Hi Paul,  I really don't understand your post.  I think that I'm one of the most unbiased analysts out there.  I am neither ultra bull or ultra bear, I go with the flow.

My comparison to 2004 was just that, an interested comparison, especially the day how they were 1 point away from each other, but that in itself is meaningless, just kind of funny how 6 years later the SPX on the same day of the month was 1 point away from 2004's date, also shows you how buy and hold is dead, this is a secular bear market! and that's what secular bear markets do, they go sideways for 15 - 18 years

But that's it, I wasn't saying oh the market is like 2004 and is going to have a major bull run etc. it was a comparison. Please try not to take things so out of context.  The market can do anything it wants to, it can crash this year or hold up and break out, 

paul,

Matthew is not here to tell you what/when to buy or sell. as a full time trader/day- trader for almost a decade, I have found that I pick what is useful to me from this site. As he and Steve repeatedly say 'follow the market trend'. if you are continuing to loose money as you sort through this site's advice, then either figure out what you are doing wrong (loose your trading bias) or find another venue. personally, I find this site more useful than most and some of the traders to be very insightful with their posts (read very profitable ideas).  that gdx system has already paid my cost for this site for the next decade and then some.

Paul -- seems to me that matt can't win whatever he does.  If he expresses no  opinion but just lays out the potential bull and bear scenarios, some people complain about that because they want to know more what he thinks or how he would play things.............then when he gives an update saying that he can see the market making another move higher here, and further, that after a correction we could easily keep going up -- expressing his opinion a bit more, you complain about that.................What exactly would have been more helpful in his update? 

You accuse Matt of being superficial, yet your accusation contains no details, just a reference to "powerful counterarguments."  If you wish to be taken seriously, then present and develop these counter-arguments; show some evidence; make a case that is backed up by facts.

Nor do I see an argument to prove that Matt is biased.  In what way is he biased?  If you mean that he isn't a permabear, you're right.  But, he has presented the bear case in the past and alludes to it in this update which, personally, I find quite interesting.