<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>圖片來源：Pixabay</em></p>
<p>《巴倫週刊》最近發表了一篇關於 2 倍單隻股票 ETF 激增的短文，以及它們在市場參與變成賭博的交匯點上所代表的程度。在這個光譜的另一端，一位《巴倫週刊》的常客在另一篇文章中評論説，經過 40 年，他從可口可樂（KO）獲得的股息超過了他的成本基礎。</p>
<p>這個指標被稱為成本收益率，確實是一個有趣的想法，但它並不是評估投資組合的真實指標。可口可樂長期以來表現出色，有時超越，有時滯後，通常收益接近 3%。</p>
<p>這讓我思考一個永久性的個股投資組合。與其將 25% 分別投入股票指數、長期債券、黃金和現金，不如考慮一個將 25% 分別投入那些似乎結合了持久力以及某種容易識別的需求故事的個股投資組合，這樣的組合可能會有好的表現——不一定是超越表現，儘管那樣當然很好，而是受益於生存偏差。</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>在選擇這些股票時，我非常相信擁有國防工業的曝光，因為需求是永無止境的。我選擇了洛克希德馬丁（LMT），而不是我為客户持有的那隻。強生（JNJ）是一個長期客户持有的股票。</p>
<p>在這種情況下，有些人可能會想到輝瑞（PFE）。我從來不是輝瑞的粉絲。事實上，我在 2004 年為《愚人 Motley Fool》寫了一篇文章批評這家公司，我至今對這個名字的看法沒有改變。然而，強生多年來因必要性而不斷演變，因此我對它在需要時能夠繼續演變持樂觀態度。</p>
<p>回顧可口可樂，人們可能無法滿足於飲用足夠的汽水（我意識到還有很多其他產品），但擁有它意味着相信他們能夠找到解決方案，以應對碳酸糖水變得不那麼受歡迎的情況。這與長期客户持有的菲利普·莫里斯（Philip Morris）有相似的想法。吸煙變得不那麼流行，因此他們收購了瑞典匹配公司以進入尼古丁袋市場。</p>
<p>微軟（MSFT）也顯示出它能夠演變，但它經歷了漫長的低迷期。25 年前，做這個練習的人可能會選擇英特爾（INTC）。英特爾曾經主宰全球，但在本世紀，它的複合年增長率僅為 1.65%，儘管在 2014 年至 2021 年中期有過強勁表現。如果我必須猜測，未來重複這個練習時，我可能會用谷歌（GOOGL）替代微軟，但我認為微軟在未來 75 年內不會消失。</p>
<p>在一隻股票中投入 20% 或 25% 遠遠超過我所考慮的。這只是一個思維實驗，試圖探索簡單性。持有四隻普遍存在的股票，避免瘋狂的 CEO 風險，並受益於某種潛在的需求故事，這種組合在未來許多年內可能會持續存在，這將是簡單的，但並不是很好地分散投資。</p>
<p>快速轉向《華爾街日報》上關於 DIY 投資者試圖理清是否存在 AI 泡沫的評論。評論者表示他年紀較大，60% 投資於與納斯達克相關的覆蓋看漲期權 ETF，40% 投資於 “多元化高收益”。這似乎相當瘋狂，因此結果非常令人驚訝。</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>其中一個是 60% 投資於 Neos 納斯達克 100 高收益（QQQI）基金，40% 投資於 HYG ETF，另一個是 VBAIX，這是一個 60/40 投資組合的通用代理。QQQI/HYG 組合的價格複合年增長率為 4.1%，因此它的 “收益” 約為 12%。4.1% 的讀數比回測期間的通貨膨脹率高出約 130 個基點。</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>上述例子值得加入討論。當查看討論的投資組合時，重要的是要理解高收益債券承擔了一些股票的貝塔風險，如果發生某種 AI 崩潰，跟蹤納斯達克的衍生收入基金可能會比跟蹤標準普爾 500 的衍生收入基金下跌得更多。</p>
<p>WisdomTree Trust（WTPI）在標準普爾 500 上出售看跌期權。另一個包含 WTPI 和債券的投資組合將波動性較小，下跌和上漲幅度都較小，但 “收益” 仍將接近 12%。然而，如果所有的 “收益” 都被提取出賬户，實際回報將是負的，價格回報為 1.79%，而通貨膨脹率為 2.82%。</p>
<p>一兩週前，我提到 Christine Benz 寫的關於 “足夠好” 投資組合的文章。如果 60% 投資於納斯達克 100 衍生收入基金，40% 投資於高收益對原評論者來説足夠好，那麼我們又有什麼資格質疑他該怎麼做呢？我不會建議任何人這樣做，但希望這對他來説繼續足夠好。</p>
<p>如果存在一個 AI 泡沫破裂，那麼持有 60% 投資於 QQQI 或其他與納斯達克相關的覆蓋看漲期權 ETF 的投資組合將遭受重創。除非原評論者有某種觸發點可以出售，從而避免重創，否則如果他的觸發點恰好是在一個被立即遺忘的下跌中的低點，那可能會被證明是一個錯誤。</p>
<p>如果納斯達克指數減半，QQQI 的大額分配可能會讓這個人節省幾百個基點，但在下跌 50% 的世界裏，這並沒有太大意義。這個人已經把自己逼入了一個困境，但他的想法仍然很有趣。</p>
<hr/>
<p><em>更多來自此作者：</em></p>
<p>風險平價正迎來強勁的一年</p>
<p>只需避免 30 年期債務</p>
<p>諾里爾·魯比尼的 ETF 表現良好</p>

強生

洛克希德馬丁

可口可樂

<p>本文探討了一個簡單的個人股票投資組合的概念，其中 25% 的資金配置在像洛克希德馬丁、強生和可口可樂這樣的股票上，強調了生存偏差和需求故事。它與使用納斯達克 100 衍生收入基金和高收益債券的 60/40 投資組合進行了對比，突出了風險和收益。討論還包括了人工智能泡沫的影響以及理解高收益債券中的股票貝塔的重要性</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>圖片來源：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>《巴倫週刊》最近發表了一篇關於 2 倍單隻股票 ETF 激增的短文，以及它們在市場參與變成賭博的交匯點上所代表的程度。在這個光譜的另一端，一位《巴倫週刊》的常客在另一篇文章中評論説，經過 40 年，他從可口可樂（KO）獲得的股息超過了他的成本基礎。</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>這個指標被稱為成本收益率，確實是一個有趣的想法，但它並不是評估投資組合的真實指標。可口可樂長期以來表現出色，有時超越，有時滯後，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>這讓我思考一個永久性的個股投資組合。與其將 25% 分別投入股票指數、長期債券、黃金和現金，不如考慮一個將 25% 分別投入那些似乎結合了持久力以及某種容易識別的需求故事的個股投資組合，這樣的組合可能會有好的表現——不一定是超越表現，儘管那樣當然很好，而是受益於生存偏差。</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>在選擇這些股票時，我非常相信擁有國防工業的曝光，因為需求是永無止境的。我選擇了洛克希德馬丁（LMT），而不是我為客户持有的那隻。強生（JNJ）是一個長期客户持有的股票。</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>在這種情況下，有些人可能會想到輝瑞（PFE）。我從來不是輝瑞的粉絲。事實上，我在 2004 年為《愚人 Motley Fool》寫了一篇文章批評這家公司，我至今對這個名字的看法沒有改變。然而，強生多年來因必要性而不斷演變，因此我對它在需要時能夠繼續演變持樂觀態度。</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>回顧可口可樂，人們可能無法滿足於飲用足夠的汽水（我意識到還有很多其他產品），但擁有它意味着相信他們能夠找到解決方案，以應對碳酸糖水變得不那麼受歡迎的情況。這與長期客户持有的菲利普·莫里斯（Philip Morris）有相似的想法。吸煙變得不那麼流行，因此他們收購了瑞典匹配公司以進入尼古丁袋市場。</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>微軟（MSFT）也顯示出它能夠演變，但它經歷了漫長的低迷期。25 年前，做這個練習的人可能會選擇英特爾（INTC）。英特爾曾經主宰全球，但在本世紀，它的複合年增長率僅為 1.65%，儘管在 2014 年至 2021 年中期有過強勁表現。如果我必須猜測，未來重複這個練習時，我可能會用谷歌（GOOGL）替代微軟，但我認為微軟在未來 75 年內不會消失。</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>在一隻股票中投入 20% 或 25% 遠遠超過我所考慮的。這只是一個思維實驗，試圖探索簡單性。持有四隻普遍存在的股票，避免瘋狂的 CEO 風險，並受益於某種潛在的需求故事，這種組合在未來許多年內可能會持續存在，這將是簡單的，但並不是很好地分散投資。</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>快速轉向《華爾街日報》上關於 DIY 投資者試圖理清是否存在 AI 泡沫的評論。評論者表示他年紀較大，60% 投資於與納斯達克相關的覆蓋看漲期權 ETF，40% 投資於 “多元化高收益”。這似乎相當瘋狂，因此結果非常令人驚訝。</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>其中一個是 60% 投資於 Neos 納斯達克 100 高收益（QQQI）基金，40% 投資於 HYG ETF，另一個是 VBAIX，這是一個 60/40 投資組合的通用代理。QQQI/HYG 組合的價格複合年增長率為 4.1%，因此它的 “收益” 約為 12%。4.1% 的讀數比回測期間的通貨膨脹率高出約 130 個基點。</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>上述例子值得加入討論。當查看討論的投資組合時，重要的是要理解高收益債券承擔了一些股票的貝塔風險，如果發生某種 AI 崩潰，跟蹤納斯達克的衍生收入基金可能會比跟蹤標準普爾 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）在標準普爾 500 上出售看跌期權。另一個包含 WTPI 和債券的投資組合將波動性較小，下跌和上漲幅度都較小，但 “收益” 仍將接近 12%。然而，如果所有的 “收益” 都被提取出賬户，實際回報將是負的，價格回報為 1.79%，而通貨膨脹率為 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>一兩週前，我提到 Christine Benz 寫的關於 “足夠好” 投資組合的文章。如果 60% 投資於納斯達克 100 衍生收入基金，40% 投資於高收益對原評論者來説足夠好，那麼我們又有什麼資格質疑他該怎麼做呢？我不會建議任何人這樣做，但希望這對他來説繼續足夠好。</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>如果存在一個 AI 泡沫破裂，那麼持有 60% 投資於 QQQI 或其他與納斯達克相關的覆蓋看漲期權 ETF 的投資組合將遭受重創。除非原評論者有某種觸發點可以出售，從而避免重創，否則如果他的觸發點恰好是在一個被立即遺忘的下跌中的低點，那可能會被證明是一個錯誤。</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>如果納斯達克指數減半，QQQI 的大額分配可能會讓這個人節省幾百個基點，但在下跌 50% 的世界裏，這並沒有太大意義。這個人已經把自己逼入了一個困境，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>更多來自此作者：</em></p>
</div><p>Risk Parity Is Having A Strong Year</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>風險平價正迎來強勁的一年</p>
</div><p>Just Don't With 30 Year Debt</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>只需避免 30 年期債務</p>
</div><p>Nouriel Roubini's ETF Is Doing Well</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>諾里爾·魯比尼的 ETF 表現良好</p>
</div>

Simple But Not Well Diversified

- Barron's 討論了 2X 單隻股票 ETF 的普及及其市場參與的賭博性質。  
- 文章提到可口可樂的股息收益超過成本基準，強調長期持有的重要性。  
- 還探討了不同股票組合的風險與收益，特別是高收益債券的波動性。  

簡單但缺乏多樣性