Friday, October 30, 2009

Portfolio Update October 2009

Portfolio Growth (YTD) 203.62%
Portfolio Value (Asset Value) $63,574.75
Account Value (Owner's Equity) $50,588.67
Outstanding Shares 180,527
Wittaya Wongwanich 88,362
Pramote Lumyai 27,698
Chaweng Wongwanich 38,179
Wikrom Srisamai 28,680
Price/Share $0.3522
Capital Inflow $10,100
Capital Outflow $250
Fund Purchasing Fee $3.03
Total Capital $40,961.40
Wittaya Wongwanich $10,250.00
Pramote Lumyai $6,350.00
Chaweng Wongwanich $15,000.00
Wikrom Srisamai $10,100.00
Asset Category
Cash Acct Balance $0
Margin Acct Balance $0
Margin Loan Balance $12,986.08
Equity $56,701.00
Fixed Income $0
Commodity $0
Real Estate $0
Options $6,873.75

Your Boss Power

"Most bosses know instinctively that their power depends more on employee's compliance than on threats or sanctions."

By Fernanda Bartolme, the author of Harvard Business Review

Thursday, October 29, 2009

Predicting The Future

FYE ONLY HERE EXPECTED P/E IN OUR FUTURE
CLICK TO ENLARGE

Saturday, October 24, 2009

US government manipulate stock market ?

Manipulating Market

Whether Federal Reserve and U.S. Government Rigged Stock Market, Pushing Market Cap up $6+Trillion since Mid-March. Only Logical Conclusion as to Why Market Soared, While Economy Faltered and Traditional Sources of Capital Remained Neutral. The most positive economic development in 2009 was the stock market rally. Since the middle of March, the market cap of all U.S. stocks has soared more than $6 trillion. The wealth effect of rising stock prices soothed the nerves and boosted the net worth of the half of Americans who own stock.

We cannot identify the source of the new money that pushed stock prices up so far so fast. Historically, the market cap has risen about 10 times the amount of net new cash invested in equities. For the most part, the roughly $600 billion of net new cash since March needed to boost the market cap $6 trillion did not come from the traditional players that provided money in the past

Retail investors through funds. Retail investors have hardly bought any U.S. equities through funds. U.S. equity funds and ETFs have received only $20 billion since the start of April. Meanwhile, bond funds and ETFs have received a record $355 billion.

Foreign investors. Foreign investors have provided some buying power, purchasing $109 billion in U.S. stocks from April through October. But foreign purchases may have slowed in November and December because the U.S. dollar was weakening last fall.

Hedge funds. We have no way to track in real time what hedge funds do, and they may well have shifted some assets into U.S. equities. But we doubt their buying power was enormous because they posted an outflow of $9 billion from April through November.

Pension funds. All the anecdotal evidence we have indicates that pension funds have not been making a huge asset allocation shift and have not moved more than about $100 billion from bonds and cash into U.S. equities since the rally began.

If the money to boost stock prices did not come from the traditional players, it must have come from somewhere else. We know that the U.S. government has spent hundreds of billions of dollars to support the auto industry, the housing market, and the banks and brokers. Why not support the stock market as well ?

As far as we know, it is not illegal for the Federal Reserve or the U.S. Treasury to buy S&P 500 futures. Moreover, several officials have suggested the government and major banks could support stock prices. For example, former Fed board member Robert Heller opined in the Wall Street Journal in 1989, “Instead of flooding the entire economy with liquidity, and thereby increasing the danger of inflation, the Fed could support the stock market directly by buying market averages in the futures market, thereby stabilizing the market as a whole.

Think back to mid-March 2009. Nothing positive was happening, and investor sentiment was horrible. The Fed, the Treasury, and Wall Street were all trying to figure out how to prevent the financial system from collapsing. What if Ben Bernanke, Tim Geithner, and the head of one or more Wall Street firms decided that creating a stock market rally was the only way to rescue the economy?

One way to manipulate the stock market would be for the Fed or the Treasury to buy a nominal $60 to $70 billion of S&P 500 stock futures each month for as long as necessary. Depending on margin levels, as little as $5 billion to $15 billion per month was all that was necessary to lift the S&P 500 by 67%. Even $15 billion per month would have been peanuts compared to what was being doled out elsewhere.

This type of intervention could explain some of the unusual market action in recent months, with stock prices grinding higher on low volume even as companies sold huge amounts of new shares and retail investors stayed on the sidelines. Some market watchers have charted that virtually all of the market’s upside since mid-September has come from after-hours futures activity.

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Hammer Me ... I'm OLED and I'm Strong



Samsung has been working to deliver flexible displays for cellphones that will be significantly thinner than current LCD screens and allow for new form factors. But a big question for electronics makers will be how sturdy are these flexible displays? There’s only one way to answer that question and that’s with a hammer.

A video clips shows what happens when you pound a flexible, 2.8-inch display that is about 20 micrometers thick. And the answer is nothing. There’s not a scratch on the OLED (organic light-emitting diode) display. In comparison, an LCD screen shatters when it is hit.

Samsung hasn’t disclosed when it plans to bring its flexible displays to market. But it is likely, the the first commercial products with flexible displays will debut around the same time.

Source by GadgetLab

Friday, October 16, 2009

Synthetics Positioning

Traders can all agree that synthetics are also combinations of options and/or stock that replicate some other position.

For example, buying stock and selling a covered call is synthetically equivalent to a naked short put. Buying stock and buying a protective put is equivalent to buying a long call. Buying a call and selling a put is equivalent to buying stock. You may already understand synthetic relationships, and if you’re into “book learning,” you might realize that there ain’t no arbs any more. You may have relegated synthetics into the “thanks, but no thanks” category.


Let’s start with the most basic trade of all, buying stock. Say you buy 100 shares of XYZ stock for $120 per share. The total value of that stock is $12,000. In a regular margin account, you’d need at least $6,000 of available dollars to put on that position. And if you don’t have the cash in your account to cover the $12K, you’ll have to borrow $6,000 from your broker. Even if you do have the cash, you’ll stop earning interest on that money because you spent it buying the stock.

Now let’s look at synthetic long stock, which is a long call and a short put at the same strike price and the same expiration and has a risk/reward profile just like long stock itself. Don’t believe me? Load it up as a simulated trade on the Analyze page and see for yourself. You can buy the March 120 call for $2.25 and sell the March 120 put for $1.75 and make money if XYZ goes up, and lose money if XYZ goes down. But why would you want to do this?

First, you bought the call and sold the put (known as buying the “combo”) for a $0.50 debit. Not including commissions, $50 came out of your cash balance. With the stock trade? $12,000. You’re either not borrowing money, or you’re still earning interest on that cash. Second, although you know that Reg-T (Regular Trading) margin requirements won’t let you have the same risk exposure as $12,000 worth of stock and hold only $50 in your account, the margin requirement for the combo is less. The margin on the combo is the margin on the short put, which in this case is 20% of the underlying stock value minus any out-of-the-money amount. That comes to $2,400.

So, $50 versus $12,000 cash. And $2,400 versus $6,000 margin requirement. The combo is 2-for-2 so far. But the commission on the combo is two option orders, which in this case would be about $5.90, compared to $5.00 to buy the stock. And the combo won’t receive any dividends that the stock might pay. If the combo is now 2-for-4, how do you weigh the pros and cons? The commissions on the combo trade can be much higher, depending on your commission structure. But as a percentage of the risk of the position, the commissions represent a small fraction of the risk and potential reward you’re getting. In this case, commissions aren’t likely to make or break the trade.

And dividends? They’re nice because they can offset the interest expense when you buy the stock. But you have to hold it through the ex-dividend date, which you may or may not want to do, and the interest you are charged is often greater than the dividend you might get.

In a purely academic world, there’s no financial benefit to trading the combo over the stock. That’s true, but only in the academic world are every trader’s borrowing and lending rates equal. In the hyper-real world of trading, your borrowing rates as a retail trader are typically much higher than a market maker’s rates. The combo is priced in the open market, based largely on the market maker’s rates.

That’s the rate you would be paying if you buy the combo. But your borrowing rate as a retail trader is a broker call. In the XYZ example, your interest cost if you buy the combo is that $0.50 debit. But if broker call is 8%, for example, and you hold the stock for three months, you would pay $240 in interest. In this case, the combo would make more financial sense.

Friday, October 9, 2009

Business Cycle Info

As earning is up, Growth stocks P/E increase because their Price increase more than earning while Cyclical stocks (Value) P/E decrease since their price increase less than their earning. This statement will converse as we going to business downturn.