👍🏻_老虎社区_美港股上老虎

2021-11-15

👍🏻

Stocks are money makers now but be aware that some investors still haven’t recovered from the 2000 internet bubble<blockquote>股票现在是赚钱的工具，但请注意，一些投资者尚未从 2000 年的互联网泡沫中恢复过来。</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":873401067,"tweetId":"873401067","gmtCreate":1636970080819,"gmtModify":1636970080872,"author":{"id":3575056939798485,"idStr":"3575056939798485","authorId":3575056939798485,"authorIdStr":"3575056939798485","name":"Joby","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","vip":1,"userType":1,"introduction":"","boolIsFan":false,"boolIsHead":false,"crmLevel":12,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[],"wearingBadges":[],"fanSize":4,"starInvestorFlag":false},"themes":[],"images":[],"coverImages":[],"title":"","extraTitle":"","html":"<html><head></head><body>👍🏻</body></html>","htmlText":"<html><head></head><body>👍🏻</body></html>","text":"👍🏻","highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"favoriteSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/873401067","repostId":1131535069,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1131535069","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1636959277,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1131535069?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-11-15 14:54","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Stocks are money makers now but be aware that some investors still haven’t recovered from the 2000 internet bubble<blockquote>股票现在是赚钱的工具，但请注意，一些投资者尚未从 2000 年的互联网泡沫中恢复过来。</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1131535069","media":"Marketwatch","summary":"How many years of lagging stock portfolio returns would you tolerate in order to avoid the bursting ","content":"How many years of lagging stock portfolio returns would you tolerate in order to avoid the bursting of a stock market bubble?<blockquote>为了避免股市泡沫破裂，您会容忍多少年的股票投资组合回报滞后？</blockquote> That in effect is what Wall Street’s “permabears” are asking. They’ve been bearish on U.S. stocks for a number of years now, and therefore they (and their clients) have missed out on one of the most powerful bull markets in U.S. history.<blockquote>这实际上就是华尔街 “永久看空者 ”所要求的。多年来，他们一直看空美国股市，因此他们（和他们的客户）错过了美国历史上最强劲的牛市之一。</blockquote> Jeremy Grantham is one of the most prominent permabear; he is co-founder of Grantham, Mayo, &amp; van Otterloo, a Boston-based asset management firm that is commonly known by the acronym GMO. Grantham has a number of impressive market calls to his credit, including largely sidestepping the bursting of both the internet bubble and the Great Recession. But he is not always bearish. In March 2009, the month in which the Great Financial Crisis-induced bear market came to an end, Grantham surprised many on Wall Street by penning a letter imploring managers to develop a plan for getting back into stocks.<blockquote>杰里米·格兰瑟姆是最杰出的永久熊之一；他是 Grantham, Mayo &amp; van Otterloo 的联合创始人，这是一家总部位于波士顿的资产管理公司，通常缩写为 GMO。格兰瑟姆有许多令人印象深刻的市场评级，包括在很大程度上避开了互联网泡沫和大衰退的破裂。但他并不总是看跌。2009 年 3 月，也就是金融危机引发的熊市结束的那个月，格兰瑟姆写了一封信，恳求经理们制定重返股市的计划，这让华尔街的许多人感到惊讶。</blockquote> Yet in most financial circles, in which a “what have you done for me lately” attitude prevails, Grantham is known for failing to anticipate the past decade’s bull market. Back in 2010, barely a year after the U.S. bull market began in March 2009, GMO projected that U.S. large-cap stocks would barely outperform inflation over the subsequent seven years.<blockquote>然而，在大多数金融界，“你最近为我做了什么 ”的态度盛行，格兰瑟姆以未能预见到过去十年的牛市而闻名。早在 2010 年，也就是 2009 年 3 月美国牛市开始不到一年后，GMO 就预测美国大盘股在接下来的七年里的表现将勉强跑赢通胀。</blockquote> As we now know, of course, U.S. stocks in recent years have been beating inflation by historic margins. Since 2010, the S&amp;P 500’s SPX, +0.72% inflation-adjusted total return has been 12.5% annualized.<blockquote>当然，正如我们现在所知，近年来美国股市一直以历史性的幅度跑赢通货膨胀。自 2010 年以来，标普500 SPX 经通胀调整后的总回报率为 +0.72%，年化收益率为 12.5%。</blockquote> GMO’s response, in effect, is that caution could be vindicated and it would get the last laugh. In a recent analysis entitled “Wounds That Never Heal,” GMO argues that all it would take would be something similar to the bursting of the internet bubble in March 2000 or the bear market that accompanied the stagflation era of the 1970s.<blockquote>实际上，转基因生物的回应是，这种谨慎可能会被证明是正确的，它将笑到最后。在最近一篇题为《永远无法愈合的伤口》的分析文章中，GMO 认为，只需经历类似于 2000 年 3 月互联网泡沫破裂或伴随 20 世纪 70 年代滞胀时代的熊市。</blockquote> Since this response is self-serving on GMO’s part, I decided to independently measure the long-term impact of living through the bursting of a bubble. What I found is sobering indeed. There have been occasions in U.S. stock market history—not as infrequent as we would like — when unlucky investors lost so much that it took a generation or more to recover.<blockquote>由于转基因生物的这种回应是自私的，我决定独立衡量在泡沫破裂中生存的长期影响。我的发现确实发人深省。美国股市历史上曾有过这样的情况——并不像我们希望的那样罕见——不幸的投资者损失如此之多，以至于需要一代人或更长时间才能恢复。</blockquote> If Grantham is right that the current stock market is forming a bubble that is about to burst, he’s also right that “for the majority of investors today, this could very well be the most important event of your investing lives.”<blockquote>如果说格兰瑟姆认为当前股市正在形成一个即将破裂的泡沫是对的，那么他也是对的，“对于今天的大多数投资者来说，这很可能是你投资生涯中最重要的事件”。</blockquote> The 6% solution<blockquote>6%溶液</blockquote> One way of measuring the lingering effect of a bubble bursting is to calculate how long it takes for the stock market to make it back to its long-term trend line. Since 1793, according to research from Edward McQuarrie, an emeritus professor at Santa Clara University’s Leavey School of Business, the U.S. stock market has produced an inflation-adjusted total return of 6.05% annualized. For illustration purposes, I’ll round that to six percent.<blockquote>衡量泡沫破裂的挥之不去的影响的一种方法是计算股市需要多长时间才能回到长期趋势线。根据圣克拉拉大学利维商学院名誉教授爱德华-麦夸里（Edward McQuarrie）的研究，自 1793 年以来，美国股市经通货膨胀调整后的年化总回报率为 6.05%。为了说明起见，我将四舍五入到百分之六。</blockquote> Imagine an investor in December 1968 to construct a portfolio that would financially support his retirement. His financial planner almost certainly would have turned to history to calculate this portfolio’s expected return, and so would have projected that — year-to-year volatility aside — the equity portion of his portfolio would produce a 6% annualized real total return over the subsequent decades.<blockquote>想象一下，1968 年 12 月，一位投资者构建了一个投资组合，为他的退休生活提供经济支持。他的理财规划师几乎肯定会参考历史来计算这个投资组合的预期回报，因此也会预测--撇开逐年波动不谈--他投资组合的股票部分在随后的几十年里将产生 6% 的年化实际总回报率。</blockquote> I picked December 1968 to illustrate my point, as that marked a generational high. The chart below plots this investor’s annualized inflation-adjusted total return from that month forward. You can see the devastation wrought by the 1973-74 bear market, as well as the high-inflation years of the 1970s and early 1980s. But, most of all, notice that it’s not until mid-1997 that this investor’s long-term return would make it back to 6% annualized. That’s almost 30 years.<blockquote>我选择1968年12月来说明我的观点，因为那标志着一代人的高潮。下图绘制了该投资者从当月起经通货膨胀调整后的年化总回报率。你可以看到1973-74年熊市造成的破坏，以及20世纪70年代和80年代初的高通胀时期。但是，最重要的是，要到 1997 年年中，这位投资者的长期回报率才会回到 6% 的年化收益率。差不多30年了。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/ed06d3d3275e628f5e13ae8c13c71c47\" tg-width=\"700\" tg-height=\"471\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\">You might wonder why I didn’t focus on the bursting of the internet bubble in March 2000. The answer is that an investor unlucky enough to put a lump sum into the market at that time still hasn’t sufficiently recovered from losses so as to make it back to the 6% trendline. That investor’s real total-return since that date is 5.1% annualized. So 21 years have not been enough to vindicate the investor in March 2000 who based his financial future on extrapolating the long-term past.<blockquote>你可能想知道，为什么我没有关注 2000 年 3 月互联网泡沫的破裂。答案是，当时不幸一次性投入市场的投资者还没有从损失中充分恢复过来，无法回到 6% 的趋势线。该投资者自该日起的实际总回报率为 5.1%。因此，21年还不足以证明2000年3月那位将自己的财务未来建立在推断长期过去基础上的投资者是正确的。</blockquote> Who believes in 6% anymore?<blockquote>谁还相信6%？</blockquote> You also could object to the sobering message of my analysis on the grounds that no one expects the stock market to produce a long-term real total return of 6% annualized. In the low-interest-rate low-growth world in which we now live, you could argue, it’s unrealistic to expect the stock market’s future return to be as impressive as in the past.<blockquote>你也可以反对我分析中发人深省的信息，理由是没有人期望股市能产生6%的长期实际年化总回报率。有人可能会说，在我们现在生活的低利率、低增长的世界中，期望股市未来的回报像过去一样令人印象深刻是不现实的。</blockquote> Old beliefs die hard, however. You’d be surprised to learn that many financial planners continue to construct financial plans for their clients on the assumption (implicit if not explicit) that the future is like the past. It’s also the implicit assumption behind the glide paths followed by many of the target-date retirement funds that are so popular for 401(k) investors and retirees.<blockquote>然而，老人们坚信这一点。你会惊讶地发现，许多理财规划师继续为客户制定理财计划，其假设（即使不是明确的，也是隐含的）是未来就像过去一样。这也是许多深受 401(k) 投资者和退休人员欢迎的目标日期退休基金所遵循的下滑路径背后的隐含假设。</blockquote> Nevertheless, your objection is not unfair. So it’s also worth focusing on how long investors need to merely break even following the bursting of a bubble.<blockquote>尽管如此，你的反对并非不公平。因此，还值得关注的是，在泡沫破裂后，投资者需要多长时间才能实现收支平衡。</blockquote> Fortunately, the heavy lifting of such calculations has been conducted by McQuarrie. For the period dating back to 1793, he calculated the longest stretch in which the stock market’s inflation-adjusted total return was less than 1% annualized. The longest was the period beginning with the 1929 crash: From then until 1949, the stock market produced an inflation-adjusted total return of 0.75% annualized — 20 years, in other words.<blockquote>幸运的是，这种计算的重担是由麦夸里进行的。在追溯到 1793 年的这段时间里，他计算出了股市经通货膨胀调整后的总回报率年化低于 1% 的最长时期。最长的时期是从 1929 年股市崩盘开始的时期：从那时到 1949 年，股市经通胀调整后的年化总回报率为 0.75%——换句话说，就是 20 年。</blockquote> That’s better than the nearly 30 years it took after an unlucky investor in December 1968 to make it back to the 6% trendline, but not by much.<blockquote>这比 1968 年 12 月一位倒霉的投资者花了近 30 年的时间才回到 6% 的趋势线要好，但也好不了多少。</blockquote> Bubble trouble?<blockquote>泡沫麻烦？</blockquote> None of this sheds light on whether we are in a bubble, of course. All this discussion does is show that being cautious for a decade is not automatic grounds for concluding that the adviser has failed his clients.<blockquote>当然，这些都不能说明我们是否处于泡沫之中。所有这些讨论都表明，十年来的谨慎并不是得出顾问辜负了客户的结论的自动理由。</blockquote> The arguments for why the stock market is extremely overvalued, if not in a bubble, are familiar, and I won’t repeat them here. But given Grantham’s record at detecting prior bubbles, and given the long-term damage a bubble bursting would have on our portfolios, I would be nervous dismissing his caution out of hand.<blockquote>股市为何被极度高估（如果不是泡沫的话）的论点众所周知，我在此不再赘述。但鉴于格兰瑟姆在发现先前泡沫方面的记录，以及泡沫破裂会对我们的投资组合造成的长期损害，我不敢随意驳回他的警告。</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>Stocks are money makers now but be aware that some investors still haven’t recovered from the 2000 internet bubble<blockquote>股票现在是赚钱的工具，但请注意，一些投资者尚未从 2000 年的互联网泡沫中恢复过来。</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\">\nStocks are money makers now but be aware that some investors still haven’t recovered from the 2000 internet bubble<blockquote>股票现在是赚钱的工具，但请注意，一些投资者尚未从 2000 年的互联网泡沫中恢复过来。</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nMarketwatch2021-11-15 14:54\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\nHow many years of lagging stock portfolio returns would you tolerate in order to avoid the bursting of a stock market bubble?<blockquote>为了避免股市泡沫破裂，您会容忍多少年的股票投资组合回报滞后？</blockquote> That in effect is what Wall Street’s “permabears” are asking. They’ve been bearish on U.S. stocks for a number of years now, and therefore they (and their clients) have missed out on one of the most powerful bull markets in U.S. history.<blockquote>这实际上就是华尔街 “永久看空者 ”所要求的。多年来，他们一直看空美国股市，因此他们（和他们的客户）错过了美国历史上最强劲的牛市之一。</blockquote> Jeremy Grantham is one of the most prominent permabear; he is co-founder of Grantham, Mayo, &amp; van Otterloo, a Boston-based asset management firm that is commonly known by the acronym GMO. Grantham has a number of impressive market calls to his credit, including largely sidestepping the bursting of both the internet bubble and the Great Recession. But he is not always bearish. In March 2009, the month in which the Great Financial Crisis-induced bear market came to an end, Grantham surprised many on Wall Street by penning a letter imploring managers to develop a plan for getting back into stocks.<blockquote>杰里米·格兰瑟姆是最杰出的永久熊之一；他是 Grantham, Mayo &amp; van Otterloo 的联合创始人，这是一家总部位于波士顿的资产管理公司，通常缩写为 GMO。格兰瑟姆有许多令人印象深刻的市场评级，包括在很大程度上避开了互联网泡沫和大衰退的破裂。但他并不总是看跌。2009 年 3 月，也就是金融危机引发的熊市结束的那个月，格兰瑟姆写了一封信，恳求经理们制定重返股市的计划，这让华尔街的许多人感到惊讶。</blockquote> Yet in most financial circles, in which a “what have you done for me lately” attitude prevails, Grantham is known for failing to anticipate the past decade’s bull market. Back in 2010, barely a year after the U.S. bull market began in March 2009, GMO projected that U.S. large-cap stocks would barely outperform inflation over the subsequent seven years.<blockquote>然而，在大多数金融界，“你最近为我做了什么 ”的态度盛行，格兰瑟姆以未能预见到过去十年的牛市而闻名。早在 2010 年，也就是 2009 年 3 月美国牛市开始不到一年后，GMO 就预测美国大盘股在接下来的七年里的表现将勉强跑赢通胀。</blockquote> As we now know, of course, U.S. stocks in recent years have been beating inflation by historic margins. Since 2010, the S&amp;P 500’s SPX, +0.72% inflation-adjusted total return has been 12.5% annualized.<blockquote>当然，正如我们现在所知，近年来美国股市一直以历史性的幅度跑赢通货膨胀。自 2010 年以来，标普500 SPX 经通胀调整后的总回报率为 +0.72%，年化收益率为 12.5%。</blockquote> GMO’s response, in effect, is that caution could be vindicated and it would get the last laugh. In a recent analysis entitled “Wounds That Never Heal,” GMO argues that all it would take would be something similar to the bursting of the internet bubble in March 2000 or the bear market that accompanied the stagflation era of the 1970s.<blockquote>实际上，转基因生物的回应是，这种谨慎可能会被证明是正确的，它将笑到最后。在最近一篇题为《永远无法愈合的伤口》的分析文章中，GMO 认为，只需经历类似于 2000 年 3 月互联网泡沫破裂或伴随 20 世纪 70 年代滞胀时代的熊市。</blockquote> Since this response is self-serving on GMO’s part, I decided to independently measure the long-term impact of living through the bursting of a bubble. What I found is sobering indeed. There have been occasions in U.S. stock market history—not as infrequent as we would like — when unlucky investors lost so much that it took a generation or more to recover.<blockquote>由于转基因生物的这种回应是自私的，我决定独立衡量在泡沫破裂中生存的长期影响。我的发现确实发人深省。美国股市历史上曾有过这样的情况——并不像我们希望的那样罕见——不幸的投资者损失如此之多，以至于需要一代人或更长时间才能恢复。</blockquote> If Grantham is right that the current stock market is forming a bubble that is about to burst, he’s also right that “for the majority of investors today, this could very well be the most important event of your investing lives.”<blockquote>如果说格兰瑟姆认为当前股市正在形成一个即将破裂的泡沫是对的，那么他也是对的，“对于今天的大多数投资者来说，这很可能是你投资生涯中最重要的事件”。</blockquote> The 6% solution<blockquote>6%溶液</blockquote> One way of measuring the lingering effect of a bubble bursting is to calculate how long it takes for the stock market to make it back to its long-term trend line. Since 1793, according to research from Edward McQuarrie, an emeritus professor at Santa Clara University’s Leavey School of Business, the U.S. stock market has produced an inflation-adjusted total return of 6.05% annualized. For illustration purposes, I’ll round that to six percent.<blockquote>衡量泡沫破裂的挥之不去的影响的一种方法是计算股市需要多长时间才能回到长期趋势线。根据圣克拉拉大学利维商学院名誉教授爱德华-麦夸里（Edward McQuarrie）的研究，自 1793 年以来，美国股市经通货膨胀调整后的年化总回报率为 6.05%。为了说明起见，我将四舍五入到百分之六。</blockquote> Imagine an investor in December 1968 to construct a portfolio that would financially support his retirement. His financial planner almost certainly would have turned to history to calculate this portfolio’s expected return, and so would have projected that — year-to-year volatility aside — the equity portion of his portfolio would produce a 6% annualized real total return over the subsequent decades.<blockquote>想象一下，1968 年 12 月，一位投资者构建了一个投资组合，为他的退休生活提供经济支持。他的理财规划师几乎肯定会参考历史来计算这个投资组合的预期回报，因此也会预测--撇开逐年波动不谈--他投资组合的股票部分在随后的几十年里将产生 6% 的年化实际总回报率。</blockquote> I picked December 1968 to illustrate my point, as that marked a generational high. The chart below plots this investor’s annualized inflation-adjusted total return from that month forward. You can see the devastation wrought by the 1973-74 bear market, as well as the high-inflation years of the 1970s and early 1980s. But, most of all, notice that it’s not until mid-1997 that this investor’s long-term return would make it back to 6% annualized. That’s almost 30 years.<blockquote>我选择1968年12月来说明我的观点，因为那标志着一代人的高潮。下图绘制了该投资者从当月起经通货膨胀调整后的年化总回报率。你可以看到1973-74年熊市造成的破坏，以及20世纪70年代和80年代初的高通胀时期。但是，最重要的是，要到 1997 年年中，这位投资者的长期回报率才会回到 6% 的年化收益率。差不多30年了。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/ed06d3d3275e628f5e13ae8c13c71c47\" tg-width=\"700\" tg-height=\"471\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\">You might wonder why I didn’t focus on the bursting of the internet bubble in March 2000. The answer is that an investor unlucky enough to put a lump sum into the market at that time still hasn’t sufficiently recovered from losses so as to make it back to the 6% trendline. That investor’s real total-return since that date is 5.1% annualized. So 21 years have not been enough to vindicate the investor in March 2000 who based his financial future on extrapolating the long-term past.<blockquote>你可能想知道，为什么我没有关注 2000 年 3 月互联网泡沫的破裂。答案是，当时不幸一次性投入市场的投资者还没有从损失中充分恢复过来，无法回到 6% 的趋势线。该投资者自该日起的实际总回报率为 5.1%。因此，21年还不足以证明2000年3月那位将自己的财务未来建立在推断长期过去基础上的投资者是正确的。</blockquote> Who believes in 6% anymore?<blockquote>谁还相信6%？</blockquote> You also could object to the sobering message of my analysis on the grounds that no one expects the stock market to produce a long-term real total return of 6% annualized. In the low-interest-rate low-growth world in which we now live, you could argue, it’s unrealistic to expect the stock market’s future return to be as impressive as in the past.<blockquote>你也可以反对我分析中发人深省的信息，理由是没有人期望股市能产生6%的长期实际年化总回报率。有人可能会说，在我们现在生活的低利率、低增长的世界中，期望股市未来的回报像过去一样令人印象深刻是不现实的。</blockquote> Old beliefs die hard, however. You’d be surprised to learn that many financial planners continue to construct financial plans for their clients on the assumption (implicit if not explicit) that the future is like the past. It’s also the implicit assumption behind the glide paths followed by many of the target-date retirement funds that are so popular for 401(k) investors and retirees.<blockquote>然而，老人们坚信这一点。你会惊讶地发现，许多理财规划师继续为客户制定理财计划，其假设（即使不是明确的，也是隐含的）是未来就像过去一样。这也是许多深受 401(k) 投资者和退休人员欢迎的目标日期退休基金所遵循的下滑路径背后的隐含假设。</blockquote> Nevertheless, your objection is not unfair. So it’s also worth focusing on how long investors need to merely break even following the bursting of a bubble.<blockquote>尽管如此，你的反对并非不公平。因此，还值得关注的是，在泡沫破裂后，投资者需要多长时间才能实现收支平衡。</blockquote> Fortunately, the heavy lifting of such calculations has been conducted by McQuarrie. For the period dating back to 1793, he calculated the longest stretch in which the stock market’s inflation-adjusted total return was less than 1% annualized. The longest was the period beginning with the 1929 crash: From then until 1949, the stock market produced an inflation-adjusted total return of 0.75% annualized — 20 years, in other words.<blockquote>幸运的是，这种计算的重担是由麦夸里进行的。在追溯到 1793 年的这段时间里，他计算出了股市经通货膨胀调整后的总回报率年化低于 1% 的最长时期。最长的时期是从 1929 年股市崩盘开始的时期：从那时到 1949 年，股市经通胀调整后的年化总回报率为 0.75%——换句话说，就是 20 年。</blockquote> That’s better than the nearly 30 years it took after an unlucky investor in December 1968 to make it back to the 6% trendline, but not by much.<blockquote>这比 1968 年 12 月一位倒霉的投资者花了近 30 年的时间才回到 6% 的趋势线要好，但也好不了多少。</blockquote> Bubble trouble?<blockquote>泡沫麻烦？</blockquote> None of this sheds light on whether we are in a bubble, of course. All this discussion does is show that being cautious for a decade is not automatic grounds for concluding that the adviser has failed his clients.<blockquote>当然，这些都不能说明我们是否处于泡沫之中。所有这些讨论都表明，十年来的谨慎并不是得出顾问辜负了客户的结论的自动理由。</blockquote> The arguments for why the stock market is extremely overvalued, if not in a bubble, are familiar, and I won’t repeat them here. But given Grantham’s record at detecting prior bubbles, and given the long-term damage a bubble bursting would have on our portfolios, I would be nervous dismissing his caution out of hand.<blockquote>股市为何被极度高估（如果不是泡沫的话）的论点众所周知，我在此不再赘述。但鉴于格兰瑟姆在发现先前泡沫方面的记录，以及泡沫破裂会对我们的投资组合造成的长期损害，我不敢随意驳回他的警告。</blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/stocks-are-money-makers-now-but-be-aware-that-some-investors-still-havent-recovered-from-the-2000-internet-bubble-11636673985?mod=home-page\">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"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/stocks-are-money-makers-now-but-be-aware-that-some-investors-still-havent-recovered-from-the-2000-internet-bubble-11636673985?mod=home-page","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/599a65733b8245fcf7868668ef9ad712","article_id":"1131535069","content_text":"How many years of lagging stock portfolio returns would you tolerate in order to avoid the bursting of a stock market bubble?\nThat in effect is what Wall Street’s “permabears” are asking. They’ve been bearish on U.S. stocks for a number of years now, and therefore they (and their clients) have missed out on one of the most powerful bull markets in U.S. history.\nJeremy Grantham is one of the most prominent permabear; he is co-founder of Grantham, Mayo, & van Otterloo, a Boston-based asset management firm that is commonly known by the acronym GMO. Grantham has a number of impressive market calls to his credit, including largely sidestepping the bursting of both the internet bubble and the Great Recession. But he is not always bearish. In March 2009, the month in which the Great Financial Crisis-induced bear market came to an end, Grantham surprised many on Wall Street by penning a letter imploring managers to develop a plan for getting back into stocks.\nYet in most financial circles, in which a “what have you done for me lately” attitude prevails, Grantham is known for failing to anticipate the past decade’s bull market. Back in 2010, barely a year after the U.S. bull market began in March 2009, GMO projected that U.S. large-cap stocks would barely outperform inflation over the subsequent seven years.\nAs we now know, of course, U.S. stocks in recent years have been beating inflation by historic margins. Since 2010, the S&P 500’s SPX, +0.72% inflation-adjusted total return has been 12.5% annualized.\nGMO’s response, in effect, is that caution could be vindicated and it would get the last laugh. In a recent analysis entitled “Wounds That Never Heal,” GMO argues that all it would take would be something similar to the bursting of the internet bubble in March 2000 or the bear market that accompanied the stagflation era of the 1970s.\nSince this response is self-serving on GMO’s part, I decided to independently measure the long-term impact of living through the bursting of a bubble. What I found is sobering indeed. There have been occasions in U.S. stock market history—not as infrequent as we would like — when unlucky investors lost so much that it took a generation or more to recover.\nIf Grantham is right that the current stock market is forming a bubble that is about to burst, he’s also right that “for the majority of investors today, this could very well be the most important event of your investing lives.”\nThe 6% solution\nOne way of measuring the lingering effect of a bubble bursting is to calculate how long it takes for the stock market to make it back to its long-term trend line. Since 1793, according to research from Edward McQuarrie, an emeritus professor at Santa Clara University’s Leavey School of Business, the U.S. stock market has produced an inflation-adjusted total return of 6.05% annualized. For illustration purposes, I’ll round that to six percent.\nImagine an investor in December 1968 to construct a portfolio that would financially support his retirement. His financial planner almost certainly would have turned to history to calculate this portfolio’s expected return, and so would have projected that — year-to-year volatility aside — the equity portion of his portfolio would produce a 6% annualized real total return over the subsequent decades.\nI picked December 1968 to illustrate my point, as that marked a generational high. The chart below plots this investor’s annualized inflation-adjusted total return from that month forward. You can see the devastation wrought by the 1973-74 bear market, as well as the high-inflation years of the 1970s and early 1980s. But, most of all, notice that it’s not until mid-1997 that this investor’s long-term return would make it back to 6% annualized. That’s almost 30 years.\nYou might wonder why I didn’t focus on the bursting of the internet bubble in March 2000. The answer is that an investor unlucky enough to put a lump sum into the market at that time still hasn’t sufficiently recovered from losses so as to make it back to the 6% trendline. That investor’s real total-return since that date is 5.1% annualized. So 21 years have not been enough to vindicate the investor in March 2000 who based his financial future on extrapolating the long-term past.\nWho believes in 6% anymore?\nYou also could object to the sobering message of my analysis on the grounds that no one expects the stock market to produce a long-term real total return of 6% annualized. In the low-interest-rate low-growth world in which we now live, you could argue, it’s unrealistic to expect the stock market’s future return to be as impressive as in the past.\nOld beliefs die hard, however. You’d be surprised to learn that many financial planners continue to construct financial plans for their clients on the assumption (implicit if not explicit) that the future is like the past. It’s also the implicit assumption behind the glide paths followed by many of the target-date retirement funds that are so popular for 401(k) investors and retirees.\nNevertheless, your objection is not unfair. So it’s also worth focusing on how long investors need to merely break even following the bursting of a bubble.\nFortunately, the heavy lifting of such calculations has been conducted by McQuarrie. For the period dating back to 1793, he calculated the longest stretch in which the stock market’s inflation-adjusted total return was less than 1% annualized. The longest was the period beginning with the 1929 crash: From then until 1949, the stock market produced an inflation-adjusted total return of 0.75% annualized — 20 years, in other words.\nThat’s better than the nearly 30 years it took after an unlucky investor in December 1968 to make it back to the 6% trendline, but not by much.\nBubble trouble?\nNone of this sheds light on whether we are in a bubble, of course. All this discussion does is show that being cautious for a decade is not automatic grounds for concluding that the adviser has failed his clients.\nThe arguments for why the stock market is extremely overvalued, if not in a bubble, are familiar, and I won’t repeat them here. But given Grantham’s record at detecting prior bubbles, and given the long-term damage a bubble bursting would have on our portfolios, I would be nervous dismissing his caution out of hand.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{".SPX":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":666,"commentLimit":10,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"symbols":[],"verified":2,"subType":0,"readableState":1,"langContent":"CN","currentLanguage":"CN","warmUpFlag":false,"orderFlag":false,"shareable":true,"causeOfNotShareable":"","featuresForAnalytics":[],"commentAndTweetFlag":false,"andRepostAutoSelectedFlag":false,"upFlag":false,"length":4,"xxTargetLangEnum":"ZH_CN"},"commentList":[],"isCommentEnd":true,"isTiger":false,"isWeiXinMini":false,"url":"/m/post/873401067"}