While every investor knows the terms bull market and bear market, every investor seems to have a different definition of each.  Some people consider any period of rising prices a bull market.  Others require that prices generally rise for a certain time–maybe six months–to be called a bull market.  And of course there’s the popular (though highly flawed) view that any 20% move up in an index represents a new bull market, while a 20% decline constitutes a bear market.

Adding complexity to these simple phrases is the cyclical versus secular debate.  Simply put, a secular bull market is one that supposedly lasts many years or even decades.  The years 1982-2000 are often called a secular bull market–on a very long-term chart, prices headed higher during that time.  But you also had individual bear markets within that time, lasting maybe six to 12 months each, before the bulls retook control.

On the flip side, the 1966-1982 period is often referred to as a secular bear market; the Dow didn’t make any progress during that time!  But within that period you had numerous cyclical bull markets, again, each one lasting six to 12 months, before the bears retook control.

That brings me to today, as some people are referring to the current three-month upmove as just a bear market rally.  Some are referring to it as a cyclical bull market within a secular bear market that began back in 2007.  Still others think we’ve been in a secular bear market since 2000, while others believe we’re in a new bull market.

Confused yet?  You should be!  I like a good debate as much as the other guy, but in this case, I find the whole secular-cyclical-bull-bear debate to be a waste of energy.  I specifically remember when I was at Prudential Securities back in the late 1990s, and the market was beginning to fall apart thanks to the Russian ruble and Long Term Capital Management implosion.  At the time, Ralph Acampora, who was head of Prudential’s technical analysis team, was on the squawk box, telling all the brokers and money managers he was turning bearish for such-and-such reasons; the specifics aren’t important.  (For the record, turning negative was a good call.)

What I do remember is that one of the brokers asked a question:  “Ralph, do you think this is a correction?  Is it a cyclical bear market within a secular bull market?  Or is it the start of a secular bear market?”  I will never forget Acampora’s answer:  “Call it a banana for all I care.  Prices are heading down.”

At the time I liked to debate and was a bit disappointed in his answer.  But as the years have passed, I have learned the value of what he said.  Really, the whole debate is just semantics and takes away from the major goal–making money.