知識社群ePortfolio登入
位置: 趙永祥 > 最新文章
by 趙永祥 2018-07-22 14:02:09, 回應(0), 人氣(1476)



淨空法師: 了解因果法則報應


上淨下空老和尚:了解因果法則報應
這種不可抗拒的因素和力量,一般人稱之為'命運''。佛家稱之為'過去的業力''—意即我們過去世在身體、語言和心念中的造作行為所產生的影響力。 孔子曾經說:'不知命,無以為君子。''這個'命''字其實指的就是'因果''或'業力''。因為不知道三世因果,就無法了解命運的由來,就不能改變或創造命運。 不了解命運的由來就 ... 全部活動視頻:https://www.youtube.com/user/amtb2011...
★晝夜佛號不間斷ღ真心,念這十句阿彌陀佛,發個願求生西方極樂世界,這個心是真心,不是妄心。造業的那個,業造得再重,是妄心造的。念佛,雖然只念那十句阿彌陀佛,真心念的。邪不勝正,妄比不上真,這個要記住、要知道、要相信。《決定往生西方極樂世界!!!》
☆沒有智慧-習氣轉不過來ღ三慧根增長ღ《(發露懺悔)決定往生西方極樂世界!!!》要有智慧!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMrRcvRnygo



by 趙永祥 2018-07-06 05:39:04, 回應(0), 人氣(1248)


As the Fourth of July should remind us all, independence is something worth fighting for. Independence means the ability to make your own decisions and live the way you choose to 

live. When it comes to financial independence, though, many people believe it is only a dream. Here's how to declare your own financial independence day.

TUTORIAL: Budgeting Basics

What Does 'Independent' Mean?

There is no absolute definition of financial independence. The most common sense of the term

is that someone has enough wealth to live as they wish for the rest of their life without having 

to work. This is a foggy definition, though – isn't picking a stock "work?" What about people who

own a business and are not involved in day-to-day activities, but still step in for major decisions?

Here's a different definition: Financial independence should mean the ability to live more or less

as one wants to, within reasonable limits. It may not mean the absolute freedom to never work

another day again, but it may mean the ability to quit a bad job, go back to school or start a new

business without major sacrifice. Likewise, financial independence should mean the ability to 

deal with life's ups and downs without scrimping, sacrificing or going into debt.


The Allies of Independence

It is hard to fight for independence without allies. Financially speaking, that means assets that 

work for their owners and throw off cash. A savings account or CD is a really basic example (especially with today's microscopic interest rates), but a portfolio of dividend-paying stocks or

a portfolio of bonds (or bond funds) can serve that role.

Where else can investors look for returns that can help them build wealth? Rental properties 

can throw off impressive amounts of cash flow – not only paying for themselves, but throwing 

off cash above and beyond that. Writers, musicians and inventors can also look at royalties as 

long-term (if not lifelong) sources of income that require little additional effort. Last and not least,

ownership of a business can certainly spin off significant amounts of cash, even if the owner is 

not directly involved in day-to-day management.

For example, say an investment of $8 or $9 in rental properties can produce $1 of rental income.

Even allowing for expenses, it is not hard to get a mid or high single-digit return – meaning that

$1 million real estate nest egg could potentially deliver $50,000 or $60,000 in income. Likewise,

simply having $1 million invested in a corporate bond fund could generate upwards of $50,000 

a year in pre-tax income. (For an example of an income generating investment, 

read Bond Funds Boost Income, Reduce Risk.)

Fighting for Independence

If you're reading this in your 20s or 30s, planning how to handle a $1 million nest egg may sound

ridiculous, but it is attainable.

For starters, a careful budget is important. To make the most of every penny, it is vital to know 

where every penny goes. It isn't possible to plug leaks without finding them first. There is plenty

of budgeting advice out there, but the three most important elements are (1) to build an 

emergency fund, (2) to allow some fun discretionary spending, and (3) to make saving an integral expense every bit as important as rent or food.

Once a budget is in place, cutting costs and maximizing savings can take precedence. Almost everybody spends more than they need to and a little careful consideration can usually turn up

avoidable (or reducible) expenses. Saving $50 a month is not going to make anybody a millionaire

, but every extra dollar prudently invested can multiply the value of that extra $50 many times 

over. It's known as the undeniable power of compound interest.


Invest, Educate and Take Smart Risks

Financial independence is all but impossible without taking some risks. The key here is "smart"

 risk – investing $100,000 in a risky biotech hoping to get a 10-bagger is not a smart risk, it's gambling. But doing a lot of research and spending $100,000 on a rental property in an attractive

neighborhood is not nearly as risky, nor is starting a business based on a marketable skill and 

a real desire to do something different than the competition.

Nobody is born knowing anything about the stock market or rental properties, and most people

do not have a parent or mentor to learn from at a young age. Instead, most people learn by researching, reading and experimenting with different strategies to see what works. 

That process never ends – there is always more to learn, not only about investing but about 

specific investments as well.

Likewise, financial independence requires a lifetime commitment to continuous investment. 

It's not simply a process of saving some money, investing that money and calling it a day. 

Instead, those who would be financially independent have to be on the lookout for new opportunities and new ways to make the most of their hard-earned capital

After all, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. (To help improve your investing knowledge, 

check out 10 Books Every Investor Should Readand 3 Business Books to Read Over the Summer.)


The Bottom Line

Independence does not come simply because people demand it or decide they want it. It is important to take that first step and make a declaration of what you want, why you want it and 

what you are prepared to do to get it.

Decide what financial independence means to you. Once those decisions are in place, come up

with a clear plan that outlines what you need, what you want, what you have today and what you

can do to move towards independence (this includes the budgeting, cost-cutting and investment

plans). Last and not least, stick to that plan and keep the goal in sight.

Financial independence is not easy, but it is not impossible for those who are willing to show resourcefulness and invest years of hard work into the process. (For some tips, see 

10 Simple Steps To Financial Security Before 30 and Two Roads: Debt or Financial Independence?))

by 趙永祥 2018-06-26 07:24:54, 回應(0), 人氣(1118)


《文殊菩薩心咒》





《文殊菩薩心咒》是 很動聽且有攝受力的一首佛曲

by 趙永祥 2018-06-14 11:14:18, 回應(0), 人氣(765)



FinTech 精彩短片

T觀點:金融科技趨勢爆發 顛覆你我交易方式 


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RG84wS52nDU

by 趙永祥 2018-05-30 19:52:00, 回應(0), 人氣(1117)


趙博士財經分析之153  台灣高齡化社會隱藏經濟危機?


台灣在今年已正式成為「高齡社會」的國家,但卻沒有引起政府與社會關注。也許社會各界對人口結構巨變帶來的衝擊,就像面對「狼來了」般的警告,已經逐漸麻痺。但不同的是,這次狼真的來了,而且備戰的時間更短了,「隱藏版」的經濟危機其實已經距離我們不遠。

自一九九三年二月台灣六十五歲以上老年人口占總人口比重跨越七%的「高齡化社會」門檻起,今年三月再上一階登上十四%的「高齡社會」,這一步,花了廿五年。其間,符合聯合國定義的「老年人口」足足增加了一八二萬人,達到三三一萬人。

(1993年>A之7% , 2017年>A之14%; A:六十五歲以上老年人口占總人口比重)

也就是說,在四分之一個世紀前,人口金字塔不再的警鈴即已響起,政府應從那時起就須推動各項對策。尤其,人口結構的調整及衍生的相應作為要顧及複雜的人口變化,包括生養、教育、醫療照護、公共建設、年金、移民、政治制度,乃至國家安全等,而且均非立竿見影的短期政策可見其效。但是,從現今少子化持續、長照舉步維艱、年金改革怨聲四起、世代衝突未止等現象檢視,前後六任政府顯然沒有掌握因應高齡社會來臨的黃金時間,如此蹉跎下來,不僅影響當下,更束縛未來解決的可能。

用人口結構的圖形來想像,理想的金字塔型─以幼齡人口為基底、高齡人口在塔尖,其架構的社會具有穩固的支撐基礎,且可以形成未來的中壯階層。反之,人口如果是倒金塔型,就不難以理解其經濟發展的危弱性。台灣的人口結構在一九六○年代曾是漂亮的金字塔,目前是中廣、兩頭平的壺型;以國發會的人口推估,若此情勢不變,再隔廿五年,就會接近倒金字塔了。

高齡社會不單單是個名詞,它代表的是人口結構的變化,而人口是經濟社會活動的基本要素,其改變帶來的影響將滲透於各個層面。近年政府因應的對策重心多放高齡、幼齡兩頭,也就是老年人口的照護安養,以及鼓勵生育、友善教養環境上;相對而言,較少關注十五至六十四歲工作年齡人口層的問題。其影響,雖不如扶老那麼直接而立即,卻正在點滴侵蝕經濟發展的根本,猶如隱藏版的經濟危機。

目前台灣工作年齡人口層的最大問題,就是成長緩慢,且很快就要縮減。據政府推估,工作人口層占比已自兩年前七十三%的高峰滑落,隨著總人口兩年後便可能出現負成長,其比率更將迅速下降。由於這個年齡層是社會的消費主力、生產主力、創新主力、儲蓄主力,更是扶養主力;一旦其成長之勢不再,表現在經濟活動上就是內需消費市場、生產效能、技術創新、資本累積都將失去再擴張的基礎,也就更難吸引投資。試想,這不正是近年來台灣經濟貧血式成長的病因所在?一旦惡化,經濟衰退豈不就在眼前?

高齡社會並非台灣獨有,不少已開發國家早已跨越這個門檻;然而,從高齡化社會進階到高齡社會的老年人口比率倍化時間,台灣跟日本相近,卻遠遠快於其他國家。更值得警惕的是,距離廿%的「超高齡社會」,最快八年就會到來,這比起日本的十一年及德國的卅六年都要快。台灣的高齡社會來得又急又猛,伴隨的經濟挑戰也相應到來,沒有太多時間讓政府慢慢因應,而須儘速面對。

目前政府因應高齡社會的政策分散在很多領域,一方面需要整合資源、落實政策、展現成果;一方面也要投注更多心力於工作年齡人力占比下降的課題,這是經濟成長困境的根本。現在鼓勵生育,效果將顯現在十五年後,中短期政策則應著重於勞動參與率的提升及社會人口移入的擴大,包括友善女性職場、延後退休年齡、延攬境外專業技能人才及移民政策等,都須加速研究推進。


 Written by Dr. Chao Yuang Shiang (趙永祥 博士)

 Faculty, Dep. of Finance, Nan Hua university

 (南華大學財務金融學系暨財務管理研究所 專任助理教授)

 30- May- 2018 



by 趙永祥 2018-05-21 15:25:07, 回應(0), 人氣(807)



退休理財影片(安心養老,老有所安)

(共計11個精彩小片段)

 

【人到中年】中年為退休生活做妥善規劃

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCKHPm52yGM

第一段  0000 - 0300

第二段  2120 - 2500


 

財經新視界:如何做好「退休規劃」

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G37DLwYv9DI

第三段  0030 - 0250

第四段  2700 - 3000

 


「以房養老」廣受歡迎老年理財如何規劃?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36Cxxnl_Y8w

第五段  1.    0030 - 0330

第六段  2.    0450 - 0700

第七段  3.    1400 - 1550

第八段  4.    1730 - 1930

第九段  5.    3000 - 3130

第十段  6.    3300 - 3500

117.    4330 - 4550

 


by 趙永祥 2018-05-11 12:27:53, 回應(1), 人氣(2172)



國際移動力的培養與重要性


全球在地化與競合時代
這是一個「全球在地化」(glocalization)的時代。由於資金、科技、資訊、文化、人才的快速地跨國流動,全球(global)與在地(local)的互動性,越來越強。兩者的連動關係,彰顯了自我與他者一體共生的有機關係。同時,這也是一個「競合」(co-petition)的時代,世界各國都處在一個既競爭(competition)又合作(cooperation)的狀態,這兩者的辯證關係,透露了以合作為競爭基礎的事實,但也弔詭地透露,沒有競爭力就無法與人合作的權力關係。

全球高等教育的發展趨勢也反映了上述的「國際化」現象,因此各國高教莫不把國際化當作學校發展重點,希望培養學生未來具有國際競爭力,因此積極透過各種手段策略,與各國友校建立國際合作關係,選送學生出國進修實習,透過交互培養或共同訓練,以增強學生的跨國交流學習的經驗,也同時大量招收外國學生,企圖創造「校園國際化」的學習環境,以培育學生國際化的素養與國際移動的能力(global mobility)

國際化養成教育三主軸
從教育觀點來看,學生跨國移動能力的培養,主要來自三方面的訓練:專業素養、溝通能力和生活能力。學生的專業素養是教育養成的核心價值,嫻熟的外語能力則是國際化溝通的工具,而良好的心理素質與調適能力,則是未來國際化社會必須的生活能力。

簡言之,專業力、語言力、適應力構成國際化養成教育的三個主軸。


專業力
這是個知識分化的時代,每個人依據自己的性向能力,選擇一個自己有興趣的領域,作為自己的專長領域,並在這個領域中深耕基礎知識,並學會分析與詮釋的方法,了解這個領域的歷史發展與未來展望,並對此一專長項目的國際性發展,能有明確的掌握。

專精一套知識,是建立自己基本能力的基礎。現代高教的教學目標強調學用合一,推動企業實習,知識轉移,畢業銜接就業。但據調查,現代人的一生平均轉換五次職業。因此只會一件事恐怕應付不了變遷快速的未來。而且大學所學的技術性知識離開學校後大概只夠用三年,因此學習不只是學習學科內容而已,更重要的是要學到「學習的能力」,培養求知的態度,才能應付未來的職業轉換。

知識來源分為已知領域和未知領域,前者是寫在教科書的經典知識,後者是尚未開發的知識。具有終生學習能力,才能面對無以名狀的未來。當前教育偏重理工科技運用的培養,強調即時的應用,對「無用為用」的軟性人文教育相對忽略。事實上,科技的訓練與人文的薰陶,對人的基本素質的提升,同樣重要。人文教育的價值在於發揮思考判斷的能力,以洞悉真理,直陳事物的核心,進而提出創意,解決問題。人文訓練不是工藝技術的訓練,它是一種心性的培養。人文素養並非人文學者的專利,大科學家愛因斯坦就具有良好的人文素養。愛因斯坦說:「人文教育的價值不是學習多少事實,而是訓練心智,去思考那些教科書沒教的東西。」(“The value of an education in a liberal arts college is not the learning of many facts but the training of the mind to think something that cannot be learned from textbooks.”)。良好的人文訓練,不是對已知知識的記誦,而是一種思考的訓練,用以學會未知的事物。具有良好人文素養與思考批判能力的人,對於跨領域的學習或不同學門的整合能力,也相對較強。自然比較能在不同的就業領域裡,發揮優越思考整合能力,進而提出有效解決問題的方法。因此專業力的養成,不應只是技術導向,更應兼顧心智的訓練,才能應付未來,終生受用。


語言力
這是個地球村的時代,人與人之間的接觸越來越頻繁,相對人與人之間的跨文化溝通,也越形重要。語言是一個國家國力的外顯,隨著時十九世紀大英帝國的崛起與二十世紀美國的新霸權,外加當前網路科技的全球化,英文已經成為全球溝通的共同語言。因此學好英文,才能一「技」在身,但英語力的養成,需要長期努力,非一夕可及。

英語力也是一種終生的能力,利用年輕在學的日子養成這個終生能力,無比重要。英語聽說讀寫的四種基本能力同樣重要,否則能寫不能說,或能說不能寫,都不足以應付國際化的競爭。英語能力可分為生活英語與專業英語。日常生活英語容易學,無須嚴謹的文法規範,輔以適當的肢體語言,也能達成一般性的溝通目的。專業英語的溝通則要求較高,若要在專業的領域,用英文暢所欲言,就需要長期耕耘。平常關心國際局勢變化的報導,也在工作中強化自己的專業知識與磨練自己的英語。具有良好的專業英語能力,才能開創自己的跨國工作機會。學者或政府單位的公職人員,才能在國際會議適當發言,參與討論,表達自我,甚至於加入國際組織,擔任委員,承辦國際性活動,進一步發揮國際影響力。

語言與文化息息相關,隨著全球化的到來,一種所謂的「全球英文」(global English)也跟著興起。全球英文強調跨文化溝通,以直接表述代替委婉修辭,減少使用英美厘語。全球英文也改變我們的英語學習,強調文化理解,設身處地,也尊重在地文化對全球英文表達模式的貢獻。例如,英文裡用“tunnel vision”來表示一個人的視野有限,但把中文的「井底之蛙」 轉化為英文“a frog in the well”,也可生動地表達同樣的意義。這種帶有華文特色的英文表達,也是我們利用英文發表意見抒發感情時,可以加以利用的文化語言資料庫。英文是全球溝通的主要工具,但最多人使用的中文也正在崛起。全球學習中文的人口正在急速成長。中文是我們的母語,更應該加強培養中文讀寫與批判表達的能力,為自己與國家創造更多的國際利基。


適應力
全球化影響了我們的學識養成歷程,也改變了我們與快速變遷社會的關係。在求學階段就必須磨練自己的適應環境能力,畢業工作時才能有較佳的調適能力去應付外在環境的轉變。大學裡的學習,除了課業的訓練,還有更重要的生活能力培養。

學校的社團提供了各種活動來磨練同學們領導與被領導的合作精神,學習組織、規劃、執行、與檢討的辦事能力。大學的理想色彩也鼓勵同學培養世界公民的素養,例如,許多的服務學習,已進入學校的課程體制,推動同學到海外擔任國際志工,以自己的熱情與專長,到全球需要協助的地方去服務。這種跨國的服務,除了愛心,還需要參與的人有良好的生活調適能力,才能在他鄉異國陌生落後的環境裡去服務他人。

此外,這也是個「在地訓練、全球就業」的年代。每個人都想進入好的公司工作,但是哪一家好公司不是跨國公司?不論是本國企業或外國集團,都是國際化的公司,你在台灣受教育,但將來的工作地點可能是在全球各地。因此如何能夠以開放的心胸、跨文化的包容、彈性的思維、獨立的能力,快速調適自己,融入變遷的環境,也成了檢驗一個人國際移動力的指標之一。

結語
國際移動力是國際競爭的關鍵能力。而專業力、語言力、適應力這三種能力的養成,刻不容緩。這三種能力的交集越大,你的移動能力就越強,勝算就越大。

by 趙永祥 2018-04-21 22:35:00, 回應(0), 人氣(1658)


What is the Difference Between Gambling and Investing?

"It is generally agreed that casinos should, in the public interest, be inaccessible and expensive. And perhaps the same is true of stock exchanges." 

- John Maynard Keynes


What is the difference between gambling and investing? 

In order to differentiate between the two, we should start by defining them. Comparisons are often made between the two activities, but I've never seen the terms explicitly defined. If you're sufficiently motivated, I encourage you to try to define the terms 'gambling' and 'investing' before you continue reading this essay...
you may surprise yourself. (Go ahead, I'll wait here for you.)

What definitions did you come up with? Are investing and gambling mutually exclusive, or is there an area of overlap? And are the boundaries clearly delineated, or is there a gray area in the middle?

Let's see what the dictionary says. Here's what the Random House dictionary on my bookshelf says:
  • Gamble: "To play at any game of chance for stakes. To stake or risk money, or anything of value, on the outcome of something involving chance."
  • Invest: "To put money to use, by purchase or expenditure, in something offering profitable returns."
Both seem reasonable upon cursory review, but a closer look reveals that they're not terribly helpful. The definition for gambling could apply just as well to investing, and vice-versa.

The Dictionary.com web site says:
  • Gamble: "To bet on an uncertain outcome, as of a contest. To take a risk in the hope of gaining an advantage or a benefit."
  • Invest: "To commit money or capital in order to gain a financial return."
Again, the distinction isn't clear. In investing, are you not betting on an uncertain outcome? Are you not taking a risk in the hope of gaining an advantage or benefit? In gambling, are you not committing money? Are you not doing it in order to gain a financial return?

Beyond the Dictionary

OK, so the dictionary definitions aren't very useful. Perhaps if we examine some of the ways in which gambling and investing are generally perceived to differ, we might be able to build definitions from those characteristics.

Investing is a good thing, gambling is a bad thing.

I think it would be hard to argue with the claim that investing is, on the balance, a good thing. Investing is widely regarded as the engine that drives capitalism. It tends to put money in the hands of those with the most promising and productive uses for it, and drives the economy gradually upward. Investors aren't merely betting on which companies will succeed, they're providing the capital those companies need to accomplish their goals. The U.S.'s leadership position in technology is largely due to investments by venture capital firms, angel investors and technophilic individual investors. Similarly, you can change the world in a small way by investing in companies you believe in, such as socially or environmentally conscious firms and mutual funds, or biotech companies that are working on diseases that might affect you or someone close to you.

Gambling, on the other hand, is not so clearly making a positive contribution. Gambling does tend to help local economies, but also usually brings with it well-documented unpleasant side effects. I'll leave it up to the reader to decide whether gambling is, on the balance, a plus or a minus. Looking to the financial markets, one could make the case that people who gamble in this realm do serve a function, by adding to the market's depth, liquidity, transparency, and efficiency. But that's of relatively minor value, and those gamblers probably capture most of that value for themselves. On the other hand, they often increase the volatility of the markets, which is on the balance usually a negative (although it does afford savvy investors opportunities for larger profits). As Warren Buffett has said,
"Wall Street likes to characterize the proliferation of frenzied financial games as a sophisticated, prosocial activity, facilitating the fine-tuning of a complex economy. But the truth is otherwise: Short-term transactions frequently act as an invisible foot, kicking society in the shins."

The questions of whether gambling is morally wrong and how strictly it should be regulated are important but are well beyond the scope of this essay, and so I'll mention them only in passing. Governments generally frown on gambling (unless, of course, they're getting the lion's share of the profits, such as with state lotteries). Many religions frown on gambling (but they don't seem to mind church bingo). I have no problem with a person being morally opposed to gambling, as long as that person knows exactly what he/she means by 'gambling'.

I should hasten to add that not all types of investing are productive. Buying and holdingresults in a positive contribution to the economy, but buying and selling quickly, the way day traders do, results in no net contribution. For the purposes of the current investigation, we could either reclassify investing-type activities that aren't productive as gambling, or we could consider these to be exceptions to the rule. I lean toward the latter interpretation.

In investing, the odds are in your favor; in gambling, the odds are against you.

Peter Lynch has said that
"An investment is simply a gamble in which you've managed to tilt the odds in your favor."

But that position is too simplistic. There are plenty of investments where the odds are against you: futures, options, and commodities trading (where you get hurt on commissions and the bid/ask spread), frequent stock trading (for the same reason), and selling short (since the market goes up rather than down in the long run), to name just a few examples. Similarly, while for most types of gambling the odds are against you, it is possible for the odds to be in your favor. I spent one summer during college working in Arizona, and I drove up to Nevada most weekends to play blackjack. By counting cards, I was able to obtain a small but predictable advantage over the house, about 1.5% per betting unit on average. (I haven't returned since then, for several reasons: it's not intellectually challenging; while card counting is not illegal, Vegas casinos can make you leave if they suspect you of doing it; and I've found it easier and more enjoyable to make money in stocks than in blackjack.) Expert poker players can also make money at casinos, because their competition is other players rather than the house, and as long as the house takes its cut it doesn't care how the rest of the money is redistributed among the players.

There are additional problems with this attempted characterization of gambling as a losing bet and investing as a winning bet. It implies that a given activity switches from gambling to investing (or vice versa) as soon as the odds swing past the breakeven point. Similarly, if two players are participating in an activity in which one has an advantage over the other, it would mean that one person is gambling and the other is investing. That would imply that institutions which get in on IPOs at the offering price would be investors, and the little folks that those institutions immediately flip the shares to for a profit would be gamblers. Furthermore, while it's possible to calculate exact odds for some casino games, this is rarely the case on Wall Street. How can you know for sure whether the odds are for or against you if you decide to buy a particular stock today?

What about venture capital investments, you say? Aren't the odds stacked against them? Yes, the majority of venture capital investments result in loss, often a total loss of the amount invested. However, venture funds typically yield higher returns than stocks because a small percentage of the firm's investments are home runs, more than making up for complete losses on other investments. So while venture capital might seem like gambling in that the odds are against the VC firms on any given bet, on average the expected payoff is positive, so the odds in the long run are actually in their favor.

Gambling can be addictive and destructive, but investing can't.

Compulsive gambling has been correctly identified as a problem, and organizations like Gamblers Anonymous are helping people cope with the problem. No similar problem is generally thought to exist in investing. There is no Investors Anonymous, and no one talks about compulsive investors. But while there isn't yet widespread acknowledgement of investing addiction, there will be soon. Marvin Steinberg, executive director of the Connecticut Council on Compulsive Gambling, recently said this about investing addiction:
"We don't know the true extent of the problem because hardly anyone identifies it as a gambling problem -- they see it as a 'financial problem' or an 'investing problem.' "

Many online investors who claim to be buy-and-hold investors check their portfolios on a daily or hourly basis, and jump in and out of stocks more often than they realize. Active trading can be expensive, both in terms of the commissions and bid/ask spreads and in terms of emotional fatigue. Also, some people invest more aggressively than they should, which is virtually identical to gamblers who bet more money than they can afford to lose. This page provides a list of questions to help a person determine if he/she might be a compulsive gambler. Replace the word 'gambler' with 'investor' for each question and the questionnaire is equally useful, but for a different purpose.

Gambling is entertainment, investing is business.

As Brad Hill has said,
"Global financial markets represent the greatest spectator sport humanity has ever devised. It has planetary reach, a multitude of local competitive arenas, volumes of statistics, star players, and -- best of all -- anyone can move between the domains of observer and participant, fan and player. If you squint just right, the steadfast newscasters of CNBC appear to be play-by-play announcers, calling the game for U.S. fans. And do financial sections of newspapers differ from sports sections in their presentation of story, data, and personality? Not essentially."

While the 'gambling as entertainment, investing as business' dichotomy may have been clear in the past, the line is being blurred. The internet has enabled online brokerages and other financial web sites to revolutionize retail investing, which on the balance is a tremendous benefit to both individual investors and the economy in general. However, the widespread accessibility of cheap online trades has also attracted some people who enjoy betting and view online trading as a new form of entertainment. The major factors accelerating this trend are that gambling is strictly regulated and not ubiquitous, and that the odds are usually better in investing than in gambling.

Chris Anderson, executive director of the Illinois Council on Problem and Compulsive Gambling, has said that compulsive gambling isn't really about making money, it's about "action", and the lure of the big win. While I'm not a neuroscientist, I suspect that the chemical changes that occur in the brains of compulsive gamblers and compulsive day traders are similar, since they're both riding on the same emotional roller coaster of wins and losses. Similarly, while some people who invest in high-tech stocks do it for the potential returns, others do it because of the rush they get from the tremendous volatility. It feels right to classify the latter group as gamblers rather than investors.

I don't mean to imply that I think it's acceptable to gamble for entertainment but not to invest for entertainment. I think both are equally acceptable, provided the person enjoys the activity (as opposed to feeling a compulsion to participate) and provided the person uses only money he/she can afford to lose. But I'm probably not the best person to make a judgment on this question, because I've never found either gambling or investing to be entertaining... my goal has always been value creation rather than enjoyment, and I place bets only where the odds are most heavily in my favor, not where I expect to find the most excitement.

Investing is saving for specific goals, such as retirement, while gambling isn't.

Many people regard investing as a planned strategy of wealth-building for specific future goals. And this is certainly true of some types of investing. But this is largely a by-product of having the odds in one's favor. If you have the edge (whether in blackjack or in equities), time and the laws of probability are a powerful combination. Gambling would work just as well as investing for financial event planning if gambling games were in your favor.

Investors are risk-averse, while gamblers are risk-seekers.

Risk-taking is intrinsic to both gambling and investing. There are a few investments that don't entail risk, such as fixed annuities and government bonds held to maturity, but even those have inflation risk. The major difference between the two groups seems to be the participant's relative willingness to accept risk. Investors tend to avoid risk unless adequately compensated for taking it, but gamblers don't. To put it another way, investors take only the risks they should take, while gamblers also take some risks they shouldn't take. Would you rather have $50 or a 50/50 chance at $100? If you take the $50, you're an investor. If you go for all or nothing, you're a gambler. Would you rather put your money under your mattress or in an extremely volatile stock that could go bankrupt or could double in value? The question is slightly different, but the answer is equally instructive. If you expect to double your money quickly, whatever you're doing is probably gambling, even if it happens on Wall Street rather than in Las Vegas.

However, this characterization of gamblers as risk-takers applies only to non-professional gamblers, people who visit Atlantic City for a weekend for entertainment purposes. Professional gamblers who have managed to tip the odds in their favor behave more like investors, shying away from risk unless the reward is sufficient to justify taking the chance. In fact, one could make the argument that investors generally take on more risk than professional gamblers, because of the uncertainly inherent in the financial markets. As I mentioned before, it's difficult for investors to calculate how much of an advantage they have, but the odds of a given gambling strategy can be known either precisely or at least approximately.

Investing is a continuous process; gambling is an immediate event or series of events.

This rule does seem to hold in most cases. Investing is a continuous process of deployment of capital in search of continually increasing net worth. As a result, delayed gratification is implied. Gambling is a specific act or series of acts, centered around immediate gratification. In this respect, day trading resembles gambling: the participant gets in, the price moves up or down, and he/she gets out, usually in a matter of minutes. The same could be said of buying with the belief that a stock is about to jump, or buying IPO shares with the intention of flipping them in a few hours or days, or buying options which are close to expiration. On the other hand, buying in the belief that a stock's price will eventually reflect its value, with the plan of holding as long as it takes for this to happen, is more like investing.

Investing is the ownership of something tangible; gambling isn't.

The latter half of the statement is certainly true, but the former half is only sometimes true. Some investments involve the ownership of something tangible, but many don't. For example, derivatives are investments 'derived' from other investments. An option is a derivative that gives the owner the right to buy or sell a specific amount of a given security at a specified price during a specified period of time. Options are generally classified as investing rather than gambling, and rightly so, but they do not represent ownership of anything tangible. However, when you realize that an option is essentially a bet that a given security will or won't be above a certain price on or by a certain date, it starts to feel more like gambling than investing.

An even more strict definition of investing would require that it involves the purchase of an asset which either produces a stream of income or can be made to produce a stream of income. But this definition would eliminate such assets as collectibles, stamps, art, and gold, which have no intrinsic value. I don't think it makes sense to exclude them simply on this basis. We might choose not to consider them investments because of their poor long-term performance, but we shouldn't choose not to consider them investments simply because they won't ever produce a stream of income.

Investing is based on skill and requires the use of a system based on research, while gambling is based on luck and emotions.

A lot of so-called investors don't do nearly as much research as they should. Many buy on tips or rumors, or based on some analyst's price target, without doing their own exhaustive research. It feels right to call such behavior gambling. Similarly, investors who are making decisions based on emotions (especially greed and fear), rather than remaining emotionally detached and sticking with their strategy, are to some extent gambling.

On the other side of the coin, some gamblers do serious research, often paying hundreds of dollars a month for real time data on what the current lines are (for example, on http://www.scoresandodds.com or http://www.vegasinsider.com). Professional sports investors devote 12 hours a day, every day, to handicapping sports. They read dozens of newspapers, subscribe to line services, maintain inside contacts, and have years of experience, usually on both sides of the betting counter. These professionals keep their emotions away from the decision-making process. Once they have a system that works for them, they don't second-guess it, focusing on long-term profits instead of day-to-day performance. Also, they concentrate on the areas in which they achieve maximum results. Many professionals bet only on one sport, which bears more than a superficial resemblance to Warren Buffett's idea of staying within one's "circle of competence".

While investing and gambling probably initially appear to be worlds apart, the above attempts at differentiation revealed that the actual differences are smaller than the perceived differences, and that there is a significant gray area in the middle. Based on the above characterizations, it is clear that the appropriate classification isn't wholly dependent on the activity, but also on the way in which the activity is conducted. There's a big difference between buying a stock after thoroughly researching it and buying a stock by hitting it on a dartboard. This is true even if the same stock happens to be chosen. Similarly, there's a big difference between buying exotic derivatives to hedge against an existing risk or position and buying the same derivatives because you saw a web site touting them. As a final example, there's a big difference between buying a government bond in order to collect the interest it earns and buying the same bond in the belief that interest rates are about to drop and the bond's value will skyrocket.

One interesting thing to note is the pattern of exceptions to the attempted characterizations. Most of the exceptions were people who were doing investing-related things but weren't behaving like investors, or people who were doing gambling-related things but weren't behaving like gamblers. Of the four groups, recreational investors, professional investors, recreational gamblers, professional gamblers, there are more similarities between the two recreational groups and between the two professional groups than between the two investing groups and between the two gambling groups. Specifically, those who use a rigorous system, do research, tilt the odds in their favor, treat it as a business rather than as entertainment, avoid addiction, and keep their emotions in check tend to behaving like investors, and those who don't tend to be behaving like gamblers. It might not be such a stretch to call professional gamblers 'investors' and recreational investors 'gamblers'.

A Third Option: Speculating

Another possibility is that the two terms 'gambling' and 'investing' aren't sufficient to cover the entire range of activities under consideration. A third term, 'speculating', is often used to straddle the two, specifically to handle activities that would ordinarily be considered investing but are done in a way that make them feel more like gambling.

In The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money, John Maynard Keynes defined speculation as "the activity of forecasting the psychology of the market", and speculative motive as "the object of securing profit from knowing better than the market with the future will bring." Many people consider billionaire George Soros to be an investor, but he prefers the term speculator. In fact, he has said that "an investment is a speculation that has gone wrong." What he means by this is that, among speculators, an 'investment' is the name they give to a speculation that didn't work out the way they expected and that left them stuck with a position they hope will improve with time. Soros and other speculators make their predictions partially based on market psychology, and in this respect their behavior fits perfectly with the Keynes' definition of speculation. But there is much more to speculating than just interpreting market psychology, and this definition isn't sufficiently distinct from the ones we formulated for gambling and investing in the above section.

According to the dictionary on my bookshelf, speculation is "the engagement in business transactions involving considerable risk for the chance of large gains." By this definition, the entire distinction rests on the degree of risk and size of potential gains. In support of this definition, bond rating agencies commonly use the term "speculative" to refer to high-risk bonds (those rated below BBB by S&P or Baa by Moody's).

In their book Investments, Zvi Bodie, Alex Kane, and Alan Marcus argue that "a gamble is the assumption of risk for no purpose but enjoyment of the risk itself, whereas speculation is undertaken in spite of the risk involved because one perceives a favorable risk-return trade-off." But this is too simplistic... no one would play casino games if the only possible outcomes were either breaking even or losing; the rush they experience comes from the possibility of winning and not merely from the taking of risk. They continue: "To turn a gamble into a speculative prospect requires an adequate risk premium for compensation to risk-averse investors for the risks that they bear. Hence risk aversion and speculation are not inconsistent." This part I agree with. In fact, whether they realize it or not, their definition reclassifies gambling as speculation when the odds can be sufficiently tipped in the player's favor, such as in professional blackjack or poker, which fits in nicely with argument made in the previous section.

Zvi Bodie et al appear to be saying that in order to be speculating rather than gambling, the person must not take greater risks than are justified by the potential reward. Others say that in order to be speculating rather than investing the person must be taking greater risks than are justified by the potential reward. For example, in Benjamin Graham and David Dodd's classic Security Analysis, they argue that "an investment operation is one which upon thorough analysis promises safety of principal and an adequate return. Operations not meeting these requirements are speculative." Both positions are defensible. But perhaps a better interpretation would rest on the realization that different investors have different tolerances for risk. Perhaps speculators are those who are risk-neutral, while gamblers are risk-seekers and investors are risk-averse. While adding the term 'speculation' to the mix might have some value, it probably adds more confusion than clarification, so I prefer to leave it out and focus on just 'gambling' and 'investing'.

Conclusions

So what's my resolution to this definition conundrum? Well, the purpose of words is to communicate concepts. So it doesn't really matter what definitions you use, as long as you and the person(s) you're communicating with are clear about what is meant by those words. And even more importantly, as long as you know what you're doing, investing or gambling, before you do it.

But with that said, it would be beneficial if everyone could agree on what the terms mean, so we don't need to make our definitions explicit every time we want to use them. To this end, I offer the following definitions, which are built from the various characterizations in the above section:

Investing:
"Any activity in which money is put at risk for the purpose of making a profit, and which is characterized by some or most of the following (in approximately descending order of importance): sufficient research has been conducted; the odds are favorable; the behavior is risk-averse; a systematic approach is being taken; emotions such as greed and fear play no role; the activity is ongoing and done as part of a long-term plan; the activity is not motivated solely by entertainment or compulsion; ownership of something tangible is involved; a net positive economic effect results."

Gambling:
"Any activity in which money is put at risk for the purpose of making a profit, and which is characterized by some or most of the following (in approximately descending order of importance): little or no research has been conducted; the odds are unfavorable; the behavior is risk-seeking; an unsystematic approach is being taken; emotions such as greed and fear play a role; the activity is a discrete event or series of discrete events not done as part of a long-term plan; the activity is significantly motivated by entertainment or compulsion; ownership of something tangible is not involved; no net economic effect results."

Speculating - I would prefer to avoid this term entirely, but if necessary I would define it as:
"Investing or gambling characterized by a high degree of risk and a high potential for reward."

Are you disappointed that I didn't crystallize the essence of gambling and investing into a single distinguishing feature? Did I merely sidestep the ambiguity, and sweep the gray areas and the important exceptions under the rug? I don't think so. The taxonomy doesn't have to be completely distinct in order to be useful, nor does it need to be just a single feature. And just because some of the characterizations had exceptions doesn't mean they should be thrown out entirely. Nearly everyone agrees that the concept of 'chair' is a useful one, even though it's difficult to define exactly what the necessary and sufficient characteristics of a chair are.

Why Does it Matter?

  • Lawmakers and regulatory bodies need to be clear on what the terms mean, so they understand the scope of their legislation and regulation, regarding prohibited behavior, adequate disclosure, participant protection and similar issues. In general, I'm in favor of less regulation and more disclosure for both activities described as gambling and those described as investing, but I'm no expert on the subject and a thorough discussion is beyond the scope of this essay.
  • Everyone needs to realize how easy the internet makes it to gamble under the guise of investing. When people use generic terms without ever specifying what they mean, it's easy for those terms to gradually change in meaning, and I think that's exactly what the internet is causing to happen. I don't mean to imply that the internet's democratization of investing is a bad thing. In fact, I think it's the one of the most important developments in the history of investing. My hope in pointing this out is to awaken those individuals who are acting like gamblers but who think they're acting like investors.
  • Investing addiction is as serious as gambling addiction, and should be treated as such. If more people start to view buying and selling stocks online as a way to get the betting rush that previously required a trip to a casino, is there any reason to think the same negative consequences that follow gambling won't also follow investing? Perhaps investing addiction is not getting the attention it deserves because most people are attaching to it all the positive connotations of investing and none of the negative connotations of gambling.
  • Those who have ethical problems or religious issues with gambling (or even investing) owe it to themselves to figure out exactly what they object to and why. As I mentioned, I have no such ethical problems with either gambling or investing, but again, this discussion is beyond the scope of this essay.
I'll leave it to Benjamin Graham to further emphasize why such clarity is essential. In The Intelligent Investor he said:
"The distinction between investment and speculation in common stocks has always been a useful one and its disappearance is a cause for concern. We have often said that Wall Street as an institution would be well advised to reinstate this distinction and to emphasize it in all dealings with the public. Otherwise the stock exchanges may some day be blamed for heavy speculative losses, which those who suffered them had not been properly warned against."

He continues:
"Outright speculation is neither illegal, immoral, nor (for most people) fattening to the pocketbook . . . There is intelligent speculation as there is intelligent investing. But there are many ways in which speculation may be unintelligent. Of these the foremost are: (1) speculating when you think you are investing; (2) speculating seriously instead of as a pastime, when you lack proper knowledge and skill for it; and (3) risking more money in speculation than you can afford to lose."

I agree completely, and I suspect that his use of the term 'speculating' is very similar to this essay's use of the term 'gambling'.

Special Disclaimer

  1. This essay is not meant to condone gambling, or to suggest that you cash out your portfolio and become a professional blackjack or poker player. Those are tough ways to make money, and were mentioned primarily for illustrative purposes.
  2. We recommend that you get assistance from a professional before doing anything you don't know how to do.
  3. Some of these activities, especially those considered gambling, might not be legal in certain places. Even if you find bets for which the odds are in your favor, we encourage you to make sure your chosen activity is legal before participating.

http://www.investorguide.com/article/12525/what-is-the-difference-between-gambling-and-investing/

by 趙永祥 2018-03-17 06:30:43, 回應(0), 人氣(961)



ADD TO WATCHLIST
VIG
Vng Dvdnd Aprct
103.93
 
+0.26%
SYK
Stryker Corp
167.51
 
+0.64%
View Watchlist



Stock investors looking for ways to "de-risk" their portfolio at the peak of the market make

 a big mistake by simply rushing into bonds, according to Barron's. Instead, they should 

pursue a multifaceted approach. "It's more about reducing the risks within an asset class, 

rather than changing the asset mix," as David Lafferty, market strategist at Natixis Global 

Asset Management, told Barron's.

 (For more, see also: Is It Time To Lock In Your Stock Gains?)

Among the de-risking suggestions from investment professionals interviewed by 

Barron's: increase your diversification across countries and regions; put your U.S. stock 

allocation into higher-quality companies; and choose bonds carefully, since "some of the 

biggest risks lie in bonds," Barron's warns. 

(For more, see also: Stocks Face "Nasty Shock" From Fed-Created Bubble.)

Source: Barron's

Foreign Stocks


Even after posting large gains so far in 2017, European and emerging markets stocks 

offer cheaper valuations and better earnings growth prospects than most U.S. equities, 

Barron's says. The Oakmark International Investor Fund 

(OAKIX) and the Baron Emerging Markets Fund (BEXFX) have good records of success 

in finding undervalued companies that offer long-term growth, according to Barron's. 

The Oakmark fund has delivered a total return of 36.5% during the past year, placing it in the top 1% of funds in its category, per Morningstar Inc. It also has been in the top 2% in the last three, five and ten-year periods. The Baron fund has a total return of 26.9% during the past year, putting in the top 43% of its category, per Morningstar. It was in the top 4% for the last five-year period.

The Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund (VGSTX) has delivered a total return 

of 24.2% over the past year, placing it in the top 33% of its category, per Morningstar

This fund is designed to track the MSCI All-Country World Index Excluding U.S., and Morningstar considers its peer group to be foreign large blended funds.


Higher Quality U.S. Stocks

The Jensen Quality Growth Fund (JENRX) has been upgrading an already high quality 

in order to reduce risk, Barron's says, adding that portfolio co-manager Eric Schoenstein 

cites medical device maker Stryker Corp. 

(SYKSYKStryker Corp167.51+0.64%) as an underappreciated growth stock. 

Meanwhile, fund manager Thomas Huber of the  T. Rowe Price Dividend Growth Fund 

(PRDGX) tells Barron's that medical device makers and financial stocks offer relatively 

cheap valuations along with good growth prospects. 

(For more, see also: Which Stocks May Outperform in the Next Market Crash.)

The Jensen fund's total return of 20.9% over the past year has lagged both the S&P 500 

Index (SPX) and 81% of its peers, according to Morningstar. Longer-term, over the past 

ten years, it has been in the top 34% of its peer group. The fund from T. Rowe Price, 

meanwhile, has delivered a total return of 19.6% over the past year, behind 76% of its 

category, but it is in the top 13% for the last ten-year period, per Morningstar

The Vanguard Dividend Appreciation ETF

 (VIGVIGVng Dvdnd Aprct103.93+0.26%) is up 19.4% over the past year and currently 

yields 1.8%, per Investopedia data.

Beware of Credit Risk

In reaching for yield, bond investors have been loading up on high-yield debt with high 

credit risk. The problem with that approach, Barron's says, is that high-yield bonds act 

more like stocks, and thus do not reduce the risk associated with a stock portfolio. 

Meanwhile, many bond funds have increased their exposure to high-yield debt, 

according to research by Morningstar cited by Barron's. 

The bond funds listed in the table above, by contrast, have "gone light on credit risk," 

per Barron's. Moreover, the MetWest fund has had one of the lowest correlations with 

stocks over the past decade, Barron's adds.



Read more: How To 'De-Risk' Your Stock Portfolio For A Crash | Investopedia 

by 趙永祥 2018-03-07 21:26:22, 回應(0), 人氣(916)



The current bull market is just days away from becoming nine years old, given that the previous bear market came to an end with the close of trading on March 9, 2009. Many investors wonder how much longer it can go. Famed investor and market watcher Mohammed El-Erian writes on March 4, as printed in the Financial Times: "The particular sequence of the last month—abrupt correction followed by a rapid bounce back and then last week's pull back—raises interesting questions as to whether markets are in the initial phase of a prolonged sell-off or, instead, being placed on a stronger medium-term footing. The answer to that question will be answered by five factors."

Those five factors are: economic growth; monetary policy; the yield curve; volatility and liquidity; and investor complacency. The Investopedia Anxiety Index (IAI) records very high levels of concern about the securities markets among our millions of readers around the world. While the S&P 500 Index (SPX) has risen by 303% since the end of the last bear market, it is down by 5.0% from its high at the close on January 26, and up by just 2.0% year-to-date through the close on March 6. Meanwhile, volatility as measured by the CBOE Volatility Index (VIX) surged in January, adding to worries among investors who had gotten used to steady gains in stock prices.

Resume in Brief

A contributor to Bloomberg and the Financial Times, El-Erian is the chief economic adviser at Allianz SE, the parent company of asset management firm Pimco, where he previously was CEO and co-chief investment officer (CIO). Among other positions, he also headed the Global Development Council under President Barack Obama, was CEO of the Harvard Management Co., which invests that university's endowment, was a managing director at Salomon Smith Barney (later acquired by Citigroup, then sold to Morgan Stanley), and was a deputy director of the IMFper Bloomberg.


1. Economic Growth

"Supported by pro-growth policies in the U.S. and a natural economic healing process in Europe, the global economy is in the midst of synchronized pick-up in growth," El-Erian writes. He is encouraged by the fact that consumption and business investment have been the major drivers of growth, rather than "financial engineering." Continued strong economic fundamentals are essential for the markets, he says, and he looks for the markets to be less reliant on liquidity from central banks in the form of asset purchases, or on liquidity from companies in the form of share buybacks, dividends, and acquisitions. He also believes that "growth can gain additional momentum if the world avoids a costly stagflationary trade war."


2. Monetary Policy

An upbeat sign for the U.S. economy, per El-Erian, is that economic growth has strengthened despite tightening by the Federal Reserve in the form of interest rate increases, announcements of future increases, and the cessation of asset purchases called quantitative easing. Indications that other leading central banks will follow a similar path also have failed to derail growth overseas, he notes. However, it remains to be seen, he adds, whether growth will persist "if the policy transition becomes more simultaneous [among]...several systemically-important central banks."


3. The Yield Curve

El-Erian sees a "relatively orderly" increase in bond yields that is reducing incentives for excessive risk taking. Moreover, he believes that the flat yield curve is primarily the result of "investment flows and bond issuance patterns," rather than forces that herald a "significant economic slowdown."


4. Volatility and Liquidity

He also finds it encouraging that volatility as measured by the VIX has increased to a more "realistic and sustainable range" than existed before the correction. Meanwhile, the recent implosion of exotic investment products linked to the VIX, as well as the interest shown by regulators in their failure, should remind investors of the importance of liquidity, he adds. (For more, see also: Stock Sell-Off Has Worrisome Similarities to 2008 Crisis.)


5. Investor Complacency

Another positive sign for El-Erian is that the return of volatility seems to have made investors less confident, and less certain that buying the dips will guarantee gains. In particular, the refusal of central banks to "immediately provide markets with comforting signals" during the correction gave a needed jolt to investor complacency, he adds. "Further progress on all five of these issues would put markets on a firmer footing and lower the risk of a much more dramatic and durable market sell-off," he concludes. (For more, see also: Why Stock Investors Can't Count on a Fed Rescue.)


Red Flags

Meanwhile, quantitative strategists at Bank of America Merrill Lynch note that 13 of their 19 "bear market signposts," or 68%, have been tripped, CNBC reports. These include economic, monetary, earnings and technical indicators, CNBC says, noting "Nearly all of them have usually been triggered before past bear markets."

Additionally, while sustained bear market declines of 20% or more are rare outside of a recession, the current bull market offers a more complicated picture, CNBC indicates, since stock valuations and stock prices raced ahead of the real economy, with stocks eventually becoming "over-owned and over-loved" by January of this year. Whether some over-compensation to the downside is long overdue remains a matter for debate.



Read more: 5 Ways to Stabilize a Volatile Stock Market: El-Erian | Investopedia 

by 趙永祥 2018-02-26 19:01:02, 回應(0), 人氣(953)



大學生如何做好時間管理?

錦曩在左下方附加檔案

by 趙永祥 2018-01-16 08:21:09, 回應(2), 人氣(2213)

  處世錦曩系列之97 竹子哲學

竹子哲學,有多少人熬不過那 3 公分⋯

現在就來看看,你忍不忍得住這三公分….


竹子有四個器官:

一、竹根

竹根是竹子最堅硬的部份,由側芽可以生竹筍成竹稈。

二、竹稈

竹稈為中空有節,成長迅速,是竹子最具有經濟價值的部份。

三、竹葉

竹葉扁平先端形狀尖銳,底部鈍形或稍具圓狀,具有落葉性。

四、竹筍

竹筍是竹自根基生出的嫩芽,為竹籜所包裹。竹筍又稱竹胎和竹芽。

竹子的一生

竹子的開花是一種自然的現象,也是表示竹子生命快結束的一種徵兆。
一般竹子在要開花的前一年,即不長筍,開花後,竹稈在一、二年內就會乾枯死亡,但在竹稈枯死後,竹林仍會繁殖下去,因為竹子的地下莖沒有枯死,而且落地的種子也會生根,經過五至十年後再重新長出幼苗,但是竹子開花的週期很難預測,從三十年到百年以上的都有,甚至有的竹種沒有開花的紀錄。

竹子的成長過程

竹子用了4年的時間,才僅僅生長了3公分。

卻在第五年開始,以每天30公分的速度瘋狂的成長,在這個衝刺期,僅僅用了六週的時間,就可以長到了15公尺。
竹子用了 4 年時間扎穩根基…

其實,我們看不到的是在前面的四年,竹子將根在土壤裡延伸了數百平米,紮實了根基…..
就像做人做事一樣,不要擔心。
你此時此刻的付出得不到回報,或是看不到成長就放棄,因為你的付出都是為了紮根。
突破竹子的極限,你就是有做大事的特質。
那麼,做大事的人,有什麼特質呢?

做大事的人,有10大特質

1、忍得住孤獨

2、耐得住寂寞

3、挺得住痛苦

4、頂得住壓力

5、擋得住誘惑

6、經得起折騰

7、受得起打擊

8、丟得起面子

9、擔得起責任

10、提得起精神

竹子四年只長3公分?
但是到第五年瘋狂長高….
(假如換成我們,是不是在第四年已經放棄長高的機會了呢?)
管理
by 趙永祥 2017-12-26 08:17:42, 回應(2), 人氣(1882)


忘掉失業!台灣大缺工時代來了 趨勢系列(一)

撰文◎臧聲遠
銀髮產業將是台灣今後成長最快的服務業,不只是長照,還有其他新工作正在誕生
  











台灣勞動市場的演變軌跡可粗分為4個階段:1.1980年代中期傳統產業外移,留下長達20年的中高齡失業後遺症。2.本世紀第一個10年,勞動市場主旋律逐漸轉向青年失業問題。3.2015年起,在高齡∕少子化趨勢下,「缺工」問題逐漸凌駕於「失業」問題之上。4.到了2025年,智慧科技全面成熟並展開人力替代,包括台灣在內的全球就業者都將面臨空前的挑戰。

小鮮肉怎麼不見了?

  台灣正在以全球最快的速度奔向超高齡社會(=1/5人口超過65歲),每年退休離開勞動市場的人數,已經超過年輕新血輪的遞補。而少子化的第一波,目前正就讀大學二年級,兩年後即將畢業,屆時企業將會赫然發現,「小鮮肉怎麼不見了?」根據國發會推估,2015~2025年台灣勞動力將減少100萬人,幾乎是現有勞動力的1/10。台灣步入大缺工時代,這對求職者無異是一種「人口紅利」,企業將面臨更大的調薪壓力。同樣高齡∕少子化的日本,失業率降至2.8%的超低水準,這也將是幾年後台灣的寫照。

  目前國內缺工以製造業、高齡照護特別嚴重。許多家高科技大廠和金融業者由於人力補不齊,不得不在今年下半年展開二度、甚至三度大型招募,這是往年看不到的景象。股王大立光10月在嘉義現場招募90人,結果只有3人應徵,這是就業市場嚴重的警訊。未來缺工將衝擊所有行業,尤其勞力密集的服務業更是震央所在。企業只有兩條路,一是破除年齡歧視,晉用中高齡勞工;二是積極以智慧科技取代人力。

中高齡再就業 勞資有志一同

  中高齡人力開發,不只企業需要,勞工本身也需要。政府推動年金改革的結果,一方面延後退休金的請領年齡,迫使在職者工做到更老;另方面退休金縮水,再加上低利率環境,靠利息養老成為泡影,不少已退休者也被迫重返職場,賺取補充性收入。在勞資雙方都有共同需求下,台灣也可能像美國和日本那樣,高齡銀髮族傾巢而出,成為新興就業大軍。對許多熟齡者來說,「退休」將是一個奢侈的名詞,必須「終身受雇」才能維生;職涯規劃不再只是青年期的課題,直到60、70歲還是得持續做職涯規劃。

  因應勞動力老化,勞動制度的彈性化更顯迫切。因為中高齡勞工的多樣性遠甚於青年,舉凡個人健康、父母照護、子女養育、房貸負擔、財富狀況、退休金準備……,彼此差異甚大,不見得每個人都需要一份全職工作;而退休與在職之間,也未必是「0或1」的選擇,而有可能是「0或1/2」、「0或1/3」的選擇,例如採取全日短工時(每天上班6小時)、隔日上班等彈性制度。這不但契合銀髮族的實際需求,所釋放出來的工時與薪資,也可擴大雇用青年世代,達到「青銀世代工作共享」。台灣僵硬的勞動法令,在一例一休之後,接下來恐將面對中高齡彈性工作的挑戰。

銀髮產業 不只是老人長照!

  中高齡就業機會增長,首先會反映在長照產業上;中年世代照顧老年世代,是世界各國的常態。雖然銀髮產業將是台灣今後成長最快的服務業,但長照並不等於銀髮產業的全部,還有其他多采多姿的新工作正在誕生,向青年世代招手。例如數位多媒體設計背景→老人復健遊戲設計、體育背景→老人樂齡與復健運動、食品營養背景→高齡專用食品研發、居家修繕專業→老人便利屋服務……,新機會將如雨後春筍般湧現。

2018年的就業環境,有哪些特別值得關注的趨勢?

有哪些新的工作機會、人力缺口將發生?

又有哪些職務將消失?

當新科技顛覆未來工作樣貌,你我將如何生存? 

封面故事: 2018亮點產業&企業 十大熱門人才出列! 

搶攻10大熱門職種│就業困人才的10個新出路 展望2018,人才地理往哪裡流動? 

AI與機器學習成決勝主戰場?  八大產業趨勢全解析,尋找新亮點。

by 趙永祥 2017-12-26 01:32:18, 回應(0), 人氣(1223)


《星雲大師全集》-我的寫作因緣 星雲大師:

「曾有記者問過我,為什麼熱愛文字編輯,終身不輟?因為文字是生生不息的循環,是弘法的資糧,人不在,文字還在。一個人因為一句話而受用,這輩子,乃至下輩子,都會對佛教有好感。透過文字媒介,不只是這個時代、不只這個區域的人,都可以接觸到佛陀偉大的思想,幾千、幾萬年以後,此星球他星球的眾生,也可以從文字般若中體會實現般若的妙義。」 《星雲大師全集》收錄星雲大師至今所有的著作,全套365冊、12大類,共3千餘萬字、5萬篇條目,是學習人間佛教從信仰、家居、生活、做人處事、入世、就業、修行等,行解並重的理論與解脫的方法,是認識佛教的智庫寶藏,百年難得的至聖寶典。

《星雲大師全集》-我的寫作因緣

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqmGzXAHPfc


by 趙永祥 2017-12-15 23:46:12, 回應(1), 人氣(1736)


Google買下宏達電團隊 投審會通過

2017-12-15 22:06聯合報 記者林宸誼╱即時報導

經濟部投資審議委員會15日召開委員會議,核准及備查重大案件共七件,其中包括Google以新台幣311.5億元收購宏達電團隊及授權專利案件。

宏達電在今年9月宣布與Google簽署合作協議,Google以11億美元買下宏達電參與Pixel的團隊及手機專利授權,將有2000名工程師轉職。

投審會會議中還核准二件僑外投資案,包括GOOGLE ENGINEERING UK HOLDINGS LIMITED申請匯入相當於新台幣331.5億元等值外幣,增資國內事業台灣科高工程有限公司,做為購買宏達電部分智慧手機團隊、特定相關資產等交易案買賣價金。

另一僑外投資案件為英屬開曼群島商GOGORO INC.申請匯入相當於新台幣18億元等值外幣,增資國內事業睿能創意股份有限公司,將用於經營研發製造電動機車業務。

對外投資部分,台灣塑膠工業股份有限公司申報匯出2億988萬美元,投資美商台塑工業美國公司(FORMOSA INDUSTRIES CORPORATION),從事塑膠原料及有關石油化學工業品業務。

上市(櫃)公司對大陸投資部分,包括緯創資通間接投資新設並增資大陸子公司,從事筆記型電腦、桌上型電腦等產品生產、研發、維修、銷售業務;精英電腦也間接增資大陸子公司,兩案金額共2億6,000萬美元。

會中並通過大陸商擎發通訊科技(合肥)有限公司及大陸商芯舟科技(廈門)有限公司申請對台投資,兩案共計6,322萬美元。

by 趙永祥 2017-12-13 10:50:30, 回應(0), 人氣(1607)

"長尾"  理論(長尾現象)


"長尾" 的由來及含義

  根據維基百科,長尾(The Long Tail)這一概念是由“連線”雜誌主編克裡斯·安德森Chris Anderson)在2004年十月的“長尾” 一文中最早提出,用來描述諸如亞馬遜Netflix之類網站的商業和經濟模式

  “長尾”實際上是統計學中冪律Power Laws)和帕累托分佈Pareto)特征的一個口語化表達。

长尾理论(The Long Tail) 图例

管理定律
AL續
安慰劑效應盧維斯定理
阿爾巴德定理藍斯登定律
暗箱模式藍斯登原則
阿爾布萊特法則垃圾桶理論
阿姆斯特朗法則藍柏格定理
阿什法則雷鮑夫法則
艾奇布恩定理懶螞蟻效應
阿羅的不可能
定理
牢騷效應
艾德華定理洛克忠告
艾科卡用人法則拉圖爾定律
阿倫森效應魯尼恩定律
暗示效應拉鋸效應
安泰效應M
氨基酸組合效應木桶原理
B墨菲定律
彼得原理蘑菇管理定律
不值得定律馬太效應
貝爾效應名片效應
保齡球效應米格—25效應
布里特定理馬蠅效應
比倫定律末位淘汰法則
柏林定律麥克萊蘭定律
巴菲特定律目標置換效應
彼得斯定律梅考克法則
白德巴定理摩斯科定理
布利丹效應美即好效應
波特定律馬斯洛理論
布利斯定理曼狄諾定律
波特法則冒進現象
布朗定律毛毛蟲效應
伯恩斯定律摩爾定律
布利斯原則木桶歪論
名人效應
拜倫法則N
冰淇淋哲學鯰魚效應
比林定律南風法則
邦尼人力定律尼倫伯格原則
玻璃天花板效應凝聚效應
巴納姆效應納爾遜原則
半途效應希爾十七項
成功原則
貝爾納效應鳥籠效應
貝勃規律O
邊際效應奧卡姆剃刀定律
菠菜法則奧格威法則
標簽效應奧狄思法則
杯子理論奧美原則
弼馬瘟效應歐弗斯托原則
搬鐵塊試驗P
C螃蟹效應
長尾理論帕累托法則
刺蝟法則帕金森定律
長鞭效應皮格馬利翁效應
磁石法則破窗效應
磁力法則皮爾斯定律
蔡戈尼效應皮京頓定理
從眾效應皮爾·卡丹定理
權威效應披頭士法則
蔡格尼克記憶效應攀比效應
超限效應Q
全球化鏈條定律群體壓力
傳染效應喬布斯法則
參與定律犬獒效應
成事定理青蛙法則
拆屋效應喬治定理
出醜效應秋尾法則
D強手法則
多米諾骨牌效應齊加尼克效應
達維多定律情緒效應
倒金字塔管理法R
定位法則熱爐法則
大榮法則柔性管理法則
杜利奧定理儒佛爾定律
杜根定律洛克定律
迪斯忠告人性定理
燈塔效應|銳化效應
達維多夫定律S
德尼摩定律三強鼎立法則
杜嘉法則手錶定律
杜邦定律水壩式經營法
登門檻效應首因效應
疊補丁效應生態位法則
等待效應
德西效應
狄倫多定律
多看效應
E生魚片理論
250定律隧道視野效應
惡魔效應
F500強企業經
典管理法則
反暗示效應
弗洛斯特法則雙木桶理論
輻射效應失真效應
適纔適所法則
飛輪效應史坦普定理
弗里施法則史華茲論斷
肥皂水效應舍恩定理
凡勃倫效應史提爾定律
法約爾原則斯坦納定理
費斯諾定理矢澤定律
費斯法則“4+2”法則
複壯效應思維的定勢效應
反饋效應社會惰化效應
反木桶原理蘇東坡效應
弗洛伊德口誤森林效應
峰終定律
G聖人理論
聲譽磁場
光環效應T
格雷欣法則同仁法則
身體語言
古狄遜定理跳蚤效應
溝通的位差效應特雷默定律
管理溝通論踢貓效應
溝通無限論托利得定理
古德曼定理特裡法則
古德定律鐵釘效應
格利定理蛻皮效應
孤峰原理湯水效應
果子效應托伊論斷
過度理由效應投射效應
過度學習效應同群效應
功能固著心理頭魚理論
感覺剝奪實驗鴕鳥政策
鐵鍬試驗
態度改變—
糖果實驗
W
感情效應王永慶法則
共生效應韋特萊法則
箍桶理論威爾遜法則
烏茲納澤定律
H威爾德定理
花盆效應翁格瑪麗效應
花生試驗
環境蓄勢
黑洞效應
蝴蝶效應沃爾森法則
霍桑效應沃爾頓法則
華盛頓合作定律沃森定律
猴子理論王安論斷
互惠關係定律韋爾奇原則
傑亨利法則溫德定律
海潮效應無折扣法則
橫山法則沃特曼定律
海恩法則武器效應
猴子大象法則X
赫勒法則新木桶定律
信心獲得鹹鴨蛋理論
懷特定律斜坡球體定律
哈默定律夏皮羅法則
壞蘋果法則西點軍校的
經典法則
霍布森選擇效應希望效應
海因里希法則虛榮效應
和諧定理Y
哈羅效應羊群效應理論
亞佛斯德原則
J“100-1=0”定律
酒與污水定律魚缸理論
激勵倍增法則影響世界的
100個定律
金魚缸效應蟻群效應
吉格勒定理雅格布斯定理
吉爾伯特定律印刻效應
吉格定理150定律
吉德林法則Yerkes-Dodson
法則
競爭優勢效應約翰遜效應
監獄角色模擬
實驗
野鴨精神
棘輪效應郵票效應
近因效應優先效應
經驗的邏輯
推理效應
優勢富集效應
金屬切削試驗延遲滿足實驗
K因果定律
苛希納定律異性心理
快魚法則雁陣效應
異性效應
醞釀效應
擁有效應
坎特法則Z
卡貝定律智豬博弈理論
克裡奇定理墜機理論
柯維定理自來水哲學
卡爾岑定理煮蛙效應
刻板效應自吃幼崽效應
L自我參照效應
雷尼爾效應自我選擇效應
零和博弈帳篷理論
柯維定理最高氣溫效應
卡爾岑定理詹森效應
雷尼爾效應責任分散效應
蟑螂效應
座椅舒適感
[編輯]

  舉例來說,我們常用的漢字實際上不多,但因出現頻次高,所以這些為數不多的漢字占據了上圖紅色區域;絕大部分的漢字難得一用,它們就屬於那長長的藍尾。 Chris認為,只要存儲和流通的渠道足夠大,需求不旺或銷量不佳的產品共同占據的市場份額就可以和那些數量不多的熱賣品所占據的市場份額相匹敵甚至更大。

長尾市場也稱之為“利基市場”。 "利基 ” 一詞是英文 “Niche” 的音譯,意譯為 “ 壁龕 ” ,有拾遺補缺或見縫插針的意思。菲利普·科特勒《營銷管理》中給利基下的定義為:利基是更窄地確定某些群體,這是一個小市場並且它的需要沒有被服務好,或者說 “ 有獲取利益的基礎 ” 。

通過對市場的細分,企業集中力量於某個特定的目標市場,或嚴格針對一個細分市場,或重點經營一個產品和服務,創造出產品和服務優勢。

"長尾" 的定義

  “長尾”至今尚無正式定義,Chris Anderson 認為,最理想的長尾定義應解釋“長尾理論”的三個關鍵組成部分:

  目前最接近的定義是:

  • “長尾實現的是許許多多小市場的總和等於,如果不是大於,一些大市場”–Jason Foster
  • “長尾就是當籍籍無名的變成無處不在的時候你可以得到的”– Eric Akawie
  • “長尾就是80%的過去不值得一賣的東西”–Greg
  • “長尾講述的是這樣一個故事:以前被認為是邊緣化的、地下的、獨立(藝人?)的產品現在共同占據了一塊市場份額,足以可與最暢銷的熱賣品匹敵” –Bob Baker

  最佳口號:

  • “涓涓細流,匯聚成河”—Joshua Wood
  • “終結二八定律!”—Eric Etheridge
  • “無物不銷,無時不售!”—Jim Treacher
  • “一個小數乘以一個非常大的數字等於一個大數!”—Rajesh Jain

長尾理論經濟學原理[1]

  1. 四維“十”字圖譜分析模型

  有關長尾理論的定義,國內外眾多學者從各種角度提出了自己的觀點,但尚未見學者從經濟學原理上闡述長尾理論的本質。 為系統的剖析長尾理論的經濟學原理,本文特從企業與客戶、生產與營銷的角度切入,建立以下四維動態分析模型, 充分利用現有成熟經濟管理理論:二八原理藍海戰略邊際效應規模效應一步步揭開長尾理論的神秘面紗。

  2. 長尾理論與二八原理殊途同歸

  在資源稀缺假設前提下,傳統經濟屬於典型的供給方規模經濟, 體現的是帕累托分佈的需求曲線頭部,用戶的購買行為並不完全反映需求,主流產品的銷售量大不等同於對它的需求也大, 只是主流產品占據了大部分市場,限制了人們的選擇權。 隨著整個社會經濟以及科技的發展,今天我們已步入一個“富足經濟”時代,人們的生活質量在不斷提高。 一方面,商品在無限地細分,用戶的取向除了具備一些共性之外,越來越追求個性化的需求,所以對各種商品都有存在需求的可能;而另一方面,隨著技術進步和互聯網的興起,電子商務在聚集了這類產品原本分散的用戶的同時,也降低了交易成本

  Image:四维动态分析模型.jpg

by 趙永祥 2017-12-04 15:55:45, 回應(0), 人氣(1633)


國稅局查Line、FB銷售逃稅 連補帶罰近5670萬

2017-08-21 23:42經濟日報 ╱即時報導

台灣網路發達,民眾上網率高,不少個人或營業人常運用網路通訊軟體如Line、Fac...

台灣網路發達,民眾上網率高,不少個人或營業人常運用網路通訊軟體如Line、Facebook Messenger
銷售貨物或勞務,國稅局屢接獲檢舉有逃漏稅、未辦營業登記、漏未開立發票情形。

國稅局已將網路交易查核列為查稅重點工作,尤其是未公開的網路銷售平台如臉書(Facebook)粉絲專頁、Line商品貼文等,財政部中區國稅局在短短四個月透過「網釣密搜」,已查獲158件逃漏稅,補稅及處罰總計5,669萬元。

台灣網路發達,民眾上網率高,不少個人或營業人常運用網路通訊軟體如Line、Facebook Messenger銷售貨物或勞務,國稅局屢接獲檢舉有逃漏稅、未辦營業登記、漏未開立發票情形,尤其是利用未公開的網路銷售平台,例如臉書(Facebook)架設粉絲專頁、或Line等刊登商品貼文,並以私訊接受消費者下單方式進行交易。

中區國稅局局長蔡碧珍表示,今年4月起該局也藉由檢舉、消費爭議投訴案件,並自行運用IT產出消費資訊進行「網路密搜」消費稽查,至7月底已稽查158件,查獲補徵營業稅額達2,829萬元,並依加值型及非加值型營業稅法第51條及稅捐稽徵法第44條擇一從重處罰鍰2,840萬元,補稅及處罰總計5,669萬元。

蔡碧珍指出,為遏止個人利用通訊軟體,或在各大網路論壇銷售貨物或勞務 (如數位商品等)逃漏稅,各國稅局都已將網路稅籍清查列為重點工作,並加強查緝前開網路銷售行為,以維護租稅公平。

「網路密搜」是指轄下各分局會透過AI(人工智慧)去網路找相關資訊,了解信用卡、匯款帳號、寄送方式等,有時候同仁也會花錢去網路購物,買一些皮件或民生用品。

中區國稅局查獲的網路交易產品包含生活用品、皮件、美食團購、住宿券、日租套房等,查獲最高額罰款則是一件在「臉書」上賣皮包逃稅案件,營業稅額800多萬元,因為逃漏稅,補稅和罰款各40萬元,總計達80萬元。

按規定,網路銷售業者每月銷售貨物達新台幣8萬元、銷售勞務達新台幣4萬元,應依規定辦理稅籍登記及繳納營業稅。

中區國稅局提醒,凡在未經檢舉、未經稅捐稽徵機關或財政部指定的調查人員進行調查前,自動向所轄稽徵機關補辦理稅籍登記,及補報補繳營業稅款並加計利息者,即可依稅捐稽徵法第48條之1規定免予處罰。

所列資料若有任何不明瞭之處,敬祈隨時與我聯繫。
祝您工作順心~


Kind regards,
Jason


==============================

王建棟   Jason Wang  CPA/CIA
Cel :+86 188 7629 7466(China)
Skype/Line/Wechat:jasonwang1115
by 趙永祥 2017-11-25 07:35:04, 回應(0), 人氣(1278)


What is the 'Efficiency Ratio'

The efficiency ratio is typically used to analyze how well a company uses its assets and liabilities internally. An efficiency ratio can calculate the turnover of receivables, the repayment of liabilities, the quantity and usage of equity, and the general use of inventory and machinery. This ratio can also be used to track and analyze the performance of commercial and investment banks.


BREAKING DOWN 'Efficiency Ratio'

Analysts use efficiency ratios, also known as activity ratios, to measure the performance of a company's short-term or current performance. All of these ratios use numbers in a company's current assets or current liabilities, quantifying the operations of the business.

An efficiency ratio measures a company's ability to use its assets to generate income. For example, an efficiency ratio often looks at aspects of the company, such as the time it takes to collect cash from customers or the amount of time it takes to convert inventory to cash. This makes efficiency ratios important, because an improvement in the efficiency ratios usually translates to improved profitability.

These ratios can be compared to peers in the same industry and can identify businesses that are better managed relative to the others. Some common efficiency ratios are accounts receivable turnover, fixed asset turnover, sales to inventory, sales to net working capitalaccounts payable to sales and stock turnover ratio.


Efficiency Ratios for Banks

The efficiency ratio also applies to banks. For example, a bank efficiency ratio measures a bank's overhead as a percentage of its revenue. Like the efficiency ratios above, this allows analysts to assess the performance of commercial and investment banks.

For a bank, an efficiency ratio is an easy way to measure the ability to turn assets into revenue. Since a bank's operating expenses are in the numerator and its revenue is in the denominator, a lower efficiency ratio means that a bank is operating better. I's believed that a ratio of 50% is the maximum optimal efficiency ratio. If the efficiency ratio increases, it means a bank's expenses are increasing or its revenues are decreasing.


An Example of Efficiency Ratio

For example, Bankwell Financial Group Inc. reported second quarter 2016 earnings on July 27, 2016. The report stated that the financial group had an efficiency ratio of 57.1%, which was lower than the 63.2% ratio it reported for the same quarter in 2015. This means the company's operations became more efficient; it increased its assets by $80 million for the quarter.


Dr. Chao

23-November-2017

by 趙永祥 2017-11-08 09:26:16, 回應(6), 人氣(2242)


慧昭法師講授《金剛經》(共計十集)

 
影片網址連結

http://www.fgs.video/category/videos/%E9%87%91%E5%89%9B%E7%B6%93-10%E9%9B%86-%E6%85%A7%E6%98%AD%E6%B3%95%E5%B8%AB
by 趙永祥 2017-11-06 07:38:07, 回應(0), 人氣(2532)


經濟學原理 CH3 - CH4  題庫&解答

有效時間:106/11/06  22:30
Prev12345678910Next Go: / 379