out.

Chris

I'd like to know what you were invested in. Long term Treasuries look like they were the best bond asset you could have been in during that period. Through the end of 2011 they had a real compound return of about 85%. If you had been invested 75% LTT and 25% in VG Precious Metals you could have gotten about 150% cum return. Doesn't sound like a typical allocation would have done it.

P.S. I did a calculation and it looks like the real CAGR over this 12-year period would have need to be almost 7%. Since annual inflation averaged about 2.5%, you would have needed a nominal compound annual return of nearly 10%.

I must admit, I had to ask myself the same question after my last post.

Short answer: pure serendipity.

We sold equities for home improvement in 2006 and 2007 when the Dow was over 10,000. We put new money back into equities in 2008, 2009 and 2010 when the Dow was in a swoon.

Our position in PM&M was a Godsend. We have sold 170% of our original investment and still have 100% in it.

Having 17% of our port in I-bonds yielding 3.0% real really helped a lot. Thank you, thank you, thank you, Mel.

The rest of our FI has been almost entirely in a five year CD ladder at Navy Federal Creit Union, but 10% of our port is in TIPS bought at auction in 2005 and 2007.

Chris

[Cherokee8215]

I get the knee-jerk Boglehead "I don't care" comments. However, as someone whose personal investment policy (or whatever you call it) states that I must rebalance at certain percentages (equity vs. fixed), and since the market has been moving upward quite persistently in recent weeks, I have been keeping a close watch and acting accordingly.

[Browser]

This thread got me to look and see how our retirement nest egg has done over the years.

After discovering this forum (actually, the old M* forum) back in 2000, we had our IPS in place and our 25/75 stock/bond allocation in place by early 2001. Over the ensuing years we pulled a total of about 7% out for various home improvement projects and a new car, but pretty much replaced that with new money from my post retirement jobs as a ski instructor and fly fishing guide.

Today our portfolio is 129.8% larger than our 2001 portfolio after adjusting for inflation.

Wow! I had a good idea that we were keeping our heads above water, but never would have guessed that we had done that well.

We did rebalance into stocks during the two bear markets, but not completely. I had a dollar figure I would not let our bond portfolio drop below, and in both bear markets, we rebalanced out of bonds and hit the minimum before the stock market completely bottomed, but we did not miss the bottom by much.

During the recoveries we did not rebalance out of stocks, with the exception of VG Precious Metals and Mining Fund which I have rebalanced vigorously both ways. Accordingly, our stock allocation has increased from a minimum of 19% in early 2009 to 26% today. I intend to let it get to 30% before we rebalance out.

Chris

I'd like to know what you were invested in. Long term Treasuries look like they were the best bond asset you could have been in during that period. Through the end of 2011 they had a real compound return of about 85%. If you had been invested 75% LTT and 25% in VG Precious Metals you could have gotten about 150% cum return. Doesn't sound like a typical allocation would have done it.

P.S. I did a calculation and it looks like the real CAGR over this 12-year period would have need to be almost 7%. Since annual inflation averaged about 2.5%, you would have needed a nominal compound annual return of nearly 10%.

I must admit, I had to ask myself the same question after my last post.

Short answer: pure serendipity.

We sold equities for home improvement in 2006 and 2007 when the Dow was over 10,000. We put new money back into equities in 2008, 2009 and 2010 when the Dow was in a swoon.

Our position in PM&M was a Godsend. We have sold 170% of our original investment and still have 100% in it.

Having 17% of our port in I-bonds yielding 3.0% real really helped a lot. Thank you, thank you, thank you, Mel.

The rest of our FI has been almost entirely in a five year CD ladder at Navy Federal Creit Union, but 10% of our port is in TIPS bought at auction in 2005 and 2007.

Chris

Thanks for the info. The best two places you could have been in the last decade was bonds and materials/commodities/gold. Stocks in general just treaded water. I think if goes to show that investment returns are what happen to you while you're busy making other plans.

[rr2]

One of my co-workers asked me which stock funds they should invest in their retirement plan. Should I be worried?

[z3r0c00l]

Not worried, just understand that this is probably the end of the beginning at least. Maybe even the end of the middle. Beginning of the end? We can't know that and frankly it is not worth worrying about. You re-balance either way.

It is extremely depressing when people around you sell low and buy high. It is just painful to see, and wonder what they are thinking.

[leo383]

It is extremely depressing when people around you sell low and buy high. It is just painful to see, and wonder what they are thinking.

They aren't thinking, they are feeling and confusing it with thinking.

The biggest problem with humans, imo.

[HomerJ]

The market is nearing an all-time high. Time to be cautious. A big correction is badly needed.

From 1966 to 1982, the DOW fluctuated wildly but stayed in the 1000 range... By 1984 or so, the stock market was at an all-time high.... Did a big correction happen? Or did the DOW go to 10,000 over the next 15 years?

A big correction may indeed happen, but another bull market may happen as well... We just don't know... So stay the course.

It's a little early for the next big bull market... but you never know....

[HomerJ]

This thread got me to look and see how our retirement nest egg has done over the years.

After discovering this forum (actually, the old M* forum) back in 2000, we had our IPS in place and our 25/75 stock/bond allocation in place by early 2001. Over the ensuing years we pulled a total of about 7% out for various home improvement projects and a new car, but pretty much replaced that with new money from my post retirement jobs as a ski instructor and fly fishing guide.

Today our portfolio is 129.8% larger than our 2001 portfolio after adjusting for inflation.

Wow! I had a good idea that we were keeping our heads above water, but never would have guessed that we had done that well.

We did rebalance into stocks during the two bear markets, but not completely. I had a dollar figure I would not let our bond portfolio drop below, and in both bear markets, we rebalanced out of bonds and hit the minimum before the stock market completely bottomed, but we did not miss the bottom by much.

During the recoveries we did not rebalance out of stocks, with the exception of VG Precious Metals and Mining Fund which I have rebalanced vigorously both ways. Accordingly, our stock allocation has increased from a minimum of 19% in early 2009 to 26% today. I intend to let it get to 30% before we rebalance out.

Chris

I'd like to know what you were invested in. Long term Treasuries look like they were the best bond asset you could have been in during that period. Through the end of 2011 they had a real compound return of about 85%. If you had been invested 75% LTT and 25% in VG Precious Metals you could have gotten about 150% cum return. Doesn't sound like a typical allocation would have done it.

P.S. I did a calculation and it looks like the real CAGR over this 12-year period would have need to be almost 7%. Since annual inflation averaged about 2.5%, you would have needed a nominal compound annual return of nearly 10%.

I must admit, I had to ask myself the same question after my last post.

Short answer: pure serendipity.

We sold equities for home improvement in 2006 and 2007 when the Dow was over 10,000. We put new money back into equities in 2008, 2009 and 2010 when the Dow was in a swoon.

Our position in PM&M was a Godsend. We have sold 170% of our original investment and still have 100% in it.

Having 17% of our port in I-bonds yielding 3.0% real really helped a lot. Thank you, thank you, thank you, Mel.

The rest of our FI has been almost entirely in a five year CD ladder at Navy Federal Creit Union, but 10% of our port is in TIPS bought at auction in 2005 and 2007.

Chris

The main point I think is that most of us didn't invest all our money in 2000. Not that hard to get a total 10% return over the last decade if you invested every year, including the down years. My wife and I were also lucky... We both got rather large bonuses in late 2008 and early 2009, which we invested 100% in stocks. That money has more than doubled and is not a insignificant part of our portfolio.

[HomerJ]

Thanks for the info. The best two places you could have been in the last decade was bonds and materials/commodities/gold. Stocks in general just treaded water. I think if goes to show that investment returns are what happen to you while you're busy making other plans.

Again, only if you invested all your money in stocks at the peak in 2000, and never put another dime in. Investing every year throughout this decade means almost every cent you put in (except maybe 2007) is up, some of it up a LOT.

Investing in stocks has worked out very well over the last 13 years. Even during a "lost" decade. By comparing only 2000 to today, you're completely missing the big picture.

[Grt2bOutdoors]

The market is nearing an all-time high. Time to be cautious. A big correction is badly needed.

Is the correction needed so you can start investing?

[fishnskiguy]

Big oops due here, folks.

In re-looking at the math, our inflation adjusted portfolio is up 30% since 2001, not 130% as previously posted. My bad.

Chris

[Bustoff]

Investing philosophies aside, there's no denying there is an artificial element to all this market appreciation.

[Browser]

Big oops due here, folks.

In re-looking at the math, our inflation adjusted portfolio is up 30% since 2001, not 130% as previously posted. My bad.

Chris

That reduces my portfolio envy, but I'm sorry you didn't do that 130%.

[HomerJ]

Investing philosophies aside, there's no denying there is an artificial element to all this market appreciation.

I deny it.

[grap0013]

Investing philosophies aside, there's no denying there is an artificial element to all this market appreciation.

I deny it.

+1

He he. I deny it too.

I think I hear some CNBC quotes from Bustoff and crowd79. This is a serious question to Bustoff and crowd79 and I'm not trying to make light of your opinion, but where are you getting your information from? I think the media thinks the market is over bought. Is it? Based on current valuations as measured by price to earnings ratio I think the U.S. market is likely between -33% to +33% in relation to its "fair value". Developed international and emerging markets are definitely not overpriced and I actually still think they look relatively cheap.

[Bustoff]

Investing philosophies aside, there's no denying there is an artificial element to all this market appreciation.

I deny it.

+1

He he. I deny it too.

This is a serious question to Bustoff and crowd79 and I'm not trying to make light of your opinion, but where are you getting your information from?

The Federal Reserve
http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/what-are-the-federal-reserves-large-scale-asset-purchases.htm

[Bustoff]

This is a serious question to Bustoff and I'm not trying to make light of your opinion, but where are you getting your information from?

Investing philosophies aside, there's no denying there is an artificial element to all this market appreciation.

Here's where I'm getting my information from in picture form :

[grap0013]

This is a serious question to Bustoff and I'm not trying to make light of your opinion, but where are you getting your information from?

Investing philosophies aside, there's no denying there is an artificial element to all this market appreciation.

Here's where I'm getting my information from in picture form :

Now we are getting somewhere. Macroeconomics and investment returns are not correlated whatsoever, everybody already knows about this debt and I think it is largely already priced into the market. Do you have a graph with any past data that shows countries with large amounts of debt and their stock returns afterwards?

This is a short time frame, but just look at VGK returns since the first post of this thread: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=98230 It is not in your financial best interests to let macroecomonics guide your investment decisions.

[Toons]

Correct me if I am wrong, but hasn't the S&P, given enough time ALWAYS marched on to new
highs?

[bogleblitz]

I also thought that the market should in theory always be at a all time high. Milk is at an all time high, stamps is at an all time high. everything will be at all time high given enough time.

Today is a really good day for stocks. I've seen threads for 'really bad day'. are there any 'really good day' threads?

[nisiprius]

I heard the TV news last night, forget which channel, and admit to a chilly feeling at the happy celebratory mood the reporters were evincing as they enumerated the wonders unleashed by the Dow's crossing of the 14,000 line. People will be able to retire, students will be able to afford college, happy days are here again.

"Happy Days are Here Again," by Milton Ager and Jack Yellen, was, according to Wikipedia, written in 1929 but it's not clear whether it was before or after the crash. I think it might have been reflecting pre-crash euphoria.

[FedGuy]

I heard the TV news last night, forget which channel, and admit to a chilly feeling at the happy celebratory mood the reporters were evincing as they enumerated the wonders unleashed by the Dow's crossing of the 14,000 line. People will be able to retire, students will be able to afford college, happy days are here again.

"Happy Days are Here Again," by Milton Ager and Jack Yellen, was, according to Wikipedia, written in 1929 but it's not clear whether it was before or after the crash. I think it might have been reflecting pre-crash euphoria.

Yes, the mood has definitely shifted. Just five weeks ago, all we heard was doom and gloom, "the markets will crash when he go over the fiscal cliff," "we're going to have a double dip recession," and all that. Now it's "Wow! We're closing in on all-time highs! If you've been out of the market, get back in! Things are going great!"

I had been planning on putting some more of my dry powder into the market, but now I'm wondering if I should start to pull back.

[tetractys]

Today, at this very moment, Wall Street is saying "Market Rotation" has kicked in, which is the idea that stocks will continue to rise on the momentum of irrational investors pouring in. -- Tet

[Browser]

I heard the TV news last night, forget which channel, and admit to a chilly feeling at the happy celebratory mood the reporters were evincing as they enumerated the wonders unleashed by the Dow's crossing of the 14,000 line. People will be able to retire, students will be able to afford college, happy days are here again.

"Happy Days are Here Again," by Milton Ager and Jack Yellen, was, according to Wikipedia, written in 1929 but it's not clear whether it was before or after the crash. I think it might have been reflecting pre-crash euphoria.

Yes I agree. The "Miracle of the Stock Market" headlines that are being shouted out on every TV news program are making me a lot more nervous than the "Death of Stocks" headlines when they've been out. I don't know when the market will turn and bite us again, but I know we're about 5 years closer to that event than when stocks died in 2008. The only good contrarian indicator we have going for us is the technicians who are warning of the "mother of all triple tops" in the market, as it is now at the previous highs posted in 2000 and 2007 for the third time.

[Jack]

The market is nearing an all-time high. Time to be cautious. A big correction is badly needed.

Reads like a fortune cookie insert.

The market is nearing an all-time high. Time to be cautious. A big correction is badly needed -- in bed.