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!

homework

We used to have 5 major Wall Street firms, now we are down to 2. And the meltdown of the three that we’ve seen although Merrill by the way is not a meltdown. It was sold at the premiums at a big number actually, which, I think, they are underreported. But recently there are only two of these firms that have meltdown. It’s because the model that has reined on the Wall Street for decades is really a very bad model, especially for share holders. These companies ah focus on the employees and run completely for the employees and not the shareholders. Let me give you some of the examples, Lehman has leverage around 30 times its book value, which was over 20 billion, so it had 700 billion dollar balance sheet. It was later reduced to around 600 billion when they were claiming to quote deleverage. So that’s like having a mortgage on your house that’s 97% mortgage if the value of your house drops in a bubble market. 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 overleveraged. When the market turned against them, they lost all the book value, which we just saw clearly, was illustrated by what the bank decided on Sunday when they decided not to bail them out. But when they get lucky, and the interest rates drop, which has happened all through Lehman’s history when the public in 1994 the value of those assets what’s like genesis, the mortgage. But eventually, the market turns against them, the leverage turns the wrong way, none of huge pay paying out for their employees never comes back we saw pay scales at Lehman, and all these firms are unprecedented outside of Hollywood maybe, maybe Hedge funds. And they were completely undeserved, because they were strictly making money because of luck and use of leverage.

Home Work

We used to have 5 major wall street firms. Now we down to 2. And the melted down of 3 we've seen, although marrow by the way, is not melted down. It was sold to premium, and a big number acturally which i think is under reported. But the reason to only 2 of these firms have melted down is because the model that is rain on wall street for decades is a really bad model especially for share holders. These companies are focused on the employees and run completely for the benefit of the companies not the share holders. Let me give you some examples.Lehman had leverages of run 30 times. It's book value which is over 20 billion, so it had 700 billion dollars balance ship which is later reduced to the runs 600 billion when they were claiming to quote D leverage. So that's like having a mortgage on your house. That's a 97% mortage. If the value of your house dropps, honorablely the bubble market and housing which is one of the reason why these companies are in trouble, you lose all your *. That's what happened to these firms. They were enormously over leverage. And when the market turn against them, they lost all their book value which we just saw clearly was illustrated by what the banks decided on sunday, when they decided not to build them out. Uh, but when they get lucky and interest rates drop which has happened all through Lehman's history 'cause when publican 1994 the value of those soar enormously and they look like geniuses. But eventually the market turns against them. The leverage bites the wrong way. And none of the huge pay of these companies were paying-out to the employees ever comes back. And we saw pay skill at Lehman and all these firms, they are unpresidented outside of hollywood maybe or maybe hatch funs. And they are completely under deserve, because they are extremely making money because of luck and huge leverage.

立即获取| 免费注册领取外教体验课一节

on johnson

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 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

实现无障碍英语沟通

homework 
We used to have five maijor wall street firms ,now we're  down to two .

And the meltdown of these 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 bed 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 .

Lenman had leverage of around 30 times ,um , its book value which was over 20 billion so It had a 700 billion dollar balance sheet which   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 and 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,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  1994 ,the value  of those assets swells enormously and.. they all look like geniuses .
But enventually 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 .

Um,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 ..

口译专员推荐—>口译训练软件IPTAM口译通

Homework

Why Wall Street is broken:

 

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 in a premium at a big number actually, which is, I think is under reported. But, recently only 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 focuses on the employees and run completely for the benefit of employees not the shareholders.

 

Let me give you some examples, Lehman has leverages around 30 times of its book value, which is over 20 billions so it has 700 billions balance sheet was later reduced to reduced to around 600 billions when they were claiming to quote de-leverage. So, that's like having a mortgage on your house that is 97% mortgage if the value of your house drops and we have a bubble market and housing which is one of the reasons that those companies are in troubles. You lose your equality. That's what happens to those firms. They were enormously over leverage and when the market turns against them, they lost all the book value, which we just saw clearly was illustrated by what the banks decided. On Sunday, they decided not to bail them out. Um, but when they get lucky and interest rate drops which has happened all through Lehman's history. Because it went public in 1994, the value of those assets that (swells) enormously and they're all look like (geniuses). But, eventually the market turns against them, the leverage (prices) the wrong way and none of these huge paid that these companies were paying out to employees ever comes back. And we saw paid scales that Lehman and these firms that are unprecedented outside of Hollywood maybe. Um, maybe hedge funds. And they were probably undeserved because they strictly making money because of luck and use leverage.

 

注:红色括号里面的内容是不确定的单词。

 

on  chole

 

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 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 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 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

HW

 

We used to have five major Wall Street firms, now we down to two. And the meltdown of the three we’ve seen although Merrill, by the way, is not a meltdown. It was sold of premium, and the big number actually which is I think it’s under reported. But recently, two of these firms have melted down, is because the model that has a swing in Wall Street for decades is really a bad model, especially for shareholders. These companies are focused on employees and run completely for the benefits of employees and not the shareholders. Let me give you some examples. Lehman has leverage around 30 times, uh, it’s book value which is over $20 billion, so we have a $700 billion balance sheet with later we deal around $600 billion when they were claiming to hold due leverage. So that’s why having a mortgage on your house is a 97% mortgage. If the value of your house drops, probably in a bubble market and housing which is one of the reasons while these companies deserve in trouble, you lose all your equity. That’s what happens to these firms, they were enormously overleveraged. And when the market turned against them, they lost all the book value, which we just saw clearly was illustrated by what the banks decided on Sunday when they decided not to bail them out. Uh, but when they get lucky, an interest rate dropped which has happened all through Lehman’s history, it was when pubic in 1994, the value of those assets rose enormously and they all looked like geniuses. But eventually the market turned against them, the leverage rises in the wrong way, and none of the huge paid. Of these companies are paying out to the employees never comes back. Uh, we saw pay scale of Lehman and all these firms are unprecedented outside of Hollywood maybe, or maybe hedge funds. They were completely undeserved because they were strictly making money because of luck and huge leverage.

do not shy, just try, I'm not a baby do not cry
实现无障碍英语沟通

homework

We used have 5 major Wall Street firms, now were down to 2. And the meltdown of the three we have seen although Merrill, by the way, is not a meltdown, it was sold at a premium at big number actually which, I think, has been underreported.

 

But recently, at least two of these firms have melted down. It is because the model that runs 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 the employees but not the share holders.

 

Let me give you some examples, Lehman have leveraged of around 30 times its book value which was over 20 billion, so they had 700 billion dollar balance sheet, which later reduce to around 600 billion when they were claiming to quote deleverage. So that is like having a mortgage on your house that is 97 percent mortgage. If the value of your house drops, and we have bubble market and housing is one of the reason why these companies are in trouble. You lose all your equity. That is what happened to these firms. They were enormously over-leveraged. And when market turned against them, they lost lots of book value which we just saw clearly was illustrated by what the banks decided on Sunday. They decided not to bail them out.

 

But we they get lucky, and interest rate 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 huge pay of these, en…, companies are paying out to their employees never comes back. And we saw pay skills of Lehman and all these firms that are unprecedentedly outside of the Holly Wood may be, and may be hedge funds. And they were completely undeserved, because they were strictly making money, because of luck and use leverage.

普特听力大课堂

ON lxhf0406

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 leverage of around 30 times, er, 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 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 that are unprecedented 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.

 

好栏目推荐之美国口语俚语

on S

 

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.

 

 

我还在,你们在哪里?北星。翩然。芊芊。叶叶。。。。
返回列表