个人中心 - 老虎社区

Fongwu

IP属地：未知

帖子 · 2帖子 · 2
关注 · 0关注 · 0
粉丝 · 0粉丝 · 0

- FongwuFongwu
  ·2021-05-03
  Sell sell sell
  U.S. stocks have risen to all-time highs this year. Should you ‘sell in May and go away’?<blockquote>美股今年已升至历史新高。你应该“在五月卖掉然后离开”吗？</blockquote>
  In the past, the sell-in-May strategy shakes out better in Europe than in the U.S. Stocks have been
  U.S. stocks have risen to all-time highs this year. Should you ‘sell in May and go away’?<blockquote>美股今年已升至历史新高。你应该“在五月卖掉然后离开”吗？</blockquote>
  1,476 评论
  2
  分享
  举报
- FongwuFongwu
  ·2021-04-13
  Bad
  SEC Drops Accounting Bomb, Blows Up SPAC Boom<blockquote>SEC投下会计炸弹，炸毁SPAC热潮</blockquote>
  Having dropped their first major warning that something was coming last week with a subtle tweet sug
  SEC Drops Accounting Bomb, Blows Up SPAC Boom<blockquote>SEC投下会计炸弹，炸毁SPAC热潮</blockquote>
  1,962 评论
  点赞
  分享
  举报

热议股票

{"i18n":{"language":"zh_CN"},"isCurrentUser":false,"userPageInfo":{"id":"3577175280172865","uuid":"3577175280172865","gmtCreate":1614081257265,"gmtModify":1618296197875,"name":"Fongwu","pinyin":"fongwu","introduction":"","introductionEn":"","signature":"","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/6df7d5c81bb73a5c46cdedb4d9c16569","hat":null,"hatId":null,"hatName":null,"vip":1,"status":2,"fanSize":0,"headSize":13,"tweetSize":2,"questionSize":0,"limitLevel":999,"accountStatus":4,"level":{"id":0,"name":"","nameTw":"","represent":"","factor":"","iconColor":"","bgColor":""},"themeCounts":1,"badgeCounts":0,"badges":[],"moderator":false,"superModerator":false,"manageSymbols":null,"badgeLevel":null,"boolIsFan":false,"boolIsHead":false,"favoriteSize":0,"symbols":null,"coverImage":null,"realNameVerified":null,"userBadges":[{"badgeId":"35ec162348d5460f88c959321e554969-3","templateUuid":"35ec162348d5460f88c959321e554969","name":"传说交易员","description":"证券或期货账户累计交易次数达到300次","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/656db16598a0b8f21429e10d6c1cb033","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/03f10910d4dd9234f9b5702a3342193a","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0c767e35268feb729d50d3fa9a386c5a","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLink":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2026.01.28","exceedPercentage":"93.21%","individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1100},{"badgeId":"228c86a078844d74991fff2b7ab2428d-2","templateUuid":"228c86a078844d74991fff2b7ab2428d","name":"投资总监虎","description":"证券账户累计交易金额达到30万美元","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/9d20b23f1b6335407f882bc5c2ad12c0","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/ada3b4533518ace8404a3f6dd192bd29","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/177f283ba21d1c077054dac07f88f3bd","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLink":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2023.07.14","exceedPercentage":"80.94%","individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1101},{"badgeId":"e50ce593bb40487ebfb542ca54f6a561-1","templateUuid":"e50ce593bb40487ebfb542ca54f6a561","name":"出道虎友","description":"加入老虎社区500天","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0e4d0ca1da0456dc7894c946d44bf9ab","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0f2f65e8ce4cfaae8db2bea9b127f58b","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/c5948a31b6edf154422335b265235809","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLink":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2022.07.18","exceedPercentage":null,"individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1001},{"badgeId":"976c19eed35f4cd78f17501c2e99ef37-1","templateUuid":"976c19eed35f4cd78f17501c2e99ef37","name":"博闻投资者","description":"累计交易超过10只正股","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/e74cc24115c4fbae6154ec1b1041bf47","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/d48265cbfd97c57f9048db29f22227b0","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/76c6d6898b073c77e1c537ebe9ac1c57","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLink":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2021.12.21","exceedPercentage":null,"individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1102},{"badgeId":"518b5610c3e8410da5cfad115e4b0f5a-1","templateUuid":"518b5610c3e8410da5cfad115e4b0f5a","name":"实盘交易者","description":"完成一笔实盘交易","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/2e08a1cc2087a1de93402c2c290fa65b","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4504a6397ce1137932d56e5f4ce27166","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4b22c79415b4cd6e3d8ebc4a0fa32604","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLink":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2021.12.21","exceedPercentage":null,"individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1100}],"userBadgeCount":5,"currentWearingBadge":null,"individualDisplayBadges":null,"crmLevel":12,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"location":"未知","starInvestorFollowerNum":0,"starInvestorFlag":false,"starInvestorOrderShareNum":0,"subscribeStarInvestorNum":0,"ror":null,"winRationPercentage":null,"showRor":false,"investmentPhilosophy":null,"starInvestorSubscribeFlag":false},"page":1,"watchlist":null,"tweetList":[{"id":108610932,"gmtCreate":1620017367926,"gmtModify":1634208480688,"author":{"id":"3577175280172865","authorId":"3577175280172865","name":"Fongwu","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/6df7d5c81bb73a5c46cdedb4d9c16569","crmLevel":12,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3577175280172865","authorIdStr":"3577175280172865"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Sell sell sell&nbsp;","listText":"Sell sell sell&nbsp;","text":"Sell sell sell","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/108610932","repostId":"2132548564","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"2132548564","kind":"highlight","pubTimestamp":1620001778,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/2132548564?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-05-03 08:29","market":"us","language":"en","title":"U.S. stocks have risen to all-time highs this year. Should you ‘sell in May and go away’?<blockquote>美股今年已升至历史新高。你应该“在五月卖掉然后离开”吗？</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=2132548564","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"In the past, the sell-in-May strategy shakes out better in Europe than in the U.S.\n\nStocks have been","content":"<p>In the past, the sell-in-May strategy shakes out better in Europe than in the U.S.</p><p><blockquote>过去，五月卖出策略在欧洲的效果比在美国更好。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/18b93b4406770158f62b0e2dd392f424\" tg-width=\"1260\" tg-height=\"822\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> Stocks have been on a tear this year, leaving investors to question whether to \"sell in May and go away.\"</p><p><blockquote>今年股市一直在上涨，让投资者质疑是否“在五月卖出并离开”。</blockquote></p><p> \"With stocks at record highs, some investors may be tempted to follow the old adage,\" a team of strategists at UBS Group's global wealth management division, wrote in a note Friday.</p><p><blockquote>瑞银集团全球财富管理部门的策略师团队周五在一份报告中写道：“随着股市创下历史新高，一些投资者可能会倾向于遵循这句古老的格言。”</blockquote></p><p> The hypothesis is that equities tend to underperform in the six months through October, so investors should sell stocks at the start of May, invest in cash and then re-enter the market in late autumn, the strategists said. Historically, the approach has worked for Europe, but not as well in the U.S., according to their note.</p><p><blockquote>策略师表示，假设股市在截至10月份的六个月内往往表现不佳，因此投资者应该在5月初出售股票，投资现金，然后在深秋重新进入市场。根据他们的报告，从历史上看，这种方法在欧洲很有效，但在美国效果不佳。</blockquote></p><p> \"In the U.S., a stay invested strategy has tended to outperform, particularly in recent years,\" the strategists said. \"Market composition, with the U.S. market more tilted towards growth stocks, partly explains the outperformance.\"</p><p><blockquote>策略师表示：“在美国，保持投资策略往往表现出色，尤其是近年来。”“市场构成，美国市场更倾向于成长型股票，部分解释了表现优异的原因。”</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/b499645739c349ea55647a2512665932\" tg-width=\"1064\" tg-height=\"808\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> The technology sector now accounts for 27% of the S&amp;P 500, or much higher than the 8% weighting for the MSCI Europe index, according to UBS. For that reason, investors who tried timing the U.S. equity benchmark for \"seasonal reasons\" would have missed the outperformance of growth stocks in the bull market since the global financial crisis of 2008-09.</p><p><blockquote>瑞银的数据显示，科技行业目前占标普500的27%，远高于MSCI欧洲指数8%的权重。出于这个原因，试图出于“季节性原因”选择美国股市基准时机的投资者将错过自2008-09年全球金融危机以来成长型股票在牛市中的优异表现。</blockquote></p><p> Using the past as a guide, the UBS team recommends staying invested, even through they also point to historical evidence in Europe that supported a sell-in-May strategy.</p><p><blockquote>瑞银团队以过去为指导，建议保持投资，尽管他们也指出欧洲的历史证据支持5月份的卖出策略。</blockquote></p><p> Over the past 15 years, returns in Europe have been negative in June 80% of the time, according to the report. \"This has contributed to a sell-in-May strategy outperforming a stay invested strategy during those years,\" the strategists said.</p><p><blockquote>报告称，在过去15年中，欧洲6月份80%的回报率为负。策略师表示：“这导致5月份卖出策略的表现优于那些年的继续投资策略。”</blockquote></p><p> Meanwhile, the U.S. stock market has risen to all-time records this year, including as recently as this week, as measured by the S&amp;P 500 and Dow Jones Industrial Average benchmarks. The S&amp;P 500 rose to a record 4,211.47 finish on April 29, for example, and was up 11.3% this year as of Friday's close.</p><p><blockquote>与此同时，根据标普500和道琼斯工业平均指数基准衡量，美国股市今年已升至历史纪录，包括最近的本周。例如，标普500在4月29日升至创纪录的4,211.47点，截至周五收盘，今年已上涨11.3%。</blockquote></p><p> \"We are now entering a time of year when stocks have historically found it more challenging to advance,\" according to the UBS report. \"With many equity indexes making new highs, some measures of sentiment looking extended, and ongoing concerns about the spread of new COVID-19 variants,\" some investors may be contemplating selling.</p><p><blockquote>瑞银的报告称：“我们现在正进入一年中历史上股市上涨更具挑战性的时期。”“随着许多股指创下新高，一些情绪指标看起来有所延长，以及对新的COVID-19变种传播的持续担忧，”一些投资者可能正在考虑抛售。</blockquote></p><p> Billionaire investor Leon Cooperman, a self-described \"fully invested bear,\" told CNBC on Friday that he has \"an eye on the exit\" given a coming expected rise in taxes, inflation and a \"reasonably richly appraised market.\"</p><p><blockquote>自称“完全投资空头”的亿万富翁投资者莱昂·库珀曼(Leon Cooperman)周五对CNBC表示，鉴于税收、通胀和“估值相当高的市场”即将到来，他“正在关注退出”。</blockquote></p><p> Ryan Detrick, chief market strategist for LPL Financial, said in a blog Friday that the six months from May through October have been \"some of the weakest months of the year for stocks\" in the past 10 years. \"But with an accommodative Fed, fiscal and monetary policy, along with an economy that is opening faster than nearly anyone expected, we'd use any weakness as an opportunity to add to positions,\" he said.</p><p><blockquote>LPL Financial首席市场策略师Ryan Detrick周五在博客中表示，5月至10月的六个月是过去10年来“股市一年中最疲软的月份”。他表示：“但随着美联储、财政和货币政策的宽松，以及经济开放速度快于几乎所有人的预期，我们会利用任何疲软作为增仓的机会。”</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/50be26e2a50ece27ce6023a634a9e705\" tg-width=\"1260\" tg-height=\"725\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> \"Here's the catch,\" Detrick said. \"Stocks have actually been higher during these worst months of the year eight of the past ten years.\"</p><p><blockquote>“问题是，”德特里克说。“在过去十年中最糟糕的八个月里，股市实际上走高。”</blockquote></p><p></p>","source":"lsy1603348471595","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>U.S. stocks have risen to all-time highs this year. Should you ‘sell in May and go away’?<blockquote>美股今年已升至历史新高。你应该“在五月卖掉然后离开”吗？</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nU.S. stocks have risen to all-time highs this year. Should you ‘sell in May and go away’?<blockquote>美股今年已升至历史新高。你应该“在五月卖掉然后离开”吗？</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<p class=\"head\">\n<strong class=\"h-name small\">MarketWatch</strong><span class=\"h-time small\">2021-05-03 08:29</span>\n</p>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p>In the past, the sell-in-May strategy shakes out better in Europe than in the U.S.</p><p><blockquote>过去，五月卖出策略在欧洲的效果比在美国更好。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/18b93b4406770158f62b0e2dd392f424\" tg-width=\"1260\" tg-height=\"822\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> Stocks have been on a tear this year, leaving investors to question whether to \"sell in May and go away.\"</p><p><blockquote>今年股市一直在上涨，让投资者质疑是否“在五月卖出并离开”。</blockquote></p><p> \"With stocks at record highs, some investors may be tempted to follow the old adage,\" a team of strategists at UBS Group's global wealth management division, wrote in a note Friday.</p><p><blockquote>瑞银集团全球财富管理部门的策略师团队周五在一份报告中写道：“随着股市创下历史新高，一些投资者可能会倾向于遵循这句古老的格言。”</blockquote></p><p> The hypothesis is that equities tend to underperform in the six months through October, so investors should sell stocks at the start of May, invest in cash and then re-enter the market in late autumn, the strategists said. Historically, the approach has worked for Europe, but not as well in the U.S., according to their note.</p><p><blockquote>策略师表示，假设股市在截至10月份的六个月内往往表现不佳，因此投资者应该在5月初出售股票，投资现金，然后在深秋重新进入市场。根据他们的报告，从历史上看，这种方法在欧洲很有效，但在美国效果不佳。</blockquote></p><p> \"In the U.S., a stay invested strategy has tended to outperform, particularly in recent years,\" the strategists said. \"Market composition, with the U.S. market more tilted towards growth stocks, partly explains the outperformance.\"</p><p><blockquote>策略师表示：“在美国，保持投资策略往往表现出色，尤其是近年来。”“市场构成，美国市场更倾向于成长型股票，部分解释了表现优异的原因。”</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/b499645739c349ea55647a2512665932\" tg-width=\"1064\" tg-height=\"808\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> The technology sector now accounts for 27% of the S&amp;P 500, or much higher than the 8% weighting for the MSCI Europe index, according to UBS. For that reason, investors who tried timing the U.S. equity benchmark for \"seasonal reasons\" would have missed the outperformance of growth stocks in the bull market since the global financial crisis of 2008-09.</p><p><blockquote>瑞银的数据显示，科技行业目前占标普500的27%，远高于MSCI欧洲指数8%的权重。出于这个原因，试图出于“季节性原因”选择美国股市基准时机的投资者将错过自2008-09年全球金融危机以来成长型股票在牛市中的优异表现。</blockquote></p><p> Using the past as a guide, the UBS team recommends staying invested, even through they also point to historical evidence in Europe that supported a sell-in-May strategy.</p><p><blockquote>瑞银团队以过去为指导，建议保持投资，尽管他们也指出欧洲的历史证据支持5月份的卖出策略。</blockquote></p><p> Over the past 15 years, returns in Europe have been negative in June 80% of the time, according to the report. \"This has contributed to a sell-in-May strategy outperforming a stay invested strategy during those years,\" the strategists said.</p><p><blockquote>报告称，在过去15年中，欧洲6月份80%的回报率为负。策略师表示：“这导致5月份卖出策略的表现优于那些年的继续投资策略。”</blockquote></p><p> Meanwhile, the U.S. stock market has risen to all-time records this year, including as recently as this week, as measured by the S&amp;P 500 and Dow Jones Industrial Average benchmarks. The S&amp;P 500 rose to a record 4,211.47 finish on April 29, for example, and was up 11.3% this year as of Friday's close.</p><p><blockquote>与此同时，根据标普500和道琼斯工业平均指数基准衡量，美国股市今年已升至历史纪录，包括最近的本周。例如，标普500在4月29日升至创纪录的4,211.47点，截至周五收盘，今年已上涨11.3%。</blockquote></p><p> \"We are now entering a time of year when stocks have historically found it more challenging to advance,\" according to the UBS report. \"With many equity indexes making new highs, some measures of sentiment looking extended, and ongoing concerns about the spread of new COVID-19 variants,\" some investors may be contemplating selling.</p><p><blockquote>瑞银的报告称：“我们现在正进入一年中历史上股市上涨更具挑战性的时期。”“随着许多股指创下新高，一些情绪指标看起来有所延长，以及对新的COVID-19变种传播的持续担忧，”一些投资者可能正在考虑抛售。</blockquote></p><p> Billionaire investor Leon Cooperman, a self-described \"fully invested bear,\" told CNBC on Friday that he has \"an eye on the exit\" given a coming expected rise in taxes, inflation and a \"reasonably richly appraised market.\"</p><p><blockquote>自称“完全投资空头”的亿万富翁投资者莱昂·库珀曼(Leon Cooperman)周五对CNBC表示，鉴于税收、通胀和“估值相当高的市场”即将到来，他“正在关注退出”。</blockquote></p><p> Ryan Detrick, chief market strategist for LPL Financial, said in a blog Friday that the six months from May through October have been \"some of the weakest months of the year for stocks\" in the past 10 years. \"But with an accommodative Fed, fiscal and monetary policy, along with an economy that is opening faster than nearly anyone expected, we'd use any weakness as an opportunity to add to positions,\" he said.</p><p><blockquote>LPL Financial首席市场策略师Ryan Detrick周五在博客中表示，5月至10月的六个月是过去10年来“股市一年中最疲软的月份”。他表示：“但随着美联储、财政和货币政策的宽松，以及经济开放速度快于几乎所有人的预期，我们会利用任何疲软作为增仓的机会。”</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/50be26e2a50ece27ce6023a634a9e705\" tg-width=\"1260\" tg-height=\"725\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> \"Here's the catch,\" Detrick said. \"Stocks have actually been higher during these worst months of the year eight of the past ten years.\"</p><p><blockquote>“问题是，”德特里克说。“在过去十年中最糟糕的八个月里，股市实际上走高。”</blockquote></p><p></p>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n<p> 来源：<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/u-s-stocks-have-risen-to-all-time-highs-this-year-should-you-sell-in-may-and-go-away-11619818845?mod=home-page\">MarketWatch</a></p>\n<p>为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化</p>\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"161125":"标普500","513500":"标普500ETF","SPXU":"三倍做空标普500ETF-ProShares",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite","OEF":"标普100指数ETF-iShares","SDS":"两倍做空标普500 ETF-ProShares","SSO":"2倍做多标普500ETF-ProShares","SH":"做空标普500-Proshares","IVV":"标普500ETF-iShares",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".DJI":"道琼斯","OEX":"标普100","UPRO":"三倍做多标普500ETF-ProShares"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/u-s-stocks-have-risen-to-all-time-highs-this-year-should-you-sell-in-may-and-go-away-11619818845?mod=home-page","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"2132548564","content_text":"In the past, the sell-in-May strategy shakes out better in Europe than in the U.S.\n\nStocks have been on a tear this year, leaving investors to question whether to \"sell in May and go away.\"\n\"With stocks at record highs, some investors may be tempted to follow the old adage,\" a team of strategists at UBS Group's global wealth management division, wrote in a note Friday.\nThe hypothesis is that equities tend to underperform in the six months through October, so investors should sell stocks at the start of May, invest in cash and then re-enter the market in late autumn, the strategists said. Historically, the approach has worked for Europe, but not as well in the U.S., according to their note.\n\"In the U.S., a stay invested strategy has tended to outperform, particularly in recent years,\" the strategists said. \"Market composition, with the U.S. market more tilted towards growth stocks, partly explains the outperformance.\"\n\nThe technology sector now accounts for 27% of the S&P 500, or much higher than the 8% weighting for the MSCI Europe index, according to UBS. For that reason, investors who tried timing the U.S. equity benchmark for \"seasonal reasons\" would have missed the outperformance of growth stocks in the bull market since the global financial crisis of 2008-09.\nUsing the past as a guide, the UBS team recommends staying invested, even through they also point to historical evidence in Europe that supported a sell-in-May strategy.\nOver the past 15 years, returns in Europe have been negative in June 80% of the time, according to the report. \"This has contributed to a sell-in-May strategy outperforming a stay invested strategy during those years,\" the strategists said.\nMeanwhile, the U.S. stock market has risen to all-time records this year, including as recently as this week, as measured by the S&P 500 and Dow Jones Industrial Average benchmarks. The S&P 500 rose to a record 4,211.47 finish on April 29, for example, and was up 11.3% this year as of Friday's close.\n\"We are now entering a time of year when stocks have historically found it more challenging to advance,\" according to the UBS report. \"With many equity indexes making new highs, some measures of sentiment looking extended, and ongoing concerns about the spread of new COVID-19 variants,\" some investors may be contemplating selling.\nBillionaire investor Leon Cooperman, a self-described \"fully invested bear,\" told CNBC on Friday that he has \"an eye on the exit\" given a coming expected rise in taxes, inflation and a \"reasonably richly appraised market.\"\nRyan Detrick, chief market strategist for LPL Financial, said in a blog Friday that the six months from May through October have been \"some of the weakest months of the year for stocks\" in the past 10 years. \"But with an accommodative Fed, fiscal and monetary policy, along with an economy that is opening faster than nearly anyone expected, we'd use any weakness as an opportunity to add to positions,\" he said.\n\n\"Here's the catch,\" Detrick said. \"Stocks have actually been higher during these worst months of the year eight of the past ten years.\"","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{"161125":0.9,"513500":0.9,"UPRO":0.9,"SPXU":0.9,"SDS":0.9,".IXIC":0.9,"OEF":0.9,"SSO":0.9,"SH":0.9,".DJI":0.9,"OEX":0.9,".SPX":0.9,"IVV":0.9,"ESmain":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1476,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":345804673,"gmtCreate":1618295591192,"gmtModify":1634293887093,"author":{"id":"3577175280172865","authorId":"3577175280172865","name":"Fongwu","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/6df7d5c81bb73a5c46cdedb4d9c16569","crmLevel":12,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3577175280172865","authorIdStr":"3577175280172865"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Bad","listText":"Bad","text":"Bad","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/345804673","repostId":"1111921032","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1111921032","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1618295045,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1111921032?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-04-13 14:24","market":"us","language":"en","title":"SEC Drops Accounting Bomb, Blows Up SPAC Boom<blockquote>SEC投下会计炸弹，炸毁SPAC热潮</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1111921032","media":"zerohedge","summary":"Having dropped their first major warning that something was coming last week with a subtle tweet sug","content":"<p>Having dropped their first major warning that something was coming last week with a subtle tweet suggesting<i><b>\"it is never a good idea to invest in a SPAC just because someone famous sponsors or invests in it,\"</b></i>The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) just turned up the SPAC bubble-busting amplifier to '11' by signaling changes for how accounting rules apply to a key element of blank-check companies.</p><p><blockquote>上周，他们放弃了第一个重大警告，即一些事情即将发生，并发布了一条微妙的推文<i><b>“仅仅因为某个名人赞助或投资SPAC就投资SPAC从来都不是一个好主意，”</b></i>美国证券交易委员会(SEC)刚刚将SPAC泡沫破灭放大器调至“11”，发出了会计规则如何适用于空白支票公司关键要素的信号。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/00bf9c515bea1774c6f51d4f319e7fdf\" tg-width=\"463\" tg-height=\"233\">That was followed<b>the tsunami of newly launched SPACs suddenly and dramatically hitting a brick wall.</b>Aswe noted here, just three SPACs listed last week (including 2 on Wednesday), compared to more than 20 deals per week on average for most of the year.</p><p><blockquote>那是被跟踪的<b>新成立的SPAC的海啸突然戏剧性地碰壁了。</b>Aswe在这里指出，上周只有三家SPAC上市（包括周三的两家），而今年大部分时间平均每周有超过20笔交易。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/13637697f91d4387d8fcfbb5f8f88a41\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"396\">Tonight we found out why as Bloomberg reports, citing people familiar with the matter, that<b>The SEC last week began privately telling accountants that warrants, which are issued to early investors in the deals, might not be considered equity instruments</b>. Bloomberg explains:</p><p><blockquote>今晚我们发现了彭博社援引知情人士的话报道的原因<b>SEC上周开始私下告诉会计师，向交易早期投资者发行的认股权证可能不被视为权益工具</b>.彭博社解释道：</blockquote></p><p>   In a SPAC, early investors buy units, which typically includes a share of common stock and a fraction of a warrant to purchase more stock at a later date. They’re considered a sweetener for backers and have thus far been considered equity instruments for accounting purposes.The proposed changes could result in warrants being considered a liability for accounting purposes, according to the Marcum note.  <b>The shift would spell a massive nuisance for accountants and lawyers, who are hired to ensured SPACs are in compliance with the agency.</b>  Shortly after the Bloomberg story dropped, exposing the 'private' conversations, the SEC was forced to come clean and releases a press release detailing the accounting changes. For those so inclined,the full briefing is here,but this was a section we found notable...</p><p><blockquote>在SPAC中，早期投资者购买单位，其中通常包括一股普通股和一小部分认股权证，以便在以后购买更多股票。它们被认为是支持者的甜头，迄今为止一直被视为会计目的的股权工具。根据Marcum的说明，拟议的变更可能会导致认股权证被视为会计目的的负债。<b>这一转变将给会计师和律师带来巨大的麻烦，他们受雇确保SPAC遵守该机构的规定。</b>在彭博社的报道曝光“私人”对话后不久，美国证券交易委员会被迫坦白，并发布了一份详细说明会计变化的新闻稿。对于那些有这种倾向的人来说，完整的简报在这里，但这是我们发现值得注意的一部分...</blockquote></p><p>   We recently evaluated a fact pattern involving warrants issued by a SPAC. The terms of those warrants included a provision that in the event of a tender or exchange offer made to and accepted by holders of more than 50% of the outstanding shares of a single class of common stock, all holders of the warrants would be entitled to receive cash for their warrants.  <b>In other words, in the event of a qualifying cash tender offer (which could be outside the control of the entity), all warrant holders would be entitled to cash, while only certain of the holders of the underlying shares of common stock would be entitled to cash.</b>OCA staff concluded that, in this fact pattern, the tender offer provision would require the warrants to be classified as a liability measured at fair value, with changes in fair value reported each period in earnings.  Simply put, as Bloomberg notes,<b>the communications mean that filings for new SPACs may not go forward until the warrants issue is addressed.</b></p><p><blockquote>我们最近评估了一个涉及特殊目的收购公司发行的认股权证的事实模式。这些认股权证的条款包括一项条款，即如果向单一类别普通股已发行股份超过50%的持有人提出要约或交换要约并被其接受，所有认股权证持有人都将有权获得其认股权证的现金。<b>换句话说，在符合条件的现金要约收购（可能超出实体的控制范围）的情况下，所有认股权证持有人都有权获得现金，而只有某些普通股相关股份的持有人才有权获得现金。</b>OCA工作人员的结论是，在这种事实模式下，要约收购条款将要求将认股权证分类为按公允价值计量的负债，公允价值的变化在每个时期的收益中报告。简而言之，正如彭博社指出的那样，<b>这些通信意味着，在认股权证问题得到解决之前，新SPAC的申请可能不会继续进行。</b></blockquote></p><p> <b>Perhaps worst still,</b>SPACs that are already public and that have struck mergers with targets<b>may have to restate their financial results</b>.</p><p><blockquote><b>也许更糟的是，</b>已经上市并与目标达成合并的SPAC<b>可能必须重述他们的财务业绩</b>.</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/17f63b3547cd1a6b3737cad4b390199f\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"274\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/3589b5255b85f6ea2d557d39a66b5582\" tg-width=\"461\" tg-height=\"380\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p></p>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>SEC Drops Accounting Bomb, Blows Up SPAC Boom<blockquote>SEC投下会计炸弹，炸毁SPAC热潮</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nSEC Drops Accounting Bomb, Blows Up SPAC Boom<blockquote>SEC投下会计炸弹，炸毁SPAC热潮</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<p class=\"head\">\n<strong class=\"h-name small\">zerohedge</strong><span class=\"h-time small\">2021-04-13 14:24</span>\n</p>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p>Having dropped their first major warning that something was coming last week with a subtle tweet suggesting<i><b>\"it is never a good idea to invest in a SPAC just because someone famous sponsors or invests in it,\"</b></i>The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) just turned up the SPAC bubble-busting amplifier to '11' by signaling changes for how accounting rules apply to a key element of blank-check companies.</p><p><blockquote>上周，他们放弃了第一个重大警告，即一些事情即将发生，并发布了一条微妙的推文<i><b>“仅仅因为某个名人赞助或投资SPAC就投资SPAC从来都不是一个好主意，”</b></i>美国证券交易委员会(SEC)刚刚将SPAC泡沫破灭放大器调至“11”，发出了会计规则如何适用于空白支票公司关键要素的信号。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/00bf9c515bea1774c6f51d4f319e7fdf\" tg-width=\"463\" tg-height=\"233\">That was followed<b>the tsunami of newly launched SPACs suddenly and dramatically hitting a brick wall.</b>Aswe noted here, just three SPACs listed last week (including 2 on Wednesday), compared to more than 20 deals per week on average for most of the year.</p><p><blockquote>那是被跟踪的<b>新成立的SPAC的海啸突然戏剧性地碰壁了。</b>Aswe在这里指出，上周只有三家SPAC上市（包括周三的两家），而今年大部分时间平均每周有超过20笔交易。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/13637697f91d4387d8fcfbb5f8f88a41\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"396\">Tonight we found out why as Bloomberg reports, citing people familiar with the matter, that<b>The SEC last week began privately telling accountants that warrants, which are issued to early investors in the deals, might not be considered equity instruments</b>. Bloomberg explains:</p><p><blockquote>今晚我们发现了彭博社援引知情人士的话报道的原因<b>SEC上周开始私下告诉会计师，向交易早期投资者发行的认股权证可能不被视为权益工具</b>.彭博社解释道：</blockquote></p><p>   In a SPAC, early investors buy units, which typically includes a share of common stock and a fraction of a warrant to purchase more stock at a later date. They’re considered a sweetener for backers and have thus far been considered equity instruments for accounting purposes.The proposed changes could result in warrants being considered a liability for accounting purposes, according to the Marcum note.  <b>The shift would spell a massive nuisance for accountants and lawyers, who are hired to ensured SPACs are in compliance with the agency.</b>  Shortly after the Bloomberg story dropped, exposing the 'private' conversations, the SEC was forced to come clean and releases a press release detailing the accounting changes. For those so inclined,the full briefing is here,but this was a section we found notable...</p><p><blockquote>在SPAC中，早期投资者购买单位，其中通常包括一股普通股和一小部分认股权证，以便在以后购买更多股票。它们被认为是支持者的甜头，迄今为止一直被视为会计目的的股权工具。根据Marcum的说明，拟议的变更可能会导致认股权证被视为会计目的的负债。<b>这一转变将给会计师和律师带来巨大的麻烦，他们受雇确保SPAC遵守该机构的规定。</b>在彭博社的报道曝光“私人”对话后不久，美国证券交易委员会被迫坦白，并发布了一份详细说明会计变化的新闻稿。对于那些有这种倾向的人来说，完整的简报在这里，但这是我们发现值得注意的一部分...</blockquote></p><p>   We recently evaluated a fact pattern involving warrants issued by a SPAC. The terms of those warrants included a provision that in the event of a tender or exchange offer made to and accepted by holders of more than 50% of the outstanding shares of a single class of common stock, all holders of the warrants would be entitled to receive cash for their warrants.  <b>In other words, in the event of a qualifying cash tender offer (which could be outside the control of the entity), all warrant holders would be entitled to cash, while only certain of the holders of the underlying shares of common stock would be entitled to cash.</b>OCA staff concluded that, in this fact pattern, the tender offer provision would require the warrants to be classified as a liability measured at fair value, with changes in fair value reported each period in earnings.  Simply put, as Bloomberg notes,<b>the communications mean that filings for new SPACs may not go forward until the warrants issue is addressed.</b></p><p><blockquote>我们最近评估了一个涉及特殊目的收购公司发行的认股权证的事实模式。这些认股权证的条款包括一项条款，即如果向单一类别普通股已发行股份超过50%的持有人提出要约或交换要约并被其接受，所有认股权证持有人都将有权获得其认股权证的现金。<b>换句话说，在符合条件的现金要约收购（可能超出实体的控制范围）的情况下，所有认股权证持有人都有权获得现金，而只有某些普通股相关股份的持有人才有权获得现金。</b>OCA工作人员的结论是，在这种事实模式下，要约收购条款将要求将认股权证分类为按公允价值计量的负债，公允价值的变化在每个时期的收益中报告。简而言之，正如彭博社指出的那样，<b>这些通信意味着，在认股权证问题得到解决之前，新SPAC的申请可能不会继续进行。</b></blockquote></p><p> <b>Perhaps worst still,</b>SPACs that are already public and that have struck mergers with targets<b>may have to restate their financial results</b>.</p><p><blockquote><b>也许更糟的是，</b>已经上市并与目标达成合并的SPAC<b>可能必须重述他们的财务业绩</b>.</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/17f63b3547cd1a6b3737cad4b390199f\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"274\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/3589b5255b85f6ea2d557d39a66b5582\" tg-width=\"461\" tg-height=\"380\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p></p>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n<p> 来源：<a href=\"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/sec-drops-accounting-bomb-blow-spac-boom\">zerohedge</a></p>\n<p>为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化</p>\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{},"source_url":"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/sec-drops-accounting-bomb-blow-spac-boom","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1111921032","content_text":"Having dropped their first major warning that something was coming last week with a subtle tweet suggesting\"it is never a good idea to invest in a SPAC just because someone famous sponsors or invests in it,\"The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) just turned up the SPAC bubble-busting amplifier to '11' by signaling changes for how accounting rules apply to a key element of blank-check companies.\nThat was followedthe tsunami of newly launched SPACs suddenly and dramatically hitting a brick wall.Aswe noted here, just three SPACs listed last week (including 2 on Wednesday), compared to more than 20 deals per week on average for most of the year.\nTonight we found out why as Bloomberg reports, citing people familiar with the matter, thatThe SEC last week began privately telling accountants that warrants, which are issued to early investors in the deals, might not be considered equity instruments. Bloomberg explains:\n\n In a SPAC, early investors buy units, which typically includes a share of common stock and a fraction of a warrant to purchase more stock at a later date. They’re considered a sweetener for backers and have thus far been considered equity instruments for accounting purposes.The proposed changes could result in warrants being considered a liability for accounting purposes, according to the Marcum note.\n The shift would spell a massive nuisance for accountants and lawyers, who are hired to ensured SPACs are in compliance with the agency.\n\nShortly after the Bloomberg story dropped, exposing the 'private' conversations, the SEC was forced to come clean and releases a press release detailing the accounting changes. For those so inclined,the full briefing is here,but this was a section we found notable...\n\n We recently evaluated a fact pattern involving warrants issued by a SPAC. The terms of those warrants included a provision that in the event of a tender or exchange offer made to and accepted by holders of more than 50% of the outstanding shares of a single class of common stock, all holders of the warrants would be entitled to receive cash for their warrants.\n In other words, in the event of a qualifying cash tender offer (which could be outside the control of the entity), all warrant holders would be entitled to cash, while only certain of the holders of the underlying shares of common stock would be entitled to cash.OCA staff concluded that, in this fact pattern, the tender offer provision would require the warrants to be classified as a liability measured at fair value, with changes in fair value reported each period in earnings.\n\nSimply put, as Bloomberg notes,the communications mean that filings for new SPACs may not go forward until the warrants issue is addressed.\nPerhaps worst still,SPACs that are already public and that have struck mergers with targetsmay have to restate their financial results.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1962,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0}],"defaultTab":"posts","isTTM":false}