The Angelina Jolie Stock Index, Decoded
I'm loving Investopedia's (somewhat exhausting) list of investing buzzwords. A few of my favorites:
Angelina Jolie Stock Index: created by Fred Fuld of Stockerblog, this index is made up of companies linked to the actress. Think stocks of movie studios and producers: Sony, Viacom, and Time Warner. "Because Jolie's films usually earn large box-office revenues, the companies that produce these movies should have higher profits," says Investopedia. There may be something to this: According to Stockerblog (via Seeking Alpha), indexes that track three celebrities—Gisele Bündchen, Heidi Klum, and Angelina Jolie—have outperformed the Dow over the past six months.
Aspirin-Count Theory: hypothesizes that stock prices and aspirin are inversely related. The theory, which has never been formally tested, says that as stock prices fall, more people are popping painkillers to get through the day.
Back Up the Truck: taking a large position in a stock. "Typically, when someone is willing to back up the truck on a financial asset, this implies that they're extremely bullish on that asset's performance." Lately, Bill Gates has been backing up the truck on Canadian National Railways and Mexican stocks, Ken Heebner is loading up on commodity stocks, and Carl Icahn is way into biotech.
Big Uglies: old companies in gritty industries like mining and steel. In other words: unsexy investments.
Drill-Bit Stock: shares that trade for less than a dollar. If you're intrigued by drill bits, check out Motley Fool's "Why We Love Wild Penny Stocks."
Gunslinger: a "high-strung portfolio manager who, looking for high returns, invests in very high-risk stock." Ken Heebner comes to mind.
One-Night-Stand Investment: a brief love affair with a stock. According to Investopedia, it's when you buy a stock with the intention of holding it for the long term, but in the harsh morning light, you panic and sell.
Vulture Fund: buys securities in distressed investments, such as high-yield bonds in or near default. "As the name implies, these funds are like circling vultures patiently waiting to pick over the remains of a rapidly weakening company. The goal is high returns at bargain prices."
Tags: stocks | stock market
Tools:
Share
|
| Comments (5) | Print
Reader Comments
liars and frauds
First of all, Seeking Alpha is not a reputable financial blog, it is not scientific at all, and it has a reputation as a repository for articles by promoters, pumpers, and dumpers.
But if you really want to go there, maybe you should have actually read the story:
"Gisele Bündchen's index was up 1.6%, Heidi Klum's index was down only 0.7%, and Angelina Jolie's index was down 10%, yet all were better than the Dow, which was down 10.3%."
In other words, Angelina Jolie's Index is a loser among celebrities. She was beat out SIGNIFICANTLY by Gisele and Heidi. Her difference with the Dow was not statistically significant. But given the unreliability and bias of Seeking Alpha bloggers, did she really beat out the Dow?
I just checked the facts on the Dow, and contrary to the author's assertion, it was not down 10.3%. Price as of 2/18/08: 12,348. Closing price 8/18/08 (the date of the article): 11,479. That is only a 7.0% drop. The Dow beat the Angelina Jolie Index, by a significant margin.
That is assuming the author was even being honest about the numbers for the Angelina Jolie Index. I notice he didn't include St. John's in his list of Angelina Jolie stocks.
In other words, Angelina Jolie is still a big loser.
What about St. John?
Trevor Nielosen must be working overtime putting out these stories for Jolie . How much did you get paid to publish this disinformation. Jolie is a sinking ship. What about St: John? Ey? a bit hard to explain, Jolie SUNK their stock. She is POISON.
Trevor Nielsen is pimping Jolie out like he is a used car salesman.
Hard work but somebody have to do it since she aint selling herself, she has to be shoved down peoples throat , for them to be able to swallow her.
Add your thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.advertisement

