20190302【充实计划】第996期

昨日阅读1小时，累积阅读377小时

充实每一天 发表于 2019-3-2 04:34
该主题为【学道会】活动，点击了解详情

【加入充实计划】【了解充实计划】

昨日阅读2小时，累积阅读330小时。

充实每一天 发表于 2019-3-2 04:34
该主题为【学道会】活动，点击了解详情

【加入充实计划】【了解充实计划】

昨日阅读1小时，累计阅读203小时。

昨日阅读1小时，累计阅读379小时。

今日阅读2小时，累积阅读312小时

昨日阅读1小时，2019年累计阅读62小时。继续分享《现场改善》。
“现场”（gemba）一词的问世滞后于“改善”（kaizen），这是不幸的，但又是可以理解的；比起简单地施行“改善”，出现在“现场”才是一种更伟大的心态和行为上的变革。
截至2011年11月，《剑桥商务英语词典》仍是较少的几种将"gemba"当作英语词汇予以收录的词典之一。它给出了如下的定义：
在日本管理理论中，“现场”是制造业中事件发生的地方，用来描述制造产品的工人着手在制造过程中作出改进。
这一定义可谓抓住了“现场”的精髓，因为它强调了与“改善”的内在联系。但我们必须加以纠正的是，现场不仅存在于制造行业，也存在于更宽广的环境中。
日语中，“现场”指的是“实地”——实际发生行动的地方。日本人在日常谈话中，经常使用“现场”一词。每当发生地震，电视记者总是称他们在做“来自现场的报道”。“现场”可以是任何工作场所，如犯罪现场、电影拍摄地，甚至考古挖掘现场。“现场”是发生行动以及发现事实的地方。企业中能满足顾客的附加价值的活动，就是发生在“现场”。
在日本工业界，“现场”一词的使用频率跟“改善”一样高。乔普·博肯是欧洲最开始从事改善的顾问之一，曾经在欧洲的飞利浦电子公司工作，担任过生产经理、厂长，最后升至总公司的质量经理。博肯说每当他去参观日本的工厂时，可以凭经验判断出这公司的好坏。他说：“与日本企业管理者的谈话中，假使在前5分钟之内听到‘改善’的字眼，在前10分钟内听到‘现场’这个词，便可以断定这是一家好公司。”博肯的例子显示“改善”及“现场”深植于这些管理人员的心中，而且他们经常依据自己对“现场”的认识与了解，来制定决策。
所有的企业都要从事三项直接与赚取利润有关的主要活动：开发、生产及销售，若缺少这些活动，公司是无法存在的。因此，就广义而言，“现场”指的是这三项主要活动发生的场所。
我对现场的理解：
1、一定是第一场地，能看到业务及价值流动的地方；
2、现场的管理的重要性。现场的管理要比其他管理思路更有效。因为，现场是获取第一手资料的，只有准确定位问题，才能想到解决方案；
3、现场更多发现需求，改善就从现场的小点开始。

昨日阅读1小时，累计阅读97小时

昨天阅读1个小时，累积阅读45个小时。

We are huge fans of stress tests. In many ways, they are the best macroprudential tool we have for reducing the frequency and severity of financial crises.

The idea behind stress tests is simple: see if all financial institutions can simultaneously withstand a major negative macroeconomic event—a big fall in real output, a large decline in equity and property prices, a substantial widening of interest-rate spreads, an adverse move in the exchange rate. And, importantly, assume that in response to these adverse circumstances banks have no way to sell assets or raise equity. That is, the stress test asks whether each intermediary can stand on its own without help in the middle of an economic maelstrom. But for stress tests to be effective, they must be truly stressful. The tempest has to be the financial equivalent of a severe hurricane, not just a tropical storm.

This brings us to the latest European Banking Authority (EBA) 2016 stress tests. As we mentioned recently, the European financial system may be the biggest source of systemic risk globally. So, these tests are important not just for Europe, but for the world as a whole. Unfortunately, they just aren’t severe enough, so there is little reason to be confident about the resilience of European finance.

To summarize the published results, the EBA concludes that, with the exception of Deutsche Bank, all of the largest European institutions meet the 3% leverage ratio requirement throughout the three-year simulated stress episode. And, at 2.96%, even Deutsche Bank comes close. But, as we see it, a capital-asset ratio of 3% probably isn’t sufficient to avoid runs in a crisis. While these banks may meet a weak regulatory test, as the more than 40% decline of bank equities over the past year implies, they do not meet the market test. (Deutsche Bank’s stock price-to-book ratio is currently less than 0.25, with the remainder of the largest banks examined at less than 0.75.) And beyond that, there is good reason to doubt that banks are as well capitalized as the EBA’s results indicate.

Let’s compare the EBA stress scenario to those used by the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve. We start with the difference in their assumptions about equity market performance. In the EBA’s severe scenario, European equity prices drop by only a bit more than 25%. In contrast, the Bank of England assumes that the U.K. and U.S. equity markets both fall by more than 40%, while the Federal Reserve’s severely adverse scenario builds in a 51% crash in the Dow Jones Industrial Average. The U.K. and U.S. tests are both consistent with the plunge of more than 40% in global equities that actually occurred in 2008. The European test is not. (For the record, to make comparisons such as these straightforward, we advocate a common and exhaustive disclosure standard for both the scenarios and the results of regulatory stress tests.)

The table below shows that property price assumptions used by the EBA also appear relatively benign. While we do not have comparable data for the U.S. test, the Bank of England’s stress scenario assumes that residential and prime commercial property prices in the United Kingdom will fall by much more than the EBA assumes they will.

今天阅读1小时，持续每天阅读累计141小时。

昨天阅读1小时，累计阅读1196小时。