一问：“股市下跌是否缘于基本面”？答曰：“对未来经济走势不应过于悲观”。作者许志峰没有引用来源，但代表投资者们说对未来经济走势的这种悲观观点，不是“理性的态度”。文章说，“目前来看，宏观经济正处于恢复性增长的进程中，出现二次探底的可能并不大”。同时，仍然没有引用来源，《人民日报》这篇文章写道：“尤其是经过这一轮下跌后，A股市场的估值水平已经处于历史相对低位，一些优质股票也具备了中长期投资价值”。嗯，你可不会经常从政府那里获得有价值的选股观点。

Question A: 'Is the market's decline due to economic fundamentals'? Answer: 'No need to be overly pessimistic about future economic trends'. Without citing sources, the author, Xu Zhifeng, goes on to say that such economic pessimism betrays 'an irrational attitude' on behalf of investors. 'At present, the economy is still recovering and is unlikely to suffer a double dip,' says the article. Again, without citing sources, the People's Daily writes: 'Especially after this round of declines, the valuations of the A-share market are already at historical lows and some good-quality stocks are worth long-term investment.' (Well, you don't get valuable stock picks from the government that often.)

二问：“宏观政策是否出现有利信号”？ 答曰：“宏观政策或正在微调中求得平衡 ”。就该观点，文中展开详细阐述，称尽管有种种不确定性，“但政策推出之初给股市投资者带来的紧张和压力，随着时间的推移正逐步淡去俄语翻译”。

Question B: 'Are there bullish signals in the macropolicies?' Answer: 'Macropolicies are striking a balance amid fine-tuning.' Elaborating on the point, the article says for example, despite all the uncertainties, 'the initial tensions and pressure that the recent property tightening measures have brought to the stock market are fading.'

三问：“新股频频破发是否预示底部已近”？答曰：“从历史经验看是这样，但也应具体分析”。这一问题与开头简单的回答可能会产生误导。作者的真实观点是，近期新股表现不佳，许多跌破发行价，据此得出这表明市场已经进入一个相对低迷的状态的结论为时过早。作者认为，新股表现不佳，“很大程度是因为新股发行过高的市盈率翻译公司”。

Question C: 'Does the dismal performance of new stock listings suggest the market is hitting a bottom?' Answer: 'Yes according to history but case-by-case analysis is needed.' The question and the initial brief answer might be misleading here. The real point that the author is making is that it's premature to conclude that the recent weak stock debuts (where many share prices fell below IPO levels) show the market is entering a depressed state. Xu argues that the disappointing stock debuts were mostly due to the overly expensive IPOs.