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.
不过,奥马哈市克瑞顿大学(Creighton University)的金融学教授约翰逊(Robert Johnson)说,仔细看看证据就会发现,僵持对股市不利。在一篇研究范围涵盖了1965年到2008年时间段的工作论文中,约翰逊和他的同事们发现,僵持对标普500指数代表的大企业的股票回报率没有影响。对小盘股(Dimensional Fund Advisors的小公司组合衡量的对象)来说,与国会和白宫在同一政党控制之下的情形相比,如果华盛顿陷入僵持,这些股票的回报率平均要低21个百分点。
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.
【怎样的美国大选结果对投资者有利?】相关文章:
最新
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15