怎樣的美國大選結果對投資者有利?大綱

Over the next few weeks, investors will be bombarded with commentary about how the outcome of the presidential election will influence the financial markets.
未來幾周，投資者將會被大量研究結果淹沒，這些研究試圖分析美國總統大選結果將如何影響金融市場。

Before you even consider changing your portfolio based on the expected-or actual-results of the election, it's vital to analyze the conventional wisdom first.
在你根據美國大選的預期或實際結果考慮調整投資組合之前，很有必要先分析一下“傳統智慧”

Is gridlock good-that is, should investors root against having the same political party control both Congress and the White House? Who is better for stock and bond returns: Republicans or Democrats?
僵持局面是好事嗎？換句話說，投資者是否應該反對同一個政黨同時控制國會和白宮？哪個政黨贏得大選更有利於提高股市和債市的回報，共和黨還是民主黨？

Most of the answers you are likely to find are propaganda or wishful thinking; many are flat-out wrong. What matters are changes in interest rates, not which party passes through the White House gates.
你可能找到的大多數答案不是宣傳口號就是一廂情願的想法，其中很多答案完全錯誤。你真正應該關心的是利率的變化，而不是哪個政黨邁入白宮的大門。

Since 1926, when reliable stock-market data began, the United States has had 15 presidents and nine elections in which control of the White House passed from one party to the other. That's a small sample. So you should take any statistical conclusion about the relationship between presidential election results and financial returns with a grain of salt the size of the Capitol dome.
從1926年有可靠的股市數據可查以來，美國總共有過15位總統，有九次選舉出現白宮控制權從一個黨轉移到另一個黨手中。這個樣本不算大。因此，對於任何關於總統選舉結果和金融回報之間關係的統計結論，你都應該大大地表示懷疑。

Such caveats won't stop pundits from speculating. One of their most prevalent beliefs: Gridlock is good for the stock market. (A Google GOOG -1.90% search returns 135,000 hits on the phrases 'gridlock is good' + 'Wall Street.') And a divided Congress is what many political forecasters expect, with Pres. Obama winning re-election, the Democrats keeping the Senate and the Republicans retaining the House.
儘管如此，金融界的翹楚們還是會花心思猜測一番。這些人中最流行的一個信念就是，僵持對股市來說是件好事。（在谷歌(Google)瀏覽器中搜索"gridlock is good"（僵持是好事）和"Wall Street"（華爾街）可以得到135,000個結果。）很多政治預測人士都認爲將出現“分裂國會”的結果，奧巴馬總統成功連任，民主黨控制參議院，共和黨控制衆議院。

A hard look at the evidence, however, shows that 'gridlock isn't good for stocks,' says Robert Johnson, a finance professor at Creighton University in Omaha. In a working paper that covers 1965 through 2008, he and his colleagues found that gridlock had no effect on the returns of the big companies represented by the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index. Small stocks (as measured by Dimensional Fund Advisors' small-company portfolios) returned an average of 21 percentage points less in years when Washington was in gridlock than they did when Congress and the White House were under common control.
不過，奧馬哈市克瑞頓大學(Creighton University)的金融學教授約翰遜(Robert Johnson)說，仔細看看證據就會發現，僵持對股市不利。在一篇研究範圍涵蓋了1965年到2008年時間段的工作論文中，約翰遜和他的同事們發現，僵持對標普500指數代表的大企業的股票回報率沒有影響。對小盤股（Dimensional Fund Advisors的小公司組合衡量的對象）來說，與國會和白宮在同一政黨控制之下的情形相比，如果華盛頓陷入僵持，這些股票的回報率平均要低21個百分點。

Bickering does have benefits: Corporate bonds have returned an annual average of nearly nine percentage points more in gridlock years than in years of governmental harmony. 'Gridlock reduces the chances of the initiation of major government programs, which can be inflationary' and harmful to bond prices, says Prof. Johnson's colleague Gerald Jensen, a finance professor at Northern Illinois University.
不過爭吵也的確有好處：與政治和諧年相比，在僵持年內，公司債的回報率平均每年高出近9個百分點。與約翰遜教授的一同參與研究工作的詹森(Gerald Jensen)說，僵持降低了政府出臺重大項目的可能性，而政府項目容易引發通脹，而且對債券價格不利。詹森是北伊利諾伊大學(Northern Illinois University)的金融學教授。Which party controls the White House certainly appears to matter. Since 1926, the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index has gained almost exactly twice as much under Democratic presidents as under Republicans, according to quantitative stock analysts Pankaj Patel and Joseph Handelman of Credit Suisse. Stocks have racked up an average annual return of 15.4% when a Democrat is in the White House, versus 7.8% under Republican presidents.
當然，哪個黨控制白宮似乎也很重要。據瑞信(Credit Suisse)股市定量分析師帕特爾(Pankaj Patel)和漢德爾曼(Joseph Handelman)說，自1926年以來，民主黨總統執政期間標普500指數漲幅幾乎正好是共和黨總統當政期間的兩倍。民主黨執掌白宮時，股市平均年回報率爲15.4%，相比之下，共和黨總統執政期間爲7.8%。

That doesn't mean stocks are bound to boom if Pres. Obama is re-elected. But as Adam Parker, chief U.S. equity strategist at Morgan Stanley, points out, a presidential election hasn't resulted in a Democrat in the White House with a Congress divided along those lines in at least 112 years. So the historical averages might not even matter.
這並不是說如果現任總統奧巴馬獲得連任，股市必定大漲。但正如摩根士丹利(Morgan Stanley)首席美國股市策略師帕克(Adam Parker)所指出的，在至少112年裏，在國會分歧如此之大的情況下，總統選舉的結果都不是民主黨候選人當選。所以歷史平均數據可能根本不重要。

The dominance of stock returns under Democrats might be a subtle kind of statistical illusion. The research by Prof. Johnson and his colleagues suggests the Federal Reserve's monetary policy is far more important.
民主黨執政時期的股市高回報或許只是統計上的假象。約翰遜及其同事進行的研究表明，美聯儲(Federal Reserve)的貨幣政策要重要的多。

Since 1965, according to the study, large stocks have returned an annual average of nearly 12 percentage points more when the Fed was cutting rates than when it was raising them. (The researchers started their analysis then because 1965 was the dawn of modern Fed policy.) Over the same period, the difference in stock returns under Democratic versus Republican presidents was less than seven percentage points; a statistical analysis shows that the effect of Fed policy dwarfs the impact of presidential party.
據研究顯示，自1965年以來，相比美聯儲加息時期，降息時大型股的平均年回報率要高出近12個百分點。（研究人員選擇從那個時候開始分析是因爲1965年是現代美聯儲政策的開端。）同期，民主黨總統執政期間和共和黨總統執政期間的股市回報率相差不到七個百分點；一項統計分析顯示，美聯儲政策的影響要大於哪個黨派控制白宮的影響。

In short, Fed policies matter more than party politics. Democratic presidents happened to benefit disproportionately from periods when the Fed was cutting interest rates-which is rocket fuel for stock returns. That's especially true for small stocks, which have returned 26 percentage points more, on average, in years when the Fed was cutting rates rather than raising them. Says Prof. Johnson: 'There's no systematic relationship between the party of the president and asset returns.'
簡而言之，美聯儲的政策比黨派政治更重要。民主黨總統只是正好趕上了美聯儲降息的時候多──降息對股市回報可以起到極大的推動作用。對小型股尤其如此。相比美聯儲加息時，降息時小型股的平均回報率要高出26個百分點。約翰遜說，總統屬於哪個黨派與資產回報率沒有系統性的關係。

What does all this mean for investors? You should cast your vote based on what you believe will benefit the country, not what pundits think will benefit your portfolio. Don't let anyone scare you into making major investment changes because one party or the other takes the White House. No matter who wins, it's the direction of change in interest rates that will make the biggest difference to the returns of the financial markets.
所有這一切對投資者意味着什麼？你投票的依據應該是你認爲什麼將給美國帶來好處，而不是專家認爲什麼將給你的投資組合帶來好處。不要因爲一個黨派或另一個黨派控制白宮而讓任何人嚇得你做出重大投資調整。無論誰勝，利率調整的方向纔是對金融市場回報影響最大的因素。