只用一本书提高英语听力能力!重温经典名著双语阅读小编推荐:跟着纪录片学英语不背单词和语法,轻松学英语
返回列表 回复 发帖

[商业新闻] 【整理】2008-09-17&09-19 华尔街金融危机浅析

提高英语听力能力 找对方法很重要!

[商业新闻] 【整理】2008-09-17&09-19 华尔街金融危机浅析

user posted image

Why Wall Street is broken 金融危机

Fortune's Shawn Tully says excessive leverage and exorbitant pay are causing investment banks to implode.


【视频在线播放】



【电信1】 RealVideo / mp3

【电信2】 RealVideo / mp3

【网通/教育网】 RealVideo / mp3


点击进入商业频道整理稿汇总页面

点击进入多主题版块听写规则(新手必读)

版主提示:
一、若是自己的听写稿, 请发帖时标注'Homework'.
二、若是改稿, 请发帖时标注'on 某某人'并在修改处标红.
三、为了达到最快的下载速度,推荐使用迅雷高速下载本站音频/视频材料.

 

 

 



为了我们身边有视觉障碍的十分之一的少数,修改请选择加粗您的字体,谢谢哦~~~

【整理】

【整理人】PUT MT BC整理团队

 

We used to have five major Wall Street firms, now we are down to two, and the meltdown of the three that we've seen, although Merrill by the way is not a meltdown. It was sold at a premium and a big number actually, which is, I think, has been underreported. But reason that at least two of these firms have melted down is because the model that has reigned on Wall Street for decades is really a very bad model, especially for shareholders. These companies are focused on the employees and are run completely for the benefit of their employees and not the shareholders. Let me give you some examples.

 

Lehman had the leverage of around 30 times, er, its book value which was over 20 billion, so it had a 700-billon-dollar balance sheet (which) was lately reduced to around 600 billion when they were claiming to (quote) "Deleverage", so that's like having a mortgage on your house, that's a 97% mortgage, if the value of your house drops, inevitably in a bubble market in housing which is one of the reasons why these companies are in trouble, you lose all your equity. That's what happened to these firms, they were enormously over-leveraged, and when the market turned against them, they lost all their book value which we just saw clearly was illustrated by what the banks decided, ah, on Sunday, when they decided not to bail them out.

 

Um, but, when they get lucky, and interest rates drop which has happened almost all through Lehman's history, cause' it went public in 1994, the value of those assets swells enormously and they all look like geniuses, but eventually the market turns against them, the leverage bites the wrong way, and none of the huge pay that these companies are paying out to their employees ever comes back. Uh, and We saw pay-scales at Lehman and all these firms, they are unprecedented in and outside of Hollywood, maybe, or maybe hedge funds. And they were completely undeserved, because they were strictly making money because of luck and huge leverage.

 

[ 本帖最后由 ghance 于 2009-1-16 21:25 编辑 ]

普特在线文本比较普特在线听音查字普特在线拼写检查普特文本转音频

支持普特英语听力就多多发帖吧!您们的参与是对斑竹工作最大的肯定与支持!如果您觉得还不错,推荐给周围的朋友吧~

We used to have five major wall street firms, now we were down to two,and the meltdown of the three that we've seen also Merrill  by the way is not meltdown but sold in a premium,a big number actully, which i think,has been underreported.But resaons for only the two firms have been melt down is because the model that has reigned on wall street for decades is really a very bad model,especially for shareholders.These companies are focused on the employees and run completely for the benefit of emolyees not for shareholders.Let me give some examples,lehman had leverage around 30times,erh,its booked value which was over 20billion ,so it had 700billon dollars balance shares which lately reduced to around 600 billion when they were claming to quote de-leverage,so that's why we are having a mortgage on ur house, its 97% mortgage, if the value of ur house drops inevitably in the bubble market, housing which was the reason why the company are in trouble u lose all ur liquidity.That's what happened to these firms, they were enomorously over-leverage,and when the market turns against them,they lost all their booked value which we just saw clealy res* by what the bank decided.ah, on sunday, when they decided not bali them out.eh,but,when they get lucky,and interest rates drops which happened almost all through lehman's history because it  went into the public in 1994,the value of those assets swallow enourmously and all looked like genius ,but eventually the market turned again the leverage by its wrong way ,and none of huge-paid of these companies are paying out their employees ever comes back. We saw pay-scales at lyhman and all these firms are unprecedentedly outside of hollywood,maybe,or maybe headfuns.They were deserve  because strickly making money because of lock and use leverage .

 

 错的肯定好多。。。经济方面的真难。。

[ 本帖最后由 I.N.A 于 2008-9-17 16:53 编辑 ]
1

评分次数

立即获取| 免费注册领取外教体验课一节

Homework

 

 We used to have five major Wall Street firms now we are down to two, and the meltdown of the three that we've seen, although Merrill by the way is not melt down, was sold at a premium at a big number actually which is I can guess underreported. But reasonedly the two of these firms have melt down, it's because the model XXX reigned on Wall Street for decades, it's really a very bad model, especially for shareholders. These companies are focus on the employees and are run completely for the beneficial employees and not the shareholders. Let me give you some examples, Lehman had leverage of around 30 times its work value which was over 20 billion, so we had a 700 billion dollars balancing which later reduced to around 600 billion when they were claiming to called 'deleverage'. So that's like having a mortgage on your house, that's a 97% mortgage if the value of your house drops, and then we have a bubble market in housing which is one of the reasons why these companies are in trouble, you lose all your XXX. That's what happened to these firms, they were enormously over-leveraged. And when the market turned against them, they lost all their book value, which would suggest a clearly resilient by what the bank decided on Sunday, when they decided not to bill them all. But when they get lucky, and interest rate drops which is happened almost all through Lehman's history, 'cause when public in 1994, the value of those XXX enormously and they all look like geniuses. But eventually the market turned against the leverage backs the wrong way, and none of the XXX paid if these companies were paying out to their emplyees ever comes back. We saw pay skills at Lehman and all these firms that are unpresidented ouside of Hollywood maybe, or maybe hitchfirends, and they were XXX deserved, because they were strickly making money, because of luck and using leverage.

实现无障碍英语沟通

on 楼上

We used to have five major Wall Street firms now we are down to two, and the meltdown of the three that we've seen, although Merrill by the way is not melt down, was sold at a premium at a big number actually which is I can guess underreported. But reasonedly the two of these firms have melt down, it's because the model XXX //that is reigned on Wall Street for decades, it's really a very bad model, especially for shareholders. These companies are focused on the employees and are run completely for the beneficial employees and not the shareholders. Let me give you some examples, Lehman had leverage of around 30 times its work value which was over 20 billion, so we had a 700 billion dollars balancing which later reduced to around 600 billion when they were claiming to called 'deleverage'. So that's like having a mortgage on your house, that's a 97% mortgage if the value of your house drops, and then we have a bubble market in housing which is one of the reasons why these companies are in trouble, you lose all your XXX//equity. That's what happened to these firms, they were enormously over-leveraged. And when the market turned against them, they lost all their book value, which would suggest//we just saw a clearly resilient by what the bank decided on Sunday, when they decided not to bill them all//out. But when they get lucky, and interest rate drops which is happened almost all through Lehman's history, 'cause when public in 1994, the value of those XXX//assets enormously and they all look like geniuses. But eventually the market turned against the leverage backs the wrong way, and none of the XXX paid if these companies were paying out to their emplyees ever comes back. We saw pay skills at Lehman and all these firms that are unpresidented ouside of Hollywood maybe, or maybe hitchfirends, and they were XXX//confirmedly gonna be deserved, because they were strickly making money, because of luck and using leverage.
1

评分次数

口译专员推荐—>口译训练软件IPTAM口译通

on ina 我也不懂金融词,改不了字大小了

We used to have five major Wall Street firms, now we were down to two, and the meltdown of the three that we've seen, although Merrill  by the way is not meltdown, but sold in a premium and a big number actually, which is, I think, has been underreported. But reason that at least two of these firms have melted down is because the model that has reigned on Wall Street for decades is really a very bad model, especially for shareholders. These companies are focused on the employees and run completely for the benefit of employees and not the shareholders. Let me give you some examples.

 

Lehman had leverage around 30 times, erh, its book value which was over 20billion ,so it had 700billon dollars balance shares which lately reduced to around 600 billion when they were claming to quote de-leverage, so that's why we are having a mortgage on your house, its 97% mortgage, if the value of your house drops inevitably in the bubble market, housing which is one of the reasons why this company is in trouble, you lose all your liquidity. That's what happened to these firms, they were enormously over-leverage, and when the market turns against them, they lost all their book value which we just saw clearly was illustrated by what the bank decided, ah, on Sunday, when they decided not bail them out.

 

Um, but, when they get lucky, and interest rates drop which has happened almost all through Lehman’s history. Because it went public in 1994,the value of those assets that swallow enormously and they all looked like geniuses, but eventually the market turned again them, the leverage by it’s the wrong way ,and none of huge-paid of these companies are paying out their employees ever comes back. We saw pay-scales at Lehman and all these firms are unprecedentedly outside of Hollywood, maybe, or maybe headfuns. And they were undeserve because they were strictly making money because of luck and use leverage.

1

评分次数

  • Sunshake

HW:

We used to have five major Wall Street firms, now we down to two. And the melt down of the three that we’ve seen, although Merrill by the way is not melt down was sold of premium had big number actually which is I think is under reported. But reason that only two of these firms have melted down is because the model of its rain down on Wall Street for decades is really a very bad model, especially for shareholders. These companies are focused on the employees and run completely for the benefit of the employees and not shareholders. Let me give you some examples. Lehman had leverage around 30 times of its book values which was over 20 billion so it had a 700-billion-dollar balance which was later reduced to around 600 billion when they were claiming to quote, deal leverage.

 

So that’s like having a mortgage on your house that’s 97% mortgage. If the value of your house drops and we have a bubble market. housing which was one of the reasons why we began reserve. In trouble you loose all your requite. That’s what happened to these firms. They were enormously over leverage. And we market turned to against them, they lost all the book value which was just saw clearly was illustrated by what the banks decided on Sunday when they decided not to build them out.

 

But when they get lucky, and interest rate drops which just happen almost all through Lehman’s history. Because when publican in 1994, the value of those assets swallowed enormously in the all look like geniuses. But eventually the markets turned to against them, the leverage bias to the wrong way and none of the usage paid of these are companies are paying out to the own employees never comes back.

 

We saw paid skills at Lehman and all these firms that are unprecedented outside of Hollywood maybe or may be height trunks. And they were /under deserve. Because they were strictly making money because of luck and usage leverage.

 

on  青黄不接

 

We used to have five major Wall Street firms, now we were down to two, and the meltdown of the three that we've seen, although Merrill by the way is not meltdown. It was sold at a premium and a big number actually, which is, I think, has been underreported. But reason that at least two of these firms have melted down is because the model that has reigned on Wall Street for decades is really a very bad model, especially for shareholders. These companies are focused on the employees and run completely for the benefit of employees and not the shareholders. Let me give you some examples.

 

Lehman had leverage around 30 times, erh, its book value which was over 20 billion , so it had 700 billon dollars balance shares which lately reduced to around 600 billion when they were claming to quote deleverage, so that's why we are having a mortgage on your house, its 97% mortgage, if the value of your house drops inevitably in the bubble market, housing which is one of the reasons why these companies are in trouble, you lose all your liquidity. That's what happened to these firms, they were enormously over-leveraged, and when the market turned against them, they lost all their book value which we just saw clearly was illustrated by what the bank decided, ah, on Sunday, when they decided not bail them out.

 

Um, but, when they get lucky, and interest rates drop which has happened almost all through Lehman s history. Because it went public in 1994, the value of those assets swallows enormously and they all looked like geniuses, but eventually the market turns again them, the leverage byes the wrong way , and none of huge-paid of these companies are paying out to their employees ever comes back. We saw pay-scales at Lehman and all these firms are unprecedentedly outside of Hollywood, maybe, or maybe Hedge funds. And they were completely undeserve because they were strictly making money because of luck and use leverage.

 

1

评分次数

  • Sunshake

Who can say where the road goes
Where the day flows
Only time
实现无障碍英语沟通

on dribble

 

We used to have five major Wall Street firms, now we were down to two, and the meltdown of the three that we've seen, although Merrill by the way is not meltdown. It was sold at a premium and a big number actually, which is, I think, has been underreported. But reason that at least two of these firms have melted down is because the model that has reigned on Wall Street for decades is really a very bad model, especially for shareholders. These companies are focused on the employees and run completely for the benefit of employees and not the shareholders. Let me give you some examples.

 

Lehman had leverage around 30 times, erh, its book value which was over 20 billion , so it had 700 billon dollars balance shares which lately reduced to around 600 billion when they were claming to quote deleverage, so that's why we are having a mortgage on your house, its 97% mortgage, if the value of your house drops inevitably in the bubble market, housing which is one of the reasons why these companies are in trouble, you lose all your liquidity. That's what happened to these firms, they were enormously over-leveraged, and when the market turned against them, they lost all their book value which we just saw clearly was illustrated by what the bank decided, ah, on Sunday, when they decided not bail them out.

 

Um, but, when they get lucky, and interest rates drop which has happened almost all through Lehman s history. Because it went public in 1994, the value of those assets swallows enormously and they all looked like geniuses, but eventually the market turns against them, the leverage fights the wrong way , and none of the huge-paid of these companies are paying out to their employees ever comes back. We saw pay-scales at Lehman and all these firms are unprecedentedly outside of Hollywood, maybe, or maybe Hedge funds. And they were completely undeserve because they were strictly making money because of luck and huge leverage.

 

1

评分次数

  • Sunshake

One without faith is sure to fail 新浪微薄:福威武威
普特听力大课堂

on cross3561

We used to have five major Wall Street firms, now we were down to two, and the meltdown of the three that we've seen, although Merrill by the way is not meltdown. It was sold at a premium and a big number actually, which is, I think, has been underreported. But recently that at least two of these firms have melted down is because the model that has reigned on Wall Street for decades is really a very bad model, especially for shareholders. These companies are focused on the employees and run completely for the benefit of employees and not the shareholders. Let me give you some examples.

 

Lehman had leverage around 30 times, erh, its book value which was over 20 billion , so it had 700 billon dollars balance shares which lately reduced to around 600 billion when they were claiming to quote deleverage, so that's like having a mortgage on your house, its 97% mortgage, if the value of your house drops, end up at a bubble market, housing which just is one of the reasons why these companies are in trouble, you lose all your liquidity. That's what happened to these firms, they were enormously over-leveraged, and when the market turned against them, they lost all their book value which we just saw clearly was illustrated by what the bank decided, ah, on Sunday, when they decided not bail them out.

 

Um, but, when they get lucky, and interest rates drop which has happened almost all through Lehman's history. Because it went public in 1994, the value of those assets swallows enormously and they all looked like geniuses, but eventually the market turns against them, the leverage fights the wrong way , and none of the huge-paid the fees, companies are paying out to their own employees ever comes back. We saw pay-scales at Lehman and all these firms are unprecedentedly outside of Hollywood, maybe, or maybe Hedge funds. And they were completely undeserve because they were strictly making money because of luck and huge leverage.

1

评分次数

  • Sunshake

Be yourself. 不要跟风吗。
好栏目推荐之美国口语俚语

on searching 2008

We used to have five major Wall Street firms, now we were down to two, and the meltdown of the three that we've seen, although Merrill by the way is not a meltdown. It was sold at a premium and a big number actually, which is, I think, has been underreported. But recently that at least two of these firms have melted down is because the model that has reigned on Wall Street for decades is really a very bad model, especially for shareholders. These companies are focused on the employees and run completely for the benefit of employees and not the shareholders. Let me give you some examples.

 

Lehman had leverage around 30 times, erh, its book value which was over 20 billion , so it had a 700 billon dollar/ balance sheet which lately reduced to around 600 billion when they were claiming to quote deleverage, so that's like having a mortgage on your house, that's a 97% mortgage, if the value of your house drops, and we have a bubble market and housing which / is one of the reasons why these companies are in trouble, you lose all your equity. That's what happened to these firms, they were enormously over-leveraged, and when the market turned against them, they lost all their book value which we just saw clearly was illustrated by what the bank decided, ah, on Sunday, when they decided not bail them out.

 

Um, but, when they get lucky, and interest rates drop which has happened almost all through Lehman's history. Because it went public in 1994, the value of those assets swells enormously and they all look/ like geniuses, but eventually the market turns against them, the leverage bites the wrong way , and none of the huge pay that these companies are paying out to their own employees ever comes back. We saw pay-scales at Lehman and all these firms that are unprecedentedly outside of Hollywood, maybe, or maybe hedge funds. And they were completely undeserved because they were strictly making money because of luck and huge leverage.

 

 

[ 本帖最后由 seeyou8286 于 2008-9-17 22:04 编辑 ]
1

评分次数

  • Sunshake

修改规则
第一,阶梯式修改,即除修改头贴外,在上一篇修改稿的基础上进行修改;
第二,修改别人稿子要注明是修改谁的 写上ON XX;
第三,头贴或修改请在所见所得模式下清除文本格式后,选3号Verdana字体
PS:欢迎进行预整理后的修改

on seeyou

 

We used to have five major Wall Street firms, now we are down to two, and the meltdown of the three that we've seen, although Merrill by the way is not a meltdown. It was sold at a premium and a big number actually, which is, I think, has been underreported. But reason that at least two of these firms have melted down is because the model that has reigned on Wall Street for decades is really a very bad model, especially for shareholders. These companies are focused on the employees and are run completely for the benefit of employees and not the shareholders. Let me give you some examples.

 

Lehman had leverage of around 30 times, erh, its book value which was over 20 billion , so it had a 700 billon dollar/ balance sheet which lately reduced to around 600 billion when they were claiming to quote "deleverage", so that's like having a mortgage on your house, that's a 97% mortgage, if the value of your house drops, and that we have a bubble market in housing which / is one of the reasons why these companies are in trouble, you lose all your equity. That's what happened to these firms, they were enormously over-leveraged, and when the market turned against them, they lost all their book value which we just saw clearly was illustrated by what the banks decided, ah, on Sunday, when they decided not bail them out.

 

Um, but, when they get lucky, and interest rates drop which has happened almost all through Lehman's history, cause' it went public in 1994, the value of those assets swells enormously and they all look/ like geniuses, but eventually the market turns against them, the leverage bites the wrong way , and none of the huge pay that these companies are paying out to their / employees ever comes back. Uh, and We saw pay-scales at Lehman and all these firms that are unprecedentedly outside of Hollywood, maybe, or maybe hedge funds. And they were completely undeserved because they were strictly making money because of luck and huge leverage.

1

评分次数

  • Sunshake

On seeyou8286

We used to have five major Wall Street firms, now we were down to two, and the meltdown of the three that we've seen, although Merrill by the way is not a meltdown. It was sold at premium and a big number actually, which is, I think, has been underreported. But recently that at least two of these firms have melted down is because the model that has reigned on Wall Street for decades is really a very bad model, especially for shareholders. These companies are focused on the employees and run completely for the benefit of employees and not the shareholders. Let me give you some examples.

 

Lehman had leverage around 30 times, erh, its book value which was over 20 billion, so it had a 700 billon dollar balance sheet which lately reduced to around 600 billion when they were claiming to quote deleverage, so that's like having a mortgage on your house, that's a 97% mortgage, if the value of your house drops, and we have a bubble market and housing which is one of the reasons why these companies are in trouble, you lose all your equity. That's what happened to these firms, they were enormously over-leveraged, and when the market turned against them, they lost all their book value which we just saw clearly was illustrated by what the bank decided, ah, on Sunday, when they decided not to bail them out.

 

Um, but, when they get lucky, and interest rates drop which has happened almost all through Lehman's history. Because it went public in 1994, the value of those assets swells enormously and they all look like geniuses, but eventually the market turns against them, the leverage bites the wrong way , and none of the huge pay that these companies are paying out to their own employees ever comes back. We saw pay-scales at Lehman and all these firms that are unprecedentedly outside of Hollywood, maybe, or maybe hedge funds. And they were completely undeserved because they were strictly making money because of luck and huge leverage.

Until All Is Over, Ambition Never Dies.
每天半小时 轻松提高英语口语

homework

We used to have five major wall street firms, now we are down to two. And the meltdown of the three that we've seen although Merrill Lynch is not meltdown. They sold their premier and big number actually which is, I think,under reported but recently at least two of these firms have meltdown is because the model that ring wall street for decades is really a bad model, especially for sharesholders. These companies are focus on employees and run completely for the benefit of employees not the sharesholders. Let me give you some examples. Lehman had leverage around 30 times its book value which is over 20 billion. So it had 700 billion dollars balance sheet which is later reduced to around 600 billion where they were claiming to quote deleverage. So that's like having a mortage on your house it's 97% mortage. If the value of your house drops in the bubble market housing which is one of the reasons why these companies are in trouble. You lose all you equaty. That's what happen to this firm. There were unnormal over leverage and when the market turn to against them, they lost all their book value, which we just saw clear with illustrated by what the bank decided on Sunday when they decide not to build the amount. But when they get lucky and intrest rates drop which happen almost through Lehman's history when it went public in 1994, the value of those normal and all but like genious but eventually the market turns against the leverage fights the wrong way. And none of the huge pay these companies are paying out their employees ever comes back. And we saw pay skills at Lehman and all these firms are unprecess outside of Hollywood maybe or maybe hedge funds, and they were completely undeserved because they were strictly making money because of luck and use leverage.

on i.n.a

We used to have five major wall street firms, now we were down to two,and the meltdown of the three that we've seen although Merrill, by the way, is not meltdown it was sold in a premium,a big number actully, which i think,has been underreported.But resaons at least two of these firms have been melt down is because the model that has reigned on wall street for decades is really a very bad model,especially for shareholders.These companies are focused on the employees and run completely for the benefits of emolyees and not the shareholders.Let me give some examples,lehman had leverage around 30times,erh,its booked value which was over 20billion ,so it had 700billon dollars balance shares which lately reduced to around 600 billion when they were claming to quote de-leverage,so that's like having a mortgage on ur house, its 97% mortgage, if the value of ur house drops inevitably in the bubble market, housing which was the reason why the company are in trouble u lose all ur liquidity.That's what happened to these firms, they were enomorously over-leveraged,and when the market turns against them,they lost all their booked value which we just saw clealy was illustrated by what the banks decided.ah, on sunday, when they decided not to bail them out.eh,but,when they get lucky,and interest rates drop which happened almost all through lehman's history because it  went into the Republican in 1994,the value of those assets swallow enourmously and all looked like genius ,but eventually the market turned again the leverage buys the wrong way ,and none of huge-paid of these companies are paying out to their employees ever comes back. We saw pay-scales at lyhman and all these firms are unprecedentedly outside of hollywood,maybe,or maybe hedge funds.They were completely undeserved  because strickly making money because of luck and use leverage .

 

 

口译专员推荐—>口译训练软件IPTAM口译通
We used to have five major wall street firms, now we are down to 2. And the meltdown of the 3 that we’v seen, although Merrill by the way is not meltdown, was sold at premium and big number actually, which I think is under reported, but reason that at least 2 of the firms have meltdown is because the model that’s reigned on wall street for decades is really a bad model. Especially for shearholders. These companies are focused on employees, and run completely for the benefit of the employees, not the shearholds. Let me give u some examples, lehman had leverage around 30 times its bookvalue, which is over 20 billions, so they had 700 billion$ balance sheet which was lately reduced to around 600 billion when they were claiming to quote de-leverage, so that’s like having a mortgage on your house that is a 97% mortgage, if the value of your house drops, and we had a bubble market, housing is one of the reasons these companies were in trouble. You loose all your equity, that what happened to these firms, these were enoumously overleveraged, and when the market turned against them, they lost all their bookvalue. Which we just saw clearly was illustrated by what the bank desided on Sunday, when they desided not to bail them out. But when they get lucky, and the interest rate drop, which is happenning all through lehman’s history, cause when public 1994, the values of the assets swells enoumously, and they all look like geniuses. But eventually the market turn against them, the leveage bites the wrong way, and none of the huge pay that these company are paying out their employees ever comes back. We saw pay scales at lehman and all these firms are unprecedented outside hollywood maybe, or maybe hedge funds, and they completely undeserve, because they are strictly making money because of luck and huge leverage.
返回列表