欧元区债务危机加深，美国也没有制定出能够减少财政赤字和失业率的具体计划，全球经济似乎正在向大萧条边缘靠近。
对于投资者来说，未来的投资方向已然十分明朗：寻求安全的投资方式，尽量避免高风险投资比如股票。
这一切都已经再清楚不过了。自从今年8月份以来，整个金融市场都始终弥漫着这种信息。但是该说法并不是唯一的说法，也并非是主流观点。
事实上，另一种言论在最近也十分受到推崇。大概的内容是这样的：最新的经济数据十分稳健，这表明，虽然目前经济处于疲弱阶段，但是并没有进入大萧条时期，至少美国没有。至于欧元区和美国面临的危机，在还没有发展到不可控制之前，政治家们必须要想出解决问题的办法。
这种情况下，对于投资者来说，投资的方向就是跟进股票，尤其不要错过大公司的股票。
从表面上看似乎很难确定哪种投资方式更为稳妥。也许两个都很诱人，有时可能只有某一个比较合适，而这些都取决于特定时期的情况。
如果在最近这些天一直密切关注经济形势和金融市场变化，那么可能会像挨了鞭子一样难受，因为不知道到底该怎么做。那么投资者到底该做些什么呢？
简而言之，静观其变。
如果最新消息鼓励你转变一下投资方式，那么请慎重考虑。除非你急需一笔现金，否则最好的做法就是什么也不做。
这是引用美国先锋集团的说法。如果你的资产组合已经做到了多元化，那么静观其变可能就是最好的选择。
先锋集团开创了一个投资模型，就是将总投资项目平均分配在股票和债券上也就是50-50的分配比例，然后在经济繁荣时期和萧条时期比较收益情况。比较结果表明，自从1926年，无论美国经济是否处于萧条时期，这种投资方式的平均实际收益都是一样的。
先锋集团的建立者John C. Bogle十分推崇指数基金，在这项研究中便使用指数来观察股票和债券市场的变化，但是指数基金原本是用来监测宏观市场的工具，从不涉及个人股票和债券选择。
这项名为“经济萧条和平稳的投资组合收益”的研究，是利用国家统计局收集整理的经济萧条时期的数据同市场收益相比较，时间是从1926年到2009年6月。在经济繁荣时期，这种投资组合模型的平均实际收益为5.6%，其中考虑通货膨胀的因素，而经济萧条时期的收益为5.3%。
先锋集团的首席经济学家，同时也是投资策略部战略负责人Joseph H. Davis表示，简单来说，不同时期的收益还是有差别的，但是两个数字的差距太小了，并没有太大的实际意义。
不管经济状况如何，这种投资方式所带来的收益都是一样的，所以和经济形式的关系并不大。
Davis表示，这个研究结果可能有违常理。我们通常认为对于投资者来说当然是不希望碰上经济萧条时期。没有人希望经济滑坡。但是研究结果表明，作为投资者要做的不是去预测市场的变化，最好的策略是选择多元化的投资组合，并且在短期内不要再做调动。
那么对这种结果我们又该作何解释呢？简单来说，在经济出现萧条的苗头时，债券的行情要比股票好；而当经济复苏，股票又会反弹。金融市场的反映总会比经济形势快得多。
大家都知道要预测经济发展的趋势可是难上加难的事。所以除非你在经济滑坡之前就持有大量债券，否则就有可能错过债券收益上升最快的时期。股票市场亦是如此，要在经济复苏之前持有股票，才会赶上这个早班车。
通过这种平均投资债券和股票的方式——使用指数积极很容易就能建立这样的投资模式——投资者无需再去预测经济变化形势，只需坚守这样的投资组合就可以安全度过任何的经济风暴。
当然，这种50-50的分配方式是相对较为保守的投资选择。如果改变这个比例，那么结果将会有很大的不同。比如经济不景气时，某个投资包含60%的股票和40%的债券，那么该投资方式的收益就远远低于50-50的分配比例。根据先锋集团的计算，60-40的分配比例，在经济滑坡时收益率为4.9%，经济复苏时为6.8%。
这就指出了预测市场信息存在的诱惑。在理想的状态下，如果投资者事先能够得知经济发展的趋势，那么投资者简直可以被称之为市场中的“巫师”。那样投资者可以在经济表现强劲时将钱全部用于投资股票，经济滑坡时又转为债券。如果现实真是如此，那么收益相当可观。先锋集团发现，经济形势良好，股票的年收益率是11.9%，这其中去除了通货膨胀的因素。而债券的年收益率是7.2%。但是这种情况只是理想状态。
这种做法很有可能会出现搬起石头砸自己的脚的情况。例如，根据错误的预测信息，在经济萧条时，持有大量股票，那么除去通货膨胀率后，年收益率为3.3%；而经济复苏时，只是持有债券，将让投资者损失0.7%的收益。
在某一特定时期，经济发展的大概方向可能是能够预见的，但是这并不代表在任何时候都可以做到这一点。Davis表示，当投资者认为自己比市场掌握了更多的信息时，一定要谨慎。
事实证明，如果投资者的投资分配合理，并且没有改动的计划，那么就不用担心经济会朝那个方向发展。
换言之，谦虚谨慎可以带来最稳定的收益。
THE euro crisis is deepening, the government in Washington can’t cut the deficit or reduce unemployment, and the economy is lurching into recession.
For investors, the course is obvious: Seek safety, and avoid risky assets like stocks.
All of that may seem clear enough. Since August, it has often been the prevailing view in financial markets. But it’s not the only narrative, and it hasn’t always been the dominant one.
In fact, another argument has received considerable support lately. It goes something like this: Recent economic data have been surprisingly strong, showing that while the economy is weak, it’s not in a recession, at least not in the United States. As for the crises in the euro zone and in Washington, the politicians will just have to come to their senses before the situation really gets out of control.
For investors, the course is obvious: Jump into stocks. Don’t miss the big rally.
It may be hard to decide which picture makes the most sense. Perhaps each is appealing, sometimes one more than the other, depending on the news of the particular moment.
These days, paying close attention to the economy and the markets can cause whiplash. What should an investor really do?
In a word, nothing.
When the latest news tempts you to move your investments around, take a deep breath. Unless you need the cash soon, the best course of action may be inaction.
That’s the import of a recent study by the Vanguard Group. Assuming you’ve already set up a diversified portfolio, sitting tight may make the most sense.
Vanguard created a model portfolio divided equally between stocks and bonds, and compared the returns in periods of economic expansion and recession. It found that “the average real returns of such a portfolio since 1926 have been statistically equivalent regardless of whether the U.S. economy was in or out of recession.”
Vanguard’s founder, John C. Bogle, popularized index funds, and the study tracked the stock and bond markets using indexes that mirror the broad markets. Individual stock and bond selection wasn’t involved at all.
The study, titled “Recessions and Balanced Portfolio Returns,” used the official recession dating of the National Bureau of Economic Research to compare market returns throughout the up and down phases of the business cycle from 1926 through June 2009. During expansions, the model portfolio had average real returns, factoring in inflation, of 5.6 percent, compared with 5.3 percent during recessions.
In short, there was a difference, but it was too small to be of any statistical significance, says Joseph H. Davis, chief economist and head of the investment strategy group at the Vanguard Group and a co-author of the report.
When the economy was bad and when it was good, the portfolio performed more or less the same. It really didn’t matter.
“The results may seem counterintuitive,” Mr. Davis said in a telephone interview. “You might think that it’s best for investors to avoid a recession, and in some ways, of course, it is. No one wants a recession. But the results suggest that as investors, rather than try to time the market, most people are best off with a diversified portfolio and just sticking with it over the long run.”
What accounts for these results? Put simply, bonds tend to outperform stocks when a recession is on the horizon, while stocks tend to rally when an economic expansion is in the offing. “The financial markets themselves tend to move in advance of the economy,” Mr. Davis said.
Predicting the economy’s direction is famously difficult. So unless you have substantial bond holdings in your portfolio well before a recessions begin, you’ll miss upturns in the bond market. And unless you’re holding stocks before an economic recovery has started, you’ll miss those big rallies.
By holding stocks and bonds in equal proportion — a portfolio that’s easy to construct by using index funds — you won’t need to be prescient; you can stick to your portfolio and ride out the storms.
Of course, a 50-50 stock-bond division is relatively conservative. Alter those proportions and the results will shift significantly. During recessions, for example, a portfolio containing 60 percent stocks and 40 percent bonds fared worse than the 50-50 portfolio, with an average real return of 4.9 percent annually. In expansions it did better, with an average real return of 6.8 percent, according to Vanguard’s calculations.
That points out the allure of market timing. In an ideal world, if you knew in advance where the economy was heading, you’d be a market wizard. You would shift your entire portfolio into stocks during expansions, for example, and put all of it into bonds in recessions. If you could actually do this, the results would be impressive. In expansions, Vanguard found, stocks have gained an average of 11.9 percent annually, after inflation, while the comparable figure for bonds in recessions is 7. 2 percent That kind of timing is ideal.
BUT it’s easy to shoot yourself in the foot. Get the timing wrong and hold only stocks in recessions, for example, and you’d have an annual average gain in those periods of 3.3 percent, after inflation. And if you hold bonds in expansions, you’d lose an average annual 0.7 percent, also after inflation.
It may be possible to predict the rough direction of the economy some of the time, but there’s no evidence that anyone gets it right all the time. “I’d be very careful before assuming that I knew better than the overall market,” Mr. Davis said.
It turns out, though, that if you have a diversified portfolio and are prepared to hold onto it, you may not need to know where the economy is going.
In other words, humility may bring the steadiest returns.
