Mais-valias de longo prazo vão pagar menos IRS

[LuarAzul]

Ok!! Já me sinto mais esclarecido, e se antes tive medo de investir /jogar agora nem vou pensar mais nisso (apesar de que é apelativo ter acções por 6 euros que outros tipos tiveram por 120, mas pronto). Também vou investigar essa igreja de Santa Helena, tudo depende do número de degraus vs o número de pessoas que por lá passam e temos que ver também o tipo de discurso do padre de lá, mentalidade do pessoal, etc. tenho a certeza que em certos degraus e igrejas é possível tirar mais de 20 a 30% de lucro do que noutras

[acintra]

Isto tb pode ajudar a perceber, porque é que devemos deixar a Bear Stearns em paz. Infelizmente abri um tópico com esta noticia e devia era estar neste. Ainda é muito cedo para andar á pesca...

A huge spike in Bear Stearns' stock price in recent days doesn't mean buyer JPMorgan is going to have to boost its $2-a-share offer.
By Roddy Boyd, writer



NEW YORK (Fortune) -- The spiking share price of cash-strapped investment bank Bear Stearns suggests savvy traders are wagering that JPMorgan Chase is going to have to increase its lowly $2-a-share bid.

Note to Bear Stearns shareholders: Don't hold your breath. A higher bid isn't likely to happen.

Tuesday's jump in Bear Stearns shares, which closed up more than 22% to $5.91, appears to be largely a function of bond traders buying blocks of stock to guarantee the JPMorgan (JPM, Fortune 500) takeover goes through. They are doing so because the deal, which saves Bear Stearns (BSC, Fortune 500) from a near-certain bankruptcy filing, is subject to the approval of Bear Stearns shareholders.

The logic behind the stock buys is simple: Friday's collapse of Bear Stearns represented a fantastic opportunity for distressed debt players and risk arbitragers at hedge funds and brokers to buy the firm's debt and credit default swaps at fire sale prices, on the belief that a merger or bailout would be engineered.

The speculators were right - and lucky too. JPMorgan, rated AA-minus, is assuming the debt and guarantees of Bear Stearns, which on Friday was sporting a triple-BBB credit rating. Bear Stearns credit default swaps, which are insurance for bondholders in case a company defaults on its debt, were being written for 1,000 basis points - costing the buyer $1 million to purchase insurance on $10 million worth of Bear Stearns debt. But they have since pulled into the 335-point range. By way of comparison, J.P. Morgan swaps cost 130 points at the market close Tuesday.

Trading in Bear Stearns debts tells a similar story. The 7.25% bonds due in 2018, which traded down to $79 - or $790 per $1,000 bond - on Friday, were being peddled Tuesday afternoon by Credit Suisse at $93.75.

As such, the Bear Stearns stock purchases serve as a necessary counterweight to the large blocks of stock held by insiders and several high-profile investors, like non-executive chairman James Cayne, Tavistock's Joseph Lewis and Private Capital Management's Bruce Sherman. These people could potentially vote against the deal on the thinking that their options can't get much worse than accepting a buyout at $2 a share.

But Bear Stearns shareholders who don't like the deal don't have a lot of options. The merger agreement, or at least the parts of it that have been disclosed, appears ironclad in the advantages it gives JPMorgan. For example, the bank has the right to purchase up to 20% of Bear Stearns' equity at $2 per share, giving it an effective blocking position against another suitor. If another buyer does emerge, JPMorgan has the right to buy Bear's headquarters building at $1.1 billion.

Conversations with senior Bear Stearns executives make clear their preference to withhold their votes on the JPMorgan buyout, even if it pushes the firm into bankruptcy. They are not alone: Joseph Lewis, who owns 9.4% of Bear Stearns common stock, scoffed at the deal Monday, calling it "derisory."

What pained investors are overlooking is just how disastrous a Bear Stearns bankruptcy would be for them. A Bear Stearns bankruptcy would have very little in common with a traditional corporate bankruptcy, where companies often emerge with new management and cleaner balance sheets - and new equity. That's because Bear Stearns' value as a business is centered on its access to huge amounts of short-term financing; a manufacturer or service provider, on the other hand, uses capital to the extent needed to provide goods or services. In a Bear Stearns bankruptcy, lenders would refuse to extend credit for fear of having it tied up in years-long legal proceedings.

What's more, Bear Stearns' assets wouldn't be of any service in a bankruptcy. The firm's assets are pledged against more than $102 billion in repurchase agreements it had as of late November - and in a bankruptcy, those assets would be frozen. Clients would avoid Bear on the prime brokerage side, which would further handicap its operations, since the cash balances and liquid securities held in its customers' margin accounts were used to obtain additional lines of credit. It's possible too that regulators would seize Bear Stearns' core broker-dealer business.

There is also the so-called downstream effect of a Bear bankruptcy on its thousands of clients. Immediately, there is the $13.4 trillion (according to its 10-K) worth of derivatives that Bear has exposure to. Without JP Morgan's AA- credit rating, the systemic risk is unthinkable. On a smaller scale, hundreds of its hedge fund clients would be forced to recognize odious losses as they marked down the value of cash and securities temporarily trapped in a post-Chapter XI. While the funds would eventually recover most if not all of their assets, it is likely that many clients would seek to flee these funds.

With no access to capital and a balance sheet full of liabilities, Bear Stearns' operations would collapse. Needless to say, with a worthless stock and no cash generation, the firm's ultimate franchise - its employees - would walk.

And then what would Bear Stearns' investors have left? Zero. That's a lot worse than $2

[The Mechanic]

Bernanke Confounds Rate-Cut Calls, Avoids Rattling Investors

By Scott Lanman

March 19 (Bloomberg) -- Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke bucked investors' bets on a deeper interest-rate cut without spoiling the biggest U.S. stock-market rally in five years.

Policy makers yesterday lowered their benchmark rate by 0.75 percentage point, falling short of traders' bets for at least a full percentage point. The Federal Open Market Committee, in its announcement, left the door open for further reductions. At the same time, it restored language saying inflation has picked up.

``The Fed still has its primary focus on growth and the threat to growth from markets,'' said James O'Sullivan, a senior economist at UBS Securities LLC in Stamford, Connecticut. ``This is still a huge move,'' given that Alan Greenspan, Bernanke's predecessor, never lowered rates more than a half-point at a single meeting, O'Sullivan said.

The Standard & Poor's 500 Index climbed 4.2 percent yesterday to 1,330.74, the most since October 2002. The dollar, which fell to a 12-year low a day earlier, staged its biggest rally against the yen in nine years after the decision. Treasury notes declined.

The regular meeting came two days after emergency moves to lower the discount rate by a quarter-point and become a lender of last resort for the biggest Wall Street dealers. Bernanke, 54, and his colleagues have spent the past week striving to prevent a global financial-market meltdown after a run on Bear Stearns Cos.

`Pretty Gutsy'

``It's in some sense pretty gutsy'' to cut rates less than investors anticipated ``at a time when market expectations are so fragile,'' said Brian Sack, a former Fed researcher who is now senior economist at Macroeconomic Advisers LLC in Washington.

``The FOMC has been prioritizing financial-stability and growth risks over inflation risks,'' Sack said. ``But the statement reminded us that the inflation risks are part of the policy decisions as well.''

Sack and former Fed Governor Laurence Meyer, vice chairman at Macroeconomic Advisers, had forecast a full percentage-point reduction.

Yesterday's move brought the benchmark overnight interbank lending rate to 2.25 percent after a cumulative 3 percentage points of cuts since September.

While the decrease was smaller than traders and some economists expected, the move and the Jan. 22 cut by 0.75 percentage point are the largest reductions in the federal funds rate since it became the chief tool of monetary policy about two decades ago.

Effort at Compromise

The decision and statement may have resulted in part from a compromise between Bernanke and officials who wanted smaller rate cuts, including two who dissented.

Dallas Fed President Richard Fisher and Charles Plosser, president of the Philadelphia Fed, rebelled, preferring a ``less aggressive'' move. It's the first time two policy makers have broken with Bernanke publicly and the fifth straight FOMC rate move in which Bernanke has failed to achieve unanimity.

Plosser's dissent is the first for the former University of Rochester economist, who joined the Fed in 2006 and has taken some of the toughest anti-inflation views among policy makers. Plosser, 59, is a voting FOMC member for the first time this year. It's the second straight opposing vote for the 59-year-old Fisher, a former deputy U.S. trade representative in the Clinton administration.

``When inflation gets unanchored, and the long bond market goes up, that's going to really hurt longer-term investment and the recovery in the mortgage markets, which are the root cause of this recession,'' former Fed Governor Susan Bies said in an interview yesterday with Bloomberg Television.

`Elevated' Inflation

Such concerns may have been a factor in bringing back language noting that price increases have ``been elevated'' and saying that ``some indicators of inflation expectations have risen.'' The Fed's preferred price gauge, which excludes food and energy, has for three months run above the 2 percent upper band of officials' long-term inflation projections.

In the previous statement, on Jan. 30, the Fed said only that it ``expects inflation to moderate in coming quarters, but it will be necessary to continue to monitor inflation developments carefully.'' The Fed reiterated those points yesterday. Bernanke and Vice Chairman Donald Kohn, in remarks last month, played down inflation concerns and focused on risks to growth.

``Certainly the Fed's concerns about inflation have increased even as they cut rates aggressively,'' said Dean Maki, chief U.S. economist at Barclays Capital Inc. in New York. ``It didn't prevent them from doing a large rate cut, but they have taken note of the rise in inflation expectations.''

Liquidity Steps

Yesterday's statement nods to Fed actions over the past two weeks to ease credit-market strains, saying that the rate cut, ``combined with those taken earlier, including measures to foster market liquidity, should help to promote moderate growth over time and to mitigate the risks to economic activity.''

Earlier this month, the Fed said it would lend $200 billion in Treasuries to dealers and add another $200 billion through auctions of funds and repurchase agreements.

Bernanke sent investors a message that ``We're in control,'' said Paul Lennox, treasurer of Custom House Ltd., a Victoria, British Columbia-based firm that specializes in global foreign exchange. ``We're coming to an end. Don't rely on us to keep cutting rates.''

Um abraço ,

The Mechanic

[The Mechanic]

LuarAzul

O que vos parece, não é uma acção cuja cotação está como está devido ao pânico? Não terá uma enorme possibilidade de subir??? Será um bom investimento??

Vê isto que o Bullion colocou e tens a resposta ...
http://caldeiraodebolsa.jornaldenegocios.pt/viewtopic.php?t=61480

Como essas acções estão e como tu próprio disseste , isto está um totoloto . Logo, não pode ser um "bom investimento" . Quando se investe , alocam-se fundos partindo de determinados fundamentos e pressupostos . Quando se especula , tambem , de certo modo . Meter dinheiro em algumas acções do Mercado, neste momento, não é nem uma coisa, nem outra . É jogo puro . Podes ganhar uma pipa de massa ou podes conseguir um lugar no 3º degrau da Igreja de Sta. Helena como pedinte profissional .Se o degrau não estiver já ocupado, claro...


Um abraço ,

The Mechanic

[LuarAzul]

Gostava de perceber uma coisa que quem tem experiência destas lides é capaz de saber explicar.

O facto de a Bear Sterns ter sido vendida por dois euros por acção levou a que as acções descessem para os 3 euros e pouco. Hoje já vão nos seis euros. Mas a minha questão é: os dois euros parecem-me um preço "simbólico", sem relação com a realidade da empresa. O facto é que foi uma venda forçada. Portanto, pelo menos é o que me parece, o valor da acções da Bear Sterns neste momento são uma espécie de totoloto, mas não me parece estranho pensar que possam ter uma valorização de 100 ou até 1000 por cento no espaço de poucos meses.

Já agora este artigo dá uma visão muito diferente:

http://blogs.reuters.com/reuters-dealzo ... -climbing/

O que vos parece, não é uma acção cuja cotação está como está devido ao pânico? Não terá uma enorme possibilidade de subir??? Será um bom investimento??

[TP1]

Longo, sempre longo, só gosto do verde

[Bala]

Estou curto no SCP (e no SLB )

Hehehé, que corretora é que usas? Assim também eu, ate o meu FCP shortava

[jjoliveiramath]

E porque não ganho por 100, ganho por 1000?

Estou curto no SCP (e no SLB )

[scpnuno]

Caro senhor

V. Exa. hoje está com a veia toda. Espero que os seus amigos logo também.

Cumpre-me informar V. Senhoria que se alguma vez tivesse sido investidor na Pad, PTM, VAA ou SCO, não acharia a coisa da Ursa / Cervejola (lá da Bears ou carago como é que a coisa se chama) assim tão estranha.

Verdade que cá é mais devagarinho, não é propriamente 90% de 6ª para 2ª. Mas nós somos o pais dos alentejanos, e ainda temos alguns problemas tecnologicos - cá as coisas fazem-se com tempo... (basta ver os streamers dos nossos bancos..)

Caro lobo, recomendo um diazepan, um xanax, um lexotane uma cervejola. E a seguir senta-te a ver o SCP (esta parte não sei se será boa ideia para acalmar, só se for no espirito de perdido por 100, perdido por 1000)

Mas estou a gostar da tua prosa, pá

Beijocas

[JUKIMSUNG]

se está a rir sou eu

E o fogueiro deve estar electrico que pelos vistos tinha put's da bear Stearns

[The Mechanic]

Hoje , deu-me pra isto ...

Corria o ano do Senhor de 2007 aos dias 26 de Setembro quando surgiu uma notícia do "interesse " de Warren Buffet e de "muitas outras instituições" na compra de uma parcela dessa Instituição ...
As acções, disparavam em direcção aos 150 Dólares ( entre os 120 e 140 ) ...

Shares of Bear Stearns Cos. (BSC: +11.1%) rose sharply in afternoon dealings Wednesday on rumors that it is considering selling a minority stake in itself.

Bear Stearns, which has been hit hard by the mortgage turmoil, is in "serious talks" with several investors, including billionaire Warren Buffett, about selling as much as 20% of the company, the New York Times reported on its Web site, citing people familiar with the matter.
Other investors who have expressed interest in buying a stake include Bank of America Corp. and two Chinese institutions, the Citic Group and China Construction Bank, according to the report. Bear Stearns' shares were up more than 11% in afternoon trading.

Hoje a Bear Sterns tem a cotação a 3,82 Dólares ( "só " menos 87% que o fecho de 6ª-feira , que já foi tambem jeitoso ) .

Fossem lá dizer aos investidores deste título , uma Instituição forte com muitos anos de vida , no inicio do ano ( quando cotava já desde 2005 acima dos 100 usd ) ou na 2ª-feira passada ( perto dos 60 Dólares ) , que hoje só dariam nos Mercados menos de 4 Dólares por acção e obteríamos por certo , uma estrondosa gargalhada .

Um abraço ,

The Mechanic