為什麼查理·芒格對金融衍生品如此厭惡？

01-03

「他們創造的系統是一個大災難。那是一個瘋狂的系統」
「說美國衍生品的會計法像陰溝是對陰溝的侮辱。」
「我認為我們是美國惟一甩掉衍生品賬本的大型公司」

有時間時我再寫分析。讓我們看看芒格接受Stanford Lawyer Magazine採訪時對衍生品的具體說法http://www.manualofideas.com/files/content/200905_munger.pdf：

Grund-fest: As we look at the current situation, how much of the responsibility would you lay at the feet of the accounting profession?
Munger: I would argue that a majority of the horrors we face would not have happened if the accounting profession developed and enforced better accounting. They are way too liberal in providing the kind of accounting the financial promoters want. They』ve sold out, and they do not even realize that they』ve sold out.

Grund-fest: Would you give an example of a particular accounting practice you find problematic?
Munger: Take derivative trading with mark-to-market accounting, which degenerates into mark-to-model. Two firms make a big derivative trade and the accountants on both sides show a large profit from the same trade.

Grund-fest: You and your partner, Warren Buffett, have for years warned about the dangers of the modern derivatives markets, particularly credit derivatives, and about interest rate swaps, currency swaps, and equity swaps.
Munger: Interest rate swaps have enormous dangers given their size and the accounting that has been allowed. But credit default derivatives took that danger to new levels of excess—from something that was already gross and wrong. In the 』20s we had the 「bucket shop.」 The term bucket shop was a term of derision, because it described a gambling parlor. The bucket shop didn』t buy any securities. It just enabled people to make bets against the house and the house furnished little statements of how the bets came out. It was like the off-track betting system.
Grund-fest: Until the house lost its money and suddenly disappeared. Or the house made its money and suddenly disappeared.

Munger: That is right. Derivatives trading, with no central clearing, brought back the bucket shop, because you could make bets without having any interest in the basic security, and people did make such bets in the billions and billions of dollars. Some of the most admired people in finance—including Alan Greenspan—argued that derivatives trading, substituting for the old bucket shop, was a great contribution to modern economic civilization. There』s another word for this: bonkers. It is not a credit to academic economics that Greenspan』s view was so common.

衍生品是這樣一種東西：把一些沒你聰明的人誘騙到由你訂立規則的賭桌上，然後讓他們把錢輸光。芒格向來不喜歡賭場式的華爾街，覺得這種零和的交易沒有創造任何價值；其次他也厭惡這種不正直的做法——尤其當整個國家最聰明的年輕人都為金錢誘惑而奔向這個領域的時候。

芒格一致認為成為一個理性的投資者是很重要的，就像在查理芒格的投資清單里寫的：

1. 風險——所有的投資評估必須先從評估風險開始，尤其是聲譽風險。 1) 結合了合適的安全邊際。 2) 避免與個性有問題的人打交道。 3) 堅持給假定的風險提供適當的補償。 4) 時刻牢記通脹和利率風險。 5) 避免犯大錯誤，避免資本金持續虧損

雖然就他自己說自己也是一個極具賭徒性格的人，但是個人覺得查理芒格還是一個偏穩健的舵手。芒格常常站在投資理論系統之外想問題，所以他也擅長於評估風險，就像在你所提這幾句的出處《窮查理寶典》裡面，他強調固定資產的重要性，同樣強調了金融機構帶來的風險，而不僅僅是金融衍生物，老爺子本質上就不相信所謂的風險託管或者說是風險管理，金融衍生品市場目前的發展勢頭對證券公司風險必然有很大影響，而芒格也一直把風險放在投資的第一點。

金融衍生產品的共同特徵是保證金交易，即只要支付一定比例的保證金就可進行全額交易，不需實際上的本金轉移，合約的了結一般也採用現金差價結算的方式進行，只有在滿期日以實物交割方式履約的合約才需要買方交足貸款。因此，金融衍生產品交易具有槓桿效應。

保證金越低，槓桿效應越大，風險也就越大。

所以就像老爺在投資清單第三條裡面說的，要給假定風險提供適當補償，當風險大於心理可承受值時，自然選擇不接受。

金融衍生品我不知道是啥，也不怎麼了解，什麼CDS，CDO的。可能是自己的腦子不夠用。身邊最直接的金融衍生品就是信用卡了對不對，但是我從來不用這東西，我不知道這東西的意義何在，有很多人讓我辦信用卡，因為我的儲蓄卡信用記錄良好，但是刷信用卡和刷儲蓄卡的區別是什麼？這個問題我也問過喜歡刷信用卡的人，他們說「因為感覺這個錢不是你的，在花別人的錢。「信用卡的設計是不是利用了你的貪心反而讓你的花銷更大而無法控制成本了？如果你卡里有錢，儲蓄卡也可以刷對不對，這就是金融衍生品的害處，因為它透支了你的未來，其實你只有1元，而它告訴你有2元。