LHV finantsportaal

Foorum Investeerimine

Numbrimaagia

Kommentaari jätmiseks loo konto või logi sisse

  • Huvitavat statistikat USA turu kohta. Nimelt on numbriga 0-2 lõppevatel aastatel reeglina USA turgudel olnud selge langustrend, aastad lõpuga 3 ja 4 on olnud üleminekuaastad ja aastad lõpuga 5-9 on pullidele edukad olnud. Järgneva artikli põhjal on head ajad ees.

    Donald Rowe, Editor of The Wall Street Digest
    ----------------------------------------------------------------

    If 120 years of stock market history is a reliable guide, 2005 will see a 30 percent or better gain in the Dow Industrial
    Average. Since 1915, the average gain for years ending in five is 34.2 percent. It is also comforting to know that years
    ending in five have never posted a loss in the last 120 years. Years ending in five are also the first years of economic booms and bull markets.

    The first year of the 1995-1999 bull market produced a 33.5 percent gain. This ten year cycle dates back to the 1915-1919
    economic boom and bull market. The Roaring 20's economic boom and bull market began in 1925, and, of course, ended with the
    October 1929 stock market crash. The Great Depression began in 1930 and lasted until 1942.

    In the middle of the Great Depression, the Dow Average was up 38.5 percent in 1935! If you study the repeating ten-year
    market cycle, forecasting a great boom and bull market during 2005-2009 is not rocket science. It simply happens every ten
    years, and no one can really explain why. The ten-year cycle also explains why recessions and bear markets unfold at the
    beginning of each decade.

    Years ending in zero, one and two always produce bear markets and recessions. Donald Rowe's forecast of a 2010-2011-2012
    recession and bear market will come as no surprise to Wall Street Digest subscribers. New subscribers should be aware of
    this centuries-old, ten-year repeating cycle.

    The enormous monetary liquidity supporting the 2005-2009 economic boom and bull market is unprecedented, with six
    trillion dollars sitting on the sidelines and most of it in money market accounts. The Fed's monetary policy is squeezing
    investors to move this mountain of cash into the bond market or the stock market.
  • Inimesed mõtlevad igasugu jutte välja, et õigustada oma (alusetuid) ootusi... Tegelikult aga...

    This optimism is based on three major assumptions. They are as follows:
    1) Oil prices decline and then stabilize.
    2) The dollar declines gradually and improves U.S. competitiveness
    3) Fed rate hikes are gradual and aren’t overdone.

    These are big assumptions. Oil prices may retreat and in fact may head into the mid $30 before rising again. These forecasts assume there are no supply disruptions. With OPEC's spare capacity now at only one million barrels a day, there is no room for error as we might have with hurricanes, terrorist attacks and the vagaries of weather. As far as U.S. competitiveness, what will another 10% devaluation of the dollar do for the U.S. manufacturing sector that 30% devaluation has not already done? The last time I checked, the U.S. trade deficit was getting bigger not smaller despite a decline in the dollar.

    My forecast for the year is simple. Expect the unexpected. The Fed will keep raising interest rates until damage is inflicted upon the financial markets to be followed by eventual damage to the economy. By next year we should be in a recession. I suspect once the markets start to crater and the economy eventually weakens, the Fed will stop raising interest rates unless we are in a full blown dollar crisis. Even then domestic priorities will take precedence over international concerns. As the trend to a weaker economy and financial markets continue, the Fed will then begin to panic.

    It is at that time we will have an answer to the inflation/deflation debate. When the financial markets begin to falter and the economy weakens, how likely is it that the Fed will allow nature to run its course? That would mean allowing all debt to be cleansed from the system and the economy and financial markets to be purged from all of its excesses. That's highly unlikely with an economy that carries $37 trillion in debt with $51 trillion of growing unfunded pension and medical liabilities. When we reach the breaking point some time this year, the Fed and the government is going to throw everything but the kitchen sink at the problem. More money will be created than we have ever seen in history. This will be the beginning of The Great Inflation.
  • Mirck,
    Esimene jutt pohineb statistikal, see ei ole mingi alusetu oigustus.
    Miks peaksin Sinu valja pandud versiooni rohkem uskuma? Teatad siin vaga kindlalt stiilis "TEGELIKULT aga...".

    Ja veel - ilmselgelt ei ole see Sinu enda kirjutis. Sellistel puhkudel on viisakas viidata loo autorile, praegu pole selge isegi see, kelle visioon see on.
  • To: Tarmo Tanilas
    Kas Sa tead, kuidas seda "numbrimaagiat" matemaatikas nimetatakse? :-) Perioodiliseks funktsiooniks. Ja kui arvestada, et SUVALIST funktsiooni on võimalik vaadelda perioodilise funktsioonina (arendades ta näiteks Fourier' ritta), siis tuleb välja, et mitte mingisugust maagiat polegi olemas, sest ALATI leidub periood T, mille järel selle funktsiooni väärtused korduma hakkavad.
    Antud juhul on tegu väga lihtsa diskreetse funktsiooniga, mille määramispiirkonnaks on täisarvud vahemikus 1 kuni 120 ning mille muutumispiirkonnaks on täisarvud hulgast {0, 1}. Tulemus 0 sümboliseerib kaotust (s.t. vastaval aastal jäädi miinustesse) ning 1 sümboliseerib vastaval aastal plussi jäämist.
    Nii lihtne see ongi :-)
  • To: Mirck
    Ühinen spunk123 palvega, s.t. tahaks samuti saada viidet originaal-artiklile.
  • http://www.financialsense.com/Market/puplava/2005/0103.html
    Fiancial Sense Online
    Jim Puplava

    Mis puudutab esimest juttu, siis Braudel on käsitlenud majanduse lained väga hästi:
    Civilization and Capitalism 15th-18th Century

    Lainetel on erinevad pikkused. Väikeste lainete põhjal ei saa ennustada pikalt ette.
  • Täiesti juhuslikult tuli täna ette:
    Our initial epistemological assumptions about historical systems led us necessarily to distinguish between the "cyclical rhythms" of the system and its "secular trends." To the extent that we were concerned with long-term social change, we were interested primarily in the longer cycles: those of 50-60 year average length, often called Kondratieff cycles; and the still longer ones (200-300 years) sometimes called "logistics."

    One of our earliest publications, "Patterns of Development of the Modern World-System" (Review, I, 2, 1977), drew up a series of hypotheses about the modern world-system phrased in terms of both the cycles and the trends. However, instead of devoting ourselves to elaborating direct quantified measures of either cycles or trends (a task in which many others are engaged), we have sought to include systematically both cycles and trends as variables (and, in the case of cycles, as time-markers) in all of our empirical work on other processes. We have in addition tried to further a fuller explanation of the cycles and trends in three ways: a) conferences on the world-economy as a whole; b) conferences bringing together those doing empirical research on "long waves"; c) projections of trends forward, or "futuristics."

    Kes on huvitatud sellest, siis:
    http://fbc.binghamton.edu
  • Poliitlistest ja majanduslikest nö. lainetest ning hegemonistlike ajajärkude vaheldumisest on kirjutanud mitmedki mehed enne ja peale Kondratieffi. Uurimist väärivad vast Johan Galtung'i süsteem, Joshua Goldsteini Long Cycles: Prosperity and War in the Modern Age, mille aluseks on küll Wallersteini ideed ning William Thompsoni Contending Approaches to World System Analysis. Mitme süsteemi kohaselt peaks 21. saj teise kümnendi jooksul kujunema uus hegemoon USA asemele.
  • Kondratoeff -> Braudel -> Wallerstein. Braudel oli üks esimesi, kes käsitles inimeste arengut mitte poliitilise, vaid väliskeskkonnast sõltuva funktsioonina. Immanuel Wallerstein on Braudeli keskuse direktor vist täna, kui ma eksi.
    USA oli hegemoon külma sõja aegu, kuid ka siis oli tasakaalustavaks jõuks USSR.
    Huvitav on pigem see, et analüütikud ei suudagi näha vältimatut. USA kokkukukkumist lähitulevikus. Põhjus on osaliselt USAs eneses, kuid suurem osa tegelikest põhjustest on temast sõltumatud. "Rahumeelse" Hiina tööstuskasvu rolli maailma ajaloo mõjutamises on alahinnatud. Islamisisside puhul on mõtet vaadata ka nende eneste antud intervjuusid, ehk näha maailma nende poolt. Paljud neist on lõpetanud nimekaid ülikoole ja on väga targad inimesed. Nagu ka need, kelle vastu nad sõdivad.
    'Naised saunas' räägivad, et Venemaa loob koalitsiooni Brasiilia, India, Hiinaga, aga ka Iraaniga... Esmapilgul võõraid riikidel on tegelikult üsna palju sarnasusi. Üks võti on OBL mõttes, et USA'l ei ole südametunnistust ega AUTUNNET.
    See sõda laostab USA nii nagu on mitmed sõjad laostanud riike varemgi. Probleemiks on see, et rahvusvahelisel suurkapitalil nagu ei olegi kohta, kuhu üle kolida. Järele jääb seega - hajutamine. Vat see saab huvitav perspektiiv olema :)
  • Ise ma aastaarve silmas ei pea, aga seoses 5-ga lõppevate aastate positiivse ootusega jäi silma kui CNBC-s kommenteeriti, et post-election years on olnud reeglina väga halvad. Nii et vaata kuidas tahad.
  • Dollar Down for Second Day

    http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=KG5LPQO2TQPE2CRBAELCFFA?type=businessNews&storyID=7288439

    Some analysts said that while the dollar may have room to extend its rebound this year, the trade deficit figures due on Wednesday would likely test the currency's sudden strength.

    "If the trade data is not that bad, the market will continue to buy back the dollar," said Tohru Sasaki, chief forex strategist at JPMorgan Chase Bank. "But if it is disappointing, the sell-off could resume."

Teemade nimekirja