Выбор редакции
29 марта, 19:14

Yale's Robert Shiller: Trump boom making it harder to see...

Robert Shiller, Yale University economics professor & Case-Shiller Index co-founder, discusses the Trump administration's policies impacting the market and what he sees for the second quarter.

28 марта, 16:29

Trade War Fears Grip MedTech: 3 Stocks on the Line of Fire

Chances of a retaliation from China leads to widespread losses in the medical device sector.

28 марта, 13:56

Закрытая тема. Зачем нужны ПИФы с бриллиантами и птицефабриками

Новации на рынке ПИФов не предвещают инвесторам ничего хорошего, однако удобны для управляющих компаний

28 марта, 00:35

Uneven Economy & The Hidden Depression

Authored by John Coumarianos via RealInvestmentAdvice.com, Are we in a depression? The question seems absurd. There has been GDP growth since 2009 and some mild inflation to go with it. In fact, this is the second longest economic expansion on record. As Robert Shiller said over the weekend (though in the context of warning against complacency), “[i]f the economy manages to expand for 16 more months, the United States will have set a record.” Unemployment is the lowest in history, nothing like the 17% we had by a U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics estimate a decade after the stock market crash in 1929 and the average of 18% in the 1930s. House prices have come screaming back across the nation. The stock market has increased by more than 15% annually beginning in 2009. And even middle-class wages have shown signs of picking up lately. Depression-Era Demographics In Some Exurbs And yet, even overlooking the opioid epidemic and the 42 million Americans on food stamps (happily down from nearly 48 million in 2013), there are disturbing signs around the country that all is not well. For example, a recent article in the New York Times by Robert Gebeloff focusing on Hunterdon County in New Jersey shows that many suburban and exurban Northeast and Midwest counties have stopped booming. More people are dying than being born or moving in through immigration or migration. Hunterdon County, 60 miles from New York City, is the sixth richest county nationally with a median household income is over $100,000. But young people are having fewer children, and the recession-stalled migration patterns are only resuming in certain parts of the country. According to Geberloff, “Some of the once-fastest-growing counties in the United States are growing no more, and nationwide, the birthrate has dropped to levels not seen since the Great Depression.” Since a recent peak in 2007, lifetime births per woman in the U.S. is down 16%. Because deaths are outnumbering births in so many outer-ring counties, flummoxing demographers waiting for a trend reversal, migration is crucial. But lower immigration puts stress on Northeastern suburban counties losing population to the South and West. And while more people living in cities may lower long-distance commuting and urban decay, “population stagnation in places that had been growing will most likely bring its own sets of problems, including pressures on real estate values and eventual shrinking of political representation.” While births have declined, migration within the U.S. has resumed to pre-recession levels. However, the trend is toward Florida, Texas, and Arizona, which have all seen population inflows. Rural parts of the country have been struggling with these demographic problems for a while now, but Gebeloff’s article shows that they are hitting what have been much more well-off areas now. In Hunterdon County, a 460-acre Merck campus sits abandoned, and enrollment in some school districts is down 20%. Patio Man Still Thrives But if outer ring Northeastern suburbs are in jeopardy, that’s not the situation everywhere. In 2002, when it looked like exurbia or life in what he called “Sprinkler Cities” was the future, David Brooks wrote a column for the Weekly Standard called “Patio Man and the Sprawl People” partly about how urban types were annexing old line, inner ring suburbs, while more traditional suburbanites were claiming the outer rings where they could enjoy peaceful patios, happy kids, slender friends and “the massive barbecue grill towering over it all.” Now, it seems, the outer rings are struggling mightily, but perhaps only in the Northeast and Midwest. In other words, Brooks’s 2002 analysis somehow holds up today.  This is how he described the trend in defending suburbia, or the movement from old suburbia to new suburbia — “The truth, of course, is that suburbia is not a retreat from gritty American life, it is American life. Already, suburbanites make up about half of the country’s population (while city people make up 28 percent and rural folk make up the rest), and American gets more suburban every year.” And they make up 53% of America now, according to Jed Kolko in a post for the statistically oriented news site, FiveThirtyEight. Moreover, in a 2017 post, Kolko wrote, “The suburbanization of America marches on,” as he noted the fast growth of Southern and Western metro areas, including Cap Coral-Fort Myers, FL, Provo-Orem, UT, and Austin-Round Rock, TX. Kolko also highlighted educated rural areas and the Pacific Northwest as growing regions. Those include Olympia and Spokane in Washington and Eugene and Salem in Oregon. Boise also made his list for growth of metro areas with 250,000 or more people. The big population losers, unsurprisingly, have been rural areas. And while the “urban revival” is real, according to Kolko, it has mostly been for rich, educated people, in particular hyperurban neighborhoods rather than broad-based return to city living. Patio Man continues to thrive – just not in Hunterdon County, New Jersey. Overall, the country is hardly in a depression, but things are grimmer than many think in some surprising places.

27 марта, 21:31

Bob Shiller Warns Of "Economic Crisis" Due To "Showman"-Trump's "Chaos"

Nobel Prize-winning economist Robert Shiller warned that further escalation in US-China trade tensions would immediately result in an economic crisis and lambasted President Trump for causing this chaos. Speaking in Beijing at the annual China Development Forum on Saturday, Shiller blasted the president as a "showman," who "obviously relishes" celebrity, and whose actions are "totally unbecoming for a president." As CNBC reports, Shiller then got serious, warning that the “chaos” brought by a trade war could have a devastating impact. “The immediate thing will be an economic crisis because these enterprises are built on long-term planning, they’ve developed a skilled workforce and ways of doing things,” Shiller told CNBC. “We have to rediscover these things in whatever country after the imports are cut off.” Shiller then told CNBC that he did not believe there would be a significant inflationary effect to the U.S. from steel and aluminum tariffs, but he warned that heated trade rhetoric from both sides could send the American economy reeling into a recession. "When you ask about the size of the impact on the economy, I think a lot of it is more psychological than direct, unless they really slam on tariffs," he said. The Yale economist pointed to the "most famous tariff war of all" during the Great Depression, which he said did not "plausibly, directly" affect economic growth "in a major degree," but it may have helped "destroy confidence" and willingness to plan for the future. "It's exactly those 'wait and see' attitudes that cause a recession," he explained, adding that... "It's just chaos: It will slow down development in the future if people think that this kind of thing is likely." Shiller also questioned the fitness of others in the Trump administration, telling CNBC that president "has hired some extremist people." He cited Peter Navarro, the White House trade advisor who wrote books called "Death by China" and "The Coming China Wars." "It seemed to me that no responsible president would give credence to that, but here we are. I think he's a showman who is doing this for political reasons within the U.S.," the economist said, pointing to the upcoming midterm elections and Trump's own attempt to get re-elected in 2020.    

26 марта, 18:56

Шиллер: торговая война может привести к кризису

Обострение торговых отношений между США и Китаем может привести к заметному ухудшению уверенности и деловых настроений и стать причиной экономического кризиса.

26 марта, 18:56

Шиллер: торговая война может привести к кризису

Обострение торговых отношений между США и Китаем может привести к заметному ухудшению уверенности и деловых настроений и стать причиной экономического кризиса.

26 марта, 16:42

Эксперты предрекают миру новый экономический кризис

Лауреат Нобелевской премии по экономике Роберт Шиллер предрек новый экономический кризис из-за торговой политики Вашингтона.

26 марта, 15:25

Are Banks Exposed to the Impending U.S.-China Trade War?

Trade war between the U.S. and China may disrupt economic growth and thus adversely impact banks' financial performance to some extent.

26 марта, 13:59

Миру предрекли новый экономический кризис из-за торговой войны США

Лауреат Нобелевской премии по экономике Роберт Шиллер заявил, что мир ждет новый экономический кризис из-за роста напряжения между США и Китаем в связи с торговой политикой Вашингтона, передает CNBC. Речь идет об угрозе со стороны США ввести пошлины на китайские товары, а также об уже начавших действовать тарифах на ввоз стали и алюминия.

26 марта, 13:34

Миру предрекли новый экономический кризис из-за торговой войны США

Лауреат Нобелевской премии по экономике Роберт Шиллер заявил, что мир ждет новый экономический кризис из-за роста напряжения между США и Китаем из-за угрозы введения Вашингтоном пошлин на китайские товары, а также уже начавших действовать тарифов на ввоз стали и алюминия.

Выбор редакции
26 марта, 03:58

A trade war could cause 'an economic crisis': Robert Shil...

The impact of a trade war is more psychological than direct, unless governments choose to "really slam on tariffs," says economist Robert Shiller.

23 марта, 21:59

Links for 03-23-18

Bumbling Into a Trade War - Paul Krugman Globalization: What Did Paul Krugman Miss? - Brad DeLong The Economic Scars of Crises and Recessions - IMF Blog The Trump Boom Is Making It Harder to See the Next Recession -...

Выбор редакции
19 марта, 18:52

How economies could insure themselves against the bad times | Robert Shiller

Issuing GDP-linked bonds is akin to buying insurance against economic distressThe time has come for national governments around the world to start issuing their debt in a new form, linked to their countries’ resources. GDP-linked bonds, with coupons and principal that rise and fall in proportion to the issuing country’s GDP, promise to solve many fundamental problems that governments face when their countries’ economies falter. And, once GDP-linked bonds are issued by a variety of countries, investors will be attracted by the prospect of high returns when some of these countries do very well. This new debt instrument is especially exciting because of its monumental size. Although issues may start out small, they will be very important from the outset. The capitalised value of total global GDP is worth far more than the world’s stock markets, and could be valued today in the quadrillions of US dollars. Continue reading...

15 марта, 19:00

Why Buy the World’s Cheapest Stocks?

Robert Shiller accurately predicted major U.S. market events this century. If the market valuation tool bearing his name is any indicator, the world may be your next oyster...

28 февраля, 22:54

Stocks Vs. Bonds & What To Own Over The Next Decade

Authored by Michael Lebowitz via RealInvestmentAdvice.com, Imagine a world with two investment options, apples and oranges. Investors are best served to reduce their holdings of apples and to replace them with oranges when demand for apples drives the price too high. The simple logic in this example is applicable across the full spectrum of economics, and it holds every bit as true in today’s complex world of investing. The question every investor should have is, “When does the price of “apples” make “oranges” the preferred holding”? Most of the time, answering that question is not easy. Occasionally however, the evidence becomes too obvious to ignore. Replace apples and oranges with stocks and bonds and you have defined the majority of investors’ asset allocation schematic. Unlike our fruit example, the allocation decision between stocks and bonds, is based on many factors other than the price of those two assets relative to each other. Among them, recent performance and momentum tend to be a big influence in both raging bull markets and gut-wrenching bear markets. In both extremes, valuations tend to take a back seat despite historical data providing ample evidence that equity valuations alone should drive allocation decision. Current equity valuations and nearly 150 years of data leave no doubt that investors are best served to ignore yesterday’s stock market momentum and gains and should be shifting to bonds, as we will demonstrate. Valuations How often do you hear someone touting a stock because its share price is low, or advising you to sell because the price is too high? This nonsense does not come from just Uber drivers and novice investors; it is the primary programming line-up of the main-stream business media.  The share price on its own is meaningless. However, the stock price times the number of shares outstanding provides the market capitalization (market cap) or the dollar value of the company. Inexplicably, market cap is a number you rarely hear from those giving stock tips. Market cap allows investors to take the aforementioned corporate worth and compare it to earnings, cash flow, revenues and a host of other fundamental data to provide a logical valuation platform for comparison to other investment options. While we use a slew of different valuation techniques, we tend to prefer the Cyclically-Adjusted Price-to-Earnings (CAPE) Ratio as devised by Nobel Prize winning economist and Yale professor Robert Shiller. The ratio adjusts for inflation and as importantly, uses ten years of earnings data to derive a price to earnings ratio that encompasses business cycles. Shiller’s approach eliminates short-term noise that tends to make the more popular one-year trailing price-to-earnings ratio erratic and potentially misleading. Currently, the CAPE on the S&P 500 is 33.41. Looking back as far as 1871, today’s valuation has only been exceeded by a brief period in the late 1990’s. To help link return expectations and CAPE valuations we plot below every historical monthly instance of CAPE to the respective forward ten-year returns. Each of the 1,525 dots represents the intersection of CAPE and the ten year total return that followed since 1871. Data Courtesy: Robert Shiller Apples or Oranges While the analysis is telling, investors should compare the returns versus those from a ten-year U.S. Treasury note to determine whether the returns on stocks adequately compensated investors for the additional risk. The graph below shows the returns above minus the prevailing ten-year U.S. Treasury note.  Essentially, the graph shows the excess or shortfall of the returns provided by stocks versus those of ten-year Treasury Notes in the ten years following each monthly CAPE instance. Negative returns indicate the 10-year Treasury yield exceeded the 10-year total return on stocks. Data Courtesy: Robert Shiller To better highlight the data and put a finer point on current prospects, consider the bar chart below. Data Courtesy: Robert Shiller The chart above aggregates the data from the prior chart into ranges of CAPE as shown on the x-axis. It also displays the mean, maximum and minimum of the excess ten year returns of stocks at the various CAPE ranges. This information can be used to create expectations for future performance given a stated CAPE. With the current CAPE at 33.41 as circled, investors should expect an annualized excess return for ten years of -2.04%. Based on historical data which includes 32 full business cycles dating back to 1871, the best excess return experienced for all instances of CAPE over 30 is 0.39%. Over this 147 year period, there have been 57 monthly instances in which the CAPE was above 30. Only four of these instances provided an excess return over Treasuries and the average was a paltry twenty basis points or 0.20%. Call us cynical, but the prospect of equity market excess returns  for the next ten years measuring in the fractions of a percent is not nearly enough compensation for the distinct possibility of underperforming a risk-free asset for ten years. Summary History, analytical rigor and logic all argue in favor of shifting one’s allocations away from stocks. Investors have no doubt become accustomed to the easy gains provided by equity markets over the past ten years, and old habits are hard to break but we know valuations to be mean-reverting. Given current extremes, this comparison offers compelling evidence that compounding wealth most effectively depends on breaking that habit.

20 февраля, 21:25

"The Bear Still Cometh..."

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com, In our portfolio management practice, we focus on weekly and monthly data to smooth out daily volatility. Since we are longer-term investors, our focus remains on being invested during rising (bullish) trends and more heavily weighted to fixed income and cash during declining (bearish) trends. Therefore, the only data that really matters to us is where the market closes at the end of each week. As I stated in this past weekend’s missive: “While the immediate consensus is the ‘bear market of 2018’ is now over, there are several important points about the chart below that should be considered. Despite the correction, the market did hold support at the 200-dma The bullish trend line, which goes back to the beginning of 2016, has also not been violated. However, the upper red “trendline” may provide some overhead resistance temporarily and is worth watching closely.  While the market did get oversold on a short-term basis, which suggested a bounce was likely, the longer-term overbought condition, and subsequent ‘sell signal’ remain intact.  The bottom line is that while there was much ‘angst’ in the markets last week, the market has not violated any important trend lines that would suggest the current sell-off is anything more than just an ordinary ‘garden variety’ correction.” This morning, the market opened back below the 50-dma.  While this is concerning, and keeps our short-hedge in place for now, it is where we finish this trading week that will determine out next positioning changes. The chart below is a weekly view of the S&P 500 index. With much of the volatility stripped away, the important levels for the close of trading on Friday become more evident. In order for us to fully remove hedges, the market must close above the 50-dma on Friday. As noted, there is tremendous resistance from the upper trendline of the bullish trend channel that began at the beginning of 2016. We currently expect the market to remain confined to the currently rising bullish trend channel, but there are risks to that view which keeps us cautious. A failure at resistance which leads to a retracement back to recent lows and the 200-dma is very likely. Here is what we are looking for if that happens. If the market holds support at the 200-dma and completes a successful retest, we will begin removing hedges and adding to equity exposure.  The retracement to the 200-dma will trigger the MACD sell-signal which is already at historically high levels. That “sell signal” will put additional downward pressure on the market. As long as the market holds at the rising bullish trend and 200-dma, the bullish backdrop remains intact keeping portfolios weighted towards equity exposure.  However, if the market breaks below those “critical support” levels, as noted above, the risk of a deeper correction rises. Such a break will lead to increased hedging and a reduction of equity risk in our portfolio models.   A break of that critical support will likely lead to a retest of the longer-term bullish trend around 2250 which would be a 22% decline from recent highs and an “official bear market.” A break below 2250 will likely coincide with the onset of the next recession and is an entirely different portfolio management strategy. While I have laid out the risks, the bullish trend remains intact. While we are currently hedged, we remain primarily long-biased in our portfolios.  However, don’t completely dismiss the “bearish” case either. The Bear Still Cometh Back the newsletter: “The good news, for those who remain ever bullishly inclined, is on a long-term, monthly basis, the bull market remains intact for now. Unfortunately, despite the rather harrowing correction, little was done to relieve any of the underlying pressures. Valuations still remain elevated Bearishness and volatility, despite the recent spike, remain at historically low levels, and; Investors simply could not jump “back” into the markets fast enough. These are not signs of a real, lasting bottom, which long-term investors should aggressively buy into.” In that missive, I laid out two charts of the 2000 and 2007 market topping processes. In both previous cases, the first 10% correction was a precursor to a bear market. The chart below shows this a little differently by comparing the both previous bull markets to the current bull run. As you can see, the recent correction, which followed an accelerated advance, is behaving in much the same fashion as seen previously. Does this mean we are the cusp of the next great “bear market?” Simply looking at prices without context can be misleading. While markets are driven in the short-term by momentum, or better termed “psychology,” it is the long-term underlying fundamentals which ultimately determine a market’s fate. Not surprisingly, given the surge in monetary liquidity by the Federal Reserve, combined with the underlying sluggishness of economic growth, investors are once again betting on a “this time is different” scenario as market valuations, on many measures, are at, or near, historically high levels. But, again, just weak economic growth, or high valuations, or rising prices does not necessarily immediately result in a substantial mean-reverting event. Major mean reverting events are generally tied to the combination of more major extremes in long-term measures of price deviations, economic growth, and valuations. Using quarterly data we can calculate several long-term measures for the S&P 500: The 12-period (3-year) Relative Strength Index (RSI), Bollinger Bands (2 and 3 standard deviations of the 3-year average), CAPE Ratio, and; The percentage deviation above and below the 3-year moving average.  The vertical RED lines denote points where all measures have aligned On virtually every measure price and valuation, the markets are grossly extended. However, it is when these measures coincide with the onset of an economic recession that “mean reverting” events tend to occur. The table below looks at the S&P 500 going back to 1873, based on Robert Shiller’s data, to detail economic recessions and bear markets. In April, the current economic expansion will become the second longest in U.S. history. However, that period of expansion will also be the slowest, based on annualized economic growth rates, as well. Could the current economic expansion become the longest in U.S. history? Absolutely. Over the next several weeks, or even months, the markets can certainly extend the current deviations from long-term means even further. But such is the nature of every bull market peak, and bubble, throughout history as the seeming impervious advance lures the last of the stock market “holdouts” back into the markets. The correction over the last couple of weeks did little to correct these major extensions OR significantly change investor’s mental state from “greed” to “fear.” As discussed above, the bullish trend remains clearly intact for now, but all “bull markets” end….always. Do not be mistaken, the next “bear market” is coming. Of that, there is absolute certainty. As the charts clearly show, “prices are bound by the laws of physics.” While prices can certainly seem to defy the law of gravity in the short-term, the subsequent reversion from extremes has repeatedly led to catastrophic losses for investors who disregard the risk. There are substantial reasons to be pessimistic about the markets longer-term. Economic growth, excessive monetary interventions, earnings, valuations, etc. all suggest that future returns will be substantially lower than those seen over the last eight years. Bullish exuberance has erased the memories of the last two major bear markets and replaced it with “hope” that somehow “this time will be different.” Maybe it will be. Probably, it won’t be. The Reason To Focus On Risk Our job as investors is to navigate the waters within which we currently sail, not the waters we think we will sail in later. Greater returns are generated from the management of “risks” rather than the attempt to create returns by chasing markets. That philosophy was well defined by Robert Rubin, former Secretary of the Treasury, when he said; “As I think back over the years, I have been guided by four principles for decision making.  First, the only certainty is that there is no certainty.  Second, every decision, as a consequence, is a matter of weighing probabilities.  Third, despite uncertainty, we must decide and we must act.  And lastly, we need to judge decisions not only on the results, but on how they were made. Most people are in denial about uncertainty. They assume they’re lucky, and that the unpredictable can be reliably forecast. This keeps business brisk for palm readers, psychics, and stockbrokers, but it’s a terrible way to deal with uncertainty. If there are no absolutes, then all decisions become matters of judging the probability of different outcomes, and the costs and benefits of each. Then, on that basis, you can make a good decision.” It should be obvious that an honest assessment of uncertainty leads to better decisions, but the benefits of Rubin’s approach, and mine, goes beyond that. For starters, although it may seem contradictory, embracing uncertainty reduces risk while denial increases it. Another benefit of acknowledged uncertainty is it keeps you honest. “A healthy respect for uncertainty and focus on probability drives you never to be satisfied with your conclusions.  It keeps you moving forward to seek out more information, to question conventional thinking and to continually refine your judgments and understanding that difference between certainty and likelihood can make all the difference.” We must be able to recognize, and be responsive to, changes in underlying market dynamics if they change for the worse and be aware of the risks that are inherent in portfolio allocation models. The reality is that we can’t control outcomes. The most we can do is influence the probability of certain outcomes which is why the day to day management of risks and investing based on probabilities, rather than possibilities, is important not only to capital preservation but to investment success over time. Just something to consider.

14 февраля, 01:34

Noise Trading, Bubbles, and Excess Stock Market Volatility: Hoisted from the Archives from 2013

**[Noise Trading, Bubbles, and Excess Stock Market Volatility](http://www.bradford-delong.com/2013/12/noise-trading-bubbles-and-excess-volatility-in-the-aggregate-stock-market-noah-smith-and-robert-shiller-and-andrei-shleifer-a.html ): Hoisted from the Archives from 2013**: Noah Smith has a very nice post this morning: Noah Smith: Risk premia or behavioral craziness?: >John Cochrane is quite critical of Robert Shiller.... He... thinks that Shiller is trying to make finance less quantitative and more literary (I somehow doubt this, given that Shiller is first and foremost an econometrician, and not that literary of a guy). >But the most interesting criticism is about Shiller's interpretation of his own work. Shiller showed... stock prices mean-revert. He interprets this as meaning that the market is inefficient and irrational... "behavioral craziness". But others--such as Gene Fama--interpret long-run predictability as being due to predictable, slow swings in risk premia. >Who is right? As Cochrane astutely notes, we can't tell who is right just by looking at the markets themselves. We have to have some other kind of corroborating evidence. If it's behavioral craziness, then we should be able to observe evidence of the craziness elsewhere in the world. If it's predictably varying risk premia, then we should be able to measure risk premia using some independent data source... Let's back up to do some explaining... When economists...

13 февраля, 11:46

Закончилась ли распродажа акций? Шиллер называет вопрос открытым

(Bloomberg) -- Лауреат Нобелевской премии по экономике Роберт Шиллер, предсказавший "пузыри" в секторе доткомов и на рынке жилья, говорит, что вопрос о том, завершилась ли распродажа на рынке акций, остается открытым.Акции демонстрируют признаки восстановления после обвала, сократившего капитализацию мировых рынков почти на $5 триллионов в этом...

Выбор редакции
12 февраля, 17:33

Robert Shiller Says 'We've Had Our Correction'

Feb.12 -- Yale University Professor of Economics Robert Shiller discusses the psychology of the market following last week's selloff. He speaks with Bloomberg's Alix Steel on "Bloomberg Daybreak: Americas." (Corrects spelling of guest's last name in headline and description.)

07 октября 2015, 11:41

Фондовый рынок теряет триллионы: кризис уже близко

Мировой фондовый рынок потерял в III квартале 2015 г. $11 трлн. Падение во всех крупных мировых экономиках сильно ударило по "бумажному богатству", и это был худший квартал для фондового рынка с 2011 г.

03 сентября 2015, 17:12

Роберт Шиллер: «справедливая» стоимость S&P 500 составляет 1300 пунктов

«Сейчас очень опасное время», - отметил в интервью CNBC нобелевский лауреат Роберт Шиллер. – «Типичное соотношение P/E (прим. ProFinance.ru: цена акции/доход на акцию), на которое обычно смотрит большинство инвесторов, на самом деле вводит в заблуждение. В то же время соотношение CAPE (Cyclically Adjusted Price-Earnings, разработанное господином Шиллером) указывает на «спра… читать далее…

23 октября 2013, 21:27

Пузыри на рынкax недвижимости?

Не могу уже вспомнить, когда мне тут объясняли, почему не надо было ждать роста цен на недвижимость в Германии...Как бы то ни было, Бундесбанк уже разглядел возможные пузыри на рынке недвижимости в крупных городах страны :). Логика прежних рассуждений о недвижимости в Германии была простой. Валюта в Германии казалась недооцененной из-за большущего профицита по счету текущих операций, поэтому цены должны были расти.  Процентные ставки ЕЦБ были слишком низкими для Германии, что обязано было стимулировать рост цен на недвижимость. Понимающие это инвесторы должны были ускорить рост цен... Сегодня трудно найти читающего человека, который еще не слышал о свежеиспеченном лауреате Нобелевской премии Роберте Шиллере. Многие сразу же нарисуют его знаменитую картинку американского пузыря на рынке жилья. Но еще больше вокруг уверенных в том, что они видят пузырь на рынке недвижимости, будь то в Австралии, Канаде, Великобритании, Китае, России...Нельзя за такое осуждать. Раз уж жилье доминирует наше и их богатство, то очень хочется знать, пора ли купить квартирку или же лучше вовремя соскочить с обреченного поезда. Вдобавок к мыслям о Москве, Лондоне, Париже, Берлине, Таллине, Риге, Юрмале и Малаге, не лишне еще раз вспомнить о Гонконге. Ведь это Гонконг был правильной подсказкой к пониманию кризиса в Латвии и еврозоне. На рисунке из мартовского доклада цб Гонконга о финансовой стабильности показаны цены на жилье. Виден пузырь 1997 года, падение цен к 2004 году, в течение 6 лет, как заказывали Рейнхарт и Рогофф, и последующий волшебный взлет к сегодняшнему счастью (или горю?).  После лопнувшего пузыря в 1997 году правители Гонконга уже прекрасно понимали, чем рискуют, как понимают сейчас специалисты Бундесбанка, насмотревшись на страдания Ирландии и Испании.  Поэтому они внимательно следили за ростом цен на недвижимость и изо всех сил старались защитить экономику от будущих потрясений. О перспективах Гонконга в период "необычной" политики ФРС давно уже записывал здесь и здесь.  Там же сохранил параграф Позена о трудностях определения пузырей, не говоря уже об их предотвращении оружием денежно-кредитной политики. Со времени тех записей, несмотря на 6 раундов (!) затягивания гаек в Гонконге и настойчивые публичные предупреждения цб, цены на жилье продолжали расти...Уже много лет не стихают споры о пузыре на рынке недвижимости Гонконга.

22 октября 2013, 20:18

Олег Григорьев о лауреатах премии им. Нобеля

Колонка опубликована в журнале "Профиль" от 20 октября 2013 года (N833) Присуждение Нобелевской премии 2013 года по экономике еще раз подтвердило, что современная экономическая теория — это не наука и с научными критериями подходить к ней глупо В этом году решение о присуждении Нобелевской премии в области экономики выглядело донельзя скандальным. Два из трех лауреатов — Юджин Фама и Роберт Шиллер — не только радикально расходятся в своих концепциях по одному и тому же вопросу, но еще и крайне неодобрительно отзываются друг о друге. Кстати, последнюю из известных мне колкостей в адрес своего оппонента Шиллер опубликовал совсем недавно, в конце июля этого года. Ситуация, конечно, абсурдная. Один (Фама) говорит, что финансовых пузырей нет и быть не может, потому что никто не знает, что это такое. Другой (Шиллер) утверждает, что пузыри возможны и он знает, что они собой представляют. Он же предсказал кризис 2007—2008 годов. Фама же уверяет, что такого рода предсказания ничего не стоят, поскольку раз в сто лет и палка стреляет, и если постоянно одно событие предсказывать, то рано или поздно повезет. Третий лауреат, Ларс Хансен, теорией не занимается и своей концепции не имеет. Он разрабатывает методы количественного анализа явлений финансового рынка. И полученные им результаты опровергают теоретические построения обоих его коллег. Впрочем, чтобы опровергнуть разработанную Фамой концепцию эффективных рынков, никаких сложных расчетов и не требуется. События 2007—2008 годов наглядно показали ее ценность. Любопытно, что Фама был одним из претендентов на Нобелевскую премию еще в 2009 году, но тогда ему ее постеснялись дать. Как будто с тех пор что-то изменилось! Один из наших отечественных либералов, защищая решение Нобелевского комитета, заявил, что «на самом деле в гипотезе эффективных рынков нет ничего такого, что можно опровергнуть эмпирически». Ну да, и в гипотезе всемирного заговора тоже нет ничего такого, что можно опровергнуть эмпирически. Невозможность эмпирического опровержения — это, согласно общепринятому критерию Карла Поппера, как раз явный признак ненаучности теории. Любой человек, претендующий на то, чтобы называться ученым, кто бы он ни был, должен это понимать. Но ни тем, кто вручает премию, ни нашим либералам Поппер не указ, хоть именно он и разработал любезную сердцу и тех, и других концепцию открытого общества. Так какую мысль хотели донести до нас таким экстравагантным способом? Еще раз подтвердилось то, о чем многие догадывались, но не решались говорить вслух. То, что называется современной экономической теорией, — это вовсе не наука, и с научными критериями подходить к ней глупо. Это религия, организованная как бюрократическая структура. В таких структурах вознаграждается не реальный результат, а правильное поведение. Что сегодня является правильным и одобряемым поведением? Прежде всего это доходящая до абсурда верность букве и духу первоисточников религии. Это качество в полной мере присуще Юджину Фаме. Он из трех лауреатов самый титулованный, обладатель множества других премий. Его теория эффективных рынков — это теория о божественной сущности финансовых рынков, то есть теория ни о чем. Другой нобелевский лауреат, Пол Кругман, в свое время иронизировал по этому поводу, что рынки правильно оценивают, что пол-литра кетчупа должны стоить ровно в два раза дешевле одного литра, но ничего не могут сказать о том, почему и литр, и пол-литра стоят столько, сколько они стоят. Присуждение премии Роберту Шиллеру сигнализирует, что в рамках религиозной доктрины допустима некоторая доза безобидной и не сильно противоречащей догматам ереси. После кризиса такой допустимой ересью были признаны исследования в области так называемой поведенческой экономики. Здесь идея заключается в том, что сам рынок устроен идеально, но сомнению подвергается способность простых людей правильно пользоваться ниспосланным им инструментом. В тех сложных условиях, в которые попала ортодоксальная экономическая наука, когда противоречия между ее утверждениями и реальным положением дел бросаются в глаза всем, хорошим поведением считается «просто возделывать свой сад» и стараться не задумываться о высоких материях. Упорный труд есть лучшее средство справиться с обуревающими человека сомнениями. Этот образец поведения демонстрирует Ларс Хансен — и поделом награда. В общем, последнее решение о присуждении Нобелевской премии по экономике показало, что она не имеет никакого отношения к поиску истины, а есть лишь способ контроля и управления научным сообществом. http://www.profile.ru/article/ekonomika-kak-religiya-77602. От ред. so-l.ru - в смысле религиозности науки показательны слова самого Шиллера в которых он это прямо и признает, см. интервью: