На OSTK я положил уже давно, слишком много инфы поступает, а Патрик меня пугает - неуравновешанный какой-то. Плюс всю суть с naked shorting до сих пор не понимаю. У FFH кстати похожая ситуация.
Кто-нибудь прочитал Barron's Roundtable и последнюю статью про Баффетта которую я выложил? В свете соседней темы по доллару комментарии и там и там звучат не очень. Баффетт доллар уже давно шортит:
Bill Gross:
In 2006, if the dollar weakens, and that's my prediction, other non-dollar-denominated markets in Europe and Asia will participate more fully. They participate in the current global expansion, they are as cheap or cheaper than U.S. stocks, and they are denominated in currencies that are cheaper than the dollar. Therefore, U.S. investors should accelerate their exposure to non-dollar stocks, because the dollar as a currency is doomed.
Schafer: Will the U.S. market go up less than the dollar will go down?
Gross: I am not sure. We're importing an increasingly large percentage of our GDP from other countries, and to the extent that they are non-dollar-denominated, our purchasing power is declining. The U.S., in terms of its wealth and strong currency policy, probably is at an apex. That's not to say its prospects decline, but they decline relative to faster-growing economies, namely Asian economies.
Hickey:
Hickey: I'm not sure. I'm more convinced of Bill's comment about the dollar being doomed. I put more than 80% of my own assets in non-dollar-related stuff because I don't want to have exposure to the dollar after last year's repatriation flows. [Companies received tax breaks on profits earned overseas.] I don't want to lose purchasing power. I look at foreign bonds and metals.
Buffett:
Buffett remains concerned about what he believes is an inevitable consequence of current U.S. trade practices - if the U.S. is going to consume more than it produces, he says, we have to expect to give away a little bit of the country.
He argues that in 2004, the U.S. had a trade deficit of well over $600 billion, of which nearly one quarter was with China. In other words, the U.S. bought $160 billion worth more goods from China than we sold. The problem, he says, is that if the Chinese are going to send us shoes and furniture and textiles, the U.S. clearly has to give them something in return - little pieces of paper called U.S. dollars. But the Chinese don't hold onto those little pieces of green paper. They're converted into other assets such as U.S. government bonds - just as the central bank has done. And sometimes the Chinese buy U.S. assets.
Buffett warns that the U.S. is over-consuming to a point of real danger: "We're sending out IOUs on this country or sending out ownership of this country at the rate of $2 billion a day." And while $2 billion a day in an $11 trillion-plus economy may not sound so bad, it adds up. "We have gone from being a country that owned more of the rest of the world than they owned of us," says Buffett, "to the country that probably is about $3 trillion in the hole right now in terms of our net-worth position. It will have an effect, it may be a month from now, it may be five years from now, who knows, but it is not without consequences."
This thinking explains Buffett's current position on the dollar. He admits that he doesn't know whether the dollar will be up or down in the short run, but he says that five years from now, if there's no change in U.S. trade practices, the dollar will be significantly weaker.
А вот это ваще убивает:
-----------------------------
Buffett: (on the trade deficit and the value of the dollar) "That really is the $64,000 question. It seems to me that a $618 billion trade deficit, rich as we are, strong as this country is, well, something will have to happen that will change that. Most economists will still say some kind of soft landing is possible. I don't know what a soft landing is exactly, in how the numbers come down softly from levels like these. ?
"There are more people [like hedge-fund managers] that go to bed at night with a hair trigger than ever before, it's an electronic herd, they can give vent to decisions that move billions and billions of dollars with the click of a key. We will have some exogenous event, we will have that. There will be some kind of stampede by that herd. ?
"When you have far greater sums than ever before, in one asset class after another, that are held by people who operate on a hair-trigger mechanism, then they lend themselves to more explosive outcomes. People with very short time horizons with huge sums of money, they can all try to head for the exits at the same time. The only way you can leave your seat in burning financial markets is to find someone else to take your seat, and that is not always easy. ?"
Munger: "The present era has no comparable referent in the past history of capitalism. We have a higher percentage of the intelligentsia engaged in buying and selling pieces of paper and promoting trading activity than in any past era. A lot of what I see now reminds me of Sodom and Gomorrah. You get activity feeding on itself, envy and imitation. It has happened in the past that there came bad consequences."
Buffett: "I have no idea on timing. It's far easier to tell what will happen than when it will happen. I would say that what is going on in terms of trade policy is going to have very important consequences."
Munger: "A great civilization will bear a lot of abuse, but there are dangers in the current situation that threaten anyone who swings for the fences."
Buffett to Munger: "What do you think the end will be?"
Munger: "Bad."
---------------------------
Сообщение отредактировал Pooh: 04.03.2006, 04:43:02
Войти
Регистрация
:
Наверх
