Just because the bubble lasted longer than "perpetual bears" thought it would, does that mean their analysis was wrong? For instance, Andy Beal, the banker Forb

Just because the bubble lasted longer than "perpetual bears" thought it would, does that mean their analysis was wrong? For instance, Andy Beal, the banker Forbes profiled (that was at the top of HN), saw the crazy deals being made in 2004 and got out of the market. If for the last 4-5 years you'd heard him argue that the fundamentals did not justify the credit bubble, would you call him a perpetual bear? The same happened with George Soros in 1997. He recognized that the stock market had become an enormous bubble, and he began shorting it. He lost a huge sum of money because the bubble went on for three more years. Was his analysis incorrect? No one likes to hear that the party is over, or that things won't go back to the way they were in our lifetimes. During the bubble, people try to marginalize those opinions by calling them "perpetual bears". But we're finding out that they were right. It will probably take years for banks and households to fix the holes in their balance sheets. Even if GDP stops contracting, a "recovery" will likely be so anemic that it will feel like a recession. And job losses will continue to pile up. I'm afraid we haven't hit bottom yet - and maybe aren't even particularly close.