Traderboersenboard - Gedanken zum Aktienmarkt im Allgemeinen

Zitat:

Original geschrieben von stronzzo
diese jetzige Aktiengeneration hat einen der größten Crashs erlebt, was sehr schmerzhaft war. Ich denke, dass wir aus den Fehlern gelernt haben, die nachfolgende Generation wird sicher auch einen Crash erleben, Fehler machen und daraus ihre Lehren ziehen müssen.
Börse wiederholt sich immer! (Man muss nur wissen – wann?)

Hallo zusammen,

ich stelle mal ein paar Gedanken in den Raum:

1. die Aktienkurse sind in den 80er und 90er nicht zuletzt dank stark gefallenen Zinsen sehr gut gelaufen. Kann sie weiter in diesem Thempo aus diesem Grund steigen? Ich vermute: in den Industrieländenr momentan nein. Zu Beginn dieser Periode waren die Kurse so niedrig, weil die Rendite der US-Treasuries bei ca. 15% p.a. lagen. Aktien mußten damals soviel kosten, daß sie einer Rendite über 17% abgeworfen haben. Damit waren die Kurse geringer. Bei einer sinkenden Rendite der AAA-Bonds ist natürlich die Aktienrendite auch gefallen und die Kurse sind damit gestiegen, dann damit bei gleichem Gewinn die Rendite fällt, muß der Kurs steigen. Heute ist dieses Kurspotential meines Erachtens stark ausgeschöpft, die Zinsen sind von ca. 15% auf wenige Prozentpunkte gefallen und nach unten gibt es keinen nennenswerten Platz mehr. Folglich fällt ein starker kurstreibender Faktor weg, ja mehr sogar: bei steigenden Zinsen wird den Aktionären der Gegenwind ins Gesicht wehen, statt die Kurse zu puschen wie in den 80ern-90ern.

2. die 2000er-Blase wird sich in unseren Generation nicht nur deswegen nicht wiederholen, weil wir schlauer sind, sondern auch deswegen, weil viele Anleger sich von der Börse verabschiedet haben. Für immer. Sie werden auch nicht mehr zurückkommen, weil sie auch 1974 nicht mehr zurückkamen. Damit wird die Nachfrage nach Aktien künftig geringer sein.

3. durch die 2000er-Blase ist viel Geld in wenig produktive Bereiche geflossen, dort vernichtet und die Firmen dadurch verschuldet. Mit einer Niedrigzinspolitik werden die EZB und Fed auch weiter versuchen, diese Firmen am Leben zu erhalten (Arbeitsplätze!), genau wie die BoJ es seit 1989 machte. Das Dumme daran: durch niedrige Zinsen steigt der Druck auf die Anleger, das Geld in gefährlichere Anlagebereiche reinzustecken. Damit nehmen die Verzehrungen in der Wirtschaft zu oder können wesentlich lansamer abgebaut werden. Ein Japan-Szenario mit 13 Jahre fallenden Kursen, mickrigen Zinsen, aber weiter funktionierenden unproduktiven Firmen mit erhaltenen Arbeitsplätzen schimmert mir vor den Augen. Gut für die Arbeitsplätze! Horror für die Anleger!

Natürlich wird man mit einem kühlen Kopf und guten Firmen auch weiter Geld an der Börse verdienen können, aber vermutlich wird sich die Chancen/Risiko-Relation in den nächsten 10 Jahren schlecht für Anleger sein, daher bin ich nicht sicher, daß sich ein Börsenengagement weiter lohnt. Bei fallenden Kursen kann ein besseres Abschneiden nähmlich auch ein Verlust sein, auch wenn ein geringerer als beim Durchschnitt. Was mir auch zu Bedenken gibt: auch Warren Buffet habe sich von der Börse stark zurückgezogen und sitzte auf Dutzenden Milliarden Cash. Das letzte Mal hat er das Ende der 60er gemacht und ist damit der Crash 1973/74 aus dem Weg gegangen.

Und jetzt zur Abwechslung ein Einblick hinter die Wall Street-Kulissen. Wenn man an der Börse in den kommenden 10 Jahren bleibt, diese Investment-Techniken sollte man aber meiden! :D

Zitat:

These are comments by Mark Cuban, founder of Broadcast.com. Cuban sold His business at the top of the dot com mania. There's some nonsense in here,but some entertaining, spot-on stuff:

In July of 1998, my partner Todd Wagner and I took our company, Broadcast.com, public with Morgan Stanley. Broadcast.com used audio and video streaming to enable companies to communicate live with customers, employees, vendors, anyone with a PC. We founded Broadcast.com in 1995, and we were well on our way to being profitable. Still, we never thought we would go public so quickly. But this was the Internet Era, and the demand for Internet stocks was starting to explode. So publicly traded we would become and Morgan Stanley would shepherd us.

Part of the process of taking a new company public is something called a road show. The road show is just that. A company getting ready to sell shares visits the big mutual funds, hedge funds, pension funds - anyone who can buy millions of dollars of stock in a single order. It's a sales tour. 7 days, 63 presentations. We often discussed turning up the volume on the stock. It was the ultimate "Get Loud." Call it Stockapalooza.

Prior to the road show, we put together an amazing presentation. We hired consultants to help us. We practiced and practiced. We argued about what we should and shouldn't say. We had Morgan Stanley and others ask us every possible question they could think of so we wouldn't look stupid when we sat in front of these savvy investors.

Savvy investors? I was shocked. Of the 63 companies and 400-plus participants we visited, I would be exaggerating if I said we got 10 good questions about our business and how it worked. The vast majority of people in the meetings had no clue who we were or what we did. They just knew that there were a lot of people talking about the company and they should be there.

The lack of knowledge at the meetings got to be such a joke between Todd and I that we used to purposely mess up to see if anyone noticed. Or we would have pet lines that we would make up to crack each other up. Did we ruin our chance for the IPO? Was our product so complicated that no one got it and as a result no one bought the stock? Hell no. They might not have had a clue, but that didn't stop them from buying the stock. We batted 1.000. Every single investor we talked to placed the maximum order allowable for the stock.

On July 18, 1998, Broadcast.com went public as BCST, priced at 18 dollars a share. It closed at $62.75, a gain of almost 250 percent, which at the time was the largest one day rise of a new offering in the history of the stock market. The same mutual fund managers who were completely clueless about our company placed multimillion orders for our stock.

Multimillion dollar orders using YOUR MONEY.

If the value of a stock is what people will pay for it, then Broadcast.com was fairly valued. We were able to work with Morgan Stanley to create volume around the stock. Volume creates demand. Stocks don't go up because companies do well or do poorly. Stocks go up and down depending on supply and demand. If a stock is marketed well enough to create more demand from buyers than there are sellers, the stock will go up. What about fundamentals? Fundamentals is a word invented by sellers to find buyers.

Price-earnings ratios, price-sales, the present value of future cash flows, pick one. Fundamentals are merely metrics created to help stockbrokers sell stocks, and to give buyers reassurance when buying stocks. Even how profits are calculated is manipulated to give confidence to buyers.

--------------------

If you really think of it, when a stock doesn't pay dividends, there really isn't a whole lot of difference between a share of stock and a baseball card.

If you put your Mickey Mantle rookie card on your desk, and a share of your favorite non-dividend paying stock next to it, and let it sit there for 20 years. After 20 years you would still just have two pieces of paper sitting on your desk.

The difference in value would come from how well they were marketed. If there were millions of stockbrokers selling baseball cards, if there were financial television channels dedicated to covering the value of baseball cards with a ticker of baseball card prices streaming at the bottom, if the fund industry spent billions to tell you to buy and hold baseball cards, I am willing to bet we would talk about the fundamentals of baseball cards instead of stocks.

I know that sounds crazy, but the stock market has gone from a place where investors actually own part of a company and have a say in their management, to a market designed to enrich insiders by allowing them to sell shares they buy cheaply through options. Companies continuously issue new shares to their managers without asking their existing shareholders. Those managers then leak that stock to the market a little at a time. It's unlimited dilution of existing shareholders' stakes, death by a thousand dilutive cuts. If that isn't a scam, I don't know what is. Individual shareholders have nothing but the chance to sell it to the next sucker. A mutual fund buys one million shares of a company with your and your coworkers' money. You own 1 percent of the company. Six weeks later you own less, and all that money went to insiders, not to the company. And no one asked your permission, and you didn't know you got diluted or by how much till 90 days after the fact if that soon.

When Broadcast.com went public, we raised a lot of money that certainly helped us grow as a company. But once you get past the raising capital part of the market, the stock market becomes not only inefficient, but as close to a Ponzi scheme as you can get.

As a public company, we got calls every day from people who owned Broadcast.com stock or had bought it for their funds. They didn't call because they were confused during our road show, were too embarrassed to ask questions and wanted to get more information. They called because they wanted to know if the "fundamentals" - the marketing points - they had
heard before were improving. And the most important fundamental was "The Number," our quarterly earnings (or in our case, a loss). Once we went public, Morgan Stanley published a report on our company, as did several other firms. They all projected our quarterly sales and earnings. Would we beat The Number?

Of course, by law, we were not allowed to say anything. That didn't stop people from asking. They needed us to beat the forecast. They knew if we beat The Number the volume on the stock would go up. Brokers would tell their clients about it. The Wall Street Journal would write about it. CNBC would shout the good news to day traders and investment banks that watched their network all day long. All the volume would drive up the stock price.

Unfortunately, patience is not a virtue on Wall Street. Every day, portfolios are valued by at closing price. If the value of your fund isn't keeping up with the indexes or your competition, the new money coming in the market won't come to you. It just wasn't feasible for these investors to wait till the number was reported by companies each quarter. The volume had to be on the stocks in you fund. To keep the volume about a stock up, and the demand for the stock increasing, you needed to have good news to tell.

Volume, The Number, whisper numbers, insiders granting themselves millions and millions of options - these are the games that Wall Street plays to keep on enriching themselves at the expense of the public. I know this. I have tried to tell people to be careful before they turned over their life savings and their financial future to someone whose first job is to keep their job, not make you money.