股市今年前景黯淡

    要让牛市预期成为现实，处于历史最高点的利润就必须快速上升。为1560亿美元投资基金提供策略建议的资产管理公司锐联（Research Affiliates）联合创始人许仲翔说：“股市要上涨，就得有‘这次情况不同，要采用新标准’等诸如此类的观点相配合。”许仲翔指出，美国公司在盈利方面表现神勇的主要原因是金融危机之后削减了成本，而不是收入的增长。他认为：“公司潜心于自己的核心业务，保留了最有生产力的人员，其他的都已被摒弃。这不是增长。公司一直都没有向新产品和新技术投入资金，而它们正是今后强劲增长的源泉。”实际上，过去两年中，标普500指数的收入规模几乎没有提高，年收入水平一直保持在10万亿美元左右。

    最近，利润也并不是一路飙升。四个季度以来，企业盈利一直持平，表明在利润已经处于历史最高点的情况下，实现大幅提升极为困难。面对令人气馁的公司业绩，评论人士称，经济复苏的力度正在增大，将使利润得以突破所谓的上限。许仲翔也认为，随着GDP恢复增长，收入将提高。但这并不意味着利润增速将超过正常水平。利润率从历史高点回落、并且至少部分抵销销售额增长的可能性很高。随着各家公司扩大规模，它们需要雇佣更多员工，而这将推高成本。实际上，要实现增长，企业就得再将数百亿美元资金用于资本投资，而这种情况还没有出现。这些投资还会提高利息成本，增加折旧。

    利润率最多能持平。研究机构EVA Dimensions分析师罗伯特•科温说：“削减成本的时代已经结束。”因此，尽管没有做出这样的表态，但唱多者的唯一依据就是收入必须出现大幅增长。这个幅度要有多大呢？让我们采用摩根大通的预期，也就是每股盈利将增长9%。通常，每股收益增长率比整体利润低1个百分点左右，这是因为公司总是在发行新股。因此，如果每股收益上升9%，整个经济的利润水平就得提高10%。在利润率不变的情况下，收入要增长多少才能实现这个目标呢？

    由于通胀率约为2%，10%的利润增长就意味着“实际增长率”为8%左右。如果2014年美国GDP能增长3%-4%，人们就会非常满意。而8%的“实际增长率”比这个数字高了4-5个百分点，不可能成为现实。

    许仲翔说：“处在高点的利润还能上升，这个观点的问题在于，这样的利润最终会消耗大部分经济。更可能出现的情况是，利润回归平均值，而且再也不会超过这个水平。”他的结论是，目前股价已经很高，只存在两种可能性。一是现在投资者认为全球局势稳定，乐于接受低回报。如果真是这样，股市的实际回报率应在4%左右，股息收益率为2%，每股收益实际增长率为2%，也就是历史平均水平。

    许仲翔认为，出现这种局面的可能性较小。他指出：“很不确定的因素是估值水平怎样变化。如果市盈率回归正常，也就是回到平均值，那么今后5年投资者的回报率将为负值。不一定会出现这种情况。投资者可能会交好运。但历史可以借鉴，而且平均来说，在这样的市盈率水平上，回报率会很低。”许仲翔估算，如果现在建仓，到2018年实际回报率为负的可能性为60%-65%。

    一个重要的限制条件是，人们几乎不能、甚至根本无法通过高估值来判断下一年的局势。因此，我们大可无视那些喜欢进行短期预测的评论人士。他们会这样说：“年中市场将陷入困境，随后，牛市将在年末重新出现。”但在过去的5-10年中，在高点介入几乎总会带来令人失望的回报率。对华尔街来说，为“现在是建仓好时机”寻找依据从来没有像今天这么困难过。华尔街人士在充当推销员方面展现了令人吃惊的高超技艺。但投资者们，请不要相信他们的话。大家还是用以往的教训和对市场的正确估算作为自己的投资指南吧。（财富中文网）

    译者：Charlie      

    For the bull case to win, earnings must rapidly rise from these already record levels. "For that to happen requires one of these, This-time-it's-different, new-normal arguments," says Jason Hsu, co-founder of Research Affiliates, a firm that oversees strategies for $156 billion in investment funds. Hsu notes that U.S. companies' heroic profit performance is chiefly the result of cost-cutting following the financial crisis, not revenue growth. "Companies are down to their core businesses and most productive people, all the rest is gone," he says. "It's not a growth story. Companies have not been investing in new products and technologies that would create strong growth in the future." In fact, over the past two years, S&P revenues have barely grown at all, remaining flat at around $10 trillion on an annual basis.

    Nor have earnings been surging of late. They've remained flat for the last four quarters, suggesting that it's extremely difficult to build big gains on top of already record results.

    In the face of daunting numbers, the pundits argue that the economic recovery now gaining momentum will allow profits to bust through what appears to be a ceiling. Hsu agrees that revenues will increase with renewed growth in GDP. But that doesn't mean profits will grow at faster than normal rates. It's highly possible that margins will fall from their historic highs, offsetting at least part of the increase in sales. Companies will need to hire more workers as they expand, driving up costs. Indeed, if they are to grow, companies will need to plough tens of billions in extra cash into capital investments, something that isn't happening yet. Those investments will raise costs of interest and depreciation.

    At best, margins will remain flat. "The era of cost-cutting is over," says Robert Corwin of research firm EVA Dimensions. Hence, the bulls -- without saying so -- are resting their entire argument on what must be huge increases in revenues. How big is huge? Let's take J.P. Morgan's prediction of 9% EPS growth. Usually, EPS grows about one point slower than overall earnings since companies are constantly issuing more shares. So if EPS waxes at 9%, profits in the overall economy need to grow at 10%. So at constant margins, what revenue growth is needed to hit that target?

    Profit expansion of 10% equates to "real growth" of 8% or so, since inflation is running around 2%. That's four to five points higher than the 3% to 4% GDP-increase figures that would be highly welcome for 2014. It won't happen.

    "The problem with the argument that profits can grow from already high levels is that they'd eventually absorb most of the economy," says Hsu. "More likely, they go back to the average, not soar above it forever." His conclusion is that at already high prices, only two possibilities exist. The first is that investors now think the world is a safe place, and are happy with low returns. If that's true, stocks should deliver around 4% real returns, the 2% dividend yield, and 2% real EPS growth that's the historic average.

    For Hsu, that's the less likely outcome. "The highly volatile component is what happens to valuations," he says. "If PEs go back to normal, revert to the mean, then investors will have negative returns over the next five years. That doesn't have to happen. They could get lucky. But history is the guide, and on average from these levels you can expect poor returns." But Hsu puts the chances that investors who buy now will suffer negative real returns by 2018 at 60% and 65%.

    An important proviso is that high valuations tell you little or nothing about what will happen over the next year. That's a good reason to ignore the pundits who love short-term predictions, such as "We'll go through a tough patch mid-year, and then the bulls will be back in charge late in the year." But buying in at high prices almost always yields disappointing returns over five or 10 years. Wall Street has never been more challenged to create arguments that it's a good time to buy stocks. It's performing an amazing feat of salesmanship. Don't believe it, investors. Let the lessons of history, and real market math, be your guide.