确定性的荒谬

这是霍华德·马克斯的备忘录。

This is the memo by Howard Marks.

《确定性的愚蠢》。

The Folly of Certainty.

我写备忘录的灵感来源可以有很多种。

The impetus for my memos can come from a wide variety of sources.

这篇的灵感来自7月9日星期二《纽约时报》上的一篇文章。

This one was inspired by an article in The New York Times on Tuesday, July 9.

吸引我注意的是副标题里的几个词。

What caught my eye were a few words in the sub headline.

她没有任何怀疑。

She doesn't have any doubt.

说话的是罗恩·克莱恩，拜登的前幕僚长。

The speaker was Ron Klain, a former Biden chief of staff.

话题是拜登总统是否应该继续竞选连任，而她指的是拜登的竞选主席珍·奥马利·狄龙。

The subject was whether president Biden should continue to run for reelection, and the she was Jen O'Malley Dillon, Biden's campaign chair.

文章接着引用了她的话，说在6月27日与前总统唐纳德·特朗普辩论前几天，她曾表示，乔·拜登一定会赢，就这样。

The article went on to quote her as having said, Joe Biden is going to win, period, in the days just before his June 27 debate against former president Donald Trump.

这样一来，我就有了这篇备忘录的主题，不是拜登是否会继续竞选或退出，也不是如果他继续竞选是否会赢，而是为什么有人能毫无疑虑。

And with that, I have the subject of this memo, not whether Biden will continue campaigning or drop out, or whether he'll win if he continues, but rather how anyone can be without doubt.

考虑到拜登候选资格的不确定性，这又是我的一篇简短备忘录。

It'll be another of my shorty memos given the uncertain shelf life of the Biden candidacy.

这个主题让我想起另一次听到一位资历深厚的人表达绝对确定性的经历。

The choice of subject calls to mind another time I heard a highly credentialed person express absolute certainty.

那次，一位公认的外交事务专家对我们一群人表示，以色列在年底前摧毁伊朗核能力的可能性是100%。

In that case, an acknowledged expert in foreign affairs told a group I was part of, there was a 100% probability that the Israelis would take out Iran's nuclear capability before year end.

他看起来像个真正的内部人士，我没有理由怀疑他的话，但那是2015年或2016年，我还在等那个“年底”到来。

He seemed like a genuine insider, and I had no reason to doubt his word, yet that was 2015 or '16, and I'm still waiting for before year end to come around.

为他辩护一下，他没说是哪一年。

In his defense, he didn't say which year.

正如我在2022年9月的备忘录《知识的幻觉》中所指出的，宏观预测者不可能做出一个能正确纳入所有已知会影响未来的众多变量，以及那些几乎无法预知的随机影响的预测。

As I indicated in my memo, The Illusion of Knowledge, September 2022, there's no way a macro forecaster can produce a forecast that correctly incorporates all the many variables that we know will affect the future, as well as the random influences about which little or nothing can be known.

正因为如此，我过去也写过，投资者和其他受宏观未来变化影响的人，应该避免使用像“将会”、“不会”、“必须”、“不可能”、“总是”和“从不”这样的词。

It's for this reason, as I've written in the past, that investors and others who are subject to the vagaries of the macro future should avoid using terms such as will, won't, has to, can't, always, and never.

政治。

Politics.

当2016年总统大选来临时，有两件事几乎所有人都确信不疑。

When the twenty sixteen presidential election rolled around, there were two things about which almost everyone was certain.

第一，希拉里·克林顿会赢；但第二，如果因为某种命运的巧合唐纳德·特朗普赢了，股市会崩盘。

A, Hillary Clinton would win, but b, if by some quirk of fate Donald Trump were to win, the stock market would collapse.

最不确定的专家说克林顿有80%的胜算，而对她获胜概率的估计从那里往上走。

The least certain pundits said Clinton was 80% likely to win, and the estimates of her probability of victory ranged upward from there.

然而，特朗普赢了，股市在接下来的十四个月里上涨了超过30%。

And yet, Trump won, and the stock market rose more than 30% over the next fourteen months.

大多数预测者的反应是调整他们的模型，并承诺下次做得更好。

The response of most forecasters was to tweak their models and promise to do better next time.

我的反应是：如果这还不足以让你相信，第一，我们不知道会发生什么；第二，我们不知道市场会对实际发生的事情作何反应，那我就不知道什么才能让你相信了。

Mine was to say, If that's not enough to convince you that a) we don't know what's going to happen, and b) we don't know how the markets will react to what actually does happen, I don't know what is.

甚至在三个星期前那场被广泛讨论的总统辩论之前，我认识的人里就没有谁对即将到来的选举结果表现出多大的信心。

Even before the much discussed presidential debate of three weeks ago, no one I know expressed much confidence regarding the outcome of the coming election.

今天，奥马利·迪伦女士很可能会软化她对拜登必胜的立场，解释说辩论结果让她措手不及。

Today, miss O'Malley Dillon would likely soften her position regarding the certainty of a Biden victory, explaining that she was blindsided by the debate result.

但这就是关键所在。

But that's the point.

我们不知道会发生什么。

We don't know what's going to happen.

随机性是存在的。

Randomness exists.

有时候事情如人们所料，他们就认为自己早知道会发生什么。

Sometimes things go as people expected, and they conclude that they knew what was going to happen.

有时候事情偏离了人们的预期，他们就说要不是那个意外事件，他们本来是对的。

And sometimes events diverge from people's expectations, and they say they would have been right if only some unexpected event hadn't transpired.

但无论哪种情况，意外发生的可能性，以及随之而来的预测失误的可能性，始终存在。

But in either case, the chance for the unexpected, and thus for forecasting error, was present.

在后一种情况下，意外发生了，而在前一种情况下，它没有发生。

In the latter instance, the unexpected materialized, and in the former, it didn't.

但这并不能说明意外发生的可能性有多大。

But that doesn't say anything about the likelihood of the unexpected taking place.

2021年的宏观经济学中，美联储认为当时正在发生的通胀将是暂时的，后来将其定义为暂时的、不会根深蒂固且可能自我纠正的。

Macroeconomics In 2021, the US Federal Reserve held the view that the bout of inflation then underway would prove transitory, which it has subsequently defined as meaning temporary, not entrenched and likely to self correct.

我觉得如果给足够的时间，美联储可能被证明是对的。

I think the Fed might have been proved right given enough time.

通胀可能会在三四年后自行消退，前提是：一，导致消费支出激增的新冠疫情救济资金被花完；二，全球供应链恢复正常运转。

Inflation might have retreated of its own accord in three or four years, after a) the COVID-nineteen relief funds that caused the surge in consumer spending were spent down, and b, the global supply chain returned to its normal operations.

然而，如果不减缓经济，可能会在三四年内带来通胀心理扎根的风险，从而需要采取更强烈的措施。

However, not slowing the economy would have brought the risk that inflationary psychology might take hold in those three to four years, necessitating even stronger action.

但由于美联储的观点在2021年没有得到证实，而且等待更长时间是不可行的，美联储被迫启动了历史上最快的加息计划之一，这产生了深远的影响。

But because the Fed's view wasn't borne out in 2021, and waiting longer was untenable, the Fed was forced to embark on one of the fastest programs of interest rate increases in history, with profound implications.

在2022年年中，几乎可以肯定美联储的加息会引发经济衰退。

In mid twenty twenty two, there was near certainty that the Fed's rate increases would precipitate a recession.

利率大幅上升会冲击经济，这说得通。

It made sense that the dramatic increase in interest rates would shock the economy.

而且，历史清楚地表明，主要央行的大幅紧缩几乎总是导致经济收缩，而不是软着陆，但至今还没有出现衰退。

Further, history clearly showed that major central bank tightening has almost always led to economic contraction rather than a soft landing, and yet no recession has materialized.

相反，到了2022年底，市场观察人士的共识转向了这样的观点：一是通胀正在缓解，这将允许美联储开始降息；二是降息将使经济避免衰退，或者确保任何收缩都是温和且短暂的。

Instead, late in 2022, the consensus among market observers shifted to the view that a) inflation was easing, and this would permit the Fed to start cutting interest rates, and b) rate cuts would enable the economy to avoid recession or ensure that any contraction would be mild and short lived.

这种乐观情绪在2022年底点燃了股市的反弹，并且一直持续到今天。

This optimism ignited a stock market rally in late twenty twenty two that persists today.

然而，支撑这次反弹的2023年预期降息并没有发生。

And yet the anticipated rate reductions in 2023 that undergirded the rally didn't transpire.

然后，在2023年12月，当美联储官员的利率点阵图显示2024年将降息三次时，推动市场的乐观主义者加倍押注，预期降息六次。

Then, in December 2023, when the dot plot of Fed officials' views called for three interest rate cuts in 2024, the optimists driving the market doubled down, pricing in an expectation of six.

通胀的顽固性至今阻止了任何降息，而2024年已经过半。

Inflation's stubbornness has precluded any rate cuts thus far, with 2024 more than half over.

现在，共识已经集中在9月首次降息上，而股市不断创下新高。

Now the consensus has coalesced around the idea of a first cut in September, and the stock market keeps hitting new highs.

今天的乐观派可能会说，我们是对的。

The optimists today would likely say, we were right.

看看那些涨幅。

Look at those gains.

但关于降息，他们就是错了。

But regarding interest rate cuts, they were simply wrong.

对我来说，这一切只是再次提醒我们，我们不知道未来会发生什么，也不知道市场会对发生的事情作何反应。

For me, all this does is serve as another reminder that we don't know what's going to happen or how markets will react to what does happen.

Breen Capital的Conrad de Quadros，我最喜欢的经济学家，这么说是不是有点矛盾，他为这份备忘录提供了一个有趣的小细节，关于经济学家的结论。

Conrad de Quadros of Breen Capital, my favorite economist, how's that for an oxymoron, has supplied an interesting tidbit for this memo on the subject of economists' conclusions.

我使用费城联储的焦虑指数，即未来一个季度实际GDP下降的概率，作为衰退已经结束的指标。

I use the Philly Fed's anxious index, the probability of a decline in real GDP in the upcoming quarter, as an indicator that a recession has ended.

当调查中超过50%的经济学家预测未来一个季度实际GDP下降时，衰退已经结束，或者接近结束。

By the time more than 50% of the economists in the survey project a decline in real GDP in the coming quarter, the recession is over, or close to being over.

换句话说，唯一值得确定的是，经济学家不应该表达任何确定性。

In other words, the only thing worthy of certainty is the conclusion that economists shouldn't be expressing any of it.

市场。

Markets.

2022年10月时，如果有人准确预测到美联储在未来二十个月不会降息，那他们绝对是对的。

The rare person who in October 2022 correctly predicted that the Fed wouldn't cut interest rates over the next twenty months was absolutely right.

而且，如果这个预测让他们远离了市场，那他们就错过了标普500指数大约50%的涨幅。

And if that prediction kept them out of the market, they've missed out on a gain of roughly 50% in the Standard and Poor's 500 index.

另一方面，那些乐观预测降息的人，虽然对利率的判断完全错了，但现在很可能更富有了。

The rate cut optimist, on the other hand, was absolutely wrong about rates, but is likely much richer today.

所以，是的，市场行为确实很难准确判断，但我不想在这里花时间列举那些市场专家的错误。

So yes, market behavior is very tough to gauge correctly, but I'm not going to take time here to catalog the errors of market savants.

相反，我想聚焦于为什么这么多市场预测会失败。

Instead, I'd like to focus on why so many market forecasts fail.

经济和公司的表现可能倾向于可预测，因为支配它们的因素，怎么说呢，有点机械性。

The performance of economies and companies might tend toward predictability given that the forces governing them are somewhat, shall I say, mechanical.

在这些领域，人们或许可以有一定信心地说，如果A，那么B。

In these areas, one might say if A, then B, with some degree of confidence.

所以这里的预测可能有一定几率是对的，但通常只有在趋势持续不变、外推法有效的情况下才会如此。

Predictions here might therefore have some chance of being correct, albeit that's mostly the case when trends continue unabated and extrapolation works.

但市场的波动比经济和公司要大得多。

But markets swing more than economies and companies.

为什么？

Why?

因为市场参与者的心理或情绪既重要又难以预测。

Because of the importance and unpredictability of market participants' psyches or emotions.

多亏了康拉德·德夸德罗斯的进一步帮助，我可以这样说明市场更大的波动性：四十年年度百分比变化的标准差：企业利润1.8%，标普500价格9.4%，13.1%。

Thanks to further help from Conrad Dequadros, I can illustrate the greater variability of markets as follows: forty year standard deviation of annual percentage changes: 1.8% corporate profits: 9.4% S and P 500 price: 13.1%.

为什么股价的涨跌幅度远大于其背后的经济和公司？

Why is it that stock prices rise and fall so much more than the economies and companies that underlie them?

为什么市场行为如此难以预测，而且常常看起来与经济事件和公司基本面无关？

And why is it that market behavior is so hard to predict and often seems unconnected to economic events and company fundamentals?

金融科学，即经济学和金融学，假设每个市场参与者都是经济人，即做出理性决策以最大化自身财务利益的人。

The financial sciences, economics and finance, assume that each market participant is a homo economicus, someone who makes rational decisions designed to maximize their financial self interest.

但心理和情绪所起的关键作用，往往让这个假设不成立。

But the crucial role played by psychology and emotion often causes this assumption to be mistaken.

投资者情绪波动很大，短期内会盖过基本面因素的影响。

Investor sentiment swings a great deal, swamping the short run influence of fundamentals.

正因为如此，市场预测能成真的不多，而能猜对原因的更少。

It's for this reason that relatively few market forecasts prove correct, and fewer still are right for the right reason.

如今，各路专家对即将到来的总统大选做出了各种预测。

Today, pundits are making all sorts of predictions about the upcoming presidential election.

他们的很多结论听起来很有道理，甚至很有说服力。

Many of their conclusions seem well reasoned and even persuasive.

我们听到和看到各种说法：有人认为拜登应该退选，也有人认为他不该退；有人认为他会退，也有人认为他不会；有人认为他继续参选就能赢，也有人认为他必输无疑。

We hear and read statements from those who believe Biden should and shouldn't drop out, those who think he will and won't, those who think he can win if he stays in the race, and those who think he's sure to lose.

显然，光靠聪明才智、教育背景、数据获取能力和分析水平，并不足以做出准确的预测。

Obviously, intelligence, education, access to data, and powers of analysis can't be sufficient to produce correct forecasts.

这些评论员中很多人具备这些条件，但显然，他们不可能全都说对。

Many of these commentators possess these attributes, but clearly, they won't all be right.

多年来，我经常引用约翰·肯尼斯·加尔布雷思的智慧。

Over the years, I've often cited the wisdom of John Kenneth Galbraith.

正是他说过，有两种预测者：一种是无知的，另一种是不知道自己无知的。

It's he who said, there are two kinds of forecasters: those who don't know, and those who don't know they don't know.

我发现我经常用这句话。

I find myself using this quote all the time.

我另一个最喜欢的加尔布雷思名言出自他的书《金融狂热简史》。

Another of my favorite Galbraith quotes is from his book A Short History of Financial Euphoria.

在描述投机狂热和系统性崩溃的原因时，他谈到了两个因素，这两个因素在我们这个时代或过去都很少被提及。

In describing the reasons for speculative euphoria and programmed collapse, he discusses two factors, little noted in our time or in past times.

一个是金融记忆的极度短暂性。

One is the extreme brevity of the financial memory.

我也经常引用这个因素。

I often cite this factor too.

但我不记得我写过他的第二个因素，加尔布雷思说，那就是金钱与智慧之间似是而非的联系。

But I don't remember ever writing about his second factor, which Galbraith says is the specious association of money and intelligence.

当人们变得富有，别人就会认为他们聪明，而当投资者成功时，人们常常会认为他们的智慧能在其他领域同样带来好结果。

When people get rich, others take that to mean they're smart, and when investors succeed, it's often assumed their intelligence can lead to similarly good results in other fields.

而且，成功的投资者往往开始相信自己的智力，并对与投资无关的领域发表意见。

Further, successful investors often come to believe in the strength of their own intellect and opine about fields with no connection to investing.

但投资者的成功可能是一连串好运或有利环境的结果，而不是什么特殊才能。

But investors' success can be the result of a string of lucky breaks or a propitious environment rather than any special talents.

他们可能聪明也可能不聪明，但通常他们在投资以外的领域并不比大多数人知道得更多。

They may or may not be intelligent, but often they don't know any more than most others about subjects outside of investing.

尽管如此，许多人毫不吝啬地发表意见，而这些意见往往受到大众的高度重视。

Nevertheless, many are unsparing with their opinions, and those opinions often are highly valued by the general populace.

这就是虚假的部分。

That's the specious part.

而今天，我们发现其中一些人在与选举相关的各种问题上都充满信心地发表言论。

And today, we find some of them speaking with conviction on all sides of the issues related to the election.

关于那些表达确定性的言论，已经说了很多。

A lot has been said about those who express certainty.

我们都认识那种人，常常犯错，但从不怀疑自己。

We all know people we describe as often wrong but never in doubt.

这让我想起另一句我很喜欢的话，据说可能是马克·吐温说的。

This reminds me of another of my favorite quotes, one that's attributed, perhaps tenuously, to Mark Twain.

让你陷入麻烦的不是你不知道的事。

It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble.

而是你确信不疑，但事实并非如此的事。

It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.

回到2020年年中，当时疫情似乎已经变得相对可控，我放慢了写备忘录的节奏，不再像三月和四月那样每周写一篇。

Back in mid twenty twenty, when the pandemic seemed to have become a more or less understood phenomenon, I slowed the pace of my memo writing from the one a week pattern of March and April.

五月，我利用机会写了两篇与疫情无关的备忘录，标题分别是《不确定性》和《不确定性II》，其中我花了不少篇幅讨论智识谦逊这个话题。

In May, I took the opportunity for two non COVID related memos titled Uncertainty and Uncertainty II, in which I devoted a significant amount of space to the subject of intellectual humility.

虽然这些备忘录是我最喜欢的话题之一，但反响不大，所以我会引用《不确定性》中的一些内容，希望你能回头看看。

While these memos were on one of my favorite topics, they generated little response, so I'll quote a bit from uncertainty and hopefully give you reason to look back at them.

这是那篇最初让我关注到智识谦逊的文章的一部分。

Here's part of the article that first brought the subject of intellectual humility to my attention.

根据作者的定义，知识上的谦逊是知识上的傲慢或自负的反面。

As defined by the authors, intellectual humility is the opposite of intellectual arrogance or conceit.

用通俗的话说，它类似于思想开放。

In common parlance, it resembles open mindedness.

知识上谦逊的人可以有坚定的信念，但会认识到自己可能会犯错，并且愿意在大事小事上被证明是错的。

Intellectually humble people can have strong beliefs, but recognize their fallibility and are willing to be proven wrong on matters large and small.

艾莉森·琼斯，《杜克今日》，2017年3月17日。

Allison Jones, Duke Today, 03/17/2017.

简单来说，知识上的谦逊就是会说“我不确定”。

To put it simply, intellectual humility means saying, I'm not sure.

别人可能是对的，甚至我可能错了。

The other person could be right, or even I might be wrong.

我认为这是投资者必备的素质。

I think it's an essential trait for investors.

我知道我喜欢交往的人都有这种特质。

I know it is in the people I like to associate with.

没有哪句话是以“我不知道，但是”或“我可能错了，但是”开头的，会让人惹上大麻烦。

No statement that starts with I don't know but or I could be wrong but ever got anyone into big trouble.

如果我们承认不确定性，我们会在投资前进行调查，反复核对结论，并谨慎行事。

If we admit to uncertainty, we'll investigate before we invest, double check our conclusions, and proceed with caution.

在顺境时我们可能会有所妥协，但不太可能突然崩溃或彻底失败。

We may sub optimize when times are good, but we're unlikely to flame out or melt down.

另一方面，那些自信满满的人可能会忽略这些步骤，如果他们自信但错了，就像马克·吐温那句名言所说，结果可能是灾难性的。

On the other hand, people who are sure may dispense with those things, and if they're sure and wrong, as the Twain quote suggests, the outcome can be catastrophic.

也许伏尔泰在250年前说得最好：怀疑不是一种愉快的状态，但确定是荒谬的。

Maybe Voltaire said it best two hundred fifty years ago, doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.

在受心理波动、非理性和随机性影响的领域，根本没有确定性的位置。

There simply is no place for certainty in fields that are influenced by psychological fluctuations, irrationality, and randomness.

政治和经济就是这样的两个领域，投资也是。

Politics and economics are two such fields, and investing is another.

没有人能可靠地预测这些领域的未来，但许多人高估了自己的能力，仍然试图这样做。

No one can predict reliably what the future holds in these fields, but many people overrate their ability and attempt to do so nevertheless.

放弃确定性可以让你避免麻烦。

Echewing certainty can keep you out of trouble.

我强烈建议这样做。

I strongly recommend doing so.

附言。

PS.

去年夏天的网球大满贯赛事给了我写备忘录的灵感，题目是“更少的失败者还是更多的赢家？”

Last summer's grand slam tennis tournaments provided the inspiration for my memo, fewer losers or more winners?

同样，上周六温布尔登的女单决赛也为这份备忘录提供了一个片段。

Similarly, this past Saturday's women's final match at Wimbledon has provided a snippet for this memo.

巴博拉·克赖奇科娃战胜了贾斯敏·保利尼，赢得了女子冠军。

Barbar Krzykova prevailed over Jasmine Paolini to win the women's title.

在比赛开始前，博彩者认为克赖奇科娃夺冠的赔率是125比1。

Before the tournament, bettors considered Krejcikova a 125 to one shot.

换句话说，他们确信她不会赢。

In other words, they were sure she wouldn't win.

投注者怀疑她的实力也许没错，但看来他们下注时不该那么笃定。

The bettors may have been right to doubt her potential, but it seems they shouldn't have been quite so certain in making their predictions.

说到不可预测的事，我不得不提最近针对特朗普的暗杀未遂事件，这件事本可能造成更严重、影响更大的后果。

And speaking of the unpredictable, I can't fail to mention the recent attempt on Donald Trump's life, an event that could well have had a more grave and impactful result.

即使事情已经发生，特朗普总统也侥幸未受重伤，但没人能确定这会对选举产生什么影响，尽管目前看来，这似乎对特朗普的选情或市场有利。

Even now that it has happened and president Trump has escaped serious injury, no one can state with certainty how it will impact the election, though at present, it appears to bolster Trump's prospects or the markets.

所以，这反而更加印证了我的核心观点。

So if anything, it reinforces my bottom line.

做预测基本上就是一场输家的游戏。

Making predictions is largely a loser's game.

2024年7月17日。

07/17/2024.

感谢收听霍华德·马克斯的《备忘录》。

Thank you for listening to The Memo by Howard Marks.

想收听更多节目，记得在你收听播客的任何平台订阅。

To hear more episodes, be sure to subscribe wherever you listen to podcasts.

本播客表达的是作者在指定日期的观点，这些观点可能会随时更改，恕不另行通知。

This podcast expresses the views of the author as of the date indicated, and such views are subject to change without notice.

橡树资本没有义务更新此处包含的信息。

Oaktree has no duty or obligation to update the information contained herein.

此外，橡树资本不作任何陈述，也不应假设过去的投资业绩能预示未来的结果。

Further, Oaktree makes no representation, and it should not be assumed that past investment performance is an indication of future results.

而且，只要有潜在收益，就同样存在亏损的可能性。

Moreover, wherever there is a potential for profit, there is also the possibility of loss.

本播客仅供教育目的使用，不应作其他用途。

This podcast is being made available for educational purposes only and should not be used for any other purpose.

此处包含的信息不构成也不应被解释为在任何司法管辖区提供咨询服务、出售或招揽购买任何证券或相关金融工具的要约。

The information contained herein does not constitute and should not be construed as an offering of advisory services or an offer to sell or solicitation to buy any securities or related financial instruments in any jurisdiction.

此处包含的某些关于经济趋势和表现的信息，是基于或来源于独立第三方提供的信息。

Certain information contained herein concerning economic trends and performances based on or derived from information provided by independent third party sources.

橡树资本管理有限公司。

Oaktree Capital Management, L.

P.

P.

相信这些信息的来源是可靠的。

Believes that the sources from which such information has been obtained are reliable.

但是，它无法保证这些信息的准确性，也没有独立核实这些信息的准确性、完整性或所依据的假设。

However, it cannot guarantee the accuracy of such information and has not independently verified the accuracy or completeness of such information or the assumptions on which such information is based.

未经橡树资本事先书面同意，本播客及其所含信息不得以任何形式全部或部分复制、转载、重新发布或张贴。

This podcast, including the information contained herein may not be copied, reproduced, republished, or posted in whole or in part in any form without the prior written consent of Oaktree.

Audiation。

Audiation.