CALDEIRÃO DE BOLSA

QuimPorta Escreveu:Ulisses,
Desculpa a insistência...

É uma pergunta que me atormenta...
" O que é que esta caramela acha que impediu exactamente a correcção, que te parece relevante?!?" A FED ainda ia lá... Mas os pneus chineses?!?

Por favor acaba com este tormento... (suores frios, falta de apetite...). Ainda acabo a cometer uma loucura...

Abraço

Ulisses,
Desculpa a insistência...

É uma pergunta que me atormenta...
" O que é que esta caramela acha que impediu exactamente a correcção, que te parece relevante?!?" A FED ainda ia lá... Mas os pneus chineses?!?

Por favor acaba com este tormento... (suores frios, falta de apetite...). Ainda acabo a cometer uma loucura...

Abraço

Sargotronss Escreveu:

QuimPorta Escreveu:

zecatreca Escreveu:

QuimPorta Escreveu:Ulisses,

Li o artigo com toda atenção. Toca ( e não será por acaso...) na grande dúvida de muita gente por estes dias.

No entanto, e deve ser falha minha, estou com dúvidas sobre a conclusão que a autora pretende tirar...

Podes ajudar? Uma meia-frase deve chegar...

Abraço

Boa tarde
"However, perhaps this protectionist action could be enough to solve the case of the missing correction"
Será que esta frase diz tudo?
cumprimentos

Ulisses, quando puderes ...

Sim essa frase e' a conclusao do texto, agora eu nao atinjo essa ideia que os medidas prot. sobre pneus dirijam o sentimento do mercado....Bom vendo bem o dinheiro dos pneus dirije o Benfica!

Bem visto
Achas que as taxas sobre os pneus chineses evitaram a correcção?!
Se o PM que sair das eleições lê isto... Começa pelos brinquedos, termina no computadores, passando por roupa, calçado, ferramentas manhosas... tchau deficit... ...

Ele há medidas eficazes...

Abraço

edit: eu sei que essas taxas já existem... multiplicavam-se pela altura da Michelle Obama...

QuimPorta Escreveu:

zecatreca Escreveu:

QuimPorta Escreveu:Ulisses,

Li o artigo com toda atenção. Toca ( e não será por acaso...) na grande dúvida de muita gente por estes dias.

No entanto, e deve ser falha minha, estou com dúvidas sobre a conclusão que a autora pretende tirar...

Podes ajudar? Uma meia-frase deve chegar...

Abraço

Boa tarde
"However, perhaps this protectionist action could be enough to solve the case of the missing correction"
Será que esta frase diz tudo?
cumprimentos

Ulisses, quando puderes ...

Sim essa frase e' a conclusao do texto, agora eu nao atinjo essa ideia que os medidas prot. sobre pneus dirijam o sentimento do mercado....Bom vendo bem o dinheiro dos pneus dirije o Benfica!

zecatreca Escreveu:

QuimPorta Escreveu:Ulisses,

Li o artigo com toda atenção. Toca ( e não será por acaso...) na grande dúvida de muita gente por estes dias.

No entanto, e deve ser falha minha, estou com dúvidas sobre a conclusão que a autora pretende tirar...

Podes ajudar? Uma meia-frase deve chegar...

Abraço

Boa tarde
"However, perhaps this protectionist action could be enough to solve the case of the missing correction"
Será que esta frase diz tudo?
cumprimentos

Ulisses, quando puderes ...

QuimPorta Escreveu:Ulisses,

Li o artigo com toda atenção. Toca ( e não será por acaso...) na grande dúvida de muita gente por estes dias.

No entanto, e deve ser falha minha, estou com dúvidas sobre a conclusão que a autora pretende tirar...

Podes ajudar? Uma meia-frase deve chegar...

Abraço

Boa tarde
"However, perhaps this protectionist action could be enough to solve the case of the missing correction"
Será que esta frase diz tudo?
cumprimentos

Ulisses,

Li o artigo com toda atenção. Toca ( e não será por acaso...) na grande dúvida de muita gente por estes dias.

No entanto, e deve ser falha minha, estou com dúvidas sobre a conclusão que a autora pretende tirar...

Podes ajudar? Uma meia-frase deve chegar...

Abraço

"Where Art Thou, Market Correction?"

By Helene Meisler
RealMoney.com Contributor
9/14/2009 7:00 AM EDT

"As a child I used to read Nancy Drew novels and this weekend all I could think of is that the market could be like a Nancy Drew mystery. The title: "The Case of the Missing Correction."

Why hasn't the market corrected? Or perhaps more aptly put, why won't the market correct?

I can probably conjure up a dozen reasons but each time I make a list I come up with two reasons that appear on the list consistently. The first is the old adage of "Don't fight the Fed". This time around it's not just the Fed, it's every single central bank pumping money into the system. What's more, despite the market rebounds worldwide, they seem too afraid to stop the spigot.

The second reason that keeps popping up is sentiment. Yes, it gets giddy at times but as soon as we have a 1% or 2% correction the sentiment turns on a dime. That is highly unusual for this point in a rally. Typically, the longer a rally goes on the more confident folks get; the more confident folks get the more they scoff at the corrections. Yet that hasn't been the case.

I'm sure there are other reasons and quite frankly if we look back in time we can see that the Fed actually started hiking rates, albeit from a very low base, in June 2004 and the market didn't make its highs until 2007. Therefore, the direct correlation between the Fed and the markets is good but might not be so exacting.

If we simply witness the last month we can see how the sequence has played out.

On Aug. 12, the S&P 500 makes a high at 1012. Two days later it's at 979. The put/call ratio soars. Four days in a row it shows readings in the 90% area. Folks, this is a 3% correction after the market is up over 40% and people are rushing to buy puts?

On Aug. 28, we make a high at 1039. Three days later we're at 996. This time it's a 4% correction. It took a smidge longer this time but within two days we start to see the put/call ratio climb over 90%.

In the past few days even negative data points are shaken off by the market. I have been asked several times about what can take the market down. I couldn't come up with a reason and that usually means, more often than not, that it's something not on the radar screens. But this weekend we might have had the news.

President Obama opted to impose tariffs on tires imported from China. All I could think of was when President Bush opted to do the same on steel in March 2002. There are some differences though. The most obvious to me is the tire tariffs are focused on China; the steel ones were not pointed at China directly.

But when I went back and looked at the indicators I saw something quite curious. In March 2002, when the tariffs were imposed on steel, we were six months off a big low in the market as well -- the 9/11 low. I have been noting how breadth has been so superb in this rally. I went back and looked and saw that breadth was terrific then too.

Since the major input into the McClellan Summation Index is breadth, I looked at the index and saw that it too was similar to today's action in that it wasn't screaming ahead, it was sort of dallying around.

Before you get scared by what the market did in the environment after March 2002, let me note a major difference, one that I feel is important. In 2002 Nasdaq had made its high in January and by March was still about 7% below its January high. This time Nasdaq has done no such thing.

However, perhaps this protectionist action could be enough to solve the case of the missing correction. Of course, we all know that if we do correct the chances of the put/call ratio rising fast are high, especially with this being expiration week.

A final comment regarding bonds. Yields bounced right off the lows on Friday and therefore there was no break of the third fan line and no lower lows. I will change my mind on my call for lower yields if we find we are unable to break these recent levels shortly, especially now that everyone seems to have forgotten their calls for higher yields. "

(in www.realmoney.com)