Goldman's Clients Are Asking How Various Inflation Regimes Affect Stocks: Here Is The Answer

zerohedge2021-06-07

Picking up on a joke we made earlier this week when we calledJoe Biden the Six Trillion Dollar Man(in homage to a very deflationary Lee Majors) in response to the 12 zeroes contained in his budget, in...

网页链接

免责声明：本文观点仅代表作者个人观点，不构成本平台的投资建议，本平台不对文章信息准确性、完整性和及时性做出任何保证，亦不对因使用或信赖文章信息引发的任何损失承担责任。

精彩评论

Titu
2021-06-07
Titu
Gd
Jazling
2021-06-07
Jazling
Wow
- Jazling:
  Ok
- priswong:
  ok
- Shadotaiger回复priswong:
  comment pls
- IceColdFist:
  HuAt

发表看法

{"i18n":{"language":"zh_CN"},"isChannel":false,"data":{"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1125639176?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","thumbnail":"","is_english":true,"pubTime":"2021-06-07 17:46","share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","id":"1125639176","market":"us","top_or_hot":-1,"title":"Goldman's Clients Are Asking How Various Inflation Regimes Affect Stocks: Here Is The Answer","media":"zerohedge","content":"<div>\nPicking up on a joke we made earlier this week when we calledJoe Biden the Six Trillion Dollar Man(in homage to a very deflationary Lee Majors) in response to the 12 zeroes contained in his budget, in...\n\n<a href=\"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/goldmans-clients-are-asking-how-various-inflation-regimes-affect-stocks-here-answer\">网页链接</a>\n\n</div>\n","source":null,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Goldman's Clients Are Asking How Various Inflation Regimes Affect Stocks: Here Is The Answer</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nGoldman's Clients Are Asking How Various Inflation Regimes Affect Stocks: Here Is The Answer\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-06-07 17:46 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/goldmans-clients-are-asking-how-various-inflation-regimes-affect-stocks-here-answer>zerohedge</a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\nPicking up on a joke we made earlier this week when we calledJoe Biden the Six Trillion Dollar Man(in homage to a very deflationary Lee Majors) in response to the 12 zeroes contained in his budget, in...\n\n<a href=\"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/goldmans-clients-are-asking-how-various-inflation-regimes-affect-stocks-here-answer\">网页链接</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","isBrief":false,"type":0,"news_type":1,"symbol":".DJI","symbol_name":"道琼斯","start_time":0,"source_url":"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/goldmans-clients-are-asking-how-various-inflation-regimes-affect-stocks-here-answer","article_id":"1125639176","we_media_id":null,"thumbnails":[],"rights":null,"url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1125639176","pubTimestamp":1623059192,"columns":[],"sourceInfo":null,"weMediaInfo":null,"summary":"Picking up on a joke we made earlier this week when we calledJoe Biden the Six Trillion Dollar Man(i","collect":0,"end_time":0,"defaultTopTitle":"zerohedge.com","property":[],"viewcount":null,"language":"en","relate_stocks":{".DJI":"道琼斯",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index","SPY":"标普500ETF"},"translate_title":"高盛的客户在问，各种通胀机制如何影响股市：答案如下","themeId":null,"isJumpTheme":false,"ttsUrl":null,"symbols_score_info":{".DJI":0.9,".SPX":0.9,".IXIC":0.9,"SPY":0.9},"content_text":"Picking up on a joke we made earlier this week when we calledJoe Biden the Six Trillion Dollar Man(in homage to a very deflationary Lee Majors) in response to the 12 zeroes contained in his budget, in his latest Weekly Kickstart note Goldman's David Kostin writes that...\n\n by at least one measure, inflation has been rampant during the past 50 years, noting that in 1973, Steve Austin was the most powerful man in the world, with super strength in his right arm, a bionic eye, and artificial legs that could run 60 mph. It cost the federal government $6 million to re-build the NASA astronaut into the bionic man, played by Lee Majors in the hit TV series, “The Six Million Dollar Man.”Fast forward to today, often sporting his trademark 1970s-style aviator sunglasses, President Joe Biden is the most powerful man in the world.Biden is the $6 trillion man when his three 2021 fiscal spending plans are combined: the $1.9 trillion COVID relief plan that was passed in March, the $2.0 trillion American infrastructure plan proposed in April, and the $1.8 trillion American families plan proposed in May\n . If all three proposals are passed by Congress, it would represent an unprecedented level of peacetime spending in relation to the size of the underlying economy. Of course, it remains to be seen whether the latter two plans pass Congress.\n\nAnd while it increasingly looks like Biden's original $6 trillion proposal will be substantially reduced - and may even collapse should it not gather the required support from centrist democrats - Goldman's economists did not wait to find out what happens andrecently raised their near-term inflation forecastseven as they maintained their expectation that inflation will begin to abate later in the year. In April, both core PCE (+3.1% y/y) and core CPI (+3.0% y/y) exceeded expectations and notched highs not seen in more than two decades. In turn, Goldman's economists expect that core PCE will register 2.5% at the end of 2021 and decline to 2.1% during 2022.\nTo be sure, after initially freaking out about a deluge of inflation, the growing likelihood that Biden's stimulus package will be materially diluted is why equity market performance has already shown a recent unwinding of inflation concerns. As Goldman notes, In March, amidst fears about rising inflation, stocks with high pricing power\n\n... began to outperform those with low pricing power, reversing 5 months of low pricing power outperformance as the economy recovered. However, during the past few weeks, low pricing power stocks have outperformed again (7% vs. 3%). At the same time, the interest rate 10-year inflation breakevens has declined by 14 bps to 2.4%, suggesting inflation fears priced by both equity and debt markets are easing.\nNot surprisingly, this whiplash has prompted most of Goldman's recent client discussions to focus on inflation and its implications for equities.And, as Kostin explains, investors ask just one thing:“how does inflation affect corporate earnings and stock valuations?”\nAnswering this recurring question, Goldman's Kostin notes that while inflation has mixed implications for earnings, it is generally a positive (as long as it is not hyperinflation in which case all bets are off of course). Kostin then reveals that in the bank's top-down sector-level earnings models,inflation consistently has positive coefficients for sales and negative coefficients for margins.On net, however, Goldman argues that \"the boost to nominal sales growth through rising prices typically more than offsets inflation-driven margin compression.\" While one can debate this, it is certainly the case that companies with revenues tied to commodities, like Energy, or interest rates, such as Financials, are the largest beneficiaries from strong inflation regimes.\nThat said, inflation becomes a headwind to valuationsif it leads to expectations of Fed tightening and thus higher real interest rates.And as Morgan Stanley has argued as part of its mid-cycle transition thesis, S&P 500 returns have been consistently positively correlated with breakeven inflation but valuations have typically contracted alongside sharp increases in real interest rates (as a reminder,MS expects PE multiples to shrink 15% in the next 6 months).\nOn the other hand, and adding to the complexity, the Fed has indicated it will not tighten the funds rate before seeing prolonged labor market improvement resulting in broad wage gains, particularly at the lower end of the income spectrum. In the past,the S&P 500 P/E multiple has typically expanded during periods of falling inflation and interest rates.\nFor the record, Goldman's economists forecast the yield curve will steepen in 2021 and 2022, with the funds rate unchanged while the 10-year yield rises from 1.6% today to 1.9% and 2.1% at year-end 2021 and 2022.\nHere Kostin makes another valiant attempt to ease worries about runaway inflation, claiming that although inflation is generally a negative impulse for valuation multiples, \"recent popular investor focus on earnings yield less the inflation rate is misplaced\" and here's why:\n\n Investors concerned by this metric note that it has fallen to its lowest point since the peak of the Tech Bubble in 2000 and suggests the return from owning equities is erased by inflation. We disagree with this interpretation. First, equity earnings and the prices tied to them are nominal and typically rise with inflation. Second, even inflation hawks agree that the most recent prints are biased by base effects and reopening dynamics. In contrast to the gap between the earnings yield and inflation, the EPS yield gap versus the 10-year US Treasury yield,\n which is commonly used as a proxy for equity risk premium, actually remains above its long-term average. See Exhibit 1.\n\n\nKostin's spin aside, it is undisputable that overall, stocks perform better during periods of low inflation than when inflation is high. Goldman categorizesperiods since 1962 into those of high and low inflation by comparing year/year core CPI to the Fed’s estimate of consensus long-term inflation expectations.Exhibit 2 clearly shows two inflationary regimes during the past 60 years:The first 20 years (1962-1980) and the past 40 years.\n\nDuring the first period - which culminated with Volcker hiking rates to 20% - core CPI averaged 5.3% and registered above the long-term estimate 69% of the time.\n\nSince 1962, both pre-and post-1980,the median monthly US equity market real return during high inflation environments has been an annualized 9% vs. 15% during periods of low inflation.As shown in the chart below, periods of high inflation have corresponded with theoutperformance of Health Care, Energy, Real Estate, and Consumer Staples sectors, while Materials and Technology stocks have fared the worst in high inflation environments. Surprisingly,Value and Size factors have not performed very differently in periods of high versus low inflation.\n\nFinally, drilling down a little deeper,equity performance has differed greatly in periods where inflation was high and rising versus high and falling.The median monthly market real return has been2% annualized in phases where inflation was high and rising vs. 15% when inflation was high and falling.At the factor level, Value has generally fared better when inflation was high and rising than when it was high and falling. Among sectors, although Energy and Health Care have outperformed in periods of high inflation, they have performed much better when inflation was rising than falling.","kind":"news","is_publish_news":true,"is_publish_highlight":true,"is_publish_live":false,"is_publish_wemedia":null,"editions":null,"column":"","sentiment":"0","news_tag":"","news_rank":0,"symbols":[],"gpt_button":0,"need_auth":false,"code":"91000000","status":"200"},"commentList":[{"id":114843219,"gmtCreate":1623068909131,"gmtModify":1634037328467,"author":{"id":"3558865529132556","authorId":"3558865529132556","name":"Titu","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/9f0b0e640551e4ad766c10135d80d562","vip":1,"crmLevel":6,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3558865529132556","authorIdStr":"3558865529132556"},"htmlText":"Gd","listText":"Gd","text":"Gd","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/114843219","repostId":1125639176,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1125639176","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1623059192,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1125639176?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-06-07 17:46","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Goldman's Clients Are Asking How Various Inflation Regimes Affect Stocks: Here Is The Answer<blockquote>高盛的客户正在询问各种通胀制度如何影响股票：答案如下</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1125639176","media":"zerohedge","summary":"Picking up on a joke we made earlier this week when we calledJoe Biden the Six Trillion Dollar Man(i","content":"Picking up on a joke we made earlier this week when we calledJoe Biden the Six Trillion Dollar Man(in homage to a very deflationary Lee Majors) in response to the 12 zeroes contained in his budget, in his latest Weekly Kickstart note Goldman's David Kostin writes that...<blockquote>高盛的大卫·科斯汀（David Kostin）在他最新的每周Kickstart报告中写道，本周早些时候，我们称乔·拜登为6万亿美元的人（向非常通货紧缩的李·梅杰斯致敬），以回应他预算中包含的12个零。</blockquote> by at least one measure, inflation has been rampant during the past 50 years, noting that in 1973, Steve Austin was the most powerful man in the world, with super strength in his right arm, a bionic eye, and artificial legs that could run 60 mph. It cost the federal government $6 million to re-build the NASA astronaut into the bionic man, played by Lee Majors in the hit TV series, “The Six Million Dollar Man.”Fast forward to today, often sporting his trademark 1970s-style aviator sunglasses, President Joe Biden is the most powerful man in the world.Biden is the $6 trillion man when his three 2021 fiscal spending plans are combined: the $1.9 trillion COVID relief plan that was passed in March, the $2.0 trillion American infrastructure plan proposed in April, and the $1.8 trillion American families plan proposed in May . If all three proposals are passed by Congress, it would represent an unprecedented level of peacetime spending in relation to the size of the underlying economy. Of course, it remains to be seen whether the latter two plans pass Congress. And while it increasingly looks like Biden's original $6 trillion proposal will be substantially reduced - and may even collapse should it not gather the required support from centrist democrats - Goldman's economists did not wait to find out what happens andrecently raised their near-term inflation forecastseven as they maintained their expectation that inflation will begin to abate later in the year. In April, both core PCE (+3.1% y/y) and core CPI (+3.0% y/y) exceeded expectations and notched highs not seen in more than two decades. In turn, Goldman's economists expect that core PCE will register 2.5% at the end of 2021 and decline to 2.1% during 2022.<blockquote>至少从一项衡量标准来看，通货膨胀在过去50年里一直很猖獗，并指出1973年，史蒂夫·奥斯汀是世界上最强大的人，他的右臂拥有超强的力量，一只仿生眼睛和可以跑60英里/小时的人造腿。联邦政府花费600万美元将这位NASA宇航员改造成仿生人，由李·梅杰斯在热门电视剧《六百万美元人》中饰演。快进到今天，乔·拜登总统经常戴着他标志性的1970年代风格飞行员太阳镜，是世界上最有权势的人。拜登的三项2021年财政支出计划加起来就是6万亿美元的人：3月份通过的1.9万亿美元新冠救助计划、4月份提出的2.0万亿美元美国基础设施计划和5月份提出的1.8万亿美元美国家庭计划如果这三项提案都被国会通过，相对于基础经济的规模，这将代表和平时期前所未有的支出水平。当然，后两项计划能否在国会通过还有待观察。尽管拜登最初的6万亿美元提案越来越有可能大幅削减——如果不能获得中间派民主党人所需的支持，甚至可能崩溃——但高盛的经济学家并没有等待了解会发生什么，最近上调了近期通胀预期尽管他们维持通胀将在今年晚些时候开始减弱的预期。4月份，核心PCE（同比+3.1%）和核心CPI（同比+3.0%）均超出预期，创下二十多年来的新高。反过来，高盛经济学家预计核心PCE将在2021年底达到2.5%，并在2022年降至2.1%。</blockquote> To be sure, after initially freaking out about a deluge of inflation, the growing likelihood that Biden's stimulus package will be materially diluted is why equity market performance has already shown a recent unwinding of inflation concerns. As Goldman notes, In March, amidst fears about rising inflation, stocks with high pricing power<blockquote>可以肯定的是，在最初对通胀泛滥感到恐慌之后，拜登的刺激计划被大幅稀释的可能性越来越大，这就是为什么股市表现已经显示出近期通胀担忧有所缓解。正如高盛指出的，3月份，在对通胀上升的担忧中，具有高定价能力的股票</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f2ac6b5d202e8b2a34a7da158541dd93\" tg-width=\"1226\" tg-height=\"896\"><blockquote></blockquote> ... began to outperform those with low pricing power, reversing 5 months of low pricing power outperformance as the economy recovered. However, during the past few weeks, low pricing power stocks have outperformed again (7% vs. 3%). At the same time, the interest rate 10-year inflation breakevens has declined by 14 bps to 2.4%, suggesting inflation fears priced by both equity and debt markets are easing.<blockquote>...开始跑赢低定价权者，随着经济复苏扭转了5个月的低定价权跑赢局面。然而，在过去几周内，低定价能力股票再次跑赢大盘（7%对3%）。与此同时，10年期通胀盈亏平衡点利率下降14个基点至2.4%，表明股票和债务市场定价的通胀担忧正在缓解。</blockquote> Not surprisingly, this whiplash has prompted most of Goldman's recent client discussions to focus on inflation and its implications for equities.And, as Kostin explains, investors ask just one thing:“how does inflation affect corporate earnings and stock valuations?”<blockquote>毫不奇怪，这种打击促使高盛最近的大部分客户讨论都集中在通胀及其对股市的影响上。而且，正如科斯汀解释的那样，投资者只问一件事：“通胀如何影响企业盈利和股票估值？”</blockquote> Answering this recurring question, Goldman's Kostin notes that while inflation has mixed implications for earnings, it is generally a positive (as long as it is not hyperinflation in which case all bets are off of course). Kostin then reveals that in the bank's top-down sector-level earnings models,inflation consistently has positive coefficients for sales and negative coefficients for margins.On net, however, Goldman argues that \"the boost to nominal sales growth through rising prices typically more than offsets inflation-driven margin compression.\" While one can debate this, it is certainly the case that companies with revenues tied to commodities, like Energy, or interest rates, such as Financials, are the largest beneficiaries from strong inflation regimes.<blockquote>在回答这个反复出现的问题时，高盛的科斯汀指出，虽然通胀对盈利的影响好坏参半，但总体上是积极的（只要不是恶性通胀，在这种情况下，所有的赌注当然都是错误的）。科斯汀随后透露，在该银行自上而下的行业级盈利模型中，通货膨胀始终对销售额有正系数，对利润率有负系数。然而，高盛认为，“价格上涨对名义销售增长的推动通常足以抵消通胀驱动的利润率压缩。”虽然人们可以对此进行辩论，但收入与能源等大宗商品或金融等利率挂钩的公司确实是强劲通胀制度的最大受益者。</blockquote> That said, inflation becomes a headwind to valuationsif it leads to expectations of Fed tightening and thus higher real interest rates.And as Morgan Stanley has argued as part of its mid-cycle transition thesis, S&amp;P 500 returns have been consistently positively correlated with breakeven inflation but valuations have typically contracted alongside sharp increases in real interest rates (as a reminder,MS expects PE multiples to shrink 15% in the next 6 months).<blockquote>也就是说，通胀成为估值的阻力如果导致美联储紧缩的预期，从而导致实际利率上升。正如摩根士丹利在其中期周期转型论点中所指出的那样，标普500回报一直与盈亏平衡通胀正相关，但估值通常会随着实际利率的大幅上升而收缩（提醒一下，摩根士丹利预计市盈率将在未来6个月内萎缩15%）。</blockquote> On the other hand, and adding to the complexity, the Fed has indicated it will not tighten the funds rate before seeing prolonged labor market improvement resulting in broad wage gains, particularly at the lower end of the income spectrum. In the past,the S&amp;P 500 P/E multiple has typically expanded during periods of falling inflation and interest rates.<blockquote>另一方面，美联储表示，在看到劳动力市场长期改善导致工资普遍上涨之前，不会收紧基金利率，特别是在收入范围的低端。在过去，在通胀和利率下降期间，标普500市盈率通常会扩大。</blockquote> For the record, Goldman's economists forecast the yield curve will steepen in 2021 and 2022, with the funds rate unchanged while the 10-year yield rises from 1.6% today to 1.9% and 2.1% at year-end 2021 and 2022.<blockquote>根据记录，高盛经济学家预测收益率曲线将在2021年和2022年变陡，基金利率保持不变，而10年期国债收益率将从目前的1.6%升至2021年和2022年底的1.9%和2.1%。</blockquote> Here Kostin makes another valiant attempt to ease worries about runaway inflation, claiming that although inflation is generally a negative impulse for valuation multiples, \"recent popular investor focus on earnings yield less the inflation rate is misplaced\" and here's why:<blockquote>在这里，科斯汀再次勇敢地尝试缓解人们对通胀失控的担忧，他声称，尽管通胀通常是估值倍数的负面推动，但“最近受欢迎的投资者对盈利收益率而不是通胀率的关注是错误的”，原因如下：</blockquote> Investors concerned by this metric note that it has fallen to its lowest point since the peak of the Tech Bubble in 2000 and suggests the return from owning equities is erased by inflation. We disagree with this interpretation. First, equity earnings and the prices tied to them are nominal and typically rise with inflation. Second, even inflation hawks agree that the most recent prints are biased by base effects and reopening dynamics. In contrast to the gap between the earnings yield and inflation, the EPS yield gap versus the 10-year US Treasury yield, which is commonly used as a proxy for equity risk premium, actually remains above its long-term average. See Exhibit 1. <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/19ce43723e974f10d09d22d22d2b94d5\" tg-width=\"666\" tg-height=\"460\"><blockquote>关注这一指标的投资者指出，该指标已跌至2000年科技泡沫顶峰以来的最低点，并表明持有股票的回报已被通胀抹去。我们不同意这种解释。首先，股票收益和与之相关的价格是名义上的，通常会随着通货膨胀而上涨。其次，即使是通胀鹰派也同意，最近的数据受到基数效应和重新开放动态的影响。与收益收益率与通胀之间的差距相反，每股收益收益率与10年期美国国债收益率的差距，通常用作股票风险溢价的代表，实际上仍高于其长期平均水平见附件1。</blockquote> Kostin's spin aside, it is undisputable that overall, stocks perform better during periods of low inflation than when inflation is high. Goldman categorizesperiods since 1962 into those of high and low inflation by comparing year/year core CPI to the Fed’s estimate of consensus long-term inflation expectations.Exhibit 2 clearly shows two inflationary regimes during the past 60 years:The first 20 years (1962-1980) and the past 40 years.<blockquote>撇开科斯汀的说法不谈，无可争议的是，总体而言，股票在低通胀时期的表现比高通胀时期更好。高盛分类通过将逐年核心CPI与美联储对共识长期通胀预期的估计进行比较，将1962年以来的高通胀和低通胀时期进行比较。图表2清楚地显示了过去60年中的两种通货膨胀机制：前20年（1962-1980年）和过去40年。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4d3dba72235e365db113b1b69ff99bea\" tg-width=\"614\" tg-height=\"416\"><blockquote></blockquote> During the first period - which culminated with Volcker hiking rates to 20% - core CPI averaged 5.3% and registered above the long-term estimate 69% of the time.<blockquote>在第一阶段——最终沃尔克将利率提高至20%——核心CPI平均为5.3%，69%的时间高于长期预期。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/70a26033c173505360dba7a05ca60c40\" tg-width=\"601\" tg-height=\"298\"><blockquote></blockquote> Since 1962, both pre-and post-1980,the median monthly US equity market real return during high inflation environments has been an annualized 9% vs. 15% during periods of low inflation.As shown in the chart below, periods of high inflation have corresponded with theoutperformance of Health Care, Energy, Real Estate, and Consumer Staples sectors, while Materials and Technology stocks have fared the worst in high inflation environments. Surprisingly,Value and Size factors have not performed very differently in periods of high versus low inflation.<blockquote>1962年以来，无论是1980年前还是1980年后，在高通胀环境下，美国股市的月实际回报率中位数为年化9%，而在低通胀时期为15%。如下图所示，高通胀时期与医疗保健、能源、房地产和必需消费品行业表现出色，而材料和科技股在高通胀环境下表现最差。令人惊讶的是，在高通胀和低通胀时期，价值和规模因素的表现并没有太大不同。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/53ec13f17a7461808d8d56ba730f15a6\" tg-width=\"644\" tg-height=\"418\"><blockquote></blockquote> Finally, drilling down a little deeper,equity performance has differed greatly in periods where inflation was high and rising versus high and falling.The median monthly market real return has been2% annualized in phases where inflation was high and rising vs. 15% when inflation was high and falling.At the factor level, Value has generally fared better when inflation was high and rising than when it was high and falling. Among sectors, although Energy and Health Care have outperformed in periods of high inflation, they have performed much better when inflation was rising than falling.<blockquote>最后，再往下钻一点，在通胀高且上升期间与高且下降期间，股票表现差异很大。每月市场实际回报中位数为在通胀高且上升的阶段，年化率为2%，而在通胀高且下降的阶段，年化率为15%。在要素层面，当通胀高且上升时，价值通常比通胀高且下降时表现更好。在行业中，尽管能源和医疗保健在高通胀时期表现优于大盘，但在通胀上升时，它们的表现要好得多。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/8ca97729ade8e4d50ab8bf7b4bb03ceb\" tg-width=\"1204\" tg-height=\"907\"><blockquote></blockquote>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Goldman's Clients Are Asking How Various Inflation Regimes Affect Stocks: Here Is The Answer<blockquote>高盛的客户正在询问各种通胀制度如何影响股票：答案如下</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nGoldman's Clients Are Asking How Various Inflation Regimes Affect Stocks: Here Is The Answer<blockquote>高盛的客户正在询问各种通胀制度如何影响股票：答案如下</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nzerohedge2021-06-07 17:46\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\nPicking up on a joke we made earlier this week when we calledJoe Biden the Six Trillion Dollar Man(in homage to a very deflationary Lee Majors) in response to the 12 zeroes contained in his budget, in his latest Weekly Kickstart note Goldman's David Kostin writes that...<blockquote>高盛的大卫·科斯汀（David Kostin）在他最新的每周Kickstart报告中写道，本周早些时候，我们称乔·拜登为6万亿美元的人（向非常通货紧缩的李·梅杰斯致敬），以回应他预算中包含的12个零。</blockquote> by at least one measure, inflation has been rampant during the past 50 years, noting that in 1973, Steve Austin was the most powerful man in the world, with super strength in his right arm, a bionic eye, and artificial legs that could run 60 mph. It cost the federal government $6 million to re-build the NASA astronaut into the bionic man, played by Lee Majors in the hit TV series, “The Six Million Dollar Man.”Fast forward to today, often sporting his trademark 1970s-style aviator sunglasses, President Joe Biden is the most powerful man in the world.Biden is the $6 trillion man when his three 2021 fiscal spending plans are combined: the $1.9 trillion COVID relief plan that was passed in March, the $2.0 trillion American infrastructure plan proposed in April, and the $1.8 trillion American families plan proposed in May . If all three proposals are passed by Congress, it would represent an unprecedented level of peacetime spending in relation to the size of the underlying economy. Of course, it remains to be seen whether the latter two plans pass Congress. And while it increasingly looks like Biden's original $6 trillion proposal will be substantially reduced - and may even collapse should it not gather the required support from centrist democrats - Goldman's economists did not wait to find out what happens andrecently raised their near-term inflation forecastseven as they maintained their expectation that inflation will begin to abate later in the year. In April, both core PCE (+3.1% y/y) and core CPI (+3.0% y/y) exceeded expectations and notched highs not seen in more than two decades. In turn, Goldman's economists expect that core PCE will register 2.5% at the end of 2021 and decline to 2.1% during 2022.<blockquote>至少从一项衡量标准来看，通货膨胀在过去50年里一直很猖獗，并指出1973年，史蒂夫·奥斯汀是世界上最强大的人，他的右臂拥有超强的力量，一只仿生眼睛和可以跑60英里/小时的人造腿。联邦政府花费600万美元将这位NASA宇航员改造成仿生人，由李·梅杰斯在热门电视剧《六百万美元人》中饰演。快进到今天，乔·拜登总统经常戴着他标志性的1970年代风格飞行员太阳镜，是世界上最有权势的人。拜登的三项2021年财政支出计划加起来就是6万亿美元的人：3月份通过的1.9万亿美元新冠救助计划、4月份提出的2.0万亿美元美国基础设施计划和5月份提出的1.8万亿美元美国家庭计划如果这三项提案都被国会通过，相对于基础经济的规模，这将代表和平时期前所未有的支出水平。当然，后两项计划能否在国会通过还有待观察。尽管拜登最初的6万亿美元提案越来越有可能大幅削减——如果不能获得中间派民主党人所需的支持，甚至可能崩溃——但高盛的经济学家并没有等待了解会发生什么，最近上调了近期通胀预期尽管他们维持通胀将在今年晚些时候开始减弱的预期。4月份，核心PCE（同比+3.1%）和核心CPI（同比+3.0%）均超出预期，创下二十多年来的新高。反过来，高盛经济学家预计核心PCE将在2021年底达到2.5%，并在2022年降至2.1%。</blockquote> To be sure, after initially freaking out about a deluge of inflation, the growing likelihood that Biden's stimulus package will be materially diluted is why equity market performance has already shown a recent unwinding of inflation concerns. As Goldman notes, In March, amidst fears about rising inflation, stocks with high pricing power<blockquote>可以肯定的是，在最初对通胀泛滥感到恐慌之后，拜登的刺激计划被大幅稀释的可能性越来越大，这就是为什么股市表现已经显示出近期通胀担忧有所缓解。正如高盛指出的，3月份，在对通胀上升的担忧中，具有高定价能力的股票</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f2ac6b5d202e8b2a34a7da158541dd93\" tg-width=\"1226\" tg-height=\"896\"><blockquote></blockquote> ... began to outperform those with low pricing power, reversing 5 months of low pricing power outperformance as the economy recovered. However, during the past few weeks, low pricing power stocks have outperformed again (7% vs. 3%). At the same time, the interest rate 10-year inflation breakevens has declined by 14 bps to 2.4%, suggesting inflation fears priced by both equity and debt markets are easing.<blockquote>...开始跑赢低定价权者，随着经济复苏扭转了5个月的低定价权跑赢局面。然而，在过去几周内，低定价能力股票再次跑赢大盘（7%对3%）。与此同时，10年期通胀盈亏平衡点利率下降14个基点至2.4%，表明股票和债务市场定价的通胀担忧正在缓解。</blockquote> Not surprisingly, this whiplash has prompted most of Goldman's recent client discussions to focus on inflation and its implications for equities.And, as Kostin explains, investors ask just one thing:“how does inflation affect corporate earnings and stock valuations?”<blockquote>毫不奇怪，这种打击促使高盛最近的大部分客户讨论都集中在通胀及其对股市的影响上。而且，正如科斯汀解释的那样，投资者只问一件事：“通胀如何影响企业盈利和股票估值？”</blockquote> Answering this recurring question, Goldman's Kostin notes that while inflation has mixed implications for earnings, it is generally a positive (as long as it is not hyperinflation in which case all bets are off of course). Kostin then reveals that in the bank's top-down sector-level earnings models,inflation consistently has positive coefficients for sales and negative coefficients for margins.On net, however, Goldman argues that \"the boost to nominal sales growth through rising prices typically more than offsets inflation-driven margin compression.\" While one can debate this, it is certainly the case that companies with revenues tied to commodities, like Energy, or interest rates, such as Financials, are the largest beneficiaries from strong inflation regimes.<blockquote>在回答这个反复出现的问题时，高盛的科斯汀指出，虽然通胀对盈利的影响好坏参半，但总体上是积极的（只要不是恶性通胀，在这种情况下，所有的赌注当然都是错误的）。科斯汀随后透露，在该银行自上而下的行业级盈利模型中，通货膨胀始终对销售额有正系数，对利润率有负系数。然而，高盛认为，“价格上涨对名义销售增长的推动通常足以抵消通胀驱动的利润率压缩。”虽然人们可以对此进行辩论，但收入与能源等大宗商品或金融等利率挂钩的公司确实是强劲通胀制度的最大受益者。</blockquote> That said, inflation becomes a headwind to valuationsif it leads to expectations of Fed tightening and thus higher real interest rates.And as Morgan Stanley has argued as part of its mid-cycle transition thesis, S&amp;P 500 returns have been consistently positively correlated with breakeven inflation but valuations have typically contracted alongside sharp increases in real interest rates (as a reminder,MS expects PE multiples to shrink 15% in the next 6 months).<blockquote>也就是说，通胀成为估值的阻力如果导致美联储紧缩的预期，从而导致实际利率上升。正如摩根士丹利在其中期周期转型论点中所指出的那样，标普500回报一直与盈亏平衡通胀正相关，但估值通常会随着实际利率的大幅上升而收缩（提醒一下，摩根士丹利预计市盈率将在未来6个月内萎缩15%）。</blockquote> On the other hand, and adding to the complexity, the Fed has indicated it will not tighten the funds rate before seeing prolonged labor market improvement resulting in broad wage gains, particularly at the lower end of the income spectrum. In the past,the S&amp;P 500 P/E multiple has typically expanded during periods of falling inflation and interest rates.<blockquote>另一方面，美联储表示，在看到劳动力市场长期改善导致工资普遍上涨之前，不会收紧基金利率，特别是在收入范围的低端。在过去，在通胀和利率下降期间，标普500市盈率通常会扩大。</blockquote> For the record, Goldman's economists forecast the yield curve will steepen in 2021 and 2022, with the funds rate unchanged while the 10-year yield rises from 1.6% today to 1.9% and 2.1% at year-end 2021 and 2022.<blockquote>根据记录，高盛经济学家预测收益率曲线将在2021年和2022年变陡，基金利率保持不变，而10年期国债收益率将从目前的1.6%升至2021年和2022年底的1.9%和2.1%。</blockquote> Here Kostin makes another valiant attempt to ease worries about runaway inflation, claiming that although inflation is generally a negative impulse for valuation multiples, \"recent popular investor focus on earnings yield less the inflation rate is misplaced\" and here's why:<blockquote>在这里，科斯汀再次勇敢地尝试缓解人们对通胀失控的担忧，他声称，尽管通胀通常是估值倍数的负面推动，但“最近受欢迎的投资者对盈利收益率而不是通胀率的关注是错误的”，原因如下：</blockquote> Investors concerned by this metric note that it has fallen to its lowest point since the peak of the Tech Bubble in 2000 and suggests the return from owning equities is erased by inflation. We disagree with this interpretation. First, equity earnings and the prices tied to them are nominal and typically rise with inflation. Second, even inflation hawks agree that the most recent prints are biased by base effects and reopening dynamics. In contrast to the gap between the earnings yield and inflation, the EPS yield gap versus the 10-year US Treasury yield, which is commonly used as a proxy for equity risk premium, actually remains above its long-term average. See Exhibit 1. <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/19ce43723e974f10d09d22d22d2b94d5\" tg-width=\"666\" tg-height=\"460\"><blockquote>关注这一指标的投资者指出，该指标已跌至2000年科技泡沫顶峰以来的最低点，并表明持有股票的回报已被通胀抹去。我们不同意这种解释。首先，股票收益和与之相关的价格是名义上的，通常会随着通货膨胀而上涨。其次，即使是通胀鹰派也同意，最近的数据受到基数效应和重新开放动态的影响。与收益收益率与通胀之间的差距相反，每股收益收益率与10年期美国国债收益率的差距，通常用作股票风险溢价的代表，实际上仍高于其长期平均水平见附件1。</blockquote> Kostin's spin aside, it is undisputable that overall, stocks perform better during periods of low inflation than when inflation is high. Goldman categorizesperiods since 1962 into those of high and low inflation by comparing year/year core CPI to the Fed’s estimate of consensus long-term inflation expectations.Exhibit 2 clearly shows two inflationary regimes during the past 60 years:The first 20 years (1962-1980) and the past 40 years.<blockquote>撇开科斯汀的说法不谈，无可争议的是，总体而言，股票在低通胀时期的表现比高通胀时期更好。高盛分类通过将逐年核心CPI与美联储对共识长期通胀预期的估计进行比较，将1962年以来的高通胀和低通胀时期进行比较。图表2清楚地显示了过去60年中的两种通货膨胀机制：前20年（1962-1980年）和过去40年。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4d3dba72235e365db113b1b69ff99bea\" tg-width=\"614\" tg-height=\"416\"><blockquote></blockquote> During the first period - which culminated with Volcker hiking rates to 20% - core CPI averaged 5.3% and registered above the long-term estimate 69% of the time.<blockquote>在第一阶段——最终沃尔克将利率提高至20%——核心CPI平均为5.3%，69%的时间高于长期预期。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/70a26033c173505360dba7a05ca60c40\" tg-width=\"601\" tg-height=\"298\"><blockquote></blockquote> Since 1962, both pre-and post-1980,the median monthly US equity market real return during high inflation environments has been an annualized 9% vs. 15% during periods of low inflation.As shown in the chart below, periods of high inflation have corresponded with theoutperformance of Health Care, Energy, Real Estate, and Consumer Staples sectors, while Materials and Technology stocks have fared the worst in high inflation environments. Surprisingly,Value and Size factors have not performed very differently in periods of high versus low inflation.<blockquote>1962年以来，无论是1980年前还是1980年后，在高通胀环境下，美国股市的月实际回报率中位数为年化9%，而在低通胀时期为15%。如下图所示，高通胀时期与医疗保健、能源、房地产和必需消费品行业表现出色，而材料和科技股在高通胀环境下表现最差。令人惊讶的是，在高通胀和低通胀时期，价值和规模因素的表现并没有太大不同。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/53ec13f17a7461808d8d56ba730f15a6\" tg-width=\"644\" tg-height=\"418\"><blockquote></blockquote> Finally, drilling down a little deeper,equity performance has differed greatly in periods where inflation was high and rising versus high and falling.The median monthly market real return has been2% annualized in phases where inflation was high and rising vs. 15% when inflation was high and falling.At the factor level, Value has generally fared better when inflation was high and rising than when it was high and falling. Among sectors, although Energy and Health Care have outperformed in periods of high inflation, they have performed much better when inflation was rising than falling.<blockquote>最后，再往下钻一点，在通胀高且上升期间与高且下降期间，股票表现差异很大。每月市场实际回报中位数为在通胀高且上升的阶段，年化率为2%，而在通胀高且下降的阶段，年化率为15%。在要素层面，当通胀高且上升时，价值通常比通胀高且下降时表现更好。在行业中，尽管能源和医疗保健在高通胀时期表现优于大盘，但在通胀上升时，它们的表现要好得多。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/8ca97729ade8e4d50ab8bf7b4bb03ceb\" tg-width=\"1204\" tg-height=\"907\"><blockquote></blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/goldmans-clients-are-asking-how-various-inflation-regimes-affect-stocks-here-answer\">zerohedge</a>\n为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".DJI":"道琼斯",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index","SPY":"标普500ETF"},"source_url":"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/goldmans-clients-are-asking-how-various-inflation-regimes-affect-stocks-here-answer","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1125639176","content_text":"Picking up on a joke we made earlier this week when we calledJoe Biden the Six Trillion Dollar Man(in homage to a very deflationary Lee Majors) in response to the 12 zeroes contained in his budget, in his latest Weekly Kickstart note Goldman's David Kostin writes that...\n\n by at least one measure, inflation has been rampant during the past 50 years, noting that in 1973, Steve Austin was the most powerful man in the world, with super strength in his right arm, a bionic eye, and artificial legs that could run 60 mph. It cost the federal government $6 million to re-build the NASA astronaut into the bionic man, played by Lee Majors in the hit TV series, “The Six Million Dollar Man.”Fast forward to today, often sporting his trademark 1970s-style aviator sunglasses, President Joe Biden is the most powerful man in the world.Biden is the $6 trillion man when his three 2021 fiscal spending plans are combined: the $1.9 trillion COVID relief plan that was passed in March, the $2.0 trillion American infrastructure plan proposed in April, and the $1.8 trillion American families plan proposed in May\n . If all three proposals are passed by Congress, it would represent an unprecedented level of peacetime spending in relation to the size of the underlying economy. Of course, it remains to be seen whether the latter two plans pass Congress.\n\nAnd while it increasingly looks like Biden's original $6 trillion proposal will be substantially reduced - and may even collapse should it not gather the required support from centrist democrats - Goldman's economists did not wait to find out what happens andrecently raised their near-term inflation forecastseven as they maintained their expectation that inflation will begin to abate later in the year. In April, both core PCE (+3.1% y/y) and core CPI (+3.0% y/y) exceeded expectations and notched highs not seen in more than two decades. In turn, Goldman's economists expect that core PCE will register 2.5% at the end of 2021 and decline to 2.1% during 2022.\nTo be sure, after initially freaking out about a deluge of inflation, the growing likelihood that Biden's stimulus package will be materially diluted is why equity market performance has already shown a recent unwinding of inflation concerns. As Goldman notes, In March, amidst fears about rising inflation, stocks with high pricing power\n\n... began to outperform those with low pricing power, reversing 5 months of low pricing power outperformance as the economy recovered. However, during the past few weeks, low pricing power stocks have outperformed again (7% vs. 3%). At the same time, the interest rate 10-year inflation breakevens has declined by 14 bps to 2.4%, suggesting inflation fears priced by both equity and debt markets are easing.\nNot surprisingly, this whiplash has prompted most of Goldman's recent client discussions to focus on inflation and its implications for equities.And, as Kostin explains, investors ask just one thing:“how does inflation affect corporate earnings and stock valuations?”\nAnswering this recurring question, Goldman's Kostin notes that while inflation has mixed implications for earnings, it is generally a positive (as long as it is not hyperinflation in which case all bets are off of course). Kostin then reveals that in the bank's top-down sector-level earnings models,inflation consistently has positive coefficients for sales and negative coefficients for margins.On net, however, Goldman argues that \"the boost to nominal sales growth through rising prices typically more than offsets inflation-driven margin compression.\" While one can debate this, it is certainly the case that companies with revenues tied to commodities, like Energy, or interest rates, such as Financials, are the largest beneficiaries from strong inflation regimes.\nThat said, inflation becomes a headwind to valuationsif it leads to expectations of Fed tightening and thus higher real interest rates.And as Morgan Stanley has argued as part of its mid-cycle transition thesis, S&P 500 returns have been consistently positively correlated with breakeven inflation but valuations have typically contracted alongside sharp increases in real interest rates (as a reminder,MS expects PE multiples to shrink 15% in the next 6 months).\nOn the other hand, and adding to the complexity, the Fed has indicated it will not tighten the funds rate before seeing prolonged labor market improvement resulting in broad wage gains, particularly at the lower end of the income spectrum. In the past,the S&P 500 P/E multiple has typically expanded during periods of falling inflation and interest rates.\nFor the record, Goldman's economists forecast the yield curve will steepen in 2021 and 2022, with the funds rate unchanged while the 10-year yield rises from 1.6% today to 1.9% and 2.1% at year-end 2021 and 2022.\nHere Kostin makes another valiant attempt to ease worries about runaway inflation, claiming that although inflation is generally a negative impulse for valuation multiples, \"recent popular investor focus on earnings yield less the inflation rate is misplaced\" and here's why:\n\n Investors concerned by this metric note that it has fallen to its lowest point since the peak of the Tech Bubble in 2000 and suggests the return from owning equities is erased by inflation. We disagree with this interpretation. First, equity earnings and the prices tied to them are nominal and typically rise with inflation. Second, even inflation hawks agree that the most recent prints are biased by base effects and reopening dynamics. In contrast to the gap between the earnings yield and inflation, the EPS yield gap versus the 10-year US Treasury yield,\n which is commonly used as a proxy for equity risk premium, actually remains above its long-term average. See Exhibit 1.\n\n\nKostin's spin aside, it is undisputable that overall, stocks perform better during periods of low inflation than when inflation is high. Goldman categorizesperiods since 1962 into those of high and low inflation by comparing year/year core CPI to the Fed’s estimate of consensus long-term inflation expectations.Exhibit 2 clearly shows two inflationary regimes during the past 60 years:The first 20 years (1962-1980) and the past 40 years.\n\nDuring the first period - which culminated with Volcker hiking rates to 20% - core CPI averaged 5.3% and registered above the long-term estimate 69% of the time.\n\nSince 1962, both pre-and post-1980,the median monthly US equity market real return during high inflation environments has been an annualized 9% vs. 15% during periods of low inflation.As shown in the chart below, periods of high inflation have corresponded with theoutperformance of Health Care, Energy, Real Estate, and Consumer Staples sectors, while Materials and Technology stocks have fared the worst in high inflation environments. Surprisingly,Value and Size factors have not performed very differently in periods of high versus low inflation.\n\nFinally, drilling down a little deeper,equity performance has differed greatly in periods where inflation was high and rising versus high and falling.The median monthly market real return has been2% annualized in phases where inflation was high and rising vs. 15% when inflation was high and falling.At the factor level, Value has generally fared better when inflation was high and rising than when it was high and falling. Among sectors, although Energy and Health Care have outperformed in periods of high inflation, they have performed much better when inflation was rising than falling.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{".DJI":0.9,".SPX":0.9,".IXIC":0.9,"SPY":0.9}},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":114150285,"gmtCreate":1623059314947,"gmtModify":1634037400180,"author":{"id":"3566821013640470","authorId":"3566821013640470","name":"Jazling","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/85e0a83573d9307f57fca9b2baed72af","vip":1,"crmLevel":5,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3566821013640470","authorIdStr":"3566821013640470"},"htmlText":"Wow","listText":"Wow","text":"Wow","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":4,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/114150285","repostId":1125639176,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1125639176","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1623059192,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1125639176?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-06-07 17:46","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Goldman's Clients Are Asking How Various Inflation Regimes Affect Stocks: Here Is The Answer<blockquote>高盛的客户正在询问各种通胀制度如何影响股票：答案如下</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1125639176","media":"zerohedge","summary":"Picking up on a joke we made earlier this week when we calledJoe Biden the Six Trillion Dollar Man(i","content":"Picking up on a joke we made earlier this week when we calledJoe Biden the Six Trillion Dollar Man(in homage to a very deflationary Lee Majors) in response to the 12 zeroes contained in his budget, in his latest Weekly Kickstart note Goldman's David Kostin writes that...<blockquote>高盛的大卫·科斯汀（David Kostin）在他最新的每周Kickstart报告中写道，本周早些时候，我们称乔·拜登为6万亿美元的人（向非常通货紧缩的李·梅杰斯致敬），以回应他预算中包含的12个零。</blockquote> by at least one measure, inflation has been rampant during the past 50 years, noting that in 1973, Steve Austin was the most powerful man in the world, with super strength in his right arm, a bionic eye, and artificial legs that could run 60 mph. It cost the federal government $6 million to re-build the NASA astronaut into the bionic man, played by Lee Majors in the hit TV series, “The Six Million Dollar Man.”Fast forward to today, often sporting his trademark 1970s-style aviator sunglasses, President Joe Biden is the most powerful man in the world.Biden is the $6 trillion man when his three 2021 fiscal spending plans are combined: the $1.9 trillion COVID relief plan that was passed in March, the $2.0 trillion American infrastructure plan proposed in April, and the $1.8 trillion American families plan proposed in May . If all three proposals are passed by Congress, it would represent an unprecedented level of peacetime spending in relation to the size of the underlying economy. Of course, it remains to be seen whether the latter two plans pass Congress. And while it increasingly looks like Biden's original $6 trillion proposal will be substantially reduced - and may even collapse should it not gather the required support from centrist democrats - Goldman's economists did not wait to find out what happens andrecently raised their near-term inflation forecastseven as they maintained their expectation that inflation will begin to abate later in the year. In April, both core PCE (+3.1% y/y) and core CPI (+3.0% y/y) exceeded expectations and notched highs not seen in more than two decades. In turn, Goldman's economists expect that core PCE will register 2.5% at the end of 2021 and decline to 2.1% during 2022.<blockquote>至少从一项衡量标准来看，通货膨胀在过去50年里一直很猖獗，并指出1973年，史蒂夫·奥斯汀是世界上最强大的人，他的右臂拥有超强的力量，一只仿生眼睛和可以跑60英里/小时的人造腿。联邦政府花费600万美元将这位NASA宇航员改造成仿生人，由李·梅杰斯在热门电视剧《六百万美元人》中饰演。快进到今天，乔·拜登总统经常戴着他标志性的1970年代风格飞行员太阳镜，是世界上最有权势的人。拜登的三项2021年财政支出计划加起来就是6万亿美元的人：3月份通过的1.9万亿美元新冠救助计划、4月份提出的2.0万亿美元美国基础设施计划和5月份提出的1.8万亿美元美国家庭计划如果这三项提案都被国会通过，相对于基础经济的规模，这将代表和平时期前所未有的支出水平。当然，后两项计划能否在国会通过还有待观察。尽管拜登最初的6万亿美元提案越来越有可能大幅削减——如果不能获得中间派民主党人所需的支持，甚至可能崩溃——但高盛的经济学家并没有等待了解会发生什么，最近上调了近期通胀预期尽管他们维持通胀将在今年晚些时候开始减弱的预期。4月份，核心PCE（同比+3.1%）和核心CPI（同比+3.0%）均超出预期，创下二十多年来的新高。反过来，高盛经济学家预计核心PCE将在2021年底达到2.5%，并在2022年降至2.1%。</blockquote> To be sure, after initially freaking out about a deluge of inflation, the growing likelihood that Biden's stimulus package will be materially diluted is why equity market performance has already shown a recent unwinding of inflation concerns. As Goldman notes, In March, amidst fears about rising inflation, stocks with high pricing power<blockquote>可以肯定的是，在最初对通胀泛滥感到恐慌之后，拜登的刺激计划被大幅稀释的可能性越来越大，这就是为什么股市表现已经显示出近期通胀担忧有所缓解。正如高盛指出的，3月份，在对通胀上升的担忧中，具有高定价能力的股票</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f2ac6b5d202e8b2a34a7da158541dd93\" tg-width=\"1226\" tg-height=\"896\"><blockquote></blockquote> ... began to outperform those with low pricing power, reversing 5 months of low pricing power outperformance as the economy recovered. However, during the past few weeks, low pricing power stocks have outperformed again (7% vs. 3%). At the same time, the interest rate 10-year inflation breakevens has declined by 14 bps to 2.4%, suggesting inflation fears priced by both equity and debt markets are easing.<blockquote>...开始跑赢低定价权者，随着经济复苏扭转了5个月的低定价权跑赢局面。然而，在过去几周内，低定价能力股票再次跑赢大盘（7%对3%）。与此同时，10年期通胀盈亏平衡点利率下降14个基点至2.4%，表明股票和债务市场定价的通胀担忧正在缓解。</blockquote> Not surprisingly, this whiplash has prompted most of Goldman's recent client discussions to focus on inflation and its implications for equities.And, as Kostin explains, investors ask just one thing:“how does inflation affect corporate earnings and stock valuations?”<blockquote>毫不奇怪，这种打击促使高盛最近的大部分客户讨论都集中在通胀及其对股市的影响上。而且，正如科斯汀解释的那样，投资者只问一件事：“通胀如何影响企业盈利和股票估值？”</blockquote> Answering this recurring question, Goldman's Kostin notes that while inflation has mixed implications for earnings, it is generally a positive (as long as it is not hyperinflation in which case all bets are off of course). Kostin then reveals that in the bank's top-down sector-level earnings models,inflation consistently has positive coefficients for sales and negative coefficients for margins.On net, however, Goldman argues that \"the boost to nominal sales growth through rising prices typically more than offsets inflation-driven margin compression.\" While one can debate this, it is certainly the case that companies with revenues tied to commodities, like Energy, or interest rates, such as Financials, are the largest beneficiaries from strong inflation regimes.<blockquote>在回答这个反复出现的问题时，高盛的科斯汀指出，虽然通胀对盈利的影响好坏参半，但总体上是积极的（只要不是恶性通胀，在这种情况下，所有的赌注当然都是错误的）。科斯汀随后透露，在该银行自上而下的行业级盈利模型中，通货膨胀始终对销售额有正系数，对利润率有负系数。然而，高盛认为，“价格上涨对名义销售增长的推动通常足以抵消通胀驱动的利润率压缩。”虽然人们可以对此进行辩论，但收入与能源等大宗商品或金融等利率挂钩的公司确实是强劲通胀制度的最大受益者。</blockquote> That said, inflation becomes a headwind to valuationsif it leads to expectations of Fed tightening and thus higher real interest rates.And as Morgan Stanley has argued as part of its mid-cycle transition thesis, S&amp;P 500 returns have been consistently positively correlated with breakeven inflation but valuations have typically contracted alongside sharp increases in real interest rates (as a reminder,MS expects PE multiples to shrink 15% in the next 6 months).<blockquote>也就是说，通胀成为估值的阻力如果导致美联储紧缩的预期，从而导致实际利率上升。正如摩根士丹利在其中期周期转型论点中所指出的那样，标普500回报一直与盈亏平衡通胀正相关，但估值通常会随着实际利率的大幅上升而收缩（提醒一下，摩根士丹利预计市盈率将在未来6个月内萎缩15%）。</blockquote> On the other hand, and adding to the complexity, the Fed has indicated it will not tighten the funds rate before seeing prolonged labor market improvement resulting in broad wage gains, particularly at the lower end of the income spectrum. In the past,the S&amp;P 500 P/E multiple has typically expanded during periods of falling inflation and interest rates.<blockquote>另一方面，美联储表示，在看到劳动力市场长期改善导致工资普遍上涨之前，不会收紧基金利率，特别是在收入范围的低端。在过去，在通胀和利率下降期间，标普500市盈率通常会扩大。</blockquote> For the record, Goldman's economists forecast the yield curve will steepen in 2021 and 2022, with the funds rate unchanged while the 10-year yield rises from 1.6% today to 1.9% and 2.1% at year-end 2021 and 2022.<blockquote>根据记录，高盛经济学家预测收益率曲线将在2021年和2022年变陡，基金利率保持不变，而10年期国债收益率将从目前的1.6%升至2021年和2022年底的1.9%和2.1%。</blockquote> Here Kostin makes another valiant attempt to ease worries about runaway inflation, claiming that although inflation is generally a negative impulse for valuation multiples, \"recent popular investor focus on earnings yield less the inflation rate is misplaced\" and here's why:<blockquote>在这里，科斯汀再次勇敢地尝试缓解人们对通胀失控的担忧，他声称，尽管通胀通常是估值倍数的负面推动，但“最近受欢迎的投资者对盈利收益率而不是通胀率的关注是错误的”，原因如下：</blockquote> Investors concerned by this metric note that it has fallen to its lowest point since the peak of the Tech Bubble in 2000 and suggests the return from owning equities is erased by inflation. We disagree with this interpretation. First, equity earnings and the prices tied to them are nominal and typically rise with inflation. Second, even inflation hawks agree that the most recent prints are biased by base effects and reopening dynamics. In contrast to the gap between the earnings yield and inflation, the EPS yield gap versus the 10-year US Treasury yield, which is commonly used as a proxy for equity risk premium, actually remains above its long-term average. See Exhibit 1. <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/19ce43723e974f10d09d22d22d2b94d5\" tg-width=\"666\" tg-height=\"460\"><blockquote>关注这一指标的投资者指出，该指标已跌至2000年科技泡沫顶峰以来的最低点，并表明持有股票的回报已被通胀抹去。我们不同意这种解释。首先，股票收益和与之相关的价格是名义上的，通常会随着通货膨胀而上涨。其次，即使是通胀鹰派也同意，最近的数据受到基数效应和重新开放动态的影响。与收益收益率与通胀之间的差距相反，每股收益收益率与10年期美国国债收益率的差距，通常用作股票风险溢价的代表，实际上仍高于其长期平均水平见附件1。</blockquote> Kostin's spin aside, it is undisputable that overall, stocks perform better during periods of low inflation than when inflation is high. Goldman categorizesperiods since 1962 into those of high and low inflation by comparing year/year core CPI to the Fed’s estimate of consensus long-term inflation expectations.Exhibit 2 clearly shows two inflationary regimes during the past 60 years:The first 20 years (1962-1980) and the past 40 years.<blockquote>撇开科斯汀的说法不谈，无可争议的是，总体而言，股票在低通胀时期的表现比高通胀时期更好。高盛分类通过将逐年核心CPI与美联储对共识长期通胀预期的估计进行比较，将1962年以来的高通胀和低通胀时期进行比较。图表2清楚地显示了过去60年中的两种通货膨胀机制：前20年（1962-1980年）和过去40年。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4d3dba72235e365db113b1b69ff99bea\" tg-width=\"614\" tg-height=\"416\"><blockquote></blockquote> During the first period - which culminated with Volcker hiking rates to 20% - core CPI averaged 5.3% and registered above the long-term estimate 69% of the time.<blockquote>在第一阶段——最终沃尔克将利率提高至20%——核心CPI平均为5.3%，69%的时间高于长期预期。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/70a26033c173505360dba7a05ca60c40\" tg-width=\"601\" tg-height=\"298\"><blockquote></blockquote> Since 1962, both pre-and post-1980,the median monthly US equity market real return during high inflation environments has been an annualized 9% vs. 15% during periods of low inflation.As shown in the chart below, periods of high inflation have corresponded with theoutperformance of Health Care, Energy, Real Estate, and Consumer Staples sectors, while Materials and Technology stocks have fared the worst in high inflation environments. Surprisingly,Value and Size factors have not performed very differently in periods of high versus low inflation.<blockquote>1962年以来，无论是1980年前还是1980年后，在高通胀环境下，美国股市的月实际回报率中位数为年化9%，而在低通胀时期为15%。如下图所示，高通胀时期与医疗保健、能源、房地产和必需消费品行业表现出色，而材料和科技股在高通胀环境下表现最差。令人惊讶的是，在高通胀和低通胀时期，价值和规模因素的表现并没有太大不同。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/53ec13f17a7461808d8d56ba730f15a6\" tg-width=\"644\" tg-height=\"418\"><blockquote></blockquote> Finally, drilling down a little deeper,equity performance has differed greatly in periods where inflation was high and rising versus high and falling.The median monthly market real return has been2% annualized in phases where inflation was high and rising vs. 15% when inflation was high and falling.At the factor level, Value has generally fared better when inflation was high and rising than when it was high and falling. Among sectors, although Energy and Health Care have outperformed in periods of high inflation, they have performed much better when inflation was rising than falling.<blockquote>最后，再往下钻一点，在通胀高且上升期间与高且下降期间，股票表现差异很大。每月市场实际回报中位数为在通胀高且上升的阶段，年化率为2%，而在通胀高且下降的阶段，年化率为15%。在要素层面，当通胀高且上升时，价值通常比通胀高且下降时表现更好。在行业中，尽管能源和医疗保健在高通胀时期表现优于大盘，但在通胀上升时，它们的表现要好得多。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/8ca97729ade8e4d50ab8bf7b4bb03ceb\" tg-width=\"1204\" tg-height=\"907\"><blockquote></blockquote>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Goldman's Clients Are Asking How Various Inflation Regimes Affect Stocks: Here Is The Answer<blockquote>高盛的客户正在询问各种通胀制度如何影响股票：答案如下</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nGoldman's Clients Are Asking How Various Inflation Regimes Affect Stocks: Here Is The Answer<blockquote>高盛的客户正在询问各种通胀制度如何影响股票：答案如下</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nzerohedge2021-06-07 17:46\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\nPicking up on a joke we made earlier this week when we calledJoe Biden the Six Trillion Dollar Man(in homage to a very deflationary Lee Majors) in response to the 12 zeroes contained in his budget, in his latest Weekly Kickstart note Goldman's David Kostin writes that...<blockquote>高盛的大卫·科斯汀（David Kostin）在他最新的每周Kickstart报告中写道，本周早些时候，我们称乔·拜登为6万亿美元的人（向非常通货紧缩的李·梅杰斯致敬），以回应他预算中包含的12个零。</blockquote> by at least one measure, inflation has been rampant during the past 50 years, noting that in 1973, Steve Austin was the most powerful man in the world, with super strength in his right arm, a bionic eye, and artificial legs that could run 60 mph. It cost the federal government $6 million to re-build the NASA astronaut into the bionic man, played by Lee Majors in the hit TV series, “The Six Million Dollar Man.”Fast forward to today, often sporting his trademark 1970s-style aviator sunglasses, President Joe Biden is the most powerful man in the world.Biden is the $6 trillion man when his three 2021 fiscal spending plans are combined: the $1.9 trillion COVID relief plan that was passed in March, the $2.0 trillion American infrastructure plan proposed in April, and the $1.8 trillion American families plan proposed in May . If all three proposals are passed by Congress, it would represent an unprecedented level of peacetime spending in relation to the size of the underlying economy. Of course, it remains to be seen whether the latter two plans pass Congress. And while it increasingly looks like Biden's original $6 trillion proposal will be substantially reduced - and may even collapse should it not gather the required support from centrist democrats - Goldman's economists did not wait to find out what happens andrecently raised their near-term inflation forecastseven as they maintained their expectation that inflation will begin to abate later in the year. In April, both core PCE (+3.1% y/y) and core CPI (+3.0% y/y) exceeded expectations and notched highs not seen in more than two decades. In turn, Goldman's economists expect that core PCE will register 2.5% at the end of 2021 and decline to 2.1% during 2022.<blockquote>至少从一项衡量标准来看，通货膨胀在过去50年里一直很猖獗，并指出1973年，史蒂夫·奥斯汀是世界上最强大的人，他的右臂拥有超强的力量，一只仿生眼睛和可以跑60英里/小时的人造腿。联邦政府花费600万美元将这位NASA宇航员改造成仿生人，由李·梅杰斯在热门电视剧《六百万美元人》中饰演。快进到今天，乔·拜登总统经常戴着他标志性的1970年代风格飞行员太阳镜，是世界上最有权势的人。拜登的三项2021年财政支出计划加起来就是6万亿美元的人：3月份通过的1.9万亿美元新冠救助计划、4月份提出的2.0万亿美元美国基础设施计划和5月份提出的1.8万亿美元美国家庭计划如果这三项提案都被国会通过，相对于基础经济的规模，这将代表和平时期前所未有的支出水平。当然，后两项计划能否在国会通过还有待观察。尽管拜登最初的6万亿美元提案越来越有可能大幅削减——如果不能获得中间派民主党人所需的支持，甚至可能崩溃——但高盛的经济学家并没有等待了解会发生什么，最近上调了近期通胀预期尽管他们维持通胀将在今年晚些时候开始减弱的预期。4月份，核心PCE（同比+3.1%）和核心CPI（同比+3.0%）均超出预期，创下二十多年来的新高。反过来，高盛经济学家预计核心PCE将在2021年底达到2.5%，并在2022年降至2.1%。</blockquote> To be sure, after initially freaking out about a deluge of inflation, the growing likelihood that Biden's stimulus package will be materially diluted is why equity market performance has already shown a recent unwinding of inflation concerns. As Goldman notes, In March, amidst fears about rising inflation, stocks with high pricing power<blockquote>可以肯定的是，在最初对通胀泛滥感到恐慌之后，拜登的刺激计划被大幅稀释的可能性越来越大，这就是为什么股市表现已经显示出近期通胀担忧有所缓解。正如高盛指出的，3月份，在对通胀上升的担忧中，具有高定价能力的股票</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f2ac6b5d202e8b2a34a7da158541dd93\" tg-width=\"1226\" tg-height=\"896\"><blockquote></blockquote> ... began to outperform those with low pricing power, reversing 5 months of low pricing power outperformance as the economy recovered. However, during the past few weeks, low pricing power stocks have outperformed again (7% vs. 3%). At the same time, the interest rate 10-year inflation breakevens has declined by 14 bps to 2.4%, suggesting inflation fears priced by both equity and debt markets are easing.<blockquote>...开始跑赢低定价权者，随着经济复苏扭转了5个月的低定价权跑赢局面。然而，在过去几周内，低定价能力股票再次跑赢大盘（7%对3%）。与此同时，10年期通胀盈亏平衡点利率下降14个基点至2.4%，表明股票和债务市场定价的通胀担忧正在缓解。</blockquote> Not surprisingly, this whiplash has prompted most of Goldman's recent client discussions to focus on inflation and its implications for equities.And, as Kostin explains, investors ask just one thing:“how does inflation affect corporate earnings and stock valuations?”<blockquote>毫不奇怪，这种打击促使高盛最近的大部分客户讨论都集中在通胀及其对股市的影响上。而且，正如科斯汀解释的那样，投资者只问一件事：“通胀如何影响企业盈利和股票估值？”</blockquote> Answering this recurring question, Goldman's Kostin notes that while inflation has mixed implications for earnings, it is generally a positive (as long as it is not hyperinflation in which case all bets are off of course). Kostin then reveals that in the bank's top-down sector-level earnings models,inflation consistently has positive coefficients for sales and negative coefficients for margins.On net, however, Goldman argues that \"the boost to nominal sales growth through rising prices typically more than offsets inflation-driven margin compression.\" While one can debate this, it is certainly the case that companies with revenues tied to commodities, like Energy, or interest rates, such as Financials, are the largest beneficiaries from strong inflation regimes.<blockquote>在回答这个反复出现的问题时，高盛的科斯汀指出，虽然通胀对盈利的影响好坏参半，但总体上是积极的（只要不是恶性通胀，在这种情况下，所有的赌注当然都是错误的）。科斯汀随后透露，在该银行自上而下的行业级盈利模型中，通货膨胀始终对销售额有正系数，对利润率有负系数。然而，高盛认为，“价格上涨对名义销售增长的推动通常足以抵消通胀驱动的利润率压缩。”虽然人们可以对此进行辩论，但收入与能源等大宗商品或金融等利率挂钩的公司确实是强劲通胀制度的最大受益者。</blockquote> That said, inflation becomes a headwind to valuationsif it leads to expectations of Fed tightening and thus higher real interest rates.And as Morgan Stanley has argued as part of its mid-cycle transition thesis, S&amp;P 500 returns have been consistently positively correlated with breakeven inflation but valuations have typically contracted alongside sharp increases in real interest rates (as a reminder,MS expects PE multiples to shrink 15% in the next 6 months).<blockquote>也就是说，通胀成为估值的阻力如果导致美联储紧缩的预期，从而导致实际利率上升。正如摩根士丹利在其中期周期转型论点中所指出的那样，标普500回报一直与盈亏平衡通胀正相关，但估值通常会随着实际利率的大幅上升而收缩（提醒一下，摩根士丹利预计市盈率将在未来6个月内萎缩15%）。</blockquote> On the other hand, and adding to the complexity, the Fed has indicated it will not tighten the funds rate before seeing prolonged labor market improvement resulting in broad wage gains, particularly at the lower end of the income spectrum. In the past,the S&amp;P 500 P/E multiple has typically expanded during periods of falling inflation and interest rates.<blockquote>另一方面，美联储表示，在看到劳动力市场长期改善导致工资普遍上涨之前，不会收紧基金利率，特别是在收入范围的低端。在过去，在通胀和利率下降期间，标普500市盈率通常会扩大。</blockquote> For the record, Goldman's economists forecast the yield curve will steepen in 2021 and 2022, with the funds rate unchanged while the 10-year yield rises from 1.6% today to 1.9% and 2.1% at year-end 2021 and 2022.<blockquote>根据记录，高盛经济学家预测收益率曲线将在2021年和2022年变陡，基金利率保持不变，而10年期国债收益率将从目前的1.6%升至2021年和2022年底的1.9%和2.1%。</blockquote> Here Kostin makes another valiant attempt to ease worries about runaway inflation, claiming that although inflation is generally a negative impulse for valuation multiples, \"recent popular investor focus on earnings yield less the inflation rate is misplaced\" and here's why:<blockquote>在这里，科斯汀再次勇敢地尝试缓解人们对通胀失控的担忧，他声称，尽管通胀通常是估值倍数的负面推动，但“最近受欢迎的投资者对盈利收益率而不是通胀率的关注是错误的”，原因如下：</blockquote> Investors concerned by this metric note that it has fallen to its lowest point since the peak of the Tech Bubble in 2000 and suggests the return from owning equities is erased by inflation. We disagree with this interpretation. First, equity earnings and the prices tied to them are nominal and typically rise with inflation. Second, even inflation hawks agree that the most recent prints are biased by base effects and reopening dynamics. In contrast to the gap between the earnings yield and inflation, the EPS yield gap versus the 10-year US Treasury yield, which is commonly used as a proxy for equity risk premium, actually remains above its long-term average. See Exhibit 1. <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/19ce43723e974f10d09d22d22d2b94d5\" tg-width=\"666\" tg-height=\"460\"><blockquote>关注这一指标的投资者指出，该指标已跌至2000年科技泡沫顶峰以来的最低点，并表明持有股票的回报已被通胀抹去。我们不同意这种解释。首先，股票收益和与之相关的价格是名义上的，通常会随着通货膨胀而上涨。其次，即使是通胀鹰派也同意，最近的数据受到基数效应和重新开放动态的影响。与收益收益率与通胀之间的差距相反，每股收益收益率与10年期美国国债收益率的差距，通常用作股票风险溢价的代表，实际上仍高于其长期平均水平见附件1。</blockquote> Kostin's spin aside, it is undisputable that overall, stocks perform better during periods of low inflation than when inflation is high. Goldman categorizesperiods since 1962 into those of high and low inflation by comparing year/year core CPI to the Fed’s estimate of consensus long-term inflation expectations.Exhibit 2 clearly shows two inflationary regimes during the past 60 years:The first 20 years (1962-1980) and the past 40 years.<blockquote>撇开科斯汀的说法不谈，无可争议的是，总体而言，股票在低通胀时期的表现比高通胀时期更好。高盛分类通过将逐年核心CPI与美联储对共识长期通胀预期的估计进行比较，将1962年以来的高通胀和低通胀时期进行比较。图表2清楚地显示了过去60年中的两种通货膨胀机制：前20年（1962-1980年）和过去40年。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4d3dba72235e365db113b1b69ff99bea\" tg-width=\"614\" tg-height=\"416\"><blockquote></blockquote> During the first period - which culminated with Volcker hiking rates to 20% - core CPI averaged 5.3% and registered above the long-term estimate 69% of the time.<blockquote>在第一阶段——最终沃尔克将利率提高至20%——核心CPI平均为5.3%，69%的时间高于长期预期。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/70a26033c173505360dba7a05ca60c40\" tg-width=\"601\" tg-height=\"298\"><blockquote></blockquote> Since 1962, both pre-and post-1980,the median monthly US equity market real return during high inflation environments has been an annualized 9% vs. 15% during periods of low inflation.As shown in the chart below, periods of high inflation have corresponded with theoutperformance of Health Care, Energy, Real Estate, and Consumer Staples sectors, while Materials and Technology stocks have fared the worst in high inflation environments. Surprisingly,Value and Size factors have not performed very differently in periods of high versus low inflation.<blockquote>1962年以来，无论是1980年前还是1980年后，在高通胀环境下，美国股市的月实际回报率中位数为年化9%，而在低通胀时期为15%。如下图所示，高通胀时期与医疗保健、能源、房地产和必需消费品行业表现出色，而材料和科技股在高通胀环境下表现最差。令人惊讶的是，在高通胀和低通胀时期，价值和规模因素的表现并没有太大不同。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/53ec13f17a7461808d8d56ba730f15a6\" tg-width=\"644\" tg-height=\"418\"><blockquote></blockquote> Finally, drilling down a little deeper,equity performance has differed greatly in periods where inflation was high and rising versus high and falling.The median monthly market real return has been2% annualized in phases where inflation was high and rising vs. 15% when inflation was high and falling.At the factor level, Value has generally fared better when inflation was high and rising than when it was high and falling. Among sectors, although Energy and Health Care have outperformed in periods of high inflation, they have performed much better when inflation was rising than falling.<blockquote>最后，再往下钻一点，在通胀高且上升期间与高且下降期间，股票表现差异很大。每月市场实际回报中位数为在通胀高且上升的阶段，年化率为2%，而在通胀高且下降的阶段，年化率为15%。在要素层面，当通胀高且上升时，价值通常比通胀高且下降时表现更好。在行业中，尽管能源和医疗保健在高通胀时期表现优于大盘，但在通胀上升时，它们的表现要好得多。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/8ca97729ade8e4d50ab8bf7b4bb03ceb\" tg-width=\"1204\" tg-height=\"907\"><blockquote></blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/goldmans-clients-are-asking-how-various-inflation-regimes-affect-stocks-here-answer\">zerohedge</a>\n为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".DJI":"道琼斯",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index","SPY":"标普500ETF"},"source_url":"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/goldmans-clients-are-asking-how-various-inflation-regimes-affect-stocks-here-answer","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1125639176","content_text":"Picking up on a joke we made earlier this week when we calledJoe Biden the Six Trillion Dollar Man(in homage to a very deflationary Lee Majors) in response to the 12 zeroes contained in his budget, in his latest Weekly Kickstart note Goldman's David Kostin writes that...\n\n by at least one measure, inflation has been rampant during the past 50 years, noting that in 1973, Steve Austin was the most powerful man in the world, with super strength in his right arm, a bionic eye, and artificial legs that could run 60 mph. It cost the federal government $6 million to re-build the NASA astronaut into the bionic man, played by Lee Majors in the hit TV series, “The Six Million Dollar Man.”Fast forward to today, often sporting his trademark 1970s-style aviator sunglasses, President Joe Biden is the most powerful man in the world.Biden is the $6 trillion man when his three 2021 fiscal spending plans are combined: the $1.9 trillion COVID relief plan that was passed in March, the $2.0 trillion American infrastructure plan proposed in April, and the $1.8 trillion American families plan proposed in May\n . If all three proposals are passed by Congress, it would represent an unprecedented level of peacetime spending in relation to the size of the underlying economy. Of course, it remains to be seen whether the latter two plans pass Congress.\n\nAnd while it increasingly looks like Biden's original $6 trillion proposal will be substantially reduced - and may even collapse should it not gather the required support from centrist democrats - Goldman's economists did not wait to find out what happens andrecently raised their near-term inflation forecastseven as they maintained their expectation that inflation will begin to abate later in the year. In April, both core PCE (+3.1% y/y) and core CPI (+3.0% y/y) exceeded expectations and notched highs not seen in more than two decades. In turn, Goldman's economists expect that core PCE will register 2.5% at the end of 2021 and decline to 2.1% during 2022.\nTo be sure, after initially freaking out about a deluge of inflation, the growing likelihood that Biden's stimulus package will be materially diluted is why equity market performance has already shown a recent unwinding of inflation concerns. As Goldman notes, In March, amidst fears about rising inflation, stocks with high pricing power\n\n... began to outperform those with low pricing power, reversing 5 months of low pricing power outperformance as the economy recovered. However, during the past few weeks, low pricing power stocks have outperformed again (7% vs. 3%). At the same time, the interest rate 10-year inflation breakevens has declined by 14 bps to 2.4%, suggesting inflation fears priced by both equity and debt markets are easing.\nNot surprisingly, this whiplash has prompted most of Goldman's recent client discussions to focus on inflation and its implications for equities.And, as Kostin explains, investors ask just one thing:“how does inflation affect corporate earnings and stock valuations?”\nAnswering this recurring question, Goldman's Kostin notes that while inflation has mixed implications for earnings, it is generally a positive (as long as it is not hyperinflation in which case all bets are off of course). Kostin then reveals that in the bank's top-down sector-level earnings models,inflation consistently has positive coefficients for sales and negative coefficients for margins.On net, however, Goldman argues that \"the boost to nominal sales growth through rising prices typically more than offsets inflation-driven margin compression.\" While one can debate this, it is certainly the case that companies with revenues tied to commodities, like Energy, or interest rates, such as Financials, are the largest beneficiaries from strong inflation regimes.\nThat said, inflation becomes a headwind to valuationsif it leads to expectations of Fed tightening and thus higher real interest rates.And as Morgan Stanley has argued as part of its mid-cycle transition thesis, S&P 500 returns have been consistently positively correlated with breakeven inflation but valuations have typically contracted alongside sharp increases in real interest rates (as a reminder,MS expects PE multiples to shrink 15% in the next 6 months).\nOn the other hand, and adding to the complexity, the Fed has indicated it will not tighten the funds rate before seeing prolonged labor market improvement resulting in broad wage gains, particularly at the lower end of the income spectrum. In the past,the S&P 500 P/E multiple has typically expanded during periods of falling inflation and interest rates.\nFor the record, Goldman's economists forecast the yield curve will steepen in 2021 and 2022, with the funds rate unchanged while the 10-year yield rises from 1.6% today to 1.9% and 2.1% at year-end 2021 and 2022.\nHere Kostin makes another valiant attempt to ease worries about runaway inflation, claiming that although inflation is generally a negative impulse for valuation multiples, \"recent popular investor focus on earnings yield less the inflation rate is misplaced\" and here's why:\n\n Investors concerned by this metric note that it has fallen to its lowest point since the peak of the Tech Bubble in 2000 and suggests the return from owning equities is erased by inflation. We disagree with this interpretation. First, equity earnings and the prices tied to them are nominal and typically rise with inflation. Second, even inflation hawks agree that the most recent prints are biased by base effects and reopening dynamics. In contrast to the gap between the earnings yield and inflation, the EPS yield gap versus the 10-year US Treasury yield,\n which is commonly used as a proxy for equity risk premium, actually remains above its long-term average. See Exhibit 1.\n\n\nKostin's spin aside, it is undisputable that overall, stocks perform better during periods of low inflation than when inflation is high. Goldman categorizesperiods since 1962 into those of high and low inflation by comparing year/year core CPI to the Fed’s estimate of consensus long-term inflation expectations.Exhibit 2 clearly shows two inflationary regimes during the past 60 years:The first 20 years (1962-1980) and the past 40 years.\n\nDuring the first period - which culminated with Volcker hiking rates to 20% - core CPI averaged 5.3% and registered above the long-term estimate 69% of the time.\n\nSince 1962, both pre-and post-1980,the median monthly US equity market real return during high inflation environments has been an annualized 9% vs. 15% during periods of low inflation.As shown in the chart below, periods of high inflation have corresponded with theoutperformance of Health Care, Energy, Real Estate, and Consumer Staples sectors, while Materials and Technology stocks have fared the worst in high inflation environments. Surprisingly,Value and Size factors have not performed very differently in periods of high versus low inflation.\n\nFinally, drilling down a little deeper,equity performance has differed greatly in periods where inflation was high and rising versus high and falling.The median monthly market real return has been2% annualized in phases where inflation was high and rising vs. 15% when inflation was high and falling.At the factor level, Value has generally fared better when inflation was high and rising than when it was high and falling. Among sectors, although Energy and Health Care have outperformed in periods of high inflation, they have performed much better when inflation was rising than falling.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{".DJI":0.9,".SPX":0.9,".IXIC":0.9,"SPY":0.9}},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":4615459,"gmtCreate":1623059320935,"gmtModify":1635333721013,"authorId":3566821013640470,"author":{"id":3566821013640470,"idStr":"3566821013640470","authorId":3566821013640470,"name":"Jazling","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/85e0a83573d9307f57fca9b2baed72af","vip":1,"crmLevel":5,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":114150285,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"Ok","text":"Ok","html":"Ok"},{"id":4615629,"gmtCreate":1623060394162,"gmtModify":1635333708792,"authorId":3581817202947175,"author":{"id":3581817202947175,"idStr":"3581817202947175","authorId":3581817202947175,"name":"priswong","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/1c6662d0fbf1d14d728f78d18e375a47","vip":1,"crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":114150285,"type":1,"supId":4615459,"prevId":0,"content":"ok","text":"ok","html":"ok"},{"id":4615839,"gmtCreate":1623061977888,"gmtModify":1635333692551,"authorId":3575958434174944,"author":{"id":3575958434174944,"idStr":"3575958434174944","authorId":3575958434174944,"name":"Shadotaiger","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/c26a9d060fabab1c1347edbfc7329574","vip":1,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":3581817202947175,"repliedAuthor":{"id":3581817202947175,"idStr":"3581817202947175","authorId":3581817202947175,"name":"priswong","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/1c6662d0fbf1d14d728f78d18e375a47","vip":1,"crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"objectId":114150285,"type":1,"supId":4615459,"prevId":4615629,"content":"comment pls","text":"comment pls","html":"comment pls"},{"id":4616013,"gmtCreate":1623063260454,"gmtModify":1635333678991,"authorId":3574976836313552,"author":{"id":3574976836313552,"idStr":"3574976836313552","authorId":3574976836313552,"name":"IceColdFist","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/1f730eb3b59a0f9ec7ee2312637048a4","vip":1,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":114150285,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"HuAt","text":"HuAt","html":"HuAt"}],"langContent":"EN"}],"isCommentEnd":true,"newsSizeData":{"likeSize":31,"commentSize":2,"repostSize":0,"favoriteSize":0,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false},"APP":{"userAgent":"Mozilla/5.0 AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko; compatible; ClaudeBot/1.0; +claudebot@anthropic.com)","isDev":false,"isTTM":false,"tenantId":"TBCN","deviceId":"web-server-community-laohu8-v3","version":"4.36.2","shortVersion":"4.36.2","platform":"web","vendor":"web","appName":"laohu8","isIOS":false,"isAndroid":false,"isTiger":false,"isTHS":false,"isWeiXin":false,"isWeiXinMini":false,"isWeiBo":false,"isQQ":false,"isBaiduSwan":false,"isBaiduBox":false,"isDingTalk":false,"isToutiao":false,"isOnePlus":false,"isHuaWei":false,"isXiaomi":false,"isXiaomiWebView":false,"isOppo":false,"isVivo":false,"isSamsung":false,"isMobile":false},"href":"/m/news/1125639176","isCrawlerRequest":true}