<   2008年 03月 ( 46 )   > この月の画像一覧

SWAT

NYTより:
The Treasury Department will propose on Monday that Congress give the Federal Reserve broad new authority to oversee financial market stability, in effect allowing it to send SWAT teams into any corner of the industry or any institution that might pose a risk to the overall system.

うーむ。
[PR]
by stupid-market | 2008-03-30 02:00 | Economy

Can You Ignore The Market Price?

NYTより:
Alternatively, there could be a simple rule, at least for banks. If you will ignore this price as irrelevant when you decide whether to send out margin calls to those to whom you have lent money, then you can ignore that market price when you make your own reports. But if you won’t lend based on a valuation that ignores actual market prices, then you should not use that valuation for your own accounts.

なるほどね。そりゃもっともです。
[PR]
by stupid-market | 2008-03-29 12:46 | Accounting

1 to 3%

FRBのホームページより:
These considerations provide the foundations for a broad consensus among academic economists and monetary policymakers around the world that the optimal inflation rate is in the range of about 1 to 3 percent; that is, an average inflation rate outside this range would be detrimental to longer-run health of the economy.

なるほど、インフレは高すぎても低すぎても良くないということですね。


日銀のホームページより:
「物価の安定」とは、概念的には、計測誤差(バイアス)のない物価指数でみて変化率がゼロ%の状態である。現状、わが国の消費者物価指数のバイアスは大きくないとみられる。物価下落と景気悪化の悪循環の可能性がある場合には、それを考慮する程度に応じて、若干の物価上昇を許容したとしても、金融政策運営において「物価の安定」と理解する範囲内にあると考えられる。

<中略>

消費者物価指数の前年比で表現すると、0~2%程度であれば、各委員の「中長期的な物価安定の理解」の範囲と大きくは異ならないとの見方で一致した。

ゼロインフレが理想だけど、若干の物価上昇も「許容」できるということですか。うーむ。日銀の政策委員の考えは、"a broad consensus among academic economists and monetary policymakers around the world"に明らかに反しているということですね。
[PR]
by stupid-market | 2008-03-29 08:20 | Monetary Policy

第3の道

Nikkei Netより:
さらに、今後新たな問題が生まれてもくる。世界的な資源不足のもとで生活必需品などの物価上昇圧力が強まり、これまで忘却の彼方にあったインフレが頭をもたげてくるリスクだ。この点で物価安定も重要な政策課題になってくるが、これは金融政策にすべてではないが、強くかかわってくる。また、激変下にある世界市場で日本経済が活力を保ち続けていくには、日本企業が本格的にグローバル戦略を展開する必要があるが、それには産業構造の転換が必須である。ここにもマクロ政策としての金融政策の新たな舵取りが、強く要請されてくる。

僕の頭が悪いせいでしょうが、何を主張しているのかサッパリ理解不能です。金利を上げてしまえインフレを抑えられると同時に、財務的に弱い企業は退場せざるを得ないので、日本経済の新陳代謝が進むということでしょうか?いやー、これだから日本の経済学者は、、、、
[PR]
by stupid-market | 2008-03-28 13:14 | Economy

Arbitrage Opportunity?

NYTより:
But on dozens of occasions since early 2006, the futures contracts for corn, wheat and soybeans have expired at a price that was much higher than that day’s cash price for those grains.

へー。不思議ですねぇ。
[PR]
by stupid-market | 2008-03-28 11:36 | Economy

580-Page Report

NYTより:
The report said that investigators “did not find sufficient evidence to conclude that New Century engaged in earnings management or manipulation, although its accounting irregularities almost always resulted in increased earnings.”

えー、それだけで十分なような。
[PR]
by stupid-market | 2008-03-27 11:33 | Accounting

Leverage Doesn't Add Value

Oaktree Client Letterより:
First, leverage magnifies outcomes but doesn’t add value.
<中略>
To simplify for my current purpose, risk comes from the combination of what you buy and how you finance it. You can buy very risky assets, but if you don’t lever up to do so, you’ll never lose them to a margin call. Or you can buy fundamentally safe assets, but the combination of enough leverage and a sufficiently hostile environment can cause a meltdown. In other words, investing in “safe” assets isn’t necessarily safe, particularly if you’ve borrowed to buy them.

まさにその通り。
[PR]
by stupid-market | 2008-03-25 10:41 | Asset Management

Cross Your Fingers

WSJより:
WSJ: How do you know what's safe?

Mr. Gross: You don't always. That's why you stick to the highest-quality investments. We were recently a big buyer of municipal bonds, one-billion-plus. How did we know we paid the best price? We didn't. What we did know was that these are double-A quality credits that have very little chance of going bankrupt. We jumped in and crossed our fingers.

ビル・グロス御大のお告げです。まあ、確かに地方債(だけじゃないけど)の市場はとんでもないことになっているようですので、今が買い時なのでしょうが、それでも絶対正しいという保証はないですからね。
[PR]
by stupid-market | 2008-03-24 12:55 | Economy

Fed Fund Question

Paul Krugmanのブログより:
But I have a possibly naive question: can the Fed really cut the Fed funds rate that far? I don’t mean “can” in the sense that other concerns will give them pause; I mean literally — does the Fed really have that ability?

FedはFFレートを超低金利(1%とか)にすることができない?そんなバカな、と思うけどホントのところはどうでしょう。いずれ分かるような気がします。
[PR]
by stupid-market | 2008-03-21 12:28 | Monetary Policy

Un-Fair Value Accounting

Portfolio.comより:
For several quarters, all the investment banks have been taking gains on its liabilities. Say you owe $100 to your friend. But you run into severe problems and your friend starts to figure you can only afford to pay back $95. If you were an investment bank, the magic of fair value accounting dictates that you could get to reduce your liability. What’s more, that $5 gain gets added to earnings. Because investors thought Lehman was more likely to default, its liabilties fell in value and Lehman garnered earnings from this. How much did Lehman win through losing? $600 million in the quarter. How much was its net income? $489 million.

うーむ、何と言えば良いやら。Equityの価値がゼロになった時点で、初めてDebtの価値の減額を認識するのならわかりますが、クレジットリスクが高くなったら途端にDebtの価値を減額して、その分、利益(つまりEquity)として認識するのは本末転倒では?「債権」の現在価値にクレジットリスクを反映させるのは当然ですが、「債務」の現在価値にクレジットリスクを反映させるのは何か間違えている。
[PR]
by stupid-market | 2008-03-21 12:13 | Economy