过去一年中已“抄底”失败多次的巴菲特，近日似乎又开始跃跃欲试。本周接受彭博电视专访时，“股神”表示，他认为美国的收购机会已经浮现，主要得益于价格下跌和竞争减少。
股神再次跃跃欲试
彭博社报道说，一年前还在欧洲四国搜寻并购目标的巴菲特如今想法似乎有所改变，试图把眼光转会美国本土。
在接受电视采访时，巴菲特表示，考虑到旗下剩余的资金已经大大减少，不少公司股价已跌至低位且有实力的买家纷纷退出竞争，他认为，眼下伯克希尔公司不再需要到海外去寻找收购目标，美国本土就已经开始浮现一些不错的并购机会。
“目前看来，美国接下来可能有很多机会。”巴菲特说，眼下的局势更有利于伯克希尔在美国国内实施收购交易，但也不排斥在海外的交易，比如英国或是德国。去年5月，感叹美国收购机会奇缺的巴菲特曾专门花四天时间到欧洲寻找并购目标。
由于投资失误，过去一年中巴菲特的公司股价缩水近三分之一。眼下伯克希尔公司的现金储备约为255亿美元。
巴菲特去年7月斥资买进道氏化学30亿美元优先股，他还投资80亿美元买进通用电气及高盛的优先股，为此，他不得不部分卖出持有的强生、宝洁以及康菲石油的股票。
花旗高管“抄底”大赚
不过，巴菲特对于目前的经济形势似乎并不乐观。他本周一表示，美国经济如同已“掉下悬崖”，但最终仍会复苏，他担心在经济回暖时可能出现比上世纪70年代末更严重的通胀。他对伯克希尔的股东说，经济的糟糕表现可能持续到2009年以后。
值得一提的是，在过去几天的股市大幅反弹中，一些胆大的投资人意外获得了丰厚的收益。
美国媒体披露，花旗的一些高管已靠这一波行情账面盈利220万美元。花旗股价在10日、11日连续两天累计大涨47%，而四名高管在上周买进。
根据SEC的资料，花旗一名董事在3月2日买进公司600万股，平均每股1.25美元。花旗股价在5日跌到0.97美元低点，11日收在1.52美元，他因此获利170万美元。
海外股市重陷跌势
但在很多市场人士看来，这波熊市仍未到见底之时。昨天的市场表现也证实了这一点。美股11日高开低走，收盘时勉强持平。而昨天的亚太和欧洲市场则再度跌声一片。
多数亚太股市昨天都失守了周三的涨幅，主要还是受全球经济前景不佳的影响。日经225指数收挫2.4%，东证指数盘中创25年新低。澳大利亚、新加坡、印尼、泰国等股市均下跌。中国香港股市收盘守住少量涨幅，微升0.6%。
欧洲三大股市昨日开盘后持续大幅走低。截至北京时间昨日19时29分，巴黎、伦敦和法兰克福股市分别跌2.2%、1.2%和1.9%。其中，发布疲软业绩的汽车巨头宝马盘中大跌10%。
Saturday, March 14, 2009
投资时间的三大规律
如何细分作为投资品的时间和作为消费品的时间，决定着你的时间投资回报。
时间这个东西特别有趣，它既是生产资料，也是消费资料；它既是资本品（投资品），也是消费品。比如说欧洲人很悠闲，一瓶啤酒就能坐在海滩泡一下午，时间就是消费品。但对我们来说，每天加班加点，那时间就是资本，我们是要靠这个时间去换取金钱的。所以，在人有限的一生当中，有一个互相排挤的效应，也就是说，你的生产时间将挤兑你的消费时间，反之同理。
因此在时间方面，要特别细分出你自己作为投资品的时间和作为消费品的时间。我们身边有很多老板，在这方面都做得不够好。但是王石，他现在就是在大量地消费时间，时间对他来说，就越来越多地成为消费品，因为他前面的事情都做对了。
投资在时间上，会有几种有趣的规律。
第一个规律，时间是单向的、不可逆的。
所以人在时间选择上具有唯一性和不可替代性，相反，人在空间的选择上就可以重复。比如我们今天来这儿，明天还来这儿，空间上是没有变的，像有句古诗写的，“去年今日此门中”，空间没变；然而一年后时间却已经完全不一样了，因此会有“人面不知何处去”。
为什么阿迪力走钢丝掉不下去，而我们走一下就可能摔死？他这个活儿，练了20年，所以不仅摔不下去，还能靠这挣钱。也就是说，如果专心在一件事上花时间，花到足够多，你既可能成为这件事情的主宰，又可能因此而获得收入。更重要的是，时间还游刃有余，你还会有很多闲暇，去消费时间，做别的事情。
在万通的历史上，曾经有过一段困难的时期，有些旧项目堆在一块儿确实困难，大家都不愿意做，都想去做新的项目。但实际上，最后我们恰恰是因为做好这些旧项目而获得了最大收益。所以就一件事情持续地用功，按一个方向投资，在时间上不吝啬，把时间往同一个方向去追加，就能把事情和时间按量搭配好，收入就能不断提高，边际收益会越来越大。十年磨一剑，也是讲这个道理。
显然，时间越长，价值就越高。所以关键就是要把时间掌握得好。我们做公司也同样，做一天房地产人家说你投机（炒房，炒地），做10年人家说是一个正经生意，你能做100年，人家叫你伟大的公司。所以时间会让你有很大的回报，让你有一切机会伟大、光荣、正确而流芳。
所以这几年，我们强调专业化，跟万科一样，专业地做一件事，做到现在，实际上就比过去从容很多。
第二个规律，从财务回报上来看，时间越长，回报也越高。
全世界做投资最牛的、最受推崇的，是巴菲特。巴菲特从小学的时候，就用300美元开始做投资，由300美元发展到将近400亿美元身家，现在他是世界第二大富豪。他投资的方法非常简单，以至于所有人都能懂，但所有人都不做。他就是买一只他认为好公司的股票，然后就放在那儿等着。多数人都不断地在挑股票，买了卖，卖了又买，进进出出个不停。他就买可口可乐，买吉列、纽约时报，还买保险公司。他成为“大师”以后，总结出很多诀窍，特别强调的是两个环节，一个是买对，一个是长期持有。长期是多长呢？他都是20年不动。可是一般来说，做投资的人，特别是华尔街的人，没有人能搁20年的，但他就干这一件事，所以他成了世界第二大富翁。
所以，在投资的问题上，投资时间实际上就是朝一个方向做一件有价值的事情，把时间和事情的价值重叠到一起。另外，还要坚持的时间长。越长，这个回报率会越高。
第三个规律，时间投资与投资对象息息相关。
在时间投资上的第三个规律，就是要看你投资的对象，或者说是你在一个时间段上所确定的对象是否正确。如果是对象选错了，你投入的时间带来的收益就成了负值，时间越长，灾难越大。所以，事情的性质一方面是由时间决定的，另外一方面也是由投资的对象决定的。
时间投入的对象不同，事物的性质也不同。就像我，曾在牟其中那儿打工，如果一直跟着牟其中，花同样的时间，跟他在一起，叫参与经济犯罪活动，肯定被抓起来；如果是跟柳传志在一起，那就是做一个职业经理人；但我们自己做呢，叫创业。所以同样的时间下，你跟什么人在一起，也很重要。
就投资来看，当时间是一定的时候，投资回报的多少就取决于你投资的对象。举例说，我们在1992年前后买过两块地，一块在北京的怀柔，一块在海南的三亚。但是2006年年初，我们把三亚这块地卖了之后，才发现只涨了不到3倍，而北京的地涨了20倍以上。显然，同样的时间，不同的投资对象，差别非常大。
花相同的时间及同样的钱，要想有更好的回报，一定要选对你的投资对象，去发掘被投资对象的价值。
时间这个东西特别有趣，它既是生产资料，也是消费资料；它既是资本品（投资品），也是消费品。比如说欧洲人很悠闲，一瓶啤酒就能坐在海滩泡一下午，时间就是消费品。但对我们来说，每天加班加点，那时间就是资本，我们是要靠这个时间去换取金钱的。所以，在人有限的一生当中，有一个互相排挤的效应，也就是说，你的生产时间将挤兑你的消费时间，反之同理。
因此在时间方面，要特别细分出你自己作为投资品的时间和作为消费品的时间。我们身边有很多老板，在这方面都做得不够好。但是王石，他现在就是在大量地消费时间，时间对他来说，就越来越多地成为消费品，因为他前面的事情都做对了。
投资在时间上，会有几种有趣的规律。
第一个规律，时间是单向的、不可逆的。
所以人在时间选择上具有唯一性和不可替代性，相反，人在空间的选择上就可以重复。比如我们今天来这儿，明天还来这儿，空间上是没有变的，像有句古诗写的，“去年今日此门中”，空间没变；然而一年后时间却已经完全不一样了，因此会有“人面不知何处去”。
为什么阿迪力走钢丝掉不下去，而我们走一下就可能摔死？他这个活儿，练了20年，所以不仅摔不下去，还能靠这挣钱。也就是说，如果专心在一件事上花时间，花到足够多，你既可能成为这件事情的主宰，又可能因此而获得收入。更重要的是，时间还游刃有余，你还会有很多闲暇，去消费时间，做别的事情。
在万通的历史上，曾经有过一段困难的时期，有些旧项目堆在一块儿确实困难，大家都不愿意做，都想去做新的项目。但实际上，最后我们恰恰是因为做好这些旧项目而获得了最大收益。所以就一件事情持续地用功，按一个方向投资，在时间上不吝啬，把时间往同一个方向去追加，就能把事情和时间按量搭配好，收入就能不断提高，边际收益会越来越大。十年磨一剑，也是讲这个道理。
显然，时间越长，价值就越高。所以关键就是要把时间掌握得好。我们做公司也同样，做一天房地产人家说你投机（炒房，炒地），做10年人家说是一个正经生意，你能做100年，人家叫你伟大的公司。所以时间会让你有很大的回报，让你有一切机会伟大、光荣、正确而流芳。
所以这几年，我们强调专业化，跟万科一样，专业地做一件事，做到现在，实际上就比过去从容很多。
第二个规律，从财务回报上来看，时间越长，回报也越高。
全世界做投资最牛的、最受推崇的，是巴菲特。巴菲特从小学的时候，就用300美元开始做投资，由300美元发展到将近400亿美元身家，现在他是世界第二大富豪。他投资的方法非常简单，以至于所有人都能懂，但所有人都不做。他就是买一只他认为好公司的股票，然后就放在那儿等着。多数人都不断地在挑股票，买了卖，卖了又买，进进出出个不停。他就买可口可乐，买吉列、纽约时报，还买保险公司。他成为“大师”以后，总结出很多诀窍，特别强调的是两个环节，一个是买对，一个是长期持有。长期是多长呢？他都是20年不动。可是一般来说，做投资的人，特别是华尔街的人，没有人能搁20年的，但他就干这一件事，所以他成了世界第二大富翁。
所以，在投资的问题上，投资时间实际上就是朝一个方向做一件有价值的事情，把时间和事情的价值重叠到一起。另外，还要坚持的时间长。越长，这个回报率会越高。
第三个规律，时间投资与投资对象息息相关。
在时间投资上的第三个规律，就是要看你投资的对象，或者说是你在一个时间段上所确定的对象是否正确。如果是对象选错了，你投入的时间带来的收益就成了负值，时间越长，灾难越大。所以，事情的性质一方面是由时间决定的，另外一方面也是由投资的对象决定的。
时间投入的对象不同，事物的性质也不同。就像我，曾在牟其中那儿打工，如果一直跟着牟其中，花同样的时间，跟他在一起，叫参与经济犯罪活动，肯定被抓起来；如果是跟柳传志在一起，那就是做一个职业经理人；但我们自己做呢，叫创业。所以同样的时间下，你跟什么人在一起，也很重要。
就投资来看，当时间是一定的时候，投资回报的多少就取决于你投资的对象。举例说，我们在1992年前后买过两块地，一块在北京的怀柔，一块在海南的三亚。但是2006年年初，我们把三亚这块地卖了之后，才发现只涨了不到3倍，而北京的地涨了20倍以上。显然，同样的时间，不同的投资对象，差别非常大。
花相同的时间及同样的钱，要想有更好的回报，一定要选对你的投资对象，去发掘被投资对象的价值。
时间将继续给与我们厚报
1.黄金遍地
在我们1999-2006连续八年盈利的良好价值理念实践的基础上,虽然08年市值下降近40%,但我们依旧取得了年复利40%以上的好成绩。07年成绩尤其突出,突出到我们感到不安的程度,我们预感到可能将有一场前所未有的艰难困苦在等待着我们,而今仅仅一年时间,所有的暴风雨都以迅猛之势向市场上袭来,哀鸿遍野之时正是黄金遍地之际!我们积极进行的仓位调整,布局那些更有价值的未来的明星们,并更加坚定了我们以往的收藏最优质企业股票的信心!我们确信,未来几年是我们继续大丰收的年头,N倍利润会继续相伴我们!
2.不要丢掉底部筹码
不要被市场行情所左右,不要被经济形势的坏消息吓倒,不要在沸腾来临之前丢掉底部的廉价筹码,不要轻易放弃伴你熬过顶峰和最低谷的优质企业,想05年,600511和600489最多时候先期买进的亏损近50%多,我们不断顽强加仓,认为:市场犯了大错误是我们巨大机会,我们坚信未来回有翻倍价值机会。后来在我们得到了预想利润出手后,他们又涨了近6倍和10多倍,可怕么,不可怕!被目前低落行情下的惯性思维所笼罩是最可怕的事情!
3.银行价值回归,至少还有2倍以上涨幅:
中国银行业世界独树一帜,源于中国古老的文化思想和做人准则,踏实含蓄未雨绸缪。目前良好的经济政策刺激,作为经济发动机的银行股已经几乎都走入了大的上升通道,技术上南京银行最强力,工商银行最滞后,作为价值投资我们确信,所有的价值回归势必在技术上走大的上升趋势,目前黄金通道有的已经或即将打开!我们重点是:工行,浦发,轻仓是南京和中国平安。
4.投资要"易顺"
我们拥有最优质企业,就是在做最最简易的投资,相信也是最有效的投资,我们顺应价值发展的趋势,顺心顺道而为,这里的顺心是指个人的能力心态,顺道是指社会发展的大的规律性的东西。佐罗问下朋友们:危机会过去么?经济会重新增长么?
可能几乎所有朋友都说:那还用说,肯定会过去,会重新增长!
那好吧,既然你持有了最优质股票,等经济快速成长到大家头脑发热时候再回来看看你持有股票的股价吧,你想说不大赚都很难。
这是很简单的几个道理,我们缺的是什么,是与时间抗衡的耐心!!
现在你只须记住一点:时间老人将继续给与我们厚报!
在我们1999-2006连续八年盈利的良好价值理念实践的基础上,虽然08年市值下降近40%,但我们依旧取得了年复利40%以上的好成绩。07年成绩尤其突出,突出到我们感到不安的程度,我们预感到可能将有一场前所未有的艰难困苦在等待着我们,而今仅仅一年时间,所有的暴风雨都以迅猛之势向市场上袭来,哀鸿遍野之时正是黄金遍地之际!我们积极进行的仓位调整,布局那些更有价值的未来的明星们,并更加坚定了我们以往的收藏最优质企业股票的信心!我们确信,未来几年是我们继续大丰收的年头,N倍利润会继续相伴我们!
2.不要丢掉底部筹码
不要被市场行情所左右,不要被经济形势的坏消息吓倒,不要在沸腾来临之前丢掉底部的廉价筹码,不要轻易放弃伴你熬过顶峰和最低谷的优质企业,想05年,600511和600489最多时候先期买进的亏损近50%多,我们不断顽强加仓,认为:市场犯了大错误是我们巨大机会,我们坚信未来回有翻倍价值机会。后来在我们得到了预想利润出手后,他们又涨了近6倍和10多倍,可怕么,不可怕!被目前低落行情下的惯性思维所笼罩是最可怕的事情!
3.银行价值回归,至少还有2倍以上涨幅:
中国银行业世界独树一帜,源于中国古老的文化思想和做人准则,踏实含蓄未雨绸缪。目前良好的经济政策刺激,作为经济发动机的银行股已经几乎都走入了大的上升通道,技术上南京银行最强力,工商银行最滞后,作为价值投资我们确信,所有的价值回归势必在技术上走大的上升趋势,目前黄金通道有的已经或即将打开!我们重点是:工行,浦发,轻仓是南京和中国平安。
4.投资要"易顺"
我们拥有最优质企业,就是在做最最简易的投资,相信也是最有效的投资,我们顺应价值发展的趋势,顺心顺道而为,这里的顺心是指个人的能力心态,顺道是指社会发展的大的规律性的东西。佐罗问下朋友们:危机会过去么?经济会重新增长么?
可能几乎所有朋友都说:那还用说,肯定会过去,会重新增长!
那好吧,既然你持有了最优质股票,等经济快速成长到大家头脑发热时候再回来看看你持有股票的股价吧,你想说不大赚都很难。
这是很简单的几个道理,我们缺的是什么,是与时间抗衡的耐心!!
现在你只须记住一点:时间老人将继续给与我们厚报!
要有足够的耐心，不要总怕失去机会
近期市场震荡过程的复杂程度，超出我们的想像。长时间的高位宽幅振荡，令市场心态正发生潜移默化的转变。市场留给我们太多的困惑和反思，并强烈挑战我们对于趋势整体的判断，尤其是我们的操作策略。
我们结合失败的投资案例重温了投资大师利弗莫尔的教诲.真可谓是一语点醒梦中人.
"每当我失去耐心，不是等待关键点的到来，而是胡乱交易企图快快获利的时候，就总是赔钱,"--利弗莫尔
利弗莫尔的两个实战经历
其一，1906年，利弗莫尔认为股市即将进入空头市场，在这个观念形成后，他就开始大力放空。但是市场在顶部反复折腾，几次反弹－止损－再进场，几个来回后，在真正的崩跌来临前，他就已经耗尽了所有的资本，破产倒下了。他在空头市场中看淡后市，但他太快放空了，没有把握好时机。他的方向正确，但操作错误。他看对了行情，但却破产了。
利弗莫尔总结到，即使一个人在空头市场一开始，就正确无误地看淡后市，最好也要等到确定没有引擎回火的危险时，才开始大量放空。
其二，有一段时间利弗莫尔对棉花强烈地看涨，并形成了明确意见，认为棉花即将出现一轮很大的涨势。但是，就像常常发生的那样，此时市场本身尚未准备好。然而，他一得出结论，当即一头扑进棉花市场。最初以市价买进2万包，价格受到刺激稍做回升便很快回到原地，只得平仓；几天之后，该市场再度对他产生了吸引力。它在他脑子里挥之不去，他就是不能改变原先认为该市场即将形成大行情的念头。于是，他再次买进了20,000包。历史重演。他买完后市场跌回到起点。于是他平掉了自己的头寸，其中最后一笔再次在最低价成交。如此在六周之内重复操作五次，每个来回的损失都在2.5至3万美元之间。结果不仅累计亏掉了20万美元，更要命的是因此与100万美元的利润失之交臂。
在经过多次打击后，他一气之下向自己的经理人下令，让其在第二天将棉花行情报价去掉。他不想到时候禁不住诱惑，再多看棉花市场一眼。可就在他去掉棉花行情报价、对棉花市场完全失去兴趣的两天之后，市场开始上升，且上涨过程一直持续下去，直至涨幅达到500点。在这轮异乎寻常的上涨行情中，中途仅出现过一次向下回落过程，幅度为40点。就这样，他失去了有史以来自己判断出的最具有吸引力、基础最牢靠的交易机会一。
等时机成熟后再入市操作。事先他就判断，只有棉花的成交价上升到每磅12.5美分，才说明它真正进入状态，将向还要高得多的价位进发。事与愿违，他不曾有那份自制力去等待。其想法是，一定要在棉花市场到达买入点之前很快额外多挣一点，因此在市场时机成熟之前就动手了。结果，他不仅损失了大约20万美元的真金白银，还丧失了1,00万美元的盈利机会。按照本来的计划，他预拟在市场超越关键点之后分批聚集10万包的筹码，这个计划早就刻在脑子里。如果照计而行，就不会错失从这轮行情盈利200点左右的机会了。其次，仅仅因为自己判断失误，就纵容自己动怒，对棉花市场深恶痛绝 ，这种情绪和稳健的投机规程是不相调和的。他的损失完全是由于缺乏耐心造成的，没有耐心地等待恰当时机来支持自己预先形成的意见和计划。
利弗莫尔总结:"谨慎选择时机是绝对必要的，操之过急则代价惨重,要有足够的耐心，不要总怕失去机会".
正如市场在适当时机会向你发出正面的入市信号一样，同样肯定，市场也会向你发出负面的出市信号――只要你有足够的耐心等待。"罗马不是一天建成的，"没有哪个重大市场运动会在一天或一周内一蹴而就。它需要一定的时间才能逐步完成发生、发展、终结的整个过程。就铜市而言，既然是一轮历史性的牛熊周期性转换，肯定需要一定的时间周期，而不可能那么轻而易举地完成整个转势过程。对于牛熊交替的复杂程度，市场上的许多投资者显然太过于低估了。
在投机中一个害怕失去机会的人，就会错过机会！人性往往这样，太专注于害怕失去机会，就会忽略或不清楚自己需要怎样的机会，这时他处于期待状态中，而不是思考状态，故不知道不明了或忘记了自己等待的是怎样的机会，没有使自己处于一种局外观状态。
在市场不明朗，或自己看不懂，或市场表现总是与自己的判断相左或不合拍的时候，最明智的选择就是保持冷眼旁观，学会放弃也投机的一种境界。尤其是要放弃哪些自己不能把握的，不属于自己的机会。等待拐点的真正出现，等待行情的来临和确认――以积极的心态去等待，如同一只狼一样，等待猛扑上去的机会成熟！
我们结合失败的投资案例重温了投资大师利弗莫尔的教诲.真可谓是一语点醒梦中人.
"每当我失去耐心，不是等待关键点的到来，而是胡乱交易企图快快获利的时候，就总是赔钱,"--利弗莫尔
利弗莫尔的两个实战经历
其一，1906年，利弗莫尔认为股市即将进入空头市场，在这个观念形成后，他就开始大力放空。但是市场在顶部反复折腾，几次反弹－止损－再进场，几个来回后，在真正的崩跌来临前，他就已经耗尽了所有的资本，破产倒下了。他在空头市场中看淡后市，但他太快放空了，没有把握好时机。他的方向正确，但操作错误。他看对了行情，但却破产了。
利弗莫尔总结到，即使一个人在空头市场一开始，就正确无误地看淡后市，最好也要等到确定没有引擎回火的危险时，才开始大量放空。
其二，有一段时间利弗莫尔对棉花强烈地看涨，并形成了明确意见，认为棉花即将出现一轮很大的涨势。但是，就像常常发生的那样，此时市场本身尚未准备好。然而，他一得出结论，当即一头扑进棉花市场。最初以市价买进2万包，价格受到刺激稍做回升便很快回到原地，只得平仓；几天之后，该市场再度对他产生了吸引力。它在他脑子里挥之不去，他就是不能改变原先认为该市场即将形成大行情的念头。于是，他再次买进了20,000包。历史重演。他买完后市场跌回到起点。于是他平掉了自己的头寸，其中最后一笔再次在最低价成交。如此在六周之内重复操作五次，每个来回的损失都在2.5至3万美元之间。结果不仅累计亏掉了20万美元，更要命的是因此与100万美元的利润失之交臂。
在经过多次打击后，他一气之下向自己的经理人下令，让其在第二天将棉花行情报价去掉。他不想到时候禁不住诱惑，再多看棉花市场一眼。可就在他去掉棉花行情报价、对棉花市场完全失去兴趣的两天之后，市场开始上升，且上涨过程一直持续下去，直至涨幅达到500点。在这轮异乎寻常的上涨行情中，中途仅出现过一次向下回落过程，幅度为40点。就这样，他失去了有史以来自己判断出的最具有吸引力、基础最牢靠的交易机会一。
等时机成熟后再入市操作。事先他就判断，只有棉花的成交价上升到每磅12.5美分，才说明它真正进入状态，将向还要高得多的价位进发。事与愿违，他不曾有那份自制力去等待。其想法是，一定要在棉花市场到达买入点之前很快额外多挣一点，因此在市场时机成熟之前就动手了。结果，他不仅损失了大约20万美元的真金白银，还丧失了1,00万美元的盈利机会。按照本来的计划，他预拟在市场超越关键点之后分批聚集10万包的筹码，这个计划早就刻在脑子里。如果照计而行，就不会错失从这轮行情盈利200点左右的机会了。其次，仅仅因为自己判断失误，就纵容自己动怒，对棉花市场深恶痛绝 ，这种情绪和稳健的投机规程是不相调和的。他的损失完全是由于缺乏耐心造成的，没有耐心地等待恰当时机来支持自己预先形成的意见和计划。
利弗莫尔总结:"谨慎选择时机是绝对必要的，操之过急则代价惨重,要有足够的耐心，不要总怕失去机会".
正如市场在适当时机会向你发出正面的入市信号一样，同样肯定，市场也会向你发出负面的出市信号――只要你有足够的耐心等待。"罗马不是一天建成的，"没有哪个重大市场运动会在一天或一周内一蹴而就。它需要一定的时间才能逐步完成发生、发展、终结的整个过程。就铜市而言，既然是一轮历史性的牛熊周期性转换，肯定需要一定的时间周期，而不可能那么轻而易举地完成整个转势过程。对于牛熊交替的复杂程度，市场上的许多投资者显然太过于低估了。
在投机中一个害怕失去机会的人，就会错过机会！人性往往这样，太专注于害怕失去机会，就会忽略或不清楚自己需要怎样的机会，这时他处于期待状态中，而不是思考状态，故不知道不明了或忘记了自己等待的是怎样的机会，没有使自己处于一种局外观状态。
在市场不明朗，或自己看不懂，或市场表现总是与自己的判断相左或不合拍的时候，最明智的选择就是保持冷眼旁观，学会放弃也投机的一种境界。尤其是要放弃哪些自己不能把握的，不属于自己的机会。等待拐点的真正出现，等待行情的来临和确认――以积极的心态去等待，如同一只狼一样，等待猛扑上去的机会成熟！
Bulls Betting on the Demise of Mark to Market, Revival of the Uptick Rule
The stock market has rallied the past three days for any number of reasons, chief among them it was due for at least a technical, "dead-cat" bounce after hitting 12-year lows on Monday. One fundamental factor in the rise is Wall Street's increased expectation for at least some help from Washington D.C. on two issues: mark to market accounting and the uptick rule.
On Thursday, the House Financial Services Committee held a hearing on mark to market, during which Robert Herz, the chairman of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), agreed provide more detailed guidelines on the controversial accounting practice within three weeks.
Jon Najarian, co-founder of optionMonster.com, has been a vocal advocate of temporarily suspending mark to market, in order to give banks a "chance to breath" and (hopefully) sell toxic assets in a less pressurized environment and at something other than rock-bottom prices.
A full suspension of mark to market, even temporarily, seems unlikely given comments from Herz Thursday and earlier this week from Fed chairman Ben Bernanke. But some "relaxation" of the accounting rule seems likely.
Najarian is certainly betting that way; he has a leveraged long position on financials via ETFs and is long shares of JPMorgan, Wells Fargo and Morgan Stanley.
That bet is largely based on his hopes for action on mark to market but also on expectations for a reinstatement of the uptick rule, which prohibited the shorting of a stock unless it was rising.
Right or wrong morally, removing or redefining mark to market would likely have a tangible - and beneficial - result for banks currently saddled with toxic assets that are trading anywhere from 20 to 40 cents on the dollar (when they trade at all). Conversely, most traders believe reinstating the uptick rule will largely have psychological benefits, but few participants will shake a stick at anything that improves sentiment.
On Thursday, the House Financial Services Committee held a hearing on mark to market, during which Robert Herz, the chairman of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), agreed provide more detailed guidelines on the controversial accounting practice within three weeks.
Jon Najarian, co-founder of optionMonster.com, has been a vocal advocate of temporarily suspending mark to market, in order to give banks a "chance to breath" and (hopefully) sell toxic assets in a less pressurized environment and at something other than rock-bottom prices.
A full suspension of mark to market, even temporarily, seems unlikely given comments from Herz Thursday and earlier this week from Fed chairman Ben Bernanke. But some "relaxation" of the accounting rule seems likely.
Najarian is certainly betting that way; he has a leveraged long position on financials via ETFs and is long shares of JPMorgan, Wells Fargo and Morgan Stanley.
That bet is largely based on his hopes for action on mark to market but also on expectations for a reinstatement of the uptick rule, which prohibited the shorting of a stock unless it was rising.
Right or wrong morally, removing or redefining mark to market would likely have a tangible - and beneficial - result for banks currently saddled with toxic assets that are trading anywhere from 20 to 40 cents on the dollar (when they trade at all). Conversely, most traders believe reinstating the uptick rule will largely have psychological benefits, but few participants will shake a stick at anything that improves sentiment.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Gary Shilling: Still a Hardcore Bear
The past week has seen a number of previously stalwart bears adopt a more bullish posture, including Doug Kass, Marc Faber, Steve Leuthold, Barry Ritholtz and Richard Suttmeier.
Gary Shilling, president of A. Gary Shilling & Co., is another member of the bearish all-stars, but he's not adopting a bullish stance, even as the market extends its two-day winning streak. Not by a long shot.
Shilling is sticking with his target of 600 for the S&P 500 and believes three key events must occur before any talk of recovery can be taken seriously:
A reduction in the huge inventory of excess homes: The official stats say there's 3.6 million inventory of unsold homes on the market but the "shadow supply" - homes likely to come on the market if demand improves or because of rising unemployment - is widely viewed to be much larger.
Stabilization in the financial sector: The crisis has now morphed from subprime to consumer credit and commercial real estate, the insurance industry and beyond.
"Real" fiscal stimulus: Shilling estimates only about $200 billion of the $787 billion stimulus package is "rock hard infrastructure" spending that might actually aid the economy in the short term. He believes a second fiscal stimulus package is coming later this year that's less of a "social agenda."
Shilling, who's predictions for 2008 proved notably prescient, also notes the fact "bottom picking" has become the national pastime suggests sentiment isn't really as negative and fearful as typically occurs at important market/economic turning points.
Gary Shilling, president of A. Gary Shilling & Co., is another member of the bearish all-stars, but he's not adopting a bullish stance, even as the market extends its two-day winning streak. Not by a long shot.
Shilling is sticking with his target of 600 for the S&P 500 and believes three key events must occur before any talk of recovery can be taken seriously:
A reduction in the huge inventory of excess homes: The official stats say there's 3.6 million inventory of unsold homes on the market but the "shadow supply" - homes likely to come on the market if demand improves or because of rising unemployment - is widely viewed to be much larger.
Stabilization in the financial sector: The crisis has now morphed from subprime to consumer credit and commercial real estate, the insurance industry and beyond.
"Real" fiscal stimulus: Shilling estimates only about $200 billion of the $787 billion stimulus package is "rock hard infrastructure" spending that might actually aid the economy in the short term. He believes a second fiscal stimulus package is coming later this year that's less of a "social agenda."
Shilling, who's predictions for 2008 proved notably prescient, also notes the fact "bottom picking" has become the national pastime suggests sentiment isn't really as negative and fearful as typically occurs at important market/economic turning points.
比格斯认为全球股市熊市快走到尽头了
号称美国第一策略师的巴顿•比格斯日前撰文说，全球股市熊市可能已经到了尽头。他说，对于未来的美国经济形势，最乐观的情况是经济会呈现出与上世纪90年代的日本相似的景象，而最糟糕的情况是我们会重蹈上世纪30年代的覆辙。目前市场的共识是美国经济、欧洲经济以及其他新兴市场都在加速衰退。然而，随着道琼斯工业平均指数跌至5000点，将经济衰退和通货紧缩描述得犹如世界末日是很牵强的。
事实是，市场正走在复苏的边缘，美国经济可能在今年晚些时候就会开始复原。首先，世界经济的恐慌和衰退引起所谓“当局”的震惊。他们反应迟缓，但是远比上世纪30年代的美国政府和上世纪90年代的日本政府快得多。这一次，当局已经制定了强有力的财政和货币刺激计划，无论在规模和范围上都是空前的。这些行动真正影响到经济活动是需要时间的。换句话说，世界经济将会开始趋于缓和，然后随着时间的推移会进一步好转。第二，由于通货膨胀，自2000年以来，世界各地的股市都下跌了60－70个百分点。当政府加大印钞的数量，并且比史上任何时候都多的时刻，为什么你想成为美国政府的债主，而不是一个真正的资产或生产手段的所有者？最后，目前人们的情绪低落得令人难以置信，货币市场的现金达到了美国股票总市值的43%，是史上的最高纪录。现金的回报率是零啊！而对冲基金握有的现金则比史上任何时候都多。
经济危机之后，世界只需要G2
近日，瑞信经济学家陶冬撰文表示，全球危机对中国既是危又是机。陶冬认为，某一天金融海啸退去，人们会发现全球经济势力的分布，已经发生了重大的改变，多元的经济增长引擎向双极中心转移。那时候不再需要G7或G20，世界只需要G2——美国和中国。陶冬认为，各国灾后的复元能力，可能大不相同。同样跌一跤，中国是20岁的青年，拍拍屁股就可以爬起来；美国是40岁的中年，腰可能扭了一下；欧洲是60岁的老人，反应迟缓，腿骨也许摔断；至于日本则已届80岁，一个跟头盆骨随时可能出事。无论此次危机源自何地，一场全球范围内的、金融与实体经济的同步调整，决定了没有国家可以幸免，它们复苏的速度和程度取决于自身的体质和造化。全世界都在救经济，欧美各国将巨额公帑扔进银行这个黑洞，而中国却在产业振兴计划的名义下将资金投向产业。动用国家财力资助产业，在平时必然会遭到国际社会的批评，甚至招致贸易制裁，但是在今天，全世界都为北京的财政扩张政策鼓掌。当这轮周期性危机过后，人们会突然发现中国的机械制造业、造船业、汽车业的竞争力又上了一层台阶。不过中国经济在今后几年仍然要面对痛苦的转型，美国消费模式的破产，意味着中国增长模式必须作出改变，出口拉动型经济必须要转型。经济放缓的痛苦仍然强烈，社会风险仍然偏高，但是长远来看，中国应该是这轮全球经济洗牌中的赢家。
两大“末日博士”给美国经济泼冷水
标普500指数在今年截至10日早段已下跌22%，报704点；去年指数下跌38%，创1937年以来最大跌幅。根据香港《经济日报》的消息，两大“末日博士”纽约大学经济学教授鲁宾尼（Nouriel Roubini）与麦嘉华（Marc Faber），均认为标普500指数会持续跌势，鲁宾尼预测指数今年内跌至低于600点，也有些微机会跌至低过500点；麦嘉华更断言会跌至低过500点。
美国政府虽作出多个急救措施拯救经济，但鲁宾尼指：“即使在财政与货币政策上作出正确决定，明年我们仍会处于衰退。衰退号火车去年已经从车站开出，现时仍然在前进。”他还警告，股市将受到多个市场负面消息拖累，包括差强人意的企业业绩，环球经济不断收缩，以及银行业的惨淡前景消息。“未来几个月很多人会知道多间金融机构已经破产。”
另外，“末日博士”麦嘉华指出，标普500指数在熊市结束前，会再跌27%至低于500点，但此后投资者将有机会在未来10年获利，因政府开支会使指数重拾升轨。“从现在至4月底，股市将有机会上升。政府的措施虽然未能刺激经济，却能够刺激股市。”
事实是，市场正走在复苏的边缘，美国经济可能在今年晚些时候就会开始复原。首先，世界经济的恐慌和衰退引起所谓“当局”的震惊。他们反应迟缓，但是远比上世纪30年代的美国政府和上世纪90年代的日本政府快得多。这一次，当局已经制定了强有力的财政和货币刺激计划，无论在规模和范围上都是空前的。这些行动真正影响到经济活动是需要时间的。换句话说，世界经济将会开始趋于缓和，然后随着时间的推移会进一步好转。第二，由于通货膨胀，自2000年以来，世界各地的股市都下跌了60－70个百分点。当政府加大印钞的数量，并且比史上任何时候都多的时刻，为什么你想成为美国政府的债主，而不是一个真正的资产或生产手段的所有者？最后，目前人们的情绪低落得令人难以置信，货币市场的现金达到了美国股票总市值的43%，是史上的最高纪录。现金的回报率是零啊！而对冲基金握有的现金则比史上任何时候都多。
经济危机之后，世界只需要G2
近日，瑞信经济学家陶冬撰文表示，全球危机对中国既是危又是机。陶冬认为，某一天金融海啸退去，人们会发现全球经济势力的分布，已经发生了重大的改变，多元的经济增长引擎向双极中心转移。那时候不再需要G7或G20，世界只需要G2——美国和中国。陶冬认为，各国灾后的复元能力，可能大不相同。同样跌一跤，中国是20岁的青年，拍拍屁股就可以爬起来；美国是40岁的中年，腰可能扭了一下；欧洲是60岁的老人，反应迟缓，腿骨也许摔断；至于日本则已届80岁，一个跟头盆骨随时可能出事。无论此次危机源自何地，一场全球范围内的、金融与实体经济的同步调整，决定了没有国家可以幸免，它们复苏的速度和程度取决于自身的体质和造化。全世界都在救经济，欧美各国将巨额公帑扔进银行这个黑洞，而中国却在产业振兴计划的名义下将资金投向产业。动用国家财力资助产业，在平时必然会遭到国际社会的批评，甚至招致贸易制裁，但是在今天，全世界都为北京的财政扩张政策鼓掌。当这轮周期性危机过后，人们会突然发现中国的机械制造业、造船业、汽车业的竞争力又上了一层台阶。不过中国经济在今后几年仍然要面对痛苦的转型，美国消费模式的破产，意味着中国增长模式必须作出改变，出口拉动型经济必须要转型。经济放缓的痛苦仍然强烈，社会风险仍然偏高，但是长远来看，中国应该是这轮全球经济洗牌中的赢家。
两大“末日博士”给美国经济泼冷水
标普500指数在今年截至10日早段已下跌22%，报704点；去年指数下跌38%，创1937年以来最大跌幅。根据香港《经济日报》的消息，两大“末日博士”纽约大学经济学教授鲁宾尼（Nouriel Roubini）与麦嘉华（Marc Faber），均认为标普500指数会持续跌势，鲁宾尼预测指数今年内跌至低于600点，也有些微机会跌至低过500点；麦嘉华更断言会跌至低过500点。
美国政府虽作出多个急救措施拯救经济，但鲁宾尼指：“即使在财政与货币政策上作出正确决定，明年我们仍会处于衰退。衰退号火车去年已经从车站开出，现时仍然在前进。”他还警告，股市将受到多个市场负面消息拖累，包括差强人意的企业业绩，环球经济不断收缩，以及银行业的惨淡前景消息。“未来几个月很多人会知道多间金融机构已经破产。”
另外，“末日博士”麦嘉华指出，标普500指数在熊市结束前，会再跌27%至低于500点，但此后投资者将有机会在未来10年获利，因政府开支会使指数重拾升轨。“从现在至4月底，股市将有机会上升。政府的措施虽然未能刺激经济，却能够刺激股市。”
“股神”巴非特提示未来恶性通胀风险
美国“股神”沃伦•巴菲特9日在接受美国CNBC电视台采访时表示，美国经济已“坠下悬崖”。但他对长期的美国经济前景仍保持乐观。
他认为，恢复民众对美国银行系统的信心对经济复苏至关重要。美国的绝大多数银行资产状况尚好，银行系统绝大部分的问题可以自愈。巴菲特称，美国失业率还将进一步恶化。但他表示，尽管美国经济无法立即回升，但“五年后，我保证整体经济运作情况会相当好，因为美国拥有人类所能创造出来的最好经济机制。”巴菲特还赞扬了美联储主席伯南克和官方机构刺激经济的举措。不过他表示，美国经济还没到转折点。
他提醒投资者，现行经济刺激政策的一个可能恶果是未来的通货膨胀，而且可能将超过上世纪70年代晚期的通胀水平，但这是美国人为经济复苏而不得不付出的代价。他说：“我相信经济刺激措施有可能引发通货膨胀，毕竟在经济体系中没有免费午餐。”巴菲特指出，应让即将倒闭的银行倒闭，但“对银行业丧失信心是相当愚蠢的，因为我们有存款保险等防护机制”。巴菲特说，他并不会为自己在去年10月17日公开在《纽约时报》发表公开信，鼓励投资者买进美国股票而道歉。不过，他表示，如果他能晚几个月发表那一封信似乎更好。去年10月17日至今，道琼斯指数跌幅已经超过25%。巴菲特称，从长期的角度而言，他坚信持有股票的收益要好于那些所谓的安全投资。“10年过后，证券投资的收益要比美国国债好得多。”
他认为，恢复民众对美国银行系统的信心对经济复苏至关重要。美国的绝大多数银行资产状况尚好，银行系统绝大部分的问题可以自愈。巴菲特称，美国失业率还将进一步恶化。但他表示，尽管美国经济无法立即回升，但“五年后，我保证整体经济运作情况会相当好，因为美国拥有人类所能创造出来的最好经济机制。”巴菲特还赞扬了美联储主席伯南克和官方机构刺激经济的举措。不过他表示，美国经济还没到转折点。
他提醒投资者，现行经济刺激政策的一个可能恶果是未来的通货膨胀，而且可能将超过上世纪70年代晚期的通胀水平，但这是美国人为经济复苏而不得不付出的代价。他说：“我相信经济刺激措施有可能引发通货膨胀，毕竟在经济体系中没有免费午餐。”巴菲特指出，应让即将倒闭的银行倒闭，但“对银行业丧失信心是相当愚蠢的，因为我们有存款保险等防护机制”。巴菲特说，他并不会为自己在去年10月17日公开在《纽约时报》发表公开信，鼓励投资者买进美国股票而道歉。不过，他表示，如果他能晚几个月发表那一封信似乎更好。去年10月17日至今，道琼斯指数跌幅已经超过25%。巴菲特称，从长期的角度而言，他坚信持有股票的收益要好于那些所谓的安全投资。“10年过后，证券投资的收益要比美国国债好得多。”
格雷厄姆-多德都市的超级投资者们——巴菲特
１、格雷厄姆与多德追求“价值远超过价格的安全保障”，这种证券分析方法是否已经过时?
２、巴菲特和查里的投资理念来自哪里？他们是否是来自于格雷厄姆智力家族的成员？
３、格雷厄姆提供的是投资的智力理论和应具备的精神状态，而不仅仅是分析方法
再读一下，或许认识更深一些，或许就象巴菲特再这篇演讲中说的，在读了格雷厄姆的书后你顿悟了
１９８４年在庆祝格雷罕姆与多德合著的《证券分析》发行５０周年大会上，巴菲特进行了一次题为“格雷厄姆-多德都市的超级投资者们” (The Superinvestors of Graham-and-Doddsville)”的演讲，在他演讲中回顾了50年来格雷厄姆的追随者们采用价值投资策略持续战胜市场的无可争议的事实，总结归纳出价值投资策略的精髓，在投资界具有非常大的影响力。
格雷厄姆与多德追求“价值远超过价格的安全保障”，这种证券分析方法是否已经过时?目前许多撰写教科书的教授认为如此。他们认为，股票市场是有效率的市场；换言之，股票价格已经充分反应了公司一切己知的事实以及整体经济情况：这些理论家认为，市场上没有价格偏低的股票，因为聪明的证券分析师将运用全部的既有资讯，以确保适当的价格。投资者能经年累月地击败市场，纯粹是运气使然。“如果价格完全反应既有的资讯，则这类的投资技巧将不存在。”
来自“格雷厄姆一多德都市”的投资者所具备的共同智力结构是：他们探索企业的价值与该企业市场价格之间的差异。事实上，他们利用其间的差异，却不在意效率市场理论家所关心的问题：股票究竟在星期一或星期—：买进，或是在一月份或七月份买进……。当企业家买进某家公司时——这正是格雷厄姆一多德都市的投资者透过上市股票所从事的行为——我怀疑有多少人会在意交易必须发生于某个月份或某个星期的第一天。如果企业的买进交易发生在星期一或星期五没有任何差别，则我无法了解学术界人士为何要花费大量的时间和精力，探讨代表该企业部分股权的交易发生时的差异。毋庸多说，格雷厄姆一多德都市的投资者并不探讨bate、资本资产定价模型、证券投资报酬本的变异数。这些都不足他们所关心的议题。事实上，他们大多数难以界定上述学术名词。他们只在乎两项实数：价格与价值。
面对图形分析师所研究的价量行为，我始终感觉惊讶。你是否会仅仅因为某家公司的市场价格在本周或前一周剧扬．便决定购买该企业呢?在日前电脑化的时代，人们之所以会大量研究价格与成交量的行为，理由是这两项变数拥有了无数的资料。研究未必是因为其具任何功用；而只是因为资料既然存在，学术界人士便必须努力学习操作这些资料所需要的数学技巧。—旦拥有这些技巧，不去运用它们便会带来罪恶感，即使这些技巧的运用没有任何功用，或只会带来负面功用．也在所不惜。如同一位朋友所说的，对一位持铁锤的人来说，每—样事看起来都像是钉子。
史坦.波尔米塔（Stan Perlmeter）的投资业绩。他毕业于密西根大学艺术系，是Bozell＆Jacobs广告公司的合伙股东之—。我们的办公室恰好于奥玛哈市的同一幢大楼。1965年，他认为我所经营的事业比他的行业要好，于是他离开广告业。再—次地，史坦于五分钟之内就接受了价值投资法。
史坦所持有的股票与华特的不同。他所持有的股票也和比尔不同。他们都是独立的记录。但是，史坦买进每—支股票时，都是因为他所获得的价值高于他所支付的价格。这是他惟一的考虑。他既不参考每一季的盈余预估值，也不参考明年的盈余项估值，他不在乎当时是星期几，也不关心任何的投资研究报告，他无视价格动能、成交量与其他类似的变数。他只提出一个问题：该企业值多少钱?
我相信市场上存在着许多没有效率的现象。这些来自于“格雷厄姆一多德都市”的投资人成功地掌握了价格与价值之间的缺口。华尔街的“群众”可以影响股票价格，当最情绪化的人、最贪婪的或最沮丧的人肆意驱动股价时，我们很难辩称市场价格是理性的产物。事实上，市场经常是不合理的。
我想提出有关报酬与风险之间的重要关系。在某些情况下，报酬与风险之间存在着正向关系。如果有人告诉我“我有一支六发弹装的左轮枪，并且填装一发子弹。你可以任意地拨动转轮，然后朝自己扣一次扳机。如果你能够逃过一功，我就赏你100万美元。”我将会拒绝这项提议——或许我的理由是100万美元太少了。然后，他可能建议将奖金提高为500万美元，但必须扣两次扳机——这便是报酬与风险之间的正向关系.
在价值投资法当中，情况恰巧相反。如果你以60美分买进一美元的纸钞，其风险大于以40美分买进一美元的纸钞，但后者报酬的期望值却比较高。以价值为导向的投资组合，其报酬的潜力愈高，风险愈低。
可以举一个简单的例子：在1973年，华盛顿邮报公司的总市值为8千万美元。在这一天，你可以将其资产卖给十位买家之一，而且价格不低于4亿美元，甚至还能更高。该公司拥有华盛顿邮报、商业周刊以及数家重要的电视台。这些资产目前的价值为4亿美元，因此愿意支付4亿美元的买家并非疯子。
现在，如果股价继续下跌，该企业的市值从8千万美元跌到4千万美元，其bate值也上升。对于用bate值衡量风险的人来说，更低的价格使它受得更有风险。这真是仙境中的爱丽丝。我永远无法了解，用4千万美元，而非8千万美元购买价值4亿美元的资产，其风险竟然更高。事实上，如果你买进一堆这样的证券，而且稍微了解所谓的企业评价，则用8千万美元的价格买进4亿美元的资产，这笔交易基本上没有风险，尤其是分别以800万美元的价格买进10种价值4000万美元的资产，其风险更低。因为你不拥有4亿美元，所以你希望能够确实找到诚实而有能力的人，这并不困难。
另外，你必须有知识，而且能够粗略地估计企业的价值。但是，你不需要精密的评价知识。这便是葛拉厄姆所谓的安全边际。你不必试图以8000万美元的价格购买价值8300万美元的企业。你必须让自己保有相当的缓冲。架设桥梁时，你坚持载重量为3万磅，但你只准许1万磅的卡车穿梭其间。相同的原则也适用于投资领域。
有些具备商业头脑的人可能会怀疑我撰写本文的动机：更多人皈依价值投资法，将会缩小价值与价格之间的差距。我只能够如此告诉各位，自从本杰明·格雷厄姆与大卫·多德出版《证券分析》，这个秘密已经流传了50年，在我奉行这项投资理论的35年中，我不曾目睹价值投资法蔚然成风。人的天性中似乎存在着偏执的特色，喜欢把简单的事情弄得更复杂。最近30年来，学术界如果有任何作为的话，乃完全背离了价值投资的教训。它很可能继续如此。船只将环绕地球而行。但地平之说仍会畅行无阻。在市场上，价格与价值之间还会存在着宽广的差值，而奉行格雷厄姆与多德理论的人也会繁荣不绝。
２、巴菲特和查里的投资理念来自哪里？他们是否是来自于格雷厄姆智力家族的成员？
３、格雷厄姆提供的是投资的智力理论和应具备的精神状态，而不仅仅是分析方法
再读一下，或许认识更深一些，或许就象巴菲特再这篇演讲中说的，在读了格雷厄姆的书后你顿悟了
１９８４年在庆祝格雷罕姆与多德合著的《证券分析》发行５０周年大会上，巴菲特进行了一次题为“格雷厄姆-多德都市的超级投资者们” (The Superinvestors of Graham-and-Doddsville)”的演讲，在他演讲中回顾了50年来格雷厄姆的追随者们采用价值投资策略持续战胜市场的无可争议的事实，总结归纳出价值投资策略的精髓，在投资界具有非常大的影响力。
格雷厄姆与多德追求“价值远超过价格的安全保障”，这种证券分析方法是否已经过时?目前许多撰写教科书的教授认为如此。他们认为，股票市场是有效率的市场；换言之，股票价格已经充分反应了公司一切己知的事实以及整体经济情况：这些理论家认为，市场上没有价格偏低的股票，因为聪明的证券分析师将运用全部的既有资讯，以确保适当的价格。投资者能经年累月地击败市场，纯粹是运气使然。“如果价格完全反应既有的资讯，则这类的投资技巧将不存在。”
来自“格雷厄姆一多德都市”的投资者所具备的共同智力结构是：他们探索企业的价值与该企业市场价格之间的差异。事实上，他们利用其间的差异，却不在意效率市场理论家所关心的问题：股票究竟在星期一或星期—：买进，或是在一月份或七月份买进……。当企业家买进某家公司时——这正是格雷厄姆一多德都市的投资者透过上市股票所从事的行为——我怀疑有多少人会在意交易必须发生于某个月份或某个星期的第一天。如果企业的买进交易发生在星期一或星期五没有任何差别，则我无法了解学术界人士为何要花费大量的时间和精力，探讨代表该企业部分股权的交易发生时的差异。毋庸多说，格雷厄姆一多德都市的投资者并不探讨bate、资本资产定价模型、证券投资报酬本的变异数。这些都不足他们所关心的议题。事实上，他们大多数难以界定上述学术名词。他们只在乎两项实数：价格与价值。
面对图形分析师所研究的价量行为，我始终感觉惊讶。你是否会仅仅因为某家公司的市场价格在本周或前一周剧扬．便决定购买该企业呢?在日前电脑化的时代，人们之所以会大量研究价格与成交量的行为，理由是这两项变数拥有了无数的资料。研究未必是因为其具任何功用；而只是因为资料既然存在，学术界人士便必须努力学习操作这些资料所需要的数学技巧。—旦拥有这些技巧，不去运用它们便会带来罪恶感，即使这些技巧的运用没有任何功用，或只会带来负面功用．也在所不惜。如同一位朋友所说的，对一位持铁锤的人来说，每—样事看起来都像是钉子。
史坦.波尔米塔（Stan Perlmeter）的投资业绩。他毕业于密西根大学艺术系，是Bozell＆Jacobs广告公司的合伙股东之—。我们的办公室恰好于奥玛哈市的同一幢大楼。1965年，他认为我所经营的事业比他的行业要好，于是他离开广告业。再—次地，史坦于五分钟之内就接受了价值投资法。
史坦所持有的股票与华特的不同。他所持有的股票也和比尔不同。他们都是独立的记录。但是，史坦买进每—支股票时，都是因为他所获得的价值高于他所支付的价格。这是他惟一的考虑。他既不参考每一季的盈余预估值，也不参考明年的盈余项估值，他不在乎当时是星期几，也不关心任何的投资研究报告，他无视价格动能、成交量与其他类似的变数。他只提出一个问题：该企业值多少钱?
我相信市场上存在着许多没有效率的现象。这些来自于“格雷厄姆一多德都市”的投资人成功地掌握了价格与价值之间的缺口。华尔街的“群众”可以影响股票价格，当最情绪化的人、最贪婪的或最沮丧的人肆意驱动股价时，我们很难辩称市场价格是理性的产物。事实上，市场经常是不合理的。
我想提出有关报酬与风险之间的重要关系。在某些情况下，报酬与风险之间存在着正向关系。如果有人告诉我“我有一支六发弹装的左轮枪，并且填装一发子弹。你可以任意地拨动转轮，然后朝自己扣一次扳机。如果你能够逃过一功，我就赏你100万美元。”我将会拒绝这项提议——或许我的理由是100万美元太少了。然后，他可能建议将奖金提高为500万美元，但必须扣两次扳机——这便是报酬与风险之间的正向关系.
在价值投资法当中，情况恰巧相反。如果你以60美分买进一美元的纸钞，其风险大于以40美分买进一美元的纸钞，但后者报酬的期望值却比较高。以价值为导向的投资组合，其报酬的潜力愈高，风险愈低。
可以举一个简单的例子：在1973年，华盛顿邮报公司的总市值为8千万美元。在这一天，你可以将其资产卖给十位买家之一，而且价格不低于4亿美元，甚至还能更高。该公司拥有华盛顿邮报、商业周刊以及数家重要的电视台。这些资产目前的价值为4亿美元，因此愿意支付4亿美元的买家并非疯子。
现在，如果股价继续下跌，该企业的市值从8千万美元跌到4千万美元，其bate值也上升。对于用bate值衡量风险的人来说，更低的价格使它受得更有风险。这真是仙境中的爱丽丝。我永远无法了解，用4千万美元，而非8千万美元购买价值4亿美元的资产，其风险竟然更高。事实上，如果你买进一堆这样的证券，而且稍微了解所谓的企业评价，则用8千万美元的价格买进4亿美元的资产，这笔交易基本上没有风险，尤其是分别以800万美元的价格买进10种价值4000万美元的资产，其风险更低。因为你不拥有4亿美元，所以你希望能够确实找到诚实而有能力的人，这并不困难。
另外，你必须有知识，而且能够粗略地估计企业的价值。但是，你不需要精密的评价知识。这便是葛拉厄姆所谓的安全边际。你不必试图以8000万美元的价格购买价值8300万美元的企业。你必须让自己保有相当的缓冲。架设桥梁时，你坚持载重量为3万磅，但你只准许1万磅的卡车穿梭其间。相同的原则也适用于投资领域。
有些具备商业头脑的人可能会怀疑我撰写本文的动机：更多人皈依价值投资法，将会缩小价值与价格之间的差距。我只能够如此告诉各位，自从本杰明·格雷厄姆与大卫·多德出版《证券分析》，这个秘密已经流传了50年，在我奉行这项投资理论的35年中，我不曾目睹价值投资法蔚然成风。人的天性中似乎存在着偏执的特色，喜欢把简单的事情弄得更复杂。最近30年来，学术界如果有任何作为的话，乃完全背离了价值投资的教训。它很可能继续如此。船只将环绕地球而行。但地平之说仍会畅行无阻。在市场上，价格与价值之间还会存在着宽广的差值，而奉行格雷厄姆与多德理论的人也会繁荣不绝。
Pessimism too high, time to buy: Mobius
Veteran fund manager Mark Mobius sees a potential 20 percent rise in emerging market stocks in 2009 and views extreme investor pessimism as a signal to gradually start buying equities.
"The danger we face now is being too pessimistic," Mobius, the executive chairman of Templeton Asset Management, a division of San Mateo, California-based Franklin Templeton Investments, said in a telephone interview with Reuters.
"We are seeing that slight bottoming out, that we have to be cautious of because if we are caught with too much cash, specifically when we are looking at very good bargains, then we are going to be in trouble with our investors," he said.
Mobius manages roughly US$20 billion in emerging market assets out of the firm's US$377 billion assets under management.
Asked how high emerging market stocks might go by year-end: "If you really press me I would say 20 percent would not be unlikely, and the reason I would say that with some degree of confidence is that we have already come up."
MSCI's emerging markets stock index fell 54.48 percent in 2008. While the index is down 9.46 percent year-to-date, it has risen more than 15 percent from its four-year low in October.
The Templeton Developing Markets Trust, the main U.S. registered fund Mobius manages, is down 11.44 percent so far this year after dropping over 57.77 percent in 2008, according to Reuters data.
Cash levels for his portfolio fluctuate between the preferred level of zero and 7 percent he said. He characterizes them as "normal, or certainly not higher than normal."
During the 1997-1998 Asian financial crisis, cash levels in his funds reached 20 percent.
MARKET BOTTOM?
While market volatility may not be over, a market bottom could be in place, Mobius said when asked at what point in the next 12 months investors might claim they've cleared a hurdle.
"I'm saying that now. I'm feeling that now because of the incredible pessimism that you see everywhere. That usually is a pretty good sign that we are over the hump," he said.
"Almost universal pessimism is usually a very good time to be buying equities because equities lead the economy," by six months to a year he said.
Famous for his globe trotting and "on the ground" research, Mobius said of a recent trip to Latin America that while companies were preparing for the worst, customer orders were still coming in and "a lot of them" are maintaining steady investment programs.
"On the ground things look OK but with a slower pace. That is on the investment side. The valuations now are very very attractive, even if we do a big markdown on earnings," he said.
REGIONAL STRENGTHS
Latin America and Asia are the two favored regions with China and Brazil among the top country picks. Select countries such as Egypt and Turkey stand out among harder hit regions.
"Eastern Europe is pretty much a disaster."
He believes China's stimulus plan will help it achieve its 8 percent GDP growth target this year, helping pull up Asia which increasingly sells more of its goods to the world's third largest economy.
Brazil's diversified economy and growing consumerism make it attractive, he said.
The global financial crisis has had a heavy negative impact on emerging markets which rely on developed market economies to grow and buy up their natural resources and value added goods.
But Mobius believes global emerging markets will rebound faster than developed markets, forecasting an average of 3 percent growth this year. Developed markets are mired in recession.
"I'm confident because of the expanding money supply in the U.S. which will bring inflation in the U.S. and buying power. The knock-on effect will be money going into markets globally and of course emerging markets will get their fair share," Mobius said.
U.S. Federal Reserve data shows the supply of cash and deposits on hand grew a seasonally adjusted 15.1 percent in 2008.
"(Money) is not finding its way into the (U.S.) economy yet, but you better believe it will. That is a very bullish scenario for assets of any kind in my view," he said.
However he believes the nervousness in the global economy that has fueled a flight to safety trade and strengthened the U.S. dollar as investors buy liquid U.S. Treasuries has overvalued the greenback.
"Yes, in a number of instances, (the U.S. dollar) is over valued when I look at price parity," he said.
"The danger we face now is being too pessimistic," Mobius, the executive chairman of Templeton Asset Management, a division of San Mateo, California-based Franklin Templeton Investments, said in a telephone interview with Reuters.
"We are seeing that slight bottoming out, that we have to be cautious of because if we are caught with too much cash, specifically when we are looking at very good bargains, then we are going to be in trouble with our investors," he said.
Mobius manages roughly US$20 billion in emerging market assets out of the firm's US$377 billion assets under management.
Asked how high emerging market stocks might go by year-end: "If you really press me I would say 20 percent would not be unlikely, and the reason I would say that with some degree of confidence is that we have already come up."
MSCI's emerging markets stock index fell 54.48 percent in 2008. While the index is down 9.46 percent year-to-date, it has risen more than 15 percent from its four-year low in October.
The Templeton Developing Markets Trust, the main U.S. registered fund Mobius manages, is down 11.44 percent so far this year after dropping over 57.77 percent in 2008, according to Reuters data.
Cash levels for his portfolio fluctuate between the preferred level of zero and 7 percent he said. He characterizes them as "normal, or certainly not higher than normal."
During the 1997-1998 Asian financial crisis, cash levels in his funds reached 20 percent.
MARKET BOTTOM?
While market volatility may not be over, a market bottom could be in place, Mobius said when asked at what point in the next 12 months investors might claim they've cleared a hurdle.
"I'm saying that now. I'm feeling that now because of the incredible pessimism that you see everywhere. That usually is a pretty good sign that we are over the hump," he said.
"Almost universal pessimism is usually a very good time to be buying equities because equities lead the economy," by six months to a year he said.
Famous for his globe trotting and "on the ground" research, Mobius said of a recent trip to Latin America that while companies were preparing for the worst, customer orders were still coming in and "a lot of them" are maintaining steady investment programs.
"On the ground things look OK but with a slower pace. That is on the investment side. The valuations now are very very attractive, even if we do a big markdown on earnings," he said.
REGIONAL STRENGTHS
Latin America and Asia are the two favored regions with China and Brazil among the top country picks. Select countries such as Egypt and Turkey stand out among harder hit regions.
"Eastern Europe is pretty much a disaster."
He believes China's stimulus plan will help it achieve its 8 percent GDP growth target this year, helping pull up Asia which increasingly sells more of its goods to the world's third largest economy.
Brazil's diversified economy and growing consumerism make it attractive, he said.
The global financial crisis has had a heavy negative impact on emerging markets which rely on developed market economies to grow and buy up their natural resources and value added goods.
But Mobius believes global emerging markets will rebound faster than developed markets, forecasting an average of 3 percent growth this year. Developed markets are mired in recession.
"I'm confident because of the expanding money supply in the U.S. which will bring inflation in the U.S. and buying power. The knock-on effect will be money going into markets globally and of course emerging markets will get their fair share," Mobius said.
U.S. Federal Reserve data shows the supply of cash and deposits on hand grew a seasonally adjusted 15.1 percent in 2008.
"(Money) is not finding its way into the (U.S.) economy yet, but you better believe it will. That is a very bullish scenario for assets of any kind in my view," he said.
However he believes the nervousness in the global economy that has fueled a flight to safety trade and strengthened the U.S. dollar as investors buy liquid U.S. Treasuries has overvalued the greenback.
"Yes, in a number of instances, (the U.S. dollar) is over valued when I look at price parity," he said.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
“五大风暴”威胁全球
中国经济：能否率先走出困境？
一场突如其来的金融风暴让中国也不可避免地陷入其中，自去年下半年以来中国经济遇到了严峻挑战。这些困难是暂时的还是更为长期的？对于2009年的中国经济乃至未来，我们是否仍然应该充满信心？在目前的大环境下，中国的投资机会又在哪些领域？近日众多经济学家都发表了他们的看法。
"会不会有下一轮金融海啸？"这是2月28日参加中证期货在深圳举办的2009年期货投资策略年会的投资者最为关心的话题。
对此，瑞士信贷董事总经理兼亚洲区首席经济师陶冬回应道："有没有海啸我不知道，但是我可以告诉你，目前的地平线上至少有五个风暴正在形成。"
陶冬表示，2009年一定是大起大落的一年，投资者关心的第一个问题应该是如何防范风险。而对于中国的投资机会，陶冬表示应该把握住中国未来十年的两大趋势：中国消费的结构性演变和中国资金出海。
中国经济最先走出困境
"今年全球整体经济的形势没有办法出现明显的突破，但是2010年全球经济增长可能会超乎想象。"陶冬说。
全球各国政府现在已经推出接近14万亿美元的救市方案。陶冬表示，这些举措对经济拉动力主要体现在明年，如奥巴马的财政方案今年对于经济的刺激不过为0.9%，而明年对于经济的刺激是1.7%。
陶冬同时表示，中国经济随着全球经济一起回落，但从中国1月份的贷款数额上可以看出，当世界其他地方的银行还惜贷的时候，当世界其他国家还为流动性极度短缺而挣扎的时候，中国的银行已经开始借钱了。另外，从1月份中国的采购经理指数上也可以明显看到，由于中国基础设施投资开始加快步伐，资本产品的订单有明显的上升。当全世界的领袖们都在谈财政刺激、财政扩张的时候，中国的财政扩张已经体现在订单上。基于这两个原因，陶冬认为，中国经济会比世界其他地方更早地走出目前困境。
防范五大风暴
但是全球整体经济什么时候才能真正复苏？陶冬认为在考虑这个问题之前，首先要关注目前全球经济中潜伏着的风险。他表示，目前全球市场至少还有五个风暴正在形成，这五个风暴分别潜伏在
CDS（信用违约掉期）市场、
新兴市场、
欧洲银行、
欧元和
美国国债之中。
"这五个在我看来是2009年金融市场可能面对的变化。2009年一定是大起大落的一年。这里面的风暴我不敢担保哪个'爆'出来，哪个不'爆'出来。"陶冬说。
投资中国把握两大趋势
对于中国经济，陶冬认为中国经济最坏的时间在2008年第四季度已经出现了，但不意味着最好的时间很快就会到来。"过去拉动中国经济的是四驾马车：消费、投资、出口、房地产。今天一夜之间四匹马没有了，换成了一匹叫'财政'的马，这匹马再肥再壮也很难像四匹马一样拉动经济往前跑，这就是今天中国经济所面临的问题。"
而对于股票投资者，陶冬表示，如今要关注的不是GDP，而是企业的利润。"财政拉动对于大多数企业的盈利影响实际不大，除了个别的钢铁、水泥那是有影响的。靠财政拉动的8%，和靠出口、靠消费拉动的8%有着本质的区别。"他说。
而在中国的投资，最重要的在于把握住中国的发展趋势。陶冬指出，在未来十年，中国投资者应该把握住中国消费的结构性演变和中国资金出海两大重要趋势进行资产配置。
陶冬说，中国人收入的增长、人民币汇率的提高以及中国人口结构上的变化，会拉动经济由出口逐步向消费转移的一个变化。出口黄金的15年已经过去了，消费所带来的新的投资机会就在这十几年中间出现。
对于中国资金出海，陶冬则认为，中国主权资金出海、中国企业并购、中国互惠资金走入世界资本市场，包括中国个人投资在未来十年进入世界金融市场这个大趋势不会改变。"十年以后，中国资金在全球金融市场的影响力，我相信很可能像今天made in China在世界消费市场今天的影响力。这就是变化，这就是挑战，这就是希望，这就是机会。"他说。
一场突如其来的金融风暴让中国也不可避免地陷入其中，自去年下半年以来中国经济遇到了严峻挑战。这些困难是暂时的还是更为长期的？对于2009年的中国经济乃至未来，我们是否仍然应该充满信心？在目前的大环境下，中国的投资机会又在哪些领域？近日众多经济学家都发表了他们的看法。
"会不会有下一轮金融海啸？"这是2月28日参加中证期货在深圳举办的2009年期货投资策略年会的投资者最为关心的话题。
对此，瑞士信贷董事总经理兼亚洲区首席经济师陶冬回应道："有没有海啸我不知道，但是我可以告诉你，目前的地平线上至少有五个风暴正在形成。"
陶冬表示，2009年一定是大起大落的一年，投资者关心的第一个问题应该是如何防范风险。而对于中国的投资机会，陶冬表示应该把握住中国未来十年的两大趋势：中国消费的结构性演变和中国资金出海。
中国经济最先走出困境
"今年全球整体经济的形势没有办法出现明显的突破，但是2010年全球经济增长可能会超乎想象。"陶冬说。
全球各国政府现在已经推出接近14万亿美元的救市方案。陶冬表示，这些举措对经济拉动力主要体现在明年，如奥巴马的财政方案今年对于经济的刺激不过为0.9%，而明年对于经济的刺激是1.7%。
陶冬同时表示，中国经济随着全球经济一起回落，但从中国1月份的贷款数额上可以看出，当世界其他地方的银行还惜贷的时候，当世界其他国家还为流动性极度短缺而挣扎的时候，中国的银行已经开始借钱了。另外，从1月份中国的采购经理指数上也可以明显看到，由于中国基础设施投资开始加快步伐，资本产品的订单有明显的上升。当全世界的领袖们都在谈财政刺激、财政扩张的时候，中国的财政扩张已经体现在订单上。基于这两个原因，陶冬认为，中国经济会比世界其他地方更早地走出目前困境。
防范五大风暴
但是全球整体经济什么时候才能真正复苏？陶冬认为在考虑这个问题之前，首先要关注目前全球经济中潜伏着的风险。他表示，目前全球市场至少还有五个风暴正在形成，这五个风暴分别潜伏在
CDS（信用违约掉期）市场、
新兴市场、
欧洲银行、
欧元和
美国国债之中。
"这五个在我看来是2009年金融市场可能面对的变化。2009年一定是大起大落的一年。这里面的风暴我不敢担保哪个'爆'出来，哪个不'爆'出来。"陶冬说。
投资中国把握两大趋势
对于中国经济，陶冬认为中国经济最坏的时间在2008年第四季度已经出现了，但不意味着最好的时间很快就会到来。"过去拉动中国经济的是四驾马车：消费、投资、出口、房地产。今天一夜之间四匹马没有了，换成了一匹叫'财政'的马，这匹马再肥再壮也很难像四匹马一样拉动经济往前跑，这就是今天中国经济所面临的问题。"
而对于股票投资者，陶冬表示，如今要关注的不是GDP，而是企业的利润。"财政拉动对于大多数企业的盈利影响实际不大，除了个别的钢铁、水泥那是有影响的。靠财政拉动的8%，和靠出口、靠消费拉动的8%有着本质的区别。"他说。
而在中国的投资，最重要的在于把握住中国的发展趋势。陶冬指出，在未来十年，中国投资者应该把握住中国消费的结构性演变和中国资金出海两大重要趋势进行资产配置。
陶冬说，中国人收入的增长、人民币汇率的提高以及中国人口结构上的变化，会拉动经济由出口逐步向消费转移的一个变化。出口黄金的15年已经过去了，消费所带来的新的投资机会就在这十几年中间出现。
对于中国资金出海，陶冬则认为，中国主权资金出海、中国企业并购、中国互惠资金走入世界资本市场，包括中国个人投资在未来十年进入世界金融市场这个大趋势不会改变。"十年以后，中国资金在全球金融市场的影响力，我相信很可能像今天made in China在世界消费市场今天的影响力。这就是变化，这就是挑战，这就是希望，这就是机会。"他说。
股票投资很简单
说到股市投资,许多人以为那是玄乎的事情。请看广州市珠海区一位股票投资高手的现身说法：
进入股市,至今已有6年,起初,我总是亏钱,稀里糊涂地被应家牵着鼻子走.进入第三个年头,我终于领略到股票投资的真谛.此后,我每年的回报率都在80%以上.盈利秘诀很简单,只有几条：
购买时,股票的基本面不能太离谱,价钱不能太高.
买入股票,要相信自已的选择,不要轻易换股.
不要急于将到手的好股票抛掉,宁可等它跌下来再卖.
这位股民的投资经验,可以归结为几点.
注重基本面分析
从长期的眼光看,股市的总体趋势是向上的,任何一只股票,只要基本面比较好,股本规模必然是越来越大.
美国股市从1925年到1975年,大盘股的股本增加1113倍,小盘股增加3822倍.
在中国,股市创立时间不长,股本扩张规模也是惊人的.看看深沪两市不断派送、转增和配股的股票,你就不难明白.
只要你选的不是可能被摘牌的垃圾股,放心持有,将来收益一定不会太差.这是所指的中长线投资,不是死死拿住不放,一点不作短线投机.
价钱要适中
股票的价格高低,不是中小散户所能左右的,不要指望买到最低价,只要价钱不太高,就可以考虑买入.
立场要坚定
所谓“皇帝轮流做,明年到我家”.一只基本面不是太差的股票,价钱又不太高,它的股价有可能下跌或者停滞一段时间,但会重新涨起来.
股票的上涨有一定的时间周期.有些股票不涨,因为时间未到.投资者要明白“以时间换空间”的炒股原则.买入一只潜力不错的低价股,一定要有耐心,任凭庄家兴风作浪,我自立场坚定,坚决持股.只要当初买入的理由没有完全消失,就不要轻易抛掉.
实战经验表明,一只股票暂时不上涨,可能是几个原因造成的：
价格调整没有真正到位；
横盘的时间不够长,盘整尚未结束；
机构还没有收集到足够的筹码；
暂时被人们淡忘；
还不符合当前的市场主流.
股市的情况往往就是这样,当大家看低某只股票时,主力和庄家开始行动,股价甚至在短时间内直冲云霄,上涨几倍,或者十几倍.正如美国炒股大师欧尼尔所说：上一年的垃圾股,可能就是今年的明星股.
市场决定一切
市场永远是变化多端的,个人的智慧是有限的.在股市上,仅仅凭着个人智慧发现所谓的黑马,显然是危险的,或者是愚蠢的.
所谓的黑马股票,并不是投资专家发现的,而是主力机构和庄家们刻意做出来的.庄家既可以制造黑马,也可以将黑马扼杀于萌芽状态中.所谓的黑马专家能够百分之百地抓住黑马,他怎么可能将自已的赚钱秘诀轻易公开呢?如果主力机构和庄家都像黑马专家说的那么愚蠢,他们早就该喝西北风了.
别忘了,投资股票也是市场交易行为,市场行为最终需要由市场决定它的对错.问题在于市场永远都是正确的.在市场行为面前,个人的力量是渺小的,因此,我们对市场应该永存敬畏之心.
我们不难看出,投资股票需要的技术很简单,建构属于自己的投资风格,却是一件很难的事.许多人并不相信投资股票是很简单的,偏偏要将问题复杂化,真是天大的误会.实战经验表明,投资股票不需要太高的智慧.大多数投资精英之所以成为精英,不是因为他们具有与众不同的“独门分析技术”,也不是因为他们具有超人的智慧,而是善于学习,敢于相信自己并建立起属于自己的相对固定的投资风格,以及一套简朴实用的投资原则.这才是他们成为投资精英的秘诀.
一位权威的经济学家说,经济学是一门由简单的常识加上复杂的术语包装起来的学科.道出经济学的真谛.
在股票市场上,有许许多多大同小异、流派各异的理论和分析技术,都有各自的应用原理和实用对象.殊途同归,任何理论和技术的出现,目的都是相同的.作为一位投资者,想在股市上获得真正成功,并不需要将所有理论和分析技术弄通弄透,越是简单实用的东西,越能够直截了当实现自己的盈利目标.
因此,在股市上投资,往往只要一种简单实用的投资原则、一些简单的常识、一套坚决执行的纪律和属于自己的投资风格,就已经足够了.
美国林克斯投资顾问公司总裁彼德.泰纳斯,对全美投资基金作过调查,结果证实了这一点.
一旦形成投资风格,你就会明白,股票投资真的很简单.
进入股市,至今已有6年,起初,我总是亏钱,稀里糊涂地被应家牵着鼻子走.进入第三个年头,我终于领略到股票投资的真谛.此后,我每年的回报率都在80%以上.盈利秘诀很简单,只有几条：
购买时,股票的基本面不能太离谱,价钱不能太高.
买入股票,要相信自已的选择,不要轻易换股.
不要急于将到手的好股票抛掉,宁可等它跌下来再卖.
这位股民的投资经验,可以归结为几点.
注重基本面分析
从长期的眼光看,股市的总体趋势是向上的,任何一只股票,只要基本面比较好,股本规模必然是越来越大.
美国股市从1925年到1975年,大盘股的股本增加1113倍,小盘股增加3822倍.
在中国,股市创立时间不长,股本扩张规模也是惊人的.看看深沪两市不断派送、转增和配股的股票,你就不难明白.
只要你选的不是可能被摘牌的垃圾股,放心持有,将来收益一定不会太差.这是所指的中长线投资,不是死死拿住不放,一点不作短线投机.
价钱要适中
股票的价格高低,不是中小散户所能左右的,不要指望买到最低价,只要价钱不太高,就可以考虑买入.
立场要坚定
所谓“皇帝轮流做,明年到我家”.一只基本面不是太差的股票,价钱又不太高,它的股价有可能下跌或者停滞一段时间,但会重新涨起来.
股票的上涨有一定的时间周期.有些股票不涨,因为时间未到.投资者要明白“以时间换空间”的炒股原则.买入一只潜力不错的低价股,一定要有耐心,任凭庄家兴风作浪,我自立场坚定,坚决持股.只要当初买入的理由没有完全消失,就不要轻易抛掉.
实战经验表明,一只股票暂时不上涨,可能是几个原因造成的：
价格调整没有真正到位；
横盘的时间不够长,盘整尚未结束；
机构还没有收集到足够的筹码；
暂时被人们淡忘；
还不符合当前的市场主流.
股市的情况往往就是这样,当大家看低某只股票时,主力和庄家开始行动,股价甚至在短时间内直冲云霄,上涨几倍,或者十几倍.正如美国炒股大师欧尼尔所说：上一年的垃圾股,可能就是今年的明星股.
市场决定一切
市场永远是变化多端的,个人的智慧是有限的.在股市上,仅仅凭着个人智慧发现所谓的黑马,显然是危险的,或者是愚蠢的.
所谓的黑马股票,并不是投资专家发现的,而是主力机构和庄家们刻意做出来的.庄家既可以制造黑马,也可以将黑马扼杀于萌芽状态中.所谓的黑马专家能够百分之百地抓住黑马,他怎么可能将自已的赚钱秘诀轻易公开呢?如果主力机构和庄家都像黑马专家说的那么愚蠢,他们早就该喝西北风了.
别忘了,投资股票也是市场交易行为,市场行为最终需要由市场决定它的对错.问题在于市场永远都是正确的.在市场行为面前,个人的力量是渺小的,因此,我们对市场应该永存敬畏之心.
我们不难看出,投资股票需要的技术很简单,建构属于自己的投资风格,却是一件很难的事.许多人并不相信投资股票是很简单的,偏偏要将问题复杂化,真是天大的误会.实战经验表明,投资股票不需要太高的智慧.大多数投资精英之所以成为精英,不是因为他们具有与众不同的“独门分析技术”,也不是因为他们具有超人的智慧,而是善于学习,敢于相信自己并建立起属于自己的相对固定的投资风格,以及一套简朴实用的投资原则.这才是他们成为投资精英的秘诀.
一位权威的经济学家说,经济学是一门由简单的常识加上复杂的术语包装起来的学科.道出经济学的真谛.
在股票市场上,有许许多多大同小异、流派各异的理论和分析技术,都有各自的应用原理和实用对象.殊途同归,任何理论和技术的出现,目的都是相同的.作为一位投资者,想在股市上获得真正成功,并不需要将所有理论和分析技术弄通弄透,越是简单实用的东西,越能够直截了当实现自己的盈利目标.
因此,在股市上投资,往往只要一种简单实用的投资原则、一些简单的常识、一套坚决执行的纪律和属于自己的投资风格,就已经足够了.
美国林克斯投资顾问公司总裁彼德.泰纳斯,对全美投资基金作过调查,结果证实了这一点.
一旦形成投资风格,你就会明白,股票投资真的很简单.
许小年：散户炒股，只能替人埋单
面对当前的世界金融危机，中国到底应该采取什么样的措施来应对？昨日，在参加腾讯、经济观察报和本报组织的有关金融危机的讨论时，上海中欧国际工商学院教授许小年表示，“要在这场危机中率先反弹，必须靠老百姓消费，而不是完全依靠政策投资”。
“这不是最后一次危机”
“当前是第一次危机，但绝对不是最后一次。”许小年教授语出惊人，他首先按照他自己的逻辑观点分析了这次危机的成因。
“这次危机是在世界上两大经济板块—以美国为代表的发达经济体和以中国为代表的新型经济体在过去几十年间融合程度日益提高的情况下发生的，是全球经济一体化造成的。”许小年说，具体的表现是：全球化进程改变了世界经济的运行规律，但世界各国的企业、政策制定者思想准备不足，犯了这样那样的错误，导致危机发生。
“更具体地来讲，美国是过度借贷，超前消费，使得家庭、企业的经济负债表都失衡了。美国是借钱维持了过去几年的繁荣。而中国和美国相反。美国是过度借贷，我们是过度储蓄；美国是过度消费，我们是过度投资。”
过度投资将产生过剩产能
许小年指出，美国要进行调整，中国也要进行调整。即使没有美国的经济萧条，没有外部需求的迅速下降，中国的经济也要进行调整。
“为什么？因为我们的过度投资也是不可持续的。过度的投资将产生大量的过剩生产能力、大量的过剩库存。我看过一本研究资料，仅存量房的消化就要 1到3年。在过剩的情况下，企业将不会再进行新的投资。因此过去拉动中国经济增长最强劲的火车头——投资，很快将显得软弱无力。”
许小年认为，美国现在要做的是削减消费，降低负债，增加储蓄。而中国需要的调整是什么呢？中国是要减少投资，消化过剩产能。
要释放市场购买力
中国应对金融危机到底是靠市场靠民众，还是依靠政府投资？许小年认为这是两个完全不同的思路。他认为，中国经济要在这场危机中率先反弹，必须靠老百姓消费。
对当前政府已逐步实施的4万亿投资计划，许认为，其投资的效率将远远低于民间花钱的效率。这不仅是因为有可能存在腐败，更重要的是，这些投资很多时候并不能真正满足百姓的需求，“一定要让老百姓自己去花钱买自己想买的东西”。在金融危机期间，政府可以考虑广发消费券。
许小年还表示，当前中国依然有很大的市场需求潜力，政府要做的就是打破僵化体制对这些市场需求的束缚，把这些需求和购买力释放出来。
民意调查 你最担心4万亿什么？
对4万亿资金，普通百姓和网民最担心的是出现贪污腐败，希望有公众监督，但对一些经济学家来说，他们最担心的是浪费和无效投资。
许小年说：“从国家成本和经济成本上考虑，应该讲究投资的经济效益，只有这样才是理性投资。”
话说股市 “散户炒股，只能给别人埋单”
记者在来京之前搜集了诸多关于股市的问题，昨日代表武汉散户向许小年教授发问：“你在博客中写道‘如果股民每天看着股指数字的变化来炒股，我建议就不要做了’，请问是为什么？您如何看待前段股市倒春寒及当前两会的行情？对股民有何建议和提醒？”
记者刚放下麦克风， 许小年教授就从旋转沙发上转过来望向记者，眉头深锁，一副很“哀其不幸，怒其不争”的神情:“股票这个话题是问到我最多的话题了。”
首先，许小年建议社会的各个层面不要把过多的精力放在股市上，他认为这是股市搞不好的原因之一。
“关注的人太多了，就像一个家庭的独生子女那样，爷爷奶奶一大家人都来关注这个孩子，这样对他的成长非常有害。 ”他认为，中国现在的情况是，政府也关注股市，投资机构和投资者也关注股市，媒体和高校教授也关注股市，他希望大家对股市能有个平常心。
许认为，股票投资是一个专业性很强的职业，如果老百姓看着股指炒股票，或听着消息炒股票，证明他在市场上一定没有任何优势，包括没有资金优势，没有信息优势，没有服务优势，全都是劣势。
“所以，对这种股民，特别是散户股民，我对他们的投资建议就是——尽快退出股市，不要做。”因为，这样的股民打一场没有任何优势的战争，最终肯定会输，除了给别人埋单外，不会有什么好结果。
“既然是必输无疑的仗，为什么一定要打呢？要么就远离股市，要么就委托投资机构来炒股。 ”
“这不是最后一次危机”
“当前是第一次危机，但绝对不是最后一次。”许小年教授语出惊人，他首先按照他自己的逻辑观点分析了这次危机的成因。
“这次危机是在世界上两大经济板块—以美国为代表的发达经济体和以中国为代表的新型经济体在过去几十年间融合程度日益提高的情况下发生的，是全球经济一体化造成的。”许小年说，具体的表现是：全球化进程改变了世界经济的运行规律，但世界各国的企业、政策制定者思想准备不足，犯了这样那样的错误，导致危机发生。
“更具体地来讲，美国是过度借贷，超前消费，使得家庭、企业的经济负债表都失衡了。美国是借钱维持了过去几年的繁荣。而中国和美国相反。美国是过度借贷，我们是过度储蓄；美国是过度消费，我们是过度投资。”
过度投资将产生过剩产能
许小年指出，美国要进行调整，中国也要进行调整。即使没有美国的经济萧条，没有外部需求的迅速下降，中国的经济也要进行调整。
“为什么？因为我们的过度投资也是不可持续的。过度的投资将产生大量的过剩生产能力、大量的过剩库存。我看过一本研究资料，仅存量房的消化就要 1到3年。在过剩的情况下，企业将不会再进行新的投资。因此过去拉动中国经济增长最强劲的火车头——投资，很快将显得软弱无力。”
许小年认为，美国现在要做的是削减消费，降低负债，增加储蓄。而中国需要的调整是什么呢？中国是要减少投资，消化过剩产能。
要释放市场购买力
中国应对金融危机到底是靠市场靠民众，还是依靠政府投资？许小年认为这是两个完全不同的思路。他认为，中国经济要在这场危机中率先反弹，必须靠老百姓消费。
对当前政府已逐步实施的4万亿投资计划，许认为，其投资的效率将远远低于民间花钱的效率。这不仅是因为有可能存在腐败，更重要的是，这些投资很多时候并不能真正满足百姓的需求，“一定要让老百姓自己去花钱买自己想买的东西”。在金融危机期间，政府可以考虑广发消费券。
许小年还表示，当前中国依然有很大的市场需求潜力，政府要做的就是打破僵化体制对这些市场需求的束缚，把这些需求和购买力释放出来。
民意调查 你最担心4万亿什么？
对4万亿资金，普通百姓和网民最担心的是出现贪污腐败，希望有公众监督，但对一些经济学家来说，他们最担心的是浪费和无效投资。
许小年说：“从国家成本和经济成本上考虑，应该讲究投资的经济效益，只有这样才是理性投资。”
话说股市 “散户炒股，只能给别人埋单”
记者在来京之前搜集了诸多关于股市的问题，昨日代表武汉散户向许小年教授发问：“你在博客中写道‘如果股民每天看着股指数字的变化来炒股，我建议就不要做了’，请问是为什么？您如何看待前段股市倒春寒及当前两会的行情？对股民有何建议和提醒？”
记者刚放下麦克风， 许小年教授就从旋转沙发上转过来望向记者，眉头深锁，一副很“哀其不幸，怒其不争”的神情:“股票这个话题是问到我最多的话题了。”
首先，许小年建议社会的各个层面不要把过多的精力放在股市上，他认为这是股市搞不好的原因之一。
“关注的人太多了，就像一个家庭的独生子女那样，爷爷奶奶一大家人都来关注这个孩子，这样对他的成长非常有害。 ”他认为，中国现在的情况是，政府也关注股市，投资机构和投资者也关注股市，媒体和高校教授也关注股市，他希望大家对股市能有个平常心。
许认为，股票投资是一个专业性很强的职业，如果老百姓看着股指炒股票，或听着消息炒股票，证明他在市场上一定没有任何优势，包括没有资金优势，没有信息优势，没有服务优势，全都是劣势。
“所以，对这种股民，特别是散户股民，我对他们的投资建议就是——尽快退出股市，不要做。”因为，这样的股民打一场没有任何优势的战争，最终肯定会输，除了给别人埋单外，不会有什么好结果。
“既然是必输无疑的仗，为什么一定要打呢？要么就远离股市，要么就委托投资机构来炒股。 ”
Why the Pandit Memo Is Meaningless
It's nice to get a rally for a change, and the idea that the words "bank" and "profit" could be written in the same memo is astounding.
But the idea that the memo communicated anything meaningful, or that solvency is assured is hokum. Lex has a good take, as always:
But investors should not lose their heads. The headline-grabbing revenue number, of course, does not include costs or writedowns. Besides, Citi exceeded $20bn in adjusted revenues for eight quarters up until the end of September. Even in the nightmare final quarter of last year, revenues excluding writedowns were still a respectable $13.4bn. So Citi having a bumper top line is nothing to get excited about. That “profitable” remains unquantified gives no comfort as to what extent writedowns have eaten into that haul. That is the problem. In volatile markets, flow businesses such as foreign exchange or cash equities will always do well.
ZeroHedge has some further thoughts:
Another question is how much of this blockbuster revenue was due to the Smith Barney brokerage: Citi was forced to sell half of this unit about a month ago, and thus any associated revenues have to be chopped in half for a true pro forma representation, else Citi is double counting the income statement and balance sheet benefits. As more impairments have to be taken, higher and higher tranches of the capital structure will likely become equitization candidates and thus sources of incremental stock dilution.
Finally, we like AngryBear's suggestion that if people are believing anything a bank CEO says, it's official that capitalism can't be saved from investor idiocy. Their words!
But the idea that the memo communicated anything meaningful, or that solvency is assured is hokum. Lex has a good take, as always:
But investors should not lose their heads. The headline-grabbing revenue number, of course, does not include costs or writedowns. Besides, Citi exceeded $20bn in adjusted revenues for eight quarters up until the end of September. Even in the nightmare final quarter of last year, revenues excluding writedowns were still a respectable $13.4bn. So Citi having a bumper top line is nothing to get excited about. That “profitable” remains unquantified gives no comfort as to what extent writedowns have eaten into that haul. That is the problem. In volatile markets, flow businesses such as foreign exchange or cash equities will always do well.
ZeroHedge has some further thoughts:
Another question is how much of this blockbuster revenue was due to the Smith Barney brokerage: Citi was forced to sell half of this unit about a month ago, and thus any associated revenues have to be chopped in half for a true pro forma representation, else Citi is double counting the income statement and balance sheet benefits. As more impairments have to be taken, higher and higher tranches of the capital structure will likely become equitization candidates and thus sources of incremental stock dilution.
Finally, we like AngryBear's suggestion that if people are believing anything a bank CEO says, it's official that capitalism can't be saved from investor idiocy. Their words!
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
5 Reasons Renting Still Beats Buying
This weekend I’ll throw $1,100 down the drain. That is to say, I’ll pay my rent. Pop-finance pundits have long used the drain cliché to describe how renters like me waste money, while homeowners with mortgages “pay themselves” and “build equity.”
In April 2007 I argued something different: Renting Makes More Financial Sense Than Homeownership. Basically, houses produce poor returns over long time periods while stocks and other investments produce good ones, and the outlook for houses is especially poor now, so I’d rather rent cheaply and funnel my extra cash into something other than a house.
Even though house prices have plunged and I have enough money to buy one, I’m still not nearly tempted. In what follows I’ll give five reasons. (The first two form the core of my original argument.) Before all this starts to sound too self-congratulatory, I’ll also explain the one big thing my essay got wrong.
Reason 1: Houses produce lousy returns, while stocks produce good ones
Houses looked like smart investments in 2007. They had returned 9.3% a year for a decade, while stocks had returned just 5.9%. This year, with investors fleeing both houses and stocks, both probably look like a waste of money. But be careful about succumbing to what psychologists call recency bias — the tendency to form beliefs based largely on the most recent observations in a long series of data. For U.S. investors, reliable data on stocks and houses goes back well further than 10, 20 or even 50 years.
Stocks returned 7% a year for 200 years ended 2004, according to Wharton professor Jeremy Siegel. That’s after subtracting an average of 3% a year for inflation, or the gradual rise in prices of ordinary goods. The plunge in stock prices over the past 16 months makes me all the more sure that shares are poised to deliver good returns over the next decade or two. Houses returned 0.4% a year over 114 years ended 2004, according to Yale professor Robert Shiller, co-creator of the most widely used index for house prices. That number is suspiciously close to zero. Indeed, it might have been zero, reckons Shiller, if not for two periods of aggressive house buying, one spurred by government incentives following World War II and another created by the Federal Reserve’s drastic interest rate cuts in 2002 and 2003.
A zero return for houses might sound odd. An editor who re-published my original essay at another web site stuck the word “virtually” before zero, I suppose to soften the message. I made him take it out. If you think about it, zero is the only logical answer, so long as we’re talking about a single-family house and not, say, a rental building built to maximize income. Inflation, recall, is the gradual price rise of ordinary goods. What’s a house if not an ordinary good? Houses don’t spend their days thinking about ways to make themselves more valuable. They just sit there. Subtract inflation from their long-term price increases and there’s nothing left.
Apply heaps of leverage to the numbers if you like, but the outcome only worsens. Mortgage rates now are about as low as they’ve ever been, thanks to more government efforts to, among other things, spur house buying. But you’ll still pay 5.2% to capture long-term price increases that merely match inflation. And today, you’ll tie up a bundle of cash with a down payment. I’d rather pay cheap rent instead of an expensive mortgage and put the monthly cash I save into stocks and other investments. And rent is still plenty cheap, because . . .
Reason 2: House prices have further to fall
Price matters. Few stock investors would think about buying shares of a company before looking at some measure of how expensive it is relative to the value it creates. They might look at the price/earnings ratio, for example. Houses have a price/earnings ratio of sorts — the ratio of their price to the yearly income they could generate if rented out. In April 2007 I noted that price/earnings ratios for stocks were only slightly above their historic average, while price/rent ratios for houses were double their average.
Stock prices were the thing I got wrong. The price/earnings ratio I gave was correct, but the earnings on which it was based were far from ordinary. The fierce housing boom was ringing cash registers at furniture stores, employing heaps of real estate agents, padding the profit statements of lenders and, thanks to home equity loans, puffing up buying power for just about everything. I should have realized that America’s corporate profit was close to a third above normal levels as a percentage of gross domestic product. Profits have reverted to average levels, and stocks have fallen to around 14 times earnings. I recently cautioned readers that, even though stocks are fairly priced, it’s natural to assume that after a long period of above-average prices we can enter a few years of below-average ones.
Houses still seem expensive, though. One recent survey by Moody’s Economy.com found that the price/rent ratio in major markets had fallen to 20 from 24 three years ago, but that for 16 years ended 1999, before the house-buying spree began in earnest, it had stayed below 15.
Numbers like those should inform not only house-buying decisions, but public policy. If a citizen is being made poor by the debt they carry on the house they bought, and if a government policy keeps them tied to that house instead of separated from it into more affordable housing, are we really helping them?
Reason 3: Many houses for sale today seem designed to waste money
“Most men appear never to have considered what a house is, and are actually though needlessly poor all their lives because they think that they must have such a one as their neighbors have.” Henry David Thoreau wrote that about 160 years ago in a long, somewhat preachy but also poignant treatise called "Walden," which argued against materialism and for simplicity. I’d imagine it applies to today’s houses even more than to ones in Thoreau’s day.
Commercial real estate investors seek to maximize the amount of use tenants can get out of a building, while minimizing the operating expenses. Single-family house buyers have lately done almost the opposite, by buying far larger houses than single families need. From the 1950s to 2006, the average American house size doubled, even as the size of families shrank. U.S. tax policy rewards house buyers who borrow, not renters, and not house buyers who pay cash. So naturally, Americans responded by borrowing, which inflated their buying power and ultimately caused dwellings themselves to balloon. The “dream of homeownership” became more of an entitlement to mansion-ownership. But all those mansions on the market do little for me, financially speaking. They’re expensive to heat and cool, and to fill with a respectable amount of stuff.
Reason 4: Big houses are targets for future taxes
This year, U.S. government debt will increase by the largest amount relative to the size of the economy since World War II. Assuming the country will eventually right its financial course, at least some of that money will have to be paid back. That means higher taxes in the future, and taxes come mostly from people with a proven ability to pay — people with high incomes and people with large, expensive, easy-to-find assets. There’s only muted talk of states raising property taxes now, since the federal government is working to support house prices. I’m worried that property taxes will rise sharply in coming years. Of course, renters pay taxes too, if you figure that landlords merely pass along taxes to tenants. But renters live in smaller spaces.
I might have titled this reason, "Few people truly own their house, anyway." To me, owning something is defined in part by not having to pay anymore. Condo owners are really renters, if we consider their endless maintenance fees. But house owners, too, must pay rent to the government in the form of taxes, and must pay for plenty of ongoing maintenance besides.
Reason 5: Neighborhoods are changing in unpredictable ways
In March 2008, The Atlantic published a frightening vision of what might happen to America’s suburbs. Low-density suburbs, it theorized, may become what inner cities became in the 1960s and '70s — "slums characterized by poverty, crime and decay.” I’ve no idea whether anything like that will come to pass. But the popping of America’s giant housing bubble, and a corresponding shift in where people find jobs, seems sure to reshape how and where we live in coming years. For rural folks that might not matter much. (For them, in fact, little of this might apply, since house prices in rural America have stayed pretty sane.) But anyone considering a move to the suburbs should do some careful forecasting before sinking a large portion of their wealth into a house.
I hope all this doesn’t sound alarmist. I’ll surely buy a house one day, when prices are low enough, and I’ll probably even buy one that’s a little bigger than I need. But I’ll do so knowing that I’m spending on luxury, not investing. Also, I hope this doesn’t further the anxiety of readers with mortgage troubles. The trend of the day seems to be to take an angry tone with people who’ve gotten in over their heads -- one fellow columnist referred to them the other day as “deadbeats.” But two other parties deserve a full measure of blame, and I don’t mean lenders. First, lawmakers have for decades trumpeted house affordability initiatives like tax breaks, while leaving supply in choice markets constrained. That inflated demand and ultimately produced the opposite of affordability. Second, too many people who do what I do for a living spent most of the housing boom cheerleading instead of doing math. It’s time to stop lecturing renters — and maybe to ask why public policy treats them as less-worthy citizens than buyers.
In April 2007 I argued something different: Renting Makes More Financial Sense Than Homeownership. Basically, houses produce poor returns over long time periods while stocks and other investments produce good ones, and the outlook for houses is especially poor now, so I’d rather rent cheaply and funnel my extra cash into something other than a house.
Even though house prices have plunged and I have enough money to buy one, I’m still not nearly tempted. In what follows I’ll give five reasons. (The first two form the core of my original argument.) Before all this starts to sound too self-congratulatory, I’ll also explain the one big thing my essay got wrong.
Reason 1: Houses produce lousy returns, while stocks produce good ones
Houses looked like smart investments in 2007. They had returned 9.3% a year for a decade, while stocks had returned just 5.9%. This year, with investors fleeing both houses and stocks, both probably look like a waste of money. But be careful about succumbing to what psychologists call recency bias — the tendency to form beliefs based largely on the most recent observations in a long series of data. For U.S. investors, reliable data on stocks and houses goes back well further than 10, 20 or even 50 years.
Stocks returned 7% a year for 200 years ended 2004, according to Wharton professor Jeremy Siegel. That’s after subtracting an average of 3% a year for inflation, or the gradual rise in prices of ordinary goods. The plunge in stock prices over the past 16 months makes me all the more sure that shares are poised to deliver good returns over the next decade or two. Houses returned 0.4% a year over 114 years ended 2004, according to Yale professor Robert Shiller, co-creator of the most widely used index for house prices. That number is suspiciously close to zero. Indeed, it might have been zero, reckons Shiller, if not for two periods of aggressive house buying, one spurred by government incentives following World War II and another created by the Federal Reserve’s drastic interest rate cuts in 2002 and 2003.
A zero return for houses might sound odd. An editor who re-published my original essay at another web site stuck the word “virtually” before zero, I suppose to soften the message. I made him take it out. If you think about it, zero is the only logical answer, so long as we’re talking about a single-family house and not, say, a rental building built to maximize income. Inflation, recall, is the gradual price rise of ordinary goods. What’s a house if not an ordinary good? Houses don’t spend their days thinking about ways to make themselves more valuable. They just sit there. Subtract inflation from their long-term price increases and there’s nothing left.
Apply heaps of leverage to the numbers if you like, but the outcome only worsens. Mortgage rates now are about as low as they’ve ever been, thanks to more government efforts to, among other things, spur house buying. But you’ll still pay 5.2% to capture long-term price increases that merely match inflation. And today, you’ll tie up a bundle of cash with a down payment. I’d rather pay cheap rent instead of an expensive mortgage and put the monthly cash I save into stocks and other investments. And rent is still plenty cheap, because . . .
Reason 2: House prices have further to fall
Price matters. Few stock investors would think about buying shares of a company before looking at some measure of how expensive it is relative to the value it creates. They might look at the price/earnings ratio, for example. Houses have a price/earnings ratio of sorts — the ratio of their price to the yearly income they could generate if rented out. In April 2007 I noted that price/earnings ratios for stocks were only slightly above their historic average, while price/rent ratios for houses were double their average.
Stock prices were the thing I got wrong. The price/earnings ratio I gave was correct, but the earnings on which it was based were far from ordinary. The fierce housing boom was ringing cash registers at furniture stores, employing heaps of real estate agents, padding the profit statements of lenders and, thanks to home equity loans, puffing up buying power for just about everything. I should have realized that America’s corporate profit was close to a third above normal levels as a percentage of gross domestic product. Profits have reverted to average levels, and stocks have fallen to around 14 times earnings. I recently cautioned readers that, even though stocks are fairly priced, it’s natural to assume that after a long period of above-average prices we can enter a few years of below-average ones.
Houses still seem expensive, though. One recent survey by Moody’s Economy.com found that the price/rent ratio in major markets had fallen to 20 from 24 three years ago, but that for 16 years ended 1999, before the house-buying spree began in earnest, it had stayed below 15.
Numbers like those should inform not only house-buying decisions, but public policy. If a citizen is being made poor by the debt they carry on the house they bought, and if a government policy keeps them tied to that house instead of separated from it into more affordable housing, are we really helping them?
Reason 3: Many houses for sale today seem designed to waste money
“Most men appear never to have considered what a house is, and are actually though needlessly poor all their lives because they think that they must have such a one as their neighbors have.” Henry David Thoreau wrote that about 160 years ago in a long, somewhat preachy but also poignant treatise called "Walden," which argued against materialism and for simplicity. I’d imagine it applies to today’s houses even more than to ones in Thoreau’s day.
Commercial real estate investors seek to maximize the amount of use tenants can get out of a building, while minimizing the operating expenses. Single-family house buyers have lately done almost the opposite, by buying far larger houses than single families need. From the 1950s to 2006, the average American house size doubled, even as the size of families shrank. U.S. tax policy rewards house buyers who borrow, not renters, and not house buyers who pay cash. So naturally, Americans responded by borrowing, which inflated their buying power and ultimately caused dwellings themselves to balloon. The “dream of homeownership” became more of an entitlement to mansion-ownership. But all those mansions on the market do little for me, financially speaking. They’re expensive to heat and cool, and to fill with a respectable amount of stuff.
Reason 4: Big houses are targets for future taxes
This year, U.S. government debt will increase by the largest amount relative to the size of the economy since World War II. Assuming the country will eventually right its financial course, at least some of that money will have to be paid back. That means higher taxes in the future, and taxes come mostly from people with a proven ability to pay — people with high incomes and people with large, expensive, easy-to-find assets. There’s only muted talk of states raising property taxes now, since the federal government is working to support house prices. I’m worried that property taxes will rise sharply in coming years. Of course, renters pay taxes too, if you figure that landlords merely pass along taxes to tenants. But renters live in smaller spaces.
I might have titled this reason, "Few people truly own their house, anyway." To me, owning something is defined in part by not having to pay anymore. Condo owners are really renters, if we consider their endless maintenance fees. But house owners, too, must pay rent to the government in the form of taxes, and must pay for plenty of ongoing maintenance besides.
Reason 5: Neighborhoods are changing in unpredictable ways
In March 2008, The Atlantic published a frightening vision of what might happen to America’s suburbs. Low-density suburbs, it theorized, may become what inner cities became in the 1960s and '70s — "slums characterized by poverty, crime and decay.” I’ve no idea whether anything like that will come to pass. But the popping of America’s giant housing bubble, and a corresponding shift in where people find jobs, seems sure to reshape how and where we live in coming years. For rural folks that might not matter much. (For them, in fact, little of this might apply, since house prices in rural America have stayed pretty sane.) But anyone considering a move to the suburbs should do some careful forecasting before sinking a large portion of their wealth into a house.
I hope all this doesn’t sound alarmist. I’ll surely buy a house one day, when prices are low enough, and I’ll probably even buy one that’s a little bigger than I need. But I’ll do so knowing that I’m spending on luxury, not investing. Also, I hope this doesn’t further the anxiety of readers with mortgage troubles. The trend of the day seems to be to take an angry tone with people who’ve gotten in over their heads -- one fellow columnist referred to them the other day as “deadbeats.” But two other parties deserve a full measure of blame, and I don’t mean lenders. First, lawmakers have for decades trumpeted house affordability initiatives like tax breaks, while leaving supply in choice markets constrained. That inflated demand and ultimately produced the opposite of affordability. Second, too many people who do what I do for a living spent most of the housing boom cheerleading instead of doing math. It’s time to stop lecturing renters — and maybe to ask why public policy treats them as less-worthy citizens than buyers.
In the post - UOB’s foray into heartland home loans
In a surprise move, United Overseas Bank (UOB) has tied-up exclusively with SingPost to sell HDB home loans, muscling its way into mass market mortgages that have so far been dominated by rivals DBS Group Holdings and OCBC Bank.
UOB which has previously targeted private property buyers and the affluent yesterday said it has forged a strategic alliance with SingPost to distribute UOB HDB Home Loans.
The bank will initially start with four SingPost outlets and plan to have up to 24 post office branches by the end of the year to sell HDB homes loans. SingPost has 52 branches all over the island.
‘The latest move extends UOB’s HDB home loans’ distribution network beyond its 57 branches,’ UOB and SingPost said in a joint statement.
The exclusive arrangement is for more than 5 years, said Claudia Lim, SingPost corporate communications manager.
SingPost dedicated staff trained by UOB will be selling the HDB home loans, said Ms Lim.
Eddie Khoo, UOB’s executive vice-president for personal financial services, said the latest initiative ‘is really about bringing convenience to customers by extending the bank’s distribution network beyond the walls of our own branches to reach customers’.
‘At the macro level, and in the longer term, we see this as a strategic investment as this additional channel enables us to serve our customers better through convenience and accessibility.’
The surprise move will likely spark off a fierce tussle with rivals DBS and OCBC who may seek to protect their turf. Both banks claim to be the market leader. DBS said it has captured HDB buyers through its POSB customers while OCBC has focused on HDB mortgages from the time the government liberalised the market in Jan 2003.
‘POSB is the market leader in HDB home loans,’ said a DBS spokeswoman. The bank has 53 POSB branches.
‘We were also the first in the market to introduce POSB Home Ideal First for first-time homeowners, offering them a 7-day return policy which allows them to assess if the home loan is suitable for their needs,’ she said.
Gregory Chan, OCBC head of secured lending, said the bank’s team of mobile home loan specialists visit potential customers who are too busy to come to its branches, to explain details of home loan packages and to process applications.
‘At the same time, we work with property agents from the largest property firms in Singapore who are in direct contact with home buyers and help market our home loans. This business model has served us well and we continue to be the top player in the HDB home loan market,’ said Mr Chan.
Mass market home loans are just about the safest products as Singapore enters its worst recession ever because the prices of HDB homes did not surge wildly during the property bubble. And now, they are not skidding sharply.
In contrast, the prices of some high-end properties have crashed as much as 50 per cent from the peak reached last year. A Citigroup report in January said that, in the high-end segment, properties have seen price corrections of about 35 per cent from a year ago and they could fall by another 30-40 per cent this year.
David Conner, OCBC chief executive, said last month while announcing the bank’s 2008 results that negative equity for its property portfolio was low because of the bank’s focus on HDB home loans.
He also noted that HDB mortgages are for owner occupation and the loan quantums are small.
‘A big part of our portfolio is HDB - prices have not gone up as much - and we do not anticipate a big fall,’ he said.
OCBC’s home loan book negative equity was 0.7 per cent while 81 per cent of homes for which it has made loans are owner-occupied.
UOB which has previously targeted private property buyers and the affluent yesterday said it has forged a strategic alliance with SingPost to distribute UOB HDB Home Loans.
The bank will initially start with four SingPost outlets and plan to have up to 24 post office branches by the end of the year to sell HDB homes loans. SingPost has 52 branches all over the island.
‘The latest move extends UOB’s HDB home loans’ distribution network beyond its 57 branches,’ UOB and SingPost said in a joint statement.
The exclusive arrangement is for more than 5 years, said Claudia Lim, SingPost corporate communications manager.
SingPost dedicated staff trained by UOB will be selling the HDB home loans, said Ms Lim.
Eddie Khoo, UOB’s executive vice-president for personal financial services, said the latest initiative ‘is really about bringing convenience to customers by extending the bank’s distribution network beyond the walls of our own branches to reach customers’.
‘At the macro level, and in the longer term, we see this as a strategic investment as this additional channel enables us to serve our customers better through convenience and accessibility.’
The surprise move will likely spark off a fierce tussle with rivals DBS and OCBC who may seek to protect their turf. Both banks claim to be the market leader. DBS said it has captured HDB buyers through its POSB customers while OCBC has focused on HDB mortgages from the time the government liberalised the market in Jan 2003.
‘POSB is the market leader in HDB home loans,’ said a DBS spokeswoman. The bank has 53 POSB branches.
‘We were also the first in the market to introduce POSB Home Ideal First for first-time homeowners, offering them a 7-day return policy which allows them to assess if the home loan is suitable for their needs,’ she said.
Gregory Chan, OCBC head of secured lending, said the bank’s team of mobile home loan specialists visit potential customers who are too busy to come to its branches, to explain details of home loan packages and to process applications.
‘At the same time, we work with property agents from the largest property firms in Singapore who are in direct contact with home buyers and help market our home loans. This business model has served us well and we continue to be the top player in the HDB home loan market,’ said Mr Chan.
Mass market home loans are just about the safest products as Singapore enters its worst recession ever because the prices of HDB homes did not surge wildly during the property bubble. And now, they are not skidding sharply.
In contrast, the prices of some high-end properties have crashed as much as 50 per cent from the peak reached last year. A Citigroup report in January said that, in the high-end segment, properties have seen price corrections of about 35 per cent from a year ago and they could fall by another 30-40 per cent this year.
David Conner, OCBC chief executive, said last month while announcing the bank’s 2008 results that negative equity for its property portfolio was low because of the bank’s focus on HDB home loans.
He also noted that HDB mortgages are for owner occupation and the loan quantums are small.
‘A big part of our portfolio is HDB - prices have not gone up as much - and we do not anticipate a big fall,’ he said.
OCBC’s home loan book negative equity was 0.7 per cent while 81 per cent of homes for which it has made loans are owner-occupied.
Singapore Post & UOB: Tie-up to distribute HDB home loans
Singapore Post (SingPost) has tied-up with United Overseas Bank (UOB) to distribute UOB HDB Home Loans, and has set up limited purpose branches at four SingPost post offices. The plan is to have up to 24 such post office branches by end 2009, and adds on to the variety of services that SingPost currently offers to customers. Known for its proactive measures in launching initiatives to sustain profits, we view this latest development positively as it is further testament of the group’s desire to be a one-stop-shop service provider for customers. We maintain our BUY rating for SingPost with fair value estimate of S$0.93, though we do note that the flagging economy may weigh on the stock price at least for the short term.
For UOB, this is another interesting avenue to branch into the HDB home loans market and we note that HDB prices have remained fairly resilient despite the recent collapse in most sectors of the economy. We are maintaining our estimates and HOLD rating for now and fair value estimate of S$9.30.
For UOB, this is another interesting avenue to branch into the HDB home loans market and we note that HDB prices have remained fairly resilient despite the recent collapse in most sectors of the economy. We are maintaining our estimates and HOLD rating for now and fair value estimate of S$9.30.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Warren Buffett says economy fell off a cliff
Buffett says economy fell off a cliff in the past 6 months as consumers changed their habits
Billionaire Warren Buffett said unemployment will likely climb a lot higher depending upon how effective the nation's policies are, but he remains optimistic over the long term.
Buffett said the nation's leaders need to support President Barack Obama's efforts to repair the economy because fear is dominating Americans' behavior and the economy has basically followed the worst-case scenario he envisioned.
"It's fallen off a cliff," Buffett said Monday during a live appearance on CNBC. "Not only has the economy slowed down a lot, but people have really changed their habits like I haven't seen."
Buffett said the changes are reflected in the results of Berkshire Hathaway Inc.'s subsidiaries. He said Berkshire's jewelry companies have suffered, but more people have been willing to switch to Geico to save money on car insurance.
He predicted that unemployment will likely climb a lot higher before the recession is done, but he also reiterated his optimistic long-term view: "Everything will be all right. We do have the greatest economic machine that's ever been created."
Fear and confusion have been driving consumer and investor behavior in recent months, Buffett said.
The nation's leaders need to clear up the confusion before anyone will become more confident, and he said all 535 members of Congress should stop the partisan bickering about solutions.
Buffett said he believes patriotic Republicans and Democrats will realize the nation is engaged in an economic war.
"What is required is a commander in chief that's looked at like a commander in chief in a time of war," Buffett said.
Whatever the government does to help the economy will likely benefit some people who made poor financial decisions, but Buffett said Americans should realize that everyone is in the same boat.
"The people that behaved well are no doubt going to find themselves taking care of the people who didn't behave well," Buffett said.
A little over a week ago, Buffett released his annual letter to shareholders describing the worst of his 44 years at the helm of Berkshire. The Omaha, Neb.-based company reported sharply lower profit because of its largely unrealized $7.5 billion investment and derivative losses.
Overall, Berkshire's 2008 profit of $4.99 billion, or $3,224 per Class A share, was down 62 percent from $13.21 billion, or $8,548 per share, in 2007.
Berkshire's fourth-quarter numbers were even worse. Buffett's company reported net income of $117 million, or $76 per share, down 96 percent from $2.95 billion, or $1,904 per share, a year earlier.
Buffett said he doesn't regret writing an editorial last fall encouraging people to buy U.S. stocks, but he joked that in hindsight he wishes he'd waited a few months to publish the piece. Since that editorial appeared on Oct. 17, the Dow Jones industrial average has fallen from 8,852.22 to close at 6,626.94 on Friday.
Buffett stands by his overall advice that over time owning stocks will be better than so-called safe investments.
"Overall, equities are going to do far better than U.S. government bonds at these prices," he said.
Buffett said he doesn't regret investing $8 billion of Berkshire's money in investment bank Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and conglomerate General Electric Co. last fall. Both companies gave Berkshire preferred shares paying 10 percent interest that Buffett said he doesn't think he could get now.
Berkshire owns a diverse mix of more than 60 companies, including insurance, furniture, carpet, jewelry, restaurants and utility businesses. And it has major investments in such companies as Wells Fargo & Co. and Coca-Cola Co.
Billionaire Warren Buffett said unemployment will likely climb a lot higher depending upon how effective the nation's policies are, but he remains optimistic over the long term.
Buffett said the nation's leaders need to support President Barack Obama's efforts to repair the economy because fear is dominating Americans' behavior and the economy has basically followed the worst-case scenario he envisioned.
"It's fallen off a cliff," Buffett said Monday during a live appearance on CNBC. "Not only has the economy slowed down a lot, but people have really changed their habits like I haven't seen."
Buffett said the changes are reflected in the results of Berkshire Hathaway Inc.'s subsidiaries. He said Berkshire's jewelry companies have suffered, but more people have been willing to switch to Geico to save money on car insurance.
He predicted that unemployment will likely climb a lot higher before the recession is done, but he also reiterated his optimistic long-term view: "Everything will be all right. We do have the greatest economic machine that's ever been created."
Fear and confusion have been driving consumer and investor behavior in recent months, Buffett said.
The nation's leaders need to clear up the confusion before anyone will become more confident, and he said all 535 members of Congress should stop the partisan bickering about solutions.
Buffett said he believes patriotic Republicans and Democrats will realize the nation is engaged in an economic war.
"What is required is a commander in chief that's looked at like a commander in chief in a time of war," Buffett said.
Whatever the government does to help the economy will likely benefit some people who made poor financial decisions, but Buffett said Americans should realize that everyone is in the same boat.
"The people that behaved well are no doubt going to find themselves taking care of the people who didn't behave well," Buffett said.
A little over a week ago, Buffett released his annual letter to shareholders describing the worst of his 44 years at the helm of Berkshire. The Omaha, Neb.-based company reported sharply lower profit because of its largely unrealized $7.5 billion investment and derivative losses.
Overall, Berkshire's 2008 profit of $4.99 billion, or $3,224 per Class A share, was down 62 percent from $13.21 billion, or $8,548 per share, in 2007.
Berkshire's fourth-quarter numbers were even worse. Buffett's company reported net income of $117 million, or $76 per share, down 96 percent from $2.95 billion, or $1,904 per share, a year earlier.
Buffett said he doesn't regret writing an editorial last fall encouraging people to buy U.S. stocks, but he joked that in hindsight he wishes he'd waited a few months to publish the piece. Since that editorial appeared on Oct. 17, the Dow Jones industrial average has fallen from 8,852.22 to close at 6,626.94 on Friday.
Buffett stands by his overall advice that over time owning stocks will be better than so-called safe investments.
"Overall, equities are going to do far better than U.S. government bonds at these prices," he said.
Buffett said he doesn't regret investing $8 billion of Berkshire's money in investment bank Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and conglomerate General Electric Co. last fall. Both companies gave Berkshire preferred shares paying 10 percent interest that Buffett said he doesn't think he could get now.
Berkshire owns a diverse mix of more than 60 companies, including insurance, furniture, carpet, jewelry, restaurants and utility businesses. And it has major investments in such companies as Wells Fargo & Co. and Coca-Cola Co.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Stocks or residential property investment?
Needless to say, property and stock markets are the most unlikely places you want your money to be right now. But the question is, given that you have $300,000 to invest now, do you buy a private residential property beside a MRT or a blue chip like DBS for passive income?
Many would argue that in Singapore, buying property would never go wrong. Well, perhaps it is because you have not seen people who have got their hands burnt in property market to live and tell their stories?
Which one offers a higher return and lower risk?
Some parameters of comparison:
DBS: $6.80/share
Assuming you purchased 44 lots.
Dividend per quarter: 10 cents (conservative guesstimate, could be higher or lower)
Income per annum: $17,600
Probability of losing 40% of your $300,000 in 6 months time: 30% (my conservative guess)
Income tax payable: None, as it has already been taxed at source
Yield: 5.89%
Probability of selling and earning a profit in 20 years time: 90% (guesstimate)
Net dividend income at the end of 20 years: $352,000
Assuming a conservative adjustment of 30% error, net dividend income would be: $246,400.
The argument here is that even the best banks in the world can fail, can we even trust to put our money with Singapore blue chips?
There is still a fair chance to lose 100% of our money in stocks.
Next
99 year leasehold Property: E.g: Kovan Melody/Compass heights
Cost: 1000 sq feet, 2 room property purchase @ $580/sq foot, costing $600,000 after stamp duties and other transaction fees. Minor renovations and fixtures have also been accounted.
Loan amount: $300,000 @ 2.5% for 20 years (interest is more likely to be 3.5% on average)
Monthly installment: $1500 (conservatively speaking)
Income from rent: $2100 (conservative estimate)x12= $25,200
Property tax: 10% of $25,000= $2,500
Agent expenses: $1,100
Wear and tear yearly maintenance: $600
Net rental yearly income: $3,000
Yield: 5,400/300,000= 1.0%
Probability of losing 40% of your $300,000 in 6 months time: 30% (my conservative guess)
(Should the property market falls another 20%, the fall in your property price will be $120,000, or 40%.)
Net rental income at the end of 20 years: $60,000
Probability of selling and earning a profit in 20 years time: 99% (based on historical records)
Apparently, property market is a more appealing investment as most people can tap on their CPF funds to finance their property while earning cash returns. From the above example, it is likely that the owner is able to sell the property 20 years later for at least $540,000 and earn a little profit, or carry on renting out the property for a $20,000 annual income.
This risk is considered “lower” as it is unlikely that the property will “fail” due to earthquakes or tsunami.
In the event that nobody wants to rent, the owner can simply move in and enjoy the home himself. You cannot even use the DBS’s branch toilets even if you are a major shareholder!
However, the short term risks are more or less the same. Yet the investment emotions involved are different. The feeling of seeing my property price falling 20% and pain of seeing my investment portfolio falling 50% is totally different even if the amount involved is the same.
Property gives people a sense of security. People need a roof over their heads, no matter what happens. It let investors feel that they can earn some rental income as long as they lower rent. However for stocks, investors do not see themselves owning an essential business. Actually, many businesses are also essential ones. Without them, people cannot own houses or even get a job.
Personally, I feel that property investment carries a higher risk of failure. The rental income might not be stable and one depends on rental income to service the loan. Tenants may default or destroy your house fittings, there might be unhappiness when negotiating new rental contracts or handle difficult tenants.
Still stocks for me for now.
Many would argue that in Singapore, buying property would never go wrong. Well, perhaps it is because you have not seen people who have got their hands burnt in property market to live and tell their stories?
Which one offers a higher return and lower risk?
Some parameters of comparison:
DBS: $6.80/share
Assuming you purchased 44 lots.
Dividend per quarter: 10 cents (conservative guesstimate, could be higher or lower)
Income per annum: $17,600
Probability of losing 40% of your $300,000 in 6 months time: 30% (my conservative guess)
Income tax payable: None, as it has already been taxed at source
Yield: 5.89%
Probability of selling and earning a profit in 20 years time: 90% (guesstimate)
Net dividend income at the end of 20 years: $352,000
Assuming a conservative adjustment of 30% error, net dividend income would be: $246,400.
The argument here is that even the best banks in the world can fail, can we even trust to put our money with Singapore blue chips?
There is still a fair chance to lose 100% of our money in stocks.
Next
99 year leasehold Property: E.g: Kovan Melody/Compass heights
Cost: 1000 sq feet, 2 room property purchase @ $580/sq foot, costing $600,000 after stamp duties and other transaction fees. Minor renovations and fixtures have also been accounted.
Loan amount: $300,000 @ 2.5% for 20 years (interest is more likely to be 3.5% on average)
Monthly installment: $1500 (conservatively speaking)
Income from rent: $2100 (conservative estimate)x12= $25,200
Property tax: 10% of $25,000= $2,500
Agent expenses: $1,100
Wear and tear yearly maintenance: $600
Net rental yearly income: $3,000
Yield: 5,400/300,000= 1.0%
Probability of losing 40% of your $300,000 in 6 months time: 30% (my conservative guess)
(Should the property market falls another 20%, the fall in your property price will be $120,000, or 40%.)
Net rental income at the end of 20 years: $60,000
Probability of selling and earning a profit in 20 years time: 99% (based on historical records)
Apparently, property market is a more appealing investment as most people can tap on their CPF funds to finance their property while earning cash returns. From the above example, it is likely that the owner is able to sell the property 20 years later for at least $540,000 and earn a little profit, or carry on renting out the property for a $20,000 annual income.
This risk is considered “lower” as it is unlikely that the property will “fail” due to earthquakes or tsunami.
In the event that nobody wants to rent, the owner can simply move in and enjoy the home himself. You cannot even use the DBS’s branch toilets even if you are a major shareholder!
However, the short term risks are more or less the same. Yet the investment emotions involved are different. The feeling of seeing my property price falling 20% and pain of seeing my investment portfolio falling 50% is totally different even if the amount involved is the same.
Property gives people a sense of security. People need a roof over their heads, no matter what happens. It let investors feel that they can earn some rental income as long as they lower rent. However for stocks, investors do not see themselves owning an essential business. Actually, many businesses are also essential ones. Without them, people cannot own houses or even get a job.
Personally, I feel that property investment carries a higher risk of failure. The rental income might not be stable and one depends on rental income to service the loan. Tenants may default or destroy your house fittings, there might be unhappiness when negotiating new rental contracts or handle difficult tenants.
Still stocks for me for now.
AusGroup Ltd: Waiting and watching
Summary: We recently caught up with AusGroup Ltd (AusGroup) management. Its 2Q results exceeded our estimates because of a delayed impact of market shrinkage on ongoing projects and some flow through of conservative variation claims from previous quarters. While we have adjusted our estimates slightly to take 2Q figures into account, we still expect significant contractions in 2H09. We have previously commented on AusGroup’s growing pains since FY08 as it transformed itself into a multinational and multiplatform business. The company is finally showing some signs of “growing up”, in our view. The global economic environment is still very uncertain. We stay cautious on revenue and margin estimates and will track the company closely in the months ahead. We maintain our HOLD rating on AusGroup. Our new fair value estimate is S$0.16 or 4x FY09F earnings (prev: S$0.17).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)