Rethinking Stocks' Starring Role
近几十年以来，金融界的专业人士一直在敦促共同基金的投资者们将更多的资金投入股票，而不是债券。他们的观点是：股票能够让一个投资组合变得冲劲十足，而债券只能发挥一定的保护作用。而现在，某些专业人士却对这种传统观念产生了质疑。他们提出，在去年美国股市崩盘之后经济微弱复苏迹象显现之前，债券和诸如大宗商品这样的另类资产类别应该占有更大的投资比重。标准普尔500指数在8月底时已较3月份的低点上涨了51%，今年迄今为止的收益率达到了13%（不计入上周二2.2%的下跌）。不过这种上涨势头也让股票比几个月以前贵了不少。这些专业人士表示，至少对于今后几年来说，股票难以回归到从前的高点──如果经济缓慢复苏抑制了公司的利润增长，那么情况将尤其如此。此外，即便股票获得了比债券更高的收益，考虑到股价更高的波动性，冒着这么大的风险投资股票或许也并不值得。此外，股票和债券间经典的60-40比例──这是许多平衡型基金用以分配投资的原则──忽视了能够依风险等级不同而获得不同收益的另类资产类别。“60-40的观念简直就像是Betamax录像带──现在已经过时了，”Alger Balanced Fund的共同经理人安德鲁•斯尔沃伯格(Andrew Silverberg)表示。“这种观念风行的时候市场还处于牛市之中。”Janusz Kapusta资产分配应该“更具动态性，”斯尔沃伯格表示。“在资产负债表的另一边，有许多机会等着你，”他这里指的是公司债券。今年早些时候，这家基金的股票投资比例为48%，不过现在已经上调到了大约56%。债券拔得头筹即便在近期股市回暖的情况下，股价与过去一两年的高点相比依然相距甚远。标准普尔500指数自2007年12月31日以来仍然下跌了30%。债券的表现则要好得多：巴克莱资本美国综合债券指数(Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index)在同期增长了10.1%。债券投资者的收益在过去的五年和十年间也超过了股票投资者──这向股票的投资收益在较长时间段内高于债券的观点提出了质疑。在过去的五年时间里，标准普尔500指数每年的平均回报率为0.1%，而巴克莱债券指数的平均回报率则达到了5%。十年来，标准普尔500指数平均每年亏损3.7%，而巴克莱债券指数的平均回报率则达到了6.3%。从以前的历史记录上看，股票与债券相比在市场走高时收益更好，不过在市场下跌时亏损也更大。在半个世纪以来股票表现最好的年头1975年，股票投资带来的总回报达到了37%──而在最糟糕的2008年，股票带来的则是37%的亏损。与之相比，债券收益最好的年头是1982年，当年债券带来的总收益率为36%，而在最糟糕的年份1999年，债券市场的跌幅为6%。再来看另类投资产品，最古老的全球商品指数路透/杰佛瑞期货价格指数(Reuters/Jefferies CRB Index)在过去五年的按年计总回报率为1.5%，在过去十年的回报率为8.6%。MSCI新兴市场指数(MSCI Emerging Markets Index)今年上涨了50%多一点，其五年和十年的按年计总回报率分别为17%和10.4%。对于将大量资金长期投入股市持强烈反对意见的人中包括罗布•阿诺特(Rob Arnott)。阿诺特是总部位于美国加州的资金管理机构Research Affiliates的董事长，他是个经验丰富的金融分析师，对市场也十分了解。他最近为Journal of Indexes撰文，强调指出债券市场的表现从长期来看要优于股市。阿诺特发现，在1969年2月到今年2月份期间，美国20年期国债的投资者──不断投资20年期美国国债并将收益重新进行投资──能够获得比那些标准普尔500股票的投资者更大的收益，这创造了债券投资胜过股票投资的40年纪录。阿诺特表示，60-40的平衡型投资组合理论是在股市1949年到1965年的迅猛上涨后占得一席之地的，这一理论让投资者有了“将股票放在投资组合中心位置的错误观念。”在1949至1965年的17年时间里，标准普尔的年回报率为16.3%，而同期债券的增长速度仅为每年1.9%。阿诺特表示，在过去200年的时间里，股票的投资回报每年比债券高出2.5个百分点──不过这优势的一半都来自1949-1965年这个时间段的回报。他认为，去年股市的大跌应该为投资者敲响警钟，他们应该在投资组合里减少股票配置，进行更加多样化的投资。简直好笑有些经理人同意这一看法。“任何一种严格的比例分配都没有意义，” FPA Crescent Fund的经理人史蒂文•罗密克(Steven Romick)说，“这简直可笑。” FPA Crescent基金不限制资金的投资种类。该基金将资金的38%投入股票，28%投入公司债券，还有7%的资金用于空头交易；其它资金均为现金持有，用于等待投资机会。罗密克认为，公司债券在当下的市场条件下比股票更具吸引力。由于股价在市场上涨后处于历史平均估值水平，“投资股票并没有太大的赚头，”罗密克补充说，“股票的增长前景从近几年看都不会太理想。”今年迄今为止该基金增长了18.2%。坚持到底尽管如此，许多金融界专业人士仍然认为，股票应该在一个长期的投资组合里充当最大的投资部分。T. Rowe Price Group Inc.资产分配委员会主席内德•诺特森(Ned Notzon)认为，股票的回报从长期来看要优于债券。另外，他表示，想要避开股票表现不佳的时候，然后在市场上涨之时大规模投资股票的想法十分危险。对于那些拥有长期投资目标的投资者，比如为了多年之后的退休投资，他说，“因为目前正处于经济危机就减少股票投资，然后想在市场恢复前回到股市不是个好主意。”诺特森对于债券也持谨慎态度，“原因是通货膨胀。”不过基金行业似乎确实在向减少股票投资的方向转变。晨星公司(Morningstar)负责共同基金研究的拉斯•金内尔(Russ Kinnel)表示，和过去的平衡型基金的投资方式不同，有些基金公司正在发放类似于阿诺特旗下Pimco All Asset的战术性配置基金。金内尔说，“战术性配置基金越来越多，这些基金和平衡型策略没什么干系，因为它们的投资涉及每一种资产类别，而且还会主动地转向这些资产类别的投资。”举例来说，今年4月发放的Legg Mason Permal Tactical Allocation截至7月31日的股票投资比例大约为30%。金内尔还提到了Goldman Sachs Income Strategies，该基金一反传统的平衡型基金的投资方式，将投资目标定为持有60%的债券和40%的股票。Sam Mamudi相关阅读股市信号灯已变黄 投资者请慢行 2009-09-02我们为何会犯投资错误 2009-09-01你对投资风险了解多少？ 2009-08-25
For at least a generation, financial professionals have urged mutual-fund investors to put more money in stocks than in bonds. The logic: Stocks power a portfolio, while bonds provide some protection.Now some pros are questioning that conventional wisdom. After last year's stock crash, and ahead of a potentially weak economic recovery, they're arguing that bonds and alternative asset classes such as commodities deserve more weight.Sure, the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index ended August up 51% from its March low, for a 13% return for the year to date (before sliding 2.2% yesterday). But that spurt has left stocks far less cheap than they were a few months ago. And at least for the next several years, these pros say, stocks are unlikely to return to their previous highs -- especially if a slow recovery restrains growth in corporate profits. Even if stocks deliver higher returns over time than bonds, the difference may not be large enough to justify the often higher volatility of stocks.What's more, the classic 60-40 split between stocks and bonds -- the formula that many balanced funds use to allocate investments -- ignores alternative asset classes that can deliver returns with different levels of risk.'The whole 60-40 idea is almost like Betamax videotapes -- it's now passe,' says Andrew Silverberg, co-manager of Alger Balanced Fund. 'It gained popularity while we were still in a bull market.'Asset allocation should be 'more dynamic,' Mr. Silverberg says. 'There are a lot of opportunities on the other side of the balance sheet,' he adds, referring to corporate bonds. Earlier this year, Alger Balanced's stock allocation was 48%, though it has since increased to about 56%.Bonds on TopEven with the recent climb, stocks definitely haven't been pulling their weight over the past year or two. The S&P 500 is still down 30% since Dec. 31, 2007. Bonds have fared much better: The Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index is up 10.1% over the same period.Bond investors are also ahead of stock investors over the past five and 10 years -- challenging the view that stocks beat bonds over longer periods. Over the past five years, the S&P 500 returned an average 0.1% a year, while the Barclays bond index returned an average 5%. Over the decade, the stock measure fell an average 3.7% a year, while the bond gauge returned an average 6.3%.Historically, meanwhile, stocks have had higher highs but much lower lows than bonds. In their best year in the past half-century, 1975, stocks delivered a 37% total return -- but they fell 37% in their worst year, 2008. By contrast, the best year for bonds was 1982, when they produced a 36% total return, while their worst year was 1999, when they fell 6%.As for alternative investments, the Reuters/Jefferies CRB Index, the oldest global commodities index, has annualized total returns of 1.5% over the past five years and 8.6% over the past 10 years. The MSCI Emerging Markets Index is up just over 50% this year, and has five- and 10-year annualized total returns of 17% and 10.4%, respectively.One of the loudest critics of the idea of investing heavily in stocks for the long run is Rob Arnott, chairman of money manager Research Affiliates in Newport Beach, Calif. Mr. Arnott, a veteran financial analyst and market pundit, recently wrote an article for the Journal of Indexes that highlighted that bonds have outperformed stocks over long stretches. Mr. Arnott found that from February 1969 through February this year, investors in 20-year Treasurys, rolling to the nearest 20-year bond and reinvesting the income, would have beaten investors in the S&P 500 -- a 40-year record of bonds beating stocks.Mr. Arnott says the 60-40 balanced-portfolio theory took hold following the stock market's rocketing growth from 1949 to 1965, which gave investors the 'incorrect idea of placing stocks at the center of our investing universe.' During that 17-year period, annualized returns for the S&P 500 were 16.3%, while bonds rose 1.9% a year.Over the past 200 years, Mr. Arnott says, stocks have beaten bonds by 2.5 percentage points a year -- but half of that advantage comes from the 1949-1965 period. He believes last year's losses should be a wake-up call for investors to reduce stock allocations and more broadly diversify.It's Just RididulousOther managers agree. 'Any kind of strict percentage allocation doesn't make sense,' says Steven Romick, manager of FPA Crescent Fund. 'It's just ridiculous.' FPA Crescent, which has a go-anywhere mandate, is about 38% in stocks, 28% in corporate bonds and 7% in shorts; the rest is in cash, waiting to be deployed.Mr. Romick sees corporate bonds as more attractive than stocks in the current market. With stock prices at historically average valuations following the rally, 'you're not getting paid enough to play,' says Mr. Romick, adding, 'growth's not going to be great for a number of years.' The fund is up 18.2% so far this year.Stay the CourseStill, many financial pros continue to believe that stocks should be the biggest element of a long-term portfolio. Ned Notzon, chairman of the asset-allocation committee at T. Rowe Price Group Inc., believes stocks will generally beat bonds over long time periods. And he says it's hazardous to try to sidestep periods of weak stock performance and then heavily invest in shares in the good times.For investors with long-term time horizons, such as a far-off retirement, he says, 'It's a bad idea to underweight stocks because you think you're in an economic crisis and you'll get back before there's a recovery.'Mr. Notzon is also cautious about bonds 'because of the inflation question.'But the fund industry does seem to be moving in the direction of offerings that focus less on stocks. Rather than the old balanced-fund format, some fund firms are launching tactical allocation funds similar to Mr. Arnott's Pimco All Asset, says Russ Kinnel, director of mutual-fund research at Morningstar.'There is a growing class of tactical allocation funds that have little to do with balanced strategies because they really have every asset class at their disposal and are making active shifts into those classes,' says Mr. Kinnel. For instance, Legg Mason Permal Tactical Allocation, which launched in April, held about 30% in stocks as of July 31. Mr. Kinnel also points to Goldman Sachs Income Strategies, which reverses the traditional balanced-fund approach by aiming for 60% bond holdings and 40% in stocks.Sam Mamudi
For at least a generation, financial professionals have urged mutual-fund investors to put more money in stocks than in bonds. The logic: Stocks power a portfolio, while bonds provide some protection.Now some pros are questioning that conventional wisdom. After last year's stock crash, and ahead of a potentially weak economic recovery, they're arguing that bonds and alternative asset classes such as commodities deserve more weight.Sure, the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index ended August up 51% from its March low, for a 13% return for the year to date (before sliding 2.2% yesterday). But that spurt has left stocks far less cheap than they were a few months ago. And at least for the next several years, these pros say, stocks are unlikely to return to their previous highs -- especially if a slow recovery restrains growth in corporate profits. Even if stocks deliver higher returns over time than bonds, the difference may not be large enough to justify the often higher volatility of stocks.What's more, the classic 60-40 split between stocks and bonds -- the formula that many balanced funds use to allocate investments -- ignores alternative asset classes that can deliver returns with different levels of risk.'The whole 60-40 idea is almost like Betamax videotapes -- it's now passe,' says Andrew Silverberg, co-manager of Alger Balanced Fund. 'It gained popularity while we were still in a bull market.'Asset allocation should be 'more dynamic,' Mr. Silverberg says. 'There are a lot of opportunities on the other side of the balance sheet,' he adds, referring to corporate bonds. Earlier this year, Alger Balanced's stock allocation was 48%, though it has since increased to about 56%.Bonds on TopEven with the recent climb, stocks definitely haven't been pulling their weight over the past year or two. The S&P 500 is still down 30% since Dec. 31, 2007. Bonds have fared much better: The Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index is up 10.1% over the same period.Bond investors are also ahead of stock investors over the past five and 10 years -- challenging the view that stocks beat bonds over longer periods. Over the past five years, the S&P 500 returned an average 0.1% a year, while the Barclays bond index returned an average 5%. Over the decade, the stock measure fell an average 3.7% a year, while the bond gauge returned an average 6.3%.Historically, meanwhile, stocks have had higher highs but much lower lows than bonds. In their best year in the past half-century, 1975, stocks delivered a 37% total return -- but they fell 37% in their worst year, 2008. By contrast, the best year for bonds was 1982, when they produced a 36% total return, while their worst year was 1999, when they fell 6%.As for alternative investments, the Reuters/Jefferies CRB Index, the oldest global commodities index, has annualized total returns of 1.5% over the past five years and 8.6% over the past 10 years. The MSCI Emerging Markets Index is up just over 50% this year, and has five- and 10-year annualized total returns of 17% and 10.4%, respectively.One of the loudest critics of the idea of investing heavily in stocks for the long run is Rob Arnott, chairman of money manager Research Affiliates in Newport Beach, Calif. Mr. Arnott, a veteran financial analyst and market pundit, recently wrote an article for the Journal of Indexes that highlighted that bonds have outperformed stocks over long stretches. Mr. Arnott found that from February 1969 through February this year, investors in 20-year Treasurys, rolling to the nearest 20-year bond and reinvesting the income, would have beaten investors in the S&P 500 -- a 40-year record of bonds beating stocks.Mr. Arnott says the 60-40 balanced-portfolio theory took hold following the stock market's rocketing growth from 1949 to 1965, which gave investors the 'incorrect idea of placing stocks at the center of our investing universe.' During that 17-year period, annualized returns for the S&P 500 were 16.3%, while bonds rose 1.9% a year.Over the past 200 years, Mr. Arnott says, stocks have beaten bonds by 2.5 percentage points a year -- but half of that advantage comes from the 1949-1965 period. He believes last year's losses should be a wake-up call for investors to reduce stock allocations and more broadly diversify.It's Just RididulousOther managers agree. 'Any kind of strict percentage allocation doesn't make sense,' says Steven Romick, manager of FPA Crescent Fund. 'It's just ridiculous.' FPA Crescent, which has a go-anywhere mandate, is about 38% in stocks, 28% in corporate bonds and 7% in shorts; the rest is in cash, waiting to be deployed.Mr. Romick sees corporate bonds as more attractive than stocks in the current market. With stock prices at historically average valuations following the rally, 'you're not getting paid enough to play,' says Mr. Romick, adding, 'growth's not going to be great for a number of years.' The fund is up 18.2% so far this year.Stay the CourseStill, many financial pros continue to believe that stocks should be the biggest element of a long-term portfolio. Ned Notzon, chairman of the asset-allocation committee at T. Rowe Price Group Inc., believes stocks will generally beat bonds over long time periods. And he says it's hazardous to try to sidestep periods of weak stock performance and then heavily invest in shares in the good times.For investors with long-term time horizons, such as a far-off retirement, he says, 'It's a bad idea to underweight stocks because you think you're in an economic crisis and you'll get back before there's a recovery.'Mr. Notzon is also cautious about bonds 'because of the inflation question.'But the fund industry does seem to be moving in the direction of offerings that focus less on stocks. Rather than the old balanced-fund format, some fund firms are launching tactical allocation funds similar to Mr. Arnott's Pimco All Asset, says Russ Kinnel, director of mutual-fund research at Morningstar.'There is a growing class of tactical allocation funds that have little to do with balanced strategies because they really have every asset class at their disposal and are making active shifts into those classes,' says Mr. Kinnel. For instance, Legg Mason Permal Tactical Allocation, which launched in April, held about 30% in stocks as of July 31. Mr. Kinnel also points to Goldman Sachs Income Strategies, which reverses the traditional balanced-fund approach by aiming for 60% bond holdings and 40% in stocks.Sam Mamudi