2020年3月9日 21點34分，投資者見證美股歷史上第二次熔斷！
2020年3月12日21點35分，投資者見證美股史上第三次熔斷！
前後僅隔兩天......
隨著新冠病毒在歐美各國大肆蔓延，意大利被迫實施全境封閉，美國總統特朗普也宣佈全美進入公共安全緊急狀態。世界衛生組織宣佈新冠疫情正式定性為“大流行病”。美國東部時間3月11日，道瓊斯指數為期11年的牛市正式終結。
眼看中國疫情逐漸平穩，卻又遭逢國際全面爆發甚至瀕臨失控，近期全球資本市場跌宕起伏波動劇烈，CNN恐懼與貪婪指數跌至新低，市場已極度恐懼......
面對如此至暗時刻，智能貝塔指數創始人許仲翔，寫了一封致全體銳聯財智夥伴的親筆信；內容回顧了他20年職涯中所遇到的每一次危機，以及這些危機事後給投資者帶來的經驗反思。
許仲翔（Jason Hsu）教授，作為以諾教育《財富學堂》極受學員愛戴的明星導師，我們也在第一時間取得了他的授權，以饗各位。
以下是內部致函(中、英)全文；
各位親愛的銳聯夥伴們：
近期全球主要股市下跌15％至20％，其中大部分都集中在最近幾個交易日。可以說這是2001年科技泡沫和2008年金融危機後，在我二十年職業生涯中,經歷的第三次重大股市危機，時間如果再拉長一點，也是自1987年“黑色星期一”和1997年亞洲貨幣危機後，我生命中經歷的第五次重大股市危機。
過去經歷的危機，讓我有很多學習，也希望通過經驗分享，為當下的各位投資者提供一些借鑑。
我的投資經驗
面對危機最大的風險，就是以為靠“明星經理人”就能消除投資中所有風險。
每一次危機過後，人們總會發現一些天縱英明的投資經理，竟然能對危機做出正確判斷。甚至在全球權益市場下跌25%的情況下，獲得正收益。接著、這些人不斷被電視、廣播等各種媒體追捧，他們獲得名譽、撰寫書籍、贏得表彰。幸運之神加持下，他們還將募集到數十億美元的資金。
然而，在成功募集大筆資金之後，這些投資經理可能會轉而提供令投資人大失所望的回報。例如，約翰·保爾森（John Paulson）在成功預測了全球金融危機後募集到140億美元，但此後五年內其投資虧損高達65％。
實際上，預測危機的能力並不具有持續性。預言科技泡沫的人，未能預言到全球金融危機；預測了全球金融危機的人也未能預測當下新冠病毒的侵襲。除非一個人能持續準確地預測出多次危機，不然我對大部分人的預測能力抱持懷疑的態度。
公允地說，約翰·保爾森在信貸危機之前對次級抵押貸款的押注的確顯示了深入的研究和見解。但是，同樣的見解難以幫助他預測下一次市場危機。實際上，引領這些人做出正確預測的見解和理念可能會導致其日後的誤判。例如，幫助客戶規避了2001年科技泡沫的投資經理在接下來二十年裡也促使客戶將諸如亞馬遜、谷歌、蘋果、奈飛、特斯拉、阿里巴巴和騰訊等投資標的拒之門外。
這些所有的經驗都表明，全球的經濟和金融體系非常複雜，衝擊的強度、頻率和持續性難以預測。一些投資經理也許會因為一次幸運使然得到投資者的認可，他們將憑藉這次運氣獲得名望和財富，然而很少有人能正確地做出兩次預測。
所以切忌追逐以往戰役中的英雄，因為當下的戰況往往不同。當前的危機下，投資者可能會冒險跟隨偶然預測到市場下行的投資經理。這種錯誤的安全感將促使投資者們承擔超出自身承受能力範圍的風險。將來，當風險變為現實、“明星經理”的幻象隨之破滅時，投資者容易在憤怒、失望和恐懼中，在最糟糕的時點做出不理性的本能反應。
為時過早的正確預期，往往比錯誤預期更為糟糕。
宏觀經濟學中有個廣為流傳的說法：經濟學家們已經11次預測了最近去7次的衰退。知名的諾貝爾獎得主鮑勃·席勒（Bob Shiller）成功預測過近期歷史上每一次市場危機，但往往提前了三年；他也預測了一些尚未發生的事。席勒博士認為1997年崩盤以來的股票市場是非理性的；認為房地產泡沫將在2005年破裂；過去三年中，席勒博士也在評論美國的高科技泡沫。
如果遵循席勒市盈率（CAPE，週期調整市盈率）的指引，投資者可以成功避免大多數危機，但同時也會在大部分時間中避免涉足權益市場。事實證明，更好的方式是拋開席勒市盈率，坦然歷經市場風雨。席勒市盈率本質是當前價格水平與歷史上經過平滑的市場總體收益水平的對比。席勒市盈率高說明當前價格過高，下跌可能性提升。然而，這也同樣預示著未來的收益將更快地增長。正如過去三十年中的大多數時候，當席勒市盈率對於經濟學家而言顯得過高時，隨後的增長通常也高於預期，並推動價格進一步抬升。應用此一指標看跌市場而押注的投資專家們，其業績表現不佳。
這並非說明席勒市盈率是無效的，只是這一指標很少被正確地使用。席勒市盈率不應該用於預測市場下行，並據此來擇時和押注，而是幫助那些擔心未來市場會超預期下跌的投資者們在大多數時候遠離股市。這樣做可以幫助投資者降低風險，當然也會因此犧牲可觀的上行收益作為代價。
每次市場危機過後，都有一些著眼於信用利差、收益率曲線形狀、恐慌指數（VIX）、大宗商品價格等的擇時模型被開發出來。依據此前的危機情境調試過後，這些模型可以完美地契合歷史，卻常常難以預測下一次危機。此外，模型也會經常錯誤識別出過多“即將爆發”的虛假崩潰。
投資人必須要牢記的教訓
1. 沒有證據表明投資經理（或投資顧問）可以持續、準確地擇時。預判之前戰役的洞察力不足以幫助任何人贏取下一場戰役的勝利。對於常在媒體上極力宣傳個人對市場走向預測的的聲音需要保持警惕。
2. 如果投資人不能忍受偶爾的市場崩盤，幻想可以僱傭到一位“神一般存在”的投資經理來避免未來市場下跌，那麼投資人可能需要考慮降低投資組合中權益類資產的風險敞口。
3. 用於預期市場方向的模型通常會太早、且太頻繁的預測市場崩盤。這些模型及預期結果可以有效幫助投資者規避投資損失，但也同時會導致投資者錯失參與市場反彈的機會。一般而言，簡單買入並持有的投資者會承擔更多風險，但最終獲得更高的回報；頻繁擇時的投資者承擔的風險可能更少，但回報也可能更低。
4. 投資經理（或投資顧問）無法創造奇蹟，這些專業人士能做的是輔助投資者做出更為明智的決定。他們會時常提示投資者承受短期痛苦的風險以獲得長期的回報，而並非像大多數吹噓者那樣，一面承諾無風險的高收益，一面提供無收益的高風險和高費用產品。
5. 風險在大到能讓投資人親身感受到之前，就已經以概率的形式存在了。通常在遭受負面的、實質性的衝擊之前，大多數人的風險意識是比較淡薄的。我們會非理性地樂觀並低估災難發生的概率；一旦災難發生，我們又會非理性地悲觀並高估更多災難接踵而至的可能。大多數成功的投資者認為，在市場非理性悲觀而非樂觀的時候買入股票是更為明智的選擇。
致函原文:
Dear Crew Members of the Rayliant Fleet,
Major stock markets recently cratered by 15% to 20%, with much of the decline coming from the last two trading sessions. This is the third major stock market crisis in my 20-year career (preceded by the '01 Tech Crash and the '08 GFC) and fifth in my life (the '87 Black Monday and '97 Asian Currency Crisis).
I've learned things from past crises, and those learnings provide valuable lessons for clients.
MY LEARNINGS
Your greatest risk in a crisis is believing a "Star Manager" can eliminate portfolio risk.
After each crisis, there are always a few investment managers who called it right. They print positive returns even as the global equity market declines 25%. They appear on TV and radio with every financial media outlet. They get famous, write books, and win awards. On the heels of their good fortune, they raise billions in new assets.
And afterwards, they go on to deliver terrible returns. For example, John Paulson raised $14B after predicting the GFC, only to return negative 65% over the next five years.
The truth is that there is no persistence in the ability to predict a crisis. The guy who timed the Tech Crash isn’t the guy who called the GFC who isn’t the guy now celebrating his COVID-19 crash prediction. Until a person forecasts multiple crises with accuracy, I am skeptical about their skill and ability.
To be fair, Paulson’s bet against sub-prime mortgages before the credit crisis suggests deep research and insight. But that same kind of insight was unlikely to help him predict the next market disaster. In fact, the insights and understandings that led to their correct predictions could lead to future mistakes. For example, the investment managers who helped clients avoid the '01 Tech Crash also kept their clients out of Amazon, Google, Apple, Netflix, Tesla, Alibaba and Tencent over the following two decades.
So, this is what I've learned: our global economy and financial system are complex. Shocks are hard to predict in their magnitude, frequency and duration. Most managers are considered exceptional just to get one right, and they use this good fortune to become famous and wealthy. However, few if any have ever gotten two predictions right. Which brings me to the lesson for clients: don't chase heroes from the last war, because the new war is always different.
In the midst of the current crisis, investors are at great risk of blindly following whichever managers happened to predict the market downturn. This false sense of security will lead them to take more risk than they can afford. In the future, when that risk materializes and their "star manager" is unmasked, their anger, disappointment and fear will cause them to make knee-jerk decisions at the worst possible time.
Being right but too early is sometimes worse than being wrong.
There is a popular joke in macroeconomics that economists have identified 11 of the last 7 recessions. Indeed, the poster boy for forecasting market crises is the lovable Nobel Laureate Bob Shiller, who has predicted every single market crisis in the recent history ... but often by 3 years too early. He also predicted a few others that never materialized. Dr. Shiller thought that the stock market was irrational and due to crash in 1997. He thought there was a real estate bubble that would soon burst in 2005. He has been commenting about the frothy U.S. tech led rally for the last 3 years. Indeed, if you followed the advice of the famous CAPE Ratio (or the Shiller PE Ratio), you would have avoided most crises but also stayed out of the equity market most of the time. As it turned out, you would have been better off ignoring the CAPE Ratio and just weathering any storms.
The Shiller PE Ratio essentially looks at the price level today versus smoothed past earnings for the market in aggregate. If Shiller PE is high, it could mean that prices are too high and thus more likely to decline. However, it could also mean future earnings will grow faster. As it turns out, in the last 30 years, more often than not, when Shiller PE looks uncomfortably high to economists, the subsequent growth was higher than expected, which propelled even more price appreciation. The pundits who have used the Shiller PE to make bearish bets on the market have had underperformed massively.
However, it isn’t that the Shiller PE Ratio isn’t useful; it is just rarely used correctly. It isn’t supposed to help you time the market to make big bets against potential market declines. It is meant to help people who are very concerned about large unpredictable market declines to stay out of the market most of the time. In doing so, they can reduce their risk -- in exchange for giving up meaningful upside participation.
Of course, there are many other timing models—focused on credit spread, yield curve shape, VIX, commodities price—which have been developed after each market crisis. When calibrated to the last crisis, these models predict the past perfectly, but generally miss the next crisis badly and along the way, identify too many false impending collapses.
KEY LESSONS FOR INVESTORS
There is no evidence that investment (wealth) managers can time market well consistently. Insights from the last war don’t help you win the next. Best to ignore that guru on TV right now bragging about his recent big market call.
If you cannot stomach the occasional market crash and need to fantasize about hiring a god-like manager to avoid future market declines —you probably need to take much lower equity risk in your portfolio.
Models for predicting market declines generally forecast collapses too early and too frequently. They are useful for keeping you out of harms way but also away from participating in market rallies. Net-net, you will likely take on more risk but also enjoy more returns as a naïve buy-and-hold investor; as an active timer, you will likely endure less risk and earn lower return.
Investment (wealth) managers are not miracle workers. They simply help you do sensible things, which you would not, if left to your own devices. They remind you regularly that you earn long-term return from stomaching short-term painful risk. They save you from the charlatans, who promise high return without risk only to deliver the risk and high fee without the return.
Risk is always present as a probability before it materializes to smack you in the face. It is generally the case that before negative shocks materialize, our awareness of risk is low. That is, we underestimate the probability for disasters; we are irrationally optimistic. Once disasters hit, we then overestimate the probability for more disasters; we become irrationally pessimistic. Most successful investors agree that it is better to buy stocks when the market is irrationally pessimistic than optimistic.
閱讀更多 以諾教育 的文章
