CALDEIRÃO DE BOLSA

Pois, curioso que ele esteja a escrever isso agora, lol! Grande cramer, ate pensamentos lê!

Pata,

O Cramer acabou de escrever mais um artigo que esclarece a questão que colocas:

"Not Doomed, Just Due"


By James J. Cramer
11/25/2002 01:05 PM EST

"Due for a hit. Due for a decline. But we haven't been able to have one for seven weeks. We haven't been able to have one because we are too busy interpreting negative news -- Cisco bookings, KLA-Tencor orders, General Electric earnings reductions, etc., positively.

But today, because eight-week winning streaks are almost impossible to fathom, we have real selling.


I believe any decline will be limited to the upper end of the range -- DJIA 8400, Nazz 1300 -- and that as we get closer to those levels, buying will come in. But the streak seems too hard to keep given the incredible run we have had.

Let me put it this way: When Joe DiMaggio failed to get a hit after 56 games, we didn't think that DiMaggio had become a terrible player.

We just knew he was overdue."

(in www.realmoney.com)

Pata,

Em relação ao Cramer, continua optimista mas fez algumas vendas parciais nestas recentes subidas para ter capital para comprar na próxima retracção. Ele continua a acreditar que o mercado não vai sair daqui para subidas violentas, mas que o caminho nos próximos meses é para cima.

Beijinhos,
Ulisss

O Urso-Cramer à beira da capitulação, lol? anda com vontades compradeiras?

Qual a posição dele no resto do mercado, Ulisses? está bastante comprado, meio comprado, a ver o rally de fora e à espera de retracções para entrar...?

Pelo artigo do outro dia eu diria que ele deve estar moderadamente comprado, porque parecia acreditar que isto é um bottom.

"Resisting the Itch to Buy Cisco"

By James J. Cramer
11/25/2002 08:34 AM EST


"What will we pay for a call on the dominance of an industry that isn't growing? That's the question that haunts Cisco shareholders. This stock has rallied 70% from its bottom, and the only reason that can be is that the other companies in its cohort simply aren't going to make it.

I say that because numbers still are coming down for Cisco, not going up. Without a dividend to backstop the equity, and with no signs that 2003 spending should be any stronger than 2002 spending, people who want to own Cisco right now have to be living in the fantasy world of estimates that no one sanctions.


Maybe it doesn't matter. Maybe we can just pay $15 for Cisco knowing that someone else will pay $16 or $17; someone who simply needs to show that he owns Cisco for the "turn," however elusive it might be. Maybe we can just pay it because we know that it has a good balance sheet. Or that Cisco's management isn't as bad as Nortel's or Lucent's or Alcatel's.

But at some point the multiple will matter again. Are we going to pay 70 times earnings for a company that isn't growing, something that you probably have to be willing to do if you think the stock can hit $20? And what happens if Lucent or Nortel actually gets bought by some other company that can use the hulking product lines but lay off the excess without running afoul of the creditors? What happens if Cisco isn't the last man standing?

Look, I understand the desire to own this stock. I feel it, too. I have watched it climb and thought, oh, just buy it: John Chambers will figure out what to do, and it has an awful lot of cash.

But if I am going to play that game, I would much rather do it with Microsoft, where the business is still growing and the prospects are much brighter simply because, unlike Cisco, Microsoft is now a sanctioned monopoly that can raise prices any time it wants.

The temptation to just go buy Cisco and then watch it climb slowly to $16-$17, is so terrific that I know it will prove too hard to resist for most.

But until I have a reason for it to do it, other than the "last man standing," I can't play. Because I can't trade, and that's all that buy will be until Cisco reinvents itself as something that has customers who are growing, not shrinking, their budgets. "

(in www.realmoney.com)