Сообщений в теме: 870

[barsuk]

2 Barsuk, ага, особенно когда вся отчетность в Pdf приходится убивать уйму времени... если конечно pdf Transformer у Вас не стоит...

ну, или Acrobat 6.0 и выше.

зачем? пользуйтесь Edgar Online или 10KWizard, вся инфа в Excel сразу переводится.

[Pooh]

Не хочется тебя огорчать, но в больших конторах аналитики в основном полагаются на Excel, знание VBA конечно там не помешает (и поощряется) для автоматизации всяких там pivot tables и другой фигни.

Я тоже так думаю, но на сайте работ в той же Фиделити ежедневно постятся по несколько *не-квантовских* программистких вакансий. Я сомневаюсь что все они ТА-based продукты разрабатывают.

Понятно что создать ПО которое за тебя будет делать ФА невозможно, но можно создать tool который облегчит твою работу. Excel - тоже ПО, только слишком обобщенное. (Ничего против Excel не имею, ИМХО это самый гениальный продукт MSFT ).

[Pooh]

зачем? пользуйтесь Edgar Online или 10KWizard, вся инфа в Excel сразу переводится.

кстати сколько EdgarOnline subscription стоит? 10КВизард с Экселем вроде 375 бакарей в год?

Сообщение отредактировал Pooh: 25.02.2006, 01:04:59

[barsuk]

Не хочется тебя огорчать, но в больших конторах аналитики в основном полагаются на Excel, знание VBA конечно там не помешает (и поощряется) для автоматизации всяких там pivot tables и другой фигни.

Я тоже так думаю, но на сайте работ в той же Фиделити ежедневно постятся по несколько *не-квантовских* программистких вакансий. Я сомневаюсь что все они ТА-based продукты разрабатывают.

Понятно что создать ПО которое за тебя будет делать ФА невозможно, но можно создать tool который облегчит твою работу. Excel - тоже ПО, только слишком обобщенное. (Ничего против Excel не имею, ИМХО это самый гениальный продукт MSFT ).

Фиделити скорее всего ищет себе сисадминов и общий тех суппорт. Я не думаю что Фиделити сильно использует ТА в своих инвест. решениях. И вообще, почему Фиделити? Совсем не показатель, надо сказать.

Едгар стоит где то 1200 в год.

[Pooh]

Не, не сисадминов эта точна Могу вывалить тексты вакансий

А Фиделити просто как пример, большая байсайдовская контора вроде.

[barsuk]

Не, не сисадминов эта точна Могу вывалить тексты вакансий

Да ладно, верю .

[Pooh]

Вот что мне написал чел который работает квантом на байсайде:

Хотя бывают всякие исключения, шансы очень малы стать fundamental research analyst в вашем случае. Т.е. вам надо получить top MBA для этого. Даже если вы пойдёте работать программистом в mutual fund, перейти на позицию аналитика просто нереально. Шансы почти такие же как устроиться уборщиком в университет чтобы потом перескочить в профессоры. Я не имею ввиду что программист - это как уборщик; я просто хочу сказать что работа аналитика и программиста настолько отличаются, что если будет вакансия, никто и не вздумает посмотреть на программиста. Сказав это, я должен отметить что программист может стать quantitative analyst, что обычно требует умение программировать и моделировать. Но там требуется знание статистики.

Я не думаю что CFA само по себе будет достаточно для перехода в аналитики. Если вы и вправду очень заинтересованны в этой профессии, то вам надо поступать на МБА - другого выхода я не вижу. Хотя должен предупредить, что и МБА не гарантирует работу в investments.

Эти финансисты ваще нас айтишников нэ уважают!

/me представил себя Мэтом Дэймоном из фильма Good Will Hunting.

[barsuk]

Вот что мне написал чел который работает квантом на байсайде:

Хотя бывают всякие исключения, шансы очень малы стать fundamental research analyst в вашем случае. Т.е. вам надо получить top MBA для этого. Даже если вы пойдёте работать программистом в mutual fund, перейти на позицию аналитика просто нереально. Шансы почти такие же как устроиться уборщиком в университет чтобы потом перескочить в профессоры. Я не имею ввиду что программист - это как уборщик; я просто хочу сказать что работа аналитика и программиста настолько отличаются, что если будет вакансия, никто и не вздумает посмотреть на программиста. Сказав это, я должен отметить что программист может стать quantitative analyst, что обычно требует умение программировать и моделировать. Но там требуется знание статистики.

Я не думаю что CFA само по себе будет достаточно для перехода в аналитики. Если вы и вправду очень заинтересованны в этой профессии, то вам надо поступать на МБА - другого выхода я не вижу. Хотя должен предупредить, что и МБА не гарантирует работу в investments.

Эти финансисты ваще нас айтишников нэ уважают!

/me представил себя Мэтом Дэймоном из фильма Good Will Hunting.

Я же говорил Пух, если хочешь быть аналитиком - иди в кванты. Или же, альтернатива, получи МБА+СФА и ломись безоглядно в инвестконторы. Ещё вариант, попробуй устроиться в Чейс например, ассошейтом, там бакалавров берут. Отпашешь там пару лет, после этого иди на МБА, параллельно получай СФА и иди в аналитики, но кстати после этого захочешь ли ты пойти в аналитики ещё вопрос. Скорее возникнет желание пойти в инвестбанкинг или консалтинг - там платят больше

[Pooh]

мляйть за топ МБА отдавать сто штук жаба душит (не учитывая того маленького факта что их нет). если получать МБА то только бесплатно хитропопым способом - начать PhD, взять все курсы для MBA, а потом сказать - не ребята я передумал, давайте мне лучше MBA. только для этого нада быть суперакадемиком для топ школ (над этим нада поработать ). но в принципе так многие делают в engineering/science graduate programs.

карочи я меняю стратегию - буду менеджить свой маленький портфель, за лет пять накампаундю 30-40% аннюэл ретурны, эти сцуки потом сами ко мне прибегут.

ушол мечтать.

[Pooh]

Barron's Roundtable 2006. Part I

A Little More Bullish
By LAUREN R. RUBLIN
------------

IS THE DOLLAR DOOMED? Will bond yields rise? Has America peaked? Don't you just love Mondays?

As a matter of fact, we do, and none more so than the second Monday in January, when the editors of Barron's, by tradition, sit down to talk shop with some of the world's smartest investors. So some of their views are a mite dour, even apocalyptic. Well, someone has to take the other side of the trade, especially with the stock market off and running in 2006.

To be fair, at this year's day-long gabfest, which took place in lower Manhattan, more than a few of our Roundtable guests were fairly bullish about the market's prospects. After all, price-earnings multiples are down, company profits are up, and rising dividends provide an extra kicker.

Their chief concerns: that the U.S. consumer will go on strike when the housing market tumbles; that the grass is greener on the other side -- of the world, that is -- and that oil, in great demand but diminishing supply, will exact a terrible toll on Main Street and Wall as prices inexorably rise. But don't panic yet; at a mere 10 cents a cup, Oscar Schafer wryly observed, crude still is cheaper than Starbucks.

A jousting, jesting bunch, our crowd doesn't mark its views to market, or each other. No sooner, for instance, did Art Samberg predict U.S. stocks would rise 20% than a devilish Marc Faber declared he's in the 20% camp, too -- in the opposite direction. The case for -- and against -- bonds also got an unusually full airing, enlivened in large measure by Bill Gross' erudite analysis. (He's for some, and against others.)

In the pages that follow, you'll get all the highlights, as well as insights into how the best investors think about markets and the currents (not to mention currencies) that move them. You'll also get the investment picks of Gross, the top man at West Coast bond powerhouse Pimco, and Archie MacAllaster, perhaps the most knowledgeable investor in financial-sector stocks. He's got seven names to pique your, ahem, interest. Please read on.

Barron's: What kind of year are we headed for? John, let's start with you.

Neff: A good one in the economy, and a pretty good one in the market. I've got the economy up 3%-3½%, and the consumer still is in good shape to spend because of $5 trillion of liquidity. What galls me is the negative savings rate. True, it has fallen below zero, but it does not include appreciation in your common stocks or your home.

They're not guaranteed.

Neff: But the people who own stocks and homes are influenced by what has happened to both with respect to spending.

What do you think, Marc?

Faber: We have a fairly optimistic, unanimous consensus about the global economy for 2006. The forecast calls for benign inflation and a Goldilocks scenario in which things are just right. People dismiss the low savings rate and the U.S. trade imbalance by saying that as long as asset prices go up, there's nothing to worry about. As a result, the markets' risk premiums and volatility are low.

But, frequently, events happen outside financial markets that then have an impact on them. I've done some work on the war-cycle theory, which says commodity prices rise, international tensions increase, war results and prices go through the roof.

Is that what you're anticipating?

Faber: For the first time in modern history, both China and India are economic factors. China is the second-largest user of oil in the world, and India is expanding rapidly. Some people in the world, notably in the U.S., believe the U.S. is a superpower, but the rise in oil prices has changed the equation dramatically. Suddenly Hugo Chavez [president of Venezuela] has become a powerful man. [Iranian President] Ahmadinejad has become a powerful man. The U.S., measured by the number of nuclear warheads, may be the world's superpower, but Vladimir Putin today is much more powerful. If he were as smart as one of you hedge-fund managers, he would have cut oil production by 50% a long time ago. The price would have gone up two or three times, and he would still have the oil in the ground.

Luckily, he isn't as smart.

Faber: China gets 90% of its oil from the Middle East. The U.S. and Japan have formed a strategic alliance that has alienated the Chinese, who have carried out military exercises with the Russians. There is a Shanghai-cooperation organization consisting of China, Russia and five Central Asian republics: Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Afghanistan. This organization had a meeting last July and has asked the U.S. to set a timetable for withdrawing its bases from central Asia. The U.S. has been expelled from Uzbekistan. The Chinese have applauded the military crackdown at Andijan by Uzbekistan's president, Islam Karimov. They applaud anyone who is a bit of an odd character, including Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe. Tensions are rising because the Chinese and the Russians are interested in Iranian oil, as is India. The major event of the future could be a geopolitical event that would rock the financial markets.

Samberg: Is this your prediction for the first half or the second? [Laughter around the room.]

Faber: This is the appetizer.

Gabelli: Why will the Chinese continue to buy our dollars? At some point, won't they turn that tap off?

Faber: A year ago, the consensus about the dollar was extremely bearish. I said the dollar would go up. Once in awhile, you can be lucky. [The U.S. Dollar index was up 12.6% last year.] The situation at the end of 2005 was the opposite. Speculative long positions were at a low extreme, and speculative short positions, especially in the yen and euro, were at historic highs. The surprise for 2006 is the dollar will resume its downtrend.

Neff: "The consumer is still in good shape because of $5 trillion of liquidity."

In the last 10 days the Asian currencies have been strong. I'm still recommending Asian assets, including currencies. If the Dow Jones industrials and the U.S. housing market drop 10% one day, I have no doubt Mr. Bernanke [incoming Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke] will print money like water. Also, since 2000, U.S. financial assets have weakened vis-à-vis gold and silver. In 2000 you needed 45 ounces of gold to buy one unit of the Dow. Now you need only 20 ounces. If the Dow goes to 100,000, as the bulls wrote in those wonderful books in the late 1990s, you'll probably be able to buy it with half an ounce of gold. It won't happen this year. It will take a few years until gold is $200,000 an ounce.

Boy, you gave us all a scare there. Bill, do you think Bernanke will drop money from helicopters?

Gross: His reputation is as "Helicopter Ben." [In a speech in 2002, Bernanke famously suggested the Fed could drop money from helicopters, if necessary, to add liquidity to the financial system in a time of crisis.] Alan Greenspan faced a crisis when he was first appointed chairman of the Fed in 1987. He came to the rescue. Typically, the response of the central bank is to flood the market with liquidity. I agree that would be the response of Bernanke or any other central-bank chairman -- to provide liquidity.

The situation was different in '87.

Gross: It was entirely different. Today asset markets, at least in the U.S., dominate in providing the wherewithal for economic growth, and the support of those markets is critical. I don't necessarily believe it's the appropriate policy, as I suspect Marc does not. But if the bond market or the stock market or the housing market were threatened by some crisis -- or even by an 18-to-24-month rise in interest rates, which has already occurred -- then, yes, Bernanke as the new Fed chairman probably would come to the rescue by lowering rates late in 2006 because the economy had begun to slow.

I expect GDP [gross domestic product] to average 2% growth for the year -- stronger in the front half, weaker in the back, much of it related to the housing market. Greenspan has done an interesting six-year study and is a firm believer that the economy has been supported substantially by mortgage-equity withdrawals to the tune of $600 billion or $700 billion over several years. That's a lot of consumption.

Neff: It is very local, though. About 70% of the country has not participated.

Gross: It isn't necessarily related to where housing prices have gone up. The fact is, the American homeowner has learned to used his home as an ATM machine, whether in Des Moines or Miami or Las Vegas or Orange County, Calif. There is a lot of equity in Des Moines, just as there is in Miami. Homeowners have been able to extract it by taking out "funny-money" mortgages and by borrowing money at 1% and 2% initially.

Schafer: Are you worried about the amount of variable-rate mortgage debt and homeowners' inability to keep spending as their monthly interest costs go up?

Gross: Yes, though you don't have to take an Armageddon-type view. Beginning in January of '06, a substantial percentage of adjustable-rate mortgages begin to adjust upward. They have had a grace period in the past year or two. We have a long stretch ahead of us in which prior Fed policy affects the economy, and that is unusual. Typically, when the Fed marches interest rates up, 12 to 18 months later there is a slowdown in the economy. We are beginning to see that, but the funny-money phenomenon and adjustables and the like have postponed the pain. Slower growth in '06, '07 and '08 will be the result.

Neff: The consumer has only about 14% of his income dedicated to fixed payments.

Cohen: To combine Bill's comments with John's, the issuance of most so-called exotic and variable-rate mortgages has been concentrated in the states of California, Texas and Florida, and in the Las Vegas area.

Faber: That is precisely the nature of a bubble. It is concentrated in a relatively narrow sector. The 2000 bubble in the stock market was concentrated in TMT [telecom, media and technology]. There wasn't a bubble in U.S. Steel or copper stocks or oil. The apologists for the housing-market bubble in the U.S. always point out that it is concentrated in a few markets, but that has always been the case. I don't buy that if the bubble in California, Florida and Texas deflates, it won't have an impact on the economy.

Zulauf: The question is how much debt the consumer will accumulate in '06. To keep the economy going in '05, the consumer accumulated about $1.3 trillion of new debt. For consumer spending to grow at the same rate in '06, that number has to rise to about $1.8 trillion. The consumer has to take out $500 billion more debt. This is highly unlikely. When you run the numbers, it is clear the consumer has to slow down, and probably decisively so during the year.

Schafer: Nowhere in this conversation have we talked about the impact of higher energy costs on consumers.

Hickey: Mortgage applications have been declining week after week after week. Refinancings absolutely collapsed. HELOC [home-equity line of credit] loan rates have gone from 4.75% to 7.75%, and those loans have fallen sharply. We're going to see a slowdown in the amount of debt taken on. The government is intervening to put a stop to some of the crazy mortgages that have been passed out in recent years.

Gross: "Bernanke, more than Greenspan, is aware of the leads and lags of Fed policy."

We are starting to see it in the economy. We are seeing it at the low end first. The people with $7 trillion of real-estate-wealth gains are still spending, but at Circuit City [ticker: CC] and Best Buy [BBY], while Christmas sales were good, store traffic was down, Wal-Mart's [WMT] same-store sales rose only 2% despite all the promotions. Auto sales are down. The question is, how fast does the high end slow?

Gabelli: On the outlay side, the consumer has an inordinate tax, which Oscar talked about. The gas bill for my house was up even in 45-degree weather.

Hickey: The average median gain last year in existing home prices was more than the gains in 2003 and 2004 combined. It was all fed on debt. The consumer will find that the asset prices are variable, but the debt isn't.

Samberg: Isn't there a difference between this and the TMT bubble? That was partially built on non-real companies delivering non-real products to non-real uses. A house is a core asset, and the Federal Reserve in its studies believes it is a bankable asset. Fred is probably right that the wind has gone from your back to your face, but people will not change spending patterns dramatically if they think their houses are bankable assets.

Neff: When you anguish about this, don't forget that the average equity stake in residential housing is 50%. It's not as if it is on 2% margin.

Hickey: But a lot of it is.

Neff: Oh, poppycock.

Affordability is at a 14-year low, and all you can say is "poppycock"?

Gross: Art, it is not the same as money in the bank. When someone equitizes that 50%, they basically do it by taking a loan. It is the cost of the loan that extracts a negative pull on the economy. It is not free money.

Cohen: It is also important to look at who the borrowers are. Upper-middle-income homeowners and above used conventional fixed-rate mortgages and are not likely to feel much pain. The real pressure will be on middle-income people and below, because they were much more inclined to use variable-rate mortgages to minimize monthly payments.

Zulauf: Two other economies, the U.K. and Australia, are running ahead of the U.S. in terms of housing trends. Their housing markets peaked about two years ago and are now flat. Retail-sales growth of 4% to 5% fell to zero to 1%. That's what's ahead in the U.S. The U.S. economy, will slow decisively during the course of the year, particularly in the second half and in '07.

What does this mean for the stock market? Scott?

Black: I look at it based on S&P 500 earnings and the dividend-discount model. My estimate for 2006 earnings, net of $4 in option expenses, is $76.25. I see the market up roughly 8% to 12%, and corporate profits growing in line with nominal GDP, at 6%. Based on Thursday's close [Jan. 5] of 1273.48, that gives me a multiple of 16.7 times earnings. That's slightly higher than the historical median of 15 to 16 times, but it is the lowest multiple we've had in 10 years.

Using my dividend-discount valuation model, and assuming 6% to 8% growth in dividends, the market was roughly 8% to 12% undervalued at the beginning of the year. On the high end the S&P could rise about 12%, which would take us to 1400. I'm moderately bullish. Real GDP will grow at 3%-3½%, and CPI will be up about 2½%, which gives us nominal GDP of 6%. But we have the worst fiscal policies under the Bush administration. The stock market has gone nowhere, and we've added $2 trillion of national debt. The Chinese keep growing at 8%-8½% a year and are going to keep the United States in the ballgame. They have a $200 billion trade surplus and need to create jobs. So I'm afraid Mr. Bush is going to get away with these huge deficits, both fiscal and trade.

Archie, what do you think?

MacAllaster: I see a decent year in the stock market. [General laughter.] This year the multiple on the S&P 500 is probably lower than 16.5. It's probably 15-15.5. Profit growth will be close to 10% again. Dividends will be up much more than 6%. Given the tax code, companies are going to pay out more. The market should be in good shape. But the most important thing -- and nobody has mentioned it -- is how things go with the war in Iraq. I almost said Vietnam. Our chances for improvement there are 50-50. If we don't make some progress in Iraq, I would forget the stock market this year.

We're going to start moving out before the election in November.

MacAllaster: If that were to happen, it wouldn't make a lot of difference in the deficit this year and next. But the anticipation would be bullish for the market. The market is not expensive. With tax efficiency, you're paying 15% taxes on dividends and 30%-35% on interest. Many companies are raising dividends by 40% to 50%. You're going to have a reasonable year.

Gabelli: "Dividends and deals will provide a margin of safety for the overall market."

Neff: How about versus alternatives? The bond market, particularly on the long side, is very unattractive. Commercial real estate has had a run.

MacAllaster: If you're making 4¼%-4½% on a dividend on a stock, it's much better taxwise than making 4½% on a 10-year bond. If we make some progress in Iraq, the market will finish higher.

Oscar?

Schafer: The market will surprise people on the upside this year for two reasons. A lot of other markets outperformed it last year. In a recent Merrill Lynch study, only 21% of global money managers wanted to overweight the U.S. The U.S. stock market has a way of fooling most people. Going up a lot would fool people.

Going down a lot would fool people, too.

Neff: What's your magnitude, Oscar?

Schafer: Low double digits. Let's say with dividends. That will get me off the hook.

Meryl, you've been too quiet.

Witmer: I look at the market from a bottom-up perspective, but I think it's 10% to 12% undervalued.

Schafer: One reason I'm kind of bullish is that we are finding a lot of stocks to buy.

Witmer: We are more invested, too.

Faber: The U.S. still accounts for over 50% of world stock-market capitalization. Japan is maybe 10%, and the rest of Asia, including China, India and Vietnam, is maybe 4%. It doesn't take a genius to see why global managers are overweight Asia, for instance, and underweight the U.S. All the Middle Eastern markets went up in the order of 100% last year. Russia was up about 80%. Even Latin American markets went up 50% to 80%.

That would argue against investing in them now.

Faber: They are still very cheap. In Malaysia, Singapore and Taiwan, the dividend yield on the stock market is higher than the bond yield. If your arguments about the U.S. are right, I'd rather be in Taiwan. There is a slight political risk, but if that risk comes true, it won't be good for any market in the world.

Samberg: Taiwan and China seem interesting. Why does that mean the U.S. is not?

Faber: Of all the major asset classes, the U.S. is one of the least attractive. Period.

Samberg: In the past two years it has gone nowhere. Japan was up 50% in the second half of last year. Multiples have come down.

Faber: In Asia, many markets are lower than they were in 1990.

Abby, what do you think of the market?

Cohen: My approach is similar to Scott's. Using the dividend-discount model, I come up with 1400 on the S&P 500 at the end of 2006. I am using among the lowest projected S&P earnings on Wall Street. I'm also assuming the bond yield moves notably higher. I'm using a 5¼% 10-year yield, which is higher than Goldman's house forecast but allows me to be conservative in the valuation exercise.

Do your earnings account for stock buybacks?

Cohen: We've tried to estimate the buybacks. Cash on corporate balance sheets has increased dramatically. First companies used it for defense purposes, such as dividends and share repurchases. About four-five quarters ago, companies started using it much more aggressively for capital-spending purposes. Personal-consumption spending decelerates this year to about 2%-2½%, in large part because of fewer home-equity withdrawals. But business fixed investment could grow 10%.

Hickey: I disagree that cap-ex spending will offset the consumer's weakness. Corporate surveys show very little pick-up -- maybe 2%, 3% increases in IT [information technology] spending. The reason is IT prices are plunging. There's just too much of everything. When personal-computer unit sales rise by double digits for three consecutive years, revenue is up only by single digits. Free open-source software has led to price compression in the software industry. Companies are shifting a lot of their service work overseas to places like India, where costs are a fraction of U.S. costs. Corporate execs say they're getting a lot more IT but not spending any more for it.

Cohen: According to industrial-production numbers, business fixed investment is growing 9% to 10% in dollars. In IT unit volume, it's running 20% to 25%, which is a function of price deflation. The worker who gets to use the new equipment doesn't care if the company spends an extra 9% or 25% for it. Some of this helps explain why productivity gains have remained stronger than expected.


Hickey: I don't believe those government numbers. I see Cisco [CSCO] sales going down, and the growth rate going down, down, down. Dell's [DELL] growth rate is going down. IBM [IBM] and Hewlett-Packard [HPQ] have single-digit growth.

Gabelli: Both of you are right. You're looking at servers and routers and I'm looking at servers and routers, but mine are called pumps and valves. Oil-equipment and aircraft expenditures and fixed plant and equipment are accelerating. Architects are planning numerous projects. Commercial construction is going up. State and local governments are ordering fire engines and ambulances and infrastructure, and Brazil, Russia, India and China are buying capital equipment. The companies I talk to that sell capital goods for water and infrastructure plays around the world are getting the benefit. In a narrowly defined way, Fred, you are right. Abby, your numbers are right. But the servers and routers we need to talk about are pumps, valves, equipment for liquefied natural gas and coal degasification, Boeings and Airbuses.

Hickey: IT is half of cap-ex spending.

Gabelli: Your glass is half empty. You are missing the part that is half full.

Faber: Mario, you're right but wrong. [Loud laughter.] Capital spending as a percentage of the U.S. economy is disappointing. Capital spending in China is almost as high as in the U.S. China has a high savings rate and invests in new plants and equipment, infrastructure and so forth. China has a capital-spending bubble, whereas the U.S. has an asset bubble. The Chinese will buy some goods from the U.S., but mostly they buy from Europe. Aside from Ralph Lauren, Asians buy luxury goods from Europe.

Gabelli: You're very parochial. You've never had bourbon, a great American product? A designer product.

Faber: Believe me, I have had enough bourbon in my life.

Bill, what is your view of the market?

Gross: My market is the bond market. I think the U.S. stock market is fairly valued, but if investors anticipate, as I do, that the Fed will begin to ease interest rates later in 2006, it becomes a bullish indicator. I'm not a glass-half-empty person on the market. As Art pointed out, the U.S. stock market hasn't gone far in 2005, and perhaps for several years. But it did better than was visible on the surface, simply because the dollar appreciated by a good 10%.

Bill Gross' Picks
1/6/06 1/6/06
Fund Ticker Price Yield
BlackRock Global Floating Rate Income Trust BGT $17.33 7.96%
Pimco Corporate Income Fund PCN 15.05 8.50
iShares MSCI EAFE Index Fund EFA 62.45 1.78
PowerShares FTSE RAFI US 1000 PRF 50.66 1.80
Source: Bloomberg

In 2006, if the dollar weakens, and that's my prediction, other non-dollar-denominated markets in Europe and Asia will participate more fully. They participate in the current global expansion, they are as cheap or cheaper than U.S. stocks, and they are denominated in currencies that are cheaper than the dollar. Therefore, U.S. investors should accelerate their exposure to non-dollar stocks, because the dollar as a currency is doomed.

Schafer: Will the U.S. market go up less than the dollar will go down?

Gross: I am not sure. We're importing an increasingly large percentage of our GDP from other countries, and to the extent that they are non-dollar-denominated, our purchasing power is declining. The U.S., in terms of its wealth and strong currency policy, probably is at an apex. That's not to say its prospects decline, but they decline relative to faster-growing economies, namely Asian economies.

Samberg: Last year I talked about Berkshire Hathaway [BRKA], and the stock did nothing more than the market. It's probably more attractive today than it was a year ago. Warren Buffett says he can't find anything to buy. In fact, if you look at what he did with his free cash flow last year, he put $12 billion into equities of all kinds, the second largest amount since 2002, when he invested $17 to $19 billion. So the man who says "I can't find anything to buy" is buying stocks. That gives me some comfort.

Fred, what do you think will happen to the stock market?

Hickey: I'm not sure. I'm more convinced of Bill's comment about the dollar being doomed. I put more than 80% of my own assets in non-dollar-related stuff because I don't want to have exposure to the dollar after last year's repatriation flows. [Companies received tax breaks on profits earned overseas.] I don't want to lose purchasing power. I look at foreign bonds and metals. Maybe the stock market rallies if Bernanke gets aggressive and cuts rates. But the dollar is going to get killed if that happens, and the metals will go wild. In the stock market in the short term, there is a lot of bullishness. We've had a big rally. We are due for at least a short-term setback.

Neff: If you are in the 10% to 12% total-return school, as I am, you've already gotten 25% of this year's gain. Stocks were up 3% in the past week. The S&P was up 3% last year, and 4.9% in total returns.

Cohen: The presumption here seems to be that it will be a reasonable year for bonds, especially in the second half. There is a chance we could have a selloff in the bond market first. There has been a good deal of foreign buying in the U.S. Treasury market. About 45% of Treasuries are owned by non-U.S. investors. The largest buyers by far in the last year have been investors based in the U.K. One reason could be U.K. pension accounting, which requires that long-term pension liabilities be matched with long-term pension assets. The other possibility is that petrodollars are being recycled. A lot of the OPEC nations have investment offices in London.

This also may help explain a conundrum -- why energy prices went up, yet bond yields went down. Some of these nations have been parking their money in Treasuries, and now may be thinking about other places to put it. Intermediate and long yields could go higher before we get to the happier portion of the year.

Samberg: I think the stock market's going up 15% or more. People don't understand how much asset reallocation has happened within the U.S. I sit on a couple of investment boards, and the amount of selling of U.S. assets by those premier institutions has been ferocious. If the general mood is correct, that you muddle through this year and earnings continue to grow, you could have a whoosh up in the market. It doesn't mean long-term problems don't exist, but in 2006 you could have a melt-up.

Faber: I also belong to the 10% to 20% school, but on the downside. The market will peak soon and then decline 10% to 15% into October. There may be a major low in October. I agree with Abby about bonds being vulnerable on the downside. It is unusual that we agree.

MacAllaster: What is your view of the Japanese market? Is it cheap today?

Faber: Japan is overbought. I turned bullish on Japan when I turned bearish on Japanese bonds in June 2003, because in Japan you need a decline in the bond market to squeeze the public out of cash deposits and money out from under the mattress and into real estate and stocks. So far, the money hasn't gone into domestic assets. The Japanese market has been driven mostly by foreign money, but domestic institutions are waking up. The market could still go to 20,000 but it's not as compelling an investment.

MacAllaster: That's 25%. That's not bad.

Zulauf: Yes, but it's not great. [Peals of laughter.]

Your horizons are too limited.

Faber: Other alternatives in Asia are more attractive than Japan.

Gabelli: Let's go back to the consumer. There are three billion consumers in the takeoff stage around the world. They are going to have an impact on consumption through a multiplier effect. American exports, particularly as the dollar weakens substantially in the second half of the year, will provide a powerful uplift.

Faber: These three billion consumers will have a huge impact on commodity markets, as they had in the past three years.

Gabelli: The largest U.S. exports are agriculture and entertainment. As for the stock market, don't ignore the impact of rising payout ratios on dividends or the large number of deals that continue to surface. Dividends and deals will provide a margin of safety for the overall market.

Where do all of you think oil's headed?

Schafer: Oil costs $65 a barrel. Recently in Barron's, Matt Simmons said it costs 10 cents a cup ["Twilight for Oil?4" Jan. 2]. If I were in the pair-trading business, I'd buy oil and short Starbucks [SBUX]. Oil will go up long-term, because the big fields are going to decline at a faster rate, and demand from India and China will keep rising. This year, it will trade between $55 and $75 a barrel.

[Pooh]

Нарим давал ссылки на HBS статьи по принятию решений. Еще одна интересная статья: http://www.boston.co...hinkers?mode=PF

[[Narim]]

Week ahead | WSJ

Monday, Feb. 27

The pace of new-home sales in January is expected to hold steady at around 1.27 million a year. Existing-home sales come out Tuesday. Industry watchers are looking for any softening of median price.

* * *
Jury selection begins in a pivotal Merck trial over Vioxx liability. Plaintiffs in the Atlantic City, N.J., case took the painkiller for more than 18 months, the point at which Merck acknowledges increased heart risk.

Tuesday, Feb. 28

The revised estimate for fourth-quarter GDP could show annual growth of 1.5%, improving from the weak 1.1% in an earlier reading.

* * *
Bush leaves for India, and Congress returns from recess.

Wednesday, March 1

Auto makers report February sales. Results -- while not great -- could be stronger than anticipated a couple of weeks ago.

* * *
A key measure of factory activity, the ISM index, is forecast to tick up to 56 for February from 54.8 in January. A reading above 50 indicates growth. A rise is also expected for the services index, out Friday.

* * *
Report on personal spending and income is expected to show that the savings rate slid further into negative territory.

Thursday, March 2

U.S. chain stores post February sales, following a strong January. While January enjoyed mild weather, February was harsher in many parts of the country.

* * *
Color of money: Newly designed $10 bill enters circulation.

Sunday, March 5

In Beijing, the National People's Congress meets to set China's economic agenda for the year. One focus: agricultural overhauls.

[[Narim]]

Нарим давал ссылки на HBS статьи по принятию решений. Еще одна интересная статья: http://www.boston.co...hinkers?mode=PF

intuition rocks!

update

http://web.host.kz/narim/hbs

[[Narim]]

Pooh, barsuk,
Почитал тут вашу переписку. Пишите еще!

один знакомый по секрету признался, что после первого миллиона деньги теряют свой смысл. согласен с ним полностью, но этот миллион ведь надо как-то заработать так что грузиться не надо, just do what you feel like you enjoy doing

Сообщение отредактировал [Narim]: 27.02.2006, 11:35:08

[Pooh]

Нарим, первых пяти лимонов. Ну ты сам понимаешь, инфляция и все такое

Я кстати только что читал интересный тред примерно на тему. Вот хороший отрывок:

----------
Getting rich is very subjective notion but "getting rich" is usually
associated with the number of zero on the right hand side of the
numeric digit. There is a downside to getting rich, most have paid a
tremendous price in family time, health, and constantly being on the
go! For what, a big Mega house, a SUV, a membership to some elite
golf course, private school. For me this is not wealth but status
self-fish wealth within once own domain.

The so called poor have a very interesting view on wealth, and here
is my example on my last business trip to Bombay. My friend's mother
was sick so at lunch time we would go visit her 2-3 times a week.
There was a old fellow in 40 degree heat selling coconut juice for
10/- rupees which is 3 U.S Cents. Since we were becoming his
regulars, in the third week he offered us some new coconut juice
that had arrived from Kerela, southern part of India. We tried it
and proceeded to give him 10/-rupees. he refuses to take the money,
and said the "smile you have on your faces has made him happy" The
old dude earns 2-3 U.S dollars a day.

This human is making 2-3 U.S $ per day is more wealthy in his heart
then 90% of the billionaire in the U.S and around the World. He has
accepted his poverty unconditionally and is very happy to share a
smile without making 3 cents.

To me this fellow is more wealthy in his heart then a lot of people
with wealth who are heartless.
----------

[Pooh]

ну и еще один хороший пост оттуда же:

---------

I have no argument with the formula. I do have problems with the notion that getting rich
is easy. It is not complicated, but far from easy, in the same way that loosing weight and
keeping it off is not complicated (eat less, eat better, exercise), but not easy. I do speak
with some authority on the subject since my wife and I work for a living and could be
considered rich.

Getting-rich is much harder then loosing-weight. In fact a very small fraction of
professional salaried people get rich and it is not from the lack of wanting and trying. The
number of pitfalls and temptations is much larger and more complex then in dieting.
While it is true that if you save lots of money early in your life and you can invest it at 10%
per year (after taxes and inflation) you will get rich. This is the equivalent of the weight
control program: eat less, eat better, and exercise. Reality is very different. There are few
problems:

1. First you have to live below your means, easy to say, very hard to do. Raising a
family, buying a house and cars, providing good education and stimulating environment
for your kids, and balancing work /carrier demands with social life, while trying to save
money is very demanding. Most people, as you know, fail miserably at it. I canâ??t tell you
how many of our friends who earn much more then we do have but a small fraction of
savings and investments that we have. How do they fail? One cappuccino and gin-tonic at
a time.

2. Once you earned some money, you have to learn to hold on to it. This is not what they
teach you in school. If it was thought in schools and easy, schoolteachers will be rich. This
whole society is built on temptation and misinformation (a.k.a. marketing). Every waking
moment we are bombarded with advertising. Every professional you see on TV or ask for
advice is trying to extract money from you. There is a long list of professionals that claim
to be on your side, but in reality are trying to fleece you: Lawyers, Doctors, Financial
advisors, Insurance agents, Accountants, Builders, Plumbers, Car salesmen Appliance
salesmen, computer salesmen, decorators, and many moreâ?? The list is almost infinite.
You have to educate yourself in so many things. Most of us spend far too much money on
useless expensive products & services. On the other hand it is very hard to tell who is
honest and who fleeced you.

3. The most important thing after learning a profession and earning a decent living is
learning about investing. Most people donâ??t have a clue. Most people think that learning
to invest is like learning to drink, all you need it to try a fewâ?? People who think that they
are good at investing, invest poorly and never keep score. People that know that they
donâ??t know, let â?œprofessionalâ? invest for them, and they get fleeced.

Learning to invest is hard. It is especially hard for professionals that have to keep up with
their field and career. I know Buffett said that you donâ??t need above average intelligence
to invest well, just good judgment and the intestinal fortitude. Yes you need common
sense and fortitude, but you also need well above average intelligence. It also takes many
years of hard work to learn to invest well, even if you have the intelligence, common
sense, and fortitude. You also need motivation, since investing can be deadly boring.
Money, like sex is very emotional. Parents donâ??t teach their children about money and
investment. By the time most of us figure out that we need to learn how to invest, it is very
late and we have all these other commitments.

Even after you learned (or think you learned) all about investing, getting an average of 10%
compounding after taxes over a long period of time is very hard. Most professional donâ??t
get that kind of performance. Their customers get much less. According to John C. Bogle,
�The Relentless Rules of Humble Arithmetic�, http://www.vanguard.com/bogle_site/
sp20060101.htm, most people donâ??t get better then 4% average compounding.

In summary, saying that all you need is to save and invest and youâ??ll get rich is misleading
at best and most probably dishonest. Very few have what it takes. It also helps to be
lucky!

---------


и пара ссылок:

1. Yet Another Huge Article on Buffett : http://www.newsmaxst...t_sp_report.htm

2. Olstein interview: http://www.smartmone...?story=20060222

[Pooh]

http://www.dirty.ru/comments/67732

вот этот коммент мне понравился - почти про меня :

Вообще, форумы дилерских центров ? это то ещё сборище персонажей. 99% сидящих там по определению лузеры, причём есть лузеры опытные и сидящие там уже годами, а есть молодые. Послушать любого ? так он без пяти минут Сорос, при этом при ближайшем распросе оказывается что счёт реальный он ещё не открыл, сидит 3 месяца на демо, но у него уже есть стратегия и вот?вот он разбогатеет. Ещё, если проследить, то можно заметить, что когда новичок приходит на форум он первую неделю всех навязчиво расспрашивает куда пойдёт евродоллар или йена на следующей неделе, а уже буквально через пару дней его можно увидеть отвечающим на вопросы таких же новичков, используя термины технического анализа и активно употребляющим названия технических индикаторов. При этом большинство из них не имеют собственного мнения и кидаются из крайности в крайность при малейшем сигнале "зубров", то бишь лузеров со стажем

[Pooh]

Buffett pimpin':



http://media.www.wha...gepublisher.com

[barsuk]

http://www.dirty.ru/comments/67732

вот этот коммент мне понравился - почти про меня :

Вообще, форумы дилерских центров ? это то ещё сборище персонажей. 99% сидящих там по определению лузеры, причём есть лузеры опытные и сидящие там уже годами, а есть молодые. Послушать любого ? так он без пяти минут Сорос, при этом при ближайшем распросе оказывается что счёт реальный он ещё не открыл, сидит 3 месяца на демо, но у него уже есть стратегия и вот?вот он разбогатеет. Ещё, если проследить, то можно заметить, что когда новичок приходит на форум он первую неделю всех навязчиво расспрашивает куда пойдёт евродоллар или йена на следующей неделе, а уже буквально через пару дней его можно увидеть отвечающим на вопросы таких же новичков, используя термины технического анализа и активно употребляющим названия технических индикаторов. При этом большинство из них не имеют собственного мнения и кидаются из крайности в крайность при малейшем сигнале "зубров", то бишь лузеров со стажем

Pooh,

прикольный пост. надеюсь мы в том 1%

[Pooh]

нее, я точно в 99%