今日大家睇《金手指》前，請你睇咗美財長蓋特納個救銀行計劃先。如果已睇咗，以下就係個計劃嘅問題。
1.救到銀行不過市民一樣冇錢借。
之前，孫柏文都講過澳洲前總理基廷話，蓋特納醫病成日斷錯症。 97年亞洲金融風暴，代表花旗財政部搞到印尼唔使死都死咗。
呢個計劃，係蓋特納覺得啲平民借唔到錢，原因係銀行手上有太多毒資產，所以銀行唔放債。問題係，信貸收縮係首先因「證券化」系統瓦解，呢個計劃冇幫助。第二就係銀行唔放債，唔係銀行想放債不過冇錢，而係銀行唔覺得啲新債仔有還款能力。
呢個計劃就算塞錢入銀行，市民一樣冇錢借。
救銀行計劃三死穴
2.冇交代拍賣有冇底價。
如果拍賣啲問題資產係有賣方定嘅底價，如果買方出價唔夠。銀行一樣好似依家咁，有人出價不過唔賣。如果係冇底價，賣方根本連博都慳番，一於唔參與，亦即同依家一樣。
3.買方同賣方打籠通。
因為買方將可能有高達九成嘅錢由政府出，所以就算天價買會輸自己錢先，賣方銀行可能會場外回佣畀買方基金經理。即再一次搵納稅人笨。仲要因今次計劃毋須國會批准，透明度會極低。
即係點解？即係明益啲銀行啦！葛霖快啲攞美國政府錢排毒，你一話攞，滙控（ 005）即見 70元！
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
第三房死了,大不了再出第四房.
ReplyDelete好似有個廣告話,......点燈.....
食咗..... xx高??
咩... 咩... 咩...
究竟咁樣舉動係政府怕定錯價(大高)？定係已知道一定要用高價去買，有毒機構先至肯賣，最終賠上人民積蓄，於是借成立共同基金之名，將責任推比五個基金，以防將來維臭萬年？
ReplyDelete呢五個基金經理邊個夠膽做？我地隻獅子又會唔會參與？
比我老虎蟹都唔做，唔係驚蝕，係驚將來生仔冇使忽。
I totally agree with you and would like to highlight the following two points:
ReplyDelete1. It's questionable the banks are willing to sell the "poisoned" assets. If these assets were not sold (or transacted), their values would be determined by any kind of valuation/ appraisal or accounting treatment, any one of the above is not reflecting the TRUE values of these rubbish assets. There were vigorous arguments on the adoption of fair values in accounting and the selling of the poisoned assets would give the true picture of how much the banks lost. It can be disastrous to the banks.
2. I totally agree that the banks have the $$ to lend but they are simply reluctant to do so, not becoz of the existence of poisoned assets but due to the stringent internal risk management.