【每日阅读训练第四期——速度越障1系列】【1-10】经管

whitethelittle

那个大家以后的速度尽量短点，抓老大最初的意思是限时1分钟150字-250字，所以一个计时段的字数在200到300左右别超过400要不然速度也失去了本身的目的和越障没区别了，速度本身就是为了练习读的技巧读意群。不过今天的速度也太短了点哈哈哈咩。

【速度】

It’s Not Easy Making Do With a Measly Million
【计时1】
Occupy Wall Street has its 1 percent answer, of course. A consulting firm that studies the wealthy has a broader definition, based on millionaire status. Many financial planners have a cautionary third answer — that appearances, and account balances, can be deceiving, and you may not be as rich as you think you are.

The Occupy Wall Street forces focus more on income than on wealth. But if its 1 percent label were applied to assets, the dividing line between the 1 percent and everyone else would be $8.4 million.

Based on its research, the consulting firm, Spectrem Group, said about 8.6 million American households had a net worth of at least $1 million last year, not including their equity in a home — just over 7 percent of the 117 million American households.

George H. Walper Jr., the president of Spectrem, in Lake Forest, Ill., estimated that most of those in the low end of the millionaire class did not have most of their assets in formal retirement funds. “A lot of it is in other places,” he said, even if it is intended for retirement. Many people in that group are already retired, and their average age is 62.
【199】
【计时2】

People planning decades of retirement based on $1 million need to recognize that that amount is not anywhere near what it was a century ago, and that they will never live like millionaires, said Larry Luxenberg, a fee-only financial planner at Lexington Avenue Capital Management in New City, N.Y.

So how do you make $1 million last?

Take, for example, a hypothetical couple about to retire who have assets of just over $1 million. To help them, assume they have no children who are financially dependent on them. Also assume that they will be entitled to maximum Social Security benefits, which are just over $30,000 a year each (this year) for people who start collecting at age 66. (Delaying the start of benefits for up to four years increases the amount to be received but might, for some, require earlier withdrawals of retirement funds that would be subject to income tax.)

On the minus side, assume that this couple has no other pension plans that will provide retirement income — although many people who entered the workplace 40 years ago have significant defined-benefit pension plans from corporate or government employers. Mr. Luxenberg said there was a one-in-four chance that one member of a couple who had reached 65 would live into his or her 90s. So that person will have to plan for 30 years of income, he said. A rule of thumb, he said, was to draw 4 to 6 percent of retirement assets, adjusted for inflation, each year. For a hypothetical millionaire, that would be $40,000 to $60,000 a year, plus Social Security benefits.
【265】
【计时3】

“Folks with $1 million in a well-balanced portfolio can be comfortable,” he said, but “it’s not a lavish lifestyle.” He added: “The idea of a millionaire being someone who is really rich, that goes back to the Roaring ’20s and the Great Depression.”

Inflation has eroded the value of $1 million considerably, and as Mr. Luxenberg noted, “Three percent inflation over 30 years means you need 2.4 dollars for every dollar that you’d need now.” Withdrawing 4 percent of a nest egg each year used to be a standard formula but is no longer considered a hard-and-fast rule, said Greg Daugherty, executive editor of Consumer Reports and a retirement columnist for the Consumer Reports Money Adviser newsletter.

Four percent might be too much for someone who retired early, or whose money was largely in fixed-income assets.

One strategy to prevent running out of money in old age is to buy an annuity, which gives the annuity seller a specified amount in return for a predetermined monthly payment for life.

Matthew Grove, a vice president of the New York Life Insurance Company and head of its annuity department, said of the 4 percent rule, “there’s no guarantee that it will work,” even if it feels safe.
【205】
【计时4】

An annuity “guarantees that you can’t outlive your money, but guarantees that you can spend more over the life of your retirement,” he said.

A $1 million New York Life annuity bought by a 66-year-old man, with payments starting immediately, known as a single-premium immediate annuity, would pay $65,666 a year — far more than a 4 percent withdrawal from a $1 million pot.

The downside is that someone who died at a relatively young age might have had unspent money to leave to heirs if it had not been put into an annuity. There are also annuities that provide death benefits and payments for spouses, although the monthly payments are lower.

Mr. Grove said someone with $1 million might consider using only some of it to buy an annuity. The goal, he said, is to have an annuity and Social Security benefits cover retirees’ most important expenses.

Mr. Luxenberg said annuity buyers were paying for guarantees in the annuities’ cost. But he explained that “after the period we’ve come through, people are craving certainty and guarantees, and they’re willing to pay for guarantees.” For those people, he said, an annuity “could work.”
【192】
【计时5】

For those who will keep their assets and figure out how much to withdraw annually, Mr. Daugherty said, “Try to figure out what your expenses are going to be in retirement” before retiring. “Make a budget, even if you never have before,” he added. “One advantage of doing that is that it might show the need to work a few more years, if that is feasible, to allow the desired annual withdrawals in retirement.”

“The value of the 4 percent rule these days, for one thing, is it keeps people from doing anything too crazy, like 8 or 10 percent,” Mr. Daugherty said.

For some people who have been diligent savers, the 4 percent benchmark might encourage them to dip into assets, rather than trying to live only on the income their assets yield. “Some people are terrified of any spending,” Mr. Daugherty said, but they should not deny themselves “the legitimate pleasures of retirement, enjoying things like travel.”

But for those millionaires on paper, while such legitimate pleasures will be theirs, the bottom line, as Mr. Walper of Spectrem put it, “They’re not buying a Duesenberg.”
【187】




【越障】
Investing in banks
The not-for-profit sector
Are regulators striking the right balance between safety and profitability?


NARY a cucumber sandwich was thrown and the heckling was rather subdued. But the genteel rebellion over executive pay at the Barclays shareholders’ meeting in London last month, an echo of similar disquiet at annual meetings in America (see article), shows how fed up bank investors have become with their returns.

No wonder. Between 2007 and the end of last year shareholders in banks globally have lost almost 10% of their investment each year, according to the Boston Consulting Group (see chart 1). Behind this international average lie some truly horrible losses. Investors who stuck it out in Dutch banks saw the value of their holdings fall by almost 28% a year. Holders of French, German and Swiss banks suffered average annual losses of close to 20%. Those in American and British banks lost 14% and 16% a year respectively. “The little secret to doing well…has been ‘just don’t hold banks’,” says Jacob de Tusch-Lec, a fund manager at Artemis.

A fall in the price of an asset is usually a good signal to consider buying it. But those investors who thought that they had timed the bottom of the market have been proved wrong again and again. “I’ve been dipping in and out of Italian banks but am keeping very quiet about it,” says one fund manager. “Last year when I told an investor [in my fund] that I was holding some he got up and left the room.”

Such sharp falls in shareholder value are not just distressing for investors. They should also worry the businesses and households that need a healthy banking system to keep credit flowing. If the shares and debt issued by banks are uninvestible, then over time the banking system will have to shrink or be nationalised.

There are three reasons why the banks have been such a bad bet. The first is weakness in Western economies, which has led to elevated losses, subdued demand for credit and deleveraging by the banks themselves. With returns on assets remaining largely unchanged (this is a tough time to charge customers more), the industry’s total profits are likely to keep falling.

A second reason is worries about sovereign defaults. In the second half of last year European banks sold virtually none of the long-term bonds that they use, alongside deposits, to finance loans. These markets have thawed slightly since the European Central Bank (ECB) provided more than ? trillion ($1.3 trillion) in three-year loans to European banks. But they are still fragile, partly because banks have pledged collateral to the ECB, leaving less to repay bondholders if a bank were to go bust. Simon Samuels, an analyst at Barclays, points out that almost five years since the start of the financial crisis, European banks are more dependent on state support than ever. “What we have, in effect, is nationalisation via the debt markets,” he says. “If you can’t get a private-sector debt model to work then there is no real investible equity.”

The weak economy and worries over the euro area are, with some luck, transient problems. Yet weighing on investors’ minds is a third concern: the impact that regulation will have on banks’ long-term profitability and the safety of their debt. Returns on equity have fallen precipitously, from about 15% before the crisis to below 10% now. British banks’ returns have slipped from almost 20% to about 5% last year (see chart 2).

A big reason is that banks have to hold much more equity as a buffer against losses. Simple arithmetics dictates that returns must fall. Other regulations to make banks safer also have a cost. Banks will have to hold many more liquid assets, which can be quickly sold. They are also being forced to stop profitable (if risky) activities such as proprietary trading.

Rules aimed at ring-fencing retail banks, “bailing in” bondholders and making banks easier to wind up if they fail are also pushing up banks’ funding costs and depressing returns. They are doing little to encourage investors to buy bank bonds. “If regulators told European banks to raise bail-in debt there would be a resounding clatter of pennies at the bottom of the tin but no folding money at all,” says the chairman of a large bank.

For all the gloom, most big banks are still forecasting (or at least aiming for) returns on equity of 12-15%, which would handily cover the cost of their capital. That would also be respectable by historical standards: Autonomous Research reckons that over the long term banks’ returns have averaged 10% in Britain and 9% in America. But it invites two questions.

The first is whether banks can attract investors with a combination of utility-like returns and bank-like volatility. Regulators hope better-capitalised banks will be less volatile and more attractive. More pragmatically, index-tracking investors may have little choice but to hold them.

The second is whether banks can juice their returns by managing costs better. There is plenty of room to do so, particularly in wholesale banking. The Boston Consulting Group reckons that investment banks can quickly cut 10-15% of fat in areas such as market data and exchange fees. Deeper savings can be made by reducing layers of management and title creep: it found that almost half of the staff in second-tier investment banks had the title of director or managing director compared with 20-30% among the better firms.

But banks do not have a great record as beancounters. European lenders have managed to reduce their overall cost-to-income ratio only to about 62% from 69% since the mid-1990s, an average improvement of 0.3% a year. Their current targets assume an average improvement of 2.7% a year over the next three years, a figure Mr Samuels thinks looks “far too ambitious”. To keep shareholders and creditors interested, they may have little choice.
【987】

Rena张

矮油~ 多久木有前排占座了哇~~~今天的速度果然短~~~hiahia

baseboss

沙发

baseboss

就差16秒

CCcarol

小白！！！这次木有抢到沙发！

spencerX

速度
1.0:00:47
2.0:01:03
3.0:00:43
4.0:00:47
5.0:00:43
越障
0:06:38
1.目前投资银行的收益大幅度缩水，荷兰最高，接下来是德法意这些欧洲国家，然后是美国和英国。
2.价格探底的时候本来应该是买入的大好时机，但是许多投资者却发现，这种最低价没有下线（举了一个fund manager的例子）
3.这种信用流动的缺乏导致了收益的缺乏，影响到了以下两种人：
1）投资者。他们的收益越来越少。
2）business and households。
4. 出现这种银行利润低下有以下三个原因：
1）西方经济的萎靡。好像是因为通货膨胀导致准备金比率的上升，银行可贷款减少。
2）主权债务。目前由ECB发行的总价值为$1trillion的三年期债券问津者极少。其他的欧洲债券销路也不好。
3）投资者觉得利润太低（return几乎和过去相比没有提高），前景不好，所以不敢投资。
5.未来状况：还是有人认为，银行还是可以盈利的，虽然这种盈利只能刚好使银行收回成本。
6.需要解决的问题，有两个：
1）银行需要吸引投资者
2）银行需要提高利润和收益
7. 一些银行认为前景是好的，不过作者认为他们可能过分乐观了。
今天总结了一天的SC，现在头有点晕忽忽的，所以...（好吧，我知道是借口...)

上邪

速度做的不好  文章挺简单的但感觉自己没读明白
1:27
百万富翁定义 过去只有1% 但预算错误很多人不该算进来
以资产算 很多人都是百万富翁 绝大部分退休
1:46
最后一段直接看晕了0 0  读了两遍
大概就是举了退休金计算的例子 1P是前提2P是举例假设3P是计算结果 结果应该是如果能从65岁活到90岁 这些老头老太太就是百万富翁
1:16
通货膨胀导致1:2.4的高比率 使得millionaire的定义要重新审视 如何使得老人应对高通膨 买养老金 但是有人反驳买了可能也没用
1:02
讲了一个退休金项目的运作吧应该是
钱带不走但能多花点 某老人就参加了一个项目 得到了66000刀 认为此项目较好 但是无信用的人不能参与
0:58
项目极好 省钱省力 阻止人们提高上限 给予标准 轻松给钱


8:57
1P当今经济环境银行如履薄冰
2P举出众多例子证明银行行业运行损失惨重
3P再次举例众多投资人撤资
4P此问题若不解决 必将扩大全国化
5P给出3个原因：欧债危机 监管错误 但均未临时问题均可解决 第三点是长期以来银行家的mind 十分严重：1是国家要求银行存有储备金 2是国家要求降低风险投资比率 导致如今投资惨淡
6P继续吸引投资的问题：1是投资人信用 2是银行运作成本管理
最后举例说明 前景堪忧


今天悲剧了= = 来了自习室没带电源线。。。滚回去拿电源线去了、。。。

卖红薯a

占座~明天来读~~

harryhenry

看来我这是要翻页了啊啊啊啊

暮已央

先占座~~马上看文···
说实话我也觉得，之前看介绍里面“速度”好像只能用1分钟···
我做了两天，感觉因为文章篇幅原因，所以大家都是按读完再计时的···
希望能多多发一些适合1分钟训练的文呢。
——————————————————————————————————————
计时一：看完
计时二：1分钟差三行
计时三：看完
计时四：看完
计时五：看完
今天速度都是关于一个问题的啊，开始先用占领华尔街的人的标语说只有小部分人是有钱的，大部分人的资产根本没有想象中那么多。后面写到还有很多要考虑的因素比如通货膨胀会让你的资产缩水，1美元的东西甚至实际需要2.4美元。然后讲到退休的人应该做好预算，有养老金可以是一种保证，但是预算可以让你不要疯狂消费，但也不是不要花钱，合理的旅游啥的还是可以的~最后提到百万富翁，但全文最后一句话没看懂~buy D是个啥概念···？
越障：9:15；今天时间久了点，里面专业名词有点多~
开头，管理者要同时考虑安全和有利可图；
投资者的回报损失了，持有的股份也下跌了，资产的价格也降低了；欧洲的银行，荷兰银行啊瑞士银行啊等等的收益都下降了，回报都少了，前景不好。
将银行的这种不好的情况有三个原因：
1.西方经济衰退；
2.主权的违约（是不是欧洲国家的债务危机？）
3.银行家的minds···
银行持有更多普通股作为缓冲来抵抗损失，大部分银行希望普通股的回报达到12~15%，但是很难抵消资产的成本。
有两个疑问产生：
1.银行能否吸引到投资者（一种结合了A和B的投资者···）
2.银行能否通过控制成本来得到回报
但是，银行过去的记录显示它不是一个beancounter（查字典是精打细算的人）