• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Люди220
      • Показать ещё
      Компании479
      • Показать ещё
      Страны / Регионы263
      • Показать ещё
      Разное609
      • Показать ещё
      Международные организации22
      • Показать ещё
      Показатели90
      • Показать ещё
      Формат71
      Издания95
      • Показать ещё
      Сферы6
08 декабря, 21:30

Schiller Warns: Stocks Are Partying Like Its 1929!

Careful not send the investing into a panic, Robert Schiller appeared on CNBC this morning to explain just how insane the valuation levels of the market are currently... And MarketWatch.com's Brett Arends lays out the details... I hate to rain on this parade. But the latest lurch upwards in stock prices has just taken market valuations up into the skybox levels, according to the market timing measure with the longest pedigree on Wall Street. It’s just gone from flashing amber to flashing red - meaning, if it’s right, that there is now a significant and rising risk of a crash, and a bigger risk of simply very poor returns. This has little to do with President-elect Donald Trump, by the way — and much more to do with President Ulysses S. Grant and all his successors. Wall Street’s jump this week has taken the S&P 500  to an eye-watering 27.9 times the corporate earnings of the past 10 years. That’s according to data compiled by Yale finance professor Robert Shiller and some simple math. This is about the same level that the market hit just before the crash of 1929, and is far higher than was seen in 2007, for example, or during the ill-fated boom of the late 1960s. The last time we saw the stock market this expensive on this measure was early in 2002 — just before stocks plummeted. Comparing stock prices to earnings of the past 10 years, rather than just one year, is a metric known on Wall Street as the “cyclically-adjusted” price to earnings ratio, or CAPE. It is also known as the “Shiller” PE, after Yale’s Shiller, who won a Nobel prize for his research into it. His data shows it has been a strong indicator of future stock returns going back to 1871 and the days of President Grant. Yes, CAPE has plenty of critics. Many people on Wall Street will tell you to ignore it, mainly, they say, because it’s been “wrong” for a long time. The CAPE has said stocks are overvalued since the mid-1990s, they point out. And yet shares keep going up. Well, maybe. But as it happens a new research paper by two economists strikes a strong blow on behalf of the CAPE. “Shiller’s PE: Market-Timing And Risk” by Valentin Dimitrov at Rutgers and Prem Jain at Georgetown shows that the biggest problem with the CAPE hasn’t been the metric itself — but the oversimplistic way investors have applied it. In a nutshell: Investors shouldn’t flee stocks simply because the Shiller PE is above average. They shouldn’t flee stocks even when the Shiller PE is way above average. But history has said they should flee stocks when the Shiller PE is at extreme levels — like now. Only when the CAPE is “higher than 27.6”, they conclude, has the stock market proven to be a really bad investment. And, like I said, it just hit 27.9. According to Dimitrov and Jain, extremely high CAPEs like today have historically been followed by very high volatility, and really bad 10-year investment returns. The difference between their analysis and the simplistic view of the CAPE is both real and meaningful. As the authors note, most of the time even reasonably expensive stocks have been better investments than the alternatives, such as cash or bonds. Over the very long term stocks have handily outperformed other asset classes. So, yes, history has said that the cheaper the CAPE when you invest in the stock market, the better your likely returns. People who invested when the CAPE was in single digits typically tripled their money or better over the next 10 years. People who invested when it was in the teens typically doubled their money or better. Even those who invested when the CAPE was in the low 20s typically made reasonable returns. Only when the CAPE tops about 27.6 does it flash red, the authors calculate. There are caveats. Permabull Jeremy Siegel, of the Wharton School of Business, argues that the usefulness of the CAPE has been weakened by accounting changes. And none of this relates to short-term, or even medium-term, trading. Early 1929 was actually a fantastic time to get into the US stock market — so long as you didn’t stick around. So were the late 1990s. Someone who sold their stocks in late 1996, when the CAPE hit 28, missed out on the biggest free-money bubble bonanza in recorded history. Veteran financial consultant Andrew Smithers, despite his prescient bearishness in 2000 and 2008, concluded that long-term investors should never hold about less than 60% of their portfolio in stocks. Nonetheless, at this point history says you’d need another late 1990s dot-com-like mania to stay bullish. Over the past 150 years, it has generally been an extremely poor move to invest in U.S. stocks with the CAPE at these levels. But maybe this time is different, eh?

08 декабря, 16:00

Research Review | 8 Dec 2016 | Volatility & Risk Management

How Should Investors Respond to Increases in Volatility? Alan Moreira (Yale University) andn Tyler Muir (UCLA) December 2, 2016 They should reduce their equity position. We study the portfolio problem of a long-horizon investor that allocates between a risk-less and a risky asset in an environment where both volatility and expected returns are time-varying. We […]

06 декабря, 06:15

Stop Losing Money: Invest Wisely

Caption: photo of worried man on phone overlaid on money (Geralt, Pixabay) This article first appeared on the blog of Intentional Insights, a nonprofit organization that empowers people to refine and reach their goals by providing research-based content to help improve thinking, feeling, and behavior patterns. Written By Peter Livingstone ___________________________________________________________________ You're probably losing money right now, without even knowing it! Why? Well, if you have money sitting in a bank account that's giving you a return of less than 1.5%, you're losing money due to inflation. Inflation simply means that your dollar will buy less a year from now than it can buy today. In fact, you would need ten dollars today to buy what you could for one dollar in 1950. Fortunately, you can stop losing money through successful investing, and actually make money instead of having it be eaten up by inflation. You can invest successfully by using a simple plan and avoiding common mistakes. Let me guess what many of you are thinking. You've probably watched one of those movies about rich and powerful Wall Street investors, the so-called "masters of the universe." Maybe you've thought "I can't compete with these guys", or "I don't want to risk losing my money, so I'll just keep all my savings or retirement funds in a bank account." Perhaps you listen to the news when the Dow Jones Industrial Average drops hundreds of points and think "I couldn't stand to lose money like those folks in the stock market." Using some simple, evidence-based methods for wise investing, you can outperform the majority of stock market investors (even those "masters of the universe"). You don't need a lot of money to start investing. If you are fortunate enough to have a workplace retirement account, such as a 401(k), you can start by contributing as little as a few dollars a month. Even if you don't, you can get other types of investment accounts, and then make small contributions regularly. Consider doing so right now to stop losing money! Well, after you read this article, that is. Don't Get Get Ripped Off (Hint: Avoid Actively Managed Mutual Funds) First, let's review some long-term performance records of average investors, as well as the records of a broad United States stock market index. According to this study, the 30-year compound annual growth rate (essentially the average one-year return for the period) for average United States investors in equity (stock market) mutual funds was 3.66%. While not a terrible performance compared to today's bank savings account interest rates (about 0.06%), the annual return of the broad U.S. stock market for the same period, as represented by the S&P 500 index, was 10.35%. To put that in perspective, if the average investor contributed just $100 per month over the 30-year period with an average return of 3.66%, that investor would have accumulated about $65,000. But, if an investor had matched the return of the S&P 500 index, that investor would have about $233,000. What a huge difference for someone nearing retirement! Wouldn't it be great to have that money in your pocket? How can you guarantee that you can come very close to matching the performance of the broad stock market? The answer can be found by investing in a low cost index fund, a type of mutual fund or exchange traded fund which are available through most investment firms and retirement accounts. The reason many individuals are not aware of the power of investing in index funds, and leaving their money alone to grow in these funds, is that that there is very little incentive for the financial industry to make the case for such investments. After all, many stock brokers, fund managers, and financial advisors get paid through actively buying and selling individual stocks or funds by charging fees and commissions. The goal of an index fund is simply to match the performance of a specific index of stocks, such as the S&P 500, by investing in all of the companies within that index. All funds charge some expense for the work of maintaining these investments, but the best index funds charge only about 0.05% to 0.10% of your investment, so your actual performance will be just that fraction below the index. Actively managed mutual funds, however, seek to outperform some specific index, so they charge much higher fees. The big secret is that most all of these active funds underperform the index funds. This is one case where you do not get what you pay for! Don't Be Your Own Worst Enemy A main reason why putting and keeping money in a low cost index fund generally outperforms more active investment styles is the avoidance of fees and commissions. Additionally, the compounding effect will increase your investment because these savings get reinvested in the fund, so the money saved each year will grow in the following years. The other big reason that most investors fail to match the return of the broad market is that they tend to try to "time" the market, thinking they can sell out before a big market drop and by in when prices are low. In reality, however, many investors get panicked when the market drops, selling out at low prices, and then feel better after prices rebound, buying back in when prices are higher. Even the most successful investors of modern times, such as Warren Buffett, believe that they cannot predict the direction of the market in order to time it, and advise that you shouldn't either. Caption: Graph of declining trend (Clker-Free-Vector-Images, Pixabay) This is just one example of behavioral mistakes caused by cognitive biases (common thinking errors) that undermine many investors. Such cognitive biases result from the mind's two systems of thinking, the Autopilot System and the Intentional System. Learning about these systems and accounting for these biases will make you a much better investor! Two broad cognitive biases which may contribute to buying and selling at the wrong times are the overconfidence effect and loss aversion. Overconfidence can lull us into a false sense of certainty that we know when the market will go up or down. Loss aversion is our tendency to feel worse about losses than feel good about similar-sized gains. Combined, these two biases can have the effect of leading us to sell when we see our investments drop, and then buy the same investments back when they go higher. By simply admitting that the market will go up and down, but we cannot predict when, we can begin to overcome these biases. Don't Forget That Life Is Uncertain, But History Is A Guide Before you start thinking that investing in an index fund is a guaranteed way of making your money grow, I must caution you that there are no guarantees in life, and anyone who tells you otherwise is a rotten liar. Yet by using probabilistic thinking, and considering some history of the market, you can make some reasonable assumptions about your chances for success. Looking back through 145 years of history in the US stock market, there have been cases of individual companies and individual stock market mutual funds losing everything, but the performance of the overall U.S. market, as measured by the S&P 500, looks much different. Assuming the market's characteristics over the past 145 years will give us a good representation of what the future will hold, here are statistics that may give some reasonable expectations. The data was compiled by Yale Professor Robert Shiller (here is an interactive calculator based on his work, for which the following results are derived). The total average annual return for the S&P 500 (with dividends reinvested) from 1871 to 2016 was around 9.0% (not adjusted for inflation). During this 145 year span, over every possible period of twenty years or more the index had a positive return (inflation notwithstanding), with the worst at 2% (1929-'49) and the best at 18% (1980-2000). Even for any given ten-year period during this time, the S&P 500 had a positive return 97% of the time. Over a one-year period, however, the probability of having a positive return dropped to 71%, with the worst 12 month period losing 62% (1931-'32) and the best gaining 140% (1932-'33). Caption: S&P 500 returns for all sets of given time periods (Robert Shiller) How can we put this history into perspective? Let's assume you had the worst possible market timing over this 145 year history. You got an inheritance from a rich uncle in September 1929, and invested it all in a fund which matched the S&P 500 for a period of twenty years. Even though you would have been extremely unlucky to choose these exact times to get in and out of the market, you still would have returned a 2% annual compounded return. This is certainly better than stuffing cash under a mattress. Moreover, the vast majority of people do not simply put all of their wealth into the market at one point and exit at another. Most people receive money over time, and by necessity can only invest small amounts spread out over this time. By contributing incrementally to an investment over time, your chance of picking the very worst times to enter and exit are greatly reduced, and you have a much greater chance of matching the long-term market average. There are fancy computer models called "Monte Carlo Simulations" which calculate the probabilities of investment returns for investing and withdrawing specific amounts of money over time based on historic behavior of markets like this one. For simplicity though, let's make some broad generalizations based on historical evidence. Assuming the characteristics of future stock market returns are close to what has been experienced in the past, over a period of investing for ten years or more (the longer the better) in a low cost index fund tracking the S&P 500, you would almost certainly have gains, most likely in the range of 5% to 13% annually, averaged over the entire period. This return would, probably, beat the majority of active funds, and the vast majority of all other investors. Don't Just Buy The Top Performing Funds What about those few funds and investment managers who have beaten the broad market index over many years, and why not invest with them? There has been a lot of academic research done trying to figure out how to do this, and the evidence suggests that there is no consistent, reliable way to predict who will beat the market average. Many studies have been conducted to determine how to predict which investment funds will outperform. So far, the only factor found useful in predicting performance is costs - the lower a fund's costs, the more of your money stays in the fund and grows. By the very nature of random luck, a few high cost, actively managed funds and investment managers will perform better than the market average for any given time period, but what are the odds you or I, or even a team of market researchers, could pick them? Not very high, as the evidence shows. Keep in mind that by investing in a low cost index fund you will not have much of a chance of making big gains quickly, and its value can drop substantially over a short period of time. However, if your goal is to save and invest over ten years or more and achieve the highest chance of positive returns, a low cost, stock market index fund is your best choice. This way, you can stop losing money, and make the best decisions to help you achieve your financial goals! Questions to consider: How much money do you have in savings that you are not very likely to need for at least ten years? Keep in mind that index funds are quite liquid, and you can get your money back in less than two weeks if you need it for some emergency. How much can you save a little every month to invest for ten years or more? Would you be comfortable knowing that the value of your investment might drop by 20%-60% sometime during that ten year period, even though there is a good chance that it will have an overall annual return of 5% or greater for the entire period? Keep this in mind - with an annual return of 7.2% your money will double in ten years. Are you interested in more specific information on investing in low cost index funds and overcoming biases which lead to poor financial decision-making? If you are, I will have more articles on evidence-based financial decision-making and investing available through Intentional Insights. Want to make sure I keep writing? Support me on Patreon! Bio: Dr. Gleb Tsipursky is an author, speaker, consultant, coach, scholar, and social entrepreneur specializing in science-based strategies for effective decision-making, goal achievement, emotional and social intelligence, meaning and purpose, and altruism - for more information or to hire him, see his website, GlebTsipursky.com. He runs a nonprofit that helps people use science-based strategies to make effective decisions and reach their goals, so as to build an altruistic and flourishing world, Intentional Insights. He also serves as a tenure-track professor at Ohio State in the History of Behavioral Science and the Decision Sciences Collaborative. A best-selling author, he wrote Find Your Purpose Using Science among other books, and regular contributes to prominent venues, such as Time, The Conversation, Salon, The Huffington Post, and elsewhere. He appears regularly on network TV, such as affiliates of ABC and Fox, radio stations such as NPR and Sunny 95, and elsewhere. Consider signing up to the Intentional Insights newsletter; volunteering; donating; buying merchandise. Get in touch with him at gleb[at]intentionalinsights[dot]org. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

04 декабря, 08:52

China insurance markets in everything

Medical insurance often becomes invalid if the customer is drunk. But during the football World Cup in 2014, Shanghai-based Zhongan Insurance turned that rule upside down by offering Chinese football fans a policy specifically for self-inflicted liver damage. It cost less than $1 and covered sports enthusiasts against alcohol poisoning for 30 days — paying […] The post China insurance markets in everything appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

29 ноября, 19:06

US Home Prices Rise Above July 2006 Levels, Hit New Record High

Almost exactly ten years after the last housing bubble burst, unleashing a dramatic crash in US real estate prices - something Ben Bernanke had said in 2005 would be unprecedented, and is thus not a risk factor - today Case Shiller reported that as of September, its Index covering all nine U.S. census divisions, surpassed the peak set in July 2006 as the housing boom topped out, and in doing so the average home price has now climbed back above the record reached more than a decade ago, bringing to a close the worst period for the housing market since the Great Depression. The average home price for September was 0.1% above the July 2006 peak in nominal terms. The National index reported a 5.5% annual gain in September, up from 5.1% last month. The 10-City Composite posted a 4.3% annual increase, up from 4.2% the previous month. The 20-City Composite reported a year-over-year gain of 5.1%, unchanged from August. The gains have been unequal: just 34 of the largest 100 metropolitan areas have seen starter home prices recover to their previous peak, while 56 areas have seen high-end homes reach or surpass previous highs, according to home-tracker Trulia, confirming that the upper end of the market has been instrumental for the "recovery." “The new peak set by the S&P Case-Shiller CoreLogic National Index will be seen as marking a shift from the housing recovery to the hoped-for start of a new advance” said Case Shiller's David Blitzer said. “While seven of the 20 cities previously reached new post-recession peaks, those that experienced the biggest booms -- Miami, Tampa, Phoenix and Las Vegas -- remain well below their all-time highs. Other housing indicators are also giving positive signals: sales of existing and new homes are rising and housing starts at an annual rate of 1.3 million units are at a post-recession peak. It is also worth noting, that when adjusted for inflation, the index remains about 16% below the 2006 high.  The new record caps a four-year recovery from the trough of 2012, when prices sat 27% below the peak after a crash that caused more than nine million American families to lose their homes. As a reminder, the data is as of September, when interest - and mortgage rates - were stuck near all time lows. A lot has happened since then, most notably the advent of Trumpflation and a surge in mortgage rates. As we reported over the weekend, the recent "Increase In Mortgage Rates Has Shocked Consumers", once again putting the US housing market in peril. For now, however, looking at 2 month old data, "the sky is the limit" as the WSJ puts it: while housing has lagged behind some sectors of the economy in recent years, there are signs of gaining strength: Single-family housing starts rose 11% in October, according to the Commerce Department, and the number of starts remains well below the historical average, suggesting there is room for acceleration. Likewise, the share of first-time buyers rose to 33% in October from 31% a year earlier, inching closer to the historical average of 40%. The lack of first-time buyers had been a drag on the market because, without a deep pool of ready buyers of starter homes, owners of those homes have a harder time trading up. Robert Shiller, an economist at Yale University who co-developed the index, said the record provides a significant psychological boost for homeowners, some of whom are finally seeing their homes above water after four years of recovery.   “It creates an atmosphere that the sky is the limit,” he said. Some economists are surprised by the magnitude of the home price gains in recent years given the more moderate pace of wage growth. Others, pointing the discrepancy between the 5% annual growth in home prices and the far more subdued wage growth in recent years, are less optimistic: “It’s not clear with the degree of [economic] growth that we’ve had that we should have expected prices to rise this much,” said Doug Duncan, chief economist at mortgage company Fannie Mae. “We have a caution light on.” Of course, it is easy to explain the delta when considering the historic debt bubble of the past decade. One reason home prices have risen so quickly is a prolonged period of ultra-low interest rates. However, as the WSJ again warns, rates have jumped about half a percentage point since earlier this month, and while they remain near historic lows, a sustained rise could slow price gains particularly in expensive coastal markets. Putting the move in context, last week housing expert Mark Hanson warned that for end-buyers who rely on mortgages to purchase a house, "Houses have never been more expensive to end-user, mortgage-needing shelter buyers. The recent rate surge crushed what little affordability remained in US housing. It now it requires 45% more income to buy the average-priced house than just four years ago, as incomes have not kept pace it goes without saying. The spike in rates has taken "UNAFFORDABILITY" to such extremes that prices, rates, and/or credit are now radically out of scope. " * * * But even before the recent spike in rates, not all was as rosy as the headline would make it seem: about 12% of homeowners who have a mortgage now owe more than their home is worth, down from more than 30% at the bottom of the market, according to Zillow. “Personally I wouldn’t be throwing confetti because my house is worth what I paid for it back eight years ago,” said Nela Richardson, chief economist at real-estate brokerage Redfin. Still, in many parts of the country that were battered by the crash, a return to near-normal conditions has come as welcome relief, and faster than many expected. The median home value in Lehigh Acres, Fla., on the eastern edge of Fort Myers, bottomed at about $61,000 after peaking at $230,500 in July 2006, according to Zillow. Today, the median home price has risen to about $140,000, a level officials say is closer to what the area can sustain in an era of tight mortgage credit. In fact, Fort Myers now has a shortage of starter homes, said Mayor Randall Henderson. In short: today's report was good news for housing; however the real test for the US housing market will be what happens as the recent "renormalization" in rates takes hold; absent a similar rebound in wages, the latest all time high in home prices will prove to be short lived. Finally, one can't ignore the political component: housing peaking just as Obama leaves. We have a feeling it will have a far more turbulent time under president Trump...

28 ноября, 18:50

Our Liar-In-Chief--The Con Artist

The New York Post has confirmed what many of US already know. Prez-elect Donald Trump is not about to change his lying ways, which includes blatantly attacking anyone who threatens to uncover his many con games. The Post just reported at a meeting of TV execs and reporters in Trump Tower: "It was like a f−−−ing firing squad," one source said of the encounter. "Trump started with [CNN chief] Jeff Zucker and said, 'I hate your network, everyone at CNN is a liar and you should be ashamed,'" the source said. This is from The Liar-In-Chief, who has been and continues to be caught in his own lies and deceitful behavior, whenever someone questions his statements. USA Today reports he has at least 75 lawsuits against him, not counting the tentatively settled 3 Trump University class action lawsuits, one of which was for charges of fraud and racketeering. Why did he single out CNN in his rant? Because CNN caught him out. As Vox reported, Argentinian President Mauricio Macri and Argentinian officials denied there was any link between Macri's call to Trump and the revival of his Buenos Aires high-rise project, as soon as Trump won the Electoral College. "But as CNN reports, the YY Development Group, the company meant to build the Buenos Aires tower, announced just three days after the Trump-Macri call that construction on the tower could begin in summer of 2017. The project has a $100 million budget, and is "only waiting final approval from the city government." "The meeting was a total disaster," continued the Post source. "The TV execs and anchors went in there thinking they would be discussing the access they would get to the Trump administration, but instead they got a Trump-style dressing-down," the source added. A second source confirmed the fireworks... "Trump kept saying, 'We're in a room of liars, the deceitful, dishonest media who got it all wrong.' He addressed everyone in the room, calling the media dishonest, deceitful liars" In fact, we know what he wanted to hide. Revealing his tax returns, for instance, could confirm his extensive foreign business connections. A Financial Times investigation has found evidence that one Trump venture has multiple ties to an alleged international money laundering network, said the Times. "Title deeds, bank records and correspondence show that a Kazakh family accused of laundering hundreds of millions of stolen dollars bought luxury apartments in a Manhattan tower part-owned by Mr Trump and embarked on major business ventures with one of the tycoon's partners." And this is after his now infamous interview with the New York Times, in which he maintained that "Presidents don't have conflicts of interest," which is blatantly false. The U.S. Constitution doesn't allow foreign governments to benefit a U.S. President, because it might influence our foreign policy, which could endanger all of US. So now we know why he singled out CNN. Trump will accuse others of lying, in order to attempt to deflect attention from his own too obvious fabrications. It is classic con artist behavior as I discussed in my previous column, The Real Donald Trump--Part II. In it Maria Konnikova implied that Trump was a classic Con Artist with her now famous New Yorker article: "A grifter takes advantage of a person's confidence for his own specific ends--ends that are often unknowable to the victim and unrelated to the business at hand. He willfully deceives a mark into handing over his trust under false pretenses. He has a plan." Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has to be another classic con-artist to convince enough Wisconsin voters to back his plan to ban the collective bargaining of public school teachers (while exempting Police and Firemen's unions), which reduced teacher union-membership by half, which will in effect reduce their salaries and benefits. This flies in the face of modern economic theory, which says reducing bargaining power reduces incomes, which decreases the aggregate demand for goods and services for the 80 percent of workers with wages and salaries, which in turn reduces economic growth. Nobel economist Robert Shiller attributes such irrational behavior (behavior that is not in their best interests) in Trump's victory to a sense of economic powerlessness, or a fear of losing power, among his supporters. To them, his simple slogan, "Make America great again," sounds like "Make YOU great again": economic power will be given to the multitudes, without taking anything away from the already successful. Really? The result for Wisconsin has been job and economic growth has consistently underperformed that of its neighboring states, while the budget deficit has ballooned. The expected shortfall for the next two-year state budget starting in July 2015 has risen to nearly $1.8 billion, or about half of what it was when Gov. Scott Walker took office in January 2011, according to the Milwaukee-Wisconsin Sentinel Journal. This is also classic Republican Trickle-down economics, the theory that reducing taxes of the rich will credit more jobs and growth, whereas it has resulted in just the opposite since the 1980s--lower taxes and soaring budget deficits. This is also part of the larger con game that has made so-called red states that suffer the most from Republican politics now overwhelmingly Republican. Nobelist Paul Krugman in a recent Op-ed seems puzzled by this. "To be honest, I don't fully understand this resentment. In particular, I don't know why imagined liberal disdain inspires so much more anger than the very real disdain of conservatives who see the poverty of places like eastern Kentucky as a sign of the personal and moral inadequacy of their residents." But it is understandable if their regions have deteriorated economically and socially to such an extent that drug use and suicide rates have soared. These are the people that have suffered most from the fast-changing modern economy that left them behind. So why wouldn't they listen and be most susceptible to the siren call of such a snake-oil salesmen as Donald Trump or Scott Brown? How is it even possible for them to know what is in their best interest when blinded by the suffering of many in their own families and communities? In fact, Trump's call to revolution is really a counter-revolution, a return to a misty-eyed, white nation with a level of corruption not seen since that time. Harlan Green © 2016 Follow Harlan Green on Twitter: https://twitter.com/HarlanGreen -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

27 ноября, 11:06

Links for 11-27-16

Trump, and Great Business Ideas for America - Robert Shiller Drivers of wealth persistence across generations - VoxEU A Donald Trump-Led Trip Back to the Gold-Plated ’80s - Robert Frank Whatever happened to the government debt doom spiral - mainly...

Выбор редакции
18 ноября, 20:00

The Numbers Look Great... As They Always Do Before A Crash

Submitted by John Mauldin via MauldinEconomics.com, It’s quarterly report time for US stocks. If you just casually glance at the earnings news, you might think companies are having a great year. Many are beating expectations and reporting impressive revenues and profits. The markets reward companies for meeting expectations (as we shall see below). But the reality is that the S&P 500 is on track for a sixth straight drop in year-over-year earnings. How do companies keep continuing to beat expectations when earnings are falling? Expectations take a dive Equity analysts are a big part of the problem. Their job should be getting those estimates right. They should not just take what are clearly suspect numbers from companies and plug them into their spreadsheets. The chart below is from my friends at Ned Davis Research. It shows the consensus estimates for S&P 500 operating earnings when those estimates are first created and then what happens to the estimates over time. This chart starts with the year 2012, and there has not been one year since that has not seen a significant revision downward of earnings forecasts. In 2015 (the green line if you are seeing this in color), consensus estimates went from an initial forecast of $137 to barely above $100 by the end of the year. That is a huge miss—over 30%. But that dive didn’t dismay the analysts because they initially predicted roughly the same level of earnings for 2016. And as of September 30, it looked as though earnings are going to come in at roughly $110. For 2017, earnings predictions started above $140 and are now down to $132. In a world where GDP growth may be in the neighborhood of 2%, do you think it makes a whole lot of sense that earnings are going to grow by 20% in 2017? Really? Honest?   And these are operating earnings—you know, what I called EBIBS: Earnings Before Interest and Bad Stuff. The lie is leading to another 2008 event—or 1929 When bullish analysts talk about the price-to-earnings ratio (P/E ratio) being roughly 20 today, they are using operating earnings in their calculation. If they used reported earnings, they would find that the P/E ratio is roughly 24, a 20% difference and certainly up in nosebleed territory. I should note that using the much more useful CAPE (the cyclically adjusted P/E ratio created by Professor Robert Shiller), today’s P/E is 26.79. That is back up in 2007 range and was exceeded only in the irrational markets of 2000 and 1929. And it’s higher than when the bear markets of 1901 and 1966 started. Digging a little farther, you find that analysts are projecting earnings to grow roughly 30% from where we sit today by the end of 2017. It rather boggles the mind that people take these estimates seriously. But that is the problem. A very large number of people and market advisors do. That is why, of course, you hear that you’ve got to be bullish and stay in the market. Because if earnings really do rise that much, a forecast of 2500 on the S&P is not unreasonable in this market environment. And so you get a lot of predictions of a big S&P 500 bull market in 2017. Drink some Kool-Aid with us It won’t be long before Barron’s puts out its annual forecast issue. It will be interesting to see just how bullish the estimate for the S&P will be. Just a wild guess from me, but I bet the consensus will be somewhere in the 2400 range. It seems the Barron’s forecasters and the analysts running the S&P numbers are all drinking from the same well. That must be some mighty fine water. *  *  * Contrary to common belief, it’s not greedy Wall Street brokers that are wrecking the US economy—but academic policymakers like the ones employed by the Federal Reserve. And they all have the best intentions… Read financial-bestseller author John Mauldin’s riveting special report, How the High Priests of Economics Are Leading Us to Monetary Hell. Click here to get your free copy now.

14 ноября, 20:18

Correcting Some Misconceptions About A New Secular Bull Market

Submitted by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com, I recently penned a post discussing the idea of a “new secular bull market,” which, not surprisingly, garnered a good bit of push back from the “always bullish crowd.”  However, while the thesis of a new secular bull market is interesting, it is based on some flawed assumptions on interest rates, valuations and time frames. Interest Rates The first assumption was that interest rates have now begun a secular shift higher based simply on the premise that rates are so low they must now go up. While the chart clearly shows that interest rates have hit the same levels as last seen in 1946, the view rates will rise strongly from current levels assumes that the same economic drivers exist today. In 1946, the United States had just exited WWII which left Europe and Japan in ruins. The United States became the manufacturing center of the industrialized world as we assisted in the rebuilding of Germany, Britain, France and Japan. That is no longer the case today as much of our industrial manufacturing has been outsourced to other countries for lower costs, technology has replaced jobs by increasing productivity, and demographic trends now weigh against stronger economic growth rates. Importantly, interest rates are a reflection of actual economic growth, rising pricing power for goods and services, and wage growth across the bottom 80% of employees. The chart below shows interest rates overlaid against the annual changes in those factors. While there are many “hopes” currently economic growth will pick up in 2017, just as there have been in every year since the financial crisis, the structural and demographic headwinds remain present. With the consumer heavily indebted, wage growth muted and global economies running at very weak rates, the ongoing demand for lower prices on goods and services will require continued wage suppression through “job exportation” and lower financing costs to maintain profitability. Therefore, there is very little room for rate increases before an “economic dampening” occurs which will keep a lid on interest rates in the future. This has been the ongoing problem for Japan which has seen interest rates stuck at low levels for the last two decades. While there are many arguments that we are not Japan, with which I agree, there are many similarities from an economic perspective.   Valuations The second argument for entry into a secular bull market is based on valuations. The S&P 500 currently trades at 16.71x this year’s bottom-up operating earnings estimate. In their seminal book ‘Security Analysis,’ Graham & Dodd published an equation about how to calculate a proper Price to Earnings Ratio (P/E).  The formula was: P/E = 8 + (2 x Expected Earnings Growth) It is currently expected that this year’s operating earnings growth will be 10.24% from last year. Since estimates are consistently overly estimated by 33%, it is likely this assumption will turn out to be too high. However, lets’ assume it is correct for the moment, despite higher interest rates and a strong dollar, and companies are able to add an additional $9/share in earnings from Q3 of this year. This would put the current Q4-P/E (2164 / $109) at 19.84x. If next year’s earnings estimate of $131.18 is anywhere close to the mark, it would suggest a year-end price of 2,602 (19.84x * $131.18) for the S&P 500.  That statement should get just about everyone excited as such would imply a surge of 20.01% in 2017 from the current price levels. However, there is a huge problem with this analysis.  Graham & Dodd never used forward operating earnings in the analysis as such metrics were not used when they published their seminal work. Graham focused on reported trailing earnings and always suggested in using an average of earnings (using a 5,7 or 10-year time frame) to smooth out anomalies. This smoothing of earnings was the basis for Professor Robert Shiller’s work on smoothing inflation-adjusted earnings using a 10-year average. Using reported earnings estimates for Q3-2016, which is the last fully completed quarter, and using the current price of 2164, the current P/E ratio is 24.20x earnings. From just about any historical perspective, the markets are now expensive. However, if we correctly use Graham’s formula using reported earnings, and the historical growth rate of earnings of 6%, we get the following valuation: P/E = 8 + (2*6) = 20x Let’s assume, since forward estimates are historically overestimated by 30%, that forward estimates come in at $112/share which would be a 25% increase from current levels. This would imply a target of 2240 for 2017 or a return of 3.3%. Importantly, a 3.3% rate of return from such levels of high valuation would be consistent with historical norms. If we use the current forward estimates for reported earnings in 2017, revised down from $122.60 to $112 per share, and use estimated year-end reported earnings for 2016 of $99.89, the earnings growth rate is 10%. Graham’s formula then changes to: P/E = 8 + (2*10) = 28x Such a valuation would exceed every other secular bull market valuation peak in history with the exception of the “tech bubble” in 2000. The chart below shows the historical P/E ratio using trailing reported earnings from 1900-present. I have capped P/E’s at 25x to give you a perspective on longer-term investment cycles as they relate to valuations.  However, a P/E ratio of 28x reported earnings would imply a target for the S&P of 2509 or a 15% rise from current levels over the next 12 months. While such a price rise could conceivably occur, the likelihood of such an increase in the current environment is unlikely. The most likely outcome will either be a disappointment in earnings, prices or both.   Time Frames Lastly, a discussion focused on time frames is important. There are many who are currently espousing that a new “secular bull market like the 1982-2000 affair.” began with the breakout of the markets to new all-time highs in 2013. First, the chart shows the secular bull/bear markets back to 1871. While the average “secular period” has average 14-years, that average was skewed by the very short secular bull market of 5+ years leading up to the 1929 peak. More importantly, while it is assumed the secular “bear market” ended at 13 years, the average historical secular bear market has averaged 17 years.  In a complete vacuum of other data, it would suggest that the current secular cycle still more room to go, and one more nasty decline, to complete the cycle. But there is a more important point that is consistently overlooked in the attempt by the mainstream media to promote a bullish case. As shown in the chart below, investors tend to use a significant chunk of the “secular bull” market periods just getting “back to even.”  In other words, for most investors, the process of “getting back to even” left them far short of the investment goals they began with. This is why the current labor force participation rates of those well into retirement years are at the highest level on record. They aren’t working because they “want” to, it’s because they “have” to. Secondly, the ability to have a “1982-2000 affair” is highly improbable. The 1982-2000 secular bull market cycle was driven primarily by a multiple expansion process with a beginning valuation level of 5-7x earnings and a dividend yield of 6%. Interest rates and inflation were at extremely high levels and were at the beginning of a 30-year decline which would increase profitability as production and interest rate costs fell. Lastly, the consumer was at the beginning of a period of a leverage ramp up which spurred consumption levels to almost 70% of GDP. With inflation and interest rates currently at low levels, and consumers already heavily levered relative to historical norms, the drivers that led to the secular bull market in of the 80-90’s simply do not exist today. Conclusion While being a “stark raving bull” going into 2017 is certainly fashionable currently; as investors, we should place our faith, and hard earned savings, into the reality of the underlying fundamentals. It is entirely conceivable the current momentum driven markets, fueled by ongoing Central Bank interventions combined with optimism over the potential for economic reforms under the new administration, could certainly drift higher in the months to come. However, the reality is that the current underlying demographic trends, economic realities, and market fundamentals do not provide the base to support current price levels much less the entrance into a secular bull market akin to that of the 80’s and 90’s. Of course, with virtual entirety of Wall Street being extremely bullish on the markets and economy going into 2017, along with bullish sentiment at extremely high levels, it certainly brings to mind Bob Farrell’s Rule #9 which states: “When all experts agree – something else is bound to happen.” There are simply too many things we “don’t know that we don’t know.”  For that reason alone, 2017 could well turn out to be an interesting year for all the wrong reasons.

07 ноября, 18:10

What Is the Truth?

Maybe it isn't as important for some voters to worry about, or even want to know the facts in this presidential campaign. That is, what are the truths behind all the accusations and allegations being hurled at both candidates? Maybe the issues are just too complex, and events too fast-moving to catch who is really riding in the speeding train of this election? But that doesn't have to be so. We know those of the mass media are almost as buffaloed as much of the American public about the issues. Donald Trump, for instance, says he will bring many of those jobs lost to trade agreements home, and create "prosperity for all". Yet we are already at a 4.9 percent unemployment rate and 11 million have found jobs over the last 8 years--the lowest unemployment rate in 9 years since the end of the Great Recession. Though it's true many millions have stopped looking for work--many of them white, disgruntled Trump supporters. Hillary Clinton says she will expand social security, Medicare, and Obamacare benefits, as well as bring about tuition-free public colleges and universities, but at tremendous cost that will be covered by having the wealthiest "pay their fair share" of taxes. This is a legitimate conservative concern. But then we have foreign and domestic intelligence agents almost unanimously warning that Putin's Russia has hacked Democratic Party emails for the benefit of presidential candidate Trump. Actually, forget about the hacking, if some don't want to believe Trump's Russian connections. Trump was directly quoted as far back as 2007 on CNN that Russian President Vladimir Putin was doing a "great job." In 2013, Trump tweeted: "Do you think Putin will be going to The Miss Universe Pageant in November in Moscow - if so, will he become my new best friend?" There has always been a thin line between truth and propaganda of any kind that seeks to push an agenda. Millions of Germans apparently believed Hitler and Goebbels hatred of Jews was based on the fact of Jews' racial inferiority, for instance. Trumps basis for his "crooked Hillary" claims are her neglect or misuse of private email servers while a federal official. But the FBI has finally cleared her of any crime, in part because her assistants, Jake Sullivan in the State Department, and Huma Abedin, her reputed most trusted advisor and friend, were actually the ones being investigated for this misuse. And what about those boasts by Trump that his economic policies would bring back jobs? A group of 370 economists, including eight Nobel laureates in economics, have signed a letter warning against the election of Republican nominee Donald Trump, calling him a "dangerous, destructive choice" for the country, reports the Wall Street Journal. Signatories include economists Angus Deaton of Princeton University, who won the economics Nobel last year, and Oliver Hart of Harvard University, who was one of the two Nobel winners this year. Why are economists so concerned with the supposedly successful billionaire? "He misinforms the electorate, degrades trust in public institutions with conspiracy theories and promotes willful delusion over engagement with reality," said the signatories, which also include Paul Romer, the new chief economist at the World Bank, and Kenneth Arrow, the 1972 Nobel winner. This is while a separate group of 19 winners of the Nobel Prize in economics endorsed Hillary Clinton in a letter posted online late Monday. "I don't normally engage in politics, but I decided to sign this one because I think that the destruction that Trump's campaign tactics have done to the institutions of this nation is a great moral issue," said Robert Shiller, the Yale University economist. "It isn't Republican versus Democrat. It isn't a normal political statement. It is a feeling of outrage against a demagogue." There are other indications that the U.S. economy could enter another recession, if Donald Trump were elected. He supports House Republican Speaker Paul Ryan, whose economic plans have consistently supported trickle-down economics--dropping tax rates mainly at the top, repealing Obamacare, while privatizing social security and Medicare. Doesn't this look like the failed policies of GW Bush that led to the Great Recession? Harlan Green © 2016 Follow Harlan Green on Twitter: https://twitter.com/HarlanGreen -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Выбор редакции
17 октября, 16:36

Past Is Prologue: New Secular Bull Or A Repeat Of The 70s

Submitted by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com, Last Monday, I discussed why you should be worried about corrections due to the damage inflicted upon your investment capital and the time required to “get back to even.” Not surprisingly, as usual when I discuss such heresy as actually managing your money, I received several emails stating we are in a new “secular bull market” and “indexing” is now the best approach. It is an interesting point and one that has been prognosticated by several Wall Street analysts in recent months. However, again not surprisingly, I disagree. Let me explain. A secular market refers to a market trend that persists over decades. The chart below shows the history of secular bull market periods going back to 1871 using data from Dr. Robert Shiller. One thing you will notice is that secular bull markets tend to begin with valuations below 10x earnings and end at 23-25x earnings. (Over the long-term valuations do matter.) The chart below compares the last secular “bear” market that ran from 1963 to 1982 as compared the current cycle. Notice the chart for this previous period stops in 1973. I will show you the rest of this period in a moment. What is important, besides the very similar pattern between the two periods, is the breakout in 1969 did not start a new bull market. It was a setup for the next major decline. “Okay, but the breakout in 1972 was surely the beginning of the new secular bull market – right?” Not so fast. The second breakout in 1972, like the previous, was the setup for the final market dive that reset valuation levels back to historic secular bear market lows. That crash also created the necessary extreme negative in investor psychology. The 1974 bear market low is known as a “black bear market” because investors were so brutally ravaged by the crash they did not return until nearly two decades later.  But it is not just price action that denotes secular bull and bear market periods. Nor is it just cheap valuations. The ability to have a “1982-2000 affair” is highly improbable. The 1982-2000 secular bull market cycle was driven primarily by a multiple expansion process which began with valuation levels of 5-7x earnings and a dividend yield of 6%. Interest rates and inflation were at extremely high levels and were at the beginning of a 30-year decline which would increase profitability as production and interest rate costs fell. The first chart shows the secular bear market of the 60’s and 70’s with an overlay of valuations, dividends, interest rates and inflation. You will notice that at the beginning of the bear market in the 60’s valuations were high while everything else was low. By the end of the secular period, these factors were reversed. Now, let’s juxtapose that previous period with the much beloved, and hoped for, secular bull market of the 1980’s and 90’s. There were several contributing factors that drove that particular secular bull market: Inflation and interest rates were high and falling which boosted corporate profitability. The extreme negative sentiment of the late 70’s was finally undone by the early 90’s.  (At the turn of the century roughly 80% of all individual investors in the market began investing after 1990. 80% of that total started after 1995 due to the investing innovations created by the Internet.  The majority of these were “boomers.”) Large foreign net inflows to chase the “tech boom” drove prices to extreme levels. The mirage of consumer wealth, driven by declining inflation and interest rates and easy access to credit, inflated consumption, corporate profits, and economic growth. Corporate profits were boosted by deregulation of industries, wage suppression, outsourcing and productivity increases.  Pension funding requirements and accounting standards were eased which increased corporate profits.  Stock-based executive compensation was grossly expanded which led to more “accounting gimmickry” to sustain stock price levels. The dual panel chart below shows the economic fundamentals versus the S&P 500 and the change that occurred beginning in 1983.  (Red dividing line) I have also noted the expanding “megaphone” pattern in the current market as compared to that of the 60’s and 70’s. Despite much hope that the current breakout of the markets is the beginning of a new secular “bull” market – the economic and fundamental variables suggest otherwise. Valuations and sentiment are at very elevated levels which are the opposite of what has been seen previously. Interest rates, inflation, wages and savings rates are all at historically low levels which are normally seen at the end of secular bull market periods, not the beginning of one. Lastly, the consumer, the main driver of the economy, will not be able to again become a significantly larger chunk of the economy. With savings low, income growth weak and debt back at record levels, the fundamental capacity to releverage to similar extremes is no longer available. While stock prices can certainly be driven much higher through the Federal Reserve’s ongoing interventions, the inability for the economic variables to “replay the tape” of the 80’s and 90’s increases the potential of a rather nasty mean reversion at some point in the future. It is precisely that reversion that will likely create the “set up” necessary to start the next great secular bull market. However, as was seen at the bottom of the market in 1974, there were few individual investors left to enjoy the beginning of that ride. Hold on to your hats friends – 2017 could well turn out to be an interesting year for all the wrong reasons.

17 октября, 13:53

Что происходит в мировой экономике?

Финансовые спекулянты медленно, но верно тащат её в кризис На первый взгляд, ничего особенного. Никакого экономического спада, о котором почему-то часто пишут российские СМИ, нет и в помине. Глобальная экономика растет, пусть медленнее, чем 10-15 лет тому назад, но растет. По данным МВФ, в 2015 мировой ВВП увеличился  на 3,1%. Фонд прогнозирует такой же рост […]

14 октября, 20:36

What’s Behind a Rise in Ethnic Nationalism? Maybe the Economy

Robert Shiller: What’s Behind a Rise in Ethnic Nationalism? Maybe the Economy: Global economic weakness and a rise in inequality appear to be causing a disturbing growth in ethnic nationalism. ... In the United States, despite his attempts to woo...

13 октября, 02:45

The Beer Goggles Stock Market

Authored by Danielle DiMartino Booth, If you’re ever headed down Topperwein Road in Live Oak, Texas with a need to unwind and bend an elbow, pull on in at the town’s local watering hole, the Beer Goggles Bar, and order up a cold one. The bartenders are reported to always be on their ‘A’ game and the music next to none. It is of course only fitting that a bar in Texas named for the propensity of alcohol to render members of the opposite sex more attractive not be given a soft flowery name. Can’t picture a parking lot full of mud-caked pickup trucks bellied-up to the Rose Colored Glasses Lounge. Though the two idioms reference a similar phenomenon, it’s only the origin of rose-colored that’s a matter of dispute. Going back to the 17th century, it might have been the popularity of romantic imagery in art work which inspired viewers to associate optimism with the colors of painted rose gardens. Victorians also liked the idea of a “rosy glow” or painting a rosy picture by adding extraneous roses to liven up their art. A less romantic origin could have come from the use of rose petals by early map makers to clean the lenses of their eyeglasses to the extent that the oils left their spectacles literally rosy. Some say it was in merry old England that the phrase rose-tinted spectacles was first turned? Or, it might have been the romantic French who coined it? Literary history gave us this in 1841: “L’optimiste souriant qui regarde la vie a travers des lunettes roses.” In the event your language of love is a rusty, that translates to, “The smiling optimist who looks at life through rose-colored glasses.” A Wall Street Journal story that ran last week categorically dispensed with the notion that investors were looking at stock market valuation too optimistically. The bears simply have a measurement issue. The road to happiness for these growling party poopers? A refresher in accounting. Many of us are familiar with Robert Shiller who among other economic feats made famous his cyclically-adjusted price-earnings ratio, or CAPE. The method is simple and elegant — smooth out the ups and downs that rattle earnings trends by valuing shares based not on one, but rather 10 years of earnings. The CAPE’s efficacy gained in stature as the years passed for its ability to predict the future direction of the stock market. And what’s not to like about that? But then along came some accounting changes that effectively pressured earnings downwards, which in turn made the CAPE ratio flash overvaluation where it once would not have, as it is today at 27 suggesting stocks are more overvalued than at any time but the peak of the tech bubble and 1929. The article goes on to highlight an alternative to the CAPE which gauges valuation based on those same 10 years, but uses Commerce Department quarterly data, which has the benefit of consistency over time. With that, the voila moment arrives: The scrubbed clean P/E ratio comes in at 19, a smidge over its 50-year average of 17, but nowhere near the 39 sported during the dotcom bubble or even the 24 level that marked stocks’ 2007 peak. So come on in! The water’s just right! Suffice it to say, the neatness of the article’s conclusion did not sit right with yours truly. In the giving credit where credit is due department, The Lindsey Group’s Peter Boockvar first coined “beer goggles” to describe investors’ forgiving attitude towards risky assets and stocks especially. The source of the insouciance, you ask? The soothing flows of quantitative easing that clouded investors’ collective judgement. “From their trough in 2009, corporate earnings have been gussied up by extremely low interest expense, lower tax rates, a reduced share of profits going to labor (fell to the lowest in the post WWII period), reduced depreciation expense due to a slower rate of capital spending and massive stock buybacks,” explained Boockvar in a recent chat. “Thus, the earnings recovery should be considered low quality.” On that last count, the math is lacking on the aggregate effect of share repurchases on stock valuations. But there are some data that shed light on the power of buybacks to bolster stock prices. Goldman Sachs figures that companies in the Standard & Poor’s 500 (S&P 500) index directed nearly a third of their cash to buybacks last year. S&P looked instead through the prism of reported earnings and determined that dividends and buybacks have represented an average of 85 percent of earnings since 1998 with the two exceptions of recession years 2001 and 2008. Reuters expanded the pool to peer into the behavior of the 3,297 publicly traded non-financials and found that almost 60 percent of the companies have bought back their shares since 2010. Until recently, the trend was in full blown acceleration mode. 2014 clocked in as the first in which spending on dividends and buybacks exceeded companies’ combined net income. Firms’ excessive enthusiasm carried well into 2015. As for what we the people have to show for what’s been returned to shareholders, it can be best summed up as something south of a goose egg. Among the 1,900 companies giving it all back and then some, their largess tallied to 113 percent of capital spending, up from 60 percent in 2000 and 38 percent in 1990. And they say we have a productivity conundrum in this country? Do you see any gray area given companies aren’t even deploying capital to then return to shareholders? As UBS’ legendary Arthur Cashin once quipped, “Such environments raise the not-so-fine art of financial engineering to a ‘botox state.’” Yet another Wall Street legend, Warren Buffett, has been known to sound the warning of the perils of rich buybacks. In his 2012 letter to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders, Buffett reminded his readers that the most important factor that feeds a buyback decision should be price: “Value is destroyed when purchases are made above intrinsic value.” (Maybe IBM’s copy of the report got lost in the mail that year.) So companies have thrown over $7 trillion into buybacks since 2004, aggressively reducing share count in the process, and we’re supposed to disregard the effect of this massive booster shot on reported earnings per share? Does that sit right with you? In the event buybacks have yet to get under your skin, in August J.P. Morgan reported that 39 percent of buybacks thus far this year were funded by issuing new debt, nearly double the 22 percent in the same period in 2015. There’s no denying stocks are near record highs. The question then becomes one of the value shareholders think they’re getting vs. what is actually being “destroyed,” to borrow Buffett’s word. With fresh corporate debt flooding at a record pace, you can bet your bottom dollar there’s more to come despite buybacks ebbing a bit. The question is, how distorted are earnings due to the unprecedented buyback binge, to say nothing of the other factors Boockvar mentioned? It should strike you as a bit presumptuous to debate which P/E ratio is best to use when it’s impossible to quantify the aggregate flatter factor care not only of buybacks, but also appreciably lower taxes and interest expenses that barely register in positive territory. The working assumption that rational interest rates are a myth is thus dangerous bordering on reckless. Boockvar suggests that investors who prefer to sleep at night gauge valuation through a clearer prism: “Instead of pricing equities off this fragile state of earnings, look at valuations compared to revenue, which cannot be manipulated. This should give a better metric of how overvalued the equity market currently is.” What’s not to like about dividing a company’s market capitalization by its sales over the last twelve months? Hard to manipulate that. Sequestering the stocks in the S&P 500 reveals that at a median of 2.3-times sales, companies are more overvalued than ever. In the event you’d like a bit of historic context, the two-level was never breached in 1999 or 2007. With that, it would seem to be high time to don your rose-colored glasses. Reality, it would seem, is too expensive to see with naked eyes. If you prefer, you can Redneck the exercise and pop on a pair of beer goggles. You might even want to mosey on down to Live Oak for a frothy brew to celebrate how reasonably stocks are valued. If you do, be sure to ask for the bartender Danielle by name. The reviews say she’s the best of the best. But no, in case you’re curious, no relation at all.

13 октября, 02:20

CAPE, Future Expected Equity Returns, the Equity Premium, and Market Timing

I think this, by the very sharp Justin Lahart is badly framed. Shiller's CAPE a hair over 27 is telling us that if we buy the S&P Composite and hold it to infinity, we can expect a real return to average 5%/year ±, where the ± can, of course, be...

08 октября, 18:29

The Week Ahead: Overvalued Or Not - It Still Could Be A Tough October

The Friday release of the latest employment data makes the upcoming earning's season the focus of most investors and traders. Though most forecasters are looking for another quarter of negative earnings I think investors are more likely to see the first quarter of earnings gains in well over a year. Since September 9th and 12th the S&P 500 has stayed in a rather broad range as both the rallies and declines have not lasted long. The strength of the monthly market internals I discussed last week does favor higher prices at year end though October could be a tough market. wa10-7a The recent scares over Deutsche Bank and the Thursday night plunge in the British Pound (see chart) have increased the fear level and reduced the appetite for stocks. There has been no heavy selling yet but it cannot be ruled out in the weeks ahead. The market internals were negative overall last week as the number of advancing stocks was not impressive even on the up days. In election years, unlike the rest of the time, October is not a good month for stocks. According to the Stock Trader's Almanac since 1950 the S&P has averaged a 0.7% decline in election years. But since 1950 the S&P 500 in October has been higher 41 years and down 25 years with an average return of 0.80%. In addition to the large number of bearish hedge fund managers Bank of America's Savita Subramanian expressed her negative outlook last week as they have a yearend target for the S&P 500 at 2000. Though none of her most reliable indicators are warning of a recession she is worried about complacency. It should be noted that she has often been too negative during the bull market. Still there are several analysts that feel the odds of a bear market is low as they also feel the lack of euphoria amongst investors (What's Missing From This Bull Market?) is not characteristic of a major bull market top. In a Bankrate article they quoted S&P's Sam Stovall "All bull markets since World War II that lasted longer than 4 years went out with a bang, not a whimper," he explains. "Investors will likely become overly confident, not cautious, before this bull comes to an end." I also find the current low level of public participation to be uncharacteristic of a bull market top. Of course one of the primary arguments against the bull market is that stocks are two expensive. Many point to CAPE P/E formula developed by Robert Shiller that uses S&P earnings. As discussed in last week's Wall Street Journal article it is currently at 27 which was close to the reading at the 2007 market top.

06 октября, 06:00

How To Win A Nobel Prize (Rebroadcast)

The gist: the Nobel selection process is famously secretive (and conducted in Swedish!) but we pry the lid off, at least a little bit. The post How To Win A Nobel Prize (Rebroadcast) appeared first on Freakonomics.

05 октября, 08:01

Книжная полка Кримсона

(журнал оффлайн)Оригинал взят у crimsonalter в Книжная полка КримсонаПо многочисленным пожеланиям читателей, публикую монстр-пост, содержащий список книг и статей, которые, по моему скромному мнению, могут помочь осмыслить происходящие вокруг процессы.Специальные уточнения: это МОЙ личный список, это моя личная "книжная полка" в ее максимально укороченной версии. Нет, это не "курс обучения". Нет, я не согласен со всеми авторами. Нет, это не "список книг, чтобы думать как Кримсон". Это список книг, которые помогут думать. Сам факт мышления - уже большое достижение в наше время.Акценты в списке (так как это мой список) сделаны на финансы, экономику, пропаганду и геополитику, с небольшими вкраплениями моей отсебятины на другие темы. Список не претендует на академичность, интеллектуальность, последовательность и так далее. Он вообще ни на что не претендует. Кому он подходит? Не знаю. Надеюсь, что каждый сможет найти в нем что-то полезное. На всякий случай, список сопровождают краткие комментарии. Первоначальный набор книг был намного больше, но я постарался его обрезать чтобы он принял хоть сколь-нибудь удобоваримую форму.Последнее важное уточнение - по большей части список состоит из литературы, которая писалась и издавалась на английском языке. В большинстве случаев я понятия не имею есть ли русские переводы (предполагаю, что для большинства книг - есть), и понятия не имею об их качестве, так как все нижеперечисленное я читал на языке оригинала, что и вам настоятельно рекомендую.Поехали!Экономика и околоэкономическая теория:Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations -- Стоит прочитать чтобы иметь собственное представление о "невидимой руке рынка" и что Смит действительно под ней подразумевал (и что не понимают российские псевдолибералы)David Ricardo, On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation -- основоположник теории free tradeHa-Joon Chang, Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism -- одна из лучших книг, критикующих идеологических наследников RicardoThomas Robert Malthus, An Essay on the Principle of Population -- "мальтузиаство" считается одним из идеологических столпов наднациональных элит западного мираThomas Piketty, Capital in the Twenty-First Century -- книга, которая снова сделала поп-марксизм моднымLudwig von Mises, The Causes of the Economic Crisis, and Other Essays Before and After the Great Depression -- один из любимых экономистов социал-дарвинистов, "папа" Эйн Ранд и, наверное, самый уважаемый экономист "старого" Wall Street (сейчас Wall Street любит Кейнса)John Maynard Keynes, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money -- из этой книги выросли все или почти все идиотские теории о вытягивании экономики из кризиса за счет "накачки" деньгами. Примечательно, что авторы этих теорий в большинстве своем поняли Кейнса неправильно или превратно его интерпретировали. Книгу стоит прочитать в том числе ради знаменитого рассуждения о "бутылках с долларами", которые надо закапывать в угольные шахты, а потом откапывать.Milton Friedman, Optimum Quantity of Money and Other Essays -- коллекция эссе экономиста, который очень сильно повлиял на Рейгана и Тэтчер, а также автора мема "сбрасывать деньги с вертолета" (да, мем придумал Фридман, а "вертолетом" прозвали Бернанке)Ben Bernanke, The Courage to Act: A Memoir of a Crisis and Its Aftermath -- Воспоминания Бернанке о финансовом кризисе 2008. Так сказать "официальная версия США".Niall Ferguson, Ascent of Money -- одна из лучших книг по "истории денег" и банковского дела.John Forbes Nash, - Equilibrium Points in N-person Games, The Bargaining Problem, Non-cooperative Games, Two-person Cooperative Games -- да, тот самый Нэш, из "Игр разума". "Теорию игр" нужно знать для того чтобы понимать, через какую оптику на мировую экономику, дипломатию, да и геополитику в целом смотрят многие наши оппоненты. Может и вам эта оптика понравится своей жестокой математической чистотой и элегантностью.Friedrich Hayek, The Use of Knowledge In Society - ода ценообразованию как важному источнику информацииSteven Levitt, Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything -- одна из двух экономических книг, которую прочитали многие хипстеры нашей планеты. Помогает понять, что у многих из них в головах. Вторая книга, которую они прочитали - Пикетти.George Akerlof, The Market of Lemons - почему в условиях свободного рынка, с рынка исчезают качественные продукты и услуги.Charles Mackay, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds -- очень старая книга британского журналиста, который раскладывает (не идеально, но задорно) историю коллективных маний и финансовых кризисов, вызванных коллективной уверенностью, что "на этот раз все будет по-другому". На самом деле, под солнцем ничего нового нет.John Kenneth Galbraith, The Affluent Society - Эта книга воплощает в себе интеллектуальный "неолиберализм"George Akerlof & Robert Shiller, Animal Spirits: How Human Psychology Drives the Economy, and Why It Matters for Global Capitalism -- пересечение психологии и экономики. Прочтение помогает понять откуда у мировых ЦБ развилась мания "менеджмента ожиданий" вместо реальной монетарной политикиФинансы, финансовые рынкиBurton Malkiel, A Random Walk Down Wall Street -- библия верующих в теорию эффективного рынка (или "случайного" рынка)Sandford Grosman, On The Impossibility Of Informationally Efficient Markets -- очень хорошая критика теории эффективного рынкаJustin Fox, The Myth of the Rational Market -- убийственная критика теории рационального рынкаBenjamin Graham (Jason Zweig), The Intelligent Investor - книга из которой "родился" современный фундаментальный анализNassim Taleb, тетралогия Incerto: Fooled by Randomness, The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable, The Bed of Procrustes: Philosophical and Practical Aphorisms, Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder. -- Талеба надо читать. Всего. Вот просто надо. И когда выйдет книга про "Skin in the game", ее тоже надо читать.Матчасть (которую надо знать):Frank Fabozzi, Bond Markets, Analysis, and Strategies - бонды и все fixed income. Лучшей книги на эту тему все равно не придумали.John C. Hull, Options, Futures, and Other Derivatives - фьючерсы, опционы и другие деривативы. Стоит прочитать чтобы хотя бы перестать бояться этих "страшных слов" и начать с сочувствием смотреть на тех, кто при слове "дериватив" хватается за огнемет.Tim Weithers, Foreign Exchange: A Practical Guide to the FX Markets - валютный рынок, "объясненный на пальцах" и нормальным практиком, а не зазывалой очередной "форекс-кухни".опционально - Nassim Taleb, Dynamic Hedging: Managing Vanilla and Exotic Options - да, тот самый Талеб. Это его первая книга, написана для "финансовых маньяков", но она крайне полезна любому, к кому друзья, клиенты, знакомые и коллеги приходят после общения с очередным сейлзом из VIP отделения банка с папкой "уникальный VIP предложений, только для избранных". Обычно эти предложения состоят из всяких "эксклюзивных структурных продуктов". Полезно знать, на что это все раскладывается, и как правильно это все посчитать и понять насколько вашего друга/клиента хотят обмануть сейлзы.Книги о том, "как там все на самом деле" в финансовом мире, на примерах конкретных кризисов, банкротств и просто ежедневной деятельности крупных финансовых организаций:Satyajit Das, Traders, Guns & Money: Knowns & Unknowns in the Dazzling World of Derivatives - обязательно к прочтению. Michael Lewis, Liar's PokerMichael Lewis, The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine - про истоки нынешнего кризисаLiaquat Ahamed, Lords of FinanceBryan Burrough, Barbarians At the GateMervyn King, The End of Alchemy: Money, Banking, and the Future of the Global Economy - да, тот самый Мервин Кинг. И его книга в этом разделе потому что он в разы честнее Бернанке в плане описания того, что произошло в кризис. Все равно много врет, конечно.Peter Elkind, The Smartest Guys in the Room: the Amazing Rise and Scandalous Fall of EnronAdrew Ross Sorkin, Too Big to Fail: The Inside Story of How Wall Street and Washington Fought to Save the Financial System and Themselves -- читайте, если иметь представление о том, что произошло в первой фазе кризиса хочется, но внутреннее ханжество не позволяет читать слишком брутальные книги (те самые, где везде виски, секс, кокс, взятки и весь остальной рок-н-ролл).ГеополитикаKenneth Waltz, Man, the State, and War - компендиум теорий войны, принятых в западной наукеHenry A. Kissinger, книги: Diplomacy; On China; White House Years -- Киссинджер. Еще аргументы нужны?Robert Jervis, Perception and Misperception in International Politics - оптика западных аналитиков и геополитиковZbigniew Brzezinski, книги: The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives; Strategic Vision: America and the Crisis of Global Power --- Манифесты американской исключительности. Читать с пакетом для рвоты под рукой. Будет тошнить. Но читать надо. Они действительно так думают.Jared Diamond, Guns, Germs, and Steel - классический труд, показывающий как биология, география и другие вещи, которые зачастую не принято анализировать, влияют на геополитикуFrancis Fukuyama, Political Order and Political Decay: From the Industrial Revolution to the Globalization of Democracy -- Конец истории или еще не конец? Вот в чем вопрос.George Soros, книги: The Tragedy of the European Union: Disintegration or Revival? ; The Soros Lectures: At the Central European University -- коллекция взглядов и рассуждений одного из влиятельных идеологов однополярного мираDaniel W. Drezner, The Sanctions Paradox: Economic Statecraft and International Relations -- автор - член CFR и один из ведущих теоретиков политики "экономического давления", которой пользуются США.Daniel W. Drezner, Theories of International Politics and Zombies: Revived Edition -- есть авторы, которые могут объяснять "на пальцах". Drezner объясняет наиболее известные теории международных отношений "на зомби". Очень толково объясняет.Robert D. Blackwill, War by Other Means, Geoeconomics and Statecraft -- еще одна знаковая (но на этот раз очень свежая!) книга от члена CFR. Очень критический анализ того как Вашингтон достигает своих политических целей, зачастую предпочитая военную силу экономическому давлению, хотя (с точки зрения авторов) экономическое давление - это лучший инструмент.Теория и практика пропагандыRobert B. Cialdini, Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion -- пожалуй, лучший учебник классических приемов воздействия на аудиторию, клиентуру, близких и так далееEdward Bernays, Propaganda -- классика теории пропагандыEdward Bernays, Crystallizing Public Opinion - классика теории пропагандыGustave Le Bon, The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind -- одна из фундаментальных работ по психологии толпы. Очень неполиткорректная по нынешним меркам, но очень актуальная с точки зрения многих наших геополитических оппонентов.Ryan Holiday, Trust Me, I'm Lying: Confessions of a Media Manipulator -- приемы пропаганды и манипуляции, приложенные к современным реалиям, соцсетям и интернет-СМИВ качестве учебника по работе с публичной информацией и манипуляциями, могу предложить очень толковые книги российского автора:Ющук Е. Л. - "Конкурентная разведка: маркетинг рисков и возможностей", "Учебник по Конкурентной разведке" -- содержат инструментарий для работы с информацией, более чем достаточный для начала работы гражданского аналитика.Дополнительная, но важная литература:The Bible (King James Version) - несмотря на полную дехристианизацию западного мира, сам западный мир, его фундаментальные тексты и многие рассуждения его знаковых идеологов невозможно полностью понять без знакомства с библейскими сюжетами.William Shakespeare - пьесы, сонеты - Опять же, это часть культурного минимума, который ожидается многими серьезными западными авторами от читателей. Ну, и как говорится, "это просто красиво".Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow - одна из лучших книг о том, как мы думаем. Включена в этот раздел из-за того что считается теперь практически mandatory reading в продвинутой западной финансовой средеТихон Шевкунов, «Несвятые святые» -- этой книгой я завершаю список, и для этого есть веская причина. Погружение в мир финансов, геополитики и пропаганды, особенно если оно производится через чтение сильных и ярких книг об этих сферах человеческой деятельности, почти обязательно приводит к приступам тяжелейшей мизантропии и риску "выгорания". Для того чтобы этот риск минимизировать, да и просто не превратиться потихоньку в бездушную машину по анализу информации и генерированию "креатива", желательно разбавлять чтение книг из списка чтением чего-то, что будет напоминать о светлых сторонах жизни.В коменты можно кидать линки на русские (хорошие!) переводы и делиться впечатлениями. Приятного чтения.

25 сентября, 11:01

Книжная полка Кримсона

По многочисленным пожеланиям читателей, публикую монстр-пост, содержащий список книг и статей, которые, по моему скромному мнению, могут помочь осмыслить происходящие вокруг процессы.Специальные уточнения: это МОЙ личный список, это моя личная "книжная полка" в ее максимально укороченной версии. Нет, это не "курс обучения". Нет, я не согласен со всеми авторами. Нет, это не "список книг, чтобы думать как Кримсон". Это список книг, которые помогут думать. Сам факт мышления - уже большое достижение в наше время.Акценты в списке (так как это мой список) сделаны на финансы, экономику, пропаганду и геополитику, с небольшими вкраплениями моей отсебятины на другие темы. Список не претендует на академичность, интеллектуальность, последовательность и так далее. Он вообще ни на что не претендует. Кому он подходит? Не знаю. Надеюсь, что каждый сможет найти в нем что-то полезное. На всякий случай, список сопровождают краткие комментарии. Первоначальный набор книг был намного больше, но я постарался его обрезать чтобы он принял хоть сколь-нибудь удобоваримую форму.Последнее важное уточнение - по большей части список состоит из литературы, которая писалась и издавалась на английском языке. В большинстве случаев я понятия не имею есть ли русские переводы (предполагаю, что для большинства книг - есть), и понятия не имею об их качестве, так как все нижеперечисленное я читал на языке оригинала, что и вам настоятельно рекомендую.Поехали!Экономика и околоэкономическая теория:Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations -- Стоит прочитать чтобы иметь собственное представление о "невидимой руке рынка" и что Смит действительно под ней подразумевал (и что не понимают российские псевдолибералы)David Ricardo, On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation -- основоположник теории free tradeHa-Joon Chang, Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism -- одна из лучших книг, критикующих идеологических наследников RicardoThomas Robert Malthus, An Essay on the Principle of Population -- "мальтузиаство" считается одним из идеологических столпов наднациональных элит западного мираThomas Piketty, Capital in the Twenty-First Century -- книга, которая снова сделала поп-марксизм моднымLudwig von Mises, The Causes of the Economic Crisis, and Other Essays Before and After the Great Depression -- один из любимых экономистов социал-дарвинистов, "папа" Эйн Ранд и, наверное, самый уважаемый экономист "старого" Wall Street (сейчас Wall Street любит Кейнса)John Maynard Keynes, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money -- из этой книги выросли все или почти все идиотские теории о вытягивании экономики из кризиса за счет "накачки" деньгами. Примечательно, что авторы этих теорий в большинстве своем поняли Кейнса неправильно или превратно его интерпретировали. Книгу стоит прочитать в том числе ради знаменитого рассуждения о "бутылках с долларами", которые надо закапывать в угольные шахты, а потом откапывать.Milton Friedman, Optimum Quantity of Money and Other Essays -- коллекция эссе экономиста, который очень сильно повлиял на Рейгана и Тэтчер, а также автора мема "сбрасывать деньги с вертолета" (да, мем придумал Фридман, а "вертолетом" прозвали Бернанке)Ben Bernanke, The Courage to Act: A Memoir of a Crisis and Its Aftermath -- Воспоминания Бернанке о финансовом кризисе 2008. Так сказать "официальная версия США".Niall Ferguson, Ascent of Money -- одна из лучших книг по "истории денег" и банковского дела.John Forbes Nash, - Equilibrium Points in N-person Games, The Bargaining Problem, Non-cooperative Games, Two-person Cooperative Games -- да, тот самый Нэш, из "Игр разума". "Теорию игр" нужно знать для того чтобы понимать, через какую оптику на мировую экономику, дипломатию, да и геополитику в целом смотрят многие наши оппоненты. Может и вам эта оптика понравится своей жестокой математической чистотой и элегантностью.Friedrich Hayek, The Use of Knowledge In Society - ода ценообразованию как важному источнику информацииSteven Levitt, Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything -- одна из двух экономических книг, которую прочитали многие хипстеры нашей планеты. Помогает понять, что у многих из них в головах. Вторая книга, которую они прочитали - Пикетти.George Akerlof, The Market of Lemons - почему в условиях свободного рынка, с рынка исчезают качественные продукты и услуги.Charles Mackay, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds -- очень старая книга британского журналиста, который раскладывает (не идеально, но задорно) историю коллективных маний и финансовых кризисов, вызванных коллективной уверенностью, что "на этот раз все будет по-другому". На самом деле, под солнцем ничего нового нет.John Kenneth Galbraith, The Affluent Society - Эта книга воплощает в себе интеллектуальный "неолиберализм"George Akerlof & Robert Shiller, Animal Spirits: How Human Psychology Drives the Economy, and Why It Matters for Global Capitalism -- пересечение психологии и экономики. Прочтение помогает понять откуда у мировых ЦБ развилась мания "менеджмента ожиданий" вместо реальной монетарной политикиФинансы, финансовые рынкиBurton Malkiel, A Random Walk Down Wall Street -- библия верующих в теорию эффективного рынка (или "случайного" рынка)Sandford Grosman, On The Impossibility Of Informationally Efficient Markets -- очень хорошая критика теории эффективного рынкаJustin Fox, The Myth of the Rational Market -- убийственная критика теории рационального рынкаBenjamin Graham (Jason Zweig), The Intelligent Investor - книга из которой "родился" современный фундаментальный анализNassim Taleb, тетралогия Incerto: Fooled by Randomness, The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable, The Bed of Procrustes: Philosophical and Practical Aphorisms, Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder. -- Талеба надо читать. Всего. Вот просто надо. И когда выйдет книга про "Skin in the game", ее тоже надо читать.Матчасть (которую надо знать):Frank Fabozzi, Bond Markets, Analysis, and Strategies - бонды и все fixed income. Лучшей книги на эту тему все равно не придумали.John C. Hull, Options, Futures, and Other Derivatives - фьючерсы, опционы и другие деривативы. Стоит прочитать чтобы хотя бы перестать бояться этих "страшных слов" и начать с сочувствием смотреть на тех, кто при слове "дериватив" хватается за огнемет.Tim Weithers, Foreign Exchange: A Practical Guide to the FX Markets - валютный рынок, "объясненный на пальцах" и нормальным практиком, а не зазывалой очередной "форекс-кухни".опционально - Nassim Taleb, Dynamic Hedging: Managing Vanilla and Exotic Options - да, тот самый Талеб. Это его первая книга, написана для "финансовых маньяков", но она крайне полезна любому, к кому друзья, клиенты, знакомые и коллеги приходят после общения с очередным сейлзом из VIP отделения банка с папкой "уникальный VIP предложений, только для избранных". Обычно эти предложения состоят из всяких "эксклюзивных структурных продуктов". Полезно знать, на что это все раскладывается, и как правильно это все посчитать и понять насколько вашего друга/клиента хотят обмануть сейлзы.Книги о том, "как там все на самом деле" в финансовом мире, на примерах конкретных кризисов, банкротств и просто ежедневной деятельности крупных финансовых организаций:Satyajit Das, Traders, Guns & Money: Knowns & Unknowns in the Dazzling World of Derivatives - обязательно к прочтению. Michael Lewis, Liar's PokerMichael Lewis, The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine - про истоки нынешнего кризисаLiaquat Ahamed, Lords of FinanceBryan Burrough, Barbarians At the GateMervyn King, The End of Alchemy: Money, Banking, and the Future of the Global Economy - да, тот самый Мервин Кинг. И его книга в этом разделе потому что он в разы честнее Бернанке в плане описания того, что произошло в кризис. Все равно много врет, конечно.Peter Elkind, The Smartest Guys in the Room: the Amazing Rise and Scandalous Fall of EnronAdrew Ross Sorkin, Too Big to Fail: The Inside Story of How Wall Street and Washington Fought to Save the Financial System and Themselves -- читайте, если иметь представление о том, что произошло в первой фазе кризиса хочется, но внутреннее ханжество не позволяет читать слишком брутальные книги (те самые, где везде виски, секс, кокс, взятки и весь остальной рок-н-ролл).ГеополитикаKenneth Waltz, Man, the State, and War - компендиум теорий войны, принятых в западной наукеHenry A. Kissinger, книги: Diplomacy; On China; White House Years -- Киссинджер. Еще аргументы нужны?Robert Jervis, Perception and Misperception in International Politics - оптика западных аналитиков и геополитиковZbigniew Brzezinski, книги: The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives; Strategic Vision: America and the Crisis of Global Power --- Манифесты американской исключительности. Читать с пакетом для рвоты под рукой. Будет тошнить. Но читать надо. Они действительно так думают.Jared Diamond, Guns, Germs, and Steel - классический труд, показывающий как биология, география и другие вещи, которые зачастую не принято анализировать, влияют на геополитикуFrancis Fukuyama, Political Order and Political Decay: From the Industrial Revolution to the Globalization of Democracy -- Конец истории или еще не конец? Вот в чем вопрос.George Soros, книги: The Tragedy of the European Union: Disintegration or Revival? ; The Soros Lectures: At the Central European University -- коллекция взглядов и рассуждений одного из влиятельных идеологов однополярного мираDaniel W. Drezner, The Sanctions Paradox: Economic Statecraft and International Relations -- автор - член CFR и один из ведущих теоретиков политики "экономического давления", которой пользуются США.Daniel W. Drezner, Theories of International Politics and Zombies: Revived Edition -- есть авторы, которые могут объяснять "на пальцах". Drezner объясняет наиболее известные теории международных отношений "на зомби". Очень толково объясняет.Robert D. Blackwill, War by Other Means, Geoeconomics and Statecraft -- еще одна знаковая (но на этот раз очень свежая!) книга от члена CFR. Очень критический анализ того как Вашингтон достигает своих политических целей, зачастую предпочитая военную силу экономическому давлению, хотя (с точки зрения авторов) экономическое давление - это лучший инструмент.Теория и практика пропагандыRobert B. Cialdini, Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion -- пожалуй, лучший учебник классических приемов воздействия на аудиторию, клиентуру, близких и так далееEdward Bernays, Propaganda -- классика теории пропагандыEdward Bernays, Crystallizing Public Opinion - классика теории пропагандыGustave Le Bon, The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind -- одна из фундаментальных работ по психологии толпы. Очень неполиткорректная по нынешним меркам, но очень актуальная с точки зрения многих наших геополитических оппонентов.Ryan Holiday, Trust Me, I'm Lying: Confessions of a Media Manipulator -- приемы пропаганды и манипуляции, приложенные к современным реалиям, соцсетям и интернет-СМИВ качестве учебника по работе с публичной информацией и манипуляциями, могу предложить очень толковые книги российского автора:Ющук Е. Л. - "Конкурентная разведка: маркетинг рисков и возможностей", "Учебник по Конкурентной разведке" -- содержат инструментарий для работы с информацией, более чем достаточный для начала работы гражданского аналитика.Дополнительная, но важная литература:The Bible (King James Version) - несмотря на полную дехристианизацию западного мира, сам западный мир, его фундаментальные тексты и многие рассуждения его знаковых идеологов невозможно полностью понять без знакомства с библейскими сюжетами.William Shakespeare - пьесы, сонеты - Опять же, это часть культурного минимума, который ожидается многими серьезными западными авторами от читателей. Ну, и как говорится, "это просто красиво".Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow - одна из лучших книг о том, как мы думаем. Включена в этот раздел из-за того что считается теперь практически mandatory reading в продвинутой западной финансовой средеТихон Шевкунов, «Несвятые святые» -- этой книгой я завершаю список, и для этого есть веская причина. Погружение в мир финансов, геополитики и пропаганды, особенно если оно производится через чтение сильных и ярких книг об этих сферах человеческой деятельности, почти обязательно приводит к приступам тяжелейшей мизантропии и риску "выгорания". Для того чтобы этот риск минимизировать, да и просто не превратиться потихоньку в бездушную машину по анализу информации и генерированию "креатива", желательно разбавлять чтение книг из списка чтением чего-то, что будет напоминать о светлых сторонах жизни.В коменты можно кидать линки на русские (хорошие!) переводы и делиться впечатлениями. Приятного чтения.

23 сентября, 03:55

Bonus Quotation of the Day…

(Don Boudreaux) Tweet… is from page 50 of Arnold Kling’s excellent new book, Specialization and Trade: A Re-introduction to Economics (original emphasis): What we should be comparing is not the existing market configuration with an ideal based on a simple model but the market process of error correction with the political process of error correction. If the […]

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: