【精译求精】顶级大师霍华德马克思谈投资秘诀：远离专家是投资的美德（上）

编者按：

此文系橡树资本董事长，美国投资大师霍华德马克斯于2017年初发布的最新“备忘录”。橡树资本总部位于美国洛杉矶，旗下管理资产约800亿美金。马克斯先生拥有沃顿商学院的金融学学士学位，以及芝加哥大学会计与市场营销学的工商管理硕士学位。2017年伊始，霍华德马克斯在其橡树资本官网上发出了最新一期“备忘录“，在备忘录中投资大师霍华德对诸如2016年美国，英国公投，意大利公投等黑天鹅事件进行了探讨，对众人口中的”专家意见“提出了深刻看法，以此提醒投资者们要脱离所谓”专家意见“的束缚。格隆汇特组织翻译力量以中英对照形式将此文分享与格隆汇会员。

Latest memo from Howard Marks: Expert Opinion

霍华德马克斯最新备忘录：专家意见

In August, Imentioned that I had chosen the title “Political Reality” for my memo in partbecause of my liking for oxymorons.  I classed that title with otherinternally contradictory statements, such as “jumbo shrimp” and “commonsense.”  Now I’m going to discuss one more: “expert opinion.” 

八月份时，我说过选择《政治现实》作为我的备忘录题目，部分原因是由于我对矛盾的喜爱，我把它跟其他的具有内在矛盾的备忘录归类在一起，比如《超级大虾》和《普通常识》。现在我们再来新增一个讨论：《专家意见》。

This memo wasinspired by a thought that popped into my head when the outcome of the electionsettled in.  You may point out that at the end of my November 14 memo “GoFigure!,” I said I wouldn’t write any more about politics.  True, but Ididn’t say I wouldn’t think about politics.  Anyway, this memo isn’t aboutpolitics, it’s about opinions.

当大选结果有了眉目的时候，我脑中迸发的一个想法促使了这个备忘录的诞生。你可能会指出，在我11月14日的备忘录《干到底！》中，我曾说过我不会再写关于政治的东西。确实是这样，但是我没说过我不会再对政治进行思考。不管如何，这个备忘录无关政治，它只关乎意见。

Last spring Iattended a dinner where one of Hillary Clinton’s senior advisers was solicitinginput, as she and her campaign were struggling to come up with an effectivecounter to Bernie Sanders’s populist message.  Most of those presentexpressed frustration on the subject, until an experienced, connected Democratassured everyone, “Don’t worry.  She’ll win.  The math isirresistible.”  The Hillary supporters were relieved, and he turned out tobe right: she won the nomination going away.

去年春天我参加了一场晚宴，那时，希拉里·克林顿的一个高级顾问在寻求资金支持，她和她的竞选团队即将与民粹社会主义者伯尼·桑德斯展开辛苦的党内竞选。大多数出席晚宴的人对希拉里的选情都很悲观，直到一个老道的民主党人向各位保证，“别担心，她会赢的，数字不会骗人。”希拉里的支持者们松了一口气。最后事实证明他是对的，希拉里成为了民主党内的总统候选人。

In late October,with the issue of Clinton’s private email server and the FBI’s newinvestigation further dogging her, that same seasoned Democrat was askedwhether the election was in jeopardy.  “Don’t worry,” he said. “She’ll win.  The math is irresistible.”  We all know the result.

十月底，希拉里爆出邮件门事件，FBI的调查也随之深入，面对总统选情的急转直下，那个老道的民主党人被问及：”大选是不是岌岌可危了？“ “别担心，”他说，“她会赢的，数字是不会骗人的。” 不过现在我们已经知道结果了。（注：共和党人川普当选美国第45任总统，并非希拉里。）

The opinions ofexperts concerning the future are accorded great weight . . . but they’re stilljust opinions.  Experts may be right more often than the rest of us, butthey’re unlikely to be right all the time, or anything close to it.  Thisyear’s election season gave us plenty of opportunities to see expert opinion inaction.  I’ll start this memo by reflecting on them.

这些专家关于未来的意见很有分量，但也只是意见而已。专家可能比我们大多数人要判断的更准确，但有的时候他们也不总是全对。今年的选举给我们提供了大量的机会去审视这些专家的所谓意见。这个备忘录就是对这件事情的思考。

TheYear Polls Stopped Working

民意停摆的一年

Pollsters got offto a tough start last year with the June referendum concerning Britain’smembership in the European Union.  Right up to the end, both pollsters andbookmakers considered U.K. citizens 70% likely to vote to remain amember.  But, in the end, “Leave” won by a few percent.

去年，民意调查似乎经历了最煎熬的一年。6月份，英国脱欧公投前的民意调查让许多选民以及博彩庄家相信，70%的英国人倾向于留在欧盟，可是最后“脱欧”以微弱优势胜出。

The reaction wasshock.  Voters on both sides of the issue were unprepared for theoutcome.  Within a day or two, the leaders of Britain’s main politicalparties had stepped down.  People began to seriously discuss what thatoutcome meant and how “Brexit” would be accomplished.

简直令人震惊。不管是主张脱欧还是主张留欧，两边的选民对这个结果都没有做好心理准备。几天之内，英国主要政党的领导人们相继宣布辞职，首相卡梅伦最后更是退出英国政坛。人们开始讨论这样的结果到底意味着什么，“脱欧”这件事情又该如何收场。

The explanationsfor the pollsters’ error centered around Britain’s lower level of experiencewith, and expertise in, polling.  It couldn’t happen in the U.S.  Infact, in the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections, Nate Silver, the proprietorof website FiveThirtyEight, correctly predicted the outcome in all 50 statesonce and in 49 the other time. 

关于此次民意调查的失误，主要解释是英国人的参政经验不足，以及专家们的低智表现，大家认为这样的情况不会发生在美国。事实上，在2008年和2012年的总统大选中，网站FiveThirtyEight的老板内特·斯尔维曾准确预测过结果，2008年预测对了全部50个州，2012年预测对了49个。

In 2016,FiveThirtyEight estimated the odds of Hillary Clinton winning as slightlybetter than 50/50 as of the end of the Republican convention in July. Then it had her as an 8-to-1 favorite in August, when the Democrats concludedtheir convention and Donald Trump’s perceived missteps peaked.  And thenit again said she was slightly ahead just before the first presidential debateon September 26.  It never made her out to be an underdog.  And onelection day, it estimated that she was 71.4% likely to win.*  Most otherpollsters put her chances of winning at between 80% and 99%, and only oneconsidered Trump the favorite.

去年6月份，共和党全国大会结束的时候，FiveThirtyEight曾评估过希拉里的胜算，认为她将以微弱优势当选。到了8月份，希拉里仍是领先，即便川普发现她的一些细微失策。9月26日第一轮总统竞选辩论结束后，在他们看来希拉里依旧保有微弱胜算。预测从来没有不看好过希拉里。到了正式大选的那一天，他们预测希拉里有71.4%的胜算。大多数选民都觉得希拉里当选的可能性在80%-99%之间，几乎没什么人看好川普。

In the end, ofcourse, Trump won in the Electoral College by a final count of 304 to 227,despite losing the popular vote by almost 2.9 million votes, or about 2%. In particular, he won in a number of “swing states,” such as Pennsylvania,Michigan and Wisconsin, where the polls had him well behind.  So much forexperts’ forecasts.

最终，尽管川普输掉了2%的选民将近290万张选票，但川普仍以304张选举人票对227张选举人票战胜了希拉里。严格地讲，他是赢下了好几个像宾夕法尼亚、密歇根和威斯康辛这样的“摇摆州”，这些地方的选民都投了川普。专家们的预言也不过如此。

Finally, roundingout the pollsters’ failures in 2016, the reform referendum that Italy’s PrimeMinister Matteo Renzi bet his career on – which had been considered 3% behind –lost by 20%.  The outcome wasn’t a surprise, but the margin certainly was.

2016年，为了意大利的修宪公投，总理伦齐不惜赌上自己的政治生命。一开始，民意调差显示支持修宪的选民小幅落后3%，可最后输了个20%。也许这个结果并不十分意外，但是这个差幅也太大了。

No one really knowswhy polling failed so miserably last year.  Clearly there was agroundswell of populist, anti-establishment and anti-insider sentiment, butshouldn’t it have been detected?  In particular, Trump did much betterthan predicted (or much less badly) with a number of important groups, such asHispanics and college-educated women. 

没人知道为什么去年的民意调查如此不靠谱。这里面有民粹、有反建制及反黑幕的因素，难道不应该事先就预料到这些因素嘛？严格来讲，川普做的可要比一些社团预测的好多（或者说不那么糟糕）了，比方说拉美裔团体和受过教育的女性团体。     

For some reason, in2016 pollsters in all three countries either failed to talk to a representativesample of voters, failed to elicit honest responses, or failed to accuratelyinterpret the data.  Thus their opinions may be accorded less weight inthe future.

2016年民意测试在三个国家的失败，对选民来说是很好的负面样本。它们没有探出选民诚实的反应，没有准确的兑现数据。未来民意测试有可能将不会再那么有分量。

SoMuch for the Experts

专家们到此为止吧

I’m struck by howdramatically opinion can flip-flop: 

专家意见戏剧化大跳水，给我留下了深刻的印象：

Duringthe run-up to the election, Clinton’s campaign organization and “ground game”were considered sophisticated, efficient and unstoppable, and Trump’s werethought of as rag-tag, underfunded and uncoordinated. Now Trump’s machine isdescribed as having been highly effective, and Clinton’s as having missedimportant signs and opportunities.  

在大选刚刚拉开序幕的时候，希拉里团队和“地面战”被专家们被认为极具智慧且效率极高，可谓势不可挡，川普团队则被描述成既没有资金，又缺乏协调性，就像社会最底层的垃圾。现在呢，他们却说川普的竞选机器之前可是在高效地运行着的，而希拉里却错失了好几个重要的机会。

Clinton’smessage was thought likely to carry a lot of weight with a broad swath of theelectorate, while Trump’s was viewed as appealing deeply to a few fervent butnarrow fringe constituencies without enough voters for him to win. After thefact, Trump is described as having had “perfect pitch” and Clinton as having a“tin ear.” 

专家们说，希拉里当时提出了各种口号纲领，简直就是在收割选民，而川普呢，除了几个赞助者，几乎没什么人热心地支持他，毫无胜算可言。现在，他们又说川普是“精准完美的打动了选民”，希拉里有的只是一双“迟钝的耳朵”。

" In particular, now it's considered to have been a big mistake for Clinton to fail to address the concerns of white men and set out a solution for those who lost jobs and were omitted from economic progress. But during the campaign, no one pointed to this error.

现在专家们认为，在竞选时，希拉里忽视了拉拢那些失业的白人们，也没有就如何提振经济给出相应的对策，这是希拉里犯下的最致命的错误。可在那个时候，根本没有人指出这一点。

It should be noted - to his credit - that Silver insisted repeatedly that Trump could win.  In fact, he often reminded his followers that the Clinton landslide most people expected was no more likely than a modest Trump victory.  Silver also entered Election Day citing a 10.5% probability that Trump would lose the popular vote but win the presidency.  We can't say he predicted that outcome, but (a) he was more explicit about it than most and (b) he assigned a fairly material probability to an event that in the past has been quite rare (so it can't be said that he was just extrapolating).

出于为斯尔维的信誉考虑，有一点值得被注意一下。那就是他曾反复说过，川普有可能会赢得大选。事实上，他时常提醒他的粉丝：希拉里有可能赢下大多数选民，但却抵不过川普小小的胜利。他也引用过选举日当天的数据，这个数据显示，有10.5%的可能性，川普会输掉选民但却能够当选总统。我们不能说他预测到了这个结果，但是他确实比其他人看的更清楚，而且他只通过很少的一些过往材料，来对这件事情进行预测（所以这不能说明他是靠反向外推得出的结果）。

" Finally, up until Election Day, most observers (including me) talked about the likelihood that the Republican Party would emerge from the election torn between its traditional faction, the Tea Party conservatives, and Trump's economically disgruntled, anti-establishment supporters. That may turn out to be the case, but now the Democratic Party is described as being at risk as well because of the schism between the Clinton-type moderates and the Sanders/Warren progressives.

最后，直到大选当天，大部分观察家们（包括我在内）还在说，共和党还有可能因为党内的一些传统派别分裂导致大选失败。它们包含了：共和党保守派、对川普的经济政策不满的党内人士、反建制派的支持者们等等。但是现在，民主党也被认为在当时经受了相当大的分裂风险，这个风险是由希拉里的支持者们和支持桑德斯和沃伦的党内进步人士造成的。

Here's some of what I wrote in "Go Figure!," six days after the election:

大选结束6天后，我在《去弄清楚！》中写下了一些东西：

Think back to just before last week's election.  What did we know?

回顾一周前的大选，我们可以发现点什么？

" The polls were almost unanimous in saying Hillary Clinton would win . . .

民意调查几乎一致认为，希拉里会赢……

" There was a near-universal belief that a Trump victory - as unlikely as it was - would be bad for the markets.  So what happened?  First Clinton didn't win. . . .  And second, the U.S. stock market had its best week since 2014! . . .  Thus two key observations can be made based on last week's developments:

如果川普当选，将会对美国的股市造成冲击，这在当时都快成为宇宙公理了。结果呢？首先，希拉里输了；其次，美股如沐春风，拿出了自2014年以来的最强劲表现。于是，基于过去一周的事态进展，可以得出两点：

" First, no one really knows what events are going to transpire.

第一，没人知道将来会发生什么。

" And second, no one knows what the market's reaction to those events will be.

第二，也不会有人知道，即将发生的事情会对股市造成何种影响。

One of the keyconclusions we should draw from the surprises of 2016 is that the pundits oftenfailed to understand people and their views.  It’s clear that people whowork in the media hadn’t understood many average Americans; people with collegedegrees hadn’t understood those without them; and people living on the coastsand in metropolises hadn’t understood the rest.  Strong sentiments andbeliefs swung a pivotal election in ways the experts absolutely failed to graspand thought were virtually impossible.    

从各种惊喜不断的2016年我们可以得出一个关键结论，那就是空谈家们对普罗大众的观点和看法时不时的会出现判断失误。很明显，媒体人没有搞懂广大美国人民，而受过精英教育的人又没能领会那些没学历的，而来自大城市的人们也没有get到来自农村的人。在整个大选中，观点及信念的剧烈摇摆让专家们完完全全的失败了。想要抓住人们的想法，简直就是不可能。

Of course there areno “facts” regarding most future events, just opinions.  Experts –especially people who are paid to be experts – often couch their statements asfacts, but that doesn’t mean they’re sure to come true. 

当然，对未来的预测肯定都不能算是事实，只有叫做观点，毕竟是还没发生的事情。但是专家们，特别是那些拿着工资被供作专家的人，经常各种明示暗示他们的评论就是事实，但是这些评论也不见得就会成真。