Bonds lousy_老虎社区_美港股上老虎

2021-03-15

Bonds lousy

Why inflation makes holding bonds for the long run riskier than owning stocks<blockquote>为什么通货膨胀使长期持有债券比持有股票风险更大</blockquote>

免责声明：上述内容仅代表发帖人个人观点，不构成本平台的任何投资建议。

精彩评论

我们需要你的真知灼见来填补这片空白

发表看法

{"i18n":{"language":"zh_CN"},"detailType":1,"isChannel":false,"data":{"magic":2,"id":322170383,"tweetId":"322170383","gmtCreate":1615788287042,"gmtModify":1703492954257,"author":{"id":3577679283766533,"idStr":"3577679283766533","authorId":3577679283766533,"authorIdStr":"3577679283766533","name":"Masterpumper","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/93c676857d1652a8383690e8b7a7a20a","vip":1,"userType":1,"introduction":"","boolIsFan":false,"boolIsHead":false,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[],"fanSize":2,"starInvestorFlag":false},"themes":[],"images":[],"coverImages":[],"extraTitle":"","html":"<html><head></head><body>Bonds lousy</body></html>","htmlText":"<html><head></head><body>Bonds lousy</body></html>","text":"Bonds lousy","highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"favoriteSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/322170383","repostId":1100888274,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1100888274","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1615786808,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1100888274?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-03-15 13:40","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Why inflation makes holding bonds for the long run riskier than owning stocks<blockquote>为什么通货膨胀使长期持有债券比持有股票风险更大</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1100888274","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"You’d have to hold U.S. Treasury bonds for 57 years to not lose to inflation\nHow long is the long te","content":"You’d have to hold U.S. Treasury bonds for 57 years to not lose to inflation<blockquote>你必须持有美国国债57年才能不输给通货膨胀</blockquote> How long is the long term in the bond market? Would you believe 57 years? That’s how long you must be prepared to own U.S. government bonds if you want to be assured of not losing to inflation.<blockquote>债券市场的长期有多长？你相信57年吗？如果你想确保不输给通货膨胀，你必须准备持有美国政府债券的时间。</blockquote> This depressing statistic comes from the just-released 2021 edition of Credit Suisse’s&nbsp;Global Investment Returns Yearbook. The authors — Elroy Dimson, a finance professor at Cambridge University, Paul Marsh, a finance professor at the London Business School and Mike Staunton, director of that institution’s London Share Price Database — measured the longest period in U.S. history (since 1900) over which U.S. government bonds produced an inflation-adjusted loss.<blockquote>这一令人沮丧的统计数据来自刚刚发布的2021年版瑞士信贷全球投资回报年鉴。作者——剑桥大学金融学教授埃尔罗伊·迪姆森(Elroy Dimson)、伦敦商学院金融学教授保罗·马什(Paul Marsh)和该机构伦敦股价数据库主任迈克·斯汤顿(Mike Staunton)——测量了美国历史上（自1900年以来）美国政府债券产生通胀调整后损失的最长时期。</blockquote> The future might not be like the past, of course. But with current interest rates so low, it seems likely that, in the event the future isn’t like the past, it will be worse for bonds—not better.<blockquote>当然，未来可能不会像过去那样。但由于目前的利率如此之低，如果未来与过去不同，债券的情况可能会更糟，而不是更好。</blockquote> The 57-year period in which U.S. government bonds lost ground to inflation began in 1924, when the 10-year Treasury yield stood at 3.93% and inflation over the trailing 12 months was negative 0.58% (according to data provided by Yale University professor Robert Shiller). That meant that there was deflation at the time, not inflation. The real (inflation-adjusted) 10-year yield at the time was therefore 4.51%.<blockquote>美国政府债券因通胀而失利的57年时期始于1924年，当时10年期国债收益率为3.93%，过去12个月的通胀率为负0.58%（根据耶鲁大学教授罗伯特·席勒提供的数据）。这意味着当时存在通货紧缩，而不是通货膨胀。因此，当时实际（经通胀调整）10年期国债收益率为4.51%。</blockquote> In contrast, the 10-year yield&nbsp;stood at 1.53% on March 11 and inflation over the trailing 12 months is 1.68%. So the comparable real yield in this case is negative 0.15%. That low rate translates to significant headwinds in the face of bonds purchased today producing a positive real rate of return in coming years.<blockquote>相比之下，3月11日10年期国债收益率为1.53%，过去12个月的通胀率为1.68%。因此，在这种情况下，可比实际收益率为负0.15%。面对今天购买的债券，这种低利率意味着在未来几年产生正的实际回报率，将面临巨大的阻力。</blockquote> The Credit Suisse Yearbook forces us to reconsider the standard narrative that stocks are less risky than bonds. Instead of 57 years, the comparable “long term” for U.S. stocks is 16 years. (See chart, below.) That’s the longest period since 1900 in which U.S. equities produced a negative real return. From the point of view of the long-term investor, stocks therefore appear to be far less risky.<blockquote>《瑞士信贷年鉴》迫使我们重新考虑股票风险低于债券的标准说法。美股可比的“长期”不是57年，而是16年。（见下图。）这是自1900年以来美国股市实际回报率为负的最长时期。因此，从长期投资者的角度来看，股票的风险似乎要小得多。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/e3a63641318cf3034c54f3253db53e8d\" tg-width=\"1260\" tg-height=\"849\"><blockquote></blockquote> There is one sense in which government bonds are less risky than stocks. Assuming the federal government doesn’t default, then U.S. government bonds are undoubtedly safer than stocks. But, as the Credit Suisse Yearbook’s authors point out, “there is a price to be paid” for that safety. “In terms of inflation-adjusted returns, there is a high chance of disappointment.”<blockquote>从某种意义上说，政府债券的风险低于股票。假设联邦政府不违约，那么美国国债无疑比股票更安全。但是，正如《瑞士信贷年鉴》的作者指出的那样，这种安全“是要付出代价的”。“就通胀调整后的回报而言，很有可能会令人失望。”</blockquote> At a minimum, the Yearbook encourages us to focus on risk from many different angles. An asset that appears to be conservative when considering the possibility of default may be quite risky from the perspective of how long it may lag inflation.<blockquote>至少，《年鉴》鼓励我们从许多不同的角度关注风险。一项在考虑违约可能性时显得保守的资产，从其可能滞后通胀多长时间的角度来看，可能风险相当大。</blockquote> Expand focus outside of the U.S.<blockquote>将关注点扩展到美国以外。</blockquote> When focusing on the U.S. from this perspective of lagging inflation over the long term, it certainly appears as though stocks are less risky than bonds. When we expand our focus to non-U.S. stock markets, this conclusion is premature.<blockquote>当从长期滞后通胀的角度关注美国时，股票的风险似乎确实低于债券。当我们将关注点扩大到非美股市场时，这个结论还为时过早。</blockquote> Consider Japan, for example. According to the Credit Suisse Yearbook, the longest stretch of time in which that country’s equities lost ground to inflation is 51 years. That’s the same order of magnitude as for U.S. Treasury bonds.<blockquote>以日本为例。根据瑞士信贷年鉴，该国股市因通胀而下跌的最长时间是51年。这与美国国债的数量级相同。</blockquote> This underlines the importance of focusing on as many different markets as possible, over as many years as possible. Most of what is taken to be conventional wisdom in the financial-planning world derives from a database covering just U.S. stocks and bonds back to 1926. Since the U.S. equity and fixed income markets are the world’s largest, focusing on them is “susceptible to success bias,” as the Yearbook’s authors put it.<blockquote>这强调了在尽可能多的时间内关注尽可能多的不同市场的重要性。财务规划界的大部分传统智慧都来自一个仅涵盖1926年以来美国股票和债券的数据库。正如年鉴作者所说，由于美国股票和固定收益市场是世界上最大的，关注它们“容易受到成功偏见的影响”。</blockquote> Unless we are willing to bet that the U.S. markets over the next century will outperform the rest of the world by as much as they have since the 1920s, we should be basing our forecasts on the performance of global markets for as many years for which data are available.<blockquote>除非我们愿意打赌美国市场在下个世纪的表现将像自20世纪20年代以来一样优于世界其他地区，否则我们的预测应该基于全球市场多年来的表现。有数据可用。</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 inflation makes holding bonds for the long run riskier than owning stocks<blockquote>为什么通货膨胀使长期持有债券比持有股票风险更大</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 inflation makes holding bonds for the long run riskier than owning stocks<blockquote>为什么通货膨胀使长期持有债券比持有股票风险更大</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nMarketWatch2021-03-15 13:40\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\nYou’d have to hold U.S. Treasury bonds for 57 years to not lose to inflation<blockquote>你必须持有美国国债57年才能不输给通货膨胀</blockquote> How long is the long term in the bond market? Would you believe 57 years? That’s how long you must be prepared to own U.S. government bonds if you want to be assured of not losing to inflation.<blockquote>债券市场的长期有多长？你相信57年吗？如果你想确保不输给通货膨胀，你必须准备持有美国政府债券的时间。</blockquote> This depressing statistic comes from the just-released 2021 edition of Credit Suisse’s&nbsp;Global Investment Returns Yearbook. The authors — Elroy Dimson, a finance professor at Cambridge University, Paul Marsh, a finance professor at the London Business School and Mike Staunton, director of that institution’s London Share Price Database — measured the longest period in U.S. history (since 1900) over which U.S. government bonds produced an inflation-adjusted loss.<blockquote>这一令人沮丧的统计数据来自刚刚发布的2021年版瑞士信贷全球投资回报年鉴。作者——剑桥大学金融学教授埃尔罗伊·迪姆森(Elroy Dimson)、伦敦商学院金融学教授保罗·马什(Paul Marsh)和该机构伦敦股价数据库主任迈克·斯汤顿(Mike Staunton)——测量了美国历史上（自1900年以来）美国政府债券产生通胀调整后损失的最长时期。</blockquote> The future might not be like the past, of course. But with current interest rates so low, it seems likely that, in the event the future isn’t like the past, it will be worse for bonds—not better.<blockquote>当然，未来可能不会像过去那样。但由于目前的利率如此之低，如果未来与过去不同，债券的情况可能会更糟，而不是更好。</blockquote> The 57-year period in which U.S. government bonds lost ground to inflation began in 1924, when the 10-year Treasury yield stood at 3.93% and inflation over the trailing 12 months was negative 0.58% (according to data provided by Yale University professor Robert Shiller). That meant that there was deflation at the time, not inflation. The real (inflation-adjusted) 10-year yield at the time was therefore 4.51%.<blockquote>美国政府债券因通胀而失利的57年时期始于1924年，当时10年期国债收益率为3.93%，过去12个月的通胀率为负0.58%（根据耶鲁大学教授罗伯特·席勒提供的数据）。这意味着当时存在通货紧缩，而不是通货膨胀。因此，当时实际（经通胀调整）10年期国债收益率为4.51%。</blockquote> In contrast, the 10-year yield&nbsp;stood at 1.53% on March 11 and inflation over the trailing 12 months is 1.68%. So the comparable real yield in this case is negative 0.15%. That low rate translates to significant headwinds in the face of bonds purchased today producing a positive real rate of return in coming years.<blockquote>相比之下，3月11日10年期国债收益率为1.53%，过去12个月的通胀率为1.68%。因此，在这种情况下，可比实际收益率为负0.15%。面对今天购买的债券，这种低利率意味着在未来几年产生正的实际回报率，将面临巨大的阻力。</blockquote> The Credit Suisse Yearbook forces us to reconsider the standard narrative that stocks are less risky than bonds. Instead of 57 years, the comparable “long term” for U.S. stocks is 16 years. (See chart, below.) That’s the longest period since 1900 in which U.S. equities produced a negative real return. From the point of view of the long-term investor, stocks therefore appear to be far less risky.<blockquote>《瑞士信贷年鉴》迫使我们重新考虑股票风险低于债券的标准说法。美股可比的“长期”不是57年，而是16年。（见下图。）这是自1900年以来美国股市实际回报率为负的最长时期。因此，从长期投资者的角度来看，股票的风险似乎要小得多。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/e3a63641318cf3034c54f3253db53e8d\" tg-width=\"1260\" tg-height=\"849\"><blockquote></blockquote> There is one sense in which government bonds are less risky than stocks. Assuming the federal government doesn’t default, then U.S. government bonds are undoubtedly safer than stocks. But, as the Credit Suisse Yearbook’s authors point out, “there is a price to be paid” for that safety. “In terms of inflation-adjusted returns, there is a high chance of disappointment.”<blockquote>从某种意义上说，政府债券的风险低于股票。假设联邦政府不违约，那么美国国债无疑比股票更安全。但是，正如《瑞士信贷年鉴》的作者指出的那样，这种安全“是要付出代价的”。“就通胀调整后的回报而言，很有可能会令人失望。”</blockquote> At a minimum, the Yearbook encourages us to focus on risk from many different angles. An asset that appears to be conservative when considering the possibility of default may be quite risky from the perspective of how long it may lag inflation.<blockquote>至少，《年鉴》鼓励我们从许多不同的角度关注风险。一项在考虑违约可能性时显得保守的资产，从其可能滞后通胀多长时间的角度来看，可能风险相当大。</blockquote> Expand focus outside of the U.S.<blockquote>将关注点扩展到美国以外。</blockquote> When focusing on the U.S. from this perspective of lagging inflation over the long term, it certainly appears as though stocks are less risky than bonds. When we expand our focus to non-U.S. stock markets, this conclusion is premature.<blockquote>当从长期滞后通胀的角度关注美国时，股票的风险似乎确实低于债券。当我们将关注点扩大到非美股市场时，这个结论还为时过早。</blockquote> Consider Japan, for example. According to the Credit Suisse Yearbook, the longest stretch of time in which that country’s equities lost ground to inflation is 51 years. That’s the same order of magnitude as for U.S. Treasury bonds.<blockquote>以日本为例。根据瑞士信贷年鉴，该国股市因通胀而下跌的最长时间是51年。这与美国国债的数量级相同。</blockquote> This underlines the importance of focusing on as many different markets as possible, over as many years as possible. Most of what is taken to be conventional wisdom in the financial-planning world derives from a database covering just U.S. stocks and bonds back to 1926. Since the U.S. equity and fixed income markets are the world’s largest, focusing on them is “susceptible to success bias,” as the Yearbook’s authors put it.<blockquote>这强调了在尽可能多的时间内关注尽可能多的不同市场的重要性。财务规划界的大部分传统智慧都来自一个仅涵盖1926年以来美国股票和债券的数据库。正如年鉴作者所说，由于美国股票和固定收益市场是世界上最大的，关注它们“容易受到成功偏见的影响”。</blockquote> Unless we are willing to bet that the U.S. markets over the next century will outperform the rest of the world by as much as they have since the 1920s, we should be basing our forecasts on the performance of global markets for as many years for which data are available.<blockquote>除非我们愿意打赌美国市场在下个世纪的表现将像自20世纪20年代以来一样优于世界其他地区，否则我们的预测应该基于全球市场多年来的表现。有数据可用。</blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-inflation-makes-holding-bonds-for-the-long-run-riskier-than-owning-stocks-11615586194?mod=home-page\">MarketWatch</a>\n为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".DJI":"道琼斯",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-inflation-makes-holding-bonds-for-the-long-run-riskier-than-owning-stocks-11615586194?mod=home-page","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/599a65733b8245fcf7868668ef9ad712","article_id":"1100888274","content_text":"You’d have to hold U.S. Treasury bonds for 57 years to not lose to inflation\nHow long is the long term in the bond market? Would you believe 57 years? That’s how long you must be prepared to own U.S. government bonds if you want to be assured of not losing to inflation.\nThis depressing statistic comes from the just-released 2021 edition of Credit Suisse’s Global Investment Returns Yearbook. The authors — Elroy Dimson, a finance professor at Cambridge University, Paul Marsh, a finance professor at the London Business School and Mike Staunton, director of that institution’s London Share Price Database — measured the longest period in U.S. history (since 1900) over which U.S. government bonds produced an inflation-adjusted loss.\nThe future might not be like the past, of course. But with current interest rates so low, it seems likely that, in the event the future isn’t like the past, it will be worse for bonds—not better.\nThe 57-year period in which U.S. government bonds lost ground to inflation began in 1924, when the 10-year Treasury yield stood at 3.93% and inflation over the trailing 12 months was negative 0.58% (according to data provided by Yale University professor Robert Shiller). That meant that there was deflation at the time, not inflation. The real (inflation-adjusted) 10-year yield at the time was therefore 4.51%.\nIn contrast, the 10-year yield stood at 1.53% on March 11 and inflation over the trailing 12 months is 1.68%. So the comparable real yield in this case is negative 0.15%. That low rate translates to significant headwinds in the face of bonds purchased today producing a positive real rate of return in coming years.\nThe Credit Suisse Yearbook forces us to reconsider the standard narrative that stocks are less risky than bonds. Instead of 57 years, the comparable “long term” for U.S. stocks is 16 years. (See chart, below.) That’s the longest period since 1900 in which U.S. equities produced a negative real return. From the point of view of the long-term investor, stocks therefore appear to be far less risky.\n\nThere is one sense in which government bonds are less risky than stocks. Assuming the federal government doesn’t default, then U.S. government bonds are undoubtedly safer than stocks. But, as the Credit Suisse Yearbook’s authors point out, “there is a price to be paid” for that safety. “In terms of inflation-adjusted returns, there is a high chance of disappointment.”\nAt a minimum, the Yearbook encourages us to focus on risk from many different angles. An asset that appears to be conservative when considering the possibility of default may be quite risky from the perspective of how long it may lag inflation.\nExpand focus outside of the U.S.\nWhen focusing on the U.S. from this perspective of lagging inflation over the long term, it certainly appears as though stocks are less risky than bonds. When we expand our focus to non-U.S. stock markets, this conclusion is premature.\nConsider Japan, for example. According to the Credit Suisse Yearbook, the longest stretch of time in which that country’s equities lost ground to inflation is 51 years. That’s the same order of magnitude as for U.S. Treasury bonds.\nThis underlines the importance of focusing on as many different markets as possible, over as many years as possible. Most of what is taken to be conventional wisdom in the financial-planning world derives from a database covering just U.S. stocks and bonds back to 1926. Since the U.S. equity and fixed income markets are the world’s largest, focusing on them is “susceptible to success bias,” as the Yearbook’s authors put it.\nUnless we are willing to bet that the U.S. markets over the next century will outperform the rest of the world by as much as they have since the 1920s, we should be basing our forecasts on the performance of global markets for as many years for which data are available.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{".SPX":0.9,".IXIC":0.9,".DJI":0.9,"ZNmain":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":353,"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":10,"xxTargetLangEnum":"ORIG"},"commentList":[],"isCommentEnd":true,"isTiger":false,"isWeiXinMini":false,"url":"/m/post/322170383"}