세계경제 트렌드와 MARKET CRASH 2015

Jul 21, 2014

Market Watch :우리는 미국 역사상 세번째로 가장 큰 주식버블 위에 타고 있다!

Article Source (원문) :  Market Watch
Linked address (링크주소)
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/story?guid=57775a9a-0c45-11e4-a2d9-00212803fad6

We’re in the third biggest stock bubble in U.S. history

By Brett Arends, MarketWatch 




 Getty Images
New York Stock Exchange traders, October 1929.
Here’s a quick question for you. What do the following years have in common:
여기에 당신을 위한 짤막한 질문이 있다. 다음의 년도들이 공통적으로 나타내는 것이 무엇일까:
1853, 1906, 1929, 1969, 1999
Pass the question around your office. Call your money manager and ask him or her, too. Post it on your office notice board.
이 질문을 당신 사무실 주변에 있는 사람들에게 물어보라. 당신의 자산관리인에게 전화해서 역시 같은 질문을 해 보라. 당신 사무실의 게시판에 이 질문을 올려 보라.
Give up?
포기인가?
Those were the peaks of the five massive, generational stock-market bubbles in U.S. history.
그 년도들은 바로 미국 역사상 가장 큰 다섯 번의 세기적 주식시장 버블들이 최고조를 이룬 시기들이다.
Investors who bought into stocks around those peaks ended up earning terrible returns over the subsequent 30 years. Forget “stocks for the long run.” They ended up with “stocks for a long face.” The bigger the bubble, the worse returns.
그 최고조의 버블이 낀 주식시장에 주식에 투자한 투자가들은 결국 그 후 30년이 넘도록 최악의 결과를 맞이하게 되었다. "주식에 장기 투자하라"하는 말은 잊어버려라. 그들은 결국 "오랜 기간동안의 주식들"에 끝장 났다. 버블이 클수록 그 결과는 더 비참하다.
And, according to a new research report, we are back there again.
그리고, 새로운 연구 보고서에 따르면, 우리는 다시 그 최고조의 버블 상태로 돌아갔다.
U.S. stocks are now about 80% overvalued on certain key long-term measures, according to research by financial consultant Andrew Smithers, the chairman of Smithers & Co. and one of the few to warn about the bubble of the late 1990s at the time.
금융 컨설턴트이자 스미서 앤 컴파니 사 회장이며, 1990년대 말의 버블에 대해 경고했던 몇 안되는 사람들 중 하나였던 앤드류 스미서스의 연구에 따르면, 미국의 주식들은 지금 특정한 핵심적 장기 측정법에 의해 평가해 볼때 약 80%나 과대평가 되었다. 
The five dates listed at the start of this article, he says, are the only times since 1802, when data began being tracked, when stocks have been 50% or more overvalued according to these measures. And only two of those bubbles — 1929 and 1999, both of which were followed by disastrous crashes — were bigger than today.
그에 따르면, 이 기사의 초기에 쓰여진 다섯 년도들은 데이타들이 기록되기 시작했던 1802년 이후로 이 평가 방법에 따라서, 주식이 50%나 그 이상으로 부풀려졌던 오직 다섯번의 시기들이다. 그리고 그 중 두번이 버블만이 -1929년과 1999년 두 번다 파멸적인 폭락이 뒤따랐던 - 오늘날보다 더 큰 버블이었다.
That’s right: According to Smithers’s data, we are now in the third biggest bubble in U.S. history. (Oh, to jump ahead slightly, he also suspects it will go up even further before it comes back down.)
맞는 이야기다: 스미서스의 데이타에 따르면, 우리는 지금 미국 역사상 세번째로 큰 버블을 경험하고 있는 것이다. (오, 약간만 더 앞으로 나가보면, 그는 또한 이번 버블이 그 파멸을 맞기 전에 오히려 더욱 부풀려질수도 있다고 의심하고 있다.)
Smithers bases his analysis on a combination of measures: Subsequent 30-year returns, and a comparison of U.S. stock prices (since 1900) in relation to a key measure called“Tobin’s q,” which looks at how much it would cost to replace corporations’ assets from scratch. The two measures march closely together: For over 100 years, nothing has predicted investors’ future 30-year returns better than to compare the stock market to the q.
스미서스는 그의 판단기준의 조합에 대한 분석에 기초하고 있다: 추후 30년 동안의 보상들, 그리고 회사의 자산이 파손 될때 교체를 위해 얼마만한 비용이 들지를 보는"Tobin's q." 라고 불리는 핵심 측정기준에 의한 미국 주식 가격비교. 두 개의 측정기준들은 서로 긴밀한 관계이다 : 지난 100년이 넘도록, 투자가들의 30년 수익을 예측하는 것이 주식 시장을 q와 비교하는 것보다 낟다고 아무도 예측하지 못했다.
Smithers used data from Jeremy “Stocks for the Long Run” Siegel, from London Business School professor Elroy Dimson and his colleagues, and from London University finance professor Stephen Wright

Fix your broken calendar: best calendar apps

The search for a calendar that doesn’t reinvent the wheel but just nails the basics.
Caveats to this alarming analysis? My MarketWatch colleague Howard Gold recently warned that fear can be dangerously seductive and influential when it comes to financial news, and he’s right. One should always take a deep breath and a pause for thought when reading anything deeply bearish (or bullish). Smithers has been bearish for some time, although he has not attempted to predict short-term moves in the market.
Today Smithers argues that stock prices are first likely to go even higher, because they are being driven upwards by two forces. The first is the Federal Reserve’s “quantitative easing” program - the policy of flinging money at the banks in the hope some of it doesn’t stick, but finds its way into the wider economy. The second is corporate buying. Under-appreciated at the moment is that the top buyers of U.S. stocks these days are the companies themselves. U.S. companies have been borrowing aggressively and using the money to buy their own stock.
Probably the most important single implication of this analysis is not what is going to happen today or next week or even next year. It is to remind investors that stocks in aggregate have not always generated high returns. On the contrary, the stock market has throughout modern history gone in long waves, with booms of several decades, followed by mediocre or even disastrous returns for many years. Since hardly anybody studies history any more - and people on Wall Street think they can extrapolate the future from 20 years’ data - this one insight is likely to be heavily under-appreciated.

Women and children deported to Honduras, and more

Tuesday nearly 40 women and children were flown from the U.S. to Honduras in an expedited deportation, and Sotheby's joins forces with eBay.
If Smithers is right, what are the possible icebergs that could come along sooner or later and sink today’s market? He suggests several.
First, the Fed could be the cause as it winds down quantitative easing, a policy on track to end this year. As research by Smithers and others show, the stock market boom since 2009 has almost exactly tracked the rapid increase in the money supply.
Second, companies could stop borrowing and buying shares of their own stock. All the talk of fat corporate balance sheets hides the problem that U.S. companies have actually been increasing their leverage. To keep buying in stocks they would have to continue to do so - ad infinitum, perhaps.
The third could be a return to 1970s-style stagflation. Smithers notes that — contrary to what you may hear from the bulls — U.S. productivity growth has been slowing for years, and indeed has been tumbling recently. Such slowing growth, Smithers notes, could set the stage for a rise in inflation and interest rates, or a sluggish economy. Either, in turn, could weaken stock prices and investor optimism.
My take? The older I get the more I sympathize with Socrates, who supposedly said that the only thing he knew was how little he knew (or something similar). However, I give Smithers’s analysis a lot of weight. It is, after all, based on hard numbers, unsentimental analysis, and a deep study of history.
All three are in short supply elsewhere on Wall Street. 

0 comments :

Post a Comment

Subscribe | 이메일구독

Categories | 카테고리

Pageviews | 방문자수

Archive | 저장소

DrawingDaddy.com@. Powered by Blogger.