Here's what we know about the market in 2011.
The S&P 500 ended at 1257 as of December 31, 2010, and ended at 1257 as of December 31, 2011.
So, over a period of 365 days, the S&P was totally flat for the year.
It's hard to fathom that after 365 calendar days and hundreds of trading days that the S&P would not gain or lose one point, but that's exactly what happened.
It's hard to imagine that with everything going on during 2011, including a stalemate on balancing the budget, the near implosion of Europe, millions of people losing their homes and unemployment remaining high that the S&P didn't move.
If you had decided to bury your head in the sand for a full year, put your money into the S&P Spiders with hope that your portfolio might jump, you discovered a year later that you hadn't made a dime; nada.
In fact, inflation adjusted, you would have been in the hole.
Of course, the market did move throughout the year, with the S&P getting as high as 1370 on May 2 when it peaked and then falling as low as 1074 on October 4.
Thus, the S&P was up as much as 9% at its peak for the year and then fell over 20% from that May 2 high to the October 4 low.
Still, 2011 required a unique set of trading skills and discipline to keep the average trader from losing his/her shirt.
Yes, that sounds a bit odd; if the S&P broke even, at least one should be able to preserve 100% of capital.
Sorry, doesn't work that way.
Instead, those individuals who like to call themselves "trend traders" were pretty much forced to approach the market more like "day traders", or risk losing heavily, when, for example, news from Europe overnight left them vulnerable to heavy losses.
You would think this would be a big boon to companies like Charles Schwab who rely on heavy trading to make their money, but this was not the case.
In fact, despite the churning throughout the year, Schwab lost 33% of its value over the course of the year, so even the brokers suffered.
Bank's were hit particularly hard during 2011, with Bank of America itself losing nearly 60% of its value over the course of the year; Goldman Sachs lost 45% of its value; Morgan Stanley lost over 40%.
This is compared to a flat S&P, so it gives us some perspective on how poorly the banking sector did perform for the year.
There were also some big names, what I like to refer to as "cult" stocks, ones that traders love to get involved in.
Research in Motion (RIMM) was one that got hammered for the year, down over 70%; Netflix (NFLX) was down roughly 60%, and over 75% from its peak to year-end.
The combination of a dismal financial sector and such uncertainty abroad made it nearly impossible for the market to advance.
2011 was the year that Europe took center stage, with investors in US stocks being held hostage day in and day out, never knowing what the morning might bring.
This was a dramatic shift from the norm, where most investors around the globe had become accustomed to letting the patterns in US stocks dictate the move in world markets.
Yields in US treasuries fell off the cliff, with the yield on the 10 year Treasury Note falling over 40% from the end of 2010 to the end of 2011.
In that respect, one could argue that US equities did well to break even, as investors around the world fled to safety.
What will it take for US equities to shine during 2012? For starters, banks need to perk up.
When you have banks like Bank of America, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley faltering, it's a sign of uncertainty - i.
e.
, what might be lurking on the collective balance sheets of the banks? Next, the consumer needs to perk up, and that's going to be tough as long as unemployment remains high.
It has been encouraging lately to see weekly jobless claims fall, down under 400,000 for more than just one week at a time, and the unemployment rate is back below 9%.
But, rest assured that corporations will do everything they can to increase their respective bottom lines without adding bodies, leading to the continuation of skeptical consumers.
One other thing.
When the US implemented its TARP program back in 2008, it took almost 6 months for the market to bottom, when the S&P reached 666 in March, 2009.
So though it may appear that Europe has made progress with its banks, we may yet see a delayed effect on the markets around the world.
Bottom line for 2012? Honestly, it's just too hard to tell.
It's a presidential election year, so that could affect the market, depending on the outcome.
Banks could continue to struggle as more loans go sour and as the realities of dealing with so much bank owned real estate.
And, without the banks participating, it is hard to imagine the market able to make much headway.
Expect corporations to squeeze as much as possible out of the work force; no one is going to hire unless absolutely necessary.
It's also quite possible that the effects of recent actions in Europe will continue to be felt in the US, keeping a significant number of investors on the sidelines.
On the other side of the spectrum, if the banks can make headway on their bad loans while minimizing real estate related losses while open up lending in an even bigger way to small businesses, that would be a net positive.
It's also possible that the effect of all of the Fed's efforts the past many months will kick in big time, stimulating the economy and the market as well.
A potential huge impediment? Rising oil prices, particularly if it translates to higher prices at the pump.
That could be a deal killer.
It certainly had a near devastating impact when oil neared $150 a barrel back in 2008; we all saw what happened to the market and the economy in general.
The US economy is not yet strong enough to withstand a repeat of 2008.
Which gets me to my 2012 forecast...
see me in about 12 months and I'll give you my number then!