說實在的,這本書的譯名我是頗不喜歡。一開始還以為是介紹華爾街的書,看看了發(fā)現(xiàn)不是那么回事兒。作者的著力點在于“隨機漫步”上,馬爾基爾把基本面分析和技術(shù)分析各打50大板,既然股價都是隨機的,你們預(yù)測有個毛用!因此,A Random Walk Down Wall Street應(yīng)該翻譯為《華爾街的隨機漫步》更加貼切!
實際上,從現(xiàn)在的學(xué)術(shù)研究來看,馬爾基爾的一些觀點,尤其是對于技術(shù)分析的觀點過于激進。
不過我們還是回到正題,隨機漫步意義何在?
既然價格是隨機游走的,那么預(yù)測就毫無意義。因此你要做的就是跟上市場的節(jié)奏,最好就是買指數(shù)基金,買入持有,不要主動操作。
我以為對于散戶而言,定期定額定投指數(shù)基金是不錯的選擇。就算價格不是隨機的,但是對于散戶糟糕的判斷能力而言,價格變動對于散戶無異于隨機。散戶的操作往往是瞎貓去碰死耗子,一般都是撞得頭破血流。
定投指數(shù)基金,你也別老是看股市了,專心工作,讓市場來為你盈利。這樣當然不可能暴富。你必須將股票看做理財產(chǎn)品,股票就是幫助你保值增值的。
鑒于中國股市總體不行,局部火熱的結(jié)構(gòu)性特點,散戶最好選擇幾個不同的指數(shù)同時投資,不錯過任何結(jié)構(gòu)性行情。滬深300,中證500都買入。
當然,股價的確不是隨機游走的,這點是可以肯定的!
“被動,被動,再被動”我說的不是指1966年林彪對陶鑄的這句忠告,而是本書作者Burton G. Malkiel對廣大勞動人民投資理財?shù)闹腋妗2灰驗樗^的明星股評家評點某股票的有利趨勢,股票圖形罕見買點,小道消息等總是倒騰自己股票賬戶里數(shù)額不大的金額。那樣只能便宜了經(jīng)紀人和交易所。更不要因為自己聽一大姑的二大姨的三鄰居的四舅子的五表妹的六嬸子的七干媽的八大哥的九姥爺說某某執(zhí)掌的共同基金過去超高的收益率眼紅而頻繁的倒騰自己的賬戶。因此,本書的作者認為積極管理型的基金無論從歷史的收益率看還是學(xué)術(shù)和現(xiàn)實的市場邏輯看都戰(zhàn)勝不了消極的指數(shù)型基金。所以,把錢投入資產(chǎn)多樣化的指數(shù)型基金里頭后就不要管了,當作沒這錢一樣過個二十年發(fā)現(xiàn)自己的錢包怎么突然膨脹了這么大了。總之,作者告訴沒有投資經(jīng)驗的廣大勞動人民,投資理財要“被動被動再被動”。不要自作聰明頻繁的主動出擊。
本書從1973年出版以后到今天正好四十年了,也不容易啦。維基上說作者是1932年出生的,也是八十多歲金融街,學(xué)術(shù)界的老油條。一看他的照片就是很精明的“老奸巨猾”之輩,在投資公司和大學(xué)里的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)崗位上混董事和主席的職位,嘖嘖嘖。本書基本上通篇在講STOCK,在個人投資生命周期計劃里面講了一點BOND。閱讀對象就是廣大美國的勞動人民,所以沒有什么學(xué)術(shù)語言,更沒有數(shù)學(xué)公式,很好。
按照書里頭說的從七十年代指數(shù)基金只有十多億美元到2006年三萬多億美元,我感覺啊,從七十年代至今如果買被動的指數(shù)基金和折價的封閉式基金用歷史收益檢驗是對的。不過對于未來的幾十年,大家都買指數(shù)基金,我感覺不會那么順當或者安心。舉個例子,比如市場大家都按照指數(shù)基金的消極被動策略要調(diào)整自己的投資組合,如果一旦市場某些大型股票因為意外事件狂漲狂跌,幾萬億數(shù)千家指數(shù)基金經(jīng)理都要調(diào)整自己的portfolio結(jié)果大家都賣出或者買進,市場總體結(jié)果是什么樣子,這是有前車之鑒的。1987,10股災(zāi)有一種觀點就是當時很流行的保險投資組合觸發(fā)大家集體行動。不要說指數(shù)基金了,現(xiàn)在對沖基金的排名前十的頭寸都越來越同化,難啊,除非別搞股票,或者發(fā)展出更高層次的套利思想或者比期權(quán)更高一個級別的新玩具,越扯越不像話了。
本書講STOCK,主要還是場內(nèi)交易,比較公平民主。最近三十年衍生品的迅速發(fā)展是另外一塊市場,很顯然,這一塊市場的規(guī)律和STOCK 和BOND是不一樣的。而且衍生品在07年以前多場外報價,更隱蔽和定價不準。08年美國財政部就發(fā)現(xiàn)有人在switch LIBOR。只不過過幾年再拋出來。真是可怕,每天過億利率衍生品以及derivative ON derivative ON derivative ON 。。。。。。就是靠這個基準利率定價。哎,又扯跑題了。
另外,兩千年的安然事件已經(jīng)警示了廣大勞動人民,成千上萬的指數(shù)基金經(jīng)理也恐怕會有安然的集體高層貪腐,麥道夫那樣的裸泳后顯露的千年老妖。這是指犯罪的性質(zhì)及其惡劣的一撥人。如果指數(shù)基金經(jīng)理自己不是那么守規(guī)矩,廣大美國勞動人民又怎么會知道呢。再者,如果那些基金經(jīng)理為了評比競爭的外部壓力,存在道德風(fēng)險等等他們把自己的portfolio里頭做點手腳提高年關(guān)收益率廣大勞動人民又怎么知道呢。。。。。。投資終究是投人,我們國家高官的10萬RMB和富商的10萬和平民的10萬和窮人的10萬是不一樣的。同樣10萬的投資收益率千差萬別。西方國家只是稍微好點罷了。資本主義經(jīng)濟里頭最大的蒙面民主就是一價定律,law of one price,讓大家以為大家手中的100美元是一樣的,其實不一樣。因此,美國股票市場大家買同樣的股票,特別是指數(shù)基金吃大市,更是民主的表現(xiàn)。中國的話,就別說了,差距太大了。這再講就要講政治經(jīng)濟學(xué)了,自己的老毛病又犯了。我就是想說,廣大中國,美國的勞動人民(我也是)選指數(shù)基金也是要慎重,慎重再慎重的,還是要自己多獨立思考,想仔細,作者書里頭我沒看到MALKIEL如此直白的說明此意。
本書翻譯的很不錯,感覺譯者把有些作者開玩笑的方言俚語都翻譯出來了。讓人捧腹大笑。
The chartist and the fundamentalist are still sneering each other and yelling each other. EMT, MPT, CAPM, APT, Behavioral Finance, (of course, I am not a good reader for not following the advise from Burton to avoid using so many abbreviations. BUT, without the terminology, you expect me to use my investment performance to show I am an expert on investing?) the sophisticated academics including mathematician, physicist are still working hard, assiduously, diligently on these fields, hoping to create a Theory Of Everything in finance, while the Graham and his firm followers shrugged these off, as Warren once said “ And to people that think beta measures risk, the cheaper price would have made it look riskier. This is truly Alice in Wonderland. I have never been able to figure out why it's riskier to buy $400 million worth of properties for $40 million than $80 million.”(Warren has said so many nifty but satiric words about the modern finance theories by help of his CAGR 19.8%)
Wow, it is seems that the investment is a little complex. For many common people, investing, an easy way to make money, is so easily that it can be summed up by only 4 single words “buy low, sell high”. So, investing easily slip to irrational speculating. Then, the tragedies or comedies come up. Should I recall those miserable memories? Burton did this in his book. Burton’s book includes the tulip-bulb craze, the south sea bubble, the magic ‘growth’ during 1960s, the conglomerate boom, the nifty fifties, the high-tech boom during 1980s, the lost decade of Japan, the Internet bubble with the welcome of the new century, and finally the housing bubble in 2008. Wow, what a long list. Is there a real terminal of speculating? :). How easy it was in early 2000, when the tech stock you brought moved persistently higher, to convince yourself that you were an investment genius. How easy it was then to convince yourself that chasing the last period’s best-performing stock was a sure strategy for success. How exhilarating it was to buy a stock at 9:35 and find it had risen 10% percent by a few minutes. Oh, it also will be a little sad that SEC has a limitation on fluctuation. Burton said that all of these strategies ended in disaster. I am hesitate and finally afraid to say this, surrounded by the people who hold 川潤股份,斯米克for another一字漲停, and by the investor who will give a junk company 100PE.
“How about investing just slip a little to speculating and result in rational speculating?”
“Oh, do you say that using chart and some mysterious theory to build a castle in the air?”
“Yes”
“:)”
You stop me by saying that you are a rational investor. So, you turn to Graham and Warren. CAGR 19.8% is so charming that almost nobody can refuse the easy investing method of the Sage of Ohama. You start reading the boring annual, obtaining nothing but a stack of magnificent numbers. Following the principles that summed by the great valuable investors, you wish you bought the company(following the principles, using company instead of stock) that has a margin of safety, a so-called moat, a health growth. You scrupulously play the holes in your decision paper strip. You buy the shares of company and just hold. You collect all the information about the product of the company. You experience the service of the company. You finally become the expert of the industry which the company belong to. But, you just can not (this is a little chinglish) beat the market. Oh, this sound a little sad. Ok, you can beat the market…………..……:)….sometimes. But from a long time horizon, you are everything but Buffet.
If you are rational enough and academic enough, you certainly want to show you are different. So, you use the dazzling, complicated mathematic formulas and models, something like covariance, beta, quantitative risk control, as I mentioned at the beginning of this 吐槽. 嚇尿了都! This has been far beyond my ability. Stop here.
To be honestly, I just tell the story of myself.
I adopt the value-based method to invest now, because I think that this is the easiest and the most accessible way. However, I am not very into valuable-investing, as I mentioned in my another review http://book.douban.com/review/5339940/. My doubt and distrust about the chart and techniques is partly because I do not have enough experience about the market and I am once an unqualified chartist. I learned various techniques and chart analysis in my first two years of investing. When turns to the modern finance theory, it enjoys both criticism and support. Besides, it is so complicated.
It is useless to argue about which method we should adopt to invest. As Hegel once said “存在即合理”. There are so many forces driving the market. No one can consistently predict either the direction of the stock market or the relative attractiveness of individual stocks. Sometimes, as this book emphsis, I believe that we should adopt the ‘buy and hold’ strategy, just as someone stand in the station, waiting the train. The train will come sooner or later. However, for the train that has accelerated, we mediocrities never have a chance to catch up.
So, believe and do what you wanna do, do not fuck the rest.
作者介紹
Burton Gordon Malkiel (born August 28, 1932) is an American economist and writer, most famous for his classic finance book A Random Walk Down Wall Street (now in its 10th edition, 2011). He is a leading proponent of the efficient market hypothesis, which contends that prices of publicly traded assets reflect all publicly available information, although he has also pointed out that some markets are evidently inefficient, exhibiting signs of non-random walk.[1]