个人中心 - 老虎社区

Ninz

IP属地：未知

帖子 · 3帖子 · 3
关注 · 0关注 · 0
粉丝 · 0粉丝 · 0

- NinzNinz
  ·2021-06-12
  Good read
  Investor, Trader, Speculator: Which One Are You?<blockquote>投资者、交易者、投机者：你是哪一个？</blockquote>
  Understanding the difference between speculation and investing is essential to avoiding reckless ris
  Investor, Trader, Speculator: Which One Are You?<blockquote>投资者、交易者、投机者：你是哪一个？</blockquote>
  1,740 评论
  1
  分享
  举报
- NinzNinz
  ·2021-06-12
  Good read
  Opinion: Stock investors now have come to a cliff in the road — and options are limited<blockquote>观点：股票投资者现在已经走到了悬崖边——选择有限</blockquote>
  Fundamental things haven’t applied to the U.S. market but that seems about to change. The coronavir
  Opinion: Stock investors now have come to a cliff in the road — and options are limited<blockquote>观点：股票投资者现在已经走到了悬崖边——选择有限</blockquote>
  1,876 评论
  点赞
  分享
  举报
- NinzNinz
  ·2021-06-04
  [Strong]
  非常抱歉，此主贴已删除
  1,836 评论
  点赞
  分享
  举报

热议股票

{"i18n":{"language":"zh_CN"},"isCurrentUser":false,"userPageInfo":{"id":"3585782506562265","uuid":"3585782506562265","gmtCreate":1622688482894,"gmtModify":1622691523869,"name":"Ninz","pinyin":"ninz","introduction":"","introductionEn":null,"signature":"","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","hat":null,"hatId":null,"hatName":null,"vip":1,"status":2,"fanSize":0,"headSize":0,"tweetSize":3,"questionSize":0,"limitLevel":999,"accountStatus":3,"level":{"id":0,"name":"","nameTw":"","represent":"","factor":"","iconColor":"","bgColor":""},"themeCounts":0,"badgeCounts":0,"badges":[],"moderator":false,"superModerator":false,"manageSymbols":null,"badgeLevel":null,"boolIsFan":false,"boolIsHead":false,"favoriteSize":0,"symbols":null,"coverImage":null,"realNameVerified":null,"userBadges":[{"badgeId":"e50ce593bb40487ebfb542ca54f6a561-3","templateUuid":"e50ce593bb40487ebfb542ca54f6a561","name":"偶像虎友","description":"加入老虎社区1500天","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/8b40ae7da5bf081a1c84df14bf9e6367","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f160eceddd7c284a8e1136557615cfad","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/11792805c468334a9b31c39f95a41c6a","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLinkType":null,"redirectLink":null,"redirectLinkValidityFrom":null,"redirectLinkValidityTo":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2026.04.22","exceedPercentage":null,"individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1001,"isScarce":0,"effectConfig":null,"effectEnabled":0,"plateImgUrl":null,"plateColors":null,"validityTo":null,"validityToTimestamp":null,"wearingSort":0}],"userBadgeCount":1,"currentWearingBadge":null,"individualDisplayBadges":null,"crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"location":"未知","starInvestorFollowerNum":0,"starInvestorFlag":false,"starInvestorOrderShareNum":0,"subscribeStarInvestorNum":0,"ror":null,"winRationPercentage":null,"showRor":false,"investmentPhilosophy":null,"starInvestorSubscribeFlag":false},"page":1,"watchlist":null,"tweetList":[{"id":186881070,"gmtCreate":1623484607590,"gmtModify":1634032480641,"author":{"id":"3585782506562265","authorId":"3585782506562265","name":"Ninz","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3585782506562265","authorIdStr":"3585782506562265"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Good read","listText":"Good read","text":"Good read","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/186881070","repostId":"1147474880","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1147474880","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1623470168,"share":"https://www.laohunote.com/m/news/1147474880?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-06-12 11:56","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Investor, Trader, Speculator: Which One Are You?<blockquote>投资者、交易者、投机者：你是哪一个？</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1147474880","media":"The Wall Street Journal","summary":"Understanding the difference between speculation and investing is essential to avoiding reckless ris","content":"<p>  Understanding the difference between speculation and investing is essential to avoiding reckless risk.  I’ve had it.</p><p><blockquote>了解投机和投资之间的区别对于避免鲁莽的风险至关重要。我受够了。</blockquote></p><p> The Wall Street Journal is wrong, and has remained wrong for decades, about one of the most basic distinctions in finance. And I can’t stand it anymore.</p><p><blockquote>《华尔街日报》对金融最基本的区别之一的看法是错误的，而且几十年来一直是错误的。我再也受不了了。</blockquote></p><p> If you buy a stock purely because it’s gone up a lot, without doing any research on it whatsoever, you are not—as the Journal and its editors bizarrely insist on calling you—an “investor.” If you buy a cryptocurrency because, hey, that sounds like fun, you aren’t an investor either.</p><p><blockquote>如果你仅仅因为一只股票上涨了很多，而没有做任何研究就买入它，那么你就不是《华尔街日报》及其编辑们奇怪地坚持称你为 “投资者”。如果你购买加密货币是因为，嘿，这听起来很有趣，那你也不是投资者。</blockquote></p><p> Whenever you buy any financial asset becauseyou have a hunchorjust for kicks, or becausesomebody famous is hyping the heck out of itoreverybody else seems to be buying it too, you aren’t investing.</p><p><blockquote>每当你购买任何金融资产时，因为你有一只雄鸡只是为了好玩，或者因为某个名人大肆宣传，而其他人似乎也在购买，你就不是在投资。</blockquote></p><p> You’re definitely a trader: someone who has just bought an asset. And you may bea speculator: someone who thinks other people will pay more for it than you did.</p><p><blockquote>你绝对是交易者：刚刚购买资产的人。你可能是一个投机者：认为其他人会比你付出更多的人。</blockquote></p><p> Of course,some folkswho buy meme stocks likeGameStopCorp.GME5.88%<i>are</i>investors. They read the companies’ financial statements, study the health of the underlying businesses and learn who else is betting on or against the shares. Likewise, many buyers of digital coins have put in the time and effort to understand how cryptocurrency works and how it could reshape finance.</p><p><blockquote>当然，有些人购买 GameStopCorp.GME5.88% 等模因股票<i>是</i>投资者。他们阅读公司的财务报表，研究基础业务的健康状况，并了解还有谁在押注或押注股票。同样，许多数字硬币的买家也投入了时间和精力来了解加密货币是如何运作的，以及它如何重塑金融。</blockquote></p><p> An investor relies on internal sources of return: earnings, income, growth in the value of assets. A speculator counts on external sources of return: primarilywhether somebody else will pay more, regardless of fundamental value.</p><p><blockquote>投资者依赖于内部回报来源：收益、收入、资产价值增长。投机者依靠外部回报来源：主要是其他人是否愿意支付更多，而不管基本面价值如何。</blockquote></p><p> The word investor comes from the Latin “investire,” to dress in or clothe oneself, surround or envelop. You would never wear clothes without knowing what color they are or what material they’re made of. Likewise, you can’t invest in an asset you know nothing about.</p><p><blockquote>投资者一词源于拉丁语 “investire ”，意为打扮自己、包围或包裹自己。你永远不会在不知道衣服是什么颜色或材质的情况下穿衣服。同样，你也不能投资你一无所知的资产。</blockquote></p><p> Nevertheless, the Journal and its editors have long called almost everybody who buys just about anything an “investor.” On July 12, 1962, the Journal publisheda letter to the editorfrom Benjamin Graham, author of the classic books “Security Analysis” and “The Intelligent Investor.” That June, complained Graham, the Journal had run an article headlined “Many Small Investors Bet on Further Drops, Sell Odd Lots Short.”</p><p><blockquote>尽管如此，《华尔街日报》及其编辑们长期以来一直将几乎所有购买任何东西的人都称为 “投资者”。1962 年 7 月 12 日，《华尔街日报》刊登了经典著作《证券分析》和《聪明的投资者》的作者本杰明-格雷厄姆写给编辑的一封信。格雷厄姆抱怨说，那年 6 月，《华尔街日报》发表了一篇文章，标题是 “许多小投资者押注股价进一步下跌，卖空奇数手 ”。</blockquote></p><p> He wrote: “By what definition of ‘investment’ can one give the name ‘investors’ to small people who make bets on the stock market by selling odd lots short?” (To short an odd lot is to borrow and sell fewer than 100 shares in a wager that a stock will fall—an expensive and risky bet, then and now.)</p><p><blockquote>他写道： “根据'投资'的什么定义，我们能把'投资者'这个名字称为'投资'呢？”（做空奇数手意味着借入并卖出少于 100 股股票，押注股票会下跌——无论在当时还是现在，这都是一个昂贵且有风险的赌注。）</blockquote></p><p> “If these people are investors,” asked Graham, “how should one define ‘speculation’ and ‘speculators’? Isn’t it possible that the currentfailure to distinguishbetweeninvestment and speculationmay do grave harm not only to individuals but to the whole financial community—as it did in the late 1920s?”</p><p><blockquote>“格雷厄姆问道：”如果这些人是投资者，“我们应该如何定义'投机'和'投机者'？难道目前无法区分投资和投机，不仅会对个人造成严重伤害，还会对整个金融界造成严重伤害吗--就像 20 世纪 20 年代末那样？”</blockquote></p><p> Graham wasn’t a snob who thought that the markets should be the exclusive playground of the rich. He wrote “The Intelligent Investor” with the express purpose of helping less-wealthy people participate wisely in the stock market.</p><p><blockquote>格雷厄姆并不是一个势利小人，他认为市场应该是富人的专属游乐场。他写《聪明的投资者》的明确目的是帮助不太富裕的人明智地参与股票市场。</blockquote></p><p> In that book, after which this column is named, Graham said, “Outright speculation is neither illegal, immoral, nor (for most people) fattening to the pocketbook.”</p><p><blockquote>格雷厄姆在那本书中写道：“彻头彻尾的投机既不违法，也不不道德，（对大多数人来说）也不会中饱私囊。”</blockquote></p><p> However, he warned, it creates three dangers: “(1) speculating when you think you are investing; (2) speculating seriously instead of as a pastime, when you lack proper knowledge and skill for it; and (3) risking more money in speculation than you can afford to lose.”</p><p><blockquote>然而，他警告说，这会带来三个危险： “(1) 当你认为自己在投资时进行投机；(2) 当你缺乏适当的知识和技能时，认真地进行投机而不是作为消遣；(3) 在投机中冒的风险超过了你承受的损失”。</blockquote></p><p> Most investors speculate a bit every once in a while. Like a lottery ticket or an occasional visit to the racetrack or casino, a little is harmless fun. A lot isn’t.</p><p><blockquote>大多数投资者每隔一段时间就会投机一点。就像一张彩票或偶尔去赛马场或赌场一样，一点点是无害的乐趣。很多人都不是。</blockquote></p><p> If you think you’re investing when you’re speculating, you’ll attribute even momentary success to skill even thoughluck is the likeliest explanation. That can lead you to take reckless risks.</p><p><blockquote>如果你认为自己在投机时就是在投资，那么即使是短暂的成功，你也会把技巧归因于技巧，尽管运气是最有可能的解释。这会导致你冒鲁莽的风险。</blockquote></p><p> Take speculating too seriously, and it turns intoan obsessionandan addiction. You become incapable of accepting your losses or focusing on the future more than a few minutes ahead. Next thing you know, you’re throwing even more money onto the bonfire.</p><p><blockquote>把投机看得太重，它会变成痴迷和上瘾。你变得无法接受你的损失，也无法在几分钟前专注于未来。接下来你就会知道，你在篝火上投入了更多的钱。</blockquote></p><p> I think calling traders and speculators “investors” shoves many newcomers farther down the slippery slope toward risks they shouldn’t take and losses they can’t afford. I fervently hope the Journal and its editors will finally stop using “investor” as the default term for anyone who makes a trade.</p><p><blockquote>我认为，称交易者和投机者为 “投资者 ”会将许多新来者推向他们不应该承担的风险和他们无法承受的损失。我衷心希望《华尔街日报》及其编辑们最终能停止使用 “投资者 ”作为任何进行交易的人的默认术语。</blockquote></p><p> “ ‘Investor’ has a long history in the English language as a catch-all term denoting people who commit capital with the expectation of a return, no matter how long or short, no matter how many or how few investing columns they read,” WSJ Financial Editor Charles Forelle said in response to my complaints. “Back at least to the mid-19th century, ‘invest’ has even been used to describe a wager on horses—an activity surely no less divorced from fundamental analysis than a purchase of dogecoin.”</p><p><blockquote>“《华尔街日报》财经编辑查尔斯-福雷尔（Charles Forelle）在回应我的投诉时说：”'投资者'在英语中有着悠久的历史，它是一个包罗万象的术语，指的是那些投入资金并期望获得回报的人，无论时间长短，无论他们阅读的投资专栏有多少。“至少可以追溯到 19 世纪中叶，'投资'甚至被用来形容赌马--这种活动与基本面分析的脱节肯定不亚于购买狗狗币”。</blockquote></p><p></p><p> I hear you, Boss, but I still think you’re wrong. There’s no way the Journal would say a recreational gambler is “investing” at the racetrack just because a dictionary says we can.</p><p><blockquote>我听到了，老板，但我还是觉得你错了。《华尔街日报》不可能因为字典上说我们可以，就说一个休闲赌徒在赛马场 “投资 ”。</blockquote></p><p> Calling novice speculators “investors” is one of the most powerful ways marketers fuel excessive trading.</p><p><blockquote>将新手投机者称为 “投资者 ”是营销人员助长过度交易的最有力手段之一。</blockquote></p><p> Ina recent Instagram post, a former porn star who goes by the name Lana Rhoades posed in—well, mostly in—a bikini, as she held up what appears to be Graham’s “The Intelligent Investor.” According to IMDb.com, she starred in such videos as “Tushy” and “Make Me Meow.”</p><p><blockquote>在最近的 Instagram 帖子中，一位名叫拉娜-罗德斯（Lana Rhoades）的前色情明星穿着比基尼摆姿势，举着似乎是格雷厄姆的《聪明的投资者》。据 IMDb.com 报道，她主演了《Tushy》和《Make Me Meow》等视频。</blockquote></p><p> In her post, which was “liked” by nearly 1.8 million people, Ms. Rhoades announced that she will be promoting a cryptocurrency calledPAWGcoin.</p><p><blockquote>罗兹女士在她的帖子中宣布，她将推广一种名为 Pawgcoin 的加密货币，该帖子获得了近 180 万人的 “点赞 ”。</blockquote></p><p> The currency’s website says the coin is meant for “those who pay homage to developed posteriors.” (PAWG, I’ve been reliably informed, stands for Phat Ass White Girl.)</p><p><blockquote>该货币的网站称，这枚硬币是为 “那些向发达的后裔致敬的人”准备的。(据我可靠消息，PAWG 代表肥屁股白人女孩。）</blockquote></p><p> PAWGcoin is up roughly 900% since Ms. Rhoades began promoting it in early June, according to Poocoin.io, a website that tracks such digital currencies.</p><p><blockquote>据追踪此类数字货币的网站 Poocoin.io 称，自 Rhoades 女士 6 月初开始推广 PAWGcoin 以来，PAWGcoin 已上涨约 900%。</blockquote></p><p> Ms. Rhoades, who has tweeted “I also read the WSJ every morning,” couldn’t be reached for comment. PAWGcoin’s website encourages visitors to “invest now.”</p><p><blockquote>罗兹女士在推特上写道 “我每天早上也读《华尔街日报》 ”，但记者未能联系到她置评。PAWGcoin 的网站鼓励访问者 “立即投资”。</blockquote></p><p> In Ms. Rhoades’s Instagram post, she is holding up an open copy of the “The Intelligent Investor,” whose cover is reversed. She appears to be reading it with her eyes closed.</p><p><blockquote>在罗兹女士的 Instagram 帖子中，她举着一本打开的《聪明的投资者》，封面是颠倒的。她似乎是闭着眼睛读的。</blockquote></p><p></p>","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>Investor, Trader, Speculator: Which One Are You?<blockquote>投资者、交易者、投机者：你是哪一个？</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\">\nInvestor, Trader, Speculator: Which One Are You?<blockquote>投资者、交易者、投机者：你是哪一个？</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<p class=\"head\">\n<strong class=\"h-name small\">The Wall Street Journal</strong><span class=\"h-time small\">2021-06-12 11:56</span>\n</p>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p>  Understanding the difference between speculation and investing is essential to avoiding reckless risk.  I’ve had it.</p><p><blockquote>了解投机和投资之间的区别对于避免鲁莽的风险至关重要。我受够了。</blockquote></p><p> The Wall Street Journal is wrong, and has remained wrong for decades, about one of the most basic distinctions in finance. And I can’t stand it anymore.</p><p><blockquote>《华尔街日报》对金融最基本的区别之一的看法是错误的，而且几十年来一直是错误的。我再也受不了了。</blockquote></p><p> If you buy a stock purely because it’s gone up a lot, without doing any research on it whatsoever, you are not—as the Journal and its editors bizarrely insist on calling you—an “investor.” If you buy a cryptocurrency because, hey, that sounds like fun, you aren’t an investor either.</p><p><blockquote>如果你仅仅因为一只股票上涨了很多，而没有做任何研究就买入它，那么你就不是《华尔街日报》及其编辑们奇怪地坚持称你为 “投资者”。如果你购买加密货币是因为，嘿，这听起来很有趣，那你也不是投资者。</blockquote></p><p> Whenever you buy any financial asset becauseyou have a hunchorjust for kicks, or becausesomebody famous is hyping the heck out of itoreverybody else seems to be buying it too, you aren’t investing.</p><p><blockquote>每当你购买任何金融资产时，因为你有一只雄鸡只是为了好玩，或者因为某个名人大肆宣传，而其他人似乎也在购买，你就不是在投资。</blockquote></p><p> You’re definitely a trader: someone who has just bought an asset. And you may bea speculator: someone who thinks other people will pay more for it than you did.</p><p><blockquote>你绝对是交易者：刚刚购买资产的人。你可能是一个投机者：认为其他人会比你付出更多的人。</blockquote></p><p> Of course,some folkswho buy meme stocks likeGameStopCorp.GME5.88%<i>are</i>investors. They read the companies’ financial statements, study the health of the underlying businesses and learn who else is betting on or against the shares. Likewise, many buyers of digital coins have put in the time and effort to understand how cryptocurrency works and how it could reshape finance.</p><p><blockquote>当然，有些人购买 GameStopCorp.GME5.88% 等模因股票<i>是</i>投资者。他们阅读公司的财务报表，研究基础业务的健康状况，并了解还有谁在押注或押注股票。同样，许多数字硬币的买家也投入了时间和精力来了解加密货币是如何运作的，以及它如何重塑金融。</blockquote></p><p> An investor relies on internal sources of return: earnings, income, growth in the value of assets. A speculator counts on external sources of return: primarilywhether somebody else will pay more, regardless of fundamental value.</p><p><blockquote>投资者依赖于内部回报来源：收益、收入、资产价值增长。投机者依靠外部回报来源：主要是其他人是否愿意支付更多，而不管基本面价值如何。</blockquote></p><p> The word investor comes from the Latin “investire,” to dress in or clothe oneself, surround or envelop. You would never wear clothes without knowing what color they are or what material they’re made of. Likewise, you can’t invest in an asset you know nothing about.</p><p><blockquote>投资者一词源于拉丁语 “investire ”，意为打扮自己、包围或包裹自己。你永远不会在不知道衣服是什么颜色或材质的情况下穿衣服。同样，你也不能投资你一无所知的资产。</blockquote></p><p> Nevertheless, the Journal and its editors have long called almost everybody who buys just about anything an “investor.” On July 12, 1962, the Journal publisheda letter to the editorfrom Benjamin Graham, author of the classic books “Security Analysis” and “The Intelligent Investor.” That June, complained Graham, the Journal had run an article headlined “Many Small Investors Bet on Further Drops, Sell Odd Lots Short.”</p><p><blockquote>尽管如此，《华尔街日报》及其编辑们长期以来一直将几乎所有购买任何东西的人都称为 “投资者”。1962 年 7 月 12 日，《华尔街日报》刊登了经典著作《证券分析》和《聪明的投资者》的作者本杰明-格雷厄姆写给编辑的一封信。格雷厄姆抱怨说，那年 6 月，《华尔街日报》发表了一篇文章，标题是 “许多小投资者押注股价进一步下跌，卖空奇数手 ”。</blockquote></p><p> He wrote: “By what definition of ‘investment’ can one give the name ‘investors’ to small people who make bets on the stock market by selling odd lots short?” (To short an odd lot is to borrow and sell fewer than 100 shares in a wager that a stock will fall—an expensive and risky bet, then and now.)</p><p><blockquote>他写道： “根据'投资'的什么定义，我们能把'投资者'这个名字称为'投资'呢？”（做空奇数手意味着借入并卖出少于 100 股股票，押注股票会下跌——无论在当时还是现在，这都是一个昂贵且有风险的赌注。）</blockquote></p><p> “If these people are investors,” asked Graham, “how should one define ‘speculation’ and ‘speculators’? Isn’t it possible that the currentfailure to distinguishbetweeninvestment and speculationmay do grave harm not only to individuals but to the whole financial community—as it did in the late 1920s?”</p><p><blockquote>“格雷厄姆问道：”如果这些人是投资者，“我们应该如何定义'投机'和'投机者'？难道目前无法区分投资和投机，不仅会对个人造成严重伤害，还会对整个金融界造成严重伤害吗--就像 20 世纪 20 年代末那样？”</blockquote></p><p> Graham wasn’t a snob who thought that the markets should be the exclusive playground of the rich. He wrote “The Intelligent Investor” with the express purpose of helping less-wealthy people participate wisely in the stock market.</p><p><blockquote>格雷厄姆并不是一个势利小人，他认为市场应该是富人的专属游乐场。他写《聪明的投资者》的明确目的是帮助不太富裕的人明智地参与股票市场。</blockquote></p><p> In that book, after which this column is named, Graham said, “Outright speculation is neither illegal, immoral, nor (for most people) fattening to the pocketbook.”</p><p><blockquote>格雷厄姆在那本书中写道：“彻头彻尾的投机既不违法，也不不道德，（对大多数人来说）也不会中饱私囊。”</blockquote></p><p> However, he warned, it creates three dangers: “(1) speculating when you think you are investing; (2) speculating seriously instead of as a pastime, when you lack proper knowledge and skill for it; and (3) risking more money in speculation than you can afford to lose.”</p><p><blockquote>然而，他警告说，这会带来三个危险： “(1) 当你认为自己在投资时进行投机；(2) 当你缺乏适当的知识和技能时，认真地进行投机而不是作为消遣；(3) 在投机中冒的风险超过了你承受的损失”。</blockquote></p><p> Most investors speculate a bit every once in a while. Like a lottery ticket or an occasional visit to the racetrack or casino, a little is harmless fun. A lot isn’t.</p><p><blockquote>大多数投资者每隔一段时间就会投机一点。就像一张彩票或偶尔去赛马场或赌场一样，一点点是无害的乐趣。很多人都不是。</blockquote></p><p> If you think you’re investing when you’re speculating, you’ll attribute even momentary success to skill even thoughluck is the likeliest explanation. That can lead you to take reckless risks.</p><p><blockquote>如果你认为自己在投机时就是在投资，那么即使是短暂的成功，你也会把技巧归因于技巧，尽管运气是最有可能的解释。这会导致你冒鲁莽的风险。</blockquote></p><p> Take speculating too seriously, and it turns intoan obsessionandan addiction. You become incapable of accepting your losses or focusing on the future more than a few minutes ahead. Next thing you know, you’re throwing even more money onto the bonfire.</p><p><blockquote>把投机看得太重，它会变成痴迷和上瘾。你变得无法接受你的损失，也无法在几分钟前专注于未来。接下来你就会知道，你在篝火上投入了更多的钱。</blockquote></p><p> I think calling traders and speculators “investors” shoves many newcomers farther down the slippery slope toward risks they shouldn’t take and losses they can’t afford. I fervently hope the Journal and its editors will finally stop using “investor” as the default term for anyone who makes a trade.</p><p><blockquote>我认为，称交易者和投机者为 “投资者 ”会将许多新来者推向他们不应该承担的风险和他们无法承受的损失。我衷心希望《华尔街日报》及其编辑们最终能停止使用 “投资者 ”作为任何进行交易的人的默认术语。</blockquote></p><p> “ ‘Investor’ has a long history in the English language as a catch-all term denoting people who commit capital with the expectation of a return, no matter how long or short, no matter how many or how few investing columns they read,” WSJ Financial Editor Charles Forelle said in response to my complaints. “Back at least to the mid-19th century, ‘invest’ has even been used to describe a wager on horses—an activity surely no less divorced from fundamental analysis than a purchase of dogecoin.”</p><p><blockquote>“《华尔街日报》财经编辑查尔斯-福雷尔（Charles Forelle）在回应我的投诉时说：”'投资者'在英语中有着悠久的历史，它是一个包罗万象的术语，指的是那些投入资金并期望获得回报的人，无论时间长短，无论他们阅读的投资专栏有多少。“至少可以追溯到 19 世纪中叶，'投资'甚至被用来形容赌马--这种活动与基本面分析的脱节肯定不亚于购买狗狗币”。</blockquote></p><p></p><p> I hear you, Boss, but I still think you’re wrong. There’s no way the Journal would say a recreational gambler is “investing” at the racetrack just because a dictionary says we can.</p><p><blockquote>我听到了，老板，但我还是觉得你错了。《华尔街日报》不可能因为字典上说我们可以，就说一个休闲赌徒在赛马场 “投资 ”。</blockquote></p><p> Calling novice speculators “investors” is one of the most powerful ways marketers fuel excessive trading.</p><p><blockquote>将新手投机者称为 “投资者 ”是营销人员助长过度交易的最有力手段之一。</blockquote></p><p> Ina recent Instagram post, a former porn star who goes by the name Lana Rhoades posed in—well, mostly in—a bikini, as she held up what appears to be Graham’s “The Intelligent Investor.” According to IMDb.com, she starred in such videos as “Tushy” and “Make Me Meow.”</p><p><blockquote>在最近的 Instagram 帖子中，一位名叫拉娜-罗德斯（Lana Rhoades）的前色情明星穿着比基尼摆姿势，举着似乎是格雷厄姆的《聪明的投资者》。据 IMDb.com 报道，她主演了《Tushy》和《Make Me Meow》等视频。</blockquote></p><p> In her post, which was “liked” by nearly 1.8 million people, Ms. Rhoades announced that she will be promoting a cryptocurrency calledPAWGcoin.</p><p><blockquote>罗兹女士在她的帖子中宣布，她将推广一种名为 Pawgcoin 的加密货币，该帖子获得了近 180 万人的 “点赞 ”。</blockquote></p><p> The currency’s website says the coin is meant for “those who pay homage to developed posteriors.” (PAWG, I’ve been reliably informed, stands for Phat Ass White Girl.)</p><p><blockquote>该货币的网站称，这枚硬币是为 “那些向发达的后裔致敬的人”准备的。(据我可靠消息，PAWG 代表肥屁股白人女孩。）</blockquote></p><p> PAWGcoin is up roughly 900% since Ms. Rhoades began promoting it in early June, according to Poocoin.io, a website that tracks such digital currencies.</p><p><blockquote>据追踪此类数字货币的网站 Poocoin.io 称，自 Rhoades 女士 6 月初开始推广 PAWGcoin 以来，PAWGcoin 已上涨约 900%。</blockquote></p><p> Ms. Rhoades, who has tweeted “I also read the WSJ every morning,” couldn’t be reached for comment. PAWGcoin’s website encourages visitors to “invest now.”</p><p><blockquote>罗兹女士在推特上写道 “我每天早上也读《华尔街日报》 ”，但记者未能联系到她置评。PAWGcoin 的网站鼓励访问者 “立即投资”。</blockquote></p><p> In Ms. Rhoades’s Instagram post, she is holding up an open copy of the “The Intelligent Investor,” whose cover is reversed. She appears to be reading it with her eyes closed.</p><p><blockquote>在罗兹女士的 Instagram 帖子中，她举着一本打开的《聪明的投资者》，封面是颠倒的。她似乎是闭着眼睛读的。</blockquote></p><p></p>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n<p> 来源：<a href=\"https://www.wsj.com/articles/you-cant-invest-without-trading-you-can-trade-without-investing-11623426213?mod=markets_lead_pos5\">The Wall Street Journal</a></p>\n<p>为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化</p>\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".DJI":"道琼斯","SPY":"标普500ETF",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite"},"source_url":"https://www.wsj.com/articles/you-cant-invest-without-trading-you-can-trade-without-investing-11623426213?mod=markets_lead_pos5","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1147474880","content_text":"Understanding the difference between speculation and investing is essential to avoiding reckless risk.\n\nI’ve had it.\nThe Wall Street Journal is wrong, and has remained wrong for decades, about one of the most basic distinctions in finance. And I can’t stand it anymore.\nIf you buy a stock purely because it’s gone up a lot, without doing any research on it whatsoever, you are not—as the Journal and its editors bizarrely insist on calling you—an “investor.” If you buy a cryptocurrency because, hey, that sounds like fun, you aren’t an investor either.\nWhenever you buy any financial asset becauseyou have a hunchorjust for kicks, or becausesomebody famous is hyping the heck out of itoreverybody else seems to be buying it too, you aren’t investing.\nYou’re definitely a trader: someone who has just bought an asset. And you may bea speculator: someone who thinks other people will pay more for it than you did.\nOf course,some folkswho buy meme stocks likeGameStopCorp.GME5.88%areinvestors. They read the companies’ financial statements, study the health of the underlying businesses and learn who else is betting on or against the shares. Likewise, many buyers of digital coins have put in the time and effort to understand how cryptocurrency works and how it could reshape finance.\nAn investor relies on internal sources of return: earnings, income, growth in the value of assets. A speculator counts on external sources of return: primarilywhether somebody else will pay more, regardless of fundamental value.\nThe word investor comes from the Latin “investire,” to dress in or clothe oneself, surround or envelop. You would never wear clothes without knowing what color they are or what material they’re made of. Likewise, you can’t invest in an asset you know nothing about.\nNevertheless, the Journal and its editors have long called almost everybody who buys just about anything an “investor.” On July 12, 1962, the Journal publisheda letter to the editorfrom Benjamin Graham, author of the classic books “Security Analysis” and “The Intelligent Investor.” That June, complained Graham, the Journal had run an article headlined “Many Small Investors Bet on Further Drops, Sell Odd Lots Short.”\nHe wrote: “By what definition of ‘investment’ can one give the name ‘investors’ to small people who make bets on the stock market by selling odd lots short?” (To short an odd lot is to borrow and sell fewer than 100 shares in a wager that a stock will fall—an expensive and risky bet, then and now.)\n“If these people are investors,” asked Graham, “how should one define ‘speculation’ and ‘speculators’? Isn’t it possible that the currentfailure to distinguishbetweeninvestment and speculationmay do grave harm not only to individuals but to the whole financial community—as it did in the late 1920s?”\nGraham wasn’t a snob who thought that the markets should be the exclusive playground of the rich. He wrote “The Intelligent Investor” with the express purpose of helping less-wealthy people participate wisely in the stock market.\nIn that book, after which this column is named, Graham said, “Outright speculation is neither illegal, immoral, nor (for most people) fattening to the pocketbook.”\nHowever, he warned, it creates three dangers: “(1) speculating when you think you are investing; (2) speculating seriously instead of as a pastime, when you lack proper knowledge and skill for it; and (3) risking more money in speculation than you can afford to lose.”\nMost investors speculate a bit every once in a while. Like a lottery ticket or an occasional visit to the racetrack or casino, a little is harmless fun. A lot isn’t.\nIf you think you’re investing when you’re speculating, you’ll attribute even momentary success to skill even thoughluck is the likeliest explanation. That can lead you to take reckless risks.\nTake speculating too seriously, and it turns intoan obsessionandan addiction. You become incapable of accepting your losses or focusing on the future more than a few minutes ahead. Next thing you know, you’re throwing even more money onto the bonfire.\nI think calling traders and speculators “investors” shoves many newcomers farther down the slippery slope toward risks they shouldn’t take and losses they can’t afford. I fervently hope the Journal and its editors will finally stop using “investor” as the default term for anyone who makes a trade.\n“ ‘Investor’ has a long history in the English language as a catch-all term denoting people who commit capital with the expectation of a return, no matter how long or short, no matter how many or how few investing columns they read,” WSJ Financial Editor Charles Forelle said in response to my complaints. “Back at least to the mid-19th century, ‘invest’ has even been used to describe a wager on horses—an activity surely no less divorced from fundamental analysis than a purchase of dogecoin.”\nI hear you, Boss, but I still think you’re wrong. There’s no way the Journal would say a recreational gambler is “investing” at the racetrack just because a dictionary says we can.\nCalling novice speculators “investors” is one of the most powerful ways marketers fuel excessive trading.\nIna recent Instagram post, a former porn star who goes by the name Lana Rhoades posed in—well, mostly in—a bikini, as she held up what appears to be Graham’s “The Intelligent Investor.” According to IMDb.com, she starred in such videos as “Tushy” and “Make Me Meow.”\nIn her post, which was “liked” by nearly 1.8 million people, Ms. Rhoades announced that she will be promoting a cryptocurrency calledPAWGcoin.\nThe currency’s website says the coin is meant for “those who pay homage to developed posteriors.” (PAWG, I’ve been reliably informed, stands for Phat Ass White Girl.)\nPAWGcoin is up roughly 900% since Ms. Rhoades began promoting it in early June, according to Poocoin.io, a website that tracks such digital currencies.\nMs. Rhoades, who has tweeted “I also read the WSJ every morning,” couldn’t be reached for comment. PAWGcoin’s website encourages visitors to “invest now.”\nIn Ms. Rhoades’s Instagram post, she is holding up an open copy of the “The Intelligent Investor,” whose cover is reversed. She appears to be reading it with her eyes closed.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{".IXIC":0.9,".SPX":0.9,"SPY":0.9,".DJI":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1740,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":186889046,"gmtCreate":1623484510385,"gmtModify":1634032482192,"author":{"id":"3585782506562265","authorId":"3585782506562265","name":"Ninz","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3585782506562265","authorIdStr":"3585782506562265"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Good read","listText":"Good read","text":"Good read","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/186889046","repostId":"1198311684","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1198311684","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1623415805,"share":"https://www.laohunote.com/m/news/1198311684?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-06-11 20:50","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Opinion: Stock investors now have come to a cliff in the road — and options are limited<blockquote>观点：股票投资者现在已经走到了悬崖边——选择有限</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1198311684","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Fundamental things haven’t applied to the U.S. market but that seems about to change.\n\nThe coronavir","content":"<p>  <b>Fundamental things haven’t applied to the U.S. market but that seems about to change.</b>  The coronavirus pandemic has been excellent for investors, but most now realize that the stock market’s extraordinary performance is not based on fundamentals, which ceased to matter some time ago.</p><p><blockquote><b>基本面尚未适用于美国市场，但这种情况似乎即将改变。</b>冠状病毒大流行对投资者来说是极好的，但现在大多数人都意识到，股市的非凡表现并不是基于基本面，而基本面在一段时间前就已经不再重要了。</blockquote></p><p> Central banks have been driving asset prices with massive liquidity infusions and zero interest rates. Consumption and corporate earnings are underpinned by large government transfer payments, fiscal stimulus and industry support.</p><p><blockquote>央行一直在通过大量注入流动性和零利率来推高资产价格。消费和企业盈利是由巨额政府转移支付、财政刺激和行业支持支撑的。</blockquote></p><p> Will it last? The consensus is that most assets are overpriced. Prices ultimately are the present value of future cash flows. Authorities have manipulated the discount rate but altering underlying long-term cash flows, which are driven by the real economy, is more difficult. Low volatility, engineered by central banks, also encourages exuberant prices. At some stage, profligate government deficits may be reigned by either winding back spending or increasing taxes. These policies may also drive inflation, requiring tighter monetary policy and higher rates.&nbsp;</p><p><blockquote>会持续吗？人们普遍认为，大多数资产定价过高。价格最终是未来现金流的现值。当局操纵了贴现率，但改变由实体经济驱动的潜在长期现金流更加困难。由央行设计的低波动性也鼓励了旺盛的价格。在某个阶段，挥霍无度的政府赤字可能会通过缩减支出或增加税收来控制。这些政策也可能推高通货膨胀，需要收紧货币政策和提高利率。</blockquote></p><p> Currently high stock prices expose investors to the risk of a sudden correction, when the game of musical chairs stops unexpectedly. Given that almost all of the gains have been in price rather than income (dividends, interest, etc.), the vulnerability is exacerbated. The unstable structure of the financial system — high leverage, shadow banks, illiquidity, unresolved linkages, the rise in trend following investors — means that any problem may trigger a major adjustment.</p><p><blockquote>当前的高股价使投资者面临突然调整的风险，即音乐椅游戏意外停止。鉴于几乎所有的收益都是价格而不是收入（股息、利息等）。），脆弱性加剧。金融体系的不稳定结构——高杠杆、影子银行、流动性不足、未解决的联系、跟随投资者的趋势上升——意味着任何问题都可能引发重大调整。</blockquote></p><p> Investors’ options are limited. You could believe in the permanency of a “new normal.” Risky asset investments are then justified on the basis that authorities must ensure high- and rising asset prices, primarily as the alternative is too awful to contemplate. This assumes that policy options remain unconstrained indefinitely.</p><p><blockquote>投资者的选择有限。你可以相信 “新常态 ”的永久性。然后，高风险资产投资是合理的，因为当局必须确保资产价格高企且不断上涨，主要是因为替代方案太可怕了，难以想象。这假设策略选项无限期地保持无限制。</blockquote></p><p> Or investors can rely on momentum, essentially Keynes’ so-called beauty contest theory of investing, which anticipated today’s “meme stocks.” Successful investment requires investors to select the most popular faces among all judges, rather than those they may personally find the most attractive. The difficulty is knowing the judge’s mind and recognizing when to sell before the music stops.</p><p><blockquote>或者，投资者可以依靠势头，本质上是凯恩斯所谓的投资选美理论，该理论预测了今天的 “迷因股票 ”。成功的投资需要投资者在所有评委中挑选出最受欢迎的面孔，而不是那些他们个人可能觉得最有吸引力的面孔。难点在于了解评委的想法，并在音乐停止前认清何时出售。</blockquote></p><p> Third, investors can park their money in cash. This means accepting exceptionally low returns perhaps for a prolonged period and, worst of all, missing out on further gains.</p><p><blockquote>第三，投资者可以将资金存放在现金中。这意味着可能在很长一段时间内接受异常低的回报，最糟糕的是，错过进一步的收益。</blockquote></p><p> An alternative is to reposition defensively into assets or businesses with reliable income streams operating in essential industries or selling staples. These traditional “widows and orphans” investments are more difficult to find today. “Safe” government bonds now offer little income but high risk. Stock and property prices are highly correlated, reflecting investor behavior as well as the common reliance on leverage. More liquid and better-quality assets frequently come under selling pressure when leveraged investors need to raise cash. Today, just as a rising tide lifts all boats, a receding surge leaves everyone stranded.</p><p><blockquote>另一种选择是防御性地重新定位到具有可靠收入来源的资产或业务中，这些资产或业务从事基本行业或销售主食。如今，这些传统的 “寡妇和孤儿 ”投资更难找到。“安全 ”的政府债券现在收益低，但风险高。股票和房地产价格高度相关，反映了投资者的行为以及对杠杆的普遍依赖。当杠杆投资者需要筹集现金时，流动性更强、质量更好的资产经常会面临抛售压力。今天，正如涨潮抬起所有的船只一样，退潮让每个人都搁浅了。</blockquote></p><p> Fourth, investors can seek to benefit from higher inflation, switching to stocks that benefit from increasing prices. But the impact on equity prices will depend on whether it is profit inflation (that is, end-product prices rise) or cost inflation, including increases in wages. If it is the latter, then the squeeze on earnings may adversely affect equity valuations. Combined with higher rates, this may adversely affect stocks. Another alternative is inflation-linked securities, such as Treasury inflation-protected securities (TIPS) &nbsp;TIP,+0.52%&nbsp;or commodities.&nbsp;</p><p><blockquote>第四，投资者可以寻求从更高的通胀中获益，转向受益于价格上涨的股票。但对股票价格的影响将取决于是利润通胀（即最终产品价格上涨）还是成本通胀，包括工资上涨。如果是后者，那么盈利的挤压可能会对股票估值产生不利影响。再加上较高的利率，这可能会对股票产生不利影响。另一种选择是与通胀挂钩的证券，例如国债通胀保值证券 (TIPS) TIP,+0.52% 或大宗商品。</blockquote></p><p> Fifth, investors could go “off-piste,” believing that existing policies are unsustainable and the economic system is irredeemable broken. This favors crypto-currencies, precious metals or collectibles — non-traditional assets whose supply is naturally constrained. The ability of the state to confiscate, tax and regulate, as well as reliance on courts to enforce rights, complicates this quest for freedom.</p><p><blockquote>第五，投资者可能会 “偏离轨道”，认为现有政策不可持续，经济体系已经无可挽回地崩溃。这有利于加密货币、贵金属或收藏品——这些非传统资产的供应自然受到限制。国家没收、征税和监管的能力，以及对法院执行权利的依赖，使这种对自由的追求变得复杂。</blockquote></p><p> The ultra-rich and some high-net worth individuals have gone off-grid already by moving into private markets. Concerned about manipulated and gamified markets, they focus now on non-listed real businesses and assets as well as private debt, sacrificing liquidity and transparency for better economics, privacy and control. Unfortunately, these options are limited for ordinary individuals — a different form of inequality.</p><p><blockquote>超级富豪和一些高净值人士已经通过进入私人市场而脱离了电网。由于担心被操纵和游戏化的市场，他们现在专注于非上市的真实企业和资产以及私人债务，为了更好的经济、隐私和控制而牺牲流动性和透明度。不幸的是，这些选择对普通人来说是有限的——这是一种不同形式的不平等。</blockquote></p><p> Investors therefore face Hobson’s illusory choice, where only one thing is actually offered. They can lose by betting against price rises or that prices keep rising.&nbsp;</p><p><blockquote>因此，投资者面临的是霍布森的虚幻选择，实际上只提供了一件事。他们可能会因押注价格上涨或价格持续上涨而失败。</blockquote></p><p></p><p> Policymakers, meanwhile, continue to compound decades of mistakes. They must now keep increasing debt and maintaining low rates in order to keep asset prices high. Government deficits are essential to maintaining economic activity. Kicking the can down the road is the only way to ensure that the day of reckoning is deferred — NIMTO (not in my term of office). This forces investors to go out further on the risk curve to generate returns.&nbsp;</p><p><blockquote>与此同时，政策制定者继续加剧几十年来的错误。他们现在必须继续增加债务并维持低利率，以保持资产价格高企。政府赤字对于维持经济活动至关重要。把罐子踢到路上是确保清算日推迟的唯一方法——NIMTO（不是在我的任期内）。这迫使投资者在风险曲线上走得更远以产生回报。</blockquote></p><p> Perhaps investors nowadays should stick to comedian Will Rogers’s famous investment advice: “Don’t gamble; take all your savings and buy some good stock and hold it till it goes up, then sell it. If it don’t go up, don’t buy it.”</p><p><blockquote>也许现在的投资者应该遵循喜剧演员威尔-罗杰斯（Will Rogers）的著名投资建议： “不要赌博；拿出你所有的积蓄，买一些好股票，持有到股价上涨，然后卖出。如果股价不涨，就不要买”。</blockquote></p><p></p>","source":"lsy1603348471595","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Opinion: Stock investors now have come to a cliff in the road — and options are limited<blockquote>观点：股票投资者现在已经走到了悬崖边——选择有限</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\">\nOpinion: Stock investors now have come to a cliff in the road — and options are limited<blockquote>观点：股票投资者现在已经走到了悬崖边——选择有限</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<p class=\"head\">\n<strong class=\"h-name small\">MarketWatch</strong><span class=\"h-time small\">2021-06-11 20:50</span>\n</p>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p>  <b>Fundamental things haven’t applied to the U.S. market but that seems about to change.</b>  The coronavirus pandemic has been excellent for investors, but most now realize that the stock market’s extraordinary performance is not based on fundamentals, which ceased to matter some time ago.</p><p><blockquote><b>基本面尚未适用于美国市场，但这种情况似乎即将改变。</b>冠状病毒大流行对投资者来说是极好的，但现在大多数人都意识到，股市的非凡表现并不是基于基本面，而基本面在一段时间前就已经不再重要了。</blockquote></p><p> Central banks have been driving asset prices with massive liquidity infusions and zero interest rates. Consumption and corporate earnings are underpinned by large government transfer payments, fiscal stimulus and industry support.</p><p><blockquote>央行一直在通过大量注入流动性和零利率来推高资产价格。消费和企业盈利是由巨额政府转移支付、财政刺激和行业支持支撑的。</blockquote></p><p> Will it last? The consensus is that most assets are overpriced. Prices ultimately are the present value of future cash flows. Authorities have manipulated the discount rate but altering underlying long-term cash flows, which are driven by the real economy, is more difficult. Low volatility, engineered by central banks, also encourages exuberant prices. At some stage, profligate government deficits may be reigned by either winding back spending or increasing taxes. These policies may also drive inflation, requiring tighter monetary policy and higher rates.&nbsp;</p><p><blockquote>会持续吗？人们普遍认为，大多数资产定价过高。价格最终是未来现金流的现值。当局操纵了贴现率，但改变由实体经济驱动的潜在长期现金流更加困难。由央行设计的低波动性也鼓励了旺盛的价格。在某个阶段，挥霍无度的政府赤字可能会通过缩减支出或增加税收来控制。这些政策也可能推高通货膨胀，需要收紧货币政策和提高利率。</blockquote></p><p> Currently high stock prices expose investors to the risk of a sudden correction, when the game of musical chairs stops unexpectedly. Given that almost all of the gains have been in price rather than income (dividends, interest, etc.), the vulnerability is exacerbated. The unstable structure of the financial system — high leverage, shadow banks, illiquidity, unresolved linkages, the rise in trend following investors — means that any problem may trigger a major adjustment.</p><p><blockquote>当前的高股价使投资者面临突然调整的风险，即音乐椅游戏意外停止。鉴于几乎所有的收益都是价格而不是收入（股息、利息等）。），脆弱性加剧。金融体系的不稳定结构——高杠杆、影子银行、流动性不足、未解决的联系、跟随投资者的趋势上升——意味着任何问题都可能引发重大调整。</blockquote></p><p> Investors’ options are limited. You could believe in the permanency of a “new normal.” Risky asset investments are then justified on the basis that authorities must ensure high- and rising asset prices, primarily as the alternative is too awful to contemplate. This assumes that policy options remain unconstrained indefinitely.</p><p><blockquote>投资者的选择有限。你可以相信 “新常态 ”的永久性。然后，高风险资产投资是合理的，因为当局必须确保资产价格高企且不断上涨，主要是因为替代方案太可怕了，难以想象。这假设策略选项无限期地保持无限制。</blockquote></p><p> Or investors can rely on momentum, essentially Keynes’ so-called beauty contest theory of investing, which anticipated today’s “meme stocks.” Successful investment requires investors to select the most popular faces among all judges, rather than those they may personally find the most attractive. The difficulty is knowing the judge’s mind and recognizing when to sell before the music stops.</p><p><blockquote>或者，投资者可以依靠势头，本质上是凯恩斯所谓的投资选美理论，该理论预测了今天的 “迷因股票 ”。成功的投资需要投资者在所有评委中挑选出最受欢迎的面孔，而不是那些他们个人可能觉得最有吸引力的面孔。难点在于了解评委的想法，并在音乐停止前认清何时出售。</blockquote></p><p> Third, investors can park their money in cash. This means accepting exceptionally low returns perhaps for a prolonged period and, worst of all, missing out on further gains.</p><p><blockquote>第三，投资者可以将资金存放在现金中。这意味着可能在很长一段时间内接受异常低的回报，最糟糕的是，错过进一步的收益。</blockquote></p><p> An alternative is to reposition defensively into assets or businesses with reliable income streams operating in essential industries or selling staples. These traditional “widows and orphans” investments are more difficult to find today. “Safe” government bonds now offer little income but high risk. Stock and property prices are highly correlated, reflecting investor behavior as well as the common reliance on leverage. More liquid and better-quality assets frequently come under selling pressure when leveraged investors need to raise cash. Today, just as a rising tide lifts all boats, a receding surge leaves everyone stranded.</p><p><blockquote>另一种选择是防御性地重新定位到具有可靠收入来源的资产或业务中，这些资产或业务从事基本行业或销售主食。如今，这些传统的 “寡妇和孤儿 ”投资更难找到。“安全 ”的政府债券现在收益低，但风险高。股票和房地产价格高度相关，反映了投资者的行为以及对杠杆的普遍依赖。当杠杆投资者需要筹集现金时，流动性更强、质量更好的资产经常会面临抛售压力。今天，正如涨潮抬起所有的船只一样，退潮让每个人都搁浅了。</blockquote></p><p> Fourth, investors can seek to benefit from higher inflation, switching to stocks that benefit from increasing prices. But the impact on equity prices will depend on whether it is profit inflation (that is, end-product prices rise) or cost inflation, including increases in wages. If it is the latter, then the squeeze on earnings may adversely affect equity valuations. Combined with higher rates, this may adversely affect stocks. Another alternative is inflation-linked securities, such as Treasury inflation-protected securities (TIPS) &nbsp;TIP,+0.52%&nbsp;or commodities.&nbsp;</p><p><blockquote>第四，投资者可以寻求从更高的通胀中获益，转向受益于价格上涨的股票。但对股票价格的影响将取决于是利润通胀（即最终产品价格上涨）还是成本通胀，包括工资上涨。如果是后者，那么盈利的挤压可能会对股票估值产生不利影响。再加上较高的利率，这可能会对股票产生不利影响。另一种选择是与通胀挂钩的证券，例如国债通胀保值证券 (TIPS) TIP,+0.52% 或大宗商品。</blockquote></p><p> Fifth, investors could go “off-piste,” believing that existing policies are unsustainable and the economic system is irredeemable broken. This favors crypto-currencies, precious metals or collectibles — non-traditional assets whose supply is naturally constrained. The ability of the state to confiscate, tax and regulate, as well as reliance on courts to enforce rights, complicates this quest for freedom.</p><p><blockquote>第五，投资者可能会 “偏离轨道”，认为现有政策不可持续，经济体系已经无可挽回地崩溃。这有利于加密货币、贵金属或收藏品——这些非传统资产的供应自然受到限制。国家没收、征税和监管的能力，以及对法院执行权利的依赖，使这种对自由的追求变得复杂。</blockquote></p><p> The ultra-rich and some high-net worth individuals have gone off-grid already by moving into private markets. Concerned about manipulated and gamified markets, they focus now on non-listed real businesses and assets as well as private debt, sacrificing liquidity and transparency for better economics, privacy and control. Unfortunately, these options are limited for ordinary individuals — a different form of inequality.</p><p><blockquote>超级富豪和一些高净值人士已经通过进入私人市场而脱离了电网。由于担心被操纵和游戏化的市场，他们现在专注于非上市的真实企业和资产以及私人债务，为了更好的经济、隐私和控制而牺牲流动性和透明度。不幸的是，这些选择对普通人来说是有限的——这是一种不同形式的不平等。</blockquote></p><p> Investors therefore face Hobson’s illusory choice, where only one thing is actually offered. They can lose by betting against price rises or that prices keep rising.&nbsp;</p><p><blockquote>因此，投资者面临的是霍布森的虚幻选择，实际上只提供了一件事。他们可能会因押注价格上涨或价格持续上涨而失败。</blockquote></p><p></p><p> Policymakers, meanwhile, continue to compound decades of mistakes. They must now keep increasing debt and maintaining low rates in order to keep asset prices high. Government deficits are essential to maintaining economic activity. Kicking the can down the road is the only way to ensure that the day of reckoning is deferred — NIMTO (not in my term of office). This forces investors to go out further on the risk curve to generate returns.&nbsp;</p><p><blockquote>与此同时，政策制定者继续加剧几十年来的错误。他们现在必须继续增加债务并维持低利率，以保持资产价格高企。政府赤字对于维持经济活动至关重要。把罐子踢到路上是确保清算日推迟的唯一方法——NIMTO（不是在我的任期内）。这迫使投资者在风险曲线上走得更远以产生回报。</blockquote></p><p> Perhaps investors nowadays should stick to comedian Will Rogers’s famous investment advice: “Don’t gamble; take all your savings and buy some good stock and hold it till it goes up, then sell it. If it don’t go up, don’t buy it.”</p><p><blockquote>也许现在的投资者应该遵循喜剧演员威尔-罗杰斯（Will Rogers）的著名投资建议： “不要赌博；拿出你所有的积蓄，买一些好股票，持有到股价上涨，然后卖出。如果股价不涨，就不要买”。</blockquote></p><p></p>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n<p> 来源：<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/stock-investors-now-have-come-to-a-cliff-in-the-road-and-options-are-limited-11623375733?mod=home-page\">MarketWatch</a></p>\n<p>为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化</p>\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"SPY":"标普500ETF",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".DJI":"道琼斯"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/stock-investors-now-have-come-to-a-cliff-in-the-road-and-options-are-limited-11623375733?mod=home-page","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1198311684","content_text":"Fundamental things haven’t applied to the U.S. market but that seems about to change.\n\nThe coronavirus pandemic has been excellent for investors, but most now realize that the stock market’s extraordinary performance is not based on fundamentals, which ceased to matter some time ago.\nCentral banks have been driving asset prices with massive liquidity infusions and zero interest rates. Consumption and corporate earnings are underpinned by large government transfer payments, fiscal stimulus and industry support.\nWill it last? The consensus is that most assets are overpriced. Prices ultimately are the present value of future cash flows. Authorities have manipulated the discount rate but altering underlying long-term cash flows, which are driven by the real economy, is more difficult. Low volatility, engineered by central banks, also encourages exuberant prices. At some stage, profligate government deficits may be reigned by either winding back spending or increasing taxes. These policies may also drive inflation, requiring tighter monetary policy and higher rates. \nCurrently high stock prices expose investors to the risk of a sudden correction, when the game of musical chairs stops unexpectedly. Given that almost all of the gains have been in price rather than income (dividends, interest, etc.), the vulnerability is exacerbated. The unstable structure of the financial system — high leverage, shadow banks, illiquidity, unresolved linkages, the rise in trend following investors — means that any problem may trigger a major adjustment.\nInvestors’ options are limited. You could believe in the permanency of a “new normal.” Risky asset investments are then justified on the basis that authorities must ensure high- and rising asset prices, primarily as the alternative is too awful to contemplate. This assumes that policy options remain unconstrained indefinitely.\nOr investors can rely on momentum, essentially Keynes’ so-called beauty contest theory of investing, which anticipated today’s “meme stocks.” Successful investment requires investors to select the most popular faces among all judges, rather than those they may personally find the most attractive. The difficulty is knowing the judge’s mind and recognizing when to sell before the music stops.\nThird, investors can park their money in cash. This means accepting exceptionally low returns perhaps for a prolonged period and, worst of all, missing out on further gains.\nAn alternative is to reposition defensively into assets or businesses with reliable income streams operating in essential industries or selling staples. These traditional “widows and orphans” investments are more difficult to find today. “Safe” government bonds now offer little income but high risk. Stock and property prices are highly correlated, reflecting investor behavior as well as the common reliance on leverage. More liquid and better-quality assets frequently come under selling pressure when leveraged investors need to raise cash. Today, just as a rising tide lifts all boats, a receding surge leaves everyone stranded.\nFourth, investors can seek to benefit from higher inflation, switching to stocks that benefit from increasing prices. But the impact on equity prices will depend on whether it is profit inflation (that is, end-product prices rise) or cost inflation, including increases in wages. If it is the latter, then the squeeze on earnings may adversely affect equity valuations. Combined with higher rates, this may adversely affect stocks. Another alternative is inflation-linked securities, such as Treasury inflation-protected securities (TIPS)  TIP,+0.52% or commodities. \nFifth, investors could go “off-piste,” believing that existing policies are unsustainable and the economic system is irredeemable broken. This favors crypto-currencies, precious metals or collectibles — non-traditional assets whose supply is naturally constrained. The ability of the state to confiscate, tax and regulate, as well as reliance on courts to enforce rights, complicates this quest for freedom.\nThe ultra-rich and some high-net worth individuals have gone off-grid already by moving into private markets. Concerned about manipulated and gamified markets, they focus now on non-listed real businesses and assets as well as private debt, sacrificing liquidity and transparency for better economics, privacy and control. Unfortunately, these options are limited for ordinary individuals — a different form of inequality.\nInvestors therefore face Hobson’s illusory choice, where only one thing is actually offered. They can lose by betting against price rises or that prices keep rising. \nPolicymakers, meanwhile, continue to compound decades of mistakes. They must now keep increasing debt and maintaining low rates in order to keep asset prices high. Government deficits are essential to maintaining economic activity. Kicking the can down the road is the only way to ensure that the day of reckoning is deferred — NIMTO (not in my term of office). This forces investors to go out further on the risk curve to generate returns. \nPerhaps investors nowadays should stick to comedian Will Rogers’s famous investment advice: “Don’t gamble; take all your savings and buy some good stock and hold it till it goes up, then sell it. If it don’t go up, don’t buy it.”","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{"SPY":0.9,".DJI":0.9,".IXIC":0.9,".SPX":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1876,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":116129838,"gmtCreate":1622781647924,"gmtModify":1634098047950,"author":{"id":"3585782506562265","authorId":"3585782506562265","name":"Ninz","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3585782506562265","authorIdStr":"3585782506562265"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"[Strong]&nbsp;","listText":"[Strong]&nbsp;","text":"[Strong]","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/116129838","repostId":"1143150601","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1836,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0}],"defaultTab":"posts","isTTM":false}