愛爾蘭人：電影中的退休基金"管理"

圖片來源：Netflix影片播放介紹頁面

或許是因為經濟與財務的背景，電影中最吸引我的一幕，是在講關於退休基金的內容。這項問題，剛好出現在近年來關於美國退休金的報導當中。

文章內容包含劇透，如果有打算看這場電影的人，在閱讀前先有些心理準備。

期中選舉：談談機率分布與預測心理

隨手用了網路工具，將三張538網站上的不同版本預測圖截圖重疊下來，來談一下期中選舉預測上，有趣的地方。

圖片來源：FiveThirtyEight Midterm Election：2018 House Prediction

2016美國總統大選(2)：民調調查的權重問題

在昨天(Oct. 25, 2016)，歐亞集團總裁Ian Bremmer在他的Facebook專頁上分享了這張照片。

"如果只有______投票，美國選舉人圖會長這樣。"

這張圖非常有趣，不過也恰巧顯示出，現實不會如同這些圖呈現的樣態：整個社會中，有色人種，不同性別，教育背景混雜的居住再一起。同時，這些圖也顯示出民調統計時，抽樣(Sampling)的重要。

2016美國總統大選：三種不同的預測方式

圖片來源：http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

當全世界都在關注這次的美國總統大選，有各種不同的預測模式。這次，有甚麼不同？

競爭公平？稅務公平？歐盟在追的到底是甚麼？

星巴克與蘋果，都受到歐盟競爭事務委員會裁定，返還稅金給兩公司歐洲營運法人的所在地政府(荷蘭，愛爾蘭)。理論上收到錢要很開心，但這兩國都決定向歐洲法院(European Court of Justice)提出訴訟。

訴訟開始後，歐盟區未來的稅法概念將會如何？

在閱讀前需先提醒讀者，蘋果的稅務規劃相當複雜，為了敘述方便，我有敘述過程中有簡化他們的稅務結構。事實上，蘋果歐洲總部聲稱"支付"給美國總公司的研發費用，也並未直接回流美國課稅。這點與事實的差異，須先敘明。

星巴克在荷蘭的課稅方式：支付烘培技術金與採買豆子價格給英國與瑞士的公司

直接金融(3)：募款創新的實踐

一個讚揚校長的孩子，促成了(百萬)美金的募款計劃 
NYT(Jan. 29, 2015)當我們提到經濟理論，不少學者會說，誘因很重要，可以改變人的行為。誘因這個抽象概念，轉化到生活中的話是甚麼樣子呢？進一步來說，我們都清楚誘因機制是成功的重要因素，然而，背後的金流就比較少被提及。那麼誘因+金流，又可以有甚麼樣的故事？

大跌背後的主因(3)：令人捉摸不定的FED? (2015 Mar. Updated)

美國的聯準會體系：分行們監測不同區域的經濟狀態

圖片來源:Philadelphia FED

Source: Blog SNBCHF/Deutsche Bank
Read more at: http://snbchf.com/monetary-fiscal-policy/fed-its-fomc-composition/

4 Bloomberg Robert Shiller collection

(This article has been laying in my draft box for a long time, here we go: 中文版本在此)

I just saw "The Dark Knihgt Rises" recently. I did not quite like the plot, especially the ending...(what the....) However, there is a scene caught my eyes, when, "liberators" stormed into a stock exchange and tried(and succeeded) to execute a transaction that made Bruce Wayne broken.

This is an interesting metaphor, when people might think stock exchange. Individual greed might be a small drop, yet eventually all converge into stock exchange where the greed become a huge flood: One day it might wash up all your wealth.

Is that true? Shouldn't ordinary people know a thing or two about finance and even enjoy what modern finance bringing to them?

Prof. Shiller's collection of these four articles(on Bloomberg) are going to offer the readers a new perspective.

Stress test, Banking industry in EU and US

It seems stress test is the hot topic for today.

I was a bit surprised when I browsed through Bloomberg news. I was expecting to see more report on "ratios." However, I see more dollar amount of loss for the banks under different stress. Such presentation of stress test recalls my memories of the other article I read few days ago. Then it is clear for me how and why they express the stress test in this way.

Here comes this Dealbook article first:

What Europe could have learned from the US bank bailout? by Peter Evais

There are two things to look at here.
1.) Capital ratio:
There are two ways you  might book up the capital ratio, you raise more fresh capital or just reduced the exposure of risk of your assets. For the later approach, the demand to improve "adequate" ratio might eventaully hurt the industries and companies, which would lose their credits from banks.

Europe and United States have quite different ideas on such ratio thing. As quoted from the article, William C. Dudley, the president of FED of NY, mentioned that they not only look at the ratio and also look at the absolute amounts.  In other words, the supervisory body wants banks to raise capital, and they cannot deliberately reduce their risk exposure.

Therefore, United States has another focus here. If these banks cannot make a cut on their risky exposure, how much loss they might have to face during the most adversary times?

2.) Possible loss under the worse scenario:

The stress test results are out from United States. The worse scenario is, the unemployment rate at 13%, 50% stock price drop and 21% of housing price drop. Then they assess the possible loss for each bank, and measure their possible capital ratio under such scenario.

Surprisingly, Citi is among those who failed the test. 15 out of 19 banks under the same test pass it.

Eventually, Banks should be the institutions which can absorb risks, especially during hte bad times. As I see, the various American legislation movement now are moving toward that direction. Banks cannot take too many risks, and  they should have enough reserve to go through the bad times, for themselves and for the public. I personally like the ideas behind this logic. Just do not know how exactly it would turn out to be alike for banking industries.

歐美各國這一陣子都在給自己的銀行進行壓力測試,主要目的是希望檢測這些主要銀行在經濟危機的狀態下是否有足夠的資本去承擔損失並且度過難關.

然而Peter Evais在Dealbook的一篇文章顯示了美國人跟歐洲人對於在銀行資本適足率處理上的差異. 當然, 這個比率是得看的, 但是美國人更在乎絕對的金額.

會這麼做很簡單, 因為增加資本適足率有兩種方式, 一種是充實自己的資本, 但另外一種方式就是把風險性資產降低, 換句台灣人常聽的話, 就是 "雨天收傘"

美國的各大銀行前一陣子才因為"雨天收傘太快"跟聯邦政府達成一個和解的協議(主要就是在房地產查封的過程過快而沒有進行應有的程序) 而美國政府也意識到, 如果銀行業不能夠成受衝擊而直接進行降低風險資產的動作的話, 那麼對於整體經濟的衝擊是不容小覷的.

因此本周發布的壓力測試消息主要都著重在銀行可能的損失金額, 以及他們現有的資本是不是可能承受這樣的損失. 我不確定下一部他們要做的是什麼, 但可以預期的是會更加限制銀行業可以承做的風險性資產範圍, 以及加速鼓勵銀行進行充實資本的計畫.

歐盟呢? 我不知道, 我只回憶起因為雨天收傘在倒掉了一家瑞士的石化廠. 雖然國際清算銀行也指出, 歐盟區的銀行的確有出售風險性資產跟減少貸放的狀況, 然而其他的借款者因此而進入這個市場所以對於產業的影響是較小的. 但是無法否認的是這個從去年十二月開始的新政策讓歐元區特定的借款成本增加, 對於整體歐元區的復甦事實上是非常不利的.



Tax, unequally.

The problem is not only between the rich and the poor, but the overall system.

I just wrote an article about tax few days ago, arguing that,  from academia perspectives, there is a good reason to set tax rate high for the rich. However, it looks quite different in reality.

Mr. James Ross, as mentioned in this article, paid 102% of his taxable income to governments of all sort. (if you consider local, state, federal government separately) Well, such percentage could be quite different if you talks of adjusted gross income, he paid around 20% tax. Compared to some other professions, he still pays relative less in respect to the adjusted gross income. (A professor in the article paying 26%, an architect couple pay some 31%, an author/journalist paying 26%, and a TV show host pay almost 50%!)

how Romney's tax rate is alike, comparing to other high-income individuals?

Honestly, reading this article just helps us to realize how complex it could be to design a tax system. It is not simple as raise the tax rate a bit here and reduce a bit there. It needs some overall structural  overhauls.
It is not even a rich-poor game, it is a fair and unfair game. Of course, among the rich, there are still a huge discrepancy out there!

So, we should not hate the rich, better hate the system! (and someone should fire their accountant!)

前一陣子我才寫了一篇文章, 談到課稅得公平性, 最近因為共和黨總統參選人Romney的稅單被公布了, 稅率的議題在美國又有得吵了.

這位羅斯先生所支付的稅款, 如果以他的應稅所得來計算的話, 支付了102%的稅率. 也就是說, 他所繳交的稅款比他的可應稅所得還要高. 但如果以他的總所得來看的話, 他也大概付了20%的稅(well, 還是比Romney的少, ooops), 但是他也真的把他很大一部分的所得捐出去了, 所以用102%的稅來評斷他的狀況(也就是他還是得從他的存款中提錢出來繳稅), 也不誇張.

這篇文章也列舉了幾個社會上的名人/專業人士的稅單狀況, 試圖反映的狀況是: 創造雇用的人並沒有從創造雇用的過程中獲利, 而如果你的所得中很大的比率是"薪資", 那麼你很有可能是那個倒大楣的人, 就算你在怎麼有錢也需要上繳國庫!!

這不僅僅是一場富人窮人的戰爭, 而是如何修改體系的戰爭

Tax, Tax, Tax, Tax the Job creator and the wealthiest!

There are three articles I would like to share, with on-going European Debt crisis and the opening of US presidential candidacy competition heat up such topic: Where the tax should come from ? How we shall view tax in this global financial system?

兩黨無法坐下來談? 從經濟因素談政治兩極化(2011/2013/2015)

圖片來源：NY Times Op-ED, 原文網址：一位僕人領導者，是美國人應得的。

2015年的今天，美國開始進行對於明年總統的候選人初選。政治議題又開始挑動輿論圈。美國的政治選擇仍然兩極嗎？或是在"共同關心"的議題上，能如紐約時報上，Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz在社論投書中提出的字詞，"United"？

"兩黨僵持"，對於台灣民眾來說應該不陌生；但是，僵持的真正原因是甚麼？或者是說，到底是經濟政策上的兩極？還是社會議題上價值的兩極？

在媒體上，所得是很簡單的二分法，將兩黨紛爭視為所得差距所代表的群體論述不同。但詳細來看，問題就沒有這麼單純。