Imagine if investing were as simple as a light switch. When you're feeling good, you turn it on. When you're not, off. Even if you're manic, and change your mind about your feelings every single day, it's as simple as that: ON or OFF. Well, imagine no more! That's the state the entire market seems to be in of late, what with the spread of the notions of "Risk On" and "Risk Off." Think Europe has saved itself? Risk on, baby! Think it merely kicked the can down the road? Risk Off!
这样，复杂的投资决策就简化成了在 “风险性”资产（证券、石油等）和“低风险”资产（美国国债、德国国债）之间的单项选择，这就好像赌场里，一位衣冠楚楚的绅士每一局都在把全部筹码在红、黑两边移来移去。（以前黄金一直牢牢坚守在“低风险”类阵营，但最近黄金的交易也不可靠了。我听说，好像也有泡沫了。）请看《黄金为何光芒不再》（Why gold has lost its luster）。
The devolution of the investment decision to a single choice between "risky" assets—equities, oil, and the like—and "less risky" ones—U.S. Treasuries, German bunds—brings to mind a well-dressed man in a casino, who, on each successive hand, moves all his chips from red to black and then back again. (Gold used to sit firmly in the "less risky" category, but trading in the metal has not been so dependable of late. Something about a bubble, I am told.) See Why gold has lost its luster
这种投资方式是不是太疯狂了？不一定。正如吉姆??格兰特在其最新一期《格兰特利率观察》（Grant's Interest Rate Observer）通讯中指出，标普500、外汇、大宗商品和利率等所有形式的证券之间的关联已处于历史高位，换言之，它们的价格更加频繁地同向而动。因此，设想所有投资一起上涨或一起下跌，也不是很牵强。即便在标普500指数的成分股中，相互关联度也高得离谱。虽然尚未出现在同一个交易日内，标普500 指数所有成分股全部上涨或全部下跌的情况，但其中490只股票保持同一步调的交易日已经多达11天。而且，这11个交易日中的6个都出现在今年7月份之后。
Is this crazy behavior? Not exactly. As Jim Grant points out in his latest Grant's Interest Rate Observer, correlations between all manner of securities—the S&P 500, currencies, commodities, and interest rates—are all at record highs, meaning they move together more frequently. So the idea that it's all going up or all going down at once isn't so far-fetched. Even within the S&P 500 itself, correlations are through the roof. There has never been a single day when all the stocks in the S&P 500 moved up or down at once. There have been 11 days, however, that 490 of them have moved in lockstep. Six of those 11 days have occurred since July of this year.
当然，除了最典型的“机构”投资者，谁又有能力今天对所有各种有价证券都看多，明天又反其道而行之？你我肯定不成。（或者至少我不行。）瑞银（UBS）瞄准的恰恰就是这一点。上个月末，这家银行推出了两种新型的交易所交易票据（类似于交易所交易基金，但稍微复杂一些），名称为“风险打开” （Risk On ）和“风险关闭”（Risk Off）。别再为选股或债券投资所烦恼了。所有都可以卖了，各位，只要坐在你个人的投资指示灯开关旁就可以了。就这么简单。当然，除非你在错误的时间选择了错误的按钮。那你可就要倒霉了。
Of course, who has the capacity to put on an every-kind-of-security bet on one day and take it off the next other than the most institutional of investors? Not you or me. (Or at least not me.) That's where UBS (UBS) comes in. Late last month, the bank introduced two new exchange-traded notes (similar to exchange traded funds, but a little more complicated) called Risk On (ONN) and Risk Off (OFF). Forget stock picking or trying to ladder your bond investments. Sell everything, folks, and just sit by your own personal investing light switch. It's that easy. Unless, of course, you pick the wrong one on the wrong day. Then you're out of luck.
While the idea is simple enough, these are not single-security notes. ONN is long everything from oil--with a 34% weighting--to semiconductors (1.84%), Internet stocks (0.46%), wheat and soybeans (both 4%). OFF is likewise short these same securities and it's also long 10-year Treasuries, Japanese yen, German bunds, Swiss francs, and gilts.)
Yesterday was a risk ON day. With the Dow rallying 2.87%, ONN jumped 4.07% while OFF slid 4.01%. Still, December has been an OFF month, on balance. In the three weeks the two securities have traded, ONN is down 4.32% and OFF is up 3.66%. If you want to tie your brain in a knot, consider this, too: given that the two securities are unsecured debt obligations, with UBS as obligor, you're making an additional bet regardless of which way you choose. You're betting that UBS will be able to pay you back in a pinch. In other words, even if you're in a mood for OFF, you're still making a bit of a Risk On play in assuming UBS survives the day.
Grant is no stranger to novelties such as ON and OFF. He's been a trenchant market commentator for decades now. So what of ON and OFF? Do they turn him on? Or off?
“奇思怪想在华尔街一点也不新鲜，”他告诉财富网站（Fortune.com）。“早在上世纪70年代初，就有过一波所谓的“单一决定”股票大热。包括雅芳（Avon Products）、通用电气（General Electric）、柯达（Kodak）和宝丽来（Polaroid）在内的“漂亮50”（Nifty Fifty）拥趸者们建议买进持有。我认为，通过选择风险的开和关，我们现在有了“双选决定”股票。在这方面我们真进步了吗？这一点还是留给大家来评判吧。”
"Fads are nothing new on Wall Street," he tells Fortune.com. "In the early 1970s, there was a boom in so-called 'one decision' stocks. Buy them and never sell, advised the boosters of the 'Nifty Fifty,' the roll call of which included Avon Products (AVP), General Electric (GE), Kodak, and Polaroid. I suppose that, with risk-on and risk-off, we now have 'two decision' stocks. I'll leave it up to you to judge whether we have thereby progressed."
So there's the inevitable conclusion of an ONN and OFF world. Simpler? Yes. Saner? No.
2011-12-27 13:49 编辑：kuaileyingyu