Makes sense. [LOL]_老虎社区_美港股上老虎

Turtlebizkit
2021-06-27

Makes sense. [LOL]

Why $40 billion in stimulus won’t go ‘into’ stocks<blockquote>为什么 400 亿美元的刺激计划不会“流入”股票</blockquote>

It’s a simple logical error If you’re planning to take extra risk in your retirement accounts becau

Why $40 billion in stimulus won’t go ‘into’ stocks<blockquote>为什么 400 亿美元的刺激计划不会“流入”股票</blockquote>

免责声明：上述内容仅代表发帖人个人观点，不构成本平台的任何投资建议。

推荐
最新

暂无评论

热议股票

{"i18n":{"language":"zh_CN"},"data":{"magic":2,"id":124130090,"tweetId":"124130090","gmtCreate":1624752145110,"gmtModify":1631891039073,"author":{"id":3579141181798233,"idStr":"3579141181798233","authorId":3579141181798233,"authorIdStr":"3579141181798233","name":"Turtlebizkit","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/ae37619873125a6a1b1b6c86916c6c23","vip":1,"userType":1,"introduction":"","boolIsFan":false,"boolIsHead":false,"crmLevel":12,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[],"wearingBadges":[],"fanSize":5,"starInvestorFlag":false},"themes":[],"images":[],"coverImages":[],"title":"","extraTitle":"","html":"<html><head></head><body>Makes sense. [LOL]&nbsp;</body></html>","htmlText":"<html><head></head><body>Makes sense. [LOL]&nbsp;</body></html>","text":"Makes sense. [LOL]","highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"favoriteSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/124130090","repostId":1149837805,"repostType":2,"repost":{"id":"1149837805","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1615971667,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1149837805?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-03-17 17:01","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Why $40 billion in stimulus won’t go ‘into’ stocks<blockquote>为什么 400 亿美元的刺激计划不会“流入”股票</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1149837805","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"It’s a simple logical error\n\nIf you’re planning to take extra risk in your retirement accounts becau","content":"It’s a simple logical error<blockquote>这是一个简单的逻辑错误</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/7a82b8df4254390b71a4ce4488e33d21\" tg-width=\"1259\" tg-height=\"1092\"><blockquote></blockquote> If you’re planning to take extra risk in your retirement accounts because of all the stimulus money about to be “poured into stocks”—don’t.<blockquote>如果你打算在退休账户中承担额外的风险，因为所有的刺激资金都将 “投入股票 ”--那就不要了。</blockquote> The same goes for bitcoin.<blockquote>比特币也是如此。</blockquote> Mizuho Securities is the latest to push this idea, with a survey suggesting that 10% of the $380 billion in stimulus windfalls will be invested in stocks and bitcoin.<blockquote>瑞穗证券（Mizuho Securities）是最新一家推动这一想法的公司，一项调查显示，3800亿美元刺激意外之财中有10%将投资于股票和比特币。</blockquote> That,according to Wall Street, means that about $40 billion in extra money will “come into the stock market,” driving it higher.<blockquote>据华尔街称，这意味着约 400 亿美元的额外资金将 “流入股市”，推动股市走高。</blockquote> Recently Deutsche Bank&nbsp;estimated&nbsp;young individual investors were ready to pour $170 billion into the market.<blockquote>德意志银行最近估计，年轻的个人投资者准备向市场注入1700亿美元。</blockquote> And the Wall Street hucksters made the same argument.<blockquote>华尔街的小贩们也提出了同样的论点。</blockquote> But it’s the old “money on the sidelines” fallacy. (Incidentally this raises, yet again, the question of why we don’t teach logic as Topic No. 1 in the public education system—a failure whose devastating costs are apparent every day.)<blockquote>但这是古老的 “场外资金 ”谬论。(顺便说一句，这再次提出了一个问题：为什么我们不把逻辑作为公共教育系统的头号科目来教授逻辑--这种失败的破坏性代价每天都显而易见）。</blockquote> It’s a simple logical error, and it doesn’t matter who points it out—me, your broker, the Man in the Moon. It’s basic logic.<blockquote>这是一个简单的逻辑错误，由谁指出并不重要--我、你的经纪人、月球上的人。这是基本逻辑。</blockquote> Stimulus money, or money “on the sidelines,” cannot “come into the market” for one very simple reason that gets ignored time and time and time again when this comes up.<blockquote>刺激资金，或者说 “旁观者 ”的资金，无法 “进入市场 ”，原因很简单，而当这个问题出现时，人们却一次又一次地被忽视。</blockquote> Every time a security is bought, one must be sold.<blockquote>每买入一个证券，就必须卖出一个。</blockquote> Pretty obvious, right? If I buy your Apple&nbsp;stock, then you…er…have to sell it to me. I buy, you sell.<blockquote>很明显，对吧？如果我买了你的苹果股票，那么你…呃…必须卖给我。我买，你卖。</blockquote> Imagine if you bought a house and tried to move in, and the previous owner figured he’d hang on to it, as well as banking the check.<blockquote>想象一下，如果你买了一栋房子，想搬进去，而前房主认为他会保留这栋房子，并把支票存入银行。</blockquote> If investors plunge $40 billion of their stimulus windfalls “into” stocks (and bitcoin), guess how much current investors will simultaneously “take out” of stocks (and bitcoin).<blockquote>如果投资者将 400 亿美元的刺激计划意外之财 “投入 ”股票（和比特币），猜猜目前的投资者会同时 “撤出 ”多少股票（和比特币）。</blockquote> Er…$40 billion.<blockquote>呃…400亿美元。</blockquote> And if eager young investors rush out and pour $170 billion of their cash into these investments, current investors will…er…take $170 billion out.<blockquote>如果急切的年轻投资者冲出去，将1700亿美元的现金投入这些投资，现有的投资者将…呃…拿出1700亿美元。</blockquote> It is not a coincidence that the figures match.<blockquote>数字匹配并非巧合。</blockquote> I have $10, you have a share. I buy your share. Now I have your share…and you have my $10.<blockquote>我有10美元，你有一份。我买你的股份。现在我有你的那份…你有我的10美元。</blockquote> None of this means the stock market is a bad investment (or a good one), merely that this particular argument has no force.<blockquote>这并不意味着股市是一个糟糕的投资（或好的投资），只是这个特殊的论点没有任何说服力。</blockquote> The more interesting question is whether or not this hot stimulus money will spark even greater animal spirits among investors — especially among those who have the least experience of investing.<blockquote>更有趣的问题是，这笔热门刺激资金是否会在投资者中引发更大的动物精神——尤其是那些投资经验最少的人。</blockquote> Is that possible? Obviously.<blockquote>这可能吗？明显地。</blockquote> Is it likely? Maybe.<blockquote>有可能吗？也许。</blockquote> On the other hand, $40 billion is about 0.07% of the value of the U.S. stocks market and $170 billion is 0.3%, so you have to wonder how much this additional euphoria is going to be worth.<blockquote>另一方面，400亿美元约占美国股市价值的0.07%，1700亿美元占0.3%，所以你不得不想知道这种额外的兴奋会值多少钱。</blockquote> You might also reasonably wonder how much extra exuberance the market can handle, given — as the chart above shows — it looks pretty exuberant already.<blockquote>你可能也有理由想知道市场能承受多少额外的繁荣，因为正如上图所示，它看起来已经相当繁荣了。</blockquote> For those following trends the more important short-term issue is that the U.S. market—as measured for example by the Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF—is (just) above its 50-day moving average and well above its 200 day moving average. So the trend remains bullish.<blockquote>对于那些关注趋势的人来说，更重要的短期问题是美国市场（例如以 Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF 衡量）（刚刚）高于 50 天移动平均线，并且远高于 200 天移动平均线。所以趋势仍然看涨。</blockquote> Whether that remains the case as inflation forecasts break above 8-year highs, and the White House looks at a 25% hike in corporate tax rates, is going to be another matter.<blockquote>随着通胀预测突破 8 年来的高点，以及白宫考虑将企业税率提高 25%，情况是否仍然如此，这将是另一回事。</blockquote> Meanwhile those of a curious disposition might wonder why, if new and inexperienced investors are so eager to plunge $40 billion or even $170 billion “into” the market, current (and possibly more experienced) investors are so willing to take the same amount out.<blockquote>与此同时，那些好奇的人可能会想，如果新的和缺乏经验的投资者如此渴望向市场投入 400 亿美元甚至 1700 亿美元，那么为什么现有的（可能还有更有经验的）投资者却如此愿意拿出同样的金额。</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>Why $40 billion in stimulus won’t go ‘into’ stocks<blockquote>为什么 400 亿美元的刺激计划不会“流入”股票</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWhy $40 billion in stimulus won’t go ‘into’ stocks<blockquote>为什么 400 亿美元的刺激计划不会“流入”股票</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nMarketWatch2021-03-17 17:01\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\nIt’s a simple logical error<blockquote>这是一个简单的逻辑错误</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/7a82b8df4254390b71a4ce4488e33d21\" tg-width=\"1259\" tg-height=\"1092\"><blockquote></blockquote> If you’re planning to take extra risk in your retirement accounts because of all the stimulus money about to be “poured into stocks”—don’t.<blockquote>如果你打算在退休账户中承担额外的风险，因为所有的刺激资金都将 “投入股票 ”--那就不要了。</blockquote> The same goes for bitcoin.<blockquote>比特币也是如此。</blockquote> Mizuho Securities is the latest to push this idea, with a survey suggesting that 10% of the $380 billion in stimulus windfalls will be invested in stocks and bitcoin.<blockquote>瑞穗证券（Mizuho Securities）是最新一家推动这一想法的公司，一项调查显示，3800亿美元刺激意外之财中有10%将投资于股票和比特币。</blockquote> That,according to Wall Street, means that about $40 billion in extra money will “come into the stock market,” driving it higher.<blockquote>据华尔街称，这意味着约 400 亿美元的额外资金将 “流入股市”，推动股市走高。</blockquote> Recently Deutsche Bank&nbsp;estimated&nbsp;young individual investors were ready to pour $170 billion into the market.<blockquote>德意志银行最近估计，年轻的个人投资者准备向市场注入1700亿美元。</blockquote> And the Wall Street hucksters made the same argument.<blockquote>华尔街的小贩们也提出了同样的论点。</blockquote> But it’s the old “money on the sidelines” fallacy. (Incidentally this raises, yet again, the question of why we don’t teach logic as Topic No. 1 in the public education system—a failure whose devastating costs are apparent every day.)<blockquote>但这是古老的 “场外资金 ”谬论。(顺便说一句，这再次提出了一个问题：为什么我们不把逻辑作为公共教育系统的头号科目来教授逻辑--这种失败的破坏性代价每天都显而易见）。</blockquote> It’s a simple logical error, and it doesn’t matter who points it out—me, your broker, the Man in the Moon. It’s basic logic.<blockquote>这是一个简单的逻辑错误，由谁指出并不重要--我、你的经纪人、月球上的人。这是基本逻辑。</blockquote> Stimulus money, or money “on the sidelines,” cannot “come into the market” for one very simple reason that gets ignored time and time and time again when this comes up.<blockquote>刺激资金，或者说 “旁观者 ”的资金，无法 “进入市场 ”，原因很简单，而当这个问题出现时，人们却一次又一次地被忽视。</blockquote> Every time a security is bought, one must be sold.<blockquote>每买入一个证券，就必须卖出一个。</blockquote> Pretty obvious, right? If I buy your Apple&nbsp;stock, then you…er…have to sell it to me. I buy, you sell.<blockquote>很明显，对吧？如果我买了你的苹果股票，那么你…呃…必须卖给我。我买，你卖。</blockquote> Imagine if you bought a house and tried to move in, and the previous owner figured he’d hang on to it, as well as banking the check.<blockquote>想象一下，如果你买了一栋房子，想搬进去，而前房主认为他会保留这栋房子，并把支票存入银行。</blockquote> If investors plunge $40 billion of their stimulus windfalls “into” stocks (and bitcoin), guess how much current investors will simultaneously “take out” of stocks (and bitcoin).<blockquote>如果投资者将 400 亿美元的刺激计划意外之财 “投入 ”股票（和比特币），猜猜目前的投资者会同时 “撤出 ”多少股票（和比特币）。</blockquote> Er…$40 billion.<blockquote>呃…400亿美元。</blockquote> And if eager young investors rush out and pour $170 billion of their cash into these investments, current investors will…er…take $170 billion out.<blockquote>如果急切的年轻投资者冲出去，将1700亿美元的现金投入这些投资，现有的投资者将…呃…拿出1700亿美元。</blockquote> It is not a coincidence that the figures match.<blockquote>数字匹配并非巧合。</blockquote> I have $10, you have a share. I buy your share. Now I have your share…and you have my $10.<blockquote>我有10美元，你有一份。我买你的股份。现在我有你的那份…你有我的10美元。</blockquote> None of this means the stock market is a bad investment (or a good one), merely that this particular argument has no force.<blockquote>这并不意味着股市是一个糟糕的投资（或好的投资），只是这个特殊的论点没有任何说服力。</blockquote> The more interesting question is whether or not this hot stimulus money will spark even greater animal spirits among investors — especially among those who have the least experience of investing.<blockquote>更有趣的问题是，这笔热门刺激资金是否会在投资者中引发更大的动物精神——尤其是那些投资经验最少的人。</blockquote> Is that possible? Obviously.<blockquote>这可能吗？明显地。</blockquote> Is it likely? Maybe.<blockquote>有可能吗？也许。</blockquote> On the other hand, $40 billion is about 0.07% of the value of the U.S. stocks market and $170 billion is 0.3%, so you have to wonder how much this additional euphoria is going to be worth.<blockquote>另一方面，400亿美元约占美国股市价值的0.07%，1700亿美元占0.3%，所以你不得不想知道这种额外的兴奋会值多少钱。</blockquote> You might also reasonably wonder how much extra exuberance the market can handle, given — as the chart above shows — it looks pretty exuberant already.<blockquote>你可能也有理由想知道市场能承受多少额外的繁荣，因为正如上图所示，它看起来已经相当繁荣了。</blockquote> For those following trends the more important short-term issue is that the U.S. market—as measured for example by the Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF—is (just) above its 50-day moving average and well above its 200 day moving average. So the trend remains bullish.<blockquote>对于那些关注趋势的人来说，更重要的短期问题是美国市场（例如以 Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF 衡量）（刚刚）高于 50 天移动平均线，并且远高于 200 天移动平均线。所以趋势仍然看涨。</blockquote> Whether that remains the case as inflation forecasts break above 8-year highs, and the White House looks at a 25% hike in corporate tax rates, is going to be another matter.<blockquote>随着通胀预测突破 8 年来的高点，以及白宫考虑将企业税率提高 25%，情况是否仍然如此，这将是另一回事。</blockquote> Meanwhile those of a curious disposition might wonder why, if new and inexperienced investors are so eager to plunge $40 billion or even $170 billion “into” the market, current (and possibly more experienced) investors are so willing to take the same amount out.<blockquote>与此同时，那些好奇的人可能会想，如果新的和缺乏经验的投资者如此渴望向市场投入 400 亿美元甚至 1700 亿美元，那么为什么现有的（可能还有更有经验的）投资者却如此愿意拿出同样的金额。</blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-40-billion-in-stimulus-wont-go-into-stocks-11615842577?mod=home-page\">MarketWatch</a>\n为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite","AAPL":"苹果",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".DJI":"道琼斯","VTI":"大盘指数ETF-Vanguard MSCI"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-40-billion-in-stimulus-wont-go-into-stocks-11615842577?mod=home-page","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/599a65733b8245fcf7868668ef9ad712","article_id":"1149837805","content_text":"It’s a simple logical error\n\nIf you’re planning to take extra risk in your retirement accounts because of all the stimulus money about to be “poured into stocks”—don’t.\nThe same goes for bitcoin.\nMizuho Securities is the latest to push this idea, with a survey suggesting that 10% of the $380 billion in stimulus windfalls will be invested in stocks and bitcoin.\nThat,according to Wall Street, means that about $40 billion in extra money will “come into the stock market,” driving it higher.\nRecently Deutsche Bank estimated young individual investors were ready to pour $170 billion into the market.\nAnd the Wall Street hucksters made the same argument.\nBut it’s the old “money on the sidelines” fallacy. (Incidentally this raises, yet again, the question of why we don’t teach logic as Topic No. 1 in the public education system—a failure whose devastating costs are apparent every day.)\nIt’s a simple logical error, and it doesn’t matter who points it out—me, your broker, the Man in the Moon. It’s basic logic.\nStimulus money, or money “on the sidelines,” cannot “come into the market” for one very simple reason that gets ignored time and time and time again when this comes up.\nEvery time a security is bought, one must be sold.\nPretty obvious, right? If I buy your Apple stock, then you…er…have to sell it to me. I buy, you sell.\nImagine if you bought a house and tried to move in, and the previous owner figured he’d hang on to it, as well as banking the check.\nIf investors plunge $40 billion of their stimulus windfalls “into” stocks (and bitcoin), guess how much current investors will simultaneously “take out” of stocks (and bitcoin).\nEr…$40 billion.\nAnd if eager young investors rush out and pour $170 billion of their cash into these investments, current investors will…er…take $170 billion out.\nIt is not a coincidence that the figures match.\nI have $10, you have a share. I buy your share. Now I have your share…and you have my $10.\nNone of this means the stock market is a bad investment (or a good one), merely that this particular argument has no force.\nThe more interesting question is whether or not this hot stimulus money will spark even greater animal spirits among investors — especially among those who have the least experience of investing.\nIs that possible? Obviously.\nIs it likely? Maybe.\nOn the other hand, $40 billion is about 0.07% of the value of the U.S. stocks market and $170 billion is 0.3%, so you have to wonder how much this additional euphoria is going to be worth.\nYou might also reasonably wonder how much extra exuberance the market can handle, given — as the chart above shows — it looks pretty exuberant already.\nFor those following trends the more important short-term issue is that the U.S. market—as measured for example by the Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF—is (just) above its 50-day moving average and well above its 200 day moving average. So the trend remains bullish.\nWhether that remains the case as inflation forecasts break above 8-year highs, and the White House looks at a 25% hike in corporate tax rates, is going to be another matter.\nMeanwhile those of a curious disposition might wonder why, if new and inexperienced investors are so eager to plunge $40 billion or even $170 billion “into” the market, current (and possibly more experienced) investors are so willing to take the same amount out.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{"AAPL":0.9,".IXIC":0.9,".DJI":0.9,".SPX":0.9,"VTI":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":2399,"commentLimit":10,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"symbols":[],"verified":2,"subType":0,"readableState":1,"langContent":"EN","currentLanguage":"EN","warmUpFlag":false,"orderFlag":false,"shareable":true,"causeOfNotShareable":"","featuresForAnalytics":[],"commentAndTweetFlag":false,"andRepostAutoSelectedFlag":false,"upFlag":false,"length":16,"xxTargetLangEnum":"ORIG"},"commentList":[],"hasMoreComment":false,"orderType":2}