La bolla al ribasso della volatilità (1 Viewer)

christiano

Forumer attivo
Qundo giracchio su Internet fa piacere che gente con percorsi diversi arriva alle mie stesse conclusioni. Giuro che quello che ha scritto questo tizio l'ho letto dopo la discussione di ieri. Però è interessante che arriva alle mie stesse conclusioni.

We’re not exactly sure where we found the following, but the stats are certainly revealing about the potential for stocks. To wit: If price/earnings ratios are below 10, then the average company would return a 17% compound return over 10 years. But for P/Es between 10 and 12, the expected return will be only 14%. As P/E ratios rise to 16 or 17, the expected return sinks to 11%. Between 18 and 20 P/E, the return falls to 7.5%. And at a P/E of 22, the return falls to just 5%. At Friday’s close, the overall P/E for the S&P 500 had risen to 20.6, pretty close to the 5% return stated above. With the Fed poised to raise rates yet again in mid-December, there would appear to be rapidly dwindling reasons to own stocks. As we showed in this issue’s lead article, the primary demand for stocks has little to do with fundamentals and far more to do with Wall Street’s creation of a new product line. We can live with the idea that institutional demand is sufficiently high to suck up all the ETF offerings, but argue that since the demand is all inclusive, the stocks within each index product tend to be over or under priced according to their capitalization. Pricing inefficiencies are increasing over time and this is clearly shown by the higher P/E range that is now acceptable for institutions. Meanwhile, the theory for expectations clearly has legs. The S&P 500 first traded at 1200 on December 21, 1998 and last traded at the same level on August 7, 2001. Prices are essentially the same now.

It just blows us away how misinformation runs rampant from the mouths of so-called professionals. For instance, take the comments of Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute, who recently told CNBC's Mark Haines and millions of viewers that ".... there's never been a 20 year period in U.S. history in which people would have lost money [in the stock market]." WRONG! Mr. Tanner is pushing his own agenda for social security reform and unfortunately, his approach, which "is based on individual responsibility," really doesn't say much for the security retired folks need. Remember, these are the very same individuals that were responsible for participating in the greatest mass hysteria stock market mania of all time just a few years ago! By claiming the long term is the sure fire cure all, Mr. Cato can only do great harm to investors. Check out the botom chart from our August 2004 update of Pictures of a Stock Market Mania, showing just how often 20-year holding periods can be underwater. Since 1917, all rolling twenty year periods have been in the red 5.6% of the time, not very much, but nevertheless, in the red, contrary to Tanner's claims. As well, if you raise the stakes to a paltry 2% return, stocks have still been below the mark 20.4% of the time. And just for kicks, we’ll be happy to tell you that those who were holding stocks for 30 full years on September 9, 1950, were also in the red. Stocks were never meant to buy and hold forever or even for a lifetime or close to it. Shares in individual companies should be bought when they are cheap and sold when they are expensive. There is no other way to invest. Anything else is sheer madness and is worthy of our contempt. Rant over.

Ken Fisher is bullish (see Forbes magazine, November 29th). Okay, tell us something we don't know. In case you aren't aware, Mr. Fisher runs a money management firm, the kind that fishes for investors, sends us unsolicited mail way too often, boasting performance and most of all, bullish dreams that are fun to bank on - if only they could always be true. At least half the time they are, and that is why the stock market is everyone's favorite dream vehicle for wealth. Trouble is, at the tail end of the greatest bull market of all time would logically follow one of the most severe and protracted bear markets of all time, so pardon us for our skepticism. Not to be dissuaded by valuations exceeding those at the 1929 peak, Mr. Fisher is nevertheless "looking for a melt-up." Part of the rationale for this unbridled optimism is supposedly that the first year of the Presidential cycle has been wrongly quoted as an under performer. Fisher goes back to 1929 to show 19 "first" years averaging 7.5%, 10 of which were negative, but then points to the nine "first" years that showed huge 28.4% average gains. Fisher thinks, "next year will fall into the gain column and that it will fit the pattern by being big--up 30% or more." Well, we intend to keep a tally for his readers and clients. The post WW II record is probably a bit more germane and shows average gains of only 3.7%, certainly nothing to write home about, especially when dividend yields are nearly invisible as they are now. It's also somewhat disingenuous for Fisher to ignore that the outsized gains in 1985, 1989, 1993 and 1997 occurred within the greatest bull market of all time. If the next four cycles mirror those of 1965, 1969, 1973 and 1977 achieved in the last secular bear market, we are instead gazing at the torture of average annual LOSSES of 9.6%. Sigh. It's sooooo easy for the cunning to paint a bullish picture. What's really difficult is to muster the courage to tell folks the things they really may not wish to hear but need to know.

1102607689tac1208.gif
 

gipa69

collegio dei patafisici
Oggi leggevo un report di HSBC che vede la possibilità di una crescita degli indici con la crescita della volatilità così come lo hai prospettato tu.
e leggo report estremamente positivi sui mercati con rialzi dei target per il 2005.
Io sono positivo (salvo pause consolidative) fino al primo quarto del 2005 salvo movimenti diversi dall'attuale.
Per quanto riguarda i commenti altamente pessimistici sui mercati azionari ve ne sono molti (di investitori indipendenti) e questo fornisce sostegno alle strategie dei grandi.
E' quando rimarranno un esigua minoranza che tutto questo dventarà interessante.
Buona parte del lavoro è stato fatto ma ancora non basta.
(Notate bene che i testa e spalle sono figure di inversione con una percentuale di successo di poco superiore al 50% quindi poco determinanti anche se questo è discretamente preciso)



1102629028spxshsrialzista.gif
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Alto