小站
小站
正文
如果你相信市场自己能搞定一切，那么某个烦人的、不太合乎你这一理念的问题一定会时不时在你头脑里冒出来，比如：知道是谁在买进或卖出某只股票是不是真的重要？
很难让你相信这不重要。人们在设计股市时就刻意隐藏了买家和卖家的真实身份。如果这些具体身份不重要的话，为什么又会闹出那么多公司内部人交易的事呢？
昨天，一位读者针对有关Fortress Investment Group的专栏文章写来反馈说：“如果华尔街的人在卖出，你也不会想买进。就是这么回事”。我想，嘿，他说的听上去没错。
然后我发现，日本投行野村(Nomura)在Fortress上市前收购了后者15%的股份。现在，这部分股票跌了33%。我又想：嘿，这有什么好奇怪的。
我要思考的是：在是否应根据究竟是谁在买进或卖出某只股票来决定你自己的投资选择这一问题上，有没有什么容易领会的潜规则呢？以下是一些失之偏颇的、全无科学性可言的提示：
如果私人股权基金和对冲基金卖出，你也应该卖出：为什么机构投资者在百事通(Blackstone)、Och-Ziff和Fortress上市时买进它的股票对我还是个谜。
要知道，斯蒂芬•施瓦茨曼(Stephen Schwarzman)、丹•奥奇(Dan Och)和威斯•埃登斯(Wes Edens)可不是笨蛋。他们的业务不需要你我的钱。如果他们希望与公众分享他们的财富，他们会去建图书馆。
留意亨利•克拉维斯(Henry Kravis)。他会很快给大家带来礼物。
如果主权财富基金买进，你应该卖出：许多主权基金近来一直时运不济，新加坡对瑞银(UBS)的投资、阿布扎比对花旗(Citi)的投资、科威特和韩国对美林(into Merrill Lynch)的投资可能最后都会泡汤。中国对百事通的30亿美元投资现已缩水40%左右。阿联酋对Och-Ziff的投资跌去了约一半。
专家会告诉你，主权基金做上述投资是因为，美国和欧洲缺乏资金。但这听上去没什么道理，西方国家有数千亿美元资金在闲置，原因很简单，与主权基金相比，西方投资者希望有更好的收益、更严格的条款。
如果日本投资者买进，你应该卖出：这么说可能不公平，但日本人在对美国资产投资时机的选择上一向是出了名的背运。
卵石滩、洛克菲勒中心、好莱坞MCA Universal制片公司、Verio（NTT在互联网泡沫顶峰时期为收购它出了50亿美元）……
他们学到教训了吗？未必。
2001年，野村向当时作价20亿美元的Thomas Weisel Partners投入资金。如今，Weisel的市值只有当年的十分之一。但野村依然如我，去年又收购了Fortress的股份。
如果吉姆•克莱默(Jim Cramer)看好哪位CEO并建议买进那家公司的股票，千万别买：现在我还不能判定是否克莱默说对的时候比说错的多（这要留给历史去总结），不过，从我自己看克莱默节目的感受来说，如果他真的看好某位CEO，那往往意味着这位CEO倒霉的日子不远了。
过去几年，克莱默欣赏的人包括United Healthcare的威廉•麦克吉尔(William McGuire)、西尔斯(Sears)的埃迪•兰博特( Eddie Lampert)、先灵葆雅(Schering-Plough)的弗里德哈桑( Fred Hassan)、 Sirius的梅尔•卡马辛(Mel Karmazin)、Rite-Aid的玛丽•赛蒙斯(Mary Sammons)和梅西百货(Macys)的特里•朗格林(Terry Lundgren) 。这些CEO所在公司的股价统统不怎么样。
或许他们只是运气不好。但似乎有这样一个规律，如果媒体吹捧哪位人士，他们能继续呆在位子上的机率只会减小。看看卡丽•菲奥丽娜(Carly Fiorina)、斯蒂文•凯斯(Steve Case)、桑迪•威尔(Sandy Weill)、汉克•格林伯格(Hank Greenberg)、斯坦•奥尼尔(Stan O\'Neal)还有比尔•米勒(Bill Miller)，他们不都是这样的例子嘛。
如果是“明智的”内部人士买进，你应该买进：这是一个明显的信号。尽管华尔街上没什么十拿九稳的事，但有些赌注兑现的几率比别的赌注要大。这就是其中之一。
问题是如何判断这个内部人士是否属“明智”。有时，内部人士会赔得更惨。加内特•索恩伯格(Garrett Thornburg)整个2007年买进了数百万股他所在公司Tornburg Mortgage的股票。如今，这家公司已濒临破产。
但当我看到Harrah董事长兼首席执行长、我以前在哈佛商学院的老师盖瑞•洛夫曼(Gary Loveman)今年6月花40万美元买进联邦快递(Federal Express)股票的时候，就不是这么回事了。洛夫曼是联邦快递的董事。油价在直线攀升，而他却如此大笔出手，这就很说明问题了。当Countrywide首席执行长安格鲁•莫西洛(Angelo Mozilo)抛售股票的时候，也是如此。
投资其实就是提高你的获胜几率。这也是我不抽烟、不在拉斯维加斯赌博、不从脚手架下走过的原因。也是我为什么不愿与山姆•泽尔(Sam Zell)、罗纳德•佩里曼(Ronald Perelman)或沃伦•巴菲特(Warren Buffett)反向操作的原因。那样的风险代价实在太大。
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
很难让你相信这不重要。人们在设计股市时就刻意隐藏了买家和卖家的真实身份。如果这些具体身份不重要的话，为什么又会闹出那么多公司内部人交易的事呢？
昨天，一位读者针对有关Fortress Investment Group的专栏文章写来反馈说：“如果华尔街的人在卖出，你也不会想买进。就是这么回事”。我想，嘿，他说的听上去没错。
然后我发现，日本投行野村(Nomura)在Fortress上市前收购了后者15%的股份。现在，这部分股票跌了33%。我又想：嘿，这有什么好奇怪的。
我要思考的是：在是否应根据究竟是谁在买进或卖出某只股票来决定你自己的投资选择这一问题上，有没有什么容易领会的潜规则呢？以下是一些失之偏颇的、全无科学性可言的提示：
如果私人股权基金和对冲基金卖出，你也应该卖出：为什么机构投资者在百事通(Blackstone)、Och-Ziff和Fortress上市时买进它的股票对我还是个谜。
要知道，斯蒂芬•施瓦茨曼(Stephen Schwarzman)、丹•奥奇(Dan Och)和威斯•埃登斯(Wes Edens)可不是笨蛋。他们的业务不需要你我的钱。如果他们希望与公众分享他们的财富，他们会去建图书馆。
留意亨利•克拉维斯(Henry Kravis)。他会很快给大家带来礼物。
如果主权财富基金买进，你应该卖出：许多主权基金近来一直时运不济，新加坡对瑞银(UBS)的投资、阿布扎比对花旗(Citi)的投资、科威特和韩国对美林(into Merrill Lynch)的投资可能最后都会泡汤。中国对百事通的30亿美元投资现已缩水40%左右。阿联酋对Och-Ziff的投资跌去了约一半。
专家会告诉你，主权基金做上述投资是因为，美国和欧洲缺乏资金。但这听上去没什么道理，西方国家有数千亿美元资金在闲置，原因很简单，与主权基金相比，西方投资者希望有更好的收益、更严格的条款。
如果日本投资者买进，你应该卖出：这么说可能不公平，但日本人在对美国资产投资时机的选择上一向是出了名的背运。
卵石滩、洛克菲勒中心、好莱坞MCA Universal制片公司、Verio（NTT在互联网泡沫顶峰时期为收购它出了50亿美元）……
他们学到教训了吗？未必。
2001年，野村向当时作价20亿美元的Thomas Weisel Partners投入资金。如今，Weisel的市值只有当年的十分之一。但野村依然如我，去年又收购了Fortress的股份。
如果吉姆•克莱默(Jim Cramer)看好哪位CEO并建议买进那家公司的股票，千万别买：现在我还不能判定是否克莱默说对的时候比说错的多（这要留给历史去总结），不过，从我自己看克莱默节目的感受来说，如果他真的看好某位CEO，那往往意味着这位CEO倒霉的日子不远了。
过去几年，克莱默欣赏的人包括United Healthcare的威廉•麦克吉尔(William McGuire)、西尔斯(Sears)的埃迪•兰博特( Eddie Lampert)、先灵葆雅(Schering-Plough)的弗里德哈桑( Fred Hassan)、 Sirius的梅尔•卡马辛(Mel Karmazin)、Rite-Aid的玛丽•赛蒙斯(Mary Sammons)和梅西百货(Macys)的特里•朗格林(Terry Lundgren) 。这些CEO所在公司的股价统统不怎么样。
或许他们只是运气不好。但似乎有这样一个规律，如果媒体吹捧哪位人士，他们能继续呆在位子上的机率只会减小。看看卡丽•菲奥丽娜(Carly Fiorina)、斯蒂文•凯斯(Steve Case)、桑迪•威尔(Sandy Weill)、汉克•格林伯格(Hank Greenberg)、斯坦•奥尼尔(Stan O\'Neal)还有比尔•米勒(Bill Miller)，他们不都是这样的例子嘛。
如果是“明智的”内部人士买进，你应该买进：这是一个明显的信号。尽管华尔街上没什么十拿九稳的事，但有些赌注兑现的几率比别的赌注要大。这就是其中之一。
问题是如何判断这个内部人士是否属“明智”。有时，内部人士会赔得更惨。加内特•索恩伯格(Garrett Thornburg)整个2007年买进了数百万股他所在公司Tornburg Mortgage的股票。如今，这家公司已濒临破产。
但当我看到Harrah董事长兼首席执行长、我以前在哈佛商学院的老师盖瑞•洛夫曼(Gary Loveman)今年6月花40万美元买进联邦快递(Federal Express)股票的时候，就不是这么回事了。洛夫曼是联邦快递的董事。油价在直线攀升，而他却如此大笔出手，这就很说明问题了。当Countrywide首席执行长安格鲁•莫西洛(Angelo Mozilo)抛售股票的时候，也是如此。
投资其实就是提高你的获胜几率。这也是我不抽烟、不在拉斯维加斯赌博、不从脚手架下走过的原因。也是我为什么不愿与山姆•泽尔(Sam Zell)、罗纳德•佩里曼(Ronald Perelman)或沃伦•巴菲特(Warren Buffett)反向操作的原因。那样的风险代价实在太大。
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
评论
目前还没有任何评论
登录后才可评论.
