"TAP não sobrevive se se mantiver pública", garante Pinto Luz

[djovarius]

Ora nunca como no segundo texto deste tópico, Ulisses, vi tamanho razão de Cramer.

Não sou um adepto dele, nem de perto nem de longe, mas aí está algo que eu acho correctíssimo.

A calmaria nos diversos mercados é impressionante o que é Bull para as acções.
São as Obrigações a subir, o Ouro a corrigir.
Os mercados cambiais estáveis, bem como a maioria das commodities. Até o petróleo falhou o possível disparo...

Assim, é mais coerente pensar-se na continuação do Bull, passado o efeito "fim de trimestre" que está a passar pelos mercados.

Bom texto, Ulisses, ainda bem que colocas estas opiniões !!

Um abraço
dj

[Ulisses Pereira]

"Bonds Show This Detour Prolongs the Rally"

By James J. Cramer
09/26/2003 12:09 PM EDT



"Why am I not more panicked? Why don't I feel like so many of the people on this site, who are acting as if this game was over and are headed out before the half?

Simple: I care more about bonds than stocks. I care more about competition than anything else. I care that there be a choke-off to the recovery.


And we aren't getting it. Bonds are going in the right direction if you favor higher stock prices, not the wrong direction. Remember, if bonds had gone in a straight line to 5%, I would have been out of here. I wouldn't be talking about a quick selloff and a buy, I would be talking about buying bonds!

I wouldn't be buying Charter (CHTR:Nasdaq - commentary - research), I would be selling it. I wouldn't be putting money to work slowly but surely; I would be blowing out on any lift. And I wouldn't have an overweighted position in financials. I would own none of them.

Remember, I am not running for president. I favor higher stock prices over time. You won't get higher stock prices over time if we have an overheated economy or tight employment.

This detour we are taking, again, more of time than of price, is good news because interest rates are going down. That's perfect, it is a prolonging of the rally and means that we still most likely will head to Dow 10,000 by year-end.

We just don't get there before we go lower. But we are not damaging the thesis with the detour. We are just taking our time, building fear, making people be less greedy even as we take away alternatives like gold and bonds.

Pretty simple. "

(in www.realmoney.com)

[Ulisses Pereira]

"Shorting Takes Facts, Not Anger"


By James J. Cramer
09/26/2003 10:50 AM EDT


"You want to short Amazon. You want to short eBay. You want to bet against Electronic Arts and Omnvision. But do you know why you want to do it?

I know why. Not because I have interviewed dozens of hedge fund managers and I have the skinny on those companies. I know why because as a hedge fund manager, I had stocks I hated. I hated them because they could be counted on to go up, boosted by their endless backers who refused to care about valuation.


I hated those stocks because I played by the rules and the owners of them didn't. I hated those stocks because when my investors called, they wanted to know why I didn't own them. They wanted to know why because the stocks were going up and were readily accessible to all, including hedge fund managers, and it bothered them I wasn't in them.

Funny thing, though; that's not enough of a reason to short stocks. You have to have the goods.

Let me discuss two of my favorite shorts of the old days: Applied Micro Circuits and PMC-Sierra. During the heyday, I was one of those people who would look every day to see what time Kevin Landis would come on CNBC. I knew that people would be shorting these stocks because they hated them. I knew of an actual cartel that would buy these stocks and keep them higher. (Don't worry, the government knew, too, but who was hurt? Who had standing to be aggrieved by stocks going higher?)

Anyway, I would wait until an hour before Landis was due to come on and load the boat up with those shares. Then I would peel them off slowly after he had talked about them and they had jumped.

But you know what? I didn't get rid of them. I didn't short them. Because the stories were intact. I just kept some on, and I knew Landis would be back on CNBC in a couple of days, when I would just do the same.

Then, on a couple of days in the spring and summer of 2000, Nortel and Lucent said their customers were slowing down purchases.

Then you could short them. And we did, every time Landis was on. And we didn't cover them all when Landis was done because we knew he would be back on, and it kept us fresh to keep the names on the sheets so we could short them again when the mustachioed wonder was back on the set.


You had to have more than hatred to bring down a stock. You needed facts.

If you know that auctions are slowing down on eBay, you should have your whole fund short it. If you heard that Barnes & Noble.com was going to pay you for buying books on line, you should short Amazon. If you knew that the government was going to ban Electronic Arts' games, you should short ERTS. If you knew that Yahoo! had decided to ban advertising, you should short Yahoo!.

But if you know nothing more than what I know, which is that these stocks are as expensive as all get-out, then even during this seasonally weak period they will be unrewarding shorts.

Sorry to let you down. Sorry not to give what many of you want.

But that has never been my style.

Random musings: Why is the press so suspicious of the situation in Iraq? Because it wasn't suspicious enough about Vietnam. If you think that's not the case, go read David Maraniss' They Walked into Sunlight. Real good read. ... My television partner Larry Kudlow wants to know why the Democrats were so gloomy about the economy. I think it is because they want to be elected and don't want to see George W. Bush elected, but then again, I always had a keen eye for the obvious. "

(in www.realmoney.com)