-
第 31 楼 / 枪枪与玫瑰
- 时间: 2011-8-08 12:54
-
-
- 时间: 2011-8-09 06:4908-09-2011
goog 开561.00
Aapl 开361.30
金价：1735.92 新高
油价：87.26
道指：开盘回调升，10911.57
为什么这次危机不同于2008年及解决之道
三大原因
1起因----政府
2经济环境
3资金流动
Why This Crisis Differs From the 2008 Version
by Francesco Guerrera
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
tweet0EmailPrint.provided by
It is a parallel that is seducing Wall Street bankers and investors: 2011 as a repeat of 2008, the history of financial turmoil playing in one endless loop.
As a big fund manager muttered darkly this past weekend while heading into the office to prepare for a tumultuous Monday, "The sense of déjà vu is almost sickening."
Those who think of 2011 as "2008 -- The Sequel" now have their very own "Lehman moment." Just substitute Friday's historic downgrade of the U.S. credit rating by Standard & Poor's for the collapse of the investment bank in September 2008, et voilà, you have a carbon copy of an event that made the unthinkable happen and spooked markets around the globe.
They got the last part right. Investors looked decidedly spooked on Monday with Asian and European bourses down sharply and the Dow tumbling 643.76 points, or more than 5%.
But market turbulence alone isn't enough to prove that history repeats itself.
To borrow a phrase often used to rationalize investment bubbles, this time is different, and the bankers, investors and corporate executives who look at today's problems through the prism of 2008 risk misjudging the issues confronting the global economy.
There are three fundamental differences between the financial crisis of three years ago and today's events.
Starting from the most obvious: The two crises had completely different origins.
The older one spread from the bottom up. It began among over-optimistic home buyers, rose through the Wall Street securitization machine, with more than a little help from credit-rating firms, and ended up infecting the global economy. It was the financial sector's breakdown that caused the recession.
The current predicament, by contrast, is a top-down affair. Governments around the world, unable to stimulate their economies and get their houses in order, have gradually lost the trust of the business and financial communities.
That, in turn, has caused a sharp reduction in private sector spending and investing, causing a vicious circle that leads to high unemployment and sluggish growth. Markets and banks, in this case, are victims, not perpetrators.
The second difference is perhaps the most important: Financial companies and households had feasted on cheap credit in the run-up to 2007-2008.
When the bubble burst, the resulting crash diet of deleveraging caused a massive recessionary shock.
This time around, the problem is the opposite. The economic doldrums are prompting companies and individuals to stash their cash away and steer clear of debt, resulting in anemic consumption and investment growth.
The final distinction is a direct consequence of the first two. Given its genesis, the 2008 financial catastrophe had a simple, if painful, solution: Governments had to step in to provide liquidity in droves through low interest rates, bank bailouts and injections of cash into the economy.
A Federal Reserve official at the time called it "shock and awe." Another summed it up thus: "We will backstop everything."
The policy didn't come cheap as governments world-wide poured around $1 trillion into the system. Nor was it fair to the tax-paying citizens who had to pick up the tab for other people's sins. But it eventually succeeded in avoiding a global Depression.
Today, such a response isn't on the menu. The present strains aren't caused by a lack of liquidity -- U.S. companies, for one, are sitting on record cash piles -- or too much leverage. Both corporate and personal balance sheets are no longer bloated with debt.
[More from WSJ.com: Live Blog: Market Tumult]
The real issue is a chronic lack of confidence by financial actors in one another and their governments' ability to kick-start economic growth. If you need any proof of that, just look at the problems in the "plumbing" of the financial system -- from the "repo" market to interbank lending -- or ask S&P or buyers of Italian and Spanish bonds, how confident they are that politicians will sort out this mess.
The peculiar nature of this crisis means that reaching for the weapons used in the last one just won't work.
Consider Wall Street's current clamor for intervention by the monetary authorities -- be it in the form of more liquidity injections (or "QE3") by the Fed or the European Central Bank.
So 2008.
Even if the central banks were inclined that way, pumping more money into an economy already flush with cash would provide little solace. These days, large companies are frowning all the way to the bank, depositing excess funds in safe-but-idle accounts, as shown by Bank of New York's unprecedented move last week to charge companies to park their cash in its vaults.
As for jittery investors, a few more billions minted by Uncle Sam or his Frankfurt cousin are unlikely to be enough to persuade them to jump back into the market.
In 2011, the financial world can't go cap in hand to the political capitals, hoping for a handout. To get out of the current impasse, markets will have to rely on their inner strength or wait for politicians to take radical measures to spur economic growth.
A market-led solution isn't impossible. At some point prices of assets will become so cheap that they will reawaken the "animal spirits" of both investors and companies.
As Warren Buffett once wrote to his shareholders, "we have usually made our best purchases when apprehensions about some macro event were at a peak".
The alternative is to hope that politicians in the U.S and Europe will introduce the fiscal and labor reforms needed to reawaken demand and investment growth. But that is bound to take time.
As often, the past looks a lot simpler than the present. But the reality is that, unlike 2008, governments' money is no good in today's stressed environment.
-- Francesco Guerrera is the editor of the Wall Street Journal's Money & Investing section. -
-
- 时间: 2011-8-10 06:41
-
- 时间: 2011-8-10 21:28美联储延长零利率两年的决定背后藏有什么玄机？
文章来源: 美国之音 于 2011-08-10 16:16:40
美国股市在周二美联储宣布新的利率政策决定之后狂涨400多点之后周三又狂跌400多点，后来跌幅有所缩小。人们纳闷，美联储的决定究竟对市场意味着什么？是利好？还是利空？
美联储把零利率政策延长两年的决定在市场上引起的初始反应无疑是非常积极的。市场在经历了几乎连续两周的暴跌之后终于在周二扭转了跌势，狂涨400多点。普林斯顿市的经济咨询公司经济展望的首席全球经济师伯纳德·鲍莫尔(Bernard Baumohl)对美国之音说，市场面对的不确定性太多了，至少美联储此举为市场消除了一个重要的不确定性。
鲍莫尔说，经济复苏进入第二年以来，市场一直在担心美联储什么时候会收紧利率政策。这次美联储不仅宣布维持利率政策不变，而且明确表示这个政策至少要再持续两年。这是前所未有的。美联储要传递给消费者、企业和金融机构的信息是，利率环境将保持稳定，直到经济复苏进入自我加强的轨道。
加拿大BMO银行的高级经济分析师本杰明·莱兹(Ben Reitzes) 也同意这个分析。他说，近期美国经济疲软迹象增加的原因有很多，如油价上涨、日本地震给产业供应链造成的破坏、美国债务的困扰等。
但他认为更重要的原因在政策走向。税收政策会如何变化？金融监管政策会有多大调整？社保、医保政策如何修改？环保标准如何确定？利率政策将何时改变？这些不确定性影响到企业制定发展规划，束缚了金融机构的手脚。现在美联储消除了利率政策的不确定性，这对企业来说无疑是个利好的消息。
马里兰大学的经济学教授彼得·莫里奇(Peter Morici)更乐观表示，利率政策两年不变给股市的兴旺奠定了良好的基础。他在周二发表的评论中说，低利率加上企业良好的赢利状况将会推动股票价格上涨。他建议投资者应当抓住目前股价低廉的机会大举进场。
不过，经过一个晚上的消化，市场对美联储决定的另外一面显然有了一定的理解。美联储延长超低利率两年的前提是经济疲软的程度之深和增长放缓的速度之快可能都超过了美联储原来的估计，以至于迫使它做出极为罕见的承诺，至少两年内不改变超低利率政策。
经济学家莱兹对美国之音说，美联储显然对经济状况非常担心。今年到目前为止的经济增长比他们原来估计的慢了很多。年初时，美联储显得相当乐观。他预料，美联储会在下半年较大幅度下调它对经济增长的预期。
莱兹和其它不少经济学家都严肃地指出，美国经济陷入二次衰退的机率已经大大增加。他个人的估计是33%。美国着名的经济学家、穆迪经济学网站的首席经济师马克·赞迪(Mark Zandi)也表示，他也持同样的看法。而10天前，赞迪还表示美国出现二次衰退的机率是25%。
专家们认为，债务问题、股市的暴跌不仅造成家庭财富的减少而且普遍影响到人们对经济的信心。这在经济持续放缓的时候很容易引起衰退。
普林斯顿的经济学家鲍莫尔指出，美联储声明中流露出“高度的挫败感”。在过去的三年多中，美联储跟白宫和国会大力合作，为拯救金融系统，刺激经济复苏，创造就业用尽了各种招数。常规的和非常规的，公开的和不公开的，各种措施现在看来并没有收到很大的成效。在经济复苏持续了两年多的今天，经济增速还不到百分之一，失业率高居9.2%，制造业疲软，服务业乏力，房地产市场依然看不到明显的起色。
鲍莫尔说，在刺激经济的过程中，政府投入了上万亿美元的资金，出现了巨大的财政赤字，美联储也几乎穷尽了所有的政策工具。他感叹到，如果经济再次滑入衰退，美国政府和美联储可真的就处于山穷水尽的地步了。
许多经济学家在承认长期保持超低利率是美联储不得已之举的同时心中仍然相当不安。殷鉴不远，格林斯潘曾经在千年虫之后大幅度降息导致房地产市场的巨大泡沫。多数专家批评说，美国之所以出现这个大泡沫是因为格林斯潘“把利率降得太低，又保持的太久”。
美国的零利率政策是从2008年开始施行的，到现在已经两年多了，如果再延长两年，持续时间将接近5年，将大大超过格林斯潘时代。
经济展望公司的经济学家鲍莫尔表示，超低利率长时间持续一定会导致某种泡沫的出现。虽然现在还无法准确预测泡沫发生的时间、地点或者行业，但有一点是可以预料的。这就是，大宗商品价格会因为美元贬值而大幅度上涨，推动世界性的通货膨胀。而美国和其它国家如中国、印度等新兴经济体之间的利差扩大将推动更多的“热钱”从美国流出，增加新兴国家的控制通胀的难度。
中国如果加大控制通胀的力度，鲍莫尔说，经济放缓的速度就会加快，出现“硬着陆”。这将反过来会削弱美国的出口，不利于复苏的加强。
在过去的半年中，中国连续加息、提高银行准备金率。新的数据显示，中国经济已经开始放缓，但通胀上升的势头并没有停止。7月份，通胀达到此轮周期的最高点6.5%。
不过，加拿大的经济学家莱兹认为，中国当局已经加快了人民币升值的速度，这将会为迟滞通胀的势头发挥作用。
www.wenxuecity.com/new...41147.html
加西网友的看法：
www.westca.com/Forums/...inese.html -
- 时间: 2011-8-11 06:48
-
- 时间: 2011-8-11 22:158-11-2011 晚课
复盘回顾
今日对大势判断准确，做空SDS 盘中获利9.25% op5%
时间: 2011-07-21 7:03am回溯
election 写道:油价股 金子推荐HOU.TO 看了一下。10元阻力位较大 判断准确，一路下滑
SDX.V 对该股的买入点判断发生错误。总结出除了看图形，还要看行业行情
食品股
天线宝宝推荐MCD 8月8日是购入点，已错过
乡村小推荐店KO 收66.47，如果再下去点，可以购入
新增个股观察
SLWT $36.79 期待价位$51.00 - $54.00
CGG $4.35 $5.05 - $5.20
EDV$2.54 $2.82 - $2.90
KCG$12.19 $12.70 - $13.00
PANL$30.56 $58.00 - $65.00
HRBN$17.60 $22.75 - $24.00
以上全不以为然，全不形成最佳出手 绝杀点 -
- 时间: 2011-8-12 06:5208-12-2011
goog 开569.05
Aapl 开378.07
金价：1739.58 下跌9.66
油价：
道指：拉阳 道指开11278,56
今日操作：
见合适出货；做空SDS.但估计今天很难做,小幅升,个股会僵持
周五公布的美国7月零售额坏于预期。
失业数字虽然较之6月有了一定程度的改善，但是经济学家们正在纷纷向下修订他们对于国内生产总值增长幅度的预期。消费者信心指标更是一片疲软。
其次，周二的联邦公开市场委员会会议所发出的真实信号到底是什么？答案是，经济是如此问题重重，以至于联储不得不极为罕见地提前做出担保，要将超低利率再保持两年！我是从来没有见过联储提供这么高的政策透明度，委员会的声明也是翻来覆去地解释经济究竟有多糟糕。
第三，还有债务危机。几乎所有人都清楚地知道，如果问题真的恶化了，欧盟其实并没有援救意大利与西班牙所需要的足够实力，后两者分别是他们的第三和第四经济体。事实上，现在传言已经蔓延开来，法国银行业的健康度，以及这个国家的AAA评级也被打上了问号。
与此同时，美国国内的债务上限大争论最终以标准普尔剥夺了美国的AAA评级而达到高潮，这就意味着，政府未来用来“修补”经济的工具将变得愈来愈少。
换言之，我们很难指望奥巴马总统再拿出进一步的刺激计划了。他拼命想要将失业福利和带薪假期等延展到下一个年头当中，但是现在看来，可能性并不是特别的大。
最后还有企业盈利。迄今为止，企业的利润情况看上去还不错，但是我们正在进入相应周期的晚期阶段，盈利的成长动能看上去已经步入以前了。更不必说，在其他所有因素都令人无法乐观的时候，单单盈利的增长，又能够支撑市场走多远呢？
那么，我们会走向怎样的目标呢？我所采访的四位重量级技术分析师的答案惊人一致：股价还将继续走低，新熊市的出现是很可能的。
瑞士信贷伦敦技术分析研究主管斯内登(David Sneddon)认为，我们5月2日看到的标准普尔500指数1370.58点日间高点可能就是市场的顶部。在1100点上下，存在着至关重要的技术支撑线，这正是股市本周反弹的起点。迄今为止，我们似乎还守住了它。
下一条支撑线将出现在1020点到1022点附近。“真正的熊市到来，要求跌到1000点至1010点以下。”
另外一位伦敦专家，City Index的贾迪加(Sandy Jadeja)则着重观察道指，来判断我们的未来。几周之前，他曾经预测道指将跌到1万428点，预言果然兑现了。现在，他在回应采访的邮件中写道：“随后的涨势将是短暂的，而且会引发下一轮的跌势，一直跌到9673点，甚至更低。”
“预计在2012年到来之前，底部都不会出现。”他的结论是，“下个月将是至关重要的。如果我们在9月突破了8月的低点，则未来就将更加糟糕了。”
标准普尔首席技术分析师阿贝特(Mark Arbeter)早在5月和6月间就曾经说过，牛市或许已经结束了。他现在并没有改变自己的立场。
“我认为，市场跌至930点，将使得2000年代至2010年代的熊市和1970年代变得非常相似。”他在邮件中提到了许多投资者最不愿回顾的十年。
他们都认为我们将继续走低，唯一的差别只是有人相信会有短期的逆势上涨而已。阿贝特预计，潜在的涨势应该在1250点至1260点以下即告转跌。斯内登则认为，涨势到1200点就到头了。
“我们已经清楚地看到了许多市场所遭到的重大技术面损害。”他对我表示，“我个人当然更愿意削减自己的投资力度”，将潜在的涨势当作是退场的机会。
不错，如果我没有在一两个月前卖掉我自己希望卖掉的股票，我也会像他一样珍惜这机会。如果你没有像我那样抓住机会，现在不要在恐慌中抛售，而是应该等待反弹，首先清理掉高风险的小型股票(很可能已经进入了熊市)和新兴市场股票。彻底削减股票在自己整体投资组合当中的比重也是可以考虑的。
不过，无论怎样，在这样一个不断波动，充满变数的股市当中，我都是不会考虑买进的。哪怕是强大的高盛，在第二季度当中也出现了连续十五个交易日亏损的记录！还有超级对冲基金明星保尔森(John Paulson)，他最大的基金今年迄今为止亏损了31%。 -
- 时间: 2011-8-13 07:29Bank of Canada faces interest rate dilemma
Promise by U.S. Federal Reserve to keep rates low may force Canada to follow
The Bank of Canada had been expected to start raising interest rates in September, but is now likely to keep them on hold or even announce a cut, experts say.
Canada's central bank is due to make an announcement on rates in September, on the heels of the recent decision by the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank to keep interest rates south of the border low and stable for two years.
Canada will have no choice but to follow suit in cutting rates, said Hlinka.
But that could push the country into a deep and prolonged recession with record levels of private debt, according to Hlinka.
Cutting interest rates could further overheat the housing market and encourage people to spend beyond their limits, creating a bubble that will soon burst, predicts Hlinka.
He points to Vancouver, a city whose housing market has cooled considerably this summer, as a harbinger of things to come for Toronto and other Canadian cities.
If interest rates are cut in Canada in September, it will mark five years of low rates.
Rather than addressing fundamental economic problems, public policy makers are playing on the margins with factors that have nothing to do with what the real issues are, such as structural imbalances in the economy, says Hlinka.
"The public sector is too big relative to the private sector in the developed countries of the world. The public sector has a much better deal in terms of wages, benefits, job security, and working conditions, and it's creating a two-tier society of haves and have-nots."
The private sector creates wealth while the public sector distributes it, and the result of the imbalance is there are too many people who are working to distribute the wealth and too few people who are working to create it, according to Hlinka.
"By the way, these are very unpopular things to say and I'm the first to admit it."
It's an easier fix to fiddle with interest rates, rather than tackle politically sensitive issues, says Hlinka.
www.cbc.ca/news/busine...rates.html
中文部分：
www.gcpnews.com/articl...70850.html -
- 时间: 2011-8-13 07:44
-
- 时间: 2011-8-14 05:497月零售销售报喜 增幅近4个月来最大 8月消费信心 31年来最低
[2011-08-13]Share
美国周五公布多项经济数据，其中7月零售额成长符合预期，并且创下4个月来最大增幅，显示即便美国就业市场疲软，消费者支出仍能维持成长。但另一指标却显示美国政府在财政方面的差劲表现，导致8月消费者信心创下31年来最差纪录，由此凸显美国经济前景的高度不确定性。
商务部公布，7月零售额月增0.5%至3904.2亿美元，大致符合市场预期，并且是今年3月以来最大增幅。6月零售额亦上修为月增0.3％。
数据显示，美国加油站7月销售额劲扬1.6％，同时7月汽车类零售额也较6月成长0.4％，增幅低于6月份的0.7%。《工商时报》指出，这有部分可能是反映日本供应链产能恢复，促使上月美国经销商新车交车数量增加。不过，报道也引述Nationwide Mutual Insurance首席经济学家Paul Ballew称，「虽然汽车销售正在好转，但是速度却非常慢。」
排除汽车类后，7月整体零售额则月增0.5％，同样是今年3月以来最大增幅，经济师此前预测只会增加0.2%。分项而言，电子与家电零售业者的销售月增1.4％，诸如傢具、杂货、衣饰以及包含网络业者在内的非店面零售额，上月也都呈现正面增长。
然而，密歇根大学当天公布的8月上旬消费信心指数颇令人担忧。调查显示，8月上旬消费者信心指数由上月的63.7点骤降至54.9点，创下1980年5月以来最低纪录，而且是连续第四个月下跌，更远逊于市场预期的63点。分项方面，8月展望指数从7月份的56跌至45.7，同样是1980年5月以来最低；现况指数从 75.8下跌到69.3，是2009年11月以来最低；未来一年预测通胀率为3.4%，与7月份相同，是连续第二个月没有变动；未来5年预测通胀率为2.9%，与7月份相同。
调查负责人库廷（Richard Curtin）指出，消费者信心重挫主要是来自美国民众因为债信风暴、高失业率以及薪资停滞等情况，而对政府失去信心。他说：「在这项调查的过去历史上，从来没有这么多消费者主动由种种负面角度来看待政府角色。」
根据调查结果显示，有61％的受访者对奥巴马政府给予负面评价，写下历任美国元首中表现最差的纪录。
news.singtao.ca/vancou...60704.html
资料贴之三----自言自语之全球金融动态、黄金价格跟踪、每周不定期综述
