ZKIZ Archives


誰給了網購如此大的空間

http://content.businessvalue.com.cn/post/5124.html

目前,我國擁有全世界最多的互聯網用戶,這個數字已經超過了整個歐盟的人口數。儘管中國的電子商務起步較晚,但中國網民顯然比歐美發達國家的網民更熱衷於網絡購物。其中正反映了我國傳統商業發展的不均衡。

普華永道2011年9月在美國、英國、法國、荷蘭、德國、瑞士和中國7個國家進行了這項比較研究,在每個國家分別訪問了1000名18歲以上網民。

結果顯示:6%的中國網民每天網購,33%的中國網民每週網購數次;而在歐洲,法國、荷蘭、德國、瑞士這些歐盟國家的這兩項數據分別為1%和5%;英國網民網購的頻率稍高,分別為2%和7%;美國網民則為6%和15%。

調查還顯示:法國44%的網民5年前開始網購,23%的網民網購經歷不超過1年;而美國和英國分別有54%和52%的網民網購經歷超過5年,20%和14%的網民網購經歷不超過1年。

中國目前擁有著世界上最多的互聯網用戶。中國的互聯網用戶達5.56億,其中34%的互聯網用戶會在網上購物。到2013年,中國應該擁有7.15 億互聯網用戶,如果40%的用戶在網上購物,那麼在接下來的兩年裡,中國將新增近1億網上購物者。作為中國最大的網絡零售商圈,淘寶網註冊用戶已達6億, 日交易量1000萬筆。

中國的電子商務市場2010年大大超過傳統零售業的增長。貝恩公司的研究顯示,未來網上購物預計將以48%的年增長率增長,到2013年將達1.5萬億元,但仍只佔總零售額的7%。這意味著儘管已經達到目前的數字,但網上零售商仍有很大的空間獲得更大的市場份額。

對比其他互聯網應用可以發現,導致中國網民對網購熱潮更為熱衷的主要原因在於價格方面,中國網購流行的最主要誘因在於「差價的誘惑」,傳統零售業與電子商務的差別就在於,傳統零售業要承受高房價、高運費、高稅收的中國「三高」症中的高房價、高稅收兩大壓力。

同樣的商品,分別擺在中國和美國,標價卻大不同。同一款Coach的拎包,在中國可能要價2000元人民幣,在美國的Outlet可能不到100美元,按匯率計算,國外價格不及國內的一半。這便是中國零售業備受制約,也是網購火熱的最有力證明。

誰給 給了 了網 網購 如此 大的 空間
PermaLink: https://articles.zkiz.com/?id=30457

誰給農民加薪? 張化橋

來源: http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_50c88c400102vdrj.html

我知道你不關心這個話題, 不過請看香港《南華早報》今天的文章。

首先是殘酷的城鄉分割。對醫療,教育, 就業, 和退休實現惡性分開。
其次,城市的住房改革把本來屬於"全民"的住房送給了一部分人(城里人)。
然後,信貸膨脹,房價飛漲。但你必須有房,才能站到風口啊!

儲蓄利率長期壓低,每年剝削一點,年複一年。
貸款市場分兩塊:銀行和影子銀行。利率有天壤之別。從銀行搞到貸款,就是獲得巨大的補貼。

在加上腐敗。這就是說中國貧富懸殊的根源。

QE? 中國搞了36年,還在繼續。
城里人嬌氣,哭著喊著要加薪,"彌補通脹的損失啊"!但是,誰給農民加薪呢?

China's Perpetual QE and its many losers

Joe Zhang* SCMP, 2 February 2015,

In 1983, the People’s Bank of China had just risen from being a junior sidekick to the Ministry of Finance to an equal entity within the government. A staffer from the US Federal Reserve who visited the PBOC, where I was a graduate cadet at the time, explained why an independent monetary policy was a wonderful thing before asking why China had not made its central bank independent of the government.

With no trace of irony, my superior replied, “that would be very inconvenient!” The visitor almost laughed himself off his chair.

Last week, US President Barack Obama stressed in his State of the Union speech, inequality has become a major challenge for US society. What he did not say is that the QE (quantitative easing of the monetary policy) since 2008 has made a key contribution to the worsening of inequality. As Europe digs deeper into the QE hole, everyone pretends there is no link between QE and inequality. But sadly there is. Just look at how convenience in mainland central banking has created massive inequality.

While the term QE was invented in the United States, mainland China has proven to be the most daring in practising it. In its “annual credit plan”, the PBOC makes liberal predictions on the banking sector’s deposits and loan demand, and plugs the gap by making loans directly to each bank. It also extends additional loans as it sees fit during the year. No collateral is ever needed. For many years, the banks’ loan-to-deposit ratios far exceeded 100 per cent. For the mainland’s banks (rapidly growing from just one in 1983 to several thousand today), bargaining with the central bank has been the most lucrative game: they borrow from the central bank at 1 per cent to 2 per cent annual rates, and lend out at 6 per cent to 8 per cent.

When Western observers warn of the rapid growth of the balance sheets of the US Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank on the back of their QE actions, it is worth pointing out that the Fed’s balance sheet of about US$4.5 trillion and the ECB’s US$2.7 trillion are still far smaller than the PBOC’s US$5.5 trillion – even though the mainland has a much smaller economy.

On the mainland, a vicious cycle has lasted 36 years: rapid credit growth leads to high inflation (and expectations of higher inflation) which makes the controlled interest rate seem low (and even negative) in real terms. That, in turn, encourages borrowing, which the central bank is often too happy to accommodate. Even in 2014, the third consecutive year of “economic slowdown”, the mainland still recorded a money supply growth of more than 12 per cent.

Apart from corruption, the biggest factor behind the mainland’s inequality is asset inflation, with the root cause being its perpetual QE. New credit flows constantly into state-owned companies and well-connected private businesses. Low interest rates on deposits rip off savers on the one hand and subsidise borrowers on the other. To benefit from asset inflation (mainly in real estate), you have to have assets and, more importantly, leverage. But access to credit has been a watershed between winners and losers.

Regulated interest rates also make matters worse. Privileged borrowers pay 6 per cent to 8 per cent a year to the banks, but the vast numbers of small and medium-size businesses and consumers pay 15 per cent to 25 per cent to the shadow banking industry, if they can get credit at all.

Perpetual QE has also caused the mainland’s stock market inflation. Despite the stock index today being half the peak level seen seven years ago, the market is still the most overvalued on the planet. Most companies trade at 30 to 50 times earnings, with dodgy ones being the most expensive. Observers are misled by the average market valuation of, say, “only” 17 to 18 times earnings, but that average is distorted by the 20-plus banks which between them account for over a third of the market value and over half of the total net profit of the market. They trade at seven to nine times earnings, but as the economy slides into a new normal, one must consider their rising bad debts and their true valuation.

Since 1992, Beijing has treated the stock market as a device for credit rationing. Initially started with a stated objective of “alleviating poverty for the state sector”, the mainland’s market has been ripping off millions of ignorant retail investors.

Through strict controls over how many businesses are allowed to go public, and who they are, the government has not only played favourites but also kept the stock market valuation high. Naturally the process is fraught with corruption, as the media and the regulators have discovered.

In the wake of the global subprime crisis, Western countries have broken some policy taboos. For example, the idea of central banks buying government bonds is now acceptable. Strict independence of the central banks is no longer such a big deal. But their single-minded pursuit of QE policies and ultra-low interest rates will make inequality much worse, as the mainland has learned.

Joe Zhang is chairman of China Smartpay Group and an adviser to Haitong International Securities.
 
 
 
誰給 農民 加薪 張化 化橋
PermaLink: https://articles.zkiz.com/?id=131281

誰給的評級高就選誰,評級業亂象不止花式收費

在證監會與交易商協會的聯合整治下,評級行業的市場環境有望得到凈化。但在當下,個別通過向評級機構付費來上調評級的發行人似乎面臨更嚴峻的問題。

近日,中國證監會與中國銀行間交易商協會先後公告,給予大公國際資信評估有限公司(下稱“大公資信”)嚴重警告處分,責令其限期整改,並暫停證券評級業務及債務融資工具市場相關業務一年。這一處罰是否過重?在業內人士看來,錯報風險是可控的,但內控風險反映整個公司的問題,處罰並不為過,處罰帶來的警示效應將有助於凈化評級行業的市場環境。

在當前時點,那些曾經通過向大公資信重金購買系統進而上調評級的發行人似乎面臨更嚴峻的問題。記者了解到,新光控股就曾以970萬元的價格采購大公資信提供的企業系統。9月22日“17新光控股CP001”即將到期,當期短融的本金為10億元,另有20億的“15新光01”也將於9月25日面臨行權。

變相收費或與評級收入低有關

一位曾在大公資信任職的人士告訴記者,在公司被處罰之前他就已離職。“公司和部分高層存在明里暗里賣評級的現象,管理混亂、內控機制缺乏是我離開的直接原因。”

另一位早年在大公資信擔任分析師的信評人士則認為,大公資信雖然存在內控問題,但評級體系比較健全,大公、聯合以及中誠信在內的評級機構為買方研究輸出了大量信評人才。“頻繁的出差、低廉的評級收入下,人員流動頻繁是行業現狀,信評轉行去券商做債券承做或者去買方做內部評級的大有人在。”某評級機構部門總經理告訴記者。

一部分接受采訪的人士表示,大公資信變相收費或許與評級收入低的現狀有關;但更多受訪人士認為,即使評級行業收入再低也不應該失去獨立、公正的底線。

大公資信近日也回應,將在監管部門的指導幫助下,按要求逐項對照、徹底整改,並認真研究解決行業面臨的新情況、新問題,確保各項業務和工作完全合規合法、穩步有序推進。但多數受訪人士表示,大公資信此次受罰滿一年後可能很難再恢複元氣。

也有業內人士告訴記者,這一懲罰可能會給一些底層分析師帶來不小的沖擊。一位買方信評人士告訴記者,“最近在招的一個崗位,有七八封簡歷都是大公的員工投過來的。”

前述從事債券發行的人士告訴記者,錯報風險是可控的,但是內控風險反映的是整個公司的問題,暫停債務融資工具市場相關業務一年的處罰並不為過,處罰帶來的警示效應將有助於凈化評級行業的市場環境。記者獲悉,未來一年內大公資信將不能參與新發債券的評級,但存續項目的跟蹤評級仍然可以進行。

行業亂象:不只是花式收費

企業發行債券時是如何選擇評級機構的?一位債券承做人士向第一財經記者介紹,在正式評級開始之前,評級機構往往會根據公開信息以及發行人提供的文字材料進行預評級,在這個階段往往會有不只一家評級機構參與。

而在幾家評級機構完成預評後,發行人會選擇其中一家評級機構為其進行正式的評級工作。預評之前不簽協議、不進場,預評之後評級基本就定了。“選擇的標準主要是看評級結果,也就是哪家評級機構給的評級高就選擇誰。口碑和費用也是考慮因素,評級機構對主體評級收費在20萬元左右。”他告訴記者。

不難發現,預評級的過程已經在某種程度與“競標”類似。在這種發行人主導的選擇機制下,評級機構即使沒有額外收費,也會造成評級虛高的結果。

在光大證券固收首席分析師張旭看來,評級虛高並非行業性的問題,但個別公司評級偏高的情況正在隨著時間的推移而擴大。在“一手評級一手咨詢”的業務模式下,如何建立防火墻、有效地避免利益沖突是一個需要思考問題。他還提到,評級調整的“峭壁效應”值得關註。“峭壁效應”是指評級公司在授予評級時,通常會授予AAA、AA+、AA這三個級別;當主體接近違約邊緣時,又會進行大幅跨級下調。

在業內人士看來,此次監管部門重拳處罰大公資信,只是規範評級行業的標誌性一步,未來嚴監管態勢將會延續。

證監會近日表示,將與人民銀行繼續加強監管協作,深入貫徹落實公司信用類債券部際協調機制精神,進一步推動銀行間市場與交易所債券市場互聯互通,不斷加強監管協作,切實保護投資者合法權益和社會公共利益,促進信用評級行業規範發展。交易商協會近日也表示,將加強對銀行間市場自律管理,著力維護市場良好運行秩序, 繼續加強與相關監管部門的協同配合。

“留給發行人的時間不多了”

對於買方而言,面對這些可能存在兌付風險的債券,如何判斷相關債券的兌付風險?

記者了解到,市場上主流的買方機構都有完善的內部信評體系和信評團隊,每個新入池的債券都要重新完成內部信用評級。滬上一位券商固收團隊負責人告訴記者,他們在內部評級的基礎上還會比較關註中債隱含評級的變動。中債市場隱含評級變動直接影響中債估值,反映的是債券信用資質的顯著變化,性質與外部評級不同,通常時效性也更強。

前述評級機構人士告訴記者,有個別債券承銷商來咨詢為發行人更換評級機構的問題,未來一年內有發債需求的企業也有重新評級的需求。

在當前時點,那些曾經通過向大公資信重金購買系統進而上調評級的發行人似乎面臨更嚴峻的問題。“留給發行人的時間不多了。”一位券商信用債研究人士感嘆道。

記者了解到,新光控股就曾以970萬元的價格采購大公提供的企業系統。3月21日,大公國際將新光控股的主體評級上調至AA+;隨後,聯合評級也在4月13日上調了新光控股的主體評級。

第一財經註意到,“17新光控股CP001”將於9月22日到期,距離到期日僅剩一個月時間,當期短融的本金為10億元,另有20億元的“15新光01”也將於9月25日面臨行權。

受托管理人摩根士丹利華鑫證券近日公告稱,公司2018年下半年合並報表層面到期和回售的有息負債總額較大,其中2018年下半年到期的有息負債總額為人民幣98.82億元,2018年下半年涉及回售的債券為人民幣45.86億元,公司正計劃通過多方渠道安排相關資金。

此內容為第一財經原創。未經第一財經授權,不得以任何方式加以使用,包括轉載、摘編、複制或建立鏡像。第一財經將追究侵權者的法律責任。 如需獲得授權請聯系第一財經版權部:
021-22002972或021-22002335;banquan@yicai.com

責編:蘇蔓薏

誰給 給的 評級 高就 選誰 業亂 亂象 不止 花式 收費
PermaLink: https://articles.zkiz.com/?id=267546


ZKIZ Archives @ 2019