政府对我们如此之多
政府季度信函 2020 年第二季度 债券曾给予我们如此之多 它们还有剩余可给吗? Ben Inker | 第 1-8 页 当今低利率环境下的导航路线图 第二季度 Matt Kadnar | 第 9-16 页 政府债券曾给予我们如此之多 2020 年第二季度季度信函 执行摘要 它们还有剩余可给吗?
GOVERNMENT QUARTERLY LETTER 2Q 2020 BONDS HAVE GIVEN US SO MUCH Do they have anything left to give? Ben Inker | Pages 1-8 A ROADMAP FOR NAVIGATING TODAY’S LOW INTEREST RATES 2Q Matt Kadnar | Pages 9-16 GOVERNMENT BONDS HAVE GIVEN QUARTERLY LETTER 2Q 2020 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY US SO MUCH Do they have anything left to give?
那些仍有正收益的发达国家近期的现金和债券收益率下降,使政府债券陷入一种无法提供它们传统上在投资组合中提供的两项基本投资服务的境地——有意义的收入和应对经济灾难的 hedge。¹ 这几乎使所有投资组合的预期收益率都低于以往,而在经济灾难情景下的风险则高于以往。没有一种显而易见的简单替代品可以取代政府债券,提供那些宝贵的投资服务。因此,投资者最好认真思考:不仅他们的固定收益投资组合未来能够合理实现什么,而且这对他们整个投资组合中能够承担的风险水平意味着什么。
The recent fall in cash and bond yields for those developed countries that still had Ben Inker | Head of Asset Allocation positive yields has left government bonds in a position where they cannot provide two of the basic investment services they When I was a student studying finance, I was taught that government bonds served have traditionally provided in portfolios – two basic functions in investment portfolios. They were there to generate income and meaningful income and a hedge against provide a hedge in the event of a depression-like event.1 For the first 20 years or so an economic disaster. This leaves almost of my career, they did exactly that. While other fixed income instruments may have all investment portfolios with both a provided even more income, government bonds gave higher income than equities lower expected return and more risk in the and generated strong capital gains at those times when economically risky assets event of a depression-like event than they fell. For the last 10 years or so, the issue of their income became iffier. In the U.S., the used to have. There is no obvious simple income from a 10-Year Treasury Note spent the last decade bouncing around levels replacement for government bonds that similar to dividend yields from equities, and in most of the rest of the developed world provides those valuable investment government bond yields fell well below equity dividend yields. The falling levels of services. As a result, investors would be income caused us to question what had become an implicit article of faith for many well advised to think critically about not investors – that a balanced portfolio could generate 5% returns over inflation in the only what their fixed income portfolios long run. But while the income side of the equation for bonds was clearly not what it can feasibly achieve going forward but once was, until very recently we have continued to assume that bonds could accomplish also what the implications are for the their other important task, providing capital gains in the event of an economic disaster. amount of risk they can afford to take This winter, U.S. Treasuries once again did their hedging job admirably, providing across the rest of their portfolios. substantial positive returns when riskier assets fell in the early stages of the Covid-19 crisis. But that success has come at a cost. At today’s yields, U.S. Treasuries not only fail to provide a useful amount of yield to investors but also have likely lost their ability to hedge in the event of further economic trouble.
在我学习金融的学生时代,我被教导政府债券在投资组合中服务于两个基本功能。它们用于产生收入,并在发生类似大萧条的事件时提供 hedge。¹ 在我的职业生涯头 20 年左右,它们确实做到了这一点。虽然其他固定收益工具可能提供更多收入,但政府债券提供的收入高于股票,并在经济风险资产下跌时带来强劲的资本利得。在过去大约 10 年里,它们的收入问题变得不那么确定。在美国,10 年期美国国债的收入在过去十年间徘徊在与股票股息收益率相似的水平附近,而在发达世界的其他大部分地区,政府债券收益率远低于股票股息收益率。收入的下降让我们质疑许多投资者已经成为一种隐性信条的东西——一个平衡的投资组合在长期内可以实现超过通胀 5% 的回报。但尽管债券方程式中收入那一侧显然已非昔日可比,直到最近我们仍假设债券可以完成它们的另一项重要任务,即在经济灾难发生时提供资本利得。今年冬天,美国国债再次出色地发挥了它们的对冲作用,在 Covid-19 危机初期风险资产下跌时提供了可观的回报。但这种成功的代价不小。在今天的收益率下,美国国债不仅未能为投资者提供有用的收益,而且很可能已经失去了在进一步经济困境时进行对冲的能力。
While developed government bonds do provide other useful services to investors – they continue to be one of the most reliably liquid assets investors can own, and for There are a couple of other services that investors prize from government bonds – liquidity and duration. I honestly can’t investors with long duration liabilities their duration itself is a risk-reducer – the loss remember the liquidity benefit coming up much in any of my of those two critical services demands that investors rethink the role of government classes or textbooks. In those ancient days before the rise of bonds in their portfolios. The bad news is the loss of these services means that private equity and hedge funds, people seemed to take it for granted that their portfolios would be acceptably liquid even traditional portfolios are both riskier and lower-returning than they used to be. Non-at those times when portfolio returns were bad. Certainly, traditional portfolios have some ability to sidestep the trouble, but frankly it is hard to my finance professors seemed to take it for granted. The envision a diversified portfolio that is not worse for these changes in the characteristics idea that asset duration had an intrinsic benefit for investors with long duration liabilities was also notably absent in the of government bonds. Our belief in this shift owes nothing to assumptions of mean discussions we had in the late 1980s and early 1990s. I can reversion in interest rates. Whether or not bond rates rise in the future, from today’s remember our head of quantitative equities at the time, Chris levels government bonds cannot provide the depression hedge they did in previous Darnell, making the point in the early 1990s that corporate cycles. That isn’t to say that whether rates rise in the future is irrelevant. If rates stay pension plans investing in equities was an oddly tax-inefficient way for companies to lever themselves on behalf where they are, bonds give little income but do at least outperform cash, given the of investors, but the idea that long duration bonds were a positive slope to the yield curve. Only a mild increase in rates would destroy that better match for the liabilities of a pension fund seems to outperformance as the yield cushion of bonds over cash is overwhelmed by capital have taken another decade or two and some accounting changes before it came to the attention of investors. losses in even a minor upward move in bond yields. On the other hand, rising bond Government Bonds Have Given Us So Much | p2 rates would give hope to buyers of tomorrow’s bonds, because those bonds might be able to do their traditional jobs. But any future rate rise does not help investors who need to build their portfolios today.
发达国家政府债券确实为投资者提供了其他有用的服务——它们仍然是投资者可以拥有的最可靠的流动性资产之一,对于有长期负债的投资者来说,它们的久期本身也是一种风险降低工具——但失去那两项关键服务,要求投资者重新思考政府债券在其投资组合中的作用。坏消息是,这些服务的丧失意味着传统投资组合的风险比以往更高,回报比以往更低。非传统投资组合有一定能力避开这些麻烦,但坦率地说,很难设想一个多元化投资组合在政府债券特征变化后不会变得更糟。我们相信这种转变与利率均值回归的假设毫无关系。无论未来利率是否上升,从今天的水平来看,政府债券无法提供它们之前周期中所提供的萧条对冲。这并非是说利率未来是否上升无关紧要。如果利率保持当前水平,债券提供的收入很少,但至少能跑赢现金,因为收益率曲线是正斜率的。只要利率温和上升,债券对现金的收益缓冲就会被债券收益率小幅上移中的资本损失所压倒,从而摧毁这一超额收益。另一方面,债券利率上升将给明天债券的买家带来希望,因为那些债券或许能够履行其传统职责。但任何未来的利率上升,都不会帮助今天就需要构建投资组合的投资者。
Given that there is no single asset that can obviously fill the roles government bonds formerly played, we believe that fixed income still has an important place in investor portfolios. But investors would be well advised to think more critically about what investment services they truly need from their fixed income portfolios and how the rest of their portfolios will have to change given a realistic assessment of what the fixed income portion of their portfolios can deliver.
还有另外几项投资者珍视的政府债券服务——流动性和久期。老实说,我不记得在我上过的任何课程或教材中,流动性好处被提及过。在私募股权和对冲基金兴起前的古老日子里,人们似乎理所当然地认为,即使投资组合回报不佳时,重组他们的投资组合仍具有可接受的流动性。当然,我的金融学教授们似乎也认为这是理所当然的。资产久期对拥有长期负债的投资者有内在好处的想法,在 1980 年代末和 1990 年代初我们的讨论中显然也不存在。我记得我们当时的量化股票主管克里斯·达内尔在 1990 年代初指出,企业养老金计划投资股票是一种奇怪、低效的税收方式,让公司为投资者加杠杆,但长期债券是养老金负债更好匹配的想法,似乎又花了一二十年和会计制度的一些变化,才引起投资者的关注。政府债券曾给予我们如此之多 | 第 2 页
So Much for Income The income aspect of fixed income is certainly a straightforward and measurable concept. Exhibit 1 shows the yield on bonds in Europe,2 Japan, and the U.S. over the last 30 years.
鉴于没有单一资产能明显填补政府债券以往所扮演的角色,我们相信固定收益在投资者投资组合中仍占有重要地位。但投资者最好更加批判性地思考:他们真正需要从固定收益投资组合中获得哪些投资服务,以及在对其投资组合的固定收益部分能够实现什么做出现实评估后,他们投资组合的其他部分将不得不如何改变。
EXHIBIT 1: 10-YEAR GOVERNMENT BOND YIELD U.S.
收入方面的许多内容 固定收益的收入方面当然是一个直接且可衡量的概念。图表 1 显示了欧洲、²日本和美国过去 30 年的债券收益率。
0 Japan Europe -2 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017 2020 As of 6/30/2020 | Source: Datastream I can well remember complaining about the desultory 2% yields prevailing in the Japanese bond market 20 years ago. Little did I realize that in another two decades I’d find myself thinking wistfully about getting a 2% yield on a government bond and wondering when and if it would ever happen again!
图表 1:10 年期政府债券收益率 美国 0 日本 欧洲 -2 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017 2020 截至 2020 年 6 月 30 日 | 来源:Datastream 我清楚地记得 20 年前我对日本债券市场惨淡的 2% 收益率抱怨不已。我丝毫没想到,再过二十年,我会怀念起能获得 2% 的政府债券收益率,并想知道它何时(如果有的话)才能再次出现!
As Exhibit 1 shows, the absence of yield from government bonds isn’t exactly news in Europe or Japan. It is news in the U.S., even if yields over the last 10 years have been only a fraction of their yields of earlier decades. Comparing bond yields to equity yields – equities, after all, are another place in the portfolio where income is available – doesn’t make the case for government bonds look any better, as we can see in Exhibit 2.
如图表 1 所示,政府债券缺乏收益在欧洲或日本并不算什么新闻。在美国,这是新闻,即使过去 10 年的收益率仅是前几十年收益率的一小部分。将债券收益率与股票收益率进行比较——毕竟股票是投资组合中另一个可获得收入的地方——并不会让政府债券看起来更好,如图表 2 所示。
Europe is proxied by Germany for Exhibits 1, 2, and 3.
欧洲在图表 1、2 和 3 中以德国为代表。政府债券曾给予我们如此之多 | 第 3 页
Government Bonds Have Given Us So Much | p3 EXHIBIT 2: 10-YEAR GOVERNMENT BOND YIELD LESS STOCK MARKET YIELD U.S. -2 Japan -4 Europe -6 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017 2020 As of 6/30/2020 | Source: Datastream, MSCI In both Europe and Japan, equities have offered higher income than government bonds for 10 or so years. The U.S. was treading water with similar yields for stocks and bonds over that period, but the recent jag down has left those bonds joining the others with a sub-equity yield.
图表 2:10 年期政府债券收益率减去股票市场收益率 美国 -2 日本 -4 欧洲 -6 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017 2020 截至 2020 年 6 月 30 日 | 来源:Datastream,MSCI 在欧洲和日本,股票提供的收入超过政府债券已有大约 10 年。在此期间,美国股票和债券收益率大致相当,但近期的急剧下跌使这些债券加入了其他债券的行列,收益率低于股票。
Now, 10 years is a pretty long time in investing, but the fall in bond yields is not simply a statement that the markets are making about the difficulty in emerging from the Covid-19 crisis. Even if we look at very long bond rates, the markets are saying things will stay unprecedentedly low for an unprecedentedly long time. Exhibit 3 shows the implied rate of a 20-year interest rate starting in 10 years’ time across the three markets.
现在,10 年在投资中算是相当长的时间,但债券收益率的下降不仅仅表明市场在判断摆脱 Covid-19 危机的难度。即使我们看非常长期的债券利率,市场也在说情况将在前所未有的长时间内保持前所未有的低位。图表 3 显示了这三个市场中从 10 年后开始的 20 年期利率的隐含利率。
EXHIBIT 3: 10-YEAR FORWARD 20-YEAR INTEREST SWAP RATE 1 U.S.
图表 3:10 年期远期 20 年期利率互换率 1 美国 0 日本 欧洲 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 截至 2020 年 6 月 30 日 | 来源:Datastream 考虑到全球金融危机导致的短期利率大幅下降,令人可能惊讶的是,2010 年的长期利率与 2008 年初并没有太大差别。然而,这一次,长期利率甚至在 Covid-19 危机之前就开始急剧下降,现在已经明确处于历史低位。虽然利率市场远非对未来遥远的精准预测者,但它们表明这一低收益环境将延续到它们能够表达意见的最远范围。政府债券曾给予我们如此之多 | 第 4 页
Japan 0 Europe 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 As of 6/30/2020 | Source: Datastream Possibly surprisingly given the huge drop in short-term interest rates driven by the Global Financial Crisis, very long rates weren’t very different in 2010 than they had been in early 2008. This time, however, long rates began to fall sharply even before the Covid-19 crisis and are now decisively at all-time lows. While rate markets have Government Bonds Have Given Us So Much | p4 been far from unerring predictors of the distant future, they are saying this low-income environment will persist out as far as they are capable of stating an opinion.
再见,萧条对冲 但收入只是谜题的一部分。过去 30 年左右,政府债券无可替代的魅力在于,当世界开始分崩离析时,它们极好地倾向于带来资本利得。表 1 显示了 MSCI 世界指数在过去 30 年中的所有六个熊市³以及每个熊市中 10 年期美国国债的资本利得或损失。
Bye, Bye Depression Hedge But income is only a piece of the puzzle. The inimitable charm of government bonds over the last 30 years or so has been their wonderful tendency to give capital gains when the world starts to fall apart. Table 1 shows all six bear markets3 for MSCI World in the last 30 years and the capital gain or loss of a 10-Year U.S. Treasury Note in each of them.
MSCI 世界指数 10 年期美国国债收益率变化 10 年期美国国债资本利得/损失
MSCI Yield Change Capital Gain/Loss World for 10-Year U.S. of 10-Year U.S.
以下是 10 个段落的逐段翻译:
Bear Market Start End Return Treasury Note Treasury Note4 First Gulf War 7/16/90 9/28/90 -21.3% 0.4% -2.4% LTCM 7/20/98 10/5/98 -20.3% -1.3% 10.7% TMT 3/27/00 10/9/02 -49.8% -2.6% 21.9% GFC 10/31/07 3/9/09 -57.8% -1.6% 13.6% Euro Crisis 5/2/11 10/4/11 -22.0% -1.5% 13.7% Covid-19 Crisis 2/19/20 3/23/20 -34.0% -0.8% 7.8% Average -34.2% -1.2% 10.9% Source: Datastream, MSCI, GMO I’ve used the traditional definition of a bear market as a 20% peak-to-trough fall. Five times out of six, the 10-Year Note did a wonderful job of cushioning the pain of 4 the bear market, and across all six bear markets it averaged a double-digit capital Strictly speaking, this is the capital gain or loss of a bond of gain. To put it in overall portfolio terms, a portfolio with 30% of its weight in U.S. precisely 10 years’ maturity at the start of the bear market with a coupon of the yield of the Datastream U.S. 10-Year Treasuries reduced its effective equity position in those drawdowns by 9.6 percentage Government Bond Index on that date that instantaneously points. What’s not to like about that? The fly in the ointment is that those capital had its yield change to the yield at the end of the bear gains came from an expectation that the Federal Reserve would reduce interest rates market. I’m using capital gains rather than total returns because in a bear market of longer duration the income to combat any economic weakness. In each of the above events, such a reduction return to bonds would be naturally much greater. The capital was possible. Today that is probably no longer true.5 And while you can argue as to gain aspect is much more comparable across time periods whether I’m merely speculating about a hypothetical future problem, let’s look at what of different lengths.
熊市 起始 结束 标普 500 回报 10 年期美国国债回报 10 年期美国国债资本回报
第一次海湾战争 1990/7/16 1990/9/28 -21.3% 0.4% -2.4%
LTCM 危机 1998/7/20 1998/10/5 -20.3% -1.3% 10.7%
TMT 泡沫 2000/3/27 2002/10/9 -49.8% -2.6% 21.9%
全球金融危机 2007/10/31 2009/3/9 -57.8% -1.6% 13.6%
欧债危机 2011/5/2 2011/10/4 -22.0% -1.5% 13.7%
新冠疫情危机 2020/2/19 2020/3/23 -34.0% -0.8% 7.8%
平均值 -34.2% -1.2% 10.9%
数据来源:Datastream、MSCI、GMO。我采用的是熊市的传统定义,即从峰值到谷底下跌 20%。在这六次熊市中,有五次美国 10 年期国债在缓解熊市痛苦方面做得相当出色,并且在全部六次熊市中,它平均提供了两位数的资本回报。严格来说,这是指在熊市开始时精确持有 10 年期满的债券的资本回报率,该债券票息为该日 Datastream 美国 10 年期政府债券指数的收益率,且其收益率瞬时变为熊市结束时的收益率。我使用资本回报而非总回报,是因为在持续时间较长的熊市中,债券的收入回报自然会大得多。资本回报方面在不同时间长度的时期之间更具可比性。从整体投资组合的角度来看,一个在美国 10 年期国债中配置 30% 权重的投资组合,在这些下跌时期将其有效股票头寸降低了 9.6 个百分点。这有什么不好的呢?美中不足的是,那些资本回报来自于对美联储将降息以应对经济疲软的预期。在上述每一个事件中,这种降息都是可能的。如今,这可能不再成立。虽然你可以争论我是否只是在推测一个假设性的未来问题,但让我们看看在新冠疫情期间,G-10 各市场中 10 年期国债都发生了什么。显然,欧洲央行和其他几家央行在今年冬季的行动表明,将短期利率降至零以下是可能的。我主张,在这样做的经济体中,其后续表现表明降息并未给经济带来明显的好处。此外,美联储已表示强烈不愿采取此类行动,而美国金融体系的结构以及货币市场基金所扮演的核心角色,可能会使转向负利率带来的干扰远比在欧洲严重得多。
happened to the 10-year bonds in each of the G-10 markets during the Covid-19 crisis Clearly, the moves by the ECB and a few other central banks this winter. Exhibit 4 shows the return of the 10-year bond in each G-10 market in the have shown that it is possible to bring short rates down Covid-19 crisis crash, sorted by the official short rate in that country as of the end of below zero. I’d argue the subsequent performance of the January 2020.6 economies where this has been done suggests that there was no obvious benefit to the economy from having done so. Furthermore, the Federal Reserve has stated a strong reluctance to make such a move, and the structure of U.S. finance and the central role played by money market funds would probably make a move to negative rates significantly more disruptive than it was in Europe.
你得原谅我在某些市场对官方短期利率的选择有些武断。例如,在欧元区,有几种利率可以被描述为官方短期利率。我使用的 -0.25% 的利率既不是人们可以合理声称的欧元区官方短期利率中的最高值,也不是最低值,但其他合理的候选利率都不会对整体情况产生实质性的改变。
You’ll have to forgive me for making slightly arbitrary choices on the official short rate in some markets. In the Eurozone, for example, there are several rates that could be described as the official short rate. The -0.25% rate I'm using is neither the highest nor lowest that one could plausibly claim as the official short rate in the Eurozone, but none of the other plausible candidates would change the picture in any meaningful way.
政府债券曾给过我们如此之多 | 第 5 页 图 4:新冠疫情危机中的债券回报与起始短期利率
表格内容:
| 起始短期利率 | 10 年期债券回报 |
|---|---|
| 8.0% | |
| 起始短期利率 | 10 年期债券回报 |
| 8% | |
| 4.9% | 4.0% |
| 3.3% | |
| 4% | |
| 0.75% | 1.75% |
| 1.75% | 1.5% |
| 0.75% | 2% |
| 1.0% | 2.3% |
| 1.1% | |
| 0.0% | -0.1% |
| -0.25% | -2% |
| -0.3% | -1.1% |
| -0.5% | -0.75% |
| -3.4% | |
| 德国 新西兰 加拿大 挪威 瑞典 美国 英国 日本 澳大利亚 瑞士 英国 |
数据来源:Datastream、GMO。注:短期利率为 2020 年 1 月 31 日的水平,债券回报为 2020 年 2 月 19 日至 2020 年 3 月 23 日期间的回报。
“……在我看来,如果全球经济遇到进一步的问题,G-10 中任何政府债券都不太可能提供有意义的正回报……”
Government Bonds Have Given Us So Much | p5 EXHIBIT 4: COVID-19 CRISIS BOND RETURNS AND STARTING SHORT RATES 10% 8.0% Starting Short Rate 8% 10-Year Bond Return 6% 4.9% 4.0% 3.3% 4% 0.75% 1.75% 1.75% 1.5% 0.75% 2% 1.0% 2.3% 1.1% 0.0% 0% -0.1% -0.25% -2% -0.3% -1.1% -0.5% -0.75% -4% “ -3.4% ...it seems to me unlikely Germany New Zealand Canada Norway Sweden U.S. U.K.
正如你所见,那些短期利率明显高于零的市场,其 10 年期国债获得了显著收益,即使没有哪个像我们在美国看到的那样令人印象深刻。然而,那些短期利率已经接近或低于零的市场,情况则截然不同。这些市场的债券平均回报为 -1.3%,且在这段时期内没有一个获得正回报。对冲投资组合其余部分损失的希望破灭了!
Japan Australia Switzerland UK that any government bond in the G-10 would provide meaningful positive returns if the Source: Datastream, GMO Note: Short rates are levels as of 1/31/2020 and bond returns are the returns from 2/19/2020 to global economy should 3/23/2020. encounter further problems...
而如今,短期利率已经接近或低于零的国家群体包括了 G-10 的所有成员国,美国也包括在内。因此,在我看来,如果全球经济因新冠疫情爆发或近期其他原因而遇到进一步的问题,G-10 中任何政府债券都不太可能提供有意义的正回报。如果短期利率和债券收益率从现在到未来那次低迷之间显著上升,情况可能就不再是这样了。但如果你指望在下一次低迷之前出现这样的上升,那么你也指望着在此期间债券带来负回报。虽然我承认,对于那些看到其负债价值因贴现率意外下降而再次膨胀的养老基金来说,这可能算不上什么安慰,但真的有理由相信,这可能是最后一次发生这种情况。这当然适用于所有负收益率的债券。对于那些正收益率的市场,有可能的是,如果下一次低迷需要很长时间才到来,我们可能会看到债券收益率在此期间上升,且不需要经过负回报的过程,但这意味着收益率会在多年内温和上升,以“重新充电”衰退对冲功能,即使如此,任何正回报都将是微不足道的。
As you can see, those markets where short rates were meaningfully above zero saw significant gains in their 10-year bond, even if none were quite as impressive as we saw in the U.S. Those markets where the short rate was already around zero or lower, though, told a very different story. The average bond return in those markets was -1.3% and none of them had a positive return in the period. So much for hedging the losses in the rest of the portfolio!
这种无法降低利率的情况还造成了另一个潜在问题,除了对债券和现金的影响之外。央行降低利率的措施也可能直接提振股市。虽然通常很难确切知道是什么导致了股市的波动,但无风险利率的降低理论上会增加股票和其他风险资产现金流量的现值,而且通过在经济不景气的时期降息,央行在这些困难时期为股市提供了相当大的支持。如果我们在降低利率的能力上真的达到了极限,那么股票本身可以说比之前的制度下风险更高。这使得政府债券潜在资本收益的损失更加不幸。
And today, the group of countries where short rates are already around zero or lower consists of every member of the G-10, the U.S. included. As a result, it seems to me unlikely that any government bond in the G-10 would provide meaningful positive returns if the global economy should encounter further problems associated with the 7 Covid-19 outbreak or for any other reason in the near future.7 If short rates and bond If true, this means the calculus for liability-driven investors yields rise meaningfully between now and that future downturn, that might no longer may have changed. If the “risk” of rates falling meaningfully be the case. But if you are counting on such a rise occurring before the next downturn, from here is low, it is less obvious that the first priority of investors with long-dated liabilities should be to find assets you are also counting on bonds delivering a negative return in the interim.8 with similarly long durations. While I admit that may seem cold comfort for pension funds that have seen the value of There is another potential problem that this inability to reduce interest rates creates their liabilities swell yet again with an unexpected fall in their beyond what this does to bonds and cash. Central bank measures to reduce interest discount rates, it really does seem plausible to believe this rates can also be a boost to equity markets directly. While it is often unclear exactly may be the last time this will happen. what causes equity markets to move as they do, a reduction in the risk-free rate This is certainly true of all the bonds with negative current theoretically increases the present value of the cash flow streams for equities and other yields. For those markets with positive current yields it is risk assets, and by dropping rates in bad economic times, central banks have arguably possible that if the next downturn takes long enough to done much to put a floor under equity markets during these difficult times. If we have occur, we could see a rise in bond yields between now and then that didn’t require a negative return along the way, but indeed hit the limit on their ability to reduce rates, equities themselves are arguably it would imply a very gentle increase in yields persisting over riskier than they were in the prior regime. This makes the loss of potential capital gain a lot of years to “recharge” the depression hedge, and any for government bonds even more unfortunate. positive returns would be insignificant even in that case.
政府债券曾给过我们如此之多 | 第 6 页
你需要什么,以及你能得到什么
那么,政府债券这种处境的变化对当今投资者的投资组合意味着什么呢?所有包含政府债券的投资组合,其预期回报都低于任何人此前有理由预期的水平,而风险则高于预期。投资者应该怎么做,取决于他们最初持有投资组合的目的是什么。他们的投资组合是他们在长期内能够合理承受的最具风险的投资组合吗?如果是,他们将需要降低投资组合其他部分的风险,这意味着进一步降低投资组合的预期回报。这是满足他们回报要求的最低风险投资组合吗?如果是,他们需要增加投资组合的风险,以期抵消固定收益预期回报的下降。
Government Bonds Have Given Us So Much | p6 What You Need, and What You Can Get So, what does this shift in circumstances for government bonds mean for investor portfolios today? All portfolios that include government bonds have both lower expected returns and higher risk than anyone had a right to expect them to have previously. What investors should do about it depends on why they held their portfolio in the first place. Was their portfolio the riskiest portfolio that they could reasonably stand in the long run? If so, they will need to reduce risk in the rest of their portfolio, which means reducing the expected return of the portfolio even further. Was it the least risky portfolio that met their return requirements? If so, they need to increase the “ risk in their portfolio in the hopes of counteracting the fall in expected returns on fixed income.
现实情况是,我们都在努力解决的投资问题通常比这两种表述更为复杂。通常既不存在波动性或经济风险的“正确”水平,甚至也不存在“最大允许”水平。也不应该存在一个被视为绝对必要的特定预期回报,而不考虑实现它所需承担的风险。所有投资都关于权衡取舍。对于几乎所有的投资组合来说,由于现金和政府债券收益率的变化,这些权衡突然变得更糟了。在某种程度上,这种情况已经持续了好几年。我们多年来谈论的“炼狱与地狱”情景分析,就是由于自 2010 年代中期以来债券和现金收益率发生变化,回报预期本应下降所驱动。但我们当时的担忧实际上主要集中在等式中的预期回报部分。虽然现金和债券的收益率已经下降,但它们还没有下降到无法在衰退情景中提供保护的程度。今天,债券预期回报肯定发生了数量上的变化。债券的数学计算是残酷的,考虑到其收益率的变化,债券的预期回报必然更低。但除了这种预期回报的变化之外,投资者还需要认识到,对未来债券行为的任何理性预期都发生了重要的质变,因为在经济危机发生时,收益率已没有多少下降空间了。对于那些使用历史协方差矩阵来构建投资组合的人来说,该协方差矩阵已不再是未来债券行为的可靠指南。对于那些以不那么定量化的方式构建投资组合的人,我认为,思考投资组合构建者所面临挑战的最合理方式是:债券所能为投资组合提供的投资服务已经发生了变化。
The reality is that the investment problems we are all trying to solve are generally more Investors in need of the complex than either of those representations. There is usually not a level of volatility investment services that or economic risk that is either the “right” level or even the “maximum allowable” level. bonds once provided Nor should there be a particular expected return that is viewed as absolutely required, will probably have to regardless of the risk that would be required to achieve it. All investing is about trade-offs. For almost all portfolios, those trade-offs have suddenly gotten worse because of look beyond their bond what has happened to the yields on cash and government bonds. At some level, this has portfolios to get some of been true for several years. The Purgatory versus Hell9 scenario analysis we have talked those services. about for a number of years was driven by the fact that return expectations should have dropped given what had happened to bond and cash yields since the middle of the last decade.10 But our concerns back then were really with the expected return part of the equation. While the yields on cash and bonds had fallen, they had not yet fallen by so much that they were incapable of providing protection in a depression scenario.11 Today, there is certainly a quantitative change to bond expected returns. The math of bonds is unforgiving and expected bond returns must be lower given what has happened to their yields. But beyond this expected return change, investors also need to recognize the important qualitative change in any rational expectation for future bond behavior, because there is no longer meaningful room for yields to fall in the event of an economic crisis. For those who build their portfolios using a historical covariance matrix, that covariance matrix is no longer a decent guide to what the future behavior of bonds will be. For those who build their portfolios in a less quantitative fashion, I think the most reasonable way to think about the challenge for portfolio constructors is that the investment services that bonds can deliver to a portfolio have changed.
需要债券曾经提供的那种投资服务的投资者,可能将不得不超越其债券组合去寻找其中的一些服务。
Investors in need of the investment services that bonds once provided will probably have to look beyond their bond portfolios to get some of those services.
把这个例子说得更具体一些:一个 60% 股票、40% 政府债券的投资组合,从历史表现来看,在过去 30 年的熊市中,“表现得”就像投资组合里只有大约 50% 的股票一样。我们也称之为均值回归,相较于部分均值回归。我们无法指望 60/40 组合在未来的表现能一如既往,但我们可以建立一个具有这种风险特征(如果愿意的话,也可以预期有这种均值回归特征)的投资组合。炼狱和地狱(或者说均值回归与部分均值回归)的区别,在于回报预期的下降是暂时现象(收益率最终会回升)还是永久现象(平均收益率已经永久下降)。一种简单的做法是,将股票权重从 60% 降到 50%。当然,这样做的坏处是会大幅降低预期回报。而且,在你投资组合中的一项资产(政府债券)的预期回报和风险特征都变得更差时,还要增加它的权重,这多少有点违反直觉。将可投资范围扩展到股票和传统政府债券之外,很可能形成更优的权衡取舍。也许,除了传统政府债券之外,人们最先想到的替代品就是非传统政府债券。通胀挂钩(IL)债券的发行已有多年,严格来说,当时包括美国在内的多个市场上现金利率已经接近于零。但债券收益率假设这些现金利率是暂时性的低水平。因此,当时有理由预期,在经济不景气时,对未来现金利率的预期会进一步下降,债券将带来可观的资本利得。
To turn that into a more concrete example, a 60% stock/40% government bond 9 portfolio has historically “acted” as if it had only around 50% of the portfolio in stocks We also refer to this as mean reversion versus partial mean reversion. in the bear markets of the last 30 years. We cannot expect that kind of behavior 10 from a 60/40 portfolio going forward, but we can build a portfolio that has that risk The difference between Purgatory and Hell (or mean reversion characteristic in expectation if desired. One simple way to do it would be to reduce the and partial mean reversion) comes down to whether the drop in return expectations is a temporary phenomenon (yields equity weight to 50% from 60%. The downside, of course, is that will reduce expected will eventually rise back up) or a permanent phenomenon returns considerably. It also feels somewhat counterintuitive to be increasing the weight (average yields have permanently fallen). of an asset (government bonds) in your portfolio when it has just gotten worse in both its expected return and risk characteristics. Expanding the opportunity set beyond Strictly speaking, cash rates were already around zero across several markets at the time, including the U.S. But bond stocks and traditional government bonds is very likely to make for a better trade-off. yields assumed that those cash rates were low temporarily. It was therefore plausible to expect that in bad economic times Perhaps the first stop one might make outside of traditional government bonds is those expectations for future cash rates would fall further less traditional government bonds. Inflation-linked (IL) bonds have been issued for and bonds would deliver meaningful capital gains.
政府债券给了我们这么多 | 过去 7 个十年,与传统债券相比,它们有一些有趣的特性。首先,因为它们提供“实际”(通胀挂钩)收益率,其利率在零左右并不会有一个特定的界限。在一个名义收益率保持低位而通胀上升的世界里,通胀挂钩债券的收益率可能变为实质性负值,我们在英国多年来就看到过这样的收益率。这意味着零收益或负收益的通胀挂钩债券仍有可能带来潜在的资本收益。出现这种情况的环境不是萧条(萧条通常伴随通缩),而是滞胀。12 滞胀对大多数投资组合来说是一个大问题,因为股票和传统债券在疲软、通胀的经济环境中往往都会亏损。这导致投资组合出现巨大损失,可能比萧条情景下的损失更大——在萧条中,债券至少能免于遭受痛苦。
Government Bonds Have Given Us So Much | p7 decades now and have some interesting features relative to traditional bonds. First, because they offer a “real” (inflation-indexed) yield, their rates do not have a particular bound at or around zero. In a world where nominal yields stay low and inflation rises, IL bonds can move to materially negative yields, and we have seen such yields in the UK for years. This means that zero or negative yielding IL bonds can still offer a potential capital gain. The circumstance in which they would do so is not depression (depressions are usually disinflationary) but stagflation.12 Stagflation is a big problem for most portfolios because both stocks and traditional bonds tend to lose money in weak, inflationary economies. This leads to large losses in investment portfolios, potentially larger than in a depression scenario where bonds at least are spared pain.
然而,虽然滞胀对投资组合来说是一场糟糕的事件,但萧条对于投资组合需要帮助解决的多数问题来说,则是一场更为糟糕的事件,正如我过去曾撰文指出的那样。13 通胀挂钩债券作为抗萧条工具,不如传统债券有效,从当前的收入角度来看也不提供帮助。对于那些将政府债券用作流动性来源的投资者来说,通胀挂钩债券还有一个缺点:流动性远低于传统政府债券。总而言之,通胀挂钩债券在当前似乎比名义政府债券更优的选择(至少它们确实能在对投资组合不利的事件中起到对冲作用,即便这不是可能降临到你身上的最糟糕事件),但它们远非万能药。14 那么,有没有办法为你的投资组合带来一些收入,同时提供一些抗萧条保护呢?有些矛盾的是,高风险债券在这两方面或许都能有所帮助。当前,高收益公司债和新兴国家债务相对于美国国债的利差均高于正常水平。这两种资产类别在股票可能下跌的环境中显然都有很大的下行风险,但在真正的经济糟糕情境下,它们几乎肯定比股票下跌的幅度小得多。
But while stagflation is a bad event for portfolios, depression is a significantly worse event for most problems that a portfolio exists to help solve, as I have written about in the past.13 IL bonds are not as good a depression hedge as traditional bonds, nor would they help from an income perspective today. For those who use their government bonds as a liquidity source, IL bonds also have the downside of being significantly less liquid than traditional government bonds. All in all, IL bonds seem as if they may be a superior choice to nominal government bonds today (at least they do hedge in an event that is nasty for portfolios, even if it is not the very worst event that could befall you), but they are far from a panacea.14 But how about a way to get some income and some depression protection for your portfolio? Somewhat paradoxically, risky bonds might help on both fronts. Today, high yield corporate bonds and emerging country debt are both trading at wider than normal spreads over U.S. Treasuries. Both asset classes clearly have plenty of downside risk in the kind of environment when equities are likely to fall, but they are almost certain to fall significantly less than equities in really bad economic scenarios.
将 10% 的资金从股票转向风险债务,并不会等比例降低投资组合的下行风险,但如果我们假设这类资产的下行空间同样有限,那么滞胀是一种经济增长疲软且通胀高企的状况。
12 Taking 10% out of stocks and moving it into risky debt won’t reduce portfolio Stagflation is a circumstance in which economic growth is downside by that full increment, but if we were to assume the downside for those weak and inflation is high.
在糟糕情景下,风险债务资产的表现将仅为股票损失的一半——详见 GMO 2019 年一季报《别再为你的投资组合担心》及 2017 年三季报《通胀去哪了?如果它卷土重来会怎样?》。因此,一个 45% 股票 /10% 风险债务 /45% 政府债券的配置组合,很可能优于 50% 股票 /50% 政府债券的经典组合,前者能提供更高的收入,且在经济萧条情景下预期回报并不逊色。上述报告均可登录 www.gmo.com 查阅。
risky debt assets in the bad scenarios was going to be half as bad as for equities, it is See GMO 1Q 2019 Letter, “Stop Worrying About Your very plausible that a 45% stock/10% risky debt/45% government debt combination Portfolio,” and GMO 3Q 2017 Letter, “What Happened to would be a better blend than 50% stocks/50% government bonds,15 providing more Inflation? And What Happens if it Comes Back?” Each income and no worse expected returns in a depression scenario. paper is available at www.gmo.com.
我关于通胀挂钩债券的许多论述,同样适用于黄金之外的其它资产或策略。它不产生收入,但数百年来,固定收益和股票或许能提供帮助。除信贷之外,还有大量流动性较好的另类策略可在提供高于现金和债券的预期回报的同时,承担的实体经济风险低于股票,且在经济通胀时期表现显著优于通胀挂钩债券。这类策略通常不提供明确的避险功能,且不与经济疲软挂钩,因为在通胀繁荣期,实际利率往往上升。黄金确实能提供避险功能——但正如我们在风险债务中看到的那样,如果你调整投资组合中其它部分的风险水平来弥补,这未必是问题。然而,如果你真想找到一种有效的“萧条避险”工具,黄金在下跌风险方面存在不足:它既波动较大,又因工业用途有限而缺乏“价值”锚定,黄金供应几乎可以永远满足当前需求水准,未来几十年或更长时间都无需新增生产。尽管对大多数传统大宗商品而言,确定其公允价值已相当困难,而对于一种主要用途为装饰且具有投机价值的商品来说,这种难度几乎无法逾越。
A lot of what I said about IL bonds could also be said about And going beyond traditional fixed income entirely, other assets or strategies beyond gold. It provides no income, but over hundreds of years it fixed income and equities may be able to help. Besides credit, plenty of other liquid has been a reasonably reliable inflation hedge. Gold might alternative strategies can provide expected returns above cash and bonds while having significantly outperform IL bonds in an inflationary period less economic risk than equities. They usually don’t provide an explicit depression that is not associated with economic weakness, because real rates tend to rise in inflationary booms. Gold does suffer hedge. As we saw with risky debt, that isn’t necessarily a problem if you adjust the from the downside that it is both fairly volatile and has little risk level of the rest of your portfolio to compensate. But if you really want to find an “value” anchor given the limited industrial uses for gold could effective depression hedge, there are strategies that can fill that need. Put options be met with current stocks more or less forever, requiring no further production for decades or longer. As hard as it can be on stocks or a long position in volatility or any of a variety of tail hedge strategies to determine the fair value for most traditional commodities, can deliver a fairly reliable depression hedge. What had made government bonds so for a commodity where the primary uses are ornamental and valuable in the past, however, is the fact that they provided their depression hedging speculative it can be close to impossible.
服务的同时,回报仍显著高于现金。相比之下,鉴于 GMO 截至 2020 年 6 月 30 日的资产类别预测,如今这似乎确实成立。考虑到美国股票估值偏高,且在全球股票指数中权重极大,当前高收益债券与新兴市场债券的组合,在我们的数据上,比传统全球股票组合具有更高的预期回报和更低的衰退风险。与此种令人愉悦的组合相反,几乎所有尾部保险长期预期回报均为负值。事实上,但凡名称中带有“保险”二字的产品,其预期回报通常为负。我们不购买汽车保险、健康保险或人寿保险,并非因为我们认为保单的预期回报为正,而是因为我们觉得保险带来的风险降低,值得我们从合同中承担的预期财富减少。不过,考虑到当今股票市场估值差异极大,若将风险债务与价值导向的股票组合相比,情况则不尽然,因为全球范围内的价值股定价合理得多。根据投资者对投资组合中非债券部分的依赖程度,尾部保险可能出于类似原因而有意义。但鉴于调整投资组合比改变生活中其他方面容易得多,在大多数情况下,正确的做法可能是在投资组合的其他部分降低风险,而不是给一个本就难以接受的风险组合再添加一个预期回报为负的对冲工具。¹⁶
那么,深思熟虑的投资者应该怎么做?首先,我认为与固定收益投资组合经理坐下来沟通,确保你与他们在新环境下,他们为你管理的组合试图实现什么目标,以及该组合合理的回报预期是什么,这一点至关重要。将讨论范围从现有策略能做什么,扩展到不同的固定收益组合可能提供哪些服务,以及这类策略合理的预期回报是多少,同样重要,因为你的现有组合很可能已不再适合你的需求。掌握这些信息后,你可以尝试确定投资组合其他部分需要做出哪些调整,从而在整体上实现可接受的风险回报权衡。我的同事、GMO 资产配置团队负责人兼 GMO 董事会成员本·英克(Ben Inker)指出,¹⁶ 这并非易事。他于 1992 年从耶鲁大学获得经济学学士学位后加入 GMO。在 GMO 任职期间,英克先生曾担任定量股票和资产配置团队的分析师、多个股票和资产配置组合的投资组合经理、国际定量股票联席主管,以及定量发达市场股票首席投资官。他是特许金融分析师(CFA)持证人。
service while still giving a return materially higher than that of cash. In contrast That certainly seems to be true today given GMO’s asset to that pleasant combination, almost all tail insurance has a negative long-term class forecasts as of 6/30/2020. Given the high valuations expected return. In fact, a negative expected return is generally the case for pretty of U.S. equities and their very large weight in a global equity much anything with “insurance” in the name. We don’t buy auto insurance or health index, a blend of high yield and emerging debt today has both a higher expected return and lower depression risk than insurance or life insurance because we believe the expected return to the policy will be a traditional global equity portfolio on our data. Given the positive, but because we think the risk reduction of having the insurance is worth the extraordinary spread of valuations in equity markets today, reduction in expected wealth we get from taking on the contract. Depending on how though, that is not true if we are comparing risky debt to a value-oriented equity portfolio, because value stocks around wedded an investor is to the non-bond portion of his or her portfolio, tail insurance the world are much more reasonably priced. might make sense for an analogous reason. But given that portfolios are a lot easier to Government Bonds Have Given Us So Much | p8 Ben Inker change than other aspects of one’s life, in the majority of cases the right call is probably Mr. Inker is head of taking less risk in the rest of the portfolio instead of adding a negative expected return GMO’s Asset Allocation hedge to a portfolio that is otherwise unacceptably risky.16 team and a member of the GMO Board of So, what should a thoughtful investor do? First, I think it would be an excellent idea to Directors. He joined GMO sit down with your fixed income portfolio managers and make sure you and they are in 1992 following the completion of his B.A. in on the same page as to what the portfolios they are managing on your behalf are trying Economics from Yale University. In his years to achieve given the new environment and what a realistic return expectation for the at GMO, Mr. Inker has served as an analyst for portfolio is. Broadening that discussion beyond what your current strategy does to the Quantitative Equity and Asset Allocation what services a different fixed income portfolio might be capable of providing and what teams, as a portfolio manager of several a reasonable expected return to such a strategy is would be important as well, because equity and asset allocation portfolios, as it may well be that your current portfolio is no longer a good fit for your needs. Armed co-head of International Quantitative Equities, with that knowledge, you can then try to determine what adjustments in the rest of the and as CIO of Quantitative Developed portfolio can help deliver an acceptable risk/reward trade-off overall. My colleague, Equities. He is a CFA charterholder.
马特·卡德纳尔在本函的配套文章中(题为《低利率时代导航路线图》),详细介绍了我们在资产配置组合中应对这一新现实所采用的部分策略。
Matt Kadnar, has written a companion piece to this letter (“A Roadmap for Navigating Today’s Low Interest Rates”) detailing some of the strategies we are using in our asset allocation portfolios to deal with this new reality.
免责声明 所述观点为本·英克的观点。投资任务无疑变得更为艰难。在截至 2020 年 8 月的这段时间里,投资者需要比历史上更具创造性,才能从债券中获得以往的服务,或构建一个根本不需要这些服务的投资组合。这一任务绝非不可能完成,但在一个历史表现对前瞻预期几乎不再有价值的世界上,它需要比过去更多的思考和创造力。这些观点随时可能根据市场和其他条件发生变化。本文并非任何证券的买入或卖出要约或招揽,也不应被理解为如此。提及特定证券和发行人仅为说明目的,不旨在也不应被解释为买入或卖出此类证券的建议。
Disclaimer The views expressed are the views of Ben The task of investing has unquestionably just gotten harder. Investors will need to Inker through the period ending August 2020, think more creatively than they have had to historically in order to get the services and are subject to change at any time based they used to get from bonds or to build a portfolio that doesn’t require those services on market and other conditions. This is not an in the first place. That task is by no means impossible, but in a world where historical offer or solicitation for the purchase or sale performance is much less relevant for forward-looking expectations, it will require of any security and should not be construed as such. References to specific securities more thought and creativity than it once did. and issuers are for illustrative purposes only and are not intended to be, and should not be interpreted as, recommendations to purchase or sell such securities.
版权所有 © 2020 年,GMO 有限责任公司。
Copyright © 2020 by GMO LLC.
版权所有。
All rights reserved.
An alternative to buying homeowners insurance, for example, might be to live in a home whose value is low enough that if it burned down or got burglarized it wouldn’t be a financial disaster for you to have to rebuild it or refill it with stuff. But this will have the downside of forcing you to live in an area you wouldn’t otherwise choose and in a house that doesn’t provide a lot of housing “services.” You might be financially better off, but your quality of life would almost certainly be worse. For most of us, our investment portfolio doesn’t provide a lot of other services beyond the investment ones, so having a portfolio where you can handle the risks of bad events doesn’t reduce your aggregate quality of life. As a result, you need to have a pretty specific set of expectations about the future to believe that owning a combination of risky assets and negative expected return tail hedges is better than having your investment portfolio have less risk in the first place.
An alternative to buying homeowners insurance, for example, might be to live in a home whose value is low enough that if it burned down or got burglarized it wouldn’t be a financial disaster for you to have to rebuild it or refill it with stuff. But this will have the downside of forcing you to live in an area you wouldn’t otherwise choose and in a house that doesn’t provide a lot of housing “services.” You might be financially better off, but your quality of life would almost certainly be worse. For most of us, our investment portfolio doesn’t provide a lot of other services beyond the investment ones, so having a portfolio where you can handle the risks of bad events doesn’t reduce your aggregate quality of life. As a result, you need to have a pretty specific set of expectations about the future to believe that owning a combination of risky assets and negative expected return tail hedges is better than having your investment portfolio have less risk in the first place.
当前的季度信函导航路线图 2020 年第二季度执行摘要 低利率 马特·卡德纳 | 资产配置 今天美国历史上史无前例的低债券收益率为投资者带来了若干挑战。投资者需要考虑的三个关键问题是:如何填补收入缺口:如何替代过去由债券提供的收入;如何调整投资组合以适应因债券收益率几乎没有或完全没有下降空间而失去的衰退保护;以及如何保护我们的投资组合免受通胀上升和利率上升的风险。脱离政府债券进入更广泛的信贷领域,提供多种在政府债券收益率基础上增加收入的方式。尽管信贷利差已经从新冠疫情危机期间的极高水平收窄,但总体而言,它们仍高于今年年初的水平,为投资者提供了更大的回报潜力。破产风险在整个危机期间有所增加,这使得评估高收益债券的回报风险比变得更加困难,但若利差扩大,能够增持高收益债券并利用证券配置机会,这本身就代表着回报潜力。我们同时认为,随着这场经济危机的展开,这很可能是一个漫长的破产周期,配置不良债务——特别是聘用更灵活的管理人——具有巨大的潜力。同样,新兴市场债务的利差仍处于高位,考虑到该资产类别的流动性以及构成新兴债务市场的众多国家所面临的宏观不确定性,证券选择阿尔法收益的潜力仍然很高。资产支持证券一直是我们觉得引人入胜的资产类别,部分原因在于它们常常被忽视和不受青睐。这些通常是复杂的工具,我们认为这意味着在深入分析后存在大量获得显著阿尔法收益的机会。有趣的是,资产支持策略往往承担更具特异性的风险,而非宏观导向的风险,因此与传统信贷相比,它们对投资组合整体风险性的贡献通常更低。资产支持证券也主要是浮动利率工具,这有助于在利率上升的环境中提供保护。每种挑战都是独一无二的,需要不同于我们过去 30 年所采用的投资策略。它们还需要在不同机会集之间进行更动态的配置。我们将带您逐一审视这些问题,并提出投资组合解决方案,以帮助投资组合适应当今疲弱的利率环境。
A ROADMAP FOR NAVIGATING TODAY’S QUARTERLY LETTER 2Q 2020 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY LOW INTEREST RATES Matt Kadnar | Asset Allocation Today’s low bond yields, which are without precedent in U.S. history, create several challenges for investors. Three crucial Filling the Income Void ones for investors to contemplate are: Moving past government bonds into the wider spectrum of credit provides several ways to how can we replace the income that add income above government bond yields. While credit spreads have come in from their bonds used to supply; how can we adapt Covid-19 crisis wides, they generally remain elevated from those recorded at the beginning portfolios for the loss of depression of the year, providing investors with greater return potential. Bankruptcy risk has increased protection that comes from bond yields through the crisis, making the return-to-risk of owning high yield more difficult to assess, having little or no room to fall; and how can but having the ability to add to high yield if spreads widen and taking advantage of security we protect our portfolios from the risk of allocation each represent return potential. We would also argue that this is likely to be a rising inflation and rising interest rates? long bankruptcy cycle as this economic crisis plays out and allocating to distressed debt Each of these challenges is unique and – particularly employing more nimble managers – has great potential. Likewise, spreads requires a different playbook than what in emerging market debt remain elevated and the potential for security selection alpha we have used over the last 30 years. They remains high given the liquidity of the asset class and the macro uncertainty in the many will also require more dynamic allocation different countries comprising the emerging debt universe. between the opportunity sets. We will Asset-backed securities have always comprised an intriguing asset class to us, in part, take you through each of these issues and because they are often overlooked and unloved. These are generally complex instruments, propose portfolio solutions to help adapt which we believe means there are opportunities to add significant alpha after thorough portfolios to today’s anemic interest rate analysis. Interestingly, asset-backed strategies can often take more idiosyncratic and environment. less macro-oriented risk, thereby lowering their overall contribution to the riskiness of a portfolio than is typical of traditional credit. Asset-backed securities are also primarily floating rate instruments that help in a rising interest rate environment.
尽管我们能找到几种来源来填补低收益政府债券造成的收入缺口,但信用类资产容易受到通缩冲击的影响(见表 1),并且在市场承压时期也容易出现流动性下降的问题。在投资组合中,信用类资产带来的额外收入和总回报收益,必须与其伴随的更大的萧条风险和流动性不足相权衡。
While we can find several sources to help fill the income void from lower-yielding government bonds, credit is vulnerable to deflationary shocks (see Table 1) and is also prone to increased illiquidity during times of stress. In a portfolio, the benefit of the additional income and total return from credit must be balanced off against the increased depression risk and illiquidity that comes with it.
表 1替代收益型资产评估
| 资产类别 | 当前收益率 | 当前久期 | 信用利差 | 新冠疫情利差 | 相对贝塔值 | 最大回撤 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 美国 10 年期国债 | 0.6% | 9.1 | 不适用 | 不适用 | -0.2 | 7.8% |
| 高收益债 | 5.6% | 3.5 | 626 | 512 | 0.4 | -20.8% |
| 新兴市场债券 | 5.1% | 8.1 | 557 | 438 | 0.4 | -21.0% |
| 资产支持证券 | 4.5% | 0.3 | 300 | 不适用 | 0.7 | -7.4% |
截至 2020 年 7 月 31 日,回撤数据区间:2020 年 2 月 29 日 – 2020 年 3 月 23 日 | 数据来源:彭博
注:资产支持证券在缺少指数的情况下,以 GMO 机会收益策略作为代理指标。
TABLE 1EVALUATING INCOME REPLACEMENTS Interest Covid-19 Current Rate Current Historical Beta to Crisis Yield Duration Spread Spread Equities Drawdown U.S. 10-Year Bond 0.6% 9.1 N/A N/A -0.2 7.8% High Yield 5.6% 3.5 626 512 0.4 -20.8% Emerging Debt 5.1% 8.1 557 438 0.4 -21.0% Asset-Backed Securities 4.5% 0.3 300 N/A 0.7 -7.4% As of 7/31/2020, Drawdown data: 2/29/2020 – 3/23/2020 | Source: Bloomberg Note: The proxy for asset-backed securities in the absence of an index is the GMO Opportunistic Income Strategy.
低利率环境下的投资路线图 | 第 10 页 基于我们的分析,以及当前的机会集和阿尔法潜力,我们在资产配置组合中配置了以下 GMO 策略:高收益债、新兴国家债务、信用机会(困境债务)、机会型收益(资产支持证券)。
A Roadmap for Navigating Today’s Low Interest Rates | p10 Through our analysis and based on the opportunity set and alpha potential, in our Asset Allocation portfolios we have allocated to the following GMO strategies: High Yield, Emerging Country Debt, Credit Opportunities (distressed debt), Opportunistic Income (asset-backed).
萧条保护与尾部对冲——纪律的必要性
过去 30 年,债券为投资者同时提供了收入来源和萧条保护,或者说是尾部对冲。这是一种非凡的组合,对于几乎所有尾部保险而言几乎独一无二。正如本·英克所指出的,保险通常是一项预期收益为负的生意,而债券却很好地打破了这一预期。如今,当我们审视其他尾部对冲手段时,我们找不到那种既有预期正收益又与风险资产负相关的“圣杯”。这意味着,为了实现萧条保护,投资者必须转向那些在潜在回报到来之前,极有可能在多年内带来负预期收益的尾部对冲工具。对某些投资者来说,这可能是一个合理的权衡。然而,在采纳这种方法之前,有必要考虑一些合理的警示。
Depression Protection and Tail Hedging – the Need for Discipline Over the last 30 years, bonds provided both income and depression protection, or a tail hedge, for investors. It was a phenomenal combination and unique for almost all tail insurance. As Ben Inker points out, insurance is generally a negative-expected-return endeavor and bonds have defied this expectation quite well. Today as we look at other tail hedges, we do not find that holy grail of both positive expected return and negative correlation to risky assets. This means that for depression protection, investors must turn to tail hedges that bring with them the very likely prospect of negative expected returns over a number of years before the potential payoff. For some investors, this may be a reasonable trade-off. However, there are reasonable caveats to consider before embracing this approach.
投资尾部对冲策略需要极强的自律。设计得当的尾部对冲能在最恐慌的时刻——要么是极端经济压力时期,要么是地缘政治极度不确定的时期——产生回报。与任何优秀的再平衡策略一样,投资者应当从表现强劲的尾部对冲中撤出,转而买入遭受重创的风险资产。这就要求在不确定性达到顶点时卖出那些尾部对冲,说起来容易,做起来却极其困难。在极端事件发生之前制定好周密的计划,是最大限度发挥尾部对冲效果的关键。为说明这一点,我们构建了一个简单的看跌期权买入策略 1,并绘制了其五年间的回报曲线(见表 1)。显然,这种保险形式在今年春季带来了一些显著收益。当然,在获得回报之前,承受原始资本超过 25% 的回撤会令人不安。而如果在春季未能进行再平衡,则会在随后几个月里造成重大损失。在危机时期从尾部对冲中再平衡确实至关重要。多数尾部对冲特有的负持有成本(negative carry)使其无法成为“一劳永逸”的策略 2。对 GMO 而言(政府债券除外),最成功的萧条对冲策略是我们的战术机遇策略——做多高质量股票(这类公司在经济低迷时期通常表现良好,深受破产风险隔离)并做空低质量股票(或有时做空市场)。再次强调,再平衡可能至关重要。
Investing in tail hedge strategies requires substantial discipline. Properly structured tail hedges pay off in the scariest of times – either extreme economic duress or some period of extreme geopolitical uncertainty. Like any good rebalancing strategy, investors should be moving out of strongly performing tail hedges and into beaten-down risk assets. This requires selling those tail hedges at the point of maximum uncertainty, which is difficult to do to say the least. Having a firm plan in place before the extreme event occurs is critical to using tail hedges to maximum effectiveness. To illustrate, we constructed a simple put-buying strategy1 and plotted its returns over a 5-year period (see Exhibit 1). It is evident that this form of insurance had some significant benefits in the spring of this year. Of course, enduring a drawdown of more than 25% of the original capital before receiving the payoff would have been unnerving. And failing to rebalance in the spring would have caused a substantial loss over the succeeding several months. Rebalancing from tail hedges in times of crisis really matters. The negative carry peculiar to most tail hedges prevents them from being a “set it and forget it” type of strategy.2 The depression hedge that has provided the best success for GMO (excluding government bonds) has been our Tactical Opportunities Strategy, which is long high quality stocks (which tend to do well in bad economic times; these companies are well insulated from bankruptcy) and short low quality stocks (or, at times, the market). Again, rebalancing can be critical.
附录 1买入看跌期权策略的累积对数收益率 110% 105% 100% 95% 90% 1 85% 这是一种无杠杆策略,买入标普 500 指数 1 个月期平价看跌期权。
EXHIBIT 1CUMULATIVE LOG RETURNS OF PUT-BUYING STRATEGY 110% 105% 100% 95% 90% 1 85% This is an unlevered strategy that buys 1-month at-the- 80% money puts on the S&P 500.
假设 1986 年开始时投入 100 美元,只采用简单的买入看跌期权策略,到今天的剩余资金将只剩下大约 5 美元。哎哟。2015 年 2016 年 2017 年 2018 年 2019 年 截至 2020 年 7 月 31 日 | 来源:GMO《应对当前低利率的路线图》第 11 页《通胀与利率上升——一个被低估的风险?》
2 75% A simple put-buying strategy starting with $100 in 1986 would have resulted in remaining capital today of about 70% $5. Ouch. 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 As of 7/31/2020 | Source: GMO A Roadmap for Navigating Today’s Low Interest Rates | p11 Rising Inflation and Interest Rates – an Underappreciated Risk?
投资者今天面临的最大风险之一,是他们过去 30 年不太需要担心的:利率上升。利率上升对所有有久期的资产都构成负面影响,也就是股票和债券,而股票因其更长的久期,实际表现更糟。3 1970 年代乃至 1980 年代初期是上一次利率上升时期,很容易看出这对股票和债券造成的破坏:两类资产的实际年化收益率均为 –1.3%(见图表 2)。
One of the biggest risks investors face today is one they have not had to worry much about over the last 30 years: rising interest rates. Rising interest rates negatively impact all assets with duration, namely stocks and bonds, with stocks actually faring worse because of their longer duration.3 The 1970s and early 1980s was the last period of rising rates, and it is easy to see the havoc this caused on both stocks and bonds, with each asset type delivering an annualized -1.3% real return (see Exhibit 2).
附件 21970 年代利率上升对股票和债券的影响
1.3
1.2
美国债券实际回报率 -12.5%
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
尽管考虑到新冠疫情带来的通缩冲击,当前
标普 500 指数实际回报率 -12.5%
0.7
未预期通胀的可能性似乎还很遥远,但我们
0.6
1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979
相信,通胀的种子正在播下。
来源:GMO、美联储、彭博
这些利率上升的元凶是什么?未预期通胀。尽管考虑到新冠疫情带来的通缩冲击,当前未预期通胀的可能性似乎还很遥远,但我们相信通胀的种子正在播下。我们正在经历全球范围内前所未有的货币与财政刺激。现代货币理论日益获得支持,而这种理论对政府赤字增加所带来风险的不以为意,进一步加大了通胀的可能性。传统经济学表明,这很可能导致通胀。虽然经济学对通胀的预测记录并不完美,但巨额货币创造与财政刺激、全球化退潮带来的供给冲击,以及众多中小企业的潜在倒闭,意味着投资者绝不能忽视通胀的可能性。⁴
我们仍对 1970 年代那种会严重破坏经济的通胀卷土重来持一定怀疑态度。1970 年代年均通胀率超过 7%⁵,1973 年石油输出国组织(OPEC)主导的石油禁运引发价格飙升,并传导至工资,形成了工资-物价螺旋。新冠疫情带来的持久影响可能导致结构性失业率上升,这让我们不太清楚是否会出现那种足以引发像 1970 年代那样真正可怕的持续高通胀的工资压力。此外,用通胀来稀释掉规模庞大的政府债务,对政客们(包括美联储在内)来说,远比通过紧缩或违约来偿还债务更受欢迎。通胀趋势水平的上升,或因财政刺激或供给因素导致的周期性通胀飙升,都可能对投资者的心理产生重大影响,进而对投资组合产生重要影响。即便只是 3% 或 4% 的通胀率——从历史标准看还算温和——由于过去几十年我们经历了极低的通胀水平,投资者或消费者可能会感觉比以往糟糕得多。考虑到当今债券收益率较低而久期较长,债券极易受到通胀担忧加剧的冲击。股票由于其期限较长,在通胀上升时也不会好过,因为伴随而来的不确定性通常会导致投资者要求更高的安全边际,即更低的市盈率才愿意持有股票。
大约一半的股票价值来自 30 年后的现金流。
⁵
1960 年代平均通胀率为 2.5%,而 1970 年代为 7%——这对任何经济体系来说都是一次重大冲击。1974 年和 1979 年的通胀率甚至超过 11%!
应对当前低利率环境的路线图 | 第 12 页
EXHIBIT 2IMPACT OF RISING RATES ON STOCKS AND BONDS IN THE 1970s 1.3 1.2 U.S. Bonds Returned -12.5% real 1.1 1.0 “ 0.9 0.8 While the prospect of S&P 500 Returned -12.5% real 0.7 unanticipated inflation may seem quite far 0.6 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 removed today given the deflationary shock Source: GMO, Federal Reserve, Bloomberg caused by the Covid-19 crisis, we believe The culprit behind those rising rates? Unanticipated inflation. While the prospect of inflationary seeds are unanticipated inflation may seem quite far removed today given the deflationary shock being sown. caused by the Covid-19 crisis, we believe inflationary seeds are being sown. We are experiencing unprecedented monetary and fiscal stimulus on a global scale. The growing support of Modern Monetary Theory and its insouciance to risks associated with increasing government deficits increases the potential for inflation. Traditional economics suggests this is likely to be inflationary. While the track record of economics on inflation leaves something to be desired, the combination of massive money creation and fiscal stimulus, a supply shock coming from a retreat from globalization, and the potential failure of many small and midsized companies means the potential for inflation simply cannot be ignored by investors.4 We are still a bit skeptical on the return of 1970s’ style inflation, which can truly wreak 3 havoc on an economy. Inflation averaged over 7% annually during the 1970s5 as the spike Approximately half the value of equities is derived from from the 1973 OPEC-led oil embargo fed through to wages, inducing a wage-price spiral. cash flows 30 years into the future. Potential higher structural unemployment due to the lasting impact of Covid-19 makes it Additionally, inflating away high levels of government less clear we will get the type of wage pressure that would cause an extended period of debt is also much more palatable to politicians (the Fed truly scary inflation rates like those of the 1970s. included) than paying the debt back through austerity or defaulting on the debt. A rising trend level of inflation or elevated, cyclical bouts of inflation due to fiscal stimulus 5 or supply factors could have significant impact on the psyche of investors, resulting in Inflation in the 1960s averaged 2.5% versus 7% in the 1970s - a significant shock to any economic system. important implications for portfolios. Inflation rates of 3% or 4%, somewhat tame by Inflation in 1974 and 1979 was greater than 11%! historical standards, could feel significantly worse to investors or consumers given the very A Roadmap for Navigating Today’s Low Interest Rates | p12 low rate of inflation we have seen the past couple of decades. Bonds are highly vulnerable to increased inflationary concerns given today’s lower yield and higher duration.6 Equities, with their long duration, would not fare well with increased inflation as the associated uncertainty generally results in investors demanding a higher margin of safety, i.e., lower P/E to own equities.
“即便你认为利率不存在显著上升的风险,持有久期资产给组合带来的回报似乎也十分有限。下文将探讨在降低利率风险(即久期)的同时仍能创造收益的潜在方案——具体可通过流动性另类投资、价值股和资源股、通胀挂钩债券来实现。现金是终极流动性资产,与其他资产的相关性近乎为零。不过,在收益率仅为 13 个基点的环境下持有现金,感觉就像在嚼玻璃。我们近期将更多资金配置到流动性另类投资策略,以期在现金回报基础上创造超额收益,同时保持相对较低的贝塔和较短的久期。大多数流动性另类投资的多空特性消除了股票和债券所附带的久期风险。尽管流动性另类投资通常带有少量贝塔风险,在再次出现通缩式崩盘时,它们无法像债券那样充当股票对冲工具。但就为组合贡献整体收益、并作为久期更低的债券替代品而言,流动性另类投资是一项重要的工具。”
“ Even if you do not believe there is a material risk of rising interest rates, there still appears to be limited reward for holding duration in your portfolio. Below we assess potential solutions for lowering your interest rate risk (duration) while still generating return Cash is the ultimate through Liquid Alternatives, Value and Resource stocks, and Inflation-linked bonds. liquid asset and has approximately zero Reducing Your Duration Sensitivity by Adding Liquid correlation with other Alternatives 7 Cash is the ultimate liquid asset and has approximately zero correlation with other assets. assets. However, owning However, owning cash while yields are at 13 basis points feels a bit like chewing glass. We cash while yields are at have allocated more recently to Liquid Alternatives (Liquid Alts) strategies to generate a 13 basis points feels a bit return over cash but with relatively lower beta and shorter duration.8 The long/short nature like chewing glass. of most Liquid Alts removes the duration associated with both stocks and bonds.9 While Liquid Alts generally do have a small amount of beta, they will not be the equity hedge that bonds have been in another deflationary bust. However, in terms of generating overall returns for a portfolio and serving as a lower-duration substitute for bonds, Liquid Alts are an important tool.
对于我们的流动另类投资仓位,我们配置到了纯阿尔法策略(例如 GMO 系统性全球宏观策略和 GMO 固定收益绝对收益策略),以及更为多元化的另类配置策略,该策略融合了我们长期运作的阿尔法策略与类似保险业务的卖出看跌期权活动(GMO 风险溢价策略)和并购套利活动(GMO 事件驱动策略)。我们看好这种阿尔法策略与保险销售活动的组合,认为它能随时间推移提供更持久的回报模式。
For our Liquid Alts positions, we have allocated to pure alpha strategies (for example, GMO Systematic Global Macro and GMO Fixed Income Absolute Return) and the more diversified Alternative Allocation Strategy, which combines our long-tenured alpha strategies and insurance-like activities in put-selling (GMO Risk Premium) and merger arbitrage (GMO Event Driven). We like this combination of alpha and insurance-selling activities to provide a more durable pattern of returns over time.
许多投资者对近期流动性另类投资(Liquid Alts)的回报感到失望,尤其是另类风险溢价(Alternative Risk Premia,ARP)策略。我们看到 ARP 策略大量涌现,不少人认为这类策略已经商品化。它们在压力时期还可能表现出更高的相关性,因为它们锚定于共同的底层风险因子。理解流动性另类投资组合的回报来源、所利用的市场低效之处、该组合在压力时期的表现、每单位预期回报对应的费用,以及投资组合中杠杆的审慎使用,这些都是分析流动性另类投资策略的重要因素。目前 10 年期债券的久期为 9.5。而在 1981 年利率见顶时,10 年期债券的久期为 4.9。我们会把大多数对冲基金归入“流动性另类投资”的范畴,但就本文而言,我们指的是那些以共同基金、UCITS 或 ETF 形式存在的品种。转向价值股相对于大盘能带来可观的回报空间,并且具有降低投资组合整体久期的有利特征。过去几年我们已就价值股撰写过多篇论述,我们仍持这样的观点:价值股或许受了伤,但并未破碎。然而在市场上,其他流动性另类投资本质上也是短久期的,例如并购套利策略,其交易平均在 180 天内完成。
Many investors have been disappointed with returns more recently for Liquid Alts, particularly Alternative Risk Premia (ARP) strategies. We have seen a proliferation of ARP The duration of a 10-year bond today is 9.5. In 1981, strategies and view many as being commoditized. They can also be more highly correlated when interest rates peaked, the duration of a 10-year in times of stress as they anchor to common, underlying risk factors. Understanding the bond was 4.9. sources of return for a Liquid Alts portfolio, the inefficiencies being exploited, how the We would include most hedge funds in the “Liquid portfolio will behave in times of stress, the fees per unit of expected return, and the prudent Alternatives” category, but for purposes of this paper, we use of leverage in a portfolio are all important factors in analyzing Liquid Alts strategies. are referring to those that are available in mutual fund, UCITS, or ETF form. Value Equities – Exceptionally Cheap and Lower Duration Rotating into Value stocks offers substantial upside in terms of return versus the broad John Thorndike, “Liquid Alts: Rising to the Occasion,” GMO Quarterly Letter, Q4 2018. market10 and has the favorable portfolio characteristic of lowering overall duration. We 9 have written extensively over the last several years about Value11 and our view continues to Other Liquid Alts are also inherently short duration, e.g., be that Value stocks may be bruised, but they are not broken. However, in the marketplace, merger arbitrage where deals close on average in 180 days.
10 位投资者一直在用脚投票,抛售价值股并抬高回报率。由于我们认为美国和 EAFE(欧洲、澳大利亚和远东)市场整体估值偏高,进而推动了成长股的估值(见图表 3)。持有美国价值股和 EAFE 价值股能提供强劲的相对回报机会,但绝对回报机会较为平淡。在新兴市场股票中,我们认为价值股既能提供强劲的绝对回报,也能提供强劲的相对回报。
10 investors have been voting with their feet, selling Value stocks and propping up the return As the U.S. and EAFE are broadly expensive in our view, and subsequent valuation of Growth stocks (see Exhibit 3). owning U.S. Value and EAFE Value offers strong relative return opportunities but more muted absolute return opportunities. Within emerging equities, we believe Value offers both strong absolute and relative returns.
本·英克等人,《黎明前总是最黑暗》,2020 年 4 月;约翰·皮斯,《风险与溢价:价值的故事》,2019 年 7 月;里克·弗里德曼,《价值投资:被千刀万剐》,2019 年 5 月。上述每篇文章均可在《应对当今低利率路线图》中获得 | 第 13 页 图表 3:成长股跑赢幅度已超越基本面 MSCI 成长/价值相对价格与相对远期盈利指数。指数以 2010 年数值为 100 基准。相对价格 相对远期每股收益。1996 年、1999 年、2002 年、2005 年、2008 年、2011 年、2014 年、2017 年、2020 年。截至 2020 年 7 月 31 日 | 来源:GMO、Minack Advisors、IBES。这一切的结果是,价值股中存在机会,它们在全球范围内处于吸引力前十的区间(见图表 4)。
Ben Inker, et al., “It’s Always Darkest Before the Dawn,” April 2020; John Pease, “Risk and Premium: A Tale of Value,” July 2019; Rick Friedman, “Value Investing: Bruised by 1,000 Cuts,” May 2019. Each of these papers is available at A Roadmap for Navigating Today’s Low Interest Rates | p13 EXHIBIT 3: GROWTH OUTPERFORMANCE EXCEEDS FUNDAMENTALS MSCI Growth / Value relative price and relative forward earnings indexes Index Rebased to 100 in 2010 Relative Price Relative FWD EPS 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017 2020 As of 7/31/2020 | Source: GMO, Minack Advisors, IBES The result of this activity is that there is opportunity within Value stocks, which are in the top decile of attractiveness around the world (see Exhibit 4).
附录 4MSCI 各区域价值因子的价值分布
0.90
0.85 价值股估值
0.80
0.75
0.70 相对市场
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
1983 1987 1991 1995 1999 2003 2007 2011 2015 2019
美国 国际 新兴市场
美国当前 国际当前 新兴市场当前
截至 2020 年 6 月 30 日 | 数据来源:MSCI、Worldscope、GMO
除了当前相对于市场极为便宜之外,配置价值股还有助于降低你的投资组合久期。价值股通常股息率更高,因此你比成长股更早获得更多回报——成长股的回报更依赖于更远期的现金流。价值股能在多大程度上降低你的有效久期是一个更复杂的问题,因为你还需要对贴现率的变化、投入资本回报率(随贴现率变化而变化)、派息率变化等做出假设。如表 2 所示,价值股与成长股之间的久期差异可能相当显著。
低利率环境下的投资路线图 | 第 14 页
EXHIBIT 4SPREAD OF VALUE FOR MSCI REGIONAL VALUE FACTORS 0.90 0.85 Valuation of Value Stocks 0.80 0.75 0.70 Relative to Market 0.65 0.60 0.55 0.50 1983 1987 1991 1995 1999 2003 2007 2011 2015 2019 U.S. Int'l EM U.S. Current Int'l Current EM Current As of 6/30/2020 | Source: MSCI, Worldscope, GMO In addition to currently being very cheap relative to the market, allocating to Value stocks also helps lower the duration of your portfolio. Value tends to have a higher dividend yield, so you get more of your return earlier than with Growth stocks, where you are more dependent on cash flows further into the future. How much Value lowers your effective duration is a more complicated issue because you also need to make assumptions on the changes in the discount rate, the return rates on invested capital (as the discount rate A Roadmap for Navigating Today’s Low Interest Rates | p14 changes), changes in payout rates, etc. As you can see in Table 2, the duration difference between Value and Growth can be quite significant.
表 2股权对贴现率变化的敏感性
| 股权类型 | 久期(年) | 股息率 |
|---|---|---|
| 高增长型股权 | 33–51 | 0.9% |
| 正常型股权 | 26–33 | 1.9% |
| 价值型股权 | 10–22 | 2.7% |
截至 2020 年 7 月 31 日 | 数据来源:GMO、彭博
价值股提供更高的当期收益,是一项更便宜、因而更具韧性的资产,同时还能降低你的股票组合的久期。这听起来对我们来说相当不错,但考虑到价值股的实际表现,我们显然属于少数派。如今,成长股身上笼罩着一种不可战胜的光环,而价值股则遭到唾弃,这种局面堪比 1999 年,但今天成长股与价值股所处的环境,和我们当年看到的相比,有几个重要差异。成长股中的一部分——尤其是大盘科技股——其盈利能力远远超过了我们在 TMT 泡沫期间所见到的水平¹³。但成长股领域中仍有相当大一部分估值极高、质地低劣,而且在许多情况下杠杆水平相当高。此外,部分科技股还面临着相当大的风险,容易受到与其市场主导地位和日益增加的媒体内容相关的更严格监管的影响。
TABLE 2THE SENSITIVITY OF EQUITY TO CHANGING DISCOUNT RATES Equity Duration 12 Dividend Yield High Growth Equity 33-51 0.9% Normal Equity 26-33 1.9% Value Equity 10-22 2.7% As of 7/31/2020 | Source: GMO, Bloomberg Value provides more current income, a cheaper and therefore more resilient asset, and lowers the duration of your equity portfolio. This sounds pretty good to us, but given Value’s performance, we clearly stand in the minority. There is an aura of invulnerability for Growth stocks and a revulsion for Value stocks today that rivals 1999, but there are some important differences between today’s Growth and Value environment and what we saw then. There are portions of Growth, specifically large cap Technology, that are vastly more profitable than what we saw during the TMT Bubble.13 But there remains a sizeable portion of the Growth universe that is very expensive, low quality, and, in many instances, quite levered. There are also considerable risks to parts of Tech that are vulnerable to increased regulation relating to their dominant positioning within their markets and increasing media content.
价值也比 1999 年时更加复杂。传统的价值工具,如市净率和净资产收益率,已经因资产负债表中无形资产的增长以及轻资产企业而失真。我们大幅调整了估值框架以跟上这些变化。简单的价值因子现在比 20 年前隐藏更多“价值陷阱”,要求投资者对当今一家公司的真正基本“价值”更加明辨。这是我们的全球股票团队和新兴市场股票团队多年来研究的内容,我们对如何定义账面价值以及净资产收益率的方式做了重大改变,这与近几年有所不同。为不同类型的价值股估算一个有效久期之所以困难,归根结底在于你对未来增长与贴现率之间的相关性做出何种假设。如果贴现率完全不影响增长或资本回报率,那么久期就落在这个范围的高端——在股息贴现模型框架下,你可以降低(或提高)分母而不影响分子。但在当今的价值股中,贴现率变化确实与未来增长不相关这一点远非显而易见;如果一列折现现金流的分子随分母同时下降,那么有效久期就要小得多。贴现率下降的通常也是未来经济增长预期下滑的环境。经济放缓通常也会拖累甚至快速增长公司的增速。资源类股票作为价值机会与通胀对冲资产,提供了一个有趣的组合:在价值股内部存在显著机遇(从而降低了整体久期),同时又能对冲未来的通胀。从价值角度看,资源类股票,尤其是能源和金属类股,相对于标普 500 指数的交易价格似乎处于历史最低水平(见图表 5)。
Value is also more complicated than it was in 1999. Traditional value tools such as Price/ Book and ROE have been distorted by the growth of intangibles on the balance sheet and capital-light businesses. We have made significant adjustments to our valuation framework to keep pace with these changes. The simple Value factor has more “value traps” than it did 20 years ago, requiring investors to be more discerning as to what true fundamental “value” for a company is today. This is something our Global Equity and Emerging Equity teams This may seem like an oddly wide range of duration estimates for stocks, particularly for Growth stocks. have spent years researching, and we have made significant changes to how we define book The difficulty in coming up with an effective duration for value and ROE today versus the recent past. types of stocks comes down to what assumptions one makes about the correlation between future growth and the discount rate. If discount rates do not impact growth Resource Equities as a Value Opportunity or return on capital at all, the duration is at the high end and Inflation Hedge of this range – in a dividend discount model framework, Resource-based equities14 provide an interesting mix between a significant opportunity one can reduce (or increase) the denominator without impacting the numerator at all. But it is far from obvious within Value equities today (thus lowering overall duration) and a hedge against future that changing discount rates are truly uncorrelated inflation. From a Value perspective, Resource equities, particularly Energy and Metals with future growth, and if the numerator of a stream stocks, appear to be trading at the cheapest levels they have ever been relative to the S&P of discounted cash flows falls while the denominator is falling, the effective duration is much less. The 500 (see Exhibit 5). circumstances in which discount rates fall are generally ones in which expectations for future economic growth fall as well. A slowing economy should generally slow the growth of even fast-growing companies.
截至 2020 年 6 月 30 日,科技板块是 GMO 品质投资组合中权重最大的板块。
The Tech sector is the largest sector weighting in the GMO Quality portfolio as of 6/30/2020.
我们将 GMO 资源策略中的“资源型股票”定义为能源、工业金属、农业和水务这几个板块及行业。
We define “Resource-based equities” for the GMO Resources Strategy as Energy, Industrial Metals, Agriculture, and Water sectors and industries.
当今低利率时代的导航路线图 | 第 15 页 图表 5:估值处于历史低位 1.4 相对于标普 500 指数的估值 1.2 1.0 平均值 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 1926 年 1935 年 1944 年 1953 年 1962 年 1971 年 1980 年 1989 年 1998 年 2007 年 2016 年 数据截至 2020 年 6 月 30 日 | 来源:标普、MSCI、穆迪、GMO 估值指标是市盈率(基于历史正常化盈利)、市净率和股息收益率的综合指标。
A Roadmap for Navigating Today’s Low Interest Rates | p15 EXHIBIT 5: VALUATIONS ARE AT HISTORIC LOWS 1.4 Valuation Relative to S&P 500 1.2 1.0 Average 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 1926 1935 1944 1953 1962 1971 1980 1989 1998 2007 2016 As of 6/30/2020 | Source: S&P, MSCI, Moody’s, GMO Valuation metric is a combination of P/E (Normalized Historical Earnings), Price to Book Value, and Dividend Yield.
金属生产商也是一个有趣的子类,因为随着全球向更清洁能源转型,它们正处于长期增长模式。没有铜、锂、镍、钒等金属,这一转型就无法实现。15 资源股在通胀时期也是非常有效的工具。图表 6 展示了能源股和金属股在美国历次较严重通胀时期(CPI 连续一年或以上超过 5%)的回报表现。
Metal producers are also an interesting subset because they are in a secular growth mode as the world transitions to more clean energy. This cannot be done without metals such as copper, lithium, nickel, vanadium, etc.15 Resource stocks have also been a very useful tool in inflationary times. Exhibit 6 shows the return of Energy and Metals stocks during the more significant (CPI greater than 5% for a year or more) bouts of inflation we have seen in the U.S.
附录 6在通胀时期,资源类股票对购买力的保护优于整体股票市场
6/1/1933 – 4/30/1935 12/1/1940 – 5/31/1943 3/1/1946 – 8/31/1948 3/1/1950 – 12/31/1951
18% 30% 14% 50%
16% 12% 25% 40%
14% 10% 12% 20%
8% 30% 10% 15%
8% 6% 20% 6%
10% 4% 4% 10%
5% 2% 2% 0%
0% 0% 0% 0%
通胀 能源/金属 标普 500 通胀 能源/金属 标普 500 通胀 能源/金属 标普 500 通胀 能源/金属 标普 500
6/1/1968 – 12/31/1970 2/1/1973 – 7/31/1982 3/1/1988 – 1/31/1991 2/1/2007 – 7/31/2008
6% 12% 16% 30%
14% 5% 10% 12%
20% 4% 8% 10%
6% 3% 6% 8%
10% 2% 4% 4%
0% 1% 2% 2%
0% 0% 0% -10%
通胀 能源/金属 标普 500 通胀 能源/金属 标普 500 通胀 能源/金属 标普 500 通胀 能源/金属 标普 500
参考 Lucas White,“An Investment Only a Mother Could 来源:标普、CRSP、全球金融数据、MSCI、GMO
Love: The Tactical Case,”2020 年 4 月。该白皮书可在 www.gmo.com 查阅。
EXHIBIT 6DURING INFLATIONARY PERIODS, RESOURCE EQUITIES HAVE PROTECTED PURCHASING POWER BETTER THAN THE BROAD EQUITY MARKET 6/1/1933 – 4/30/1935 12/1/1940 – 5/31/1943 3/1/1946 – 8/31/1948 3/1/1950 – 12/31/1951 18% 30% 14% 50% 16% 12% 25% 40% 14% 10% 12% 20% 8% 30% 10% 15% 8% 6% 20% 6% 10% 4% 4% 10% 5% 2% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% Inflation Energy/ S&P 500 Inflation Energy/ S&P 500 Inflation Energy/ S&P 500 Inflation Energy/ S&P 500 Metals Metals Metals Metals 6/1/1968 – 12/31/1970 2/1/1973 – 7/31/1982 3/1/1988 – 1/31/1991 2/1/2007 – 7/31/2008 6% 12% 16% 30% 14% 5% 10% 12% 20% 4% 8% 10% 3% 6% 8% 10% 6% 2% 4% 4% 0% 1% 2% 2% 0% 0% 0% -10% Inflation Energy/ S&P 500 Inflation Energy/ S&P 500 Inflation Energy/ S&P 500 Inflation Energy/ S&P 500 Metals Metals Metals Metals See Lucas White, “An Investment Only a Mother Could Source: S&P, CRSP, Global Financial Data, MSCI, GMO Love: The Tactical Case,” April 2020. This white paper is available at www.gmo.com.
年化数据。通胀时期的认定标准为:以 CPI 衡量的通胀率连续超过一年保持在年化 5% 以上。
Annualized data. Inflationary periods have been identified as periods where inflation, as measured by CPI, was greater than 5% per annum for a period longer than one year.
应对当今低利率环境的路线图 | 第 16 页 马特·卡德纳
在这八个通胀期中,能源和金属类股票有六个时期的涨幅与通胀持平或跑赢通胀,并且在全部八个时期都跑赢了大盘。
卡德纳先生是 GMO 资产配置团队的成员。在 2004 年加入 GMO 之前,他曾在普特南投资公司担任投资专家和顾问关系经理。此前,他曾担任 LPL 金融服务公司的内部法律顾问,以及梅利克与波特律师事务所的高级助理。卡德纳先生拥有波士顿学院的金融与哲学双学士学位,以及圣约翰大学法学院的法律博士学位。
用通胀挂钩债券取代名义政府债券
如果你必须在投资组合中持有债券,通胀挂钩债券应该能在潜在的通胀风暴中提供一定程度的庇佑。获得“通胀率加上与通胀挂钩的票息”有助于抵消利率上升对名义债券造成的冲击。16 不幸的是,这并不是万能药,因为通胀挂钩债券仍存在一个重大风险:随着投资者可能因通胀不确定性而要求额外的安全边际,其价格可能会因实际利率上升而承压。在这种情况下,它们几乎肯定会跑赢名义债券。
A Roadmap for Navigating Today’s Low Interest Rates | p16 Matt Kadnar During these inflationary periods, Energy and Metals stocks kept up with or beat inflation in Mr. Kadnar is a six of the eight periods and outperformed the broad market in all eight periods. member of GMO’s Asset Allocation Replacing Nominal Government Bonds with Inflation-team. Prior to joining Linked Bonds GMO in 2004, he was If you must own bonds in a portfolio, Inflation-linked (IL) bonds should provide some an investment specialist and consultant shelter from the potential inflationary storm. Receiving inflation plus a coupon indexed relations manager at Putnam Investments. to inflation helps offset the rise in interest rates that can afflict nominal bonds.16 This Previously, he served as in-house counsel for LPL Financial Services and as a senior unfortunately is not a cure-all because there is a significant risk that IL bonds would still associate at Melick & Porter, LLP. Mr. Kadnar be vulnerable to a rise in real interest rates as investors potentially demand an additional has a B.S. from Boston College majoring in margin of safety for the inflation uncertainty. They would almost certainly outperform Finance and Philosophy and a J.D. from St. nominal bonds in such a scenario.
路易斯大学法学院。他是 CFA 持证人。当前,发达国家许多地区的通胀保值债券收益率已跌至负值。2020 年 7 月,美国 10 年期 TIPS 实际收益率触及 -1.0% 的历史低点。投资者正锁定负的十年实际回报率。我们不能排除通胀恐慌会推高对通胀保值债券的需求、从而进一步压低利率的可能性。押注一项昂贵的资产(我们认为 -1.0% 的实际收益率持有十年已是一项昂贵的资产)变得更贵,这很难做到。
Louis University School of Law. He is a CFA Current yields on IL bonds in much of the developed world are negative. In July of 2020, charterholder. the U.S. 10-Year TIPS reached a historic low of -1.0% real yield. Investors are locking in a negative real return on their money for 10 years. We cannot dismiss the possibility that an inflation scare would increase the demand for inflation-protected bonds, further lowering Disclaimer The views expressed are the views of Matt rates. It is hard to bet on an expensive asset (and we would argue that a real yield of -1.0% for Kadnar through the period ending August 10 years is an expensive asset) becoming more expensive.
2020 年,并可能随时根据市场及其他条件发生变更。通胀挂钩证券的流动性通常远低于名义债券。今年春季,TIPS 市场出现剧烈波动,收益率在不到两周内飙升超过 100 个基点(债券市场中的大幅变动)。我们在 2008 年全球金融危机最高潮期间以及 2013 年“缩减恐慌”期间也曾看到幅度类似但持续时间更长的波动。该市场的一大参与者是风险平价策略,其通常将 TIPS 作为投资策略的一部分进行杠杆操作。对流动性较差的资产加杠杆,在危机时期可能火上浇油,这有助于解释此类异常波动的原因。这份材料并不是购买或出售任何证券的要约或招揽,也不应被理解为如此。提及特定证券和发行人仅为说明目的,不应被解释为购买或出售此类证券的建议。关于黄金的几句话在讨论通胀对投资的影响时,若不谈及黄金,则显得不完整。对于基于估值的投资者而言,黄金确实带来一些实际困难。该资产不产生收益或现金流,使得任何形式的估值几乎不可能。版权所有 © 2020 年 GMO 有限责任公司。保留所有权利。
2020, and are subject to change at any time Inflation-linked securities do tend to be much less liquid than nominal bonds. We have seen based on market and other conditions. This violent fluctuations in the TIPS market this past spring where yields rose more than 100 bps in is not an offer or solicitation for the purchase less than 2 weeks (an enormous move in the bond market). We saw moves of similar magnitude or sale of any security and should not be construed as such. References to specific but over a longer duration in 2008 during the height of the GFC and during the Taper Tantrum securities and issuers are for illustrative in 2013. A large participant in this market is risk-parity strategies that will often lever TIPS as purposes only and are not intended to part of their investment strategy. Levering less liquid assets can add fuel to the fire during times be, and should not be interpreted as, of crisis, which helps explain these types of extraordinary moves. recommendations to purchase or sell such securities. A Word or Two About Gold No discussion of the investment implications of inflation would be complete without Copyright © 2020 by GMO LLC. addressing gold. For a valuation-based investor, gold presents some real difficulties. There All rights reserved. is no yield or cash flow from the asset, making any type of valuation all but impossible.
黄金最具说服力的理由在于机会成本。过去数千年间,黄金的实际回报率约为零(这对不产生现金流的资产而言已相当惊人)。如果你假设黄金的实际回报率将为零,那么你可以持有黄金,而不是其他实际收益率为负的债券。在我们的传统投资组合中,我们更倾向于持有回报更高的流动性另类策略和价值策略。
The most compelling case for gold is one based on opportunity cost. Gold has delivered an approximate zero percent real return over the last several millennia (quite impressive for an asset that produces no cash flow). If you assume the real return for gold is going to be zero, you can own gold rather than other negative real yielding bonds. In our traditional portfolios, we would prefer owning higher-returning Liquid Alts and Value strategies.
结论:需要更加动态化。如今,高等级政府债券的收益率极低,给大多数投资者带来了困难。当政府债券收益率远低于 1% 时,无论是机构还是储蓄者,都很难实现 5% 的实际回报率或 7% 的名义回报率。再加上此前无法想象的财政和货币支持力度以及新冠疫情造成的供应中断所带来的通胀不确定性,持有政府债券变得加倍困难。质疑债券的作用并探索替代方案,对于实现回报目标至关重要。幸运的是,在某些资产类别中,存在着与这些宏观不确定性相契合的重要机遇。我们认为,把握流动另类资产中回报率高于 16% 的机会、价值股和资源股中异常低廉的价格、美国通胀保值国债以及浮动利率资产支持证券,同时降低整体投资组合久期——尽管债券票面利率固定,但利息支付价值的增加源于票息按通胀调整后的债券本金支付,这使得在极具挑战性的环境下仍能产生回报。通胀挂钩债券与国内通胀指标(如美国 CPI 指数、加拿大 CPI 指数、英国零售价格指数或欧洲消费者价格调和指数)存在合同层面的挂钩。这些机遇也要求投资者在思考投资组合时更加动态化。有些时候,价值股或信用债等资产类别可能显得更具吸引力,而其他时候则吸引力大大降低。更加动态地思考这些机遇,将有助于提高你持续产生所需回报的能力。
Conclusion: The Need to Be More Dynamic Today’s very low yields on high-grade government bonds is making life difficult for most investors. It is hard to achieve 5% real or 7% nominal return rates for institutions and savers alike with government bonds yielding far less than 1%. Add in the inflation uncertainty brought about by previously unimaginable levels of fiscal and monetary support and Covid-19-based supply disruptions and owning government bonds becomes doubly difficult. Questioning the role of bonds and exploring alternatives are critical to meeting return objectives. Fortunately, there are some significant opportunities within asset classes that align themselves with these macro uncertainties. We believe taking advantage of higher-16 returning opportunities in Liquid Alts, the extraordinary cheapness in Value and Resource For U.S. Treasury Inflation Protected Securities, the stocks, and floating-rate asset-backed securities while simultaneously lowering your overall coupon remains fixed but the value of the interest payment portfolio duration provides the ability to still generate returns despite very challenging bond increases as the coupon is paid on the inflation-adjusted value of the bond. Inflation-linked bonds are contractually valuations. These opportunities also require investors to be more dynamic in thinking about linked to domestic inflationary measures such as the U.S. portfolios. There are times where asset classes like Value or Credit may look more attractive and Canadian CPI indexes, UK Retail Price Index, or the and other times substantially less so. Thinking more dynamically about these opportunities European Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices. will help increase your ability to continue to generate the returns you need.