From its recent closing low of 752 on Nov. 20, until its 909 closing high on Dec. 8, the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index rose nearly 21%. And since a 20% gain off of a bear-market bottom is the traditional signal of the start of a new bull market, we can rejoice that the worst is over. Right? Well, maybe.
Since 1945, there have been 10 bear markets. In all but one, a 20% advance was eventually proven to be the start of a new bull market. This was even true in October 2002, when the S&P 500 bottomed at 777, rose more than 20% in early December, only to throw us into a nail-biting retest of the prior low by falling to 800 in March 2003.
The only time since World War II that we experienced a 20% advance that proved to be a rally within a bear market, and went on to set an even lower low, was following the September 11 attacks, from September 2001 through January 2002. But with 10 other 20% advances correctly signaling the start of a new bull market, the odds favor that a baby bull has been born. Those still in doubt can always point to the 1930s, when 20%+ rallies more frequently occurred within the confines of a continuing bear market.
If this is the start of a new bull market, however, I wouldn't expect it to be anything more than a cyclical or short-term bull, within a secular or long-term, bear market. Why? In October, we recorded our first "Lost Decade" in more than 30 years, which traditionally has pointed to a series of cyclical bulls leapfrogging cyclical bear markets in an extended period of sideways action for stock prices.
I've lost a bet, and I've lost my keys, but I've never lost a decade—until now. I've frequently heard that if you give equities long enough, they always post positive returns. After suffering through a 52% bear market during the past 13 months, I wonder how long the average holding period must be in order for this old adage to remain true. One thing I do know is that it's not 10 years!
There's one good thing to be said about having slipped into negative territory on a rolling 10-year basis, however. If history is any guide, the worst is likely behind us. Since 1923, we have had three periods in which the rolling 10-year performances for the S&P 500 rose, three in which they declined, and two in which they went sideways. As always, history is a good guide, but never gospel.
During the periods in which the rolling 10-year returns were rising, the S&P 500 posted an average annual increase of 15.3%. What's more, only 19% of all single-year returns within these periods were negative. On the other hand, during the years in which the rolling 10-year returns were falling, the average annual returns were a minus 8%, and 59% of all single-year results were negative. During the sideways periods (those years in between the rising and falling periods), the S&P 500 rose an average 9.4% and posted single-year declines only 34% of the time. The results for these sideways periods compare favorably with the average results of all years from 1923-2008, in which theS&P 500 increased 7.4% and posted single year declines 33% of the time.
Granted, the observations are few, and there is no guarantee that theS&P 500's price performances will be equal to or better than long-term market averages during the coming years in which theS&P 500 will likely move sideways on a rolling 10-year basis. What's more, I expect the rolling 10-year price change for the S&P 500 to worsen into early 2010, as we get closer to the Mar. 24, 2000 high in the S&P 500. But for me, this historical look back is better than nothing.
But this game of bull/bear leapfrog is nothing new. We experienced a similar rotation of cyclical bulls and bears from 1966 to 1982, in which the Dow Jones Industrial Average flirted with the 1,000 level. This 16-year period incorporated the tail end of a declining 10-year rolling period for the S&P 500, as well as its subsequent sideways period in which the S&P 500 saw four cyclical bull markets interrupted by five cyclical bears before equities started their 18-year secular bull market in 1982.
All of the views expressed in this research report accurately reflect the research analyst's personal views regarding any and all of the subject securities or issuers. No part of analyst compensation was, is or will be, directly or indirectly related to the specific recommendations or views expressed in this research report. Standard & Poor's Regulatory Disclosure
Any advice, analysis, or recommendations contained in articles labeled "Insight from Standard & Poor's" reflect the views of Standard & Poor's, which operates separately from and independently of BusinessWeek Online. It is possible that BWOL may from time to time publish information that is not consistent with advice, analysis, or recommendations that are published by Standard & Poor's. Standard & Poor's and BusinessWeek Online are each units of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.