找回密码
 注册
搜索
查看: 980|回复: 5

[转贴] 2014 crash will be worse than 1987's: Marc Faber

[复制链接]
发表于 2014-4-14 03:40 AM | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式


Jeff Cox        | @JeffCoxCNBCcom

13 Hours Ago
Marc Faber

Several sectors feature wide disparities between earnings and revenue expectations.

Consumer discretionary expects earnings of 7.9 percent and revenue of 12.5 percent; health care is 0.65 percent versus 6.24 percent; and industrials are -2.2 percent versus 4.3 percent.

To be sure, this may just be a one-quarter phenomenon, but it bears watching.

"That would be kind of groundbreaking" if it continues, said Nick Raich, CEO of The Earnings Scout. "But I would wonder why with all the cost-cutting going on you would see revenue growth without the (corresponding) earnings growth. That would be a head-scratcher for me."
Despite a tremendously lowered bar overall, companies are still struggling to match Wall Street expectations.
发表于 2014-4-14 07:12 AM | 显示全部楼层
Thank you!

From Jeremy Grantham

'Very painful': World heading for bust 'unlike any other', says Jeremy Grantham

High profile investor Jeremy Grantham says the next bust suffered by the world economy is going to be 'very painful'.

Legendary investor Jeremy Grantham says the US Federal Reserve is killing the recovery of the world's biggest economy and the ''next bust will be unlike any other''.

Mr Grantham – the cofounder and chief investment strategist at the $US112 billion ($123 billion) Boston-based fund manager GMO –said he wouldn't invest his clients' money in US stocks for at least the next seven years because of the Fed's ''misguided policies''.

Mr Grantham has an impeccable track record, having called both the internet bubble and then the US housing bubble. In November he said he believed the US sharemarket could rise another 30 per cent, although he believed it was overvalued, before crashing again.

''We invest our clients' money based on our seven-year prediction,'' Mr Grantham told Fortune.

Advertisement ''Over the next seven years we think the market will have negative returns. The next bust will be unlike any other because the Fed and other central banks around the world have taken on all this leverage that was out there and put it on their balance sheets. We have never had this before.

''Assets are overpriced generally. They will become cheap again. That's how we will pay for this. It's going to be very painful for investors''.

Mr Grantham said the Fed's $US85 billion a month bond buying program had failed to stimulate the economy, saying that there was no proof that more debt creates growth.

''It's quite likely that the recovery has been slowed down because of the Fed's actions,'' he said.

''Go back to the 1980s and the US had an aggregate debt level of about 1.3 times GDP. Then we had a massive spike over the next two decades to about 3.3 times debt. And GDP over that time has slowed.''

'No proof'

When questioned to provide evidence backing his claim, Mr Grantham said while there was ''some indication'' the crash and downturn would have been sharper had the Fed not intervened, there's ''no proof on the other side that the economy is any stronger from quantitative easing''.

''By now the depths of that recession would have been forgotten, the system would have been healthier, and we would have regained our growth.

''In the economic crisis after World War I there was no attempt at intervention or bailouts and the economy came roaring back.''

When asked if the Fed could be blamed for bailouts when they were an act of Congress, Mr Grantham pointed his finger firmly at former Fed chairman Ben Bernanke.

''I don't like to get into the details. The Bernanke put – the market belief that if anything goes bad the Fed will come to the rescue – has a profound impact on people and how they act.''

Mr Grantham said record low interest rates had also failed to deliver growth.

''My view of the economy is not principle-based. Higher interest rates would have increased the wealth of savers. Instead, the have become collateral damage of Bernanke's policies.

''The theory is that lower interest rates are supposed to spur capital spending, right? Then why is capital spending so weak at this stage of the cycle?

''There is no evidence at all that quantitative easing has boosted capital spending. We have always come roaring back from recessions, even after the mismanaged Great Depression. This time we are not. It's anecdotal evidence, but we have never had such a limited recovery.''

评分

1

查看全部评分

回复 鲜花 鸡蛋

使用道具 举报

 楼主| 发表于 2014-4-14 08:40 AM | 显示全部楼层
angelecho 发表于 2014-4-14 07:12 AM
Thank you!

From Jeremy Grantham

Why he says "next bust"?
Not the current one?
回复 鲜花 鸡蛋

使用道具 举报

发表于 2014-4-14 09:21 AM | 显示全部楼层
Only till "this" bubble bursts, then we know it is the bubble after the housing, Internet, etc.
回复 鲜花 鸡蛋

使用道具 举报

发表于 2014-4-14 12:04 PM | 显示全部楼层
很多人说Fed注水没用,俺认为这是典型的放屁言论。

这次危机没有Fed,一定大萧条,到时天下大乱,匪徒横行,道德败坏,人人自危;估计此人已被宰了,根本没有吐槽Fed的闲工夫了!
回复 鲜花 鸡蛋

使用道具 举报

发表于 2014-4-14 12:16 PM | 显示全部楼层
No way! Fed is watching.
回复 鲜花 鸡蛋

使用道具 举报

您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册

本版积分规则

手机版|小黑屋|www.hutong9.net

GMT-5, 2024-4-23 03:07 PM , Processed in 0.046955 second(s), 18 queries .

Powered by Discuz! X3.5

© 2001-2024 Discuz! Team.

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表