Beleggerswijsheid ???

Skip to first unread message


Jan 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/7/00
Een oude beleggerswijsheid luidt : " De eerste dagen van januari zijn
bepalend voor de rest van het jaar ".

Winst of verlies van de grote indexen aan het begin van het jaar , werd in
44 van de afgelopen 49 jaar gevolgd door winst of verlies over het hele jaar

Tom Verhagen

Jan 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/7/00
Over hoeveel beursdagen heb heb je het? 3,4 5....

Ruudlaatjenietgekmaken <> wrote in message


Jan 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/7/00

Ruudlaatjenietgekmaken heeft geschreven in bericht


Jan 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/7/00
Dat was alleen in de jaren 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Ruudlaatjenietgekmaken wrote in message <855m8a$hh$>...

Wilbert Geers

Jan 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/8/00
De eerste dag ging toch heel goed!
En de 5e was ook heel redelijk....

Ruudlaatjenietgekmaken <> schreef in
berichtnieuws 855m8a$hh$


Jan 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/8/00
conclusie is :.......


Jan 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/8/00
"Wilbert Geers" <> writes:

>De eerste dag ging toch heel goed!
>En de 5e was ook heel redelijk....

>Ruudlaatjenietgekmaken <> schreef in
>berichtnieuws 855m8a$hh$
>> Een oude beleggerswijsheid luidt : " De eerste dagen van januari zijn
>> bepalend voor de rest van het jaar ".

De eerste week van 1999 was een forse stijging. Daarna werd het matig
kwakkelend, stabiele koersen, weinig actie behalve de laatste

Maar ik hoop dat je geliijk hebt. Forse schommelingen van + of - 20
punten per dag zijn vooral voor optiebeleggers die van een gokje
houden erg leuk.


-=*=- | Don't be a coward - use your real email address
Rob J. Nauta | ... ... ... ... | ... ... ... ...
-=*=- | URL: ICQ: 5369291

Jan 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/8/00
In article <855m8a$hh$>,

"Ruudlaatjenietgekmaken" <> wrote:
> Een oude beleggerswijsheid luidt : " De eerste dagen van januari zijn
> bepalend voor de rest van het jaar ".
> Winst of verlies van de grote indexen aan het begin van het jaar ,
werd in
> 44 van de afgelopen 49 jaar gevolgd door winst of verlies over het
hele jaar
we gaan in januari op naar de 700. ZElf zien: Let op de hoofdletters

de enige site die niet alleen de beurs voorspelt maar je er nog flink
geld bij toegeeft. zie

Sent via
Before you buy.


Jan 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/8/00
Je bedoelt natuurlijk
Ik ben benieuwd!
<> wrote in message

Norbert Scheepers

Jan 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/9/00
On Fri, 7 Jan 2000 22:28:23 +0100, "Ruudlaatjenietgekmaken"
<> wrote:

>Een oude beleggerswijsheid luidt : " De eerste dagen van januari zijn
>bepalend voor de rest van het jaar ".
>Winst of verlies van de grote indexen aan het begin van het jaar , werd in
>44 van de afgelopen 49 jaar gevolgd door winst of verlies over het hele jaar

Ter Aanvulling...

Saturday January 8 12:07 AM ET
Years Ending in '0' Are Zeros for Stocks
By Pierre Belec

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Watch out for years that end in zero. They're bad
for the stock market. In fact, they're often big zeros.

Wall Street was given a taste this week of ``Stockalypse 2000'' as the
Nasdaq composite index had a meltdown of 230 points, its largest
one-day point loss ever, on Tuesday. The Dow Jones industrial average
slumped 360 points in its steepest drop since Russia's loan default
rocked global markets in late summer of 1998. By the end of the week,
the market bounced back strongly on a wave of bargain hunting.

Still, there was a creepy feeling of deja vu about Tuesday's selloff.
For the past 100 years, the first days of the years that end with
``0'' have signaled the start of some nasty bear markets.

In fact, since 1900, stocks have made important highs at the start of
most of those years before heading lower.

Peter Eliades, editor of Stockmarket Cycles, a financial newsletter
and money management firm in Santa Rosa, Calif., said that in seven of
the 10 years since 1900 that have ended in zeros, stocks reached peaks
in the first few trading days of the year and then went into a
downward spiral.

In some cases, stocks made secondary tops because more important high
water marks had already been reached. But in all seven years, stocks
slid lower after peaking in the opening days of the year.

And this week, stocks plunged in the second trading session of the
year 2000.

The facts:

1900 -- The market topped out on Jan. 2, and the level proved to be
the highest of the next 10 months. 1910 -- Topped out on Jan. 3 and
the high was not beaten for five years and seven months. 1920 --
Stocks peaked Jan. 3 and the high went unchallenged for five years.

1940 -- Jan. 3 was the highest close of the next five years. 1960 --
Jan. 4 struck the highest finish for 16 months. 1970 -- Jan. 5 was the
highest of the next 11 months. 1990 -- Jan. 2 set the peak for the
next four months.

``The major market moves, or anything that can be described as
bubbles, all seemed to end around the end of decades,'' Eliades said.

Further proof:

Japan's stock market bubble burst on Dec. 29, 1989, and the gold rush
that sent the price soaring to a record $800 an ounce ended abruptly
in early January of 1980.

It may be hard to explain the market's behavior, but some of the
selling in the new year may be linked to Uncle Sam.

``There's a certain tax logic to the centennial pattern, with the
major market tops coming during periods when the market had been doing
well,'' Eliades said.

This week, investors with capital gains may have been selling for tax
reasons, to delay paying the tax on their profits until 2001.

Meanwhile, experts say the jury is still out as to whether Wall Street
is witnessing the unraveling of one of the greatest bull markets ever.

The selloff has raised worrying questions because the bull market has
been likened to ``Tulipmania'' -- the mother of all market bubbles
that sent tulip prices in Holland rocketing 6,000 percent from 1634 to
1637 before crashing. But now, it's Internet stocks instead of tulips.

The tulip boom came undone as prices dropped 90 percent after the
``biggest fool'' had paid the highest price. Suddenly, people realized
that they were not investing, but rather betting, on tulip prices.

Indeed, history may be repeating itself. Internet stocks have shot up
1,000 percent or more even though the majority of them have not earned
a penny.

Internet stocks recently have made a lot of people rich and that's
apparently all that matters to investors. The people who have struck
gold over the past couple of years have been ignorant about the
meaning of stocks' valuations.

The technology-laced Nasdaq index last year produced an eye-popping
gain of 85.6 percent but the betting is that the spectacular rise
won't be repeated this year.

Speculative rallies are like rubber bands. They stretch until they
break and send stocks reeling.

Still, some Wall Streeters sensed that the market has so much
intrinsic support from powerful buyers -- such as (401)k retirement
accounts -- that it can avoid a sustained freefall, perhaps

During the brief corrections over the past five years, investors have
been reluctant to abandon their stock holdings and the pullbacks have
simply been viewed as buying opportunities, which have kept stocks
from locking into a sustained downtrend.

But few people will disagree that the meteoric rise in the technology
stocks has been overdone.

Many experts say technology shares could go through a major shakeout
because the biggest buyers of the ``dot.coms'' have been speculators
or day traders -- who would be the weakest source of support in a
head-spinning market fall.

Speculators who trade with money borrowed from home equity loans or
margin accounts are not exactly long-term investors. They would be the
first to run for the exits.

Stock market officials have shown concern about the explosive rise in
margin debt. Recently, the New York Stock Exchange and the National
Association of Securities Dealers, Nasdaq's parent, sought to tighten
margin requirements for day traders.

In November, margin debt soared to 3 percent of disposable personal
income, the highest on record, eclipsing the old high of 1.3 percent
set before the market crash of 1987.

Raymond DeVoe Jr., market strategist for Legg Mason Wood Walker, said
the investors who chased up Internet stocks after a minor dip in
November may now be margined up to their eyeballs.

``A lot of people are now concerned about how they stand in their
margined accounts after this week's 15 and 20 percent decline in some
stocks, and this could bring a vicious circle of selling,'' he said.

DeVoe said the direction of the market is in the hands of Federal
Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, who is free to raise interest rates
at will, now that there are no more distractions from the Y2K computer

After pushing rates up three times since last June, the
inflation-fighting Fed deferred another increase in December for fear
of adding uncertainty over Y2K.

The Fed's big concern is that skyrocketing stock prices -- one of the
powerful forces that have fueled the economic good times -- may come
to a sudden halt. The market has made people rich and the wealth
effect has fanned the economy's spectacular growth, which, in turn,
has fired up corporate profits.

Now the Fed has the tricky job of producing a hoped-for ''soft
landing'' by slowing the economy down without putting it into a
tail-spinning slide.

Perhaps, blunt force by the central bank could be the thing that will
break the back of the bull market -- and at the same time make more
believers in bear markets at the end of decades.

For the week, the Dow Jones industrial average was up 25.44 points at
11,522.56. The Nasdaq composite index fell 186.69 points to 3,882.62
and the Standard & Poor's 500 index was off 27.78 at 1,441.47.

(Questions or comments can be addressed to

"A great deal of intelligence is invested in ignorance"

Saul Bellow

Reply all
Reply to author
0 new messages