正如格林斯潘所说：privatized gain, socialized loss. 美国共匪把 AIG 成功变为美国人寿, 比中国人寿更国有化！

输钱大家埋单，好嘢好嘢

引用:

原帖由 CAB 於 2008-9-19 22:53 發表
正如格林斯潘所说：privatized gain, socialized loss. 美国共匪把 AIG 成功变为美国人寿, 比中国人寿更国有化！

输钱大家埋单，好 ...

They said it was a liquidity problem, not investment problem...

Of course not. Liquidity problem is a result of investment problem.

These people borrow to bet (invest), lose money, & hence no one is willing to lend them money (liquidity problem).

Even worse, these crooks like Lehman issued bonds in Asia to raise money, channel back to US to bet in different assets. When lost, they simple wind up those in Asia, & then sell those assets left in US to Barclays & then still got some money back.

Our gov't is just too idiot to do anything for the public. Even Japan immediately stopped Lehman to divert any fund out right on MON.

引用:

原帖由 CAB 於 2008-9-20 19:09 發表
e ...

HK always last to react!

总觉得以前的官员比较专业...

我们的財經事務局長是教书先生一名，全无实战经验....

"...在出任財經事務及庫務局局長前，陳教授是香港科技大學工商管理學院院長。他於一九九三年加入科大商學院，之前曾在美國俄亥俄州立大學任教九年。在加入政府前，陳教授曾擔任多項重要公職，包括消費者委員會主席、香港期貨交易所董事、策略發展委員會委員...。"

至于财政司曾俊华，同样好笑，有天他说不同市场对消息反应很不同，比如救市消息出，美股升，欧洲跌。其实他不知道欧洲是比美国早收市，而消息是在欧洲收市後才出

引用:

原帖由 CAB 於 2008-9-20 19:09 發表
Of course not. Liquidity problem is a result of investment problem.

These people borrow to bet (invest), lose money, & hence no one is willing to lend them money (liquidity problem).

Eve ...

Yes.. Hong Kong Govt officials earns much more than their counterparts in financial sectors but they work in sleeping pace...
AIG has problem in investment but it is not that big a share in their portfolio compare with Lehman brothers.
I agree to freeze Lehman bros account in Hong Kong but this will not happen because Salesman Tsang is too timid to face the big crocodiles and may be he cannot speak too fluent and express himself too...

引用:

原帖由 Rubber 於 2008-9-20 10:45 發表


They said it was a liquidity problem, not investment problem...

I believe the first person who said this is Hank Greenberg, former AIG chairman.
Correct me if I may, but I think Greenberg was saying AIG has a liquidity problem, not a "solvency" problem.

What Greenberg means is that AIG only need a transitional short term loan to pass through the current crisis. He think the long term fundamentals of AIG has no problem and AIG will not go insolvent.

But of course, like all you guys said, this is an excuse.
The basic issue is AIG's over-exposure in the Credit default SWAPs (CDS) business. ( Heard AIG has half a trillion US dollar exposure.) When there is a credit crunch, all the investments in these CDS go down the drain. And thus AIG is now in deep trouble.

I don't think any one in the Hong Kong Goverment really understand what is really going on. Maybe a couple of those phDs in the monetary authority can understand what it is.
The issue is just too complex for a bureaucrat to grasp.

Perhaps even George Bush can't understand this too..... so..... just forget it......
our beloved CE tsang will never understand this.......... We are doomed.

引用:

原帖由 舐共小先鋒 於 2008-9-21 16:10 發表
W ...

Bad investments resulted in zero liquidity.

This derivative has been making so much credit available; basically, for the last decade, not only the American economy, the entire world economy, yes, including China, was built upon it.
Where did the money come from? and where did the money spend to?
I think the phrasing could possibly be “privatized gain, globalized loss”.
It is never a simple question of right or wrong.

Here is an interesting book by Geroge Soros, "The New Paradigm for the New Financial Markets"

It’s only until now, the US starts to talk about regulating CDS. But don’t worry, the sharks will think of some other financial hedging products for the world to gamble with.




The fact remains that you can’t make a clapping sound with one hand, or can you?

Black Swan is also an interesting book to read....costs about $118.

引用:

原帖由 Rainybreeze 於 2008-9-22 02:21 發表
This derivative has been making so much credit available; basically, for the last decade, not only the American economy, the entire world economy, yes, including China, was built upon it.
Where did  ...

Thanks for the introduction.  My understanding is the failure of money funds ( Reserved primary fund and BNY ) force the US Treasury to step in with optional backing programs to stabilize the fund market, and to enable companies to roll over their short term debt.

We are just ETC machine in those sharks' eyes, Donald Tsang care less to regulate the market than covering his behind.
Our beloved CE only answers to big players and will do nothing to upset them, small investors are expendable under Tsang's governance.

The governments, all able governments across the world, will be and have to be very selectively in handling the situation.  

They have to act on FM and FM cos, the US government is their products' guarantor.  The US government can't default.  

The world has to do something about AIG, because AIG is the largest CDS playhouse in the world.  For short term, AIG is indeed having liquidity concern, but the real problem is the sharks have target to make a hefty profit out of the AIG short term concern.

It might be a good idea to keep one thing in mind.  Financial products are products, like watches, telephones, cars.   And let's not kid ourselves; we know it is a gambling game.    People still buy and sell willingly.  I think they call this "Free" market.

Here is a quote from Alan Greenspan, The age of Turbulence Pg 372,

" Regrettably, every time a hedge fund's problems make the news, political pressure to regulate the industry mounts. Hedge funds are both risk takers and very large, the thinking goes—doesn't that prove they are dangerous?  Shouldn't the government rein them in? Leaving aside the undermining  of market liquidity that such actions could induce, the benefit of more  government regulation eludes me. Hedge funds change their holdings so  rapidly that last night's balance sheet is probably of little use by 11 a.m.—  so regulators would have to scrutinize the funds practically minute by minute.  Any governmental restrictions on fund investment behavior (that's what regulation does) would curtail the risk taking that is integral to the contributions of hedge funds to the global economy, and especially to the economy of the United States. Why do we wish to inhibit the pollinating bees of Wall Street?"

There is a lot of problem Tsang, but don't blow it out of proportion.  He is just a man.

引用:

原帖由 COO 於 2008-9-22 12:39 發表
Black Swan is also an interesting book to read....costs about $118.

Where to get?

引用:

原帖由 Rainybreeze 於 2008-9-22 20:00 發表
The governments, all able governments across the world, will be and have to be very selectively in handling the situation.  

They have to act on FM and FM cos, the US government is their products'  ...

You know what, I was quite surprised to find out there are a number of PROs here in this forum.
Typically this is a forum for "victoria park uncles".  But I am wrong. And am I glad I am?!

HK is truly blessed with so many " crouching tigers and hidden dragons. "

About rainybreeze's and rubber's idea, I totally agree.  Regulation is not the answer to our current crisis. Like rainybreeze said, CDS is a product. And when there is a product, there is a market for it.

I don't think it is a right step to totally ban CDS too. Doing so will only further tighten the Bank's willingness to loan out money and thus will further deteriorate the current credit crunch crisis.

But given the high leverage of these derivatives( derivative to underlying asset ratio is way too high) , some sort of a leverage rule must be made for the product to prevent any domino effect to happen again in the future.

My suggestion is to stop trading CDS over the counter, create a formal trading platform where these derivatives can be properly priced according to market supply and demand. Doing so, when and if there is a rise in the default rate in the mortgage market,  the price of these CDS will rise following the trend. And with a higher cost in insuring against default loans, banks will be more careful in their loan approval process.  Problems solved.

If I were the advisor to the CE, I will propose to the CE to jump into this great financial opportunity and create a CDS trading market in Hong Kong. If we can do this, we shall be the real financial hub of the world and no other city shall come close to us ever......

引用:

原帖由 舐共小先鋒 於 2008-9-23 15:28 發表


You know what, I was quite surprised to find out there are a number of PROs here in this forum.
Typically this is a forum for "victoria park uncles".  But I am wrong. And am I glad I am?!

HK i ...

I am just an engineer and not a financial PRO.
However, in the forseeable future, US needs to print a lot of $ ( some said 1 trillion ) to cover this crisis.
Your suggestion is great, to create a CDS market, but in the face of inevitable inflation of US$, should HK$ go un-peg first?

引用:

原帖由 舐共小先鋒 於 2008-9-23 15:28 發表
You know what, I was quite surprised to find out there are a number of PROs here in this forum.
Typically this is a forum for "victoria park uncles".  But I am wrong. And am I glad I am?!
...

I doubt any interest in CDS now. Who wants to lose their shirts?

引用:

原帖由 peninsula 於 2008-9-22 22:15 發表

引用:

原帖由 COO 於 2008-9-22 12:39 發表
Black Swan is also an interesting book to read....costs about $118.

Where to get?

試下去商務書店看看。

PROs?  I can't speak on Rubber's behalf, but for Rainybreeze?  Please, as I was saying, don't blow it out of proportion.

For the CDS, the US rumor goes that they are going to put the tradings onto the Trading Board to make everything transparent.  The question is, would that solve the problem? What is/are the problems? Short term or Long term? What's the priority? Economy or politic? US economy or World economy?

The financial market used to be a place for people to get funding to run business to "Produce".  Now, it's a huge gambling pool.  And the beauty of it is, if you know how to play game well, you can use $1 to buy $100 worth of company and then break it apart and sell it.  If you could do it fast, you would make so much money.  What's the point of putting a life time's work in building up a company when you can make money so much easier just by buying and selling?  Look at their financial reports and see what kind of assets they are holding.  The American changed their accounting reporting standard for a reason.

The PRC has been very cautious to open up the financial market.  On one hand, you can't afford not to play the game, and on the other hand, the game could easily destroy China's economy.  They call it “Globalization”.  Fancy word isn't it.

With these financial turmoils, China will definitely slow down its process of opening up financial markets.  Too much the risks involved. China just does not have enough experienced financial wizards to handle.

Also as I mentioned in other thread, the off-balance sheet items of the US banks are going to be another big issue which could likely to deepen the present problems in the US, and the globe.

引用:

原帖由 COO 於 2008-9-24 16:35 發表
With these financial turmoils, China will definitely slow down its process of opening up financial markets.  Too much the risks involved. China just does not have enough experienced financial wizards  ...

Which ones are at risk?

I wish I knew.

Because of the different accounting treatment in relation to investment for investment banks (mark-to-market) and commercial banks (at cost); therefore, we really do not know what and how bad the commercial banks are hurt.

It is anticipated that there are gonna be a lot more small to medium regional commercial banks will be in the brink of liquidation in the US.

引用:

原帖由 COO 於 2008-9-25 10:33 發表
I wish I knew.

Because of the different accounting treatment in relation to investment for investment banks (mark-to-market) and commercial banks (at cost); therefore, we really do not know what an ...

Currently, a lot of people in US are agruing if "fair value accounting" is leading to the financial/credit crisis. FASB are now forced to speed up its response time in dealing with credit crisis-related issues

引用:

原帖由 Rubber 於 2008-9-23 16:04 發表


I am just an engineer and not a financial PRO.
However, in the forseeable future, US needs to print a lot of $ ( some said 1 trillion ) to cover this crisis.
Your suggestion is great, to create ...

Bravo my friend. Bravo!
You concern are absolutely valid. You are right. With the US$700billion financial rescue plan , plus the amount spent on Fannie Mae , Freddie Mac , AIG........  The US governemnt really has an enormous pressure to her pocket. But let's not forget the US budget deficit has already accumulated to a staggering 9.6 trillion dollars. Putting another trillion on the bill is "just" 10% more.  Yes, it is a serious concern. But it won't be the straw that breaks the camel's back.(Hopefully.... )

With this in mind, my opinion is that there is no eminent danger for the US-HK$ peg system.
Yes, you are right. The US $ will continue to weaken, and so will HK$.
But this should be within our acceptable limits. (Hopefully .... )