Worried about inflation? Here’s how investments did in the 1970s_老虎社区_美港股上老虎

Worried about inflation? Here’s how investments did in the 1970s

Marketwatch2021-07-20

In the 1990s movie The Shipping News, an old newspaperman explains to Kevin Spacey how to cover the news. If there is a storm visible anywhere, he explains, you write “Storm threatens the town,” even ...

网页链接

免责声明：本文观点仅代表作者个人观点，不构成本平台的投资建议，本平台不对文章信息准确性、完整性和及时性做出任何保证，亦不对因使用或信赖文章信息引发的任何损失承担责任。

248

ET88
·2021-07-20
Go for gold [Miser]
回复
1
举报
Kelzz
·2021-07-20
[微笑]
回复
1
举报
Cklvin
·2021-07-20
Good info
回复
1
举报
Derlin
·2021-07-20
Like my comment ty
回复
4
举报
收起
- Acsw:
  Ok
  2021-07-20
  回复
  举报
5ca20d0a
·2021-07-20
Hello…
回复
4
举报
JimmyT
·2021-07-20
Like
回复
6
举报
收起
- Qkuca:
  [微笑]
  2021-07-20
  回复
  举报
- Jiayingsiow:
  OK
  2021-07-20
  回复
  举报
Euginelai
·2021-07-20
ok
回复
8
举报
收起
- Nebhol:
  Like comment
  2021-07-20
  回复
  举报
IsaacYap90
·2021-07-20
Ok
回复
5
举报
收起
- Euginelai:
  ok
  2021-07-20
  回复
  举报
zcml
·2021-07-20
Want it
回复
5
举报
收起
- Jessieping:
  ok
  2021-07-20
  回复
  举报
yeelyn18
·2021-07-20
Cool
回复
3
举报
收起
- jonbeloved:
  Ok
  2021-07-20
  回复
  举报
NRN
·2021-07-20
REITs for the win!
回复
2
举报
deathdevil
·2021-07-20
Nice
回复
5
举报
收起
- Veldin:
  Yes
  2021-07-20
  回复
  举报
Deonc
·2021-07-20
Good
回复
4
举报
收起
- Buythedip:
  Hoho
  2021-07-20
  回复
  举报
- Deonc:
  [强]
  2021-07-21
  回复
  举报
NareshwG
·2021-07-20
Go for gold.. Its proven again and again...
回复
2
举报
ycwoo
·2021-07-20
Good
回复
2
举报
收起
- Bhaga:
  [Cool]
  2021-07-20
  回复
  举报
ycwoo
·2021-07-20
Everybody wish
回复
3
举报
ZEROHERO
·2021-07-20
Always invest long term with time and money. Consider investing $10k (capital) with S&P500 (8% interest compounded) plus $1k deposit per month (DCA) over 20 years for this result!
回复
4
举报
收起
- NareshwG:
  Agreed.
  2021-07-20
  回复
  举报
Kristo
·2021-07-20
I see
回复
4
举报
收起
- Kristo:
  great
  2021-07-20
  回复
  举报
- Nienz:
  Cool!
  2021-07-20
  回复
  举报
- evan888:
  like pls
  2021-07-20
  回复
  举报
查看更多 1 条评论

热议股票

7x24

全部

{"i18n":{"language":"zh_CN"},"data":{"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1129846769?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","thumbnail":"","is_english":true,"pubTime":"2021-07-20 11:29","share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/599a65733b8245fcf7868668ef9ad712","id":"1129846769","market":"us","top_or_hot":-1,"title":"Worried about inflation? Here’s how investments did in the 1970s","media":"Marketwatch","content":"<div>\nIn the 1990s movie The Shipping News, an old newspaperman explains to Kevin Spacey how to cover the news. If there is a storm visible anywhere, he explains, you write “Storm threatens the town,” even ...\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/worried-about-inflation-heres-how-investments-did-in-the-1970s-11626658251?siteid=yhoof2\">网页链接</a>\n\n</div>\n","source":"market_watch","html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Worried about inflation? Here’s how investments did in the 1970s</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: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWorried about inflation? Here’s how investments did in the 1970s\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-07-20 11:29 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/worried-about-inflation-heres-how-investments-did-in-the-1970s-11626658251?siteid=yhoof2>Marketwatch</a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\nIn the 1990s movie The Shipping News, an old newspaperman explains to Kevin Spacey how to cover the news. If there is a storm visible anywhere, he explains, you write “Storm threatens the town,” even ...\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/worried-about-inflation-heres-how-investments-did-in-the-1970s-11626658251?siteid=yhoof2\">网页链接</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","isBrief":false,"type":0,"news_type":1,"symbol":".SPX","symbol_name":"S&P 500 Index","start_time":0,"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/worried-about-inflation-heres-how-investments-did-in-the-1970s-11626658251?siteid=yhoof2","article_id":"1129846769","we_media_id":null,"thumbnails":[],"rights":null,"url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1129846769","pubTimestamp":1626751789,"columns":[],"sourceInfo":{"source_id":"market_watch","name":"华尔街大事件"},"weMediaInfo":null,"summary":"In the 1990s movie The Shipping News, an old newspaperman explains to Kevin Spacey how to cover the ","collect":0,"end_time":0,"defaultTopTitle":"marketwatch.com","property":[],"viewcount":null,"language":"en","relate_stocks":{".SPX":"S&P 500 Index","XOM":"埃克森美孚"},"translate_title":"担心通货膨胀？以下是20世纪70年代投资的情况","themeId":null,"isJumpTheme":false,"ttsUrl":null,"symbols_score_info":{".SPX":0.9,"XOM":0.9},"content_text":"In the 1990s movie The Shipping News, an old newspaperman explains to Kevin Spacey how to cover the news. If there is a storm visible anywhere, he explains, you write “Storm threatens the town,” even if the storm is nowhere near and is unlikely to hit. If—as expected—the storm never hits, you just write the follow up: “Town spared by storm.”\nReaders may be excused for thinking something similar about the latest stories about looming, threatening, surging, terrifying inflation. Yes, the inflation forecasts were surging months ago, and hit 8-year highs. Had they continued there would be grounds to worry. But they haven’t continued. On the contrary, they’ve been falling for two months. The bond market’s 5-year inflation forecast is now lower than it was in mid-March. The market sees five-year inflation running at around 2.6%. That’s higher than we’ve been used to for a decade, but it’s nothing to cause any significant alarm.\nThat can change, of course. Maybe it will. We’ll see.\nBut with all this talk I got to thinking about the obvious question. If serious inflation really does hit, what can we do about it? How can we protect our investments?\nThat’s an especially key question for today’s retirees and those expecting to retire soon. When we’re older we’re generally advised to keep most of our money in more “conservative” investments, meaning things like bonds, that involve less risk. Someone in their 20s or 30s may not worry unduly if their retirement savings plunge 30% in a market rout or an inflationary spiral. For someone in their 60s, let alone older, that can become a major financial crisis.\nSo I went back and dug up the information from the last, infamous inflationary spiral in the 1970s, when consumer price inflation often topped 10% a year. The Greek philosopher Heraclitus pointed out that no one ever walks through the same stream twice, because the second time it’s not the same stream, and we’re not the same person. Everything changes. There is no guarantee the next inflationary boom, even if it happens, will look anything like the last one — any more than we should assume that it will be accompanied by outbreaks of disco music and flared jeans.\nNonetheless the chart above shows the total returns, after adjusting for inflation, of various asset classes from December 1971 to December 1981. (I used those dates because the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, or NAREIT, starts their data series then.) The data on energy stocks came from data compiled by professor Ken French at Dartmouth College’s Tuck School of Business.\nThis is what happened to your purchasing power if you invested in these assets and hung on for 10 years. (I’ve excluded gold, which is a different story.)\nThe key standout is that you really didn’t want to own Treasury bonds. The near 40% loss of purchasing power over 10 years is somewhat notional—it is derived from the compound annual returns on 10 Year Treasurys compiled by New York University’s Stern School of Business, divided by the consumer-price index—but tells a story nonetheless. (In Great Britain, where inflation was even worse, government bonds during the 1970s became known as “certificates of confiscation.” Ouch.)\nHolding them cost you money. Lots of it.\nYou could argue that the danger today is even greater, simply because the yields on long-term Treasury bonds are so low. Federal Reserve quantitative easing, bond buying, and zero interest-rate policies have left Treasury yields at their lowest on record—which means the turns would be a disaster if inflation reared its head.\nCorporate bonds and the S&P 500 were also terrible investments. It’s worth remembering that these are real term losses over a decade, which means investors didn’t just lose a lot of money—they also lost a lot of time.\nUtility stocks weren’t great, but they held up better. And Treasury bills—short-term paper—did better still. But once again you were going backward when you needed to be going forwards.\nNo one who remembers the 1970s will be surprised that energy companies boomed. Less well-remembered, maybe, is that REITs also did pretty well. These numbers, incidentally, represented property-owning REITs and excluded mortgage REITs, which own loans.\nBut there are two caveats to this. The first is that of course energy stocks did well, because a key driver of inflation in the 1970s was the rise of OPEC and two oil embargoes it imposed on the West for political reasons. Cue Heraclitus. There is no particular reason to assume that the next inflationary surge will be the same.\nThe second caveat is that although REITs ended up doing well, they were volatile along the way. In particular, REIT prices collapsed in the OPEC-driven recession of 1972-4. And according to FactSet, U.S. REITs today already look pretty expensive on some measures. For instance it reckons that the forecast dividend yield on the Vanguard Real Estate ETF (a reasonable benchmark for the industry) is just 2.9% — by far the lowest since it was launched in 2004. Looking through NAREIT data, I can’t find a moment since 1971 when the overall yield on REITs was this low. During the real estate bubble in 2007, incidentally, the yield bottomed out no lower than 3.6%\nSo it may be that REITs offer less inflation protection today than we would hope.\nOne key difference in the 1970s is that there were no “inflation-protected” Treasury bonds to keep investors protected. So-called TIPS are in theory almost the perfect investment for retirees. They are issued by the U.S. government and their coupons are safe against default. Meanwhile their coupons effectively adjust to reflect changes in consumer prices.\nThe problem today is that TIPS—like almost everything else in the bond market—look incredibly expensive. Most TIPS already lock in an actual loss of purchasing power if you buy them today. For example if you buy 5 year TIPS bonds and hold them for 5 years you’ll end up losing 9% of your purchasing power. And 30-year TIPS bonds offer the same 9% loss, though stretched out over 30 years.\nIt’s not very compelling. And it shows the risks that the government’s policy responses have created for those in retirement and near it.","kind":"news","is_publish_news":true,"is_publish_highlight":true,"is_publish_live":false,"is_publish_wemedia":null,"editions":null,"column":"","sentiment":"0","news_tag":"","news_rank":0,"symbols":[],"gpt_button":0,"need_auth":false,"code":"91000000","status":"200"},"commentList":[{"id":171700661,"gmtCreate":1626761050453,"gmtModify":1633771266030,"author":{"id":"3577096177015881","authorId":"3577096177015881","name":"ET88","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/972aa6dd92772d6bf44c97a3096c29b6","vip":1,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3577096177015881","authorIdStr":"3577096177015881"},"htmlText":"Go for gold [Miser]&nbsp;","listText":"Go for gold [Miser]&nbsp;","text":"Go for gold [Miser]","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/171700661","repostId":1129846769,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1129846769","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1626751789,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1129846769?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-07-20 11:29","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Worried about inflation? Here’s how investments did in the 1970s<blockquote>担心通货膨胀？以下是20世纪70年代的投资表现</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1129846769","media":"Marketwatch","summary":"In the 1990s movie The Shipping News, an old newspaperman explains to Kevin Spacey how to cover the ","content":"In the 1990s movie The Shipping News, an old newspaperman explains to Kevin Spacey how to cover the news. If there is a storm visible anywhere, he explains, you write “Storm threatens the town,” even if the storm is nowhere near and is unlikely to hit. If—as expected—the storm never hits, you just write the follow up: “Town spared by storm.”<blockquote>在20世纪90年代的电影《航运新闻》中，一位老记者向凯文·史派西解释如何报道新闻。他解释说，如果任何地方都有可见的风暴，你就会写“风暴威胁着城镇”，即使风暴不在附近，也不太可能来袭。如果——正如预期的那样——风暴从未袭击，你只需写下后续内容：“城镇幸免于风暴。”</blockquote> Readers may be excused for thinking something similar about the latest stories about looming, threatening, surging, terrifying inflation. Yes, the inflation forecasts were surging months ago, and hit 8-year highs. Had they continued there would be grounds to worry. But they haven’t continued. On the contrary, they’ve been falling for two months. The bond market’s 5-year inflation forecast is now lower than it was in mid-March. The market sees five-year inflation running at around 2.6%. That’s higher than we’ve been used to for a decade, but it’s nothing to cause any significant alarm.<blockquote>读者可能会对最近关于迫在眉睫、威胁、飙升、可怕的通货膨胀的故事有类似的想法。是的，几个月前通胀预测飙升，并创下8年来的新高。如果他们继续下去，就有理由担心。但他们没有继续。相反，他们已经下跌了两个月。债券市场的5年通胀预期现在低于3月中旬。市场预计五年通胀率约为2.6%。这比我们十年来所习惯的要高，但这并没有引起任何重大恐慌。</blockquote> That can change, of course. Maybe it will. We’ll see.<blockquote>当然，这种情况可能会改变。也许会。我们走着瞧。</blockquote> But with all this talk I got to thinking about the obvious question. If serious inflation really does hit, what can we do about it? How can we protect our investments?<blockquote>但是通过这些谈话，我开始思考一个显而易见的问题。如果严重的通货膨胀真的来袭，我们能做些什么呢？我们如何保护我们的投资？</blockquote> That’s an especially key question for today’s retirees and those expecting to retire soon. When we’re older we’re generally advised to keep most of our money in more “conservative” investments, meaning things like bonds, that involve less risk. Someone in their 20s or 30s may not worry unduly if their retirement savings plunge 30% in a market rout or an inflationary spiral. For someone in their 60s, let alone older, that can become a major financial crisis.<blockquote>对于今天的退休人员和那些预计很快退休的人来说，这是一个特别关键的问题。当我们长大后，通常建议我们将大部分资金投资于更“保守”的投资，即债券等风险较小的投资。如果20多岁或30多岁的人的退休储蓄在市场暴跌或通胀螺旋中暴跌30%，他们可能不会过度担心。对于60多岁的人来说，更不用说老年人了，这可能会成为一场重大的财务危机。</blockquote> So I went back and dug up the information from the last, infamous inflationary spiral in the 1970s, when consumer price inflation often topped 10% a year. The Greek philosopher Heraclitus pointed out that no one ever walks through the same stream twice, because the second time it’s not the same stream, and we’re not the same person. Everything changes. There is no guarantee the next inflationary boom, even if it happens, will look anything like the last one — any more than we should assume that it will be accompanied by outbreaks of disco music and flared jeans.<blockquote>因此，我回去挖掘了20世纪70年代上一次臭名昭著的通胀螺旋的信息，当时消费者价格通胀经常超过每年10%。希腊哲学家赫拉克利特指出，没有人会两次走过同一条小溪，因为第二次就不是同一条小溪了，我们也不是同一个人了。一切都变了。不能保证下一次通胀繁荣，即使发生了，看起来也会像上一次一样——就像我们不应该假设它会伴随着迪斯科音乐和喇叭牛仔裤的爆发一样。</blockquote> Nonetheless the chart above shows the total returns, after adjusting for inflation, of various asset classes from December 1971 to December 1981. (I used those dates because the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, or NAREIT, starts their data series then.) The data on energy stocks came from data compiled by professor Ken French at Dartmouth College’s Tuck School of Business.<blockquote>尽管如此，上图显示了1971年12月至1981年12月各种资产类别经通胀调整后的总回报。（我使用这些日期是因为全国房地产投资信托协会（NAREIT）在那时开始他们的数据系列。）能源股的数据来自达特茅斯学院塔克商学院肯·弗伦奇教授汇编的数据。</blockquote> This is what happened to your purchasing power if you invested in these assets and hung on for 10 years. (I’ve excluded gold, which is a different story.)<blockquote>如果你投资这些资产并坚持10年，你的购买力就会发生这种情况。（我已经排除了黄金，这是一个不同的故事。）</blockquote> The key standout is that you really didn’t want to own Treasury bonds. The near 40% loss of purchasing power over 10 years is somewhat notional—it is derived from the compound annual returns on 10 Year Treasurys compiled by New York University’s Stern School of Business, divided by the consumer-price index—but tells a story nonetheless. (In Great Britain, where inflation was even worse, government bonds during the 1970s became known as “certificates of confiscation.” Ouch.)<blockquote>关键的突出之处在于，你真的不想拥有国债。10年内购买力损失近40%在某种程度上是名义上的——它来自纽约大学斯特恩商学院编制的10年期美国国债的复合年回报率除以消费者价格指数——但仍然讲述了一个故事。（在通货膨胀更严重的英国，20世纪70年代的政府债券被称为“没收证书”。哎哟。）</blockquote> Holding them cost you money. Lots of it.<blockquote>拿着它们要花钱。很多。</blockquote> You could argue that the danger today is even greater, simply because the yields on long-term Treasury bonds are so low. Federal Reserve quantitative easing, bond buying, and zero interest-rate policies have left Treasury yields at their lowest on record—which means the turns would be a disaster if inflation reared its head.<blockquote>你可能会说，今天的危险甚至更大，仅仅是因为长期国债的收益率如此之低。美联储的量化宽松、债券购买和零利率政策使美国国债收益率处于有记录以来的最低水平——这意味着如果通胀抬头，这将是一场灾难。</blockquote> Corporate bonds and the S&amp;P 500&nbsp;were also terrible investments. It’s worth remembering that these are real term losses over a decade, which means investors didn’t just lose a lot of money—they also lost a lot of time.<blockquote>公司债券和标普500也是糟糕的投资。值得记住的是，这些是十年来的实际定期损失，这意味着投资者不仅损失了很多钱，还损失了很多时间。</blockquote> Utility stocks weren’t great, but they held up better. And Treasury bills—short-term paper—did better still. But once again you were going backward when you needed to be going forwards.<blockquote>公用事业股表现不佳，但表现较好。短期票据——国库券——表现更好。但是当你需要前进的时候，你又一次倒退了。</blockquote> No one who remembers the 1970s will be surprised that energy companies boomed. Less well-remembered, maybe, is that REITs also did pretty well. These numbers, incidentally, represented property-owning REITs and excluded mortgage REITs, which own loans.<blockquote>任何记得20世纪70年代的人都不会对能源公司的蓬勃发展感到惊讶。也许不太为人所知的是，房地产投资信托基金的表现也相当不错。顺便说一句，这些数字代表拥有财产的房地产投资信托基金，不包括拥有贷款的抵押房地产投资信托基金。</blockquote> But there are two caveats to this. The first is that of course energy stocks did well, because a key driver of inflation in the 1970s was the rise of OPEC and two oil embargoes it imposed on the West for political reasons. Cue Heraclitus. There is no particular reason to assume that the next inflationary surge will be the same.<blockquote>但对此有两个警告。首先，能源股当然表现良好，因为20世纪70年代通胀的一个关键驱动因素是欧佩克的崛起及其出于政治原因对西方实施的两次石油禁运。提示赫拉克利特。没有特别的理由假设下一次通胀飙升会是一样的。</blockquote> The second caveat is that although REITs ended up doing well, they were volatile along the way. In particular, REIT prices collapsed in the OPEC-driven recession of 1972-4. And according to FactSet, U.S. REITs today already look pretty expensive on some measures. For instance it reckons that the forecast dividend yield on the Vanguard Real Estate ETF (a reasonable benchmark for the industry) is just 2.9% — by far the lowest since it was launched in 2004. Looking through NAREIT data, I can’t find a moment since 1971 when the overall yield on REITs was this low. During the real estate bubble in 2007, incidentally, the yield bottomed out no lower than 3.6%<blockquote>第二个警告是，尽管房地产投资信托基金最终表现良好，但一路上波动较大。特别是，房地产投资信托基金价格在1972-1974年欧佩克引发的经济衰退中暴跌。根据FactSet的数据，从某些指标来看，如今的美国房地产投资信托基金看起来已经相当昂贵。例如，它估计Vanguard Real Estate ETF（该行业的合理基准）的预测股息收益率仅为2.9%，是自2004年推出以来的最低水平。翻阅NAREIT数据，自1971年以来，我找不到REITs整体收益率如此之低的时刻。2007年房地产泡沫期间，顺带一提，收益率见底不低于3.6%</blockquote> So it may be that REITs offer less inflation protection today than we would hope.<blockquote>因此，如今房地产投资信托基金提供的通胀保护可能比我们希望的要少。</blockquote> One key difference in the 1970s is that there were no “inflation-protected” Treasury bonds to keep investors protected. So-called TIPS are in theory almost the perfect investment for retirees. They are issued by the U.S. government and their coupons are safe against default. Meanwhile their coupons effectively adjust to reflect changes in consumer prices.<blockquote>20世纪70年代的一个关键区别是，没有“通胀保值”国债来保护投资者。理论上，所谓的小费几乎是退休人员的完美投资。它们由美国政府发行，其优惠券不会违约。与此同时，他们的优惠券有效地调整以反映消费价格的变化。</blockquote> The problem today is that TIPS—like almost everything else in the bond market—look incredibly expensive. Most TIPS already lock in an actual loss of purchasing power if you buy them today. For example if you buy 5 year TIPS bonds and hold them for 5 years you’ll end up losing 9% of your purchasing power. And 30-year TIPS bonds offer the same 9% loss, though stretched out over 30 years.<blockquote>今天的问题是，TIPS——就像债券市场上的几乎所有东西一样——看起来非常昂贵。如果你今天购买，大多数建议已经锁定了购买力的实际损失。例如，如果你购买5年期TIPS债券并持有5年，你最终会损失9%的购买力。30年期TIPS债券的损失同样为9%，尽管期限延长了30年。</blockquote> It’s not very compelling. And it shows the risks that the government’s policy responses have created for those in retirement and near it.<blockquote>这不是很引人注目。它还显示了政府的政策应对给退休和接近退休年龄的人带来的风险。</blockquote>","source":"market_watch","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Worried about inflation? Here’s how investments did in the 1970s<blockquote>担心通货膨胀？以下是20世纪70年代的投资表现</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWorried about inflation? Here’s how investments did in the 1970s<blockquote>担心通货膨胀？以下是20世纪70年代的投资表现</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nMarketwatch2021-07-20 11:29\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\nIn the 1990s movie The Shipping News, an old newspaperman explains to Kevin Spacey how to cover the news. If there is a storm visible anywhere, he explains, you write “Storm threatens the town,” even if the storm is nowhere near and is unlikely to hit. If—as expected—the storm never hits, you just write the follow up: “Town spared by storm.”<blockquote>在20世纪90年代的电影《航运新闻》中，一位老记者向凯文·史派西解释如何报道新闻。他解释说，如果任何地方都有可见的风暴，你就会写“风暴威胁着城镇”，即使风暴不在附近，也不太可能来袭。如果——正如预期的那样——风暴从未袭击，你只需写下后续内容：“城镇幸免于风暴。”</blockquote> Readers may be excused for thinking something similar about the latest stories about looming, threatening, surging, terrifying inflation. Yes, the inflation forecasts were surging months ago, and hit 8-year highs. Had they continued there would be grounds to worry. But they haven’t continued. On the contrary, they’ve been falling for two months. The bond market’s 5-year inflation forecast is now lower than it was in mid-March. The market sees five-year inflation running at around 2.6%. That’s higher than we’ve been used to for a decade, but it’s nothing to cause any significant alarm.<blockquote>读者可能会对最近关于迫在眉睫、威胁、飙升、可怕的通货膨胀的故事有类似的想法。是的，几个月前通胀预测飙升，并创下8年来的新高。如果他们继续下去，就有理由担心。但他们没有继续。相反，他们已经下跌了两个月。债券市场的5年通胀预期现在低于3月中旬。市场预计五年通胀率约为2.6%。这比我们十年来所习惯的要高，但这并没有引起任何重大恐慌。</blockquote> That can change, of course. Maybe it will. We’ll see.<blockquote>当然，这种情况可能会改变。也许会。我们走着瞧。</blockquote> But with all this talk I got to thinking about the obvious question. If serious inflation really does hit, what can we do about it? How can we protect our investments?<blockquote>但是通过这些谈话，我开始思考一个显而易见的问题。如果严重的通货膨胀真的来袭，我们能做些什么呢？我们如何保护我们的投资？</blockquote> That’s an especially key question for today’s retirees and those expecting to retire soon. When we’re older we’re generally advised to keep most of our money in more “conservative” investments, meaning things like bonds, that involve less risk. Someone in their 20s or 30s may not worry unduly if their retirement savings plunge 30% in a market rout or an inflationary spiral. For someone in their 60s, let alone older, that can become a major financial crisis.<blockquote>对于今天的退休人员和那些预计很快退休的人来说，这是一个特别关键的问题。当我们长大后，通常建议我们将大部分资金投资于更“保守”的投资，即债券等风险较小的投资。如果20多岁或30多岁的人的退休储蓄在市场暴跌或通胀螺旋中暴跌30%，他们可能不会过度担心。对于60多岁的人来说，更不用说老年人了，这可能会成为一场重大的财务危机。</blockquote> So I went back and dug up the information from the last, infamous inflationary spiral in the 1970s, when consumer price inflation often topped 10% a year. The Greek philosopher Heraclitus pointed out that no one ever walks through the same stream twice, because the second time it’s not the same stream, and we’re not the same person. Everything changes. There is no guarantee the next inflationary boom, even if it happens, will look anything like the last one — any more than we should assume that it will be accompanied by outbreaks of disco music and flared jeans.<blockquote>因此，我回去挖掘了20世纪70年代上一次臭名昭著的通胀螺旋的信息，当时消费者价格通胀经常超过每年10%。希腊哲学家赫拉克利特指出，没有人会两次走过同一条小溪，因为第二次就不是同一条小溪了，我们也不是同一个人了。一切都变了。不能保证下一次通胀繁荣，即使发生了，看起来也会像上一次一样——就像我们不应该假设它会伴随着迪斯科音乐和喇叭牛仔裤的爆发一样。</blockquote> Nonetheless the chart above shows the total returns, after adjusting for inflation, of various asset classes from December 1971 to December 1981. (I used those dates because the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, or NAREIT, starts their data series then.) The data on energy stocks came from data compiled by professor Ken French at Dartmouth College’s Tuck School of Business.<blockquote>尽管如此，上图显示了1971年12月至1981年12月各种资产类别经通胀调整后的总回报。（我使用这些日期是因为全国房地产投资信托协会（NAREIT）在那时开始他们的数据系列。）能源股的数据来自达特茅斯学院塔克商学院肯·弗伦奇教授汇编的数据。</blockquote> This is what happened to your purchasing power if you invested in these assets and hung on for 10 years. (I’ve excluded gold, which is a different story.)<blockquote>如果你投资这些资产并坚持10年，你的购买力就会发生这种情况。（我已经排除了黄金，这是一个不同的故事。）</blockquote> The key standout is that you really didn’t want to own Treasury bonds. The near 40% loss of purchasing power over 10 years is somewhat notional—it is derived from the compound annual returns on 10 Year Treasurys compiled by New York University’s Stern School of Business, divided by the consumer-price index—but tells a story nonetheless. (In Great Britain, where inflation was even worse, government bonds during the 1970s became known as “certificates of confiscation.” Ouch.)<blockquote>关键的突出之处在于，你真的不想拥有国债。10年内购买力损失近40%在某种程度上是名义上的——它来自纽约大学斯特恩商学院编制的10年期美国国债的复合年回报率除以消费者价格指数——但仍然讲述了一个故事。（在通货膨胀更严重的英国，20世纪70年代的政府债券被称为“没收证书”。哎哟。）</blockquote> Holding them cost you money. Lots of it.<blockquote>拿着它们要花钱。很多。</blockquote> You could argue that the danger today is even greater, simply because the yields on long-term Treasury bonds are so low. Federal Reserve quantitative easing, bond buying, and zero interest-rate policies have left Treasury yields at their lowest on record—which means the turns would be a disaster if inflation reared its head.<blockquote>你可能会说，今天的危险甚至更大，仅仅是因为长期国债的收益率如此之低。美联储的量化宽松、债券购买和零利率政策使美国国债收益率处于有记录以来的最低水平——这意味着如果通胀抬头，这将是一场灾难。</blockquote> Corporate bonds and the S&amp;P 500&nbsp;were also terrible investments. It’s worth remembering that these are real term losses over a decade, which means investors didn’t just lose a lot of money—they also lost a lot of time.<blockquote>公司债券和标普500也是糟糕的投资。值得记住的是，这些是十年来的实际定期损失，这意味着投资者不仅损失了很多钱，还损失了很多时间。</blockquote> Utility stocks weren’t great, but they held up better. And Treasury bills—short-term paper—did better still. But once again you were going backward when you needed to be going forwards.<blockquote>公用事业股表现不佳，但表现较好。短期票据——国库券——表现更好。但是当你需要前进的时候，你又一次倒退了。</blockquote> No one who remembers the 1970s will be surprised that energy companies boomed. Less well-remembered, maybe, is that REITs also did pretty well. These numbers, incidentally, represented property-owning REITs and excluded mortgage REITs, which own loans.<blockquote>任何记得20世纪70年代的人都不会对能源公司的蓬勃发展感到惊讶。也许不太为人所知的是，房地产投资信托基金的表现也相当不错。顺便说一句，这些数字代表拥有财产的房地产投资信托基金，不包括拥有贷款的抵押房地产投资信托基金。</blockquote> But there are two caveats to this. The first is that of course energy stocks did well, because a key driver of inflation in the 1970s was the rise of OPEC and two oil embargoes it imposed on the West for political reasons. Cue Heraclitus. There is no particular reason to assume that the next inflationary surge will be the same.<blockquote>但对此有两个警告。首先，能源股当然表现良好，因为20世纪70年代通胀的一个关键驱动因素是欧佩克的崛起及其出于政治原因对西方实施的两次石油禁运。提示赫拉克利特。没有特别的理由假设下一次通胀飙升会是一样的。</blockquote> The second caveat is that although REITs ended up doing well, they were volatile along the way. In particular, REIT prices collapsed in the OPEC-driven recession of 1972-4. And according to FactSet, U.S. REITs today already look pretty expensive on some measures. For instance it reckons that the forecast dividend yield on the Vanguard Real Estate ETF (a reasonable benchmark for the industry) is just 2.9% — by far the lowest since it was launched in 2004. Looking through NAREIT data, I can’t find a moment since 1971 when the overall yield on REITs was this low. During the real estate bubble in 2007, incidentally, the yield bottomed out no lower than 3.6%<blockquote>第二个警告是，尽管房地产投资信托基金最终表现良好，但一路上波动较大。特别是，房地产投资信托基金价格在1972-1974年欧佩克引发的经济衰退中暴跌。根据FactSet的数据，从某些指标来看，如今的美国房地产投资信托基金看起来已经相当昂贵。例如，它估计Vanguard Real Estate ETF（该行业的合理基准）的预测股息收益率仅为2.9%，是自2004年推出以来的最低水平。翻阅NAREIT数据，自1971年以来，我找不到REITs整体收益率如此之低的时刻。2007年房地产泡沫期间，顺带一提，收益率见底不低于3.6%</blockquote> So it may be that REITs offer less inflation protection today than we would hope.<blockquote>因此，如今房地产投资信托基金提供的通胀保护可能比我们希望的要少。</blockquote> One key difference in the 1970s is that there were no “inflation-protected” Treasury bonds to keep investors protected. So-called TIPS are in theory almost the perfect investment for retirees. They are issued by the U.S. government and their coupons are safe against default. Meanwhile their coupons effectively adjust to reflect changes in consumer prices.<blockquote>20世纪70年代的一个关键区别是，没有“通胀保值”国债来保护投资者。理论上，所谓的小费几乎是退休人员的完美投资。它们由美国政府发行，其优惠券不会违约。与此同时，他们的优惠券有效地调整以反映消费价格的变化。</blockquote> The problem today is that TIPS—like almost everything else in the bond market—look incredibly expensive. Most TIPS already lock in an actual loss of purchasing power if you buy them today. For example if you buy 5 year TIPS bonds and hold them for 5 years you’ll end up losing 9% of your purchasing power. And 30-year TIPS bonds offer the same 9% loss, though stretched out over 30 years.<blockquote>今天的问题是，TIPS——就像债券市场上的几乎所有东西一样——看起来非常昂贵。如果你今天购买，大多数建议已经锁定了购买力的实际损失。例如，如果你购买5年期TIPS债券并持有5年，你最终会损失9%的购买力。30年期TIPS债券的损失同样为9%，尽管期限延长了30年。</blockquote> It’s not very compelling. And it shows the risks that the government’s policy responses have created for those in retirement and near it.<blockquote>这不是很引人注目。它还显示了政府的政策应对给退休和接近退休年龄的人带来的风险。</blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/worried-about-inflation-heres-how-investments-did-in-the-1970s-11626658251?siteid=yhoof2\">Marketwatch</a>\n为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".SPX":"S&P 500 Index","XOM":"埃克森美孚"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/worried-about-inflation-heres-how-investments-did-in-the-1970s-11626658251?siteid=yhoof2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/599a65733b8245fcf7868668ef9ad712","article_id":"1129846769","content_text":"In the 1990s movie The Shipping News, an old newspaperman explains to Kevin Spacey how to cover the news. If there is a storm visible anywhere, he explains, you write “Storm threatens the town,” even if the storm is nowhere near and is unlikely to hit. If—as expected—the storm never hits, you just write the follow up: “Town spared by storm.”\nReaders may be excused for thinking something similar about the latest stories about looming, threatening, surging, terrifying inflation. Yes, the inflation forecasts were surging months ago, and hit 8-year highs. Had they continued there would be grounds to worry. But they haven’t continued. On the contrary, they’ve been falling for two months. The bond market’s 5-year inflation forecast is now lower than it was in mid-March. The market sees five-year inflation running at around 2.6%. That’s higher than we’ve been used to for a decade, but it’s nothing to cause any significant alarm.\nThat can change, of course. Maybe it will. We’ll see.\nBut with all this talk I got to thinking about the obvious question. If serious inflation really does hit, what can we do about it? How can we protect our investments?\nThat’s an especially key question for today’s retirees and those expecting to retire soon. When we’re older we’re generally advised to keep most of our money in more “conservative” investments, meaning things like bonds, that involve less risk. Someone in their 20s or 30s may not worry unduly if their retirement savings plunge 30% in a market rout or an inflationary spiral. For someone in their 60s, let alone older, that can become a major financial crisis.\nSo I went back and dug up the information from the last, infamous inflationary spiral in the 1970s, when consumer price inflation often topped 10% a year. The Greek philosopher Heraclitus pointed out that no one ever walks through the same stream twice, because the second time it’s not the same stream, and we’re not the same person. Everything changes. There is no guarantee the next inflationary boom, even if it happens, will look anything like the last one — any more than we should assume that it will be accompanied by outbreaks of disco music and flared jeans.\nNonetheless the chart above shows the total returns, after adjusting for inflation, of various asset classes from December 1971 to December 1981. (I used those dates because the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, or NAREIT, starts their data series then.) The data on energy stocks came from data compiled by professor Ken French at Dartmouth College’s Tuck School of Business.\nThis is what happened to your purchasing power if you invested in these assets and hung on for 10 years. (I’ve excluded gold, which is a different story.)\nThe key standout is that you really didn’t want to own Treasury bonds. The near 40% loss of purchasing power over 10 years is somewhat notional—it is derived from the compound annual returns on 10 Year Treasurys compiled by New York University’s Stern School of Business, divided by the consumer-price index—but tells a story nonetheless. (In Great Britain, where inflation was even worse, government bonds during the 1970s became known as “certificates of confiscation.” Ouch.)\nHolding them cost you money. Lots of it.\nYou could argue that the danger today is even greater, simply because the yields on long-term Treasury bonds are so low. Federal Reserve quantitative easing, bond buying, and zero interest-rate policies have left Treasury yields at their lowest on record—which means the turns would be a disaster if inflation reared its head.\nCorporate bonds and the S&P 500 were also terrible investments. It’s worth remembering that these are real term losses over a decade, which means investors didn’t just lose a lot of money—they also lost a lot of time.\nUtility stocks weren’t great, but they held up better. And Treasury bills—short-term paper—did better still. But once again you were going backward when you needed to be going forwards.\nNo one who remembers the 1970s will be surprised that energy companies boomed. Less well-remembered, maybe, is that REITs also did pretty well. These numbers, incidentally, represented property-owning REITs and excluded mortgage REITs, which own loans.\nBut there are two caveats to this. The first is that of course energy stocks did well, because a key driver of inflation in the 1970s was the rise of OPEC and two oil embargoes it imposed on the West for political reasons. Cue Heraclitus. There is no particular reason to assume that the next inflationary surge will be the same.\nThe second caveat is that although REITs ended up doing well, they were volatile along the way. In particular, REIT prices collapsed in the OPEC-driven recession of 1972-4. And according to FactSet, U.S. REITs today already look pretty expensive on some measures. For instance it reckons that the forecast dividend yield on the Vanguard Real Estate ETF (a reasonable benchmark for the industry) is just 2.9% — by far the lowest since it was launched in 2004. Looking through NAREIT data, I can’t find a moment since 1971 when the overall yield on REITs was this low. During the real estate bubble in 2007, incidentally, the yield bottomed out no lower than 3.6%\nSo it may be that REITs offer less inflation protection today than we would hope.\nOne key difference in the 1970s is that there were no “inflation-protected” Treasury bonds to keep investors protected. So-called TIPS are in theory almost the perfect investment for retirees. They are issued by the U.S. government and their coupons are safe against default. Meanwhile their coupons effectively adjust to reflect changes in consumer prices.\nThe problem today is that TIPS—like almost everything else in the bond market—look incredibly expensive. Most TIPS already lock in an actual loss of purchasing power if you buy them today. For example if you buy 5 year TIPS bonds and hold them for 5 years you’ll end up losing 9% of your purchasing power. And 30-year TIPS bonds offer the same 9% loss, though stretched out over 30 years.\nIt’s not very compelling. And it shows the risks that the government’s policy responses have created for those in retirement and near it.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{".SPX":0.9,"XOM":0.9}},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":171448475,"gmtCreate":1626759824597,"gmtModify":1633771277691,"author":{"id":"3569232528431910","authorId":"3569232528431910","name":"Kelzz","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/ae9c1aa2f12f5072e158a0f61fabb3e4","vip":1,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3569232528431910","authorIdStr":"3569232528431910"},"htmlText":"[微笑]&nbsp;","listText":"[微笑]&nbsp;","text":"[微笑]","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/171448475","repostId":1129846769,"repostType":4,"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"CN"},{"id":171452688,"gmtCreate":1626759019445,"gmtModify":1633771284921,"author":{"id":"4087965431046850","authorId":"4087965431046850","name":"Cklvin","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/6005df9be4235fa1ab7087f5e7a50ed2","vip":1,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"4087965431046850","authorIdStr":"4087965431046850"},"htmlText":"Good info","listText":"Good info","text":"Good info","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/171452688","repostId":1129846769,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1129846769","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1626751789,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1129846769?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-07-20 11:29","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Worried about inflation? Here’s how investments did in the 1970s<blockquote>担心通货膨胀？以下是20世纪70年代的投资表现</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1129846769","media":"Marketwatch","summary":"In the 1990s movie The Shipping News, an old newspaperman explains to Kevin Spacey how to cover the ","content":"In the 1990s movie The Shipping News, an old newspaperman explains to Kevin Spacey how to cover the news. If there is a storm visible anywhere, he explains, you write “Storm threatens the town,” even if the storm is nowhere near and is unlikely to hit. If—as expected—the storm never hits, you just write the follow up: “Town spared by storm.”<blockquote>在20世纪90年代的电影《航运新闻》中，一位老记者向凯文·史派西解释如何报道新闻。他解释说，如果任何地方都有可见的风暴，你就会写“风暴威胁着城镇”，即使风暴不在附近，也不太可能来袭。如果——正如预期的那样——风暴从未袭击，你只需写下后续内容：“城镇幸免于风暴。”</blockquote> Readers may be excused for thinking something similar about the latest stories about looming, threatening, surging, terrifying inflation. Yes, the inflation forecasts were surging months ago, and hit 8-year highs. Had they continued there would be grounds to worry. But they haven’t continued. On the contrary, they’ve been falling for two months. The bond market’s 5-year inflation forecast is now lower than it was in mid-March. The market sees five-year inflation running at around 2.6%. That’s higher than we’ve been used to for a decade, but it’s nothing to cause any significant alarm.<blockquote>读者可能会对最近关于迫在眉睫、威胁、飙升、可怕的通货膨胀的故事有类似的想法。是的，几个月前通胀预测飙升，并创下8年来的新高。如果他们继续下去，就有理由担心。但他们没有继续。相反，他们已经下跌了两个月。债券市场的5年通胀预期现在低于3月中旬。市场预计五年通胀率约为2.6%。这比我们十年来所习惯的要高，但这并没有引起任何重大恐慌。</blockquote> That can change, of course. Maybe it will. We’ll see.<blockquote>当然，这种情况可能会改变。也许会。我们走着瞧。</blockquote> But with all this talk I got to thinking about the obvious question. If serious inflation really does hit, what can we do about it? How can we protect our investments?<blockquote>但是通过这些谈话，我开始思考一个显而易见的问题。如果严重的通货膨胀真的来袭，我们能做些什么呢？我们如何保护我们的投资？</blockquote> That’s an especially key question for today’s retirees and those expecting to retire soon. When we’re older we’re generally advised to keep most of our money in more “conservative” investments, meaning things like bonds, that involve less risk. Someone in their 20s or 30s may not worry unduly if their retirement savings plunge 30% in a market rout or an inflationary spiral. For someone in their 60s, let alone older, that can become a major financial crisis.<blockquote>对于今天的退休人员和那些预计很快退休的人来说，这是一个特别关键的问题。当我们长大后，通常建议我们将大部分资金投资于更“保守”的投资，即债券等风险较小的投资。如果20多岁或30多岁的人的退休储蓄在市场暴跌或通胀螺旋中暴跌30%，他们可能不会过度担心。对于60多岁的人来说，更不用说老年人了，这可能会成为一场重大的财务危机。</blockquote> So I went back and dug up the information from the last, infamous inflationary spiral in the 1970s, when consumer price inflation often topped 10% a year. The Greek philosopher Heraclitus pointed out that no one ever walks through the same stream twice, because the second time it’s not the same stream, and we’re not the same person. Everything changes. There is no guarantee the next inflationary boom, even if it happens, will look anything like the last one — any more than we should assume that it will be accompanied by outbreaks of disco music and flared jeans.<blockquote>因此，我回去挖掘了20世纪70年代上一次臭名昭著的通胀螺旋的信息，当时消费者价格通胀经常超过每年10%。希腊哲学家赫拉克利特指出，没有人会两次走过同一条小溪，因为第二次就不是同一条小溪了，我们也不是同一个人了。一切都变了。不能保证下一次通胀繁荣，即使发生了，看起来也会像上一次一样——就像我们不应该假设它会伴随着迪斯科音乐和喇叭牛仔裤的爆发一样。</blockquote> Nonetheless the chart above shows the total returns, after adjusting for inflation, of various asset classes from December 1971 to December 1981. (I used those dates because the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, or NAREIT, starts their data series then.) The data on energy stocks came from data compiled by professor Ken French at Dartmouth College’s Tuck School of Business.<blockquote>尽管如此，上图显示了1971年12月至1981年12月各种资产类别经通胀调整后的总回报。（我使用这些日期是因为全国房地产投资信托协会（NAREIT）在那时开始他们的数据系列。）能源股的数据来自达特茅斯学院塔克商学院肯·弗伦奇教授汇编的数据。</blockquote> This is what happened to your purchasing power if you invested in these assets and hung on for 10 years. (I’ve excluded gold, which is a different story.)<blockquote>如果你投资这些资产并坚持10年，你的购买力就会发生这种情况。（我已经排除了黄金，这是一个不同的故事。）</blockquote> The key standout is that you really didn’t want to own Treasury bonds. The near 40% loss of purchasing power over 10 years is somewhat notional—it is derived from the compound annual returns on 10 Year Treasurys compiled by New York University’s Stern School of Business, divided by the consumer-price index—but tells a story nonetheless. (In Great Britain, where inflation was even worse, government bonds during the 1970s became known as “certificates of confiscation.” Ouch.)<blockquote>关键的突出之处在于，你真的不想拥有国债。10年内购买力损失近40%在某种程度上是名义上的——它来自纽约大学斯特恩商学院编制的10年期美国国债的复合年回报率除以消费者价格指数——但仍然讲述了一个故事。（在通货膨胀更严重的英国，20世纪70年代的政府债券被称为“没收证书”。哎哟。）</blockquote> Holding them cost you money. Lots of it.<blockquote>拿着它们要花钱。很多。</blockquote> You could argue that the danger today is even greater, simply because the yields on long-term Treasury bonds are so low. Federal Reserve quantitative easing, bond buying, and zero interest-rate policies have left Treasury yields at their lowest on record—which means the turns would be a disaster if inflation reared its head.<blockquote>你可能会说，今天的危险甚至更大，仅仅是因为长期国债的收益率如此之低。美联储的量化宽松、债券购买和零利率政策使美国国债收益率处于有记录以来的最低水平——这意味着如果通胀抬头，这将是一场灾难。</blockquote> Corporate bonds and the S&amp;P 500&nbsp;were also terrible investments. It’s worth remembering that these are real term losses over a decade, which means investors didn’t just lose a lot of money—they also lost a lot of time.<blockquote>公司债券和标普500也是糟糕的投资。值得记住的是，这些是十年来的实际定期损失，这意味着投资者不仅损失了很多钱，还损失了很多时间。</blockquote> Utility stocks weren’t great, but they held up better. And Treasury bills—short-term paper—did better still. But once again you were going backward when you needed to be going forwards.<blockquote>公用事业股表现不佳，但表现较好。短期票据——国库券——表现更好。但是当你需要前进的时候，你又一次倒退了。</blockquote> No one who remembers the 1970s will be surprised that energy companies boomed. Less well-remembered, maybe, is that REITs also did pretty well. These numbers, incidentally, represented property-owning REITs and excluded mortgage REITs, which own loans.<blockquote>任何记得20世纪70年代的人都不会对能源公司的蓬勃发展感到惊讶。也许不太为人所知的是，房地产投资信托基金的表现也相当不错。顺便说一句，这些数字代表拥有财产的房地产投资信托基金，不包括拥有贷款的抵押房地产投资信托基金。</blockquote> But there are two caveats to this. The first is that of course energy stocks did well, because a key driver of inflation in the 1970s was the rise of OPEC and two oil embargoes it imposed on the West for political reasons. Cue Heraclitus. There is no particular reason to assume that the next inflationary surge will be the same.<blockquote>但对此有两个警告。首先，能源股当然表现良好，因为20世纪70年代通胀的一个关键驱动因素是欧佩克的崛起及其出于政治原因对西方实施的两次石油禁运。提示赫拉克利特。没有特别的理由假设下一次通胀飙升会是一样的。</blockquote> The second caveat is that although REITs ended up doing well, they were volatile along the way. In particular, REIT prices collapsed in the OPEC-driven recession of 1972-4. And according to FactSet, U.S. REITs today already look pretty expensive on some measures. For instance it reckons that the forecast dividend yield on the Vanguard Real Estate ETF (a reasonable benchmark for the industry) is just 2.9% — by far the lowest since it was launched in 2004. Looking through NAREIT data, I can’t find a moment since 1971 when the overall yield on REITs was this low. During the real estate bubble in 2007, incidentally, the yield bottomed out no lower than 3.6%<blockquote>第二个警告是，尽管房地产投资信托基金最终表现良好，但一路上波动较大。特别是，房地产投资信托基金价格在1972-1974年欧佩克引发的经济衰退中暴跌。根据FactSet的数据，从某些指标来看，如今的美国房地产投资信托基金看起来已经相当昂贵。例如，它估计Vanguard Real Estate ETF（该行业的合理基准）的预测股息收益率仅为2.9%，是自2004年推出以来的最低水平。翻阅NAREIT数据，自1971年以来，我找不到REITs整体收益率如此之低的时刻。2007年房地产泡沫期间，顺带一提，收益率见底不低于3.6%</blockquote> So it may be that REITs offer less inflation protection today than we would hope.<blockquote>因此，如今房地产投资信托基金提供的通胀保护可能比我们希望的要少。</blockquote> One key difference in the 1970s is that there were no “inflation-protected” Treasury bonds to keep investors protected. So-called TIPS are in theory almost the perfect investment for retirees. They are issued by the U.S. government and their coupons are safe against default. Meanwhile their coupons effectively adjust to reflect changes in consumer prices.<blockquote>20世纪70年代的一个关键区别是，没有“通胀保值”国债来保护投资者。理论上，所谓的小费几乎是退休人员的完美投资。它们由美国政府发行，其优惠券不会违约。与此同时，他们的优惠券有效地调整以反映消费价格的变化。</blockquote> The problem today is that TIPS—like almost everything else in the bond market—look incredibly expensive. Most TIPS already lock in an actual loss of purchasing power if you buy them today. For example if you buy 5 year TIPS bonds and hold them for 5 years you’ll end up losing 9% of your purchasing power. And 30-year TIPS bonds offer the same 9% loss, though stretched out over 30 years.<blockquote>今天的问题是，TIPS——就像债券市场上的几乎所有东西一样——看起来非常昂贵。如果你今天购买，大多数建议已经锁定了购买力的实际损失。例如，如果你购买5年期TIPS债券并持有5年，你最终会损失9%的购买力。30年期TIPS债券的损失同样为9%，尽管期限延长了30年。</blockquote> It’s not very compelling. And it shows the risks that the government’s policy responses have created for those in retirement and near it.<blockquote>这不是很引人注目。它还显示了政府的政策应对给退休和接近退休年龄的人带来的风险。</blockquote>","source":"market_watch","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Worried about inflation? Here’s how investments did in the 1970s<blockquote>担心通货膨胀？以下是20世纪70年代的投资表现</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWorried about inflation? Here’s how investments did in the 1970s<blockquote>担心通货膨胀？以下是20世纪70年代的投资表现</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nMarketwatch2021-07-20 11:29\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\nIn the 1990s movie The Shipping News, an old newspaperman explains to Kevin Spacey how to cover the news. If there is a storm visible anywhere, he explains, you write “Storm threatens the town,” even if the storm is nowhere near and is unlikely to hit. If—as expected—the storm never hits, you just write the follow up: “Town spared by storm.”<blockquote>在20世纪90年代的电影《航运新闻》中，一位老记者向凯文·史派西解释如何报道新闻。他解释说，如果任何地方都有可见的风暴，你就会写“风暴威胁着城镇”，即使风暴不在附近，也不太可能来袭。如果——正如预期的那样——风暴从未袭击，你只需写下后续内容：“城镇幸免于风暴。”</blockquote> Readers may be excused for thinking something similar about the latest stories about looming, threatening, surging, terrifying inflation. Yes, the inflation forecasts were surging months ago, and hit 8-year highs. Had they continued there would be grounds to worry. But they haven’t continued. On the contrary, they’ve been falling for two months. The bond market’s 5-year inflation forecast is now lower than it was in mid-March. The market sees five-year inflation running at around 2.6%. That’s higher than we’ve been used to for a decade, but it’s nothing to cause any significant alarm.<blockquote>读者可能会对最近关于迫在眉睫、威胁、飙升、可怕的通货膨胀的故事有类似的想法。是的，几个月前通胀预测飙升，并创下8年来的新高。如果他们继续下去，就有理由担心。但他们没有继续。相反，他们已经下跌了两个月。债券市场的5年通胀预期现在低于3月中旬。市场预计五年通胀率约为2.6%。这比我们十年来所习惯的要高，但这并没有引起任何重大恐慌。</blockquote> That can change, of course. Maybe it will. We’ll see.<blockquote>当然，这种情况可能会改变。也许会。我们走着瞧。</blockquote> But with all this talk I got to thinking about the obvious question. If serious inflation really does hit, what can we do about it? How can we protect our investments?<blockquote>但是通过这些谈话，我开始思考一个显而易见的问题。如果严重的通货膨胀真的来袭，我们能做些什么呢？我们如何保护我们的投资？</blockquote> That’s an especially key question for today’s retirees and those expecting to retire soon. When we’re older we’re generally advised to keep most of our money in more “conservative” investments, meaning things like bonds, that involve less risk. Someone in their 20s or 30s may not worry unduly if their retirement savings plunge 30% in a market rout or an inflationary spiral. For someone in their 60s, let alone older, that can become a major financial crisis.<blockquote>对于今天的退休人员和那些预计很快退休的人来说，这是一个特别关键的问题。当我们长大后，通常建议我们将大部分资金投资于更“保守”的投资，即债券等风险较小的投资。如果20多岁或30多岁的人的退休储蓄在市场暴跌或通胀螺旋中暴跌30%，他们可能不会过度担心。对于60多岁的人来说，更不用说老年人了，这可能会成为一场重大的财务危机。</blockquote> So I went back and dug up the information from the last, infamous inflationary spiral in the 1970s, when consumer price inflation often topped 10% a year. The Greek philosopher Heraclitus pointed out that no one ever walks through the same stream twice, because the second time it’s not the same stream, and we’re not the same person. Everything changes. There is no guarantee the next inflationary boom, even if it happens, will look anything like the last one — any more than we should assume that it will be accompanied by outbreaks of disco music and flared jeans.<blockquote>因此，我回去挖掘了20世纪70年代上一次臭名昭著的通胀螺旋的信息，当时消费者价格通胀经常超过每年10%。希腊哲学家赫拉克利特指出，没有人会两次走过同一条小溪，因为第二次就不是同一条小溪了，我们也不是同一个人了。一切都变了。不能保证下一次通胀繁荣，即使发生了，看起来也会像上一次一样——就像我们不应该假设它会伴随着迪斯科音乐和喇叭牛仔裤的爆发一样。</blockquote> Nonetheless the chart above shows the total returns, after adjusting for inflation, of various asset classes from December 1971 to December 1981. (I used those dates because the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, or NAREIT, starts their data series then.) The data on energy stocks came from data compiled by professor Ken French at Dartmouth College’s Tuck School of Business.<blockquote>尽管如此，上图显示了1971年12月至1981年12月各种资产类别经通胀调整后的总回报。（我使用这些日期是因为全国房地产投资信托协会（NAREIT）在那时开始他们的数据系列。）能源股的数据来自达特茅斯学院塔克商学院肯·弗伦奇教授汇编的数据。</blockquote> This is what happened to your purchasing power if you invested in these assets and hung on for 10 years. (I’ve excluded gold, which is a different story.)<blockquote>如果你投资这些资产并坚持10年，你的购买力就会发生这种情况。（我已经排除了黄金，这是一个不同的故事。）</blockquote> The key standout is that you really didn’t want to own Treasury bonds. The near 40% loss of purchasing power over 10 years is somewhat notional—it is derived from the compound annual returns on 10 Year Treasurys compiled by New York University’s Stern School of Business, divided by the consumer-price index—but tells a story nonetheless. (In Great Britain, where inflation was even worse, government bonds during the 1970s became known as “certificates of confiscation.” Ouch.)<blockquote>关键的突出之处在于，你真的不想拥有国债。10年内购买力损失近40%在某种程度上是名义上的——它来自纽约大学斯特恩商学院编制的10年期美国国债的复合年回报率除以消费者价格指数——但仍然讲述了一个故事。（在通货膨胀更严重的英国，20世纪70年代的政府债券被称为“没收证书”。哎哟。）</blockquote> Holding them cost you money. Lots of it.<blockquote>拿着它们要花钱。很多。</blockquote> You could argue that the danger today is even greater, simply because the yields on long-term Treasury bonds are so low. Federal Reserve quantitative easing, bond buying, and zero interest-rate policies have left Treasury yields at their lowest on record—which means the turns would be a disaster if inflation reared its head.<blockquote>你可能会说，今天的危险甚至更大，仅仅是因为长期国债的收益率如此之低。美联储的量化宽松、债券购买和零利率政策使美国国债收益率处于有记录以来的最低水平——这意味着如果通胀抬头，这将是一场灾难。</blockquote> Corporate bonds and the S&amp;P 500&nbsp;were also terrible investments. It’s worth remembering that these are real term losses over a decade, which means investors didn’t just lose a lot of money—they also lost a lot of time.<blockquote>公司债券和标普500也是糟糕的投资。值得记住的是，这些是十年来的实际定期损失，这意味着投资者不仅损失了很多钱，还损失了很多时间。</blockquote> Utility stocks weren’t great, but they held up better. And Treasury bills—short-term paper—did better still. But once again you were going backward when you needed to be going forwards.<blockquote>公用事业股表现不佳，但表现较好。短期票据——国库券——表现更好。但是当你需要前进的时候，你又一次倒退了。</blockquote> No one who remembers the 1970s will be surprised that energy companies boomed. Less well-remembered, maybe, is that REITs also did pretty well. These numbers, incidentally, represented property-owning REITs and excluded mortgage REITs, which own loans.<blockquote>任何记得20世纪70年代的人都不会对能源公司的蓬勃发展感到惊讶。也许不太为人所知的是，房地产投资信托基金的表现也相当不错。顺便说一句，这些数字代表拥有财产的房地产投资信托基金，不包括拥有贷款的抵押房地产投资信托基金。</blockquote> But there are two caveats to this. The first is that of course energy stocks did well, because a key driver of inflation in the 1970s was the rise of OPEC and two oil embargoes it imposed on the West for political reasons. Cue Heraclitus. There is no particular reason to assume that the next inflationary surge will be the same.<blockquote>但对此有两个警告。首先，能源股当然表现良好，因为20世纪70年代通胀的一个关键驱动因素是欧佩克的崛起及其出于政治原因对西方实施的两次石油禁运。提示赫拉克利特。没有特别的理由假设下一次通胀飙升会是一样的。</blockquote> The second caveat is that although REITs ended up doing well, they were volatile along the way. In particular, REIT prices collapsed in the OPEC-driven recession of 1972-4. And according to FactSet, U.S. REITs today already look pretty expensive on some measures. For instance it reckons that the forecast dividend yield on the Vanguard Real Estate ETF (a reasonable benchmark for the industry) is just 2.9% — by far the lowest since it was launched in 2004. Looking through NAREIT data, I can’t find a moment since 1971 when the overall yield on REITs was this low. During the real estate bubble in 2007, incidentally, the yield bottomed out no lower than 3.6%<blockquote>第二个警告是，尽管房地产投资信托基金最终表现良好，但一路上波动较大。特别是，房地产投资信托基金价格在1972-1974年欧佩克引发的经济衰退中暴跌。根据FactSet的数据，从某些指标来看，如今的美国房地产投资信托基金看起来已经相当昂贵。例如，它估计Vanguard Real Estate ETF（该行业的合理基准）的预测股息收益率仅为2.9%，是自2004年推出以来的最低水平。翻阅NAREIT数据，自1971年以来，我找不到REITs整体收益率如此之低的时刻。2007年房地产泡沫期间，顺带一提，收益率见底不低于3.6%</blockquote> So it may be that REITs offer less inflation protection today than we would hope.<blockquote>因此，如今房地产投资信托基金提供的通胀保护可能比我们希望的要少。</blockquote> One key difference in the 1970s is that there were no “inflation-protected” Treasury bonds to keep investors protected. So-called TIPS are in theory almost the perfect investment for retirees. They are issued by the U.S. government and their coupons are safe against default. Meanwhile their coupons effectively adjust to reflect changes in consumer prices.<blockquote>20世纪70年代的一个关键区别是，没有“通胀保值”国债来保护投资者。理论上，所谓的小费几乎是退休人员的完美投资。它们由美国政府发行，其优惠券不会违约。与此同时，他们的优惠券有效地调整以反映消费价格的变化。</blockquote> The problem today is that TIPS—like almost everything else in the bond market—look incredibly expensive. Most TIPS already lock in an actual loss of purchasing power if you buy them today. For example if you buy 5 year TIPS bonds and hold them for 5 years you’ll end up losing 9% of your purchasing power. And 30-year TIPS bonds offer the same 9% loss, though stretched out over 30 years.<blockquote>今天的问题是，TIPS——就像债券市场上的几乎所有东西一样——看起来非常昂贵。如果你今天购买，大多数建议已经锁定了购买力的实际损失。例如，如果你购买5年期TIPS债券并持有5年，你最终会损失9%的购买力。30年期TIPS债券的损失同样为9%，尽管期限延长了30年。</blockquote> It’s not very compelling. And it shows the risks that the government’s policy responses have created for those in retirement and near it.<blockquote>这不是很引人注目。它还显示了政府的政策应对给退休和接近退休年龄的人带来的风险。</blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/worried-about-inflation-heres-how-investments-did-in-the-1970s-11626658251?siteid=yhoof2\">Marketwatch</a>\n为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".SPX":"S&P 500 Index","XOM":"埃克森美孚"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/worried-about-inflation-heres-how-investments-did-in-the-1970s-11626658251?siteid=yhoof2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/599a65733b8245fcf7868668ef9ad712","article_id":"1129846769","content_text":"In the 1990s movie The Shipping News, an old newspaperman explains to Kevin Spacey how to cover the news. If there is a storm visible anywhere, he explains, you write “Storm threatens the town,” even if the storm is nowhere near and is unlikely to hit. If—as expected—the storm never hits, you just write the follow up: “Town spared by storm.”\nReaders may be excused for thinking something similar about the latest stories about looming, threatening, surging, terrifying inflation. Yes, the inflation forecasts were surging months ago, and hit 8-year highs. Had they continued there would be grounds to worry. But they haven’t continued. On the contrary, they’ve been falling for two months. The bond market’s 5-year inflation forecast is now lower than it was in mid-March. The market sees five-year inflation running at around 2.6%. That’s higher than we’ve been used to for a decade, but it’s nothing to cause any significant alarm.\nThat can change, of course. Maybe it will. We’ll see.\nBut with all this talk I got to thinking about the obvious question. If serious inflation really does hit, what can we do about it? How can we protect our investments?\nThat’s an especially key question for today’s retirees and those expecting to retire soon. When we’re older we’re generally advised to keep most of our money in more “conservative” investments, meaning things like bonds, that involve less risk. Someone in their 20s or 30s may not worry unduly if their retirement savings plunge 30% in a market rout or an inflationary spiral. For someone in their 60s, let alone older, that can become a major financial crisis.\nSo I went back and dug up the information from the last, infamous inflationary spiral in the 1970s, when consumer price inflation often topped 10% a year. The Greek philosopher Heraclitus pointed out that no one ever walks through the same stream twice, because the second time it’s not the same stream, and we’re not the same person. Everything changes. There is no guarantee the next inflationary boom, even if it happens, will look anything like the last one — any more than we should assume that it will be accompanied by outbreaks of disco music and flared jeans.\nNonetheless the chart above shows the total returns, after adjusting for inflation, of various asset classes from December 1971 to December 1981. (I used those dates because the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, or NAREIT, starts their data series then.) The data on energy stocks came from data compiled by professor Ken French at Dartmouth College’s Tuck School of Business.\nThis is what happened to your purchasing power if you invested in these assets and hung on for 10 years. (I’ve excluded gold, which is a different story.)\nThe key standout is that you really didn’t want to own Treasury bonds. The near 40% loss of purchasing power over 10 years is somewhat notional—it is derived from the compound annual returns on 10 Year Treasurys compiled by New York University’s Stern School of Business, divided by the consumer-price index—but tells a story nonetheless. (In Great Britain, where inflation was even worse, government bonds during the 1970s became known as “certificates of confiscation.” Ouch.)\nHolding them cost you money. Lots of it.\nYou could argue that the danger today is even greater, simply because the yields on long-term Treasury bonds are so low. Federal Reserve quantitative easing, bond buying, and zero interest-rate policies have left Treasury yields at their lowest on record—which means the turns would be a disaster if inflation reared its head.\nCorporate bonds and the S&P 500 were also terrible investments. It’s worth remembering that these are real term losses over a decade, which means investors didn’t just lose a lot of money—they also lost a lot of time.\nUtility stocks weren’t great, but they held up better. And Treasury bills—short-term paper—did better still. But once again you were going backward when you needed to be going forwards.\nNo one who remembers the 1970s will be surprised that energy companies boomed. Less well-remembered, maybe, is that REITs also did pretty well. These numbers, incidentally, represented property-owning REITs and excluded mortgage REITs, which own loans.\nBut there are two caveats to this. The first is that of course energy stocks did well, because a key driver of inflation in the 1970s was the rise of OPEC and two oil embargoes it imposed on the West for political reasons. Cue Heraclitus. There is no particular reason to assume that the next inflationary surge will be the same.\nThe second caveat is that although REITs ended up doing well, they were volatile along the way. In particular, REIT prices collapsed in the OPEC-driven recession of 1972-4. And according to FactSet, U.S. REITs today already look pretty expensive on some measures. For instance it reckons that the forecast dividend yield on the Vanguard Real Estate ETF (a reasonable benchmark for the industry) is just 2.9% — by far the lowest since it was launched in 2004. Looking through NAREIT data, I can’t find a moment since 1971 when the overall yield on REITs was this low. During the real estate bubble in 2007, incidentally, the yield bottomed out no lower than 3.6%\nSo it may be that REITs offer less inflation protection today than we would hope.\nOne key difference in the 1970s is that there were no “inflation-protected” Treasury bonds to keep investors protected. So-called TIPS are in theory almost the perfect investment for retirees. They are issued by the U.S. government and their coupons are safe against default. Meanwhile their coupons effectively adjust to reflect changes in consumer prices.\nThe problem today is that TIPS—like almost everything else in the bond market—look incredibly expensive. Most TIPS already lock in an actual loss of purchasing power if you buy them today. For example if you buy 5 year TIPS bonds and hold them for 5 years you’ll end up losing 9% of your purchasing power. And 30-year TIPS bonds offer the same 9% loss, though stretched out over 30 years.\nIt’s not very compelling. And it shows the risks that the government’s policy responses have created for those in retirement and near it.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{".SPX":0.9,"XOM":0.9}},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":171426266,"gmtCreate":1626758018455,"gmtModify":1631893445705,"author":{"id":"3555938823736400","authorId":"3555938823736400","name":"Derlin","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/c7a371f3d4269b1475b05c66bce026d0","vip":1,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3555938823736400","authorIdStr":"3555938823736400"},"htmlText":"Like my comment ty","listText":"Like my comment ty","text":"Like my comment ty","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":4,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/171426266","repostId":1129846769,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1129846769","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1626751789,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1129846769?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-07-20 11:29","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Worried about inflation? Here’s how investments did in the 1970s<blockquote>担心通货膨胀？以下是20世纪70年代的投资表现</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1129846769","media":"Marketwatch","summary":"In the 1990s movie The Shipping News, an old newspaperman explains to Kevin Spacey how to cover the ","content":"In the 1990s movie The Shipping News, an old newspaperman explains to Kevin Spacey how to cover the news. If there is a storm visible anywhere, he explains, you write “Storm threatens the town,” even if the storm is nowhere near and is unlikely to hit. If—as expected—the storm never hits, you just write the follow up: “Town spared by storm.”<blockquote>在20世纪90年代的电影《航运新闻》中，一位老记者向凯文·史派西解释如何报道新闻。他解释说，如果任何地方都有可见的风暴，你就会写“风暴威胁着城镇”，即使风暴不在附近，也不太可能来袭。如果——正如预期的那样——风暴从未袭击，你只需写下后续内容：“城镇幸免于风暴。”</blockquote> Readers may be excused for thinking something similar about the latest stories about looming, threatening, surging, terrifying inflation. Yes, the inflation forecasts were surging months ago, and hit 8-year highs. Had they continued there would be grounds to worry. But they haven’t continued. On the contrary, they’ve been falling for two months. The bond market’s 5-year inflation forecast is now lower than it was in mid-March. The market sees five-year inflation running at around 2.6%. That’s higher than we’ve been used to for a decade, but it’s nothing to cause any significant alarm.<blockquote>读者可能会对最近关于迫在眉睫、威胁、飙升、可怕的通货膨胀的故事有类似的想法。是的，几个月前通胀预测飙升，并创下8年来的新高。如果他们继续下去，就有理由担心。但他们没有继续。相反，他们已经下跌了两个月。债券市场的5年通胀预期现在低于3月中旬。市场预计五年通胀率约为2.6%。这比我们十年来所习惯的要高，但这并没有引起任何重大恐慌。</blockquote> That can change, of course. Maybe it will. We’ll see.<blockquote>当然，这种情况可能会改变。也许会。我们走着瞧。</blockquote> But with all this talk I got to thinking about the obvious question. If serious inflation really does hit, what can we do about it? How can we protect our investments?<blockquote>但是通过这些谈话，我开始思考一个显而易见的问题。如果严重的通货膨胀真的来袭，我们能做些什么呢？我们如何保护我们的投资？</blockquote> That’s an especially key question for today’s retirees and those expecting to retire soon. When we’re older we’re generally advised to keep most of our money in more “conservative” investments, meaning things like bonds, that involve less risk. Someone in their 20s or 30s may not worry unduly if their retirement savings plunge 30% in a market rout or an inflationary spiral. For someone in their 60s, let alone older, that can become a major financial crisis.<blockquote>对于今天的退休人员和那些预计很快退休的人来说，这是一个特别关键的问题。当我们长大后，通常建议我们将大部分资金投资于更“保守”的投资，即债券等风险较小的投资。如果20多岁或30多岁的人的退休储蓄在市场暴跌或通胀螺旋中暴跌30%，他们可能不会过度担心。对于60多岁的人来说，更不用说老年人了，这可能会成为一场重大的财务危机。</blockquote> So I went back and dug up the information from the last, infamous inflationary spiral in the 1970s, when consumer price inflation often topped 10% a year. The Greek philosopher Heraclitus pointed out that no one ever walks through the same stream twice, because the second time it’s not the same stream, and we’re not the same person. Everything changes. There is no guarantee the next inflationary boom, even if it happens, will look anything like the last one — any more than we should assume that it will be accompanied by outbreaks of disco music and flared jeans.<blockquote>因此，我回去挖掘了20世纪70年代上一次臭名昭著的通胀螺旋的信息，当时消费者价格通胀经常超过每年10%。希腊哲学家赫拉克利特指出，没有人会两次走过同一条小溪，因为第二次就不是同一条小溪了，我们也不是同一个人了。一切都变了。不能保证下一次通胀繁荣，即使发生了，看起来也会像上一次一样——就像我们不应该假设它会伴随着迪斯科音乐和喇叭牛仔裤的爆发一样。</blockquote> Nonetheless the chart above shows the total returns, after adjusting for inflation, of various asset classes from December 1971 to December 1981. (I used those dates because the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, or NAREIT, starts their data series then.) The data on energy stocks came from data compiled by professor Ken French at Dartmouth College’s Tuck School of Business.<blockquote>尽管如此，上图显示了1971年12月至1981年12月各种资产类别经通胀调整后的总回报。（我使用这些日期是因为全国房地产投资信托协会（NAREIT）在那时开始他们的数据系列。）能源股的数据来自达特茅斯学院塔克商学院肯·弗伦奇教授汇编的数据。</blockquote> This is what happened to your purchasing power if you invested in these assets and hung on for 10 years. (I’ve excluded gold, which is a different story.)<blockquote>如果你投资这些资产并坚持10年，你的购买力就会发生这种情况。（我已经排除了黄金，这是一个不同的故事。）</blockquote> The key standout is that you really didn’t want to own Treasury bonds. The near 40% loss of purchasing power over 10 years is somewhat notional—it is derived from the compound annual returns on 10 Year Treasurys compiled by New York University’s Stern School of Business, divided by the consumer-price index—but tells a story nonetheless. (In Great Britain, where inflation was even worse, government bonds during the 1970s became known as “certificates of confiscation.” Ouch.)<blockquote>关键的突出之处在于，你真的不想拥有国债。10年内购买力损失近40%在某种程度上是名义上的——它来自纽约大学斯特恩商学院编制的10年期美国国债的复合年回报率除以消费者价格指数——但仍然讲述了一个故事。（在通货膨胀更严重的英国，20世纪70年代的政府债券被称为“没收证书”。哎哟。）</blockquote> Holding them cost you money. Lots of it.<blockquote>拿着它们要花钱。很多。</blockquote> You could argue that the danger today is even greater, simply because the yields on long-term Treasury bonds are so low. Federal Reserve quantitative easing, bond buying, and zero interest-rate policies have left Treasury yields at their lowest on record—which means the turns would be a disaster if inflation reared its head.<blockquote>你可能会说，今天的危险甚至更大，仅仅是因为长期国债的收益率如此之低。美联储的量化宽松、债券购买和零利率政策使美国国债收益率处于有记录以来的最低水平——这意味着如果通胀抬头，这将是一场灾难。</blockquote> Corporate bonds and the S&amp;P 500&nbsp;were also terrible investments. It’s worth remembering that these are real term losses over a decade, which means investors didn’t just lose a lot of money—they also lost a lot of time.<blockquote>公司债券和标普500也是糟糕的投资。值得记住的是，这些是十年来的实际定期损失，这意味着投资者不仅损失了很多钱，还损失了很多时间。</blockquote> Utility stocks weren’t great, but they held up better. And Treasury bills—short-term paper—did better still. But once again you were going backward when you needed to be going forwards.<blockquote>公用事业股表现不佳，但表现较好。短期票据——国库券——表现更好。但是当你需要前进的时候，你又一次倒退了。</blockquote> No one who remembers the 1970s will be surprised that energy companies boomed. Less well-remembered, maybe, is that REITs also did pretty well. These numbers, incidentally, represented property-owning REITs and excluded mortgage REITs, which own loans.<blockquote>任何记得20世纪70年代的人都不会对能源公司的蓬勃发展感到惊讶。也许不太为人所知的是，房地产投资信托基金的表现也相当不错。顺便说一句，这些数字代表拥有财产的房地产投资信托基金，不包括拥有贷款的抵押房地产投资信托基金。</blockquote> But there are two caveats to this. The first is that of course energy stocks did well, because a key driver of inflation in the 1970s was the rise of OPEC and two oil embargoes it imposed on the West for political reasons. Cue Heraclitus. There is no particular reason to assume that the next inflationary surge will be the same.<blockquote>但对此有两个警告。首先，能源股当然表现良好，因为20世纪70年代通胀的一个关键驱动因素是欧佩克的崛起及其出于政治原因对西方实施的两次石油禁运。提示赫拉克利特。没有特别的理由假设下一次通胀飙升会是一样的。</blockquote> The second caveat is that although REITs ended up doing well, they were volatile along the way. In particular, REIT prices collapsed in the OPEC-driven recession of 1972-4. And according to FactSet, U.S. REITs today already look pretty expensive on some measures. For instance it reckons that the forecast dividend yield on the Vanguard Real Estate ETF (a reasonable benchmark for the industry) is just 2.9% — by far the lowest since it was launched in 2004. Looking through NAREIT data, I can’t find a moment since 1971 when the overall yield on REITs was this low. During the real estate bubble in 2007, incidentally, the yield bottomed out no lower than 3.6%<blockquote>第二个警告是，尽管房地产投资信托基金最终表现良好，但一路上波动较大。特别是，房地产投资信托基金价格在1972-1974年欧佩克引发的经济衰退中暴跌。根据FactSet的数据，从某些指标来看，如今的美国房地产投资信托基金看起来已经相当昂贵。例如，它估计Vanguard Real Estate ETF（该行业的合理基准）的预测股息收益率仅为2.9%，是自2004年推出以来的最低水平。翻阅NAREIT数据，自1971年以来，我找不到REITs整体收益率如此之低的时刻。2007年房地产泡沫期间，顺带一提，收益率见底不低于3.6%</blockquote> So it may be that REITs offer less inflation protection today than we would hope.<blockquote>因此，如今房地产投资信托基金提供的通胀保护可能比我们希望的要少。</blockquote> One key difference in the 1970s is that there were no “inflation-protected” Treasury bonds to keep investors protected. So-called TIPS are in theory almost the perfect investment for retirees. They are issued by the U.S. government and their coupons are safe against default. Meanwhile their coupons effectively adjust to reflect changes in consumer prices.<blockquote>20世纪70年代的一个关键区别是，没有“通胀保值”国债来保护投资者。理论上，所谓的小费几乎是退休人员的完美投资。它们由美国政府发行，其优惠券不会违约。与此同时，他们的优惠券有效地调整以反映消费价格的变化。</blockquote> The problem today is that TIPS—like almost everything else in the bond market—look incredibly expensive. Most TIPS already lock in an actual loss of purchasing power if you buy them today. For example if you buy 5 year TIPS bonds and hold them for 5 years you’ll end up losing 9% of your purchasing power. And 30-year TIPS bonds offer the same 9% loss, though stretched out over 30 years.<blockquote>今天的问题是，TIPS——就像债券市场上的几乎所有东西一样——看起来非常昂贵。如果你今天购买，大多数建议已经锁定了购买力的实际损失。例如，如果你购买5年期TIPS债券并持有5年，你最终会损失9%的购买力。30年期TIPS债券的损失同样为9%，尽管期限延长了30年。</blockquote> It’s not very compelling. And it shows the risks that the government’s policy responses have created for those in retirement and near it.<blockquote>这不是很引人注目。它还显示了政府的政策应对给退休和接近退休年龄的人带来的风险。</blockquote>","source":"market_watch","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Worried about inflation? Here’s how investments did in the 1970s<blockquote>担心通货膨胀？以下是20世纪70年代的投资表现</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWorried about inflation? Here’s how investments did in the 1970s<blockquote>担心通货膨胀？以下是20世纪70年代的投资表现</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nMarketwatch2021-07-20 11:29\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\nIn the 1990s movie The Shipping News, an old newspaperman explains to Kevin Spacey how to cover the news. If there is a storm visible anywhere, he explains, you write “Storm threatens the town,” even if the storm is nowhere near and is unlikely to hit. If—as expected—the storm never hits, you just write the follow up: “Town spared by storm.”<blockquote>在20世纪90年代的电影《航运新闻》中，一位老记者向凯文·史派西解释如何报道新闻。他解释说，如果任何地方都有可见的风暴，你就会写“风暴威胁着城镇”，即使风暴不在附近，也不太可能来袭。如果——正如预期的那样——风暴从未袭击，你只需写下后续内容：“城镇幸免于风暴。”</blockquote> Readers may be excused for thinking something similar about the latest stories about looming, threatening, surging, terrifying inflation. Yes, the inflation forecasts were surging months ago, and hit 8-year highs. Had they continued there would be grounds to worry. But they haven’t continued. On the contrary, they’ve been falling for two months. The bond market’s 5-year inflation forecast is now lower than it was in mid-March. The market sees five-year inflation running at around 2.6%. That’s higher than we’ve been used to for a decade, but it’s nothing to cause any significant alarm.<blockquote>读者可能会对最近关于迫在眉睫、威胁、飙升、可怕的通货膨胀的故事有类似的想法。是的，几个月前通胀预测飙升，并创下8年来的新高。如果他们继续下去，就有理由担心。但他们没有继续。相反，他们已经下跌了两个月。债券市场的5年通胀预期现在低于3月中旬。市场预计五年通胀率约为2.6%。这比我们十年来所习惯的要高，但这并没有引起任何重大恐慌。</blockquote> That can change, of course. Maybe it will. We’ll see.<blockquote>当然，这种情况可能会改变。也许会。我们走着瞧。</blockquote> But with all this talk I got to thinking about the obvious question. If serious inflation really does hit, what can we do about it? How can we protect our investments?<blockquote>但是通过这些谈话，我开始思考一个显而易见的问题。如果严重的通货膨胀真的来袭，我们能做些什么呢？我们如何保护我们的投资？</blockquote> That’s an especially key question for today’s retirees and those expecting to retire soon. When we’re older we’re generally advised to keep most of our money in more “conservative” investments, meaning things like bonds, that involve less risk. Someone in their 20s or 30s may not worry unduly if their retirement savings plunge 30% in a market rout or an inflationary spiral. For someone in their 60s, let alone older, that can become a major financial crisis.<blockquote>对于今天的退休人员和那些预计很快退休的人来说，这是一个特别关键的问题。当我们长大后，通常建议我们将大部分资金投资于更“保守”的投资，即债券等风险较小的投资。如果20多岁或30多岁的人的退休储蓄在市场暴跌或通胀螺旋中暴跌30%，他们可能不会过度担心。对于60多岁的人来说，更不用说老年人了，这可能会成为一场重大的财务危机。</blockquote> So I went back and dug up the information from the last, infamous inflationary spiral in the 1970s, when consumer price inflation often topped 10% a year. The Greek philosopher Heraclitus pointed out that no one ever walks through the same stream twice, because the second time it’s not the same stream, and we’re not the same person. Everything changes. There is no guarantee the next inflationary boom, even if it happens, will look anything like the last one — any more than we should assume that it will be accompanied by outbreaks of disco music and flared jeans.<blockquote>因此，我回去挖掘了20世纪70年代上一次臭名昭著的通胀螺旋的信息，当时消费者价格通胀经常超过每年10%。希腊哲学家赫拉克利特指出，没有人会两次走过同一条小溪，因为第二次就不是同一条小溪了，我们也不是同一个人了。一切都变了。不能保证下一次通胀繁荣，即使发生了，看起来也会像上一次一样——就像我们不应该假设它会伴随着迪斯科音乐和喇叭牛仔裤的爆发一样。</blockquote> Nonetheless the chart above shows the total returns, after adjusting for inflation, of various asset classes from December 1971 to December 1981. (I used those dates because the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, or NAREIT, starts their data series then.) The data on energy stocks came from data compiled by professor Ken French at Dartmouth College’s Tuck School of Business.<blockquote>尽管如此，上图显示了1971年12月至1981年12月各种资产类别经通胀调整后的总回报。（我使用这些日期是因为全国房地产投资信托协会（NAREIT）在那时开始他们的数据系列。）能源股的数据来自达特茅斯学院塔克商学院肯·弗伦奇教授汇编的数据。</blockquote> This is what happened to your purchasing power if you invested in these assets and hung on for 10 years. (I’ve excluded gold, which is a different story.)<blockquote>如果你投资这些资产并坚持10年，你的购买力就会发生这种情况。（我已经排除了黄金，这是一个不同的故事。）</blockquote> The key standout is that you really didn’t want to own Treasury bonds. The near 40% loss of purchasing power over 10 years is somewhat notional—it is derived from the compound annual returns on 10 Year Treasurys compiled by New York University’s Stern School of Business, divided by the consumer-price index—but tells a story nonetheless. (In Great Britain, where inflation was even worse, government bonds during the 1970s became known as “certificates of confiscation.” Ouch.)<blockquote>关键的突出之处在于，你真的不想拥有国债。10年内购买力损失近40%在某种程度上是名义上的——它来自纽约大学斯特恩商学院编制的10年期美国国债的复合年回报率除以消费者价格指数——但仍然讲述了一个故事。（在通货膨胀更严重的英国，20世纪70年代的政府债券被称为“没收证书”。哎哟。）</blockquote> Holding them cost you money. Lots of it.<blockquote>拿着它们要花钱。很多。</blockquote> You could argue that the danger today is even greater, simply because the yields on long-term Treasury bonds are so low. Federal Reserve quantitative easing, bond buying, and zero interest-rate policies have left Treasury yields at their lowest on record—which means the turns would be a disaster if inflation reared its head.<blockquote>你可能会说，今天的危险甚至更大，仅仅是因为长期国债的收益率如此之低。美联储的量化宽松、债券购买和零利率政策使美国国债收益率处于有记录以来的最低水平——这意味着如果通胀抬头，这将是一场灾难。</blockquote> Corporate bonds and the S&amp;P 500&nbsp;were also terrible investments. It’s worth remembering that these are real term losses over a decade, which means investors didn’t just lose a lot of money—they also lost a lot of time.<blockquote>公司债券和标普500也是糟糕的投资。值得记住的是，这些是十年来的实际定期损失，这意味着投资者不仅损失了很多钱，还损失了很多时间。</blockquote> Utility stocks weren’t great, but they held up better. And Treasury bills—short-term paper—did better still. But once again you were going backward when you needed to be going forwards.<blockquote>公用事业股表现不佳，但表现较好。短期票据——国库券——表现更好。但是当你需要前进的时候，你又一次倒退了。</blockquote> No one who remembers the 1970s will be surprised that energy companies boomed. Less well-remembered, maybe, is that REITs also did pretty well. These numbers, incidentally, represented property-owning REITs and excluded mortgage REITs, which own loans.<blockquote>任何记得20世纪70年代的人都不会对能源公司的蓬勃发展感到惊讶。也许不太为人所知的是，房地产投资信托基金的表现也相当不错。顺便说一句，这些数字代表拥有财产的房地产投资信托基金，不包括拥有贷款的抵押房地产投资信托基金。</blockquote> But there are two caveats to this. The first is that of course energy stocks did well, because a key driver of inflation in the 1970s was the rise of OPEC and two oil embargoes it imposed on the West for political reasons. Cue Heraclitus. There is no particular reason to assume that the next inflationary surge will be the same.<blockquote>但对此有两个警告。首先，能源股当然表现良好，因为20世纪70年代通胀的一个关键驱动因素是欧佩克的崛起及其出于政治原因对西方实施的两次石油禁运。提示赫拉克利特。没有特别的理由假设下一次通胀飙升会是一样的。</blockquote> The second caveat is that although REITs ended up doing well, they were volatile along the way. In particular, REIT prices collapsed in the OPEC-driven recession of 1972-4. And according to FactSet, U.S. REITs today already look pretty expensive on some measures. For instance it reckons that the forecast dividend yield on the Vanguard Real Estate ETF (a reasonable benchmark for the industry) is just 2.9% — by far the lowest since it was launched in 2004. Looking through NAREIT data, I can’t find a moment since 1971 when the overall yield on REITs was this low. During the real estate bubble in 2007, incidentally, the yield bottomed out no lower than 3.6%<blockquote>第二个警告是，尽管房地产投资信托基金最终表现良好，但一路上波动较大。特别是，房地产投资信托基金价格在1972-1974年欧佩克引发的经济衰退中暴跌。根据FactSet的数据，从某些指标来看，如今的美国房地产投资信托基金看起来已经相当昂贵。例如，它估计Vanguard Real Estate ETF（该行业的合理基准）的预测股息收益率仅为2.9%，是自2004年推出以来的最低水平。翻阅NAREIT数据，自1971年以来，我找不到REITs整体收益率如此之低的时刻。2007年房地产泡沫期间，顺带一提，收益率见底不低于3.6%</blockquote> So it may be that REITs offer less inflation protection today than we would hope.<blockquote>因此，如今房地产投资信托基金提供的通胀保护可能比我们希望的要少。</blockquote> One key difference in the 1970s is that there were no “inflation-protected” Treasury bonds to keep investors protected. So-called TIPS are in theory almost the perfect investment for retirees. They are issued by the U.S. government and their coupons are safe against default. Meanwhile their coupons effectively adjust to reflect changes in consumer prices.<blockquote>20世纪70年代的一个关键区别是，没有“通胀保值”国债来保护投资者。理论上，所谓的小费几乎是退休人员的完美投资。它们由美国政府发行，其优惠券不会违约。与此同时，他们的优惠券有效地调整以反映消费价格的变化。</blockquote> The problem today is that TIPS—like almost everything else in the bond market—look incredibly expensive. Most TIPS already lock in an actual loss of purchasing power if you buy them today. For example if you buy 5 year TIPS bonds and hold them for 5 years you’ll end up losing 9% of your purchasing power. And 30-year TIPS bonds offer the same 9% loss, though stretched out over 30 years.<blockquote>今天的问题是，TIPS——就像债券市场上的几乎所有东西一样——看起来非常昂贵。如果你今天购买，大多数建议已经锁定了购买力的实际损失。例如，如果你购买5年期TIPS债券并持有5年，你最终会损失9%的购买力。30年期TIPS债券的损失同样为9%，尽管期限延长了30年。</blockquote> It’s not very compelling. And it shows the risks that the government’s policy responses have created for those in retirement and near it.<blockquote>这不是很引人注目。它还显示了政府的政策应对给退休和接近退休年龄的人带来的风险。</blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/worried-about-inflation-heres-how-investments-did-in-the-1970s-11626658251?siteid=yhoof2\">Marketwatch</a>\n为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".SPX":"S&P 500 Index","XOM":"埃克森美孚"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/worried-about-inflation-heres-how-investments-did-in-the-1970s-11626658251?siteid=yhoof2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/599a65733b8245fcf7868668ef9ad712","article_id":"1129846769","content_text":"In the 1990s movie The Shipping News, an old newspaperman explains to Kevin Spacey how to cover the news. If there is a storm visible anywhere, he explains, you write “Storm threatens the town,” even if the storm is nowhere near and is unlikely to hit. If—as expected—the storm never hits, you just write the follow up: “Town spared by storm.”\nReaders may be excused for thinking something similar about the latest stories about looming, threatening, surging, terrifying inflation. Yes, the inflation forecasts were surging months ago, and hit 8-year highs. Had they continued there would be grounds to worry. But they haven’t continued. On the contrary, they’ve been falling for two months. The bond market’s 5-year inflation forecast is now lower than it was in mid-March. The market sees five-year inflation running at around 2.6%. That’s higher than we’ve been used to for a decade, but it’s nothing to cause any significant alarm.\nThat can change, of course. Maybe it will. We’ll see.\nBut with all this talk I got to thinking about the obvious question. If serious inflation really does hit, what can we do about it? How can we protect our investments?\nThat’s an especially key question for today’s retirees and those expecting to retire soon. When we’re older we’re generally advised to keep most of our money in more “conservative” investments, meaning things like bonds, that involve less risk. Someone in their 20s or 30s may not worry unduly if their retirement savings plunge 30% in a market rout or an inflationary spiral. For someone in their 60s, let alone older, that can become a major financial crisis.\nSo I went back and dug up the information from the last, infamous inflationary spiral in the 1970s, when consumer price inflation often topped 10% a year. The Greek philosopher Heraclitus pointed out that no one ever walks through the same stream twice, because the second time it’s not the same stream, and we’re not the same person. Everything changes. There is no guarantee the next inflationary boom, even if it happens, will look anything like the last one — any more than we should assume that it will be accompanied by outbreaks of disco music and flared jeans.\nNonetheless the chart above shows the total returns, after adjusting for inflation, of various asset classes from December 1971 to December 1981. (I used those dates because the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, or NAREIT, starts their data series then.) The data on energy stocks came from data compiled by professor Ken French at Dartmouth College’s Tuck School of Business.\nThis is what happened to your purchasing power if you invested in these assets and hung on for 10 years. (I’ve excluded gold, which is a different story.)\nThe key standout is that you really didn’t want to own Treasury bonds. The near 40% loss of purchasing power over 10 years is somewhat notional—it is derived from the compound annual returns on 10 Year Treasurys compiled by New York University’s Stern School of Business, divided by the consumer-price index—but tells a story nonetheless. (In Great Britain, where inflation was even worse, government bonds during the 1970s became known as “certificates of confiscation.” Ouch.)\nHolding them cost you money. Lots of it.\nYou could argue that the danger today is even greater, simply because the yields on long-term Treasury bonds are so low. Federal Reserve quantitative easing, bond buying, and zero interest-rate policies have left Treasury yields at their lowest on record—which means the turns would be a disaster if inflation reared its head.\nCorporate bonds and the S&P 500 were also terrible investments. It’s worth remembering that these are real term losses over a decade, which means investors didn’t just lose a lot of money—they also lost a lot of time.\nUtility stocks weren’t great, but they held up better. And Treasury bills—short-term paper—did better still. But once again you were going backward when you needed to be going forwards.\nNo one who remembers the 1970s will be surprised that energy companies boomed. Less well-remembered, maybe, is that REITs also did pretty well. These numbers, incidentally, represented property-owning REITs and excluded mortgage REITs, which own loans.\nBut there are two caveats to this. The first is that of course energy stocks did well, because a key driver of inflation in the 1970s was the rise of OPEC and two oil embargoes it imposed on the West for political reasons. Cue Heraclitus. There is no particular reason to assume that the next inflationary surge will be the same.\nThe second caveat is that although REITs ended up doing well, they were volatile along the way. In particular, REIT prices collapsed in the OPEC-driven recession of 1972-4. And according to FactSet, U.S. REITs today already look pretty expensive on some measures. For instance it reckons that the forecast dividend yield on the Vanguard Real Estate ETF (a reasonable benchmark for the industry) is just 2.9% — by far the lowest since it was launched in 2004. Looking through NAREIT data, I can’t find a moment since 1971 when the overall yield on REITs was this low. During the real estate bubble in 2007, incidentally, the yield bottomed out no lower than 3.6%\nSo it may be that REITs offer less inflation protection today than we would hope.\nOne key difference in the 1970s is that there were no “inflation-protected” Treasury bonds to keep investors protected. So-called TIPS are in theory almost the perfect investment for retirees. They are issued by the U.S. government and their coupons are safe against default. Meanwhile their coupons effectively adjust to reflect changes in consumer prices.\nThe problem today is that TIPS—like almost everything else in the bond market—look incredibly expensive. Most TIPS already lock in an actual loss of purchasing power if you buy them today. For example if you buy 5 year TIPS bonds and hold them for 5 years you’ll end up losing 9% of your purchasing power. And 30-year TIPS bonds offer the same 9% loss, though stretched out over 30 years.\nIt’s not very compelling. And it shows the risks that the government’s policy responses have created for those in retirement and near it.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{".SPX":0.9,"XOM":0.9}},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":5269965,"gmtCreate":1626758327243,"gmtModify":1635225486313,"authorId":3564534794419478,"author":{"id":3564534794419478,"idStr":"3564534794419478","authorId":3564534794419478,"name":"Acsw","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0a7e32abc7173f2558e44ea4ec6dc1b6","vip":1,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":171426266,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"Ok","text":"Ok","html":"Ok"}],"langContent":"EN"},{"id":171466778,"gmtCreate":1626757157194,"gmtModify":1633771300243,"author":{"id":"3582411767688365","authorId":"3582411767688365","name":"5ca20d0a","avatar":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/default-avatar.jpg","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3582411767688365","authorIdStr":"3582411767688365"},"htmlText":"Hello…","listText":"Hello…","text":"Hello…","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":4,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/171466778","repostId":1129846769,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1129846769","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1626751789,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1129846769?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-07-20 11:29","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Worried about inflation? Here’s how investments did in the 1970s<blockquote>担心通货膨胀？以下是20世纪70年代的投资表现</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1129846769","media":"Marketwatch","summary":"In the 1990s movie The Shipping News, an old newspaperman explains to Kevin Spacey how to cover the ","content":"In the 1990s movie The Shipping News, an old newspaperman explains to Kevin Spacey how to cover the news. If there is a storm visible anywhere, he explains, you write “Storm threatens the town,” even if the storm is nowhere near and is unlikely to hit. If—as expected—the storm never hits, you just write the follow up: “Town spared by storm.”<blockquote>在20世纪90年代的电影《航运新闻》中，一位老记者向凯文·史派西解释如何报道新闻。他解释说，如果任何地方都有可见的风暴，你就会写“风暴威胁着城镇”，即使风暴不在附近，也不太可能来袭。如果——正如预期的那样——风暴从未袭击，你只需写下后续内容：“城镇幸免于风暴。”</blockquote> Readers may be excused for thinking something similar about the latest stories about looming, threatening, surging, terrifying inflation. Yes, the inflation forecasts were surging months ago, and hit 8-year highs. Had they continued there would be grounds to worry. But they haven’t continued. On the contrary, they’ve been falling for two months. The bond market’s 5-year inflation forecast is now lower than it was in mid-March. The market sees five-year inflation running at around 2.6%. That’s higher than we’ve been used to for a decade, but it’s nothing to cause any significant alarm.<blockquote>读者可能会对最近关于迫在眉睫、威胁、飙升、可怕的通货膨胀的故事有类似的想法。是的，几个月前通胀预测飙升，并创下8年来的新高。如果他们继续下去，就有理由担心。但他们没有继续。相反，他们已经下跌了两个月。债券市场的5年通胀预期现在低于3月中旬。市场预计五年通胀率约为2.6%。这比我们十年来所习惯的要高，但这并没有引起任何重大恐慌。</blockquote> That can change, of course. Maybe it will. We’ll see.<blockquote>当然，这种情况可能会改变。也许会。我们走着瞧。</blockquote> But with all this talk I got to thinking about the obvious question. If serious inflation really does hit, what can we do about it? How can we protect our investments?<blockquote>但是通过这些谈话，我开始思考一个显而易见的问题。如果严重的通货膨胀真的来袭，我们能做些什么呢？我们如何保护我们的投资？</blockquote> That’s an especially key question for today’s retirees and those expecting to retire soon. When we’re older we’re generally advised to keep most of our money in more “conservative” investments, meaning things like bonds, that involve less risk. Someone in their 20s or 30s may not worry unduly if their retirement savings plunge 30% in a market rout or an inflationary spiral. For someone in their 60s, let alone older, that can become a major financial crisis.<blockquote>对于今天的退休人员和那些预计很快退休的人来说，这是一个特别关键的问题。当我们长大后，通常建议我们将大部分资金投资于更“保守”的投资，即债券等风险较小的投资。如果20多岁或30多岁的人的退休储蓄在市场暴跌或通胀螺旋中暴跌30%，他们可能不会过度担心。对于60多岁的人来说，更不用说老年人了，这可能会成为一场重大的财务危机。</blockquote> So I went back and dug up the information from the last, infamous inflationary spiral in the 1970s, when consumer price inflation often topped 10% a year. The Greek philosopher Heraclitus pointed out that no one ever walks through the same stream twice, because the second time it’s not the same stream, and we’re not the same person. Everything changes. There is no guarantee the next inflationary boom, even if it happens, will look anything like the last one — any more than we should assume that it will be accompanied by outbreaks of disco music and flared jeans.<blockquote>因此，我回去挖掘了20世纪70年代上一次臭名昭著的通胀螺旋的信息，当时消费者价格通胀经常超过每年10%。希腊哲学家赫拉克利特指出，没有人会两次走过同一条小溪，因为第二次就不是同一条小溪了，我们也不是同一个人了。一切都变了。不能保证下一次通胀繁荣，即使发生了，看起来也会像上一次一样——就像我们不应该假设它会伴随着迪斯科音乐和喇叭牛仔裤的爆发一样。</blockquote> Nonetheless the chart above shows the total returns, after adjusting for inflation, of various asset classes from December 1971 to December 1981. (I used those dates because the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, or NAREIT, starts their data series then.) The data on energy stocks came from data compiled by professor Ken French at Dartmouth College’s Tuck School of Business.<blockquote>尽管如此，上图显示了1971年12月至1981年12月各种资产类别经通胀调整后的总回报。（我使用这些日期是因为全国房地产投资信托协会（NAREIT）在那时开始他们的数据系列。）能源股的数据来自达特茅斯学院塔克商学院肯·弗伦奇教授汇编的数据。</blockquote> This is what happened to your purchasing power if you invested in these assets and hung on for 10 years. (I’ve excluded gold, which is a different story.)<blockquote>如果你投资这些资产并坚持10年，你的购买力就会发生这种情况。（我已经排除了黄金，这是一个不同的故事。）</blockquote> The key standout is that you really didn’t want to own Treasury bonds. The near 40% loss of purchasing power over 10 years is somewhat notional—it is derived from the compound annual returns on 10 Year Treasurys compiled by New York University’s Stern School of Business, divided by the consumer-price index—but tells a story nonetheless. (In Great Britain, where inflation was even worse, government bonds during the 1970s became known as “certificates of confiscation.” Ouch.)<blockquote>关键的突出之处在于，你真的不想拥有国债。10年内购买力损失近40%在某种程度上是名义上的——它来自纽约大学斯特恩商学院编制的10年期美国国债的复合年回报率除以消费者价格指数——但仍然讲述了一个故事。（在通货膨胀更严重的英国，20世纪70年代的政府债券被称为“没收证书”。哎哟。）</blockquote> Holding them cost you money. Lots of it.<blockquote>拿着它们要花钱。很多。</blockquote> You could argue that the danger today is even greater, simply because the yields on long-term Treasury bonds are so low. Federal Reserve quantitative easing, bond buying, and zero interest-rate policies have left Treasury yields at their lowest on record—which means the turns would be a disaster if inflation reared its head.<blockquote>你可能会说，今天的危险甚至更大，仅仅是因为长期国债的收益率如此之低。美联储的量化宽松、债券购买和零利率政策使美国国债收益率处于有记录以来的最低水平——这意味着如果通胀抬头，这将是一场灾难。</blockquote> Corporate bonds and the S&amp;P 500&nbsp;were also terrible investments. It’s worth remembering that these are real term losses over a decade, which means investors didn’t just lose a lot of money—they also lost a lot of time.<blockquote>公司债券和标普500也是糟糕的投资。值得记住的是，这些是十年来的实际定期损失，这意味着投资者不仅损失了很多钱，还损失了很多时间。</blockquote> Utility stocks weren’t great, but they held up better. And Treasury bills—short-term paper—did better still. But once again you were going backward when you needed to be going forwards.<blockquote>公用事业股表现不佳，但表现较好。短期票据——国库券——表现更好。但是当你需要前进的时候，你又一次倒退了。</blockquote> No one who remembers the 1970s will be surprised that energy companies boomed. Less well-remembered, maybe, is that REITs also did pretty well. These numbers, incidentally, represented property-owning REITs and excluded mortgage REITs, which own loans.<blockquote>任何记得20世纪70年代的人都不会对能源公司的蓬勃发展感到惊讶。也许不太为人所知的是，房地产投资信托基金的表现也相当不错。顺便说一句，这些数字代表拥有财产的房地产投资信托基金，不包括拥有贷款的抵押房地产投资信托基金。</blockquote> But there are two caveats to this. The first is that of course energy stocks did well, because a key driver of inflation in the 1970s was the rise of OPEC and two oil embargoes it imposed on the West for political reasons. Cue Heraclitus. There is no particular reason to assume that the next inflationary surge will be the same.<blockquote>但对此有两个警告。首先，能源股当然表现良好，因为20世纪70年代通胀的一个关键驱动因素是欧佩克的崛起及其出于政治原因对西方实施的两次石油禁运。提示赫拉克利特。没有特别的理由假设下一次通胀飙升会是一样的。</blockquote> The second caveat is that although REITs ended up doing well, they were volatile along the way. In particular, REIT prices collapsed in the OPEC-driven recession of 1972-4. And according to FactSet, U.S. REITs today already look pretty expensive on some measures. For instance it reckons that the forecast dividend yield on the Vanguard Real Estate ETF (a reasonable benchmark for the industry) is just 2.9% — by far the lowest since it was launched in 2004. Looking through NAREIT data, I can’t find a moment since 1971 when the overall yield on REITs was this low. During the real estate bubble in 2007, incidentally, the yield bottomed out no lower than 3.6%<blockquote>第二个警告是，尽管房地产投资信托基金最终表现良好，但一路上波动较大。特别是，房地产投资信托基金价格在1972-1974年欧佩克引发的经济衰退中暴跌。根据FactSet的数据，从某些指标来看，如今的美国房地产投资信托基金看起来已经相当昂贵。例如，它估计Vanguard Real Estate ETF（该行业的合理基准）的预测股息收益率仅为2.9%，是自2004年推出以来的最低水平。翻阅NAREIT数据，自1971年以来，我找不到REITs整体收益率如此之低的时刻。2007年房地产泡沫期间，顺带一提，收益率见底不低于3.6%</blockquote> So it may be that REITs offer less inflation protection today than we would hope.<blockquote>因此，如今房地产投资信托基金提供的通胀保护可能比我们希望的要少。</blockquote> One key difference in the 1970s is that there were no “inflation-protected” Treasury bonds to keep investors protected. So-called TIPS are in theory almost the perfect investment for retirees. They are issued by the U.S. government and their coupons are safe against default. Meanwhile their coupons effectively adjust to reflect changes in consumer prices.<blockquote>20世纪70年代的一个关键区别是，没有“通胀保值”国债来保护投资者。理论上，所谓的小费几乎是退休人员的完美投资。它们由美国政府发行，其优惠券不会违约。与此同时，他们的优惠券有效地调整以反映消费价格的变化。</blockquote> The problem today is that TIPS—like almost everything else in the bond market—look incredibly expensive. Most TIPS already lock in an actual loss of purchasing power if you buy them today. For example if you buy 5 year TIPS bonds and hold them for 5 years you’ll end up losing 9% of your purchasing power. And 30-year TIPS bonds offer the same 9% loss, though stretched out over 30 years.<blockquote>今天的问题是，TIPS——就像债券市场上的几乎所有东西一样——看起来非常昂贵。如果你今天购买，大多数建议已经锁定了购买力的实际损失。例如，如果你购买5年期TIPS债券并持有5年，你最终会损失9%的购买力。30年期TIPS债券的损失同样为9%，尽管期限延长了30年。</blockquote> It’s not very compelling. And it shows the risks that the government’s policy responses have created for those in retirement and near it.<blockquote>这不是很引人注目。它还显示了政府的政策应对给退休和接近退休年龄的人带来的风险。</blockquote>","source":"market_watch","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Worried about inflation? Here’s how investments did in the 1970s<blockquote>担心通货膨胀？以下是20世纪70年代的投资表现</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWorried about inflation? Here’s how investments did in the 1970s<blockquote>担心通货膨胀？以下是20世纪70年代的投资表现</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nMarketwatch2021-07-20 11:29\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\nIn the 1990s movie The Shipping News, an old newspaperman explains to Kevin Spacey how to cover the news. If there is a storm visible anywhere, he explains, you write “Storm threatens the town,” even if the storm is nowhere near and is unlikely to hit. If—as expected—the storm never hits, you just write the follow up: “Town spared by storm.”<blockquote>在20世纪90年代的电影《航运新闻》中，一位老记者向凯文·史派西解释如何报道新闻。他解释说，如果任何地方都有可见的风暴，你就会写“风暴威胁着城镇”，即使风暴不在附近，也不太可能来袭。如果——正如预期的那样——风暴从未袭击，你只需写下后续内容：“城镇幸免于风暴。”</blockquote> Readers may be excused for thinking something similar about the latest stories about looming, threatening, surging, terrifying inflation. Yes, the inflation forecasts were surging months ago, and hit 8-year highs. Had they continued there would be grounds to worry. But they haven’t continued. On the contrary, they’ve been falling for two months. The bond market’s 5-year inflation forecast is now lower than it was in mid-March. The market sees five-year inflation running at around 2.6%. That’s higher than we’ve been used to for a decade, but it’s nothing to cause any significant alarm.<blockquote>读者可能会对最近关于迫在眉睫、威胁、飙升、可怕的通货膨胀的故事有类似的想法。是的，几个月前通胀预测飙升，并创下8年来的新高。如果他们继续下去，就有理由担心。但他们没有继续。相反，他们已经下跌了两个月。债券市场的5年通胀预期现在低于3月中旬。市场预计五年通胀率约为2.6%。这比我们十年来所习惯的要高，但这并没有引起任何重大恐慌。</blockquote> That can change, of course. Maybe it will. We’ll see.<blockquote>当然，这种情况可能会改变。也许会。我们走着瞧。</blockquote> But with all this talk I got to thinking about the obvious question. If serious inflation really does hit, what can we do about it? How can we protect our investments?<blockquote>但是通过这些谈话，我开始思考一个显而易见的问题。如果严重的通货膨胀真的来袭，我们能做些什么呢？我们如何保护我们的投资？</blockquote> That’s an especially key question for today’s retirees and those expecting to retire soon. When we’re older we’re generally advised to keep most of our money in more “conservative” investments, meaning things like bonds, that involve less risk. Someone in their 20s or 30s may not worry unduly if their retirement savings plunge 30% in a market rout or an inflationary spiral. For someone in their 60s, let alone older, that can become a major financial crisis.<blockquote>对于今天的退休人员和那些预计很快退休的人来说，这是一个特别关键的问题。当我们长大后，通常建议我们将大部分资金投资于更“保守”的投资，即债券等风险较小的投资。如果20多岁或30多岁的人的退休储蓄在市场暴跌或通胀螺旋中暴跌30%，他们可能不会过度担心。对于60多岁的人来说，更不用说老年人了，这可能会成为一场重大的财务危机。</blockquote> So I went back and dug up the information from the last, infamous inflationary spiral in the 1970s, when consumer price inflation often topped 10% a year. The Greek philosopher Heraclitus pointed out that no one ever walks through the same stream twice, because the second time it’s not the same stream, and we’re not the same person. Everything changes. There is no guarantee the next inflationary boom, even if it happens, will look anything like the last one — any more than we should assume that it will be accompanied by outbreaks of disco music and flared jeans.<blockquote>因此，我回去挖掘了20世纪70年代上一次臭名昭著的通胀螺旋的信息，当时消费者价格通胀经常超过每年10%。希腊哲学家赫拉克利特指出，没有人会两次走过同一条小溪，因为第二次就不是同一条小溪了，我们也不是同一个人了。一切都变了。不能保证下一次通胀繁荣，即使发生了，看起来也会像上一次一样——就像我们不应该假设它会伴随着迪斯科音乐和喇叭牛仔裤的爆发一样。</blockquote> Nonetheless the chart above shows the total returns, after adjusting for inflation, of various asset classes from December 1971 to December 1981. (I used those dates because the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, or NAREIT, starts their data series then.) The data on energy stocks came from data compiled by professor Ken French at Dartmouth College’s Tuck School of Business.<blockquote>尽管如此，上图显示了1971年12月至1981年12月各种资产类别经通胀调整后的总回报。（我使用这些日期是因为全国房地产投资信托协会（NAREIT）在那时开始他们的数据系列。）能源股的数据来自达特茅斯学院塔克商学院肯·弗伦奇教授汇编的数据。</blockquote> This is what happened to your purchasing power if you invested in these assets and hung on for 10 years. (I’ve excluded gold, which is a different story.)<blockquote>如果你投资这些资产并坚持10年，你的购买力就会发生这种情况。（我已经排除了黄金，这是一个不同的故事。）</blockquote> The key standout is that you really didn’t want to own Treasury bonds. The near 40% loss of purchasing power over 10 years is somewhat notional—it is derived from the compound annual returns on 10 Year Treasurys compiled by New York University’s Stern School of Business, divided by the consumer-price index—but tells a story nonetheless. (In Great Britain, where inflation was even worse, government bonds during the 1970s became known as “certificates of confiscation.” Ouch.)<blockquote>关键的突出之处在于，你真的不想拥有国债。10年内购买力损失近40%在某种程度上是名义上的——它来自纽约大学斯特恩商学院编制的10年期美国国债的复合年回报率除以消费者价格指数——但仍然讲述了一个故事。（在通货膨胀更严重的英国，20世纪70年代的政府债券被称为“没收证书”。哎哟。）</blockquote> Holding them cost you money. Lots of it.<blockquote>拿着它们要花钱。很多。</blockquote> You could argue that the danger today is even greater, simply because the yields on long-term Treasury bonds are so low. Federal Reserve quantitative easing, bond buying, and zero interest-rate policies have left Treasury yields at their lowest on record—which means the turns would be a disaster if inflation reared its head.<blockquote>你可能会说，今天的危险甚至更大，仅仅是因为长期国债的收益率如此之低。美联储的量化宽松、债券购买和零利率政策使美国国债收益率处于有记录以来的最低水平——这意味着如果通胀抬头，这将是一场灾难。</blockquote> Corporate bonds and the S&amp;P 500&nbsp;were also terrible investments. It’s worth remembering that these are real term losses over a decade, which means investors didn’t just lose a lot of money—they also lost a lot of time.<blockquote>公司债券和标普500也是糟糕的投资。值得记住的是，这些是十年来的实际定期损失，这意味着投资者不仅损失了很多钱，还损失了很多时间。</blockquote> Utility stocks weren’t great, but they held up better. And Treasury bills—short-term paper—did better still. But once again you were going backward when you needed to be going forwards.<blockquote>公用事业股表现不佳，但表现较好。短期票据——国库券——表现更好。但是当你需要前进的时候，你又一次倒退了。</blockquote> No one who remembers the 1970s will be surprised that energy companies boomed. Less well-remembered, maybe, is that REITs also did pretty well. These numbers, incidentally, represented property-owning REITs and excluded mortgage REITs, which own loans.<blockquote>任何记得20世纪70年代的人都不会对能源公司的蓬勃发展感到惊讶。也许不太为人所知的是，房地产投资信托基金的表现也相当不错。顺便说一句，这些数字代表拥有财产的房地产投资信托基金，不包括拥有贷款的抵押房地产投资信托基金。</blockquote> But there are two caveats to this. The first is that of course energy stocks did well, because a key driver of inflation in the 1970s was the rise of OPEC and two oil embargoes it imposed on the West for political reasons. Cue Heraclitus. There is no particular reason to assume that the next inflationary surge will be the same.<blockquote>但对此有两个警告。首先，能源股当然表现良好，因为20世纪70年代通胀的一个关键驱动因素是欧佩克的崛起及其出于政治原因对西方实施的两次石油禁运。提示赫拉克利特。没有特别的理由假设下一次通胀飙升会是一样的。</blockquote> The second caveat is that although REITs ended up doing well, they were volatile along the way. In particular, REIT prices collapsed in the OPEC-driven recession of 1972-4. And according to FactSet, U.S. REITs today already look pretty expensive on some measures. For instance it reckons that the forecast dividend yield on the Vanguard Real Estate ETF (a reasonable benchmark for the industry) is just 2.9% — by far the lowest since it was launched in 2004. Looking through NAREIT data, I can’t find a moment since 1971 when the overall yield on REITs was this low. During the real estate bubble in 2007, incidentally, the yield bottomed out no lower than 3.6%<blockquote>第二个警告是，尽管房地产投资信托基金最终表现良好，但一路上波动较大。特别是，房地产投资信托基金价格在1972-1974年欧佩克引发的经济衰退中暴跌。根据FactSet的数据，从某些指标来看，如今的美国房地产投资信托基金看起来已经相当昂贵。例如，它估计Vanguard Real Estate ETF（该行业的合理基准）的预测股息收益率仅为2.9%，是自2004年推出以来的最低水平。翻阅NAREIT数据，自1971年以来，我找不到REITs整体收益率如此之低的时刻。2007年房地产泡沫期间，顺带一提，收益率见底不低于3.6%</blockquote> So it may be that REITs offer less inflation protection today than we would hope.<blockquote>因此，如今房地产投资信托基金提供的通胀保护可能比我们希望的要少。</blockquote> One key difference in the 1970s is that there were no “inflation-protected” Treasury bonds to keep investors protected. So-called TIPS are in theory almost the perfect investment for retirees. They are issued by the U.S. government and their coupons are safe against default. Meanwhile their coupons effectively adjust to reflect changes in consumer prices.<blockquote>20世纪70年代的一个关键区别是，没有“通胀保值”国债来保护投资者。理论上，所谓的小费几乎是退休人员的完美投资。它们由美国政府发行，其优惠券不会违约。与此同时，他们的优惠券有效地调整以反映消费价格的变化。</blockquote> The problem today is that TIPS—like almost everything else in the bond market—look incredibly expensive. Most TIPS already lock in an actual loss of purchasing power if you buy them today. For example if you buy 5 year TIPS bonds and hold them for 5 years you’ll end up losing 9% of your purchasing power. And 30-year TIPS bonds offer the same 9% loss, though stretched out over 30 years.<blockquote>今天的问题是，TIPS——就像债券市场上的几乎所有东西一样——看起来非常昂贵。如果你今天购买，大多数建议已经锁定了购买力的实际损失。例如，如果你购买5年期TIPS债券并持有5年，你最终会损失9%的购买力。30年期TIPS债券的损失同样为9%，尽管期限延长了30年。</blockquote> It’s not very compelling. And it shows the risks that the government’s policy responses have created for those in retirement and near it.<blockquote>这不是很引人注目。它还显示了政府的政策应对给退休和接近退休年龄的人带来的风险。</blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/worried-about-inflation-heres-how-investments-did-in-the-1970s-11626658251?siteid=yhoof2\">Marketwatch</a>\n为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".SPX":"S&P 500 Index","XOM":"埃克森美孚"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/worried-about-inflation-heres-how-investments-did-in-the-1970s-11626658251?siteid=yhoof2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/599a65733b8245fcf7868668ef9ad712","article_id":"1129846769","content_text":"In the 1990s movie The Shipping News, an old newspaperman explains to Kevin Spacey how to cover the news. If there is a storm visible anywhere, he explains, you write “Storm threatens the town,” even if the storm is nowhere near and is unlikely to hit. If—as expected—the storm never hits, you just write the follow up: “Town spared by storm.”\nReaders may be excused for thinking something similar about the latest stories about looming, threatening, surging, terrifying inflation. Yes, the inflation forecasts were surging months ago, and hit 8-year highs. Had they continued there would be grounds to worry. But they haven’t continued. On the contrary, they’ve been falling for two months. The bond market’s 5-year inflation forecast is now lower than it was in mid-March. The market sees five-year inflation running at around 2.6%. That’s higher than we’ve been used to for a decade, but it’s nothing to cause any significant alarm.\nThat can change, of course. Maybe it will. We’ll see.\nBut with all this talk I got to thinking about the obvious question. If serious inflation really does hit, what can we do about it? How can we protect our investments?\nThat’s an especially key question for today’s retirees and those expecting to retire soon. When we’re older we’re generally advised to keep most of our money in more “conservative” investments, meaning things like bonds, that involve less risk. Someone in their 20s or 30s may not worry unduly if their retirement savings plunge 30% in a market rout or an inflationary spiral. For someone in their 60s, let alone older, that can become a major financial crisis.\nSo I went back and dug up the information from the last, infamous inflationary spiral in the 1970s, when consumer price inflation often topped 10% a year. The Greek philosopher Heraclitus pointed out that no one ever walks through the same stream twice, because the second time it’s not the same stream, and we’re not the same person. Everything changes. There is no guarantee the next inflationary boom, even if it happens, will look anything like the last one — any more than we should assume that it will be accompanied by outbreaks of disco music and flared jeans.\nNonetheless the chart above shows the total returns, after adjusting for inflation, of various asset classes from December 1971 to December 1981. (I used those dates because the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, or NAREIT, starts their data series then.) The data on energy stocks came from data compiled by professor Ken French at Dartmouth College’s Tuck School of Business.\nThis is what happened to your purchasing power if you invested in these assets and hung on for 10 years. (I’ve excluded gold, which is a different story.)\nThe key standout is that you really didn’t want to own Treasury bonds. The near 40% loss of purchasing power over 10 years is somewhat notional—it is derived from the compound annual returns on 10 Year Treasurys compiled by New York University’s Stern School of Business, divided by the consumer-price index—but tells a story nonetheless. (In Great Britain, where inflation was even worse, government bonds during the 1970s became known as “certificates of confiscation.” Ouch.)\nHolding them cost you money. Lots of it.\nYou could argue that the danger today is even greater, simply because the yields on long-term Treasury bonds are so low. Federal Reserve quantitative easing, bond buying, and zero interest-rate policies have left Treasury yields at their lowest on record—which means the turns would be a disaster if inflation reared its head.\nCorporate bonds and the S&P 500 were also terrible investments. It’s worth remembering that these are real term losses over a decade, which means investors didn’t just lose a lot of money—they also lost a lot of time.\nUtility stocks weren’t great, but they held up better. And Treasury bills—short-term paper—did better still. But once again you were going backward when you needed to be going forwards.\nNo one who remembers the 1970s will be surprised that energy companies boomed. Less well-remembered, maybe, is that REITs also did pretty well. These numbers, incidentally, represented property-owning REITs and excluded mortgage REITs, which own loans.\nBut there are two caveats to this. The first is that of course energy stocks did well, because a key driver of inflation in the 1970s was the rise of OPEC and two oil embargoes it imposed on the West for political reasons. Cue Heraclitus. There is no particular reason to assume that the next inflationary surge will be the same.\nThe second caveat is that although REITs ended up doing well, they were volatile along the way. In particular, REIT prices collapsed in the OPEC-driven recession of 1972-4. And according to FactSet, U.S. REITs today already look pretty expensive on some measures. For instance it reckons that the forecast dividend yield on the Vanguard Real Estate ETF (a reasonable benchmark for the industry) is just 2.9% — by far the lowest since it was launched in 2004. Looking through NAREIT data, I can’t find a moment since 1971 when the overall yield on REITs was this low. During the real estate bubble in 2007, incidentally, the yield bottomed out no lower than 3.6%\nSo it may be that REITs offer less inflation protection today than we would hope.\nOne key difference in the 1970s is that there were no “inflation-protected” Treasury bonds to keep investors protected. So-called TIPS are in theory almost the perfect investment for retirees. They are issued by the U.S. government and their coupons are safe against default. Meanwhile their coupons effectively adjust to reflect changes in consumer prices.\nThe problem today is that TIPS—like almost everything else in the bond market—look incredibly expensive. Most TIPS already lock in an actual loss of purchasing power if you buy them today. For example if you buy 5 year TIPS bonds and hold them for 5 years you’ll end up losing 9% of your purchasing power. And 30-year TIPS bonds offer the same 9% loss, though stretched out over 30 years.\nIt’s not very compelling. And it shows the risks that the government’s policy responses have created for those in retirement and near it.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{".SPX":0.9,"XOM":0.9}},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":171484612,"gmtCreate":1626756629936,"gmtModify":1633771307224,"author":{"id":"3581661369298834","authorId":"3581661369298834","name":"JimmyT","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/748bb288232d8c7092b92b303f282d6e","vip":1,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3581661369298834","authorIdStr":"3581661369298834"},"htmlText":"Like","listText":"Like","text":"Like","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":6,"commentSize":2,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/171484612","repostId":1129846769,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1129846769","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1626751789,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1129846769?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-07-20 11:29","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Worried about inflation? Here’s how investments did in the 1970s<blockquote>担心通货膨胀？以下是20世纪70年代的投资表现</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1129846769","media":"Marketwatch","summary":"In the 1990s movie The Shipping News, an old newspaperman explains to Kevin Spacey how to cover the ","content":"In the 1990s movie The Shipping News, an old newspaperman explains to Kevin Spacey how to cover the news. If there is a storm visible anywhere, he explains, you write “Storm threatens the town,” even if the storm is nowhere near and is unlikely to hit. If—as expected—the storm never hits, you just write the follow up: “Town spared by storm.”<blockquote>在20世纪90年代的电影《航运新闻》中，一位老记者向凯文·史派西解释如何报道新闻。他解释说，如果任何地方都有可见的风暴，你就会写“风暴威胁着城镇”，即使风暴不在附近，也不太可能来袭。如果——正如预期的那样——风暴从未袭击，你只需写下后续内容：“城镇幸免于风暴。”</blockquote> Readers may be excused for thinking something similar about the latest stories about looming, threatening, surging, terrifying inflation. Yes, the inflation forecasts were surging months ago, and hit 8-year highs. Had they continued there would be grounds to worry. But they haven’t continued. On the contrary, they’ve been falling for two months. The bond market’s 5-year inflation forecast is now lower than it was in mid-March. The market sees five-year inflation running at around 2.6%. That’s higher than we’ve been used to for a decade, but it’s nothing to cause any significant alarm.<blockquote>读者可能会对最近关于迫在眉睫、威胁、飙升、可怕的通货膨胀的故事有类似的想法。是的，几个月前通胀预测飙升，并创下8年来的新高。如果他们继续下去，就有理由担心。但他们没有继续。相反，他们已经下跌了两个月。债券市场的5年通胀预期现在低于3月中旬。市场预计五年通胀率约为2.6%。这比我们十年来所习惯的要高，但这并没有引起任何重大恐慌。</blockquote> That can change, of course. Maybe it will. We’ll see.<blockquote>当然，这种情况可能会改变。也许会。我们走着瞧。</blockquote> But with all this talk I got to thinking about the obvious question. If serious inflation really does hit, what can we do about it? How can we protect our investments?<blockquote>但是通过这些谈话，我开始思考一个显而易见的问题。如果严重的通货膨胀真的来袭，我们能做些什么呢？我们如何保护我们的投资？</blockquote> That’s an especially key question for today’s retirees and those expecting to retire soon. When we’re older we’re generally advised to keep most of our money in more “conservative” investments, meaning things like bonds, that involve less risk. Someone in their 20s or 30s may not worry unduly if their retirement savings plunge 30% in a market rout or an inflationary spiral. For someone in their 60s, let alone older, that can become a major financial crisis.<blockquote>对于今天的退休人员和那些预计很快退休的人来说，这是一个特别关键的问题。当我们长大后，通常建议我们将大部分资金投资于更“保守”的投资，即债券等风险较小的投资。如果20多岁或30多岁的人的退休储蓄在市场暴跌或通胀螺旋中暴跌30%，他们可能不会过度担心。对于60多岁的人来说，更不用说老年人了，这可能会成为一场重大的财务危机。</blockquote> So I went back and dug up the information from the last, infamous inflationary spiral in the 1970s, when consumer price inflation often topped 10% a year. The Greek philosopher Heraclitus pointed out that no one ever walks through the same stream twice, because the second time it’s not the same stream, and we’re not the same person. Everything changes. There is no guarantee the next inflationary boom, even if it happens, will look anything like the last one — any more than we should assume that it will be accompanied by outbreaks of disco music and flared jeans.<blockquote>因此，我回去挖掘了20世纪70年代上一次臭名昭著的通胀螺旋的信息，当时消费者价格通胀经常超过每年10%。希腊哲学家赫拉克利特指出，没有人会两次走过同一条小溪，因为第二次就不是同一条小溪了，我们也不是同一个人了。一切都变了。不能保证下一次通胀繁荣，即使发生了，看起来也会像上一次一样——就像我们不应该假设它会伴随着迪斯科音乐和喇叭牛仔裤的爆发一样。</blockquote> Nonetheless the chart above shows the total returns, after adjusting for inflation, of various asset classes from December 1971 to December 1981. (I used those dates because the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, or NAREIT, starts their data series then.) The data on energy stocks came from data compiled by professor Ken French at Dartmouth College’s Tuck School of Business.<blockquote>尽管如此，上图显示了1971年12月至1981年12月各种资产类别经通胀调整后的总回报。（我使用这些日期是因为全国房地产投资信托协会（NAREIT）在那时开始他们的数据系列。）能源股的数据来自达特茅斯学院塔克商学院肯·弗伦奇教授汇编的数据。</blockquote> This is what happened to your purchasing power if you invested in these assets and hung on for 10 years. (I’ve excluded gold, which is a different story.)<blockquote>如果你投资这些资产并坚持10年，你的购买力就会发生这种情况。（我已经排除了黄金，这是一个不同的故事。）</blockquote> The key standout is that you really didn’t want to own Treasury bonds. The near 40% loss of purchasing power over 10 years is somewhat notional—it is derived from the compound annual returns on 10 Year Treasurys compiled by New York University’s Stern School of Business, divided by the consumer-price index—but tells a story nonetheless. (In Great Britain, where inflation was even worse, government bonds during the 1970s became known as “certificates of confiscation.” Ouch.)<blockquote>关键的突出之处在于，你真的不想拥有国债。10年内购买力损失近40%在某种程度上是名义上的——它来自纽约大学斯特恩商学院编制的10年期美国国债的复合年回报率除以消费者价格指数——但仍然讲述了一个故事。（在通货膨胀更严重的英国，20世纪70年代的政府债券被称为“没收证书”。哎哟。）</blockquote> Holding them cost you money. Lots of it.<blockquote>拿着它们要花钱。很多。</blockquote> You could argue that the danger today is even greater, simply because the yields on long-term Treasury bonds are so low. Federal Reserve quantitative easing, bond buying, and zero interest-rate policies have left Treasury yields at their lowest on record—which means the turns would be a disaster if inflation reared its head.<blockquote>你可能会说，今天的危险甚至更大，仅仅是因为长期国债的收益率如此之低。美联储的量化宽松、债券购买和零利率政策使美国国债收益率处于有记录以来的最低水平——这意味着如果通胀抬头，这将是一场灾难。</blockquote> Corporate bonds and the S&amp;P 500&nbsp;were also terrible investments. It’s worth remembering that these are real term losses over a decade, which means investors didn’t just lose a lot of money—they also lost a lot of time.<blockquote>公司债券和标普500也是糟糕的投资。值得记住的是，这些是十年来的实际定期损失，这意味着投资者不仅损失了很多钱，还损失了很多时间。</blockquote> Utility stocks weren’t great, but they held up better. And Treasury bills—short-term paper—did better still. But once again you were going backward when you needed to be going forwards.<blockquote>公用事业股表现不佳，但表现较好。短期票据——国库券——表现更好。但是当你需要前进的时候，你又一次倒退了。</blockquote> No one who remembers the 1970s will be surprised that energy companies boomed. Less well-remembered, maybe, is that REITs also did pretty well. These numbers, incidentally, represented property-owning REITs and excluded mortgage REITs, which own loans.<blockquote>任何记得20世纪70年代的人都不会对能源公司的蓬勃发展感到惊讶。也许不太为人所知的是，房地产投资信托基金的表现也相当不错。顺便说一句，这些数字代表拥有财产的房地产投资信托基金，不包括拥有贷款的抵押房地产投资信托基金。</blockquote> But there are two caveats to this. The first is that of course energy stocks did well, because a key driver of inflation in the 1970s was the rise of OPEC and two oil embargoes it imposed on the West for political reasons. Cue Heraclitus. There is no particular reason to assume that the next inflationary surge will be the same.<blockquote>但对此有两个警告。首先，能源股当然表现良好，因为20世纪70年代通胀的一个关键驱动因素是欧佩克的崛起及其出于政治原因对西方实施的两次石油禁运。提示赫拉克利特。没有特别的理由假设下一次通胀飙升会是一样的。</blockquote> The second caveat is that although REITs ended up doing well, they were volatile along the way. In particular, REIT prices collapsed in the OPEC-driven recession of 1972-4. And according to FactSet, U.S. REITs today already look pretty expensive on some measures. For instance it reckons that the forecast dividend yield on the Vanguard Real Estate ETF (a reasonable benchmark for the industry) is just 2.9% — by far the lowest since it was launched in 2004. Looking through NAREIT data, I can’t find a moment since 1971 when the overall yield on REITs was this low. During the real estate bubble in 2007, incidentally, the yield bottomed out no lower than 3.6%<blockquote>第二个警告是，尽管房地产投资信托基金最终表现良好，但一路上波动较大。特别是，房地产投资信托基金价格在1972-1974年欧佩克引发的经济衰退中暴跌。根据FactSet的数据，从某些指标来看，如今的美国房地产投资信托基金看起来已经相当昂贵。例如，它估计Vanguard Real Estate ETF（该行业的合理基准）的预测股息收益率仅为2.9%，是自2004年推出以来的最低水平。翻阅NAREIT数据，自1971年以来，我找不到REITs整体收益率如此之低的时刻。2007年房地产泡沫期间，顺带一提，收益率见底不低于3.6%</blockquote> So it may be that REITs offer less inflation protection today than we would hope.<blockquote>因此，如今房地产投资信托基金提供的通胀保护可能比我们希望的要少。</blockquote> One key difference in the 1970s is that there were no “inflation-protected” Treasury bonds to keep investors protected. So-called TIPS are in theory almost the perfect investment for retirees. They are issued by the U.S. government and their coupons are safe against default. Meanwhile their coupons effectively adjust to reflect changes in consumer prices.<blockquote>20世纪70年代的一个关键区别是，没有“通胀保值”国债来保护投资者。理论上，所谓的小费几乎是退休人员的完美投资。它们由美国政府发行，其优惠券不会违约。与此同时，他们的优惠券有效地调整以反映消费价格的变化。</blockquote> The problem today is that TIPS—like almost everything else in the bond market—look incredibly expensive. Most TIPS already lock in an actual loss of purchasing power if you buy them today. For example if you buy 5 year TIPS bonds and hold them for 5 years you’ll end up losing 9% of your purchasing power. And 30-year TIPS bonds offer the same 9% loss, though stretched out over 30 years.<blockquote>今天的问题是，TIPS——就像债券市场上的几乎所有东西一样——看起来非常昂贵。如果你今天购买，大多数建议已经锁定了购买力的实际损失。例如，如果你购买5年期TIPS债券并持有5年，你最终会损失9%的购买力。30年期TIPS债券的损失同样为9%，尽管期限延长了30年。</blockquote> It’s not very compelling. And it shows the risks that the government’s policy responses have created for those in retirement and near it.<blockquote>这不是很引人注目。它还显示了政府的政策应对给退休和接近退休年龄的人带来的风险。</blockquote>","source":"market_watch","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Worried about inflation? Here’s how investments did in the 1970s<blockquote>担心通货膨胀？以下是20世纪70年代的投资表现</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWorried about inflation? Here’s how investments did in the 1970s<blockquote>担心通货膨胀？以下是20世纪70年代的投资表现</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nMarketwatch2021-07-20 11:29\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\nIn the 1990s movie The Shipping News, an old newspaperman explains to Kevin Spacey how to cover the news. If there is a storm visible anywhere, he explains, you write “Storm threatens the town,” even if the storm is nowhere near and is unlikely to hit. If—as expected—the storm never hits, you just write the follow up: “Town spared by storm.”<blockquote>在20世纪90年代的电影《航运新闻》中，一位老记者向凯文·史派西解释如何报道新闻。他解释说，如果任何地方都有可见的风暴，你就会写“风暴威胁着城镇”，即使风暴不在附近，也不太可能来袭。如果——正如预期的那样——风暴从未袭击，你只需写下后续内容：“城镇幸免于风暴。”</blockquote> Readers may be excused for thinking something similar about the latest stories about looming, threatening, surging, terrifying inflation. Yes, the inflation forecasts were surging months ago, and hit 8-year highs. Had they continued there would be grounds to worry. But they haven’t continued. On the contrary, they’ve been falling for two months. The bond market’s 5-year inflation forecast is now lower than it was in mid-March. The market sees five-year inflation running at around 2.6%. That’s higher than we’ve been used to for a decade, but it’s nothing to cause any significant alarm.<blockquote>读者可能会对最近关于迫在眉睫、威胁、飙升、可怕的通货膨胀的故事有类似的想法。是的，几个月前通胀预测飙升，并创下8年来的新高。如果他们继续下去，就有理由担心。但他们没有继续。相反，他们已经下跌了两个月。债券市场的5年通胀预期现在低于3月中旬。市场预计五年通胀率约为2.6%。这比我们十年来所习惯的要高，但这并没有引起任何重大恐慌。</blockquote> That can change, of course. Maybe it will. We’ll see.<blockquote>当然，这种情况可能会改变。也许会。我们走着瞧。</blockquote> But with all this talk I got to thinking about the obvious question. If serious inflation really does hit, what can we do about it? How can we protect our investments?<blockquote>但是通过这些谈话，我开始思考一个显而易见的问题。如果严重的通货膨胀真的来袭，我们能做些什么呢？我们如何保护我们的投资？</blockquote> That’s an especially key question for today’s retirees and those expecting to retire soon. When we’re older we’re generally advised to keep most of our money in more “conservative” investments, meaning things like bonds, that involve less risk. Someone in their 20s or 30s may not worry unduly if their retirement savings plunge 30% in a market rout or an inflationary spiral. For someone in their 60s, let alone older, that can become a major financial crisis.<blockquote>对于今天的退休人员和那些预计很快退休的人来说，这是一个特别关键的问题。当我们长大后，通常建议我们将大部分资金投资于更“保守”的投资，即债券等风险较小的投资。如果20多岁或30多岁的人的退休储蓄在市场暴跌或通胀螺旋中暴跌30%，他们可能不会过度担心。对于60多岁的人来说，更不用说老年人了，这可能会成为一场重大的财务危机。</blockquote> So I went back and dug up the information from the last, infamous inflationary spiral in the 1970s, when consumer price inflation often topped 10% a year. The Greek philosopher Heraclitus pointed out that no one ever walks through the same stream twice, because the second time it’s not the same stream, and we’re not the same person. Everything changes. There is no guarantee the next inflationary boom, even if it happens, will look anything like the last one — any more than we should assume that it will be accompanied by outbreaks of disco music and flared jeans.<blockquote>因此，我回去挖掘了20世纪70年代上一次臭名昭著的通胀螺旋的信息，当时消费者价格通胀经常超过每年10%。希腊哲学家赫拉克利特指出，没有人会两次走过同一条小溪，因为第二次就不是同一条小溪了，我们也不是同一个人了。一切都变了。不能保证下一次通胀繁荣，即使发生了，看起来也会像上一次一样——就像我们不应该假设它会伴随着迪斯科音乐和喇叭牛仔裤的爆发一样。</blockquote> Nonetheless the chart above shows the total returns, after adjusting for inflation, of various asset classes from December 1971 to December 1981. (I used those dates because the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, or NAREIT, starts their data series then.) The data on energy stocks came from data compiled by professor Ken French at Dartmouth College’s Tuck School of Business.<blockquote>尽管如此，上图显示了1971年12月至1981年12月各种资产类别经通胀调整后的总回报。（我使用这些日期是因为全国房地产投资信托协会（NAREIT）在那时开始他们的数据系列。）能源股的数据来自达特茅斯学院塔克商学院肯·弗伦奇教授汇编的数据。</blockquote> This is what happened to your purchasing power if you invested in these assets and hung on for 10 years. (I’ve excluded gold, which is a different story.)<blockquote>如果你投资这些资产并坚持10年，你的购买力就会发生这种情况。（我已经排除了黄金，这是一个不同的故事。）</blockquote> The key standout is that you really didn’t want to own Treasury bonds. The near 40% loss of purchasing power over 10 years is somewhat notional—it is derived from the compound annual returns on 10 Year Treasurys compiled by New York University’s Stern School of Business, divided by the consumer-price index—but tells a story nonetheless. (In Great Britain, where inflation was even worse, government bonds during the 1970s became known as “certificates of confiscation.” Ouch.)<blockquote>关键的突出之处在于，你真的不想拥有国债。10年内购买力损失近40%在某种程度上是名义上的——它来自纽约大学斯特恩商学院编制的10年期美国国债的复合年回报率除以消费者价格指数——但仍然讲述了一个故事。（在通货膨胀更严重的英国，20世纪70年代的政府债券被称为“没收证书”。哎哟。）</blockquote> Holding them cost you money. Lots of it.<blockquote>拿着它们要花钱。很多。</blockquote> You could argue that the danger today is even greater, simply because the yields on long-term Treasury bonds are so low. Federal Reserve quantitative easing, bond buying, and zero interest-rate policies have left Treasury yields at their lowest on record—which means the turns would be a disaster if inflation reared its head.<blockquote>你可能会说，今天的危险甚至更大，仅仅是因为长期国债的收益率如此之低。美联储的量化宽松、债券购买和零利率政策使美国国债收益率处于有记录以来的最低水平——这意味着如果通胀抬头，这将是一场灾难。</blockquote> Corporate bonds and the S&amp;P 500&nbsp;were also terrible investments. It’s worth remembering that these are real term losses over a decade, which means investors didn’t just lose a lot of money—they also lost a lot of time.<blockquote>公司债券和标普500也是糟糕的投资。值得记住的是，这些是十年来的实际定期损失，这意味着投资者不仅损失了很多钱，还损失了很多时间。</blockquote> Utility stocks weren’t great, but they held up better. And Treasury bills—short-term paper—did better still. But once again you were going backward when you needed to be going forwards.<blockquote>公用事业股表现不佳，但表现较好。短期票据——国库券——表现更好。但是当你需要前进的时候，你又一次倒退了。</blockquote> No one who remembers the 1970s will be surprised that energy companies boomed. Less well-remembered, maybe, is that REITs also did pretty well. These numbers, incidentally, represented property-owning REITs and excluded mortgage REITs, which own loans.<blockquote>任何记得20世纪70年代的人都不会对能源公司的蓬勃发展感到惊讶。也许不太为人所知的是，房地产投资信托基金的表现也相当不错。顺便说一句，这些数字代表拥有财产的房地产投资信托基金，不包括拥有贷款的抵押房地产投资信托基金。</blockquote> But there are two caveats to this. The first is that of course energy stocks did well, because a key driver of inflation in the 1970s was the rise of OPEC and two oil embargoes it imposed on the West for political reasons. Cue Heraclitus. There is no particular reason to assume that the next inflationary surge will be the same.<blockquote>但对此有两个警告。首先，能源股当然表现良好，因为20世纪70年代通胀的一个关键驱动因素是欧佩克的崛起及其出于政治原因对西方实施的两次石油禁运。提示赫拉克利特。没有特别的理由假设下一次通胀飙升会是一样的。</blockquote> The second caveat is that although REITs ended up doing well, they were volatile along the way. In particular, REIT prices collapsed in the OPEC-driven recession of 1972-4. And according to FactSet, U.S. REITs today already look pretty expensive on some measures. For instance it reckons that the forecast dividend yield on the Vanguard Real Estate ETF (a reasonable benchmark for the industry) is just 2.9% — by far the lowest since it was launched in 2004. Looking through NAREIT data, I can’t find a moment since 1971 when the overall yield on REITs was this low. During the real estate bubble in 2007, incidentally, the yield bottomed out no lower than 3.6%<blockquote>第二个警告是，尽管房地产投资信托基金最终表现良好，但一路上波动较大。特别是，房地产投资信托基金价格在1972-1974年欧佩克引发的经济衰退中暴跌。根据FactSet的数据，从某些指标来看，如今的美国房地产投资信托基金看起来已经相当昂贵。例如，它估计Vanguard Real Estate ETF（该行业的合理基准）的预测股息收益率仅为2.9%，是自2004年推出以来的最低水平。翻阅NAREIT数据，自1971年以来，我找不到REITs整体收益率如此之低的时刻。2007年房地产泡沫期间，顺带一提，收益率见底不低于3.6%</blockquote> So it may be that REITs offer less inflation protection today than we would hope.<blockquote>因此，如今房地产投资信托基金提供的通胀保护可能比我们希望的要少。</blockquote> One key difference in the 1970s is that there were no “inflation-protected” Treasury bonds to keep investors protected. So-called TIPS are in theory almost the perfect investment for retirees. They are issued by the U.S. government and their coupons are safe against default. Meanwhile their coupons effectively adjust to reflect changes in consumer prices.<blockquote>20世纪70年代的一个关键区别是，没有“通胀保值”国债来保护投资者。理论上，所谓的小费几乎是退休人员的完美投资。它们由美国政府发行，其优惠券不会违约。与此同时，他们的优惠券有效地调整以反映消费价格的变化。</blockquote> The problem today is that TIPS—like almost everything else in the bond market—look incredibly expensive. Most TIPS already lock in an actual loss of purchasing power if you buy them today. For example if you buy 5 year TIPS bonds and hold them for 5 years you’ll end up losing 9% of your purchasing power. And 30-year TIPS bonds offer the same 9% loss, though stretched out over 30 years.<blockquote>今天的问题是，TIPS——就像债券市场上的几乎所有东西一样——看起来非常昂贵。如果你今天购买，大多数建议已经锁定了购买力的实际损失。例如，如果你购买5年期TIPS债券并持有5年，你最终会损失9%的购买力。30年期TIPS债券的损失同样为9%，尽管期限延长了30年。</blockquote> It’s not very compelling. And it shows the risks that the government’s policy responses have created for those in retirement and near it.<blockquote>这不是很引人注目。它还显示了政府的政策应对给退休和接近退休年龄的人带来的风险。</blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/worried-about-inflation-heres-how-investments-did-in-the-1970s-11626658251?siteid=yhoof2\">Marketwatch</a>\n为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".SPX":"S&P 500 Index","XOM":"埃克森美孚"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/worried-about-inflation-heres-how-investments-did-in-the-1970s-11626658251?siteid=yhoof2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/599a65733b8245fcf7868668ef9ad712","article_id":"1129846769","content_text":"In the 1990s movie The Shipping News, an old newspaperman explains to Kevin Spacey how to cover the news. If there is a storm visible anywhere, he explains, you write “Storm threatens the town,” even if the storm is nowhere near and is unlikely to hit. If—as expected—the storm never hits, you just write the follow up: “Town spared by storm.”\nReaders may be excused for thinking something similar about the latest stories about looming, threatening, surging, terrifying inflation. Yes, the inflation forecasts were surging months ago, and hit 8-year highs. Had they continued there would be grounds to worry. But they haven’t continued. On the contrary, they’ve been falling for two months. The bond market’s 5-year inflation forecast is now lower than it was in mid-March. The market sees five-year inflation running at around 2.6%. That’s higher than we’ve been used to for a decade, but it’s nothing to cause any significant alarm.\nThat can change, of course. Maybe it will. We’ll see.\nBut with all this talk I got to thinking about the obvious question. If serious inflation really does hit, what can we do about it? How can we protect our investments?\nThat’s an especially key question for today’s retirees and those expecting to retire soon. When we’re older we’re generally advised to keep most of our money in more “conservative” investments, meaning things like bonds, that involve less risk. Someone in their 20s or 30s may not worry unduly if their retirement savings plunge 30% in a market rout or an inflationary spiral. For someone in their 60s, let alone older, that can become a major financial crisis.\nSo I went back and dug up the information from the last, infamous inflationary spiral in the 1970s, when consumer price inflation often topped 10% a year. The Greek philosopher Heraclitus pointed out that no one ever walks through the same stream twice, because the second time it’s not the same stream, and we’re not the same person. Everything changes. There is no guarantee the next inflationary boom, even if it happens, will look anything like the last one — any more than we should assume that it will be accompanied by outbreaks of disco music and flared jeans.\nNonetheless the chart above shows the total returns, after adjusting for inflation, of various asset classes from December 1971 to December 1981. (I used those dates because the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, or NAREIT, starts their data series then.) The data on energy stocks came from data compiled by professor Ken French at Dartmouth College’s Tuck School of Business.\nThis is what happened to your purchasing power if you invested in these assets and hung on for 10 years. (I’ve excluded gold, which is a different story.)\nThe key standout is that you really didn’t want to own Treasury bonds. The near 40% loss of purchasing power over 10 years is somewhat notional—it is derived from the compound annual returns on 10 Year Treasurys compiled by New York University’s Stern School of Business, divided by the consumer-price index—but tells a story nonetheless. (In Great Britain, where inflation was even worse, government bonds during the 1970s became known as “certificates of confiscation.” Ouch.)\nHolding them cost you money. Lots of it.\nYou could argue that the danger today is even greater, simply because the yields on long-term Treasury bonds are so low. Federal Reserve quantitative easing, bond buying, and zero interest-rate policies have left Treasury yields at their lowest on record—which means the turns would be a disaster if inflation reared its head.\nCorporate bonds and the S&P 500 were also terrible investments. It’s worth remembering that these are real term losses over a decade, which means investors didn’t just lose a lot of money—they also lost a lot of time.\nUtility stocks weren’t great, but they held up better. And Treasury bills—short-term paper—did better still. But once again you were going backward when you needed to be going forwards.\nNo one who remembers the 1970s will be surprised that energy companies boomed. Less well-remembered, maybe, is that REITs also did pretty well. These numbers, incidentally, represented property-owning REITs and excluded mortgage REITs, which own loans.\nBut there are two caveats to this. The first is that of course energy stocks did well, because a key driver of inflation in the 1970s was the rise of OPEC and two oil embargoes it imposed on the West for political reasons. Cue Heraclitus. There is no particular reason to assume that the next inflationary surge will be the same.\nThe second caveat is that although REITs ended up doing well, they were volatile along the way. In particular, REIT prices collapsed in the OPEC-driven recession of 1972-4. And according to FactSet, U.S. REITs today already look pretty expensive on some measures. For instance it reckons that the forecast dividend yield on the Vanguard Real Estate ETF (a reasonable benchmark for the industry) is just 2.9% — by far the lowest since it was launched in 2004. Looking through NAREIT data, I can’t find a moment since 1971 when the overall yield on REITs was this low. During the real estate bubble in 2007, incidentally, the yield bottomed out no lower than 3.6%\nSo it may be that REITs offer less inflation protection today than we would hope.\nOne key difference in the 1970s is that there were no “inflation-protected” Treasury bonds to keep investors protected. So-called TIPS are in theory almost the perfect investment for retirees. They are issued by the U.S. government and their coupons are safe against default. Meanwhile their coupons effectively adjust to reflect changes in consumer prices.\nThe problem today is that TIPS—like almost everything else in the bond market—look incredibly expensive. Most TIPS already lock in an actual loss of purchasing power if you buy them today. For example if you buy 5 year TIPS bonds and hold them for 5 years you’ll end up losing 9% of your purchasing power. And 30-year TIPS bonds offer the same 9% loss, though stretched out over 30 years.\nIt’s not very compelling. And it shows the risks that the government’s policy responses have created for those in retirement and near it.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{".SPX":0.9,"XOM":0.9}},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":5269823,"gmtCreate":1626757105717,"gmtModify":1635225497054,"authorId":3581385014673304,"author":{"id":3581385014673304,"idStr":"3581385014673304","authorId":3581385014673304,"name":"Qkuca","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/69a0785cbfa53d9d0452a1870c401782","vip":1,"crmLevel":12,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":171484612,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"[微笑]","text":"[微笑]","html":"[微笑]"},{"id":5269845,"gmtCreate":1626757250665,"gmtModify":1635225495324,"authorId":3569878308990725,"author":{"id":3569878308990725,"idStr":"3569878308990725","authorId":3569878308990725,"name":"Jiayingsiow","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/790587720e388070c685b77940b07f24","vip":1,"crmLevel":12,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":171484612,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"OK","text":"OK","html":"OK"}],"langContent":"EN"},{"id":171488419,"gmtCreate":1626756434831,"gmtModify":1633771310211,"author":{"id":"3577190611611615","authorId":"3577190611611615","name":"Euginelai","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f372cf5db2ff096891b722c46529864e","vip":1,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3577190611611615","authorIdStr":"3577190611611615"},"htmlText":"ok","listText":"ok","text":"ok","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":8,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/171488419","repostId":1129846769,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1129846769","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1626751789,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1129846769?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-07-20 11:29","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Worried about inflation? Here’s how investments did in the 1970s<blockquote>担心通货膨胀？以下是20世纪70年代的投资表现</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1129846769","media":"Marketwatch","summary":"In the 1990s movie The Shipping News, an old newspaperman explains to Kevin Spacey how to cover the ","content":"In the 1990s movie The Shipping News, an old newspaperman explains to Kevin Spacey how to cover the news. If there is a storm visible anywhere, he explains, you write “Storm threatens the town,” even if the storm is nowhere near and is unlikely to hit. If—as expected—the storm never hits, you just write the follow up: “Town spared by storm.”<blockquote>在20世纪90年代的电影《航运新闻》中，一位老记者向凯文·史派西解释如何报道新闻。他解释说，如果任何地方都有可见的风暴，你就会写“风暴威胁着城镇”，即使风暴不在附近，也不太可能来袭。如果——正如预期的那样——风暴从未袭击，你只需写下后续内容：“城镇幸免于风暴。”</blockquote> Readers may be excused for thinking something similar about the latest stories about looming, threatening, surging, terrifying inflation. Yes, the inflation forecasts were surging months ago, and hit 8-year highs. Had they continued there would be grounds to worry. But they haven’t continued. On the contrary, they’ve been falling for two months. The bond market’s 5-year inflation forecast is now lower than it was in mid-March. The market sees five-year inflation running at around 2.6%. That’s higher than we’ve been used to for a decade, but it’s nothing to cause any significant alarm.<blockquote>读者可能会对最近关于迫在眉睫、威胁、飙升、可怕的通货膨胀的故事有类似的想法。是的，几个月前通胀预测飙升，并创下8年来的新高。如果他们继续下去，就有理由担心。但他们没有继续。相反，他们已经下跌了两个月。债券市场的5年通胀预期现在低于3月中旬。市场预计五年通胀率约为2.6%。这比我们十年来所习惯的要高，但这并没有引起任何重大恐慌。</blockquote> That can change, of course. Maybe it will. We’ll see.<blockquote>当然，这种情况可能会改变。也许会。我们走着瞧。</blockquote> But with all this talk I got to thinking about the obvious question. If serious inflation really does hit, what can we do about it? How can we protect our investments?<blockquote>但是通过这些谈话，我开始思考一个显而易见的问题。如果严重的通货膨胀真的来袭，我们能做些什么呢？我们如何保护我们的投资？</blockquote> That’s an especially key question for today’s retirees and those expecting to retire soon. When we’re older we’re generally advised to keep most of our money in more “conservative” investments, meaning things like bonds, that involve less risk. Someone in their 20s or 30s may not worry unduly if their retirement savings plunge 30% in a market rout or an inflationary spiral. For someone in their 60s, let alone older, that can become a major financial crisis.<blockquote>对于今天的退休人员和那些预计很快退休的人来说，这是一个特别关键的问题。当我们长大后，通常建议我们将大部分资金投资于更“保守”的投资，即债券等风险较小的投资。如果20多岁或30多岁的人的退休储蓄在市场暴跌或通胀螺旋中暴跌30%，他们可能不会过度担心。对于60多岁的人来说，更不用说老年人了，这可能会成为一场重大的财务危机。</blockquote> So I went back and dug up the information from the last, infamous inflationary spiral in the 1970s, when consumer price inflation often topped 10% a year. The Greek philosopher Heraclitus pointed out that no one ever walks through the same stream twice, because the second time it’s not the same stream, and we’re not the same person. Everything changes. There is no guarantee the next inflationary boom, even if it happens, will look anything like the last one — any more than we should assume that it will be accompanied by outbreaks of disco music and flared jeans.<blockquote>因此，我回去挖掘了20世纪70年代上一次臭名昭著的通胀螺旋的信息，当时消费者价格通胀经常超过每年10%。希腊哲学家赫拉克利特指出，没有人会两次走过同一条小溪，因为第二次就不是同一条小溪了，我们也不是同一个人了。一切都变了。不能保证下一次通胀繁荣，即使发生了，看起来也会像上一次一样——就像我们不应该假设它会伴随着迪斯科音乐和喇叭牛仔裤的爆发一样。</blockquote> Nonetheless the chart above shows the total returns, after adjusting for inflation, of various asset classes from December 1971 to December 1981. (I used those dates because the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, or NAREIT, starts their data series then.) The data on energy stocks came from data compiled by professor Ken French at Dartmouth College’s Tuck School of Business.<blockquote>尽管如此，上图显示了1971年12月至1981年12月各种资产类别经通胀调整后的总回报。（我使用这些日期是因为全国房地产投资信托协会（NAREIT）在那时开始他们的数据系列。）能源股的数据来自达特茅斯学院塔克商学院肯·弗伦奇教授汇编的数据。</blockquote> This is what happened to your purchasing power if you invested in these assets and hung on for 10 years. (I’ve excluded gold, which is a different story.)<blockquote>如果你投资这些资产并坚持10年，你的购买力就会发生这种情况。（我已经排除了黄金，这是一个不同的故事。）</blockquote> The key standout is that you really didn’t want to own Treasury bonds. The near 40% loss of purchasing power over 10 years is somewhat notional—it is derived from the compound annual returns on 10 Year Treasurys compiled by New York University’s Stern School of Business, divided by the consumer-price index—but tells a story nonetheless. (In Great Britain, where inflation was even worse, government bonds during the 1970s became known as “certificates of confiscation.” Ouch.)<blockquote>关键的突出之处在于，你真的不想拥有国债。10年内购买力损失近40%在某种程度上是名义上的——它来自纽约大学斯特恩商学院编制的10年期美国国债的复合年回报率除以消费者价格指数——但仍然讲述了一个故事。（在通货膨胀更严重的英国，20世纪70年代的政府债券被称为“没收证书”。哎哟。）</blockquote> Holding them cost you money. Lots of it.<blockquote>拿着它们要花钱。很多。</blockquote> You could argue that the danger today is even greater, simply because the yields on long-term Treasury bonds are so low. Federal Reserve quantitative easing, bond buying, and zero interest-rate policies have left Treasury yields at their lowest on record—which means the turns would be a disaster if inflation reared its head.<blockquote>你可能会说，今天的危险甚至更大，仅仅是因为长期国债的收益率如此之低。美联储的量化宽松、债券购买和零利率政策使美国国债收益率处于有记录以来的最低水平——这意味着如果通胀抬头，这将是一场灾难。</blockquote> Corporate bonds and the S&amp;P 500&nbsp;were also terrible investments. It’s worth remembering that these are real term losses over a decade, which means investors didn’t just lose a lot of money—they also lost a lot of time.<blockquote>公司债券和标普500也是糟糕的投资。值得记住的是，这些是十年来的实际定期损失，这意味着投资者不仅损失了很多钱，还损失了很多时间。</blockquote> Utility stocks weren’t great, but they held up better. And Treasury bills—short-term paper—did better still. But once again you were going backward when you needed to be going forwards.<blockquote>公用事业股表现不佳，但表现较好。短期票据——国库券——表现更好。但是当你需要前进的时候，你又一次倒退了。</blockquote> No one who remembers the 1970s will be surprised that energy companies boomed. Less well-remembered, maybe, is that REITs also did pretty well. These numbers, incidentally, represented property-owning REITs and excluded mortgage REITs, which own loans.<blockquote>任何记得20世纪70年代的人都不会对能源公司的蓬勃发展感到惊讶。也许不太为人所知的是，房地产投资信托基金的表现也相当不错。顺便说一句，这些数字代表拥有财产的房地产投资信托基金，不包括拥有贷款的抵押房地产投资信托基金。</blockquote> But there are two caveats to this. The first is that of course energy stocks did well, because a key driver of inflation in the 1970s was the rise of OPEC and two oil embargoes it imposed on the West for political reasons. Cue Heraclitus. There is no particular reason to assume that the next inflationary surge will be the same.<blockquote>但对此有两个警告。首先，能源股当然表现良好，因为20世纪70年代通胀的一个关键驱动因素是欧佩克的崛起及其出于政治原因对西方实施的两次石油禁运。提示赫拉克利特。没有特别的理由假设下一次通胀飙升会是一样的。</blockquote> The second caveat is that although REITs ended up doing well, they were volatile along the way. In particular, REIT prices collapsed in the OPEC-driven recession of 1972-4. And according to FactSet, U.S. REITs today already look pretty expensive on some measures. For instance it reckons that the forecast dividend yield on the Vanguard Real Estate ETF (a reasonable benchmark for the industry) is just 2.9% — by far the lowest since it was launched in 2004. Looking through NAREIT data, I can’t find a moment since 1971 when the overall yield on REITs was this low. During the real estate bubble in 2007, incidentally, the yield bottomed out no lower than 3.6%<blockquote>第二个警告是，尽管房地产投资信托基金最终表现良好，但一路上波动较大。特别是，房地产投资信托基金价格在1972-1974年欧佩克引发的经济衰退中暴跌。根据FactSet的数据，从某些指标来看，如今的美国房地产投资信托基金看起来已经相当昂贵。例如，它估计Vanguard Real Estate ETF（该行业的合理基准）的预测股息收益率仅为2.9%，是自2004年推出以来的最低水平。翻阅NAREIT数据，自1971年以来，我找不到REITs整体收益率如此之低的时刻。2007年房地产泡沫期间，顺带一提，收益率见底不低于3.6%</blockquote> So it may be that REITs offer less inflation protection today than we would hope.<blockquote>因此，如今房地产投资信托基金提供的通胀保护可能比我们希望的要少。</blockquote> One key difference in the 1970s is that there were no “inflation-protected” Treasury bonds to keep investors protected. So-called TIPS are in theory almost the perfect investment for retirees. They are issued by the U.S. government and their coupons are safe against default. Meanwhile their coupons effectively adjust to reflect changes in consumer prices.<blockquote>20世纪70年代的一个关键区别是，没有“通胀保值”国债来保护投资者。理论上，所谓的小费几乎是退休人员的完美投资。它们由美国政府发行，其优惠券不会违约。与此同时，他们的优惠券有效地调整以反映消费价格的变化。</blockquote> The problem today is that TIPS—like almost everything else in the bond market—look incredibly expensive. Most TIPS already lock in an actual loss of purchasing power if you buy them today. For example if you buy 5 year TIPS bonds and hold them for 5 years you’ll end up losing 9% of your purchasing power. And 30-year TIPS bonds offer the same 9% loss, though stretched out over 30 years.<blockquote>今天的问题是，TIPS——就像债券市场上的几乎所有东西一样——看起来非常昂贵。如果你今天购买，大多数建议已经锁定了购买力的实际损失。例如，如果你购买5年期TIPS债券并持有5年，你最终会损失9%的购买力。30年期TIPS债券的损失同样为9%，尽管期限延长了30年。</blockquote> It’s not very compelling. And it shows the risks that the government’s policy responses have created for those in retirement and near it.<blockquote>这不是很引人注目。它还显示了政府的政策应对给退休和接近退休年龄的人带来的风险。</blockquote>","source":"market_watch","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Worried about inflation? Here’s how investments did in the 1970s<blockquote>担心通货膨胀？以下是20世纪70年代的投资表现</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWorried about inflation? Here’s how investments did in the 1970s<blockquote>担心通货膨胀？以下是20世纪70年代的投资表现</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nMarketwatch2021-07-20 11:29\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\nIn the 1990s movie The Shipping News, an old newspaperman explains to Kevin Spacey how to cover the news. If there is a storm visible anywhere, he explains, you write “Storm threatens the town,” even if the storm is nowhere near and is unlikely to hit. If—as expected—the storm never hits, you just write the follow up: “Town spared by storm.”<blockquote>在20世纪90年代的电影《航运新闻》中，一位老记者向凯文·史派西解释如何报道新闻。他解释说，如果任何地方都有可见的风暴，你就会写“风暴威胁着城镇”，即使风暴不在附近，也不太可能来袭。如果——正如预期的那样——风暴从未袭击，你只需写下后续内容：“城镇幸免于风暴。”</blockquote> Readers may be excused for thinking something similar about the latest stories about looming, threatening, surging, terrifying inflation. Yes, the inflation forecasts were surging months ago, and hit 8-year highs. Had they continued there would be grounds to worry. But they haven’t continued. On the contrary, they’ve been falling for two months. The bond market’s 5-year inflation forecast is now lower than it was in mid-March. The market sees five-year inflation running at around 2.6%. That’s higher than we’ve been used to for a decade, but it’s nothing to cause any significant alarm.<blockquote>读者可能会对最近关于迫在眉睫、威胁、飙升、可怕的通货膨胀的故事有类似的想法。是的，几个月前通胀预测飙升，并创下8年来的新高。如果他们继续下去，就有理由担心。但他们没有继续。相反，他们已经下跌了两个月。债券市场的5年通胀预期现在低于3月中旬。市场预计五年通胀率约为2.6%。这比我们十年来所习惯的要高，但这并没有引起任何重大恐慌。</blockquote> That can change, of course. Maybe it will. We’ll see.<blockquote>当然，这种情况可能会改变。也许会。我们走着瞧。</blockquote> But with all this talk I got to thinking about the obvious question. If serious inflation really does hit, what can we do about it? How can we protect our investments?<blockquote>但是通过这些谈话，我开始思考一个显而易见的问题。如果严重的通货膨胀真的来袭，我们能做些什么呢？我们如何保护我们的投资？</blockquote> That’s an especially key question for today’s retirees and those expecting to retire soon. When we’re older we’re generally advised to keep most of our money in more “conservative” investments, meaning things like bonds, that involve less risk. Someone in their 20s or 30s may not worry unduly if their retirement savings plunge 30% in a market rout or an inflationary spiral. For someone in their 60s, let alone older, that can become a major financial crisis.<blockquote>对于今天的退休人员和那些预计很快退休的人来说，这是一个特别关键的问题。当我们长大后，通常建议我们将大部分资金投资于更“保守”的投资，即债券等风险较小的投资。如果20多岁或30多岁的人的退休储蓄在市场暴跌或通胀螺旋中暴跌30%，他们可能不会过度担心。对于60多岁的人来说，更不用说老年人了，这可能会成为一场重大的财务危机。</blockquote> So I went back and dug up the information from the last, infamous inflationary spiral in the 1970s, when consumer price inflation often topped 10% a year. The Greek philosopher Heraclitus pointed out that no one ever walks through the same stream twice, because the second time it’s not the same stream, and we’re not the same person. Everything changes. There is no guarantee the next inflationary boom, even if it happens, will look anything like the last one — any more than we should assume that it will be accompanied by outbreaks of disco music and flared jeans.<blockquote>因此，我回去挖掘了20世纪70年代上一次臭名昭著的通胀螺旋的信息，当时消费者价格通胀经常超过每年10%。希腊哲学家赫拉克利特指出，没有人会两次走过同一条小溪，因为第二次就不是同一条小溪了，我们也不是同一个人了。一切都变了。不能保证下一次通胀繁荣，即使发生了，看起来也会像上一次一样——就像我们不应该假设它会伴随着迪斯科音乐和喇叭牛仔裤的爆发一样。</blockquote> Nonetheless the chart above shows the total returns, after adjusting for inflation, of various asset classes from December 1971 to December 1981. (I used those dates because the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, or NAREIT, starts their data series then.) The data on energy stocks came from data compiled by professor Ken French at Dartmouth College’s Tuck School of Business.<blockquote>尽管如此，上图显示了1971年12月至1981年12月各种资产类别经通胀调整后的总回报。（我使用这些日期是因为全国房地产投资信托协会（NAREIT）在那时开始他们的数据系列。）能源股的数据来自达特茅斯学院塔克商学院肯·弗伦奇教授汇编的数据。</blockquote> This is what happened to your purchasing power if you invested in these assets and hung on for 10 years. (I’ve excluded gold, which is a different story.)<blockquote>如果你投资这些资产并坚持10年，你的购买力就会发生这种情况。（我已经排除了黄金，这是一个不同的故事。）</blockquote> The key standout is that you really didn’t want to own Treasury bonds. The near 40% loss of purchasing power over 10 years is somewhat notional—it is derived from the compound annual returns on 10 Year Treasurys compiled by New York University’s Stern School of Business, divided by the consumer-price index—but tells a story nonetheless. (In Great Britain, where inflation was even worse, government bonds during the 1970s became known as “certificates of confiscation.” Ouch.)<blockquote>关键的突出之处在于，你真的不想拥有国债。10年内购买力损失近40%在某种程度上是名义上的——它来自纽约大学斯特恩商学院编制的10年期美国国债的复合年回报率除以消费者价格指数——但仍然讲述了一个故事。（在通货膨胀更严重的英国，20世纪70年代的政府债券被称为“没收证书”。哎哟。）</blockquote> Holding them cost you money. Lots of it.<blockquote>拿着它们要花钱。很多。</blockquote> You could argue that the danger today is even greater, simply because the yields on long-term Treasury bonds are so low. Federal Reserve quantitative easing, bond buying, and zero interest-rate policies have left Treasury yields at their lowest on record—which means the turns would be a disaster if inflation reared its head.<blockquote>你可能会说，今天的危险甚至更大，仅仅是因为长期国债的收益率如此之低。美联储的量化宽松、债券购买和零利率政策使美国国债收益率处于有记录以来的最低水平——这意味着如果通胀抬头，这将是一场灾难。</blockquote> Corporate bonds and the S&amp;P 500&nbsp;were also terrible investments. It’s worth remembering that these are real term losses over a decade, which means investors didn’t just lose a lot of money—they also lost a lot of time.<blockquote>公司债券和标普500也是糟糕的投资。值得记住的是，这些是十年来的实际定期损失，这意味着投资者不仅损失了很多钱，还损失了很多时间。</blockquote> Utility stocks weren’t great, but they held up better. And Treasury bills—short-term paper—did better still. But once again you were going backward when you needed to be going forwards.<blockquote>公用事业股表现不佳，但表现较好。短期票据——国库券——表现更好。但是当你需要前进的时候，你又一次倒退了。</blockquote> No one who remembers the 1970s will be surprised that energy companies boomed. Less well-remembered, maybe, is that REITs also did pretty well. These numbers, incidentally, represented property-owning REITs and excluded mortgage REITs, which own loans.<blockquote>任何记得20世纪70年代的人都不会对能源公司的蓬勃发展感到惊讶。也许不太为人所知的是，房地产投资信托基金的表现也相当不错。顺便说一句，这些数字代表拥有财产的房地产投资信托基金，不包括拥有贷款的抵押房地产投资信托基金。</blockquote> But there are two caveats to this. The first is that of course energy stocks did well, because a key driver of inflation in the 1970s was the rise of OPEC and two oil embargoes it imposed on the West for political reasons. Cue Heraclitus. There is no particular reason to assume that the next inflationary surge will be the same.<blockquote>但对此有两个警告。首先，能源股当然表现良好，因为20世纪70年代通胀的一个关键驱动因素是欧佩克的崛起及其出于政治原因对西方实施的两次石油禁运。提示赫拉克利特。没有特别的理由假设下一次通胀飙升会是一样的。</blockquote> The second caveat is that although REITs ended up doing well, they were volatile along the way. In particular, REIT prices collapsed in the OPEC-driven recession of 1972-4. And according to FactSet, U.S. REITs today already look pretty expensive on some measures. For instance it reckons that the forecast dividend yield on the Vanguard Real Estate ETF (a reasonable benchmark for the industry) is just 2.9% — by far the lowest since it was launched in 2004. Looking through NAREIT data, I can’t find a moment since 1971 when the overall yield on REITs was this low. During the real estate bubble in 2007, incidentally, the yield bottomed out no lower than 3.6%<blockquote>第二个警告是，尽管房地产投资信托基金最终表现良好，但一路上波动较大。特别是，房地产投资信托基金价格在1972-1974年欧佩克引发的经济衰退中暴跌。根据FactSet的数据，从某些指标来看，如今的美国房地产投资信托基金看起来已经相当昂贵。例如，它估计Vanguard Real Estate ETF（该行业的合理基准）的预测股息收益率仅为2.9%，是自2004年推出以来的最低水平。翻阅NAREIT数据，自1971年以来，我找不到REITs整体收益率如此之低的时刻。2007年房地产泡沫期间，顺带一提，收益率见底不低于3.6%</blockquote> So it may be that REITs offer less inflation protection today than we would hope.<blockquote>因此，如今房地产投资信托基金提供的通胀保护可能比我们希望的要少。</blockquote> One key difference in the 1970s is that there were no “inflation-protected” Treasury bonds to keep investors protected. So-called TIPS are in theory almost the perfect investment for retirees. They are issued by the U.S. government and their coupons are safe against default. Meanwhile their coupons effectively adjust to reflect changes in consumer prices.<blockquote>20世纪70年代的一个关键区别是，没有“通胀保值”国债来保护投资者。理论上，所谓的小费几乎是退休人员的完美投资。它们由美国政府发行，其优惠券不会违约。与此同时，他们的优惠券有效地调整以反映消费价格的变化。</blockquote> The problem today is that TIPS—like almost everything else in the bond market—look incredibly expensive. Most TIPS already lock in an actual loss of purchasing power if you buy them today. For example if you buy 5 year TIPS bonds and hold them for 5 years you’ll end up losing 9% of your purchasing power. And 30-year TIPS bonds offer the same 9% loss, though stretched out over 30 years.<blockquote>今天的问题是，TIPS——就像债券市场上的几乎所有东西一样——看起来非常昂贵。如果你今天购买，大多数建议已经锁定了购买力的实际损失。例如，如果你购买5年期TIPS债券并持有5年，你最终会损失9%的购买力。30年期TIPS债券的损失同样为9%，尽管期限延长了30年。</blockquote> It’s not very compelling. And it shows the risks that the government’s policy responses have created for those in retirement and near it.<blockquote>这不是很引人注目。它还显示了政府的政策应对给退休和接近退休年龄的人带来的风险。</blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/worried-about-inflation-heres-how-investments-did-in-the-1970s-11626658251?siteid=yhoof2\">Marketwatch</a>\n为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".SPX":"S&P 500 Index","XOM":"埃克森美孚"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/worried-about-inflation-heres-how-investments-did-in-the-1970s-11626658251?siteid=yhoof2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/599a65733b8245fcf7868668ef9ad712","article_id":"1129846769","content_text":"In the 1990s movie The Shipping News, an old newspaperman explains to Kevin Spacey how to cover the news. If there is a storm visible anywhere, he explains, you write “Storm threatens the town,” even if the storm is nowhere near and is unlikely to hit. If—as expected—the storm never hits, you just write the follow up: “Town spared by storm.”\nReaders may be excused for thinking something similar about the latest stories about looming, threatening, surging, terrifying inflation. Yes, the inflation forecasts were surging months ago, and hit 8-year highs. Had they continued there would be grounds to worry. But they haven’t continued. On the contrary, they’ve been falling for two months. The bond market’s 5-year inflation forecast is now lower than it was in mid-March. The market sees five-year inflation running at around 2.6%. That’s higher than we’ve been used to for a decade, but it’s nothing to cause any significant alarm.\nThat can change, of course. Maybe it will. We’ll see.\nBut with all this talk I got to thinking about the obvious question. If serious inflation really does hit, what can we do about it? How can we protect our investments?\nThat’s an especially key question for today’s retirees and those expecting to retire soon. When we’re older we’re generally advised to keep most of our money in more “conservative” investments, meaning things like bonds, that involve less risk. Someone in their 20s or 30s may not worry unduly if their retirement savings plunge 30% in a market rout or an inflationary spiral. For someone in their 60s, let alone older, that can become a major financial crisis.\nSo I went back and dug up the information from the last, infamous inflationary spiral in the 1970s, when consumer price inflation often topped 10% a year. The Greek philosopher Heraclitus pointed out that no one ever walks through the same stream twice, because the second time it’s not the same stream, and we’re not the same person. Everything changes. There is no guarantee the next inflationary boom, even if it happens, will look anything like the last one — any more than we should assume that it will be accompanied by outbreaks of disco music and flared jeans.\nNonetheless the chart above shows the total returns, after adjusting for inflation, of various asset classes from December 1971 to December 1981. (I used those dates because the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, or NAREIT, starts their data series then.) The data on energy stocks came from data compiled by professor Ken French at Dartmouth College’s Tuck School of Business.\nThis is what happened to your purchasing power if you invested in these assets and hung on for 10 years. (I’ve excluded gold, which is a different story.)\nThe key standout is that you really didn’t want to own Treasury bonds. The near 40% loss of purchasing power over 10 years is somewhat notional—it is derived from the compound annual returns on 10 Year Treasurys compiled by New York University’s Stern School of Business, divided by the consumer-price index—but tells a story nonetheless. (In Great Britain, where inflation was even worse, government bonds during the 1970s became known as “certificates of confiscation.” Ouch.)\nHolding them cost you money. Lots of it.\nYou could argue that the danger today is even greater, simply because the yields on long-term Treasury bonds are so low. Federal Reserve quantitative easing, bond buying, and zero interest-rate policies have left Treasury yields at their lowest on record—which means the turns would be a disaster if inflation reared its head.\nCorporate bonds and the S&P 500 were also terrible investments. It’s worth remembering that these are real term losses over a decade, which means investors didn’t just lose a lot of money—they also lost a lot of time.\nUtility stocks weren’t great, but they held up better. And Treasury bills—short-term paper—did better still. But once again you were going backward when you needed to be going forwards.\nNo one who remembers the 1970s will be surprised that energy companies boomed. Less well-remembered, maybe, is that REITs also did pretty well. These numbers, incidentally, represented property-owning REITs and excluded mortgage REITs, which own loans.\nBut there are two caveats to this. The first is that of course energy stocks did well, because a key driver of inflation in the 1970s was the rise of OPEC and two oil embargoes it imposed on the West for political reasons. Cue Heraclitus. There is no particular reason to assume that the next inflationary surge will be the same.\nThe second caveat is that although REITs ended up doing well, they were volatile along the way. In particular, REIT prices collapsed in the OPEC-driven recession of 1972-4. And according to FactSet, U.S. REITs today already look pretty expensive on some measures. For instance it reckons that the forecast dividend yield on the Vanguard Real Estate ETF (a reasonable benchmark for the industry) is just 2.9% — by far the lowest since it was launched in 2004. Looking through NAREIT data, I can’t find a moment since 1971 when the overall yield on REITs was this low. During the real estate bubble in 2007, incidentally, the yield bottomed out no lower than 3.6%\nSo it may be that REITs offer less inflation protection today than we would hope.\nOne key difference in the 1970s is that there were no “inflation-protected” Treasury bonds to keep investors protected. So-called TIPS are in theory almost the perfect investment for retirees. They are issued by the U.S. government and their coupons are safe against default. Meanwhile their coupons effectively adjust to reflect changes in consumer prices.\nThe problem today is that TIPS—like almost everything else in the bond market—look incredibly expensive. Most TIPS already lock in an actual loss of purchasing power if you buy them today. For example if you buy 5 year TIPS bonds and hold them for 5 years you’ll end up losing 9% of your purchasing power. And 30-year TIPS bonds offer the same 9% loss, though stretched out over 30 years.\nIt’s not very compelling. And it shows the risks that the government’s policy responses have created for those in retirement and near it.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{".SPX":0.9,"XOM":0.9}},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":5269753,"gmtCreate":1626756476031,"gmtModify":1635225502999,"authorId":3567411499210880,"author":{"id":3567411499210880,"idStr":"3567411499210880","authorId":3567411499210880,"name":"Nebhol","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/b0bfc2a45b91e41a283614268857b3a5","vip":1,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":171488419,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"Like comment ","text":"Like comment ","html":"Like comment "}],"langContent":"EN"},{"id":171418658,"gmtCreate":1626755681374,"gmtModify":1633771318696,"author":{"id":"3583568085402852","authorId":"3583568085402852","name":"IsaacYap90","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/40f66d0266826bb209ee22688d7bbde5","vip":1,"crmLevel":12,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3583568085402852","authorIdStr":"3583568085402852"},"htmlText":"Ok","listText":"Ok","text":"Ok","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":5,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/171418658","repostId":1129846769,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1129846769","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1626751789,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1129846769?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-07-20 11:29","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Worried about inflation? Here’s how investments did in the 1970s<blockquote>担心通货膨胀？以下是20世纪70年代的投资表现</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1129846769","media":"Marketwatch","summary":"In the 1990s movie The Shipping News, an old newspaperman explains to Kevin Spacey how to cover the ","content":"In the 1990s movie The Shipping News, an old newspaperman explains to Kevin Spacey how to cover the news. If there is a storm visible anywhere, he explains, you write “Storm threatens the town,” even if the storm is nowhere near and is unlikely to hit. If—as expected—the storm never hits, you just write the follow up: “Town spared by storm.”<blockquote>在20世纪90年代的电影《航运新闻》中，一位老记者向凯文·史派西解释如何报道新闻。他解释说，如果任何地方都有可见的风暴，你就会写“风暴威胁着城镇”，即使风暴不在附近，也不太可能来袭。如果——正如预期的那样——风暴从未袭击，你只需写下后续内容：“城镇幸免于风暴。”</blockquote> Readers may be excused for thinking something similar about the latest stories about looming, threatening, surging, terrifying inflation. Yes, the inflation forecasts were surging months ago, and hit 8-year highs. Had they continued there would be grounds to worry. But they haven’t continued. On the contrary, they’ve been falling for two months. The bond market’s 5-year inflation forecast is now lower than it was in mid-March. The market sees five-year inflation running at around 2.6%. That’s higher than we’ve been used to for a decade, but it’s nothing to cause any significant alarm.<blockquote>读者可能会对最近关于迫在眉睫、威胁、飙升、可怕的通货膨胀的故事有类似的想法。是的，几个月前通胀预测飙升，并创下8年来的新高。如果他们继续下去，就有理由担心。但他们没有继续。相反，他们已经下跌了两个月。债券市场的5年通胀预期现在低于3月中旬。市场预计五年通胀率约为2.6%。这比我们十年来所习惯的要高，但这并没有引起任何重大恐慌。</blockquote> That can change, of course. Maybe it will. We’ll see.<blockquote>当然，这种情况可能会改变。也许会。我们走着瞧。</blockquote> But with all this talk I got to thinking about the obvious question. If serious inflation really does hit, what can we do about it? How can we protect our investments?<blockquote>但是通过这些谈话，我开始思考一个显而易见的问题。如果严重的通货膨胀真的来袭，我们能做些什么呢？我们如何保护我们的投资？</blockquote> That’s an especially key question for today’s retirees and those expecting to retire soon. When we’re older we’re generally advised to keep most of our money in more “conservative” investments, meaning things like bonds, that involve less risk. Someone in their 20s or 30s may not worry unduly if their retirement savings plunge 30% in a market rout or an inflationary spiral. For someone in their 60s, let alone older, that can become a major financial crisis.<blockquote>对于今天的退休人员和那些预计很快退休的人来说，这是一个特别关键的问题。当我们长大后，通常建议我们将大部分资金投资于更“保守”的投资，即债券等风险较小的投资。如果20多岁或30多岁的人的退休储蓄在市场暴跌或通胀螺旋中暴跌30%，他们可能不会过度担心。对于60多岁的人来说，更不用说老年人了，这可能会成为一场重大的财务危机。</blockquote> So I went back and dug up the information from the last, infamous inflationary spiral in the 1970s, when consumer price inflation often topped 10% a year. The Greek philosopher Heraclitus pointed out that no one ever walks through the same stream twice, because the second time it’s not the same stream, and we’re not the same person. Everything changes. There is no guarantee the next inflationary boom, even if it happens, will look anything like the last one — any more than we should assume that it will be accompanied by outbreaks of disco music and flared jeans.<blockquote>因此，我回去挖掘了20世纪70年代上一次臭名昭著的通胀螺旋的信息，当时消费者价格通胀经常超过每年10%。希腊哲学家赫拉克利特指出，没有人会两次走过同一条小溪，因为第二次就不是同一条小溪了，我们也不是同一个人了。一切都变了。不能保证下一次通胀繁荣，即使发生了，看起来也会像上一次一样——就像我们不应该假设它会伴随着迪斯科音乐和喇叭牛仔裤的爆发一样。</blockquote> Nonetheless the chart above shows the total returns, after adjusting for inflation, of various asset classes from December 1971 to December 1981. (I used those dates because the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, or NAREIT, starts their data series then.) The data on energy stocks came from data compiled by professor Ken French at Dartmouth College’s Tuck School of Business.<blockquote>尽管如此，上图显示了1971年12月至1981年12月各种资产类别经通胀调整后的总回报。（我使用这些日期是因为全国房地产投资信托协会（NAREIT）在那时开始他们的数据系列。）能源股的数据来自达特茅斯学院塔克商学院肯·弗伦奇教授汇编的数据。</blockquote> This is what happened to your purchasing power if you invested in these assets and hung on for 10 years. (I’ve excluded gold, which is a different story.)<blockquote>如果你投资这些资产并坚持10年，你的购买力就会发生这种情况。（我已经排除了黄金，这是一个不同的故事。）</blockquote> The key standout is that you really didn’t want to own Treasury bonds. The near 40% loss of purchasing power over 10 years is somewhat notional—it is derived from the compound annual returns on 10 Year Treasurys compiled by New York University’s Stern School of Business, divided by the consumer-price index—but tells a story nonetheless. (In Great Britain, where inflation was even worse, government bonds during the 1970s became known as “certificates of confiscation.” Ouch.)<blockquote>关键的突出之处在于，你真的不想拥有国债。10年内购买力损失近40%在某种程度上是名义上的——它来自纽约大学斯特恩商学院编制的10年期美国国债的复合年回报率除以消费者价格指数——但仍然讲述了一个故事。（在通货膨胀更严重的英国，20世纪70年代的政府债券被称为“没收证书”。哎哟。）</blockquote> Holding them cost you money. Lots of it.<blockquote>拿着它们要花钱。很多。</blockquote> You could argue that the danger today is even greater, simply because the yields on long-term Treasury bonds are so low. Federal Reserve quantitative easing, bond buying, and zero interest-rate policies have left Treasury yields at their lowest on record—which means the turns would be a disaster if inflation reared its head.<blockquote>你可能会说，今天的危险甚至更大，仅仅是因为长期国债的收益率如此之低。美联储的量化宽松、债券购买和零利率政策使美国国债收益率处于有记录以来的最低水平——这意味着如果通胀抬头，这将是一场灾难。</blockquote> Corporate bonds and the S&amp;P 500&nbsp;were also terrible investments. It’s worth remembering that these are real term losses over a decade, which means investors didn’t just lose a lot of money—they also lost a lot of time.<blockquote>公司债券和标普500也是糟糕的投资。值得记住的是，这些是十年来的实际定期损失，这意味着投资者不仅损失了很多钱，还损失了很多时间。</blockquote> Utility stocks weren’t great, but they held up better. And Treasury bills—short-term paper—did better still. But once again you were going backward when you needed to be going forwards.<blockquote>公用事业股表现不佳，但表现较好。短期票据——国库券——表现更好。但是当你需要前进的时候，你又一次倒退了。</blockquote> No one who remembers the 1970s will be surprised that energy companies boomed. Less well-remembered, maybe, is that REITs also did pretty well. These numbers, incidentally, represented property-owning REITs and excluded mortgage REITs, which own loans.<blockquote>任何记得20世纪70年代的人都不会对能源公司的蓬勃发展感到惊讶。也许不太为人所知的是，房地产投资信托基金的表现也相当不错。顺便说一句，这些数字代表拥有财产的房地产投资信托基金，不包括拥有贷款的抵押房地产投资信托基金。</blockquote> But there are two caveats to this. The first is that of course energy stocks did well, because a key driver of inflation in the 1970s was the rise of OPEC and two oil embargoes it imposed on the West for political reasons. Cue Heraclitus. There is no particular reason to assume that the next inflationary surge will be the same.<blockquote>但对此有两个警告。首先，能源股当然表现良好，因为20世纪70年代通胀的一个关键驱动因素是欧佩克的崛起及其出于政治原因对西方实施的两次石油禁运。提示赫拉克利特。没有特别的理由假设下一次通胀飙升会是一样的。</blockquote> The second caveat is that although REITs ended up doing well, they were volatile along the way. In particular, REIT prices collapsed in the OPEC-driven recession of 1972-4. And according to FactSet, U.S. REITs today already look pretty expensive on some measures. For instance it reckons that the forecast dividend yield on the Vanguard Real Estate ETF (a reasonable benchmark for the industry) is just 2.9% — by far the lowest since it was launched in 2004. Looking through NAREIT data, I can’t find a moment since 1971 when the overall yield on REITs was this low. During the real estate bubble in 2007, incidentally, the yield bottomed out no lower than 3.6%<blockquote>第二个警告是，尽管房地产投资信托基金最终表现良好，但一路上波动较大。特别是，房地产投资信托基金价格在1972-1974年欧佩克引发的经济衰退中暴跌。根据FactSet的数据，从某些指标来看，如今的美国房地产投资信托基金看起来已经相当昂贵。例如，它估计Vanguard Real Estate ETF（该行业的合理基准）的预测股息收益率仅为2.9%，是自2004年推出以来的最低水平。翻阅NAREIT数据，自1971年以来，我找不到REITs整体收益率如此之低的时刻。2007年房地产泡沫期间，顺带一提，收益率见底不低于3.6%</blockquote> So it may be that REITs offer less inflation protection today than we would hope.<blockquote>因此，如今房地产投资信托基金提供的通胀保护可能比我们希望的要少。</blockquote> One key difference in the 1970s is that there were no “inflation-protected” Treasury bonds to keep investors protected. So-called TIPS are in theory almost the perfect investment for retirees. They are issued by the U.S. government and their coupons are safe against default. Meanwhile their coupons effectively adjust to reflect changes in consumer prices.<blockquote>20世纪70年代的一个关键区别是，没有“通胀保值”国债来保护投资者。理论上，所谓的小费几乎是退休人员的完美投资。它们由美国政府发行，其优惠券不会违约。与此同时，他们的优惠券有效地调整以反映消费价格的变化。</blockquote> The problem today is that TIPS—like almost everything else in the bond market—look incredibly expensive. Most TIPS already lock in an actual loss of purchasing power if you buy them today. For example if you buy 5 year TIPS bonds and hold them for 5 years you’ll end up losing 9% of your purchasing power. And 30-year TIPS bonds offer the same 9% loss, though stretched out over 30 years.<blockquote>今天的问题是，TIPS——就像债券市场上的几乎所有东西一样——看起来非常昂贵。如果你今天购买，大多数建议已经锁定了购买力的实际损失。例如，如果你购买5年期TIPS债券并持有5年，你最终会损失9%的购买力。30年期TIPS债券的损失同样为9%，尽管期限延长了30年。</blockquote> It’s not very compelling. And it shows the risks that the government’s policy responses have created for those in retirement and near it.<blockquote>这不是很引人注目。它还显示了政府的政策应对给退休和接近退休年龄的人带来的风险。</blockquote>","source":"market_watch","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Worried about inflation? Here’s how investments did in the 1970s<blockquote>担心通货膨胀？以下是20世纪70年代的投资表现</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWorried about inflation? Here’s how investments did in the 1970s<blockquote>担心通货膨胀？以下是20世纪70年代的投资表现</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nMarketwatch2021-07-20 11:29\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\nIn the 1990s movie The Shipping News, an old newspaperman explains to Kevin Spacey how to cover the news. If there is a storm visible anywhere, he explains, you write “Storm threatens the town,” even if the storm is nowhere near and is unlikely to hit. If—as expected—the storm never hits, you just write the follow up: “Town spared by storm.”<blockquote>在20世纪90年代的电影《航运新闻》中，一位老记者向凯文·史派西解释如何报道新闻。他解释说，如果任何地方都有可见的风暴，你就会写“风暴威胁着城镇”，即使风暴不在附近，也不太可能来袭。如果——正如预期的那样——风暴从未袭击，你只需写下后续内容：“城镇幸免于风暴。”</blockquote> Readers may be excused for thinking something similar about the latest stories about looming, threatening, surging, terrifying inflation. Yes, the inflation forecasts were surging months ago, and hit 8-year highs. Had they continued there would be grounds to worry. But they haven’t continued. On the contrary, they’ve been falling for two months. The bond market’s 5-year inflation forecast is now lower than it was in mid-March. The market sees five-year inflation running at around 2.6%. That’s higher than we’ve been used to for a decade, but it’s nothing to cause any significant alarm.<blockquote>读者可能会对最近关于迫在眉睫、威胁、飙升、可怕的通货膨胀的故事有类似的想法。是的，几个月前通胀预测飙升，并创下8年来的新高。如果他们继续下去，就有理由担心。但他们没有继续。相反，他们已经下跌了两个月。债券市场的5年通胀预期现在低于3月中旬。市场预计五年通胀率约为2.6%。这比我们十年来所习惯的要高，但这并没有引起任何重大恐慌。</blockquote> That can change, of course. Maybe it will. We’ll see.<blockquote>当然，这种情况可能会改变。也许会。我们走着瞧。</blockquote> But with all this talk I got to thinking about the obvious question. If serious inflation really does hit, what can we do about it? How can we protect our investments?<blockquote>但是通过这些谈话，我开始思考一个显而易见的问题。如果严重的通货膨胀真的来袭，我们能做些什么呢？我们如何保护我们的投资？</blockquote> That’s an especially key question for today’s retirees and those expecting to retire soon. When we’re older we’re generally advised to keep most of our money in more “conservative” investments, meaning things like bonds, that involve less risk. Someone in their 20s or 30s may not worry unduly if their retirement savings plunge 30% in a market rout or an inflationary spiral. For someone in their 60s, let alone older, that can become a major financial crisis.<blockquote>对于今天的退休人员和那些预计很快退休的人来说，这是一个特别关键的问题。当我们长大后，通常建议我们将大部分资金投资于更“保守”的投资，即债券等风险较小的投资。如果20多岁或30多岁的人的退休储蓄在市场暴跌或通胀螺旋中暴跌30%，他们可能不会过度担心。对于60多岁的人来说，更不用说老年人了，这可能会成为一场重大的财务危机。</blockquote> So I went back and dug up the information from the last, infamous inflationary spiral in the 1970s, when consumer price inflation often topped 10% a year. The Greek philosopher Heraclitus pointed out that no one ever walks through the same stream twice, because the second time it’s not the same stream, and we’re not the same person. Everything changes. There is no guarantee the next inflationary boom, even if it happens, will look anything like the last one — any more than we should assume that it will be accompanied by outbreaks of disco music and flared jeans.<blockquote>因此，我回去挖掘了20世纪70年代上一次臭名昭著的通胀螺旋的信息，当时消费者价格通胀经常超过每年10%。希腊哲学家赫拉克利特指出，没有人会两次走过同一条小溪，因为第二次就不是同一条小溪了，我们也不是同一个人了。一切都变了。不能保证下一次通胀繁荣，即使发生了，看起来也会像上一次一样——就像我们不应该假设它会伴随着迪斯科音乐和喇叭牛仔裤的爆发一样。</blockquote> Nonetheless the chart above shows the total returns, after adjusting for inflation, of various asset classes from December 1971 to December 1981. (I used those dates because the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, or NAREIT, starts their data series then.) The data on energy stocks came from data compiled by professor Ken French at Dartmouth College’s Tuck School of Business.<blockquote>尽管如此，上图显示了1971年12月至1981年12月各种资产类别经通胀调整后的总回报。（我使用这些日期是因为全国房地产投资信托协会（NAREIT）在那时开始他们的数据系列。）能源股的数据来自达特茅斯学院塔克商学院肯·弗伦奇教授汇编的数据。</blockquote> This is what happened to your purchasing power if you invested in these assets and hung on for 10 years. (I’ve excluded gold, which is a different story.)<blockquote>如果你投资这些资产并坚持10年，你的购买力就会发生这种情况。（我已经排除了黄金，这是一个不同的故事。）</blockquote> The key standout is that you really didn’t want to own Treasury bonds. The near 40% loss of purchasing power over 10 years is somewhat notional—it is derived from the compound annual returns on 10 Year Treasurys compiled by New York University’s Stern School of Business, divided by the consumer-price index—but tells a story nonetheless. (In Great Britain, where inflation was even worse, government bonds during the 1970s became known as “certificates of confiscation.” Ouch.)<blockquote>关键的突出之处在于，你真的不想拥有国债。10年内购买力损失近40%在某种程度上是名义上的——它来自纽约大学斯特恩商学院编制的10年期美国国债的复合年回报率除以消费者价格指数——但仍然讲述了一个故事。（在通货膨胀更严重的英国，20世纪70年代的政府债券被称为“没收证书”。哎哟。）</blockquote> Holding them cost you money. Lots of it.<blockquote>拿着它们要花钱。很多。</blockquote> You could argue that the danger today is even greater, simply because the yields on long-term Treasury bonds are so low. Federal Reserve quantitative easing, bond buying, and zero interest-rate policies have left Treasury yields at their lowest on record—which means the turns would be a disaster if inflation reared its head.<blockquote>你可能会说，今天的危险甚至更大，仅仅是因为长期国债的收益率如此之低。美联储的量化宽松、债券购买和零利率政策使美国国债收益率处于有记录以来的最低水平——这意味着如果通胀抬头，这将是一场灾难。</blockquote> Corporate bonds and the S&amp;P 500&nbsp;were also terrible investments. It’s worth remembering that these are real term losses over a decade, which means investors didn’t just lose a lot of money—they also lost a lot of time.<blockquote>公司债券和标普500也是糟糕的投资。值得记住的是，这些是十年来的实际定期损失，这意味着投资者不仅损失了很多钱，还损失了很多时间。</blockquote> Utility stocks weren’t great, but they held up better. And Treasury bills—short-term paper—did better still. But once again you were going backward when you needed to be going forwards.<blockquote>公用事业股表现不佳，但表现较好。短期票据——国库券——表现更好。但是当你需要前进的时候，你又一次倒退了。</blockquote> No one who remembers the 1970s will be surprised that energy companies boomed. Less well-remembered, maybe, is that REITs also did pretty well. These numbers, incidentally, represented property-owning REITs and excluded mortgage REITs, which own loans.<blockquote>任何记得20世纪70年代的人都不会对能源公司的蓬勃发展感到惊讶。也许不太为人所知的是，房地产投资信托基金的表现也相当不错。顺便说一句，这些数字代表拥有财产的房地产投资信托基金，不包括拥有贷款的抵押房地产投资信托基金。</blockquote> But there are two caveats to this. The first is that of course energy stocks did well, because a key driver of inflation in the 1970s was the rise of OPEC and two oil embargoes it imposed on the West for political reasons. Cue Heraclitus. There is no particular reason to assume that the next inflationary surge will be the same.<blockquote>但对此有两个警告。首先，能源股当然表现良好，因为20世纪70年代通胀的一个关键驱动因素是欧佩克的崛起及其出于政治原因对西方实施的两次石油禁运。提示赫拉克利特。没有特别的理由假设下一次通胀飙升会是一样的。</blockquote> The second caveat is that although REITs ended up doing well, they were volatile along the way. In particular, REIT prices collapsed in the OPEC-driven recession of 1972-4. And according to FactSet, U.S. REITs today already look pretty expensive on some measures. For instance it reckons that the forecast dividend yield on the Vanguard Real Estate ETF (a reasonable benchmark for the industry) is just 2.9% — by far the lowest since it was launched in 2004. Looking through NAREIT data, I can’t find a moment since 1971 when the overall yield on REITs was this low. During the real estate bubble in 2007, incidentally, the yield bottomed out no lower than 3.6%<blockquote>第二个警告是，尽管房地产投资信托基金最终表现良好，但一路上波动较大。特别是，房地产投资信托基金价格在1972-1974年欧佩克引发的经济衰退中暴跌。根据FactSet的数据，从某些指标来看，如今的美国房地产投资信托基金看起来已经相当昂贵。例如，它估计Vanguard Real Estate ETF（该行业的合理基准）的预测股息收益率仅为2.9%，是自2004年推出以来的最低水平。翻阅NAREIT数据，自1971年以来，我找不到REITs整体收益率如此之低的时刻。2007年房地产泡沫期间，顺带一提，收益率见底不低于3.6%</blockquote> So it may be that REITs offer less inflation protection today than we would hope.<blockquote>因此，如今房地产投资信托基金提供的通胀保护可能比我们希望的要少。</blockquote> One key difference in the 1970s is that there were no “inflation-protected” Treasury bonds to keep investors protected. So-called TIPS are in theory almost the perfect investment for retirees. They are issued by the U.S. government and their coupons are safe against default. Meanwhile their coupons effectively adjust to reflect changes in consumer prices.<blockquote>20世纪70年代的一个关键区别是，没有“通胀保值”国债来保护投资者。理论上，所谓的小费几乎是退休人员的完美投资。它们由美国政府发行，其优惠券不会违约。与此同时，他们的优惠券有效地调整以反映消费价格的变化。</blockquote> The problem today is that TIPS—like almost everything else in the bond market—look incredibly expensive. Most TIPS already lock in an actual loss of purchasing power if you buy them today. For example if you buy 5 year TIPS bonds and hold them for 5 years you’ll end up losing 9% of your purchasing power. And 30-year TIPS bonds offer the same 9% loss, though stretched out over 30 years.<blockquote>今天的问题是，TIPS——就像债券市场上的几乎所有东西一样——看起来非常昂贵。如果你今天购买，大多数建议已经锁定了购买力的实际损失。例如，如果你购买5年期TIPS债券并持有5年，你最终会损失9%的购买力。30年期TIPS债券的损失同样为9%，尽管期限延长了30年。</blockquote> It’s not very compelling. And it shows the risks that the government’s policy responses have created for those in retirement and near it.<blockquote>这不是很引人注目。它还显示了政府的政策应对给退休和接近退休年龄的人带来的风险。</blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/worried-about-inflation-heres-how-investments-did-in-the-1970s-11626658251?siteid=yhoof2\">Marketwatch</a>\n为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".SPX":"S&P 500 Index","XOM":"埃克森美孚"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/worried-about-inflation-heres-how-investments-did-in-the-1970s-11626658251?siteid=yhoof2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/599a65733b8245fcf7868668ef9ad712","article_id":"1129846769","content_text":"In the 1990s movie The Shipping News, an old newspaperman explains to Kevin Spacey how to cover the news. If there is a storm visible anywhere, he explains, you write “Storm threatens the town,” even if the storm is nowhere near and is unlikely to hit. If—as expected—the storm never hits, you just write the follow up: “Town spared by storm.”\nReaders may be excused for thinking something similar about the latest stories about looming, threatening, surging, terrifying inflation. Yes, the inflation forecasts were surging months ago, and hit 8-year highs. Had they continued there would be grounds to worry. But they haven’t continued. On the contrary, they’ve been falling for two months. The bond market’s 5-year inflation forecast is now lower than it was in mid-March. The market sees five-year inflation running at around 2.6%. That’s higher than we’ve been used to for a decade, but it’s nothing to cause any significant alarm.\nThat can change, of course. Maybe it will. We’ll see.\nBut with all this talk I got to thinking about the obvious question. If serious inflation really does hit, what can we do about it? How can we protect our investments?\nThat’s an especially key question for today’s retirees and those expecting to retire soon. When we’re older we’re generally advised to keep most of our money in more “conservative” investments, meaning things like bonds, that involve less risk. Someone in their 20s or 30s may not worry unduly if their retirement savings plunge 30% in a market rout or an inflationary spiral. For someone in their 60s, let alone older, that can become a major financial crisis.\nSo I went back and dug up the information from the last, infamous inflationary spiral in the 1970s, when consumer price inflation often topped 10% a year. The Greek philosopher Heraclitus pointed out that no one ever walks through the same stream twice, because the second time it’s not the same stream, and we’re not the same person. Everything changes. There is no guarantee the next inflationary boom, even if it happens, will look anything like the last one — any more than we should assume that it will be accompanied by outbreaks of disco music and flared jeans.\nNonetheless the chart above shows the total returns, after adjusting for inflation, of various asset classes from December 1971 to December 1981. (I used those dates because the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, or NAREIT, starts their data series then.) The data on energy stocks came from data compiled by professor Ken French at Dartmouth College’s Tuck School of Business.\nThis is what happened to your purchasing power if you invested in these assets and hung on for 10 years. (I’ve excluded gold, which is a different story.)\nThe key standout is that you really didn’t want to own Treasury bonds. The near 40% loss of purchasing power over 10 years is somewhat notional—it is derived from the compound annual returns on 10 Year Treasurys compiled by New York University’s Stern School of Business, divided by the consumer-price index—but tells a story nonetheless. (In Great Britain, where inflation was even worse, government bonds during the 1970s became known as “certificates of confiscation.” Ouch.)\nHolding them cost you money. Lots of it.\nYou could argue that the danger today is even greater, simply because the yields on long-term Treasury bonds are so low. Federal Reserve quantitative easing, bond buying, and zero interest-rate policies have left Treasury yields at their lowest on record—which means the turns would be a disaster if inflation reared its head.\nCorporate bonds and the S&P 500 were also terrible investments. It’s worth remembering that these are real term losses over a decade, which means investors didn’t just lose a lot of money—they also lost a lot of time.\nUtility stocks weren’t great, but they held up better. And Treasury bills—short-term paper—did better still. But once again you were going backward when you needed to be going forwards.\nNo one who remembers the 1970s will be surprised that energy companies boomed. Less well-remembered, maybe, is that REITs also did pretty well. These numbers, incidentally, represented property-owning REITs and excluded mortgage REITs, which own loans.\nBut there are two caveats to this. The first is that of course energy stocks did well, because a key driver of inflation in the 1970s was the rise of OPEC and two oil embargoes it imposed on the West for political reasons. Cue Heraclitus. There is no particular reason to assume that the next inflationary surge will be the same.\nThe second caveat is that although REITs ended up doing well, they were volatile along the way. In particular, REIT prices collapsed in the OPEC-driven recession of 1972-4. And according to FactSet, U.S. REITs today already look pretty expensive on some measures. For instance it reckons that the forecast dividend yield on the Vanguard Real Estate ETF (a reasonable benchmark for the industry) is just 2.9% — by far the lowest since it was launched in 2004. Looking through NAREIT data, I can’t find a moment since 1971 when the overall yield on REITs was this low. During the real estate bubble in 2007, incidentally, the yield bottomed out no lower than 3.6%\nSo it may be that REITs offer less inflation protection today than we would hope.\nOne key difference in the 1970s is that there were no “inflation-protected” Treasury bonds to keep investors protected. So-called TIPS are in theory almost the perfect investment for retirees. They are issued by the U.S. government and their coupons are safe against default. Meanwhile their coupons effectively adjust to reflect changes in consumer prices.\nThe problem today is that TIPS—like almost everything else in the bond market—look incredibly expensive. Most TIPS already lock in an actual loss of purchasing power if you buy them today. For example if you buy 5 year TIPS bonds and hold them for 5 years you’ll end up losing 9% of your purchasing power. And 30-year TIPS bonds offer the same 9% loss, though stretched out over 30 years.\nIt’s not very compelling. And it shows the risks that the government’s policy responses have created for those in retirement and near it.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{".SPX":0.9,"XOM":0.9}},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":5269745,"gmtCreate":1626756447990,"gmtModify":1635225503873,"authorId":3577190611611615,"author":{"id":3577190611611615,"idStr":"3577190611611615","authorId":3577190611611615,"name":"Euginelai","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f372cf5db2ff096891b722c46529864e","vip":1,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":171418658,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"ok","text":"ok","html":"ok"}],"langContent":"EN"},{"id":171410347,"gmtCreate":1626755481189,"gmtModify":1631893032937,"author":{"id":"4088490026197220","authorId":"4088490026197220","name":"zcml","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/282fc713a264eae65e8d4ae7f74b3395","vip":1,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"4088490026197220","authorIdStr":"4088490026197220"},"htmlText":"Want it","listText":"Want it","text":"Want it","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":5,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/171410347","repostId":1129846769,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1129846769","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1626751789,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1129846769?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-07-20 11:29","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Worried about inflation? Here’s how investments did in the 1970s<blockquote>担心通货膨胀？以下是20世纪70年代的投资表现</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1129846769","media":"Marketwatch","summary":"In the 1990s movie The Shipping News, an old newspaperman explains to Kevin Spacey how to cover the ","content":"In the 1990s movie The Shipping News, an old newspaperman explains to Kevin Spacey how to cover the news. If there is a storm visible anywhere, he explains, you write “Storm threatens the town,” even if the storm is nowhere near and is unlikely to hit. If—as expected—the storm never hits, you just write the follow up: “Town spared by storm.”<blockquote>在20世纪90年代的电影《航运新闻》中，一位老记者向凯文·史派西解释如何报道新闻。他解释说，如果任何地方都有可见的风暴，你就会写“风暴威胁着城镇”，即使风暴不在附近，也不太可能来袭。如果——正如预期的那样——风暴从未袭击，你只需写下后续内容：“城镇幸免于风暴。”</blockquote> Readers may be excused for thinking something similar about the latest stories about looming, threatening, surging, terrifying inflation. Yes, the inflation forecasts were surging months ago, and hit 8-year highs. Had they continued there would be grounds to worry. But they haven’t continued. On the contrary, they’ve been falling for two months. The bond market’s 5-year inflation forecast is now lower than it was in mid-March. The market sees five-year inflation running at around 2.6%. That’s higher than we’ve been used to for a decade, but it’s nothing to cause any significant alarm.<blockquote>读者可能会对最近关于迫在眉睫、威胁、飙升、可怕的通货膨胀的故事有类似的想法。是的，几个月前通胀预测飙升，并创下8年来的新高。如果他们继续下去，就有理由担心。但他们没有继续。相反，他们已经下跌了两个月。债券市场的5年通胀预期现在低于3月中旬。市场预计五年通胀率约为2.6%。这比我们十年来所习惯的要高，但这并没有引起任何重大恐慌。</blockquote> That can change, of course. Maybe it will. We’ll see.<blockquote>当然，这种情况可能会改变。也许会。我们走着瞧。</blockquote> But with all this talk I got to thinking about the obvious question. If serious inflation really does hit, what can we do about it? How can we protect our investments?<blockquote>但是通过这些谈话，我开始思考一个显而易见的问题。如果严重的通货膨胀真的来袭，我们能做些什么呢？我们如何保护我们的投资？</blockquote> That’s an especially key question for today’s retirees and those expecting to retire soon. When we’re older we’re generally advised to keep most of our money in more “conservative” investments, meaning things like bonds, that involve less risk. Someone in their 20s or 30s may not worry unduly if their retirement savings plunge 30% in a market rout or an inflationary spiral. For someone in their 60s, let alone older, that can become a major financial crisis.<blockquote>对于今天的退休人员和那些预计很快退休的人来说，这是一个特别关键的问题。当我们长大后，通常建议我们将大部分资金投资于更“保守”的投资，即债券等风险较小的投资。如果20多岁或30多岁的人的退休储蓄在市场暴跌或通胀螺旋中暴跌30%，他们可能不会过度担心。对于60多岁的人来说，更不用说老年人了，这可能会成为一场重大的财务危机。</blockquote> So I went back and dug up the information from the last, infamous inflationary spiral in the 1970s, when consumer price inflation often topped 10% a year. The Greek philosopher Heraclitus pointed out that no one ever walks through the same stream twice, because the second time it’s not the same stream, and we’re not the same person. Everything changes. There is no guarantee the next inflationary boom, even if it happens, will look anything like the last one — any more than we should assume that it will be accompanied by outbreaks of disco music and flared jeans.<blockquote>因此，我回去挖掘了20世纪70年代上一次臭名昭著的通胀螺旋的信息，当时消费者价格通胀经常超过每年10%。希腊哲学家赫拉克利特指出，没有人会两次走过同一条小溪，因为第二次就不是同一条小溪了，我们也不是同一个人了。一切都变了。不能保证下一次通胀繁荣，即使发生了，看起来也会像上一次一样——就像我们不应该假设它会伴随着迪斯科音乐和喇叭牛仔裤的爆发一样。</blockquote> Nonetheless the chart above shows the total returns, after adjusting for inflation, of various asset classes from December 1971 to December 1981. (I used those dates because the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, or NAREIT, starts their data series then.) The data on energy stocks came from data compiled by professor Ken French at Dartmouth College’s Tuck School of Business.<blockquote>尽管如此，上图显示了1971年12月至1981年12月各种资产类别经通胀调整后的总回报。（我使用这些日期是因为全国房地产投资信托协会（NAREIT）在那时开始他们的数据系列。）能源股的数据来自达特茅斯学院塔克商学院肯·弗伦奇教授汇编的数据。</blockquote> This is what happened to your purchasing power if you invested in these assets and hung on for 10 years. (I’ve excluded gold, which is a different story.)<blockquote>如果你投资这些资产并坚持10年，你的购买力就会发生这种情况。（我已经排除了黄金，这是一个不同的故事。）</blockquote> The key standout is that you really didn’t want to own Treasury bonds. The near 40% loss of purchasing power over 10 years is somewhat notional—it is derived from the compound annual returns on 10 Year Treasurys compiled by New York University’s Stern School of Business, divided by the consumer-price index—but tells a story nonetheless. (In Great Britain, where inflation was even worse, government bonds during the 1970s became known as “certificates of confiscation.” Ouch.)<blockquote>关键的突出之处在于，你真的不想拥有国债。10年内购买力损失近40%在某种程度上是名义上的——它来自纽约大学斯特恩商学院编制的10年期美国国债的复合年回报率除以消费者价格指数——但仍然讲述了一个故事。（在通货膨胀更严重的英国，20世纪70年代的政府债券被称为“没收证书”。哎哟。）</blockquote> Holding them cost you money. Lots of it.<blockquote>拿着它们要花钱。很多。</blockquote> You could argue that the danger today is even greater, simply because the yields on long-term Treasury bonds are so low. Federal Reserve quantitative easing, bond buying, and zero interest-rate policies have left Treasury yields at their lowest on record—which means the turns would be a disaster if inflation reared its head.<blockquote>你可能会说，今天的危险甚至更大，仅仅是因为长期国债的收益率如此之低。美联储的量化宽松、债券购买和零利率政策使美国国债收益率处于有记录以来的最低水平——这意味着如果通胀抬头，这将是一场灾难。</blockquote> Corporate bonds and the S&amp;P 500&nbsp;were also terrible investments. It’s worth remembering that these are real term losses over a decade, which means investors didn’t just lose a lot of money—they also lost a lot of time.<blockquote>公司债券和标普500也是糟糕的投资。值得记住的是，这些是十年来的实际定期损失，这意味着投资者不仅损失了很多钱，还损失了很多时间。</blockquote> Utility stocks weren’t great, but they held up better. And Treasury bills—short-term paper—did better still. But once again you were going backward when you needed to be going forwards.<blockquote>公用事业股表现不佳，但表现较好。短期票据——国库券——表现更好。但是当你需要前进的时候，你又一次倒退了。</blockquote> No one who remembers the 1970s will be surprised that energy companies boomed. Less well-remembered, maybe, is that REITs also did pretty well. These numbers, incidentally, represented property-owning REITs and excluded mortgage REITs, which own loans.<blockquote>任何记得20世纪70年代的人都不会对能源公司的蓬勃发展感到惊讶。也许不太为人所知的是，房地产投资信托基金的表现也相当不错。顺便说一句，这些数字代表拥有财产的房地产投资信托基金，不包括拥有贷款的抵押房地产投资信托基金。</blockquote> But there are two caveats to this. The first is that of course energy stocks did well, because a key driver of inflation in the 1970s was the rise of OPEC and two oil embargoes it imposed on the West for political reasons. Cue Heraclitus. There is no particular reason to assume that the next inflationary surge will be the same.<blockquote>但对此有两个警告。首先，能源股当然表现良好，因为20世纪70年代通胀的一个关键驱动因素是欧佩克的崛起及其出于政治原因对西方实施的两次石油禁运。提示赫拉克利特。没有特别的理由假设下一次通胀飙升会是一样的。</blockquote> The second caveat is that although REITs ended up doing well, they were volatile along the way. In particular, REIT prices collapsed in the OPEC-driven recession of 1972-4. And according to FactSet, U.S. REITs today already look pretty expensive on some measures. For instance it reckons that the forecast dividend yield on the Vanguard Real Estate ETF (a reasonable benchmark for the industry) is just 2.9% — by far the lowest since it was launched in 2004. Looking through NAREIT data, I can’t find a moment since 1971 when the overall yield on REITs was this low. During the real estate bubble in 2007, incidentally, the yield bottomed out no lower than 3.6%<blockquote>第二个警告是，尽管房地产投资信托基金最终表现良好，但一路上波动较大。特别是，房地产投资信托基金价格在1972-1974年欧佩克引发的经济衰退中暴跌。根据FactSet的数据，从某些指标来看，如今的美国房地产投资信托基金看起来已经相当昂贵。例如，它估计Vanguard Real Estate ETF（该行业的合理基准）的预测股息收益率仅为2.9%，是自2004年推出以来的最低水平。翻阅NAREIT数据，自1971年以来，我找不到REITs整体收益率如此之低的时刻。2007年房地产泡沫期间，顺带一提，收益率见底不低于3.6%</blockquote> So it may be that REITs offer less inflation protection today than we would hope.<blockquote>因此，如今房地产投资信托基金提供的通胀保护可能比我们希望的要少。</blockquote> One key difference in the 1970s is that there were no “inflation-protected” Treasury bonds to keep investors protected. So-called TIPS are in theory almost the perfect investment for retirees. They are issued by the U.S. government and their coupons are safe against default. Meanwhile their coupons effectively adjust to reflect changes in consumer prices.<blockquote>20世纪70年代的一个关键区别是，没有“通胀保值”国债来保护投资者。理论上，所谓的小费几乎是退休人员的完美投资。它们由美国政府发行，其优惠券不会违约。与此同时，他们的优惠券有效地调整以反映消费价格的变化。</blockquote> The problem today is that TIPS—like almost everything else in the bond market—look incredibly expensive. Most TIPS already lock in an actual loss of purchasing power if you buy them today. For example if you buy 5 year TIPS bonds and hold them for 5 years you’ll end up losing 9% of your purchasing power. And 30-year TIPS bonds offer the same 9% loss, though stretched out over 30 years.<blockquote>今天的问题是，TIPS——就像债券市场上的几乎所有东西一样——看起来非常昂贵。如果你今天购买，大多数建议已经锁定了购买力的实际损失。例如，如果你购买5年期TIPS债券并持有5年，你最终会损失9%的购买力。30年期TIPS债券的损失同样为9%，尽管期限延长了30年。</blockquote> It’s not very compelling. And it shows the risks that the government’s policy responses have created for those in retirement and near it.<blockquote>这不是很引人注目。它还显示了政府的政策应对给退休和接近退休年龄的人带来的风险。</blockquote>","source":"market_watch","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Worried about inflation? Here’s how investments did in the 1970s<blockquote>担心通货膨胀？以下是20世纪70年代的投资表现</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWorried about inflation? Here’s how investments did in the 1970s<blockquote>担心通货膨胀？以下是20世纪70年代的投资表现</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nMarketwatch2021-07-20 11:29\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\nIn the 1990s movie The Shipping News, an old newspaperman explains to Kevin Spacey how to cover the news. If there is a storm visible anywhere, he explains, you write “Storm threatens the town,” even if the storm is nowhere near and is unlikely to hit. If—as expected—the storm never hits, you just write the follow up: “Town spared by storm.”<blockquote>在20世纪90年代的电影《航运新闻》中，一位老记者向凯文·史派西解释如何报道新闻。他解释说，如果任何地方都有可见的风暴，你就会写“风暴威胁着城镇”，即使风暴不在附近，也不太可能来袭。如果——正如预期的那样——风暴从未袭击，你只需写下后续内容：“城镇幸免于风暴。”</blockquote> Readers may be excused for thinking something similar about the latest stories about looming, threatening, surging, terrifying inflation. Yes, the inflation forecasts were surging months ago, and hit 8-year highs. Had they continued there would be grounds to worry. But they haven’t continued. On the contrary, they’ve been falling for two months. The bond market’s 5-year inflation forecast is now lower than it was in mid-March. The market sees five-year inflation running at around 2.6%. That’s higher than we’ve been used to for a decade, but it’s nothing to cause any significant alarm.<blockquote>读者可能会对最近关于迫在眉睫、威胁、飙升、可怕的通货膨胀的故事有类似的想法。是的，几个月前通胀预测飙升，并创下8年来的新高。如果他们继续下去，就有理由担心。但他们没有继续。相反，他们已经下跌了两个月。债券市场的5年通胀预期现在低于3月中旬。市场预计五年通胀率约为2.6%。这比我们十年来所习惯的要高，但这并没有引起任何重大恐慌。</blockquote> That can change, of course. Maybe it will. We’ll see.<blockquote>当然，这种情况可能会改变。也许会。我们走着瞧。</blockquote> But with all this talk I got to thinking about the obvious question. If serious inflation really does hit, what can we do about it? How can we protect our investments?<blockquote>但是通过这些谈话，我开始思考一个显而易见的问题。如果严重的通货膨胀真的来袭，我们能做些什么呢？我们如何保护我们的投资？</blockquote> That’s an especially key question for today’s retirees and those expecting to retire soon. When we’re older we’re generally advised to keep most of our money in more “conservative” investments, meaning things like bonds, that involve less risk. Someone in their 20s or 30s may not worry unduly if their retirement savings plunge 30% in a market rout or an inflationary spiral. For someone in their 60s, let alone older, that can become a major financial crisis.<blockquote>对于今天的退休人员和那些预计很快退休的人来说，这是一个特别关键的问题。当我们长大后，通常建议我们将大部分资金投资于更“保守”的投资，即债券等风险较小的投资。如果20多岁或30多岁的人的退休储蓄在市场暴跌或通胀螺旋中暴跌30%，他们可能不会过度担心。对于60多岁的人来说，更不用说老年人了，这可能会成为一场重大的财务危机。</blockquote> So I went back and dug up the information from the last, infamous inflationary spiral in the 1970s, when consumer price inflation often topped 10% a year. The Greek philosopher Heraclitus pointed out that no one ever walks through the same stream twice, because the second time it’s not the same stream, and we’re not the same person. Everything changes. There is no guarantee the next inflationary boom, even if it happens, will look anything like the last one — any more than we should assume that it will be accompanied by outbreaks of disco music and flared jeans.<blockquote>因此，我回去挖掘了20世纪70年代上一次臭名昭著的通胀螺旋的信息，当时消费者价格通胀经常超过每年10%。希腊哲学家赫拉克利特指出，没有人会两次走过同一条小溪，因为第二次就不是同一条小溪了，我们也不是同一个人了。一切都变了。不能保证下一次通胀繁荣，即使发生了，看起来也会像上一次一样——就像我们不应该假设它会伴随着迪斯科音乐和喇叭牛仔裤的爆发一样。</blockquote> Nonetheless the chart above shows the total returns, after adjusting for inflation, of various asset classes from December 1971 to December 1981. (I used those dates because the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, or NAREIT, starts their data series then.) The data on energy stocks came from data compiled by professor Ken French at Dartmouth College’s Tuck School of Business.<blockquote>尽管如此，上图显示了1971年12月至1981年12月各种资产类别经通胀调整后的总回报。（我使用这些日期是因为全国房地产投资信托协会（NAREIT）在那时开始他们的数据系列。）能源股的数据来自达特茅斯学院塔克商学院肯·弗伦奇教授汇编的数据。</blockquote> This is what happened to your purchasing power if you invested in these assets and hung on for 10 years. (I’ve excluded gold, which is a different story.)<blockquote>如果你投资这些资产并坚持10年，你的购买力就会发生这种情况。（我已经排除了黄金，这是一个不同的故事。）</blockquote> The key standout is that you really didn’t want to own Treasury bonds. The near 40% loss of purchasing power over 10 years is somewhat notional—it is derived from the compound annual returns on 10 Year Treasurys compiled by New York University’s Stern School of Business, divided by the consumer-price index—but tells a story nonetheless. (In Great Britain, where inflation was even worse, government bonds during the 1970s became known as “certificates of confiscation.” Ouch.)<blockquote>关键的突出之处在于，你真的不想拥有国债。10年内购买力损失近40%在某种程度上是名义上的——它来自纽约大学斯特恩商学院编制的10年期美国国债的复合年回报率除以消费者价格指数——但仍然讲述了一个故事。（在通货膨胀更严重的英国，20世纪70年代的政府债券被称为“没收证书”。哎哟。）</blockquote> Holding them cost you money. Lots of it.<blockquote>拿着它们要花钱。很多。</blockquote> You could argue that the danger today is even greater, simply because the yields on long-term Treasury bonds are so low. Federal Reserve quantitative easing, bond buying, and zero interest-rate policies have left Treasury yields at their lowest on record—which means the turns would be a disaster if inflation reared its head.<blockquote>你可能会说，今天的危险甚至更大，仅仅是因为长期国债的收益率如此之低。美联储的量化宽松、债券购买和零利率政策使美国国债收益率处于有记录以来的最低水平——这意味着如果通胀抬头，这将是一场灾难。</blockquote> Corporate bonds and the S&amp;P 500&nbsp;were also terrible investments. It’s worth remembering that these are real term losses over a decade, which means investors didn’t just lose a lot of money—they also lost a lot of time.<blockquote>公司债券和标普500也是糟糕的投资。值得记住的是，这些是十年来的实际定期损失，这意味着投资者不仅损失了很多钱，还损失了很多时间。</blockquote> Utility stocks weren’t great, but they held up better. And Treasury bills—short-term paper—did better still. But once again you were going backward when you needed to be going forwards.<blockquote>公用事业股表现不佳，但表现较好。短期票据——国库券——表现更好。但是当你需要前进的时候，你又一次倒退了。</blockquote> No one who remembers the 1970s will be surprised that energy companies boomed. Less well-remembered, maybe, is that REITs also did pretty well. These numbers, incidentally, represented property-owning REITs and excluded mortgage REITs, which own loans.<blockquote>任何记得20世纪70年代的人都不会对能源公司的蓬勃发展感到惊讶。也许不太为人所知的是，房地产投资信托基金的表现也相当不错。顺便说一句，这些数字代表拥有财产的房地产投资信托基金，不包括拥有贷款的抵押房地产投资信托基金。</blockquote> But there are two caveats to this. The first is that of course energy stocks did well, because a key driver of inflation in the 1970s was the rise of OPEC and two oil embargoes it imposed on the West for political reasons. Cue Heraclitus. There is no particular reason to assume that the next inflationary surge will be the same.<blockquote>但对此有两个警告。首先，能源股当然表现良好，因为20世纪70年代通胀的一个关键驱动因素是欧佩克的崛起及其出于政治原因对西方实施的两次石油禁运。提示赫拉克利特。没有特别的理由假设下一次通胀飙升会是一样的。</blockquote> The second caveat is that although REITs ended up doing well, they were volatile along the way. In particular, REIT prices collapsed in the OPEC-driven recession of 1972-4. And according to FactSet, U.S. REITs today already look pretty expensive on some measures. For instance it reckons that the forecast dividend yield on the Vanguard Real Estate ETF (a reasonable benchmark for the industry) is just 2.9% — by far the lowest since it was launched in 2004. Looking through NAREIT data, I can’t find a moment since 1971 when the overall yield on REITs was this low. During the real estate bubble in 2007, incidentally, the yield bottomed out no lower than 3.6%<blockquote>第二个警告是，尽管房地产投资信托基金最终表现良好，但一路上波动较大。特别是，房地产投资信托基金价格在1972-1974年欧佩克引发的经济衰退中暴跌。根据FactSet的数据，从某些指标来看，如今的美国房地产投资信托基金看起来已经相当昂贵。例如，它估计Vanguard Real Estate ETF（该行业的合理基准）的预测股息收益率仅为2.9%，是自2004年推出以来的最低水平。翻阅NAREIT数据，自1971年以来，我找不到REITs整体收益率如此之低的时刻。2007年房地产泡沫期间，顺带一提，收益率见底不低于3.6%</blockquote> So it may be that REITs offer less inflation protection today than we would hope.<blockquote>因此，如今房地产投资信托基金提供的通胀保护可能比我们希望的要少。</blockquote> One key difference in the 1970s is that there were no “inflation-protected” Treasury bonds to keep investors protected. So-called TIPS are in theory almost the perfect investment for retirees. They are issued by the U.S. government and their coupons are safe against default. Meanwhile their coupons effectively adjust to reflect changes in consumer prices.<blockquote>20世纪70年代的一个关键区别是，没有“通胀保值”国债来保护投资者。理论上，所谓的小费几乎是退休人员的完美投资。它们由美国政府发行，其优惠券不会违约。与此同时，他们的优惠券有效地调整以反映消费价格的变化。</blockquote> The problem today is that TIPS—like almost everything else in the bond market—look incredibly expensive. Most TIPS already lock in an actual loss of purchasing power if you buy them today. For example if you buy 5 year TIPS bonds and hold them for 5 years you’ll end up losing 9% of your purchasing power. And 30-year TIPS bonds offer the same 9% loss, though stretched out over 30 years.<blockquote>今天的问题是，TIPS——就像债券市场上的几乎所有东西一样——看起来非常昂贵。如果你今天购买，大多数建议已经锁定了购买力的实际损失。例如，如果你购买5年期TIPS债券并持有5年，你最终会损失9%的购买力。30年期TIPS债券的损失同样为9%，尽管期限延长了30年。</blockquote> It’s not very compelling. And it shows the risks that the government’s policy responses have created for those in retirement and near it.<blockquote>这不是很引人注目。它还显示了政府的政策应对给退休和接近退休年龄的人带来的风险。</blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/worried-about-inflation-heres-how-investments-did-in-the-1970s-11626658251?siteid=yhoof2\">Marketwatch</a>\n为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".SPX":"S&P 500 Index","XOM":"埃克森美孚"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/worried-about-inflation-heres-how-investments-did-in-the-1970s-11626658251?siteid=yhoof2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/599a65733b8245fcf7868668ef9ad712","article_id":"1129846769","content_text":"In the 1990s movie The Shipping News, an old newspaperman explains to Kevin Spacey how to cover the news. If there is a storm visible anywhere, he explains, you write “Storm threatens the town,” even if the storm is nowhere near and is unlikely to hit. If—as expected—the storm never hits, you just write the follow up: “Town spared by storm.”\nReaders may be excused for thinking something similar about the latest stories about looming, threatening, surging, terrifying inflation. Yes, the inflation forecasts were surging months ago, and hit 8-year highs. Had they continued there would be grounds to worry. But they haven’t continued. On the contrary, they’ve been falling for two months. The bond market’s 5-year inflation forecast is now lower than it was in mid-March. The market sees five-year inflation running at around 2.6%. That’s higher than we’ve been used to for a decade, but it’s nothing to cause any significant alarm.\nThat can change, of course. Maybe it will. We’ll see.\nBut with all this talk I got to thinking about the obvious question. If serious inflation really does hit, what can we do about it? How can we protect our investments?\nThat’s an especially key question for today’s retirees and those expecting to retire soon. When we’re older we’re generally advised to keep most of our money in more “conservative” investments, meaning things like bonds, that involve less risk. Someone in their 20s or 30s may not worry unduly if their retirement savings plunge 30% in a market rout or an inflationary spiral. For someone in their 60s, let alone older, that can become a major financial crisis.\nSo I went back and dug up the information from the last, infamous inflationary spiral in the 1970s, when consumer price inflation often topped 10% a year. The Greek philosopher Heraclitus pointed out that no one ever walks through the same stream twice, because the second time it’s not the same stream, and we’re not the same person. Everything changes. There is no guarantee the next inflationary boom, even if it happens, will look anything like the last one — any more than we should assume that it will be accompanied by outbreaks of disco music and flared jeans.\nNonetheless the chart above shows the total returns, after adjusting for inflation, of various asset classes from December 1971 to December 1981. (I used those dates because the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, or NAREIT, starts their data series then.) The data on energy stocks came from data compiled by professor Ken French at Dartmouth College’s Tuck School of Business.\nThis is what happened to your purchasing power if you invested in these assets and hung on for 10 years. (I’ve excluded gold, which is a different story.)\nThe key standout is that you really didn’t want to own Treasury bonds. The near 40% loss of purchasing power over 10 years is somewhat notional—it is derived from the compound annual returns on 10 Year Treasurys compiled by New York University’s Stern School of Business, divided by the consumer-price index—but tells a story nonetheless. (In Great Britain, where inflation was even worse, government bonds during the 1970s became known as “certificates of confiscation.” Ouch.)\nHolding them cost you money. Lots of it.\nYou could argue that the danger today is even greater, simply because the yields on long-term Treasury bonds are so low. Federal Reserve quantitative easing, bond buying, and zero interest-rate policies have left Treasury yields at their lowest on record—which means the turns would be a disaster if inflation reared its head.\nCorporate bonds and the S&P 500 were also terrible investments. It’s worth remembering that these are real term losses over a decade, which means investors didn’t just lose a lot of money—they also lost a lot of time.\nUtility stocks weren’t great, but they held up better. And Treasury bills—short-term paper—did better still. But once again you were going backward when you needed to be going forwards.\nNo one who remembers the 1970s will be surprised that energy companies boomed. Less well-remembered, maybe, is that REITs also did pretty well. These numbers, incidentally, represented property-owning REITs and excluded mortgage REITs, which own loans.\nBut there are two caveats to this. The first is that of course energy stocks did well, because a key driver of inflation in the 1970s was the rise of OPEC and two oil embargoes it imposed on the West for political reasons. Cue Heraclitus. There is no particular reason to assume that the next inflationary surge will be the same.\nThe second caveat is that although REITs ended up doing well, they were volatile along the way. In particular, REIT prices collapsed in the OPEC-driven recession of 1972-4. And according to FactSet, U.S. REITs today already look pretty expensive on some measures. For instance it reckons that the forecast dividend yield on the Vanguard Real Estate ETF (a reasonable benchmark for the industry) is just 2.9% — by far the lowest since it was launched in 2004. Looking through NAREIT data, I can’t find a moment since 1971 when the overall yield on REITs was this low. During the real estate bubble in 2007, incidentally, the yield bottomed out no lower than 3.6%\nSo it may be that REITs offer less inflation protection today than we would hope.\nOne key difference in the 1970s is that there were no “inflation-protected” Treasury bonds to keep investors protected. So-called TIPS are in theory almost the perfect investment for retirees. They are issued by the U.S. government and their coupons are safe against default. Meanwhile their coupons effectively adjust to reflect changes in consumer prices.\nThe problem today is that TIPS—like almost everything else in the bond market—look incredibly expensive. Most TIPS already lock in an actual loss of purchasing power if you buy them today. For example if you buy 5 year TIPS bonds and hold them for 5 years you’ll end up losing 9% of your purchasing power. And 30-year TIPS bonds offer the same 9% loss, though stretched out over 30 years.\nIt’s not very compelling. And it shows the risks that the government’s policy responses have created for those in retirement and near it.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{".SPX":0.9,"XOM":0.9}},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":5269771,"gmtCreate":1626756626021,"gmtModify":1631893032937,"authorId":3581459806944540,"author":{"id":3581459806944540,"idStr":"3581459806944540","authorId":3581459806944540,"name":"Jessieping","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/3cdbeda6e6ab3483c3a5a4139e5529f8","vip":1,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":171410347,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"ok","text":"ok","html":"ok"}],"langContent":"EN"},{"id":171437023,"gmtCreate":1626755399762,"gmtModify":1633771323206,"author":{"id":"3574914526090483","authorId":"3574914526090483","name":"yeelyn18","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/ae47c3e96729c68a0234dd22850dfe69","vip":1,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3574914526090483","authorIdStr":"3574914526090483"},"htmlText":"Cool","listText":"Cool","text":"Cool","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/171437023","repostId":1129846769,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1129846769","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1626751789,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1129846769?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-07-20 11:29","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Worried about inflation? Here’s how investments did in the 1970s<blockquote>担心通货膨胀？以下是20世纪70年代的投资表现</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1129846769","media":"Marketwatch","summary":"In the 1990s movie The Shipping News, an old newspaperman explains to Kevin Spacey how to cover the ","content":"In the 1990s movie The Shipping News, an old newspaperman explains to Kevin Spacey how to cover the news. If there is a storm visible anywhere, he explains, you write “Storm threatens the town,” even if the storm is nowhere near and is unlikely to hit. If—as expected—the storm never hits, you just write the follow up: “Town spared by storm.”<blockquote>在20世纪90年代的电影《航运新闻》中，一位老记者向凯文·史派西解释如何报道新闻。他解释说，如果任何地方都有可见的风暴，你就会写“风暴威胁着城镇”，即使风暴不在附近，也不太可能来袭。如果——正如预期的那样——风暴从未袭击，你只需写下后续内容：“城镇幸免于风暴。”</blockquote> Readers may be excused for thinking something similar about the latest stories about looming, threatening, surging, terrifying inflation. Yes, the inflation forecasts were surging months ago, and hit 8-year highs. Had they continued there would be grounds to worry. But they haven’t continued. On the contrary, they’ve been falling for two months. The bond market’s 5-year inflation forecast is now lower than it was in mid-March. The market sees five-year inflation running at around 2.6%. That’s higher than we’ve been used to for a decade, but it’s nothing to cause any significant alarm.<blockquote>读者可能会对最近关于迫在眉睫、威胁、飙升、可怕的通货膨胀的故事有类似的想法。是的，几个月前通胀预测飙升，并创下8年来的新高。如果他们继续下去，就有理由担心。但他们没有继续。相反，他们已经下跌了两个月。债券市场的5年通胀预期现在低于3月中旬。市场预计五年通胀率约为2.6%。这比我们十年来所习惯的要高，但这并没有引起任何重大恐慌。</blockquote> That can change, of course. Maybe it will. We’ll see.<blockquote>当然，这种情况可能会改变。也许会。我们走着瞧。</blockquote> But with all this talk I got to thinking about the obvious question. If serious inflation really does hit, what can we do about it? How can we protect our investments?<blockquote>但是通过这些谈话，我开始思考一个显而易见的问题。如果严重的通货膨胀真的来袭，我们能做些什么呢？我们如何保护我们的投资？</blockquote> That’s an especially key question for today’s retirees and those expecting to retire soon. When we’re older we’re generally advised to keep most of our money in more “conservative” investments, meaning things like bonds, that involve less risk. Someone in their 20s or 30s may not worry unduly if their retirement savings plunge 30% in a market rout or an inflationary spiral. For someone in their 60s, let alone older, that can become a major financial crisis.<blockquote>对于今天的退休人员和那些预计很快退休的人来说，这是一个特别关键的问题。当我们长大后，通常建议我们将大部分资金投资于更“保守”的投资，即债券等风险较小的投资。如果20多岁或30多岁的人的退休储蓄在市场暴跌或通胀螺旋中暴跌30%，他们可能不会过度担心。对于60多岁的人来说，更不用说老年人了，这可能会成为一场重大的财务危机。</blockquote> So I went back and dug up the information from the last, infamous inflationary spiral in the 1970s, when consumer price inflation often topped 10% a year. The Greek philosopher Heraclitus pointed out that no one ever walks through the same stream twice, because the second time it’s not the same stream, and we’re not the same person. Everything changes. There is no guarantee the next inflationary boom, even if it happens, will look anything like the last one — any more than we should assume that it will be accompanied by outbreaks of disco music and flared jeans.<blockquote>因此，我回去挖掘了20世纪70年代上一次臭名昭著的通胀螺旋的信息，当时消费者价格通胀经常超过每年10%。希腊哲学家赫拉克利特指出，没有人会两次走过同一条小溪，因为第二次就不是同一条小溪了，我们也不是同一个人了。一切都变了。不能保证下一次通胀繁荣，即使发生了，看起来也会像上一次一样——就像我们不应该假设它会伴随着迪斯科音乐和喇叭牛仔裤的爆发一样。</blockquote> Nonetheless the chart above shows the total returns, after adjusting for inflation, of various asset classes from December 1971 to December 1981. (I used those dates because the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, or NAREIT, starts their data series then.) The data on energy stocks came from data compiled by professor Ken French at Dartmouth College’s Tuck School of Business.<blockquote>尽管如此，上图显示了1971年12月至1981年12月各种资产类别经通胀调整后的总回报。（我使用这些日期是因为全国房地产投资信托协会（NAREIT）在那时开始他们的数据系列。）能源股的数据来自达特茅斯学院塔克商学院肯·弗伦奇教授汇编的数据。</blockquote> This is what happened to your purchasing power if you invested in these assets and hung on for 10 years. (I’ve excluded gold, which is a different story.)<blockquote>如果你投资这些资产并坚持10年，你的购买力就会发生这种情况。（我已经排除了黄金，这是一个不同的故事。）</blockquote> The key standout is that you really didn’t want to own Treasury bonds. The near 40% loss of purchasing power over 10 years is somewhat notional—it is derived from the compound annual returns on 10 Year Treasurys compiled by New York University’s Stern School of Business, divided by the consumer-price index—but tells a story nonetheless. (In Great Britain, where inflation was even worse, government bonds during the 1970s became known as “certificates of confiscation.” Ouch.)<blockquote>关键的突出之处在于，你真的不想拥有国债。10年内购买力损失近40%在某种程度上是名义上的——它来自纽约大学斯特恩商学院编制的10年期美国国债的复合年回报率除以消费者价格指数——但仍然讲述了一个故事。（在通货膨胀更严重的英国，20世纪70年代的政府债券被称为“没收证书”。哎哟。）</blockquote> Holding them cost you money. Lots of it.<blockquote>拿着它们要花钱。很多。</blockquote> You could argue that the danger today is even greater, simply because the yields on long-term Treasury bonds are so low. Federal Reserve quantitative easing, bond buying, and zero interest-rate policies have left Treasury yields at their lowest on record—which means the turns would be a disaster if inflation reared its head.<blockquote>你可能会说，今天的危险甚至更大，仅仅是因为长期国债的收益率如此之低。美联储的量化宽松、债券购买和零利率政策使美国国债收益率处于有记录以来的最低水平——这意味着如果通胀抬头，这将是一场灾难。</blockquote> Corporate bonds and the S&amp;P 500&nbsp;were also terrible investments. It’s worth remembering that these are real term losses over a decade, which means investors didn’t just lose a lot of money—they also lost a lot of time.<blockquote>公司债券和标普500也是糟糕的投资。值得记住的是，这些是十年来的实际定期损失，这意味着投资者不仅损失了很多钱，还损失了很多时间。</blockquote> Utility stocks weren’t great, but they held up better. And Treasury bills—short-term paper—did better still. But once again you were going backward when you needed to be going forwards.<blockquote>公用事业股表现不佳，但表现较好。短期票据——国库券——表现更好。但是当你需要前进的时候，你又一次倒退了。</blockquote> No one who remembers the 1970s will be surprised that energy companies boomed. Less well-remembered, maybe, is that REITs also did pretty well. These numbers, incidentally, represented property-owning REITs and excluded mortgage REITs, which own loans.<blockquote>任何记得20世纪70年代的人都不会对能源公司的蓬勃发展感到惊讶。也许不太为人所知的是，房地产投资信托基金的表现也相当不错。顺便说一句，这些数字代表拥有财产的房地产投资信托基金，不包括拥有贷款的抵押房地产投资信托基金。</blockquote> But there are two caveats to this. The first is that of course energy stocks did well, because a key driver of inflation in the 1970s was the rise of OPEC and two oil embargoes it imposed on the West for political reasons. Cue Heraclitus. There is no particular reason to assume that the next inflationary surge will be the same.<blockquote>但对此有两个警告。首先，能源股当然表现良好，因为20世纪70年代通胀的一个关键驱动因素是欧佩克的崛起及其出于政治原因对西方实施的两次石油禁运。提示赫拉克利特。没有特别的理由假设下一次通胀飙升会是一样的。</blockquote> The second caveat is that although REITs ended up doing well, they were volatile along the way. In particular, REIT prices collapsed in the OPEC-driven recession of 1972-4. And according to FactSet, U.S. REITs today already look pretty expensive on some measures. For instance it reckons that the forecast dividend yield on the Vanguard Real Estate ETF (a reasonable benchmark for the industry) is just 2.9% — by far the lowest since it was launched in 2004. Looking through NAREIT data, I can’t find a moment since 1971 when the overall yield on REITs was this low. During the real estate bubble in 2007, incidentally, the yield bottomed out no lower than 3.6%<blockquote>第二个警告是，尽管房地产投资信托基金最终表现良好，但一路上波动较大。特别是，房地产投资信托基金价格在1972-1974年欧佩克引发的经济衰退中暴跌。根据FactSet的数据，从某些指标来看，如今的美国房地产投资信托基金看起来已经相当昂贵。例如，它估计Vanguard Real Estate ETF（该行业的合理基准）的预测股息收益率仅为2.9%，是自2004年推出以来的最低水平。翻阅NAREIT数据，自1971年以来，我找不到REITs整体收益率如此之低的时刻。2007年房地产泡沫期间，顺带一提，收益率见底不低于3.6%</blockquote> So it may be that REITs offer less inflation protection today than we would hope.<blockquote>因此，如今房地产投资信托基金提供的通胀保护可能比我们希望的要少。</blockquote> One key difference in the 1970s is that there were no “inflation-protected” Treasury bonds to keep investors protected. So-called TIPS are in theory almost the perfect investment for retirees. They are issued by the U.S. government and their coupons are safe against default. Meanwhile their coupons effectively adjust to reflect changes in consumer prices.<blockquote>20世纪70年代的一个关键区别是，没有“通胀保值”国债来保护投资者。理论上，所谓的小费几乎是退休人员的完美投资。它们由美国政府发行，其优惠券不会违约。与此同时，他们的优惠券有效地调整以反映消费价格的变化。</blockquote> The problem today is that TIPS—like almost everything else in the bond market—look incredibly expensive. Most TIPS already lock in an actual loss of purchasing power if you buy them today. For example if you buy 5 year TIPS bonds and hold them for 5 years you’ll end up losing 9% of your purchasing power. And 30-year TIPS bonds offer the same 9% loss, though stretched out over 30 years.<blockquote>今天的问题是，TIPS——就像债券市场上的几乎所有东西一样——看起来非常昂贵。如果你今天购买，大多数建议已经锁定了购买力的实际损失。例如，如果你购买5年期TIPS债券并持有5年，你最终会损失9%的购买力。30年期TIPS债券的损失同样为9%，尽管期限延长了30年。</blockquote> It’s not very compelling. And it shows the risks that the government’s policy responses have created for those in retirement and near it.<blockquote>这不是很引人注目。它还显示了政府的政策应对给退休和接近退休年龄的人带来的风险。</blockquote>","source":"market_watch","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Worried about inflation? Here’s how investments did in the 1970s<blockquote>担心通货膨胀？以下是20世纪70年代的投资表现</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWorried about inflation? Here’s how investments did in the 1970s<blockquote>担心通货膨胀？以下是20世纪70年代的投资表现</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nMarketwatch2021-07-20 11:29\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\nIn the 1990s movie The Shipping News, an old newspaperman explains to Kevin Spacey how to cover the news. If there is a storm visible anywhere, he explains, you write “Storm threatens the town,” even if the storm is nowhere near and is unlikely to hit. If—as expected—the storm never hits, you just write the follow up: “Town spared by storm.”<blockquote>在20世纪90年代的电影《航运新闻》中，一位老记者向凯文·史派西解释如何报道新闻。他解释说，如果任何地方都有可见的风暴，你就会写“风暴威胁着城镇”，即使风暴不在附近，也不太可能来袭。如果——正如预期的那样——风暴从未袭击，你只需写下后续内容：“城镇幸免于风暴。”</blockquote> Readers may be excused for thinking something similar about the latest stories about looming, threatening, surging, terrifying inflation. Yes, the inflation forecasts were surging months ago, and hit 8-year highs. Had they continued there would be grounds to worry. But they haven’t continued. On the contrary, they’ve been falling for two months. The bond market’s 5-year inflation forecast is now lower than it was in mid-March. The market sees five-year inflation running at around 2.6%. That’s higher than we’ve been used to for a decade, but it’s nothing to cause any significant alarm.<blockquote>读者可能会对最近关于迫在眉睫、威胁、飙升、可怕的通货膨胀的故事有类似的想法。是的，几个月前通胀预测飙升，并创下8年来的新高。如果他们继续下去，就有理由担心。但他们没有继续。相反，他们已经下跌了两个月。债券市场的5年通胀预期现在低于3月中旬。市场预计五年通胀率约为2.6%。这比我们十年来所习惯的要高，但这并没有引起任何重大恐慌。</blockquote> That can change, of course. Maybe it will. We’ll see.<blockquote>当然，这种情况可能会改变。也许会。我们走着瞧。</blockquote> But with all this talk I got to thinking about the obvious question. If serious inflation really does hit, what can we do about it? How can we protect our investments?<blockquote>但是通过这些谈话，我开始思考一个显而易见的问题。如果严重的通货膨胀真的来袭，我们能做些什么呢？我们如何保护我们的投资？</blockquote> That’s an especially key question for today’s retirees and those expecting to retire soon. When we’re older we’re generally advised to keep most of our money in more “conservative” investments, meaning things like bonds, that involve less risk. Someone in their 20s or 30s may not worry unduly if their retirement savings plunge 30% in a market rout or an inflationary spiral. For someone in their 60s, let alone older, that can become a major financial crisis.<blockquote>对于今天的退休人员和那些预计很快退休的人来说，这是一个特别关键的问题。当我们长大后，通常建议我们将大部分资金投资于更“保守”的投资，即债券等风险较小的投资。如果20多岁或30多岁的人的退休储蓄在市场暴跌或通胀螺旋中暴跌30%，他们可能不会过度担心。对于60多岁的人来说，更不用说老年人了，这可能会成为一场重大的财务危机。</blockquote> So I went back and dug up the information from the last, infamous inflationary spiral in the 1970s, when consumer price inflation often topped 10% a year. The Greek philosopher Heraclitus pointed out that no one ever walks through the same stream twice, because the second time it’s not the same stream, and we’re not the same person. Everything changes. There is no guarantee the next inflationary boom, even if it happens, will look anything like the last one — any more than we should assume that it will be accompanied by outbreaks of disco music and flared jeans.<blockquote>因此，我回去挖掘了20世纪70年代上一次臭名昭著的通胀螺旋的信息，当时消费者价格通胀经常超过每年10%。希腊哲学家赫拉克利特指出，没有人会两次走过同一条小溪，因为第二次就不是同一条小溪了，我们也不是同一个人了。一切都变了。不能保证下一次通胀繁荣，即使发生了，看起来也会像上一次一样——就像我们不应该假设它会伴随着迪斯科音乐和喇叭牛仔裤的爆发一样。</blockquote> Nonetheless the chart above shows the total returns, after adjusting for inflation, of various asset classes from December 1971 to December 1981. (I used those dates because the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, or NAREIT, starts their data series then.) The data on energy stocks came from data compiled by professor Ken French at Dartmouth College’s Tuck School of Business.<blockquote>尽管如此，上图显示了1971年12月至1981年12月各种资产类别经通胀调整后的总回报。（我使用这些日期是因为全国房地产投资信托协会（NAREIT）在那时开始他们的数据系列。）能源股的数据来自达特茅斯学院塔克商学院肯·弗伦奇教授汇编的数据。</blockquote> This is what happened to your purchasing power if you invested in these assets and hung on for 10 years. (I’ve excluded gold, which is a different story.)<blockquote>如果你投资这些资产并坚持10年，你的购买力就会发生这种情况。（我已经排除了黄金，这是一个不同的故事。）</blockquote> The key standout is that you really didn’t want to own Treasury bonds. The near 40% loss of purchasing power over 10 years is somewhat notional—it is derived from the compound annual returns on 10 Year Treasurys compiled by New York University’s Stern School of Business, divided by the consumer-price index—but tells a story nonetheless. (In Great Britain, where inflation was even worse, government bonds during the 1970s became known as “certificates of confiscation.” Ouch.)<blockquote>关键的突出之处在于，你真的不想拥有国债。10年内购买力损失近40%在某种程度上是名义上的——它来自纽约大学斯特恩商学院编制的10年期美国国债的复合年回报率除以消费者价格指数——但仍然讲述了一个故事。（在通货膨胀更严重的英国，20世纪70年代的政府债券被称为“没收证书”。哎哟。）</blockquote> Holding them cost you money. Lots of it.<blockquote>拿着它们要花钱。很多。</blockquote> You could argue that the danger today is even greater, simply because the yields on long-term Treasury bonds are so low. Federal Reserve quantitative easing, bond buying, and zero interest-rate policies have left Treasury yields at their lowest on record—which means the turns would be a disaster if inflation reared its head.<blockquote>你可能会说，今天的危险甚至更大，仅仅是因为长期国债的收益率如此之低。美联储的量化宽松、债券购买和零利率政策使美国国债收益率处于有记录以来的最低水平——这意味着如果通胀抬头，这将是一场灾难。</blockquote> Corporate bonds and the S&amp;P 500&nbsp;were also terrible investments. It’s worth remembering that these are real term losses over a decade, which means investors didn’t just lose a lot of money—they also lost a lot of time.<blockquote>公司债券和标普500也是糟糕的投资。值得记住的是，这些是十年来的实际定期损失，这意味着投资者不仅损失了很多钱，还损失了很多时间。</blockquote> Utility stocks weren’t great, but they held up better. And Treasury bills—short-term paper—did better still. But once again you were going backward when you needed to be going forwards.<blockquote>公用事业股表现不佳，但表现较好。短期票据——国库券——表现更好。但是当你需要前进的时候，你又一次倒退了。</blockquote> No one who remembers the 1970s will be surprised that energy companies boomed. Less well-remembered, maybe, is that REITs also did pretty well. These numbers, incidentally, represented property-owning REITs and excluded mortgage REITs, which own loans.<blockquote>任何记得20世纪70年代的人都不会对能源公司的蓬勃发展感到惊讶。也许不太为人所知的是，房地产投资信托基金的表现也相当不错。顺便说一句，这些数字代表拥有财产的房地产投资信托基金，不包括拥有贷款的抵押房地产投资信托基金。</blockquote> But there are two caveats to this. The first is that of course energy stocks did well, because a key driver of inflation in the 1970s was the rise of OPEC and two oil embargoes it imposed on the West for political reasons. Cue Heraclitus. There is no particular reason to assume that the next inflationary surge will be the same.<blockquote>但对此有两个警告。首先，能源股当然表现良好，因为20世纪70年代通胀的一个关键驱动因素是欧佩克的崛起及其出于政治原因对西方实施的两次石油禁运。提示赫拉克利特。没有特别的理由假设下一次通胀飙升会是一样的。</blockquote> The second caveat is that although REITs ended up doing well, they were volatile along the way. In particular, REIT prices collapsed in the OPEC-driven recession of 1972-4. And according to FactSet, U.S. REITs today already look pretty expensive on some measures. For instance it reckons that the forecast dividend yield on the Vanguard Real Estate ETF (a reasonable benchmark for the industry) is just 2.9% — by far the lowest since it was launched in 2004. Looking through NAREIT data, I can’t find a moment since 1971 when the overall yield on REITs was this low. During the real estate bubble in 2007, incidentally, the yield bottomed out no lower than 3.6%<blockquote>第二个警告是，尽管房地产投资信托基金最终表现良好，但一路上波动较大。特别是，房地产投资信托基金价格在1972-1974年欧佩克引发的经济衰退中暴跌。根据FactSet的数据，从某些指标来看，如今的美国房地产投资信托基金看起来已经相当昂贵。例如，它估计Vanguard Real Estate ETF（该行业的合理基准）的预测股息收益率仅为2.9%，是自2004年推出以来的最低水平。翻阅NAREIT数据，自1971年以来，我找不到REITs整体收益率如此之低的时刻。2007年房地产泡沫期间，顺带一提，收益率见底不低于3.6%</blockquote> So it may be that REITs offer less inflation protection today than we would hope.<blockquote>因此，如今房地产投资信托基金提供的通胀保护可能比我们希望的要少。</blockquote> One key difference in the 1970s is that there were no “inflation-protected” Treasury bonds to keep investors protected. So-called TIPS are in theory almost the perfect investment for retirees. They are issued by the U.S. government and their coupons are safe against default. Meanwhile their coupons effectively adjust to reflect changes in consumer prices.<blockquote>20世纪70年代的一个关键区别是，没有“通胀保值”国债来保护投资者。理论上，所谓的小费几乎是退休人员的完美投资。它们由美国政府发行，其优惠券不会违约。与此同时，他们的优惠券有效地调整以反映消费价格的变化。</blockquote> The problem today is that TIPS—like almost everything else in the bond market—look incredibly expensive. Most TIPS already lock in an actual loss of purchasing power if you buy them today. For example if you buy 5 year TIPS bonds and hold them for 5 years you’ll end up losing 9% of your purchasing power. And 30-year TIPS bonds offer the same 9% loss, though stretched out over 30 years.<blockquote>今天的问题是，TIPS——就像债券市场上的几乎所有东西一样——看起来非常昂贵。如果你今天购买，大多数建议已经锁定了购买力的实际损失。例如，如果你购买5年期TIPS债券并持有5年，你最终会损失9%的购买力。30年期TIPS债券的损失同样为9%，尽管期限延长了30年。</blockquote> It’s not very compelling. And it shows the risks that the government’s policy responses have created for those in retirement and near it.<blockquote>这不是很引人注目。它还显示了政府的政策应对给退休和接近退休年龄的人带来的风险。</blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/worried-about-inflation-heres-how-investments-did-in-the-1970s-11626658251?siteid=yhoof2\">Marketwatch</a>\n为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".SPX":"S&P 500 Index","XOM":"埃克森美孚"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/worried-about-inflation-heres-how-investments-did-in-the-1970s-11626658251?siteid=yhoof2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/599a65733b8245fcf7868668ef9ad712","article_id":"1129846769","content_text":"In the 1990s movie The Shipping News, an old newspaperman explains to Kevin Spacey how to cover the news. If there is a storm visible anywhere, he explains, you write “Storm threatens the town,” even if the storm is nowhere near and is unlikely to hit. If—as expected—the storm never hits, you just write the follow up: “Town spared by storm.”\nReaders may be excused for thinking something similar about the latest stories about looming, threatening, surging, terrifying inflation. Yes, the inflation forecasts were surging months ago, and hit 8-year highs. Had they continued there would be grounds to worry. But they haven’t continued. On the contrary, they’ve been falling for two months. The bond market’s 5-year inflation forecast is now lower than it was in mid-March. The market sees five-year inflation running at around 2.6%. That’s higher than we’ve been used to for a decade, but it’s nothing to cause any significant alarm.\nThat can change, of course. Maybe it will. We’ll see.\nBut with all this talk I got to thinking about the obvious question. If serious inflation really does hit, what can we do about it? How can we protect our investments?\nThat’s an especially key question for today’s retirees and those expecting to retire soon. When we’re older we’re generally advised to keep most of our money in more “conservative” investments, meaning things like bonds, that involve less risk. Someone in their 20s or 30s may not worry unduly if their retirement savings plunge 30% in a market rout or an inflationary spiral. For someone in their 60s, let alone older, that can become a major financial crisis.\nSo I went back and dug up the information from the last, infamous inflationary spiral in the 1970s, when consumer price inflation often topped 10% a year. The Greek philosopher Heraclitus pointed out that no one ever walks through the same stream twice, because the second time it’s not the same stream, and we’re not the same person. Everything changes. There is no guarantee the next inflationary boom, even if it happens, will look anything like the last one — any more than we should assume that it will be accompanied by outbreaks of disco music and flared jeans.\nNonetheless the chart above shows the total returns, after adjusting for inflation, of various asset classes from December 1971 to December 1981. (I used those dates because the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, or NAREIT, starts their data series then.) The data on energy stocks came from data compiled by professor Ken French at Dartmouth College’s Tuck School of Business.\nThis is what happened to your purchasing power if you invested in these assets and hung on for 10 years. (I’ve excluded gold, which is a different story.)\nThe key standout is that you really didn’t want to own Treasury bonds. The near 40% loss of purchasing power over 10 years is somewhat notional—it is derived from the compound annual returns on 10 Year Treasurys compiled by New York University’s Stern School of Business, divided by the consumer-price index—but tells a story nonetheless. (In Great Britain, where inflation was even worse, government bonds during the 1970s became known as “certificates of confiscation.” Ouch.)\nHolding them cost you money. Lots of it.\nYou could argue that the danger today is even greater, simply because the yields on long-term Treasury bonds are so low. Federal Reserve quantitative easing, bond buying, and zero interest-rate policies have left Treasury yields at their lowest on record—which means the turns would be a disaster if inflation reared its head.\nCorporate bonds and the S&P 500 were also terrible investments. It’s worth remembering that these are real term losses over a decade, which means investors didn’t just lose a lot of money—they also lost a lot of time.\nUtility stocks weren’t great, but they held up better. And Treasury bills—short-term paper—did better still. But once again you were going backward when you needed to be going forwards.\nNo one who remembers the 1970s will be surprised that energy companies boomed. Less well-remembered, maybe, is that REITs also did pretty well. These numbers, incidentally, represented property-owning REITs and excluded mortgage REITs, which own loans.\nBut there are two caveats to this. The first is that of course energy stocks did well, because a key driver of inflation in the 1970s was the rise of OPEC and two oil embargoes it imposed on the West for political reasons. Cue Heraclitus. There is no particular reason to assume that the next inflationary surge will be the same.\nThe second caveat is that although REITs ended up doing well, they were volatile along the way. In particular, REIT prices collapsed in the OPEC-driven recession of 1972-4. And according to FactSet, U.S. REITs today already look pretty expensive on some measures. For instance it reckons that the forecast dividend yield on the Vanguard Real Estate ETF (a reasonable benchmark for the industry) is just 2.9% — by far the lowest since it was launched in 2004. Looking through NAREIT data, I can’t find a moment since 1971 when the overall yield on REITs was this low. During the real estate bubble in 2007, incidentally, the yield bottomed out no lower than 3.6%\nSo it may be that REITs offer less inflation protection today than we would hope.\nOne key difference in the 1970s is that there were no “inflation-protected” Treasury bonds to keep investors protected. So-called TIPS are in theory almost the perfect investment for retirees. They are issued by the U.S. government and their coupons are safe against default. Meanwhile their coupons effectively adjust to reflect changes in consumer prices.\nThe problem today is that TIPS—like almost everything else in the bond market—look incredibly expensive. Most TIPS already lock in an actual loss of purchasing power if you buy them today. For example if you buy 5 year TIPS bonds and hold them for 5 years you’ll end up losing 9% of your purchasing power. And 30-year TIPS bonds offer the same 9% loss, though stretched out over 30 years.\nIt’s not very compelling. And it shows the risks that the government’s policy responses have created for those in retirement and near it.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{".SPX":0.9,"XOM":0.9}},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":5269755,"gmtCreate":1626756507793,"gmtModify":1635225502780,"authorId":3560138341869725,"author":{"id":3560138341869725,"idStr":"3560138341869725","authorId":3560138341869725,"name":"jonbeloved","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/1312ffb19627a11a2ad03b49693f53dd","vip":1,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":171437023,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"Ok","text":"Ok","html":"Ok"}],"langContent":"EN"},{"id":171432929,"gmtCreate":1626755232761,"gmtModify":1633771326030,"author":{"id":"3563581390514944","authorId":"3563581390514944","name":"NRN","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/3561ad0f76bae7ec1e64062bc70f0207","vip":1,"crmLevel":12,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3563581390514944","authorIdStr":"3563581390514944"},"htmlText":"REITs for the win!","listText":"REITs for the win!","text":"REITs for the win!","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/171432929","repostId":1129846769,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1129846769","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1626751789,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1129846769?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-07-20 11:29","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Worried about inflation? Here’s how investments did in the 1970s<blockquote>担心通货膨胀？以下是20世纪70年代的投资表现</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1129846769","media":"Marketwatch","summary":"In the 1990s movie The Shipping News, an old newspaperman explains to Kevin Spacey how to cover the ","content":"In the 1990s movie The Shipping News, an old newspaperman explains to Kevin Spacey how to cover the news. If there is a storm visible anywhere, he explains, you write “Storm threatens the town,” even if the storm is nowhere near and is unlikely to hit. If—as expected—the storm never hits, you just write the follow up: “Town spared by storm.”<blockquote>在20世纪90年代的电影《航运新闻》中，一位老记者向凯文·史派西解释如何报道新闻。他解释说，如果任何地方都有可见的风暴，你就会写“风暴威胁着城镇”，即使风暴不在附近，也不太可能来袭。如果——正如预期的那样——风暴从未袭击，你只需写下后续内容：“城镇幸免于风暴。”</blockquote> Readers may be excused for thinking something similar about the latest stories about looming, threatening, surging, terrifying inflation. Yes, the inflation forecasts were surging months ago, and hit 8-year highs. Had they continued there would be grounds to worry. But they haven’t continued. On the contrary, they’ve been falling for two months. The bond market’s 5-year inflation forecast is now lower than it was in mid-March. The market sees five-year inflation running at around 2.6%. That’s higher than we’ve been used to for a decade, but it’s nothing to cause any significant alarm.<blockquote>读者可能会对最近关于迫在眉睫、威胁、飙升、可怕的通货膨胀的故事有类似的想法。是的，几个月前通胀预测飙升，并创下8年来的新高。如果他们继续下去，就有理由担心。但他们没有继续。相反，他们已经下跌了两个月。债券市场的5年通胀预期现在低于3月中旬。市场预计五年通胀率约为2.6%。这比我们十年来所习惯的要高，但这并没有引起任何重大恐慌。</blockquote> That can change, of course. Maybe it will. We’ll see.<blockquote>当然，这种情况可能会改变。也许会。我们走着瞧。</blockquote> But with all this talk I got to thinking about the obvious question. If serious inflation really does hit, what can we do about it? How can we protect our investments?<blockquote>但是通过这些谈话，我开始思考一个显而易见的问题。如果严重的通货膨胀真的来袭，我们能做些什么呢？我们如何保护我们的投资？</blockquote> That’s an especially key question for today’s retirees and those expecting to retire soon. When we’re older we’re generally advised to keep most of our money in more “conservative” investments, meaning things like bonds, that involve less risk. Someone in their 20s or 30s may not worry unduly if their retirement savings plunge 30% in a market rout or an inflationary spiral. For someone in their 60s, let alone older, that can become a major financial crisis.<blockquote>对于今天的退休人员和那些预计很快退休的人来说，这是一个特别关键的问题。当我们长大后，通常建议我们将大部分资金投资于更“保守”的投资，即债券等风险较小的投资。如果20多岁或30多岁的人的退休储蓄在市场暴跌或通胀螺旋中暴跌30%，他们可能不会过度担心。对于60多岁的人来说，更不用说老年人了，这可能会成为一场重大的财务危机。</blockquote> So I went back and dug up the information from the last, infamous inflationary spiral in the 1970s, when consumer price inflation often topped 10% a year. The Greek philosopher Heraclitus pointed out that no one ever walks through the same stream twice, because the second time it’s not the same stream, and we’re not the same person. Everything changes. There is no guarantee the next inflationary boom, even if it happens, will look anything like the last one — any more than we should assume that it will be accompanied by outbreaks of disco music and flared jeans.<blockquote>因此，我回去挖掘了20世纪70年代上一次臭名昭著的通胀螺旋的信息，当时消费者价格通胀经常超过每年10%。希腊哲学家赫拉克利特指出，没有人会两次走过同一条小溪，因为第二次就不是同一条小溪了，我们也不是同一个人了。一切都变了。不能保证下一次通胀繁荣，即使发生了，看起来也会像上一次一样——就像我们不应该假设它会伴随着迪斯科音乐和喇叭牛仔裤的爆发一样。</blockquote> Nonetheless the chart above shows the total returns, after adjusting for inflation, of various asset classes from December 1971 to December 1981. (I used those dates because the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, or NAREIT, starts their data series then.) The data on energy stocks came from data compiled by professor Ken French at Dartmouth College’s Tuck School of Business.<blockquote>尽管如此，上图显示了1971年12月至1981年12月各种资产类别经通胀调整后的总回报。（我使用这些日期是因为全国房地产投资信托协会（NAREIT）在那时开始他们的数据系列。）能源股的数据来自达特茅斯学院塔克商学院肯·弗伦奇教授汇编的数据。</blockquote> This is what happened to your purchasing power if you invested in these assets and hung on for 10 years. (I’ve excluded gold, which is a different story.)<blockquote>如果你投资这些资产并坚持10年，你的购买力就会发生这种情况。（我已经排除了黄金，这是一个不同的故事。）</blockquote> The key standout is that you really didn’t want to own Treasury bonds. The near 40% loss of purchasing power over 10 years is somewhat notional—it is derived from the compound annual returns on 10 Year Treasurys compiled by New York University’s Stern School of Business, divided by the consumer-price index—but tells a story nonetheless. (In Great Britain, where inflation was even worse, government bonds during the 1970s became known as “certificates of confiscation.” Ouch.)<blockquote>关键的突出之处在于，你真的不想拥有国债。10年内购买力损失近40%在某种程度上是名义上的——它来自纽约大学斯特恩商学院编制的10年期美国国债的复合年回报率除以消费者价格指数——但仍然讲述了一个故事。（在通货膨胀更严重的英国，20世纪70年代的政府债券被称为“没收证书”。哎哟。）</blockquote> Holding them cost you money. Lots of it.<blockquote>拿着它们要花钱。很多。</blockquote> You could argue that the danger today is even greater, simply because the yields on long-term Treasury bonds are so low. Federal Reserve quantitative easing, bond buying, and zero interest-rate policies have left Treasury yields at their lowest on record—which means the turns would be a disaster if inflation reared its head.<blockquote>你可能会说，今天的危险甚至更大，仅仅是因为长期国债的收益率如此之低。美联储的量化宽松、债券购买和零利率政策使美国国债收益率处于有记录以来的最低水平——这意味着如果通胀抬头，这将是一场灾难。</blockquote> Corporate bonds and the S&amp;P 500&nbsp;were also terrible investments. It’s worth remembering that these are real term losses over a decade, which means investors didn’t just lose a lot of money—they also lost a lot of time.<blockquote>公司债券和标普500也是糟糕的投资。值得记住的是，这些是十年来的实际定期损失，这意味着投资者不仅损失了很多钱，还损失了很多时间。</blockquote> Utility stocks weren’t great, but they held up better. And Treasury bills—short-term paper—did better still. But once again you were going backward when you needed to be going forwards.<blockquote>公用事业股表现不佳，但表现较好。短期票据——国库券——表现更好。但是当你需要前进的时候，你又一次倒退了。</blockquote> No one who remembers the 1970s will be surprised that energy companies boomed. Less well-remembered, maybe, is that REITs also did pretty well. These numbers, incidentally, represented property-owning REITs and excluded mortgage REITs, which own loans.<blockquote>任何记得20世纪70年代的人都不会对能源公司的蓬勃发展感到惊讶。也许不太为人所知的是，房地产投资信托基金的表现也相当不错。顺便说一句，这些数字代表拥有财产的房地产投资信托基金，不包括拥有贷款的抵押房地产投资信托基金。</blockquote> But there are two caveats to this. The first is that of course energy stocks did well, because a key driver of inflation in the 1970s was the rise of OPEC and two oil embargoes it imposed on the West for political reasons. Cue Heraclitus. There is no particular reason to assume that the next inflationary surge will be the same.<blockquote>但对此有两个警告。首先，能源股当然表现良好，因为20世纪70年代通胀的一个关键驱动因素是欧佩克的崛起及其出于政治原因对西方实施的两次石油禁运。提示赫拉克利特。没有特别的理由假设下一次通胀飙升会是一样的。</blockquote> The second caveat is that although REITs ended up doing well, they were volatile along the way. In particular, REIT prices collapsed in the OPEC-driven recession of 1972-4. And according to FactSet, U.S. REITs today already look pretty expensive on some measures. For instance it reckons that the forecast dividend yield on the Vanguard Real Estate ETF (a reasonable benchmark for the industry) is just 2.9% — by far the lowest since it was launched in 2004. Looking through NAREIT data, I can’t find a moment since 1971 when the overall yield on REITs was this low. During the real estate bubble in 2007, incidentally, the yield bottomed out no lower than 3.6%<blockquote>第二个警告是，尽管房地产投资信托基金最终表现良好，但一路上波动较大。特别是，房地产投资信托基金价格在1972-1974年欧佩克引发的经济衰退中暴跌。根据FactSet的数据，从某些指标来看，如今的美国房地产投资信托基金看起来已经相当昂贵。例如，它估计Vanguard Real Estate ETF（该行业的合理基准）的预测股息收益率仅为2.9%，是自2004年推出以来的最低水平。翻阅NAREIT数据，自1971年以来，我找不到REITs整体收益率如此之低的时刻。2007年房地产泡沫期间，顺带一提，收益率见底不低于3.6%</blockquote> So it may be that REITs offer less inflation protection today than we would hope.<blockquote>因此，如今房地产投资信托基金提供的通胀保护可能比我们希望的要少。</blockquote> One key difference in the 1970s is that there were no “inflation-protected” Treasury bonds to keep investors protected. So-called TIPS are in theory almost the perfect investment for retirees. They are issued by the U.S. government and their coupons are safe against default. Meanwhile their coupons effectively adjust to reflect changes in consumer prices.<blockquote>20世纪70年代的一个关键区别是，没有“通胀保值”国债来保护投资者。理论上，所谓的小费几乎是退休人员的完美投资。它们由美国政府发行，其优惠券不会违约。与此同时，他们的优惠券有效地调整以反映消费价格的变化。</blockquote> The problem today is that TIPS—like almost everything else in the bond market—look incredibly expensive. Most TIPS already lock in an actual loss of purchasing power if you buy them today. For example if you buy 5 year TIPS bonds and hold them for 5 years you’ll end up losing 9% of your purchasing power. And 30-year TIPS bonds offer the same 9% loss, though stretched out over 30 years.<blockquote>今天的问题是，TIPS——就像债券市场上的几乎所有东西一样——看起来非常昂贵。如果你今天购买，大多数建议已经锁定了购买力的实际损失。例如，如果你购买5年期TIPS债券并持有5年，你最终会损失9%的购买力。30年期TIPS债券的损失同样为9%，尽管期限延长了30年。</blockquote> It’s not very compelling. And it shows the risks that the government’s policy responses have created for those in retirement and near it.<blockquote>这不是很引人注目。它还显示了政府的政策应对给退休和接近退休年龄的人带来的风险。</blockquote>","source":"market_watch","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Worried about inflation? Here’s how investments did in the 1970s<blockquote>担心通货膨胀？以下是20世纪70年代的投资表现</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWorried about inflation? Here’s how investments did in the 1970s<blockquote>担心通货膨胀？以下是20世纪70年代的投资表现</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nMarketwatch2021-07-20 11:29\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\nIn the 1990s movie The Shipping News, an old newspaperman explains to Kevin Spacey how to cover the news. If there is a storm visible anywhere, he explains, you write “Storm threatens the town,” even if the storm is nowhere near and is unlikely to hit. If—as expected—the storm never hits, you just write the follow up: “Town spared by storm.”<blockquote>在20世纪90年代的电影《航运新闻》中，一位老记者向凯文·史派西解释如何报道新闻。他解释说，如果任何地方都有可见的风暴，你就会写“风暴威胁着城镇”，即使风暴不在附近，也不太可能来袭。如果——正如预期的那样——风暴从未袭击，你只需写下后续内容：“城镇幸免于风暴。”</blockquote> Readers may be excused for thinking something similar about the latest stories about looming, threatening, surging, terrifying inflation. Yes, the inflation forecasts were surging months ago, and hit 8-year highs. Had they continued there would be grounds to worry. But they haven’t continued. On the contrary, they’ve been falling for two months. The bond market’s 5-year inflation forecast is now lower than it was in mid-March. The market sees five-year inflation running at around 2.6%. That’s higher than we’ve been used to for a decade, but it’s nothing to cause any significant alarm.<blockquote>读者可能会对最近关于迫在眉睫、威胁、飙升、可怕的通货膨胀的故事有类似的想法。是的，几个月前通胀预测飙升，并创下8年来的新高。如果他们继续下去，就有理由担心。但他们没有继续。相反，他们已经下跌了两个月。债券市场的5年通胀预期现在低于3月中旬。市场预计五年通胀率约为2.6%。这比我们十年来所习惯的要高，但这并没有引起任何重大恐慌。</blockquote> That can change, of course. Maybe it will. We’ll see.<blockquote>当然，这种情况可能会改变。也许会。我们走着瞧。</blockquote> But with all this talk I got to thinking about the obvious question. If serious inflation really does hit, what can we do about it? How can we protect our investments?<blockquote>但是通过这些谈话，我开始思考一个显而易见的问题。如果严重的通货膨胀真的来袭，我们能做些什么呢？我们如何保护我们的投资？</blockquote> That’s an especially key question for today’s retirees and those expecting to retire soon. When we’re older we’re generally advised to keep most of our money in more “conservative” investments, meaning things like bonds, that involve less risk. Someone in their 20s or 30s may not worry unduly if their retirement savings plunge 30% in a market rout or an inflationary spiral. For someone in their 60s, let alone older, that can become a major financial crisis.<blockquote>对于今天的退休人员和那些预计很快退休的人来说，这是一个特别关键的问题。当我们长大后，通常建议我们将大部分资金投资于更“保守”的投资，即债券等风险较小的投资。如果20多岁或30多岁的人的退休储蓄在市场暴跌或通胀螺旋中暴跌30%，他们可能不会过度担心。对于60多岁的人来说，更不用说老年人了，这可能会成为一场重大的财务危机。</blockquote> So I went back and dug up the information from the last, infamous inflationary spiral in the 1970s, when consumer price inflation often topped 10% a year. The Greek philosopher Heraclitus pointed out that no one ever walks through the same stream twice, because the second time it’s not the same stream, and we’re not the same person. Everything changes. There is no guarantee the next inflationary boom, even if it happens, will look anything like the last one — any more than we should assume that it will be accompanied by outbreaks of disco music and flared jeans.<blockquote>因此，我回去挖掘了20世纪70年代上一次臭名昭著的通胀螺旋的信息，当时消费者价格通胀经常超过每年10%。希腊哲学家赫拉克利特指出，没有人会两次走过同一条小溪，因为第二次就不是同一条小溪了，我们也不是同一个人了。一切都变了。不能保证下一次通胀繁荣，即使发生了，看起来也会像上一次一样——就像我们不应该假设它会伴随着迪斯科音乐和喇叭牛仔裤的爆发一样。</blockquote> Nonetheless the chart above shows the total returns, after adjusting for inflation, of various asset classes from December 1971 to December 1981. (I used those dates because the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, or NAREIT, starts their data series then.) The data on energy stocks came from data compiled by professor Ken French at Dartmouth College’s Tuck School of Business.<blockquote>尽管如此，上图显示了1971年12月至1981年12月各种资产类别经通胀调整后的总回报。（我使用这些日期是因为全国房地产投资信托协会（NAREIT）在那时开始他们的数据系列。）能源股的数据来自达特茅斯学院塔克商学院肯·弗伦奇教授汇编的数据。</blockquote> This is what happened to your purchasing power if you invested in these assets and hung on for 10 years. (I’ve excluded gold, which is a different story.)<blockquote>如果你投资这些资产并坚持10年，你的购买力就会发生这种情况。（我已经排除了黄金，这是一个不同的故事。）</blockquote> The key standout is that you really didn’t want to own Treasury bonds. The near 40% loss of purchasing power over 10 years is somewhat notional—it is derived from the compound annual returns on 10 Year Treasurys compiled by New York University’s Stern School of Business, divided by the consumer-price index—but tells a story nonetheless. (In Great Britain, where inflation was even worse, government bonds during the 1970s became known as “certificates of confiscation.” Ouch.)<blockquote>关键的突出之处在于，你真的不想拥有国债。10年内购买力损失近40%在某种程度上是名义上的——它来自纽约大学斯特恩商学院编制的10年期美国国债的复合年回报率除以消费者价格指数——但仍然讲述了一个故事。（在通货膨胀更严重的英国，20世纪70年代的政府债券被称为“没收证书”。哎哟。）</blockquote> Holding them cost you money. Lots of it.<blockquote>拿着它们要花钱。很多。</blockquote> You could argue that the danger today is even greater, simply because the yields on long-term Treasury bonds are so low. Federal Reserve quantitative easing, bond buying, and zero interest-rate policies have left Treasury yields at their lowest on record—which means the turns would be a disaster if inflation reared its head.<blockquote>你可能会说，今天的危险甚至更大，仅仅是因为长期国债的收益率如此之低。美联储的量化宽松、债券购买和零利率政策使美国国债收益率处于有记录以来的最低水平——这意味着如果通胀抬头，这将是一场灾难。</blockquote> Corporate bonds and the S&amp;P 500&nbsp;were also terrible investments. It’s worth remembering that these are real term losses over a decade, which means investors didn’t just lose a lot of money—they also lost a lot of time.<blockquote>公司债券和标普500也是糟糕的投资。值得记住的是，这些是十年来的实际定期损失，这意味着投资者不仅损失了很多钱，还损失了很多时间。</blockquote> Utility stocks weren’t great, but they held up better. And Treasury bills—short-term paper—did better still. But once again you were going backward when you needed to be going forwards.<blockquote>公用事业股表现不佳，但表现较好。短期票据——国库券——表现更好。但是当你需要前进的时候，你又一次倒退了。</blockquote> No one who remembers the 1970s will be surprised that energy companies boomed. Less well-remembered, maybe, is that REITs also did pretty well. These numbers, incidentally, represented property-owning REITs and excluded mortgage REITs, which own loans.<blockquote>任何记得20世纪70年代的人都不会对能源公司的蓬勃发展感到惊讶。也许不太为人所知的是，房地产投资信托基金的表现也相当不错。顺便说一句，这些数字代表拥有财产的房地产投资信托基金，不包括拥有贷款的抵押房地产投资信托基金。</blockquote> But there are two caveats to this. The first is that of course energy stocks did well, because a key driver of inflation in the 1970s was the rise of OPEC and two oil embargoes it imposed on the West for political reasons. Cue Heraclitus. There is no particular reason to assume that the next inflationary surge will be the same.<blockquote>但对此有两个警告。首先，能源股当然表现良好，因为20世纪70年代通胀的一个关键驱动因素是欧佩克的崛起及其出于政治原因对西方实施的两次石油禁运。提示赫拉克利特。没有特别的理由假设下一次通胀飙升会是一样的。</blockquote> The second caveat is that although REITs ended up doing well, they were volatile along the way. In particular, REIT prices collapsed in the OPEC-driven recession of 1972-4. And according to FactSet, U.S. REITs today already look pretty expensive on some measures. For instance it reckons that the forecast dividend yield on the Vanguard Real Estate ETF (a reasonable benchmark for the industry) is just 2.9% — by far the lowest since it was launched in 2004. Looking through NAREIT data, I can’t find a moment since 1971 when the overall yield on REITs was this low. During the real estate bubble in 2007, incidentally, the yield bottomed out no lower than 3.6%<blockquote>第二个警告是，尽管房地产投资信托基金最终表现良好，但一路上波动较大。特别是，房地产投资信托基金价格在1972-1974年欧佩克引发的经济衰退中暴跌。根据FactSet的数据，从某些指标来看，如今的美国房地产投资信托基金看起来已经相当昂贵。例如，它估计Vanguard Real Estate ETF（该行业的合理基准）的预测股息收益率仅为2.9%，是自2004年推出以来的最低水平。翻阅NAREIT数据，自1971年以来，我找不到REITs整体收益率如此之低的时刻。2007年房地产泡沫期间，顺带一提，收益率见底不低于3.6%</blockquote> So it may be that REITs offer less inflation protection today than we would hope.<blockquote>因此，如今房地产投资信托基金提供的通胀保护可能比我们希望的要少。</blockquote> One key difference in the 1970s is that there were no “inflation-protected” Treasury bonds to keep investors protected. So-called TIPS are in theory almost the perfect investment for retirees. They are issued by the U.S. government and their coupons are safe against default. Meanwhile their coupons effectively adjust to reflect changes in consumer prices.<blockquote>20世纪70年代的一个关键区别是，没有“通胀保值”国债来保护投资者。理论上，所谓的小费几乎是退休人员的完美投资。它们由美国政府发行，其优惠券不会违约。与此同时，他们的优惠券有效地调整以反映消费价格的变化。</blockquote> The problem today is that TIPS—like almost everything else in the bond market—look incredibly expensive. Most TIPS already lock in an actual loss of purchasing power if you buy them today. For example if you buy 5 year TIPS bonds and hold them for 5 years you’ll end up losing 9% of your purchasing power. And 30-year TIPS bonds offer the same 9% loss, though stretched out over 30 years.<blockquote>今天的问题是，TIPS——就像债券市场上的几乎所有东西一样——看起来非常昂贵。如果你今天购买，大多数建议已经锁定了购买力的实际损失。例如，如果你购买5年期TIPS债券并持有5年，你最终会损失9%的购买力。30年期TIPS债券的损失同样为9%，尽管期限延长了30年。</blockquote> It’s not very compelling. And it shows the risks that the government’s policy responses have created for those in retirement and near it.<blockquote>这不是很引人注目。它还显示了政府的政策应对给退休和接近退休年龄的人带来的风险。</blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/worried-about-inflation-heres-how-investments-did-in-the-1970s-11626658251?siteid=yhoof2\">Marketwatch</a>\n为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".SPX":"S&P 500 Index","XOM":"埃克森美孚"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/worried-about-inflation-heres-how-investments-did-in-the-1970s-11626658251?siteid=yhoof2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/599a65733b8245fcf7868668ef9ad712","article_id":"1129846769","content_text":"In the 1990s movie The Shipping News, an old newspaperman explains to Kevin Spacey how to cover the news. If there is a storm visible anywhere, he explains, you write “Storm threatens the town,” even if the storm is nowhere near and is unlikely to hit. If—as expected—the storm never hits, you just write the follow up: “Town spared by storm.”\nReaders may be excused for thinking something similar about the latest stories about looming, threatening, surging, terrifying inflation. Yes, the inflation forecasts were surging months ago, and hit 8-year highs. Had they continued there would be grounds to worry. But they haven’t continued. On the contrary, they’ve been falling for two months. The bond market’s 5-year inflation forecast is now lower than it was in mid-March. The market sees five-year inflation running at around 2.6%. That’s higher than we’ve been used to for a decade, but it’s nothing to cause any significant alarm.\nThat can change, of course. Maybe it will. We’ll see.\nBut with all this talk I got to thinking about the obvious question. If serious inflation really does hit, what can we do about it? How can we protect our investments?\nThat’s an especially key question for today’s retirees and those expecting to retire soon. When we’re older we’re generally advised to keep most of our money in more “conservative” investments, meaning things like bonds, that involve less risk. Someone in their 20s or 30s may not worry unduly if their retirement savings plunge 30% in a market rout or an inflationary spiral. For someone in their 60s, let alone older, that can become a major financial crisis.\nSo I went back and dug up the information from the last, infamous inflationary spiral in the 1970s, when consumer price inflation often topped 10% a year. The Greek philosopher Heraclitus pointed out that no one ever walks through the same stream twice, because the second time it’s not the same stream, and we’re not the same person. Everything changes. There is no guarantee the next inflationary boom, even if it happens, will look anything like the last one — any more than we should assume that it will be accompanied by outbreaks of disco music and flared jeans.\nNonetheless the chart above shows the total returns, after adjusting for inflation, of various asset classes from December 1971 to December 1981. (I used those dates because the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, or NAREIT, starts their data series then.) The data on energy stocks came from data compiled by professor Ken French at Dartmouth College’s Tuck School of Business.\nThis is what happened to your purchasing power if you invested in these assets and hung on for 10 years. (I’ve excluded gold, which is a different story.)\nThe key standout is that you really didn’t want to own Treasury bonds. The near 40% loss of purchasing power over 10 years is somewhat notional—it is derived from the compound annual returns on 10 Year Treasurys compiled by New York University’s Stern School of Business, divided by the consumer-price index—but tells a story nonetheless. (In Great Britain, where inflation was even worse, government bonds during the 1970s became known as “certificates of confiscation.” Ouch.)\nHolding them cost you money. Lots of it.\nYou could argue that the danger today is even greater, simply because the yields on long-term Treasury bonds are so low. Federal Reserve quantitative easing, bond buying, and zero interest-rate policies have left Treasury yields at their lowest on record—which means the turns would be a disaster if inflation reared its head.\nCorporate bonds and the S&P 500 were also terrible investments. It’s worth remembering that these are real term losses over a decade, which means investors didn’t just lose a lot of money—they also lost a lot of time.\nUtility stocks weren’t great, but they held up better. And Treasury bills—short-term paper—did better still. But once again you were going backward when you needed to be going forwards.\nNo one who remembers the 1970s will be surprised that energy companies boomed. Less well-remembered, maybe, is that REITs also did pretty well. These numbers, incidentally, represented property-owning REITs and excluded mortgage REITs, which own loans.\nBut there are two caveats to this. The first is that of course energy stocks did well, because a key driver of inflation in the 1970s was the rise of OPEC and two oil embargoes it imposed on the West for political reasons. Cue Heraclitus. There is no particular reason to assume that the next inflationary surge will be the same.\nThe second caveat is that although REITs ended up doing well, they were volatile along the way. In particular, REIT prices collapsed in the OPEC-driven recession of 1972-4. And according to FactSet, U.S. REITs today already look pretty expensive on some measures. For instance it reckons that the forecast dividend yield on the Vanguard Real Estate ETF (a reasonable benchmark for the industry) is just 2.9% — by far the lowest since it was launched in 2004. Looking through NAREIT data, I can’t find a moment since 1971 when the overall yield on REITs was this low. During the real estate bubble in 2007, incidentally, the yield bottomed out no lower than 3.6%\nSo it may be that REITs offer less inflation protection today than we would hope.\nOne key difference in the 1970s is that there were no “inflation-protected” Treasury bonds to keep investors protected. So-called TIPS are in theory almost the perfect investment for retirees. They are issued by the U.S. government and their coupons are safe against default. Meanwhile their coupons effectively adjust to reflect changes in consumer prices.\nThe problem today is that TIPS—like almost everything else in the bond market—look incredibly expensive. Most TIPS already lock in an actual loss of purchasing power if you buy them today. For example if you buy 5 year TIPS bonds and hold them for 5 years you’ll end up losing 9% of your purchasing power. And 30-year TIPS bonds offer the same 9% loss, though stretched out over 30 years.\nIt’s not very compelling. And it shows the risks that the government’s policy responses have created for those in retirement and near it.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{".SPX":0.9,"XOM":0.9}},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":171492527,"gmtCreate":1626754722669,"gmtModify":1633771333238,"author":{"id":"3586942609729444","authorId":"3586942609729444","name":"deathdevil","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4be1d85c7649fbd2a69d825c1a37c903","vip":1,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3586942609729444","authorIdStr":"3586942609729444"},"htmlText":"Nice","listText":"Nice","text":"Nice","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":5,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/171492527","repostId":1129846769,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1129846769","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1626751789,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1129846769?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-07-20 11:29","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Worried about inflation? Here’s how investments did in the 1970s<blockquote>担心通货膨胀？以下是20世纪70年代的投资表现</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1129846769","media":"Marketwatch","summary":"In the 1990s movie The Shipping News, an old newspaperman explains to Kevin Spacey how to cover the ","content":"In the 1990s movie The Shipping News, an old newspaperman explains to Kevin Spacey how to cover the news. If there is a storm visible anywhere, he explains, you write “Storm threatens the town,” even if the storm is nowhere near and is unlikely to hit. If—as expected—the storm never hits, you just write the follow up: “Town spared by storm.”<blockquote>在20世纪90年代的电影《航运新闻》中，一位老记者向凯文·史派西解释如何报道新闻。他解释说，如果任何地方都有可见的风暴，你就会写“风暴威胁着城镇”，即使风暴不在附近，也不太可能来袭。如果——正如预期的那样——风暴从未袭击，你只需写下后续内容：“城镇幸免于风暴。”</blockquote> Readers may be excused for thinking something similar about the latest stories about looming, threatening, surging, terrifying inflation. Yes, the inflation forecasts were surging months ago, and hit 8-year highs. Had they continued there would be grounds to worry. But they haven’t continued. On the contrary, they’ve been falling for two months. The bond market’s 5-year inflation forecast is now lower than it was in mid-March. The market sees five-year inflation running at around 2.6%. That’s higher than we’ve been used to for a decade, but it’s nothing to cause any significant alarm.<blockquote>读者可能会对最近关于迫在眉睫、威胁、飙升、可怕的通货膨胀的故事有类似的想法。是的，几个月前通胀预测飙升，并创下8年来的新高。如果他们继续下去，就有理由担心。但他们没有继续。相反，他们已经下跌了两个月。债券市场的5年通胀预期现在低于3月中旬。市场预计五年通胀率约为2.6%。这比我们十年来所习惯的要高，但这并没有引起任何重大恐慌。</blockquote> That can change, of course. Maybe it will. We’ll see.<blockquote>当然，这种情况可能会改变。也许会。我们走着瞧。</blockquote> But with all this talk I got to thinking about the obvious question. If serious inflation really does hit, what can we do about it? How can we protect our investments?<blockquote>但是通过这些谈话，我开始思考一个显而易见的问题。如果严重的通货膨胀真的来袭，我们能做些什么呢？我们如何保护我们的投资？</blockquote> That’s an especially key question for today’s retirees and those expecting to retire soon. When we’re older we’re generally advised to keep most of our money in more “conservative” investments, meaning things like bonds, that involve less risk. Someone in their 20s or 30s may not worry unduly if their retirement savings plunge 30% in a market rout or an inflationary spiral. For someone in their 60s, let alone older, that can become a major financial crisis.<blockquote>对于今天的退休人员和那些预计很快退休的人来说，这是一个特别关键的问题。当我们长大后，通常建议我们将大部分资金投资于更“保守”的投资，即债券等风险较小的投资。如果20多岁或30多岁的人的退休储蓄在市场暴跌或通胀螺旋中暴跌30%，他们可能不会过度担心。对于60多岁的人来说，更不用说老年人了，这可能会成为一场重大的财务危机。</blockquote> So I went back and dug up the information from the last, infamous inflationary spiral in the 1970s, when consumer price inflation often topped 10% a year. The Greek philosopher Heraclitus pointed out that no one ever walks through the same stream twice, because the second time it’s not the same stream, and we’re not the same person. Everything changes. There is no guarantee the next inflationary boom, even if it happens, will look anything like the last one — any more than we should assume that it will be accompanied by outbreaks of disco music and flared jeans.<blockquote>因此，我回去挖掘了20世纪70年代上一次臭名昭著的通胀螺旋的信息，当时消费者价格通胀经常超过每年10%。希腊哲学家赫拉克利特指出，没有人会两次走过同一条小溪，因为第二次就不是同一条小溪了，我们也不是同一个人了。一切都变了。不能保证下一次通胀繁荣，即使发生了，看起来也会像上一次一样——就像我们不应该假设它会伴随着迪斯科音乐和喇叭牛仔裤的爆发一样。</blockquote> Nonetheless the chart above shows the total returns, after adjusting for inflation, of various asset classes from December 1971 to December 1981. (I used those dates because the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, or NAREIT, starts their data series then.) The data on energy stocks came from data compiled by professor Ken French at Dartmouth College’s Tuck School of Business.<blockquote>尽管如此，上图显示了1971年12月至1981年12月各种资产类别经通胀调整后的总回报。（我使用这些日期是因为全国房地产投资信托协会（NAREIT）在那时开始他们的数据系列。）能源股的数据来自达特茅斯学院塔克商学院肯·弗伦奇教授汇编的数据。</blockquote> This is what happened to your purchasing power if you invested in these assets and hung on for 10 years. (I’ve excluded gold, which is a different story.)<blockquote>如果你投资这些资产并坚持10年，你的购买力就会发生这种情况。（我已经排除了黄金，这是一个不同的故事。）</blockquote> The key standout is that you really didn’t want to own Treasury bonds. The near 40% loss of purchasing power over 10 years is somewhat notional—it is derived from the compound annual returns on 10 Year Treasurys compiled by New York University’s Stern School of Business, divided by the consumer-price index—but tells a story nonetheless. (In Great Britain, where inflation was even worse, government bonds during the 1970s became known as “certificates of confiscation.” Ouch.)<blockquote>关键的突出之处在于，你真的不想拥有国债。10年内购买力损失近40%在某种程度上是名义上的——它来自纽约大学斯特恩商学院编制的10年期美国国债的复合年回报率除以消费者价格指数——但仍然讲述了一个故事。（在通货膨胀更严重的英国，20世纪70年代的政府债券被称为“没收证书”。哎哟。）</blockquote> Holding them cost you money. Lots of it.<blockquote>拿着它们要花钱。很多。</blockquote> You could argue that the danger today is even greater, simply because the yields on long-term Treasury bonds are so low. Federal Reserve quantitative easing, bond buying, and zero interest-rate policies have left Treasury yields at their lowest on record—which means the turns would be a disaster if inflation reared its head.<blockquote>你可能会说，今天的危险甚至更大，仅仅是因为长期国债的收益率如此之低。美联储的量化宽松、债券购买和零利率政策使美国国债收益率处于有记录以来的最低水平——这意味着如果通胀抬头，这将是一场灾难。</blockquote> Corporate bonds and the S&amp;P 500&nbsp;were also terrible investments. It’s worth remembering that these are real term losses over a decade, which means investors didn’t just lose a lot of money—they also lost a lot of time.<blockquote>公司债券和标普500也是糟糕的投资。值得记住的是，这些是十年来的实际定期损失，这意味着投资者不仅损失了很多钱，还损失了很多时间。</blockquote> Utility stocks weren’t great, but they held up better. And Treasury bills—short-term paper—did better still. But once again you were going backward when you needed to be going forwards.<blockquote>公用事业股表现不佳，但表现较好。短期票据——国库券——表现更好。但是当你需要前进的时候，你又一次倒退了。</blockquote> No one who remembers the 1970s will be surprised that energy companies boomed. Less well-remembered, maybe, is that REITs also did pretty well. These numbers, incidentally, represented property-owning REITs and excluded mortgage REITs, which own loans.<blockquote>任何记得20世纪70年代的人都不会对能源公司的蓬勃发展感到惊讶。也许不太为人所知的是，房地产投资信托基金的表现也相当不错。顺便说一句，这些数字代表拥有财产的房地产投资信托基金，不包括拥有贷款的抵押房地产投资信托基金。</blockquote> But there are two caveats to this. The first is that of course energy stocks did well, because a key driver of inflation in the 1970s was the rise of OPEC and two oil embargoes it imposed on the West for political reasons. Cue Heraclitus. There is no particular reason to assume that the next inflationary surge will be the same.<blockquote>但对此有两个警告。首先，能源股当然表现良好，因为20世纪70年代通胀的一个关键驱动因素是欧佩克的崛起及其出于政治原因对西方实施的两次石油禁运。提示赫拉克利特。没有特别的理由假设下一次通胀飙升会是一样的。</blockquote> The second caveat is that although REITs ended up doing well, they were volatile along the way. In particular, REIT prices collapsed in the OPEC-driven recession of 1972-4. And according to FactSet, U.S. REITs today already look pretty expensive on some measures. For instance it reckons that the forecast dividend yield on the Vanguard Real Estate ETF (a reasonable benchmark for the industry) is just 2.9% — by far the lowest since it was launched in 2004. Looking through NAREIT data, I can’t find a moment since 1971 when the overall yield on REITs was this low. During the real estate bubble in 2007, incidentally, the yield bottomed out no lower than 3.6%<blockquote>第二个警告是，尽管房地产投资信托基金最终表现良好，但一路上波动较大。特别是，房地产投资信托基金价格在1972-1974年欧佩克引发的经济衰退中暴跌。根据FactSet的数据，从某些指标来看，如今的美国房地产投资信托基金看起来已经相当昂贵。例如，它估计Vanguard Real Estate ETF（该行业的合理基准）的预测股息收益率仅为2.9%，是自2004年推出以来的最低水平。翻阅NAREIT数据，自1971年以来，我找不到REITs整体收益率如此之低的时刻。2007年房地产泡沫期间，顺带一提，收益率见底不低于3.6%</blockquote> So it may be that REITs offer less inflation protection today than we would hope.<blockquote>因此，如今房地产投资信托基金提供的通胀保护可能比我们希望的要少。</blockquote> One key difference in the 1970s is that there were no “inflation-protected” Treasury bonds to keep investors protected. So-called TIPS are in theory almost the perfect investment for retirees. They are issued by the U.S. government and their coupons are safe against default. Meanwhile their coupons effectively adjust to reflect changes in consumer prices.<blockquote>20世纪70年代的一个关键区别是，没有“通胀保值”国债来保护投资者。理论上，所谓的小费几乎是退休人员的完美投资。它们由美国政府发行，其优惠券不会违约。与此同时，他们的优惠券有效地调整以反映消费价格的变化。</blockquote> The problem today is that TIPS—like almost everything else in the bond market—look incredibly expensive. Most TIPS already lock in an actual loss of purchasing power if you buy them today. For example if you buy 5 year TIPS bonds and hold them for 5 years you’ll end up losing 9% of your purchasing power. And 30-year TIPS bonds offer the same 9% loss, though stretched out over 30 years.<blockquote>今天的问题是，TIPS——就像债券市场上的几乎所有东西一样——看起来非常昂贵。如果你今天购买，大多数建议已经锁定了购买力的实际损失。例如，如果你购买5年期TIPS债券并持有5年，你最终会损失9%的购买力。30年期TIPS债券的损失同样为9%，尽管期限延长了30年。</blockquote> It’s not very compelling. And it shows the risks that the government’s policy responses have created for those in retirement and near it.<blockquote>这不是很引人注目。它还显示了政府的政策应对给退休和接近退休年龄的人带来的风险。</blockquote>","source":"market_watch","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Worried about inflation? Here’s how investments did in the 1970s<blockquote>担心通货膨胀？以下是20世纪70年代的投资表现</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWorried about inflation? Here’s how investments did in the 1970s<blockquote>担心通货膨胀？以下是20世纪70年代的投资表现</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nMarketwatch2021-07-20 11:29\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\nIn the 1990s movie The Shipping News, an old newspaperman explains to Kevin Spacey how to cover the news. If there is a storm visible anywhere, he explains, you write “Storm threatens the town,” even if the storm is nowhere near and is unlikely to hit. If—as expected—the storm never hits, you just write the follow up: “Town spared by storm.”<blockquote>在20世纪90年代的电影《航运新闻》中，一位老记者向凯文·史派西解释如何报道新闻。他解释说，如果任何地方都有可见的风暴，你就会写“风暴威胁着城镇”，即使风暴不在附近，也不太可能来袭。如果——正如预期的那样——风暴从未袭击，你只需写下后续内容：“城镇幸免于风暴。”</blockquote> Readers may be excused for thinking something similar about the latest stories about looming, threatening, surging, terrifying inflation. Yes, the inflation forecasts were surging months ago, and hit 8-year highs. Had they continued there would be grounds to worry. But they haven’t continued. On the contrary, they’ve been falling for two months. The bond market’s 5-year inflation forecast is now lower than it was in mid-March. The market sees five-year inflation running at around 2.6%. That’s higher than we’ve been used to for a decade, but it’s nothing to cause any significant alarm.<blockquote>读者可能会对最近关于迫在眉睫、威胁、飙升、可怕的通货膨胀的故事有类似的想法。是的，几个月前通胀预测飙升，并创下8年来的新高。如果他们继续下去，就有理由担心。但他们没有继续。相反，他们已经下跌了两个月。债券市场的5年通胀预期现在低于3月中旬。市场预计五年通胀率约为2.6%。这比我们十年来所习惯的要高，但这并没有引起任何重大恐慌。</blockquote> That can change, of course. Maybe it will. We’ll see.<blockquote>当然，这种情况可能会改变。也许会。我们走着瞧。</blockquote> But with all this talk I got to thinking about the obvious question. If serious inflation really does hit, what can we do about it? How can we protect our investments?<blockquote>但是通过这些谈话，我开始思考一个显而易见的问题。如果严重的通货膨胀真的来袭，我们能做些什么呢？我们如何保护我们的投资？</blockquote> That’s an especially key question for today’s retirees and those expecting to retire soon. When we’re older we’re generally advised to keep most of our money in more “conservative” investments, meaning things like bonds, that involve less risk. Someone in their 20s or 30s may not worry unduly if their retirement savings plunge 30% in a market rout or an inflationary spiral. For someone in their 60s, let alone older, that can become a major financial crisis.<blockquote>对于今天的退休人员和那些预计很快退休的人来说，这是一个特别关键的问题。当我们长大后，通常建议我们将大部分资金投资于更“保守”的投资，即债券等风险较小的投资。如果20多岁或30多岁的人的退休储蓄在市场暴跌或通胀螺旋中暴跌30%，他们可能不会过度担心。对于60多岁的人来说，更不用说老年人了，这可能会成为一场重大的财务危机。</blockquote> So I went back and dug up the information from the last, infamous inflationary spiral in the 1970s, when consumer price inflation often topped 10% a year. The Greek philosopher Heraclitus pointed out that no one ever walks through the same stream twice, because the second time it’s not the same stream, and we’re not the same person. Everything changes. There is no guarantee the next inflationary boom, even if it happens, will look anything like the last one — any more than we should assume that it will be accompanied by outbreaks of disco music and flared jeans.<blockquote>因此，我回去挖掘了20世纪70年代上一次臭名昭著的通胀螺旋的信息，当时消费者价格通胀经常超过每年10%。希腊哲学家赫拉克利特指出，没有人会两次走过同一条小溪，因为第二次就不是同一条小溪了，我们也不是同一个人了。一切都变了。不能保证下一次通胀繁荣，即使发生了，看起来也会像上一次一样——就像我们不应该假设它会伴随着迪斯科音乐和喇叭牛仔裤的爆发一样。</blockquote> Nonetheless the chart above shows the total returns, after adjusting for inflation, of various asset classes from December 1971 to December 1981. (I used those dates because the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, or NAREIT, starts their data series then.) The data on energy stocks came from data compiled by professor Ken French at Dartmouth College’s Tuck School of Business.<blockquote>尽管如此，上图显示了1971年12月至1981年12月各种资产类别经通胀调整后的总回报。（我使用这些日期是因为全国房地产投资信托协会（NAREIT）在那时开始他们的数据系列。）能源股的数据来自达特茅斯学院塔克商学院肯·弗伦奇教授汇编的数据。</blockquote> This is what happened to your purchasing power if you invested in these assets and hung on for 10 years. (I’ve excluded gold, which is a different story.)<blockquote>如果你投资这些资产并坚持10年，你的购买力就会发生这种情况。（我已经排除了黄金，这是一个不同的故事。）</blockquote> The key standout is that you really didn’t want to own Treasury bonds. The near 40% loss of purchasing power over 10 years is somewhat notional—it is derived from the compound annual returns on 10 Year Treasurys compiled by New York University’s Stern School of Business, divided by the consumer-price index—but tells a story nonetheless. (In Great Britain, where inflation was even worse, government bonds during the 1970s became known as “certificates of confiscation.” Ouch.)<blockquote>关键的突出之处在于，你真的不想拥有国债。10年内购买力损失近40%在某种程度上是名义上的——它来自纽约大学斯特恩商学院编制的10年期美国国债的复合年回报率除以消费者价格指数——但仍然讲述了一个故事。（在通货膨胀更严重的英国，20世纪70年代的政府债券被称为“没收证书”。哎哟。）</blockquote> Holding them cost you money. Lots of it.<blockquote>拿着它们要花钱。很多。</blockquote> You could argue that the danger today is even greater, simply because the yields on long-term Treasury bonds are so low. Federal Reserve quantitative easing, bond buying, and zero interest-rate policies have left Treasury yields at their lowest on record—which means the turns would be a disaster if inflation reared its head.<blockquote>你可能会说，今天的危险甚至更大，仅仅是因为长期国债的收益率如此之低。美联储的量化宽松、债券购买和零利率政策使美国国债收益率处于有记录以来的最低水平——这意味着如果通胀抬头，这将是一场灾难。</blockquote> Corporate bonds and the S&amp;P 500&nbsp;were also terrible investments. It’s worth remembering that these are real term losses over a decade, which means investors didn’t just lose a lot of money—they also lost a lot of time.<blockquote>公司债券和标普500也是糟糕的投资。值得记住的是，这些是十年来的实际定期损失，这意味着投资者不仅损失了很多钱，还损失了很多时间。</blockquote> Utility stocks weren’t great, but they held up better. And Treasury bills—short-term paper—did better still. But once again you were going backward when you needed to be going forwards.<blockquote>公用事业股表现不佳，但表现较好。短期票据——国库券——表现更好。但是当你需要前进的时候，你又一次倒退了。</blockquote> No one who remembers the 1970s will be surprised that energy companies boomed. Less well-remembered, maybe, is that REITs also did pretty well. These numbers, incidentally, represented property-owning REITs and excluded mortgage REITs, which own loans.<blockquote>任何记得20世纪70年代的人都不会对能源公司的蓬勃发展感到惊讶。也许不太为人所知的是，房地产投资信托基金的表现也相当不错。顺便说一句，这些数字代表拥有财产的房地产投资信托基金，不包括拥有贷款的抵押房地产投资信托基金。</blockquote> But there are two caveats to this. The first is that of course energy stocks did well, because a key driver of inflation in the 1970s was the rise of OPEC and two oil embargoes it imposed on the West for political reasons. Cue Heraclitus. There is no particular reason to assume that the next inflationary surge will be the same.<blockquote>但对此有两个警告。首先，能源股当然表现良好，因为20世纪70年代通胀的一个关键驱动因素是欧佩克的崛起及其出于政治原因对西方实施的两次石油禁运。提示赫拉克利特。没有特别的理由假设下一次通胀飙升会是一样的。</blockquote> The second caveat is that although REITs ended up doing well, they were volatile along the way. In particular, REIT prices collapsed in the OPEC-driven recession of 1972-4. And according to FactSet, U.S. REITs today already look pretty expensive on some measures. For instance it reckons that the forecast dividend yield on the Vanguard Real Estate ETF (a reasonable benchmark for the industry) is just 2.9% — by far the lowest since it was launched in 2004. Looking through NAREIT data, I can’t find a moment since 1971 when the overall yield on REITs was this low. During the real estate bubble in 2007, incidentally, the yield bottomed out no lower than 3.6%<blockquote>第二个警告是，尽管房地产投资信托基金最终表现良好，但一路上波动较大。特别是，房地产投资信托基金价格在1972-1974年欧佩克引发的经济衰退中暴跌。根据FactSet的数据，从某些指标来看，如今的美国房地产投资信托基金看起来已经相当昂贵。例如，它估计Vanguard Real Estate ETF（该行业的合理基准）的预测股息收益率仅为2.9%，是自2004年推出以来的最低水平。翻阅NAREIT数据，自1971年以来，我找不到REITs整体收益率如此之低的时刻。2007年房地产泡沫期间，顺带一提，收益率见底不低于3.6%</blockquote> So it may be that REITs offer less inflation protection today than we would hope.<blockquote>因此，如今房地产投资信托基金提供的通胀保护可能比我们希望的要少。</blockquote> One key difference in the 1970s is that there were no “inflation-protected” Treasury bonds to keep investors protected. So-called TIPS are in theory almost the perfect investment for retirees. They are issued by the U.S. government and their coupons are safe against default. Meanwhile their coupons effectively adjust to reflect changes in consumer prices.<blockquote>20世纪70年代的一个关键区别是，没有“通胀保值”国债来保护投资者。理论上，所谓的小费几乎是退休人员的完美投资。它们由美国政府发行，其优惠券不会违约。与此同时，他们的优惠券有效地调整以反映消费价格的变化。</blockquote> The problem today is that TIPS—like almost everything else in the bond market—look incredibly expensive. Most TIPS already lock in an actual loss of purchasing power if you buy them today. For example if you buy 5 year TIPS bonds and hold them for 5 years you’ll end up losing 9% of your purchasing power. And 30-year TIPS bonds offer the same 9% loss, though stretched out over 30 years.<blockquote>今天的问题是，TIPS——就像债券市场上的几乎所有东西一样——看起来非常昂贵。如果你今天购买，大多数建议已经锁定了购买力的实际损失。例如，如果你购买5年期TIPS债券并持有5年，你最终会损失9%的购买力。30年期TIPS债券的损失同样为9%，尽管期限延长了30年。</blockquote> It’s not very compelling. And it shows the risks that the government’s policy responses have created for those in retirement and near it.<blockquote>这不是很引人注目。它还显示了政府的政策应对给退休和接近退休年龄的人带来的风险。</blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/worried-about-inflation-heres-how-investments-did-in-the-1970s-11626658251?siteid=yhoof2\">Marketwatch</a>\n为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".SPX":"S&P 500 Index","XOM":"埃克森美孚"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/worried-about-inflation-heres-how-investments-did-in-the-1970s-11626658251?siteid=yhoof2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/599a65733b8245fcf7868668ef9ad712","article_id":"1129846769","content_text":"In the 1990s movie The Shipping News, an old newspaperman explains to Kevin Spacey how to cover the news. If there is a storm visible anywhere, he explains, you write “Storm threatens the town,” even if the storm is nowhere near and is unlikely to hit. If—as expected—the storm never hits, you just write the follow up: “Town spared by storm.”\nReaders may be excused for thinking something similar about the latest stories about looming, threatening, surging, terrifying inflation. Yes, the inflation forecasts were surging months ago, and hit 8-year highs. Had they continued there would be grounds to worry. But they haven’t continued. On the contrary, they’ve been falling for two months. The bond market’s 5-year inflation forecast is now lower than it was in mid-March. The market sees five-year inflation running at around 2.6%. That’s higher than we’ve been used to for a decade, but it’s nothing to cause any significant alarm.\nThat can change, of course. Maybe it will. We’ll see.\nBut with all this talk I got to thinking about the obvious question. If serious inflation really does hit, what can we do about it? How can we protect our investments?\nThat’s an especially key question for today’s retirees and those expecting to retire soon. When we’re older we’re generally advised to keep most of our money in more “conservative” investments, meaning things like bonds, that involve less risk. Someone in their 20s or 30s may not worry unduly if their retirement savings plunge 30% in a market rout or an inflationary spiral. For someone in their 60s, let alone older, that can become a major financial crisis.\nSo I went back and dug up the information from the last, infamous inflationary spiral in the 1970s, when consumer price inflation often topped 10% a year. The Greek philosopher Heraclitus pointed out that no one ever walks through the same stream twice, because the second time it’s not the same stream, and we’re not the same person. Everything changes. There is no guarantee the next inflationary boom, even if it happens, will look anything like the last one — any more than we should assume that it will be accompanied by outbreaks of disco music and flared jeans.\nNonetheless the chart above shows the total returns, after adjusting for inflation, of various asset classes from December 1971 to December 1981. (I used those dates because the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, or NAREIT, starts their data series then.) The data on energy stocks came from data compiled by professor Ken French at Dartmouth College’s Tuck School of Business.\nThis is what happened to your purchasing power if you invested in these assets and hung on for 10 years. (I’ve excluded gold, which is a different story.)\nThe key standout is that you really didn’t want to own Treasury bonds. The near 40% loss of purchasing power over 10 years is somewhat notional—it is derived from the compound annual returns on 10 Year Treasurys compiled by New York University’s Stern School of Business, divided by the consumer-price index—but tells a story nonetheless. (In Great Britain, where inflation was even worse, government bonds during the 1970s became known as “certificates of confiscation.” Ouch.)\nHolding them cost you money. Lots of it.\nYou could argue that the danger today is even greater, simply because the yields on long-term Treasury bonds are so low. Federal Reserve quantitative easing, bond buying, and zero interest-rate policies have left Treasury yields at their lowest on record—which means the turns would be a disaster if inflation reared its head.\nCorporate bonds and the S&P 500 were also terrible investments. It’s worth remembering that these are real term losses over a decade, which means investors didn’t just lose a lot of money—they also lost a lot of time.\nUtility stocks weren’t great, but they held up better. And Treasury bills—short-term paper—did better still. But once again you were going backward when you needed to be going forwards.\nNo one who remembers the 1970s will be surprised that energy companies boomed. Less well-remembered, maybe, is that REITs also did pretty well. These numbers, incidentally, represented property-owning REITs and excluded mortgage REITs, which own loans.\nBut there are two caveats to this. The first is that of course energy stocks did well, because a key driver of inflation in the 1970s was the rise of OPEC and two oil embargoes it imposed on the West for political reasons. Cue Heraclitus. There is no particular reason to assume that the next inflationary surge will be the same.\nThe second caveat is that although REITs ended up doing well, they were volatile along the way. In particular, REIT prices collapsed in the OPEC-driven recession of 1972-4. And according to FactSet, U.S. REITs today already look pretty expensive on some measures. For instance it reckons that the forecast dividend yield on the Vanguard Real Estate ETF (a reasonable benchmark for the industry) is just 2.9% — by far the lowest since it was launched in 2004. Looking through NAREIT data, I can’t find a moment since 1971 when the overall yield on REITs was this low. During the real estate bubble in 2007, incidentally, the yield bottomed out no lower than 3.6%\nSo it may be that REITs offer less inflation protection today than we would hope.\nOne key difference in the 1970s is that there were no “inflation-protected” Treasury bonds to keep investors protected. So-called TIPS are in theory almost the perfect investment for retirees. They are issued by the U.S. government and their coupons are safe against default. Meanwhile their coupons effectively adjust to reflect changes in consumer prices.\nThe problem today is that TIPS—like almost everything else in the bond market—look incredibly expensive. Most TIPS already lock in an actual loss of purchasing power if you buy them today. For example if you buy 5 year TIPS bonds and hold them for 5 years you’ll end up losing 9% of your purchasing power. And 30-year TIPS bonds offer the same 9% loss, though stretched out over 30 years.\nIt’s not very compelling. And it shows the risks that the government’s policy responses have created for those in retirement and near it.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{".SPX":0.9,"XOM":0.9}},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":5269525,"gmtCreate":1626754744590,"gmtModify":1631894237969,"authorId":3581838843201713,"author":{"id":3581838843201713,"idStr":"3581838843201713","authorId":3581838843201713,"name":"Veldin","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/1066c001ce0c01a3b97656619c989986","vip":1,"crmLevel":12,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":171492527,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"Yes","text":"Yes","html":"Yes"}],"langContent":"EN"},{"id":171493088,"gmtCreate":1626754457044,"gmtModify":1633771337527,"author":{"id":"3569316529855154","authorId":"3569316529855154","name":"Deonc","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/d9aa45dd2eb58357f6477dcfb99d1415","vip":1,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3569316529855154","authorIdStr":"3569316529855154"},"htmlText":"Good","listText":"Good","text":"Good","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":4,"commentSize":2,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/171493088","repostId":1129846769,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1129846769","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1626751789,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1129846769?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-07-20 11:29","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Worried about inflation? Here’s how investments did in the 1970s<blockquote>担心通货膨胀？以下是20世纪70年代的投资表现</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1129846769","media":"Marketwatch","summary":"In the 1990s movie The Shipping News, an old newspaperman explains to Kevin Spacey how to cover the ","content":"In the 1990s movie The Shipping News, an old newspaperman explains to Kevin Spacey how to cover the news. If there is a storm visible anywhere, he explains, you write “Storm threatens the town,” even if the storm is nowhere near and is unlikely to hit. If—as expected—the storm never hits, you just write the follow up: “Town spared by storm.”<blockquote>在20世纪90年代的电影《航运新闻》中，一位老记者向凯文·史派西解释如何报道新闻。他解释说，如果任何地方都有可见的风暴，你就会写“风暴威胁着城镇”，即使风暴不在附近，也不太可能来袭。如果——正如预期的那样——风暴从未袭击，你只需写下后续内容：“城镇幸免于风暴。”</blockquote> Readers may be excused for thinking something similar about the latest stories about looming, threatening, surging, terrifying inflation. Yes, the inflation forecasts were surging months ago, and hit 8-year highs. Had they continued there would be grounds to worry. But they haven’t continued. On the contrary, they’ve been falling for two months. The bond market’s 5-year inflation forecast is now lower than it was in mid-March. The market sees five-year inflation running at around 2.6%. That’s higher than we’ve been used to for a decade, but it’s nothing to cause any significant alarm.<blockquote>读者可能会对最近关于迫在眉睫、威胁、飙升、可怕的通货膨胀的故事有类似的想法。是的，几个月前通胀预测飙升，并创下8年来的新高。如果他们继续下去，就有理由担心。但他们没有继续。相反，他们已经下跌了两个月。债券市场的5年通胀预期现在低于3月中旬。市场预计五年通胀率约为2.6%。这比我们十年来所习惯的要高，但这并没有引起任何重大恐慌。</blockquote> That can change, of course. Maybe it will. We’ll see.<blockquote>当然，这种情况可能会改变。也许会。我们走着瞧。</blockquote> But with all this talk I got to thinking about the obvious question. If serious inflation really does hit, what can we do about it? How can we protect our investments?<blockquote>但是通过这些谈话，我开始思考一个显而易见的问题。如果严重的通货膨胀真的来袭，我们能做些什么呢？我们如何保护我们的投资？</blockquote> That’s an especially key question for today’s retirees and those expecting to retire soon. When we’re older we’re generally advised to keep most of our money in more “conservative” investments, meaning things like bonds, that involve less risk. Someone in their 20s or 30s may not worry unduly if their retirement savings plunge 30% in a market rout or an inflationary spiral. For someone in their 60s, let alone older, that can become a major financial crisis.<blockquote>对于今天的退休人员和那些预计很快退休的人来说，这是一个特别关键的问题。当我们长大后，通常建议我们将大部分资金投资于更“保守”的投资，即债券等风险较小的投资。如果20多岁或30多岁的人的退休储蓄在市场暴跌或通胀螺旋中暴跌30%，他们可能不会过度担心。对于60多岁的人来说，更不用说老年人了，这可能会成为一场重大的财务危机。</blockquote> So I went back and dug up the information from the last, infamous inflationary spiral in the 1970s, when consumer price inflation often topped 10% a year. The Greek philosopher Heraclitus pointed out that no one ever walks through the same stream twice, because the second time it’s not the same stream, and we’re not the same person. Everything changes. There is no guarantee the next inflationary boom, even if it happens, will look anything like the last one — any more than we should assume that it will be accompanied by outbreaks of disco music and flared jeans.<blockquote>因此，我回去挖掘了20世纪70年代上一次臭名昭著的通胀螺旋的信息，当时消费者价格通胀经常超过每年10%。希腊哲学家赫拉克利特指出，没有人会两次走过同一条小溪，因为第二次就不是同一条小溪了，我们也不是同一个人了。一切都变了。不能保证下一次通胀繁荣，即使发生了，看起来也会像上一次一样——就像我们不应该假设它会伴随着迪斯科音乐和喇叭牛仔裤的爆发一样。</blockquote> Nonetheless the chart above shows the total returns, after adjusting for inflation, of various asset classes from December 1971 to December 1981. (I used those dates because the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, or NAREIT, starts their data series then.) The data on energy stocks came from data compiled by professor Ken French at Dartmouth College’s Tuck School of Business.<blockquote>尽管如此，上图显示了1971年12月至1981年12月各种资产类别经通胀调整后的总回报。（我使用这些日期是因为全国房地产投资信托协会（NAREIT）在那时开始他们的数据系列。）能源股的数据来自达特茅斯学院塔克商学院肯·弗伦奇教授汇编的数据。</blockquote> This is what happened to your purchasing power if you invested in these assets and hung on for 10 years. (I’ve excluded gold, which is a different story.)<blockquote>如果你投资这些资产并坚持10年，你的购买力就会发生这种情况。（我已经排除了黄金，这是一个不同的故事。）</blockquote> The key standout is that you really didn’t want to own Treasury bonds. The near 40% loss of purchasing power over 10 years is somewhat notional—it is derived from the compound annual returns on 10 Year Treasurys compiled by New York University’s Stern School of Business, divided by the consumer-price index—but tells a story nonetheless. (In Great Britain, where inflation was even worse, government bonds during the 1970s became known as “certificates of confiscation.” Ouch.)<blockquote>关键的突出之处在于，你真的不想拥有国债。10年内购买力损失近40%在某种程度上是名义上的——它来自纽约大学斯特恩商学院编制的10年期美国国债的复合年回报率除以消费者价格指数——但仍然讲述了一个故事。（在通货膨胀更严重的英国，20世纪70年代的政府债券被称为“没收证书”。哎哟。）</blockquote> Holding them cost you money. Lots of it.<blockquote>拿着它们要花钱。很多。</blockquote> You could argue that the danger today is even greater, simply because the yields on long-term Treasury bonds are so low. Federal Reserve quantitative easing, bond buying, and zero interest-rate policies have left Treasury yields at their lowest on record—which means the turns would be a disaster if inflation reared its head.<blockquote>你可能会说，今天的危险甚至更大，仅仅是因为长期国债的收益率如此之低。美联储的量化宽松、债券购买和零利率政策使美国国债收益率处于有记录以来的最低水平——这意味着如果通胀抬头，这将是一场灾难。</blockquote> Corporate bonds and the S&amp;P 500&nbsp;were also terrible investments. It’s worth remembering that these are real term losses over a decade, which means investors didn’t just lose a lot of money—they also lost a lot of time.<blockquote>公司债券和标普500也是糟糕的投资。值得记住的是，这些是十年来的实际定期损失，这意味着投资者不仅损失了很多钱，还损失了很多时间。</blockquote> Utility stocks weren’t great, but they held up better. And Treasury bills—short-term paper—did better still. But once again you were going backward when you needed to be going forwards.<blockquote>公用事业股表现不佳，但表现较好。短期票据——国库券——表现更好。但是当你需要前进的时候，你又一次倒退了。</blockquote> No one who remembers the 1970s will be surprised that energy companies boomed. Less well-remembered, maybe, is that REITs also did pretty well. These numbers, incidentally, represented property-owning REITs and excluded mortgage REITs, which own loans.<blockquote>任何记得20世纪70年代的人都不会对能源公司的蓬勃发展感到惊讶。也许不太为人所知的是，房地产投资信托基金的表现也相当不错。顺便说一句，这些数字代表拥有财产的房地产投资信托基金，不包括拥有贷款的抵押房地产投资信托基金。</blockquote> But there are two caveats to this. The first is that of course energy stocks did well, because a key driver of inflation in the 1970s was the rise of OPEC and two oil embargoes it imposed on the West for political reasons. Cue Heraclitus. There is no particular reason to assume that the next inflationary surge will be the same.<blockquote>但对此有两个警告。首先，能源股当然表现良好，因为20世纪70年代通胀的一个关键驱动因素是欧佩克的崛起及其出于政治原因对西方实施的两次石油禁运。提示赫拉克利特。没有特别的理由假设下一次通胀飙升会是一样的。</blockquote> The second caveat is that although REITs ended up doing well, they were volatile along the way. In particular, REIT prices collapsed in the OPEC-driven recession of 1972-4. And according to FactSet, U.S. REITs today already look pretty expensive on some measures. For instance it reckons that the forecast dividend yield on the Vanguard Real Estate ETF (a reasonable benchmark for the industry) is just 2.9% — by far the lowest since it was launched in 2004. Looking through NAREIT data, I can’t find a moment since 1971 when the overall yield on REITs was this low. During the real estate bubble in 2007, incidentally, the yield bottomed out no lower than 3.6%<blockquote>第二个警告是，尽管房地产投资信托基金最终表现良好，但一路上波动较大。特别是，房地产投资信托基金价格在1972-1974年欧佩克引发的经济衰退中暴跌。根据FactSet的数据，从某些指标来看，如今的美国房地产投资信托基金看起来已经相当昂贵。例如，它估计Vanguard Real Estate ETF（该行业的合理基准）的预测股息收益率仅为2.9%，是自2004年推出以来的最低水平。翻阅NAREIT数据，自1971年以来，我找不到REITs整体收益率如此之低的时刻。2007年房地产泡沫期间，顺带一提，收益率见底不低于3.6%</blockquote> So it may be that REITs offer less inflation protection today than we would hope.<blockquote>因此，如今房地产投资信托基金提供的通胀保护可能比我们希望的要少。</blockquote> One key difference in the 1970s is that there were no “inflation-protected” Treasury bonds to keep investors protected. So-called TIPS are in theory almost the perfect investment for retirees. They are issued by the U.S. government and their coupons are safe against default. Meanwhile their coupons effectively adjust to reflect changes in consumer prices.<blockquote>20世纪70年代的一个关键区别是，没有“通胀保值”国债来保护投资者。理论上，所谓的小费几乎是退休人员的完美投资。它们由美国政府发行，其优惠券不会违约。与此同时，他们的优惠券有效地调整以反映消费价格的变化。</blockquote> The problem today is that TIPS—like almost everything else in the bond market—look incredibly expensive. Most TIPS already lock in an actual loss of purchasing power if you buy them today. For example if you buy 5 year TIPS bonds and hold them for 5 years you’ll end up losing 9% of your purchasing power. And 30-year TIPS bonds offer the same 9% loss, though stretched out over 30 years.<blockquote>今天的问题是，TIPS——就像债券市场上的几乎所有东西一样——看起来非常昂贵。如果你今天购买，大多数建议已经锁定了购买力的实际损失。例如，如果你购买5年期TIPS债券并持有5年，你最终会损失9%的购买力。30年期TIPS债券的损失同样为9%，尽管期限延长了30年。</blockquote> It’s not very compelling. And it shows the risks that the government’s policy responses have created for those in retirement and near it.<blockquote>这不是很引人注目。它还显示了政府的政策应对给退休和接近退休年龄的人带来的风险。</blockquote>","source":"market_watch","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Worried about inflation? Here’s how investments did in the 1970s<blockquote>担心通货膨胀？以下是20世纪70年代的投资表现</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWorried about inflation? Here’s how investments did in the 1970s<blockquote>担心通货膨胀？以下是20世纪70年代的投资表现</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nMarketwatch2021-07-20 11:29\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\nIn the 1990s movie The Shipping News, an old newspaperman explains to Kevin Spacey how to cover the news. If there is a storm visible anywhere, he explains, you write “Storm threatens the town,” even if the storm is nowhere near and is unlikely to hit. If—as expected—the storm never hits, you just write the follow up: “Town spared by storm.”<blockquote>在20世纪90年代的电影《航运新闻》中，一位老记者向凯文·史派西解释如何报道新闻。他解释说，如果任何地方都有可见的风暴，你就会写“风暴威胁着城镇”，即使风暴不在附近，也不太可能来袭。如果——正如预期的那样——风暴从未袭击，你只需写下后续内容：“城镇幸免于风暴。”</blockquote> Readers may be excused for thinking something similar about the latest stories about looming, threatening, surging, terrifying inflation. Yes, the inflation forecasts were surging months ago, and hit 8-year highs. Had they continued there would be grounds to worry. But they haven’t continued. On the contrary, they’ve been falling for two months. The bond market’s 5-year inflation forecast is now lower than it was in mid-March. The market sees five-year inflation running at around 2.6%. That’s higher than we’ve been used to for a decade, but it’s nothing to cause any significant alarm.<blockquote>读者可能会对最近关于迫在眉睫、威胁、飙升、可怕的通货膨胀的故事有类似的想法。是的，几个月前通胀预测飙升，并创下8年来的新高。如果他们继续下去，就有理由担心。但他们没有继续。相反，他们已经下跌了两个月。债券市场的5年通胀预期现在低于3月中旬。市场预计五年通胀率约为2.6%。这比我们十年来所习惯的要高，但这并没有引起任何重大恐慌。</blockquote> That can change, of course. Maybe it will. We’ll see.<blockquote>当然，这种情况可能会改变。也许会。我们走着瞧。</blockquote> But with all this talk I got to thinking about the obvious question. If serious inflation really does hit, what can we do about it? How can we protect our investments?<blockquote>但是通过这些谈话，我开始思考一个显而易见的问题。如果严重的通货膨胀真的来袭，我们能做些什么呢？我们如何保护我们的投资？</blockquote> That’s an especially key question for today’s retirees and those expecting to retire soon. When we’re older we’re generally advised to keep most of our money in more “conservative” investments, meaning things like bonds, that involve less risk. Someone in their 20s or 30s may not worry unduly if their retirement savings plunge 30% in a market rout or an inflationary spiral. For someone in their 60s, let alone older, that can become a major financial crisis.<blockquote>对于今天的退休人员和那些预计很快退休的人来说，这是一个特别关键的问题。当我们长大后，通常建议我们将大部分资金投资于更“保守”的投资，即债券等风险较小的投资。如果20多岁或30多岁的人的退休储蓄在市场暴跌或通胀螺旋中暴跌30%，他们可能不会过度担心。对于60多岁的人来说，更不用说老年人了，这可能会成为一场重大的财务危机。</blockquote> So I went back and dug up the information from the last, infamous inflationary spiral in the 1970s, when consumer price inflation often topped 10% a year. The Greek philosopher Heraclitus pointed out that no one ever walks through the same stream twice, because the second time it’s not the same stream, and we’re not the same person. Everything changes. There is no guarantee the next inflationary boom, even if it happens, will look anything like the last one — any more than we should assume that it will be accompanied by outbreaks of disco music and flared jeans.<blockquote>因此，我回去挖掘了20世纪70年代上一次臭名昭著的通胀螺旋的信息，当时消费者价格通胀经常超过每年10%。希腊哲学家赫拉克利特指出，没有人会两次走过同一条小溪，因为第二次就不是同一条小溪了，我们也不是同一个人了。一切都变了。不能保证下一次通胀繁荣，即使发生了，看起来也会像上一次一样——就像我们不应该假设它会伴随着迪斯科音乐和喇叭牛仔裤的爆发一样。</blockquote> Nonetheless the chart above shows the total returns, after adjusting for inflation, of various asset classes from December 1971 to December 1981. (I used those dates because the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, or NAREIT, starts their data series then.) The data on energy stocks came from data compiled by professor Ken French at Dartmouth College’s Tuck School of Business.<blockquote>尽管如此，上图显示了1971年12月至1981年12月各种资产类别经通胀调整后的总回报。（我使用这些日期是因为全国房地产投资信托协会（NAREIT）在那时开始他们的数据系列。）能源股的数据来自达特茅斯学院塔克商学院肯·弗伦奇教授汇编的数据。</blockquote> This is what happened to your purchasing power if you invested in these assets and hung on for 10 years. (I’ve excluded gold, which is a different story.)<blockquote>如果你投资这些资产并坚持10年，你的购买力就会发生这种情况。（我已经排除了黄金，这是一个不同的故事。）</blockquote> The key standout is that you really didn’t want to own Treasury bonds. The near 40% loss of purchasing power over 10 years is somewhat notional—it is derived from the compound annual returns on 10 Year Treasurys compiled by New York University’s Stern School of Business, divided by the consumer-price index—but tells a story nonetheless. (In Great Britain, where inflation was even worse, government bonds during the 1970s became known as “certificates of confiscation.” Ouch.)<blockquote>关键的突出之处在于，你真的不想拥有国债。10年内购买力损失近40%在某种程度上是名义上的——它来自纽约大学斯特恩商学院编制的10年期美国国债的复合年回报率除以消费者价格指数——但仍然讲述了一个故事。（在通货膨胀更严重的英国，20世纪70年代的政府债券被称为“没收证书”。哎哟。）</blockquote> Holding them cost you money. Lots of it.<blockquote>拿着它们要花钱。很多。</blockquote> You could argue that the danger today is even greater, simply because the yields on long-term Treasury bonds are so low. Federal Reserve quantitative easing, bond buying, and zero interest-rate policies have left Treasury yields at their lowest on record—which means the turns would be a disaster if inflation reared its head.<blockquote>你可能会说，今天的危险甚至更大，仅仅是因为长期国债的收益率如此之低。美联储的量化宽松、债券购买和零利率政策使美国国债收益率处于有记录以来的最低水平——这意味着如果通胀抬头，这将是一场灾难。</blockquote> Corporate bonds and the S&amp;P 500&nbsp;were also terrible investments. It’s worth remembering that these are real term losses over a decade, which means investors didn’t just lose a lot of money—they also lost a lot of time.<blockquote>公司债券和标普500也是糟糕的投资。值得记住的是，这些是十年来的实际定期损失，这意味着投资者不仅损失了很多钱，还损失了很多时间。</blockquote> Utility stocks weren’t great, but they held up better. And Treasury bills—short-term paper—did better still. But once again you were going backward when you needed to be going forwards.<blockquote>公用事业股表现不佳，但表现较好。短期票据——国库券——表现更好。但是当你需要前进的时候，你又一次倒退了。</blockquote> No one who remembers the 1970s will be surprised that energy companies boomed. Less well-remembered, maybe, is that REITs also did pretty well. These numbers, incidentally, represented property-owning REITs and excluded mortgage REITs, which own loans.<blockquote>任何记得20世纪70年代的人都不会对能源公司的蓬勃发展感到惊讶。也许不太为人所知的是，房地产投资信托基金的表现也相当不错。顺便说一句，这些数字代表拥有财产的房地产投资信托基金，不包括拥有贷款的抵押房地产投资信托基金。</blockquote> But there are two caveats to this. The first is that of course energy stocks did well, because a key driver of inflation in the 1970s was the rise of OPEC and two oil embargoes it imposed on the West for political reasons. Cue Heraclitus. There is no particular reason to assume that the next inflationary surge will be the same.<blockquote>但对此有两个警告。首先，能源股当然表现良好，因为20世纪70年代通胀的一个关键驱动因素是欧佩克的崛起及其出于政治原因对西方实施的两次石油禁运。提示赫拉克利特。没有特别的理由假设下一次通胀飙升会是一样的。</blockquote> The second caveat is that although REITs ended up doing well, they were volatile along the way. In particular, REIT prices collapsed in the OPEC-driven recession of 1972-4. And according to FactSet, U.S. REITs today already look pretty expensive on some measures. For instance it reckons that the forecast dividend yield on the Vanguard Real Estate ETF (a reasonable benchmark for the industry) is just 2.9% — by far the lowest since it was launched in 2004. Looking through NAREIT data, I can’t find a moment since 1971 when the overall yield on REITs was this low. During the real estate bubble in 2007, incidentally, the yield bottomed out no lower than 3.6%<blockquote>第二个警告是，尽管房地产投资信托基金最终表现良好，但一路上波动较大。特别是，房地产投资信托基金价格在1972-1974年欧佩克引发的经济衰退中暴跌。根据FactSet的数据，从某些指标来看，如今的美国房地产投资信托基金看起来已经相当昂贵。例如，它估计Vanguard Real Estate ETF（该行业的合理基准）的预测股息收益率仅为2.9%，是自2004年推出以来的最低水平。翻阅NAREIT数据，自1971年以来，我找不到REITs整体收益率如此之低的时刻。2007年房地产泡沫期间，顺带一提，收益率见底不低于3.6%</blockquote> So it may be that REITs offer less inflation protection today than we would hope.<blockquote>因此，如今房地产投资信托基金提供的通胀保护可能比我们希望的要少。</blockquote> One key difference in the 1970s is that there were no “inflation-protected” Treasury bonds to keep investors protected. So-called TIPS are in theory almost the perfect investment for retirees. They are issued by the U.S. government and their coupons are safe against default. Meanwhile their coupons effectively adjust to reflect changes in consumer prices.<blockquote>20世纪70年代的一个关键区别是，没有“通胀保值”国债来保护投资者。理论上，所谓的小费几乎是退休人员的完美投资。它们由美国政府发行，其优惠券不会违约。与此同时，他们的优惠券有效地调整以反映消费价格的变化。</blockquote> The problem today is that TIPS—like almost everything else in the bond market—look incredibly expensive. Most TIPS already lock in an actual loss of purchasing power if you buy them today. For example if you buy 5 year TIPS bonds and hold them for 5 years you’ll end up losing 9% of your purchasing power. And 30-year TIPS bonds offer the same 9% loss, though stretched out over 30 years.<blockquote>今天的问题是，TIPS——就像债券市场上的几乎所有东西一样——看起来非常昂贵。如果你今天购买，大多数建议已经锁定了购买力的实际损失。例如，如果你购买5年期TIPS债券并持有5年，你最终会损失9%的购买力。30年期TIPS债券的损失同样为9%，尽管期限延长了30年。</blockquote> It’s not very compelling. And it shows the risks that the government’s policy responses have created for those in retirement and near it.<blockquote>这不是很引人注目。它还显示了政府的政策应对给退休和接近退休年龄的人带来的风险。</blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/worried-about-inflation-heres-how-investments-did-in-the-1970s-11626658251?siteid=yhoof2\">Marketwatch</a>\n为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".SPX":"S&P 500 Index","XOM":"埃克森美孚"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/worried-about-inflation-heres-how-investments-did-in-the-1970s-11626658251?siteid=yhoof2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/599a65733b8245fcf7868668ef9ad712","article_id":"1129846769","content_text":"In the 1990s movie The Shipping News, an old newspaperman explains to Kevin Spacey how to cover the news. If there is a storm visible anywhere, he explains, you write “Storm threatens the town,” even if the storm is nowhere near and is unlikely to hit. If—as expected—the storm never hits, you just write the follow up: “Town spared by storm.”\nReaders may be excused for thinking something similar about the latest stories about looming, threatening, surging, terrifying inflation. Yes, the inflation forecasts were surging months ago, and hit 8-year highs. Had they continued there would be grounds to worry. But they haven’t continued. On the contrary, they’ve been falling for two months. The bond market’s 5-year inflation forecast is now lower than it was in mid-March. The market sees five-year inflation running at around 2.6%. That’s higher than we’ve been used to for a decade, but it’s nothing to cause any significant alarm.\nThat can change, of course. Maybe it will. We’ll see.\nBut with all this talk I got to thinking about the obvious question. If serious inflation really does hit, what can we do about it? How can we protect our investments?\nThat’s an especially key question for today’s retirees and those expecting to retire soon. When we’re older we’re generally advised to keep most of our money in more “conservative” investments, meaning things like bonds, that involve less risk. Someone in their 20s or 30s may not worry unduly if their retirement savings plunge 30% in a market rout or an inflationary spiral. For someone in their 60s, let alone older, that can become a major financial crisis.\nSo I went back and dug up the information from the last, infamous inflationary spiral in the 1970s, when consumer price inflation often topped 10% a year. The Greek philosopher Heraclitus pointed out that no one ever walks through the same stream twice, because the second time it’s not the same stream, and we’re not the same person. Everything changes. There is no guarantee the next inflationary boom, even if it happens, will look anything like the last one — any more than we should assume that it will be accompanied by outbreaks of disco music and flared jeans.\nNonetheless the chart above shows the total returns, after adjusting for inflation, of various asset classes from December 1971 to December 1981. (I used those dates because the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, or NAREIT, starts their data series then.) The data on energy stocks came from data compiled by professor Ken French at Dartmouth College’s Tuck School of Business.\nThis is what happened to your purchasing power if you invested in these assets and hung on for 10 years. (I’ve excluded gold, which is a different story.)\nThe key standout is that you really didn’t want to own Treasury bonds. The near 40% loss of purchasing power over 10 years is somewhat notional—it is derived from the compound annual returns on 10 Year Treasurys compiled by New York University’s Stern School of Business, divided by the consumer-price index—but tells a story nonetheless. (In Great Britain, where inflation was even worse, government bonds during the 1970s became known as “certificates of confiscation.” Ouch.)\nHolding them cost you money. Lots of it.\nYou could argue that the danger today is even greater, simply because the yields on long-term Treasury bonds are so low. Federal Reserve quantitative easing, bond buying, and zero interest-rate policies have left Treasury yields at their lowest on record—which means the turns would be a disaster if inflation reared its head.\nCorporate bonds and the S&P 500 were also terrible investments. It’s worth remembering that these are real term losses over a decade, which means investors didn’t just lose a lot of money—they also lost a lot of time.\nUtility stocks weren’t great, but they held up better. And Treasury bills—short-term paper—did better still. But once again you were going backward when you needed to be going forwards.\nNo one who remembers the 1970s will be surprised that energy companies boomed. Less well-remembered, maybe, is that REITs also did pretty well. These numbers, incidentally, represented property-owning REITs and excluded mortgage REITs, which own loans.\nBut there are two caveats to this. The first is that of course energy stocks did well, because a key driver of inflation in the 1970s was the rise of OPEC and two oil embargoes it imposed on the West for political reasons. Cue Heraclitus. There is no particular reason to assume that the next inflationary surge will be the same.\nThe second caveat is that although REITs ended up doing well, they were volatile along the way. In particular, REIT prices collapsed in the OPEC-driven recession of 1972-4. And according to FactSet, U.S. REITs today already look pretty expensive on some measures. For instance it reckons that the forecast dividend yield on the Vanguard Real Estate ETF (a reasonable benchmark for the industry) is just 2.9% — by far the lowest since it was launched in 2004. Looking through NAREIT data, I can’t find a moment since 1971 when the overall yield on REITs was this low. During the real estate bubble in 2007, incidentally, the yield bottomed out no lower than 3.6%\nSo it may be that REITs offer less inflation protection today than we would hope.\nOne key difference in the 1970s is that there were no “inflation-protected” Treasury bonds to keep investors protected. So-called TIPS are in theory almost the perfect investment for retirees. They are issued by the U.S. government and their coupons are safe against default. Meanwhile their coupons effectively adjust to reflect changes in consumer prices.\nThe problem today is that TIPS—like almost everything else in the bond market—look incredibly expensive. Most TIPS already lock in an actual loss of purchasing power if you buy them today. For example if you buy 5 year TIPS bonds and hold them for 5 years you’ll end up losing 9% of your purchasing power. And 30-year TIPS bonds offer the same 9% loss, though stretched out over 30 years.\nIt’s not very compelling. And it shows the risks that the government’s policy responses have created for those in retirement and near it.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{".SPX":0.9,"XOM":0.9}},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":5269588,"gmtCreate":1626755203477,"gmtModify":1635225517629,"authorId":3573375517846152,"author":{"id":3573375517846152,"idStr":"3573375517846152","authorId":3573375517846152,"name":"Buythedip","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/fbfc67907105f49be77e2a1b414d5124","vip":1,"crmLevel":12,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":171493088,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"Hoho","text":"Hoho","html":"Hoho"},{"id":5282940,"gmtCreate":1626870901347,"gmtModify":1635224538446,"authorId":3569316529855154,"author":{"id":3569316529855154,"idStr":"3569316529855154","authorId":3569316529855154,"name":"Deonc","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/d9aa45dd2eb58357f6477dcfb99d1415","vip":1,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":171493088,"type":1,"supId":5269588,"prevId":0,"content":"[强]","text":"[强]","html":"[强]"}],"langContent":"EN"},{"id":171401650,"gmtCreate":1626753847370,"gmtModify":1633771344601,"author":{"id":"3572945845916163","authorId":"3572945845916163","name":"NareshwG","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0d6dc06165c1a0cc4f1a8169ea48573d","vip":1,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3572945845916163","authorIdStr":"3572945845916163"},"htmlText":"Go for gold.. Its proven again and again...&nbsp;","listText":"Go for gold.. Its proven again and again...&nbsp;","text":"Go for gold.. Its proven again and again...","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/171401650","repostId":1129846769,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1129846769","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1626751789,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1129846769?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-07-20 11:29","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Worried about inflation? Here’s how investments did in the 1970s<blockquote>担心通货膨胀？以下是20世纪70年代的投资表现</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1129846769","media":"Marketwatch","summary":"In the 1990s movie The Shipping News, an old newspaperman explains to Kevin Spacey how to cover the ","content":"In the 1990s movie The Shipping News, an old newspaperman explains to Kevin Spacey how to cover the news. If there is a storm visible anywhere, he explains, you write “Storm threatens the town,” even if the storm is nowhere near and is unlikely to hit. If—as expected—the storm never hits, you just write the follow up: “Town spared by storm.”<blockquote>在20世纪90年代的电影《航运新闻》中，一位老记者向凯文·史派西解释如何报道新闻。他解释说，如果任何地方都有可见的风暴，你就会写“风暴威胁着城镇”，即使风暴不在附近，也不太可能来袭。如果——正如预期的那样——风暴从未袭击，你只需写下后续内容：“城镇幸免于风暴。”</blockquote> Readers may be excused for thinking something similar about the latest stories about looming, threatening, surging, terrifying inflation. Yes, the inflation forecasts were surging months ago, and hit 8-year highs. Had they continued there would be grounds to worry. But they haven’t continued. On the contrary, they’ve been falling for two months. The bond market’s 5-year inflation forecast is now lower than it was in mid-March. The market sees five-year inflation running at around 2.6%. That’s higher than we’ve been used to for a decade, but it’s nothing to cause any significant alarm.<blockquote>读者可能会对最近关于迫在眉睫、威胁、飙升、可怕的通货膨胀的故事有类似的想法。是的，几个月前通胀预测飙升，并创下8年来的新高。如果他们继续下去，就有理由担心。但他们没有继续。相反，他们已经下跌了两个月。债券市场的5年通胀预期现在低于3月中旬。市场预计五年通胀率约为2.6%。这比我们十年来所习惯的要高，但这并没有引起任何重大恐慌。</blockquote> That can change, of course. Maybe it will. We’ll see.<blockquote>当然，这种情况可能会改变。也许会。我们走着瞧。</blockquote> But with all this talk I got to thinking about the obvious question. If serious inflation really does hit, what can we do about it? How can we protect our investments?<blockquote>但是通过这些谈话，我开始思考一个显而易见的问题。如果严重的通货膨胀真的来袭，我们能做些什么呢？我们如何保护我们的投资？</blockquote> That’s an especially key question for today’s retirees and those expecting to retire soon. When we’re older we’re generally advised to keep most of our money in more “conservative” investments, meaning things like bonds, that involve less risk. Someone in their 20s or 30s may not worry unduly if their retirement savings plunge 30% in a market rout or an inflationary spiral. For someone in their 60s, let alone older, that can become a major financial crisis.<blockquote>对于今天的退休人员和那些预计很快退休的人来说，这是一个特别关键的问题。当我们长大后，通常建议我们将大部分资金投资于更“保守”的投资，即债券等风险较小的投资。如果20多岁或30多岁的人的退休储蓄在市场暴跌或通胀螺旋中暴跌30%，他们可能不会过度担心。对于60多岁的人来说，更不用说老年人了，这可能会成为一场重大的财务危机。</blockquote> So I went back and dug up the information from the last, infamous inflationary spiral in the 1970s, when consumer price inflation often topped 10% a year. The Greek philosopher Heraclitus pointed out that no one ever walks through the same stream twice, because the second time it’s not the same stream, and we’re not the same person. Everything changes. There is no guarantee the next inflationary boom, even if it happens, will look anything like the last one — any more than we should assume that it will be accompanied by outbreaks of disco music and flared jeans.<blockquote>因此，我回去挖掘了20世纪70年代上一次臭名昭著的通胀螺旋的信息，当时消费者价格通胀经常超过每年10%。希腊哲学家赫拉克利特指出，没有人会两次走过同一条小溪，因为第二次就不是同一条小溪了，我们也不是同一个人了。一切都变了。不能保证下一次通胀繁荣，即使发生了，看起来也会像上一次一样——就像我们不应该假设它会伴随着迪斯科音乐和喇叭牛仔裤的爆发一样。</blockquote> Nonetheless the chart above shows the total returns, after adjusting for inflation, of various asset classes from December 1971 to December 1981. (I used those dates because the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, or NAREIT, starts their data series then.) The data on energy stocks came from data compiled by professor Ken French at Dartmouth College’s Tuck School of Business.<blockquote>尽管如此，上图显示了1971年12月至1981年12月各种资产类别经通胀调整后的总回报。（我使用这些日期是因为全国房地产投资信托协会（NAREIT）在那时开始他们的数据系列。）能源股的数据来自达特茅斯学院塔克商学院肯·弗伦奇教授汇编的数据。</blockquote> This is what happened to your purchasing power if you invested in these assets and hung on for 10 years. (I’ve excluded gold, which is a different story.)<blockquote>如果你投资这些资产并坚持10年，你的购买力就会发生这种情况。（我已经排除了黄金，这是一个不同的故事。）</blockquote> The key standout is that you really didn’t want to own Treasury bonds. The near 40% loss of purchasing power over 10 years is somewhat notional—it is derived from the compound annual returns on 10 Year Treasurys compiled by New York University’s Stern School of Business, divided by the consumer-price index—but tells a story nonetheless. (In Great Britain, where inflation was even worse, government bonds during the 1970s became known as “certificates of confiscation.” Ouch.)<blockquote>关键的突出之处在于，你真的不想拥有国债。10年内购买力损失近40%在某种程度上是名义上的——它来自纽约大学斯特恩商学院编制的10年期美国国债的复合年回报率除以消费者价格指数——但仍然讲述了一个故事。（在通货膨胀更严重的英国，20世纪70年代的政府债券被称为“没收证书”。哎哟。）</blockquote> Holding them cost you money. Lots of it.<blockquote>拿着它们要花钱。很多。</blockquote> You could argue that the danger today is even greater, simply because the yields on long-term Treasury bonds are so low. Federal Reserve quantitative easing, bond buying, and zero interest-rate policies have left Treasury yields at their lowest on record—which means the turns would be a disaster if inflation reared its head.<blockquote>你可能会说，今天的危险甚至更大，仅仅是因为长期国债的收益率如此之低。美联储的量化宽松、债券购买和零利率政策使美国国债收益率处于有记录以来的最低水平——这意味着如果通胀抬头，这将是一场灾难。</blockquote> Corporate bonds and the S&amp;P 500&nbsp;were also terrible investments. It’s worth remembering that these are real term losses over a decade, which means investors didn’t just lose a lot of money—they also lost a lot of time.<blockquote>公司债券和标普500也是糟糕的投资。值得记住的是，这些是十年来的实际定期损失，这意味着投资者不仅损失了很多钱，还损失了很多时间。</blockquote> Utility stocks weren’t great, but they held up better. And Treasury bills—short-term paper—did better still. But once again you were going backward when you needed to be going forwards.<blockquote>公用事业股表现不佳，但表现较好。短期票据——国库券——表现更好。但是当你需要前进的时候，你又一次倒退了。</blockquote> No one who remembers the 1970s will be surprised that energy companies boomed. Less well-remembered, maybe, is that REITs also did pretty well. These numbers, incidentally, represented property-owning REITs and excluded mortgage REITs, which own loans.<blockquote>任何记得20世纪70年代的人都不会对能源公司的蓬勃发展感到惊讶。也许不太为人所知的是，房地产投资信托基金的表现也相当不错。顺便说一句，这些数字代表拥有财产的房地产投资信托基金，不包括拥有贷款的抵押房地产投资信托基金。</blockquote> But there are two caveats to this. The first is that of course energy stocks did well, because a key driver of inflation in the 1970s was the rise of OPEC and two oil embargoes it imposed on the West for political reasons. Cue Heraclitus. There is no particular reason to assume that the next inflationary surge will be the same.<blockquote>但对此有两个警告。首先，能源股当然表现良好，因为20世纪70年代通胀的一个关键驱动因素是欧佩克的崛起及其出于政治原因对西方实施的两次石油禁运。提示赫拉克利特。没有特别的理由假设下一次通胀飙升会是一样的。</blockquote> The second caveat is that although REITs ended up doing well, they were volatile along the way. In particular, REIT prices collapsed in the OPEC-driven recession of 1972-4. And according to FactSet, U.S. REITs today already look pretty expensive on some measures. For instance it reckons that the forecast dividend yield on the Vanguard Real Estate ETF (a reasonable benchmark for the industry) is just 2.9% — by far the lowest since it was launched in 2004. Looking through NAREIT data, I can’t find a moment since 1971 when the overall yield on REITs was this low. During the real estate bubble in 2007, incidentally, the yield bottomed out no lower than 3.6%<blockquote>第二个警告是，尽管房地产投资信托基金最终表现良好，但一路上波动较大。特别是，房地产投资信托基金价格在1972-1974年欧佩克引发的经济衰退中暴跌。根据FactSet的数据，从某些指标来看，如今的美国房地产投资信托基金看起来已经相当昂贵。例如，它估计Vanguard Real Estate ETF（该行业的合理基准）的预测股息收益率仅为2.9%，是自2004年推出以来的最低水平。翻阅NAREIT数据，自1971年以来，我找不到REITs整体收益率如此之低的时刻。2007年房地产泡沫期间，顺带一提，收益率见底不低于3.6%</blockquote> So it may be that REITs offer less inflation protection today than we would hope.<blockquote>因此，如今房地产投资信托基金提供的通胀保护可能比我们希望的要少。</blockquote> One key difference in the 1970s is that there were no “inflation-protected” Treasury bonds to keep investors protected. So-called TIPS are in theory almost the perfect investment for retirees. They are issued by the U.S. government and their coupons are safe against default. Meanwhile their coupons effectively adjust to reflect changes in consumer prices.<blockquote>20世纪70年代的一个关键区别是，没有“通胀保值”国债来保护投资者。理论上，所谓的小费几乎是退休人员的完美投资。它们由美国政府发行，其优惠券不会违约。与此同时，他们的优惠券有效地调整以反映消费价格的变化。</blockquote> The problem today is that TIPS—like almost everything else in the bond market—look incredibly expensive. Most TIPS already lock in an actual loss of purchasing power if you buy them today. For example if you buy 5 year TIPS bonds and hold them for 5 years you’ll end up losing 9% of your purchasing power. And 30-year TIPS bonds offer the same 9% loss, though stretched out over 30 years.<blockquote>今天的问题是，TIPS——就像债券市场上的几乎所有东西一样——看起来非常昂贵。如果你今天购买，大多数建议已经锁定了购买力的实际损失。例如，如果你购买5年期TIPS债券并持有5年，你最终会损失9%的购买力。30年期TIPS债券的损失同样为9%，尽管期限延长了30年。</blockquote> It’s not very compelling. And it shows the risks that the government’s policy responses have created for those in retirement and near it.<blockquote>这不是很引人注目。它还显示了政府的政策应对给退休和接近退休年龄的人带来的风险。</blockquote>","source":"market_watch","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Worried about inflation? Here’s how investments did in the 1970s<blockquote>担心通货膨胀？以下是20世纪70年代的投资表现</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWorried about inflation? Here’s how investments did in the 1970s<blockquote>担心通货膨胀？以下是20世纪70年代的投资表现</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nMarketwatch2021-07-20 11:29\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\nIn the 1990s movie The Shipping News, an old newspaperman explains to Kevin Spacey how to cover the news. If there is a storm visible anywhere, he explains, you write “Storm threatens the town,” even if the storm is nowhere near and is unlikely to hit. If—as expected—the storm never hits, you just write the follow up: “Town spared by storm.”<blockquote>在20世纪90年代的电影《航运新闻》中，一位老记者向凯文·史派西解释如何报道新闻。他解释说，如果任何地方都有可见的风暴，你就会写“风暴威胁着城镇”，即使风暴不在附近，也不太可能来袭。如果——正如预期的那样——风暴从未袭击，你只需写下后续内容：“城镇幸免于风暴。”</blockquote> Readers may be excused for thinking something similar about the latest stories about looming, threatening, surging, terrifying inflation. Yes, the inflation forecasts were surging months ago, and hit 8-year highs. Had they continued there would be grounds to worry. But they haven’t continued. On the contrary, they’ve been falling for two months. The bond market’s 5-year inflation forecast is now lower than it was in mid-March. The market sees five-year inflation running at around 2.6%. That’s higher than we’ve been used to for a decade, but it’s nothing to cause any significant alarm.<blockquote>读者可能会对最近关于迫在眉睫、威胁、飙升、可怕的通货膨胀的故事有类似的想法。是的，几个月前通胀预测飙升，并创下8年来的新高。如果他们继续下去，就有理由担心。但他们没有继续。相反，他们已经下跌了两个月。债券市场的5年通胀预期现在低于3月中旬。市场预计五年通胀率约为2.6%。这比我们十年来所习惯的要高，但这并没有引起任何重大恐慌。</blockquote> That can change, of course. Maybe it will. We’ll see.<blockquote>当然，这种情况可能会改变。也许会。我们走着瞧。</blockquote> But with all this talk I got to thinking about the obvious question. If serious inflation really does hit, what can we do about it? How can we protect our investments?<blockquote>但是通过这些谈话，我开始思考一个显而易见的问题。如果严重的通货膨胀真的来袭，我们能做些什么呢？我们如何保护我们的投资？</blockquote> That’s an especially key question for today’s retirees and those expecting to retire soon. When we’re older we’re generally advised to keep most of our money in more “conservative” investments, meaning things like bonds, that involve less risk. Someone in their 20s or 30s may not worry unduly if their retirement savings plunge 30% in a market rout or an inflationary spiral. For someone in their 60s, let alone older, that can become a major financial crisis.<blockquote>对于今天的退休人员和那些预计很快退休的人来说，这是一个特别关键的问题。当我们长大后，通常建议我们将大部分资金投资于更“保守”的投资，即债券等风险较小的投资。如果20多岁或30多岁的人的退休储蓄在市场暴跌或通胀螺旋中暴跌30%，他们可能不会过度担心。对于60多岁的人来说，更不用说老年人了，这可能会成为一场重大的财务危机。</blockquote> So I went back and dug up the information from the last, infamous inflationary spiral in the 1970s, when consumer price inflation often topped 10% a year. The Greek philosopher Heraclitus pointed out that no one ever walks through the same stream twice, because the second time it’s not the same stream, and we’re not the same person. Everything changes. There is no guarantee the next inflationary boom, even if it happens, will look anything like the last one — any more than we should assume that it will be accompanied by outbreaks of disco music and flared jeans.<blockquote>因此，我回去挖掘了20世纪70年代上一次臭名昭著的通胀螺旋的信息，当时消费者价格通胀经常超过每年10%。希腊哲学家赫拉克利特指出，没有人会两次走过同一条小溪，因为第二次就不是同一条小溪了，我们也不是同一个人了。一切都变了。不能保证下一次通胀繁荣，即使发生了，看起来也会像上一次一样——就像我们不应该假设它会伴随着迪斯科音乐和喇叭牛仔裤的爆发一样。</blockquote> Nonetheless the chart above shows the total returns, after adjusting for inflation, of various asset classes from December 1971 to December 1981. (I used those dates because the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, or NAREIT, starts their data series then.) The data on energy stocks came from data compiled by professor Ken French at Dartmouth College’s Tuck School of Business.<blockquote>尽管如此，上图显示了1971年12月至1981年12月各种资产类别经通胀调整后的总回报。（我使用这些日期是因为全国房地产投资信托协会（NAREIT）在那时开始他们的数据系列。）能源股的数据来自达特茅斯学院塔克商学院肯·弗伦奇教授汇编的数据。</blockquote> This is what happened to your purchasing power if you invested in these assets and hung on for 10 years. (I’ve excluded gold, which is a different story.)<blockquote>如果你投资这些资产并坚持10年，你的购买力就会发生这种情况。（我已经排除了黄金，这是一个不同的故事。）</blockquote> The key standout is that you really didn’t want to own Treasury bonds. The near 40% loss of purchasing power over 10 years is somewhat notional—it is derived from the compound annual returns on 10 Year Treasurys compiled by New York University’s Stern School of Business, divided by the consumer-price index—but tells a story nonetheless. (In Great Britain, where inflation was even worse, government bonds during the 1970s became known as “certificates of confiscation.” Ouch.)<blockquote>关键的突出之处在于，你真的不想拥有国债。10年内购买力损失近40%在某种程度上是名义上的——它来自纽约大学斯特恩商学院编制的10年期美国国债的复合年回报率除以消费者价格指数——但仍然讲述了一个故事。（在通货膨胀更严重的英国，20世纪70年代的政府债券被称为“没收证书”。哎哟。）</blockquote> Holding them cost you money. Lots of it.<blockquote>拿着它们要花钱。很多。</blockquote> You could argue that the danger today is even greater, simply because the yields on long-term Treasury bonds are so low. Federal Reserve quantitative easing, bond buying, and zero interest-rate policies have left Treasury yields at their lowest on record—which means the turns would be a disaster if inflation reared its head.<blockquote>你可能会说，今天的危险甚至更大，仅仅是因为长期国债的收益率如此之低。美联储的量化宽松、债券购买和零利率政策使美国国债收益率处于有记录以来的最低水平——这意味着如果通胀抬头，这将是一场灾难。</blockquote> Corporate bonds and the S&amp;P 500&nbsp;were also terrible investments. It’s worth remembering that these are real term losses over a decade, which means investors didn’t just lose a lot of money—they also lost a lot of time.<blockquote>公司债券和标普500也是糟糕的投资。值得记住的是，这些是十年来的实际定期损失，这意味着投资者不仅损失了很多钱，还损失了很多时间。</blockquote> Utility stocks weren’t great, but they held up better. And Treasury bills—short-term paper—did better still. But once again you were going backward when you needed to be going forwards.<blockquote>公用事业股表现不佳，但表现较好。短期票据——国库券——表现更好。但是当你需要前进的时候，你又一次倒退了。</blockquote> No one who remembers the 1970s will be surprised that energy companies boomed. Less well-remembered, maybe, is that REITs also did pretty well. These numbers, incidentally, represented property-owning REITs and excluded mortgage REITs, which own loans.<blockquote>任何记得20世纪70年代的人都不会对能源公司的蓬勃发展感到惊讶。也许不太为人所知的是，房地产投资信托基金的表现也相当不错。顺便说一句，这些数字代表拥有财产的房地产投资信托基金，不包括拥有贷款的抵押房地产投资信托基金。</blockquote> But there are two caveats to this. The first is that of course energy stocks did well, because a key driver of inflation in the 1970s was the rise of OPEC and two oil embargoes it imposed on the West for political reasons. Cue Heraclitus. There is no particular reason to assume that the next inflationary surge will be the same.<blockquote>但对此有两个警告。首先，能源股当然表现良好，因为20世纪70年代通胀的一个关键驱动因素是欧佩克的崛起及其出于政治原因对西方实施的两次石油禁运。提示赫拉克利特。没有特别的理由假设下一次通胀飙升会是一样的。</blockquote> The second caveat is that although REITs ended up doing well, they were volatile along the way. In particular, REIT prices collapsed in the OPEC-driven recession of 1972-4. And according to FactSet, U.S. REITs today already look pretty expensive on some measures. For instance it reckons that the forecast dividend yield on the Vanguard Real Estate ETF (a reasonable benchmark for the industry) is just 2.9% — by far the lowest since it was launched in 2004. Looking through NAREIT data, I can’t find a moment since 1971 when the overall yield on REITs was this low. During the real estate bubble in 2007, incidentally, the yield bottomed out no lower than 3.6%<blockquote>第二个警告是，尽管房地产投资信托基金最终表现良好，但一路上波动较大。特别是，房地产投资信托基金价格在1972-1974年欧佩克引发的经济衰退中暴跌。根据FactSet的数据，从某些指标来看，如今的美国房地产投资信托基金看起来已经相当昂贵。例如，它估计Vanguard Real Estate ETF（该行业的合理基准）的预测股息收益率仅为2.9%，是自2004年推出以来的最低水平。翻阅NAREIT数据，自1971年以来，我找不到REITs整体收益率如此之低的时刻。2007年房地产泡沫期间，顺带一提，收益率见底不低于3.6%</blockquote> So it may be that REITs offer less inflation protection today than we would hope.<blockquote>因此，如今房地产投资信托基金提供的通胀保护可能比我们希望的要少。</blockquote> One key difference in the 1970s is that there were no “inflation-protected” Treasury bonds to keep investors protected. So-called TIPS are in theory almost the perfect investment for retirees. They are issued by the U.S. government and their coupons are safe against default. Meanwhile their coupons effectively adjust to reflect changes in consumer prices.<blockquote>20世纪70年代的一个关键区别是，没有“通胀保值”国债来保护投资者。理论上，所谓的小费几乎是退休人员的完美投资。它们由美国政府发行，其优惠券不会违约。与此同时，他们的优惠券有效地调整以反映消费价格的变化。</blockquote> The problem today is that TIPS—like almost everything else in the bond market—look incredibly expensive. Most TIPS already lock in an actual loss of purchasing power if you buy them today. For example if you buy 5 year TIPS bonds and hold them for 5 years you’ll end up losing 9% of your purchasing power. And 30-year TIPS bonds offer the same 9% loss, though stretched out over 30 years.<blockquote>今天的问题是，TIPS——就像债券市场上的几乎所有东西一样——看起来非常昂贵。如果你今天购买，大多数建议已经锁定了购买力的实际损失。例如，如果你购买5年期TIPS债券并持有5年，你最终会损失9%的购买力。30年期TIPS债券的损失同样为9%，尽管期限延长了30年。</blockquote> It’s not very compelling. And it shows the risks that the government’s policy responses have created for those in retirement and near it.<blockquote>这不是很引人注目。它还显示了政府的政策应对给退休和接近退休年龄的人带来的风险。</blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/worried-about-inflation-heres-how-investments-did-in-the-1970s-11626658251?siteid=yhoof2\">Marketwatch</a>\n为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".SPX":"S&P 500 Index","XOM":"埃克森美孚"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/worried-about-inflation-heres-how-investments-did-in-the-1970s-11626658251?siteid=yhoof2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/599a65733b8245fcf7868668ef9ad712","article_id":"1129846769","content_text":"In the 1990s movie The Shipping News, an old newspaperman explains to Kevin Spacey how to cover the news. If there is a storm visible anywhere, he explains, you write “Storm threatens the town,” even if the storm is nowhere near and is unlikely to hit. If—as expected—the storm never hits, you just write the follow up: “Town spared by storm.”\nReaders may be excused for thinking something similar about the latest stories about looming, threatening, surging, terrifying inflation. Yes, the inflation forecasts were surging months ago, and hit 8-year highs. Had they continued there would be grounds to worry. But they haven’t continued. On the contrary, they’ve been falling for two months. The bond market’s 5-year inflation forecast is now lower than it was in mid-March. The market sees five-year inflation running at around 2.6%. That’s higher than we’ve been used to for a decade, but it’s nothing to cause any significant alarm.\nThat can change, of course. Maybe it will. We’ll see.\nBut with all this talk I got to thinking about the obvious question. If serious inflation really does hit, what can we do about it? How can we protect our investments?\nThat’s an especially key question for today’s retirees and those expecting to retire soon. When we’re older we’re generally advised to keep most of our money in more “conservative” investments, meaning things like bonds, that involve less risk. Someone in their 20s or 30s may not worry unduly if their retirement savings plunge 30% in a market rout or an inflationary spiral. For someone in their 60s, let alone older, that can become a major financial crisis.\nSo I went back and dug up the information from the last, infamous inflationary spiral in the 1970s, when consumer price inflation often topped 10% a year. The Greek philosopher Heraclitus pointed out that no one ever walks through the same stream twice, because the second time it’s not the same stream, and we’re not the same person. Everything changes. There is no guarantee the next inflationary boom, even if it happens, will look anything like the last one — any more than we should assume that it will be accompanied by outbreaks of disco music and flared jeans.\nNonetheless the chart above shows the total returns, after adjusting for inflation, of various asset classes from December 1971 to December 1981. (I used those dates because the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, or NAREIT, starts their data series then.) The data on energy stocks came from data compiled by professor Ken French at Dartmouth College’s Tuck School of Business.\nThis is what happened to your purchasing power if you invested in these assets and hung on for 10 years. (I’ve excluded gold, which is a different story.)\nThe key standout is that you really didn’t want to own Treasury bonds. The near 40% loss of purchasing power over 10 years is somewhat notional—it is derived from the compound annual returns on 10 Year Treasurys compiled by New York University’s Stern School of Business, divided by the consumer-price index—but tells a story nonetheless. (In Great Britain, where inflation was even worse, government bonds during the 1970s became known as “certificates of confiscation.” Ouch.)\nHolding them cost you money. Lots of it.\nYou could argue that the danger today is even greater, simply because the yields on long-term Treasury bonds are so low. Federal Reserve quantitative easing, bond buying, and zero interest-rate policies have left Treasury yields at their lowest on record—which means the turns would be a disaster if inflation reared its head.\nCorporate bonds and the S&P 500 were also terrible investments. It’s worth remembering that these are real term losses over a decade, which means investors didn’t just lose a lot of money—they also lost a lot of time.\nUtility stocks weren’t great, but they held up better. And Treasury bills—short-term paper—did better still. But once again you were going backward when you needed to be going forwards.\nNo one who remembers the 1970s will be surprised that energy companies boomed. Less well-remembered, maybe, is that REITs also did pretty well. These numbers, incidentally, represented property-owning REITs and excluded mortgage REITs, which own loans.\nBut there are two caveats to this. The first is that of course energy stocks did well, because a key driver of inflation in the 1970s was the rise of OPEC and two oil embargoes it imposed on the West for political reasons. Cue Heraclitus. There is no particular reason to assume that the next inflationary surge will be the same.\nThe second caveat is that although REITs ended up doing well, they were volatile along the way. In particular, REIT prices collapsed in the OPEC-driven recession of 1972-4. And according to FactSet, U.S. REITs today already look pretty expensive on some measures. For instance it reckons that the forecast dividend yield on the Vanguard Real Estate ETF (a reasonable benchmark for the industry) is just 2.9% — by far the lowest since it was launched in 2004. Looking through NAREIT data, I can’t find a moment since 1971 when the overall yield on REITs was this low. During the real estate bubble in 2007, incidentally, the yield bottomed out no lower than 3.6%\nSo it may be that REITs offer less inflation protection today than we would hope.\nOne key difference in the 1970s is that there were no “inflation-protected” Treasury bonds to keep investors protected. So-called TIPS are in theory almost the perfect investment for retirees. They are issued by the U.S. government and their coupons are safe against default. Meanwhile their coupons effectively adjust to reflect changes in consumer prices.\nThe problem today is that TIPS—like almost everything else in the bond market—look incredibly expensive. Most TIPS already lock in an actual loss of purchasing power if you buy them today. For example if you buy 5 year TIPS bonds and hold them for 5 years you’ll end up losing 9% of your purchasing power. And 30-year TIPS bonds offer the same 9% loss, though stretched out over 30 years.\nIt’s not very compelling. And it shows the risks that the government’s policy responses have created for those in retirement and near it.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{".SPX":0.9,"XOM":0.9}},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":171575827,"gmtCreate":1626753481969,"gmtModify":1633771348544,"author":{"id":"3565146699964497","authorId":"3565146699964497","name":"ycwoo","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/637be28a03f575af22b76a60dad1181b","vip":1,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3565146699964497","authorIdStr":"3565146699964497"},"htmlText":"Good","listText":"Good","text":"Good","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/171575827","repostId":1129846769,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1129846769","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1626751789,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1129846769?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-07-20 11:29","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Worried about inflation? Here’s how investments did in the 1970s<blockquote>担心通货膨胀？以下是20世纪70年代的投资表现</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1129846769","media":"Marketwatch","summary":"In the 1990s movie The Shipping News, an old newspaperman explains to Kevin Spacey how to cover the ","content":"In the 1990s movie The Shipping News, an old newspaperman explains to Kevin Spacey how to cover the news. If there is a storm visible anywhere, he explains, you write “Storm threatens the town,” even if the storm is nowhere near and is unlikely to hit. If—as expected—the storm never hits, you just write the follow up: “Town spared by storm.”<blockquote>在20世纪90年代的电影《航运新闻》中，一位老记者向凯文·史派西解释如何报道新闻。他解释说，如果任何地方都有可见的风暴，你就会写“风暴威胁着城镇”，即使风暴不在附近，也不太可能来袭。如果——正如预期的那样——风暴从未袭击，你只需写下后续内容：“城镇幸免于风暴。”</blockquote> Readers may be excused for thinking something similar about the latest stories about looming, threatening, surging, terrifying inflation. Yes, the inflation forecasts were surging months ago, and hit 8-year highs. Had they continued there would be grounds to worry. But they haven’t continued. On the contrary, they’ve been falling for two months. The bond market’s 5-year inflation forecast is now lower than it was in mid-March. The market sees five-year inflation running at around 2.6%. That’s higher than we’ve been used to for a decade, but it’s nothing to cause any significant alarm.<blockquote>读者可能会对最近关于迫在眉睫、威胁、飙升、可怕的通货膨胀的故事有类似的想法。是的，几个月前通胀预测飙升，并创下8年来的新高。如果他们继续下去，就有理由担心。但他们没有继续。相反，他们已经下跌了两个月。债券市场的5年通胀预期现在低于3月中旬。市场预计五年通胀率约为2.6%。这比我们十年来所习惯的要高，但这并没有引起任何重大恐慌。</blockquote> That can change, of course. Maybe it will. We’ll see.<blockquote>当然，这种情况可能会改变。也许会。我们走着瞧。</blockquote> But with all this talk I got to thinking about the obvious question. If serious inflation really does hit, what can we do about it? How can we protect our investments?<blockquote>但是通过这些谈话，我开始思考一个显而易见的问题。如果严重的通货膨胀真的来袭，我们能做些什么呢？我们如何保护我们的投资？</blockquote> That’s an especially key question for today’s retirees and those expecting to retire soon. When we’re older we’re generally advised to keep most of our money in more “conservative” investments, meaning things like bonds, that involve less risk. Someone in their 20s or 30s may not worry unduly if their retirement savings plunge 30% in a market rout or an inflationary spiral. For someone in their 60s, let alone older, that can become a major financial crisis.<blockquote>对于今天的退休人员和那些预计很快退休的人来说，这是一个特别关键的问题。当我们长大后，通常建议我们将大部分资金投资于更“保守”的投资，即债券等风险较小的投资。如果20多岁或30多岁的人的退休储蓄在市场暴跌或通胀螺旋中暴跌30%，他们可能不会过度担心。对于60多岁的人来说，更不用说老年人了，这可能会成为一场重大的财务危机。</blockquote> So I went back and dug up the information from the last, infamous inflationary spiral in the 1970s, when consumer price inflation often topped 10% a year. The Greek philosopher Heraclitus pointed out that no one ever walks through the same stream twice, because the second time it’s not the same stream, and we’re not the same person. Everything changes. There is no guarantee the next inflationary boom, even if it happens, will look anything like the last one — any more than we should assume that it will be accompanied by outbreaks of disco music and flared jeans.<blockquote>因此，我回去挖掘了20世纪70年代上一次臭名昭著的通胀螺旋的信息，当时消费者价格通胀经常超过每年10%。希腊哲学家赫拉克利特指出，没有人会两次走过同一条小溪，因为第二次就不是同一条小溪了，我们也不是同一个人了。一切都变了。不能保证下一次通胀繁荣，即使发生了，看起来也会像上一次一样——就像我们不应该假设它会伴随着迪斯科音乐和喇叭牛仔裤的爆发一样。</blockquote> Nonetheless the chart above shows the total returns, after adjusting for inflation, of various asset classes from December 1971 to December 1981. (I used those dates because the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, or NAREIT, starts their data series then.) The data on energy stocks came from data compiled by professor Ken French at Dartmouth College’s Tuck School of Business.<blockquote>尽管如此，上图显示了1971年12月至1981年12月各种资产类别经通胀调整后的总回报。（我使用这些日期是因为全国房地产投资信托协会（NAREIT）在那时开始他们的数据系列。）能源股的数据来自达特茅斯学院塔克商学院肯·弗伦奇教授汇编的数据。</blockquote> This is what happened to your purchasing power if you invested in these assets and hung on for 10 years. (I’ve excluded gold, which is a different story.)<blockquote>如果你投资这些资产并坚持10年，你的购买力就会发生这种情况。（我已经排除了黄金，这是一个不同的故事。）</blockquote> The key standout is that you really didn’t want to own Treasury bonds. The near 40% loss of purchasing power over 10 years is somewhat notional—it is derived from the compound annual returns on 10 Year Treasurys compiled by New York University’s Stern School of Business, divided by the consumer-price index—but tells a story nonetheless. (In Great Britain, where inflation was even worse, government bonds during the 1970s became known as “certificates of confiscation.” Ouch.)<blockquote>关键的突出之处在于，你真的不想拥有国债。10年内购买力损失近40%在某种程度上是名义上的——它来自纽约大学斯特恩商学院编制的10年期美国国债的复合年回报率除以消费者价格指数——但仍然讲述了一个故事。（在通货膨胀更严重的英国，20世纪70年代的政府债券被称为“没收证书”。哎哟。）</blockquote> Holding them cost you money. Lots of it.<blockquote>拿着它们要花钱。很多。</blockquote> You could argue that the danger today is even greater, simply because the yields on long-term Treasury bonds are so low. Federal Reserve quantitative easing, bond buying, and zero interest-rate policies have left Treasury yields at their lowest on record—which means the turns would be a disaster if inflation reared its head.<blockquote>你可能会说，今天的危险甚至更大，仅仅是因为长期国债的收益率如此之低。美联储的量化宽松、债券购买和零利率政策使美国国债收益率处于有记录以来的最低水平——这意味着如果通胀抬头，这将是一场灾难。</blockquote> Corporate bonds and the S&amp;P 500&nbsp;were also terrible investments. It’s worth remembering that these are real term losses over a decade, which means investors didn’t just lose a lot of money—they also lost a lot of time.<blockquote>公司债券和标普500也是糟糕的投资。值得记住的是，这些是十年来的实际定期损失，这意味着投资者不仅损失了很多钱，还损失了很多时间。</blockquote> Utility stocks weren’t great, but they held up better. And Treasury bills—short-term paper—did better still. But once again you were going backward when you needed to be going forwards.<blockquote>公用事业股表现不佳，但表现较好。短期票据——国库券——表现更好。但是当你需要前进的时候，你又一次倒退了。</blockquote> No one who remembers the 1970s will be surprised that energy companies boomed. Less well-remembered, maybe, is that REITs also did pretty well. These numbers, incidentally, represented property-owning REITs and excluded mortgage REITs, which own loans.<blockquote>任何记得20世纪70年代的人都不会对能源公司的蓬勃发展感到惊讶。也许不太为人所知的是，房地产投资信托基金的表现也相当不错。顺便说一句，这些数字代表拥有财产的房地产投资信托基金，不包括拥有贷款的抵押房地产投资信托基金。</blockquote> But there are two caveats to this. The first is that of course energy stocks did well, because a key driver of inflation in the 1970s was the rise of OPEC and two oil embargoes it imposed on the West for political reasons. Cue Heraclitus. There is no particular reason to assume that the next inflationary surge will be the same.<blockquote>但对此有两个警告。首先，能源股当然表现良好，因为20世纪70年代通胀的一个关键驱动因素是欧佩克的崛起及其出于政治原因对西方实施的两次石油禁运。提示赫拉克利特。没有特别的理由假设下一次通胀飙升会是一样的。</blockquote> The second caveat is that although REITs ended up doing well, they were volatile along the way. In particular, REIT prices collapsed in the OPEC-driven recession of 1972-4. And according to FactSet, U.S. REITs today already look pretty expensive on some measures. For instance it reckons that the forecast dividend yield on the Vanguard Real Estate ETF (a reasonable benchmark for the industry) is just 2.9% — by far the lowest since it was launched in 2004. Looking through NAREIT data, I can’t find a moment since 1971 when the overall yield on REITs was this low. During the real estate bubble in 2007, incidentally, the yield bottomed out no lower than 3.6%<blockquote>第二个警告是，尽管房地产投资信托基金最终表现良好，但一路上波动较大。特别是，房地产投资信托基金价格在1972-1974年欧佩克引发的经济衰退中暴跌。根据FactSet的数据，从某些指标来看，如今的美国房地产投资信托基金看起来已经相当昂贵。例如，它估计Vanguard Real Estate ETF（该行业的合理基准）的预测股息收益率仅为2.9%，是自2004年推出以来的最低水平。翻阅NAREIT数据，自1971年以来，我找不到REITs整体收益率如此之低的时刻。2007年房地产泡沫期间，顺带一提，收益率见底不低于3.6%</blockquote> So it may be that REITs offer less inflation protection today than we would hope.<blockquote>因此，如今房地产投资信托基金提供的通胀保护可能比我们希望的要少。</blockquote> One key difference in the 1970s is that there were no “inflation-protected” Treasury bonds to keep investors protected. So-called TIPS are in theory almost the perfect investment for retirees. They are issued by the U.S. government and their coupons are safe against default. Meanwhile their coupons effectively adjust to reflect changes in consumer prices.<blockquote>20世纪70年代的一个关键区别是，没有“通胀保值”国债来保护投资者。理论上，所谓的小费几乎是退休人员的完美投资。它们由美国政府发行，其优惠券不会违约。与此同时，他们的优惠券有效地调整以反映消费价格的变化。</blockquote> The problem today is that TIPS—like almost everything else in the bond market—look incredibly expensive. Most TIPS already lock in an actual loss of purchasing power if you buy them today. For example if you buy 5 year TIPS bonds and hold them for 5 years you’ll end up losing 9% of your purchasing power. And 30-year TIPS bonds offer the same 9% loss, though stretched out over 30 years.<blockquote>今天的问题是，TIPS——就像债券市场上的几乎所有东西一样——看起来非常昂贵。如果你今天购买，大多数建议已经锁定了购买力的实际损失。例如，如果你购买5年期TIPS债券并持有5年，你最终会损失9%的购买力。30年期TIPS债券的损失同样为9%，尽管期限延长了30年。</blockquote> It’s not very compelling. And it shows the risks that the government’s policy responses have created for those in retirement and near it.<blockquote>这不是很引人注目。它还显示了政府的政策应对给退休和接近退休年龄的人带来的风险。</blockquote>","source":"market_watch","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Worried about inflation? Here’s how investments did in the 1970s<blockquote>担心通货膨胀？以下是20世纪70年代的投资表现</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWorried about inflation? Here’s how investments did in the 1970s<blockquote>担心通货膨胀？以下是20世纪70年代的投资表现</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nMarketwatch2021-07-20 11:29\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\nIn the 1990s movie The Shipping News, an old newspaperman explains to Kevin Spacey how to cover the news. If there is a storm visible anywhere, he explains, you write “Storm threatens the town,” even if the storm is nowhere near and is unlikely to hit. If—as expected—the storm never hits, you just write the follow up: “Town spared by storm.”<blockquote>在20世纪90年代的电影《航运新闻》中，一位老记者向凯文·史派西解释如何报道新闻。他解释说，如果任何地方都有可见的风暴，你就会写“风暴威胁着城镇”，即使风暴不在附近，也不太可能来袭。如果——正如预期的那样——风暴从未袭击，你只需写下后续内容：“城镇幸免于风暴。”</blockquote> Readers may be excused for thinking something similar about the latest stories about looming, threatening, surging, terrifying inflation. Yes, the inflation forecasts were surging months ago, and hit 8-year highs. Had they continued there would be grounds to worry. But they haven’t continued. On the contrary, they’ve been falling for two months. The bond market’s 5-year inflation forecast is now lower than it was in mid-March. The market sees five-year inflation running at around 2.6%. That’s higher than we’ve been used to for a decade, but it’s nothing to cause any significant alarm.<blockquote>读者可能会对最近关于迫在眉睫、威胁、飙升、可怕的通货膨胀的故事有类似的想法。是的，几个月前通胀预测飙升，并创下8年来的新高。如果他们继续下去，就有理由担心。但他们没有继续。相反，他们已经下跌了两个月。债券市场的5年通胀预期现在低于3月中旬。市场预计五年通胀率约为2.6%。这比我们十年来所习惯的要高，但这并没有引起任何重大恐慌。</blockquote> That can change, of course. Maybe it will. We’ll see.<blockquote>当然，这种情况可能会改变。也许会。我们走着瞧。</blockquote> But with all this talk I got to thinking about the obvious question. If serious inflation really does hit, what can we do about it? How can we protect our investments?<blockquote>但是通过这些谈话，我开始思考一个显而易见的问题。如果严重的通货膨胀真的来袭，我们能做些什么呢？我们如何保护我们的投资？</blockquote> That’s an especially key question for today’s retirees and those expecting to retire soon. When we’re older we’re generally advised to keep most of our money in more “conservative” investments, meaning things like bonds, that involve less risk. Someone in their 20s or 30s may not worry unduly if their retirement savings plunge 30% in a market rout or an inflationary spiral. For someone in their 60s, let alone older, that can become a major financial crisis.<blockquote>对于今天的退休人员和那些预计很快退休的人来说，这是一个特别关键的问题。当我们长大后，通常建议我们将大部分资金投资于更“保守”的投资，即债券等风险较小的投资。如果20多岁或30多岁的人的退休储蓄在市场暴跌或通胀螺旋中暴跌30%，他们可能不会过度担心。对于60多岁的人来说，更不用说老年人了，这可能会成为一场重大的财务危机。</blockquote> So I went back and dug up the information from the last, infamous inflationary spiral in the 1970s, when consumer price inflation often topped 10% a year. The Greek philosopher Heraclitus pointed out that no one ever walks through the same stream twice, because the second time it’s not the same stream, and we’re not the same person. Everything changes. There is no guarantee the next inflationary boom, even if it happens, will look anything like the last one — any more than we should assume that it will be accompanied by outbreaks of disco music and flared jeans.<blockquote>因此，我回去挖掘了20世纪70年代上一次臭名昭著的通胀螺旋的信息，当时消费者价格通胀经常超过每年10%。希腊哲学家赫拉克利特指出，没有人会两次走过同一条小溪，因为第二次就不是同一条小溪了，我们也不是同一个人了。一切都变了。不能保证下一次通胀繁荣，即使发生了，看起来也会像上一次一样——就像我们不应该假设它会伴随着迪斯科音乐和喇叭牛仔裤的爆发一样。</blockquote> Nonetheless the chart above shows the total returns, after adjusting for inflation, of various asset classes from December 1971 to December 1981. (I used those dates because the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, or NAREIT, starts their data series then.) The data on energy stocks came from data compiled by professor Ken French at Dartmouth College’s Tuck School of Business.<blockquote>尽管如此，上图显示了1971年12月至1981年12月各种资产类别经通胀调整后的总回报。（我使用这些日期是因为全国房地产投资信托协会（NAREIT）在那时开始他们的数据系列。）能源股的数据来自达特茅斯学院塔克商学院肯·弗伦奇教授汇编的数据。</blockquote> This is what happened to your purchasing power if you invested in these assets and hung on for 10 years. (I’ve excluded gold, which is a different story.)<blockquote>如果你投资这些资产并坚持10年，你的购买力就会发生这种情况。（我已经排除了黄金，这是一个不同的故事。）</blockquote> The key standout is that you really didn’t want to own Treasury bonds. The near 40% loss of purchasing power over 10 years is somewhat notional—it is derived from the compound annual returns on 10 Year Treasurys compiled by New York University’s Stern School of Business, divided by the consumer-price index—but tells a story nonetheless. (In Great Britain, where inflation was even worse, government bonds during the 1970s became known as “certificates of confiscation.” Ouch.)<blockquote>关键的突出之处在于，你真的不想拥有国债。10年内购买力损失近40%在某种程度上是名义上的——它来自纽约大学斯特恩商学院编制的10年期美国国债的复合年回报率除以消费者价格指数——但仍然讲述了一个故事。（在通货膨胀更严重的英国，20世纪70年代的政府债券被称为“没收证书”。哎哟。）</blockquote> Holding them cost you money. Lots of it.<blockquote>拿着它们要花钱。很多。</blockquote> You could argue that the danger today is even greater, simply because the yields on long-term Treasury bonds are so low. Federal Reserve quantitative easing, bond buying, and zero interest-rate policies have left Treasury yields at their lowest on record—which means the turns would be a disaster if inflation reared its head.<blockquote>你可能会说，今天的危险甚至更大，仅仅是因为长期国债的收益率如此之低。美联储的量化宽松、债券购买和零利率政策使美国国债收益率处于有记录以来的最低水平——这意味着如果通胀抬头，这将是一场灾难。</blockquote> Corporate bonds and the S&amp;P 500&nbsp;were also terrible investments. It’s worth remembering that these are real term losses over a decade, which means investors didn’t just lose a lot of money—they also lost a lot of time.<blockquote>公司债券和标普500也是糟糕的投资。值得记住的是，这些是十年来的实际定期损失，这意味着投资者不仅损失了很多钱，还损失了很多时间。</blockquote> Utility stocks weren’t great, but they held up better. And Treasury bills—short-term paper—did better still. But once again you were going backward when you needed to be going forwards.<blockquote>公用事业股表现不佳，但表现较好。短期票据——国库券——表现更好。但是当你需要前进的时候，你又一次倒退了。</blockquote> No one who remembers the 1970s will be surprised that energy companies boomed. Less well-remembered, maybe, is that REITs also did pretty well. These numbers, incidentally, represented property-owning REITs and excluded mortgage REITs, which own loans.<blockquote>任何记得20世纪70年代的人都不会对能源公司的蓬勃发展感到惊讶。也许不太为人所知的是，房地产投资信托基金的表现也相当不错。顺便说一句，这些数字代表拥有财产的房地产投资信托基金，不包括拥有贷款的抵押房地产投资信托基金。</blockquote> But there are two caveats to this. The first is that of course energy stocks did well, because a key driver of inflation in the 1970s was the rise of OPEC and two oil embargoes it imposed on the West for political reasons. Cue Heraclitus. There is no particular reason to assume that the next inflationary surge will be the same.<blockquote>但对此有两个警告。首先，能源股当然表现良好，因为20世纪70年代通胀的一个关键驱动因素是欧佩克的崛起及其出于政治原因对西方实施的两次石油禁运。提示赫拉克利特。没有特别的理由假设下一次通胀飙升会是一样的。</blockquote> The second caveat is that although REITs ended up doing well, they were volatile along the way. In particular, REIT prices collapsed in the OPEC-driven recession of 1972-4. And according to FactSet, U.S. REITs today already look pretty expensive on some measures. For instance it reckons that the forecast dividend yield on the Vanguard Real Estate ETF (a reasonable benchmark for the industry) is just 2.9% — by far the lowest since it was launched in 2004. Looking through NAREIT data, I can’t find a moment since 1971 when the overall yield on REITs was this low. During the real estate bubble in 2007, incidentally, the yield bottomed out no lower than 3.6%<blockquote>第二个警告是，尽管房地产投资信托基金最终表现良好，但一路上波动较大。特别是，房地产投资信托基金价格在1972-1974年欧佩克引发的经济衰退中暴跌。根据FactSet的数据，从某些指标来看，如今的美国房地产投资信托基金看起来已经相当昂贵。例如，它估计Vanguard Real Estate ETF（该行业的合理基准）的预测股息收益率仅为2.9%，是自2004年推出以来的最低水平。翻阅NAREIT数据，自1971年以来，我找不到REITs整体收益率如此之低的时刻。2007年房地产泡沫期间，顺带一提，收益率见底不低于3.6%</blockquote> So it may be that REITs offer less inflation protection today than we would hope.<blockquote>因此，如今房地产投资信托基金提供的通胀保护可能比我们希望的要少。</blockquote> One key difference in the 1970s is that there were no “inflation-protected” Treasury bonds to keep investors protected. So-called TIPS are in theory almost the perfect investment for retirees. They are issued by the U.S. government and their coupons are safe against default. Meanwhile their coupons effectively adjust to reflect changes in consumer prices.<blockquote>20世纪70年代的一个关键区别是，没有“通胀保值”国债来保护投资者。理论上，所谓的小费几乎是退休人员的完美投资。它们由美国政府发行，其优惠券不会违约。与此同时，他们的优惠券有效地调整以反映消费价格的变化。</blockquote> The problem today is that TIPS—like almost everything else in the bond market—look incredibly expensive. Most TIPS already lock in an actual loss of purchasing power if you buy them today. For example if you buy 5 year TIPS bonds and hold them for 5 years you’ll end up losing 9% of your purchasing power. And 30-year TIPS bonds offer the same 9% loss, though stretched out over 30 years.<blockquote>今天的问题是，TIPS——就像债券市场上的几乎所有东西一样——看起来非常昂贵。如果你今天购买，大多数建议已经锁定了购买力的实际损失。例如，如果你购买5年期TIPS债券并持有5年，你最终会损失9%的购买力。30年期TIPS债券的损失同样为9%，尽管期限延长了30年。</blockquote> It’s not very compelling. And it shows the risks that the government’s policy responses have created for those in retirement and near it.<blockquote>这不是很引人注目。它还显示了政府的政策应对给退休和接近退休年龄的人带来的风险。</blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/worried-about-inflation-heres-how-investments-did-in-the-1970s-11626658251?siteid=yhoof2\">Marketwatch</a>\n为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".SPX":"S&P 500 Index","XOM":"埃克森美孚"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/worried-about-inflation-heres-how-investments-did-in-the-1970s-11626658251?siteid=yhoof2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/599a65733b8245fcf7868668ef9ad712","article_id":"1129846769","content_text":"In the 1990s movie The Shipping News, an old newspaperman explains to Kevin Spacey how to cover the news. If there is a storm visible anywhere, he explains, you write “Storm threatens the town,” even if the storm is nowhere near and is unlikely to hit. If—as expected—the storm never hits, you just write the follow up: “Town spared by storm.”\nReaders may be excused for thinking something similar about the latest stories about looming, threatening, surging, terrifying inflation. Yes, the inflation forecasts were surging months ago, and hit 8-year highs. Had they continued there would be grounds to worry. But they haven’t continued. On the contrary, they’ve been falling for two months. The bond market’s 5-year inflation forecast is now lower than it was in mid-March. The market sees five-year inflation running at around 2.6%. That’s higher than we’ve been used to for a decade, but it’s nothing to cause any significant alarm.\nThat can change, of course. Maybe it will. We’ll see.\nBut with all this talk I got to thinking about the obvious question. If serious inflation really does hit, what can we do about it? How can we protect our investments?\nThat’s an especially key question for today’s retirees and those expecting to retire soon. When we’re older we’re generally advised to keep most of our money in more “conservative” investments, meaning things like bonds, that involve less risk. Someone in their 20s or 30s may not worry unduly if their retirement savings plunge 30% in a market rout or an inflationary spiral. For someone in their 60s, let alone older, that can become a major financial crisis.\nSo I went back and dug up the information from the last, infamous inflationary spiral in the 1970s, when consumer price inflation often topped 10% a year. The Greek philosopher Heraclitus pointed out that no one ever walks through the same stream twice, because the second time it’s not the same stream, and we’re not the same person. Everything changes. There is no guarantee the next inflationary boom, even if it happens, will look anything like the last one — any more than we should assume that it will be accompanied by outbreaks of disco music and flared jeans.\nNonetheless the chart above shows the total returns, after adjusting for inflation, of various asset classes from December 1971 to December 1981. (I used those dates because the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, or NAREIT, starts their data series then.) The data on energy stocks came from data compiled by professor Ken French at Dartmouth College’s Tuck School of Business.\nThis is what happened to your purchasing power if you invested in these assets and hung on for 10 years. (I’ve excluded gold, which is a different story.)\nThe key standout is that you really didn’t want to own Treasury bonds. The near 40% loss of purchasing power over 10 years is somewhat notional—it is derived from the compound annual returns on 10 Year Treasurys compiled by New York University’s Stern School of Business, divided by the consumer-price index—but tells a story nonetheless. (In Great Britain, where inflation was even worse, government bonds during the 1970s became known as “certificates of confiscation.” Ouch.)\nHolding them cost you money. Lots of it.\nYou could argue that the danger today is even greater, simply because the yields on long-term Treasury bonds are so low. Federal Reserve quantitative easing, bond buying, and zero interest-rate policies have left Treasury yields at their lowest on record—which means the turns would be a disaster if inflation reared its head.\nCorporate bonds and the S&P 500 were also terrible investments. It’s worth remembering that these are real term losses over a decade, which means investors didn’t just lose a lot of money—they also lost a lot of time.\nUtility stocks weren’t great, but they held up better. And Treasury bills—short-term paper—did better still. But once again you were going backward when you needed to be going forwards.\nNo one who remembers the 1970s will be surprised that energy companies boomed. Less well-remembered, maybe, is that REITs also did pretty well. These numbers, incidentally, represented property-owning REITs and excluded mortgage REITs, which own loans.\nBut there are two caveats to this. The first is that of course energy stocks did well, because a key driver of inflation in the 1970s was the rise of OPEC and two oil embargoes it imposed on the West for political reasons. Cue Heraclitus. There is no particular reason to assume that the next inflationary surge will be the same.\nThe second caveat is that although REITs ended up doing well, they were volatile along the way. In particular, REIT prices collapsed in the OPEC-driven recession of 1972-4. And according to FactSet, U.S. REITs today already look pretty expensive on some measures. For instance it reckons that the forecast dividend yield on the Vanguard Real Estate ETF (a reasonable benchmark for the industry) is just 2.9% — by far the lowest since it was launched in 2004. Looking through NAREIT data, I can’t find a moment since 1971 when the overall yield on REITs was this low. During the real estate bubble in 2007, incidentally, the yield bottomed out no lower than 3.6%\nSo it may be that REITs offer less inflation protection today than we would hope.\nOne key difference in the 1970s is that there were no “inflation-protected” Treasury bonds to keep investors protected. So-called TIPS are in theory almost the perfect investment for retirees. They are issued by the U.S. government and their coupons are safe against default. Meanwhile their coupons effectively adjust to reflect changes in consumer prices.\nThe problem today is that TIPS—like almost everything else in the bond market—look incredibly expensive. Most TIPS already lock in an actual loss of purchasing power if you buy them today. For example if you buy 5 year TIPS bonds and hold them for 5 years you’ll end up losing 9% of your purchasing power. And 30-year TIPS bonds offer the same 9% loss, though stretched out over 30 years.\nIt’s not very compelling. And it shows the risks that the government’s policy responses have created for those in retirement and near it.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{".SPX":0.9,"XOM":0.9}},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":5269399,"gmtCreate":1626753872978,"gmtModify":1635225534147,"authorId":3585145250045622,"author":{"id":3585145250045622,"idStr":"3585145250045622","authorId":3585145250045622,"name":"Bhaga","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/8df89f7cbf6306c898f1bc0eef701a29","vip":1,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":171575827,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"[Cool]","text":"[Cool]","html":"[Cool]"}],"langContent":"EN"},{"id":171575070,"gmtCreate":1626753472690,"gmtModify":1633771348768,"author":{"id":"3565146699964497","authorId":"3565146699964497","name":"ycwoo","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/637be28a03f575af22b76a60dad1181b","vip":1,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3565146699964497","authorIdStr":"3565146699964497"},"htmlText":"Everybody wish","listText":"Everybody wish","text":"Everybody wish","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/171575070","repostId":1129846769,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1129846769","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1626751789,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1129846769?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-07-20 11:29","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Worried about inflation? Here’s how investments did in the 1970s<blockquote>担心通货膨胀？以下是20世纪70年代的投资表现</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1129846769","media":"Marketwatch","summary":"In the 1990s movie The Shipping News, an old newspaperman explains to Kevin Spacey how to cover the ","content":"In the 1990s movie The Shipping News, an old newspaperman explains to Kevin Spacey how to cover the news. If there is a storm visible anywhere, he explains, you write “Storm threatens the town,” even if the storm is nowhere near and is unlikely to hit. If—as expected—the storm never hits, you just write the follow up: “Town spared by storm.”<blockquote>在20世纪90年代的电影《航运新闻》中，一位老记者向凯文·史派西解释如何报道新闻。他解释说，如果任何地方都有可见的风暴，你就会写“风暴威胁着城镇”，即使风暴不在附近，也不太可能来袭。如果——正如预期的那样——风暴从未袭击，你只需写下后续内容：“城镇幸免于风暴。”</blockquote> Readers may be excused for thinking something similar about the latest stories about looming, threatening, surging, terrifying inflation. Yes, the inflation forecasts were surging months ago, and hit 8-year highs. Had they continued there would be grounds to worry. But they haven’t continued. On the contrary, they’ve been falling for two months. The bond market’s 5-year inflation forecast is now lower than it was in mid-March. The market sees five-year inflation running at around 2.6%. That’s higher than we’ve been used to for a decade, but it’s nothing to cause any significant alarm.<blockquote>读者可能会对最近关于迫在眉睫、威胁、飙升、可怕的通货膨胀的故事有类似的想法。是的，几个月前通胀预测飙升，并创下8年来的新高。如果他们继续下去，就有理由担心。但他们没有继续。相反，他们已经下跌了两个月。债券市场的5年通胀预期现在低于3月中旬。市场预计五年通胀率约为2.6%。这比我们十年来所习惯的要高，但这并没有引起任何重大恐慌。</blockquote> That can change, of course. Maybe it will. We’ll see.<blockquote>当然，这种情况可能会改变。也许会。我们走着瞧。</blockquote> But with all this talk I got to thinking about the obvious question. If serious inflation really does hit, what can we do about it? How can we protect our investments?<blockquote>但是通过这些谈话，我开始思考一个显而易见的问题。如果严重的通货膨胀真的来袭，我们能做些什么呢？我们如何保护我们的投资？</blockquote> That’s an especially key question for today’s retirees and those expecting to retire soon. When we’re older we’re generally advised to keep most of our money in more “conservative” investments, meaning things like bonds, that involve less risk. Someone in their 20s or 30s may not worry unduly if their retirement savings plunge 30% in a market rout or an inflationary spiral. For someone in their 60s, let alone older, that can become a major financial crisis.<blockquote>对于今天的退休人员和那些预计很快退休的人来说，这是一个特别关键的问题。当我们长大后，通常建议我们将大部分资金投资于更“保守”的投资，即债券等风险较小的投资。如果20多岁或30多岁的人的退休储蓄在市场暴跌或通胀螺旋中暴跌30%，他们可能不会过度担心。对于60多岁的人来说，更不用说老年人了，这可能会成为一场重大的财务危机。</blockquote> So I went back and dug up the information from the last, infamous inflationary spiral in the 1970s, when consumer price inflation often topped 10% a year. The Greek philosopher Heraclitus pointed out that no one ever walks through the same stream twice, because the second time it’s not the same stream, and we’re not the same person. Everything changes. There is no guarantee the next inflationary boom, even if it happens, will look anything like the last one — any more than we should assume that it will be accompanied by outbreaks of disco music and flared jeans.<blockquote>因此，我回去挖掘了20世纪70年代上一次臭名昭著的通胀螺旋的信息，当时消费者价格通胀经常超过每年10%。希腊哲学家赫拉克利特指出，没有人会两次走过同一条小溪，因为第二次就不是同一条小溪了，我们也不是同一个人了。一切都变了。不能保证下一次通胀繁荣，即使发生了，看起来也会像上一次一样——就像我们不应该假设它会伴随着迪斯科音乐和喇叭牛仔裤的爆发一样。</blockquote> Nonetheless the chart above shows the total returns, after adjusting for inflation, of various asset classes from December 1971 to December 1981. (I used those dates because the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, or NAREIT, starts their data series then.) The data on energy stocks came from data compiled by professor Ken French at Dartmouth College’s Tuck School of Business.<blockquote>尽管如此，上图显示了1971年12月至1981年12月各种资产类别经通胀调整后的总回报。（我使用这些日期是因为全国房地产投资信托协会（NAREIT）在那时开始他们的数据系列。）能源股的数据来自达特茅斯学院塔克商学院肯·弗伦奇教授汇编的数据。</blockquote> This is what happened to your purchasing power if you invested in these assets and hung on for 10 years. (I’ve excluded gold, which is a different story.)<blockquote>如果你投资这些资产并坚持10年，你的购买力就会发生这种情况。（我已经排除了黄金，这是一个不同的故事。）</blockquote> The key standout is that you really didn’t want to own Treasury bonds. The near 40% loss of purchasing power over 10 years is somewhat notional—it is derived from the compound annual returns on 10 Year Treasurys compiled by New York University’s Stern School of Business, divided by the consumer-price index—but tells a story nonetheless. (In Great Britain, where inflation was even worse, government bonds during the 1970s became known as “certificates of confiscation.” Ouch.)<blockquote>关键的突出之处在于，你真的不想拥有国债。10年内购买力损失近40%在某种程度上是名义上的——它来自纽约大学斯特恩商学院编制的10年期美国国债的复合年回报率除以消费者价格指数——但仍然讲述了一个故事。（在通货膨胀更严重的英国，20世纪70年代的政府债券被称为“没收证书”。哎哟。）</blockquote> Holding them cost you money. Lots of it.<blockquote>拿着它们要花钱。很多。</blockquote> You could argue that the danger today is even greater, simply because the yields on long-term Treasury bonds are so low. Federal Reserve quantitative easing, bond buying, and zero interest-rate policies have left Treasury yields at their lowest on record—which means the turns would be a disaster if inflation reared its head.<blockquote>你可能会说，今天的危险甚至更大，仅仅是因为长期国债的收益率如此之低。美联储的量化宽松、债券购买和零利率政策使美国国债收益率处于有记录以来的最低水平——这意味着如果通胀抬头，这将是一场灾难。</blockquote> Corporate bonds and the S&amp;P 500&nbsp;were also terrible investments. It’s worth remembering that these are real term losses over a decade, which means investors didn’t just lose a lot of money—they also lost a lot of time.<blockquote>公司债券和标普500也是糟糕的投资。值得记住的是，这些是十年来的实际定期损失，这意味着投资者不仅损失了很多钱，还损失了很多时间。</blockquote> Utility stocks weren’t great, but they held up better. And Treasury bills—short-term paper—did better still. But once again you were going backward when you needed to be going forwards.<blockquote>公用事业股表现不佳，但表现较好。短期票据——国库券——表现更好。但是当你需要前进的时候，你又一次倒退了。</blockquote> No one who remembers the 1970s will be surprised that energy companies boomed. Less well-remembered, maybe, is that REITs also did pretty well. These numbers, incidentally, represented property-owning REITs and excluded mortgage REITs, which own loans.<blockquote>任何记得20世纪70年代的人都不会对能源公司的蓬勃发展感到惊讶。也许不太为人所知的是，房地产投资信托基金的表现也相当不错。顺便说一句，这些数字代表拥有财产的房地产投资信托基金，不包括拥有贷款的抵押房地产投资信托基金。</blockquote> But there are two caveats to this. The first is that of course energy stocks did well, because a key driver of inflation in the 1970s was the rise of OPEC and two oil embargoes it imposed on the West for political reasons. Cue Heraclitus. There is no particular reason to assume that the next inflationary surge will be the same.<blockquote>但对此有两个警告。首先，能源股当然表现良好，因为20世纪70年代通胀的一个关键驱动因素是欧佩克的崛起及其出于政治原因对西方实施的两次石油禁运。提示赫拉克利特。没有特别的理由假设下一次通胀飙升会是一样的。</blockquote> The second caveat is that although REITs ended up doing well, they were volatile along the way. In particular, REIT prices collapsed in the OPEC-driven recession of 1972-4. And according to FactSet, U.S. REITs today already look pretty expensive on some measures. For instance it reckons that the forecast dividend yield on the Vanguard Real Estate ETF (a reasonable benchmark for the industry) is just 2.9% — by far the lowest since it was launched in 2004. Looking through NAREIT data, I can’t find a moment since 1971 when the overall yield on REITs was this low. During the real estate bubble in 2007, incidentally, the yield bottomed out no lower than 3.6%<blockquote>第二个警告是，尽管房地产投资信托基金最终表现良好，但一路上波动较大。特别是，房地产投资信托基金价格在1972-1974年欧佩克引发的经济衰退中暴跌。根据FactSet的数据，从某些指标来看，如今的美国房地产投资信托基金看起来已经相当昂贵。例如，它估计Vanguard Real Estate ETF（该行业的合理基准）的预测股息收益率仅为2.9%，是自2004年推出以来的最低水平。翻阅NAREIT数据，自1971年以来，我找不到REITs整体收益率如此之低的时刻。2007年房地产泡沫期间，顺带一提，收益率见底不低于3.6%</blockquote> So it may be that REITs offer less inflation protection today than we would hope.<blockquote>因此，如今房地产投资信托基金提供的通胀保护可能比我们希望的要少。</blockquote> One key difference in the 1970s is that there were no “inflation-protected” Treasury bonds to keep investors protected. So-called TIPS are in theory almost the perfect investment for retirees. They are issued by the U.S. government and their coupons are safe against default. Meanwhile their coupons effectively adjust to reflect changes in consumer prices.<blockquote>20世纪70年代的一个关键区别是，没有“通胀保值”国债来保护投资者。理论上，所谓的小费几乎是退休人员的完美投资。它们由美国政府发行，其优惠券不会违约。与此同时，他们的优惠券有效地调整以反映消费价格的变化。</blockquote> The problem today is that TIPS—like almost everything else in the bond market—look incredibly expensive. Most TIPS already lock in an actual loss of purchasing power if you buy them today. For example if you buy 5 year TIPS bonds and hold them for 5 years you’ll end up losing 9% of your purchasing power. And 30-year TIPS bonds offer the same 9% loss, though stretched out over 30 years.<blockquote>今天的问题是，TIPS——就像债券市场上的几乎所有东西一样——看起来非常昂贵。如果你今天购买，大多数建议已经锁定了购买力的实际损失。例如，如果你购买5年期TIPS债券并持有5年，你最终会损失9%的购买力。30年期TIPS债券的损失同样为9%，尽管期限延长了30年。</blockquote> It’s not very compelling. And it shows the risks that the government’s policy responses have created for those in retirement and near it.<blockquote>这不是很引人注目。它还显示了政府的政策应对给退休和接近退休年龄的人带来的风险。</blockquote>","source":"market_watch","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Worried about inflation? Here’s how investments did in the 1970s<blockquote>担心通货膨胀？以下是20世纪70年代的投资表现</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWorried about inflation? Here’s how investments did in the 1970s<blockquote>担心通货膨胀？以下是20世纪70年代的投资表现</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nMarketwatch2021-07-20 11:29\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\nIn the 1990s movie The Shipping News, an old newspaperman explains to Kevin Spacey how to cover the news. If there is a storm visible anywhere, he explains, you write “Storm threatens the town,” even if the storm is nowhere near and is unlikely to hit. If—as expected—the storm never hits, you just write the follow up: “Town spared by storm.”<blockquote>在20世纪90年代的电影《航运新闻》中，一位老记者向凯文·史派西解释如何报道新闻。他解释说，如果任何地方都有可见的风暴，你就会写“风暴威胁着城镇”，即使风暴不在附近，也不太可能来袭。如果——正如预期的那样——风暴从未袭击，你只需写下后续内容：“城镇幸免于风暴。”</blockquote> Readers may be excused for thinking something similar about the latest stories about looming, threatening, surging, terrifying inflation. Yes, the inflation forecasts were surging months ago, and hit 8-year highs. Had they continued there would be grounds to worry. But they haven’t continued. On the contrary, they’ve been falling for two months. The bond market’s 5-year inflation forecast is now lower than it was in mid-March. The market sees five-year inflation running at around 2.6%. That’s higher than we’ve been used to for a decade, but it’s nothing to cause any significant alarm.<blockquote>读者可能会对最近关于迫在眉睫、威胁、飙升、可怕的通货膨胀的故事有类似的想法。是的，几个月前通胀预测飙升，并创下8年来的新高。如果他们继续下去，就有理由担心。但他们没有继续。相反，他们已经下跌了两个月。债券市场的5年通胀预期现在低于3月中旬。市场预计五年通胀率约为2.6%。这比我们十年来所习惯的要高，但这并没有引起任何重大恐慌。</blockquote> That can change, of course. Maybe it will. We’ll see.<blockquote>当然，这种情况可能会改变。也许会。我们走着瞧。</blockquote> But with all this talk I got to thinking about the obvious question. If serious inflation really does hit, what can we do about it? How can we protect our investments?<blockquote>但是通过这些谈话，我开始思考一个显而易见的问题。如果严重的通货膨胀真的来袭，我们能做些什么呢？我们如何保护我们的投资？</blockquote> That’s an especially key question for today’s retirees and those expecting to retire soon. When we’re older we’re generally advised to keep most of our money in more “conservative” investments, meaning things like bonds, that involve less risk. Someone in their 20s or 30s may not worry unduly if their retirement savings plunge 30% in a market rout or an inflationary spiral. For someone in their 60s, let alone older, that can become a major financial crisis.<blockquote>对于今天的退休人员和那些预计很快退休的人来说，这是一个特别关键的问题。当我们长大后，通常建议我们将大部分资金投资于更“保守”的投资，即债券等风险较小的投资。如果20多岁或30多岁的人的退休储蓄在市场暴跌或通胀螺旋中暴跌30%，他们可能不会过度担心。对于60多岁的人来说，更不用说老年人了，这可能会成为一场重大的财务危机。</blockquote> So I went back and dug up the information from the last, infamous inflationary spiral in the 1970s, when consumer price inflation often topped 10% a year. The Greek philosopher Heraclitus pointed out that no one ever walks through the same stream twice, because the second time it’s not the same stream, and we’re not the same person. Everything changes. There is no guarantee the next inflationary boom, even if it happens, will look anything like the last one — any more than we should assume that it will be accompanied by outbreaks of disco music and flared jeans.<blockquote>因此，我回去挖掘了20世纪70年代上一次臭名昭著的通胀螺旋的信息，当时消费者价格通胀经常超过每年10%。希腊哲学家赫拉克利特指出，没有人会两次走过同一条小溪，因为第二次就不是同一条小溪了，我们也不是同一个人了。一切都变了。不能保证下一次通胀繁荣，即使发生了，看起来也会像上一次一样——就像我们不应该假设它会伴随着迪斯科音乐和喇叭牛仔裤的爆发一样。</blockquote> Nonetheless the chart above shows the total returns, after adjusting for inflation, of various asset classes from December 1971 to December 1981. (I used those dates because the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, or NAREIT, starts their data series then.) The data on energy stocks came from data compiled by professor Ken French at Dartmouth College’s Tuck School of Business.<blockquote>尽管如此，上图显示了1971年12月至1981年12月各种资产类别经通胀调整后的总回报。（我使用这些日期是因为全国房地产投资信托协会（NAREIT）在那时开始他们的数据系列。）能源股的数据来自达特茅斯学院塔克商学院肯·弗伦奇教授汇编的数据。</blockquote> This is what happened to your purchasing power if you invested in these assets and hung on for 10 years. (I’ve excluded gold, which is a different story.)<blockquote>如果你投资这些资产并坚持10年，你的购买力就会发生这种情况。（我已经排除了黄金，这是一个不同的故事。）</blockquote> The key standout is that you really didn’t want to own Treasury bonds. The near 40% loss of purchasing power over 10 years is somewhat notional—it is derived from the compound annual returns on 10 Year Treasurys compiled by New York University’s Stern School of Business, divided by the consumer-price index—but tells a story nonetheless. (In Great Britain, where inflation was even worse, government bonds during the 1970s became known as “certificates of confiscation.” Ouch.)<blockquote>关键的突出之处在于，你真的不想拥有国债。10年内购买力损失近40%在某种程度上是名义上的——它来自纽约大学斯特恩商学院编制的10年期美国国债的复合年回报率除以消费者价格指数——但仍然讲述了一个故事。（在通货膨胀更严重的英国，20世纪70年代的政府债券被称为“没收证书”。哎哟。）</blockquote> Holding them cost you money. Lots of it.<blockquote>拿着它们要花钱。很多。</blockquote> You could argue that the danger today is even greater, simply because the yields on long-term Treasury bonds are so low. Federal Reserve quantitative easing, bond buying, and zero interest-rate policies have left Treasury yields at their lowest on record—which means the turns would be a disaster if inflation reared its head.<blockquote>你可能会说，今天的危险甚至更大，仅仅是因为长期国债的收益率如此之低。美联储的量化宽松、债券购买和零利率政策使美国国债收益率处于有记录以来的最低水平——这意味着如果通胀抬头，这将是一场灾难。</blockquote> Corporate bonds and the S&amp;P 500&nbsp;were also terrible investments. It’s worth remembering that these are real term losses over a decade, which means investors didn’t just lose a lot of money—they also lost a lot of time.<blockquote>公司债券和标普500也是糟糕的投资。值得记住的是，这些是十年来的实际定期损失，这意味着投资者不仅损失了很多钱，还损失了很多时间。</blockquote> Utility stocks weren’t great, but they held up better. And Treasury bills—short-term paper—did better still. But once again you were going backward when you needed to be going forwards.<blockquote>公用事业股表现不佳，但表现较好。短期票据——国库券——表现更好。但是当你需要前进的时候，你又一次倒退了。</blockquote> No one who remembers the 1970s will be surprised that energy companies boomed. Less well-remembered, maybe, is that REITs also did pretty well. These numbers, incidentally, represented property-owning REITs and excluded mortgage REITs, which own loans.<blockquote>任何记得20世纪70年代的人都不会对能源公司的蓬勃发展感到惊讶。也许不太为人所知的是，房地产投资信托基金的表现也相当不错。顺便说一句，这些数字代表拥有财产的房地产投资信托基金，不包括拥有贷款的抵押房地产投资信托基金。</blockquote> But there are two caveats to this. The first is that of course energy stocks did well, because a key driver of inflation in the 1970s was the rise of OPEC and two oil embargoes it imposed on the West for political reasons. Cue Heraclitus. There is no particular reason to assume that the next inflationary surge will be the same.<blockquote>但对此有两个警告。首先，能源股当然表现良好，因为20世纪70年代通胀的一个关键驱动因素是欧佩克的崛起及其出于政治原因对西方实施的两次石油禁运。提示赫拉克利特。没有特别的理由假设下一次通胀飙升会是一样的。</blockquote> The second caveat is that although REITs ended up doing well, they were volatile along the way. In particular, REIT prices collapsed in the OPEC-driven recession of 1972-4. And according to FactSet, U.S. REITs today already look pretty expensive on some measures. For instance it reckons that the forecast dividend yield on the Vanguard Real Estate ETF (a reasonable benchmark for the industry) is just 2.9% — by far the lowest since it was launched in 2004. Looking through NAREIT data, I can’t find a moment since 1971 when the overall yield on REITs was this low. During the real estate bubble in 2007, incidentally, the yield bottomed out no lower than 3.6%<blockquote>第二个警告是，尽管房地产投资信托基金最终表现良好，但一路上波动较大。特别是，房地产投资信托基金价格在1972-1974年欧佩克引发的经济衰退中暴跌。根据FactSet的数据，从某些指标来看，如今的美国房地产投资信托基金看起来已经相当昂贵。例如，它估计Vanguard Real Estate ETF（该行业的合理基准）的预测股息收益率仅为2.9%，是自2004年推出以来的最低水平。翻阅NAREIT数据，自1971年以来，我找不到REITs整体收益率如此之低的时刻。2007年房地产泡沫期间，顺带一提，收益率见底不低于3.6%</blockquote> So it may be that REITs offer less inflation protection today than we would hope.<blockquote>因此，如今房地产投资信托基金提供的通胀保护可能比我们希望的要少。</blockquote> One key difference in the 1970s is that there were no “inflation-protected” Treasury bonds to keep investors protected. So-called TIPS are in theory almost the perfect investment for retirees. They are issued by the U.S. government and their coupons are safe against default. Meanwhile their coupons effectively adjust to reflect changes in consumer prices.<blockquote>20世纪70年代的一个关键区别是，没有“通胀保值”国债来保护投资者。理论上，所谓的小费几乎是退休人员的完美投资。它们由美国政府发行，其优惠券不会违约。与此同时，他们的优惠券有效地调整以反映消费价格的变化。</blockquote> The problem today is that TIPS—like almost everything else in the bond market—look incredibly expensive. Most TIPS already lock in an actual loss of purchasing power if you buy them today. For example if you buy 5 year TIPS bonds and hold them for 5 years you’ll end up losing 9% of your purchasing power. And 30-year TIPS bonds offer the same 9% loss, though stretched out over 30 years.<blockquote>今天的问题是，TIPS——就像债券市场上的几乎所有东西一样——看起来非常昂贵。如果你今天购买，大多数建议已经锁定了购买力的实际损失。例如，如果你购买5年期TIPS债券并持有5年，你最终会损失9%的购买力。30年期TIPS债券的损失同样为9%，尽管期限延长了30年。</blockquote> It’s not very compelling. And it shows the risks that the government’s policy responses have created for those in retirement and near it.<blockquote>这不是很引人注目。它还显示了政府的政策应对给退休和接近退休年龄的人带来的风险。</blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/worried-about-inflation-heres-how-investments-did-in-the-1970s-11626658251?siteid=yhoof2\">Marketwatch</a>\n为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".SPX":"S&P 500 Index","XOM":"埃克森美孚"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/worried-about-inflation-heres-how-investments-did-in-the-1970s-11626658251?siteid=yhoof2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/599a65733b8245fcf7868668ef9ad712","article_id":"1129846769","content_text":"In the 1990s movie The Shipping News, an old newspaperman explains to Kevin Spacey how to cover the news. If there is a storm visible anywhere, he explains, you write “Storm threatens the town,” even if the storm is nowhere near and is unlikely to hit. If—as expected—the storm never hits, you just write the follow up: “Town spared by storm.”\nReaders may be excused for thinking something similar about the latest stories about looming, threatening, surging, terrifying inflation. Yes, the inflation forecasts were surging months ago, and hit 8-year highs. Had they continued there would be grounds to worry. But they haven’t continued. On the contrary, they’ve been falling for two months. The bond market’s 5-year inflation forecast is now lower than it was in mid-March. The market sees five-year inflation running at around 2.6%. That’s higher than we’ve been used to for a decade, but it’s nothing to cause any significant alarm.\nThat can change, of course. Maybe it will. We’ll see.\nBut with all this talk I got to thinking about the obvious question. If serious inflation really does hit, what can we do about it? How can we protect our investments?\nThat’s an especially key question for today’s retirees and those expecting to retire soon. When we’re older we’re generally advised to keep most of our money in more “conservative” investments, meaning things like bonds, that involve less risk. Someone in their 20s or 30s may not worry unduly if their retirement savings plunge 30% in a market rout or an inflationary spiral. For someone in their 60s, let alone older, that can become a major financial crisis.\nSo I went back and dug up the information from the last, infamous inflationary spiral in the 1970s, when consumer price inflation often topped 10% a year. The Greek philosopher Heraclitus pointed out that no one ever walks through the same stream twice, because the second time it’s not the same stream, and we’re not the same person. Everything changes. There is no guarantee the next inflationary boom, even if it happens, will look anything like the last one — any more than we should assume that it will be accompanied by outbreaks of disco music and flared jeans.\nNonetheless the chart above shows the total returns, after adjusting for inflation, of various asset classes from December 1971 to December 1981. (I used those dates because the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, or NAREIT, starts their data series then.) The data on energy stocks came from data compiled by professor Ken French at Dartmouth College’s Tuck School of Business.\nThis is what happened to your purchasing power if you invested in these assets and hung on for 10 years. (I’ve excluded gold, which is a different story.)\nThe key standout is that you really didn’t want to own Treasury bonds. The near 40% loss of purchasing power over 10 years is somewhat notional—it is derived from the compound annual returns on 10 Year Treasurys compiled by New York University’s Stern School of Business, divided by the consumer-price index—but tells a story nonetheless. (In Great Britain, where inflation was even worse, government bonds during the 1970s became known as “certificates of confiscation.” Ouch.)\nHolding them cost you money. Lots of it.\nYou could argue that the danger today is even greater, simply because the yields on long-term Treasury bonds are so low. Federal Reserve quantitative easing, bond buying, and zero interest-rate policies have left Treasury yields at their lowest on record—which means the turns would be a disaster if inflation reared its head.\nCorporate bonds and the S&P 500 were also terrible investments. It’s worth remembering that these are real term losses over a decade, which means investors didn’t just lose a lot of money—they also lost a lot of time.\nUtility stocks weren’t great, but they held up better. And Treasury bills—short-term paper—did better still. But once again you were going backward when you needed to be going forwards.\nNo one who remembers the 1970s will be surprised that energy companies boomed. Less well-remembered, maybe, is that REITs also did pretty well. These numbers, incidentally, represented property-owning REITs and excluded mortgage REITs, which own loans.\nBut there are two caveats to this. The first is that of course energy stocks did well, because a key driver of inflation in the 1970s was the rise of OPEC and two oil embargoes it imposed on the West for political reasons. Cue Heraclitus. There is no particular reason to assume that the next inflationary surge will be the same.\nThe second caveat is that although REITs ended up doing well, they were volatile along the way. In particular, REIT prices collapsed in the OPEC-driven recession of 1972-4. And according to FactSet, U.S. REITs today already look pretty expensive on some measures. For instance it reckons that the forecast dividend yield on the Vanguard Real Estate ETF (a reasonable benchmark for the industry) is just 2.9% — by far the lowest since it was launched in 2004. Looking through NAREIT data, I can’t find a moment since 1971 when the overall yield on REITs was this low. During the real estate bubble in 2007, incidentally, the yield bottomed out no lower than 3.6%\nSo it may be that REITs offer less inflation protection today than we would hope.\nOne key difference in the 1970s is that there were no “inflation-protected” Treasury bonds to keep investors protected. So-called TIPS are in theory almost the perfect investment for retirees. They are issued by the U.S. government and their coupons are safe against default. Meanwhile their coupons effectively adjust to reflect changes in consumer prices.\nThe problem today is that TIPS—like almost everything else in the bond market—look incredibly expensive. Most TIPS already lock in an actual loss of purchasing power if you buy them today. For example if you buy 5 year TIPS bonds and hold them for 5 years you’ll end up losing 9% of your purchasing power. And 30-year TIPS bonds offer the same 9% loss, though stretched out over 30 years.\nIt’s not very compelling. And it shows the risks that the government’s policy responses have created for those in retirement and near it.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{".SPX":0.9,"XOM":0.9}},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":171547209,"gmtCreate":1626753034201,"gmtModify":1631883809047,"author":{"id":"3566532164444643","authorId":"3566532164444643","name":"ZEROHERO","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/62813b6df1c4722e559d112fadd5486a","vip":2,"crmLevel":12,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3566532164444643","authorIdStr":"3566532164444643"},"htmlText":"Always invest long term with&nbsp;time and money.&nbsp;Consider&nbsp;investing $10k (capital)&nbsp;with S&amp;P500 (8% interest&nbsp;compounded) plus&nbsp;$1k deposit per month (DCA) over 20 years for this result!&nbsp;","listText":"Always invest long term with&nbsp;time and money.&nbsp;Consider&nbsp;investing $10k (capital)&nbsp;with S&amp;P500 (8% interest&nbsp;compounded) plus&nbsp;$1k deposit per month (DCA) over 20 years for this result!&nbsp;","text":"Always invest long term with time and money. Consider investing $10k (capital) with S&P500 (8% interest compounded) plus $1k deposit per month (DCA) over 20 years for this result!","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":4,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/171547209","repostId":1129846769,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1129846769","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1626751789,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1129846769?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-07-20 11:29","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Worried about inflation? Here’s how investments did in the 1970s<blockquote>担心通货膨胀？以下是20世纪70年代的投资表现</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1129846769","media":"Marketwatch","summary":"In the 1990s movie The Shipping News, an old newspaperman explains to Kevin Spacey how to cover the ","content":"In the 1990s movie The Shipping News, an old newspaperman explains to Kevin Spacey how to cover the news. If there is a storm visible anywhere, he explains, you write “Storm threatens the town,” even if the storm is nowhere near and is unlikely to hit. If—as expected—the storm never hits, you just write the follow up: “Town spared by storm.”<blockquote>在20世纪90年代的电影《航运新闻》中，一位老记者向凯文·史派西解释如何报道新闻。他解释说，如果任何地方都有可见的风暴，你就会写“风暴威胁着城镇”，即使风暴不在附近，也不太可能来袭。如果——正如预期的那样——风暴从未袭击，你只需写下后续内容：“城镇幸免于风暴。”</blockquote> Readers may be excused for thinking something similar about the latest stories about looming, threatening, surging, terrifying inflation. Yes, the inflation forecasts were surging months ago, and hit 8-year highs. Had they continued there would be grounds to worry. But they haven’t continued. On the contrary, they’ve been falling for two months. The bond market’s 5-year inflation forecast is now lower than it was in mid-March. The market sees five-year inflation running at around 2.6%. That’s higher than we’ve been used to for a decade, but it’s nothing to cause any significant alarm.<blockquote>读者可能会对最近关于迫在眉睫、威胁、飙升、可怕的通货膨胀的故事有类似的想法。是的，几个月前通胀预测飙升，并创下8年来的新高。如果他们继续下去，就有理由担心。但他们没有继续。相反，他们已经下跌了两个月。债券市场的5年通胀预期现在低于3月中旬。市场预计五年通胀率约为2.6%。这比我们十年来所习惯的要高，但这并没有引起任何重大恐慌。</blockquote> That can change, of course. Maybe it will. We’ll see.<blockquote>当然，这种情况可能会改变。也许会。我们走着瞧。</blockquote> But with all this talk I got to thinking about the obvious question. If serious inflation really does hit, what can we do about it? How can we protect our investments?<blockquote>但是通过这些谈话，我开始思考一个显而易见的问题。如果严重的通货膨胀真的来袭，我们能做些什么呢？我们如何保护我们的投资？</blockquote> That’s an especially key question for today’s retirees and those expecting to retire soon. When we’re older we’re generally advised to keep most of our money in more “conservative” investments, meaning things like bonds, that involve less risk. Someone in their 20s or 30s may not worry unduly if their retirement savings plunge 30% in a market rout or an inflationary spiral. For someone in their 60s, let alone older, that can become a major financial crisis.<blockquote>对于今天的退休人员和那些预计很快退休的人来说，这是一个特别关键的问题。当我们长大后，通常建议我们将大部分资金投资于更“保守”的投资，即债券等风险较小的投资。如果20多岁或30多岁的人的退休储蓄在市场暴跌或通胀螺旋中暴跌30%，他们可能不会过度担心。对于60多岁的人来说，更不用说老年人了，这可能会成为一场重大的财务危机。</blockquote> So I went back and dug up the information from the last, infamous inflationary spiral in the 1970s, when consumer price inflation often topped 10% a year. The Greek philosopher Heraclitus pointed out that no one ever walks through the same stream twice, because the second time it’s not the same stream, and we’re not the same person. Everything changes. There is no guarantee the next inflationary boom, even if it happens, will look anything like the last one — any more than we should assume that it will be accompanied by outbreaks of disco music and flared jeans.<blockquote>因此，我回去挖掘了20世纪70年代上一次臭名昭著的通胀螺旋的信息，当时消费者价格通胀经常超过每年10%。希腊哲学家赫拉克利特指出，没有人会两次走过同一条小溪，因为第二次就不是同一条小溪了，我们也不是同一个人了。一切都变了。不能保证下一次通胀繁荣，即使发生了，看起来也会像上一次一样——就像我们不应该假设它会伴随着迪斯科音乐和喇叭牛仔裤的爆发一样。</blockquote> Nonetheless the chart above shows the total returns, after adjusting for inflation, of various asset classes from December 1971 to December 1981. (I used those dates because the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, or NAREIT, starts their data series then.) The data on energy stocks came from data compiled by professor Ken French at Dartmouth College’s Tuck School of Business.<blockquote>尽管如此，上图显示了1971年12月至1981年12月各种资产类别经通胀调整后的总回报。（我使用这些日期是因为全国房地产投资信托协会（NAREIT）在那时开始他们的数据系列。）能源股的数据来自达特茅斯学院塔克商学院肯·弗伦奇教授汇编的数据。</blockquote> This is what happened to your purchasing power if you invested in these assets and hung on for 10 years. (I’ve excluded gold, which is a different story.)<blockquote>如果你投资这些资产并坚持10年，你的购买力就会发生这种情况。（我已经排除了黄金，这是一个不同的故事。）</blockquote> The key standout is that you really didn’t want to own Treasury bonds. The near 40% loss of purchasing power over 10 years is somewhat notional—it is derived from the compound annual returns on 10 Year Treasurys compiled by New York University’s Stern School of Business, divided by the consumer-price index—but tells a story nonetheless. (In Great Britain, where inflation was even worse, government bonds during the 1970s became known as “certificates of confiscation.” Ouch.)<blockquote>关键的突出之处在于，你真的不想拥有国债。10年内购买力损失近40%在某种程度上是名义上的——它来自纽约大学斯特恩商学院编制的10年期美国国债的复合年回报率除以消费者价格指数——但仍然讲述了一个故事。（在通货膨胀更严重的英国，20世纪70年代的政府债券被称为“没收证书”。哎哟。）</blockquote> Holding them cost you money. Lots of it.<blockquote>拿着它们要花钱。很多。</blockquote> You could argue that the danger today is even greater, simply because the yields on long-term Treasury bonds are so low. Federal Reserve quantitative easing, bond buying, and zero interest-rate policies have left Treasury yields at their lowest on record—which means the turns would be a disaster if inflation reared its head.<blockquote>你可能会说，今天的危险甚至更大，仅仅是因为长期国债的收益率如此之低。美联储的量化宽松、债券购买和零利率政策使美国国债收益率处于有记录以来的最低水平——这意味着如果通胀抬头，这将是一场灾难。</blockquote> Corporate bonds and the S&amp;P 500&nbsp;were also terrible investments. It’s worth remembering that these are real term losses over a decade, which means investors didn’t just lose a lot of money—they also lost a lot of time.<blockquote>公司债券和标普500也是糟糕的投资。值得记住的是，这些是十年来的实际定期损失，这意味着投资者不仅损失了很多钱，还损失了很多时间。</blockquote> Utility stocks weren’t great, but they held up better. And Treasury bills—short-term paper—did better still. But once again you were going backward when you needed to be going forwards.<blockquote>公用事业股表现不佳，但表现较好。短期票据——国库券——表现更好。但是当你需要前进的时候，你又一次倒退了。</blockquote> No one who remembers the 1970s will be surprised that energy companies boomed. Less well-remembered, maybe, is that REITs also did pretty well. These numbers, incidentally, represented property-owning REITs and excluded mortgage REITs, which own loans.<blockquote>任何记得20世纪70年代的人都不会对能源公司的蓬勃发展感到惊讶。也许不太为人所知的是，房地产投资信托基金的表现也相当不错。顺便说一句，这些数字代表拥有财产的房地产投资信托基金，不包括拥有贷款的抵押房地产投资信托基金。</blockquote> But there are two caveats to this. The first is that of course energy stocks did well, because a key driver of inflation in the 1970s was the rise of OPEC and two oil embargoes it imposed on the West for political reasons. Cue Heraclitus. There is no particular reason to assume that the next inflationary surge will be the same.<blockquote>但对此有两个警告。首先，能源股当然表现良好，因为20世纪70年代通胀的一个关键驱动因素是欧佩克的崛起及其出于政治原因对西方实施的两次石油禁运。提示赫拉克利特。没有特别的理由假设下一次通胀飙升会是一样的。</blockquote> The second caveat is that although REITs ended up doing well, they were volatile along the way. In particular, REIT prices collapsed in the OPEC-driven recession of 1972-4. And according to FactSet, U.S. REITs today already look pretty expensive on some measures. For instance it reckons that the forecast dividend yield on the Vanguard Real Estate ETF (a reasonable benchmark for the industry) is just 2.9% — by far the lowest since it was launched in 2004. Looking through NAREIT data, I can’t find a moment since 1971 when the overall yield on REITs was this low. During the real estate bubble in 2007, incidentally, the yield bottomed out no lower than 3.6%<blockquote>第二个警告是，尽管房地产投资信托基金最终表现良好，但一路上波动较大。特别是，房地产投资信托基金价格在1972-1974年欧佩克引发的经济衰退中暴跌。根据FactSet的数据，从某些指标来看，如今的美国房地产投资信托基金看起来已经相当昂贵。例如，它估计Vanguard Real Estate ETF（该行业的合理基准）的预测股息收益率仅为2.9%，是自2004年推出以来的最低水平。翻阅NAREIT数据，自1971年以来，我找不到REITs整体收益率如此之低的时刻。2007年房地产泡沫期间，顺带一提，收益率见底不低于3.6%</blockquote> So it may be that REITs offer less inflation protection today than we would hope.<blockquote>因此，如今房地产投资信托基金提供的通胀保护可能比我们希望的要少。</blockquote> One key difference in the 1970s is that there were no “inflation-protected” Treasury bonds to keep investors protected. So-called TIPS are in theory almost the perfect investment for retirees. They are issued by the U.S. government and their coupons are safe against default. Meanwhile their coupons effectively adjust to reflect changes in consumer prices.<blockquote>20世纪70年代的一个关键区别是，没有“通胀保值”国债来保护投资者。理论上，所谓的小费几乎是退休人员的完美投资。它们由美国政府发行，其优惠券不会违约。与此同时，他们的优惠券有效地调整以反映消费价格的变化。</blockquote> The problem today is that TIPS—like almost everything else in the bond market—look incredibly expensive. Most TIPS already lock in an actual loss of purchasing power if you buy them today. For example if you buy 5 year TIPS bonds and hold them for 5 years you’ll end up losing 9% of your purchasing power. And 30-year TIPS bonds offer the same 9% loss, though stretched out over 30 years.<blockquote>今天的问题是，TIPS——就像债券市场上的几乎所有东西一样——看起来非常昂贵。如果你今天购买，大多数建议已经锁定了购买力的实际损失。例如，如果你购买5年期TIPS债券并持有5年，你最终会损失9%的购买力。30年期TIPS债券的损失同样为9%，尽管期限延长了30年。</blockquote> It’s not very compelling. And it shows the risks that the government’s policy responses have created for those in retirement and near it.<blockquote>这不是很引人注目。它还显示了政府的政策应对给退休和接近退休年龄的人带来的风险。</blockquote>","source":"market_watch","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Worried about inflation? Here’s how investments did in the 1970s<blockquote>担心通货膨胀？以下是20世纪70年代的投资表现</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWorried about inflation? Here’s how investments did in the 1970s<blockquote>担心通货膨胀？以下是20世纪70年代的投资表现</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nMarketwatch2021-07-20 11:29\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\nIn the 1990s movie The Shipping News, an old newspaperman explains to Kevin Spacey how to cover the news. If there is a storm visible anywhere, he explains, you write “Storm threatens the town,” even if the storm is nowhere near and is unlikely to hit. If—as expected—the storm never hits, you just write the follow up: “Town spared by storm.”<blockquote>在20世纪90年代的电影《航运新闻》中，一位老记者向凯文·史派西解释如何报道新闻。他解释说，如果任何地方都有可见的风暴，你就会写“风暴威胁着城镇”，即使风暴不在附近，也不太可能来袭。如果——正如预期的那样——风暴从未袭击，你只需写下后续内容：“城镇幸免于风暴。”</blockquote> Readers may be excused for thinking something similar about the latest stories about looming, threatening, surging, terrifying inflation. Yes, the inflation forecasts were surging months ago, and hit 8-year highs. Had they continued there would be grounds to worry. But they haven’t continued. On the contrary, they’ve been falling for two months. The bond market’s 5-year inflation forecast is now lower than it was in mid-March. The market sees five-year inflation running at around 2.6%. That’s higher than we’ve been used to for a decade, but it’s nothing to cause any significant alarm.<blockquote>读者可能会对最近关于迫在眉睫、威胁、飙升、可怕的通货膨胀的故事有类似的想法。是的，几个月前通胀预测飙升，并创下8年来的新高。如果他们继续下去，就有理由担心。但他们没有继续。相反，他们已经下跌了两个月。债券市场的5年通胀预期现在低于3月中旬。市场预计五年通胀率约为2.6%。这比我们十年来所习惯的要高，但这并没有引起任何重大恐慌。</blockquote> That can change, of course. Maybe it will. We’ll see.<blockquote>当然，这种情况可能会改变。也许会。我们走着瞧。</blockquote> But with all this talk I got to thinking about the obvious question. If serious inflation really does hit, what can we do about it? How can we protect our investments?<blockquote>但是通过这些谈话，我开始思考一个显而易见的问题。如果严重的通货膨胀真的来袭，我们能做些什么呢？我们如何保护我们的投资？</blockquote> That’s an especially key question for today’s retirees and those expecting to retire soon. When we’re older we’re generally advised to keep most of our money in more “conservative” investments, meaning things like bonds, that involve less risk. Someone in their 20s or 30s may not worry unduly if their retirement savings plunge 30% in a market rout or an inflationary spiral. For someone in their 60s, let alone older, that can become a major financial crisis.<blockquote>对于今天的退休人员和那些预计很快退休的人来说，这是一个特别关键的问题。当我们长大后，通常建议我们将大部分资金投资于更“保守”的投资，即债券等风险较小的投资。如果20多岁或30多岁的人的退休储蓄在市场暴跌或通胀螺旋中暴跌30%，他们可能不会过度担心。对于60多岁的人来说，更不用说老年人了，这可能会成为一场重大的财务危机。</blockquote> So I went back and dug up the information from the last, infamous inflationary spiral in the 1970s, when consumer price inflation often topped 10% a year. The Greek philosopher Heraclitus pointed out that no one ever walks through the same stream twice, because the second time it’s not the same stream, and we’re not the same person. Everything changes. There is no guarantee the next inflationary boom, even if it happens, will look anything like the last one — any more than we should assume that it will be accompanied by outbreaks of disco music and flared jeans.<blockquote>因此，我回去挖掘了20世纪70年代上一次臭名昭著的通胀螺旋的信息，当时消费者价格通胀经常超过每年10%。希腊哲学家赫拉克利特指出，没有人会两次走过同一条小溪，因为第二次就不是同一条小溪了，我们也不是同一个人了。一切都变了。不能保证下一次通胀繁荣，即使发生了，看起来也会像上一次一样——就像我们不应该假设它会伴随着迪斯科音乐和喇叭牛仔裤的爆发一样。</blockquote> Nonetheless the chart above shows the total returns, after adjusting for inflation, of various asset classes from December 1971 to December 1981. (I used those dates because the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, or NAREIT, starts their data series then.) The data on energy stocks came from data compiled by professor Ken French at Dartmouth College’s Tuck School of Business.<blockquote>尽管如此，上图显示了1971年12月至1981年12月各种资产类别经通胀调整后的总回报。（我使用这些日期是因为全国房地产投资信托协会（NAREIT）在那时开始他们的数据系列。）能源股的数据来自达特茅斯学院塔克商学院肯·弗伦奇教授汇编的数据。</blockquote> This is what happened to your purchasing power if you invested in these assets and hung on for 10 years. (I’ve excluded gold, which is a different story.)<blockquote>如果你投资这些资产并坚持10年，你的购买力就会发生这种情况。（我已经排除了黄金，这是一个不同的故事。）</blockquote> The key standout is that you really didn’t want to own Treasury bonds. The near 40% loss of purchasing power over 10 years is somewhat notional—it is derived from the compound annual returns on 10 Year Treasurys compiled by New York University’s Stern School of Business, divided by the consumer-price index—but tells a story nonetheless. (In Great Britain, where inflation was even worse, government bonds during the 1970s became known as “certificates of confiscation.” Ouch.)<blockquote>关键的突出之处在于，你真的不想拥有国债。10年内购买力损失近40%在某种程度上是名义上的——它来自纽约大学斯特恩商学院编制的10年期美国国债的复合年回报率除以消费者价格指数——但仍然讲述了一个故事。（在通货膨胀更严重的英国，20世纪70年代的政府债券被称为“没收证书”。哎哟。）</blockquote> Holding them cost you money. Lots of it.<blockquote>拿着它们要花钱。很多。</blockquote> You could argue that the danger today is even greater, simply because the yields on long-term Treasury bonds are so low. Federal Reserve quantitative easing, bond buying, and zero interest-rate policies have left Treasury yields at their lowest on record—which means the turns would be a disaster if inflation reared its head.<blockquote>你可能会说，今天的危险甚至更大，仅仅是因为长期国债的收益率如此之低。美联储的量化宽松、债券购买和零利率政策使美国国债收益率处于有记录以来的最低水平——这意味着如果通胀抬头，这将是一场灾难。</blockquote> Corporate bonds and the S&amp;P 500&nbsp;were also terrible investments. It’s worth remembering that these are real term losses over a decade, which means investors didn’t just lose a lot of money—they also lost a lot of time.<blockquote>公司债券和标普500也是糟糕的投资。值得记住的是，这些是十年来的实际定期损失，这意味着投资者不仅损失了很多钱，还损失了很多时间。</blockquote> Utility stocks weren’t great, but they held up better. And Treasury bills—short-term paper—did better still. But once again you were going backward when you needed to be going forwards.<blockquote>公用事业股表现不佳，但表现较好。短期票据——国库券——表现更好。但是当你需要前进的时候，你又一次倒退了。</blockquote> No one who remembers the 1970s will be surprised that energy companies boomed. Less well-remembered, maybe, is that REITs also did pretty well. These numbers, incidentally, represented property-owning REITs and excluded mortgage REITs, which own loans.<blockquote>任何记得20世纪70年代的人都不会对能源公司的蓬勃发展感到惊讶。也许不太为人所知的是，房地产投资信托基金的表现也相当不错。顺便说一句，这些数字代表拥有财产的房地产投资信托基金，不包括拥有贷款的抵押房地产投资信托基金。</blockquote> But there are two caveats to this. The first is that of course energy stocks did well, because a key driver of inflation in the 1970s was the rise of OPEC and two oil embargoes it imposed on the West for political reasons. Cue Heraclitus. There is no particular reason to assume that the next inflationary surge will be the same.<blockquote>但对此有两个警告。首先，能源股当然表现良好，因为20世纪70年代通胀的一个关键驱动因素是欧佩克的崛起及其出于政治原因对西方实施的两次石油禁运。提示赫拉克利特。没有特别的理由假设下一次通胀飙升会是一样的。</blockquote> The second caveat is that although REITs ended up doing well, they were volatile along the way. In particular, REIT prices collapsed in the OPEC-driven recession of 1972-4. And according to FactSet, U.S. REITs today already look pretty expensive on some measures. For instance it reckons that the forecast dividend yield on the Vanguard Real Estate ETF (a reasonable benchmark for the industry) is just 2.9% — by far the lowest since it was launched in 2004. Looking through NAREIT data, I can’t find a moment since 1971 when the overall yield on REITs was this low. During the real estate bubble in 2007, incidentally, the yield bottomed out no lower than 3.6%<blockquote>第二个警告是，尽管房地产投资信托基金最终表现良好，但一路上波动较大。特别是，房地产投资信托基金价格在1972-1974年欧佩克引发的经济衰退中暴跌。根据FactSet的数据，从某些指标来看，如今的美国房地产投资信托基金看起来已经相当昂贵。例如，它估计Vanguard Real Estate ETF（该行业的合理基准）的预测股息收益率仅为2.9%，是自2004年推出以来的最低水平。翻阅NAREIT数据，自1971年以来，我找不到REITs整体收益率如此之低的时刻。2007年房地产泡沫期间，顺带一提，收益率见底不低于3.6%</blockquote> So it may be that REITs offer less inflation protection today than we would hope.<blockquote>因此，如今房地产投资信托基金提供的通胀保护可能比我们希望的要少。</blockquote> One key difference in the 1970s is that there were no “inflation-protected” Treasury bonds to keep investors protected. So-called TIPS are in theory almost the perfect investment for retirees. They are issued by the U.S. government and their coupons are safe against default. Meanwhile their coupons effectively adjust to reflect changes in consumer prices.<blockquote>20世纪70年代的一个关键区别是，没有“通胀保值”国债来保护投资者。理论上，所谓的小费几乎是退休人员的完美投资。它们由美国政府发行，其优惠券不会违约。与此同时，他们的优惠券有效地调整以反映消费价格的变化。</blockquote> The problem today is that TIPS—like almost everything else in the bond market—look incredibly expensive. Most TIPS already lock in an actual loss of purchasing power if you buy them today. For example if you buy 5 year TIPS bonds and hold them for 5 years you’ll end up losing 9% of your purchasing power. And 30-year TIPS bonds offer the same 9% loss, though stretched out over 30 years.<blockquote>今天的问题是，TIPS——就像债券市场上的几乎所有东西一样——看起来非常昂贵。如果你今天购买，大多数建议已经锁定了购买力的实际损失。例如，如果你购买5年期TIPS债券并持有5年，你最终会损失9%的购买力。30年期TIPS债券的损失同样为9%，尽管期限延长了30年。</blockquote> It’s not very compelling. And it shows the risks that the government’s policy responses have created for those in retirement and near it.<blockquote>这不是很引人注目。它还显示了政府的政策应对给退休和接近退休年龄的人带来的风险。</blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/worried-about-inflation-heres-how-investments-did-in-the-1970s-11626658251?siteid=yhoof2\">Marketwatch</a>\n为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".SPX":"S&P 500 Index","XOM":"埃克森美孚"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/worried-about-inflation-heres-how-investments-did-in-the-1970s-11626658251?siteid=yhoof2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/599a65733b8245fcf7868668ef9ad712","article_id":"1129846769","content_text":"In the 1990s movie The Shipping News, an old newspaperman explains to Kevin Spacey how to cover the news. If there is a storm visible anywhere, he explains, you write “Storm threatens the town,” even if the storm is nowhere near and is unlikely to hit. If—as expected—the storm never hits, you just write the follow up: “Town spared by storm.”\nReaders may be excused for thinking something similar about the latest stories about looming, threatening, surging, terrifying inflation. Yes, the inflation forecasts were surging months ago, and hit 8-year highs. Had they continued there would be grounds to worry. But they haven’t continued. On the contrary, they’ve been falling for two months. The bond market’s 5-year inflation forecast is now lower than it was in mid-March. The market sees five-year inflation running at around 2.6%. That’s higher than we’ve been used to for a decade, but it’s nothing to cause any significant alarm.\nThat can change, of course. Maybe it will. We’ll see.\nBut with all this talk I got to thinking about the obvious question. If serious inflation really does hit, what can we do about it? How can we protect our investments?\nThat’s an especially key question for today’s retirees and those expecting to retire soon. When we’re older we’re generally advised to keep most of our money in more “conservative” investments, meaning things like bonds, that involve less risk. Someone in their 20s or 30s may not worry unduly if their retirement savings plunge 30% in a market rout or an inflationary spiral. For someone in their 60s, let alone older, that can become a major financial crisis.\nSo I went back and dug up the information from the last, infamous inflationary spiral in the 1970s, when consumer price inflation often topped 10% a year. The Greek philosopher Heraclitus pointed out that no one ever walks through the same stream twice, because the second time it’s not the same stream, and we’re not the same person. Everything changes. There is no guarantee the next inflationary boom, even if it happens, will look anything like the last one — any more than we should assume that it will be accompanied by outbreaks of disco music and flared jeans.\nNonetheless the chart above shows the total returns, after adjusting for inflation, of various asset classes from December 1971 to December 1981. (I used those dates because the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, or NAREIT, starts their data series then.) The data on energy stocks came from data compiled by professor Ken French at Dartmouth College’s Tuck School of Business.\nThis is what happened to your purchasing power if you invested in these assets and hung on for 10 years. (I’ve excluded gold, which is a different story.)\nThe key standout is that you really didn’t want to own Treasury bonds. The near 40% loss of purchasing power over 10 years is somewhat notional—it is derived from the compound annual returns on 10 Year Treasurys compiled by New York University’s Stern School of Business, divided by the consumer-price index—but tells a story nonetheless. (In Great Britain, where inflation was even worse, government bonds during the 1970s became known as “certificates of confiscation.” Ouch.)\nHolding them cost you money. Lots of it.\nYou could argue that the danger today is even greater, simply because the yields on long-term Treasury bonds are so low. Federal Reserve quantitative easing, bond buying, and zero interest-rate policies have left Treasury yields at their lowest on record—which means the turns would be a disaster if inflation reared its head.\nCorporate bonds and the S&P 500 were also terrible investments. It’s worth remembering that these are real term losses over a decade, which means investors didn’t just lose a lot of money—they also lost a lot of time.\nUtility stocks weren’t great, but they held up better. And Treasury bills—short-term paper—did better still. But once again you were going backward when you needed to be going forwards.\nNo one who remembers the 1970s will be surprised that energy companies boomed. Less well-remembered, maybe, is that REITs also did pretty well. These numbers, incidentally, represented property-owning REITs and excluded mortgage REITs, which own loans.\nBut there are two caveats to this. The first is that of course energy stocks did well, because a key driver of inflation in the 1970s was the rise of OPEC and two oil embargoes it imposed on the West for political reasons. Cue Heraclitus. There is no particular reason to assume that the next inflationary surge will be the same.\nThe second caveat is that although REITs ended up doing well, they were volatile along the way. In particular, REIT prices collapsed in the OPEC-driven recession of 1972-4. And according to FactSet, U.S. REITs today already look pretty expensive on some measures. For instance it reckons that the forecast dividend yield on the Vanguard Real Estate ETF (a reasonable benchmark for the industry) is just 2.9% — by far the lowest since it was launched in 2004. Looking through NAREIT data, I can’t find a moment since 1971 when the overall yield on REITs was this low. During the real estate bubble in 2007, incidentally, the yield bottomed out no lower than 3.6%\nSo it may be that REITs offer less inflation protection today than we would hope.\nOne key difference in the 1970s is that there were no “inflation-protected” Treasury bonds to keep investors protected. So-called TIPS are in theory almost the perfect investment for retirees. They are issued by the U.S. government and their coupons are safe against default. Meanwhile their coupons effectively adjust to reflect changes in consumer prices.\nThe problem today is that TIPS—like almost everything else in the bond market—look incredibly expensive. Most TIPS already lock in an actual loss of purchasing power if you buy them today. For example if you buy 5 year TIPS bonds and hold them for 5 years you’ll end up losing 9% of your purchasing power. And 30-year TIPS bonds offer the same 9% loss, though stretched out over 30 years.\nIt’s not very compelling. And it shows the risks that the government’s policy responses have created for those in retirement and near it.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{".SPX":0.9,"XOM":0.9}},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":5269406,"gmtCreate":1626753897465,"gmtModify":1635225533497,"authorId":3572945845916163,"author":{"id":3572945845916163,"idStr":"3572945845916163","authorId":3572945845916163,"name":"NareshwG","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0d6dc06165c1a0cc4f1a8169ea48573d","vip":1,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":171547209,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"Agreed.","text":"Agreed.","html":"Agreed."}],"langContent":"EN"},{"id":171554572,"gmtCreate":1626752342796,"gmtModify":1633771360433,"author":{"id":"3557634928383187","authorId":"3557634928383187","name":"Kristo","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/07075676425d47f31685477722d0d415","vip":1,"crmLevel":12,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3557634928383187","authorIdStr":"3557634928383187"},"htmlText":"I see","listText":"I see","text":"I see","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":4,"commentSize":4,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/171554572","repostId":1129846769,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1129846769","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1626751789,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1129846769?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-07-20 11:29","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Worried about inflation? Here’s how investments did in the 1970s<blockquote>担心通货膨胀？以下是20世纪70年代的投资表现</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1129846769","media":"Marketwatch","summary":"In the 1990s movie The Shipping News, an old newspaperman explains to Kevin Spacey how to cover the ","content":"In the 1990s movie The Shipping News, an old newspaperman explains to Kevin Spacey how to cover the news. If there is a storm visible anywhere, he explains, you write “Storm threatens the town,” even if the storm is nowhere near and is unlikely to hit. If—as expected—the storm never hits, you just write the follow up: “Town spared by storm.”<blockquote>在20世纪90年代的电影《航运新闻》中，一位老记者向凯文·史派西解释如何报道新闻。他解释说，如果任何地方都有可见的风暴，你就会写“风暴威胁着城镇”，即使风暴不在附近，也不太可能来袭。如果——正如预期的那样——风暴从未袭击，你只需写下后续内容：“城镇幸免于风暴。”</blockquote> Readers may be excused for thinking something similar about the latest stories about looming, threatening, surging, terrifying inflation. Yes, the inflation forecasts were surging months ago, and hit 8-year highs. Had they continued there would be grounds to worry. But they haven’t continued. On the contrary, they’ve been falling for two months. The bond market’s 5-year inflation forecast is now lower than it was in mid-March. The market sees five-year inflation running at around 2.6%. That’s higher than we’ve been used to for a decade, but it’s nothing to cause any significant alarm.<blockquote>读者可能会对最近关于迫在眉睫、威胁、飙升、可怕的通货膨胀的故事有类似的想法。是的，几个月前通胀预测飙升，并创下8年来的新高。如果他们继续下去，就有理由担心。但他们没有继续。相反，他们已经下跌了两个月。债券市场的5年通胀预期现在低于3月中旬。市场预计五年通胀率约为2.6%。这比我们十年来所习惯的要高，但这并没有引起任何重大恐慌。</blockquote> That can change, of course. Maybe it will. We’ll see.<blockquote>当然，这种情况可能会改变。也许会。我们走着瞧。</blockquote> But with all this talk I got to thinking about the obvious question. If serious inflation really does hit, what can we do about it? How can we protect our investments?<blockquote>但是通过这些谈话，我开始思考一个显而易见的问题。如果严重的通货膨胀真的来袭，我们能做些什么呢？我们如何保护我们的投资？</blockquote> That’s an especially key question for today’s retirees and those expecting to retire soon. When we’re older we’re generally advised to keep most of our money in more “conservative” investments, meaning things like bonds, that involve less risk. Someone in their 20s or 30s may not worry unduly if their retirement savings plunge 30% in a market rout or an inflationary spiral. For someone in their 60s, let alone older, that can become a major financial crisis.<blockquote>对于今天的退休人员和那些预计很快退休的人来说，这是一个特别关键的问题。当我们长大后，通常建议我们将大部分资金投资于更“保守”的投资，即债券等风险较小的投资。如果20多岁或30多岁的人的退休储蓄在市场暴跌或通胀螺旋中暴跌30%，他们可能不会过度担心。对于60多岁的人来说，更不用说老年人了，这可能会成为一场重大的财务危机。</blockquote> So I went back and dug up the information from the last, infamous inflationary spiral in the 1970s, when consumer price inflation often topped 10% a year. The Greek philosopher Heraclitus pointed out that no one ever walks through the same stream twice, because the second time it’s not the same stream, and we’re not the same person. Everything changes. There is no guarantee the next inflationary boom, even if it happens, will look anything like the last one — any more than we should assume that it will be accompanied by outbreaks of disco music and flared jeans.<blockquote>因此，我回去挖掘了20世纪70年代上一次臭名昭著的通胀螺旋的信息，当时消费者价格通胀经常超过每年10%。希腊哲学家赫拉克利特指出，没有人会两次走过同一条小溪，因为第二次就不是同一条小溪了，我们也不是同一个人了。一切都变了。不能保证下一次通胀繁荣，即使发生了，看起来也会像上一次一样——就像我们不应该假设它会伴随着迪斯科音乐和喇叭牛仔裤的爆发一样。</blockquote> Nonetheless the chart above shows the total returns, after adjusting for inflation, of various asset classes from December 1971 to December 1981. (I used those dates because the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, or NAREIT, starts their data series then.) The data on energy stocks came from data compiled by professor Ken French at Dartmouth College’s Tuck School of Business.<blockquote>尽管如此，上图显示了1971年12月至1981年12月各种资产类别经通胀调整后的总回报。（我使用这些日期是因为全国房地产投资信托协会（NAREIT）在那时开始他们的数据系列。）能源股的数据来自达特茅斯学院塔克商学院肯·弗伦奇教授汇编的数据。</blockquote> This is what happened to your purchasing power if you invested in these assets and hung on for 10 years. (I’ve excluded gold, which is a different story.)<blockquote>如果你投资这些资产并坚持10年，你的购买力就会发生这种情况。（我已经排除了黄金，这是一个不同的故事。）</blockquote> The key standout is that you really didn’t want to own Treasury bonds. The near 40% loss of purchasing power over 10 years is somewhat notional—it is derived from the compound annual returns on 10 Year Treasurys compiled by New York University’s Stern School of Business, divided by the consumer-price index—but tells a story nonetheless. (In Great Britain, where inflation was even worse, government bonds during the 1970s became known as “certificates of confiscation.” Ouch.)<blockquote>关键的突出之处在于，你真的不想拥有国债。10年内购买力损失近40%在某种程度上是名义上的——它来自纽约大学斯特恩商学院编制的10年期美国国债的复合年回报率除以消费者价格指数——但仍然讲述了一个故事。（在通货膨胀更严重的英国，20世纪70年代的政府债券被称为“没收证书”。哎哟。）</blockquote> Holding them cost you money. Lots of it.<blockquote>拿着它们要花钱。很多。</blockquote> You could argue that the danger today is even greater, simply because the yields on long-term Treasury bonds are so low. Federal Reserve quantitative easing, bond buying, and zero interest-rate policies have left Treasury yields at their lowest on record—which means the turns would be a disaster if inflation reared its head.<blockquote>你可能会说，今天的危险甚至更大，仅仅是因为长期国债的收益率如此之低。美联储的量化宽松、债券购买和零利率政策使美国国债收益率处于有记录以来的最低水平——这意味着如果通胀抬头，这将是一场灾难。</blockquote> Corporate bonds and the S&amp;P 500&nbsp;were also terrible investments. It’s worth remembering that these are real term losses over a decade, which means investors didn’t just lose a lot of money—they also lost a lot of time.<blockquote>公司债券和标普500也是糟糕的投资。值得记住的是，这些是十年来的实际定期损失，这意味着投资者不仅损失了很多钱，还损失了很多时间。</blockquote> Utility stocks weren’t great, but they held up better. And Treasury bills—short-term paper—did better still. But once again you were going backward when you needed to be going forwards.<blockquote>公用事业股表现不佳，但表现较好。短期票据——国库券——表现更好。但是当你需要前进的时候，你又一次倒退了。</blockquote> No one who remembers the 1970s will be surprised that energy companies boomed. Less well-remembered, maybe, is that REITs also did pretty well. These numbers, incidentally, represented property-owning REITs and excluded mortgage REITs, which own loans.<blockquote>任何记得20世纪70年代的人都不会对能源公司的蓬勃发展感到惊讶。也许不太为人所知的是，房地产投资信托基金的表现也相当不错。顺便说一句，这些数字代表拥有财产的房地产投资信托基金，不包括拥有贷款的抵押房地产投资信托基金。</blockquote> But there are two caveats to this. The first is that of course energy stocks did well, because a key driver of inflation in the 1970s was the rise of OPEC and two oil embargoes it imposed on the West for political reasons. Cue Heraclitus. There is no particular reason to assume that the next inflationary surge will be the same.<blockquote>但对此有两个警告。首先，能源股当然表现良好，因为20世纪70年代通胀的一个关键驱动因素是欧佩克的崛起及其出于政治原因对西方实施的两次石油禁运。提示赫拉克利特。没有特别的理由假设下一次通胀飙升会是一样的。</blockquote> The second caveat is that although REITs ended up doing well, they were volatile along the way. In particular, REIT prices collapsed in the OPEC-driven recession of 1972-4. And according to FactSet, U.S. REITs today already look pretty expensive on some measures. For instance it reckons that the forecast dividend yield on the Vanguard Real Estate ETF (a reasonable benchmark for the industry) is just 2.9% — by far the lowest since it was launched in 2004. Looking through NAREIT data, I can’t find a moment since 1971 when the overall yield on REITs was this low. During the real estate bubble in 2007, incidentally, the yield bottomed out no lower than 3.6%<blockquote>第二个警告是，尽管房地产投资信托基金最终表现良好，但一路上波动较大。特别是，房地产投资信托基金价格在1972-1974年欧佩克引发的经济衰退中暴跌。根据FactSet的数据，从某些指标来看，如今的美国房地产投资信托基金看起来已经相当昂贵。例如，它估计Vanguard Real Estate ETF（该行业的合理基准）的预测股息收益率仅为2.9%，是自2004年推出以来的最低水平。翻阅NAREIT数据，自1971年以来，我找不到REITs整体收益率如此之低的时刻。2007年房地产泡沫期间，顺带一提，收益率见底不低于3.6%</blockquote> So it may be that REITs offer less inflation protection today than we would hope.<blockquote>因此，如今房地产投资信托基金提供的通胀保护可能比我们希望的要少。</blockquote> One key difference in the 1970s is that there were no “inflation-protected” Treasury bonds to keep investors protected. So-called TIPS are in theory almost the perfect investment for retirees. They are issued by the U.S. government and their coupons are safe against default. Meanwhile their coupons effectively adjust to reflect changes in consumer prices.<blockquote>20世纪70年代的一个关键区别是，没有“通胀保值”国债来保护投资者。理论上，所谓的小费几乎是退休人员的完美投资。它们由美国政府发行，其优惠券不会违约。与此同时，他们的优惠券有效地调整以反映消费价格的变化。</blockquote> The problem today is that TIPS—like almost everything else in the bond market—look incredibly expensive. Most TIPS already lock in an actual loss of purchasing power if you buy them today. For example if you buy 5 year TIPS bonds and hold them for 5 years you’ll end up losing 9% of your purchasing power. And 30-year TIPS bonds offer the same 9% loss, though stretched out over 30 years.<blockquote>今天的问题是，TIPS——就像债券市场上的几乎所有东西一样——看起来非常昂贵。如果你今天购买，大多数建议已经锁定了购买力的实际损失。例如，如果你购买5年期TIPS债券并持有5年，你最终会损失9%的购买力。30年期TIPS债券的损失同样为9%，尽管期限延长了30年。</blockquote> It’s not very compelling. And it shows the risks that the government’s policy responses have created for those in retirement and near it.<blockquote>这不是很引人注目。它还显示了政府的政策应对给退休和接近退休年龄的人带来的风险。</blockquote>","source":"market_watch","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Worried about inflation? Here’s how investments did in the 1970s<blockquote>担心通货膨胀？以下是20世纪70年代的投资表现</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWorried about inflation? Here’s how investments did in the 1970s<blockquote>担心通货膨胀？以下是20世纪70年代的投资表现</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nMarketwatch2021-07-20 11:29\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\nIn the 1990s movie The Shipping News, an old newspaperman explains to Kevin Spacey how to cover the news. If there is a storm visible anywhere, he explains, you write “Storm threatens the town,” even if the storm is nowhere near and is unlikely to hit. If—as expected—the storm never hits, you just write the follow up: “Town spared by storm.”<blockquote>在20世纪90年代的电影《航运新闻》中，一位老记者向凯文·史派西解释如何报道新闻。他解释说，如果任何地方都有可见的风暴，你就会写“风暴威胁着城镇”，即使风暴不在附近，也不太可能来袭。如果——正如预期的那样——风暴从未袭击，你只需写下后续内容：“城镇幸免于风暴。”</blockquote> Readers may be excused for thinking something similar about the latest stories about looming, threatening, surging, terrifying inflation. Yes, the inflation forecasts were surging months ago, and hit 8-year highs. Had they continued there would be grounds to worry. But they haven’t continued. On the contrary, they’ve been falling for two months. The bond market’s 5-year inflation forecast is now lower than it was in mid-March. The market sees five-year inflation running at around 2.6%. That’s higher than we’ve been used to for a decade, but it’s nothing to cause any significant alarm.<blockquote>读者可能会对最近关于迫在眉睫、威胁、飙升、可怕的通货膨胀的故事有类似的想法。是的，几个月前通胀预测飙升，并创下8年来的新高。如果他们继续下去，就有理由担心。但他们没有继续。相反，他们已经下跌了两个月。债券市场的5年通胀预期现在低于3月中旬。市场预计五年通胀率约为2.6%。这比我们十年来所习惯的要高，但这并没有引起任何重大恐慌。</blockquote> That can change, of course. Maybe it will. We’ll see.<blockquote>当然，这种情况可能会改变。也许会。我们走着瞧。</blockquote> But with all this talk I got to thinking about the obvious question. If serious inflation really does hit, what can we do about it? How can we protect our investments?<blockquote>但是通过这些谈话，我开始思考一个显而易见的问题。如果严重的通货膨胀真的来袭，我们能做些什么呢？我们如何保护我们的投资？</blockquote> That’s an especially key question for today’s retirees and those expecting to retire soon. When we’re older we’re generally advised to keep most of our money in more “conservative” investments, meaning things like bonds, that involve less risk. Someone in their 20s or 30s may not worry unduly if their retirement savings plunge 30% in a market rout or an inflationary spiral. For someone in their 60s, let alone older, that can become a major financial crisis.<blockquote>对于今天的退休人员和那些预计很快退休的人来说，这是一个特别关键的问题。当我们长大后，通常建议我们将大部分资金投资于更“保守”的投资，即债券等风险较小的投资。如果20多岁或30多岁的人的退休储蓄在市场暴跌或通胀螺旋中暴跌30%，他们可能不会过度担心。对于60多岁的人来说，更不用说老年人了，这可能会成为一场重大的财务危机。</blockquote> So I went back and dug up the information from the last, infamous inflationary spiral in the 1970s, when consumer price inflation often topped 10% a year. The Greek philosopher Heraclitus pointed out that no one ever walks through the same stream twice, because the second time it’s not the same stream, and we’re not the same person. Everything changes. There is no guarantee the next inflationary boom, even if it happens, will look anything like the last one — any more than we should assume that it will be accompanied by outbreaks of disco music and flared jeans.<blockquote>因此，我回去挖掘了20世纪70年代上一次臭名昭著的通胀螺旋的信息，当时消费者价格通胀经常超过每年10%。希腊哲学家赫拉克利特指出，没有人会两次走过同一条小溪，因为第二次就不是同一条小溪了，我们也不是同一个人了。一切都变了。不能保证下一次通胀繁荣，即使发生了，看起来也会像上一次一样——就像我们不应该假设它会伴随着迪斯科音乐和喇叭牛仔裤的爆发一样。</blockquote> Nonetheless the chart above shows the total returns, after adjusting for inflation, of various asset classes from December 1971 to December 1981. (I used those dates because the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, or NAREIT, starts their data series then.) The data on energy stocks came from data compiled by professor Ken French at Dartmouth College’s Tuck School of Business.<blockquote>尽管如此，上图显示了1971年12月至1981年12月各种资产类别经通胀调整后的总回报。（我使用这些日期是因为全国房地产投资信托协会（NAREIT）在那时开始他们的数据系列。）能源股的数据来自达特茅斯学院塔克商学院肯·弗伦奇教授汇编的数据。</blockquote> This is what happened to your purchasing power if you invested in these assets and hung on for 10 years. (I’ve excluded gold, which is a different story.)<blockquote>如果你投资这些资产并坚持10年，你的购买力就会发生这种情况。（我已经排除了黄金，这是一个不同的故事。）</blockquote> The key standout is that you really didn’t want to own Treasury bonds. The near 40% loss of purchasing power over 10 years is somewhat notional—it is derived from the compound annual returns on 10 Year Treasurys compiled by New York University’s Stern School of Business, divided by the consumer-price index—but tells a story nonetheless. (In Great Britain, where inflation was even worse, government bonds during the 1970s became known as “certificates of confiscation.” Ouch.)<blockquote>关键的突出之处在于，你真的不想拥有国债。10年内购买力损失近40%在某种程度上是名义上的——它来自纽约大学斯特恩商学院编制的10年期美国国债的复合年回报率除以消费者价格指数——但仍然讲述了一个故事。（在通货膨胀更严重的英国，20世纪70年代的政府债券被称为“没收证书”。哎哟。）</blockquote> Holding them cost you money. Lots of it.<blockquote>拿着它们要花钱。很多。</blockquote> You could argue that the danger today is even greater, simply because the yields on long-term Treasury bonds are so low. Federal Reserve quantitative easing, bond buying, and zero interest-rate policies have left Treasury yields at their lowest on record—which means the turns would be a disaster if inflation reared its head.<blockquote>你可能会说，今天的危险甚至更大，仅仅是因为长期国债的收益率如此之低。美联储的量化宽松、债券购买和零利率政策使美国国债收益率处于有记录以来的最低水平——这意味着如果通胀抬头，这将是一场灾难。</blockquote> Corporate bonds and the S&amp;P 500&nbsp;were also terrible investments. It’s worth remembering that these are real term losses over a decade, which means investors didn’t just lose a lot of money—they also lost a lot of time.<blockquote>公司债券和标普500也是糟糕的投资。值得记住的是，这些是十年来的实际定期损失，这意味着投资者不仅损失了很多钱，还损失了很多时间。</blockquote> Utility stocks weren’t great, but they held up better. And Treasury bills—short-term paper—did better still. But once again you were going backward when you needed to be going forwards.<blockquote>公用事业股表现不佳，但表现较好。短期票据——国库券——表现更好。但是当你需要前进的时候，你又一次倒退了。</blockquote> No one who remembers the 1970s will be surprised that energy companies boomed. Less well-remembered, maybe, is that REITs also did pretty well. These numbers, incidentally, represented property-owning REITs and excluded mortgage REITs, which own loans.<blockquote>任何记得20世纪70年代的人都不会对能源公司的蓬勃发展感到惊讶。也许不太为人所知的是，房地产投资信托基金的表现也相当不错。顺便说一句，这些数字代表拥有财产的房地产投资信托基金，不包括拥有贷款的抵押房地产投资信托基金。</blockquote> But there are two caveats to this. The first is that of course energy stocks did well, because a key driver of inflation in the 1970s was the rise of OPEC and two oil embargoes it imposed on the West for political reasons. Cue Heraclitus. There is no particular reason to assume that the next inflationary surge will be the same.<blockquote>但对此有两个警告。首先，能源股当然表现良好，因为20世纪70年代通胀的一个关键驱动因素是欧佩克的崛起及其出于政治原因对西方实施的两次石油禁运。提示赫拉克利特。没有特别的理由假设下一次通胀飙升会是一样的。</blockquote> The second caveat is that although REITs ended up doing well, they were volatile along the way. In particular, REIT prices collapsed in the OPEC-driven recession of 1972-4. And according to FactSet, U.S. REITs today already look pretty expensive on some measures. For instance it reckons that the forecast dividend yield on the Vanguard Real Estate ETF (a reasonable benchmark for the industry) is just 2.9% — by far the lowest since it was launched in 2004. Looking through NAREIT data, I can’t find a moment since 1971 when the overall yield on REITs was this low. During the real estate bubble in 2007, incidentally, the yield bottomed out no lower than 3.6%<blockquote>第二个警告是，尽管房地产投资信托基金最终表现良好，但一路上波动较大。特别是，房地产投资信托基金价格在1972-1974年欧佩克引发的经济衰退中暴跌。根据FactSet的数据，从某些指标来看，如今的美国房地产投资信托基金看起来已经相当昂贵。例如，它估计Vanguard Real Estate ETF（该行业的合理基准）的预测股息收益率仅为2.9%，是自2004年推出以来的最低水平。翻阅NAREIT数据，自1971年以来，我找不到REITs整体收益率如此之低的时刻。2007年房地产泡沫期间，顺带一提，收益率见底不低于3.6%</blockquote> So it may be that REITs offer less inflation protection today than we would hope.<blockquote>因此，如今房地产投资信托基金提供的通胀保护可能比我们希望的要少。</blockquote> One key difference in the 1970s is that there were no “inflation-protected” Treasury bonds to keep investors protected. So-called TIPS are in theory almost the perfect investment for retirees. They are issued by the U.S. government and their coupons are safe against default. Meanwhile their coupons effectively adjust to reflect changes in consumer prices.<blockquote>20世纪70年代的一个关键区别是，没有“通胀保值”国债来保护投资者。理论上，所谓的小费几乎是退休人员的完美投资。它们由美国政府发行，其优惠券不会违约。与此同时，他们的优惠券有效地调整以反映消费价格的变化。</blockquote> The problem today is that TIPS—like almost everything else in the bond market—look incredibly expensive. Most TIPS already lock in an actual loss of purchasing power if you buy them today. For example if you buy 5 year TIPS bonds and hold them for 5 years you’ll end up losing 9% of your purchasing power. And 30-year TIPS bonds offer the same 9% loss, though stretched out over 30 years.<blockquote>今天的问题是，TIPS——就像债券市场上的几乎所有东西一样——看起来非常昂贵。如果你今天购买，大多数建议已经锁定了购买力的实际损失。例如，如果你购买5年期TIPS债券并持有5年，你最终会损失9%的购买力。30年期TIPS债券的损失同样为9%，尽管期限延长了30年。</blockquote> It’s not very compelling. And it shows the risks that the government’s policy responses have created for those in retirement and near it.<blockquote>这不是很引人注目。它还显示了政府的政策应对给退休和接近退休年龄的人带来的风险。</blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/worried-about-inflation-heres-how-investments-did-in-the-1970s-11626658251?siteid=yhoof2\">Marketwatch</a>\n为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".SPX":"S&P 500 Index","XOM":"埃克森美孚"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/worried-about-inflation-heres-how-investments-did-in-the-1970s-11626658251?siteid=yhoof2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/599a65733b8245fcf7868668ef9ad712","article_id":"1129846769","content_text":"In the 1990s movie The Shipping News, an old newspaperman explains to Kevin Spacey how to cover the news. If there is a storm visible anywhere, he explains, you write “Storm threatens the town,” even if the storm is nowhere near and is unlikely to hit. If—as expected—the storm never hits, you just write the follow up: “Town spared by storm.”\nReaders may be excused for thinking something similar about the latest stories about looming, threatening, surging, terrifying inflation. Yes, the inflation forecasts were surging months ago, and hit 8-year highs. Had they continued there would be grounds to worry. But they haven’t continued. On the contrary, they’ve been falling for two months. The bond market’s 5-year inflation forecast is now lower than it was in mid-March. The market sees five-year inflation running at around 2.6%. That’s higher than we’ve been used to for a decade, but it’s nothing to cause any significant alarm.\nThat can change, of course. Maybe it will. We’ll see.\nBut with all this talk I got to thinking about the obvious question. If serious inflation really does hit, what can we do about it? How can we protect our investments?\nThat’s an especially key question for today’s retirees and those expecting to retire soon. When we’re older we’re generally advised to keep most of our money in more “conservative” investments, meaning things like bonds, that involve less risk. Someone in their 20s or 30s may not worry unduly if their retirement savings plunge 30% in a market rout or an inflationary spiral. For someone in their 60s, let alone older, that can become a major financial crisis.\nSo I went back and dug up the information from the last, infamous inflationary spiral in the 1970s, when consumer price inflation often topped 10% a year. The Greek philosopher Heraclitus pointed out that no one ever walks through the same stream twice, because the second time it’s not the same stream, and we’re not the same person. Everything changes. There is no guarantee the next inflationary boom, even if it happens, will look anything like the last one — any more than we should assume that it will be accompanied by outbreaks of disco music and flared jeans.\nNonetheless the chart above shows the total returns, after adjusting for inflation, of various asset classes from December 1971 to December 1981. (I used those dates because the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, or NAREIT, starts their data series then.) The data on energy stocks came from data compiled by professor Ken French at Dartmouth College’s Tuck School of Business.\nThis is what happened to your purchasing power if you invested in these assets and hung on for 10 years. (I’ve excluded gold, which is a different story.)\nThe key standout is that you really didn’t want to own Treasury bonds. The near 40% loss of purchasing power over 10 years is somewhat notional—it is derived from the compound annual returns on 10 Year Treasurys compiled by New York University’s Stern School of Business, divided by the consumer-price index—but tells a story nonetheless. (In Great Britain, where inflation was even worse, government bonds during the 1970s became known as “certificates of confiscation.” Ouch.)\nHolding them cost you money. Lots of it.\nYou could argue that the danger today is even greater, simply because the yields on long-term Treasury bonds are so low. Federal Reserve quantitative easing, bond buying, and zero interest-rate policies have left Treasury yields at their lowest on record—which means the turns would be a disaster if inflation reared its head.\nCorporate bonds and the S&P 500 were also terrible investments. It’s worth remembering that these are real term losses over a decade, which means investors didn’t just lose a lot of money—they also lost a lot of time.\nUtility stocks weren’t great, but they held up better. And Treasury bills—short-term paper—did better still. But once again you were going backward when you needed to be going forwards.\nNo one who remembers the 1970s will be surprised that energy companies boomed. Less well-remembered, maybe, is that REITs also did pretty well. These numbers, incidentally, represented property-owning REITs and excluded mortgage REITs, which own loans.\nBut there are two caveats to this. The first is that of course energy stocks did well, because a key driver of inflation in the 1970s was the rise of OPEC and two oil embargoes it imposed on the West for political reasons. Cue Heraclitus. There is no particular reason to assume that the next inflationary surge will be the same.\nThe second caveat is that although REITs ended up doing well, they were volatile along the way. In particular, REIT prices collapsed in the OPEC-driven recession of 1972-4. And according to FactSet, U.S. REITs today already look pretty expensive on some measures. For instance it reckons that the forecast dividend yield on the Vanguard Real Estate ETF (a reasonable benchmark for the industry) is just 2.9% — by far the lowest since it was launched in 2004. Looking through NAREIT data, I can’t find a moment since 1971 when the overall yield on REITs was this low. During the real estate bubble in 2007, incidentally, the yield bottomed out no lower than 3.6%\nSo it may be that REITs offer less inflation protection today than we would hope.\nOne key difference in the 1970s is that there were no “inflation-protected” Treasury bonds to keep investors protected. So-called TIPS are in theory almost the perfect investment for retirees. They are issued by the U.S. government and their coupons are safe against default. Meanwhile their coupons effectively adjust to reflect changes in consumer prices.\nThe problem today is that TIPS—like almost everything else in the bond market—look incredibly expensive. Most TIPS already lock in an actual loss of purchasing power if you buy them today. For example if you buy 5 year TIPS bonds and hold them for 5 years you’ll end up losing 9% of your purchasing power. And 30-year TIPS bonds offer the same 9% loss, though stretched out over 30 years.\nIt’s not very compelling. And it shows the risks that the government’s policy responses have created for those in retirement and near it.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{".SPX":0.9,"XOM":0.9}},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":5269195,"gmtCreate":1626752352327,"gmtModify":1635225551811,"authorId":3557634928383187,"author":{"id":3557634928383187,"idStr":"3557634928383187","authorId":3557634928383187,"name":"Kristo","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/07075676425d47f31685477722d0d415","vip":1,"crmLevel":12,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":171554572,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"great","text":"great","html":"great"},{"id":5269201,"gmtCreate":1626752375753,"gmtModify":1635225551266,"authorId":3550144882339071,"author":{"id":3550144882339071,"idStr":"3550144882339071","authorId":3550144882339071,"name":"Nienz","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","vip":1,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":171554572,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"Cool!","text":"Cool!","html":"Cool!"},{"id":5269309,"gmtCreate":1626753204454,"gmtModify":1635225542185,"authorId":3579921751160387,"author":{"id":3579921751160387,"idStr":"3579921751160387","authorId":3579921751160387,"name":"evan888","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/b1c91c6bcedcd239e2764be0d38f277f","vip":1,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":171554572,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"like pls","text":"like pls","html":"like pls"},{"id":5269340,"gmtCreate":1626753494628,"gmtModify":1635225539260,"authorId":3565146699964497,"author":{"id":3565146699964497,"idStr":"3565146699964497","authorId":3565146699964497,"name":"ycwoo","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/637be28a03f575af22b76a60dad1181b","vip":1,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":171554572,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"like","text":"like","html":"like"}],"langContent":"EN"}],"hasMoreComments":true,"newsSizeData":{"likeSize":248,"commentSize":18,"repostSize":0,"favoriteSize":0,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false},"isCrawlerRequest":true}