请教各位金融学及英语高手

是 否 +2 论坛币

k人 参与回答

经管之家送您一份

应届毕业生专属福利!

求职就业群

赵安豆老师微信：zhaoandou666

经管之家联合CDA

送您一个全额奖学金名额~ !

立即领取

感谢您参与论坛问题回答

经管之家送您两个论坛币！

+2 论坛币

以下是一家fund firm 的market comment,由于各种原因，在下不能将全文奉上。
One school of thought is that, in the longer-term, the debt service resulting from the current fiscal stimulus can be managed only by monetisation, resulting in unexpectedly high levels of inflation and a weak bond market .Besides, the dollar would be abandoned as the reserve currency of choice. Another is that there is no viable alternative to the current Keynesian stimulus plans, as evidenced by ample historical precedent from the New Deal and the Great Depression. Policy makers will eventually reverse course and tighten policy, but not yet - the recent moves in treasury yields are indicative of a return to more benign economic conditions after the deflation scare of late 2008.

But why might all of the ivory tower debate matter for commodity investors?（注：文章前面曾提到凯恩斯主义学者与货币主义学者之间的辩论。）In a variation on the "heads-I-win-and-tails-you-lose" scenario, the conclusions from many seem to be that commodities would do well under either scenario. In the inflationary world, where money supply is increased to service debt then demand should rise for real assets, especially if the dollar loses more of its value. In a New Deal (new version ) world, then the global economy will eventually tend towards normalisation and will be a return to the themes of globalisation and the secular rise of China and other emerging markets.

A pause is warranted here. A groundswell of opinion that says markets will go up come what may, should be cause for concern. At this point, we have no highly held conviction about the exact detail of what may occur during the next several years, on the basis that there is still too much latitude for further extraordinary policy intervention. However, we would make the observation that the reality is likely to be somewhere in between the two extremes of economic theory mentioned above. We do not subscribe to the view of a catastrophised future, but nor does it seem appropriate to believe that there will be a return to a more usual environment on the basis that policymakers are going to time everything perfectly in terms of their reversal of policy. Our view of the future, which is positive for the asset class, is of a world where the dollar struggles to retain its value, where inflation is higher than it is today and where many markets are driven by Chinese economic progress.

先说明一下，我是经济学的菜鸟。对于标红色的In a variation on the "heads-I-win-and-tails-you-lose" scenario这一句, 我觉得说的它意思说的是与heads-I-win-and-tails-you-loses（赢了算我的，输了算你的）的情况类似，意思就是不论怎样我都赢，因此许多人认为在凯恩斯主义占优或货币主义占优的境况下，商品市场似乎均可以获得较好的表现，因为variation有个意思是Something slightly different from another of the same type。但我的前辈说此处的意思是：与heads-I-win-and-tails-you-loses（赢了算我的，输了算你的）的情况不同，商品市场在两种情况下似乎均可以表现良好。我觉得variation与different在程度上是有区别的，前者往往通常说的是量变（至少我觉得在这里是），而后者则一般都是有质的区别了。那么，请问各位高手，这句话到底是什么意思呢，是用“类似”妥当呢，还是“不同”更准确，或还是其他的意思或表达？。

扫码加我 拉你入群

请注明：姓名-公司-职位

以便审核进群资格，未注明则拒绝

分享0 收藏0 回帖

关键词：金融学 intervention inflationary appropriate observation 英语 金融学 高手

variation 此处表示‘类似说法’。
你前辈是错误的。

应该是“不同”的意思 不知道那个象牙塔的结论是什么，但从后面哪一句可以看出。就是the conclusions from many seem to be that commodities would do well under either scenario可以看出，从很多人的结论中可以看出市场在其中人一种情况下都会运行良好，也就是说有两种情况，那前面只是一种情况“赢了算我的，输了算你的”第二种情况肯定不同于这种情况了。那么那个variation 肯定是“不同”的意思。

还是要听前辈的啊，前辈是对的
首先考虑"heads i win tails u lose" 的意思基本上就是heads我赢了（这和tails u lose完全是一个意思 哈哈）。在英文里，"heads i win tails u lose"大概是“不是输就是赢的意思”。但是commodity的情况就不同了--无论怎样它都是赢的.
hope that helps

在此先多谢各位的热心指教：
一．对于fffadeecec1学友的观点，我想作以下说明：

fffadeecec1学友说到：应该是“不同”的意思 不知道那个象牙塔的结论是什么，但从后面哪一句可以看出。就是the conclusions from many seem to be that commodities would do well under either scenario可以看出，从很多人的结论中可以看出市场在其中人一种情况下都会运行良好，也就是说有两种情况，那前面只是一种情况“赢了算我的，输了算你的”第二种情况肯定不同于这种情况了。那么那个variation 肯定是“不同”的意思。

而我认为：
1.
象牙塔的讨论应是没有结论，因为原文并未指出凯恩斯主义学派与货币主义学派的论战达成了一致意见（似乎也不可能达成一致）。若有妥协那可能是指现实情况刚好是两种主义的折中，见“However, we would make the observation that the reality is likely to be somewhere in between the two extremes of economic theory mentioned above. ”一句。

2.
个人觉得In a variation on the "heads-I-win-and-tails-you-lose" scenario（1）与the conclusions from many seem to be that commodities would do well under either scenario（2）中的scenario一词并不是一回事，看一看上文“One school of thought is that, …”与“Another is that there is no viable alternative to the current Keynesian stimulus plans, …”指的是货币主义学派与凯恩斯主义学派的应对美国当前危机的不同观点和措施，请看这一句“But why might all of the ivory tower debate matter for commodity investors?”，明显说的是这两种学派的不同应对措施会对commodity investors有什么影响呢，再看下文“ In the inflationary world,…”与“In a New Deal (new version ) world,…”则分别与上文对应，是实施货币主义学派与凯恩斯主义学派各自措施后的结果（影响），因此可见（under either）scenario（2）指的是“在采用了两种学派的不同应对措施后各自的情况下”，意即这两种学派的争论对commodity investors没什么影响（商品都会表现良好）（但作者并非完全同意此“没什么影响”的观点，看下文的“A pause is warranted here. A groundswell of opinion that says markets will go up come what may, should be cause for concern.”一句便知）。而回过来看一下
scenario（1），它这里指的就是in the situation of “a variation on the "heads-I-win-and-tails-you-lose” ，而与scenario（2）指代的内容并不一样。 （若要把两个scenario做为一个看待的话，那就可以这样理解（似乎牵强），either scenario中的两种scenario即为scenario “heads-I-win”或scenario“ tails-you-lose”，不过这样理解的话，“variation”还是在说“类似”）。—————— 我现在把第一段的前面一点贴出来，可能会有些帮助，the debate might be summarized with the following questions: "Given current ongoing plans for fiscal stimulus, how will debt service payments be managed in the future?" & "How could the current performance of the bond market be explained?" Answers to both are many and varied. 然后就是 “One school of thought is that…”了。


二．对于jennyyuejin学友的观点，我想作以下说明：

jennyyuejin学友说到：首先考虑"heads i win tails u lose" 的意思基本上就是heads我赢了（这和tails u lose完全是一个意思 哈哈）。在英文里，"heads i win tails u lose"大概是“不是输就是赢的意思”。但是commodity的情况就不同了--无论怎样它都是赢的.

而我认为：heads i win tails u lose说的是好像不是“不是输就是赢的意思”，而是说对于我来而言怎么都会赢，因为我是不会lose的（tails u lose），这与另一句heads u win tails i lose刚好相反（对于我来说怎么都会输），不知此位学友意见如何？

这个帖子不会就这样沉了吧？

"heads i win and tails you lose" = a coin-flip decision .

泛指争辩的双方没有绝对的对错.  不应理解成 "对于我来而言怎么都会赢，因为我是不会lose的"

In a variation on the "heads-I-win-and-tails-you-lose" scenario  可译为: 在一个变化的掷硬币定优劣的景况.
因此许多人认为在凯恩斯主义占优或货币主义占优的境况下，商品市场似乎均可以获得较好的表现--这句理解是对的.
注意commodities. commodities不是普通的商品, 而是指石油,天然气,金银铜大米小麦黄豆等without qualitative differentiation in the global market.

楼主啊，恕我直言, "heads i win tails u lose" 这句话的意思有这么重要吗？至少大家都认同commodity是双赢局面。"heads i win tails u lose" 只是修辞手法。。。

jennyyuejin 您好，对于这个句子我的确有些过分关注了，不过这也是在下的职业使然呀。很多client的英文都相当好，我的任何理解偏差都有可能被发现。再者，我确实是想一次性把这个问题彻底弄清楚，以便今后再遇到时心里有个底。（此处这个表达可能不影响大局，但其它时候就不一定了。其实我对这句话的意思也比较有把握了，我觉得人大论坛上高手比较多，可能比较可靠，想看有没有人能给个非常确定且有根据的解释，来印证或改变我的观点，即使没有，我也可能得到一些其它方面的启发。）


老鱼父元老您好，先谢过您的热心指点，不过恕我冒犯，就"heads i win and tails you lose" 而言，在我查的资料及根据此表达在我所看到的文章中的意思，"heads i win and tails you lose" 都没有“泛指争辩的双方没有绝对的对错”的意思，是否您把这句话看成"heads i win and tails you win"了？ （参见附注一）

不过还有一种理解：

这是个基金的market comment嘛，把“the conclusions from many seem to” 中的“many”理解为基金公司或交易员，意即由于基金公司拿投资者的钱去投资，所以对他们来说这是一个类似"heads-I-win-and-tails-you-lose"的情况（赚了基金公司拿管理费，赔了投资者的倒霉），这样一来，许多基金公司或交易员都轻率的认为两种主义都会让商品市场表现良好（这样理解是有根据的，下面有economist网站的参考，见附二），这其实是在和这家基金公司自己做比较，见下文的“A pause is warranted here. A groundswell of opinion that says markets will go up come what may, should be cause for concern. At this point, we have no highly held conviction about the exact detail of what may occur during the next several years, ”，即强调自己并不对未来轻率下结论，认为“markets will go up come what may, should be cause for concern”体现该基金比较谨慎负责。

即在以上理解中，"heads-I-win-and-tails-you-lose" 的意思没有什么疑问，但它描述的不是投资者面对商品市场未来的所处的境况，而指的是市场上基金运作的一种现状，不过我觉得这个理解较大胆，有些发挥过头了。有兴趣的可以探讨一下。

附一
Heads or Tails
An expression used when tossing a coin to decide between two alternatives, as in Let's just flip a coin to decide who pays--do you want heads or tails? Each person involved chooses a different side of the coin, either "heads" or "tails," and whichever side lands facing up is considered the winner. This usage, dating from the late 1600s, is sometimes turned into Heads I win, tails you lose, meaning "I win no matter what," which probably originated in an attempt to deceive someone. [Mid-1800s]（http://www.answers.com/topic/heads-or-tails）

附二
economist网站上的一段话：
The two great cheatsThe first charge is that the rich created a new form of heads-I-win-tails-you-lose capitalism. Traders and fund managers got huge rewards for speculating with other people’s money, but when they failed the parent company, the client and ultimately the taxpayer had to pay the bill. Monetary policy contributed to this asymmetry of risk: when markets faltered central banks usually rescued them by cutting interest rates.（http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13405314）
（网上的参考译文：富人们之所以富，是因为他们创造了一套 heads I win, tails you lose 的资本制度。交易员与基金管理者用别人的钱来投资，从而为自己攫取巨大的报酬。而当他们投资失败时，就要母公司或客户，最终直至纳税人来买单。货币政策进一步助长了这种不对称的危险：当市场需求疲软时央行就会减息来拯救它们）