小站
小站
正文
如果你相信市場自己能搞定一切，那麽某個煩人的、不太合乎你這一理念的問題一定會時不時在你頭腦裏冒出來，比如：知道是誰在買進或賣出某隻股票是不是真的重要？
很難讓你相信這不重要。人們在設計股市時就刻意隱藏了買家和賣家的真實身份。如果這些具體身份不重要的話，為什麽又會鬧出那麽多公司內部人交易的事呢？
昨天，一位讀者針對有關Fortress Investment Group的專欄文章寫來反饋說：“如果華爾街的人在賣出，你也不會想買進。就是這麽回事”。我想，嘿，他說的聽上去沒錯。
然後我發現，日本投行野村(Nomura)在Fortress上市前收購了後者15%的股份。現在，這部分股票跌了33%。我又想：嘿，這有什麽好奇怪的。
我要思考的是：在是否應根據究竟是誰在買進或賣出某隻股票來決定你自己的投資選擇這一問題上，有沒有什麽容易領會的潛規則呢？以下是一些失之偏頗的、全無科學性可言的提示：
如果私人股權基金和對衝基金賣出，你也應該賣出：為什麽機構投資者在百事通(Blackstone)、Och-Ziff和Fortress上市時買進它的股票對我還是個謎。
要知道，斯蒂芬•施瓦茨曼(Stephen Schwarzman)、丹•奧奇(Dan Och)和威斯•埃登斯(Wes Edens)可不是笨蛋。他們的業務不需要你我的錢。如果他們希望與公眾分享他們的財富，他們會去建圖書館。
留意亨利•克拉維斯(Henry Kravis)。他會很快給大家帶來禮物。
如果主權財富基金買進，你應該賣出：許多主權基金近來一直時運不濟，新加坡對瑞銀(UBS)的投資、阿布紮比對花旗(Citi)的投資、科威特和韓國對美林(into Merrill Lynch)的投資可能最後都會泡湯。中國對百事通的30億美元投資現已縮水40%左右。阿聯酋對Och-Ziff的投資跌去了約一半。
專家會告訴你，主權基金做上述投資是因為，美國和歐洲缺乏資金。但這聽上去沒什麽道理，西方國家有數千億美元資金在閑置，原因很簡單，與主權基金相比，西方投資者希望有更好的收益、更嚴格的條款。
如果日本投資者買進，你應該賣出：這麽說可能不公平，但日本人在對美國資產投資時機的選擇上一向是出了名的背運。
卵石灘、洛克菲勒中心、好萊塢MCA Universal製片公司、Verio（NTT在互聯網泡沫頂峰時期為收購它出了50億美元）……
他們學到教訓了嗎？未必。
2001年，野村向當時作價20億美元的Thomas Weisel Partners投入資金。如今，Weisel的市值隻有當年的十分之一。但野村依然如我，去年又收購了Fortress的股份。
如果吉姆•克萊默(Jim Cramer)看好哪位CEO並建議買進那家公司的股票，千萬別買：現在我還不能判定是否克萊默說對的時候比說錯的多（這要留給曆史去總結），不過，從我自己看克萊默節目的感受來說，如果他真的看好某位CEO，那往往意味著這位CEO倒黴的日子不遠了。
過去幾年，克萊默欣賞的人包括United Healthcare的威廉•麥克吉爾(William McGuire)、西爾斯(Sears)的埃迪•蘭博特( Eddie Lampert)、先靈葆雅(Schering-Plough)的弗裏德哈桑( Fred Hassan)、 Sirius的梅爾•卡馬辛(Mel Karmazin)、Rite-Aid的瑪麗•賽蒙斯(Mary Sammons)和梅西百貨(Macys)的特裏•朗格林(Terry Lundgren) 。這些CEO所在公司的股價統統不怎麽樣。
或許他們隻是運氣不好。但似乎有這樣一個規律，如果媒體吹捧哪位人士，他們能繼續呆在位子上的機率隻會減小。看看卡麗•菲奧麗娜(Carly Fiorina)、斯蒂文•凱斯(Steve Case)、桑迪•威爾(Sandy Weill)、漢克•格林伯格(Hank Greenberg)、斯坦•奧尼爾(Stan O\'Neal)還有比爾•米勒(Bill Miller)，他們不都是這樣的例子嘛。
如果是“明智的”內部人士買進，你應該買進：這是一個明顯的信號。盡管華爾街上沒什麽十拿九穩的事，但有些賭注兌現的幾率比別的賭注要大。這就是其中之一。
問題是如何判斷這個內部人士是否屬“明智”。有時，內部人士會賠得更慘。加內特•索恩伯格(Garrett Thornburg)整個2007年買進了數百萬股他所在公司Tornburg Mortgage的股票。如今，這家公司已瀕臨破產。
但當我看到Harrah董事長兼首席執行長、我以前在哈佛商學院的老師蓋瑞•洛夫曼(Gary Loveman)今年6月花40萬美元買進聯邦快遞(Federal Express)股票的時候，就不是這麽回事了。洛夫曼是聯邦快遞的董事。油價在直線攀升，而他卻如此大筆出手，這就很說明問題了。當Countrywide首席執行長安格魯•莫西洛(Angelo Mozilo)拋售股票的時候，也是如此。
投資其實就是提高你的獲勝幾率。這也是我不抽煙、不在拉斯維加斯賭博、不從腳手架下走過的原因。也是我為什麽不願與山姆•澤爾(Sam Zell)、羅納德•佩裏曼(Ronald Perelman)或沃倫•巴菲特(Warren Buffett)反向操作的原因。那樣的風險代價實在太大。
Evan Newmark
If you believe in efficient markets, every now and then a pesky question comes up that doesn\'t fit neatly into your theory: Like whether the identity of a buyer or seller of a stock really matters.
It\'s hard to believe that it doesn\'t. The entire stock market has been constructed to conceal the identity of buyers and sellers. And why would there be such a hullaballoo about corporate-insider buying and selling if it didn\'t matter?
Yesterday, in response to a column on Fortress Investment Group, a reader wrote, \'If a Wall Streeter is selling, you don\'t want to be buying. End of story.\' And I thought, \'Gee, that sounds right.\'
And then, I discovered that Japanese investment bank Nomura had purchased 15% of Fortress just before the IPO. The bank is now down 33% on their money. And I thought, \'Gee, no surprise there.\'
Which got me thinking: Are there some quick and dirty rules for whether you should trade based on the identity of the buyer and seller? Here\'s a biased and wholly unscientific take:
If private equity and hedge funds sell, you should sell: Why institutional investors bought into the IPOs of Blackstone, Och-Ziff and Fortress is a mystery to me.
Stephen Schwarzman, Dan Och and Wes Edens are not idiots. Their businesses don\'t need your capital. If they want to share their good fortune with the public, they build libraries.
Beware Henry Kravis. He shall be bearing gifts soon enough.
If sovereign wealth funds buy, you should sell: Many of the sovereign funds have been on an awful run of late. All the equity injections by Singapore into UBS, Abu Dhabi into Citi, and Kuwait and Korea into Merrill Lynch are probably well underwater.The $3 billion investment by the Chinese in Blackstone is off about 40%. The UAE is down about 50% on its stake in Och-Ziff.
Pundits will tell you that the sovereign funds provided the capital because US and Europe are short of capital. That doesn\'t seem right. There\'s hundreds of billions in Western money sitting on the sidelines. It\'s just that Western investors want better and tougher terms than the sovereign funds.
If Japanese investors buy, you should sell: It may be unfair to generalize, but the Japanese have a reputation for getting the timing of their US investments almost perfectly wrong.
Pebble Beach. Rockefeller Center. Matsushita\'s purchase of Hollywood studio MCA Universal. NTT\'s $5 billion purchase of web-hosting company Verio at the peak of the internet bubble.
Lesson learned? Not exactly.
In 2001, Nomura put money into Thomas Weisel Partners at a $2 billion valuation. Today, Weisel\'s market cap is a tenth of that. Persistent as ever, Nomura bought its stake in Fortress last year.
If Jim Cramer likes the CEO and says buy, you should sell: I\'ll leave it to history to determine whether Jim Cramer is more often right than wrong. However, my own viewing of his TV show suggests that when Cramer really likes a CEO, it is often the kiss of death.
Cramer\'s favorites over the past couple of years have included William McGuire of United Healthcare, Eddie Lampert of Sears, Fred Hassan of Schering-Plough, Mel Karmazin of Sirius, Mary Sammons of Rite-Aid and Terry Lundgren of Macys. All CEOs of abysmal stock performers.
Perhaps just bad luck. But it does seem that as the media builds up executives, their likelihood of staying on that perch only diminishes. Welcome to the club Carly Fiorina, Steve Case, Sandy Weill, Hank Greenberg, Stan O\'Neal, and Bill Miller.
If \'smart\' insiders buy, you should buy: This is an obvious call. While there\'s no sure thing on Wall Street, there are some bets that are better than others. And this is one.
The hard part is figuring out whether or not the insider is actually \'smart.\' Sometimes, insiders are just doubling down on losing positions. Garrett Thornburg was buying millions of shares in his company Thornburg Mortgage through all of 2007. Today, his company is on the verge of bankruptcy.
But when I see Gary Loveman, Chairman and CEO of Harrah\'s, and my former professor at Harvard Business School, buy more than $400,000 of shares in Federal Express this June, that carries weight. Loveman is on the FedEx board. Oil prices are skyrocketing but he\'s ponying up. That means something. When Countrywide chief Angelo Mozilo was dumping shares, that meant something, too.
Investing is all a matter of improving your odds. That\'s why I don\'t smoke, gamble in Las Vegas or walk under scaffolding. And why I\'d be reluctant to be on the other side of a trade with Sam Zell, Ronald Perelman or Warren Buffett. It just seems poor risk reward.
Evan Newmark
很難讓你相信這不重要。人們在設計股市時就刻意隱藏了買家和賣家的真實身份。如果這些具體身份不重要的話，為什麽又會鬧出那麽多公司內部人交易的事呢？
昨天，一位讀者針對有關Fortress Investment Group的專欄文章寫來反饋說：“如果華爾街的人在賣出，你也不會想買進。就是這麽回事”。我想，嘿，他說的聽上去沒錯。
然後我發現，日本投行野村(Nomura)在Fortress上市前收購了後者15%的股份。現在，這部分股票跌了33%。我又想：嘿，這有什麽好奇怪的。
我要思考的是：在是否應根據究竟是誰在買進或賣出某隻股票來決定你自己的投資選擇這一問題上，有沒有什麽容易領會的潛規則呢？以下是一些失之偏頗的、全無科學性可言的提示：
如果私人股權基金和對衝基金賣出，你也應該賣出：為什麽機構投資者在百事通(Blackstone)、Och-Ziff和Fortress上市時買進它的股票對我還是個謎。
要知道，斯蒂芬•施瓦茨曼(Stephen Schwarzman)、丹•奧奇(Dan Och)和威斯•埃登斯(Wes Edens)可不是笨蛋。他們的業務不需要你我的錢。如果他們希望與公眾分享他們的財富，他們會去建圖書館。
留意亨利•克拉維斯(Henry Kravis)。他會很快給大家帶來禮物。
如果主權財富基金買進，你應該賣出：許多主權基金近來一直時運不濟，新加坡對瑞銀(UBS)的投資、阿布紮比對花旗(Citi)的投資、科威特和韓國對美林(into Merrill Lynch)的投資可能最後都會泡湯。中國對百事通的30億美元投資現已縮水40%左右。阿聯酋對Och-Ziff的投資跌去了約一半。
專家會告訴你，主權基金做上述投資是因為，美國和歐洲缺乏資金。但這聽上去沒什麽道理，西方國家有數千億美元資金在閑置，原因很簡單，與主權基金相比，西方投資者希望有更好的收益、更嚴格的條款。
如果日本投資者買進，你應該賣出：這麽說可能不公平，但日本人在對美國資產投資時機的選擇上一向是出了名的背運。
卵石灘、洛克菲勒中心、好萊塢MCA Universal製片公司、Verio（NTT在互聯網泡沫頂峰時期為收購它出了50億美元）……
他們學到教訓了嗎？未必。
2001年，野村向當時作價20億美元的Thomas Weisel Partners投入資金。如今，Weisel的市值隻有當年的十分之一。但野村依然如我，去年又收購了Fortress的股份。
如果吉姆•克萊默(Jim Cramer)看好哪位CEO並建議買進那家公司的股票，千萬別買：現在我還不能判定是否克萊默說對的時候比說錯的多（這要留給曆史去總結），不過，從我自己看克萊默節目的感受來說，如果他真的看好某位CEO，那往往意味著這位CEO倒黴的日子不遠了。
過去幾年，克萊默欣賞的人包括United Healthcare的威廉•麥克吉爾(William McGuire)、西爾斯(Sears)的埃迪•蘭博特( Eddie Lampert)、先靈葆雅(Schering-Plough)的弗裏德哈桑( Fred Hassan)、 Sirius的梅爾•卡馬辛(Mel Karmazin)、Rite-Aid的瑪麗•賽蒙斯(Mary Sammons)和梅西百貨(Macys)的特裏•朗格林(Terry Lundgren) 。這些CEO所在公司的股價統統不怎麽樣。
或許他們隻是運氣不好。但似乎有這樣一個規律，如果媒體吹捧哪位人士，他們能繼續呆在位子上的機率隻會減小。看看卡麗•菲奧麗娜(Carly Fiorina)、斯蒂文•凱斯(Steve Case)、桑迪•威爾(Sandy Weill)、漢克•格林伯格(Hank Greenberg)、斯坦•奧尼爾(Stan O\'Neal)還有比爾•米勒(Bill Miller)，他們不都是這樣的例子嘛。
如果是“明智的”內部人士買進，你應該買進：這是一個明顯的信號。盡管華爾街上沒什麽十拿九穩的事，但有些賭注兌現的幾率比別的賭注要大。這就是其中之一。
問題是如何判斷這個內部人士是否屬“明智”。有時，內部人士會賠得更慘。加內特•索恩伯格(Garrett Thornburg)整個2007年買進了數百萬股他所在公司Tornburg Mortgage的股票。如今，這家公司已瀕臨破產。
但當我看到Harrah董事長兼首席執行長、我以前在哈佛商學院的老師蓋瑞•洛夫曼(Gary Loveman)今年6月花40萬美元買進聯邦快遞(Federal Express)股票的時候，就不是這麽回事了。洛夫曼是聯邦快遞的董事。油價在直線攀升，而他卻如此大筆出手，這就很說明問題了。當Countrywide首席執行長安格魯•莫西洛(Angelo Mozilo)拋售股票的時候，也是如此。
投資其實就是提高你的獲勝幾率。這也是我不抽煙、不在拉斯維加斯賭博、不從腳手架下走過的原因。也是我為什麽不願與山姆•澤爾(Sam Zell)、羅納德•佩裏曼(Ronald Perelman)或沃倫•巴菲特(Warren Buffett)反向操作的原因。那樣的風險代價實在太大。
Evan Newmark
If you believe in efficient markets, every now and then a pesky question comes up that doesn\'t fit neatly into your theory: Like whether the identity of a buyer or seller of a stock really matters.
It\'s hard to believe that it doesn\'t. The entire stock market has been constructed to conceal the identity of buyers and sellers. And why would there be such a hullaballoo about corporate-insider buying and selling if it didn\'t matter?
Yesterday, in response to a column on Fortress Investment Group, a reader wrote, \'If a Wall Streeter is selling, you don\'t want to be buying. End of story.\' And I thought, \'Gee, that sounds right.\'
And then, I discovered that Japanese investment bank Nomura had purchased 15% of Fortress just before the IPO. The bank is now down 33% on their money. And I thought, \'Gee, no surprise there.\'
Which got me thinking: Are there some quick and dirty rules for whether you should trade based on the identity of the buyer and seller? Here\'s a biased and wholly unscientific take:
If private equity and hedge funds sell, you should sell: Why institutional investors bought into the IPOs of Blackstone, Och-Ziff and Fortress is a mystery to me.
Stephen Schwarzman, Dan Och and Wes Edens are not idiots. Their businesses don\'t need your capital. If they want to share their good fortune with the public, they build libraries.
Beware Henry Kravis. He shall be bearing gifts soon enough.
If sovereign wealth funds buy, you should sell: Many of the sovereign funds have been on an awful run of late. All the equity injections by Singapore into UBS, Abu Dhabi into Citi, and Kuwait and Korea into Merrill Lynch are probably well underwater.The $3 billion investment by the Chinese in Blackstone is off about 40%. The UAE is down about 50% on its stake in Och-Ziff.
Pundits will tell you that the sovereign funds provided the capital because US and Europe are short of capital. That doesn\'t seem right. There\'s hundreds of billions in Western money sitting on the sidelines. It\'s just that Western investors want better and tougher terms than the sovereign funds.
If Japanese investors buy, you should sell: It may be unfair to generalize, but the Japanese have a reputation for getting the timing of their US investments almost perfectly wrong.
Pebble Beach. Rockefeller Center. Matsushita\'s purchase of Hollywood studio MCA Universal. NTT\'s $5 billion purchase of web-hosting company Verio at the peak of the internet bubble.
Lesson learned? Not exactly.
In 2001, Nomura put money into Thomas Weisel Partners at a $2 billion valuation. Today, Weisel\'s market cap is a tenth of that. Persistent as ever, Nomura bought its stake in Fortress last year.
If Jim Cramer likes the CEO and says buy, you should sell: I\'ll leave it to history to determine whether Jim Cramer is more often right than wrong. However, my own viewing of his TV show suggests that when Cramer really likes a CEO, it is often the kiss of death.
Cramer\'s favorites over the past couple of years have included William McGuire of United Healthcare, Eddie Lampert of Sears, Fred Hassan of Schering-Plough, Mel Karmazin of Sirius, Mary Sammons of Rite-Aid and Terry Lundgren of Macys. All CEOs of abysmal stock performers.
Perhaps just bad luck. But it does seem that as the media builds up executives, their likelihood of staying on that perch only diminishes. Welcome to the club Carly Fiorina, Steve Case, Sandy Weill, Hank Greenberg, Stan O\'Neal, and Bill Miller.
If \'smart\' insiders buy, you should buy: This is an obvious call. While there\'s no sure thing on Wall Street, there are some bets that are better than others. And this is one.
The hard part is figuring out whether or not the insider is actually \'smart.\' Sometimes, insiders are just doubling down on losing positions. Garrett Thornburg was buying millions of shares in his company Thornburg Mortgage through all of 2007. Today, his company is on the verge of bankruptcy.
But when I see Gary Loveman, Chairman and CEO of Harrah\'s, and my former professor at Harvard Business School, buy more than $400,000 of shares in Federal Express this June, that carries weight. Loveman is on the FedEx board. Oil prices are skyrocketing but he\'s ponying up. That means something. When Countrywide chief Angelo Mozilo was dumping shares, that meant something, too.
Investing is all a matter of improving your odds. That\'s why I don\'t smoke, gamble in Las Vegas or walk under scaffolding. And why I\'d be reluctant to be on the other side of a trade with Sam Zell, Ronald Perelman or Warren Buffett. It just seems poor risk reward.
Evan Newmark
評論
目前還沒有任何評論
登錄後才可評論.
