Newsgroup: it.economia.borsa
Titolo: "LO SFORZO" (e il Nasdaq a 600?)

Il mio indicatore sull'SP500 sta peggiorando vistosamente in queste ultime
sedute, per quanto mi riguarda ho ben pochi dubbi: si tornerà a scendere.
Pur essendo calcolato sull'SP500, il responso è applicabile anche al Nasdaq:
minimi e massimi dei due indici tendono a coincidere temporalmente.
La mia view di lungo periodo è per un Nasdaq abbondantemente sotto quota
1000, ma di questa potete bellamente fregarvene.
Mi conforta trovare riscontro nelle parole di un analista fondamentale molto
apprezzato, Peter Eavis di 
thestreet.com
.
http://www.thestreet.com/markets/detox/1504569.html
[...]
Rich Numbers
This column calculates that the Nasdaq 100 index currently trades at 95
times weighted forecast earnings for 2001. For 2002, supposedly a recovery
year in many people's eyes, this price-to-earnings ratio is 74. True, this
is lower than the forward P/E ratios in excess of 120 that the Nasdaq 100
sported at its peak. But it implies that tech companies, in aggregate, will
post annual earnings growth of more than 50% in coming years -- a
preposterous notion, considering that they weren't doing that even when the
boom was in full swing.
Here's how the numbers work. On July 24, the companies in the Nasdaq 100
index had a combined market capitalization of $1.75 trillion and aggregate
forecast 2001 and 2002 earnings of $24 billion and $31 billion,
respectively.
Company weights in the Nasdaq 100, however, are adjusted by the index
constructors so that they're different from their actual share of the
index's total market cap. Some stocks, like Microsoft (MSFT:Nasdaq - news -
commentary), have a lower weight in the index than their share of the total
market worth. Mister Softee's index weight is 11%, though it accounts for
20% of the Nasdaq 100 combined market cap. Others have a higher index
weight, like eBay (EBAY:Nasdaq - news - commentary), whose index weight is
1.15%, compared with a 0.95% share of total market worth.
To take the weighting differences into account, Detox will use a method
cribbed off Tom Coleman of London-based AEquilibrium Investments. This
approach produced a Nasdaq 100 market cap on July 24 of $1.739 trillion,
with aggregate expected earnings of $18.4 billion for 2001 and $23.6 billion
for 2002. Dividing the market cap by the earnings gives a P/E of 95 for 2001
and 74 for 2002. (Through aggregation, losses can be included in total
earnings calculations.)
One-Way Street
So what do these P/Es tell us? The Nasdaq will, over time, fall a lot
further. If the Nasdaq 100 were to trade at 30 times 2002 adjusted earnings,
it would have to decline 60% from July 24 levels, or nearly 1000 points, to
661. This isn't too low a projection: Remember that 30 times is a high P/E
for a bear market. And 30 is still arguably too much for a market that's
going to struggle to show sustainable earnings growth of more than 20% for
the next few years.
As AEquilibrium's Coleman puts it: "To get to reasonable levels, it's really
scary how far the Nasdaq 100 has to fall."
The table below shows how far the Nasdaq 100 would have to dip to trade at
different multiples.
The Downside
Where the Nasdaq 100 would be if it traded at:
Index value
Percent decline from current level of 1680
30 times 2002 earnings*           672         60%
40 times 2002 earnings             907         46
50 times 2002 earnings           1142         32
*Weighted forecast earnings, see article for explanation.
Source: Detox, Baseline.
Why hasn't the Nasdaq 100 plunged straight to the 700-800 level? For the
same reason that it went up above 4700: People still believe that a
technological revolution is taking place and that many will get rich off it.
[...]
Funes
--------
In God we trust,
all others bring data.

 abbondantemente sotto quota 1000,
anche io prevedo ribasso, quella quota per me la raggiungiamo molto
lentamente, a metà 2002, e senza grossi traumi.

anche io prevedo ribasso, 
Cos'è che fai tu?
PREVEDI? :-DDD
Ma preVEDI un po' di andare a cagare, che faccia di tolla!!