Name: 不要投資標準普爾 500 指數。尤其是退休人士。(108 年回溯測試結果） (Don't Invest in the S&P 500. Especially if you're retired. (108-year backtest results))
Uploaded: 2025-02-12T06:00:40.000Z
Duration: 15 min 48 s

轉承詞

The S&P 500 is the most famous stock market index in the world, not only because it represents the 500 largest companies in America, but because of the phenomenal returns that they have produced.

標準普爾 500 指數是世界上最著名的股票市場指數，不僅因為它代表了美國最大的 500 家公司，還因為它們創造了驚人的回報。

程度副詞

Since 2009, the S&P 500 has delivered a whopping 750% return, whilst the rest of the world only delivered 200%, which has got a lot of people questioning why would you bother investing in anything else, when even Warren Buffett himself says that a low-cost S&P 500 index fund is all that most people will ever need.

自 2009 年以來，標準普爾 500 指數的回報率高達 750%，而世界其他地區的回報率僅為 200%，這讓很多人產生了疑問：連沃倫-巴菲特自己都說，低成本的標準普爾 500 指數基金是大多數人所需要的，為什麼還要投資其他東西呢？

情態副詞

You may have seen other videos weighing up the pros and cons of investing in the S&P 500 versus investing globally, but today I want to show you a perspective that I'm confident that you will never have seen before.

您可能已經看過其他視頻，權衡過投資標準普爾 500 指數與投資全球的利弊，但今天我想向您展示一個我相信您從未見過的視角。

I'm going to show you the results of a backtest of over 100 years of stock market data that demonstrates that even though, on average, yes the US has produced far superior returns, that is often not what you want, especially in retirement.

我將向您展示對 100 多年股市數據的回溯測試結果，該結果表明，儘管平均而言，美國的回報率要高得多，但這往往不是您想要的，尤其是在退休後。

If you're new here, hi, my name is James.

如果你是新來的，你好，我叫詹姆斯。

I'm a financial planner and this is a place where you can learn to make smarter financial decisions.

我是一名財務規劃師，在這裡您可以學習如何做出更明智的財務決策。

What I'm about to show you is relevant for everyone, but it's especially important for people that are approaching retirement or those that are already in it.

我接下來要向大家介紹的內容與每個人都息息相關，但對於即將退休或已經退休的人來說尤為重要。

So we're going to approach this from the perspective of a retiree.

是以，我們將從退休人員的角度來探討這個問題。

Ben is 55 and he wants to retire immediately.

Ben 今年 55 歲，他想馬上退休。

He has £500,000 to invest and he wants to maximise the income that he can draw from his portfolio without drawing so much that he runs out of money.

他有 50 萬英鎊用於投資，他希望最大限度地提高投資組合的收益，同時又不至於虧得血本無歸。

This is the goal of most retirees, maximising income whilst keeping it sustainable.

這是大多數退休人員的目標，即最大限度地增加收入，同時保持收入的可持續性。

To keep this simple, let's assume Ben is looking to draw the same amount of income from his portfolio in each year of his retirement, but he also wants to maintain his purchasing power.

為了簡單起見，我們假設 Ben 希望在退休後的每一年都能從他的投資組合中獲得相同數額的收入，但他也希望保持自己的購買力。

So he wants to increase that income in line with inflation each year.

是以，他希望每年根據通貨膨脹率增加收入。

To help Ben answer this question, we're going to do a back test of over a hundred years of stock market data to understand what asset allocation would have enabled Ben to draw the highest level of sustainable income.

為了幫助本回答這個問題，我們將對一百多年的股市數據進行回溯測試，以瞭解怎樣的資產配置才能讓本獲得最高水準的可持續收入。

Now, you may have heard of the 4% rule before that suggests that if you begin retirement with a starting withdrawal rate of 4% of your assets, you should be able to draw that amount each year, increasing that in line with inflation, and this should be sustainable over a 30 year period.

現在，您可能已經聽說過 "4% 規則"，該規則建議，如果您在退休之初的起始提取率為資產的 4%，那麼您應該能夠每年提取該數額，並根據通貨膨脹率增加提取率，而且該提取率在 30 年內應該是可持續的。

This rule came about from a study by Bill Bengin back in 1994, who took a portfolio of 50% US stocks and 50% US government bonds and back tested this to look at every single possible retirement date going back to 1926 to find the highest starting withdrawal rate that would have been successful in every single scenario.

比爾-本金（Bill Bengin）在 1994 年的一項研究中提出了這一規則，他將 50%的美國股票和 50%的美國政府債券作為投資組合，並對其進行了回溯測試，研究了從 1926 年開始的每一個可能的退休日期，找出了在每一種情況下都能成功提取的最高起始提取率。

With success, meaning that the plan would never have run out of money.

成功，意味著該計劃永遠不會耗盡資金。

Today, we're going to be doing a similar test, but using a much larger data set over a longer period of time.

今天，我們將做一個類似的測試，但使用的是一個更大的數據集，時間跨度更長。

I've done similar things in past videos where we investigated the 4% rule to see how valid it is and how it's affected by things like changing the length of your retirement or whether you're invested in a pension or how having a state pension income coming in can affect the amount that you can draw.

我在過去的視頻中也做過類似的事情，我們調查了 4% 的規則，看看它的有效性如何，以及它是如何受到一些因素的影響的，比如改變退休時間的長短，或者你是否投資了養老金，或者國家養老金收入是如何影響你可以提取的金額的。

But today we're going to look at it from another perspective to help Ben understand whether in the past the S&P 500 or a global portfolio or another third strategy would have enabled him to draw the highest level of sustainable income.

但今天我們要從另一個角度來審視這個問題，幫助本瞭解在過去，是標普 500 指數還是全球投資組合或其他第三種策略能讓他獲得最高水準的可持續收入。

Looking back at historical data like this can help us to identify trends and patterns that have occurred time and time again to guide us in how we should be acting today.

回顧這樣的歷史數據，可以幫助我們發現屢次出現的趨勢和模式，從而指導我們今天應該如何行動。

But we need to remember that there is no guarantee that we will see these same things moving forward and the future could end up being very different.

但我們需要記住，我們無法保證在未來也能看到這些相同的東西，未來最終可能會截然不同。

The first criticism of the 4% rule is that it was based on a 30-year retirement.

對 4% 規則的第一點責備是，它是以 30 年退休為基礎的。

But if Ben wants to retire at 55 and is otherwise in good health, he has a 50% chance of living to 84.

但是，如果 Ben 想在 55 歲退休，並且身體健康，那麼他有 50% 的機會活到 84 歲。

So if we're planning for a 30-year retirement he's got a decent chance of living beyond that.

是以，如果我們計劃退休 30 年，他有相當大的機會活過 30 年。

A 25% chance of living to 92 and a 10% chance of living to 97.

活到 92 歲的機率為 25%，活到 97 歲的機率為 10%。

So with this test let's be conservative and assume that he lives to 95 which is a 40-year retirement.

是以，在這個測試中，我們保守一點，假設他能活到 95 歲，也就是退休 40 年。

To do this we're going to use some software that looks at stock market inflation data going all the way back to 1915 and assesses what would have happened if Ben had chosen to retire on any month since then with the final 40-year rolling period ending in December 2021.

為此，我們將使用一些軟件，查看從 1915 年開始的股市通脹數據，並評估如果本選擇在此後的任何月份退休（最後一個 40 年滾動期截至 2021 年 12 月）會發生什麼情況。

Again to keep this simple we're going to assume that Ben invests his £500,000 in a normal taxable investment account.

為了簡單起見，我們還是假設 Ben 將他的 50 萬英鎊投資在一個普通的應稅投資賬戶中。

First up let's take a look at what would have happened if Ben had chosen to invest all of his money in the S&P 500.

首先，讓我們來看看如果本選擇將所有資金投資於標準普爾 500 指數會發生什麼情況。

Now to get more comprehensive data going all the way back to 1915 we're going to need to use a proxy for the S&P 500.

現在，我們需要使用標準普爾 500 指數的替代指數，才能獲得追溯到 1915 年的更全面的數據。

So instead we're going to look at a total US stock market allocation.

是以，我們將著眼於整個美國股市的配置。

In the past the S&P 500 has typically represented about 80 to 90% of the value of the total US stock market.

過去，標準普爾 500 指數通常佔美國股市總價值的 80% 至 90%。

So this serves as a pretty decent proxy and here you can see those results.

是以，這可以作為一個相當不錯的代理，在這裡你可以看到這些結果。

On the y-axis we have the success rate and on the x-axis we have the different starting withdrawal rates.

Y 軸上是成功率，X 軸上是不同的起始提款率。

So this first column here shows a 3% starting withdrawal rate which represents a starting withdrawal of £15,000 per year which achieves a 98% historical success rate.

是以，第一列顯示的是 3% 的起始提取率，即每年提取 15,000 英鎊，歷史成功率為 98%。

This means that in only 2% of scenarios would Ben have run out of money.

這意味著只有 2% 的情況下 Ben 會用完錢。

If we increase the starting withdrawal rate up to 4% that success rate drops to 82% and at 5% it drops down to 71%.

如果我們將起始提款率提高到 4%，成功率就會下降到 82%，5% 時又會下降到 71%。

Now if you were in Ben's position about to start retirement what level of historical success would you like to see to be confident moving forward with that Now if you're thinking 100% let me reframe this for you.

現在，如果你處在本即將開始退休生活的位置上，你希望看到什麼樣的歷史成就才能讓你有信心繼續前進。

A 98% success rate means that in 2% of scenarios Ben would have run out of money.

98% 的成功率意味著，在 2% 的情況下，本會把錢花光。

However in reality he would have probably recognised at some point that things were not going so well and reduced the level of income that he's drawing to keep him on track.

但實際上，他可能在某個時候就會意識到事情進展得並不順利，並降低他的收入水平，以保持他的正常生活。

Of the 2% of failures even in the worst case scenario his money would have lasted all the way up to the age of 82 so he would have only had to make small adjustments to keep him on track to the end.

在 2% 的失敗者中，即使在最壞的情況下，他的錢也會一直持續到 82 歲，所以他只需要做一些小的調整，就能讓他一直堅持到最後。

Whereas if we look at the other 98% of scenarios that were successful we can see that in the majority of them Ben's ending up with more money than he even started with which is not necessarily a good thing because if you're ending up with £2 million in today's money at the age of 95 that means you've probably been too conservative and this £2 million represents missed life experiences that you could have had when you were younger.

如果我們看一下其他 98% 的成功案例，就會發現在大多數案例中，本最終擁有的錢甚至比他開始時擁有的還要多，這並不一定是件好事，因為如果你在 95 歲時最終擁有 200 萬英鎊（以現在的貨幣計算），這意味著你可能過於保守，這 200 萬英鎊代表著你錯過了年輕時本可以擁有的人生經歷。

Obviously here we have the benefit of perfect hindsight.

顯然，我們現在有了事後諸葛亮的優勢。

Looking forwards we have no idea whether we're going to get lucky or not but we can see from the balance of historical outcomes that a 98% success rate is perhaps a little too conservative.

展望未來，我們不知道自己是否會走運，但從歷史結果的平衡來看，98% 的成功率或許有些過於保守。

So it's often best to aim for something slightly lower perhaps between 85 and 95% which would allow you to start drawing a higher level of income so long as you're prepared to reduce that income if you get unlucky and see a poor sequence of returns.

是以，通常情況下，最好將目標定在稍低的水準上，也許在 85% 到 95% 之間，這樣可以讓你開始獲取更高水平的收入，只要你準備好在運氣不佳、收益不佳的情況下減少收入。

The main criticism of the 4% rule and Bill Bengen's original study is that it was based on the stock market data of one country.

對 4% 規則和比爾-本根最初研究的主要責備是，它是基於一個國家的股市數據。

Not only that but a country that over the last 100 years has had the most spectacular run of favourable economic events emerging victorious from two world wars and a cold war comparatively unscathed having the US dollar as the world's reserve currency and benefiting enormously from post-war industrial revolutions and the tech revolutions of the 80s and 90s.

不僅如此，在過去 100 年裡，這個國家還經歷了最輝煌的經濟事件，在兩次世界大戰和冷戰中取得勝利，相對毫髮無損，美元成為世界儲備貨幣，並從戰後工業革命以及 80 和 90 年代的科技革命中獲益匪淺。

But over this time there have been many events that could have turned on a dime and resulted in the US being in a very different position today.

但是，在此期間發生的許多事件都有可能在一瞬間發生轉變，導致美國今天的處境大相徑庭。

So despite its natural resources and human ingenuity I don't think anyone would deny that the US has had more than its fair share of luck.

是以，儘管美國擁有豐富的自然資源和人類的聰明才智，但我想沒有人會否認，美國的運氣一直都很好。

So for us to base our retirement plans not on historic stock market data but on the single best performing stock market in history with the assumption that its spectacular run of luck will continue it's probably not a good idea.

是以，如果我們的退休計劃不是建立在股市歷史數據的基礎上，而是建立在歷史上表現最好的單一股市的基礎上，並假定它的好運氣會持續下去，這可能不是一個好主意。

So with that in mind let's see how a globally diversified portfolio compares.

有鑑於此，讓我們來看看全球多元化投資組合的比較。

Looking at our data set since 1915 the US stock market has achieved an average annual return of 11.46% whereas the global stock market has delivered a return of just 9.85%, 1.6% less per year which adds up to a huge amount over time.

從我們的數據集來看，自 1915 年以來，美國股市的年均回報率為 11.46%，而全球股市的回報率僅為 9.85%，每年少 1.6%，長期加起來就是一個巨大的數字。

So given everything that I've just said you would expect a global portfolio to have a much higher failure rate but that's not what we see.

是以，鑑於我剛才所說的一切，你會認為全球投資組合的失敗率要高得多，但我們看到的情況並非如此。

A global portfolio has been more successful across all of these withdrawal rates with it being most pronounced at the 4% withdrawal mark where the US portfolio failed in 9% more scenarios.

在所有這些提取率中，全球投資組合更為成功，在提取率為 4% 的情況下最為明顯，而在美國投資組合失敗的情況要多出 9%。

Before I explain why this is the case we need to recognise that neither of these portfolios are likely to be suitable for Ben because they are 100% equity portfolios that are going to be very volatile from year to year and it's highly unlikely that Ben as a retiree is going to have the stomach to stick with it.

在解釋為什麼會這樣之前，我們需要認識到，這兩種投資組合都不可能適合 Ben，因為它們都是 100% 的股票投資組合，每年都會有很大的波動，作為退休人員的 Ben 不大可能有足夠的精力堅持下去。

So instead let's look at the results with a more moderate 60% stocks 40% bonds portfolio and again at this level a globally diversified portfolio continues to have higher success rates.

是以，讓我們看看 60% 的股票和 40% 的債券投資組合的結果，在這個水準上，全球多元化投資組合的成功率仍然更高。

To put this into context at the 3.5% starting withdrawal rate the global portfolio was successful in 15% more scenarios and to bring the US portfolio up to the same level of success Ben would have needed to start retirement with £55,000 more in his portfolio.

如果按照 3.5% 的起始提取率計算，全球投資組合的成功率要高出 15%，而要使美國投資組合達到同樣的成功率，Ben 需要在退休之初在投資組合中多投入 55,000 英鎊。

那麼，為什麼會出現這種情況呢？

Imagine we have two hypothetical portfolios and I told you that over the last 32 years portfolio A has a 6.3% return whilst portfolio B has delivered a 7.3% return.

假設我們有兩個假設的投資組合，我告訴你在過去 32 年裡，投資組合 A 的回報率為 6.3%，而投資組合 B 的回報率為 7.3%。

Portfolio B of course but if I show you the actual performance we can see that even though portfolio B has produced a higher return it is being quite volatile whereas portfolio A has delivered a fairly consistent return.

當然是投資組合 B，但如果我向你們展示實際業績，我們就會發現，儘管投資組合 B 的回報率較高，但其波動性相當大，而投資組合 A 的回報率則相當穩定。

If you're still thinking B would you change your decision if you're about to retire right at the start of this period?

如果你還在想 B，如果你即將在這一時期開始時退休，你會改變你的決定嗎？

If we assume we have £500,000 invested in each of these portfolios and start to withdraw £30,000 per year which is equivalent to a 6% starting withdrawal rate we find that portfolio A is still growing as we would expect because the rate of withdrawal is slightly less than the consistent return that it's delivering.

如果我們假設在每個投資組合中都投資了 50 萬英鎊，並開始每年提取 3 萬英鎊（相當於 6% 的起始提取率），我們會發現投資組合 A 仍在按照我們的預期增長，因為提取率略低於它所帶來的持續回報。

But with portfolio B we're running out of money by the end of the period.

但投資組合 B 在期末就會用完。

This is because portfolio B experienced a number of years of poor performance right at the start.

這是因為投資組合 B 一開始就經歷了多年的業績不佳。

Meaning that as the balance of the portfolio falls the 30% withdrawals make up a larger and larger percentage of the portfolio to the point where it becomes unsustainable.

也就是說，隨著投資組合餘額的下降，30% 的提現在投資組合中所佔的比例會越來越大，以至於無法持續。

So that even when the good performance does show up it can't be saved.

這樣，即使有好的表現，也無法挽救。

This is the thing if something offers you a 6% return every year you know that you can draw down 6% every year and you'll still your principal left at the end.

如果每年都有 6% 的回報率，你就會知道每年都可以提取 6% 的資金，到最後本金還是會剩下。

But if something offers you an average return of 7% per year but in some years it'll be up 20% and other years down 20% you have no idea what you'll be able to draw from that sustainably.

但是，如果某樣東西每年能給你帶來 7% 的平均回報，但有些年份會上漲 20%，有些年份則會下跌 20%，你根本不知道你能從中持續獲得什麼。

You may get unlucky like we've seen here and see a poor sequence of returns at the start.

你可能會像我們在這裡看到的那樣不走運，一開始就看到一連串糟糕的回報。

Or you may get lucky like if we started this withdrawal five years later you would have ended up with far more money than you'd ever need.

或者，你可能會很幸運，就像如果我們在五年後開始取款，你最終會擁有比你需要的多得多的錢。

Even though the average return may be high the more volatile an investment is the larger the range of potential outcomes it can produce which makes it very difficult for us to plan for retirement.

即使平均回報率可能很高，但投資的波動性越大，可能產生的結果範圍也就越大，這就給我們的退休計劃帶來了很大困難。

Not only because there are likely to be more downside scenarios but because we cannot be as confident in how much income we can draw sustainably.

這不僅是因為可能會出現更多的不利情況，而且還因為我們無法對自己能持續獲得多少收入充滿信心。

這正是我們在數據中看到的情況。

Yes the US has produced higher returns on average but it's also delivered a much wider range of outcomes.

是的，美國的平均回報率更高，但它的結果範圍也更廣。

In some periods the US has experienced exceptional returns which would have left Ben with more money than he'd ever need but there's also a lot more periods of exceptionally poor returns which result in failures.

在某些時期，美國經歷了超常的回報，這讓本擁有了比他需要的更多的錢，但也有更多的時期，回報率特別低，導致失敗。

If you're retired or about to retire this US portfolio should be much less attractive because not only are there more downside scenarios which is the thing that you care about the most but even if you do get lucky you won't know that until you're maybe 10 or 15 years into retirement and up until that point you'll need to draw a much lower level of income to be confident of not running out of money.

如果你已經退休或即將退休，這種美國投資組合的吸引力就會大打折扣，因為不僅有更多的下行風險，而這正是你最關心的事情，而且即使你真的很幸運，你也要到退休後 10 年或 15 年才能知道，而在此之前，你需要獲得更低水平的收入，才能有信心不把錢花光。

What you should prefer is a portfolio that not only has less downside but also delivers a narrower range of potential outcomes which enables us to be more confident drawing higher incomes during those initial years of retirement which is when you want to be spending the most.

你應該選擇的是一個不僅有較少負面影響，而且潛在結果範圍較小的投資組合，這使我們能夠更有信心在退休後的最初幾年裡獲得較高的收入，而這正是你希望花費最多的時候。

Over the last 100 years there have been periods where the US stock market has outperformed which you can see in dark blue and then there's been periods where the rest of the world has outperformed which you can see in light blue.

在過去的 100 年裡，美國股市曾有過跑贏大盤的時期，您可以看到深藍色的股票，而世界其他地區股市也曾有過跑贏大盤的時期，您可以看到淺藍色的股票。

The last 13 years have been a really good run for the US but that's not unusual.

過去的 13 年對美國來說是一個非常好的時期，但這並不罕見。

We've seen this happen many times in the past and it's often followed by a period of underperformance.

我們過去曾多次看到過這種情況，而且往往隨之而來的是一段表現不佳的時期。

This is a closer look at the last 50 years of data which helps us to see those cycles more clearly.

這是對過去 50 年數據的近距離觀察，有助於我們更清楚地瞭解這些週期。

It's very hard to guess in advance which is going to outperform and the risks of getting it wrong are high so instead of making any bets we can diversify and use a global portfolio that invests in both and I hope that this visual helps you to understand how this could help to reduce the volatility of the overall portfolio because when one part of the portfolio is performing poorly the other part may be moving in the other direction or at least not performing quite as badly.

是以，我們可以分散投資，使用一個同時投資於這兩種投資的全球投資組合，而不是下任何賭注。我希望這個視覺效果能幫助你理解這如何有助於降低整個投資組合的波動性，因為當投資組合的一部分表現不佳時，另一部分可能會朝著另一個方向發展，或者至少表現不會那麼糟糕。

This is the holy grail of investing to try and reduce volatility without sacrificing the return because it can help us to reduce the array of potential outcomes and increase our chances of in retirement and it's not just about diversifying between countries.

這是投資的聖盃，在不犧牲回報的情況下，努力降低波動性，因為它可以幫助我們減少一系列潛在的結果，增加我們退休後的機會，這不僅僅是在國家之間進行多樣化投資。

在這裡，我們還有很多事情可以做。

As an example between January 2000 and December 2009 the S&P 500 had a lost decade with an annualized return of minus 0.9 percent but during that time smaller companies with low valuations also known as small cap value stocks produced an annualized return of 12.3 percent.

例如，在 2000 年 1 月至 2009 年 12 月期間，標準普爾 500 指數經歷了失落的十年，年化收益率為負 0.9%，但在此期間，估值較低的小型公司（又稱小盤價值股）的年化收益率卻高達 12.3%。

Since then this corner of the market has gone on to underperform slightly but over the long run small cap value stocks have actually outperformed the S&P 500.

從那時起，這個市場角落的表現就略顯遜色，但從長遠來看，小盤價值股的表現實際上超過了標準普爾 500 指數。

Again we have no idea when each of these subsets of the market is going to start outperforming but by building a portfolio that invests across all of them and tilts towards these diversifying factors we can try to not only reduce volatility but also to increase returns.

同樣，我們也不知道市場中的每一個子集何時會開始表現出色，但通過建立一個投資於所有這些子集的投資組合，並向這些多樣化因素傾斜，我們不僅可以嘗試降低波動性，還可以增加回報。

As an example if I perform the same back using the asset allocations that we use in our clients portfolios we see dramatically higher success rates than with either the US centric portfolio or with just vanilla global diversification and again we see a similar result at the 60 percent equity level too.

舉例來說，如果我使用我們在客戶投資組合中使用的資產配置進行同樣的回溯，我們會發現成功率大大高於以美國為中心的投資組合或單純的全球分散投資，同樣，我們在 60% 的股票水準上也看到了類似的結果。

To put this into context at a four percent withdrawal rate to achieve the same level of success with a global portfolio Ben would need to have started with 570,000 pounds and 610,000 pounds with a US portfolio or to put it another way this more diversified portfolio would have enabled Ben to draw a 22 percent higher income and still have achieved the same levels of success as with the US portfolio.

換句話說，如果以 4% 的提取率計算，要取得與全球投資組合相同的成功，Ben 需要以 57 萬英鎊為起點，而美國投資組合則需要 61 萬英鎊。

As I have said before we need to remember that this is based on what has happened in the to ignore the hundreds of years of stock market data that we have that shows these trends and patterns happening time and time again.

正如我之前所說的那樣，我們需要記住，這只是基於過去發生的事情，而不能忽視我們所掌握的數百年來的股市數據，這些數據表明這些趨勢和模式一再發生。

If you want to learn more about how we use diversification to try and increase our clients chance of success in retirement you should watch this video here where I talk you through it and help you to understand if this is something that you should be doing too.

如果您想了解更多關於我們如何利用分散投資來增加客戶退休後的成功機會，請觀看這段視頻，我將在視頻中向您介紹，幫助您瞭解這是否也是您應該做的事情。

I'll also leave a link to it down in the description.