Whatever the dynamics of markets or current events, we tend to view the world through a prism of discrete annual cycles. So, simplistically, if 2008 was the year of crisis; and 2009 was the year of policy-driven recovery, what will 2010 bring for investors?

Political uncertainty, for one, in the UK and elsewhere. The Labour administration shambles wearily on, unloved by much of the electorate and with the leadership unrespected if not discredited by its own senior figures. The government finances are sufficiently wrecked that the next election will be a poll that nobody sane would want to win. The threat of a hung parliament hangs over the year like a Damocles sword, but it may be that fears for a new government with no outright majority are overdone; an uneasy coalition recognising the gravity of the UK's fiscal situation could still be a better outcome than another Labour administration in complete denial about the scale of the debt burden and the draconian spending cuts required.

Another grave problem surrounds the timing for the anticipated withdrawal of quantitative easing by the Bank of England - and others. Central bank Gilt purchases may be the last dike separating a flood of new issuance from the disinterested private sector vacuum awaiting it. And this is a problem with international dimensions. Having supposedly saved the markets and banking system through extraordinary levels of stimulus and monetary intervention, western governments now face the unenviable task of reversing it.

And this is what makes the business of rational investing in 2010 more than usually difficult. Investors will be broadly aware of the Keynesian 'beauty contest' metaphor: suppliers of capital voting not out of personal conviction but from their assessment of the personal convictions of the crowd. That is not the environment we are in. The markets of 2010, boosted by state-sanctioned liquidity and taxpayer guarantees for the banking system, more closely resemble a blind-fold game of musical chairs. The investment choices can still be made, but watch out for when the music stops. Competing with other investors with different preferences, objectives and biases is difficult enough, but it's an inevitable characteristic of free markets. Competing to invest with bureaucrats and politicians, with seemingly inexhaustible capital, is an altogether different ball-game, and one that fundamentally distorts the price signals emanating from the market.

David Fuller's view My guess is that most investors and strategists would agree that there are many uncertainties about the directions that various markets and economic events will take in 2010, particularly during 2H. This also prompts me to repeat the saying: "And thus it always was."

Uncertainty about the future is normal and even desirable for investors. Danger lies in the delusion that we know exactly what will happen. All we really know is that all will be revealed in due course.

Meanwhile, most of today's commentators ponder the future with a degree of foreboding. This is an understandable reaction to not only the ravages of 2008 and early 2009, but also the various "cures" subsequently applied.

Are these concerns overstated or understated?

The problems are sobering, to put it mildly, especially in OECD countries. However, history shows us that market meltdowns of the severity branded in our memories recently, are comparatively rare outliers. Moreover, market history also reveals that they are followed by significant, albeit sometimes volatile, recoveries over the medium to longer term.

We should be so lucky, some may feel. Yes, and we may be, although we should take nothing for granted. For now, it is enough for me that Fullermoney themes are performing and appear to remain on track. My guess is that it will not always be this easy and that the environment could be more challenging from 2Q onwards. However this is also a consensus view, and therefore suspect.

I do not know what the future holds, but the charts will show us.