即
将结束的这个十年，可能是美国股市历史上表现最差的十年。在有记录以来近两百年的历史里，没有哪个从"0"到"9"的十年，股市的表现像21世纪的第一个十年这么凄惨。
不管投资哪里，从债券到黄金，甚至是只把现金藏在被褥下，几乎都比投资股市要好。自1999年年末以来，受两轮熊市的影响，纽约证券交易所(New York Stock Exchange)的股票每年平均下跌0.5%。
对于利用股市作为存钱养老首要投资途径的普通美国人来讲，这段时期为他们上了一堂课。
吸引很多投资者进入股市的，是始于上世纪80年代早期的那轮牛市，其涨势不断增强、一直延续到90年代。90年代是史上表现最好的十年，平均每年增长17.6%。但经过90年代之后，股市市值变得过高，企业也削减股息，降低了投资者回报。而在像2008年这样的金融危机中，股市成了一个特别糟糕的投资领地。
2009年只剩下两星期。据耶鲁大学(Yale University)金融学教授戈茨曼(William Goetzmann)编制的数据，股市从1999年年末以来的跌势，让刚刚过去的10个年头成了19世纪20年代有可靠股市记录以来股市表现最差的十年。
这种跌势超过了20世纪30年代的 "大萧条"时期。30年代股市以0.2%的跌幅，成了21世纪以前股市表现最差的十年。最近这个十年的表现，也不及其他经历了金融危机的十年，比如1907年金融危机和1893年金融危机所处的十年。
市场研究公司Ibbotson Associates首席经济学家甘贝拉(Michele Gambera)表示，过去的10年是一个噩梦，表现真的很差。
他说，虽然整个市场趋势是稳步向上的，但过去的十年提醒人们，股市可能会经历长期下跌。
甘贝拉说，这种情况不经常发生，但发生的可能性是有的。
这些统计数据在一定程度上存在因为时间计算的问题而产生的失真，这要看"十年"的起止时间怎么算。止于1937年和1938年的"十年"股市的表现差过多数"年代"，因为它们涵盖了1929年股市触顶、同年10月份崩溃的全部影响。
Ibbotson数据显示，从2000年到2009年11月，投资者如果是持有债券的话，回报要好得多。这段时期，各种类别的债券涨幅达到5.6%到超过8%不等。黄金是表现最佳的资产，继20世纪90年代每年下跌3%以后，这个十年的年均涨幅达到15%。
考虑到通货膨胀的影响后，过去这个十年股市的表现显得更差。
北卡罗来纳州立大学(North Carolina State University)金融学教授琼斯(Charles Jones)编制的数据显示，自1999年年末以来，经过通胀因素调整，标准普尔500股指平均每年下跌3.3%。他的数据采用了2009年的股息预测和截至11月份的消费者价格指数。
即使是熊市伴随通胀的20世纪70年代，其表现也要好过当前这个十年。70年代标准普尔500指数经过通胀因素调整后的跌幅是1.4%。
想到投资股市的一个关键目标是让资金升值速度超过通货膨胀，这对投资者来讲尤其是一种让人失望的消息。
琼斯说，这10年是一个大输家。
对于指望股票作为退休计划的投资者而言，最近10年意味着许多人的退休目标都落空了。许多理财计划设想的长期股票年回报率为10%，但在过去20年中，标准普尔500指数的年增长率为8.2%。
琼斯说，如果股票今后10年的平均回报率为10%，那么也只会将30年的平均回报率拉高到8.8%。对于2000年才开始投资的人来说更糟：每年10%的回报率仅会把他们的年回报率拉高到4.4%。
在过去10年里也并非无法从美国股市中赚钱。但回报率与90年代时相比就显得太低了。
在如今道琼斯工业股票平均价格指数的30只成分股中，1999年底以来只有13只上涨，只有卡特彼勒(Caterpillar Inc.)和联合技术(United Technologies Corp.)在过去10年里翻了一番。
那么，美国股市什么地方出错了？
首先，是原来的估价规则出了问题。
理财公司GMO LLC的联合创始人格兰瑟姆(Jeremy Grantham)说，我们进入本世纪时价值被高估得厉害。
按照耶鲁大学教授席勒(Robert Shiller)的估算，1999年底时，标准普尔500指数成分股的市盈率达到了44倍，几乎是历史最高水平。相比之下，长期的平均市盈率约为16倍。席勒是参照10年的收益跟踪股价水平。
格兰瑟姆说，在这样的价格上买，你最好相信你在大部分时间里只能得到糟糕的回报。他的公司10年前预测，标准普尔500指数在到2009年的10年间每年会下跌近2%。
尽管这10年的回报令人失望，如今的股票也并不便宜。按席勒的计算方法，标准普尔指数目前的市盈率约为20倍。
格兰瑟姆认为，美国大盘股高估了约30%，这意味着未来7年的回报率应比长期平均回报率低约30%。这也意味着在考虑通货膨胀因素前，每年的回报率只有1.6%。
股市的另一个障碍是始于上世纪80年代后期的股息下降。
从长远来看，股息自1926年以来在帮助股票达到9.5%的年平均回报率中发挥了重要作用。但自那年以来，标准普尔500股票平均收益率约为4%。琼斯说，这10年的平均收益率约为1.8%。
琼斯说，这种差别看起来并不太大，但是你必须通过股价上涨得到弥补。琼斯认为，除非股息上升到它们的长期平均水平，否则投资者可能需要降低预期。将股票的回报率只定在7%左右可能比较合适，而不是每年近10%的历史平均水平。
Tom Lauricella
（更新完成）
The U.S. stock market is wrapping up what is likely to be its worst decade ever.
In nearly 200 years of recorded stock-market history, no calendar decade has seen such a dismal performance as the 2000s.
Investors would have been better off investing in pretty much anything else, from bonds to gold or even just stuffing money under a mattress. Since the end of 1999, stocks traded on the New York Stock Exchange have lost an average of 0.5% a year thanks to the twin bear markets this decade.
The period has provided a lesson for ordinary Americans who used stocks as their primary way of saving for retirement.
Many investors were lured to the stock market by the bull market that began in the early 1980s and gained force through the 1990s. But coming out of the 1990s, the best calendar decade in history with a 17.6% average annual gain, stocks simply had gotten too expensive. Companies also pared dividends, cutting into investor returns. And in a time of financial panic like 2008, stocks were a terrible place to invest.
With just two weeks to go in 2009, the declines since the end of 1999 make the last 10 years the worst calendar decade for stocks going all the way back to the 1820s, when reliable stock-market records begin, according to data compiled by Yale University finance professor William Goetzmann.
It edges out the 0.2% decline stocks suffered during the Depression years of the 1930s, which up until now held the title of worst decade. And it is worse than other decades with financial panics, such as in 1907 and 1893.
'The last 10 years have been a nightmare, really poor,' for U.S. stocks, said Michele Gambera, chief economist at Ibbotson Associates.
While the overall market trend has been a steady march upward, the last decade is a reminder that stocks can decline over long periods of time, he said.
'It's not frequent, but it can happen,' Mr. Gambera said.
To some degree these statistics are a quirk of the calendar, based on when the 10-year period starts and finishes. The 10-year periods ending in 1937 and 1938 were worse than the most recent calendar decade because they capture the full effect of stocks hitting their peak in 1929 and the October crash of that year.
From 2000 through November 2009, investors would have been far better off owning bonds, which posted gains ranging from 5.6% to more than 8% depending on the sector, according to Ibbotson. Gold was the best-performing asset, up 15% a year this decade after losing 3% each year during the 1990s.
This past decade looks even worse when the impact of inflation is considered.
Since the end of 1999, the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index has lost an average of 3.3% a year on an inflation-adjusted basis, compared with a 1.8% average annual gain during the 1930s when deflation afflicted the economy, according to data compiled by Charles Jones, finance professor at North Carolina State University. His data use dividend estimates for 2009 and the consumer price index for the 12 months through November.
Even the 1970s, when a bear market was coupled with inflation, wasn't as bad as the most recent period. The S&P 500 lost 1.4% after inflation during that decade.
That is especially disappointing news for investors, considering that a key goal of investing in stocks is to increase money faster than inflation.
'This decade is the big loser,' said Mr. Jones.
For investors counting on stocks for retirement plans, the most recent decade means many have fallen behind retirement goals. Many financial plans assume a 10% annual return for stocks over the long term, but over the last 20 years, the S&P 500 is registering 8.2% annual gains.
Should stocks average 10% a year for the next decade, that would lift the 30-year average return to only 8.8%, said North Carolina State's Mr. Jones. It is even worse news for those who started investing in 2000; a 10% return a year would get them up to only 4.4% a year.
There were ways to make money in U.S. stocks during the last decade. But the returns paled in comparison with those posted in the 1990s.
Of the 30 stocks today that comprise the Dow Jones Industrial Average, only 13 are up since the end of 1999, and just two, Caterpillar Inc. and United Technologies Corp., doubled over the 10-year span.
So what went wrong for the U.S. stock market?
For starters, it turned out that the old rules of valuation matter.
'We came into this decade horribly overpriced,' said Jeremy Grantham, co-founder of money managers GMO LLC.
In late 1999, the stocks in the S&P 500 were trading at about an all-time high of 44 times earnings, based on Yale professor Robert Shiller's measure, which tracks prices compared with 10-year earnings and adjusts for inflation. That compares with a long-run average of about 16.
Buying at those kinds of values, 'you'd better believe you're going to get dismal returns for a considerable chunk of time,' said Mr. Grantham, whose firm predicted 10 years ago that the S&P 500 likely would lose nearly 2% a year in the 10 years through 2009.
Despite the woeful returns this decade, stocks today aren't a steal. The S&P is trading at a price-to-earnings ratio of about 20 on Mr. Shiller's measure.
Mr. Grantham thinks U.S. large-cap stocks are about 30% overpriced, which means returns should be about 30% less than their long-term average for the next seven years. That means returns of just 1.6% a year before adding in inflation.
Another hurdle for the stock market has been the decline in dividends that began in the late 1980s.
Over the long term, dividends have played an important role in helping stocks achieve a 9.5% average annual return since 1926. But since that year, the average yield on S&P 500 stocks was roughly 4%. This decade it has averaged about 1.8%, said North Carolina State's Mr. Jones.
That difference 'doesn't sound like much,' said Mr. Jones, 'but you've got to make it up through price appreciation.' Unless dividends rise back toward their long-term averages, Mr. Jones thinks investors may need to lower expectations. Rather than the nearly 10% a year that has been the historical average, stocks may be good for only about 7%.
Tom Lauricella
In nearly 200 years of recorded stock-market history, no calendar decade has seen such a dismal performance as the 2000s.
Investors would have been better off investing in pretty much anything else, from bonds to gold or even just stuffing money under a mattress. Since the end of 1999, stocks traded on the New York Stock Exchange have lost an average of 0.5% a year thanks to the twin bear markets this decade.
The period has provided a lesson for ordinary Americans who used stocks as their primary way of saving for retirement.
Many investors were lured to the stock market by the bull market that began in the early 1980s and gained force through the 1990s. But coming out of the 1990s, the best calendar decade in history with a 17.6% average annual gain, stocks simply had gotten too expensive. Companies also pared dividends, cutting into investor returns. And in a time of financial panic like 2008, stocks were a terrible place to invest.
With just two weeks to go in 2009, the declines since the end of 1999 make the last 10 years the worst calendar decade for stocks going all the way back to the 1820s, when reliable stock-market records begin, according to data compiled by Yale University finance professor William Goetzmann.
It edges out the 0.2% decline stocks suffered during the Depression years of the 1930s, which up until now held the title of worst decade. And it is worse than other decades with financial panics, such as in 1907 and 1893.
'The last 10 years have been a nightmare, really poor,' for U.S. stocks, said Michele Gambera, chief economist at Ibbotson Associates.
While the overall market trend has been a steady march upward, the last decade is a reminder that stocks can decline over long periods of time, he said.
'It's not frequent, but it can happen,' Mr. Gambera said.
To some degree these statistics are a quirk of the calendar, based on when the 10-year period starts and finishes. The 10-year periods ending in 1937 and 1938 were worse than the most recent calendar decade because they capture the full effect of stocks hitting their peak in 1929 and the October crash of that year.
From 2000 through November 2009, investors would have been far better off owning bonds, which posted gains ranging from 5.6% to more than 8% depending on the sector, according to Ibbotson. Gold was the best-performing asset, up 15% a year this decade after losing 3% each year during the 1990s.
This past decade looks even worse when the impact of inflation is considered.
Since the end of 1999, the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index has lost an average of 3.3% a year on an inflation-adjusted basis, compared with a 1.8% average annual gain during the 1930s when deflation afflicted the economy, according to data compiled by Charles Jones, finance professor at North Carolina State University. His data use dividend estimates for 2009 and the consumer price index for the 12 months through November.
Even the 1970s, when a bear market was coupled with inflation, wasn't as bad as the most recent period. The S&P 500 lost 1.4% after inflation during that decade.
That is especially disappointing news for investors, considering that a key goal of investing in stocks is to increase money faster than inflation.
'This decade is the big loser,' said Mr. Jones.
For investors counting on stocks for retirement plans, the most recent decade means many have fallen behind retirement goals. Many financial plans assume a 10% annual return for stocks over the long term, but over the last 20 years, the S&P 500 is registering 8.2% annual gains.
Should stocks average 10% a year for the next decade, that would lift the 30-year average return to only 8.8%, said North Carolina State's Mr. Jones. It is even worse news for those who started investing in 2000; a 10% return a year would get them up to only 4.4% a year.
There were ways to make money in U.S. stocks during the last decade. But the returns paled in comparison with those posted in the 1990s.
Of the 30 stocks today that comprise the Dow Jones Industrial Average, only 13 are up since the end of 1999, and just two, Caterpillar Inc. and United Technologies Corp., doubled over the 10-year span.
So what went wrong for the U.S. stock market?
For starters, it turned out that the old rules of valuation matter.
'We came into this decade horribly overpriced,' said Jeremy Grantham, co-founder of money managers GMO LLC.
In late 1999, the stocks in the S&P 500 were trading at about an all-time high of 44 times earnings, based on Yale professor Robert Shiller's measure, which tracks prices compared with 10-year earnings and adjusts for inflation. That compares with a long-run average of about 16.
Buying at those kinds of values, 'you'd better believe you're going to get dismal returns for a considerable chunk of time,' said Mr. Grantham, whose firm predicted 10 years ago that the S&P 500 likely would lose nearly 2% a year in the 10 years through 2009.
Despite the woeful returns this decade, stocks today aren't a steal. The S&P is trading at a price-to-earnings ratio of about 20 on Mr. Shiller's measure.
Mr. Grantham thinks U.S. large-cap stocks are about 30% overpriced, which means returns should be about 30% less than their long-term average for the next seven years. That means returns of just 1.6% a year before adding in inflation.
Another hurdle for the stock market has been the decline in dividends that began in the late 1980s.
Over the long term, dividends have played an important role in helping stocks achieve a 9.5% average annual return since 1926. But since that year, the average yield on S&P 500 stocks was roughly 4%. This decade it has averaged about 1.8%, said North Carolina State's Mr. Jones.
That difference 'doesn't sound like much,' said Mr. Jones, 'but you've got to make it up through price appreciation.' Unless dividends rise back toward their long-term averages, Mr. Jones thinks investors may need to lower expectations. Rather than the nearly 10% a year that has been the historical average, stocks may be good for only about 7%.
Tom Lauricella
没有评论:
发表评论