Quels impacts du conflit en Iran vous semblent les plus probables ?1. impact haussier de court-terme sur les cours du pétrole
2. impact haussier de long-terme sur les cours du pétrole
3. impact baissier transitoire sur la bourse (correction en V)
4. impact baissier prolongé sur la bourse (bear market)
5. pas d'impact notable en bourse (simple respiration)
6. impact inflationniste transitoire
7. impact inflationniste prolongé
8. pas d'impact notable sur l'inflation
9. mon angoisse pour mon portefeuille
10. mon indifférence (sur le plan de la bourse)
Total : 446 votes (29 votes blancs)
Sondage à 4 choix possibles.
ignomo | Citation :
Active asset managers spend much money spotting and exploiting small discrepancies between the prices of different stocks. With high correlation, anomalies go uncorrected, and the money spent on spotting them is wasted – at least in the short term.
This is a problem for stockpickers, but it has broader ramifications. Company treasurers, for example, find their cost of equity set by factors far beyond their control, and often at levels that make no sense for their company.
Correlation is measured in various ways, but the picture is consistent. Andrew Goldberg of JPMorgan Asset Management in London, points to research going back to 1926 which tracks the correlation of every large-cap stock with every other. It tracks a dauntingly large series of pairs.
The average over this entire period was 0.269. In other words, differences in the performance of one stock are sufficient to explain 26.9 per cent of the difference in the performance of any other stock. This measure reached 0.63 in the quarter after Lehman. The latest measure is just over 0.36, and it has been as low as 0.32.
To take another measure, Goldman Sachs monitors correlations between stocks in the Stoxx 600 index of European stocks, and for the US S&P 500. On a three-month basis, European correlations reached 0.6 in late 2011, thanks to the eurozone crisis. They are now back at a far more manageable 0.2. The equivalent exercise for the S&P, where correlations were even higher thanks to the influence of banks, saw correlation reached 0.74 after the downgrade. It now stands at 0.27.
|
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/0e1 [...] abdc0.html Message édité par ignomo le 09-12-2013 à 20:49:20
|