ChaseDream

标题: 【Native Speaker每日综合训练—26系列】【26-18】经管 [打印本页]

作者: 杀G给猴看 时间: 2013-10-24 22:46
标题: 【Native Speaker每日综合训练—26系列】【26-18】经管
Official Weibo: http://weibo.com/u/3476904471

大家好，周四经管~~
今天的越障和第一篇速度仍然是关于今年的诺贝尔经济学奖。上周也PO了几篇相关的文章，不知道大家对这个话题稍有熟悉之后读起来会不会有更顺畅爽快的感觉呢~ Enjoy！

PART I: SPEAKER

Listen to a TED Talk on
The Surprising Need for Strangeness

【REPHRASE 1】

http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XNTYzNzY3MjMy.html

【SPEECH - 08:00】

http://video.ted.com/talk/podcast/2013S/None/MariaBezaitis_2013S.mp3

[attach]131391[/attach]

Source: TED
http://www.ted.com/talks/maria_bezaitis_the_surprising_need_for_strangeness.html

PART II: SPEED

[attach]131392[/attach]

A very rational award
Investors can profit from the insights of this year’s Nobel prizewinners in economics
Oct 19th 2013 |From the print edition

【TIME 2】
IF THE credit boom and bust of the past decade taught economists anything, it was that asset prices matter. So it is right and proper that three academics who have worked on the difficult issue of understanding why such prices move have won this year’s Nobel prize for economics (see article).

At first sight, it may seem odd that Eugene Fama (pictured left), a Chicago professor who believes in efficient markets, should share the award with Robert Shiller (centre), a Yale academic who argued that the stockmarket in the late 1990s and American house prices in the early 2000s were driven by “irrational exuberance”. (The third winner, Lars Peter Hansen, on the right, also of Chicago, developed statistical techniques to analyse asset prices.) But there is more common ground than meets the eye.

Mr Fama’s great insight was that, because profit-seeking investors quickly incorporate new information into asset prices, the movements of those prices are not predictable in the short term, and thus professional fund managers are unlikely to beat the market. This revolutionary notion led to the development of the index-tracking industry, which allows small investors to diversify their portfolios at very low cost. Pundits who seek to persuade the public to follow their stockmarket tips may curse Mr Fama’s work, but the underlying principle—there are no free lunches to be had—still holds good. Mr Fama’s faith in the efficiency of markets has some limits, however, since he set up a fund-management firm that exploits market anomalies, such as the way that companies which are priced cheaply relative to their assets tend to outperform.
【TIME 2 ENDS – 267 WORDS】

【TIME 3】
Mr Shiller’s pioneering paper in 1981 looked at the relationship between the prices of shares and their intrinsic value—the cashflows that shareholders will eventually receive. He found that prices were much more volatile than their intrinsic value would suggest, something that is hard to square with the idea of efficient markets. In the long term the valuation of assets tends to revert to the mean, and thus market movements are eventually predictable. But that element of Mr Shiller’s work does not invalidate Mr Fama’s insight that it is hard to make money from short-term trading.

The reason markets are volatile, according to Mr Shiller, is that financial assets are unlike consumer goods; when their prices rise, that creates more demand, not less. Nothing is more intoxicating to an investor than seeing a friend get rich; everyone wants to jump on the bandwagon. It is no use hoping that “rational” investors will drive prices back to fair value. Such sobersides get knocked over by the stampede, losing their shirts or their clients.

Hence the recent bubbles in asset markets. Mr Shiller’s data show that house prices rose by 7% in real terms between 1890 and 1997 and then by 85% between 1997 and 2006. As for American shares, equities traded at 44 times cyclically adjusted profits (using a ten-year average) at the height of the dotcom boom, compared with a long term average of 16.
【TIME 3 ENDS – 235 WORDS】

【TIME 4】
Central bankers, led by Alan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve’s chairman from 1987 to 2006, argued that it was impossible to spot bubbles when they are happening. They also said that using higher interest rates to prevent bubbles from forming would do the economy more harm than good. But the central banks did intervene to prop prices up when markets wobbled in 1987 and again in 1998, even when the economy was fairly robust. This “asymmetric ignorance”, as it was dubbed, may have led to greater risk-taking and more bubbles, because traders felt they were underwritten by the “Greenspan put”.

Is this a bubble that I see before me?
Even today, too many of those who play financial markets ignore Mr Shiller’s work. A new book on forecasting from Mr Greenspan fails to mention him at all. Wall Street strategists, keen to sell equities, rarely refer to his valuation approach.

Investors would do well to pay attention. Just as they should bear in mind Mr Fama’s research and put the bulk of their portfolios in low-cost trackers, they should be wary of stockmarkets when they look expensive relative to the long-term trend in profits. And that is the case with Wall Street at the moment; the cyclically adjusted ratio is 23.5, well above the long-term average. After this week’s Nobel awards, investors cannot claim they have not been warned.
【TIME 4 ENDS – 228 WORDS】
Source: The Economist
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21588090-investors-can-profit-insights-years-nobel-prizewinners-economics-very

Why is the liquidity trap?
Oct 21st 2013 by R.A.

【TIME 5】
CREDIT where credit is due; Paul Krugman anticipated this where many others did not:

“Since late 2007 the monetary base has risen more than 300 percent, while GDP and consumer prices have risen less than 20 percent. And no, the disconnect is not all due to the 0.25 percent interest rate the Fed pays on reserves.”

Huge growth in a central bank's balance sheet need not imply runaway inflation. But it seems strange to me to pivot from that understanding to the broad claim that Milton Friedman misdiagnosed the Great Depression:

“You can argue that the Fed could have done more — it could have expanded its balance sheet even further, and/or moved into riskier assets, and/or done more to change expectations. But I don’t see how you can deny that making monetary policy effective has been far harder since we hit the ZLB than it was before, and that this retroactively casts great doubt on Friedman’s claims that the Fed could easily have prevented the Great Depression.”

Wait, wait, wait. No, it doesn't. There is a school of thought that one might call "naive Friedmanism", in which money supply growth is the only monetary variable that matters, and it's easy enough to find examples of cases where that doesn't pan out. But identifying that as the main contribution of "A Monetary History" or of Friedman's monetary economics work more generally strikes me as profoundly unfair. Friedman and co-author Anna Schwartz conclusively demonstrated that monetary shocks have large effects on the real economy. Christina Romer and David Romer argue in this working paper that while the "Monetary History" was suggestive, it did not prove conclusively that monetary shocks caused the Depression. Yet the Romers go on to argue that Friedman's and Schwartz's supposition was right: contractionary Fed policy created deflationary expectations that raised real interest rates and gutted the economy. That is: the Fed did it. When Franklin Roosevelt took America off gold and sought reflation, then expectations flipped and economic growth surged, led by private investment (which rose 500% between 1932 and 1937).
【TIME 5 ENDS – 343 WORDS】

【TIME 6】
This is not just historical arcana. Monetary stabilisation has obviously not worked as one would have hoped since interest rates fell to near zero in 2008. The critical question is why that should be the case.

Mr Krugman has written on multiple occasions that monetary policy is not completely helpless at the zero lower bound. If the central bank were to raise inflation expectations that would provide the necessary monetary traction. I have never understood why that hasn't been the focus of his writing over the past five years: "The liquidity trap is real, and all the Fed has to do to end it is promise higher inflation!" Instead, Mr Krugman has concentrated on fiscal policy (and on occasionally pushing the idea that the conventional wisdom, that the Fed bears primary responsibility for the Great Contraction, is wrong).

I'm all for a big tent approach. If Congress were ready with a big, well-conceived fiscal stimulus and it seemed as though the Fed would allow that stimulus to raise inflation expectations, then I'd cheer. But that's not where we are. An American fiscal stimulus is as far out of the realm of the possible as it could be. What's more, it seems abundantly clear that the Fed would react to less contractionary fiscal policy by bringing forward planned monetary tightening. It might not offset fiscal expansion dollar for dollar. But if the Fed really wanted in its heart of hearts to see inflation expectations up around 3% it might have said so at some point in the past five years, and it might have refrained from pulling the plug on one of its many asset-purchase plans while expectations were short of the mark.

The bottleneck remains, as it has for most of the past half decade, within the Federal Open Market Committee. One of these days Mr Krugman should start treating the lessons of the Depression and the need for a more aggressive monetary policy as something more than a bloggy footnote.
【TIME 6 ENDS – 331 WORDS】
Source: The Economist
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2013/10/monetary-policy-2

PART III: OBSTACLE

[attach]131393[/attach]

Methods for all moments
The Nobel prize in economics reveals how little we know about the behaviour of markets
Oct 19th 2013 |From the print edition

【REPHRASE 7】
THE “prize in economic sciences in memory of Alfred Nobel”, as it is officially known, sometimes struggles to command the same respect as its counterparts. Though awarded by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, just like the prizes in physics, chemistry and medicine, it was a latecomer to the ceremonies, established in 1968 by Sweden’s central bank rather than in 1896 by Mr Nobel’s will. This year’s winners appeared to reinforce doubts about the prize’s standing. One, Eugene Fama of Chicago, is known for his ardent belief in the efficiency of markets: he declined to renew his subscription to this newspaper after tiring of its incessant warning about bubbles, the very existence of which he denies. Robert Shiller from Yale, in contrast, is known for his prescient warnings of bubbles, in technology stocks in the 1990s and in housing in the 2000s.

Yet for all the apparent contradiction, Messrs Fama and Shiller, along with Lars Peter Hansen (also of Chicago), have established most of the surprisingly small amount economics has to say about asset prices. Although they disagree with one another about how markets operate, the work for which they are being recognised is not itself irreconcilable. For proof, look no further than investors, who have profited from the work of all three men.

Mr Fama began studying data on asset prices while working on his doctoral dissertation in the early 1960s. He set out to test the hypothesis that markets are efficient—that stock prices incorporate all available information immediately and are therefore entirely unpredictable over the short term. His analysis revealed that this is true over horizons of days or weeks, or at least that markets are efficient enough that no trader could consistently profit from a stock price’s predictability after taking into account transaction costs. With co-authors Mr Fama pioneered the use of the “event study” in the analysis of asset prices. By tracking prices in the days immediately before and after important news breaks, they demonstrated that markets react quickly and then once again become unpredictable. An influential article entitled “Efficient Capital Markets”, published in the Journal of Finance in 1970, laid out a research programme for asset-price analysis. Subsequent work has provided a wealth of evidence underlining the efficiency of markets over short periods.

Mr Shiller entered the debate in 1981 with a paper in theAmerican Economic Review entitled “Do Stock Prices Move Too Much to be Justified by Subsequent Changes in Dividends?” It concluded that they did. Although efficient-market theory would suggest that share prices should simply reflect the latest information on the value of the revenues they will yield, they are in fact far more volatile than dividends. Mr Shiller’s work implied that, given some knowledge of the underlying trend in the price of a stock, one could predict future movements. He devised a modified price-to-earnings ratio for shares which used a rolling ten-year average of earnings instead of current earnings. He reckoned stocks that looked overvalued by that measure could be expected to fall over time: an insight that guided his warnings of bubbles in both the 1990s and 2000s. It was after a conversation with Mr Shiller that Alan Greenspan, then head of the Federal Reserve, said high share prices might reflect “irrational exuberance”.

Whereas Mr Fama’s work demonstrated that short-run prices were unpredictable, Mr Shiller’s showed that over periods of several years assets could move in foreseeable ways. Mr Fama does not disagree entirely: one of his papers found that short-run interest rates often influence longer-term trends in the stockmarket. Research he did with Kenneth French of Dartmouth College indicated that the longer the period one considered, the more predictable stock returns became. But he still disputes the idea that asset prices can lose all purchase on the information at hand.

Mr Shiller, meanwhile, sees a role played by individual and crowd psychology, drawing on the work of Daniel Kahneman, a psychologist turned economist who won the Nobel prize in 2002. (Indeed, the Swedish academy might plausibly have paired Mr Shiller with Richard Thaler, another academic at the University of Chicago, in a Nobel prize for behavioural economics.) Other economists reject the behavioural approach, maintaining that predictable returns reflect investors’ rational insistence on compensation for holding riskier assets.

In 1982 Mr Hansen developed what has since become a very influential statistical technique known as “generalised method of moments estimation”. This helps econometricians test theories and make the best use of what information they have (even when it is not all they would like to have), by identifying which of various potential explanatory variables are most likely to deliver statistically robust results. Since then, much of his work has focused on understanding the linkages over time between the prices of assets and macroeconomic variables such as total consumption—a fast-growing field known as macro-financial modelling. Among the questions he has looked at is how the business cycle influences asset prices, and vice versa. His models typically involve people having to make decisions without all the information they would like and with considerable uncertainty about the future, sometimes resulting in asset-price behaviour that seems relatively efficient and at other times quite irrational.

Back to work
What all three laureates share is a commitment to backing up theoretical work with rigorous empirical analysis. The world of finance could do with more of that sort of thing, judging by the wild mispricing of assets revealed by the crisis. Shortly after being told of his award, Mr Hansen was asked how well economists are doing in understanding asset prices. “We are making a little bit of progress,” he replied, “but there’s a lot more to be done.”
【OBSTACLE ENDS – 942 WORDS】
Source: The Economist
http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21588059-nobel-prize-economics-reveals-how-little-we-know-about-behaviour

作者: 捉妖 时间: 2013-10-24 22:51
占 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 谢谢小杀妹 & 早上好楼下，楼上的空气真是清新宜人啊~~~

speaker：感觉听清了她说的，但是没听懂==
Not talk to strangers means stay away from people we are not familiar.
We should learn from people not like us.
the point is not strangers but how much strangless we are.
social relation & digital relation
qustion is not I am not like you, but what I can learn form you and do things together with strangers.
strangers can give information who you are,the person you need and inspiration .
we have to change our norms that not to talk to strangers.

Time2[267]2'39
Three scientists shared one Nobel prize in economy.
F's theory.
Time3[235]1'56
S's thory and his discoveries in the American house.
Time4[228]1'56
Federal Reserve chairman mentioned the mesasures to the bubbles. S's work was ignored by investors.

Time5[343]3'07
F's idea of the contribution to monetary economics is too naive and opposized by Romer and the author, though F's supposition was supported by Romer.
Time6[331]2'47
K suggested to increase the inflation, and the author agrees with that

Obstacle[942]:被打断好多次读下来，没有计时了~~
Nobel Price in economics was set much later than in other fields, and its winners often make the price doubted. this year 3 economists with diffirnet views shared one prize.
Mr Fama made a lot of researches and "demonstrated that markets react quickly and then once again become unpredictable".
Mr Shiler believed that "one could predict future movements"
Fama agree with Shiler a little on the condition that the period is long, the market is predictable.
Mr Hansen " looked at is how the business cycle influences asset prices"

作者: olivia瓜瓜 时间: 2013-10-24 22:57
哈哈哈哈哈喽楼上

Time2:1m27s

Three economists all devoted to the asset prices，and win nobel prize.

Time3:1m21s

Asset price is not like the goods price in which their price rise the demand fall and reversely for asset price .

Time4: 1m21s

The people who play the financial market ignore shiller’s work about the bubble economy .

Time5:2m12s

Money history does not prove that monetary shocks caused the depression.

Time6: 1m51s

The monetary policy when go through the great depression haven’t been supported by the fed fiscal stimulus.

作者: Dora7 时间: 2013-10-24 23:00
哟哟哟~~~~~~~~地板
-------------------------------------------------------------
TIME2：1'44''67
three academics won the nobel seems proper and rational
why mr.fama can award:his revolution notion.

TIME3：1'16''59
Mr shiller's research.---＞didn't invalidate that it is hard to make money from short-term trading
why markets are volatile.

TIME4：1'37''31
-Greenspan argued that it was impossible to spot bubbles when happening and using higher interest rates to
prevent bubbles from forming would do the economy more harm than good but banks do it again and again
-investors should pay attention on MRshiller'work which was ignore before

TIME5：2'40''72
PAUL's idea opposite ---＞the author's:fed policy make real interest rates raised and gutted the economy

TIME6:1'42''14
liquidity trap is real.all fed do will led to higher inflation.prefer'fiscal policy'
bottleneck :more aggressive monetary policy ?没完全弄懂~

OBSATCLE:6'37''31
-the prize in economy sciences established by sweden's central bank
-introduce the three person's work about asset price who win the nobel
-Mr Hansen's research

作者: 空De杯具 时间: 2013-10-24 23:48
谢谢杀G给猴看~~~
占个地下室去补坑~~~
=======================
Speaker:
the new relationship with strangers and how can the new technology influence this new relationship

Speed:
2'29
Mr Fama's theory mainly held in his area
1'24
Mr Shiller's contribution in his area and there are bubbles recently in asset markets
2'05
central bankers argued that it was impossible to stop bubbles when they are happening and investors should be be wary

of stockmarkets
5'30
some experts believes that monetary shocks did not caused the depression, the Fed did
3'21
the action of the Fed is somehow different from the author's opinion

Obstacle
10'40
M: The Nobel prize in economics reveals how little we know about the behaviour of markets
A:
P:
S:
+ an introduction of the Noble Prize and the new winners of the Noble Economic Prize
+Yet for all the apparent contradiction, the three winners have established most of the surprisingly small amount economics has to say about asset prices
  - Mr Fama's main theory and contribution in his area
  - Mr Shiller's main theory and contibution
  - contraries between the experts
  > Mr Fama VS Mr Shiller
  > Mr Shiller VS the other economists
  - Mr Hansen's main contribution - a statistical technique
+ conclusion: there's a lot more to be done

作者: irvan 时间: 2013-10-24 23:50
占个～谢谢杀妹！

__________________
Obstacle
05:48
Introduction to the research that made these three persons win the Nobel prize in economics

作者: 晓野的野 时间: 2013-10-25 00:03
占座！不能懒惰
--------------------------------------------
掌管 5 00:02:18.47 00:10:21.43
掌管 4 00:02:31.21 00:08:02.96
掌管 3 00:01:43.26 00:05:31.75
掌管 2 00:01:50.69 00:03:48.49
掌管 1 00:01:57.79 00:01:57.79

作者: lxskyfly 时间: 2013-10-25 06:52
thank you 杀杀~~~~~
--
SPEED
掌管 5 00:02:38.22 00:12:56.76
掌管 4 00:04:08.68 00:10:18.54
掌管 3 00:01:51.20 00:06:09.85
掌管 2 00:02:20.19 00:04:18.65
掌管 1 00:01:58.46 00:01:58.46

1. Fama & Shiller, both earning Nobel price, seems to have "contradictory" theories, one of which can't invalidate the other actually.
--> why recent boom and bust happened can by explained by the reason that how price of profolio chhanges in response to demand long-term and short-term.
2. central banker's strategies, asysmetric ignorance would lead to more risks & bubbles.
Wall street investers should pay more attention to Shiller's work in lont-term run, which was usually ignored before.
OVREALL
Nobel awards two scientis holding opposite theories--> how the theories combined in real investment field--> many, including central bankers, are ignoring the latter in long-term run--> they definitely should pay more attention

3. it can't be concluded that montary shock is the only variable that matters in eco development & FED economics policies.
however, Fed's contradictory policies still cause deinflated rate that raise interest rates and stimulate eco development.
4. why that happens? the answer lies in liquidity gap.
--> for any reason, Fed wil definitely choose contradictory eco policies, which should be shifted to more aggressive ones in author's opinion.

作者: cherry6891 时间: 2013-10-25 07:16
占坑~~~~~~~~~

1 Speaker :

Social norm :don t speak to strangers

Strangers are not the point--what can i do with u benifit us--positive in the future

Close distance--technology will help us to find the people i need right now

Pave the way to new relations

No strangers in the world ,safely seek strangers

2 1:39 3 Nobel prize holder explain why the price move

The house price during 200--irrational exuberance

The price of stock price is unpredictable because the the investor add information to asset price

3 1:30 the relationship with the intrinsic value and the prices

4 1:25 Greenspan thought that it was impossible to spot bubbles but the central bank did intervine to prop price

Mr shill’s theory ignored should be paid attention

5 2:20 the shock of monetary caused the depression

6 2:14 不太懂 stimulate can not raise inflation expectations,while fed would react to less contractionary fiscal policy by bringing down planned monetary tighting

作者: 疏离无罪 时间: 2013-10-25 08:24
一环木有了！回学校，晚上回来补，感谢杀G给猴看
01:32
Talk about why this year's nobel economic prize is meaningful.
Introduce the theory of Fama.

01:06
Introduce the theory of Shiller,which study the the relationship between the prices of shares and their intrinsic value.
And the attribution of financial assets is opposed from common good.

00:56
Shiller's theory is useful in preventing bubbles,but many bankers and regulators ignore it.

02:16
Monetary shock may not lead to the depression.But it really has large effects on the real economy.

01:39
Monetary policy does not work since the interest rates fell to near zero.And the US is in liquid trap.Fiscal policy stimulus may work while raising the inflatio.But the Fed does not apply this policy.

04:54
Main Idea:Introduce the work of the winners of this year's Nobel economic prize
The article firt introduces the Nobel economic prize.
Then the article talks about the common main idea of this year's winners' theory:asset price.Although they have the same topic,they disagree with each other.
Introduce Fama's theory ,shiller's theory and Hansen's theory in detail.
Finally,the article comes back to the influence of these works.

作者: 一个大番茄 时间: 2013-10-25 09:24
先去刷GWD,晚上回来做~

作者: AceJ 时间: 2013-10-25 10:01
默默跟上

A very rational award
Time2: 1'57" a rational Nobel prize in economy: Fama -- efficient market; Shiller -- irrational exuberance; Hansen -- asset prices
Time3: 1'35" analze three guys' differnet but related and even complementary pionions about asset prices and market
Time4: 1'32" Fed used to ignore Mr. Shiller's work, so did many other investers

Why is the liquidity trap?
Time5: 2'34" Naive Friedmanism, in which money supply growth is the only monetary variable that matters, is wrong
Time6: 1'41" This is not just historical arcana. The critical question is why that should be the case.

Methods for all moments
Time7: 6'33"
Fame, Shiller and Hansen have established most of the surprisingly small amount economics has to say about asset prices
Whereas Mr Fama’s work demonstrated that short-run prices were unpredictable, Mr Shiller’s showed that over periods of several years assets could move in foreseeable ways. Hansen developed statistical technique
What all three laureates share is a commitment to backing up theoretical work with rigorous empirical analysis. We are making a little bit of progress, but there’s a lot more to be done

作者: dianadai0029 时间: 2013-10-25 10:15
谢谢杀杀！

Part I Main idea
There has been a social norm that don't talk to strangers. However, strangers, with who we are not familiar, make sameness to us. Technology shapes the relations with strangers. Corporations and institutions also embrace strangers to broad their business.
Part II
[Time 2] 1:55
Nobel Prize awarded three economists for their contribution to predict the prices. Mr.F, who is one of the winners, believes that people can't foresee the stock prices in the short-term.
[Time 3]1:50
Mr. S's theory is the relationship between stock price and the intricate value. In the long run, asset value will revert to the mean value, though the prices may fluctuate in the short-term.
[Time 4]1:47
Central banks use the wrong way to control the bubble, which is raise the interest rate. People should think about the theories of Mr.F and Mr.S, when they make investment.
[Time 5]2:34 Friedmanism??
Fed did control the monetary shock, but that is far from enough.
[Time 6]2:31
The author believe that the Fed didn't use aggressive monetary policy to manage the recession, instead it has used the monetary tighten polity due to the afraid of high inflation rate.
Part III
[Time 7]7:02
Mr.F's theory: the stock prices are unpredictable in the short-term.
Mr. S's theory: People could use the dividend index to predict the stock price in the long run.
Mr. H, another Nobel Prize winner in 2002, argued that the investment connected with macroeconomics, and sometimes people make irrational decisions on investment.

作者: 紫色精灵946 时间: 2013-10-25 11:07
还有4天就要上战场了，最近开始难以集中注意力，读题不入脑子……谁能给点建议我该怎么办……

time2 2:09 .It is arkward that Fama share the prize with Shiller since they hold the different views on the efficiency of the markets.Then it shows the Fama's research,and points out the limits.
time3 1:40 .It shows the prospective of Shiller.He thinks that prices were much volatile than their intrinsic value.
time4 1:44 .The happening of economics bubble cannot be prevented and cannot be hidden as well.According to Shiller's discovery,those investors cannot claim they have not been warned before the bubble.
time5 2:26 .Monetary shocks have large effects on the real economy but they do not cause the depression.Acturally the Fed did some measures to target the expectation.
time6 2:27 .Whether the monetary stabilisation that the interest rate fell to near zero can work.The author stands for the big tent approach.The argument shows how would the fiscal stimulus work.Finally ,it shows the bottleneck.
time7 6:41 .The prizes to three economists contain several apparent contradiction.The the article shows the detail of the differences views of each economists.Although the three economists work on the same field,there is still a long way to go to make more understanding of this issue.

作者: pennyz 时间: 2013-10-25 11:18
1:36s
the noble prize was rewarded to the economists who make contribution to the evaluation of market
but the odd is they possess different opinions.though met with some dispute ,Mr Fram's efficiency theory still
validate
1:32s
the theory talk about the market price and intrisic value
the market price in the stock is differnt from the common commodity,which will trigger fewer demands
because of this kind of irration,the market price for stock and real estate all rise more than expected
1;22s
Greenspan put may motivate the investors to do some irrational investment and the investors will always ignore Mr S
hiller's work in the investment
SPEED 的第二篇在讲什么呢
6：57s
MR F&MR S's idea about how the market is operate is quiet different but not irreconcilble
the brief introductory of F and S's theory
more to do in the future

greenspan put
格林斯潘对策
FED主席针对防止市场大幅持续下跌而采取的行动
为避免投资者的避险心理阻碍美国经济增长，格林斯潘采取了降息举措
cyclically
周期性的
cyclically adjusted profits
周期性调整利润
index-tracking industry
指数跟踪行业
underwrite
给。。。保险，承诺支付

作者: 饼干小熊 时间: 2013-10-25 11:19
T1 1'30
T2 1'28
T3 1'30
T4 2'11
T5 2'31
T6 4'34

作者: Cateriona 时间: 2013-10-25 11:57
卤煮辛苦~
Time2(1'48.07) Although it seems odd that three econimists who hold different views win the Noble Prize together, they have common ground.
Mr.F revolutionary notion led to the development of the index-tracking industry.
Time3(1'55.33) Mr.S found he relationship between the price of shares and their intrinsic value---prices were much more volatile than their intrinsic value would suggest. His finding not invalidate Mr F’s insight.
Time4(2'06.25) Some people thought that it was impossible to spot bubbles and it was harmful to the economy by using higher interest rates to prevent bubbles.
Mr S's work is still ignored bu many people.
Time5(2'45.29) Monetary shocks effect the real economy .Fed has done something to reach the target.
Time6(2'25.33) Fed not use monetary policy to manage the recession but use the monetary tighten policy.

越看越乱

作者: 宝宝的瓜 时间: 2013-10-25 15:22
先占个座~

作者: michelle1025 时间: 2013-10-25 15:25
生日 fighting~

掌管 6 00:07:35.14 00:17:47.04
掌管 5 00:02:25.70 00:10:11.90
掌管 4 00:02:20.20 00:07:46.20
掌管 3 00:01:28.93 00:05:25.99
掌管 2 00:01:58.59 00:03:57.06
掌管 1 00:01:58.46 00:01:58.46

作者: limin501 时间: 2013-10-25 17:08
time 2
It is little odd that FAMA who is one of the noble prizewinner in economics should share the reward with Robert and Hansen.
Fama’s great insight is that the movement of those prises are not predicatable in short terms and found managers are not likely to beat with the market.
time 3

It is hard to make money from short-termtrading. In the short term,the prices were much more volatile than theirintrinsic value ,but in the long term,the valuation of assets tends to revertto the mean.

therecent bubbles in asset markets, datas were showed that house prices risesharply recently compare to the last few years.

time 4

It is impossible to spot the bubbles whenthey are happening, even today ,too many of people who play the financial marketignore the Mr shiller’s work. But after the noble prizes of Fama, they can notclaim that they have not been warned.

Obstacle

Three professors won the noble ofeconomics. One of them is fama who began studying data on asset prices a longtime ago.Fama points out that the markets react quickly and then once againbecome unpredictable.

Whereas Mr Fama’s work demonstrated thatshort-run prices were unpredictable, Mr s showed that long periods of severalyears assets could move in foreseeable ways.

作者: sophie17 时间: 2013-10-25 18:01

October 25, 2013

speaker -Peopleconcern about what can we do with strangers.

-Thereis a theory claims that there are five to seven intermediaries between twostrangers.

T2 2’4-Sinceasset price matters, it is proper that three academics who have worked on assetprice won this year's Nobel prize for economics.

-Mr. Farma's assertion is that assert pricehas already incorporated all the new information, therefore short term movementof the price is unpredictable.

T3 1’34-Mr.Shiller'spaper looked on the relationship between the prices of shares and theirintrinsic value.

-Hefound that price of shares are much more volatile than the intrinsic value.

-Mr.Shiller'swork does not invalidate Mr.Fama's.

T4 1’28-Thereal situation disagreed with Greenspan's assertion.

--Investorsshould pay more attention to Mr.Shiller's work.

T5 2’1-没看懂，sigh~ “CREDIT where credit is due” 这句哪位同学知道是什么意思么？

T6 1’44-没看懂，sigh~

T7 5’46-Introduced this year's three winners of Nobel prize for economics' works inturn.

作者: awayawei 时间: 2013-10-25 18:50
Speed
time2 02:10.7
time3 01:48.5
time4 01:26.1
time5 02:29.2
time6 02:01.8

Obstacle
time7 07:32.6
Three economists share the Nobel prize this year.
Mr.Fama revealed that market is so efficient that we can not influnce the price in a short time.
On the contrast, Mr. Shiller believes that stock markets can be predicted. And he warned the bubbles in technology stocks in the 1990s and in housing in the 2000s.
Mr Hansen developed a technique to test theories and make best use of information, esp. a model how pepole make decison without all information.

作者: Cri倩 时间: 2013-10-25 19:57
1’02“ what made the three economists win the nobel prize of this year and what mr. fame’s insight about market
1’ the content of mr/ shiller’s pioneering paper and its application to the reality
1’03“ the government do not pay attention to the results of the research and what government did put the economy into a worse situation
1’40” romer and the author think fama’s idea of the government’s contribution to monetary economics is too naive and wrong, although the supposition of fama’s idea is supported by romer
1’20” the author disagrees with mr krugman’s idea and he believe aggressive monetary policy is needed
5’ explains the theory of mr.f, mr.s and mr.h respectively
and what to do in the future

作者: guoxinyuan520 时间: 2013-10-25 21:08
1'40 The three scientists have found the price of the asset prize

1'21 Price of share is more flexible the value of the share.
Thus,the investment is hard and the invester is not easy to be rational.

0'58 Central bankers think it is hard to do actions for the boom,but the bank take actions in the 1987. The new study which is done by the scientists give people some warning.

2'03 The understanding by MF is too simple. The fact is more complex.

2'05 ... Fed should do more ???

5'32

作者: 一粒黄豆。 时间: 2013-10-25 21:28
20131025
1'46
Academics who have opposite thought about asset pricing shared the Nobel prize in economics.
1'32
Mr Shiller found that in the short-term the prices of assets were much volatile while in the long-term they were predictable, because financial assets are unlike consumer goods , so that the demands for these goods increase rather than decrease when prices rise.
1'35
In the past, investors paid less attention to Shiller's theory.
2'20
I have no idea what this paragraph is going to tell us.......
2'26
LOST AGAIN!! And I'm a student majoring in Finance.....
6'04
This passage thows different theories of these economics: one supports efficient market theory while the other argues that stock price is not exactly what dividends imply.
And these economics have a lot more work to do.

作者: 铁板吗啡 时间: 2013-10-25 21:45
Time 2 1’46
Time 3 1’15
Time 4 1’15
1. Warning can be learned for the theories of three economics who earned Nobel Prize this yar
2. The introduction of theories:
Fama: effective market theory
Shiller: th price of stocks and asset will change according to the ratio of ….
3. The stock market nowadays can learn from the warnings

Time 5 2’32
Time 6 2’08
Liquid trap

Obstacles 5’00
1) Fama: effective market theory that the short-term asset prices can’t be predicted
2) Shiller: the prices of assets can be around the earning per share
3) Hanson: the model to test theory

作者: 就爱吃芒果 时间: 2013-10-25 22:15
来交作业啦

Time2 (1’55) How to evaluate the assets’ value is a crucial economic problem, the Nobel prize winner this year all work on such project although their opinions seem to be controversial. One of the winners-the F professor believe in “efficient market” with some limits and can be applied to some cases.

Time3(1’50) For Shiller, in the long term the market is predictable, but in the short term he agrees with F. In the short term, the market cannot be efficient because the prices of assets do not comply with the common regulation, that is to say that when the price increases, the demand will not decrease.

Time4 (1’50) Even though central bank think that the high rate is not the proper action should be taken to prevent bubble, central bank actually took some measures when the economy are facing some problem or even quiet well. Such action will cause serious problems.
Ann many people in wall street ignore the Shiller’s advice, they believe in F’s, but the shiller has already point out the economic bubble.

Time 5 (2’54) Although some people cast doubt about the Fre’s theory about monetary policy, but some of them misunderstand or ignore some features of Fre’s theory. They argued that Fed indeed cause the depression.

Time 6 (2’54) the Fed are not taking measures rightly to face the contraction. The liquidity trap indeed exists, and what Fed should do is to pump up the inflation rate, but now they are not going to do so, and instead they try to take some tight measures.

Obstacle (8’36) the economy Nobel prize sometimes is debatable, especially for this time such prize is shared by three people who hold controversial opinions.
Fama thought that the market in short term is unpredictable, and Shiller thought that from long term, the market is predictable. Actually, they two do not disagree with each other totally, Frama revealed in one paper the longer time taken into consideration, the more predictable the market is. Later, Shiller also cooperated with psychological economist to find other factors that will affect the price of assets. Mr. Hanson, bring other macroeconomic variables into account and found that those variables also make difference.

作者: 吐吐yeah 时间: 2013-10-25 22:29
speaker:
The point that we should be worried about is,how much strangeness are we getting?
Why strangeness?→digital relations
Safely seeking strangeness might be good.

掌管 6 00:06:29.19 00:16:12.42
掌管 5 00:02:03.09 00:09:43.23
掌管 4 00:02:30.99 00:07:40.14
掌管 3 00:01:23.12 00:05:09.14
掌管 2 00:01:49.37 00:03:46.02
掌管 1 00:01:56.65 00:01:56.65

obstacle:
main idea:explains the theory of three economists respectively
structure:
1.Three professors win the Nobel prize in economics
Explains the theory of them respectively,who win Nobel prize in economics
2.
Mr Fama: the efficiency of markets
Mr Shiller: given some knowledge of the underlying trend in the price of a stock, one could predict future movements; the longer the period one considered, the more predictable stock returns became.
Mr Hansen:the investment connected with macroeconomics, and sometimes people make irrational decisions on investment.
3.There’s a lot more to be done in theoretical work of markets' behaviour.

作者: tk190478 时间: 2013-10-25 23:12
Time 2-1'34"

3 Nobel prizewiners in economics, F believe in efficient market, S believe people have irrational behavior, both improve the understanding of market price.

Time 3-2'53"

S's theory shows stock price could be predicted in long-term, but F's theory that price couldn't be predicted in short-term is also right, S's theory says higher price may cause more demands, record support S's theory.

Time 4-2'19"

central bankers said prevent bubbles will hurt economy, prop price up when economy is robust, more risk-taking and more bubbles, many investors don't care S's theory because short-term profits is much higher than that in long-term.

Time 5-2'21"

what central bank do will not cause inflation, but misdiagnose Great Depression doubt author, F's work is not so bad though some critize it.

Time 6-3'19"

some say inflation is a solution for liquidity trap, but Congress will not pass more fiscal expension, American fiscal stimulus is far from normal.

Obstacle-10'01

Nobel Prize in economy is a new one, 3 people share this year's prize, F is rewarded for Efficient Capital Market, S is rewarded for behavior economy, H is rewarded for statistics of economic data, economists still have many things to do.

作者: hyhy7 时间: 2013-10-26 00:09
2‘45’‘267w
1’50‘’235w
1‘38’‘228w
a Nobel “warning” to investors...but do you think it would be effective?
3'03''343w
2'40''331w

作者: AceJ 时间: 2013-10-26 00:20

紫色精灵946 发表于 2013-10-25 11:07
还有4天就要上战场了，最近开始难以集中注意力，读题不入脑子……谁能给点建议我该怎么办……
time2 ...

只有4天啦，建议先静下心来，想想自己整个复习的过程，自己如何一点点的进步，现在心态最重要，其他的别想太多，加油

作者: AceJ 时间: 2013-10-26 00:21

Cateriona 发表于 2013-10-25 11:57
卤煮辛苦~
Time2(1'48.07) Although it seems odd that three econimists who hold different views win th ...

建议把没看懂的地发再看一遍，思路会比第一次看的时候清楚很多

作者: jingluoli 时间: 2013-10-26 00:59
01:40.90
01:32.98
01:29.19
02:22.72
02:27.39
07:07.74 Two economicists are award the Nobel Prize,they are in oppsite views about the asset price.--Mr.Fama's study.he thinks the market are efficient.--Mr. Shiller's study .--contrast the differece--Mr Hansen's study.

作者: crystal9291 时间: 2013-10-26 01:49
10.24-DAY16
【OBSTACLE】6：04
理解力和速度的平衡？嗯。。加油

作者: cissy19871120 时间: 2013-10-26 03:08
感谢杀G给猴看！thanks a lot!

Time 2 2:40 mins it seems reasonable that three professors share the Nobel price together this year, because they all focus on the issue of understanding why such prices can move. Mr Fama's revolutionary notion is great.

Time 3 1:50mins Mr Shiller's theory about share prices and intrinsic value. Investors usually get more excited when seeing financial assets prices increase, in regardless of assets's intrinsic value.

Time 4 1:54mins Greenspan points out it's difficult to stop bubbles with higher interest rate. Inversely, bubblers would become bigger by increasing interest rate. Investors should be warned after understanding Mr Shiller's theory.

Time 5 2:24mins Fed has large effects on the economy but may not cause the depression. What Fed did is fair but not enough.

Time 6 2:50mins The monetary policy needs to be improved to face more challenges in the future.

Obstacle 8:00mins The three winners of the Nobel prices have different views about assets price.

作者: 旧未来 时间: 2013-10-26 07:50
1 A 01:44
2 A 02:01
3 A 01:38
4 A 02:31
5 A 02:57
6 A 07:57

作者: pennyz 时间: 2013-10-26 08:52
想问问timer5
wait,wait ,wait.no,it doesn't 否定的是什么观点呢
上文说推断出F无法断定出Great depression不合理
后面是P的一段话
But I don’t see how you can deny that making monetary policy effective has been far harder since we hit the ZLB than it was before, and that this retroactively casts great doubt on Friedman’s claims that the Fed could easily have prevented the Great Depression.
意思是我们必须承认货币政策有效的难度增加了，而且Fed不在能够轻易的阻止萧条了
这篇文章到底是什么意思啊，全文的逻辑是什么呢？望解答

作者: TaoRs92 时间: 2013-10-27 23:53
感谢！今天的材料特别好~然后把上星期读的诺奖的信息又从脑袋里面提出来。不过今天的材料让我对三人有了一个更清楚的认识~不过流动性陷阱那篇有点难懂。。

time:2:03.40
The Nobel Price this year should award to these three economists who study the asset prices and markets.
Fama's reasearch(believe in efficient market,seems to contradict with another economist's idea-irrational model)
Biggest insight:investors take new information togethor to make decisions and invest.So it is unpredictable of prices in the short term.Provide bases for small investors to diverse portfolio in low costs.
Some limitations:use a slightly flawed model(?)
_____
time:1:32.79
The research of Shiller.
The relationship between prices and their intrinsic value.
Prices are more volatile.But is predictable in the long run.(not controdict to F's idea--short term,unable to predict)
The reason:financail products are different from normal products--prices increase--demand increase--people will not have the motivation to put prices back to the normal base.
The data and history events to support this idea.
__________
time:1:39.37
Fed thinks that it is impossible to spot bubbles when people are in the bubbles.And use interest rates to control the situation will harm the economy rather than do good to economy.But actually Fed has used this strategy to control the situation.
S's theory is underestimated by people.People should take S's theory seriously and use this theory to decide their investments.
________
time:2:36.27
Try to find the role Fed played in the Great Depression and other periods of economic events(monetary policy's impact and efficiency--whether Frideman disdignosed the Fed's role in Great Depression)
Old:naive frideman--money supply is the simple core of his theory and the Great Depression is caused by money policy
New:frideman did consider other factors,not asserted that only monetary problems are the reason of Great Depression
________
time:2:05.02
The author thinks that Fed should use monetary policy(agressvie)rather than fiscal stimulus to raise inflation expectiations.
________
time:6:32.24
The introduction of these three economists' theory.
F and S seems controdict to each other.
F:efficient market theory.the market reacts quickly to new infromation and reflect the changes.thus is unpredictable in short terms.no one can gain permenant profis.can reveal a long trend(may become predictable in long run)
S:unefficient market.prices are more volatile than dividents.can predict becasue they can not react quickly.can forseen.behavior and psycology may also play a role.
H:statistic models.use variables to analyse the assets' prices.utilize the information efficiently.
People still know very little about the prices of assets in markets.

作者: Ra酱 时间: 2013-10-28 00:07
嗷，今天厌学情绪好高

，占座！

作者: lexiyanou 时间: 2013-10-28 08:50
[T2]1:30
Three academics who win Nobel price are all right with their conclusions in economics.
[T3]1:15
S's pioneering paper looked at the relationship between the prices of shares and their intrinsic value.
[T4]1:21
Inventors should pay attention to S's work.
[T5]2:20
The opposite view to argue that MF misdiagnosed the Great Depression.
[T6]2:30
K has concentrated on fiscal policy but i think that the focus should be on treating the lessons of the Depression and the need for a more aggressive monetary policy.
[T7]5:35
MI: Even the Nobel winners in economics disagree with one another about how markets operate,investors benefit from the work of all three men.
Structure:
1)F-conclusion: the efficiency of markets over short periods is unpredictable
2)S-conclusion: share prices are in fact far more volatile than dividends.
3)F-short-run prices were unpredictable;S-over periods of several years assets could move in foreseeable ways;but F doesn't agree S entirely.
4)S- see a role played by individual and crowd psychology; other economics: reject the behavioral approach
5)H-developed a very influential statistical technique known as “generalised method of moments estimation”.

作者: bernice_ml 时间: 2013-10-28 09:56
T1
Being not like us is strangeness.
Strangeness brings us sameness and find people I need right now.
The problems is how much Strangeness we get through a fair share of strangeness.
It requires organizations and technology to enable us to seek strangeness safely.

T2 3:07
Assets prices matters the boom and burst of the economy.
F holds that information affects price, making price unpredictable. Thus there exists index tracking industry.
T3 2:50
S sees asset prices volatile, compared with assets intrinsic value. The prices will go to the fair price into the intrinsic value in the long run.
But asset are no like traditional consumer goods. the demand of assets goes up with the increase of its price. So there came the bubble.
T4 2:51
Greenspan from Central Bank considers it impossible to prognosticate or spot the bubbles being formed.
A high interest rate and the ignorance intervene by the government damages the economy.
Shiller's opinion was ignored, bringing investors more risk.
T5 4:43
Monetary base increases by 300% with 0.25% interest rate fed put on reserve.
It is a question whether Fed could bring or save Depression. Does monetary shocks lead to depression.
The fact that contradictory fed policy revive depression in Roosevelt time.
T6 3:37
The monetary policy doesn't work.
The author hope the Fed make promise of a higher inflation to make it work when the liquidly trap remains the same.
Fed has no responsibilities for the Great Contraction and it bring a more aggressive monetary policy.
T7 9:08
The Nobel Prize reveals that we have done little and there is a lot more to be done.
F's efficient capital market applies to short term. S's proposition about the relationship between price and dividend ratio apples to long term.
The method of moment’s estimation gives ideas about macro financial modelling to estimate risks.

作者: jokerking 时间: 2013-10-29 22:56
默默地补作业~
speed: 1.43 1.36 1.34 2.27 2.17
obstacle: 6.40

作者: WindyMM 时间: 2013-10-30 23:57
TIME2: 01:45
Three economists share the Noble Prize this year. Mr. Fama has the great insight that the effect of investment in asset prices cannot be predicted in short term.

TIME3: 01:33
Mr. Shiller thinks that the asset are not like consumer goods, when asset prices rise, the needs also increase.

TIME4: 01:38
The contribution of Mr. Shiller and Mr. Fama. In asset prices cannot be ignored.

TIME5: 02:23
Fed did not prevent the Great Depression through monetary policy and the private investment stimulated the economic increase.

TIME6: 02:11
Although Fed wanted to keep the monetary stability, the policy allowed the stimulus to raise the inflation. The bottleneck has been remained for half decade, and Fed should make more aggressive monetary policy to prevent the Depression.

REPHRASE 7: 06:30
The Nobel Prize had been awarded to three economists and two of three with contrary conclusion about asset prices.
Mr. Fama thought the asset prices cannot be predicted in short term due to the complex information movement.
However, Mr. Shiller thought the asset prices can be predicted when some knowledge of the price trend are given.
Actually, Mr. Fama did not disagree with Shiller entirely because Mr. Fama thought after several years, the price movement can be foreseeable.
Mr. Henson, the third economist shared the Prize, developed the statistic method of movement which can help to predict the movement through modeling.
All three economists contribute more in theoretical work, and there are lots of things to do in the future.

作者: nancyren 时间: 2013-11-7 22:01
Time2:2'17
Time3:1'51
Time4:1'36
Time5:3'15
Time6:2'13

Obstacle:6'52

作者: allan.zhu 时间: 2013-11-12 18:56
1'32 [174WPM] Do not know...
1'19 [178WPM] The difference of price and demand of financial assests from normal goods.
1'32 [149WPM] Do not know...
1'51 [185WPM] Errrr...
1'46 [188WPM] Oh...no
5'14 [180WPM] Forgive me....

作者: wensd1111 时间: 2014-7-9 10:49
1 A 01:32
2 A 01:57
3 A 01:45
4 A 02:12
5 A 02:07
6 A 06:19
nobel prize was actually settled by swiss central bank. the economy price award 3 economists.
1, short term prediction of asset price is impossible,
2,shill's model about stock price could foresee long term stock price, and he predict two crisis exactly, but everyone ignore his wards
3, individual and group dicision affect the economy model
4,a liitle progress, many work still under gone there

欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/)