作者 |
一年又过去了,最坏的时期算是过去,至于如何以及何时好转,还是个to be or not to be 问题。 |
|
ceo/cfo [博客] [个人文集]
头衔: 海归中将 声望: 院士 性别: 加入时间: 2004/11/05 文章: 12941
海归分: 491633
|
|
作者:ceo/cfo 在 海归商务 发贴, 来自【海归网】 http://www.haiguinet.com
今天又重温了西格尔教授一年前的分析,想想还是他有道理。
What was the true cause of the worst financial crisis the world has seen since the Great Depression? Was it excessive greed on Wall Street? Was it mark-to-market accounting? The answer is none of the above, says Jeremy Siegel, a professor of finance at Wharton. While these factors contributed to the crisis, they do not represent its most significant cause.
Here is the real reason, according to Siegel: Financial firms bought, held and insured large quantities of risky, mortgage-related assets on borrowed money. The irony is that these financial giants had little need to hold these securities; they were already making enormous profits simply from creating, bundling and selling them. "During dot-com IPOs of the early 1990s, the firms that underwrote the stock offerings did not hold on to those stocks," Siegel says. "They flipped them. But in the case of mortgage-backed securities, the financial firms decided these were good assets to hold. That was their fatal flaw."
Speaking in Philadelphia on January 20, Siegel, author of Stocks for the Long Run and The Future for Investors, provided a detailed analysis of the factors that fueled the worldwide financial meltdown. His talk was the inaugural lecture of a 15-session course on the financial crisis that Wharton is offering MBA and undergraduate students. Siegel's mission was to detail the factors that sparked the crisis that has caused the U.S. stock market to lose more than a third of its value in a year, while sending unemployment to its highest level since the 1980s. Siegel's lecture was on the same day that millions of Americans expressed optimism over the inauguration of President Barack Obama, even as the Dow plunged another 300 points.
Explaining his theory further, Siegel pointed out that many troubled banks and insurers continued to prosper in almost every other aspect of their businesses right up to the 2008 meltdown. The exception was the billions of dollars in mortgage-backed securities that they bought and held on to or insured even after U.S. home prices went into a free-fall more than two years ago. American International Group (AIG), the insurer that received an $85 billion federal rescue package last September, is a prime example. Some 95% of its business units were profitable when the company collapsed. "AIG has 125,000 employees," Siegel noted. "Basically, 80 of them tanked the firm. It was the New Products Division, which had an office in London and a small branch office in Connecticut. They came up with the idea of insuring mortgage-backed assets, and nobody at the top decided it wasn't a good idea. So they bet the house -- and the company went under."
Lapse over Lehman
According to Siegel, federal officials -- particularly outgoing Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson -- mishandled initial efforts to intervene in the crisis. For example, Paulson was concerned about the political backlash that might be unleashed by bailing out Lehman Brothers. He allowed the firm to collapse last September but underestimated the impact of Lehman's demise on financial markets. Despite a $700 billion bailout, banks are still unwilling to extend credit, Siegel said.
he and others have wondered why firms like Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns and Morgan Stanley -- which survived the much more severe Great Depression of the 1930s -- collapsed during 2008. One reason, he suggested, might be that, back then, these firms were organized as partnerships. In such an organizational structure, the partners would have to risk their own capital. When the partnerships were reorganized as widely held public companies, however, they no longer had such constraints. "Back when it was a partnership, you had your life invested in that company," said Siegel, noting that banks also began making higher-return but higher-risk investments in recent years as public ownership increased.
总结一下,还是房事出问题。
再总结一下,看过电影 Other People's Money 吗?问题就出在这里。如果他们用的是自己一家一档的棺材钱,我们就不会有这场经危!!period.
作者:ceo/cfo 在 海归商务 发贴, 来自【海归网】 http://www.haiguinet.com
|
|
|
返回顶端 |
|
|
|
- 一年又过去了,最坏的时期算是过去,至于如何以及何时好转,还是个to be or not to be 问题。 -- ceo/cfo - (4081 Byte) 2010-1-11 周一, 09:40 (963 reads)
|
|
|
您不能在本论坛发表新主题, 不能回复主题, 不能编辑自己的文章, 不能删除自己的文章, 不能发表投票, 您 不可以 发表活动帖子在本论坛, 不能添加附件不能下载文件, |
|
|