Like please_老虎社区_美港股上老虎

2021-04-25

Like please

Why it’ll take more than easy money from the Fed to keep sparking this bull market in stocks<blockquote>为什么要继续引发股市牛市，需要的不仅仅是美联储的宽松资金</blockquote>

免责声明：上述内容仅代表发帖人个人观点，不构成本平台的任何投资建议。

精彩评论

我们需要你的真知灼见来填补这片空白

发表看法

{"i18n":{"language":"zh_CN"},"detailType":1,"isChannel":false,"data":{"magic":2,"id":375854717,"tweetId":"375854717","gmtCreate":1619326631139,"gmtModify":1634274208757,"author":{"id":3574784818260396,"idStr":"3574784818260396","authorId":3574784818260396,"authorIdStr":"3574784818260396","name":"FanOfJPow","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/ca91f9be17312fa7d5a41957afef8050","vip":1,"userType":1,"introduction":"","boolIsFan":false,"boolIsHead":false,"crmLevel":12,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[],"fanSize":17,"starInvestorFlag":false},"themes":[],"images":[],"coverImages":[],"extraTitle":"","html":"<html><head></head><body>Like please&nbsp;</body></html>","htmlText":"<html><head></head><body>Like please&nbsp;</body></html>","text":"Like please","highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":7,"commentSize":3,"repostSize":0,"favoriteSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/375854717","repostId":2130941364,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"2130941364","kind":"highlight","pubTimestamp":1619323455,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/2130941364?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-04-25 12:04","market":"hk","language":"en","title":"Why it’ll take more than easy money from the Fed to keep sparking this bull market in stocks<blockquote>为什么要继续引发股市牛市，需要的不仅仅是美联储的宽松资金</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=2130941364","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Much depends on investors' appetite for taking risk. \nGETTY IMAGES\nEveryone “knows” that the U.S. go","content":"Much depends on investors' appetite for taking risk. <blockquote>这在很大程度上取决于投资者的风险偏好。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/64c17dcaadc093048638ac550527a91e\" tg-width=\"1260\" tg-height=\"840\">GETTY IMAGES<blockquote>盖蒂图片</blockquote> Everyone “knows” that the U.S. government’s massive stimulus is the reason the U.S. stock market took off from its March 2020 lows. But, as Humphrey Neill, the father of contrarian analysis, constantly reminded his clients: “When everyone thinks alike, everyone is likely to be wrong.”<blockquote>每个人都“知道”美国政府的大规模刺激是美国股市从2020年3月低点起飞的原因。但是，正如逆向分析之父汉弗莱·尼尔（Humphrey Neill）不断提醒他的客户的那样：“当每个人的想法都一样时，每个人都很可能是错的。”</blockquote> Conventional wisdom certainly appears to be based on the evidence. M2 money supply (consisting of cash, checking deposits, and so-called “near money” that can be converted into cash with little difficulty) has grown at a faster rate over the past 12 months than at any time over the last six decades. Sure enough, the S&amp;P 500&nbsp;has turned in one of its strongest 12-month returns ever.<blockquote>传统智慧似乎肯定是基于证据的。M2货币供应量（包括现金、支票存款和可以轻松转换为现金的所谓“近货币”）在过去12个月的增长速度比过去60年的任何时候都要快。果然，标普500交出了有史以来最强劲的12个月回报之一。</blockquote> This is just one data point. To investigate whether it is the exception or the rule, I analyzed several decades of historical record in search of a statistically significant correlation between the Federal Reserve’s stimulus and the stock market. I came up empty. The bulls therefore need to think twice before reassuring themselves that the bull market will continue just because the Federal Reserve is committed to priming the monetary pump.<blockquote>这只是一个数据点。为了调查这是例外还是规则，我分析了几十年的历史记录，以寻找美联储的刺激措施与股市之间具有统计学意义的相关性。我空手而归。因此，多头在确信牛市将继续仅仅因为美联储致力于启动货币泵之前需要三思。</blockquote> In searching for possible correlations, I relied on two different measures of the money supply. I focused on M2 Money Supply (cash, checking deposits, and so-called ‘near money’ that can be converted into cash with little difficulty) and the Federal Reserve’s total balance sheet assets (a broader measure which reflects the Fed’s direct intervention in the economy through the purchase of securities and Treasuries). Regardless of the definition, however, the correlations between the stock market and money supply are not stable over time.<blockquote>在寻找可能的相关性时，我依赖于两种不同的货币供应量衡量标准。我重点研究了M2货币供应量（现金、支票存款以及可以轻松转换为现金的所谓“近货币”）和美联储的资产负债表总资产（一个更广泛的指标，反映了美联储通过购买证券和国债对经济的直接干预）。然而，无论定义如何，股票市场和货币供应之间的相关性随着时间的推移并不稳定。</blockquote> On the one hand, over the last decade there has been a strong positive correlation, just as we’ve seen over the last 12 months and what the bulls are assuming is the general pattern. But, on the other hand, this correlation was negative before that, which meant that in those earlier years faster money supply growth was more often than not associated with slower stock market growth, and vice versa. That’s just the opposite of what the bulls are assuming.<blockquote>一方面，在过去十年中存在很强的正相关性，正如我们在过去12个月中看到的那样，多头假设的是总体模式。但是，另一方面，这种相关性在此之前是负的，这意味着在早些年，更快的货币供应增长往往与较慢的股市增长相关，反之亦然。这与多头的假设正好相反。</blockquote> After this first pass through the data, the most we can say is that sometimes faster money supply growth is good for stocks, and sometimes it isn’t.<blockquote>在第一次浏览数据之后，我们最多可以说的是，有时更快的货币供应增长对股市有利，有时则不然。</blockquote> That in turn suggests that the relationship between the money supply and the stock market is a lot more complex than most investors think. A full discussion of that relationship is beyond the scope of this column, but we know that it depends in large part on investors’ appetite for risk. In a “risk-on” environment, for example, it is more likely that aggressive Fed easing will be considered bullish. But when investors are preoccupied with the downside (“risk-off”) then an aggressive Fed might cause investors to become even more worried.<blockquote>这反过来表明，货币供应和股市之间的关系比大多数投资者想象的要复杂得多。对这种关系的全面讨论超出了本专栏的范围，但我们知道这在很大程度上取决于投资者的风险偏好。例如，在“冒险”环境中，美联储激进的宽松政策更有可能被视为看涨。但当投资者全神贯注于下行（“避险”）时，激进的美联储可能会让投资者变得更加担忧。</blockquote> As is often the case, John Maynard Keynes, the famous British economist of a century ago, shrewdly captured this dynamic. He pointed out that central banks will be powerless to stimulate the economy if there is no appetite for risk-taking, and in such an environment the Fed’s efforts will be like “pushing on a string.”<blockquote>正如通常的情况一样，一个世纪前著名的英国经济学家约翰·梅纳德·凯恩斯敏锐地捕捉到了这种动态。他指出，如果没有冒险的胃口，各国央行将无力刺激经济，在这样的环境下，美联储的努力将像“推弦”。</blockquote> Another indication of the complexity of the relationship between money supply and the stock market is how much money velocity varies over time. I’m referring to the average number of times that money changes hands in a given year. When velocity declines, it takes a bigger money supply to have the same economic impact. Or, to put it another way, a bigger money supply won’t be stimulating if velocity declines too much in the process.<blockquote>货币供应和股票市场之间关系复杂性的另一个指标是货币流通速度随时间的变化。我指的是一年内资金易手的平均次数。当速度下降时，需要更大的货币供应量才能产生同样的经济影响。或者，换句话说，如果在此过程中速度下降太多，更大的货币供应量就不会起到刺激作用。</blockquote> This puts recent experience in perspective. As you can see from the accompanying chart, velocity plunged at the beginning of the pandemic and remains at one of its lowest levels in six decades.<blockquote>这让我们正确看待最近的经历。正如您从附图中看到的，velocity在大流行开始时大幅下降，目前仍处于六十年来的最低水平之一。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/96bbd1cd5123ac2704ccf0953509870f\" tg-width=\"1260\" tg-height=\"849\"><blockquote></blockquote> The bottom line: The money supply undoubtedly is related to the course of both the economy and the stock market. But its role is neither simple nor straightforward.<blockquote>一句话：货币供应量无疑关系到经济和股市的走势。但它的作用既不简单也不直接。</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 it’ll take more than easy money from the Fed to keep sparking this bull market in stocks<blockquote>为什么要继续引发股市牛市，需要的不仅仅是美联储的宽松资金</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 it’ll take more than easy money from the Fed to keep sparking this bull market in stocks<blockquote>为什么要继续引发股市牛市，需要的不仅仅是美联储的宽松资金</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nMarketWatch2021-04-25 12:04\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\nMuch depends on investors' appetite for taking risk. <blockquote>这在很大程度上取决于投资者的风险偏好。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/64c17dcaadc093048638ac550527a91e\" tg-width=\"1260\" tg-height=\"840\">GETTY IMAGES<blockquote>盖蒂图片</blockquote> Everyone “knows” that the U.S. government’s massive stimulus is the reason the U.S. stock market took off from its March 2020 lows. But, as Humphrey Neill, the father of contrarian analysis, constantly reminded his clients: “When everyone thinks alike, everyone is likely to be wrong.”<blockquote>每个人都“知道”美国政府的大规模刺激是美国股市从2020年3月低点起飞的原因。但是，正如逆向分析之父汉弗莱·尼尔（Humphrey Neill）不断提醒他的客户的那样：“当每个人的想法都一样时，每个人都很可能是错的。”</blockquote> Conventional wisdom certainly appears to be based on the evidence. M2 money supply (consisting of cash, checking deposits, and so-called “near money” that can be converted into cash with little difficulty) has grown at a faster rate over the past 12 months than at any time over the last six decades. Sure enough, the S&amp;P 500&nbsp;has turned in one of its strongest 12-month returns ever.<blockquote>传统智慧似乎肯定是基于证据的。M2货币供应量（包括现金、支票存款和可以轻松转换为现金的所谓“近货币”）在过去12个月的增长速度比过去60年的任何时候都要快。果然，标普500交出了有史以来最强劲的12个月回报之一。</blockquote> This is just one data point. To investigate whether it is the exception or the rule, I analyzed several decades of historical record in search of a statistically significant correlation between the Federal Reserve’s stimulus and the stock market. I came up empty. The bulls therefore need to think twice before reassuring themselves that the bull market will continue just because the Federal Reserve is committed to priming the monetary pump.<blockquote>这只是一个数据点。为了调查这是例外还是规则，我分析了几十年的历史记录，以寻找美联储的刺激措施与股市之间具有统计学意义的相关性。我空手而归。因此，多头在确信牛市将继续仅仅因为美联储致力于启动货币泵之前需要三思。</blockquote> In searching for possible correlations, I relied on two different measures of the money supply. I focused on M2 Money Supply (cash, checking deposits, and so-called ‘near money’ that can be converted into cash with little difficulty) and the Federal Reserve’s total balance sheet assets (a broader measure which reflects the Fed’s direct intervention in the economy through the purchase of securities and Treasuries). Regardless of the definition, however, the correlations between the stock market and money supply are not stable over time.<blockquote>在寻找可能的相关性时，我依赖于两种不同的货币供应量衡量标准。我重点研究了M2货币供应量（现金、支票存款以及可以轻松转换为现金的所谓“近货币”）和美联储的资产负债表总资产（一个更广泛的指标，反映了美联储通过购买证券和国债对经济的直接干预）。然而，无论定义如何，股票市场和货币供应之间的相关性随着时间的推移并不稳定。</blockquote> On the one hand, over the last decade there has been a strong positive correlation, just as we’ve seen over the last 12 months and what the bulls are assuming is the general pattern. But, on the other hand, this correlation was negative before that, which meant that in those earlier years faster money supply growth was more often than not associated with slower stock market growth, and vice versa. That’s just the opposite of what the bulls are assuming.<blockquote>一方面，在过去十年中存在很强的正相关性，正如我们在过去12个月中看到的那样，多头假设的是总体模式。但是，另一方面，这种相关性在此之前是负的，这意味着在早些年，更快的货币供应增长往往与较慢的股市增长相关，反之亦然。这与多头的假设正好相反。</blockquote> After this first pass through the data, the most we can say is that sometimes faster money supply growth is good for stocks, and sometimes it isn’t.<blockquote>在第一次浏览数据之后，我们最多可以说的是，有时更快的货币供应增长对股市有利，有时则不然。</blockquote> That in turn suggests that the relationship between the money supply and the stock market is a lot more complex than most investors think. A full discussion of that relationship is beyond the scope of this column, but we know that it depends in large part on investors’ appetite for risk. In a “risk-on” environment, for example, it is more likely that aggressive Fed easing will be considered bullish. But when investors are preoccupied with the downside (“risk-off”) then an aggressive Fed might cause investors to become even more worried.<blockquote>这反过来表明，货币供应和股市之间的关系比大多数投资者想象的要复杂得多。对这种关系的全面讨论超出了本专栏的范围，但我们知道这在很大程度上取决于投资者的风险偏好。例如，在“冒险”环境中，美联储激进的宽松政策更有可能被视为看涨。但当投资者全神贯注于下行（“避险”）时，激进的美联储可能会让投资者变得更加担忧。</blockquote> As is often the case, John Maynard Keynes, the famous British economist of a century ago, shrewdly captured this dynamic. He pointed out that central banks will be powerless to stimulate the economy if there is no appetite for risk-taking, and in such an environment the Fed’s efforts will be like “pushing on a string.”<blockquote>正如通常的情况一样，一个世纪前著名的英国经济学家约翰·梅纳德·凯恩斯敏锐地捕捉到了这种动态。他指出，如果没有冒险的胃口，各国央行将无力刺激经济，在这样的环境下，美联储的努力将像“推弦”。</blockquote> Another indication of the complexity of the relationship between money supply and the stock market is how much money velocity varies over time. I’m referring to the average number of times that money changes hands in a given year. When velocity declines, it takes a bigger money supply to have the same economic impact. Or, to put it another way, a bigger money supply won’t be stimulating if velocity declines too much in the process.<blockquote>货币供应和股票市场之间关系复杂性的另一个指标是货币流通速度随时间的变化。我指的是一年内资金易手的平均次数。当速度下降时，需要更大的货币供应量才能产生同样的经济影响。或者，换句话说，如果在此过程中速度下降太多，更大的货币供应量就不会起到刺激作用。</blockquote> This puts recent experience in perspective. As you can see from the accompanying chart, velocity plunged at the beginning of the pandemic and remains at one of its lowest levels in six decades.<blockquote>这让我们正确看待最近的经历。正如您从附图中看到的，velocity在大流行开始时大幅下降，目前仍处于六十年来的最低水平之一。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/96bbd1cd5123ac2704ccf0953509870f\" tg-width=\"1260\" tg-height=\"849\"><blockquote></blockquote> The bottom line: The money supply undoubtedly is related to the course of both the economy and the stock market. But its role is neither simple nor straightforward.<blockquote>一句话：货币供应量无疑关系到经济和股市的走势。但它的作用既不简单也不直接。</blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-itll-take-more-than-easy-money-from-the-fed-to-spark-this-bull-market-11619159724?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",".DJI":"道琼斯",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-itll-take-more-than-easy-money-from-the-fed-to-spark-this-bull-market-11619159724?mod=home-page","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"2130941364","content_text":"Much depends on investors' appetite for taking risk. \nGETTY IMAGES\nEveryone “knows” that the U.S. government’s massive stimulus is the reason the U.S. stock market took off from its March 2020 lows. But, as Humphrey Neill, the father of contrarian analysis, constantly reminded his clients: “When everyone thinks alike, everyone is likely to be wrong.”\nConventional wisdom certainly appears to be based on the evidence. M2 money supply (consisting of cash, checking deposits, and so-called “near money” that can be converted into cash with little difficulty) has grown at a faster rate over the past 12 months than at any time over the last six decades. Sure enough, the S&P 500 has turned in one of its strongest 12-month returns ever.\nThis is just one data point. To investigate whether it is the exception or the rule, I analyzed several decades of historical record in search of a statistically significant correlation between the Federal Reserve’s stimulus and the stock market. I came up empty. The bulls therefore need to think twice before reassuring themselves that the bull market will continue just because the Federal Reserve is committed to priming the monetary pump.\nIn searching for possible correlations, I relied on two different measures of the money supply. I focused on M2 Money Supply (cash, checking deposits, and so-called ‘near money’ that can be converted into cash with little difficulty) and the Federal Reserve’s total balance sheet assets (a broader measure which reflects the Fed’s direct intervention in the economy through the purchase of securities and Treasuries). Regardless of the definition, however, the correlations between the stock market and money supply are not stable over time.\nOn the one hand, over the last decade there has been a strong positive correlation, just as we’ve seen over the last 12 months and what the bulls are assuming is the general pattern. But, on the other hand, this correlation was negative before that, which meant that in those earlier years faster money supply growth was more often than not associated with slower stock market growth, and vice versa. That’s just the opposite of what the bulls are assuming.\nAfter this first pass through the data, the most we can say is that sometimes faster money supply growth is good for stocks, and sometimes it isn’t.\nThat in turn suggests that the relationship between the money supply and the stock market is a lot more complex than most investors think. A full discussion of that relationship is beyond the scope of this column, but we know that it depends in large part on investors’ appetite for risk. In a “risk-on” environment, for example, it is more likely that aggressive Fed easing will be considered bullish. But when investors are preoccupied with the downside (“risk-off”) then an aggressive Fed might cause investors to become even more worried.\nAs is often the case, John Maynard Keynes, the famous British economist of a century ago, shrewdly captured this dynamic. He pointed out that central banks will be powerless to stimulate the economy if there is no appetite for risk-taking, and in such an environment the Fed’s efforts will be like “pushing on a string.”\nAnother indication of the complexity of the relationship between money supply and the stock market is how much money velocity varies over time. I’m referring to the average number of times that money changes hands in a given year. When velocity declines, it takes a bigger money supply to have the same economic impact. Or, to put it another way, a bigger money supply won’t be stimulating if velocity declines too much in the process.\nThis puts recent experience in perspective. As you can see from the accompanying chart, velocity plunged at the beginning of the pandemic and remains at one of its lowest levels in six decades.\n\nThe bottom line: The money supply undoubtedly is related to the course of both the economy and the stock market. But its role is neither simple nor straightforward.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{".IXIC":0.9,".DJI":0.9,".SPX":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":437,"commentLimit":10,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"symbols":[],"verified":2,"subType":0,"readableState":1,"langContent":"EN","currentLanguage":"EN","warmUpFlag":false,"orderFlag":false,"shareable":true,"causeOfNotShareable":"","featuresForAnalytics":[],"commentAndTweetFlag":false,"andRepostAutoSelectedFlag":false,"upFlag":false,"length":10,"xxTargetLangEnum":"ORIG"},"commentList":[],"isCommentEnd":true,"isTiger":false,"isWeiXinMini":false,"url":"/m/post/375854717"}