{"title":"长期股票","authors":"E. Miller","doi":"10.5860/choice.40-2908","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Stocks for the Long Run Jeremy J. Siegel McGraw Hill, 1998 Jeremy Siegel has written a book that could have a great effect on the reader's wealth while challenging conventional academic views. It is written at the popular level but references the underlying academic articles (i.e. it is footnoted). Siegel is a finance professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, so he is well qualified to draw on the academic literature. The basic message of the book is that stocks have been a wonderful long run investment, and can be expected to continue to be so. The emphasis is on the long run, because there is no doubt that stocks can be exceedingly risky in the short run. As an illustration of stocks' short-run risk, consider October 19, 1987, when the stock market dropped by 22.6% in one day (see Miller 1999 for a review of a book focusing on this episode). Because of the short-run riskiness of stocks, one who is saving for an event in the near future (such as the next vacation), runs a considerable risk of losing money. However, most saving is done not for such short-run purposes but for long-run purposes such as retirement, or to leave money to descendants. Siegel makes a convincing case that stocks are much better for such long-run purposes than either bonds or money market instruments. Bank deposits usually earn even less than money market instruments, and hence are also dominated by stocks. The textbooks I use in teaching finance present evidence that stocks have, on average, outperformed bonds since 1926. Siegel carries this evidence back to 1802, presenting data on the returns from stocks and bonds from 1802 to 1997. Over this long period stocks have had an average return of 8.4%, composed of price increases averaging 3.0%, and dividends averaging 5.4%. In contrast, long-term US government bonds have averaged 4.7%, and short-term US governments, 4.3%. This superiority of stocks held true for major subdivisions of the period studied also. Economists talk about the equity risk premium, the differential between stocks and bonds, which is usually interpreted as the reward to bearing the risks of equity. This of course varies tremendously year to year. Siegel plots a thirty-year running average of the equity risk premium. It is striking that it is virtually always well above 0% (the exceptions appear to be around 1841 and 1861, which are well over a century ago). Thus, for someone investing for the long run, it appears stocks virtually always exceed bonds in return. The riskiness of having stocks underperform bonds turns out to depend very much on the holding period. A fascinating graph (showing data from 1802 to 1997) shows the maximum and minimum real (i.e., inflation adjusted) annualized returns for various holding periods (p. 27). For short holding periods, there is the expected result that one can lose more money on stocks than on either bonds or T-bills, frighteningly more. The worst one-year return on stocks is -30.6% (the best is 66.6%). Incidentally, bonds prove to have appreciable risk over short periods also, with the worse bond performance being -21.9%, and the worst Treasury bill performance -15.6%. The bond and Treasury bill losses occur when high inflation lowers their real purchasing power. Bonds have this risk. In addition, they can experience large losses when interest rates rise unexpectedly, reducing their risk. That stocks are riskier than bonds, and bonds riskier than treasury bills (and bank deposits and other money market instruments) is standard textbook material. It is usually explained by investors disliking risk and being willing to incur higher risk only if rewarded with greater returns. Thus, investors should be willing to hold stocks only if promised much higher returns than bonds. However, most investors (especially those with large sums of money) have longer horizons than one year. However, the equity risk premium appears to shrink with holding periods. …","PeriodicalId":52486,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Social, Political, and Economic Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2000-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"532","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Stocks for the Long Run\",\"authors\":\"E. Miller\",\"doi\":\"10.5860/choice.40-2908\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Stocks for the Long Run Jeremy J. Siegel McGraw Hill, 1998 Jeremy Siegel has written a book that could have a great effect on the reader's wealth while challenging conventional academic views. It is written at the popular level but references the underlying academic articles (i.e. it is footnoted). Siegel is a finance professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, so he is well qualified to draw on the academic literature. The basic message of the book is that stocks have been a wonderful long run investment, and can be expected to continue to be so. The emphasis is on the long run, because there is no doubt that stocks can be exceedingly risky in the short run. As an illustration of stocks' short-run risk, consider October 19, 1987, when the stock market dropped by 22.6% in one day (see Miller 1999 for a review of a book focusing on this episode). Because of the short-run riskiness of stocks, one who is saving for an event in the near future (such as the next vacation), runs a considerable risk of losing money. However, most saving is done not for such short-run purposes but for long-run purposes such as retirement, or to leave money to descendants. Siegel makes a convincing case that stocks are much better for such long-run purposes than either bonds or money market instruments. Bank deposits usually earn even less than money market instruments, and hence are also dominated by stocks. The textbooks I use in teaching finance present evidence that stocks have, on average, outperformed bonds since 1926. Siegel carries this evidence back to 1802, presenting data on the returns from stocks and bonds from 1802 to 1997. Over this long period stocks have had an average return of 8.4%, composed of price increases averaging 3.0%, and dividends averaging 5.4%. In contrast, long-term US government bonds have averaged 4.7%, and short-term US governments, 4.3%. This superiority of stocks held true for major subdivisions of the period studied also. Economists talk about the equity risk premium, the differential between stocks and bonds, which is usually interpreted as the reward to bearing the risks of equity. This of course varies tremendously year to year. Siegel plots a thirty-year running average of the equity risk premium. It is striking that it is virtually always well above 0% (the exceptions appear to be around 1841 and 1861, which are well over a century ago). Thus, for someone investing for the long run, it appears stocks virtually always exceed bonds in return. The riskiness of having stocks underperform bonds turns out to depend very much on the holding period. A fascinating graph (showing data from 1802 to 1997) shows the maximum and minimum real (i.e., inflation adjusted) annualized returns for various holding periods (p. 27). For short holding periods, there is the expected result that one can lose more money on stocks than on either bonds or T-bills, frighteningly more. The worst one-year return on stocks is -30.6% (the best is 66.6%). Incidentally, bonds prove to have appreciable risk over short periods also, with the worse bond performance being -21.9%, and the worst Treasury bill performance -15.6%. The bond and Treasury bill losses occur when high inflation lowers their real purchasing power. Bonds have this risk. In addition, they can experience large losses when interest rates rise unexpectedly, reducing their risk. That stocks are riskier than bonds, and bonds riskier than treasury bills (and bank deposits and other money market instruments) is standard textbook material. It is usually explained by investors disliking risk and being willing to incur higher risk only if rewarded with greater returns. Thus, investors should be willing to hold stocks only if promised much higher returns than bonds. However, most investors (especially those with large sums of money) have longer horizons than one year. However, the equity risk premium appears to shrink with holding periods. …\",\"PeriodicalId\":52486,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Social, Political, and Economic Studies\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2000-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"532\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Social, Political, and Economic Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.40-2908\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Social, Political, and Economic Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.40-2908","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 532
摘要
杰里米·西格尔写了一本可能对读者的财富产生巨大影响的书,同时挑战了传统的学术观点。它是在通俗的层面上写的,但参考了潜在的学术文章(即脚注)。西格尔是宾夕法尼亚大学沃顿商学院(University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School)的金融学教授,因此他完全有资格借鉴学术文献。这本书的基本信息是,股票一直是一种极好的长期投资,而且可以预期将继续如此。这里强调的是长期,因为毫无疑问,股票在短期内会有极大的风险。为了说明股票的短期风险,考虑1987年10月19日,当时股市在一天内下跌了22.6%(见Miller 1999年关于这一事件的书评)。由于股票的短期风险,为近期事件(如下一次度假)存钱的人有很大的赔钱风险。然而,大多数储蓄不是为了短期目的,而是为了长期目的,比如退休,或者给后代留下钱。西格尔提出了一个令人信服的理由,即从长期来看,股票比债券或货币市场工具要好得多。银行存款的收益通常比货币市场工具还要低,因此也以股票为主。我在讲授金融时使用的教科书提供的证据表明,自1926年以来,股票的平均表现优于债券。西格尔将这一证据追溯到1802年,展示了1802年至1997年股票和债券回报的数据。在这段时间里,股票的平均回报率为8.4%,其中股价平均上涨3.0%,股息平均上涨5.4%。相比之下,长期美国政府债券的平均收益率为4.7%,短期美国政府债券的平均收益率为4.3%。股票的这种优势在研究期间的主要细分领域也成立。经济学家谈论股票风险溢价,股票和债券之间的差异,通常被解释为承担股票风险的回报。这当然每年都有很大的不同。西格尔绘制了股票风险溢价的30年运行平均值。令人惊讶的是,它实际上总是远高于0%(例外是在1841年和1861年左右,这是一个多世纪以前的事了)。因此,对于长期投资的人来说,股票的回报率似乎总是高于债券。事实证明,股票表现不如债券的风险很大程度上取决于持有期限。一张引人入胜的图表(显示了1802年至1997年的数据)显示了不同持有期的最大和最小实际(即经通胀调整后的)年化回报率(第27页)。对于短期持有期,预期的结果是,人们在股票上的损失可能比在债券或国库券上的损失要大得多。股票最差的一年回报率为-30.6%(最好的一年回报率为66.6%)。顺便说一句,短期内债券也有可观的风险,最差的债券表现为-21.9%,最差的国库券表现为-15.6%。当高通胀降低了债券和国库券的实际购买力时,债券和国库券就会贬值。债券就有这种风险。此外,当利率意外上升时,他们可能会遭受巨大损失,从而降低风险。股票的风险高于债券,债券的风险高于国库券(以及银行存款和其他货币市场工具),这是标准的教科书教材。这通常被解释为投资者不喜欢风险,只有在获得更大回报的情况下才愿意承担更高的风险。因此,投资者应该只有在承诺比债券高得多的回报时才愿意持有股票。然而,大多数投资者(尤其是那些拥有大笔资金的投资者)的投资期限都比一年长。然而,股票风险溢价似乎随着持有期的增加而缩小。…
Stocks for the Long Run Jeremy J. Siegel McGraw Hill, 1998 Jeremy Siegel has written a book that could have a great effect on the reader's wealth while challenging conventional academic views. It is written at the popular level but references the underlying academic articles (i.e. it is footnoted). Siegel is a finance professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, so he is well qualified to draw on the academic literature. The basic message of the book is that stocks have been a wonderful long run investment, and can be expected to continue to be so. The emphasis is on the long run, because there is no doubt that stocks can be exceedingly risky in the short run. As an illustration of stocks' short-run risk, consider October 19, 1987, when the stock market dropped by 22.6% in one day (see Miller 1999 for a review of a book focusing on this episode). Because of the short-run riskiness of stocks, one who is saving for an event in the near future (such as the next vacation), runs a considerable risk of losing money. However, most saving is done not for such short-run purposes but for long-run purposes such as retirement, or to leave money to descendants. Siegel makes a convincing case that stocks are much better for such long-run purposes than either bonds or money market instruments. Bank deposits usually earn even less than money market instruments, and hence are also dominated by stocks. The textbooks I use in teaching finance present evidence that stocks have, on average, outperformed bonds since 1926. Siegel carries this evidence back to 1802, presenting data on the returns from stocks and bonds from 1802 to 1997. Over this long period stocks have had an average return of 8.4%, composed of price increases averaging 3.0%, and dividends averaging 5.4%. In contrast, long-term US government bonds have averaged 4.7%, and short-term US governments, 4.3%. This superiority of stocks held true for major subdivisions of the period studied also. Economists talk about the equity risk premium, the differential between stocks and bonds, which is usually interpreted as the reward to bearing the risks of equity. This of course varies tremendously year to year. Siegel plots a thirty-year running average of the equity risk premium. It is striking that it is virtually always well above 0% (the exceptions appear to be around 1841 and 1861, which are well over a century ago). Thus, for someone investing for the long run, it appears stocks virtually always exceed bonds in return. The riskiness of having stocks underperform bonds turns out to depend very much on the holding period. A fascinating graph (showing data from 1802 to 1997) shows the maximum and minimum real (i.e., inflation adjusted) annualized returns for various holding periods (p. 27). For short holding periods, there is the expected result that one can lose more money on stocks than on either bonds or T-bills, frighteningly more. The worst one-year return on stocks is -30.6% (the best is 66.6%). Incidentally, bonds prove to have appreciable risk over short periods also, with the worse bond performance being -21.9%, and the worst Treasury bill performance -15.6%. The bond and Treasury bill losses occur when high inflation lowers their real purchasing power. Bonds have this risk. In addition, they can experience large losses when interest rates rise unexpectedly, reducing their risk. That stocks are riskier than bonds, and bonds riskier than treasury bills (and bank deposits and other money market instruments) is standard textbook material. It is usually explained by investors disliking risk and being willing to incur higher risk only if rewarded with greater returns. Thus, investors should be willing to hold stocks only if promised much higher returns than bonds. However, most investors (especially those with large sums of money) have longer horizons than one year. However, the equity risk premium appears to shrink with holding periods. …
期刊介绍:
The quarterly Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies (ISSN 0193-5941), which has been published regularly since 1976, is a peer-reviewed academic journal devoted to scholarly papers which present in depth information on contemporary issues of primarily international interest. The emphasis is on factual information rather than purely theoretical or historical papers, although it welcomes an historical approach to contemporary situations where this serves to clarify the causal background to present day problems.