Mögen die Shorties b-r-e-n-n-e-n !!!! - 500 Beiträge pro Seite
eröffnet am 08.05.02 21:10:20 von
neuester Beitrag 09.05.02 22:51:24 von
neuester Beitrag 09.05.02 22:51:24 von
Beiträge: 18
ID: 584.921
ID: 584.921
Aufrufe heute: 0
Gesamt: 525
Gesamt: 525
Aktive User: 0
Top-Diskussionen
| Titel | letzter Beitrag | Aufrufe |
|---|---|---|
| vor 55 Minuten | 1449 | |
| vor 57 Minuten | 1221 | |
| vor 1 Stunde | 1086 | |
| vor 56 Minuten | 855 | |
| heute 06:46 | 735 | |
| vor 1 Stunde | 598 | |
| 20.04.24, 12:11 | 489 | |
| vor 1 Stunde | 486 |
Meistdiskutierte Wertpapiere
| Platz | vorher | Wertpapier | Kurs | Perf. % | Anzahl | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | 1. | 18.015,54 | +0,48 | 249 | |||
| 2. | 2. | 1,2600 | -8,70 | 95 | |||
| 3. | 3. | 0,1900 | +0,53 | 93 | |||
| 4. | 4. | 161,74 | +1,93 | 82 | |||
| 5. | 5. | 9,1600 | -0,92 | 79 | |||
| 6. | 6. | 7,2220 | +3,20 | 45 | |||
| 7. | 11. | 6,7680 | +0,71 | 35 | |||
| 8. | 8. | 0,0160 | -24,17 | 33 |
Feedback
Das mußte mal gesagt werden!
bis kurz nach Cisco war ich auch short,dann long.Muss ich auch brennen? 
nur brennen??!! Die sollen abfackeln!
Leerverkäufe sollten untersagt werden, pervertiert den Grundgedanken der Börse. Die sollen doch Puts kaufen!
Leerverkäufe sollten untersagt werden, pervertiert den Grundgedanken der Börse. Die sollen doch Puts kaufen!
@Macao,
fast alle Bubbles, die heute stark angezogen sind, werden gleichzeitig auch stark geshortet. Denn der Weg ist nicht zu ändern: die Bubbles werden pleite gehen. Die Shorties die einzigen Gewinner bei diesen Werten sein.
Grüße, fs
p.s.:
Die Longs hegen sowieso bei steigenden Kursen keine Gedanken, zu verkaufen. Nach dem Motto: Die Kurse soll man laufen lassen. Aber hier handelt es sich nicht einmal um eine Bärenmarktrally.
fast alle Bubbles, die heute stark angezogen sind, werden gleichzeitig auch stark geshortet. Denn der Weg ist nicht zu ändern: die Bubbles werden pleite gehen. Die Shorties die einzigen Gewinner bei diesen Werten sein.
Grüße, fs
p.s.:
Die Longs hegen sowieso bei steigenden Kursen keine Gedanken, zu verkaufen. Nach dem Motto: Die Kurse soll man laufen lassen. Aber hier handelt es sich nicht einmal um eine Bärenmarktrally.
Leerverkäufe sollten untersagt werden, pervertiert den Grundgedanken der Börse. Die sollen doch Puts kaufen!
Genau!
Genau!
Trading Spotlight
@macao
Ist doch Schwachsinn!
Ist doch Schwachsinn!
Das ist KEIN Schwachsinn!
Wenn in einen Aufwärtstrend plötzlich leerverkauft wird, hat der Kleinanleger z.B. keine Chance!
Börse wird unberechenbar
Wenn in einen Aufwärtstrend plötzlich leerverkauft wird, hat der Kleinanleger z.B. keine Chance!
Börse wird unberechenbar
Na und? Das ist Schwachsinn! Die shorties sind meist die einzigen,die in einem steilen sell off Auffang bieten,weil sie covern.
Ausserdem müssen die shorties ja auch wieder zurückkaufen.Es sei denn der Laden geht Pleite,und dann sind die shorties nicht Schuld.
Nehmt das shortsellen weg,dann hat der Kleinanleger keine chance mehr Geld zu machen.Shorten ist nämlich geil!
Ausserdem müssen die shorties ja auch wieder zurückkaufen.Es sei denn der Laden geht Pleite,und dann sind die shorties nicht Schuld.
Nehmt das shortsellen weg,dann hat der Kleinanleger keine chance mehr Geld zu machen.Shorten ist nämlich geil!
@Macao26
Die Börse ist immer unberechenbar sonst wären wir alle
schon verdammt reich.
Die Börse ist immer unberechenbar sonst wären wir alle
schon verdammt reich.
Shorten ist nämlich geil!
Klar, von der Panik profitieren.
Klasse.
Nochmal - und da stehe ich wohl nicht alleine - Shortselling müßte verboten werden!
Verdammt!
Wegen diesen Shortsellern habe ich z.B. Roesch schon bei 3,75 (K 2,85) verkauft. Nach 100% Plus war die Shortsellergefahr groß .....
Den Rest kennt ihr! Das Ding lief bis 8 €!!!
Grrrrrrrrrrr
Klar, von der Panik profitieren.
Klasse.
Nochmal - und da stehe ich wohl nicht alleine - Shortselling müßte verboten werden!
Verdammt!
Wegen diesen Shortsellern habe ich z.B. Roesch schon bei 3,75 (K 2,85) verkauft. Nach 100% Plus war die Shortsellergefahr groß .....
Den Rest kennt ihr! Das Ding lief bis 8 €!!!
Grrrrrrrrrrr
Das ist nun wirklich der allergrösste Hirnriss! Es ist baisse,wenn man noch das shortsellen verbietet,wie soll man dann noch Geld machen? Mit OS? Nein danke,das ist üble Bankenabzocke.
Wenn Du den falschen Broker gewählt hast,bei dem Du nicht shorten kannst,dann vermies es uns nicht!
Wenn Du den falschen Broker gewählt hast,bei dem Du nicht shorten kannst,dann vermies es uns nicht!
nächste woche gibt es wieder frische steaks vom jungen bullen ...
CONFESSIONS OF A SHORT SELLERby C.A. Green
I never thought of myself an as unpatriotic.
I always stand for the national anthem. I pay my taxes. (Most of them, anyway.) And while it`s true I`ve said a few things about the Clintons that can`t be reprinted in a family paper, I`ve never turned a calloused eye towards baseball, apple pie or the swimsuit segment of the Miss America pageant.
So I`ve never understood why some folks call me "un-American," simply because I enjoy selling short.
Would it be more patriotic if I bought and held all those technology stocks that are rumbling down the Nasdaq like an avalanche in spring? If I rode Microstrategy from $300 a share to less than $2, would that make me more civic-minded?
In my experience, most investors fall into one of two broad camps. The first are optimists. They think the market will go ceaselessly higher and so they cast their bread upon the waters in hopes of outperforming a passbook savings account...or at least the know-it-all who lives next door.
Some are more successful than others.
The second group of investors, those with a more skeptical bent, believe that even if stocks have gone up 11% a year since the pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock, they won`t in the future. They sit comfortably in cash and short-term Treasuries, waiting for the storm to hit.
But there is still another group of investors, with both a nasty contrarian streak and a predisposition to fly the Jolly Roger. And we enjoy selling short. Which is nothing more than the reverse of an ordinary transaction.
For instance, if you buy a stock at $10 and later sell it at $15, you`ve made $5 a share. On the other hand, if I first sell a stock at $15 and then later buy it back at $10, I too have made $5 a share. The difference is you "went long" and I "went short."
Experience tells us stocks always go down faster than they go up. (Just ask any shareholder of Worldcom or Global Crossing.)
Right now, for instance, I`m short Eastman Kodak. The company`s net income has decreased 74% in the past year and the future looks even worse. Digital cameras are doing an end run around the traditional film business. And the former blue chip continues to announce one expensive restructuring after another.
I`m also short Merrill Lynch. The company just announced a 26% drop in earnings on a 37% freefall in revenues. And when the news broke that the company`s all-star internet analyst privately called his own stock recommendations "dogs" and "powder kegs," how could a short seller complain?
Mark Spitzer, the New York State Attorney General, is looking for a $100 million apology. Expect other states and tort attorneys to follow the trail of bread crumbs.
And the list goes on.
Short selling is not for everyone. It takes time, practice and plenty of due diligence. And, since there is no limit to how high a stock can go (at least theoretically), it takes a disciplined approach that allows you to cut losses early and let your profits run. In my view, if it`s okay to bet on the market`s potential winners, why not bet on potential losers?
Like companies whose revenues are taking a nosedive. Companies that are missing earnings. Companies that are diluting earnings with lavish option compensation. Short sellers are betting against inept management. Companies that are losing market share. That pull accounting tricks to prop up their earnings. We`re betting against companies that are slow to innovate, that have poor risk management, that have lost credibility with investors.
Companies whose products or pricing have become uncompetitive. We`re betting against companies that create unrealistic expectations in shareholders. We`re betting against companies with high leverage that have to struggle to service their debt. Companies that break laws, that violate contracts, that bring expensive litigation on themselves. We`re betting against companies whose shares trade at ridiculous multiples. That show low returns on equity.
That have paltry operating margins. And some that, just maybe, should have waited to see if their business plan was viable before going public.
If there`s a spectacular example of a company that embodies many of these qualities, it`s the clear winner of 2001`s Golden Fleece Award and a favorite topic of conversation here at The Daily Reckoning: Enron. The company mismanaged company assets, overstated earnings by hiding losses in thousands of off-the-books partnerships, lied to employees, cheated shareholders, duped the investment banking community, and acted as a cheerleader for the stock while insiders quietly unloaded over $1.1 billion of the stuff in the 12 months before filing bankruptcy.
In the process, the company moved up from being the country`s seventh largest...to the most despised.
While some of this information came to light only after the company`s collapse, Enron was no stranger to professional short sellers. Indeed, James Chanos was on the road making Powerpoint presentations about Enron`s future demise for months before the company`s trousers hit the floor in public.
Was shorting Enron unpatriotic?
If so, let me grab my passport.
Right now, for instance, I`m short a biotech company that has dropped more bombshells on shareholders lately than Tommy Franks has on the Taliban.
In January they announced that fourth quarter losses were triple the level of a year ago. And way below consensus estimates.
Then they warned investors to expect even bigger losses in the year ahead. But - they reminded shareholders - they would soon have a blockbuster impotency drug to compete with Viagra that would turn everything around.
Instead they turned everything upside down two weeks ago, when management announced product delays that pushed everything into at least 2003. The stock lost 34% in a single session.
And the stock is still a wonderful short. The company sports both a negative 85.9% profit margin and a negative 39.8% return on equity.
It`s companies like these - with faltering sales, dashed expectations, and a balance sheet awash in red ink - that make me proud to be a professional short seller.
And to some, I suppose, a bit unpatriotic too.
C.A. Green,for The Daily Reckoning
P.S. The stage is set. With their cash burn rate, the biotech I`m referring to is going to need to go back to the trough again and again, taking on debt or issuing more shares, diluting shareholders in the process. Yet, investors are still buying into the Viagra-clone story. Given their negative 85.9% profit margin... this stock has plenty of room to the downside.
If you`re interested in adding short selling strategies to your portfolio, please click here:
The Oxford Short Alerthttp://www.agora-inc.com/reports/OSA/ProfitNow/
Editor`s Note: Mr. C.A. Green, a fifteen-year Wall Street veteran, is Investment Director of The Oxford Club. In addition to writing on global investing for Wall Street Week`s Louis Rukeyser, he has been a writer or contributor to several financial publications including Global Insights, Short Alert, Insider Alert, Momentum Stock Alert, The Financial Sentinel, World Market Perspective, and The Fleet Street Letter.
I never thought of myself an as unpatriotic.
I always stand for the national anthem. I pay my taxes. (Most of them, anyway.) And while it`s true I`ve said a few things about the Clintons that can`t be reprinted in a family paper, I`ve never turned a calloused eye towards baseball, apple pie or the swimsuit segment of the Miss America pageant.
So I`ve never understood why some folks call me "un-American," simply because I enjoy selling short.
Would it be more patriotic if I bought and held all those technology stocks that are rumbling down the Nasdaq like an avalanche in spring? If I rode Microstrategy from $300 a share to less than $2, would that make me more civic-minded?
In my experience, most investors fall into one of two broad camps. The first are optimists. They think the market will go ceaselessly higher and so they cast their bread upon the waters in hopes of outperforming a passbook savings account...or at least the know-it-all who lives next door.
Some are more successful than others.
The second group of investors, those with a more skeptical bent, believe that even if stocks have gone up 11% a year since the pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock, they won`t in the future. They sit comfortably in cash and short-term Treasuries, waiting for the storm to hit.
But there is still another group of investors, with both a nasty contrarian streak and a predisposition to fly the Jolly Roger. And we enjoy selling short. Which is nothing more than the reverse of an ordinary transaction.
For instance, if you buy a stock at $10 and later sell it at $15, you`ve made $5 a share. On the other hand, if I first sell a stock at $15 and then later buy it back at $10, I too have made $5 a share. The difference is you "went long" and I "went short."
Experience tells us stocks always go down faster than they go up. (Just ask any shareholder of Worldcom or Global Crossing.)
Right now, for instance, I`m short Eastman Kodak. The company`s net income has decreased 74% in the past year and the future looks even worse. Digital cameras are doing an end run around the traditional film business. And the former blue chip continues to announce one expensive restructuring after another.
I`m also short Merrill Lynch. The company just announced a 26% drop in earnings on a 37% freefall in revenues. And when the news broke that the company`s all-star internet analyst privately called his own stock recommendations "dogs" and "powder kegs," how could a short seller complain?
Mark Spitzer, the New York State Attorney General, is looking for a $100 million apology. Expect other states and tort attorneys to follow the trail of bread crumbs.
And the list goes on.
Short selling is not for everyone. It takes time, practice and plenty of due diligence. And, since there is no limit to how high a stock can go (at least theoretically), it takes a disciplined approach that allows you to cut losses early and let your profits run. In my view, if it`s okay to bet on the market`s potential winners, why not bet on potential losers?
Like companies whose revenues are taking a nosedive. Companies that are missing earnings. Companies that are diluting earnings with lavish option compensation. Short sellers are betting against inept management. Companies that are losing market share. That pull accounting tricks to prop up their earnings. We`re betting against companies that are slow to innovate, that have poor risk management, that have lost credibility with investors.
Companies whose products or pricing have become uncompetitive. We`re betting against companies that create unrealistic expectations in shareholders. We`re betting against companies with high leverage that have to struggle to service their debt. Companies that break laws, that violate contracts, that bring expensive litigation on themselves. We`re betting against companies whose shares trade at ridiculous multiples. That show low returns on equity.
That have paltry operating margins. And some that, just maybe, should have waited to see if their business plan was viable before going public.
If there`s a spectacular example of a company that embodies many of these qualities, it`s the clear winner of 2001`s Golden Fleece Award and a favorite topic of conversation here at The Daily Reckoning: Enron. The company mismanaged company assets, overstated earnings by hiding losses in thousands of off-the-books partnerships, lied to employees, cheated shareholders, duped the investment banking community, and acted as a cheerleader for the stock while insiders quietly unloaded over $1.1 billion of the stuff in the 12 months before filing bankruptcy.
In the process, the company moved up from being the country`s seventh largest...to the most despised.
While some of this information came to light only after the company`s collapse, Enron was no stranger to professional short sellers. Indeed, James Chanos was on the road making Powerpoint presentations about Enron`s future demise for months before the company`s trousers hit the floor in public.
Was shorting Enron unpatriotic?
If so, let me grab my passport.
Right now, for instance, I`m short a biotech company that has dropped more bombshells on shareholders lately than Tommy Franks has on the Taliban.
In January they announced that fourth quarter losses were triple the level of a year ago. And way below consensus estimates.
Then they warned investors to expect even bigger losses in the year ahead. But - they reminded shareholders - they would soon have a blockbuster impotency drug to compete with Viagra that would turn everything around.
Instead they turned everything upside down two weeks ago, when management announced product delays that pushed everything into at least 2003. The stock lost 34% in a single session.
And the stock is still a wonderful short. The company sports both a negative 85.9% profit margin and a negative 39.8% return on equity.
It`s companies like these - with faltering sales, dashed expectations, and a balance sheet awash in red ink - that make me proud to be a professional short seller.
And to some, I suppose, a bit unpatriotic too.
C.A. Green,for The Daily Reckoning
P.S. The stage is set. With their cash burn rate, the biotech I`m referring to is going to need to go back to the trough again and again, taking on debt or issuing more shares, diluting shareholders in the process. Yet, investors are still buying into the Viagra-clone story. Given their negative 85.9% profit margin... this stock has plenty of room to the downside.
If you`re interested in adding short selling strategies to your portfolio, please click here:
The Oxford Short Alerthttp://www.agora-inc.com/reports/OSA/ProfitNow/
Editor`s Note: Mr. C.A. Green, a fifteen-year Wall Street veteran, is Investment Director of The Oxford Club. In addition to writing on global investing for Wall Street Week`s Louis Rukeyser, he has been a writer or contributor to several financial publications including Global Insights, Short Alert, Insider Alert, Momentum Stock Alert, The Financial Sentinel, World Market Perspective, and The Fleet Street Letter.
Guter Bericht,obwohl der folgende Satz nicht stimmt,und zwar ganz und garnicht!
"Short selling is not for everyone. It takes time, practice and plenty of due diligence."
Also ich hab von dem ersten short trade an Gewinne gemacht.Und es war echt einfach.
"Short selling is not for everyone. It takes time, practice and plenty of due diligence."
Also ich hab von dem ersten short trade an Gewinne gemacht.Und es war echt einfach.
@Ariminios,
ja. Weil das Umfeld schlecht war. Da kann man verkaufen was man will. Die Chance auf fallende Kurse ist immer gut.
Genauso leicht war es, Ende 1999 ohne DD Gewinne zu erzielen nach Käufen.
Langfristig aber wirst Du ohne DD Deine Gewinne schwer halten können.
Grüße, fs
ja. Weil das Umfeld schlecht war. Da kann man verkaufen was man will. Die Chance auf fallende Kurse ist immer gut.
Genauso leicht war es, Ende 1999 ohne DD Gewinne zu erzielen nach Käufen.
Langfristig aber wirst Du ohne DD Deine Gewinne schwer halten können.
Grüße, fs
natürlich,deswegen soll man sich ja nach dem Trend richten.War aber echt geil.Und covern auch total easy.Einfach nach den Cisco earnings gestern alles zurückgekauft.Ami-Börse ist geil!
auf einmal sind die bullen so ruhig ....
brauchen jetzt die die FEUERWEHR ??
brauchen jetzt die die FEUERWEHR ??
DurchsuchenBeitrag zu dieser Diskussion schreiben
Zu dieser Diskussion können keine Beiträge mehr verfasst werden, da der letzte Beitrag vor mehr als zwei Jahren verfasst wurde und die Diskussion daraufhin archiviert wurde.
Bitte wenden Sie sich an feedback@wallstreet-online.de und erfragen Sie die Reaktivierung der Diskussion oder starten Sie eine neue Diskussion.
Meistdiskutiert
| Wertpapier | Beiträge | |
|---|---|---|
| 243 | ||
| 98 | ||
| 89 | ||
| 80 | ||
| 75 | ||
| 47 | ||
| 38 | ||
| 37 | ||
| 34 | ||
| 33 |
| Wertpapier | Beiträge | |
|---|---|---|
| 31 | ||
| 30 | ||
| 27 | ||
| 24 | ||
| 23 | ||
| 22 | ||
| 21 | ||
| 20 | ||
| 19 | ||
| 19 |
