eu atribuo (tanto a correções ou crash ou subidas), o sentimento dos intervenientes
Citação de: Castelbranco em 2012-08-07 19:53:32eu atribuo (tanto a correções ou crash ou subidas), o sentimento dos intervenientes No fundo é tudo devido à alocação que os intervenientes deicidem ter em cada activo. É claro, nem tudo nessa alocação é decidido por humanos, pelo que podem existir movimentos rápidos que são provocados por máquinas a cumprir algoritmos.
LNKD, FB a serem sovadas, mas não contam para os índices. É curioso.
Aquilo cai com gusto, não poupa ninguém. Que grande ausência de amigos, até arrepia. Ninguém o salva. Talvez se estivesse num índice fosse diferente.
FB, LNKD, ZNGA, etc, também significam uma coisa - fora dos índices não há dinheiro suficiente para lhes manter as capitalizações bolsistas elevadas, com insiders a vender a torto e a direito. Estas só se aguentam se as deixarem entrar para índices.
Citação de: Incognitus em 2012-08-07 21:07:25FB, LNKD, ZNGA, etc, também significam uma coisa - fora dos índices não há dinheiro suficiente para lhes manter as capitalizações bolsistas elevadas, com insiders a vender a torto e a direito. Estas só se aguentam se as deixarem entrar para índices.O portuga já vendeu FB?
Citação de: Incognitus em 2012-08-07 21:07:25FB, LNKD, ZNGA, etc, também significam uma coisa - fora dos índices não há dinheiro suficiente para lhes manter as capitalizações bolsistas elevadas, com insiders a vender a torto e a direito. Estas só se aguentam se as deixarem entrar para índices.Mas o Fade Berg já não pertence ao NASDAQ?
Citação de: GMCV em 2012-08-07 21:12:43Citação de: Incognitus em 2012-08-07 21:07:25FB, LNKD, ZNGA, etc, também significam uma coisa - fora dos índices não há dinheiro suficiente para lhes manter as capitalizações bolsistas elevadas, com insiders a vender a torto e a direito. Estas só se aguentam se as deixarem entrar para índices.Mas o Fade Berg já não pertence ao NASDAQ? Ao Nasdaq 100 pelo menos não, é coisa para acontecer por volta de 18 de Agosto.
Quem criticou tanto o Draghi devia pensar duas vezes.O gajo sem fazer nada consegue que o DAX esteja 450 pontos acima do que estava quando mandou o bitaite. Mesmo ontem nos minimos estava 200 e tal pontos acima.O Santelli da CNBC disse uma coisa engraçada há uns dias e se calhar com algum sentido. antes do Draghi falar os indices estavam em queda a testar a MM200 e foi nesse suposto suporte que o Draghi falou, ou seja, se calhar os bernas e os draghi andam a olhar também para esses níveis técnicos que nós, comuns mortais, também olhamos de vez em quando.
Euro to Beat Dollar? Draghi’s Geniushttp://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/SubmissionsArticle.aspx?submissionid=151290.xmlHe might have lost a battle, not realizing that he is winning the war.Investors have not woken up to it, but last week may have been a game changer. European Central Bank (ECB) President Draghi took tail risks out of the Eurozone, while at the same time forcing closer fiscal integration. He did it all while keeping the ECB out of some political minefields. It's pure genius. The initial market reaction suggested he might have lost a battle, not realizing that he is winning the war. Dismayed by a dysfunctional process caused by a lack of leadership and the increasing risk of some of the worst case scenarios playing out, we have been staying away from the euro in our hard currency strategy. As of late last week, those dynamics changed: we are giving the euro another chance, not only because of substantial short covering potential, but also because Draghi’s “whatever it takes” approach might bring about seismic changes in how European integration, fiscal and monetary policy move forward. In essence, Draghi told the world that the ECB will act like a central bank of a United States of Europe if the integration of European fiscal policy accelerates. The “integration” process hasn’t worked particularly well. In the early years of the Eurozone, peripheral Eurozone countries used cheap access to financing to live beyond their means. Now, the markets have serious doubts about the sustainability of the finances of weaker Eurozone countries. To regain the markets’ trust, governments have nibbled with austerity measures. While the respective governments will take offense to us using the term ‘nibble’ at their hard fought progress, governments have not been able to reduce their debt loads. Politicians blame the high cost of borrowing and speculators. Unfortunately, as long as debt is merely shuffled around, no matter how big any aid package may be, it is unlikely to bring long lasting relief. In an effort to regain the trust of the markets, governments must engage in credible structural reform. Ireland has successfully gone down this path, but politicians have so far been unable to do the same in Spain, Italy and Greece. In Spain, Prime Minister Rajoy enjoys an absolute parliamentary majority and has no excuse. Italy is run by a technocrat; as such, the market is rightfully suspicious. Greece, well, is in a category of her own. To break the debt spiral of these weaker countries, the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) and European Stability Mechanism (ESM) have been put in place. Accessing these facilities comes with a hefty price tag: giving up sovereign control over one’s budget. However, that’s exactly what a United States of Europe needs: tight fiscal integration. While access to the bailout facilities reduces the immediate cost of borrowing, it may also shut the door to selling bonds in the markets at palatable cost. That raises the question of what is a palatable cost of borrowing? In the 1990’s, paying 6% for 10-year debt was just normal for some countries. Yet, because so much more debt has piled up, paying 6% is now considered unsustainable – at least unless such draconian budget cuts are introduced to balance budgets even with such high interest burden. And just in case anyone is wondering, the U.S. would be in just as dire a situation, if not worse, if it had to pay 6% on its long-term debt. We are currently concerned about the “fiscal cliff” in the U.S. – but even if the draconian cuts and increased taxes introduced by the fiscal cliff were implemented, the U.S. budget deficit would still be above 3% of GDP (the level that Eurozone nations are intended to stay below). The difference between the U.S. and peripheral Eurozone countries is foremost that the bond market lets the U.S. get away with its deficit spending. We have long argued that the market provides the best incentive to stop governments from overspending. Spain, Italy, Ireland, Portugal, Greece – all these countries have engaged in astounding reforms, all with the “encouragement” of the bond market. Politicians, however, are most creative in avoiding making tough choices. So how does one square the circle, how does one live with political realities while at the same time provide a path to fiscal sustainability? Politicians have called for the ECB to step in, to buy bonds of weaker Eurozone countries, thus lowering their cost of borrowing. But when the ECB has done that in the past through the Securities Markets Program (SMP), policy makers have lost their motivation to pursue structural reform. Policy makers choose between the cost of acting and the cost of not acting: the moment there is relief in the market, commitment to reform fades. It also puts the ECB into the uncomfortable position of playing judge of whose reform plans are worthy of support and whose are not. The argument for market intervention is that the “monetary transmission mechanism” is broken. That may be correct, but becoming a political hot potato is no attractive alternative for a central bank. So ECB President Draghi announced a new philosophical framework last week: the judge of whether sufficient austerity is implemented to warrant ECB support is the conditionality of EFSF/ESM, i.e. the types of rules the International Monetary Fund (IMF) introduces on countries. It’s the best one can hope for if policy makers don’t accept the market’s judgment. In our view, accepting the market pressure would be preferred, but this is the best course of action given the realities presented. Indeed, we consider Draghi’s action nothing short of pure genius.About the Author Axel Merk is President, CIO, and Portfolio Manager of Merk Mutual Funds. The Merk Mutual Funds are managed by Merk Investments LLC, a Palo Alto, California, based SEC registered investment advisory firm.
não será bom comprar umas quantas?
