怎样的美国大选结果对投资者有利?大纲

Over the next few weeks, investors will be bombarded with commentary about how the outcome of the presidential election will influence the financial markets.
未来几周，投资者将会被大量研究结果淹没，这些研究试图分析美国总统大选结果将如何影响金融市场。

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.
在你根据美国大选的预期或实际结果考虑调整投资组合之前，很有必要先分析一下“传统智慧”

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?
僵持局面是好事吗？换句话说，投资者是否应该反对同一个政党同时控制国会和白宫？哪个政党赢得大选更有利于提高股市和债市的回报，共和党还是民主党？

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.
你可能找到的大多数答案不是宣传口号就是一厢情愿的想法，其中很多答案完全错误。你真正应该关心的是利率的变化，而不是哪个政党迈入白宫的大门。

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.
从1926年有可靠的股市数据可查以来，美国总共有过15位总统，有九次选举出现白宫控制权从一个党转移到另一个党手中。这个样本不算大。因此，对于任何关于总统选举结果和金融回报之间关系的统计结论，你都应该大大地表示怀疑。

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.
尽管如此，金融界的翘楚们还是会花心思猜测一番。这些人中最流行的一个信念就是，僵持对股市来说是件好事。（在谷歌(Google)浏览器中搜索"gridlock is good"（僵持是好事）和"Wall Street"（华尔街）可以得到135,000个结果。）很多政治预测人士都认为将出现“分裂国会”的结果，奥巴马总统成功连任，民主党控制参议院，共和党控制众议院。

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.
不过争吵也的确有好处：与政治和谐年相比，在僵持年内，公司债的回报率平均每年高出近9个百分点。与约翰逊教授的一同参与研究工作的詹森(Gerald Jensen)说，僵持降低了政府出台重大项目的可能性，而政府项目容易引发通胀，而且对债券价格不利。詹森是北伊利诺伊大学(Northern Illinois University)的金融学教授。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.
当然，哪个党控制白宫似乎也很重要。据瑞信(Credit Suisse)股市定量分析师帕特尔(Pankaj Patel)和汉德尔曼(Joseph Handelman)说，自1926年以来，民主党总统执政期间标普500指数涨幅几乎正好是共和党总统当政期间的两倍。民主党执掌白宫时，股市平均年回报率为15.4%，相比之下，共和党总统执政期间为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.
这并不是说如果现任总统奥巴马获得连任，股市必定大涨。但正如摩根士丹利(Morgan Stanley)首席美国股市策略师帕克(Adam Parker)所指出的，在至少112年里，在国会分歧如此之大的情况下，总统选举的结果都不是民主党候选人当选。所以历史平均数据可能根本不重要。

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.
民主党执政时期的股市高回报或许只是统计上的假象。约翰逊及其同事进行的研究表明，美联储(Federal Reserve)的货币政策要重要的多。

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.
据研究显示，自1965年以来，相比美联储加息时期，降息时大型股的平均年回报率要高出近12个百分点。（研究人员选择从那个时候开始分析是因为1965年是现代美联储政策的开端。）同期，民主党总统执政期间和共和党总统执政期间的股市回报率相差不到七个百分点；一项统计分析显示，美联储政策的影响要大于哪个党派控制白宫的影响。

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.'
简而言之，美联储的政策比党派政治更重要。民主党总统只是正好赶上了美联储降息的时候多──降息对股市回报可以起到极大的推动作用。对小型股尤其如此。相比美联储加息时，降息时小型股的平均回报率要高出26个百分点。约翰逊说，总统属于哪个党派与资产回报率没有系统性的关系。

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.
所有这一切对投资者意味着什么？你投票的依据应该是你认为什么将给美国带来好处，而不是专家认为什么将给你的投资组合带来好处。不要因为一个党派或另一个党派控制白宫而让任何人吓得你做出重大投资调整。无论谁胜，利率调整的方向才是对金融市场回报影响最大的因素。