http://www.marketingcharts.com/online/blogs-influence-consumer-purchases-more-than-social-networks-6616/jupiter-buzzlogic-blog-readers-trust-content-purchase-decisions-october-2008jpg/
Interesting but I found the stat that 53% have NOT read a blog to be the most interesting factoid. The number of blog pages has been growing at a PHENOMENAL rate the last few years.
Dan Ross
http://www.BetterBizIdeas.com
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
The Sequoia “RIP: Good Times” presentation: Here it is
For those seeking info. on private equity Venture Capital (VC) is one of the biggest components. This is "value add" type of creation, in my opinion. They take people with an idea, give them $$$ and management tips, and then watched their garden grow.
I don't see as much "value creation" in private equity as I do in VC work. Too much private equity (LBO stuff) is financial engineering/optimization. While some companies are PHENOMENTAL at changing management structures, practices, etc. they tend to be more evolutionary vs. revolutionary.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Facebook Running out of cash?
Interesting video below given the next post, where VCs are telling their portfolio companies to "tighten their belts" as the capital is drying up quickly.
Dan Ross
http://www.BetterBizIdeas.com
Sunday, November 2, 2008
S&P 500 - daily trends (downtrend still in FULL effect) - Graph Below
I wanted to post this last week......but couldn't get the GIF files to post correctly.
Today's left chart is interesting as the charts are now turning bullish. The MACD has crossed (below), W%R isn't overbought at -20 and the RSI has quite a bit of room to move. Short-term it looks like the market is going to rally for a bit. We could get a short-term run and then, as we approach the 10 WEEK moving average, you would expect some SERIOUS resistance and the potential for the market to roll back over. That will take time to happen though.....
The chart on the right shows weekly trends. You can see from that chart that we have BARELY moved above the 5 week moving average and we are now moving out of significantly oversold territory. Nonetheless, 1100 on the S&P is a 13% move to the upside. You can also see how we DROPPED off a cliff from 1100 as well. The previous intra-week high of around 1050 was important. Any close above that would likely spur a run to 1100. That might be where the charts meet at the 20 week moving average. I can't see a run to 1200 anytime soon based on the fundamentals but 1050 seems highly plausible and 1100 seems like a reach (a + 13% move on top of our current move up) but it is possible.
What happens with Deleveraging
http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/article/104704/What-Does-
From the early 1920s through 1985, the average level of debt-to-GDP in this country was 155%. The highest peak in history (until the recent debt boom) was in the early 1930s, when debt-to-GDP soared to 260% of GDP. In the 1930s, the ratio then cratered to 130%, and it remained close to that level for another half century.
In 1985, we started to borrow, and last year, when we got finished borrowing, we had borrowed 350% of GDP. To get back to that 155%, we need to get rid of more than $25 trillion of debt.
Do we have to get back to 155% debt-to-GDP? No, we don't have to. But given what happened after the 1920s, and given what people will probably think about debt when they get through getting hammered this time around, we wouldn't be surprised if we got back there. It seems to be sort of a natural level.
Dan Ross
http://www.BetterBizIdeas.com
From the early 1920s through 1985, the average level of debt-to-GDP in this country was 155%. The highest peak in history (until the recent debt boom) was in the early 1930s, when debt-to-GDP soared to 260% of GDP. In the 1930s, the ratio then cratered to 130%, and it remained close to that level for another half century.
In 1985, we started to borrow, and last year, when we got finished borrowing, we had borrowed 350% of GDP. To get back to that 155%, we need to get rid of more than $25 trillion of debt.
Do we have to get back to 155% debt-to-GDP? No, we don't have to. But given what happened after the 1920s, and given what people will probably think about debt when they get through getting hammered this time around, we wouldn't be surprised if we got back there. It seems to be sort of a natural level.
Dan Ross
http://www.BetterBizIdeas.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
