Newsgroup: it.economia.borsa
Titolo: Big-Stock Indexes Belie Market's Broader Funk

Dedicato a tutti coloro " che sanno " cosa succederà agli indici azionari :
costoro possono leggersi direttamente l'articolo senza soffermarsi sulle mie
considerazioni .
Questo è uno dei tanti articoli del Wall Street Journal che manifesta le
perplessità degli analisti su di un mercato che premia le grandi
capitalizzazioni trascurando i fondamentali ( AOL , E Bay ) .
Allo stesso tempo la maggior parte delle azioni " non di moda " sono in
stagnazione se non peggio .Questo NON E' UN BULL MARKET :
per chi non se ne fosse accorto l'advance / decline cumulative index è
incominciato a scendere da un anno a questa parte in maniera decisa . In
passato si è avuta una lenta diminuzione di questo indice con una lenta
crescita delle quotazioni .
Quindi poche chiacchere : cosa farà domani o fra un mese verra' indovinato
certamente da qualche pseudo guru della finanza ma il numero di questi geni
appartiene ( ne più ne meno ) ad una distribuzione  delle frequenze dei
valori  ehmm ... previsti .
E' molto più serio dire che il Mib 30 salirà grazie alle opzioni call
sovrastanti o per l' incremento ( uhm ! ? ) degli open interest sul Fib ma
queste sono cose troppo banali per i guru .
Tornando a Wall Street gli ultimi dati dicono che gli americani spendono
alla grande e allo stesso tempo i profitti delle grandi corporazioni stanno
diminuendo : la prima diminuzione dal 1989 .
Anche qui le valutazioni conseguenti si possono raccogliere in una
distribuzione .....  frullare un poco .... versare : il 68 % del bicchiere
sarà pieno di ottimisti nella ripresa degli utili aziendali e solamente il
14 % teme una ulteriore riduzione ( il che dovrebbe generare un segnale di
recessione formale  e quindi una diminuzione dei tassi di interesse ) . Ma
la diminuzione dei tassi non sempre implica una ulteriore ( sana  aggiungo )
crescita del mercato azionario .
By GREG IP
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
Seldom, if ever, has such a strong stock market produced so little joy.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average turned in an impressive 6.6% return in the
first quarter. If the index maintained that pace, it could turn in a fifth
straight year of double-digit returns. The Standard & Poor's 500-stock index
rose a robust 4.6%.
But such returns are far superior to those of the typical stock, leaving a
performance gap that is enormous, possibly unprecedented. For example, the
Value Line index, which measures the average performance of 1,700 major
stocks, actually fell during the quarter by 6.4%. The Russell 2000 index of
smaller capitalization companies did almost as badly, declining 5.8% in the
first quarter.
And even within the Dow industrials and S&P 500, only a few components did
well. But they did exceptionally well. Through Tuesday, the S&P 500 was up
5.8%, but the average constituent rose just 2%, according to Kevin Johnson,
research director at Aronson Partners, a quantitative money-management firm.
That disparity reflects the outsized performance of the
largest-capitalization companies. Just 21 big stocks contributed all the S&P
500's advance through Tuesday, according to Salomon Smith Barney. The other
479 canceled each other out. One-third of the performance came from just two
stocks, Microsoft Corp. and America Online Inc.
As for the Dow industrials, just three of its 30 components contributed more
than half its gain: United Technologies Corp., J.P. Morgan & Co. and
American Express Co. Because the Dow industrials is price-weighted, those
high-priced stocks had an outsized impact.
This "narrow" leadership alarms market analysts who believe it signifies a
lack of confidence in the broad market. A less pronounced narrowness
preceded last summer's steep 19.3% market plunge.
"The narrowness is as bad as it's ever been and getting worse almost every
day," says Jeffrey Warantz, a strategist at Salomon Smith Barney. He blames
it on investors chasing performance. "Everyone saw the narrowness last year;
now you have the second wave of investors chasing after the gains, thinking,
'Gee if the big stocks are the ones to have, I'm putting all my money in big
stocks.' Which exacerbates the problem."
But there may be good reasons for this divergence.
"This is driven to a large degree by good old-fashioned fundamentals: the
stocks that are doing best have the best fundamentals and the best earnings
growth," says Ed Keon, director of quantitative research at Prudential
Securities. "If you look at those names and what they do, the key thing they
have in common is tremendous growth prospects, and markets that seem likely
to grow for a long time to come: communications, software and technology in
general."
Indeed, among the 10 best large-cap performers in the first quarter, nine
owed their performance somehow to the Internet, telecommunications or
technology. Many investors complain that smaller stocks are being ignored
despite comparable or superior earnings performance to their larger
brethren. But Prudential's Claudia Mott reported in February that
fourth-quarter profits for small-cap companies fell 6.1% from a year earlier
and fell 0.9% for those in the S&P mid-cap index. By contrast, large-company
profits advanced 5.9%, she said.
The first quarter did see some laggard sectors rebound. Economically
sensitive, or "cyclical" stocks advanced 3.8%, and oil stocks rose 4%. Both
had been pummeled last year as slumping demand in overseas economies hurt
the prices of many basic materials.
"I think it is confirmation that the economy is stronger" than many
investors believe, says Scott Schermerhorn, a large-cap, value-style manager
at Colonial Management Associates, whose portfolios have been helped by
stocks such as oil-services giant Schlumberger.
But reflecting the market's continued size bias, smaller energy companies
haven't been as fortunate. "When investors sense things have started to turn
... they'll buy the big liquid companies with strong balance sheets" first,
says Mr. Schermerhorn.
Meanwhile, companies whose earnings have been accelerating are being driven
up to valuations that traditional investors have trouble justifying. America
Online, for example, now trades at more than 600 times trailing earnings,
and its market value, at $151 billion, equals that of Coca-Cola Co., whose
stock stumbled during the quarter on slumping foreign sales.
Richard Driehaus, head of Driehaus Capital Management, a "momentum" style
fund manager specializing in fast-growing small companies, says his
portfolios were up strongly during the first quarter thanks to holdings of
companies whose earnings prospects were being revised higher. He cited as
one example, Visx Inc., a laser-correction-surgery company, whose stock has
more than doubled during the quarter and now trades at more than 100 times
trailing earnings.
"The multiples don't scare us," says Mr. Driehaus, because it's showing
accelerating earnings growth.
But even Mr. Keon thinks valuations for fast-growing companies are getting
hard to justify. He notes that online-auction company eBay Inc. has a market
value of $17 billion, almost equal that of Sears. "If eBay's sales and
profits doubled every year for 10 years, it would get to where Sears' are
now. Is it possible? Sure it's possible. Is it likely? Probably not. In the
history of business, even beautifully run companies hit some kind of bump in
the road."


J.P Morgan nel 'Dow industrial???? Scherzano o e' un refuso?
American Express???
Gigi