w*t
2 楼
我买了的， 后来总是负的， 就扔了， 最后几个月好像不太好的， 大概是前几个月很
高弄的。
高弄的。
c*o
3 楼
过去30年？you know what you talking?
【在 c******n 的大作中提到】
: 过去30年债卷市场回报超过了股市
: 让你们这些做股票的脸往哪里放啊？
【在 c******n 的大作中提到】
: 过去30年债卷市场回报超过了股市
: 让你们这些做股票的脸往哪里放啊？
e*s
4 楼
Whitney 杯具呀 ～～～～～～～～lol
d*1
5 楼
是不是可以short bond了？
【在 c******n 的大作中提到】
: 过去30年债卷市场回报超过了股市
: 让你们这些做股票的脸往哪里放啊？
【在 c******n 的大作中提到】
: 过去30年债卷市场回报超过了股市
: 让你们这些做股票的脸往哪里放啊？
c*n
6 楼
Why are bonds outperforming stocks over long term?
By Matt Krantz, USA TODAY
Despite a reputation for being a slow-growing alternative to stocks for the
risk-averse, bonds just passed stocks' long-term performance over the past
30 years.
The fact bonds have topped stocks over such a long period shakes up
preconceived notions and further insults stock investors, who have endured
historic volatility as they got lower returns.
"No one thought the tortoise could catch up, and it just did," says Ken
Winans of Winans International.
Given the rally in bonds in 2011, it might not be surprising that the
Ibbotson Associates SBBI bonds index, a broad bond measure, returned 28%
last year, crushing the 2.1% return of the Standard & Poor's 500 including
dividends. The bond index also topped stocks for the past 10 and 20 years.
What's more surprising, though, since it contradicts the widespread belief
that stocks beat bonds, is that the Ibbotson Associates SBBI bond index has
returned 11.03% a year on average over the past 30 years, edging out the 10.
98% return of stocks.
Bonds' impressive run is being powered by several factors, including:
•Distrust of the stock market's future. An entire class of investors
is rattled by a dismal decade for stocks, including double-digit losses in
four separate years since 2000, says Bill Larkin of Cabot Money Management.
"People are looking at the (stock market) and seeing the casino component,"
he says. "They've taken big hits."
•Search for investment income. Aging Americans nearing or in
retirement are deciding they crave steady income and don't have the stomach
for stocks' higher volatility, Winans says.
•Historic declines in interest rates and inflation. The continual
movement down in interest rates and inflation the past 30 years has been a
boon for bonds, which rise in price as interest rates fall, says Charles
Crane of Douglass Winthrop Advisors.
It would be a mistake to assume that bonds' strong run over the 30 years is
destined to repeat, says Mark Hebner of Index Funds Advisors. Bonds have had
stock-beating periods before, but stocks, over the very long term, still
have beaten bonds, he says.
Looming risks also threaten the bond market, Larkin says. Moves by central
governments for the past few years to hold interest rates down will
eventually end, he says. If inflation creeps up, that, too, could put an end
to bonds' run, Crane says.
When bonds are beating stocks for this long, Larkin says, "the first thing
it tells you is you're probably at the most expensive bond market in our
lifetime."
【在 c*******o 的大作中提到】
: 过去30年？you know what you talking?
By Matt Krantz, USA TODAY
Despite a reputation for being a slow-growing alternative to stocks for the
risk-averse, bonds just passed stocks' long-term performance over the past
30 years.
The fact bonds have topped stocks over such a long period shakes up
preconceived notions and further insults stock investors, who have endured
historic volatility as they got lower returns.
"No one thought the tortoise could catch up, and it just did," says Ken
Winans of Winans International.
Given the rally in bonds in 2011, it might not be surprising that the
Ibbotson Associates SBBI bonds index, a broad bond measure, returned 28%
last year, crushing the 2.1% return of the Standard & Poor's 500 including
dividends. The bond index also topped stocks for the past 10 and 20 years.
What's more surprising, though, since it contradicts the widespread belief
that stocks beat bonds, is that the Ibbotson Associates SBBI bond index has
returned 11.03% a year on average over the past 30 years, edging out the 10.
98% return of stocks.
Bonds' impressive run is being powered by several factors, including:
•Distrust of the stock market's future. An entire class of investors
is rattled by a dismal decade for stocks, including double-digit losses in
four separate years since 2000, says Bill Larkin of Cabot Money Management.
"People are looking at the (stock market) and seeing the casino component,"
he says. "They've taken big hits."
•Search for investment income. Aging Americans nearing or in
retirement are deciding they crave steady income and don't have the stomach
for stocks' higher volatility, Winans says.
•Historic declines in interest rates and inflation. The continual
movement down in interest rates and inflation the past 30 years has been a
boon for bonds, which rise in price as interest rates fall, says Charles
Crane of Douglass Winthrop Advisors.
It would be a mistake to assume that bonds' strong run over the 30 years is
destined to repeat, says Mark Hebner of Index Funds Advisors. Bonds have had
stock-beating periods before, but stocks, over the very long term, still
have beaten bonds, he says.
Looming risks also threaten the bond market, Larkin says. Moves by central
governments for the past few years to hold interest rates down will
eventually end, he says. If inflation creeps up, that, too, could put an end
to bonds' run, Crane says.
When bonds are beating stocks for this long, Larkin says, "the first thing
it tells you is you're probably at the most expensive bond market in our
lifetime."
【在 c*******o 的大作中提到】
: 过去30年？you know what you talking?
c*o
7 楼
I am really confused. See the link for a pdf file.
http://efinance.org.cn/cn/fm/The%20Equity%20Premium%20Stock%20a
Figure E in the pdf file, it has total returns for stocks
government bonds,gold and US dollar.
It does not have data after 1990 but generally speaking
government bonds do not beat stocks especially the past
century.
1 thing to note, $1 in 1802 worth only 9 cents in 1990.
the
【在 c******n 的大作中提到】
: Why are bonds outperforming stocks over long term?
: By Matt Krantz, USA TODAY
: Despite a reputation for being a slow-growing alternative to stocks for the
: risk-averse, bonds just passed stocks' long-term performance over the past
: 30 years.
: The fact bonds have topped stocks over such a long period shakes up
: preconceived notions and further insults stock investors, who have endured
: historic volatility as they got lower returns.
: "No one thought the tortoise could catch up, and it just did," says Ken
: Winans of Winans International.
http://efinance.org.cn/cn/fm/The%20Equity%20Premium%20Stock%20a
Figure E in the pdf file, it has total returns for stocks
government bonds,gold and US dollar.
It does not have data after 1990 but generally speaking
government bonds do not beat stocks especially the past
century.
1 thing to note, $1 in 1802 worth only 9 cents in 1990.
the
【在 c******n 的大作中提到】
: Why are bonds outperforming stocks over long term?
: By Matt Krantz, USA TODAY
: Despite a reputation for being a slow-growing alternative to stocks for the
: risk-averse, bonds just passed stocks' long-term performance over the past
: 30 years.
: The fact bonds have topped stocks over such a long period shakes up
: preconceived notions and further insults stock investors, who have endured
: historic volatility as they got lower returns.
: "No one thought the tortoise could catch up, and it just did," says Ken
: Winans of Winans International.
c*o
8 楼
【在 c*******o 的大作中提到】
: I am really confused. See the link for a pdf file.
: http://efinance.org.cn/cn/fm/The%20Equity%20Premium%20Stock%20a
: Figure E in the pdf file, it has total returns for stocks
: government bonds,gold and US dollar.
: It does not have data after 1990 but generally speaking
: government bonds do not beat stocks especially the past
: century.
: 1 thing to note, $1 in 1802 worth only 9 cents in 1990.
:
: the
c*o
9 楼
我找到了那张图更新的数据，从1802到12/2006.
长期看，bills很难beat stocks. 只是最近Bills
收益很好，30 yrs bill去年好像是超过30%。但是，
bills的yield已经很低，很难再有更好的回报。
【在 c*******o 的大作中提到】
: I am really confused. See the link for a pdf file.
: http://efinance.org.cn/cn/fm/The%20Equity%20Premium%20Stock%20a
: Figure E in the pdf file, it has total returns for stocks
: government bonds,gold and US dollar.
: It does not have data after 1990 but generally speaking
: government bonds do not beat stocks especially the past
: century.
: 1 thing to note, $1 in 1802 worth only 9 cents in 1990.
:
: the
长期看，bills很难beat stocks. 只是最近Bills
收益很好，30 yrs bill去年好像是超过30%。但是，
bills的yield已经很低，很难再有更好的回报。
【在 c*******o 的大作中提到】
: I am really confused. See the link for a pdf file.
: http://efinance.org.cn/cn/fm/The%20Equity%20Premium%20Stock%20a
: Figure E in the pdf file, it has total returns for stocks
: government bonds,gold and US dollar.
: It does not have data after 1990 but generally speaking
: government bonds do not beat stocks especially the past
: century.
: 1 thing to note, $1 in 1802 worth only 9 cents in 1990.
:
: the
c*n
10 楼
统计学上的一个误区，认为每个数据都是一样有效的
其实时间越久的数据，对现在来讲越毫无意义
【在 c*******o 的大作中提到】
: I am really confused. See the link for a pdf file.
: http://efinance.org.cn/cn/fm/The%20Equity%20Premium%20Stock%20a
: Figure E in the pdf file, it has total returns for stocks
: government bonds,gold and US dollar.
: It does not have data after 1990 but generally speaking
: government bonds do not beat stocks especially the past
: century.
: 1 thing to note, $1 in 1802 worth only 9 cents in 1990.
:
: the
其实时间越久的数据，对现在来讲越毫无意义
【在 c*******o 的大作中提到】
: I am really confused. See the link for a pdf file.
: http://efinance.org.cn/cn/fm/The%20Equity%20Premium%20Stock%20a
: Figure E in the pdf file, it has total returns for stocks
: government bonds,gold and US dollar.
: It does not have data after 1990 but generally speaking
: government bonds do not beat stocks especially the past
: century.
: 1 thing to note, $1 in 1802 worth only 9 cents in 1990.
:
: the
c*o
11 楼
LOG Scale的图更说明问题，图里的asset class来说，
长期只有stock是log scale 的自然增长。
另外一个log scale 自然增长的就只有人口了吧。
【在 c*******o 的大作中提到】
: 我找到了那张图更新的数据，从1802到12/2006.
: 长期看，bills很难beat stocks. 只是最近Bills
: 收益很好，30 yrs bill去年好像是超过30%。但是，
: bills的yield已经很低，很难再有更好的回报。
长期只有stock是log scale 的自然增长。
另外一个log scale 自然增长的就只有人口了吧。
【在 c*******o 的大作中提到】
: 我找到了那张图更新的数据，从1802到12/2006.
: 长期看，bills很难beat stocks. 只是最近Bills
: 收益很好，30 yrs bill去年好像是超过30%。但是，
: bills的yield已经很低，很难再有更好的回报。
c*o
12 楼
你看，是你说long term return的，给你数据你又说
long term 数据无效。
okay, I get it, you always win.
【在 c******n 的大作中提到】
: 统计学上的一个误区，认为每个数据都是一样有效的
: 其实时间越久的数据，对现在来讲越毫无意义
long term 数据无效。
okay, I get it, you always win.
【在 c******n 的大作中提到】
: 统计学上的一个误区，认为每个数据都是一样有效的
: 其实时间越久的数据，对现在来讲越毫无意义
c*n
13 楼
其实你想想多少人吹捧股票多少年代了，每个人都把这种图熟记在心里时刻拿出来擦屁
股，就跟牛顿第一定律一样家喻户晓
其实呢？没有那么简单
stocks本身就有selection bias，股市里的公司大海一浪推一浪，失败的就破产消失，
不会还在指数内存在下去，所以指数都是有很多马后屁性质
无数股票破产了，delisted，就跟他们不存在一样，股市总是有新公司进来加入指数中
就跟公司里工资比拿养老金要高，公司里可以随时裁人僱新人
这种average coumpounding的股指算法是最脑残的
最实际的算法应当是monte carlo simulation
【在 c*******o 的大作中提到】
: 你看，是你说long term return的，给你数据你又说
: long term 数据无效。
: okay, I get it, you always win.
股，就跟牛顿第一定律一样家喻户晓
其实呢？没有那么简单
stocks本身就有selection bias，股市里的公司大海一浪推一浪，失败的就破产消失，
不会还在指数内存在下去，所以指数都是有很多马后屁性质
无数股票破产了，delisted，就跟他们不存在一样，股市总是有新公司进来加入指数中
就跟公司里工资比拿养老金要高，公司里可以随时裁人僱新人
这种average coumpounding的股指算法是最脑残的
最实际的算法应当是monte carlo simulation
【在 c*******o 的大作中提到】
: 你看，是你说long term return的，给你数据你又说
: long term 数据无效。
: okay, I get it, you always win.
d*1
14 楼
你对指数理解的不对。指数的performance是完全可复制的，而不是像你说的。
【在 c******n 的大作中提到】
: 其实你想想多少人吹捧股票多少年代了，每个人都把这种图熟记在心里时刻拿出来擦屁
: 股，就跟牛顿第一定律一样家喻户晓
: 其实呢？没有那么简单
: stocks本身就有selection bias，股市里的公司大海一浪推一浪，失败的就破产消失，
: 不会还在指数内存在下去，所以指数都是有很多马后屁性质
: 无数股票破产了，delisted，就跟他们不存在一样，股市总是有新公司进来加入指数中
: 就跟公司里工资比拿养老金要高，公司里可以随时裁人僱新人
: 这种average coumpounding的股指算法是最脑残的
: 最实际的算法应当是monte carlo simulation
【在 c******n 的大作中提到】
: 其实你想想多少人吹捧股票多少年代了，每个人都把这种图熟记在心里时刻拿出来擦屁
: 股，就跟牛顿第一定律一样家喻户晓
: 其实呢？没有那么简单
: stocks本身就有selection bias，股市里的公司大海一浪推一浪，失败的就破产消失，
: 不会还在指数内存在下去，所以指数都是有很多马后屁性质
: 无数股票破产了，delisted，就跟他们不存在一样，股市总是有新公司进来加入指数中
: 就跟公司里工资比拿养老金要高，公司里可以随时裁人僱新人
: 这种average coumpounding的股指算法是最脑残的
: 最实际的算法应当是monte carlo simulation
相关阅读