注册 登录  
 加关注
   显示下一条  |  关闭
温馨提示!由于新浪微博认证机制调整,您的新浪微博帐号绑定已过期,请重新绑定!立即重新绑定新浪微博》  |  关闭

N·格里高利·曼昆的博客

恒甫学社的学术性分支博客

 
 
 

日志

 
 
关于我
曼昆  

曼昆

网易考拉推荐

哈佛怎么就损失了10个亿!  

2009-07-27 10:23:34|  分类: 默认分类 |  标签: |举报 |字号 订阅

  下载LOFTER 我的照片书  |

Thursday, July 23, 2009

How Harvard Lost $1 Billion

Answer: Betting on interest rates. (I don't know enough about Harvard's finances to judge whether the bet was sensible ex ante. But it sure isn't working out well ex post.)
答案是:在利率上下赌注!(我对哈佛的资金状况不是很了解,很难判断这场赌博事先是否是理智的。但事后看来,这肯定是不奏效的)

Update: Someone more knowledgeable than I am about the financial situation at Harvard emails me the following response to the Felix Salmon piece I linked to above:
更新:一些比我更了解哈佛内幕的人,通过email对我上面链接的Felix Salmon的文章做出如下的解释:

1) The instrument in question was highly liquid and could be sold fully within a few days; essentially all money was lost in 2008 two years after Larry Summers left.

那些有问题的证券流动性是很大的,也是可以在几天之内可以抛光的。根本上来说所有的损失都出现在2008年,也就是Larry Summers走后的两年。

2) Harvard has a system where the treasurer makes these decisions with approval of the corporation and involvement of a debt management committee on which president does not serve.

哈佛有一套系统,规定财务主管做决定前必须征得公司的批准,还要有主席不能参与其中的债务管理委员会的介入。

3) Given the plan to borrow large amounts of debt in the future, doing something to lock in low rates made sense. If Harvard was borrowing big, there would be offsetting saving now. The big error was the failure to adjust hedge when Allston was scaled back and to take account of the risks associated with the change in the university's credit rating.
只有假设计划借入大规模的债务时,采取措施锁定低利率才会有实际意义。如果当时哈佛是大规模借入,现在就将冲抵储蓄了。最大的错误在于当Allston大规模缩小时采取套期保值,并且去考虑大学信用评级变化导致的风险。

  评论这张
 
阅读(1379)| 评论(1)
推荐 转载

历史上的今天

评论

<#--最新日志,群博日志--> <#--推荐日志--> <#--引用记录--> <#--博主推荐--> <#--随机阅读--> <#--首页推荐--> <#--历史上的今天--> <#--被推荐日志--> <#--上一篇,下一篇--> <#-- 热度 --> <#-- 网易新闻广告 --> <#--右边模块结构--> <#--评论模块结构--> <#--引用模块结构--> <#--博主发起的投票-->
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

页脚

网易公司版权所有 ©1997-2017