II 全球机构情报
嘉信理财 · Henry Hoenig · 2026/09/03

什么是市场泡沫?

前往官网原文 ↗
自动质量提示本研报仍可阅读,但 AI 分析或译文低于优选质量阈值,已进入改进队列。重要判断请同时核对官网原文。
完整研报正文
完整中文译文

什么是市场泡沫?

要点

  • 市场泡沫通常表现为价格飙升、估值高企、投机过度,以及声称新技术将带来盈利新时代的说法。
  • 极端的价格上涨可能增加崩盘风险,尤其是在伴随加速上涨、高波动性和大量股票发行的情况下,但许多此类走势从未崩盘。
  • 即使资产价格显得非理性过高,泡沫的峰值也几乎无法在当时被识别。

2004年12月,诺贝尔经济学奖得主罗伯特·席勒在午餐时警告时任美联储主席艾伦·格林斯潘,股价处于“非理性”高位。两天后,格林斯潘使用了那句如今广为人知的话——“非理性繁荣”。

席勒被普遍认为在网络泡沫破裂前很久就发现了它。但这一洞察对他或任何投资者又有什么好处呢?在席勒发出警告后的三年多里,标普500®指数大约翻了一番。然后它损失了近一半的价值。但即使在那个漫长熊市的底部,该指数仍高于席勒与格林斯潘共进午餐当天的水平。

识别泡沫的典型迹象并不难,尤其是随着泡沫膨胀的时间越长。但不可能预测它会膨胀到多大,或者何时会破裂。尽管如此,投资者应该意识到日益增长的风险,或许应采取步骤尽量减少潜在影响。

仅供说明之用。历史表现不保证未来结果。

著名市场泡沫的特征

对于如何识别泡沫,并没有普遍接受的标准。但美国整体股市泡沫表现出了一些类似的特征:价格高涨且快速攀升,使估值达到极端水平,至少部分由投机性过剩推动;关于生产力和盈利能力进入新纪元的言论,通常归因于突破性的技术进步;以及价格崩溃的泡沫破裂。

极端估值:巨大的价格上涨使估值远超平均水平,这可能是在泡沫形成期间乃至事后最常被引用的证据。在 2000, 年3月互联网泡沫顶峰时期,标普 500 指数的市盈率为过去 12 个月市盈率的 28.3 倍,远高于当时 -20 年的平均水平 17.0 倍。许多个股科技股的定价更高。

“新时代”言论:市场泡沫往往伴随着重大的技术突破——例如铁路、电气化和互联网——这些突破被吹捧为提供生产力和盈利的新时代。但热情投资者往往会夸大这种潜力。在引发大萧条的 1929 年10月股市崩盘前几周,《商业周刊》写道:“至少五年来,美国企业界一直处于一种启示录式的狂热之中,对‘新时代’的无与伦比的繁荣感到兴奋,而这个新时代是我们、它或某个人已经踏入的。”

投机过度:资本的易于获得,尤其是低利率环境,往往通过提供放大收益的可能性,在制造资产泡沫中扮演重要角色。这些收益,尤其是在泡沫后期,往往会吸引更多市场新手,他们可能受“害怕错过”(FOMO)驱动,而非审慎的投资习惯。FOMO可能是制造泡沫的强大力量。保证金的使用也常在泡沫后期激增。

仅供说明之用。过往表现不保证未来结果。

市场心理:投资公众的极度看涨情绪往往可以作为判断泡沫的有用指标,尽管具有主观性。《时代》杂志封面过去经常被引为反向指标。一位基金经理甚至创造了“杂志封面指标”。毕竟,如果所有人都进了市场,就没有人可买了。这可能导致一旦开始抛售,价格就出现一波接一波的下跌。

价格崩溃:价格崩溃通常被许多人视为泡沫的确认。不幸的是,到那时,任何拿着众所周知的袋子的投资者都已为时过晚。熊市通常定义为从近期高点下跌 20%%。但价格需要下跌多少或多快才能算作崩溃?为了研究泡沫,经济学家罗宾·格林伍德、安德烈·施莱弗和杨友将崩溃定义为在价格大幅上涨后两年内至少下跌 40%%。

预测崩盘

尽管泡沫的特征可能容易识别,但预测它可能膨胀到什么程度以及何时破裂的能力是出了名的困难。少数人做空泡沫并获胜。看看迈克尔·伯里或约翰·保尔森。两人都通过押注与美国房地产泡沫相关的衍生品而赚取了巨额财富。但无数其他人,包括拥有丰富高质量数据和信息的一流投资者,在房地产泡沫破裂引发2008金融危机时,仍然暴露在风险之中。

例如,在2000,年3月,正值互联网泡沫顶峰,时任高盛首席投资策略师的阿比·科恩,著名地将她对标普500指数的年终目标上调至1,575——仅仅比她发布预测当日的收盘价高出5%点。标普500指数花了13年时间才收于她的目标上方。

仅供说明之用。过往表现不保证未来结果。

何时繁荣变成泡沫?

缺乏客观标准是投资者难以就泡沫真正形成达成一致的原因之一——更难以评估泡沫何时可能破裂。事实上,统计研究并未产生一种可靠的方法来量化泡沫——即确定一个可预测崩盘的阈值。

这让金融经济学家尤金·法玛感到困扰,他因在有效市场假说方面的工作而分享了2013年诺贝尔经济学奖。该假说认为,资产价格反映了所有可用信息,即便个人投资者并非总是理性的。通过研究历史数据,他发现,平均而言,极端的价格上涨甚至不能预测未来异常低的回报。他认为,如果泡沫是可量化的现象,那么强劲价格上涨的崩溃应该是可预测的。

“这是一个简单的命题。你必须能够预测到它会有尽头。人们尝试做的所有测试都不奏效。”法玛在2016年表示。

你不需要气象学家来知道风往哪个方向吹。至少在暴风雨中是这样。但如果一位诺贝尔奖得主无法制定出识别泡沫的硬性规则,投资者又如何能知道何时繁荣变成了泡沫,或者何时乐观的估值变得非理性呢?

检验法玛的泡沫理论

经济学家格林伍德、施莱弗和尤(上文提及)接受了法玛提出的挑战,法玛的主张与之前许多关于该主题的学术文献相矛盾。他们研究了从1926到2014,期间美国某些行业的股价,寻找两年内涨幅最高达100%的情况。他们识别出40次这样的情形,并发现只有在21次情形中,这些行业在接下来的两年内某时点下跌至少40%——他们设定的崩盘阈值。(他们还在对国际股票的研究中发现了类似的结果。)

与法玛的主张一致,这三位研究者发现,这些行业在后续两年内的表现并未跑输整体股市:“历史叙述通常基于泡沫破裂,并未考虑到许多行业价格大幅上涨后持续上涨的事实。”

但格林伍德、施莱弗和尤也得出结论,在涨幅达到100%后发生崩盘的概率高于平均水平,并且随着涨幅超过100%,这一概率进一步上升。他们还发现,发生崩盘的行业与未崩盘的行业存在显著差异。崩盘行业表现出更高的价格波动性和尤为迅速的涨幅,新公司在其中获得了不成比例的巨大收益。

这些特征,加上更高的股票发行量,可能有助于投资者通过避开某些崩盘而获得异常高的回报。然而,这三位研究者强调,价格顶峰“极难判断”,而押注泡沫破裂,尤其是做空,风险很高:“套利者需要极其雄厚的资金和能承受高波动的投资者才能进行此类押注。”

结论:泡沫与上升的风险

金融市场,除其他外,是群体心理的反映。这不可避免地意味着,市场有时会受贪婪和恐惧驱动,而非冷静计算,并且有时会形成几乎所有人在事后都认同的泡沫。虽然投资者或许无法预测泡沫何时破裂,但他们可以学会识别与风险上升相关的条件,并或许据此采取行动。

了解更多主题

本材料仅供一般信息和教育用途,不应视为个性化推荐或个性化投资建议。所提及的证券、投资产品和投资策略并不适合所有人。每位投资者在做出任何投资或交易决策前,应根据自身具体情况审查投资策略。

所有观点如有变更,恕不另行通知,以应对市场状况的变化。本文所含第三方数据来源于被认为是可靠的来源,但无法保证其准确性、完整性或可靠性。

仅供说明之用。个人情况会有所不同。本文并非旨在反映您预期实现的结果。

投资涉及风险,某些产品的风险可能超过您的初始投资。

过往业绩并不能保证未来结果。

在考虑保证金贷款时,您应确定如何使用保证金符合您自己的投资理念。由于存在风险,充分理解在保证金基础上进行证券交易的相关规则和要求非常重要。

保证金交易会增加您的市场风险。您的下行风险不仅限于您保证金账户中的抵押品价值。

Schwab可能在未联系您的情况下,启动出售您账户中的任何证券,以满足追加保证金要求。

Schwab可随时提高其“自定”维持保证金要求,并且无需提前书面通知您。

您无权获得追加保证金要求的延期。

卖空是一种高级交易策略,涉及可能无限的风险,并且必须在保证金账户中进行。保证金交易会增加您的市场风险水平。有关更多信息,请参阅您的账户协议和《保证金风险披露声明》。

完整英文原文

Key takeaways

  • Market bubbles usually feature soaring prices, stretched valuations, speculative excess, and claims that new technology will bring a new era of profitability.
  • Extreme price gains can raise the risk of a crash, particularly when accompanied by accelerating gains, high volatility, and heavy stock issuance, but many such moves never collapse.
  • Even when asset prices appear irrationally high, bubble peaks are nearly impossible to identify as they occur.

In December 1996, Nobel Prize-winning economist Robert Shiller warned then-Federal Reserve Chair Alan Greenspan over lunch that stock prices were "irrationally" high. Two days later, Greenspan used the now-famous phrase "irrational exuberance."

Shiller is widely credited with spotting the dot-com bubble long before it burst. But what good would that insight have done him or any investor? The S&P 500® Index roughly doubled in the three-plus years after Shiller's warning. Then it lost nearly half its value. But even at the bottom of that long bear market, the index remained above where it had been on the day of Shiller's lunch with Greenspan.

Recognizing the classic signs of a bubble isn't that difficult, especially the longer it inflates. But it's impossible to predict how big one might get or when it might burst. Still, investors should be aware of the growing risks and perhaps take steps to minimize the potential impact.

For illustrative purposes only. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

Characteristics of famous market bubbles

There are no universally accepted criteria for identifying bubbles. But broader U.S. stock market bubbles have shown similar characteristics: high and rapidly rising prices that stretch valuations to extremes, fueled at least partly by speculative excess; rhetoric about a new era of productivity and profitability, usually due to groundbreaking technological advances; and a bust in which prices collapse.

Extreme valuations: Massive price gains that stretch valuations well beyond average levels are probably the most commonly cited evidence of a bubble, while a bubble is still forming and often after the fact. In March 2000, at the peak of the dot-com bubble, the S&P 500 was priced at 28.3 times its trailing 12-month earnings, well above the then-20-year average of 17.0. Many individual tech stocks were priced much higher.

'New era' rhetoric: Market bubbles often occur alongside big technological breakthroughs—railroads, electrification, and the internet, for example—that are heralded as offering a new era of productivity and profitability. But the potential is often exaggerated in the minds of enthusiastic investors. Just weeks before the October 1929 stock market crash that triggered the Great Depression, Business Week magazine wrote: "For five years at least, American business has been in the grip of an apocalyptic holy-rolling exaltation over the unparalleled prosperity of the 'new era' upon which we, or it, or somebody has entered."

Speculative excess: The easy availability of capital, especially at low interest rates, frequently plays a role in creating asset bubbles by offering the possibility of amplified gains. Those gains, particularly in the later stages of a bubble, often draw in newer market participants who might be driven less by careful investing habits than by "fear of missing out" (FOMO). FOMO can be a powerful force in the creation of bubbles. The use of margin also frequently surges in later stages of a bubble.

For illustrative purposes only. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

Market psychology: Extreme bullishness among the investing public often serves as a useful, if subjective, indicator of a bubble. Time magazine covers have been frequently cited as contrarian indicators in the past. One money manager even created a Magazine Cover Indicator. After all, if everybody is in the market, there's no one left to buy. This can result in cascading waves of price declines once the selling starts.

Price collapse: A crash in prices is usually seen by many as confirmation of a bubble. Unfortunately, by then it's too late for any investors who are left holding the proverbial bag. A bear market is commonly defined as a 20% decline from a recent peak. But how far—or how quickly—do prices have to fall to qualify as a crash? For the purposes of their study of bubbles, economists Robin Greenwood, Andrei Shleifer, and Yang You defined a crash as a decline of at least 40% within two years of large price gains.

Predicting a crash

While the hallmarks of a bubble may be easily recognizable, the ability to predict how far it might inflate and when it will pop is notoriously difficult. A few people have shorted bubbles and won. Look at Michael Burry or John Paulson. Both made fortunes betting against derivatives linked to the U.S. housing bubble. But countless others, including top investors with abundant high-quality data and information at their disposal, were still exposed as the housing bubble burst, triggering the 2008 financial crisis.

For example, in March 2000, at the very peak of the dot-com tech bubble, Abby Cohen, then Goldman Sachs' chief investment strategist, famously raised her year-end target for the S&P 500 to 1,575—just 5% above the close on the day of her call. It would take 13 years for the S&P 500 to close above her target.

For illustrative purposes only. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

When does a boom become a bubble?

The shortage of objective criteria is one of the reasons it's so difficult for investors to agree that a bubble has actually formed—and even more difficult to assess when it might be about to burst. In fact, statistical research hasn't produced a reliable way to quantify bubbles at all—that is, to identify a threshold at which a crash is predictable.

This bothers financial economist Eugene F. Fama, who shared the 2013 Nobel Prize for Economics for his work on the efficient market hypothesis, which states that asset prices reflect all available information, even if individual investors are not always rational. Looking at historical data, he found that extreme price gains, on average, don't even predict unusually low returns going forward. He argued that the collapse of strong price gains should be predictable if bubbles are a quantifiable phenomenon.

"It's a simple proposition. You have to be able to predict that there is some end to it. All the tests people have done trying to do that don't work," Fama said in 2016.

You don't need a meteorologist to know which way the wind is blowing. At least in a storm. But if a Nobel laureate can't produce hard rules for identifying bubbles, how can investors know when a boom has become a bubble or when optimistic valuations become irrational?

Testing Fama's bubble theory

Economists Greenwood, Shleifer, and You (mentioned above) took up the challenge laid down by Fama, whose claims contradicted much previous academic literature on the subject. They looked at stock prices within certain U.S. industries from 1926 through 2014, in search of 100% gains over a maximum period of two years. They identified 40 such episodes and found that only in 21 episodes did the industries fall at least 40%—their threshold for a crash—at some point in the next two years. (They also found similar results in a study of international stocks.)

In line with Fama's claims, the trio found that the 100% gains didn't predict lower returns than the broader stock market for those industries in the subsequent two years: "The historical accounts are typically based on burst bubbles, and do not take into consideration the fact that many industries have gone up in price a lot and just keep going up."

But Greenwood, Shleifer, and You also concluded that the probability of a crash after a 100% gain was higher than average, and that the probability rose further as gains exceeded 100%. They also found that industries that crashed differed in significant ways from those that didn't. Those that crashed showed higher price volatility and especially rapid gains, with newer companies experiencing disproportionately bigger gains.

Those attributes, along with higher levels of stock issuance, could potentially help investors earn abnormally high returns by avoiding some of the crashes. However, the trio stressed that price peaks are "extremely hard to call" and betting against bubbles, especially by going short, is risky: "An arbitrageur would need to have extremely deep pockets and investors with high tolerance for volatility to make such bets."

Bottom line: Bubbles and rising risk

Financial markets are, among other things, a reflection of crowd psychology. That inevitably means that at times they will be driven by greed and fear more than cold calculation, and they will sometimes form what almost everyone can agree is a bubble, at least after the fact. While investors may not be able to predict when a bubble will burst, they can learn to recognize the conditions associated with rising risk and, perhaps, act accordingly.

Explore more topics

This material is intended for general informational and educational purposes only. This should not be considered an individualized recommendation or personalized investment advice. The securities, investment products and investment strategies mentioned are not suitable for everyone. Each investor needs to review an investment strategy for their own particular situation before making any investment or trading decisions.

All expressions of opinion are subject to change without notice in reaction to shifting market conditions. Data contained herein from third party providers is obtained from what are considered reliable sources. However, its accuracy, completeness or reliability cannot be guaranteed.

For illustrative purposes only. Individual situations will vary. Not intended to be reflective of results you can expect to achieve.

Investing involves risk, including, for some products, more than your initial investment.

Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

When considering a margin loan, you should determine how the use of margin fits your own investment philosophy. Because of the risks involved, it is important that you fully understand the rules and requirements involved in trading securities on margin.

Margin trading increases your level of market risk. Your downside is not limited to the collateral value in your margin account.

Schwab may initiate the sale of any securities in your account, without contacting you, to meet a margin call.

Schwab may increase its "house" maintenance margin requirements at any time and is not required to provide you with advance written notice.

You are not entitled to an extension of time on a margin call.

Short selling is an advanced trading strategy involving potentially unlimited risks, and must be done in a margin account. Margin trading increases your level of market risk. For more information please refer to your account agreement and the Margin Risk Disclosure Statement.

预览 PDF
1 / 110%

正在载入文档……

AI 分析
由 AI 依据上文研报生成 · 非原文直译、非机构原话 · 重要判断请核对官网原文
关键论点
  • 泡沫的特征包括极端估值、投机过度、新时代言论和市场心理。
  • 预测泡沫何时破裂几乎不可能,即使对专家来说也是如此。
  • 极端价格涨幅并不能可靠预测崩盘;许多涨幅达100%的行业继续上涨。
  • 崩盘概率随着涨幅增大而上升,且对于高波动性、快速上涨和高股票发行的行业更高。
  • 做空泡沫风险很大,因为需要‘极其雄厚的资金’来承受波动。
风险
  • 市场泡沫可能破裂,导致重大损失。
  • 泡沫顶点在实时中极难识别。
  • 做空泡沫资产可能带来无限风险。
  • 极端估值可能持续比预期更长时间。
  • 高波动性和快速价格上涨可能放大损失。