Author Topic: INTEREST RATES  (Read 7012 times)

Online king

  • King
  • ***********
  • Posts: 74,308
« Reply #50 on: April 14, 2016, 07:16:14 AM »

Opinion: Central banks have it all wrong with their focus on cutting interest rates

By Joseph E. Stiglitz
Published: Apr 13, 2016 3:23 p.m. ET

More important is ensuring banks are willing to lend to smaller businesses, says Joseph Stiglitz
Getty Images
European Central Bank President Mario Draghi, Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet Yellen and other G- 20 central bankers and finance ministers are looking in the wrong direction.
NEW YORK (Project Syndicate) — I wrote at the beginning of January that economic conditions this year were set to be as weak as in 2015, which was the worst year since the global financial crisis erupted in 2008. And, as has happened repeatedly over the last decade, a few months into the year, others’ more optimistic forecasts are being revised downward.

The underlying problem, which has plagued the global economy since the crisis but has worsened slightly, is lack of global aggregate demand. Now, in response, the European Central Bank has stepped up its stimulus, joining the Bank of Japan and a couple of other central banks in showing that the “zero lower bound” — the inability of interest rates to become negative — is a boundary only in the imagination of conventional economists.

And yet, in none of the economies attempting the unorthodox experiment of negative interest rates has there been a return to growth and full employment. In some cases, the outcome has been unexpected: Some lending rates have actually increased.


It should have been apparent that most central banks’ precrisis models — both the formal models and the mental models that guide policy makers’ thinking — were badly wrong. None predicted the crisis, and in very few of these economies has a semblance of full employment been restored. The ECB famously raised interest rates twice in 2011, just as the euro crisis was worsening and unemployment was increasing to double-digit levels, bringing deflation ever closer.

They continued to use the old discredited models, perhaps slightly modified. In these models, the interest rate is the key policy tool, to be dialed up and down to ensure good economic performance. If a positive interest rate doesn’t suffice, then a negative interest rate should do the trick.

It hasn’t. In many economies — including Europe and the U. S. — real (inflation-adjusted) interest rates have been negative, sometimes as much as -2%. And yet, as real interest rates have fallen, business investment has stagnated. According to the OECD, the percentage of GDP invested in a category that is mostly plant and equipment has fallen in both Europe and the U.S. in recent years. (In the U.S., it fell from 8.4% in 2000 to 6.8% in 2014; in the EU, it fell from 7.5% to 5.7% over the same period.) Other data provide a similar picture.

Clearly, the idea that large corporations precisely calculate the interest rate at which they are willing to undertake investment — and that they would be willing to undertake a large number of projects if only interest rates were lowered by another 25 basis points — is absurd. More realistically, large corporations are sitting on hundreds of billions of dollars — indeed, trillions if aggregated across the advanced economies — because they already have too much capacity. Why build more simply because the interest rate has moved down a little? The small and medium-size enterprises, or SMEs, that are willing to borrow couldn’t get access to credit before the ECB went negative, and they can’t now.

Simply put, most firms — and especially SMEs — can’t borrow easily at the T-bill rate. They don’t borrow on capital markets. They borrow from banks. And there is a large difference (spread) between the interest rates the banks set and the T-bill rate. Moreover, banks ration. They may refuse to lend to some firms. In other cases, they demand collateral (often real estate).

If central banks continue to use the wrong models, they will continue to do the wrong thing.
It may come as a shock to non-economists, but banks play no role in the standard economic model that monetary policy makers have used for the last couple of decades. Of course, if there were no banks, there would be no central banks, either; but cognitive dissonance has seldom shaken central bankers’ confidence in their models.

The fact is that the eurozone’s structure and the ECB’s policies have ensured that banks in the underperforming countries, and especially in the crisis countries, are very weak. Deposits have left, and the austerity policies demanded by Germany are prolonging the aggregate-demand shortfall and sustaining high unemployment. In these circumstances, lending is risky, and banks have neither the appetite nor ability to lend, particularly to SMEs (which typically generate the highest number of jobs).

A decrease in the real interest rate — that on government bonds — to -3% or even -4% will make little or no difference. Negative interest rates hurt banks’ balance sheets, with the “wealth effect” on banks overwhelming the small increase in incentives to lend. Unless policy makers are careful, lending rates could increase and credit availability decline.

There are three further problems. First, low interest rates encourage firms to invest in more capital-intensive technologies, resulting in demand for labor falling in the longer term, even as unemployment declines in the short term. Second, older people who depend on interest income, hurt further, cut their consumption more deeply than those who benefit — rich owners of equity — increase theirs, undermining aggregate demand today. Third, the perhaps irrational but widely documented search for yield implies that many investors will shift their portfolios toward riskier assets, exposing the economy to greater financial instability.

What central banks should be doing is focusing on the flow of credit, which means restoring and maintaining local banks’ ability and willingness to lend to SMEs. Instead, throughout the world, central banks have focused on the systemically significant banks, the financial institutions whose excessive risk taking and abusive practices caused the 2008 crisis. But a large number of small banks in the aggregate are systemically significant, especially if one is concerned about restoring investment, employment, and growth.

The big lesson from all of this is captured by the familiar adage, “garbage in, garbage out.” If central banks continue to use the wrong models, they will continue to do the wrong thing.

Of course, even in the best of circumstances, monetary policy’s ability to restore a slumping economy to full employment may be limited. But relying on the wrong model prevents central bankers from contributing what they can — and may even make a bad situation worse.

Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in economics, is University Professor at Columbia University and chief economist of the Roosevelt Institute.

Online king

  • King
  • ***********
  • Posts: 74,308
« Reply #51 on: April 14, 2016, 08:47:39 AM »

回應(0) 人氣(1144) 收藏(0) 2016/04/13 17:08
MoneyDJ新聞 2016-04-13 17:08:48 記者 郭妍希 報導
富蘭克林坦伯頓旗下研究機構K2 Advisors資深常務董事Brooks Ritchey警告,負利率等於是要求銀行不顧風險拼命放貸,後果難以設想。
Ritchey 12日在官網貼文指出,在1890年之前,美國西南部幾乎每隔5-10年森林就會出現野火,但規模相當小、只會影響到草皮與小型灌木叢,並不構成威脅。直到後來,一場嚴重火災爆發(The Big Blowup),才美國林務局決心全面壓制野火。然而,野火被壓抑卻讓各種植物繁榮生長,矮樹叢到處都是,讓火苗更容易延燒,結果使得野火燒得更熱、更旺,讓整個森林面臨毀滅威脅。光在2012年,美國就發生超過75,000場野火、多達900英畝的地區遭祝融。

Ritchey認為,負利率有異曲同工之妙。全球央行大多奉行凱因斯主義,認為政府偶爾需以積極的貨幣政策干預民間企業,而消費是帶動經濟成長的原動力,衰退時減少的支出可在擴張時多增財政預算來彌補。相較之下,奧地利經濟學派(Austrian School)則認為經濟只需少量干預就可自行運作,存款是經濟發展的重要根基,因為其他人可透過銀行貸款來發展事業。
對於各國央行究竟知不知道自己在做甚麼,達拉斯聯邦儲備銀行前任總裁Richard Fisher有很好的見解。他在2012年9月19日曾說,聯準會(Fed)之中其實無人知道為何經濟至今仍一蹶不振,也不曉得要如何讓經濟回歸正軌。他還表示,全世界沒有任何一個央行曾經成功把經濟從目前的狀態導回正常

MoneyDJ 財經知識庫

Offline ongchef

  • Marquess
  • ********
  • Posts: 15,838
« Reply #52 on: April 14, 2016, 08:49:09 AM »
 :D :D :D..............copy cat of all nonsense,till 1888 mali!!! :thumbsup: :clap: :clap: :clap: :cash: :cash: :cash: :cash: :cash: :cash: :cash: :cash:

Online king

  • King
  • ***********
  • Posts: 74,308
« Reply #53 on: April 14, 2016, 08:50:41 AM »
:D :D :D..............copy cat of all nonsense,till 1888 mali!!! :thumbsup: :clap: :clap: :clap: :cash: :cash: :cash: :cash: :cash: :cash: :cash: :cash:

Online king

  • King
  • ***********
  • Posts: 74,308
« Reply #54 on: April 16, 2016, 02:54:00 PM »

言论 其他  2016-04-16 13:16

•张敬伟 本报特约

Online king

  • King
  • ***********
  • Posts: 74,308
« Reply #55 on: April 30, 2016, 06:26:10 AM »

The worst-case scenario for negative rates looms: The consumer pays
Wall Street got a first-quarter surprise when consumer deposits outpaced those of corporate clients, and it may throw a wrench into stress test plans.
Jon Marino   | @JonMarino
5 Hours Ago
COMMENTSJoin the Discussion

Wall Street banks want to avoid passing negative interest rates along to U.S. consumers, even in a test-case scenario in this year's regulatory exams.

But options are limited and shrinking. First-quarter earnings reflected consumer deposit growth far outpacing that of corporate and commercial clients, which, in some instances, declined.

It has the potential to throw a wrench into this year's regulatory exams, or stress tests, and future ones as well. This is the first year the Federal Reserve is requiring banks to plan for negative interest rate policy in their stress tests.

Wall Street was expected to pass negative interest rates on to their corporate and commercial clients, effectively charging them for maintaining accounts. They were likely to avoid passing costs on to U.S. consumers, their advisors said heading into stress tests. But it isn't clear how they would carry out these intentions if corporate and commercial client accounts shrink.

Heartbeat print out
Bob Rowan | Getty Images
JPMorgan Chase's earnings reflected a rise of nearly 10 percent in consumer and community banking deposits to $562.3 billion. But deposits in asset management, its corporate and investment bank, and in its commercial bank all fell.

Wells Fargo grew its deposit base to more than $1.2 trillion in the first quarter of this year, a 4 percent jump from the same time period in 2015. However, in its earnings report, it noted "lower commercial balances."
Read MoreNegative interest rates would test banks' creativity

Bank of America saw its deposits grow to more than $1.2 trillion, representing a gain of 6 percent. Consumer banking deposits outpaced other types of deposits, rising 8 percent, the bank said in its report. Citigroup's deposit tally climbed 4 percent, to more than $935 billion, the bank said in its earnings report.

(Not every bank breaks out deposits by depositor.)

How banks pass negative rates along to the consumer is yet to be determined, said one bank advisor who spoke on condition of anonymity. While it could take the form of applying negative rates to consumer savings and checking accounts, it could also manifest itself in banks keeping mortgage rates elevated if and when the Fed were to implement a negative interest rate policy.

The bank advisor said consumer deposits outpacing banks' commercial and corporate deposits was a "surprise."

That's not the only potential headache facing Wall Street banks depending on deposit clout to pad margins. As U.S. consumer banks are in a balance sheet arms race with one another to load up on deposits, they've got a new, big competitor: Goldman Sachs.

Read MoreOnline banks are hot just ask Goldman Sachs

Goldman recently launched savings offerings for the average consumer, a symbolic dismantling of a key boundary that separated wealthy clients from the average account holder. Goldman's budding business may not stop there, and according to a Wall Street Journal article. It's also considering checking accounts and online bill paying, the Journal reported Wednesday.

A representative for Goldman Sachs declined to comment on the Journal's report, and stated, "Over time we are going to take stock of what our customers want and the products to meet their needs.

Offline CurryLee

  • Viscount
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,553
  • flying high! im on fire......
« Reply #56 on: April 30, 2016, 09:23:48 AM »
WAH! Jambanking so hardworking cut n paste must be earning another rm14k this month playing short short Huh?!  :D
malimalimaliongongongnotongchefbutishua thuatong

Online king

  • King
  • ***********
  • Posts: 74,308
« Reply #57 on: May 11, 2016, 07:09:43 AM »

"This Is The Most Obvious Disaster In Finance. Central Bankers Don't Understand..."
Tyler Durden's pictureSubmitted by Tyler Durden on 05/10/2016 16:55 -0400

Central Banks Federal Reserve Japan Volatility

In a recent note, Eric Peters, CIO of One River Asset Management, summarizes everything that's been happening over the past few years in one tidy anecdote. Citing an unnamed CIO, he points out that the central bank was created to help its member banks, and it attempts to impact the real economy by using interest rates as a mechanism to control the attractiveness of lending money. However, throughout all of the meticulous planning done by the creaters of the Federal Reserve, nobody bothered to ask what would happen if the central bank suddenly couldn't influence the attractiveness of lending money, thus not being able to affect the real economy - which is precisely where we are today.

From Eric Peters:

“Central banks were created to be the banks for banks,” said the CIO. “They were structured to influence the economy by increasing or decreasing the attractiveness of lending money.” If central banks wanted to spur banks to lend to the real economy, they reduced the interest rate they could earn from parking their money at the central bank. If they wanted to reduce bank lending, they increased the attractiveness of making risk-free loans to the central bank by raising interest rates. 
“But no one ever asked the question of what to do if the central bank was somehow unable to increase the attractiveness of lending money? If that happened, how could central banks influence the real economy?” Which is basically where we are today.
“It’s one of those questions that seemed so implausible that no one ever really considered it.” With central banks perplexed by this dilemma, they turned to negative interest rates. Hoping that by taxing banks for keeping money with the central bank, they’d spur lending to the real economy. “But by going negative, they simply push longer-dated interest rates lower, further reducing the attractiveness of making loans.”
By reducing the yield on every investment asset, pushing prices to overvaluation, this policy also destroyed the ability of investors to build diversified portfolios capable of withstanding even the slightest economic disruption. Which ultimately results in reduced private sector risk-taking; the lifeblood of every economy. “This is the most obvious disaster in finance. Central bankers don't quite understand it.”
It’s one of the key reasons Japan and Europe are performing so poorly.

“They never thought this through. And they should probably give up and raise rates to reverse this dynamic.” But that will cause extreme volatility. “And the irony is that central banks are creating precisely what they’re trying to avoid.”
We would just add that in addition to the the inability to control the attractiveness of lending money, what the central planners also overlooked (and continue to ignore) is, more importantly, the fact that central banks can not create individual demand. A bank can lend at whatever rate it chooses, but if there is no demand for that loan, the game comes to an abrupt end.

Online king

  • King
  • ***********
  • Posts: 74,308
« Reply #58 on: May 11, 2016, 07:12:40 AM »

Saving Is *... Say The Central Bankers
Tyler Durden's pictureSubmitted by Tyler Durden on 05/10/2016 18:05 -0400

Bear Market Census Bureau Central Banks Corporate America Federal Reserve Federal Reserve Bank Fisher GAAP Newspaper Reality Recession Richard Fisher Securities and Exchange Commission

Submitted by Tony Sagami via,

Get a load of this headline from a German newspaper, which translates into “Extreme Low Interest: Who Saves Is the Fool.”

The reason for that insulting headline is simple: central bankers have been waging a war against savers.


Example #1: Former President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, Richard Fisher, offered this sage (sarcasm alert) advice last week: “I would be prepared when they move - and I hope they move sometime in June - there’ll be a settling in of the market place. There will be a correction. **** it up. Deal with it. That’s reality.”


Example #2: ECB President Mario Draghi had this to say: Negative interest rates are “not the problem, but a symptom of an underlying problem” caused by a “global excess of savings.”

“If central banks did not do this, investing would be unattractive,” said Draghi. In other words, shut up and buy some stocks!

What those central bankers want you to do is either (1) spend money to increase demand, or (2) buy stocks to increase capital.

Well, it sure looks like American consumers are not doing the former

Online king

  • King
  • ***********
  • Posts: 74,308
« Reply #59 on: May 15, 2016, 03:02:34 PM »

Liquidity Problems? Deutsche Bank Offers 5% Yields If Depositors Lock Up Their Money For Three Months
Tyler Durden's pictureSubmitted by Tyler Durden on 05/14/2016 17:53 -0400

Belgium Bond Central Banks Deutsche Bank Excess Reserves fixed Google

One of the reasons why central banks around the globe have flooded the financial system with trillions in excess reserves is to make sure that banks no longer have to rely on potentially fleeting short term deposits (and is also why negative interest rates have become the norm in so many part of the world, that $10 trillion in bills and bonds now trade with a negative yield). As a result of years of such central bank policy, banks - mostly in Europe - no longer need to compete with each other for deposits: after all why offer tempting deposit rates in an age of NIRP when banks can get all the liquidity they need straight from the ECB and in some cases even get paid on it.

Furthermore, the whole point of NIRP is to slowly unleash negative, not positive, interest rates in order to discourage savings.

Which is why we were surprised to find that in a promotional offer by Europe's biggest, and by many accounts most insolvent, bank, Germany's Deutsche Bank is not only not rushing to penalize depositors, on the contrary it is offering its Belgian clients a 5% gross return for new €10,000 - €50,000 deposits if this money is locked up for the next three months. The offer is only valid for the next 40 days, until June 24.

Why the offer? All else equal it would appear as if Deutsche Bank suddenly needs liquidity quite urgently (but only enough per person so that in a worst case scenario the amount is fully insured by the government) with a 3 month lock up; so urgently it is willing to pay sn interest which is higher than on some European junk bonds.

It begs the question: how is it that DB can't get a far, far cheaper deal in the bond market, or using short-term unsecured funds?

Here is Deutsche Bank's offer to Belgian clients to open a DB Invest Plus account (google translated):

Open a term account and get 5% gross annual Deutsche Bank will always offer the best offer on the market. Therefore, you can now 3 months 5% gross annualized receive when you open a DB Invest Plus deposit account.
An excellent opportunity to increase your returns
Deutsche Bank, you may be demanding for money. Proof? Stop by one of our Financial Centers. You now get a clear 3 months 5% gross per annum for new amounts from 10,000 to 50,000 euros, if you go for June 24, 2016 opens a DB Invest Plus deposit account (subject to early closing).
Please note that this promotion is only valid for the injection of fresh money, ie amounts previously never been in an account with Deutsche Bank AG Branch Brussels were (between 10,000 and 50,000 euros per person and per family and only at the Financial Centers Deutsche Bank AG Branch Brussels. offer reserved for Belgian residents).
5% in all simplicity
You receive a guaranteed rate of 5% gross per annum for 3 months for each new deposit of 10,000 to 50,000.
5% and a maximum efficiency
After deduction of withholding tax of 27% 1 provides the DB Invest Plus deposit account (a deposit account under Belgian law) a net return of 3.65% per annum for 3 months (fees apply to physical persons residing in Belgium).

5% in any flexibility
This account is designed for people who do not need immediate or within three months of their money and are looking for a fixed interest returns. To be clear: after 3 months will release your money and you can do whatever you want.
Which is certainly a great guaranteed return in this age of ZIRP/NIRP day and age; however the question is: why does Deutsche Bank need this money so urgently, and especially over the next three months.

And while we were pondering this, we noticed a new addition to the generic risk factors boilerplate language, where in addition to the usual stuff, we now see a warning about the infamous "bail in."

In case of bankruptcy or risk of bankruptcy of financial institution, the saver is at risk of losing their savings or may be subject to a reduction / conversion into shares (bail-in) of the amount of the claim that he has the financial setting on top of the amount covered by the double German guarantee scheme for deposits.
We wonder if DB will be alone in going against the ECB's grain with such scandalously high rates, or if this turns out to be a systemic issue and suddenly every other bank will likewise rush to attract deposits at a time when the ECB would like nothing more than to have a minus sign in front of the 5%.

Finally, we must admit that we are especially amused by the google translator's twisted humor when it comes to captioning the picture this especially enticing offer appeared on

Online king

  • King
  • ***********
  • Posts: 74,308
« Reply #60 on: May 18, 2016, 04:18:40 PM »

Opinion: The real problem with negative interest rates? They are a stealth tax

By Matthew Lynn
Published: May 18, 2016 2:31 a.m. ET

Someone has to pay for negative rates, either banks, borrowers or depositors
Walt Disney Pictures/courtesy Everett Collection
Negative interest rates have already produced a strange, Alice-in-Wonderland economics, where nothing is quite what it seems.
LONDON (MarketWatch) — Central banks have slashed interest rates to nothing. They have printed money on a vast scale. Where that has not quite worked, and if we are being honest that is most places, they now have a new tool. Negative interest rates. Across a third of the global economy, money you put in the bank does not only generate nothing in the way of a return. You actually get charged for keeping it there.

That is already producing strange, Alice-in-Wonderland economics, where nothing is quite what it seems. Governments want you to delay paying taxes as long as possible, the mortgage company pays you to stay in the house, and cash becomes so sought after there is even talk of abolishing it.

But the real problem with negative rates may be something quite different.

As a fascinating new paper from the St. Louis Fed argues, they are in fact a form of tax. They impose a levy on the banking system that has to be paid by someone — and that someone is probably us. That may explain why central banks and governments are so keen on them. Hugely indebted governments are always in the market for a new tax, especially one that their voters probably won’t notice. But it also explains why they don’t really work — because most of the economics in trouble, especially in Europe, are already suffocating under an impossible high tax burden.

0:00 / 0:00
San Francisco Fed President Discusses Rate Hikes(4:55)
John Williams, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, discusses the health of the U.S. economy and the probability of rate increases this year, in an interview with WSJ chief economics correspondent Jon Hilsenrath. Photo: AP

Negative interest rates have, like a fast-mutating virus, started to spread across the world.

The Swiss first tried them out all the way back in the 1970s. In June 1972 it imposed a penalty rate of 2% a quarter on foreigners parking money in Swiss francs amid the turmoil of the early part of that decade, but the experiment only lasted a couple of years. In the modern era, the European Central Bank kicked off the trend in June 2014 with a negative rate on selected deposits.

Since then, they have spread to Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland (again), and more recently Japan, while the ECB has cut even deeper into negative territory. They already cover about a third of the global economy, and there is no reason why they should not reach further. The Fed might be raising rates this year, but it is the only major central bank to do so, and if, or rather when, there is another major downturn, it may have no choice but to impose negative rates as well.

To central banks, that is a way of fighting deflation, even though there is little evidence that mildly falling prices do much damage — heck, some of us even like it when stuff gets cheaper. But there may well be a hidden agenda.

In fact, negative rates are a form of stealth tax. In a paper this month, the St. Louis Fed published a paper arguing that negative rates were a form of tax. Why? Because they effectively impose a levy on bank reserves, in the sense that instead of just parking reserves with the central bank at zero cost, or with some modest rate of interest, they now have to pay for the privilege.

And just like any levy imposed on companies, that has to be passed along somehow — in higher charges for customers, or lower wages, or lower dividends. Wherever the bill ends up, someone eventually has to pay. “At the end of the day, negative interest rates are taxes in sheep’s clothing,” it concludes.

Very true. The bill can come in different forms. If banks take a hit to profits, share prices will fall, and investors will have less money. If they pass on the costs to depositors — and some Swiss banks have started charging customers for holding cash with them — they will have less money to spend elsewhere. Alternatively, if they pass it on to borrowers, in the form of higher charges for loans, that will depress spending, and hit the economy as well. The central bank, which is owned by the government, will end up with more money, and everyone else with less. The deeper into negative territory rates go, the bigger that impact will be.

You can already see some of the impact of that in Europe. As rates have turned negative, bank share prices have cratered. Take a giant such as Deutsche Bank, once the mightiest financial institution on the continent. Its shares are down from 40 euros in 2013 to less than 15 euros now – so weak have the shares been that the bank has had to put out statements saying it is not about to go pop. The Eurostoxx financial index SXFINE, -0.14%  has lost a third of its value in the last year. They are all suffering badly — as you might expect when a tax is imposed.

The trouble is, another tax is the last thing the eurozone economy needs. Most countries are already suffering under a state that has grown out of control — in both France and Belgium for example, the government now takes in more than half of gross domestic product every year. Tax cuts rather than rises are more likely to stimulate growth.

Indeed, you can also argue that quantitative easing, the first of the extraordinary measures used to fight the 2008 crash, was another form of tax. It has imposed a huge burden on savers, and has made pension funds virtually impossible to operate, imposing a huge hidden cost, while also dramatically reducing the cost of servicing vast levels of government debt.

But negative rates take that a step further. The emergency measures taken by central banks since the crash of 2008 may have been an attempt to rescue a global economy in danger of collapse. But increasingly, they also look like a way of increasing taxes — which may also explain why they haven’t worked very well

Online king

  • King
  • ***********
  • Posts: 74,308
« Reply #61 on: May 19, 2016, 02:14:30 PM »

回應(0) 人氣(398) 收藏(0) 2016/05/19 11:35
MoneyDJ新聞 2016-05-19 11:35:56 記者 郭妍希 報導
2013年5月,聯準會(Fed)前任主席柏南克(Ben Bernanke)一席「量化寬鬆貨幣政策(QE)可能減碼」的談話,衝擊美國公債價格慘跌,10年期公債殖利率在短短4個月內就暴漲140個基點之多。
專家認為,現在與當時的時空背景不同,應該還不致於再度出現類似慘況。MarketWatch 18日報導,柏南克當時一提到要減碼QE規模,市場對通膨的預期就大幅降溫,因為投資人擔憂減碼的過程或許會扼殺經濟與通膨。然而,目前的市況明顯不同。

BMO Capital Markets利率策略師Aaron Kohli指出,雖然Fed警告通膨未來可能升得太高,但殖利率卻並未對此作出反應,也就是通膨預期還相當低,再降的空間不多。
根據Capital Economics 18日發表的研究報告,美國10年期公債溢價率(10-year term premium,衡量市場對利率、成長與通膨預期的指標)已接近50多年低點,顯示即使升息預期攀升,殖利率仍被其他因素壓抑。
另一個與2013年不同的因素就是海外需求,這會壓抑殖利率漲勢。美國財政部國際資本流動(Treasury International Capital,簡稱TIC)就發布了最新報告,指出外國人對美國長天期公債的需求激增,3月購買了236億美元、創下4個月高。
值得注意的是,假如公債殖利率升得太高,美國或許會面臨違約風險。共和黨準美國總統參選人川普(Donald Trump)5月5日在接受CNBC電視台專訪時表示,如果他當選總統,當景氣不好時、他會想辦法跟債權人協商減債。
歐洲太平洋資本(Euro Pacific Capital)公司總裁彼得席夫(Peter D. Schiff)5月初接受CNBC專訪時表示,川普知道美國政府遲早會宣告債務違約,因此他才會在接受CNBC電視台專訪時表示美國政府債務(目前已突破19兆美元)多到無法承受利率走高。席夫指出,美國就像波多黎各一樣無力償債,萬一利率真的被市場力量推高的話,就像川普所說的美國只能告訴債權人他們必須接受減債條件。

MoneyDJ 財經知識庫

Online king

  • King
  • ***********
  • Posts: 74,308
« Reply #62 on: May 19, 2016, 02:15:59 PM »

回應(0) 人氣(379) 收藏(0) 2016/05/19 12:28
MoneyDJ新聞 2016-05-19 12:28:38 記者 賴宏昌 報導
中國官媒放任權威人士喊「L型復甦」、卻見不得外國信用評等機構提早兩個月調降主權評等展望?(註:新華網3月2日發表「穆迪“負面”展望中國 缺乏全面眼光」)

穆迪5月18日發表最新報告指出,中國今年經濟成長率預估僅有6.3%、較2015年下滑0.6個百分點。穆迪資深分析師Madhavi Bokil指出,中國硬著陸疑慮在最近幾個月雖有所減緩、但當地政府可能是以犧牲品質來換取特定經濟成長目標。中國經濟成長持續仰賴日益升高的信貸,最終可能會拉高銀行體系的長期風險。
FED主席葉倫(Janet Yellen)3月底在紐約經濟俱樂部發表演說時三度明確提到中國。她表示,外界預期未來數年中國將因經濟轉型而放慢增長速度,但對於轉型過程是否平順則是眾說紛紜。
JP摩根(小摩)執行長Jamie Dimon在2016年4月6日寫給股東的公開信中提到,儘管小摩看好中國有可能在未來20-25年成為已開發國家、可能會成為四分之一的全球前三千大企業根據地,但基於風險管理考量、公司決不會針對單一國家進行押寶。依照小摩所執行的壓力測試,萬一中國經濟陷入嚴重衰退進而引爆龐大企業債務違約與交易損失,在190億美元曝險部位中、最大虧損預估約40億美元。
CNBC報導,信用評等機構標準普爾(Standard & Poor`s)3月31日將中國、香港信用評等展望自「穩定」降至「負向」。這意味著中國的「AA-」評等以及香港的「AAA」評等在未來6個月到兩年期間可能遭到調降。標普預期中國未來3年的經濟成長率將維持在6%左右、低於官方設定的6.5%或更高目標。

MoneyDJ 財經知識庫

Online king

  • King
  • ***********
  • Posts: 74,308
« Reply #63 on: May 25, 2016, 07:10:59 AM »

Three Weird Consequences Of NIRP
Tyler Durden's pictureSubmitted by Tyler Durden on 05/24/2016 14:30 -0400

Bank of Japan Central Banks European Central Bank Federal Reserve Free Money Japan Portugal Swiss National Bank

Submitted by Patrick Watson via,

Negative interest rates are all the rage at central banks, a symptom of the deflation that is slowing spreading worldwide. The Bank of Japan, European Central Bank, and Swiss National Bank already peg rates below zero. Even if the Federal Reserve doesn't formally join them, US rates are solidly negative in real terms.

Explicit or not, negative rates have odd and counterintuitive consequences. Imagine the entire banking system trying to stand on its head, and that's kind of how a deflationary, NIRP-driven world will look. Here are three early signs.

Everything's Price Will Fall

Today almost everyone, even economists, is used to living in an inflationary world. We assume most goods and services will get gradually more expensive. We don't even notice because it is so normal. We notice the exceptions, like technology and energy-but their falling prices are notable precisely because they're so unusual.

A deflationary world won't look like this. Prices will fall instead of rise. Since everything you own will be constantly losing value, you will want to own as little stuff as possible, for as briefly as possible. We see some of this already in the “sharing” economy. Companies like Uber and AirBnB help car and home owners shed some of their excess ownership.

Rising prices will move from being normal to unusual. This is already happening in Japan. This month an ice cream company called Akagi Nyugyo had to raise its prices for the first time in 25 years. The company so feared losing customers that it aired a TV commercial with executives bowing in contrition.

The Bank Pays You to Borrow

In normal times, you borrow cash from a bank and repay it slowly over time. When interest rates go below zero, the bank might have to pay you. It's happening right now in Denmark, where banks are paying interest to thousands of borrowers, instead of the other way around.

The pressure is spreading, too. Homeowners in Spain and Portugal with variable-rate mortgages are demanding their banks pay them. Their loans are tied to a benchmark rate called Euribor, which is now below zero. The laws and contracts didn't imagine any such scenario-but the math says banks should be paying borrowers.

Spanish and Portuguese banks are fighting for legal protection from this. Will they succeed? Maybe not. Banks themselves routinely argue that contracts are sacred when they want to foreclose on someone. Now the shoe is on the other foot and they don't like it at all.

Banks Demand Free Money

Banks make money on their interest rate “spread.” That's the difference between their cost of funds (interest paid to depositors, for instance) and the interest they collect from borrowers. The wider the spread, the greater the bank's profitability.

This doesn't work so well when interest rates are negative, so US banks are looking elsewhere for income. They freaked out this year when Congress changed a law that allowed them to collect tax-free, no-risk 6% dividends on their shares in the regional Federal Reserve Banks.

The American Bankers Association, considering a legal challenge, asserted in a letter to the Fed that banks have a Constitutional right to free cash from the Fed. Even Congress can't take it away, say the bankers.
The idea seems preposterous, so we'll see what courts think. But the fact that banks would make such a bold claim suggests they are desperate for revenue.

We'll see more weirdness if the winds of deflation and the perversions of negative interest rates persist.

Online king

  • King
  • ***********
  • Posts: 74,308
« Reply #64 on: June 08, 2016, 05:53:38 AM »

The Land Below Zero: Where Negative Interest Rates Are Normal
Denmark has been an upside-down world for longer than any other country. The sky hasn't fallen yet.
 Matthew Campbell
 Peter Levring
  Bloomberg Markets Magazine
June 6, 2016 — 12:00 PM MYT
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Don't Miss Out — Follow Bloomberg On
Facebook   Twitter   Instagram   YouTube


The Alchemist Who Turned Toxic Assets Into Gold at Citigroup
A member of the U.S. Air Force stands in front of an F-22 Raptor, manufactured by Lockheed Martin Corp., during the Seoul International Aerospace & Defense Exhibition (ADEX) 2015 at Seoul Airport in Seongnam, South Korea, on Monday, Oct. 19, 2015. The exhibition runs through Oct. 25. Photographer: SeongJoon Cho/Bloomberg
The F-22 Raptor: Back From the Grave?
Young asian couple with luggage down the escalator in airport
Technology Made Travel Agents Obsolete. Now It's Saving Them

 How to Fix Our Plastics Problem
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
In Copenhagen, bicycles take undisputed priority over cars and even pedestrians. A sizzling restaurant scene has made foodie fetishes of moss, live ants, and sea cucumbers. Despite a minimum wage not far below $20 an hour and some of the world’s steepest taxes, unemployment is almost the lowest in Europe. Parents happily leave infants unattended in strollers on the sidewalk while they stop in to cafes.
Clearly the usual rules tend not to apply in Denmark. So it’s no surprise that the country in recent years has added a major new entry to its sprawling repertoire of eccentricities: Since 2012 it’s been a place where you can get paid to borrow money and charged to save it.
Scandinavia’s third-largest economy (the population is 5 million, and there are about as many bikes) is deep into an unprecedented experiment with negative interest rates, a monetary policy tool once viewed by mainstream economists as approaching apostasy, if not a virtual impossibility. Companies—though not yet individuals—are paying lenders for the privilege of keeping funds on deposit; homeowners, in some cases, are actually making money on mortgages.
The Copenhagen office of SEB, which, like other Nordic banks, must grapple with negative rates.
The Copenhagen office of SEB, which, like other Nordic banks, must grapple with negative rates. Photographer: Giles Price
Most private-sector forecasters don’t expect Denmark’s central bank to go positive again until 2018 at the earliest, making the country a long-term petri dish for what happens when the laws of financial gravity are inverted. Although some dovish economists have advocated negative rates as a salve for deflation and anemic growth, if Econ 101 is to be believed they should have stomach-churning consequences: asset bubbles, capital flight, and the frenetic manufacture of very heavy vaults to hold money pulled from banks.
Central bankers looking to Denmark for evidence of such trauma aren’t likely to see much. If anything, they might find the Danes’ approach tempting. A certain amount of financial weirdness aside, their country is mostly free of the distortions economic theory tells us to expect, suggesting negative rates may deserve to move from taboo to the standard monetary policy toolbox.
That might be the wrong lesson to draw. Instead, the takeaway may be that negative rates can work—but only for some purposes and perhaps only if you’re Denmark. “It’s not the catastrophe that some people would have thought,” says Erik Nielsen, a Dane and the global chief economist at UniCredit. “But you’re playing with fire.”
To understand how Denmark came to be the land below zero, some context is necessary. The country’s sole border is with Germany, its biggest trading partner. Yet Danes have historically been ambivalent toward the European Union and in a 2000 referendum rejected joining the euro.
Denmark’s currency, the krone, was pegged to the deutsche mark from 1982 to 1999, and to the euro thereafter. Maintaining the peg is the sole mandate of the Danish central bank, so crucial is it to the economy. As the European debt crisis reached one of its periodic crescendos in 2012, investors seeking a safe haven piled cash into Denmark, threatening to push the krone out of its trading band. The benchmark deposit rate was already at 0.05 percent, leaving nowhere to go but down to reduce the country’s appeal to hot money. Denmark thus resorted to negative rates not to spur inflation—as Japan is trying to do, unsuccessfully—but to drive away speculators.

Source: Bloomberg
The battle to safeguard the peg is led from an orthogonal hulk of stone and glass in downtown Copenhagen designed by Arne Jacobsen, father of the modernist egg chair. Danmarks Nationalbank Governor Lars Rohde, who took office in 2013, has known negative rates for almost his entire tenure. On his first day, the deposit rate was -0.1 percent; it now stands at -0.65 percent. In his telling, Denmark’s choice is simple: The peg must be protected, and negative rates are doing that without great disruption. The central bank “will do whatever it takes to defend the peg,” he says in an office decorated in Nordic tones of blond wood. “There’s no sharp, disruptive movement when you pass below zero. It’s just working like very low interest rates.”
In the broad sense, that’s proved true. Bank earnings are in line with those of European peers, with new fees making up part of the cost of low rates; the amount of cash in circulation has climbed only modestly. Still, some Danes find themselves contemplating bizarro-world challenges to the normal way of doing business. In the neo-baroque parliament building, Benny Engelbrecht relates some of them. The 45-year-old Social Democrat lawmaker was responsible for business and taxation until 2015, a role in which he was forced to contemplate dilemmas like whether it would be legal to tax negative interest payments to mortgage borrowers as income. (It is.)
Last year the central bank flagged another alarming possibility. Fearful of angering retail depositors, banks aren’t yet taking haircuts from individuals’ accounts. Large and medium-size companies, however, are subject to just that. But businesses that prepay their taxes in Denmark receive modest interest on the deposits, which is credited against what they owe or are refunded. With no limits on prepayments, might they start using the taxman as an unofficial bank? Rules had to be hastily struck to limit how much a business could deposit, removing the dodge before anyone took significant advantage of it, Engelbrecht says.
For companies, there aren’t a lot of options. “You get penalized these days for having cash in the bank,” laments Jens Lund, chief financial officer of logistics group DSV. The firm found itself in a tricky situation in November, when it sold 5 billion kroner ($750 million) of shares to fund a takeover of rival UTi Worldwide. Short of renting a huge vault, that meant sitting on most of the proceeds at negative rates until the deal was finalized in January, at a cost of about 4 million kroner. Apart from shopping around for the bank that would take the smallest cut, Lund says, “there’s not much you can do about it.”
Copenhagen’s Superkilen park is as eccentric as the Danes themselves
Copenhagen’s Superkilen park is as eccentric as the Danes themselves Photographer: Giles Price
Conversations in Copenhagen these days turn quickly to real estate. The city’s in the midst of a construction boom, its center of urban gravity shifting inexorably toward a harbor crammed with new apartment buildings. At one end a whimsical, bikes-only bridge, the Bicycle Snake, squiggles between gleaming new construction. The water here is perfectly swimmable, and when office workers hop in for lunchtime dips in fine weather, it’s as if a gang of energetic summer camp counselors had been given control of a midsize metropolis.
There’s no question negative rates have driven up the price of owning a piece of this urban vitality. Apartment prices per square meter soared 43 percent between the start of 2010 and the end of 2015, according to real estate broker Home; in early May the International Monetary Fund urged the government to rein in Danish house prices.
Keeping the boom from getting out of control is partly the job of Jesper Berg, who runs what’s almost certainly the world’s hippest banking regulator. The Danish Financial Supervisory Authority occupies a converted warehouse in the gentrified neighborhood of Osterbro; it feels like a late-stage startup, complete with hardwood floors and an open plan. From a balcony with a sweeping view of downtown’s construction cranes, Berg concedes “we have some froth” in the urban housing market, “but not a bubble.” Compared with New York, London, and even Stockholm, Copenhagen real estate is still a bargain: $500,000 buys a decent two-bedroom.
If Berg is correct, that’s largely because the country regulates the housing market to a degree unimaginable in the U.S. It’s nearly impossible for a foreigner with no connection to Denmark to buy property, preventing inflows of overseas money. Banks apply stringent financial criteria to mortgages for buy-to-let properties; it’s hard for Danes to purchase homes they don’t intend to live in. Regulatory guidelines require minimum down payments of 5 percent and stress tests of borrowers’ finances against runups in rates. With the encouragement of regulators, banks have hiked fees on flexible-rate loans, nudging buyers into fixed-rate mortgages. The rules are even tighter for properties in Copenhagen.
Real estate players also argue that Danes, temperamentally, are a risk-averse bunch—especially with memories of a 2008 property crash still fresh. “I think people have learned from the last bubble,” says Karsten Beltoft, chief executive officer of the Danish Mortgage Banks’ Federation.
One of those people is David Garby, a 36-year-old website editor whose mother saw her apartment plunge in value after that bust. He and his girlfriend recently bought a new home, an 800-square-foot apartment just outside central Copenhagen. They opted for a fixed-rate mortgage at 2.5 percent, even though far lower interest was available at an adjustable rate—the result “of my Calvinist upbringing,” Garby jokes on a sunny cafe terrace. “I wanted to be conservative.”
Beltoft’s concern: What happens if negative rates move from medium-term peculiarity to long-term reality, reversing the fundamental principles of debt and savings in a way that makes the change seem permanent? Since the Code of Hammurabi legislated interest rates in the 18th century B.C., and perhaps much earlier, capital has had a cost; in modern Denmark, it often doesn’t. “I believe it will change the psychology,” Beltoft says. “That could be dangerous.”
The biggest stories of the day, every day.

Enter your email
 Sign Up
Berg puts his apprehension about staying below zero indefinitely in terms that Danes, who cram the country’s white-sand beaches in the brief Nordic summer, can easily understand. “There’s a difference between standing on the beach in dry sand and moving into the water,” he says. “The further you go out, and the longer you stay there, the more problems you can run into.”
Campbell is a senior reporter in London. Levring covers Nordic economy and government in Copenhagen. With assistance from Tasneem Brogger, Frances Schwartzkopff, and Christian Wienberg.

Online king

  • King
  • ***********
  • Posts: 74,308
« Reply #65 on: June 13, 2016, 04:45:24 PM »

2016-06-13 10:39
随著世界经济增长缓慢,许多国家为了刺激经济把利率下调至历史低位,有的已经进入了负利率时代。日本在年头把利率下调至-0.1,欧洲央行利率至今为-0.4,此外其它国家的银行也纷纷采用了负利率,这包括瑞士、瑞典与丹麦。债券之王格罗斯(B i l l Gross)在彭博社的访问中表示,负利率有如接近灭亡的超新星(Supernova),即将发生巨大的爆炸。他认为负利率不但无法刺激经济,而且会导致严重的资产泡沫,最终泡沫将会爆破收场。格罗斯的言论引来了不少争议,到底负利率是挽救经济的良方,还是带经济走向绝路的毒药?













Online king

  • King
  • ***********
  • Posts: 74,308
« Reply #66 on: June 16, 2016, 09:59:17 AM »

回應(0) 人氣(264) 收藏(0) 2016/06/16 08:10
MoneyDJ新聞 2016-06-16 08:10:45 記者 郭妍希 報導
FOMC 15日在貨幣政策會後聲明中重申,將以緩慢的步伐調高聯邦基金利率。雖然就業市況吃緊、加薪壓力上揚以及消費者支出增溫,都讓聯準會(Fed,見圖)相信應該升息,但工作機會增幅趨緩、通膨預期降溫以及海外經濟仍有逆風,仍讓Fed對升息謹慎以對。

FOMC聲明雖未提到英國6月23日的脫歐公投,但Fed主席葉倫(Janet Yellen)在會後召開的記者會上說,這項公投是央行決定暫緩升息的原因之一。
另外,根據Fed最新繪製的利率預期點狀圖(dot plot,圖表可顯示每一位央行政策官員對利率的展望),17名央行成員中,有多達6名認為今年只會升息一次,遠多於3月份的1人。
MarketWatch報導,Schwab Center for Financial Research固定收益策略部主管Collin Martin表示,FOMC不但發表了鴿派聲明、連對前景的預測也偏鴿派,基本上已證實許多市場分析師的預期,即利率在低檔的時間將延續得更久。Martin指出,現在所有人都將緊盯美國6月的就業報告,這會決定Fed今年究竟會升息一次或是兩次。
CNBC 15日報導,Harvest Volatility Management合夥人Dennis Davitt在專訪中警告,假如德國等其他國家的公債殖利率轉負的程度持續加深,那麼美國遲早也會出現負利率

MoneyDJ 財經知識庫

Online king

  • King
  • ***********
  • Posts: 74,308
« Reply #67 on: July 05, 2016, 09:31:41 PM »

53点看 2016年7月5日

























 点赞 0赞

Online king

  • King
  • ***********
  • Posts: 74,308
« Reply #68 on: July 06, 2016, 07:51:28 PM »

Zero And Negative Interest Rate Policies (ZIRP And NIRP): What To Do
Jul. 5, 2016 4:22 PM ET| Includes: IYR, XLP, XLU
Value Investors Portal   Value Investors PortalFollow(153 followers)
Value, special situations, arbitrage, long-term horizon
Send Message|

Good investments in a persistent ZIRP/NIRP world.

What to do with idle cash reserves in a ZIRP/NIRP world?

What happens to bonds in a ZIRP/NIRP world? Buyer beware!

"If you're not confused, you don't understand things very well."

- Charlie Munger

Since the 2008 financial crisis, central bankers around the world have invoked loose monetary policies to first and foremost avoid a great depression and now to combat the risk of recession/deflation. The first chart below reflects all global debt (29% accumulated since the 2008 financial crisis) and the following table reflects ZIRP and NIRP in some parts of the world.

Source: The Money Project

Source: FXStreet

It's worthy to note that rate cuts also cause a country's currency to devalue relative to other free-floating currencies (all things being equal), which helps lower their prices vis-à-vis trading partners, thereby boosting their sales abroad through cost advantages.

The scenario goes like this: one nation mired in an economic slump decides that the best way out is to devalue its currency, cheapening its exports and thus making them more attractive in countries that have higher-yielding currencies and, consequently, more buying power.

Online king

  • King
  • ***********
  • Posts: 74,308
« Reply #69 on: July 07, 2016, 05:54:56 PM »

'We're stuck with low interest rates for a long time': Gartman
Holly Ellyatt   | @HollyEllyatt
3 Hours Ago
COMMENTSJoin the Discussion
Santelli: Maybe the Fed is the problem   Santelli: Maybe the Fed is the problem
Friday, 1 Jul 2016 | 10:20 AM ET|01:35

01:35Santelli: Maybe the Fed is the problem
Santelli: Maybe the Fed is the problem
07/01/16 10:20 AM ET
00:52Investors are confused, Bill Gross says
Investors are confused, Bill Gross says
13 Hours Ago
02:09Janet Yellen, chair of the U.S. Federal Reserve.
Fed Minutes: Prudent to wait for Brexit vote
15 Hours Ago

With the latest minutes from the U.S. Federal Reserve showing little appetite to raise interest rates quickly, influential investor Dennis Gartman told CNBC that investors shouldn't expect any move from the Fed for up to another year.

"There's little to be drawn from the minutes. I think the FOMC used the referendum (on the U.K. leaving the EU) as a reason to do nothing. They would prefer doing nothing and they will probably do nothing for a long period of time. 'Lower for longer' is probably the way to consider what the Fed is going to do for quite some long period going forward," Gartman, the founder and publisher of the Gartman Letter, said on Thursday.

"There is a lack of resolve on the part of the economy here in the U.S. We're moving forward at a very tepid rate and I think we're stuck here at these low levels of Fed funds for a long period of time, certainly until the end of this year and perhaps into the middle of next year."

Minutes from the U.S. Federal Reserve's last meeting in June showed policymakers were divided on the economic outlook for the country.

Federal Reserve policymakers said it would be "prudent to wait for additional data on the consequences of the U.K. (Brexit) vote" before raising rates, and cited a slowdown in hiring as a reason to keep rates unchanged last month, minutes released Wednesday afternoon showed.

Dennis Gartman
David Orrell | CNBC
Dennis Gartman
Any rate hike was conditional on three elements, policymakers also said: confirmation that growth is picking up, jobs gains that are sufficient, and inflation that's rising to a target pegged by several economists at 2 percent.

Still, some policymakers were concerned that delaying a rise in the Federal funds rate would increase the risks to financial stability or overshooting the Fed's objectives.

U.S. stocks rebounded on Wednesday following the publication of the minutes. The introduction of low interest rates by central banks following the financial crisis in 2008 was a bid to stimulate borrowing and growth. It prompted investors to invest heavily in equities in a search for yield, pushing U.S. and global indices higher in the process.

Gartman said that the Fed's indecision over rate hikes had caused equities to become overvalued.

"I find it very difficult to be anything other than modestly bearish. I trade only from my own account and I am modestly short of equities generally and I think that's the proper place to be. It's a little scary to be bullish at these prices when it's the Fed and monetary authorities who are sponsoring share prices (going) higher – it can't last for very long."

"If you have to buy, the only place to be a buyer is the U.S. but you'd have to hold a gun to my head to be an aggressive buyer. I'm quietly, modestly net short and I feel reasonably comfortable being that way."

The non-farm payrolls report due Friday will be the next key data point for investors. Gartman said that the number of jobs added in June would be around 180,000-190,000 although he cautioned that the number was an "egregiously revisable and revised number." Gartman said the payrolls number would give the Fed another excuse not to change direction on rate increases.

"It will again give the Fed a reason to do nothing. Will it be reason for them to tighten monetary policy? No. Will it be any reason to ease monetary policy? No. They'll be happy to sit upon their hands and say 'thank God'."

Online king

  • King
  • ***********
  • Posts: 74,308
« Reply #70 on: July 12, 2016, 05:40:07 PM »

回應(0) 人氣(764) 收藏(0) 2016/07/12 12:28
MoneyDJ新聞 2016-07-12 12:28:26 記者 陳苓 報導
MarketWatch、路透社11日報導,FED多數成員預估,在可預見的未來,美國通膨不會超過2%。不過Capital Economics首席美國經濟學家Paul Ashworth大膽預測,明後兩年,美國通膨將往3%邁進,FED會被迫行動,2017年底聯邦基金目標利率將大舉升至1.75~2%,2018年底續升至2.50~2.75%。當前持聯邦基金利率僅在0.25%~0.5%之間。

克里夫蘭聯準銀行總裁Loretta Mester一直警告,過慢升息會造成金融穩定風險。如今她在雪梨演說講稿中更說,維持金融市場穩定不該是FED的明定目標之一,只有在其他更明確、更適合的工具失敗後,才能用利率避免危機,暗示FED不應用低利政策維護市場穩定。
明星操盤手哈森泰伯(Michael Hasenstab)也有類似看法,他警告,通膨已在蠢蠢欲動,Fed如果今(2016)年都不升息,那麼貨幣政策恐怕趕不上經濟基本面、甚至公信力還可能遭質疑。
晨星6月13日報導,富蘭克林坦伯頓全球宏觀團隊投資長、「富蘭克林坦伯頓全球債券基金」(Templeton Global Bond Fund)操盤人哈森泰博在接受專訪時表示,美國已經充分就業,就業市況也逐漸吃緊、這終究會帶動薪資上揚,另外房市、服務業也相當繁榮,價格蠢蠢欲動,然而市場卻對通膨壓力視而不見、甚至還在擔憂通縮問題。不只如此,過去油價崩跌雖引發通縮壓力,但油價如今已逐漸止穩,通縮疑慮也會逐漸紓解。

MoneyDJ 財經知識庫

Online king

  • King
  • ***********
  • Posts: 74,308
« Reply #71 on: July 18, 2016, 07:14:42 PM »

877点看 2016年7月18日











 点赞 3赞

Online king

  • King
  • ***********
  • Posts: 74,308
« Reply #72 on: July 19, 2016, 08:59:52 AM »

回應(0) 人氣(103) 收藏(0) 2016/07/19 07:51
MoneyDJ新聞 2016-07-19 07:51:39 記者 陳苓 報導
CNBC 18日報導,Tressis Gestion投資長Daniel Lacalle表示,央行QE規模過於龐大,導致企業和政府連調高0.25%的利率都難以承受。要如何順利脫身、不讓事態惡化,成了一大難題,因為當前看來恐怕會引發經濟殭屍化。
目前歐洲和日本央行都有意加碼寬鬆,美國聯準會(FED)則是一要升息就手軟。霸菱資產管理(Baring Asset Management)CIO Marino Valensise認為,利率應維持現狀,當局最好改採財政支出刺激成長。他支持直升機撒錢,他說應該脫離貨幣政策、別動利率,改搭直昇機,就像阿諾史瓦辛格在電影裡所說:「快坐上直升機吧!」


MoneyDJ 財經知識庫

Online ahbah

  • Duke
  • *********
  • Posts: 30,080
  • You got like my 2 best friends ?
« Reply #73 on: July 19, 2016, 09:49:37 AM »
More interest-rate cuts in the offing in Malaysia?

My opinion : I think so more coming in a few months down the road lah.

Online ahbah

  • Duke
  • *********
  • Posts: 30,080
  • You got like my 2 best friends ?
« Reply #74 on: July 19, 2016, 09:53:23 AM »
Retirement Fund Inc (KWAP), which manages about RM120bil, is considering lowering its 5% minimum return target because of the uncertainty in global markets, said chief executive officer Wan Kamaruzaman Wan Ahmad.

Sikalang, susah cari makan kah ?

Online king

  • King
  • ***********
  • Posts: 74,308
« Reply #75 on: July 20, 2016, 12:09:06 PM »

Low interest rates new norm for global economy: Nobel economist Paul Krugman
By Kang Wan Chern / #~   | July 20, 2016 : 11:29 AM MYT   
Printer-friendly versionSend by emailPDF version
Translated by Google Translator:
Select Language​▼
SINGAPORE (July 20): The world is headed for another decade of low inflation and even lower interest rates, says Nobel-winning economist Paul Krugman.

So, investors holding out for better growth and asset yields had best adjust their expectations to include a new norm of secular stagnation and a potential financial crisis taking place in the near future. He was speaking at the OCBC Global Treasury, Economic and Business Forum on July 14.

Under secular stagnation, growth grinds to a halt and the economy stagnates, with periods of prosperity emerging only when asset bubbles form, Krugman explains.

Why is this happening? The way Krugman sees it, the most likely explanation is the shrinking of working-age populations in major markets such as Japan and, more recently, Europe. Meanwhile, in the US, the working-age population is growing at a much slower pace of 0.4% per year currently, compared to over 1% before.

The other reason is even though stock markets have recovered and unemployment has fallen since the global financial crisis, little has been invested in corporate expansion or new product development across the major economies, and wages have been slow to rise.

Meanwhile, with deficits widening in Europe and Japan and political paralysis in the US ahead of the presidential election in November, governments are also hard-pressed to render help on the fiscal front.

All that, Krugman predicts, will lead central banks to keep interest rates low or negative for at least another 10 years in a bid to encourage corporations and consumers to spend.

The big risk though, is central banks are now ill-equipped to rescue their economies should another financial crisis occur. As Krugman puts it: “If interest rates are already zero or negative, what other monetary policy options are there?”

Where and when will the next financial crisis take place? While predicting that is next to impossible, Krugman warns that the bursting of asset bubbles built up under the current environment of low interest rates could tip the economy back into recession and crisis.

China could also be the next disaster waiting to happen. Consumption is slowing, for one, and the economy appears to be keeping itself afloat by taking on more debt, which will soon become unsustainable.

Before that happens, China must find a way to raise consumption to match the investments it is making to keep growing, Krugman said. That’s because this time round, central banks and governments do not have the firepower or backup plan to rescue their economies.

“The Chinese credit bubble has to pop and when it does, it could get quite nasty for China,” Krugman says. “If this happens, or if the US goes off the deep end or Europe has a major breakup, it will be very difficult for any economy to insulate itself against that.”

Online king

  • King
  • ***********
  • Posts: 74,308
« Reply #76 on: August 10, 2016, 08:27:41 AM »

Negative yields are doing the opposite of what was intended
Jeff Cox   | @JeffCoxCNBCcom
5 Hours Ago
COMMENTSJoin the Discussion
 Japan Stimulus   Here's what will push bond yields up: Expert 
Tuesday, 2 Aug 2016 | 10:56 PM ET|03:05
Paying someone to borrow your money sounds like a questionable idea on paper, and seems not to be working out so well in practice.

Yet that's exactly what people who buy negative-yielding bonds do: Instead of collecting payments in the form of yields, investors have to pay someone to take their cash. Investors ostensibly hope they can sell the debt elsewhere and make a profit, as prices go up when yields fall.

It's a strange arrangement that nonetheless has become policy in Japan and parts of Europe.

The goal that sovereign debt issuers and central banks hope to achieve is a world where money is pushed toward risk and all that no-yielding debt causes inflation that leads to growth.

However, as the arrangement spreads around the world to the point where more than $11 trillion of global debt holds negative yields, questions are growing quickly about its efficacy.

"It's the definition of insanity: Keep doing the same thing over and again and expect a different result. That's my assessment of central banks in a nutshell," said Kim Rupert, managing director of global fixed income analysis at Action Economics. "I never thought I'd say that. I had a lot of respect for central bankers. But they're getting way overindulgent with very little success as far as I can tell."
Central bankers are pivotal players in the negative-yield machine, as they are buying up much of that debt.

Government bond markets sell off, bond rout continues German bund
Getty Images
Yields are negative in France, Germany, Italy, Japan and multiple other countries around the globe. Though the Fed in the U.S. has avoided negative yields, it has kept rates at historic lows, with its target overnight funds rate held near zero for more than seven years. The Fed enacted a quarter-point hike in December 2015, its first move in more than nine years.

Negative yields are being felt in two critical and unfavorable ways: They're feeding people's fears about how bad conditions must be in order to drive such policies in the first place, and they're leading to an increase in savings rates as individuals struggle to meet their cash goals with such low returns on their individual accounts.

"People only borrow and spend more when they are confident about the future," Andrew Sheets, chief cross-asset strategist at Morgan Stanley, told The Wall Street Journal for a piece the newspaper did Tuesday on the practical effects of negative rates. "But by going negative, into uncharted territory, the policy actually undermines confidence."

While central banks have long been active players in guiding their respective national economies, the Fed upped the ante during the 2008 financial crisis. The bank slashed its target funds rate to a range of 0 percent to 0.25 percent, and embarked on three rounds of bond buying — so-called quantitative easing — that expanded its balance sheet by about $3.8 trillion.

However, the U.S. economy has never grown more than 2.5 percent for any calendar year, despite the Fed's efforts. Inflation has remained muted, with the prime beneficiary being stock market prices, which have risen more than 225 percent since the 2009 low. The efforts, despite being much more expansive, matched the futility that Japan has experienced from trying multiple programs since the early 1990s.

"The whole extent of (quantitative easing) has been pretty much a failed experiment going all the way back to the stimulus from Japan," Rupert said. "Despite zero interest rates, negative interest rates, trillions in stimulus, we can barely get 1 percent growth. I'm skeptical that they're going to get any kind of benefit that they're hoping to achieve through all this."

Despite the limited success, Rupert said, "I'm pessimistic that we'll unwind anytime soon" the global negative-yielding debt cycle.

Why issue it in the first place?

In a primer for clients issued Tuesday, Bank of America Merrill Lynch's Research Investment Committee seeks to explain why anyone would issue, or buy, debt with negative yields.

"Negative rates turn a number of basic principles of finance on their head," fixed income strategist Martin Mauro and a BofAML team wrote. "With negative rates, borrowers are paid to borrow and bond investors pay for the ability to lend. Also, it is almost axiomatic that a given payment in the future is worth less than that same payment today. Negative yields imply the opposite."

Buyers hope that prices rise on these bonds, generating capital gains that outweigh the loss in yields.

In other words, these are not instruments for retail investors who buy and hold bonds, collecting coupon payments along the way and then getting repaid principal at maturity. Instead, these are for central banks, institutional investors and traders who hope to offload them at a profit.

"The most plausible reason for these investors to consider a negative yielding bond would be if they expected price deflation, such that a given payout in the future is worth more than that amount today. It's hard to rationalize such a view in most countries," Mauro wrote. "We see no case for buy-and-hold or long-term investors to purchase negative yielding bonds."

Online king

  • King
  • ***********
  • Posts: 74,308
« Reply #77 on: April 30, 2017, 08:17:25 PM »

2017-04-30 19:28




B I M B研究预测国行不会因此调整OPR,维持3%;马币走疲限制国行降息空间;在上调全年通膨至3.6%的情况下,难逃负利率形势。























Online king

  • King
  • ***********
  • Posts: 74,308
« Reply #78 on: May 18, 2017, 06:39:39 PM »

84点看 2017年5月18日


尽管如此 ,安东尼在报告中预计,通胀压力将持续至未来数月。除了成本上涨,低基础效应也将对通胀率施压,特别是下半年。





Online king

  • King
  • ***********
  • Posts: 74,308
« Reply #79 on: June 15, 2017, 10:53:35 AM »

主页 > 财经 > 国际 > 美联储升息 这几个影响你不可不知……
246点看 2017年6月15日






















Online king

  • King
  • ***********
  • Posts: 74,308
« Reply #80 on: June 15, 2017, 10:55:23 AM »

主页 > 财经 > 国际 > 美联储升息及缩表 且听分析师怎么说……
78点看 2017年6月15日


Charles Schwab英国总经理寇里沙玛:“今天升息的决定在意料中,显示美联储对朝向货币政策正常化的目标前进依然有信心。尽管近来就业报告并不出色,美国潜在的经济数据依然强劲到足以让联准会继续紧缩。”




至于American Century Investments操盘手瑞治泰勒则说,美联储升息的结果都在意料中,比较引人注意的是叶伦提出缩表计划的许多细节,“显然今天最新公布的通膨数据下滑,有点意外,而最近的经济数据较为疲软,就9月而言,美联储应该会暂停脚步。至于今天金融市场反应淡定,主要是因为升息1码是早在预料中。





Online king

  • King
  • ***********
  • Posts: 74,308
« Reply #81 on: June 15, 2017, 10:56:38 AM »

主页 > 财经 > 国际 > 债券天王有话说 “美联储恐无法达成目标”
60点看 2017年6月15日






Online king

  • King
  • ***********
  • Posts: 74,308
« Reply #82 on: June 17, 2017, 05:44:02 PM »

美息魔杀到 5趋势现形
財经 最后更新 2017年06月17日 17时10分
美息魔杀到 5趋势现形