Como se combate o populismo? "Com eleições", responde Fukuyama

[Ulisses Pereira]

Muito activo hoje o Cramer. Aqui ficam mais 2 artigos:

"Don't Kill the Stock Market"

By Jim Cramer
RealMoney.com Columnist
6/8/2006 12:24 PM EDT


"Lot of people saying stupid things.While a small pullback is healthy, a 15% correction is not healthy. We don't want to kill the stock market to rid ourselves of inflation or kill the economy.

We want a slowdown that breaks inflation, but not at the expense of the village. We have had a 400% increase in federal funds without a break. Is that so smart? Is that what passes for prudence? We have Fed governors not even attempting to inspire confidence.

I don't think the amateur running the Fed has any idea of how quickly confidence, both business confidence and confidence in the pieces of paper we trade, can be destroyed.

We are filled with history of when stocks have been crushed without any concomitant decline in industry or business, and invariably it is because the Federal Reserve chose to go the wrong way or the people in power, such as in Treasury in 1987, or the Fed in 1998, just obliterated confidence at the very worst moment.

For all we know, there are giant pools of capital being crushed right now, and the deflationary spiral may already have started. Who does that help? Is that what we want?

Of course, the Fed wants to prove its mettle. Of course it wants to be tough on inflation. Of course it wants to show who is boss.

In the interim, though, is it necessary to crush the economy and wreck always-fragile business confidence?

I think the answer from these guys is clearly, "absolutely."

It's funny, but after the 1987 crash we saw a monster wave of acquisitions by foreign companies that took advantage of a weak dollar and lower stock prices to snap on great

American brands at vastly reduced prices courtesy of a clueless group of government cronies and mindless futures selling that pole-axed stocks.

Sound familiar? "




"Don't Sell Into Panic Moves"

By Jim Cramer
RealMoney.com Columnist
6/8/2006 1:15 PM EDT


"Give it up! Get me out!


I am hearing it everywhere. Nobody wants to hear about buying anything. Everyone just wants to blow out of it.

I have to tell you, like the Rev says, this is a big capitulation day. Blocks and blocks for sale on monster selling. Forced selling -- meaning margined selling -- is reaching a peak today for this selloff.

It's really amazing how much panic there is out there. Panic and give up and resignation.

For my charitable trust I have done something I haven't done in years. I have committed every dime I have. I am willing to risk more on down days, but I can't abide by selling anything to finance anything here. Too many good companies are selling below where they should.

The idea of selling into a panic is something I have done periodically (check Confessions of A Street Addict), and it has never made money. In fact, I think it is the riskiest strategy you can adopt right now because you will be selling at a time when you might be able to get bases in merchandise that might be unheard of in just a few short weeks ... if the Fed doesn't tighten or even if it changes its bias or even if it just shuts up.

I am looking for the velocity of the decline to stop so the sellers just stop overwhelming the buyers.

The time to sell was before.

You can sit tight. You can buy. But selling here? I just can't see it. "

(in www.realmoney.com)

[Ulisses Pereira]

Rics, concordo contigo. Escrevi, inclusivamente, um artigo intitulado "A morte dos últimos bodes expiatórios" onde abordo o papel dos "shorts" nos mercados.

Mas gostaria de relembrar que, ao longo dos últimos 3 anos, o Cramer tem realçado o papel deste aumento de "margin debts" como uma injecção de liquidez que tem suportado os mercados e que, no dia em que eles dessem um trambolhão isso podia acelerar as quedas.

Um abraço,
Ulisses

[Rics]

Por acaso não gosto nada de críticas ao funcionamento dos mercados aquando de fortes descidas.

Os shorts, as margin accounts, os futuros, os hedge-funds, etc, todos contribuem para tornar os mercados mais diveros, líquidos e sofisticados.

E é essa sofisticação quer permite, a quem quiser, lucros, quer em períodos de subida, quer em períodos de descida.

Obviamente que isto tem como consequência um aumento de volatilidade. Mas a volatildade é o melhor amigo do trader, desde que colocado do lado certo... Os últimos anos tiveram uma volatilidade historicamente baixa e, desde há uns meses, parece que esta está a aumentar (talvez até demais) para depois provavelmente estabilizar um pouco e normalizar...

[pedras11]

Novidade BEST

[jarc]

Mas ainda lhes parece que há regulação possível?
O problema das margens é uma ponta do problema. Os fundos amigos, nos fundos é que está parte do problema. Eu se tivesse sido entalado no processo dos selos tinha de armar escândalo com os fundos. Trata-se de uma escandaleira sem paralelo. Mas não se assustem que isto qualquer dia sobe e fica tudo calado.

[Rics]

Se não estou em erro, a margem de 4x apenas é válida no intraday. Normalmente a margem apenas é de 2x para quem mantém posicões overnight.

De qualquer forma, da mesma forma que as margin calls poderão contribuir para o acelerar das quedas, também se pode argumentar que contribuem para o acelerar das subidas, visto que se pode comprar o dobro (ou o quádruplo)...

[Camisa Roxa]

Bem, penso que ele tem uma ponta de razão quando diz que o excesso de margens não deixa o mercado levantar voo

De facto assistiu-se à concessão generealizada de margin accounts que antes eram exclusividade de índices e forex para simples contas de acções

Aliás quando deixei de tradar pennies, em 2004, já a Ameritrade que tinha começado em 2002 por me oferecer 2:1 de margem, oferecia 4:1 de margem

Ora o pessoal com mais margem pôde comprar mais acçoes, logo essas margens contribuiram sem dúvida com a sua quota parte para o excesso de liquidez que terá sido uma das causas do bull deste outubro de 2002

Ora o problema é quando as margin calls começam a disparar por todo o lado gera-se 1 efeito bola de neve com quedas a gerarem-se a elas próprias através de sucessivas margin calls...

Enfim, há aí que fazer... E se o objectivo das entidades reguladoras é a estabilidade dos mercados então a atribuição dessas margin calls terá de ser mais supervisionada

[Ulisses Pereira]

"Put Toppy Stocks at Bottom of Your List"

By Jim Cramer
RealMoney.com Columnist
6/8/2006 10:34 AM EDT


"Giant tops everywhere! I mean, that's what it looks like when you hit up almost any chart. And those charts are daunting. The only ones that look OK are the food and drug stocks, which, again, is very self-reinforcing.

I am not a chartist. I don't even play one on TV. But I can see these tops, and they say, "Don't buy me, don't buy me, don't buy me."

I like to be involved only with what is happening, too, but I can't just be involved with stocks that "look good."

But I think that if I wasn't picking at stocks that have been absolutely crushed, I would be foolish. Because if the economy doesn't collapse, if oil doesn't go down by $10-$20 and if the Fed doesn't crash the economy, I would make less than cash in those good-charted stocks and be terribly positioned for the inevitable leg up.

Now, that means going in and buying stocks like Ingersoll Rand (IR:NYSE - commentary - research - Cramer's Take), which has one of the ugliest charts around, or Foster Wheeler (FWLT:Nasdaq - commentary - research - Cramer's Take), with a chart that's simply hideous, or ABB (ABB:NYSE - commentary - research - Cramer's Take), which is just a nightmare to look at.

But I need to think out 6 to 18 months, and the funniest thing is that these charts will look very different then.

And I think much more positively, because we know that at a certain point, the fundamentals, not just the charts, play a role. "

At the time of publication, Cramer was long Ingersoll Rand, Foster Wheeler and ABB.

(in www.realmoney.com)

[Ulisses Pereira]

Penso que esta definição é simples:

"A debit in your account that is owed to the broker. The debit is secured with stocks and bonds which regulators have authorized for use as collateral. It excludes funds due which are debits resulting from purchases in a cash account."

Um abraço,
Ulisses

[Elias]

Ulisses,

O que significa "margin debt" (expressão referida no primeiro artigo)?

1 abr
Elias

[Ulisses Pereira]

"Good, a Down Open"

By Jim Cramer
RealMoney.com Columnist
6/8/2006 10:13 AM EDT

"At last, they are at least opening stocks lower. Tortuous "bullish" openings just add to the problems. We needed to see delayed openings, openings down big, to get people out of stocks all at once, and not this gradual decline stuff.


Because human nature is uniquely unprepared to deal with awful markets, every time we opened up, we brought in more buyers, not sellers, which then led to more losses later on as those buyers panicked out.

I am not saying that we will get a washout. I am saying that the market opening down could be the best thing we could hope for as we need hope extinguished if we are ever going to get a significant, tradeable rally.

I am more positively inclined with a down opening than I am with an up one.

Is it trustworthy here? It is certainly more firm than if the market opened higher.

That's the only conclusion that can be reached. "

(in www.realmoney.com)

[Ulisses Pereira]

Bowie, eu não coloco aqui todos os posts do Cramer, por isso, por vezes, não dá para seguirem bem o seu raciocínio (ele não acha que vender neste momento seja a melhor solução). Além disso, várias vezes ele erra. Já o acompanho há cerca de 8 anos e já assisti a grandes análises e a grandes falhanços de análises. Mas, somando as coisas boas e más, acho que elas são uma mais valia.

Honestamente, eu gostava mais que os artigos dele que aqui coloco pudessem gerar posts discordantes com argumentos contraditórios do que propriamente a referir os últimos erros de análise dele. Mas, infelizmente, quando coloco um texto do Cramer, as pessoas preocupam-se mais em criticar o homem do que em apresentar argumentos opostos.

Tu até és um dos elementos do Caldeirão que mais "sumo" e argumentos costumas colocar nos teus posts, por isso nem és a pessoa ideal para eu dirigir este comentário, mas como sempre que tenho colocado artigos do Cramer, o padrão das respostas é semelhante teria que dizer algo.

Um abraço,
Ulisses

[Bowie]

Ulisses desculpa lá estar sempre a bater no ceguinho, mas nestas coisas sou como a Amália Rodrigues -“Até que a voz me doa”.

Olha o que ele diz agora e o que disse ainda 20 dias atrás e 70 pontos do SPX mais acima. Mandou comprar quando era para vender e agora diz para vender quando é para começar a estudar o que comprar.



http://www.caldeiraodebolsa.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=48753


"Huge Capital Supply Overwhelms Stocks"

By Jim Cramer
RealMoney.com Columnist
5/10/2006 11:03 AM EDT


"The balance sheet of the world's investors is driving this market higher. Sure, we can focus on the president's bad standing, the oil market overheating, Iran, the Fed.

But the balance sheet favors the bulls. There's just not enough stock around to sate the buyers, because the buyers are bigger than they've ever been.

Let me explain. For the first time in history, we have not one, not two, but three pools of trillions of dollars of wealth. We have the hedge funds, the private equity funds and the petrodollar gang.

I have firsthand experience with all three. I recently gave a talk in front of the Goldman Sachs alumni association. That's where I first heard the trillion-dollar figure. There was, literally, three trillion dollars in hedge fund money in the room. That's amazing to me.

A month after that experience, I met with the largest private equity fund for energy. In the room was, again, several trillion dollars of pension and private money, fighting to get into the private equity fund. It was there that I heard about the trillions of dollars in petro-money looking for an equity home.

It's only getting bigger. KKR's private equity fund is not tapping retail money overseas because our regulations are too strict, but again, that's more money chasing fewer goods.

When you look at these pools of capital -- and I am not even including the Chinese, who tend to be buyers of Treasuries, not stocks -- you see that there's just too much money overwhelming too few stocks.

Which is why, despite the Fed and the grim "macro" news, we keep going higher. "

[Ulisses Pereira]

"What's Wrong: Margin Debt, Ugly Offerings"

By Jim Cramer
RealMoney.com Columnist
6/8/2006 9:20 AM EDT


"In March 2000, I frantically switched directions on the market. I have been pilloried repeatedly by anyone who heard me expound on the markets the months before. I always defend myself by saying two things: First, the Nazz rallied about 1,000 points that I am sure glad I didn't miss. And second, something changed, something big, and it was the sudden surge of margin debt coupled with a plethora of terrible IPOs and secondaries.


Well, at this point, we haven't rallied the way we had then. But the those troubling changes are back, and I think they are behind a lot of what's wrong right now. Margin debt has soared some $80 billion from two years ago and it is closing in on the same record levels we had then. Plus we know the quality of the IPOs has turned remarkably negative ever since we saw Vonage (VG:NYSE - commentary - research - Cramer's Take) the dog.

The speculative fever this time, the dot-com analogues, are the coppers, the golds, the oils and of course the ETFs of the hot markets overseas. The latter are equally as potent and dangerous when bought on margin as the dot-coms.

I think that the margin increase and the ugly IPOs must stop for this market to get anywhere. (Sure doesn't look like it will today.) Too much scared-retail-client money merged with too much hurt-hedge-fund money produces the kinds of tapes we've been getting, tapes that won't stop until they're oversold or until the margined players get off margin... by force, of course. "

(in www.realmoney.com)