"
Du er her: Forside > In the pit - Oslo Børs > The bear is awake !!!!!!!!!11
The bear is awake !!!!!!!!!11
fattigmann
19.02.2000 15:27
#30

Endre
Som investor som styrer hovedsaklig etter magefølelsen og etter hva man kan finne på nett, et vel av informasjon.
Har jeg idag lest en del bearish informasjon som stemmer forbløffende med min magefølelse.
Sjekk ut disse ( skremmende?? )
http://www.cross-currents.net/charts.htm http://home.c2i.net/hloekke/page34.htm

Sitter nå med 80% cash da jeg solgte meg ut på onsdag og torsdag og kun en liten post i FRO som følges svært nøye da det gikk 2 store poster her i forrige uke får se om motstanden ryker mandag eller tirsdag, ut blir det nok uansett. Etter det vil jeg nok vurdere nøye hva jeg skal kjøpe og det blir ingen langsiktige investeringer.
På tide å lære seg å kjøpe putter, kanskje??

Gjentar historien seg p.g.a. vår psyke eller hva mener vår medesinstudent Esko.. som jo har blitt langsiktig siste uken.

Ha en trivelig helg, neste uke blir svært spennende. Husk helgen er tiden for ettertanke.

------------------
mvh
Fattigmann
Snart rik mann

fattigmann
19.02.2000 17:53
#32

Endre
Bare bulls her skjønner jeg ingen som gidder å lese advarsler basert på statestikk og historie.
Vi får se til uken

------------------
mvh
Fattigmann
Snart rik mann

Gen
19.02.2000 19:38
#176

Endre
Mer "Mørke skyer"...

Dark Clouds Cast a Shadow over The Land of The Rising Sun: http://www.thestreet.com/markets/comingweekasia/887138.html

[This message has been edited by Gen (edited 19-02-2000).]

Gen
19.02.2000 19:46
#177

Endre
.....heightened recession risk....

kilde: Global Economic Forum

Global: Market Feedback
Stephen Roach (New York)

The role of financial markets in the broader economy has undergone a dramatic transformation over the past 10 years. In days of yore, asset prices were largely viewed as a by-product of underlying economic fundamentals. Now the shoe is on the other foot. The real economy is increasingly dependent on fluctuations in financial markets. Whereas income generation used to drive demand growth, wealth creation has now taken on an increasingly significant portion of that responsibility. That leaves wealth-dependent economies -- especially those in the US, the UK, Euroland -- at greater risk in the current market environment than at any point in the post-World War II era.

As a result, the authorities now have no choice other than to pay increased attention to financial market management when setting public policy. That was certainly the lesson in the fall of 1998, when a seizing up of global capital markets was deemed an actionable event by the world’s major central banks. And it appears to be the case in early 2000, with Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan using the occasion of his Humphrey-Hawkins testimony before the US Congress to once again voice concern over the stock-market-induced excesses of US demand growth. Notwithstanding these concerns, policy makers are understandably reluctant to act. The more dependent economies become on financial markets, the greater the risk, if, and when, the markets go the other way. Therein lies the ultimate moral hazard: Have financial markets -- especially equities -- become too big to fail?

History argues strongly to the contrary. As night follows day, financial bubbles invariably burst. And so the heightened vigilance of policy makers certainly makes sense in the current environment. However, increased policy focus on financial markets is not without unintended consequences. The more adept the authorities are at financial market management, the more asymmetric the market risk profile becomes -- a floor on the downside but no ceiling on the upside. It is out of such asymmetry that asset bubbles keep expanding. Yet rare is the post-bubble collapse that has been ameliorated by the traditional tools of monetary and fiscal policy. Just ask Japan. And now just ask Alan Greenspan.

That leaves the Fed in a rather uncomfortable position. In a perfect world, it would not be difficult to identify the Fed chairman’s "wish list." It would center on a wealth effect that he estimates has boosted annualized GDP growth by one percentage point annually for the past five years. It would also reflect his belief that speed limits still matter for a fully-employed US economy, which appears to have been violating its (upwardly revised) inflation-stable growth threshold by approximately one percentage point. Since the growth overshoot is the functional equivalent of the wealth effect, that makes the task at hand quite simple for the Fed -- a monetary tightening that would effectively eliminate the wealth-related growth excess. The problem, of course, is that monetary policy is a very blunt instrument, which can hardly be expected to operate with the surgical precision the patient requires. Indeed, it is virtually impossible to ascertain ahead of time whether adjustments in real interest rates will effect the wealth-dependent or the income-sensitive components of the economy, or both.

Alas, there is the potential for a much bigger problem. If the Fed is successful in removing the wealth-related growth excess, a very tough feedback loop could come into play. When wealth creation finally gives way to wealth destruction, demand adjustments could be all the more acute. That’s because income-based saving, which is sharply depleted during a wealth-induced surge of current consumption, must be rebuilt when the wealth effect goes the other way. In Greenspan’s own words, wealth effects create "...additional purchasing power for which no additional goods or services have yet been produced." That means, when the stock market corrects, current consumption must then be brought back into alignment with a very different -- and sharply reduced -- stream of future income expectations. That conjures up the notion of the "asymmetrical wealth effect" -- a retrenchment of real economic activity in a down market that exceeds the impetus to activity which occurred in an up market. Households who had been spending on hope and hype -- and squandering their saving to do so -- will be forced to reorder their economic priorities. Under the asymmetrical wealth effect scenario, heightened recession risk would become a very real possibility.

The Fed’s dilemma is increasingly global in scope. While wealth effects differ around the world, there can be no mistaking the important role that improved financial market conditions have played in triggering and sustaining global healing. That’s true in Europe, non-Japan Asia, and now in Latin America. Should those markets go the other way. wealth-dependent real economies could be in real trouble. The United States, and, to a lesser extent, Europe, have the most to lose in this regard. Financial market feedback remains the biggest macro risk of 2000, in my view.


[This message has been edited by Gen (edited 19-02-2000).]

handel og vandel
19.02.2000 19:53
#16

Endre
Nei det er ikke lett å være bear når alle andre er bull, og markedet bare flyr avgårde.

Artikkelen var meget bra, ikke egentlig så veldig tankevekkende, rett og slett fordi det ikke var nytt. Vi har hørt denne regla tidligere, og vi kommer til å høre den med jevne mellomrom inntil det cracker, det gjør det selvføldelig en eller annen gang. Problemet er bare at i mellomtiden har markedet for IT gått 3 gangeren enda en gang. Da kan am leve med ett fall.

Forøvrig tror jeg det er hevet over enhver tvil at markedet nå er inne i tulipan fasen.

fattigmann
19.02.2000 19:56
#33

Endre
re:handel og vandel
Dumt spørsmål kanskje, men hva er tulipanfasen ??

------------------
mvh
Fattigmann
Snart rik mann

dingo
19.02.2000 20:11
#25

Endre
Riktig at man tåler et fall hvis man har vært med på 3 gangern, men noen må jo ha den tvilsomme ære og glede av å kjøpe seg inn for første gang på topp - du verden så morsomt det hadde vært.

Fra thestreet.com
By Justin Lahart
Associate Editor
2/18/00 8:09 PM ET


It is not so much that Alan Greenspan thinks stocks are too high; it's that he worries total market capitalization has got so big that a steep move in either direction could seriously affect the economy.

.. he does worry about the effect of stock market wealth on consumer spending. And he does say that asset gains need to come "into line with that of household incomes, thereby stemming the impetus to consumption relative to income that has come from rising wealth."

Household incomes gained a little less than 6% last year. In effect, Alan Greenspan just told us that if things go his way, you'd be better off in bonds.

Jeg vet ikke hva som er verst - utenfor markedet(better safe than sorry) - mens makedet stiger vanvittig - eller innenfor, mens markedet faller som en stein.

Gen
19.02.2000 20:21
#178

Endre
- Beklager hvis det ser ut som om de postede innlegg er et forsøk på haussing av et visst gullgruveselskap på OB. Bear-market er jo som kjent Bull for Gull og Gullaksjer.
Jeg ser på det bare som en posting av bl.a. en ny interessant analyse av Stephen Roach, og ikke noe annet. Dog, er han ikke skråsikker på hvordan det vil gå.

[This message has been edited by Gen (edited 19-02-2000).]

Gen
19.02.2000 20:55
#179

Endre
RISE OF MARGIN BORROWING SHOWS
INVESTORS' DRUNKEN STUPOR

7:30 a.m. ET (1230 GMT) February 19, 2000
NEW YORK — There's a lot of craziness on Wall Street. A clue? Investors are borrowing money like a bunch of drunken sailors so they can buy already overpriced stocks.
Buying on margin, the Street's version of charging stock purchases on a credit card, went up at a heart-pounding pace in January, climbing to a record $243.5 billion from $228.5 billion in December. A decade ago, the debt load amounted to just $35 billion.

Smart move? Probably not.

Some experts say investors are doubling up on their bets, increasing the danger that they could suffer huge losses if stocks plunge.

The market's high valuation has created enough of a risk for investors. But add the huge margin load and the risk together? Forget about it.

Common sense says that people who borrow up to their eyeballs to trade stocks have no staying power when the market turns against them.

The risky business in stocks has attracted the attention of the pinstriped suits at the Federal Reserve.

But the central bankers and their chairman, Alan Greenspan, appear to fear that any attempt to take the air out of this speculative market bubble could set off an avalanche of selling.

A strong economy has more often than not fostered a strong stock market. But in this New Economy, the stock market appears to be pulling the economy and making lots of people feel rich — the so-called wealth effect.

Dangerous? Sure. If the market crashes, then the economy could go downhill like a speeding bobsledder.

What's the Fed to do? How about raising margins — the down payment to buy stocks on credit?

Last month, Greenspan said Wall Streeters were playing with fire in using debt to buy stocks.

But the Fed chairman said the central bank did not think that raising margins — investors put up 50 percent of their own cash before borrowing the other 50 percent — is the best way to pop the market bubble.

Alan Newman, editor of the Crosscurrents newsletter, said Greenspan has created a financial Frankenstein and the Fed chief is afraid that if he acts on the margins, the house of cards will come tumbling down.

"Margin debt versus gross domestic product is the highest it has been since the 'Roaring Twenties,"' Newman said. "Add in the resources of home equity lines and second mortgages and we are looking at a draconian level of debt versus equity."

Still, the jury is out on the effectiveness of margin increases in skimming off some of the speculative froth from the stock market.

In 1951, the central bank raised margins to 75 percent from 50 percent. In 1955, it again boosted margins to 60 percent from 50 percent and months later it raised margins to 70 percent from 60 percent before lowering. In 1958, margins were lifted to 70 percent from 50 percent and in mid-1968 they climbed to 80 percent from 70 percent.

"Only in mid-1968 did any of these margin requirement hikes remotely coordinate with a deceleration in market momentum or a market peak," says Warburg Dillon Read Plc. "In short, margin requirements have been an ineffective tool to control prices or speculation."

Others say the market would not be happy to see margin requirements go up, citing the danger of changing the rules at this late stage of the bull market.

A boost in margins, which have been unchanged at 50 percent since 1973, could sucker punch the market because traders are totally unprepared for such action.

"It would affect the day traders," said John Geraghty of North American Equity Services, a consulting firm. "Higher margins would restrict the amount of shares that they can deal in, which would cut down tremendously on the market's volatility."

For example, with the current margin at 50 percent, a day trader can buy $200,000 worth of stocks with a $100,000 down payment. If the Fed raises the margin to 75 percent, the trader would only be able to handle about $133,000 worth of stocks.

"There's no doubt that higher margins are a tool to control speculation because they force the individual traders to put more of their own money into the market," Geraghty said.

Wall Street hates surprises and a sharp rise in margins could send a nasty signal to the market that the Fed is serious about deflating the market bubble.

"We could see a selloff, if only for psychological reasons," Geraghty said.

A rising market is particularly susceptible to shocks and margin increases are one of the time bombs that could unleash a wicked correction.

"Another reason is that this high-flying market has been under a cloud of fears that a big correction could take it down quickly after years of incredible gains," Geraghty said. "So far, it hasn't happened because there have been no fundamental reasons to look for the correction."

The old-line stocks, such as those in the Dow Jones industrial average, may stand up better than technology stocks to higher margins.

"My bet: If they raise margins, New York Stock Exchange shares may not be hurt as much because the NYSE has been lagging the technology-heavy Nasdaq," Geraghty said. "Also, the stocks listed on the NYSE are the buy-and-hold types, not the speculative breed that rules the Nasdaq."

There doesn't seem to be much of a margin for error in this stock market.

Django
20.02.2000 00:01
#26

Endre
Hvis dere er redde for å spille på OB, så flytt pengene over på det som er mere levende - store, firbeinte dyr med lang hale!

Men, jeg vil påstå at usikkerheten er større ved spill på disse dyrene, og hva de finner i (opp-)løpene sine kan være direkte neglebitende og ufyselig.

Mvh
Django

Gen
20.02.2000 00:16
#180

Endre
Hei "Django"!

Helt enig! - og pengene er istedet tungt og "trygt" plassert på OSE i Ken, Cru og (Nav og Rcg)! - Uten noe særlig "gearing" for "dagtrading" eller annen slags "spillemani". - Men underslår selvsagt ikke det faktum at enkelte gjør gode penger på "dagtrading".

[This message has been edited by Gen (edited 20-02-2000).]

Kondra Tieff
20.02.2000 00:35
#25

Endre
Re. Fattigmann og "Tulipanfasen".

Tulipan-krasjet var et ballong-krasj som fant sted i Holland for over 350 år siden. Et klassisk case som inngår i diverse litteratur om crash, bear-markets og pyramidespill.

"The infamous Dutch tulipmania in the 1630s. In 1637, at the peak of the mania for tulip bulbs, one bulb sold for 4,200 guilders, roughly US$1,500,000 today. Likewise, many Internet stocks have acheived unprecidented prices based not on any reasonable extrapolation of future earnings but, as with tulip bulbs in the 1600s, on buyers' expectations that there will always be more buyers at a higher price."

Anbefaler kjøp av selskapet iTulip.com !!!!
En vinner. ref.
http://www.itulip.com/itulipbanner1.gif
http://www.itulip.com/background.htm

"Now you too can enjoy the excitement of owning a stock certificate of an uneconomical Internet company without the risk of losing all your money. Buy an iTulip.com Stock Certificate. Not only does iTulip.com not have any assets, revenues or profits, it doesn't even exist. Of course, some Internet companies won't exist either after the Internet stock speculative mania ends."

mvh
K.T.

Gen
20.02.2000 10:34
#181

Endre
Greenspan ready to rock the market again
on Wednesday, 10 a.m. http://cbs.marketwatch.com/archive/20000219/news/current/econ_preview.htx?source= htx/http2_mw

WASHINGTON (CBS.MW) -- Alan Greenspan will dominate the coming week's economic news just as much as he did the past week's.

The week's data
Wednesday
10 am: Greenspan testimony
Thursday
8:30 am: Durable goods
8:30 am: Jobless claims
Friday
8:30 am: GDP
10 am: Existing home sales

See our forecast

With very little new economic news on tap, the second half of the Federal Reserve chief's Humphrey-Hawkins congressional testimony will be the major event. The hearing is scheduled for 10 a.m. Wednesday at the Senate Banking Committee. See full story on Thursday's testimony.

It won't be so much what Greenspan says (his prepared statement will be a word-for-word repetition of last Thursday's appearance on the House side of the Capitol), it'll be the lingering shadow of the Fed over markets.

It appears Greenspan has finally gotten the attention of the financial markets that the Fed is serious about slowing the economy by raising real interest rates and slowing capital gains in the stock market.


Greenspan's warning shook the Dow.
The Dow and the S&P plunged on Greenspan's first word and have barely looked back since. On Friday, the Nasdaq also tumbled. See Market Snapshot. All that money was flowing into bonds on Friday. See Bond Report.

Economists, too, are revising their expectations about Fed tightenings. A group of economists polled by CBS.MarketWatch.com are looking for at least two and possibly three rate hikes in the next three meetings. See our forecast. Three moves would bring the Federal funds rate to 6.5 percent, the highest it's been in nine years.

The economy and the stock market, especially the Nasdaq, have been very resilient to Fed warnings so far. But the Fed is determined to slow the economy and that spells trouble for bulls: If higher interest rates don't hurt stock prices, the prospect of lower profits will.

"He's going to squeeze them until it makes a difference," said Bill Cheney, chief economist at John Hancock. "He's going to keep squeezing until the pip squeaks."

"For the first time in a long time, the reaction to Greenspan is somewhat rational," said Hugh Johnson, chief investment officer for First Albany Bank. With the bond market up and the stock market down, "you need to be very worried."

"The stock market was a bit taken aback by his comments that returns can't really exceed income growth," said Joel Naroff, president of Naroff Economic Advisers. He's warned the market before about overvaluation, but "now he's putting a number on it."

Greenspan and other Fed officials have issued denials that they are targeting the stock market, "but, disclaimers aside, Thursday's testimony reminded the markets that that's exactly what he's doing," Cheney said.

Cheney said he doesn't buy Greenspan's argument that capital gains are pushing the economy too fast for its own good. "Greenspan's logic is getting more tortured as we get more and more of these bland inflation reports," he said. But it may not matter what Cheney or advocates of the New Economy or even what Nasdaq bulls think.

Johnson said the behavior of the bond and stock markets is signaling that the long bull market may be near its end. With the Fed tightening, monetary aggregates deteriorating and more rate hikes coming, "something has to give," Johnson said. The economy is slowing and the markets will follow.


What a long, strange year it's been for the Dow.
Oddly, Greenspan may be less worried about the stock market now than he was a year ago or three years ago when he made his infamous "irrational exuberance" comment, Naroff said. The Dow is almost exactly where it was nine months ago when the Fed first warned about higher interest rates.

"Maybe what we need is a couple of years of no growth in the Dow," Naroff said.

Now, the exuberance is "concentrated in the sector that capital needs to flow into," Naroff said. "Clearly there's a bubble" in the Nasdaq stocks, he said, but that bubble doesn't represent a systemic risk the way it did when even the blue chips were soaring.

Amid all this talk about bonds signaling a recession and the Fed squeezing the economy, it might be a shock to learn that the economy might have grown at a 7 percent pace last quarter.

The Commerce Department will revise its estimate of fourth-quarter gross domestic product on Friday. The number will be higher than the 5.8 percent reported a month ago because we know consumption was stronger, inventory growth was higher and the trade gap was lower than the government supposed for its first estimate.

How much will those factors add to GDP?

"At least a percentage point," Naroff said. He's forecasting a 7 percent gain, which would be the highest since the fourth quarter of 1987. If memory serves us right, the stock market may have been considered overvalued back then too.

The MarketWatch consensus calls for a revision to 6.4 percent. Looking forward, economists are calling for growth to slow to 3.4 percent in the first quarter, although some of that reduction is simply an unwinding of an inventory build-up by both businesses and consumers ahead of Y2K, which doesn't imply any fundamental slowdown in demand.

The other numbers of the week are minor indicators that rarely budge markets. Durable goods orders are expected to fall 1.3 percent in January after rising 5.5 percent in December. Sales of existing homes are expected to remain healthy at a 5.07 million pace

[This message has been edited by Gen (edited 20-02-2000).]

Fast bucks
20.02.2000 12:03
#445

Endre
Rate fears create stock bargains
Also: Leading indicators: Washington Mutual
By Deborah Adamson, CBS MarketWatch
Last Update: 7:52 PM ET Feb 18, 2000

[klikk på blå tekst]

"Nasdaq, however, is a different case. Yager said money pretty much has been staying in Nasdaq, just rotating in and out of different sectors.

Despite the recent selloff, she doesn't think the bull market is over yet, pointing in part to the urgency among baby boomers to raise as much money as they can for retirement in a short period of time.

"My overall bias is still up. I don't think this is over," Yager said.

"At any point, this market can whip back up 10 to 20 percent."

MVH


[This message has been edited by Fast bucks (edited 20-02-2000).]

Lion
20.02.2000 12:11
#80

Endre
Greenspan forsøker å kjøle ned markedet og få til en myk landing for den amerikanske økonomien. Hans små kalddusjer, og markedets reaksjon på dem, er allerede blitt faste innslag i tilværelsen. Det blir litt enkelt å rope "dommedag" hver gangt dette skjer. Selvsagt kan dommedagsprofetene risikere å få rett en gang (etter å ha tatt feil ørten ganger), men det er grunn til å se litt nøkternt på det som skjer. Upside potensialet i oljeprisen er neppe stort. Hvis det skal bli et olje-rally, så må det skje fordi oljerelaterte aksjer er grovt underpriset med dagens oljepris. Noen mener så er tilfelle fordi IT-aksjer prises så mye høyere, mens andre mener at en slik sammenligning er irrelevant. Jeg trodde lenge at neste rally var innen offshore. Nå er jeg ikke så sikker lenger.
Gen
20.02.2000 12:29
#182

Endre
Re Lion;

Veldig enig i det du skriver her, da det er altfor mange som tolker noen få prosent på Dow Jones som "dommedag", hvilket tilsier at det kan være en del nervøse investorer/tradere som overdramatiserer en hittil nedgang på 10 - 12 %. Husk "Fast Buck"'s innklippede sitat: "At any point, this market can whip back up 10 to 20 percent" - Et normalt "bear"-market rally eller et fortsatt "bull"-market er enda for tidlig å si noe om...

Lunde
20.02.2000 13:00
#88

Endre
Jeg nevnte for en uke eller to siden at en korreksjon i området 15-30% godt kan være mulig, men jeg sa også at US med 1 skritt frem og 1,5 skritt tilbake kan være det vi ser i en periode fremover og således fungere som en buffer for et eventuelt stort fall. Foreløpig ser det ut som at det er det som skjer, og fortsetter det vil en større brå korreksjon utebli og vi får en myk landing. Men alt kan jo skje.

Olje er det store spørsmål, vil det bli en boom, eller vil det fortsette i samme leia med små økninger over tid. Selv så tror jeg at gml. nivåer før forrige krakk vil bli vanskelig å nå, om ikke umulig. I såfall må IT gå dukken så å si totalt, hvilket ikke vil skje. Dels fordi IT har fått ett så mye bedre grep om markedet siden forrige krakk, og behovet er stort og det trengs store investeringer hele tiden. Før så fikk olje enorme investeringer, men må nå se seg nødt til å dele en stadig større del av kaka med IT. Derfor tror jeg ikke vi vil få de enorme "oljeinvesteringene" som ved forrige boom. Kortsiktig kan de få ett "røsk", men ikke de tilstandene som var før.

Gen
20.02.2000 13:48
#183

Endre
First blood to Greenspan in battle over equity; http://www.afr.com.au/content/000221/market/markets1.html
Gen
27.02.2000 12:06
#209

Endre
Economic Preview: Big week for the data...;
http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/current/econ_preview.htx?source=htx/http2_mw

[This message has been edited by Gen (edited 27-02-2000).]

Gen
27.02.2000 14:32
#211

Endre
It's not obvious the stock market is overvalued... ;
http://www.foxmarketwire.com/022500/rates.sml

[This message has been edited by Gen (edited 27-02-2000).]

fattigmann
31.03.2000 07:06
#170

Endre
Hei, hei alle sammen, livet er herlig dere ???

Tiden for denne igjen skjønner jeg. En kraftig korreksjon er spådd med start 28 mars og jeg sier meg pr. idag veldig enig.

Kommentarer ???????

CASH IS KING.

------------------
mvh
Fattigmann
Snart rik mann

fattigmann
31.03.2000 08:04
#171

Endre
Avisen oversvømmes av "positive nyheter".

http://www.nettavisen.no/nett_paa_sak/98541.html

http://www.nettavisen.no/okonomi/98616.html

------------------
mvh
Fattigmann
Snart rik mann

fattigmann
31.03.2000 08:08
#172

Endre
http://www.nettavisen.no/okonomi/98596.html

------------------
mvh
Fattigmann
Snart rik mann

Gen
31.03.2000 23:32
#472

Endre
The Economy is Still Red Hot; http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20000331/ts/economy_leadall_2.html



Stocktalk.no eies av MarketMind AS
Adresse: Thunesvei 2, 0274 Oslo Tlf: 21 07 50 08 Email: st [at] stocktalk.no Orgnr: 979 175 027 MVA
Kontakt oss | Hjelp | Regler | Sett som startside | Legg til favoritter © 2008 Vestover AS