Reuters/ AAP Australia's construction sector contracted for a second straight month in April, as high interest rates and slumping customer confidence drove activity to its lowest in at least two years, a survey showed. The Australian Industry Group/Housing Industry Association performance of construction index (PCI) sank 5.1 points to 42.6 in April. That was well below the 50.0 level separating expansion from contraction and the lowest reading since the survey began in September 2005. "The result confirms that weakness in the construction industry has intensified, as tightening monetary and credit conditions weigh more heavily on activity levels," said AiG director, economics and research, Tony Pensabene. The Reserve Bank of Australia raised interest rates to a 12-year high of 7.25 per cent in March, the second hike in as many months. Meanwhile, commercial banks have lifted their rates even further as the global credit squeeze raises funding costs, and have become more frugal in their lending. "Underlying April's reduction in total activity was a fall-off in project work on a broad industry front with firms commenting that subdued market demand had led to increased competition for tenders," said Mr Pensabene. New orders were at their lowest level in 20 months, suggesting the current weakness in activity was likely to persist during the months ahead, he added The survey of 120 companies showed broad-based weakness with even the once red-hot engineering sector under pressure. The index for engineering dived 11.7 points to 45.6, a violent turnaround from the end of last year when it was up at 62.7. Building of commercial properties like shopping malls and offices also dropped 10.3 points to 38.1 with firms complaining of tighter credit conditions, lower order volumes and delays on new projects. The housing sector remained deep in the doldrums as mortgage rates and construction costs kept rising. The index of apartment building fell 9.3 points to just 30.5, the lowest reading since November 2006. The measure of house construction eased 4.5 points to 36.3. As a result, demand for labour contracted, with that index dropping 9.2 points to 44.1. Input prices remained high, with an index reading of 77.0, but growth in selling prices slowed markedly to 53.8, from 64.6 in March, suggesting a squeeze on profit margins. The activity sub-index fell 8.4 index points to 38.2 points, with construction in housing, apartments, commercial property and engineering all declining. "Reports from firms indicated that the fall in activity reflected a further reduction in levels of incoming work, citing the negative influences of higher rates, tighter liquidity, and weaker consumer and investor confidence," the report said.
原帖由 maxsmart 于 2008-5-6 11:42 发表 求稳：买股票不如买股票基金，买股票基金不如买债券 求新：如果觉得做股票不刺激可以做股指，当然外汇和大宗商品期货能让你更HIGH
原帖由 base 于 2008-4-27 08:36 发表 迟来的喜讯。。。 3个月后才看到这个帖子。。。
April 10 (Bloomberg) -- Just when you thought it was safe to head back into the financial water, another market threatens to go sour, potentially leaving investors holding the bag for more than $9 billion of tarnished European bank debt. Once again, the landmine is in a sleepy corner of the global debt markets. Once again, things that never happen are happening. And, once again, those lovely mathematical models used to measure risk may turn out to be as useful as chocolate teapots. European banks raised a bunch of money in the past decade by selling callable notes, known as LT2s. The clue to their ability to turn toxic is the word ``callable,'' meaning borrowers have the option to repay the bonds early, on preset dates. Because investors expect to get their money back on the earliest call date, they treat the securities as less risky than if they had to wait until the later maturity date. Moreover, there's an alternative flavor of these bonds called perpetuals that don't even have maturity dates -- if the borrowers choose not to exercise the call options, investors never get repaid, instead receiving interest in perpetuity. The market is at risk because one borrower has broken ranks. Credito Valtellinese Scrl ignored the April 30 call date on its 150 million euros ($236 million) of notes. As a result, the bank will pay a penalty interest rate of 160 basis points more than money-market rates -- higher than the 100-basis-point premium it paid for the past five years, though still lower than it would probably pay to refinance. In Denial The financial community is in denial about the implications of this never-happened-before event, much like it has tried to ignore the parade of unprecedented black swans landing on the lake of finance for the past year. Analysts at Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc said in a research note it would be a mistake to get ``spooked just yet by the actions of a small bank that doesn't have a lot of issuance out there.'' ``We expect large, strong banks to continue to redeem LT2 at the call date, no matter what the cost of replacement capital would be,'' the analysts wrote. ``We expect more pressure on those smaller banks with low-capital ratios. Second-tier banks face difficulty in raising new bank capital right now regardless of offered spreads.'' Extension Risk The risk of not getting paid when expected is called extension risk, and it affects your investments because of a feature called duration. Put simply, if you own two bonds that are identical except for their maturity dates, the one that has longer to repayment is more risky than the one that is shorter. There are almost 8 billion euros of LT2 notes that are callable this year, according to analysts at BNP Paribas SA in London, with a further 1.2 billion euros of similar notes called upper tier II capital notes. Guess where a chunk of this debt ended up? Stashed away in the $400 billion market for structured investment vehicles. SIVs are already suffering after the trick of selling cheap commercial paper and using the proceeds to buy higher-yielding debt turned out to be unsustainable. Another dollop of unpleasant surprise is just what that market doesn't need. The structure of the LT2 notes supposedly made the call dates sacrosanct. The interest-rate jump was designed to motivate early repayment. That fails, though, when it becomes more expensive to refinance the debt than pay the penalty premium. The jump in bank finance costs in recent months takes away much of the presumed pain of not retiring the debt. Reputation Risk Reputation risk is also supposed to protect investors. The theory goes that no bank would risk irking its bondholders by disregarding the call date, for fear of being penalized, if not rejected, on its next attempt to tap the market for fresh cash. Again, that's not much of a stick when the reputation of the banking community is already in tatters and investors are demanding usurious rates to provide new capital. There's another twist to the tale. Because exercising the call option messes with a bank's capital structure, the repayment has to be sanctioned by regulators. Banca Antonveneta SpA, an Italian lender bought by Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena SpA last year, has asked the Bank of Italy to agree to its repaying 450 million euros of notes at the April 23 call date. The authorities, though, may be reluctant to allow firms to weaken their finances in the current environment. Credito Valtellinese's heresy may swiftly become commonplace. ``The banks and treasurers we spoke to surely don't want to be the first to miss a call,'' wrote Olivia Frieser and Axel Swenden, analysts at BNP Paribas in London, in a note published yesterday. ``However, if banks start more generally to miss calls, so will they.'' One borrower missing its call option is a one-time event; two begins to look like a trend, in which case the herd mentality of financial markets might kick in. If enlightened self-interest among banks is all that stands between investors and another debt tsunami, the track record of recent months suggests bondholders should prepare to batten down the hatches for another battering in this credit-market storm. (Mark Gilbert is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.) To contact the writer of this column: Mark Gilbert in London at magilbert@bloomberg.net
原帖由 clur 于 2008-4-6 22:08 发表 是原创吗？这个写的好
原帖由 大球球 于 2008-3-29 10:05 发表 中国很多银行坏账实在罩不住了就政府直接买单了。
原帖由 happysee 于 2008-3-24 19:15 发表 19,902Million 是不是199亿呀？
本版积分规则 发表帖子
