Management is not on the road!

Last night, I heard that the stamp duty increased from 1‰ to 3‰, and I felt a little angry: The management is not going to do it!

The reason why I am angry is that the management is not on the road, the management method is very rough, immature, and the logic thinking is not very correct. In fact, this kind of adjustment has no impact on me, because I didn't set foot on the stock market at all.

The reason is as follows:
1. suddenly announced. If you look for an economic book in this way, you will say you are not going to do this. Because the public has certain expectations for the future, and if unexpected inconsistencies occur suddenly, there will be panic. At this time, the economy or the stock market will deviate from the normal track, with significant fluctuations. Even running in the correct track is also harmful to large fluctuations.
For example, this increases stamp duty and is now suddenly released, causing the stock market to fall by 3%. If we tell you in advance that the stock market will increase stamp duty if it continues to rise in the future, the stock market may rise in the future, and the final effect will be 3%. However, with the same final effect, we can suddenly exert and release slowly, so that everyone can know what is bigger or less harmful to the market.
This sudden application is more harmful to retail investors than to large organizations, because they cannot know the news in advance and do not know what to do when they appear. Some time ago, when macd turned green, but the transaction volume was constantly increasing, it was suggested that some organizations could learn the information in advance and continue to escape. Now, if there is a message, it is the message. If the stock market is really a big reversal, retail investors have no time or opportunity to completely escape. In fact, if there is no major impact, there will also be retail investors who will throw at a low price early this morning, resulting in losses.

2. I think this increases stamp duty by 0. In the morning, Phoenix TV said that in the past, the stock market would fluctuate sharply and even end the bull market. However, I think this time, I am sorry, the impact is shorter than 3 to 4 days after digestion, and the maximum is no more than 3 months. This is different from the previous one.
First, the timing is incorrect. In the past, the reason for success was actually because the time was right. It was at the highest point and became the last straw to crush camels. But now, if it is really a large-scale structural bull market (How do you think about it ?), The entire cycle should be around 5 years. Now the first round of increase has been more than 19 months, and there is no major adjustment in the middle. We can think that this is only the first wave. Third, the fifth wave of growth has not appeared. How can the bull market end? Therefore, the first wave ends at most, and the second wave is adjusted. Therefore, the impact cannot exceed three months. (Note: The second wave may not have to be 3 months long, but it is not entirely the credit of stamp duty .)
Second, the economic conditions are different. This bull market is a large-scale structured bull market, with various economic data doing well and even overheating. Imagine how insignificant the stamp duty of 3‰, which is now in inflation, is compared with the one-year interest on fixed deposits between 6‰ and 1%. The stamp duty of 3‰ is insignificant compared with the stock market's 10% daily limit and the annual return rate of more than 100%.
Once again, this policy only affects investors who invest directly in the stock market and has no direct impact on investors who buy funds. The worst case is that the original retail investors who bought stocks do not buy stocks and buy stock funds. The continuous influx of money to purchase stock funds can only cause the fund manager to continue purchasing stocks. In fact, the commission fees for stock-based funds are generally around 2%, and stamp duty is increased by 2‰, which has little impact on them, at least not fatal. Therefore, the stock market is unlikely to be completely cooled down.

3. This policy is temporary and permanent. From the perspective of the overall economy, its role is still 0 or even negative. In my opinion, one of the most silly strategies is to drive liquidity from the asset field with good liquidity to the asset field with poor liquidity. For example, moving from the stock market to the property market is a silly move. The reason is very simple. If the asset price is reversed (that is, the price drops), do you say the stock is more likely to be set, or is the house more likely to be set? Is it a longer time for stock covers, or a longer time for house covers?
In addition to exchange rates, interest rates, and international factors, there is also a factor that there are too few domestic fields that can be used for investment and fewer areas that can be invested abroad. There are only a few channels for ordinary people who want to see if they want to depreciate their money: regular, treasury bonds, funds, stocks, property markets, and some other financial products (income-based insurance and bank financial planning ). Even those so-called financial products, their investment channels are the ones above. Now that inflation is inflation, you will not go into the asset market, but will commit suicide and depreciate your money. This fundamental problem cannot be solved. If you throw an investment channel, it will not solve the problem, or even cause more serious problems. If you want to invest so much money, you have to buy a building if you can't buy a stock. You can't buy pork? The money to buy a building is more, and the building price is growing. Next, I made another tax on a fixed asset, and it was difficult to buy a house, and I switched to buying a stock. Didn't that happen before? The stock market went crazy when the property market introduced a business tax. This kind of method is just a matter of expediency. It is not a long-term strategy at all. It should usually be the last move before death, at least for a while before long-term policies have yet to take effect. Now it seems that the management really treats this highly toxic thing as an antidote.
There are several reasons for the high toxicity. First, when the momentum in two or three years has been fundamentally reversed, these policies are still playing a role they should not play. If you want to cancel these policies, you don't know how many people will launch them! Second, this policy has no substantial help to eliminate economic overheating, while absorbing public funds. This kind of absorption is not much, but not much. The stamp duty in the first four months of this year is more than 40 billion! Originally, everyone would rather bear huge risks and invest in the stock market. The root cause is that prices are rising and the actual interest rate of fixed deposits is negative. In other words, you find that your money is reduced. At this time, the management did not want to increase everyone's wealth, but instead tried to reduce everyone's enthusiasm by absorbing everyone's wealth. This strategy will only be effective in the short term and will decrease in the long term, and the effect is completely opposite. For example, for the business tax of 5.5%, if I want to sell a house with a yield of 2%, the property price should increase by 7.5% instead of 2%. Of course, one day people will be unable to afford it, so they will be put into practice. However, this policy will cut the maximum price by 5.5% at most, and it will speed up the process. In addition, there is no positive effect. That is to say, without this policy, the final property price should be able to rise by 7.5% or so, but not so much or not, and the only thing changed is: 1. speed; 2. Some of the benefits brought by the rise in the property market were removed by the management.
In my opinion, the right approach should be to drive funds to the liquid asset field in the short term, and to the real, long-term, and non-financial investment fields in the long term. For example, increasing R & D costs and non-productive infrastructure (the production infrastructure, such as a factory building, may lead to economic overheating. I am talking about non-productive construction, such as drinking water in rural areas, environmental Protection), increase the strategic reserve of certain materials, and increase public welfare.

To solve the current economic problem, we should start with the following issues:
1. Balance exchange rates and interest rates
2. Fixed the issue of negative interest rates for fixed deposits
3. Solve the Problem of high deposit and loan shortage
4. Solve the Problem of supply and demand (this is the correct solution to the deviation of asset prices from actual values)

In fact, the best way is to expand the stock market. If there is still so much money and the stock quantity increases, the average price of the stock will decrease and tend to be reasonable. There is no need to worry that the stock market is too large to hold more of this problem. As long as the stock price is in a reasonable position, foreign capital will not escape, even if it does not fall sharply. Because after the price is lower than the reasonable price, someone will come back to buy it. There are indeed a lot of hot money in the world, but it is still limited. Another advantage of increasing the stock market scale is the decline in the stock market growth, which leads to a decline in the willingness of hot money to invest in China's stock market.

Let's see, today's stock market performance is an answer to the role of this policy. I think it is more likely to slap the management. As a slap in the face, the fall is between 0.5% and 1.5%. Even if the stock index drops slightly today, it does not prove that the policy is effective. It depends on whether the stock index is stable and reasonable in the next three months. The indicator of stability is the initial decline and Stability in the later stage. A reasonable indicator is that the overall static price-to-earnings ratio is between 30 and 35 times.

I don't think there is any possibility of a big drop today. I have already said in the previous article that the institution will not surrender. Today, the stock market may rise or fall between negative 0.5% and positive 1.5%. As an institution, if it wants to maximize their interests, it will certainly give a negative effect on this policy today, despite the relatively high cost. You think, if the stock market does not fall or rise, ordinary retail investors will feel that this policy has no effect on the current growth trend, and they will feel that the stock market will continue to rise, more retail investors will join the fire. Only in this way will the long-term cost of the main force be lower. Alas, have the management team read any books about game theory? Disappointed.