Renaissance Technologies is a private investment management company with over $4,000,000,000 under management founded in 1982 by Jim Simons, who (correctly) believed in the potential of technical trading models.
The advantage scientists bring into the game is less their mathematical or computational skills than their ability to think scientifically. They are less likely to accept an apparent winning strategy that might be a mere statistical fluke.
Chances are you haven't heard of Jim Simons, which is just fine by him. Nor are you alone. Many on Wall Street, including competitors in his specialty, quantitative trading, haven't heard of Simons or of his operation, Renaissance Technologies Corp., either.
And that's simply extraordinary -- because, gross or net, Simons may very well be the best money manager on earth. An extreme judgment? Perhaps. Certainly, there has been no end of claimants to the title. And one after another, over the past few years, these celebrated managers have either blown up or folded their tents. After big reverses, Julian Robertson closed down Tiger Management, and George Soros scaled back the activities of his Quantum Fund this year. John Meriwether's Long-Term Capital Management neatly took down the financial world in 1998.
Simons, by contrast, just keeps getting better. Consider his performance over the past decade. Since its inception in March 1988, Simons' flagship $ 3.3 billion Medallion fund, has amassed annual returns of 35.6 percent, compared with 17.9 percent for the Standard & Poor's 500 index. For the 11 full years ended December 1999, Medallion's cumulative returns are an eye-popping 2,478.6 percent.
Among all offshore funds over that same period, according to the database run by veteran hedge fund observer Antoine Bernheim, the next-best performer was Soros' Quantum Fund, with a 1,710.1 percent return. Simons is No. 1, says Bernheim. Ahead of George Soros. Ahead of Mark Kingdon. Ahead of Bruce Kovner. Ahead of Monroe Trout.
Jim Simons is without question one of the really brilliant people working in this business, says quantitative trading star David Shaw, chairman of D.E. Shaw, which boasts returns above 50 percent this year.
He is a first-rate scholar, with a genuinely scientific approach to trading. There are very few people like him. Simons surrounds himself with like minds.
The headquarters of Renaissance, in the quaint town of East Setauket on New York's Long Island, resembles nothing so much as a high-powered think tank or graduate school in math and science. Operating out of a one-story wood-and-glass compound near SUNY Stony Brook, Renaissance, founded in 1982, has 140 employees, one third of whom hold Ph.D.s in hard sciences. Many have studied or taught in Stony Brook's math department, which Simons chaired from 1968 to 1976.
Among their ranks: practitioners in the fields of astrophysics, number theory, computer science and computational linguistics. In notably short supply are finance types. Just two employees, including the head of trading, are Wall Street veterans. I have one guy who has a Ph.D. in finance. We don't hire people from business schools. We don't hire people from Wall Street, says Simons. We hire people who have done good science. The atmosphere is college casual, if intense - think of a perpetual exam week. Though a natty dresser, Simons sets a properly idiosyncratic tone. He has been known to show up at formal business meetings without socks, says Jerome Swartz, Simons' next-door neighbor on Long Island. Job candidates don't have to know any finance -- in fact, Wall Street experience is a black mark -- but they must present a talk on their scientific research to the entire firm before being offered a job.
Most staffers seem to know little about the rest of the financial services industry, or even the hedge fund business. Asked about the performance of legendary futures trader and Renaissance rival Paul Tudor Jones, one researcher says, Who's Tudor Jones?
Saturday, September 20, 2008
政府救援成本之谜
在同时掌控三家美国金融巨头的美国联邦政府面临的挑战是：一方面要处理陷入麻烦的金融企业，另一方面还要保护美国的纳税人免受损失。
金融危机本周三继续恶化，而这个时候美国政府官员仍然在评估他们向美国国际集团(AIG)提供的850亿美元贷款到底会产生何种影响。发放这笔贷款10天之前，联邦政府刚刚接管了抵押贷款巨头房地美(Fannie Mae)和房利美(Freddie Mac)。
政府出手拯救“两房”和AIG也未能缓和市场动荡政府救援行动对财政的影响取决于相关公司的最终业绩。房地美和房利美将经历一场“彻底检修”，由新的法规和监管程序来约束。AIG预计会出售一些业务，其最终命运仍是未知之数。
政府官员透露，在白宫预算部门公布2009年初的预算提案时，拯救贝尔斯登(Bear Stearns)、“两房”和AIG对美国短期预算的影响在0到数百亿美元之间。由于2009年财政赤字的预计规模已经达到5000亿美元，所以即使政府在救援行动中出现大规模损失，与财政赤字相比也算不了什么。从长期来看，政府可以从救援行动中盈利，尤其是拯救AIG的交易。
一位美国政府高级官员说，2009年税收收入减少造成的损害比救援行动更大。他表示，整体经济状况以及税收对财政的影响比救援行动大得多。从历史上看，随着经济的波动，税收收入的波动幅度达到几千亿美元之巨，那才是我们评估财政情况时最为关心的，不管什么时候都是如此。
共和党在美国参议院预算委员会(Senate Budget Committee)任职的最高官员、来自新罕布什尔州的参议员贾德·格雷格(Judd Gregg)认为，估测房地美和房利美的长期前景如同“在黑屋子里扔飞镖”，谁也不知道代价会有多高。他还表示，新总统的各种新提案都会受到财政拮 的限制，而“两房”会令这种情况更加恶化。
在历史上试图解决金融危机的各种举措中，政府干预总是最后出台的。美国政府于1989年开始的对存贷款行业的救援是其中规模最大的，最终花费了近5000亿美元。其它政府救援都带来了盈利，其中包括1971年向Lockheed Aircraft Corp.提供的2.5亿美元贷款担保、1979年向克莱斯勒公司(Chrysler Corp.)提供的12亿美元贷款担保、以及2001年向航空业提供的超过60亿美元的现金和贷款。
克林顿和卡特政府财政部的高级官员、设计1979年克莱斯勒贷款计划的罗格·阿尔特曼(Roger Altman)说，在当代对单个公司展开的救援行动中，联邦政府总的来说没有赔钱。救援计划都被设计得很合理，很好地保护了政府的利益。
阿尔特曼认为，AIG的救援结构可以通过类似的方式保护联邦政府。虽然美国正处在“危险的金融环境”中，但是阿尔特曼表示：“经过这一过渡期之后，联邦政府最终完全有可能获得偿还。”
广告不过一些关键的问题仍没有答案，局面依旧复杂。美国财长鲍尔森已经为AIG指定了新任首席执行官，鲍尔森以及将于明年1月份上任的继任财长将在何种程度上参与AIG的事务，现在还不能确定。据预测，美联储主席伯南克和其他高级官员在处理货币政策的同时，将不得不花费大量时间监督向AIG提供的巨额贷款。政府以及纳税人的资金以何种方式退出AIG，现在还不得而知。
“财政部和美联储官员都在尽其所能防止多米诺骨牌倒下，我支持他们的做法，”美国众议院预算委员会主席、共和党人约翰·斯普拉特(John Spratt)说，“不过救援成本正在变得十分庞大。”
他认为，连续出现的联邦预算赤字已经引起了外国投资者的警觉，这也是政府必须果断采取措施的原因。
美联储和财政部只用了几天时间就设计出向保险巨头AIG提供贷款的方案，贷款规模高达850亿美元。官员们匆忙出手也是为了避免AIG问题可能对金融市场造成的灾难性后果。作为贷款的回报，美联储将在公司股份中占80%，贷款利率也相当高，比伦敦银行同业拆息高8.5个百分点。贷款的意图是在AIG出售业务的过程中为其提供资金支持。
华盛顿ISI集团的分析师汤姆·贾拉尔(Tom Gallagher)认为，贷款的期限只有两年，说明政府贷款的目的就是迫使这个保险巨头尽快将资产变现。贾拉尔说：“因为贷款期限越长，风险越大。”
政府在处理两房问题时所扮演的角色可能更多是政策性的。议员们正在讨论如何通过修改抵押贷款条款和将止赎权减少到最低来保护一部分房屋所有人。
房地美和房利美持有和担保的房屋抵押贷款超过5万亿美元，是美国房屋市场的支柱。如果美国房市不再进一步恶化，明年政府救援两房的实际成本可能会比较低。
不过议员们对于一些分析师提出的最坏情况也在进行慎重的分析。按照这些分析师的预测，如果房市没能复苏，政府的支出可能高达3,000亿美元。
考虑到影响救援行动的不确定性，曾在80年代末到90年代初“储贷危机”期间担任美国国会预算办公室主任的罗伯特·赖肖尔(Robert Reischauer)形容道：“救援就像是扔硬币一样。”
在如今的局势下，人们对于经济走势、联邦政府的行动、以及国际投资者和其它方的行为都充满了疑问。目前在华盛顿智库Urban Institute机构担任总裁的赖肖尔说：“对于谁将出手干预并保护金融系统，现在还充满不确定性。但是储贷危机期间就没有这样的疑问。”他认为，这次危机可能会变得更加严重，尤其是出现国际投资者撤回资金的情况时。
在AIG援助方案中值得安慰的是，850亿美元的贷款是由一些优质资产作为担保，那就是AIG的保险业务；另外，贷款利率也很高。如果AIG起死回生，政府拥有的79.9%的股份就会带来收益。
3月份贝尔斯登援助案中，政府提供了300亿美元贷款为摩根大通收购贝尔斯登提供支持，而接受的抵押品不过是抵押贷款担保证券。这些资产表现如何，取决于未来几年经济的整体形势，以及房市状况。此外，如果发生亏损，摩根大通将会分担首个10亿美元的损失，这样一来，即使抵押贷款资产表现不佳，也可以减轻政府的损失。
美国总统布什已经连续第二天对危机问题保持低调。
对于布什总统的沉默，白宫新闻秘书丹纳·派利诺(Dana Perino)解释道：“不管大家相信不相信，有时候政策制定者确实需要埋头制定政策。”布什在周一曾试图安抚公众，但是他的话似乎未对于市场产生影响。
金融危机本周三继续恶化，而这个时候美国政府官员仍然在评估他们向美国国际集团(AIG)提供的850亿美元贷款到底会产生何种影响。发放这笔贷款10天之前，联邦政府刚刚接管了抵押贷款巨头房地美(Fannie Mae)和房利美(Freddie Mac)。
政府出手拯救“两房”和AIG也未能缓和市场动荡政府救援行动对财政的影响取决于相关公司的最终业绩。房地美和房利美将经历一场“彻底检修”，由新的法规和监管程序来约束。AIG预计会出售一些业务，其最终命运仍是未知之数。
政府官员透露，在白宫预算部门公布2009年初的预算提案时，拯救贝尔斯登(Bear Stearns)、“两房”和AIG对美国短期预算的影响在0到数百亿美元之间。由于2009年财政赤字的预计规模已经达到5000亿美元，所以即使政府在救援行动中出现大规模损失，与财政赤字相比也算不了什么。从长期来看，政府可以从救援行动中盈利，尤其是拯救AIG的交易。
一位美国政府高级官员说，2009年税收收入减少造成的损害比救援行动更大。他表示，整体经济状况以及税收对财政的影响比救援行动大得多。从历史上看，随着经济的波动，税收收入的波动幅度达到几千亿美元之巨，那才是我们评估财政情况时最为关心的，不管什么时候都是如此。
共和党在美国参议院预算委员会(Senate Budget Committee)任职的最高官员、来自新罕布什尔州的参议员贾德·格雷格(Judd Gregg)认为，估测房地美和房利美的长期前景如同“在黑屋子里扔飞镖”，谁也不知道代价会有多高。他还表示，新总统的各种新提案都会受到财政拮 的限制，而“两房”会令这种情况更加恶化。
在历史上试图解决金融危机的各种举措中，政府干预总是最后出台的。美国政府于1989年开始的对存贷款行业的救援是其中规模最大的，最终花费了近5000亿美元。其它政府救援都带来了盈利，其中包括1971年向Lockheed Aircraft Corp.提供的2.5亿美元贷款担保、1979年向克莱斯勒公司(Chrysler Corp.)提供的12亿美元贷款担保、以及2001年向航空业提供的超过60亿美元的现金和贷款。
克林顿和卡特政府财政部的高级官员、设计1979年克莱斯勒贷款计划的罗格·阿尔特曼(Roger Altman)说，在当代对单个公司展开的救援行动中，联邦政府总的来说没有赔钱。救援计划都被设计得很合理，很好地保护了政府的利益。
阿尔特曼认为，AIG的救援结构可以通过类似的方式保护联邦政府。虽然美国正处在“危险的金融环境”中，但是阿尔特曼表示：“经过这一过渡期之后，联邦政府最终完全有可能获得偿还。”
广告不过一些关键的问题仍没有答案，局面依旧复杂。美国财长鲍尔森已经为AIG指定了新任首席执行官，鲍尔森以及将于明年1月份上任的继任财长将在何种程度上参与AIG的事务，现在还不能确定。据预测，美联储主席伯南克和其他高级官员在处理货币政策的同时，将不得不花费大量时间监督向AIG提供的巨额贷款。政府以及纳税人的资金以何种方式退出AIG，现在还不得而知。
“财政部和美联储官员都在尽其所能防止多米诺骨牌倒下，我支持他们的做法，”美国众议院预算委员会主席、共和党人约翰·斯普拉特(John Spratt)说，“不过救援成本正在变得十分庞大。”
他认为，连续出现的联邦预算赤字已经引起了外国投资者的警觉，这也是政府必须果断采取措施的原因。
美联储和财政部只用了几天时间就设计出向保险巨头AIG提供贷款的方案，贷款规模高达850亿美元。官员们匆忙出手也是为了避免AIG问题可能对金融市场造成的灾难性后果。作为贷款的回报，美联储将在公司股份中占80%，贷款利率也相当高，比伦敦银行同业拆息高8.5个百分点。贷款的意图是在AIG出售业务的过程中为其提供资金支持。
华盛顿ISI集团的分析师汤姆·贾拉尔(Tom Gallagher)认为，贷款的期限只有两年，说明政府贷款的目的就是迫使这个保险巨头尽快将资产变现。贾拉尔说：“因为贷款期限越长，风险越大。”
政府在处理两房问题时所扮演的角色可能更多是政策性的。议员们正在讨论如何通过修改抵押贷款条款和将止赎权减少到最低来保护一部分房屋所有人。
房地美和房利美持有和担保的房屋抵押贷款超过5万亿美元，是美国房屋市场的支柱。如果美国房市不再进一步恶化，明年政府救援两房的实际成本可能会比较低。
不过议员们对于一些分析师提出的最坏情况也在进行慎重的分析。按照这些分析师的预测，如果房市没能复苏，政府的支出可能高达3,000亿美元。
考虑到影响救援行动的不确定性，曾在80年代末到90年代初“储贷危机”期间担任美国国会预算办公室主任的罗伯特·赖肖尔(Robert Reischauer)形容道：“救援就像是扔硬币一样。”
在如今的局势下，人们对于经济走势、联邦政府的行动、以及国际投资者和其它方的行为都充满了疑问。目前在华盛顿智库Urban Institute机构担任总裁的赖肖尔说：“对于谁将出手干预并保护金融系统，现在还充满不确定性。但是储贷危机期间就没有这样的疑问。”他认为，这次危机可能会变得更加严重，尤其是出现国际投资者撤回资金的情况时。
在AIG援助方案中值得安慰的是，850亿美元的贷款是由一些优质资产作为担保，那就是AIG的保险业务；另外，贷款利率也很高。如果AIG起死回生，政府拥有的79.9%的股份就会带来收益。
3月份贝尔斯登援助案中，政府提供了300亿美元贷款为摩根大通收购贝尔斯登提供支持，而接受的抵押品不过是抵押贷款担保证券。这些资产表现如何，取决于未来几年经济的整体形势，以及房市状况。此外，如果发生亏损，摩根大通将会分担首个10亿美元的损失，这样一来，即使抵押贷款资产表现不佳，也可以减轻政府的损失。
美国总统布什已经连续第二天对危机问题保持低调。
对于布什总统的沉默，白宫新闻秘书丹纳·派利诺(Dana Perino)解释道：“不管大家相信不相信，有时候政策制定者确实需要埋头制定政策。”布什在周一曾试图安抚公众，但是他的话似乎未对于市场产生影响。
美国经济“一个时代终结”
美国由金融市场带领的辉煌时代将告终结。
美联储与财政部于9月14日推出一系列措施以紧急应对雷曼兄弟破产及其它大型金融机构资金链断裂对市场的冲击，以缓解市场流动性危机、保护参与者脆弱的市场信心。但9月16日美联储并未如市场预期的那样减息，而是维持利率水平2%不变。此前我们一直认为美联储既不会减息也没有必要减息。“不会减息”体现在雷曼兄弟清盘引起金融市场大震荡之时，美联储已首选向市场注入流动性而非紧急减息。“没有必要减息”一方面是由于通胀风险依然不能小觑，尤其是通胀由PPI向CPI传导，由总体通胀向核心通胀传导的风险；另一方面在信贷紧缩时，减息的效果是大打折扣的，而有针对性地向市场提供流动性则更加对症。
笔者一直认为，美国次贷危机根源在于房地产价格的调整，在房价完成调整前，美国金融系统的坏消息还将接踵而至，继续为美国以及全球金融市场带来波动，而近日走强的美元亦将因疲软的经济和金融动荡在短期内反复。早在今年3月美国拯救贝尔斯通事件之际，很多人认为美国次贷危机已近结束，我们曾提出本轮美国房地产价格要从高点下降30％至35%，期间坏消息将不断。前周，美国政府终于宣布将“两房”接管，对它们各做出上限为1000亿美元的注资，以确保其能偿还债务和维持正资产值。接管“两房”保证了美国按揭市场继续运作及挽救市场对房市暗淡的预期，按揭利率有望回落，对住房市场及投资气氛产生一定的正面作用。然而，这并不能改变房价下降的周期，上周便陆续有金融机构因涉及住房投资业务出现严重亏损而需要出卖资产甚至申请破产保护，再度燃起市场对信贷危机和美国经济前景的担忧。此外，美元对主要货币应声下跌，印证了我们稍早时候的估计。
所有这一切对于中国经济的影响，我们认为主要体现在以下几方面：美元将进一步贬值，促使人民币短期内对美元升值；在本轮全球经济再平衡的过程中，美国市场犹如海洋，中国犹如漂流在海上的一叶扁舟，自身政策变化无法改变浪潮方向；美国房地产市场调整引发的金融危机至少将对中国房地产与金融市场产生心理层面的冲击。
紧接着美国周末发生的金融动荡，中国央行于9月15日宣布降低贷款利率0.27个百分点，降低中小金融机构存款准备金率1个百分点，印证了政策“先抑后扬”，但具体时点早于市场预料，原因在于美国金融市场动荡升级，雷曼、美林两大投资银行或申请破产或被收购，使得中国政府认为外部环境恶化超过预期，对于中国经济增速下滑过快以及房价下跌带来的风险格外担心。
我们认为，降息的影响不可高估，美联储在过去一年中多次大幅降息也未改变其房价下跌的趋势，而中国房价泡沫程度较美国更大，银行面对房价下跌已加强了风险控制，对于房地产相关贷款趋于谨慎，因此利率的下调对房地产市场推动有限。未来利率尤其是存款准备金率还有进一步下调空间，降息的空间取决于通胀走势。鉴于国际大宗商品价格回落，我们下调今年CPI预测至6.5%，下调明年CPI预测至4％至5%，但如果目前美国局势恶化使得美元贬值并重新推动大宗商品价格，则将制约中国的降息空间。
尽管最近一些新兴经济体通胀压力有缓和迹象，但大多数央行均不敢掉以轻心，仍在继续维持从紧货币政策。继此前泰国、菲律宾和印尼央行分别加息25个基点后，巴西上周亦大幅上调利率75个基点至13.75%。另一方面，新西兰上周调低了央行利率50个基点。央行迥然不同的货币政策取向主要源于它们对经济下滑和通胀上升的预期各异。在通胀高企、货币政策难以放松的形势下，政府财政实力较佳的经济体纷纷以扩张性财政政策以缓解通胀的影响和刺激内需。继韩国于月初宣布了一项减税和行政改革计划后，台湾地区亦于上周推出刺激经济方案。这些财政政策将有助于部分抵消外需放缓对经济的影响，但亦可能会增加通胀上行风险，这是值得关注的。
美联储与财政部于9月14日推出一系列措施以紧急应对雷曼兄弟破产及其它大型金融机构资金链断裂对市场的冲击，以缓解市场流动性危机、保护参与者脆弱的市场信心。但9月16日美联储并未如市场预期的那样减息，而是维持利率水平2%不变。此前我们一直认为美联储既不会减息也没有必要减息。“不会减息”体现在雷曼兄弟清盘引起金融市场大震荡之时，美联储已首选向市场注入流动性而非紧急减息。“没有必要减息”一方面是由于通胀风险依然不能小觑，尤其是通胀由PPI向CPI传导，由总体通胀向核心通胀传导的风险；另一方面在信贷紧缩时，减息的效果是大打折扣的，而有针对性地向市场提供流动性则更加对症。
笔者一直认为，美国次贷危机根源在于房地产价格的调整，在房价完成调整前，美国金融系统的坏消息还将接踵而至，继续为美国以及全球金融市场带来波动，而近日走强的美元亦将因疲软的经济和金融动荡在短期内反复。早在今年3月美国拯救贝尔斯通事件之际，很多人认为美国次贷危机已近结束，我们曾提出本轮美国房地产价格要从高点下降30％至35%，期间坏消息将不断。前周，美国政府终于宣布将“两房”接管，对它们各做出上限为1000亿美元的注资，以确保其能偿还债务和维持正资产值。接管“两房”保证了美国按揭市场继续运作及挽救市场对房市暗淡的预期，按揭利率有望回落，对住房市场及投资气氛产生一定的正面作用。然而，这并不能改变房价下降的周期，上周便陆续有金融机构因涉及住房投资业务出现严重亏损而需要出卖资产甚至申请破产保护，再度燃起市场对信贷危机和美国经济前景的担忧。此外，美元对主要货币应声下跌，印证了我们稍早时候的估计。
所有这一切对于中国经济的影响，我们认为主要体现在以下几方面：美元将进一步贬值，促使人民币短期内对美元升值；在本轮全球经济再平衡的过程中，美国市场犹如海洋，中国犹如漂流在海上的一叶扁舟，自身政策变化无法改变浪潮方向；美国房地产市场调整引发的金融危机至少将对中国房地产与金融市场产生心理层面的冲击。
紧接着美国周末发生的金融动荡，中国央行于9月15日宣布降低贷款利率0.27个百分点，降低中小金融机构存款准备金率1个百分点，印证了政策“先抑后扬”，但具体时点早于市场预料，原因在于美国金融市场动荡升级，雷曼、美林两大投资银行或申请破产或被收购，使得中国政府认为外部环境恶化超过预期，对于中国经济增速下滑过快以及房价下跌带来的风险格外担心。
我们认为，降息的影响不可高估，美联储在过去一年中多次大幅降息也未改变其房价下跌的趋势，而中国房价泡沫程度较美国更大，银行面对房价下跌已加强了风险控制，对于房地产相关贷款趋于谨慎，因此利率的下调对房地产市场推动有限。未来利率尤其是存款准备金率还有进一步下调空间，降息的空间取决于通胀走势。鉴于国际大宗商品价格回落，我们下调今年CPI预测至6.5%，下调明年CPI预测至4％至5%，但如果目前美国局势恶化使得美元贬值并重新推动大宗商品价格，则将制约中国的降息空间。
尽管最近一些新兴经济体通胀压力有缓和迹象，但大多数央行均不敢掉以轻心，仍在继续维持从紧货币政策。继此前泰国、菲律宾和印尼央行分别加息25个基点后，巴西上周亦大幅上调利率75个基点至13.75%。另一方面，新西兰上周调低了央行利率50个基点。央行迥然不同的货币政策取向主要源于它们对经济下滑和通胀上升的预期各异。在通胀高企、货币政策难以放松的形势下，政府财政实力较佳的经济体纷纷以扩张性财政政策以缓解通胀的影响和刺激内需。继韩国于月初宣布了一项减税和行政改革计划后，台湾地区亦于上周推出刺激经济方案。这些财政政策将有助于部分抵消外需放缓对经济的影响，但亦可能会增加通胀上行风险，这是值得关注的。
金融风暴伤及“美国心脏”
目前美国正经历着自1929年以来最严重的金融危机，政府的系列救助计划将付出很大代价。
——耶鲁大学金融学教授陈志武
美国经济就像一个人的身体，金融业是心脏，资金是血液，实体经济是身体其他器官。金融业遭到重创如同一个人得了心脏病，心脏供血能力受到影响，继而可能引发其他器官的不适甚至病痛。
——联合国全球经济监测部主任洪平凡
一系列指标都显示，未来几个月里（英国房产市场）将进一步疲弱，这一调整过程将使许多家庭陷入痛苦之中。
——英国中央银行—英格兰银行首席经济学家斯潘塞·达勒
波及基本面
美国耶鲁大学金融学教授陈志武18日说，美国政府的系列救助计划虽有助于缓解金融危机，但此次危机依然会给美国经济基本面带来严重影响。
政府救助计划将付代价大
美国财政部长保尔森当天表示，美国政府正在拟定一份金融救助计划，试图通过购买银行呆账帮助银行摆脱困境，以阻止金融危机进一步恶化。
就此，陈志武认为，目前美国正经历着自1929年以来最严重的金融危机，政府的系列救助计划将付出很大代价。为帮助主要金融机构摆脱困境，美国政府需要新发行约5000亿美元国债，这会使美国财政赤字激增，美国经济因此受损。
他还认为，美国政府的救助行动也会给未来美国经济带来问题。在美国政府直接或间接干预下，摩根大通收购美国第五大投资银行贝尔斯登，美国银行收购第三大投资银行美林证券公司，这种兼并将缔造新的金融寡头，政府日后可能更容易被大型企业“绑架”，为将来的金融稳定埋下隐患。
将对美经济造成严重伤害
对于金融危机对美国经济的影响，联合国全球经济监测部主任洪平凡有个比喻：美国经济就像一个人的身体，金融业是心脏，资金是血液，实体经济是身体其他器官。金融业遭到重创如同一个人得了心脏病，心脏供血能力受到影响，继而可能引发其他器官的不适甚至病痛。
洪平凡认为，这次金融危机将对美国经济造成严重伤害。由于金融业在危机中损失惨重，未来美国信贷规模和信贷条件都将紧缩，从而制约消费和生产的发展，美国经济前景短期内不容乐观。
信贷危机向货币市场蔓延
美国愈演愈烈的信贷危机正在向货币市场蔓延。美国主要基金公司PUTNAM投资公司18日突然宣布，由于机构投资者赎回压力增大，其决定将旗下一只规模120亿美元的货币市场基金清盘。
货币市场多用于短期资金融通，通常被认为收益稳定、风险很低。购买投资这类市场的基金，也被认为是储蓄的一种很好的替代方式。不过，由于目前美国的金融形势动荡，投资者信心不稳，纷纷将各类资产变现，货币市场也受到波及。
17日，一只大型零售货币基金RPF遭遇大规模赎回，导致其每单位美元资产净值大降，跌破1美元。这意味着投资者出现损失。不过，PUTNAM公司称，其决定关闭的这只基金的净值仍在1美元之上，且不存在资产信用质量下降的问题。但考虑到市场的流动性紧缺现状及客户赎回要求，基金受托管人投票决定清盘并尽快将资金返还投资者。据悉，这只基金只针对养老保险金管理公司等机构投资者销售。
影响选情
英国智库：风暴将削弱美政治影响力
英国知名智库——国际战略研究所（IISS）的学者18日指出，虽然目前美国政府因应处理得宜，但美国的政治影响力仍将因此被削弱。
据报道，《IISS年度战略报告》及《战略评论》两份重要刊物的主编尼柯尔指出，金融风暴是目前全球面临最严重的危机，几乎没有任何国家可以幸免的；可以确定的是，风暴仍未结束，也未走到谷底。
曾担任财经记者的尼柯尔说，综观这一波全球金融风暴的规模及冲击，只能用“令人咋舌”来形容；美国政府在历经攻打伊拉克等事件后，国际地位已受影响，外交影响力大不如前，中东政策也未受到国际社会的瞩目，现在接连爆发重大金融危机，无疑对美国的政治影响力造成深一层的伤害。
尼柯尔认为，经济兴衰本有周期，相信美国的经济终能走出金融风暴重创的阴霾，重拾金融领导地位，“但没有人知道要多久的时间才能恢复元气”，这将是美国下任总统必须面对及解决的重要课题。
民意调查：
危机助奥巴马支持率反超
最新民意调查显示，金融危机来袭帮助美国民主党总统候选人奥巴马提升了支持率。
《纽约时报》和哥伦比亚广播公司的一份联合调查显示，奥巴马在注册选民中领先麦凯恩五个百分点。大多数选民认为，谈到经济问题，奥巴马要比麦凯恩能干。
随着华尔街金融危机愈演愈烈，9月17日，美国民主党总统候选人奥巴马和美国共和党总统候选人麦凯恩不约而同地推出了以金融危机为内容的竞选广告，借机赢取选民的支持。奥巴马在竞选广告中称，“这（金融危机）不仅仅是一连串的坏运气，事实是当你们承担了你们的责任时，华盛顿却并未承担责任，这就是为什么我们需要改变，真正的改变。”
麦凯恩在竞选广告中谴责“华尔街的贪婪”，并承诺改革金融体系和华盛顿政治。麦凯恩抨击奥巴马说：“我的选举对手提出的唯一解决方案就是谈话和税收。”
几天以来，两位候选人就经济问题展开激烈论战。其中多数言论都是有关政府接管美国国际集团投资有限公司（AIG）的。
波及欧洲
欧盟官员：全球经济及金融还将受更多冲击
欧盟委员会负责经济和货币事务的委员华金·阿尔穆尼亚18日说，在此次金融危机消退前，全球经济和金融市场可能还要经受更多冲击。
欧盟委员会：危机还远未结束
阿尔穆尼亚当天在马德里发表演讲时指出，这场危机还远未结束。“没有人能够解决金融机构的偿付问题……中央银行已做好准备。”
过去几周里美国金融业风云变幻。美国最大的两家抵押贷款融资机构“两房”与全球最大保险商美国国际集团被美国政府接管，华尔街第四大投行雷曼兄弟则宣告破产。欧洲方面，在金融动荡、欧元走强及油价高企的冲击下，欧元区第二季度国内生产总值比前一个季度萎缩了0.2％，为欧元区启动以来首次出现经济负增长。阿尔穆尼亚说，在过去6个月里，“市场乐观情绪已逐渐消退”。
他同时指出，目前欧洲央行已清醒地意识到通货膨胀对经济造成的风险，确保物价稳定仍是央行的基本要务。
英国央行： 英家庭将承受房市调整之痛
英国中央银行——英格兰银行首席经济学家斯潘塞·达勒18日指出，未来英国房地产市场的调整将使许多家庭陷入“痛苦”境地。
达勒当天在英国多佛尔向商业领袖发表演讲时说：“一系列指标都显示，未来几个月里（英国房产市场）将进一步疲弱，这一调整过程将使许多家庭陷入痛苦之中。”他认为，房地产市场的持续调整会扩大信贷紧缩的影响，进而延长消费低迷期。
目前，房地产市场下滑、消费者开支缩减及信贷紧缩等正拖累英国经济走向衰退，而其通货膨胀率则达到11年来最高水平。英国央行近半年来一直将基准利率维持在5％的水平不变。
另报道，由于英国经济不景气，市场普遍低迷，这使得卖二手货的慈善商店的生意蒸蒸日上。2008年度慈善商店调查显示，去年主要慈善商店的销售利润增加了7.4％，多达1.07亿英镑。其中乐施会连锁店的销售利润超2100万英镑，救世军连锁店销售利润增幅达64％。
相比之下，英国零售业一片萧条。报道说，最新统计显示，今年7月至今，零售业销售额又下滑了1％。由于消费者节约开支，一些著名服装皮鞋零售商的经营难以为继，不得不关门。
次贷危机：信誉的转嫁
美国次贷危机的发生，同近10多年来抵押贷款市场的变革密切相关。在此之前，发放住房抵押贷款以商业银行为主，而且他们只向信誉良好的人提供固定利率的抵押贷款。
但现在，商业银行已不是住房抵押贷款的主要提供者。由于美国联邦法律的变革和管制的放松，其他一些金融机构，例如保险公司、股票经纪人都可以向消费者提供抵押贷款，甚至连沃尔玛超市也可以提供抵押贷款服务。
这些新兴的房贷提供商为了和传统的银行竞争，不惜降低门槛，把信用等级不高、经济实力不够的那些人也列入了可贷款对象，并推出各种条件优厚的新产品，如零首付、在初始阶段只付利息、不需要文件证明个人收入的贷款，这些被统称为次优级抵押贷款。
由于美联储自2004年6月起为预防通货膨胀而紧缩银根，连续提高联邦基金利率，房贷利率也相应上升，致使住房需求下降，房屋销售开始放缓，由此造成房价的疲软。房地产市场衰退使次级抵押贷款市场的问题暴露出来。许多背负次级房贷的房主因此受到双重打击。一方面是利率升高，按期还本付息发生困难，另一方面，他们又不能出售住房或者用已经拥有的产权再融资，因为他们拥有的那部分房产已经急剧贬值。在此情况下，许多人先是拖欠和违约，最后难逃被取消房产赎回权的命运。
——耶鲁大学金融学教授陈志武
美国经济就像一个人的身体，金融业是心脏，资金是血液，实体经济是身体其他器官。金融业遭到重创如同一个人得了心脏病，心脏供血能力受到影响，继而可能引发其他器官的不适甚至病痛。
——联合国全球经济监测部主任洪平凡
一系列指标都显示，未来几个月里（英国房产市场）将进一步疲弱，这一调整过程将使许多家庭陷入痛苦之中。
——英国中央银行—英格兰银行首席经济学家斯潘塞·达勒
波及基本面
美国耶鲁大学金融学教授陈志武18日说，美国政府的系列救助计划虽有助于缓解金融危机，但此次危机依然会给美国经济基本面带来严重影响。
政府救助计划将付代价大
美国财政部长保尔森当天表示，美国政府正在拟定一份金融救助计划，试图通过购买银行呆账帮助银行摆脱困境，以阻止金融危机进一步恶化。
就此，陈志武认为，目前美国正经历着自1929年以来最严重的金融危机，政府的系列救助计划将付出很大代价。为帮助主要金融机构摆脱困境，美国政府需要新发行约5000亿美元国债，这会使美国财政赤字激增，美国经济因此受损。
他还认为，美国政府的救助行动也会给未来美国经济带来问题。在美国政府直接或间接干预下，摩根大通收购美国第五大投资银行贝尔斯登，美国银行收购第三大投资银行美林证券公司，这种兼并将缔造新的金融寡头，政府日后可能更容易被大型企业“绑架”，为将来的金融稳定埋下隐患。
将对美经济造成严重伤害
对于金融危机对美国经济的影响，联合国全球经济监测部主任洪平凡有个比喻：美国经济就像一个人的身体，金融业是心脏，资金是血液，实体经济是身体其他器官。金融业遭到重创如同一个人得了心脏病，心脏供血能力受到影响，继而可能引发其他器官的不适甚至病痛。
洪平凡认为，这次金融危机将对美国经济造成严重伤害。由于金融业在危机中损失惨重，未来美国信贷规模和信贷条件都将紧缩，从而制约消费和生产的发展，美国经济前景短期内不容乐观。
信贷危机向货币市场蔓延
美国愈演愈烈的信贷危机正在向货币市场蔓延。美国主要基金公司PUTNAM投资公司18日突然宣布，由于机构投资者赎回压力增大，其决定将旗下一只规模120亿美元的货币市场基金清盘。
货币市场多用于短期资金融通，通常被认为收益稳定、风险很低。购买投资这类市场的基金，也被认为是储蓄的一种很好的替代方式。不过，由于目前美国的金融形势动荡，投资者信心不稳，纷纷将各类资产变现，货币市场也受到波及。
17日，一只大型零售货币基金RPF遭遇大规模赎回，导致其每单位美元资产净值大降，跌破1美元。这意味着投资者出现损失。不过，PUTNAM公司称，其决定关闭的这只基金的净值仍在1美元之上，且不存在资产信用质量下降的问题。但考虑到市场的流动性紧缺现状及客户赎回要求，基金受托管人投票决定清盘并尽快将资金返还投资者。据悉，这只基金只针对养老保险金管理公司等机构投资者销售。
影响选情
英国智库：风暴将削弱美政治影响力
英国知名智库——国际战略研究所（IISS）的学者18日指出，虽然目前美国政府因应处理得宜，但美国的政治影响力仍将因此被削弱。
据报道，《IISS年度战略报告》及《战略评论》两份重要刊物的主编尼柯尔指出，金融风暴是目前全球面临最严重的危机，几乎没有任何国家可以幸免的；可以确定的是，风暴仍未结束，也未走到谷底。
曾担任财经记者的尼柯尔说，综观这一波全球金融风暴的规模及冲击，只能用“令人咋舌”来形容；美国政府在历经攻打伊拉克等事件后，国际地位已受影响，外交影响力大不如前，中东政策也未受到国际社会的瞩目，现在接连爆发重大金融危机，无疑对美国的政治影响力造成深一层的伤害。
尼柯尔认为，经济兴衰本有周期，相信美国的经济终能走出金融风暴重创的阴霾，重拾金融领导地位，“但没有人知道要多久的时间才能恢复元气”，这将是美国下任总统必须面对及解决的重要课题。
民意调查：
危机助奥巴马支持率反超
最新民意调查显示，金融危机来袭帮助美国民主党总统候选人奥巴马提升了支持率。
《纽约时报》和哥伦比亚广播公司的一份联合调查显示，奥巴马在注册选民中领先麦凯恩五个百分点。大多数选民认为，谈到经济问题，奥巴马要比麦凯恩能干。
随着华尔街金融危机愈演愈烈，9月17日，美国民主党总统候选人奥巴马和美国共和党总统候选人麦凯恩不约而同地推出了以金融危机为内容的竞选广告，借机赢取选民的支持。奥巴马在竞选广告中称，“这（金融危机）不仅仅是一连串的坏运气，事实是当你们承担了你们的责任时，华盛顿却并未承担责任，这就是为什么我们需要改变，真正的改变。”
麦凯恩在竞选广告中谴责“华尔街的贪婪”，并承诺改革金融体系和华盛顿政治。麦凯恩抨击奥巴马说：“我的选举对手提出的唯一解决方案就是谈话和税收。”
几天以来，两位候选人就经济问题展开激烈论战。其中多数言论都是有关政府接管美国国际集团投资有限公司（AIG）的。
波及欧洲
欧盟官员：全球经济及金融还将受更多冲击
欧盟委员会负责经济和货币事务的委员华金·阿尔穆尼亚18日说，在此次金融危机消退前，全球经济和金融市场可能还要经受更多冲击。
欧盟委员会：危机还远未结束
阿尔穆尼亚当天在马德里发表演讲时指出，这场危机还远未结束。“没有人能够解决金融机构的偿付问题……中央银行已做好准备。”
过去几周里美国金融业风云变幻。美国最大的两家抵押贷款融资机构“两房”与全球最大保险商美国国际集团被美国政府接管，华尔街第四大投行雷曼兄弟则宣告破产。欧洲方面，在金融动荡、欧元走强及油价高企的冲击下，欧元区第二季度国内生产总值比前一个季度萎缩了0.2％，为欧元区启动以来首次出现经济负增长。阿尔穆尼亚说，在过去6个月里，“市场乐观情绪已逐渐消退”。
他同时指出，目前欧洲央行已清醒地意识到通货膨胀对经济造成的风险，确保物价稳定仍是央行的基本要务。
英国央行： 英家庭将承受房市调整之痛
英国中央银行——英格兰银行首席经济学家斯潘塞·达勒18日指出，未来英国房地产市场的调整将使许多家庭陷入“痛苦”境地。
达勒当天在英国多佛尔向商业领袖发表演讲时说：“一系列指标都显示，未来几个月里（英国房产市场）将进一步疲弱，这一调整过程将使许多家庭陷入痛苦之中。”他认为，房地产市场的持续调整会扩大信贷紧缩的影响，进而延长消费低迷期。
目前，房地产市场下滑、消费者开支缩减及信贷紧缩等正拖累英国经济走向衰退，而其通货膨胀率则达到11年来最高水平。英国央行近半年来一直将基准利率维持在5％的水平不变。
另报道，由于英国经济不景气，市场普遍低迷，这使得卖二手货的慈善商店的生意蒸蒸日上。2008年度慈善商店调查显示，去年主要慈善商店的销售利润增加了7.4％，多达1.07亿英镑。其中乐施会连锁店的销售利润超2100万英镑，救世军连锁店销售利润增幅达64％。
相比之下，英国零售业一片萧条。报道说，最新统计显示，今年7月至今，零售业销售额又下滑了1％。由于消费者节约开支，一些著名服装皮鞋零售商的经营难以为继，不得不关门。
次贷危机：信誉的转嫁
美国次贷危机的发生，同近10多年来抵押贷款市场的变革密切相关。在此之前，发放住房抵押贷款以商业银行为主，而且他们只向信誉良好的人提供固定利率的抵押贷款。
但现在，商业银行已不是住房抵押贷款的主要提供者。由于美国联邦法律的变革和管制的放松，其他一些金融机构，例如保险公司、股票经纪人都可以向消费者提供抵押贷款，甚至连沃尔玛超市也可以提供抵押贷款服务。
这些新兴的房贷提供商为了和传统的银行竞争，不惜降低门槛，把信用等级不高、经济实力不够的那些人也列入了可贷款对象，并推出各种条件优厚的新产品，如零首付、在初始阶段只付利息、不需要文件证明个人收入的贷款，这些被统称为次优级抵押贷款。
由于美联储自2004年6月起为预防通货膨胀而紧缩银根，连续提高联邦基金利率，房贷利率也相应上升，致使住房需求下降，房屋销售开始放缓，由此造成房价的疲软。房地产市场衰退使次级抵押贷款市场的问题暴露出来。许多背负次级房贷的房主因此受到双重打击。一方面是利率升高，按期还本付息发生困难，另一方面，他们又不能出售住房或者用已经拥有的产权再融资，因为他们拥有的那部分房产已经急剧贬值。在此情况下，许多人先是拖欠和违约，最后难逃被取消房产赎回权的命运。
驰骋华尔街二十余载 数学大师练就点金术
在华尔街，韬光养晦是优秀的对冲基金经理恪守的准则，詹姆斯·西蒙斯（James Simons）也是如此，即使是华尔街专业人士，对他及其旗下的文艺复兴科技公司（Renaissance Technologies）也所知甚少。然而在数学界，西蒙斯却是大名鼎鼎。早在上个世纪，詹姆斯·西蒙斯就是一位赫赫有名的数学大师。在2007年“华尔街最会赚钱的基金经理”排行榜中，这位70岁的数学大师以年收入13亿美元，位列第五。
数学天才
1938年出生于波士顿牛顿镇的西蒙斯是一个制鞋厂老板的后代。他的数学天分在童年就展现无遗，当别的孩子还躲在妈妈怀里听童话故事的时候，他就开始思考数学问题了。3岁时，西蒙斯对于汽车耗尽汽油的现象发生了兴趣：他认为汽油是不会被完全用尽的，因为如果每次用掉油量的一半，还会剩下一半，这样下去，最后肯定有剩余。这种想法同春秋时期庄子提出的“一尺之锤，日取其半，万世不竭”的思想有相似之处，也类似于古希腊学者Zeno提出的一个著名的悖论——乌龟和Achilles（希腊传说中的英雄）赛跑，乌龟提前跑了一段——假设为100米，假设阿基里斯的速度为乌龟的10倍，这样当阿基里斯跑100米到达乌龟的出发点时，乌龟向前跑了10米；当阿基里斯再追了这10米时，乌龟又向前跑了1米……如此下去，因为追赶者必须首先到达被追赶者的原来位置，所以被追赶者总是在追赶者的前面，由此得出阿基里斯永远追不上乌龟的结论。这些想法体现了原始的微积分思想，对于一个3岁的幼童来说，就开始琢磨着类似的问题，真是让人不可思议！
从牛顿高中毕业后，西蒙斯进入麻省理工学院学习数学。天资聪慧加上后天的刻苦努力，他在大一的时候就达到了毕业生的水平。西蒙斯师从著名数学家Warren Ambrose和I.M.Singer。他经常以崇拜的眼光看着两位大师点完餐后，坐在餐厅讨论数学问题，直到深夜。西蒙斯对这种生活充满了向往。
三年后，1958年，西蒙斯获得了学士学位。他来到加州大学伯克利分校继续深造。在这里还有一段有趣的小插曲。据说西蒙斯刚入校的时候，想跟陈省身先生（美籍华人，20世纪著名几何学家，被国际数学界尊为“微分几何之父”，当时为伯克利的数学教授）学习微分几何，然而恰好陈先生那时去了欧洲。西蒙斯没有因此中断学习，他自己找书钻研，看懂了后贴出海报，让大家去听他讲。由于讲得很精彩，吸引了很多教授去旁听。1962年，23岁的西蒙斯拿到了博士学位。1961～1964年，西蒙斯先后在麻省理工和哈佛大学教授数学，开始了他的人生追求。
然而由于经济和学术等各方面的种种压力，西蒙斯在1964年被迫离开了大学校园，进入美国国防部下属的一个组织——国防逻辑分析协会，进行代码破解工作。这份工作让他既有充裕的时间进行科研工作，又有足够的薪水养家糊口。然而没过多久，《时代》周刊上关于越南战争的残酷报道让他意识到他的工作实际上正在帮助美军在越南的军事行动，于是他向《新闻周刊》写信说应该结束战争。当他把他的反战想法告诉老板时，自然，他被解雇了。
西蒙斯又回到了学术界，成为纽约州立石溪大学的数学系主任，在那里做了8年的纯数学研究。1974年，他与陈省身联合发表了论文《典型群和几何不变式》，创立了著名的Chern-Simons理论。该几何理论对理论物理学具有重要意义，被广泛应用到从超引力到黑洞的各大领域。1976年，西蒙斯获得了每5年一次的全美数学科学维布伦（Veblen）奖金，这是数学领域里的最高荣耀。
投资奇才
在数学上获得斐然成就后，西蒙斯开始寻找新的方向。据说西蒙斯曾经找到陈省身先生咨询是从政好还是经商好，陈先生告诉他，从政比数学复杂多了，不适合他，还是经商吧。于是西蒙斯就转向了投资。
1977年，西蒙斯离开纽约州立石溪大学，创立了私人投资基金。最初他也采用基本面分析的方式，例如通过分析美联储货币政策和利率走向来判断市场价格走势。1988年3月西蒙斯成立了一只对冲基金Medallion，最初主要涉及期货交易。当年该基金盈利8.8％，而1989年则开始亏损，西蒙斯不得不在1989年6月份停止交易。在接下来的6个月中，西蒙斯和普林斯顿大学数学家Henry Larufer重新开发了交易策略，并从基本面分析转向数量分析。从此，西蒙斯转型为“模型先生”。
此后，这只基金屡创辉煌。1988年以来，Medallion年均回报率高达34％，这个数字较索罗斯等投资大师同期的年均回报率要高出10个百分点，较同期标准普尔500指数的年均回报率则高出20多个百分点；从2002年底至2005年底，规模为50亿美元的Medallion已经为投资者支付了60多亿美元的回报。这个回报率是在扣除了5％的资产管理费和44％的投资收益分成以后得出的。值得一提的是，西蒙斯收取的这两项费用可能是对冲基金界最高的，相当于平均收费标准的两倍以上。
针对不同市场设计数量化的投资管理模型，以电脑运算为主导，并在全球各种市场上进行短线交易，是西蒙斯的成功秘诀。对于数量分析型对冲基金而言，交易行为更多是基于电脑对价格走势的分析，而非人的主观判断。文艺复兴科技公司主要由3个部分组成，即电脑和系统专家、研究人员以及交易人员。西蒙斯每周都要和研究团队见一次面，和他们共同探讨交易细节以及如何使交易策略更加完善。不过西蒙斯对交易细节守口如瓶，除了公司200多名员工外，没有人能够得到他们操作的任何线索。
作为一位数学家，西蒙斯知道靠幸运只有1/2的成功概率，要战胜市场必须以周密而准确的计算为基础。Medallion主要通过研究市场历史数据来发现统计相关性，以预测期货、货币、股票市场的短期运动，并通过数千次快速的日内短线交易来捕捉稍纵即逝的市场机会，交易量之大甚至有时能占到整个NASDAQ交易量的10％。当交易开始，交易模型决定买卖品种和时机，但在某些特定情况下，比如市场处在极端波动的时候，交易会切换到手工状态。
西蒙斯透露，公司对交易品种的选择有三个标准：即公开交易品种、流动性高，同时符合模型设置的某些要求。他表示，“我是模型先生，不想进行基本面分析，模型的优势之一是可以降低风险。而依靠个人判断选股，你可能一夜暴富，也可能在第二天又输得精光。”
然而模型也有靠不住的时候。由于次贷危机的影响，文艺复兴科技公司旗下的“文艺复兴法人股票基金”在去年8月的前八天就下跌了8.7％，虽然后来几个月稍有起色，但去年总共损失了1％。大家都在期待着西蒙斯是否能够妙手回春。
管理英才
西蒙斯的文艺复兴科技公司总部位于纽约长岛，从外表来看，那座建筑更像是一个数学研究所。和很多基金公司不同的是，公司的中心建筑并不是夜以继日不停交易的交易室，而是一间有100个座位的礼堂。每隔半个月，员工都会在那里听一场科学演讲。“有趣而且实用的统计学演讲，对你的思想一定会有所启发。”一位喜欢这种学习方式的员工说。
令人惊讶的还不止这些。西蒙斯对华尔街的投资家们不感兴趣，事实上，如果你想去文艺复兴科技公司工作的话，华尔街经验反而会成为绊脚石。在公司的200多名员工中，将近1/2的雇员都是数学、物理学、统计学等领域顶尖的科学家，只有两位是金融学博士出身，而且公司从不雇用商学院毕业生，也决不雇用华尔街人士。这在美国的投资公司中绝对是独一无二的。“我们不雇用数理逻辑不好的学生，”西蒙斯说，“好的数学家需要直觉，对很多事情的发展总是有很强的好奇心，这对于战胜市场非常重要。”文艺复兴科技公司拥有一流的科学家，其中包括贝尔试验室的著名科学家Peter Weinberger和弗吉尼亚大学教授Robert Lourie。另外，他还从IBM公司招募了部分熟悉语音识别系统的员工。西蒙斯认为，“交易员和语音识别的工作人员有相似之处，他们总是在猜测下一刻会发生什么。”
文艺复兴科技公司几乎不存在人员流动。这里薪酬丰厚，而且工作压力相对较小。每6个月，公司员工会根据业绩收到相应的现金红利。据说半年内的业绩基准是12％，很多时候这个指标可以轻松达到，不少员工还拥有公司的股权。西蒙斯很重视公司的气氛，他经常会和员工及其家属们分享周末。2000年时，他们就曾一起飞去百慕大度假。
慈善散财
跟其他暴富的同行不同的是，西蒙斯没有把他的财富用来享乐而是转向了慈善事业。西蒙斯和他的第二任妻子玛里琳成立了西蒙斯基金会，专门为教育、卫生、自然科学研究等项目提供资助。
由于西蒙斯和陈省身先生亦师亦友的亲密关系，西蒙斯也为中国教育做出了贡献，他为清华大学捐资建立了“陈-西蒙斯”专家公寓楼。陈先生生前常开玩笑说希望自己能多活几年，这样就可以跟西蒙斯多要一些钱了。可惜陈先生于2004年驾鹤西归，也许西蒙斯捐资中国教育的脚步也就此止住了。
数学天才
1938年出生于波士顿牛顿镇的西蒙斯是一个制鞋厂老板的后代。他的数学天分在童年就展现无遗，当别的孩子还躲在妈妈怀里听童话故事的时候，他就开始思考数学问题了。3岁时，西蒙斯对于汽车耗尽汽油的现象发生了兴趣：他认为汽油是不会被完全用尽的，因为如果每次用掉油量的一半，还会剩下一半，这样下去，最后肯定有剩余。这种想法同春秋时期庄子提出的“一尺之锤，日取其半，万世不竭”的思想有相似之处，也类似于古希腊学者Zeno提出的一个著名的悖论——乌龟和Achilles（希腊传说中的英雄）赛跑，乌龟提前跑了一段——假设为100米，假设阿基里斯的速度为乌龟的10倍，这样当阿基里斯跑100米到达乌龟的出发点时，乌龟向前跑了10米；当阿基里斯再追了这10米时，乌龟又向前跑了1米……如此下去，因为追赶者必须首先到达被追赶者的原来位置，所以被追赶者总是在追赶者的前面，由此得出阿基里斯永远追不上乌龟的结论。这些想法体现了原始的微积分思想，对于一个3岁的幼童来说，就开始琢磨着类似的问题，真是让人不可思议！
从牛顿高中毕业后，西蒙斯进入麻省理工学院学习数学。天资聪慧加上后天的刻苦努力，他在大一的时候就达到了毕业生的水平。西蒙斯师从著名数学家Warren Ambrose和I.M.Singer。他经常以崇拜的眼光看着两位大师点完餐后，坐在餐厅讨论数学问题，直到深夜。西蒙斯对这种生活充满了向往。
三年后，1958年，西蒙斯获得了学士学位。他来到加州大学伯克利分校继续深造。在这里还有一段有趣的小插曲。据说西蒙斯刚入校的时候，想跟陈省身先生（美籍华人，20世纪著名几何学家，被国际数学界尊为“微分几何之父”，当时为伯克利的数学教授）学习微分几何，然而恰好陈先生那时去了欧洲。西蒙斯没有因此中断学习，他自己找书钻研，看懂了后贴出海报，让大家去听他讲。由于讲得很精彩，吸引了很多教授去旁听。1962年，23岁的西蒙斯拿到了博士学位。1961～1964年，西蒙斯先后在麻省理工和哈佛大学教授数学，开始了他的人生追求。
然而由于经济和学术等各方面的种种压力，西蒙斯在1964年被迫离开了大学校园，进入美国国防部下属的一个组织——国防逻辑分析协会，进行代码破解工作。这份工作让他既有充裕的时间进行科研工作，又有足够的薪水养家糊口。然而没过多久，《时代》周刊上关于越南战争的残酷报道让他意识到他的工作实际上正在帮助美军在越南的军事行动，于是他向《新闻周刊》写信说应该结束战争。当他把他的反战想法告诉老板时，自然，他被解雇了。
西蒙斯又回到了学术界，成为纽约州立石溪大学的数学系主任，在那里做了8年的纯数学研究。1974年，他与陈省身联合发表了论文《典型群和几何不变式》，创立了著名的Chern-Simons理论。该几何理论对理论物理学具有重要意义，被广泛应用到从超引力到黑洞的各大领域。1976年，西蒙斯获得了每5年一次的全美数学科学维布伦（Veblen）奖金，这是数学领域里的最高荣耀。
投资奇才
在数学上获得斐然成就后，西蒙斯开始寻找新的方向。据说西蒙斯曾经找到陈省身先生咨询是从政好还是经商好，陈先生告诉他，从政比数学复杂多了，不适合他，还是经商吧。于是西蒙斯就转向了投资。
1977年，西蒙斯离开纽约州立石溪大学，创立了私人投资基金。最初他也采用基本面分析的方式，例如通过分析美联储货币政策和利率走向来判断市场价格走势。1988年3月西蒙斯成立了一只对冲基金Medallion，最初主要涉及期货交易。当年该基金盈利8.8％，而1989年则开始亏损，西蒙斯不得不在1989年6月份停止交易。在接下来的6个月中，西蒙斯和普林斯顿大学数学家Henry Larufer重新开发了交易策略，并从基本面分析转向数量分析。从此，西蒙斯转型为“模型先生”。
此后，这只基金屡创辉煌。1988年以来，Medallion年均回报率高达34％，这个数字较索罗斯等投资大师同期的年均回报率要高出10个百分点，较同期标准普尔500指数的年均回报率则高出20多个百分点；从2002年底至2005年底，规模为50亿美元的Medallion已经为投资者支付了60多亿美元的回报。这个回报率是在扣除了5％的资产管理费和44％的投资收益分成以后得出的。值得一提的是，西蒙斯收取的这两项费用可能是对冲基金界最高的，相当于平均收费标准的两倍以上。
针对不同市场设计数量化的投资管理模型，以电脑运算为主导，并在全球各种市场上进行短线交易，是西蒙斯的成功秘诀。对于数量分析型对冲基金而言，交易行为更多是基于电脑对价格走势的分析，而非人的主观判断。文艺复兴科技公司主要由3个部分组成，即电脑和系统专家、研究人员以及交易人员。西蒙斯每周都要和研究团队见一次面，和他们共同探讨交易细节以及如何使交易策略更加完善。不过西蒙斯对交易细节守口如瓶，除了公司200多名员工外，没有人能够得到他们操作的任何线索。
作为一位数学家，西蒙斯知道靠幸运只有1/2的成功概率，要战胜市场必须以周密而准确的计算为基础。Medallion主要通过研究市场历史数据来发现统计相关性，以预测期货、货币、股票市场的短期运动，并通过数千次快速的日内短线交易来捕捉稍纵即逝的市场机会，交易量之大甚至有时能占到整个NASDAQ交易量的10％。当交易开始，交易模型决定买卖品种和时机，但在某些特定情况下，比如市场处在极端波动的时候，交易会切换到手工状态。
西蒙斯透露，公司对交易品种的选择有三个标准：即公开交易品种、流动性高，同时符合模型设置的某些要求。他表示，“我是模型先生，不想进行基本面分析，模型的优势之一是可以降低风险。而依靠个人判断选股，你可能一夜暴富，也可能在第二天又输得精光。”
然而模型也有靠不住的时候。由于次贷危机的影响，文艺复兴科技公司旗下的“文艺复兴法人股票基金”在去年8月的前八天就下跌了8.7％，虽然后来几个月稍有起色，但去年总共损失了1％。大家都在期待着西蒙斯是否能够妙手回春。
管理英才
西蒙斯的文艺复兴科技公司总部位于纽约长岛，从外表来看，那座建筑更像是一个数学研究所。和很多基金公司不同的是，公司的中心建筑并不是夜以继日不停交易的交易室，而是一间有100个座位的礼堂。每隔半个月，员工都会在那里听一场科学演讲。“有趣而且实用的统计学演讲，对你的思想一定会有所启发。”一位喜欢这种学习方式的员工说。
令人惊讶的还不止这些。西蒙斯对华尔街的投资家们不感兴趣，事实上，如果你想去文艺复兴科技公司工作的话，华尔街经验反而会成为绊脚石。在公司的200多名员工中，将近1/2的雇员都是数学、物理学、统计学等领域顶尖的科学家，只有两位是金融学博士出身，而且公司从不雇用商学院毕业生，也决不雇用华尔街人士。这在美国的投资公司中绝对是独一无二的。“我们不雇用数理逻辑不好的学生，”西蒙斯说，“好的数学家需要直觉，对很多事情的发展总是有很强的好奇心，这对于战胜市场非常重要。”文艺复兴科技公司拥有一流的科学家，其中包括贝尔试验室的著名科学家Peter Weinberger和弗吉尼亚大学教授Robert Lourie。另外，他还从IBM公司招募了部分熟悉语音识别系统的员工。西蒙斯认为，“交易员和语音识别的工作人员有相似之处，他们总是在猜测下一刻会发生什么。”
文艺复兴科技公司几乎不存在人员流动。这里薪酬丰厚，而且工作压力相对较小。每6个月，公司员工会根据业绩收到相应的现金红利。据说半年内的业绩基准是12％，很多时候这个指标可以轻松达到，不少员工还拥有公司的股权。西蒙斯很重视公司的气氛，他经常会和员工及其家属们分享周末。2000年时，他们就曾一起飞去百慕大度假。
慈善散财
跟其他暴富的同行不同的是，西蒙斯没有把他的财富用来享乐而是转向了慈善事业。西蒙斯和他的第二任妻子玛里琳成立了西蒙斯基金会，专门为教育、卫生、自然科学研究等项目提供资助。
由于西蒙斯和陈省身先生亦师亦友的亲密关系，西蒙斯也为中国教育做出了贡献，他为清华大学捐资建立了“陈-西蒙斯”专家公寓楼。陈先生生前常开玩笑说希望自己能多活几年，这样就可以跟西蒙斯多要一些钱了。可惜陈先生于2004年驾鹤西归，也许西蒙斯捐资中国教育的脚步也就此止住了。
Bank bailout: Where things stand
The federal government is on the verge of instituting the most sweeping intervention in the financial markets since the Great Depression.
Details remain scarce as the Bush administration and Congress work to hammer out the final plan, which is aimed at stemming the credit crisis that's roiling Wall Street and threatening the global markets.
The Bush administration sent its proposal to members of Congress overnight, according to White House spokesman Tony Fratto.
"Secretary Paulson and his team will continue their discussions with Congress and staff throughout the weekend, and we're hopeful that good progress will be made," Fratto said.
Here's what we know so far:
The plan: The federal government would buy up "hundreds of billions of dollars" of illiquid mortgage assets at a deep discount from banks. The Treasury Department is likely to run the program directly, unlike the savings and loan crisis of the 1990s that led to the creation of the Resolution Trust Company.
"The federal government must implement a program to remove these illiquid assets that are weighing down our financial institutions and threatening our economy," said Paulson.
What remains to be seen is how the Treasury Department will structure the purchases and what price they'll pay.
The cost: While the proposal calls for the purchase of "hundreds of billions of dollars" of bad loans, it's unknown what taxpayers will ultimately pay for the bailout.
The government will likely buy the assets at below-market rates and hold onto them until the market recovers. Ideally, the loans could then be sold at a gain.
"The government could make a profit, a substantial profit," said Jaret Seiberg, a financial services analyst at the Stanford Group, a policy research firm. "The pricing mechanism is going to be central."
Will it work: The jury is still out, although experts are cautiously optimistic the plan will help the housing crisis.
The plan will help banks shore up their balance sheets by removing hard-to-value assets. This would address the seemingly endless rounds of writedowns and capital raising that have been rocking the financial sector.
Without these bad loans weighing on their books, banks may be more willing to lend. Or at least that's the goal.
The problem is that the bailout will not automatically make banks profitable, nor will it stop the slide in home values that is wreaking havoc on the economy.
Will it help homeowners: It's unclear at this point. If the government buys an entire securitized loan, it could opt to help struggling homeowners by modifying the terms. This could include reducing a loan's interest rate or principal balance.
But it could prove difficult to snap up all the securities sold on a mortgage, experts said. And as long as investors still hold a piece, they could block any changes to the loan.
If the plan doesn't stem the tide of foreclosures, home prices will not stabilize and the economy will not recover, experts said.
Next steps: Lawmakers have said they'll review the plan over the weekend and plan to hold hearings on the matter next week. A deal could be hammered out as soon as next week.
Details remain scarce as the Bush administration and Congress work to hammer out the final plan, which is aimed at stemming the credit crisis that's roiling Wall Street and threatening the global markets.
The Bush administration sent its proposal to members of Congress overnight, according to White House spokesman Tony Fratto.
"Secretary Paulson and his team will continue their discussions with Congress and staff throughout the weekend, and we're hopeful that good progress will be made," Fratto said.
Here's what we know so far:
The plan: The federal government would buy up "hundreds of billions of dollars" of illiquid mortgage assets at a deep discount from banks. The Treasury Department is likely to run the program directly, unlike the savings and loan crisis of the 1990s that led to the creation of the Resolution Trust Company.
"The federal government must implement a program to remove these illiquid assets that are weighing down our financial institutions and threatening our economy," said Paulson.
What remains to be seen is how the Treasury Department will structure the purchases and what price they'll pay.
The cost: While the proposal calls for the purchase of "hundreds of billions of dollars" of bad loans, it's unknown what taxpayers will ultimately pay for the bailout.
The government will likely buy the assets at below-market rates and hold onto them until the market recovers. Ideally, the loans could then be sold at a gain.
"The government could make a profit, a substantial profit," said Jaret Seiberg, a financial services analyst at the Stanford Group, a policy research firm. "The pricing mechanism is going to be central."
Will it work: The jury is still out, although experts are cautiously optimistic the plan will help the housing crisis.
The plan will help banks shore up their balance sheets by removing hard-to-value assets. This would address the seemingly endless rounds of writedowns and capital raising that have been rocking the financial sector.
Without these bad loans weighing on their books, banks may be more willing to lend. Or at least that's the goal.
The problem is that the bailout will not automatically make banks profitable, nor will it stop the slide in home values that is wreaking havoc on the economy.
Will it help homeowners: It's unclear at this point. If the government buys an entire securitized loan, it could opt to help struggling homeowners by modifying the terms. This could include reducing a loan's interest rate or principal balance.
But it could prove difficult to snap up all the securities sold on a mortgage, experts said. And as long as investors still hold a piece, they could block any changes to the loan.
If the plan doesn't stem the tide of foreclosures, home prices will not stabilize and the economy will not recover, experts said.
Next steps: Lawmakers have said they'll review the plan over the weekend and plan to hold hearings on the matter next week. A deal could be hammered out as soon as next week.
Will it work?
More questions than answers about how effective the federal bailout plan will be.
Experts are cautiously optimistic that the massive federal bailout of the nation's financial sector will solve the credit crisis that hit Wall Street this week.
But questions remain about whether it will prevent more failures of banks and Wall Street firms and many doubt this will lead to a quick turnaround for the battered housing market.
The broad outlines of the plan call for the federal government to buy hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of mortgage assets held by banks, Wall Street firms and other financial institutions.
Those securities were backed by home loans, many made to buyers with bad credit or without proof of income. As housing values fell and foreclosures shot to record levels in the past two years, the value of those securities plunged. That in turn caused massive losses in the financial sector.
This week it reached a crisis situation. Banks and investment firms stopped making the loans to each other as they hoarded cash to protect against any sudden liquidity crunch as well from unknown problems on their partners' balance sheets.
Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke won support for the bailout plan from Congressional leaders in a meeting Thursday night.
Friday morning, Paulson said he'll be working through the weekend with those on Capitol Hill to hammer out legislation that could go for a vote as soon as next week.
"I am convinced that this bold approach will cost American families far less than the alternative -- a continuing series of financial institution failures and frozen credit markets unable to fund economic expansion," Paulson said Friday. "I believe many members of Congress share my conviction."
Word of the plan first leaked Thursday afternoon, causing a massive rally in stocks at the end of the day that carried over into Friday. Several economists also praised the move.
"I'm confident this will work," said Mark Zandi, chief economist with Moody's Economy.com. "The federal government is committed to backstopping the nation's financial system and will do whatever is necessary to make sure the system does not unravel. The details are important but secondary."
The plan also won support from presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama. Zandi is an informal economic advisor to the McCain campaign.
Other experts said that while there are obviously big risks to taxpayers, the federal government has little choice but to provide the assurance to financial markets.
"If this doesn't work, we're in trouble, because there's not much more the government can do," said Jaret Seiberg, a financial services analyst at the Stanford Group. "They've left very few arrows in the quiver."
More losses, failures expected
But Seiberg added that the bailout won't completely end the recent turmoil on Wall Street, a crisis that began with the Treasury's seizure of mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae (FNM, Fortune 500) and Freddie Mac (FRE, Fortune 500) earlier this month and escalated this week with the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers (LEH, Fortune 500) and the $85 billion loan to American International Group (AIG, Fortune 500), the world's largest insurer, by the Federal Reserve.
"What the government is doing now is not suddenly going to make institutions profitable," he said. "What we're talking about is trying to make them stable. That means removing the risk from their balance sheet and putting it on the taxpayer. The government has a much better ability to hold onto that risk for an extended period of time."
Still, Seiberg is optimistic that the bailout will help home prices finally start to recover since it should lead to lower mortgage rates and improve consumer confidence.
But others say that there are still enough fundamental problems in housing, including a huge glut of homes for sale and the likelihood of more foreclosures in the pipeline.
"It should help housing prices find a bottom but I still think it will be about a year from now -- and after prices decline another 10%," said Stuart Hoffman, chief economist for PNC Financial Services Group.
Nonetheless, even if home prices don't stabilize soon, one expert said the bailout could be a success if it allows bank to stop hoarding cash and once again begin lending to each other, consumers and businesses.
"The one thing you don't want is to have the economy grind to a halt because people can't get credit," said Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research.
Baker predicts home prices will fall another 20% even with the bailout but said the decline could become even more severe without passage of the rescue plan.
"Housing prices were a bubble and you can't stop them from deflating," Baker said. "But [the bailout] might stop an uncontrolled plunge."
Will Congress pass the bailout?
Despite the support being voiced by Democrats and Republicans for the plan on Friday, Seiberg said its chance of passage is by no means certain.
"The odds of this passing are probably around 80% - and those are pretty good odds for Washington," he said. "But it's not a slam dunk."
Sen. Richard Shelby, the ranking Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, questioned the plan Friday morning, telling CNNMoney.com that he doubts it will be the last federal bailout in the sector that will be needed.
"Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke have not said ...this is going to contain everything," he said. "They're hoping it is. What they're doing is jumping from crisis to crisis. I haven't seen a comprehensive plan yet."
He wouldn't commit to supporting the measure.
"This is too big to just accept without knowing what it does, who pays for it and is this the end of it," he said. "It's true that there's stress in the financial markets. But should we bail out everybody? We know it's important to the financial system, but at what price?"
Experts are cautiously optimistic that the massive federal bailout of the nation's financial sector will solve the credit crisis that hit Wall Street this week.
But questions remain about whether it will prevent more failures of banks and Wall Street firms and many doubt this will lead to a quick turnaround for the battered housing market.
The broad outlines of the plan call for the federal government to buy hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of mortgage assets held by banks, Wall Street firms and other financial institutions.
Those securities were backed by home loans, many made to buyers with bad credit or without proof of income. As housing values fell and foreclosures shot to record levels in the past two years, the value of those securities plunged. That in turn caused massive losses in the financial sector.
This week it reached a crisis situation. Banks and investment firms stopped making the loans to each other as they hoarded cash to protect against any sudden liquidity crunch as well from unknown problems on their partners' balance sheets.
Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke won support for the bailout plan from Congressional leaders in a meeting Thursday night.
Friday morning, Paulson said he'll be working through the weekend with those on Capitol Hill to hammer out legislation that could go for a vote as soon as next week.
"I am convinced that this bold approach will cost American families far less than the alternative -- a continuing series of financial institution failures and frozen credit markets unable to fund economic expansion," Paulson said Friday. "I believe many members of Congress share my conviction."
Word of the plan first leaked Thursday afternoon, causing a massive rally in stocks at the end of the day that carried over into Friday. Several economists also praised the move.
"I'm confident this will work," said Mark Zandi, chief economist with Moody's Economy.com. "The federal government is committed to backstopping the nation's financial system and will do whatever is necessary to make sure the system does not unravel. The details are important but secondary."
The plan also won support from presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama. Zandi is an informal economic advisor to the McCain campaign.
Other experts said that while there are obviously big risks to taxpayers, the federal government has little choice but to provide the assurance to financial markets.
"If this doesn't work, we're in trouble, because there's not much more the government can do," said Jaret Seiberg, a financial services analyst at the Stanford Group. "They've left very few arrows in the quiver."
More losses, failures expected
But Seiberg added that the bailout won't completely end the recent turmoil on Wall Street, a crisis that began with the Treasury's seizure of mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae (FNM, Fortune 500) and Freddie Mac (FRE, Fortune 500) earlier this month and escalated this week with the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers (LEH, Fortune 500) and the $85 billion loan to American International Group (AIG, Fortune 500), the world's largest insurer, by the Federal Reserve.
"What the government is doing now is not suddenly going to make institutions profitable," he said. "What we're talking about is trying to make them stable. That means removing the risk from their balance sheet and putting it on the taxpayer. The government has a much better ability to hold onto that risk for an extended period of time."
Still, Seiberg is optimistic that the bailout will help home prices finally start to recover since it should lead to lower mortgage rates and improve consumer confidence.
But others say that there are still enough fundamental problems in housing, including a huge glut of homes for sale and the likelihood of more foreclosures in the pipeline.
"It should help housing prices find a bottom but I still think it will be about a year from now -- and after prices decline another 10%," said Stuart Hoffman, chief economist for PNC Financial Services Group.
Nonetheless, even if home prices don't stabilize soon, one expert said the bailout could be a success if it allows bank to stop hoarding cash and once again begin lending to each other, consumers and businesses.
"The one thing you don't want is to have the economy grind to a halt because people can't get credit," said Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research.
Baker predicts home prices will fall another 20% even with the bailout but said the decline could become even more severe without passage of the rescue plan.
"Housing prices were a bubble and you can't stop them from deflating," Baker said. "But [the bailout] might stop an uncontrolled plunge."
Will Congress pass the bailout?
Despite the support being voiced by Democrats and Republicans for the plan on Friday, Seiberg said its chance of passage is by no means certain.
"The odds of this passing are probably around 80% - and those are pretty good odds for Washington," he said. "But it's not a slam dunk."
Sen. Richard Shelby, the ranking Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, questioned the plan Friday morning, telling CNNMoney.com that he doubts it will be the last federal bailout in the sector that will be needed.
"Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke have not said ...this is going to contain everything," he said. "They're hoping it is. What they're doing is jumping from crisis to crisis. I haven't seen a comprehensive plan yet."
He wouldn't commit to supporting the measure.
"This is too big to just accept without knowing what it does, who pays for it and is this the end of it," he said. "It's true that there's stress in the financial markets. But should we bail out everybody? We know it's important to the financial system, but at what price?"
为什么国家不可以不断的制造货币？
一个国家的经济水平是用什么来衡量的?
为什么一个国家不可以不断的制造货币，这个问题一直困扰我哦！
什么是经济发展？
简单的讲经济发展就是有钱，但钱从何来？钱只能印出来。那么到底是什么使印钞机不停的运转？
假设一个岛上有1000口人，与世隔绝，人与人之间交换物品过活，但有时候你手里用来交换的东西不一定就是对方想要的，怎么办？于是人们就用都喜欢的金银作为交换的东西，于是交换方便了。但金银要磨损，携带也不方便，当交换活动频繁时，发现这个东西太繁琐，限制了交换活动，于是为了解决这个问题，想了一个办法，就是由岛上的管理者发行一种符号，用它来代替金银，于是钞票出现了。
刚开始这种钞票可以随时得兑换金银。大家都很放心，因为钞票就是金银。可是岛上金银的产量太小，当人们的交换活动更加频繁时，钞票不够用了，只能暂停交换。暂停交换的后果就是大家不生产别人想要的东西了，因为虽然别人用，但交换不出去，套用现在的话说就是经济发展减速了。
于是大家想了一个办法，成立一家钱庄，这个钱庄是大家的，由钱庄来发行钞票，印出的钞票借给想用钱的人，然后这个人有钱了再还给钱庄。于是银行就出现了。
银行的出现，能保证交换活动更持续的进行，大家都拼命的生产，岛上的东西越来越多，银行根据产品的生产数量，不停的印制钞票，以保证交换能更深入的进行。
后来人们的交换活动更频繁了，一家钱庄太少了，于是出现了很多钱庄，总要有个管钱庄的吧，于是指定一家钱庄管理其他钱庄，并且钞票只能由这家钱庄印刷，然后通过其他钱庄借给用钱的人，中央银行就这么也出现了。
什么是通货膨胀
由于岛上生产的产品太多了，以至于没法准确估计到底该发行多少钞票，发行多了的时候，因为没有那么多产品可买，产品就开始涨价，发行少了呢就开始降价，为了保证价格稳定，央行要求各钱庄要把一部分钱放在央行里面用来调节产品的价格，根据价格情况多放和少放。这就是存款准备金率。
可是有一部分聪明人开始怎么才能把钱弄到自己手上，他在海边捡了一颗石子，说这个石子值100万快钱，把它卖给了一个人，这个人觉得整个岛上的钱加一起也没有100万啊，怎么办，于是向钱庄借，钱庄也没有这么多钱，于是把印钞机打开，印了这100万，借给了他买了这个石子。
然后这个人开始卖这个石子，100万卖给了第二个人，由于第一个卖石子的人把钱花了，所以岛上的钱多了，所以这一百万可以筹集到，多买些产品就有了。但当把这个石子以200万转让的时候，钱庄只能又印了100万钞票，就这样钞票越印越多，可是当这个石子不停的流动转让时，大家并不觉得岛上的钱多，产品价格还是原来的那样。可是当这个石子不流通或流通的慢时，大家觉得钱多了，可是如果当持有石子的人把它扔到大海里，那就等于岛上凭空多出N多个100 万来，怎么办，央行最害怕的就是这颗石子没了。它没了岛上产品的价格就会飞涨，就会通货膨胀。那么持有石子的人就绑架了岛上的经济。
这样一来很简单了，多制些钱只会造成通货膨胀，绑架了国家的经济
为什么一个国家不可以不断的制造货币，这个问题一直困扰我哦！
什么是经济发展？
简单的讲经济发展就是有钱，但钱从何来？钱只能印出来。那么到底是什么使印钞机不停的运转？
假设一个岛上有1000口人，与世隔绝，人与人之间交换物品过活，但有时候你手里用来交换的东西不一定就是对方想要的，怎么办？于是人们就用都喜欢的金银作为交换的东西，于是交换方便了。但金银要磨损，携带也不方便，当交换活动频繁时，发现这个东西太繁琐，限制了交换活动，于是为了解决这个问题，想了一个办法，就是由岛上的管理者发行一种符号，用它来代替金银，于是钞票出现了。
刚开始这种钞票可以随时得兑换金银。大家都很放心，因为钞票就是金银。可是岛上金银的产量太小，当人们的交换活动更加频繁时，钞票不够用了，只能暂停交换。暂停交换的后果就是大家不生产别人想要的东西了，因为虽然别人用，但交换不出去，套用现在的话说就是经济发展减速了。
于是大家想了一个办法，成立一家钱庄，这个钱庄是大家的，由钱庄来发行钞票，印出的钞票借给想用钱的人，然后这个人有钱了再还给钱庄。于是银行就出现了。
银行的出现，能保证交换活动更持续的进行，大家都拼命的生产，岛上的东西越来越多，银行根据产品的生产数量，不停的印制钞票，以保证交换能更深入的进行。
后来人们的交换活动更频繁了，一家钱庄太少了，于是出现了很多钱庄，总要有个管钱庄的吧，于是指定一家钱庄管理其他钱庄，并且钞票只能由这家钱庄印刷，然后通过其他钱庄借给用钱的人，中央银行就这么也出现了。
什么是通货膨胀
由于岛上生产的产品太多了，以至于没法准确估计到底该发行多少钞票，发行多了的时候，因为没有那么多产品可买，产品就开始涨价，发行少了呢就开始降价，为了保证价格稳定，央行要求各钱庄要把一部分钱放在央行里面用来调节产品的价格，根据价格情况多放和少放。这就是存款准备金率。
可是有一部分聪明人开始怎么才能把钱弄到自己手上，他在海边捡了一颗石子，说这个石子值100万快钱，把它卖给了一个人，这个人觉得整个岛上的钱加一起也没有100万啊，怎么办，于是向钱庄借，钱庄也没有这么多钱，于是把印钞机打开，印了这100万，借给了他买了这个石子。
然后这个人开始卖这个石子，100万卖给了第二个人，由于第一个卖石子的人把钱花了，所以岛上的钱多了，所以这一百万可以筹集到，多买些产品就有了。但当把这个石子以200万转让的时候，钱庄只能又印了100万钞票，就这样钞票越印越多，可是当这个石子不停的流动转让时，大家并不觉得岛上的钱多，产品价格还是原来的那样。可是当这个石子不流通或流通的慢时，大家觉得钱多了，可是如果当持有石子的人把它扔到大海里，那就等于岛上凭空多出N多个100 万来，怎么办，央行最害怕的就是这颗石子没了。它没了岛上产品的价格就会飞涨，就会通货膨胀。那么持有石子的人就绑架了岛上的经济。
这样一来很简单了，多制些钱只会造成通货膨胀，绑架了国家的经济
Rescue Cost: Hundreds of Billions
Washington unveils sweeping efforts to save financial system. Its cost will depend on what Uncle Sam pays for toxic mortgage assets.
Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson on Friday didn't mince words when it came to the cost of his latest proposal to stem the credit crisis.
"We're talking hundreds of billions of dollars - this needs to be big enough to make a real difference and get at the heart of the problem," he said. "This is the way we stabilize the system."
Paulson, speaking at a brief press conference in Washington, offered few details on his plan to help banks offload their toxic mortgage assets. Treasury is drafting a legislative proposal for lawmakers to consider this weekend.
The speculation is that the Treasury will help banks clear their balance sheets of illiquid mortgage assets by buying them at a discount.
One way the plan could work is for the Treasury to make the purchases through a bidding process. Companies that want to offload their hard-to-sell assets from their balance sheets would bid to sell to the government at a huge discount. The company willing to sell at the lowest price wins.
The government would then be able to sell the assets back into the market when it wanted.
The idea is that the government would buy at below-market rates and sell for a gain when the housing market recovers.
"The government could make a profit, a substantial profit," said Jaret Seiberg, a financial services analyst at the Stanford Group, a policy research firm.
This optimistic scenario hinges not only on a housing recovery but on how big a discount the government gets when it buys banks' toxic mortgage assets to begin with.
The problem is that the assets have proven extremely difficult to value as the demand for them has disappeared.
"The pricing mechanism is going to be central," Seiberg said.
On Friday, Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., the ranking member on the Senate Banking Committee, told CNNMoney.com that the latest plan from Treasury could cost up to $500 billion. Awaiting details on the plan from Treasury, Shelby said, "I think this is too big to just accept ... without understanding who pays."
If he's right about the $500 billion, the headline figure on the government's attempts to stem the credit crisis hits $1.3 trillion. That includes all the loans, investments and new programs committed by the Federal Reserve and Treasury this year.
But that doesn't mean that taxpayers would end up paying anything near that amount, because in exchange for its commitments the government will get saleable and income-producing assets.
If these efforts result in a net cost to the taxpayer, it's a better bet than the alternative, Paulson said.
"I am convinced that this bold approach will cost American families far less than the alternative - a continuing series of financial institution failures and frozen credit markets unable to fund economic expansion," he said.
Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson on Friday didn't mince words when it came to the cost of his latest proposal to stem the credit crisis.
"We're talking hundreds of billions of dollars - this needs to be big enough to make a real difference and get at the heart of the problem," he said. "This is the way we stabilize the system."
Paulson, speaking at a brief press conference in Washington, offered few details on his plan to help banks offload their toxic mortgage assets. Treasury is drafting a legislative proposal for lawmakers to consider this weekend.
The speculation is that the Treasury will help banks clear their balance sheets of illiquid mortgage assets by buying them at a discount.
One way the plan could work is for the Treasury to make the purchases through a bidding process. Companies that want to offload their hard-to-sell assets from their balance sheets would bid to sell to the government at a huge discount. The company willing to sell at the lowest price wins.
The government would then be able to sell the assets back into the market when it wanted.
The idea is that the government would buy at below-market rates and sell for a gain when the housing market recovers.
"The government could make a profit, a substantial profit," said Jaret Seiberg, a financial services analyst at the Stanford Group, a policy research firm.
This optimistic scenario hinges not only on a housing recovery but on how big a discount the government gets when it buys banks' toxic mortgage assets to begin with.
The problem is that the assets have proven extremely difficult to value as the demand for them has disappeared.
"The pricing mechanism is going to be central," Seiberg said.
On Friday, Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., the ranking member on the Senate Banking Committee, told CNNMoney.com that the latest plan from Treasury could cost up to $500 billion. Awaiting details on the plan from Treasury, Shelby said, "I think this is too big to just accept ... without understanding who pays."
If he's right about the $500 billion, the headline figure on the government's attempts to stem the credit crisis hits $1.3 trillion. That includes all the loans, investments and new programs committed by the Federal Reserve and Treasury this year.
But that doesn't mean that taxpayers would end up paying anything near that amount, because in exchange for its commitments the government will get saleable and income-producing assets.
If these efforts result in a net cost to the taxpayer, it's a better bet than the alternative, Paulson said.
"I am convinced that this bold approach will cost American families far less than the alternative - a continuing series of financial institution failures and frozen credit markets unable to fund economic expansion," he said.
一个经济体系是怎样崩溃的？
经济体系的崩溃有时很有意思，因为经济体系崩溃后，那些高楼、高速公路、铁路、工厂。。。，还在那里。正因为如此，当经济体系崩溃时，几乎没有人会相信。这就是经济，很有意思的经济。如果有人告诉人们某个国家的经济体系即将崩溃，人们一定会认为此人有问题，一切都好好的，怎么就会崩溃？特别是那些别有用心研究经济学的人，他们除了会为利益集团说话以外，就没有用自己的脑子思考过。
分析经济体系的崩溃，我们还是回到最基本的问题，生产问题、分配问题、产品的使用问题。现在的经济体系崩溃多是来自于分配，而不是来自于生产。由于分配手段是货币，加上货币制度的先天缺陷，这是经济体系崩溃的技术基础。任何国家，当它们面临崩溃时，都会出来挽救。政府挽救经济体系的办法一般是发“假币”，最近，欧美中央银行用的也是这个办法，假币发多了，为日后更猛烈的崩溃创造条件。这几天英国有银行发生了挤兑，如果这个行为进一步扩散，我们将在现实中观看货币制度的缺陷。
要研究经济，一定要把货币这个东西研究透。货币是什么？货币是可以分商品的钱，货币的实质是一般化的权利，货币这个权利和债权不一样，债权的对象是人，货币的对象不是人，货币找不到债主，一旦人们不接受你手里的货币，你只能自认倒霉，连官司都没得打。债权不一样，你可以找到债主，叫债主还钱。货币是一般化的权利是钱可以换权，权可以换钱的基础。
货币是债权又没有债主的特点为各国政府制造“假币”提供了条件，也为不法分子制造假币提供了基础。不法分子造假币是要杀头的，而政府制造假币是合法的，各国政府制造了大量的假币。政府为什么要制造假币？人们可能会这么问。政府是由人控制的，政府造假币，实际是为少数人获得财富服务的。在市场经济的条件下，创造财富的人不拥有财富，拥有财富的人不创造财富，政府为少数人造假币是人们获得财富的一种方式。
货币是由影子货币转换而来的，人们为了进行生产将影子货币转换为货币，结果有相应的产品和它对应。比如甲企业为了生产甲产品，将N量的影子货币转换为M量的货币，这个过程有甲产品来和M量的货币对应。如果甲产品是没有人需要的产品，M量的货币仍然有N量的影子货币对应。
问题是有些人是为了分配活动将影子货币转换为货币，或者干脆就是通过自己的关系而合法造“假币”，这时的货币根本就没有相应的产品和它对应。比如，有人没有任何抵押（影子货币）借入M量的货币（合法制造假币），这时，甲产品对应的货币由M变成了2M。又由于M的货币分散在很多人手里，而这M量的“假币”在少数人手里，甲产品就有一部分或全部先经过“造假币”者之手，再到创造产品的人手里，这时银行以利息的方式得到利润，而造“假币者”以买卖差价的方式得到利润。
资产价格的上涨和上面说的造“假币”的原理相同，由于资产价格的上涨，影子货币的量会跟着上涨，在其他条件不变的情况下，可以转换成更多的货币，这些货币是没有产品和它对应的，所以我在《决战2007年》里说2007年是价格大涨的一年，就是这个道理。
一个国家的资产价格大涨，将会使这个国家的经济彻底崩溃，涨得越多，这个国家崩溃得会更加厉害。比如某个国家为了短期利益，将房子价格涨3倍，将股票价格涨5倍，那么，这个国家的经济是有可能会崩溃的。
不研究经济的朋友可能会问，资产价格大涨，大家都赚钱，有什么不好？你说资产价格大涨会使整个国家经济崩溃是不是极端？是不是语不惊人誓不休？是不是太夸张？这个可以让未来的实际来回答，这里从逻辑上来分析一个国家如果房子涨3倍，股票涨5倍将怎样让这个国家崩溃的。
一个国家的经济，从产品循环的角度来看，是一张产业网，产业网由产业链构成，产业链由企业构成，企业存在的基础是产品的循环运动（参考循环经济学原理）。如果企业倒闭会出现产业链断裂，产业链断裂会使产业网破裂，一个国家产业网的破裂就是这个国家经济的崩溃。当然产业网有一定的自我修复功能，但这个功能是有限的。
现在我们回到企业，在市场经济的条件下，企业生存的条件不是你能不能生产，而是你吸收货币和释放货币的能力，当企业释放货币的能力大于吸收货币的能力时，企业就要面临倒闭，除非这时有人为企业注入货币。
现在我们再转向货币，就全国范围而言，钱是越用越多的，就静态的个人而言，钱越用越少。资产价格的上涨过程（这个过程是个被操纵的过程，这里不分析了）就是钱越用越多的过程，这一方面会使货币供应增加，另一方面会使流动性越来越过剩。设某个股票的价格为4万亿元，它以6万亿的价格卖出，此时，股票还是股票，没有变，钱就从4万亿变成了6万亿，由于各方面的利诱、误导，人们继续看涨股票，加上这个国家的负利率，人们要股票不要钱，于是，这个股票由6万亿元涨到了10万亿元，为了买股票，买方借入1万亿，这时货币供应增加1万亿，股票再从10万亿涨到20万亿，此时，买方向银行借入10万亿，货币供应增加10万亿。
这时，企业经营利润增加16%，总利润增加76%，60%的利润增加来源于公司之间的相互持股。各路专家兴高采烈，说企业的业绩有根本的好转，说股票可以升到40万亿元。于是媒体成了传销网络，各种各样振奋人心的好消息弥漫在空气里。
资产价格的上涨让银行兴奋不已，虽然央行每次加息，可银行的息差有增无减，另外银行的贷款，由于资产价格的上涨以20%左右的速度上涨，银行通过批发货币，分配到社会财富的份额越来越多。
随着资产价格的上涨，货币供应量的增加，银行存贷款的数额也在增加。因为现金 + 存款 = 贷款 （含造假币造成的虚置贷款）+ 外汇占款 + 黄金占款。整个社会的成本在不断增加之中，社会成本增加的根本原因是银行通过发行货币，分配社会财富比重增加的原因。在财富一定的情况下，银行增加财富份额的分配，就意味着非银行分配社会财富份额的减少。随着合法造假币数量的增加，其他商品的价格也大幅上涨。
到此为止，资产价格大涨导致一个国家经济崩溃的逻辑就清晰了。一、就静态而言，产品是既定的，资产价格大涨，银行和投机者会以利息的方式和合法造假币的方式分得更多产品的份额。这些不创造产品的人分得产品份额越多，其他创造产品的人分得份额相对减少，这时，从会计上来看，个人的生活成本增加，企业的经营成本增加。二、成本的增加在企业、个人吸收货币一定的情况下，意味着他们释放货币的速度加快，他们有可能因为亏损或者没有现金流而破产。三、企业破产可能会使产业链断裂，产业链断裂会使产业网破裂，产业网的全面破裂就是一个国家经济的崩溃。
一个国家如果要避免经济崩溃，一定要把投机的势头给控制住。想想看，大家都去投机炒房子、炒股票，所谓的发现资产价值，不生产，大家吃什么？喝什么？那些生产的人要养多少闲人？这些闲人利用货币制度的缺陷，疯狂地制造假币，用合法的假币去分配生产人员的产品，这样的经济体系能不崩溃吗？
市场经济是人类社会的毒品，在市场经济的条件下，拥有财富的人不创造财富，创造财富的人不拥有财富。
分析经济体系的崩溃，我们还是回到最基本的问题，生产问题、分配问题、产品的使用问题。现在的经济体系崩溃多是来自于分配，而不是来自于生产。由于分配手段是货币，加上货币制度的先天缺陷，这是经济体系崩溃的技术基础。任何国家，当它们面临崩溃时，都会出来挽救。政府挽救经济体系的办法一般是发“假币”，最近，欧美中央银行用的也是这个办法，假币发多了，为日后更猛烈的崩溃创造条件。这几天英国有银行发生了挤兑，如果这个行为进一步扩散，我们将在现实中观看货币制度的缺陷。
要研究经济，一定要把货币这个东西研究透。货币是什么？货币是可以分商品的钱，货币的实质是一般化的权利，货币这个权利和债权不一样，债权的对象是人，货币的对象不是人，货币找不到债主，一旦人们不接受你手里的货币，你只能自认倒霉，连官司都没得打。债权不一样，你可以找到债主，叫债主还钱。货币是一般化的权利是钱可以换权，权可以换钱的基础。
货币是债权又没有债主的特点为各国政府制造“假币”提供了条件，也为不法分子制造假币提供了基础。不法分子造假币是要杀头的，而政府制造假币是合法的，各国政府制造了大量的假币。政府为什么要制造假币？人们可能会这么问。政府是由人控制的，政府造假币，实际是为少数人获得财富服务的。在市场经济的条件下，创造财富的人不拥有财富，拥有财富的人不创造财富，政府为少数人造假币是人们获得财富的一种方式。
货币是由影子货币转换而来的，人们为了进行生产将影子货币转换为货币，结果有相应的产品和它对应。比如甲企业为了生产甲产品，将N量的影子货币转换为M量的货币，这个过程有甲产品来和M量的货币对应。如果甲产品是没有人需要的产品，M量的货币仍然有N量的影子货币对应。
问题是有些人是为了分配活动将影子货币转换为货币，或者干脆就是通过自己的关系而合法造“假币”，这时的货币根本就没有相应的产品和它对应。比如，有人没有任何抵押（影子货币）借入M量的货币（合法制造假币），这时，甲产品对应的货币由M变成了2M。又由于M的货币分散在很多人手里，而这M量的“假币”在少数人手里，甲产品就有一部分或全部先经过“造假币”者之手，再到创造产品的人手里，这时银行以利息的方式得到利润，而造“假币者”以买卖差价的方式得到利润。
资产价格的上涨和上面说的造“假币”的原理相同，由于资产价格的上涨，影子货币的量会跟着上涨，在其他条件不变的情况下，可以转换成更多的货币，这些货币是没有产品和它对应的，所以我在《决战2007年》里说2007年是价格大涨的一年，就是这个道理。
一个国家的资产价格大涨，将会使这个国家的经济彻底崩溃，涨得越多，这个国家崩溃得会更加厉害。比如某个国家为了短期利益，将房子价格涨3倍，将股票价格涨5倍，那么，这个国家的经济是有可能会崩溃的。
不研究经济的朋友可能会问，资产价格大涨，大家都赚钱，有什么不好？你说资产价格大涨会使整个国家经济崩溃是不是极端？是不是语不惊人誓不休？是不是太夸张？这个可以让未来的实际来回答，这里从逻辑上来分析一个国家如果房子涨3倍，股票涨5倍将怎样让这个国家崩溃的。
一个国家的经济，从产品循环的角度来看，是一张产业网，产业网由产业链构成，产业链由企业构成，企业存在的基础是产品的循环运动（参考循环经济学原理）。如果企业倒闭会出现产业链断裂，产业链断裂会使产业网破裂，一个国家产业网的破裂就是这个国家经济的崩溃。当然产业网有一定的自我修复功能，但这个功能是有限的。
现在我们回到企业，在市场经济的条件下，企业生存的条件不是你能不能生产，而是你吸收货币和释放货币的能力，当企业释放货币的能力大于吸收货币的能力时，企业就要面临倒闭，除非这时有人为企业注入货币。
现在我们再转向货币，就全国范围而言，钱是越用越多的，就静态的个人而言，钱越用越少。资产价格的上涨过程（这个过程是个被操纵的过程，这里不分析了）就是钱越用越多的过程，这一方面会使货币供应增加，另一方面会使流动性越来越过剩。设某个股票的价格为4万亿元，它以6万亿的价格卖出，此时，股票还是股票，没有变，钱就从4万亿变成了6万亿，由于各方面的利诱、误导，人们继续看涨股票，加上这个国家的负利率，人们要股票不要钱，于是，这个股票由6万亿元涨到了10万亿元，为了买股票，买方借入1万亿，这时货币供应增加1万亿，股票再从10万亿涨到20万亿，此时，买方向银行借入10万亿，货币供应增加10万亿。
这时，企业经营利润增加16%，总利润增加76%，60%的利润增加来源于公司之间的相互持股。各路专家兴高采烈，说企业的业绩有根本的好转，说股票可以升到40万亿元。于是媒体成了传销网络，各种各样振奋人心的好消息弥漫在空气里。
资产价格的上涨让银行兴奋不已，虽然央行每次加息，可银行的息差有增无减，另外银行的贷款，由于资产价格的上涨以20%左右的速度上涨，银行通过批发货币，分配到社会财富的份额越来越多。
随着资产价格的上涨，货币供应量的增加，银行存贷款的数额也在增加。因为现金 + 存款 = 贷款 （含造假币造成的虚置贷款）+ 外汇占款 + 黄金占款。整个社会的成本在不断增加之中，社会成本增加的根本原因是银行通过发行货币，分配社会财富比重增加的原因。在财富一定的情况下，银行增加财富份额的分配，就意味着非银行分配社会财富份额的减少。随着合法造假币数量的增加，其他商品的价格也大幅上涨。
到此为止，资产价格大涨导致一个国家经济崩溃的逻辑就清晰了。一、就静态而言，产品是既定的，资产价格大涨，银行和投机者会以利息的方式和合法造假币的方式分得更多产品的份额。这些不创造产品的人分得产品份额越多，其他创造产品的人分得份额相对减少，这时，从会计上来看，个人的生活成本增加，企业的经营成本增加。二、成本的增加在企业、个人吸收货币一定的情况下，意味着他们释放货币的速度加快，他们有可能因为亏损或者没有现金流而破产。三、企业破产可能会使产业链断裂，产业链断裂会使产业网破裂，产业网的全面破裂就是一个国家经济的崩溃。
一个国家如果要避免经济崩溃，一定要把投机的势头给控制住。想想看，大家都去投机炒房子、炒股票，所谓的发现资产价值，不生产，大家吃什么？喝什么？那些生产的人要养多少闲人？这些闲人利用货币制度的缺陷，疯狂地制造假币，用合法的假币去分配生产人员的产品，这样的经济体系能不崩溃吗？
市场经济是人类社会的毒品，在市场经济的条件下，拥有财富的人不创造财富，创造财富的人不拥有财富。
What's next: 4 prophets on the credit crunch
We asked a few of the financial clairvoyants who predicted the market's mortgage tribulations to tell us what happens next.
The ratings gadfly
"The market just came to the realization that values in credit assessments were far from the mark. Now, we're rapidly adjusting to that reality--and there's a lot more pain coming down the pipe."
Sean Egan, CEO, Egan-Jones Ratings
While Standard & Poor's, Moody's Investors Services, and Fitch Ratings drew heavy criticism after overrating mortgage securities, Egan-Jones Ratings, a small credit ratings agency based in Los Angeles, was lauded for its foresight. Sean Egan was an early critic of bonds backed by sub-prime mortgages.
"The core problem behind the current crisis was a false belief in inflated credit ratings," says Egan. According to the CEO, his competitors are still placing too much faith in a number of companies. Egan's main targets: the media, airline, auto and insurance industries, amongst others. For example, while the S&P gives MBIA, a major bond insurer, an A rating, Egan dropped a C-bomb on the firm--and projects a D rating
The regulator
"Low rates won't do anything to handle the real issue for these companies, which is solvency."
William Poole, former president, St. Louis Federal Reserve
After predicting in 2002 that Fannie and Freddie couldn't handle the strains of a credit crisis, Poole saw his prophecies come true on Sept. 7 when the government stepped in to bail out the lenders. According to Poole, that bailout, coupled with the Bear Stearns rescue, made a Lehman save all the more difficult. "Barclay and Bank of America asking for federal assistance--that never would have happened before," he says. "But the Fed made the right decision this time."
Poole is less pleased with the Fed's strategy of keeping rates low. "I don't understand the case for it," he says. "It's not good federal policy to simply respond to declines in the stock market, and I'm concerned about inflation in the long run."
The investor
"Complex transactions and trades are going to be more difficult to do and to keep."
Thomas Atteberry, co-manager, First Pacific Advisors New Income fund
The managers at First Pacific Advisors in Los Angeles started shifting stock mutual funds to cash four years ago, and ditched Alt-A mortgage funds in 2005--well before many perceived the sector to be at risk. Atteberry predicts that the credit problem will continue to flow into every corner of the financial system. "People though it was just a sub-prime mortgage problem, but it's much broader--it's a matter of solvency, not liquidity," he says.
Over the next three to six months, says Attebury, more investors are going to try to withdraw their money from levered options such as hedge funds and credit default swap contracts. And pensions will be less likely to commit their funds to such outlets.
He won't predict when the crisis will let up, but he does offer a clue: "I'm still not buying stocks."
The politician
The more the taxpayer is on the line and the more systemic the risk is, the stronger the regulatory hand needs to be."
Richard Baker, Managed Funds Association
Back when he was a Louisiana state representative, Baker, who left the House in February to lobby for hedge funds, tried to push a bill asking for stricter regulations on Fannie and Freddie. Now that the companies need to get back on track, he wants the government to ease restrictions on the types of products that the lenders can sell, in hopes that they will become more profitable. "In essence, it's time to make them private companies," he says. According to Baker, a massive regulatory review for all sectors is around the corner.
The ratings gadfly
"The market just came to the realization that values in credit assessments were far from the mark. Now, we're rapidly adjusting to that reality--and there's a lot more pain coming down the pipe."
Sean Egan, CEO, Egan-Jones Ratings
While Standard & Poor's, Moody's Investors Services, and Fitch Ratings drew heavy criticism after overrating mortgage securities, Egan-Jones Ratings, a small credit ratings agency based in Los Angeles, was lauded for its foresight. Sean Egan was an early critic of bonds backed by sub-prime mortgages.
"The core problem behind the current crisis was a false belief in inflated credit ratings," says Egan. According to the CEO, his competitors are still placing too much faith in a number of companies. Egan's main targets: the media, airline, auto and insurance industries, amongst others. For example, while the S&P gives MBIA, a major bond insurer, an A rating, Egan dropped a C-bomb on the firm--and projects a D rating
The regulator
"Low rates won't do anything to handle the real issue for these companies, which is solvency."
William Poole, former president, St. Louis Federal Reserve
After predicting in 2002 that Fannie and Freddie couldn't handle the strains of a credit crisis, Poole saw his prophecies come true on Sept. 7 when the government stepped in to bail out the lenders. According to Poole, that bailout, coupled with the Bear Stearns rescue, made a Lehman save all the more difficult. "Barclay and Bank of America asking for federal assistance--that never would have happened before," he says. "But the Fed made the right decision this time."
Poole is less pleased with the Fed's strategy of keeping rates low. "I don't understand the case for it," he says. "It's not good federal policy to simply respond to declines in the stock market, and I'm concerned about inflation in the long run."
The investor
"Complex transactions and trades are going to be more difficult to do and to keep."
Thomas Atteberry, co-manager, First Pacific Advisors New Income fund
The managers at First Pacific Advisors in Los Angeles started shifting stock mutual funds to cash four years ago, and ditched Alt-A mortgage funds in 2005--well before many perceived the sector to be at risk. Atteberry predicts that the credit problem will continue to flow into every corner of the financial system. "People though it was just a sub-prime mortgage problem, but it's much broader--it's a matter of solvency, not liquidity," he says.
Over the next three to six months, says Attebury, more investors are going to try to withdraw their money from levered options such as hedge funds and credit default swap contracts. And pensions will be less likely to commit their funds to such outlets.
He won't predict when the crisis will let up, but he does offer a clue: "I'm still not buying stocks."
The politician
The more the taxpayer is on the line and the more systemic the risk is, the stronger the regulatory hand needs to be."
Richard Baker, Managed Funds Association
Back when he was a Louisiana state representative, Baker, who left the House in February to lobby for hedge funds, tried to push a bill asking for stricter regulations on Fannie and Freddie. Now that the companies need to get back on track, he wants the government to ease restrictions on the types of products that the lenders can sell, in hopes that they will become more profitable. "In essence, it's time to make them private companies," he says. According to Baker, a massive regulatory review for all sectors is around the corner.
After the Bailouts, Will This Be the Market Bottom?
Setting aside legitimate concerns about the ultimate cost and the debate over whether free market capitalism has a future, investors are wondering if an unprecedented level of government intervention has put a floor under the stock market.
In other words: Was that the bottom?
The early returns are good (for those long). After buying the rumor of a government plan to bail out banks on Thursday, traders bought the news of said plan on Friday -- and scrambled to cover shorts as the SEC's temporary ban went into immediate effect.
After jumping 400 points on Thursday, the Dow was up 347 points, or 3.2% in recent Friday afternoon trading, while the S&P was higher by 3.6% and the Nasdaq by 2.5%.
"It does feel -- and did feel yesterday -- like all the earmarks of a major bottom," are in place, says Tom Brown, chairman of Bankstocks.com.
Brown also runs Second Curve Capital, a hedge fund that only invests in financial stocks, has been net long for some time and was certainly enjoying the benefits of Friday's robust rally in bank and related stocks.
Whether the government's action prove successful long term remain to be seen.
In the near term, the Dow's significant rally off Thursday's intraday low of 10,459.44 "keeps the upper end of the trading range reachable," writes veteran technician Richard Suttmeier. "This is the 200-week simple moving average at 11,750."
But not everyone is embracing this rally.
"I have never woken up to bigger gains in my portfolio and they have never been less deserved," writes blogger and private equity investor Howard Lindzon.
Like many, myself included, Lindzon is concerned about the long-term implications of government interference in the financial markets on such a massive scale.
Finally, noting the Dow is on track for its biggest 2-day rally since 1929, Barry Ritholtz asks: "And how'd that work out for ya?"
In other words: Was that the bottom?
The early returns are good (for those long). After buying the rumor of a government plan to bail out banks on Thursday, traders bought the news of said plan on Friday -- and scrambled to cover shorts as the SEC's temporary ban went into immediate effect.
After jumping 400 points on Thursday, the Dow was up 347 points, or 3.2% in recent Friday afternoon trading, while the S&P was higher by 3.6% and the Nasdaq by 2.5%.
"It does feel -- and did feel yesterday -- like all the earmarks of a major bottom," are in place, says Tom Brown, chairman of Bankstocks.com.
Brown also runs Second Curve Capital, a hedge fund that only invests in financial stocks, has been net long for some time and was certainly enjoying the benefits of Friday's robust rally in bank and related stocks.
Whether the government's action prove successful long term remain to be seen.
In the near term, the Dow's significant rally off Thursday's intraday low of 10,459.44 "keeps the upper end of the trading range reachable," writes veteran technician Richard Suttmeier. "This is the 200-week simple moving average at 11,750."
But not everyone is embracing this rally.
"I have never woken up to bigger gains in my portfolio and they have never been less deserved," writes blogger and private equity investor Howard Lindzon.
Like many, myself included, Lindzon is concerned about the long-term implications of government interference in the financial markets on such a massive scale.
Finally, noting the Dow is on track for its biggest 2-day rally since 1929, Barry Ritholtz asks: "And how'd that work out for ya?"
羅傑斯談美國大衰退
記者問：看起來今年初我們擔心的金融災難都在發生中。 。
羅傑斯：沒錯，而且越來越多了。如你所知，伯南克（美聯儲主席）和他的伙計們開始來援救了，這可能會把問題掩蓋一段時間，當然我不知道他們能掩蓋多久，然後災難就會繼續。他們能掩蓋六天還是六週？我不知道，我倒是希望我能夠知道，但我真不知道。
記者問：伯南克應該做些什麼“正確”的事情呢？
羅傑斯：辭職！
記者問：除了辭職之外，他還能做點什麼來挽救這場災難繼續滑向深淵？
羅傑斯：在現在這個時刻，看上去他真做不了什麼。他本應該提高利率的，這就是他應該做的事情，換了別人也一樣，最終市場會這麼做，無論他是不是想要這麼做。
但現在的問題是，他已經把那一大堆的垃圾債務放到自己的財務報表上了，他讓聯儲背上了大約4000億美元的可疑負債，我意思是，他原本可以避免這件事。他本就應該提高利率，這會管用，雖然這將帶來短期的巨大衝擊，但如果我們不打算承受短期的損失，長期來看必定損失更多，接下來事情只會越來越糟糕，貝爾斯登（已經破產並被收購）就是其中之一，接著是房地美，房利美。
接下來的麻煩還會更大，為什麼問題會越來越嚴重？這是因為我們一直在通過小修小補來掩蓋問題，這從長期資本管理公司的破產就開始了。他們想把所有人都救出來，於是格林斯潘就降低利率，在互聯網泡沫破裂之後他又降低利率，所以我猜想伯南克可能會試圖糾正這一切。
但他並沒有這麼做，他本應該提高利率，雖然這也解決不了問題，這是因為美國現在正被恐怖的稅收體系問題所困擾，有來自各方面的訴訟，還有教育系統的巨額負債，還有很多很多很多其他問題，他們要花時間去解決。如果他真打算著手去解決，那麼我們就會立刻遭受困難，但這至少會讓問題暴露出來，整個系統也有了好轉的可能性。
可惜這只是理論上的，伯南克並不打算這麼做，對他來說最應該做的就是解散美聯儲，然後自己也走人，這會是最好的解決方案，但他會做嗎？當然他不會，直到現在他還認為自己知道自己在幹什麼。
記者問：我記得今年年初你說過，多數美國人到現在還不知道問題出在哪裡，現在各種問題接連爆發，你現在還是這麼看嗎？
羅傑斯：沒錯。
記者問：那你現在能不能用最簡單的話告訴大家，到底發生了什麼？
羅傑斯：在過去的200年裡，美國的民選政治家和流氓們總共讓美國背上了5萬億美元的負債，但是在過去的幾週裡，某些官僚又讓美國背上了5萬億美元的負債。
突然之間我們的負債規模增加了一倍，我們應該告訴公眾到底發生了什麼，這些債務都是怎麼背上的，以及美國在世界上的地位是如何惡化的。
我不知道為什麼到現在船還沒沉，當然人們的想法各不相同，有些人不希望被煩到，有些人覺得這太複雜難以理解，等等。
我相信當年的大英帝國走向衰退的時候，肯定有不少人大聲疾呼： “同胞們，我們犯了太多的錯誤了！ ”當然，沒人聽他的話，一直到改正錯誤的最後機會也錯過。
當年的西班牙，羅馬帝國，它們衰退的時候，我相信也有人早已看出問題了
記者問：很多專家並不同意-至少說並不理解-美聯儲的現行政策，那麼這些決策人如何相信自己做的都是正確的事情呢？你是怎麼看的呢？
羅傑斯：伯南克是個極端短視的人，他把自己的整個學術生涯都花在學習如何印刷鈔票之上了，現在我們把印鈔機交給了他，他唯一知道的事情就是開動機器印鈔票。
伯南克說，美國的房地產業沒有問題，房地產相關的金融業也沒問題，似乎這是他在2005年或2006年說的。
他掌管了美聯儲，而美聯儲就是用來管理整個金融體系的，因此他必定知道一些內部的真實情況，如果沒有意外的話。這是因為猶豫不決，這個傢伙並不理解什麼是市場，他也不理解什麼是經濟，即使是最基礎的經濟學，他唯一學會的就是印鈔票，他就懂這個。
沒錯，他好像還擁有博士頭銜，似乎還是經濟學方面的。但經濟學有200多個子分類，而他學的是“印鈔學” ，我們現在已經知道了，他準備，打算，能夠去印鈔，並給每個人填窟窿。
整個金融體系快要完蛋了，這裡並沒有什麼新鮮事，以前就發生過，而且已經發生過很多次。
記者：歷史已經表明失敗的金融體系會產生什麼後果。
羅傑斯：是的，現在的情況並不是第一次，早就發生過，但由於伯南克就只會印鈔票然後把我們帶入蕭條，他會說： “沒問題，快去印鈔票吧，把今天頂過再說。 “然後，當然他會把自己陷得更深，因為當你第一次印鈔票的時候，你解決了問題X的與此同時問題y和z也冒出來了。
記者：現在我們有了危險的先例。
羅傑斯：你說的完全正確，他的繼任者還會幹同樣的事情。
記者：你認為前美聯儲主席保羅沃爾克會怎麼看待這一切？
羅傑斯：沃爾克是真正理解中央銀行的人。至少對我來說他的看法非常清晰，他算得上是美國最後一個稱職的央行行長了，在歷史上沃爾克和威廉.McChesney算是稱職的人。
你知道， McChesney說過一句名言，他說中央銀行行長的職責就是，當晚會順利進行的時候，他就該把酒桶搬走了。可是現在的美聯儲呢，他們是當晚會已經失去控制的時候，反而拿來越來越多的烈酒。 McChesney肯定會在人們快要發酒瘋之前把酒拿走，而現在形勢已經失去控制了。
記者問：當初我們就談到過，這會是美聯儲的末日嗎？這會是美國央行的第三次失敗嗎？
羅傑斯：沒錯，在歷史上我們已經有過兩個央行，而他們最終都消失了，不管是什麼原因。而這個也會消失，這是我說的。
記者問：你似乎有一種特殊的能力，就是預測拐點何時到來的能力，那麼你說說何時人們會把錢放在牆角，然後你去拿起來？
羅傑斯：那是指投資的方法。
記者：歷史數據表明，市場上血流成河的時候去投資，那麼回報會最大。
羅傑斯：不錯。
記者問：那麼會不會有什麼跡象能夠表明，美國的這場金融危機何時會觸底反彈？或者說達到自身的拐點？
羅傑斯：是的，但這是一條漫長道路，事實上，在我們有生之年似乎都看不到了。不過我在上週的時候已經把自己的空頭頭寸獲利了結了，雖然不是全部。如果你要問暫時的拐點，我想我們已經達到了。
如果你回顧歷史的話，你會發現所有那些陷入衰退的國家在失敗之前都嘗試過直接的經濟干預，美國早已開始了直接經濟干預，例如，我們不讓中國人買我們的石油公司，我們不讓迪拜企業買我們的碼頭，等等諸如此類。
如果一切都超出了政府的控制能力，那麼這可以看做是一個信號。政府的控制通常來說只是衰退過程中發生的故事，從歷史上來看，人們開始日益對現狀不滿，於是要求政府來干預，而政府的干預又會把事情給越搞越糟。
在二戰之前，日元兌美元的比價是2:1 ，而二戰之後日元兌美元的比價是500:1 ，這就是一場崩潰，同時這也是底部。
對於美國來說沒有什麼精確的預測，我只能說事情會越來越來越來越糟糕。
這和大英帝國的衰退很類似，在1918年的時候大英帝國是地球上最富有最強大的國家，他後來還贏得了第一次世界大戰，但是到了1939年，只花了一代人的時間他們就開始對經濟進行政府控制了，為了嚴加監管他們甚至規定，凡是不以英鎊作為貨幣的人就是叛國罪。
記者：叛國罪？我還不知道這事情。
羅傑斯：是的，叛國罪的一種。曾經人們可以使用任何他們想要使用的東西作為貨幣，金子或者其他什麼金屬，銀行也可以發行自己的信用憑證，你也可以使用別人喜歡的信用憑證。
可是到了上世紀三十年代，問題已經非常嚴重了，他們開始規定使用英鎊之外的貨幣都是叛國罪，接著政府開始全面控制經濟。然後呢，他們就迎來了第二次世界大戰。問題早在戰爭之前就爆發出來了，戰爭只是加劇了問題的嚴重程度。到了上世紀七十年代中期，英國差不多已經破產了，他們的政府長期債券再也賣不出去，請記住，在兩代或者三代人之前，他們還是地球上最富裕和強大的國家。
挽救英國的到底是什麼呢？原來他們發現了北海油田，當然撒切爾夫人認為是自己救了英國，其實她只是運氣好而已。撒切爾夫人在1979年當上了首相，與此同時北海油田開始大量產油。英國的財務狀況一下子就變好了。
要知道，即使是特瑞薩修女來當首相，或者是斯大林，卡特，布什等等，只要他們在那個時候當上英國首相，他們都會幹得不錯。上帝給了我這麼大一塊油田，我當然會把經濟搞好。這就是故事的本質。
記者問：如果撒切爾夫人沒有當上首相，結果會有不同嗎？
羅傑斯：誰知道呢，那時英國已經重病纏身，可能這也是她能當上首相的原因，我相信她可能把某些事情做對了，但如果沒有北海油田那些石油，英國還是會繼續衰退。
所以我們有生之年可能也看不見美國觸底反彈了，剛才講的英國只是一個例子。
記者：對於投資者來說，這真是個可怕的消息。
羅傑斯：是的，但請記住一點，由於美國實在是太過富有和龐大，因此它的衰退過程需要很長的時間，你不可能在十年或二十年的時間裡做到這一點，需要有一大批的自以為是者耗費巨量的工作，才會把美國給搞垮。英國的例子我前面已經講了，衰退過程至少有四五十年以上，因為他們的家底太厚，即使是敗家子也足夠他們敗上一陣子了。
就好比津巴布韋，他們也要花上十多年的時間來敗家，他們的總統蒙博托在1980年上台，一直到1995年情況還不錯，可是現在呢，那裡就是一場災難。
這對於新加坡來說可能是優勢，這裡有巨量的財富，而人口只有區區四百萬，所以即使新加坡人從2008年開始敗家，他們似乎可以永遠敗下去。
記者：有沒有什麼信號可以表明這一切最終結束？
羅傑斯：有，當每一個美國人都開了瑞士銀行的賬戶，那就可以確信差不多到頭了，因為國家肯定會立法禁止開設外國銀行賬戶，而大家都打算去違法，這就說明情況已經沒法再壞了。
記者：人們總是想要保住自己的錢。
羅傑斯：是啊，你去看看那些對經濟嚴加控制的國家，你會發現政治家們總是告訴大家把錢弄往國外是非法的，可他們自己卻把錢弄往國外。
記者：我們看到在南非或其他國家，人們總是想盡辦法要把錢弄出去。
羅傑斯：人人都已經看出來了，當然包括那些政治家們，他們會說： “別人這麼幹是非法的，而我就是合法的” 。這種日子也會到來，等到每個國會議員都擁有了國外銀行帳戶的時候，這差不多就到頭了。
羅傑斯：沒錯，而且越來越多了。如你所知，伯南克（美聯儲主席）和他的伙計們開始來援救了，這可能會把問題掩蓋一段時間，當然我不知道他們能掩蓋多久，然後災難就會繼續。他們能掩蓋六天還是六週？我不知道，我倒是希望我能夠知道，但我真不知道。
記者問：伯南克應該做些什麼“正確”的事情呢？
羅傑斯：辭職！
記者問：除了辭職之外，他還能做點什麼來挽救這場災難繼續滑向深淵？
羅傑斯：在現在這個時刻，看上去他真做不了什麼。他本應該提高利率的，這就是他應該做的事情，換了別人也一樣，最終市場會這麼做，無論他是不是想要這麼做。
但現在的問題是，他已經把那一大堆的垃圾債務放到自己的財務報表上了，他讓聯儲背上了大約4000億美元的可疑負債，我意思是，他原本可以避免這件事。他本就應該提高利率，這會管用，雖然這將帶來短期的巨大衝擊，但如果我們不打算承受短期的損失，長期來看必定損失更多，接下來事情只會越來越糟糕，貝爾斯登（已經破產並被收購）就是其中之一，接著是房地美，房利美。
接下來的麻煩還會更大，為什麼問題會越來越嚴重？這是因為我們一直在通過小修小補來掩蓋問題，這從長期資本管理公司的破產就開始了。他們想把所有人都救出來，於是格林斯潘就降低利率，在互聯網泡沫破裂之後他又降低利率，所以我猜想伯南克可能會試圖糾正這一切。
但他並沒有這麼做，他本應該提高利率，雖然這也解決不了問題，這是因為美國現在正被恐怖的稅收體系問題所困擾，有來自各方面的訴訟，還有教育系統的巨額負債，還有很多很多很多其他問題，他們要花時間去解決。如果他真打算著手去解決，那麼我們就會立刻遭受困難，但這至少會讓問題暴露出來，整個系統也有了好轉的可能性。
可惜這只是理論上的，伯南克並不打算這麼做，對他來說最應該做的就是解散美聯儲，然後自己也走人，這會是最好的解決方案，但他會做嗎？當然他不會，直到現在他還認為自己知道自己在幹什麼。
記者問：我記得今年年初你說過，多數美國人到現在還不知道問題出在哪裡，現在各種問題接連爆發，你現在還是這麼看嗎？
羅傑斯：沒錯。
記者問：那你現在能不能用最簡單的話告訴大家，到底發生了什麼？
羅傑斯：在過去的200年裡，美國的民選政治家和流氓們總共讓美國背上了5萬億美元的負債，但是在過去的幾週裡，某些官僚又讓美國背上了5萬億美元的負債。
突然之間我們的負債規模增加了一倍，我們應該告訴公眾到底發生了什麼，這些債務都是怎麼背上的，以及美國在世界上的地位是如何惡化的。
我不知道為什麼到現在船還沒沉，當然人們的想法各不相同，有些人不希望被煩到，有些人覺得這太複雜難以理解，等等。
我相信當年的大英帝國走向衰退的時候，肯定有不少人大聲疾呼： “同胞們，我們犯了太多的錯誤了！ ”當然，沒人聽他的話，一直到改正錯誤的最後機會也錯過。
當年的西班牙，羅馬帝國，它們衰退的時候，我相信也有人早已看出問題了
記者問：很多專家並不同意-至少說並不理解-美聯儲的現行政策，那麼這些決策人如何相信自己做的都是正確的事情呢？你是怎麼看的呢？
羅傑斯：伯南克是個極端短視的人，他把自己的整個學術生涯都花在學習如何印刷鈔票之上了，現在我們把印鈔機交給了他，他唯一知道的事情就是開動機器印鈔票。
伯南克說，美國的房地產業沒有問題，房地產相關的金融業也沒問題，似乎這是他在2005年或2006年說的。
他掌管了美聯儲，而美聯儲就是用來管理整個金融體系的，因此他必定知道一些內部的真實情況，如果沒有意外的話。這是因為猶豫不決，這個傢伙並不理解什麼是市場，他也不理解什麼是經濟，即使是最基礎的經濟學，他唯一學會的就是印鈔票，他就懂這個。
沒錯，他好像還擁有博士頭銜，似乎還是經濟學方面的。但經濟學有200多個子分類，而他學的是“印鈔學” ，我們現在已經知道了，他準備，打算，能夠去印鈔，並給每個人填窟窿。
整個金融體系快要完蛋了，這裡並沒有什麼新鮮事，以前就發生過，而且已經發生過很多次。
記者：歷史已經表明失敗的金融體系會產生什麼後果。
羅傑斯：是的，現在的情況並不是第一次，早就發生過，但由於伯南克就只會印鈔票然後把我們帶入蕭條，他會說： “沒問題，快去印鈔票吧，把今天頂過再說。 “然後，當然他會把自己陷得更深，因為當你第一次印鈔票的時候，你解決了問題X的與此同時問題y和z也冒出來了。
記者：現在我們有了危險的先例。
羅傑斯：你說的完全正確，他的繼任者還會幹同樣的事情。
記者：你認為前美聯儲主席保羅沃爾克會怎麼看待這一切？
羅傑斯：沃爾克是真正理解中央銀行的人。至少對我來說他的看法非常清晰，他算得上是美國最後一個稱職的央行行長了，在歷史上沃爾克和威廉.McChesney算是稱職的人。
你知道， McChesney說過一句名言，他說中央銀行行長的職責就是，當晚會順利進行的時候，他就該把酒桶搬走了。可是現在的美聯儲呢，他們是當晚會已經失去控制的時候，反而拿來越來越多的烈酒。 McChesney肯定會在人們快要發酒瘋之前把酒拿走，而現在形勢已經失去控制了。
記者問：當初我們就談到過，這會是美聯儲的末日嗎？這會是美國央行的第三次失敗嗎？
羅傑斯：沒錯，在歷史上我們已經有過兩個央行，而他們最終都消失了，不管是什麼原因。而這個也會消失，這是我說的。
記者問：你似乎有一種特殊的能力，就是預測拐點何時到來的能力，那麼你說說何時人們會把錢放在牆角，然後你去拿起來？
羅傑斯：那是指投資的方法。
記者：歷史數據表明，市場上血流成河的時候去投資，那麼回報會最大。
羅傑斯：不錯。
記者問：那麼會不會有什麼跡象能夠表明，美國的這場金融危機何時會觸底反彈？或者說達到自身的拐點？
羅傑斯：是的，但這是一條漫長道路，事實上，在我們有生之年似乎都看不到了。不過我在上週的時候已經把自己的空頭頭寸獲利了結了，雖然不是全部。如果你要問暫時的拐點，我想我們已經達到了。
如果你回顧歷史的話，你會發現所有那些陷入衰退的國家在失敗之前都嘗試過直接的經濟干預，美國早已開始了直接經濟干預，例如，我們不讓中國人買我們的石油公司，我們不讓迪拜企業買我們的碼頭，等等諸如此類。
如果一切都超出了政府的控制能力，那麼這可以看做是一個信號。政府的控制通常來說只是衰退過程中發生的故事，從歷史上來看，人們開始日益對現狀不滿，於是要求政府來干預，而政府的干預又會把事情給越搞越糟。
在二戰之前，日元兌美元的比價是2:1 ，而二戰之後日元兌美元的比價是500:1 ，這就是一場崩潰，同時這也是底部。
對於美國來說沒有什麼精確的預測，我只能說事情會越來越來越來越糟糕。
這和大英帝國的衰退很類似，在1918年的時候大英帝國是地球上最富有最強大的國家，他後來還贏得了第一次世界大戰，但是到了1939年，只花了一代人的時間他們就開始對經濟進行政府控制了，為了嚴加監管他們甚至規定，凡是不以英鎊作為貨幣的人就是叛國罪。
記者：叛國罪？我還不知道這事情。
羅傑斯：是的，叛國罪的一種。曾經人們可以使用任何他們想要使用的東西作為貨幣，金子或者其他什麼金屬，銀行也可以發行自己的信用憑證，你也可以使用別人喜歡的信用憑證。
可是到了上世紀三十年代，問題已經非常嚴重了，他們開始規定使用英鎊之外的貨幣都是叛國罪，接著政府開始全面控制經濟。然後呢，他們就迎來了第二次世界大戰。問題早在戰爭之前就爆發出來了，戰爭只是加劇了問題的嚴重程度。到了上世紀七十年代中期，英國差不多已經破產了，他們的政府長期債券再也賣不出去，請記住，在兩代或者三代人之前，他們還是地球上最富裕和強大的國家。
挽救英國的到底是什麼呢？原來他們發現了北海油田，當然撒切爾夫人認為是自己救了英國，其實她只是運氣好而已。撒切爾夫人在1979年當上了首相，與此同時北海油田開始大量產油。英國的財務狀況一下子就變好了。
要知道，即使是特瑞薩修女來當首相，或者是斯大林，卡特，布什等等，只要他們在那個時候當上英國首相，他們都會幹得不錯。上帝給了我這麼大一塊油田，我當然會把經濟搞好。這就是故事的本質。
記者問：如果撒切爾夫人沒有當上首相，結果會有不同嗎？
羅傑斯：誰知道呢，那時英國已經重病纏身，可能這也是她能當上首相的原因，我相信她可能把某些事情做對了，但如果沒有北海油田那些石油，英國還是會繼續衰退。
所以我們有生之年可能也看不見美國觸底反彈了，剛才講的英國只是一個例子。
記者：對於投資者來說，這真是個可怕的消息。
羅傑斯：是的，但請記住一點，由於美國實在是太過富有和龐大，因此它的衰退過程需要很長的時間，你不可能在十年或二十年的時間裡做到這一點，需要有一大批的自以為是者耗費巨量的工作，才會把美國給搞垮。英國的例子我前面已經講了，衰退過程至少有四五十年以上，因為他們的家底太厚，即使是敗家子也足夠他們敗上一陣子了。
就好比津巴布韋，他們也要花上十多年的時間來敗家，他們的總統蒙博托在1980年上台，一直到1995年情況還不錯，可是現在呢，那裡就是一場災難。
這對於新加坡來說可能是優勢，這裡有巨量的財富，而人口只有區區四百萬，所以即使新加坡人從2008年開始敗家，他們似乎可以永遠敗下去。
記者：有沒有什麼信號可以表明這一切最終結束？
羅傑斯：有，當每一個美國人都開了瑞士銀行的賬戶，那就可以確信差不多到頭了，因為國家肯定會立法禁止開設外國銀行賬戶，而大家都打算去違法，這就說明情況已經沒法再壞了。
記者：人們總是想要保住自己的錢。
羅傑斯：是啊，你去看看那些對經濟嚴加控制的國家，你會發現政治家們總是告訴大家把錢弄往國外是非法的，可他們自己卻把錢弄往國外。
記者：我們看到在南非或其他國家，人們總是想盡辦法要把錢弄出去。
羅傑斯：人人都已經看出來了，當然包括那些政治家們，他們會說： “別人這麼幹是非法的，而我就是合法的” 。這種日子也會到來，等到每個國會議員都擁有了國外銀行帳戶的時候，這差不多就到頭了。
Radical bailout plan has a jawdropping price tag
Bush administration lays out radical financial bailout plan with a jawdropping price tag
Struggling to stave off financial catastrophe, the Bush administration on Friday laid out a radical bailout plan with a jawdropping price tag -- a takeover of a half-trillion dollars or more in worthless mortgages and other bad debt held by tottering institutions.
Relieved investors sent stocks soaring on Wall Street and around the globe. The Dow-Jones industrials average rose 368 points after surging 410 points the day before on rumors the federal action was afoot.
A grim-faced President Bush acknowledged risks to taxpayers in what would be the most sweeping government intervention to rescue failing financial institutions since the Great Depression. But he declared, "The risk of not acting would be far higher."
The administration is asking Congress for far-reaching new powers to take over troubled mortgages from banks and other companies, including purchasing sour mortgage-backed securities. Administration officials and congressional leaders are to work out details over the weekend.
Congressional officials said they expected a request for legal authority to buy up the bad loans, at a cost in excess of $500 billion to the government. Democrats were discussing whether to try to attach middle class assistance to the legislation, despite a request from Bush to avoid adding controversial items that could delay action. An expansion of jobless benefits was one possibility.
In other major steps, the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve moved to give money-market mutual funds the same kind of federal protection, at least temporarily, that now applies to savings and checking accounts and certificates of deposit at banks. Money-market accounts sold through retail banks are already FDIC insured.
The spreading global selling panic had started to threaten some money-market funds, usually thought of as rock-solid investments. Administration officials feared a run on these funds, held by millions of Americans.
"Every American should know that the federal government continues to enforce laws and regulations protecting your money," Bush said at the White House. The 75-year-old Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation now insures savings and checking accounts and certificates of deposit up to $100,000.
Separately, the Securities and Exchange Commission acted to block short-selling in financial securities. That is a trading method that bets the value of stocks will go down. It has been blamed for accelerating the plunge in stock prices of banks and other financial institutions.
"This is a pivotal moment for America's economy," Bush said. "In our nation's history, there have been moments that require us to come together across party lines to address major challenges. This is such a moment."
Congressional leaders of both parties welcomed the administration's bold moves, after a series of ad hoc rescues.
The talk on the presidential campaign trail, barely six weeks before the election, was of bipartisanship, too.
Democrat Barack Obama said it was critical that leaders in both parties work in concert. "Truly, we are all in this together," he said.
GOP presidential nominee John McCain said leaders should put aside partisan differences and "any action should be designed to keep people in their homes and safeguard the life savings of all Americans."
The federal government already has pledged more than $600 billion in the past year to bail out, or help bail out, some of the biggest names in American finance. That includes the rescue of investment bank Bear Stearns in March, the takeover of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac earlier this month and the takeover of the world's largest insurance company, American International Group, just this week.
But the contagion continued to spread, bringing political consensus that drastic and comprehensive federal action was needed.
There are precedents for such a federal takeover.
In the late 1980s, the government created the Resolution Trust Corporation to tackle the savings and loan crisis. It acquired the defaulted mortgages, foreclosed real estate and other assets of nearly a thousand failed S&Ls, restoring order and stability to the system. Resolving that crisis took six years and $125 billion in taxpayer money -- roughly equal to $200 billion in today's dollars.
And there was the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, a Depression-era relief program formed in 1932 by President Hoover that tried to revive the market by giving loans to banks and other businesses.
On Friday, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson gave few details about the structure of the new program. Asked about an overall price tag, he said, "hundreds of billions" of dollars.
Congressional leaders said they were ready to move quickly but still needed details of the administration plan. For instance, there was no indication of what the government would get in return from financial companies for the federal assistance.
Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke briefed lawmakers in both parties on the idea by conference call Friday.
In a session with House Democrats, they described a plan where the government would in essence set up reverse auctions, putting up money for a class of distressed assets -- such as loans that are delinquent but not in default -- and financial institutions would compete for how little they would accept for the investments, said Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., who participated in the call.
"You give them good cash; they give you the worst of the worst," Sherman said of the plan, which he complained that Bush and his economic advisers were trying to panic lawmakers into rubber-stamping.
Paulson rejected Democrats' calls to include tighter regulations, corporate reforms or limits on executive compensation as part of the measure, Sherman said. "He's doing his best to paint a picture of the sky falling, and then he says, because the sky's falling, you have to do it my way."
Paulson said the new troubled-asset relief program that he wants Congress to enact must be large enough to have the necessary impact while protecting taxpayers as much as possible.
"I am convinced that this bold approach will cost American families far less than the alternative -- a continuing series of financial institution failures and frozen credit markets unable to fund economic expansion," Paulson. "The financial security of all Americans ... depends on our ability to restore our financial institutions to a sound footing."
Bush said simply, "We must act now."
"America's economy is facing unprecedented challenges. We're responding with unprecedented measures," Bush declared, standing in the White House Rose Garden with Paulson, Bernanke and Christopher Cox, chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Shortly after his remarks, Bush called congressional leaders with whom the administration will be working on the final plan. He spoke to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and House GOP leader John Boehner of Ohio.
The administration wants to see a package emerge from the weekend, to lend calm to Monday morning's market openings, said Keith Hennessey, the director of the president's economic council. The goal is to have something passed by Congress by the end of next week, when lawmakers recess for the elections.
Paulson said Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will step up their purchases of mortgage-backed securities to help provide support to the crippled housing market. He also said the Treasury Department will expand a program, announced earlier this month, to buy mortgage-backed securities, which have been badly hurt by the housing and credit crises.
"As we all know, lax lending practices earlier this decade led to irresponsible lending and irresponsible borrowing. This simply put too many families into mortgages they could not afford," Paulson said.
Bush authorized Treasury to tap up to $50 billion from a Depression-era fund to insure the holdings of eligible money-market mutual funds. And the Federal Reserve announced it would expand its emergency lending program to help support the $3.4 trillion in total assets of the funds.
On Wednesday alone, investors had pulled more than $89 billion from money-market funds, according to iMoneyNet, publisher of the newsletter Money Fund Report.
The government's actions could help alleviate the uncertainty that has been sending the markets into tumult over the past week. Lending has come to a virtual standstill in the wake of the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.
European Central Bank, Swiss National Bank and Bank of England also offered up more cash Friday. The three banks put a combined $90 billion into money markets.
Struggling to stave off financial catastrophe, the Bush administration on Friday laid out a radical bailout plan with a jawdropping price tag -- a takeover of a half-trillion dollars or more in worthless mortgages and other bad debt held by tottering institutions.
Relieved investors sent stocks soaring on Wall Street and around the globe. The Dow-Jones industrials average rose 368 points after surging 410 points the day before on rumors the federal action was afoot.
A grim-faced President Bush acknowledged risks to taxpayers in what would be the most sweeping government intervention to rescue failing financial institutions since the Great Depression. But he declared, "The risk of not acting would be far higher."
The administration is asking Congress for far-reaching new powers to take over troubled mortgages from banks and other companies, including purchasing sour mortgage-backed securities. Administration officials and congressional leaders are to work out details over the weekend.
Congressional officials said they expected a request for legal authority to buy up the bad loans, at a cost in excess of $500 billion to the government. Democrats were discussing whether to try to attach middle class assistance to the legislation, despite a request from Bush to avoid adding controversial items that could delay action. An expansion of jobless benefits was one possibility.
In other major steps, the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve moved to give money-market mutual funds the same kind of federal protection, at least temporarily, that now applies to savings and checking accounts and certificates of deposit at banks. Money-market accounts sold through retail banks are already FDIC insured.
The spreading global selling panic had started to threaten some money-market funds, usually thought of as rock-solid investments. Administration officials feared a run on these funds, held by millions of Americans.
"Every American should know that the federal government continues to enforce laws and regulations protecting your money," Bush said at the White House. The 75-year-old Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation now insures savings and checking accounts and certificates of deposit up to $100,000.
Separately, the Securities and Exchange Commission acted to block short-selling in financial securities. That is a trading method that bets the value of stocks will go down. It has been blamed for accelerating the plunge in stock prices of banks and other financial institutions.
"This is a pivotal moment for America's economy," Bush said. "In our nation's history, there have been moments that require us to come together across party lines to address major challenges. This is such a moment."
Congressional leaders of both parties welcomed the administration's bold moves, after a series of ad hoc rescues.
The talk on the presidential campaign trail, barely six weeks before the election, was of bipartisanship, too.
Democrat Barack Obama said it was critical that leaders in both parties work in concert. "Truly, we are all in this together," he said.
GOP presidential nominee John McCain said leaders should put aside partisan differences and "any action should be designed to keep people in their homes and safeguard the life savings of all Americans."
The federal government already has pledged more than $600 billion in the past year to bail out, or help bail out, some of the biggest names in American finance. That includes the rescue of investment bank Bear Stearns in March, the takeover of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac earlier this month and the takeover of the world's largest insurance company, American International Group, just this week.
But the contagion continued to spread, bringing political consensus that drastic and comprehensive federal action was needed.
There are precedents for such a federal takeover.
In the late 1980s, the government created the Resolution Trust Corporation to tackle the savings and loan crisis. It acquired the defaulted mortgages, foreclosed real estate and other assets of nearly a thousand failed S&Ls, restoring order and stability to the system. Resolving that crisis took six years and $125 billion in taxpayer money -- roughly equal to $200 billion in today's dollars.
And there was the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, a Depression-era relief program formed in 1932 by President Hoover that tried to revive the market by giving loans to banks and other businesses.
On Friday, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson gave few details about the structure of the new program. Asked about an overall price tag, he said, "hundreds of billions" of dollars.
Congressional leaders said they were ready to move quickly but still needed details of the administration plan. For instance, there was no indication of what the government would get in return from financial companies for the federal assistance.
Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke briefed lawmakers in both parties on the idea by conference call Friday.
In a session with House Democrats, they described a plan where the government would in essence set up reverse auctions, putting up money for a class of distressed assets -- such as loans that are delinquent but not in default -- and financial institutions would compete for how little they would accept for the investments, said Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., who participated in the call.
"You give them good cash; they give you the worst of the worst," Sherman said of the plan, which he complained that Bush and his economic advisers were trying to panic lawmakers into rubber-stamping.
Paulson rejected Democrats' calls to include tighter regulations, corporate reforms or limits on executive compensation as part of the measure, Sherman said. "He's doing his best to paint a picture of the sky falling, and then he says, because the sky's falling, you have to do it my way."
Paulson said the new troubled-asset relief program that he wants Congress to enact must be large enough to have the necessary impact while protecting taxpayers as much as possible.
"I am convinced that this bold approach will cost American families far less than the alternative -- a continuing series of financial institution failures and frozen credit markets unable to fund economic expansion," Paulson. "The financial security of all Americans ... depends on our ability to restore our financial institutions to a sound footing."
Bush said simply, "We must act now."
"America's economy is facing unprecedented challenges. We're responding with unprecedented measures," Bush declared, standing in the White House Rose Garden with Paulson, Bernanke and Christopher Cox, chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Shortly after his remarks, Bush called congressional leaders with whom the administration will be working on the final plan. He spoke to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and House GOP leader John Boehner of Ohio.
The administration wants to see a package emerge from the weekend, to lend calm to Monday morning's market openings, said Keith Hennessey, the director of the president's economic council. The goal is to have something passed by Congress by the end of next week, when lawmakers recess for the elections.
Paulson said Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will step up their purchases of mortgage-backed securities to help provide support to the crippled housing market. He also said the Treasury Department will expand a program, announced earlier this month, to buy mortgage-backed securities, which have been badly hurt by the housing and credit crises.
"As we all know, lax lending practices earlier this decade led to irresponsible lending and irresponsible borrowing. This simply put too many families into mortgages they could not afford," Paulson said.
Bush authorized Treasury to tap up to $50 billion from a Depression-era fund to insure the holdings of eligible money-market mutual funds. And the Federal Reserve announced it would expand its emergency lending program to help support the $3.4 trillion in total assets of the funds.
On Wednesday alone, investors had pulled more than $89 billion from money-market funds, according to iMoneyNet, publisher of the newsletter Money Fund Report.
The government's actions could help alleviate the uncertainty that has been sending the markets into tumult over the past week. Lending has come to a virtual standstill in the wake of the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.
European Central Bank, Swiss National Bank and Bank of England also offered up more cash Friday. The three banks put a combined $90 billion into money markets.
李嘉诚创富秘诀:时间是财富最大盟友
要想过上富足的生活,投资理财非常重要。30岁正是理财生命周期的财富积累发展时期,这个时候理不理财决定你未来的生活质量。
很多人都听过亚洲首富李嘉诚颇具传奇色彩的创富故事。他之所以能成为亿万财富除了卓越的商业头脑外,还有许多理财秘诀。据他本人在多次演讲中透露,他有三个秘诀:
一是三十以后重理财。李嘉诚认为,20岁以前,钱是靠双手勤劳换来的,20至30岁之间是努力赚钱和存钱的时候,30岁以后,投资理财的重要性逐渐提高,到中年时赚钱已经不重要,这时候反而是如何管钱比较重要。
由此看来,要想过上富足的生活,投资理财非常重要。30岁正是理财生命周期的财富积累发展时期,这个时候理不理财决定你未来的生活质量。
二是理财要有足够的耐心。有人问李嘉诚:“要40年才成为亿万富翁,时间太长了。您能否传授一些快速理财致富的秘诀”。李嘉诚也曾针对这个问题想研究出一条理财致富的捷径,但结果却是:理财必须花费长久的时间,短时间是看不出效果的,一个人想要利用理财在短时间内快速致富,是不现实的。
人们常说,时间是财富的最大盟友,理财的第一大原则就是要尽早理财,并坚持长期投资。“股神”巴菲特也曾说:“很多人都希望快速发财致富,我不懂怎样才能尽快赚钱,我只知道随着时日的增长赚到钱。”李嘉诚和巴菲特的观点都说明投资不是“投机”,投资是长期的事情,甚至是一辈子的事情,需要的是一份坚持,而不是一次“冲动”。投资者想靠每一次的“低买高卖”来获取超额收益,难度不亚于“接住一把从空中落下的飞刀”。
投资基金,同样需要长期投资。所谓“欲速则不达”,靠频繁的申购赎回,不仅很可能变成“低卖高买”,而且还会损失其中的交易成本。要明确的是,每年100%甚至200%的收益率,并不是投资基金的一种常态,而是在一个特殊的牛市行情中出现的特殊回报,我们也并不需要每年都一定要有50%、100%、200%的回报,才能达到理财目的。
三是先难后易。每年存1.4万元,平均投资回报率20%,只要20年,资产就能累积到261万元。如再继续奋斗20年,就可能登上亿万富翁的台阶。当然,要保证每年都有20%的投资回报并不是容易的事情。同时,在这个时间段内,还不能有超过预算之外的支出。看起来容易,实际上做起来并不那么容易。但李嘉诚也同时坦言,赚第二个100万元比第一个100万元要简单容易得多。
通过这条秘诀,我们知道除了坚持长期投资外,还应该选择一些易于操作的方法,让我们能坚持下去达成目标。基金定投就是一种既易于操作,又能充分享受时间复利魔法的“懒人投资法”。通过每月固定时间申购相同金额的基金,基金定投能自动达到涨时少买,跌时多买,长期坚持下来,不但可以分散投资风险,而且每单位的平均成本也低于平均市场价格。同时,定期定额保证投资者每期定额购买,严格保证投资按时进行。由于投资自动完成,严格保证投资的稳定性,易于长期坚持。
很多人都听过亚洲首富李嘉诚颇具传奇色彩的创富故事。他之所以能成为亿万财富除了卓越的商业头脑外,还有许多理财秘诀。据他本人在多次演讲中透露,他有三个秘诀:
一是三十以后重理财。李嘉诚认为,20岁以前,钱是靠双手勤劳换来的,20至30岁之间是努力赚钱和存钱的时候,30岁以后,投资理财的重要性逐渐提高,到中年时赚钱已经不重要,这时候反而是如何管钱比较重要。
由此看来,要想过上富足的生活,投资理财非常重要。30岁正是理财生命周期的财富积累发展时期,这个时候理不理财决定你未来的生活质量。
二是理财要有足够的耐心。有人问李嘉诚:“要40年才成为亿万富翁,时间太长了。您能否传授一些快速理财致富的秘诀”。李嘉诚也曾针对这个问题想研究出一条理财致富的捷径,但结果却是:理财必须花费长久的时间,短时间是看不出效果的,一个人想要利用理财在短时间内快速致富,是不现实的。
人们常说,时间是财富的最大盟友,理财的第一大原则就是要尽早理财,并坚持长期投资。“股神”巴菲特也曾说:“很多人都希望快速发财致富,我不懂怎样才能尽快赚钱,我只知道随着时日的增长赚到钱。”李嘉诚和巴菲特的观点都说明投资不是“投机”,投资是长期的事情,甚至是一辈子的事情,需要的是一份坚持,而不是一次“冲动”。投资者想靠每一次的“低买高卖”来获取超额收益,难度不亚于“接住一把从空中落下的飞刀”。
投资基金,同样需要长期投资。所谓“欲速则不达”,靠频繁的申购赎回,不仅很可能变成“低卖高买”,而且还会损失其中的交易成本。要明确的是,每年100%甚至200%的收益率,并不是投资基金的一种常态,而是在一个特殊的牛市行情中出现的特殊回报,我们也并不需要每年都一定要有50%、100%、200%的回报,才能达到理财目的。
三是先难后易。每年存1.4万元,平均投资回报率20%,只要20年,资产就能累积到261万元。如再继续奋斗20年,就可能登上亿万富翁的台阶。当然,要保证每年都有20%的投资回报并不是容易的事情。同时,在这个时间段内,还不能有超过预算之外的支出。看起来容易,实际上做起来并不那么容易。但李嘉诚也同时坦言,赚第二个100万元比第一个100万元要简单容易得多。
通过这条秘诀,我们知道除了坚持长期投资外,还应该选择一些易于操作的方法,让我们能坚持下去达成目标。基金定投就是一种既易于操作,又能充分享受时间复利魔法的“懒人投资法”。通过每月固定时间申购相同金额的基金,基金定投能自动达到涨时少买,跌时多买,长期坚持下来,不但可以分散投资风险,而且每单位的平均成本也低于平均市场价格。同时,定期定额保证投资者每期定额购买,严格保证投资按时进行。由于投资自动完成,严格保证投资的稳定性,易于长期坚持。
Americans, Get Ready for an Enormous Tax Bill
"America's economy is facing unprecedented challenges. We're responding with unprecedented measures," President Bush declared in a press conference Friday.
Bush, of course, was speaking of the government's coordinated efforts to tackle a financial crisis that has roiled global markets and brought down venerable financial institutions.
"These measures will require us to put a significant amount of taxpayer dollars on the line," the President added.
Ah, yes. There is no free lunch. Just how significant an amount of taxpayer dollars remains unknown, but it's going to be massive.
Estimates of the proposal to let the government buy bad assets from banks range from $500 billion to $1 trillion -- and that's in addition to costs already incurred for various government actions this year, including, but not limited to:
$29 billion to fund JPMorgan's takeover of Bear Stearns
Up to $200 billion each for nationalization of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac
Up to $85 billion for AIG
$50 billion to insure money market funds
Approximately $300 billion of Fed liquidity measures this week alone.
"It's impossible to put any reasonable estimate on what it's going to cost us as taxpayers," says Tom Brown of Bankstocks.com and Second Curve Capital. "We know it's going to cost an awful lot [and] the more they borrow the more interest rates go up and the more taxes we'll have to pay."
As discussed in the accompanying video, it's no coincidence all this is happening in an election year. But are either John McCain or Barack Obama really prepared to handle the mess one of them is going to inherit?
Bush, of course, was speaking of the government's coordinated efforts to tackle a financial crisis that has roiled global markets and brought down venerable financial institutions.
"These measures will require us to put a significant amount of taxpayer dollars on the line," the President added.
Ah, yes. There is no free lunch. Just how significant an amount of taxpayer dollars remains unknown, but it's going to be massive.
Estimates of the proposal to let the government buy bad assets from banks range from $500 billion to $1 trillion -- and that's in addition to costs already incurred for various government actions this year, including, but not limited to:
$29 billion to fund JPMorgan's takeover of Bear Stearns
Up to $200 billion each for nationalization of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac
Up to $85 billion for AIG
$50 billion to insure money market funds
Approximately $300 billion of Fed liquidity measures this week alone.
"It's impossible to put any reasonable estimate on what it's going to cost us as taxpayers," says Tom Brown of Bankstocks.com and Second Curve Capital. "We know it's going to cost an awful lot [and] the more they borrow the more interest rates go up and the more taxes we'll have to pay."
As discussed in the accompanying video, it's no coincidence all this is happening in an election year. But are either John McCain or Barack Obama really prepared to handle the mess one of them is going to inherit?
Biggest Bailout Ever: Did the Government Go Too Far?
After a few weeks of trying to stand tough in the face of demands for a wholesale rescue, Hank Paulson apparently couldn't take it anymore. So now we'll have the biggest bailout in history, including:
A huge RTC-like government garbage can that banks can throw all their toxic balance-sheet waste into. (This time, the transfer will be made before they go bankrupt, unlike the case with the first RTC.)
A temporary ban on shortselling. (With the unfortunate implication that shorts are the cause of all this)
A federal guarantee on money-market accounts. (Including non-recourse loans to banks to buy high-quality commercial paper and meet money-market obligations.)
Not surprisingly, the market's up huge on this news. The moves should head off a run on money-market funds, restore liquidity to the financial system, and, as bank analyst Tom Brown puts it in the accompanying video, create a general "time out" for the panic to recede.
So what are the costs? Almost certainly:
Higher taxes
Higher interest rates on government debt
Bigger government deficits
When the alternative is the entire financial system going bankrupt, we guess these costs are acceptable. But we're not convinced that that was the alternative. Also, numerous questions remain. The most pressing is "What price will the government buy the toxic waste for?" (This price will determine how much additional capital the banks have to raise to offset any losses.) Merrill Lynch shareholders are probably also wondering whether they can cancel the Bank of America deal. And Lehman would probably like to un-declare bankruptcy.
We also doubt that this move will prove the final bottom in the stock market. Unless the government makes a similar move on housing (which certainly seems more plausible, given this news), the housing problem won't up and go away. And until the housing problem works itself through the system, the consumer will still be under pressure. But the future certainly looks brighter than it did yesterday.
A huge RTC-like government garbage can that banks can throw all their toxic balance-sheet waste into. (This time, the transfer will be made before they go bankrupt, unlike the case with the first RTC.)
A temporary ban on shortselling. (With the unfortunate implication that shorts are the cause of all this)
A federal guarantee on money-market accounts. (Including non-recourse loans to banks to buy high-quality commercial paper and meet money-market obligations.)
Not surprisingly, the market's up huge on this news. The moves should head off a run on money-market funds, restore liquidity to the financial system, and, as bank analyst Tom Brown puts it in the accompanying video, create a general "time out" for the panic to recede.
So what are the costs? Almost certainly:
Higher taxes
Higher interest rates on government debt
Bigger government deficits
When the alternative is the entire financial system going bankrupt, we guess these costs are acceptable. But we're not convinced that that was the alternative. Also, numerous questions remain. The most pressing is "What price will the government buy the toxic waste for?" (This price will determine how much additional capital the banks have to raise to offset any losses.) Merrill Lynch shareholders are probably also wondering whether they can cancel the Bank of America deal. And Lehman would probably like to un-declare bankruptcy.
We also doubt that this move will prove the final bottom in the stock market. Unless the government makes a similar move on housing (which certainly seems more plausible, given this news), the housing problem won't up and go away. And until the housing problem works itself through the system, the consumer will still be under pressure. But the future certainly looks brighter than it did yesterday.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Pain Spreads as Credit Vise Grows Tighter
The latest outgrowth of the housing crisis, the breakdown on Wall Street, threatens to gradually corrode economic activity on Main Street, mainly by disabling the credit on which so many everyday transactions depend - but also by frightening people.
Lenders of all types had already been raising the bar for borrowers, turning away all but the best customers. This week, they became even less willing to part with their money, further crimping budgets and family spending.
An economy propelled by easy credit for more than a decade is fraying as credit disappears. American Express, to take one striking example, is reducing the maximum credit limit for half of its tens of millions of cardholders.
The credit shock is in some ways reminiscent of the 1973 oil embargo, which "came into people's lives right away," said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center, the public opinion pollster. Then, Americans were forced to line up for gasoline and turn down their thermostats in winter. Though less visible, the credit squeeze, if it persists, will force businesses and consumers to cut spending more than they already have.
"We have moved into a decline in consumer spending, which normally happens only in a major recession," said Ethan Harris, chief domestic economist at Lehman Brothers. He calls the experience "a slow-motion recession in which economic growth will be near zero for an extended period of time."
Consumer spending accounts for two-thirds of American economic activity and has been slowing as the value of homes falls. Although the economy is not yet in a formal recession, consumer spending in June and July grew only because consumers paid more for the same goods. After factoring in higher prices, they actually bought less.
Borrowers are finding that the nation's lenders are tightening up in numerous ways. American Express is hardly alone. After several banks said they would not lend the asking price, a tractor-trailer dealer in North Carolina had to cut the $20,000 he was seeking for a second-hand tractor to $14,000. And a commercial real estate agent, trying to raise $4 million by refinancing an apartment building, got only half that amount from the Bank of Smithtown on Long Island, even though the building was appraised for $10 million.
"With marginal lenders in trouble, we have more people than ever coming to us for loans," said Brad Rock, chairman of the Smithtown bank. "So all of a sudden, we can be much pickier in deciding what loans to make and how much to lend."
Being pickier means that an American Express cardholder whose maximum has been reduced to $1,000 from $1,200 has that much less to spend on clothing or meals out, purchases that lift the economy.
At $14,000 for a used tractor, a trucker, caught in the same squeeze as the dealer, would lack a sufficient down payment for a new tractor, which costs more than $100,000. Indeed, many truckers in this situation find themselves looking for other work, even as job seekers across the nation outnumber job openings by more than 2 to 1, the biggest mismatch since 2004, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports.
And the commercial real estate agent is shy $2 million that would have been invested in a new venture to generate economic growth.
Mr. Rock, also chairman of the American Bankers Association, with 8,400 affiliates, does not see a problem in this turn of events.
"Now people are going to actually have to have a job to get a loan and they are going to have to make installment payments that are already higher per dollar borrowed than they used to be," he said, arguing that the debt-fueled prosperity of the bubble years was unsustainable.
But there is not, for the moment, an adequate replacement.
Henry Kaufman, a Wall Street economist, ticks off the alternatives and discounts them. Exports could carry some of the load, but the surge in the first half of the year is fading as European and Asian economies weaken. Here at home, capital spending by business on new buildings and equipment could provide a lift, but that, too, is beginning to fade as corporate profits - and demand - weaken. Just Wednesday, FedEx announced that profits had shrunk in the latest quarter as freight traffic declined.
Home construction is off the table, of course, as a means of lifting the economy. That leaves government, which could inject money into the economy through aid to the states or infrastructure spending or another round of tax rebates. There is even talk of a bigger bailout for the housing market, akin to Resolution Trust Corporation's role in the savings and loan crisis. But Congress seems unlikely to authorize any of these measures in its current, brief pre-election session.
"Sometime in 2009, after the new president takes office, we will address these issues," Mr. Kaufman said, lamenting the delay.
Meanwhile, the barriers to borrowing go up. By late summer, a majority of the nation's lenders had tightened standards for every type of credit, the Federal Reserve's bank surveys show. Home equity lines of credit have been canceled or reduced as home prices have fallen. Credit card companies are imposing higher delinquency fees, stepping up collection efforts and checking on repayment histories.
"More and more, they don't give the card if you don't have a good credit record," Mr. Harris, of Lehman Brothers, said.
Michael O'Neill, an American Express vice president, agrees. He adds that the company is offering fewer new cards than in the past in Florida, California and parts of the Southwest, all areas where home prices have fallen the most. And quietly, American Express is skinning back credit limits. The company is always reviewing its millions of accounts, normally increasing the limit on three out of four, and decreasing the fourth. Since July, "the tilt is 50-50," Mr. O'Neill said.
The North Carolina truck dealer originally listed a 2001 Freightliner for $20,000 on truckertotrucker.com, an online marketplace for tractors and trailers, and this week, he dropped the price to $14,000 because of the growing resistance from bankers, said James McCormack, who operates the site.
"The banks were giving loans for the full value of these trucks and the value was falling, and the truckers found themselves owing more than the trucks were worth," Mr. McCormack said. "They found themselves forced to keep driving or let the banks repossess, and many have elected repossession."
Debt traps and loan famines, in one form or another, can prove costly to companies. Harley-Davidson, for example, which finances purchases of its motorcycles, is issuing bonds and notes at slightly higher rates to support its financing arm.
Restaurants in the casual-dining sector are in a severe slump, according to industry analysts, and will most likely come under further pressure. The pancake house IHOP bought Applebee's last year with a strategy of selling off company-owned stores to franchisees. Now known as DineEquity, the company may have problems finding prospective franchisees who can obtain financing, industry analysts said.
The winners so far are the Brad Rocks of America, the bankers who have emerged unscathed, their capital intact and with enough retained earnings to support lending, on their terms. A residential mortgage from Bank of Smithtown requires 20 percent down and clear evidence of adequate income to repay the loan, as well as a good record of paying down debt.
Bank of Smithtown specializes in small businesses - the stationery stores, pizza parlors and pharmacies of eastern Long Island with annual revenue of $2 million or less, regularly in need of bridge loans, for example. During the credit boom, Mr. Rock said, many of these business owners went to lenders who required, as he put it, nothing more than a tax ID number to qualify for a loan.
"Now many of these lenders are gone," Mr. Rock said, "and the small-business borrowers are coming to us, and we are doing good old-fashioned underwriting, and the result is that fewer people are getting loans."
Lenders of all types had already been raising the bar for borrowers, turning away all but the best customers. This week, they became even less willing to part with their money, further crimping budgets and family spending.
An economy propelled by easy credit for more than a decade is fraying as credit disappears. American Express, to take one striking example, is reducing the maximum credit limit for half of its tens of millions of cardholders.
The credit shock is in some ways reminiscent of the 1973 oil embargo, which "came into people's lives right away," said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center, the public opinion pollster. Then, Americans were forced to line up for gasoline and turn down their thermostats in winter. Though less visible, the credit squeeze, if it persists, will force businesses and consumers to cut spending more than they already have.
"We have moved into a decline in consumer spending, which normally happens only in a major recession," said Ethan Harris, chief domestic economist at Lehman Brothers. He calls the experience "a slow-motion recession in which economic growth will be near zero for an extended period of time."
Consumer spending accounts for two-thirds of American economic activity and has been slowing as the value of homes falls. Although the economy is not yet in a formal recession, consumer spending in June and July grew only because consumers paid more for the same goods. After factoring in higher prices, they actually bought less.
Borrowers are finding that the nation's lenders are tightening up in numerous ways. American Express is hardly alone. After several banks said they would not lend the asking price, a tractor-trailer dealer in North Carolina had to cut the $20,000 he was seeking for a second-hand tractor to $14,000. And a commercial real estate agent, trying to raise $4 million by refinancing an apartment building, got only half that amount from the Bank of Smithtown on Long Island, even though the building was appraised for $10 million.
"With marginal lenders in trouble, we have more people than ever coming to us for loans," said Brad Rock, chairman of the Smithtown bank. "So all of a sudden, we can be much pickier in deciding what loans to make and how much to lend."
Being pickier means that an American Express cardholder whose maximum has been reduced to $1,000 from $1,200 has that much less to spend on clothing or meals out, purchases that lift the economy.
At $14,000 for a used tractor, a trucker, caught in the same squeeze as the dealer, would lack a sufficient down payment for a new tractor, which costs more than $100,000. Indeed, many truckers in this situation find themselves looking for other work, even as job seekers across the nation outnumber job openings by more than 2 to 1, the biggest mismatch since 2004, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports.
And the commercial real estate agent is shy $2 million that would have been invested in a new venture to generate economic growth.
Mr. Rock, also chairman of the American Bankers Association, with 8,400 affiliates, does not see a problem in this turn of events.
"Now people are going to actually have to have a job to get a loan and they are going to have to make installment payments that are already higher per dollar borrowed than they used to be," he said, arguing that the debt-fueled prosperity of the bubble years was unsustainable.
But there is not, for the moment, an adequate replacement.
Henry Kaufman, a Wall Street economist, ticks off the alternatives and discounts them. Exports could carry some of the load, but the surge in the first half of the year is fading as European and Asian economies weaken. Here at home, capital spending by business on new buildings and equipment could provide a lift, but that, too, is beginning to fade as corporate profits - and demand - weaken. Just Wednesday, FedEx announced that profits had shrunk in the latest quarter as freight traffic declined.
Home construction is off the table, of course, as a means of lifting the economy. That leaves government, which could inject money into the economy through aid to the states or infrastructure spending or another round of tax rebates. There is even talk of a bigger bailout for the housing market, akin to Resolution Trust Corporation's role in the savings and loan crisis. But Congress seems unlikely to authorize any of these measures in its current, brief pre-election session.
"Sometime in 2009, after the new president takes office, we will address these issues," Mr. Kaufman said, lamenting the delay.
Meanwhile, the barriers to borrowing go up. By late summer, a majority of the nation's lenders had tightened standards for every type of credit, the Federal Reserve's bank surveys show. Home equity lines of credit have been canceled or reduced as home prices have fallen. Credit card companies are imposing higher delinquency fees, stepping up collection efforts and checking on repayment histories.
"More and more, they don't give the card if you don't have a good credit record," Mr. Harris, of Lehman Brothers, said.
Michael O'Neill, an American Express vice president, agrees. He adds that the company is offering fewer new cards than in the past in Florida, California and parts of the Southwest, all areas where home prices have fallen the most. And quietly, American Express is skinning back credit limits. The company is always reviewing its millions of accounts, normally increasing the limit on three out of four, and decreasing the fourth. Since July, "the tilt is 50-50," Mr. O'Neill said.
The North Carolina truck dealer originally listed a 2001 Freightliner for $20,000 on truckertotrucker.com, an online marketplace for tractors and trailers, and this week, he dropped the price to $14,000 because of the growing resistance from bankers, said James McCormack, who operates the site.
"The banks were giving loans for the full value of these trucks and the value was falling, and the truckers found themselves owing more than the trucks were worth," Mr. McCormack said. "They found themselves forced to keep driving or let the banks repossess, and many have elected repossession."
Debt traps and loan famines, in one form or another, can prove costly to companies. Harley-Davidson, for example, which finances purchases of its motorcycles, is issuing bonds and notes at slightly higher rates to support its financing arm.
Restaurants in the casual-dining sector are in a severe slump, according to industry analysts, and will most likely come under further pressure. The pancake house IHOP bought Applebee's last year with a strategy of selling off company-owned stores to franchisees. Now known as DineEquity, the company may have problems finding prospective franchisees who can obtain financing, industry analysts said.
The winners so far are the Brad Rocks of America, the bankers who have emerged unscathed, their capital intact and with enough retained earnings to support lending, on their terms. A residential mortgage from Bank of Smithtown requires 20 percent down and clear evidence of adequate income to repay the loan, as well as a good record of paying down debt.
Bank of Smithtown specializes in small businesses - the stationery stores, pizza parlors and pharmacies of eastern Long Island with annual revenue of $2 million or less, regularly in need of bridge loans, for example. During the credit boom, Mr. Rock said, many of these business owners went to lenders who required, as he put it, nothing more than a tax ID number to qualify for a loan.
"Now many of these lenders are gone," Mr. Rock said, "and the small-business borrowers are coming to us, and we are doing good old-fashioned underwriting, and the result is that fewer people are getting loans."
Science unveils hidden drivers of stock bubbles and crashes
Many economists believe that investors make decisions rationally, weighing up corporate data and other pricing signals to evaluate gain or risk before buying or selling stocks.
But this keystone belief in how markets function is now under mounting attack after this month's global stocks crash, the latest in a string of financial shocks over the past two decades.
Proponents of rival concepts say that primitive emotions, herd mentality and raging hormones are among the invisible motors that help inflate an asset bubble and then prick it.
"In standard economic theory, the way that prices in all markets are meant to be set depends on people being rational and having access to all available information," says David Tuckett of the Psychoanalysis Unit at University College London.
"This way of looking at things is almost completely wrong," he said. "Markets are operated by human beings."
Investigators into the theories of behavioural or emotional finance say conscious decisions are only the surface of a river with deep and powerful undercurrents.
A boom-and-bust event can follow a distinct path, they say.
At first, investors are skeptical about dipping into a market.
When they perceive that neighbours or peers are getting rich by buying a given stock, they cautiously make a purchase and their confidence builds as the stock's value rises.
The gains fuel enthusiasm, which leads to the euphoric conviction, as the price spirals higher, that this is an easy way to wealth.
At this point -- when the bubble is most inflated -- the investor becomes indifferent to warning signs, such as share values or price-earnings ratios that are stratospherically high.
What happens when the market starts to tank? The initial response is dismissal, for the investor still believes that his stocks will come back up and there is no point in selling.
As prices slip further, denial cedes to fear and then, suddenly, to panic.
Traumatised by their loss, investors vow never to invest in stocks again -- a sentiment that can be durably enforced if many others have also been burned.
A famous example of this process was "Tulip Mania", which occurred in the 17th-century Netherlands.
Tulip bulbs, then a rarity in Europe, scaled extraordinary heights in the course of a mad year, only to fall just as abruptly.
At the Mania's peak in 1636, a single bulb of a particularly coveted strain, the Viceroy tulip, changed hands for the equivalent of more than 25,500 euros (36,720 dollars) today. When the bubble burst, there was a wave of moralising and calls for tighter controls against speculators.
Trond Andresen, who specialises in behavioural analysis at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, says investors may think less about the intrinsic value of a stock and more about the perception of its value.
This is an important distinction, he says.
"Short-term volatility is created when you have people running after each other," he argues.
"If people stopped chasing what they think the other person is thinking, rather than actually trying to value a stock on their own best terms without second-guessing people, the volatility would disappear."
John Coates, a Cambridge University researcher into biochemistry and behaviour, says market fluctuations are amplified by hormones.
In a past life, Coates traded at US investment house Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank in New York.
During the dot-com boom, he says, he was stunned to see male traders "displaying classic symptoms of mania," with symptoms of omnipotence, raging thoughts and diminished need for sleep.
Quitting finance and heading for Cambridge, Coates explored a hunch with Joe Herbert, a professor at the Cambridge Centre for Brain Repair.
They took saliva swabs from 17 male traders at a London stock-dealing firm twice a day and measured the samples for two hormones.
These were testosterone, which is associated with male aggressiveness and sexual behaviour, and cortisol, which is summoned by the body to deal with "fight or flight" emergencies.
When the traders were in profit, their testosterone levels surged. But when they were in loss, or in fluctuation, it was their cortisol that rose sharply.
Testosterone encourages confidence and risk-taking, and has an accumulative effect, which could explain winning streaks in sports teams, for instance.
But research in animals suggests that, over the long term, high doses of the hormone impair judgement and encourage excessive risks.
Similarly, cortisol has a beneficial, euphoric effect in the short term, but after two weeks of exposure to it at high levels, the hormone can turn negative, eroding confidence and magnifying fear of risk, Coates says.
"If you were to take an identical set of facts and present them to someone high on testosterone and someone who's got chronic cortisol, the first one would see opportunities everywhere and the second would see nothing but risks," he says.
In this light, says Coates, fund managers would be advised to get an "endocrinal mix" on the trading floor.
Women and older men would add a calmer, longer perspective to the headstrong, testosterone-driven actions of young male colleagues.
In 2007, Tuckett interviewed dozens of fund mangers at top investment banks around the world.
Under crushing pressure to perform, they blocked out the risk factor and convinced themselves, day in and day out, that they had had the keys others were groping for.
"The 'Master of the Universe' really does believe in his own invincibility," Tuckett said. "Even though many of the traders I interviewed told me 'this boom can't go on forever', they kept on investing in it."
But this keystone belief in how markets function is now under mounting attack after this month's global stocks crash, the latest in a string of financial shocks over the past two decades.
Proponents of rival concepts say that primitive emotions, herd mentality and raging hormones are among the invisible motors that help inflate an asset bubble and then prick it.
"In standard economic theory, the way that prices in all markets are meant to be set depends on people being rational and having access to all available information," says David Tuckett of the Psychoanalysis Unit at University College London.
"This way of looking at things is almost completely wrong," he said. "Markets are operated by human beings."
Investigators into the theories of behavioural or emotional finance say conscious decisions are only the surface of a river with deep and powerful undercurrents.
A boom-and-bust event can follow a distinct path, they say.
At first, investors are skeptical about dipping into a market.
When they perceive that neighbours or peers are getting rich by buying a given stock, they cautiously make a purchase and their confidence builds as the stock's value rises.
The gains fuel enthusiasm, which leads to the euphoric conviction, as the price spirals higher, that this is an easy way to wealth.
At this point -- when the bubble is most inflated -- the investor becomes indifferent to warning signs, such as share values or price-earnings ratios that are stratospherically high.
What happens when the market starts to tank? The initial response is dismissal, for the investor still believes that his stocks will come back up and there is no point in selling.
As prices slip further, denial cedes to fear and then, suddenly, to panic.
Traumatised by their loss, investors vow never to invest in stocks again -- a sentiment that can be durably enforced if many others have also been burned.
A famous example of this process was "Tulip Mania", which occurred in the 17th-century Netherlands.
Tulip bulbs, then a rarity in Europe, scaled extraordinary heights in the course of a mad year, only to fall just as abruptly.
At the Mania's peak in 1636, a single bulb of a particularly coveted strain, the Viceroy tulip, changed hands for the equivalent of more than 25,500 euros (36,720 dollars) today. When the bubble burst, there was a wave of moralising and calls for tighter controls against speculators.
Trond Andresen, who specialises in behavioural analysis at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, says investors may think less about the intrinsic value of a stock and more about the perception of its value.
This is an important distinction, he says.
"Short-term volatility is created when you have people running after each other," he argues.
"If people stopped chasing what they think the other person is thinking, rather than actually trying to value a stock on their own best terms without second-guessing people, the volatility would disappear."
John Coates, a Cambridge University researcher into biochemistry and behaviour, says market fluctuations are amplified by hormones.
In a past life, Coates traded at US investment house Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank in New York.
During the dot-com boom, he says, he was stunned to see male traders "displaying classic symptoms of mania," with symptoms of omnipotence, raging thoughts and diminished need for sleep.
Quitting finance and heading for Cambridge, Coates explored a hunch with Joe Herbert, a professor at the Cambridge Centre for Brain Repair.
They took saliva swabs from 17 male traders at a London stock-dealing firm twice a day and measured the samples for two hormones.
These were testosterone, which is associated with male aggressiveness and sexual behaviour, and cortisol, which is summoned by the body to deal with "fight or flight" emergencies.
When the traders were in profit, their testosterone levels surged. But when they were in loss, or in fluctuation, it was their cortisol that rose sharply.
Testosterone encourages confidence and risk-taking, and has an accumulative effect, which could explain winning streaks in sports teams, for instance.
But research in animals suggests that, over the long term, high doses of the hormone impair judgement and encourage excessive risks.
Similarly, cortisol has a beneficial, euphoric effect in the short term, but after two weeks of exposure to it at high levels, the hormone can turn negative, eroding confidence and magnifying fear of risk, Coates says.
"If you were to take an identical set of facts and present them to someone high on testosterone and someone who's got chronic cortisol, the first one would see opportunities everywhere and the second would see nothing but risks," he says.
In this light, says Coates, fund managers would be advised to get an "endocrinal mix" on the trading floor.
Women and older men would add a calmer, longer perspective to the headstrong, testosterone-driven actions of young male colleagues.
In 2007, Tuckett interviewed dozens of fund mangers at top investment banks around the world.
Under crushing pressure to perform, they blocked out the risk factor and convinced themselves, day in and day out, that they had had the keys others were groping for.
"The 'Master of the Universe' really does believe in his own invincibility," Tuckett said. "Even though many of the traders I interviewed told me 'this boom can't go on forever', they kept on investing in it."
How We Got Here: It's Housing, Stupid
The Wall Street crisis has been caused by plunging housing prices. So despite the billions of dollars being thrown at the problem, experts say more trouble lies ahead.
The nation's financial system is in the midst of a massive shakeup and many on Wall Street and in Washington are pointing fingers and looking for someone to blame.
But in the end, it all comes back to one issue - housing.
Earlier this decade, it was much easier to get a mortgage. Home prices soared about 85% from 1996 through 2006 in inflation-adjusted dollars, creating a bubble.
Then the bubble popped. And the fallout isn't over yet, experts say.
In the past two weeks, the government took over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy and Merrill Lynch sold itself to Bank of America.
If all that weren't enough, the Federal Reserve announced late Tuesday night that it was loaning $85 billion to insurer American International Group.
None of this would have happened if the housing market had not imploded, leaving all these firms with staggering losses from their investments tied to mortgages.
"These institutions, which weathered all kinds of calamities before, including depressions, are being knocked out," said Lakshman Achuthan, the managing director of the Economic Cycle Research Institute. "It's a testament to the significance of the problem we have here."
Thus, experts agree that there are likely to be future shocks to the financial system until the housing market finally hits bottom.
Even Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, the administration's point man in the many rescue discussions of the past month, admits this.
"The housing correction poses the biggest risk to our economy," Paulson said the day he announced the Fannie and Freddie seizure. "Our economy and our markets will not recover until the bulk of this housing correction is behind us."
The Problem of Falling Home Prices
But because of the depth of the housing problems, it may take a long time before real estate prices head higher again. Here's why.
Home prices, while sharply off from the 2006 peaks, are still high in comparison to long-term gains in income, rents or overall prices, suggesting that they still have a way to fall, according to experts.
The reason housing is wreaking havoc even on insurers like AIG and big investment banks, who do not make mortgage loans, is that during the boom, trillions of dollars of mortgages were packaged together into securities that promised to pay investors with the proceeds of those loan payments.
Those securities paid better rates than other types of assets during the boom years. So many investors from around the globe poured as much money as they could into those securities.
Faced with this demand, lenders starting making more loans to riskier borrowers, including people who might not be able to afford their mortgage payments in the future and even many with no proof of income.
When prices were rising, this wasn't a problem. The risk of loan foreclosure or default was limited because many homeowners were able to sell their house for more than they owed and make a profit.
But once prices topped out and began falling, loan defaults and foreclosures started shooting higher as homeowners found it more difficult to sell their house. This created problems not just for subprime borrowers but even for those with good credit and income.
When foreclosures rose, the value of the various types of securities tied to mortgages started to fall, causing huge losses up and down Wall Street. It also made banks less eager to extend credit because of the risks involved.
A Downward Spiral
This credit crunch in of itself slowed the economy, leading to job losses and more defaults, feeding a downward spiral that has been difficult to stop.
"A really bad situation -- a home price bubble bursting -- was made significantly worse when the recession began," said Achuthan. "Now we have to let this thing play out."
Some experts even argue that the steps being taken to rescue firms like AIG could make a recovery in housing and the broader economy more difficult, as financial firms and investors become more reluctant to lend money.
"We are certainly taking credit and squeezing it tighter and tighter," said Kevin Giddis, managing director of investment bank Morgan Keegan. "Housing needs buyers. Buyers need credit."
Achuthan said that even though rates for mortgages and other types of loans have fallen in the last two weeks, those loans are becoming more difficult for many consumers and businesses to get because banks are severely tightening their lending standards.
And if housing prices do fall further, that will only cause more losses in the financial sector and perhaps more failures of banks, insurers and securities firms.
"I would hesitate to say the worst is behind us," Achuthan said.
So even with perhaps hundreds of billions of tax dollars going to AIG, Fannie and Freddie, one expert said the only real solution to the housing problem is for the correction in housing to finish running its course.
"We want home prices to return to normal," said Barry Ritholtz, CEO of Fusion IQ and author of the upcoming book "Bailout Nation."
"Until that happens, you can throw as much money at the market as you want at the situation....and it ain't going to make any difference," Ritholtz said.
The nation's financial system is in the midst of a massive shakeup and many on Wall Street and in Washington are pointing fingers and looking for someone to blame.
But in the end, it all comes back to one issue - housing.
Earlier this decade, it was much easier to get a mortgage. Home prices soared about 85% from 1996 through 2006 in inflation-adjusted dollars, creating a bubble.
Then the bubble popped. And the fallout isn't over yet, experts say.
In the past two weeks, the government took over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy and Merrill Lynch sold itself to Bank of America.
If all that weren't enough, the Federal Reserve announced late Tuesday night that it was loaning $85 billion to insurer American International Group.
None of this would have happened if the housing market had not imploded, leaving all these firms with staggering losses from their investments tied to mortgages.
"These institutions, which weathered all kinds of calamities before, including depressions, are being knocked out," said Lakshman Achuthan, the managing director of the Economic Cycle Research Institute. "It's a testament to the significance of the problem we have here."
Thus, experts agree that there are likely to be future shocks to the financial system until the housing market finally hits bottom.
Even Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, the administration's point man in the many rescue discussions of the past month, admits this.
"The housing correction poses the biggest risk to our economy," Paulson said the day he announced the Fannie and Freddie seizure. "Our economy and our markets will not recover until the bulk of this housing correction is behind us."
The Problem of Falling Home Prices
But because of the depth of the housing problems, it may take a long time before real estate prices head higher again. Here's why.
Home prices, while sharply off from the 2006 peaks, are still high in comparison to long-term gains in income, rents or overall prices, suggesting that they still have a way to fall, according to experts.
The reason housing is wreaking havoc even on insurers like AIG and big investment banks, who do not make mortgage loans, is that during the boom, trillions of dollars of mortgages were packaged together into securities that promised to pay investors with the proceeds of those loan payments.
Those securities paid better rates than other types of assets during the boom years. So many investors from around the globe poured as much money as they could into those securities.
Faced with this demand, lenders starting making more loans to riskier borrowers, including people who might not be able to afford their mortgage payments in the future and even many with no proof of income.
When prices were rising, this wasn't a problem. The risk of loan foreclosure or default was limited because many homeowners were able to sell their house for more than they owed and make a profit.
But once prices topped out and began falling, loan defaults and foreclosures started shooting higher as homeowners found it more difficult to sell their house. This created problems not just for subprime borrowers but even for those with good credit and income.
When foreclosures rose, the value of the various types of securities tied to mortgages started to fall, causing huge losses up and down Wall Street. It also made banks less eager to extend credit because of the risks involved.
A Downward Spiral
This credit crunch in of itself slowed the economy, leading to job losses and more defaults, feeding a downward spiral that has been difficult to stop.
"A really bad situation -- a home price bubble bursting -- was made significantly worse when the recession began," said Achuthan. "Now we have to let this thing play out."
Some experts even argue that the steps being taken to rescue firms like AIG could make a recovery in housing and the broader economy more difficult, as financial firms and investors become more reluctant to lend money.
"We are certainly taking credit and squeezing it tighter and tighter," said Kevin Giddis, managing director of investment bank Morgan Keegan. "Housing needs buyers. Buyers need credit."
Achuthan said that even though rates for mortgages and other types of loans have fallen in the last two weeks, those loans are becoming more difficult for many consumers and businesses to get because banks are severely tightening their lending standards.
And if housing prices do fall further, that will only cause more losses in the financial sector and perhaps more failures of banks, insurers and securities firms.
"I would hesitate to say the worst is behind us," Achuthan said.
So even with perhaps hundreds of billions of tax dollars going to AIG, Fannie and Freddie, one expert said the only real solution to the housing problem is for the correction in housing to finish running its course.
"We want home prices to return to normal," said Barry Ritholtz, CEO of Fusion IQ and author of the upcoming book "Bailout Nation."
"Until that happens, you can throw as much money at the market as you want at the situation....and it ain't going to make any difference," Ritholtz said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)