not yet_老虎社区_美港股上老虎

2021-06-08

not yet

Have Stocks Already Priced In The "Economic Boom"?<blockquote>股票已经在“经济繁荣”中定价了吗？</blockquote>

免责声明：上述内容仅代表发帖人个人观点，不构成本平台的任何投资建议。

精彩评论

我们需要你的真知灼见来填补这片空白

发表看法

{"i18n":{"language":"zh_CN"},"detailType":1,"isChannel":false,"data":{"magic":2,"id":114726900,"tweetId":"114726900","gmtCreate":1623107340800,"gmtModify":1634036998523,"author":{"id":3583884958321017,"idStr":"3583884958321017","authorId":3583884958321017,"authorIdStr":"3583884958321017","name":"AnaiAnai","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/8b0d0d8e20a4082ac0bc6a98756546ec","vip":1,"userType":1,"introduction":"","boolIsFan":false,"boolIsHead":false,"crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[],"wearingBadges":[],"fanSize":25,"starInvestorFlag":false},"themes":[],"images":[],"coverImages":[],"title":"","extraTitle":"","html":"<html><head></head><body>not yet</body></html>","htmlText":"<html><head></head><body>not yet</body></html>","text":"not yet","highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":7,"repostSize":0,"favoriteSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/114726900","repostId":1134242022,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1134242022","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1623086430,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1134242022?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-06-08 01:20","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Have Stocks Already Priced In The \"Economic Boom\"?<blockquote>股票已经在“经济繁荣”中定价了吗？</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1134242022","media":"zerohedge","summary":"The media is buzzing with claims of an “Economic Boom” in 2021. While the economy will most certainl","content":"The media is buzzing with claims of an&nbsp;“Economic Boom”&nbsp;in 2021. While the economy will most certainly grow in 2021, the question is how much is already&nbsp;“baked in?”<blockquote>媒体上充斥着关于“经济繁荣”2021年。虽然 2021 年经济肯定会增长，但问题是已经增长了多少“烤熟了？”</blockquote> “The economy has entered a period of supercharged growth. Instead of fizzling, it could potentially remain stronger than it was during the pre-pandemic era into 2023. Economists now expect the second quarter to grow at a pace of 10%, and they expect growth for 2021 to be north of 6.5%. In the past decade, only a few quarters gross domestic product growing at even 3%.” The premise is that strong&nbsp;“pent up”&nbsp;demand will sustain the economic recovery over the next few years.<blockquote>“经济已经进入了一个增长期。到 2023 年，经济不仅不会停滞不前，反而有可能保持比大流行前时期更强劲的状态。经济学家现在预计第二季度将以10%的速度增长，他们预计2021年的增长率将超过6.5%。在过去十年中，只有几个季度的国内生产总值增长率达到3%。”前提是如此强大“被压抑”需求将在未来几年维持经济复苏。</blockquote> However, since market lows in 2020, the market surge has not only recouped all of those losses but has rocketed to all-time highs on expectations of surging earnings growth.<blockquote>然而，自2020年市场低点以来，市场飙升不仅弥补了所有这些损失，而且由于盈利增长飙升的预期，市场飙升至历史新高。</blockquote> The question: How much has gotten priced in?<blockquote>问题是：定价了多少？</blockquote> A Return To Normalcy<blockquote>恢复正常</blockquote> Just recently, Liz Ann Sonders wrote a piece for&nbsp;Advisor Perspectives.&nbsp;To wit:<blockquote>就在最近，利兹-安-桑德斯（Liz Ann Sonders）为《顾问视角》（Advisor Perspectives）写了一篇文章。也就是说：</blockquote> “Vaccines and herd immunity continue to bring COVID cases down, and &nbsp;the economic reopening continues to kick into a higher gear. Such is whatthe data is starting to show. &nbsp;Across economic metrics, from the gross domestic product (GDP) to retail sales and job growth, boom conditions are evident .” She is correct in her statement.&nbsp;However, there is a difference between an“economic boom”&nbsp;and a“recovery.”&nbsp;As shown in the chart of GDP growth below, the U.S. has already experienced a very sharp&nbsp;“economic recovery”&nbsp;from the recessionary lows.&nbsp;(I have included estimates for the rest of 2020, which shows a return to trend growth.)<blockquote>“疫苗和群体免疫继续减少新冠病例，经济重新开放继续加速。这就是数据开始显示的情况。从国内生产总值 (GDP) 到零售销售和就业增长，景气条件明显.”她的陈述是正确的。然而，与“经济繁荣”和一个“恢复。”如下图所示，美国已经经历了非常急剧的增长“经济复苏”从衰退的低点开始。（我包含了对 2020 年剩余时间的预测，这显示了趋势增长的回归。）</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5fdad10528414b4274fcd428501380f7\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"280\"><blockquote></blockquote> The following chart shows the economic recovery against the massive dumps of liquidity pumped into the economy.&nbsp;(Estimates run through the end of 2021 using economist’s assumptions.)<blockquote>下图显示了经济复苏与大量流动性注入经济的对比。(使用《经济学人》的假设，估算持续到 2021 年底）。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/dba515f0c9d2b1e6b69cd03edccc9bec\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"280\"><blockquote></blockquote> Can’t Recoup Losses<blockquote>无法挽回损失</blockquote> Certain areas of the economy, like airlines, hotels, and cruise ships, have yet to recover to pre-pandemic levels.However, those industries only make up a relatively small amount of overall economic activity. Furthermore, these industries will continue to struggle for some time as individuals will not take&nbsp;“two vacations”&nbsp;this year since they missed last year.&nbsp;That activity is now forever lost.<blockquote>某些经济领域，如航空公司、酒店和游轮，尚未恢复到大流行前的水平。然而，这些行业只占整体经济活动的相对较小。此外，这些行业将继续挣扎一段时间，因为个人不会采取“两个假期”今年因为他们错过了去年。这种活动现在永远消失了。</blockquote> Yes, the economy will recover most likely to pre-pandemic levels this year due to stimulus injections,&nbsp;but as discussed previously, what then?<blockquote>是的，由于刺激注入，今年经济很可能会恢复到大流行前的水平，但是如前所述然后呢？</blockquote> “The biggest problem with more stimulus is the increase in the debt required to fund it. &nbsp;There is no historical precedent, anywhere globally, that shows increased debt levels lead to more robust economic growth rates or prosperity. &nbsp;Since 1980, the overall increase in debt has surged to levels that currently usurp the entirety of economic growth. With economic growth rates now at the lowest levels on record, the change in debt continues to divert more tax dollars away from productive investments into the service of debt and social welfare.” <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/b2a13ef8b21cb5f0f15b7d3bc37642a0\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"279\"><blockquote>“更多刺激计划的最大问题是为刺激计划提供资金所需的债务增加。在全球任何地方，都没有历史先例表明债务水平的提高会导致更强劲的经济增长率或繁荣。自1980年以来，债务的总体增长已经飙升到目前侵蚀整个经济增长的水平。随着经济增长率处于历史最低水平，债务的变化继续将更多税收从生产性投资转移到偿还债务和社会福利上。”</blockquote> Just as it is with investing, getting&nbsp;“back to even”&nbsp;is not the same thing as&nbsp;“organic growth.”<blockquote>就像投资一样，获得“收支平衡”不是一回事“有机增长”</blockquote> The Second Derivative<blockquote>二阶导数</blockquote> What is shown above is the&nbsp;“second derivative”&nbsp;effect of growth.<blockquote>上面显示的是“二阶导数”增长的影响。</blockquote> “In&nbsp;calculus, the second derivative , or the second-order derivative , of a&nbsp;function&nbsp;f&nbsp;is the&nbsp;derivative&nbsp;of the derivative of&nbsp;f.” – Wikipedia. In English, the&nbsp;“second derivative”&nbsp;measures how the rate of change of a quantity is itself changing. Since we measure GDP growth on an annual rate of change basis, the larger the economy grows, the lower the rate of change will be. Here is a simplistic example go GDP growth:<blockquote>在微积分中，二阶导数，或二阶导数函数f是f的导数的导数。”– 维基百科。在英语中，“二阶导数”测量数量本身的变化率是如何变化的。由于我们以年变化率衡量GDP增长，经济增长越大，变化率就越低。这里有一个简单的GDP增长例子：</blockquote> In year 1,&nbsp;GDP = $1. In the second year, GDP grows to $2. The annual rate of change is 100%. However, in year 3, even though the economy grows to $3, the annual rate of change falls to just 50%. Given the long-term historical correlation between economic growth, corporate earnings, and annualized returns, the reversion to trend growth has implications for investors. As Liz notes:<blockquote>第一年，GDP=1美元。第二年，GDP增长到2美元。年变化率为100%。然而，在第三年，即使经济增长到3美元，年变化率也下降到只有50%。鉴于经济增长、企业盈利和年化回报之间的长期历史相关性，趋势增长的回归对投资者有影响。利兹笔记：</blockquote> “Using three broad ranges for GDP growth historically, the lowest range (when the economy is barely growing or in recession) is accompanied by the highest annualized stock market performance. GDP is only slightly back into positive territory on an annualized basis. However, the strong growth expected in the second quarter will push GDP into the highest zone. At that level, stocks have historically posted a negative annualized return.” <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/fefede26dacdf96c2afd65040c979eb5\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"289\"><blockquote>“从历史上看，国内生产总值增长有三个宽泛的区间，最低的区间（当经济几乎没有增长或陷入衰退时）伴随着最高的年化股市表现。按年化计算，GDP仅略微回到正区域。然而，预计第二季度的强劲增长将推动GDP进入最高区域。在这个水平上，股票的年化回报率历来为负。”</blockquote> The reason is that once economic growth reaches higher levels, stocks have climbed to levels incorporating those expectations. In other words, when things are as&nbsp;“good as they can get,”&nbsp;stocks begin to reprice for slower future growth rates.<blockquote>原因是，一旦经济增长达到更高的水平，股市就会攀升到包含这些预期的水平。换句话说，当事情像“他们能做到的最好”由于未来增长率放缓，股票开始重新定价。</blockquote> That is the phase we are at currently.<blockquote>这就是我们目前所处的阶段。</blockquote> How Much Pent Up Demand Is There Anyway<blockquote>到底有多少被压抑的需求</blockquote> The main driver of the expected recovery from a&nbsp;“recessionary”&nbsp;low stems from the question of how much&nbsp;“pent up”&nbsp;demand currently exists?<blockquote>预期复苏的主要驱动力“衰退”低源于多少的问题“被压抑”目前存在需求吗？</blockquote> If we look at durable goods as an example, such would suggest that much of the demand for long-lasting products got pulled forward by consumers over the last 12-months.<blockquote>如果我们以耐用品为例，这将表明消费者在过去12个月中推动了对耐用品的大部分需求。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/a089734aaefc5afe0333a7ee63606fbe\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"184\"><blockquote></blockquote> Of course,&nbsp;if we broaden that measure to retails sales which make up ~40% of the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) index, we see much the same.<blockquote>当然，如果我们将这一衡量标准扩大到占个人消费支出（PCE）指数约40%的零售额我们看到的差不多。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/e92c968f205973f191c55c538d189e2e\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"185\"><blockquote></blockquote> Given PCE,&nbsp;which comprises nearly 70% of GDP,&nbsp;has already recovered much of pandemic-related decline, how much&nbsp;“pent up”&nbsp;demand remains.<blockquote>给定PCE，占国内生产总值的近70%，已经从与大流行相关的大部分跌幅中恢复了多少“被压抑”需求依然存在。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4f718e21229399dc7e5997f4375c2541\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"185\"><blockquote></blockquote> However, wage growth outside of personal transfer payments&nbsp;(i.e., stimulus)&nbsp;hasn’t recovered. It is impossible to sustain higher rates of economic growth without wage growth.<blockquote>然而，个人转移支付之外的工资增长（即刺激）还没康复。没有工资增长，就不可能维持较高的经济增长率。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/7caa93f603a20c9413aaf28b0ccbf2b5\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"368\"><blockquote></blockquote> Importantly, as we saw in January and February following the $900 billion stimulus bill passage, there was a short-lived surge of activity. However, once individuals spent the money, activity quickly faded.&nbsp;We saw the same with retail sales in April following the American Rescue Plan, which sent out $1400 checks.<blockquote>重要的是，正如我们在 1 月和 2 月通过 9000 亿美元刺激法案后看到的那样，经济活动出现了短暂的激增。然而，一旦个人花了钱，活动很快就消失了。在美国救援计划发放1400美元支票后，我们在4月份的零售销售中看到了同样的情况。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/c31449e02d4ba266c905203a16de1ad5\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"312\"><blockquote></blockquote> After the $1400 checks get spent, what will be the driver for continued consumption at previous rates? Further, given the impact of a larger economy (as it recovers), the rate of change will decline markedly in the months to come.<blockquote>1400美元的支票花完后，以以前的利率继续消费的驱动力是什么？此外，鉴于更大经济的影响（随着经济的复苏），变化率将在未来几个月显著下降。</blockquote> Earnings Growth Inflection<blockquote>盈利增长拐点</blockquote> “Earnings growth has a high correlation to stock market performance, but with time lags that are less well-understood. We are about halfway through the first quarter S&amp;P 500 earnings season and so far, the results are exceptionally strong.” – Liz Ann Sonders That is correct, and given the high correlation between earnings and market returns, we come back to the same question. Has the advance in the market accounted for the rebound in earnings? More importantly, what happens when that growth reverses?<blockquote>“盈利增长与股市表现有很高的相关性，但时间滞后却不太为人所知。标普500第一季度财报季已经过半，到目前为止，业绩异常强劲。”– 莉兹·安·桑德斯这是正确的，考虑到收益和市场回报之间的高度相关性，我们又回到了同一个问题。市场的上涨是否解释了盈利的反弹？更重要的是，当这种增长逆转时会发生什么？</blockquote> “Relative to last year’s second-quarter plunge of nearly -31% year-over-year, expectations are that S&amp;P 500 earnings will be up more than 46% in this year’s first quarter. The second quarter will boast a whopping 60% increase. Such should be the inflection point in terms of the year-over-year growth rate.” – Liz Ann Sonders <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/90ee4fca36856fe8fa3e5938aa46c656\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"141\"><blockquote>“与去年第二季度同比暴跌近-31%相比，预计标普500今年第一季度的盈利将增长 46% 以上。第二季度将实现 60% 的巨幅增长。这应该是同比增长率的拐点”。– 莉兹·安·桑德斯</blockquote> The problem is the S&amp;P rose to levels that earnings growth will have difficulty supporting, particularly as the stimulus fades from the system. As with economic growth, the 2nd derivative of earnings growth is now a headwind for the markets.<blockquote>问题是标准普尔指数上涨至盈利增长难以支撑的水平，尤其是在刺激措施从体系中消失的情况下。与经济增长一样，盈利增长的第二衍生品现在是市场的阻力。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/98ea62bdd7be88d7a4a281250f2b9f54\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"272\"><blockquote></blockquote> Such is also the problem of&nbsp;“pulling forward sales.”<blockquote>这也是“推动销售。”</blockquote> Conclusion<blockquote>结论</blockquote> Notably, the outsized growth of the market reflects repetitive interventions into the financial markets by the Fed. Those interventions detached financial asset growth from their long-term correlation to GDP growth, where corporate revenue comes from. Historically, when the&nbsp;S&amp;P 500 becomes separated from economic growth,&nbsp;a reversion occurred.<blockquote>值得注意的是，市场的过度增长反映了美联储对金融市场的反复干预。这些干预措施使金融资产增长脱离了与GDP增长的长期相关性，而GDP增长是企业收入的来源。历史上，当标普500与经济增长脱节，发生了回归。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/517d8bbd7819339ad187c2d899d0e321\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"270\"><blockquote></blockquote> Currently, analysts are expecting earnings to surge well above economic growth rates. However, the flaw in the analysis is the assumption earnings growth will continue its current trend.<blockquote>目前，分析师预计盈利将远高于经济增长率。然而，分析中的缺陷在于假设盈利增长将继续目前的趋势。</blockquote> While there will be an economic recovery to pre-pandemic levels, a recovery is very different from an expansion.<blockquote>虽然经济将恢复到疫情前的水平，但复苏与扩张有很大不同。</blockquote> As Liz concludes:<blockquote>Liz的结论是：</blockquote> “Optimism is extremely elevated. Such is certainly justified by stock market behavior over the past year and recent economic releases. But some curbing of enthusiasm may be warranted given the history of the stock market as an uncanny ‘sniffer-outer’ of economic inflection points.” As she goes on to point out, this is not a time for FOMO-driven investment decision-making.&nbsp;The reality is that the supports that drove the economic recovery will not support an ongoing economic expansion. One is self-sustaining organic growth from productive activity, and the other is not.<blockquote>“乐观情绪非常高涨。过去一年的股市行为和最近的经济数据当然证明了这一点。但鉴于股市作为经济拐点的不可思议的‘嗅探者’的历史，对热情进行一些抑制可能是有道理的。”正如她继续指出的那样，现在不是FOMO驱动的投资决策的时候。现实情况是，推动经济复苏的支持不会支持持续的经济扩张。一个是从生产活动中自我维持的有机增长，另一个不是。</blockquote> The risk of disappointment is high. And so are the costs of being&nbsp;“wilfully blind”&nbsp;to the dangers.<blockquote>失望的风险很高。存在的成本也是如此“故意失明”去危险。</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>Have Stocks Already Priced In The \"Economic Boom\"?<blockquote>股票已经在“经济繁荣”中定价了吗？</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\">\nHave Stocks Already Priced In The \"Economic Boom\"?<blockquote>股票已经在“经济繁荣”中定价了吗？</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nzerohedge2021-06-08 01:20\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\nThe media is buzzing with claims of an&nbsp;“Economic Boom”&nbsp;in 2021. While the economy will most certainly grow in 2021, the question is how much is already&nbsp;“baked in?”<blockquote>媒体上充斥着关于“经济繁荣”2021年。虽然 2021 年经济肯定会增长，但问题是已经增长了多少“烤熟了？”</blockquote> “The economy has entered a period of supercharged growth. Instead of fizzling, it could potentially remain stronger than it was during the pre-pandemic era into 2023. Economists now expect the second quarter to grow at a pace of 10%, and they expect growth for 2021 to be north of 6.5%. In the past decade, only a few quarters gross domestic product growing at even 3%.” The premise is that strong&nbsp;“pent up”&nbsp;demand will sustain the economic recovery over the next few years.<blockquote>“经济已经进入了一个增长期。到 2023 年，经济不仅不会停滞不前，反而有可能保持比大流行前时期更强劲的状态。经济学家现在预计第二季度将以10%的速度增长，他们预计2021年的增长率将超过6.5%。在过去十年中，只有几个季度的国内生产总值增长率达到3%。”前提是如此强大“被压抑”需求将在未来几年维持经济复苏。</blockquote> However, since market lows in 2020, the market surge has not only recouped all of those losses but has rocketed to all-time highs on expectations of surging earnings growth.<blockquote>然而，自2020年市场低点以来，市场飙升不仅弥补了所有这些损失，而且由于盈利增长飙升的预期，市场飙升至历史新高。</blockquote> The question: How much has gotten priced in?<blockquote>问题是：定价了多少？</blockquote> A Return To Normalcy<blockquote>恢复正常</blockquote> Just recently, Liz Ann Sonders wrote a piece for&nbsp;Advisor Perspectives.&nbsp;To wit:<blockquote>就在最近，利兹-安-桑德斯（Liz Ann Sonders）为《顾问视角》（Advisor Perspectives）写了一篇文章。也就是说：</blockquote> “Vaccines and herd immunity continue to bring COVID cases down, and &nbsp;the economic reopening continues to kick into a higher gear. Such is whatthe data is starting to show. &nbsp;Across economic metrics, from the gross domestic product (GDP) to retail sales and job growth, boom conditions are evident .” She is correct in her statement.&nbsp;However, there is a difference between an“economic boom”&nbsp;and a“recovery.”&nbsp;As shown in the chart of GDP growth below, the U.S. has already experienced a very sharp&nbsp;“economic recovery”&nbsp;from the recessionary lows.&nbsp;(I have included estimates for the rest of 2020, which shows a return to trend growth.)<blockquote>“疫苗和群体免疫继续减少新冠病例，经济重新开放继续加速。这就是数据开始显示的情况。从国内生产总值 (GDP) 到零售销售和就业增长，景气条件明显.”她的陈述是正确的。然而，与“经济繁荣”和一个“恢复。”如下图所示，美国已经经历了非常急剧的增长“经济复苏”从衰退的低点开始。（我包含了对 2020 年剩余时间的预测，这显示了趋势增长的回归。）</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5fdad10528414b4274fcd428501380f7\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"280\"><blockquote></blockquote> The following chart shows the economic recovery against the massive dumps of liquidity pumped into the economy.&nbsp;(Estimates run through the end of 2021 using economist’s assumptions.)<blockquote>下图显示了经济复苏与大量流动性注入经济的对比。(使用《经济学人》的假设，估算持续到 2021 年底）。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/dba515f0c9d2b1e6b69cd03edccc9bec\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"280\"><blockquote></blockquote> Can’t Recoup Losses<blockquote>无法挽回损失</blockquote> Certain areas of the economy, like airlines, hotels, and cruise ships, have yet to recover to pre-pandemic levels.However, those industries only make up a relatively small amount of overall economic activity. Furthermore, these industries will continue to struggle for some time as individuals will not take&nbsp;“two vacations”&nbsp;this year since they missed last year.&nbsp;That activity is now forever lost.<blockquote>某些经济领域，如航空公司、酒店和游轮，尚未恢复到大流行前的水平。然而，这些行业只占整体经济活动的相对较小。此外，这些行业将继续挣扎一段时间，因为个人不会采取“两个假期”今年因为他们错过了去年。这种活动现在永远消失了。</blockquote> Yes, the economy will recover most likely to pre-pandemic levels this year due to stimulus injections,&nbsp;but as discussed previously, what then?<blockquote>是的，由于刺激注入，今年经济很可能会恢复到大流行前的水平，但是如前所述然后呢？</blockquote> “The biggest problem with more stimulus is the increase in the debt required to fund it. &nbsp;There is no historical precedent, anywhere globally, that shows increased debt levels lead to more robust economic growth rates or prosperity. &nbsp;Since 1980, the overall increase in debt has surged to levels that currently usurp the entirety of economic growth. With economic growth rates now at the lowest levels on record, the change in debt continues to divert more tax dollars away from productive investments into the service of debt and social welfare.” <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/b2a13ef8b21cb5f0f15b7d3bc37642a0\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"279\"><blockquote>“更多刺激计划的最大问题是为刺激计划提供资金所需的债务增加。在全球任何地方，都没有历史先例表明债务水平的提高会导致更强劲的经济增长率或繁荣。自1980年以来，债务的总体增长已经飙升到目前侵蚀整个经济增长的水平。随着经济增长率处于历史最低水平，债务的变化继续将更多税收从生产性投资转移到偿还债务和社会福利上。”</blockquote> Just as it is with investing, getting&nbsp;“back to even”&nbsp;is not the same thing as&nbsp;“organic growth.”<blockquote>就像投资一样，获得“收支平衡”不是一回事“有机增长”</blockquote> The Second Derivative<blockquote>二阶导数</blockquote> What is shown above is the&nbsp;“second derivative”&nbsp;effect of growth.<blockquote>上面显示的是“二阶导数”增长的影响。</blockquote> “In&nbsp;calculus, the second derivative , or the second-order derivative , of a&nbsp;function&nbsp;f&nbsp;is the&nbsp;derivative&nbsp;of the derivative of&nbsp;f.” – Wikipedia. In English, the&nbsp;“second derivative”&nbsp;measures how the rate of change of a quantity is itself changing. Since we measure GDP growth on an annual rate of change basis, the larger the economy grows, the lower the rate of change will be. Here is a simplistic example go GDP growth:<blockquote>在微积分中，二阶导数，或二阶导数函数f是f的导数的导数。”– 维基百科。在英语中，“二阶导数”测量数量本身的变化率是如何变化的。由于我们以年变化率衡量GDP增长，经济增长越大，变化率就越低。这里有一个简单的GDP增长例子：</blockquote> In year 1,&nbsp;GDP = $1. In the second year, GDP grows to $2. The annual rate of change is 100%. However, in year 3, even though the economy grows to $3, the annual rate of change falls to just 50%. Given the long-term historical correlation between economic growth, corporate earnings, and annualized returns, the reversion to trend growth has implications for investors. As Liz notes:<blockquote>第一年，GDP=1美元。第二年，GDP增长到2美元。年变化率为100%。然而，在第三年，即使经济增长到3美元，年变化率也下降到只有50%。鉴于经济增长、企业盈利和年化回报之间的长期历史相关性，趋势增长的回归对投资者有影响。利兹笔记：</blockquote> “Using three broad ranges for GDP growth historically, the lowest range (when the economy is barely growing or in recession) is accompanied by the highest annualized stock market performance. GDP is only slightly back into positive territory on an annualized basis. However, the strong growth expected in the second quarter will push GDP into the highest zone. At that level, stocks have historically posted a negative annualized return.” <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/fefede26dacdf96c2afd65040c979eb5\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"289\"><blockquote>“从历史上看，国内生产总值增长有三个宽泛的区间，最低的区间（当经济几乎没有增长或陷入衰退时）伴随着最高的年化股市表现。按年化计算，GDP仅略微回到正区域。然而，预计第二季度的强劲增长将推动GDP进入最高区域。在这个水平上，股票的年化回报率历来为负。”</blockquote> The reason is that once economic growth reaches higher levels, stocks have climbed to levels incorporating those expectations. In other words, when things are as&nbsp;“good as they can get,”&nbsp;stocks begin to reprice for slower future growth rates.<blockquote>原因是，一旦经济增长达到更高的水平，股市就会攀升到包含这些预期的水平。换句话说，当事情像“他们能做到的最好”由于未来增长率放缓，股票开始重新定价。</blockquote> That is the phase we are at currently.<blockquote>这就是我们目前所处的阶段。</blockquote> How Much Pent Up Demand Is There Anyway<blockquote>到底有多少被压抑的需求</blockquote> The main driver of the expected recovery from a&nbsp;“recessionary”&nbsp;low stems from the question of how much&nbsp;“pent up”&nbsp;demand currently exists?<blockquote>预期复苏的主要驱动力“衰退”低源于多少的问题“被压抑”目前存在需求吗？</blockquote> If we look at durable goods as an example, such would suggest that much of the demand for long-lasting products got pulled forward by consumers over the last 12-months.<blockquote>如果我们以耐用品为例，这将表明消费者在过去12个月中推动了对耐用品的大部分需求。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/a089734aaefc5afe0333a7ee63606fbe\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"184\"><blockquote></blockquote> Of course,&nbsp;if we broaden that measure to retails sales which make up ~40% of the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) index, we see much the same.<blockquote>当然，如果我们将这一衡量标准扩大到占个人消费支出（PCE）指数约40%的零售额我们看到的差不多。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/e92c968f205973f191c55c538d189e2e\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"185\"><blockquote></blockquote> Given PCE,&nbsp;which comprises nearly 70% of GDP,&nbsp;has already recovered much of pandemic-related decline, how much&nbsp;“pent up”&nbsp;demand remains.<blockquote>给定PCE，占国内生产总值的近70%，已经从与大流行相关的大部分跌幅中恢复了多少“被压抑”需求依然存在。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4f718e21229399dc7e5997f4375c2541\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"185\"><blockquote></blockquote> However, wage growth outside of personal transfer payments&nbsp;(i.e., stimulus)&nbsp;hasn’t recovered. It is impossible to sustain higher rates of economic growth without wage growth.<blockquote>然而，个人转移支付之外的工资增长（即刺激）还没康复。没有工资增长，就不可能维持较高的经济增长率。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/7caa93f603a20c9413aaf28b0ccbf2b5\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"368\"><blockquote></blockquote> Importantly, as we saw in January and February following the $900 billion stimulus bill passage, there was a short-lived surge of activity. However, once individuals spent the money, activity quickly faded.&nbsp;We saw the same with retail sales in April following the American Rescue Plan, which sent out $1400 checks.<blockquote>重要的是，正如我们在 1 月和 2 月通过 9000 亿美元刺激法案后看到的那样，经济活动出现了短暂的激增。然而，一旦个人花了钱，活动很快就消失了。在美国救援计划发放1400美元支票后，我们在4月份的零售销售中看到了同样的情况。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/c31449e02d4ba266c905203a16de1ad5\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"312\"><blockquote></blockquote> After the $1400 checks get spent, what will be the driver for continued consumption at previous rates? Further, given the impact of a larger economy (as it recovers), the rate of change will decline markedly in the months to come.<blockquote>1400美元的支票花完后，以以前的利率继续消费的驱动力是什么？此外，鉴于更大经济的影响（随着经济的复苏），变化率将在未来几个月显著下降。</blockquote> Earnings Growth Inflection<blockquote>盈利增长拐点</blockquote> “Earnings growth has a high correlation to stock market performance, but with time lags that are less well-understood. We are about halfway through the first quarter S&amp;P 500 earnings season and so far, the results are exceptionally strong.” – Liz Ann Sonders That is correct, and given the high correlation between earnings and market returns, we come back to the same question. Has the advance in the market accounted for the rebound in earnings? More importantly, what happens when that growth reverses?<blockquote>“盈利增长与股市表现有很高的相关性，但时间滞后却不太为人所知。标普500第一季度财报季已经过半，到目前为止，业绩异常强劲。”– 莉兹·安·桑德斯这是正确的，考虑到收益和市场回报之间的高度相关性，我们又回到了同一个问题。市场的上涨是否解释了盈利的反弹？更重要的是，当这种增长逆转时会发生什么？</blockquote> “Relative to last year’s second-quarter plunge of nearly -31% year-over-year, expectations are that S&amp;P 500 earnings will be up more than 46% in this year’s first quarter. The second quarter will boast a whopping 60% increase. Such should be the inflection point in terms of the year-over-year growth rate.” – Liz Ann Sonders <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/90ee4fca36856fe8fa3e5938aa46c656\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"141\"><blockquote>“与去年第二季度同比暴跌近-31%相比，预计标普500今年第一季度的盈利将增长 46% 以上。第二季度将实现 60% 的巨幅增长。这应该是同比增长率的拐点”。– 莉兹·安·桑德斯</blockquote> The problem is the S&amp;P rose to levels that earnings growth will have difficulty supporting, particularly as the stimulus fades from the system. As with economic growth, the 2nd derivative of earnings growth is now a headwind for the markets.<blockquote>问题是标准普尔指数上涨至盈利增长难以支撑的水平，尤其是在刺激措施从体系中消失的情况下。与经济增长一样，盈利增长的第二衍生品现在是市场的阻力。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/98ea62bdd7be88d7a4a281250f2b9f54\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"272\"><blockquote></blockquote> Such is also the problem of&nbsp;“pulling forward sales.”<blockquote>这也是“推动销售。”</blockquote> Conclusion<blockquote>结论</blockquote> Notably, the outsized growth of the market reflects repetitive interventions into the financial markets by the Fed. Those interventions detached financial asset growth from their long-term correlation to GDP growth, where corporate revenue comes from. Historically, when the&nbsp;S&amp;P 500 becomes separated from economic growth,&nbsp;a reversion occurred.<blockquote>值得注意的是，市场的过度增长反映了美联储对金融市场的反复干预。这些干预措施使金融资产增长脱离了与GDP增长的长期相关性，而GDP增长是企业收入的来源。历史上，当标普500与经济增长脱节，发生了回归。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/517d8bbd7819339ad187c2d899d0e321\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"270\"><blockquote></blockquote> Currently, analysts are expecting earnings to surge well above economic growth rates. However, the flaw in the analysis is the assumption earnings growth will continue its current trend.<blockquote>目前，分析师预计盈利将远高于经济增长率。然而，分析中的缺陷在于假设盈利增长将继续目前的趋势。</blockquote> While there will be an economic recovery to pre-pandemic levels, a recovery is very different from an expansion.<blockquote>虽然经济将恢复到疫情前的水平，但复苏与扩张有很大不同。</blockquote> As Liz concludes:<blockquote>Liz的结论是：</blockquote> “Optimism is extremely elevated. Such is certainly justified by stock market behavior over the past year and recent economic releases. But some curbing of enthusiasm may be warranted given the history of the stock market as an uncanny ‘sniffer-outer’ of economic inflection points.” As she goes on to point out, this is not a time for FOMO-driven investment decision-making.&nbsp;The reality is that the supports that drove the economic recovery will not support an ongoing economic expansion. One is self-sustaining organic growth from productive activity, and the other is not.<blockquote>“乐观情绪非常高涨。过去一年的股市行为和最近的经济数据当然证明了这一点。但鉴于股市作为经济拐点的不可思议的‘嗅探者’的历史，对热情进行一些抑制可能是有道理的。”正如她继续指出的那样，现在不是FOMO驱动的投资决策的时候。现实情况是，推动经济复苏的支持不会支持持续的经济扩张。一个是从生产活动中自我维持的有机增长，另一个不是。</blockquote> The risk of disappointment is high. And so are the costs of being&nbsp;“wilfully blind”&nbsp;to the dangers.<blockquote>失望的风险很高。存在的成本也是如此“故意失明”去危险。</blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/have-stocks-already-priced-economic-boom?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+zerohedge%2Ffeed+%28zero+hedge+-+on+a+long+enough+timeline%2C+the+survival+rate+for+everyone+drops+to+zero%29\">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",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index","SPY":"标普500ETF",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite"},"source_url":"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/have-stocks-already-priced-economic-boom?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+zerohedge%2Ffeed+%28zero+hedge+-+on+a+long+enough+timeline%2C+the+survival+rate+for+everyone+drops+to+zero%29","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1134242022","content_text":"The media is buzzing with claims of an “Economic Boom” in 2021. While the economy will most certainly grow in 2021, the question is how much is already “baked in?”\n\n“The economy has entered a period of supercharged growth. Instead of fizzling, it could potentially remain stronger than it was during the pre-pandemic era into 2023.\nEconomists now expect the second quarter to grow at a pace of 10%, and they expect growth for 2021 to be north of 6.5%.\nIn the past decade, only a few quarters gross domestic product growing at even 3%.”\n\nThe premise is that strong “pent up” demand will sustain the economic recovery over the next few years.\nHowever, since market lows in 2020, the market surge has not only recouped all of those losses but has rocketed to all-time highs on expectations of surging earnings growth.\nThe question: How much has gotten priced in?\nA Return To Normalcy\nJust recently, Liz Ann Sonders wrote a piece for Advisor Perspectives. To wit:\n\n“Vaccines and herd immunity continue to bring COVID cases down, and\n the economic reopening continues to kick into a higher gear. Such is whatthe data is starting to show.\n Across economic metrics, from the gross domestic product (GDP) to retail sales and job growth,\nboom conditions are evident\n.”\n\nShe is correct in her statement. However, there is a difference between an“economic boom” and a“recovery.” As shown in the chart of GDP growth below, the U.S. has already experienced a very sharp “economic recovery” from the recessionary lows. (I have included estimates for the rest of 2020, which shows a return to trend growth.)\n\nThe following chart shows the economic recovery against the massive dumps of liquidity pumped into the economy. (Estimates run through the end of 2021 using economist’s assumptions.)\n\nCan’t Recoup Losses\nCertain areas of the economy, like airlines, hotels, and cruise ships, have yet to recover to pre-pandemic levels.However, those industries only make up a relatively small amount of overall economic activity. Furthermore, these industries will continue to struggle for some time as individuals will not take “two vacations” this year since they missed last year. That activity is now forever lost.\nYes, the economy will recover most likely to pre-pandemic levels this year due to stimulus injections, but as discussed previously, what then?\n\n“The biggest problem with more stimulus is the increase in the debt required to fund it.\n There is no historical precedent, anywhere globally, that shows increased debt levels lead to more robust economic growth rates or prosperity.\n Since 1980, the overall increase in debt has surged to levels that currently usurp the entirety of economic growth.\nWith economic growth rates now at the lowest levels on record, the change in debt continues to divert more tax dollars away from productive investments into the service of debt and social welfare.”\n\n\nJust as it is with investing, getting “back to even” is not the same thing as “organic growth.”\nThe Second Derivative\nWhat is shown above is the “second derivative” effect of growth.\n\n“In calculus, the\nsecond derivative\n, or the\nsecond-order derivative\n, of a function f is the derivative of the derivative of f.” – Wikipedia.\n\nIn English, the “second derivative” measures how the rate of change of a quantity is itself changing. Since we measure GDP growth on an annual rate of change basis, the larger the economy grows, the lower the rate of change will be. Here is a simplistic example go GDP growth:\n\nIn year 1, GDP = $1. In the second year, GDP grows to $2. The annual rate of change is 100%. However, in year 3, even though the economy grows to $3, the annual rate of change falls to just 50%.\n\nGiven the long-term historical correlation between economic growth, corporate earnings, and annualized returns, the reversion to trend growth has implications for investors. As Liz notes:\n\n“Using three broad ranges for GDP growth historically, the lowest range (when the economy is barely growing or in recession) is accompanied by the highest annualized stock market performance.\nGDP is only slightly back into positive territory on an annualized basis. However, the strong growth expected in the second quarter will push GDP into the highest zone. At that level, stocks have historically posted a negative annualized return.”\n\n\nThe reason is that once economic growth reaches higher levels, stocks have climbed to levels incorporating those expectations. In other words, when things are as “good as they can get,” stocks begin to reprice for slower future growth rates.\nThat is the phase we are at currently.\nHow Much Pent Up Demand Is There Anyway\nThe main driver of the expected recovery from a “recessionary” low stems from the question of how much “pent up” demand currently exists?\nIf we look at durable goods as an example, such would suggest that much of the demand for long-lasting products got pulled forward by consumers over the last 12-months.\n\nOf course, if we broaden that measure to retails sales which make up ~40% of the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) index, we see much the same.\n\nGiven PCE, which comprises nearly 70% of GDP, has already recovered much of pandemic-related decline, how much “pent up” demand remains.\n\nHowever, wage growth outside of personal transfer payments (i.e., stimulus) hasn’t recovered. It is impossible to sustain higher rates of economic growth without wage growth.\n\nImportantly, as we saw in January and February following the $900 billion stimulus bill passage, there was a short-lived surge of activity. However, once individuals spent the money, activity quickly faded. We saw the same with retail sales in April following the American Rescue Plan, which sent out $1400 checks.\n\nAfter the $1400 checks get spent, what will be the driver for continued consumption at previous rates? Further, given the impact of a larger economy (as it recovers), the rate of change will decline markedly in the months to come.\nEarnings Growth Inflection\n\n“Earnings growth has a high correlation to stock market performance, but with time lags that are less well-understood. We are about halfway through the first quarter S&P 500 earnings season and so far, the results are exceptionally strong.” – Liz Ann Sonders\n\nThat is correct, and given the high correlation between earnings and market returns, we come back to the same question. Has the advance in the market accounted for the rebound in earnings? More importantly, what happens when that growth reverses?\n\n“Relative to last year’s second-quarter plunge of nearly -31% year-over-year, expectations are that S&P 500 earnings will be up more than 46% in this year’s first quarter. The second quarter will boast a whopping 60% increase. Such should be the inflection point in terms of the year-over-year growth rate.” – Liz Ann Sonders\n\n\nThe problem is the S&P rose to levels that earnings growth will have difficulty supporting, particularly as the stimulus fades from the system. As with economic growth, the 2nd derivative of earnings growth is now a headwind for the markets.\n\nSuch is also the problem of “pulling forward sales.”\nConclusion\nNotably, the outsized growth of the market reflects repetitive interventions into the financial markets by the Fed. Those interventions detached financial asset growth from their long-term correlation to GDP growth, where corporate revenue comes from. Historically, when the S&P 500 becomes separated from economic growth, a reversion occurred.\n\nCurrently, analysts are expecting earnings to surge well above economic growth rates. However, the flaw in the analysis is the assumption earnings growth will continue its current trend.\nWhile there will be an economic recovery to pre-pandemic levels, a recovery is very different from an expansion.\nAs Liz concludes:\n\n“Optimism is extremely elevated.\nSuch is certainly justified by stock market behavior over the past year and recent economic releases.\nBut some curbing of enthusiasm may be warranted given the history of the stock market as an uncanny ‘sniffer-outer’ of economic inflection points.”\n\nAs she goes on to point out, this is not a time for FOMO-driven investment decision-making. The reality is that the supports that drove the economic recovery will not support an ongoing economic expansion. One is self-sustaining organic growth from productive activity, and the other is not.\nThe risk of disappointment is high. And so are the costs of being “wilfully blind” to the dangers.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{"SPY":0.9,".DJI":0.9,".SPX":0.9,".IXIC":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":977,"commentLimit":10,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"symbols":[],"verified":2,"subType":0,"readableState":1,"langContent":"EN","currentLanguage":"EN","warmUpFlag":false,"orderFlag":false,"shareable":true,"causeOfNotShareable":"","featuresForAnalytics":[],"commentAndTweetFlag":false,"andRepostAutoSelectedFlag":false,"upFlag":false,"length":6,"xxTargetLangEnum":"ORIG"},"commentList":[],"isCommentEnd":true,"isTiger":false,"isWeiXinMini":false,"url":"/m/post/114726900"}