受宠若惊的中国“喷嚏”
黄湘源
近来海外媒体非常关注中国股市的暴跌，尤其关注的是中国股市的暴跌对全球股市的影响。英国《金融时报》的一篇文章甚至提出了一个极具蛊惑性的问题：“中国打喷嚏，世界会怎样？”
尽管还比不上惊世骇俗的2007年7月26日8.9%的单日暴跌，但是，两年后的中国股市在不到二十天的时间内已经连续发生了三四次跌幅达到5％上下的单日暴跌，如果算上跌幅在3%左右的盘中暴跌，则总计不下八九次之多。过于异常的表现，必有非同寻常的话题，自然不能不引起世人的关注。
可是，中国股市和世界股市的联动性真的已经到了“牵一发而动全身”，有可能把3月7日以来全球市场的大反弹带入拐向吗？这显然是值得怀疑的。
根据《金融时报》文章的统计，“自2008年1月以来，在20个月中，上证综指有16个月与美国标普500指数(S&P 500)的走势相同，关联度达到了80%。而从2002年1月到2007年12月的84个月中，上证综指有37个月与标普500指数走势相同，关联度仅为45%。中国与其它亚洲股市之间的关联度更高。在过去20个月中，上证综指有17个月与富时亚太指数(FTSE Asia Pacific index)走势相同，关联度达到85%。”
我们或许不应该去怀疑这个统计的真实性，但是，稍具常识的人们不能不注意的是，这里所指的走势相同的月份，是指的一个月的全部走势基本相同，还是只是最后一日收出的月K线的颜色相同，其所表示的意义可能有着很大的不同。K线不仅有长短之别，而且是光头光脚还是长手长脚的走势，其所表示的意义更是大相径庭。仅凭颜色归类不免有失之于过于笼统和简单之虞。魔鬼总是隐藏于细节，真正表现出关联性的通常并不是统计长度为一个月甚至一年的整体走势，而是某个或连续数个具体交易日的心电图轨迹。摩根大通的分析师虽然也认为，8月3日-17日，中美股市的关联度比2009年整体更紧密。但他们却注意到，周三（即8月19日）这种关联似乎失效了，因道指周二相对走高，然而上证指数却大幅跳水。8月21日《华尔街日报》Matt Phillips主笔的“市场脉动”专栏文章也说，“我们曾认为，周三中国股市的暴跌会引发美国股市的下挫。但我们错了。投资者没有理会上证综合指数4.3%的跌幅，而是将目光转向了美国经济出乎意料的好于预期的报告上”。据报道，当日美国三大股指分创年内新高。迄今为止，欧美市场的表现其实并没有理会人们对于联动性的牵强附会的理解。
当人们把太大的希望，寄托在中国增长和中国将会拉动世界的期待时候，一旦出现事与愿违的裂痕，难免会产生担心。如果这就是所谓中国股市打喷嚏，就引起世界股市感冒的理由，那么，显然犯了张冠李戴的错误。这里起作用的关键因素其实并不是中国股市，而是中国经济。两者无论在体量上还是重要性程度上都是有着很大不同的概念。中国股市不要说目前还未能扮演“经济晴雨表”的角色，而且本身的市场机制还不够完善，市场表现也还很不成熟。在资本项目还未完全对外开放的条件下，除了被批准的QFII之外，外资尚不能自由进出中国股市，并且中国股市的单边交易机制也同成熟的国际市场机制也还谈不上接轨，更谈不上有多大的可比性和传导性了。按照花旗集团(Citigroup)股票策略师罗伯特·伯克兰的说法：“也许过几十年中国股市可以取代标普500指数，但目前还不行。”在他看来，近期的股价下跌，与其说是投资者真的认为中国股市下跌将启动一轮持久的下行趋势，不如说是投资者在找借口进行获利回吐。
海外媒体的一些舆论对中国股市和世界股市联动性过甚其事的渲染，表面上好像是高抬了中国股市，隐含的却有可能是某种不可告人的意图。如同美联储主席伯南克前不久关于中国高储蓄导致美国房价走低，某些美国经济学家认为美国经济不景气是中国的出口所导致的结果，把海外股市的异动归咎于一向不联动的中国股市，也是很滑稽的，不啻嫁祸于人。跟他们不断在人民币升值和拉动内需等问题上指责和为难中国一样，其真实的意图无非就是要求中国政府承担起调控股市泡沫的行政责任。而他们在渲染似是而非的联动性的同时，喋喋不休地指责得更多的其实不是别的，恰恰正是所谓的资产价格泡沫。
奇怪的不是海外媒体对中国喷嚏的假抬真摔，而是我们有些人的受宠若惊。一时之间，似是而非的联动性也正在成为当前最为热门的流行词汇之一。也许，在市场而言，它恰好是某些市场势力借题发挥进行砸盘的一条鞭子，而在某些经济学家则更是鼓噪货币政策以微调的名义由“适度宽松”改变为“适度收紧”的一个口实。
译文:
Flattering China Sneeze
Flattering China Sneeze August 30, 2009; 04:18:35 by Huang XiangYuan
Recently China stock markets crash has become a bracing issue for overseas media, and also they have turned their attention to the effects of China stock markets crash to the global stock markets. An article on UK Finanacial Times has raised a puzzling issue: “What happen to the world if China sneeze?”
Although it may not be comparable to the world shocking of a 8.9% single day crash of China stock markets of July 26, 2007, but two years later in a span of less than twenty days we had three to four single day decline of about 5%, and if we include those midday crash of about 3%, then it has a total of not less than eight to nine crash-like down days. These abnormal performances, probably caused by abnormal issues, will attract attention of the world.
However, the interdependence of China stock markets with the world markets has reached a point where “if you pull a sting of hair it will affect whole body”, or have the global markets reversed trend since market rally from March 7? They are some of the intriguing questions.
According to some data of an article on Financial Times, “In the twenty months since January 2008, the Shanghai Composite Index has moved for sixteen months in tanderm with United States S&P500, and achieving 80% degree of association. Also, in the eighty-four months since January 2002 to December 2007, the Shanghai Composite Index has moved for thirty-seven months in tanderm with S&P500, with 45% degree of association only. China and other Asian stock markets has a greater degree of association. For the past twenty months, the Shanghai Composite Index has moved for seventeen months in tanderm with FTSE Asia Pacific Index, reaching 85% degree of association.
We are not going to doubt the reliability of these data, but, with a little common sense we find two different things: it means moving in tanderm for the whole month; or it means that the color of the monthly candles are matched on the last day close of the month. There are different meanings for a candle that is long or short, or with or without long legs on both ends.. It may be over-simplified if the markets are compared with the color of their candles. The devil is in the details, and the data for a month or even a year are not commonly used to determine the overall trend of markets association., rather it is determined by the pulse locus of a certain day or several consecutive trading days activities. An analyst from Morgan Stanley also recognizes that the degree of association for China with United States is greater for the period of August 3 to 17 than all of 2009. However, overseas media are also awared that the markets seem decoupled on Wednesday (August 19) where the Dow Jones Industrial Average was higher on Tuesday close, while the Shanghai Composite Index had a big decline. On August 21, Wall Street Journal’s Matt Phillips wrote on his article “Market Pulses” that: “We thought that the market crash of China stock markets on Wednesday would induce a decline on United States markets. We were wrong. Investors were not bothered with the 4.3% decline of Shanghai Composite Index, rather they were attracted by better-than-expected United States economy.” According to reports, three major United States indices were reaching new yearly high on that day. Todate European and American markets activities are not in any way related to some far-fetched interpretation of market linkage characteristics.
When greater expectations were placed on China growth story and China will pull the world along story, and when they find that it is not really so, there may inevitably be cause for concern. This is an example for saying when China sneeze the world will catch a cold, and it is obviously a misconception. In this respect the stock market is not the main cause, or rather it is the China economy. They are two very different concepts quantitatively and their relative importance. China stock markets have not attained the role of an economic barometer because its market mechanism is not sufficiently perfected, and market performances still unmature. On condition that not all investment stipulations are open to foreign participations, and except for the approved QFII program, not all foreign investors can participate in China stock markets, also the single-side trading system of China stock market are still unmature and not compatible with international market systems, we cannot say anything about China comparisons and leading role. Citigroup market strategist Robert Beckland had mentioned that: “Maybe in a few more decade China might overtake S&P500 index. But it is not now.” In his view, the recent stock prices decline is not an indication that investors will believe that China stock market decline will kick off a prolong downtrend, or rather investors are finding an excuse to take profit.
Some columnist opinions of overseas media may have over exaggerated the market linkage characteristics of China stock market to global stock markets, or it may be exalting China, or there may be some hidden agenda. What Federal Reserve chairman Bernanke had said recently about China high savings is causing collapse of United States housing prices, and some United States economists believe that United States economic recession is due to China exports, and blaming overseas stock markets abnormal movement on China which has no linkage at all, are all funny examples, and it is easy to pass the buck and blame others. By the same token they keep blaming and embrassing China on issues of China Renminbi revaluation, push up domestic demand, etc., and their real intention is none other than asking China government to shoulder the administrative blame for regulating stock markets bubble. Simultaneously they hype their mirage on market linkage characteristics and raising many unrelated issues, but it is in fact what is known as asset price bubble.
Strange enough, China sneeze effect is not a false exalting or a real beating by overseas media, it is just because some of us feel flattered. In the meantime the not well-defined market linkage characteristics has become a much sought after phrase.. Moreover, it is an excuse for some market forces to crash a market，and it is also an excuse for some economists to advocate a monetary policy for changing from “moderately relaxing” to moderately tightening” under premise of microeconomics theory.