Toon oma vana soovituse jälle välja kuna see ikka veel aktuaalne.
Soovitan kõigil üksildastel investoritel olla ameerika turu suhtes ettevaatlikud.Dow on kaua püsinud ja vaadates tehnoloogiasektori hävingut kardan et ülejäänud turg järgmise poole aasta jooksul näitab languse tendentsi.Soovitan mängida müügiopstsioonidele ja mitte liigseid riske võtta,sest eestis niigi raha vähe.Fundamentaalandmetest ja analüüsidest rääkimata.
Ja kui nüüd Greenspan intresse langetab, siis põrutab Naz kohe üle 3000 punkti!
Üle 3000 siiski vaevalt.
Juba 2500 oleks hetkel päris tubli saavutus.
Juba 2500 oleks hetkel päris tubli saavutus.
Nädalavahetuse NY Timesis oli harjumatult positiivne "igavene skeptik" Paul Krugman MIT-st.
Kas see nüüd hea on, siiani ta rohkem opositsionäär tegelikkusega olnud.
Tema teese:
Investorid on täna väga short sighted, eriti tehnoloogiafirmade osas. Üks aasta väiksemaid tulusid pole pikaajalise valuationi koha pealt kuigi oluline. Praegune turg kipub väiksemaid tulusid nägema igavestena. Nagu 99 aasta ülioptimismigi.
Makro poolel peab tõenäolisemaks V kujulist langust vs. kardetud L kuju.
Elame-näeme.
Aktsiaturg ülereageerimiseta poleks aga aktsiaturg.
Kas see nüüd hea on, siiani ta rohkem opositsionäär tegelikkusega olnud.
Tema teese:
Investorid on täna väga short sighted, eriti tehnoloogiafirmade osas. Üks aasta väiksemaid tulusid pole pikaajalise valuationi koha pealt kuigi oluline. Praegune turg kipub väiksemaid tulusid nägema igavestena. Nagu 99 aasta ülioptimismigi.
Makro poolel peab tõenäolisemaks V kujulist langust vs. kardetud L kuju.
Elame-näeme.
Aktsiaturg ülereageerimiseta poleks aga aktsiaturg.
Krugmani jutt oli OK. Suur "V" aga tähendabki tõenäoliselt NAZ põhja 1500-1800, kuna turg kipub tihti pendlit teise äärmusesse viima. Seega nõustun, et juba praegu on paljud aktsiad fundamentaalselt (mis tähtsust sellel on?? OK, teremere, siiski pikaajaliselt on see nii :-)) ostetavad. Muuseas näiteks ka GX. Päris huvitav on mõelda tegelikult ka ühel hetkel pöörduvale kontseptsioonile, mida Januse (ma ei ole päris kindel) mõned fondihaldurid pikka aega välja pakkusid: "osta tuleb neid, kes kuule toodavad, mitte neid, kes sõdivad." Kui kuulid suurema laoseisu tulemusena odavad, siis võivad mõned sõdijadki sellest midagi võita...
Uskumatu järjekindlusega käib karjainstinkt - kui turg läheb üles, siis ostetakse valimatult, kui alla - müüakse valimatult.
Seega tuleks praegu Buffeti kombel rõõmustada, et aktsiaid odavalt osta saab. Sest ka mitmeid tugevaid aktsiad on koos kogu tehnoloogisektoriga alla müüdud.
Seega tuleks praegu Buffeti kombel rõõmustada, et aktsiaid odavalt osta saab. Sest ka mitmeid tugevaid aktsiad on koos kogu tehnoloogisektoriga alla müüdud.
NY Times eeldab registreerimist, panen ülalviidatud Krugmani mõtted siia:
Will V Go To L?
By PAUL KRUGMAN
It's a thin line between love and hate. This time last year all the talking heads were adamant that the new economy had abolished the business cycle. Now we're told, after only a few months of slowdown, that we can kiss prosperity goodbye. The economy isn't perfect? Then it must be hopeless.
Optimists believe that the economy's path will be "V shaped" — that it will experience a brief slowdown, then bounce sharply back. That's what happened in our worst postwar recession, in 1982. More cautious types worry that the path will be "U shaped" — that while the economy will eventually recover, recovery will take longer than the optimists expect. The most recent recession, in 1990-91, followed that path: unemployment didn't drop again until the second half of 1992.
For investors, the difference between a V and a U shouldn't be very important. If they stayed calm, investors would realize that a year of depressed earnings doesn't justify a big fall in stock valuations, especially not the valuations of technology companies whose big profits will come, if they ever do, some years in the future. Or as one rare sensible analyst put it, "This year's bad numbers are next year's great comparisons." Indeed, in the slowdown of the early 1990's earnings slumped but stock prices continued to rise.
But today's investors seem much more high-strung. After acting as if the unsustainably high earnings growth of the late 1990's would last forever, they now seem to believe that the current slew of bad earnings reports is the shape of things to come, indefinitely. And the new pessimism is no more realistic than the old optimism.
True, ultra-pessimists insist that we're going to "L" — that we not only will have a slump, but it will be many years before the economy recovers the lost ground. That is, they believe that we are about to enter a slump like that of the U.S. in the 1930's, or Japan in the 1990's: an economy that stalls and resists all attempts to jump-start it. As the examples suggest, such things do happen — but rarely.
To believe that an L-shaped slump is about to happen here, you have to believe that we are about to enter a "liquidity trap," that the Fed will not be able to get the economy moving again even by cutting interest rates all the way to zero. Do you really believe that? And no waffling, please, no wise-sounding remarks about how monetary policy won't be as effective as some think. The Fed can easily and quickly cut interest rates as much as necessary, as long as zero is low enough. So either we're headed for a liquidity trap or we aren't. And assuming that we aren't, which is by far the more likely scenario, we're talking about a quite temporary slowdown.
That still leaves the shape of the slowdown uncertain: a sharply pointed V or a drawn-out U? And the answer is . . . I don't know. There are just too many uncertainties. For example, right now consumers say that they are pessimistic but still seem to be spending. Which way will they resolve their cognitive dissonance?
But if I had to make a guess, I'd vote for a V. My main concern right now is that the V may be in the process of changing from a lower-case to an upper-case letter. That is, the panic in the financial markets, and even more so in the financial media, may make this slowdown more severe than the mild slump the fundamentals really warrant.
Or to put it a different way, the atmosphere right now reminds me not of the protracted slowdown of the early 1990's but of the recession that wasn't: the financial panic of fall 1998. That was very scary, but things turned around quickly. It's true that so far the Fed's efforts to turn sentiment around haven't worked. Of course, in 1998 Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin helped Alan Greenspan calm the markets, while until a few days ago this administration seemed more interested in accentuating the negative.
Nonetheless, now as then there is an upside to what is starting to look like a case of self-fulfilling pessimism: often it doesn't take much to turn a vicious circle into a virtuous circle. This slowdown may turn out to be nasty and brutish; but my guess is that it will also turn out to be short.
Will V Go To L?
By PAUL KRUGMAN
It's a thin line between love and hate. This time last year all the talking heads were adamant that the new economy had abolished the business cycle. Now we're told, after only a few months of slowdown, that we can kiss prosperity goodbye. The economy isn't perfect? Then it must be hopeless.
Optimists believe that the economy's path will be "V shaped" — that it will experience a brief slowdown, then bounce sharply back. That's what happened in our worst postwar recession, in 1982. More cautious types worry that the path will be "U shaped" — that while the economy will eventually recover, recovery will take longer than the optimists expect. The most recent recession, in 1990-91, followed that path: unemployment didn't drop again until the second half of 1992.
For investors, the difference between a V and a U shouldn't be very important. If they stayed calm, investors would realize that a year of depressed earnings doesn't justify a big fall in stock valuations, especially not the valuations of technology companies whose big profits will come, if they ever do, some years in the future. Or as one rare sensible analyst put it, "This year's bad numbers are next year's great comparisons." Indeed, in the slowdown of the early 1990's earnings slumped but stock prices continued to rise.
But today's investors seem much more high-strung. After acting as if the unsustainably high earnings growth of the late 1990's would last forever, they now seem to believe that the current slew of bad earnings reports is the shape of things to come, indefinitely. And the new pessimism is no more realistic than the old optimism.
True, ultra-pessimists insist that we're going to "L" — that we not only will have a slump, but it will be many years before the economy recovers the lost ground. That is, they believe that we are about to enter a slump like that of the U.S. in the 1930's, or Japan in the 1990's: an economy that stalls and resists all attempts to jump-start it. As the examples suggest, such things do happen — but rarely.
To believe that an L-shaped slump is about to happen here, you have to believe that we are about to enter a "liquidity trap," that the Fed will not be able to get the economy moving again even by cutting interest rates all the way to zero. Do you really believe that? And no waffling, please, no wise-sounding remarks about how monetary policy won't be as effective as some think. The Fed can easily and quickly cut interest rates as much as necessary, as long as zero is low enough. So either we're headed for a liquidity trap or we aren't. And assuming that we aren't, which is by far the more likely scenario, we're talking about a quite temporary slowdown.
That still leaves the shape of the slowdown uncertain: a sharply pointed V or a drawn-out U? And the answer is . . . I don't know. There are just too many uncertainties. For example, right now consumers say that they are pessimistic but still seem to be spending. Which way will they resolve their cognitive dissonance?
But if I had to make a guess, I'd vote for a V. My main concern right now is that the V may be in the process of changing from a lower-case to an upper-case letter. That is, the panic in the financial markets, and even more so in the financial media, may make this slowdown more severe than the mild slump the fundamentals really warrant.
Or to put it a different way, the atmosphere right now reminds me not of the protracted slowdown of the early 1990's but of the recession that wasn't: the financial panic of fall 1998. That was very scary, but things turned around quickly. It's true that so far the Fed's efforts to turn sentiment around haven't worked. Of course, in 1998 Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin helped Alan Greenspan calm the markets, while until a few days ago this administration seemed more interested in accentuating the negative.
Nonetheless, now as then there is an upside to what is starting to look like a case of self-fulfilling pessimism: often it doesn't take much to turn a vicious circle into a virtuous circle. This slowdown may turn out to be nasty and brutish; but my guess is that it will also turn out to be short.
väike märkus - Paul Krugman ei ole MIT'ist vaid Princeton'ist. Väike vahetus leidis aset suvel 2000.
Siiski on säilinud Pauli vana leht MIT's:
http://www.mit.edu/people/krugman/index.html
Siiski on säilinud Pauli vana leht MIT's:
http://www.mit.edu/people/krugman/index.html
to robert:
Vaata siis, mis tal seal Cambridges viga oli.
Pean vist taas USA-d külastama, muidu nimetan siin varsti uuesti Clintoni USA presidendiks :-)
Vaata siis, mis tal seal Cambridges viga oli.
Pean vist taas USA-d külastama, muidu nimetan siin varsti uuesti Clintoni USA presidendiks :-)
noored.viimane võimalus ennast supist päästa,kelle investeeringud ameerika indeksitega seotud.
Tänu lhvle olen kaotanud 15 tonni pealt kõigest 5 tonni kui lisada ka vahepeal plussis oldud 3 siis 8 kuid ma möönan, et tegu on oma veaga(lollakas).Ja soovitan kõigil alustada investeerimisega just nyyd.
pardon tänu nasdaqile ja 5400 ´(SUNW)
USA investeerimispanga Salomon Smith Barney (SSB) aktsiastrateeg Marshall Acuff ütles, et tehnoloogiaaktsiad kauplevad ikka väga kõrgete suhtarvude juures. “Nasdaq võib tulla allapoole, ma arvan, et 1800 mind ei üllataks,” ütles Acuff.
Tõnis, mis väljumisest Sa siis räägid? Kui praegu on Naz 2100 ja natuke peale, siis 1800 millegagi ei tähenda enam veeranditki vajumist! Põhi on ju samahästi kui käes!
Kui kukub alla 1800, siis on teine jutt. Kas kukub...mina ei tea :-(
Kui kukub alla 1800, siis on teine jutt. Kas kukub...mina ei tea :-(
Toon oma vana soovituse jälle välja kuna see ikka veel aktuaalne.
Soovitan kõigil üksildastel investoritel olla ameerika turu suhtes ettevaatlikud.Dow on kaua püsinud ja vaadates tehnoloogiasektori hävingut kardan et ülejäänud turg järgmise poole aasta jooksul näitab languse tendentsi.Soovitan mängida müügiopstsioonidele ja mitte liigseid riske võtta,sest eestis niigi raha vähe.Fundamentaalandmetest ja analüüsidest rääkimata.
Soovitan kõigil üksildastel investoritel olla ameerika turu suhtes ettevaatlikud.Dow on kaua püsinud ja vaadates tehnoloogiasektori hävingut kardan et ülejäänud turg järgmise poole aasta jooksul näitab languse tendentsi.Soovitan mängida müügiopstsioonidele ja mitte liigseid riske võtta,sest eestis niigi raha vähe.Fundamentaalandmetest ja analüüsidest rääkimata.
Dow(DJIA) kvaliteetaktsiate indeksi rekordkukkumised
Days with Greatest Net Loss
Koht Kuupäev Nädalapäev Sulgemishind Muutus %
1 04/14/2000 R 10,305.77 -617.78 -5.66
2 10/27/1997 E 7161.15 -554.26 -7.19
3 08/31/1998 E 7539.07 -512.61 -6.37
4 10/19/1987 E 1738.74 -508.00 -22.61
5 03/12/2001 E 10,208.25 -436.37 -4.10
6 10/12/2000 N 10,034.58 -379.21 -3.64
7 03/07/2000 T 9796.03 -374.47 -3.68
8 01/04/2000 T 10,997.93 -359.58 -3.17
9 08/27/1998 N 8165.99 -357.36 -4.19
10 08/04/1998 T 8487.31 -299.43 -3.40
Days with Greatest Percentage Loss
Koht Kuupäev Nädalapäev Sulgemishind Muutus %
1 10/19/1987 E 1738.74 -508.00 -22.61
2 10/28/1929 E 260.64 -38.33 -12.82
3 10/29/1929 T 230.07 -30.57 -11.73
4 11/06/1929 K 232.13 -25.55 -9.92
5 12/18/1899 E 58.27 -5.57 -8.72
6 08/12/1932 R 63.11 -5.79 -8.40
7 03/14/1907 N 76.23 -6.89 -8.29
8 10/26/1987 E 1793.93 -156.83 -8.04
9 07/21/1933 R 88.71 -7.55 -7.84
10 10/18/1937 E 125.73 -10.57 -7.75
Days with Greatest Net Loss
Koht Kuupäev Nädalapäev Sulgemishind Muutus %
1 04/14/2000 R 10,305.77 -617.78 -5.66
2 10/27/1997 E 7161.15 -554.26 -7.19
3 08/31/1998 E 7539.07 -512.61 -6.37
4 10/19/1987 E 1738.74 -508.00 -22.61
5 03/12/2001 E 10,208.25 -436.37 -4.10
6 10/12/2000 N 10,034.58 -379.21 -3.64
7 03/07/2000 T 9796.03 -374.47 -3.68
8 01/04/2000 T 10,997.93 -359.58 -3.17
9 08/27/1998 N 8165.99 -357.36 -4.19
10 08/04/1998 T 8487.31 -299.43 -3.40
Days with Greatest Percentage Loss
Koht Kuupäev Nädalapäev Sulgemishind Muutus %
1 10/19/1987 E 1738.74 -508.00 -22.61
2 10/28/1929 E 260.64 -38.33 -12.82
3 10/29/1929 T 230.07 -30.57 -11.73
4 11/06/1929 K 232.13 -25.55 -9.92
5 12/18/1899 E 58.27 -5.57 -8.72
6 08/12/1932 R 63.11 -5.79 -8.40
7 03/14/1907 N 76.23 -6.89 -8.29
8 10/26/1987 E 1793.93 -156.83 -8.04
9 07/21/1933 R 88.71 -7.55 -7.84
10 10/18/1937 E 125.73 -10.57 -7.75
Ikka veel aktuaalne,ärge laske pead longu ja müüge oma aktsiad!
Praeguses olukorras pidasin vajalikuks tuletada meelde NYSE börsi kauplemise peatamise reeglid:
Subject: Rule 80B Trading Halts
The values of Levels 1, 2 and 3 for Rule 80B trading halts are calculated at the beginning of each calendar quarter, using 10%, 20% and 30%, respectively, of the average closing value of the Dow Jones Industrial Average for the month prior to the beginning of the quarter. Each percentage calculation is rounded to the nearest fifty points to create the Levels' trigger points. The values will remain in effect until the next quarterly calculation.
EFFECTIVE January 4, 1999, Rule 80B trading halts will be triggered when the Dow Jones Industrial Average sm* ("DJIA") declines below its closing value on the previous trading day by:
900 points (Level 1)
1800 points (Level 2)
2700 points (Level 3)
Trading in all stocks on the Exchange will halt for the time periods specified below.
Level 1 Halt
a) before 2:00 p.m. - one hour,
b) at 2:00 p.m. or later but before 2:30 p.m. - 30 minutes;
c) at 2:30 p.m. or later - trading shall continue, unless there is a Level 2 halt.
Level 2 Halt
a) before 1:00 p.m. - two hours;
b) at 1:00 p.m. or later but before 2:00 p.m. - one hour;
c) at 2:00 p.m. or later - trading shall halt and not resume for the remainder of the day.
Level 3 Halt
at any time - trading shall halt and not resume for the remainder of the day.
Subject: Rule 80B Trading Halts
The values of Levels 1, 2 and 3 for Rule 80B trading halts are calculated at the beginning of each calendar quarter, using 10%, 20% and 30%, respectively, of the average closing value of the Dow Jones Industrial Average for the month prior to the beginning of the quarter. Each percentage calculation is rounded to the nearest fifty points to create the Levels' trigger points. The values will remain in effect until the next quarterly calculation.
EFFECTIVE January 4, 1999, Rule 80B trading halts will be triggered when the Dow Jones Industrial Average sm* ("DJIA") declines below its closing value on the previous trading day by:
900 points (Level 1)
1800 points (Level 2)
2700 points (Level 3)
Trading in all stocks on the Exchange will halt for the time periods specified below.
Level 1 Halt
a) before 2:00 p.m. - one hour,
b) at 2:00 p.m. or later but before 2:30 p.m. - 30 minutes;
c) at 2:30 p.m. or later - trading shall continue, unless there is a Level 2 halt.
Level 2 Halt
a) before 1:00 p.m. - two hours;
b) at 1:00 p.m. or later but before 2:00 p.m. - one hour;
c) at 2:00 p.m. or later - trading shall halt and not resume for the remainder of the day.
Level 3 Halt
at any time - trading shall halt and not resume for the remainder of the day.
graafik ,kas eestlased müüsid oma aktsiad ka või!
ma müüsin ennast kuivaks pool aastat tagasi ja proovisin siin ka propagandat teha.Raske optimistide laviini peatada.Fakt on see,et langus Dow osas veel jätkub ja tehnoloogiaaktsiatega ei soovita praegu kellelgi riskida.Pange oma raha pangadeposiiti ja oodake.
ma müüsin ennast kuivaks pool aastat tagasi ja proovisin siin ka propagandat teha.Raske optimistide laviini peatada.Fakt on see,et langus Dow osas veel jätkub ja tehnoloogiaaktsiatega ei soovita praegu kellelgi riskida.Pange oma raha pangadeposiiti ja oodake.
tonis sa hakkad oma "prohvetlikkusega" veidi tüütama. Kui väidad midagi siis palun ka põhjenda.
Lihtsalt väidete "nüüd kohe kukub" kasutegur on väga madal. Argumente siis paluks.
Lihtsalt väidete "nüüd kohe kukub" kasutegur on väga madal. Argumente siis paluks.