Kundenrezensionen


58 Rezensionen
5 Sterne:
 (37)
4 Sterne:
 (8)
3 Sterne:
 (7)
2 Sterne:    (0)
1 Sterne:
 (6)
 
 
 
 
 
Durchschnittliche Kundenbewertung
Sagen Sie Ihre Meinung zu diesem Artikel
Eigene Rezension erstellen
 
 

Die hilfreichste positive Rezension
Die hilfreichste kritische Rezension


2 von 2 Kunden fanden die folgende Rezension hilfreich
5.0 von 5 Sternen Excellent book, but not for everyone
If you're looking for a get-rich-quick book,
don't bother. While this book will help you
become a smarter investor, the goal isn't so
much to convince you that certain methods of
picking securities are superior to others as it is to
provide a solid education in financial market
theory.

It's a long book, and written with an...
Am 21. September 1997 veröffentlicht

versus
6 von 7 Kunden fanden die folgende Rezension hilfreich
1.0 von 5 Sternen Don't read the later editions!
Forget this version. Instead, go to the library and check out the 1996 version, which at least discusses 'pork bellies' (derrivatives and option trading), if too little. Instead of taking the cue from the collapse (10/98) of Long Term Capital Management and producing something new and more interesting, Malkiel keeps on giving us warmed over versions of the same old EMH...
Veröffentlicht am 21. Dezember 2003 von Professor Joseph L. McCauley


‹ Zurück | 1 26 | Weiter ›
Hilfreichste Bewertungen zuerst | Neueste Bewertungen zuerst

2 von 2 Kunden fanden die folgende Rezension hilfreich
5.0 von 5 Sternen Excellent book, but not for everyone, 21. September 1997
Von Ein Kunde
If you're looking for a get-rich-quick book,
don't bother. While this book will help you
become a smarter investor, the goal isn't so
much to convince you that certain methods of
picking securities are superior to others as it is to
provide a solid education in financial market
theory.

It's a long book, and written with an academic
style that some people will find dry and boring,
but Malkiel successfully avoids turning it into
a textbook. He manages to present a wealth of
information about *why* markets behave the way
they do without getting bogged down in the math.

If you've read some of the other books on
investing, and are interested enough to want
to look deeper behind the scenes, this book
is well worth your time.
Helfen Sie anderen Kunden bei der Suche nach den hilfreichsten Rezensionen 
War diese Rezension für Sie hilfreich? Ja Nein


6 von 7 Kunden fanden die folgende Rezension hilfreich
1.0 von 5 Sternen Don't read the later editions!, 21. Dezember 2003
Rezension bezieht sich auf: A Random Walk Down Wall Street: The Best Investment Advice for the New Century (Taschenbuch)
Forget this version. Instead, go to the library and check out the 1996 version, which at least discusses 'pork bellies' (derrivatives and option trading), if too little. Instead of taking the cue from the collapse (10/98) of Long Term Capital Management and producing something new and more interesting, Malkiel keeps on giving us warmed over versions of the same old EMH (efficient market hypothesis), which many researchers by now know is wrong (Fisher Black & Co. knew it in the eighties). Malkiel's beloved 'back of the envelope' calculation showing large how stock price changes can be caused by small interest rate changes is also irrelevant, because it assumes that dividends determine stock prices, and everyone in the market knows that dividends haven't mattered in the last ten years, at least. The 1996 edition (3 stars) is informative. There, you can learn what beta is, and the example discussed of using covered calls as a conservative strategy is also nice.
Helfen Sie anderen Kunden bei der Suche nach den hilfreichsten Rezensionen 
War diese Rezension für Sie hilfreich? Ja Nein


1 von 1 Kunden fanden die folgende Rezension hilfreich
5.0 von 5 Sternen Financial Education, 31. Juli 2000
Rezension bezieht sich auf: A Random Walk Down Wall Street: The Best Investment Advice for the New Century (Taschenbuch)
I learned a great deal from this book about investing. For all the technical financial subjects that are addressed in this book, Mr Malkiel manages to make them interesting through clear and often humourous explanations. He makes a strong case for an investment strategy of "buy-and-hold" as well as for Index Funds. Whether or not you agree with that strategy, there is still quite a bit of value in this book. Mr Malkiel thoroughly presents the two prevailing investment theories. First, he explains Value Investing whose proponents include S. Eiot Guild, John B Williams, Benjamin Graham and Warren Buffet. Then, he explains a form of investing which relies on Mass Psychology which has been enunciated by Lord John M Keynes. Finally, Mr Malkiel articulates a simple investing strategy which accomodates both of these views. I feel much more confident that I am able to make proper investment decisions after reading this book. If you are interested in financial investments, and particularly, the Stock Market, this is an interesting book for you.
Helfen Sie anderen Kunden bei der Suche nach den hilfreichsten Rezensionen 
War diese Rezension für Sie hilfreich? Ja Nein


1 von 1 Kunden fanden die folgende Rezension hilfreich
5.0 von 5 Sternen Beware of other reviews especially those aweful chartist, 5. Oktober 1999
Von Ein Kunde
Beware of the one star reviews, its clear that these people are technical analysts. They don't sell advice, they sell commissions. Technicalist try to make money by a encouraging high turnover e.g. stirring excitement, lending easy credit etc. etc. You just have to read this book to understand. My views? well the maket is not totally random its more "deterministic" meaning not completely random. This personal idiosycracy I acquired from chaos theory literature. On investing- you really have no choice, if you think about it, you have to put your money where you can earn the highest rate of return possible and a savings account is surely not going beat the return on stocks and bonds or a portfolio of both. Plus whatever happens to corporate earnings (if they go down) you still have compound interest working for you if you save long enough. And that will beat the return on a savings account.
Helfen Sie anderen Kunden bei der Suche nach den hilfreichsten Rezensionen 
War diese Rezension für Sie hilfreich? Ja Nein


5.0 von 5 Sternen The most important book on stock markets ever written, 2. Juni 2000
In RANDOM WALK DOWN WALL STREET, Burton Malkiel sets out the basics of modern corporate financial theory in a way accessible to the law reader. As a teacher of corporate finance to law students, I have recommended this book to my students for over 10 years. Numerous alumni have told me that was the best advise they got in law school (a sad commentary on American legal education, but that's another story).
Two basic theories are expounded here. First, modern portfolio theory (MPT), which elucidates the relationship between risk and diversification. Because investors are risk averse, they must be paid for bearing risk, which is done through a higher expected rate of return. As such, we speak of a risk premium: the difference in the rate of return paid on a risky investment and the rate of return on a risk-free investment. In the real world, we measure the risk premium associated with a particular investment by subtracting the short-term Treasury bill interest rate from the risky investment's rate of return. The risk premium, however, will only reflect certain risks. MPT differentiates between two types of risk: unsystematic and systematic. Unsystematic risk might be regarded as firm-specific risk: The risk that the CEO will have a heart attack; the risk that the firm's workers will go out on strike; the risk that the plant will burn down. These are all firm-specific risks. Systematic risk might be regarded as market risk: risks that affect all firms to one degree or another: changes in market interest rates; election results; recessions; and so forth. MPT acknowledges that risk and return are related: investors will demand a higher rate of return from riskier investments. In other words, a corporation issuing junk bonds must pay a higher rate of return than a company issuing investment grade bonds. Yet, portfolio theory claims that issuers of securities need not compensate investors for unsystematic risk. In other words, investors will not demand a risk premium to reflect firm-specific risks. Why? There is a mathematical proof, which relates to variance and standard deviation, but Malkiel explains it in a way that is quite intuitive. Investors can eliminate unsystematic risk by diversifying their portfolio. Diversification eliminates unsystematic risk, because things tend to come out in the wash. One firm's plant burns down, but another hit oil. Thus, even though the actual rate of return earned on a particular investment is likely to diverge from the expected return, the actual return on a well-diversified portfolio is less likely to diverge from the expected return. Bottom line? If you hold a nondiversified portfolio (say all Internet stocks), you are bearing risks for which the market will not compensate you. You may do well for a while, but it will eventually catch up to you (as it has recently for tech stocks).
The second pillar of Malkiel's analysis is the efficient capital markets theory (ECMH). The fundamental thesis of the ECMH is that, in an efficient market, current prices always and fully reflect all relevant information about the commodities being traded. In other words, in an efficient market, commodities are never overpriced or underpriced: the current price will be an accurate reflection of the market's consensus as to the commodity's value. Of course, there is no real world condition like this, but the securities markets are widely believed to be close to this ideal. There are three forms of ECMH, each of which has relevance for investors: **Weak form: All information concerning historical prices is fully reflected in the current price. Price changes in securities are serially independent or random. What do I mean by "random"? Suppose the company makes a major oil find. Do I mean that we can't predict whether the stock will go up or down? No: obviously stock prices generally go up on good news and down on bad news. What randomness means is that investors can not profit by using past prices to predict future prices. If the Weak Form of the hypothesis is true, technical analysis (a/k/a charting)-the attempt to predict future prices by looking at the past history of stock prices-can not be a profitable trading strategy over time. And, indeed, empirical studies have demonstrated that securities prices do move randomly and, moreover, have shown that charting is not a long-term profitable trading strategy. ** Semi-Strong Form: Current prices incorporate not only all historical information but also all current public information. As such, investors can not expect to profit from studying available information because the market will have already incorporated the information accurately into the price. As Malkiel demonstrates, this version of the ECMH also has been well established by empirical studies. Implication: if you spend time and effort studying stocks and companies, you are wasting your time. If you pay somebody to do it for you, you are wasting your money. ** Strong Form holds that prices incorporate all information, publicly available or not. This version must be (and is) false, or insider trading would be profitable.
In the last section of RANDOM WALK, Malkiel distills all this theory into an eminently practical life-cycle guide to investing. As one may infer, it has two basic principles. First, diversification. Second, no one systematically earns positive abnormal returns from trading in securities; in other words, over time nobody outperforms the market. Mutual funds may outperform the market in 1 year, but they may falter in another. Once adjustment is made for risks, every reputable empirical study finds that mutual funds generally don't outperform the market over time. Malkiel's recommendation: put your money into no-load passively managed index mutual funds. You will see lots of anonymous reviews of RANDOM WALK claiming Malkiel is wrong. Odds are, most of those folks are have either been misled by the long bull market or, even more likely, are brokers or other market professionals who make a living selling active portfolio management. In sum, buy it, read it, believe it, and practice it.
Helfen Sie anderen Kunden bei der Suche nach den hilfreichsten Rezensionen 
War diese Rezension für Sie hilfreich? Ja Nein


1.0 von 5 Sternen Malkiel's Words Boost Market Inefficiency, 6. April 2000
How interesting that an efficient market theory advocates' advice only helps create market inefficiencies! By urging everyone to buy into passively-managed index funds, Malkiel only helps spur widespread indiscriminate capital allocation by America's investors. If the American public, en masse, turned to index funds, it would create an overpriced market in general through the massive pouring of investor capital into arbitrary lists of stocks (like the Dow, the S&P and the Russell 2000).
There is a fundamental reason people invest: to be paid for delaying their gratification. Why does Malkiel only briefly discuss the work of Williams, Fisher and Graham, and not even touch upon the true champion of fundamental analysis, Warren Buffett? The long-term strategy they proposed and used (all are among the most successful investors of all time; Graham and pupil Buffett rank 4th and 1st, respectively) has produced the most consistent and profitable returns of any method ever.
Malkiel's work is not completely without merits (he does debunk the authority of high-profile "analysts" on Wall St. whose aim is not to give you good advice, but to produce profits from selling something to the investor), but the core of his work, Efficient Market Theory, doesn't hold water, especially in light of the spectacular results fundamental analysis has provided generations of investors. Malkiel misses the boat by not impressing upon the reader the fact that stocks are shares of a company; by buying them, you become an owner. Burton just sees them as scraps of paper. Go ahead, take a random walk. You'll do just as well as the average investor. But the whole crux of investing is being better than average. Burton proves his professorship to be a misnomer by urging millions of investors to pursue mediocrity.
Helfen Sie anderen Kunden bei der Suche nach den hilfreichsten Rezensionen 
War diese Rezension für Sie hilfreich? Ja Nein


3.0 von 5 Sternen Almost Entirely True, 14. Januar 2000
Von Ein Kunde
I will not poke fun at Burton Malkiel. I shall not mention the fact that he is an ivory tower academic or anything of the sort. I actually agree with Mr.Malkiel's supposition to a great extent, the markets are random. To an extent. I am simply amazed at how "professionals" consistently manage to underperform the market, it takes real skill to do this. By professionals I mean: mutual fund, hedge fund and CTA managers. Looking at the credentials of many of these fellows makes one think that they would be able to trounce the S&P with minimal effort; however, the only thing being trounced are the over inflated egos residing on Wall Street. Some hedge funds and CTA's employ strategies so complex that only a rocket scientist can decipher them, in fact I am sure a not so small number of rocket scientists have been utilized to come up with more than a few mind numbing "methodologies", all spectacular successes as everyone has figured out by now. The average person should stick with indexing in the form of SPYDERS, this is the best way to replicate the S&P 500 index with the lowest cost structure. The above average person however, has a panoply of choices. Statistical probabilities suggest that there always will be a number of individuals that outperform the market. Sadly, I am afraid that followers of the random-walk theory are looking at the wrong probability. What they should look at instead, is the probability of certain individuals or organizations significantly outperforming the market over a very large period of time. The probability of this occurence is very nearly zero. I can list several people that have produced above average returns in a consistent manner even under the impostion of 25% incentive fees. I should also state that these managers could probably compound at greater rates were it not for most investor's lack of tolerance for downside volatility. Renaissance Technologies has been compounding at over 40% a year with no losing years for the last 10 years and I should also mention that it is a huge huge billion dollar fund. Bill Eckhardt has been compounding at around 30% per annum for the same amount of time. So has Bill Dunn's World Monetary Assets program, another billion dollar juggernaut. George Soros has returned on average, 25% a year for the last 20 years. I can name at least 20 to 30 other investor/traders with significantly above average track records. The point I am trying to make is that capital markets are not entirely random. There will always be outliers, no one can deny this. The fact that these outliers reproduce their results with such an uncanny persistence is another story altogether.
Helfen Sie anderen Kunden bei der Suche nach den hilfreichsten Rezensionen 
War diese Rezension für Sie hilfreich? Ja Nein


3.0 von 5 Sternen Almost Entirely True, 14. Januar 2000
I will not poke fun at Burton Malkiel. I shall not mention the fact that he is an ivory tower academic or anything of the sort. I actually agree with Mr.Malkiel to a great extent, the markets are random, to an extent. I am simply amazed at how "professionals" consistently manage to underperform the market, it takes real skill to do this. By professionals I mean: mutual funds, hedge funds and CTA funds. Looking at the credentials of many of these managers makes one think that they would trounce the S&P with minimal effort; but they do not. Some hedge funds and CTA's employ strategies so complex that only a rocket scientist can decipher them, in fact I am sure a not so small number of rocket scientists have been utilized to come up with more than a few mind numbing "methodologies". The average person should stick with indexing in the form of SPYDERS, this is the best way to mimic the S&P with the lowest cost structure. The above average person however, has a panoply of choices. Statistical probabilities suggest that there always will be a number of individuals that outperform the market. However I am afraid that followers of the random-walk theory are looking at the wrong probability. What they should look at instead, is the probability of certain individuals or organizations significantly outperforming the market over a very large period of time. The probability of this occurence is almost zero. I can list several people that have produced above average returns in a consistent manner even under the impostion of 25% incentive fees. I should also state that these managers could probably compound at greater rates were it not for most investor's lack of tolerance for downside volatility. Renaissance Technologies has been compounding at over 40% a year with no losing years for the last 10 years and I should also mention that it is a huge huge billion dollar fund. Bill Eckhardt has been compounding at around 30% per annum for the same amount of time. So has Bill Dunn's World Monetary Assets program, again another billion dollar juggernaut. George Soros has returned on average, 25% a year for the last 20 years. I can name at least 20 to 30 other investor/traders with significantly above average track records. The point I am trying to make is that capital markets are not entirely random. There will always be outliers, no one can deny this. The fact that these outliers reproduce their results with such an uncanny persistence is another story altogether.
Helfen Sie anderen Kunden bei der Suche nach den hilfreichsten Rezensionen 
War diese Rezension für Sie hilfreich? Ja Nein


3 von 4 Kunden fanden die folgende Rezension hilfreich
4.0 von 5 Sternen One of the few investment books worth reading, 3. Juli 2000
Rezension bezieht sich auf: A Random Walk Down Wall Street: The Best Investment Advice for the New Century (Taschenbuch)
Concise, thorough, and fair: Malakiel lays out efficient markets theory (the economics of information), and debunks anyone who claims to have a "special edge" on the markets.
Sure, real world markets have frictions. The important question is not "Does the real world differ from the world of the model?" but "Does it differ enough to make a difference?" Malakiel argues that it doesn't differ enough to make a difference.
Some of Malakiel's examples are a bit antiquated, and anyone with a strong math/finance background will feel as if they're sitting in the dunce class during some of Malakiel's explanations. And the very last part of the book, where he gives investment recommendations, seems to contradict the main part of his theory: he claims that some investments (basically, contrarianism) can consistently beat the market! Huh?
Overall, however, this is an extremely valuable, and even enjoyable book.
Helfen Sie anderen Kunden bei der Suche nach den hilfreichsten Rezensionen 
War diese Rezension für Sie hilfreich? Ja Nein


5.0 von 5 Sternen Buy this book, 8. Juli 1999
Von Ein Kunde
Except for perhaps a personal finance book, this book should be the first book bought by a beginning investor. Although the author makes it clear up-front what his views of the best investing options are, this book presents theories and facts in an understandable manner that will lead you to form your own conclusions.
No matter if you think you want to day trade, buy and hold, buy mutual funds, buy bonds, or buy an index fund, this book will give you an invaluable understanding of the market, and after reading it you will be in a much better position to plot your investing future.
As for those that call it academic BS, the book presents the results of actual studies and has an extensive bibliography, you are asked to take nothing forgranted. The book acknowledges that some people do beat the market, and will give you information that will allow you to come to your own conclusions about how you would best invest your money.
This is not a how-to book but a book that gives a well-rounded understanding of the market. It will not explain all the various types of stock options, for example, and if after reading this you want to buy options, there are plenty of detailed books on that. You are well advised to read this first though.
Helfen Sie anderen Kunden bei der Suche nach den hilfreichsten Rezensionen 
War diese Rezension für Sie hilfreich? Ja Nein


‹ Zurück | 1 26 | Weiter ›
Hilfreichste Bewertungen zuerst | Neueste Bewertungen zuerst

Dieses Produkt

A Random Walk Down Wall Street: The Best Investment Advice for the New Century
A Random Walk Down Wall Street: The Best Investment Advice for the New Century von Burton G. Malkiel (Taschenbuch - 16. August 2000)
EUR 15,07
Nicht auf Lager. Bestellen Sie jetzt und wir liefern, sobald der Artikel verfügbar ist
In den Einkaufswagen Auf meinen Wunschzettel
Nur in den Rezensionen zu diesem Produkt suchen