Board logo

標題: 美国人寿 vs 中国人寿 [打印本頁]
作者: CAB    時間: 2008-9-19 22:53     標題: 美国人寿 vs 中国人寿

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
作者: Rubber    時間: 2008-9-20 10:45

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...
作者: 賊癲聾    時間: 2008-9-20 11:59

提示: 作者被禁止或刪除 內容自動屏蔽
作者: CAB    時間: 2008-9-20 19:09

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.
作者: 至尊豪庭9    時間: 2008-9-20 19:54

提示: 作者被禁止或刪除 內容自動屏蔽
作者: peninsula    時間: 2008-9-20 21:21

引用:
原帖由 CAB 於 2008-9-20 19:09 發表
e ...
HK always last to react!
作者: CAB    時間: 2008-9-21 06:21

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
作者: Rubber    時間: 2008-9-21 11:43

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...
作者: 舐共小先鋒    時間: 2008-9-21 16:10

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.
作者: peninsula    時間: 2008-9-21 20:58

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.
作者: Rainybreeze    時間: 2008-9-22 02:21

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?
作者: COO    時間: 2008-9-22 12:39

Black Swan is also an interesting book to read....costs about $118.
作者: Rubber    時間: 2008-9-22 13:24

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.
作者: Rainybreeze    時間: 2008-9-22 20:00

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.
作者: peninsula    時間: 2008-9-22 22:15

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?
作者: 舐共小先鋒    時間: 2008-9-23 15:28

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......
作者: Rubber    時間: 2008-9-23 16:04

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?
作者: peninsula    時間: 2008-9-23 21:02

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?
作者: COO    時間: 2008-9-24 10:52

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。
作者: Rainybreeze    時間: 2008-9-24 16:15

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.
作者: COO    時間: 2008-9-24 16:35

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.
作者: peninsula    時間: 2008-9-24 20:32

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?
作者: COO    時間: 2008-9-25 10:33     標題: 回復 22# 的帖子

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.
作者: public59    時間: 2008-9-25 12:09

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
作者: 舐共小先鋒    時間: 2008-9-25 15:13

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 .... )
作者: 舐共小先鋒    時間: 2008-9-25 15:34

引用:
原帖由 public59 於 2008-9-25 12:09 發表


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-r ...
It's not entirely the new accounting system, it's also the responsibility of the credit rating agency.
In the past, the credit rating agency has been blamed for giving too much slack to some corporations.
And so to do things in the safe side, they suddenly tighten all ratings.....and this immediately blow AIG away.
作者: 舐共小先鋒    時間: 2008-9-25 15:53

引用:
原帖由 Rainybreeze 於 2008-9-24 16:15 發表
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  ...
Globalization - a fancy word it is. Indeed.... a fancy word it is.

In communist china, it's the word they use to represent "advancement to market economy".
In the capitalist's eyes, this is the equivalence of "lower production cost" and cheap labor.
In western liberals' eyes, this is the representation of pure corporate evil squeezing the poor.

Whether China will continue it's open policy I do not know, but in this fincncial tsunami, I am quite sure more regulations will be called for. And this will happen in all major financial centers around the world.

The golden era of a free economy with little or no intervention as we know may be coming to the end.  
作者: COO    時間: 2008-9-25 16:07

引用:
原帖由 public59 於 2008-9-25 12:09 發表


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-r ...
At present, the US has not yet adopted the IFRS which is being commonly used in EU.  I think it is not practical to use fair value for structured investments. They are too complicated and difficult to evalute.
作者: Rubber    時間: 2008-9-25 16:47

This is the best explaination I read so far why AIG and Bear Stearns are bailed out due to the CDS market.

There is an estimated 516 trillion $ derivatives compare with 100 trillion $ stock market ( and 15 trillion $ US$ money supply ).  The bomb is too big to let it blow..

What is happening in both the stock and credit markets is a direct result of what's playing out in the CDS market. The Fed could not let Bear Stearns enter bankruptcy because – and only because – the trillions of dollars of credit default swaps on its books would be wiped out. All the banks and institutions that had insurance written by Bear would not be able to say that they were insured or hedged anymore and they would have to write-down billions and billions of dollars in losses that they've been carrying at higher values because they could say that they were insured for those losses.
The counter party risk that all Bear's trading partners were exposed to was so far and wide, and so deep, that if Bear was to enter bankruptcy it would take years to sort out the risk and losses. That was an untenable option. The Fed had to bail out Bear Stearns.

Make no mistake about it, there's nothing wrong with AIG's insurance subsidiaries – absolutely nothing. In fact, the Fed just made the best trade in its history by bailing AIG out and getting equity, warrants and charging the insurance giant seven points over the benchmark London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) on that $85 billion loan!
What happened to AIG is simple: AIG got greedy. AIG, as of June 30,had written $441 billion worth of swaps on corporate bonds, and worse,mortgage-backed securities. As the value of these insured-referenced entities fell, AIG had massive write-downs and additionally had to post more collateral. And when its ratings were downgraded on Monday evening, the company had to post even more collateral, which it didn't have.
In short, what happened in one small AIG corporate subsidiary blew apart the largest insurance company in the world.
But there's more – a lot more. These instruments are causing many of the massive write-downs at banks, investment banks and insurance companies. Knowing what all this means for hedge funds, the credit markets and the stock market is the key to understanding where this might end and how.

[ 本帖最後由 Rubber 於 2008-9-25 16:49 編輯 ]
作者: COO    時間: 2008-9-25 17:06

Blown out of proportion......
作者: Rainybreeze    時間: 2008-9-26 11:20

Regulation itself is not that difficult.  The question is who would be benefit form the regulation?  Yes, it's a wealth distribution decision.

We want to spend a dollar, we either earn a dollar, or we go out and borrow a dollar, then we have something to spend.

Under the yet to be regulated US free market, this is how Greenspan been keeping US out of recession out of the past 20 years.

Another thing is, under the said system, you could self multiply your money, in FM's case, from core asset of 80 billion to 5200 billion.  It's done legitimately, so that if other people don't play the same game, they are going to be at the wrong end of the stick when counting the dollar bills.  Anything for sales?  Someone has a lot of other people's money to buy.

Look at Hong Kong Exchange, the at-auction and at-auction limit orders, the warrants.  The Board of directors is doing their part to make HKE as much a "Free Market" as the US to attract Funds to come in.  If we want Hong Kong to be the Asia lively Financial Center, something has to give.  

Gamble big and win big.  Loser?  Well, something has to give.
作者: COO    時間: 2008-9-26 11:27

Well, from small investors' point of view, it may take too LITTLE (from the Big Gamblers) but give up too MUCH (of thier own protection).
作者: Rubber    時間: 2008-9-26 12:23

There is a good explanation about the meltdown of CDO due to the sub-prime mortgage of the US housing.

normaSubprimehttp://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-flash07.html?project=normaSubprime0712&h=530&w=980&hasAd=1&settings=normaSubprime0712

The Credit Crunch turning all investors in CDOs big losers.

Regulation - yes...   I always wonder why people are allowed to short-sell before actual borrow from someone to sell.
This remotely applies to those as in CDO or CDS..
How can you have no " interest / stake " and insure or as an insurer against someone's default ?
Those derivative product should be regulated when there are some real money are in stakes ( you cannot throw in collateral ).  Those collateral was seen to multiply itself.

This Credit Crunch has opened the door of the unthinkable....
作者: peninsula    時間: 2008-9-26 20:49

引用:
原帖由 COO 於 2008-9-25 17:06 發表
Blown out of proportion......
Confidence is hard to retain!



歡迎光臨 香港 Xocat Forum 討論區 (http://p.xocat.com/p/) Powered by Discuz! 6.0.0