The US 2000-2003 Market Descent: Clarifications

D. Sornette,W.-X. Zhou
DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.cond-mat/0305004
2003-05-01
Abstract:In a recent comment (Johansen A 2003 An alternative view, Quant. Finance 3: C6-C7, <a class="link-https" data-arxiv-id="cond-mat/0302141" href="https://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0302141">cond-mat/0302141</a>), Anders Johansen has criticized our methodology and has questioned several of our results published in [Sornette D and Zhou W-X 2002 The US 2000-2002 market descent: how much longer and deeper? Quant. Finance 2: 468-81, <a class="link-https" data-arxiv-id="cond-mat/0209065" href="https://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0209065">cond-mat/0209065</a>] and in our two consequent preprints [<a class="link-https" data-arxiv-id="cond-mat/0212010" href="https://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0212010">cond-mat/0212010</a>, <a class="link-https" data-arxiv-id="physics/0301023" href="https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0301023">physics/0301023</a>]. In the present reply, we clarify the issues on (i) the analogy between rupture and crash, (ii) the Landau expansion, ``double cosine'' and Weierstrass-type solutions, (iii) the symmetry between bubbles and anti-bubbles and universality, (iv) the condition of criticality, (v) the meaning of ``bullish anti-bubbles'', (vi) the absolute value of t_c-t, (vii) the fractal log-periodic power law patterns, (viii) the similarity between the Nikkei index in 1990-2000 and the S&P500 in 2000-2002 and (ix) the present status of our prediction.
Statistical Mechanics,Statistical Finance
What problem does this paper attempt to address?