<p><img src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://cdn.pixabay.com/photo/2014/08/01/17/56/ipad-407799_960_720.jpg?x-oss-process=image/auto-orient,1/interlace,1/resize,w_1440,h_1440/quality,q_95/format,jpg" alt="" width="960" height="640" original-src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://cdn.pixabay.com/photo/2014/08/01/17/56/ipad-407799_960_720.jpg"/></p>
<p><em>图片来源：Pixabay</em></p>
<p>《巴伦周刊》最近发表了一篇关于 2 倍单只股票 ETF 激增的短文，以及它们在市场参与变成赌博的交汇点上所代表的程度。在这个光谱的另一端，一位《巴伦周刊》的常客在另一篇文章中评论说，经过 40 年，他从可口可乐（KO）获得的股息超过了他的成本基础。</p>
<p>这个指标被称为成本收益率，确实是一个有趣的想法，但它并不是评估投资组合的真实指标。可口可乐长期以来表现出色，有时超越，有时滞后，通常收益接近 3%。</p>
<p>这让我思考一个永久性的个股投资组合。与其将 25% 分别投入股票指数、长期债券、黄金和现金，不如考虑一个将 25% 分别投入那些似乎结合了持久力以及某种容易识别的需求故事的个股投资组合，这样的组合可能会有好的表现——不一定是超越表现，尽管那样当然很好，而是受益于生存偏差。</p>
<p><img src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjFUucxVhpES20W0MRv60HwjqrtiITZBzo7tFM6CWCZrrJXyHP_u7_XS3XCRkiZBOV-rNvla7NUbxhGVrPTtoKwYutlpgpfzsFyTQB541WImYHuYgOMaxHJFbg0hrjQ8uYAWHTcMxBIqjmpJhni4DW1pZm0q_bwkeuXjRJOlgdC3hAXz3YUc03Peg=w640-h280?x-oss-process=image/auto-orient,1/interlace,1/resize,w_1440,h_1440/quality,q_95/format,jpg" alt="" width="640" height="280" original-src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjFUucxVhpES20W0MRv60HwjqrtiITZBzo7tFM6CWCZrrJXyHP_u7_XS3XCRkiZBOV-rNvla7NUbxhGVrPTtoKwYutlpgpfzsFyTQB541WImYHuYgOMaxHJFbg0hrjQ8uYAWHTcMxBIqjmpJhni4DW1pZm0q_bwkeuXjRJOlgdC3hAXz3YUc03Peg=w640-h280"/></p>
<p>在选择这些股票时，我非常相信拥有国防工业的曝光，因为需求是永无止境的。我选择了洛克希德马丁（LMT），而不是我为客户持有的那只。强生（JNJ）是一个长期客户持有的股票。</p>
<p>在这种情况下，有些人可能会想到辉瑞（PFE）。我从来不是辉瑞的粉丝。事实上，我在 2004 年为《愚人 Motley Fool》写了一篇文章批评这家公司，我至今对这个名字的看法没有改变。然而，强生多年来因必要性而不断演变，因此我对它在需要时能够继续演变持乐观态度。</p>
<p>回顾可口可乐，人们可能无法满足于饮用足够的汽水（我意识到还有很多其他产品），但拥有它意味着相信他们能够找到解决方案，以应对碳酸糖水变得不那么受欢迎的情况。这与长期客户持有的菲利普·莫里斯（Philip Morris）有相似的想法。吸烟变得不那么流行，因此他们收购了瑞典匹配公司以进入尼古丁袋市场。</p>
<p>微软（MSFT）也显示出它能够演变，但它经历了漫长的低迷期。25 年前，做这个练习的人可能会选择英特尔（INTC）。英特尔曾经主宰全球，但在本世纪，它的复合年增长率仅为 1.65%，尽管在 2014 年至 2021 年中期有过强劲表现。如果我必须猜测，未来重复这个练习时，我可能会用谷歌（GOOGL）替代微软，但我认为微软在未来 75 年内不会消失。</p>
<p>在一只股票中投入 20% 或 25% 远远超过我所考虑的。这只是一个思维实验，试图探索简单性。持有四只普遍存在的股票，避免疯狂的 CEO 风险，并受益于某种潜在的需求故事，这种组合在未来许多年内可能会持续存在，这将是简单的，但并不是很好地分散投资。</p>
<p>快速转向《华尔街日报》上关于 DIY 投资者试图理清是否存在 AI 泡沫的评论。评论者表示他年纪较大，60% 投资于与纳斯达克相关的覆盖看涨期权 ETF，40% 投资于 “多元化高收益”。这似乎相当疯狂，因此结果非常令人惊讶。</p>
<p><img src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjziApVtXUy7xogPTL1GHwqbrzweWYBzmpEbBOdiF7QT1fCTQ5_NEIMVF8gtY-H8YOmWH6ip-dBuO90Sw5qH0fTuqMChmdya-6O5jhNvzlfdGp5uhsSg9vyE2eNsLwAOTyNlU93cj4DI2d6Y5xsrtnxWpAxioJEtvgFKZcIj8qpE9kklx2qQp6BWA=w640-h266?x-oss-process=image/auto-orient,1/interlace,1/resize,w_1440,h_1440/quality,q_95/format,jpg" alt="" width="638" height="266" original-src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjziApVtXUy7xogPTL1GHwqbrzweWYBzmpEbBOdiF7QT1fCTQ5_NEIMVF8gtY-H8YOmWH6ip-dBuO90Sw5qH0fTuqMChmdya-6O5jhNvzlfdGp5uhsSg9vyE2eNsLwAOTyNlU93cj4DI2d6Y5xsrtnxWpAxioJEtvgFKZcIj8qpE9kklx2qQp6BWA=w640-h266"/></p>
<p>其中一个是 60% 投资于 Neos 纳斯达克 100 高收益（QQQI）基金，40% 投资于 HYG ETF，另一个是 VBAIX，这是一个 60/40 投资组合的通用代理。QQQI/HYG 组合的价格复合年增长率为 4.1%，因此它的 “收益” 约为 12%。4.1% 的读数比回测期间的通货膨胀率高出约 130 个基点。</p>
<p><img src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjN27e1urEmukocQ7w-zTgL5jpuT2rWnVDfbdMpsbMCbNNLTNBtj_9gxysHI8bZnKzuSam9BLvudlzloKJtrv882oTGmZcEVe-aTaI4kNpYJdvMzBVwd6CDtNAvg6YbPMcVtJ-UqTtcuNoU_6pylIkYVqMi34BM5DCw4C2ooTtlZ-W6Iv2WVlsGMQ=w640-h286?x-oss-process=image/auto-orient,1/interlace,1/resize,w_1440,h_1440/quality,q_95/format,jpg" alt="" width="640" height="286" original-src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjN27e1urEmukocQ7w-zTgL5jpuT2rWnVDfbdMpsbMCbNNLTNBtj_9gxysHI8bZnKzuSam9BLvudlzloKJtrv882oTGmZcEVe-aTaI4kNpYJdvMzBVwd6CDtNAvg6YbPMcVtJ-UqTtcuNoU_6pylIkYVqMi34BM5DCw4C2ooTtlZ-W6Iv2WVlsGMQ=w640-h286"/></p>
<p>上述例子值得加入讨论。当查看讨论的投资组合时，重要的是要理解高收益债券承担了一些股票的贝塔风险，如果发生某种 AI 崩溃，跟踪纳斯达克的衍生收入基金可能会比跟踪标准普尔 500 的衍生收入基金下跌得更多。</p>
<p>WisdomTree Trust（WTPI）在标准普尔 500 上出售看跌期权。另一个包含 WTPI 和债券的投资组合将波动性较小，下跌和上涨幅度都较小，但 “收益” 仍将接近 12%。然而，如果所有的 “收益” 都被提取出账户，实际回报将是负的，价格回报为 1.79%，而通货膨胀率为 2.82%。</p>
<p>一两周前，我提到 Christine Benz 写的关于 “足够好” 投资组合的文章。如果 60% 投资于纳斯达克 100 衍生收入基金，40% 投资于高收益对原评论者来说足够好，那么我们又有什么资格质疑他该怎么做呢？我不会建议任何人这样做，但希望这对他来说继续足够好。</p>
<p>如果存在一个 AI 泡沫破裂，那么持有 60% 投资于 QQQI 或其他与纳斯达克相关的覆盖看涨期权 ETF 的投资组合将遭受重创。除非原评论者有某种触发点可以出售，从而避免重创，否则如果他的触发点恰好是在一个被立即遗忘的下跌中的低点，那可能会被证明是一个错误。</p>
<p>如果纳斯达克指数减半，QQQI 的大额分配可能会让这个人节省几百个基点，但在下跌 50% 的世界里，这并没有太大意义。这个人已经把自己逼入了一个困境，但他的想法仍然很有趣。</p>
<hr/>
<p><em>更多来自此作者：</em></p>
<p>风险平价正迎来强劲的一年</p>
<p>只需避免 30 年期债务</p>
<p>诺里尔·鲁比尼的 ETF 表现良好</p>

强生

洛克希德马丁

可口可乐

<p>本文探讨了一个简单的个人股票投资组合的概念，其中 25% 的资金配置在像洛克希德马丁、强生和可口可乐这样的股票上，强调了生存偏差和需求故事。它与使用纳斯达克 100 衍生收入基金和高收益债券的 60/40 投资组合进行了对比，突出了风险和收益。讨论还包括了人工智能泡沫的影响以及理解高收益债券中的股票贝塔的重要性</p>

<p><img src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://cdn.pixabay.com/photo/2014/08/01/17/56/ipad-407799_960_720.jpg" alt="" original-src="https://cdn.pixabay.com/photo/2014/08/01/17/56/ipad-407799_960_720.jpg"/></p>
<p><em>Image Source: Pixabay</em></p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p><em>图片来源：Pixabay</em></p>
</div><p>Barron's recently published a short article on the proliferation of 2X single stock ETFs and the extent to which they represent an intersection of where market participation becomes gambling. At the far opposite end of the spectrum was a comment from a Barron's regular on another article who said that after 40 years, his dividend on Coca-Cola (KO) exceeds his cost basis.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>《巴伦周刊》最近发表了一篇关于 2 倍单只股票 ETF 激增的短文，以及它们在市场参与变成赌博的交汇点上所代表的程度。在这个光谱的另一端，一位《巴伦周刊》的常客在另一篇文章中评论说，经过 40 年，他从可口可乐（KO）获得的股息超过了他的成本基础。</p>
</div><p>This metric is called yield on cost, and it is certainly is a fun idea, but it's not a real metric to evaluate a portfolio. Coca-Cola has been a great long-term hold, outperforming at times, lagging at times, which has often yielded close to 3%.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>这个指标被称为成本收益率，确实是一个有趣的想法，但它并不是评估投资组合的真实指标。可口可乐长期以来表现出色，有时超越，有时滞后，通常收益接近 3%。</p>
</div><p>It got me to think about a permanent, individual stock portfolio. Instead of 25% each into an equity index, long bonds, gold, and cash, what about a portfolio that puts 25% each into individual stocks that seem to combine staying power as well as some sort of easily identified demand story that bodes well -- not necessarily for outperformance, although that would be nice, but to benefit from survivorship bias.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>这让我思考一个永久性的个股投资组合。与其将 25% 分别投入股票指数、长期债券、黄金和现金，不如考虑一个将 25% 分别投入那些似乎结合了持久力以及某种容易识别的需求故事的个股投资组合，这样的组合可能会有好的表现——不一定是超越表现，尽管那样当然很好，而是受益于生存偏差。</p>
</div><p><img src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjFUucxVhpES20W0MRv60HwjqrtiITZBzo7tFM6CWCZrrJXyHP_u7_XS3XCRkiZBOV-rNvla7NUbxhGVrPTtoKwYutlpgpfzsFyTQB541WImYHuYgOMaxHJFbg0hrjQ8uYAWHTcMxBIqjmpJhni4DW1pZm0q_bwkeuXjRJOlgdC3hAXz3YUc03Peg=w640-h280" alt="" original-src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjFUucxVhpES20W0MRv60HwjqrtiITZBzo7tFM6CWCZrrJXyHP_u7_XS3XCRkiZBOV-rNvla7NUbxhGVrPTtoKwYutlpgpfzsFyTQB541WImYHuYgOMaxHJFbg0hrjQ8uYAWHTcMxBIqjmpJhni4DW1pZm0q_bwkeuXjRJOlgdC3hAXz3YUc03Peg=w640-h280"/></p>
<p>In choosing those names, I am a big believer in having defense industry exposure, as the demand is never ending. I chose Lockheed Martin (LMT) instead of the one I own for clients. Johnson &amp; Johnson (JNJ) is a long time client holding.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>在选择这些股票时，我非常相信拥有国防工业的曝光，因为需求是永无止境的。我选择了洛克希德马丁（LMT），而不是我为客户持有的那只。强生（JNJ）是一个长期客户持有的股票。</p>
</div><p>Some might think of Pfizer (PFE) in this context, too. I've never been a fan of Pfizer. In fact, I wrote an article for the Motley Fool in 2004 bagging on the company, and I still don't view the name any differently. Johnson &amp; Johnson, however, has evolved over the years by necessity, so I am optimistic it can continue to do that when needed.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>在这种情况下，有些人可能会想到辉瑞（PFE）。我从来不是辉瑞的粉丝。事实上，我在 2004 年为《愚人 Motley Fool》写了一篇文章批评这家公司，我至今对这个名字的看法没有改变。然而，强生多年来因必要性而不断演变，因此我对它在需要时能够继续演变持乐观态度。</p>
</div><p>Looking back at Coca-Cola, people may have not been able to get enough soda (I realize there are a lot of other products as well), but to own it going forward is to believe they can figure out what to do if carbonated sugar water becomes less popular. This is a similar idea as a long-term client holding, Philip Morris. Smoking has become less popular, so they bought Swedish Match to get into nicotine pouches.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>回顾可口可乐，人们可能无法满足于饮用足够的汽水（我意识到还有很多其他产品），但拥有它意味着相信他们能够找到解决方案，以应对碳酸糖水变得不那么受欢迎的情况。这与长期客户持有的菲利普·莫里斯（Philip Morris）有相似的想法。吸烟变得不那么流行，因此他们收购了瑞典匹配公司以进入尼古丁袋市场。</p>
</div><p>Microsoft (MSFT) also has shown it can evolve, but it has gone through painfully long periods of underperforming. 25 years ago, someone doing this exercise might have picked Intel INTC). Intel owned the world at one point, but in this century it has compounded at 1.65% despite having a strong run from 2014 to mid-2021. If I had to guess, to repeat this exercise going forward, I might substitute Google (GOOGL) in for Microsoft, but I don't think Microsoft is going to disappear in the next 75 years.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>微软（MSFT）也显示出它能够演变，但它经历了漫长的低迷期。25 年前，做这个练习的人可能会选择英特尔（INTC）。英特尔曾经主宰全球，但在本世纪，它的复合年增长率仅为 1.65%，尽管在 2014 年至 2021 年中期有过强劲表现。如果我必须猜测，未来重复这个练习时，我可能会用谷歌（GOOGL）替代微软，但我认为微软在未来 75 年内不会消失。</p>
</div><p>20% or 25% in one stock is way more than I would ever consider. This is just a thought experiment trying to explore simplicity. Holding four ubiquitous stocks that avoid crazy CEO risk and benefit from some sort of underlying demand story that could continue many years into the future would be simple, but not very well diversified.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>在一只股票中投入 20% 或 25% 远远超过我所考虑的。这只是一个思维实验，试图探索简单性。持有四只普遍存在的股票，避免疯狂的 CEO 风险，并受益于某种潜在的需求故事，这种组合在未来许多年内可能会持续存在，这将是简单的，但并不是很好地分散投资。</p>
</div><p>And a quick pivot to a comment on a WSJ article about do-it-yourselfers trying to sort out whether there is an AI bubble. The commenter indicated that he is older, and that he has 60% in a covered call ETF tied to the Nasdaq and 40% in &#34;diversified high yield.&#34; That seems pretty nutty, so the result was very surprising.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>快速转向《华尔街日报》上关于 DIY 投资者试图理清是否存在 AI 泡沫的评论。评论者表示他年纪较大，60% 投资于与纳斯达克相关的覆盖看涨期权 ETF，40% 投资于 “多元化高收益”。这似乎相当疯狂，因此结果非常令人惊讶。</p>
</div><p><img src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjziApVtXUy7xogPTL1GHwqbrzweWYBzmpEbBOdiF7QT1fCTQ5_NEIMVF8gtY-H8YOmWH6ip-dBuO90Sw5qH0fTuqMChmdya-6O5jhNvzlfdGp5uhsSg9vyE2eNsLwAOTyNlU93cj4DI2d6Y5xsrtnxWpAxioJEtvgFKZcIj8qpE9kklx2qQp6BWA=w640-h266" alt="" original-src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjziApVtXUy7xogPTL1GHwqbrzweWYBzmpEbBOdiF7QT1fCTQ5_NEIMVF8gtY-H8YOmWH6ip-dBuO90Sw5qH0fTuqMChmdya-6O5jhNvzlfdGp5uhsSg9vyE2eNsLwAOTyNlU93cj4DI2d6Y5xsrtnxWpAxioJEtvgFKZcIj8qpE9kklx2qQp6BWA=w640-h266"/></p>
<p>One of the two places 60% in the Neos Nasdaq 100 High Income (QQQI) fund with 40% in the HYG ETF, and the other one is VBAIX, which is a generic proxy for a 60/40 portfolio. The price compounding of the QQQI/HYG blend is 4.1%, so it &#34;yields&#34; about 12%. The 4.1% reading is about 130 basis above the rate of inflation over the period of the backtest.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>其中一个是 60% 投资于 Neos 纳斯达克 100 高收益（QQQI）基金，40% 投资于 HYG ETF，另一个是 VBAIX，这是一个 60/40 投资组合的通用代理。QQQI/HYG 组合的价格复合年增长率为 4.1%，因此它的 “收益” 约为 12%。4.1% 的读数比回测期间的通货膨胀率高出约 130 个基点。</p>
</div><p><img src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjN27e1urEmukocQ7w-zTgL5jpuT2rWnVDfbdMpsbMCbNNLTNBtj_9gxysHI8bZnKzuSam9BLvudlzloKJtrv882oTGmZcEVe-aTaI4kNpYJdvMzBVwd6CDtNAvg6YbPMcVtJ-UqTtcuNoU_6pylIkYVqMi34BM5DCw4C2ooTtlZ-W6Iv2WVlsGMQ=w640-h286" alt="" original-src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjN27e1urEmukocQ7w-zTgL5jpuT2rWnVDfbdMpsbMCbNNLTNBtj_9gxysHI8bZnKzuSam9BLvudlzloKJtrv882oTGmZcEVe-aTaI4kNpYJdvMzBVwd6CDtNAvg6YbPMcVtJ-UqTtcuNoU_6pylIkYVqMi34BM5DCw4C2ooTtlZ-W6Iv2WVlsGMQ=w640-h286"/></p>
<p>The example above is worth adding to the discussion. When looking at the discussed portfolios, it is important to understand that high yield bonds take on some equity beta, and a derivative income fund tracking the QQQ is likely to fall more than a derivative income fund tracking the S&amp;P 500 if there is some sort of AI meltdown.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>上述例子值得加入讨论。当查看讨论的投资组合时，重要的是要理解高收益债券承担了一些股票的贝塔风险，如果发生某种 AI 崩溃，跟踪纳斯达克的衍生收入基金可能会比跟踪标准普尔 500 的衍生收入基金下跌得更多。</p>
</div><p>The WisdomTree Trust (WTPI) sells puts on the S&amp;P 500. Another portfolio with WTPI and bonds would be less volatile, would go down less and go up less, but the &#34;yield&#34; would still be close to 12%. The real return, though, would be negative if all of the &#34;yield&#34; was taken out of the account, with a price return of 1.79% versus a 2.82% inflation rate.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>WisdomTree Trust（WTPI）在标准普尔 500 上出售看跌期权。另一个包含 WTPI 和债券的投资组合将波动性较小，下跌和上涨幅度都较小，但 “收益” 仍将接近 12%。然而，如果所有的 “收益” 都被提取出账户，实际回报将是负的，价格回报为 1.79%，而通货膨胀率为 2.82%。</p>
</div><p>A week or two ago, I mentioned Christine Benz writing about a &#34;good enough&#34; portfolio. If 60% in a Nasdaq 100 derivative income fund with 40% in high yield is good enough for the original commenter, then who are we to question what he should do? I wouldn't suggest anyone do this, but hopefully it continues to be good enough for him.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>一两周前，我提到 Christine Benz 写的关于 “足够好” 投资组合的文章。如果 60% 投资于纳斯达克 100 衍生收入基金，40% 投资于高收益对原评论者来说足够好，那么我们又有什么资格质疑他该怎么做呢？我不会建议任何人这样做，但希望这对他来说继续足够好。</p>
</div><p>If there is an AI bubble that pops, then a portfolio holding 60% in QQQI, or some other covered call ETF tied to the Nasdaq, will get pummeled. That is, unless the original commenter has some sort of trigger point to sell which could spare him the pummeling, or it could turn out to be a mistake if his trigger point turns out to be the low in an immediately-forgotten-about dip.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>如果存在一个 AI 泡沫破裂，那么持有 60% 投资于 QQQI 或其他与纳斯达克相关的覆盖看涨期权 ETF 的投资组合将遭受重创。除非原评论者有某种触发点可以出售，从而避免重创，否则如果他的触发点恰好是在一个被立即遗忘的下跌中的低点，那可能会被证明是一个错误。</p>
</div><p>If the Nasdaq gets cut in half, the large distributions from QQQI could spare this guy a couple of hundred basis points, but that wouldn't mean much in a down 50% world. This person has painted himself into something of a corner, but his idea is nonetheless interesting.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>如果纳斯达克指数减半，QQQI 的大额分配可能会让这个人节省几百个基点，但在下跌 50% 的世界里，这并没有太大意义。这个人已经把自己逼入了一个困境，但他的想法仍然很有趣。</p>
</div><hr/>
<div class="lb-trans"><hr/>
</div><p><em>More By This Author:</em></p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p><em>更多来自此作者：</em></p>
</div><p>Risk Parity Is Having A Strong Year</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>风险平价正迎来强劲的一年</p>
</div><p>Just Don't With 30 Year Debt</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>只需避免 30 年期债务</p>
</div><p>Nouriel Roubini's ETF Is Doing Well</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>诺里尔·鲁比尼的 ETF 表现良好</p>
</div>

Simple But Not Well Diversified

- Barron's 讨论了 2X 单只股票 ETF 的普及及其市场参与的赌博性质。  
- 文章提到可口可乐的股息收益超过成本基准，强调长期持有的重要性。  
- 还探讨了不同股票组合的风险与收益，特别是高收益债券的波动性。  

简单但缺乏多样性