[转帖]转一篇今天Business Times的文章（气死你）－－海指6年新高的背后

good99 · 发表于 11-3-2006 11:15:00|来自：新加坡

<DIV align=left>good99：我等太善良，没想到新加坡也搞这个东西。这里的华文地位实在是太差了。不看英文报纸是看不到这些的。</DIV>
<DIV align=left>Any way，经济是六年来最高是没问题的了。</DIV>
<CENTER> </CENTER>
<CENTER> </CENTER>
<CENTER><IMG src="http://www.geocities.com/tangba/BT_3672672_09_03_2006.jpg"></CENTER> 你是不是奇怪为什么海指涨了你的股票还是跌？ 你是不是奇怪周围几乎所有人玩股票输钱了但海峡时报指数还在往上升。 终于有人说真话了，终于这层窗户纸有人去同破了！ 在2000年的55个指数股中现在还有24只！！！这么大变动的可谓世界之最了！！！！ 很奇怪一个朋友一直只看Morgan Stanlee Singapore Index. 从不看海峡指数... ... 数字很多时候不是你想象中那样可靠！ http://business-times.asia1.com.sg/sub/companies/story/0,4574,188600,00.html? Truth behind STI's 6-year high By R SIVANITHY Email this article Print article Feedback WHEN the Straits Times Index crossed 2,500 on Monday, headlines everywhere welcomed a new six-year record and expectations ran high that the index would soon test its all-time high of 2,582 reached on Jan 3, 2000. Certainly, there is every reason to expect some sort of challenge on 2,582 sometime this year, since it's only about 80 points, or 3.2 per cent, away. However, before investors start popping the champagne, here's an interesting question that comes with a somewhat sobering answer - if the STI is close to a six-year or all-time high, how many index components have scaled similar heights and are at six-year or all-time highs? Underperforming The answer may surprise many. There were 55 stocks in the STI six years ago, of which 24 stocks are still components today (see table). Using closing prices on Wednesday this week when the index finished at 2,502, we found that 10 of the 24 common members are actually below their Jan 3, 2000, levels. Worse, many big names have significantly underperformed in six years. Consider, for example, that DBS - the leader in the local banking sector - traded at $27.30 when the index hit its all-time high but costs only $16.40 now, a loss of 40 per cent. SPH's split-adjusted price on Jan 3, 2000, was $7.39 versus $4.48 now; Singapore Telecommunications' price was $3.59 versus $2.67; and Creative Technology was $30.80 but only sells for 61 per cent less at $12.10 today. Datacraft Asia in the meantime was US$11.20 but has since collapsed 90 per cent to US$1.14, while Venture Corp and Singapore Airlines have lost 36 per cent and 27 per cent respectively. If so many bellwethers of the local stock market are all below their Jan 3, 2000, prices, how did the STI scale the heights it has currently and is now threatening to notch new records? The answer is that the underperformance of these big caps has been cancelled out by the outperformance of five Jardine group stocks, with notable contributions from F&N, Keppel Corp and CapitaLand. Jardine Matheson is by far the biggest contributor. From US$3.82 six years ago, it has since posted an incredible performance, rising a whopping five-fold to an all-time high of US$19.10, while Jardine Strategic was introduced in September 2001 at US$2.72 and has since surged more than four-fold, to US$12 on Wednesday, also an all-time high. The other Jardine contributors are Dairy Farm, up four-fold, and Jardine Cycle & Carriage and Hongkong Land, up 147 per cent each. Meanwhile, Keppel's rise is more than three-fold; F&N's, 190 per cent; and CapitaLand's, a more modest 43 per cent. So there you have it - mainstays of the local market like SIA, SingTel, DBS, UOB, OCBC, City Developments, SPH, Venture and Creative Technology have actually either not contributed to the current STI's six-year high or have exerted only a minor influence and may even have retarded its progress. Instead - and there're many pertinent issues that can be pondered here, not least how well the index represents the Singapore market or economy - the STI owes its current lofty level to massive outperformance by seven or eight large-cap stocks, of which five are from a Hong Kong-based conglomerate whose largest shares (Jardine Matheson and Jardine Strategic) are thinly traded and for which very little stockbroking research is readily available to the average investor. Some people might argue that because of the various changes to members and weights in the past six years, the index today is not the same creature as the one that reached 2,582, so the conclusions reached above are unfair. Overdependence This is an illogical argument because if the two creatures are different to begin with, then no comparisons are ever possible in the first place and the entire discussion of a six-year or all-time high becomes irrelevant. To be honest, it looks very much like the question of whether the STI can break new ground boils down to whether Jardine's outperformance can continue and not whether the banks, property or electronics sectors can report superior profits. Meanwhile, with knowledge now of what really lies behind the index's rise, is it still valid to describe the STI as being at a six-year high, or are newspaper readers and investors better served by saying 'Jardine group at all-time high pushes ST Index to six-year high'?

jjxr · 发表于 11-3-2006 11:33:00|来自：新加坡

好文

fanglinsg · 发表于 11-3-2006 11:52:00|来自：新加坡

因为要大选了．．．．．

emilysam · 发表于 11-3-2006 17:17:00|来自：新加坡

新加坡的股票市场也不规范吗?

good99 · 发表于 11-3-2006 16:59:00|来自：新加坡

<DIV class=quote>以下是引用DIYer在2006-3-11 15:43:00的发言： 
你是不是奇怪为什么海指涨了你的股票还是跌？ 你是不是奇怪周围几乎所有人玩股票输钱了但海峡时报指数还在往上升。 =====================================================================

不奇怪，这些人范了两大错误：
1）选股（Stock pickers）
2）选时（Time pickers）
这俩个错误已被统计数据征实和在学术上被证明，有兴趣的可到<a href="http://www.ifa.com/" target="_blank" >http://www.ifa.com/</A> 看看
 </DIV>
被不道德的人害了，比如恩龙，中航油。
其实ST指数上升这么快，而我们关注的股并没有涨那么多才是关键。除了上面的情况，不存在选错股的问题。比如银行股，新航等，他们的涨幅很小，而指数却那么高。原因是SGX不断修正成分，导致指数虚火上升。
从长期来说，指数成分修改是必须的。过二十年，很可能一半的股都消失了。但如此频繁的修改是故意的。

[此贴子已经被作者于2006-3-11 17:06:40编辑过]

DIYer · 发表于 11-3-2006 15:54:00|来自：新加坡

有关STI成分股的问题，以美国的统计数据看，也不奇怪，在下文 Page46－47
<a href="http://www.ifa.com/Book/Book_pdf/03_Stock_Pickers.pdf" target="_blank" >http://www.ifa.com/Book/Book_pdf/03_Stock_Pickers.pdf</A>
1928年开始的 DOW JONES INDUSTRIAL AVERAGE Index，30个成分股中，今天健在仅三个：GE，GM，和 ExxonMobil
 
1957年开始的S&P500 Index 500个成分股中，到1997年仅74个还在 S&P500 Index 成分股，其中仅12个的涨幅超过S&P500 Index

DIYer · 发表于 11-3-2006 15:43:00|来自：新加坡

你是不是奇怪为什么海指涨了你的股票还是跌？ 你是不是奇怪周围几乎所有人玩股票输钱了但海峡时报指数还在往上升。 =====================================================================
 
不奇怪，这些人范了两大错误：
1）选股（Stock pickers）
2）选时（Time pickers）
这俩个错误已被统计数据征实和在学术上被证明，有兴趣的可到<a href="http://www.ifa.com/" target="_blank" >http://www.ifa.com/</A> 看看

DIYer · 发表于 11-3-2006 20:18:00|来自：新加坡

以下是引用[I]good99[/I]在2006-3-11 16:59:00的发言：[BR]
被不道德的人害了，比如恩龙，中航油。其实ST指数上升这么快，而我们关注的股并没有涨那么多才是关键。除了上面的情况，不存在选错股的问题。比如银行股，新航等，他们的涨幅很小，而指数却那么高。原因是SGX不断修正成分，导致指数虚火上升。从长期来说，指数成分修改是必须的。过二十年，很可能一半的股都消失了。但如此频繁的修改是故意的。

BT文中对比的时间区间： 2000年1月3号STI是2582，2006年3月8号STI是2500，STI并未升高，仍然落后80个点，大概3％，银行股中的UOB和OCBC的涨幅都超过STI，上面24个成分股中仅最后九个落后于STI。

jjxr · 发表于 12-3-2006 10:06:00|来自：新加坡

其实这个文章的核心在于，STI是由一家大公司支撑着。一但Jardine系出问题，问题就大咯。

xwyy · 发表于 12-3-2006 21:35:00|来自：新加坡

<DIV class=quote>以下是引用jjxr在2006-3-12 10:06:00的发言： 其实这个文章的核心在于，STI是由一家大公司支撑着。一但Jardine系出问题，问题就大咯。</DIV>

很简单, 一旦 Jardine 集团出问题, 它们就会马上被踢出 STI 成份股. 再由其他股票代替. 自然对STI就不会有太大影响.

[转帖]转一篇今天Business Times的文章（气死你）－－海指6年新高的背后

发表回复

精选推荐