原文:http://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz=MzU1MDQwNTgzMg==&mid=2247491795&idx=1&sn=9ede6735d682d41b3131d490dc3f75d3&chksm=fba3b374ccd43a62fa7cc3c49eac3771ab91ba999f714490e2d151fc996a2e61a556cefa9073#rd
1
导读
感谢思维导图作者
May Li,男 ,我要追逐心中的太阳爱旅游,经济学人粉丝
1.学习外刊没有毅力坚持下去?
疑难困惑无人解答?
赶紧点击下方超链加入
2. 还在为背雅思单词绝望,苦恼?
雅思词汇营,我们来了!
具体参看今天第二条推送
2
听力|精读|翻译|词组
风光不与旧时同
英文部分选自经济学人20200918期财经版块
Altered vistas
风光不与旧时同
Tech stocks are reliving the heady days of the 1990s. The productivity picture looks wildly different
科技股正在重振上世纪90年代的繁荣时期,但生产率情况却截然不同。
In troubled times people take comfort in the familiar. Covid-19 has upended many things, but tech-stock prices have proved impressively invulnerable. The Nasdaq, a tech-heavy stock index, has leapt by 25% since the beginning of 2020, taking its total rise over the past decade to over 400%. Were it not for a handful of tech giants like Apple and Microsoft, the s&p 500, another share-price index, would be down so far this year. Not since the boom of the late 1990s have technology firms inspired such exuberant trading. For punters the comparison should be a sobering one; after a peak in March 2000 the Nasdaq crashed, eventually losing 73% of its value. But the economic differences between the two eras should be more unsettling than any market similarities.
在困难时期,人们会因熟悉事物而感到安慰。疫情颠覆了许多事情,但科技股的价格却完全不受影响。纳斯达克指数(以科技股为主的股票指数)自2020年初以来已经上涨了25% ,在过去十年的总涨幅超过了400% 。如果不是像苹果和微软这样的少数科技巨头,标准普尔500指数(另一种股价指数)如今应该是下降的。自上世纪90年代末的繁荣以来,科技公司还未曾有过如此旺盛的交易。对于投机者来说,这种比较应该是有警醒意义的:在2000年3月达到顶峰后,纳斯达克崩盘,并最终损失了73% 的市值。但两个时代间经济的差异应该比任何的市场相似点都更令人不安。
注释:
upended:翻倒;倒放;使颠倒;
The two booms do share features beyond their stock-price trajectories. Both were sustained by inflows of new money. In the late 1990s discount brokerages and online-trading platforms drew in amateur punters looking to profit off the seemingly one-way market. Today, an army of small-timers trade shares and derivatives on new platforms like Robinhood. In the 1990s raging bulls justified high prices by declaring the dawn of a new economy, built on more powerful computers, fancy software and the internet. Today’s optimists cite the potential of everything from cloud computing and artificial intelligence to electric vehicles and blockchain. At first glance the economic performance seems similar too. In the late 1990s the unemployment rate fell to 4% and pay soared. On the eve of the pandemic, America’s jobless rate stood at a half-century low and wage growth, after a dismal decade, had accelerated to its best pace since 2008. According to figures published by the Census Bureau on September 15th, real median household income grew by a very healthy 6.8% in 2019.
这两个繁荣时期确实具有股价轨迹之外的其他相似特征。例如两者都受到新资金流入的支撑。上世纪90年代末,折扣经纪和在线交易平台吸引了业余投机者,他们希望从这个看似单向的市场中获利。如今,一大批小规模的投资者在Robinhood 这样的新平台上交易股票和衍生品。在20世纪90年代,疯狂的牛市宣称基于更强大的计算机、高级软件和互联网的新经济到来,以证明高股价的合理性。而当今的乐观主义者列举了从云计算和人工智能到电动汽车和区块链的一切潜力。乍看之下,经济表现似乎也差不多。20世纪90年代末,失业率降至4% ,工资飙升。而在疫情爆发前夕,美国失业率正处于半个世纪以来的最低水平,而工资增长速度在经历了十年低迷后,达到了2008年以来的峰值。根据人口普查局9月15日公布的数据,2019年实际家庭收入中位数增长了6.8%,增幅十分合理。
注释:
1.discount brokerages:折扣经纪,向投资者提供服务时收取较低或折扣佣金的证券公司。
2.small-time:不太重要的,没有分量的,小规模的;
Yet in critical ways the two episodes look profoundly different. As the 1990s dawned economists were hunting in vain for the efficiency-enhancing effects of new technology. Robert Solow, a Nobel prize-winning economist, quipped in 1987 that “you can see the computer age everywhere but in the productivity statistics.” By mid-decade that was no longer the case. Output per hour worked in America rose by more than 3% a year in 1998-2000, a feat the economy had not pulled off since the early 1970s. Growth in total factor productivity (a measure of the efficiency with which capital and labour are used, often treated as a proxy for technological progress) rose by about 2% a year from 1995 to 2004, according to Robert Gordon of Northwestern University. That was a sharp pickup from the average pace of 0.5% in 1973-95, and nearly matched the rate achieved during the heady growth years of 1947-73.
然而,两个时期在关键点上截然不同。20世纪90年代初,经济学家试图寻找新技术提高效率的成效,结果都劳而无功。获得诺贝尔奖的经济学家罗伯特·索洛(Robert Solow)于1987年嘲讽道:“处处可见计算机的时代已经到来,就是在生产率统计数据方面看不见”。到上世纪90年代中期,情况却已不再如此。在1998年至2000年期间,美国每工作小时产出以每年3%的速度增长,这是自1970年代初以来从未有过的经济成就。据西北大学的罗伯特·戈登(Robert Gordon)表示,1995年至2004年期间全要素生产率(衡量资本和劳动效率的指标,通常被视为技术进步的代表)每年增长约2%,较1973-95期间平均增速0.5%有了显著上升,增速几乎与1947-73年增长强劲时期相当。
注释:
1987年,索洛指出“Computers everywhere except in the productivity statistics”,人们称之为索洛悖论“productivity paradox”,意指IT产业无处不在,而它对生产率的推动作用却微乎其微。
Productivity in the 2010s, by contrast, looks pitiful. Annual growth in labour productivity has not risen above 2% since 2010. Growth in total factor productivity, according to data gathered by John Fernald of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, has been more dismal than ever: just 0.3% on average from 2004 to 2019. If you take the 2010s alone, the average falls to just 0.1%.
相比之下,2010年代的生产率看起来低得可怜。2010年以来,劳动生产率年增速从未超过2%。旧金山联储约翰·费纳尔德(John Fernald)收集的数据显示,全要素生产率的增长比以往任何时候都更加惨淡:2004年至2019年间平均增速仅0.3%,单看2010年代的话,平均增速则低至0.1%。
Strong labour productivity growth in the 1990s enabled wages to rise without squeezing corporate profits. While the dotcom boom is often remembered for the enormous valuations achieved by profitless upstarts with no clear path into the black, after-tax corporate profits during the decade rose from 4.7% of gdp in 1990 to 6.7% in 1997, before closing the decade at 5.6%. Corporate profits actually declined as a share of gdp during the 2010s, albeit from a much higher level than that prevailing in the 1990s: from 10.4% in 2010 to 9.0% in 2019. More telling, however, is the way in which firms responded to profit opportunities during the two decades. Investment in computer equipment, software and r&d leapt during the 1990s, by 1.5 percentage points of gdp over the decade. In the 2010s, despite the much higher level of profits, investment rose by just 0.7 percentage points of gdp.
20世纪90年代,强劲的劳动生产率增速使得工资可在不挤占公司利润的情况下实现增长。没有利润、没有清晰路径去实现盈利的新兴企业却能获得高估值,那场互联网繁荣因此而被铭记。但这十年间,税后公司利润从1990年GDP的4.7%上升至1997年的6.7%,2000年为5.6%。而2010年代公司利润占GDP比重实际是下降了,尽管是从比1990年代高的多的水平下降:从2010年的10.4%下降至2019年的9.0%。然而,更能说明问题的是20年来企业对于获利机会的应对之道。上世纪90年代,对计算机设备、软件和研发的投资猛增,占过去十年间GDP的1.5个百分点。2010年代,尽管利润水平更高,但投资增长仅占GDP的0.7个百分点。
注释:
1.Into the black:(进入黑字状态)财政上处于有利状况,变为有盈余,变为有结余。
2.Leap:If you leap to a particular place or position, you make a large and important change, increase, or advance. 巨变; 剧增
The exuberance that powered soaring stock prices in the late 1990s, if in some cases irrational, occurred alongside tech-powered structural change. The uptick in productivity was at first driven by advances in computer-making. As prices tumbled and capabilities soared, other firms began investing in new equipment. Productivity gains began to spread across the economy, helping firms streamline manufacturing and transforming critical industries. These persisted, and even accelerated, for some years after the market crashed. Though many dotcom darlings disappeared, the digital infrastructure built during the boom remained. So did a number of firms that came in time to dominate the corporate landscape. In March 2001 The Economist grimly assessed the prospects of Amazon, a struggling retailer that had lost 90% of its market value in the crash, noting that “even if such companies survive, they are unlikely to resemble the businesses they once were.” (Holding Amazon through the crash proved a smart bet; its stock now trades at about $3,100, up a tad from under $10 in 2001.)
20世纪90年代后期,也许在某些非理性的情况下,伴随着技术驱动的结构性变化,推动股价飙升的市场繁荣发生了。生产率的提高最初由计算机制造的进步所驱动。随着其价格下跌以及功能飞速发展,其他公司开始投资新设备。生产率的提高开始贯穿整个经济,帮助企业提升制造业效率并变革关键行业。在市场崩溃后的几年里,这些情况持续存在,甚至加速了。虽然许多互联网公司界的宠儿消失了,但繁荣时期建立的数字化基础设施仍然存在。许多适时入局、主导企业界的公司也是如此。2001年3月,《经济学人》对亚马逊的前景进行了严苛的评估,该零售商此前陷入困境,市值损失了90%。本报指出,“即使这些公司生存下来,它们也不太可能像以前那样。”(在股市暴跌时持有亚马逊是一个明智的选择;目前它的股价已经从2001年的不足10美元上涨到了3100美元)。
注释:
1.Exuberance:丰富,茂盛;健康;感情洋溢(或慷慨激昂)的言行;(感情等的)过度(或极度)表现
2.tumble:If prices or levels of something are tumbling, they are decreasing rapidly. (价格或水平) 暴跌
3. streamline:To streamline an organization or process means to make it more efficient by removing unnecessary parts of it. 提高…效率
4.grim:冷酷的;糟糕的;残忍的
5. You can use a tad in expressions such as a tad big or a tad small when you mean that it is slightly too big or slightly too small. 稍微; 略微[非正式]
Only nineties kids will remember productivity
生产率将只是90年代企业的记忆
Some of today’s high-flyers will in time prove to be good investments. Optimism about the real economy requires a bit more faith. There are grounds for hope. Some economists reckon that hard-to-measure “intangible” investment—such as time spent re-engineering business processes—takes up a growing share of firms’ energies. If so, both investment figures and future economic prospects could be undersold.
如今一些高价投机股最终将被证明是好的投资选择。对实体经济保持乐观需要多一点信念,而且我们有理由抱有希望。一些经济学家认为难以衡量的“无形”投资——例如在重建业务流程上花费的时间——占了公司越来越多的精力。若是如此,投资数据和未来经济前景都可能被低估。
注:high-flyer
■A stock that is trading at a high level relative to its fundementals 金融术语:高价投机股(相对于基本面来,交易价格较高的股票)
■someone who has a lot of ability and a strong wish to be successful and is therefore expected to achieve a lot 有能力有抱负的人•High-flyers in the industry typically earn 25% more than their colleagues.这个行业中,那些有能力有抱负的人收入一般都比他们的同业高25%。
■an extremely successful organization, business or team 极为成功的组织(或公司、团队)
Both output per hour and total factor productivity accelerated in 2019. Though it remained well short of the 1990s, this uptick might presage an economic transformation in the making. And the covid-19 pandemic has imposed constraints on business activity, which might in turn accelerate tech-driven restructuring. The possibility has probably contributed to the surge in tech stock prices since March. For now, technology valuations are based, to a far greater degree than in the 1990s, on what could be rather than what is. Invest accordingly.
2019年,每小时产出和全要素生产率都加快增长。尽管还远低于上世纪90年代,但小幅增加可能预示着经济转型正在形成。新冠疫情限制了商业活动,这或许会反过来加速了科技驱动的重组。这一可能性或许是三月以来的科技股价格剧增的成因。相较于上世纪90年代,目前科技股的估值在更大程度上是取决于它可能会变成什么,而非它是什么。请投资者做好相应的投资。
Ellie,女,金融硕士,经济学人粉丝
vivifang,女,外币债券交易员,经济学人粉丝
Annie Y,女,翻译硕士,IR一枚,爱别处的生活
Brittany,女,会计金融美本,行业分析师,爱经济学人
Jessie Lulu,女,金融从业者,爱阳光,爱细雨,爱经济学人
3
观点|评论|思考
本次感想
Alan,男,金融工程硕士,经济学人粉丝
文章在讨论上一次的互联网泡沫和现在十年来的科技股大牛市有何异同。用的方法是比较这两个时期的全要素生产率、劳动生产率、公司利润占GDP、研发费用占GDP等指标。我个人觉得这样的梳理过于泛泛,并没有深入探索造成两次科技股牛市的微观机理上的不同。
上一次的互联网大泡沫是全范围的,当时任何和互联网沾边儿的公司,无论大小,只要概念契合,股价都远远高高得离谱。这次的科技股大牛市并没有像互联网大泡沫那么夸张,当把FAANG剔除后(Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, Google),其实剩下的科技企业并没有体现出瞠目结舌的高溢价。现在市场上没有一个让人趋之若鹜的科技概念,云技术、电动车等等算是,但是即使是电动车巨头特斯拉也是经历一轮又一轮的做空、经历过产能地狱才走出来的,并不存在单边上涨的情况(今年的暴涨来自于量产的支撑)。我觉得这样的科技股大牛市和互联网泡沫最大的区别是,前者是所有人都能吃蛋糕,后者是赢家通吃。
互联网行业的“赢家通吃”现象已经被讨论了很多了。facebook和google是典型;amazon在美国电商领域没有竞争对手,线下的walmart也很难对抗它;apple构建了一整套运营生态环境,专注手机设备市场/手机应用市场/云端服务的公司很难找到切入口挑战它;Netflix恐怕就差中国这个市场没有占领了,Hulu/HBO都太小了。FAANG的护城河肉眼可见得明显。
技术革新的速度要比人们预期得要慢得多。人们对未来可以充满很多幻想,但是技术研发需要一代代缓慢迭代而来,intel和IBM被Microsoft超越也不是一蹴而就的,在被新生企业挑战的过程里老一代霸主其实也在转型,只是intel和IBM转型并不顺利而已。《创新者的窘境》里探讨了这个问题,最后作者的结论是因为这家企业的成功就是来自于硬件生产,所以企业内部的各部门条线都是习惯将研发等资源倾向于硬件生产部门,这样企业即使意识到问题但是也会被束缚在路径依赖的问题中。而Microsoft也因为同样的原因渐渐被Facebook、Netflix等取代,它不是不想改变,微软的内部人员并不擅长toC业务,他们的成功就是来自于toB业务,微软自己也并不是不想改变。
目前的FAANG也都在加紧布局新的业务,以防止在竞争中自己逐步掉队。比如在云端服务里,各家科技巨头就都在加紧砸钱,最近出镜率很高的Oracle其实已经被甩得越来越远了。某种程度上,FAANG的高估值也来自于这一点,它们的加速进化能力确实比同行来得强。
4
愿景
小组
现有经济学人讨论群一个,如果您也有兴趣,可联系小编WeChat : Education0603。由于每天加小编人很多,为提高效率,大家添加小编,暗号“加入TE讨论群", 通过后,请做好以下三点,否则不回复,谢谢理解。
3.加小编后做个简单的自我介绍,谢谢大家。
点击下方图片进行小程序打卡