WSJ writing like Motley Fool?!_老虎社区_美港股上老虎

2021-09-05

WSJ writing like Motley Fool?!?

Speak No Evil of the S&P 500’s Neverending Records<blockquote>不要说标普500永无止境的记录的坏话</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":814530334,"tweetId":"814530334","gmtCreate":1630839868828,"gmtModify":1631892247705,"author":{"id":3559859558754319,"idStr":"3559859558754319","authorId":3559859558754319,"authorIdStr":"3559859558754319","name":"Bodoh","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/349218ea2852130ca86ce660b4aa2d59","vip":1,"userType":1,"introduction":"","boolIsFan":false,"boolIsHead":false,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[],"fanSize":143,"starInvestorFlag":false},"themes":[],"images":[],"coverImages":[],"extraTitle":"","html":"<html><head></head><body>WSJ writing like Motley Fool?!?</body></html>","htmlText":"<html><head></head><body>WSJ writing like Motley Fool?!?</body></html>","text":"WSJ writing like Motley Fool?!?","highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":9,"commentSize":2,"repostSize":0,"favoriteSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/814530334","repostId":1168498795,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1168498795","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1630655991,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1168498795?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-09-03 15:59","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Speak No Evil of the S&P 500’s Neverending Records<blockquote>不要说标普500永无止境的记录的坏话</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1168498795","media":"The Wall Street Journal","summary":"Investors buying stocks no matter what shouldn’t fool themselves that the future will deliver the ch","content":" Investors buying stocks no matter what shouldn’t fool themselves that the future will deliver the chunky returns of the past decade. <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/6573eb955692f754acc1285622febd53\" tg-width=\"878\" tg-height=\"520\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\">The S&amp;P 500 is like the three wise monkeys: See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.Whatever happens, it just goes up. The market has gone up almost in a straight line since November despite a troubling list of events that could each have justified at least a 5% correction. Investors are incredibly resilient.<blockquote>无论如何购买股票的投资者都不应该自欺欺人地认为未来将带来过去十年的丰厚回报。标普500就像三只聪明的猴子：不看邪恶，不听邪恶，不说邪恶。无论发生什么，它都会上升。自11月以来，市场几乎直线上涨，尽管发生了一系列令人不安的事件，每个事件都可能证明至少5%的回调是合理的。投资者的韧性令人难以置信。</blockquote> Some things that didn’t matter:a burst bubble in clean-energy stocks;a sharp rise in Treasury yields(to March);a big fall in Treasury yields(since March); China’s crackdown on moneymaking; the Federal Reserve’sshift toward tapering bond purchases; and the rise of the Delta variant.<blockquote>一些无关紧要的事情：清洁能源股票泡沫破裂；国债收益率大幅上升（至3月）；国债收益率大幅下跌（自3月以来）；我国关于赚钱的打压；美联储转向缩减债券购买；以及德尔塔变异毒株的崛起。</blockquote> On the optimistic side, it is great that the market has been pushed up by a variety of forces, not by wild excess in a single area. We need not worry that the bubble in clean energy will burst and bring down the market, because it has already burst without bringing down the market.<blockquote>乐观的一面是，市场被多种力量推高，而不是单一地区的疯狂过剩，这很好。我们不必担心清洁能源的泡沫会破裂，拖垮市场，因为它已经破裂了，没有拖垮市场。</blockquote> Throughout all this, the stock market has risen steadily,without a 5% fall since shortly before the election last year. Every time part of the market—technology stocks, cheap stocks, smaller stocks, oil stocks, strong-balance-sheet stocks—stops performing, something else steps in to rescue the broader index. The market seems invulnerable to bad news, and that is unusual. On the face of it, it is also scary, suggesting investors are complacent about danger.<blockquote>纵观这一切，股市稳步上涨，自去年大选前不久以来没有出现过5%的下跌。每当市场的一部分——科技股、廉价股、小型股、石油股、资产负债表强劲的股票——停止表现时，就会有其他东西介入拯救更广泛的指数。市场似乎不会受到坏消息的影响，这是不寻常的。从表面上看，这也很可怕，表明投资者对危险沾沾自喜。</blockquote> It is far from unprecedented to go a long time without a correction, with 10 episodes since 1963 when the market lasted more than 200 trading days without a 5% drop. But they were different from the recent run. In every other case, the market was far calmer below the surface. This time, major events led to big swings between sectors, size and types of stock, but none disturbed its steady rise.<blockquote>长时间没有回调的情况远非史无前例，自1963年以来，市场持续200多个交易日没有下跌5%以来，已经出现了10次。但它们与最近的运行不同。在其他情况下，市场在表面之下要平静得多。这一次，重大事件导致板块、规模和股票类型之间的大幅波动，但都没有干扰其稳步上涨。</blockquote> Similarly, the stimulus- and vaccine-driven willingness to take risk across every asset class faded from March onward, so we shouldn’t be too concerned about a switch in investor sentiment. Again, it has already happened.<blockquote>同样，从3月份开始，刺激和疫苗驱动的所有资产类别的冒险意愿都减弱了，因此我们不应该太担心投资者情绪的转变。再说一次，这已经发生了。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/7d8b995934c7f60fadb5834dd078e232\" tg-width=\"320\" tg-height=\"412\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\">Yet,I find it disconcerting that the market seems to go up no matter what. Good news on the economy pushes up stocks sensitive to growth, such as manufacturers and banks. Troubling news on the economy means lower bond yields and so pushes up stocks with profits far in the future (see: Big Tech) whose expansion depends on innovation rather than economic growth, which I understand. That both should push up the wider S&amp;P 500 is what puzzles me.<blockquote>然而，令我不安的是，无论如何，市场似乎都在上涨。经济方面的好消息推高了对增长敏感的股票，如制造商和银行。令人不安的经济消息意味着债券收益率下降，从而推高未来盈利的股票（见：大型科技公司），这些股票的扩张依赖于创新而不是经济增长，我理解这一点。两者都应该推高更广泛的标普500，这让我感到困惑。</blockquote> The only explanation I have is the old one: “TINA”—There Is No Alternative to Stocks—because yields on alternatives such as bonds are so low. With more savings going into stocks than is cashed out or soaked up by IPOs, the price has to rise. It isn’t a satisfactory story, but it kind of works.<blockquote>我唯一的解释是旧的：“蒂娜”——除了股票别无选择——因为债券等替代品的收益率太低了。随着更多的储蓄进入股票，而不是通过IPO套现或吸收的储蓄，价格必须上涨。这不是一个令人满意的故事，但它有点工作。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/37942e27b25662943d254580733d2954\" tg-width=\"325\" tg-height=\"413\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\">In both good and bad times investors want to buy stocks, so the S&amp;P goes up. Butwhichstocks they choose to buy differs between good and bad times. In good times they want risk-on stocks (cheap value, cyclicals, smaller companies, emerging markets). In bad times they want risk-off stocks (growth, defensive firms, larger companies, developed markets and especially the U.S.).<blockquote>无论顺境还是逆境，投资者都想购买股票，因此标准普尔指数都会上涨。但哪个他们选择购买的股票在顺境和逆境之间有所不同。在繁荣时期，他们想要冒险的股票（便宜的价值、周期性股票、小公司、新兴市场）。在经济不景气时，他们想要避险股票（成长型、防御型公司、大型公司、发达市场，尤其是美国）。</blockquote> The problem with TINA is that the justification for stocks isn’t that they offer good returns in the future, but that they offer better returns than bonds. Bonds offer miserable returns—a guaranteed loss after inflation for 30 years on Treasury inflation-protected securities—so doing better than that isn’t saying much. If lower rewards came with lower risks, that would be fine, but at best the risks are as high as ever, perhaps much higher.<blockquote>蒂娜的问题在于，股票的理由不是它们在未来提供良好的回报，而是它们提供比债券更好的回报。债券的回报率很低——通胀保值国债30年通胀后肯定会出现亏损——所以做得更好并不能说明什么。如果较低的回报伴随着较低的风险，那很好，但充其量风险和以往一样高，甚至可能高得多。</blockquote> A simplistic way to quantify how much lower the rewards of stocks are likely to be is to use the earnings yield, the inverse of the forward price/earnings ratio. If companies match analyst profit forecasts, future returns should be about 4%—only slightly higher than was suggested by the measure at the height of the dot-com bubble in 2000. If corporate earnings miss forecasts, future returns could be substantially lower. If valuations fall too, returns are doubly hit, as they were after the dot-com bubble burst, when returns ended up negative for years.<blockquote>量化股票回报可能低多少的一个简单方法是使用收益率，即远期市盈率的倒数。如果公司符合分析师的利润预测，未来的回报率应该在4%左右——仅略高于2000年互联网泡沫最严重时的指标。如果企业盈利低于预期，未来的回报可能会大幅降低。如果估值也下跌，回报就会受到双重打击，就像互联网泡沫破裂后那样，当时回报多年来一直为负。</blockquote> Quantifying risks is much harder. Inflation risk is higher than before, and so are political (tax and regulation) and geopolitical (trade and supply chain) threats to stocks. The risk that analysts have horribly overestimated earnings or companies are massively overstating earnings is at least as high as usual. Central banks are sure to try to help if stocks plunge, but can’t use the traditional support of rate cuts. Alternative tools such as negative rates and buying a wider range of assets are available, but their risks are less well understood.<blockquote>量化风险要困难得多。通胀风险比以前更高，对股市的政治（税收和监管）和地缘政治（贸易和供应链）威胁也是如此。分析师严重高估收益或公司大幅夸大收益的风险至少和往常一样高。如果股市暴跌，央行肯定会尽力提供帮助，但不能使用降息的传统支持。负利率和购买更广泛的资产等替代工具是可用的，但其风险却不太为人所知。</blockquote> Getting a lower reward for the same or higher risk may still be acceptable, given how expensive the safer alternatives are. But investors buying stocks no matter what shouldn’t fool themselves that the future will deliver the 6.5% or so above inflation of the past century, let alone the 12% above inflation of the past decade.<blockquote>考虑到更安全的替代品的昂贵程度，以相同或更高的风险获得较低的回报可能仍然是可以接受的。但无论如何购买股票的投资者都不应该自欺欺人地认为，未来的通胀率将比上个世纪高出6.5%左右，更不用说比过去十年的通胀率高出12%了。</blockquote> The awful choice investors have is to join the monkeys in pretending all is well, or accept the terrible returns of safe assets.<blockquote>投资者面临的可怕选择是加入猴子的行列，假装一切都很好，或者接受安全资产的可怕回报。</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>Speak No Evil of the S&P 500’s Neverending Records<blockquote>不要说标普500永无止境的记录的坏话</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\">\nSpeak No Evil of the S&P 500’s Neverending Records<blockquote>不要说标普500永无止境的记录的坏话</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nThe Wall Street Journal2021-09-03 15:59\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n Investors buying stocks no matter what shouldn’t fool themselves that the future will deliver the chunky returns of the past decade. <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/6573eb955692f754acc1285622febd53\" tg-width=\"878\" tg-height=\"520\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\">The S&amp;P 500 is like the three wise monkeys: See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.Whatever happens, it just goes up. The market has gone up almost in a straight line since November despite a troubling list of events that could each have justified at least a 5% correction. Investors are incredibly resilient.<blockquote>无论如何购买股票的投资者都不应该自欺欺人地认为未来将带来过去十年的丰厚回报。标普500就像三只聪明的猴子：不看邪恶，不听邪恶，不说邪恶。无论发生什么，它都会上升。自11月以来，市场几乎直线上涨，尽管发生了一系列令人不安的事件，每个事件都可能证明至少5%的回调是合理的。投资者的韧性令人难以置信。</blockquote> Some things that didn’t matter:a burst bubble in clean-energy stocks;a sharp rise in Treasury yields(to March);a big fall in Treasury yields(since March); China’s crackdown on moneymaking; the Federal Reserve’sshift toward tapering bond purchases; and the rise of the Delta variant.<blockquote>一些无关紧要的事情：清洁能源股票泡沫破裂；国债收益率大幅上升（至3月）；国债收益率大幅下跌（自3月以来）；我国关于赚钱的打压；美联储转向缩减债券购买；以及德尔塔变异毒株的崛起。</blockquote> On the optimistic side, it is great that the market has been pushed up by a variety of forces, not by wild excess in a single area. We need not worry that the bubble in clean energy will burst and bring down the market, because it has already burst without bringing down the market.<blockquote>乐观的一面是，市场被多种力量推高，而不是单一地区的疯狂过剩，这很好。我们不必担心清洁能源的泡沫会破裂，拖垮市场，因为它已经破裂了，没有拖垮市场。</blockquote> Throughout all this, the stock market has risen steadily,without a 5% fall since shortly before the election last year. Every time part of the market—technology stocks, cheap stocks, smaller stocks, oil stocks, strong-balance-sheet stocks—stops performing, something else steps in to rescue the broader index. The market seems invulnerable to bad news, and that is unusual. On the face of it, it is also scary, suggesting investors are complacent about danger.<blockquote>纵观这一切，股市稳步上涨，自去年大选前不久以来没有出现过5%的下跌。每当市场的一部分——科技股、廉价股、小型股、石油股、资产负债表强劲的股票——停止表现时，就会有其他东西介入拯救更广泛的指数。市场似乎不会受到坏消息的影响，这是不寻常的。从表面上看，这也很可怕，表明投资者对危险沾沾自喜。</blockquote> It is far from unprecedented to go a long time without a correction, with 10 episodes since 1963 when the market lasted more than 200 trading days without a 5% drop. But they were different from the recent run. In every other case, the market was far calmer below the surface. This time, major events led to big swings between sectors, size and types of stock, but none disturbed its steady rise.<blockquote>长时间没有回调的情况远非史无前例，自1963年以来，市场持续200多个交易日没有下跌5%以来，已经出现了10次。但它们与最近的运行不同。在其他情况下，市场在表面之下要平静得多。这一次，重大事件导致板块、规模和股票类型之间的大幅波动，但都没有干扰其稳步上涨。</blockquote> Similarly, the stimulus- and vaccine-driven willingness to take risk across every asset class faded from March onward, so we shouldn’t be too concerned about a switch in investor sentiment. Again, it has already happened.<blockquote>同样，从3月份开始，刺激和疫苗驱动的所有资产类别的冒险意愿都减弱了，因此我们不应该太担心投资者情绪的转变。再说一次，这已经发生了。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/7d8b995934c7f60fadb5834dd078e232\" tg-width=\"320\" tg-height=\"412\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\">Yet,I find it disconcerting that the market seems to go up no matter what. Good news on the economy pushes up stocks sensitive to growth, such as manufacturers and banks. Troubling news on the economy means lower bond yields and so pushes up stocks with profits far in the future (see: Big Tech) whose expansion depends on innovation rather than economic growth, which I understand. That both should push up the wider S&amp;P 500 is what puzzles me.<blockquote>然而，令我不安的是，无论如何，市场似乎都在上涨。经济方面的好消息推高了对增长敏感的股票，如制造商和银行。令人不安的经济消息意味着债券收益率下降，从而推高未来盈利的股票（见：大型科技公司），这些股票的扩张依赖于创新而不是经济增长，我理解这一点。两者都应该推高更广泛的标普500，这让我感到困惑。</blockquote> The only explanation I have is the old one: “TINA”—There Is No Alternative to Stocks—because yields on alternatives such as bonds are so low. With more savings going into stocks than is cashed out or soaked up by IPOs, the price has to rise. It isn’t a satisfactory story, but it kind of works.<blockquote>我唯一的解释是旧的：“蒂娜”——除了股票别无选择——因为债券等替代品的收益率太低了。随着更多的储蓄进入股票，而不是通过IPO套现或吸收的储蓄，价格必须上涨。这不是一个令人满意的故事，但它有点工作。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/37942e27b25662943d254580733d2954\" tg-width=\"325\" tg-height=\"413\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\">In both good and bad times investors want to buy stocks, so the S&amp;P goes up. Butwhichstocks they choose to buy differs between good and bad times. In good times they want risk-on stocks (cheap value, cyclicals, smaller companies, emerging markets). In bad times they want risk-off stocks (growth, defensive firms, larger companies, developed markets and especially the U.S.).<blockquote>无论顺境还是逆境，投资者都想购买股票，因此标准普尔指数都会上涨。但哪个他们选择购买的股票在顺境和逆境之间有所不同。在繁荣时期，他们想要冒险的股票（便宜的价值、周期性股票、小公司、新兴市场）。在经济不景气时，他们想要避险股票（成长型、防御型公司、大型公司、发达市场，尤其是美国）。</blockquote> The problem with TINA is that the justification for stocks isn’t that they offer good returns in the future, but that they offer better returns than bonds. Bonds offer miserable returns—a guaranteed loss after inflation for 30 years on Treasury inflation-protected securities—so doing better than that isn’t saying much. If lower rewards came with lower risks, that would be fine, but at best the risks are as high as ever, perhaps much higher.<blockquote>蒂娜的问题在于，股票的理由不是它们在未来提供良好的回报，而是它们提供比债券更好的回报。债券的回报率很低——通胀保值国债30年通胀后肯定会出现亏损——所以做得更好并不能说明什么。如果较低的回报伴随着较低的风险，那很好，但充其量风险和以往一样高，甚至可能高得多。</blockquote> A simplistic way to quantify how much lower the rewards of stocks are likely to be is to use the earnings yield, the inverse of the forward price/earnings ratio. If companies match analyst profit forecasts, future returns should be about 4%—only slightly higher than was suggested by the measure at the height of the dot-com bubble in 2000. If corporate earnings miss forecasts, future returns could be substantially lower. If valuations fall too, returns are doubly hit, as they were after the dot-com bubble burst, when returns ended up negative for years.<blockquote>量化股票回报可能低多少的一个简单方法是使用收益率，即远期市盈率的倒数。如果公司符合分析师的利润预测，未来的回报率应该在4%左右——仅略高于2000年互联网泡沫最严重时的指标。如果企业盈利低于预期，未来的回报可能会大幅降低。如果估值也下跌，回报就会受到双重打击，就像互联网泡沫破裂后那样，当时回报多年来一直为负。</blockquote> Quantifying risks is much harder. Inflation risk is higher than before, and so are political (tax and regulation) and geopolitical (trade and supply chain) threats to stocks. The risk that analysts have horribly overestimated earnings or companies are massively overstating earnings is at least as high as usual. Central banks are sure to try to help if stocks plunge, but can’t use the traditional support of rate cuts. Alternative tools such as negative rates and buying a wider range of assets are available, but their risks are less well understood.<blockquote>量化风险要困难得多。通胀风险比以前更高，对股市的政治（税收和监管）和地缘政治（贸易和供应链）威胁也是如此。分析师严重高估收益或公司大幅夸大收益的风险至少和往常一样高。如果股市暴跌，央行肯定会尽力提供帮助，但不能使用降息的传统支持。负利率和购买更广泛的资产等替代工具是可用的，但其风险却不太为人所知。</blockquote> Getting a lower reward for the same or higher risk may still be acceptable, given how expensive the safer alternatives are. But investors buying stocks no matter what shouldn’t fool themselves that the future will deliver the 6.5% or so above inflation of the past century, let alone the 12% above inflation of the past decade.<blockquote>考虑到更安全的替代品的昂贵程度，以相同或更高的风险获得较低的回报可能仍然是可以接受的。但无论如何购买股票的投资者都不应该自欺欺人地认为，未来的通胀率将比上个世纪高出6.5%左右，更不用说比过去十年的通胀率高出12%了。</blockquote> The awful choice investors have is to join the monkeys in pretending all is well, or accept the terrible returns of safe assets.<blockquote>投资者面临的可怕选择是加入猴子的行列，假装一切都很好，或者接受安全资产的可怕回报。</blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.wsj.com/articles/speak-no-evil-of-the-s-p-500s-neverending-records-11630590653?mod=markets_lead_pos5\">The Wall Street Journal</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":{"SPY":"标普500ETF",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index"},"source_url":"https://www.wsj.com/articles/speak-no-evil-of-the-s-p-500s-neverending-records-11630590653?mod=markets_lead_pos5","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1168498795","content_text":"Investors buying stocks no matter what shouldn’t fool themselves that the future will deliver the chunky returns of the past decade.\n\nThe S&P 500 is like the three wise monkeys: See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.Whatever happens, it just goes up. The market has gone up almost in a straight line since November despite a troubling list of events that could each have justified at least a 5% correction. Investors are incredibly resilient.\nSome things that didn’t matter:a burst bubble in clean-energy stocks;a sharp rise in Treasury yields(to March);a big fall in Treasury yields(since March); China’s crackdown on moneymaking; the Federal Reserve’sshift toward tapering bond purchases; and the rise of the Delta variant.\nOn the optimistic side, it is great that the market has been pushed up by a variety of forces, not by wild excess in a single area. We need not worry that the bubble in clean energy will burst and bring down the market, because it has already burst without bringing down the market.\nThroughout all this, the stock market has risen steadily,without a 5% fall since shortly before the election last year. Every time part of the market—technology stocks, cheap stocks, smaller stocks, oil stocks, strong-balance-sheet stocks—stops performing, something else steps in to rescue the broader index. The market seems invulnerable to bad news, and that is unusual. On the face of it, it is also scary, suggesting investors are complacent about danger.\nIt is far from unprecedented to go a long time without a correction, with 10 episodes since 1963 when the market lasted more than 200 trading days without a 5% drop. But they were different from the recent run. In every other case, the market was far calmer below the surface. This time, major events led to big swings between sectors, size and types of stock, but none disturbed its steady rise.\nSimilarly, the stimulus- and vaccine-driven willingness to take risk across every asset class faded from March onward, so we shouldn’t be too concerned about a switch in investor sentiment. Again, it has already happened.\nYet,I find it disconcerting that the market seems to go up no matter what. Good news on the economy pushes up stocks sensitive to growth, such as manufacturers and banks. Troubling news on the economy means lower bond yields and so pushes up stocks with profits far in the future (see: Big Tech) whose expansion depends on innovation rather than economic growth, which I understand. That both should push up the wider S&P 500 is what puzzles me.\nThe only explanation I have is the old one: “TINA”—There Is No Alternative to Stocks—because yields on alternatives such as bonds are so low. With more savings going into stocks than is cashed out or soaked up by IPOs, the price has to rise. It isn’t a satisfactory story, but it kind of works.\nIn both good and bad times investors want to buy stocks, so the S&P goes up. Butwhichstocks they choose to buy differs between good and bad times. In good times they want risk-on stocks (cheap value, cyclicals, smaller companies, emerging markets). In bad times they want risk-off stocks (growth, defensive firms, larger companies, developed markets and especially the U.S.).\nThe problem with TINA is that the justification for stocks isn’t that they offer good returns in the future, but that they offer better returns than bonds. Bonds offer miserable returns—a guaranteed loss after inflation for 30 years on Treasury inflation-protected securities—so doing better than that isn’t saying much. If lower rewards came with lower risks, that would be fine, but at best the risks are as high as ever, perhaps much higher.\nA simplistic way to quantify how much lower the rewards of stocks are likely to be is to use the earnings yield, the inverse of the forward price/earnings ratio. If companies match analyst profit forecasts, future returns should be about 4%—only slightly higher than was suggested by the measure at the height of the dot-com bubble in 2000. If corporate earnings miss forecasts, future returns could be substantially lower. If valuations fall too, returns are doubly hit, as they were after the dot-com bubble burst, when returns ended up negative for years.\nQuantifying risks is much harder. Inflation risk is higher than before, and so are political (tax and regulation) and geopolitical (trade and supply chain) threats to stocks. The risk that analysts have horribly overestimated earnings or companies are massively overstating earnings is at least as high as usual. Central banks are sure to try to help if stocks plunge, but can’t use the traditional support of rate cuts. Alternative tools such as negative rates and buying a wider range of assets are available, but their risks are less well understood.\nGetting a lower reward for the same or higher risk may still be acceptable, given how expensive the safer alternatives are. But investors buying stocks no matter what shouldn’t fool themselves that the future will deliver the 6.5% or so above inflation of the past century, let alone the 12% above inflation of the past decade.\nThe awful choice investors have is to join the monkeys in pretending all is well, or accept the terrible returns of safe assets.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{"SPY":0.9,".SPX":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":473,"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":27,"xxTargetLangEnum":"ORIG"},"commentList":[],"isCommentEnd":true,"isTiger":false,"isWeiXinMini":false,"url":"/m/post/814530334"}