Up_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":341134023,"tweetId":"341134023","gmtCreate":1617791328662,"gmtModify":1634296496649,"author":{"id":3579836083643124,"idStr":"3579836083643124","authorId":3579836083643124,"authorIdStr":"3579836083643124","name":"pam07","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/68607a559c772e744d6d9d084e865f87","vip":1,"userType":1,"introduction":"","boolIsFan":false,"boolIsHead":false,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[],"fanSize":18,"starInvestorFlag":false},"themes":[],"images":[],"coverImages":[],"extraTitle":"","html":"<html><head></head><body>Up</body></html>","htmlText":"<html><head></head><body>Up</body></html>","text":"Up","highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":4,"commentSize":4,"repostSize":0,"favoriteSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/341134023","repostId":1122757766,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1122757766","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1617788627,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1122757766?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-04-07 17:43","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Why the ‘Fed put’ makes low-volatility stocks an attractive replacement for bonds<blockquote>为什么“美联储看跌期权”使低波动性股票成为债券的有吸引力的替代品</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1122757766","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Less-volatile stocks should hold their ground when interest rates rise\nIs it time to give up on low-","content":"Less-volatile stocks should hold their ground when interest rates rise<blockquote>当利率上升时，波动性较小的股票应该坚守阵地</blockquote> Is it time to give up on low-volatility investment strategies? These strategies favor the stocks whose trailing returns are the least volatile. Not only do these stocks’ low volatility persist, on average, historically they have also gained more than the market itself. Higher return with lower risk is a winning combination.<blockquote>是时候放弃低波动性投资策略了吗？这些策略有利于那些后部回报波动性最小的股票。这些股票的低波动性不仅持续存在，平均而言，从历史上看，它们的涨幅也超过了市场本身。更高的回报和更低的风险是一个成功的组合。</blockquote> But not last year. The Invesco S&amp;P 500 Low Volatility ETF,for example, lost 1.4%, in contrast to an 18.4% total return gain for the SPDR S&amp;P 500 ETF.That margin of loss relative to the market — negative alpha — of nearly 20 percentage points is twice as large as the next-worst year for this ETF.<blockquote>但不是去年。例如，景顺标普500低波动性ETF下跌1.4%，而SPDR标普500 ETF的总回报率为18.4%。相对于市场的亏损幅度（负阿尔法）接近20个百分点，是该ETF第二糟糕年份的两倍。</blockquote> This year hasn’t been any kinder to the low-volatility strategy. In the first quarter, the Invesco ETF lagged the S&amp;P 500by 2.5 percentage points. In fact, as you can see from the chart below, SPLV’s trailing three-year return relative to the stock market — its alpha — has been hovering near the zero line for close to 15 years.<blockquote>今年，低波动性策略并没有变得更好。第一季度，景顺ETF落后标普500指数2.5个百分点。事实上，如下图所示，SPLV相对于股市的过去三年回报率（其阿尔法）近15年来一直徘徊在零线附近。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/703ed2c87cf5dcff45720e5d19f971e9\" tg-width=\"620\" tg-height=\"418\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"><blockquote></blockquote> For advice on low-volatility’s place in the current market environment, I turned to Nardin Baker, chief strategist at South Street Investment Advisers. Baker was the co-author (with the late Robert Haugen) of some of the first academic studies documenting the historical performance of low-volatility stocks. Perhaps the best-known of those studies —Low Risk Stocks Outperform within All Observable Markets of the World— showed that the low-volatility effect existed in each of 33 different country stocks markets over the period from 1990 through 2011.<blockquote>关于低波动性在当前市场环境中的地位，我向南街投资顾问公司首席策略师纳丁·贝克寻求建议。贝克与已故的罗伯特·豪根（Robert Haugen）合著了一些第一批记录低波动性股票历史表现的学术研究。也许这些研究中最著名的——低风险股票在世界上所有可观察的市场中表现出色——表明在1990年至2011年期间，33个不同国家的股票市场中都存在低波动性效应。</blockquote> I fully expected Baker to tell me that he thought last year represented nothing more than an exception to the otherwise impressive long-term rule. But he didn’t. In an interview, Baker said that both the U.S. economy and stock market have fundamentally changed in ways that greatly reduce the future attractiveness of low-volatility stocks.<blockquote>我完全期待贝克告诉我，他认为去年只不过是令人印象深刻的长期规则的一个例外。但他没有。贝克在接受采访时表示，美国经济和股市都发生了根本性的变化，这些变化大大降低了低波动性股票的未来吸引力。</blockquote> Baker traces this change directly to the Federal Reserve’s easy-money policy. Because of that policy, investors face less risk when pursuing aggressive strategies than they otherwise would. They have confidence that “when the market gets risky, the Fed will step in to save the day and prop up the market,” he said.<blockquote>贝克将这种变化直接追溯到美联储的宽松货币政策。由于这项政策，投资者在追求激进策略时面临的风险比其他情况下要小。他表示，他们相信“当市场出现风险时，美联储将介入拯救世界并支撑市场”。</blockquote> This policy is known colloquially on Wall Street as the “Fed put.” As I wrote last fall in a&nbsp;column about a Duke University professor’s research, there is solid evidence that such a put exists.<blockquote>这一政策在华尔街俗称为“美联储看跌期权”。正如我去年秋天在一篇关于杜克大学教授研究的专栏中所写的那样，有确凿的证据表明这种看跌期权的存在。</blockquote> Because of the Fed put, Baker reasoned, low-volatility strategies have become markedly less compelling. “When you eliminate the downside risk of a security, you’re basically telling investors that its returns going forward will not be normally distributed. What benefits the most when you cut off the left-hand tail of a distribution are the riskiest strategies.”<blockquote>贝克认为，由于美联储的看跌期权，低波动性策略明显变得不那么引人注目。“当你消除证券的下行风险时，你基本上是在告诉投资者，其未来的回报不会呈正态分布。当你切断分布的左尾时，受益最大的是风险最高的策略。”</blockquote> In order for low-volatility strategies in the future to be anywhere near as compelling as they were in the past, therefore, the Fed put would need to stop existing. That seems unlikely, Baker said, for a variety of political and economic reasons. “I don’t think there is any going back,” he added.<blockquote>因此，为了让未来的低波动性策略像过去一样引人注目，美联储看跌期权需要停止存在。贝克说，出于各种政治和经济原因，这似乎不太可能。“我认为没有回头路了，”他补充道。</blockquote> Baker said this doesn’t mean low-volatility strategies have no role to play in investment portfolios. But their role will have to change. We now should view them as a substitute for a portion of our fixed-income allocation.<blockquote>贝克表示，这并不意味着低波动性策略在投资组合中没有作用。但是他们的角色必须改变。我们现在应该将它们视为部分固定收益配置的替代品。</blockquote> Baker’s rationale is that fixed-income investors have limited options in a world in which bonds’ expected return is below inflation. Instead of shifting our fixed income allocation into particularly risky bond strategies, such as high-yield or long-term durations, we might instead want to invest some of that allocation in low-volatility stocks. There’s no reason to expect these stocks to stop exhibiting low volatility, so in that sense they are somewhat bond-like. Unlike bonds, there’s no particular reason to expect low-volatility stocks to lose ground when interest rates rise.<blockquote>贝克的理由是，在债券预期回报低于通胀的世界里，固定收益投资者的选择有限。我们可能希望将部分配置投资于低波动性股票，而不是将我们的固定收益配置转向风险特别高的债券策略，例如高收益或长期久期。没有理由期望这些股票停止表现出低波动性，因此从这个意义上说，它们有点像债券。与债券不同，没有特别的理由预期低波动性股票在利率上升时会下跌。</blockquote> For an analogy, Baker imagines that we’re being pushed into traffic. That’s in effect what the Fed is doing in forcing us to take risks, and he says that the choice facing fixed-income investors is between being pushed into “fast-moving or fast-slowing traffic.” Low-volatility stocks are the slow-moving traffic.<blockquote>打个比方，贝克想象我们正被推入交通堵塞。这实际上就是美联储迫使我们承担风险的做法，他表示，固定收益投资者面临的选择是被推入“快速移动还是快速放缓的交通”。低波动性股票是流动缓慢的交通。</blockquote>","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>Why the ‘Fed put’ makes low-volatility stocks an attractive replacement for bonds<blockquote>为什么“美联储看跌期权”使低波动性股票成为债券的有吸引力的替代品</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWhy the ‘Fed put’ makes low-volatility stocks an attractive replacement for bonds<blockquote>为什么“美联储看跌期权”使低波动性股票成为债券的有吸引力的替代品</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nMarketWatch2021-04-07 17:43\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\nLess-volatile stocks should hold their ground when interest rates rise<blockquote>当利率上升时，波动性较小的股票应该坚守阵地</blockquote> Is it time to give up on low-volatility investment strategies? These strategies favor the stocks whose trailing returns are the least volatile. Not only do these stocks’ low volatility persist, on average, historically they have also gained more than the market itself. Higher return with lower risk is a winning combination.<blockquote>是时候放弃低波动性投资策略了吗？这些策略有利于那些后部回报波动性最小的股票。这些股票的低波动性不仅持续存在，平均而言，从历史上看，它们的涨幅也超过了市场本身。更高的回报和更低的风险是一个成功的组合。</blockquote> But not last year. The Invesco S&amp;P 500 Low Volatility ETF,for example, lost 1.4%, in contrast to an 18.4% total return gain for the SPDR S&amp;P 500 ETF.That margin of loss relative to the market — negative alpha — of nearly 20 percentage points is twice as large as the next-worst year for this ETF.<blockquote>但不是去年。例如，景顺标普500低波动性ETF下跌1.4%，而SPDR标普500 ETF的总回报率为18.4%。相对于市场的亏损幅度（负阿尔法）接近20个百分点，是该ETF第二糟糕年份的两倍。</blockquote> This year hasn’t been any kinder to the low-volatility strategy. In the first quarter, the Invesco ETF lagged the S&amp;P 500by 2.5 percentage points. In fact, as you can see from the chart below, SPLV’s trailing three-year return relative to the stock market — its alpha — has been hovering near the zero line for close to 15 years.<blockquote>今年，低波动性策略并没有变得更好。第一季度，景顺ETF落后标普500指数2.5个百分点。事实上，如下图所示，SPLV相对于股市的过去三年回报率（其阿尔法）近15年来一直徘徊在零线附近。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/703ed2c87cf5dcff45720e5d19f971e9\" tg-width=\"620\" tg-height=\"418\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"><blockquote></blockquote> For advice on low-volatility’s place in the current market environment, I turned to Nardin Baker, chief strategist at South Street Investment Advisers. Baker was the co-author (with the late Robert Haugen) of some of the first academic studies documenting the historical performance of low-volatility stocks. Perhaps the best-known of those studies —Low Risk Stocks Outperform within All Observable Markets of the World— showed that the low-volatility effect existed in each of 33 different country stocks markets over the period from 1990 through 2011.<blockquote>关于低波动性在当前市场环境中的地位，我向南街投资顾问公司首席策略师纳丁·贝克寻求建议。贝克与已故的罗伯特·豪根（Robert Haugen）合著了一些第一批记录低波动性股票历史表现的学术研究。也许这些研究中最著名的——低风险股票在世界上所有可观察的市场中表现出色——表明在1990年至2011年期间，33个不同国家的股票市场中都存在低波动性效应。</blockquote> I fully expected Baker to tell me that he thought last year represented nothing more than an exception to the otherwise impressive long-term rule. But he didn’t. In an interview, Baker said that both the U.S. economy and stock market have fundamentally changed in ways that greatly reduce the future attractiveness of low-volatility stocks.<blockquote>我完全期待贝克告诉我，他认为去年只不过是令人印象深刻的长期规则的一个例外。但他没有。贝克在接受采访时表示，美国经济和股市都发生了根本性的变化，这些变化大大降低了低波动性股票的未来吸引力。</blockquote> Baker traces this change directly to the Federal Reserve’s easy-money policy. Because of that policy, investors face less risk when pursuing aggressive strategies than they otherwise would. They have confidence that “when the market gets risky, the Fed will step in to save the day and prop up the market,” he said.<blockquote>贝克将这种变化直接追溯到美联储的宽松货币政策。由于这项政策，投资者在追求激进策略时面临的风险比其他情况下要小。他表示，他们相信“当市场出现风险时，美联储将介入拯救世界并支撑市场”。</blockquote> This policy is known colloquially on Wall Street as the “Fed put.” As I wrote last fall in a&nbsp;column about a Duke University professor’s research, there is solid evidence that such a put exists.<blockquote>这一政策在华尔街俗称为“美联储看跌期权”。正如我去年秋天在一篇关于杜克大学教授研究的专栏中所写的那样，有确凿的证据表明这种看跌期权的存在。</blockquote> Because of the Fed put, Baker reasoned, low-volatility strategies have become markedly less compelling. “When you eliminate the downside risk of a security, you’re basically telling investors that its returns going forward will not be normally distributed. What benefits the most when you cut off the left-hand tail of a distribution are the riskiest strategies.”<blockquote>贝克认为，由于美联储的看跌期权，低波动性策略明显变得不那么引人注目。“当你消除证券的下行风险时，你基本上是在告诉投资者，其未来的回报不会呈正态分布。当你切断分布的左尾时，受益最大的是风险最高的策略。”</blockquote> In order for low-volatility strategies in the future to be anywhere near as compelling as they were in the past, therefore, the Fed put would need to stop existing. That seems unlikely, Baker said, for a variety of political and economic reasons. “I don’t think there is any going back,” he added.<blockquote>因此，为了让未来的低波动性策略像过去一样引人注目，美联储看跌期权需要停止存在。贝克说，出于各种政治和经济原因，这似乎不太可能。“我认为没有回头路了，”他补充道。</blockquote> Baker said this doesn’t mean low-volatility strategies have no role to play in investment portfolios. But their role will have to change. We now should view them as a substitute for a portion of our fixed-income allocation.<blockquote>贝克表示，这并不意味着低波动性策略在投资组合中没有作用。但是他们的角色必须改变。我们现在应该将它们视为部分固定收益配置的替代品。</blockquote> Baker’s rationale is that fixed-income investors have limited options in a world in which bonds’ expected return is below inflation. Instead of shifting our fixed income allocation into particularly risky bond strategies, such as high-yield or long-term durations, we might instead want to invest some of that allocation in low-volatility stocks. There’s no reason to expect these stocks to stop exhibiting low volatility, so in that sense they are somewhat bond-like. Unlike bonds, there’s no particular reason to expect low-volatility stocks to lose ground when interest rates rise.<blockquote>贝克的理由是，在债券预期回报低于通胀的世界里，固定收益投资者的选择有限。我们可能希望将部分配置投资于低波动性股票，而不是将我们的固定收益配置转向风险特别高的债券策略，例如高收益或长期久期。没有理由期望这些股票停止表现出低波动性，因此从这个意义上说，它们有点像债券。与债券不同，没有特别的理由预期低波动性股票在利率上升时会下跌。</blockquote> For an analogy, Baker imagines that we’re being pushed into traffic. That’s in effect what the Fed is doing in forcing us to take risks, and he says that the choice facing fixed-income investors is between being pushed into “fast-moving or fast-slowing traffic.” Low-volatility stocks are the slow-moving traffic.<blockquote>打个比方，贝克想象我们正被推入交通堵塞。这实际上就是美联储迫使我们承担风险的做法，他表示，固定收益投资者面临的选择是被推入“快速移动还是快速放缓的交通”。低波动性股票是流动缓慢的交通。</blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-the-fed-put-makes-low-volatility-stocks-an-attractive-replacement-for-bonds-11617677512?mod=home-page\">MarketWatch</a>\n为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".DJI":"道琼斯"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-the-fed-put-makes-low-volatility-stocks-an-attractive-replacement-for-bonds-11617677512?mod=home-page","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1122757766","content_text":"Less-volatile stocks should hold their ground when interest rates rise\nIs it time to give up on low-volatility investment strategies? These strategies favor the stocks whose trailing returns are the least volatile. Not only do these stocks’ low volatility persist, on average, historically they have also gained more than the market itself. Higher return with lower risk is a winning combination.\nBut not last year. The Invesco S&P 500 Low Volatility ETF,for example, lost 1.4%, in contrast to an 18.4% total return gain for the SPDR S&P 500 ETF.That margin of loss relative to the market — negative alpha — of nearly 20 percentage points is twice as large as the next-worst year for this ETF.\nThis year hasn’t been any kinder to the low-volatility strategy. In the first quarter, the Invesco ETF lagged the S&P 500by 2.5 percentage points. In fact, as you can see from the chart below, SPLV’s trailing three-year return relative to the stock market — its alpha — has been hovering near the zero line for close to 15 years.\n\nFor advice on low-volatility’s place in the current market environment, I turned to Nardin Baker, chief strategist at South Street Investment Advisers. Baker was the co-author (with the late Robert Haugen) of some of the first academic studies documenting the historical performance of low-volatility stocks. Perhaps the best-known of those studies —Low Risk Stocks Outperform within All Observable Markets of the World— showed that the low-volatility effect existed in each of 33 different country stocks markets over the period from 1990 through 2011.\nI fully expected Baker to tell me that he thought last year represented nothing more than an exception to the otherwise impressive long-term rule. But he didn’t. In an interview, Baker said that both the U.S. economy and stock market have fundamentally changed in ways that greatly reduce the future attractiveness of low-volatility stocks.\nBaker traces this change directly to the Federal Reserve’s easy-money policy. Because of that policy, investors face less risk when pursuing aggressive strategies than they otherwise would. They have confidence that “when the market gets risky, the Fed will step in to save the day and prop up the market,” he said.\nThis policy is known colloquially on Wall Street as the “Fed put.” As I wrote last fall in a column about a Duke University professor’s research, there is solid evidence that such a put exists.\nBecause of the Fed put, Baker reasoned, low-volatility strategies have become markedly less compelling. “When you eliminate the downside risk of a security, you’re basically telling investors that its returns going forward will not be normally distributed. What benefits the most when you cut off the left-hand tail of a distribution are the riskiest strategies.”\nIn order for low-volatility strategies in the future to be anywhere near as compelling as they were in the past, therefore, the Fed put would need to stop existing. That seems unlikely, Baker said, for a variety of political and economic reasons. “I don’t think there is any going back,” he added.\nBaker said this doesn’t mean low-volatility strategies have no role to play in investment portfolios. But their role will have to change. We now should view them as a substitute for a portion of our fixed-income allocation.\nBaker’s rationale is that fixed-income investors have limited options in a world in which bonds’ expected return is below inflation. Instead of shifting our fixed income allocation into particularly risky bond strategies, such as high-yield or long-term durations, we might instead want to invest some of that allocation in low-volatility stocks. There’s no reason to expect these stocks to stop exhibiting low volatility, so in that sense they are somewhat bond-like. Unlike bonds, there’s no particular reason to expect low-volatility stocks to lose ground when interest rates rise.\nFor an analogy, Baker imagines that we’re being pushed into traffic. That’s in effect what the Fed is doing in forcing us to take risks, and he says that the choice facing fixed-income investors is between being pushed into “fast-moving or fast-slowing traffic.” Low-volatility stocks are the slow-moving traffic.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{".IXIC":0.9,".SPX":0.9,".DJI":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":205,"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,"xxTargetLangEnum":"ORIG"},"commentList":[],"isCommentEnd":true,"isTiger":false,"isWeiXinMini":false,"url":"/m/post/341134023"}