+关注
Rexzyne
暂无个人介绍
IP属地：未知
0
关注
0
粉丝
0
主题
0
勋章
主贴
热门
Rexzyne
2021-04-25
Hi
Why it’ll take more than easy money from the Fed to keep sparking this bull market in stocks<blockquote>为什么美联储需要的不仅仅是宽松的资金来继续引发股市牛市</blockquote>
Rexzyne
2021-04-25
Hi
抱歉，原内容已删除
去老虎APP查看更多动态
{"i18n":{"language":"zh_CN"},"userPageInfo":{"id":"3582321147205123","uuid":"3582321147205123","gmtCreate":1619345714686,"gmtModify":1619345714686,"name":"Rexzyne","pinyin":"rexzyne","introduction":"","introductionEn":null,"signature":"","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","hat":null,"hatId":null,"hatName":null,"vip":1,"status":2,"fanSize":0,"headSize":0,"tweetSize":2,"questionSize":0,"limitLevel":999,"accountStatus":4,"level":{"id":0,"name":"","nameTw":"","represent":"","factor":"","iconColor":"","bgColor":""},"themeCounts":0,"badgeCounts":0,"badges":[],"moderator":false,"superModerator":false,"manageSymbols":null,"badgeLevel":null,"boolIsFan":false,"boolIsHead":false,"favoriteSize":0,"symbols":null,"coverImage":null,"realNameVerified":null,"userBadges":[{"badgeId":"e50ce593bb40487ebfb542ca54f6a561-3","templateUuid":"e50ce593bb40487ebfb542ca54f6a561","name":"偶像虎友","description":"加入老虎社区1500天","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/8b40ae7da5bf081a1c84df14bf9e6367","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f160eceddd7c284a8e1136557615cfad","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/11792805c468334a9b31c39f95a41c6a","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLinkType":null,"redirectLink":null,"redirectLinkValidityFrom":null,"redirectLinkValidityTo":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2026.04.23","exceedPercentage":null,"individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1001,"isScarce":0,"effectConfig":null,"effectEnabled":0,"plateImgUrl":null,"plateColors":null,"validityTo":null,"validityToTimestamp":null,"wearingSort":0}],"userBadgeCount":1,"currentWearingBadge":null,"individualDisplayBadges":null,"crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"location":"未知","starInvestorFollowerNum":0,"starInvestorFlag":false,"starInvestorOrderShareNum":0,"subscribeStarInvestorNum":0,"ror":null,"winRationPercentage":null,"showRor":false,"investmentPhilosophy":null,"starInvestorSubscribeFlag":false},"baikeInfo":{},"tab":"post","tweets":[{"id":375216861,"gmtCreate":1619345990953,"gmtModify":1634274092653,"author":{"id":"3582321147205123","authorId":"3582321147205123","name":"Rexzyne","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3582321147205123","authorIdStr":"3582321147205123"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Hi","listText":"Hi","text":"Hi","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/375216861","repostId":"2130941364","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"2130941364","kind":"highlight","pubTimestamp":1619323455,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/2130941364?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-04-25 12:04","market":"hk","language":"en","title":"Why it’ll take more than easy money from the Fed to keep sparking this bull market in stocks<blockquote>为什么美联储需要的不仅仅是宽松的资金来继续引发股市牛市</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=2130941364","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Much depends on investors' appetite for taking risk. \nGETTY IMAGES\nEveryone “knows” that the U.S. go","content":"<p>Much depends on investors' appetite for taking risk. </p><p><blockquote>很大程度上取决于投资者承担风险的偏好。</blockquote></p><p> <p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/64c17dcaadc093048638ac550527a91e\" tg-width=\"1260\" tg-height=\"840\"><span>GETTY IMAGES</span></p><p><blockquote><p class=\"t-img-caption\"><span>盖蒂图片社</span></p></blockquote></p><p> Everyone “knows” that the U.S. government’s massive stimulus is the reason the U.S. stock market took off from its March 2020 lows. But, as Humphrey Neill, the father of contrarian analysis, constantly reminded his clients: “When everyone thinks alike, everyone is likely to be wrong.”</p><p><blockquote>每个人都 “知道 ”美国政府的大规模刺激政策是美国股市从 2020 年 3 月低点起飞的原因。但是，正如逆向分析之父汉弗莱-尼尔（Humphrey Neill）不断提醒他的客户的那样： “当每个人的想法都一样时，每个人都可能错了”。</blockquote></p><p> Conventional wisdom certainly appears to be based on the evidence. M2 money supply (consisting of cash, checking deposits, and so-called “near money” that can be converted into cash with little difficulty) has grown at a faster rate over the past 12 months than at any time over the last six decades. Sure enough, the S&P 500 has turned in one of its strongest 12-month returns ever.</p><p><blockquote>传统智慧似乎是基于证据的。M2 货币供应量（包括现金、支票存款和可以轻松转换为现金的所谓 “近货币 ”）在过去 12 个月中的增长速度超过了过去 60 年来的任何时候。果然，标普500取得了有史以来最强劲的 12 个月回报之一。</blockquote></p><p> This is just one data point. To investigate whether it is the exception or the rule, I analyzed several decades of historical record in search of a statistically significant correlation between the Federal Reserve’s stimulus and the stock market. I came up empty. The bulls therefore need to think twice before reassuring themselves that the bull market will continue just because the Federal Reserve is committed to priming the monetary pump.</p><p><blockquote>这只是一个数据点。为了调查这是例外还是规律，我分析了几十年的历史记录，以寻找美联储的刺激措施与股市之间具有统计学意义的相关性。我空手而归。因此，多头需要三思而后行，然后再保证牛市将持续下去，仅仅是因为美联储致力于启动货币泵。</blockquote></p><p> In searching for possible correlations, I relied on two different measures of the money supply. I focused on M2 Money Supply (cash, checking deposits, and so-called ‘near money’ that can be converted into cash with little difficulty) and the Federal Reserve’s total balance sheet assets (a broader measure which reflects the Fed’s direct intervention in the economy through the purchase of securities and Treasuries). Regardless of the definition, however, the correlations between the stock market and money supply are not stable over time.</p><p><blockquote>在寻找可能的相关性时，我依赖于两种不同的货币供应量度量。我关注的是 M2 货币供应量（现金、支票存款和所谓的 “近货币 ”，这些货币可以毫不费力地转换为现金）和美联储的资产负债表总资产（一个更广泛的衡量标准，反映了美联储通过购买证券和国债对经济的直接干预）。然而，不管定义如何，随着时间的推移，股票市场和货币供应量之间的相关性并不稳定。</blockquote></p><p> On the one hand, over the last decade there has been a strong positive correlation, just as we’ve seen over the last 12 months and what the bulls are assuming is the general pattern. But, on the other hand, this correlation was negative before that, which meant that in those earlier years faster money supply growth was more often than not associated with slower stock market growth, and vice versa. That’s just the opposite of what the bulls are assuming.</p><p><blockquote>一方面，在过去十年中，正如我们在过去 12 个月中看到的那样，多头所假设的是普遍模式。但是，另一方面，这种相关性在此之前是负的，这意味着在早些时候，更快的货币供应量增长往往与更慢的股市增长相关，反之亦然。这与多头的假设恰恰相反。</blockquote></p><p> After this first pass through the data, the most we can say is that sometimes faster money supply growth is good for stocks, and sometimes it isn’t.</p><p><blockquote>在第一次浏览数据之后，我们最多只能说，有时货币供应量增长加快对股票有利，有时则不利。</blockquote></p><p> That in turn suggests that the relationship between the money supply and the stock market is a lot more complex than most investors think. A full discussion of that relationship is beyond the scope of this column, but we know that it depends in large part on investors’ appetite for risk. In a “risk-on” environment, for example, it is more likely that aggressive Fed easing will be considered bullish. But when investors are preoccupied with the downside (“risk-off”) then an aggressive Fed might cause investors to become even more worried.</p><p><blockquote>这反过来表明，货币供应量和股市之间的关系比大多数投资者想象的要复杂得多。对这种关系的全面讨论超出了本专栏的范围，但我们知道，这在很大程度上取决于投资者的风险偏好。例如，在 “风险承担 ”的环境中，美联储激进的宽松政策更有可能被视为看涨。但当投资者全神贯注于下行（“避险”）时，激进的美联储可能会让投资者更加担忧。</blockquote></p><p> As is often the case, John Maynard Keynes, the famous British economist of a century ago, shrewdly captured this dynamic. He pointed out that central banks will be powerless to stimulate the economy if there is no appetite for risk-taking, and in such an environment the Fed’s efforts will be like “pushing on a string.”</p><p><blockquote>一个世纪前著名的英国经济学家约翰·梅纳德·凯恩斯精明地捕捉到了这种动态。他指出，如果没有冒险意愿，央行将无力刺激经济，在这种环境下，美联储的努力将如同 “推绳子”。</blockquote></p><p> Another indication of the complexity of the relationship between money supply and the stock market is how much money velocity varies over time. I’m referring to the average number of times that money changes hands in a given year. When velocity declines, it takes a bigger money supply to have the same economic impact. Or, to put it another way, a bigger money supply won’t be stimulating if velocity declines too much in the process.</p><p><blockquote>货币供应量和股票市场之间关系复杂性的另一个迹象是货币速度随时间的变化有多大。我指的是一年中货币的平均易手次数。当速度下降时，需要更大的货币供应量才能产生同样的经济影响。或者，换句话说，如果在此过程中速度下降太多，更多的货币供应量就不会起到刺激作用。</blockquote></p><p> This puts recent experience in perspective. As you can see from the accompanying chart, velocity plunged at the beginning of the pandemic and remains at one of its lowest levels in six decades.</p><p><blockquote>这让我们正确看待最近的经历。从随附的图表中可以看出，速度在大流行开始时暴跌，并保持在六十年来的最低水平之一。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/96bbd1cd5123ac2704ccf0953509870f\" tg-width=\"1260\" tg-height=\"849\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> The bottom line: The money supply undoubtedly is related to the course of both the economy and the stock market. But its role is neither simple nor straightforward.</p><p><blockquote>底线：货币供应量无疑与经济和股市的进程有关。但它的作用既不简单也不直接。</blockquote></p><p></p>","source":"lsy1603348471595","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>Why it’ll take more than easy money from the Fed to keep sparking this bull market in stocks<blockquote>为什么美联储需要的不仅仅是宽松的资金来继续引发股市牛市</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\">\nWhy it’ll take more than easy money from the Fed to keep sparking this bull market in stocks<blockquote>为什么美联储需要的不仅仅是宽松的资金来继续引发股市牛市</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<p class=\"head\">\n<strong class=\"h-name small\">MarketWatch</strong><span class=\"h-time small\">2021-04-25 12:04</span>\n</p>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p>Much depends on investors' appetite for taking risk. </p><p><blockquote>很大程度上取决于投资者承担风险的偏好。</blockquote></p><p> <p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/64c17dcaadc093048638ac550527a91e\" tg-width=\"1260\" tg-height=\"840\"><span>GETTY IMAGES</span></p><p><blockquote><p class=\"t-img-caption\"><span>盖蒂图片社</span></p></blockquote></p><p> Everyone “knows” that the U.S. government’s massive stimulus is the reason the U.S. stock market took off from its March 2020 lows. But, as Humphrey Neill, the father of contrarian analysis, constantly reminded his clients: “When everyone thinks alike, everyone is likely to be wrong.”</p><p><blockquote>每个人都 “知道 ”美国政府的大规模刺激政策是美国股市从 2020 年 3 月低点起飞的原因。但是，正如逆向分析之父汉弗莱-尼尔（Humphrey Neill）不断提醒他的客户的那样： “当每个人的想法都一样时，每个人都可能错了”。</blockquote></p><p> Conventional wisdom certainly appears to be based on the evidence. M2 money supply (consisting of cash, checking deposits, and so-called “near money” that can be converted into cash with little difficulty) has grown at a faster rate over the past 12 months than at any time over the last six decades. Sure enough, the S&P 500 has turned in one of its strongest 12-month returns ever.</p><p><blockquote>传统智慧似乎是基于证据的。M2 货币供应量（包括现金、支票存款和可以轻松转换为现金的所谓 “近货币 ”）在过去 12 个月中的增长速度超过了过去 60 年来的任何时候。果然，标普500取得了有史以来最强劲的 12 个月回报之一。</blockquote></p><p> This is just one data point. To investigate whether it is the exception or the rule, I analyzed several decades of historical record in search of a statistically significant correlation between the Federal Reserve’s stimulus and the stock market. I came up empty. The bulls therefore need to think twice before reassuring themselves that the bull market will continue just because the Federal Reserve is committed to priming the monetary pump.</p><p><blockquote>这只是一个数据点。为了调查这是例外还是规律，我分析了几十年的历史记录，以寻找美联储的刺激措施与股市之间具有统计学意义的相关性。我空手而归。因此，多头需要三思而后行，然后再保证牛市将持续下去，仅仅是因为美联储致力于启动货币泵。</blockquote></p><p> In searching for possible correlations, I relied on two different measures of the money supply. I focused on M2 Money Supply (cash, checking deposits, and so-called ‘near money’ that can be converted into cash with little difficulty) and the Federal Reserve’s total balance sheet assets (a broader measure which reflects the Fed’s direct intervention in the economy through the purchase of securities and Treasuries). Regardless of the definition, however, the correlations between the stock market and money supply are not stable over time.</p><p><blockquote>在寻找可能的相关性时，我依赖于两种不同的货币供应量度量。我关注的是 M2 货币供应量（现金、支票存款和所谓的 “近货币 ”，这些货币可以毫不费力地转换为现金）和美联储的资产负债表总资产（一个更广泛的衡量标准，反映了美联储通过购买证券和国债对经济的直接干预）。然而，不管定义如何，随着时间的推移，股票市场和货币供应量之间的相关性并不稳定。</blockquote></p><p> On the one hand, over the last decade there has been a strong positive correlation, just as we’ve seen over the last 12 months and what the bulls are assuming is the general pattern. But, on the other hand, this correlation was negative before that, which meant that in those earlier years faster money supply growth was more often than not associated with slower stock market growth, and vice versa. That’s just the opposite of what the bulls are assuming.</p><p><blockquote>一方面，在过去十年中，正如我们在过去 12 个月中看到的那样，多头所假设的是普遍模式。但是，另一方面，这种相关性在此之前是负的，这意味着在早些时候，更快的货币供应量增长往往与更慢的股市增长相关，反之亦然。这与多头的假设恰恰相反。</blockquote></p><p> After this first pass through the data, the most we can say is that sometimes faster money supply growth is good for stocks, and sometimes it isn’t.</p><p><blockquote>在第一次浏览数据之后，我们最多只能说，有时货币供应量增长加快对股票有利，有时则不利。</blockquote></p><p> That in turn suggests that the relationship between the money supply and the stock market is a lot more complex than most investors think. A full discussion of that relationship is beyond the scope of this column, but we know that it depends in large part on investors’ appetite for risk. In a “risk-on” environment, for example, it is more likely that aggressive Fed easing will be considered bullish. But when investors are preoccupied with the downside (“risk-off”) then an aggressive Fed might cause investors to become even more worried.</p><p><blockquote>这反过来表明，货币供应量和股市之间的关系比大多数投资者想象的要复杂得多。对这种关系的全面讨论超出了本专栏的范围，但我们知道，这在很大程度上取决于投资者的风险偏好。例如，在 “风险承担 ”的环境中，美联储激进的宽松政策更有可能被视为看涨。但当投资者全神贯注于下行（“避险”）时，激进的美联储可能会让投资者更加担忧。</blockquote></p><p> As is often the case, John Maynard Keynes, the famous British economist of a century ago, shrewdly captured this dynamic. He pointed out that central banks will be powerless to stimulate the economy if there is no appetite for risk-taking, and in such an environment the Fed’s efforts will be like “pushing on a string.”</p><p><blockquote>一个世纪前著名的英国经济学家约翰·梅纳德·凯恩斯精明地捕捉到了这种动态。他指出，如果没有冒险意愿，央行将无力刺激经济，在这种环境下，美联储的努力将如同 “推绳子”。</blockquote></p><p> Another indication of the complexity of the relationship between money supply and the stock market is how much money velocity varies over time. I’m referring to the average number of times that money changes hands in a given year. When velocity declines, it takes a bigger money supply to have the same economic impact. Or, to put it another way, a bigger money supply won’t be stimulating if velocity declines too much in the process.</p><p><blockquote>货币供应量和股票市场之间关系复杂性的另一个迹象是货币速度随时间的变化有多大。我指的是一年中货币的平均易手次数。当速度下降时，需要更大的货币供应量才能产生同样的经济影响。或者，换句话说，如果在此过程中速度下降太多，更多的货币供应量就不会起到刺激作用。</blockquote></p><p> This puts recent experience in perspective. As you can see from the accompanying chart, velocity plunged at the beginning of the pandemic and remains at one of its lowest levels in six decades.</p><p><blockquote>这让我们正确看待最近的经历。从随附的图表中可以看出，速度在大流行开始时暴跌，并保持在六十年来的最低水平之一。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/96bbd1cd5123ac2704ccf0953509870f\" tg-width=\"1260\" tg-height=\"849\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> The bottom line: The money supply undoubtedly is related to the course of both the economy and the stock market. But its role is neither simple nor straightforward.</p><p><blockquote>底线：货币供应量无疑与经济和股市的进程有关。但它的作用既不简单也不直接。</blockquote></p><p></p>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n<p> 来源：<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-itll-take-more-than-easy-money-from-the-fed-to-spark-this-bull-market-11619159724?mod=home-page\">MarketWatch</a></p>\n<p>为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化</p>\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".DJI":"道琼斯",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-itll-take-more-than-easy-money-from-the-fed-to-spark-this-bull-market-11619159724?mod=home-page","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"2130941364","content_text":"Much depends on investors' appetite for taking risk. \nGETTY IMAGES\nEveryone “knows” that the U.S. government’s massive stimulus is the reason the U.S. stock market took off from its March 2020 lows. But, as Humphrey Neill, the father of contrarian analysis, constantly reminded his clients: “When everyone thinks alike, everyone is likely to be wrong.”\nConventional wisdom certainly appears to be based on the evidence. M2 money supply (consisting of cash, checking deposits, and so-called “near money” that can be converted into cash with little difficulty) has grown at a faster rate over the past 12 months than at any time over the last six decades. Sure enough, the S&P 500 has turned in one of its strongest 12-month returns ever.\nThis is just one data point. To investigate whether it is the exception or the rule, I analyzed several decades of historical record in search of a statistically significant correlation between the Federal Reserve’s stimulus and the stock market. I came up empty. The bulls therefore need to think twice before reassuring themselves that the bull market will continue just because the Federal Reserve is committed to priming the monetary pump.\nIn searching for possible correlations, I relied on two different measures of the money supply. I focused on M2 Money Supply (cash, checking deposits, and so-called ‘near money’ that can be converted into cash with little difficulty) and the Federal Reserve’s total balance sheet assets (a broader measure which reflects the Fed’s direct intervention in the economy through the purchase of securities and Treasuries). Regardless of the definition, however, the correlations between the stock market and money supply are not stable over time.\nOn the one hand, over the last decade there has been a strong positive correlation, just as we’ve seen over the last 12 months and what the bulls are assuming is the general pattern. But, on the other hand, this correlation was negative before that, which meant that in those earlier years faster money supply growth was more often than not associated with slower stock market growth, and vice versa. That’s just the opposite of what the bulls are assuming.\nAfter this first pass through the data, the most we can say is that sometimes faster money supply growth is good for stocks, and sometimes it isn’t.\nThat in turn suggests that the relationship between the money supply and the stock market is a lot more complex than most investors think. A full discussion of that relationship is beyond the scope of this column, but we know that it depends in large part on investors’ appetite for risk. In a “risk-on” environment, for example, it is more likely that aggressive Fed easing will be considered bullish. But when investors are preoccupied with the downside (“risk-off”) then an aggressive Fed might cause investors to become even more worried.\nAs is often the case, John Maynard Keynes, the famous British economist of a century ago, shrewdly captured this dynamic. He pointed out that central banks will be powerless to stimulate the economy if there is no appetite for risk-taking, and in such an environment the Fed’s efforts will be like “pushing on a string.”\nAnother indication of the complexity of the relationship between money supply and the stock market is how much money velocity varies over time. I’m referring to the average number of times that money changes hands in a given year. When velocity declines, it takes a bigger money supply to have the same economic impact. Or, to put it another way, a bigger money supply won’t be stimulating if velocity declines too much in the process.\nThis puts recent experience in perspective. As you can see from the accompanying chart, velocity plunged at the beginning of the pandemic and remains at one of its lowest levels in six decades.\n\nThe bottom line: The money supply undoubtedly is related to the course of both the economy and the stock market. But its role is neither simple nor straightforward.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{".IXIC":0.9,".SPX":0.9,".DJI":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":914,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":375218721,"gmtCreate":1619345935863,"gmtModify":1634274093257,"author":{"id":"3582321147205123","authorId":"3582321147205123","name":"Rexzyne","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3582321147205123","authorIdStr":"3582321147205123"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Hi","listText":"Hi","text":"Hi","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/375218721","repostId":"2129364955","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":819,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0}],"hots":[{"id":375216861,"gmtCreate":1619345990953,"gmtModify":1634274092653,"author":{"id":"3582321147205123","authorId":"3582321147205123","name":"Rexzyne","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3582321147205123","authorIdStr":"3582321147205123"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Hi","listText":"Hi","text":"Hi","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/375216861","repostId":"2130941364","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"2130941364","kind":"highlight","pubTimestamp":1619323455,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/2130941364?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-04-25 12:04","market":"hk","language":"en","title":"Why it’ll take more than easy money from the Fed to keep sparking this bull market in stocks<blockquote>为什么美联储需要的不仅仅是宽松的资金来继续引发股市牛市</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=2130941364","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Much depends on investors' appetite for taking risk. \nGETTY IMAGES\nEveryone “knows” that the U.S. go","content":"<p>Much depends on investors' appetite for taking risk. </p><p><blockquote>很大程度上取决于投资者承担风险的偏好。</blockquote></p><p> <p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/64c17dcaadc093048638ac550527a91e\" tg-width=\"1260\" tg-height=\"840\"><span>GETTY IMAGES</span></p><p><blockquote><p class=\"t-img-caption\"><span>盖蒂图片社</span></p></blockquote></p><p> Everyone “knows” that the U.S. government’s massive stimulus is the reason the U.S. stock market took off from its March 2020 lows. But, as Humphrey Neill, the father of contrarian analysis, constantly reminded his clients: “When everyone thinks alike, everyone is likely to be wrong.”</p><p><blockquote>每个人都 “知道 ”美国政府的大规模刺激政策是美国股市从 2020 年 3 月低点起飞的原因。但是，正如逆向分析之父汉弗莱-尼尔（Humphrey Neill）不断提醒他的客户的那样： “当每个人的想法都一样时，每个人都可能错了”。</blockquote></p><p> Conventional wisdom certainly appears to be based on the evidence. M2 money supply (consisting of cash, checking deposits, and so-called “near money” that can be converted into cash with little difficulty) has grown at a faster rate over the past 12 months than at any time over the last six decades. Sure enough, the S&P 500 has turned in one of its strongest 12-month returns ever.</p><p><blockquote>传统智慧似乎是基于证据的。M2 货币供应量（包括现金、支票存款和可以轻松转换为现金的所谓 “近货币 ”）在过去 12 个月中的增长速度超过了过去 60 年来的任何时候。果然，标普500取得了有史以来最强劲的 12 个月回报之一。</blockquote></p><p> This is just one data point. To investigate whether it is the exception or the rule, I analyzed several decades of historical record in search of a statistically significant correlation between the Federal Reserve’s stimulus and the stock market. I came up empty. The bulls therefore need to think twice before reassuring themselves that the bull market will continue just because the Federal Reserve is committed to priming the monetary pump.</p><p><blockquote>这只是一个数据点。为了调查这是例外还是规律，我分析了几十年的历史记录，以寻找美联储的刺激措施与股市之间具有统计学意义的相关性。我空手而归。因此，多头需要三思而后行，然后再保证牛市将持续下去，仅仅是因为美联储致力于启动货币泵。</blockquote></p><p> In searching for possible correlations, I relied on two different measures of the money supply. I focused on M2 Money Supply (cash, checking deposits, and so-called ‘near money’ that can be converted into cash with little difficulty) and the Federal Reserve’s total balance sheet assets (a broader measure which reflects the Fed’s direct intervention in the economy through the purchase of securities and Treasuries). Regardless of the definition, however, the correlations between the stock market and money supply are not stable over time.</p><p><blockquote>在寻找可能的相关性时，我依赖于两种不同的货币供应量度量。我关注的是 M2 货币供应量（现金、支票存款和所谓的 “近货币 ”，这些货币可以毫不费力地转换为现金）和美联储的资产负债表总资产（一个更广泛的衡量标准，反映了美联储通过购买证券和国债对经济的直接干预）。然而，不管定义如何，随着时间的推移，股票市场和货币供应量之间的相关性并不稳定。</blockquote></p><p> On the one hand, over the last decade there has been a strong positive correlation, just as we’ve seen over the last 12 months and what the bulls are assuming is the general pattern. But, on the other hand, this correlation was negative before that, which meant that in those earlier years faster money supply growth was more often than not associated with slower stock market growth, and vice versa. That’s just the opposite of what the bulls are assuming.</p><p><blockquote>一方面，在过去十年中，正如我们在过去 12 个月中看到的那样，多头所假设的是普遍模式。但是，另一方面，这种相关性在此之前是负的，这意味着在早些时候，更快的货币供应量增长往往与更慢的股市增长相关，反之亦然。这与多头的假设恰恰相反。</blockquote></p><p> After this first pass through the data, the most we can say is that sometimes faster money supply growth is good for stocks, and sometimes it isn’t.</p><p><blockquote>在第一次浏览数据之后，我们最多只能说，有时货币供应量增长加快对股票有利，有时则不利。</blockquote></p><p> That in turn suggests that the relationship between the money supply and the stock market is a lot more complex than most investors think. A full discussion of that relationship is beyond the scope of this column, but we know that it depends in large part on investors’ appetite for risk. In a “risk-on” environment, for example, it is more likely that aggressive Fed easing will be considered bullish. But when investors are preoccupied with the downside (“risk-off”) then an aggressive Fed might cause investors to become even more worried.</p><p><blockquote>这反过来表明，货币供应量和股市之间的关系比大多数投资者想象的要复杂得多。对这种关系的全面讨论超出了本专栏的范围，但我们知道，这在很大程度上取决于投资者的风险偏好。例如，在 “风险承担 ”的环境中，美联储激进的宽松政策更有可能被视为看涨。但当投资者全神贯注于下行（“避险”）时，激进的美联储可能会让投资者更加担忧。</blockquote></p><p> As is often the case, John Maynard Keynes, the famous British economist of a century ago, shrewdly captured this dynamic. He pointed out that central banks will be powerless to stimulate the economy if there is no appetite for risk-taking, and in such an environment the Fed’s efforts will be like “pushing on a string.”</p><p><blockquote>一个世纪前著名的英国经济学家约翰·梅纳德·凯恩斯精明地捕捉到了这种动态。他指出，如果没有冒险意愿，央行将无力刺激经济，在这种环境下，美联储的努力将如同 “推绳子”。</blockquote></p><p> Another indication of the complexity of the relationship between money supply and the stock market is how much money velocity varies over time. I’m referring to the average number of times that money changes hands in a given year. When velocity declines, it takes a bigger money supply to have the same economic impact. Or, to put it another way, a bigger money supply won’t be stimulating if velocity declines too much in the process.</p><p><blockquote>货币供应量和股票市场之间关系复杂性的另一个迹象是货币速度随时间的变化有多大。我指的是一年中货币的平均易手次数。当速度下降时，需要更大的货币供应量才能产生同样的经济影响。或者，换句话说，如果在此过程中速度下降太多，更多的货币供应量就不会起到刺激作用。</blockquote></p><p> This puts recent experience in perspective. As you can see from the accompanying chart, velocity plunged at the beginning of the pandemic and remains at one of its lowest levels in six decades.</p><p><blockquote>这让我们正确看待最近的经历。从随附的图表中可以看出，速度在大流行开始时暴跌，并保持在六十年来的最低水平之一。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/96bbd1cd5123ac2704ccf0953509870f\" tg-width=\"1260\" tg-height=\"849\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> The bottom line: The money supply undoubtedly is related to the course of both the economy and the stock market. But its role is neither simple nor straightforward.</p><p><blockquote>底线：货币供应量无疑与经济和股市的进程有关。但它的作用既不简单也不直接。</blockquote></p><p></p>","source":"lsy1603348471595","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>Why it’ll take more than easy money from the Fed to keep sparking this bull market in stocks<blockquote>为什么美联储需要的不仅仅是宽松的资金来继续引发股市牛市</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\">\nWhy it’ll take more than easy money from the Fed to keep sparking this bull market in stocks<blockquote>为什么美联储需要的不仅仅是宽松的资金来继续引发股市牛市</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<p class=\"head\">\n<strong class=\"h-name small\">MarketWatch</strong><span class=\"h-time small\">2021-04-25 12:04</span>\n</p>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p>Much depends on investors' appetite for taking risk. </p><p><blockquote>很大程度上取决于投资者承担风险的偏好。</blockquote></p><p> <p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/64c17dcaadc093048638ac550527a91e\" tg-width=\"1260\" tg-height=\"840\"><span>GETTY IMAGES</span></p><p><blockquote><p class=\"t-img-caption\"><span>盖蒂图片社</span></p></blockquote></p><p> Everyone “knows” that the U.S. government’s massive stimulus is the reason the U.S. stock market took off from its March 2020 lows. But, as Humphrey Neill, the father of contrarian analysis, constantly reminded his clients: “When everyone thinks alike, everyone is likely to be wrong.”</p><p><blockquote>每个人都 “知道 ”美国政府的大规模刺激政策是美国股市从 2020 年 3 月低点起飞的原因。但是，正如逆向分析之父汉弗莱-尼尔（Humphrey Neill）不断提醒他的客户的那样： “当每个人的想法都一样时，每个人都可能错了”。</blockquote></p><p> Conventional wisdom certainly appears to be based on the evidence. M2 money supply (consisting of cash, checking deposits, and so-called “near money” that can be converted into cash with little difficulty) has grown at a faster rate over the past 12 months than at any time over the last six decades. Sure enough, the S&P 500 has turned in one of its strongest 12-month returns ever.</p><p><blockquote>传统智慧似乎是基于证据的。M2 货币供应量（包括现金、支票存款和可以轻松转换为现金的所谓 “近货币 ”）在过去 12 个月中的增长速度超过了过去 60 年来的任何时候。果然，标普500取得了有史以来最强劲的 12 个月回报之一。</blockquote></p><p> This is just one data point. To investigate whether it is the exception or the rule, I analyzed several decades of historical record in search of a statistically significant correlation between the Federal Reserve’s stimulus and the stock market. I came up empty. The bulls therefore need to think twice before reassuring themselves that the bull market will continue just because the Federal Reserve is committed to priming the monetary pump.</p><p><blockquote>这只是一个数据点。为了调查这是例外还是规律，我分析了几十年的历史记录，以寻找美联储的刺激措施与股市之间具有统计学意义的相关性。我空手而归。因此，多头需要三思而后行，然后再保证牛市将持续下去，仅仅是因为美联储致力于启动货币泵。</blockquote></p><p> In searching for possible correlations, I relied on two different measures of the money supply. I focused on M2 Money Supply (cash, checking deposits, and so-called ‘near money’ that can be converted into cash with little difficulty) and the Federal Reserve’s total balance sheet assets (a broader measure which reflects the Fed’s direct intervention in the economy through the purchase of securities and Treasuries). Regardless of the definition, however, the correlations between the stock market and money supply are not stable over time.</p><p><blockquote>在寻找可能的相关性时，我依赖于两种不同的货币供应量度量。我关注的是 M2 货币供应量（现金、支票存款和所谓的 “近货币 ”，这些货币可以毫不费力地转换为现金）和美联储的资产负债表总资产（一个更广泛的衡量标准，反映了美联储通过购买证券和国债对经济的直接干预）。然而，不管定义如何，随着时间的推移，股票市场和货币供应量之间的相关性并不稳定。</blockquote></p><p> On the one hand, over the last decade there has been a strong positive correlation, just as we’ve seen over the last 12 months and what the bulls are assuming is the general pattern. But, on the other hand, this correlation was negative before that, which meant that in those earlier years faster money supply growth was more often than not associated with slower stock market growth, and vice versa. That’s just the opposite of what the bulls are assuming.</p><p><blockquote>一方面，在过去十年中，正如我们在过去 12 个月中看到的那样，多头所假设的是普遍模式。但是，另一方面，这种相关性在此之前是负的，这意味着在早些时候，更快的货币供应量增长往往与更慢的股市增长相关，反之亦然。这与多头的假设恰恰相反。</blockquote></p><p> After this first pass through the data, the most we can say is that sometimes faster money supply growth is good for stocks, and sometimes it isn’t.</p><p><blockquote>在第一次浏览数据之后，我们最多只能说，有时货币供应量增长加快对股票有利，有时则不利。</blockquote></p><p> That in turn suggests that the relationship between the money supply and the stock market is a lot more complex than most investors think. A full discussion of that relationship is beyond the scope of this column, but we know that it depends in large part on investors’ appetite for risk. In a “risk-on” environment, for example, it is more likely that aggressive Fed easing will be considered bullish. But when investors are preoccupied with the downside (“risk-off”) then an aggressive Fed might cause investors to become even more worried.</p><p><blockquote>这反过来表明，货币供应量和股市之间的关系比大多数投资者想象的要复杂得多。对这种关系的全面讨论超出了本专栏的范围，但我们知道，这在很大程度上取决于投资者的风险偏好。例如，在 “风险承担 ”的环境中，美联储激进的宽松政策更有可能被视为看涨。但当投资者全神贯注于下行（“避险”）时，激进的美联储可能会让投资者更加担忧。</blockquote></p><p> As is often the case, John Maynard Keynes, the famous British economist of a century ago, shrewdly captured this dynamic. He pointed out that central banks will be powerless to stimulate the economy if there is no appetite for risk-taking, and in such an environment the Fed’s efforts will be like “pushing on a string.”</p><p><blockquote>一个世纪前著名的英国经济学家约翰·梅纳德·凯恩斯精明地捕捉到了这种动态。他指出，如果没有冒险意愿，央行将无力刺激经济，在这种环境下，美联储的努力将如同 “推绳子”。</blockquote></p><p> Another indication of the complexity of the relationship between money supply and the stock market is how much money velocity varies over time. I’m referring to the average number of times that money changes hands in a given year. When velocity declines, it takes a bigger money supply to have the same economic impact. Or, to put it another way, a bigger money supply won’t be stimulating if velocity declines too much in the process.</p><p><blockquote>货币供应量和股票市场之间关系复杂性的另一个迹象是货币速度随时间的变化有多大。我指的是一年中货币的平均易手次数。当速度下降时，需要更大的货币供应量才能产生同样的经济影响。或者，换句话说，如果在此过程中速度下降太多，更多的货币供应量就不会起到刺激作用。</blockquote></p><p> This puts recent experience in perspective. As you can see from the accompanying chart, velocity plunged at the beginning of the pandemic and remains at one of its lowest levels in six decades.</p><p><blockquote>这让我们正确看待最近的经历。从随附的图表中可以看出，速度在大流行开始时暴跌，并保持在六十年来的最低水平之一。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/96bbd1cd5123ac2704ccf0953509870f\" tg-width=\"1260\" tg-height=\"849\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> The bottom line: The money supply undoubtedly is related to the course of both the economy and the stock market. But its role is neither simple nor straightforward.</p><p><blockquote>底线：货币供应量无疑与经济和股市的进程有关。但它的作用既不简单也不直接。</blockquote></p><p></p>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n<p> 来源：<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-itll-take-more-than-easy-money-from-the-fed-to-spark-this-bull-market-11619159724?mod=home-page\">MarketWatch</a></p>\n<p>为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化</p>\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".DJI":"道琼斯",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-itll-take-more-than-easy-money-from-the-fed-to-spark-this-bull-market-11619159724?mod=home-page","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"2130941364","content_text":"Much depends on investors' appetite for taking risk. \nGETTY IMAGES\nEveryone “knows” that the U.S. government’s massive stimulus is the reason the U.S. stock market took off from its March 2020 lows. But, as Humphrey Neill, the father of contrarian analysis, constantly reminded his clients: “When everyone thinks alike, everyone is likely to be wrong.”\nConventional wisdom certainly appears to be based on the evidence. M2 money supply (consisting of cash, checking deposits, and so-called “near money” that can be converted into cash with little difficulty) has grown at a faster rate over the past 12 months than at any time over the last six decades. Sure enough, the S&P 500 has turned in one of its strongest 12-month returns ever.\nThis is just one data point. To investigate whether it is the exception or the rule, I analyzed several decades of historical record in search of a statistically significant correlation between the Federal Reserve’s stimulus and the stock market. I came up empty. The bulls therefore need to think twice before reassuring themselves that the bull market will continue just because the Federal Reserve is committed to priming the monetary pump.\nIn searching for possible correlations, I relied on two different measures of the money supply. I focused on M2 Money Supply (cash, checking deposits, and so-called ‘near money’ that can be converted into cash with little difficulty) and the Federal Reserve’s total balance sheet assets (a broader measure which reflects the Fed’s direct intervention in the economy through the purchase of securities and Treasuries). Regardless of the definition, however, the correlations between the stock market and money supply are not stable over time.\nOn the one hand, over the last decade there has been a strong positive correlation, just as we’ve seen over the last 12 months and what the bulls are assuming is the general pattern. But, on the other hand, this correlation was negative before that, which meant that in those earlier years faster money supply growth was more often than not associated with slower stock market growth, and vice versa. That’s just the opposite of what the bulls are assuming.\nAfter this first pass through the data, the most we can say is that sometimes faster money supply growth is good for stocks, and sometimes it isn’t.\nThat in turn suggests that the relationship between the money supply and the stock market is a lot more complex than most investors think. A full discussion of that relationship is beyond the scope of this column, but we know that it depends in large part on investors’ appetite for risk. In a “risk-on” environment, for example, it is more likely that aggressive Fed easing will be considered bullish. But when investors are preoccupied with the downside (“risk-off”) then an aggressive Fed might cause investors to become even more worried.\nAs is often the case, John Maynard Keynes, the famous British economist of a century ago, shrewdly captured this dynamic. He pointed out that central banks will be powerless to stimulate the economy if there is no appetite for risk-taking, and in such an environment the Fed’s efforts will be like “pushing on a string.”\nAnother indication of the complexity of the relationship between money supply and the stock market is how much money velocity varies over time. I’m referring to the average number of times that money changes hands in a given year. When velocity declines, it takes a bigger money supply to have the same economic impact. Or, to put it another way, a bigger money supply won’t be stimulating if velocity declines too much in the process.\nThis puts recent experience in perspective. As you can see from the accompanying chart, velocity plunged at the beginning of the pandemic and remains at one of its lowest levels in six decades.\n\nThe bottom line: The money supply undoubtedly is related to the course of both the economy and the stock market. But its role is neither simple nor straightforward.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{".IXIC":0.9,".SPX":0.9,".DJI":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":914,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":375218721,"gmtCreate":1619345935863,"gmtModify":1634274093257,"author":{"id":"3582321147205123","authorId":"3582321147205123","name":"Rexzyne","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3582321147205123","authorIdStr":"3582321147205123"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Hi","listText":"Hi","text":"Hi","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/375218721","repostId":"2129364955","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":819,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0}],"lives":[]}
