When would asset bubbles in Emerging Market "Burst"?

Do you discounted the possibilities of asset bubbles in Emerging Market?

Even though our governments, including China, saying that asset bubbles is under-controlled for almost one year now, yet, investors are not comfortable with the record breaking prices.

Investors are encountering high prices in properties, commodities, resources, and of course, shares market in emerging markets. People are investing, buying, spending, and borrowing to an extent that would caused asset bubbles in various sectors.
Return, the only thing in mind...
 
Meanwhile, investors are chasing for returns to beat the market at large, and to avoid being left behind. This "Kiasu" behavior are only pouring oils on fire. Yet, returns is the only thing in mind, and those "kiasu" investors are winning the game to date. For those who does not participate in the game were blaming them for causing the high property prices, undermining their affordability to own a house.
 
When did the bubbles started?
 
In fact, the asset bubbles was started end of last year. And, the bad news is, the bubbles are growing non-stop until today. People are blindly pouring oils (until crude oil reaches USD87 per barrel lately), although the fire is big enough to swallow a bungalow.
 
When would it stops?

Oh... To answer it, we have a two-sided views...
One, the asset bubble will anyway stop one day
Two, it will stop when it "burst"
 
All will come to an end by following the sequence below:
- when US and Europe recover from their painful crisis,
- when investors found that US and Europe can give them better return,
- when "kiasu" attitude infecting US and Europe,
- when oil prices is too pricey to ignite the fires (commodities will come down),
- when speculative capital flow out of emerging markets,
- THE END

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

"You Can Keep Your Existing Health Insurance"

I wondered about this statement at the time Obama made it.  Clearly, by changing all the rules of health care insurance and mandating conformity, it was unlikely that the vast majority of Americans would not find themselves forced by 'The Affordable Care Act' to have to deal with a completely different health insurance plan and completely different set of health care providers. I now understand what Obama meant.   He was speaking to his immediate family and (politician) friends.  They are exempt from the "Affordable Care Act."  Clearly what he meant to say was: "if you are exempt from Obamacare, like me and my family, you can keep your existing health insurance."  He never meant to mislead.
Read more

Work Ethic of 70s, 80s, 90s

Image
Different generations have their own view on working. You like it or not, working is part of our live. No work = No life. However, this equation has since changed to " Working = No life ". Do you agree? Generally, those born in 70s were perceived to be loving their job. They work hard mainly because of 3 meals/day. For them, a secured life means having a stable job with stable income. They believe that with every efforts you put in, that will reward you back later. As such, over time (OT) is nothing for them. As a responsible 70s, losing their job is a serious matter they tend to avoid. That's why they usually found another job first, before resigning. How about 80s? Other than chasing for stable income, those 80s working adults will also look into the job scope , opportunity for promotion , or working environment . They will take initiative to find for better job. Hence, job hopping is very common for them. Notably, 80s are reluctant to sacrifice their quality of life b
Read more

Things We Now Know

The poor are losing ground in the new Obama world.  The facts are showing up even in the halls of collectivist extremes like the New York Times.  The rich are getting richer and poor are being locked in place.  Big government is throttling the economy and the hopes and dreams of lower and middle class Americans. Today's Wall Street Journal's article by Simon Constable lays out some of the simple and obvious facts of the Obama era: "The richest 20% of households account for 38% of spending, according to government data for 2011, the latest available.  Compare that with 2003 when the top earners spent 26% of the total."  The article goes on to say..."it could get even worse."  It will. Who really benefits when the regulators strangle the banks?  Do banks really need to get much more conservative in their lending practices?  Why does the government know best?  How far can you stretch the FDIC guarantees before American banking is simply a subsidiary of the US g
Read more