<
>這篇報告的摘要如下：中文字是我的觀感，不是翻譯哦！</P>
<
> </P>
<
>Executive Summary</P>
<
> </P>
<
><FONT color=red>The resurgence of global inflation has raised fears of a return to the “stagflation” of the 1970s. However, inflation is still very low by<BR>those standards and the inflation environment is fundamentally different.(目前市場對通膨的疑慮頗深，尤其是油價的部分，不過最近二天我看不少經濟相關專家都表示...市場所擔憂的停滯性通膨並不會出現！目前股市的下滑 VS 企業獲利率的下滑，似乎後者比前者嚴重，換句話說就是有點超跌了！不過...前提是油價卡在135美元或以下，而不會衝高到150美元以上)</FONT><BR></P>
<P>In the past, stagflation has been characterised by double-digit inflation. This year, by contrast, consumer price inflation is likely to peak at 4.5-5.0% in the US and around 4% in the UK and euro-zone, before dropping back sharply next year. (See pages 4-5, and the respective country pages.)<BR></P>
<P>Crucially, the pick-up in headline inflation is still largely contained to food and energy prices. This is not to downplay the pain this is now causing, particularly to poorer households (and across the developing world). However, the fact that core inflation excluding food and energy has remained subdued is a better guide to where overall inflation will be heading in a year or so.<BR></P>
<P>In the meantime, there is little evidence of the “second-round” effects whereby a jump in inflation (whatever the cause) might become permanently embedded in the economy via wage and price-setting behaviour.<BR></P>
<P>Admittedly, inflation expectations have surged, at least over short horizons. (See pages 10-11.) But with economic activity weak and labour markets softening (except perhaps in Japan) households will find it very hard to secure higher wage increases to compensate for higher prices.<BR></P>
<P>Of course, no central bank is going to ignore a pick-up in inflation completely, and the result is that interest rates will be higher than<BR>they would otherwise have been over the next few months.<BR></P>
<P>Nonetheless, even if interest rates do rise soon in the euro-zone and (possibly) in the UK, this will simply add to the downside risks to economic growth and to the downward pressures on inflation over the medium-term. Either way, we expect eurozone and UK interest rates to be substantially lower by the end of next year.<BR></P>
<P>The Fed has also raised concerns about rising inflation expectations, but we do not think it would be willing to raise rates based<BR>solely on survey evidence. We therefore think US rates will be left on hold until the middle of next year, and would not rule out<BR>further cuts. (See pages 12-13 and 14-15.)<BR></P>
<P>Japan is in a different position, because the economy is set for a sixth year of growth at or above its relatively low sustainable pace.<BR>We continue to expect Japanese interest rates to return to neutral levels of around 2.0% by early 2010, much earlier than generally anticipated. (See pages 18-19.)<BR></P>
<P>Elsewhere in Asia, China is another victim of the global surge in food price inflation, but inflation excluding food is still very low. (See<BR>pages 22-23.) </P>
<P> </P>
<P>In the meantime, the supply and demand responses that should eventually bring commodity prices back down to earth are gradually starting to kick in. (See pages 6-7.)</P>
<
>這份是大華出的研究報告，摘要如下：</P>
<
> </P>
<
>兩次石油危機與目前現況的比較</P>
<
> </P>
<
>錯誤的政策與石油危機造成美國70 年代停滯性通膨的發生。<BR>我們認為現在無停滯性通膨的問題，但通貨膨脹確實可能造成全球經濟降溫。<BR>若新興國家降低對石油的需求，通膨的問題可望暫緩。<BR>台灣股價應已大抵反應基本面的轉弱，急跌可視為長線的買點。<BR>價格管制與石油危機造成美國70 年代的經濟衰退<BR></P>
<P>美國70 年代停滯性通膨發生的主因來自於政府錯誤的價格管制政策與73 年的石油危機所導致。60年代末期及70 年代初期，美國通貨膨脹率來到6%以上，創下近十年來新高，同時經濟成長亦開始趨緩（如圖一）。當時美國總統尼克森決定以價格管制的方式來抑制通膨，並刺激經濟成長。此政策初期看似有效，但最終仍因1973 年OPEC 成立，並開始對美國展開石油禁售報復之後，宣告失敗。不僅如此，美國甚至陷入70 年代中期長達兩年的經濟衰退。</P>
<P> </P>
<P> </P>
<P>目前經濟問題的成因及意義與70 年代停滯性通膨大不相同，但通貨膨脹卻為共同的危機美國目前的經濟衰退乃肇因於95 年次貸風暴，通膨亦於石油價格持續漲升一段時間後，於今年才被廣為正視，與70 年代政策失敗後的經濟衰退與通膨同時發生大不相同。我們認為目前經濟現況並非停滯性通膨的理由為，（1）此次的經濟衰退與通貨膨脹各因不同的原因而發生，與過去同時因政策失敗後加速形成有所不同；（2）如表一所示，70 年代兩次石油危機造成的經濟衰退均來自於供給面的衝擊，其影響較為短暫，且有一次性漲足的現象；而此次乃因需求面的推升，因此其漲勢與影響將較為長久。</P>
<P><BR>目前的經濟危機類似石油危機帶來的通膨問題，而各國政府目前已逐漸將目光轉移至解決通膨問題上。如圖二所示，次貸風暴的問題已逐漸淡化，信用緊縮的狀況明顯持續緩和。但以第一次石油危機的經驗來看（如圖三），通貨膨脹確實與經濟成長呈反向關係。目前各國亦不再將政策焦點獨置於經濟成長之上，而可能採取緊縮貨幣政策以降溫經濟。</P>
<
>摩根大通的報告....油價可能長期維持在110美元之上</P>
<
> </P>
<
>Increasing E&
earnings<BR>Marking to market YTD crude price for full year to US$110/bbl</P>
<
> </P>
<P>• Implementing US$110/bbl for 2008 and long term: In this note, we raise our EPS estimates for the upstream oil companies under our coverage to reflect higher crude oil prices. In particular, we have raised our longer-term crude price modeling assumption to US$110/bbl vs. US$85/bbl previously. We would stress that this is not an official JPMorgan price assumption. It reflects an interim view consistent with 2008 YTD prices and the 2009 consensus.<BR></P>
<P>• Earnings are adjusted up 21% and 25% on average for 2008 and 2009, yielding 50-75% EPS growth in 2008: Using flat crude price from 2008 into 2009, yields average EPS growth of 21% for 2009 over 2008 (ex Cairn and Energi Mega). Ongoing cost inflation negates part of the higher crude price implemented. In the long term we believe cost inflation will continue as long as crude prices remain elevated, where the risk of government intervention will continue to increase.</P>
<P> </P>
<P>• Our top picks CNOOC, PTTEP and ONGC currently trade at 10.7x, 10.8x and 6x 2009E PE: Except for special case ONGC, this is in line with international peers trading at around 10x. However, we believe CNOOC and PTTEP should trade at a premium due to their strong growth profile. Our PTs for CNOOC, PTTEP and ONGC yield 2009E PE of 13.4x, 13.9x and 9.1x, respectively. For CNOOC and PTTEP this is 10-15% below PE level of around 15x that we have seen over the last couple of years.<BR></P>
<P>• Risks to our PT and ratings: We primarily have OWs in our upstream universe. Top picks are CNOOC, PTTEP and ONGC. Risks to ratings and price targets are significantly softer crude price and delays in production growth for CNOOC and PTTEP, and in addition to higher subsidy share for ONGC (above 33%).</P>
GIW_2008_Q2_FINAL.pdf (1.49 MB) 