Debito Pubblico (USA e Italiano)

Dell

Microsoft

Citigroup

J P Morgan

Goldman

Venerdì abbiamo affrontato alcuni argomenti più faceti, ma era l'euforia per aver fatto un mucchio di soldi con i derivati : ==> short ^Treasury Bond#^! ==> Short ^Euro#^! ==> Short ^Petrolio#^! ^se avete seguito questi consigli#A:13117^ vi è andata molto molto bene questa settimana (e anche con il ^fib30#^ è stato tutto in attivo anche se ovviamente le variazioni erano minori). Torniamo ora però alle solite cose, più noiose, di come vanno le aziende, come va l'economia e quindi presumibilmente come andrà anche alla fine la borsa. Le cose stanno migliorando e quindi negli ultimi tre mesi i più astuti hanno comprato, specia in america e asia, meno in europa (occorre ripeterlo perchè chi compri solo azioni italiane non ha visto grossi risultati). Non importa che siano già migliorate, anzi quando gli utili e l'economia siano migliorate veramente sarà ora vendere. Importa ora solo la Direzione: che a giugno 2002 la direzione sembrava quella del peggioramento (scandali, iraq, recessione/deflazione), oggi invece, giugno 2003 la direzione sembra quella del miglioramento e tanto basta con i tassi di interesse più bassi degli ultimi 25 anni. Ma stanno migliorando o è solo un illusione ? Se prendiamo le circa 11 mila aziende quotate in America i risultati delle trimestrali sono questi: ci sono state questo trimestre 10 volte più società che hanno rivisto al rialzo le stime di quante le abbiano riviste al ribasso. Si può discutere se questi progressi siano sufficienti i valore assoluto per giustificare le valutazioni attuali ecc..., ma la DIREZIONE è nettamente positiva ed è quello che conta per un mercato pieno di liquidità (N.B. il grafico riporta "..al 30/6/2003" invece è da leggere come: ".. 10/6/2003")

Zibordi, cosa intende esattamente per inossidabile? ---------------------------------------------------------- Questo che vediamo a NY, il rimbalzo migliore dal 1999 sia in termini di percentuali di incremento degli indici (nasdaq +55% dal minimo ad es, Biotech raddoppiato..) che soprattutto in termini di partecipazione della maggioranza dei titoli, al momento ad es più dell'83% dei titoli americani quotati sono sopra la media degli ultimi 12 mesi ! cioè comprando a caso un titolo americano negli ultimi 12 mesi avevi 83 probabilità su 100 di guadagnare

copio da wallstreetitalia: Il pessimismo sul futuro delle Borse mondiali è ai minimi da inizio anno. Solo il 5,3% dei gestori, intervistati da Morningstar nel consueto sondaggio mensile tra le principali società d’investimento, ritiene che Wall Street scenderà nei prossimi sei mesi ed è ancora più bassa la percentuale relativa alle Borse europee, inclusa l’Italia. Zibordi, cosa intende esattamente per inossidabile?

.

Il Sentiment americano è surriscaldato. Investors Intelligence Survey uscito oggi: Toro saliti a 58.7% (da 56.5%) Orso scesi da 20.7% a 16.3% è il livello più elevato di ottimismo di questo sondaggio del pubblico dall'aprile 1987 Altro balzo del petrolio oggi a 32 dollari, 30 morti per un attentato palestinese a gerusalemme nel pomeriggio, due giorni fa una delle maggiori istituzioni finanziarie Freddie Mae licenzia i vertici per problemi contabili, stamattina dati tedeschi industriali pessimi Risultato : S&P e DAX sui massimi della settimana, un mercato inossidabile

copio quanto scrive un pazzo scatenato che da mesi, fino alla settimana scorsa pronosticava tragedie e chiedo ai + esperti un opinione trattasi di luois navellier http://investorplace.com June 9, 2003 Dear InvestorPlace Member, Get ready to blast off! We're truly entering a great era for investors. Day after day, money continues to pour back into the market. Growth stocks are rallying strongly in the wake of terrific earnings results. And every bit of good news pushes stocks higher. Not every day will be up, of course. But all my experience tells me, this new bull market will last two years -- or more. You can participate and make out like a bandit. Or you can sit on the sidelines and miss out. The choice is yours. But I hope you'll get fully invested now. I can guarantee you'll be glad you did. In fact, I can honestly say that this is the BEST buying opportunity of my lifetime!!! *************** IN OUR FAVOR *************** 1. Many hot stocks continue to gap higher on order imbalances, as buyers overwhelm sellers. Growth stocks are the place to be. Earnings results have been MUCH better than expected. 2. The dividend tax relief virtually guarantees that money will continue to flow out of bonds (with interest taxed as high as 35%) into the stock market. 3. The surprise capital gains tax cut will be another HUGE shot in the arm. A 15% tax-rate richly rewards investors for taking on a little added risk. 4. There is still a record amount of CASH on the sidelines -- enough fuel to drive prices higher for the next two years and possibly longer. 5. Money market reserves remain at nearly 28% of the total stock market value. In 1982, reserves hit 22%, and an 18-year bull market followed. In 1991, reserves reached 17%, and the Dow nearly quadrupled over the next nine years!!! See why I'm urging you to be fully invested today? This is the watershed event of our investing lifetimes -- one that can fully erase the pain of the last several years. 6. According to market valuation models, the stock market is some 48% UNDERvalued relative to the 10-year Treasury. And with bond yields so low, investors take huge risks by holding them. When interest rates surge again, the value of bonds will plummet. And worry of that happening is exceptionally bullish for stocks. 7. These valuation models DON'T even take into consideration the advantage that dividends (taxed at 15%) now hold over interest income. When I recalculate with that advantage taken into effect, it shows that stocks are really 62% UNDERvalued when compared to bonds!!!

l'11 maggio ho riportato qui l'analisi di uno degli strateghi di Wall Street per il settore tecnologico, Pip Coburn di UBS Warburg, in cui spiegava come mai si aspettasse un esplosione ulteriore del ^nasdaq#^ fino a quota 2.000 ( un "supernova rally"). non mi sembra che sia stato molto considerato forse perchè va di moda dire che sono tutti incompetenti quando il mercato scende comunque è stato bravo, tutti 3 settimane fa (vedi il livello indicato con la barra in rosso) dicevano che il nasdaq era già salito anche troppo e bisognava alleggerire o vendere short o essere cauti ecc.. invece vediamo oggi il Nasdaq su di quasi un altro +15% e al momento il nasdaq composite di 3mila titoli è rimbalzato dal minimo di ottobre a 1.113 fino ai 1668 toccati oggi, cioè di un +51% (e quello future, il Nasdaq 100, NDX di un +55% !) vale la pena di rileggere ora cosa diceva questo tizio come scenario per l'estate (vedi due post qui sotto, è a questo che serve un archivio cronologico come quello di questo forum, per tenere traccia delle cose che si rivelano utili)

Chief Financial Officer Chief Information Officer Soprattutto la prima sigla e' di uso piuttosto comune e alquanto importante per chi voglia investire in USA. Wi Fi e' il nome comunemente usato (quello 'vero' e' IEEE 802.11) per lo standard emergente (anzi ormai affermato) per le reti locali senza fili.

mi può cortesemente spiegare il significato delle sigle CFO e CIO ? e cosa si intende nell'articolo con Wi-Fi . Grazieinadvance

La "storia" di Barron's del weekend: lo strategista globale della tecnologia di UBS Warburg Pip Coburn predice un esplosione del Nasdaq fino a 2000 entro l'autunno. Per chi fosse distratto: siamo a 1.520 del Nasdaq, il minimo è stato 1.109 l'anno scorso (e il massimo 5.000 nel 2000). Quindi siamo già risaliti mentre tutti si lamentavano del +37% dal minimo (e sul nasdaq 100 del +40%). Se avesse ragione il Coburn ci sarebbe un altro +25% da dove siamo ora (che porterebbe il rimbalzo totale a +90% dal minimo). Poi però Pip Coburn vede una grossa delusione nel 2004-2005 perchè a differenza degli anni '90 non ci sono tecnologie in incubazione importanti. E' apprezzabile che invece di fare il colpo al cerchio e il colpo alla botte all'italiana questo guru si esponga in modo preciso (senza contare che è influente). Inoltre mi sembra abbia ragione sul fatto che il rally sarà nei titoli medio-piccoli e non nelle Dell, Intel, Microsoft, Ibm, Yahoo, Ebay... E anche sullo scenario tecnologico dei prossimi anni è interessante quello che dice. Se ha ragione significa che ci sono dei soldi da fare entro settembre, ma solo se si ha TEMPISMO (perchè poi dopo esser arrivato a 2.000 il Nasdaq tornerà giù) e solo se si seleziona parecchio nei titoli perchè quelli molto noti hanno poco spazio. Nell'immediato ovviamente questo tipo di copertina e di storia di prima pagina è psicologicamente negativa. E se la combini con il pezzo del super guru Crawford che mi hanno trovato e copiato venerdì sera qui hai già la tendenza del mese. ------------------------------------------------------------------ MONDAY, MAY 12, 2003 Great Expectations UBS Warburg's Pip Coburn sees a "supernova rally" in tech stocks, but then what? By ERIC J. SAVITZ An Interview With Pip Coburn -- Pip Coburn, the global technology strategist at UBS Warburg, has some good news and bad news. The good news is, he thinks tech stocks are setting up for a "supernova rally" which will take the Nasdaq Composite back to 2000 or higher. The bad news is, he expects the rally will eventually burn itself out for lack of fuel. And when it does, Coburn says, investors will find a distinct lack of new technologies to propel revenue growth. In Coburn's view, that will mean some lean years for technology investors, marked by slow growth and steadily compressing P/E multiples. Coburn provided the details in a thought-provoking Q&A. Barron's: Pip, here in the Valley, everyone is looking for the Next Big Thing. But you don't see anything on the horizon that fits the description. Coburn: A lot of people want to believe that the 45-year run of the integrated circuit is still alive and well, and that we just have to wait a bit for it to recover. But I don't think that's right. In a recent report, we went through 18 possible candidates for the next disruptive technology and sketched out where we thought they were relative to "tipping points," where adoption accelerates. (See chart.) Q: You evaluated 18 possible next big things, in fact. A: We looked at all the usual suspects, plus a few others that we get asked about fairly often. We wanted to lay out two things: how close those technologies were to tipping points, and the size of each market. And we concluded, with 85% conviction, that if you look out five to seven years, there isn't going to be new technologies to save the IT market for investors during that period. Q: But, Pip, how can you know with any degree of confidence what's coming five years ahead? There's a widespread perception that something will save us -- maybe something that we don't know anything about just yet. A: That's possible. But when you look back at other technologies, it turns out it takes much longer for things to hit the tipping point than you would imagine. The PC was actually theorized in 1945 by a guy named Vannevar Bush, who also theorized about the Web. In 1973, Alan Kay and some friends at Xerox PARC put together the first PC. In many cases it takes a couple of decades before something hits the mainstream. The same thing is true for wireless technology -- the first cellphone calls were made in the 'Seventies and early 'Eighties. Ethernet was invented in 1973, but the networking world really took off in the 'Nineties. So with that as a backdrop, we looked at all those different technologies, a long, long, list of them. And again, our 85% conviction is that nothing is going to sneak up and surprise us. Q: That's not the conventional wisdom. A: The average person says the opposite. They say you just never know. They don't really think through what history has shown us, that these technologies take awhile. The brilliant thing about the 'Nineties was that so many of them matured simultaneously. It was wonderful. But it's over. Q: An optimist might argue that while you may know that a particular new technology exists, you may not be aware that the adoption rate is about to skyrocket. A: It's not possible to eliminate something surprising after you get three to four years out. But my best guess is that it will be five to seven years before something hits that is material enough to drive the market. Q: So there's no magic bullet. But there are other drivers for a rebound in tech spending -- like improving economic activity. What kind of growth do you expect for tech revenues in the next few years? A: I think you'll see 1.5 times GDP growth by the time we turn things around. We may have some catch-up spending first -- that's one driver for a supernova rally. But expecting much beyond that is just too hopeful. Overall, I'd expect a 6%-7% long-term trend line. One problem is that some of the technologies hitting tipping points are what I call cold technologies, where the net impact is to reduce overall tech spending. Q: That's an idea you've been writing about often in your weekly tech-strategy piece -- the contrast between hot technologies, which increase tech spending, versus cold technologies, which cut costs and shrink budgets. A: Yeah, and therefore they are very, very attractive to people right now. Even when the economy turns and people are willing to spend, some of the key technologies will still be those that are saving money. Q: Like Linux, for example. A: Linux, blade servers, grid computing. Offshore outsourcing. Tech strategist Pip Coburn is skeptical that some new application will "save" the information-technology market for investors in the next five to seven years. Q: How does your growth forecast compare to Street expectations? A: Well, one of the things that we've been doing for a while is to consider valuation levels using inverted discounted cash flows. It's a way of trying to figure out what the market expects in terms of top-line growth. When we run the numbers, the built-in expectations [for growth] are 10% to 15% -- higher than what I expect. Q: And yet, you expect a huge rally. A: At some point you'll start to get confidence that revenues are going to turn. You'll start hearing that tech is as strong as it ever was. We've had 14 rallies of at least 10% while we were going from 5000 down to 1114. Each time we've been disappointed ultimately. Eventually at some point we are going to get a turn in the revenues of the Global 1000. The economy will turn. At that point, I think the story you are going to hear is the following -- and it is going to be hard to resist for most people. The companies will say, "We are cautiously optimistic on the next 9 to 12 months. We are feeling good with the earnings forecasts that you have for the next six months and this is the most visibility we've had in perhaps three years." Why will the visibility be improved? The companies will say that client revenues are improving, that customers underspent over the last three years and that they're starting to increase spending. Also, companies will want to take advantage of accelerated tax depreciation which ends September 12, 2004. Q: That all sounds feasible. A: And the bulls will say they think that new killer apps will emerge, that they always do, and maybe most importantly, that we are still very early on in the roll-out of the Internet. Also, companies have reduced break-even points, cutting head count dramatically, so margins will start taking off. Investors will think we are back in the 1990s. We won't be, but investors will think so. Q: Hey, you've convinced me. A: Investors will be afraid to miss a big run. They're also going to forget about valuations for a while, just like they have in the last two fourth quarters. And they will start to look at the higher end of historic multiple ranges, because you always pay at the high end of the range if you think margins are going to take off. Q: I presume you are looking for more than a 10% or 15% rally. A: Today, we're around 1500 or so on the Nasdaq. I think we could see the Nasdaq north of 2000. Q: What companies will lead the charge? A: The companies that will do well in the early stages of the rally will be the semis, the semi-equipment guys, contract manufacturers, and some of the tier 2 and tier 3 software players. Q: That sounds a lot like the rally off the October lows. At that time, many stocks fell to market caps below their cash. That sent people hunting for bargains, and you had a lot of stocks double, triple, quadruple. And a lot of them weren't exactly of the highest quality, A: Some of the poorest-positioned companies dramatically outperformed. There was a sense that, gee, these companies aren't going out of business after all. Q: The quality names, the giants, couldn't keep up. A: Yes, they miserably underperformed. And they will lag in the supernova rally, when people will look for top-line leverage, companies where the revenues can really explode, where there's room for margin expansion and multiple expansion. And the big caps already trade at fat multiples. Those companies will go up, too. But they will lag. Q: I presume that the rally will anticipate a rebound -- that the stocks will move before business in the tech sector meaningfully recovers. A: The market is not going to wait. But the market will say, at first, I need confidence that this isn't just a little hiccup. Investors will want to have some confidence that revenues are picking up. So no, you can't wait until business is actually turning up at the tech companies. First, revenues will pick up at the Global 1000, and then at the tech companies themselves. Q: While you expect 6%-7% growth long term, don't you think we could get a period with faster growth, while companies loosen the purse strings? A: That will happen, although it won't be as large as the tech companies will be hoping. Meanwhile, the CIOs of the Global 1000 are saying no catch-up will happen. That won't be right either. I think they'll change their tune. On a one-year basis, depending on how strong the economy is, you could get 8% growth in tech spending, or maybe 10%. Q: So what you are suggesting, is that the fate of the tech sector in the coming months will be tied to the economy, not innovation. A: Yes. That's very dissatisfying to our clients. They're used to tech being special and different, a combination of tremendous secular drivers, matched with some cyclical components. So now I'm saying tech is anti-secular, an anti-growth area, with cold technology abounding everywhere you look, and that you need cyclical elements to get that top-line growth. And yet, there will be a period that is pretty healthy and feels good, so we'll get to play this for a while. It's tough to call the timing, maybe 12 to 18 months, but it will last a lot longer than people suspect. And prices will move higher than people suspect. Q: When should investors get positioned for the big rally? A: I want to have our model portfolio include companies that at the turn are going to be big beneficiaries. I want them as small positions today, but what I don't want is one day to reach the conviction that the time has come, and then try to start researching those stocks. Q: Because it will be too late. A: All that stuff, all that work, you've got to do it now. Even if you only have 1% positions in your portfolio. When it hits you that the world is turning, you can change your portfolio rapidly. I suspect there will be a month or two this year when you'll see managers rapidly turning over their portfolios. What they'll want to do first is get cash positions down to zero. Q: They'll be penalized for not being fully invested. A: You are going to be crushed, if we are talking about a 50% run. Say you have a 10% cash position. That's 500 basis points that you just lost versus your benchmark. Q: Being in the wrong stocks will also be a problem. A: In the rally, the very largest tech stocks in the S&P technology index, Intel, Dell, Microsoft, IBM, Cisco Systems, while they are long-term winners, will lag as a group. These companies are doing well fundamentally already -- you get less room to dream of upside on the top line, margin expansion and multiple expansion. Q: So move away from the big names when the rally starts. A: I could see taking the top 5 or 6 names from 45% of our tech model portfolio down to 10% or 15%. Timing that will be difficult, but it is something everyone will want to focus on. Because when those names underperform and some of these moon shots just take off, it could be incredibly painful. Q: Pip, earlier you noted that your conviction level about the lack of important new technologies coming along in the next few years was about 85%. What about the other 15%? A: It has to do with the environment. Think about the relationship of the CFO and the CIO. In 1990, the power resided with the CFO. By the end of the decade, though, the CFO was writing checks and wasn't even sure what they were spending on. They had so much pressure on them to get with the New Economy concept. The power had gone over to the CIOs. When profits started to turn down, the power went back to the CFO. CIOs put their heads under their desks and waited for the weather to clear. They are not pounding on the door for anything, let alone innovative technologies. Well, if the environment changes and the profits, cash flow, and the revenues improve, you will see the needle move away from an extreme position in favor of the CFO, to something more neutral. Q: So where does the 15% come in? A: Let's suppose I'm wrong and the balance moves even further toward the CIO, because business is so good. And people get sucked into the idea that the second wave of the Internet is rolling out, that something big is still happening, that it's just been delayed. If that becomes the environment, there will be more space for new technologies to take hold. In that kind of environment, just using Wi-Fi as an example, you could see companies all of a sudden really scrambling to say, oh, we have to get Wi-Fi not just for Pip and Eric but for the administrative assistants. You could potentially see that unfold. Q: A sudden yen to rip out all the wires. A: Yeah. Maybe everyone will need to be mobile. And then everyone will need new network interface cards for their PCs. Is that possible? Yeah, it is. That's the 15% scenario. I don't actually think the needle is going to move that far. But if it does, there would be more room to nurture new technologies. Remember, though, that for some of the technologies that we are seeing grab hold right now, like Linux, it doesn't matter if they take hold faster because they are cold tech. But something like Wi-Fi excites people because it represents a whole new market, a new way of doing things. Q: Okay, time to look further out. There are two elements to your post-rally scenario that are particularly sobering. One is that we'll get substantial P/E compression. And the other is the length of time that it might take for that to unfold. It implies a long, long difficult period. A: I expect a steady path across five to seven years, with a constant downward tug on investors minds, where they change what they fundamentally think about information technology as an attractive place to invest. Q: If it plays out that way, what will multiples look like five years out? A: Right now, tech stocks trade at about 30 times earnings, though in North American [companies] we are even higher -- Asian and European companies are much less expensive. But if we are trading at a 30 multiple globally, that probably drops toward 20, assuming the S&P remains at about 17 times. And one other thing: we think there's at least a 60% chance that over the next five to seven years the valuation metrics we use are going to change materially, at least in information technology. Q: Why? A: For one thing, the growth rate is slowing. In a discounted cash flow model, the tail end of the valuation then becomes less important. Instead of being 80% of the total, it gets to be 55% or 60%. So DCF-based valuations becomes less volatile. You can start to use discounted cash flows with a little bit more. And there's another reason. The second element is the number of changes FASB is making, which will confuse all of us on how to use P/E multiples. The conversation will be like this. Hey Eric, I'm really interested in Cisco here at 25 times. And you will go, 25 times, is that with or without the options? Oh, that's with the options. Oh, now what has the historic trend been? Well, it is between X and Y. And you'll say, well during what time? Well from '92 to 2002. And you'll say, is that with or without the options? And I'll say, well in '92 to '95 it is without the options because those weren't calculated by FASB so we can't figure that out, but '96 through 2000 I included the options, because FASB had that in the footnotes. And then you'd say, so you think investors in '96 through 2000 were looking in the back at the footnotes? And I'd go, well I guess that's what I'm implying. And you'll say, does that make sense? And I'll say, not really. And then you'll say, so what is the historic range? And I'll go, I don't know. What a mess! Q: Pip, if you look at your list of potentially disruptive technologies, do you see any that are likely to provide a little lift for the industry at the margin? A: Oh, I think you will see some little mini revolutions, or mini evolutions. Digital still cameras are at a tipping point and that provides a lot of opportunity, but only to a few companies -- Canon is one taking advantage of that. Probably the trend that I would say over the next five to seven years has the opportunity to be big enough -- and likely enough that I get somewhat excited -- is a series of moves tied to the home. Broadband will become ubiquitous not just in Korea and Japan, but in Western Europe and North America, where we still have very low penetration rates. From that, home networking becomes commonplace, and then from that, the end devices change. And then I guess you can extend from there and see opportunities in integrating all of that software, and moving to Web services. Wi-Fi will be a beneficiary of that, too. But all that is not going to come together in two, or three, or four years -- I think that will take more like seven or eight. Q: Because of all the moving parts? A: Yeah. It's not just about price points. There's the question of whether people want to change the way they are doing things. Are you solving a problem for someone, or are you just coming up with something cool? My thinking is that you need people to feel they're in a 'crisis' to change their habits. So is anyone in a crisis today if they don't buy a Palm Pilot? Most people, no, a few people, sure. If people don't have broadband at home are they in a crisis? Some people on the margin, yeah. A lack of home networking isn't much of a crisis yet. Having a tablet PC? Pretty much no one on the face of the Earth considers it a crisis if they don't have a tablet PC. The difference between luxury and necessity is between our ears. In 1975, no one had to have a Betamax. Ten years later, everyone had to have a VHS recorder. It's a cultural adoption process. Usually, it isn't the technology -- usually the technology can do the job more so than not. Then prices come down. Then people have to ask why they'd buy, which is where the rubber meets the road. We sold 400 million cellphones last year. Why? Because my mom could figure out how to use that pretty darn quickly. The PDA is much more difficult. Wi-Fi is more difficult for most people. Q: So if we look five to seven years out, and growth will be modest, and multiples will be lower, what kind of tech stocks will you want to own? A: It's going to be very difficult for someone to come in and replace Nokia in their space, or replace Cisco in their space, or to invent a better mouse trap to take on Dell. The companies that are the dominant leaders today have their eyes out for every opportunity -- smaller players getting in to that top tier will be a real long shot. I mean, if I can track this stuff for a living, Cisco certainly should be able to track it far, far better than I can. Q: Are there big names that look vulnerable in the scenario you've laid out? A:Sun Microsystems, EMC and Hewlett-Packard are obvious candidates. The companies in the middle of the telecom equipment space are candidates. Advanced Micro Devices will continue to struggle. One of the things we're continuing to see is the progression of service and administration into software. Software is getting burned into hardware, and the hardware is commoditizing. In 1990, about half of enterprise tech spending was hardware oriented. Last year it was closer to 30%. That's a long-term trend, it is not turning around and we have some additional forces that are making it even harder to compete as a strict hardware company. We have Linux. We have Dell. And we have Microsoft, Intel and IBM really applying the heat. Q: Pip, pretend it is May 2008. What will be the five biggest positions in your model tech portfolio? A: Cisco and Dell will be still pretty interesting, attacking new spots. Intel may finally be really cracking some new markets and taking share from other people. Q: Microsoft? A: It will depend a lot on the price at that point and time, but yeah, Microsoft is not going anywhere. And IBM is probably going to grow in terms of importance. Another candidate is Taiwan Semiconductor, if they can manage their financial side and don't get too much competition from the Chinese.