tw54585
會員
UID 1374
精華
0
積分 0
帖子 302
閱讀權限 10
註冊 2012-2-19 用戶註冊天數 4459
用戶失蹤天數 2313
114.42.96.11 |
|
|
找到了! 節錄自巴菲特在CNBC採訪談到的，簡單翻譯一下，有錯請指正
http://www.cnbc.com/id/49537172/
BECKY: Do you —you look at the banking business, though, overall, is it going to be as profitable?
BUFFETT: No, it can't be as profitable. The profitability of banking is a function of two items. Return on assets and assets to equity.
巴菲特認為銀行業的獲利取決於 ROA 和 ROE 兩項因子
BECKY: Hm.
BUFFETT: And return on assets is not going to go up particularly. USB has done the very best on that. They're at about 1.7 percent. Wells is between 1.4 and 1.5 percent. But most banks are lower. Now, if you have 20 times leverage and you're getting 1.5 percent on assets, you're making 30 percent on equity.
巴菲特說銀行業的ROA幾乎不太可能非常高， US Bancorp. 則是其中ROA表現非常好的，Wells Fargo也不錯 分別有1.7% 和 1.5%，假如你對於ROA1.5%的銀行將槓桿放大20倍(也就是 資產 = 股東權益 * 20)，那你會有30%的ROE
BECKY: Mm-hmm.
BUFFETT: And that was not lost on people a few years back. And they pushed balance sheets, and they're still pushing them in Europe. But they've cut back on that here. So they will not be having the leverage in the banking system. It'll be even more restricted among the bigger banks as part of the new rules, and you won't be able to earn more on assets than before, and so with less leverage in the same return on assets, you will have a lower return on equity. Banks were —banks were earning 25 percent on tangible equity not so many years ago. And really, that's kind of a crazy number. You know, for a basic semi-commodity business, you really don't want to allow that. But that was allowed because people felt that their bank deposits, and they were, were guaranteed by the government; and, therefore, there was no market force that would look at the —at the shape of a —condition of a bank and say, `Well, I won't put my money there because they look kind of dangerous with all this leverage.' And therefore, people got to push and push it and push it, and then the government says, `Listen, we got a vested interest in this. You're using our credit, in effect, and if you want to play, you're only going to have 10-to-1, or some number like that. So the returns on banks have come down. It's still a good business.
在幾年前，銀行業持續的拉大槓桿，以取得更好的利潤，但現在法規越來越嚴格，尤其對大型銀行而言，現在的銀行業(指美國銀行業)在跟以前相同的ROA下已經無法賺取像以前那麼高的ROE(因為銀行負債額度被政府限制)，在以前，銀行可以在很低的ROA下賺到25%的ruturn on tangible equity(有形資產)，這很瘋狂，對於一個非販賣商品的產業來說，人們幾乎不太可能允許那麼高的槓桿，但是以前人們覺得政府會在背後作擔保，所以銀行業持續將其槓桿拉高，但之後政府跳出來嚴加看管這種情況，並規定頂多只能有10:1的資產:股東權益比，所以銀行的獲利開始下降，因此銀行業總體體質依然良好
BECKY: But you still think it's a good business and you still buy it because you like the price.
BUFFETT: It's a good business. Wells is —Wells is very well run. And it's a good business.
BECKY: OK.
BUFFETT: But it's not like —it won't get to what it was.
BECKY: OK.
BUFFETT: The European banks still are leveraged to an extraordinary extent just because they don't know how to get out of it.
BECKY: Right.
BUFFETT: But they aren't earning 1.5 percent on deposits either.
不知道各位看完的心得是什麼? 盡量看英文吧，我只是大略翻譯一下
[ 本帖最後由 tw54585 於 2013-9-16 17:55 編輯 ] |
|
|
