文章導(dǎo)讀：本期封面文章對今年美國藍籌股一直走勢不佳的現(xiàn)象作出分析。對于這些大公司的藍籌股一直勢態(tài)低迷的情況，文章從歷史分析入手，通過90年代后期藍籌股的異常牛市來解釋當期一蹶不振的原因：一方面是隨著20世紀末市場化全球化的進程，經(jīng)濟發(fā)展的大爆發(fā)，藍籌股指數(shù)達到一個過高的頂點，之后很難再超過；另一方面是經(jīng)濟過熱之后的適當緊縮，以及911等事件對美國經(jīng)濟的打擊，藍籌相對于小企業(yè)股票的應(yīng)變性差的問題。最后文章提到，藍籌股將來仍然會走向牛市，但金融市場的多樣化，使投資者將會理性的分析市場。從宏觀的角度講，不失為一件好事。
Cover Story：Blue Chip Blues
Just a few years ago, U.S. blue chip stocks were the most respected asset class in the world. No longer. In May, the $22 billion Fidelity Blue Chip Growth fund, which holds shares of giant U.S. companies such as Microsoft, Johnson & Johnson, and Wal-Mart Stores, will make a surprising request. It will ask shareholders to approve a switch in its benchmark from the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index, a traditional blue-chip barometer, to the Russell 1000 Growth Index, a broader gauge that includes many smaller companies. “The move,” says fund manager John McDowell, “reflects the investment style of the fund through thick and thin.” Meanwhile, another Fidelity fund, $50 billion Magellan, recently dumped blue chips Pfizer, Intel, and Procter & Gamble and boosted its foreign holdings to 25%, up from 4% just a few months ago.
These are confusing times for the shareholders of America's biggest corporations. General Electric Co.has boosted its earnings by 22% since Chief Executive Jeffrey R. Immelt took the reins on Sept. 7, 2001. But GE's once vaunted stock price has languished during his tenure. Home Depot Inc., the second-biggest U.S. retailer, has more than doubled its profits since 2001, a feat rewarded with a measly 1.5% bump in its stock price. Intel Corp.'s prize for boosting its earnings by 173% in five years？ A 30% plunge in its shares.
A similar malaise afflicts Walt Disney （DIS ）, Microsoft, Pfizer, Wal-Mart, and others across many sectors and industries. What exasperates the leaders of these corporations is that it seems there's little they can do about it. They're delivering the earnings growth, but investors aren't responding. At work are forces largely beyond their control.
BOILING DOWN TO ZILCH
Welcome to the blue chip blues. The S&P 500 is near a five-year high. But don't celebrate： It has returned just 4.3% annually during that span, far less than its long-term average of 10%. The S&P 100-stock index —— the bluest of the blue chips, with $6.5 trillion in market capitalization and a huge share of U.S. corporate profits —— has returned just 2.03% annually to investors during that span, chiefly from dividends. Without dividends, it's just 0.94% overall, or 0.19% annually. In any event, after taxes and inflation, that pretty much boils down to zilch. Things have gotten so bad that ISI Group strategist Jason R. Trennert has said blue chips could be “the cheapest asset class in the developed world.”
There's no law that says stock prices must track corporate earnings perfectly. But the degree of the disconnect and its long duration pose serious questions for CEOs, managers, and shareholders alike. Is this a temporary phenomenon or a permanent structural change？ Should America's investor class —— the doctors and nurses, couples and singles, clerks and judges —— continue to hold these stocks as dearly as they did a few years ago？ What would it take to get big U.S. stocks moving again？
Just about everything is crushing blue chips： real estate, commodities, precious metals, international stocks, and smaller U.S. stocks. And investors haven't had to be geniuses to take part in those gains. They've merely had to dust off some old ideas. Basic finance theory says that investors can get the best balance of risk and reward by owning pieces of as many of the world's asset classes as they can, from stocks to gold, alpacas to saffron. For years, the S&P 500-stock index of the biggest U.S. companies was the best approximation of that ideal available to investors —— and they flocked to it.
But in the past decade, the world's financial markets have changed in unexpected ways. The proliferation of hedge funds, those lightly regulated pools of capital that cater to wealthy investors, has allowed pension fund managers and other institutional investors to venture beyond U.S. shores and seek high returns wherever they present themselves. And the explosion of exchange-traded funds, or mutual funds that trade like stocks, has opened up the world to individual investors in ways that were never before possible. China, Mexico, and South Africa are now just a mouse click away. A decade ago, they were available chiefly through clunky, high-fee mutual funds, if at all.
With more choices, investors are diversifying their portfolios as textbooks say they should. Emerging-market shares, small U.S. stocks, gold, and even commodities are taking up sizable chunks.
Cover Story：Blue Chip Blues
Just a few years ago, U.S. blue chip stocks were the most respected asset class in the world. No longer. In May, the $22 billion Fidelity Blue Chip Growth fund, which holds shares of giant U.S. companies such as Microsoft, Johnson & Johnson, and Wal-Mart Stores, will make a surprising request. It will ask shareholders to approve a switch in its benchmark from the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index, a traditional blue-chip barometer, to the Russell 1000 Growth Index, a broader gauge that includes many smaller companies. “The move,” says fund manager John McDowell, “reflects the investment style of the fund through thick and thin.” Meanwhile, another Fidelity fund, $50 billion Magellan, recently dumped blue chips Pfizer, Intel, and Procter & Gamble and boosted its foreign holdings to 25%, up from 4% just a few months ago.
These are confusing times for the shareholders of America's biggest corporations. General Electric Co.has boosted its earnings by 22% since Chief Executive Jeffrey R. Immelt took the reins on Sept. 7, 2001. But GE's once vaunted stock price has languished during his tenure. Home Depot Inc., the second-biggest U.S. retailer, has more than doubled its profits since 2001, a feat rewarded with a measly 1.5% bump in its stock price. Intel Corp.'s prize for boosting its earnings by 173% in five years？ A 30% plunge in its shares.
A similar malaise afflicts Walt Disney （DIS ）, Microsoft, Pfizer, Wal-Mart, and others across many sectors and industries. What exasperates the leaders of these corporations is that it seems there's little they can do about it. They're delivering the earnings growth, but investors aren't responding. At work are forces largely beyond their control.
BOILING DOWN TO ZILCH
Welcome to the blue chip blues. The S&P 500 is near a five-year high. But don't celebrate： It has returned just 4.3% annually during that span, far less than its long-term average of 10%. The S&P 100-stock index —— the bluest of the blue chips, with $6.5 trillion in market capitalization and a huge share of U.S. corporate profits —— has returned just 2.03% annually to investors during that span, chiefly from dividends. Without dividends, it's just 0.94% overall, or 0.19% annually. In any event, after taxes and inflation, that pretty much boils down to zilch. Things have gotten so bad that ISI Group strategist Jason R. Trennert has said blue chips could be “the cheapest asset class in the developed world.”
There's no law that says stock prices must track corporate earnings perfectly. But the degree of the disconnect and its long duration pose serious questions for CEOs, managers, and shareholders alike. Is this a temporary phenomenon or a permanent structural change？ Should America's investor class —— the doctors and nurses, couples and singles, clerks and judges —— continue to hold these stocks as dearly as they did a few years ago？ What would it take to get big U.S. stocks moving again？
Just about everything is crushing blue chips： real estate, commodities, precious metals, international stocks, and smaller U.S. stocks. And investors haven't had to be geniuses to take part in those gains. They've merely had to dust off some old ideas. Basic finance theory says that investors can get the best balance of risk and reward by owning pieces of as many of the world's asset classes as they can, from stocks to gold, alpacas to saffron. For years, the S&P 500-stock index of the biggest U.S. companies was the best approximation of that ideal available to investors —— and they flocked to it.
But in the past decade, the world's financial markets have changed in unexpected ways. The proliferation of hedge funds, those lightly regulated pools of capital that cater to wealthy investors, has allowed pension fund managers and other institutional investors to venture beyond U.S. shores and seek high returns wherever they present themselves. And the explosion of exchange-traded funds, or mutual funds that trade like stocks, has opened up the world to individual investors in ways that were never before possible. China, Mexico, and South Africa are now just a mouse click away. A decade ago, they were available chiefly through clunky, high-fee mutual funds, if at all.
With more choices, investors are diversifying their portfolios as textbooks say they should. Emerging-market shares, small U.S. stocks, gold, and even commodities are taking up sizable chunks.