多年来推动股市上涨的主要宏观力量

新闻在周末也不会停止。

The news doesn't stop on the weekends.

背景

Context

不断变化，而现在彭博社是掌握所有动态的最佳去处。

changes constantly, and now Bloomberg is the place to stay on top of it all.

你好。

Hi.

我是大卫·古拉。

I'm David Gura.

每周六和周日，请收听全新的《彭博周末新闻》。

Join us every Saturday and Sunday for the new Bloomberg this weekend.

我是克里斯蒂娜·拉菲尼。

I'm Christina Raffini.

我们将为您带来最新头条、深度分析和重磅访谈。

We'll bring you the latest headlines, in-depth analysis, and big interviews.

所有触动人心的故事

All the stories that hit home

都在你的休息日呈现。

on your days off.

我是丽莎·马泰奥。

And I'm Lisa Mateo.

请在本周末观看并收听彭博，聆听关于商业、生活方式、人物与文化的深刻而富有启发性的对话。

Watch and listen to Bloomberg this weekend for thoughtful, enlightening conversations about business, lifestyle, people, and culture.

在周六早晨，我们将回顾过去一周的事件，分析市场和世界发生的变化。

On Saturday mornings, we put the past week's events into context, examining what happened in the markets and the world.

而在周日，我们会采访记者、专栏作家和重要的政治人物，帮助你为即将到来的一周做好准备。

Then on Sundays, we speak with journalists, columnists, and key political figures to prepare you for the week ahead.

一醒来就加入我们，无论你的周末计划带您去往何处，都带上我们。

Join us as soon as you wake up and bring us with you wherever your weekend plans take you.

请在彭博电视上观看我们。

Watch us on Bloomberg Television.

在Bloomberg广播收听，通过Bloomberg Business应用在线直播，或收听播客。

Listen on Bloomberg Radio, stream the show live on the Bloomberg Business app, or listen to the podcast.

这就是本周末的Bloomberg节目，周六和周日早上7点（东部时间）开始。

That's Bloomberg this weekend, Saturdays and Sundays starting at 7AM eastern.

让Bloomberg电视、广播以及你收听播客的任何平台都成为你周末日常的一部分。

Make us part of your weekend routine on Bloomberg Television, radio, and wherever you get your podcasts.

Bloomberg音频工作室。

Bloomberg Audio Studios.

播客。

Podcasts.

广播。

Radio.

新闻。

News.

你好，欢迎收听《Odd Lots》播客的另一期节目。

Hello, and welcome to another episode of the Odd Lots podcast.

我是乔·维森塔尔。

I'm Joe Wisenthal.

我是特蕾西·阿洛韦。

And I'm Tracy Alloway.

所以，特蕾西，我们一直讨论的一个话题——其实大家都在谈——就是美国最大、最盈利的公司，它们依然规模庞大、利润丰厚，但已经不再像以前那样产生巨额自由现金流了。

So, Tracy, one of the things that we've been talking about a fair amount everyone's talking about it, I guess, is how the biggest, most profitable companies in America, they're still really big, and they're still really profitable, but they've switched from being throwing off tons of free cash flow Mhmm.

而是开始让大投资者花掉大量资金。

To big investors spending a lot of money.

是的。

Yeah.

没错。

That's right.

多年来，大型科技公司几乎一直在产生无穷无尽的现金。

So we've had years and years and years of big tech basically, I guess, generating infinite amounts of cash, it feels like.

而现在，它们开始把这些现金花在建造昂贵的数据中心等项目上。

And now they're switching to actually spending some of that cash to build very expensive data centers and things like that.

你说得对。

And you're right.

这确实是市场的某种转变。

It is kind of a change for the market.

对吧？

Right?

像这样的投资规模，我们很久没见过了。

Like, haven't seen No.

很长时间了。

That scale of investment for a very long time.

当然，我认为在我们这一代人中，

Certainly not, I don't think, in our lifetimes,

有吗？

have we?

我不确定。

I don't know.

不。

No.

我觉得不是这样。

I it doesn't feel like it.

我的意思是，你知道，也许我们会在对话中谈到这一点。

I mean, you know, I guess maybe we'll get into this in the conversation.

你知道，如果回溯到全球金融危机之前，指数中许多大型公司比如埃克森，曾经是世界上最大的公司

You know, I think if you go back to, like, pre GFC era, when a lot of the really big companies in the index were like, you know, Exxon was the biggest company of

之一

the world

很长时间了。

for a long time.

所以它们一直不得不大量投入，因为你不能只是被动地采集石油之类的。

So they would have always been having to, like, spend because you can't just sort of, like, passively collect oil, etcetera.

但看起来普遍属实的是，无论是金融还是科技领域，它们都具备以相对较少的资本支出创造惊人回报的能力，无论我们讨论的是设备、工厂，甚至是人力。

But it does seem generally true that the big theme both with financials and tech is this incredible ability to generate huge returns with fairly modest capital outlays, whether we're talking about equipment, plants, or even human labor.

另一个重大转变是，如果你只看科技行业，它长期以来一直是我们的股票市场中的主导力量。

Well, the other big switch is just, you know, if you look at it just at the tech sector, basically, which has been, you know, the dominant force in our equity markets for a while now.

但在2000年代的大部分时间里，投资主要集中在无形资产方面，是的。

But for much of the 2 thousands, the investment was in sort of, like, intangible Yeah.

你知道的，像SaaS这类东西。

You know, SaaS type stuff.

而现在我们正在转向实实在在的实体资产。

And now we're switching to really, like, brick and mortar.

他们正在花钱建设能源产能，为实际的芯片和容纳大量空调、服务器等的建筑付费。

They're paying to build energy capacity, and they're paying for actual chips and actual buildings to house a bunch of air conditioners and servers and all of that.

不。

No.

这完全正确。

It's it's totally true.

这正是一个大的主题，对吧，就是这个。

This is the big theme, right, is just this.

所以问题是，好吧。

So the question is, like, okay.

他们仍然赚了很多钱。

They're still making a ton of money.

他们仍然非常盈利，也许这些投资在未来某个时候会带来巨大的回报。

They're still very profitable, and maybe these these investments will pay off in a massive way at some point down the future.

但如果在资本支出和举债等方面，战略决策发生了如此重大的转变，投资者还能期待像过去那样高的回报吗？

But can investors expect the same level of returns that they've seen in the past if there's this big switch in terms of strategic decision making in terms of capital outlays and so forth, taking on debt?

这对市场意味着什么？

What does this mean for the markets?

这对投资者意味着什么？

What does this mean for investors?

我不知道答案，但也许我们的嘉宾

And I don't know the answer, but maybe our guest

另外，我的意思是，过去二十年里，我们所有人都习惯了听人说科技板块被高估了。

Well, also, I mean, you and I, I think for the past twenty years, we have all gotten very used to everyone saying that the tech sector is overvalued.

对吧？

Right?

是的。

Yes.

就像，即使它们源源不断地产生巨额现金，每个人还是说，哦，估值太高了。

Like, even as it throws off infinite amounts of cash, everyone is like, oh, so overvalued.

市场处于高位。

The market's at the top.

市场处于高位。

The market's at the top.

这几乎贯穿了我整个成熟投资生涯的始终。

That has been the case for pretty much, like, my entire mature investing age lifetime.

对。

Right.

所以你提到了这个问题的另一个重要维度，那就是估值，嗯。

And so you bring up a really another important dimension of this, which is just that valuations Mhmm.

根据传统指标。

By traditional metric.

我的意思是，我记得早期的席勒CAPE比率是多少？

I mean, I remember, you know, early on, what was the Schiller the Schiller CAPE ratio?

而且存在

And there's

不，不是这样的。

like, no.

它会均值回归。

And it's like, this has got a mean revert.

我们正处于历史估值的第98百分位，但它还在继续上涨。

It's this is we're at the ninety eighth percentile of historical valuation, and it keeps going up.

均值回归总是在不远处，乔。

So And Mean reversion is always around the corner, Joe.

它总是在那里，总是在那里，总是在等待。

It's it's It's always it's always It's always waiting.

不，这是另一个问题。

No, this is another question.

为什么没有出现均值回归？

Why didn't it mean revert?

对吧？

Right?

为什么我们看到的传统市盈率倍数会这样？

And why have just the multiples that we've seen on traditional price to earnings ratios?

你看看它们。

You look at them.

它们让你发疯，迟早得回落。

They make you go crazy, and they got to come down.

为什么它们还没回落？

Why haven't they?

对。

Right.

这也是一个有趣的问题，我们需要找到答案，甚至超越具体的资本问题。

That's an also an interesting question that we need to get answers to even beyond the specific capital question.

是的，我们来谈一谈。

Yeah, let's do it.

好的。

Alright.

我很兴奋地告诉大家，今天我们请到了一位完美的嘉宾，因为我们将与一位在这些确切问题上做了大量研究的人对话，他早在一月份就发表或合著了一篇引起我注意的论文，题为《股票市场估值比率的宏观经济学视角》。

Well, I'm very excited to say we do have the perfect guest today, because we are speaking to someone who's really done a lot of research on some of these exact questions, including he published a paper or co authored a recent paper that really caught my eye back in January called a macroeconomic perspective on stock market valuation ratios.

你提到的收益指标确实很有数据支持。

So it's good data you brought up the earnings metrics.

我们将与这篇论文的合著者之一乔纳森·希瑟科特对话。

We're gonna be speaking with Jonathan Heathcote, one of the coauthors of this paper.

他是明尼阿波利斯联邦储备银行的经济学家。

He's an economist at the Minneapolis Fed.

我们会全面讨论这个话题。

We're gonna talk all about this.

所以，乔纳森，非常感谢你做客《Odd Lots》节目。

So, Jonathan, thank you so much for coming on Odd Lots.

非常感谢你们邀请我。

Thanks a lot for having me.

是的。

Yeah.

我应该从一开始就说明一下，我得做个免责声明。

I should just say right at the start, I'm I I should give a disclaimer.

我是明尼阿波利斯联邦储备银行的经济学家，我所说的任何观点都仅代表我个人，不代表明尼阿波利斯联邦储备银行或美联储系统的立场。

I'm an economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, and anything I say is gonna be my views, not those at the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis or the Federal Reserve System.

谢谢你们提前把免责声明讲清楚。

Thank you for getting the disclaimer out of the way.

我们经常听到美联储的研究人员和经济学家这么说。

We are very used to hearing that from Fed researchers and economists.

我想乔已经提过了，这篇论文的标题是《股票市场估值比率的宏观经济学视角》。

So the title of the paper, I think Joe already said it, a macroeconomic perspective on stock market valuation ratios.

那你为什么选择在这个特定的时间点研究这个特定的话题呢？

Why did you decide to look at this particular topic at this particular moment in time too?

是的。

Yeah.

实际上，在我们研究这个课题之前，我们原本在写一篇关于美国净外国资产头寸的论文，我们注意到，美国资产减去负债的价值在过去十年里急剧下降。

So, actually, we started out before before we worked on this, we were working on a paper on The US net foreign asset position, and and we'd noticed that, you know, the value of US assets minus our liabilities, that had been declining really fast over the last ten years.

历史上，人们大多从美国持续出现巨额经常账户赤字、不断累积对世界其他地区的债务角度来理解这一现象。

And historically, people had mostly thought about that in terms of The US running big current account deficits, running up a bigger and bigger debt with the rest of the world.

嗯。

Mhmm.

我们意识到，国际总资产头寸已经变得非常庞大，而净外国资产位置的下降很大程度上是因为外国投资者大量投资于美国股市和对美直接投资。

And we realized that the kind of international gross asset positions have gotten really big, and a lot of the decline in the net foreign asset position was driven by the fact that foreigners had invested a lot in US equity markets and a lot of foreign direct investment into The US.

当美国市场比世界其他地区更繁荣时，这些外国对美投资的价值随之上升，从而压低了美国的净外国资产头寸。

And when The US markets were booming, much more so than the rest of the world, that was driving up the value of these foreign investments in The US, and that was driving down The US net foreign asset position.

因此，在那之后，我们逐渐更感兴趣于去理解，究竟是什么在更广泛地推动估值变化。

And so after that, we kinda became more interested in trying to understand, you know, what's driving valuations more generally.

我的意思是，我们的背景其实并不完全是金融领域的。

I mean, our background's not really we're not really in finance.

我们更像是宏观经济学家，但这些年我们一直在研究这个课题，这篇论文就是从这里开始的。

We're sort of more macroeconomists, but we've been working on this for a few years now, and that's where this paper started.

从理论和宏观角度来看，这种宏观经济学与股票市场之间的联系似乎很有意思。

This seems like a just from a sort of theoretical big picture perspective, this link between sort of macroeconomics and stock markets.

而且，这些领域常常是各说各话，互不相干。

And it does feel like often these are worlds that talk past each other.

宏观经济学家们很少讨论股票市场的估值问题。

The macro people aren't talking about stock market valuations that much.

而股票市场的人则认为，在很多情况下，他们根本不需要关心宏观经济学。

And stock market people, they think they don't even have to care about macroeconomics in many cases.

但这让我觉得很有意思。

But this strikes me as interesting.

这种观点有多新颖呢？

How novel is this?

或者跟我们谈谈这种试图弥合这两个领域之间差距的尝试。

Or talk to us about this attempt to bridge the gap between the two worlds here.

是的。

Yeah.

我认为两者之间有很多紧密的联系，我们其实讨论的是同样的事情，只是角度略有不同。

I think there's a lot of strong connections, and we're talking about the same things in a slightly different frame.

例如，宏观经济学家长期以来一直在讨论一个现象：劳动收入占产出的比重似乎在持续下降。

So one thing macroeconomists have been talking about for a long time, for example, is the fact that it looks like labor share output has been drifting down over time.

这意味着蛋糕中更大一部分流向了企业所有者，而流向工人的工资份额则变小了。

So a larger share of the pie seems to be going to owners of firms and a smaller share as wages to workers.

这显然直接关系到对估值的思考。

And obviously, that ties directly into thinking about valuations.

如果企业利润增加，就会推高估值。

If the firm's making bigger profits, that's going to drive up valuations.

所以我认为这两者之间存在很多联系。

So I think there's a lot of connections.

我认为长期以来，从历史上看，人们普遍觉得理解估值非常困难。

I think for a long time, historically, there was a sense that it was kind of really hard to understand valuations.

估值受到风险溢价剧烈波动的驱动，而这些波动与传统的缓慢变化的宏观因素关系不大。

They were driven by wild variations in risk premia that had not much to do with standard slow moving macro stuff.

因此，形成了两个独立的阵营：一个研究金融，另一个研究宏观，很难将它们联系起来。

And so there were two separate camps, one studying the finance, one studying the macro, it was hard to connect them.

但我认为人们正在努力解决这个问题，而且我认为两者之间存在很多联系。

But I think people are working on that, and I think there's a lot of connections.

好的。

Okay.

那我们来深入探讨一下这篇论文的结论吧，因为每当谈到高估值时，人们总是忍不住想：不可能。

Well, let's dive into the paper's conclusion then because I think everyone when when we talk about high valuations, the temptation is always to be like, no.

那些对这些高估值感到满意的人，他们才是疯狂的。

The people who are satisfied with these high valuations, like, they're the crazy ones.

对吧？

Right?

我是那个看到真相的人。

Like, I'm the one that sees the truth.

但你的论文实际上提供了一个相当合理的解释，说明为什么这些高估值能够持续存在，而没有像乔提到的那样回归正常。

But your paper actually sets out, like, a pretty reasonable explanation for why these high valuations have persisted and have not been reverted, as Joe mentioned.

请跟我们谈谈你论文中的劳动力部分和投资部分。

Talk to us about both, I guess, the labor component in your paper as well as the investment component.

是的。

Yeah.

当然。

Sure.

所以，你知道，乔刚才提到市盈率。

So, you know, I think Joe was mentioning a minute ago the price earnings ratio.

这是一个长期以来人们常用的经典估值指标。

That's sort of a classic valuation metric people have looked at for a long time.

一直以来的想法是，如果价格远远超过利润，那么这个差距未来可能会缩小。

And the idea always was that, well, if prices get too far ahead of profits, then maybe that gap's gonna narrow again going forward.

所以，你要么得有非常快的盈利增长，要么价格就得下跌，从而导致回报率很低。

So either you're gonna have to have really fast growth in earnings or the prices are gonna come down, so you're gonna get low returns.

人们一直关注这个比率。

And people have looked at that ratio.

谢勒提出了一个著名的版本。

Schiller has the famous version of it.

问题是，市盈率一直在持续上升，长期以来都远高于其历史平均水平，而且这个差距似乎还在不断扩大。

And the problem is that it's been drifting up and up, the price earnings ratio, and it's been kind of way above its historical average for a long time, and that gap just seems to keep getting bigger.

所以我们又回过头来研究了这一点。

So we were we kinda went back to that.

我们用宏观数据而不是金融数据进行了分析，但如果你看标准的金融账户，结果看起来差不多。

We looked at it in in macro data instead of financial data, but it looks much the same if you look at standard financial accounts.

我们回溯到了1952年。

And we went back to 1952.

是的。

Yeah.

你看到市盈率大幅上涨。

You see this big run up in in the price earnings ratio.

但不，你还可以看其他指标。

But, no, there are other metrics you can look at.

另一个你可以关注的是价格与自由现金流的比率。

And another thing you can look at is you can look at prices relative to free cash flow.

这差不多是一个类似的比率。

And it's sort of a similar ratio.

只是分母换成自由现金流了。

It's just that you've got free cash flow in the denominator.

收益和自由现金流的唯一区别在于，计算收益时，你要减去折旧的数值。

And the only difference between earnings and free cash flow is in measuring earnings, you subtract a measure of depreciation.

而在计算自由现金流时，你不是减去折旧，而是扣除全部资本支出。

In measuring free cash flow, instead of subtracting depreciation, you take out all capital expenditure.

自由现金流的好处在于，它大致衡量了企业最终可供股东分配的所有剩余资金。

And then the nice thing about free cash flow is there's sort of a measure of everything that's left at the end of the data to be paid to the owners of the firm.

所以你要用企业的销售额减去投入成本、支付给劳动力的薪酬、税收以及资本支出。

So you take the sales of firms, you subtract the input costs, payments to labor, subtract their taxes, subtract their capital expenditure.

剩下的所有金额就是企业可以分配给其所有者的资金。

Everything that's left is money that the firm can pay out to its owners.

因此，如果你观察美国所有企业的市值与它们产生的总现金流之比，这个比例在不同时间会有较大波动，但并没有长期持续上升的趋势。

So if you look at that ratio, the value of all the firms in The US relative to the total cash flow they're generating, it bounces around a bunch over time, but it doesn't have, like, a long a long term drift.

它不像那种系统性地随着时间逐步上升的情况。

It's not like it's kind of systematically moving up over time.

所以，如果你看这个比率，你可能会说，今天的市场可能并没有被严重高估。

So if you look at that rate ratio, you'd say, maybe the market's not so overvalued today.

也许价格大致处于历史范围内，相对于这个比率而言。

Maybe prices are roughly where they you know, roughly within historical range compared to this to this ratio.

这在我看来非常重要，所以我们应该就此点暂停一下，或者再深入讨论一下。

This strikes me as very important, and so we should just pause on this point or stick with this point for a second.

我们都见过席勒市盈率以及其他各种版本。

So we've all seen the Schiller Cape and various other versions.

你的意思是，我一直认为，干脆我们就直接衡量自由现金流吧。

What you're saying is if you just and I've always thought, just let's just measure free cash flow.

这正是我关心的全部。

That's all I care about.

如果我是个投资者，我只关心最终有多少钱回到我手里。

If I'm an investor, just how much money comes back to me at the end of the day.

但你说，当你用这个视角来看整个市场时，它并不会像市盈率那样出现极端偏离正常范围的长期趋势？

But you're saying that when you look at the entire market through this lens, it just does not have the same extreme drift outside of normal ranges that you see when you look at price to earnings ratios?

是的，没错。

Yeah, that's right.

我的意思是，它会随着时间波动，但如果你看看1980年时的情况，那时股票估值处于低位。

I mean, it bounces around over time, but if you look at where it was, say, in 1980, that so was a low for stock values.

如果你比较1980年和2022年的这个价值与自由现金流的比率，结果是一样的。

If you look at it in 1980 and you look at it in the 2022, that ratio of value to free cash flow is the same.

在这两个时期，这个比率都大约处于历史平均水平。

And both cases, it's about the historical average.

如果你看过去三年，这个比率一直在上升。

Now if you look over the last three years, you know, that ratio has kept moving up.

所以我们现在高于历史平均水平，但并没有远远超出过去六七十年内的波动范围。

So now we are above the historical average, but we're not wildly outside the range that it's fluctuated in over the last sixty, seventy years.

我是弗朗辛·拉克鲁瓦，一位获奖记者，我推出了一档新播客《弗朗辛·拉克鲁瓦的领导者》，由彭博播客出品。

I'm Francine Lacroix, an award winning journalist, and I've got a new podcast, Leaders with Francine Lacroix from Bloomberg Podcasts.

我采访过从国家元首到时尚偶像等各种人物，讨论当下新闻，但我一直好奇这些人作为领导者究竟是怎样的。

I've interviewed everyone from heads of state to fashion icons about the news of the moment, but I've always been curious who are these people as leaders.

我认为没有一种

I don't think there's one

正确的领导方式。

right way to be a leader.

做出决策。

Make decisions.

一个糟糕的决策总比不做决策要好。

A poor decision is always better than no decision.

每两周的星期一收听新一期节目。

Listen to new episodes every other Monday.

在您收听播客的任何平台关注《与法兰辛·拉克鲁瓦谈领袖》。

Follow leaders with Francine Lacroix wherever you get your podcasts.

回到劳动力和投资这个部分，如果我们简单地来看，我想你之前用过派的比喻。

And just going back to the labor and investment component, if we think about it very simplistically, I think you used the pie analogy earlier.

比如，把这笔现金看作一个巨大的派，流向劳动力的部分减少了，流向投资的部分也减少了，而更多部分被用于分配或返还给资本，也就是股东。

Like, if you think about that cash as a giant pie, less of it is going to labor, less of it has been going on investment, and more of it is being spent or returned to capital, I e, the shareholders.

是的。

Yeah.

没错。

That's right.

所以如果你看市盈率，就不是说利润没有增长。

So if you look at the price earnings ratio, it's not like earnings haven't grown.

利润增长得相当快，而且增长得这么快，是因为流向工人的产出份额在下降，而流向企业所有者的份额在上升。

They've grown pretty fast, and they've grown pretty fast because the share of the output that's going to workers has been going down, and the share that's going to owners of firms has been going up.

所以盈利增长了，但现金流增长得更快，而现金流增长得更快是因为企业能够在不进行大量额外投资的情况下产生这些额外利润。

So earnings have grown, but cash flow has grown even faster, and cash flow has grown even faster because firms have been able to generate these extra earnings without doing a lot of extra investment.

我认为投资者最终关心的，或者说他们应该关心的是，他们实际能收到多少收入。

I think what investors care about at the end of the day, what they maybe ought to care about is, you know, how much income is actually they're gonna be receiving.

如果企业必须进行大量投资才能维持这些盈利，那么这部分收入就无法分配给企业所有者。

And if firms have gotta do a a lot of investment to keep sustaining those earnings, that's income that can't go to the owners of the firm.

但这种投资似乎长期以来一直相对较弱，同时企业价值的占比也在下降。

But that investment seems to have been relatively weak over time, and as the share of firm value has been declining.

因此，现金流增长得很快。

So cash flow has grown fast.

跟我们谈谈劳动份额这个指标吧。

Talk to us about this measure of labor share.

显然，在单个公司层面上，你可以直接了解有多少资金流向了劳动力，有多少流向了其他方面。

Obviously, on an individual basis, for an individual company basis, you can just, like, you know, find out how much is going to labor versus other things.

但在宏观层面，也就是你所研究的总体层面，这条曲线我多年来一直看到，人们总在谈论劳动份额，而且它总体上是在下降的。

At the aggregate level, which is where you're working at the macro level, this line, and I've seen it for years, people talk about labor share, and it's generally going down.

这个指标有多稳健？

How robust is that measure?

这个单一数字看起来对工人非常不利，尤其是从长期劳动份额趋势来看。

How that single number because it looks pretty bad for workers when you look at the long term labor share trend.

从方法论或学术角度来看，这个数据有多可靠？

How, like, methodologically or sort of intellectually robust is is this data?

是的。

Yeah.

我认为宏观经济学家们已经研究这个问题很长时间了。

I think it's something that macroeconomists have been looking at for a long time.

我认为它相当稳健。

I think it's pretty robust.

如果你观察企业部门，可以直接在国民账户中衡量。

If you look at the corporate sector, you can just measure it in the national accounts.

你可以查看员工的工资和薪金，并将其与企业部门的产出进行比较。

You can look at wages and salaries of employees, and you can compare that against the output of the corporate sector.

从1980年到2022年，这些工资和薪水下降了大约八个百分点，我想是这样。

And those wages and salaries have fallen by about eight percentage points since 1980, I think, from 1980 to 2022.

这相当于GDP的八个百分点。

So that's eight percentage points of GDP.

这是一个巨大的变化。

That's a big change.

如果你看非企业部门，你看到的是小企业。

If you look at the non corporate sector, you're looking at small businesses.

这更难衡量，因为很难说一家小型私营企业有多少产出是支付给劳动力的，有多少是支付给资本的。

That's harder to measure because kind of hard to say for a small private business how much of their output is really payments to labor versus payments to capital.

但对于大公司来说，这相对直接明了。

But for big corporations, it's sort of straightforward.

这其中有一个小问题，就是一些公司支付得更多了。

There one wrinkle to that, which is that some firms have been paying more.

它们用股票期权等方式补偿部分员工。

They've been compensating some of their workers with stock options and things like that.

所以这在一定程度上使问题复杂化了，因为你得决定这是算作劳动报酬还是算作资本收入。

And so that kind of complicates it a little bit because know, you wanna call that a payment to labor or you wanna call that part of income to capital.

但撇开这一点不说，我认为确实发生了一个重大转变：劳动收入占比下降，而资本收入或企业所有者的纯粹租金收入占比上升。

So but putting that aside, I think it is there is there has been a big shift with less income going to labor, more income going either to capital or just as pure rents to the owners of firms.

等等。

Wait.

现在我真的很感兴趣。

Now I'm really curious.

在你自己的研究中，你是如何分类股票形式的薪酬的？

In your own research, how did you classify stock based compensation?

那是劳动收入的增加，还是资本收入的增加？

Was that an increase in labor, or was that an increase in to capital?

是的。

Yeah.

我们基本上是遵循国民账户的分类方法。

We just follow the we just follow, basically, the national accounts.

因此，纯粹的经济分析和资金流动将这些数据整合成一个名为综合宏观经济账户的数据库。

So the pure economic analysis and the flow of funds they put together, this dataset called the integrated macroeconomic accounts.

这实际上就是标准的国民收入和产品账户的一个版本。

And it's really just a version of the standard national income and product accounts.

他们以标准方式分类劳动收入，即工资和薪金。

And they classify labor income the standard way, which is wages and salaries.

我认为，在这个标准的国民收入测算中，当股票期权被执行时，会被计入工资收入的一部分。

And I think they include in that standard national income measure, when stock options are exercised, that counts as part of of

工资，好的。

wage Okay.

工资收入。

Wage income.

但你知道，当股票期权被授予时，那又是怎么回事呢？

But, you know, when they're granted, that's the you know?

这里面有一些细节，但至少部分应该被包含在这些工资统计中。

So there's some details there, but, you know, they're supposed to be at least partially captured there in that waging commercial.

好的。

Okay.

在投资方面，无形资产呢？

And on the investment side, what about intangibles?

因为当我们讨论估值和更广泛的宏观经济时，这总是会冒出来。

Because this is the thing that constantly comes up when we're talking about both valuations and the broader macro economy.

如今，公司所做的很多事情，尤其是在大型科技公司，都与无形资产有关。

So much of what companies do nowadays, especially in big tech, has to do with intangibles.

所以，你知道，那些短暂的品牌价值之类的东西，是否被包含在那个投资数字里了？

So, you know, the ephemeral brand value and things like that, would that have been captured in that investment number?

是的。

Yes.

随着时间推移，他们衡量投资的方式略有变化，正努力更全面地捕捉知识产权、软件等过去未被计入的投资。

So they've changed a little bit over time the way they try and measure investment, and they're trying to capture more investment in intellectual property, investment in software and stuff that wasn't historically captured.

但仍然存在疑问：他们究竟在多大程度上准确捕捉到了这些投资？

There's still a question about how well they're capturing that and how much of it is measured.

但在衡量自由现金流时，我们之所以青睐自由现金流这一指标，是因为就企业所有者可获得的收益而言，无论这些对无形资产的支出被计为中间投入（从而减少增加值），还是被计为资本投资（从而减少投资），都不会影响最终结果。

But in terms of measuring free cash flow, one one reason we like the free cash flow measure is that in terms of the income that's available to go to the owners of the firm, it doesn't really matter whether that spending on intangibles, that could be counted as a purchase of an intermediate input that subtracts from value added, or it could be counted as a capital investment, then it's gonna subtract from investment.

因此，无论哪种方式，自由现金流的数值都是一样的。

So the free cash flow measure is gonna be the same either way.

我认为这就是自由现金流的一个优点。

So I think that's a nice thing about free cash flow.

它仅仅衡量企业在支付所有账单后剩余的收入，而无论这些账单被归类为投入成本还是资本支出，都不会影响这一指标。

It is just a measure of the income that's left over after the firm's paid all its bills, and it doesn't really matter whether you count those bills as an input cost or a capital expenditure.

所以我认为，观察自由现金流这一指标的一个优势就在于此。

So I think, you know, that's one advantage of looking at this free cash flow measure.

那么，当你着手撰写这篇论文时，你最初的思考中有多少是源于你之前的研究所带来的学术渊源？又有多少是受到当前现实的驱动——即2025年或2026年企业行为正发生巨大变化？

So when you embarked on this paper, how much was it in the with your thinking, you talked about the intellectual origins of it with your prior research, but how much was it motivated or driven by this current 2026 or probably 2025 when you started at reality that there is a very big change in corporate behavior afoot?

我们不知道这种趋势会持续多久，但可以说，过去两到三年最重大的故事之一，就是这些利润丰厚的公司如何显著转向了投资模式。

We don't know how long it's going to last, but this is the big story of arguably the last two to three years is how much these very profitable companies have seriously shifted into investment mode.

是的，我想说我们在这方面可能稍微慢了一拍。

Yeah, I would say we weren't that we were maybe a little behind on that.

我们已经研究这个话题一段时间了。

We were working on this for a while.

所以我认为，这并不是我们特别关注的事情。

So I think, you know, that's not something that was particularly on our radar.

我们最近才稍微注意到这一点。

We've we've kind of twigged onto that a little bit more recently.

不是的。

No.

确实，大型科技公司围绕人工智能的投资一直在快速增长。

It's true that that that investment, an AI centered investment by the big tech firms, that's been booming.

其他类型的投资则相对疲软。

Other kinds of investment have been kinda weak.

例如，住宅投资一直很疲软。

Residential investment, for example, has been weak.

所以总体来看，投资确实对美国经济而言显得相对强劲，但并未在整体上显著超出正常水平。

So investment overall, yeah, it looks kind of relatively strong for the whole US economy, but it's not outsized in in aggregate.

所以，是的，这确实是个问题。

So, yeah, I think it's definitely a question.

我认为，正如你一开始所说的，企业能够产生大量收益这一说法。

I think, as you said right at the start, this story that firms have been able to generate a bunch of earnings.

这些产生大量收益的企业，尤其是科技公司，是在资本支出不多的情况下做到的，这使得它们的现金流强劲增长。

Some of these firms that have generated a bunch of earnings, especially in tech, they've done it without a lot of capital expenditure, and that's meant that their cash flow has grown really strongly.

现在它们开始花钱了。

And now they are starting to spend.

因此，未来这确实是个问题。

So it is a it is a question going forward.

这种支出会不会有回报呢？

Is that spending gonna you know, is it gonna pay off?

所以目前，我想是的。

So at the moment, I guess yeah.

我想有一些公司的现金流目前暂时为负。

I guess there's a bunch of companies whose cash flow temporarily is negative right now.

是的

Yeah.

历史上，它产生了大量的自由现金流。

Historically, it made big free cash flow.

因此，这是投资者正在思考的问题。

And so that's the question investors are thinking about.

你可以随时通过彭博新闻现在获取新闻。

You can get the news whenever you want it with Bloomberg News Now.

我是艾米·莫里斯。

I'm Amy Morris.

我是凯伦·莫斯科，今天来向你介绍我们新推出的按需新闻报告，直接推送至你的播客订阅中。

And I'm Karen Moscow here to tell you about our new on demand news report delivered right to your podcast feed.

彭博新闻现在是一份简短的五分钟音频报告，涵盖当日最重要的新闻。

Bloomberg News Now is a short five minute audio report on the day's top stories.

节目全天多次发布，提供最新信息和数据，帮助你保持知情。

Episodes are published throughout the day with the latest information and data to keep you informed.

是的。

Yes.

其他新闻机构也有类似的产品，但它们通常只是全天重复播放其广播新闻。

There are other products like this from a variety of news organizations, but they usually rerun their radio newscasts throughout the day.

但我们不是这样做的。

That's not what we do.

我们制作的是仅在彭博新闻现在平台上才能收听的定制节目。

We create customized episodes that can only be heard on Bloomberg News Now.

我们不会等上一小时才发布突发新闻。

And we don't wait an hour to publish breaking news.

一旦有新闻发生，我们会在几分钟内将新节目推送到您的播客订阅中，确保您始终获取最新的报道和动态。

When news breaks, we'll have an episode up in your podcast feed within minutes, so you're always getting the latest stories and developments.

获取来自彭博社全球3000名记者和分析师的报道与背景分析。

Get the reporting and the context from Bloomberg's 3,000 journalists and analysts were all over the world.

立即在Apple、Spotify或您常用的任何平台收听彭博新闻现在的最新内容。

Listen to the latest from Bloomberg News now on Apple, Spotify, or anywhere you listen.

你如何看待整体数据与行业，或者说是这些科技巨头公司之间的区别？

How do you think about aggregates versus, I guess, sectors or, you know, a handful of big tech companies in this data?

因为，再次强调，你关注的是整体数据，比如宏观变量。

Because, again, you're you are looking at the aggregate numbers, like the macro variables.

但如果我们现在来看市场，真正花钱的其实只有少数几家科技公司。

But if we think about the market right now and who's actually spending money, it's like a handful of tech firms.

对吧？

Right?

是的。

Yeah.

没错。

That's right.

我们之前主要关注的是整体数据。

We have been mostly looking at the aggregates.

我们已经开始在CRISP和Compustat中查看一些公司层面的数据了。

We've started looking a little bit at the at firm level data in, CRISP and Compustat.

当我们查看企业层面的数据时，可以看到，确实，绝大多数价值增长、整个股票市场总价值的增长，都来自于数量相对较少的企业，大概五十家左右。

And, you know, what you see what we've seen so far looking at the firm level data is that, yeah, it's a relatively small number of firms that account for most of the growth in value, most of the growth in total stock market value, maybe, say, 50 firms.

但这五十家企业正是那些现金流增长最快的企业。

But those 50 firms are the same firms that have had the the fastest growth in cash flow.

因此，对于美国最大的约五十家企业而言，现金流和市值基本上是同步增长的。

So so cash flow and value have grown roughly in lockstep for, say, fifty fifty of the biggest firms in The US.

这些企业中，我想很多都是大型科技公司，它们一直在产生巨额现金流，市值也很高。

And so these I mean, I guess a bunch of these are big tech firms, and these big tech firms have been generating mountains of cash, and they're high values.

它们的基础并非虚幻。

They're not built on sand.

它们的价值并非建立在我们未来会获得巨额利润的预期之上。

They're not built on an expectation that we're gonna make big future profits.

利润现在就已经存在了。

The profits are there now.

我想问题是，这些利润在未来能否持续下去？

And I guess the question is, you know, are those profits gonna persist going forward?

让我们回到劳动份额这一部分。

Let's get back to the labor share component.

我的意思是，其中一个出现的问题是，繁荣的股市是否基于不平等的持续？

I mean, one of the things that comes up is this question of, like, is the booming stock market based on the perpetuation of inequality?

某种程度上，早在2010年代，所有人、这些企业领袖和人士都会去达沃斯，说他们真的关心不平等。

Some extent, idea, back in the 2010s, everyone and all these corporate leaders and people would go to Davos and they say, we really care about inequality.

听起来不错，等等。

It sounds nice, etcetera.

同时，每个人都希望股市上涨。

Also everyone wants the stock market to go up.

如果我们稍微深入分析一下，似乎这里存在某种张力。

Seems if we tease this out a little bit, that there is some tension.

对吧？

Right?

看起来确实存在某种张力：如果你真正实现了利润从资本向劳动分配的显著转变，而你所说的股价上涨部分原因正是劳动份额的下降，那么显然这里存在根本性的矛盾。

Is the it seems like there's some tension with if you actually had some sort of meaningful shift in terms of the ratio of profits that go from capital to labor, if part of the story in your line go up is the declining labor share, then it does seem like there's pretty obviously some fundamental tension here.

是的。

Yeah.

所以我认为，如果拥有农场的人和获得工资收入的人是同一群人，那么这只不过是一种收入的重新分配。

So I think that, you know, if the people who are owning the farms were the same people who are earning the wage income, then, you know, it would just be a reshuffling of income.

你会在一个口袋里收入减少，在另一个口袋里收入增加，这对不平等来说基本上是抵消的。

You know, you'd be getting less income in one pocket, more income in your other pocket, and that would be kind of a wash for inequality.

但我猜担忧在于，拥有股票市场很大一部分的人是一群人，而许多工人并没有多少股票市场财富，因此他们无法从这些更高的股价中受益。

But I guess the concern is that the people who own a large part of the stock market are one group of people, and then the workers, you know, many workers don't have a lot of that stock market wealth, and so they don't benefit from these higher stock prices.

所以这是一个担忧，而且我认为未来也是如此：人们在思考人工智能将如何改变未来的劳动力市场，以及它将如何改变财富分配，是否会进一步减少工人所占的份额，同时进一步增加企业所有者所占的份额。

So that is a concern, and I guess it's a concern going forward too, people know, thinking about AI, how that's gonna change labor markets going forward, and how that's gonna change the pie, whether that's gonna reduce the share of the pie that's going to workers still further and increase still further the share that's going to owners of firms.

实际上，这让我想到了一个相关的问题。

Actually, this reminds me of a related question.

但你知道，你就在明尼阿波利斯联储，我假设当你发表这样一篇研究论文时，你希望你的上司们能关注它。

But, you know, you're at the Minneapolis Fed, and I assume when you publish a research paper like this, you want your bosses to look at it.

我想现在应该是尼尔·卡什卡里吧。

I guess that's Neil Kashkari right now.

而且你希望这篇论文能带来一些政策含义，政策制定者究竟应该从这样的研究中得出什么结论？

And you want there to be some sort of policy implication, what exactly should policymakers take away from something like this paper?

因为你知道，在美联储，他们当然关心财富不平等，但他们并没有促进财富平等的法定职责。

Because, you know, at the Fed, I'm sure they care about wealth inequality, but they don't have a wealth inequality mandate.

他们确实有维护金融稳定的职责，所以你甚至可以论证，他们可能不希望扰乱当前的股市估值，这可能意味着不应提高劳动者在现金流中的份额。

They do have a financial stability mandate, So, you know, you could even make the argument that they wouldn't wanna unsettle the the, you know, current equity market valuations, which would argue potentially for not increasing labor share of that cash flow.

但不管怎样，当你发表这样一篇论文时，政策制定者应该从中得到什么？或者你希望他们真正从中得到什么？

But, anyway, when you publish a paper like this, what are policymakers supposed to take away, or what do you hope that they actually take away?

我认为美联储确实关注股市，我们关注股市是因为我们想了解这些对经济的顺风和逆风影响。

I think that at the Fed, we do follow equity markets, and we follow them because we sort of wanna get a sense of those headwinds and tailwinds for the economy.

在其他条件相同的情况下，如果股市表现更强，这会带来一点额外的顺风，更高的股价通常会带来更多的消费支出和企业投资。

And all else equal, if the stock market is stronger, that's a little bit of a bigger tailwind and higher stock prices you'd expect, a little bit more consumer spending, a little bit more business investment.

因此，美联储肯定对理解股市感兴趣。

So the Fed, for sure, we're kind of interested in in understanding stock markets.

我认为，预测股价很难，我们并不从事交易，也很难靠这个赚钱。

I think, you know, forecasting forecasting stock prices is hard, and we're we're we're not trading, and it's hard to make money on that.