- 帖子
- 45
- 精華
- 0
- 威望
- 52
- 魅力
- 1
- 讚好
- 0
|
19#
發表於 2007-8-11 03:11 AM
| 只看該作者
Originally posted by locklock at 2007-8-11 02:12 AM:
你講咁多都係過去歷史!911過時... believe what you like, but it's unnecessary to attack others' ideas or viewpoints by calling names and such
i agree stocks are good investments over the long run, but it doesn't hurt to be cautious when you can see that credit is drying up
whether you like it or not, history gives us a good frame of reference, and i'm simply stating facts when i say that central banks add liquidity whenever we face a credit crunch
this is only one of many times that central banks have added liquidity to the markets
straight from bloombergagain, the problem i see is not directly related to subprime, subprime is simply the trigger that led to a wave of fund unwinding their overleveraged positions and causing the global credit crunch that we are seeing now
the global credit crunch is the real problem, as it was in 1997-1998 and 2000-2001
the financial and tech bubbles were also only triggers
central banks can intervene all they want, but the markets simply need time to sort out the credit imbalances
could be as short as a few months, as in july - oct 1998, or as long as a few years, as in sept 2000 to sept 2002
holding cash or stocks in cash rich companies outperformed the overall stock market during these periods with global liquidity problems
the point is, by the time central banks realize that credit problems are so big that they have to step in and add liquidity globally, their actions do little to ease the panic
it is usually a good signal to take money out of the markets, rebalance portfolios, and look for a better time to put money into the markets again
read what you like, take away what you will from this, i only want to get the facts straight and i have nothing to gain other than a few extra points |
|