Like_老虎社区_美港股上老虎

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":841783582,"tweetId":"841783582","gmtCreate":1635943160505,"gmtModify":1635943160748,"author":{"id":3584578813080112,"idStr":"3584578813080112","authorId":3584578813080112,"authorIdStr":"3584578813080112","name":"chaisiewling","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/a9a4a1e448f0d39c51c24533166eb658","vip":1,"userType":1,"introduction":"","boolIsFan":false,"boolIsHead":false,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[],"fanSize":14,"starInvestorFlag":false},"themes":[],"images":[],"coverImages":[],"extraTitle":"","html":"<html><head></head><body><p>Like</p></body></html>","htmlText":"<html><head></head><body><p>Like</p></body></html>","text":"Like","highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":4,"commentSize":2,"repostSize":0,"favoriteSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/841783582","repostId":1169378840,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1169378840","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1635940725,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1169378840?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-11-03 19:58","market":"us","language":"en","title":"The ‘Dow 36,000’ authors weren’t just 17 years late. Here’s the key mistake they made.","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1169378840","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"It’s tapering day, not just at the Federal Reserve but also at the Treasury, which is likely to anno","content":"<p></p>\n<p>It’s tapering day, not just at the Federal Reserve but also at the Treasury, which is likely to announce auction size cuts. More on that later.</p>\n<p>The book “Dow 36,000” this week attracted headlines 22 years after its publication, when the leading stock market benchmark&nbsp;finally crossed that level.</p>\n<p>Eddy Elfenbein, the portfolio manager of the AdvisorShares Focused Equity ETF and the author of the Crossing Wall Street blog, said he read the book in one day and found key errors.</p>\n<p>The point he made in his review&nbsp;was not so much that James Glassman and Kevin Hassett, who would later become chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers in the Trump administration, were wrong in their prediction (though, to be clear, they were). As he points out, they were actually arguing the Dow should be at 36,000, in 1999, when it was 9,000, though they conceded it would take three to five years to get there.</p>\n<p>He took issue with their way of measuring risk. Glassman and Hassett conclude that stocks are not riskier than Treasury bonds, because the standard deviation of stock returns in the long run is similar to that of bond returns.</p>\n<p>“That’s a faulty conclusion. Even if the standard deviations are the same size, it doesn’t say anything about the risk that they’re looking for,” said Elfenbein. He uses an analogy — two houses that are identical except that one has a great view of the river. “Compare the prices of the two homes, and the difference must be the price of the view. The fact that the prices paid may deviate from their own respective averages the same way, speaks nothing as to the price of the view. Glassman and Hassett are saying that since those deviations are the same, the river view is free,” said Elfenbein.</p>\n<p>There was another big mistake, the fund manager said, in their model. “It’s impossible to have a one-time-only ratcheting down of the market’s dividend yield. The reason is that if long-term stock returns don’t change, as the authors do assume, a lower dividend yield will always create a commensurate increase in the dividend growth rate. As a result, there will always be a new higher dividend whose yield will always be in need of being notched back down,” he said. Their model would yield not a fourfold increase in stocks but an infinite increase. “This means the authors are actually insufficiently bullish and, moreover, they’ve mistitled their book,” he said.</p>\n<p>The book isn’t totally useless, though. “In any case, their strategies are rather conservative: Buy and hold, diversify, don’t trade too much, don’t let market fluctuations rattle you, don’t time the market. All perfectly sound ideas and not specifically dependent on ‘Dow 36,000.’”</p>\n<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>The ‘Dow 36,000’ authors weren’t just 17 years late. Here’s the key mistake they made. </title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nThe ‘Dow 36,000’ authors weren’t just 17 years late. Here’s the key mistake they made. \n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-11-03 19:58 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-dow-36-000-authors-werent-just-17-years-late-heres-the-key-mistake-they-made-11635935855?mod=home-page><strong>MarketWatch</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>It’s tapering day, not just at the Federal Reserve but also at the Treasury, which is likely to announce auction size cuts. More on that later.\nThe book “Dow 36,000” this week attracted headlines 22 ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-dow-36-000-authors-werent-just-17-years-late-heres-the-key-mistake-they-made-11635935855?mod=home-page\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".DJI":"道琼斯",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-dow-36-000-authors-werent-just-17-years-late-heres-the-key-mistake-they-made-11635935855?mod=home-page","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1169378840","content_text":"It’s tapering day, not just at the Federal Reserve but also at the Treasury, which is likely to announce auction size cuts. More on that later.\nThe book “Dow 36,000” this week attracted headlines 22 years after its publication, when the leading stock market benchmark finally crossed that level.\nEddy Elfenbein, the portfolio manager of the AdvisorShares Focused Equity ETF and the author of the Crossing Wall Street blog, said he read the book in one day and found key errors.\nThe point he made in his review was not so much that James Glassman and Kevin Hassett, who would later become chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers in the Trump administration, were wrong in their prediction (though, to be clear, they were). As he points out, they were actually arguing the Dow should be at 36,000, in 1999, when it was 9,000, though they conceded it would take three to five years to get there.\nHe took issue with their way of measuring risk. Glassman and Hassett conclude that stocks are not riskier than Treasury bonds, because the standard deviation of stock returns in the long run is similar to that of bond returns.\n“That’s a faulty conclusion. Even if the standard deviations are the same size, it doesn’t say anything about the risk that they’re looking for,” said Elfenbein. He uses an analogy — two houses that are identical except that one has a great view of the river. “Compare the prices of the two homes, and the difference must be the price of the view. The fact that the prices paid may deviate from their own respective averages the same way, speaks nothing as to the price of the view. Glassman and Hassett are saying that since those deviations are the same, the river view is free,” said Elfenbein.\nThere was another big mistake, the fund manager said, in their model. “It’s impossible to have a one-time-only ratcheting down of the market’s dividend yield. The reason is that if long-term stock returns don’t change, as the authors do assume, a lower dividend yield will always create a commensurate increase in the dividend growth rate. As a result, there will always be a new higher dividend whose yield will always be in need of being notched back down,” he said. Their model would yield not a fourfold increase in stocks but an infinite increase. “This means the authors are actually insufficiently bullish and, moreover, they’ve mistitled their book,” he said.\nThe book isn’t totally useless, though. “In any case, their strategies are rather conservative: Buy and hold, diversify, don’t trade too much, don’t let market fluctuations rattle you, don’t time the market. All perfectly sound ideas and not specifically dependent on ‘Dow 36,000.’”","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":253,"commentLimit":10,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"symbols":[],"verified":2,"subType":0,"readableState":1,"langContent":"CN","currentLanguage":"CN","warmUpFlag":false,"orderFlag":false,"shareable":true,"causeOfNotShareable":"","featuresForAnalytics":[],"commentAndTweetFlag":false,"andRepostAutoSelectedFlag":false,"upFlag":false,"length":4,"xxTargetLangEnum":"ZH_CN"},"commentList":[],"isCommentEnd":true,"isTiger":false,"isWeiXinMini":false,"url":"/m/post/841783582"}