Hedged, Leveraged and Neutral
As stock prices continue to drift sideways, earning healthy returns seems as easy as flying a kite in your basement.
For several quarters now, the stock market has done a reasonable impression of a yo-yo. The Dow Jones Industrial Average has broken through the well-worn 10000 level five times this year, including Tuesday, which is another way of saying the index had fallen below that mark four times. Despite the commotion, the broad stock indexes are pretty much flat in 2004 and still in the red for the past five years, despite last year's startling gains.
As a result, investing feels a lot like saving these days, only with a lot more volatility than a passbook account. Indeed, every $10 invested in the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index five years ago would be worth about $9.33 today.
No one knows when the market is going to snap out of its funk. But one thing is certain: The itch to find some way to rack up bigger gains that many of us are feeling today is as dangerous as it is natural.
ALTERNATIVE BETS
Options for a lackluster market:
? Market-neutral funds bet on some stocks and against others, trying to gain ground no matter how stocks move.
? Leveraged closed-end funds boost income -- and risk -- by investing borrowed money.
? Hedge funds search all over for returns, but carry high fees.
? Sector/regional funds can perform well when the market is off, but can fall hard, too.
"There's a huge temptation now to want to do something to boost your returns," says Catherine Gordon, a principal with Vanguard's investment counseling and research unit. "That can often lead you to a strategy that's risky, not well understood or expensive."
There are funds with strategies designed to boost returns in a plodding market. They often sound good on paper and each has some ardent fans, but none are a silver bullet.
Market-neutral funds. So-called market-neutral funds, for example, are designed to make money in up or down markets, typically by blending investments in stocks with short sales -- that is, bets that a company's shares will tumble. In theory, if the manager gets enough of these bets correct, the fund should gain ground no matter how stocks move.
Some have fared all right with this tricky approach. The $634.4 million Calamos Market Neutral fund, for example, blends stocks and bonds that are convertible into shares of stock and has averaged an 8.6% annual gain for the past five years, compared with 1.7% for the S&P 500.
But that fund is closed to new investors -- and many other market-neutral offerings have struggled, adding up to "a very expensive and volatile Treasury bill," says William Bernstein, a researcher and investment adviser in North Bend, Ore.
Closed-end and sector funds. Meanwhile, record billions of dollars have gushed into income-oriented closed-end mutual funds that use leverage to boost their payouts to investors. Closed-end funds issue a fixed number of shares that trade throughout the day on an exchange like stocks, usually not at prices equal to their net asset value. Many of these funds have invested borrowed money in fixed-income securities to boost their yields.
Problem is, that strategy can lead to outsize losses when interest rates rise. Several leveraged closed-end funds suffered double-digit losses in April after rates began to go up.
There also are U.S. and foreign funds that zero in on a given sector or region, allowing you to make concentrated bets -- for better or for worse.
Hedge funds. If none of these offerings has grabbed you, there is the flurry of hedge funds and funds of hedge funds that go virtually anywhere in search of returns. They also take a healthy cut of any profits on top of their management fee.
Separately, or as a group, these souped-up offerings might have some appeal now, given that so many of us are treading water. But because of their risks and often above-average costs, they shouldn't play a big role in most portfolios.
Now is a good time to remember that how successful you are as an investor boils down to four things: how much you save; how long you invest that money; how much you limit your investing expenses; and what kind of returns the markets produce while you are invested in them.
The bad news is that you can't control the last one, but the good news is that you can control the first three. Humdrum as they are, focusing on them is a surer route to improved returns than playing Wall Street wizard -- or trying to find one to manage your money. They are particularly important given that a range of investing gurus have warned that high stock valuations, steep debt loads and a potential slide for the U.S. dollar will likely lead to muted returns from both stock and bonds in coming years.
Which isn't to say there is no point in considering some strategies to boost gains. Early last year investment researcher Peter Bernstein touched off a hot debate in investment circles when he advocated active asset allocation among stocks, bonds and other assets, rather than the "buy and hold" strategy that gained so much traction during the bull market.
One way to practice this strategy is by active rebalancing. It is an idea that veteran portfolio manager Ralph Wanger warmed to in 2002 when he designed the Columbia Thermostat fund, which simply shifts money from stock- and bond-indexed portfolios whenever either asset hits given targets.
"Active rebalancing is nice because to a degree it's intellect-free," says Mr. Wanger, now retired from money management. "Because you're not trying to be a genius, you'll usually avoid disaster."
There are worse places to start.
熊市盲动风险高
由于股票价格持续出现震荡格局，所以，想要获得稳定的收益就好比在地下室里面放风筝，殊为不易。
几个季度以来，股市的表现就像悠悠球(yo-yo)一样，一直起伏不定。道琼斯工业股票平均价格指数今年5度突破万点大关，其中包括周二的那次，但反之，这也意味著该股指曾经4次跌落到万点以下。尽管股市持续震荡，但几个主要的股票指数在2004年均走平，仍未能收复在过去5年中的跌幅。虽然去年的涨幅惊人，但也无济于事。
结果就是：如今的投资变得更像是储蓄，只不过是比银行储蓄帐户多了些震荡和波动。确然如此，5年前投资到标准普尔500指数上的10美元，现在大约价值9.33美元。
没有人能预见股市究竟何时能走出低迷。但有一点是确定无疑的：虽说我们当中的大多数人都自然而然地有一种冲动，千方百计地想找到办法获取更大的收益，但这种冲动却充满了风险。
在熊市下的选择包括：
- 选择看涨某些股票同时看跌另外一些股票的那些市场中性基金，尝试在股市不管怎么变动的情况下盈利。
- 选择通过贷款来投资的封闭式基金，它们借助杠杆作用提高了收益──但同时也增加了风险。
- 投资对冲基金赢取收益，但费用也很高。
- 当大盘下跌的时候，投资于某些板块和区域的基金可以表现优异──但也有可能暴跌。
Vanguard的投资顾问及研究部门主要负责人凯瑟琳?戈登(Catherine Gordon)表示，如今，想要有所作为来提高收益的诱惑很强，这通常可能会导致投资者选择充满风险、代价高昂或者自己并不完全理解的策略。
有些基金的策略是为了让投资者在低迷的市场上提高回报率。它们的宣传材料看起来通常都很有吸引力，也都有不少狂热的拥趸。但没有一个是万能的。
市场中性基金
所谓市场中性基金，是为在震荡的股市中盈利而设计的，采用的手法通常是卖空股票，进行混合投资。卖空就是说，在那些将要下跌的股票身上押宝。从理论上来讲，如果基金经理能正确决策，那么，无论市场的走向怎样，市场中性基金都能够盈利。
有些基金对这种聪明的办法运用得还不错。比如，资金规模为6.344亿美元的Calamos市场中性基金，它采取对股票和可转换债券进行混合投资的办法，在过去的5年中，平均每年的收益率达到8.6%，高于标准普尔500指数的升幅1.7%。
然而，该基金不对新投资者开放。其他许多市场中性基金却一直在艰难度日。俄勒冈州北本德的股市研究员和投资顾问威廉?伯恩斯坦(William Bernstein)表示，多数市场中性基金只不过相当于“又昂贵、波动幅度又大的美国国债而已”。
封闭式基金和侧重某些板块的基金
目前，创记录的、高达数十亿美元的资金已经涌入到以收益为导向的封闭式共同基金上，它们使用杠杆手法提高给投资者的回报。封闭式基金发行固定数量的“基金单位”，在一个交易所内像股票一样全天交易，交易价格通常与资产净值并不相符。这类基金当中的大多数都通过贷款来投资固定收益的证券，以此来提高收益率。
问题在于：当利率上涨的时候，这种投资策略可能导致巨大的损失。在今年4月份，利率开始上扬之后，几只杠杆操作的封闭式基金蒙受了高达两位数百分比的损失。
另外，也有些美国和国外的基金，它们集中投资某些特定的板块或地区，帮助你进行孤注一掷式的投资──要么赚钱，要么赔钱。
对冲基金
如果以上策略都不能打动你，那么你还可以选择对冲基金以及四处游走寻求回报的对冲基金的基金。除了管理费用之外，它们也会截走相当大的一部份利润。
鉴于当前大多数人身处困境，这些对冲基金，不管是单独发行还是与其他基金联合发行的，都不失为一种选择。但由于对冲基金的风险和通常高于平均水平的成本，它们在大多数投资组合中不应该扮演重要的角色。
现在是一个好时机，让我来提醒你，衡量成功投资者的标准集中体现在以下四个方面：你积攒了多少钱；这笔钱你投资了多久；你节省了多少投资成本；以及你投资的金融产品给你带来了什么样的回报。
坏消息是你不能控制最后一点，但好消息是你可以控制前三个方面。尽管这几个问题都已经是老生常谈了，但是，集中精力管理好这几个方面，比应用华尔街的投资秘技或者试图找人来管理你的资金，都能更确保你提高自己的投资回报率。现在，大批投资专家已经发出警告，声称股票估价过高、债务负担过重和美元可能贬值，将有可能导致在未来几年内股市和债市上投资回报的减少。有鉴于此，控制前面提到的三个方面就显得尤为重要。
这并不是说考虑一些提高收益的策略毫无意义。去年年初，投资研究者彼得?伯恩斯坦(Peter Bernstein)在投资界引发了一场激烈的辩论，他当时提倡在股票、债券和其他资产中进行积极的资产分配，而不要采取在牛市时大获成功的“购买并持有”策略。
实践这种策略的途径之一就是进行积极的投资比例再平衡。这种办法是资深投资经理拉尔夫?温格(Ralph Wanger)在2002年设计Columbia Thermostat基金时所青睐的。
Columbia Thermostat基金的操作非常简单，只是在达到目标价位时对股票指数和债券指数投资组合之间进行资金分配和调整。
现在已经从基金经理职位上退休的温格表示，积极的投资比例再平衡策略很好，因为在某种程度上来说，它不需要智力。温格说，因为你并不是要试图成为一个天才，通常你只要能规避灾难就行。
