There will be more margin calls and forced sellings next week, particularly S-shares.
I expect DOW to weaken further as funds are selling on strength and shorts hedgers are waiting to ambush any false rally.
QDII funds have suffered massive losses in Hong Kong, and are facing funds redemption in China. So don't be too hopeful of QDII funds coming to Singapore anytime soon. What do you think those funds which "front-run" the QDII funds are going to do now?
Why are so many people talking about DOW 12,000? Why not 10,000?
IT WAS only two weeks ago that the Straits Times Index enjoyed a week-long rally that took it 230 points up to 3,098 on Feb 19, a surge that subsequent events have shown to be a ‘bear trap’.
As always, that rally was in tandem with gains in Hong Kong and on Wall Street, albeit aided by generous doses of short-covering.
There was also a play on the banks on the back of ‘buy’ calls from some houses on the basis that prices had dropped so much that they represented good value because bank earnings might not be that badly hit.
The past fortnight, however, has seen the rally fizzle out. The STI dropped 47.7 points yesterday to 3,026.45, bringing its loss for the week to 22 points and the two-week loss to 62 points.
Not surprisingly, banks led the way up and also down - DBS started this week at $17.90 but ended at $17.34 for a loss of 56 cents or 3 per cent, UOB’s loss was 66 cents or 3.5 per cent at $18.02, and OCBC’s was 2 cents at $7.66. Elsewhere within the finance sector, SGX’s shares lost 41 cents or 4.7 per cent over the week at $8.39.
China shipyards Cosco Corp and Yangzijiang Shipbuilding and commodity plays Wilmar, Golden Agri, Indofood Agri, Straits Asia, and First Resources were among the mid-caps that had to withstand immense pressure for various reasons, all of which boil down to a weakening outlook brought on by the slowing US economy.
As for penny stocks, the STI’s post-Chinese New Year bounce opened a window of opportunity for speculators but the blue chip drop has resulted in the window being slammed shut. Stocks which perked up at the time such as E3, Jiutian, Oculus, Memstar and Ban Joo have all seen interest wane in recent days.
‘Buy’ recommendations have had little effect this week on both ends of the price spectrum. UOB, for example, was recommended by several large, foreign brokers but still finished the week weaker, while Advance SCT yesterday collapsed 6.5 cents to 34.5 cents despite a ‘buy’ from Kim Eng Research. The local broker described Advance SCT’s results as ‘highly disappointing’, cut its FY08-09 earnings forecasts by 55-60 per cent, and reduced its target price from $1.97 to 60 cents but said 41 cents (Thursday’s closing price) represented a ‘reasonable buying opportunity’.
Among property stocks, City Developments yesterday plunged 52 cents to $11.96 (intraday low of $11.82). Morgan Stanley yesterday downgraded CityDev to ‘under-weight’, while lowering its price target from $13.76 to $11.39 which is its estimated end-2008 net asset value (NAV).
‘The decline in NAV reflects our assumptions of a weaker-than-previously anticipated residential market and lower valuations for its 53 per cent-owned M&C (Millennium & Copthorne)’.
MS also said CityDev ‘lacks downside protection’ from a residential market fall.
Behind all the weakness was Wall Street, which in the early part of the week managed to hold firm despite the release of pretty awful economic numbers and renewed weakness in the US dollar - the greenback is now at a 12-year low against the Sing dollar - but caved in on Thursday following remarks by Federal Reserve chief Ben Bernanke that the housing crisis has created a worse set of problems than the tech bubble bust of 2000 and a remark that ‘there probably will be some bank failures’.
Turnover yesterday, excluding foreign currency issues, was 1.5 billion units worth $2.02 billion. Excluding warrants, there were 182 rises versus 240 falls.
INSIGHTS: Why Ethanol Production Will Drive World Food Prices Even Higher in 2008
By Lester R. Brown
WASHINGTON, DC, January 25, 2008 (ENS) - We are witnessing the beginning of one of the great tragedies of history. The United States, in a misguided effort to reduce its oil insecurity by converting grain into fuel for cars, is generating global food insecurity on a scale never seen before.
The world is facing the most severe food price inflation in history as grain and soybean prices climb to all-time highs. Wheat trading on the Chicago Board of Trade on December 17th breached the $10 per bushel level for the first time ever. In mid-January, corn was trading over $5 per bushel, close to its historic high. And on January 11th, soybeans traded at $13.42 per bushel, the highest price ever recorded. All these prices are double those of a year or two ago.
As a result, prices of food products made directly from these commodities such as bread, pasta, and tortillas, and those made indirectly, such as pork, poultry, beef, milk, and eggs, are everywhere on the rise. In Mexico, corn meal prices are up 60 percent. In Pakistan, flour prices have doubled. China is facing rampant food price inflation, some of the worst in decades.
In industrial countries, the higher processing and marketing share of food costs has softened the blow, but even so, prices of food staples are climbing. By late 2007, the U.S. price of a loaf of whole wheat bread was 12 percent higher than a year earlier, milk was up 29 percent, and eggs were up 36 percent. In Italy, pasta prices were up 20 percent.
World grain prices have increased dramatically on three occasions since World War II, each time as a result of weather-reduced harvests. But now it is a matter of demand simply outpacing supply. In seven of the last eight years world grain production has fallen short of consumption. These annual shortfalls have been covered by drawing down grain stocks, but the carryover stocks - the amount in the bin when the new harvest begins - have now dropped to 54 days of world consumption, the lowest on record.
From 1990 to 2005, world grain consumption, driven largely by population growth and rising consumption of grain-based animal products, climbed by an average of 21 million tons per year. Then came the explosion in demand for grain used in U.S. ethanol distilleries, which jumped from 54 million tons in 2006 to 81 million tons in 2007. This 27 million ton jump more than doubled the annual growth in world demand for grain. If 80 percent of the 62 distilleries now under construction are completed by late 2008, grain used to produce fuel for cars will climb to 114 million tons, or 28 percent of the projected 2008 U.S. grain harvest.
Historically the food and energy economies have been largely separate, but now with the construction of so many fuel ethanol distilleries, they are merging. If the food value of grain is less than its fuel value, the market will move the grain into the energy economy. Thus as the price of oil rises, the price of grain follows it upward.
A University of Illinois economics team calculates that with oil at $50 a barrel, it is profitable - with the ethanol subsidy of 51¢ a gallon (equal to $1.43 per bushel of corn) - to convert corn into ethanol as long as the price is below $4 a bushel. But with oil at $100 a barrel, distillers can pay more than $7 a bushel for corn and still break even. If oil climbs to $140, distillers can pay $10 a bushel for corn - double the early 2008 price of $5 per bushel.
The World Bank reports that for each 1 percent rise in food prices, caloric intake among the poor drops 0.5 percent. Millions of those living on the lower rungs of the global economic ladder, people who are barely hanging on, will lose their grip and begin to fall off.
Projections by Professors C. Ford Runge and Benjamin Senauer of the University of Minnesota four years ago showed the number of hungry and malnourished people decreasing from over 800 million to 625 million by 2025. But in early 2007 their update of these projections, taking into account the biofuel effect on world food prices, showed the number of hungry people climbing to 1.2 billion by 2025. That climb is already under way.
Since the budgets of international food aid agencies are set well in advance, a rise in food prices shrinks food assistance. The U.N. World Food Programme (WFP), which is now supplying emergency food aid to 37 countries, is cutting shipments as prices soar. The WFP reports that 18,000 children are dying each day from hunger and related illnesses.
As grain prices climb, a politics of food scarcity is emerging as exporting countries restrict exports to limit the rise in domestic food prices. At the end of January, Russia - one of the top five wheat exporters - will impose a 40 percent export tax on wheat, effectively banning exports.
Argentina, another leading wheat exporter, closed export registrations for wheat indefinitely in early December until it could assess the condition of the new crop. And Viet Nam, the number two rice exporter after Thailand, has banned rice exports for several months and will likely not lift this ban until the new crop comes to market.
Rising food prices are translating into social unrest. It began in early 2007 with tortilla demonstrations in Mexico. Then came pasta protests in Italy. More recently, rising bread prices in Pakistan have become a source of unrest. In Jakarta, 10,000 Indonesians gathered in front of the presidential palace on January 14th this year to protest the doubling of soybean prices that has raised the price of tempeh, the national soy-based protein staple. When a supermarket in Chongqing, China, where cooking oil prices have soared, offered this oil at a reduced price, the resulting stampede when doors opened killed three people and injured 31.
As economic stresses translate into political stresses, the number of failing states, such as Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Haiti, which was already increasing before the rise in food prices began, could increase even faster.
There is much to be concerned about on the food front. We enter this new crop year with the lowest grain stocks on record, the highest grain prices ever, the prospect of a smaller U.S. grain harvest as several million acres of land that shifted from soybeans to corn last year go back to soybeans, the need to feed an additional 70 million people, and U.S. distillers wanting 33 million more tons of grain to supply the new ethanol distilleries coming online this year. Corn futures prices for December 2008 delivery are higher than those for March, suggesting that market analysts see even tighter supplies after the next harvest.
Whereas previous dramatic rises in world grain prices were weather-induced, this one is policy-induced and can be dealt with by policy adjustments. The crop fuels program that currently satisfies scarcely 3 percent of U.S. gasoline needs is simply not worth the human suffering and political chaos it is causing. If the entire U.S. grain harvest were converted into ethanol, it would satisfy scarcely 18 percent of our automotive fuel needs.
The irony is that U.S. taxpayers, by subsidizing the conversion of grain into ethanol, are in effect financing a rise in their own food prices. It is time to end the subsidy for converting food into fuel and to do it quickly before the deteriorating world food situation spirals out of control.
{Lester R. Brown is founder and president of Earth Policy Institute. He is the author of numerous books, including "Plan B 2.0: Rescuing a Planet Under Stress and a Civilization in Trouble" where he develops a vision for an environmentally sustainable economy. His principal research areas include food, population, water, climate change, and renewable energy. The recipient of scores of awards and honorary degrees, in 1974, he founded Worldwatch Institute, of which he was president for its first 26 years.}
A London-based hedge fund has become the latest victim of the credit crisis after Peloton Partners began shutting a $2bn (£1bn) fund due to severe losses.
The hedge fund firm told investors in a letter, seen by several news outlets, that another fund also faced problems.
The liquidation highlights the severity of the problems in credit markets - the fund had been a big success, boasting an 87% return in 2007.
It is the latest hedge fund to be burnt by the credit crunch.
"The fact that Peloton (one of the more successful funds) was forced into liquidation does not bode well for the sector," said Simon Denham, managing director at Capital Spreads.
"A great number of very wealthy people have much of their assets locked up in various highly geared hedge funds of this nature."
Borrowed money
The extent of the crisis in the US housing and credit markets first became clear when Bear Stearns was forced to liquidate two of its hedge funds last summer.
Peloton's fund, known as ABS Master Fund, had bet that sub-prime mortgages would decline in value and instead had focused on better quality US home loans.
But these investments have also become tainted by the problems in the sub-prime market, resulting in a steep decline in their value.
"Its problem was that it appears to have been leveraged to buy reasonable quality but now illiquid asset-backed securities," said Mr Denham.
"With the credit crunch draining away cash, the company was unable to finance the exposure."
The fund was founded by former partners at Goldman Sachs, Ron Beller and Geoff Grant.
Hedge funds are private investment funds that attract wealthy investors and generally make more complicated and higher-risk investments than traditional investment funds.
They typically borrow money to maximise their positions but this means they are particularly vulnerable to any sudden market crisis as they have to meet lenders' demands.
9 comments:
There will be more margin calls and forced sellings next week, particularly S-shares.
I expect DOW to weaken further as funds are selling on strength and shorts hedgers are waiting to ambush any false rally.
QDII funds have suffered massive losses in Hong Kong, and are facing funds redemption in China. So don't be too hopeful of QDII funds coming to Singapore anytime soon. What do you think those funds which "front-run" the QDII funds are going to do now?
Why are so many people talking about DOW 12,000? Why not 10,000?
Market still stuck in a bear trap
R SIVANITHY
1 March 2008
IT WAS only two weeks ago that the Straits Times Index enjoyed a week-long rally that took it 230 points up to 3,098 on Feb 19, a surge that subsequent events have shown to be a ‘bear trap’.
As always, that rally was in tandem with gains in Hong Kong and on Wall Street, albeit aided by generous doses of short-covering.
There was also a play on the banks on the back of ‘buy’ calls from some houses on the basis that prices had dropped so much that they represented good value because bank earnings might not be that badly hit.
The past fortnight, however, has seen the rally fizzle out. The STI dropped 47.7 points yesterday to 3,026.45, bringing its loss for the week to 22 points and the two-week loss to 62 points.
Not surprisingly, banks led the way up and also down - DBS started this week at $17.90 but ended at $17.34 for a loss of 56 cents or 3 per cent, UOB’s loss was 66 cents or 3.5 per cent at $18.02, and OCBC’s was 2 cents at $7.66. Elsewhere within the finance sector, SGX’s shares lost 41 cents or 4.7 per cent over the week at $8.39.
China shipyards Cosco Corp and Yangzijiang Shipbuilding and commodity plays Wilmar, Golden Agri, Indofood Agri, Straits Asia, and First Resources were among the mid-caps that had to withstand immense pressure for various reasons, all of which boil down to a weakening outlook brought on by the slowing US economy.
As for penny stocks, the STI’s post-Chinese New Year bounce opened a window of opportunity for speculators but the blue chip drop has resulted in the window being slammed shut. Stocks which perked up at the time such as E3, Jiutian, Oculus, Memstar and Ban Joo have all seen interest wane in recent days.
‘Buy’ recommendations have had little effect this week on both ends of the price spectrum. UOB, for example, was recommended by several large, foreign brokers but still finished the week weaker, while Advance SCT yesterday collapsed 6.5 cents to 34.5 cents despite a ‘buy’ from Kim Eng Research. The local broker described Advance SCT’s results as ‘highly disappointing’, cut its FY08-09 earnings forecasts by 55-60 per cent, and reduced its target price from $1.97 to 60 cents but said 41 cents (Thursday’s closing price) represented a ‘reasonable buying opportunity’.
Among property stocks, City Developments yesterday plunged 52 cents to $11.96 (intraday low of $11.82). Morgan Stanley yesterday downgraded CityDev to ‘under-weight’, while lowering its price target from $13.76 to $11.39 which is its estimated end-2008 net asset value (NAV).
‘The decline in NAV reflects our assumptions of a weaker-than-previously anticipated residential market and lower valuations for its 53 per cent-owned M&C (Millennium & Copthorne)’.
MS also said CityDev ‘lacks downside protection’ from a residential market fall.
Behind all the weakness was Wall Street, which in the early part of the week managed to hold firm despite the release of pretty awful economic numbers and renewed weakness in the US dollar - the greenback is now at a 12-year low against the Sing dollar - but caved in on Thursday following remarks by Federal Reserve chief Ben Bernanke that the housing crisis has created a worse set of problems than the tech bubble bust of 2000 and a remark that ‘there probably will be some bank failures’.
Turnover yesterday, excluding foreign currency issues, was 1.5 billion units worth $2.02 billion. Excluding warrants, there were 182 rises versus 240 falls.
INSIGHTS: Why Ethanol Production Will Drive World Food Prices Even Higher in 2008
By Lester R. Brown
WASHINGTON, DC, January 25, 2008 (ENS) - We are witnessing the beginning of one of the great tragedies of history. The United States, in a misguided effort to reduce its oil insecurity by converting grain into fuel for cars, is generating global food insecurity on a scale never seen before.
The world is facing the most severe food price inflation in history as grain and soybean prices climb to all-time highs. Wheat trading on the Chicago Board of Trade on December 17th breached the $10 per bushel level for the first time ever. In mid-January, corn was trading over $5 per bushel, close to its historic high. And on January 11th, soybeans traded at $13.42 per bushel, the highest price ever recorded. All these prices are double those of a year or two ago.
As a result, prices of food products made directly from these commodities such as bread, pasta, and tortillas, and those made indirectly, such as pork, poultry, beef, milk, and eggs, are everywhere on the rise. In Mexico, corn meal prices are up 60 percent. In Pakistan, flour prices have doubled. China is facing rampant food price inflation, some of the worst in decades.
In industrial countries, the higher processing and marketing share of food costs has softened the blow, but even so, prices of food staples are climbing. By late 2007, the U.S. price of a loaf of whole wheat bread was 12 percent higher than a year earlier, milk was up 29 percent, and eggs were up 36 percent. In Italy, pasta prices were up 20 percent.
World grain prices have increased dramatically on three occasions since World War II, each time as a result of weather-reduced harvests. But now it is a matter of demand simply outpacing supply. In seven of the last eight years world grain production has fallen short of consumption. These annual shortfalls have been covered by drawing down grain stocks, but the carryover stocks - the amount in the bin when the new harvest begins - have now dropped to 54 days of world consumption, the lowest on record.
From 1990 to 2005, world grain consumption, driven largely by population growth and rising consumption of grain-based animal products, climbed by an average of 21 million tons per year. Then came the explosion in demand for grain used in U.S. ethanol distilleries, which jumped from 54 million tons in 2006 to 81 million tons in 2007. This 27 million ton jump more than doubled the annual growth in world demand for grain. If 80 percent of the 62 distilleries now under construction are completed by late 2008, grain used to produce fuel for cars will climb to 114 million tons, or 28 percent of the projected 2008 U.S. grain harvest.
Historically the food and energy economies have been largely separate, but now with the construction of so many fuel ethanol distilleries, they are merging. If the food value of grain is less than its fuel value, the market will move the grain into the energy economy. Thus as the price of oil rises, the price of grain follows it upward.
A University of Illinois economics team calculates that with oil at $50 a barrel, it is profitable - with the ethanol subsidy of 51¢ a gallon (equal to $1.43 per bushel of corn) - to convert corn into ethanol as long as the price is below $4 a bushel. But with oil at $100 a barrel, distillers can pay more than $7 a bushel for corn and still break even. If oil climbs to $140, distillers can pay $10 a bushel for corn - double the early 2008 price of $5 per bushel.
The World Bank reports that for each 1 percent rise in food prices, caloric intake among the poor drops 0.5 percent. Millions of those living on the lower rungs of the global economic ladder, people who are barely hanging on, will lose their grip and begin to fall off.
Projections by Professors C. Ford Runge and Benjamin Senauer of the University of Minnesota four years ago showed the number of hungry and malnourished people decreasing from over 800 million to 625 million by 2025. But in early 2007 their update of these projections, taking into account the biofuel effect on world food prices, showed the number of hungry people climbing to 1.2 billion by 2025. That climb is already under way.
Since the budgets of international food aid agencies are set well in advance, a rise in food prices shrinks food assistance. The U.N. World Food Programme (WFP), which is now supplying emergency food aid to 37 countries, is cutting shipments as prices soar. The WFP reports that 18,000 children are dying each day from hunger and related illnesses.
As grain prices climb, a politics of food scarcity is emerging as exporting countries restrict exports to limit the rise in domestic food prices. At the end of January, Russia - one of the top five wheat exporters - will impose a 40 percent export tax on wheat, effectively banning exports.
Argentina, another leading wheat exporter, closed export registrations for wheat indefinitely in early December until it could assess the condition of the new crop. And Viet Nam, the number two rice exporter after Thailand, has banned rice exports for several months and will likely not lift this ban until the new crop comes to market.
Rising food prices are translating into social unrest. It began in early 2007 with tortilla demonstrations in Mexico. Then came pasta protests in Italy. More recently, rising bread prices in Pakistan have become a source of unrest. In Jakarta, 10,000 Indonesians gathered in front of the presidential palace on January 14th this year to protest the doubling of soybean prices that has raised the price of tempeh, the national soy-based protein staple. When a supermarket in Chongqing, China, where cooking oil prices have soared, offered this oil at a reduced price, the resulting stampede when doors opened killed three people and injured 31.
As economic stresses translate into political stresses, the number of failing states, such as Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Haiti, which was already increasing before the rise in food prices began, could increase even faster.
There is much to be concerned about on the food front. We enter this new crop year with the lowest grain stocks on record, the highest grain prices ever, the prospect of a smaller U.S. grain harvest as several million acres of land that shifted from soybeans to corn last year go back to soybeans, the need to feed an additional 70 million people, and U.S. distillers wanting 33 million more tons of grain to supply the new ethanol distilleries coming online this year. Corn futures prices for December 2008 delivery are higher than those for March, suggesting that market analysts see even tighter supplies after the next harvest.
Whereas previous dramatic rises in world grain prices were weather-induced, this one is policy-induced and can be dealt with by policy adjustments. The crop fuels program that currently satisfies scarcely 3 percent of U.S. gasoline needs is simply not worth the human suffering and political chaos it is causing. If the entire U.S. grain harvest were converted into ethanol, it would satisfy scarcely 18 percent of our automotive fuel needs.
The irony is that U.S. taxpayers, by subsidizing the conversion of grain into ethanol, are in effect financing a rise in their own food prices. It is time to end the subsidy for converting food into fuel and to do it quickly before the deteriorating world food situation spirals out of control.
{Lester R. Brown is founder and president of Earth Policy Institute. He is the author of numerous books, including "Plan B 2.0: Rescuing a Planet Under Stress and a Civilization in Trouble" where he develops a vision for an environmentally sustainable economy. His principal research areas include food, population, water, climate change, and renewable energy. The recipient of scores of awards and honorary degrees, in 1974, he founded Worldwatch Institute, of which he was president for its first 26 years.}
Wheat Futures (Monthly), look like a cobra.
Corn Futures (Monthly), look like a cobra.
Soybeans Futures (Monthly), look like a cobra.
Credit crisis claims hedge fund
29 February 2008
A London-based hedge fund has become the latest victim of the credit crisis after Peloton Partners began shutting a $2bn (£1bn) fund due to severe losses.
The hedge fund firm told investors in a letter, seen by several news outlets, that another fund also faced problems.
The liquidation highlights the severity of the problems in credit markets - the fund had been a big success, boasting an 87% return in 2007.
It is the latest hedge fund to be burnt by the credit crunch.
"The fact that Peloton (one of the more successful funds) was forced into liquidation does not bode well for the sector," said Simon Denham, managing director at Capital Spreads.
"A great number of very wealthy people have much of their assets locked up in various highly geared hedge funds of this nature."
Borrowed money
The extent of the crisis in the US housing and credit markets first became clear when Bear Stearns was forced to liquidate two of its hedge funds last summer.
Peloton's fund, known as ABS Master Fund, had bet that sub-prime mortgages would decline in value and instead had focused on better quality US home loans.
But these investments have also become tainted by the problems in the sub-prime market, resulting in a steep decline in their value.
"Its problem was that it appears to have been leveraged to buy reasonable quality but now illiquid asset-backed securities," said Mr Denham.
"With the credit crunch draining away cash, the company was unable to finance the exposure."
The fund was founded by former partners at Goldman Sachs, Ron Beller and Geoff Grant.
Hedge funds are private investment funds that attract wealthy investors and generally make more complicated and higher-risk investments than traditional investment funds.
They typically borrow money to maximise their positions but this means they are particularly vulnerable to any sudden market crisis as they have to meet lenders' demands.
中国决不能成为美元泄洪的重灾区
作者：余云辉
来源：新华网
2008年02月28日
今天的中国是一个开放的国家，在开放的过程中我们获得了发展的机遇，同时我们也面临着新的风险。在资本市场，我们面临的风险尤为突出。在一些领域，海外资本正逐步主导或者已经主导了中国的诸多产业部门，相对应的，中国国内生产和消费结构出现严重失衡，环境恶化，民生问题突出。而这一切的核心问题就是中美之间的汇率之战。
中美的汇率之战本质上是一场国与国之间的货币战争，是美国货币政策、双方的汇率政策、中国货币政策之间的较量。实行弱势美元政策、持续降息、推动人民币升值是美国在这场战争中的主要行为方式。这场金融攻势的目的是以温和的方式，逐步削弱中国经济，从而瓦解中国成为美国竞争对手的能力。
在这场货币政策的较量中，我国是选择被动地迎合美国开出来的政策清单，还是选择主动出击、保卫国家的经济安全和经济成果，这是关系到中国经济未来命运的问题，也是关系到中国的政治稳定和社会稳定的问题。中国的宏观经济决策机构必须从开放的、系统的角度重新评估目前的国际和国内经济形势，牢牢把握中国经济发展的主导权和主动权。
目前，中国位居世界第一的1.53万亿美元外汇储备已经成为美国的猎物。中国巨额的美元储备如同中国交易员在国际外汇市场上做了一笔大额的不当交易，让国际猎手们感到极度的兴奋，但是，我们还没有闻到捕杀的血腥。从人民币升值的那一天起，中国财富就开始了国际化的转移：从中国本土转移到海外，主要是美国。人民币加速升值的政策只是加速这种财富的国际转移，并没有解决中国面临的其它问题。
从美国利益的立场看，美联储降息、美元贬值、甚至宣称无限量地提供流动性是对美国民众和美国金融机构的最好保护，是完全正确的，体现出美国人高明而自私的金融智慧。但是，美联储的做法能否达到预期的目的，这需要中国中央银行制定并执行与美联储完全相反的货币政策给予充分的配合。事实上，中国央行对应的货币政策就是升息、人民币升值、紧缩货币。中国的货币政策在美元的攻势之下疲于奔命，完全丧失了货币主导权，但是，中国并没有在讨好美元的博弈中达到自身的目的。中美央行之间不同选择的结果是：美国通过持续降息、美元贬值甚至宣称无限量地提供垃圾美元，逐步摆脱了次级贷款危机，却维持了物价稳定，避免了通货膨胀；中国正好相反，中国央行采取持续加息、不断提高准备金率、加大人民币升值幅度、甚至采取窗口指导等行政手段来紧缩银根，逼得基层企业难以生存和发展，却仍然抑制不了物价上涨的趋势。面对通胀压力和严重的经济结构失衡，社会舆论和政府政策几乎一边倒地倾向于进一步提高存款准备金率、进一步加快人民币的升值，而根本不顾这一系列政策可能产生的严重后果，也不论证这一系列政策能否达到预期的目的。
今天，中国经济所处的国内外环境与二十年前大不相同，但是，经济理论界和经济管理部门对中国经济格局的判断、宏观调控的思路和手段还是停留在二十年前的水平上。如果沿用传统的思路和手段调控经济，不仅会事与愿违，而且代价惨重。采取加速人民币升值、提高存款准备金率、简单机械地加息等调控政策将会导致中国的宏观经济形势进一步恶化：
第一、 加剧人民币升值的压力
当今的中国经济是一个过度开放的经济体，对外经济依存度很高，外汇储备超过1.53万亿美元，并且主要投资于美国国债市场。美元资本可以通过各种投资的方式不断流入中国。地方政府和国家部委出于本位主义，阻止美元资本流入的防线已经形同虚设，这是中国经济政策制定者必须面对的现实。这是二十年前不存在的情况。面对这样的国内经济现实，美联储一旦采用泛滥的美元政策，那么，中国的紧缩货币政策必然成为美元泄洪的重灾区。中国紧缩的货币政策意味着提高准备金率和加息，意味着减少人民币的投放数量，意味着人民币吸引力的提高，结果只能是美元更加汹涌地涌向境内，人民币被迫升值。
目前，国内外众多专家学者在呼吁政府加大人民币升值的幅度，希望2008年度人民币升值10％，同时进一步加息和提高存款准备金率，以便抑制国内的通货膨胀。这种政策组合事实上很可能制造经济灾难。
中国一年期活期存款利率已从3.87%上调到4.14%，如果人民币升值10％，海外热钱进入中国的无风险收益率高达14.14％，而美国减息之后的基准利率是3%，这是境外热钱的基本成本，海外资金的套利空间达到11.14％，对冲基金可以利用资金杠杆放大10倍以上进行投机，资金的年化收益率可以高达111.40％以上。巨大的利益诱惑导致海外热钱涌入中国。2007年度是人民币大幅升值的一年，却同时又是外汇储备同比大幅增加43％的一年。个别专家指出通过人民币升值来抑制热钱流入的政策，犯了抱薪救火的错误，已经得到验证。
第二、 人民币升值的过程是酝酿潜在金融危机的过程
人民币升值幅度与人民币存款利息之和一旦大于美元资金成本，就意味着人民币升值的过度和存款加息的过度。人民币升值的直接损失不是出口商品减少、没有换到美元，而是中国的1.53万亿美元外汇储备像冰雪一样每天在融化、是国民财富在被弱势美元所蚕食。人民币升值意味着大量海外在华资产在完成增值之后可以换取更多的美元，可以在不久的将来轻易地兑换走国家的外汇储备，从而把中国依靠消耗资源和劳动力挣得的财富瞬间消失在人民币与美元的这场较量之中。这就是人民币升值的代价。
主张人民币快速升值的观点遗忘了中国有1.53万亿美元的外汇储备，也忽略了海外资本已经掌握了巨额的人民币资产，这些已经增值数倍的人民币资产需要在人民币升值之后更快地、更多地消耗掉中国外汇储备。中国经济对外依存度已经达到70％，这是一个极其危险的比例，它意味着在出现大规模兑换美元的紧急情况下，中国增加出口的能力十分有限。人民币的大幅度升值将把中国经济逼进没有回旋余地的死角，届时，金融危机的爆发、各类企业股权、债券贱卖给外资机构就成为必然的结局。其实，中国正在重复着发生过金融危机的国家和地区的初期道路。
与美国财长保尔森的观点相反，“欧元之父”罗伯特·蒙代尔认为人民币快速升值是“很糟糕的事情”，他说：“现在有人提出人民币应该快速升值，我认为不能这样做，中国可能面临人民币被高估的情况。如果人民币快速升值，那对中国来说是很糟糕的事情，人民币兑美元应稳定在7.5左右。”（详见《 蒙代尔:快速升值很糟糕 人民币汇率应稳定在7.5》，《证券时报》2007年09月17日）
第三、 人民币升值不仅不能抑制中国的通货膨胀，而且会使通货膨胀进一步恶化
根据西方经济学的教条，货币升值可以抑制出口、增加进口，从而可以抑制通货膨胀。但是，这个教条在今天的中国已经不适用，相反，人民币升值不仅不会抑制通货膨胀，反而成为推动通货膨胀的元凶。这是因为中国已经不是一个封闭的经济体，而是一个过度开放的经济体。中国当前的通货膨胀是发生在人民币持续升值之后，而不是发生在人民币升值之前。事实胜于雄辩。中国经济的现实可以推翻所有的经济学教条。西方经济学的教条只有在中国经济没有过度开放、或者美国没有制造美元泛滥的前提下才能成立。
本次中国通货膨胀的形成过程是：
第1阶段，海外资本大量进入中国并主导了对外出口，外商企业的出口额占中国总出口额的60％，同时，海外资本以低廉的价格购买了大量的国内企业股权，此时，逼迫人民币升值既有借口，又十分有利。
第2阶段，在美国的压力之下，人民币开始升值，并形成持续升值的预期，大量投机性热钱通过各种途径涌向中国房地产市场、企业股权市场和股票二级市场。
第3阶段，中央银行通过发行票据对冲美元，希望维持人民币升值的节奏。这种公开市场的对冲操作，本质上是把国内企业手中的人民币收上来交给了持有美元的海外机构，中国本土企业减少了这部分人民币所对应的发展机会，而以美元换取这部分人民币的海外机构取得了相应的投资机会。中国类似东盛集团这样的民营企业为什么不得不把“盖天力”“白加黑”这样的优质资产卖给外资？原因就在这里。换个角度看，这种对冲操作相当于中国人民银行把自己掌控的一部分权利转移给了美联储。这是一种货币发行权的转移。廉价美元初战告捷，尝到甜头，于是，美联储开足印钞机的马力，不辞昼夜，而中国央行收紧内资企业的银根、紧缩了内资企业的发展空间，而把收上来的人民币资金通过对冲的方式交给了美元持有者，让这些美元持有者在中国收购金融股权和产业股权、收购土地、金矿、煤矿、高速公路、自来水设施等等。
从2007年初到12月12日，央行全年共发行央票3.93万亿；扣除央行所作的回购交易，2003年至2007年，发行央行票据净对冲流动性约4万亿；截至2007年10月份，外汇占款已达到12.72万亿人民币，这意味着人民币升值10％，我方的汇兑损失就达到1.272万亿人民币。在这场对冲交易中，美联储通过发行美元扩大了自己的经济版图，把美元符号变成了实物资产和资源，同时坐拥人民币升值的收益，而人民币丢失了自己的经济版图，并把美元变成了美国国债，接受着持续的贬值。
第4阶段，美联储推行的减息、贬值、宣称提供无限流动性的美元政策没有导致美国出现通货膨胀，却制造了中国的通货膨胀。央行发行票据对冲美元的公开市场操作，本质上是把国内生产经营机构的资金搬运给了海外机构。由此，一方面造成国内生产经营单位营运资金紧张，民间拆借利率高达30％，另一方面海外机构持有充裕的人民币热钱，可以进行大举投资和收购，抬高了资源和产品的价格。中国金融体系中人民币资源配置的失衡既制造了有效供给不足的通货膨胀，又制造了成本推动型的通货膨胀。当前，中国的通货膨胀是这二种通货膨胀交叉作用的产物。美元泛滥、人民币升值、公开市场操作误配人民币资源是本次通货膨胀的根源。
人民币升值和紧缩货币政策将对中国经济产生巨大的伤害，却可以完美地配合美联储的宏观经济调控目标：继续维持弱势美元、维持低利率和低通胀、承诺提高无限流动性以便顺利度过次贷危机，同时，为未来实行强势美元政策、吸干中国的外汇储备而作准备。
截至2007年12月27日，央行总计回笼资金量达到6.94万亿元，其中，通过发行央票和正回购回笼资金5.14万亿元；十次上调存款准备金率回笼资金约1.8万亿元。对冲到期释放的资金量后，央行净回笼资金高达2.63万亿元，比去年增加了约1.38万亿元，相当于每天从市场回笼资金190亿元。在央行加强资金回笼力度的同时，外汇占款却迅猛增加，仅以三季度末的外汇储备量估算，今年新增外汇占款量将比去年多出一倍（《央行今年净回笼2.63万亿元》，详见《上海证券报》2007年12月28日）。
第四、人民币升值趋势和升值预期导致国内货币调控手段陷于极度被动的局面
在人民币升值趋势保持不变的情况下，如果降低利率、增加货币供给量，那么，会导致负利率的情况加剧，国内企业和居民的存款会受到更大的损失，通货膨胀将进一步恶化；相反，如果提高利率、减少货币供给量，那么，会导致海外热钱套利空间加大、内资企业的发展机会受到进一步挤压、给外资收购中国企业和国内资源提供更大的机会，中国经济拉美化趋势更加严重。采取后者的政策尽管可能暂时减轻通货膨胀压力，但是，通货膨胀会在未来伴随着金融危机以更加强烈的方式爆发出来。各国经济危机爆发的历史事实已经使上述结论成为常识。
第五、汇率和利率是主要的收入再分配工具，人民币加速升值将导致国内外收入分配格局的进一步失衡
在加速人民币升值的情况下，国内加息的空间是有限的，居民和企业的存款可能长期维持在负利率的水平上，使得存款者利益受到损失，从而促使部分存款离开银行形成现实购买力，增大通货膨胀压力。2007年度CPI达到4.8%，银行一年期定期存款利率是4.14%，活期存款利率是0.72%，居民和企业存款利率是－0.66％以上，以10月份38万亿存款余额计算，负利率使得存款者的损失在2500亿元以上。人民币兑美元是从2005年7月开始升值，此前，人民币汇率基本维持在8.27左右，之后开始一路升值，并显现加速之势，截止到1月底的中间价达到7.20，升值幅度为12.94%，中国的汇兑损失超过1500亿美元，相当于损失1.2万亿人民币，超过2006年全年中央财政收入2万亿人民币的一半以上。
如果2008年度人民币继续升值10％，中国近1.5万亿美元外汇储备相应地贬值1500亿美元，相当于国民财富再次损失1万多亿人民币。企业和居民的存款损失与外汇储备的汇兑损失之和在1.3-1.5亿人民币之间，相当于2006年度中央财政收入2万亿人民币的65-75％，也大幅超过了2007年度中央企业创造的利润的总和。上述二项损失的区别在于：负利率造成的存款损失属于国内财富的再分配，美元储备的贬值属于国民财富的国际再分配，属于国民财富流失。这将是我们推行以人民币升值为主的宏观紧缩政策的代价，同时，也将构成了美元输出国的重大利益来源。
面对泛滥的美元，英国央行选择了抵抗，而不是迎合。英国11月份生产者指数产出价格较上年同期上升4.5%，为过去16年以来的最大升幅，PPI投入价格较上年同期上涨10.2%。英国银行没有采取紧缩政策、没有加息、没有为泛滥的美元提供纵深推进的货币空间和利益诱导，相反，英国央行选择了对抗，采取了与美联储相同的放松货币的政策，在12月6日下调基准利率25个基点，至5.50%，这是该行自2005年8月以来的首次降息（见《市场静待美国利率决定》上海建行冯威威，《新闻晨报》12月12日）。全球性通货膨胀的根源在于美国、在于美联储的垃圾美元政策，而不在于中国央行货币政策本身，因此，英国央行的操作思路值得我们借鉴和反思。（作者余云辉 经济学博士、厦门大学金融系客座教授）
中国要跳出美国设下的货币陷阱
作者：余云辉
来源：新华网
2008年02月29日
中美之间的这场货币较量正在进行之中。中国不应该继续选择退却、不应该继续跟随美方的要求采取“敌进我让”的政策。我们应该把国家和民族的整体利益放在首位，把握发展经济的主动权和制定政策的主导权，避免陷入国际资本布下的陷阱。
当前，中国货币政策的总体思路应该是围绕国内经济发展的目标和经济结构调整的要求，把国内利率政策作为宏观经济调控的主要手段之一，把汇率政策作为保卫中国经济成果、保卫中国经济版图的主要手段之一，同时，汇率政策应该服务于利率政策、为实施正确的利率政策让路，不应该让汇率政策牵着利率政策的鼻子走，不应该让汇率政策约束利率政策的制定和实施。通过利率、汇率、资源价格体系的互动和调整，达到把国民财富留在国内的目的；同时，通过实施自主的货币政策，迫使美国调整自身的货币政策，形成相对公平的国际经济环境。
具体建议如下：
建议之一：根据通货膨胀率调整存款利率，改变存款负利率的状况，同时，相应地，把人民币兑美元汇率由升值调整为贬值
中国是一个开放的经济体，制定货币政策必须同时考虑下列四个基本要素及其彼此之间的平衡：利率、通货膨胀率、汇率、美国基准利率或国际游资成本及其之间的平衡。从理论上讲，最佳的平衡状态应该是：人民币存款利息收入加上或减去人民币贬值或升值所形成的汇兑损益之和，等于国际游资的资金成本。如果其中的某个要素发生变化，那么，可以根据经济环境的具体情况，通过调整另外两个要素或另外两个要素之一来实现新的平衡。根据利率、通货膨胀率、汇率和国际游资成本之间的平衡关系式，可以看出，在维持正利率的前提下，通货膨胀率上升，本币就应该贬值，而不是升值。出现通货膨胀应该成为本币由升值转为贬值的分水岭。
以中国当前的情况为例，2007年全年CPI上涨4.8%，央行一年期的存款利率应该从目前的4.14%调整到5.8%，调整后人民币的实际利率是5.8%-4.8%=1%；美国目前的基准利率是3.0%，人民币兑美元的汇率调整幅度=3.00%-5.8%=-2.80%，即人民币应该贬值2.80%。可见，根据上述分析，如果为了抑制通货膨胀、改变人民币负利率的现状，人民币不仅不应该升值，而是应该立刻贬值。
一个国家没有理由在存在巨额外汇储备的情况下选择外汇贬值和本币升值，更没有理由在通货膨胀出现甚至加剧的情况下继续选择本币升值甚至加速升值。通货膨胀的出现是本币由升值转向贬值的分水岭，这是制定汇率政策的常识。面对常识，我们不应该“创新”。
通过提高人民币存款利率、扭转人民币负利率的局面、适度地对人民币进行贬值，有利于达到以下目的：
首先，人民币贬值可以减少1.53万亿美元外汇储备的汇兑损失。人民币少升值1%，相当于中央银行少损失1200亿人民币；人民币少升值10%，相当于少损失1.2万亿人民币。只要中国没有把过多的外汇储备降到合理的水平上，中国就应该千方百计地阻止人民币升值，更不能被外国势力逼着升值。在外汇储备过高的情况下，人民币不升值甚至贬值，是对国家财富的最好保护。
从这个角度看，继续选择以人民币升值的方式来解决贸易顺差问题，将是一个错误的政策选择，因为人民币升值造成汇兑损失的同时并没有解决其它任何问题，相反，还产生了诸如热钱汹涌、通货膨胀等新问题。
其次，人民币存款由-0.66%利率变为＋1%利率，可以增加储户收入6000到7000亿元人民币，有利于增加居民的财产性收入，有利于储蓄稳定和物价稳定。
再次，提高利率意味着提高社会资金的使用成本，也意味着提高社会资源的使用成本，相当于减少了社会资金使用方每年6000亿到7000亿元的利息补贴。中国经济增长方式长期难以摆脱粗放经营的根源在于包括资金在内的各类资源要素如土地、燃油、矿产、水、劳动力等价格长期低于合理水平。在过度开放的经济体内，提高资金等要素价格就意味着把财富留在了国内，同时，也有利于改变中国经济的增长方式。
建议之二：提高国内各类生产要素价格和环境保护要求，使得各类生产要素价格和环保标准与国际市场价格接轨
人民币停止升值甚至贬值是保护国民财富的手段，也是促进出口的手段，但容易引起贸易争端，因此，需要通过提高生产要素价格和环保标准来提高出口企业的生产成本，抑制出口的过度扩张。提高生产因素价格和环保标准才能实行可持续发展，才能从经济杠杆的角度落实科学发展观，才能把财富和资源留在国内而不是以低价倾销换取符号化的美元然后贬值。
正确的宏观调控策略是，一方面持续提高生产要素价格和环保标准以达到国际水平，增加企业的资源成本与环境成本，促使企业转变增长模式，另一方面将人民币由升值转变为贬值，防止出口能力急剧滑坡。把握好人民币贬值与要素价格、环保标准提高之间的尺度，这是宏观调控的艺术。在企业经营效率没有同步提高的情况下，提高要素价格和环保标准往往会产生成本推动型的通货膨胀，这是推行人民币贬值政策的合理理由。无论人民币贬值还是提高要素价格和环保标准，都是保护国民财富、防止资源外流、增强国家整体经济实力的策略。
建议之三：逐步降低存款准备金率，缩小银行存贷利差，以此配合存款由负利率转变为正利率的货币政策
我国商业银行存贷款利差是国外银行存贷款利差的二倍以上，不合理的存贷款利差收入形成了商业银行包括在华外资法人银行的巨额垄断利润。这是对国内产业利润的侵蚀，影响着国内产业资本的长期竞争力，因此，提高存款利率、实现负利率向正利率转变并不意味着贷款利率的等比例提高。商业银行也要吐出一部分利润出来，但是，中央银行可以通过降低存款准备金率、扩大商业银行贷款业务量来适度弥补其利润损失。同时，适当提高利率意味着增加企业使用社会资金的成本，而降低存款准备金率意味着扩大贷款规模，增加贷款供给，二者之间是一种对冲式的平衡。因此，提高存贷款利率、缩小商业银行存贷款利差政策需要同降低存款准备金率政策之间相互配合，这样才能形成一种平衡型的货币政策。这一货币政策的内涵还在于让有竞争力的企业能够得到相对高成本资金的充分支持，市场化的货币政策可以取代行政性的“贷款窗口指导”。
建议之四：推动资本市场的“市场化”改革，以此配合利率政策和汇率政策的根本性调整
利率政策的调整主导着汇率政策的调整，但是，利率政策能否得到充分运用并取得预期效果需要企业直接融资市场化改革的配合。如果企业直接融资制度继续实行目前低效率的官僚化的行政审批制度，如果企业缺乏起码的资本自主权、资金成本结构及期限结构的选择权，如果企业仍然缺乏一个高效率的市场化的股权融资市场和债权融资市场作后盾，从而真正解决企业直接融资难的问题，那么，在银行存贷款利率与通货膨胀挂钩从而增加企业的财务成本支出的情况下，一些优秀的企业可能因为股权融资难而成为高利率政策的牺牲品，由此可能导致所谓的“货币政策紧缩过度现象”。这种所谓的“货币政策紧缩过度现象”不是因为货币政策自身欠妥，而是缺乏一个有效率的、“市场化”的资本市场来配合货币政策的实施。从某种角度看，资本市场自身的“市场化”改革是利率政策调整和汇率政策调整的重要条件之一。中国资本市场的“市场化”改革比股权分置改革容易得多，只要把证券交易所恢复为公司制的交易所而不是作为证监会的下属部门、取消中国证监会的发行监管部和上市监管部、取消企业融资、并购、重组的行政管制而改为交易所的备案制，那么，中国资本市场的“市场化”改革就完成了。尽管会遭到行政管制权力拥有者的极力反对，这项改革可以在100天之内完成。利率和汇率的政策调整必须与直接融资的市场化改革形成互补和平衡，这样才能有利于宏观经济的协调发展。
建议之五：利率政策和汇率政策的调整需要财政政策的配合
通过提高利率水平、资源价格和环保标准将在短期内推动企业生产成本上升，可能造成短期内的物价上涨，形成一定程度上的成本推动型通货膨胀。这不是坏事，相反，一定程度上的通胀可以成为经济结构调整的契机。这类成本推动型通胀可以改变国内的利益分配格局，避免进一步资源浪费，同时，通过通货膨胀率与利率的挂钩，将人民币由升值趋势转变为贬值趋势，可以避免国民财富的流失。只要财富留在了国内，只要财富没有流失到国门之外，政府就可以利用财政手段进行再分配来解决通货膨胀所产生的问题。
政府还可以通过扩大财政在教育、医疗、环境、社会保障等方面的支出来扩大内需和解决社会公平问题。从这个角度看，政府不应该把抑制通货膨胀作为最高目标，而应该把防止国民财富流失、增加社会财富、提高社会福利作为最高目标。只要能够实现后者的目标，通货膨胀其实是一种产业结构调整和社会收入结构调整的表面现象而已。
宏观经济调控不是单向的政策运动，不能依靠“独一味”的单方，而需要把握客观经济对象自身内在的对立统一规律，实现对立统一中的平衡，因此，偏紧的利率政策需要通过扩张性的财政政策进行平衡；利率与通胀率挂钩、资源价格上升、环保标准提高抑制了出口，这就需要通过人民币贬值来平衡；商业银行利率上升对企业经营活动产生影响，这需要通过发展资本市场的直接融资来平衡；商业银行存贷款利差的减少对银行业绩产生了不利影响，这需要通过降低存款准备金率来平衡。总之，宏观调控要坚决避免头痛医头脚痛医脚，而应该着眼长远、立足根本，提高中国经济的整体素质和竞争力。
建议之六：加强资本项目管制，在人民币贬值到合理目标之前严防资金外逃
美国的货币政策已经让中国1.53万亿美元的外汇储备蒙受了巨大的损失，中国应该设法得到弥补；此外，近年来进入中国本土的外资获得了几倍、甚至几十倍的增值，中国应该通过货币政策和汇率政策的设计把外资机构的超额利润再分配回来。有统计表明，仅仅外资投资于银行股权一项，2006年度就增值了1万多亿人民币，如果把外资投资于保险、证券、信托、基金管理公司、上市公司等股权计算在内，外资的收益远远超过这个数字。在华资产大幅增值之后，这些外资机构所持有的人民币资产都要向中国金融机构兑换成美元出境，这将消耗掉大量的外汇储备。如何降低消耗的程度？唯一的途径就是把外资机构的人民币资产通过外汇管制的方式关在国内一段时间，使得这些外资机构的人民币资产一方面接受通货膨胀的贬值，另一方面接受人民币的贬值，从而将他们在中国挣得的一部分暴利吐还给中国。QDII和“港股直通车”都不是理想的政策选择，提高利率水平、提高资源价格、提高环保标准、增加财政支出、贬值人民币、逼退符号化的境外美元套利资金、牢牢关住那些已经进入国内的外资机构人民币资产并接受人民币贬值，是保卫中国经济版图、保卫中国经济安全、保卫国民财富的重要战略部署。
建议之七、适度抛售美国国债，迫使美联储放弃弱势美元政策
为了使国内的利率提高、人民币贬值、资源价格上升等抵抗性和防御性的宏观调控政策取得更好的效果，需要开辟域外战场，即，通过抛售美国国债、打压美国国债价格、相应地提高美国国债收益率、最后借助美国国债利率的定价传导作用打压美国其它金融商品价格，迫使美国放弃垃圾美元政策，促使美元升值，维护1.53万亿美元外汇储备的价值，同时减轻人民币主动贬值的国际压力。
设立国家外汇投资公司和推行QDII政策无法解决中国外汇储备的保值增值难题。中国外汇投资公司持有的2000亿美元资产，其年化收益率估计难以达到5％，难以取得每年100亿美元的投资收益，可是，只要人民币升值1％，就相当于抹去了中投公司1.5年的投资收益。目前为止，人们只看到中投公司和QDII失败的成绩单。尽管中投公司和QDII的经理们面对失利依然表现得如此从容和理所当然，但是，我们并没有理由对外汇储备的“走出去战略”抱有过分乐观的幻想。因此，与其把一部分外汇储备的命运交给海外市场去被动地漂泊，还不如通过对内政策和对外政策的联动，主动地确保整体外汇储备的保值和升值。
结语：
中美汇率之战是发生在中国本土的一场货币战争。美元不再代表黄金、不再代表美国的信用、不再代表任何持久的实体，在美元的背后仅仅是美联储计算机键盘敲打出来的虚拟符号，因此，美国急于把符号化的美元变为中国的土地、资源和企业股权尤其是银行、证券、保险、信托、基金管理公司等金融机构的股权。这是美国积极推动中美战略对话的主要目的之一。外资机构拿着美元可以在中国肆意收购，美元在中国拥有着超越人民币的购买权利，可以从事国内企业尤其是民营企业持有人民币也做不到的事，相反，中国持有的美元在美国本土除了可以购买美国债权却难以购买中国所需要的股权、技术和商品。
中国人手持美元到了美国才发现，中国人拥有的美元之权利被美国政府和美国国会挤压到一个狭小的空间里，美元不再是一般等价物，而是权利非常有限的一种美国产印刷品。
中国觉醒了吗？中国必须觉醒、必须防止更严重的掏空。中国要坚持“对外开放”政策，但这种开放应该是“对等开放”，绝不能重现1840年后的那段日子。中国作为大国应该学习美国对付中国的做法，美国层层设防，不提倡“对外开放”，只提倡“美元垃圾”变资源和变股权。中国只有认真思考三十年改革开放的成功经验和教训，特别是资本市场建设方面的不足，重新调整政策和思路，重视政策之间的平衡和配套，才能发挥人民币的威力，才能打好这场发生在中国本土的货币战争，才能避免中国经济发展成果的瞬间毁灭。 （作者系经济学博士、厦门大学金融系客座教授）
Post a Comment