Harlo_老虎社区_美港股上老虎

Bigmoneh
2021-03-10

Harlo

The Equity-Gold Price Conundrum, Part 1: The Great Batsby<blockquote>股票-黄金价格难题，第1部分：伟大的蝙蝠侠</blockquote>

The relentless rally in equity markets has pushed valuations to extreme levels based on traditional

The Equity-Gold Price Conundrum, Part 1: The Great Batsby<blockquote>股票-黄金价格难题，第1部分：伟大的蝙蝠侠</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。

推荐
最新

暂无评论

热议股票

{"i18n":{"language":"zh_CN"},"data":{"magic":2,"id":323475571,"tweetId":"323475571","gmtCreate":1615371495093,"gmtModify":1703488028858,"author":{"id":3572262518814318,"idStr":"3572262518814318","authorId":3572262518814318,"authorIdStr":"3572262518814318","name":"Bigmoneh","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f7d717c7ad153db1d505536dbe10c91e","vip":1,"userType":1,"introduction":"","boolIsFan":false,"boolIsHead":false,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[],"fanSize":0,"starInvestorFlag":false},"themes":[],"images":[],"coverImages":[],"extraTitle":"","html":"<html><head></head><body>Harlo</body></html>","htmlText":"<html><head></head><body>Harlo</body></html>","text":"Harlo","highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"favoriteSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/323475571","repostId":1162030727,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1162030727","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1615371076,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1162030727?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-03-10 18:11","market":"us","language":"en","title":"The Equity-Gold Price Conundrum, Part 1: The Great Batsby<blockquote>股票-黄金价格难题，第1部分：伟大的蝙蝠侠</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1162030727","media":"zerohedge","summary":"The relentless rally in equity markets has pushed valuations to extreme levels based on traditional ","content":"The relentless rally in equity markets has pushed valuations to extreme levels based on traditional metrics. In this report, we analyze the two common arguments made by equity bulls on why this time is different and current valuations are justified. We find that either gold or equities are currently mispriced, as, a) both arguments would imply that gold should outperform stocks and b) if neither of the scenarios play out, equities are due for a substantial correction.<blockquote>根据传统指标，股市的持续上涨已将估值推至极端水平。在本报告中，我们分析了股票多头提出的两个常见论点，即为什么这次不同以及当前估值是合理的。我们发现，黄金或股票目前的定价都是错误的，因为a)这两种论点都意味着黄金的表现应该优于股票，b)如果这两种情况都没有发生，股票将出现大幅调整。</blockquote><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/95f7609bf84bf26bd5d2443fa9a7de86\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"445\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\">Amidst the global COVID-19 pandemic, equities had staggering rally over the past 12 months. The S&amp;P500 almost doubled in less than a year from a low of 2240 on March 23, 2020 to currently 3860 at the time of writing. In addition, some narrower indices have done even better. Particularly certain technology stocks have relentlessly risen amidst an environment of economic stress.<blockquote>在全球新冠肺炎疫情中，股市在过去12个月中出现了惊人的反弹。标准普尔500指数在不到一年的时间里几乎翻了一番，从2020年3月23日的低点2240点升至撰写本文时目前的3860点。此外，一些较窄的指数表现甚至更好。尤其是某些科技股在经济压力的环境下持续上涨。</blockquote>This has led to a sharp increase in the equities-to-gold price ratio (see Exhibit 1) even as economic growth has collapsed while the Fed increased its balance sheet at an unprecedented level.<blockquote>这导致股票与黄金的价格比率急剧上升（见图表1），尽管经济增长已经崩溃，而美联储以前所未有的水平增加了资产负债表。</blockquote><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/a828b10b92375dfb19347e6c59314c83\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"405\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"><blockquote></blockquote>This increase in the equities-to-gold-ratio is not caused by gold performing poorly as prices for the yellow metal are up12% since the end of 2019. It’s simply a consequence of equities’ doing really well. But equity valuations according to traditional metrics have now approached extreme levels. For example, the total market cap to GDP (Buffet indicator) is currently at 193% (see exhibit 2), the highest on record, 50% above the peak during the dot.com bubble.<blockquote>股票与黄金比率的上升并不是由黄金表现不佳造成的，因为自2019年底以来，黄金价格上涨了12%。这只是股市表现良好的结果。但根据传统指标，股票估值现已接近极端水平。例如，总市值占GDP（巴菲特指标）目前为193%（见图表2），为有记录以来的最高水平，比互联网泡沫期间的峰值高出50%。</blockquote><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/e64899d2c53b18cc97b2dce33717c9af\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"428\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\">Moreover, global equities to GDP are also extremely high, currently at &gt;120% (see exhibit 3).<blockquote>此外，全球股票占GDP的比例也极高，目前超过120%（见图表3）。</blockquote><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/ef426becc1777204ae2f18e3c290e2e6\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"436\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\">The Cyclically Adjusted Price Earnings Ratio, or CAPE, a measure developed by Robert Schiller, is also flashing red with the second highest reading in history going back to the late 1900s (see exhibit 4).<blockquote>周期性调整市盈率（CAPE）是罗伯特·席勒（Robert Schiller）开发的一种衡量标准，也呈红色，其读数是自1900年代末以来历史上第二高的读数（见图表4）。</blockquote><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/8cc92db52653acc17b59de9311c17bf0\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"442\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\">Price to sales ratios also hit a record high (see Exhibit 5).<blockquote>市销率也创下历史新高（见图表5）。</blockquote><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/a119fa360112d18ced5d8efff557ebea\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"436\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\">There are other indicators that suggest that equity prices have detached from underlying fundamentals. The put / call ratio on the CBOE has now reached the levels of the dot.com bubble (see Exhibit 6).<blockquote>还有其他指标表明股价已经脱离了基本面。芝加哥期权交易所的看跌/看涨期权比率现在已经达到了互联网泡沫的水平（见图表6）。</blockquote><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/462aa5d4dee82e50792b2a4f6bbd70f8\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"389\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\">We also saw an unprecedented inflow of new market participants. People with very little or no market exp4erience opened online brokerage accounts at an unprecedented speed during the global lockdowns. More than 10 million Americans opened a trading account in 2020 according to the Wall Street Journal.&nbsp; According to CNBC, ten percent of Americans bought a stock for the first time in the past 12 months, and a staggering twenty-two percent of Gen Z (currently 6-24 years old) opened a stock market account in the last 12 months.<blockquote>我们还看到前所未有的新市场参与者流入。在全球封锁期间，很少或没有市场经验的人以前所未有的速度开设了在线经纪账户。据《华尔街日报》报道，2020年有超过1000万美国人开设了交易账户。据美国消费者新闻与商业频道报道，10%的美国人在过去12个月内首次购买股票，惊人的22%的Z世代（目前6-24岁）在过去12个月内开设了股市账户。</blockquote>And stocks are not the only assets that are skyrocketing. Cryptocurrencies, which since 2017 had temporarily lost their luster, are rallying at breakneck pace since the outbreak of the pandemic (see exhibit 7).<blockquote>股票并不是唯一暴涨的资产。自2017年以来暂时失去光彩的加密货币，自疫情爆发以来正在以极快的速度反弹（见图表7）。</blockquote><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/46a4f01c4a7404c0a7b196d39dac0a78\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"424\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\">Judged on only those metrics, stock markets are clearly in a bubble. But is this time maybe really different as the bulls argue? In our view, there are only two ways that current stock prices could indeed be justified;<blockquote>仅从这些指标来看，股市显然处于泡沫之中。但这一次真的像多头所说的那样不同吗？在我们看来，只有两种方式可以证明当前的股价是合理的：</blockquote>1. The great Gatsby:The pandemic, as negative as it was for economic activity near term, will be followed by a period of unprecedented economic expansion. Hence, GDP will rapidly rise and close the gap to equity prices. 2. The great inflation:Stocks simply price in future inflation that eventually will come on the back of decades of ultra-low rates and central bank balance sheet expansionWe will take a close look at the validity of those scenarios below. As we will show, these scenarios would require that we enter a multi-year period of extreme economic growth or inflation or a mix of both.&nbsp; However, we will show that gold should outperform stocks in either scenario. And if neither scenario comes true, then stock markets are due for a substantial correction. In that scenario, we would expect central banks to eventually intervene, which should ultimately also benefit gold. Hence, the fact that stocks have vastly outperformed gold over the past months is somewhat of a conundrum. But we are confident that this will reverse going forward.<blockquote>1.了不起的盖茨比：尽管疫情在短期内对经济活动不利，但随之而来的将是一段前所未有的经济扩张时期。因此，GDP将迅速上升，并缩小与股票价格的差距。2.大通货膨胀：股票只是对未来的通胀进行定价，而未来的通胀最终将在数十年的超低利率和央行资产负债表扩张的背景下出现。我们将在下面仔细研究这些情景的有效性。正如我们将展示的，这些情景将要求我们进入一个多年的极端经济增长或通货膨胀或两者兼而有之的时期。然而，我们将表明，在这两种情况下，黄金的表现都应该优于股票。如果这两种情况都没有实现，那么股市将出现大幅调整。在这种情况下，我们预计央行最终会进行干预，这最终也应该有利于黄金。因此，过去几个月股票的表现远远优于黄金的事实在某种程度上是一个难题。但我们相信，这种情况将在未来逆转。</blockquote>Scenario one: The great Gatsby<blockquote>场景一：了不起的盖茨比</blockquote>Proponents of the great Gatsby scenario argue that, once the COVID19 pandemic is behind us as enough people are vaccinated and normality returns, economic activity will explode. The argumentation goes that there is a lot of pent-up demand as people were forced to save during the lockdowns and are eager to consume. This demand will be further fueled by stimulus checks (potentially in perpetuity, UBI). At the same time, governments around the world are rolling out huge green infrastructure programs, partially to combat climate change and partially to jump-start the economy.<blockquote>《了不起的盖茨比》的支持者认为，一旦COVID19疫情成为过去，有足够多的人接种疫苗，恢复正常，经济活动将会爆发。这种观点认为，由于人们在封锁期间被迫储蓄并渴望消费，因此存在大量被压抑的需求。刺激检查（可能是永久性的，UBI）将进一步推动这种需求。与此同时，世界各国政府正在推出庞大的绿色基础设施项目，部分是为了应对气候变化，部分是为了提振经济。</blockquote>While some of these deliberations have merit, there are a few important caveats. In our view, it is extremely unlikely for the economy to simply pick up where we left even if the current measures intended to contain the pandemic are completely removed. Many small businesses have closed forever or are about to close in the near term. The surviving businesses are aggressively cutting costs by a) laying off staff and b) trimming production. The former will impact on consumer demand going forward, the latter will impact on the businesses that are further up in the production chain. While there may be pent-up consumer demand from those who still have a job and saved a lot of money during lockdowns, there are also likely to be a lot of pent-up bankruptcies as many businesses have simply survived so far due to government intervention. Eventually many of those businesses will close. This is especially true in many European economies where governments de facto paid companies not to fire people.<blockquote>虽然其中一些审议有其优点，但也有一些重要的警告。我们认为，即使目前旨在遏制疫情的措施完全取消，经济也极不可能简单地从我们离开的地方恢复过来。许多小企业已经永远关闭或即将在短期内关闭。幸存的企业正在通过a)裁员和b)削减产量来积极削减成本。前者将影响未来的消费者需求，后者将影响生产链更上游的企业。虽然那些仍然有工作并在封锁期间存了很多钱的人可能会有被压抑的消费者需求，但也可能会有很多被压抑的破产，因为许多企业迄今为止只是由于政府干预而幸存下来。最终，许多这样的企业将会关闭。在许多欧洲经济体尤其如此，在这些经济体，政府实际上付钱给公司不要解雇员工。</blockquote>The problem is compounded by the fact that the economy was already stuttering long before Coronavirus became a household name. The Fed had to aggressively reverse its hiking cycle already by 3Q2019 as markets started to turn sour. We believe that we are close to or already in a recession by late 2019. Hence, a simple return to the pre-COVID economy would mean back to a “normal” recession. Thus, the drivers for this apparent future multi-year super growth cycle have to be strong enough to offset these bearish factors as well.<blockquote>早在冠状病毒成为家喻户晓的名字之前，经济就已经陷入困境，这一事实使问题变得更加复杂。随着市场开始恶化，美联储不得不在2019年第三季度之前大幅扭转加息周期。我们认为，到2019年底，我们将接近或已经陷入衰退。因此，简单地回到COVID之前的经济将意味着回到“正常”衰退。因此，这个明显的未来多年超级增长周期的驱动力必须足够强大，以抵消这些看跌因素。</blockquote>Then there is the magnitude by how much the economy would have to expand to justify these kind of equity valuations. If you take a simple metric like market cap to GDP, then GDP would have to almost double from current levels to be in line with historical averages. That implies a nominal GDP of $40tn, or 86% above the levels before COVID (average 2019). Granted that market cap to GDP was already inflated to around 1.2 on average in the ten years prior to the pandemic due to ultra-low interest rates, a return to that average would still require nominal GDP to rise to $35tn or 63% from pre-COVID levels.<blockquote>然后是经济必须扩张多少才能证明这种股票估值的合理性。如果你用一个简单的指标来衡量GDP，那么GDP必须比当前水平翻一番才能与历史平均水平保持一致。这意味着名义GDP为40万亿美元，比COVID之前的水平（2019年平均水平）高出86%。尽管由于超低利率，在大流行之前的十年里，市值与GDP之比已经平均膨胀至1.2左右，但要恢复到这一平均水平，仍需要名义GDP升至35万亿美元，即较前水平的63%。</blockquote>Even with a staggering 5% annual GDP growth and 2% inflation, it would still take more than seven years to get there. Are stocks really pricing in the year 2028 with 0% discount rate? And if so, what would be the fundamental driver to push stocks even higher from here? &nbsp;And is there even historic precedent for these kind of growth numbers? In the post WWII period, there have been only two instances where economic expansion was that high for a prolonged period (see Exhibit 8).<blockquote>即使GDP年增长率达到惊人的5%，通货膨胀率达到2%，仍需要七年多的时间才能实现。2028年股票真的以0%贴现率定价吗？如果是这样，推动股市进一步走高的根本驱动力是什么？这种增长数字有历史先例吗？在二战后时期，只有两次经济扩张在很长一段时间内如此之高（见图表8）。</blockquote>After WWII ended, the US saw a few years of moderate growth as government spending plummeted, followed by very high growth rates at around 6.9% between 1949 and 1953. This was possible as the US was one of the very few countries where none of the infrastructure had been destroyed and the rest of the world had to be rebuilt. However mathematically, even a repetition of the 1949-53 growth period over the coming years would not be enough to justify current stock prices as it lasted for “only” four years before the US fell into another recession.<blockquote>二战结束后，随着政府支出暴跌，美国经历了几年的温和增长，随后在1949年至1953年间实现了约6.9%的高增长率。这是可能的，因为美国是极少数基础设施没有被摧毁、世界其他地区必须重建的国家之一。然而，从数学上讲，即使在未来几年重复1949-53年的增长期也不足以证明当前股价的合理性，因为在美国陷入另一场衰退之前，它“只”持续了四年。</blockquote><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/e0e3916e88c1ee473c5ea235b229f969\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"420\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\">From 1958-1969, the US economy was able to grow close to 5% with a brief monetary recession in 1960. In our view, this 1960s growth period is the only one that reflects the magnitude and length needed to get US GDP back in line with current equity prices. However, the economic environment of the 1960s looked very different from where we are now. More specifically, the US exited WWII with record debt to GPD of over 100%. However, it then immediately cut spending (which resulted in the slower growth rates in the immediate years after WWII) and reduced debt. Inflation also picked up, which, to some extent, helped reducing debt even further[1]. By 1959, the US government had reduced its debt held by the public to 44%, and it dropped to 27% by the end of the 60s (see exhibit 9).<blockquote>从1958年到1969年，美国经济能够增长近5%，1960年经历了短暂的货币衰退。我们认为，20世纪60年代的增长期是唯一反映美国GDP与当前股价接轨所需的规模和长度的时期。然而，20世纪60年代的经济环境看起来与我们现在有很大不同。更具体地说，美国退出二战时对GPD的债务超过100%。然而，它随后立即削减支出（这导致了二战后几年的增长率放缓）并减少了债务。通货膨胀也有所上升，这在某种程度上有助于进一步减少债务[1]。到1959年，美国政府将公众持有的债务降至44%，到60年代末又降至27%（见图表9）。</blockquote><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4ee79afe5f74fa39abc86b197930c486\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"422\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\">Additionally, 10-year treasury rates average at around 5% during this entire growth period. This is a stark contrast to the 1.5% we are seeing now (which already seem to rattle markets). Furthermore, the FED has no room to the downside, as Fed funds rates are already at zero percent. Hence, the only monetary stimulus that is left is via continued and even more extreme QE. However, as we have shown many times before (see&nbsp;Gold Price Framework Vol. 2: The energy side of the equation,&nbsp;28 May 2018), QE has always a huge and direct effect on gold prices, and gold is currently not pricing any of that in. Instead, the equity and gold markets seem to be pricing in economic expansion that is driven by anything but more monetary stimulus.<blockquote>此外，在整个增长期内，10年期国债利率平均约为5%。这与我们现在看到的1.5%形成鲜明对比（这似乎已经扰乱了市场）。此外，美联储没有下行空间，因为联邦基金利率已经为零。因此，剩下的唯一货币刺激是通过持续甚至更极端的量化宽松。然而，正如我们之前多次展示的那样（参见黄金价格框架第2卷：等式的能量面，2018年5月28日），QE总是对黄金价格产生巨大而直接的影响，而黄金目前并没有对其中的任何一项进行定价。相反，股票和黄金市场似乎正在为经济扩张定价，而经济扩张是由更多的货币刺激推动的。</blockquote>Another theme of the great Gatsby scenario is that governments will unleash massive transformation towards a greener future. This will lead to huge infrastructure investments in energy, transportation and commodity space, create jobs and unlock economic growth. While we believe that this is likely to be true, what the market seems to ignore is that this can only be financed with more government debt. Central banks will ultimately have to buy that debt, which has the same effect as QE as it leads to a growing balance sheet. And as we have outlined before, higher QE leads to higher gold prices. So again, if markets are pricing in economic expansion on the back of a “green new deal”, they seem to wrongly assume that this can be done without an effect on gold price.<blockquote>《了不起的盖茨比》的另一个主题是，政府将向更绿色的未来发起大规模变革。这将导致能源、交通和商品领域的巨额基础设施投资，创造就业机会并释放经济增长。虽然我们认为这很可能是真的，但市场似乎忽视的是，这只能通过更多的政府债务来融资。央行最终将不得不购买这些债务，这与量化宽松的效果相同，因为它会导致资产负债表不断扩大。正如我们之前概述的，更高的QE会导致更高的金价。因此，如果市场在“绿色新政”的支持下定价经济扩张，他们似乎错误地认为这可以在不影响金价的情况下实现。</blockquote>Lastly, there is the idea that the COVID relief checks will continue indefinitely, de facto introducing a sort of Universal Basic Income (UBI). This would have an effect on consumer spending and, thus, corporate revenues. However, currently the US is running the largest deficit in history. If UBI becomes a reality, this would also have to be entirely financed via debt. As mentioned before, markets are not pricing this in, otherwise we would see an effect on gold.<blockquote>最后，有一种观点认为，COVID救济支票将无限期地继续下去，事实上引入了一种普遍基本收入（UBI）。这将对消费者支出产生影响，从而影响企业收入。然而，目前美国正面临历史上最大的赤字。如果UBI成为现实，这也必须完全通过债务融资。如前所述，市场没有对此进行定价，否则我们将看到对黄金的影响。</blockquote>Thus, the equity-gold conundrum doesn’t disappear in the great Gatsby scenario. In fact, we think that if we see strong economic growth over the coming years, it will entirely be debt financed and as a consequence gold should outperform stocks, not the other way around.<blockquote>因此，在《了不起的盖茨比》的场景中，股票-黄金难题并没有消失。事实上，我们认为，如果我们在未来几年看到强劲的经济增长，它将完全由债务融资，因此黄金的表现应该优于股票，而不是相反。</blockquote>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>The Equity-Gold Price Conundrum, Part 1: The Great Batsby<blockquote>股票-黄金价格难题，第1部分：伟大的蝙蝠侠</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\">\nThe Equity-Gold Price Conundrum, Part 1: The Great Batsby<blockquote>股票-黄金价格难题，第1部分：伟大的蝙蝠侠</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nzerohedge2021-03-10 18:11\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\nThe relentless rally in equity markets has pushed valuations to extreme levels based on traditional metrics. In this report, we analyze the two common arguments made by equity bulls on why this time is different and current valuations are justified. We find that either gold or equities are currently mispriced, as, a) both arguments would imply that gold should outperform stocks and b) if neither of the scenarios play out, equities are due for a substantial correction.<blockquote>根据传统指标，股市的持续上涨已将估值推至极端水平。在本报告中，我们分析了股票多头提出的两个常见论点，即为什么这次不同以及当前估值是合理的。我们发现，黄金或股票目前的定价都是错误的，因为a)这两种论点都意味着黄金的表现应该优于股票，b)如果这两种情况都没有发生，股票将出现大幅调整。</blockquote><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/95f7609bf84bf26bd5d2443fa9a7de86\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"445\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\">Amidst the global COVID-19 pandemic, equities had staggering rally over the past 12 months. The S&amp;P500 almost doubled in less than a year from a low of 2240 on March 23, 2020 to currently 3860 at the time of writing. In addition, some narrower indices have done even better. Particularly certain technology stocks have relentlessly risen amidst an environment of economic stress.<blockquote>在全球新冠肺炎疫情中，股市在过去12个月中出现了惊人的反弹。标准普尔500指数在不到一年的时间里几乎翻了一番，从2020年3月23日的低点2240点升至撰写本文时目前的3860点。此外，一些较窄的指数表现甚至更好。尤其是某些科技股在经济压力的环境下持续上涨。</blockquote>This has led to a sharp increase in the equities-to-gold price ratio (see Exhibit 1) even as economic growth has collapsed while the Fed increased its balance sheet at an unprecedented level.<blockquote>这导致股票与黄金的价格比率急剧上升（见图表1），尽管经济增长已经崩溃，而美联储以前所未有的水平增加了资产负债表。</blockquote><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/a828b10b92375dfb19347e6c59314c83\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"405\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"><blockquote></blockquote>This increase in the equities-to-gold-ratio is not caused by gold performing poorly as prices for the yellow metal are up12% since the end of 2019. It’s simply a consequence of equities’ doing really well. But equity valuations according to traditional metrics have now approached extreme levels. For example, the total market cap to GDP (Buffet indicator) is currently at 193% (see exhibit 2), the highest on record, 50% above the peak during the dot.com bubble.<blockquote>股票与黄金比率的上升并不是由黄金表现不佳造成的，因为自2019年底以来，黄金价格上涨了12%。这只是股市表现良好的结果。但根据传统指标，股票估值现已接近极端水平。例如，总市值占GDP（巴菲特指标）目前为193%（见图表2），为有记录以来的最高水平，比互联网泡沫期间的峰值高出50%。</blockquote><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/e64899d2c53b18cc97b2dce33717c9af\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"428\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\">Moreover, global equities to GDP are also extremely high, currently at &gt;120% (see exhibit 3).<blockquote>此外，全球股票占GDP的比例也极高，目前超过120%（见图表3）。</blockquote><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/ef426becc1777204ae2f18e3c290e2e6\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"436\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\">The Cyclically Adjusted Price Earnings Ratio, or CAPE, a measure developed by Robert Schiller, is also flashing red with the second highest reading in history going back to the late 1900s (see exhibit 4).<blockquote>周期性调整市盈率（CAPE）是罗伯特·席勒（Robert Schiller）开发的一种衡量标准，也呈红色，其读数是自1900年代末以来历史上第二高的读数（见图表4）。</blockquote><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/8cc92db52653acc17b59de9311c17bf0\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"442\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\">Price to sales ratios also hit a record high (see Exhibit 5).<blockquote>市销率也创下历史新高（见图表5）。</blockquote><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/a119fa360112d18ced5d8efff557ebea\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"436\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\">There are other indicators that suggest that equity prices have detached from underlying fundamentals. The put / call ratio on the CBOE has now reached the levels of the dot.com bubble (see Exhibit 6).<blockquote>还有其他指标表明股价已经脱离了基本面。芝加哥期权交易所的看跌/看涨期权比率现在已经达到了互联网泡沫的水平（见图表6）。</blockquote><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/462aa5d4dee82e50792b2a4f6bbd70f8\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"389\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\">We also saw an unprecedented inflow of new market participants. People with very little or no market exp4erience opened online brokerage accounts at an unprecedented speed during the global lockdowns. More than 10 million Americans opened a trading account in 2020 according to the Wall Street Journal.&nbsp; According to CNBC, ten percent of Americans bought a stock for the first time in the past 12 months, and a staggering twenty-two percent of Gen Z (currently 6-24 years old) opened a stock market account in the last 12 months.<blockquote>我们还看到前所未有的新市场参与者流入。在全球封锁期间，很少或没有市场经验的人以前所未有的速度开设了在线经纪账户。据《华尔街日报》报道，2020年有超过1000万美国人开设了交易账户。据美国消费者新闻与商业频道报道，10%的美国人在过去12个月内首次购买股票，惊人的22%的Z世代（目前6-24岁）在过去12个月内开设了股市账户。</blockquote>And stocks are not the only assets that are skyrocketing. Cryptocurrencies, which since 2017 had temporarily lost their luster, are rallying at breakneck pace since the outbreak of the pandemic (see exhibit 7).<blockquote>股票并不是唯一暴涨的资产。自2017年以来暂时失去光彩的加密货币，自疫情爆发以来正在以极快的速度反弹（见图表7）。</blockquote><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/46a4f01c4a7404c0a7b196d39dac0a78\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"424\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\">Judged on only those metrics, stock markets are clearly in a bubble. But is this time maybe really different as the bulls argue? In our view, there are only two ways that current stock prices could indeed be justified;<blockquote>仅从这些指标来看，股市显然处于泡沫之中。但这一次真的像多头所说的那样不同吗？在我们看来，只有两种方式可以证明当前的股价是合理的：</blockquote>1. The great Gatsby:The pandemic, as negative as it was for economic activity near term, will be followed by a period of unprecedented economic expansion. Hence, GDP will rapidly rise and close the gap to equity prices. 2. The great inflation:Stocks simply price in future inflation that eventually will come on the back of decades of ultra-low rates and central bank balance sheet expansionWe will take a close look at the validity of those scenarios below. As we will show, these scenarios would require that we enter a multi-year period of extreme economic growth or inflation or a mix of both.&nbsp; However, we will show that gold should outperform stocks in either scenario. And if neither scenario comes true, then stock markets are due for a substantial correction. In that scenario, we would expect central banks to eventually intervene, which should ultimately also benefit gold. Hence, the fact that stocks have vastly outperformed gold over the past months is somewhat of a conundrum. But we are confident that this will reverse going forward.<blockquote>1.了不起的盖茨比：尽管疫情在短期内对经济活动不利，但随之而来的将是一段前所未有的经济扩张时期。因此，GDP将迅速上升，并缩小与股票价格的差距。2.大通货膨胀：股票只是对未来的通胀进行定价，而未来的通胀最终将在数十年的超低利率和央行资产负债表扩张的背景下出现。我们将在下面仔细研究这些情景的有效性。正如我们将展示的，这些情景将要求我们进入一个多年的极端经济增长或通货膨胀或两者兼而有之的时期。然而，我们将表明，在这两种情况下，黄金的表现都应该优于股票。如果这两种情况都没有实现，那么股市将出现大幅调整。在这种情况下，我们预计央行最终会进行干预，这最终也应该有利于黄金。因此，过去几个月股票的表现远远优于黄金的事实在某种程度上是一个难题。但我们相信，这种情况将在未来逆转。</blockquote>Scenario one: The great Gatsby<blockquote>场景一：了不起的盖茨比</blockquote>Proponents of the great Gatsby scenario argue that, once the COVID19 pandemic is behind us as enough people are vaccinated and normality returns, economic activity will explode. The argumentation goes that there is a lot of pent-up demand as people were forced to save during the lockdowns and are eager to consume. This demand will be further fueled by stimulus checks (potentially in perpetuity, UBI). At the same time, governments around the world are rolling out huge green infrastructure programs, partially to combat climate change and partially to jump-start the economy.<blockquote>《了不起的盖茨比》的支持者认为，一旦COVID19疫情成为过去，有足够多的人接种疫苗，恢复正常，经济活动将会爆发。这种观点认为，由于人们在封锁期间被迫储蓄并渴望消费，因此存在大量被压抑的需求。刺激检查（可能是永久性的，UBI）将进一步推动这种需求。与此同时，世界各国政府正在推出庞大的绿色基础设施项目，部分是为了应对气候变化，部分是为了提振经济。</blockquote>While some of these deliberations have merit, there are a few important caveats. In our view, it is extremely unlikely for the economy to simply pick up where we left even if the current measures intended to contain the pandemic are completely removed. Many small businesses have closed forever or are about to close in the near term. The surviving businesses are aggressively cutting costs by a) laying off staff and b) trimming production. The former will impact on consumer demand going forward, the latter will impact on the businesses that are further up in the production chain. While there may be pent-up consumer demand from those who still have a job and saved a lot of money during lockdowns, there are also likely to be a lot of pent-up bankruptcies as many businesses have simply survived so far due to government intervention. Eventually many of those businesses will close. This is especially true in many European economies where governments de facto paid companies not to fire people.<blockquote>虽然其中一些审议有其优点，但也有一些重要的警告。我们认为，即使目前旨在遏制疫情的措施完全取消，经济也极不可能简单地从我们离开的地方恢复过来。许多小企业已经永远关闭或即将在短期内关闭。幸存的企业正在通过a)裁员和b)削减产量来积极削减成本。前者将影响未来的消费者需求，后者将影响生产链更上游的企业。虽然那些仍然有工作并在封锁期间存了很多钱的人可能会有被压抑的消费者需求，但也可能会有很多被压抑的破产，因为许多企业迄今为止只是由于政府干预而幸存下来。最终，许多这样的企业将会关闭。在许多欧洲经济体尤其如此，在这些经济体，政府实际上付钱给公司不要解雇员工。</blockquote>The problem is compounded by the fact that the economy was already stuttering long before Coronavirus became a household name. The Fed had to aggressively reverse its hiking cycle already by 3Q2019 as markets started to turn sour. We believe that we are close to or already in a recession by late 2019. Hence, a simple return to the pre-COVID economy would mean back to a “normal” recession. Thus, the drivers for this apparent future multi-year super growth cycle have to be strong enough to offset these bearish factors as well.<blockquote>早在冠状病毒成为家喻户晓的名字之前，经济就已经陷入困境，这一事实使问题变得更加复杂。随着市场开始恶化，美联储不得不在2019年第三季度之前大幅扭转加息周期。我们认为，到2019年底，我们将接近或已经陷入衰退。因此，简单地回到COVID之前的经济将意味着回到“正常”衰退。因此，这个明显的未来多年超级增长周期的驱动力必须足够强大，以抵消这些看跌因素。</blockquote>Then there is the magnitude by how much the economy would have to expand to justify these kind of equity valuations. If you take a simple metric like market cap to GDP, then GDP would have to almost double from current levels to be in line with historical averages. That implies a nominal GDP of $40tn, or 86% above the levels before COVID (average 2019). Granted that market cap to GDP was already inflated to around 1.2 on average in the ten years prior to the pandemic due to ultra-low interest rates, a return to that average would still require nominal GDP to rise to $35tn or 63% from pre-COVID levels.<blockquote>然后是经济必须扩张多少才能证明这种股票估值的合理性。如果你用一个简单的指标来衡量GDP，那么GDP必须比当前水平翻一番才能与历史平均水平保持一致。这意味着名义GDP为40万亿美元，比COVID之前的水平（2019年平均水平）高出86%。尽管由于超低利率，在大流行之前的十年里，市值与GDP之比已经平均膨胀至1.2左右，但要恢复到这一平均水平，仍需要名义GDP升至35万亿美元，即较前水平的63%。</blockquote>Even with a staggering 5% annual GDP growth and 2% inflation, it would still take more than seven years to get there. Are stocks really pricing in the year 2028 with 0% discount rate? And if so, what would be the fundamental driver to push stocks even higher from here? &nbsp;And is there even historic precedent for these kind of growth numbers? In the post WWII period, there have been only two instances where economic expansion was that high for a prolonged period (see Exhibit 8).<blockquote>即使GDP年增长率达到惊人的5%，通货膨胀率达到2%，仍需要七年多的时间才能实现。2028年股票真的以0%贴现率定价吗？如果是这样，推动股市进一步走高的根本驱动力是什么？这种增长数字有历史先例吗？在二战后时期，只有两次经济扩张在很长一段时间内如此之高（见图表8）。</blockquote>After WWII ended, the US saw a few years of moderate growth as government spending plummeted, followed by very high growth rates at around 6.9% between 1949 and 1953. This was possible as the US was one of the very few countries where none of the infrastructure had been destroyed and the rest of the world had to be rebuilt. However mathematically, even a repetition of the 1949-53 growth period over the coming years would not be enough to justify current stock prices as it lasted for “only” four years before the US fell into another recession.<blockquote>二战结束后，随着政府支出暴跌，美国经历了几年的温和增长，随后在1949年至1953年间实现了约6.9%的高增长率。这是可能的，因为美国是极少数基础设施没有被摧毁、世界其他地区必须重建的国家之一。然而，从数学上讲，即使在未来几年重复1949-53年的增长期也不足以证明当前股价的合理性，因为在美国陷入另一场衰退之前，它“只”持续了四年。</blockquote><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/e0e3916e88c1ee473c5ea235b229f969\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"420\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\">From 1958-1969, the US economy was able to grow close to 5% with a brief monetary recession in 1960. In our view, this 1960s growth period is the only one that reflects the magnitude and length needed to get US GDP back in line with current equity prices. However, the economic environment of the 1960s looked very different from where we are now. More specifically, the US exited WWII with record debt to GPD of over 100%. However, it then immediately cut spending (which resulted in the slower growth rates in the immediate years after WWII) and reduced debt. Inflation also picked up, which, to some extent, helped reducing debt even further[1]. By 1959, the US government had reduced its debt held by the public to 44%, and it dropped to 27% by the end of the 60s (see exhibit 9).<blockquote>从1958年到1969年，美国经济能够增长近5%，1960年经历了短暂的货币衰退。我们认为，20世纪60年代的增长期是唯一反映美国GDP与当前股价接轨所需的规模和长度的时期。然而，20世纪60年代的经济环境看起来与我们现在有很大不同。更具体地说，美国退出二战时对GPD的债务超过100%。然而，它随后立即削减支出（这导致了二战后几年的增长率放缓）并减少了债务。通货膨胀也有所上升，这在某种程度上有助于进一步减少债务[1]。到1959年，美国政府将公众持有的债务降至44%，到60年代末又降至27%（见图表9）。</blockquote><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4ee79afe5f74fa39abc86b197930c486\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"422\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\">Additionally, 10-year treasury rates average at around 5% during this entire growth period. This is a stark contrast to the 1.5% we are seeing now (which already seem to rattle markets). Furthermore, the FED has no room to the downside, as Fed funds rates are already at zero percent. Hence, the only monetary stimulus that is left is via continued and even more extreme QE. However, as we have shown many times before (see&nbsp;Gold Price Framework Vol. 2: The energy side of the equation,&nbsp;28 May 2018), QE has always a huge and direct effect on gold prices, and gold is currently not pricing any of that in. Instead, the equity and gold markets seem to be pricing in economic expansion that is driven by anything but more monetary stimulus.<blockquote>此外，在整个增长期内，10年期国债利率平均约为5%。这与我们现在看到的1.5%形成鲜明对比（这似乎已经扰乱了市场）。此外，美联储没有下行空间，因为联邦基金利率已经为零。因此，剩下的唯一货币刺激是通过持续甚至更极端的量化宽松。然而，正如我们之前多次展示的那样（参见黄金价格框架第2卷：等式的能量面，2018年5月28日），QE总是对黄金价格产生巨大而直接的影响，而黄金目前并没有对其中的任何一项进行定价。相反，股票和黄金市场似乎正在为经济扩张定价，而经济扩张是由更多的货币刺激推动的。</blockquote>Another theme of the great Gatsby scenario is that governments will unleash massive transformation towards a greener future. This will lead to huge infrastructure investments in energy, transportation and commodity space, create jobs and unlock economic growth. While we believe that this is likely to be true, what the market seems to ignore is that this can only be financed with more government debt. Central banks will ultimately have to buy that debt, which has the same effect as QE as it leads to a growing balance sheet. And as we have outlined before, higher QE leads to higher gold prices. So again, if markets are pricing in economic expansion on the back of a “green new deal”, they seem to wrongly assume that this can be done without an effect on gold price.<blockquote>《了不起的盖茨比》的另一个主题是，政府将向更绿色的未来发起大规模变革。这将导致能源、交通和商品领域的巨额基础设施投资，创造就业机会并释放经济增长。虽然我们认为这很可能是真的，但市场似乎忽视的是，这只能通过更多的政府债务来融资。央行最终将不得不购买这些债务，这与量化宽松的效果相同，因为它会导致资产负债表不断扩大。正如我们之前概述的，更高的QE会导致更高的金价。因此，如果市场在“绿色新政”的支持下定价经济扩张，他们似乎错误地认为这可以在不影响金价的情况下实现。</blockquote>Lastly, there is the idea that the COVID relief checks will continue indefinitely, de facto introducing a sort of Universal Basic Income (UBI). This would have an effect on consumer spending and, thus, corporate revenues. However, currently the US is running the largest deficit in history. If UBI becomes a reality, this would also have to be entirely financed via debt. As mentioned before, markets are not pricing this in, otherwise we would see an effect on gold.<blockquote>最后，有一种观点认为，COVID救济支票将无限期地继续下去，事实上引入了一种普遍基本收入（UBI）。这将对消费者支出产生影响，从而影响企业收入。然而，目前美国正面临历史上最大的赤字。如果UBI成为现实，这也必须完全通过债务融资。如前所述，市场没有对此进行定价，否则我们将看到对黄金的影响。</blockquote>Thus, the equity-gold conundrum doesn’t disappear in the great Gatsby scenario. In fact, we think that if we see strong economic growth over the coming years, it will entirely be debt financed and as a consequence gold should outperform stocks, not the other way around.<blockquote>因此，在《了不起的盖茨比》的场景中，股票-黄金难题并没有消失。事实上，我们认为，如果我们在未来几年看到强劲的经济增长，它将完全由债务融资，因此黄金的表现应该优于股票，而不是相反。</blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/equity-gold-price-conundrum-part-1-great-batsby?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+zerohege%2Ffeed+%28zero+hedge+-+on+a+long+enough+timeline%2C+the+survival+rate+for+everyone+drops+to+zero%29\">zerohedge</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":{},"source_url":"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/equity-gold-price-conundrum-part-1-great-batsby?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+zerohege%2Ffeed+%28zero+hedge+-+on+a+long+enough+timeline%2C+the+survival+rate+for+everyone+drops+to+zero%29","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1162030727","content_text":"The relentless rally in equity markets has pushed valuations to extreme levels based on traditional metrics. In this report, we analyze the two common arguments made by equity bulls on why this time is different and current valuations are justified. We find that either gold or equities are currently mispriced, as, a) both arguments would imply that gold should outperform stocks and b) if neither of the scenarios play out, equities are due for a substantial correction.Amidst the global COVID-19 pandemic, equities had staggering rally over the past 12 months. The S&P500 almost doubled in less than a year from a low of 2240 on March 23, 2020 to currently 3860 at the time of writing. In addition, some narrower indices have done even better. Particularly certain technology stocks have relentlessly risen amidst an environment of economic stress.This has led to a sharp increase in the equities-to-gold price ratio (see Exhibit 1) even as economic growth has collapsed while the Fed increased its balance sheet at an unprecedented level.This increase in the equities-to-gold-ratio is not caused by gold performing poorly as prices for the yellow metal are up12% since the end of 2019. It’s simply a consequence of equities’ doing really well. But equity valuations according to traditional metrics have now approached extreme levels. For example, the total market cap to GDP (Buffet indicator) is currently at 193% (see exhibit 2), the highest on record, 50% above the peak during the dot.com bubble.Moreover, global equities to GDP are also extremely high, currently at >120% (see exhibit 3).The Cyclically Adjusted Price Earnings Ratio, or CAPE, a measure developed by Robert Schiller, is also flashing red with the second highest reading in history going back to the late 1900s (see exhibit 4).Price to sales ratios also hit a record high (see Exhibit 5).There are other indicators that suggest that equity prices have detached from underlying fundamentals. The put / call ratio on the CBOE has now reached the levels of the dot.com bubble (see Exhibit 6).We also saw an unprecedented inflow of new market participants. People with very little or no market exp4erience opened online brokerage accounts at an unprecedented speed during the global lockdowns. More than 10 million Americans opened a trading account in 2020 according to the Wall Street Journal.  According to CNBC, ten percent of Americans bought a stock for the first time in the past 12 months, and a staggering twenty-two percent of Gen Z (currently 6-24 years old) opened a stock market account in the last 12 months.And stocks are not the only assets that are skyrocketing. Cryptocurrencies, which since 2017 had temporarily lost their luster, are rallying at breakneck pace since the outbreak of the pandemic (see exhibit 7).Judged on only those metrics, stock markets are clearly in a bubble. But is this time maybe really different as the bulls argue? In our view, there are only two ways that current stock prices could indeed be justified;1. The great Gatsby:The pandemic, as negative as it was for economic activity near term, will be followed by a period of unprecedented economic expansion. Hence, GDP will rapidly rise and close the gap to equity prices. 2. The great inflation:Stocks simply price in future inflation that eventually will come on the back of decades of ultra-low rates and central bank balance sheet expansionWe will take a close look at the validity of those scenarios below. As we will show, these scenarios would require that we enter a multi-year period of extreme economic growth or inflation or a mix of both.  However, we will show that gold should outperform stocks in either scenario. And if neither scenario comes true, then stock markets are due for a substantial correction. In that scenario, we would expect central banks to eventually intervene, which should ultimately also benefit gold. Hence, the fact that stocks have vastly outperformed gold over the past months is somewhat of a conundrum. But we are confident that this will reverse going forward.Scenario one: The great GatsbyProponents of the great Gatsby scenario argue that, once the COVID19 pandemic is behind us as enough people are vaccinated and normality returns, economic activity will explode. The argumentation goes that there is a lot of pent-up demand as people were forced to save during the lockdowns and are eager to consume. This demand will be further fueled by stimulus checks (potentially in perpetuity, UBI). At the same time, governments around the world are rolling out huge green infrastructure programs, partially to combat climate change and partially to jump-start the economy.While some of these deliberations have merit, there are a few important caveats. In our view, it is extremely unlikely for the economy to simply pick up where we left even if the current measures intended to contain the pandemic are completely removed. Many small businesses have closed forever or are about to close in the near term. The surviving businesses are aggressively cutting costs by a) laying off staff and b) trimming production. The former will impact on consumer demand going forward, the latter will impact on the businesses that are further up in the production chain. While there may be pent-up consumer demand from those who still have a job and saved a lot of money during lockdowns, there are also likely to be a lot of pent-up bankruptcies as many businesses have simply survived so far due to government intervention. Eventually many of those businesses will close. This is especially true in many European economies where governments de facto paid companies not to fire people.The problem is compounded by the fact that the economy was already stuttering long before Coronavirus became a household name. The Fed had to aggressively reverse its hiking cycle already by 3Q2019 as markets started to turn sour. We believe that we are close to or already in a recession by late 2019. Hence, a simple return to the pre-COVID economy would mean back to a “normal” recession. Thus, the drivers for this apparent future multi-year super growth cycle have to be strong enough to offset these bearish factors as well.Then there is the magnitude by how much the economy would have to expand to justify these kind of equity valuations. If you take a simple metric like market cap to GDP, then GDP would have to almost double from current levels to be in line with historical averages. That implies a nominal GDP of $40tn, or 86% above the levels before COVID (average 2019). Granted that market cap to GDP was already inflated to around 1.2 on average in the ten years prior to the pandemic due to ultra-low interest rates, a return to that average would still require nominal GDP to rise to $35tn or 63% from pre-COVID levels.Even with a staggering 5% annual GDP growth and 2% inflation, it would still take more than seven years to get there. Are stocks really pricing in the year 2028 with 0% discount rate? And if so, what would be the fundamental driver to push stocks even higher from here?  And is there even historic precedent for these kind of growth numbers? In the post WWII period, there have been only two instances where economic expansion was that high for a prolonged period (see Exhibit 8).After WWII ended, the US saw a few years of moderate growth as government spending plummeted, followed by very high growth rates at around 6.9% between 1949 and 1953. This was possible as the US was one of the very few countries where none of the infrastructure had been destroyed and the rest of the world had to be rebuilt. However mathematically, even a repetition of the 1949-53 growth period over the coming years would not be enough to justify current stock prices as it lasted for “only” four years before the US fell into another recession.From 1958-1969, the US economy was able to grow close to 5% with a brief monetary recession in 1960. In our view, this 1960s growth period is the only one that reflects the magnitude and length needed to get US GDP back in line with current equity prices. However, the economic environment of the 1960s looked very different from where we are now. More specifically, the US exited WWII with record debt to GPD of over 100%. However, it then immediately cut spending (which resulted in the slower growth rates in the immediate years after WWII) and reduced debt. Inflation also picked up, which, to some extent, helped reducing debt even further[1]. By 1959, the US government had reduced its debt held by the public to 44%, and it dropped to 27% by the end of the 60s (see exhibit 9).Additionally, 10-year treasury rates average at around 5% during this entire growth period. This is a stark contrast to the 1.5% we are seeing now (which already seem to rattle markets). Furthermore, the FED has no room to the downside, as Fed funds rates are already at zero percent. Hence, the only monetary stimulus that is left is via continued and even more extreme QE. However, as we have shown many times before (see Gold Price Framework Vol. 2: The energy side of the equation, 28 May 2018), QE has always a huge and direct effect on gold prices, and gold is currently not pricing any of that in. Instead, the equity and gold markets seem to be pricing in economic expansion that is driven by anything but more monetary stimulus.Another theme of the great Gatsby scenario is that governments will unleash massive transformation towards a greener future. This will lead to huge infrastructure investments in energy, transportation and commodity space, create jobs and unlock economic growth. While we believe that this is likely to be true, what the market seems to ignore is that this can only be financed with more government debt. Central banks will ultimately have to buy that debt, which has the same effect as QE as it leads to a growing balance sheet. And as we have outlined before, higher QE leads to higher gold prices. So again, if markets are pricing in economic expansion on the back of a “green new deal”, they seem to wrongly assume that this can be done without an effect on gold price.Lastly, there is the idea that the COVID relief checks will continue indefinitely, de facto introducing a sort of Universal Basic Income (UBI). This would have an effect on consumer spending and, thus, corporate revenues. However, currently the US is running the largest deficit in history. If UBI becomes a reality, this would also have to be entirely financed via debt. As mentioned before, markets are not pricing this in, otherwise we would see an effect on gold.Thus, the equity-gold conundrum doesn’t disappear in the great Gatsby scenario. In fact, we think that if we see strong economic growth over the coming years, it will entirely be debt financed and as a consequence gold should outperform stocks, not the other way around.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1065,"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":5,"xxTargetLangEnum":"ORIG"},"commentList":[],"hasMoreComment":false,"orderType":2}