2014年8月25日 星期一

中韓簽FTA對南韓可能未必有利?台灣應加速與越南、菲律賓、東協、土耳其、墨西哥簽FTA,有利於台商海外擴充

陸廠進逼!南韓出口連三衰,供應鍊早台灣一步斷鍊?

台灣週刊之前曾報導大陸有攻台計畫,但如果從出口數據判斷,南韓老早成為大陸產業自主所要搬走的絆腳石,供應鍊斷鍊危機已是現在進行式。

大陸是南韓最大貿易伙伴,但南韓國貿局看了進出口報告、出口連續三個月下滑且 7 月年減幅來到 7% 之後,也不免透露感到憂心忡忡

華爾街日報 21 日報導,南韓官員將難看的出口數字歸咎於大陸供應商自製能力日益精進,使得對韓採購需求下滑。過往,陸廠多倚賴進口南韓半成品與零組件,組裝之後再銷往第三地,但現在陸廠技術升級後,已能取而代之。

南韓石化業是大陸產業自主化最大的受害者之一,數據顯示,7 月韓國出口至大陸的石化業產品衰退了 5.9%。韓國智庫國際政經院( Institute for International Economic Policy )曾警告,大陸石化業產能快速提升,加上國內經濟成長放緩,勢必降低進口量。韓國唯一 CPL 廠 Capro 三座廠房去年關掉一座就是因為大陸接單減少。

南韓財政部曾呼籲南韓企業,過於依賴半成品的出口模式必須作修正,但即便是如此,晉升至高階產品還是難逃被陸廠追打的命運,如小米手機第二季就已取代三星成為大陸手機第一品牌。

取代 Samsung 長達兩年的寶座,小米手機第二季在中國市場稱王

在把持中國市場長達兩年之後,Samsung 第一的寶座終於被小米給取代。從 Canalys 釋出的
數據顯示,小米手機第二季在中國的出貨數據為 14,991,570 台,領先第二位的 Samsung 約有 170 萬台左右的數據,以 14% 的市場佔有率排在第一位。

中國市場第二季的智慧型手機銷售超過 1 億台。

Samsung 與第三位的 Lenovo 同樣擁有 12% 的市場佔有率,不過後者稍微落後 Samsung 約 200,000 台。

從 2012 年第一季開始,Samsung 就一直在中國呈現領先的角色;當時,最高市場佔有率最高為 22%。Samsung 智慧型手機從高階到低階,種類相當多,但碰到以高規格、低價的小米後,整個市場逐漸被翻轉了起來,特別是中低階產品,Samsung 在中國市場無法吸引消費者買單。

即使每一次開賣都無法滿足所有消費者,但上半年 2,610 萬台的整體銷售數據,似乎在說明這家智慧型手機品牌在中國的影響力可能比大家想像的要高出許多。此外,小米手機創辦人雷軍對於全年 6,000 萬台的銷售數據仍持有相當大的信心,並多次在公開場合認為這個數據絕對可以達成。

包含中國市場在內,全球已經開始迎接 4G LTE 的到來,但小米公司到目前為止並沒有針對這部份下太多功夫,在 2014 下半年是否會讓其他品牌超前,仍是一個未知數。可是,我們可相當確定一點,那就是小米的破壞式銷售結構將會持續,並且打擊到 Sony、HTC 以及 Samsung 等國際知名品牌的銷售。

Huawei sees strong H1 sales growth, smartphones lead the charge

Despite concerns that the smartphone market is reaching saturation point, at least at the premium end of the market, some manufacturers are still managing to post impressive growth figures this year. Huawei is the latest consumer electronics company expected to announce strong sales growth last quarter, led by the company’s smartphone division. According to a memo seen by The Wall Street Journal, sales of Huawei smartphones, and other consumer products, rose by 30 percent in the first half of this year.

In a business memo sent out to colleagues titled “Don’t Fall Behind”, Richard Yu, the head of Huawei’s consumer business group which mainly deal with smartphone sales, said that his group had already reached half of its 2014 profit target in the six months which ended on June 30th. Contrary to some analyst concerns about the top end of the market, Huawei’s strategy of focusing more on mid- to high-end smartphones, such as the Ascend Mate 2 and Ascend P7, rather than selling the cheapest phones on the market, seems to be paying off.

Although Huawei has not disclosed any sales figures yet, Huawei has said that its revenue rose by 19 percent in the first half of this year. Last year Huawei’s consumer electronics business generated 70 percent of its revenue from telecommunications sales, so we can assume that the growth in the smartphone division is having a very positive impact on the company’s profit margins.

Despite Huawei’s strong growth so far this year, the company is still a way behind the market leaders, Samsung and Apple, when it comes to its global sales share. The latest research from IDC puts Huawei on just 5 percent of the global market, compared with 30 percent for Samsung and 16 percent for Apple.

Even so, Huawei’s business strategy seems better suited to the current market climate than its larger rival Samsung, which is expecting to post a poor Q2 earnings report. It seems likely that Huawei is set to retain its position as the third largest smartphone manufacturer in the world, with most of its growth coming from emerging markets.

According to the memo from Mr Yu, Huawei is seeing its strongest levels of sales growth in the northern portion of Latin America, particularly in Mexico, Colombia, Venezuela and Ecuador, followed by the Middle East, Africa, and Southeast Asia.

If you’re interested in a further breakdown of how Huawei’s mobile business is faring, the company is scheduled to announce its financial results next week.

Huawei sees 62% bump in first-half smartphone sales, commits to 80M shipments in 2014

Huawei said its smartphone shipments jumped 62 percent year-over-year in the first half of 2014 and that it is on pace to reach its goal of shipping 80 million smartphones for the full year.

The Chinese network equipment and device vendor said that it shipped a total of 64.21 million devices in the first half, including 34.27 million smartphones. That brings the company to around 43 percent of its smartphone shipment goal for 2014.

"Based on the growth momentum at the moment, we are firmly moving toward our full-year target," Shao Yang, vice president of marketing in the consumer business group, told Reuters in a written statement. Huawei said in March it would ship 80 million smartphones in 2014.

三星利潤大滑25%:國產廠商搶食手機份額

三星手機半年來的乏力,終於得到官方數據的證實。

7月8日,三星電子發佈今年二季度業績預告,銷售額為52萬億韓元(515億美元),同比下滑約10%;運營利潤為7.2萬億韓元(71億美元),同比下滑約25%。“國產廠商的產品能力上來了。”7月9日,一位手機渠道人士對21世紀經濟報導記者表示,配置類似、體驗相當的產品,三星還維持兩三倍以上的定價,“高高在上,消費者不是傻瓜,當然不好賣了”。

由於手機業務所在部門為三星電子貢獻了接近70%的運營利潤,手機業務的景氣度直接影響著整個公司的業績走向。面對這份羸弱的數據,三星電子罕見地在業績預告數據後附上了原因分析,其中提及韓元升值不利因素的同時,亦毫不諱言中國手機廠商的競爭威脅。

比較優勢不再

“今年4月份還在賣去年12月壓的貨。”一位手機渠道商內部人士對21世紀經濟報導記者表示,今年以來,三星部分產品的存貨周期長達12-14周,而其好的時候可以控制在3-4周,“周期延長勢必導致存貨跌價”。

該渠道人士表示,儘管三星為穩住渠道商,推出了保價政策,但清庫存還是傷了很多渠道。“產品沒以前好賣,說到底就是比較優勢不明顯了。”一位手機廠商負責人表示,以三星今年的旗艦機S5為例,定價超過5000元,而華為P7、酷派大觀等國產廠商的產品在配置上相差不大,同為Android操作系統,使用體驗上各有千秋,但價格往往只有三星S5的一半甚至更低。

水貨市場可以作為觀察一款產品活躍度的鏡子。有業內人士告訴21世紀經濟報導記者,三星S5剛上市時水貨價在4500元左右,二三個月後水貨市場的報價已經下降到3300元左右。

另一方面,隨著智能手機的不斷普及,高端市場增長趨緩,市場增量快速轉移到中低端產
品上。中國市場尤其如此,由於運營商補貼的推動,1500元以下的千元智能機占據了市場絕大部分比重。但三星的產品線佈局主要在1500元以上區間,這影響了整體銷量。“三星也有1500元以下的產品,但同樣的價格,晶元、屏幕等配置要比國產廠商差一大截。”前述手機業內人士認為,在目前的產品策略和定價策略之下,三星在中低端市場很難與國產廠商競爭。

三星產品的比較優勢不斷下滑,也體現在其中國市場的份額不斷下滑。市場研究公司Strategy Analytics 公佈的數據顯示,去年第二季度,三星在中國售出了1530萬台智能手機,市場份額為19.4%。而根據賽諾的數據,今年5月份,三星在中國的銷量市場份額已經下滑到16.5%,環比下降0.5%,而同期酷派、聯想的市場份額均已超過 10%,與三星的差距在不斷縮小。

由於中國市場對三星的貢獻值,三星在中國市場份額的下降直接影響到其全球的業績。根據三星2013年年報披露的數據,2013財年,僅中國單一國家,為三星貢獻的營收占比高達18%。

或許是鑒於這一形勢,三星電子在上個月對其大中華區移動通信事業部負責人進行了調整,原三星電子大中華區移動通信事業部總裁李鎮仲調回南韓總部,該職位由原三星電子大中華區執行副總裁王彤接任。中國市場走淡的同時,為三星貢獻23%營收的另一糧倉——歐洲市場也遇到困難。三星在歐洲手機市場的份額高達40%,但目前面臨存貨上升的壓力。

“智能手機的過度供給導致中國和歐洲市場供過於求,低端市場的競爭越發激烈。”三星在解釋二季度業績滑坡時表示。三星還表示,今年以來,韓元兌美元的升值態勢幾乎不可阻擋。今年二季度,韓元對美元升值5.2%,而一年前同期韓元對美元貶值2.6%。本幣貶值有利於提高企業出口產品的競爭力,反之亦然。三星在2008年全球金融危機後的快速複蘇很大程度上就得益於韓元的疲軟。

國際數據公司稱,第二季度華為發貨量較上年同期增長了95%,而聯想集團的發貨量增長了39%。兩家公司的增幅都超過了23%的智能手機市場整體增幅。而全球最大的智能手機製造商三星電子的發貨量下降了3.9%。

雖然中國的智能手機市場已經逐步飽和,但亞洲、拉丁美洲和非洲等新興市場的需求非常強勁,許多消費者仍計劃更換他們的基本功能手機

國際數據公司資深研究經理 Melissa Chau 在聲明中稱,隨著基本款手機的淘汰速度加快,中國手機製造商已經為引導新興市場消費者使用智能手機做好了準備。

第二季度華為成為全球第三大智能手機製造商,在該市場的佔有率從上年同期的4.3%升至6.9%。雖然相比於三星電子及蘋果公司(Apple)仍有較大距離,但華為與這兩個市場領導者之間的差距在縮小。三星電子的市場份額從上年同期的32%降至25%,而蘋果公司的市場份額從13%略微降至12%。


4G未知數

手機方案商龍旗的副總劉渝龍表示,三星目前的問題核心是產品力不足,高端市場受到蘋果擠壓,尤其是蘋果下一代產品如傳聞所言將推大屏產品,直接受影響的將是三星;中低端市場又受到中國廠商的搶食。

“三星手機目前的遭遇是多重因素造成,比如掌門人李健熙病重導致的內部混亂。”劉渝龍強調,“三星不缺製造能力,只要策略轉過來,有人來抓,可以很快恢復過來”。也有國產手機業內人士持不同觀點,認為三星在4G時代將面臨中國廠商更激烈的競爭。

賽諾的數據顯示,今年5月,酷派以23.1%的份額位居國內4G手機市場第一位,三星和蘋果分列第二和第三。儘管這是單月數據,但也在一定程度上顯示國產廠商在4G上的進攻性,酷派目前已推出多款千元價位的4G手機。

前述國產手機廠商人士表示,目前中國手機廠商的戰法頗有“殺敵一千、自損八百”的意味,多家廠商的出貨量進入了全球前十,但盈利能力普遍孱弱,毛利率在10%左右,凈利率只有2%,走在盈虧平衡的邊緣。

“同為Android陣營,三星面臨中國廠商的低毛利競爭。”該人士認為,這對三星提出了考驗,即充分利用其產業鏈優勢和全球規模化佈局,發力中低端市場,“這是策略問題”。

今年5月華為在巴黎發佈P7時,華為消費者BG(業務集團)CEO餘承東就曾在接受21世紀經濟報導記者採訪時暗示對三星的追趕之心,“目前市場排名的第二的廠商(指蘋果)因為有特殊的生態鏈,我不好講,但排名第一的那家(指三星),並沒有什麼華為不具備的競爭優勢”。

分析

2014年8月23日 星期六

SolarCity、SunPower、First Solar 相續投入家庭太陽能發電,將大幅降低尖峰用電量及發展出分散式太陽能發電產業 ( SolarCity, SunPower, First Solar with continued investment in home solar power, will significantly reduce peak electricity consumption and develop a distributed solar power industry )

SolarCity 公布第二季財報,太陽能板裝設遽增 216%

美國太陽能租賃龍頭 SolarCity 於 8 月 7 日公布 2014 年第二季財報,已裝設的太陽能板總發電量在第二季提升到 218 MW,遽增 216%,且光第二季單季就增加了 3 萬名客戶。

2012 年第一季時,SolarCity 裝設一組太陽能發電系統平均每瓦成本為 3. 16 美元,2014 年第一季已大幅跌落至 2.46 美元,第二季只剩 2.29 美元,成本下跌速度相當快,營運長 Tanguy Serra 更表示,成本降低速度為預期目標的兩倍之多。

此外,SolarCity 最近剛併購高效太陽能電池與模組製造商 Silevo,有了自己的完整產業鏈,將更能有效降低成本,因此 SolarCity 大膽預估 2017 年將達成每瓦 1.9 美元的低安裝成本。

至於SolarCity 即將發行的第三次資產債券,金額將提升至 2 億 100 萬美元,標準普爾(S&P)信用評級則為BBB+。儘管第二季太陽能板安裝量暴增,但 SolarCity 保守預估第三季安裝量會稍微下滑在 135 到 150 MW 間;2014 年整年安裝量約為 500 到 550 MW;至於 2015 年,則樂觀預估會達到 900 至 1,000 MW。

SolarCity 目前太陽能板安裝數量的成長與需求已遠遠超乎預期,持續穩座太陽能租賃龍頭。SolarCity 樂觀預估在接下來 20 年內,公司營收可望超過 33 億美元。

SolarCity Downgraded On Escalating Stock, Competition

SolarCity got a downgrade Tuesday because of its escalating stock price and the increasing competition from rivals, including a company expected to launch an initial public offering soon. That's the assessment from Ben Kallo, an analyst for Robert W. Baird, in a research report released Tuesday. He cut his rating on SolarCity (NASDAQ:SCTY) stock to neutral from outperform, but he kept his 83 price target.

SolarCity stock was down 2.5% in early afternoon trading in the stock market today, near 70.25. But SolarCity stock is up 24% for the year.

In his report, Kallo said that although SolarCity is the leader in the accelerating U.S. residential market for solar products, the company's stock price might have gotten a bit ahead of itself. And he cites rising competition with SunPower (NASDAQ:SPWR), First Solar (NASDAQ:FSLR) and Vivint, which is reportedly working on an IPO. SolarCity recently announced plans to manufacture its own solar panels.

"We believe SolarCity's move into high-efficiency panel manufacturing introduces scale-up risk ... . SunPower has over a decade of experience in manufacturing high-efficiency solar panels and has allocated 2.5-plus years to construct and ramp its Fab 4 (about 350 megawatt) manufacturing line," he wrote. "Although SolarCity has considerable future earnings and cash-flow generation capabilities, we believe SunPower and First Solar are currently best positioned, given their manufacturing capabilities, international presence and positive earnings." SolarCity this month reported rising losses and lower-than-expected Q2 revenue.

DE Penetration Lowers the Value of Traditional Generation ( 美國分散式太陽能成長讓傳統發電廠價值下降 )

As DE proliferates, traditional generation assets are likely to decline in value. Parallels with the German market—in which the total share of generation represented by nuclear and fossil-fuel-based sources is expected to fall from a level of 83 percent in 2010 to 30 percent by 2030—illustrate the devastating financial impact that such a drop can have on utilities. (See Is Germany Pioneering a Global Transformation of the Energy Sector?, BCG report, March 2013.) By lowering the total net load, DE reduces the market value for traditional generation. The intermittent nature of distributed generation means that the greater DE’s penetration, the greater the requirement for base-load generation to become more flexible. (The problem is compounded by utility-scale renewables, which also provide intermittent power and often receive loading preference.) In most cases, DE, combined with demand response programs and other forms of demand management, will also shave the peak off the load, cutting into the most profitable portion of the traditional generation business. These factors are influencing utilities’ decisions about whether to invest in generation or hold off and seek to optimize its residual value instead.

DE may also be a harbinger for a broader type of deconstruction that is affecting the power value chain. Integrated utilities provide bundled services: energy generation, transmission, grid services (such as power reserve and stabilization), demand response management, distribution, metering, and customer service. When a non-utility third-party cherry picks the value chain and provides specific services at a lower price, the traditional rate design no longer matches costs and revenues. New entrants have a growing stake in generation through distributed products, but they also derive benefits from services such as demand response management and energy storage. Over time, the power value chain could change dramatically.
美國分散式太陽能成長大增,讓傳統發電廠收入大幅下降,大幅降低尖峰用電量

The utilities’ business model is about investing capital and capturing returns. As DE penetration increases, capital shifts from areas that utilities have traditionally controlled to areas in which they are not involved.
solar power generation to off the peak power consumption of city

What’s more, as large investors turn their attention to the emerging DE industry, traditional utilities are beginning to lose their advantage in terms of low cost of capital. For example, we estimate that when a major solar installer and developer securitized its solar leases last year, the company’s cost of capital dropped to a level that was 200 to 300 basis points lower than most regulated utilities’ cost of capital.

With microgrid technology, DE has the potential to enable areas such as subdivisions, cities, and counties to form “islands” that either exist off the grid entirely or depend on it only for backup generation. DE could, therefore, turn the existing infrastructure of transmission lines and power plants designed to serve those areas into stranded assets.

Finally, utilities’ regulatory edge is eroding as DE companies gain leverage through regulatory management teams that represent a growing number of individual consumers. Taken as a whole, these changes are turning the odds against the traditional utility model.

蓋電廠 不如削減夏季用電尖峰

夏季炎熱,人要消暑,工廠的生產線與馬達也要通風散熱或吹冷氣以維持效率,這使得台灣的夏季出現了用電尖峰。2013 年 8 月份的用電量,就比 12 月份還要多 41 億度電。
2012與2013年每月用電度數曲線。(資料出自能源局能源統計月報)

從上面這張圖,夏季每日用電曲線來看,用電尖峰是在上班日的下午 2-3 點左右,大約在 3,200 萬瓩。接著是午飯前 11 點半,第三高峰是晚間 7-8 點。到了大部分工廠停工的週日,則僅剩晚上的用電高峰,並且比上班日少了 600 萬瓩以上。造成這三個高峰的原因很多,餐飲業準備膳食、上午 11 點開始營業的大型零售業、工廠生產線作業啟動,以及民眾回家後打開照明與視聽設備。

再隨機選擇夏日與冬季各一個普通上班日來觀察。冬季上班日的用電尖峰是在下班時刻的晚上 6 點,冬季下午 2 點峰值不明顯,與夏日同一時間大約少了 7-800 萬瓩。
▲ 夏季上班日與周日用電曲線比較。(擷取自台電每日用電資訊)
底下這張圖則把每個月用電最多的尖峰用電量,勾勒成一年的曲線,再從 1970 年累積到 2013 年。您可以看見,台灣的用電量愈疊愈高,而夏季與非夏季間的用電差距也日趨明顯,儘管自 1989 年實施季節電價制度,但 2000 年以後仍再度明顯拉開差距。
▲ 夏季與冬季上班日用電曲線比較。(擷取自台電每日用電資訊)
台電每年會提出《台電電源開發方案》,替未來十年規劃電廠興建時程。它會依照國民所得與人口成長、國內外經濟能源趨勢等預估,去推論出長期用電負載可能的增減。值得注意的是,台電會評估每年夏季尖峰負載用電量,並在維持電力系統備用容量率 15% 的前提下去做電源開發規劃,以應付新增的用電需求以及補足退役的老舊電廠發電量。

也就因為這樣,我們為了應付夏季用電尖峰的那幾天的那幾個小時,而準備了這麼多發電廠機組。到了非夏季時,就有許多機組閒置,徒增維護經費,核電廠與大型火力電廠機組則趁著冬季輪流排歲修;雖然知道「養兵千日,用在一時」,然而「養兵」也是要錢的。

因此,只要想辦法削減「夏季尖峰負載」的用電量與時數,或至少讓它不要成長,便可以短期間內減緩台電新建電廠的壓力。爭取下來的時間與省下的電廠興建成本,則可以再拿去積極投資節電策略與發展再生能源,或強化台灣電力系統的調度能力,真正舒緩長期的用電需求。

削減「夏季尖峰負載」的方式其實有很多,有些是台電已實施您也很孰悉的手段,有些未實施的,門檻也不高,以下列舉幾個方式,希望能激發您對電力的更多想像。 ... 持續閱讀

太陽能分散式發電分析
  • 由美國、澳洲太陽能分散式發電發展看,主要是
    • 政府立法鼓勵金融業提供相關類似高息商品給太陽能分散式發電公司共同以承租方式長期收取用戶費用,用戶也節約部份電費又不用買整套太陽能分散式發電系統;
    • 金融業獲得高息商品之利潤,營業上升獲利成長;
    • 用戶也節約部份電費又不用買整套太陽能分散式發電系統,同時又得到智惠型電力管理系統,隨時可以由電腦或智惠型手機了解電力狀況,房屋價值也因此升高;
    • Distributed energy (DE) technologies have grown significantly in the U.S. Last year, DE represented one of the largest investments in the utilities space, and that investment, along with consequent growth, is likely to accelerate. From 2010 to 2013, DE accounted for about 21 percent of all new capacity in the nation. The number of commercial and residential rooftop solar installations, for example, increased by 22 percent in 2013. The increase comprised about 1.9 gigawatts and represented roughly $8 billion in investments. 
  • 我國冬季用電少,夏季用電多,這是因為我國地處亞熱帶,夏日冷氣用電需求高的緣故。尖峰用電在白天,夏季白天冷氣用電需求高,因為營業公司都開冷氣及照明,用電尖峰及離峰甚致高出 48% 電力:
    • 夏季每日用電曲線來看,用電尖峰是在上班日的下午 2-3 點左右,大約在 3,200 萬瓩。
    • 夏季每日用電曲線來看,用電離峰是在上班日的早上 4-6 點左右,大約在 2,200 萬瓩。 尖峰與離峰平均差到 30% ~ 35% 電力;
    • 而太陽能發電補尖峰用電至少是最經濟又可延緩核四運轉,讓科技與時間說出該走的路,依太陽能發展的速度,一片同樣面積太陽板很快將達到 365W、每瓦 0.25 美元,一般家庭需要之白天電力很易被家庭式太陽能發電代替,因此,很容易捕台電尖峰電力不足,核能就能逐漸轉成封存備用;
    • 若LED照明及電器節能配套策略與企業強制之法令,可延緩核四運轉之年限可拉長至6年,其他能源效能也會再提高,有利於台灣做出最有利於台灣決定
    • 台灣目前最大問題就是,馬政府之國營到處漲價壓榨人民生計,真正該做的照明及電器節能配套策略根本不積極,台電對於節能策略也不夠積極,節能是一個產業
  • 目前太陽能電池效率與成本:
    • 德國有機太陽能電池效率已經到達 44.7%,如 SunPower 太陽能電池板大小可產生 717 W,每瓦可降至 0.5 美元,都市白天都將被太陽能分散式發電系統取代,將少掉 1000 萬瓩,也就是說台灣核能都可以封存,減少能源進口 GDP反而成長;
    • SunPower 太陽能電池可將21.5%的太陽能轉換成電力,太陽能電池板大小 155.9 x 104.6 cm ,可產生 345W,每瓦 0.6 ~ 0.5 美元;
    • NSP 台灣新日光太陽能電池可將15.6%的太陽能轉換成電力,每瓦 0.5 ~ 0.3 美元;
    • 大陸 Jinko 太陽能電池之太陽能轉換成電力 16.5%,每瓦 0.5 ~ 0.3 美元;
    • 預估未來幾年內, 太陽能電池將降至每瓦 0.3 ~ 0.22 美元;
    • 太陽能投資與成本計算實例投資成本最貴是儲能系統,只補尖峰用電量投資成本最低,但政府並沒有一套配套策略,以致台灣難發展成功;( 註:德國太陽能發電量已經是 23.1 GW 約總需求量之 50.5% ,但仍需足夠支儲能系統將它儲存才能完全使用,否則,仍是白天補電效益;)

2014年8月22日 星期五

中、美影子銀行創造出新經濟型態及高風險 ( China And United States create new economic shadow banking economic risk in future )

什麼是影子銀行

  影子銀行又稱為影子金融體系或者影子銀行系統(Shadow Banking system),是指銀行貸款被加工成有價證券,交易到資本市場,房地產業傳統上由銀行系統承擔的融資功能逐漸被投資所替代,屬於銀行的證券化活動。影子銀行系統的概念由美國太平洋投資管理公司執行董事麥卡利首次提出並被廣泛採用,又稱為平行銀行系統 (The Parallel Banking System),它包括投資銀行、對沖基金、貨幣市場基金、債券保險公司、結構性投資工具( SIVs )等非銀行金融機構。這些機構通常從事放款,也接受抵押,是通過杠桿操作持有大量證券、債券和複雜金融工具的金融機構。在帶來金融市場繁榮的同時,影子銀行的快速發展和高杠桿操作給整個金融體系帶來了巨大的脆弱性,併成為全球金融危機的主要推手。

  目前,影子銀行系統正在去杠桿化的過程中持續萎縮,然而,作為金融市場上的重要一環,影子銀行系統並不會就此消亡,而是逐步走出監管的真空地帶,在新的、更加嚴格的監管環境下發展。未來,對影子銀行系統的信息披露和適度的資本要求將是金融監管改進的重要內容。目前,美國已提出要求所有達到一定規模的對沖基金、私募機構和風險資本基金實行註冊,並對投資者和交易對手披露部分信息。

中國信託資產創兩年最慢增速,信託業管理的信託資產總規模為12.48萬億元人民幣

截至6月30日,信託業管理的信託資產總規模為12.48萬億元人民幣(2萬億美元),季度環比成長6.4%。隨著中國政府打擊影子銀行,投資者重新評估信託這一高殖利率投資的風險,中國信託資產創下兩年來的最慢增速。

中國信託業協會昨日在一份公告中表示,截至6月30日,信託業管理的信託資產總規模為12.48萬億元人民幣(2萬億美元),季度環比成長6.4%。 這是2012年第一季度以來的最慢增速,遠低於2008年以來的平均年增幅50%。

中國影子銀行從2010年開始出現爆炸式成長,眼下國務院總理李克強正在 努力維持經濟成長並抑制金融系統的風險。海通國際證券經濟學家胡一帆在7月25日的研究報告中指出,信託行業的「清算日」(day of reckoning)即將到來,中國信託產品本季度和下季度將迎來償付高峰期, 銀行將不得不吸收信託產品違約造成的大量損失。

中信建投駐北京分析師曾羽今天接受電話採訪時表示,監管機構、銀行和 地方政府都在努力控制信託風險,但是只有經濟提速成長,借款人重新站穩腳跟的時候,這個行業的狀況才會真正好轉。曾羽說,中國投資者變得更加厭惡風險,越來越來的投資者將選擇殖利率較低、風險較低的產品。
中國大陸總負債 2012 達到GDP 277%, 到達 2014 就會超越德國, 預估到 2016 極可能與義大利一樣成為高負債國 

6月末,信託業管理的信託資產總規模比5月末下降2400億元。公告稱這是首次出現月度負成長。中國信託業協會表示,第二季度信託產品的平均殖利率從第一季度的6.44%升至6.87%。

收緊政策

中國1月份避免了首例信託產品違約,當時中誠信託發行的30億元高殖利率產品到期前幾天,購買這款產品的投資者得到兌付。該公司上個月推遲了對另一款產品的償付。

從煤礦企業到房地產開發商的借款人出現兌付困難後,中國銀監會4月份收緊了對新信託產品的規定。李克強希望通過增加銀行貸款、抑制成本更高的影子融資來降低企業的借貸成本,進而扶持企業發展,支持經濟成長。

公告顯示,截止2014年6月末存續的12.48萬億元信託資產中,來源於各類金融機構自有資金的投資占比35.26%;來源於以各類金融機構為主體的理財資金的投資占比33.89%;剩余的來自最低投資額為100萬的普通合格投資者。

房地產風險

曾羽說,上半年很多產品出現問題,監管機構對風險發出預警之後,信託公司承受著改善風險控制的壓力,因此他們不得不放緩新產品的發行步伐。而且,過去幾年的增速根本不可持續。

中國信託業協會表示,資金信託投向工商企業和基礎產業占比約為50%, 投向房地產占比為11%。該協會表示,隨著房地產行業風險上升,資金信託投向房地產領域將更為謹慎。

該協會的報告顯示,全國68家信託公司的所有者權益總額約為2750億元, 這凸顯出它們為自己的產品承擔隱性擔保的能力有限。... 持續閱讀.

Why The Downside To The Fed's "All In" Attempt To Spike Shadow Monetary Velocity Is A $4.5 Trillion Drop In GDP

It appears that the one topic pundits have the most problems grasping is the spread between the GDP. A summary which confirms just how prevalent the confusion is, is this terrific post by the Calafia Beach Pundit, terrific not because it is even remotely correct (the post is so blatantly wrong - one wonders if Western Asset Management even expects its current and former asset managers to count beyond 2... M2 that is), but because it demonstrates how self-professed "pundits", whether of the beach variety or not, don't have the faintest grasp of more than merely trivial monetary topics.
segregation of traditional and shadow monetary aggregates, overall economic deleveraging and aggregate monetary velocity, and how all that impacts

The basis for the above-mentioned post's argument is that since M2 is growing (which it is for 16 weeks in a row now as we have been pointing out repeatedly), and since M2 velocity has performed a dead cat bounce off its 30 year lows following the complete collapse in M2 velocity after the bankruptcy of Lehman, that GDP has to grow. Period. This argument is so flawed and so one-sided, that its refutation and subsequent elaboration as to what reality truly is, is what this post was at first all about. Yet in refuting the simplistic conclusion of a mainstream pundit's myopic perspective, we uncover something far more troubling: namely that should the Fed fail in stoking consolidated aggregate monetary velocity very quickly, as the shadow liability collapse accelerates, US GDP has the potential to drop by up to $4.5 trillion over the next 3 years.

First, looking at M2, it is indeed the case that M2 has been growing. As the chart below shows, since the beginning of 2010, M2 has grown by $288.7 billion from $8485 to $8773 billion.

The problem, as Zero Hedge readers know all too well, is that M2 is merely a small subcomponent of all practical monetary aggregates, including those derived from the shadow credit system. As the beach pundit certainly should be aware, a far more important aggregate is M3, which the Fed has conveniently decided to eliminate, just so those of the permabullish persuasion can spin factless arguments using the far more easily manipulable M2 as a proxy for money demand. And looking beyond M2 is precisely where the entire argument falls flat on its face.

Since the bulk of credit and monetary growth over the past 30 years has occurred not at the observable M2 level, but at the level of shadow banking liabilities (from $620 billion in 1980 to $21.4 trillion at the peak in Q1 2008), and their monetary representation (be it M3, or our broader custom aggregation), a far more indicative view of GDP as a product of monetary aggregate velocity is that of GDP not to M2, but of GDP to M2 and Shadow Banking, which includes in addition to the generic M2 components such as M1 (currency, demand deposits), and retail money funds, savings deposits, and a variety of other deposits, also such shadow components as money market mutual funds, GSE capital, ABS issuers, repo money, open market paper, and agency and mortgage pools. The combination of all that is the most definitive and comprehensive representation of money demand available for the US economy.

The chart below shows just how much more of a factor the shadow economy has become of the past 30 years. While in 1980 the ratio of M2 to Shadow banking monetary aggregates was 135%, the resultant surge in shadow debt, and thus shadow money, as a result of 30 years of declining interest rates, led to a M2/Shadow ratio of under 50% in 2008 (black line in chart below).

A complete and valid representation of aggregate monetary velocity has to take all these excess components: anything else is an insult to the intelligence of one's, in this case, readers. Which is where a far more different picture than that presented by some pundit or another emerges.

Note that in the chart below, as credit has become easier to procure, and increasingly cheaper since the arrival of the Maestro, and as cheap credit-derived money flooded the system, the overall broad money velocity (M2 and Shadow Banking monetary equivalents) has collapsed, even as GDP has been growing. In other words, as more and more credit has gotten added to the system over the past three decades, such new credit has had a progressively smaller impact on true economic growth. And here is the key point that makes a mockery out of the abovementioned "analysis" - even as M2 has grown by under $300 billion, courtesy of QE 1 and QE Lite, shadow banking liabilities and appropriate aggregates have plunged by $2.1 trillion in just the first six months of 2010! Let's see: +$300 billion compared to -$2.1 trillion. Hmmm.

Let's recall that the prevailing theme of the ongoing depression is deleveraging: at the consumer and at the corporate level (courtesy of sovereign leveraging, and $13.7 trillion in federal debt compared to under $9 trillion three years ago, which makes the cost of deleveraging next to nothing), the current collapse in Shadow liabilities, and associated monetary aggregates will persist for a long, long time. Keep in mind the Fed has little control over this, and this is what most pundits (no matter how self-proclaimed) get teribly confused by. All that the Fed can do is hope to increase the velocity of the corresponding circulation of M2, and beyond, money.

Which is where things get really ugly.

Contrary to the beach pundit's conclusion that the growth in M2 most certainly portends a pick up in GDP, we present the completely opposite case: namely that the collapse of shadow credit, and the resultant elimination of shadow money, could result in a plunge in US GDP as high as $4.5 trillion over the next 3 years. And what most don't understand (but Blackhawk Ben most certainly does) is that what M2 does over this period is completely irrelevant as shadow deleveraing will be the far more dominant force vis-a-vis GDP.

And what the Fed is trying to do, more so than anything, is to return the M2+Shadow Banking velocity back to traditional levels, far higher from the current 58%. That the Fed has succeeded in raising it by 8% from its all time low 2 years ago, is purely a function of Quantitative Easing. The real question is whether QE2 will have the same success in stoking at least some consolidated velocity and its resultant GDP pick up.

影子銀行系統累積的金融風險

  影子銀行雖然是非銀行機構,但是又確實在發揮著事實上的銀行功能。它們為次級貸款者和市場富餘資金搭建了橋梁,成為次級貸款者融資的主要中間媒介。影子銀行通過在金融市場發行各種複雜的金融衍生產品,大規模地擴張其負債和資產業務。所有影子銀行相互作用,便形成了彼此之間具有信用和派生關係的影子銀行系統。

  影子銀行的基本特點可以歸納為以下三個。其一,交易模式採用批發形式,有別於商業銀行的零售模式。其二,進行不透明的場外交易。影子銀行的產品結構設計非常複雜,而且鮮有公開的、可以披露的信息。這些金融衍生品交易大都在櫃臺交易市場進行,信息披露制度很不完善。其三,杠桿率非常高。由於沒有商業銀行那樣豐厚的資本金,影子銀行大量利用財務杠桿舉債經營。

  在過去20年中,伴隨著美國經濟的不斷增長,人們對於信貸的需求與日俱增,美國的影子銀行也相應地迅猛發展,並與商業銀行一起成為金融體系中重要的參與主體。影子銀行的發展壯大,使得美國和全球金融體系的結構發生了根本性變化,傳統銀行體系的作用不斷下降。影子銀行比傳統銀行增長更加快速,並游離於現有的監管體系之外,同時也在最後貸款人的保護傘之外,累積了相當大的金融風險。

分析
  • 全球貨幣寬鬆程度過去只用 M1B、M2,自從影子銀行壯大後,影子銀行比傳統銀行增長更加快速,美國和全球金融體系的結構發生了根本性變化,全球貨幣供應需改成影子銀行創造之貨幣供應量+M2,所以全球貨幣寬鬆程度已經是由債延伸之商品在加速
  • 因此當美元升息時,垃圾債泡沫就易破滅,全球經濟隨時受影子銀行風險產生影響;
  • 中國不降低利率讓企業介由正常銀行體系借出資金同時促進內需消費,這情況對中國大陸反而更危險,因為一推企業借債製造『產能過剩泡沫』就如同地方房地產債一樣也是『過剩泡沫』現象中國大陸經濟問題是利率過高內需消費不足