fredariegel

Es gibt eine ganze Menge Lärm draußen in Finanzmedien in diesen Tagen. Blogs zu investieren sind überall, CNBC und Fox Business Network ausgestrahlt investieren Beratung 24 Stunden am Tag und selbst bei der US-Markt geschlossen ist gibt es ein Problem in einem aufstrebenden Markt, der Bestände auf der nächsten Öffnung Glocke beeinflussen.

Wie können Sie sinnvoll, Störungen heraus-tuning und tuning in die Informationen, die wichtig?

Jeff Macke – dem aktuellen Host über Breakout auf Yahoo Finance und einer der Gründerväter der CNBC's Fast Money — kürzlich verfasste ein Buch um Ihnen helfen, genau das zu tun.

Sein Buch, Kampf der die Finanz-Experten (erhältlich hier auf Amazon und Co geschrieben von Kollegen Pundit Josh Brown), ist eine Erforschung der wie Experten telefonieren und manchmal sogar Märkte aufwirbeln.

Aber es ist auch eine Anleitung wie die finanzielle Medien-Werken, welche macht Experten Tick und wie Privatanleger besser die Informationen zur Verfügung verwenden können, mehr Geld zu verdienen.

Die wertvollsten Buchkapitel enthält meiner Meinung nach diese Tipps bei der Prüfung von Experten, von Jeff Macke und Josh Brown angeboten:

1. bedeutet Wer ist dieser Experte und welche Firma oder Organisation He darstellen?

2. was bedeutet ihr verbindest in Bezug auf die Meinungen, die sie austauschen ist?

(3) hat er die gleichen Zeitrahmen oder die Anlageziele, die ich tun?

4. wie viele Ideen sie ist pro Tag oder Woche generieren? Wie viel Gedanken wird in jeder?

5. Was sind die Folgen für ihn, wenn er sich irrt? Werden wir immer mehr über diese Idee in ein Follow-up zu hören?

6. in welcher Beziehung steht die Meinung, ich habe nur Herz, zu meinem eigenenPortfolio oder Ziele zu investieren? Gibt es wirkliche Relevanz?

7. Warum bin ich lesen oder hören dies in erster Linie? Intellektuelle Neugier?Unterhaltung? Oder muss ich eine tatsächliche Notwendigkeit, diese Art vonInformationen zu beschäftigen?

8. gibt es eine öffentlich zugängliche Archiv der früheren Gutachten und Prognosendieser Person? Sind sie meist schon richtig und vor allem falsch? Was waren dietreibenden Faktoren hinter die Genauigkeiten und der große nennt? Glück?Geschicklichkeit? Gutes Timing? Starke Forschung? Eine Kombination dieser Elemente?

Ich liebe diese Liste. Und ist das einzige, was, das ich hinzufügen würde:

Kampf der finanziellen Experten, sowohl um Ihre Medienkompetenz zu verbessern undbesser verstehen, wie die zu kaufen finanzdienstleisters arbeitet.

Ein Gespräch mit dem Autor

Autor Jeff Macke hat viele gute Ratschläge, wie die Märkte und die Finanzmedien navigieren. Aber vor allem, seinen Rat umfassende persönliche Verantwortung und die Unvollkommenheit, die mit der Anlage ist.

"Ihr Ziel ist nicht wirklich ein Meister der Investitions- oder Handel, es ist in der Lage, mindestens auf das Niveau zu werden, wo Sie wissen, was Sie nicht wissen, und man nicht selbst in Schwierigkeiten, sein" Macke sagte mir letzte Woche per Telefon. "Nicht machen Sie so Tagesgeschäft der heißen IPOs oder Zahlen Sie mehr Provisionen, als Sie sollten, oder zu bleiben, weil du bist, sonst nur an der Seitenlinie mit 50 % Cash sitzen und warten auf einen Pullback oder Gedanken zu starten, wie der Markt etwas tun sollten.

"Sie müssen ein informiert Anleger und die richtigen Fragen, aber es bedeutet nicht, alles selbst zu beantworten."

Die richtigen Fragen nicht nur beteiligt sind entweder auf der Suche nach der besten großen Investitionsmöglichkeit, aber auch der richtige Ort um Ihre Finanznachrichten zu erhalten suchen.

"" Halte die Quelle', ist Regel Nr. 1, egal, ob Sie auf dem Spielplatz oder beim Fernsehen oder was auch immer du tust,"sagte Macke. "Aus irgendeinem Grund gibt es diese Lücken im Verständnis der Finanzmedien ist ein Produkt. Das, wenn Menschen auf die neuesten Tage dafür ein paar Cheerleader... CNBC kritisieren würde eine lächerliche Kritik ist; Es ist ein Fernsehsender. Es ist von Menschen, die nicht Finanzen Majors sind, die nicht einmal unbedingt aufgewendete ausgeführt wird, und es wird produziert, wie eine Fernsehsendung produziert wird wie MSNBC, wie Fox News, wie alle von ihnen hergestellt werden — von in der Regel jüngere Menschen, die sind am Telefon sowie Aufrufen von Leute, die können artikulieren ihre Ideen in freundlichen Soundbites und gut dabei aussehen. "

Mit anderen Worten, Macke sagte, wenn Sie die Experten für Sie in die Irre führende... Schuld sollten Sie wahrscheinlich im Spiegel stattdessen achten.

"Die Leute, die härtesten auf Experten in der Regel sind ein Problem mit ihrer eigenen Verantwortlichkeit haben," sagte er.

Der Trick ist zu verstehen, dass persönlich verantwortlich bedeutet nicht perfekt. Sie werden manchmal falsch sein, aber das ist in Ordnung. Schließlich sogar die größten Investoren etwas falsch gemacht — und in dem Buch, Macke hat einige tolle Gespräche mit Experten von Jim Cramer, Jim Rogers, Ben Stein über ihre Fehler und wie sie von ihnen gelernt.

Fehler in der Tat, würdevoll zu machen — und ehrlich – ist tatsächlich eine wichtigere Qualität als die meisten denken.

"Die Gemeinsamkeit, das Design, das durch jedes der Gespräche führt, dass diese Leute falsch gewesen, sie Fehler gemacht habe und sie haben etwas daraus gelernt", sagte Macke. "Wenn Sie im Geschäft die Experten zu beurteilen sind, Blick auf diejenigen, die behandelt haben, Fehler und wie sie über ihren Prozess gegangen und wie es ihnen geändert hat – in der Öffentlichkeit falsch oder richtig sein. Das wird dir viel über ob du nicht auf sie hören."

Also wenn Sie bereit sind, einige Fehler zu machen, wie Sie jetzt investieren sollten?

"Wenn du in diesem Spiel bist, bist du einfach die Tatsache zugeben wirst du zu wollen ein paar Flyer drin haben. Nun, 10 % Ihres Portfolios Weg und tun, die sich, klopfen"Macke sagte. "Wenn Sie wirklich glauben und das Gefühl, dass Sie zwei oder drei Unternehmen verstehen, dann erstellen Sie Ihr eigenes kleines Portfolio.

"Aber Ihre Staples, Ihre Hauptnahrung, das ist nett von Brot und Wasser sollte Indexfonds. Das sollte Ihre Kern-Position — lange die S & P 500 — denn Mann, es ist schwer zu schlagen. "

Wie wir auf unserer Facebook Page und folgen Sie uns bei Twitter.

Philip Bowring is appalled by the report on fiscal planning that seeks to preserve the status quo, to protect mega infrastructure spending, yet utterly fails to address our critical challenges

In 40 years of covering Hong Kong budgets and fiscal issues, I have never seen a document as misleading and contentious as the report of the Working Group on Long Term Fiscal Planning. It is a crude attack on health and welfare spending in order to find money for already bloated infrastructure spending.

To add insult to injury, the group is mainly comprised of officials and academics enjoying huge health and pension featherbeds at public expense.

The starting point for the report is true enough - that Hong Kong has an ageing population and one that is growing only slowly. This has been known long enough. The government has been aware that years of having a very low fertility rate has been a major factor in ageing - but has done nothing to address it.

The document goes on to present a scare story of ever rising deficits caused by a stagnating workforce and rising demands for health and welfare spending. Yet it accompanies this with projections for sustained increases in capital works. The non sequitur is backed by references to guidelines laid down by Philip Haddon-Cave in the 1970s - that public spending should be no more than 20 per cent of gross domestic product, and that there should be a significant surplus on the operating budget to provide funds for capital works (in addition to capital works paid by capital revenue).

Haddon-Cave, a realist, not an ideologue, would be appalled by official inability to see what has changed. Then, Hong Kong had a young, fast-growing workforce and the need for more infrastructure to support an economy based on manufacturing and merchandise trade. Today, we have no manufacturing, a port which is past its peak, and financial and other high-value services whose input needs are not primarily related to concrete.

Determination to rig the fiscal system to support mega infrastructure projects is further underlined by the report's curt dismissal of the widely supported proposal to shift part of land revenues from capital to recurrent income. This would cause short-term reductions in revenue but long-term gains in stability. But it would not suit the vested interests who are dedicated to wasteful spending on roads and bridges as well as businesses whose profits rely on land price inflation.

Notions of economic return on capital are now alien to the bureaucracy.

The document also perpetuates a convenient official lie: that the HK$750 billion surplus of the Monetary Authority is not part of the reserves. It ignores these assets completely, suggesting the group is so ignorant of exchange rate mechanisms that it believes these are needed to defend a currency peg.

The fact is that the HK$1.5 trillion total reserves belong to the citizens and were accumulated by the government at their expense. There is a moral obligation to return some of these savings to those who earned them as they reach an age when they can no longer work. Pensions are not just a right of civil servants.

Yet, while drawing almost straight-line charts of health and welfare costs, the report takes no account of the future role of the Mandatory Provident Fund - a scheme that is inadequate and expensive but nonetheless will have an impact on retirement incomes in the future.

Nor does the report take proper account of the potential for increased workforce participation. This is not surprising, given that government bodies still adhere to retirement at 60. But if the group cared to look at official data, it would have seen that in the past four years, GDP rises have owed much to the rise in participation by those over 45 - from 64.7 per cent to 68 per cent for those 45-64; and from 5.7 per cent to 8.1 per cent for those over 65. This trend is sure to continue as most people need to work after 60.

There is nothing sacrosanct about limiting public expenditure to 20 per cent of GDP. And even assuming there is abundant reason to privatise some public trading activities and impose genuine user-pays charges on others, a government incapable of adjusting tunnel tolls for car owners but that begrudges spending on the old and infirm is contemptible.

Of course, Hong Kong must adjust to changing demography as well as a changing economic base. But that demands that it focuses on providing health, education, security and similar services and transfer payments to the old and sick - and assigns much of the capital works to entities required to be self-financing and thus subject to the discipline of the market. The government owns far too many assets already.

For sure, the tax system is too narrowly based. But this report suggests nothing major to change that.

The report is basically a public relations exercise to protect the status quo. That is not surprising as it was written by officials with inputs from academic economists and accountants (specialists in tax avoidance). Where were the entrepreneurs, the demographers, the fiscal policy experts, the investment bankers, let alone the representatives of low-income groups?

John Tsang Chun-wah has shown yet again he is incapable of new thinking, to advance policies that accept welfare responsibilities ungrudgingly and improve the currently abysmal returns on public investment.

Source

House boom lifts pressure for 'speed limits' on loans

FEARS of property bubbles have prompted a warning from one of the world's pre-eminent financial regulators that using monetary policy to ward off dangerous dislocation in house prices is losing its clout, putting pressure on the Reserve Bank to consider "speed limits" on lending to cool the market.

As the weekend auction clearance rate in Sydney again topped 84 per cent, a study by the Switzerland-based Bank for International Settlements found central banks had increasingly used prudential rules to battle property market "booms and busts" instead of monetary policy.

This comes as the RBA's record-low interest rates set up a potentially uncomfortable position for governor Glenn Stevens.

The RBA would not want to raise rates to soften property prices while the broader economy was weak and after the jobless rate last week hit a four-year high, analysts said.

In addition, higher rates would boost the Australian dollar, further straining the economy's critical transition to non-mining sectors such as manufacturing, tourism and housing construction.

Led by a Sydney market that real estate agents say is "hot", house prices are rising at an annualised rate of about 8 per cent as demand from investors floods tight supply.

In a bid to cool its booming property market, the Reserve Bank of New Zealand recently imposed macro prudential rules capping the lending banks can do at high loan-to-value ratios.

Canada, Sweden and Norway have also implemented LVR restrictions since the global financial crisis.

Economists say while the RBA has been opposed to macro prudential tools, the greater use of such rules by central banks globally may prompt a rethink if house price growth continues.

"Australian house valuations have recovered in the last 12 months, along with a rebound in consumer confidence metrics," said John Buonaccorsi, a banking analyst at investment bank CIMB. "At the same time, business confidence remains weak, suggesting to us that low interest rates are still needed to support business investment. Against this background, NZ's policies could prompt a rethink on using macro prudential tools in Australia."

The BIS's one-off study looked at policy actions on housing markets in 60 economies, including Australia, from January 1990 to June last year.

Monetary policy in terms of changes in rates is not included as it is already "well documented", with the study focusing on three actions: reserve and liquidity requirements, and limits on credit growth. Five prudential measures were included.

While it found greater use of monetary policy actions overall, the share of prudential policy actions more than doubled to 33 per cent in the 2000s and 39 per cent from January 2010 to June 2012. In addition, the 13 economies in the Asia-Pacific region were the most active users of prudential measures.

"These findings are in line with the increasing interest of policymakers in prudential measures that specifically influence housing credit booms," the report says.

"Since the 1990s, financial cycles such as housing credit and house price cycles have become longer, larger and less synchronised with business cycles and inflation cycles."

The report concludes many central banks have adopted interest rate policy and inflation targeting as the main part of monetary policy framework since the 1990s. The RBA's primary mandate is to set the cash rate to meet its inflation target of 2-3 per cent, but it is also charged with ensuring economic stability, in which housing markets play a big role.

BIS did not refer to Australia's current property market, but the surge in prices has caught the eye of regulators. Last week, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority warned banks not to relax home lending standards.

Source

House boom lifts pressure for 'speed limits' on loans

FEARS of property bubbles have prompted a warning from one of the world's pre-eminent financial regulators that using monetary policy to ward off dangerous dislocation in house prices is losing its clout, putting pressure on the Reserve Bank to consider "speed limits" on lending to cool the market.

As the weekend auction clearance rate in Sydney again topped 84 per cent, a study by the Switzerland-based Bank for International Settlements found central banks had increasingly used prudential rules to battle property market "booms and busts" instead of monetary policy.

This comes as the RBA's record-low interest rates set up a potentially uncomfortable position for governor Glenn Stevens.

The RBA would not want to raise rates to soften property prices while the broader economy was weak and after the jobless rate last week hit a four-year high, analysts said.

In addition, higher rates would boost the Australian dollar, further straining the economy's critical transition to non-mining sectors such as manufacturing, tourism and housing construction.

Led by a Sydney market that real estate agents say is "hot", house prices are rising at an annualised rate of about 8 per cent as demand from investors floods tight supply.

In a bid to cool its booming property market, the Reserve Bank of New Zealand recently imposed macro prudential rules capping the lending banks can do at high loan-to-value ratios.

Canada, Sweden and Norway have also implemented LVR restrictions since the global financial crisis.

Economists say while the RBA has been opposed to macro prudential tools, the greater use of such rules by central banks globally may prompt a rethink if house price growth continues.

"Australian house valuations have recovered in the last 12 months, along with a rebound in consumer confidence metrics," said John Buonaccorsi, a banking analyst at investment bank CIMB. "At the same time, business confidence remains weak, suggesting to us that low interest rates are still needed to support business investment. Against this background, NZ's policies could prompt a rethink on using macro prudential tools in Australia."

The BIS's one-off study looked at policy actions on housing markets in 60 economies, including Australia, from January 1990 to June last year.

Monetary policy in terms of changes in rates is not included as it is already "well documented", with the study focusing on three actions: reserve and liquidity requirements, and limits on credit growth. Five prudential measures were included.

While it found greater use of monetary policy actions overall, the share of prudential policy actions more than doubled to 33 per cent in the 2000s and 39 per cent from January 2010 to June 2012. In addition, the 13 economies in the Asia-Pacific region were the most active users of prudential measures.

"These findings are in line with the increasing interest of policymakers in prudential measures that specifically influence housing credit booms," the report says.

"Since the 1990s, financial cycles such as housing credit and house price cycles have become longer, larger and less synchronised with business cycles and inflation cycles."

The report concludes many central banks have adopted interest rate policy and inflation targeting as the main part of monetary policy framework since the 1990s. The RBA's primary mandate is to set the cash rate to meet its inflation target of 2-3 per cent, but it is also charged with ensuring economic stability, in which housing markets play a big role.

BIS did not refer to Australia's current property market, but the surge in prices has caught the eye of regulators. Last week, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority warned banks not to relax home lending standards.