【~~chukh1~~个人专区】马后炮之作

老散一名

我老散覺得，一天未宣佈大選。
股市就還沒有這樣快的跌到～扑街。

普通的老散都是這樣想的啦。

ee33

武大在等日本升息吗？

origen

A good time for a squeeze

Aug 2nd 2007
From The Economist print edition
Tighter credit conditions are just what the markets need

Aidan Potts

BANKERS and investors might not agree, but the recent sell-off in financial markets is good news. It may, at last, have brought people to their senses. For the past few years, too much money has been lent too cheaply and too easily to too many people, whether it was speculators trying to make a fast buck in Miami condominiums or private-equity groups financing their latest multi-billion-dollar takeover. This wake-up call came too late to save the American housing market from frenzy and subsequent bust. But it may have arrived in time to stop the takeover boom getting out of control—and when the world economy is strong enough to cope with the consequences.
Watch out for the American consumer

The big question now is how serious those consequences are likely to be. The impact on debt markets themselves will be big (see article). As standards are tightened, many of the reckless practices that have become the norm in corporate lending will be abandoned. We will now hear a lot less about firms getting “covenant lite” loans, under which lenders give up their rights to monitor the behaviour of borrowers; or “payment-in-kind notes”, which allow borrowers to substitute more IOUs for interest payments. As investors steer clear of riskier debt, the takeover bids that have pumped this year's stockmarket froth will be curtailed and the most debt-laden borrowers may find it impossible to raise funds.

But most companies will be able to shrug off the credit squeeze. That is partly because creditworthy borrowers still have access to debt (albeit at a higher price), and partly because many firms don't have to borrow. Across the rich world, firms are flush with cash. Their profits have been fat for the past five years and, on average, companies have been funding their capital spending from their own resources. Credit wobbles by themselves, therefore, need not prompt an investment slump.

Other potential victims also seem well-prepared. Emerging-market bonds and shares, for instance, may jitter further. That could spell trouble for a few countries, such as Turkey, which have large current-account deficits (see article). But most emerging markets are in far better shape than they were during the financial crises of the late 1990s. They have restructured their borrowing and often built up vast coffers of foreign-exchange reserves.

The biggest risk to the global economy probably lies with debt-laden American consumers. They have been battered by falling house prices and expensive petrol, and their spending growth has already slowed sharply. A credit squeeze will aggravate the housing bust and falling house prices could drag spending down further. But the rest of the world is growing strongly and unemployment in America remains low, so a recession there is by no means inevitable. What's more, if the economy were to head downhill fast, the Fed, despite its public worries about inflation, has plenty of scope for cutting interest rates.

All told, the credit wobbles so far are likely to have only modest economic consequences. But what if they prompt a broader market meltdown? After all, many of the newfangled instruments that dominate today's debt markets have never been tested in a serious panic. Credit derivatives have probably improved the stability of the global economy by dispersing risk, but it is no longer clear where that risk is being held. And many of the new risk-dispersing instruments are so illiquid that trouble may not emerge for some time. It was several months after the subprime mortgage market turned sour before the scale of the losses at two Bear Stearns hedge funds became clear.

Investors are right to worry about more hedge-fund failures. Yet although these highly leveraged creatures seem to have made credit tremors more sudden and more frequent, these episodes have not been more calamitous. The past 18 months have seen two other credit wobbles, albeit on a smaller scale: one in May 2006 when investors worried about inflation; another in February this year, when fears about subprime mortgages first surfaced. In each case, the most exposed hedge funds had to cut their positions quickly. But thanks to the size and diversity of the hedge-fund industry, others moved in to buy the assets cheaply. The same dynamic seems to be playing out this time too (see article).

For all the hand-wringing about hedge funds and complicated derivatives, the real worry comes from a well-known source—the banks. They will face trouble on several fronts and it is they who could turn a healthy credit squeeze into a nasty crunch. Many banks have already agreed to underwrite deals and are finding that they cannot sell the debt on to investors. One estimate suggests that more than $300 billion of debt is already in the pipeline. Big losses could follow.

Banks will also suffer from their exposure to failed hedge funds, just as some have already been hit by their exposure to the subprime mortgage market. Some banks may have as-yet-undisclosed losses on their own accounts: trading in financial markets has become an increasingly important source of their profits in recent years. If banks' profits collapsed, they would become more reluctant to lend. A bank failure (or the fear thereof) could create a systemic panic.
A plump cushion

Yet although banks are the biggest worry, their balance sheets look fairly solid. America's commercial banks bought back $58 billion-worth of their shares in the year to March, suggesting they have capital to spare. And although banks' shares have tumbled over the past few weeks, analysts are still forecasting higher profits for the year ahead. If the solidity of bank finances is to be tested, the markets have chosen a good time to do so.

Credit cycles are unpredictable creatures. Things could still go badly wrong. So far, though, the financial wobbles, however unnerving, look like a healthy repricing of risk. Markets, much like people, sometimes need a good squeeze.

KelvinLiew

原帖由 chukh1 于 6-8-2007 11:34 AM 发表
我是那个新衣。。看不到，摸不到，嗅不到，听不到，感受不到！
股市完全影响不到我的心情。。但是感情这个老朋友，我真的无良药。。我只好接手它的袭击，拥抱它，感受它。。九月头，我一定逼它出来，因为要 ...

上禮拜的回復－－我在等調整－－1200－1250－－我一定進場買大小－－買上

chukh1

回复 #15 cct2048 的帖子

挑也挑经典一点的啊。。。应该是那句“甘多人死，唔见你死！”

回复 #16 liyen1708 的帖子

不知道佬散的Position 和 cushion level 在那里。。所以不敢讲。。
如果是我，那班傻B 在那里玩了这个又玩那个，我要谢谢他们。。

回复 #17 过路客 的帖子

大哥，我不明白全球经济衰退何来？ 我看不到咧。。
我只知道那班傻B 玩火上身，搞到老板和Banker 信心少了，缩春了。。
都爬山去了，烧不到我。。哈哈！只是“老朋友”来探望我，好几年都没见过了，鸡蛋糕，他们现在才来搞上我。。

回复 #22 ee33 的帖子

不知道。。等那班傻B 逼虎跳墙。。

回复 #24 KelvinLiew 的帖子

恭喜发财。。红包拿来。。

KelvinLiew

原帖由 chukh1 于 6-8-2007 09:23 PM 发表
回复 #15 cct2048 的帖子

挑也挑经典一点的啊。。。应该是那句“甘多人死，唔见你死！”

回复 #16 liyen1708 的帖子

不知道佬散的Position 和 cushion level 在那里。。所以不敢讲。。
如果是我，那班 ...

還早的說－－剛爬另外一個樓的文獻提醒了我－－227－228交易量都破40億－今天才22億－－還早的說－－按那時候的情況

1050是我的基準－結果1091左右就開始回彈了－－看回當時現月貨和四月－六月貨－－這次的基準留意在12月貨－－其開盤以來最高和最低都是我考量的因素－－一但進入這區內1250－1200內－－絕對進場的說

khokhokho

原帖由 chukh1 于 6-8-2007 09:51 PM 发表
最近追看岁月风云。。送你们主题曲。。

ocR0lX1Lb2k

留意歌词吧！
聆听顾老前辈的功力。。各自去寻找自己的信心吧！自己的心理是不能被那班傻B 抓在手掌来玩。。做好人就做到这里。。

日出以后！天空 ...

岁月风云
不錯的電視，我也看了，最讓我在意的就是那一份勇氣，破產了不逃避，反而用自已的資產和個人去做擔保，公司是破產了，但是卻得到銀行和員工的信心，而且反而得到銀行的幫助，東山再起，問今世誰能有這份勇氣，失敗了能面對一切的事情，勇敢的面對人生，岁月风云雖是電視，但是卻教人們要如何去面對失敗的原則。

东邪

好听好听！

过路客

原帖由 chukh1 于 6-8-2007 09:23 PM 发表
回复 #17 过路客 的帖子

大哥，我不明白全球经济衰退何来？ 我看不到咧。。

武大哥，我没有说现在全球经济衰退。那个只是比喻手法，说明本地股市只是跟着大国经济的尾巴走。本地股市的上下是一个趋势。如果＂全球经济真的衰退＂，那本地股市再独好也不能多好。比喻手法罢了。

如果真要讨论全球经济衰退，还早得很。

下一个全球经济衰退，很多专家都在自己的著作中提到。

那种哈佛商学院的我读不懂，只能读比较浅白易懂的，例如 Robert Kiyosaki 里的<<大预言>> （Prophecy）。还有十年左右。

那天我在 MPH 略为翻读另一本书，作者预言全球经济正在起飞，衰退将会发生在 2008-2009 年左右。书名我忘了，但这个预言写在很明显的位置，在书本封面或背面。他大概是比较悲观的一个。

末日博士 Marc Faber 在去年 9 月就预测今天美国 2007 下半年的调整。
http://www.domain-b.com/economy/general/2006/20060914_slowdown.htm

有一段再细读会佩服他的厉害
So it is entirely conceivable that actually the economy is quite resilient and continues to expand and that the recession only happens in the second half of 2007 or 2008. But one thing is very clear, we have a global boom that is characterised by huge imbalances, the imbalances arising from very rapid debt growth in the US leading to essentially excessive consumption, leading to rising trade in current account deficits that are then offset by the surpluses here in Asia.

上面的访问也提到对东南亚经济的影响，值得一读。然后在其他文章里他有提到牛市将继续冲 10-20 年，然后就一个全球衰退。

那么多学者的预测都没说明 2007 会是经济衰退年，我自己怎么敢说。顶多也是调整。

综合几位专家的意见，也许这个牛还会冲 10-20 年左右。然后就有一个全球经济大萧条。

说了这些，只想武兄千万不要误会，我没有说全球经济衰退，前帖提到的只是比喻手法。经济循环有起落，现在讨论全球衰退，还早得很。早得很。早得很。顶多是调整。

988fulot10

,,,,还有很长的路要走,,

liyen1708

有看过一本书有讲和分崩离析(英文的翻译,忘了书名)(写的人是有名的分析家)
2009年,2010是重要年.
国际的经济走向,如果不理想.
会是所讲的萧条来临

pcmont

大家怎么不是在天下聊天了meh!?

cct2048

The Next Bubble  （ Harry S. Dent ）？

由美國哈里&#8231;登特（Harry S. Dent）所著的《下一個大泡泡》（The Next Bubble）一書指出，根據歷史數據分析，其實最具預測經濟和股巿（包括樓巿）能力的分析工具，乃是掌握人口和技術周期的變化，皆因推動長期經濟的發展，人口變動和技術進步才是最根本的因素，而息口可能只是追隨這兩項因素而波動，因此息口變動對經濟以至股巿和樓巿所造成影響，中長線而言並非如一般分析所指的具有決定性。
《下一個大泡泡》指出，現時美國的科技業（電腦、互聯網和寬頻等）發展猶如上世紀20年代時的汽車業，早前的回落(00 -02年科網股災)只可視之大牛巿的中途調整，加上美國「嬰兒潮」要待2009至2010年才踏入他們的消費和職業最高峰期，所以美股會待至2009至 2010年才達到近數十年的頂峰，行業領導者的股價可較上次調整低潮時攀升10倍或以上，然後出現如1929年美國股災，以至隨後出現的大蕭條等預測。

[ 本帖最后由 cct2048 于 6-8-2007 10:33 PM 编辑 ]

liyen1708

原帖由 chukh1 于 6-8-2007 10:41 PM 发表


如果你们都不shoot 我，容许我疯言疯语，我可以说我的推算就是2010 年是低点， 接下来是2013～2014 年之间。。
我已经为自己算好了每个跳跃的据点。。
我不能够说的很清楚，是因为不想连累他人，自己的分 ...

谢谢你的发表.
西方多个分析家,
一直都不看好未来三年.
而只能讲是,亚洲的强大,也对他们不利.

过路客

原帖由 liyen1708 于 6-8-2007 02:04 PM 发表

过路客你好
我小女子对国家经济不很懂
马股市,如果没有大選为后顿.
9mp..的工程都不能做到最好.

那样股市还能看好吗?
谢谢

现在很多女性对国家经济的了解和掌权超越许多大男人。中行的阿头是女的，越来越多银行聘用女 CEO 。唯一的马华妇女组副部长就掌管着财政部。今非昔比，所以小女子，请别客气了。多数你懂的比我多，我只懂那么一丁点。

本地股市，要以大選作后顿，其实是很可悲的做法。换句话说，良好基础的长期经济就不要梦想了。我们只能期望政府会对人民施舍些什么小糖果。

无论如何，单靠派糖果，是短期的作法。降低公司、个人税务，一贯的大选前礼物，也许可以提高国内短期的市场需求。但是长期下来，政府少了一笔收入，就别说如何达到经济预算正数，甚至只要减少预算赤字就好了，如何是好？

整顿好内需，刺激各领域的经济发展，才是长期的作法。但是有固打制挡在前头，能跑多远？
外资会因为这些大选前预算案而进来吗？

如果真的能够刺激经济起飞，为何一定要等到大选前才进行？相信我，如果可以，政府会想尽办法让国内经济向上攀升，哪怕只是那么一点。南部 20 年 4000 亿的依斯干达计划，北部 20 年的 1700 亿的经济走廊计划，哪个不需要外资来帮忙扶托？只要有哪个公司肯带进几千万的外资，也许政府会邀请完所有媒体开 party 办新闻报道大肆庆祝一番。如果是这么容易就好了。

前任首相次的 MSC 计划，搞了十多年，连个像样的公司都没有，多少 MSC 公司拿了政府多少年的 subsidy 资助金，表现最好的顶多在 mesdaq 浮沉。有些公司闹假账风波、炒作自己公司股票。

在本地实行大计划，需要各方，包括政治的配合。

如果不加强真正的国民团结意识，一味搞民族政治，大选和什么第几个大马计划，又能怎样？我们能期望什么？都是一个自我安慰的方式罢了。

我们的经济还是夹着大国的尾巴跑。

liyen1708

原帖由 过路客 于 6-8-2007 10:54 PM 发表


现在很多女性对国家经济的了解和掌权超越许多大男人。中行的阿头是女的，越来越多银行聘用女 CEO 。唯一的马华妇女组副部长就掌管着财政部。今非昔比，所以小女子，请别客气了。多数你懂的比我多，我只懂那 ...

过路客,
谢谢你的分析和看法.
一直有看过你写的贴,很好的看法.
有远见的看全面经济
让我学会更多.

大海无量

对于未来经济趋势（１０－１５年） 本人看起 ：
１）。 这一波其实是延续 在 １９９７ 中断的由新兴市场引领的 经济成长。
２）。西方国家对于中国共产党的经济能力过分低估。很多学术性的理论都没有合理的估计中国的经济能力。
３）。本人极度看扁 ROBERT KIYOSAKI。 他看跌老子我就看起！！！

１０年后 新加坡应该有 ７０００ － ８０００ 点。
１０年后 香港  应该有 65000 － 75000 点。
１０年后 马来西亚 无法估计，因为不懂大蕃薯那吉会干些什么出来。
看我准还是 ROBERT KIYOSAKI 准。

tatuto

水哦。。人真的必须为自己做的决定承担。。投资失败也是。。

回复 #31 过路客 的帖子

嗯。。我想，新兴市场像中国和印度依然可以让国际经济好走一段时间。可是这些年变化太快必然会让一些国家受到冲击，调整也这样来（不一定是股市调整）。。适应之后，就会有另一翻情景。。

cct2048

原帖由 过路客 于 6-8-2007 10:54 PM 发表


现在很多女性对国家经济的了解和掌权超越许多大男人。中行的阿头是女的，越来越多银行聘用女 CEO 。唯一的马华妇女组副部长就掌管着财政部。今非昔比，所以小女子，请别客气了。多数你懂的比我多，我只懂那 ...

客兄，
你当马来政权是中国政府 ....
马来人胸无大志只求在回教世界出些风头
就满足了

origen

Ben Stein, How Not to Ruin Your Life
How Speculators Exploit Market Fears

by Ben Stein



Posted on Thursday, August 2, 2007, 12:00AM

Here's a fact: The speculators and hedge fund managers who run today's stock market need market volatility in order to make money.

They can't make enough money if the market stays flat or moves only a bit, so they like extreme and unexpected price movements. They especially like sudden, surprise movements down, when they can make money off stocks they borrow and sell -- or, as they say, "sell short."

Money Lust Satisfied

That's what's been happening the past couple of weeks. But it's not interesting to say that the speculators are whipping the market around to satisfy their money lust. So the speculators themselves make up reasons for why the market is fluctuating, flog those reasons to the media, and then profit if some other speculators believe the jive reasons and jump in the way the manipulators want them to.

Supposedly, the market is "correcting" because of worries about the housing slowdown, and also because of fears that the debt markets that support mergers and acquisitions is drying up.

These are interesting theories, and people who don't know a lot about the stock market or the economy might find them beguiling. What follows are a few truths that show how shallow these "reasons" for the stock market moves are.

Housing a Theory

Yes, the housing market has slowed from a spectacular bubble level to a simply pretty good level. Housing sales and starts are now about what they were in 2002, and no one thought we were in a housing depression then.

In any event, housing is only about 5 percent of the economy. If it falls by 15 percent, that would represent a fall-off of about .75 percent. That's not trivial, but it's also not the stuff of which recessions are made.

The fact is that there is no recession. The economy is suffering from a labor shortage, not a surplus of unemployment. The Fed is worried about excess demand, not slack demand.

Corporate profits set new records every day. Whatever's happening in residential sales and building is simply not slowing down the economy. Why should a Boeing or a Merck or a Pfizer have any reaction to housing at all? Because the speculators sell everything they can when nervousness sets in -- and for no other reason.

A Minor Major Mess

Subprime is a mess. But it's a small mess. Subprime mortgages account for roughly 20 percent of mortgages even in the most heavily exposed states. About 20 percent of them are delinquent in some way. That's 4 percent of mortgages.

Of these, maybe half, or 2 percent, will go into foreclosure. There will be roughly 50 percent recovery on sale of these. This is a loss of 1 percent in the mortgage market -- a sum the lenders have already made many times over because of the hefty fees on those deals. In the context of the size of the U.S. financial sector, it's nothing.

And why should a crisis in subprime drive down stocks in Mexico and Thailand? Again, because the speculators seek to create panic to make money by selling short, and they sell short everything.

There's simply no connection between subprime and developed or developing nations' stocks. This by itself shows the thin context of the selling wave late last month.

Money's Still Cheap

What about the supposed drying up of loans for mergers and acquisitions by private equity firms? Well, here's a good, simple test of just how valid that explanation is for stock market moves: The majority of private equity takeovers are financed with junk debt.

If there really were a major shortage of funds for these deals, the interest rate on the junk would skyrocket. Instead, while the rate has risen by about 150 basis points in the past month, the spread between junk and investment grade is now about 290 basis points, according to leading junk analyst Martin Fridson.

This is a lot lower than the year-end average of the spread from 2002 to 2006, and far below the almost 800 basis point spread during a true interest-rate crunch like the one after the tech meltdown in 2000-2002.

So that's phony, too. Interest rates have risen, but not anything like what they've done in real crises. And besides, the Dow fell by about 550 points the week before last, yet not one of the Dow stocks is involved as either acquiror or acquiree in a private equity deal.

In short, money is no longer virtually free the way it was for private equity deals in the past year. But it's not expensive by historical standards, either.

Spreading the Fear

In other words, it's all the speculators trying to panic us so their sell programs will make money. And they'll make money as long as they can spread their panic. When they can't do that any longer, they'll work the long side -- and make up reasons for that, too.

In the meantime, the economy is strong. Profits are great, and interest rates are low and will stay that way. Don't sell. With all the shrieking about the market, it only fell to what it was about five weeks ago -- and we didn't think we were poor then.

So let the speculators shout "fire." As of right now, they're not blowing anything but smoke.