A股越涨 疑问越多Questions mount as China A-shares rally

从中国央行上周公布的数据看，大陆银行业大规模放贷的步伐将不会放缓，人们本周将重点关注中国A股指数能否突破一重要的技术阻力位。

虽然上海股市今年一直是全球表现最佳的股票市场，今年已累计上涨了34%，但也有人担心，这一上涨只不过是受银行大量放贷的推动，并不表明市场出现了可持续的复苏。今年前三个月，中国银行业的放贷额高达人民币4万亿元(合5,850亿美元)。

但也有一些分析师认为股市上涨是中国大规模放贷政策的必然结果。他们说，这种有计划的信贷扩张是中国版的量化宽松政策，此举自然会导致股市的上涨。

麦格理研究(Macquarie Research)认为，鉴于中国央行的货币政策将重点放在了扩大贷款供应量而非资金的价格上，因此这一政策与美国联邦储备委员会(Federal Reserve)主席贝南克(Ben Bernanke)最近采取的量化宽松政策有可比性。这一点充分体现在温家宝总理向全国人大所作的政府工作报告中。他在报告中承诺，要将广义货币供应量增加17%，新增5万亿元贷款。

这一政策的影响就是中国央行实际资产负债表的扩张，以及银行准备金随着贷款的大幅增长而相应增加，从而导致银行同业拆息的大幅下挫。

麦格理称，无论你给中国的货币政策贯以何种名称，如果你看看银行业贷款额的跃升、银行同业拆息的下降以及存款的增长，就会发现中国的货币政策正在产生效果。麦格理还乐观地认为，这一政策将能实现资产价格再膨胀的预期效果。这种再膨胀对经济增长十分重要，它将使消费者价格指数恢复正增长。

野村公司(Nomura)也在其新近发表的策略报告中关注了同样问题。该报告强调指出，量化宽松政策以资产价格为着力目标，旨在改变人们对通货膨胀前景的判断，从而改变人们的流动性偏好和货币的周转率。用外行话解释就是，当人们预计会出现通货膨胀时，他们就不再愿意把钱存起来，而是开始把钱用掉，从而推高股票和资产的价格。

根据野村公司的想法，即使经济状况依然严峻，资产市场也能有好行情。

野村公司的报告说，这种非正统的货币政策使投资者对金融市场前景的判断和他们对实体经济状况的判断间出现了脱钩。在量化宽松政策之下，不断上涨的资产价格和庞大的产出缺口是可以同时存在的。

当然，野村公司也在报告中告诫说，量化宽松政策是否真的在起作用仍有待观察。但中国出现的一个乐观迹象是，如果从月度股票成交额与股市总市值的比率来判断，就会发现投资者的风险偏好已经回升。或许在一个百姓投资渠道十分有限的金融体系内，推高人们的流动性偏好要更容易些。

麦格理则强调要关注一项重要指标，即央行的货币政策是否能使中国的房地产市场再度膨胀起来并启动实体经济的建筑业活动。

虽然上述观点从理论上说似乎有些道理，但货币政策实际能发挥多大效力还有待观察。如果失业人数和破产企业继续增加，要让人们把储蓄的钱拿出来消费可不是容易事，即使他们发现通货膨胀正在侵蚀自己的真实财富。

野村公司说，如果人们的经济行为真要发生变化，那么股市至少要处在景气周期的收缩阶段。该公司用股市总市值与广义货币供应量之比的变动情况来衡量发生这种变化的可能性有多大。目前香港和中国大陆股市的市值都处于历史低点，这意味着可能会有资金准备重返股票市场。

笔者认为，我们仍需要看到更多能反映中国积极的货币政策正在见效并能维持A股持续上涨的证据。从最近公布的经济数据看，还没多少能令人鼓舞的东西。

将中国的货币政策说成是量化宽松政策的一个例证多少有些牵强，而且鉴于量化宽松政策只是提振经济的最后选择，将中国的货币政策归入这一类可不是什么好事情。

依然值得担心的是，鉴于廉价资金太多正是本轮经济危机的根源，中国可能正在尝试一种高风险赌博，它可能引发另一场泡沫破裂惨剧。

我们又如何解释中国大陆A股和香港H股在估值方面不断扩大的差距呢？反映H股行情的恒生中国企业指数今年仅上涨了3%。这些国际投资者能够购买的H股是没能正确反映中国经济正在复苏这一因素，还是涨势不佳仅仅是因为其投资者无法像大陆A股投资者那样获得充裕的资金？

不过，由于资金供应充裕而正在形成某种泡沫恐怕是个不争的事实。野村公司建议，投资者从风险溢价变化中获利的好办法是投资一些证交所和证券公司的股票，比如投资香港交易所或大陆的申银万国证券。

Craig Stephen

(本文译自Market Watch, Craig Stephen是MarketWatch的自由撰稿人。)
After China's central bank signaled there will be no slowing in the massive lending spree by mainland banks, focus this week will be on whether A-shares can surmount key technical resistance.

The Shanghai stock market has been the best performer in the world this year rising 34% but there is concern this merely reflects a sugar high on the back of bank lending, rather than a sustainable market recovery. In the first three months of the year, China's banks have lent a massive 4 trillion yuan ($585 billion).
Yet some analysts see a point to the aggressive lending policy, arguing this planned expansion represents China's own brand of quantitative easing and justifies a rise in equities.
Macquarie Research compares China's policy to the quantitative easing recently adopted by Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, given its emphasis on expanding the quantity of lending rather than the price of money. They highlight in Premier Wen Jiabao's keynote address to the National People's Congress, in which he promised to increase the broad money supply by about 17% and grant over five trillion yuan in additional loans.
This impact of this is an expansion of the effective balance sheet at the People's Bank of China, and the resultant lift in bank reserves has seen interbank rates collapse as lending surges.
Whatever name you give China's policy, Macquarie say it is working if you look at the jump in lending, the fall in interbank rates and the increase in deposits. They are also optimistic this will have the desired impact of asset price reflation, so important for growth, and will turn the consumer price index positive.

Nomura also focuses on a similar theme in a new strategy note highlighting that quantitative easing targets asset prices and is designed to alter perceptions of inflation, thus changing the liquidity preference and velocity of money. In layman's terms, they mean people no longer want to keep their money on deposit when they expect inflation and will start to use it, which will boost equities and asset prices.
According to the thinking by Nomura, we can still have a horrible economy but good asset markets.
'Unorthodox monetary policy is dislocating investor perceptions between the performance of the financial and real economy. Under quantitative easing, it is possible to have rising asset prices and large output gaps,' the note said.
Of course Nomura adds a caveat that we still have to see if quantitative easing will actually work. One promising sign in China, however, is that risk appetite has already returned if you judge based on monthly equity turnover as a percentage of market capitalization. Perhaps in a financial system with very limited options in terms of saving products, nudging the population's liquidity preference might be easier than elsewhere.
Macquarie highlight a key factor to watch, namely whether the policy can reflate the property market in China and kick-start construction activity in the real economy.
While this all sounds plausible in theory, in practice we will have to see just how powerful monetary policy can be. If jobs continue to be shed and bankruptcies pile up, shocking depositors out of their cautious mode will be tough, even if they are seeing real cash balances eroded by inflation.
If we do see a change in behavior, Nomura says that equities at least are unequivocally at a deflated stage of the cycle. They measure this by charting the total market capitalization of equities as a percentage of broad money supply. Both Hong Kong and China equity markets are at historical lows, meaning money could be ready to flow back into equities.
Ultimately, I think we still need to see some numbers that prove China's policy of aggressive monetary policy easing is working and can sustain A-shares. So far, there has been little encouragement from recent economic statistics.
Wrapping up China's policy as an example of quantitative easing does seem a bit of a stretch, and as this policy is only meant to be a last resort, it's hardly a reassuring comparison.
The worry remains that, since it was cheap and plentiful money that was at the root of the current problem, China may be embarking on a high-risk gamble that could set up another boom-and-bust cycle.
And what are we to make of the widening valuation gap between A-shares and Hong Kong-listed H-shares, where the Hang Seng China Enterprise Index has risen just 3% this year? Are H-shares -- which can be bought by international investors -- failing to price in China's recovery or just missing out on the domestic liquidity kicker?
Still, the notion that we are likely to see a bubble forming somewhere with all this cash washing around is hard to disagree with. Here, Nomura suggests that a good way to position for a change in the risk premium is through some of the exchanges or brokerage names, for instance Hong Kong Exchange or mainland China brokerage Shenyin Wanguo.

Craig Stephen