危机可能已经见底了，不过。。。

eheheh81

hi

我也来加入看空行列，我是一向来都主张最差还没过去的人！


我们看看加洲政府这几天内会不会宣布破产吧！

alpinev18

原帖由 eheheh81 于 19-7-2009 02:28 PM 发表
hi

我也来加入看空行列，我是一向来都主张最差还没过去的人！


我们看看加洲政府这几天内会不会宣布破产吧！

大大认为最差的还没過去, 何出此言?

alpinev18

原帖由 tanhy 于 19-7-2009 11:11 AM 发表
BOA 和 Citi 都赚大钱，不过股价在收市时反而跌原因是BOA的bad debt provision 大起，Ken Lewis 又发表不乐观的预期
至于Citi, 其实真正的业务是亏损，只是靠卖股份赚了一次过的钱

最真实的应该是GE
GE的revenu ...

CITI 是靠賣股份才赚, 我不會为了这样而乐观起來.

eheheh81

原帖由 alpinev18 于 19-7-2009 10:00 PM 发表


CITI 是靠賣股份才赚, 我不會为了这样而乐观起來.

我还是小弟一个！
CITI 的财务状况非常严重。还是mark to market 呢！

现在Obama是要利用股市泡沫,推升楼价,来掩盖问题吗？
如果是的话，下一波会更严重。

股市的波动还是很厉害，这不是复苏期的征兆。所以还是谨慎为妙。

tanhy

Roubini: Economic Recovery to Be 'Very Ugly'

Published: Monday, 20 Jul 2009 | 5:57 PM ET

Text Size


By: CNBC.com




Nouriel Roubini, the economist whose dire forecasts earned him the nickname "Doctor Doom", told CNBC Monday that the economic recovery is going to be "very ugly."

cnbc.com

"The recovery is going to be subpar," Roubini said. "I see a one percent growth in the economy in the next few years. There will also be 11 percent unemployment next year and the recovery is going to be slow. It's going to feel like a recession even when it ends."

Asked about his comments in a speech last week about the recession ending in 2009, Roubini said, "I've been saying all along the recession is going to last 24 months. It started in December of 2007 and my view is that it won't be over until December of this year."

Roubini has said those comments were taken out of context. Several business news outlets, picking up on a report initially from Reuters, cited Roubini as saying that the worst of the economic financial crisis may be over.
When asked about the economy Monday, Roubini said, "We may be out of a freefall for the financial system," said Roubini. "We have seen the worst in that sense. But in my view there is a sluggish U shaped recovery that might go into a W double dip if we don't fix the problems in the economy."

Other comments from Roubini

On a second stimulus: "I think there will be another one toward the end of the year. We need to have more shovel ready labor intensive infrastructure projects. We'll need it."

On investing in today's markets: "A "Stay away from risky assets. I think from now on the surprise will be on the downside in areas like commodities."

末日博士又出来骂那些人曲解他的话, 很明显是被利用来炒股票

smart_603

cheong ah....huat ah....hahahahah

tanhy

Mass Layoffs: The Continuing Devastation
Gary North
Lew Rockwell.com

Sunday, July 26, 2009
Stock market investors shrug off a disaster in our midst: mass layoffs. Investors act as though it will soon be business as usual. Companies cut costs by firing employees that have been with them for decades. Then the companies can report higher earnings from cost-cutting measures. The media then proclaim an increase in earnings. But how will these increases be sustained? How will an unemployment rate of 11% help get the economy back on its feet?
Companies do have to cut costs. Consumers are telling them this is no uncertain terms. But it is not a time for rejoicing when people are laid off. They trusted senior management. They trusted the economic system. They have never heard of the Federal Reserve System. They know nothing about derivatives. All they know is that the Federal government bailed out the big banks in 2008, while they have lost their jobs. In this report, I will consider the question of mass layoffs. This topic does not get much attention by the financial press. It should.
Instead, we are told about three statistics: the unemployment rate, initial requests for unemployment insurance benefits, and total unemployment.
UNEMPLOYMENT STATISTICS
First, let’s consider the unemployment rate. The latest figure is 9.5%. It is widely expected to rise to 10% by the end of the year. No one in a position of authority is predicting a major reduction of this rate by the end of 2010.
The unemployment rate is not well understood. It is not the ratio of people out of work to adults in the economy. It is the ratio of people out of work compared to the total labor force.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics explains.

What are the basic concepts of employment and unemployment?

The basic concepts involved in identifying the employed and unemployed are quite simple:

• People with jobs are
  employed.
• People who are jobless, looking for jobs, and available for work are
  unemployed.
• People who are neither employed nor unemployed are
  not in the labor force.

. . . The sum of the employed and the unemployed constitutes the civilian labor force.

Let’s follow through on this. Joe gets fired. He is unemployed. He looks for a new job. He is still in the labor force. So, the unemployment rate rises: the ratio between those out of work in comparison with the total labor force.
Joe looks for a job. His unemployment insurance runs out. He stops looking for work. Or he starts looking for jobs that pay in cash. In either case, he is removed from the labor force. He is therefore also removed from the unemployment rolls.
As an unemployed person, he had a greater weight in the numerator (fewer people, total) than he did in the denominator. So, when he gets removed from both, the unemployment rate goes down. Victory for the stimulus! But the victory is purely statistical.

Second, let’s consider initial claims for unemployment insurance. The most recent claims have been in the 566,000 per week range (4-week average). It was 616,000 a month ago. It was 623,000 a month before that. So, there has been some slight improvement. People go on the rolls. Then they go off, as they get work or run out of payments.
Total unemployment as of July 23 was 6.2 million.
MASS LAYOFFS
The Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes another statistic: mass layoffs. A mass layoff is defined as one company that fires 50 or more people at one time.
A mass layoff indicates panic in senior management. This means doing without a lot of workers. It is not a normal occurrence. Here is the BLS report for July 23: “Mass Layoffs in June 2009.”

Employers took 2,763 mass layoff actions in June that resulted in the separation of 279,231 workers, seasonally adjusted, as measured by new filings for unemployment insurance benefits during the month, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today. Each action involved at least 50 persons from a single employer. . . .

Over the year, the number of mass layoff events increased by 1,046, and associated initial claims increased by 104,483.

That means that a year ago, the number of mass layoffs was at 1,717. It rose to 2,763.
The report also provided information regarding the extent of these mass layoffs since the official beginning of the recession in December 2007.

During the 19 months from December 2007 through June 2009, the total number of mass layoff events (seasonally adjusted) was 39,822, and the number of initial claims filed (seasonally adjusted) in those events was 4,090,538. (December 2007 was designated as the start of a recession by the National Bureau of Economic Research.)

If we divide the total number of mass layoff events of 39,822 by 19 months, we get an average monthly figure of 2,095. June’s was 2,763. The media tend not to report on this figure. It is limited to large firms. Most firms cannot fire 50 people. They do not employ 50 people.
Most new jobs are created by small businesses. Large firms employ lots of people, but these are long-term jobs. So, when people lose their jobs at large, established firms, they are forced to look for work in comparable firms if they want to keep their pay level. The problem is, mass layoffs are hitting in unprecedented numbers. The comparable jobs are not available.
The job-seeker must set his sights lower. He aims lower in terms of pay and seniority, because he will be entering the labor market in the “just getting started” segment. These jobs are not secure. They tend not to pay as well as established jobs in large companies.
Mass layoffs are career-disrupting. People who had hoped to keep a job in an established company that offers health care benefits and a retirement program now find that they have lost their health care insurance, and their pension money is insufficient to offer them any hope for retirement.

盘古盘古

楼主一直看淡，小弟就放些好消息回冲下吧
分析师普遍认为，美股短线虽可能回调，但下半年可望再创高峰，甚至已进入牛市一期。股神巴菲特也建议投资者可放心在道指9000点左右入市。
http://www.sina.com.cn  2009年07月27日 07:46

alpinev18

正文 加州是否预示美国的未来？(2009-07-26 00:00:14)

标签：加州 施瓦辛格 美国梦 高福利社会 财经

分类：经济

    我不相信种种迷信活动，但借用一下倒也无妨。施瓦辛格任加州州长之前，最响亮的名字叫做“终结者”。如今，施瓦辛格任加州州长已经有好几年。当初施瓦辛格当选的时候说：“加州正处于危急中，我是来拯救加州的”。人们那时候相信这位世界健美先生能够“终结”加州所面临的困难。但是，如今人们怀疑，这位昔日的电影明星并不能像电影特技一样发挥神力。人们进一步怀疑，他不仅不能拯救加州，反而将成为加州天堂、加州梦真正的“终结者”，甚至会成为“美国梦”终结的预言。去年诺贝尔经济学奖获得者，美国经济学家克鲁格曼最近发表文章，对此“不得不表示担忧”。言重了？我们简单看一下。
    关于加州最近面临的问题，我已写过几篇文章，这几天又有新的进展。加州的问题说起来很简单。以前加州很有钱，号称世界第八经济体，集中了各种各样的富翁。由于好莱坞、硅谷等暴利产业的存在，在加州生活的人们充满了希望。那时候，加州政府很有钱，加州老百姓的福利很不错。加州有3700万人口，超过美国总人口的十分之一，加州的人均福利大概是全美最高的。但是，现在经济形势不好了，加州没钱了，施瓦辛格的问题就来了。加州2010财年，从今年7月1日开始，但是，预算缺口263亿美元，超过总预算的20%，怎么办？
    预算缺口可以用家庭作比方，按家庭成员的基本开销，一个月家里有一个最低开销额。如果收入高于开销，就有结余；如果收入正好够，属于“月光族”；如果收入不够，那就有缺口。现在的加州属于最后一种情况。面对这种情况，只有两个办法，一是增加收入，二是降低开销。也许还有第三个办法，借钱。但是，人们看不到加州未来增加收入的可能，借到钱的可能性就很小。加州议会为此争执不已，意见难以统一。6月初，加州宣布，如果还没有解决方案，到7月底，加州的现金将用光。施瓦辛格宣布进入紧急财政状态。前不久，加州开始打白条，就是因为没钱了。
    加利福尼亚这么富，多增加点税收，这点钱还搞不到？还真难。加州超级富豪很多，占人口1%的富豪提供了加州50%的税收。金融危机后，富豪们的财富缩水，加州税收锐减。与此同时，加州目前的失业率高于全美平均水平，加州政府的救助开支进一步扩大，而且看不到头。增加税收将使得企业成本提高，竞争力下降，有可能导致富人索性撤离加州（奥斯卡赞助商都要撤了，好莱坞大概要央求中国人看它的电影了，中国人如果不看好莱坞电影，美国人大概会哭了）。因此，加州议会争论许久，终于不敢多收税，那么，只有一个办法：削减开支。近日，加州议会的确就是这么决定的。削减的项目包括教育、监狱、社区等。
    加州议会的这个决定实际上就是为保护富人而牺牲穷人。当然，按照美国的理论，保护富人就是保护穷人，因为穷人是靠富人给饭吃的，富人死了，穷人吃什么？这个理论好像很有道理吧？我不解释了，大家自己琢磨吧。所以，为了保护富人，穷人就不得不作出牺牲。目前来说，穷人被牺牲的程度还不大，至多是上学困难了，监狱里日子难过了（本来就该难过），200多个公园关闭了，50万低收入家庭失去政府补助了，100多万低收入家庭的儿童没有政府提供的健康保险了，5000多名政府员工下岗了，20万上班族要减薪了，……。曾经的天堂，如今开始蒙上阴影了。那么，加州还能缓过来吗？连加州人自己都没信心。按现在的估计，未来两个财年，加州在教育、医疗、福利等方面的开支还将削减300亿美元。
    加州是一块富饶的土地，曾经属于印第安人，后来属于墨西哥，再后来属于美国。自从加州发现黄金以后，这个地方也被称为“黄金州”，淘金梦就是加州梦的象征，加州梦就是美国梦的代表。自从高技术、信息技术引领世界，加州还被认为是美国的未来，朝阳产业与东部的夕阳工业形成强烈的反差。如今，东部夕阳工业的代表底特律不行了，西部朝阳产业的加州也不行了，这是为什么？很明显，不管是东部还是西部，美国的财富主要都不是来自本地产出。以加州为例，它主要的财富来源不是本地，而是来自加州之外，来自全世界。财富来路是否合理暂且不管它，一旦外部财富输血管出现问题，这个生命体就出现危险。
    加州目前的困境在于，它以为自己章鱼爪一样的吸盘伸向世界各地，永远都能吸到丰富的脂膏，它以为这样的好日子是天经地义的，是必然的，是永远的。于是，它就把自己的生活水平抬得很高，吸引了无数的羡慕，无数的向往，并成为一种美好的社会模式，所谓高福利社会。这种美好的理论模式，就好比某人连续一个星期在股市上赚了大钱，他便以为一辈子每天都可以这样赚钱。于是，他把每天在股市上赚的钱，当成固定收入，并以此为自己制定了高消费的开支计划。但是，没有永远上涨的股市，加州的章鱼爪现在断了几个，还没有全断。收入少了，其实比很多穷人、穷地方、穷国家还是多得多，然而，他已经把自己放在高消费的架子上了，上去容易，下来，就难多了。我在以前的文章里说过，欧洲已经意识到，高福利社会难以为继。加州很可能率先为这一怀疑提供一个真实的例证，所谓资本主义的优越性，原来只是暴发户多给的小费。
    美国联邦政府为何不救加州？因为，加州的危机，在美国并不是唯一。美国联邦政府如果开了口子救加州，其它的州就会一个个跟上，都要求救。而美国联邦政府自己也欠了几大屁股的债，不知道何时能还清，它还怎么救？美国还打肿脸充胖子，国务卿、财政部长当起了推销员，到处推销美国国债。看看美国最风光的加州，如今成为这个样子，并难以看见好起来的可能，谁还能对美国国债抱有信心？加州是缩小的美国，美国是放大的加州。加州的今天，会不会是美国的明天？我说肯定会。像我这么斩钉截铁下断言的人不多，克鲁格曼对此也只是“不得不表示担忧”。并非我比克鲁格曼高明，而是因为克鲁格曼身在美国，与这个国家有割不断的关联。对我来说，关于美国的所有评论，没有任何感情因素。
    加州梦的破灭已经看到了，已经一点点显现了。施瓦辛格依然信心十足地说：“谁说加州梦破灭了？我要证明他们的预言是错误的。”希望如此。但施瓦辛格已经没有多少时间来证明了，他的任期快到头了。加州梦、美国梦终将成为历史的记忆。加州老百姓当初选择施瓦辛格的时候，一定没有想清楚，需要这个大块头来“终结”什么？如今他们似乎看清了，后悔也没有用。换了别人，不是施瓦辛格当州长，事情的结果最多有点细节上的差别，本质上都一样。再过十年、二十年，不知道我会怀着什么心情，重读这篇文章。]

tanhy

原帖由 盘古盘古 于 27-7-2009 08:50 AM 发表 楼主一直看淡，小弟就放些好消息回冲下吧 分析师普遍认为，美股短线虽可能回调，但下半年可望再创高峰，甚至已进入牛市一期。股神巴菲特也建议投资者可放心在道指9000点左右入市。 http://www.sina.com.c ...

呵呵，我觉得股价一只起是被某些有心人抄从
我觉得中国经济好转是真的，不过美国就是假的
随着主要的对手都倒了，GS现在是一手遮天
更可怕的是这些大鳄能够在几分钟内调动几百亿美元来炒股票，令我想起石油冲上147，又在几个月内跌到30块
Obama的狗屁银行管制完全失败
看来动荡的日子陆续有来

alpinev18

原帖由 tanhy 于 27-7-2009 10:15 PM 发表

呵呵，我觉得股价一只起是被某些有心人抄从
我觉得中国经济好转是真的，不过美国就是假的
随着主要的对手都倒了，GS现在是一手遮天
更可怕的是这些大鳄能够在几分钟内调动几百亿美元来炒股票，令我想起石油冲上 ...

以下是对港股的COMMENT:

劉兆祥: 木馬屠城，恆指最終要跌穿10676點低位
7月 28日 星期二 19:10 更新

信誠證券投資部經理劉兆祥表示，今早估計大戶在期指轉倉高峰期時，大市將會窄幅徘徊，但結果大市低開後才抽高，而中移動<00941.HK>早段跌至80元邊後急速反彈，反映中移突破阻力位後，出現強勁升幅，成為大市上升的主要動力，而且有大成交配合，估計連升兩天後，或會出現鞏固後才抽上，8月該股能否破百元而支撐大市向上呢？

其實由7月開始升浪，估計與三月至六月走勢差不多，可以作為參考。大市能夠不斷上升，筆者仍深信與大量資金流入，幕後人士有心推高股市而從中獲利，而香港是出名的全球提款機，任何人士有能力都可以來提款，因為今次全球國際大鱷一齊參與這個盛會，並且預先佈局，大量資金先行流入，以便將大市推高，而今次最佳藉口是甚麼呢？

第一是本地大藍籌回歸國內A股上市，成為股價大升的動力(例如近日的中移及匯控<00005.HK>等)，另外是港股半直通車，都是極佳炒賣藉口，但最後結果當然是大幅下插，筆者覺得恆指最終要跌穿10676點的低位，這便是筆者所說的木馬屠城遊戲，但有些人看到外圍股市也不斷上升，因此覺得香港只是跟隨上升，沒有甚麼大不了，完全看不到實際遊戲玩法。

試看1997年金融風暴時，歐美股市也要配合上升，最典型的一次是2007年8月，當然貝爾斯登旗下兩間基金出事，引致歐洲及澳洲等多國對沖基金暫停贖回，港股跟隨回落至19400點，隨後發生甚麼事，因為港股直通車的消息，使恆指升至三萬二，而美股又如何，竟然神奇地由低位跟隨反彈，並且升至萬四點而創出歷史新高，也是在十月才大幅回落，究竟是偶然還是另有目的呢？

至於美股上升，如果看看2006年時美股的一次大升市，道指由萬一點升至萬三而創新高，大市轉勢日子便是保爾森上任的一天，而今次三月又是甚麼日子呢？就是奧巴馬上場後推出新政的時期，如果保爾森可以推動道指大升，美國總統加上聯儲局主席及財長也可將大市推高，只是大家要明白，這種推高大市的能力不能長期維持，估計半年後便失效。

(筆者屬證監會持牌人士，持有中移及匯控相關衍生產品)

[ 本帖最后由 alpinev18 于 29-7-2009 09:11 AM 编辑 ]

tanhy

美国昨天宣布消费者信心指数插水，证明大部分的美国人当心饭碗不保
基本股市已经脱离现实，这边上市公司宣布炒人，盈利大起，那边消费者越来越穷
既是说炒人越厉害，股市就起到越凶？

eheheh81

在这种缺乏基本面支持的涨潮，越涨我就越兴奋！
未来快速的下跌是必然的。
训练自己的贪念，能忍受别人的批评（对股市看淡）。

tanhy

Businesswoman Sues California for Paying With I.O.U.’s  

By REBECCA CATHCART
Published: July 29, 2009
LOS ANGELES — The owner of an embroidery and printing business sued California’s controller and treasurer on Wednesday, saying they had violated state and federal law by issuing hundreds of thousands of i.o.u.’s since July 2 to vendors like herself with no immediate prospect that they could be cashed.



The suit, which seeks certification as a class action on behalf of all affected vendors, was filed in the Federal District Court in San Francisco. It demands that California stop issuing the i.o.u.’s, or registered warrants, and redeem all those it has dispensed.
“I’ve never seen a state behave in such a cavalier manner to the people that provide goods and services that enable it to operate,” said William M. Audet, the lawyer for the plaintiff. “The state is forcing people to accept these pieces of paper and pay taxes on them. Small businesses are closing, and more will close by the time the state redeems these warrants.”
The plaintiff, Nancy Baird, said she would have to shut her business if California did not quickly redeem her $27,752.16 i.o.u., the payment given her for polo shirts and uniforms supplied to a state-run youth camp. Her bank would not accept the warrant, she said, because she had had an account there only nine months.
Tom Dresslar, a spokesman for State Treasurer Bill Lockyer, said Mr. Lockyer “understands the frustration felt by i.o.u. recipients and feels bad about the hardship they’ve suffered.” But, Mr. Dresslar said, the state’s process for issuing and redeeming the warrants “meets all legal and constitutional requirements.”
Hallye Jordan, a spokeswoman for Controller John Chiang, said his office had “not been served with any lawsuit yet” and “can’t comment until we see it.”
The state’s Franchise Tax Board and its Board of Equalization, which together administer the collection of a variety of taxes, have said they will accept the warrants as payment. But if the value of an i.o.u. is greater than the tax owed, spokesmen for the boards said Wednesday, they will not be able to refund the difference immediately, given the state’s cash-starved status.
So if Ms. Baird signs over her warrant to the Board of Equalization on Friday, the day her $1,200 or so in sales taxes are due, she will not see the remaining $26,552 she is owed for a month or more. The board’s Web site tells those paying with registered warrants to “please allow 4-6 weeks” for refunds of $50,000 or less. “Refunds over $50,000 may take up to 120 days,” it says.
Ms. Jordan, the controller’s spokeswoman, said the state had now issued almost 222,000 i.o.u.’s totaling $1.1 billion.
While Ms. Baird was filing suit, there was action on two additional fronts in California’s financial struggles. First, state officials ordered the courts to close on the third Wednesday of each month, a step expected to save $84 million through the rest of the fiscal year.
Further, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said he would call a special session of the Legislature this fall for consideration of ways to change the state’s volatile tax structure, a contributor to this year’s woes.


不知道阿诺要怎样解决这个问题？

tanhy

New York details big bonuses at bailed-out banksNew York: Citigroup, which got $45 billion in govt. money, paid over $5 billion in bonuses

NEW YORK (AP) -- Citigroup Inc., one of the biggest recipients of U.S. government bailout money, gave employees $5.33 billion in bonuses for 2008, New York's attorney general said Thursday in a report detailing the payouts by nine big banks.

[size=1em]The report from Attorney General Andrew Cuomo's office focused on 2008 bonuses paid to the initial nine banks that received loans under the government's Troubled Asset Relief Program last fall. Cuomo has joined other government officials in criticizing the banks for paying out big bonuses while accepting taxpayer money.
[size=1em]Cuomo's office found that the companies, which also included Bank of America Corp., Merrill Lynch & Co., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc., awarded nearly 4,800 million-dollar-plus bonuses, with much of the money going to Wall Street investment bankers.
[size=1em]Citigroup, which is now one-third owned by the U.S. government as a result of the bailout, gave 738 of its employees bonuses of at least $1 million, even after it lost $18.7 billion during the year, Cuomo's office said.
[size=1em]The New York-based bank received $45 billion in government money and guarantees to protect it against hundreds of billions of dollars on potential losses from risky investments.
[size=1em]"There is no clear rhyme or reason to the way banks compensate and reward their employees," Cuomo said in the report, noting banks have not in recent years actually tied pay to performance as they claim when describing their compensation programs. Cuomo added that when banks' performance deteriorated significantly, "they were bailed out by taxpayers and their employees were still paid well."
[size=1em]Bank of America, which also received $45 billion in TARP money, paid $3.3 billion in bonuses, with 172 employees receiving at least $1 million. Merrill Lynch, which Charlotte, North Carolina-based Bank of America acquired during the credit crisis, paid out $3.6 billion.
[size=1em]Bank of America earned $2.56 billion in 2008, while Merrill lost $30.48 billion. Cuomo's office said Merrill Lynch doled out 696 bonuses of at least $1 million for 2008.
[size=1em]Bank of America has been sharply criticized for its acquisition of Merrill Lynch because of mounting losses at the Wall Street bank and the size of bonuses Merrill paid its employees. Of the $45 billion in bailout funds Bank of America received, $20 billion was to support the acquisition of Merrill. Neither Bank of America nor Citigroup have repaid their TARP loans.
[size=1em]A Bank of America spokesman declined to comment on the report. A spokesman for Citigroup did not return repeated calls for comment.
[size=1em]Banks have said they needed to pay their top performing employees to prevent them from defecting to competitors. Companies that accepted TARP money have faced intense government scrutiny and must now comply with restrictions on compensation, including bonuses.
[size=1em]Because of those restrictions, some banks began shifting how they pay their workers. In June, Citigroup said it would rebalance how it pays employees, by reducing bonuses for some and instead giving them larger salaries. The change does not effect total pay, just the mix in compensation.
[size=1em]President Barack Obama last month named Kenneth Feinberg to oversee compensation given to the 100 highest-paid employees at banks and other firms that received the largest government bailouts, including Citigroup and Bank of America.
[size=1em]However, his oversight does not include reviewing bonus payments tied to 2008. He can only review plans starting with 2009 compensation. Companies have until Aug. 13 to submit compensation plans to Feinberg.
[size=1em]Asked about the attorney general's report, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said he had not seen it.
[size=1em]"I think the president continues to believe that the American people don't begrudge people making money for what they do as long as ... we're not basically incentivizing wild risk-taking that somebody else picks up the tab for," Gibbs said.
[size=1em]Rep. Edolphus Towns, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said Cuomo's report was appalling.
[size=1em]"This egregious behavior proves that Wall Street still doesn't get that times have changed and the old way of paying executives is long gone," said Towns.
[size=1em]JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs, which are considered among the healthiest banks and that have already repaid TARP funds they received, paid out the most bonuses of more than $1 million.
[size=1em]Goldman gave 953 workers bonuses of at least $1 million. JPMorgan gave 1,626 employees at least $1 million. The two banks each gave more than 200 employees bonuses in excess of $3 million.
[size=1em]JPMorgan spokesman Tom Kelly said the bank took TARP money "at the government's request, even though we didn't need it, because it was good for the overall financial system, and we paid it back as soon as we were allowed to."
[size=1em]JPMorgan repaid the $25 billion in TARP money it received last month. Goldman repaid the $10 billion it received.
[size=1em]A Goldman Sachs spokesman did not return repeated calls for comment.
[size=1em]The government launched the bailout program at the peak of the credit crisis last fall, shortly after investment bank Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. failed and insurer American International Group Inc. only survived with the support of the government.
[size=1em]Democratic lawmakers say excessive salaries and bonuses encouraged risk-taking on Wall Street and contributed to the financial crisis.
[size=1em]They are pushing legislation, expected to pass the House on Friday, that would ban "incentive-based" pay that regulators determine could threaten the economy or viability of the institution. Regulators would be given 270 days after the bill is enacted to hash out the details.
[size=1em]Bank of New York Mellon, Morgan Stanley, State Street Corp. and Wells Fargo & Co. were the other four banks that initially received bailout money. All but Wells Fargo, which received $25 billion, repaid their loans last month.
[size=1em]Spokespeople from Morgan Stanley and Wells Fargo declined to comment on the attorney general's report. Spokespeople for BNY Mellon and State Street were not immediately available to comment.
[size=1em]AP Business Writer Ieva M. Augstums in Charlotte, North Carolina and Associated Press Writers Darlene Superville and Anne Flaherty in Washington contributed to this report.

tanhy

IMF: U.S. Recovery Will Be GradualThe latest
IMF Country Report for U.S.A
released Friday says that the financial strains are still high and the recovery is likely be gradual.
Some of the key takeaways from this report are listed below:

• Exports of goods and services would be restrained due to the sluggish growth in countries with which the U.S. trades
• Near-term outlook is highly uncertain due to the continued deleveraging process of households with credit tightening and soaring unemployment
• Fall in commercial real state is likely to continue
• Economic forecasts projected by the U.S. government are still more optimistic
• U.S. households savings rate is expected to rise providing funds for investment
• The U.S. dollar is moderately over-valued
• Concerned about the high level of underwater mortgages
• The balance sheet of the Fed currently standing at 15% of the GDP, could double to 30% of GDP if all available facilities are deployed
• The U.S. government will need to slowly phase out its interventions in the markets
• The crisis revealed major weakness in the supervision and regulation of the financial sector
• Rising pension liabilities and health-care expenditures would widen fiscal imbalances
• Household consumption is likely to remain weak due to high debt to disposable income ratio
• The U.S. consumer is unlikely to be the global “buyer of last resort” and hence U.S. may not be the engine of global growth in the future

The last point is particularly important. Moving forward, the world cannot depend on the U.S. consumer since they are tapped out and will not consume stuff like they used to before. Programs to stimulate demand such as the “Cash-for-Clunkers” are great in the short-term but they are unlikely to provide long-term consistent growth.
The winding down of the American consumer has major implications for export dependent countries. China especially will have to look elsewhere to export their goods and already due to lack of overseas demand thousands of factories have been shutdown there.
This brings us to some critical questions.

• If U.S. consumers will not be the driver of global growth in the future, who will replace them?
• Which country would likely take the place of the U.S. and import the majority of goods made by China?
• Can the emerging markets continue to grow without depending on the U.S. economy?

tanhy

Private sector loses 371,000 jobs in July
[size=1em]NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. private employers axed more jobs in July but at the slowest pace since October, offering a glimmer of hope the labor market is stabilizing.
[size=1em]U.S. companies shed 371,000 jobs in July, compared with a revised 463,000 drop in June, a report by a private employment service said on Wednesday.
[size=1em]The June decline was originally reported at 473,000.
[size=1em]The median of estimates from 26 economists polled by Reuters for the ADP Employer Services report, jointly developed with Macroeconomic Advisers LLC, was for 345,000 private-sector jobs lost in July.
[size=1em]"It is of course worse than expected, but the number is well off its highs, indicating modest improvement in the labor market," said Dan Greenhaus, an analyst with Miller Tabak & Co. in New York.
[size=1em]The ADP figure is a proxy for some analysts for the government's non-farm payroll reading.
[size=1em]The U.S. Labor Department will release its employment data at 8:30 a.m. (1230 GMT) on Friday. The median forecast for non-farm payrolls is for a decline of 320,000 in July, compared with a 467,000 drop in June.

nick3384me

对于股市难以置信地上涨这幕夏季大戏而言，它的结局将会怎样？

标准普尔500指数周二收于1005.65点，已较3月份的低点上涨了近50%。上涨的力度之强出乎所有人的意料。不过这次反弹本不应该让人意外，因为股市在投资者看到衰退即将结束时都会出现回升。最大的问题是最初的反弹过后将发生什么。

不算这次衰退，自1960年以来共出现了7次衰退。在从衰退中点算起的12个月里，标准普尔500指数平均上涨17%。但在此后的12个月里，涨势难以为继，标准普尔500指数平均仅又上涨了4%。

这段历史告诉了我们什么？如果衰退在6月份结束──大多数经济学家预计国内生产总值(GDP)将在第三季度上涨──那么衰退的中点就是去年9月份。在此后的10个月里，标准普尔500指数实际下跌了约14%。因此如果股市从目前水平继续反弹也不令人意外。鉴于美国联邦储备委员会(Fed)仍在进行大规模干预，以压低借款成本，加之政府的巨额支出，很少有人会赌股市将下跌。

不过，衰退后的阶段各有不同，这一次的情况之糟仍足以让人们对基本面情况感到失望。

事实上，看多者最薄弱的一点就是他们对华尔街分析师预测的收益复苏的依赖。标准普尔500指数基于2009年普遍收益预期的市盈率是16.8倍，高于2007年10月市场处于高点时的水平。这也是看多者强调投资者需要看得更远一些的原因，基于2010年预期收益的市盈率降到了13.3倍。

但把希望放得过远也有其缺点。以家得宝（Home Depot）的股票为例，基于2011财年收益预期的市盈率为16.8倍，这对一家面临激烈竞争和受到房地产市场低迷影响的公司来说非常高。

对牛市寄予厚望背后的一点理由是，政府在私营领域发力前将一直会为经济提供支撑。其中存在一个问题：政府干预的数额已是如此巨大，私营领域部门可能无法在短时间内接过这付重担。

当然，美联储和奥巴马政府可以一直印钞和支出，但这些行动本身会损害股市，因为这会带来资本的不当配置，并引发对财政赤字和通货膨胀的担忧。

不应该忘记日本的教训。泡沫破裂后，日本的股市常常因为复苏的希望而上涨，但都出现了更大的下跌。在投资者研判美国股市的下一步走势的过程中，不应该遗漏这个讯息。

tanhy

原帖由 nick3384me 于 6-8-2009 03:39 PM 发表
对于股市难以置信地上涨这幕夏季大戏而言，它的结局将会怎样？

标准普尔500指数周二收于1005.65点，已较3月份的低点上涨了近50%。上涨的力度之强出乎所有人的意料。不过这次反弹本不应该让人意外，因为股市在投资 ...

基本上我觉得最大的问题在于美国政府拒绝认错
这次的次贷危机很明显是Fed的过度宽松政策造成楼市泡沫
既然美国人负债过高，就要想办法还债
美国政府还加印钞票，然后又借更多钱，制造更大泡沫

Timothy最近说要加税，我觉得是中国的压力
中国已经有迹象要停止购买美元债券，且看美元会跌到多底

tanhy

In an Op Ed today on
TheStreet.com
I shared my concerns about the mixed messages in the latest monthly
Employment Situations Report
from the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). The analysis reviewed was based on my methodology for basing unemployment on the hours worked, rather than the current "body count" used by the DOL. My concept was described
two months ago
and the detailed mathematics and procedures were
described July 6.
The hours worked based unemployment rate is 14.3% for July, down from 14.5% in June. I have named this measurement U-7. (Note: Don't go looking for U-7 in the government data bases. It is my creation and no one is tracking it yet, except me.) This corresponds directly to the offical unemployment rate (the DOL U-3 rate) of 9.4% in July, down from 9.5% in June. The difference between my U-7 and the official U-3 is much larger than any other time over the past 50 years. This emphasizes the much greater use of reduced hours in this recession compared to previous downturns.
I expect that employers are likely to increase hours of those remaining on their payrolls as a recovery unfolds, rather than hire additional "bodies". For this reason, U-7 should improve much more rapidly than U-3 in the early stages of recovery. If this is not happening, and U-3 remains near its highs, it contradicts any assumption that a recovery could be starting.
Two of my concerns about the latest data from the DOL are:

• The labor force is shrinking. From May to July, 577,000 people have disappeared from the official (DOL) labor force. Over the same time, the U.S. population has increased by 518,000. In this total, there was a net gain of 144,000 from immigration. Much of the gain from immigration should be working age people. Very little of the rest of the population gain (518,000 - 144,000 = 374,000) should flow into working age people. It is essentially the difference between the number of people being born and those dying.
• There was a huge increase in part-time employment from June to July. There were 420,000 more part-time employees in one month, including an increase in forced part-time employment (part-time for economic reasons) of 125,000.

If the decreasing labor force is a result of discouraged former workers that have given up and are falling out of the DOL survey, and if the increasing number working part-time is a result of decreasing demand for labor, the decrease in the unemployment rate does not reflect economic strength. If we assume that the labor force could really be 500,000 larger (not unreasonable considering the 577,000 and 144,000 numbers mentioned above), the U-3 would be 9.9% and U-7 would be 14.9%.

当Obama忙着宣布The Great Recession 已经过去时，unemployment 从9.6%跌到9.4%,却有人说unemployment跌是因为更多的人放弃找工，和转去做part time ....