I see_老虎社区_美港股上老虎

2021-07-20

I see

Worried about inflation? Here’s how investments did in the 1970s<blockquote>担心通货膨胀？以下是 20 世纪 70 年代的投资情况</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":171554572,"tweetId":"171554572","gmtCreate":1626752342796,"gmtModify":1633771360433,"author":{"id":3557634928383187,"idStr":"3557634928383187","authorId":3557634928383187,"authorIdStr":"3557634928383187","name":"Kristo","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/07075676425d47f31685477722d0d415","vip":1,"userType":1,"introduction":"","boolIsFan":false,"boolIsHead":false,"crmLevel":7,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[],"wearingBadges":[],"fanSize":30,"starInvestorFlag":false},"themes":[],"images":[],"coverImages":[],"title":"","extraTitle":"","html":"<html><head></head><body>I see</body></html>","htmlText":"<html><head></head><body>I see</body></html>","text":"I see","highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":4,"commentSize":4,"repostSize":0,"favoriteSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/171554572","repostId":1129846769,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1129846769","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1626751789,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1129846769?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-07-20 11:29","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Worried about inflation? Here’s how investments did in the 1970s<blockquote>担心通货膨胀？以下是 20 世纪 70 年代的投资情况</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1129846769","media":"Marketwatch","summary":"In the 1990s movie The Shipping News, an old newspaperman explains to Kevin Spacey how to cover the ","content":"In the 1990s movie The Shipping News, an old newspaperman explains to Kevin Spacey how to cover the news. If there is a storm visible anywhere, he explains, you write “Storm threatens the town,” even if the storm is nowhere near and is unlikely to hit. If—as expected—the storm never hits, you just write the follow up: “Town spared by storm.”<blockquote>在 20 世纪 90 年代的电影《航运新闻》中，一位老记者向凯文·史派西解释如何报道新闻。他解释说，如果任何地方都能看到暴风雨，你就写 “暴风雨威胁着小镇”，即使暴风雨不在附近，也不太可能袭来。如果--如预期的那样--暴风雨从未袭来，您只需写下后续内容： “暴风雨幸免于难的小镇”。</blockquote> Readers may be excused for thinking something similar about the latest stories about looming, threatening, surging, terrifying inflation. Yes, the inflation forecasts were surging months ago, and hit 8-year highs. Had they continued there would be grounds to worry. But they haven’t continued. On the contrary, they’ve been falling for two months. The bond market’s 5-year inflation forecast is now lower than it was in mid-March. The market sees five-year inflation running at around 2.6%. That’s higher than we’ve been used to for a decade, but it’s nothing to cause any significant alarm.<blockquote>对于关于迫在眉睫、威胁性、飙升、可怕的通货膨胀的最新报道，读者可能会有类似的想法。是的，几个月前通胀预测飙升，并达到了8年来的高点。如果他们继续下去，就有理由担心了。但他们没有继续下去。相反，它们已经下降了两个月。债券市场对 5 年期通胀的预测目前低于 3 月中旬。市场预计五年通胀率将在 2.6% 左右。这比我们十年来习惯的要高，但这并不会引起任何大的恐慌。</blockquote> That can change, of course. Maybe it will. We’ll see.<blockquote>当然，这种情况可能会改变。也许会。我们拭目以待。</blockquote> But with all this talk I got to thinking about the obvious question. If serious inflation really does hit, what can we do about it? How can we protect our investments?<blockquote>但是说了这么多，我开始思考一个显而易见的问题。如果严重的通货膨胀真的来袭，我们能做些什么？我们如何保护我们的投资？</blockquote> That’s an especially key question for today’s retirees and those expecting to retire soon. When we’re older we’re generally advised to keep most of our money in more “conservative” investments, meaning things like bonds, that involve less risk. Someone in their 20s or 30s may not worry unduly if their retirement savings plunge 30% in a market rout or an inflationary spiral. For someone in their 60s, let alone older, that can become a major financial crisis.<blockquote>对于今天的退休人员和即将退休的人来说，这是一个特别重要的问题。随着年龄的增长，我们通常会被建议将大部分资金投资于更 “保守 ”的投资，也就是债券等风险较小的投资。20多岁或30多岁的人可能不会过度担心，如果他们的退休储蓄在市场崩溃或通货膨胀螺旋中暴跌30%。对于60多岁的人来说，更不用说老年人了，这可能会成为一场重大的金融危机。</blockquote> So I went back and dug up the information from the last, infamous inflationary spiral in the 1970s, when consumer price inflation often topped 10% a year. The Greek philosopher Heraclitus pointed out that no one ever walks through the same stream twice, because the second time it’s not the same stream, and we’re not the same person. Everything changes. There is no guarantee the next inflationary boom, even if it happens, will look anything like the last one — any more than we should assume that it will be accompanied by outbreaks of disco music and flared jeans.<blockquote>所以我回去挖掘了20世纪70年代上一次臭名昭著的通货膨胀螺旋的信息，当时消费者价格通胀率每年经常超过10%。希腊哲学家赫拉克利特指出，没有人两次走过同一条小溪，因为第二次不是同一条小溪，我们也不是同一个人。一切都变了。不能保证下一次通胀繁荣，即使发生，看起来也会像上一次一样——我们不应该假设它会伴随着迪斯科音乐和喇叭裤的爆发。</blockquote> Nonetheless the chart above shows the total returns, after adjusting for inflation, of various asset classes from December 1971 to December 1981. (I used those dates because the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, or NAREIT, starts their data series then.) The data on energy stocks came from data compiled by professor Ken French at Dartmouth College’s Tuck School of Business.<blockquote>尽管如此，上图显示了1971年12月至1981年12月期间，经通货膨胀调整后，各种资产类别的总回报率。(我使用这些日期是因为全国房地产投资信托协会（NAREIT）的数据系列是在那时开始的）。能源股的数据来自达特茅斯学院塔克商学院的肯-弗伦奇教授汇编的数据。</blockquote> This is what happened to your purchasing power if you invested in these assets and hung on for 10 years. (I’ve excluded gold, which is a different story.)<blockquote>如果你投资这些资产并坚持10年，这就是你的购买力发生的变化。(我不包括黄金，那是另一回事了）。</blockquote> The key standout is that you really didn’t want to own Treasury bonds. The near 40% loss of purchasing power over 10 years is somewhat notional—it is derived from the compound annual returns on 10 Year Treasurys compiled by New York University’s Stern School of Business, divided by the consumer-price index—but tells a story nonetheless. (In Great Britain, where inflation was even worse, government bonds during the 1970s became known as “certificates of confiscation.” Ouch.)<blockquote>最突出的是，你真的不想拥有国债。10 年内近 40% 的购买力损失在某种程度上是名义上的--它是根据纽约大学斯特恩商学院编制的 10 年期国债复合年收益率除以消费者价格指数得出的--但它仍然说明了一个问题。(在通货膨胀更严重的英国，20 世纪 70 年代的政府债券被称为 “没收凭证”。哎哟）。</blockquote> Holding them cost you money. Lots of it.<blockquote>持有它们会花钱。很多。</blockquote> You could argue that the danger today is even greater, simply because the yields on long-term Treasury bonds are so low. Federal Reserve quantitative easing, bond buying, and zero interest-rate policies have left Treasury yields at their lowest on record—which means the turns would be a disaster if inflation reared its head.<blockquote>你可能会说，今天的危险甚至更大，仅仅是因为长期国债的收益率如此之低。美联储的量化宽松、债券购买和零利率政策使美国国债收益率处于历史最低水平，这意味着如果通胀抬头，转折将是一场灾难。</blockquote> Corporate bonds and the S&amp;P 500&nbsp;were also terrible investments. It’s worth remembering that these are real term losses over a decade, which means investors didn’t just lose a lot of money—they also lost a lot of time.<blockquote>公司债券和标普500也是糟糕的投资。值得记住的是，这些都是十年来的真实期限损失，这意味着投资者不仅损失了很多钱，还损失了很多时间。</blockquote> Utility stocks weren’t great, but they held up better. And Treasury bills—short-term paper—did better still. But once again you were going backward when you needed to be going forwards.<blockquote>公用事业股表现不佳，但表现较好。国库券——短期票据——表现更好。但是当你需要前进的时候，你又一次在后退。</blockquote> No one who remembers the 1970s will be surprised that energy companies boomed. Less well-remembered, maybe, is that REITs also did pretty well. These numbers, incidentally, represented property-owning REITs and excluded mortgage REITs, which own loans.<blockquote>任何记得 20 世纪 70 年代的人都不会对能源公司的繁荣感到惊讶。也许不太为人所知的是，房地产投资信托基金的表现也相当不错。顺便说一句，这些数字代表拥有房地产的房地产投资信托基金，不包括拥有贷款的抵押房地产投资信托基金。</blockquote> But there are two caveats to this. The first is that of course energy stocks did well, because a key driver of inflation in the 1970s was the rise of OPEC and two oil embargoes it imposed on the West for political reasons. Cue Heraclitus. There is no particular reason to assume that the next inflationary surge will be the same.<blockquote>但是有两个注意事项。首先是能源股当然表现良好，因为20世纪70年代通货膨胀的一个关键驱动因素是石油输出国组织的崛起及其出于政治原因对西方实施的两次石油禁运。提示赫拉克利特。没有特别的理由假设下一次通胀飙升会是一样的。</blockquote> The second caveat is that although REITs ended up doing well, they were volatile along the way. In particular, REIT prices collapsed in the OPEC-driven recession of 1972-4. And according to FactSet, U.S. REITs today already look pretty expensive on some measures. For instance it reckons that the forecast dividend yield on the Vanguard Real Estate ETF (a reasonable benchmark for the industry) is just 2.9% — by far the lowest since it was launched in 2004. Looking through NAREIT data, I can’t find a moment since 1971 when the overall yield on REITs was this low. During the real estate bubble in 2007, incidentally, the yield bottomed out no lower than 3.6%<blockquote>第二个警告是，尽管房地产投资信托基金最终表现良好，但一路上却波动较大。特别是，房地产投资信托基金价格在 1972-4 年欧佩克推动的经济衰退中暴跌。根据 FactSet 的数据，从某些指标来看，如今美国房地产投资信托基金已经相当昂贵。例如，它估计先锋房地产 ETF（该行业的合理基准）的预测股息收益率仅为 2.9%，是自 2004 年推出以来的最低水平。翻阅 NAREIT 的数据，我找不到自 1971 年以来房地产投资信托基金的整体收益率如此之低的时刻。顺便说一句，在2007年房地产泡沫期间，收益率最低跌至3.6%</blockquote> So it may be that REITs offer less inflation protection today than we would hope.<blockquote>因此，如今房地产投资信托基金提供的通胀保护可能比我们希望的要少。</blockquote> One key difference in the 1970s is that there were no “inflation-protected” Treasury bonds to keep investors protected. So-called TIPS are in theory almost the perfect investment for retirees. They are issued by the U.S. government and their coupons are safe against default. Meanwhile their coupons effectively adjust to reflect changes in consumer prices.<blockquote>20 世纪 70 年代的一个关键区别是，没有 “通胀保值 ”国债来保护投资者。所谓的小费理论上几乎是退休人员的完美投资。它们由美国政府发行，其优惠券不会违约。同时，他们的优惠券有效地调整以反映消费者价格的变化。</blockquote> The problem today is that TIPS—like almost everything else in the bond market—look incredibly expensive. Most TIPS already lock in an actual loss of purchasing power if you buy them today. For example if you buy 5 year TIPS bonds and hold them for 5 years you’ll end up losing 9% of your purchasing power. And 30-year TIPS bonds offer the same 9% loss, though stretched out over 30 years.<blockquote>如今的问题是，小费——就像债券市场上的几乎所有其他东西一样——看起来非常昂贵。如果你今天购买，大多数建议已经锁定了购买力的实际损失。例如，如果您购买 5 年期 TIPS 债券并持有 5 年，您最终将失去 9% 的购买力。30 年期 TIPS 债券的损失相同，为 9%，尽管期限超过 30 年。</blockquote> It’s not very compelling. And it shows the risks that the government’s policy responses have created for those in retirement and near it.<blockquote>这并不令人信服。这也显示了政府的政策应对措施给退休人员和接近退休人员带来的风险。</blockquote>","source":"market_watch","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>Worried about inflation? Here’s how investments did in the 1970s<blockquote>担心通货膨胀？以下是 20 世纪 70 年代的投资情况</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\">\nWorried about inflation? Here’s how investments did in the 1970s<blockquote>担心通货膨胀？以下是 20 世纪 70 年代的投资情况</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nMarketwatch2021-07-20 11:29\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\nIn the 1990s movie The Shipping News, an old newspaperman explains to Kevin Spacey how to cover the news. If there is a storm visible anywhere, he explains, you write “Storm threatens the town,” even if the storm is nowhere near and is unlikely to hit. If—as expected—the storm never hits, you just write the follow up: “Town spared by storm.”<blockquote>在 20 世纪 90 年代的电影《航运新闻》中，一位老记者向凯文·史派西解释如何报道新闻。他解释说，如果任何地方都能看到暴风雨，你就写 “暴风雨威胁着小镇”，即使暴风雨不在附近，也不太可能袭来。如果--如预期的那样--暴风雨从未袭来，您只需写下后续内容： “暴风雨幸免于难的小镇”。</blockquote> Readers may be excused for thinking something similar about the latest stories about looming, threatening, surging, terrifying inflation. Yes, the inflation forecasts were surging months ago, and hit 8-year highs. Had they continued there would be grounds to worry. But they haven’t continued. On the contrary, they’ve been falling for two months. The bond market’s 5-year inflation forecast is now lower than it was in mid-March. The market sees five-year inflation running at around 2.6%. That’s higher than we’ve been used to for a decade, but it’s nothing to cause any significant alarm.<blockquote>对于关于迫在眉睫、威胁性、飙升、可怕的通货膨胀的最新报道，读者可能会有类似的想法。是的，几个月前通胀预测飙升，并达到了8年来的高点。如果他们继续下去，就有理由担心了。但他们没有继续下去。相反，它们已经下降了两个月。债券市场对 5 年期通胀的预测目前低于 3 月中旬。市场预计五年通胀率将在 2.6% 左右。这比我们十年来习惯的要高，但这并不会引起任何大的恐慌。</blockquote> That can change, of course. Maybe it will. We’ll see.<blockquote>当然，这种情况可能会改变。也许会。我们拭目以待。</blockquote> But with all this talk I got to thinking about the obvious question. If serious inflation really does hit, what can we do about it? How can we protect our investments?<blockquote>但是说了这么多，我开始思考一个显而易见的问题。如果严重的通货膨胀真的来袭，我们能做些什么？我们如何保护我们的投资？</blockquote> That’s an especially key question for today’s retirees and those expecting to retire soon. When we’re older we’re generally advised to keep most of our money in more “conservative” investments, meaning things like bonds, that involve less risk. Someone in their 20s or 30s may not worry unduly if their retirement savings plunge 30% in a market rout or an inflationary spiral. For someone in their 60s, let alone older, that can become a major financial crisis.<blockquote>对于今天的退休人员和即将退休的人来说，这是一个特别重要的问题。随着年龄的增长，我们通常会被建议将大部分资金投资于更 “保守 ”的投资，也就是债券等风险较小的投资。20多岁或30多岁的人可能不会过度担心，如果他们的退休储蓄在市场崩溃或通货膨胀螺旋中暴跌30%。对于60多岁的人来说，更不用说老年人了，这可能会成为一场重大的金融危机。</blockquote> So I went back and dug up the information from the last, infamous inflationary spiral in the 1970s, when consumer price inflation often topped 10% a year. The Greek philosopher Heraclitus pointed out that no one ever walks through the same stream twice, because the second time it’s not the same stream, and we’re not the same person. Everything changes. There is no guarantee the next inflationary boom, even if it happens, will look anything like the last one — any more than we should assume that it will be accompanied by outbreaks of disco music and flared jeans.<blockquote>所以我回去挖掘了20世纪70年代上一次臭名昭著的通货膨胀螺旋的信息，当时消费者价格通胀率每年经常超过10%。希腊哲学家赫拉克利特指出，没有人两次走过同一条小溪，因为第二次不是同一条小溪，我们也不是同一个人。一切都变了。不能保证下一次通胀繁荣，即使发生，看起来也会像上一次一样——我们不应该假设它会伴随着迪斯科音乐和喇叭裤的爆发。</blockquote> Nonetheless the chart above shows the total returns, after adjusting for inflation, of various asset classes from December 1971 to December 1981. (I used those dates because the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, or NAREIT, starts their data series then.) The data on energy stocks came from data compiled by professor Ken French at Dartmouth College’s Tuck School of Business.<blockquote>尽管如此，上图显示了1971年12月至1981年12月期间，经通货膨胀调整后，各种资产类别的总回报率。(我使用这些日期是因为全国房地产投资信托协会（NAREIT）的数据系列是在那时开始的）。能源股的数据来自达特茅斯学院塔克商学院的肯-弗伦奇教授汇编的数据。</blockquote> This is what happened to your purchasing power if you invested in these assets and hung on for 10 years. (I’ve excluded gold, which is a different story.)<blockquote>如果你投资这些资产并坚持10年，这就是你的购买力发生的变化。(我不包括黄金，那是另一回事了）。</blockquote> The key standout is that you really didn’t want to own Treasury bonds. The near 40% loss of purchasing power over 10 years is somewhat notional—it is derived from the compound annual returns on 10 Year Treasurys compiled by New York University’s Stern School of Business, divided by the consumer-price index—but tells a story nonetheless. (In Great Britain, where inflation was even worse, government bonds during the 1970s became known as “certificates of confiscation.” Ouch.)<blockquote>最突出的是，你真的不想拥有国债。10 年内近 40% 的购买力损失在某种程度上是名义上的--它是根据纽约大学斯特恩商学院编制的 10 年期国债复合年收益率除以消费者价格指数得出的--但它仍然说明了一个问题。(在通货膨胀更严重的英国，20 世纪 70 年代的政府债券被称为 “没收凭证”。哎哟）。</blockquote> Holding them cost you money. Lots of it.<blockquote>持有它们会花钱。很多。</blockquote> You could argue that the danger today is even greater, simply because the yields on long-term Treasury bonds are so low. Federal Reserve quantitative easing, bond buying, and zero interest-rate policies have left Treasury yields at their lowest on record—which means the turns would be a disaster if inflation reared its head.<blockquote>你可能会说，今天的危险甚至更大，仅仅是因为长期国债的收益率如此之低。美联储的量化宽松、债券购买和零利率政策使美国国债收益率处于历史最低水平，这意味着如果通胀抬头，转折将是一场灾难。</blockquote> Corporate bonds and the S&amp;P 500&nbsp;were also terrible investments. It’s worth remembering that these are real term losses over a decade, which means investors didn’t just lose a lot of money—they also lost a lot of time.<blockquote>公司债券和标普500也是糟糕的投资。值得记住的是，这些都是十年来的真实期限损失，这意味着投资者不仅损失了很多钱，还损失了很多时间。</blockquote> Utility stocks weren’t great, but they held up better. And Treasury bills—short-term paper—did better still. But once again you were going backward when you needed to be going forwards.<blockquote>公用事业股表现不佳，但表现较好。国库券——短期票据——表现更好。但是当你需要前进的时候，你又一次在后退。</blockquote> No one who remembers the 1970s will be surprised that energy companies boomed. Less well-remembered, maybe, is that REITs also did pretty well. These numbers, incidentally, represented property-owning REITs and excluded mortgage REITs, which own loans.<blockquote>任何记得 20 世纪 70 年代的人都不会对能源公司的繁荣感到惊讶。也许不太为人所知的是，房地产投资信托基金的表现也相当不错。顺便说一句，这些数字代表拥有房地产的房地产投资信托基金，不包括拥有贷款的抵押房地产投资信托基金。</blockquote> But there are two caveats to this. The first is that of course energy stocks did well, because a key driver of inflation in the 1970s was the rise of OPEC and two oil embargoes it imposed on the West for political reasons. Cue Heraclitus. There is no particular reason to assume that the next inflationary surge will be the same.<blockquote>但是有两个注意事项。首先是能源股当然表现良好，因为20世纪70年代通货膨胀的一个关键驱动因素是石油输出国组织的崛起及其出于政治原因对西方实施的两次石油禁运。提示赫拉克利特。没有特别的理由假设下一次通胀飙升会是一样的。</blockquote> The second caveat is that although REITs ended up doing well, they were volatile along the way. In particular, REIT prices collapsed in the OPEC-driven recession of 1972-4. And according to FactSet, U.S. REITs today already look pretty expensive on some measures. For instance it reckons that the forecast dividend yield on the Vanguard Real Estate ETF (a reasonable benchmark for the industry) is just 2.9% — by far the lowest since it was launched in 2004. Looking through NAREIT data, I can’t find a moment since 1971 when the overall yield on REITs was this low. During the real estate bubble in 2007, incidentally, the yield bottomed out no lower than 3.6%<blockquote>第二个警告是，尽管房地产投资信托基金最终表现良好，但一路上却波动较大。特别是，房地产投资信托基金价格在 1972-4 年欧佩克推动的经济衰退中暴跌。根据 FactSet 的数据，从某些指标来看，如今美国房地产投资信托基金已经相当昂贵。例如，它估计先锋房地产 ETF（该行业的合理基准）的预测股息收益率仅为 2.9%，是自 2004 年推出以来的最低水平。翻阅 NAREIT 的数据，我找不到自 1971 年以来房地产投资信托基金的整体收益率如此之低的时刻。顺便说一句，在2007年房地产泡沫期间，收益率最低跌至3.6%</blockquote> So it may be that REITs offer less inflation protection today than we would hope.<blockquote>因此，如今房地产投资信托基金提供的通胀保护可能比我们希望的要少。</blockquote> One key difference in the 1970s is that there were no “inflation-protected” Treasury bonds to keep investors protected. So-called TIPS are in theory almost the perfect investment for retirees. They are issued by the U.S. government and their coupons are safe against default. Meanwhile their coupons effectively adjust to reflect changes in consumer prices.<blockquote>20 世纪 70 年代的一个关键区别是，没有 “通胀保值 ”国债来保护投资者。所谓的小费理论上几乎是退休人员的完美投资。它们由美国政府发行，其优惠券不会违约。同时，他们的优惠券有效地调整以反映消费者价格的变化。</blockquote> The problem today is that TIPS—like almost everything else in the bond market—look incredibly expensive. Most TIPS already lock in an actual loss of purchasing power if you buy them today. For example if you buy 5 year TIPS bonds and hold them for 5 years you’ll end up losing 9% of your purchasing power. And 30-year TIPS bonds offer the same 9% loss, though stretched out over 30 years.<blockquote>如今的问题是，小费——就像债券市场上的几乎所有其他东西一样——看起来非常昂贵。如果你今天购买，大多数建议已经锁定了购买力的实际损失。例如，如果您购买 5 年期 TIPS 债券并持有 5 年，您最终将失去 9% 的购买力。30 年期 TIPS 债券的损失相同，为 9%，尽管期限超过 30 年。</blockquote> It’s not very compelling. And it shows the risks that the government’s policy responses have created for those in retirement and near it.<blockquote>这并不令人信服。这也显示了政府的政策应对措施给退休人员和接近退休人员带来的风险。</blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/worried-about-inflation-heres-how-investments-did-in-the-1970s-11626658251?siteid=yhoof2\">Marketwatch</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":{".SPX":"S&P 500 Index","XOM":"埃克森美孚"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/worried-about-inflation-heres-how-investments-did-in-the-1970s-11626658251?siteid=yhoof2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/599a65733b8245fcf7868668ef9ad712","article_id":"1129846769","content_text":"In the 1990s movie The Shipping News, an old newspaperman explains to Kevin Spacey how to cover the news. If there is a storm visible anywhere, he explains, you write “Storm threatens the town,” even if the storm is nowhere near and is unlikely to hit. If—as expected—the storm never hits, you just write the follow up: “Town spared by storm.”\nReaders may be excused for thinking something similar about the latest stories about looming, threatening, surging, terrifying inflation. Yes, the inflation forecasts were surging months ago, and hit 8-year highs. Had they continued there would be grounds to worry. But they haven’t continued. On the contrary, they’ve been falling for two months. The bond market’s 5-year inflation forecast is now lower than it was in mid-March. The market sees five-year inflation running at around 2.6%. That’s higher than we’ve been used to for a decade, but it’s nothing to cause any significant alarm.\nThat can change, of course. Maybe it will. We’ll see.\nBut with all this talk I got to thinking about the obvious question. If serious inflation really does hit, what can we do about it? How can we protect our investments?\nThat’s an especially key question for today’s retirees and those expecting to retire soon. When we’re older we’re generally advised to keep most of our money in more “conservative” investments, meaning things like bonds, that involve less risk. Someone in their 20s or 30s may not worry unduly if their retirement savings plunge 30% in a market rout or an inflationary spiral. For someone in their 60s, let alone older, that can become a major financial crisis.\nSo I went back and dug up the information from the last, infamous inflationary spiral in the 1970s, when consumer price inflation often topped 10% a year. The Greek philosopher Heraclitus pointed out that no one ever walks through the same stream twice, because the second time it’s not the same stream, and we’re not the same person. Everything changes. There is no guarantee the next inflationary boom, even if it happens, will look anything like the last one — any more than we should assume that it will be accompanied by outbreaks of disco music and flared jeans.\nNonetheless the chart above shows the total returns, after adjusting for inflation, of various asset classes from December 1971 to December 1981. (I used those dates because the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, or NAREIT, starts their data series then.) The data on energy stocks came from data compiled by professor Ken French at Dartmouth College’s Tuck School of Business.\nThis is what happened to your purchasing power if you invested in these assets and hung on for 10 years. (I’ve excluded gold, which is a different story.)\nThe key standout is that you really didn’t want to own Treasury bonds. The near 40% loss of purchasing power over 10 years is somewhat notional—it is derived from the compound annual returns on 10 Year Treasurys compiled by New York University’s Stern School of Business, divided by the consumer-price index—but tells a story nonetheless. (In Great Britain, where inflation was even worse, government bonds during the 1970s became known as “certificates of confiscation.” Ouch.)\nHolding them cost you money. Lots of it.\nYou could argue that the danger today is even greater, simply because the yields on long-term Treasury bonds are so low. Federal Reserve quantitative easing, bond buying, and zero interest-rate policies have left Treasury yields at their lowest on record—which means the turns would be a disaster if inflation reared its head.\nCorporate bonds and the S&P 500 were also terrible investments. It’s worth remembering that these are real term losses over a decade, which means investors didn’t just lose a lot of money—they also lost a lot of time.\nUtility stocks weren’t great, but they held up better. And Treasury bills—short-term paper—did better still. But once again you were going backward when you needed to be going forwards.\nNo one who remembers the 1970s will be surprised that energy companies boomed. Less well-remembered, maybe, is that REITs also did pretty well. These numbers, incidentally, represented property-owning REITs and excluded mortgage REITs, which own loans.\nBut there are two caveats to this. The first is that of course energy stocks did well, because a key driver of inflation in the 1970s was the rise of OPEC and two oil embargoes it imposed on the West for political reasons. Cue Heraclitus. There is no particular reason to assume that the next inflationary surge will be the same.\nThe second caveat is that although REITs ended up doing well, they were volatile along the way. In particular, REIT prices collapsed in the OPEC-driven recession of 1972-4. And according to FactSet, U.S. REITs today already look pretty expensive on some measures. For instance it reckons that the forecast dividend yield on the Vanguard Real Estate ETF (a reasonable benchmark for the industry) is just 2.9% — by far the lowest since it was launched in 2004. Looking through NAREIT data, I can’t find a moment since 1971 when the overall yield on REITs was this low. During the real estate bubble in 2007, incidentally, the yield bottomed out no lower than 3.6%\nSo it may be that REITs offer less inflation protection today than we would hope.\nOne key difference in the 1970s is that there were no “inflation-protected” Treasury bonds to keep investors protected. So-called TIPS are in theory almost the perfect investment for retirees. They are issued by the U.S. government and their coupons are safe against default. Meanwhile their coupons effectively adjust to reflect changes in consumer prices.\nThe problem today is that TIPS—like almost everything else in the bond market—look incredibly expensive. Most TIPS already lock in an actual loss of purchasing power if you buy them today. For example if you buy 5 year TIPS bonds and hold them for 5 years you’ll end up losing 9% of your purchasing power. And 30-year TIPS bonds offer the same 9% loss, though stretched out over 30 years.\nIt’s not very compelling. And it shows the risks that the government’s policy responses have created for those in retirement and near it.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{".SPX":0.9,"XOM":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":574,"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":4,"xxTargetLangEnum":"ORIG"},"commentList":[],"isCommentEnd":true,"isTiger":false,"isWeiXinMini":false,"url":"/m/post/171554572"}