by Hui Wen Chen
自1999年3月入股市，有9年多了，以下是部分心得：
1、精选好企业，合理价格买进并长期投资，想不赚钱，很难;短线炒作，随波逐流，想不亏，很难。
2、严格执行止损和控制仓位，是避免大幅亏损的两个有效办法。巨亏往往是捨不得在下跌10%的时候止损，甚至补仓，结果在下跌超过一半甚至更多的时候自宫出局後发生。没有经验的散户同样喜欢永远满仓，从牛市结束到熊市结束一直满仓。
3、不会开车，无驾照的人不应开车;不了解股市基本常识和个股基本资料的，不应该买任何股票。
4、先不要考虑想赚多少钱，先考虑能承受多少亏损。
5、买股票时理由的充分程度，与投资的结果成正比。
6、股市大多数人是亏损的，进入股市应问自己：我有哪些优势可以战胜大多数人?
7、炒股赚大钱的经济学家、股票分析师全世界都区指可数，怎麽能盲目相信他们?
8、对於绝大多数人，买股票不如买基金;买开放式基金，不如买封闭式基金;买A股不如买B股;买A股不如买港股。
9、基金定期定额投资，是适合几乎所有人的投资方式，其结果只有一个，富足的晚年生活。应该全面取代每个月交的养老保险。
10、新入股市的人，如果投资额比较少，却发生了亏损，实在是件大好事。股市投资最好经历过熊市，经历亏损，这样才会有风险意识，才会谨慎买股，才会谦虚地学习，当下次牛市来临，就可以捡钱了。相反，刚入股市就莫明其妙地赚钱，结果多半是增加本金，熊市来临後就是大幅亏损。
11、除了史达林格勒战役中的苏军士兵，很少有士兵没经过训练就上战场去送死的。奇怪的是绝大多数人没有耐心做模拟股市操作，就去股市送钱当炮灰。
12、了解了股市的基本规律、遊戏规则，了解历次股市泡沫破灭的过程，经历一两次熊市的痛苦，有耐心，擅长也喜欢学习股市的基本知识，独立思考的学习，拥有这些东西，股市赚钱是世界上最轻松最赚钱的工作。
13、股市从长期来看是正确的，一定和股市整体上市公司的业绩增长有关。但从短期来看，股市往往是错误的。涨的时候会涨得非常离谱，但正是这个时候是最快速最容易赚钱的时候，比如去年的5000点前後。跌的时候也会跌得非常离谱，比如2005年的998点。所以在下跌过程中，不要急於买进价格合理的股票，因为有可能由价格合理，跌向不合理。所以在股市高得不合理的时候不断减仓，低得不合理的时候不断加仓，是不错的选择，高得不合理早晚跌下去，低得不合理早晚涨上来。
14、买进股票要分批买进，卖出股票要分批卖出。因为股票涨跌不可预测。
15、一进入股市，九成以上的人智商就会以跌停开盘，并连续跌停。而且越是聪明的人，在股市中越容易自以为是。
16、股市基本不存在令股市上涨的充分理由，政府救市、利率下降、企业业绩上升、印花税或企业所得税的降低、企业高管或大股东在二奶市场上增持股票、经济学家或政府官员发表空气振动看好股市、基金等机构增持、基金认购上升、美国或香港股市的上涨，等等，都不能肯定让股市或股票上涨。同样也不存在股市或股票下跌的充分理由。
17、中国股市投资者的凈亏损率，应该超过规範的赌场的亏损率。大多数参予者是没有希望的。股市是消灭投资人财富的地方，而不是产生财产性收入的地方。不少人的得到的股市财产性收入，会归还给股市，少数人的财产性收入是通过合法交易从其他投资者手中夺取的。
18、很多人宁愿在股市中亏损几万、几十万，也不愿花几十元去买几本书看看。也许股市是个灵异的地方，这些人灵魂附体了吧。想起一个故事：有个画家，叁小时画了张画，叁年才卖掉，有个有成就的画家建议他：把顺序掉过来，叁年时间画张画，叁小时就卖掉了。
19、股市是消灭十万富翁的战场，股指期货将是消灭百万富翁的修罗场。
20、股市中聪明人未必胜於不聪明的人，象郭靖那样在正确的方向上坚定不移的笨蛋其实最容易赚钱，赚大钱。
这里讲个笑话：有个城市人在火车上碰到一个农村人，以为自己很聪明，就建议各讲一个谜语，如果猜不出来，自己给农村人2元，相反，农村人只要赔1元。农村人先讲：有一个东西，有四只眼睛，6条腿，1条尾巴，2只手，城市人猜不出来，於是给农村人2元。城市人很好奇，就反问这是什麽，农村人说也不知道，反给城市人1元。说明一下，这个东西是一个人骑在一头驴上面。
21、股市是否赚钱与道德基本无关，雷锋和焦裕禄买股票如果不研究基本面，恐怕照样亏损。但似乎是有道德的人，希望大众赚钱的人，甚至指导大众赚钱的人，却容易让很多人亏损。比如沙虽农。索罗斯难道是个道德的楷模?巴菲特在晚年大捐数百亿美元之前，没听说有捐献行为。
但其于正当目的而打算在股市中大赚钱的人，可能比较容易赚钱。所以坦普尔顿把祈祷当成投资成功的首要办法。
22、赚100次100%，亏一次100%就全没了。所以满仓基本是错误，集中投资一只股票基本是错误。所以所有成功的投资人，都先注意保本，再考虑赚钱。
23、股市投资不需要高等数学，但必须勤於运用加减乘除，及乘方和开方。一些不会用除法算股价与每股收益之比，即市盈率，以及除股与每股凈资产之比，即市凈率的人，往往只盯著一个参考指标：股价，这种人不亏损天理不容。
24、没有业绩支援的绝大多数概念股，都是一种愿者上钩的遊戏。偏偏很多自以为聪明的人，愿意刀头甜血。
25、投资者最好也开展叁讲教育，讲学习，学得多，未必能赚大钱，起码不大可能进股市的厕所，要关注国家大事，世界大事。
Sunday, December 21, 2014
股票基金投资心得：25条血泪教训
by Hui Wen Chen
自1999年3月入股市，有9年多了，以下是部分心得：
1、精选好企业，合理价格买进并长期投资，想不赚钱，很难;短线炒作，随波逐流，想不亏，很难。
2、严格执行止损和控制仓位，是避免大幅亏损的两个有效办法。巨亏往往是捨不得在下跌10%的时候止损，甚至补仓，结果在下跌超过一半甚至更多的时候自宫出局後发生。没有经验的散户同样喜欢永远满仓，从牛市结束到熊市结束一直满仓。
3、不会开车，无驾照的人不应开车;不了解股市基本常识和个股基本资料的，不应该买任何股票。
4、先不要考虑想赚多少钱，先考虑能承受多少亏损。
5、买股票时理由的充分程度，与投资的结果成正比。
6、股市大多数人是亏损的，进入股市应问自己：我有哪些优势可以战胜大多数人?
7、炒股赚大钱的经济学家、股票分析师全世界都区指可数，怎麽能盲目相信他们?
8、对於绝大多数人，买股票不如买基金;买开放式基金，不如买封闭式基金;买A股不如买B股;买A股不如买港股。
9、基金定期定额投资，是适合几乎所有人的投资方式，其结果只有一个，富足的晚年生活。应该全面取代每个月交的养老保险。
10、新入股市的人，如果投资额比较少，却发生了亏损，实在是件大好事。股市投资最好经历过熊市，经历亏损，这样才会有风险意识，才会谨慎买股，才会谦虚地学习，当下次牛市来临，就可以捡钱了。相反，刚入股市就莫明其妙地赚钱，结果多半是增加本金，熊市来临後就是大幅亏损。
11、除了史达林格勒战役中的苏军士兵，很少有士兵没经过训练就上战场去送死的。奇怪的是绝大多数人没有耐心做模拟股市操作，就去股市送钱当炮灰。
12、了解了股市的基本规律、遊戏规则，了解历次股市泡沫破灭的过程，经历一两次熊市的痛苦，有耐心，擅长也喜欢学习股市的基本知识，独立思考的学习，拥有这些东西，股市赚钱是世界上最轻松最赚钱的工作。
13、股市从长期来看是正确的，一定和股市整体上市公司的业绩增长有关。但从短期来看，股市往往是错误的。涨的时候会涨得非常离谱，但正是这个时候是最快速最容易赚钱的时候，比如去年的5000点前後。跌的时候也会跌得非常离谱，比如2005年的998点。所以在下跌过程中，不要急於买进价格合理的股票，因为有可能由价格合理，跌向不合理。所以在股市高得不合理的时候不断减仓，低得不合理的时候不断加仓，是不错的选择，高得不合理早晚跌下去，低得不合理早晚涨上来。
14、买进股票要分批买进，卖出股票要分批卖出。因为股票涨跌不可预测。
15、一进入股市，九成以上的人智商就会以跌停开盘，并连续跌停。而且越是聪明的人，在股市中越容易自以为是。
16、股市基本不存在令股市上涨的充分理由，政府救市、利率下降、企业业绩上升、印花税或企业所得税的降低、企业高管或大股东在二奶市场上增持股票、经济学家或政府官员发表空气振动看好股市、基金等机构增持、基金认购上升、美国或香港股市的上涨，等等，都不能肯定让股市或股票上涨。同样也不存在股市或股票下跌的充分理由。
17、中国股市投资者的凈亏损率，应该超过规範的赌场的亏损率。大多数参予者是没有希望的。股市是消灭投资人财富的地方，而不是产生财产性收入的地方。不少人的得到的股市财产性收入，会归还给股市，少数人的财产性收入是通过合法交易从其他投资者手中夺取的。
18、很多人宁愿在股市中亏损几万、几十万，也不愿花几十元去买几本书看看。也许股市是个灵异的地方，这些人灵魂附体了吧。想起一个故事：有个画家，叁小时画了张画，叁年才卖掉，有个有成就的画家建议他：把顺序掉过来，叁年时间画张画，叁小时就卖掉了。
19、股市是消灭十万富翁的战场，股指期货将是消灭百万富翁的修罗场。
20、股市中聪明人未必胜於不聪明的人，象郭靖那样在正确的方向上坚定不移的笨蛋其实最容易赚钱，赚大钱。
这里讲个笑话：有个城市人在火车上碰到一个农村人，以为自己很聪明，就建议各讲一个谜语，如果猜不出来，自己给农村人2元，相反，农村人只要赔1元。农村人先讲：有一个东西，有四只眼睛，6条腿，1条尾巴，2只手，城市人猜不出来，於是给农村人2元。城市人很好奇，就反问这是什麽，农村人说也不知道，反给城市人1元。说明一下，这个东西是一个人骑在一头驴上面。
21、股市是否赚钱与道德基本无关，雷锋和焦裕禄买股票如果不研究基本面，恐怕照样亏损。但似乎是有道德的人，希望大众赚钱的人，甚至指导大众赚钱的人，却容易让很多人亏损。比如沙虽农。索罗斯难道是个道德的楷模?巴菲特在晚年大捐数百亿美元之前，没听说有捐献行为。
但其于正当目的而打算在股市中大赚钱的人，可能比较容易赚钱。所以坦普尔顿把祈祷当成投资成功的首要办法。
22、赚100次100%，亏一次100%就全没了。所以满仓基本是错误，集中投资一只股票基本是错误。所以所有成功的投资人，都先注意保本，再考虑赚钱。
23、股市投资不需要高等数学，但必须勤於运用加减乘除，及乘方和开方。一些不会用除法算股价与每股收益之比，即市盈率，以及除股与每股凈资产之比，即市凈率的人，往往只盯著一个参考指标：股价，这种人不亏损天理不容。
24、没有业绩支援的绝大多数概念股，都是一种愿者上钩的遊戏。偏偏很多自以为聪明的人，愿意刀头甜血。
25、投资者最好也开展叁讲教育，讲学习，学得多，未必能赚大钱，起码不大可能进股市的厕所，要关注国家大事，世界大事。
自1999年3月入股市，有9年多了，以下是部分心得：
1、精选好企业，合理价格买进并长期投资，想不赚钱，很难;短线炒作，随波逐流，想不亏，很难。
2、严格执行止损和控制仓位，是避免大幅亏损的两个有效办法。巨亏往往是捨不得在下跌10%的时候止损，甚至补仓，结果在下跌超过一半甚至更多的时候自宫出局後发生。没有经验的散户同样喜欢永远满仓，从牛市结束到熊市结束一直满仓。
3、不会开车，无驾照的人不应开车;不了解股市基本常识和个股基本资料的，不应该买任何股票。
4、先不要考虑想赚多少钱，先考虑能承受多少亏损。
5、买股票时理由的充分程度，与投资的结果成正比。
6、股市大多数人是亏损的，进入股市应问自己：我有哪些优势可以战胜大多数人?
7、炒股赚大钱的经济学家、股票分析师全世界都区指可数，怎麽能盲目相信他们?
8、对於绝大多数人，买股票不如买基金;买开放式基金，不如买封闭式基金;买A股不如买B股;买A股不如买港股。
9、基金定期定额投资，是适合几乎所有人的投资方式，其结果只有一个，富足的晚年生活。应该全面取代每个月交的养老保险。
10、新入股市的人，如果投资额比较少，却发生了亏损，实在是件大好事。股市投资最好经历过熊市，经历亏损，这样才会有风险意识，才会谨慎买股，才会谦虚地学习，当下次牛市来临，就可以捡钱了。相反，刚入股市就莫明其妙地赚钱，结果多半是增加本金，熊市来临後就是大幅亏损。
11、除了史达林格勒战役中的苏军士兵，很少有士兵没经过训练就上战场去送死的。奇怪的是绝大多数人没有耐心做模拟股市操作，就去股市送钱当炮灰。
12、了解了股市的基本规律、遊戏规则，了解历次股市泡沫破灭的过程，经历一两次熊市的痛苦，有耐心，擅长也喜欢学习股市的基本知识，独立思考的学习，拥有这些东西，股市赚钱是世界上最轻松最赚钱的工作。
13、股市从长期来看是正确的，一定和股市整体上市公司的业绩增长有关。但从短期来看，股市往往是错误的。涨的时候会涨得非常离谱，但正是这个时候是最快速最容易赚钱的时候，比如去年的5000点前後。跌的时候也会跌得非常离谱，比如2005年的998点。所以在下跌过程中，不要急於买进价格合理的股票，因为有可能由价格合理，跌向不合理。所以在股市高得不合理的时候不断减仓，低得不合理的时候不断加仓，是不错的选择，高得不合理早晚跌下去，低得不合理早晚涨上来。
14、买进股票要分批买进，卖出股票要分批卖出。因为股票涨跌不可预测。
15、一进入股市，九成以上的人智商就会以跌停开盘，并连续跌停。而且越是聪明的人，在股市中越容易自以为是。
16、股市基本不存在令股市上涨的充分理由，政府救市、利率下降、企业业绩上升、印花税或企业所得税的降低、企业高管或大股东在二奶市场上增持股票、经济学家或政府官员发表空气振动看好股市、基金等机构增持、基金认购上升、美国或香港股市的上涨，等等，都不能肯定让股市或股票上涨。同样也不存在股市或股票下跌的充分理由。
17、中国股市投资者的凈亏损率，应该超过规範的赌场的亏损率。大多数参予者是没有希望的。股市是消灭投资人财富的地方，而不是产生财产性收入的地方。不少人的得到的股市财产性收入，会归还给股市，少数人的财产性收入是通过合法交易从其他投资者手中夺取的。
18、很多人宁愿在股市中亏损几万、几十万，也不愿花几十元去买几本书看看。也许股市是个灵异的地方，这些人灵魂附体了吧。想起一个故事：有个画家，叁小时画了张画，叁年才卖掉，有个有成就的画家建议他：把顺序掉过来，叁年时间画张画，叁小时就卖掉了。
19、股市是消灭十万富翁的战场，股指期货将是消灭百万富翁的修罗场。
20、股市中聪明人未必胜於不聪明的人，象郭靖那样在正确的方向上坚定不移的笨蛋其实最容易赚钱，赚大钱。
这里讲个笑话：有个城市人在火车上碰到一个农村人，以为自己很聪明，就建议各讲一个谜语，如果猜不出来，自己给农村人2元，相反，农村人只要赔1元。农村人先讲：有一个东西，有四只眼睛，6条腿，1条尾巴，2只手，城市人猜不出来，於是给农村人2元。城市人很好奇，就反问这是什麽，农村人说也不知道，反给城市人1元。说明一下，这个东西是一个人骑在一头驴上面。
21、股市是否赚钱与道德基本无关，雷锋和焦裕禄买股票如果不研究基本面，恐怕照样亏损。但似乎是有道德的人，希望大众赚钱的人，甚至指导大众赚钱的人，却容易让很多人亏损。比如沙虽农。索罗斯难道是个道德的楷模?巴菲特在晚年大捐数百亿美元之前，没听说有捐献行为。
但其于正当目的而打算在股市中大赚钱的人，可能比较容易赚钱。所以坦普尔顿把祈祷当成投资成功的首要办法。
22、赚100次100%，亏一次100%就全没了。所以满仓基本是错误，集中投资一只股票基本是错误。所以所有成功的投资人，都先注意保本，再考虑赚钱。
23、股市投资不需要高等数学，但必须勤於运用加减乘除，及乘方和开方。一些不会用除法算股价与每股收益之比，即市盈率，以及除股与每股凈资产之比，即市凈率的人，往往只盯著一个参考指标：股价，这种人不亏损天理不容。
24、没有业绩支援的绝大多数概念股，都是一种愿者上钩的遊戏。偏偏很多自以为聪明的人，愿意刀头甜血。
25、投资者最好也开展叁讲教育，讲学习，学得多，未必能赚大钱，起码不大可能进股市的厕所，要关注国家大事，世界大事。
Saturday, November 15, 2014
Friday, November 7, 2014
Thursday, October 30, 2014
How QE worked in the first place — and how it can be used again
American investors seem tired of quantitative easing. No one less than Carl Icahn said it’s making the market sick.
But at the same time, the stock market soars when one Fed official suggests the central bank might extend the program for three months.
With the Fed set to wind down the controversial program as early as Wednesday, Stephen Cecchetti, an economics professor at Brandeis University, helps explain the purchases. He’s spent more than 30 years studying central banking, with the last five as head of the monetary and economic department at the Bank of International Settlements, the central banker’s central bank.
Cecchetti said he doesn’t understand why investors get so agitated by quantitative easing as it hasn’t led to a surge of money printing. And he said the program has worked in the U.S. and will work in Europe provided they get aggressive enough.
MarketWatch: Former Fed chairman Ben Bernanke once quipped that QE works in practice, but not in theory. What’s your view? Has it worked?
Cecchetti: The short answer is yes. It’s worked. The question is “what is it and why” and I think we want to distinguish between three different policy tools. The first one is the increases in the absolute size or scale of the central bank’s balance sheet. The second one is the change in the central bank’s balance sheet composition, or the mix of assets that they hold, and the third one is forward guidance about where their interest rate targets are likely to be in the future. And so each one of those works a bit differently, I think we understand that now. But they all work and QE as it is construed in the popular press as well as in the policy world has to be divided up into those three things.
MarketWatch: And all three things worked?
Cecchetti: They work in different ways. The one that doesn’t always work is the increase in the absolute size of the balance sheet. That one is only going to work in conjunction with the forward guidance. So if it is reinforcing the signal of the forward guidance – things like, we’re going to keep our interest rates low for the next three years – or some statements like that central banks make - then I think it’s going to work. The one where you change the mix of the composition of assets – that one works, I think, pretty much all the time.
Let me back up a little bit. The most important thing to understand is the way that monetary policy works is by changing financial conditions. That is how conventional and unconventional monetary policy work. And so, you can change financial conditions by changing current interest rates, by changing expectations about future interest rates, by changing term premia associated with long rates or by changing risk premia that are associated with a variety of other kinds of financial instruments. And monetary policy, in one way or another, operates through all of those channels.
MarketWatch: Do you think QE has a good chance to work in Europe?
Cecchetti: I think it could, yes.
MarketWatch: The way they have it structured now?
Cecchetti: I think that they need to be more aggressive than they appear to be right now. I think that they would certainly need to try and increase the size of their balance sheet pretty significantly. Their balance sheet is roughly 1 trillion euros below the peak in March 2012. And I think they would need to address that by finding securities that they would need to buy. A program that would actually increase the size of the balance sheet from the March 2012 level would have to be on the order of 1.5 trillion euros of outright purchases. And the question then is what should they be purchasing, and are those securities around? I am not the person to ask about what legal restrictions the euro system faces in doing that, so I think it is quite complicated. Nor am I the person to ask about things like what the internal politics of Europe are about it. They have a difficult road, but there is a path that they could take.
MarketWatch: And the sooner they get more aggressive, the better?
Cecchetti: That of course has been true for a while and I think they’ve generally known that. There are legal and political barriers to doing this. There are also differences of view across the euro area about what the right way is to proceed.
MarketWatch: So QE changes conditions in financial markets?
Cecchetti: Not just that, it changes the trade-offs that people see, it changes the environment in which they are doing their consumption and investment. By that I mean people are buying stuff and borrowing and firms are actually engaging in new activities, and so it changes the relative riskiness of those things as well.
MarketWatch: Your replacement at the BIS, Claudio Borio, said during the recent International Monetary Fund meeting that there is risk-taking going on in financial markets, but not in the real economy. Is that your sense?
Cecchetti: That may be true in Europe. I don’t see that that is necessarily true in the U.S., [where] we’ve seen investment rebound. In different parts of the world, things are operating quite differently. It is also the case you are seeing pretty strong investment and consumption in a lot of emerging market countries too. You don’t want to make blanket statements about the whole world.
MarketWatch: But I wanted to get at whether QE is helping that along, people taking more risks in financial markets?
Cecchetti: The whole point of monetary policy during periods when output and employment are below their potential is to get people to take risks that they otherwise wouldn’t take. That is the monetary policy transmission mechanism. So the question to ask is whether or not it has gone too far. And it is hard to argue that it has gone too far when output and employment remain depressed and inflation remains low. And also, if it is the case that your financial supervisors are doing their job, then I don’t see this as being a huge issue. If I look at U.S., the financial system looks pretty well capitalized, there isn’t a huge amount of lending going on, credit is far below its peak of 2007. The places where there are issues are in Europe where the banking system still remains undercapitalized and that is the case seven years after the start. The crisis began in the summer of 2007 in Europe. The recapitalization of the American banking system started and then occurred in real force beginning with the release of the original stress test in May 2009. And so I just don’t see where these risks are.
MarketWatch: Carl Icahn seemed to capture one popular view of QE recently when he said the Fed has given the U.S. economy too much medicine and now doesn’t know how to stop. And every time the Fed says it wants to cut back the medicine, something happens to the patient. What’s your reaction to that?
Cecchetti: The question is why is it that people so upset about the size of the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet. The Fed’s balance sheet is of course much smaller relative to GDP than say the champion of the world today which is the Swiss National Bank. The assets of the Swiss National Bank are about 90% of Swiss GDP. Now maybe people in Switzerland think there is a problem with that but generally the reason that that has happened is that there has been an attempt to keep the Swiss franc exchange rate at 1.20 Swiss francs to the euro or higher and the result has been this big expansion in their balance sheet. But I am not sure that the absolute size of the balance sheet really matters. I think in the end it’s pretty arbitrary.
The Fed’s balance sheet probably will shrink. But it actually doesn’t really even have to. Not if they don’t want it to. They could run their policy with a balance sheet of the size of what it is now, roughly $4.5 trillion, which is on the order of 30% of U.S. GDP, probably pretty much indefinitely if they wanted. And I think they could do that without a huge amount of harm. So I don’t see a problem that other people see with a balance sheet of this size. And the main reason is that the monetary base, the reserves being supplied to the banking system, are not being turned themselves into money as conventionally defined. So M2 growth has not been totally out of whack. And that’s because the money multiplier is pretty low. So I am not that concerned.
MarketWatch: Do you think the Fed will be able to raise interest rates anytime soon? The market has pushed back when it expects the first rate hike.
Cecchetti: Any view about interest rate policy is conditional on economic events. The FOMC statements and the chair’s public statements both in speeches and at the quarterly press conference are pretty clear about that. That said, I think the American economy looks like it is doing pretty well. And most people have felt that the second quarter of next year you should start to see interest rate increases. Look, I am not an active investor. I am not putting my money where my mouth is on this one, but sometime around the middle of next year seems pretty reasonable.
MarketWatch: Inflation has been low. What’s your inflation outlook?
Cecchetti: I think wage inflation is starting to increase somewhat. I think that will feed itself into price inflation. One of the reasons inflation has been relatively low has been the strength of the dollar, which has reduced the price of imports and the price of oil, which has fallen pretty dramatically. Those tend to be relatively transitory things in terms of their impact on inflation. So I think forecasts by the FOMC itself and others that inflation will slowly over the next few years make it back to 2% certainly seem reasonable. The question is whether or not the FOMC is going to believe there is a reason to allow inflation to rise above 2% briefly in order to sort of make up, if you will, for the relatively low inflation period and get back to a price path that has an average which it did from roughly 1981 or 82 to 2006, inflation under the personal consumption expenditure deflator averaged 2.1%. The last six or seven years from the beginning of the crisis, or a little before, have averaged a bit below that. They could certainly run 3% inflation for a few years to average out again to numbers like 2% or 2.1%. The question is will they do that, or are they going to stop at 2%. So I guess we’re going to have to see.
Marketwatch: Sounds like a high-class problem at the moment.
Cecchetti: It is going to be a pretty nice problem to have to worry about whether inflation should rise over 2% and stay there over a few years. In most of the advanced economies of the world, they would be ecstatic.
MarketWatch: Any signs of asset bubbles?
Cecchetti: Real estate prices in the U.S. are still nearly 20% below their pre-crisis peak, the average national price. I think housing is fine, equity may be a little bit higher than long-run, sort of Bob-Shiller-like numbers, but probably not huge. Are there parts of the world where real estate prices might be rising very rapidly that might be problems? Well, I don’t know. My understanding is that London real estate prices have gone up very rapidly and the question is whether or not the influx of money from parts of the world where there has been political upheaval has driven that, and if so whether that is a transitory thing or whether it is going to fall. There are parts of Canada where Canadians are concerned. My concern is always with leveraged investments and whether or not those prices have gone up substantially, because if they do fall and there is a lot of leverage then you tend to see defaults, and if the loans have been provided by banks it can ripple through the financial system. So these are things to watch.
MarketWatch: Would Fed liftoff send a shock through the financial system?
Cecchetti: There has been a lot more capital flow volatility in the last few years than people like and along with that has come exchange rate volatility. My view is that investors are looking for places with good growth prospects, and as long as those economies growth prospects remain good in the emerging market world and rates of return remain healthy, that people are going to continue to diversify their portfolios and put their funds there. And a small move in the riskless real rate in the U.S. — that tends to follow, not lead the fact that real returns on the U.S. have gone up — shouldn’t have a huge effect.
How QE worked in the first place — and how it can be used again
American investors seem tired of quantitative easing. No one less than Carl Icahn said it’s making the market sick.
But at the same time, the stock market soars when one Fed official suggests the central bank might extend the program for three months.
With the Fed set to wind down the controversial program as early as Wednesday, Stephen Cecchetti, an economics professor at Brandeis University, helps explain the purchases. He’s spent more than 30 years studying central banking, with the last five as head of the monetary and economic department at the Bank of International Settlements, the central banker’s central bank.
Cecchetti said he doesn’t understand why investors get so agitated by quantitative easing as it hasn’t led to a surge of money printing. And he said the program has worked in the U.S. and will work in Europe provided they get aggressive enough.
MarketWatch: Former Fed chairman Ben Bernanke once quipped that QE works in practice, but not in theory. What’s your view? Has it worked?
Cecchetti: The short answer is yes. It’s worked. The question is “what is it and why” and I think we want to distinguish between three different policy tools. The first one is the increases in the absolute size or scale of the central bank’s balance sheet. The second one is the change in the central bank’s balance sheet composition, or the mix of assets that they hold, and the third one is forward guidance about where their interest rate targets are likely to be in the future. And so each one of those works a bit differently, I think we understand that now. But they all work and QE as it is construed in the popular press as well as in the policy world has to be divided up into those three things.
MarketWatch: And all three things worked?
Cecchetti: They work in different ways. The one that doesn’t always work is the increase in the absolute size of the balance sheet. That one is only going to work in conjunction with the forward guidance. So if it is reinforcing the signal of the forward guidance – things like, we’re going to keep our interest rates low for the next three years – or some statements like that central banks make - then I think it’s going to work. The one where you change the mix of the composition of assets – that one works, I think, pretty much all the time.
Let me back up a little bit. The most important thing to understand is the way that monetary policy works is by changing financial conditions. That is how conventional and unconventional monetary policy work. And so, you can change financial conditions by changing current interest rates, by changing expectations about future interest rates, by changing term premia associated with long rates or by changing risk premia that are associated with a variety of other kinds of financial instruments. And monetary policy, in one way or another, operates through all of those channels.
MarketWatch: Do you think QE has a good chance to work in Europe?
Cecchetti: I think it could, yes.
MarketWatch: The way they have it structured now?
Cecchetti: I think that they need to be more aggressive than they appear to be right now. I think that they would certainly need to try and increase the size of their balance sheet pretty significantly. Their balance sheet is roughly 1 trillion euros below the peak in March 2012. And I think they would need to address that by finding securities that they would need to buy. A program that would actually increase the size of the balance sheet from the March 2012 level would have to be on the order of 1.5 trillion euros of outright purchases. And the question then is what should they be purchasing, and are those securities around? I am not the person to ask about what legal restrictions the euro system faces in doing that, so I think it is quite complicated. Nor am I the person to ask about things like what the internal politics of Europe are about it. They have a difficult road, but there is a path that they could take.
MarketWatch: And the sooner they get more aggressive, the better?
Cecchetti: That of course has been true for a while and I think they’ve generally known that. There are legal and political barriers to doing this. There are also differences of view across the euro area about what the right way is to proceed.
MarketWatch: So QE changes conditions in financial markets?
Cecchetti: Not just that, it changes the trade-offs that people see, it changes the environment in which they are doing their consumption and investment. By that I mean people are buying stuff and borrowing and firms are actually engaging in new activities, and so it changes the relative riskiness of those things as well.
MarketWatch: Your replacement at the BIS, Claudio Borio, said during the recent International Monetary Fund meeting that there is risk-taking going on in financial markets, but not in the real economy. Is that your sense?
Cecchetti: That may be true in Europe. I don’t see that that is necessarily true in the U.S., [where] we’ve seen investment rebound. In different parts of the world, things are operating quite differently. It is also the case you are seeing pretty strong investment and consumption in a lot of emerging market countries too. You don’t want to make blanket statements about the whole world.
MarketWatch: But I wanted to get at whether QE is helping that along, people taking more risks in financial markets?
Cecchetti: The whole point of monetary policy during periods when output and employment are below their potential is to get people to take risks that they otherwise wouldn’t take. That is the monetary policy transmission mechanism. So the question to ask is whether or not it has gone too far. And it is hard to argue that it has gone too far when output and employment remain depressed and inflation remains low. And also, if it is the case that your financial supervisors are doing their job, then I don’t see this as being a huge issue. If I look at U.S., the financial system looks pretty well capitalized, there isn’t a huge amount of lending going on, credit is far below its peak of 2007. The places where there are issues are in Europe where the banking system still remains undercapitalized and that is the case seven years after the start. The crisis began in the summer of 2007 in Europe. The recapitalization of the American banking system started and then occurred in real force beginning with the release of the original stress test in May 2009. And so I just don’t see where these risks are.
MarketWatch: Carl Icahn seemed to capture one popular view of QE recently when he said the Fed has given the U.S. economy too much medicine and now doesn’t know how to stop. And every time the Fed says it wants to cut back the medicine, something happens to the patient. What’s your reaction to that?
Cecchetti: The question is why is it that people so upset about the size of the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet. The Fed’s balance sheet is of course much smaller relative to GDP than say the champion of the world today which is the Swiss National Bank. The assets of the Swiss National Bank are about 90% of Swiss GDP. Now maybe people in Switzerland think there is a problem with that but generally the reason that that has happened is that there has been an attempt to keep the Swiss franc exchange rate at 1.20 Swiss francs to the euro or higher and the result has been this big expansion in their balance sheet. But I am not sure that the absolute size of the balance sheet really matters. I think in the end it’s pretty arbitrary.
The Fed’s balance sheet probably will shrink. But it actually doesn’t really even have to. Not if they don’t want it to. They could run their policy with a balance sheet of the size of what it is now, roughly $4.5 trillion, which is on the order of 30% of U.S. GDP, probably pretty much indefinitely if they wanted. And I think they could do that without a huge amount of harm. So I don’t see a problem that other people see with a balance sheet of this size. And the main reason is that the monetary base, the reserves being supplied to the banking system, are not being turned themselves into money as conventionally defined. So M2 growth has not been totally out of whack. And that’s because the money multiplier is pretty low. So I am not that concerned.
MarketWatch: Do you think the Fed will be able to raise interest rates anytime soon? The market has pushed back when it expects the first rate hike.
Cecchetti: Any view about interest rate policy is conditional on economic events. The FOMC statements and the chair’s public statements both in speeches and at the quarterly press conference are pretty clear about that. That said, I think the American economy looks like it is doing pretty well. And most people have felt that the second quarter of next year you should start to see interest rate increases. Look, I am not an active investor. I am not putting my money where my mouth is on this one, but sometime around the middle of next year seems pretty reasonable.
MarketWatch: Inflation has been low. What’s your inflation outlook?
Cecchetti: I think wage inflation is starting to increase somewhat. I think that will feed itself into price inflation. One of the reasons inflation has been relatively low has been the strength of the dollar, which has reduced the price of imports and the price of oil, which has fallen pretty dramatically. Those tend to be relatively transitory things in terms of their impact on inflation. So I think forecasts by the FOMC itself and others that inflation will slowly over the next few years make it back to 2% certainly seem reasonable. The question is whether or not the FOMC is going to believe there is a reason to allow inflation to rise above 2% briefly in order to sort of make up, if you will, for the relatively low inflation period and get back to a price path that has an average which it did from roughly 1981 or 82 to 2006, inflation under the personal consumption expenditure deflator averaged 2.1%. The last six or seven years from the beginning of the crisis, or a little before, have averaged a bit below that. They could certainly run 3% inflation for a few years to average out again to numbers like 2% or 2.1%. The question is will they do that, or are they going to stop at 2%. So I guess we’re going to have to see.
Marketwatch: Sounds like a high-class problem at the moment.
Cecchetti: It is going to be a pretty nice problem to have to worry about whether inflation should rise over 2% and stay there over a few years. In most of the advanced economies of the world, they would be ecstatic.
MarketWatch: Any signs of asset bubbles?
Cecchetti: Real estate prices in the U.S. are still nearly 20% below their pre-crisis peak, the average national price. I think housing is fine, equity may be a little bit higher than long-run, sort of Bob-Shiller-like numbers, but probably not huge. Are there parts of the world where real estate prices might be rising very rapidly that might be problems? Well, I don’t know. My understanding is that London real estate prices have gone up very rapidly and the question is whether or not the influx of money from parts of the world where there has been political upheaval has driven that, and if so whether that is a transitory thing or whether it is going to fall. There are parts of Canada where Canadians are concerned. My concern is always with leveraged investments and whether or not those prices have gone up substantially, because if they do fall and there is a lot of leverage then you tend to see defaults, and if the loans have been provided by banks it can ripple through the financial system. So these are things to watch.
MarketWatch: Would Fed liftoff send a shock through the financial system?
Cecchetti: There has been a lot more capital flow volatility in the last few years than people like and along with that has come exchange rate volatility. My view is that investors are looking for places with good growth prospects, and as long as those economies growth prospects remain good in the emerging market world and rates of return remain healthy, that people are going to continue to diversify their portfolios and put their funds there. And a small move in the riskless real rate in the U.S. — that tends to follow, not lead the fact that real returns on the U.S. have gone up — shouldn’t have a huge effect.
Saturday, October 18, 2014
Warren Buffett isn't worried about this market
Amid all the of doomsday predictions and fearful hand-wringing about the stock market, the knowing chuckle of billionaire investor Warren Buffett once again puts panic into context.
Of course he's buying stocks. Prices are falling, so why not? Like with his famous “hamburger quiz,” the best time to buy any asset is when it's cheaper, not when it's more expensive.
As stocks fell last week, Buffett was buying. He was likely to buy anyway, he said. Lower prices just made it easier. “I like buying it as it goes down, and the more it goes down, the more I like to buy,” Buffett told CNBC.
The typical Buffett quote that gets trotted out in turbulent markets applies: “Be fearful when others are greedy and greedy when others are fearful.”
For retirement investors, though, there's another, more apt quote. “Only when the tide goes out do you discover who's been swimming naked.”
Apt because the first quote relates more to how traders think. If you have a strong conviction on an investment and others seem to hate it, then buy without hesitation. If everyone loves a stock you own, watch out.
Getting it wrong
Retirement investors, however, should never be trying to figure out what the market “thinks” about a given investment. That's market timing, a high-risk endeavor. Every time you get it right and make money, there's the unavoidable risk of getting it wrong and losing even more.
Like a gambler, you find yourself in the hole pretty quick, taking bets with increasingly poor odds in an attempt to rebuild your pot. The math quickly begins to work against you.
For example, if you lose 10% of your money in an investment, you don't need a 10% “win” to get back to even. No, you need 11%.
Say you have $10 invested and it loses 10%. Now you have $9. Hold that investment and it might come back.
But if you sell (through market timing) and reinvest in something else, a 10% rebound doesn't help. You get back to $9.90 that way. You actually need a tad more than 11% to truly recover the loss.
Assume you manage to earn 11%. Great! Now you must pay commissions, fees and taxes. You could achieve your number, then slide backward into single digits on trading expenses alone.
Cash out at a market bottom, as so many do, and it's likely that you'll never get back to even. A 50% decline on $10 puts you at $5. If you sell and then reinvest, a subsequent 50% gain gets you only to $7.50. What you really need is a 100% gain.
October market
If you're not a market-timer—and no long-term investor should be—then the “swimming naked” quote is more relevant.
Yes, there are plenty of people who should be worried about the near-term direction of stocks. Mostly, these are professional money managers.
The reason they have to worry is because they are paid to worry. If their particular strategy is falling apart, there are real consequences—lost clients, lost fees, lost prestige. It's a career killer.
Retirement investors, however, should be squarely in Buffett's camp. Lower prices are good. Let the short-termers panic as the tide recedes. For us, a falling stock market is nothing more than another opportunity to buy.
Can the market fall even more? Sure it can. Catastrophically so? It can't be discounted. But we recovered from 2008 and from the dot-com collapse, and we will rebound in due time from whatever the market has in store.
Having a long-term view requires you to own the right mix of assets for your goals, not for the market of the moment. The tide will roll in and out, as it does. Yet it need not be a stressful time—unless your suit has washed away in the surf.
Of course he's buying stocks. Prices are falling, so why not? Like with his famous “hamburger quiz,” the best time to buy any asset is when it's cheaper, not when it's more expensive.
As stocks fell last week, Buffett was buying. He was likely to buy anyway, he said. Lower prices just made it easier. “I like buying it as it goes down, and the more it goes down, the more I like to buy,” Buffett told CNBC.
The typical Buffett quote that gets trotted out in turbulent markets applies: “Be fearful when others are greedy and greedy when others are fearful.”
For retirement investors, though, there's another, more apt quote. “Only when the tide goes out do you discover who's been swimming naked.”
Apt because the first quote relates more to how traders think. If you have a strong conviction on an investment and others seem to hate it, then buy without hesitation. If everyone loves a stock you own, watch out.
Getting it wrong
Retirement investors, however, should never be trying to figure out what the market “thinks” about a given investment. That's market timing, a high-risk endeavor. Every time you get it right and make money, there's the unavoidable risk of getting it wrong and losing even more.
Like a gambler, you find yourself in the hole pretty quick, taking bets with increasingly poor odds in an attempt to rebuild your pot. The math quickly begins to work against you.
For example, if you lose 10% of your money in an investment, you don't need a 10% “win” to get back to even. No, you need 11%.
Say you have $10 invested and it loses 10%. Now you have $9. Hold that investment and it might come back.
But if you sell (through market timing) and reinvest in something else, a 10% rebound doesn't help. You get back to $9.90 that way. You actually need a tad more than 11% to truly recover the loss.
Assume you manage to earn 11%. Great! Now you must pay commissions, fees and taxes. You could achieve your number, then slide backward into single digits on trading expenses alone.
Cash out at a market bottom, as so many do, and it's likely that you'll never get back to even. A 50% decline on $10 puts you at $5. If you sell and then reinvest, a subsequent 50% gain gets you only to $7.50. What you really need is a 100% gain.
October market
If you're not a market-timer—and no long-term investor should be—then the “swimming naked” quote is more relevant.
Yes, there are plenty of people who should be worried about the near-term direction of stocks. Mostly, these are professional money managers.
The reason they have to worry is because they are paid to worry. If their particular strategy is falling apart, there are real consequences—lost clients, lost fees, lost prestige. It's a career killer.
Retirement investors, however, should be squarely in Buffett's camp. Lower prices are good. Let the short-termers panic as the tide recedes. For us, a falling stock market is nothing more than another opportunity to buy.
Can the market fall even more? Sure it can. Catastrophically so? It can't be discounted. But we recovered from 2008 and from the dot-com collapse, and we will rebound in due time from whatever the market has in store.
Having a long-term view requires you to own the right mix of assets for your goals, not for the market of the moment. The tide will roll in and out, as it does. Yet it need not be a stressful time—unless your suit has washed away in the surf.
Warren Buffett isn't worried about this market
Amid all the of doomsday predictions and fearful hand-wringing about the stock market, the knowing chuckle of billionaire investor Warren Buffett once again puts panic into context.
Of course he's buying stocks. Prices are falling, so why not? Like with his famous “hamburger quiz,” the best time to buy any asset is when it's cheaper, not when it's more expensive.
As stocks fell last week, Buffett was buying. He was likely to buy anyway, he said. Lower prices just made it easier. “I like buying it as it goes down, and the more it goes down, the more I like to buy,” Buffett told CNBC.
The typical Buffett quote that gets trotted out in turbulent markets applies: “Be fearful when others are greedy and greedy when others are fearful.”
For retirement investors, though, there's another, more apt quote. “Only when the tide goes out do you discover who's been swimming naked.”
Apt because the first quote relates more to how traders think. If you have a strong conviction on an investment and others seem to hate it, then buy without hesitation. If everyone loves a stock you own, watch out.
Getting it wrong
Retirement investors, however, should never be trying to figure out what the market “thinks” about a given investment. That's market timing, a high-risk endeavor. Every time you get it right and make money, there's the unavoidable risk of getting it wrong and losing even more.
Like a gambler, you find yourself in the hole pretty quick, taking bets with increasingly poor odds in an attempt to rebuild your pot. The math quickly begins to work against you.
For example, if you lose 10% of your money in an investment, you don't need a 10% “win” to get back to even. No, you need 11%.
Say you have $10 invested and it loses 10%. Now you have $9. Hold that investment and it might come back.
But if you sell (through market timing) and reinvest in something else, a 10% rebound doesn't help. You get back to $9.90 that way. You actually need a tad more than 11% to truly recover the loss.
Assume you manage to earn 11%. Great! Now you must pay commissions, fees and taxes. You could achieve your number, then slide backward into single digits on trading expenses alone.
Cash out at a market bottom, as so many do, and it's likely that you'll never get back to even. A 50% decline on $10 puts you at $5. If you sell and then reinvest, a subsequent 50% gain gets you only to $7.50. What you really need is a 100% gain.
October market
If you're not a market-timer—and no long-term investor should be—then the “swimming naked” quote is more relevant.
Yes, there are plenty of people who should be worried about the near-term direction of stocks. Mostly, these are professional money managers.
The reason they have to worry is because they are paid to worry. If their particular strategy is falling apart, there are real consequences—lost clients, lost fees, lost prestige. It's a career killer.
Retirement investors, however, should be squarely in Buffett's camp. Lower prices are good. Let the short-termers panic as the tide recedes. For us, a falling stock market is nothing more than another opportunity to buy.
Can the market fall even more? Sure it can. Catastrophically so? It can't be discounted. But we recovered from 2008 and from the dot-com collapse, and we will rebound in due time from whatever the market has in store.
Having a long-term view requires you to own the right mix of assets for your goals, not for the market of the moment. The tide will roll in and out, as it does. Yet it need not be a stressful time—unless your suit has washed away in the surf.
Of course he's buying stocks. Prices are falling, so why not? Like with his famous “hamburger quiz,” the best time to buy any asset is when it's cheaper, not when it's more expensive.
As stocks fell last week, Buffett was buying. He was likely to buy anyway, he said. Lower prices just made it easier. “I like buying it as it goes down, and the more it goes down, the more I like to buy,” Buffett told CNBC.
The typical Buffett quote that gets trotted out in turbulent markets applies: “Be fearful when others are greedy and greedy when others are fearful.”
For retirement investors, though, there's another, more apt quote. “Only when the tide goes out do you discover who's been swimming naked.”
Apt because the first quote relates more to how traders think. If you have a strong conviction on an investment and others seem to hate it, then buy without hesitation. If everyone loves a stock you own, watch out.
Getting it wrong
Retirement investors, however, should never be trying to figure out what the market “thinks” about a given investment. That's market timing, a high-risk endeavor. Every time you get it right and make money, there's the unavoidable risk of getting it wrong and losing even more.
Like a gambler, you find yourself in the hole pretty quick, taking bets with increasingly poor odds in an attempt to rebuild your pot. The math quickly begins to work against you.
For example, if you lose 10% of your money in an investment, you don't need a 10% “win” to get back to even. No, you need 11%.
Say you have $10 invested and it loses 10%. Now you have $9. Hold that investment and it might come back.
But if you sell (through market timing) and reinvest in something else, a 10% rebound doesn't help. You get back to $9.90 that way. You actually need a tad more than 11% to truly recover the loss.
Assume you manage to earn 11%. Great! Now you must pay commissions, fees and taxes. You could achieve your number, then slide backward into single digits on trading expenses alone.
Cash out at a market bottom, as so many do, and it's likely that you'll never get back to even. A 50% decline on $10 puts you at $5. If you sell and then reinvest, a subsequent 50% gain gets you only to $7.50. What you really need is a 100% gain.
October market
If you're not a market-timer—and no long-term investor should be—then the “swimming naked” quote is more relevant.
Yes, there are plenty of people who should be worried about the near-term direction of stocks. Mostly, these are professional money managers.
The reason they have to worry is because they are paid to worry. If their particular strategy is falling apart, there are real consequences—lost clients, lost fees, lost prestige. It's a career killer.
Retirement investors, however, should be squarely in Buffett's camp. Lower prices are good. Let the short-termers panic as the tide recedes. For us, a falling stock market is nothing more than another opportunity to buy.
Can the market fall even more? Sure it can. Catastrophically so? It can't be discounted. But we recovered from 2008 and from the dot-com collapse, and we will rebound in due time from whatever the market has in store.
Having a long-term view requires you to own the right mix of assets for your goals, not for the market of the moment. The tide will roll in and out, as it does. Yet it need not be a stressful time—unless your suit has washed away in the surf.
Tuesday, October 14, 2014
鼓励缴税享优惠 减税有助抑止逃税
政府宣佈于2015税年起降低个人所得税缴纳率，內陆税收局副总执行长拿督西蒂玛丽雅博士相信此举有助抑止逃税，依过去经验判断，调降税率反而让人民更乐意缴税，以享有税务优惠。
2015税年起，个人所得税缴纳率將降低1%至3%，同时月入4000令吉以下的个人与家庭无需缴税。
乘数效应扩散带动
询及內陆税收局如何强化直接税管制与监督进一步打击逃税，西蒂玛丽雅出席2015年財政预算案座谈会后告诉《中国报》，政府调降个人所得税缴纳率能助打击直接税逃税活动，人人都想享有低税率优惠，也更乐意缴税。
“根据我们的经验，政府平均每5年调降税率，但税收不减反增，这是因为减税使消费者的可支配收入增加，消费能力加强及增加开销，这可带动企业收入也將跟著增加。”
直接税包括个人所得税、公司税、石油税、房產盈利税（RPGT）、印花税等。
西蒂玛丽雅直言，公司收入增加意即需缴的公司税也更多，个人所得税缴纳率虽减少，但乘数效应（multiplier effect）扩散带动，税收自然增加。
“今年底税收料可按年增3%至4%，约可收获1330亿令吉；內陆税收局去年收取的税款达1290亿令吉。”
扩大收税层面
政府税收不减
政府税收不减
月入4000令吉的纳税人虽自2015税年起不用缴税，但不代表政府税收將跟著减少，西蒂玛丽雅指出，这跟政府调降所得税缴纳率调低一样，无形中扩大收税层面，让更多不同阶层的公眾成为纳税人。
目前，我国活跃纳税人约为210万人。
另一厢，內陆税收局与往年一样，从本月21日起至11月12日在全国各地举办2015年財政预算案后的全国税务大会，主要供该局员工出席了解。
鼓励缴税享优惠 减税有助抑止逃税
政府宣佈于2015税年起降低个人所得税缴纳率，內陆税收局副总执行长拿督西蒂玛丽雅博士相信此举有助抑止逃税，依过去经验判断，调降税率反而让人民更乐意缴税，以享有税务优惠。
2015税年起，个人所得税缴纳率將降低1%至3%，同时月入4000令吉以下的个人与家庭无需缴税。
乘数效应扩散带动
询及內陆税收局如何强化直接税管制与监督进一步打击逃税，西蒂玛丽雅出席2015年財政预算案座谈会后告诉《中国报》，政府调降个人所得税缴纳率能助打击直接税逃税活动，人人都想享有低税率优惠，也更乐意缴税。
“根据我们的经验，政府平均每5年调降税率，但税收不减反增，这是因为减税使消费者的可支配收入增加，消费能力加强及增加开销，这可带动企业收入也將跟著增加。”
直接税包括个人所得税、公司税、石油税、房產盈利税（RPGT）、印花税等。
西蒂玛丽雅直言，公司收入增加意即需缴的公司税也更多，个人所得税缴纳率虽减少，但乘数效应（multiplier effect）扩散带动，税收自然增加。
“今年底税收料可按年增3%至4%，约可收获1330亿令吉；內陆税收局去年收取的税款达1290亿令吉。”
扩大收税层面
政府税收不减
政府税收不减
月入4000令吉的纳税人虽自2015税年起不用缴税，但不代表政府税收將跟著减少，西蒂玛丽雅指出，这跟政府调降所得税缴纳率调低一样，无形中扩大收税层面，让更多不同阶层的公眾成为纳税人。
目前，我国活跃纳税人约为210万人。
另一厢，內陆税收局与往年一样，从本月21日起至11月12日在全国各地举办2015年財政预算案后的全国税务大会，主要供该局员工出席了解。
Monday, October 13, 2014
Sunday, October 12, 2014
“亚洲股市教父” 胡立阳看空黄金和股市
当我们在5月份会面时，您说在当时的市场状况下，最安全的做法是把钱放在床底下。几个月过去了，您的看法是否有改变？
许多人都问我，有没有所谓的必胜投资方程式，我都会告诉他们简单的一句话：买在低点。
目前，任何投资工具，无论是房地产还是股票，估值都贵得不合理。而这就不符合“买在低点”这个最基本的原则。
虽然我曾强调，市场不会现在就崩盘，但我仍然认为股市在接下来的两至三年内有崩盘的可能性。当股市大跌时，大好机会就会出现，到时投资者就能遵循“买在低点”的原则进场。
如果你认为市场现在就会崩盘，你肯定是在做梦，因为市场中依然有大量资金在流动，这正是一切都贵的原因。
所以我仍然建议大家应该保留资金，等大好机会出现时才大量买进。
您曾告诉观众，在判断全球市场会不会出现重大变化方面，您自有一套方法。可以请您与我们的读者分享您的判断方法吗？
我们要看的其中一个重要指标是美国的10年期国债利率，因为这也是操控大量资金的机构投资者留意的指标。
机构投资者会关注10年期国债利率，主要是因为它们已经预计利率将会上升。利率上升会产生连锁效应。
债券价格会下跌，美元会升值，甚至人民币也会上涨。但当利率上升时，房地产价格
和股市也会下跌，而这正是人们担心的事情。
所以要看出市场会不会出现大幅变动，就要看美国10年期国债利率。如果这个利率上升至3%以上并停留在那个水平一段时间，即表示趋势已经固定下来，包括房地产和股票在内的各类资产的价格会开始松动。
黄金目前的价位约为1,200多美元。与2011年超过1,850美元的高位相比，黄金现在看起来是便宜的。您认为黄金现在算便宜吗？您对黄金的长期走势有何看法？
黄金基本上是“前途黯淡”为什么我这样说呢？因为黄金的跌势已经开始，金价不会那么快回弹。
当我在华尔街的时候，我有一个朋友以850美元的价位买进黄金，并希望金价会涨到1,000美元。结果金价持续下跌，他损失惨重。如果他一直持守黄金，要等上28年才会等到金价重返850美元的价位。等28年才等到一项资产回到原价，那可是一段相当长的时间啊！
另外，由于利率预料将提高，美元将随之上涨，这对黄金来说是不利因素，金价将进一步受压。在我看来，金价至少要跌至其最高位的一半，也就是1,920美元的一半，我才会开始考虑黄金。也就是说，只有在金价跌到960美元的时候，我才会考虑买入黄金。
来到2014年第四季度，您对哪个领域特别感兴趣？
假如有一片100英亩的田地，上面都种了新鲜的农作物，然后有一大群蝗虫飞过来并聚集在这片田地，而且数量越来越多，你觉得最后会剩下什么？
这正是目前的状况，市场就是那片田地。目前的市场状况是一切都相当贵，已经没有东西是我觉得便宜的了。
所以，说到底，目前最好的策略是把钱存起来，等待大好机会到来。
良机一定会出现，你必须为此做好准备。当机会到来时，将会有另一轮的财富分配，我希望你会是受惠者之一。
许多人都问我，有没有所谓的必胜投资方程式，我都会告诉他们简单的一句话：买在低点。
目前，任何投资工具，无论是房地产还是股票，估值都贵得不合理。而这就不符合“买在低点”这个最基本的原则。
虽然我曾强调，市场不会现在就崩盘，但我仍然认为股市在接下来的两至三年内有崩盘的可能性。当股市大跌时，大好机会就会出现，到时投资者就能遵循“买在低点”的原则进场。
如果你认为市场现在就会崩盘，你肯定是在做梦，因为市场中依然有大量资金在流动，这正是一切都贵的原因。
所以我仍然建议大家应该保留资金，等大好机会出现时才大量买进。
您曾告诉观众，在判断全球市场会不会出现重大变化方面，您自有一套方法。可以请您与我们的读者分享您的判断方法吗？
我们要看的其中一个重要指标是美国的10年期国债利率，因为这也是操控大量资金的机构投资者留意的指标。
机构投资者会关注10年期国债利率，主要是因为它们已经预计利率将会上升。利率上升会产生连锁效应。
债券价格会下跌，美元会升值，甚至人民币也会上涨。但当利率上升时，房地产价格
和股市也会下跌，而这正是人们担心的事情。
所以要看出市场会不会出现大幅变动，就要看美国10年期国债利率。如果这个利率上升至3%以上并停留在那个水平一段时间，即表示趋势已经固定下来，包括房地产和股票在内的各类资产的价格会开始松动。
黄金目前的价位约为1,200多美元。与2011年超过1,850美元的高位相比，黄金现在看起来是便宜的。您认为黄金现在算便宜吗？您对黄金的长期走势有何看法？
黄金基本上是“前途黯淡”为什么我这样说呢？因为黄金的跌势已经开始，金价不会那么快回弹。
当我在华尔街的时候，我有一个朋友以850美元的价位买进黄金，并希望金价会涨到1,000美元。结果金价持续下跌，他损失惨重。如果他一直持守黄金，要等上28年才会等到金价重返850美元的价位。等28年才等到一项资产回到原价，那可是一段相当长的时间啊！
另外，由于利率预料将提高，美元将随之上涨，这对黄金来说是不利因素，金价将进一步受压。在我看来，金价至少要跌至其最高位的一半，也就是1,920美元的一半，我才会开始考虑黄金。也就是说，只有在金价跌到960美元的时候，我才会考虑买入黄金。
来到2014年第四季度，您对哪个领域特别感兴趣？
假如有一片100英亩的田地，上面都种了新鲜的农作物，然后有一大群蝗虫飞过来并聚集在这片田地，而且数量越来越多，你觉得最后会剩下什么？
这正是目前的状况，市场就是那片田地。目前的市场状况是一切都相当贵，已经没有东西是我觉得便宜的了。
所以，说到底，目前最好的策略是把钱存起来，等待大好机会到来。
良机一定会出现，你必须为此做好准备。当机会到来时，将会有另一轮的财富分配，我希望你会是受惠者之一。