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

[C.N.]

[b]"Money's Money, No Matter How You Make It" By Jim Cramer

...the media believes the longs just got lucky, or were moronic but played the liquidity wave... The shorts, on the other hand, are regaled as clever, they are smart as whips and know the game inside out. When they make money, they didn't get lucky they earned it

Obrigado por postares isto Ulisses. Uma das frases com que me tenho deparado recentemente quando digo que em 2009 os meus clientes e eu fizemos +43% de ganhos medios e esta: "last year everything went up". Isto irrita-me porque na verdade ha muita gente que deixou o dinheiro em contas a prazo a ganhar 2% e decidiu nao investir...

Enfim. Abracos.

CN

[Ulisses Pereira]

"Money's Money, No Matter How You Make It"

By Jim Cramer
RealMoney Columnist
1/12/2010 9:34 AM EST


"The imbalance between being bullish and right and being short and right is on display today around Wall Street, as it is every time things get pretty generous and seemingly easy to the upside, something that tends to happen when you have six straight solid days.

I don't care. I don't care if the selloff is caused by the president's call for levying the banks for TARP at a moment when the banks are trying to get back on their feet -- I favor an excise tax for anyone taking a huge bonus who worked at a bank that took TARP and was therefore saved by it. (And I loved Andrew Ross Sorkin's piece on the Q&A the bankers should have to go through as part of the commission to find out what went wrong with finance.) The tax will really kill Bank of America (BAC - commentary - Trade Now) and Wells (WFC - commentary - Trade Now), which at last looked to be on the mend, not to mention Citigroup (C - commentary - Trade Now). It's a bigger psychological blow, though. I don't care if the selloff is caused by Alcoa (AA - commentary - Trade Now) with its ridiculously unprofitable earnings, or by Electronic Arts (ERTS - commentary - Trade Now), which I like because of the balance sheet and because of Playfish, the social media gaming company.

All I know is that if you came in short somehow, you are considered right; if you came in long after catching a 3% move -- equal to the 10-year after taxes -- you are considered a complacent joker who should have known better. I am not surprised, but it is disenchanting.

There is a strange differential between the longs and the shorts here and everywhere else in the money management business. I always feel like the media believes the longs just got lucky, or were moronic but played the liquidity wave, or just don't know any better. Complacent. Foolish. The shorts, on the other hand, are regaled as clever, totally on their game, and it means nothing that they passed up the 3% spot. They are smart as whips and know the game inside out. When they make money, they didn't get lucky -- they earned it.

This media bias has always been the case since the hedge fund era began. The gains are phony unless they are from shorting. You can be "canny" long for a few minutes, but after that you are a bozo.

I don't like this kind of thinking, because I believe that you are a bozo if you missed some of the Nasdaq 40%, and you are not so stupid if you were up 30% from the long side, as we were in Action Alerts PLUS. You are never stupid if you make money either way, that's my thinking. If you were long in 2008, you could be considered stupid. You sure weren't "lucky."

I just think there ought to be some equivalence. Gains are gains; I don't care where they are from. The smart money was on the long side last year and has been for the first six days of this year, where an astounding amount of money has already been made.

I point this out only because it looks like, in hindsight, you had to go all-in short last night after Alcoa. That's so glib, though.

Just a touch of pique about the subtle denigration here of long-side buys and the not-so-subtle pride in nailing the short side, even when it isn't nailed. "

(in www.realmoney.com)