Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : INTEL TRADER -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bobby beara who wrote (7211)	11/8/1999 7:43:00 AM
From: MonsieurGonzo	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 11051

bb:" the incredible shrinking index " hi bobby; 'was thinking about you this week-end. You see, one of the things I do between SEP~NOV is review my CORE portfolio, crunch through all the stuff and make adjustments. One of the things you notice when you do this is that something like 60~80% of the stocks (in a given sector) ...not 60~80% of the capitalization but, 60~80% of the number of stocks - ain't growing. Just for grins - I turned the tables around, assumed I was managing a bear fund, to see what the result would be. One result is that: the bellwether (in a given sector) doesn't work. Oh, yeah - it goes down - but, given any whiff of buying, it leads the way up, and so tends to decay less. So, I threw out all the bellwethers. Another result is that: the index (of a given sector) doesn't work. First, there is the effect of the bellwether, and then the other, large-cap stox that tend to support the index. So, I threw out the indices as bear fund vehicles. Most of the large-cap components mimic the bellwether, so I threw most of them out, too. What's left over is "everything else", about 60~80% of the stocks but, far less than half of the capitalization. Assuming you're a BEAR FUND manager, Conclusions are: (1) if you're gonna short an index you want it to be as broad-based as possible; preferably not only something like NYA.X - NYSE Composite, or RUT.X - Russell 2000, but also global in scope. (2) you wanna concentrate weighting inversely to capitalization; ie., 1/cap rather than the other way around. (3) further, you want to de-emphasize (or even eliminate) all "new issues"... there is a direct correlation between smaller-cap decay, and age. (4) you wanna pick stocks that have low visibility; ie., companies that are members of a sector but not components of some sector index. (5) you wanna cull out possible takeover targets: these are small-cap, older, non-index component companies with consistent F/A as a result of some kind of stable (albeit small) market share. Doing this creates a hypothetical "bear fund" with characteristics just the opposite of "the nifty fifty"; indeed, you need a lot of issues: older, global, poorly visible little fish with inconsistent earnings. the apparent dilemma for the bear fund manager is that there are few, if any simple vehicles (like some index) to ride: you would have to spread out lots of short positions. also, you'd be alone... everybody on S.I. is thinking about GE, MSFT and INTC, etc. If you're a serious bear, you don't care about what everybody else is doing - you're investing short in a school of little, unknown fish, not trading short the fat, popular fish. but this works, dude - this works very well, indeed. There's not much glamour in being a serious bear: forget trying to spear bloated whales like MSFT or DELL or AMZN; volatility cuts both ways, and they bounce as good or better than they plunge: shorting "growth" stocks may be successful in the shorter-term but, makes no sense if you're a bear investor. If you're a serious bear, you gotta stop thinking like a bear, and start thinking like a shark (^_^) - looking for: a large school of sick, old, little fish to dis-invest in ! MUNCH :-() -Steve