Rob … I’m not even sure what bullish/bearish means anymore. If it is defined as risked vs. riskless assets (IG and TBill/Bond), then I’ll fall in the neutral-bearish camp. Was “bullish” (Dec-Mar), and neutral in June after credit substantially improved, and in between selectively buying long-term trades (pharma, tech, dividend payers). I’m a bit paralyzed right now because credit can’t improve significantly anymore, so I’ll probably wait until 2010Q2 to see how the Fed plays out. On fixed income side, a little indecisive whether I should have 20% in TLT as some insurance, but otherwise duration is <4yrs and mostly IG. But if you define riskless as only gov credit, then I'm a raging bull, maybe even rabid and disoriented.

But just how really bullish or bearish does that make one? What is one doing with ones investments? That tells the real story.

IMO, no investment thesis can be constructed using the “old” way of using fundamentals or technicals. If you observe the way the market has behaved since it seemed everything would fall apart, every major TBTF institution’s stock has been “saved” from the abyss and the rest of the market was carried higher upon the saving.

Contrasted with Russell’s technical take. Is this confirming (i.e. with the positive back drop on credit, the markets are pausing indicating a pullback or trading range?) or a warning (ie is that the best the market can do given positive back drop on credit?)?