But investors are not sure how comfortable they feel about negative interest rates,

但投資客對於負利率政策仍持觀望態度

since the talk is of banks charging people to look after their money.

因為現在你去銀行存款，還得付他們錢

So are negative interest rates going to fade and die, or get deeper and wider?

所以，負利率是走是留？

With me to discuss this is Peter Westway, head of investment strategy at the Asset Manager Vanguard.

來自 Asset Manager Vanguard 的投資策略主管 Peter Westway 將與我一同探討此議題

Peter, remind us why do we have negative interest rates at all.

Peter，可否請您解釋負利率為何會出現？

Well, the reason we have negative interest rates is that central banks in some countries find it necessary to provide additional policy stimulus.

我認為負利率的出現，與某些國家央行的刺激消費政策息息相關。

They start by cutting rates lower and lower. Then they hit zero.

他們先是逐漸降低利率，直到利率降為零。

At that point, they can either start printing money by doing quantitative easing.

到了這關頭，央行可以實行量化寬鬆政策來印鈔

Or now, they're starting to move rates into negative territories as well.

或者像現在，祭出負利率政策

What do central banks want us to do?

央行究竟要拿我們如何？

Central banks affectively are trying to get us to spend more money because by doing that,

央行希望我們會因為負利率而提高消費

we increase economic activity in the economy in that pushes up inflation, which is what they want.

藉此促進經濟活動，提高通膨率

But is it really the case that people are going to be charged for,

但重點在於銀行要向人民收錢這件事

these people to hold their money in their banks and investors are going to be charged for the privilege of lending to governments?

人民要付錢給銀行，而投資客借錢給政府，還要再貼錢

It's not quite the case. Not many banks are yet charging negative deposit rates.

現在還沒走到那地步，許多銀行還沒有宣佈實行存款負利率

And interestingly, as a result of that, that means that probably the pass through from these interest rates isn't getting through to the borrowing rates.

有趣的是，正因如此，存入的利率無法直接轉手給借出的利率

So, the effectiveness of these negative rates in encouraging people to spend more is probably a little bit diluted.

所以，負利率能夠提高民眾消費率的假設，其實有待商榷。

Ok, so let's look our first chart which tells us how prevalent negative interest rates are at the moment.

這張圖表顯示負利率的普及程度

This shows that around 30% of the current issues out there for sovereign developed market bonds are in negative territory.

圖表顯示已發展國家已發行的主權債券有30％為負利率的狀態

Now, that's a slight overestimate of how much governments are actually getting a good deal,

但這數字有點高估政府獲利的實際情況

because of course some of those bonds were issued while rates were still positive.

因為有些債券在負利率之前就已發行

And they've since moved into negative territory in the secondary market.

在那之後，那些債券就流入了實行負利率的二級市場

But even so, any government like Germany's, like Switzerland's going to the market now to raise money,

即便如此，像德國、瑞士這樣的政府仍然繼續在市場上集資

is getting a negative yield, which means in effect , we're paying them for the privilege of us giving the money.

而利潤為負，也就是說，我們借錢給政府，還要因此再付他們額外的錢

Peter, why would investors want to invest in a negative yield?

Peter，為什麼投資客會想做賠本生意？

Let's have a look at your second chart here.

我們來看這裡的第二張圖表

Yeah, I mean, I think the really important point to remember here is why do you hold bonds in your portfolio in the first place?

我認為重點是為什麼我們還是繼續花錢買債券？

And you're not holding bonds because they give you fantastic returns.

就算你持有債券，並不保證你能大賺一筆。

Equities are in your portfolio for that.

基金才能達到那種目的。

There's only two reasons. One, they provide you a bit of a dampness stability.

兩個理由。第一，債券相對比較有保障。

But second and most important, they provide diversification relative to equities.

第二點，也是非常重要的一點，債券可以讓你分散風險。

So what this chart shows you is that if you take the worst quartile of stock market performance over the last 14 years, from 2001 to 2014.

從這張圖你可以看到，如果你從2001到2014，這過去14年來，看股市最糟的四分位值，

So when equities fell 6%, this tells you how different duration bonds apply during those same periods.

基金股掉了6％，而同一時間，債券維持著相反的走勢

And what you see is that typically, bonds would go up to counteract it.

通常這個時候債券就會出來與之相抗衡。

So that diversification would still happen in negative interest rate world?

所以即使債券採用了負利率，仍能分散風險嗎？

Yeah, I don't think, I mean I think a couple of years ago, we were beginning to think that this diversification had run out of road.

幾年前，我們就開始認為債券不能持續分散風險

But what's still happening is that as interest rates are falling and falling, where we're seeing that there's almost no limit to it.

但現在的情況是，利率毫無止盡的往下降

But the criticism of negative interest rates is being stepped up.

但有人開始出來抨擊反負利率的言論

We've had Lowry Fynn of Blackrock saying people are going to have to save for longer. Is that correct?

貝萊德的 Lowry Fynn 表示民眾還得再囤積鈔票一陣子。是這樣嗎？

Yeah, I think that basic point is correct. But I think it's mixing up too slightly different issues.

基本上是對的，但我覺得他有點把不同的事情混為一談。

I think it's definitely the case that because we're moving into a low interest rate world,

有鑒於利率不斷降低的情勢，我們是必須囤積鈔票

investors are going to have to save more to earn the same income in their retirement as they would've done a few years ago.

投資客比起以往，必須存更多的錢才能在退休後過好日子

Now that's partly being affected by the low interest rates and the negative interest rates that central banks are implementing at the moment.

一部分是受到目前銀行實行低利率和負利率的影響

But let's remember why central banks are doing that.

但我們可別忘了央行這樣做的理由

They're doing that in order to try and persuade people to bring consumption forward from the future to the present.

他們這樣做是為了說服民眾現在就把未來的錢花掉

That's just a standard thing that policy makers do during a period when the economy is in a big downturn.

這是決策者在經濟蕭條時期常做的手段

But even when this downturn is behind us, it's still gonna be the case that returns are going to be lower going forward

但即便已經過了蕭條時期，我們能夠從銀行取回的錢仍會不斷減少

and people are going to have to save more.

而民眾會因此囤積更多錢

So, poor old investors are really the people that are caught in the middle here between a bad long-run outcome and policy maker actions.

到頭來，倒楣的還是投資客，因為他們陷在惡性的長期發展和決策中動彈不得

Just very quickly Peter, finally how long we're gonna have negative interest rates?

Peter，最後一個小問題，您認為負利率還會維持多久？

I think we're gonna probably have them for the next year or two.

我想這個狀況還會繼續維持個一兩年

Peter Westway, thank you very much indeed.

感謝您的到來

Thank you.

謝謝