Dit onderwerp bevat 10 reacties, heeft 3 stemmen, en is het laatst gewijzigd door 
Satilmis 13 jaren, 4 maanden geleden.
-
Berichten
-
De bedoeling van deze draad is om elkaar te informeren over actualiteiten die de beurskoers(en) kunnen beïnvloeden. Als ik informatie plaats die uit zijn context is getrokken of onjuist is geïnterpreteerd, dan is een reactie welkom. Kortom, via deze draad informeren we elkaar en houden we de bezoekers van dit forum scherp.
Berichten die de beurs of de koers van een beursfonds in beweging kunnen zetten.
PwC: Meer overnames in 2011
AMSTERDAM (AFN) – De stijgende trend die in de afgelopen maanden merkbaar was op de overnamemarkt, zet het komende jaar door. Met name bedrijven in de industriële en technologische sector kunnen rekenen op speciale aandacht, zo meldt accountants- en advieskantoor PwC naar aanleiding van een rondvraag onder 64 fusie- en overnamespecialisten.
Ruim de helft van de specialisten zag de markt het afgelopen jaar verbeteren. Ruim 60 procent verwacht het komende jaar meer fusies en overnames te zien in de eigen sector, terwijl 8 procent een daling verwacht. Buitenlandse partijen tonen naar verwachting meer belangstelling voor Nederlandse bedrijven dan vorig jaar.
De meeste belangstelling voor Nederlandse bedrijven ziet 37 procent van de specialisten komen vanuit Azië en Noord-Amerika. Daarna volgt Noord-Europa (20 procent) en de Benelux (17 procent).
Volgend jaar nog minder noteringen aan de beurs in Amsterdam?
Grote lidstaten willen rem op EU-uitgaven
BRUSSEL (AFN) – Net als de Europese lidstaten moet ook de EU de tering naar de nering zetten. Dat staat in een brief die de regeringsleiders van het Verenigd Koninkrijk, Duitsland en Frankrijk naar hun collega’s zullen sturen. Een goed ingelichte bron heeft dat donderdag gemeld. De brief, in eerste instantie een Brits initiatief, wordt mogelijk nog tijdens de EU-top rondgestuurd.
De brief is bedoeld als voorschot op de discussie over de meerjarenbegroting van de EU na 2013. Nederland steunt het standpunt van de grote drie.
Eerder dwongen de EU-landen al af dat de Europese begroting volgend jaar maar met 2,9 procent stijgt. Het Europarlement, dat eigenlijk de uitgaven in 2011 met 6 procent had willen verhogen, legde zich daar deze week bij neer.
De economie zal niet gaan groeien door de overheidsuitgaven vermoed ik.
Rutte wil euro koste wat kost redden
BRUSSEL (AFN) – De Nederlandse premier Mark Rutte wil de euro ,,koste wat kost” overeind houden. De euro is voor onze welvaart van vitaal belang, verklaarde hij donderdagmiddag kort voor het begin van de Europese top in Brussel over de redding van de Europese eenheidsmunt.
Rutte benadrukte achter de euro te blijven staan en al het mogelijke te doen om de stabiliteit van de euro te garanderen. Dat is belangrijk voor de waarde van het geld in onze portemonnee, aldus de premier.
Hij toonde zich ervan overtuigd dat de euro overeind blijft, ondanks alle problemen. Daarvoor is het wel belangrijk dat er strenge voorwaarden worden gesteld en zware straffen komen voor landen die zich niet houden aan de spelregels. Zo moeten landen gedwongen worden een verstandig begrotingsbeleid te voeren. ,,Het allerbelangrijkste is rust uit te stralen” en goede maatregelen te nemen, aldus de premier.
Dit moet goed nieuws zijn voor de Euro, maar we redden de euro niet alleen.
DSM rondt verkoop DSM Special Products af
HEERLEN (AFN) – Chemieconcern DSM heeft het onderdeel DSM Special Products verkocht aan Emerald Performance Materials. Dat maakte DSM donderdag bekend.
DSM kreeg begin deze maand het groene licht van de Europese Commissie voor de verkoop aan het Amerikaanse chemiebedrijf, dat eigendom is van het Amerikaanse investeringsfonds Sun Capital Partners. Het concern verwacht dat de transactie een ,,kleine” boekwinst oplevert, die in het vierde kwartaal van dit jaar wordt genomen. Een woordvoerder kon desgevraagd niet aangeven hoe hoog die winst uitvalt.
DSM Special Products maakt onder meer chemicaliën die worden gebruikt bij de productie van voedingsmiddelen. Het bedrijf heeft circa 125 mensen in dienst in de fabrieken in Rotterdam en Sittard, die zorgen voor een jaaromzet van circa 125 miljoen euro.
Kleine boekwinst, maar wat betekent deze verkoop voor de koers van DSM?
EU-leiders akkoord met permanent noodfonds
BRUSSEL (AFN) – Het Europees Verdrag van Lissabon wordt gewijzigd. Ook komt er een permanent noodfonds voor de stabilisering van de euro. Dat zijn de leiders van de 27 lidstaten van de Europese Unie donderdagavond in Brussel overeengekomen.
Dat is door ingewijden bevestigd. De wijziging van het verdrag moet de onderlinge financiële hulp van EU-lidstaten mogelijk maken. De kleine aanpassing gebeurt op aandringen van Duitsland, waar het Grondwettelijk Hof de huidige steun van EU-landen aan andere EU-landen onder de loep neemt. Het huidige, tijdelijke noodfonds voor de euro is eigenlijk in strijd met het Verdrag van Lissabon, omdat dat bepaalt dat EU-landen elkaar niet financieel mogen helpen.
Door de verdragswijziging beperkt te houden, hopen de EU-leiders referenda in de lidstaten te vermijden.
Het permanente noodfonds moet vanaf medio 2013 voorkomen dat landen met financiële problemen de euro verzwakken.
Hey, er komt toch een permanent noodfonds. Had ik niet verwacht. Maar pas in 2013. Dat duurt nog even. Doet dit iets met de euro?
Ontwikkelingen die de beurs in positieve of negatieve zin kunnen beïnvloeden
Financiële Agenda 17 december 2010 (bron: FD.nl)Tijd ——– Betreft => Onderwerp
1:01 ——– Verenigd Koninkrijk => Nationwide-index consumentenvertrouwen november
8:00 ——– Finland => producentenprijzen november
8:45 ——– Frankrijk => producentenvertrouwen december
9:00 ——– Oostenrijk => groeiverwachtingen 4e kwartaal
9:30 ——– ING Selected Absolute Strategies – Equity Hed => 2e buitengewone vergadering, inzake ontbinding van de vennootschap
9:30 ——– Nederland => levensverwachting 65-jarigen 2010-2060
9:30 ——– Nederland => bedrijfsinvesteringen oktober
9:30 ——– Nederland => persbijeenkomst ‘Bevolkingsprognose 2010-2060
10:00 ——- Italië => fabrieksorders oktober
10:00 ——- Duitsland => Ifo-index ondernemerklimaat december
11:00 ——- EU => bouwproductie oktober
11:00 ——- EU => handelsbalans oktober
12:00 ——- Brazilië => werkloosheid november
14:00 ——- Polen => industriële afzet november
14:00 ——- Polen => producentenprijzen november
15:00 ——- België => producentenvertrouwen december
16:00 ——- Verenigde Staten => leading indicators november
16:00 ——- Coca Cola Enterprises (VS) => conference call vooruitzichten 2011
20:00 ——- Argentinië => industriële productie november
20:00 ——- Argentinië => economische groei (bbp) 3e kwartaal
————— National Express (VK) => update 2e halfjaar
————— Wolford (Oost.) => halfjaarcijfers
————— American Oil & Gas (VS) => buitengewone vergadering inzake overname door HessEen uur geleden nog de call 353 17-12-2010 geschreven voor 0,45 cent. Het leek eerst nog wat tricky maar nu lijkt het veilig te zijn.
De put 351 van vandaag ingelegd voor 0,40 cent. Mocht die in the money komen, dan kan ik deze managen met een short FTI of ESTX50 Future.
De put is nu ook binnen, geschreven call nu op 40,- winst per contract en de put op dit moment op 5,- winst per contract.
@traderemile leuk dat je meedoet.
Ja, dank u.
En ik ga ervan uit dat beide posities nu binnen zijn want beide posities doen nu nog 5,-.
Ja dus, beide posities zijn leeg gelopen, dus dan is er zo;n 80,- per contract binnen.
@traderemile dat is leuk geld toch € 80,- per contract!
Jazeker, en het is sowieso een mooi jaar geweest voor de schrijvers, maar het kan ook wel eens lastig zijn hoor, maar je hebt gewoon meer kans, zijwaarts is OOK goed.
Officiële Hindenburg Omen op 15 december
Voor degenen die niet weten wat een Hindenburg Omen is, zie:
http://forum.dekritischebelegger.nl/technische-analyse/30-kans-op-een-crash/
So what is a Hindenburg Omen? It is the alignment of several technical factors that measure the underlying condition of the stock market — specifically the NYSE — such that the probability that a stock market crash occurs is higher than normal, and the probability of a severe decline is quite high. This Omen has appeared before all of the stock market crashes, or panic events, of the past 25 years. All of them. No panic sell-off (greater than 15 percent) occurred over the past 25 years without the presence of a Hindenburg Omen. Another way of looking at it is, without a confirmed Hindenburg Omen, we are pretty safe. But we have an official Hindenburg Omen as of August 20th, 2010.
We got a second official confirmed Hindenburg Omen observation Wednesday, December 15th, 2010 after getting a first observation Tuesday, December 14th, 2010, meaning we are now on the clock watching for a stock market crash, and at the very least a significant decline. There is a much higher than normal probability of a stock market crash starting sometime over the next four months. All criteria were met Tuesday and Wednesday, December 14th and 15th, 2010. December 14th’s observation saw 179 NYSE New 52 Week Highs, and 113 NYSE New 52 Week Lows according to the Wall Street Journal, the lower of the two coming in at 3.58 percent, above the 2.2 percent threshold required for a Hindenburg Omen observation. Total NYSE issues traded were 3,158. New Highs were not more than twice New Lows, the McClellan Oscillator was negative at negative -16.23, and the 10 Week Moving Average is rising. The second observation on December 15thth has occurred within the required 36 day period necessary for a cluster (two or more observations) to occur. December 15th’s observation saw 156 NYSE New 52 Week Highs, and 89 NYSE New 52 Week Lows according to the Wall Street Journal, the lower of the two coming in at 2.83 percent, above the 2.2 percent threshold required for a Hindenburg Omen observation. Total NYSE issues traded were 3,143. New Highs were not more than twice New Lows, the McClellan Oscillator was negative at negative -68.80, and the 10 Week Moving Average is rising.
Now that we have a second observation, we have an official confirmed Hindenburg Omen. This is the first Hindenburg Omen since August 2010, and only the second since 2008, which of course led to the massive stock market crash in the autumn 2008, and the fourth since the Bear Market started in 2007 (we got one in 2007, one in 2008 and two here in 2010). We got crashes after both the October 2007 and June 2008 Hindenburg Omens.
The way Peter Eliades put it in his Daily Update, September 21, 2005 (www.stockcycles.com), “The rationale behind the indicator is that, under normal conditions, either a substantial number of stocks establish new annual highs or a large number set new lows — but not both.” When both new highs and new lows are large, “it indicates the market is undergoing a period of extreme divergence — many stocks establishing new highs and many setting new lows as well. Such divergence is not usually conducive to future rising prices. A healthy market requires some semblance of internal uniformity, and it doesn’t matter what direction that uniformity takes. Many new highs and very few lows is obviously bullish, but so is a great many new lows accompanied by few or no new highs. This is the condition that leads to important market bottoms.”
A brief history on the origin and evolution of the Hindenburg Omen signal: It was originally adopted by Jim Miekka, editor and publisher of The Sudbury Bull and Bear Report, derived from a New High – New Low indicator developed by Gerald Appel many years ago. Because it signals the possibility of a stock market crash, my good friend, the late Kennedy Gammage, a terrific technical analyst in his own right, dubbed it the Hindenburg Omen after the famous ill-fated aircraft associated with the word “crash.”
How has this signal performed over the past 25 years, since 1985? The traditional definition of a Hindenburg Omen is that the daily number of NYSE New 52 Week Highs and the Daily number of New 52 Week Lows must both be so high as to have the lesser of the two be greater than 2.2 percent of total NYSE issues traded that day. However, this is just condition number one. The traditional definition had two more filters: That the NYSE 10 Week Moving Average is also Rising, which we consider met if it is higher than the level at any time during the previous 10 weeks (condition # 2), and that the McClellan Oscillator is negative on that same day (condition # 3). We calculate these measures each evening at http://www.technicalindicatorindex.com using Wall Street Journal figures for consistency. We consider the Wall Street Journal’s data as “official.” Critics have taken this Hindenburg Omen definition and pointed rightly to several failed Omens. But if we add two more filters, our proprietary research finds that the correlation to subsequent severe stock market declines is remarkable. Condition # 4 requires that New 52 Week NYSE Highs cannot be more than twice New 52 Week Lows, however it is okay for New 52 Week Lows to be more than double New 52 Week Highs. Our research found that there were two incidences where the first three conditions existed, but New Highs were more than double New Lows, and no market decline resulted. There were no instances noted where if 52 Week Highs were more than double New Lows, while the first three conditions were met, that a severe decline followed. So condition # 4 becomes a critical defining component.
The fifth condition we found important for high correlation is that for a confirmed Hindenburg Omen, in other words for it to be “official,” there must be more than one signal within a 36 day period, i.e., there must be a cluster of Hindenburg Omens (defined as two or more) to substantially increase the probability of a coming stock market plunge. Our research noted eight instances over the past 25 years — using the first four conditions — where there was just one isolated Hindenburg Omen signal over a thirty-six day period. In seven of the eight instances, no sharp declines followed. In only one instance did a sharp subsequent sell-off occur based upon a non-cluster single Omen, but in that case it was incredibly close to having a cluster of two Omens as the previous day’s McClellan Oscillator just missed being negative by a few points. We included this instance in our data that follows.
So to recap, we have an unconfirmed Hindenburg Omen if the first four conditions are met, but the fifth is not — in other words we only have one signal within a 36 day period. Once a second or more Omen occurs, we then have a confirmed Hindenburg Omen signal with substantially higher odds that a subsequent stock market plunge is coming.
Our research noted that plunges can occur as soon as the next day, or as far into the future as four months. In either case, the warning is useful. It just means, if you want to play the short side after a confirmed signal, or move out of harms way, you must be prepared to see it happen as soon as the next day, or four months from now, possibly after you forgot about it. About half occurred within 41 days.
Based upon the five parameters noted above, here’s what we found: Confirmed Hindenburg Omens are very rare. There have been only 28 confirmed Hindenburg Omen signals over the past 25 years. December 2010’s is the 29th. This is amazing when you consider that during that time span, there were roughly 6,400 trading days. Of those 6,400 trading days where it was possible to generate a confirmed official Hindenburg Omen, only 197 (3.1 percent) generated one, clustering into 28 confirmed potential stock market crash signals.If we define a crash as a 15% decline, of the previous 28 confirmed Hindenburg Omen signals, eight (28.5 percent ) were followed by financial system threatening, life-as-we-know-it threatening stock market crashes. Three (10.7 percent) more were followed by stock market selling panics (10% to 14.9% declines). Four more (14.3 percent) resulted in sharp declines (8% to 9.9% drops). Six (21.4 percent) were followed by meaningful declines (5% to 7.9%), five (17.8 percent) saw mild declines (2.0% to 4.9%), and two (7.1 percent) were failures, with subsequent declines of 2.0% or less. Put another way, there is a 28 percent probability that a stock market crash — the big one — will occur after we get a confirmed (more than one in a cluster) Hindenburg Omen. There is a 39.2 percent probability that at least a panic sell-off will occur. There is a 53.5 percent probability that a sharp decline greater than 8.0 % will occur, and there is a 74.9 percent probability that a stock market decline of at least 5 percent will occur. Only one out of roughly 14 times will this signal fail.
All the biggies over the past 25 years were preceded and identified by this signal (as defined with our five conditions). It was on the clock just before the stock market crash of the autumn of 2008. It was present and accounted for a few weeks before the stock market crash of 1987, was there three trading days before the mini crash panic of October 1989, showed up at the start of the 1990 recession, warned about trouble a few weeks prior to the L.T.C.M and Asian crises of 1998, announced that all was not right with the world after Y2K, telling us early 2000 was going to see a precipitous decline. The Hindenburg Omen gave us a three month heads-up on 9/11 (2001), and told us we would see panic selling into an October 2002 low, warned in October 2007 that a multi-month 16 percent plunge was about to start, from the DJIA’s all-time high. And it was on the clock three months before the stock market crash of the autumn 2008 into spring 2009 that wiped out 47.3 percent of the stock market’s value. Our subscribers at http://www.technicalindicatorindex.com were informed immediately as these signals were generated.
Here’s the data for all Hindenburg Omens over the past 25 years:
Date of first
Hindenburg
Omen Signal # of Signals
In Cluster DJIA
Subsequent
% Decline Time Until
Decline
Bottomed12/14/2010 2 Watching Watching
8/12/2020 6 3.7% 15 days
6/6/2008 6 47.3% 276 days
10/16/2007 9 16.3% 99 days
6/13/2007 8 7.1% 64 days
4/7/2006 9 7.0% 34 days
9/21/2005 (1) 5 2.2% 22 days
4/13/2004 (2) 5 5.4% 30 days
6/20/2002 5 15.8% 30 days
6/20/2002 5 23.9% 112 days
6/20/2001 2 25.5% 93 days
3/12/2001 4 11.4% 11 days
9/15/2000 9 12.4% 33 days
7/26/2000 3 9.0% 83 days
1/24/2000 6 16.4% 44 days
6/15/1999 2 6.7% 122 days
2/22/1998 (3) 2 0.2% 1 day
7/21/1998 1 19.7% 41 days
12/11/1997 11 5.8% 32 days
6/12/1996 3 8.8% 34 days
10/09/1995 6 1.7% 1 day
9/19/1994 7 8.2% 65 days
1/25/1994 14 9.6% 69 days
11/03/1993 3 2.1% 2 days
12/02/1991 9 3.5% 7 days
6/27/1990 17 16.3% 91 days
11/01/1989 36 5.0% 91 days
10/11/1989 2 10.0% 5 days
9/14/1987 5 38.2% 36 days
7/14/1986 9 3.6% 21 days(1) In September 2005, the Fed pumped $148 billion in liquidity from the first week in September, just before the Hindenburg Omens were generated — to the third week of October, an 11 percent annual rate of growth in M-3 (2.5 times the rate of GDP growth and 5 times the reported inflation rate), to stave off a crash. The liquidity held the market to a 2.2 percent decline from the initiation of the signal.
(2) In April 2004, the Fed pumped $155 billion in liquidity from the last week in April — right after the Hindenburg Omens were generated — to the third week of May, a 22 percent annual rate of growth in M-3, to stave off a crash. Even with the liquidity, the market still fell 5.0 percent.(3) The 12/23/1998 signal barely qualified, as the McClellan Oscillator was barely negative at -9, and New Highs were nearly double New Lows. Had this weak signal not occurred, condition # 5 would not have been met. This skin-of-the-teeth confirmation may be why it failed. It says something for having multiple, strong confirming signals.
Another point to make here is that the actual stock market declines are often greater than the measures in the prior data chart. That’s because oftentimes the decline from a top has already occurred before the Hindenburg Omens have been generated. These percent declines are only measuring the declines from the first Omen in a cluster. If we measured declines from the tops, it would be worse in many cases. For example, the September 2005 signals came after the September 12th high of 10,701. The autumn decline of 2005 into October 13th, 2005 bottom ended up being 545 points (5 percent) even with all the liquidity pumping by the Fed.
Here’s something interesting: Oftentimes equities will rally after a Hindenburg Omen occurs, faking folks out, then the plunge comes on the other side of the hilltop. 1987 is a perfect example of that.
Another observation is that once you get two solid Hindenburg Omens in a cluster, the probability of a severe decline does not seem to increase as more Omens occur within the cluster. Sometimes a two signal cluster produced a worse decline than a 5, 11, or 17 signal cluster. But what can be said about multiple signal clusters is that the warnings are being given further out in time, keeping us on the alert. More signals also assure us a greater likelihood of better quality signals, which seems to matter. Multiple signals are telling us things are not getting better, that something continues to remain wrong with the market.What does it mean for traders and investors when we get a confirmed Hindenburg Omen? This is really important to understand. A confirmed Hindenburg Omen is not a guarantee of a stock market crash. The odds of a crash based upon the history since 1985 is 28.5 percent. That means the odds we will not have a crash are quite high, at 71.5 percent. However, since a stock market crash is akin to economic death in many circles, you can look at the situation like this. If you were hearing from your doctor that the surgury you are contemplating stands a 30 percent chance of you dying, that becomes a very high percentage probability – one you likely do not want to take if the surgury is not absolutely necessary. A 30 percent probability of a stock market crash is extremely high when you consider that there have been only eight over the past twenty-five years, and the normal odds of a crash happening randomly are only about one-tenth of one percent. You now also have to factor that the Fed is pumping liquidity to prevent crashes once these signals occur. So you do not want to go short the farm. You may want to think about taking prudent precautionary action according to your investment advisor given the much higher than normal odds of a crash. That may not mean shorting. It may mean increasing cash positions or hitting the sidelines for a while. Or it may mean a carefully constructed shorting strategy developed with your advisor that limits losses, and invests only the amount which you can afford to lose. Still, it is interesting that even with the heavy liquidity the Fed has been pumping around the time of the past two signals, the odds of a 5 percent decline or more remain pretty high at 74.9 percent.
We do not think it is wise to listen to folks who minimize the risk in markets pointed out by the Hindenburg Omen. We disagree with the argument that since so many of the listings on the NYSE, especially those of the New High “stock” group recorded for the Omen, are some type of Fixed Income product (ETFs, preferred stocks, etc) that the Omen isn’t really capturing “stocks” when it says “we got x % New Stock Highs,” therefore the Omen is irrelevant. Our position is that the argument that the “stock market Omen” isn’t measuring the internals of the “stock” market is false. Here is why: A huge percent of NYSE stocks are financials, banking firms, and include firms such as General Electric which is essentially a financial firm, although many people would not think of them that way. Financial firms hold substantial positions in bonds. Almost every bank listed on the NYSE carries a fixed income bond portfolio somewhere between 15 and 30 percent of their entire balance sheet, and have for years, going back far beyond the past 25 years of our research, a period of time when the Hindenburg Omen worked just fine, thank you very much. Bond and other fixed income products are prevalent throughout the distribution of companies listed NYSE, and have been for years. This Omen has worked for at least the past 25 years. It accurately called the stock market crashes of 2007 and 2008 when the NYSE included many stocks holding significant positions in fixed income instruments. It does not matter. Our entire economy has essentially moved from a manufacturing base to a financial base. This makes the Hindenburg Omen relevant. We believe it would be unwise to ignore this potential stock market crash warning.
Je moet ingelogd zijn om een reactie op dit onderwerp te kunnen geven.
