顯示具有 緊記緊記 標籤的文章。 顯示所有文章
顯示具有 緊記緊記 標籤的文章。 顯示所有文章

2012年10月21日 星期日

瓏門超級洗腦團

現今人嘅知識水平越來越高,單靠呃大家未必會上當。

因此商品銷售,無論賣樓,或小至賣手機(廣告),都充滿洗腦成份,利用人嘅心理弱點 - 意志力嘅脆弱;

大家有無發覺多看電視,無論你有無真正留意廣告講咩,你都會無意識地哼首廣告歌出來,跟住你先諗起個廣告,因為勁嘅廣告喺不停重播重播再重播,已經入咗你嘅潛意識...

諗起都毛骨悚然...

By Dino, http://www.snb.hk/blog/front/blogdetail.aspx?postid=66342&blogid=23252

第一部份:

瓏門即將開售,相信大家對此盤的最初觀感是:屯門樓點值1萬蚊呀!

樓價高與低,值與不值,見仁見智,不過最好親身感受一下。感受之後,我發現自己不知不覺間已陷入了一個超級洗腦團。

話說昨日小弟就在經紀D和經紀E的帶領下,以VIP身份來到位於九龍站環球貿易廣場(ICC)的示範單位參觀。雖說是VIP,但其實只是地產商和地產經紀給予的虛名罷了,而由於還未公開發售,因此必須預約才能入內。

若近日到圓方的話,大家會見到許多類似地產經紀的人,但與之前天賦海灣示範單位被幾十經紀圍攻不同,這次大家似乎都有所收斂,至少保安會要求他們在商場內收起工作證兼禁止拉客。

在樓下等候上86樓展覽館的現場所見,可能是較早的緣故吧,睇樓客不算太多,有內地客,有家庭客,也有年青人。


到展覽館的路很轉折,要經過兩至三個的等候點,上完lift後又再上。但各個路口都是精心佈置的,又有圖則方便經紀作介紹。

在等候和參觀的過程,兩經紀輪流為我洗腦,例如是灌輸鄰近深圳前海概念,深圳CBD(中央商務區)概念,港珠澳大橋概念以及瓏門位於香港機場、深圳機場和中環三角的中心點等。最慘的是,若你反駁或者質疑他們的說話,他們又再輪流以第二種表達方式重複其論點。

參觀過程分幾部分,一是看示範單位,包括四房單位、天池屋和清水房。二是看製作千萬的宣傳片(部分還未正式播放),三是看屯門以及內地的未來規劃模型,四是看瓏門大型屋苑模型。


先說宣傳片,經紀會讓客人舒服地坐在沙發上,好像在iMax睇戲一樣,發展商方面播出一段幾分鐘的短片,將深圳和屯門地區塑造成未來大都會。說真的,這一部分是憧憬,一部分是事實,但其後兩名經紀之後又再一次重複短片中所說的屯門規劃,令我開始有點不耐煩。

而示範單位方面,裝修的確很不錯,而發水的面積(如窗台)比我想像中少,尤其是主人房。


天池屋是瓏門王牌之的王牌,約四千呎,有所謂的天池,是豪客必爭之物,聽說已賣到超過20000/呎。

談 到睇樓客源,我發現很多都是本人,而非大陸客。根據經紀所說,屯門近深圳,但之前由於沒有新盤,不少來回中港的人要在屯門本區換樓很難,瓏門現在就他們提 供一個換樓機會。首批發售的都是約980至1100呎的大單位,因此客源很多都是屯門區內客。最好笑是,當中竟然有一個約八十歲的老婆婆,她雖然手拿木 仗,但健步如飛,穿梭在人群之中,一邊叫人快啲買啦,但一邊又說自己不住五房單位。

以上這樣都是參觀初期的見聞,但參觀完畢發生的事才是戲肉。我在當中經歷了最慘痛的被洗腦事件,明天再續吧!


第二部份:

今日,兩份財經報紙都談到瓏門的銷情。《信報》稱銷情遜預期,因為107伙中只賣了50伙;《經濟日報》則稱已賣60伙,佔可售單位一半,報道較正面。

不同消息來源或者不同的老細,都有不同的報道手法,因此只看一張報紙的樓市,很容易被誤導。這就好像只信經紀和地產商的話,你就很容易被洗腦,以為有平貨執。

上回講到我參加了瓏門超級洗腦團,被經紀D和經紀E輪流洗腦,當時真的開始覺得有投資價值。

看完示範單位後,我就跟隨兩名經紀到最多人聚集的瓏門地產經紀基地。在那裏,有許多ICC的美食和飲品提供給客人,不過當中並沒有可以坐的地方,要坐的話就要到各間經紀行所屬的房間內。當然,入內的話你一定會被人挾死。

「不如入去傾呀,舒服啲!」經紀D開始採取攻勢。

「我想周圍睇下先!」我開始遊走在人群當中。

不過,兩名經紀鍥而不捨,一邊猛跟著我,一邊又談到瓏門如何抵買。

我當時就心知不要跟他們入內,無奈的是他們突然請來一名外援女經紀A。一看經紀A就知是Top Sales,外表光鮮,說起話來頭頭是道,比起兩名經紀經驗要老到得多。

經紀A與我說話時已經拿著價單、指引和申請表等,似是準備十足。在三人的夾擊之下,我無奈地被迫入一間房間,最慘的是房間最corner位無人,於是我就被帶入死胡同等候被宰。

「你都好叻,咁後生就有錢買瓏門。」讚美是經紀最好的開場白。

「我都係想了解下啫,我仲有個Partner未得閒嚟!」我推搪說。

「哦,唔緊要,落住票先啦,唔係就hold唔到貨!」經紀A拿出價單,指著即將發售的單位。


接著,她在價單上指出三個靚單位推介給我:「呢三間都係至筍盤,好平,好抵。」她一口氣介紹了這三個所謂發展商預留的靚單位給我。我根本很難反駁,因為她介紹得實在太出色了。她還推介一個特色大宅給我,說這是筍中之筍,她的計算如下:




在狂轟濫炸之下,我開始頭痛了,很累,但對方的戰鬥力和持久力極為驚人,不斷說:「呢個盤無得輸,我地有錢一定瞓身買!」

我之後就想出脫身之法,說:「不如我出去打個電話給我partner問下先!」

她沒有放生我,反而加緊要我落票,「我地唔敢保證喺七點鐘之後會有筍嘢!」

在我一再堅持下,我才勉強走出房間。我在打電話過程中,經紀E全程跟在身後不遠的地方,經紀D就負責守著要道,生怕我逃走──我的確很想溜走。


之後,我就趁經紀A與其他客交談時對其他兩人說:「我Partner話瓏門開價太貴,叫我諗清楚,冷靜下先。」

我說完就想逃走,但那兩名經紀卻窮追不捨,不斷說:「你仲有咩疑慮呢?唔算貴架啦,落票先,唔啱價就唔好買囉。」

「我想靜下,俾我諗一諗,好唔好?」我開始發火。他們立即收聲,但還是跟著我。


ICC示範單位樓層的設計者應該是個天才,因為由樓上到樓下,我足足等了十分鐘,完全為經紀挽留客人而設。我要經過幾個轉折位,落完lift到行一條走通道,之後又再排隊。他們跟足我全程,我當時只好低頭祈求快快逃出這個洗腦聖地。

到樓下後,我沒有跟他們說話,留下電話就急急離去了。回到家,頭還是很痛。

不得不承認的是,此洗腦團的確很強勁,我有一刻是想落票hold貨,因為覺得屯門樓賣10000/呎其實不是天方夜譚,還有升值潛力。不過,冷靜過後,其實用近200萬首期買一個1000萬的單位,根本不化算,倒不如分散投資,在市區買兩個細單位來收租算了。

有朋友曾說,他買一手樓時根本不知自己買了什麼,內心很不安。經過此役後,我終於明白這個道理了。


2012年6月25日 星期一

董驃金句-人生篇


急事,要慢慢講。
大事,要清楚的講。
小事,可幽默的講。
無把握的事,要謹慎地講。
無發生的事,不要亂講。
做不到的事,別隨便講。
傷害人的事,不能講。
討厭的事,小心地講。
開心的事,睇場合講。
傷心的事,不要見人就講。
別人的事,最好唔講。
自己的事,聽聽自己的心怎樣講。
現在的事,做了再講。
未來的事,未來再講。
如果對我有不滿意的地方,請一定要對我講。
樂不可極,樂極生悲。
不勞而獲無道理,勞而不獲無天理。
交一友要千言萬語,失一友只三言兩語。
富貴如浮雲,得失不須記。

2012年5月17日 星期四

未來如何由今天決定

“夏天買棉被、冬天買草蓆”人人曉講。
今天你有冇膽在冬天買草蓆?

如果你不滿意現在自己的生活就是不滿意過去自己的決定,如果你不想過現在的生活,就應從今天開始決定改變未來。

今天你的情況由過去10年所作每一決定所形成,例如2003年你有沒有決定買樓、2007年有沒有賣出股票,2009年重新入市等等,未來的你由現在所作的決定所塑造!


過去的決定形成今天的你,
現在所作每一決定,又塑造你的未來。



曹仁超 17-05-2012

2012年5月2日 星期三

匪夷所思...

「無殼」陳淑莊:未儲夠首期

04-02-2012  明報

買樓不買樓?相信在未來日子仍會是城中熱話。對一班月薪達7萬元的立法會議員來說,「上車」應該無難度,60名議員中故然有「樓王」、「地王」,但令人意外的是,原來也有不少「無殼蝸牛」;也有議員20多年來,一直堅持居於新界的居屋單位,天天花2.5小時乘車;當然亦有進取型的,三十出頭已買樓買車再買舖。在香港動盪的樓市股海中,議員和你我他一樣,有人歡喜,有人隱陣,也有人愁。

「10年內搬了5次屋 好辛苦」

大學畢業生埋怨上不到車的故事,大家可能聽得多,但月入7萬元的立法會議員都要做「無殼蝸牛」,你可能不太理解,且聽聽他們的故事。

補選期間被收樓 決心置業

畢業於法律學院的陳淑莊,從政之前曾在投資銀行工作4年,1997年金融風暴,令她看盡投資老手如何損手離場,甚至加入失業大軍,同行當日一句:「如果蝕1000萬元便要跳一次樓,我就要跳50次」,嚇得陳淑莊一直不敢投資;加上性格緊張,不能承受蝕錢風險,令陳淑莊多年來掙到的一分一毫,都只放在銀行收息。

今天當上立法會議員,月入7萬元的她坦言,議員收入夠她「上車」置業,但無奈自己已39歲,最多只能供款20年,以七成按揭計算,一個300萬單位,要儲足100萬元首期,令她遲遲未能「上車」。

現租600呎單位 盼5年上車

陳淑莊目前在灣仔區租住一個約600呎單位,仍然單身的她自言本來沒有買樓壓力,但去年立法會補選期間,業主突然收回單位,令她要四處張羅居所,「那時樓價高到根本無時間諗置業,故最終只能在灣仔繼續租樓,並簽下30個月死約!我10年內已搬了5次屋,真的好辛苦!」

除了陳淑莊,工聯會葉偉明及衛生服務界議員李國麟同樣都是少數「無殼」議員。工會出身的葉偉明有意下屆出戰新界東,目前正租住將軍澳一單位。記者問他為何不置業?葉偉明指樓價高企是主因,「目前仍然物色中,但樓價咁高,實在好難入市!」他稱無論在樓價或居住地點方面,自己都要仔細考慮,加上現時仍不是入市時機,故短期內仍然會先做租客,希望等到合適時機,才一擊即中


這次慘痛經歷令陳淑莊痛定思痛,決心找個安樂窩,目標是在5年內儲到7位數字首期,有信心可達到。

除了陳淑莊,工聯會葉偉明及衛生服務界議員李國麟同樣都是少數「無殼」議員。工會出身的葉偉明有意下屆出戰新界東,目前正租住將軍澳一單位。記者問他為何不置業?葉偉明指樓價高企是主因,「目前仍然物色中,但樓價咁高,實在好難入市!」他稱無論在樓價或居住地點方面,自己都要仔細考慮,加上現時仍不是入市時機,故短期內仍然會先做租客,希望等到合適時機,才一擊即中。

長年租客 李國麟﹕毋須置業

不過亦非個個議員都以置業為目標,李國麟就反其道而行,他認為只要是「有瓦遮頭」便已足夠,毋須一定要置業。「最重要是有得住!其實香港並無房屋問題(housing problem),而是業權問題(ownership problem),因香港人都想有樓在手,但其實供應並非嚴重不足!」李國麟自言在10多年前曾經當過業主,但賣樓後便沒再置業,一直以租樓為主,亦無計劃在短期內置業。



2012年4月22日 星期日

最壞的...都會過去

陳年熊市往事

20-04-2012  am730 - 財經CAREFREE

80後90後口中的股災, 可能是指2008年環球次按風暴,或者是去年歐洲爆發債務危機。

已經四十而不惑,講起1989年六四事件以及1997年亞洲金融風暴,可能猶有餘悸。至於阿爺阿嬤一輩,印象最深刻的,可能係1973年石油危機。不同人,最震驚的熊市經驗都不同,共同點在於,統統都已經成為陳年往事。當年怕得要死,今日不過如是。要為下一個熊市做定逃生演習,避免谷底離場,明白熊市只係過眼雲煙,屬於重要第一課。為求加深讀者印象,可以快鏡重溫一下以上幾次超級危機。

2011年歐債危機升溫,希臘破產、歐盟解體、歐元玩完等等恐怖預言,都被媒體描繪成即將發生一樣,多國信用評級被下調,就連歐洲大國意大利、法國及德國等國債亦一度被唱衰。但至去年底,全球七大央行聯手為市場提供資金,歐盟26國簽訂新條約,交出部分財政自主權,答應將來集體節約開支等。

直至今年初,歐盟推出長期再融資操作(LTRO),希臘亦通過緊縮開支預算案,一場全球金融危機方被化解。最近又唱歐債,不過講兩三日已經冇人理。相信再度帶來重大殺傷力,可能性非常低。

至於2008年次按金融海嘯,被認為百年罕見。地球一樣冇消失。但當時,地震、海嘯等形容詞傳媒都嫌棄未夠衰,有報紙曾經用血洗港股來形容市況最差幾天。可笑的是,當記者寫得最過癮之時,次按災難開始迫使各國政府採取救市行動,以免災情進一步擴大。

其中美國推出數千億美元的救市計劃,美國聯儲局主席伯南克又印超過萬億美元鈔票,中國亦於2008年底,推出4萬億元人民幣刺激方案。各行各業漸漸走出衰退陰影。其中特別受到政策眷顧的行業,例如汽車、家電,更展開前所未有的繁榮時期。

於2008年10月雷曼兄弟破產之後,全球股市不斷下跌,但半年後,股市已經變成不斷升。港股由萬幾點,升到逾20,000點,亦不過在一年內發生。

1997年發生亞洲金融風暴,亞洲各國過度依賴外債、借得太多,製造一個被大鱷狙擊的機會。泰銖、韓圜、馬來西亞元都先後失守,大幅貶值,其中馬來西亞更加決定實行外匯管制,雖然欠下一身債,但各國努力重組經濟,依稀記得電視新聞當年播出南韓人排隊捐錢救國的場面。

十年人事幾番新,亞洲早已經走出風暴陰影,擔心熱錢湧入,多過擔心資金流出。泰國股市亦由1997年尾的372點,至現時大概約1,170點,大幅上升逾2.1倍。南韓及馬來西亞股市指數,亦早已經超越風暴之前水平。

至於香港,當年港元、港股同時受襲,1年內恒指唔見咗六成,在1998年8月港股約在6,500點的谷底價,以後曾經歷多次經濟災難,包括美國「911」、沙士、及次按金融風暴等等。

再往前推,1989年六四事件後,坦克車粉碎唔少人對中國嘅信念。當時最流行係申請其他國家護照,連到內地旅遊,香港人都杯葛。大家都懷疑中國改革開放步伐能否持續。香港前途一片灰暗,當年底,恒指以2,836點收盤,今日回頭望,事實證明改革已經深入民間,不能逆轉。而做內地遊客生意,投資內地、投資人民幣、買中資股等已經成為香港人生活一部分。

六四驚天動地,每年維園依然有紀念活動,但在股市世界中,已完全被遺忘了。

最後講1973年石油危機,石油價格一下子大升,經濟短期內無法適應,股市恐慌,恒指1974年171點收盤,較1973年高位足足跌九成。事隔近四個十年,現時油價每桶百多美元,雖較當年石油禁運後約12美元一桶,高出一個喜瑪拉雅山,依然大把人買,經濟亦正常運作。石油危機,80後可能聽都未聽過,至於經濟如何復甦,對唔住,唔知道。總之重點係今日幾差都比當年好多多。當年恐慌中拋售優質股票的投資者,如果時光可以倒流,最想做的,必定是趁大跌市買貨,而並非人驚自己驚埋一份,所謂超級危機,多年後,亦不過是一段小插曲。

2012年4月11日 星期三

歷史喺會重複的...

羊兒哀歌 (3)

11-04-2012  頭條日報 (陸羽仁)

美股終於出現今年最差的跌市,杜指跌213點,收12715點,跌幅1.7﹪。話佢最差因為今年其他跌市美股都係在開市頭一個鐘見底,並會在收市前反彈,特別會在歐洲收市後反彈,但昨日彈都唔彈,而且成交好大,紐交所成交9.7億股,平日通常成交只有7至8億股,跌市成交大,顯示市場信心開始動搖。

跌市的觸發點在歐洲,西班牙話佢守唔到削赤要求,令歐洲股市大跌,意大利股市跌5﹪,法國股市跌3﹪,德國和英國股市跌多過2﹪。意大利和西班牙的債息急升, 歐洲危機又有重臨的感覺。

過去一段時間,美股一直脫離歐洲的走勢,昨天跟番歐洲走,唔係好預兆,過去一直在等 QE3,怕只怕未等到月底聯儲局決定有無QE3, 美股已經插咗落去。

今日想再講講早前寫的「羊兒哀歌」續集。前一陣子網友myself(直升烏蠅)有一個好長的回應,我想引用一下。佢話:「 陸sir寫『羊兒哀歌』,用羊比喻小散户真係好貼切,小弟亦有親身經歷。大家都知羊係膽小既動物,大跌市時人心惶惶,眼見身邊人都輸緊錢,報紙所見都係負面新聞,悲觀情勢主導,而散户反而唔敢買貨,唔買就唔輸。往往要到大升市,身邊親友都賺到錢,報紙頭條都唱好,特別係越接近升市尾段,細價股日日爆升十幾%,散仔受火熱既氣氛吸引而入市,上升中既股市容易繼續上升,散仔初段盲目買股多有錢賺,羊的錢本來只係放銀行收息食下草,一旦買股賺過容易錢食過肉就以為自己係一隻狼,哈哈,成群老散歡天喜地之時,散户就越買越安心,股票越買越多。到股市見頂回跌初段,一般仍然係利好消息主導,散户一般開始� 斿X唔止蝕,甚至溝淡,但指數已無力再上拾級而下,散户錢越套越深,到輸超過一半時已經放棄跟進,派對過後留下滿倉跌了七、八既蟹貨,炒埋唔夠一碟,是為『羊兒哀歌』。

Myself繼續講:「輸錢皆因嬴錢起,升浪殺人,小弟所見,無數個小升浪每次殺一小群羊都唔好講,大升浪宰羊就更明顯。近十幾年既大浪分別係97年炒回歸、00年炒科網股、07年炒國內資金自由行,每次大升市既概念不同,但每次都有一大群羊被屠宰。97年小弟亦係被殺既一群,其時第一次買股,國企紅籌炒回歸注資,大中細股炒到瘨,恆指直上17000點,其時小弟剛畢業,見阿媽炒股賺到錢,『阿邊個個仔買咩咩賺左30%!』,『阿邊個炒股個個月賺十萬!』,『阿邊個全職炒股個個月執十幾個!』,自己入左間証劵行做,見間証劵行日日逼到爆,又真係好多客炒炒下有錢賺,於是就靠自己少少積蓄,加阿媽打本5萬開始下海買股票,記得個時真係全副薪家一次買哂,買左六、七隻二、三線股,仲同人講,要學巴菲特分散投資,所以買左六、七隻二、三線股,又航運又航空又陸地,真係好『分散』,自己對所買股票毫無認識,只知股升有人買,自己又跟住買,初期真係隻隻都升,巴菲特話要長線投資,所以升都唔放,個時心諗:『開間廠咁辛苦一年都係賺十幾%,我買股揸一個月唔到已經升廿個%,買股至富呢條路係掂架!』,之後亞洲金融風暴,上映外資大鱷夾息沽期指,再借現貨沽,恆指直插8千點,小弟的『長線投資』,一早已經打哂柴,睇都費時睇,呢隻跌到得返幾千,個隻得返幾百,是為『羊兒哀歌』。」

佢再將故仔寫落去:「其後二千年,科技股大熱,楷哥日日上頭板,小弟推銷基金,個時既基金有『科技』兩個字特別易sell(賣),行過証劵行又遇見當日逼爆市面,見過鬼怕黑,心知歷史又要重演,所以高位唔買冇輸錢,但最後都忍唔到買左電盈,個時心諗,佢係龍頭股,前身係香港電訊,再加上由高位三十幾跌到八蚊(高位應該係28元),開始買貨,越跌越溝,結果跌到得返個幾,三十跌個幾係輸九成,八蚊跌到個幾又輸九成,真係30樓跳樓跌死人,八樓跳落來一樣係跌死人,視為『羊兒哀歌』。」

佢最後講:「時間來到07年,小弟入左間大公司,前後左右好多同事仔都炒股,其時炒內地資金自由行,短短兩三個月,恆指由二萬五直沖三萬二,牛氣沖天,係公司經常可以聽到同事講股,好多係自己從未聽過的number(號碼),仲幾個同事,每人夾兩三千去炒邊消息股,你話係咪好散,不時『阿邊炒股賺左萬幾蚊請食tea』,『阿邊個放左隻IPO又請tea』,似曾相識既感覺,之後雷曼爆煲金融海肅,身邊同事都好幾年冇再講股,雖然唔知佢地高位有冇走到,恐怕都好難,因為賺緊錢唔會走,輸左錢更唔會止蝕,恐怕都係賺既輸返哂,是為『羊兒哀歌』。」

你睇Myself佢不斷重覆「羊兒哀歌」四隻字,從文裏行間都見到一股怒氣,首先我希望Myself化悲憤為實力,畢竟呢啲血的教訓,係自己用錢買回來,十分珍貴,應該記取。

你睇Myself自述的經歷,佢已經係一個比較懂得學習的人,想避開羊兒的命運。佢在97一浪做最多散戶做的事情,「買左六、七隻二、三線股」,二三線股升跌好快,在97年那種大牛市,升市時最易賺錢當然唔係買藍籌,係炒輪或者買二三線股。但好多二三線股幕後有莊家,而且愈會升那隻愈有莊,這是一個莊家和散戶對賭遊戲,莊家把一隻廢股炒高10倍,借住個市熱將兩三成貨暗中放出街,佢都回本兼有對開賺,莊家睇住散戶底牌來炒,散戶長賭必輸,呢個教訓表面睇好易學,但過得一兩年,個市旺番,散戶見到啲股日日升,好易又迷番落去。

Myself好似無回頭炒二三線,已經好叻。順道講佢當時買二三線所謂分散投資,佢話「仲同人講,要學巴菲特分散投資,所以買左六、七隻二、三線股,又航運又航空又陸地,真係好『分散』」。我扮巴菲特答,你買六、七貴嘢,無論幾分散,都係貴嘢。
到2000年,Myself無炒二三線,無陪人顛,但最後買咗隻電盈,高位28元無買,跌到8蚊開始買貨,越跌越溝,結果跌到得返個幾,「真係30樓跳樓跌死人,八樓跳落來一樣係跌死人」。Myself你唔好彩,若果你再2000年識得我,你問我好唔好8元買電盈,我會叫你咪買(我當時叫過幾個朋友唔好買),原因又係一樣:貴。

你會問由28元跌到8元,已經平咗好多,點解仲係貴。關鍵係楷哥用自己間盈科買香港電訊的性質。楷哥大玩財技,盈科投得數碼港,市值炒上3000億,當時已盛傳電訊賣盤,電盈市值亦炒上3000億,然後盈科係以合併電訊的方式買盤,電訊股東唔喜歡可以攞錢走,電訊大股東英國大東電報局就係咁攞現金走咗,記住合併式收購係由合併後的新公司支付收購,財技一玩,即係用電訊的現金俾大東攞走咗,新公司負上巨債,大東套現,新公司股東還債。所以電訊由28元跌到8元,市值仲有近1000億,負債咁大,最賺錢的國際電話市場又開放,電盈點值咁貴? 正常公司10幾倍PE,即係電盈要賺70、80億一年,點賺? 所以Myself當日由8樓跌落來,主要亦係分不出電盈的股價平貴。

要分股票平貴,難免要估佢未來5年、10年盈利,公司愈細愈難估,本來電盈這類大公司較易股,但佢當時涉及無人識估的互聯網業務,加上打破壟斷,所以亦唔易沽,但大路去沽係唔會好。

羊仔要避開危險,首先唔好去綠草如茵的天堂,因為上天無對我地咁好,若買股天天賺錢,仲有人番工。所以大股又好,細股又好,若然狂升,避之則吉。狂升股跌緊落來,也不要去接劍,記住8樓跳樓的教訓。唔識揀股,可去買指數基金,等佢回落得咁上下,PE較低時買,即使買錯,買完即跌,揸一年半載可以到岸,過程中仲收埋息,以此為基礎,然之後先至練工夫睇個別股票,無咁上下功力,想急都急不來。

2012年3月30日 星期五

羊兒哀歌

30-03-2012  (陸羽仁) 頭條日報


美國最近一周首次申領失業救濟人數減少5000人至35.9萬人,創了2008年4月中以來最低。事實上,美國勞工處剛修改了計算方法,如果用原來的公式,首次申領失業救濟人數其實只有不足32萬人。相比2009年年初,首次申領失業救濟人數高達65萬人,從任何角度睇,就業市場已經有非常大的改善。

但投資者只將實際數字比較市場預期,市場預期為35萬人,實際係35.9萬,好消息就變成壞消息,拖累美股一度跳水,而全球股市見紅,特別係歐洲股市平均下挫1.3%,亦係打擊美股投資情緒的一大原因。歐洲第四大經濟體西班牙,日前表示完成唔到將赤字佔GDP比倒控制在4.4%的目標,只能做到5.8%,她明天將提出緊縮財政的預算方案,全國出現大罷工。有傳媒報導西班牙已向歐盟與國際貨幣基金組織(IMF)尋求救援基金,以加速該國銀行業體系的重組,西班牙隨即澄清話沒有此事,引起了市場對歐洲危機重燃的焦慮。

另外,評級機構標準普爾繼續不忘「跟進」希臘情況,話希臘可能不得不再次進行債務重組,一旦發生,將涉曾經救助他的夥伴,包括歐洲各國的政府,歐洲情緒一度影響美股,杜指朝早最跌過94點,但接近13000點已支持,掉頭向上,收市仲倒升19點,收13145點。標普500指數更一度失守1400點關口,觸及20天線1392點亦見支強力支持,收市微挫,但仍能收於1400點之上,報1403點,微跌2點。

近期好多民企都暴跌,即使是中小型國企回20、30%比比皆是,揸正呢啲股票的朋友大叫救命,網友大笨袋鼠有此回應:「 短期炒賣,正路定10%止蝕,套回現金就可以重長計議,再戰江湖。可是錯過止蝕,跟住越蝕越多,可以蝕到十分迷茫。好多時聽打電話問股票,都係輸到咁上下,表面係問意見,其實係迷茫到要搵人認同、或代作決定。」

佢話:「老實講,就算唔係輸錢嘅人問股票,有時被問嘅人都好難俾答案,雖然好多詢問者都係有股品的,知要自己最終負責,但被問嘅人唔一定知,又或者有第三者旁聽,撞著個無品嘅,是但隻股跌個七彩或升到跟嫦娥上月球,都好易俾人媽媽聲問候。一般而論,袋鼠會覺得,當股票輸錢而又沒有10%止蝕,如果事前又無計劃、無心理準備,就會對手頭上的投機決定已經難以理性地分析 - 亦即是之前一段所講的迷妄。有時引刀成一快,套回現金養傷,反彈回升或再跌到PK都唔關你事,但這樣起碼可以俾機會自己退出局外,更多反思空間。」

佢繼續話:「唔記得那一位常註網友,提過在衍生工具輸錢時輸得好甘,但超過了10%好多好多都平了個盤,當晚抽離了市場,意外地不是念念不忘輸錢,而是特別好瞓。袋鼠都有類似經驗。」

我睇見袋鼠咁講,都好有感慨,既覺答問題之難,亦明散戶之苦。散戶是隨波逐流的羊群,在大市好景,熱火朝天時,最易搵食,因為佢地跟住趕羊人到處行,遍野青草,食之不盡。即使趕羊人其實係狼扮的,即使趕羊人帶佢地去到屠房後院的草地開餐,佢地都會食到好開心。假設旁邊有個先知,睇咗呢個故事二三十年,知道次次結局都係一樣,佢都好難出聲,因為羊兒食草食得好高興時,佢地根本無問題想問,你走埋去多多意見,話在這裏食草好危險,在那裏食草有陷阱,佢會話你多事,叫你死開。你堅持講嘢,佢天天有草食,就會覺得你講嘢錯,佢食草先至啱。

以超級靚數上市的民企,我假設十間之中,有一半真,一半有假嘢,但世事無絕對,以假數上市的民企,若老闆夠醒,將集到的錢正正經經放在生意上,買機器擴產,不能排除佢能弄假成真。倒轉來講,以真數上市的民企,本來老老實實做生意,上咗市後,銀行信心增加,以前要按嘢先至借錢俾佢,而家唔使抵押可以借。另外好多古惑仔亦會走埋來,教民企老闆搵「便宜資金」炒作,從此走上歸路,而家咁多民企唔掂,當中不少是把錢拿去炒股炒樓被套牢。講番上市之初,好壞難辨,若叫你唔買,佢日日升,我就實行俾人掟爛蕃茄,叫我唔好扮先知。所以我多數選擇唔講,只是見到炒到太離譜的公司,先至講兩句,講完就算,這是開場的情況。

將部影碟機按一個快速飛前掣,個故事飛到中後部,羊兒食草食得好高興後,被趕入羊圈,羊兒半推半就,都覺得有少少唔妥,但大部份都入閘,說時遲那時快羊圈的欄柵關上,趕羊人把羊兒的羊腳縛住,羊兒開始覺得唔對路,開始向先知問問題,但事到如今,答案千篇一律,叫羊兒自己咬斷自己隻腳逃生,好似太殘忍,叫羊兒死等等奇績出現,機會又可能不大,所以「那些年」羊兒沒有興趣問問題時,其實先知有好多東西可以講,到近結局羊兒有興趣問問題時,又無乜好建議,有點無奈。

所以我叫大家分開「投資的我」和「投機的我」,對一啲摸唔清睇唔透的青綠草原,用投機心態,去食吓草唔拘,但一有少少風吹草動就閃,咁就唔會傷身。要長線投資,要對那樣東西十分理解,即係你見到的草地即使唔係好多草,但都夠食,週圍環境清清楚楚,就可以長期定居,係無咁正啦,勝在安全啲囉。

2012年3月19日 星期一

Keys to Success by Jim Rogers

Jim Rogers' Keys to Success (taken from the titles and sub headings of each chapter of the new book, "A Gift To My Children"):
  1. Do not let others do your thinking for you
  2. Focus on what you like
  3. Good habits for life & investing
  4. Common sense? not so common
  5. Attention to details is what separates success from failure
  6. Let the world be a part of your perspective
  7. Learn philosophy & learn to think
  8. Learn history
  9. Learn languages (make sure Mandarin is one of them)
  10. Understand your weaknesses & acknowledge your mistakes
  11. Recognize change & embrace it
  12. Look to the future
  13. “Lady Luck smiles on those who continue their efforts”
  14. Remember that nothing is really new
  15. Know when not to do anything
  16. Pay attention to what everybody else neglects
  17. If anybody laughs at your idea view it as a sign of potential success 

2012年3月15日 星期四

我信高盛喺咁邪惡!

Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs



It might sound surprising to a skeptical public, but culture was always a vital part of Goldman Sachs’s success. It revolved around teamwork, integrity, a spirit of humility, and always doing right by our clients. The culture was the secret sauce that made this place great and allowed us to earn our clients’ trust for 143 years. It wasn’t just about making money; this alone will not sustain a firm for so long. It had something to do with pride and belief in the organization. I am sad to say that I look around today and see virtually no trace of the culture that made me love working for this firm for many years. I no longer have the pride, or the belief.
But this was not always the case. For more than a decade I recruited and mentored candidates through our grueling interview process. I was selected as one of 10 people (out of a firm of more than 30,000) to appear on our recruiting video, which is played on every college campus we visit around the world. In 2006 I managed the summer intern program in sales and trading in New York for the 80 college students who made the cut, out of the thousands who applied.
I knew it was time to leave when I realized I could no longer look students in the eye and tell them what a great place this was to work.
When the history books are written about Goldman Sachs, they may reflect that the current chief executive officer, Lloyd C. Blankfein, and the president, Gary D. Cohn, lost hold of the firm’s culture on their watch. I truly believe that this decline in the firm’s moral fiber represents the single most serious threat to its long-run survival.
Over the course of my career I have had the privilege of advising two of the largest hedge funds on the planet, five of the largest asset managers in the United States, and three of the most prominent sovereign wealth funds in the Middle East and Asia. My clients have a total asset base of more than a trillion dollars. I have always taken a lot of pride in advising my clients to do what I believe is right for them, even if it means less money for the firm. This view is becoming increasingly unpopular at Goldman Sachs. Another sign that it was time to leave.
How did we get here? The firm changed the way it thought about leadership. Leadership used to be about ideas, setting an example and doing the right thing. Today, if you make enough money for the firm (and are not currently an ax murderer) you will be promoted into a position of influence.
What are three quick ways to become a leader? a) Execute on the firm’s “axes,” which is Goldman-speak for persuading your clients to invest in the stocks or other products that we are trying to get rid of because they are not seen as having a lot of potential profit. b) “Hunt Elephants.” In English: get your clients — some of whom are sophisticated, and some of whom aren’t — to trade whatever will bring the biggest profit to Goldman. Call me old-fashioned, but I don’t like selling my clients a product that is wrong for them. c) Find yourself sitting in a seat where your job is to trade any illiquid, opaque product with a three-letter acronym.
Today, many of these leaders display a Goldman Sachs culture quotient of exactly zero percent. I attend derivatives sales meetings where not one single minute is spent asking questions about how we can help clients. It’s purely about how we can make the most possible money off of them. If you were an alien from Mars and sat in on one of these meetings, you would believe that a client’s success or progress was not part of the thought process at all. 
It makes me ill how callously people talk about ripping their clients off. Over the last 12 months I have seen five different managing directors refer to their own clients as “muppets,” (扯線木偶) sometimes over internal e-mail. Even after the S.E.C., Fabulous Fab, Abacus,God’s work, Carl Levin, Vampire Squids? No humility? I mean, come on. Integrity? It is eroding. I don’t know of any illegal behavior, but will people push the envelope and pitch lucrative and complicated products to clients even if they are not the simplest investments or the ones most directly aligned with the client’s goals? Absolutely. Every day, in fact.
It astounds me how little senior management gets a basic truth: If clients don’t trust you they will eventually stop doing business with you. It doesn’t matter how smart you are.
These days, the most common question I get from junior analysts about derivatives is, “How much money did we make off the client?” It bothers me every time I hear it, because it is a clear reflection of what they are observing from their leaders about the way they should behave. Now project 10 years into the future: You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that the junior analyst sitting quietly in the corner of the room hearing about “muppets,” “ripping eyeballs out” and “getting paid” doesn’t exactly turn into a model citizen.
When I was a first-year analyst I didn’t know where the bathroom was, or how to tie my shoelaces. I was taught to be concerned with learning the ropes, finding out what a derivative was, understanding finance, getting to know our clients and what motivated them, learning how they defined success and what we could do to help them get there.
My proudest moments in life — getting a full scholarship to go from South Africa to Stanford University, being selected as a Rhodes Scholar national finalist, winning a bronze medal for table tennis at the Maccabiah Games in Israel, known as the Jewish Olympics — have all come through hard work, with no shortcuts. Goldman Sachs today has become too much about shortcuts and not enough about achievement. It just doesn’t feel right to me anymore.
I hope this can be a wake-up call to the board of directors. Make the client the focal point of your business again. Without clients you will not make money. In fact, you will not exist. Weed out the morally bankrupt people, no matter how much money they make for the firm. And get the culture right again, so people want to work here for the right reasons. People who care only about making money will not sustain this firm — or the trust of its clients — for very much longer.
Greg Smith is resigning today as a Goldman Sachs executive director and head of the firm’s United States equity derivatives business in Europe, the Middle East and Africa. 

妖股處處

博士蛙狂瀉4成 德勤指無法完成審計 


15-03-2012  信報
博士蛙(01698)現狂瀉37%,報1.61元,最多跌41.8%低見1.5元,目前成交達2.65億元。
博士蛙今早公布,德勤‧關黃陳方會計師行已辭任公司之審計師,自2012年3月13日起立即生效。
德勤•關黃陳方會計師行認為尚有若干其所需的與其審計相關的信息仍未獲得,或者管理層提供的解釋不足以令其滿意,造成其無法完成審計。
其他兒童用品股亦受拖累,好孩子(01086)跌4.2%,青蛙王子(01259)跌5.4%。

2012年3月6日 星期二

Goldman Secret Greece Loan Reveals Sinners

06-03-2012  Bloomberg

Greece’s secret loan from Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS) was a costly mistake from the start.
On the day the 2001 deal was struck, the government owed the bank about 600 million euros ($793 million) more than the 2.8 billion euros it borrowed, said Spyros Papanicolaou, who took over the country’s debt-management agency in 2005. By then, the price of the transaction, a derivative that disguised the loan and that Goldman Sachs persuaded Greece not to test with competitors, had almost doubled to 5.1 billion euros, he said.
Papanicolaou and his predecessor, Christoforos Sardelis, revealing details for the first time of a contract that helped Greece mask its growing sovereign debt to meet European Union requirements, said the country didn’t understand what it was buying and was ill-equipped to judge the risks or costs.
“The Goldman Sachs deal is a very sexy story between two sinners,” Sardelis, who oversaw the swap as head of Greece’s Public Debt Management Agency from 1999 through 2004, said in an interview.
Goldman Sachs’s instant gain on the transaction illustrates the dangers to clients who engage in complex, tailored trades that lack comparable market prices and whose fees aren’t disclosed. Harvard University, Alabama’s Jefferson County and the German city of Pforzheim all have found themselves on the losing end of the one-of-a-kind private deals typically pitched to them by securities firms as means to improve their finances.

Goldman Sachs DNA

“Like the municipalities, Greece is just another example of a poorly governed client that got taken apart,” Satyajit Das, a risk consultant and author of “Extreme Money: Masters of the Universe and the Cult of Risk,” said in a phone interview. “These trades are structured not to be unwound, and Goldman is ruthless about ensuring that its interests aren’t compromised -- it’s part of the DNA of that organization.”
A gain of 600 million euros represents about 12 percent of the $6.35 billion in revenue Goldman Sachs reported for trading and principal investments in 2001, a business segment that includes the bank’s fixed-income, currencies and commodities division, which arranged the trade and posted record sales that year. The unit, then run by Lloyd C. Blankfein, 57, now the New York-based bank’s chairman and chief executive officer, also went on to post record quarterly revenue the following year.

‘Extremely Profitable’

The Goldman Sachs transaction swapped debt issued by Greece in dollars and yen for euros using an historical exchange rate, a mechanism that implied a reduction in debt, Sardelis said. It also used an off-market interest-rate swap to repay the loan. Those swaps allow counterparties to exchange two forms of interest payment, such as fixed or floating rates, referenced to a notional amount of debt.
The trading costs on the swap rose because the deal had a notional value of more than 15 billion euros, more than the amount of the loan itself, said a former Greek official with knowledge of the transaction who asked not to be identified because the pricing was private. The size and complexity of the deal meant that Goldman Sachs charged proportionately higher trading fees than for deals of a more standard size and structure, he said.
“It looks like an extremely profitable transaction for Goldman,” said Saul Haydon Rowe, a partner in Devon Capital LLP, a London-based firm that advises global investors on derivatives disputes.

Disappearing Debt

Goldman Sachs declined to comment about how much it made on the swaps. Fiona Laffan, a spokeswoman for the firm in London, said the agreements were executed in accordance with guidelines provided by Eurostat, the EU’s statistical agency.
“Greece actually executed the swap transactions to reduce its debt-to-gross-domestic-product ratio because all member states were required by the Maastricht Treaty to show an improvement in their public finances,” Laffan said in an e- mail. “The swaps were one of several techniques that many European governments used to meet the terms of the treaty.”
Cross-currency swaps are contracts borrowers use to convert foreign currency debt into a domestic-currency obligation using the market exchange rate. As first reported in 2003, Goldman Sachs used a fictitious, historical exchange rate in the swaps to make about 2 percent of Greece’s debt disappear from its national accounts. To repay the 2.8 billion euros it borrowed from the bank, Greece entered into a separate swap contract tied to interest-rate swings.
Falling bond yields caused that bet to sour, and tweaks to the deal failed to prevent the debt from almost doubling in size by the time the swap was restructured in August 2005.
Greece, which last month secured a second, 130 billion-euro bailout, is sitting on debt equal to about 160 percent of its GDP as of last year.

Eurostat Rules

Under Eurostat accounting rules, nations were permitted until 2008 to use so-called off-market rates in swaps to manage their debt. Greek officials, including Sardelis, say they learned that other EU countries such as Italy had employed similar methods to shrink their debts, taking advantage of the secrecy of over-the-counter derivatives compared with swaps traded on exchanges.
Eurostat said Greece didn’t report the Goldman Sachs transactions in 2008 when the agency told countries to restate their accounts.
“The Greek authorities had never informed Eurostat about this complex issue and no opinion on the accounting treatment had been requested,” the Luxembourg-based agency said in a statement last month.
Eurostat said it had only “general” discussions with financial institutions on its debt and deficit guidelines when the swap was executed in 2001. “It is possible that Goldman Sachs asked us for general clarifications,” Eurostat said, declining to elaborate.

Loudiadis Role

Bloomberg News filed a lawsuit at the EU’s General Court seeking disclosure of European Central Bank documents on Greece’s use of derivatives to hide loans. Releasing such information could damage the commercial interests of the ECB’s counterparties, hurt banks and markets, and undermine the economic policy of Greece and the EU, the central bank said last May in a response to the suit. A judgment is pending.
Sardelis, 61, and Papanicolaou, 72, said several banks, including Goldman Sachs, made proposals to manage Greece’s debt. The bank was represented by its top European sales executive at the time, Addy Loudiadis. She was trusted, said Papanicolaou, because she had helped price competitors’ derivatives and in 1999 warned the Greeks against buying a complex swap.
Sardelis, a former bank economist, described Loudiadis, who’s based in London, as “very professional -- a little bit aggressive as is everyone at Goldman Sachs.”

‘Teaser Rate’

The derivative Loudiadis offered Sardelis in 2001 was also complex. Designed to provide a cheap way to repay 2.8 billion euros, the swap had a “teaser rate,” or a three-year grace period, after which Greece would have 15 years to repay Goldman Sachs, Sardelis said. All in, the deal appeared cheap to officials at the time, he said.
“We calculated that this had an extra cost above our normal funding cost on the yield curve of 15 basis points,” Sardelis said. A basis point is 0.01 percentage point.
Loudiadis, now CEO of Rothesay Life, a Goldman Sachs unit that insures longevity risk for U.K. corporate pension plans, declined to comment, a company spokeswoman said.

‘Very Bad Bet’

Sardelis said he realized three months after the deal was signed that it was more complex than he appreciated. After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the U.S., bond yields plunged as stock markets sold off worldwide. That caused a mark-to-market loss on the swap for Greece because of the formula used by Goldman Sachs to compute Greece’s repayments over time.
“If you calculated that when we did it, it looked very nice because the yield curve had a certain shape,” Sardelis said. “But after Sept. 11, we realized this would be the wrong formula. So after we discussed it with Goldman Sachs, we decided to change to a simpler formula.”
The revised deal proposed by the bank and executed in 2002, was to base repayments on what was then a new kind of derivative -- an inflation swap linked to the euro-area harmonized index of consumer prices. An inflation swap is a financial bet that pays off according to the degree to which a consumer-price index exceeds or falls short of a pre-specified level at maturity.
That didn’t work out well for Greece either. Bond yields fell, pushing the government’s losses to 5.1 billion euros, according to an analysis commissioned by Papanicolaou. It was “a very bad bet,” he said in an interview.
“This is even more reprehensible,” Papanicolaou said of the revised deal. “Goldman asked them to make a change that actually made things even worse because they went into an inflation swap.”

Confidentiality Requirement

Greece was handicapped, in part, by the terms Goldman Sachs imposed, he said.
“Sardelis couldn’t actually do what every debt manager should do when offered something, which is go to the market to check the price,” said Papanicolaou, who retired in 2010. “He didn’t do that because he was told by Goldman that if he did that, the deal is off.”
Sardelis declined to comment about the analysis, as did Petros Christodoulou, director general of the debt-management agency since February 2010.
It isn’t unusual for dealers to impose confidentiality requirements on clients in complex transactions to prevent traders from using the information to front-run or trade against the bank arranging and hedging the deal, said a former official who analyzed the swap and asked not to be named because the details are private.

‘Large Number’

Goldman Sachs’s initial 600 million-euro gross profit “sounds like a large number, but you have to take into account what the bank will be setting aside as a credit reserve, the cost to Goldman to fund the loan and the cost of hedging the currency component,” said Peter Shapiro, managing director of Swap Financial Group LLC in South Orange, New Jersey, an independent swaps adviser. “It’s hard to tell what the profit margin would have been.”
The report Papanicolaou commissioned after taking over the agency showed the repayment formula meant that Greece would have to pay Goldman Sachs 400 million euros a year, he said. The coupon and the mark-to-market swings on the swap prompted George Alogoskoufis, then finance minister, to decide to restructure the deal again to limit losses, Papanicolaou said.
Loudiadis and a team of Goldman Sachs advisers returned to Athens in August 2005, according to former Greek officials. The agreement they reached to transfer the swap to National Bank of Greece SA and extend the maturity to 2037 from 2019, gave the Greeks what they wanted, Papanicolaou said.

‘Squeeze Taxpayers’

The 5.1 billion-euro mark-to-market value of the swap was “locked in,” Papanicolaou said. It was that politically motivated decision to restructure and fix the increased market value that did as much damage as the original swap, said Sardelis, now a board member of Ethniki General Insurance Co., a subsidiary of National Bank of Greece.
“You can’t have prudent debt management if you change all the assumptions all the time,” he said.
Gustavo Piga, a professor of economics at University of Rome Tor Vergata and author of “Derivatives and Public Debt Management,” sees a different lesson.
“In secret deals, intermediaries have the upper hand and use it to squeeze taxpayers,” Piga said in an interview. “The bargaining power is in investment banks’ hands.”