Hi_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":323982487,"tweetId":"323982487","gmtCreate":1615299181049,"gmtModify":1703486955759,"author":{"id":3570709291573644,"idStr":"3570709291573644","authorId":3570709291573644,"authorIdStr":"3570709291573644","name":"Jkcubz","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/454005a90377851a88dcde78f7b9fc15","vip":1,"userType":1,"introduction":"","boolIsFan":false,"boolIsHead":false,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[],"wearingBadges":[],"fanSize":3,"starInvestorFlag":false},"themes":[],"images":[],"coverImages":[],"title":"","extraTitle":"","html":"<html><head></head><body>Hi</body></html>","htmlText":"<html><head></head><body>Hi</body></html>","text":"Hi","highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":3,"repostSize":0,"favoriteSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/323982487","repostId":1158287133,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1158287133","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1615298882,"share":"https://www.laohunote.com/m/news/1158287133?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-03-09 22:08","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Dow 32,000? Why the index should be more than 1 million points higher<blockquote>道琼斯32000？为什么指数应该高出100多万点</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1158287133","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Benchmark index has inherent quirks, such as not counting dividends, that have kept it from reaching","content":"Benchmark index has inherent quirks, such as not counting dividends, that have kept it from reaching stratospheric levels<blockquote>基准指数具有固有的怪癖，例如不计算股息，这使得它无法达到平流层水平</blockquote> The Dow Jones Industrial Average should be trading not near 32,000 but actually above 1.2 million.<blockquote>道琼斯工业平均指数的交易价格不应接近 32,000 点，而应高于 120 万点。</blockquote> I am not making some wildly bullish prediction about the stock market in coming years. I am instead reporting where the Dow&nbsp;would be trading now if it had incorporated dividends that component companies have paid over the years, as well as other corporate actions that affect stock prices, such as stock dividends and rights issues.<blockquote>我不会对未来几年的股市做出一些疯狂看涨的预测。相反，我报道的是如果道琼斯指数纳入了成份股公司多年来支付的股息，以及其他影响股价的公司行为，例如股票股息和配股，那么道琼斯指数现在的交易位置。</blockquote> New&nbsp;research from the National Bureau of Economic Research&nbsp;calculates that had all such events been taken into account since Oct. 31, 1928, the Dow would have closed at 1,113,047 on Dec, 31, 2019. The Dow’s gain over the subsequent 15 months would propel its “true” value currently to more than 1.2 million.<blockquote>美国国家经济研究局的新研究计算出，如果将 1928 年 10 月 31 日以来的所有此类事件都考虑在内，道琼斯指数将在 2019 年 12 月 31 日收于 1,113,047 点。道琼斯指数在随后 15 个月内的上涨将使其 “真实 ”价值目前超过 120 万点。</blockquote> The study’s authors are John Shoven and Clemens Sialm, finance professors at Stanford University and the University of Texas at Austin, respectively, along with Jacky Lin and Genevieve Selden. The researchers tell a sordid tale of the Dow’s construction over the decades — a story that should be filed, along with sausage and legislation, in the category of “if you like it, don’t look too closely to how it is made.”<blockquote>该研究的作者分别是斯坦福大学和德克萨斯大学奥斯汀分校的金融学教授约翰-肖文（John Shoven）和克莱门斯-西亚姆（Clemens Sialm），以及杰基-林（Jacky Lin）和吉纳维芙-塞尔登（Genevieve Selden）。研究人员讲述了陶氏公司几十年来建造的肮脏故事--这个故事应该与香肠和立法一起归入 “如果你喜欢它，就不要太仔细地看它是如何制造的 ”范畴。</blockquote> Price-weighted<blockquote>价格加权</blockquote> One of the DJIA’s peculiarities is that it is a price-weighted index, which means that the contribution a stock makes to its performance is a function of how high- or low-priced it is. That makes no theoretical sense.<blockquote>道琼斯的特点之一是它是一个价格加权指数，这意味着一只股票对其业绩的贡献取决于其价格的高低。这在理论上没有意义。</blockquote> Consider the highest-priced stock currently in the DJIA, which is UnitedHealth Group&nbsp;with a recent price of about $350 per share. It has a 7.3% weighting in the index, compared to just a 1.0% weighting for Cisco Systems,the lowest-priced stock in the Dow at close to $48 per share. As a result, Cisco would need to perform more than seven times better than United Health in order to have the same impact on the Dow’s overall return.<blockquote>考虑一下道琼斯目前价格最高的股票，它是联合健康集团，最近的价格约为每股350美元。它在该指数中的权重为 7.3%，而道琼斯指数中价格最低的股票思科系统公司的权重仅为 1.0%，每股接近 48 美元。因此，思科的表现需要比联合健康公司好七倍以上，才能对道琼斯指数的整体回报产生同样的影响。</blockquote> Split adjustments<blockquote>分割调整</blockquote> One consequence of this price-weighting is that a stock split will have a big impact on a stock’s weight in the Dow, even though the split is an accounting entry with no real-world significance. Consider Apple,which last summer split its shares four-for-one. As a result of that split, the stock’s weight in the Dow instantly fell by three-quarters. This in fact ended up helping the Dow, since Apple stock has struggled since that split and is&nbsp;now in danger of entering into a bear market.<blockquote>这种价格加权的一个后果是，股票分割将对股票在道琼斯指数中的权重产生很大影响，尽管分割是一项没有现实意义的会计分录。以苹果公司为例， 该公司去年夏天将股票拆分为四比一。由于这次分拆，该股在道琼斯指数中的权重立即下降了四分之三。事实上，这最终帮助了道琼斯指数，因为苹果股票自那次分拆以来一直在苦苦挣扎，现在面临进入熊市的危险。</blockquote> Another of the Dow’s head-scratching idiosyncrasies is that in some early years it failed to adjust for stock splits for up to several months at a time. Yet another is that, in a number of those early years, split-adjustment factors were rounded to just one decimal point. According to the authors of this new study, this rounding led to discrepancies of as much as 0.4% on the occasion of each split — equivalent to more than 125 Dow points at today’s index level.<blockquote>道琼斯指数的另一个令人头疼的特点是，在最初的几年里，它一次长达几个月的时间都无法进行股票分割调整。另一个原因是，在早期的一些年份，分割调整系数被四舍五入到小数点后一位。据这项新研究的作者称，这种四舍五入导致每次拆分时的差异高达 0.4%，相当于今天的指数水平超过 125 点。</blockquote> Another peculiarity: The Dow treated stock dividends differently than stock splits, even though the two are functionally equivalent. According to the research’s authors, the Dow’s component stocks declared 105 stock dividends between them from 1928 through 2019, only 24 of which were reflected in the calculation of the Dow’s value.<blockquote>另一个特点是：道琼斯指数对待股票股息的方式与对待股票分割的方式不同，尽管两者在功能上是等同的。据该研究的作者称，从 1928 年到 2019 年，道琼斯指数的成分股宣布了 105 次股票股息，其中只有 24 次反映在道琼斯指数的价值计算中。</blockquote> Dividends<blockquote>股息</blockquote> By the far the most consequential methodological decision that the Dow made over the years has been to omit dividends, Professor Sialm told me in an interview. Nearly half of the Dow’s long-term total return since 1928 has come from dividends.<blockquote>西亚姆教授在接受采访时告诉我，到目前为止，道琼斯指数多年来做出的最重要的方法论决定是省略股息。自 1928 年以来，道琼斯指数的长期总回报近一半来自股息。</blockquote> You might think that this heavy reliance on dividends is unique to the Dow, which is constructed from the bluest of blue-chip stocks that typically offer higher dividend yields. But what the researchers found for the Dow is also true for the U.S. stock market as a whole. Since 1871, according to data from Yale University’s Robert Shiller, the U.S. stock market’s price-only annualized return has been 4.6%, almost precisely half of the market’s 9.3% annualized return on a total-return basis. (See the chart below.)<blockquote>你可能会认为这种对股息的严重依赖是道琼斯指数所独有的，道琼斯指数是由通常提供较高股息收益率的最蓝蓝筹股构成的。但研究人员对道琼斯指数的发现也适用于整个美国股市。根据耶鲁大学的罗伯特-席勒（Robert Shiller）的数据，自 1871 年以来，美国股市仅按价格计算的年化回报率为 4.6%，几乎正好是市场总回报率 9.3% 的一半。（见下图。）</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/2e99e55881bbacc9fb4c6753120044e2\" tg-width=\"1260\" tg-height=\"849\"><blockquote></blockquote> Notice what this means for the near-term, given that the S&amp;P 500’sSPX,-0.54%current yield is just 1.5%. Assuming the future is like the past, and depending on the growth rate of dividends, this low yield points to an expected total return for the stock market from current levels of not much more than 3% annualized. That’s less than a percentage point greater than the&nbsp;10-year breakeven inflation rate.<blockquote>请注意这对近期意味着什么，因为标普500的 sSPX,-0.54% 当前收益率仅为 1.5%。假设未来像过去一样，并且取决于股息增长率，这种低收益率表明股市的预期总回报率从目前的年化水平不超过 3%。这比 10 年期盈亏平衡通胀率高出不到一个百分点。</blockquote> Could the future be different than the past?<blockquote>未来会和过去不同吗？</blockquote> The bulls have a solid theoretical response to this otherwise dismal projection. According to a longstanding theory in finance, tracing to work in the 1960s by Franco Modigliani, who in 1985 would win the Nobel Prize in Economics, companies that pay out less in dividends should grow faster. That’s because they can reinvest in their own growth what they otherwise would have paid out to shareholders. A lower dividend yield therefore should translate into an accelerated earnings growth rate and a higher stock price.<blockquote>多头对这一令人沮丧的预测有着坚实的理论回应。根据金融界一个由来已久的理论，可以追溯到 20 世纪 60 年代弗朗哥·莫迪利亚尼 (Franco Modigliani) 的研究，他于 1985 年获得诺贝尔经济学奖，派发股息较少的公司应该增长更快。这是因为他们可以将原本支付给股东的资金再投资于自己的增长。因此，较低的股息收益率应该会转化为更快的盈利增长率和更高的股价。</blockquote> If so, stocks’ total return should not be affected by a lower dividend yield, since price appreciation would compensate by making a correspondingly greater contribution.<blockquote>如果是这样的话，股票的总回报率就不应受到较低股息率的影响，因为价格升值会通过做出相应更大的贡献来补偿。</blockquote> Crucially, Modigliani advanced his theory when share repurchases did not play a big role in the stock market, and his theory may need to be modified to account for them. If companies take the money they save from paying out fewer dividends and spend it on repurchases instead of investing it in their future growth, then a lower dividend yield may not translate into accelerated subsequent earnings growth.<blockquote>至关重要的是，莫迪利亚尼在股票回购在股票市场中没有发挥很大作用时提出了他的理论，他的理论可能需要修改以解释它们。如果公司将减少股息节省下来的资金用于回购，而不是投资于未来的增长，那么较低的股息收益率可能不会转化为后续盈利增长的加速。</blockquote> Whether or not it does depends crucially on whether companies repurchase shares when they are undervalued. Their track record here over the past two decades is not encouraging.<blockquote>是否这样做在很大程度上取决于公司是否在股票被低估时回购股票。他们过去二十年在这里的记录并不令人鼓舞。</blockquote> This means we can’t automatically assume that today’s low dividend yield will mean that, in coming years, price appreciation will constitute a greater proportion of stocks’ total return. In an email, Robert Arnott, founder of Research Affiliates, pointed out that dividends over the past two decades have represented just as big a proportion of stocks’ total return as in prior decades when dividend yields were much higher. For the 20 years through 2020, Arnott wrote, “the real return on stocks (S&amp;P 500) was 3.8%, of which dividend yield contributed exactly half.”<blockquote>这意味着我们不能自动认为，如今的低股息收益率将意味着在未来几年，股价升值将在股票总回报中占更大比例。Research Affiliates 的创始人罗伯特-阿诺特（Robert Arnott）在一封电子邮件中指出，过去二十年来，股息在股票总回报中所占的比例与前几十年股息收益率要高得多的情况一样大。阿诺特写道，在截至 2020 年的 20 年里，“股票（标普500）的实际回报率为 3.8%，其中股息收益率恰好占了一半”。</blockquote> To be sure, Sialm added, theory quickly gets complicated when trying to assess the interactions between dividends, price appreciation, and buybacks. There is no guarantee that price appreciation won’t make up for the market’s low current dividend yield. Nevertheless, he continued, it is likely that stock investors face an extended low-growth era.<blockquote>Sialm补充说，可以肯定的是，当试图评估股息、价格上涨和回购之间的相互作用时，理论很快就会变得复杂。不能保证价格上涨无法弥补市场目前较低的股息收益率。尽管如此，他继续说道，股票投资者可能会面临一个长期的低增长时代。</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>Dow 32,000? Why the index should be more than 1 million points higher<blockquote>道琼斯32000？为什么指数应该高出100多万点</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\">\nDow 32,000? Why the index should be more than 1 million points higher<blockquote>道琼斯32000？为什么指数应该高出100多万点</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nMarketWatch2021-03-09 22:08\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\nBenchmark index has inherent quirks, such as not counting dividends, that have kept it from reaching stratospheric levels<blockquote>基准指数具有固有的怪癖，例如不计算股息，这使得它无法达到平流层水平</blockquote> The Dow Jones Industrial Average should be trading not near 32,000 but actually above 1.2 million.<blockquote>道琼斯工业平均指数的交易价格不应接近 32,000 点，而应高于 120 万点。</blockquote> I am not making some wildly bullish prediction about the stock market in coming years. I am instead reporting where the Dow&nbsp;would be trading now if it had incorporated dividends that component companies have paid over the years, as well as other corporate actions that affect stock prices, such as stock dividends and rights issues.<blockquote>我不会对未来几年的股市做出一些疯狂看涨的预测。相反，我报道的是如果道琼斯指数纳入了成份股公司多年来支付的股息，以及其他影响股价的公司行为，例如股票股息和配股，那么道琼斯指数现在的交易位置。</blockquote> New&nbsp;research from the National Bureau of Economic Research&nbsp;calculates that had all such events been taken into account since Oct. 31, 1928, the Dow would have closed at 1,113,047 on Dec, 31, 2019. The Dow’s gain over the subsequent 15 months would propel its “true” value currently to more than 1.2 million.<blockquote>美国国家经济研究局的新研究计算出，如果将 1928 年 10 月 31 日以来的所有此类事件都考虑在内，道琼斯指数将在 2019 年 12 月 31 日收于 1,113,047 点。道琼斯指数在随后 15 个月内的上涨将使其 “真实 ”价值目前超过 120 万点。</blockquote> The study’s authors are John Shoven and Clemens Sialm, finance professors at Stanford University and the University of Texas at Austin, respectively, along with Jacky Lin and Genevieve Selden. The researchers tell a sordid tale of the Dow’s construction over the decades — a story that should be filed, along with sausage and legislation, in the category of “if you like it, don’t look too closely to how it is made.”<blockquote>该研究的作者分别是斯坦福大学和德克萨斯大学奥斯汀分校的金融学教授约翰-肖文（John Shoven）和克莱门斯-西亚姆（Clemens Sialm），以及杰基-林（Jacky Lin）和吉纳维芙-塞尔登（Genevieve Selden）。研究人员讲述了陶氏公司几十年来建造的肮脏故事--这个故事应该与香肠和立法一起归入 “如果你喜欢它，就不要太仔细地看它是如何制造的 ”范畴。</blockquote> Price-weighted<blockquote>价格加权</blockquote> One of the DJIA’s peculiarities is that it is a price-weighted index, which means that the contribution a stock makes to its performance is a function of how high- or low-priced it is. That makes no theoretical sense.<blockquote>道琼斯的特点之一是它是一个价格加权指数，这意味着一只股票对其业绩的贡献取决于其价格的高低。这在理论上没有意义。</blockquote> Consider the highest-priced stock currently in the DJIA, which is UnitedHealth Group&nbsp;with a recent price of about $350 per share. It has a 7.3% weighting in the index, compared to just a 1.0% weighting for Cisco Systems,the lowest-priced stock in the Dow at close to $48 per share. As a result, Cisco would need to perform more than seven times better than United Health in order to have the same impact on the Dow’s overall return.<blockquote>考虑一下道琼斯目前价格最高的股票，它是联合健康集团，最近的价格约为每股350美元。它在该指数中的权重为 7.3%，而道琼斯指数中价格最低的股票思科系统公司的权重仅为 1.0%，每股接近 48 美元。因此，思科的表现需要比联合健康公司好七倍以上，才能对道琼斯指数的整体回报产生同样的影响。</blockquote> Split adjustments<blockquote>分割调整</blockquote> One consequence of this price-weighting is that a stock split will have a big impact on a stock’s weight in the Dow, even though the split is an accounting entry with no real-world significance. Consider Apple,which last summer split its shares four-for-one. As a result of that split, the stock’s weight in the Dow instantly fell by three-quarters. This in fact ended up helping the Dow, since Apple stock has struggled since that split and is&nbsp;now in danger of entering into a bear market.<blockquote>这种价格加权的一个后果是，股票分割将对股票在道琼斯指数中的权重产生很大影响，尽管分割是一项没有现实意义的会计分录。以苹果公司为例， 该公司去年夏天将股票拆分为四比一。由于这次分拆，该股在道琼斯指数中的权重立即下降了四分之三。事实上，这最终帮助了道琼斯指数，因为苹果股票自那次分拆以来一直在苦苦挣扎，现在面临进入熊市的危险。</blockquote> Another of the Dow’s head-scratching idiosyncrasies is that in some early years it failed to adjust for stock splits for up to several months at a time. Yet another is that, in a number of those early years, split-adjustment factors were rounded to just one decimal point. According to the authors of this new study, this rounding led to discrepancies of as much as 0.4% on the occasion of each split — equivalent to more than 125 Dow points at today’s index level.<blockquote>道琼斯指数的另一个令人头疼的特点是，在最初的几年里，它一次长达几个月的时间都无法进行股票分割调整。另一个原因是，在早期的一些年份，分割调整系数被四舍五入到小数点后一位。据这项新研究的作者称，这种四舍五入导致每次拆分时的差异高达 0.4%，相当于今天的指数水平超过 125 点。</blockquote> Another peculiarity: The Dow treated stock dividends differently than stock splits, even though the two are functionally equivalent. According to the research’s authors, the Dow’s component stocks declared 105 stock dividends between them from 1928 through 2019, only 24 of which were reflected in the calculation of the Dow’s value.<blockquote>另一个特点是：道琼斯指数对待股票股息的方式与对待股票分割的方式不同，尽管两者在功能上是等同的。据该研究的作者称，从 1928 年到 2019 年，道琼斯指数的成分股宣布了 105 次股票股息，其中只有 24 次反映在道琼斯指数的价值计算中。</blockquote> Dividends<blockquote>股息</blockquote> By the far the most consequential methodological decision that the Dow made over the years has been to omit dividends, Professor Sialm told me in an interview. Nearly half of the Dow’s long-term total return since 1928 has come from dividends.<blockquote>西亚姆教授在接受采访时告诉我，到目前为止，道琼斯指数多年来做出的最重要的方法论决定是省略股息。自 1928 年以来，道琼斯指数的长期总回报近一半来自股息。</blockquote> You might think that this heavy reliance on dividends is unique to the Dow, which is constructed from the bluest of blue-chip stocks that typically offer higher dividend yields. But what the researchers found for the Dow is also true for the U.S. stock market as a whole. Since 1871, according to data from Yale University’s Robert Shiller, the U.S. stock market’s price-only annualized return has been 4.6%, almost precisely half of the market’s 9.3% annualized return on a total-return basis. (See the chart below.)<blockquote>你可能会认为这种对股息的严重依赖是道琼斯指数所独有的，道琼斯指数是由通常提供较高股息收益率的最蓝蓝筹股构成的。但研究人员对道琼斯指数的发现也适用于整个美国股市。根据耶鲁大学的罗伯特-席勒（Robert Shiller）的数据，自 1871 年以来，美国股市仅按价格计算的年化回报率为 4.6%，几乎正好是市场总回报率 9.3% 的一半。（见下图。）</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/2e99e55881bbacc9fb4c6753120044e2\" tg-width=\"1260\" tg-height=\"849\"><blockquote></blockquote> Notice what this means for the near-term, given that the S&amp;P 500’sSPX,-0.54%current yield is just 1.5%. Assuming the future is like the past, and depending on the growth rate of dividends, this low yield points to an expected total return for the stock market from current levels of not much more than 3% annualized. That’s less than a percentage point greater than the&nbsp;10-year breakeven inflation rate.<blockquote>请注意这对近期意味着什么，因为标普500的 sSPX,-0.54% 当前收益率仅为 1.5%。假设未来像过去一样，并且取决于股息增长率，这种低收益率表明股市的预期总回报率从目前的年化水平不超过 3%。这比 10 年期盈亏平衡通胀率高出不到一个百分点。</blockquote> Could the future be different than the past?<blockquote>未来会和过去不同吗？</blockquote> The bulls have a solid theoretical response to this otherwise dismal projection. According to a longstanding theory in finance, tracing to work in the 1960s by Franco Modigliani, who in 1985 would win the Nobel Prize in Economics, companies that pay out less in dividends should grow faster. That’s because they can reinvest in their own growth what they otherwise would have paid out to shareholders. A lower dividend yield therefore should translate into an accelerated earnings growth rate and a higher stock price.<blockquote>多头对这一令人沮丧的预测有着坚实的理论回应。根据金融界一个由来已久的理论，可以追溯到 20 世纪 60 年代弗朗哥·莫迪利亚尼 (Franco Modigliani) 的研究，他于 1985 年获得诺贝尔经济学奖，派发股息较少的公司应该增长更快。这是因为他们可以将原本支付给股东的资金再投资于自己的增长。因此，较低的股息收益率应该会转化为更快的盈利增长率和更高的股价。</blockquote> If so, stocks’ total return should not be affected by a lower dividend yield, since price appreciation would compensate by making a correspondingly greater contribution.<blockquote>如果是这样的话，股票的总回报率就不应受到较低股息率的影响，因为价格升值会通过做出相应更大的贡献来补偿。</blockquote> Crucially, Modigliani advanced his theory when share repurchases did not play a big role in the stock market, and his theory may need to be modified to account for them. If companies take the money they save from paying out fewer dividends and spend it on repurchases instead of investing it in their future growth, then a lower dividend yield may not translate into accelerated subsequent earnings growth.<blockquote>至关重要的是，莫迪利亚尼在股票回购在股票市场中没有发挥很大作用时提出了他的理论，他的理论可能需要修改以解释它们。如果公司将减少股息节省下来的资金用于回购，而不是投资于未来的增长，那么较低的股息收益率可能不会转化为后续盈利增长的加速。</blockquote> Whether or not it does depends crucially on whether companies repurchase shares when they are undervalued. Their track record here over the past two decades is not encouraging.<blockquote>是否这样做在很大程度上取决于公司是否在股票被低估时回购股票。他们过去二十年在这里的记录并不令人鼓舞。</blockquote> This means we can’t automatically assume that today’s low dividend yield will mean that, in coming years, price appreciation will constitute a greater proportion of stocks’ total return. In an email, Robert Arnott, founder of Research Affiliates, pointed out that dividends over the past two decades have represented just as big a proportion of stocks’ total return as in prior decades when dividend yields were much higher. For the 20 years through 2020, Arnott wrote, “the real return on stocks (S&amp;P 500) was 3.8%, of which dividend yield contributed exactly half.”<blockquote>这意味着我们不能自动认为，如今的低股息收益率将意味着在未来几年，股价升值将在股票总回报中占更大比例。Research Affiliates 的创始人罗伯特-阿诺特（Robert Arnott）在一封电子邮件中指出，过去二十年来，股息在股票总回报中所占的比例与前几十年股息收益率要高得多的情况一样大。阿诺特写道，在截至 2020 年的 20 年里，“股票（标普500）的实际回报率为 3.8%，其中股息收益率恰好占了一半”。</blockquote> To be sure, Sialm added, theory quickly gets complicated when trying to assess the interactions between dividends, price appreciation, and buybacks. There is no guarantee that price appreciation won’t make up for the market’s low current dividend yield. Nevertheless, he continued, it is likely that stock investors face an extended low-growth era.<blockquote>Sialm补充说，可以肯定的是，当试图评估股息、价格上涨和回购之间的相互作用时，理论很快就会变得复杂。不能保证价格上涨无法弥补市场目前较低的股息收益率。尽管如此，他继续说道，股票投资者可能会面临一个长期的低增长时代。</blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/dow-32-000-why-the-index-should-be-more-than-1-million-points-higher-11615248554?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/dow-32-000-why-the-index-should-be-more-than-1-million-points-higher-11615248554?mod=home-page","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/599a65733b8245fcf7868668ef9ad712","article_id":"1158287133","content_text":"Benchmark index has inherent quirks, such as not counting dividends, that have kept it from reaching stratospheric levels\nThe Dow Jones Industrial Average should be trading not near 32,000 but actually above 1.2 million.\nI am not making some wildly bullish prediction about the stock market in coming years. I am instead reporting where the Dow would be trading now if it had incorporated dividends that component companies have paid over the years, as well as other corporate actions that affect stock prices, such as stock dividends and rights issues.\nNew research from the National Bureau of Economic Research calculates that had all such events been taken into account since Oct. 31, 1928, the Dow would have closed at 1,113,047 on Dec, 31, 2019. The Dow’s gain over the subsequent 15 months would propel its “true” value currently to more than 1.2 million.\nThe study’s authors are John Shoven and Clemens Sialm, finance professors at Stanford University and the University of Texas at Austin, respectively, along with Jacky Lin and Genevieve Selden. The researchers tell a sordid tale of the Dow’s construction over the decades — a story that should be filed, along with sausage and legislation, in the category of “if you like it, don’t look too closely to how it is made.”\nPrice-weighted\nOne of the DJIA’s peculiarities is that it is a price-weighted index, which means that the contribution a stock makes to its performance is a function of how high- or low-priced it is. That makes no theoretical sense.\nConsider the highest-priced stock currently in the DJIA, which is UnitedHealth Group with a recent price of about $350 per share. It has a 7.3% weighting in the index, compared to just a 1.0% weighting for Cisco Systems,the lowest-priced stock in the Dow at close to $48 per share. As a result, Cisco would need to perform more than seven times better than United Health in order to have the same impact on the Dow’s overall return.\nSplit adjustments\nOne consequence of this price-weighting is that a stock split will have a big impact on a stock’s weight in the Dow, even though the split is an accounting entry with no real-world significance. Consider Apple,which last summer split its shares four-for-one. As a result of that split, the stock’s weight in the Dow instantly fell by three-quarters. This in fact ended up helping the Dow, since Apple stock has struggled since that split and is now in danger of entering into a bear market.\nAnother of the Dow’s head-scratching idiosyncrasies is that in some early years it failed to adjust for stock splits for up to several months at a time. Yet another is that, in a number of those early years, split-adjustment factors were rounded to just one decimal point. According to the authors of this new study, this rounding led to discrepancies of as much as 0.4% on the occasion of each split — equivalent to more than 125 Dow points at today’s index level.\nAnother peculiarity: The Dow treated stock dividends differently than stock splits, even though the two are functionally equivalent. According to the research’s authors, the Dow’s component stocks declared 105 stock dividends between them from 1928 through 2019, only 24 of which were reflected in the calculation of the Dow’s value.\nDividends\nBy the far the most consequential methodological decision that the Dow made over the years has been to omit dividends, Professor Sialm told me in an interview. Nearly half of the Dow’s long-term total return since 1928 has come from dividends.\nYou might think that this heavy reliance on dividends is unique to the Dow, which is constructed from the bluest of blue-chip stocks that typically offer higher dividend yields. But what the researchers found for the Dow is also true for the U.S. stock market as a whole. Since 1871, according to data from Yale University’s Robert Shiller, the U.S. stock market’s price-only annualized return has been 4.6%, almost precisely half of the market’s 9.3% annualized return on a total-return basis. (See the chart below.)\n\nNotice what this means for the near-term, given that the S&P 500’sSPX,-0.54%current yield is just 1.5%. Assuming the future is like the past, and depending on the growth rate of dividends, this low yield points to an expected total return for the stock market from current levels of not much more than 3% annualized. That’s less than a percentage point greater than the 10-year breakeven inflation rate.\nCould the future be different than the past?\nThe bulls have a solid theoretical response to this otherwise dismal projection. According to a longstanding theory in finance, tracing to work in the 1960s by Franco Modigliani, who in 1985 would win the Nobel Prize in Economics, companies that pay out less in dividends should grow faster. That’s because they can reinvest in their own growth what they otherwise would have paid out to shareholders. A lower dividend yield therefore should translate into an accelerated earnings growth rate and a higher stock price.\nIf so, stocks’ total return should not be affected by a lower dividend yield, since price appreciation would compensate by making a correspondingly greater contribution.\nCrucially, Modigliani advanced his theory when share repurchases did not play a big role in the stock market, and his theory may need to be modified to account for them. If companies take the money they save from paying out fewer dividends and spend it on repurchases instead of investing it in their future growth, then a lower dividend yield may not translate into accelerated subsequent earnings growth.\nWhether or not it does depends crucially on whether companies repurchase shares when they are undervalued. Their track record here over the past two decades is not encouraging.\nThis means we can’t automatically assume that today’s low dividend yield will mean that, in coming years, price appreciation will constitute a greater proportion of stocks’ total return. In an email, Robert Arnott, founder of Research Affiliates, pointed out that dividends over the past two decades have represented just as big a proportion of stocks’ total return as in prior decades when dividend yields were much higher. For the 20 years through 2020, Arnott wrote, “the real return on stocks (S&P 500) was 3.8%, of which dividend yield contributed exactly half.”\nTo be sure, Sialm added, theory quickly gets complicated when trying to assess the interactions between dividends, price appreciation, and buybacks. There is no guarantee that price appreciation won’t make up for the market’s low current dividend yield. Nevertheless, he continued, it is likely that stock investors face an extended low-growth era.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{".IXIC":0.9,".SPX":0.9,".DJI":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":726,"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":2,"subscribersOnly":false,"subscribersOnlyAccessible":false,"xxTargetLangEnum":"ORIG"},"commentList":[],"isCommentEnd":true,"isTiger":false,"isWeiXinMini":false,"url":"/m/post/323982487"}