路透專欄撰稿人 James Saft
雖然市場對耶倫日前的言論並不害怕，不過你也許想聽從她的勸告。
美聯儲主席耶倫上周在國會作證時，異常直率地指出社交媒體和生物科技類股以及債市某些領域的估值過高。但市場對她的忠告反應平淡，好似只是出於禮貌才忍住沒打呵欠。
這很能說明問題，也讓人擔憂。
原因在於，耶倫本人目前非常重視宏觀審慎政策，將其作為防止泡沫的主要手段。而規勸市場是宏觀審慎政策的重要組成部分，但我們已經看到，作用不大。
短期來講這對風險資產利好。市場在過去兩天上揚沒有錯。但較長期來看，則風險可能比原來又稍微更加偏向出現大跌的意外結局。
耶倫的這次國會發言，可能是格林斯潘(Alan Greenspan)1996年發表的「非理性繁榮」講話以來最為引人注目。
耶倫在講話中不認同普遍存在泡沫的看法，同時對某些債券種類表示擔心。
低評級企業債估值似過高
「在一些領域，例如低評級企業債，估值似乎過高，發債活躍。因此，我們密切監控槓桿貸款市場，努力加強監管指導的效果，」她稱。
值得一提的是，這樣直接點名某個市場，有點像是美聯儲提出監管指導的風格，然而本周還沒有出現大批發債交易撤銷，或是對銀團貸款重新定價，而且好像也不太可能出現。
更值得注意的是，耶倫和美聯儲準備的貨幣政策報告中的說法，尤其是說得那麼具體。該報告在耶倫國會聽證時一同提交。
「某些行業的估值指標看起來確實過高，尤其是社交媒體和生物科技業的小企業，即便這些企業股價年初曾大跌，」報告中稱。
美聯儲官員的這種表態確實不同尋常，他們通常只是泛泛地談論資產市場，而不是像行業專家那樣點評具體的行業。
未理結局 市場反應平淡
格林斯潘在互聯網泡沫初期曾做出「非理性繁榮」的演講，導致股市大跌。與之不同的是，市場對耶倫的分析反應平淡。
總而言之，美聯儲對股票估值表示擔憂，但市場卻表示不太在意。這很合乎情理，但也帶來很大疑問：耶倫及美聯儲會如何推行政策，以及投資者和經濟最終會迎來何種結局。
投資者關注美聯儲官員的講話，不是因為信任他們作為企業評估者或經濟學家的專業能力，而是因為他們能通過政策影響資產價值。因此，如果耶倫或其他美聯儲官員說他們對某個市場感到擔憂，你對此的理解就是認為他們將收緊政策作為應對。
不過，耶倫已經公開宣布，強烈支持通過宏觀審慎性政策來維持金融和市場穩定，稱貨幣政策的調整應當以管理通脹和就業為目標。宏觀審慎性政策包括兩部分，其中最重要的就是監管。
通過規勸(jawboning)引導市場，傳統上一直是央行鼓勵市場審慎行為的一個重要工具。
在基本上排除使用貨幣政策來管理泡沫之後，耶倫實際上已經打破了貨幣政策與宏觀審慎性規勸之間的聯繫。耶倫和美聯儲未來可能會通過監管措施逐步擠出債市的水分，但她通過表達關切來影響公開市場動物精神的能力現在已經大大縮水。
對投資者來說，這就意味覑他們可以忽視耶倫及其同僚有關市場的講話，而只關注他們對通脹和就業的看法。只要美聯儲官員們還在表示仍需要貨幣政策來支撐經濟，投資者就應當買入而不是賣出風險資產。
雖然前景有很多條路都可能通向失敗，但沒有一條可以預知。通脹的發展或許會超出美聯儲預期並失控，促使其稍晚對貨幣政策踩下急剎車，也可能是某個市場的泡沫膨脹並最終破裂。
但在這些情況的發生的跡象進一步明顯之前，預計市場泡沫仍會層出不窮。
finance.yahoo.com
Janet Yellen is taking a lot of flak for speaking her mind
Last week, the Federal Reserve released a biannual policy report just as Yellen, the Fed’s chair, began testifying to Congress on the state of the U.S. economic recovery, the outlook for inflation and what’s happening in financial markets these days.
What Yellen had to say on the
last of those factors sent many folks into a tizzy. The Fed views
valuations in some parts of the market — especially for smaller social
media companies and biotech stocks — as being “substantially stretched,”
even after a “notable downturn in equity prices for such firms early in
the year.”
In other words, in spite of all of Yellen’s reassuring words to the contrary in recent months, there may be some kind of asset bubble taking shape in at least some corners of the financial market.
The
last time that a Fed chairman stuck his head out like this was way back
in December 1996, and it ended badly — very badly — for all concerned.
Alan Greenspan was Fed head at the time, and his questioning about our
inability to know when “irrational exuberance” inflated asset values to
levels beyond which they could be sustained by fundamentals triggered a prompt and panicky selloff
in stocks. Within months, however, the Dow Jones Industrial Average was
setting a string of new records and Greenspan was left with egg on his
face.
Greenspan wasn’t wrong,
of course. The kind of “unexpected and prolonged contractions” he
envisaged in his 1996 speech did show up — but not until early 2000, by which time the Dow had climbed 81 percent. Anyone who had listened to his warnings had forfeited a lot of money.
Burned
by that experience, Greenspan never again spoke out to warn the public
about bubbles taking shape in the economy or financial markets during
his tenure at the Fed. Perhaps he simply didn’t see the giant credit
bubble taking shape, as he himself later asserted.
Or perhaps, as his critics argue — pointing to the fact that he’d been
asked to comment on the possibility of a housing price bubble by
Congress as early as 2002 — Greenspan simply figured that it was safer
to stay on the side of the cheerleaders until it was clear that the
bubble was deflating, having miscalculated the way in which it would
end.
Rightly or wrongly,
Yellen may have ignored that history by being as outspoken as she has,
and she is attracting a lot of criticism for it — on several fronts.
Who made the Fed Chair an expert on social media stocks or small biotech companies? Does Yellen have the know-how to determine what constitutes a fair valuation for a fledgling biotech stock, some observers gripe?
Others
go back to Greenspan’s “irrational exuberance” comment, and point out
that the Fed doesn’t have a terribly good track record of getting macro
calls like that right.
Related: Central Banks Ending Era of Clear Promises
Then there’s the argument that Yellen’s jawboning doesn’t seem to be working.
Sure, social media shares got pummeled, but modestly. Twitter, which
was already off its recent highs, fell less than 4 percent; Facebook, up
23 percent so far this year, recouped its losses to finish higher on
the week. Similarly, the iShares Nasdaq Biotechnology Index ETF
(NASDAQ:IBB), after slumping since the Fed comments came out, gained 3
percent on Friday, leaving it ahead 10.3 percent for 2014 and 29 percent
over the last 12 months.
Here’s the bottom line: Yellen knows she
is walking a very narrow line as she tries to guide monetary policy
back toward some kind of “new normal” for the first time since the 2008
financial crisis.
Financial
markets, clearly, have been rallying, even as the economy has been
stumbling along. That has left the Fed stuck in an uncomfortable and
perhaps ultimately perilous position of keeping interest rates low
enough to not jeopardize growth, even if doing so risks creating fresh
bubbles somewhere in the financial system.
The Bank for International Settlements has argued
that “unusually accommodative” policies (translation: easy money) by
the Fed and other central banks have been damaging, and that the
continuation of this “unconventional” and “extraordinary” state of
affairs involves an entirely new set of risks.
Clearly,
Yellen’s Fed wants to do what it can to keep bubbles from forming while
waiting on monetary policy changes — the adjustment of key interest
rates — that could undercut some of the economic momentum that may be
building. But just because we don’t need to fear that Yellen will
quickly follow up her words with interest rate changes just yet doesn’t
mean we shouldn’t pay attention to what she is saying.
More
than any other single individual in the U.S. financial system, Janet
Yellen is in a position to see what is taking place in the economy and
its financial markets, and to spot pockets of risk or overvaluation as
soon as they appear. Sure, she may be early, and she’s unlikely to be an
expert on specific stocks (why would anyone listen to a Fed chair on
what specific stocks to buy, anyway?), but that doesn’t devalue her
perspective.
Moreover, Yellen
has been in Washington long enough and is smart and savvy enough to be
aware of the ramifications of using words and phrases that bring back
memories of Greenspan. The very fact that she’s doing so means that she
probably sees good reason for speaking out.
That reason likely boils down to “caveat emptor.” Yellen, in her brief time at the Fed thus far, is telling investors to look out for themselves
— and right now, she feels strongly enough about this particular issue
to suggest it is something we might want to worry about. She, meanwhile,
will keep worrying about the economy first and foremost.
沒有留言:
張貼留言