View Full Version : ABD ve global piyasalar..
Başta ABD olmak üzere yurtdışı piyasalardaki ve ekonomilerdeki gelişmeler üzerine burada tartışabilir, yurtdışı medya kaynaklı önemli gördüğümüz yorumları, raporları ve haberleri paylaşabiliriz. Bundan sonra okuduklarımı mümkün olduğunca buraya taşıyacağım..
İlki bu haftaki BusinessWeek'den..
It's A Low, Low, Low, Low-Rate World..
FEBRUARY 19, 2007
COVER STORY
http://img57.imageshack.us/img57/6933/0708covdcwx2.gif (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_08/b4022001.htm)
February 01, 2007
By Serhan Cevik | London
Economic normalization is a secular trend, but being a carry-trade magnet is still risky. Conventional valuation models suggest that the Turkish lira has been overvalued in recent years, but these metrics fail to capture structural turning points and the appreciation of the equilibrium exchange rate. In our view, fundamental improvements in economic performance justify the so-called ‘misalignment’ of the lira. Productivity-driven growth — surging to an annual rate of 7.5% in the past five years — and disinflation from an average of 77.5% in the 1990s to the single-digit territory are enough to bring appreciation. But that is just a part of the story and does not fully reflect the extent of the continuing correction. Since the mother of all problems in the Turkish economy had been fiscal imbalances, fiscal consolidation is the key factor in removing distortions and revaluing asset prices. The latest figures show that the budget deficit already narrowed from 16.5% of GDP in 2001 to 0.7% last year. Moreover, the public sector borrowing requirement — a better measure of fiscal stance — moved from 17.5% of GDP to a surplus of 3.2% in the same period, making the Treasury a net debt payer for the first time. As a result, Turkey’s net public sector debt/GDP ratio declined from the peak of 90.5% in 2001 to 46.5% by the end of 2006, driving the real interest rate from an average of 28.5% in 2002 to 9.2% in 2005 and 7.9% last April. And this is exactly where managing normalization gets tricky. The real interest rate may have come down to the lowest level, but the structural shift of the yield curve and interest rate differentials vis-à-vis other countries keep attracting more capital flows, especially in a low yield-low volatility environment.
The unprecedented wave of capital inflows may lead to exaggerated currency movements. In the last five years, Turkey received US$110.5 billion in net capital inflows and the central bank increased its currency reserves from US$18.8 billion to US$60.9 billion. Even though the composition of external financing has improved, with the share of foreign direct investment and long-term loans covering more than 70% of the current account deficit, the absolute size of liquidity-driven portfolio flows remain huge. Foreign investors now hold 69% of free float in the equity market and 32.5% of non-bank holdings of domestic government securities. Turkey’s improving economic prospects certainly set the stage for this unprecedented wave of capital inflows, but the behavior of international investors has also been shaped by ‘push’ factors — global liquidity, financial innovation and low volatility. With record-low funding costs and easier access to capital, a growing number of investors have started pursuing speculative strategies to generate ‘excess’ return in a world of ‘excess’ liquidity (see Carried Away, September 27, 2006). Of course, coupled with de-dollarization of residents’ financial portfolios, these leveraged carry trades exploiting interest rate differentials have altered the supply/demand balance for currencies and become the most important determinant of short-run exchange rate movements.
The unwinding of carry trades can increase volatility in financial markets. Official statistics do not reveal the true magnitude of carry trades in Turkey’s financial system, but we can still come up with a rough estimate based on non-residents’ holdings of domestic government debt instruments and foreign exchange-funded interest rate swaps. Foreign investors increased their exposure to domestic government debt from US$6.1 billion (or 11.5% of non-bank holdings) at the end of 2003 to US$22.5 billion (or 26.2%) last March. In the meantime, the issuance of foreign exchange-funded swaps soared from nothing to about US$10 billion. But the sudden re-pricing of risk last spring lowered the value of non-resident holdings of domestic government bonds to US$14.5 billion (or 20.7%), weakening the lira and pushing interest rates higher, even though there was no decline in the amount of outstanding swaps. Since then, however, thanks to higher risk appetite, foreign investors have accumulated more lira-denominated bonds, and now account for 32.5% of non-bank holdings. The Turkish economy may still be facing the risk of volatility bursts — triggered by occasional shifts in global portfolio allocations — but it has become far more resilient, and the current liquidity structure of domestic money markets should limit the potential for weakness in the lira, in our view.
http://www.morganstanley.com/views/gef/archive/2007/20070201-Thu.html
February 09, 2007
By Serhan Cevik | London
Low real interest rates in the developed world make ‘risky’ assets more attractive. The world has changed — a lot and fast. Just a few years ago, we were wondering about the disappearance of liquidity (see O Liquidity, Where Art Thou? March 20, 2001), but now we instead mull over ‘excess’ liquidity in the global financial system. Indeed, these days, the focus is on nothing but the so-called liquidity super-cycle that has contributed to the decline in the term premium and altered the behavior of economies and asset markets all around the world. In our view, not just monetary easing, but a variety of factors — ranging from financial innovation and globalization to petrodollars — have played a role in determining the extent of liquidity growth and the level of risk appetite among investors. And this is exactly why higher short-term interest rates in the developed world, albeit occasionally triggering waves of risk reduction, have not really changed the abundance of global liquidity. Even after 425bp of tightening in the US and 125bp in Europe, real long-term interest rates remain below historical norms, reducing volatility, at least in the short run, and making ‘risky’ assets like emerging-market debt and equities more attractive.
Liquidity overhang makes interest rate differentials even more important. Financial volatility, measured by the CBOE index, declined from an average of 20.1 between 1990 and 2002 to 12.6 in 2006 and 10.9 so far this year. Coupled with the lower cost of funding, the moderation of volatility helps to keep the liquidity overhang and encourages greater risk-taking. As a result, carry trades — investing low-yielding currencies into high-yielding markets — become more popular. Economic fundamentals of course do play an important role in shaping investment decisions, but interest rate differentials (even before adjusting for exchange-rate risk) could become the overwhelming factor, especially in today’s setting. And this is precisely what is happening to lira-denominated assets. Supported by Turkey’s strong fundamentals, higher interest rates have attracted a sea of global liquidity and become the most important determinant of short-run currency dynamics.
Foreign capital inflows have reached the peak for both debt and equities. Turkey had already accumulated $US110.5 billion in net capital flows in the last five years, allowing the central bank to increase its currency reserves from US$18.8 billion to over US$62 billion. The share of direct investment and long-term loans may have risen above 70% of the current account deficit, but liquidity-driven inflows are still significant. In fact, with global calm and higher risk appetite, foreign investors have increased exposure to lira-denominated assets to new peaks this year. While holding 69% of the free float in the Turkish equity market, non-resident investors have accumulated more domestic government debt. According to the latest figures covering up to the third week of January, foreign holdings of domestic fixed-income securities soared to 38.5 billion lira, from 21.2 billion lira recorded after last year’s volatility shock and 11.5 billion lira at the end of 2003. In other words, foreign investors now account for 33.5% of non-bank holdings of domestic debt, up from 20.7% in June 2006 and 11.5% in December 2003. Furthermore, the quality of these holdings has also improved in terms of duration, as foreign investors now own about 70% of Turkey’s 5-year bonds. Nevertheless, asset prices are still sensitive to political noise and especially changes in global risk tolerance.
An unexpected rise in the term premium in the developed markets could increase volatility. Our US economics team expects the Federal Reserve to keep short-term interest rates unchanged until the end of 2007 and then start easing towards 4.75% by the end of next year. Although such an outlook for the US monetary policy stance would support the gradual normalization of global financial conditions, an unexpected rise in the term premium and the resulting withdrawal of global liquidity could still lead to the unwinding of leveraged positions and an eruption of volatility. Of course, the sheer magnitude of capital movements makes the conduct of independent monetary policy exceedingly challenging in an emerging economy like Turkey. Nevertheless, current liquidity conditions in domestic money markets and the level of interest rate differentials should cushion Turkey against exogenous risk adjustments, as long as fiscal consolidation remains firmly on track, in our opinion.
http://www.morganstanley.com/views/gef/archive/2007/20070209-Fri.html
Minyanville Staff
Jan 30, 2007 8:45 am
I have been thinking a lot lately about the state of economics and markets. From an intellectual point of view it is fascinating; from an emotional point of view it is scary.
Oh don’t worry about me. I am parked over here in Japan, long the yen that everyone else in the world is short. I am happy to lend these yen back out at basically zero to speculators since I believe that one day they will be forced to buy them back from me at much higher prices. This will occur when the Bank of Japan will finally be forced by the market to raise interest rates from their ridiculous “free” money levels. When will this be? Well, I think we saw the first strains of rebellion by Thailand a few months ago when it raised margin requirements. Speculation is rampant and they seem the only ones out here with any common sense. Just because they were “cajoled” by their trading partners to reverse course doesn’t mean those strains are still not there.
I am willing to forgo the 5% interest I can earn on other currencies for the expected value of doubling my “money” in a few years or sooner.
The Bank of Japan is a laughing stock. They are inflationists that would make any central banker proud; a country naively being used by others, especially the U.S., to dump liquidity into markets. Yes folks, there is rampant inflation in asset prices. Not only do central bankers of all stripes understate the cost of living, but asset prices like stocks and houses are now in hyper-inflationary territory. Being long assets that are in such a state is like taking a picture of an egg at the height of its toss: it looks fine unless one ponders the inevitable state of it being splattered on the sidewalk. The egg has been going up and up and up and it may go up further, but gravity is doing its work and it will not fail.
In normal times a good deal of market liquidity comes from income and thus savings. Economic production produces excess in certain societies and that excess is saved and invested. A little debt thrown in makes some of those investments happen a little sooner and with a little more return. But that debt is used prudently by those with the brains to have accumulated the necessary capital. Money is precious to them.
But these are not normal times. With GDP growing at 2-3% (I believe this to be overstated) and M3 (broad money) growing at an astounding 13% for the world’s largest economy, we have our first clue that things are not normal. Money is free to any who want to take the risk. When money supply grows you can by definition be sure that debt is growing commensurately. Debt is not used prudently because it is created easily for anyone and everyone out of thin air by central banks. Almost all of the current liquidity is coming from debt creation. This is the definition of inflation.
We now have an amount of debt in the system that would scare a hedge-hog. The only place left of moderate leverage is in some corporate balance sheets (as long as we ignore contingent liabilities like pension obligations and health care benefits). Corporations rapidly de-levered after 2001 (causing asset prices to deflate) due to perceived high risk and now they are rapidly levering again due to perceived low risk. Of course these two things, leverage and risk, are tied at the hip so once this latest and last form of levering is complete the forces of deflation, created themselves by massive inflation, will most likely advance.
Total global debt issuance jumped 14.1 percent from 2005 to a record $US 6.948 TRILLION in 2006. Leading the way once again was the U.S. with total debt issuance in 2006 increasing by 10.1 percent to $US 4.085 TRILLION. With the US economy at about 20% of the global GDP, it has issued debt almost three times its own relative global economic size. The U.S. now has total debt of 3.7 times GDP, a level never seen before.
At some point debt becomes deflationary because there is too much of it and the debt has been used to create even more overcapacity. We are starting to see in the U.S. signs, like sub-prime lending losses and higher home foreclosures, that income cannot support the amount of debt. Has anyone lately driven by a new commercial complex that is half empty while they are building a brand new one right next to it? As a result, new debt begins to have less and less effect on creating growth: in 1980 it took $1 of new debt to create $1 of GDP; in 2000 it took $4 and today it makes $7. We seem to be pushing on a string.
So when people say “there is so much money out there” it is the same thing as saying “there is so much debt out there”. Debt issuance is fueling speculation as this “money” is searching for return, any return, regardless of risk. All rates of return are being driven lower and lower in the search.
So why even look for return? As everyone else searches harder and harder for return and taking greater and greater risk to do it, perhaps the best thing to do is search for lower risk. It looks to me like Sam Zell agrees. This is very hard to do and perhaps that is why only some of the world’s greatest investors like Sam Zell have the patience to do it.
So what can you do about it?
This does not mean short stocks, for that takes timing and I care not to “speculate” on the timing of deflation. Central banks are adamant, but they are wrong, and eventually their methodology of creating new debt to fight the forces of old debt will not work. Instead of getting in the way, I suggest just getting out of the way. First, be prudent. Look carefully at your risks. Deflation hates stocks so be careful there. It also hates debt, so pay it back if you can.
Sincerely,
Mr. Practical
http://www.minyanville.com/articles/index.php?a=12044
John Succo
Feb 03, 2006 8:15 am
Dear Mr. Practical,
I am truly bearish now, although as you always caution, I am not shorting stocks, for who knows how far sentiment can take prices. Personally, I have taken your advice and sold as much of my inflated assets as I rationally can. I have sold all of my real-estate except for my primary residence and all of my stocks (what little I had) and have put the money into treasuries. I am even getting a little yield now, so I have sold my t-bills and am now in one-year paper.
I still own gold, around 7% of my assets, but have liquidated some profits. That looks to be a mistake as it looks like the Fed has decided to print money at all costs, creating more debt and over-capacity. As a result of that decision, the market will demand higher and higher short term rates to finance our deficits. The market still thinks the Fed will stop raising rates soon, so when that realization hits things could get sloppy quickly.
And of course I have no debt, for I want control of my assets.
So I have about 40% of my money (whatever that is) in treasuries, 15% in real-estate (which I cannot sell, or just will not), around 7% in gold, and the rest in my hedge fund. As you know, our hedge fund is set up for an increase in volatility.
Financial analysis on TV is like watching a game show, except in this game show the contestants have much to lose. Pundits spend no time at all on risk, time horizon, or objective. It is typical of a mania, a socio-economic phenomenon that occurs at market tops where participants are oblivious to risk and only have attention for return. People don’t even remember Dan Dorfman, but he is back in another suit.
And so I wait.
Any other input would be appreciated.
Yours Truly,
John
..................................................
Dear John,
I remain in Switzerland as a place of the least evils and have not changed my asset allocation. Around 70% of my assets are in Swiss two-year bonds yielding only 1.8%. Some would consider that irrational, but as I have taught you it is not about the yield (which everyone chases), but about a currency’s relative performance.
And of course I remain 20% in gold. This one is a tough call, but even in a correction I will hold it long term.
I have tried to convince you to hedge most of your assets against a fall in the dollar. You may still have some time as nearly every other country is inflating as fast or faster than the U.S. currently is, but it is only a matter of time. A country with as much debt as the U.S. will devalue its currency ever more to pay off that debt. This is a de-facto default and will not be avoided. So you should still consider over time selling dollars to buy Swiss francs. I know your reluctance is borne of sentimentality, but that has no room in protecting your assets.
That being said, I will not admonish you as you have done everything else right and your hedge fund, although it has business and clearing risk (which you have decided to accept and I respect that) should provide some protection of your assets.
The macro environment remains amazing and untenable. As the credit contraction begins in the west, we will see the flip-side of the 90’s.
As always, I remain away from the crowd, but not against it.
Mr. Practical
http://www.minyanville.com/articles/index.php?a=9589
Dear John,
Just a quick note to let you know I am moving to Korea. Once settled I will drop you a note as to the specifics.
Europe was interesting and the Euro was safe waiting for certain developments, but I know see where I want to be for the next five years.
I toyed with South Africa, the land of gold, but it was just too volatile a proposition.
Asia is beginning to trade more with itself and their use for the consumer may be beginning to wane, although that weaning process may take some time. But it is clear to me the “crowd” is fully in one place now, and you know I don’t like crowds.
The crowd is short yen (and other Asian currencies to various degrees) and long dollars. The crowd is everyone: banks, insurance companies, the U.S. Fed itself (printing dollars by borrowing yen and monetizing long U.S. bonds), the U.S. consumer (indirectly through the Fed’s activities) and yes of course, hedge funds. The key to world liquidity is the yen and that is about to end.
I decided upon versus for only one reason. Korean five year rates are 5% while Japanese are 1%. Of course when the yen rallies against world rates it should move more than the Korean Yon, but you know me, I am too squeaky to not be paid interest.
I know one particular beautiful (inside, for I have never met her) lady at Minyanville likes to keep tabs on my moves, so be sure to tell her.
Sincerely,
Mr. Practical
John Succo
Jul 31, 2006 3:16 pm
Dear John,
I empathize with your frustration, but as you get older you will realize that you have to just let things play out. Yes, I think you are right in just about everything you wrote me and in the way you have presented the state of the markets on Minyanville. But you and I do not matter; it is what the other several million investors do with their money that counts. They tend to do it all at the same time only when things begin to move against them. And that is very important for what I think is going on.
Your facts are correct in that the U.S. economy is extremely levered and dependent on the weakening housing industry. Personal income is dramatically falling behind and the consumer is in real trouble. I think the markets, particularly the stock market, are not reacting negatively for one reason: government intervention.
The Fed and their counterparts at other central banks have been busy offering a lot of credit. That is what they do best. But there is a good chance that they are now engaged in an even more dangerous manipulation as that little game is no longer effective.
The Fed is on record in papers for anyone who cares to do a little homework that they will take extraordinary measures to avoid deflation. Since all these bureaucrats know how to do is print money, that to me means they will print money to increase the velocity of money, something that just offering credit will not do. This means they will actually use the printed money to buy assets. They have a fancy name for it called “monetization.”
They do this to reduce volatility, the enemy of investors. When things get volatile, people want to reduce risk. This is the last thing the Fed wants to see happen. When people reduce risk, stocks go down and volatility goes up even more. It feeds on itself. So the Fed knows they cannot even let it get started. Everything in the real economy is now dependent on higher nominal stock prices which act as collateral to borrowed income.
How would the Fed go about buying stocks? They could fund an offshore hedge fund with printed money (credits) and buy stocks and bonds. $100 billion in new credit is nothing to them. Have you noticed how much money is now held in the Cayman Islands for hedge funds?
There is no hard evidence of this. I read between the lines of the “ideas” the Fed has dreamed up to fight deflation. I read between the lines of the markets as I watch them trade. But most importantly I read between the lines of the culture of the moment.
The U.S. now has a culture of “what is the government going to do about it.” When stocks go down, investors scream for the Fed to do something about it. When Medicare gets too expensive, they want to know what the government is going to do about it. When interest rates go up it is the government’s fault.
This is precisely the opposite of what the U.S. is supposed to be about. The markets used to tear down unproductive capital through recessions and then re-allocate that capital to more productive companies. Now the bureaucrats have a better idea and through the extension of easy credit have decided to allocate that capital equally to good and bad companies alike; to conservative and speculative investors alike. The last I looked this was called socialism and it breeds mediocrity and we now see it everywhere. Insiders see it and are bailing out of stocks and getting the shareholders to pay for it through stock repurchases. Government is now all about spending borrowed money because that is what our politicians are getting paid to do.
A free society is about transparency, but our society and government are becoming less transparent (another indication of socialism). The Fed no longer publishes some essential data and manipulates what they do publish.
What to do about it? Nothing except get out of the way. Patience is essential for one of two things will happen. The markets, if allowed to work, will unwind these excesses and manipulations. If they are not allowed to work, our political system will eventually be over-hauled to match this financial manipulation. We will officially become our enemy.
If that is what U.S. citizens want, so be it.
Sincerely,
Mr. Practical
http://www.minyanville.com/articles/index.php?a=10879
Published: January 24, 2007 in Knowledge@Wharton
The U.S. economy may be getting stronger, but that doesn't mean interest rates will go up when the Federal Reserve meets next week on January 31. According to Wharton finance professor Jeremy Siegel, interest rates should hold firm at their current level for quite a while, and "the big question for the market is whether there will be any drops at all this year." He believes there is "a balance in the economy between strength and moderate inflation," and the Fed is unlikely to move interest rates up or down unless something surprising happens.
If that is true, what strategy should investors adopt in the coming months? In an interview with Knowledge@Wharton, Siegel says he is still "positive about stocks ... though the edge of stocks over bonds is not as great as it was three months ago. Anyone planning a longer portfolio preference should still be in equities, and 40% of these should be internationally based." He warns, however, that investors should be very careful because some areas -- such as emerging markets -- are now too hot. "China looks like a bubble," he says. "Shanghai has doubled in just a couple of months."
Knowledge@Wharton: As the recent announcement of the University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment Index showed, the economy is getting stronger and consumers are noticing that. What is likely to happen at the Fed meeting on January 31st? Do you think that the Fed might raise interest rates? And, if so what will be the affect on stocks?
Siegel: It's way too early to think about raising interest rates. No, they're going to hold firm on January 31st. The big question for the market is will there be any drops at all this year, and might there be a rise? We got a rise from Bank of England that was unexpected. The economy is getting stronger.
My feeling is that we're going to hold at this rate for quite a while. I think that there's a balance going on in the economy between strength and yet moderate inflation so that the Fed is not going to act up and down in this and make a very surprising announcement. It won't be January 31st; it probably will not be until the summer or later.
Knowledge@Wharton: In his testimony before the Senate Budget Committee last week, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke warned of the dangers of the looming deficits in Social Security and Medicare. Although these comments largely echo the sort of issues that Alan Greenspan often raised when he was the Fed Chairman, are these issues likely to influence the Fed's decision on interest rates?
Siegel: These are exactly the same long-term issues that Greenspan spoke so frequently about. The Federal Reserve does not want to be in a position where it's facing huge budget deficits that it's having trouble financing. Right now the deficits are moderate and the financing capacity is very great.
But in 15 or 20 years, when the baby-boomers retire, the deficits are going to be much more extreme and there may not be the sources of financing. And they don't want to be in the position of having to finance that debt. That's very inflationary. So this is standard Central Bank warnings, it's way in the future. I don't think that we're going to get Social Security reform until the next Congress. So, it's a back burner issue now.
Knowledge@Wharton: Talking about burners, oil has been quite inexpensive. The prices have come down to the 50s -- quite a change from the prices that we had earlier last year. What's your outlook on energy prices? And what do you think their impact will be on the stock market?
Siegel: Yeah, in fact we saw it dip below $50, into the 40s for a few seconds, last week. This is very good news for the consumer. In fact, my feeling is that the lower oil prices are sustaining the economy, in spite of the housing decline. We're going to speak about that later.
Basically lower oil prices are almost like a tax cut. It increases the disposable income of consumers; it is keeping consumer spending on target. It is very important. It doesn't have to be in the 40s. I'd like to see it stay in the 50s, and in the low 50s for the next six months or eight months. That could keep the economy on track. Oil is very, very important for the economy.
Knowledge@Wharton: Since you raised the point of the housing market, is it bouncing back? You expressed surprise in your recent newsletter about the fact that it came in at 1.64 million units, which I guess was 120,000 units more than the previous month.
Siegel: Right, it was a surprise. It was concentrated in multi-family construction mostly, which is five units or more, rental units as well as condominiums. Actually, single family home starts were down. But nonetheless we've had two months now of increase. It's not like anything we had last year. But it suggests that we're not falling off the biggest cliff in the world -- that there might be a bottom soon.
But I don't think that we're going to see any -- housing is certainly not going to add anything to GDP. It's a question of whether it's going to subtract any more than it already has. It has been subtracting, most economists estimate between 1 and 1.5 percentage points from GDP growth. My feeling is that the lower oil prices have been basically adding that back to keep us on a 3% growth.
We're going to get that growth next January 31st and most estimates that I'm seeing out there are between 3 and 3.5%, which is actually at or even slightly above the average for the last two years. This is pretty surprising again during this housing decline, but not so surprising because we've had a concurrent oil price decline and energy price decline.
And, again it's not just gasoline; it is even more importantly heating oil, natural gas and those derivatives that can be very expensive for people in the winter months.
Knowledge@Wharton: Turning now to the stock market, Tech stocks have been [performing] well above expectations. This is so much so that you recently wrote in your Newsletter that even good news seems to be sort of bad news. What is going on there?
Siegel: Right, the expression is "They are priced to perfection." Everything has to be right; not only the number itself, that's got to be at or above, preferably above several cents. The revenues have to be at or above. The forecast has to be at or above. The margin has to be at or above. Everything has to be right.
What is happening is that they're really taking down these stocks, if any one falls short. They're being very critical. Part of the run up, I think is the buzz words that the fourth quarter was going to be better than a lot of people expected and it is coming in fine. This week of course is a big, big earnings week. We've only gotten maybe 15% of the S&P reporting.
We don't have a complete picture. They're coming in all right, but not quite as good as all the rosy expectations. This is particularly in Tech, which has done better than the market recently. We'll have to see how that comes out -- in the next two or three weeks we'll get the bulk of those. Again, this is no disaster what so ever. This is just a little bit of over expectation and particularly on the Tech stocks causing some problems with them.
Knowledge@Wharton: Last week was an interesting week for politics, with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama announcing their intentions to form exploratory committees for potential presidential runs. What are the chances of either of them winning the White House, and what will that mean for the markets?
Siegel: It's hard to predict two years in advance. I mean yes, the election is gearing up, as you know. For the first time in many decades ... there's no natural candidate that can step into this position and so the field is wide open. And, given what the democrats did last November, everyone feels that they have a chance.
Does Hillary have a chance? Does Obama have a chance? Certainly. But it's way too early to make a call to see how they're going to come out as candidates. If you remember we all thought that Howard Dean was going to be the candidate. He made a few mistakes and then he was totally out. And then John Kerry rises from the ashes, which no one thought he could have four years ago, and becomes the candidate.
I think that so many people have been burned; I don't want to say who is going to be the candidate. I do think that the Democrats have an advantage, certainly with Congress. It looks like they're going to keep Congress two years from now, unless something really [very] bad happens to them or something good happens to the Republicans.
And, we're getting more and more people who are saying that they will vote for a Democratic president rather than a Republican. But, when you name a few of the Democrats, they're wary. I mean there are strong feelings about Hillary and strong feelings about Obama. So, in a way, in abstract, you can pick the party but once a face is connected with it, it can be very different. It's going to be a great race -- I think probably the most exciting politics that we have had in many, many years.
Knowledge@Wharton: I quite agree with you that it's way too early to predict anything two years out. But, it's also very interesting that people like Warren Buffett and George Soros have come out in support of [I think] Obama. Are there any immediate signs in the market that you saw in response to these announcements, and how do you read those signs?
Siegel: I saw no real response. Of course, we know that both Buffet and Soros are Democrats. Obama is very attractive in many ways -- he's a new face. People want a new face; they don't want the same old thing. They want someone really new -- that may look at things a different way, that is solution oriented rather than sticking to the old party lines. And so I think that there's definitely that sort of an outsider look there. Again, it's going to be exciting.
I think the biggest thing is the fact that the stock market did not respond to the Democratic sweep in November. There was probably two hours of selling the next morning and then it was back up and then subsequently it went too high. They were saying "I don't like everything about the Democrats, but I can live with them".
I don't predict that they are really going to go anti-capital and as far as the market's response, we don't have to worry. They may be wrong on that eventually. But that's what the smart money is saying at the present time and basically I will have to go with it. I think it was a change, not so much against capital and against the markets but against the Iraq War and the way certain policies were handled.
Knowledge@Wharton: Finally, the question the question with which we always end. As we get well into 2007, what is the best strategy for investors in the coming months?
Siegel: Well I'm still positive about stocks and international ... for bonds, interest rates have come up. There's a little more competition right now. I think the edge of stocks over bonds is not as great as what others said it was three months ago, or six months ago. But it still is definitely there.
My feeling is that anyone planning any kind of longer portfolio, preference should still be on equities and international. As we talked about 40% should be internationally based. They have done extremely well. There are some hot areas that are too hot. I would be very careful about emerging markets now.
We have China, which looks like a bubble; even the Chinese officials said that it might be a bubble. They might be coming in to try to regulate that market in Shanghai, which has doubled just in the period of a couple of months. So you have to be very careful. Don't run after these, but if you set reasonable long-term allocations, I think you will be rewarded in your investments.
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1648&CFID=3496657&CFTOKEN=73618014#
-Kenneth Rogoff-
Many people have been asking why the dollar hasn’t crashed yet. Will the United States ever face a bill for the string of massive trade deficits that it has been running for more than a decade? Including interest payments on past deficits, the tab for 2006 alone was over $800 billion dollars – roughly 6.5% of US gross national product. Even more staggeringly, US borrowing now soaks up more than two-thirds of the combined excess savings of all the surplus countries in the world, including China, Japan, Germany, and the OPEC states.
Foreigners are hardly reaping great returns on investing in the US. On the contrary, they typically get significantly lower returns than Americans get on their investments abroad. In an era in which stock and housing prices are soaring, the central banks of Japan and China are holding almost two trillion dollars worth of low-interest bonds. A very large share of these are US treasury bonds and mortgages. This enormous subsidy to American taxpayers is, in many ways, the world’s largest foreign aid program.
If America’s competitive position is so weak, what magic is holding up the dollar? Most sober analysts have long been projecting a steady trend decline in the dollar against the currencies of America’s trading partners, especially in Asia and emerging markets. So why hasn’t more adjustment taken place already?
The first answer, of course, is that the trade-weighted dollar has fallen – by more than 15% in real terms since its peak in early 2002. Yet the US deficits have persisted, and even risen, since then.
The real driving force has been two-fold. First and foremost, America’s government and consumers have been engaged in a never-ending consumption binge. On the consumer side, this is quite understandable. With over 80% home ownership, the epic boom in housing prices of the last ten years has spread deep into the American middle class. Equity holdings are somewhat more concentrated, but many middle class Americans have still benefited indirectly through their pension funds.
Overall, after almost 25 years of stunning prosperity, punctuated by only two mild recessions, most Americans feel pretty confident about their economic situation. Unemployment is at a cyclical low, and the economy appears to be less volatile than at any point in modern history. So it is not surprising that private consumption continues to hold up even as US economic growth has shifted into lower gear. People have enjoyed such huge capital gains over the past decade that most feel like gamblers on a long winning streak. By now, they see themselves as playing with the house’s (or their houses’) money.
It is less easy to rationalize why the US government is continuing to run budget deficits despite a cyclical boom. When a fiscally responsible government launches a war, it typically cuts back on other domestic expenditures and raises taxes. The Bush administration did the opposite. It may not be good economics, but the strategy proved to be good politics, for a time. Unfortunately, it is unlikely the new Democratic majority in Congress will do much about it.
Of course, it takes two to tango. In order for the US economy to run deficits with the world, other countries must be willing to spin off a counterbalancing supply of savings. Ben Bernanke, the US Federal Reserve chairman, once famously pinned the whole US current account deficit on a “global savings glut.” But it would be more accurate to say that there is global investment shortfall, with investment trending downwards despite the upward trend in global growth.
This investment shortfall is due to many factors, but perhaps the main one is that there are substantial medium-term institutional roadblocks to investment in many developing countries, where long-term returns now seem to be by far the highest. The net result is that money is being parked temporarily in low-yield investments in the US, although this cannot be the long-run trend.
What then is future of the dollar?
As long as the status quo persists, with strong global growth and stunning macroeconomic stability, the US can continue to borrow and run trade deficits without immediate consequence. Over time, the dollar will still decline, but perhaps by no more than a couple of percent per year. Nevertheless, it is not hard to imagine scenarios in which the dollar collapses. Nuclear terrorism, a slowdown in China, or a sharp escalation of violence in the Middle East could all blow the lid off the current economic dynamic.
In principle, one can also think of scenarios in which the dollar shoots up, but overall these seem less likely. In sum, the fact that the US trade balance has defied gravity for so many years has made it possible for the dollar to do so, too. But some day, the US may well have to pay the bill for its spendthrift ways. When that day arrives, Americans had better pray that their creditors will be as happy to accept dollars as they are now.
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/rogoff20
February 19, 2007
Economic data says yes, but the government may say no..
The question this week is whether the Bank of Japan will raise interest rates when it makes a decision on Wednesday. Spread betting and contracts for differences should consider that then government may put pressure on the BOJ, despite the encouraging economic data. The Scotsman reports (http://business.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=267272007):
In Japan, in contrast, above-forecast economic growth numbers have boosted expectations for a Bank of Japan rate hike to 0.5 percent this Wednesday, although this was not enough to spark a lasting rally in the yen.
Adding to yen weakness was some speculation that the BOJ could come under political pressure not to raise rates..
By Rich Miller and David Tweed
Feb. 20 (Bloomberg) -- Bank of Japan Governor Toshihiko Fukui must judge not only what's good for the economy when considering whether to raise interest rates tomorrow. He also has to consider what's good for the central bank.
The BOJ's credibility as an independent inflation-fighter took a knock after policy makers voted 6-3 on Jan. 18 to keep its benchmark rate at 0.25 percent. The result flummoxed investors, who only days before had bet on an increase, and fanned suspicions that the bank caved in to political pressure.
``Fukui's leadership will be tested,'' said Masuhisa Kobayashi, chief Japan bond strategist at Barclays Capital Securities in Tokyo. ``Fukui-san is facing a difficult situation where he must persuade the other board members to support a rate increase.''
Any decision to lift rates may have to overcome opposition from Deputy Governor Kazumasa Iwata, whom economists consider the leading advocate of delaying until inflation picks up. BOJ policy maker Atsushi Mizuno told strategists and investors at a meeting in New York on Feb. 1 that Iwata argued against an increase at last month's board meeting, people who met with Mizuno said.
Faced with Iwata's opposition, Fukui was unwilling to split the bank's leadership by pressing for an increase, according to the people, who declined to be identified because the meeting with Mizuno was private. The governor and the two deputies have never diverged in their voting since the BOJ's independence was strengthened in 1998, records of the gatherings show.
Mizuno said that ``during my private visit to New York, I had an opportunity to exchange opinions with people in the financial sector,'' but denied making the comments attributed to him.
Risks
The confusion among investors that followed January's decision poses economic and financial risks. It makes it harder for the central bank to manage the world's second-largest economy and it raises the odds of turmoil in financial markets if investors again find themselves bushwhacked by BOJ moves.
``They totally blew their communications strategy,'' said Adam Posen, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington and author of a book on Japanese economic policy. ``If people stop believing what you say, it can hurt your ability to shape expectations and the economy.''
Economists are almost evenly divided about whether the BOJ will raise rates tomorrow, with 27 of 52 surveyed by Bloomberg News predicting the rate will be kept at 0.25 percent, the lowest among major economies.
Minutes of the Bank of Japan's January meeting will be published on Feb. 26. The Nikkei newspaper reported on Jan. 24 that Mizuno, 47, Miyako Suda, 58, and Tadao Noda, 60, voted for a rate increase.
Seeking Majority
``Mizuno, Suda and Noda will support a rate increase,'' Kobayashi predicted. ``Iwata won't. Fukui needs a 7-to-2 or 8- to-1 vote to convince the market he's regained leadership.''
Iwata, 60, has argued since at least November 2005 that low interest rates are necessary until the bank can foresee core inflation rising to about 1 percent. He is considered by economists such as Glenn Maguire to be the ``intellectual backbone'' behind the bank's decision last March to define price stability as an inflation rate between zero and 2 percent.
``Iwata is an inflation-targeting purist,'' said Maguire, chief economist for Asia at Societe Generale SA in Hong Kong. ``Iwata was always going to be reluctant for Fukui to propose a rate rise,'' especially considering Japan's weak price growth.
Responding on behalf of Iwata and Fukui to a request for comment, Seiichi Tsurumi, chief press officer at the Bank of Japan in Tokyo, said that he was aware of Mizuno's comment that he didn't describe conversations at the January board meeting.
Consumer Prices
Core consumer prices, which exclude fresh food, rose 0.1 percent in December from a year earlier, slowing from a 0.2 percent increase in November, the government said Jan. 26.
Fukui, 71, hasn't tipped his hand about whether he'll push for tighter credit this week. He said on Feb. 14 that the BOJ will implement a ``forward-looking'' policy to help the economy achieve sustainable growth and stable prices.
Mizuno has argued that the central bank needn't wait until all economic data are strong to raise rates.
``It's not like we can't raise the policy rate until all economic indicators become strong,'' Mizuno said at a business meeting in Tokyo on Dec. 5, according to a transcript released on the bank's Web site. Japan is still in the ``early stages of normalizing monetary policy.''
Mizuno `Most Hawkish'
``Mizuno seems to be the most hawkish board member among the nine,'' said Hiromichi Shirakawa, a former central bank official and now chief economist at Credit Suisse in Tokyo. ``Mizuno probably won't retreat from his proposal for a rate hike, even if he has some doubts about recent economic data.''
The government reported on Feb. 15 that the economy expanded at an annual pace of 4.8 percent in the fourth quarter from the previous three months, exceeding economists' estimates for a 3.8 percent expansion.
In the run-up to the BOJ's January meeting, politicians and government officials, led by Hidenao Nakagawa, secretary general of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party, pressured the central bank to heed the government's view on the economy.
Nakagawa said on Jan. 14 that in the event the government and the Bank of Japan don't share the same view of the economy, the government has the responsibility to exercise its right under Article 19 the Bank of Japan Law, which allows it to request the central bank to postpone a policy decision.
Fukui told reporters after the meeting that the decision to hold rates steady was based entirely on economic data and didn't come in response to political pressure.
David Gilmore, partner in Essex, Connecticut-based consultants Foreign Exchange Analytics, wasn't convinced.
``Nakagawa is stomping all over BOJ independence like Godzilla through Yokohama, shattering market confidence in the central bank,'' he said.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601068&sid=a1H0fbhclzD4&refer=economy
By Mayumi Otsuma and Lily Nonomiya
Feb. 20 (Bloomberg) -- Japanese Finance Minister Koji Omi reiterated that the central bank's monetary policy should support economic growth, as its board prepares to start a two- day meeting to decide interest rates.
Omi, speaking at a session of the lower house of parliament in Tokyo today, said specifics of monetary policy are up to the central bank.
``As we have said, we want the Bank of Japan to support economic growth with its monetary policy,'' Omi said at a press conference in Tokyo earlier today. ``We won't comment now on details of monetary policy, including interest-rate levels.''
Economic and Fiscal Policy Minister Hiroko Ota said monetary policy is up to the bank, and that its policy board will make its decision by examining prices and the state of the economy.
Twenty-seven of 52 economists surveyed by Bloomberg News predict Bank of Japan Governor Toshihiko Fukui and his colleagues will keep the key overnight lending rate at 0.25 percent on the conclusion of the meeting tomorrow. There is a 61 percent chance of a rate increase, according to calculations made by Credit Suisse Group based on interest-payment trading.
The Japanese economic recovery is continuing, Omi said. When asked whether the state of the economy had changed since January, Omi said overall growth remains solid.
Ota declined to say whether the government will exercise its right to ask the bank to delay any decision to raise rates. Under the Bank of Japan Law, the government can ask the central bank to delay implementing policy decisions until the next meeting.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601068&sid=aZLcKLiiiYP4&refer=economy
New York Hisse Senedi Borsasında kredili hisse senedi satışları 285.6 milyar doları geçti. Böylece yeni bir rekor kırdı. Önceki rekor, 2000 Mart'ındaki 278.5 milyar dolar idi.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a2fJMHDnfYAw&refer=home
Amerikan Borsalarında İşlem Hacminin Milli Gelire Oranı
http://www.cross-currents.net/charts.htm
http://www.cross-currents.net/p1_dec06.gif
Çıkışı şahane! Düşüşü muhteşem olacak!
http://forum.themarkettraders.com/read-m/26/1705/1705#msg-1705
http://www.safehaven.com/images/chenard/6945.gif
BONUSSİMO
22-02-2007, 02:17
ÇİN kulesi olmuş bu grafik.
WeWillRise
22-02-2007, 23:22
99- 2000 gibi olacak herhal
Çıkışı şahane! Düşüşü muhteşem olacak!
http://forum.themarkettraders.com/read-m/26/1705/1705#msg-1705
http://www.safehaven.com/images/chenard/6945.gif
sn. Korsan,
Çin'de borsa çökse de ülkeye ciddi bir kayıp yaratmaz. Adamların ekonomisi tüketime değil ihracata dayalı büyüyor. Dış ticaret dengesinden zaten yeterli kaynak geliyor, bir noktada yine alıcı bulurlar onlar..
Bu arada biliyorsunuz 2006 yılı köpek yılıydı Çin'de.. Halk arasında “Köpek zenginlik getirir" inanışı var. Şangay bileşik endeksi de zaten bu paralelde 2006 yılı başından beri yaklaşık % 150 kazandırmış..
18 Şubat'ta domuz yılına girdiler. Domuz çin astrolojisinde talihli hayvan sayılır. Yani bu yıl da çıkışa devam.. :D
Bu arada katılım için teşekkürler, umarım devamı gelir..
İlgilenenler için Çin takvimine göre yıllar;
Çin takvimine göre yeni yıl, 24 Ocak ile 19 Şubat arasında başlar. Bir yıl, 354 veya 355 günden oluşur. Çin takvimine göre yıllar şöyle kümelenir:
Fare yılları.....
1936 1948 1960 1972 1984 1996
Boğa yılları.....
1937 1949 1961 1973 1985 1997
Kaplan yılları...
1938 1950 1962 1974 1986 1998
Tavşan yılları...
1939 1951 1963 1975 1987 1999
Ejderha yılları..
1940 1952 1964 1976 1988 2000
Yılan yılları....
1941 1953 1965 1977 1989 2001
At yılları.......
1942 1954 1966 1978 1990 2002
Koç yılları......
1943 1955 1967 1979 1991 2003
Maymun yılları...
1944 1956 1968 1980 1992 2004
Horoz yılları....
1945 1957 1969 1981 1993 2005
Köpek yılları....
1946 1958 1970 1982 1994 2006
Domuz yılları....
1947 1959 1971 1982 1995 2007
Bullitnuts
24-02-2007, 02:01
The 3 Forces Behind a Market Crash
By Bill Barker
February 15, 2007
There have been a lot of new highs reached in the market over the past few weeks and months. All-time highs if your scoring system is the Dow Jones Industrial Average (AMEX: DIA), and five- or six-year highs if you prefer the S&P 500 (AMEX: SPY).
And so there has been much generally bandied about regarding whether the market is due, almost due, or past due for a "crash." Because if there are sound reasons to fear a market crash, then it's time to come up with a decent alternative to sinking new money into the market.
Indications of a coming crash
Back in 1934, Benjamin Graham -- the father, grandfather, founder, and creator of securities analysis -- wrote that there are three forces behind a market crash.
The manipulation of stocks.
The lending of money to buy stocks.
Excessive optimism.
Let's assess the level of each today.
1. The manipulation of stocks.
Graham was quite familiar with this factor, having played a key role in the market crash of 1929. There was, prior to the creation of the SEC in 1934, very little regulation of the markets by the federal government -- and what little existed was patently ineffective.
Things have markedly improved since then. However, because of the vast amounts of money made quickly at the end of the past decade, various manipulations of the market were more or less being taken for granted by those that followed the market closely. These included broad manipulation of the IPO market, the trading of favorable research reports for investment banking work by Wall Street's top (and middle and bottom) analysts, to name but two of the contributing factor to the crash of 2000 to 2002.
Today, however, there is far less potential for manipulation of the market. A better staffed SEC, new regulations on the books including Reg AC (requiring a greater level of disclosure by analysts), the structure of IPOs, as well as Sarbanes-Oxley (expensive, but effective), mean that whatever manipulation is going on today is largely relegated to micro caps.
2. Lending money to buy stocks.
Excessive use of margin contributed to the market collapse in the early part of this decade, and was a main culprit in 1929 when an investor only had to have 10% equity and 90% margin to buy stocks. Low interest rates also led to excessive lending over the past few years in the housing market -- and were a contributing factor to the tech bubble of a couple years ago.
I'd have to admit that this factor is somewhat troubling today. According to a recent Barron's, there is a higher level of margin debt for the New York Stock Exchange and Nasdaq today than at any previous time -- $303 billion, just slightly higher than at the peak of $300 billion set in March 2000. I'd keep an eye on this factor, but I'd measure its effect through the lens of the third factor.
3. Excessive optimism.
At least as reflected in current price-to-earnings (PE) multiples, the most downcast curmudgeon simply can't ague that today's prices reflect excessive optimism.
Stocks are squarely in the range of normal PE multiples -- while continuing this quarter to realize significantly higher than historically average earnings growth. Moreover, these companies sport record amounts of cash on the balance sheets and continue to increase their reserves even as they repurchase shares, pay dividends, or both.
For a quick comparison of what "excessive optimism" looks like, observe some of the multiples of the stocks of the legendary BubblePort:
Company
Recent P/E
2000 P/E*
Amazon.com (Nasdaq: AMZN)
54
N/A
Cisco Systems (Nasdaq: CSCO)
28
173
Dell (Nasdaq: DELL)
19
63
Intel (Nasdaq: INTC)
24
47
Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT)
24
47
Yahoo!
60
146
Average P/Es during 2000, except during the fourth quarter for Yahoo! (the first quarter the company reported any profits).
Further evidence of the zeitgeist of the period can be seen by reading what prominent financial publications were tagging as sure-fire stocks. Today, though, the market as a whole (link opens Excel file) is trading at 16 to 17 times earnings, comfortably within the range of the historical average. Indeed, in comparison to interest rates (the Fed model), today's earnings yield points to underpriced securities. You cannot bend, fold, spindle, or mutilate these figures to arrive at the conclusion that there is rampant excessive optimism built into today's domestic stock prices. Foreign emerging markets? Yes, perhaps there, but not here.
The Foolish bottom line
While it is the case that earnings growth could slow, given the strength of balance sheets and the proclivity of companies to buy back their own shares right now, continued earnings-per-share growth looks like a good bet for a while.
Kaynak: www.fool.com
Sayın Golfer,
Çinlilerin bazısı, yukarıdaki bağlantıda anlatıldığı gibi, evini ipotek edip borsaya giriyor. Bu durumu, dünya ölçeğinde para bolluğuna, ve buna bağlı gelişen spekülatif kazanç hırsına bağlayabiliriz, belki de.
Bazı Çinliler de, domuz yılı şerefine, altından yapılmış domuzcuk heykelcikleri alıyor!
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2006-11/29/content_745864.htm
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2006-11/29/xin_301103291101818291999.jpg
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2006-11/29/xin_3111032911012702022711.jpg
China meltdown could hit emerging, developed stock markets even harder
By Polya Lesova, MarketWatch
Last Update: 4:01 PM ET Feb 27, 2007
NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- Fallout from the meltdown in Chinese stocks enveloped markets worldwide on Tuesday, including a sharp decline in the U.S., leading some investment strategists and mutual-fund managers to caution that global investors face unpredictable volatility that could persist for some time.
Analysts say a correction has been due for China and other emerging stock markets, given spectacular gains in recent months.
"The correction could be very painful," said Mark Headley, co-manager of the Matthews China Fund in San Francisco. "We've been waiting for a correction for some time. The same can be true of a number of markets in the emerging markets universe. In Asia, Singapore and India have both had fabulous runs and needed a pullback. A 20%-40% correction is normal in emerging markets."
Yet while the current correction is significant, it will not likely have a long-term, negative impact on global markets, strategists add.
"We will be watching the markets closely to see how this disruption shakes out over the next several days and weeks," said Bob Doll, global chief investment officer of equities at BlackRock Inc. (BLK : BlackRock Inc. Last: 163.04-4.54-2.71% BLK163.04, -4.54, -2.7%) , in a research note to clients.
"But our overall belief remains the same as it was at the beginning of the year: Global equity markets should experience a constructive year, albeit one marked by increased volatility," he said.
"I don't think there's any particularly unique catalyst for this other than the emerging markets rally has gone on for so long that it's exceeded a lot of fund managers' comfort level," added Cameron Brandt, global markets analyst at Emerging Portfolio Fund Research.
"The Chinese market might grind a bit lower, but it won't create a general emerging markets contagion," Brandt said. "Over the past three years, people are much more used to investing in emerging markets and they're much more comfortable with taking the markets, as individual markets rather than lumping them all together."
David Riedel, president of Riedel Research Group, said a 10% to 15% correction would be a healthy adjustment for emerging markets.
"I'm not overly concerned, with one caveat. The thing we really need to watch out for is inflation and interest rate hikes."
Riedel advised caution in the short term: "This is a significant adjustment in the emerging markets and I would wait to jump in. Investing today would be like trying to catch a falling knife."
....
http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/how-hard-china-meltdown-hit/story.aspx?guid=%7B61A99119%2D0D83%2D4F19%2D9E4C%2 DFA2995D925B3%7D&dateid=39140.6696916088-890634960&siteid=mktw&dist=RNPullDown
Günlük grafik umutsuz. Haftalık grafikte çıkış devam ediyor.
(Not: Borsa grafiklerini dolar cinsinden değil, altın bazında takip etmeli. Dow/Altın veya SP500/Altın grafikleri ne yapıyor? Aşağıdaki grafikler dolar bazında)
http://www.bullnotbull.com/archive/crash-2007-1.html
http://www.bullnotbull.com/images/graphics/feb-crash-1.gif
http://www.bullnotbull.com/images/graphics/feb-crash-2.gif
Stiglitz’in küreselleşme ile ilgili çok değerli saptamaları var. Özellikle son soruya verdiği cevap –Şili örneği- bizim gibi gelişen ekonomiler için çok önemli ve öğretici.
Küresel dünyada yaşıyoruz, küreselleşme yönetilemez, isteyen girer, isteyen çıkar, sıcak paradan korunma, milli strateji oluşturma falan olamaz, artık dünya değişti canım.. " diyenler için..
...
Q. Do you agree with the view that although globalization is increasing relative poverty in the rich countries, it is in fact abolishing absolute poverty in the poor ones?
João de Faria
Brazil
A. You are right that globalization is increasing relative poverty in the rich countries, but the effect of globalization on the poorer countries is more complex. By helping countries like China and India grow more rapidly, it is contributing to the reduction of poverty. But unfair trade agreements - such as the Uruguay Round, which allowed the United States and European Union to continue their massive agriculture subsidies - have contributed to poverty in some developing countries. These subsidies drive down agricultural prices, and many of the poorest in the poor countries depend directly or indirectly on agriculture for their livelihood. The North American Free Trade Agreement contributed to rural poverty in Mexico; among the poorest Mexicans are small corn farmers, and NAFTA led to the fall of the price of corn. Mexican farmers are forced to compete with American corn farmers, who can more accurately be described as farming Washington rather than farming the soil, with half of their income derived from subsidies. Moreover, in many countries, globalization has been associated with an increase in volatility, as speculative capital rushes in and out, and it is often the poor that bear the brunt of that volatility.
Q. Inflated and imperfect real estate markets, driven by speculation, have emerged as a defining characteristic of globalization. Is it time for a global housing regulator, or something approaching a transparent global housing regime? Who will stem the speculative tide?
Hasan Jafri
Hong Kong
A. Throughout history, capitalist economies have been marked by booms and busts. At this juncture, it is hard to conceive of how a global regulator could work, but there is much that regulators within each country can do, for instance by adjusting requirements on downpayments of housing and other terms of mortgages, and increasing capital gains taxes. Regulators can dampen these fluctuations, even if they do not eliminate them.
What the international community can do, though, is to stabilize the flow of speculative money that helps feed these bubbles. Most importantly, the international community should give countries enough “policy space” to allow them to undertake stabilizing actions, for instance, the imposition of Chilean-style taxes on capital inflows, or the imposition of stabilizing prudential regulations.
Q. Indian companies have been losing oil and natural gas contracts, notably to China. On the one hand these Indian companies (both private and public) are being watched and judged on the ethics of their dealings and will soon be criticized if they continue dealing with pariah states such as Sudan and Iran. But, on the other hand, the country needs energy to secure and sustain its growth, and gets to compete only in marginalized countries due to competition from major players such as the United States and China. What do you think is the answer to India’s dilemma of maintaining this balance between energy security in the global competitive markets and doing business in accordance with ethical standards?
Shirin M Tejani
India
A. All countries today need to be concerned about their energy security, but that does not necessarily mean owning or controlling energy sources abroad. Indeed, ownership abroad is never secure; witness the wave of nationalizations that are now occurring in Latin America. With few exceptions, owning a source of supply does not lead to the availability of resources at below market-prices. Instances of “rationing” have indeed been rare.
So, what does energy security entail? First, it entails reducing the dependence on energy, especially energy sources from outside the country. Conservation is the key. Second, it entails diversifying sources of energy, especially from outside the country, but also from within. Diversification is the most important strategy for risk mitigation. An important new direction for diversification is bio-fuels. Thirdly, it may entail buying insurance, e.g. buying energy in futures markets, or, more expensively, creating internal reserves.
Q. I would like to hear your analyses of Latin America’s leftists. What do you make of Venezuela’s economics? Are Venezuelan policies sustainable over the long term? Is Chile truly the holy grail of development economics?
Paul Escobar
Canada
A. Chile has had impressive success over the past 15 years, after a major recession brought on by excessive faith in free market economics under Pinochet through insufficiently regulated banking. But there are alternative interpretations/explanations of that success. Chile did not follow many key elements of the Washington Consensus during its most successful years. It imposed capital controls. It only privatized part of its copper mines, and the privatized mines arguably did not perform better than the nationalized ones, though the profits were sent abroad, while the profits of the nationalized mines could be used in the nation’s efforts to develop. Government and foundations lay behind many of its successful development projects (such as its fisheries) - the kind of industrial policies that the Washington Consensus railed against. And unlike the Washington Consensus, Chile put considerable emphasis on social policies.
Chile did two things that were part of the Washington consensus - it liberalized trade and it limited its government deficits. The lesson is similar to that of the successful countries of East Asia: Globalization can help bring prosperity, but countries have to manage globalization on their own terms, in their own way. Chile did this. The countries that followed the Washington Consensus mantra have, by and large, not done so well.
It is the failures of these policies that have provided the impetus for the new movements in Latin America. Venezuela is the country in Latin America with the richest resources, but it is a rich country with poor people; before Chavez came to power, between two thirds and 80 percent of the people were in poverty. The riches of the country went to the rich, who did not want to share them with the vast majority of the citizens. Countries like Ecuador, Bolivia and Venezuela signed agreements with foreign oil, gas and mining companies that were generous to the foreign companies but cheated the country out of what was rightfully theirs.
There is an ongoing debate about whether it was the result of corruption or incompetence of previous Administrations, or the consequence of pressure to privatize these resources quickly. But for the impoverished people of these countries, these distinctions may matter little. All they know is that their country is getting less than it should. The new governments have been able in many cases to cut a better deal. They know that they need the expertise of the foreign oil companies. They have been explicit in saying that these companies should get a fair return on their investment. Indeed, these companies are getting a very, very high return on their investment. These countries are only asking that they get a larger share.
In many cases, these countries have put into place health and education policies that are already working, bringing health and education to the poor barrios for the first time. It is these successes that partly account for the popular support of these governments. Some critics label such policies as populist, but if populism results in the poor getting education and health services for the first time, isn’t that what democracy is supposed to produce?
The countries are also putting into place longer-run growth policies. Some of these policies and projects make enormous sense. But how successful these policies and projects will be will depend partly on how they are implemented. It is too soon to make a clear verdict.
Tümü için; http://blogs.iht.com/tribtalk/business/globalization/?p=361
Eski faşistlerden bir bunak çıkmış ülkeyi eyaletlere bölelim diyor. Vay anasını sayın seyirciler !! Arkana ABD'yi alınca saçmalamak serbest bu ülkede..
Neyse onlar bizi bölmeden biz ABD'yi bölelim.. :D
http://img47.imageshack.us/img47/7234/3508160520a392a0d28oxg1.jpg
http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2007/01/countries_gdp_a.html
Geçen alıntıladığım yazıda Stiglitz'in de değindiği gibi, zenginle fakirin arasındaki farkı iyice açan globalleşme karşısında Şili'de uygulanan ve başarılı olan sosyal & ekonomik politikalar çok ilgi çekici. Aşağıda Şili'nin ilk kadın cumhurbaşkanı Michelle Bachelet ile yapılan güzel bir röportaj var. Son dönemde iyice karışan global piyasalar hakkında yapılan yorumlardan bir süreliğine sıyrılıp, Türkiye için ders niteliğindeki bu yazıyı okumanızı tavsiye ederim.
2012'de umarım bizim de bu vizyonda ve kalitede bir cumhurbaşkanımız olur..
http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/3945/michellebvj7.jpg
Michelle Bachelet discusses her views on the roots of political upheaval in Latin America, and the link between economic development and the fight against poverty.
2007 Special Edition: Shaping a new agenda for Latin America
Michelle Bachelet, President of Chile, is one of Latin America’s most prominent leaders. A moderate Socialist who has pledged to combine pursuit of the country’s free-market policies with social measures to narrow the gap between rich and poor, her actions and pronouncements are of special interest to the outside world at a time of turbulent political change elsewhere in the region.
Bachelet’s life and political career have been significantly shaped by Chile’s troubled recent past. Detained and roughed up in 1975—two years after the late General Pinochet came to power in a military coup—she spent a period in exile, first in Australia then in the German Democratic Republic (the former East Germany), before returning to Chile in 1979. Like others on the left, she was active in the battle to restore democracy to the country in the late 1980s.
A trained surgeon who has also studied military strategy, Bachelet first came to national political prominence as health minister in the government of her predecessor Ricardo Lagos, where she initiated an in-depth review of Chile’s health care system. Subsequently appointed the minister of defense, she was credited with reforming the military pension system and modernizing the Chilean armed forces.
One year after her election victory as candidate of Concertación, the center-left coalition that has held power since 1990, President Bachelet faces a range of social and political challenges. The economic outlook appears robust—with GDP growth expected to rebound in 2007—and healthier-than-expected budget revenues last year (fueled by record-high copper prices) have raised hopes for social change. Political preoccupations have included street protests, a forced Cabinet reshuffle just three months into her term, and corruption scandals. On the external front the Bachelet Government has continued Chile’s pursuit of free-trade agreements (FTAs).
In this interview in the Presidential Palace in Santiago, Michelle Bachelet talked with McKinsey principal Gonzalo Larraguibel and McKinsey director Marcelo Larraguibel about the climate for foreign investment, political upheavals elsewhere in Latin America, and the changes needed to make her vision a reality.
The Quarterly: How do you view the rise of populist governments in Latin America and the reduced enthusiasm in some countries for free markets and free trade? And what do you see as Chile’s wider role in the region?
Michelle Bachelet: Latin America is facing an important moment. There have been 12 elections in the past year, all of them democratic, which represents a wonderful success and development of the regional political system. At the same time, economic and social indicators for the region are improving. However, there are countries where people are uneasy about the process of economic liberalization, because structural economic reforms were not accompanied by the social policies that were necessary. Therefore, many people in the region have been disappointed and are looking to see what else can be done.
The problem has not been with open economies per se but rather the lack of action in addressing poverty and social injustice. Chile has had its own experience—combining political stability, sound macroeconomic policies, and social cohesion—and we believe you cannot have one without considering the other.
When you ask about the role of Chile, it has been to share our experiences with our counterparts in Latin America. Many other leaders have been interested to know more about the experience of Chile. For example, we have brought together businesspeople from different countries and have tried to support countries that are interested in the skills our teams have acquired in negotiating FTAs. We have 54 of them, after all, giving us access to markets of 3 billion people throughout the world. We talk to colleagues about the complementary benefits these agreements can bring.
The Quarterly: Do you think other countries could give the region a bad name with their recent actions?
Michelle Bachelet: Every country has the self-determination and sovereignty to decide on their economic policies, and I would never speak about what others have done. I think that the best thing I can do is support them, continue to work with them, and be available to help.
Like any group of countries such as the European Union, Latin America has many different political, historical, and economic situations. We have been working on a South American Community, and some people even talk about a common currency. Looking at the EU, that would be a wonderful future goal. But today we have diverse countries, some with high external debt, others with low, some with very open economies, others less open. I still believe in integration, and there are working groups across the continent studying how to better connect our infrastructure and other topics such as social protection, energy, and education.
The Quarterly: What is your vision of the sort of country you would like Chile to become in ten years?
Michelle Bachelet: I would love Chile to be regarded as a modern society with a modern system of social protection and an open economy, both regionally and internationally, and also to be seen as a player on the world stage. Not, of course, in the sense of throwing its weight around, but rather as a contributor to the task of global development. We want Chile to be a country where you can find all the conditions needed to create wealth and innovate, but at the same time one that protects the vulnerable and looks after those with liabilities or those who started too far behind to benefit from the opportunities and possibilities we have here.
Over the past 16 years we have emerged from a difficult history to build a country that has political stability, economic stability, and social cohesion. In addition to social justice, everything we do is intended to promote a better quality of life and greater dignity for our people. You cannot have winners and losers—everyone has to win.
The Quarterly: It’s been almost a year since you were sworn in as President. What achievements from the past 12 months have you been most proud of?
Michelle Bachelet: I think the Chilean people clearly perceive the distinctiveness of our administration—democratic strengthening, economic growth, and social protection—which is very much in the spirit of the Concertación de Partidos por la Democracia. In our opinion, there is no incompatibility between growth and a more equal distribution of wealth. Indeed, we are convinced there is a virtuous relationship between the two. International experience shows that extreme inequality is not just unfair and a source of social tension but also reduces the dynamism of the economy. Countries lose the main motor of growth—the capacity to innovate and to take risks—and populism arises.
Concrete policies in the first year have included bills for the protection of children, reform of the pension system, educational reform, new ways to encourage entrepreneurship, and a new approach to housing that not only focuses on construction but also incorporates security, health care, and child care. In the first year we have doubled the number of public nurseries and child care facilities, which had not changed much in 30 years. We have to fight inequality from the very beginning of people’s lives, and this initiative also creates better conditions for women to take jobs. The challenge we have is to enable everyone to respond to the opportunities provided by globalization, which are increasing constantly.
Another positive aspect is that in 2006 we ratified and enacted our free-trade agreement with China—now our second-biggest commercial partner, after the United States—as well as our Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership with New Zealand, Brunei Darussalam, and Singapore. We successfully negotiated the same type of agreement with Japan. We also signed two additional free-trade agreements with Colombia and Peru and opened negotiations with Malaysia.
The Quarterly: Can you tell us more about the important levers that will turn your medium- and long-term vision into a reality?
Michelle Bachelet: Equal opportunities from the beginning would be one slogan, and education is the main issue here. We need to move from where we are now—with everyone guaranteed an education under the constitution—to the point where everybody gets an education of excellent quality. This is not just a matter of social justice; education is a vital economic agent. More still has to happen on coverage—notably for the 9th through 12th grades and kindergarten, where only 90 percent of children attend. We have specific goals for each age group. The same goes for higher education: about 650,000 people attend universities and colleges today, compared with about 77,000 in my day, but to develop innovation in science and technology we need to double that number. We have a particular problem in Chile because of the shortage of people with technical qualifications: in most countries the ratio is ten technical graduates for each professional. Here things are the other way round.
Education is also fundamental in attracting foreign investment, particularly in the regions of the country where we do not always have enough people with the necessary skills.
The Quarterly: It’s the reform of the pension system, though, that has probably attracted the most outside attention. How will that evolve?
Michelle Bachelet: Twenty-six years ago, we made some important reforms, as you say, that have been copied in other places. The old system, based on fixed compensation, also known as a defined benefit, was replaced by an individual capitalization system, or defined contribution, and managed by private entities.
That has brought several benefits for Chile, but we now realize that there were some significant gaps. We therefore need to find ways to make the pensions industry more competitive and transparent, introduce proper incentives to foster individual and collective savings, and ensure that every citizen receives a reasonable pension. The latest reforms represent a new architecture of benefits based on the integration of these three pillars. What people did not foresee in 1981 was the way people now move between jobs, perhaps only spending nine months in one place, with a period of unemployment in between. Women have been discriminated against, and young people do not think ahead as much and have made fewer contributions. A lot of the original assumptions proved overly optimistic. It was thought that the replacement rate—the amount of pension as a proportion of final salary—would be 80 to 85 percent, but it has turned out to be much lower: 51 percent for men, less than 30 percent for women.
The Quarterly: What are your other plans to improve the competitiveness of the Chilean economy?
Michelle Bachelet: One key area is innovation, around which we are developing tax incentives to encourage more industry participation. By OECD1 standards the 0.7 percent of GDP that Chile invests in research and development for science and technology is not only low, but over two-thirds of it comes out of public expenditure. The private sector contributes very little. Our aim is to get industry more closely involved with universities, science centers, and biotechnology research centers so we can add more value to our products. Our economy is very dependent on natural resources—copper, pulp and paper, and the fishing industry represent 54 percent of exports—and we need to do more than just produce more of them.
There are some encouraging signs. I recently saw how Codelco, the state-owned copper business, has been developing advanced techniques to produce copper in a more environmentally sustainable way. The salmon-farming industry is creating new vaccines and special medicines for this species. Similar developments are happening with mining supplies and through genetic engineering in forestry. The wine industry is looking to develop premium bottles. And we are also targeting agribusiness and tourism, which has great potential given our beautiful geography, highway infrastructure, and safety record.
In all this we see business clusters as a key mode of innovation, along with increased collaboration between the public and private sectors. We are also prioritizing small and medium-sized businesses, and we are considering a range of other initiatives, including a simplification of the tax system that has just passed through the Senate. These businesses account for 70 to 80 percent of employment here, but we can do much more: if you look at Sweden and other European countries, the export capability of these enterprises is much higher. Medium-sized businesses, for instance, are responsible for 50 percent of exports there, whereas ours account for only 3 percent of the total.
The Quarterly: What is your view of further privatization in Chile? For example, would you consider the privatization of minority stakes in state companies?
Michelle Bachelet: My government is not contemplating new privatizations, among other reasons because state-owned companies such as Codelco have demonstrated that they already function very well. What we want is to improve corporate governance in public companies—their transparency, management, professionalism, and the value they add for their owners, the people of Chile.
The Quarterly: What is your view of public-private partnerships in Chile for the development of areas such as infrastructure?
Michelle Bachelet: Public-private partnerships have been fundamental in the improvement of roads, ports, and airports. The mechanism of concessions2 to the private sector not only has allowed more funds to be invested in public assets, thereby improving the country’s integration and competitiveness, but has also been used to redirect limited public financing to activities with a high social impact. These are generally not profitable if one does not take that social impact into account. Concessions have also redefined the way in which public institutions work and think, allowing them to focus not only on the production of goods and services but also on their wider purpose to serve the needs of citizens. For the period of 2007 to 2010 we aim to invest more than $2.2 billion in concessioned infrastructure.
The Quarterly: That brings us to your own leadership style, notably in Chile. Do you think you bring a different perspective to change than what the country has experienced in the past?
Michelle Bachelet: It’s always difficult to say if some attributes are gender linked or more personal to women and men. I know women who are very hard, who act like a man and tell you, “If you don’t act like a man, you are dead.” Equally, I know men who share my style. I have made a conscious choice that I will pursue a leadership style that can be strong and authoritative but can retain “womanly” attributes, if you will. That is why I push for social dialogue, because I think the best thing for the economy and the people is for everyone—owners, managers, and workers—to sit down and see how we can move forward together.
When developing the latest pension system reform, for example, I set up a commission of intellectuals and practical people—those with know-how and different political perspectives. Many people laughed and said it was because I was unable to make decisions. They were completely wrong. The same thing has been done with education and childhood reforms. In both cases there has been wonderful work that has enabled the government to make decisions based on all points of view. I admire Denmark’s permanently standing Globalization Council, which consists of groups representing different parts of society, seeing how they can improve competitiveness and address social and human-capital challenges. Ultimately, this way of working results in better and quicker decisions. It is also important here because the issues we are discussing are not just for a one-term government to decide. Political parties and representative democracy are very important, but they are not enough. We have to move further.
The Quarterly: Finally, what is your message to foreign investors and CEOs looking at Chile and the region?
Michelle Bachelet: Trust Chile, believe in Chile, and invest here. It is a stable, fairly low-risk country, and we have developed serious and responsible policies. We will continue along the path Chileans have chosen democratically. Although we have done it well for the past 16 years, we are ready to make a new leap forward.
An example of responsibility is the two external funds created in response to the structural budget surplus caused by high copper prices. One is to finance the new pension system, since we know that the ratio of retired people to the productive sector is going to get bigger over the next ten years. The other fund, based on the Norwegian model, is to separate social benefits from the ups and downs of the economic cycle.
We are working on greater transparency and consistency in applying rules to local investors. We are also working very hard to get rid of any corruption—we are aware that one rotten apple can destroy the whole crop, but I do not think corruption is part of the Chilean way.
We are optimistic about the next year and probably the next two. We are working hard to ensure sustainable growth that will get us back to the normalized level of economic growth that we have had for many years.
http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/article_page.aspx?ar=1915&L2=7
gizligüc
10-03-2007, 11:18
abd piyasalarinda yakin donemde hareketli olabilecek bildiginiz bir sirket varmi??
saygilar
abd piyasalarinda yakin donemde hareketli olabilecek bildiginiz bir sirket varmi??
saygilar
sn. gizligüc, foruma uzun süredir giremedim, sorunuz bana ise şu sıralar ABD ve diğer piyasaları zaman elverdikçe endeks bazında takip edebiliyorum ancak. Bir ara nasdaq ile ilgilenmiştim. Nano teknoloji ve özellikle stratejik kullanım alanları olan kimyasalları üreten; savunma sanayi ve ağırlıklı ordu için çalışan potansiyeli yüksek firmalar -örn. Ceradyne- var. Bunları araştırabilir, P/E ve PEG oranlarına göre bir seçim yapabilirsiniz..
Dağıtım bölgesi mi? Aşağıdaki yeşil renkli trend çizgisine tekrar değecek miyiz?
http://www.chartoftheday.com/20070323.htm?T
http://www.chartoftheday.com/20070323.gif
UNYELI CONAN
24-03-2007, 21:19
Dağıtım bölgesi mi? Aşağıdaki yeşil renkli trend çizgisine tekrar değecek miyiz?
http://www.chartoftheday.com/20070323.htm?T
http://www.chartoftheday.com/20070323.gif
bizim 48.000 yolugumuzun grafigine ne kadar da benziyor :düsün: söyle göz karariyla bakinca sanki 3.500-4000 arsi döner ve altaki cizigiye kadar gevseyebilir .. mayis gevsemesi ve son bahara kadar bu olabilir .. belki ..
En büyük hedge fund, Chinese Huge Fund.. :D
Bunun yaratacağı hareketin, piyasalarda oluşacak dalganın genliğine etkisini varın siz düşünün.. :düsün:
By Joe McDonald
Associated Press
Saturday, March 10, 2007; D01
BEIJING, March 9 -- China will soon create one of the world's largest investment funds, with ramifications for global stock, bond and commodities markets and for how the United States finances its budget deficits.
Finance Minister Jin Renqing said Friday that the aim is to make more profitable use of China's foreign-currency reserves, which exceed $1 trillion and which have piled up as China has posted huge trade surpluses year after year. Most of that money is now parked in safe, but relatively low-yielding, U.S. Treasury securities and other dollar-denominated assets.
"We can achieve more profit from the investments," Jin said at a news conference. "We are now preparing the organization of this new corporation."
Jin said Beijing may follow the lead of Singapore's Temasek Holdings, which manages nearly $90 billion in government pension funds and other assets. It owns stakes in Singapore Airlines and Singapore Telecom, as well as in banks, real estate, shipping, energy and other industries in India, China, South Korea and elsewhere.
Analysts have speculated for some time that China would create an investment company, and authorities have said repeatedly they want to make better use of the country's reserves.
Economists have suggested that Beijing might allocate $200 billion to $400 billion to the new company, which in a single move could create one of the world's richest investment funds.
"They want to be more aggressive than what they do with current reserves," said Mingchun Sun, an economist at Lehman Brothers in Hong Kong. "They could invest in higher-yield products -- stocks, corporate bonds, maybe even commodities. "Basically, the returns would be higher because the risk is higher."
A shift in China's investment strategy could change its purchases of Treasurys, affecting a market that has helped the United States finance its multibillion-dollar budget deficits and has helped keep U.S. interest rates low.
But Sun played down the chance that U.S. rates could rise. He said that with its reserves growing by as much as $20 billion a month, Beijing could afford to keep buying U.S. government bonds while also channeling billions into new investments.
Jin gave no details of how the cabinet-level company might invest the reserves, nor did he say what portion of the reserves might be channeled through the company or when it would start to operate. Spokesman for Jin's ministry, the central bank and the foreign currency regulator declined to elaborate.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr., in an television interview this week, rejected suggestions that changes in Chinese bond purchases could affect the United States. He said China's entire holdings represent the equivalent of less than a single day's trading in Treasurys on global bond markets.
Chinese economists and news reports have suggested that China might adopt less traditional investment approaches, ranging from stockpiling oil and other raw materials to spending more on social programs to encourage Chinese consumers to spend more and reduce dependence on exports.
The growth in China's currency reserves has been driven by the rapid growth of its exports, which bring in dollars, euros and other foreign currencies, and by the billions of investment dollars pouring into the country.
The surge of that money forces the central bank to drain billions of dollars from the economy every month by selling bonds to reduce inflationary pressures.
The precise composition of China's foreign reserves is a secret, but economists believe that as much as 75 percent is held in dollar-denominated instruments, mostly Treasurys, with the rest in euros and a small amount in yen.
Stephen Green, chief economist at Standard Chartered Bank in Shanghai, calculated that last year the central bank made a $29 billion profit on its Treasury holdings after paying interest on its own bonds and other expenses.
But even that represents a return of less than 3 percent on the $1 trillion in holdings. In contrast, Singapore's Temasek says it has averaged an 18 percent annual return since it was created in 1974.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/09/AR2007030902152_pf.html
Bernanke'nin geçen hafta yaptığı konuşmadan önemli gördüğüm kısımlar.. Son paragrafta stagflasyona atıfta bulunmuş. İlginç..
Following an extended boom in housing, the demand for homes began to weaken in mid-2005. By the middle of 2006, sales of both new and existing homes had fallen about 15 percent below their peak levels. Homebuilders responded to the fall in demand by sharply curtailing construction. Even so, the inventory of unsold homes has risen to levels well above recent historical norms. Because of the decline in housing demand, the pace of house-price appreciation has slowed markedly, with some markets experiencing outright price declines..
... Even if the demand for housing falls no further, weakness in residential construction is likely to remain a drag on economic growth for a time as homebuilders try to reduce their inventories of unsold homes to more normal levels..
Developments in subprime mortgage markets raise some additional questions about the housing sector. Delinquency rates on variable-interest-rate loans to subprime borrowers, which account for a bit less than 10 percent of all mortgages outstanding, have climbed sharply in recent months..
Expenditures on capital equipment declined in the fourth quarter of 2006 and early this year. Much of the weakness in recent months has been in types of capital goods used heavily by the construction and motor vehicle industries, but we have seen some softening in the demand for other types of capital goods as well. Although some of this pullback can be explained by the recent moderation in the growth of output, the magnitude of the slowdown has been somewhat greater than would be expected given the normal evolution of the business cycle..
Core inflation slowed modestly in the second half of last year, but recent readings have been somewhat elevated and the level of core inflation remains uncomfortably high. For example, core CPI inflation over the twelve months ending in February was 2.7 percent, up from 2.1 percent a year earlier. Another measure of core inflation that we monitor closely, based on the price index for personal consumption expenditures excluding food and energy, shows a similar pattern..
Core inflation.. is a better measure of the underlying inflation trend than overall inflation..
Increases in rents -both market rent and owner’s equivalent rent- account for a substantial part of the increase in core inflation over the past year. The acceleration in rents may have resulted in part from a shift in demand toward rental housing as families found homeownership less financially attractive..
Although core inflation seems likely to moderate gradually over time, the risks to this forecast are to the upside..
Because core inflation is above the levels most conducive to the achievement of sustainable growth and price stability, the Committee indicated in the statement following its recent meeting that its predominant policy concern remains the risk that inflation will fail to moderate as expected. However, the uncertainties around the outlook have increased somewhat in recent weeks. Consequently, the Committee also indicated that future policy decisions will depend on the evolution of the outlook for both inflation and economic growth, as implied by incoming information..
Tam metin (http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/testimony/2007/20070328/default.htm)
Dünyanın en büyük finansal kuruluşunun başındaki yöneticinin önemsenmesi gereken bir yorumu..
Koyu harflerle belirtilen kısımlarda değindiği gibi piyasada önümüzdeki 12 ayda sadece bir düzeltme değil, ABD ekonomisinde de gerçek bir düzeltme -büyük olasılıkla resesyon ya da büyümede ciddi düşüş- bekliyor. Fazla kötümser geldi bana ama sonuçta bu adam bir yorumcu değil. Dolayısıyla bu seviyede bir yönetici izlenimlerine dayanarak bunu söylüyorsa, buna gerçekten inanıyor demek ki..
A market correction is coming, this time for real
By William Rhodes
Published: March 29 2007 03:00 | Last updated: March 29 2007 03:00
The recent market turmoil should not have been un-expected. We are living in an increasingly interdependent world. Times have been good, even with the volatility of the past few weeks sparked by the Shanghai market and then fuelled by the subprime sector in the US. We have been living in extraordinary times in a global "Goldilocks" economy - not too hot, not too cold. The macro-economy still looks pretty good but the shaking of the trees over the past few weeks has, it is to be hoped, awakened investors and lenders to the risks in the marketplace.
High growth in emerging markets continues, as exemplified by the tremendous growth in China and India. Western and eastern Europe are growing. The Russian economy, driven by energy, has been strengthened well beyond what was expected a few years ago. The Middle Eastern oil-exporting countries are going through a boom fuelled by oil and gas: it is different from earlier periods of high oil prices because this time a substantial amount of the money is staying in the region, rather than being invested elsewhere as in the 1970s.
Africa is in many ways going through something of an economic renaissance. The Japanese economy also has improved and the US locomotive has continued, maintaining good growth of more than 3 per cent in 2006 notwithstanding the downward revision of fourth-quarter growth from 3.5 to 2.2 per cent.
However, much of the good news has come as a result of extraordinary levels of liquidity pouring into opportunities around the globe. To a large extent this is due to the Federal Reserve's expansionary monetary policies early in the decade and the US administration's fiscal stimulus. The yen carry trade has also facilitated the buoyant expansion of investments and leverage evident everywhere today. The low spreads, the tremendous build-up of liquidity, the reach for yield and the lack of differentiation among borrowers have stimulated both dynamic growth and some real concerns.
Pockets of excess are becoming harder to ignore. Problems in the housing and mortgage area such as the subprime sector in the US are one such example of excess that should come as no surprise. As lenders and investors inevitably become more discriminating, liquidity will recede and a number of problems will surface. Too many countries and companies with vastly different risk profiles are still commanding similar pricing.
It has been my experience that periods of economic expansion tend to last between five and seven years. We are entering the sixth year of expansion in the US. Against that background, I believe that over the next 12 months a market correction will occur and this time it will be a real correction. I said as much last spring during the Inter-American Development Bank meetings in Belo Horizonte, Brazil. Soon afterwards, in May 2006, the markets did experience a correction but it was so mild and short-lived that it was in a way less effective than no correction at all. I say that because it left the inexperienced with the impression that it would be smooth sailing from there on.
Market developments in the past few weeks should be seen as a warning. What has been evident for a number of months is that, in the US, we are seeing lagging inflation and slower growth. Whether this means that we are going to have to fend off recessionary tendencies is not yet clear. However, what is clear to me is that in the next year a material correction in the markets will occur.
During the last big adjustment that started in July 1997 in Thailand and spread to a number of Asian economies including South Korea, followed by Russia in 1998 - and led ultimately to the bail-out of Long Term Capital Management, the US hedge fund - a number of today's large market operat-ors were not yet in the mix.
Today, hedge funds, private equity and those involved in credit derivatives play important, and as yet largely untested, roles. The primary worry of many who make or regulate the market is not inflation or growth or interest rates, but instead the coming adjustment and the possible destabilising effect these new players could have on the functioning of international markets as liquidity recedes. It is also possible that they could provide relief for markets that face shortages of liquidity.
Either way, this clearly is the time to exercise greater prudence in lending and in investing and to resist any temptation to relax standards.
The writer is senior vice-chairman of Citigroup, and chairman, president and chief executive of Citibank
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/06246766-dd93-11db-8d42-000b5df10621.html
Milyar dolarlık fonları yıllardır üstün başarıyla yöneten bir yöneticiden yine önemsenmesi gereken bir yorum..
Heebner Says Home Prices May Fall 20% Amid Bad Loans (Update1)
By Sree Vidya Bhaktavatsalam and Brian Sullivan
April 12 (Bloomberg) -- Kenneth Heebner, manager of the top-performing real-estate fund over the past decade, said U.S. home prices may plunge as much as 20 percent because of rising defaults on riskier mortgages.
Subprime loans, made to borrowers with a history of missed payments or untested credit, and ``Alt-A'' loans, which require little or no documentation, account for about $2.5 trillion of the $10 trillion in outstanding mortgages, according to Moody's Economy.com. As much as 40 percent of these loans may default, flooding the real estate market, Heebner said.
``It will be the biggest housing-price decline since the Great Depression,'' Heebner, 66, said today in an interview in Boston. Prices may fall by a fifth in some markets, he said.
That would leave home prices at levels last seen in 2003 and 2004, the middle of boom that lifted prices to a record in 2005. The damage from high-risk mortgages will slow the U.S. economy, though not enough to send it into a recession, Heebner said. Fourth-quarter growth was revised to 2.5 percent from 3.5 percent because of housing, the government said March 29.
Heebner, who co-founded Capital Growth Management in 1990, manages the $1.6 billion CGM Realty Fund. The fund has gained an average of 20 percent a year in the past 10 years, the most of any real estate fund over that period, Bloomberg data show.
Falling Home Sales
Sales of new homes will tumble 16 percent in 2007, according to the National Association of Realtors. Existing-home sales will fall 2 percent, the first drop on record, the Chicago-based trade group has forecasted. Subprime mortgage delinquencies climbed to a four-year high of 13.3 percent in the fourth quarter, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association.
Fallout from subprime-loan defaults will also hit hedge funds, and to a lesser extent, mutual funds, that bought collateralized debt obligations and other securities backed by such mortgages, Heebner said. The investment banks and brokerage firms that package and sell these products won't get hurt because they have passed on the biggest risks to the investors, Heebner said.
``They know the product is toxic; they're not going to get caught,'' Heebner said.
The CGM Realty fund does not invest in such securities, he said. Heebner said he has sold his shares of real estate investment trusts that invest in apartments because they will face competition from single-family homes that have been converted into rentals. His fund had 35 percent of assets in apartment REITs such as AvalonBay Communities Inc. at the end of last year.
Mining Companies
He's buying shares of mining companies that benefit from growing infrastructure needs in India, China and Russia. CGM Realty Funds also holds shares of Las Vegas Sands Corp., the casino operator that is developing real estate in Macau, China, and Mexican homebuilder Desarrolladora Homex SAB.
Heebner is known for making concentrated investments in a few industries. He sold homebuilders after owning them from 2001 to 2005, record years for home sales. He bet against technology and telephone stocks in 2000, correctly timing their collapse.
Heebner, whose Capital Growth Management has more than $6 billion in assets, also manages the $2.3 billion CGM Focus Fund. The fund has advanced 13.5 percent this year, making it the top- ranked diversified U.S. stock fund, according to Chicago research firm Morningstar Inc.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aonDdgoWQ.pg&refer=home
Recently I told you how the Dow has lost over 50% of its value since 2001, despite its recent gains. Put another way, if you bought all the stocks in the Dow Jones Industrials back in 2001, the purchasing power of your investment today would be less than half what it was back then.
I don't know about you, but I think losing 50% of your money's purchasing power is an outright disaster. Even worse, most investors fail to recognize this has happened. That's because the government is lying about inflation.
Today, I want to talk about the root of the problem — the terribly weak U.S. dollar. And I'll tell you what its consequence, rising inflation, means for your portfolio. Because if you don't grasp what's happening, your investments will get killed.
The Dollar Continues To Get Creamed …
Since early March, in barely a month's time, the U.S. dollar has lost another 1.9% of its value against other major currencies. It's lost the same — in some cases even more — when compared to minor currencies, such as the Thai baht, Malaysian ringgit, and more.
You can see the decline in the chart to the right. It's not a pretty picture. What's behind the dollar's fall? All the forces I've been warning you about:
http://img384.imageshack.us/img384/5060/mam570chart1hg0.gif
The huge debt problems in this country, in both the public and private sectors … the terrible real estate market … political infighting that is making the U.S. look unstable to the rest of the world … and the fact that Washington is continually pulling the wool over the public's eyes.
I've been saying this repeatedly, but it's so important that I want to remind you again: Central bankers, when faced with a choice between deflation and inflation, will always opt for the latter, attempting to avoid recession and deflation at all costs.
They keep interest rates artificially low. They pump up the supply of money and credit by effectively printing money behind the scenes. And they let bubbles expand wherever they can.
In the process, the main instrument of the economy — the currency — is the first to suffer. That's why the dollar has plunged 17.5% in the last four years, and why it continues to be weak at the knees right now.
It's also why the Dow can rise, but you can actually be losing money all the while. It's simple … if the Dow goes up 10% but the value of the dollar falls 20%, you've lost 10% in terms of your money's purchasing power.
And the falling dollar has an important side effect …
Inflation Goes Through the Roof!
Do you believe what Washington is telling you about inflation, that it's running at about a 3% annualized rate?
I sure hope not, because you're being lied to. By my estimates, inflation is rising at more like 10% a year. I'm not just talking about oil and gas prices, either. Just look at these national figures:
According to the Wall Street Journal, health care costs rose 10% in 2006.
The average property tax has jumped 27% since 2000.
Tuition at private colleges has been rising at an annual average of more than 9%. The national median tuition for one year at a private school (including room and board) is now $33,533!
Tuition at public universities is also rising sharply, up 6.2% in 2006.
And in just the last three years, the average grocery bill for a family of four has skyrocketed from $280 to nearly $400 a month. That's a 42% increase, or an average annual inflation rate of 14%!
I could go on and on, but there's no need. I'm sure you're already acutely aware of how much prices are going up in your own life. All you have to do is look at your monthly bills and regular purchases.
So, enough said. Inflation is here. And, it's only going to get worse as the dollar continues to weaken against nearly all major — and most minor — currencies.
What to Do About the Falling Dollar and Inflation
First, don't be deceived by Washington or the Federal Reserve. Their inflation figures are hocus-pocus. They are not giving anyone an accurate measure of true inflation.
Second, don't be fooled by the Dow Industrials. Your stock investments can be losing money, even when they're going up!
In fact, for the Dow to regain the purchasing power it had six years ago, it would have to double to more than 24,000.
And that's if the dollar were to stop declining! I don't think that's going to happen. Hence, I do not recommend investing in broad-based U.S. stock markets right now.
Instead, for your U.S. holdings, I continue to like stocks that act as inflation hedges, namely select natural resource companies...
Third, diversify your investments.
For starters, that means a direct stake in gold. Gold is the only asset that is universally beating out inflation...
And if you aren't doing so already, look at select overseas markets, too.
Many of these investments will benefit from a falling dollar and are beating out inflation hands down.
Best wishes,
Larry
http://www.moneyandmarkets.com/press.asp?rls_id=748&cat_id=6&
Dolar endeksi, 80 seviyesini, son 30 yılda hiç kırmamış. Buranın belirgin olarak kırılmasını, Dolar'ın rezerv para olma ayrıcalığını kaybetmesi olarak yorumlayanlar var. Endeks, 82'yi gördü. Buralardan bir tepki gelecek mi, bakalım?
http://www.321gold.com/editorials/russo/russo041707/1.gif
Dolar endeksi, 80 seviyesini, son 30 yılda hiç kırmamış. Buranın belirgin olarak kırılmasını, Dolar'ın rezerv para olma ayrıcalığını kaybetmesi olarak yorumlayanlar var. Endeks, 82'yi gördü. Buralardan bir tepki gelecek mi, bakalım?
Grafiklerden de görünen o ki dolar endeksi geçen sene son çeyrekteki en yakın desteğini de kırmış bulunmakta. Güçlü aşağı trend ile de aşırı satım noktalarına gelinmiş. Bundan sonra 2005 Ocak’taki dip seviye olan 80.5’in altına inmesini -çok kötü olur- ben şahsen beklemiyorum. Buralardan kısa vadeli de olsa yukarı bir hareket yapması, dönemsel açıdan da, daha olası görünüyor..
http://img460.imageshack.us/img460/4465/usdindexcontdailyej4.jpg
http://img460.imageshack.us/img460/6086/usdindexcontdailynow200zl9.jpg
http://img460.imageshack.us/img460/4244/usdindexcontweeklyik9.jpg
Bence; bir çöküş yaşanmadığı sürece dolar yine dünyanın rezerv parası olmayı sürdürecektir. Aksinin gerçekleşmesini ABD mutlaka bir şekilde önler. Daha önce de yaşandığı gibi doların zayıf ve güçlü olduğu periodlar –uzun, çok uzun- olacaktır. Hatta şimdilerde yaşandığı gibi ekstrem dipler de görülecektir ama bence bunun bir çöküşe süreklenmesine izin verilmeyecektir. Yani global finansal sistemin bir parçası olarak güçlü dolar, zayıf dolar döngüsü, hikayesi ya da oyunu devam edecektir.
Genliği iyice artsa da döngüsel yaşanan bu fx dalgalarının, piyasaların işlemesinde önemli rolü -sistemin parçası- olduğu gerçeğini de artık iyice kabul etmemiz gerekir..
trendfriend
23-04-2007, 23:07
Dolar endeksi tarihsel diplerinde dolana dursun, Amerikan hazine tahvillerinin 1980lerden bugüne sürdürdüğü rallinin sonuna gelindiğini savunan görüşler var.
In Case You Missed It: Charts Show Bond Rally Is Over (Update1)
By Elizabeth Stanton
April 23 (Bloomberg) -- The biggest bull market in U.S. Treasury bonds is over, according to the analysts who rely on historical price patterns to make their assumptions.
devamı şu linkte:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aUOfQwjDOoi8&refer=home
@ trendfriend
Grafik gerçekten de o izlenimi veriyor. Ancak faizlerin artması, değişken faizle borçlanıp ev alanları batırır. Bakalım FED ne yapacak?
10 Yıllık Hazine Bonolarının faizleri
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/DGS10?&cid=115
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/DGS10_Max_630_378.png
1999-2000 nasdaq yükselişiyle, 2006-2007 shangai trendinin benzeyişi üzerine..
http://www.thestreet.com/_dm/newsanalysis/technicalanalysis/10352427.html
...
The Fed's language changed only slightly from March, and again reflected concerns about inflation. Below are the differences between the March one and the May one.
http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/3102/infofedparse0705wf3.gif
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-fedparse0705.html
WSJ Markets Data Center ile çok dolu bir sayfa hazırlamış. Ben de şimdi gördüm. Hem de ücretsiz..
http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/marketsdata.html
Mayıs ayındayız ve geleneksel olarak bakıldığında sonbahar-kış döneminde güçlü olan ülke paraları mayıs-ağustos döneminde düzeltmeye, tersi durumda olan paralar ise fx traderların da evhamı ile yükselişe geçip sonbahara kadar güç kazanırlar. Sonra yine aynı hikaye neticesinde zayıf olanlar düşerler.
Ancak dolarda halen bu beklenti gerçekleşmedi ve her geçen gün de bu olasılık azalmaya devam ediyor. Ben bunun bu kadar uzun süreceğini beklemiyordum açıkçası. Ama baktığımızda bunun gerçekçi nedenleri de var tabii. Büyük ihtimalle fx traderlar -herkes gibi- ABD ekonomisinin son durumunu iç açıcı görmüyorlar, dolayısıyla bu ortamda sıkışan bir FED'den de bir faiz artırımı beklemiyorlar. Haklılar. Bunun yanında bir de diğer ülkelerden faiz artırımları geliyor. Üstüne üstlük hem gelişmiş hem de gelişmekte olan ülkeler ABD'den daha fazla büyümeye devam ediyor. ABD'nin düşük büyümesi de tabii dolara olan talebi de olumsuz yönde etkiliyor. Dolar da ABD dışına daha fazla getiri için kaçıyor.
Bu noktada şöyle düşünmek lazım. Dolarda yaşanacak bir yükseliş ABD ekonomisi üzerinde ne gibi etkiler yaratır ?? İhracat artacak da acaba ithalat hız kesecek mi ?? Eğer ithalata dayalı tüketim çılgınlığı ve buna ek olarak savaş harcamalarında azalma yaşanırsa, dolar ciddi anlamda değer kazanmaya başlar. Ama bu gerçekleşene kadar da dolarda yaşanacak yukarı yönlü bir hareketin ancak kısa vadeli -birkaç hafta- olacağı görülüyor..
Not: Doların böyle sürünmeye uzun süre devam edeceğine inanırsam, altın almaya başlıycam.. :D
misterno
18-05-2007, 17:55
Amerikan ekonomisinin yani GDP nin cok buyuk bolumu ic tuketimdendir ihracattan degildir o yuzden Amerikalilarin yuzde doksani ekonomistler de dahil dolarin degeri hakkinda hic dusunmezler cunku ihtiyaclari yoktur. Bazi ekonomiler vardir CIn tayvan kore gibi adamlarin GDP sinin ucte ikisi ihracat adamin yerel para birimi yukseldimi hayati kayar.
Amerika ise dolarin degeri dusunce ihracati patlar ithalati biraz sarsilir ama yinede degisen bir sey olmaz cunku zaten ithalatin cogu Cin gibi parasi daha adam gibi yukselmemis degersiz ve kontrol edilen ulkelerdendir. Hele Euro dolar paritesinin hicbir onemi yok Amerika icin cunku ithalatin cok cuzi bir kismi Avrupadan cunku Avrupa ne uretiyor Allahaskina? Urettiginide kolaylikla baskal ulkeler substitute edebilir.
Bu yuzden dolarin degerine Amerika acisindan fazla kafayi takmayin onemsiz bunlar.
Uzun olduğu için hepsini buraya kopyalamadım ama çok güzel bir yazı..
Baştan sona okumanızı tavsiye ederim..
Yazıdan önemli bazı notlar..
" Some of the most respected financial analysts in the US are outspokenly bullish about the future. Jeremy Siegel, finance professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, recently wrote in the FT that stocks should be valued 25 per cent higher than their current price levels. He said that low transaction costs and reduced economic volatility meant that investors would now demand a lower premium for the risk of buying stocks, from which it follows that their price should rise. "
" Tobias Levkovich, US equity strategist at Citigroup, points out that the buoyant credit market creates an "incredibly attractive" logic for buying shares. In the US, he says, the high yield that risky companies pay to raise money using "junk" bonds is more than 2 percentage points lower than the equivalent yield produced by companies' cash flows. So a private equity buyer can take over a company and comfortably cover the cost of borrowing without doing anything to improve the company's profitability. This is pure financial arbitrage. "
... " before the stock market suffers a tumble, we will probably need to see a last sharp rally provoked by the entrance of retail investors, an increase in volatility, the bursting of asset price bubbles and, most importantly, a credit market downturn. A major geopolitical event, such as a terrorist outrage to compare with 9/11, might have a similar effect. So might some smaller tremor that triggered a sell-off in credit markets. "
" None of these scenarios is far-fetched. They could happen within weeks. Or they could be years away. And that is the problem for anyone who wants to bet on an imminent collapse. An aphorism of John Maynard Keynes gets quoted more and more often: "The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent. "
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/6f4f9cf8-08ca-11dc-b11e-000b5df10621.html
Amerikan hisse senedi piyasalarında yaşananlar üzerine kısa ama çok güzel bir analiz..
To understand why the stock market continues to be bullish despite the slowdowns in American productivity and in corporate profits, you have to go back to the old law of supply and demand from Economics 101. When the supply of something decreases while the demand for it stays up, its price rises. Here, I’m talking about supply and demand in publicly-traded stocks.
In case you hadn’t noticed, corporate America and Wall Street are in the process of privatizing a growing portion of America’s stock market. It’s happening in two ways. First, cash-rich companies are finding they can boost their stock prices faster by buying back their shares of stock than by investing in new factories, equipment, or R&D. After IBM announced it was repurchasing another $15 billion of its stock last month, for example, the value of its publicly-traded shares rose.
Meanwhile, private equity firms are doing a record amount of leveraged buyouts – that is, taking publicly-traded companies private. That’s what Cerberus Capital did two weeks ago with Chrysler.
Look at the big picture. Last year, corporate buybacks and leveraged buyouts totaled about $600 billion. That was roughly 3 and a half percent of the whole value of the American stock market. At the rate buybacks and buyouts are going this year, the total is going to be close to about $900 billion. That’s another 4 and a half percent of U.S. market capitalization taken out of circulation.
With the supply of publicly-traded shares shrinking like this, and with lots of global money out there to buy the shares that remain, it’s no wonder the stock market is going gang busters.
Yet at some point this bubble will burst. You see, the whole reason for companies buying back their shares, and for private-equity firms doing leverage buyouts, is to put all these shares of stock back on to the public market at some point in the future, at a higher price than before.
But if stock prices are now rising largely because the supply of publicly-traded shares is shrinking, and corporations are not making long-term investments, what happens when all this stock comes back on the market?
The loud thud you’ll hear will be the sound of shares falling back to earth.
http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2007/05/stock-market-bull.html
Finans iliminin çok ilerlediği günümüz dünyasında, sözleşme yoluyla maddi varlıklar üzerinde hak talep etmek çok yaygın bir yöntem. Fiyatlar mutedil bir şekilde oynarken, bu sözleşmelerde sorun çıkmıyor. Ancak, yukarı doğru sert hareketler başlayınca iş karışıyor. Birdenbire sözleşme maddeleri değiştiriliyor.
Londra'daki metal borsasındaki nikel piyasası, günümüzden ilginç bir örnek. İlk haber 2006 yazında çıktı. Borsada açık pozisyonda olanların elinde nikel yoktu ve fiziki teslimat yapamıyorlardı. Piyasa serbest piyasa, ekonomik düzen de kapitalizm ise, açık pozisyondakilerin iflas etmesi gerekiyordu. Hatta bu konuda bir atasözü de vardı. "He who sells what isn't his'n, buys it back or goes to prison."
Peki ne oldu? Borsa yönetimi, kuralları değiştirip, fiziki teslimatın, günde ton başına 300 dolar cezayla geciktirebileceği yönünde karar aldı. Bu ceza, sözleşme bedelinin yaklaşık %1'i kadardı.
Nikel piyasası duruldu derken tekrar gündeme düştü. Haber şöyle:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601012&sid=az0MnAkgbroU&refer=commodities
Açıklama da böyle:
http://www.lme.co.uk/5103.asp
Kısaca diyorlar ki, elinde çok fazla nikel kontratı bulunduranlar, veya çok fazla nikeli borsaya ait depolarda bulunduranlar, elinde nikel olmayanlara nikel borç vermek zorundadırlar. Hangi fiyattan? Borsadaki spot fiyatının %0 ile %0.5 üzerinden.
"Borç vermiyorum kardeşim nikel benim değil mi, istersem turşusunu kurarım", diyemezsiniz! "Borç vereyim peki, ama spot fiyatın %10 üzerinden, işinize gelirse", diyemezsiniz!
...
Here is a quick recap of inflastagdeflation:
If you spend any meaningful time reading up on today's economic views, you will find three prevailing idées fixes. In order of dominance:
A. Inflation is understated. General price level measurements are manipulated, or failing, or are simply false; we are facing a dramatic buildup in inflationary pressures...
B. Inflation is yesterday's story. What we are experiencing now, is stagflation. Wages and incomes are stagnant, housing is slowing, the consumer is on the brink, and growth is slowing by virtue of the fact that producers have no pricing power in a credit-fueled growth environment...
C. Inflation? What inflation? Housing prices are deflating. Consumers are cutting back. Producers have no pricing power...
So, are we experiencing inflation, stagflation, or deflation?
...
http://www.minyanville.com/articles/inflation-Fed-stagflation-deflation-/index/a/13178
Akacak yeni yerler, yeni yatırım fırsatları arayan global likiditeye bizim de bir katkımız olsun.. :D
Sudan
Khartoum Stock Exchange (http://www.khartoumstock.com/index_en.php)
Irak
Baghdad Stock Exchange (http://www.isx-iq.net/)
Nepal
Nepal Stock Exchange (http://www.nepalstock.com/)
Gana
Ghana Stock Exchange (http://www.gse.com.gh/)
Mongolia
Mongolian Stock Exchange (http://www.mse.mn/en/)
Zimbabwe
Zimbabwe Industrials Index (http://www.zse.co.zw/)
Fiji
The South Pacific Stock Exchange (http://www.spse.com.fj/publish/home.shtml)
Carry trade threatens a deflationary global collapse
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/81105144-2382-11dc-9e7e-000b5df10621.html
Dünyadaki kur dengesizlikleri sıralanırken, bizim de adımız geçiyor artık. Öyle veya böyle, meşhur olduk!
A simple purchasing power parity exercise suggests that the New Zealand dollar is 20-25 per cent overvalued against the US dollar, while the Turkish lira is about 65 per cent overvalued. The yen meanwhile is roughly 30 per cent undervalued.
Cari dengeden bahsetmiş. Yerli iktisatçılar, "cari denge mi, o da ne, bunu diyen dinazordur" derken, elin gavuru, cari denge üzerinde kafa yoruyor:
Huge currency misalignments are leading to enormous current account imbalances. The Turkish and New Zealand current account deficits, for instance, are likely to be well into double-digits as a per cent of GDP by 2009, while Japan is likely heading for a record surplus of 6-8 per cent of GDP over the same time frame. The Swiss current account surplus is already about 17 per cent of GDP.
Rakamlara baktıktan sonra da, diyor ki, eninde sonunda, bu dengesizlikler giderilecek. Büyüklerimizin söylediğine göre, "finanse edildiği sürece, cari açık problem değildi". Bu gafil İngiliz, niçün böyle lakırdılar eder?
Ultimately there must be a sharp convergence of exchange rates with fair values, inflicting heavy losses on carry trades.
Buraya kadar, İngilizin dediklerinde garip bir yan yoktu; ama iş çözüm önermeye gelince, vaziyet karışıyor.
Batıdaki Varlık Fiyatlarını düşüremeyiz
Central banks are likely to attempt to ratify current inflated asset values by inflating prices and incomes to avoid a deflationary economic collapse. Unfortunately, sharp reductions in interest rates in the US, UK and the euro area will lead to a rapid unwinding of the global carry trade, perversely threatening to worsen problems in the credit markets.
İngiliz der ki batıdaki varlık fiyatlarını düşüremeyiz. Bu yol, kredi piyasalarını dağıtır. Aceba niye ki? Hatayı yapan cezayı çekse, çok adil bir çözüm olmaz mı?
Japonya'daki Fiyatları İki Katına Çıkaralım
Japonlar para bassın, Amerika para bassın, Japonya'daki fiyatlar iki katına çıksın.
The solution would have to involve massive unsterilised intervention by the Japanese authorities, which would have the effect of inflating Japanese prices to a level consistent with the current yen exchange rate, thereby alleviating huge upward pressure on the yen as the carry trade unwinds.
Combined with a similar inflation in the US this "solution" would require roughly a doubling of the Japanese price level, destroying the real value of Japanese savings.
Olan Japon Halkının Tasarruflarına olur, o da mühim değil zaten
Amerika'da tasarruf olmadığı için, enflasyonun etkisi olmaz (Japonya 2inci Dünya Savaşını kaybetmişti ve hala işgal altında ülke statüsünde).
Combined with a similar inflation in the US this "solution" would require roughly a doubling of the Japanese price level, destroying the real value of Japanese savings.
If the losses are to manifest purely in real terms - via inflation - then they must occur mostly where the savings have been, which is certainly not in the US.
WeWillRise
26-06-2007, 22:51
sterilize edilmeyen yen'in , japonya'da faizler yükseltilmedikçe dolar, euro ve diğer paralara daha da fazla yönelme riski ortadan kalkar mı ki. yapılacak olan bir yandan yen basarken diğer yandan faizini artırılması olabilir. yani carry trade cilerin cebine parasını japon merkez bankası koyacak, yani yazar bir anlamda demişki, yeter bu kadar faiz şimdi paramızı cebimize koyun da gidelim..
amerikan milleti sürdüğü sefayı japon milletinin sırtına yıkmak istiyor da japon merkez bankası ne yapar o belli değil.
...
Cari dengeden bahsetmiş. Yerli iktisatçılar, "cari denge mi, o da ne, bunu diyen dinazordur" derken, elin gavuru, cari denge üzerinde kafa yoruyor:
Huge currency misalignments are leading to enormous current account imbalances. The Turkish and New Zealand current account deficits, for instance, are likely to be well into double-digits as a per cent of GDP by 2009, while Japan is likely heading for a record surplus of 6-8 per cent of GDP over the same time frame. The Swiss current account surplus is already about 17 per cent of GDP.
Rakamlara baktıktan sonra da, diyor ki, eninde sonunda, bu dengesizlikler giderilecek. Büyüklerimizin söylediğine göre, "finanse edildiği sürece, cari açık problem değildi". Bu gafil İngiliz, niçün böyle lakırdılar eder?
...
Kraldan çok kralcılara ithaf olunur.. :D
Başbakan Tayyip Erdoğan'ın, Merrill Lynch'ten transfer ederek milletvekili adayı gösterdiği ve AKP'nin iktidar olması durumunda ekonominin patronu olması beklenen Mehmet Şimşek, başarı için 2007 sonunda 32 milyar dolar olması beklenen cari açığın düşürülmesinin şart olduğunu vurguladı.
http://www.sabah.com.tr/2007/06/26/haber,6EDE2485EE574069AA56601AC22B00EF.html
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.