Here’s more evidence that the next decade for stocks won’t be as good as the last_老虎社区_美港股上老虎

Here’s more evidence that the next decade for stocks won’t be as good as the last

MarketWatch2021-03-23

Expect gains from equities to be thin but still beat inflation and bonds Though the U.S. stock market may win its current battle with the bond market, it could lose the war. Based on a simple ...

网页链接

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

Harvi
·2021-03-23
Thanks for sharing the insight.
回复
点赞
举报
WarSlasher
·2021-03-23
Make one post , help comment
回复
3
举报
DC9999
·2021-03-23
Sad
回复
1
举报
收起
- WarSlasher:
  very sad
  2021-03-23
  回复
  举报
- Scuttle_butt:
  very very sad
  2021-03-23
  回复
  举报

热议股票

7x24

全部

关于我们·老虎社区守则·老虎社区账号管理规范·老虎社区服务协议·老虎社区隐私政策

公司名称：北京至简风宜信息技术有限公司

违法和不良信息投诉：010-5681-3562（工作时间9:30-18:30）

邮箱：service@laohu8.com

营业执照：91110105MA01A4U55R

ICP备：京ICP备18016422号

网安备：京公网安备11010502036490

关注我们

{"i18n":{"language":"zh_CN"},"data":{"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1133296026?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","thumbnail":"","is_english":true,"pubTime":"2021-03-23 16:03","share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/599a65733b8245fcf7868668ef9ad712","id":"1133296026","market":"us","top_or_hot":-1,"title":"Here’s more evidence that the next decade for stocks won’t be as good as the last","media":"MarketWatch","content":"<div>\n<p>Expect gains from equities to be thin but still beat inflation and bonds\nThough the U.S. stock market may win its current battle with the bond market, it could lose the war.\nBased on a simple ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-more-evidence-that-the-next-decade-for-stocks-wont-be-as-good-as-the-last-11616193108?mod=home-page\">网页链接</a>\n\n</div>\n","source":"market_watch","html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Here’s more evidence that the next decade for stocks won’t be as good as the last</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\">\nHere’s more evidence that the next decade for stocks won’t be as good as the last\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-03-23 16:03 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-more-evidence-that-the-next-decade-for-stocks-wont-be-as-good-as-the-last-11616193108?mod=home-page><strong>MarketWatch</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Expect gains from equities to be thin but still beat inflation and bonds\nThough the U.S. stock market may win its current battle with the bond market, it could lose the war.\nBased on a simple ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-more-evidence-that-the-next-decade-for-stocks-wont-be-as-good-as-the-last-11616193108?mod=home-page\">网页链接</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","isBrief":false,"type":0,"news_type":1,"symbol":".DJI","symbol_name":"道琼斯","start_time":0,"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-more-evidence-that-the-next-decade-for-stocks-wont-be-as-good-as-the-last-11616193108?mod=home-page","article_id":"1133296026","we_media_id":null,"thumbnails":[],"rights":null,"url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1133296026","pubTimestamp":1616486604,"sourceInfo":{"source_id":"market_watch","name":"华尔街大事件"},"weMediaInfo":null,"summary":"Expect gains from equities to be thin but still beat inflation and bonds\nThough the U.S. stock marke","collect":0,"end_time":0,"defaultTopTitle":"marketwatch.com","property":[],"viewcount":null,"language":"en","relate_stocks":{".DJI":"道琼斯","NDX":"纳斯达克100指数",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite","QQQ":"纳指100ETF",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index"},"translate_title":"这里有更多的证据表明，股市的下一个十年不会像上一个十年那么好","themeId":null,"isJumpTheme":false,"ttsUrl":null,"symbols_score_info":{".DJI":0.9,".IXIC":0.9,".SPX":0.9,"NDX":0.9,"QQQ":0.9},"content_text":"Expect gains from equities to be thin but still beat inflation and bonds\nThough the U.S. stock market may win its current battle with the bond market, it could lose the war.\nBased on a simple regression model built on the historical relationship between stocks, bonds, interest rates, and inflation, investors can expect stocks to perform about 3.3 percentage points better than bonds annually over the coming decade. But that doesn’t mean equities will produce a return that is anything close to their historical average.\nCurrently, for example, the bond market recently signaled that the 10-year Treasury will produce an inflation-adjusted loss of 0.7 percentage points annualized over the next decade. (That’s the difference between the 10-year yield and the 10-year breakeven inflation rate.) Assuming the econometric model is right, that means U.S. stocks will beat inflation by 2.6 annualized percentage points between now and 2031 — only slightly more than a third of its long-term average.\nWhat this in effect means: While the stock market may be overvalued, the bond market is even more so. How you respond is therefore a function of whether you base your asset allocation on relative or absolute returns.\nOne who has made a big splash recently focusing on stocks in relative terms is Robert Shiller, the Yale University finance professor and Nobel laureate. He argues that stocks’ otherwise expensive valuationsare cheap when viewed in relation to today’s rock-bottom interest rates.\nShiller’s arguments raise more than just a few eyebrows, since for years he was assumed to be solidly in the bearish camp. His Cyclically-Adjusted Price Earnings ratio (CAPE), otherwise known as the Shiller P/E, has been well above-average for several years now. It currently is higher than 98% of all monthly readings since 1881, exceeded only by the even-loftier levels registered at the top of the internet bubble in the late 1990s.\nBoth perspectives can be correct. Stocks may be cheap relative to bonds, even if they are expensive in their own right.\nThis distinction between relative and absolute is illustrated by the chart below. The data points in the chart were calculated by Elroy Dimson, a professor at Cambridge University’s Judge Business School and chairman of its Centre for Endowment Management. Dimson also is co-author of Credit Suisse’s Global Investment Returns Yearbook, which is based on the complete return histories for the stock and bond markets in 23 different countries dating back to 1900.\n\nDimson took all the countries and years in his database, a total of 2,382 separate observations, and segregated them into eight groups: The first and eighth contained the 5% of country-years with the lowest and highest real rates, respectively. Groups 2 through 7 contained successive 15% of the observations. For each group, he calculated bonds’ and stocks’ average real returns over the subsequent five years.\nSeveral stark patterns are evident from the chart. Stocks outperformed bonds in all eight groups. But notice that returns for both assets were consistently higher, as real interest rates at the beginning of the five-year periods were themselves higher.\nNotice also from the chart where the U.S. currently stands on this spectrum of real interest rates. While the U.S. is not in the lowest category that is associated with negative real equity returns over the subsequent five years, its stock market is disturbingly close.\nWhere to turn?\nIt’s important that we consider stocks from both relative and absolute perspectives. But many of us focus on equity valuations in relative terms only, which is dangerous.\nIf you needed a reminder why, recall the housing debacle in 2008. Each house was valued for mortgage purposes relative to other houses in its neighborhood. But those relative valuations proved to be of little solace when the whole market collapsed. It’s not out of the question that a similar scenario could play out in the stock and bond markets.\nUnfortunately, it’s not easy figuring out where to turn in an investment environment in which everything is expensive. It’s probably easier to know what not to do.\nOne option that seems particularly dangerous is going further and further out on the risk spectrum. Yet it appears that many investors are aggressively betting on highly speculative investments. A few of these securities will likely reward investors, but history shows that, on average, they will underperform the broad stock market on a risk-adjusted basis.\nMy hunch is that we need to face squarely that we’re entering an extended era of low returns for all financial assets. Painful as that realization is, we need to adjust our financial and retirement plans accordingly. The sooner we plan for modest returns, the more likely the necessary adjustment will be less painful.","kind":"news","is_publish_news":true,"is_publish_highlight":true,"is_publish_live":false,"is_publish_wemedia":null,"editions":null,"column":"","sentiment":"0","news_tag":"","news_rank":0,"symbols":[],"gpt_button":1},"commentList":[{"id":353261820,"gmtCreate":1616502218360,"gmtModify":1634525505337,"author":{"id":"3569108136192916","authorId":"3569108136192916","name":"Harvi","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/844bf978245bcc77c3312cc406eb2715","vip":1,"crmLevel":5,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"authorIdStr":"3569108136192916","idStr":"3569108136192916"},"htmlText":"Thanks for sharing the insight.","listText":"Thanks for sharing the insight.","text":"Thanks for sharing the insight.","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/353261820","repostId":1133296026,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1133296026","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1616486604,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1133296026?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-03-23 16:03","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Here’s more evidence that the next decade for stocks won’t be as good as the last","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1133296026","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Expect gains from equities to be thin but still beat inflation and bonds\nThough the U.S. stock marke","content":"<p>Expect gains from equities to be thin but still beat inflation and bonds</p>\n<p>Though the U.S. stock market may win its current battle with the bond market, it could lose the war.</p>\n<p>Based on a simple regression model built on the historical relationship between stocks, bonds, interest rates, and inflation, investors can expect stocks to perform about 3.3 percentage points better than bonds annually over the coming decade. But that doesn’t mean equities will produce a return that is anything close to their historical average.</p>\n<p>Currently, for example, the bond market recently signaled that the 10-year Treasury&nbsp;will produce an inflation-adjusted loss of 0.7 percentage points annualized over the next decade. (That’s the difference between the 10-year yield and the 10-year breakeven inflation rate.) Assuming the econometric model is right, that means U.S. stocks will beat inflation by 2.6 annualized percentage points between now and 2031 — only slightly more than a third of its long-term average.</p>\n<p>What this in effect means: While the stock market may be overvalued, the bond market is even more so. How you respond is therefore a function of whether you base your asset allocation on relative or absolute returns.</p>\n<p>One who has made a big splash recently focusing on stocks in relative terms is Robert Shiller, the Yale University finance professor and Nobel laureate. He argues that&nbsp;stocks’ otherwise expensive valuationsare cheap when viewed in relation to today’s rock-bottom interest rates.</p>\n<p>Shiller’s arguments raise more than just a few eyebrows, since for years he was assumed to be solidly in the bearish camp. His Cyclically-Adjusted Price Earnings ratio (CAPE), otherwise known as the Shiller P/E, has been well above-average for several years now. It currently is higher than 98% of all monthly readings since 1881, exceeded only by the even-loftier levels registered at the top of the internet bubble in the late 1990s.</p>\n<p>Both perspectives can be correct. Stocks may be cheap relative to bonds, even if they are expensive in their own right.</p>\n<p>This distinction between relative and absolute is illustrated by the chart below. The data points in the chart were calculated by Elroy Dimson, a professor at Cambridge University’s Judge Business School and chairman of its Centre for Endowment Management. Dimson also is co-author of Credit Suisse’s&nbsp;Global Investment Returns Yearbook, which is based on the complete return histories for the stock and bond markets in 23 different countries dating back to 1900.</p>\n<p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/6a28df2072c9966827b23640005b9882\" tg-width=\"1260\" tg-height=\"874\"></p>\n<p>Dimson took all the countries and years in his database, a total of 2,382 separate observations, and segregated them into eight groups: The first and eighth contained the 5% of country-years with the lowest and highest real rates, respectively. Groups 2 through 7 contained successive 15% of the observations. For each group, he calculated bonds’ and stocks’ average real returns over the subsequent five years.</p>\n<p>Several stark patterns are evident from the chart. Stocks outperformed bonds in all eight groups. But notice that returns for both assets were consistently higher, as real interest rates at the beginning of the five-year periods were themselves higher.</p>\n<p>Notice also from the chart where the U.S. currently stands on this spectrum of real interest rates. While the U.S. is not in the lowest category that is associated with negative real equity returns over the subsequent five years, its stock market is disturbingly close.</p>\n<p><b>Where to turn?</b></p>\n<p>It’s important that we consider stocks from both relative and absolute perspectives. But many of us focus on equity valuations in relative terms only, which is dangerous.</p>\n<p>If you needed a reminder why, recall the housing debacle in 2008. Each house was valued for mortgage purposes relative to other houses in its neighborhood. But those relative valuations proved to be of little solace when the whole market collapsed. It’s not out of the question that a similar scenario could play out in the stock and bond markets.</p>\n<p>Unfortunately, it’s not easy figuring out where to turn in an investment environment in which everything is expensive. It’s probably easier to know what not to do.</p>\n<p>One option that seems particularly dangerous is going further and further out on the risk spectrum. Yet it appears that many investors are aggressively betting on highly speculative investments. A few of these securities will likely reward investors, but history shows that, on average, they will underperform the broad stock market on a risk-adjusted basis.</p>\n<p>My hunch is that we need to face squarely that we’re entering an extended era of low returns for all financial assets. Painful as that realization is, we need to adjust our financial and retirement plans accordingly. The sooner we plan for modest returns, the more likely the necessary adjustment will be less painful.</p>","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>Here’s more evidence that the next decade for stocks won’t be as good as the last</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\">\nHere’s more evidence that the next decade for stocks won’t be as good as the last\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-03-23 16:03 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-more-evidence-that-the-next-decade-for-stocks-wont-be-as-good-as-the-last-11616193108?mod=home-page><strong>MarketWatch</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Expect gains from equities to be thin but still beat inflation and bonds\nThough the U.S. stock market may win its current battle with the bond market, it could lose the war.\nBased on a simple ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-more-evidence-that-the-next-decade-for-stocks-wont-be-as-good-as-the-last-11616193108?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":{".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite","NDX":"纳斯达克100指数","QQQ":"纳指100ETF",".DJI":"道琼斯",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-more-evidence-that-the-next-decade-for-stocks-wont-be-as-good-as-the-last-11616193108?mod=home-page","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/599a65733b8245fcf7868668ef9ad712","article_id":"1133296026","content_text":"Expect gains from equities to be thin but still beat inflation and bonds\nThough the U.S. stock market may win its current battle with the bond market, it could lose the war.\nBased on a simple regression model built on the historical relationship between stocks, bonds, interest rates, and inflation, investors can expect stocks to perform about 3.3 percentage points better than bonds annually over the coming decade. But that doesn’t mean equities will produce a return that is anything close to their historical average.\nCurrently, for example, the bond market recently signaled that the 10-year Treasury will produce an inflation-adjusted loss of 0.7 percentage points annualized over the next decade. (That’s the difference between the 10-year yield and the 10-year breakeven inflation rate.) Assuming the econometric model is right, that means U.S. stocks will beat inflation by 2.6 annualized percentage points between now and 2031 — only slightly more than a third of its long-term average.\nWhat this in effect means: While the stock market may be overvalued, the bond market is even more so. How you respond is therefore a function of whether you base your asset allocation on relative or absolute returns.\nOne who has made a big splash recently focusing on stocks in relative terms is Robert Shiller, the Yale University finance professor and Nobel laureate. He argues that stocks’ otherwise expensive valuationsare cheap when viewed in relation to today’s rock-bottom interest rates.\nShiller’s arguments raise more than just a few eyebrows, since for years he was assumed to be solidly in the bearish camp. His Cyclically-Adjusted Price Earnings ratio (CAPE), otherwise known as the Shiller P/E, has been well above-average for several years now. It currently is higher than 98% of all monthly readings since 1881, exceeded only by the even-loftier levels registered at the top of the internet bubble in the late 1990s.\nBoth perspectives can be correct. Stocks may be cheap relative to bonds, even if they are expensive in their own right.\nThis distinction between relative and absolute is illustrated by the chart below. The data points in the chart were calculated by Elroy Dimson, a professor at Cambridge University’s Judge Business School and chairman of its Centre for Endowment Management. Dimson also is co-author of Credit Suisse’s Global Investment Returns Yearbook, which is based on the complete return histories for the stock and bond markets in 23 different countries dating back to 1900.\n\nDimson took all the countries and years in his database, a total of 2,382 separate observations, and segregated them into eight groups: The first and eighth contained the 5% of country-years with the lowest and highest real rates, respectively. Groups 2 through 7 contained successive 15% of the observations. For each group, he calculated bonds’ and stocks’ average real returns over the subsequent five years.\nSeveral stark patterns are evident from the chart. Stocks outperformed bonds in all eight groups. But notice that returns for both assets were consistently higher, as real interest rates at the beginning of the five-year periods were themselves higher.\nNotice also from the chart where the U.S. currently stands on this spectrum of real interest rates. While the U.S. is not in the lowest category that is associated with negative real equity returns over the subsequent five years, its stock market is disturbingly close.\nWhere to turn?\nIt’s important that we consider stocks from both relative and absolute perspectives. But many of us focus on equity valuations in relative terms only, which is dangerous.\nIf you needed a reminder why, recall the housing debacle in 2008. Each house was valued for mortgage purposes relative to other houses in its neighborhood. But those relative valuations proved to be of little solace when the whole market collapsed. It’s not out of the question that a similar scenario could play out in the stock and bond markets.\nUnfortunately, it’s not easy figuring out where to turn in an investment environment in which everything is expensive. It’s probably easier to know what not to do.\nOne option that seems particularly dangerous is going further and further out on the risk spectrum. Yet it appears that many investors are aggressively betting on highly speculative investments. A few of these securities will likely reward investors, but history shows that, on average, they will underperform the broad stock market on a risk-adjusted basis.\nMy hunch is that we need to face squarely that we’re entering an extended era of low returns for all financial assets. Painful as that realization is, we need to adjust our financial and retirement plans accordingly. The sooner we plan for modest returns, the more likely the necessary adjustment will be less painful.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":353879592,"gmtCreate":1616486961116,"gmtModify":1631884063918,"author":{"id":"3575195102402470","authorId":"3575195102402470","name":"WarSlasher","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0c98b196bb3a5da8bb25c9d45e23a4ce","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"authorIdStr":"3575195102402470","idStr":"3575195102402470"},"htmlText":"Make one post , help comment","listText":"Make one post , help comment","text":"Make one post , help comment","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/353879592","repostId":1133296026,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1133296026","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1616486604,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1133296026?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-03-23 16:03","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Here’s more evidence that the next decade for stocks won’t be as good as the last","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1133296026","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Expect gains from equities to be thin but still beat inflation and bonds\nThough the U.S. stock marke","content":"<p>Expect gains from equities to be thin but still beat inflation and bonds</p>\n<p>Though the U.S. stock market may win its current battle with the bond market, it could lose the war.</p>\n<p>Based on a simple regression model built on the historical relationship between stocks, bonds, interest rates, and inflation, investors can expect stocks to perform about 3.3 percentage points better than bonds annually over the coming decade. But that doesn’t mean equities will produce a return that is anything close to their historical average.</p>\n<p>Currently, for example, the bond market recently signaled that the 10-year Treasury&nbsp;will produce an inflation-adjusted loss of 0.7 percentage points annualized over the next decade. (That’s the difference between the 10-year yield and the 10-year breakeven inflation rate.) Assuming the econometric model is right, that means U.S. stocks will beat inflation by 2.6 annualized percentage points between now and 2031 — only slightly more than a third of its long-term average.</p>\n<p>What this in effect means: While the stock market may be overvalued, the bond market is even more so. How you respond is therefore a function of whether you base your asset allocation on relative or absolute returns.</p>\n<p>One who has made a big splash recently focusing on stocks in relative terms is Robert Shiller, the Yale University finance professor and Nobel laureate. He argues that&nbsp;stocks’ otherwise expensive valuationsare cheap when viewed in relation to today’s rock-bottom interest rates.</p>\n<p>Shiller’s arguments raise more than just a few eyebrows, since for years he was assumed to be solidly in the bearish camp. His Cyclically-Adjusted Price Earnings ratio (CAPE), otherwise known as the Shiller P/E, has been well above-average for several years now. It currently is higher than 98% of all monthly readings since 1881, exceeded only by the even-loftier levels registered at the top of the internet bubble in the late 1990s.</p>\n<p>Both perspectives can be correct. Stocks may be cheap relative to bonds, even if they are expensive in their own right.</p>\n<p>This distinction between relative and absolute is illustrated by the chart below. The data points in the chart were calculated by Elroy Dimson, a professor at Cambridge University’s Judge Business School and chairman of its Centre for Endowment Management. Dimson also is co-author of Credit Suisse’s&nbsp;Global Investment Returns Yearbook, which is based on the complete return histories for the stock and bond markets in 23 different countries dating back to 1900.</p>\n<p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/6a28df2072c9966827b23640005b9882\" tg-width=\"1260\" tg-height=\"874\"></p>\n<p>Dimson took all the countries and years in his database, a total of 2,382 separate observations, and segregated them into eight groups: The first and eighth contained the 5% of country-years with the lowest and highest real rates, respectively. Groups 2 through 7 contained successive 15% of the observations. For each group, he calculated bonds’ and stocks’ average real returns over the subsequent five years.</p>\n<p>Several stark patterns are evident from the chart. Stocks outperformed bonds in all eight groups. But notice that returns for both assets were consistently higher, as real interest rates at the beginning of the five-year periods were themselves higher.</p>\n<p>Notice also from the chart where the U.S. currently stands on this spectrum of real interest rates. While the U.S. is not in the lowest category that is associated with negative real equity returns over the subsequent five years, its stock market is disturbingly close.</p>\n<p><b>Where to turn?</b></p>\n<p>It’s important that we consider stocks from both relative and absolute perspectives. But many of us focus on equity valuations in relative terms only, which is dangerous.</p>\n<p>If you needed a reminder why, recall the housing debacle in 2008. Each house was valued for mortgage purposes relative to other houses in its neighborhood. But those relative valuations proved to be of little solace when the whole market collapsed. It’s not out of the question that a similar scenario could play out in the stock and bond markets.</p>\n<p>Unfortunately, it’s not easy figuring out where to turn in an investment environment in which everything is expensive. It’s probably easier to know what not to do.</p>\n<p>One option that seems particularly dangerous is going further and further out on the risk spectrum. Yet it appears that many investors are aggressively betting on highly speculative investments. A few of these securities will likely reward investors, but history shows that, on average, they will underperform the broad stock market on a risk-adjusted basis.</p>\n<p>My hunch is that we need to face squarely that we’re entering an extended era of low returns for all financial assets. Painful as that realization is, we need to adjust our financial and retirement plans accordingly. The sooner we plan for modest returns, the more likely the necessary adjustment will be less painful.</p>","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>Here’s more evidence that the next decade for stocks won’t be as good as the last</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\">\nHere’s more evidence that the next decade for stocks won’t be as good as the last\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-03-23 16:03 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-more-evidence-that-the-next-decade-for-stocks-wont-be-as-good-as-the-last-11616193108?mod=home-page><strong>MarketWatch</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Expect gains from equities to be thin but still beat inflation and bonds\nThough the U.S. stock market may win its current battle with the bond market, it could lose the war.\nBased on a simple ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-more-evidence-that-the-next-decade-for-stocks-wont-be-as-good-as-the-last-11616193108?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":{".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite","NDX":"纳斯达克100指数","QQQ":"纳指100ETF",".DJI":"道琼斯",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-more-evidence-that-the-next-decade-for-stocks-wont-be-as-good-as-the-last-11616193108?mod=home-page","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/599a65733b8245fcf7868668ef9ad712","article_id":"1133296026","content_text":"Expect gains from equities to be thin but still beat inflation and bonds\nThough the U.S. stock market may win its current battle with the bond market, it could lose the war.\nBased on a simple regression model built on the historical relationship between stocks, bonds, interest rates, and inflation, investors can expect stocks to perform about 3.3 percentage points better than bonds annually over the coming decade. But that doesn’t mean equities will produce a return that is anything close to their historical average.\nCurrently, for example, the bond market recently signaled that the 10-year Treasury will produce an inflation-adjusted loss of 0.7 percentage points annualized over the next decade. (That’s the difference between the 10-year yield and the 10-year breakeven inflation rate.) Assuming the econometric model is right, that means U.S. stocks will beat inflation by 2.6 annualized percentage points between now and 2031 — only slightly more than a third of its long-term average.\nWhat this in effect means: While the stock market may be overvalued, the bond market is even more so. How you respond is therefore a function of whether you base your asset allocation on relative or absolute returns.\nOne who has made a big splash recently focusing on stocks in relative terms is Robert Shiller, the Yale University finance professor and Nobel laureate. He argues that stocks’ otherwise expensive valuationsare cheap when viewed in relation to today’s rock-bottom interest rates.\nShiller’s arguments raise more than just a few eyebrows, since for years he was assumed to be solidly in the bearish camp. His Cyclically-Adjusted Price Earnings ratio (CAPE), otherwise known as the Shiller P/E, has been well above-average for several years now. It currently is higher than 98% of all monthly readings since 1881, exceeded only by the even-loftier levels registered at the top of the internet bubble in the late 1990s.\nBoth perspectives can be correct. Stocks may be cheap relative to bonds, even if they are expensive in their own right.\nThis distinction between relative and absolute is illustrated by the chart below. The data points in the chart were calculated by Elroy Dimson, a professor at Cambridge University’s Judge Business School and chairman of its Centre for Endowment Management. Dimson also is co-author of Credit Suisse’s Global Investment Returns Yearbook, which is based on the complete return histories for the stock and bond markets in 23 different countries dating back to 1900.\n\nDimson took all the countries and years in his database, a total of 2,382 separate observations, and segregated them into eight groups: The first and eighth contained the 5% of country-years with the lowest and highest real rates, respectively. Groups 2 through 7 contained successive 15% of the observations. For each group, he calculated bonds’ and stocks’ average real returns over the subsequent five years.\nSeveral stark patterns are evident from the chart. Stocks outperformed bonds in all eight groups. But notice that returns for both assets were consistently higher, as real interest rates at the beginning of the five-year periods were themselves higher.\nNotice also from the chart where the U.S. currently stands on this spectrum of real interest rates. While the U.S. is not in the lowest category that is associated with negative real equity returns over the subsequent five years, its stock market is disturbingly close.\nWhere to turn?\nIt’s important that we consider stocks from both relative and absolute perspectives. But many of us focus on equity valuations in relative terms only, which is dangerous.\nIf you needed a reminder why, recall the housing debacle in 2008. Each house was valued for mortgage purposes relative to other houses in its neighborhood. But those relative valuations proved to be of little solace when the whole market collapsed. It’s not out of the question that a similar scenario could play out in the stock and bond markets.\nUnfortunately, it’s not easy figuring out where to turn in an investment environment in which everything is expensive. It’s probably easier to know what not to do.\nOne option that seems particularly dangerous is going further and further out on the risk spectrum. Yet it appears that many investors are aggressively betting on highly speculative investments. A few of these securities will likely reward investors, but history shows that, on average, they will underperform the broad stock market on a risk-adjusted basis.\nMy hunch is that we need to face squarely that we’re entering an extended era of low returns for all financial assets. Painful as that realization is, we need to adjust our financial and retirement plans accordingly. The sooner we plan for modest returns, the more likely the necessary adjustment will be less painful.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":353870649,"gmtCreate":1616486799581,"gmtModify":1634525578002,"author":{"id":"3574806246814672","authorId":"3574806246814672","name":"DC9999","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/eba9b04ff8eac8415c9dc1c2ab0d5ed2","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"authorIdStr":"3574806246814672","idStr":"3574806246814672"},"htmlText":"Sad","listText":"Sad","text":"Sad","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":2,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/353870649","repostId":1133296026,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1133296026","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1616486604,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1133296026?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-03-23 16:03","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Here’s more evidence that the next decade for stocks won’t be as good as the last","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1133296026","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Expect gains from equities to be thin but still beat inflation and bonds\nThough the U.S. stock marke","content":"<p>Expect gains from equities to be thin but still beat inflation and bonds</p>\n<p>Though the U.S. stock market may win its current battle with the bond market, it could lose the war.</p>\n<p>Based on a simple regression model built on the historical relationship between stocks, bonds, interest rates, and inflation, investors can expect stocks to perform about 3.3 percentage points better than bonds annually over the coming decade. But that doesn’t mean equities will produce a return that is anything close to their historical average.</p>\n<p>Currently, for example, the bond market recently signaled that the 10-year Treasury&nbsp;will produce an inflation-adjusted loss of 0.7 percentage points annualized over the next decade. (That’s the difference between the 10-year yield and the 10-year breakeven inflation rate.) Assuming the econometric model is right, that means U.S. stocks will beat inflation by 2.6 annualized percentage points between now and 2031 — only slightly more than a third of its long-term average.</p>\n<p>What this in effect means: While the stock market may be overvalued, the bond market is even more so. How you respond is therefore a function of whether you base your asset allocation on relative or absolute returns.</p>\n<p>One who has made a big splash recently focusing on stocks in relative terms is Robert Shiller, the Yale University finance professor and Nobel laureate. He argues that&nbsp;stocks’ otherwise expensive valuationsare cheap when viewed in relation to today’s rock-bottom interest rates.</p>\n<p>Shiller’s arguments raise more than just a few eyebrows, since for years he was assumed to be solidly in the bearish camp. His Cyclically-Adjusted Price Earnings ratio (CAPE), otherwise known as the Shiller P/E, has been well above-average for several years now. It currently is higher than 98% of all monthly readings since 1881, exceeded only by the even-loftier levels registered at the top of the internet bubble in the late 1990s.</p>\n<p>Both perspectives can be correct. Stocks may be cheap relative to bonds, even if they are expensive in their own right.</p>\n<p>This distinction between relative and absolute is illustrated by the chart below. The data points in the chart were calculated by Elroy Dimson, a professor at Cambridge University’s Judge Business School and chairman of its Centre for Endowment Management. Dimson also is co-author of Credit Suisse’s&nbsp;Global Investment Returns Yearbook, which is based on the complete return histories for the stock and bond markets in 23 different countries dating back to 1900.</p>\n<p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/6a28df2072c9966827b23640005b9882\" tg-width=\"1260\" tg-height=\"874\"></p>\n<p>Dimson took all the countries and years in his database, a total of 2,382 separate observations, and segregated them into eight groups: The first and eighth contained the 5% of country-years with the lowest and highest real rates, respectively. Groups 2 through 7 contained successive 15% of the observations. For each group, he calculated bonds’ and stocks’ average real returns over the subsequent five years.</p>\n<p>Several stark patterns are evident from the chart. Stocks outperformed bonds in all eight groups. But notice that returns for both assets were consistently higher, as real interest rates at the beginning of the five-year periods were themselves higher.</p>\n<p>Notice also from the chart where the U.S. currently stands on this spectrum of real interest rates. While the U.S. is not in the lowest category that is associated with negative real equity returns over the subsequent five years, its stock market is disturbingly close.</p>\n<p><b>Where to turn?</b></p>\n<p>It’s important that we consider stocks from both relative and absolute perspectives. But many of us focus on equity valuations in relative terms only, which is dangerous.</p>\n<p>If you needed a reminder why, recall the housing debacle in 2008. Each house was valued for mortgage purposes relative to other houses in its neighborhood. But those relative valuations proved to be of little solace when the whole market collapsed. It’s not out of the question that a similar scenario could play out in the stock and bond markets.</p>\n<p>Unfortunately, it’s not easy figuring out where to turn in an investment environment in which everything is expensive. It’s probably easier to know what not to do.</p>\n<p>One option that seems particularly dangerous is going further and further out on the risk spectrum. Yet it appears that many investors are aggressively betting on highly speculative investments. A few of these securities will likely reward investors, but history shows that, on average, they will underperform the broad stock market on a risk-adjusted basis.</p>\n<p>My hunch is that we need to face squarely that we’re entering an extended era of low returns for all financial assets. Painful as that realization is, we need to adjust our financial and retirement plans accordingly. The sooner we plan for modest returns, the more likely the necessary adjustment will be less painful.</p>","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>Here’s more evidence that the next decade for stocks won’t be as good as the last</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\">\nHere’s more evidence that the next decade for stocks won’t be as good as the last\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-03-23 16:03 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-more-evidence-that-the-next-decade-for-stocks-wont-be-as-good-as-the-last-11616193108?mod=home-page><strong>MarketWatch</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Expect gains from equities to be thin but still beat inflation and bonds\nThough the U.S. stock market may win its current battle with the bond market, it could lose the war.\nBased on a simple ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-more-evidence-that-the-next-decade-for-stocks-wont-be-as-good-as-the-last-11616193108?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":{".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite","NDX":"纳斯达克100指数","QQQ":"纳指100ETF",".DJI":"道琼斯",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-more-evidence-that-the-next-decade-for-stocks-wont-be-as-good-as-the-last-11616193108?mod=home-page","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/599a65733b8245fcf7868668ef9ad712","article_id":"1133296026","content_text":"Expect gains from equities to be thin but still beat inflation and bonds\nThough the U.S. stock market may win its current battle with the bond market, it could lose the war.\nBased on a simple regression model built on the historical relationship between stocks, bonds, interest rates, and inflation, investors can expect stocks to perform about 3.3 percentage points better than bonds annually over the coming decade. But that doesn’t mean equities will produce a return that is anything close to their historical average.\nCurrently, for example, the bond market recently signaled that the 10-year Treasury will produce an inflation-adjusted loss of 0.7 percentage points annualized over the next decade. (That’s the difference between the 10-year yield and the 10-year breakeven inflation rate.) Assuming the econometric model is right, that means U.S. stocks will beat inflation by 2.6 annualized percentage points between now and 2031 — only slightly more than a third of its long-term average.\nWhat this in effect means: While the stock market may be overvalued, the bond market is even more so. How you respond is therefore a function of whether you base your asset allocation on relative or absolute returns.\nOne who has made a big splash recently focusing on stocks in relative terms is Robert Shiller, the Yale University finance professor and Nobel laureate. He argues that stocks’ otherwise expensive valuationsare cheap when viewed in relation to today’s rock-bottom interest rates.\nShiller’s arguments raise more than just a few eyebrows, since for years he was assumed to be solidly in the bearish camp. His Cyclically-Adjusted Price Earnings ratio (CAPE), otherwise known as the Shiller P/E, has been well above-average for several years now. It currently is higher than 98% of all monthly readings since 1881, exceeded only by the even-loftier levels registered at the top of the internet bubble in the late 1990s.\nBoth perspectives can be correct. Stocks may be cheap relative to bonds, even if they are expensive in their own right.\nThis distinction between relative and absolute is illustrated by the chart below. The data points in the chart were calculated by Elroy Dimson, a professor at Cambridge University’s Judge Business School and chairman of its Centre for Endowment Management. Dimson also is co-author of Credit Suisse’s Global Investment Returns Yearbook, which is based on the complete return histories for the stock and bond markets in 23 different countries dating back to 1900.\n\nDimson took all the countries and years in his database, a total of 2,382 separate observations, and segregated them into eight groups: The first and eighth contained the 5% of country-years with the lowest and highest real rates, respectively. Groups 2 through 7 contained successive 15% of the observations. For each group, he calculated bonds’ and stocks’ average real returns over the subsequent five years.\nSeveral stark patterns are evident from the chart. Stocks outperformed bonds in all eight groups. But notice that returns for both assets were consistently higher, as real interest rates at the beginning of the five-year periods were themselves higher.\nNotice also from the chart where the U.S. currently stands on this spectrum of real interest rates. While the U.S. is not in the lowest category that is associated with negative real equity returns over the subsequent five years, its stock market is disturbingly close.\nWhere to turn?\nIt’s important that we consider stocks from both relative and absolute perspectives. But many of us focus on equity valuations in relative terms only, which is dangerous.\nIf you needed a reminder why, recall the housing debacle in 2008. Each house was valued for mortgage purposes relative to other houses in its neighborhood. But those relative valuations proved to be of little solace when the whole market collapsed. It’s not out of the question that a similar scenario could play out in the stock and bond markets.\nUnfortunately, it’s not easy figuring out where to turn in an investment environment in which everything is expensive. It’s probably easier to know what not to do.\nOne option that seems particularly dangerous is going further and further out on the risk spectrum. Yet it appears that many investors are aggressively betting on highly speculative investments. A few of these securities will likely reward investors, but history shows that, on average, they will underperform the broad stock market on a risk-adjusted basis.\nMy hunch is that we need to face squarely that we’re entering an extended era of low returns for all financial assets. Painful as that realization is, we need to adjust our financial and retirement plans accordingly. The sooner we plan for modest returns, the more likely the necessary adjustment will be less painful.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":3861271,"gmtCreate":1616486976257,"gmtModify":1635750475697,"authorId":3575195102402470,"author":{"id":3575195102402470,"idStr":"3575195102402470","authorId":3575195102402470,"name":"WarSlasher","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0c98b196bb3a5da8bb25c9d45e23a4ce","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":353870649,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"very sad","text":"very sad","html":"very sad"},{"id":3861787,"gmtCreate":1616491244290,"gmtModify":1616492471983,"authorId":3575864002721378,"author":{"id":3575864002721378,"idStr":"3575864002721378","authorId":3575864002721378,"name":"Scuttle_butt","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5b59067aea958ed1e3c245b76defe179","vip":1,"crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":353870649,"type":1,"supId":3861271,"prevId":0,"content":"very very sad","text":"very very sad","html":"very very sad"}],"langContent":"EN"}],"hasMoreComments":true,"newsSizeData":{"likeSize":13,"commentSize":3,"repostSize":0,"favoriteSize":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false}}