Moutai has fallen more badly recently.
The market generally believes that there has been an important change in fundamentals.
Let's take a broader view and look at the biggest drawdown in various industries from the 2021 highs to the present.
Except for a very small number of industries, it has generally reached more than 50%.
The miserable ones reached more than 70%.
Could it be that so many industries have undergone fundamental fundamental changes in fundamentals?
We can look at those sectors where the maximum drawdown is less than 50%, for example, banks, coal, utilities, oil and petrochemicals.
Their common feature is the low degree of institutional heavy positions!
The greater reason for Moutai's decline in this round is the institution's balanced position.
Of course, there will be all kinds of ghost stories along the way.
And people are more willing to believe in ghost stories!!
First, the beginning and end of the track
The investment of public funds in the track began in 2012.
Why 2012?
Because at the beginning of 2012, the number of A-share listed companies reached 2,160.
This is a watershed, in the past, there was more money and less stocks, and when the bull market came, the whole market rose together.
However, as the number of listed companies increases, there is less money and more stocks, and the probability of a full-blown bull market is decreasing.
So many people are saying that they bought the wrong style and went short.
This sentence is so lethal that it will make people constantly guess what the main line market will be in the future.
But what are the chances that you will be able to guess correctly?
Since no one knows in advance what the future will be, it is extremely risky to bet on an industry.
For ordinary people, the best way is to balance the configuration, which will not be short.
Of course, the disadvantage of balanced allocation is that your portfolio is less elastic and not exciting enough.
For agencies, it's a different story.
Because they are not trying to make money for themselves, but to attract the people to buy their products.
Small elasticity is definitely not attractive.
So they're going to send a lot of products and cover all industries.
It will even cover very subdivided industries.
The more you break it down, the lower the probability of winning, and once you win, the increase is quite impressive.
It doesn't matter if the winning rate is low, anyway, after sending so many products, there is always something that can be bet on.
Finally, you can take out the product you bet on and play with marketing.
And those funds with balanced allocation, although the long-term performance is very good, and the drawdown is small, the scale has not been able to rise, and the people just don't want to see it.
Second, the ultimate huddle of the track
When an organization does business in this way, it will bring the ultimate group results.
1. The track will be sought after by the people, and the scale will expand rapidly;
2. The expansion of the scale will bring more incremental funds to the track, making the track rise more violently;
3. All fund companies will issue more products on this track to attract more funds to push up the market;
4. The market will skyrocket to the extreme, at least two or three times the increase;
5. The follow-up funds are insufficient, and the plunge begins to be staged.
This kind of track investment is very harmful to the people.
Because the people are pouring in in at the hottest time, and then welcome the plunge, which is often a 70% plunge.
Such a big drop obviously has an irrational element in it.
That said, when valuations fall to low levels, it's not enjoyable enough.
Institutional rebalancing brought about a stampede on each other, and a very violent final fall.
The first round of track investment was the TMT market that began in 2013, which rose several times, and then fell for more than 3 years, with a decline of more than 70%.
Then there was the wave from 2019 to 2021.
New energy, medicine, and liquor are all huge gains.
New energy and medicine have fallen out of the.
Due to the high growth rate of liquor, it has resolved a lot of valuation bubbles in more than three years, making it fall less.
However, it still did not escape the killing and falling brought by the last round of institutional repositioning.
Valuations of food and beverages have now fallen below 2018.
The proportion of institutional holdings has also fallen to the lowest level in the last five years, which is lower than the proportion of food and beverage in the CSI 300.
Then the pressure brought by institutional rebalancing may be almost released.
3. Will there be a group in the future?
To understand this, we must first define what a huddle is.
Some people say that the banks are huddled together right now.
So, what do you think is meant by huddles?
A lot of people don't even know the definition and go to the hat.
There are two ways to define huddles:
1. The proportion of the free float market value of the industry in A-shares;
2. The proportion of the industry in institutional positions.
At present, the proportion of banks in the allocation of institutions is 9.43%, the proportion of banks in the CSI 300 is 13.13%, and the proportion of banks in the CSI All-Share Index is 7.37%.
Everyone judges for themselves, whether this can be called a group.
At least in my opinion, this can only be called short-term trading overcrowding, and it is still far from huddles.
On the other hand, the proportion of power equipment in the institution soared from less than 1% to 16.38%.
You must know that at the peak of the boom, the profit of power equipment accounted for less than 5% of A-shares.
Although the market value cannot be absolutely equated with profits, it should not be too exaggerated.
As for what kind of ratio is called huddle, you can define it yourself, and everyone's opinion may be different.
Will there be a huddle in the future?
Absolutely.
It's just that the phenomenon of extreme huddles will not be so frequent and will not be so extreme.
Why?
Because the extreme huddle is mainly caused by institutions.
At present, regulators are using various means to dismantle the grouping behavior of institutions.
I've written a lot about this, so I won't repeat it here.
If the mechanism is controlled, the phenomenon of extreme huddle will improve a lot.
Public offering group, private placement and quantitative grouping.
The plunge of the small ticket this time is also inseparable from the huddle.
In fact, there is no need to supervise and take action, the group will eventually disintegrate, and the later it disintegrates, the greater the lethality.
At present, the position of the institution is in a relatively balanced state in a stage, and the debt of the group is almost repaid.
A-shares owe a lot of debt, so the continuous shock is in the process of repaying the debt.
The reward is voluntary, and 1 cent is silently supported, haha!
Friends who like my articles are welcome to my namesake public account: Wisdom and Wisdom!