On a hot afternoon in September, Renaissance Technologies LLC founder Jim Simons is too busy to take a phone call. It is, he says, from Cumrun Vafa, a preeminent Harvard University professor and expert on string theory, which describes the building blocks of the universe as extended one-dimensional filaments.
``Get another time when I can talk to him,'' Simons tells his assistant.
Then he mentions that the next day, he'll be meeting with Thomas Insel, director of the National Institute of Mental Health, to discuss autism research. And he's slated that Saturday to host a gala honoring Math for America, or MFA, a four-year-old nonprofit he started that provides stipends to New York City math teachers.
``I'm undoubtedly involved in too many things at the same time,'' Simons says in his 35th-floor office in midtown Manhattan. ``But you make your life interesting.''
String theory, autism, math education: It's fair to ask how Simons, 69, manages his day job overseeing the world's biggest hedge fund firm. The answer, judging from the numbers, is very well.
Renaissance is on fire: Its Medallion Fund -- which uses computers and trading algorithms to invest in world markets -- returned more than 50 percent in the first three quarters of 2007. It had about $6 billion in assets as of July 1.
Simons registered that performance as subprime and related markets were collapsing, sending two mortgage-related hedge funds run by Bear Stearns Cos. into bankruptcy. The turmoil pummeled the Goldman Sachs Global Alpha Fund, a rival to Renaissance's funds, which fell more than 25 percent during the same time. Morgan Stanley's computer jockeys lost $390 million in a single day in early August.
Life Story
Medallion's returns are no anomaly. The fund, which trades everything from soybean futures to French government bonds in rapid fire, hasn't had a negative quarter since early 1999. From the end of 1989 through 2006, it returned 38.5 percent annualized, net of fees.
More surprising than those returns is Simons's life story. At an age when hedge fund pioneers such as Michael Steinhardt have long since stopped managing other people's money, Simons is building on Medallion's success. He's adding funds and strategies and accumulating assets, which totaled $35.4 billion as of Sept. 28.
In August 2005, Simons started Renaissance Institutional Equities Fund, or RIEF, which invests in U.S. stocks. Through Sept. 30, it has returned 12.8 percent annualized. Unlike Medallion, which turns over its holdings dozens of times each year, RIEF keeps its positions for months or longer. Simons said at the time of the fund's inception RIEF could theoretically manage as much as $100 billion.
'New Possibilities'
In December 2006, he limited new investments in the fund to $1.5 billion a month. As of Sept. 30, 2007, it had $25.6 billion in assets.
In October, Simons started Renaissance Institutional Futures Fund, or RIFF, to invest in commodities. It's up 5.2 percent for the month. He says Renaissance's research shows the new fund can manage as much as $50 billion. Along with RIEF, it will promote cross-fertilization of ideas inside Renaissance, Simons says.
``Challenge is good,'' he says. ``It opens one's eyes to new possibilities.''
When not in Manhattan, Simons runs his empire from a 15- foot (4.6-meter) by 20-foot office in Renaissance's gated and guarded campus off Route 25A in East Setauket on New York's Long Island, some 50 miles (80 kilometers) east of the Empire State Building. With most of the trading automated, there's little of the hurly-burly of a typical hedge fund firm.
Doubling Assets
Along with routine personnel and marketing tasks, Simons makes time for the researchers and programmers who stop by his office to discuss mathematical and statistical issues they've encountered as they work on new trading strategies.
More than 200 employees, of whom about a third have Ph.D.s, work in East Setauket. Another 100 are based in Manhattan, San Francisco, London and Milan. ``He creates an environment where it's easy to be creative and works hard to keep the bullshit level to a minimum,'' says former managing director Robert Frey, who worked at Renaissance from 1992 to 2004.
Even without the new commodities fund, Renaissance's assets have more than doubled in a year from about $16 billion on Sept. 30, 2006. That growth has catapulted Renaissance past such titans as Daniel Och's Och-Ziff Capital Management Group LLC, Ray Dalio's Bridgewater Associates Inc. and David Shaw's D.E. Shaw & Co. to become the world's largest hedge fund manager, according to data compiled by Hedge Fund Research Inc. and Bloomberg.
Code Cracker
Medallion's 3.9 percent return during August, though that fund too was whipsawed by volatility, bolstered Simons's reputation as the silver-bearded wizard of quantitative investing.
In quant funds, mathematicians and computer scientists mine enormous amounts of data from financial markets looking for correlations among stocks, bonds, derivatives and other instruments. They search for predictive signals that will foretell whether, say, a palladium futures contract is likely to rise or fall.
`Role Model'
``There are just a few individuals who have truly changed how we view the markets,'' says Theodore Aronson, principal of Aronson + Johnson + Ortiz LP, a quantitative money management firm in Philadelphia with $29.3 billion in assets. ``John Maynard Keynes is one of the few. Warren Buffett is one of the few. So is Jim Simons.''
Aronson credits Renaissance with validating the entire field of quantitative investing and proving that the freedom accorded to hedge fund managers to short stocks, borrow money and invest in myriad instruments can produce results that far outstrip typical market returns.
Simons, standing just under 5 feet 10 inches tall and weighing 185 pounds (84 kilograms), has trod an unlikely path. A former code cracker for the U.S. National Security Agency, in 1968 he became chairman of the mathematics department at Stony Brook University, part of the New York state university system. He built the department into what David Eisenbud, former director of the Mathematical Sciences Research Institute in Berkeley, California, calls one of the world's top centers for geometry.
Leaving Academia
In 1977, frustrated with a math problem and eager for change, he abandoned academia to start what would become Renaissance, hiring professors, code breakers and statistically minded scientists and engineers who'd worked in astrophysics, language recognition theory and computer programming.
``All the quants in the world are trying to follow in Jim's footsteps because what he's built at Renaissance is truly extraordinary,'' says Andrew Lo, director of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Laboratory for Financial Engineering and chief scientific officer of quant hedge fund firm AlphaSimplex Group LLC. ``I and many others look up to him as a tremendous role model.''
The tendency for fund managers to try to emulate Simons may become more curse than blessing in the years ahead. As the selloffs in July and August showed, many quant funds are chasing the same investments. For example, as of June, Renaissance and rival AQR Capital Management LLC had four of the same top 10 stock holdings: Johnson & Johnson, Lockheed Martin Corp., International Business Machines Corp. and Chevron Corp.
`Similar Models'
The overlap became problematic as the subprime contagion spread beyond housing-related stocks, bonds, collateralized debt obligations and commercial paper, forcing some funds to lighten their holdings precisely as demand was drying up.
``All these quant funds are using similar models, looking to buy something cheap and sell something dear,'' says Sol Waksman, founder of Barclay Hedge Ltd., a consulting firm based in Fairfield, Iowa. While expensive securities are by their nature easily traded --liquid, in industryspeak -- the cheap securities hunted by most quantitative managers aren't, Waksman says. After all, the reason they're cheap is that nobody wants them.
``Once you try and sell a low-liquidity stock, by definition there is no one to buy it,'' Waksman says. Overpriced stocks rose in August as hedge funds bought shares to cover their short positions, and cheap stocks plummeted as managers rushed to raise cash.
Wise-Cracking
Renaissance is under increasing pressure to stay ahead of the pack -- and to keep its secrets under wraps. Save current employees and a few former ones, nobody knows precisely how the firm makes its millions. Medallion stopped taking new money from outside investors in 1993 and returned pretty much the last of their capital 12 years later. Today, the fund is run almost exclusively for the benefit of Renaissance staff.
The wise-cracking Simons himself is mum on virtually all of its details.
What can he say about Medallion's trading strategy?
``Not much,'' Simons says with a chortle, and then takes a drag on one of the Merit cigarettes he often smokes.
What kind of instruments does it trade?
``Everything.''
How many different strategies does it use?
``A lot.''
Simons says his Ph.D.s laugh when they read the far-fetched theories about what their fund might be doing. One chat room participant speculated that Renaissance uses audio hookups to futures exchanges and analyzes the noise from the pits with voice-recognition software.
`Conjectures and Hypotheses'
``All of us in the quant business have conjectures and hypotheses but very little data,'' MIT's Lo says. ``So we like to speculate about what Renaissance could possibly be doing. They are so far ahead of everybody else that it's both challenging as well as exciting to engage in that kind of idle speculation.''
For his part, Simons says he once explored whether sunspot activity affects the markets. He doesn't say what he found.
Interviews with former Medallion fund managers and with investors, rivals and quantitative scientists provide a glimpse into how the fund is run. So do annual reports, marketing materials and court documents: Ever secretive, Renaissance is suing in New York State Supreme Court two of its former Ph.D.- level researchers who were fired in 2003 after refusing to sign noncompete contracts.
Trade Secrets
The firm accuses Alexander Belopolsky and Pavel Volfbeyn of appropriating trade secrets. Belopolsky and Volfbeyn deny the charges. In a July decision, the two briefly described three strategies that Renaissance had explored. One involved swaps, which are contracts to exchange interest or other payments; another used an electronic order matching system that anonymously links buyers and sellers; and a third made use of Nasdaq and New York Stock Exchange limit order books, which are real-time records of unexecuted orders to buy or sell a stock at a particular price.
With his myriad positions in different markets, Simons likens his approach to the extensive farming he once practiced in Colorado, using center pivot irrigation to grow wheat on thousands of acres.
``Every little stalk of wheat was not doing so great, but most of them were, so you're working on statistics,'' Simons says.
By contrast, he says, the traditional focused investing practiced by Warren Buffett is akin to intensive farming, in which each individual plant really counts. ``It's two completely different ends of the spectrum,'' Simons says.
Tidy Fortune
Medallion's farm stand sports quite a markup: The firm generally charges a 5 percent management fee and 36 percent of profits compared with the industry standards of 2 percent and 20 percent. With virtually no outside investors in Medallion, Simons and Renaissance employees are paying the tab -- and reaping the rewards. RIEF investors can select from four share classes with varying and far less expensive fee structures.
Though Simons dislikes talking about it, Renaissance has built him a tidy fortune. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission documents show he controls 25-50 percent of Renaissance, having spread the rest of the firm's ownership among employees. So Simons's share of the performance fees earned by RIEF and Medallion was roughly between $375 million and $750 million in 2006, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
With Medallion's 44.3 percent return in 2006, if Simons had invested $2 billion in the fund, he would have garnered an $885 million profit. He declines to comment on his investment.
According to Bloomberg calculations, Simons ranks No. 3 among the world's hedge fund managers with $1.01 billion in firm-wide performance fees during the first three quarters of 2007.
Mathematical Mind-Set
Chief Scientist Henry Laufer, who helped build the Medallion trading system, owns 10-25 percent of Renaissance, the SEC document says. Chief Financial Officer Mark Silber and Executive Vice Presidents Peter Brown and Robert Mercer each own 5-10 percent. Simons's son Nathaniel, 41, who manages the Meritage fund of funds out of San Francisco, owns less than 5 percent, as does Renaissance trading desk manager, Paul Broder.
At the core of Renaissance's success -- and the wealth Simons is creating -- is his own mathematical mind-set. Outside the financial markets, he's best known for the Chern-Simons theory, which he co-developed with Chinese-American mathematician Shiing-Shen Chern in 1974.
Chern-Simons Theory
In simple terms, the theory provides the tools, known as invariants, that mathematicians use to distinguish among certain curved spaces -- the kinds of distortions of ordinary space that exist according to Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity.
Chern-Simons is viewed as important partly because it has proven useful in explaining aspects of another field: string theory. This describes the building blocks of all matter and the universe as vibrating one-dimensional extended filaments or loops called strings.
``It turns out these things we invented, Chern-Simons invariants, had their real applications to physics, about which I knew nothing,'' Simons told the International Association of Financial Engineers in May.
Simons says he's also proud of the work he did in differential geometry at the Institute for Defense Analyses' research and development center in Princeton, New Jersey. In 1968, he published a paper in the Annals of Mathematics called ``Minimal Varieties in Riemannian Manifolds.'' The paper helped him win the American Mathematical Society's Oswald Veblen Prize in Geometry in 1976. The prize is named for the Princeton University geometrician who became the first professor of the Institute for Advanced Study.
Simons's Legacy
Simons's most enduring legacy may be as a philanthropist as he builds on the mathematics and science that have shaped his life. In his New York office, Simons gets up and walks across the room to grab a newspaper clipping. It's an article about the administration of President George W. Bush planning to add $50 billion to the defense budget.
``Just a little extra; give them an extra $50 billion,'' Simons says, his voice rising in anger. ``Well, for $2 billion, we could revolutionize math education in the U.S.''
He's referring to what he considers paltry funding for a key provision of the America Competes Act, which was signed into law on Aug. 9. The act includes a federal program to bolster math and science education based on the pilot project Simons has bankrolled with more than $25 million of his money: MFA.
U.S. Competitiveness
Simons says America's economic competitiveness is at stake. A 2003 study of 15-year-olds by the Program for International Student Assessment found the U.S. trailing 23 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries, including No. 1 Finland, in math literacy at that age level. The U.S. was ahead of just five countries, among them Greece, Turkey and Mexico.
Simons places the blame for poor high school math scores largely on unqualified teachers. Because of low pay, good math and science teachers tend to get sucked into the private sector -- and the rate is accelerating.
``Students, up and down the line from affluent to impoverished, are being cheated,'' Simons says.
MFA pays full scholarships for math teachers to earn their master's degrees in education at designated graduate schools. Then, it pays a stipend of $90,000 over five years of teaching as a subsidy. Fellows and other experienced teachers are eligible to apply for a master fellowship program, which provides a stipend of $50,000 over four years. MFA is rolling out the program in Los Angeles and San Diego in 2008.
$13 Million Donation
Simons has donated tens of millions of dollars to math and science endeavors worldwide, including Stony Brook University and MSRI. In 2005, he kicked in $13 million with other Renaissance employees to keep the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider operating at the Brookhaven National Laboratory in Upton, New York, after the U.S. Energy Department cut funding. The collider creates hot, dense matter similar to that which is believed to have existed in the first 10 microseconds, or millionths of a second, of the universe's existence after the big bang.
Simons's other major push: research into autism, a disorder marked by repetitive behavior and impairment in social communication and language. In 2005, he hired Gerald Fischbach, former dean of the faculties of health sciences at Columbia University in New York, to serve as scientific director for the Simons Foundation. The foundation funds a variety of math and science-related projects. Simons's wife, Marilyn, 57, is president. Their daughter Audrey, 21, displays some symptoms of Asperger's syndrome, a milder disorder that bears similarities to autism.
DNA Database
Under Fischbach, the foundation is building a database of DNA samples and clinical information from thousands of families across the U.S. with affected children. Scientists will use the data to identify genes that may contribute to autism.
The foundation is also attracting scientists from outside the field, such as geneticist Michael Wigler of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York. Fischbach says that, in the past, autism research has had trouble luring top talent because of its complexity.
Simons splits his week between two homes. His Manhattan apartment is in the same limestone building as another investor- turned-philanthropist, George Soros, 77. In Setauket, the white, gambrel-roofed house Simons has lived in for 31 years has broad picture windows overlooking the herons that populate the shimmering waters of Conscience Bay.
For all of his achievement and material success, Simons's life has been beset by the kind of tragedy that few parents can fathom -- the death of not one but two of his five children in separate accidents. In 1996, his son Paul, 34, was struck by a car and killed while riding a bicycle near Simons's Setauket home. In 2003, 24-year-old son Nick drowned while on a trip to Bali.
`Citigroup's Stock'
Simons grimaces when asked whether Nick's death played a role in his flurry of recent activity. He pauses before answering. ``There was some connection between losing Nick and my desire to get as busy as I could,'' he says.
Scientific exploration underpins all of Simons's work. ``What motivates me?'' he says. ``I'm ambitious and I like to do things well. I love to create something that really works. We have lots and lots and lots of strategies, and each new one gives me a lot of pleasure, to see something new that works.''
The laws of the financial markets present a special challenge, Simons says. Unlike the laws governing physics or chemistry, they tend to change over time. ``One can predict the course of a comet more easily than one can predict the course of Citigroup's stock,'' he says. ``The attractiveness, of course, is that you can make more money successfully predicting a stock than you can a comet.''
Steeped in Math
Investments, philanthropy, academia -- it all traces to a life steeped in math. James Harris Simons was born in 1938, the only child of Marcia and Matthew Simons. He grew up in Brookline, Massachusetts, a Boston suburb designed partly by landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted.
Early on, Simons asked complicated mathematical questions. At about age 3, he was shocked to learn that a car could run out of gasoline. Why? By Simons's reckoning, a car would go through half a tankful, then half of what remained and then half of that, and so on: There would always be a small amount left. He'd discovered one of Zeno's paradoxes, named for the ancient Greek pre-Socratic philosopher, which would puzzle mathematicians for centuries.
``Those were sophisticated thoughts for a little guy,'' Simons says, laughing.
Soybean Bet
At high school in Newton, Massachusetts, Simons blew through the equivalent of advanced placement math and went on to MIT. In his freshman year, he was cocky enough to enroll in a graduate level class. ``The course said no requirements,'' he says.
At MIT, Simons worked hard and played hard -- mostly late- night poker. By 1 a.m., he and friends would pile into his Volkswagen Beetle and head off to Jack & Marion's delicatessen in Brookline for $1.25 chicken in a basket. Simons recalls how two renowned MIT mathematicians, Isadore Singer and Warren Ambrose, would sit down, order food and work into the wee hours on math problems.
``I just thought it was kind of a great life,'' Simons says. ``Here they were, grown-ups, eating in this deli, late, late at night, just working away. That seemed wonderful to me.'' Singer, still an MIT professor, would become a close personal friend.
In June 1958, after just three years, Simons collected his bachelor's degree in mathematics from MIT, returning that September for his first year of graduate school. He then headed west to the University of California, Berkeley, to complete his Ph.D. in math. There, Simons dabbled in commodities -- using his and his then wife Barbara's wedding gift money to make a $500 killing in soybeans.
`Original Guy'
Simons's thesis adviser -- Bertram Kostant, now professor emeritus at MIT -- was skeptical about him pursuing the proof that would form the basis of his dissertation, ``On the Transitivity of Holonomy Systems.'' It dealt with the geometry of multi-dimensional curved spaces and related to work by Singer and Ambrose.
``He solved it in a remarkably short period of time, under two years,'' Kostant says. ``Jim's an original guy. He likes to go off in his own direction.''
After UC Berkeley, Simons won a three-year teaching position at MIT. He left after a year to become an assistant math professor at nearby Harvard. He stayed in touch with two poker-playing MIT classmates, Colombian nationals Edmundo Esquenazi and Jimmy Mayer.
Road Trip
In 1958, Simons and Mayer had celebrated their graduation by buying Lambretta motor scooters and driving to Bogota from Boston. In 1964, the three cobbled together money with Simons's father to start a Colombian vinyl-floor-tile factory. It would eventually prove a lucky move, providing the younger Simons with a stake to build his empire.
Simons was growing restless at Harvard. He was eager to earn more money -- and frustrated by some of the math he was working on. The Institute for Defense Analyses offered a better- paying solution: Simons could spend half of his time on math at the nonprofit's Princeton center and half breaking codes for the NSA.
In 1967, the IDA's president, General Maxwell Taylor, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote an article for the New York Times Magazine in favor of the Vietnam War. Soon after, Simons penned a note to the editors. ``Some of us at the institution have a different view,'' he wrote. ``The only available course consistent with a rational defense policy is to withdraw with the greatest possible dispatch.''
Fired at 29
Taylor eventually fired Simons, who was then 29, married and a father of three. Stony Brook University President John Toll wanted a star to build the school's math department. In 1966, the university had made a splash by luring Nobel Prize- winning physicist Chen Ning Yang from the Institute for Advanced Study. Simons would hire stars for the math department.
Stung by his firing from the IDA, Simons threw himself into the task. ``Having just sort of been knocked around a little bit, I liked the idea of being my own boss,'' he says.
Simons negotiated all of the elements of a math position to lure great geometers to a young school: salary, class load, leave policy and research support.
``He'd figure what you needed and get it for you,'' Toll, 84, says. ``He did an outstanding job of building the department at Stony Brook.''
Future Stars
Among the future stars Simons lured were Detlef Gromoll from the University of Bonn; Jeff Cheeger from the University of Michigan; and Mikhael Gromov, who'd taught at Leningrad University. All had published in prestigious journals.
``It was viewed as one of the two or three best geometry groups in the world,'' says Irwin Kra, who succeeded Simons as math department chairman and is executive director at MFA.
One of Simons's other hires was a Bronx, New York-raised math professor from Cornell University: James Ax.
Simons dabbled again in commodities while at Stony Brook. The Colombian factory investment had made some profit. Simons and his partners invested about $600,000 of it with Charles Freifeld, a former math student of his from Harvard. During seven months in 1974, Freifeld increased the investment 10-fold, after fees, as sugar futures more than doubled. The $600,000 was now $6 million, Freifeld says.
Simons suddenly had money -- but he was at a crossroads. He had separated from his wife Barbara. As the '70s wore on, he grew frustrated with a math problem related to the Chern-Simons theory.
``It was driving me crazy,'' he says.
Simons met Marilyn Hawrys, a graduate student in economics at Stony Brook who helped take care of Simons's children and would become his second wife.
Birth of Medallion
Simons left Stony Brook in 1977 and started Monemetrics, a predecessor to Renaissance, in a strip mall across from the Setauket train station. He wanted someone to trade currencies and commodities and turned to an old friend, a fellow code cracker from the IDA: Leonard Baum.
Baum was co-author of the Baum-Welch algorithm, which is used to determine probabilities in, among other things, biology, automated speech recognition and statistical computing. Simons's idea was to harness the mathematical models that Baum was writing to trade currencies.
``Once I got Lenny involved, I could see the possibilities of building models,'' Simons says.
Baum never traded using the models. In the late '70s and early '80s, Baum was making too much money on fundamental trading. Such trading involves betting based on, say, whether British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher would let the pound rise. In an era of one-way markets, it was much easier than using models.
``The dollar was very weak; all you had to do was short the dollar and you'd make a lot of money,'' Simons says.
`Magic or Nonsense'
Simons brought in Ax to look over Baum's efforts. Ax declared that not only would the models work with the currencies Baum had written them for, they could be applied to any commodity future --wheat, crude oil, you name it, Simons says.
Simons set up Ax with his own trading account, Axcom Ltd., which eventually gave birth to Medallion. Ax died of colon cancer in 2006 at age 69.
In Axcom's early days, professionals were skeptical about the kind of systematic trading Ax was doing. Still, he was brilliant and a natural at understanding probability, having shared the American Mathematical Society's Frank Nelson Cole Prize in Number Theory in 1967.
``He had the ability to see patterns in trading data,'' says Brian Keating, 36, the younger of Ax's two sons. ``People in the business thought it was magic, or nonsense.''
Talking to Lawyers
Ax was also sometimes difficult to work with. ``Most of times things went well,'' says Kevin Keating, 38, Ax's older son, who talked with his father about his days at Axcom. ``But when they didn't, they'd butt heads.''
During the 1980s, Ax and his researchers improved on Baum's models and used them to explore correlations from which they could profit. If a futures contract opened sharply higher versus its previous close, they would short it; if it opened sharply lower, they would buy it, says Sandor Straus, a former manager for Medallion who now runs his own investment firm, Merfin LLC, in Walnut Creek, California.
The stuff wasn't complicated, and it worked. In 1985, Ax persuaded Simons to let him move Axcom to Huntington Beach, California, to escape a painful divorce and enjoy year-round boating. By 1988, investors wanted to invest directly in Axcom. Simons and Ax started a hedge fund and christened it Medallion in honor of the math awards that they had won.
Short-Circuit
Ax's signals soon seemed to short-circuit. Peak-to-trough losses by April 1989 had mounted to about 30 percent.
Ax had accounted for such a drawdown in his models and pushed to keep trading. Simons wanted to stop to research what was going on.
``Both were talking to their lawyers,'' Straus says. Ax, in fact, threatened to sue. Simons pulled rank, and Ax left. He went on to write a screenplay and poems in addition to working on problems involving the mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics with Princeton University professor Simon Kochen, with whom Ax shares the Cole prize.
Simons turned to Elwyn Berlekamp to run Medallion from Berkeley, California. A consultant for Axcom whom Simons had first met at the IDA, Berlekamp had bought out most of Ax's stake in Axcom. He worked with Straus, Simons and another consultant, Laufer, to overhaul Medallion's trading system during a six-month stretch.
`Dull Life'
In 1990, Berlekamp led Medallion to a 55.9 percent gain, net of fees -- and then returned to teaching math at UC Berkeley.
``I got a lot more pleasure talking to academics than financial types,'' says Berlekamp, who is now professor emeritus. ``Most people in this business are pretty dollar- centric. It makes for a dull life.''
Ax was gone. Berlekamp was gone. Medallion's revamped trading system remained. Straus took the reins. Medallion returned 39.4 percent in 1991, 34 percent in 1992 and 39.1 percent in 1993, according to Medallion annual reports.
Back on Long Island, Simons was gathering an A-team of math brains. Laufer, a former Stony Brook professor, joined full time as research chief in late 1991. Frey, a trader from Morgan Stanley's Analytical Proprietary Trading group, the pioneering black-box quant desk, came in 1992. Nick Patterson, another cryptologist from the IDA, joined in 1993. That year, Simons also hired Brown and Mercer, two language technology experts from the IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center.
Best Year
The nastier that stock or bond markets turned, the better Medallion seemed to perform. In 1994, as the Federal Reserve raised its federal funds target rate six times to 5.5 percent from 3 percent, Medallion returned 71 percent for the year. The Bloomberg/Effas long-term U.S. government bond index lost 6.7 percent that year.
In 1995, Simons moved most of Renaissance's California operations to Long Island. The firm needed computing power to model the data Renaissance was harnessing, and Simons bought it: From 1994 to 2000, Renaissance's total CPU power grew by a factor of 50. Data bandwidth in and out of Renaissance headquarters rose by a factor of 45, according to a Medallion annual report.
The year 2000, during which the Standard & Poor's 500 Index tumbled 10.1 percent, proved Medallion's best to date. It gained 98.5 percent, net of fees. By the end of that year, Renaissance had 148 employees -- and the fund had a 43.6 percent annualized return over 11 years, net of fees, according to an annual report. It hasn't had a down quarter since.
Insatiable Curiosity
Performance such as that feeds the hedge fund industry's insatiable curiosity. Rivals search for the signals underpinning Renaissance's returns. One set of clues came in the New York State Supreme Court decision in July, which the court heavily redacted. It cites three strategies tested at the firm, including one using limit order book data.
MIT's Lo says that a fund firm could look at such data and identify a large sell order for, say, $15 a share when a stock was trading at $15.05. The fund could short the stock at $15.01 and benefit if the stock hit the $15 trigger.
``There's going to be tremendous downward pressure on the stock,'' Lo says.
`Wolf at the Door'
Former employees say observers may gain as much insight into Renaissance's performance by scrutinizing a more obvious factor: Simons has succeeded in building a pretty good business model. First, it's a firm run by and for scientists.
``I've always said Renaissance's secret is that it didn't hire MBAs,'' says Berlekamp, who blames the herdlike mentality among business school graduates for poor investor returns.
Programming and modeling are treated as the heart of the firm's advantage -- not an expense. ``If you needed a lot of computer power, the decision was based on whether you needed it, not the budget,'' says Peter Weinberger, former chief technology officer at Renaissance and now a software engineer at Google Inc.
Decisions are made quickly and feedback is constant. ``One of the things about Renaissance is that there's a feeling of urgency,'' says Frey, who left to teach applied mathematics and statistics at Stony Brook in 2004.
``We always believed that there was a wolf at the door, that somebody would get there before we did.''
`Walk In'
From Simons on down, the company encourages openness, whether it's about market signals that show where a security might be headed or about technology or trading. Frey says he doesn't recall Simons ever raising his voice at an employee. Simons says new hires are encouraged to troll computer files detailing Renaissance's past strategies, successful or not. ``If Simons's door was open, you could walk in,'' Weinberger says. That would go for everyone from secretaries on up.
For his part, Simons says he's proud of Renaissance's low personnel turnover. The firm is owned by 80-85 employees. From managing directors to cleaning staff, everyone receives a percentage of the profits, Simons says. It's compensation for what he expects them to contribute over the long term.
The notion of paying someone based on a single year's performance makes no sense in an environment where some projects take years to complete, Simons says. ``We want everyone to want everyone else to do well,'' he says.
Issue of Succession
In his New York office, Simons pauses for a full eight seconds when asked who will run Renaissance after he retires -- a simple question given that the firm has just two executive vice presidents.
``Most likely someone inside the company,'' he finally says.
Does his likely successor have any idea he or she will be taking over?
``I suppose who would succeed me has a pretty good idea it would be he,'' he says.
Will it be a surprise?
``I don't think so -- but I can't guarantee it,'' Simons says.
Simons is busy as he rounds out his seventh decade: the new RIEF and RIFF hedge funds, Math for America and the Simons Foundation's support for autism research.
He's even returned to geometry, working with a friend, Stony Brook professor Dennis Sullivan, to solve a problem involving multidimensional spaces that's long bedeviled him. In January, they published a paper proving the theorem.
When pressed about retirement, Simons responds with a trademark mathematical paradox.
``I've always intended to retire in the next two years,'' he says, laughing. ``I've been saying that for a long time. The two years is a constant.''
In the end, whether Simons is building charities, plotting strategies or contemplating his own legacy, it always comes back to the math.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
美国“金融重建计划”能否顺利推行？
18日晚间，美国财政部长保尔森与美联储主席柏南克在与美国国会两院的领袖会面后提出，美国政府将力争通过一项"全面性"金融重建计划，以避免华尔街金融危机持续恶化。在房利美、房地美和美国国际集团（AIG）先后被接管之后，市场对美国政府推出更强有力的救市计划的期望正在上升。然而，这项金融重建计划能否顺利推行呢？或许，就连保尔森和柏南克的心里也没底。
金融重建计划得以推行，要先过国会这一关，虽然保尔森、柏南克可能已经与国会的领袖私下达成了默契，但是，要想多数国会议员都买账却难度不小。此前，为解决金融市场动荡，美国政府已对金融市场进行了罕见的大规模干预，先后宣布接管"两房"以及提供AIG850亿美元的资金。但是，对于美国政府的上述做法，市场上并非全部叫好之声。反对者认为，这样冒险的行为是把过多的风险转嫁给美国政府，却不能根本上解决金融市场面临的困境。分析人士预测，这项计划在国会获得通过的难度不小。
即便国会最终放行，但是，据推测这项救市计划可能至少花掉5000亿美元，无论这项计划打算采取何种具体形式来解困当前的经济危机，如此巨量的救市资金的筹措也是一个大问题。救市资金从哪里来？
要知道，到本财政年度9月30日为止，美国政府财政赤字预计将达4000亿美元，为美国历史上第二高赤字，是去年1615亿美元赤字的一倍多。此外，美国政府还预计，在10月1日开始的新财政年度中，财政赤字将刷新纪录，达到4820亿美元。这种情况下，无论是动用自己的家底，还是向外举债，对于美国政府来说，这都需要很大的勇气。雷曼兄弟进入破产程序，美国政府拒绝拯救行动，这说明美国政府并不拥有无止境的救市资源。
眼下，高盛、摩根斯丹利的未来仍是一个未决的问题。它们迄今得以生存，并不是因为它们与贝尔斯登、雷曼和美林之间存在根本差异，这一点，美国政府与国会应该心知肚明，考验它们力挽狂澜的本事或许还在后面呢！
金融重建计划得以推行，要先过国会这一关，虽然保尔森、柏南克可能已经与国会的领袖私下达成了默契，但是，要想多数国会议员都买账却难度不小。此前，为解决金融市场动荡，美国政府已对金融市场进行了罕见的大规模干预，先后宣布接管"两房"以及提供AIG850亿美元的资金。但是，对于美国政府的上述做法，市场上并非全部叫好之声。反对者认为，这样冒险的行为是把过多的风险转嫁给美国政府，却不能根本上解决金融市场面临的困境。分析人士预测，这项计划在国会获得通过的难度不小。
即便国会最终放行，但是，据推测这项救市计划可能至少花掉5000亿美元，无论这项计划打算采取何种具体形式来解困当前的经济危机，如此巨量的救市资金的筹措也是一个大问题。救市资金从哪里来？
要知道，到本财政年度9月30日为止，美国政府财政赤字预计将达4000亿美元，为美国历史上第二高赤字，是去年1615亿美元赤字的一倍多。此外，美国政府还预计，在10月1日开始的新财政年度中，财政赤字将刷新纪录，达到4820亿美元。这种情况下，无论是动用自己的家底，还是向外举债，对于美国政府来说，这都需要很大的勇气。雷曼兄弟进入破产程序，美国政府拒绝拯救行动，这说明美国政府并不拥有无止境的救市资源。
眼下，高盛、摩根斯丹利的未来仍是一个未决的问题。它们迄今得以生存，并不是因为它们与贝尔斯登、雷曼和美林之间存在根本差异，这一点，美国政府与国会应该心知肚明，考验它们力挽狂澜的本事或许还在后面呢！
对冲基金经理西蒙斯的奇迹
詹姆斯·西蒙斯是世界级的数学家，也是最伟大的对冲基金经理之一。2005年，西蒙斯成为全球收入最高的对冲基金经理，净赚15亿美元，差不多是索罗斯的两倍。从1988年开始，他所掌管的大奖章基金年均回报率高达34％，15年来资产从未减少过。去年西蒙斯以40亿美元跻身《福布斯》400富人榜第64位
数学家最赚钱
詹姆斯·西蒙斯是世界级的数学家，也是最伟大的对冲基金经理之一。2005年，西蒙斯成为全球收入最高的对冲基金经理，净赚15亿美元，差不多是索罗斯的两倍。从1988年开始，他所掌管的大奖章基金年均回报率高达34％，15年来资产从未减少过.
詹姆斯·西蒙斯(James Simons)几乎从不雇用华尔街的分析师，他的“文艺复兴科技公司”（Renaissance Technologies Corp.）里坐满了数学和自然科学的博士。用数学模型捕捉市场机会，由电脑作出交易决策，是这位超级投资者成功的秘诀。
“人们一直都在问我，你赚钱的秘密是什么？”西蒙斯似乎已经习惯了那些渴望的眼神。事实上，那应该是每个人都想要了解的秘密。
68岁的西蒙斯满头银发，喜欢穿颜色雅致的衬衫，光脚随意地蹬一双loafers牌休闲鞋。虽然已经成为《机构投资者》杂志年度最赚钱的基金经理，但还是有很多人不知道他到底是谁。西蒙斯曾经和华裔科学家陈省身共同创立了著名的Chern-Simons定律，也曾经获得过全美数学界的最高荣誉。在充满了传奇色彩的华尔街，西蒙斯和他的“文艺复兴科技公司”是一个彻底的异类。
自从西蒙斯放弃了在数学界如日中天的事业转而开办投资管理公司后，20多年间，已经创造了很多难以企及的记录，无论从总利润还是净利润计算，他都是地球上最伟大的对冲基金经理之一。
以下是一些和西蒙斯有关的数字：1988年以来，西蒙斯掌管的的大奖章（Medallion）对冲基金年均回报率高达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50亿美元的大奖章基金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，并且已经经过了审计。值得一提的是，西蒙斯收取的这两项费用应该是对冲基金界最高的，相当于平均收费标准的两倍以上。
模型先生
针对不同市场设计数量化的投资管理模型，并以电脑运算为主导，在全球各种市场上进行短线交易，是西蒙斯的成功秘诀。不过西蒙斯对交易细节一直守口如瓶，除了公司的200多名员工之外，没有人能够得到他们操作的任何线索。
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。文艺复兴公司主要由3个群体组成，即电脑和系统专家、研究人员以及交易人员。
西蒙斯亲自设计了最初的数学模型，他同时雇用了超过70位拥有数学、物理学或统计学博士头衔的人。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。
作为一位数学家，西蒙斯知道靠幸运成功只有二分之一的概率，要战胜市场必须以周密而准确的计算为基础。大奖章基金的数学模型主要通过对历史数据的统计，找出金融产品价格、宏观经济、市场指标、技术指标等各种指标间变化的数学关系，发现市场目前存在的微小获利机会，并通过杠杆比率进行快速而大规模的交易获利。目前市场上也有一些基金采取了相同的策略，不过和西蒙斯的成就相比，往往显得黯然失色。
“文艺复兴科技公司”的旗舰产品—“大奖章基金”成立于1988年3月。到1993年，基金规模达到2.7亿美元时，开始停止接受新资金。现在大奖章基金的投资组合包含了全球上千种股市以及其他市场的投资标的，模型对国债、期货、货币、股票等主要投资标的的价格进行不间断的监控，并作出买入或卖出的指令。
当指令下达后，20名交易员会通过数千次快速的日内短线交易来捕捉稍纵即逝的机会，交易量之大甚至有时能占到整个纳斯达克市场交易量的10%。不过，当市场处于极端波动等特殊时刻，交易会切换到手工状态。
和流行的“买入并长期持有”的投资理念截然相反，西蒙斯认为市场的异常状态通常都是微小而且短暂的。“我们随时都在买入卖出和卖出买入，我们依靠活跃赚钱。”西蒙斯说。
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。”
西蒙斯的所作所为似乎正在超越有效市场假说：有效市场假说认为市场价格波动是随机的，交易者不可能持续从市场中获利。而西蒙斯则强调，“有些交易模式并非随机，而是有迹可循、具有预测效果的。
如同巴菲特曾经指出“市场在多数情况下是有效的，但不是绝对的”一样，西蒙斯也认为，虽然整体而言，市场是有效的，但仍存在短暂的或局部的市场无效性，可以提供交易机会。
在接受《纽约时报》采访时，西蒙斯提到了他曾经观察过的一个核子加速器试验。“当两个高速运行的原子剧烈碰撞后，会迸射出数量巨大的粒子，”他说，“科学家的工作就是分析碰撞所带来的变化。”
“我注视着电脑屏幕上粒子碰撞后形成的轨迹图，它们看似杂乱无章，实际上却存在着内在的规律。”西蒙斯说，“这让我自然而然地联想到了证券市场，那些很小的交易，哪怕是只有100股的交易，都会对这个庞大的市场产生影响，而每天都会有成千上万这样的交易发生。”西蒙斯认为，自己所做的，就是分析当交易这只蝴蝶的翅膀轻颤之后，市场会作出怎样复杂的.
“这个课题对于世界而言也许并不重要，不过研究市场运转的动力非常有趣。这是一个非常严肃的问题。”西蒙斯笑起来的时候简直就像一个顽童，而他就像是一位精通数学的书生，通过复杂的赔率和概率计算，最终打败了赌场。
黑箱操作
对冲基金行业一直拥有“黑箱作业”式的投资模式，可以不必向投资者披露其交易细节。而在一流的对冲基金经理之中，西蒙斯先生的那只箱子据说是“最黑的”。
就连优秀的数量型对冲基金经理也无法弄清西蒙斯的模型究竟动用了哪些指标。“我们信任他，相信他能够在股市的惊涛骇浪中游刃有余，因此也就不再去想电脑都会干些什么之类的问题。”一位大奖章基金的长期投资者说。
不过，每当有人暗示西蒙斯的基金缺乏透明度时，他总是会无可奈何地耸耸肩，“其实所有人都有一个黑箱，我们把他称为大脑。”
在纽约，有一句名言是：你必须非主流才能入流（You have to be out to be in），西蒙斯的经历似乎刚好是这句话的注解。在华尔街，他的所做所为总是让人感到好奇。
西蒙斯的“文艺复兴科技公司”总部位于纽约长岛，那座木头和玻璃结构的一层建筑从外表看上去更像是一个普通的脑库，或者是数学研究所。和很多基金公司不同的是，文艺复兴公司的心脏地带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，公司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。西蒙斯一点也不喜欢华尔街的投资家们。事实上，如果你想去“文艺复兴科技公司”工作的话，华尔街经验反而是个瑕疵。在公司的200多名员工中，将近二分之一都是数学、物理学、统计学等领域顶尖的科学家，所有雇员中只有两位是金融学博士，而且公司从不雇用商学院毕业生，也不雇用华尔街人士，这在美国的投资公司中堪称绝无仅有。
“我们不雇用数理逻辑不好的学生，”曾经在哈佛大学任教的西蒙斯说。“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。他还从IBM公司招募了部分熟悉语音识别系统的员工。“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。
人员流动几乎是不存在的。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，据说他经常会和员工及其家属们分享周末，早在2000年，他们就曾一起飞去百慕大度假。与此同时，每一位员工都发誓要保守公司秘密。
近年来，西蒙斯接受最多的质疑都与“美国长期资本管理公司”(LTCM)有关。LTCM在上世纪90年代中期曾经辉煌一时，公司拥有两位诺贝尔经济学奖得主，他们利用计算机处理大量历史数据，通过精密计算得到两个不同金融工具间的正常历史价格差，然后结合市场信息分析它们之间的最新价格差。如果两者出现偏差，电脑立即发出指令大举入市；经过市场一段时间调节，放大的偏差会自动恢复到正常轨迹上，此时电脑指令平仓离场，获取偏差的差值。又通过对冲机制规避风险，使市场风险最小。但由于其模型假设前提和计算结果都是在历史统计数据基础上得出的，一旦出现与计算结果相反的走势，则对冲就变成了一种高风险的交易策略。
而在极大的杠杆借贷下，这种风险被进一步放大。最辉煌时，LTCM利用从投资者筹得的22亿美元资本作抵押，买入价值1250亿美元证券，然后再以证券作为抵押，进行总值12500亿美元的其他金融交易，杠杆比率高达568倍。短短4年中，LTCM曾经获得了285%的收益率，然而，在过度操纵之下，又在仅两个月之内输掉了45亿美元，走向了万劫不复之地。
“我们的方式和LTCM完全不同，”西蒙斯强调。“文艺复兴科技公司”没有、也不需要那么高的杠杆比例，公司在操作时从来没有任何先入为主的概念，而是只寻找那些可以复制的微小的获利瞬间。“我们绝不以‘市场恢复正常’作为赌注投入资金，有一天市场终于会正常的，但谁知道是哪一天？”
一位著名的数量型基金管理人表示，西蒙斯的方法和LTCM最重要的区别是不涉及对冲，而多是进行短线方向性预测，依靠同时交易很多品种、在短期作出大量的交易来获利。如果一笔交易亏损，由于会在很短的时间内平仓，因此损失不会很大；而数千次交易之后，只要盈利交易多于亏损交易，总体交易结果就是盈利的。
数学大师
西蒙斯很少在金融论坛上发表演讲，他喜欢的是数学会议。他在一个几何学研讨会上庆祝自己的60岁生日，为数学界和患有孤独症的儿童捐钱。在发表演讲时，更常常强调是数学使他走上了投资的成功之路。
西蒙斯在数学方面有着天生的敏感和直觉。这个制鞋厂老板的儿子3岁就立志成为数学家。高中毕业后，他顺利地进入了麻省理工学院。大学毕业仅三年，就拿到了加州大学伯克利分校的博士学位，24岁就出任哈佛大学数学系教授。
70年代末，他创立私人投资基金之初，也采用基本面分析方法。80年代后期，西蒙斯彻底转型为“模型先生”，并为大奖章基金接近500位投资人创造出了令人惊叹的业绩。
2005年，西蒙斯宣布要成立一只规模可能高达1000亿美元的新基金，在华尔街轰动一时。要知道，这个数字几乎相当于全球对冲基金管理资产总额的十分之一。
谈到新基金时，西蒙斯更加谨慎。他表示，和大奖章基金主要针对富有阶层不同，新基金的最低投资额为2000万美元，主要面向机构投资者，将通过下调收费来吸引投资。
此外，新基金将偏重于投资美国股市，持有头寸超过一年—相对于大奖章的快速交易而言，新基金似乎开始坚持“买入并持有”的理念。
“对大奖章非常有效的模型和方法并不一定适用于新基金。”西蒙斯说。
尽管怀疑的声音很多，到2006年2月中旬，西蒙斯还是筹集到了40亿美金，同时向投资者承诺，一旦在任何时点基金运作出现疲弱的迹象，就将停止吸收新资金，届时新基金将不再继续增加到千亿美金的上限。
数学家最赚钱
詹姆斯·西蒙斯是世界级的数学家，也是最伟大的对冲基金经理之一。2005年，西蒙斯成为全球收入最高的对冲基金经理，净赚15亿美元，差不多是索罗斯的两倍。从1988年开始，他所掌管的大奖章基金年均回报率高达34％，15年来资产从未减少过.
詹姆斯·西蒙斯(James Simons)几乎从不雇用华尔街的分析师，他的“文艺复兴科技公司”（Renaissance Technologies Corp.）里坐满了数学和自然科学的博士。用数学模型捕捉市场机会，由电脑作出交易决策，是这位超级投资者成功的秘诀。
“人们一直都在问我，你赚钱的秘密是什么？”西蒙斯似乎已经习惯了那些渴望的眼神。事实上，那应该是每个人都想要了解的秘密。
68岁的西蒙斯满头银发，喜欢穿颜色雅致的衬衫，光脚随意地蹬一双loafers牌休闲鞋。虽然已经成为《机构投资者》杂志年度最赚钱的基金经理，但还是有很多人不知道他到底是谁。西蒙斯曾经和华裔科学家陈省身共同创立了著名的Chern-Simons定律，也曾经获得过全美数学界的最高荣誉。在充满了传奇色彩的华尔街，西蒙斯和他的“文艺复兴科技公司”是一个彻底的异类。
自从西蒙斯放弃了在数学界如日中天的事业转而开办投资管理公司后，20多年间，已经创造了很多难以企及的记录，无论从总利润还是净利润计算，他都是地球上最伟大的对冲基金经理之一。
以下是一些和西蒙斯有关的数字：1988年以来，西蒙斯掌管的的大奖章（Medallion）对冲基金年均回报率高达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50亿美元的大奖章基金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，并且已经经过了审计。值得一提的是，西蒙斯收取的这两项费用应该是对冲基金界最高的，相当于平均收费标准的两倍以上。
模型先生
针对不同市场设计数量化的投资管理模型，并以电脑运算为主导，在全球各种市场上进行短线交易，是西蒙斯的成功秘诀。不过西蒙斯对交易细节一直守口如瓶，除了公司的200多名员工之外，没有人能够得到他们操作的任何线索。
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。文艺复兴公司主要由3个群体组成，即电脑和系统专家、研究人员以及交易人员。
西蒙斯亲自设计了最初的数学模型，他同时雇用了超过70位拥有数学、物理学或统计学博士头衔的人。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。
作为一位数学家，西蒙斯知道靠幸运成功只有二分之一的概率，要战胜市场必须以周密而准确的计算为基础。大奖章基金的数学模型主要通过对历史数据的统计，找出金融产品价格、宏观经济、市场指标、技术指标等各种指标间变化的数学关系，发现市场目前存在的微小获利机会，并通过杠杆比率进行快速而大规模的交易获利。目前市场上也有一些基金采取了相同的策略，不过和西蒙斯的成就相比，往往显得黯然失色。
“文艺复兴科技公司”的旗舰产品—“大奖章基金”成立于1988年3月。到1993年，基金规模达到2.7亿美元时，开始停止接受新资金。现在大奖章基金的投资组合包含了全球上千种股市以及其他市场的投资标的，模型对国债、期货、货币、股票等主要投资标的的价格进行不间断的监控，并作出买入或卖出的指令。
当指令下达后，20名交易员会通过数千次快速的日内短线交易来捕捉稍纵即逝的机会，交易量之大甚至有时能占到整个纳斯达克市场交易量的10%。不过，当市场处于极端波动等特殊时刻，交易会切换到手工状态。
和流行的“买入并长期持有”的投资理念截然相反，西蒙斯认为市场的异常状态通常都是微小而且短暂的。“我们随时都在买入卖出和卖出买入，我们依靠活跃赚钱。”西蒙斯说。
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。”
西蒙斯的所作所为似乎正在超越有效市场假说：有效市场假说认为市场价格波动是随机的，交易者不可能持续从市场中获利。而西蒙斯则强调，“有些交易模式并非随机，而是有迹可循、具有预测效果的。
如同巴菲特曾经指出“市场在多数情况下是有效的，但不是绝对的”一样，西蒙斯也认为，虽然整体而言，市场是有效的，但仍存在短暂的或局部的市场无效性，可以提供交易机会。
在接受《纽约时报》采访时，西蒙斯提到了他曾经观察过的一个核子加速器试验。“当两个高速运行的原子剧烈碰撞后，会迸射出数量巨大的粒子，”他说，“科学家的工作就是分析碰撞所带来的变化。”
“我注视着电脑屏幕上粒子碰撞后形成的轨迹图，它们看似杂乱无章，实际上却存在着内在的规律。”西蒙斯说，“这让我自然而然地联想到了证券市场，那些很小的交易，哪怕是只有100股的交易，都会对这个庞大的市场产生影响，而每天都会有成千上万这样的交易发生。”西蒙斯认为，自己所做的，就是分析当交易这只蝴蝶的翅膀轻颤之后，市场会作出怎样复杂的.
“这个课题对于世界而言也许并不重要，不过研究市场运转的动力非常有趣。这是一个非常严肃的问题。”西蒙斯笑起来的时候简直就像一个顽童，而他就像是一位精通数学的书生，通过复杂的赔率和概率计算，最终打败了赌场。
黑箱操作
对冲基金行业一直拥有“黑箱作业”式的投资模式，可以不必向投资者披露其交易细节。而在一流的对冲基金经理之中，西蒙斯先生的那只箱子据说是“最黑的”。
就连优秀的数量型对冲基金经理也无法弄清西蒙斯的模型究竟动用了哪些指标。“我们信任他，相信他能够在股市的惊涛骇浪中游刃有余，因此也就不再去想电脑都会干些什么之类的问题。”一位大奖章基金的长期投资者说。
不过，每当有人暗示西蒙斯的基金缺乏透明度时，他总是会无可奈何地耸耸肩，“其实所有人都有一个黑箱，我们把他称为大脑。”
在纽约，有一句名言是：你必须非主流才能入流（You have to be out to be in），西蒙斯的经历似乎刚好是这句话的注解。在华尔街，他的所做所为总是让人感到好奇。
西蒙斯的“文艺复兴科技公司”总部位于纽约长岛，那座木头和玻璃结构的一层建筑从外表看上去更像是一个普通的脑库，或者是数学研究所。和很多基金公司不同的是，文艺复兴公司的心脏地带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，公司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。西蒙斯一点也不喜欢华尔街的投资家们。事实上，如果你想去“文艺复兴科技公司”工作的话，华尔街经验反而是个瑕疵。在公司的200多名员工中，将近二分之一都是数学、物理学、统计学等领域顶尖的科学家，所有雇员中只有两位是金融学博士，而且公司从不雇用商学院毕业生，也不雇用华尔街人士，这在美国的投资公司中堪称绝无仅有。
“我们不雇用数理逻辑不好的学生，”曾经在哈佛大学任教的西蒙斯说。“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。他还从IBM公司招募了部分熟悉语音识别系统的员工。“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。
人员流动几乎是不存在的。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，据说他经常会和员工及其家属们分享周末，早在2000年，他们就曾一起飞去百慕大度假。与此同时，每一位员工都发誓要保守公司秘密。
近年来，西蒙斯接受最多的质疑都与“美国长期资本管理公司”(LTCM)有关。LTCM在上世纪90年代中期曾经辉煌一时，公司拥有两位诺贝尔经济学奖得主，他们利用计算机处理大量历史数据，通过精密计算得到两个不同金融工具间的正常历史价格差，然后结合市场信息分析它们之间的最新价格差。如果两者出现偏差，电脑立即发出指令大举入市；经过市场一段时间调节，放大的偏差会自动恢复到正常轨迹上，此时电脑指令平仓离场，获取偏差的差值。又通过对冲机制规避风险，使市场风险最小。但由于其模型假设前提和计算结果都是在历史统计数据基础上得出的，一旦出现与计算结果相反的走势，则对冲就变成了一种高风险的交易策略。
而在极大的杠杆借贷下，这种风险被进一步放大。最辉煌时，LTCM利用从投资者筹得的22亿美元资本作抵押，买入价值1250亿美元证券，然后再以证券作为抵押，进行总值12500亿美元的其他金融交易，杠杆比率高达568倍。短短4年中，LTCM曾经获得了285%的收益率，然而，在过度操纵之下，又在仅两个月之内输掉了45亿美元，走向了万劫不复之地。
“我们的方式和LTCM完全不同，”西蒙斯强调。“文艺复兴科技公司”没有、也不需要那么高的杠杆比例，公司在操作时从来没有任何先入为主的概念，而是只寻找那些可以复制的微小的获利瞬间。“我们绝不以‘市场恢复正常’作为赌注投入资金，有一天市场终于会正常的，但谁知道是哪一天？”
一位著名的数量型基金管理人表示，西蒙斯的方法和LTCM最重要的区别是不涉及对冲，而多是进行短线方向性预测，依靠同时交易很多品种、在短期作出大量的交易来获利。如果一笔交易亏损，由于会在很短的时间内平仓，因此损失不会很大；而数千次交易之后，只要盈利交易多于亏损交易，总体交易结果就是盈利的。
数学大师
西蒙斯很少在金融论坛上发表演讲，他喜欢的是数学会议。他在一个几何学研讨会上庆祝自己的60岁生日，为数学界和患有孤独症的儿童捐钱。在发表演讲时，更常常强调是数学使他走上了投资的成功之路。
西蒙斯在数学方面有着天生的敏感和直觉。这个制鞋厂老板的儿子3岁就立志成为数学家。高中毕业后，他顺利地进入了麻省理工学院。大学毕业仅三年，就拿到了加州大学伯克利分校的博士学位，24岁就出任哈佛大学数学系教授。
70年代末，他创立私人投资基金之初，也采用基本面分析方法。80年代后期，西蒙斯彻底转型为“模型先生”，并为大奖章基金接近500位投资人创造出了令人惊叹的业绩。
2005年，西蒙斯宣布要成立一只规模可能高达1000亿美元的新基金，在华尔街轰动一时。要知道，这个数字几乎相当于全球对冲基金管理资产总额的十分之一。
谈到新基金时，西蒙斯更加谨慎。他表示，和大奖章基金主要针对富有阶层不同，新基金的最低投资额为2000万美元，主要面向机构投资者，将通过下调收费来吸引投资。
此外，新基金将偏重于投资美国股市，持有头寸超过一年—相对于大奖章的快速交易而言，新基金似乎开始坚持“买入并持有”的理念。
“对大奖章非常有效的模型和方法并不一定适用于新基金。”西蒙斯说。
尽管怀疑的声音很多，到2006年2月中旬，西蒙斯还是筹集到了40亿美金，同时向投资者承诺，一旦在任何时点基金运作出现疲弱的迹象，就将停止吸收新资金，届时新基金将不再继续增加到千亿美金的上限。
西蒙斯:超越索罗斯的新基金大鳄
文艺复兴科技公总裁詹姆斯·西蒙斯，以17亿美元的年收入连续第二年高居全球对冲基金经理榜首，他拥有旗下基金总资产的5％以及年收益的44％，2006年美达基金公司管理的60亿美元的基金回报率为84％，西蒙斯因而成为迄今为止对冲基金经理人收入最高的一个。
在著名的财经杂志——《阿尔法》最新公布的全球排名前25名对冲基金经理中，现年69岁的文艺复兴科技公司总裁詹姆斯·西蒙斯以17亿美元的年收入连续第二年高居榜首，其他两个对冲基金经理肯尼斯汀·格里芬和爱德华·兰普特两位去年年薪也超过10亿美元。而华尔街收入最多的总裁——高盛集团首席执行官布兰克芬年收入也仅仅是5430万美元。
西蒙斯拥有旗下基金总资产的5％以及年收益的44％，以2006年为例，美达60亿美元的基金回报率为84％，这样，他的收益就为17亿美元，成为迄今为止对冲基金经理人收入最高的一个，同时已经连续第二年排名第一，而著名的“基金大鳄”索罗斯则以9.5亿美元收入居第四位。这也意味着，西蒙斯逐渐取代了索罗斯，成为了新的基金大鳄。
美达基金年回报率34％
那么是什么让这位对冲基金经理如此成功，甚至超过了大名鼎鼎的索罗斯呢?首先要从詹姆斯·西蒙斯成立的文艺复兴(Renaissance)公司旗下的核心业务——规模为50亿美元的美达(Medallion)对冲基金说起。
自1988年成立以来，这家美达基金公司年均回报率高达34％，而且34％这个回报率已经扣除了5％的资产管理费以及44％的投资收益分成等费用，堪称在此期间表现最佳的对冲基金。10多年来，该基金的资产从未减少过。该公司目前已经成为西蒙斯的旗舰公司。
尽管西蒙斯在华尔街并非尽人皆知，但他以往的成就让投资者对这只基金产生了浓厚的兴趣。就算索罗斯的量子基金，同期年均回报率也只有22％，而标准普尔500指数同期的年均涨幅才只有9.6％。西蒙斯创造的回报率比布鲁斯·科夫勒、索罗斯等传奇投资大师高出10个百分点，在对冲基金业内他堪称出类拔萃。尽管美达公司收取的这两项费用是对冲基金平均收费水平的2倍以上，但依然让大家趋之若鹜。
成功秘诀——模型分析
现在，美达基金的投资组合包含了全球上千种股市以及其他市场的投资标的，模型对国债、期货、货币、股票等主要投资标的的价格进行不间断地监控，并作出买入或卖出的指令。
美达的投资其实很简单，当指令下达后，20名交易员会通过数千次快速的日内短线交易来捕捉稍纵即逝的机会，交易量之大甚至有时能占到整个纳斯达克市场交易量的10％。不过，当市场处于极端波动等特殊时刻，交易会切换到手工状态。
和流行的“买入并长期持有”的投资理念截然相反，西蒙斯认为市场的异常状态通常都是微小而且短暂的，“我们随时都在卖出和买入，我们依靠活跃赚钱。”西蒙斯说。
他还把做过的粒子实验和证券交易联系起来：“我注视着电脑屏幕上粒子碰撞后形成的轨迹图，它们看似杂乱无章，实际上却存在着内在的规律，”西蒙斯说，“这让我自然而然地联想到了证券市场，那些很小的交易，哪怕是只有100股的交易，都会对这个庞大的市场产生影响，而每天都会有成千上万这样的交易发生。”西蒙斯认为，自己所做的，就是分析当交易这只蝴蝶的翅膀轻颤之后，市场会作出怎样复杂的反应。
西蒙斯透露，一般他的基金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。”
成功团队——不用华尔街分析师
西蒙斯几乎从不雇用华尔街的分析师，他的文艺复兴科技公司里坐满了数学和自然科学的博士。用数学模型捕捉市场机会，由电脑作出交易决策，是这位超级投资者成功的秘诀。
“人们一直都在问我，你赚钱的秘密是什么?”几乎每次接受记者采访时，詹姆斯·西蒙斯总会说到这句话，他似乎已经习惯了那些渴望的眼神。事实上，在对冲基金的世界里，那应该是每个人都想要了解的秘密。美达公司从来都不愿透露运作策略的细节，甚至对自己的投资者也是这样。也有其他的基金采取了相同的策略，却远没有美达公司这样成功。
作为数学家的西蒙斯，自然对于数量分析情有独钟。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。西蒙斯的公司主要由3个部分组成，即电脑和系统专家，研究人员以及交易人员。西蒙斯亲自设计了最初的数学模型，他同时雇用了超过70位拥有数学、物理学或统计学博士头衔的人。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。
作为一位数学家，西蒙斯知道靠幸运成功只有二分之一的概率，要战胜市场必须以周密而准确的计算为基础。美达基金的数学模型主要通过对历史数据的统计，找出金融产品价格、宏观经济、市场指标、技术指标等各种指标间变化的数学关系，发现市场目前存在的微小获利机会，并通过杠杆比率进行快速而大规模的交易获利。
成功背景——著名大学的数学教授
西蒙斯的第一个职业是数学教授，在麻省理工和哈佛大学任教。他曾和著名的华裔数学家陈省身发现了称之为Chern-Simons的几何定律，这条定律成为理论物理学的重要工具。
上世纪70年代末，他离开大学创立私人投资基金，最初也采用基本面分析的方式，“我没有想到用科学的方法进行投资，”西蒙斯说，“随着经验的不断增加我想到也许可以用一些方法来制作模型，预见货币市场的走势变动。”上世纪80年代，西蒙斯决定成立一个纯粹交易的对冲基金。美达基金正式成立，一段传奇就此开始。
在著名的财经杂志——《阿尔法》最新公布的全球排名前25名对冲基金经理中，现年69岁的文艺复兴科技公司总裁詹姆斯·西蒙斯以17亿美元的年收入连续第二年高居榜首，其他两个对冲基金经理肯尼斯汀·格里芬和爱德华·兰普特两位去年年薪也超过10亿美元。而华尔街收入最多的总裁——高盛集团首席执行官布兰克芬年收入也仅仅是5430万美元。
西蒙斯拥有旗下基金总资产的5％以及年收益的44％，以2006年为例，美达60亿美元的基金回报率为84％，这样，他的收益就为17亿美元，成为迄今为止对冲基金经理人收入最高的一个，同时已经连续第二年排名第一，而著名的“基金大鳄”索罗斯则以9.5亿美元收入居第四位。这也意味着，西蒙斯逐渐取代了索罗斯，成为了新的基金大鳄。
美达基金年回报率34％
那么是什么让这位对冲基金经理如此成功，甚至超过了大名鼎鼎的索罗斯呢?首先要从詹姆斯·西蒙斯成立的文艺复兴(Renaissance)公司旗下的核心业务——规模为50亿美元的美达(Medallion)对冲基金说起。
自1988年成立以来，这家美达基金公司年均回报率高达34％，而且34％这个回报率已经扣除了5％的资产管理费以及44％的投资收益分成等费用，堪称在此期间表现最佳的对冲基金。10多年来，该基金的资产从未减少过。该公司目前已经成为西蒙斯的旗舰公司。
尽管西蒙斯在华尔街并非尽人皆知，但他以往的成就让投资者对这只基金产生了浓厚的兴趣。就算索罗斯的量子基金，同期年均回报率也只有22％，而标准普尔500指数同期的年均涨幅才只有9.6％。西蒙斯创造的回报率比布鲁斯·科夫勒、索罗斯等传奇投资大师高出10个百分点，在对冲基金业内他堪称出类拔萃。尽管美达公司收取的这两项费用是对冲基金平均收费水平的2倍以上，但依然让大家趋之若鹜。
成功秘诀——模型分析
现在，美达基金的投资组合包含了全球上千种股市以及其他市场的投资标的，模型对国债、期货、货币、股票等主要投资标的的价格进行不间断地监控，并作出买入或卖出的指令。
美达的投资其实很简单，当指令下达后，20名交易员会通过数千次快速的日内短线交易来捕捉稍纵即逝的机会，交易量之大甚至有时能占到整个纳斯达克市场交易量的10％。不过，当市场处于极端波动等特殊时刻，交易会切换到手工状态。
和流行的“买入并长期持有”的投资理念截然相反，西蒙斯认为市场的异常状态通常都是微小而且短暂的，“我们随时都在卖出和买入，我们依靠活跃赚钱。”西蒙斯说。
他还把做过的粒子实验和证券交易联系起来：“我注视着电脑屏幕上粒子碰撞后形成的轨迹图，它们看似杂乱无章，实际上却存在着内在的规律，”西蒙斯说，“这让我自然而然地联想到了证券市场，那些很小的交易，哪怕是只有100股的交易，都会对这个庞大的市场产生影响，而每天都会有成千上万这样的交易发生。”西蒙斯认为，自己所做的，就是分析当交易这只蝴蝶的翅膀轻颤之后，市场会作出怎样复杂的反应。
西蒙斯透露，一般他的基金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。”
成功团队——不用华尔街分析师
西蒙斯几乎从不雇用华尔街的分析师，他的文艺复兴科技公司里坐满了数学和自然科学的博士。用数学模型捕捉市场机会，由电脑作出交易决策，是这位超级投资者成功的秘诀。
“人们一直都在问我，你赚钱的秘密是什么?”几乎每次接受记者采访时，詹姆斯·西蒙斯总会说到这句话，他似乎已经习惯了那些渴望的眼神。事实上，在对冲基金的世界里，那应该是每个人都想要了解的秘密。美达公司从来都不愿透露运作策略的细节，甚至对自己的投资者也是这样。也有其他的基金采取了相同的策略，却远没有美达公司这样成功。
作为数学家的西蒙斯，自然对于数量分析情有独钟。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。西蒙斯的公司主要由3个部分组成，即电脑和系统专家，研究人员以及交易人员。西蒙斯亲自设计了最初的数学模型，他同时雇用了超过70位拥有数学、物理学或统计学博士头衔的人。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。
作为一位数学家，西蒙斯知道靠幸运成功只有二分之一的概率，要战胜市场必须以周密而准确的计算为基础。美达基金的数学模型主要通过对历史数据的统计，找出金融产品价格、宏观经济、市场指标、技术指标等各种指标间变化的数学关系，发现市场目前存在的微小获利机会，并通过杠杆比率进行快速而大规模的交易获利。
成功背景——著名大学的数学教授
西蒙斯的第一个职业是数学教授，在麻省理工和哈佛大学任教。他曾和著名的华裔数学家陈省身发现了称之为Chern-Simons的几何定律，这条定律成为理论物理学的重要工具。
上世纪70年代末，他离开大学创立私人投资基金，最初也采用基本面分析的方式，“我没有想到用科学的方法进行投资，”西蒙斯说，“随着经验的不断增加我想到也许可以用一些方法来制作模型，预见货币市场的走势变动。”上世纪80年代，西蒙斯决定成立一个纯粹交易的对冲基金。美达基金正式成立，一段传奇就此开始。
數學大師在華爾街大顯神通
世界級數學大師詹姆斯．西蒙斯，管理規模五十億美元的Medallion對沖基金，自八八年成立以來，年均報酬率高達三四％。西蒙斯最近籌設一支規模可能高達一千億美元的基金，震驚華爾街，這是整個對沖基金業資產規模的十分之一！
你可以想像七十名擁有數學及物理學博士頭銜的人，坐在華爾街金融辦公大樓盯著電腦螢幕，進行套利、投機或避險交易嗎？
這不是時空錯亂，「文藝復興科技公司」（Renaissance Technologies Corp.）雇用了七十位數理博士，研發出一套精細複雜的數學模型，緊盯全球各項經濟指標、商品及證券價格變化，無論是做多或放空，隨時掌握時機出手。
運用數學模型 電腦運算選標的報酬率驚人
這家數理專家雲集的公司，正管理全球最賺錢的對沖基金——Medallion Hedge Fund，由世界級數學家詹姆斯．西蒙斯（James Simons）擔任負責人。
以電腦運算為主導，在全球各種市場上進行短線交易，是「Medallion基金」的成功祕訣。
Medallion基金利用數學預測模型，對一堆投資標的如股票、債券、貨幣、商品、選擇權等進出套利。新成立的「文藝復興法人股票基金」將採取截然不同的運作策略：偏重於投資美國股市、持有時間會超過一年。
從數學天才變身成為華爾街億萬富翁，西蒙斯被譽為「地球上最好的基金經理人」。
西蒙斯領導的Medallion基金，規模五十億美元，自一九八八年創立以來，年均報酬率高達三四％，在業內傲視群雄，堪稱表現最佳的對沖基金。就算大名鼎鼎的索羅斯（George Soros）量子基金（Quantum Fund），同期年均報酬率也只有二二％，而標準普爾五○○（S&P 500）指數同期的年均漲幅，才只有九．六％。
事實上，這個報酬率已經扣除了五％的資產管理費，以及四四％的投資收益分紅等費用。西蒙斯收取的這兩項費用，是對沖基金平均收費的兩倍以上，○四年光是佣金就賺進五億美元。
數理專家做投資 發現貨幣交易中有特定規律
西蒙斯畢業於麻省理工學院數學系，獲柏克萊加州大學數學博士學位後，返回麻省理工學院、哈佛大學和紐約州立大學石溪分校數學系任教。
西蒙斯和中國著名數學家陳省身教授合作發現的「Chern-Simons幾何定律」，成為理論物理學的重要工具。此外，西蒙斯曾擔任普林斯頓大學國防研究學院的密碼破譯專家。
在數學領域工作十五年、數學研究正處於高峰時，西蒙斯轉入金融界，開始創立私人投資基金，目前是世界上最賺錢對沖基金的負責人，○三年在華爾街投資經理人薪水排行榜上高居第三。
西蒙斯說：「有些交易模式並非隨機，而是有跡可循、具有預測效果的。」於是他發展出一套運用統計方法建立風險投資的數學預測模型，創下驚人的投資報酬率。
西蒙斯說，過去的選股方式，既能讓人變成一夜英雄，也能在翌日把人打回原形。「大多數時候，選對股不過是幸運而已。」他說：「數學模型可以降低風險，也能減少日復一日的惡化。」因此，交易行為不應是一種人為判斷，而應是複雜精細的電腦計算模式。
西蒙斯剛開始從事投資工作時，也是仰賴個人判斷作決策。直到有一天，他從貨幣交易中發現特定的規律，建立出一套預測貨幣走勢的數學模型。從此，他變成一位「模型先生」。
黑箱作業 所有投資策略演算法都保密
從冰冷的數學家化身為炙手可熱的基金經理人，西蒙斯憑著獨創的數學投資模式，創造了前所未有的成就。這套數學家式的繁複運算模式和分析方法，華爾街一般財經背景的基金經理人根本無法企及。
西蒙斯喜歡聘用數理專家，公司背景完全和華爾街沾不上邊。
這些來自數學、物理學、天體物理學、統計學等領域的專家，運用量化策略，從龐大的市場數據中抽絲剝繭，找尋統計上的關係，找到預測商品、貨幣及股市價格波動的模式。
華爾街雖然也有其他對沖基金，採用了相同的策略，卻遠遠不及Medallion基金那般成功。
不過若想要進一步了解西蒙斯的數學投資模式，恐怕是妄想，因為西蒙斯對於基金內部操作保密到家！
目前文藝復興科技公司基本上是「黑箱操作」，同行和投資人無從得知西蒙斯真正採用的演算法和交易策略，工作人員則發誓要保守祕密。
西蒙斯從來不雇用華爾街分析師，他身邊圍繞著一群「怪胎」。文藝復興科技公司有一百四十名員工，其中三分之一擁有數理博士學位，大部分是西蒙斯的學生。
這群「超級怪胎」的專業領域千奇百怪，包括天體物理學、數字理論、電腦科學、計算語言學等。「我們不雇用商學院學生，」西蒙斯表示，目前公司只有一位金融博士，「我們只聘請數理人才。」
西蒙斯行事低調，鮮少與媒體接觸，遠遠不如巴菲特那麼有名，甚至許多華爾街同行也未曾聽過他的大名，但他卻是一張不能被忽視的王牌。
千億美元規模 新基金成立計畫引起金融圈騷動
最近，西蒙斯揚言要設立一支規模高達一千億美元的基金，相當於全球對沖基金行業資產規模的十分之一。此語一出，立即在金融圈引起騷動。
這支由數學家和物理學博士共同開發的基金，叫作「文藝復興法人股票基金」（Renaissance Institutional Equities Fund），從去年十月創立以來，短短三個月即已集資四十億美元。
許多基金經理人都發現，當管理的資產過於龐大，對沖基金要想實現高於業內平均水準的報酬率就愈來愈難；但西蒙斯卻想驗證數學模型適用於任何規模的基金，他到底是對沖基金的異數？還是會步入LTCM（長期資本公司）的後塵？華爾街和數學界都等著看.
你可以想像七十名擁有數學及物理學博士頭銜的人，坐在華爾街金融辦公大樓盯著電腦螢幕，進行套利、投機或避險交易嗎？
這不是時空錯亂，「文藝復興科技公司」（Renaissance Technologies Corp.）雇用了七十位數理博士，研發出一套精細複雜的數學模型，緊盯全球各項經濟指標、商品及證券價格變化，無論是做多或放空，隨時掌握時機出手。
運用數學模型 電腦運算選標的報酬率驚人
這家數理專家雲集的公司，正管理全球最賺錢的對沖基金——Medallion Hedge Fund，由世界級數學家詹姆斯．西蒙斯（James Simons）擔任負責人。
以電腦運算為主導，在全球各種市場上進行短線交易，是「Medallion基金」的成功祕訣。
Medallion基金利用數學預測模型，對一堆投資標的如股票、債券、貨幣、商品、選擇權等進出套利。新成立的「文藝復興法人股票基金」將採取截然不同的運作策略：偏重於投資美國股市、持有時間會超過一年。
從數學天才變身成為華爾街億萬富翁，西蒙斯被譽為「地球上最好的基金經理人」。
西蒙斯領導的Medallion基金，規模五十億美元，自一九八八年創立以來，年均報酬率高達三四％，在業內傲視群雄，堪稱表現最佳的對沖基金。就算大名鼎鼎的索羅斯（George Soros）量子基金（Quantum Fund），同期年均報酬率也只有二二％，而標準普爾五○○（S&P 500）指數同期的年均漲幅，才只有九．六％。
事實上，這個報酬率已經扣除了五％的資產管理費，以及四四％的投資收益分紅等費用。西蒙斯收取的這兩項費用，是對沖基金平均收費的兩倍以上，○四年光是佣金就賺進五億美元。
數理專家做投資 發現貨幣交易中有特定規律
西蒙斯畢業於麻省理工學院數學系，獲柏克萊加州大學數學博士學位後，返回麻省理工學院、哈佛大學和紐約州立大學石溪分校數學系任教。
西蒙斯和中國著名數學家陳省身教授合作發現的「Chern-Simons幾何定律」，成為理論物理學的重要工具。此外，西蒙斯曾擔任普林斯頓大學國防研究學院的密碼破譯專家。
在數學領域工作十五年、數學研究正處於高峰時，西蒙斯轉入金融界，開始創立私人投資基金，目前是世界上最賺錢對沖基金的負責人，○三年在華爾街投資經理人薪水排行榜上高居第三。
西蒙斯說：「有些交易模式並非隨機，而是有跡可循、具有預測效果的。」於是他發展出一套運用統計方法建立風險投資的數學預測模型，創下驚人的投資報酬率。
西蒙斯說，過去的選股方式，既能讓人變成一夜英雄，也能在翌日把人打回原形。「大多數時候，選對股不過是幸運而已。」他說：「數學模型可以降低風險，也能減少日復一日的惡化。」因此，交易行為不應是一種人為判斷，而應是複雜精細的電腦計算模式。
西蒙斯剛開始從事投資工作時，也是仰賴個人判斷作決策。直到有一天，他從貨幣交易中發現特定的規律，建立出一套預測貨幣走勢的數學模型。從此，他變成一位「模型先生」。
黑箱作業 所有投資策略演算法都保密
從冰冷的數學家化身為炙手可熱的基金經理人，西蒙斯憑著獨創的數學投資模式，創造了前所未有的成就。這套數學家式的繁複運算模式和分析方法，華爾街一般財經背景的基金經理人根本無法企及。
西蒙斯喜歡聘用數理專家，公司背景完全和華爾街沾不上邊。
這些來自數學、物理學、天體物理學、統計學等領域的專家，運用量化策略，從龐大的市場數據中抽絲剝繭，找尋統計上的關係，找到預測商品、貨幣及股市價格波動的模式。
華爾街雖然也有其他對沖基金，採用了相同的策略，卻遠遠不及Medallion基金那般成功。
不過若想要進一步了解西蒙斯的數學投資模式，恐怕是妄想，因為西蒙斯對於基金內部操作保密到家！
目前文藝復興科技公司基本上是「黑箱操作」，同行和投資人無從得知西蒙斯真正採用的演算法和交易策略，工作人員則發誓要保守祕密。
西蒙斯從來不雇用華爾街分析師，他身邊圍繞著一群「怪胎」。文藝復興科技公司有一百四十名員工，其中三分之一擁有數理博士學位，大部分是西蒙斯的學生。
這群「超級怪胎」的專業領域千奇百怪，包括天體物理學、數字理論、電腦科學、計算語言學等。「我們不雇用商學院學生，」西蒙斯表示，目前公司只有一位金融博士，「我們只聘請數理人才。」
西蒙斯行事低調，鮮少與媒體接觸，遠遠不如巴菲特那麼有名，甚至許多華爾街同行也未曾聽過他的大名，但他卻是一張不能被忽視的王牌。
千億美元規模 新基金成立計畫引起金融圈騷動
最近，西蒙斯揚言要設立一支規模高達一千億美元的基金，相當於全球對沖基金行業資產規模的十分之一。此語一出，立即在金融圈引起騷動。
這支由數學家和物理學博士共同開發的基金，叫作「文藝復興法人股票基金」（Renaissance Institutional Equities Fund），從去年十月創立以來，短短三個月即已集資四十億美元。
許多基金經理人都發現，當管理的資產過於龐大，對沖基金要想實現高於業內平均水準的報酬率就愈來愈難；但西蒙斯卻想驗證數學模型適用於任何規模的基金，他到底是對沖基金的異數？還是會步入LTCM（長期資本公司）的後塵？華爾街和數學界都等著看.
詹姆斯西蒙斯是世界级的数学家，也是最伟大的对冲基金经理之一
2005年，西蒙斯成为全球收入最高的对冲基金经理，净赚15亿美元，差不多是索罗斯的两倍；从1988年开始，他所掌管的大奖章基金年均回报率高达34％，15年来资产从未减少过。
西蒙斯几乎从不雇用华尔街的分析师，他的文艺复兴科技公司里坐满了数学和自然科学的博士。用数学模型捕捉市场机会，由电脑作出交易决策，是这位超级投资者成功的秘诀。
“人们一直都在问我，你赚钱的秘密是什么？”几乎每次接受记者采访时，詹姆斯西蒙斯(James Simons)总会说到这句话，他似乎已经习惯了那些渴望的眼神。事实上，在对冲基金的世界里，那应该是每个人都想要了解的秘密。
68岁的西蒙斯满头银发，喜欢穿颜色雅致的衬衫，光脚随意地蹬一双loafers牌休闲鞋。虽然已经成为《机构投资者》杂志年度最赚钱的基金经理，但还是有很多人不知道他到底是谁。西蒙斯曾经和华裔科学家陈省身共同创立了著名的Chern-Simons定律，也曾经获得过全美数学界的最高荣誉。在充满了传奇色彩的华尔街，西蒙斯和他的文艺复兴科技公司（Renaissance Technologies Corp.）是一个彻底的异类。
作风低调的西蒙斯很少接受采访，不过自从他放弃了在数学界如日中天的事业转而开办投资管理公司后，二十多年间，西蒙斯已经创造了很多难以企及的记录，无论从总利润还是净利润计算，他都是这个地球上最伟大的对冲基金经理之一。
以下是一些和西蒙斯有关的数字：1988年以来，西蒙斯掌管的的大奖章（Medallion）对冲基金年均回报率高达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50亿美元的大奖章基金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，并且已经经过了审计。值得一提的是，西蒙斯收取的这两项费用应该是对冲基金界最高的，相当于平均收费标准的两倍以上。高额回报和高额收费使西蒙斯很快成为超级富豪，在《福布斯》杂志2006年9月发布的“400位最富有的美国人”排行榜中，西蒙斯以40亿美元的身家跻身第64位。
模型先生
针对不同市场设计数量化的投资管理模型，并以电脑运算为主导，在全球各种市场上进行短线交易是西蒙斯的成功秘诀。不过西蒙斯对交易细节一直守口如瓶，除了公司的200多名员工之外，没有人能够得到他们操作的任何线索。
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。西蒙斯亲自设计了最初的数学模型，他同时雇用了超过70位拥有数学、物理学或统计学博士头衔的人。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。
作为一位数学家，西蒙斯知道靠幸运成功只有二分之一的概率，要战胜市场必须以周密而准确的计算为基础。大奖章基金的数学模型主要通过对历史数据的统计，找出金融产品价格、宏观经济、市场指标、技术指标等各种指标间变化的数学关系，发现市场目前存在的微小获利机会，并通过杠杆比率进行快速而大规模的交易获利。目前市场上也有一些基金采取了相同的策略，不过和西蒙斯的成就相比，他们往往显得黯然失色。
文艺复兴科技公司的旗舰产品——大奖章基金成立于1988年3月，到1993年，基金规模达到2.7亿美元时开始停止接受新资金。现在大奖章基金的投资组合包含了全球上千种股市以及其他市场的投资标的，模型对国债、期货、货币、股票等主要投资标的的价格进行不间断的监控，并作出买入或卖出的指令。
当指令下达后，20名交易员会通过数千次快速的日内短线交易来捕捉稍纵即逝的机会，交易量之大甚至有时能占到整个纳斯达克市场交易量的10%。不过，当市场处于极端波动等特殊时刻，交易会切换到手工状态。
和流行的“买入并长期持有”的投资理念截然相反，西蒙斯认为市场的异常状态通常都是微小而且短暂的，“我们随时都在买入卖出卖出和买入，我们依靠活跃赚钱”，西蒙斯说。
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。”
西蒙斯的所作所为似乎正在超越有效市场假说：有效市场假说认为市场价格波动是随机的，交易者不可能持续从市场中获利。而西蒙斯则强调，“有些交易模式并非随机，而是有迹可循、具有预测效果的。”如同巴菲特曾经指出“市场在多数情况下是有效的，但不是绝对的”一样，西蒙斯也认为，虽然整体而言，市场是有效的，但仍存在短暂的或局部的市场无效性，可以提供交易机会。
在接受《纽约时报》采访时，西蒙斯提到了他曾经观察过的一个核子加速器试验，“当两个高速运行的原子剧烈碰撞后，会迸射出数量巨大的粒子。”他说，“科学家的工作就是分析碰撞所带来的变化。”
“我注视着电脑屏幕上粒子碰撞后形成的轨迹图，它们看似杂乱无章，实际上却存在着内在的规律，”西蒙斯说，“这让我自然而然地联想到了证券市场，那些很小的交易，哪怕是只有100股的交易，都会对这个庞大的市场产生影响，而每天都会有成千上万这样的交易发生。”西蒙斯认为，自己所做的，就是分析当交易这只蝴蝶的翅膀轻颤之后，市场会作出怎样复杂的反应。
“这个课题对于世界而言也许并不重要，不过研究市场运转的动力非常有趣。这是一个非常严肃的问题。”西蒙斯笑起来的时候简直就像一个顽童，而他的故事，听起来更像是一位精通数学的书生，通过复杂的赔率和概率计算，最终打败了赌场的神话。这位前美国国防部代码破译员和数学家似乎相信，对于如何走在曲线前面，应该存在一个简单的公式，而发现这个公式则无异于拿到了通往财富之门的入场券。
黑箱操作
对冲基金行业一直拥有 “黑箱作业”式的投资模式，可以不必向投资者披露其交易细节。而在一流的对冲基金投资人之中，西蒙斯先生的那只箱子据说是“最黑的”。
就连优秀的数量型对冲基金经理也无法弄清西蒙斯的模型究竟动用了哪些指标，“我们信任他，相信他能够在股市的惊涛骇浪中游刃有余，因此也就不再去想电脑都会干些什么之类的问题”，一位大奖章基金的长期投资者说。当这位投资者开始描述西蒙斯的投资方法时，他坦承，自己完全是猜测的。
不过，每当有人暗示西蒙斯的基金缺乏透明度时，他总是会无可奈何地耸耸肩，“其实所有人都有一个黑箱，我们把他称为大脑。” 西蒙斯指出，公司的投资方法其实并不神秘，很多时候都是可以通过特定的方式来解决的。当然，他不得不补充说，“对我们来说，这其实不太神秘。”
在纽约，有一句名言是：你必须非主流才能入流（You have to be out to be in），西蒙斯的经历似乎刚好是这句话的注解。在华尔街，他的所做所为总是让人感到好奇。
西蒙斯的文艺复兴科技公司总部位于纽约长岛，那座木头和玻璃结构的一层建筑从外表看上去更像是一个普通的脑库，或者是数学研究所。和很多基金公司不同的是，文艺复兴公司的心脏地带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，公司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。西蒙斯一点也不喜欢华尔街的投资家们，事实上，如果你想去文艺复兴科技公司工作的话，华尔街经验反而是个瑕疵。在公司的200多名员工中，将近二分之一都是数学、物理学、统计学等领域顶尖的科学家，所有雇员中只有两位是金融学博士，而且公司从不雇用商学院毕业生，也不雇用华尔街人士，这在美国的投资公司中堪称绝无仅有。
“我们不雇用数理逻辑不好的学生”，曾经在哈佛大学任教的西蒙斯说。“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。他还从IBM公司招募了部分熟悉语音识别系统的员工。“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。”
人员流动几乎是不存在的。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，据说他经常会和员工及其家属们分享周末，早在2000年，他们就曾一起飞去百慕大度假。与此同时，每一位员工都发誓要保守公司秘密。
近年来，西蒙斯接受最多的质疑都与美国长期资本管理公司(LTCM)有关。LTCM在上世纪90年代中期曾经辉煌一时，公司拥有两位诺贝尔经济学奖得主，他们利用计算机处理大量历史数据，通过精密计算得到两个不同金融工具间的正常历史价格差，然后结合市场信息分析它们之间的最新价格差。如果两者出现偏差，电脑立即发出指令大举入市；经过市场一段时间调节，放大的偏差会自动恢复到正常轨迹上，此时电脑指令平仓离场，获取偏差的差值。
LTCM始终遵循“市场中性”原则，即不从事任何单方面交易，仅以寻找市场或商品间效率落差而形成的套利空间为主，通过对冲机制规避风险，使市场风险最小。但由于其模型假设前提和计算结果都是在历史统计数据基础上得出的，一旦出现与计算结果相反的走势，则对冲就变成了一种高风险的交易策略。
而在极大的杠杆借贷下，这种风险被进一步放大。最辉煌时，LTCM利用从投资者筹得的22亿美元资本作抵押，买入价值1250亿美元证券，然后再以证券作为抵押，进行总值12500亿美元的其他金融交易，杠杆比率高达568倍。短短4年中，LTCM曾经获得了285%的收益率，然而，在过度操纵之下，又在仅两个月之内又输掉了45亿美元，走向了万劫不复之地。
“我们的方式和LTCM完全不同”，西蒙斯强调，文艺复兴科技公司没有、也不需要那么高的杠杆比例，公司在操作时从来没有任何先入为主的概念，而是只寻找那些可以复制的微小的获利瞬间，“我们绝不以‘市场恢复正常’作为赌注投入资金，有一天市场终于会正常的，但谁知道是哪一天。”
西蒙斯的拥护者们也多半对黑箱操作的风险不以为然，他们说，“长期资本公司只有两位诺贝尔奖金获得者充当门面，主要的还是华尔街人士，他们的赌性决定了终究会出错”，另一位著名的数量型基金管理人也表示，“难以相信在西蒙斯的方法中会没有一些安全措施。” 他指出，西蒙斯的方法和LTCM最重要的区别是不涉及对冲，而多是进行短线方向性预测，依靠同时交易很多品种、在短期作出大量的交易来获利。具体到每一个交易的亏损，由于会在很短的时间内平仓，因此损失不会很大；而数千次交易之后，只要盈利交易多余亏损交易，总体交易结果就是盈利的。
数学大师
西蒙斯很少在金融论坛上发表演讲，他喜欢的是数学会议，他在一个几何学研讨会上庆祝自己的60岁生日，为数学界和患有孤独症的儿童捐钱，在发表演讲时，更常常强调是数学使他走上了投资的成功之路。有人说，和华尔街的时尚毫不沾边或许也是他并不瞩目的原因之一。
西蒙斯在数学方面有着天生的敏感和直觉，这个制鞋厂老板的儿子3岁就立志成为数学家。高中毕业后，他顺利地进入了麻省理工学院，大学毕业仅三年，就拿到了加州大学伯克利分校的博士学位，24岁就出任哈佛大学数学系教授。
不过，尽管已经是国际数学界的后起之秀，他还是很快就厌倦了学术生涯。1964年，天生喜欢冒险的西蒙斯进入美国国防部下属的一个非盈利组织——国防逻辑分析协会进行代码破解工作。后来由于反对越战，他又重回学术界，成为纽约州立石溪大学(Stony Brook University)的数学系主任，在那里做了8年的纯数学研究。
西蒙斯很早以前就曾和投资结缘，1961年，他和麻省理工学院的同学投资于哥伦比亚地砖和管线公司；在伯克利时也曾投资一家婚礼礼品的公司，但结果都不太理想，当时他觉得股市令人烦恼的，“我还曾经找到美林公司的经纪人，试图做些大豆交易”，西蒙斯说。
直到上世纪70年代早期，西蒙斯才开始真正对投资着迷。那时他还在石溪大学任教，他身边的一位数学家参与了一家瓷砖公司出售的交易，“8个月的时间里赚了我10倍的钱。”
70年代末，当他离开石溪大学创立私人投资基金时，最初也采用基本面分析的方式，“我没有想到用科学的方法进行投资，”西蒙斯说，那一段时间他主要投资于外汇市场，“随着经验的不断增加我想到也许可以用一些方法来制作模型，预见货币市场的走势变动。”
80年代后期，西蒙斯和普林斯顿大学的数学家勒费尔(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，西蒙斯彻底转型为“模型先生”，并为大奖章基金接近500位投资人创造出了令人惊叹的业绩。
2005年，西蒙斯宣布要成立一只规模可能高达1000亿美元的新基金，在华尔街轰动一时，要知道，这个数字几乎相当于全球对冲基金管理资产总额的十分之一。谈到新基金时，西蒙斯更加谨慎，他表示，和大奖章基金主要针对富有阶层不同，新基金的最低投资额为2000万美元，主要面向机构投资者，将通过下调收费来吸引投资；此外，新基金将偏重于投资美国股市，持有头寸超过一年——相对于大奖章的快速交易而言，新基金似乎开始坚持“买入并持有”的理念。
“对大奖章非常有效的模型和方法并不一定适用于新基金”，看来西蒙斯相信，对于一个金额高达千亿的对冲基金来说，如果还采用类似于大奖章的操作方法的话，一定是非常冒险的。
尽管新基金有着良好的血统，不过不少投资者仍然怀疑它究竟能有多大的作为，一个起码的事实是，相对于一些流动性差的小型市场而言，高达1000亿美元的基金规模可能显得太大，这将增加它们在退出时的困难。
尽管怀疑的声音很多，到2006年2月中旬，西蒙斯还是筹集到了40亿美金，并表示将吸收更多的资金。公司同时向投资者承诺，一旦在任何时点基金运作出现疲弱的迹象，就将停止吸收新资金，届时新基金将不再继续增加到千亿美金的上限。
截至2006年8月，这只名为文艺复兴法人股票基金（Renaissance Institutional Equities Fund）的新基金，在同期标普500指数涨幅为4%的情况下录得了13％的增长。
西蒙斯目前的资产净值约为25亿美元。Renaissance旗下的核心业务──规模为50亿美元的Medallion对冲基金自1988年成立以来，年均回报率高达34%，堪称在此期间表现最佳的对冲基金。这个回报率已经扣除了5%的资产管理费以及44%的投资收益分成等费用因素，并且经过审计。Medallion收取的这两项费用是对冲基金平均收费水平的两倍以上。
如果管理的资产过于庞大，对冲基金要想实现高于业内平均水平的回报率就越来越难了，对吧？
把这点告诉詹姆斯·西蒙斯。
西蒙斯既是世界级的数学大师，又是Renaissance Technologies Corp.的老板。眼下，他准备设立一只规模可能高达1,000亿美元的基金的消息在业内闹得沸沸扬扬，要知道，这可是整个对冲基金行业资产管理总额的十分之一左右。从早期的推广资料来看，这只基金的最低投资额为2,000万美元，面向机构投资者发售。
据估计，西蒙斯目前的资产净值约为25亿美元。Renaissance旗下的核心业务──规模为50亿美元的Medallion对冲基金自1988年成立以来，年均回报率高达34%，堪称在此期间表现最佳的对冲基金。这个回报率已经扣除了5%的资产管理费以及44%的投资收益分成等费用因素，并且经过审计。Medallion收取的这两项费用是对冲基金平均收费水平的两倍以上。
今年目前为止，Medallion的资产升值了约12%，而大盘却在走低。在各种市场上，以电脑运算为主导进行短线交易是西蒙斯的成功秘诀。Medallion不愿透露运作策略的细节，甚至对自己的投资者也是这样。也有其他的基金采取了相同的策略，却远没有Medallion这样成功。
新基金将采取截然不同的运作策略：偏重于投资美国股市，持有头寸超过一年。
Medallion已经有12年没有吸收新的资金了。现年67岁的西蒙斯一直在向现有投资者提供回报。他也相信，基金如果规模太大收益率就会下滑。实际上，Renaissance据估计会在年底时向外部投资者返还资金余额，这样西蒙斯和他的雇员就会成为Medallion唯一的投资者。到时候，基金的规模与现在将大体相仿。与少数投资者打交道有助于不善抛头露面的西蒙斯避开媒体的追踪。
西蒙斯拒绝置评。Renaissance发言人也不愿对称为Renaissance InstitutionalEquities Fund发表评论。
西蒙斯的最新举动看起来与Renaissance不愿让资产超过一定范围的做法格格不入。确实，许多基金经理都发现资产增加将束缚业绩的增长。对新基金有大致了解的投资者表示，这只基金将不同于Medallion现有的对冲基金，新基金希望通过设定较为温和的目标回报率来吸收更多资金。
这只新基金是表明对冲基金争取退休金计划等机构投资者客户、抢占共同基金等传统理财公司地盘的最新迹象。这只基金将使用六十几位数学家和物理学博士共同开发的模型。这只基金把自己的回报率定为强于标准普尔500指数，并力争实现较为稳定的业绩。
投资者表示，尽管西蒙斯在华尔街并非尽人皆知，但他以往的成就让投资者对这只基金产生了浓厚的兴趣。《美国海外基金目录》(U.S. Offshore Funds Directory)的作者本海姆(Antoine Bernheim)说，Renaissance自1998年以来34%的年均回报率在对冲基金业内傲视群雄。就算索罗斯(George Soros)的量子基金(Quantum Fund)，同期年均回报率也只有22%，而标准普尔500指数同期的年均涨幅才只有9.6%。
过去两年来，Medallion的月资产从未减少过。一位投资者透露，过去几年来Medallion向投资者提供了丰厚的回报，但投资者却不能把这些巨额回报用于追加对Medallion的投资。不过，这也有可能会刺激投资者对新基金的兴趣。
Medallion在宣传资料上是这样写的：虽然以往的优异表现不能保证新基金也一定获得成功，但新基金也会采用Medallion科学的运作策略，并以Medallion的技术为基石。
本海姆指出，西蒙斯创造的回报率比布鲁斯·科夫勒(Bruce Kovner)、索罗斯、保罗·特德·琼斯(Paul Tudor Jones)、路易斯· 培根(Louis Bacon)、马克·金登（Mark Kingdon)等传奇投资大师高出10个百分点，在对冲基金业内他堪称出类拔萃。
西蒙斯几乎从不雇用华尔街的分析师，他的文艺复兴科技公司里坐满了数学和自然科学的博士。用数学模型捕捉市场机会，由电脑作出交易决策，是这位超级投资者成功的秘诀。
“人们一直都在问我，你赚钱的秘密是什么？”几乎每次接受记者采访时，詹姆斯西蒙斯(James Simons)总会说到这句话，他似乎已经习惯了那些渴望的眼神。事实上，在对冲基金的世界里，那应该是每个人都想要了解的秘密。
68岁的西蒙斯满头银发，喜欢穿颜色雅致的衬衫，光脚随意地蹬一双loafers牌休闲鞋。虽然已经成为《机构投资者》杂志年度最赚钱的基金经理，但还是有很多人不知道他到底是谁。西蒙斯曾经和华裔科学家陈省身共同创立了著名的Chern-Simons定律，也曾经获得过全美数学界的最高荣誉。在充满了传奇色彩的华尔街，西蒙斯和他的文艺复兴科技公司（Renaissance Technologies Corp.）是一个彻底的异类。
作风低调的西蒙斯很少接受采访，不过自从他放弃了在数学界如日中天的事业转而开办投资管理公司后，二十多年间，西蒙斯已经创造了很多难以企及的记录，无论从总利润还是净利润计算，他都是这个地球上最伟大的对冲基金经理之一。
以下是一些和西蒙斯有关的数字：1988年以来，西蒙斯掌管的的大奖章（Medallion）对冲基金年均回报率高达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50亿美元的大奖章基金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，并且已经经过了审计。值得一提的是，西蒙斯收取的这两项费用应该是对冲基金界最高的，相当于平均收费标准的两倍以上。高额回报和高额收费使西蒙斯很快成为超级富豪，在《福布斯》杂志2006年9月发布的“400位最富有的美国人”排行榜中，西蒙斯以40亿美元的身家跻身第64位。
模型先生
针对不同市场设计数量化的投资管理模型，并以电脑运算为主导，在全球各种市场上进行短线交易是西蒙斯的成功秘诀。不过西蒙斯对交易细节一直守口如瓶，除了公司的200多名员工之外，没有人能够得到他们操作的任何线索。
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。西蒙斯亲自设计了最初的数学模型，他同时雇用了超过70位拥有数学、物理学或统计学博士头衔的人。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。
作为一位数学家，西蒙斯知道靠幸运成功只有二分之一的概率，要战胜市场必须以周密而准确的计算为基础。大奖章基金的数学模型主要通过对历史数据的统计，找出金融产品价格、宏观经济、市场指标、技术指标等各种指标间变化的数学关系，发现市场目前存在的微小获利机会，并通过杠杆比率进行快速而大规模的交易获利。目前市场上也有一些基金采取了相同的策略，不过和西蒙斯的成就相比，他们往往显得黯然失色。
文艺复兴科技公司的旗舰产品——大奖章基金成立于1988年3月，到1993年，基金规模达到2.7亿美元时开始停止接受新资金。现在大奖章基金的投资组合包含了全球上千种股市以及其他市场的投资标的，模型对国债、期货、货币、股票等主要投资标的的价格进行不间断的监控，并作出买入或卖出的指令。
当指令下达后，20名交易员会通过数千次快速的日内短线交易来捕捉稍纵即逝的机会，交易量之大甚至有时能占到整个纳斯达克市场交易量的10%。不过，当市场处于极端波动等特殊时刻，交易会切换到手工状态。
和流行的“买入并长期持有”的投资理念截然相反，西蒙斯认为市场的异常状态通常都是微小而且短暂的，“我们随时都在买入卖出卖出和买入，我们依靠活跃赚钱”，西蒙斯说。
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。”
西蒙斯的所作所为似乎正在超越有效市场假说：有效市场假说认为市场价格波动是随机的，交易者不可能持续从市场中获利。而西蒙斯则强调，“有些交易模式并非随机，而是有迹可循、具有预测效果的。”如同巴菲特曾经指出“市场在多数情况下是有效的，但不是绝对的”一样，西蒙斯也认为，虽然整体而言，市场是有效的，但仍存在短暂的或局部的市场无效性，可以提供交易机会。
在接受《纽约时报》采访时，西蒙斯提到了他曾经观察过的一个核子加速器试验，“当两个高速运行的原子剧烈碰撞后，会迸射出数量巨大的粒子。”他说，“科学家的工作就是分析碰撞所带来的变化。”
“我注视着电脑屏幕上粒子碰撞后形成的轨迹图，它们看似杂乱无章，实际上却存在着内在的规律，”西蒙斯说，“这让我自然而然地联想到了证券市场，那些很小的交易，哪怕是只有100股的交易，都会对这个庞大的市场产生影响，而每天都会有成千上万这样的交易发生。”西蒙斯认为，自己所做的，就是分析当交易这只蝴蝶的翅膀轻颤之后，市场会作出怎样复杂的反应。
“这个课题对于世界而言也许并不重要，不过研究市场运转的动力非常有趣。这是一个非常严肃的问题。”西蒙斯笑起来的时候简直就像一个顽童，而他的故事，听起来更像是一位精通数学的书生，通过复杂的赔率和概率计算，最终打败了赌场的神话。这位前美国国防部代码破译员和数学家似乎相信，对于如何走在曲线前面，应该存在一个简单的公式，而发现这个公式则无异于拿到了通往财富之门的入场券。
黑箱操作
对冲基金行业一直拥有 “黑箱作业”式的投资模式，可以不必向投资者披露其交易细节。而在一流的对冲基金投资人之中，西蒙斯先生的那只箱子据说是“最黑的”。
就连优秀的数量型对冲基金经理也无法弄清西蒙斯的模型究竟动用了哪些指标，“我们信任他，相信他能够在股市的惊涛骇浪中游刃有余，因此也就不再去想电脑都会干些什么之类的问题”，一位大奖章基金的长期投资者说。当这位投资者开始描述西蒙斯的投资方法时，他坦承，自己完全是猜测的。
不过，每当有人暗示西蒙斯的基金缺乏透明度时，他总是会无可奈何地耸耸肩，“其实所有人都有一个黑箱，我们把他称为大脑。” 西蒙斯指出，公司的投资方法其实并不神秘，很多时候都是可以通过特定的方式来解决的。当然，他不得不补充说，“对我们来说，这其实不太神秘。”
在纽约，有一句名言是：你必须非主流才能入流（You have to be out to be in），西蒙斯的经历似乎刚好是这句话的注解。在华尔街，他的所做所为总是让人感到好奇。
西蒙斯的文艺复兴科技公司总部位于纽约长岛，那座木头和玻璃结构的一层建筑从外表看上去更像是一个普通的脑库，或者是数学研究所。和很多基金公司不同的是，文艺复兴公司的心脏地带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，公司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。西蒙斯一点也不喜欢华尔街的投资家们，事实上，如果你想去文艺复兴科技公司工作的话，华尔街经验反而是个瑕疵。在公司的200多名员工中，将近二分之一都是数学、物理学、统计学等领域顶尖的科学家，所有雇员中只有两位是金融学博士，而且公司从不雇用商学院毕业生，也不雇用华尔街人士，这在美国的投资公司中堪称绝无仅有。
“我们不雇用数理逻辑不好的学生”，曾经在哈佛大学任教的西蒙斯说。“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。他还从IBM公司招募了部分熟悉语音识别系统的员工。“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。”
人员流动几乎是不存在的。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，据说他经常会和员工及其家属们分享周末，早在2000年，他们就曾一起飞去百慕大度假。与此同时，每一位员工都发誓要保守公司秘密。
近年来，西蒙斯接受最多的质疑都与美国长期资本管理公司(LTCM)有关。LTCM在上世纪90年代中期曾经辉煌一时，公司拥有两位诺贝尔经济学奖得主，他们利用计算机处理大量历史数据，通过精密计算得到两个不同金融工具间的正常历史价格差，然后结合市场信息分析它们之间的最新价格差。如果两者出现偏差，电脑立即发出指令大举入市；经过市场一段时间调节，放大的偏差会自动恢复到正常轨迹上，此时电脑指令平仓离场，获取偏差的差值。
LTCM始终遵循“市场中性”原则，即不从事任何单方面交易，仅以寻找市场或商品间效率落差而形成的套利空间为主，通过对冲机制规避风险，使市场风险最小。但由于其模型假设前提和计算结果都是在历史统计数据基础上得出的，一旦出现与计算结果相反的走势，则对冲就变成了一种高风险的交易策略。
而在极大的杠杆借贷下，这种风险被进一步放大。最辉煌时，LTCM利用从投资者筹得的22亿美元资本作抵押，买入价值1250亿美元证券，然后再以证券作为抵押，进行总值12500亿美元的其他金融交易，杠杆比率高达568倍。短短4年中，LTCM曾经获得了285%的收益率，然而，在过度操纵之下，又在仅两个月之内又输掉了45亿美元，走向了万劫不复之地。
“我们的方式和LTCM完全不同”，西蒙斯强调，文艺复兴科技公司没有、也不需要那么高的杠杆比例，公司在操作时从来没有任何先入为主的概念，而是只寻找那些可以复制的微小的获利瞬间，“我们绝不以‘市场恢复正常’作为赌注投入资金，有一天市场终于会正常的，但谁知道是哪一天。”
西蒙斯的拥护者们也多半对黑箱操作的风险不以为然，他们说，“长期资本公司只有两位诺贝尔奖金获得者充当门面，主要的还是华尔街人士，他们的赌性决定了终究会出错”，另一位著名的数量型基金管理人也表示，“难以相信在西蒙斯的方法中会没有一些安全措施。” 他指出，西蒙斯的方法和LTCM最重要的区别是不涉及对冲，而多是进行短线方向性预测，依靠同时交易很多品种、在短期作出大量的交易来获利。具体到每一个交易的亏损，由于会在很短的时间内平仓，因此损失不会很大；而数千次交易之后，只要盈利交易多余亏损交易，总体交易结果就是盈利的。
数学大师
西蒙斯很少在金融论坛上发表演讲，他喜欢的是数学会议，他在一个几何学研讨会上庆祝自己的60岁生日，为数学界和患有孤独症的儿童捐钱，在发表演讲时，更常常强调是数学使他走上了投资的成功之路。有人说，和华尔街的时尚毫不沾边或许也是他并不瞩目的原因之一。
西蒙斯在数学方面有着天生的敏感和直觉，这个制鞋厂老板的儿子3岁就立志成为数学家。高中毕业后，他顺利地进入了麻省理工学院，大学毕业仅三年，就拿到了加州大学伯克利分校的博士学位，24岁就出任哈佛大学数学系教授。
不过，尽管已经是国际数学界的后起之秀，他还是很快就厌倦了学术生涯。1964年，天生喜欢冒险的西蒙斯进入美国国防部下属的一个非盈利组织——国防逻辑分析协会进行代码破解工作。后来由于反对越战，他又重回学术界，成为纽约州立石溪大学(Stony Brook University)的数学系主任，在那里做了8年的纯数学研究。
西蒙斯很早以前就曾和投资结缘，1961年，他和麻省理工学院的同学投资于哥伦比亚地砖和管线公司；在伯克利时也曾投资一家婚礼礼品的公司，但结果都不太理想，当时他觉得股市令人烦恼的，“我还曾经找到美林公司的经纪人，试图做些大豆交易”，西蒙斯说。
直到上世纪70年代早期，西蒙斯才开始真正对投资着迷。那时他还在石溪大学任教，他身边的一位数学家参与了一家瓷砖公司出售的交易，“8个月的时间里赚了我10倍的钱。”
70年代末，当他离开石溪大学创立私人投资基金时，最初也采用基本面分析的方式，“我没有想到用科学的方法进行投资，”西蒙斯说，那一段时间他主要投资于外汇市场，“随着经验的不断增加我想到也许可以用一些方法来制作模型，预见货币市场的走势变动。”
80年代后期，西蒙斯和普林斯顿大学的数学家勒费尔(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，西蒙斯彻底转型为“模型先生”，并为大奖章基金接近500位投资人创造出了令人惊叹的业绩。
2005年，西蒙斯宣布要成立一只规模可能高达1000亿美元的新基金，在华尔街轰动一时，要知道，这个数字几乎相当于全球对冲基金管理资产总额的十分之一。谈到新基金时，西蒙斯更加谨慎，他表示，和大奖章基金主要针对富有阶层不同，新基金的最低投资额为2000万美元，主要面向机构投资者，将通过下调收费来吸引投资；此外，新基金将偏重于投资美国股市，持有头寸超过一年——相对于大奖章的快速交易而言，新基金似乎开始坚持“买入并持有”的理念。
“对大奖章非常有效的模型和方法并不一定适用于新基金”，看来西蒙斯相信，对于一个金额高达千亿的对冲基金来说，如果还采用类似于大奖章的操作方法的话，一定是非常冒险的。
尽管新基金有着良好的血统，不过不少投资者仍然怀疑它究竟能有多大的作为，一个起码的事实是，相对于一些流动性差的小型市场而言，高达1000亿美元的基金规模可能显得太大，这将增加它们在退出时的困难。
尽管怀疑的声音很多，到2006年2月中旬，西蒙斯还是筹集到了40亿美金，并表示将吸收更多的资金。公司同时向投资者承诺，一旦在任何时点基金运作出现疲弱的迹象，就将停止吸收新资金，届时新基金将不再继续增加到千亿美金的上限。
截至2006年8月，这只名为文艺复兴法人股票基金（Renaissance Institutional Equities Fund）的新基金，在同期标普500指数涨幅为4%的情况下录得了13％的增长。
西蒙斯目前的资产净值约为25亿美元。Renaissance旗下的核心业务──规模为50亿美元的Medallion对冲基金自1988年成立以来，年均回报率高达34%，堪称在此期间表现最佳的对冲基金。这个回报率已经扣除了5%的资产管理费以及44%的投资收益分成等费用因素，并且经过审计。Medallion收取的这两项费用是对冲基金平均收费水平的两倍以上。
如果管理的资产过于庞大，对冲基金要想实现高于业内平均水平的回报率就越来越难了，对吧？
把这点告诉詹姆斯·西蒙斯。
西蒙斯既是世界级的数学大师，又是Renaissance Technologies Corp.的老板。眼下，他准备设立一只规模可能高达1,000亿美元的基金的消息在业内闹得沸沸扬扬，要知道，这可是整个对冲基金行业资产管理总额的十分之一左右。从早期的推广资料来看，这只基金的最低投资额为2,000万美元，面向机构投资者发售。
据估计，西蒙斯目前的资产净值约为25亿美元。Renaissance旗下的核心业务──规模为50亿美元的Medallion对冲基金自1988年成立以来，年均回报率高达34%，堪称在此期间表现最佳的对冲基金。这个回报率已经扣除了5%的资产管理费以及44%的投资收益分成等费用因素，并且经过审计。Medallion收取的这两项费用是对冲基金平均收费水平的两倍以上。
今年目前为止，Medallion的资产升值了约12%，而大盘却在走低。在各种市场上，以电脑运算为主导进行短线交易是西蒙斯的成功秘诀。Medallion不愿透露运作策略的细节，甚至对自己的投资者也是这样。也有其他的基金采取了相同的策略，却远没有Medallion这样成功。
新基金将采取截然不同的运作策略：偏重于投资美国股市，持有头寸超过一年。
Medallion已经有12年没有吸收新的资金了。现年67岁的西蒙斯一直在向现有投资者提供回报。他也相信，基金如果规模太大收益率就会下滑。实际上，Renaissance据估计会在年底时向外部投资者返还资金余额，这样西蒙斯和他的雇员就会成为Medallion唯一的投资者。到时候，基金的规模与现在将大体相仿。与少数投资者打交道有助于不善抛头露面的西蒙斯避开媒体的追踪。
西蒙斯拒绝置评。Renaissance发言人也不愿对称为Renaissance InstitutionalEquities Fund发表评论。
西蒙斯的最新举动看起来与Renaissance不愿让资产超过一定范围的做法格格不入。确实，许多基金经理都发现资产增加将束缚业绩的增长。对新基金有大致了解的投资者表示，这只基金将不同于Medallion现有的对冲基金，新基金希望通过设定较为温和的目标回报率来吸收更多资金。
这只新基金是表明对冲基金争取退休金计划等机构投资者客户、抢占共同基金等传统理财公司地盘的最新迹象。这只基金将使用六十几位数学家和物理学博士共同开发的模型。这只基金把自己的回报率定为强于标准普尔500指数，并力争实现较为稳定的业绩。
投资者表示，尽管西蒙斯在华尔街并非尽人皆知，但他以往的成就让投资者对这只基金产生了浓厚的兴趣。《美国海外基金目录》(U.S. Offshore Funds Directory)的作者本海姆(Antoine Bernheim)说，Renaissance自1998年以来34%的年均回报率在对冲基金业内傲视群雄。就算索罗斯(George Soros)的量子基金(Quantum Fund)，同期年均回报率也只有22%，而标准普尔500指数同期的年均涨幅才只有9.6%。
过去两年来，Medallion的月资产从未减少过。一位投资者透露，过去几年来Medallion向投资者提供了丰厚的回报，但投资者却不能把这些巨额回报用于追加对Medallion的投资。不过，这也有可能会刺激投资者对新基金的兴趣。
Medallion在宣传资料上是这样写的：虽然以往的优异表现不能保证新基金也一定获得成功，但新基金也会采用Medallion科学的运作策略，并以Medallion的技术为基石。
本海姆指出，西蒙斯创造的回报率比布鲁斯·科夫勒(Bruce Kovner)、索罗斯、保罗·特德·琼斯(Paul Tudor Jones)、路易斯· 培根(Louis Bacon)、马克·金登（Mark Kingdon)等传奇投资大师高出10个百分点，在对冲基金业内他堪称出类拔萃。
Seed Interview: James Simons
The billionaire hedge fund manager discusses the impact of mathematics on his former life in academia and his new one in finance.
James Simons is sometimes referred to as 'Elvis' within hedge fund circles. He's the king, and you always know when he's left the building.
If you haven't heard of him, it's because he deliberately maintains a low profile. In Simon's business, secrecy is the key to abiding success. But, when rumors spread in 2005 that he was starting a new $100 billion hedge fund, people outside of his field also began to take notice of him.
Before becoming one of the top money managers in the world, Simons was a decorated mathematician. His work was primarily in geometry, peripherally related to the Poincare conjecture, which Grisha Perelman recently won a Fields Medal for solving. Simons' work on differential geometry, which he did in collaboration with S. S. Chern, has proved useful to string theorists.
Simons is also a generous philanthropist. He has donated significantly to math education, universities, and plans to give over $130 million in the next few years to the study of the genetic basis of autism. He also recently gave $13 million to keep the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider at Brookhaven National Laboratory running when the Department of Energy announced a funding shortfall this past year.
In early September, I visited his rather spartan offices to talk to him about math, business, and his philanthropy.
When did you first get interested in math? Was there a singular moment, like Einstein and his compass, that turned you on to math?
I was always interested in math, even when I was a very little kid. I don't know what compass moment Einstein had, but there was rarely a doubt in my mind that I would do anything except mathematics. There was a brief period I thought I might like to be a Rabbi, but it fortunately came and went. When I went to MIT, that's all I wanted to study, and that's basically all I did study, except I took some literature courses which I enjoyed, but basically I just wanted to learn math and prove theorems. I liked to prove theorems.
Putting His Money Where His Math Is
James Simons has a considerable amount of money. He's the head of the top-performing hedge fund in the world, Renaissance Technologies Corporation, which he started after leaving a successful academic career in mathematics. More compelling than Simon's acquisition of wealth is what he chooses to do with it. Rather than collecting art or jets like many of his Wall Street peers, the former mathematician is donating substantial quantities of cash and time to basic science and math education....
How do you select people for your company?
We look for people who have demonstrated the ability to do first-class research. We are not a teaching organization. We are a research organization. We hire people to make mathematical models of the markets in which we invest. We look for people who have had success, typically academically, although some people come out of an industrial laboratory like IBM or Bell Labs. Most come out of academia. They've had three to five years, written a few papers, and already have some kind of reputation. First and foremost, we look for people capable of doing good science, on the research side, or they are excellent computer scientists in architecting good programs. We have very high standards and it works. Our business is wonderful as a result.
Is there a difference between people with math backgrounds and science backgrounds who work for you?
Yes, but we need both in our business. Some of the work is purely mathematical, like designing better ways to develop algorithms of one sort or another, or to maximize some utility function. Some of the work is really scientific. It's looking at a lot of data and really looking for what underlies that data. In that sense, it is kind of like astronomy. You look at a lot of data from up in the sky, you bring it down, and it's quite dirty and you have to clean it to get rid of outliers or one thing or another. Then you hope you can analyze that data in a way that makes sense of whatever hypothesis or set of hypotheses you may have about what you are looking at. That's a big piece of what we do. There we hire people who are experimental physicists or astronomers.
How scientific is it? Do you actually use models from science?
The approach is scientific. Scientific sophistication is important. Do we directly apply the Navier-Stokes equation? No. Brownian Motion is something that has a better chance of being applied. Brownian motion is a way of looking at data and ordering random activity, or activity that looks random. Models like that, and approaches like that are very useful. Some stuff comes out of math and physics, especially math where various optimization techniques are used. It's more the sense and sophistication of doing science. We use very rigorous statistical approaches to determine what we think is underlying a phenomenon and really do explain that part of it. But it's not like proving theorems.
How much of your success is pure luck and how much is the math, science, and minds?
Let's suppose you have a coin that is 70/30 heads. Well, if you get to bet heads, you are going to win 7 times out of 10. Three times out ten you are going to lose, and that's bad luck. So you need a measure of good luck to avoid a long run of tails when you have a 70/30 coin that's heads. At a certain point the luck evens out. Of course there's luck in our business, but so far we've had a nice edge.
Do you stay up to date with the mathematics community or the research you support?
I don't keep up with all the research we support. How could I? Sometimes it's not math, it's physics or whatever. I certainly haven't kept up with my own field adequately. I pay a little bit of attention, but not much depth anymore. I tinker around. Sometimes something comes out of it, most of the time it doesn't, but I like the tinkering. I'm tinkiering around with something right now that might get somewhere. In fact, I think it will. But, if you really get into it, it's consuming. So it's difficult to run a business and be so consumed with another passion. On the other hand, I'll retire in a few years, and I suppose I'll get re-consumed.
Have you ever regretted leaving math? Do you ever think you could have done something huge? When you won the Veblen Prize, you received it the same year as legendary mathematician William Thurston.
First of all, I was in the same category as Thurston merely because he and I stood together on a stage. That did not necessarily make me his intellectual peer. Second of all, some of the work that I did has ended up being very useful in physics and mathematics. The work I did with Chern and Cheeger. I had my little impact on the field, and I am quite happy about that. Do I regret it? No. I miss certain aspects of it. I miss the more relaxed tone of things, the constant intellectual stimulation of just being with very bright people all the time. Now we have a lot of very bright people in our company, so I get some of that. Academics has its charms, but it doesn't have enough charms that I regret leaving that field. I'm happy with the decision I made. Everything is to some extent a compromise. Not everything can be perfect.
Do you ever get asked to explain Chern-Simons theory?
All the time, by potential investors.
Ever get any of it across to them?
Never. I don't even try.
What do you think of the physicists taking your theories and using them?
I think it's wonderful. Are you kidding? It's always nice to see your work picked up by someone else and carried on.
You were on CNN⎯do you have any desire to be more public for your programs?
I was on Lou Dobbs for about a microsecond. He was doing a piece on teaching, and they interviewed a number of folks. But I've never been on TV in any meaningful way. And I don't really have a desire for that. There's a wonderful quote in Animal Farm. The source of all wisdom in that book is Benjamin the donkey. He observes at one point that "God gave me a tail to keep off the flies. But I'd rather of had no tail and no flies." So, that's kind of the way I feel about publicity.
What do you think about Grisha Perelman turning down the Fields Medal?
Well the articles said he was the first person to do it, but I don't think he was. I think Grothendieck turned it down, maybe 30 years ago or so [Editor's note: Grothendieck did in fact boycott his Fields Medal to protest the Soviet military incursions in Eastern Europe in 1966].
I met [Perelman]. In fact, he came and had lunch in our offices on Long Island, and I had some sense of the course of that work. I think it's wonderful. He did a great job. Hamilton had started in a certain direction, which seemed like a very rational and reasonable direction. Thurston did his big piece, showing how everything could fit together. And then Perelman did his. Turning the medal down, well, I wouldn't have done it. I never turn down anything.
James Simons is sometimes referred to as 'Elvis' within hedge fund circles. He's the king, and you always know when he's left the building.
If you haven't heard of him, it's because he deliberately maintains a low profile. In Simon's business, secrecy is the key to abiding success. But, when rumors spread in 2005 that he was starting a new $100 billion hedge fund, people outside of his field also began to take notice of him.
Before becoming one of the top money managers in the world, Simons was a decorated mathematician. His work was primarily in geometry, peripherally related to the Poincare conjecture, which Grisha Perelman recently won a Fields Medal for solving. Simons' work on differential geometry, which he did in collaboration with S. S. Chern, has proved useful to string theorists.
Simons is also a generous philanthropist. He has donated significantly to math education, universities, and plans to give over $130 million in the next few years to the study of the genetic basis of autism. He also recently gave $13 million to keep the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider at Brookhaven National Laboratory running when the Department of Energy announced a funding shortfall this past year.
In early September, I visited his rather spartan offices to talk to him about math, business, and his philanthropy.
When did you first get interested in math? Was there a singular moment, like Einstein and his compass, that turned you on to math?
I was always interested in math, even when I was a very little kid. I don't know what compass moment Einstein had, but there was rarely a doubt in my mind that I would do anything except mathematics. There was a brief period I thought I might like to be a Rabbi, but it fortunately came and went. When I went to MIT, that's all I wanted to study, and that's basically all I did study, except I took some literature courses which I enjoyed, but basically I just wanted to learn math and prove theorems. I liked to prove theorems.
Putting His Money Where His Math Is
James Simons has a considerable amount of money. He's the head of the top-performing hedge fund in the world, Renaissance Technologies Corporation, which he started after leaving a successful academic career in mathematics. More compelling than Simon's acquisition of wealth is what he chooses to do with it. Rather than collecting art or jets like many of his Wall Street peers, the former mathematician is donating substantial quantities of cash and time to basic science and math education....
How do you select people for your company?
We look for people who have demonstrated the ability to do first-class research. We are not a teaching organization. We are a research organization. We hire people to make mathematical models of the markets in which we invest. We look for people who have had success, typically academically, although some people come out of an industrial laboratory like IBM or Bell Labs. Most come out of academia. They've had three to five years, written a few papers, and already have some kind of reputation. First and foremost, we look for people capable of doing good science, on the research side, or they are excellent computer scientists in architecting good programs. We have very high standards and it works. Our business is wonderful as a result.
Is there a difference between people with math backgrounds and science backgrounds who work for you?
Yes, but we need both in our business. Some of the work is purely mathematical, like designing better ways to develop algorithms of one sort or another, or to maximize some utility function. Some of the work is really scientific. It's looking at a lot of data and really looking for what underlies that data. In that sense, it is kind of like astronomy. You look at a lot of data from up in the sky, you bring it down, and it's quite dirty and you have to clean it to get rid of outliers or one thing or another. Then you hope you can analyze that data in a way that makes sense of whatever hypothesis or set of hypotheses you may have about what you are looking at. That's a big piece of what we do. There we hire people who are experimental physicists or astronomers.
How scientific is it? Do you actually use models from science?
The approach is scientific. Scientific sophistication is important. Do we directly apply the Navier-Stokes equation? No. Brownian Motion is something that has a better chance of being applied. Brownian motion is a way of looking at data and ordering random activity, or activity that looks random. Models like that, and approaches like that are very useful. Some stuff comes out of math and physics, especially math where various optimization techniques are used. It's more the sense and sophistication of doing science. We use very rigorous statistical approaches to determine what we think is underlying a phenomenon and really do explain that part of it. But it's not like proving theorems.
How much of your success is pure luck and how much is the math, science, and minds?
Let's suppose you have a coin that is 70/30 heads. Well, if you get to bet heads, you are going to win 7 times out of 10. Three times out ten you are going to lose, and that's bad luck. So you need a measure of good luck to avoid a long run of tails when you have a 70/30 coin that's heads. At a certain point the luck evens out. Of course there's luck in our business, but so far we've had a nice edge.
Do you stay up to date with the mathematics community or the research you support?
I don't keep up with all the research we support. How could I? Sometimes it's not math, it's physics or whatever. I certainly haven't kept up with my own field adequately. I pay a little bit of attention, but not much depth anymore. I tinker around. Sometimes something comes out of it, most of the time it doesn't, but I like the tinkering. I'm tinkiering around with something right now that might get somewhere. In fact, I think it will. But, if you really get into it, it's consuming. So it's difficult to run a business and be so consumed with another passion. On the other hand, I'll retire in a few years, and I suppose I'll get re-consumed.
Have you ever regretted leaving math? Do you ever think you could have done something huge? When you won the Veblen Prize, you received it the same year as legendary mathematician William Thurston.
First of all, I was in the same category as Thurston merely because he and I stood together on a stage. That did not necessarily make me his intellectual peer. Second of all, some of the work that I did has ended up being very useful in physics and mathematics. The work I did with Chern and Cheeger. I had my little impact on the field, and I am quite happy about that. Do I regret it? No. I miss certain aspects of it. I miss the more relaxed tone of things, the constant intellectual stimulation of just being with very bright people all the time. Now we have a lot of very bright people in our company, so I get some of that. Academics has its charms, but it doesn't have enough charms that I regret leaving that field. I'm happy with the decision I made. Everything is to some extent a compromise. Not everything can be perfect.
Do you ever get asked to explain Chern-Simons theory?
All the time, by potential investors.
Ever get any of it across to them?
Never. I don't even try.
What do you think of the physicists taking your theories and using them?
I think it's wonderful. Are you kidding? It's always nice to see your work picked up by someone else and carried on.
You were on CNN⎯do you have any desire to be more public for your programs?
I was on Lou Dobbs for about a microsecond. He was doing a piece on teaching, and they interviewed a number of folks. But I've never been on TV in any meaningful way. And I don't really have a desire for that. There's a wonderful quote in Animal Farm. The source of all wisdom in that book is Benjamin the donkey. He observes at one point that "God gave me a tail to keep off the flies. But I'd rather of had no tail and no flies." So, that's kind of the way I feel about publicity.
What do you think about Grisha Perelman turning down the Fields Medal?
Well the articles said he was the first person to do it, but I don't think he was. I think Grothendieck turned it down, maybe 30 years ago or so [Editor's note: Grothendieck did in fact boycott his Fields Medal to protest the Soviet military incursions in Eastern Europe in 1966].
I met [Perelman]. In fact, he came and had lunch in our offices on Long Island, and I had some sense of the course of that work. I think it's wonderful. He did a great job. Hamilton had started in a certain direction, which seemed like a very rational and reasonable direction. Thurston did his big piece, showing how everything could fit together. And then Perelman did his. Turning the medal down, well, I wouldn't have done it. I never turn down anything.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Jim Simons
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?
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?
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?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)