灰犀牛作者：美联储加息做的对！| 2019影响力峰会

活动预告：2019影响力峰会——预见未来将于2019年1月5日在北京举行，届时，包括《灰犀牛》作者米歇尔·渥克等在内的大咖将齐聚一堂，点击这里免费报名，与他们面对面。

2019影响力峰会——预见未来将于2019年1月5日在北京举行（点击报名），著名作家、畅销书《灰犀牛》作者米歇尔·渥克将出席并发表主题演讲。

著名作家、畅销书《灰犀牛》作者米歇尔·渥克

近日，美联储加息，美股再度暴跌引发市场关注。美股暴跌何时休，美联储加息影响有多大，投资者应该怎么办？米歇尔·渥克给出了答案。

60S 要点速读：

1、美联储担心未来如果再次出现2008年那样的金融危机，自己可能没有进一步降低利率的空间。虽然这可能不会马上发生，但在不远的将来再次发生金融危机的可能性是很大的。

2、鲍威尔采取的举措应该说是正确的，并不通过追求股票市场指数来奠定自己的功绩，他肩负的责任要比这大得多，而他深知这一点。

3、这次加息肯定会让美国经济增速放缓，但肯定不会对股票市场带来同等的影响。量化宽松的最大问题在于，大部分新增的货币并没有进入实体经济，而是创造了巨大的市场泡沫，那些离开股票市场的资金并不一定会进入实体经济。

4、过去一段时间美国的所谓牛市并不完全是好的现象，还存在许多负面因素。牛市会让人们做出不明智的决策，承担更多的风险。

5、现在人们对隐私泄露和信息操控的担忧逐渐增加，科技企业与其用户之间都存在着明显的“灰犀牛”，但他们却选择忽略这些问题，想把这些问题隐藏起来，有的时候甚至会公然欺骗用户，现在就是在为这些行为买单。

以下为专访精编：

网易研究局：此前有观点预计 12 月美联储加息进程将反转，但最后的结果还是强硬加息，出于什么考虑？

米歇尔·渥克：美联储的加息措施是其达成长期货币政策正常化目标的手段之一，许多市场观察者以及美联储本身都一直对过去十几年以来宽松货币政策造成的后果感到担忧，同时会影响到劳动力市场、消费水平以及经济活跃度。

美联储也担心未来如果再次出现2008年那样的金融危机，自己可能没有进一步降低利率的空间。虽然这可能不会马上发生，但在不远的将来再次发生金融危机的可能性是很大的。综合考虑这些因素，美联储认为加息势在必行。

网易研究局： 如何看待特朗普和鲍威尔之间的博弈？现在来看，美联储当初不选择耶伦做主席是不是错误的决定？

米歇尔·渥克：可能特朗普现在更希望当初耶伦能继续当选美联储主席，但我不认为耶伦会采取和鲍威尔不同的举措。

鲍威尔不断地发表关于过去几个月强劲经济增长的观点，这是很有趣的。根本没有提到可能存在的危机，这一点还是特朗普提出来的，希望通过提高人们的危机感来让美国经济摆脱量化宽松带来的影响。

特朗普公开反对加息并试图影响美联储政策，我相信鲍威尔以及其他美联储官员可能都想告诉特朗普：他的想法不能影响美联储。因为如果美联储失去其独立地位，许多美国的投资者都会强烈反弹。事实上，关于特朗普与自己的智囊团商讨解除鲍威尔职务的传闻也没有对市场起到任何促进作用。鲍威尔采取的举措应该说是正确的，并不通过追求股票市场指数来奠定自己的功绩，他肩负的责任要比这大得多，而他深知这一点。

网易研究局：美联储是否评估过加息对股市可能带来的负面影响？

米歇尔·渥克：毫无疑问，美联储肯定有对加息可能会对股票市场造成的负面影响进行全面预估，然而实体产业的价格稳定才是其首要的职责，而非股票市场。不过现在也有观点认为，

如果牺牲实体经济，而让股市变成一个巨大的泡沫，那么这将成为让美联储关注的问题。资产通胀带来的麻烦并不会比消费价格通胀更小。

股票市场在2009年3月触底，直到今年9月，股指大约上涨了300个百分点，如果算上红利再投资的影响，这个数字可能会更高；2009年到2017年期间GDP大约增长了36个百分点。如果股票市场的增长远远高于实体经济，这肯定是不正常的现象，因为股票价格反映的应该是投资者对未来收益的预期。

市场产生超过一年半的相对稳定收益也是不正常的，许多华尔街的金融精英认为，目前市场处于一种“非理性繁荣”当中，其实早就应该进行调控了。实际上目前企业分红仍然约为其实际盈利的15倍，这可不是一个很小的幅度。

但是本轮股票市场下跌不只是因为美联储加息，还因为白宫政策不确定性的增加。除此之外，投资者其他方面的担忧也在增加，包括总统的决策能力，尤其是在经济方面的决策。市场偏好确定性和稳定性，白宫做出的恰恰是相反的决策。

网易研究局：美联储加息，美国随即暴跌，加息进程是否会逆转美国经济向好势头？

米歇尔·渥克：这次加息肯定会让美国经济增速放缓，但肯定不会对股票市场带来同等的影响。量化宽松的最大问题在于，大部分新增的货币并没有进入实体经济，而是创造了巨大的市场泡沫，那些离开股票市场的资金并不一定会进入实体经济。此外，大约只有一半的美国人在股票市场有投资，股票市场80%的份额被美国最富有的10%的人持有，因为这些人手上已经有花不完的钱，所以富人们也不太可能会改变自己的消费习惯。市场环境的冲击首先会在高端房地产业以及奢侈品市场显现，之后才会影响到更加广泛的住房价格以及汽车、旅游等高档消费产业。

需要了解的是，美国和中国在制定货币政策、化解金融风险的方式是完全不同的。比如美国强调的是广义货币政策，比如通过加息以及美联储资产负债表，其它部分交由市场自行解决，政策制定者们往往等到市场危机充分显现才会采取行动。中国的方式则是针对特定存有潜在风险的领域采取外科手术式的手段，比如资产管理和P2P借贷。

因此我们需要观察美国加息措施将会对经济的哪些领域带来压力，利率的提升将会让那些在低利率期间并不明显的问题暴露出来，比如杠杆贷款、房地产、页岩气开采等等领域。

网易研究局： 美联储加息对中国的影响多大？是否会进一步加大中国经济下行压力？中国如何应对？

米歇尔·渥克：利率提升会让美元相对其它国家货币升值，其中也包括对人民币汇率。这将会给中国带来一些压力，因为有关人民币的走势也一直是美国政界的重要议题，美国加息带来的汇率变化可能会招致中国的不满。中国可能也会相应地加息做出回应，但这会给中国自己的经济带来连锁效应，就像美国利率的提升会影响到许多领域一样，中国也面临着相同的状况，所以如何计算这些连锁效应并做出政策回应是很重要的。

此外需要考虑到的一点是，通常来说，美元升值对那些向美国出口商品的国家将会是利好，但贸易战使得任何对贸易走势的预测都变得非常困难。

网易研究局：如何看待美联储明年加息次数的减少？

米歇尔·渥克：当下的美联储可以说是如履薄冰，既想要让市场冷静下来，降低资产膨胀，又不想造成市场暴跌、经济衰退和通货紧缩，所以正在试图发出信号避免市场出现恐慌。但美联储已经表示不会再如此频繁地加息，如果经济环境变化，美联储的政策意图也会发生变化。

目前美联储和市场各界关于金融政策的制定都有许多讨论，这些年美联储的决策经历了由神秘到有清晰的导向，然后再到目前的对未来决策的制定更加慎重的转变。我认为美联储正试图在信息泛滥和信息匮乏之间寻找一个结合点，也需要经历一个过程。

网易研究局：美股和全球股市投资者该如何应对美联储加息带来的不良影响？美股尤其是科技股是否有泡沫，泡沫出尽美股还能否重返牛市？

米歇尔·渥克：过去一段时间美国的所谓牛市并不完全是好的现象，还存在许多负面因素。首先如果人们都觉得在股市当中很容易赚钱，他们就不会对那些真正创造就业的制造业和服务业投资感兴趣，但最终真正创造就业、提供商品和服务的正是这些产业。牛市会让人们做出不明智的决策，承担更多的风险，特别是以保证金的形式购买股票，这些资金都是他们借来的。这种行为会让股票价格涨得更高，同时也跌得更狠，因为当股值跌到买入价格以下，人们就将被迫卖出。

科技股肯定是经历过泡沫的，比如Facebook这样的企业，泡沫并不会因为市场的担忧而破裂，而是因为投资者对其运营出现的重大失误感到不满。现在人们对隐私泄露和信息操控的担忧逐渐增加，这些企业与其用户之间都存在着明显的“灰犀牛”，但他们却选择忽略这些问题，想把这些问题隐藏起来，有的时候甚至会公然欺骗用户，现在就是在为这些行为买单。

FOR ENGLISH:

2019 Impact Summit is going to be held on 5th January, 2019 in beijing. Michele Wucker, the famous writer of “The Gray Rhino” will give a keynote speech.

FED has raised interest rate regardless of the objection of president Trump. And the main stock markets in the world fell sharply, which have arisen the public concern. Here are the points of Michele Wucker on the topic.

NetEase Economic Research Bureau: There was a view that Fed's interest rate hike process will be reversed in December. But, finally, a tough rate hike was adopted. What is the reason?

Michele Wucker ：The Fed followed through with its rate hike as part of its long-term goal of trying to normalize monetary policy. Many market observers, and the Fed itself, have long worried about unintended consequences of the very loose monetary policy of the past decade. It cited a strong labor market, consumer spending, and strong economic activity. The Fed also is worried that it won't have enough room to lower rates in the future if there is another emergency like 2008-09. Though that is not going to happen immediately, the chances of another financial crisis not too far in the future are high. Combined, those factors gave the Fed both the confidence that it had the room to lift rates and a sense of urgency in doing so.

NetEase Economic Research Bureau: How do you understand the game between Trump and Powell? Now, is it a wrong decision that FED did not choose Yellen?

Michele Wucker ：Trump may be wishing that he chose Yellen instead, but I'm not convinced that she would have made a different decision from Powell's.

As for Powell himself, it's been interesting to hear him talking about a strong economy over the past several months, not even hinting at possible trouble --as Trump did until recently- but using that story of strength to try to wean the US economy and markets from the influence of quantitative easing. He's also clearly defending the principle of central bank independence. After Trump's public attempts to influence Fed policy and prevent a rate hike, I believe Powell --and probably other Fed governors as well-- also felt an extra need to demonstrate that Trump could not bully them. Were the Fed to lose its independent status, U.S. investors would revolt. In fact, news that Trump was talking to his advisors about wanting to fire Powell has not helped markets at all. Powell is doing the right thing in not judging his success by the level of stock market indexes. His responsibilities are much bigger than that, and he knows it.

NetEase Economic Research Bureau: Has FED assessed the possible negative impact of interest rate hikes on the stock market?

Michele Wucker ：I have no doubt that the Fed has thoroughly assessed the possible negative impact of interest rates on the stock market. But price stability in the real economy --not the stock market-- is its primary mandate. However, there is a strong argument that when the stock market becomes a giant bubble, at the expense of the real economy, that legitimately is the Fed's concern. Asset inflation is no less a problem than consumer price inflation.

>From the market bottom in March 2009 until this September, stocks rose by nearly 300 percent, not even counting dividend reinvestment which makes that number even higher. GDP growth was around 36 percent from 2009 through 2017. When the market gets that far ahead of the real economy, it's clear something is not right. After all, stock prices supposedly reflect what investors expect future earnings to be.

More than a year and a half of relatively steady gains is not normal. Many of the smartest people on Wall Street believe that the market has been caught in acts of "irrational exuberance" and that it was overdue for a healthy correction. In fact, shares are still trading at roughly 15 times earnings, which still cannot be called inexpensive.

But the stock market is not falling just because of the interest rate hike. Stocks also are falling because of the increasing instability in the White House, and widening worries --including among donors in the president's political party- about his poor decision making in general, and especially where the economy is concerned. Business likes certainty and stability, and the White House is creating the opposite.

NetEase Economic Research Bureau: The Federal Reserve raised interest rate and the U.S stock market plunged. Will the interest rate hike reverse the momentum of the U.S. economy?

Michele Wucker ：The interest rate hike certainly will slow the economy, but not by anywhere near as much as the impact on the stock market. The big problem with quantitative easing is that the vast majority of the expanded money supply did not go into the real economy -it went into creating huge market bubbles. So money leaving the stock market does not necessarily translate into a comparable amount of money leaving the economy. Also, only about half of the U.S. population have investments in the stock market -- 80 percent of stocks are held by the richest 10 percent of Americans. Because they already have so much more disposable income than they can spend, the richest people are less likely to change their consumption behavior than are the rest of Americans. Any impact would likely fall first on very high-end real estate and luxury goods, and then on the broader housing market and expensive purchases like cars or travel.

It's important to understand that the US and China deal with monetary policy and potential financial risks differently. For example, the United States emphasizes very broad monetary policies --such as interest rate hikes and the Fed balance sheet-- and lets markets sort out the rest. Policy makers tend to wait for a crisis in parts of the economy before taking action, as we saw with subprime loans in the 2008 crisis and many people think will happen with collateralized loan obligations now. But China has been taking a much more surgical approach toward specific danger areas, for example, wealth management and peer-to-peer lending.

So it's important to look at how the US interest rate hike could be creating pressure on specific parts of the economy where rising interest rates can reveal problems that are not as evident in a low interest rate economy and rising market; say, leveraged loans, housing, and shale gas operations.

NetEase Economic Research Bureau: How will Fed's interest rate hike impact China's economy? Will it further increase downward pressure on China's economy? How should China respond?

Michele Wucker ：The interest rate hike will increase the value of the dollar against other currencies, including the RMB. This is a challenge for China because discussions of the Chinese currency are highly politicized in the United States, so even a shift in the exchange rate caused by US interest rate policy gets blamed on China. China could hike its own interest rates in response, but that decision has to be in the context of the ripple effects throughout its own economy. Just as rising interest rates in the US will affect some sectors more than others, the same is true in China. So scenario planning around those sectors and potential policy responses is important.

Another important consideration is that normally, a rising dollar would be good for countries that export to the United States. But the trade war has made it very hard to predict anything involving trade trends.

NetEase Economic Research Bureau: What do you think of Fed's decision to reduce the times to raise its interest rate next year?

Michele Wucker ：The Fed is walking a tightrope, trying to cool off the markets and head off inflation but not to create a major crash, recession, and deflation. So it's trying to signal to markets to avoid creating panic. But just because it says now that it won't raise interest rates as frequently, economic conditions could change, in which case its intentions would change as well.

There has been a debate within the Fed and the markets about how much policy signaling the Fed should do. Over the years it has gone from being extremely mysterious, to giving very clear guidance, to now considering being much more circumspect about what it expects to do in the future. I think the Fed is still trying to find the "sweet spot" between too much and too little information. It's an ongoing process.

NetEase Economic Research Bureau: How should investors in the U.S and global stock markets cope with the negative impact of the Fed's interest rate hike? Are there bubbles in the stock markets of the U.S, especially in technology stocks? And is it possible to get back to bull market?

Michele Wucker ：A bull market like the one we have experienced until recently is not all good. There are many downsides, most of all that when people think they can make easy money in the stock market, they don't bother investing in less glamorous but ultimately more important businesses that create jobs and goods and services that people need, which in turn create more jobs and goods and services. A bull market leads people to take unwise risks, particularly borrowing "on margin" to buy stocks with money they don't have; that drives prices higher even faster but makes the crashes even harder, because it forces people to sell when shares fall below the price at which they borrowed to buy it.

Technology stocks definitely have experienced bubbles. For some companies, like Facebook, the bubble is popping not just because of market nervousness, but because of growing public unhappiness with major mistakes by executives.

As concerns about privacy and information manipulation have grown, those companies saw obvious "gray rhino" problems in their relationships with their users. But they ignored them, tried to push them under the rug, and sometimes even outright lied. Now they are paying the price.