A Stock is Not an Index! 【 投資個股 和 投資指數是完全不同】輕鬆聊投資 CLEC投資理財教育學院 博文日期: May 02, 2022
Posted April 26, 2022 by Nick Maggiulli
Last week Netflix’s share price fell 37% after reporting its first loss in subscribers in more than a decade:
發表於 2022 年 4 月 26 日，作者 Nick Maggiulli
上週，Netflix 的股價在十多年來首次出現用戶流失後下跌了 37%：
As Michael Batnick tweeted, this erased all of Netflix’s gains going back to February 2018:
Michael Batnick @michaelbatnick
Netflix just wiped out all of its gains going back to February 2018.
正如邁克爾巴特尼克在推特上所說，這抹去了 Netflix 自 2018 年 2 月以來的所有收益：
邁克爾·巴特尼克@michaelbatnick
Netflix 剛剛抹去了自 2018 年 2 月以來的所有收益。
With the stock nearly 40% off its highs, a few readers have asked me: is now the right time to buy?
Rather than discuss the merits and risks of Netflix in particular, I thought it would be more useful to turn this into a broader discussion of understanding why buying an individual stock while it’s down bad isn’t the same as buying an index that’s down bad.
隨著股價從高點下跌近 40%，一些讀者問我：現在是買入的合適時機嗎？
與其特別討論 Netflix 的優點和風險，我認為將其轉變為更廣泛的討論會更有用，以了解為什麼在股價下跌時購買單個股票與購買下跌時下跌的指數不同。
As I’ve written about previously, when it comes to buying an asset or basket of assets following a large decline, you only need two pieces of information to determine whether you should buy: (1) the percentage gain needed to reach a new all-time high, and (2) an estimate for how long it will take to reach those new highs.
正如我之前所寫的那樣，在大幅下跌後購買資產或一攬子資產時，您只需要兩條信息即可確定是否應該購買：（1）達到新的全部所需的百分比收益 -時間高點，以及（2）估計需要多長時間才能達到這些新高點。
In Netflix’s case, the stocks is down about 39% today. Therefore, to reach new all-time highs, it will need to increase by roughly 64% [Note: 1/(1-0.39) - 1 = 1/.61-1~ 0.64]. So, if you think Netflix will take 1 year to reach these new highs, buying today means expecting a 64% return over the next year. If you think Netflix will take two years to reach new highs, buying today would get you a 28% annualized return. And so forth.
就 Netflix 而言，該股今天下跌了約 39%。 因此，要達到歷史新高，它需要增加大約 64% [注：1/(1-0.39) - 1 = 1/.61-1~ 0.64]。 因此，如果您認為 Netflix 將需要 1 年時間才能達到這些新高，那麼今天購買意味著預計明年將獲得 64% 的回報。 如果您認為 Netflix 需要兩年時間才能達到新高，那麼今天購買將為您帶來 28% 的年化回報率。 等等。
But here is where things break down between buying an individual company that has declined a lot and buying an index that has declined a lot-there is no guarantee that the individual company will ever recover. Netflix may never get back to its old highs. It may slowly decline into the graveyard of market history.
但是，在買入大幅下跌的個別公司和買入大幅下跌的指數之間，情況就出現了問題——不能保證個別公司會永遠復甦。 Netflix 可能永遠不會回到過去的高點。 它可能會慢慢淪為市場歷史的墳墓。
However, with an index fund like the S&P 500 this is unlikely to occur.
Though there are exceptions to this rule (i.e. Japan since 1989, Greece since 2008, etc.), the probability of the S&P 500 never recovering from a crash is quite low.
然而，對於像標準普爾 500 指數這樣的指數基金來說，這種情況不太可能發生。
儘管這條規則也有例外（即自 1989 年以來的日本，自 2008 年以來的希臘等），但標準普爾 500 指數永遠不會從崩盤中恢復的可能性非常低。
Why? Because, unlike an individual company, the S&P 500 is always changing. To demonstrate this, consider Morgan Housel’s tweet showing the growth of $1 invested in U.S. stocks since 1871 (from the
Shiller data):
為什麼？ 因為，與單個公司不同，標準普爾 500 指數總是在變化。 為了證明這一點，請考慮 Morgan Housel 的推文，該推文顯示自 1871 年以來投資於美國股票的 1 美元增長（來自
席勒數據）：
Looking at this you might think that you could have invested $1 in 1871 and just waited to get rich. Unfortunately, it’s not that simple. The companies that represented U.S. stocks in 1871 are very different from the companies that represented U.S. stocks in 1971 and in 2021. Though the line has gone up and to the right, what that line represents has changed dramatically over the decades.
看到這裡，您可能會認為您本可以在 1871 年投資 1 美元，然後就等著致富。 不幸的是，事情並沒有那麼簡單。 1871 年代表美股的公司與 1971 年和 2021 年代表美股的公司有很大的不同。雖然這條線向上和向右移動，但這條線所代表的內容在過去幾十年中發生了巨大變化。
How so? With economic and technological development over time, new companies have been brought into the index and old companies have been kicked out. As Geoffrey West stated in Scale:
The Universal Laws of Life, Growth, and Death in Organisms, Cities, and Companies:
怎麼會這樣？ 隨著經濟和技術的發展，新公司被納入指數，老公司被淘汰。 正如 Geoffrey West 在 Scale 中所說：
有機體、城市和公司的生命、成長和死亡的普遍規律：
Of the 28,853 companies that traded on U.S. markets since 1950, 22,469 (78 percent) had died by 2009. Of these 45 percent were acquired by or merged with other companies, while only about 9 percent went bankrupt or were liquidated; 3 percent privatized, 0.5 percent underwent leveraged buyouts, 0.5 percent went through reverse acquisitions, and the remainder disappeared for “other reasons.”
自 1950 年以來在美國市場交易的 28,853 家公司中，到 2009 年有 22,469 家（78%）死亡。其中 45% 被其他公司收購或合併，而只有約 9% 破產或被清算； 3% 私有化，0.5% 進行了槓桿收購，0.5% 進行了反向收購，其餘的因“其他原因”消失了。
West’s research shows that public companies in the U.S. are in a constant state of flux. Based on his analysis, roughly half of all public U.S. companies in existence today won’t be in existence a decade from now. They will either merge, be acquired, go bankrupt, or find some other way out of the market.
Because of this, what we call “the market” changes from year to year.
韋斯特的研究表明，美國的上市公司處於不斷變化的狀態。 根據他的分析，在今天存在的所有美國上市公司中，大約有一半在十年後將不復存在。 他們要么合併，要么被收購，要么破產，要么另謀出路。
正因為如此，我們所說的“市場”每年都在變化。
More importantly, this rate of change might actually be accelerating. As the chart below (from this Innosight study)
illustrates, the average longevity of a company in the S&P 500 index has been on a gradual decline over the past few decades:
更重要的是，這種變化速度實際上可能正在加速。 如下圖（來自 Innosight 研究）
說明，標準普爾 500 指數公司的平均壽命在過去幾十年中一直在逐漸下降：
In 1965 the average company tenure in the S&P 500 was 33 years, but today it’s closer to 20 years. While this metric isn’t a perfect measure of creative destruction among U.S. stocks, it suggests that companies in the S&P 500 are being replaced at a faster rate than in the past.
1965 年，標準普爾 500 指數公司的平均任期為 33 年，但如今已接近 20 年。 雖然這一指標並不是衡量美國股票創造性破壞的完美指標，但它表明標準普爾 500 指數中的公司正在以比過去更快的速度被取代。
Regardless of how quickly companies are moving in and out of the index, you can see that owning an index is fundamentally different than owning a basket of individual stocks. While your basket of individual stocks will remain the same over time, the index will not.
無論公司進出指數的速度有多快，您都可以看到擁有指數與擁有一籃子個股有著根本的不同。 雖然您的一籃子個股會隨著時間的推移保持不變，但指數不會。
For example, if you own an S&P 500 index fund, your underlying holdings will change based on the work done by Standard and Poor’s research teams. If they decide to add or remove a company from the index, you will automatically add or remove that company from your holdings as well. In this way, owning a passive index fund, such as the S&P 500, is like owning a momentum strategy where the biggest risers are added and the biggest laggards are dropped out of the index over time.
例如，如果您擁有標準普爾 500 指數基金，您的基礎資產將根據標準普爾研究團隊所做的工作而變化。 如果他們決定從指數中添加或刪除公司，您也將自動從您的持股中添加或刪除該公司。 通過這種方式，擁有一個被動指數基金，例如標準普爾 500 指數，就像擁有一個動量策略，隨著時間的推移，最大的上漲者被加入，最大的落後者被剔除出指數。
But this isn’t the only way in which a stock is different than an index.
The returns are far better in indices as well. As I stated in Chapter 18 of
Just Keep Buying:
但這並不是股票不同於指數的唯一方式。
指數的回報也好得多。 正如我在第 18 章所述
繼續購買：
If you look at the universe of individual stocks in the U.S. going back to 1963, the median one year return is 6.6%, including dividends. This means that if you grabbed an individual stock at random at any point in time since 1963, you would’ve earned roughly 6.6% over the next year. However, if you did the same thing with the S&P 500, you would’ve earned 9.9% instead.
如果你看一下美國 1963 年以來的個股，包括股息在內，一年的中位回報率為 6.6%。 這意味著，如果您在 1963 年以來的任何時間點隨機獲取一隻股票，那麼您在接下來的一年中將獲得大約 6.6% 的收益。 然而，如果你對標準普爾 500 指數做同樣的事情，你將獲得 9.9% 的回報。
Of course, many of you reading this know a lot of this already. “A stock isn’t an index? No sh*t Nick.” Yes, / know you know this.
But what you may not realize is the benefits that this provides to index investors. Think about it. We get a list of which companies to own and in which percentages to own them and we don’t have to pay for any of it. Other market participants do all the work for us. They spend their time, money, and energy setting prices and figuring out what we should invest in. And we don’t have to lift a finger.
當然，很多閱讀這篇文章的人已經知道很多了。 “股票不是指數？不，尼克。” 是的，/知道你知道這一點。
但您可能沒有意識到這為指數投資者帶來的好處。 想想看。 我們得到一份清單，其中列出了擁有哪些公司以及擁有它們的百分比，我們不必為此支付任何費用。 其他市場參與者為我們完成所有工作。 他們花費時間、金錢和精力來設定價格，並弄清楚我們應該投資什麼。而且我們不必動一根手指頭。
Because of this, we can set our portfolios and do something more productive with our time. But what makes this situation even better is that we are likely to beat 70-80% of other active investors simply by buying and holding this list of companies! It’s the biggest free lunch in investing and there is no close second.
So, if you want to buy the Netflix dip, be my guest. You may be rewarded handsomely for doing so.
But if you want to join the rest of us “passively” getting rich, you know what to do.
正因為如此，我們可以設置我們的投資組合併利用我們的時間做一些更有成效的事情。 但是讓這種情況變得更好的是，我們很可能僅僅通過購買和持有這份公司名單就擊敗了 70-80% 的其他活躍投資者！ 這是投資中最大的免費午餐，只有唯一沒有第二。
所以，如果你想買大跌抄底 Netflix ，請成為我的客人。 你可能會因此而獲得豐厚的回報。
但如果你想加入我們其他人的“被動”致富，你知道該怎麼做。
來源：https://www.facebook.com/794648900700097/posts/2200146646816975/