Cina vs. resto del mondo

 

  By: Gano* on Lunedì 07 Maggio 2007 22:34

Tanto valeva comprare solo la Cina... forse perche' la Cina e' l' unico paese al mondo con un miliardo di persone che di questo passo raddoppi le dimensioni della sua economia ogni sei anni circa...?

 

  By: gianlini on Lunedì 07 Maggio 2007 21:49

fatemi capire la cina è chiusa e i mercati stanno tutto il giorno (10 ore di trading) in un fazzoletto di valori, e l'unica cosa che si muove è il china fund?? come una volta che era chiusa l'america e gli altri mercati non si muovevano? non è paurosamente sintomatico?

 

  By: corcas on Lunedì 07 Maggio 2007 21:09

No, quale pessimismo, sarebbe il giusto percorso dell'armonia....se ancora n'è rimasta traccia. Vedremo....

 

  By: gianlini on Lunedì 07 Maggio 2007 20:58

mxxhia Corcas!, 12 giòrni al ribasso mi vuoi schtare!! ma che sei impazzito!! e che cos'è tutto questo pessimismo!!

 

  By: corcas on Lunedì 07 Maggio 2007 20:37

Io avrei come data di potenziale inversione il 9-10 MAggio e se entro short e non mi prendono lo stop ci rimango fino al 21, vediamo un pò...

 

  By: gianlini on Lunedì 07 Maggio 2007 20:36

forse perchè sono gli stessi che operano anche a shanghai? che ci sia sotto un patto us-china mi sembra fuor di dubbio, e che nel patto entri qualcuno dalla sigla GS anche ergo....1+1=3 %

 

  By: GZ on Lunedì 07 Maggio 2007 20:23

Oggi la Cina era chiusa, lo stesso l'indice cinese a NY trattato in misura approssimativa tramite questo fondo quotato di Morgan Stanley, ^CAF#^, fa +3.3% ed è il migliore indice di paese del mondo, mentre Hong Kong e il Brasile tanto per dire sono in leggero rosso si vede che che sono sicuri che stanotte quando Shangai apre farà +3%

tanto valeva comprare solo la Cina - gz  

  By: GZ on Lunedì 07 Maggio 2007 16:17

L'indice europeo Eurostoxx 600 da dicembre è salito da 350 a 392 che è un bel rendimento dell'11.6% circa la Cina, tramite ad esempio un ^fondo quotato a NY come CAF delle "Red Chip"#http://finance.google.com/finance?q=caf^ (quelle quotate a Shangai che un investitore estero non può comprare direttamente) è salita da 21 a 37, diciamo da 210 a 370 mentre l'Eurostoxx saliva da 350 a 392 (quindi +11% noi e +86% loro meno un 6% circa per il cambio del dollaro) Ma ora tutti gli indici del mondo sono strettamente correlati giorno per giorno (eccetto il Giappone e la Thailandia), dall'argentina alla russia al nasdaq al mibtel a singapore e marciano tutti assieme come se l'economia mondiale fosse un blocco unico, per cui se uno è positivo sulle azioni lo deve essere in pratica su tutte e tanto vale allora rotta per rotta comprare quelle cinesi (che costano 50 volte gli utili) e peruviane (che sono meglio delle cinesi questo mese) perchè se loro salgono salgono le nostre e viceversa, giorno per giorno (in rosso l'eurostoxx, asse di sinistra e in nero il CAF (china fund di morgan stanley a NY, asse di destra)

 

  By: gianlini on Martedì 24 Aprile 2007 14:41

i russi erano più rozzi in effetti si intestavano direttamente tramite presidente di tribunale corrotto le azioni della società

Il leninismo di borsa - gz  

  By: GZ on Martedì 24 Aprile 2007 14:38

il Financial Times oggi nota ^come funziona l'arricchimento dell'elite del partito tramite il mercato azionario#http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/^ Le azioni cinesi trattano a Shangai (che è chiuso ai fondi occidentali) in media a un premio del 20% rispetto a Hong Kong (dove possono operare tutti) per la stessa società Oggi c'è un IPO da 3 miliardi di un altra banca statale cinese e lo hanno prezzato a Shangai un 20% SOTTO il prezzo di Hong Kong, quindi è strano, dovrebbe essere identico o semmai il contrario Ma a Shangai le azioni dell'IPO della banca che appartiene al governo e i cui vertici sono tutti segretari del partito vengono assegnate ovviamente a chi è nel giro. A Hong Kong invece anche agli esteri ed è aperto a tutti in pratica. Morale: i fortunati che hanno avuto l'allocazione delle azioni a Shangai hanno in pratica garantito tutti un +40% istantaneo. Ci sono stati 760 IPO in Cina e 757 sono saliti di prezzo negli ultimi due anni. La borsa capitalizzava 3-400 miliardi nel 2003 e ora ne capitalizza 1.800 miliardi in un paese in cui il PIL è 2.200 miliardi. In pratica devi pensare che qualcosa come 1.000 miliardi sono stati intascati dall'elite del partito che controlla le aziende statali che vengono quotate a Shangai (il resto a Goldman Sachs, Merril Lynch e anche investitori esteri e ovviamente anche dei cittadini cinesi fortunati). Chi ha pagato sono milioni di cinesi che hanno messo tutti i loro risparmi in borsa negli ultimi tre anni. Se vendessero oggi ovviamente avrebbero anche loro un guadagno, ma come noto non è possibile che tutti vendano allo stesso momento....altrimenti si azzera... -------------- BoCom priced to go up…and up…and upApr 24 10:22 by Paul Murphy On Tuesday the price range for the $3.3bn share offer by China’s Bank of Communications, where HSBC has a 20 per cent stake, has been set at a discount of up to 20 per cent to Bocom’s “H-shares,” listed in Hong Kong. On Tuesday the price range for the $3.3bn share offer by China’s Bank of Communications, where HSBC has a 20 per cent stake, has been set at a discount of up to 20 per cent to Bocom’s “H-shares,” listed in Hong Kong. That’s Rmb7-7.9 versus a market price for the H stock of H$8.40. Since, in the current surreal market conditions of Shanghai, domestic Chinese “A-shares” tend to trade at a 20 per cent premium to the equivalent paper listed in Kong Kong, those allocated stock can expect a first day bonus of up to 40 per cent — all other things being equal.

 

  By: defilstrok on Martedì 24 Aprile 2007 12:36

Eeehh! quando scrivevo che hanno lasciato perdere i combattimenti tra cani o tra i galli, o la roulette russa per passare alle azioni... I cinesi hanno sempre avuto la mania del gioco.

 

  By: gianlini on Martedì 24 Aprile 2007 12:02

certo che 'sti comunisti non c'è proprio verso di tenerli tranquilli se molli un secondo il pugno di ferro!!!

91 milioni di neo-giocatori - gz  

  By: GZ on Martedì 24 Aprile 2007 11:49

il 19 aprile in Cina si è toccato il record di 280 milia conti aperti per giocare in borsa in un solo giorno, in aprile ne sono stati aperti 2.7 milioni e oggi ci sono ^91 milioni di conti di borsa in Cina#http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601084&sid=ajTpVvOmko0Q&refer=stocks^. Dato che si calcola che le persone che hanno un reddito superiore a 1.000 dollari al mese (800 euro) in Cina siano sui 150 milioni, massimo forse 200 milioni, ormai tutti in Cina giocano in borsa (e di persona, non tramite fondi). Tanto per dire in Italia ci sono forse due milioni di persone che giocano attivamente in borsa La borsa su cui giocano, lo Shenzen è chiusa agli esteri, ha solo 300-400 miliardi di flottante, ma capitalizza ora 1.9 miliardi di dollari. Nel settore bancario costa sui 40 volte gli utili, ma in quello industriale sopra le 100 volte. Dato che questi 90 milioni di neo-giocatori sono un attimo impreparati e le società in questione sono nuove leggi che qualunque notizia venga pubblicata su un titolo anche negativa lo fa salire perchè è comunque un modo di selezionarne uno da comprare. Bloomberg riporta di gente che vende la casa per avere i soldi per giocare in borsa Il bello è che ora le nostre borse usano l'andamento della borsa cinese come indicatore del boom asiatico (invece che della maggiore mania speculativa mai sperimentata da un paese)

la verità sulla Cina - gz  

  By: GZ on Domenica 22 Aprile 2007 05:55

------------ The Truth About China April 20, 2007 By Guy Sorman The Western press is full of stories these days on China's arrival as a superpower. A steady stream of Western political and business delegations visit Beijing, confident of China's economy, which continues to grow rapidly. Investment pours in. Crowning China's new status, Beijing will host the 2008 Summer Olympics. But after spending all of 2005 and some of 2006 traveling through China—visiting not just her teeming cities but her innermost recesses, where few Westerners go, and speaking with scores of dissidents, Communist Party officials, and everyday people -- my belief that the 21st century will not belong to the Chinese has only been reinforced. True, 200 million of China's subjects, fortunate to work for an expanding global market, are increasingly enjoying a middle-class standard of living. The remaining one billion, however, are among the poorest and most exploited people in the world, lacking even minimal rights and public services. The Party, while no longer totalitarian, is still cruel and oppressive. Its mendacity has been fully displayed in China's AIDS crisis. The problem is gravest in Henan province, where an untold number of poor peasants contracted AIDS during the 1990s from selling their blood plasma—a process that involves having their blood drawn, pooled with other blood and then, once the plasma has been removed, put back into their bodies. China didn't conduct HIV tests and therefore ended up infecting donors by giving them back tainted blood. Victims are now reportedly dying in the hundreds of thousands. The government's initial reaction was to deny that the problem existed, cordon off AIDS-affected areas and let the sick die (a pattern that the government tried to repeat when SARS broke out). In this case, police barred entry to villages where infected people lived (new maps of the province even appeared without the villages). Forced to acknowledge the problem after the international media began reporting on it, the Party nonetheless continues to obfuscate. When Bill Clinton visited Henan in 2005 to distribute AIDS medicine, for example, the Party prevented him from visiting the worst-off villages. Instead, in Henan's capital city, he posed with several Party-selected AIDS orphans as the cameras clicked. It was an elaborate public-relations charade: China, with the West's help, was tackling AIDS! Had Mr. Clinton been given a tour by Hu Jia, a human-rights activist, a far grimmer picture would have emerged. Only 30, he is a democrat and a practicing Buddhist who favors Tibetan independence. In 2004, Mr. Hu gave up studying medicine to look after Henan's sick. Months after Mr. Clinton's photo-op, Mr. Hu and I traveled to one of the villages that the former president missed: Nandawu, home to 3,500 people. It's not hard to visit—you can get past the police checkpoint at the village's entrance by hiding under a tarpaulin on a tractor-trailer, and the police fear AIDS too much to enter the village itself. What I saw there, however, will remain with me forever. The disease inflicts at least 80% of the families there; in every hovel we entered an invalid lay dying. Most of the sufferers had no medicine. One woman put a drip on her sick husband, a man who has been bedridden for two years and who is covered with sores. What did the bottle contain? She didn't know. Why was she doing this? "I saw in the hospital and on television that sick people had to be put on the drip." As long as Mr. Hu worked alone to help the sick, bringing them clothes, money and food, the Party left him alone. But he has recently drawn attention to himself by urging the victims to form an organization that can demand more from the government. The Party will sometimes put up with isolated dissent, but it won't tolerate an "unauthorized" association. Several months ago, the government placed Mr. Hu under house arrest in Beijing. But dissent cannot be stifled everywhere. There has been an explosion of revolts in the vast countryside. The government estimates the number of public clashes with the authorities (some occurring in the industrial suburbs too) at 60,000 a year. But some experts think that the true figure is upward of 150,000 and increasing. When, in late 2006, I reached one village in the heart of the Shaanxi Province after a 40-hour journey from Beijing by train, car and tractor, I saw no trace of an uprising that had taken place a month earlier. Alerted by a text message sent from the village, the Hong Kong press had reported a violent clash between the peasants and the police, leaving people injured and missing or even dead, with the authorities spiriting away the bodies. I pieced together the reasons that had provoked the uprising. The village had a dilapidated school, without heating, chalk or a teacher. In principle, schooling is compulsory and free, but the Party secretary, the village kingpin, made parents pay for heating and chalk. Then a teacher came from the city who wanted to be paid more than his government wages. He demanded extra money from the parents. Half of the parents, members of the most prosperous clan, agreed; the other half, from the poorer clan, refused. A skirmish erupted, and the teacher fled. The Party secretary tried to intervene and was lynched. Then the police roared in with batons and guns. The school has reopened, the teacher replaced with a villager who knows how to read and write but "nothing more than that," he admits. The uprisings express peasants' despair over the bleak future that awaits them. Emigration from the countryside might be a way out, but it's not easy to find a permanent job in the city. All kinds of permits are necessary, and the only way to get them is to bribe bureaucrats. The lot of the migrant—and China now has 200 million of them—is to move from work site to work site, earning a pittance at best. The migrants usually don't receive permission to bring their families with them, and even if they could, obtaining accommodation and schooling for their children would be virtually impossible. The fate of Chinese citizens often depends on where they are from. Someone born in Shanghai is considered an aristocrat and conferred the right to housing and schooling in Shanghai. Someone born in a village, however, can only go to the village school, until a university admits him -- a rare feat for a peasant. An American scholar, Feiling Wang, had come to China to study this system of discrimination, which few in the West know about, but the government expelled him. Villagers often told me that it wasn't the local Party secretary whom they most hated, but rather the family-planning agents who enforce China's one-child policy, often subjecting women to horrific violence. The one-child policy is not only monstrous, it is yielding an increasingly elderly population in need of care—a problem that a poor country like China is unprepared to handle. Will China's surging economic growth end the rumbling discontent? Not according to the esteemed economist Mao Yushi, under house arrest for asking the government to apologize for the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre. He doesn't trust the Party's claims of a 10% annual growth rate -- and why believe the official statistics when the Party lies so consistently about everything? Doing his own calculations, he arrives at a rate of about 8% per year, vigorous but no "miracle," as some in the West describe it. Moreover, he believes that the current growth rate isn't sustainable: natural bottlenecks—scarcity of energy, raw materials, and especially water—will get in the way. Also, Mr. Mao says, the fact that investment decisions frequently obey political considerations instead of the market has helped generate an unemployment rate that is likely closer to 20% than to the officially acknowledged 3.5%. Many in the West think that Chinese growth has created an independent middle class that will push for greater political freedom. But what exists in China, Mr. Mao argues, is not a traditional middle class but a class of parvenus, newcomers who work in the military, public administration, state enterprises or for firms ostensibly private but in fact Party-owned. The Party picks up most of the tab for their mobile phones, restaurant bills, "study" trips abroad, imported luxury cars and lavish spending at Las Vegas casinos. And it can withdraw these advantages at any time. In March, China announced that it would introduce individual property rights for the parvenus (though not for the peasants). They will now be able to pass on to their children what they have acquired—another reason that they aren't likely to push for the democratization of the regime that secures their status. Because China's economy desperately needs Western consumers and investors, China's propagandists do all they can to woo foreign critics. "Do you dare deny China's success story, her social stability, economic growth, cultural renaissance and international restraint?" one Party-sponsored scholar asks me in Paris. I respond that political and religious oppression, censorship, entrenched rural poverty, family-planning excesses and rampant corruption are just as real as economic growth in today's China. "What you are saying is true, but affects only a minority yet to benefit from reforms," he asserts. Yet nothing guarantees that this so-called minority—one billion people!—will integrate with modern China. It is just as possible that it will remain poor, since it has no say in determining its fate, even as Party members get richer. The scholar underscores my fundamental assumption: "You don't have any confidence in the Party's ability to resolve the pertinent issues you have raised." That's true. I don't.

 

  By: Fortunato on Mercoledì 28 Marzo 2007 02:43

Ed infatti Zibordi, stiamo vivendo proprio questo periodo, dal momento che sono gli stessi governi che si stanno lamentando della troppa invadenza delle banche centrali che, per nostra fortuna, stanno bacchettando gli stessi capi di governo. Ora si tratterà di fare in modo che esistano governi diversi dagli attuali che possano riprendere in mano una situazione ormai del tutto degenerata. Fortunato