JL9000的个人主页 - 老虎社区

JL9000

JL9000

暂无个人介绍

IP属地：未知

8关注

0粉丝

0主题

0勋章

2021-12-20

Waiting...

抱歉，原内容已删除

2021-06-23

Another bs article pushed by motley fool

抱歉，原内容已删除

2021-06-21

All in an attempt to clear the way for digital yuan

抱歉，原内容已删除

2021-06-21

Implied downside of 3% and they put this in? Once again, i don't have confidence in foolish articles

抱歉，原内容已删除

2021-06-21

If tesla were to stop being a gimmicky company and focused on important things...they might have been world-savers

抱歉，原内容已删除

2021-06-21

They're part of a class that isn't jailable

抱歉，原内容已删除

2021-06-20

Safety first please...

抱歉，原内容已删除

2021-06-19

Holiday season...refers to nov onwards isnt it? It's only june-_-

抱歉，原内容已删除

2021-06-19

Would have liked to try my hands on their software if i could

抱歉，原内容已删除

2021-06-18

Stop encouraging irresponsible gambling. Numbers analysis are biased and there're incredible number of ways to selectively pick stats to support arguments

抱歉，原内容已删除

2021-06-17

Whats their long game? Only mining?

抱歉，原内容已删除

2021-06-17

Hope it does well in future

抱歉，原内容已删除

2021-06-16

Are they really legit?

抱歉，原内容已删除

2021-06-12

Maybe a lot of people dont really give a crap what they are called. At least i don't

Investor, Trader, Speculator: Which One Are You?<blockquote>投资者、交易者、投机者：你是哪一个？</blockquote>

2021-06-12

Lol

Investor, Trader, Speculator: Which One Are You?<blockquote>投资者、交易者、投机者：你是哪一个？</blockquote>

2021-06-12

Go for it

抱歉，原内容已删除

去老虎APP查看更多动态

{"i18n":{"language":"zh_CN"},"userPageInfo":{"id":"3584486073664277","uuid":"3584486073664277","gmtCreate":1621392264481,"gmtModify":1623464672050,"name":"JL9000","pinyin":"jl9000","introduction":"","introductionEn":"","signature":"","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/185ff843fc3784f1c1ee8d4306bd37b3","hat":null,"hatId":null,"hatName":null,"vip":1,"status":2,"fanSize":0,"headSize":8,"tweetSize":16,"questionSize":0,"limitLevel":999,"accountStatus":4,"level":{"id":1,"name":"萌萌虎","nameTw":"萌萌虎","represent":"呱呱坠地","factor":"评论帖子3次或发布1条主帖（非转发）","iconColor":"3C9E83","bgColor":"A2F1D9"},"themeCounts":0,"badgeCounts":0,"badges":[],"moderator":false,"superModerator":false,"manageSymbols":null,"badgeLevel":null,"boolIsFan":false,"boolIsHead":false,"favoriteSize":0,"symbols":null,"coverImage":null,"realNameVerified":null,"userBadges":[{"badgeId":"e50ce593bb40487ebfb542ca54f6a561-1","templateUuid":"e50ce593bb40487ebfb542ca54f6a561","name":"出道虎友","description":"加入老虎社区500天","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0e4d0ca1da0456dc7894c946d44bf9ab","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0f2f65e8ce4cfaae8db2bea9b127f58b","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/c5948a31b6edf154422335b265235809","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLink":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2022.10.01","exceedPercentage":null,"individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1001},{"badgeId":"35ec162348d5460f88c959321e554969-1","templateUuid":"35ec162348d5460f88c959321e554969","name":"精英交易员","description":"证券或期货账户累计交易次数达到30次","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/ab0f87127c854ce3191a752d57b46edc","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/c9835ce48b8c8743566d344ac7a7ba8c","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/76754b53ce7a90019f132c1d2fbc698f","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLink":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2022.01.30","exceedPercentage":"60.59%","individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1100},{"badgeId":"976c19eed35f4cd78f17501c2e99ef37-1","templateUuid":"976c19eed35f4cd78f17501c2e99ef37","name":"博闻投资者","description":"累计交易超过10只正股","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/e74cc24115c4fbae6154ec1b1041bf47","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/d48265cbfd97c57f9048db29f22227b0","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/76c6d6898b073c77e1c537ebe9ac1c57","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLink":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2021.12.28","exceedPercentage":null,"individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1102},{"badgeId":"518b5610c3e8410da5cfad115e4b0f5a-1","templateUuid":"518b5610c3e8410da5cfad115e4b0f5a","name":"实盘交易者","description":"完成一笔实盘交易","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/2e08a1cc2087a1de93402c2c290fa65b","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4504a6397ce1137932d56e5f4ce27166","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4b22c79415b4cd6e3d8ebc4a0fa32604","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLink":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2021.12.21","exceedPercentage":null,"individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1100}],"userBadgeCount":4,"currentWearingBadge":null,"individualDisplayBadges":null,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"location":"未知","starInvestorFollowerNum":0,"starInvestorFlag":false,"starInvestorOrderShareNum":0,"subscribeStarInvestorNum":0,"ror":null,"winRationPercentage":null,"showRor":false,"investmentPhilosophy":null,"starInvestorSubscribeFlag":false},"baikeInfo":{},"tab":"post","tweets":[{"id":693199605,"gmtCreate":1639981116999,"gmtModify":1639981116999,"author":{"id":"3584486073664277","authorId":"3584486073664277","name":"JL9000","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/185ff843fc3784f1c1ee8d4306bd37b3","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3584486073664277","authorIdStr":"3584486073664277"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Waiting...","listText":"Waiting...","text":"Waiting...","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/693199605","repostId":"2190675535","repostType":2,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1769,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"CN","totalScore":0},{"id":123806727,"gmtCreate":1624414255369,"gmtModify":1634006455941,"author":{"id":"3584486073664277","authorId":"3584486073664277","name":"JL9000","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/185ff843fc3784f1c1ee8d4306bd37b3","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3584486073664277","authorIdStr":"3584486073664277"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Another bs article pushed by motley fool","listText":"Another bs article pushed by motley fool","text":"Another bs article pushed by motley fool","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/123806727","repostId":"2145052095","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1201,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":167772212,"gmtCreate":1624286633336,"gmtModify":1634008354885,"author":{"id":"3584486073664277","authorId":"3584486073664277","name":"JL9000","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/185ff843fc3784f1c1ee8d4306bd37b3","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3584486073664277","authorIdStr":"3584486073664277"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"All in an attempt to clear the way for digital yuan","listText":"All in an attempt to clear the way for digital yuan","text":"All in an attempt to clear the way for digital yuan","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/167772212","repostId":"1125790272","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1761,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":167779596,"gmtCreate":1624286461815,"gmtModify":1634008358217,"author":{"id":"3584486073664277","authorId":"3584486073664277","name":"JL9000","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/185ff843fc3784f1c1ee8d4306bd37b3","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3584486073664277","authorIdStr":"3584486073664277"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Implied downside of 3% and they put this in? Once again, i don't have confidence in foolish articles","listText":"Implied downside of 3% and they put this in? Once again, i don't have confidence in foolish articles","text":"Implied downside of 3% and they put this in? Once again, i don't have confidence in foolish articles","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/167779596","repostId":"2145084835","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1881,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":167748987,"gmtCreate":1624286219649,"gmtModify":1634008364504,"author":{"id":"3584486073664277","authorId":"3584486073664277","name":"JL9000","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/185ff843fc3784f1c1ee8d4306bd37b3","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3584486073664277","authorIdStr":"3584486073664277"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"If tesla were to stop being a gimmicky company and focused on important things...they might have been world-savers","listText":"If tesla were to stop being a gimmicky company and focused on important things...they might have been world-savers","text":"If tesla were to stop being a gimmicky company and focused on important things...they might have been world-savers","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/167748987","repostId":"1100861051","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":980,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":167757344,"gmtCreate":1624285970688,"gmtModify":1634008368147,"author":{"id":"3584486073664277","authorId":"3584486073664277","name":"JL9000","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/185ff843fc3784f1c1ee8d4306bd37b3","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3584486073664277","authorIdStr":"3584486073664277"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"They're part of a class that isn't jailable","listText":"They're part of a class that isn't jailable","text":"They're part of a class that isn't jailable","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/167757344","repostId":"2145033366","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1369,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":164668976,"gmtCreate":1624201462495,"gmtModify":1634009541655,"author":{"id":"3584486073664277","authorId":"3584486073664277","name":"JL9000","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/185ff843fc3784f1c1ee8d4306bd37b3","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3584486073664277","authorIdStr":"3584486073664277"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Safety first please...","listText":"Safety first please...","text":"Safety first please...","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/164668976","repostId":"2144086770","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":854,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":165940814,"gmtCreate":1624089722738,"gmtModify":1634010785083,"author":{"id":"3584486073664277","authorId":"3584486073664277","name":"JL9000","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/185ff843fc3784f1c1ee8d4306bd37b3","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3584486073664277","authorIdStr":"3584486073664277"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Holiday season...refers to nov onwards isnt it? It's only june-_-","listText":"Holiday season...refers to nov onwards isnt it? It's only june-_-","text":"Holiday season...refers to nov onwards isnt it? It's only june-_-","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/165940814","repostId":"1197466929","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1126,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":165954306,"gmtCreate":1624089587505,"gmtModify":1634010786735,"author":{"id":"3584486073664277","authorId":"3584486073664277","name":"JL9000","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/185ff843fc3784f1c1ee8d4306bd37b3","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3584486073664277","authorIdStr":"3584486073664277"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Would have liked to try my hands on their software if i could","listText":"Would have liked to try my hands on their software if i could","text":"Would have liked to try my hands on their software if i could","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/165954306","repostId":"1192473918","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1081,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":166068215,"gmtCreate":1623985717637,"gmtModify":1634024617672,"author":{"id":"3584486073664277","authorId":"3584486073664277","name":"JL9000","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/185ff843fc3784f1c1ee8d4306bd37b3","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3584486073664277","authorIdStr":"3584486073664277"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Stop encouraging irresponsible gambling. Numbers analysis are biased and there're incredible number of ways to selectively pick stats to support arguments","listText":"Stop encouraging irresponsible gambling. Numbers analysis are biased and there're incredible number of ways to selectively pick stats to support arguments","text":"Stop encouraging irresponsible gambling. Numbers analysis are biased and there're incredible number of ways to selectively pick stats to support arguments","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/166068215","repostId":"2144946726","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1303,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":161819968,"gmtCreate":1623916881654,"gmtModify":1634025910419,"author":{"id":"3584486073664277","authorId":"3584486073664277","name":"JL9000","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/185ff843fc3784f1c1ee8d4306bd37b3","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3584486073664277","authorIdStr":"3584486073664277"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Whats their long game? Only mining?","listText":"Whats their long game? Only mining?","text":"Whats their long game? Only mining?","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/161819968","repostId":"2144714104","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":293,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":161835376,"gmtCreate":1623916631395,"gmtModify":1631884324418,"author":{"id":"3584486073664277","authorId":"3584486073664277","name":"JL9000","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/185ff843fc3784f1c1ee8d4306bd37b3","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3584486073664277","authorIdStr":"3584486073664277"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Hope it does well in future","listText":"Hope it does well in future","text":"Hope it does well in future","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/161835376","repostId":"1193159328","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":289,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":163017440,"gmtCreate":1623853431880,"gmtModify":1634027032446,"author":{"id":"3584486073664277","authorId":"3584486073664277","name":"JL9000","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/185ff843fc3784f1c1ee8d4306bd37b3","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3584486073664277","authorIdStr":"3584486073664277"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Are they really legit?","listText":"Are they really legit?","text":"Are they really legit?","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/163017440","repostId":"2143912677","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":329,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":186642047,"gmtCreate":1623496568589,"gmtModify":1634032364567,"author":{"id":"3584486073664277","authorId":"3584486073664277","name":"JL9000","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/185ff843fc3784f1c1ee8d4306bd37b3","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3584486073664277","authorIdStr":"3584486073664277"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Maybe a lot of people dont really give a crap what they are called. At least i don't","listText":"Maybe a lot of people dont really give a crap what they are called. At least i don't","text":"Maybe a lot of people dont really give a crap what they are called. At least i don't","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/186642047","repostId":"1147474880","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1147474880","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1623470168,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1147474880?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-06-12 11:56","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Investor, Trader, Speculator: Which One Are You?<blockquote>投资者、交易者、投机者：你是哪一个？</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1147474880","media":"The Wall Street Journal","summary":"Understanding the difference between speculation and investing is essential to avoiding reckless ris","content":"<p>  Understanding the difference between speculation and investing is essential to avoiding reckless risk.  I’ve had it.</p><p><blockquote>了解投机和投资之间的区别对于避免鲁莽风险至关重要。我受够了。</blockquote></p><p> The Wall Street Journal is wrong, and has remained wrong for decades, about one of the most basic distinctions in finance. And I can’t stand it anymore.</p><p><blockquote>关于金融最基本的区别之一，《华尔街日报》是错误的，而且几十年来一直是错误的。我再也受不了了。</blockquote></p><p> If you buy a stock purely because it’s gone up a lot, without doing any research on it whatsoever, you are not—as the Journal and its editors bizarrely insist on calling you—an “investor.” If you buy a cryptocurrency because, hey, that sounds like fun, you aren’t an investor either.</p><p><blockquote>如果你购买一只股票纯粹是因为它上涨了很多，而没有对其进行任何研究，那么你就不是——正如《华尔街日报》及其编辑奇怪地坚持这样称呼你的那样——“投资者”。如果你购买加密货币是因为，嘿，这听起来很有趣，你也不是投资者。</blockquote></p><p> Whenever you buy any financial asset becauseyou have a hunchorjust for kicks, or becausesomebody famous is hyping the heck out of itoreverybody else seems to be buying it too, you aren’t investing.</p><p><blockquote>每当你购买任何金融资产是因为你有一个只是为了好玩，或者因为某个名人正在大肆宣传它，而其他人似乎也在购买它，你就不是在投资。</blockquote></p><p> You’re definitely a trader: someone who has just bought an asset. And you may bea speculator: someone who thinks other people will pay more for it than you did.</p><p><blockquote>你绝对是一个交易者：刚刚购买了一项资产的人。你可能是一个投机者：认为其他人会比你付出更多的钱。</blockquote></p><p> Of course,some folkswho buy meme stocks likeGameStopCorp.GME5.88%<i>are</i>investors. They read the companies’ financial statements, study the health of the underlying businesses and learn who else is betting on or against the shares. Likewise, many buyers of digital coins have put in the time and effort to understand how cryptocurrency works and how it could reshape finance.</p><p><blockquote>当然，有些人购买像GameStopCorp.GME 5.88%这样的模因股票<i>是</i>投资者。他们阅读公司的财务报表，研究基础业务的健康状况，并了解还有谁在做空股票。同样，许多数字硬币的买家也投入了时间和精力来了解加密货币的工作原理以及它如何重塑金融。</blockquote></p><p> An investor relies on internal sources of return: earnings, income, growth in the value of assets. A speculator counts on external sources of return: primarilywhether somebody else will pay more, regardless of fundamental value.</p><p><blockquote>投资者依赖于内部回报来源：收益、收入、资产价值的增长。投机者依赖外部回报来源：主要是其他人是否会支付更多，而不考虑基本价值。</blockquote></p><p> The word investor comes from the Latin “investire,” to dress in or clothe oneself, surround or envelop. You would never wear clothes without knowing what color they are or what material they’re made of. Likewise, you can’t invest in an asset you know nothing about.</p><p><blockquote>投资者这个词来自拉丁语“investire”，意思是穿着或打扮自己，包围或包围。你永远不会在不知道衣服是什么颜色或由什么材料制成的情况下穿衣服。同样，你不能投资你一无所知的资产。</blockquote></p><p> Nevertheless, the Journal and its editors have long called almost everybody who buys just about anything an “investor.” On July 12, 1962, the Journal publisheda letter to the editorfrom Benjamin Graham, author of the classic books “Security Analysis” and “The Intelligent Investor.” That June, complained Graham, the Journal had run an article headlined “Many Small Investors Bet on Further Drops, Sell Odd Lots Short.”</p><p><blockquote>然而，《华尔街日报》及其编辑长期以来一直将几乎所有购买任何东西的人称为“投资者”。1962年7月12日，《华尔街日报》发表了经典著作《证券分析》和《聪明的投资者》的作者本杰明·格雷厄姆写给编辑的一封信。格雷厄姆抱怨说，那年6月，《华尔街日报》发表了一篇文章，标题是“许多小投资者押注进一步下跌，卖空零星股票”。</blockquote></p><p> He wrote: “By what definition of ‘investment’ can one give the name ‘investors’ to small people who make bets on the stock market by selling odd lots short?” (To short an odd lot is to borrow and sell fewer than 100 shares in a wager that a stock will fall—an expensive and risky bet, then and now.)</p><p><blockquote>他写道：“根据‘投资’的什么定义，人们可以给那些通过卖空零头在股市上下注的小人物起‘投资者’这个名字呢？”（做空奇数手就是借入并卖出少于100股的股票，押注股票会下跌——无论在当时还是现在，这都是一个昂贵且有风险的赌注。）</blockquote></p><p> “If these people are investors,” asked Graham, “how should one define ‘speculation’ and ‘speculators’? Isn’t it possible that the currentfailure to distinguishbetweeninvestment and speculationmay do grave harm not only to individuals but to the whole financial community—as it did in the late 1920s?”</p><p><blockquote>“如果这些人是投资者，”格雷厄姆问道，“我们应该如何定义‘投机’和‘投机者’？难道目前未能区分投资和投机的做法，不仅会对个人，而且会对整个金融界造成严重伤害吗——就像20世纪20年代末那样？”</blockquote></p><p> Graham wasn’t a snob who thought that the markets should be the exclusive playground of the rich. He wrote “The Intelligent Investor” with the express purpose of helping less-wealthy people participate wisely in the stock market.</p><p><blockquote>格雷厄姆并不是一个认为市场应该是富人专属游乐场的势利小人。他写了《聪明的投资者》，明确的目的是帮助不太富裕的人明智地参与股市。</blockquote></p><p> In that book, after which this column is named, Graham said, “Outright speculation is neither illegal, immoral, nor (for most people) fattening to the pocketbook.”</p><p><blockquote>格雷厄姆在那本书（本专栏就是以其命名的）中说：“彻头彻尾的投机既不违法、不道德，也（对大多数人来说）不会让钱包发胖。”</blockquote></p><p> However, he warned, it creates three dangers: “(1) speculating when you think you are investing; (2) speculating seriously instead of as a pastime, when you lack proper knowledge and skill for it; and (3) risking more money in speculation than you can afford to lose.”</p><p><blockquote>然而，他警告说，这会带来三种危险：“（1）当你认为自己在投资时进行投机；（2）当你缺乏适当的知识和技能时，认真地投机而不是作为一种消遣；以及（3）冒更多钱的风险投机超出了你的承受能力。”</blockquote></p><p> Most investors speculate a bit every once in a while. Like a lottery ticket or an occasional visit to the racetrack or casino, a little is harmless fun. A lot isn’t.</p><p><blockquote>大多数投资者每隔一段时间就会投机一点。就像彩票或偶尔去赛马场或赌场一样，一点点是无害的乐趣。很多都不是。</blockquote></p><p> If you think you’re investing when you’re speculating, you’ll attribute even momentary success to skill even thoughluck is the likeliest explanation. That can lead you to take reckless risks.</p><p><blockquote>如果你认为你在投机时是在投资，你会将哪怕是短暂的成功归因于技能，即使运气是最可能的解释。这会导致你冒鲁莽的风险。</blockquote></p><p> Take speculating too seriously, and it turns intoan obsessionandan addiction. You become incapable of accepting your losses or focusing on the future more than a few minutes ahead. Next thing you know, you’re throwing even more money onto the bonfire.</p><p><blockquote>把投机看得太重，它会变成一种痴迷和上瘾。你变得无法接受你的损失，也无法关注未来超过几分钟。接下来你知道的是，你在篝火上投入了更多的钱。</blockquote></p><p> I think calling traders and speculators “investors” shoves many newcomers farther down the slippery slope toward risks they shouldn’t take and losses they can’t afford. I fervently hope the Journal and its editors will finally stop using “investor” as the default term for anyone who makes a trade.</p><p><blockquote>我认为，将交易者和投机者称为“投资者”会将许多新来者推向他们不应该承担的风险和他们无法承受的损失的滑坡。我热切地希望《华尔街日报》及其编辑最终不再使用“投资者”作为任何进行交易的人的默认术语。</blockquote></p><p> “ ‘Investor’ has a long history in the English language as a catch-all term denoting people who commit capital with the expectation of a return, no matter how long or short, no matter how many or how few investing columns they read,” WSJ Financial Editor Charles Forelle said in response to my complaints. “Back at least to the mid-19th century, ‘invest’ has even been used to describe a wager on horses—an activity surely no less divorced from fundamental analysis than a purchase of dogecoin.”</p><p><blockquote>“‘投资者’在英语中作为一个包罗万象的术语有着悠久的历史，指的是那些投入资本并期望回报的人，无论时间长短，无论他们阅读的投资专栏有多少，”《华尔街日报》财经编辑查尔斯·福雷尔在回应我的投诉时说道。“至少可以追溯到19世纪中叶，‘投资’甚至被用来描述赌马——这种活动与基本面分析的脱节程度肯定不亚于购买狗狗币。”</blockquote></p><p></p><p> I hear you, Boss, but I still think you’re wrong. There’s no way the Journal would say a recreational gambler is “investing” at the racetrack just because a dictionary says we can.</p><p><blockquote>我听到了，老板，但我还是认为你错了。《华尔街日报》不可能仅仅因为字典上说我们可以，就说一个休闲赌徒在赛马场“投资”。</blockquote></p><p> Calling novice speculators “investors” is one of the most powerful ways marketers fuel excessive trading.</p><p><blockquote>将新手投机者称为“投资者”是营销人员助长过度交易的最有力方式之一。</blockquote></p><p> Ina recent Instagram post, a former porn star who goes by the name Lana Rhoades posed in—well, mostly in—a bikini, as she held up what appears to be Graham’s “The Intelligent Investor.” According to IMDb.com, she starred in such videos as “Tushy” and “Make Me Meow.”</p><p><blockquote>在最近的Instagram帖子中，一位名叫拉娜·罗迪斯(Lana Rhoades)的前色情明星穿着——嗯，大部分是穿着——比基尼，举着似乎是格雷厄姆的《聪明的投资者》。据IMDb.com报道，她主演了《Tushy》和《Make Me Meow》等视频。</blockquote></p><p> In her post, which was “liked” by nearly 1.8 million people, Ms. Rhoades announced that she will be promoting a cryptocurrency calledPAWGcoin.</p><p><blockquote>在她被近180万人“点赞”的帖子中，罗迪斯宣布她将推广一种名为PAWGCoin的加密货币。</blockquote></p><p> The currency’s website says the coin is meant for “those who pay homage to developed posteriors.” (PAWG, I’ve been reliably informed, stands for Phat Ass White Girl.)</p><p><blockquote>该货币的网站称，这枚硬币是为“那些向发达的后躯致敬的人”准备的。（我得到可靠消息，PAWG代表胖屁股白人女孩。）</blockquote></p><p> PAWGcoin is up roughly 900% since Ms. Rhoades began promoting it in early June, according to Poocoin.io, a website that tracks such digital currencies.</p><p><blockquote>据追踪此类数字货币的网站Poocoin.io称，自Rhoades女士6月初开始推广PAWGcoin以来，PAWGcoin已上涨约900%。</blockquote></p><p> Ms. Rhoades, who has tweeted “I also read the WSJ every morning,” couldn’t be reached for comment. PAWGcoin’s website encourages visitors to “invest now.”</p><p><blockquote>罗迪斯女士在推特上写道“我每天早上也阅读《华尔街日报》”，但记者无法联系到她置评。PAWGcoin的网站鼓励访问者“立即投资”。</blockquote></p><p> In Ms. Rhoades’s Instagram post, she is holding up an open copy of the “The Intelligent Investor,” whose cover is reversed. She appears to be reading it with her eyes closed.</p><p><blockquote>在罗迪斯的Instagram帖子中，她举着一本打开的《聪明的投资者》，封面是颠倒的。她似乎是闭着眼睛读的。</blockquote></p><p></p>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Investor, Trader, Speculator: Which One Are You?<blockquote>投资者、交易者、投机者：你是哪一个？</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nInvestor, Trader, Speculator: Which One Are You?<blockquote>投资者、交易者、投机者：你是哪一个？</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<p class=\"head\">\n<strong class=\"h-name small\">The Wall Street Journal</strong><span class=\"h-time small\">2021-06-12 11:56</span>\n</p>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p>  Understanding the difference between speculation and investing is essential to avoiding reckless risk.  I’ve had it.</p><p><blockquote>了解投机和投资之间的区别对于避免鲁莽风险至关重要。我受够了。</blockquote></p><p> The Wall Street Journal is wrong, and has remained wrong for decades, about one of the most basic distinctions in finance. And I can’t stand it anymore.</p><p><blockquote>关于金融最基本的区别之一，《华尔街日报》是错误的，而且几十年来一直是错误的。我再也受不了了。</blockquote></p><p> If you buy a stock purely because it’s gone up a lot, without doing any research on it whatsoever, you are not—as the Journal and its editors bizarrely insist on calling you—an “investor.” If you buy a cryptocurrency because, hey, that sounds like fun, you aren’t an investor either.</p><p><blockquote>如果你购买一只股票纯粹是因为它上涨了很多，而没有对其进行任何研究，那么你就不是——正如《华尔街日报》及其编辑奇怪地坚持这样称呼你的那样——“投资者”。如果你购买加密货币是因为，嘿，这听起来很有趣，你也不是投资者。</blockquote></p><p> Whenever you buy any financial asset becauseyou have a hunchorjust for kicks, or becausesomebody famous is hyping the heck out of itoreverybody else seems to be buying it too, you aren’t investing.</p><p><blockquote>每当你购买任何金融资产是因为你有一个只是为了好玩，或者因为某个名人正在大肆宣传它，而其他人似乎也在购买它，你就不是在投资。</blockquote></p><p> You’re definitely a trader: someone who has just bought an asset. And you may bea speculator: someone who thinks other people will pay more for it than you did.</p><p><blockquote>你绝对是一个交易者：刚刚购买了一项资产的人。你可能是一个投机者：认为其他人会比你付出更多的钱。</blockquote></p><p> Of course,some folkswho buy meme stocks likeGameStopCorp.GME5.88%<i>are</i>investors. They read the companies’ financial statements, study the health of the underlying businesses and learn who else is betting on or against the shares. Likewise, many buyers of digital coins have put in the time and effort to understand how cryptocurrency works and how it could reshape finance.</p><p><blockquote>当然，有些人购买像GameStopCorp.GME 5.88%这样的模因股票<i>是</i>投资者。他们阅读公司的财务报表，研究基础业务的健康状况，并了解还有谁在做空股票。同样，许多数字硬币的买家也投入了时间和精力来了解加密货币的工作原理以及它如何重塑金融。</blockquote></p><p> An investor relies on internal sources of return: earnings, income, growth in the value of assets. A speculator counts on external sources of return: primarilywhether somebody else will pay more, regardless of fundamental value.</p><p><blockquote>投资者依赖于内部回报来源：收益、收入、资产价值的增长。投机者依赖外部回报来源：主要是其他人是否会支付更多，而不考虑基本价值。</blockquote></p><p> The word investor comes from the Latin “investire,” to dress in or clothe oneself, surround or envelop. You would never wear clothes without knowing what color they are or what material they’re made of. Likewise, you can’t invest in an asset you know nothing about.</p><p><blockquote>投资者这个词来自拉丁语“investire”，意思是穿着或打扮自己，包围或包围。你永远不会在不知道衣服是什么颜色或由什么材料制成的情况下穿衣服。同样，你不能投资你一无所知的资产。</blockquote></p><p> Nevertheless, the Journal and its editors have long called almost everybody who buys just about anything an “investor.” On July 12, 1962, the Journal publisheda letter to the editorfrom Benjamin Graham, author of the classic books “Security Analysis” and “The Intelligent Investor.” That June, complained Graham, the Journal had run an article headlined “Many Small Investors Bet on Further Drops, Sell Odd Lots Short.”</p><p><blockquote>然而，《华尔街日报》及其编辑长期以来一直将几乎所有购买任何东西的人称为“投资者”。1962年7月12日，《华尔街日报》发表了经典著作《证券分析》和《聪明的投资者》的作者本杰明·格雷厄姆写给编辑的一封信。格雷厄姆抱怨说，那年6月，《华尔街日报》发表了一篇文章，标题是“许多小投资者押注进一步下跌，卖空零星股票”。</blockquote></p><p> He wrote: “By what definition of ‘investment’ can one give the name ‘investors’ to small people who make bets on the stock market by selling odd lots short?” (To short an odd lot is to borrow and sell fewer than 100 shares in a wager that a stock will fall—an expensive and risky bet, then and now.)</p><p><blockquote>他写道：“根据‘投资’的什么定义，人们可以给那些通过卖空零头在股市上下注的小人物起‘投资者’这个名字呢？”（做空奇数手就是借入并卖出少于100股的股票，押注股票会下跌——无论在当时还是现在，这都是一个昂贵且有风险的赌注。）</blockquote></p><p> “If these people are investors,” asked Graham, “how should one define ‘speculation’ and ‘speculators’? Isn’t it possible that the currentfailure to distinguishbetweeninvestment and speculationmay do grave harm not only to individuals but to the whole financial community—as it did in the late 1920s?”</p><p><blockquote>“如果这些人是投资者，”格雷厄姆问道，“我们应该如何定义‘投机’和‘投机者’？难道目前未能区分投资和投机的做法，不仅会对个人，而且会对整个金融界造成严重伤害吗——就像20世纪20年代末那样？”</blockquote></p><p> Graham wasn’t a snob who thought that the markets should be the exclusive playground of the rich. He wrote “The Intelligent Investor” with the express purpose of helping less-wealthy people participate wisely in the stock market.</p><p><blockquote>格雷厄姆并不是一个认为市场应该是富人专属游乐场的势利小人。他写了《聪明的投资者》，明确的目的是帮助不太富裕的人明智地参与股市。</blockquote></p><p> In that book, after which this column is named, Graham said, “Outright speculation is neither illegal, immoral, nor (for most people) fattening to the pocketbook.”</p><p><blockquote>格雷厄姆在那本书（本专栏就是以其命名的）中说：“彻头彻尾的投机既不违法、不道德，也（对大多数人来说）不会让钱包发胖。”</blockquote></p><p> However, he warned, it creates three dangers: “(1) speculating when you think you are investing; (2) speculating seriously instead of as a pastime, when you lack proper knowledge and skill for it; and (3) risking more money in speculation than you can afford to lose.”</p><p><blockquote>然而，他警告说，这会带来三种危险：“（1）当你认为自己在投资时进行投机；（2）当你缺乏适当的知识和技能时，认真地投机而不是作为一种消遣；以及（3）冒更多钱的风险投机超出了你的承受能力。”</blockquote></p><p> Most investors speculate a bit every once in a while. Like a lottery ticket or an occasional visit to the racetrack or casino, a little is harmless fun. A lot isn’t.</p><p><blockquote>大多数投资者每隔一段时间就会投机一点。就像彩票或偶尔去赛马场或赌场一样，一点点是无害的乐趣。很多都不是。</blockquote></p><p> If you think you’re investing when you’re speculating, you’ll attribute even momentary success to skill even thoughluck is the likeliest explanation. That can lead you to take reckless risks.</p><p><blockquote>如果你认为你在投机时是在投资，你会将哪怕是短暂的成功归因于技能，即使运气是最可能的解释。这会导致你冒鲁莽的风险。</blockquote></p><p> Take speculating too seriously, and it turns intoan obsessionandan addiction. You become incapable of accepting your losses or focusing on the future more than a few minutes ahead. Next thing you know, you’re throwing even more money onto the bonfire.</p><p><blockquote>把投机看得太重，它会变成一种痴迷和上瘾。你变得无法接受你的损失，也无法关注未来超过几分钟。接下来你知道的是，你在篝火上投入了更多的钱。</blockquote></p><p> I think calling traders and speculators “investors” shoves many newcomers farther down the slippery slope toward risks they shouldn’t take and losses they can’t afford. I fervently hope the Journal and its editors will finally stop using “investor” as the default term for anyone who makes a trade.</p><p><blockquote>我认为，将交易者和投机者称为“投资者”会将许多新来者推向他们不应该承担的风险和他们无法承受的损失的滑坡。我热切地希望《华尔街日报》及其编辑最终不再使用“投资者”作为任何进行交易的人的默认术语。</blockquote></p><p> “ ‘Investor’ has a long history in the English language as a catch-all term denoting people who commit capital with the expectation of a return, no matter how long or short, no matter how many or how few investing columns they read,” WSJ Financial Editor Charles Forelle said in response to my complaints. “Back at least to the mid-19th century, ‘invest’ has even been used to describe a wager on horses—an activity surely no less divorced from fundamental analysis than a purchase of dogecoin.”</p><p><blockquote>“‘投资者’在英语中作为一个包罗万象的术语有着悠久的历史，指的是那些投入资本并期望回报的人，无论时间长短，无论他们阅读的投资专栏有多少，”《华尔街日报》财经编辑查尔斯·福雷尔在回应我的投诉时说道。“至少可以追溯到19世纪中叶，‘投资’甚至被用来描述赌马——这种活动与基本面分析的脱节程度肯定不亚于购买狗狗币。”</blockquote></p><p></p><p> I hear you, Boss, but I still think you’re wrong. There’s no way the Journal would say a recreational gambler is “investing” at the racetrack just because a dictionary says we can.</p><p><blockquote>我听到了，老板，但我还是认为你错了。《华尔街日报》不可能仅仅因为字典上说我们可以，就说一个休闲赌徒在赛马场“投资”。</blockquote></p><p> Calling novice speculators “investors” is one of the most powerful ways marketers fuel excessive trading.</p><p><blockquote>将新手投机者称为“投资者”是营销人员助长过度交易的最有力方式之一。</blockquote></p><p> Ina recent Instagram post, a former porn star who goes by the name Lana Rhoades posed in—well, mostly in—a bikini, as she held up what appears to be Graham’s “The Intelligent Investor.” According to IMDb.com, she starred in such videos as “Tushy” and “Make Me Meow.”</p><p><blockquote>在最近的Instagram帖子中，一位名叫拉娜·罗迪斯(Lana Rhoades)的前色情明星穿着——嗯，大部分是穿着——比基尼，举着似乎是格雷厄姆的《聪明的投资者》。据IMDb.com报道，她主演了《Tushy》和《Make Me Meow》等视频。</blockquote></p><p> In her post, which was “liked” by nearly 1.8 million people, Ms. Rhoades announced that she will be promoting a cryptocurrency calledPAWGcoin.</p><p><blockquote>在她被近180万人“点赞”的帖子中，罗迪斯宣布她将推广一种名为PAWGCoin的加密货币。</blockquote></p><p> The currency’s website says the coin is meant for “those who pay homage to developed posteriors.” (PAWG, I’ve been reliably informed, stands for Phat Ass White Girl.)</p><p><blockquote>该货币的网站称，这枚硬币是为“那些向发达的后躯致敬的人”准备的。（我得到可靠消息，PAWG代表胖屁股白人女孩。）</blockquote></p><p> PAWGcoin is up roughly 900% since Ms. Rhoades began promoting it in early June, according to Poocoin.io, a website that tracks such digital currencies.</p><p><blockquote>据追踪此类数字货币的网站Poocoin.io称，自Rhoades女士6月初开始推广PAWGcoin以来，PAWGcoin已上涨约900%。</blockquote></p><p> Ms. Rhoades, who has tweeted “I also read the WSJ every morning,” couldn’t be reached for comment. PAWGcoin’s website encourages visitors to “invest now.”</p><p><blockquote>罗迪斯女士在推特上写道“我每天早上也阅读《华尔街日报》”，但记者无法联系到她置评。PAWGcoin的网站鼓励访问者“立即投资”。</blockquote></p><p> In Ms. Rhoades’s Instagram post, she is holding up an open copy of the “The Intelligent Investor,” whose cover is reversed. She appears to be reading it with her eyes closed.</p><p><blockquote>在罗迪斯的Instagram帖子中，她举着一本打开的《聪明的投资者》，封面是颠倒的。她似乎是闭着眼睛读的。</blockquote></p><p></p>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n<p> 来源：<a href=\"https://www.wsj.com/articles/you-cant-invest-without-trading-you-can-trade-without-investing-11623426213?mod=markets_lead_pos5\">The Wall Street Journal</a></p>\n<p>为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化</p>\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"SPY":"标普500ETF",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".DJI":"道琼斯",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index"},"source_url":"https://www.wsj.com/articles/you-cant-invest-without-trading-you-can-trade-without-investing-11623426213?mod=markets_lead_pos5","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1147474880","content_text":"Understanding the difference between speculation and investing is essential to avoiding reckless risk.\n\nI’ve had it.\nThe Wall Street Journal is wrong, and has remained wrong for decades, about one of the most basic distinctions in finance. And I can’t stand it anymore.\nIf you buy a stock purely because it’s gone up a lot, without doing any research on it whatsoever, you are not—as the Journal and its editors bizarrely insist on calling you—an “investor.” If you buy a cryptocurrency because, hey, that sounds like fun, you aren’t an investor either.\nWhenever you buy any financial asset becauseyou have a hunchorjust for kicks, or becausesomebody famous is hyping the heck out of itoreverybody else seems to be buying it too, you aren’t investing.\nYou’re definitely a trader: someone who has just bought an asset. And you may bea speculator: someone who thinks other people will pay more for it than you did.\nOf course,some folkswho buy meme stocks likeGameStopCorp.GME5.88%areinvestors. They read the companies’ financial statements, study the health of the underlying businesses and learn who else is betting on or against the shares. Likewise, many buyers of digital coins have put in the time and effort to understand how cryptocurrency works and how it could reshape finance.\nAn investor relies on internal sources of return: earnings, income, growth in the value of assets. A speculator counts on external sources of return: primarilywhether somebody else will pay more, regardless of fundamental value.\nThe word investor comes from the Latin “investire,” to dress in or clothe oneself, surround or envelop. You would never wear clothes without knowing what color they are or what material they’re made of. Likewise, you can’t invest in an asset you know nothing about.\nNevertheless, the Journal and its editors have long called almost everybody who buys just about anything an “investor.” On July 12, 1962, the Journal publisheda letter to the editorfrom Benjamin Graham, author of the classic books “Security Analysis” and “The Intelligent Investor.” That June, complained Graham, the Journal had run an article headlined “Many Small Investors Bet on Further Drops, Sell Odd Lots Short.”\nHe wrote: “By what definition of ‘investment’ can one give the name ‘investors’ to small people who make bets on the stock market by selling odd lots short?” (To short an odd lot is to borrow and sell fewer than 100 shares in a wager that a stock will fall—an expensive and risky bet, then and now.)\n“If these people are investors,” asked Graham, “how should one define ‘speculation’ and ‘speculators’? Isn’t it possible that the currentfailure to distinguishbetweeninvestment and speculationmay do grave harm not only to individuals but to the whole financial community—as it did in the late 1920s?”\nGraham wasn’t a snob who thought that the markets should be the exclusive playground of the rich. He wrote “The Intelligent Investor” with the express purpose of helping less-wealthy people participate wisely in the stock market.\nIn that book, after which this column is named, Graham said, “Outright speculation is neither illegal, immoral, nor (for most people) fattening to the pocketbook.”\nHowever, he warned, it creates three dangers: “(1) speculating when you think you are investing; (2) speculating seriously instead of as a pastime, when you lack proper knowledge and skill for it; and (3) risking more money in speculation than you can afford to lose.”\nMost investors speculate a bit every once in a while. Like a lottery ticket or an occasional visit to the racetrack or casino, a little is harmless fun. A lot isn’t.\nIf you think you’re investing when you’re speculating, you’ll attribute even momentary success to skill even thoughluck is the likeliest explanation. That can lead you to take reckless risks.\nTake speculating too seriously, and it turns intoan obsessionandan addiction. You become incapable of accepting your losses or focusing on the future more than a few minutes ahead. Next thing you know, you’re throwing even more money onto the bonfire.\nI think calling traders and speculators “investors” shoves many newcomers farther down the slippery slope toward risks they shouldn’t take and losses they can’t afford. I fervently hope the Journal and its editors will finally stop using “investor” as the default term for anyone who makes a trade.\n“ ‘Investor’ has a long history in the English language as a catch-all term denoting people who commit capital with the expectation of a return, no matter how long or short, no matter how many or how few investing columns they read,” WSJ Financial Editor Charles Forelle said in response to my complaints. “Back at least to the mid-19th century, ‘invest’ has even been used to describe a wager on horses—an activity surely no less divorced from fundamental analysis than a purchase of dogecoin.”\nI hear you, Boss, but I still think you’re wrong. There’s no way the Journal would say a recreational gambler is “investing” at the racetrack just because a dictionary says we can.\nCalling novice speculators “investors” is one of the most powerful ways marketers fuel excessive trading.\nIna recent Instagram post, a former porn star who goes by the name Lana Rhoades posed in—well, mostly in—a bikini, as she held up what appears to be Graham’s “The Intelligent Investor.” According to IMDb.com, she starred in such videos as “Tushy” and “Make Me Meow.”\nIn her post, which was “liked” by nearly 1.8 million people, Ms. Rhoades announced that she will be promoting a cryptocurrency calledPAWGcoin.\nThe currency’s website says the coin is meant for “those who pay homage to developed posteriors.” (PAWG, I’ve been reliably informed, stands for Phat Ass White Girl.)\nPAWGcoin is up roughly 900% since Ms. Rhoades began promoting it in early June, according to Poocoin.io, a website that tracks such digital currencies.\nMs. Rhoades, who has tweeted “I also read the WSJ every morning,” couldn’t be reached for comment. PAWGcoin’s website encourages visitors to “invest now.”\nIn Ms. Rhoades’s Instagram post, she is holding up an open copy of the “The Intelligent Investor,” whose cover is reversed. She appears to be reading it with her eyes closed.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{".IXIC":0.9,".SPX":0.9,".DJI":0.9,"SPY":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":355,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":186816301,"gmtCreate":1623484023603,"gmtModify":1634032487193,"author":{"id":"3584486073664277","authorId":"3584486073664277","name":"JL9000","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/185ff843fc3784f1c1ee8d4306bd37b3","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3584486073664277","authorIdStr":"3584486073664277"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Lol","listText":"Lol","text":"Lol","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/186816301","repostId":"1147474880","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1147474880","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1623470168,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1147474880?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-06-12 11:56","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Investor, Trader, Speculator: Which One Are You?<blockquote>投资者、交易者、投机者：你是哪一个？</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1147474880","media":"The Wall Street Journal","summary":"Understanding the difference between speculation and investing is essential to avoiding reckless ris","content":"<p>  Understanding the difference between speculation and investing is essential to avoiding reckless risk.  I’ve had it.</p><p><blockquote>了解投机和投资之间的区别对于避免鲁莽风险至关重要。我受够了。</blockquote></p><p> The Wall Street Journal is wrong, and has remained wrong for decades, about one of the most basic distinctions in finance. And I can’t stand it anymore.</p><p><blockquote>关于金融最基本的区别之一，《华尔街日报》是错误的，而且几十年来一直是错误的。我再也受不了了。</blockquote></p><p> If you buy a stock purely because it’s gone up a lot, without doing any research on it whatsoever, you are not—as the Journal and its editors bizarrely insist on calling you—an “investor.” If you buy a cryptocurrency because, hey, that sounds like fun, you aren’t an investor either.</p><p><blockquote>如果你购买一只股票纯粹是因为它上涨了很多，而没有对其进行任何研究，那么你就不是——正如《华尔街日报》及其编辑奇怪地坚持这样称呼你的那样——“投资者”。如果你购买加密货币是因为，嘿，这听起来很有趣，你也不是投资者。</blockquote></p><p> Whenever you buy any financial asset becauseyou have a hunchorjust for kicks, or becausesomebody famous is hyping the heck out of itoreverybody else seems to be buying it too, you aren’t investing.</p><p><blockquote>每当你购买任何金融资产是因为你有一个只是为了好玩，或者因为某个名人正在大肆宣传它，而其他人似乎也在购买它，你就不是在投资。</blockquote></p><p> You’re definitely a trader: someone who has just bought an asset. And you may bea speculator: someone who thinks other people will pay more for it than you did.</p><p><blockquote>你绝对是一个交易者：刚刚购买了一项资产的人。你可能是一个投机者：认为其他人会比你付出更多的钱。</blockquote></p><p> Of course,some folkswho buy meme stocks likeGameStopCorp.GME5.88%<i>are</i>investors. They read the companies’ financial statements, study the health of the underlying businesses and learn who else is betting on or against the shares. Likewise, many buyers of digital coins have put in the time and effort to understand how cryptocurrency works and how it could reshape finance.</p><p><blockquote>当然，有些人购买像GameStopCorp.GME 5.88%这样的模因股票<i>是</i>投资者。他们阅读公司的财务报表，研究基础业务的健康状况，并了解还有谁在做空股票。同样，许多数字硬币的买家也投入了时间和精力来了解加密货币的工作原理以及它如何重塑金融。</blockquote></p><p> An investor relies on internal sources of return: earnings, income, growth in the value of assets. A speculator counts on external sources of return: primarilywhether somebody else will pay more, regardless of fundamental value.</p><p><blockquote>投资者依赖于内部回报来源：收益、收入、资产价值的增长。投机者依赖外部回报来源：主要是其他人是否会支付更多，而不考虑基本价值。</blockquote></p><p> The word investor comes from the Latin “investire,” to dress in or clothe oneself, surround or envelop. You would never wear clothes without knowing what color they are or what material they’re made of. Likewise, you can’t invest in an asset you know nothing about.</p><p><blockquote>投资者这个词来自拉丁语“investire”，意思是穿着或打扮自己，包围或包围。你永远不会在不知道衣服是什么颜色或由什么材料制成的情况下穿衣服。同样，你不能投资你一无所知的资产。</blockquote></p><p> Nevertheless, the Journal and its editors have long called almost everybody who buys just about anything an “investor.” On July 12, 1962, the Journal publisheda letter to the editorfrom Benjamin Graham, author of the classic books “Security Analysis” and “The Intelligent Investor.” That June, complained Graham, the Journal had run an article headlined “Many Small Investors Bet on Further Drops, Sell Odd Lots Short.”</p><p><blockquote>然而，《华尔街日报》及其编辑长期以来一直将几乎所有购买任何东西的人称为“投资者”。1962年7月12日，《华尔街日报》发表了经典著作《证券分析》和《聪明的投资者》的作者本杰明·格雷厄姆写给编辑的一封信。格雷厄姆抱怨说，那年6月，《华尔街日报》发表了一篇文章，标题是“许多小投资者押注进一步下跌，卖空零星股票”。</blockquote></p><p> He wrote: “By what definition of ‘investment’ can one give the name ‘investors’ to small people who make bets on the stock market by selling odd lots short?” (To short an odd lot is to borrow and sell fewer than 100 shares in a wager that a stock will fall—an expensive and risky bet, then and now.)</p><p><blockquote>他写道：“根据‘投资’的什么定义，人们可以给那些通过卖空零头在股市上下注的小人物起‘投资者’这个名字呢？”（做空奇数手就是借入并卖出少于100股的股票，押注股票会下跌——无论在当时还是现在，这都是一个昂贵且有风险的赌注。）</blockquote></p><p> “If these people are investors,” asked Graham, “how should one define ‘speculation’ and ‘speculators’? Isn’t it possible that the currentfailure to distinguishbetweeninvestment and speculationmay do grave harm not only to individuals but to the whole financial community—as it did in the late 1920s?”</p><p><blockquote>“如果这些人是投资者，”格雷厄姆问道，“我们应该如何定义‘投机’和‘投机者’？难道目前未能区分投资和投机的做法，不仅会对个人，而且会对整个金融界造成严重伤害吗——就像20世纪20年代末那样？”</blockquote></p><p> Graham wasn’t a snob who thought that the markets should be the exclusive playground of the rich. He wrote “The Intelligent Investor” with the express purpose of helping less-wealthy people participate wisely in the stock market.</p><p><blockquote>格雷厄姆并不是一个认为市场应该是富人专属游乐场的势利小人。他写了《聪明的投资者》，明确的目的是帮助不太富裕的人明智地参与股市。</blockquote></p><p> In that book, after which this column is named, Graham said, “Outright speculation is neither illegal, immoral, nor (for most people) fattening to the pocketbook.”</p><p><blockquote>格雷厄姆在那本书（本专栏就是以其命名的）中说：“彻头彻尾的投机既不违法、不道德，也（对大多数人来说）不会让钱包发胖。”</blockquote></p><p> However, he warned, it creates three dangers: “(1) speculating when you think you are investing; (2) speculating seriously instead of as a pastime, when you lack proper knowledge and skill for it; and (3) risking more money in speculation than you can afford to lose.”</p><p><blockquote>然而，他警告说，这会带来三种危险：“（1）当你认为自己在投资时进行投机；（2）当你缺乏适当的知识和技能时，认真地投机而不是作为一种消遣；以及（3）冒更多钱的风险投机超出了你的承受能力。”</blockquote></p><p> Most investors speculate a bit every once in a while. Like a lottery ticket or an occasional visit to the racetrack or casino, a little is harmless fun. A lot isn’t.</p><p><blockquote>大多数投资者每隔一段时间就会投机一点。就像彩票或偶尔去赛马场或赌场一样，一点点是无害的乐趣。很多都不是。</blockquote></p><p> If you think you’re investing when you’re speculating, you’ll attribute even momentary success to skill even thoughluck is the likeliest explanation. That can lead you to take reckless risks.</p><p><blockquote>如果你认为你在投机时是在投资，你会将哪怕是短暂的成功归因于技能，即使运气是最可能的解释。这会导致你冒鲁莽的风险。</blockquote></p><p> Take speculating too seriously, and it turns intoan obsessionandan addiction. You become incapable of accepting your losses or focusing on the future more than a few minutes ahead. Next thing you know, you’re throwing even more money onto the bonfire.</p><p><blockquote>把投机看得太重，它会变成一种痴迷和上瘾。你变得无法接受你的损失，也无法关注未来超过几分钟。接下来你知道的是，你在篝火上投入了更多的钱。</blockquote></p><p> I think calling traders and speculators “investors” shoves many newcomers farther down the slippery slope toward risks they shouldn’t take and losses they can’t afford. I fervently hope the Journal and its editors will finally stop using “investor” as the default term for anyone who makes a trade.</p><p><blockquote>我认为，将交易者和投机者称为“投资者”会将许多新来者推向他们不应该承担的风险和他们无法承受的损失的滑坡。我热切地希望《华尔街日报》及其编辑最终不再使用“投资者”作为任何进行交易的人的默认术语。</blockquote></p><p> “ ‘Investor’ has a long history in the English language as a catch-all term denoting people who commit capital with the expectation of a return, no matter how long or short, no matter how many or how few investing columns they read,” WSJ Financial Editor Charles Forelle said in response to my complaints. “Back at least to the mid-19th century, ‘invest’ has even been used to describe a wager on horses—an activity surely no less divorced from fundamental analysis than a purchase of dogecoin.”</p><p><blockquote>“‘投资者’在英语中作为一个包罗万象的术语有着悠久的历史，指的是那些投入资本并期望回报的人，无论时间长短，无论他们阅读的投资专栏有多少，”《华尔街日报》财经编辑查尔斯·福雷尔在回应我的投诉时说道。“至少可以追溯到19世纪中叶，‘投资’甚至被用来描述赌马——这种活动与基本面分析的脱节程度肯定不亚于购买狗狗币。”</blockquote></p><p></p><p> I hear you, Boss, but I still think you’re wrong. There’s no way the Journal would say a recreational gambler is “investing” at the racetrack just because a dictionary says we can.</p><p><blockquote>我听到了，老板，但我还是认为你错了。《华尔街日报》不可能仅仅因为字典上说我们可以，就说一个休闲赌徒在赛马场“投资”。</blockquote></p><p> Calling novice speculators “investors” is one of the most powerful ways marketers fuel excessive trading.</p><p><blockquote>将新手投机者称为“投资者”是营销人员助长过度交易的最有力方式之一。</blockquote></p><p> Ina recent Instagram post, a former porn star who goes by the name Lana Rhoades posed in—well, mostly in—a bikini, as she held up what appears to be Graham’s “The Intelligent Investor.” According to IMDb.com, she starred in such videos as “Tushy” and “Make Me Meow.”</p><p><blockquote>在最近的Instagram帖子中，一位名叫拉娜·罗迪斯(Lana Rhoades)的前色情明星穿着——嗯，大部分是穿着——比基尼，举着似乎是格雷厄姆的《聪明的投资者》。据IMDb.com报道，她主演了《Tushy》和《Make Me Meow》等视频。</blockquote></p><p> In her post, which was “liked” by nearly 1.8 million people, Ms. Rhoades announced that she will be promoting a cryptocurrency calledPAWGcoin.</p><p><blockquote>在她被近180万人“点赞”的帖子中，罗迪斯宣布她将推广一种名为PAWGCoin的加密货币。</blockquote></p><p> The currency’s website says the coin is meant for “those who pay homage to developed posteriors.” (PAWG, I’ve been reliably informed, stands for Phat Ass White Girl.)</p><p><blockquote>该货币的网站称，这枚硬币是为“那些向发达的后躯致敬的人”准备的。（我得到可靠消息，PAWG代表胖屁股白人女孩。）</blockquote></p><p> PAWGcoin is up roughly 900% since Ms. Rhoades began promoting it in early June, according to Poocoin.io, a website that tracks such digital currencies.</p><p><blockquote>据追踪此类数字货币的网站Poocoin.io称，自Rhoades女士6月初开始推广PAWGcoin以来，PAWGcoin已上涨约900%。</blockquote></p><p> Ms. Rhoades, who has tweeted “I also read the WSJ every morning,” couldn’t be reached for comment. PAWGcoin’s website encourages visitors to “invest now.”</p><p><blockquote>罗迪斯女士在推特上写道“我每天早上也阅读《华尔街日报》”，但记者无法联系到她置评。PAWGcoin的网站鼓励访问者“立即投资”。</blockquote></p><p> In Ms. Rhoades’s Instagram post, she is holding up an open copy of the “The Intelligent Investor,” whose cover is reversed. She appears to be reading it with her eyes closed.</p><p><blockquote>在罗迪斯的Instagram帖子中，她举着一本打开的《聪明的投资者》，封面是颠倒的。她似乎是闭着眼睛读的。</blockquote></p><p></p>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Investor, Trader, Speculator: Which One Are You?<blockquote>投资者、交易者、投机者：你是哪一个？</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nInvestor, Trader, Speculator: Which One Are You?<blockquote>投资者、交易者、投机者：你是哪一个？</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<p class=\"head\">\n<strong class=\"h-name small\">The Wall Street Journal</strong><span class=\"h-time small\">2021-06-12 11:56</span>\n</p>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p>  Understanding the difference between speculation and investing is essential to avoiding reckless risk.  I’ve had it.</p><p><blockquote>了解投机和投资之间的区别对于避免鲁莽风险至关重要。我受够了。</blockquote></p><p> The Wall Street Journal is wrong, and has remained wrong for decades, about one of the most basic distinctions in finance. And I can’t stand it anymore.</p><p><blockquote>关于金融最基本的区别之一，《华尔街日报》是错误的，而且几十年来一直是错误的。我再也受不了了。</blockquote></p><p> If you buy a stock purely because it’s gone up a lot, without doing any research on it whatsoever, you are not—as the Journal and its editors bizarrely insist on calling you—an “investor.” If you buy a cryptocurrency because, hey, that sounds like fun, you aren’t an investor either.</p><p><blockquote>如果你购买一只股票纯粹是因为它上涨了很多，而没有对其进行任何研究，那么你就不是——正如《华尔街日报》及其编辑奇怪地坚持这样称呼你的那样——“投资者”。如果你购买加密货币是因为，嘿，这听起来很有趣，你也不是投资者。</blockquote></p><p> Whenever you buy any financial asset becauseyou have a hunchorjust for kicks, or becausesomebody famous is hyping the heck out of itoreverybody else seems to be buying it too, you aren’t investing.</p><p><blockquote>每当你购买任何金融资产是因为你有一个只是为了好玩，或者因为某个名人正在大肆宣传它，而其他人似乎也在购买它，你就不是在投资。</blockquote></p><p> You’re definitely a trader: someone who has just bought an asset. And you may bea speculator: someone who thinks other people will pay more for it than you did.</p><p><blockquote>你绝对是一个交易者：刚刚购买了一项资产的人。你可能是一个投机者：认为其他人会比你付出更多的钱。</blockquote></p><p> Of course,some folkswho buy meme stocks likeGameStopCorp.GME5.88%<i>are</i>investors. They read the companies’ financial statements, study the health of the underlying businesses and learn who else is betting on or against the shares. Likewise, many buyers of digital coins have put in the time and effort to understand how cryptocurrency works and how it could reshape finance.</p><p><blockquote>当然，有些人购买像GameStopCorp.GME 5.88%这样的模因股票<i>是</i>投资者。他们阅读公司的财务报表，研究基础业务的健康状况，并了解还有谁在做空股票。同样，许多数字硬币的买家也投入了时间和精力来了解加密货币的工作原理以及它如何重塑金融。</blockquote></p><p> An investor relies on internal sources of return: earnings, income, growth in the value of assets. A speculator counts on external sources of return: primarilywhether somebody else will pay more, regardless of fundamental value.</p><p><blockquote>投资者依赖于内部回报来源：收益、收入、资产价值的增长。投机者依赖外部回报来源：主要是其他人是否会支付更多，而不考虑基本价值。</blockquote></p><p> The word investor comes from the Latin “investire,” to dress in or clothe oneself, surround or envelop. You would never wear clothes without knowing what color they are or what material they’re made of. Likewise, you can’t invest in an asset you know nothing about.</p><p><blockquote>投资者这个词来自拉丁语“investire”，意思是穿着或打扮自己，包围或包围。你永远不会在不知道衣服是什么颜色或由什么材料制成的情况下穿衣服。同样，你不能投资你一无所知的资产。</blockquote></p><p> Nevertheless, the Journal and its editors have long called almost everybody who buys just about anything an “investor.” On July 12, 1962, the Journal publisheda letter to the editorfrom Benjamin Graham, author of the classic books “Security Analysis” and “The Intelligent Investor.” That June, complained Graham, the Journal had run an article headlined “Many Small Investors Bet on Further Drops, Sell Odd Lots Short.”</p><p><blockquote>然而，《华尔街日报》及其编辑长期以来一直将几乎所有购买任何东西的人称为“投资者”。1962年7月12日，《华尔街日报》发表了经典著作《证券分析》和《聪明的投资者》的作者本杰明·格雷厄姆写给编辑的一封信。格雷厄姆抱怨说，那年6月，《华尔街日报》发表了一篇文章，标题是“许多小投资者押注进一步下跌，卖空零星股票”。</blockquote></p><p> He wrote: “By what definition of ‘investment’ can one give the name ‘investors’ to small people who make bets on the stock market by selling odd lots short?” (To short an odd lot is to borrow and sell fewer than 100 shares in a wager that a stock will fall—an expensive and risky bet, then and now.)</p><p><blockquote>他写道：“根据‘投资’的什么定义，人们可以给那些通过卖空零头在股市上下注的小人物起‘投资者’这个名字呢？”（做空奇数手就是借入并卖出少于100股的股票，押注股票会下跌——无论在当时还是现在，这都是一个昂贵且有风险的赌注。）</blockquote></p><p> “If these people are investors,” asked Graham, “how should one define ‘speculation’ and ‘speculators’? Isn’t it possible that the currentfailure to distinguishbetweeninvestment and speculationmay do grave harm not only to individuals but to the whole financial community—as it did in the late 1920s?”</p><p><blockquote>“如果这些人是投资者，”格雷厄姆问道，“我们应该如何定义‘投机’和‘投机者’？难道目前未能区分投资和投机的做法，不仅会对个人，而且会对整个金融界造成严重伤害吗——就像20世纪20年代末那样？”</blockquote></p><p> Graham wasn’t a snob who thought that the markets should be the exclusive playground of the rich. He wrote “The Intelligent Investor” with the express purpose of helping less-wealthy people participate wisely in the stock market.</p><p><blockquote>格雷厄姆并不是一个认为市场应该是富人专属游乐场的势利小人。他写了《聪明的投资者》，明确的目的是帮助不太富裕的人明智地参与股市。</blockquote></p><p> In that book, after which this column is named, Graham said, “Outright speculation is neither illegal, immoral, nor (for most people) fattening to the pocketbook.”</p><p><blockquote>格雷厄姆在那本书（本专栏就是以其命名的）中说：“彻头彻尾的投机既不违法、不道德，也（对大多数人来说）不会让钱包发胖。”</blockquote></p><p> However, he warned, it creates three dangers: “(1) speculating when you think you are investing; (2) speculating seriously instead of as a pastime, when you lack proper knowledge and skill for it; and (3) risking more money in speculation than you can afford to lose.”</p><p><blockquote>然而，他警告说，这会带来三种危险：“（1）当你认为自己在投资时进行投机；（2）当你缺乏适当的知识和技能时，认真地投机而不是作为一种消遣；以及（3）冒更多钱的风险投机超出了你的承受能力。”</blockquote></p><p> Most investors speculate a bit every once in a while. Like a lottery ticket or an occasional visit to the racetrack or casino, a little is harmless fun. A lot isn’t.</p><p><blockquote>大多数投资者每隔一段时间就会投机一点。就像彩票或偶尔去赛马场或赌场一样，一点点是无害的乐趣。很多都不是。</blockquote></p><p> If you think you’re investing when you’re speculating, you’ll attribute even momentary success to skill even thoughluck is the likeliest explanation. That can lead you to take reckless risks.</p><p><blockquote>如果你认为你在投机时是在投资，你会将哪怕是短暂的成功归因于技能，即使运气是最可能的解释。这会导致你冒鲁莽的风险。</blockquote></p><p> Take speculating too seriously, and it turns intoan obsessionandan addiction. You become incapable of accepting your losses or focusing on the future more than a few minutes ahead. Next thing you know, you’re throwing even more money onto the bonfire.</p><p><blockquote>把投机看得太重，它会变成一种痴迷和上瘾。你变得无法接受你的损失，也无法关注未来超过几分钟。接下来你知道的是，你在篝火上投入了更多的钱。</blockquote></p><p> I think calling traders and speculators “investors” shoves many newcomers farther down the slippery slope toward risks they shouldn’t take and losses they can’t afford. I fervently hope the Journal and its editors will finally stop using “investor” as the default term for anyone who makes a trade.</p><p><blockquote>我认为，将交易者和投机者称为“投资者”会将许多新来者推向他们不应该承担的风险和他们无法承受的损失的滑坡。我热切地希望《华尔街日报》及其编辑最终不再使用“投资者”作为任何进行交易的人的默认术语。</blockquote></p><p> “ ‘Investor’ has a long history in the English language as a catch-all term denoting people who commit capital with the expectation of a return, no matter how long or short, no matter how many or how few investing columns they read,” WSJ Financial Editor Charles Forelle said in response to my complaints. “Back at least to the mid-19th century, ‘invest’ has even been used to describe a wager on horses—an activity surely no less divorced from fundamental analysis than a purchase of dogecoin.”</p><p><blockquote>“‘投资者’在英语中作为一个包罗万象的术语有着悠久的历史，指的是那些投入资本并期望回报的人，无论时间长短，无论他们阅读的投资专栏有多少，”《华尔街日报》财经编辑查尔斯·福雷尔在回应我的投诉时说道。“至少可以追溯到19世纪中叶，‘投资’甚至被用来描述赌马——这种活动与基本面分析的脱节程度肯定不亚于购买狗狗币。”</blockquote></p><p></p><p> I hear you, Boss, but I still think you’re wrong. There’s no way the Journal would say a recreational gambler is “investing” at the racetrack just because a dictionary says we can.</p><p><blockquote>我听到了，老板，但我还是认为你错了。《华尔街日报》不可能仅仅因为字典上说我们可以，就说一个休闲赌徒在赛马场“投资”。</blockquote></p><p> Calling novice speculators “investors” is one of the most powerful ways marketers fuel excessive trading.</p><p><blockquote>将新手投机者称为“投资者”是营销人员助长过度交易的最有力方式之一。</blockquote></p><p> Ina recent Instagram post, a former porn star who goes by the name Lana Rhoades posed in—well, mostly in—a bikini, as she held up what appears to be Graham’s “The Intelligent Investor.” According to IMDb.com, she starred in such videos as “Tushy” and “Make Me Meow.”</p><p><blockquote>在最近的Instagram帖子中，一位名叫拉娜·罗迪斯(Lana Rhoades)的前色情明星穿着——嗯，大部分是穿着——比基尼，举着似乎是格雷厄姆的《聪明的投资者》。据IMDb.com报道，她主演了《Tushy》和《Make Me Meow》等视频。</blockquote></p><p> In her post, which was “liked” by nearly 1.8 million people, Ms. Rhoades announced that she will be promoting a cryptocurrency calledPAWGcoin.</p><p><blockquote>在她被近180万人“点赞”的帖子中，罗迪斯宣布她将推广一种名为PAWGCoin的加密货币。</blockquote></p><p> The currency’s website says the coin is meant for “those who pay homage to developed posteriors.” (PAWG, I’ve been reliably informed, stands for Phat Ass White Girl.)</p><p><blockquote>该货币的网站称，这枚硬币是为“那些向发达的后躯致敬的人”准备的。（我得到可靠消息，PAWG代表胖屁股白人女孩。）</blockquote></p><p> PAWGcoin is up roughly 900% since Ms. Rhoades began promoting it in early June, according to Poocoin.io, a website that tracks such digital currencies.</p><p><blockquote>据追踪此类数字货币的网站Poocoin.io称，自Rhoades女士6月初开始推广PAWGcoin以来，PAWGcoin已上涨约900%。</blockquote></p><p> Ms. Rhoades, who has tweeted “I also read the WSJ every morning,” couldn’t be reached for comment. PAWGcoin’s website encourages visitors to “invest now.”</p><p><blockquote>罗迪斯女士在推特上写道“我每天早上也阅读《华尔街日报》”，但记者无法联系到她置评。PAWGcoin的网站鼓励访问者“立即投资”。</blockquote></p><p> In Ms. Rhoades’s Instagram post, she is holding up an open copy of the “The Intelligent Investor,” whose cover is reversed. She appears to be reading it with her eyes closed.</p><p><blockquote>在罗迪斯的Instagram帖子中，她举着一本打开的《聪明的投资者》，封面是颠倒的。她似乎是闭着眼睛读的。</blockquote></p><p></p>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n<p> 来源：<a href=\"https://www.wsj.com/articles/you-cant-invest-without-trading-you-can-trade-without-investing-11623426213?mod=markets_lead_pos5\">The Wall Street Journal</a></p>\n<p>为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化</p>\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"SPY":"标普500ETF",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".DJI":"道琼斯",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index"},"source_url":"https://www.wsj.com/articles/you-cant-invest-without-trading-you-can-trade-without-investing-11623426213?mod=markets_lead_pos5","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1147474880","content_text":"Understanding the difference between speculation and investing is essential to avoiding reckless risk.\n\nI’ve had it.\nThe Wall Street Journal is wrong, and has remained wrong for decades, about one of the most basic distinctions in finance. And I can’t stand it anymore.\nIf you buy a stock purely because it’s gone up a lot, without doing any research on it whatsoever, you are not—as the Journal and its editors bizarrely insist on calling you—an “investor.” If you buy a cryptocurrency because, hey, that sounds like fun, you aren’t an investor either.\nWhenever you buy any financial asset becauseyou have a hunchorjust for kicks, or becausesomebody famous is hyping the heck out of itoreverybody else seems to be buying it too, you aren’t investing.\nYou’re definitely a trader: someone who has just bought an asset. And you may bea speculator: someone who thinks other people will pay more for it than you did.\nOf course,some folkswho buy meme stocks likeGameStopCorp.GME5.88%areinvestors. They read the companies’ financial statements, study the health of the underlying businesses and learn who else is betting on or against the shares. Likewise, many buyers of digital coins have put in the time and effort to understand how cryptocurrency works and how it could reshape finance.\nAn investor relies on internal sources of return: earnings, income, growth in the value of assets. A speculator counts on external sources of return: primarilywhether somebody else will pay more, regardless of fundamental value.\nThe word investor comes from the Latin “investire,” to dress in or clothe oneself, surround or envelop. You would never wear clothes without knowing what color they are or what material they’re made of. Likewise, you can’t invest in an asset you know nothing about.\nNevertheless, the Journal and its editors have long called almost everybody who buys just about anything an “investor.” On July 12, 1962, the Journal publisheda letter to the editorfrom Benjamin Graham, author of the classic books “Security Analysis” and “The Intelligent Investor.” That June, complained Graham, the Journal had run an article headlined “Many Small Investors Bet on Further Drops, Sell Odd Lots Short.”\nHe wrote: “By what definition of ‘investment’ can one give the name ‘investors’ to small people who make bets on the stock market by selling odd lots short?” (To short an odd lot is to borrow and sell fewer than 100 shares in a wager that a stock will fall—an expensive and risky bet, then and now.)\n“If these people are investors,” asked Graham, “how should one define ‘speculation’ and ‘speculators’? Isn’t it possible that the currentfailure to distinguishbetweeninvestment and speculationmay do grave harm not only to individuals but to the whole financial community—as it did in the late 1920s?”\nGraham wasn’t a snob who thought that the markets should be the exclusive playground of the rich. He wrote “The Intelligent Investor” with the express purpose of helping less-wealthy people participate wisely in the stock market.\nIn that book, after which this column is named, Graham said, “Outright speculation is neither illegal, immoral, nor (for most people) fattening to the pocketbook.”\nHowever, he warned, it creates three dangers: “(1) speculating when you think you are investing; (2) speculating seriously instead of as a pastime, when you lack proper knowledge and skill for it; and (3) risking more money in speculation than you can afford to lose.”\nMost investors speculate a bit every once in a while. Like a lottery ticket or an occasional visit to the racetrack or casino, a little is harmless fun. A lot isn’t.\nIf you think you’re investing when you’re speculating, you’ll attribute even momentary success to skill even thoughluck is the likeliest explanation. That can lead you to take reckless risks.\nTake speculating too seriously, and it turns intoan obsessionandan addiction. You become incapable of accepting your losses or focusing on the future more than a few minutes ahead. Next thing you know, you’re throwing even more money onto the bonfire.\nI think calling traders and speculators “investors” shoves many newcomers farther down the slippery slope toward risks they shouldn’t take and losses they can’t afford. I fervently hope the Journal and its editors will finally stop using “investor” as the default term for anyone who makes a trade.\n“ ‘Investor’ has a long history in the English language as a catch-all term denoting people who commit capital with the expectation of a return, no matter how long or short, no matter how many or how few investing columns they read,” WSJ Financial Editor Charles Forelle said in response to my complaints. “Back at least to the mid-19th century, ‘invest’ has even been used to describe a wager on horses—an activity surely no less divorced from fundamental analysis than a purchase of dogecoin.”\nI hear you, Boss, but I still think you’re wrong. There’s no way the Journal would say a recreational gambler is “investing” at the racetrack just because a dictionary says we can.\nCalling novice speculators “investors” is one of the most powerful ways marketers fuel excessive trading.\nIna recent Instagram post, a former porn star who goes by the name Lana Rhoades posed in—well, mostly in—a bikini, as she held up what appears to be Graham’s “The Intelligent Investor.” According to IMDb.com, she starred in such videos as “Tushy” and “Make Me Meow.”\nIn her post, which was “liked” by nearly 1.8 million people, Ms. Rhoades announced that she will be promoting a cryptocurrency calledPAWGcoin.\nThe currency’s website says the coin is meant for “those who pay homage to developed posteriors.” (PAWG, I’ve been reliably informed, stands for Phat Ass White Girl.)\nPAWGcoin is up roughly 900% since Ms. Rhoades began promoting it in early June, according to Poocoin.io, a website that tracks such digital currencies.\nMs. Rhoades, who has tweeted “I also read the WSJ every morning,” couldn’t be reached for comment. PAWGcoin’s website encourages visitors to “invest now.”\nIn Ms. Rhoades’s Instagram post, she is holding up an open copy of the “The Intelligent Investor,” whose cover is reversed. She appears to be reading it with her eyes closed.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{".IXIC":0.9,".SPX":0.9,".DJI":0.9,"SPY":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":379,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":186811558,"gmtCreate":1623483924274,"gmtModify":1634032488375,"author":{"id":"3584486073664277","authorId":"3584486073664277","name":"JL9000","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/185ff843fc3784f1c1ee8d4306bd37b3","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3584486073664277","authorIdStr":"3584486073664277"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Go for it","listText":"Go for it","text":"Go for it","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/186811558","repostId":"1135185071","repostType":2,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":398,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0}],"hots":[{"id":161835376,"gmtCreate":1623916631395,"gmtModify":1631884324418,"author":{"id":"3584486073664277","authorId":"3584486073664277","name":"JL9000","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/185ff843fc3784f1c1ee8d4306bd37b3","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3584486073664277","authorIdStr":"3584486073664277"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Hope it does well in future","listText":"Hope it does well in future","text":"Hope it does well in future","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/161835376","repostId":"1193159328","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":289,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":123806727,"gmtCreate":1624414255369,"gmtModify":1634006455941,"author":{"id":"3584486073664277","authorId":"3584486073664277","name":"JL9000","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/185ff843fc3784f1c1ee8d4306bd37b3","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3584486073664277","authorIdStr":"3584486073664277"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Another bs article pushed by motley fool","listText":"Another bs article pushed by motley fool","text":"Another bs article pushed by motley fool","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/123806727","repostId":"2145052095","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1201,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":167757344,"gmtCreate":1624285970688,"gmtModify":1634008368147,"author":{"id":"3584486073664277","authorId":"3584486073664277","name":"JL9000","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/185ff843fc3784f1c1ee8d4306bd37b3","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3584486073664277","authorIdStr":"3584486073664277"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"They're part of a class that isn't jailable","listText":"They're part of a class that isn't jailable","text":"They're part of a class that isn't jailable","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/167757344","repostId":"2145033366","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1369,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":164668976,"gmtCreate":1624201462495,"gmtModify":1634009541655,"author":{"id":"3584486073664277","authorId":"3584486073664277","name":"JL9000","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/185ff843fc3784f1c1ee8d4306bd37b3","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3584486073664277","authorIdStr":"3584486073664277"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Safety first please...","listText":"Safety first please...","text":"Safety first please...","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/164668976","repostId":"2144086770","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":854,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":161819968,"gmtCreate":1623916881654,"gmtModify":1634025910419,"author":{"id":"3584486073664277","authorId":"3584486073664277","name":"JL9000","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/185ff843fc3784f1c1ee8d4306bd37b3","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3584486073664277","authorIdStr":"3584486073664277"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Whats their long game? Only mining?","listText":"Whats their long game? Only mining?","text":"Whats their long game? Only mining?","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/161819968","repostId":"2144714104","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":293,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":167772212,"gmtCreate":1624286633336,"gmtModify":1634008354885,"author":{"id":"3584486073664277","authorId":"3584486073664277","name":"JL9000","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/185ff843fc3784f1c1ee8d4306bd37b3","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3584486073664277","authorIdStr":"3584486073664277"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"All in an attempt to clear the way for digital yuan","listText":"All in an attempt to clear the way for digital yuan","text":"All in an attempt to clear the way for digital yuan","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/167772212","repostId":"1125790272","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1761,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":167779596,"gmtCreate":1624286461815,"gmtModify":1634008358217,"author":{"id":"3584486073664277","authorId":"3584486073664277","name":"JL9000","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/185ff843fc3784f1c1ee8d4306bd37b3","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3584486073664277","authorIdStr":"3584486073664277"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Implied downside of 3% and they put this in? Once again, i don't have confidence in foolish articles","listText":"Implied downside of 3% and they put this in? Once again, i don't have confidence in foolish articles","text":"Implied downside of 3% and they put this in? Once again, i don't have confidence in foolish articles","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/167779596","repostId":"2145084835","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1881,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":167748987,"gmtCreate":1624286219649,"gmtModify":1634008364504,"author":{"id":"3584486073664277","authorId":"3584486073664277","name":"JL9000","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/185ff843fc3784f1c1ee8d4306bd37b3","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3584486073664277","authorIdStr":"3584486073664277"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"If tesla were to stop being a gimmicky company and focused on important things...they might have been world-savers","listText":"If tesla were to stop being a gimmicky company and focused on important things...they might have been world-savers","text":"If tesla were to stop being a gimmicky company and focused on important things...they might have been world-savers","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/167748987","repostId":"1100861051","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1100861051","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1624280482,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1100861051?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-06-21 21:01","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Tesla’s Profitability and the Surprising Thing That Could Threaten It<blockquote>特斯拉的盈利能力以及可能威胁它的令人惊讶的事情</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1100861051","media":"The Street","summary":"Rising competition in the electric vehicle space could not only put a crimp in Tesla’s growth rate, ","content":"<p>  Rising competition in the electric vehicle space could not only put a crimp in Tesla’s growth rate, but diminish a big source of income as well.  The explosion in electric vehicle (EV) demand has served to vindicate the vision of Tesla’s&nbsp;(<b>TSLA</b>) -Get Report&nbsp;celebrity CEO Elon Musk. Indeed, the surge in demand for EVs has not only vindicated his foresight, but allowed his company to remain a market leader above late-coming competitors.</p><p><blockquote>电动汽车领域日益激烈的竞争不仅会抑制特斯拉的增长率，还会减少一大收入来源。电动汽车(EV)需求的爆炸式增长证明了特斯拉的愿景（<b>特斯拉</b>）-获取名人首席执行官埃隆·马斯克的报告。事实上，电动汽车需求的激增不仅证明了他的远见，也让他的公司保持了超越后来者竞争对手的市场领导者地位。</blockquote></p><p> However, while the company Musk leads as Technoking is no doubt a market leader, it has not solely cashed in by beating its competitors in terms of sales. Instead, a key to the company's recent turn to profitability has come from taking advantage of government incentives and selling the excess incentives it holds to these very same competitors. And now that many of these competitors are engaging more aggressively in EVs themselves, Tesla may soon find itself without many of these customers and, therefore, without a significant contributor to its profits.</p><p><blockquote>然而，尽管马斯克领导的Technoking公司无疑是市场领导者，但它并不仅仅通过在销售额上击败竞争对手来获利。相反，该公司最近扭亏为盈的关键来自于利用政府激励措施，并将其持有的多余激励措施出售给这些竞争对手。现在，许多竞争对手都在更积极地涉足电动汽车领域，特斯拉可能很快就会发现自己没有了许多这样的客户，因此也没有对其利润做出重大贡献。</blockquote></p><p> <b>Raking in the Regulatory Credits</b></p><p><blockquote><b>赚取监管信用</b></blockquote></p><p> The credits that Tesla has handsomely profited from are tradable credits offered by various governments around the world for zero-emission vehicles. The fact that they are tradable is crucial since this allows Tesla to sell the credits to other automakers who might not otherwise comply with emission standards without the use of these credits. The set-up allows Tesla to book the credits as purely additive to its top line, with the automakers buying these credits avoiding hefty fines from regulators.</p><p><blockquote>特斯拉从中获得丰厚利润的积分是世界各国政府为零排放汽车提供的可交易积分。它们可交易的事实至关重要，因为这使得特斯拉可以将信用额出售给其他汽车制造商，如果不使用这些信用额，这些汽车制造商可能无法遵守排放标准。这种设置允许特斯拉将积分纯粹作为其营收的附加物，汽车制造商购买这些积分可以避免监管机构的巨额罚款。</blockquote></p><p> Per Tesla’s most recent 10-K filing, the company earned $1.58 billion from the sale of these credits in 2020, up from $594 million in the year prior and $419 million in 2018. The year-over -year jump notwithstanding, the credit sales might appear to be a paltry sum given the company’s $31.5 billion in total revenue in 2020. However, their nature as purely profit, in contrast to capital intensive auto manufacturing, means they have been a pivotal part of Tesla’s push towards profitability.</p><p><blockquote>根据特斯拉最近提交的10-K文件，该公司在2020年通过出售这些积分赚取了15.8亿美元，高于上一年的5.94亿美元和2018年的4.19亿美元。尽管同比增长，但考虑到该公司2020年315亿美元的总收入，信贷销售额似乎微不足道。然而，与资本密集型汽车制造业相比，它们纯粹是利润的性质意味着它们一直是特斯拉推动盈利的关键部分。</blockquote></p><p> Indeed, Tesla’s much-lauded $721 million profit in 2020, the very first profitable full year in its history, was clearly boosted over the top by the surge in regulatory credit sales. Had they remained consistent with the prior periods, the landmark year would have been left short of break-even, keeping up the company's trend of annual losses maintained since its inception.</p><p><blockquote>事实上，特斯拉2020年备受赞誉的7.21亿美元利润，这是其历史上第一个全年盈利的一年，显然是受到监管信贷销售激增的提振。如果它们与前几个时期保持一致，这一具有里程碑意义的一年将无法实现收支平衡，从而保持该公司自成立以来一直保持的年度亏损趋势。</blockquote></p><p> The trend has continued into 2021 as the company reported $518 million in revenues from credit salesin the first quarter, which boosted the company once again to a $438-million quarterly profit. While vehicle deliveries consistently catch the headlines, it's clear that the regulatory credits are buoying the automaker into the black.</p><p><blockquote>这一趋势一直持续到2021年，该公司报告第一季度信贷销售收入为5.18亿美元，这再次使该公司季度利润达到4.38亿美元。虽然汽车交付量不断成为头条新闻，但很明显，监管信贷正在帮助这家汽车制造商实现盈利。</blockquote></p><p> <b>Competition Cuts Into Cash Flow</b></p><p><blockquote><b>竞争削减现金流</b></blockquote></p><p> The problem with the profit margin may be approaching faster than some have anticipated as well, with the increased entry of traditional automakers like Ford&nbsp;(<b>F</b>) -Get Report, General Motors&nbsp;(<b>GM</b>) -Get Report, and Stellantis STLA into the EV space.</p><p><blockquote>随着福特等传统汽车制造商的加入，利润率问题的解决速度可能也比一些人预期的要快（<b>F</b>)-获取报告，通用汽车(<b>GM</b>)-获取报告，Stellantis STLA进入电动汽车领域。</blockquote></p><p> While much of the focus revolves around these companies’ threat to Tesla’s core auto sales, the popularity of Tesla among its devoted fans might sustain it amidst the hard-charging competition. As such, the trajectory of its sales, while now threatened by competent competition, remains somewhat murky at the moment.</p><p><blockquote>虽然大部分焦点都围绕着这些公司对特斯拉核心汽车销售的威胁，但特斯拉在其忠实粉丝中的受欢迎程度可能会在激烈的竞争中维持其地位。因此，其销售轨迹虽然现在受到激烈竞争的威胁，但目前仍然有些模糊。</blockquote></p><p> The question of regulatory credit impact is much more straightforward. If Tesla’s competitors are producing their own electric vehicles and fewer ICE autos, they have no need to spend so substantially on buying credits from Tesla.</p><p><blockquote>监管信用影响的问题要简单得多。如果特斯拉的竞争对手生产自己的电动汽车并减少内燃机汽车，他们就没有必要花这么多钱从特斯拉购买积分。</blockquote></p><p> Per a Reuters report, Fiat Chrysler agreed to purchase $2.4 billion worth of emissions credits from Tesla from 2019 through 2021, likely accounting for a lion’s share of the roughly $2.2 billion recorded in total in credits sold in Tesla’s 2019 and 2020 10-K filings. However, after Fiat Chrysler merged with French automaker PSA Group in May to form Stellantis, this reliable revenue stream looks likely to fade.</p><p><blockquote>据路透社报道，菲亚特克莱斯勒同意在2019年至2021年期间从特斯拉购买价值24亿美元的排放信用额，这可能占特斯拉2019年和2020年10-K文件中出售的信用额总额约22亿美元的大部分。然而，在菲亚特克莱斯勒5月份与法国汽车制造商PSA集团合并成立Stellantis后，这一可靠的收入来源似乎可能会消失。</blockquote></p><p> \"With the electrical technology that PSA brought to Stellantis, we will autonomously meet carbon dioxide emission regulations as early as this year,\" Stellantis CEO Carlos Tavares told French media after the merger. \"Thus, we will not need to call on European CO2 credits and [Fiat Chrysler] will no longer have to pool with Tesla or anyone.\"</p><p><blockquote>Stellantis首席执行官卡洛斯·塔瓦雷斯(Carlos Tavares)在合并后对法国媒体表示：“凭借PSA为Stellantis带来的电气技术，我们最早将在今年自主满足二氧化碳排放法规。”“因此，我们将不需要对欧洲二氧化碳信用额进行看涨期权，[菲亚特克莱斯勒]也将不再需要与特斯拉或任何人合作。”</blockquote></p><p> <b>Already Anticipated?</b></p><p><blockquote><b>已经预料到了？</b></blockquote></p><p> To be sure, the looming threat of regulatory credit sales eroding is by no means a novel development. CFO Zachary Kirkhorn noted in a call with analysts in mid-2020 that “we don’t manage the business with the assumption that regulatory credits will contribute significantly to the future. Eventually this will reduce.”</p><p><blockquote>可以肯定的是，监管信用销售侵蚀的迫在眉睫的威胁绝不是一个新的发展。首席财务官Zachary Kirkhorn在2020年年中与分析师举行的看涨期权中指出，“我们在管理业务时不会假设监管信贷将对未来做出重大贡献。最终这种情况会减少。”</blockquote></p><p> Kirkhorn’s focus on the core business, especially in terms of battery technology, rather than the regulatory credit sales, is bolstered by the thoughts of prominent Tesla bulls.</p><p><blockquote>柯克霍恩专注于核心业务，特别是在电池技术方面，而不是监管信贷销售，这得到了著名特斯拉多头思想的支持。</blockquote></p><p></p><p> “We have owned Tesla for a decade and from day one we expected regulatory credits to go to zero within three years,” Jennison Associates analyst Owuraka Koney said. “They are comfortable without these regulatory credits and they make money when you exclude these credits and these non-recurring costs that they face.”</p><p><blockquote>Jennison Associates分析师Owuraka Koney表示：“我们拥有特斯拉已经十年了，从第一天起，我们就预计监管信用将在三年内降至零。”“他们在没有这些监管信贷的情况下也很舒服，当你排除这些信贷和他们面临的这些非经常性成本时，他们就能赚钱。”</blockquote></p><p> Koney cited Elon Musk’smassive compensation packagetied to the company's recent stock surges as a key non-recurring cost in this context. Further, Koney argued that the regulatory credit benefits are being unfairly compared to overall profitability, which he sees as an apples-and-oranges comparison. He explained that the more relevant comparison is to Tesla’s operating income, which was $1.99 billion on a GAAP basis in 2020, up over $2 billion from the figure in 2019. The leap suggests strength greater than that simply achieved via the regulatory credit benefit, in his view.</p><p><blockquote>科尼指出，埃隆·马斯克与公司近期股价飙升相关的巨额薪酬方案是这种情况下的一项关键非经常性成本。此外，科尼认为，监管信贷收益与整体盈利能力相比是不公平的，他认为这是苹果和橘子的比较。他解释说，更相关的比较是特斯拉的营业收入，2020年按GAAP计算为19.9亿美元，比2019年的数字增长了20多亿美元。在他看来，这一飞跃表明了比仅仅通过监管信贷利益实现的实力更强的实力。</blockquote></p><p> Mike Dovororany, VP of Automotive &amp; Mobility at market research firm Escalent, seconded the rosier view held by Koney, reiterating that the risk of regulatory credits fading is well understood by savvy investors, and further that the current U.S. administration might actually aid Tesla’s ability to capitalize on regulation.</p><p><blockquote>市场研究公司Escalent汽车与移动副总裁Mike Dovororany支持Koney持有的乐观观点，重申精明的投资者非常了解监管信用减弱的风险，并进一步表示，现任美国政府实际上可能会帮助特斯拉利用监管的能力。</blockquote></p><p> “Because credit sales have always been the main driver behind Tesla’s profitability, investors should be well-accustomed to this risk,” he explained. “Also, as the Biden Administration looks to reconsider stricter emissions regulations, the EV credit market could become more important than ever.”</p><p><blockquote>“由于信贷销售一直是特斯拉盈利的主要驱动力，投资者应该已经习惯了这种风险，”他解释道。“此外，随着拜登政府寻求重新考虑更严格的排放法规，电动汽车信贷市场可能会变得比以往任何时候都更加重要。”</blockquote></p><p> With the administration now proposing a $174-billion investment in the electric vehicle market aspart of the American Jobs Act, including new tax credits, there is certainly ample reason to be excited. Given Tesla's ability to capitalize on these incentives, it will be worth watching what the final bill entails when it crosses Biden's desk and whether it might mean lead to more big profits for Tesla.</p><p><blockquote>作为《美国就业法案》的一部分，政府现在提议对电动汽车市场投资1740亿美元，包括新的税收抵免，当然有足够的理由感到兴奋。鉴于特斯拉有能力利用这些激励措施，值得关注的是最终法案提交拜登办公桌时会带来什么，以及它是否可能意味着为特斯拉带来更多巨额利润。</blockquote></p><p></p>","source":"lsy1610613172068","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Tesla’s Profitability and the Surprising Thing That Could Threaten It<blockquote>特斯拉的盈利能力以及可能威胁它的令人惊讶的事情</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nTesla’s Profitability and the Surprising Thing That Could Threaten It<blockquote>特斯拉的盈利能力以及可能威胁它的令人惊讶的事情</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<p class=\"head\">\n<strong class=\"h-name small\">The Street</strong><span class=\"h-time small\">2021-06-21 21:01</span>\n</p>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p>  Rising competition in the electric vehicle space could not only put a crimp in Tesla’s growth rate, but diminish a big source of income as well.  The explosion in electric vehicle (EV) demand has served to vindicate the vision of Tesla’s&nbsp;(<b>TSLA</b>) -Get Report&nbsp;celebrity CEO Elon Musk. Indeed, the surge in demand for EVs has not only vindicated his foresight, but allowed his company to remain a market leader above late-coming competitors.</p><p><blockquote>电动汽车领域日益激烈的竞争不仅会抑制特斯拉的增长率，还会减少一大收入来源。电动汽车(EV)需求的爆炸式增长证明了特斯拉的愿景（<b>特斯拉</b>）-获取名人首席执行官埃隆·马斯克的报告。事实上，电动汽车需求的激增不仅证明了他的远见，也让他的公司保持了超越后来者竞争对手的市场领导者地位。</blockquote></p><p> However, while the company Musk leads as Technoking is no doubt a market leader, it has not solely cashed in by beating its competitors in terms of sales. Instead, a key to the company's recent turn to profitability has come from taking advantage of government incentives and selling the excess incentives it holds to these very same competitors. And now that many of these competitors are engaging more aggressively in EVs themselves, Tesla may soon find itself without many of these customers and, therefore, without a significant contributor to its profits.</p><p><blockquote>然而，尽管马斯克领导的Technoking公司无疑是市场领导者，但它并不仅仅通过在销售额上击败竞争对手来获利。相反，该公司最近扭亏为盈的关键来自于利用政府激励措施，并将其持有的多余激励措施出售给这些竞争对手。现在，许多竞争对手都在更积极地涉足电动汽车领域，特斯拉可能很快就会发现自己没有了许多这样的客户，因此也没有对其利润做出重大贡献。</blockquote></p><p> <b>Raking in the Regulatory Credits</b></p><p><blockquote><b>赚取监管信用</b></blockquote></p><p> The credits that Tesla has handsomely profited from are tradable credits offered by various governments around the world for zero-emission vehicles. The fact that they are tradable is crucial since this allows Tesla to sell the credits to other automakers who might not otherwise comply with emission standards without the use of these credits. The set-up allows Tesla to book the credits as purely additive to its top line, with the automakers buying these credits avoiding hefty fines from regulators.</p><p><blockquote>特斯拉从中获得丰厚利润的积分是世界各国政府为零排放汽车提供的可交易积分。它们可交易的事实至关重要，因为这使得特斯拉可以将信用额出售给其他汽车制造商，如果不使用这些信用额，这些汽车制造商可能无法遵守排放标准。这种设置允许特斯拉将积分纯粹作为其营收的附加物，汽车制造商购买这些积分可以避免监管机构的巨额罚款。</blockquote></p><p> Per Tesla’s most recent 10-K filing, the company earned $1.58 billion from the sale of these credits in 2020, up from $594 million in the year prior and $419 million in 2018. The year-over -year jump notwithstanding, the credit sales might appear to be a paltry sum given the company’s $31.5 billion in total revenue in 2020. However, their nature as purely profit, in contrast to capital intensive auto manufacturing, means they have been a pivotal part of Tesla’s push towards profitability.</p><p><blockquote>根据特斯拉最近提交的10-K文件，该公司在2020年通过出售这些积分赚取了15.8亿美元，高于上一年的5.94亿美元和2018年的4.19亿美元。尽管同比增长，但考虑到该公司2020年315亿美元的总收入，信贷销售额似乎微不足道。然而，与资本密集型汽车制造业相比，它们纯粹是利润的性质意味着它们一直是特斯拉推动盈利的关键部分。</blockquote></p><p> Indeed, Tesla’s much-lauded $721 million profit in 2020, the very first profitable full year in its history, was clearly boosted over the top by the surge in regulatory credit sales. Had they remained consistent with the prior periods, the landmark year would have been left short of break-even, keeping up the company's trend of annual losses maintained since its inception.</p><p><blockquote>事实上，特斯拉2020年备受赞誉的7.21亿美元利润，这是其历史上第一个全年盈利的一年，显然是受到监管信贷销售激增的提振。如果它们与前几个时期保持一致，这一具有里程碑意义的一年将无法实现收支平衡，从而保持该公司自成立以来一直保持的年度亏损趋势。</blockquote></p><p> The trend has continued into 2021 as the company reported $518 million in revenues from credit salesin the first quarter, which boosted the company once again to a $438-million quarterly profit. While vehicle deliveries consistently catch the headlines, it's clear that the regulatory credits are buoying the automaker into the black.</p><p><blockquote>这一趋势一直持续到2021年，该公司报告第一季度信贷销售收入为5.18亿美元，这再次使该公司季度利润达到4.38亿美元。虽然汽车交付量不断成为头条新闻，但很明显，监管信贷正在帮助这家汽车制造商实现盈利。</blockquote></p><p> <b>Competition Cuts Into Cash Flow</b></p><p><blockquote><b>竞争削减现金流</b></blockquote></p><p> The problem with the profit margin may be approaching faster than some have anticipated as well, with the increased entry of traditional automakers like Ford&nbsp;(<b>F</b>) -Get Report, General Motors&nbsp;(<b>GM</b>) -Get Report, and Stellantis STLA into the EV space.</p><p><blockquote>随着福特等传统汽车制造商的加入，利润率问题的解决速度可能也比一些人预期的要快（<b>F</b>)-获取报告，通用汽车(<b>GM</b>)-获取报告，Stellantis STLA进入电动汽车领域。</blockquote></p><p> While much of the focus revolves around these companies’ threat to Tesla’s core auto sales, the popularity of Tesla among its devoted fans might sustain it amidst the hard-charging competition. As such, the trajectory of its sales, while now threatened by competent competition, remains somewhat murky at the moment.</p><p><blockquote>虽然大部分焦点都围绕着这些公司对特斯拉核心汽车销售的威胁，但特斯拉在其忠实粉丝中的受欢迎程度可能会在激烈的竞争中维持其地位。因此，其销售轨迹虽然现在受到激烈竞争的威胁，但目前仍然有些模糊。</blockquote></p><p> The question of regulatory credit impact is much more straightforward. If Tesla’s competitors are producing their own electric vehicles and fewer ICE autos, they have no need to spend so substantially on buying credits from Tesla.</p><p><blockquote>监管信用影响的问题要简单得多。如果特斯拉的竞争对手生产自己的电动汽车并减少内燃机汽车，他们就没有必要花这么多钱从特斯拉购买积分。</blockquote></p><p> Per a Reuters report, Fiat Chrysler agreed to purchase $2.4 billion worth of emissions credits from Tesla from 2019 through 2021, likely accounting for a lion’s share of the roughly $2.2 billion recorded in total in credits sold in Tesla’s 2019 and 2020 10-K filings. However, after Fiat Chrysler merged with French automaker PSA Group in May to form Stellantis, this reliable revenue stream looks likely to fade.</p><p><blockquote>据路透社报道，菲亚特克莱斯勒同意在2019年至2021年期间从特斯拉购买价值24亿美元的排放信用额，这可能占特斯拉2019年和2020年10-K文件中出售的信用额总额约22亿美元的大部分。然而，在菲亚特克莱斯勒5月份与法国汽车制造商PSA集团合并成立Stellantis后，这一可靠的收入来源似乎可能会消失。</blockquote></p><p> \"With the electrical technology that PSA brought to Stellantis, we will autonomously meet carbon dioxide emission regulations as early as this year,\" Stellantis CEO Carlos Tavares told French media after the merger. \"Thus, we will not need to call on European CO2 credits and [Fiat Chrysler] will no longer have to pool with Tesla or anyone.\"</p><p><blockquote>Stellantis首席执行官卡洛斯·塔瓦雷斯(Carlos Tavares)在合并后对法国媒体表示：“凭借PSA为Stellantis带来的电气技术，我们最早将在今年自主满足二氧化碳排放法规。”“因此，我们将不需要对欧洲二氧化碳信用额进行看涨期权，[菲亚特克莱斯勒]也将不再需要与特斯拉或任何人合作。”</blockquote></p><p> <b>Already Anticipated?</b></p><p><blockquote><b>已经预料到了？</b></blockquote></p><p> To be sure, the looming threat of regulatory credit sales eroding is by no means a novel development. CFO Zachary Kirkhorn noted in a call with analysts in mid-2020 that “we don’t manage the business with the assumption that regulatory credits will contribute significantly to the future. Eventually this will reduce.”</p><p><blockquote>可以肯定的是，监管信用销售侵蚀的迫在眉睫的威胁绝不是一个新的发展。首席财务官Zachary Kirkhorn在2020年年中与分析师举行的看涨期权中指出，“我们在管理业务时不会假设监管信贷将对未来做出重大贡献。最终这种情况会减少。”</blockquote></p><p> Kirkhorn’s focus on the core business, especially in terms of battery technology, rather than the regulatory credit sales, is bolstered by the thoughts of prominent Tesla bulls.</p><p><blockquote>柯克霍恩专注于核心业务，特别是在电池技术方面，而不是监管信贷销售，这得到了著名特斯拉多头思想的支持。</blockquote></p><p></p><p> “We have owned Tesla for a decade and from day one we expected regulatory credits to go to zero within three years,” Jennison Associates analyst Owuraka Koney said. “They are comfortable without these regulatory credits and they make money when you exclude these credits and these non-recurring costs that they face.”</p><p><blockquote>Jennison Associates分析师Owuraka Koney表示：“我们拥有特斯拉已经十年了，从第一天起，我们就预计监管信用将在三年内降至零。”“他们在没有这些监管信贷的情况下也很舒服，当你排除这些信贷和他们面临的这些非经常性成本时，他们就能赚钱。”</blockquote></p><p> Koney cited Elon Musk’smassive compensation packagetied to the company's recent stock surges as a key non-recurring cost in this context. Further, Koney argued that the regulatory credit benefits are being unfairly compared to overall profitability, which he sees as an apples-and-oranges comparison. He explained that the more relevant comparison is to Tesla’s operating income, which was $1.99 billion on a GAAP basis in 2020, up over $2 billion from the figure in 2019. The leap suggests strength greater than that simply achieved via the regulatory credit benefit, in his view.</p><p><blockquote>科尼指出，埃隆·马斯克与公司近期股价飙升相关的巨额薪酬方案是这种情况下的一项关键非经常性成本。此外，科尼认为，监管信贷收益与整体盈利能力相比是不公平的，他认为这是苹果和橘子的比较。他解释说，更相关的比较是特斯拉的营业收入，2020年按GAAP计算为19.9亿美元，比2019年的数字增长了20多亿美元。在他看来，这一飞跃表明了比仅仅通过监管信贷利益实现的实力更强的实力。</blockquote></p><p> Mike Dovororany, VP of Automotive &amp; Mobility at market research firm Escalent, seconded the rosier view held by Koney, reiterating that the risk of regulatory credits fading is well understood by savvy investors, and further that the current U.S. administration might actually aid Tesla’s ability to capitalize on regulation.</p><p><blockquote>市场研究公司Escalent汽车与移动副总裁Mike Dovororany支持Koney持有的乐观观点，重申精明的投资者非常了解监管信用减弱的风险，并进一步表示，现任美国政府实际上可能会帮助特斯拉利用监管的能力。</blockquote></p><p> “Because credit sales have always been the main driver behind Tesla’s profitability, investors should be well-accustomed to this risk,” he explained. “Also, as the Biden Administration looks to reconsider stricter emissions regulations, the EV credit market could become more important than ever.”</p><p><blockquote>“由于信贷销售一直是特斯拉盈利的主要驱动力，投资者应该已经习惯了这种风险，”他解释道。“此外，随着拜登政府寻求重新考虑更严格的排放法规，电动汽车信贷市场可能会变得比以往任何时候都更加重要。”</blockquote></p><p> With the administration now proposing a $174-billion investment in the electric vehicle market aspart of the American Jobs Act, including new tax credits, there is certainly ample reason to be excited. Given Tesla's ability to capitalize on these incentives, it will be worth watching what the final bill entails when it crosses Biden's desk and whether it might mean lead to more big profits for Tesla.</p><p><blockquote>作为《美国就业法案》的一部分，政府现在提议对电动汽车市场投资1740亿美元，包括新的税收抵免，当然有足够的理由感到兴奋。鉴于特斯拉有能力利用这些激励措施，值得关注的是最终法案提交拜登办公桌时会带来什么，以及它是否可能意味着为特斯拉带来更多巨额利润。</blockquote></p><p></p>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n<p> 来源：<a href=\"https://www.thestreet.com/investing/surprising-thing-that-could-threaten-teslas-profitability\">The Street</a></p>\n<p>为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化</p>\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"TSLA":"特斯拉"},"source_url":"https://www.thestreet.com/investing/surprising-thing-that-could-threaten-teslas-profitability","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1100861051","content_text":"Rising competition in the electric vehicle space could not only put a crimp in Tesla’s growth rate, but diminish a big source of income as well.\n\nThe explosion in electric vehicle (EV) demand has served to vindicate the vision of Tesla’s (TSLA) -Get Report celebrity CEO Elon Musk. Indeed, the surge in demand for EVs has not only vindicated his foresight, but allowed his company to remain a market leader above late-coming competitors.\nHowever, while the company Musk leads as Technoking is no doubt a market leader, it has not solely cashed in by beating its competitors in terms of sales. Instead, a key to the company's recent turn to profitability has come from taking advantage of government incentives and selling the excess incentives it holds to these very same competitors. And now that many of these competitors are engaging more aggressively in EVs themselves, Tesla may soon find itself without many of these customers and, therefore, without a significant contributor to its profits.\nRaking in the Regulatory Credits\nThe credits that Tesla has handsomely profited from are tradable credits offered by various governments around the world for zero-emission vehicles. The fact that they are tradable is crucial since this allows Tesla to sell the credits to other automakers who might not otherwise comply with emission standards without the use of these credits. The set-up allows Tesla to book the credits as purely additive to its top line, with the automakers buying these credits avoiding hefty fines from regulators.\nPer Tesla’s most recent 10-K filing, the company earned $1.58 billion from the sale of these credits in 2020, up from $594 million in the year prior and $419 million in 2018. The year-over -year jump notwithstanding, the credit sales might appear to be a paltry sum given the company’s $31.5 billion in total revenue in 2020. However, their nature as purely profit, in contrast to capital intensive auto manufacturing, means they have been a pivotal part of Tesla’s push towards profitability.\nIndeed, Tesla’s much-lauded $721 million profit in 2020, the very first profitable full year in its history, was clearly boosted over the top by the surge in regulatory credit sales. Had they remained consistent with the prior periods, the landmark year would have been left short of break-even, keeping up the company's trend of annual losses maintained since its inception.\nThe trend has continued into 2021 as the company reported $518 million in revenues from credit salesin the first quarter, which boosted the company once again to a $438-million quarterly profit. While vehicle deliveries consistently catch the headlines, it's clear that the regulatory credits are buoying the automaker into the black.\nCompetition Cuts Into Cash Flow\nThe problem with the profit margin may be approaching faster than some have anticipated as well, with the increased entry of traditional automakers like Ford (F) -Get Report, General Motors (GM) -Get Report, and Stellantis STLA into the EV space.\nWhile much of the focus revolves around these companies’ threat to Tesla’s core auto sales, the popularity of Tesla among its devoted fans might sustain it amidst the hard-charging competition. As such, the trajectory of its sales, while now threatened by competent competition, remains somewhat murky at the moment.\nThe question of regulatory credit impact is much more straightforward. If Tesla’s competitors are producing their own electric vehicles and fewer ICE autos, they have no need to spend so substantially on buying credits from Tesla.\nPer a Reuters report, Fiat Chrysler agreed to purchase $2.4 billion worth of emissions credits from Tesla from 2019 through 2021, likely accounting for a lion’s share of the roughly $2.2 billion recorded in total in credits sold in Tesla’s 2019 and 2020 10-K filings. However, after Fiat Chrysler merged with French automaker PSA Group in May to form Stellantis, this reliable revenue stream looks likely to fade.\n\"With the electrical technology that PSA brought to Stellantis, we will autonomously meet carbon dioxide emission regulations as early as this year,\" Stellantis CEO Carlos Tavares told French media after the merger. \"Thus, we will not need to call on European CO2 credits and [Fiat Chrysler] will no longer have to pool with Tesla or anyone.\"\nAlready Anticipated?\nTo be sure, the looming threat of regulatory credit sales eroding is by no means a novel development. CFO Zachary Kirkhorn noted in a call with analysts in mid-2020 that “we don’t manage the business with the assumption that regulatory credits will contribute significantly to the future. Eventually this will reduce.”\nKirkhorn’s focus on the core business, especially in terms of battery technology, rather than the regulatory credit sales, is bolstered by the thoughts of prominent Tesla bulls.\n“We have owned Tesla for a decade and from day one we expected regulatory credits to go to zero within three years,” Jennison Associates analyst Owuraka Koney said. “They are comfortable without these regulatory credits and they make money when you exclude these credits and these non-recurring costs that they face.”\nKoney cited Elon Musk’smassive compensation packagetied to the company's recent stock surges as a key non-recurring cost in this context. Further, Koney argued that the regulatory credit benefits are being unfairly compared to overall profitability, which he sees as an apples-and-oranges comparison. He explained that the more relevant comparison is to Tesla’s operating income, which was $1.99 billion on a GAAP basis in 2020, up over $2 billion from the figure in 2019. The leap suggests strength greater than that simply achieved via the regulatory credit benefit, in his view.\nMike Dovororany, VP of Automotive & Mobility at market research firm Escalent, seconded the rosier view held by Koney, reiterating that the risk of regulatory credits fading is well understood by savvy investors, and further that the current U.S. administration might actually aid Tesla’s ability to capitalize on regulation.\n“Because credit sales have always been the main driver behind Tesla’s profitability, investors should be well-accustomed to this risk,” he explained. “Also, as the Biden Administration looks to reconsider stricter emissions regulations, the EV credit market could become more important than ever.”\nWith the administration now proposing a $174-billion investment in the electric vehicle market aspart of the American Jobs Act, including new tax credits, there is certainly ample reason to be excited. Given Tesla's ability to capitalize on these incentives, it will be worth watching what the final bill entails when it crosses Biden's desk and whether it might mean lead to more big profits for Tesla.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{"TSLA":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":980,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":165954306,"gmtCreate":1624089587505,"gmtModify":1634010786735,"author":{"id":"3584486073664277","authorId":"3584486073664277","name":"JL9000","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/185ff843fc3784f1c1ee8d4306bd37b3","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3584486073664277","authorIdStr":"3584486073664277"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Would have liked to try my hands on their software if i could","listText":"Would have liked to try my hands on their software if i could","text":"Would have liked to try my hands on their software if i could","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/165954306","repostId":"1192473918","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1081,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":186811558,"gmtCreate":1623483924274,"gmtModify":1634032488375,"author":{"id":"3584486073664277","authorId":"3584486073664277","name":"JL9000","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/185ff843fc3784f1c1ee8d4306bd37b3","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3584486073664277","authorIdStr":"3584486073664277"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Go for it","listText":"Go for it","text":"Go for it","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/186811558","repostId":"1135185071","repostType":2,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":398,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":693199605,"gmtCreate":1639981116999,"gmtModify":1639981116999,"author":{"id":"3584486073664277","authorId":"3584486073664277","name":"JL9000","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/185ff843fc3784f1c1ee8d4306bd37b3","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3584486073664277","authorIdStr":"3584486073664277"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Waiting...","listText":"Waiting...","text":"Waiting...","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/693199605","repostId":"2190675535","repostType":2,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1769,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"CN","totalScore":0},{"id":165940814,"gmtCreate":1624089722738,"gmtModify":1634010785083,"author":{"id":"3584486073664277","authorId":"3584486073664277","name":"JL9000","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/185ff843fc3784f1c1ee8d4306bd37b3","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3584486073664277","authorIdStr":"3584486073664277"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Holiday season...refers to nov onwards isnt it? It's only june-_-","listText":"Holiday season...refers to nov onwards isnt it? It's only june-_-","text":"Holiday season...refers to nov onwards isnt it? It's only june-_-","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/165940814","repostId":"1197466929","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1126,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":166068215,"gmtCreate":1623985717637,"gmtModify":1634024617672,"author":{"id":"3584486073664277","authorId":"3584486073664277","name":"JL9000","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/185ff843fc3784f1c1ee8d4306bd37b3","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3584486073664277","authorIdStr":"3584486073664277"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Stop encouraging irresponsible gambling. Numbers analysis are biased and there're incredible number of ways to selectively pick stats to support arguments","listText":"Stop encouraging irresponsible gambling. Numbers analysis are biased and there're incredible number of ways to selectively pick stats to support arguments","text":"Stop encouraging irresponsible gambling. Numbers analysis are biased and there're incredible number of ways to selectively pick stats to support arguments","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/166068215","repostId":"2144946726","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1303,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":163017440,"gmtCreate":1623853431880,"gmtModify":1634027032446,"author":{"id":"3584486073664277","authorId":"3584486073664277","name":"JL9000","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/185ff843fc3784f1c1ee8d4306bd37b3","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3584486073664277","authorIdStr":"3584486073664277"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Are they really legit?","listText":"Are they really legit?","text":"Are they really legit?","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/163017440","repostId":"2143912677","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":329,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":186642047,"gmtCreate":1623496568589,"gmtModify":1634032364567,"author":{"id":"3584486073664277","authorId":"3584486073664277","name":"JL9000","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/185ff843fc3784f1c1ee8d4306bd37b3","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3584486073664277","authorIdStr":"3584486073664277"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Maybe a lot of people dont really give a crap what they are called. At least i don't","listText":"Maybe a lot of people dont really give a crap what they are called. At least i don't","text":"Maybe a lot of people dont really give a crap what they are called. At least i don't","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/186642047","repostId":"1147474880","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1147474880","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1623470168,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1147474880?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-06-12 11:56","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Investor, Trader, Speculator: Which One Are You?<blockquote>投资者、交易者、投机者：你是哪一个？</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1147474880","media":"The Wall Street Journal","summary":"Understanding the difference between speculation and investing is essential to avoiding reckless ris","content":"<p>  Understanding the difference between speculation and investing is essential to avoiding reckless risk.  I’ve had it.</p><p><blockquote>了解投机和投资之间的区别对于避免鲁莽风险至关重要。我受够了。</blockquote></p><p> The Wall Street Journal is wrong, and has remained wrong for decades, about one of the most basic distinctions in finance. And I can’t stand it anymore.</p><p><blockquote>关于金融最基本的区别之一，《华尔街日报》是错误的，而且几十年来一直是错误的。我再也受不了了。</blockquote></p><p> If you buy a stock purely because it’s gone up a lot, without doing any research on it whatsoever, you are not—as the Journal and its editors bizarrely insist on calling you—an “investor.” If you buy a cryptocurrency because, hey, that sounds like fun, you aren’t an investor either.</p><p><blockquote>如果你购买一只股票纯粹是因为它上涨了很多，而没有对其进行任何研究，那么你就不是——正如《华尔街日报》及其编辑奇怪地坚持这样称呼你的那样——“投资者”。如果你购买加密货币是因为，嘿，这听起来很有趣，你也不是投资者。</blockquote></p><p> Whenever you buy any financial asset becauseyou have a hunchorjust for kicks, or becausesomebody famous is hyping the heck out of itoreverybody else seems to be buying it too, you aren’t investing.</p><p><blockquote>每当你购买任何金融资产是因为你有一个只是为了好玩，或者因为某个名人正在大肆宣传它，而其他人似乎也在购买它，你就不是在投资。</blockquote></p><p> You’re definitely a trader: someone who has just bought an asset. And you may bea speculator: someone who thinks other people will pay more for it than you did.</p><p><blockquote>你绝对是一个交易者：刚刚购买了一项资产的人。你可能是一个投机者：认为其他人会比你付出更多的钱。</blockquote></p><p> Of course,some folkswho buy meme stocks likeGameStopCorp.GME5.88%<i>are</i>investors. They read the companies’ financial statements, study the health of the underlying businesses and learn who else is betting on or against the shares. Likewise, many buyers of digital coins have put in the time and effort to understand how cryptocurrency works and how it could reshape finance.</p><p><blockquote>当然，有些人购买像GameStopCorp.GME 5.88%这样的模因股票<i>是</i>投资者。他们阅读公司的财务报表，研究基础业务的健康状况，并了解还有谁在做空股票。同样，许多数字硬币的买家也投入了时间和精力来了解加密货币的工作原理以及它如何重塑金融。</blockquote></p><p> An investor relies on internal sources of return: earnings, income, growth in the value of assets. A speculator counts on external sources of return: primarilywhether somebody else will pay more, regardless of fundamental value.</p><p><blockquote>投资者依赖于内部回报来源：收益、收入、资产价值的增长。投机者依赖外部回报来源：主要是其他人是否会支付更多，而不考虑基本价值。</blockquote></p><p> The word investor comes from the Latin “investire,” to dress in or clothe oneself, surround or envelop. You would never wear clothes without knowing what color they are or what material they’re made of. Likewise, you can’t invest in an asset you know nothing about.</p><p><blockquote>投资者这个词来自拉丁语“investire”，意思是穿着或打扮自己，包围或包围。你永远不会在不知道衣服是什么颜色或由什么材料制成的情况下穿衣服。同样，你不能投资你一无所知的资产。</blockquote></p><p> Nevertheless, the Journal and its editors have long called almost everybody who buys just about anything an “investor.” On July 12, 1962, the Journal publisheda letter to the editorfrom Benjamin Graham, author of the classic books “Security Analysis” and “The Intelligent Investor.” That June, complained Graham, the Journal had run an article headlined “Many Small Investors Bet on Further Drops, Sell Odd Lots Short.”</p><p><blockquote>然而，《华尔街日报》及其编辑长期以来一直将几乎所有购买任何东西的人称为“投资者”。1962年7月12日，《华尔街日报》发表了经典著作《证券分析》和《聪明的投资者》的作者本杰明·格雷厄姆写给编辑的一封信。格雷厄姆抱怨说，那年6月，《华尔街日报》发表了一篇文章，标题是“许多小投资者押注进一步下跌，卖空零星股票”。</blockquote></p><p> He wrote: “By what definition of ‘investment’ can one give the name ‘investors’ to small people who make bets on the stock market by selling odd lots short?” (To short an odd lot is to borrow and sell fewer than 100 shares in a wager that a stock will fall—an expensive and risky bet, then and now.)</p><p><blockquote>他写道：“根据‘投资’的什么定义，人们可以给那些通过卖空零头在股市上下注的小人物起‘投资者’这个名字呢？”（做空奇数手就是借入并卖出少于100股的股票，押注股票会下跌——无论在当时还是现在，这都是一个昂贵且有风险的赌注。）</blockquote></p><p> “If these people are investors,” asked Graham, “how should one define ‘speculation’ and ‘speculators’? Isn’t it possible that the currentfailure to distinguishbetweeninvestment and speculationmay do grave harm not only to individuals but to the whole financial community—as it did in the late 1920s?”</p><p><blockquote>“如果这些人是投资者，”格雷厄姆问道，“我们应该如何定义‘投机’和‘投机者’？难道目前未能区分投资和投机的做法，不仅会对个人，而且会对整个金融界造成严重伤害吗——就像20世纪20年代末那样？”</blockquote></p><p> Graham wasn’t a snob who thought that the markets should be the exclusive playground of the rich. He wrote “The Intelligent Investor” with the express purpose of helping less-wealthy people participate wisely in the stock market.</p><p><blockquote>格雷厄姆并不是一个认为市场应该是富人专属游乐场的势利小人。他写了《聪明的投资者》，明确的目的是帮助不太富裕的人明智地参与股市。</blockquote></p><p> In that book, after which this column is named, Graham said, “Outright speculation is neither illegal, immoral, nor (for most people) fattening to the pocketbook.”</p><p><blockquote>格雷厄姆在那本书（本专栏就是以其命名的）中说：“彻头彻尾的投机既不违法、不道德，也（对大多数人来说）不会让钱包发胖。”</blockquote></p><p> However, he warned, it creates three dangers: “(1) speculating when you think you are investing; (2) speculating seriously instead of as a pastime, when you lack proper knowledge and skill for it; and (3) risking more money in speculation than you can afford to lose.”</p><p><blockquote>然而，他警告说，这会带来三种危险：“（1）当你认为自己在投资时进行投机；（2）当你缺乏适当的知识和技能时，认真地投机而不是作为一种消遣；以及（3）冒更多钱的风险投机超出了你的承受能力。”</blockquote></p><p> Most investors speculate a bit every once in a while. Like a lottery ticket or an occasional visit to the racetrack or casino, a little is harmless fun. A lot isn’t.</p><p><blockquote>大多数投资者每隔一段时间就会投机一点。就像彩票或偶尔去赛马场或赌场一样，一点点是无害的乐趣。很多都不是。</blockquote></p><p> If you think you’re investing when you’re speculating, you’ll attribute even momentary success to skill even thoughluck is the likeliest explanation. That can lead you to take reckless risks.</p><p><blockquote>如果你认为你在投机时是在投资，你会将哪怕是短暂的成功归因于技能，即使运气是最可能的解释。这会导致你冒鲁莽的风险。</blockquote></p><p> Take speculating too seriously, and it turns intoan obsessionandan addiction. You become incapable of accepting your losses or focusing on the future more than a few minutes ahead. Next thing you know, you’re throwing even more money onto the bonfire.</p><p><blockquote>把投机看得太重，它会变成一种痴迷和上瘾。你变得无法接受你的损失，也无法关注未来超过几分钟。接下来你知道的是，你在篝火上投入了更多的钱。</blockquote></p><p> I think calling traders and speculators “investors” shoves many newcomers farther down the slippery slope toward risks they shouldn’t take and losses they can’t afford. I fervently hope the Journal and its editors will finally stop using “investor” as the default term for anyone who makes a trade.</p><p><blockquote>我认为，将交易者和投机者称为“投资者”会将许多新来者推向他们不应该承担的风险和他们无法承受的损失的滑坡。我热切地希望《华尔街日报》及其编辑最终不再使用“投资者”作为任何进行交易的人的默认术语。</blockquote></p><p> “ ‘Investor’ has a long history in the English language as a catch-all term denoting people who commit capital with the expectation of a return, no matter how long or short, no matter how many or how few investing columns they read,” WSJ Financial Editor Charles Forelle said in response to my complaints. “Back at least to the mid-19th century, ‘invest’ has even been used to describe a wager on horses—an activity surely no less divorced from fundamental analysis than a purchase of dogecoin.”</p><p><blockquote>“‘投资者’在英语中作为一个包罗万象的术语有着悠久的历史，指的是那些投入资本并期望回报的人，无论时间长短，无论他们阅读的投资专栏有多少，”《华尔街日报》财经编辑查尔斯·福雷尔在回应我的投诉时说道。“至少可以追溯到19世纪中叶，‘投资’甚至被用来描述赌马——这种活动与基本面分析的脱节程度肯定不亚于购买狗狗币。”</blockquote></p><p></p><p> I hear you, Boss, but I still think you’re wrong. There’s no way the Journal would say a recreational gambler is “investing” at the racetrack just because a dictionary says we can.</p><p><blockquote>我听到了，老板，但我还是认为你错了。《华尔街日报》不可能仅仅因为字典上说我们可以，就说一个休闲赌徒在赛马场“投资”。</blockquote></p><p> Calling novice speculators “investors” is one of the most powerful ways marketers fuel excessive trading.</p><p><blockquote>将新手投机者称为“投资者”是营销人员助长过度交易的最有力方式之一。</blockquote></p><p> Ina recent Instagram post, a former porn star who goes by the name Lana Rhoades posed in—well, mostly in—a bikini, as she held up what appears to be Graham’s “The Intelligent Investor.” According to IMDb.com, she starred in such videos as “Tushy” and “Make Me Meow.”</p><p><blockquote>在最近的Instagram帖子中，一位名叫拉娜·罗迪斯(Lana Rhoades)的前色情明星穿着——嗯，大部分是穿着——比基尼，举着似乎是格雷厄姆的《聪明的投资者》。据IMDb.com报道，她主演了《Tushy》和《Make Me Meow》等视频。</blockquote></p><p> In her post, which was “liked” by nearly 1.8 million people, Ms. Rhoades announced that she will be promoting a cryptocurrency calledPAWGcoin.</p><p><blockquote>在她被近180万人“点赞”的帖子中，罗迪斯宣布她将推广一种名为PAWGCoin的加密货币。</blockquote></p><p> The currency’s website says the coin is meant for “those who pay homage to developed posteriors.” (PAWG, I’ve been reliably informed, stands for Phat Ass White Girl.)</p><p><blockquote>该货币的网站称，这枚硬币是为“那些向发达的后躯致敬的人”准备的。（我得到可靠消息，PAWG代表胖屁股白人女孩。）</blockquote></p><p> PAWGcoin is up roughly 900% since Ms. Rhoades began promoting it in early June, according to Poocoin.io, a website that tracks such digital currencies.</p><p><blockquote>据追踪此类数字货币的网站Poocoin.io称，自Rhoades女士6月初开始推广PAWGcoin以来，PAWGcoin已上涨约900%。</blockquote></p><p> Ms. Rhoades, who has tweeted “I also read the WSJ every morning,” couldn’t be reached for comment. PAWGcoin’s website encourages visitors to “invest now.”</p><p><blockquote>罗迪斯女士在推特上写道“我每天早上也阅读《华尔街日报》”，但记者无法联系到她置评。PAWGcoin的网站鼓励访问者“立即投资”。</blockquote></p><p> In Ms. Rhoades’s Instagram post, she is holding up an open copy of the “The Intelligent Investor,” whose cover is reversed. She appears to be reading it with her eyes closed.</p><p><blockquote>在罗迪斯的Instagram帖子中，她举着一本打开的《聪明的投资者》，封面是颠倒的。她似乎是闭着眼睛读的。</blockquote></p><p></p>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Investor, Trader, Speculator: Which One Are You?<blockquote>投资者、交易者、投机者：你是哪一个？</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nInvestor, Trader, Speculator: Which One Are You?<blockquote>投资者、交易者、投机者：你是哪一个？</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<p class=\"head\">\n<strong class=\"h-name small\">The Wall Street Journal</strong><span class=\"h-time small\">2021-06-12 11:56</span>\n</p>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p>  Understanding the difference between speculation and investing is essential to avoiding reckless risk.  I’ve had it.</p><p><blockquote>了解投机和投资之间的区别对于避免鲁莽风险至关重要。我受够了。</blockquote></p><p> The Wall Street Journal is wrong, and has remained wrong for decades, about one of the most basic distinctions in finance. And I can’t stand it anymore.</p><p><blockquote>关于金融最基本的区别之一，《华尔街日报》是错误的，而且几十年来一直是错误的。我再也受不了了。</blockquote></p><p> If you buy a stock purely because it’s gone up a lot, without doing any research on it whatsoever, you are not—as the Journal and its editors bizarrely insist on calling you—an “investor.” If you buy a cryptocurrency because, hey, that sounds like fun, you aren’t an investor either.</p><p><blockquote>如果你购买一只股票纯粹是因为它上涨了很多，而没有对其进行任何研究，那么你就不是——正如《华尔街日报》及其编辑奇怪地坚持这样称呼你的那样——“投资者”。如果你购买加密货币是因为，嘿，这听起来很有趣，你也不是投资者。</blockquote></p><p> Whenever you buy any financial asset becauseyou have a hunchorjust for kicks, or becausesomebody famous is hyping the heck out of itoreverybody else seems to be buying it too, you aren’t investing.</p><p><blockquote>每当你购买任何金融资产是因为你有一个只是为了好玩，或者因为某个名人正在大肆宣传它，而其他人似乎也在购买它，你就不是在投资。</blockquote></p><p> You’re definitely a trader: someone who has just bought an asset. And you may bea speculator: someone who thinks other people will pay more for it than you did.</p><p><blockquote>你绝对是一个交易者：刚刚购买了一项资产的人。你可能是一个投机者：认为其他人会比你付出更多的钱。</blockquote></p><p> Of course,some folkswho buy meme stocks likeGameStopCorp.GME5.88%<i>are</i>investors. They read the companies’ financial statements, study the health of the underlying businesses and learn who else is betting on or against the shares. Likewise, many buyers of digital coins have put in the time and effort to understand how cryptocurrency works and how it could reshape finance.</p><p><blockquote>当然，有些人购买像GameStopCorp.GME 5.88%这样的模因股票<i>是</i>投资者。他们阅读公司的财务报表，研究基础业务的健康状况，并了解还有谁在做空股票。同样，许多数字硬币的买家也投入了时间和精力来了解加密货币的工作原理以及它如何重塑金融。</blockquote></p><p> An investor relies on internal sources of return: earnings, income, growth in the value of assets. A speculator counts on external sources of return: primarilywhether somebody else will pay more, regardless of fundamental value.</p><p><blockquote>投资者依赖于内部回报来源：收益、收入、资产价值的增长。投机者依赖外部回报来源：主要是其他人是否会支付更多，而不考虑基本价值。</blockquote></p><p> The word investor comes from the Latin “investire,” to dress in or clothe oneself, surround or envelop. You would never wear clothes without knowing what color they are or what material they’re made of. Likewise, you can’t invest in an asset you know nothing about.</p><p><blockquote>投资者这个词来自拉丁语“investire”，意思是穿着或打扮自己，包围或包围。你永远不会在不知道衣服是什么颜色或由什么材料制成的情况下穿衣服。同样，你不能投资你一无所知的资产。</blockquote></p><p> Nevertheless, the Journal and its editors have long called almost everybody who buys just about anything an “investor.” On July 12, 1962, the Journal publisheda letter to the editorfrom Benjamin Graham, author of the classic books “Security Analysis” and “The Intelligent Investor.” That June, complained Graham, the Journal had run an article headlined “Many Small Investors Bet on Further Drops, Sell Odd Lots Short.”</p><p><blockquote>然而，《华尔街日报》及其编辑长期以来一直将几乎所有购买任何东西的人称为“投资者”。1962年7月12日，《华尔街日报》发表了经典著作《证券分析》和《聪明的投资者》的作者本杰明·格雷厄姆写给编辑的一封信。格雷厄姆抱怨说，那年6月，《华尔街日报》发表了一篇文章，标题是“许多小投资者押注进一步下跌，卖空零星股票”。</blockquote></p><p> He wrote: “By what definition of ‘investment’ can one give the name ‘investors’ to small people who make bets on the stock market by selling odd lots short?” (To short an odd lot is to borrow and sell fewer than 100 shares in a wager that a stock will fall—an expensive and risky bet, then and now.)</p><p><blockquote>他写道：“根据‘投资’的什么定义，人们可以给那些通过卖空零头在股市上下注的小人物起‘投资者’这个名字呢？”（做空奇数手就是借入并卖出少于100股的股票，押注股票会下跌——无论在当时还是现在，这都是一个昂贵且有风险的赌注。）</blockquote></p><p> “If these people are investors,” asked Graham, “how should one define ‘speculation’ and ‘speculators’? Isn’t it possible that the currentfailure to distinguishbetweeninvestment and speculationmay do grave harm not only to individuals but to the whole financial community—as it did in the late 1920s?”</p><p><blockquote>“如果这些人是投资者，”格雷厄姆问道，“我们应该如何定义‘投机’和‘投机者’？难道目前未能区分投资和投机的做法，不仅会对个人，而且会对整个金融界造成严重伤害吗——就像20世纪20年代末那样？”</blockquote></p><p> Graham wasn’t a snob who thought that the markets should be the exclusive playground of the rich. He wrote “The Intelligent Investor” with the express purpose of helping less-wealthy people participate wisely in the stock market.</p><p><blockquote>格雷厄姆并不是一个认为市场应该是富人专属游乐场的势利小人。他写了《聪明的投资者》，明确的目的是帮助不太富裕的人明智地参与股市。</blockquote></p><p> In that book, after which this column is named, Graham said, “Outright speculation is neither illegal, immoral, nor (for most people) fattening to the pocketbook.”</p><p><blockquote>格雷厄姆在那本书（本专栏就是以其命名的）中说：“彻头彻尾的投机既不违法、不道德，也（对大多数人来说）不会让钱包发胖。”</blockquote></p><p> However, he warned, it creates three dangers: “(1) speculating when you think you are investing; (2) speculating seriously instead of as a pastime, when you lack proper knowledge and skill for it; and (3) risking more money in speculation than you can afford to lose.”</p><p><blockquote>然而，他警告说，这会带来三种危险：“（1）当你认为自己在投资时进行投机；（2）当你缺乏适当的知识和技能时，认真地投机而不是作为一种消遣；以及（3）冒更多钱的风险投机超出了你的承受能力。”</blockquote></p><p> Most investors speculate a bit every once in a while. Like a lottery ticket or an occasional visit to the racetrack or casino, a little is harmless fun. A lot isn’t.</p><p><blockquote>大多数投资者每隔一段时间就会投机一点。就像彩票或偶尔去赛马场或赌场一样，一点点是无害的乐趣。很多都不是。</blockquote></p><p> If you think you’re investing when you’re speculating, you’ll attribute even momentary success to skill even thoughluck is the likeliest explanation. That can lead you to take reckless risks.</p><p><blockquote>如果你认为你在投机时是在投资，你会将哪怕是短暂的成功归因于技能，即使运气是最可能的解释。这会导致你冒鲁莽的风险。</blockquote></p><p> Take speculating too seriously, and it turns intoan obsessionandan addiction. You become incapable of accepting your losses or focusing on the future more than a few minutes ahead. Next thing you know, you’re throwing even more money onto the bonfire.</p><p><blockquote>把投机看得太重，它会变成一种痴迷和上瘾。你变得无法接受你的损失，也无法关注未来超过几分钟。接下来你知道的是，你在篝火上投入了更多的钱。</blockquote></p><p> I think calling traders and speculators “investors” shoves many newcomers farther down the slippery slope toward risks they shouldn’t take and losses they can’t afford. I fervently hope the Journal and its editors will finally stop using “investor” as the default term for anyone who makes a trade.</p><p><blockquote>我认为，将交易者和投机者称为“投资者”会将许多新来者推向他们不应该承担的风险和他们无法承受的损失的滑坡。我热切地希望《华尔街日报》及其编辑最终不再使用“投资者”作为任何进行交易的人的默认术语。</blockquote></p><p> “ ‘Investor’ has a long history in the English language as a catch-all term denoting people who commit capital with the expectation of a return, no matter how long or short, no matter how many or how few investing columns they read,” WSJ Financial Editor Charles Forelle said in response to my complaints. “Back at least to the mid-19th century, ‘invest’ has even been used to describe a wager on horses—an activity surely no less divorced from fundamental analysis than a purchase of dogecoin.”</p><p><blockquote>“‘投资者’在英语中作为一个包罗万象的术语有着悠久的历史，指的是那些投入资本并期望回报的人，无论时间长短，无论他们阅读的投资专栏有多少，”《华尔街日报》财经编辑查尔斯·福雷尔在回应我的投诉时说道。“至少可以追溯到19世纪中叶，‘投资’甚至被用来描述赌马——这种活动与基本面分析的脱节程度肯定不亚于购买狗狗币。”</blockquote></p><p></p><p> I hear you, Boss, but I still think you’re wrong. There’s no way the Journal would say a recreational gambler is “investing” at the racetrack just because a dictionary says we can.</p><p><blockquote>我听到了，老板，但我还是认为你错了。《华尔街日报》不可能仅仅因为字典上说我们可以，就说一个休闲赌徒在赛马场“投资”。</blockquote></p><p> Calling novice speculators “investors” is one of the most powerful ways marketers fuel excessive trading.</p><p><blockquote>将新手投机者称为“投资者”是营销人员助长过度交易的最有力方式之一。</blockquote></p><p> Ina recent Instagram post, a former porn star who goes by the name Lana Rhoades posed in—well, mostly in—a bikini, as she held up what appears to be Graham’s “The Intelligent Investor.” According to IMDb.com, she starred in such videos as “Tushy” and “Make Me Meow.”</p><p><blockquote>在最近的Instagram帖子中，一位名叫拉娜·罗迪斯(Lana Rhoades)的前色情明星穿着——嗯，大部分是穿着——比基尼，举着似乎是格雷厄姆的《聪明的投资者》。据IMDb.com报道，她主演了《Tushy》和《Make Me Meow》等视频。</blockquote></p><p> In her post, which was “liked” by nearly 1.8 million people, Ms. Rhoades announced that she will be promoting a cryptocurrency calledPAWGcoin.</p><p><blockquote>在她被近180万人“点赞”的帖子中，罗迪斯宣布她将推广一种名为PAWGCoin的加密货币。</blockquote></p><p> The currency’s website says the coin is meant for “those who pay homage to developed posteriors.” (PAWG, I’ve been reliably informed, stands for Phat Ass White Girl.)</p><p><blockquote>该货币的网站称，这枚硬币是为“那些向发达的后躯致敬的人”准备的。（我得到可靠消息，PAWG代表胖屁股白人女孩。）</blockquote></p><p> PAWGcoin is up roughly 900% since Ms. Rhoades began promoting it in early June, according to Poocoin.io, a website that tracks such digital currencies.</p><p><blockquote>据追踪此类数字货币的网站Poocoin.io称，自Rhoades女士6月初开始推广PAWGcoin以来，PAWGcoin已上涨约900%。</blockquote></p><p> Ms. Rhoades, who has tweeted “I also read the WSJ every morning,” couldn’t be reached for comment. PAWGcoin’s website encourages visitors to “invest now.”</p><p><blockquote>罗迪斯女士在推特上写道“我每天早上也阅读《华尔街日报》”，但记者无法联系到她置评。PAWGcoin的网站鼓励访问者“立即投资”。</blockquote></p><p> In Ms. Rhoades’s Instagram post, she is holding up an open copy of the “The Intelligent Investor,” whose cover is reversed. She appears to be reading it with her eyes closed.</p><p><blockquote>在罗迪斯的Instagram帖子中，她举着一本打开的《聪明的投资者》，封面是颠倒的。她似乎是闭着眼睛读的。</blockquote></p><p></p>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n<p> 来源：<a href=\"https://www.wsj.com/articles/you-cant-invest-without-trading-you-can-trade-without-investing-11623426213?mod=markets_lead_pos5\">The Wall Street Journal</a></p>\n<p>为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化</p>\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"SPY":"标普500ETF",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".DJI":"道琼斯",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index"},"source_url":"https://www.wsj.com/articles/you-cant-invest-without-trading-you-can-trade-without-investing-11623426213?mod=markets_lead_pos5","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1147474880","content_text":"Understanding the difference between speculation and investing is essential to avoiding reckless risk.\n\nI’ve had it.\nThe Wall Street Journal is wrong, and has remained wrong for decades, about one of the most basic distinctions in finance. And I can’t stand it anymore.\nIf you buy a stock purely because it’s gone up a lot, without doing any research on it whatsoever, you are not—as the Journal and its editors bizarrely insist on calling you—an “investor.” If you buy a cryptocurrency because, hey, that sounds like fun, you aren’t an investor either.\nWhenever you buy any financial asset becauseyou have a hunchorjust for kicks, or becausesomebody famous is hyping the heck out of itoreverybody else seems to be buying it too, you aren’t investing.\nYou’re definitely a trader: someone who has just bought an asset. And you may bea speculator: someone who thinks other people will pay more for it than you did.\nOf course,some folkswho buy meme stocks likeGameStopCorp.GME5.88%areinvestors. They read the companies’ financial statements, study the health of the underlying businesses and learn who else is betting on or against the shares. Likewise, many buyers of digital coins have put in the time and effort to understand how cryptocurrency works and how it could reshape finance.\nAn investor relies on internal sources of return: earnings, income, growth in the value of assets. A speculator counts on external sources of return: primarilywhether somebody else will pay more, regardless of fundamental value.\nThe word investor comes from the Latin “investire,” to dress in or clothe oneself, surround or envelop. You would never wear clothes without knowing what color they are or what material they’re made of. Likewise, you can’t invest in an asset you know nothing about.\nNevertheless, the Journal and its editors have long called almost everybody who buys just about anything an “investor.” On July 12, 1962, the Journal publisheda letter to the editorfrom Benjamin Graham, author of the classic books “Security Analysis” and “The Intelligent Investor.” That June, complained Graham, the Journal had run an article headlined “Many Small Investors Bet on Further Drops, Sell Odd Lots Short.”\nHe wrote: “By what definition of ‘investment’ can one give the name ‘investors’ to small people who make bets on the stock market by selling odd lots short?” (To short an odd lot is to borrow and sell fewer than 100 shares in a wager that a stock will fall—an expensive and risky bet, then and now.)\n“If these people are investors,” asked Graham, “how should one define ‘speculation’ and ‘speculators’? Isn’t it possible that the currentfailure to distinguishbetweeninvestment and speculationmay do grave harm not only to individuals but to the whole financial community—as it did in the late 1920s?”\nGraham wasn’t a snob who thought that the markets should be the exclusive playground of the rich. He wrote “The Intelligent Investor” with the express purpose of helping less-wealthy people participate wisely in the stock market.\nIn that book, after which this column is named, Graham said, “Outright speculation is neither illegal, immoral, nor (for most people) fattening to the pocketbook.”\nHowever, he warned, it creates three dangers: “(1) speculating when you think you are investing; (2) speculating seriously instead of as a pastime, when you lack proper knowledge and skill for it; and (3) risking more money in speculation than you can afford to lose.”\nMost investors speculate a bit every once in a while. Like a lottery ticket or an occasional visit to the racetrack or casino, a little is harmless fun. A lot isn’t.\nIf you think you’re investing when you’re speculating, you’ll attribute even momentary success to skill even thoughluck is the likeliest explanation. That can lead you to take reckless risks.\nTake speculating too seriously, and it turns intoan obsessionandan addiction. You become incapable of accepting your losses or focusing on the future more than a few minutes ahead. Next thing you know, you’re throwing even more money onto the bonfire.\nI think calling traders and speculators “investors” shoves many newcomers farther down the slippery slope toward risks they shouldn’t take and losses they can’t afford. I fervently hope the Journal and its editors will finally stop using “investor” as the default term for anyone who makes a trade.\n“ ‘Investor’ has a long history in the English language as a catch-all term denoting people who commit capital with the expectation of a return, no matter how long or short, no matter how many or how few investing columns they read,” WSJ Financial Editor Charles Forelle said in response to my complaints. “Back at least to the mid-19th century, ‘invest’ has even been used to describe a wager on horses—an activity surely no less divorced from fundamental analysis than a purchase of dogecoin.”\nI hear you, Boss, but I still think you’re wrong. There’s no way the Journal would say a recreational gambler is “investing” at the racetrack just because a dictionary says we can.\nCalling novice speculators “investors” is one of the most powerful ways marketers fuel excessive trading.\nIna recent Instagram post, a former porn star who goes by the name Lana Rhoades posed in—well, mostly in—a bikini, as she held up what appears to be Graham’s “The Intelligent Investor.” According to IMDb.com, she starred in such videos as “Tushy” and “Make Me Meow.”\nIn her post, which was “liked” by nearly 1.8 million people, Ms. Rhoades announced that she will be promoting a cryptocurrency calledPAWGcoin.\nThe currency’s website says the coin is meant for “those who pay homage to developed posteriors.” (PAWG, I’ve been reliably informed, stands for Phat Ass White Girl.)\nPAWGcoin is up roughly 900% since Ms. Rhoades began promoting it in early June, according to Poocoin.io, a website that tracks such digital currencies.\nMs. Rhoades, who has tweeted “I also read the WSJ every morning,” couldn’t be reached for comment. PAWGcoin’s website encourages visitors to “invest now.”\nIn Ms. Rhoades’s Instagram post, she is holding up an open copy of the “The Intelligent Investor,” whose cover is reversed. She appears to be reading it with her eyes closed.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{".IXIC":0.9,".SPX":0.9,".DJI":0.9,"SPY":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":355,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":186816301,"gmtCreate":1623484023603,"gmtModify":1634032487193,"author":{"id":"3584486073664277","authorId":"3584486073664277","name":"JL9000","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/185ff843fc3784f1c1ee8d4306bd37b3","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3584486073664277","authorIdStr":"3584486073664277"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Lol","listText":"Lol","text":"Lol","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/186816301","repostId":"1147474880","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1147474880","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1623470168,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1147474880?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-06-12 11:56","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Investor, Trader, Speculator: Which One Are You?<blockquote>投资者、交易者、投机者：你是哪一个？</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1147474880","media":"The Wall Street Journal","summary":"Understanding the difference between speculation and investing is essential to avoiding reckless ris","content":"<p>  Understanding the difference between speculation and investing is essential to avoiding reckless risk.  I’ve had it.</p><p><blockquote>了解投机和投资之间的区别对于避免鲁莽风险至关重要。我受够了。</blockquote></p><p> The Wall Street Journal is wrong, and has remained wrong for decades, about one of the most basic distinctions in finance. And I can’t stand it anymore.</p><p><blockquote>关于金融最基本的区别之一，《华尔街日报》是错误的，而且几十年来一直是错误的。我再也受不了了。</blockquote></p><p> If you buy a stock purely because it’s gone up a lot, without doing any research on it whatsoever, you are not—as the Journal and its editors bizarrely insist on calling you—an “investor.” If you buy a cryptocurrency because, hey, that sounds like fun, you aren’t an investor either.</p><p><blockquote>如果你购买一只股票纯粹是因为它上涨了很多，而没有对其进行任何研究，那么你就不是——正如《华尔街日报》及其编辑奇怪地坚持这样称呼你的那样——“投资者”。如果你购买加密货币是因为，嘿，这听起来很有趣，你也不是投资者。</blockquote></p><p> Whenever you buy any financial asset becauseyou have a hunchorjust for kicks, or becausesomebody famous is hyping the heck out of itoreverybody else seems to be buying it too, you aren’t investing.</p><p><blockquote>每当你购买任何金融资产是因为你有一个只是为了好玩，或者因为某个名人正在大肆宣传它，而其他人似乎也在购买它，你就不是在投资。</blockquote></p><p> You’re definitely a trader: someone who has just bought an asset. And you may bea speculator: someone who thinks other people will pay more for it than you did.</p><p><blockquote>你绝对是一个交易者：刚刚购买了一项资产的人。你可能是一个投机者：认为其他人会比你付出更多的钱。</blockquote></p><p> Of course,some folkswho buy meme stocks likeGameStopCorp.GME5.88%<i>are</i>investors. They read the companies’ financial statements, study the health of the underlying businesses and learn who else is betting on or against the shares. Likewise, many buyers of digital coins have put in the time and effort to understand how cryptocurrency works and how it could reshape finance.</p><p><blockquote>当然，有些人购买像GameStopCorp.GME 5.88%这样的模因股票<i>是</i>投资者。他们阅读公司的财务报表，研究基础业务的健康状况，并了解还有谁在做空股票。同样，许多数字硬币的买家也投入了时间和精力来了解加密货币的工作原理以及它如何重塑金融。</blockquote></p><p> An investor relies on internal sources of return: earnings, income, growth in the value of assets. A speculator counts on external sources of return: primarilywhether somebody else will pay more, regardless of fundamental value.</p><p><blockquote>投资者依赖于内部回报来源：收益、收入、资产价值的增长。投机者依赖外部回报来源：主要是其他人是否会支付更多，而不考虑基本价值。</blockquote></p><p> The word investor comes from the Latin “investire,” to dress in or clothe oneself, surround or envelop. You would never wear clothes without knowing what color they are or what material they’re made of. Likewise, you can’t invest in an asset you know nothing about.</p><p><blockquote>投资者这个词来自拉丁语“investire”，意思是穿着或打扮自己，包围或包围。你永远不会在不知道衣服是什么颜色或由什么材料制成的情况下穿衣服。同样，你不能投资你一无所知的资产。</blockquote></p><p> Nevertheless, the Journal and its editors have long called almost everybody who buys just about anything an “investor.” On July 12, 1962, the Journal publisheda letter to the editorfrom Benjamin Graham, author of the classic books “Security Analysis” and “The Intelligent Investor.” That June, complained Graham, the Journal had run an article headlined “Many Small Investors Bet on Further Drops, Sell Odd Lots Short.”</p><p><blockquote>然而，《华尔街日报》及其编辑长期以来一直将几乎所有购买任何东西的人称为“投资者”。1962年7月12日，《华尔街日报》发表了经典著作《证券分析》和《聪明的投资者》的作者本杰明·格雷厄姆写给编辑的一封信。格雷厄姆抱怨说，那年6月，《华尔街日报》发表了一篇文章，标题是“许多小投资者押注进一步下跌，卖空零星股票”。</blockquote></p><p> He wrote: “By what definition of ‘investment’ can one give the name ‘investors’ to small people who make bets on the stock market by selling odd lots short?” (To short an odd lot is to borrow and sell fewer than 100 shares in a wager that a stock will fall—an expensive and risky bet, then and now.)</p><p><blockquote>他写道：“根据‘投资’的什么定义，人们可以给那些通过卖空零头在股市上下注的小人物起‘投资者’这个名字呢？”（做空奇数手就是借入并卖出少于100股的股票，押注股票会下跌——无论在当时还是现在，这都是一个昂贵且有风险的赌注。）</blockquote></p><p> “If these people are investors,” asked Graham, “how should one define ‘speculation’ and ‘speculators’? Isn’t it possible that the currentfailure to distinguishbetweeninvestment and speculationmay do grave harm not only to individuals but to the whole financial community—as it did in the late 1920s?”</p><p><blockquote>“如果这些人是投资者，”格雷厄姆问道，“我们应该如何定义‘投机’和‘投机者’？难道目前未能区分投资和投机的做法，不仅会对个人，而且会对整个金融界造成严重伤害吗——就像20世纪20年代末那样？”</blockquote></p><p> Graham wasn’t a snob who thought that the markets should be the exclusive playground of the rich. He wrote “The Intelligent Investor” with the express purpose of helping less-wealthy people participate wisely in the stock market.</p><p><blockquote>格雷厄姆并不是一个认为市场应该是富人专属游乐场的势利小人。他写了《聪明的投资者》，明确的目的是帮助不太富裕的人明智地参与股市。</blockquote></p><p> In that book, after which this column is named, Graham said, “Outright speculation is neither illegal, immoral, nor (for most people) fattening to the pocketbook.”</p><p><blockquote>格雷厄姆在那本书（本专栏就是以其命名的）中说：“彻头彻尾的投机既不违法、不道德，也（对大多数人来说）不会让钱包发胖。”</blockquote></p><p> However, he warned, it creates three dangers: “(1) speculating when you think you are investing; (2) speculating seriously instead of as a pastime, when you lack proper knowledge and skill for it; and (3) risking more money in speculation than you can afford to lose.”</p><p><blockquote>然而，他警告说，这会带来三种危险：“（1）当你认为自己在投资时进行投机；（2）当你缺乏适当的知识和技能时，认真地投机而不是作为一种消遣；以及（3）冒更多钱的风险投机超出了你的承受能力。”</blockquote></p><p> Most investors speculate a bit every once in a while. Like a lottery ticket or an occasional visit to the racetrack or casino, a little is harmless fun. A lot isn’t.</p><p><blockquote>大多数投资者每隔一段时间就会投机一点。就像彩票或偶尔去赛马场或赌场一样，一点点是无害的乐趣。很多都不是。</blockquote></p><p> If you think you’re investing when you’re speculating, you’ll attribute even momentary success to skill even thoughluck is the likeliest explanation. That can lead you to take reckless risks.</p><p><blockquote>如果你认为你在投机时是在投资，你会将哪怕是短暂的成功归因于技能，即使运气是最可能的解释。这会导致你冒鲁莽的风险。</blockquote></p><p> Take speculating too seriously, and it turns intoan obsessionandan addiction. You become incapable of accepting your losses or focusing on the future more than a few minutes ahead. Next thing you know, you’re throwing even more money onto the bonfire.</p><p><blockquote>把投机看得太重，它会变成一种痴迷和上瘾。你变得无法接受你的损失，也无法关注未来超过几分钟。接下来你知道的是，你在篝火上投入了更多的钱。</blockquote></p><p> I think calling traders and speculators “investors” shoves many newcomers farther down the slippery slope toward risks they shouldn’t take and losses they can’t afford. I fervently hope the Journal and its editors will finally stop using “investor” as the default term for anyone who makes a trade.</p><p><blockquote>我认为，将交易者和投机者称为“投资者”会将许多新来者推向他们不应该承担的风险和他们无法承受的损失的滑坡。我热切地希望《华尔街日报》及其编辑最终不再使用“投资者”作为任何进行交易的人的默认术语。</blockquote></p><p> “ ‘Investor’ has a long history in the English language as a catch-all term denoting people who commit capital with the expectation of a return, no matter how long or short, no matter how many or how few investing columns they read,” WSJ Financial Editor Charles Forelle said in response to my complaints. “Back at least to the mid-19th century, ‘invest’ has even been used to describe a wager on horses—an activity surely no less divorced from fundamental analysis than a purchase of dogecoin.”</p><p><blockquote>“‘投资者’在英语中作为一个包罗万象的术语有着悠久的历史，指的是那些投入资本并期望回报的人，无论时间长短，无论他们阅读的投资专栏有多少，”《华尔街日报》财经编辑查尔斯·福雷尔在回应我的投诉时说道。“至少可以追溯到19世纪中叶，‘投资’甚至被用来描述赌马——这种活动与基本面分析的脱节程度肯定不亚于购买狗狗币。”</blockquote></p><p></p><p> I hear you, Boss, but I still think you’re wrong. There’s no way the Journal would say a recreational gambler is “investing” at the racetrack just because a dictionary says we can.</p><p><blockquote>我听到了，老板，但我还是认为你错了。《华尔街日报》不可能仅仅因为字典上说我们可以，就说一个休闲赌徒在赛马场“投资”。</blockquote></p><p> Calling novice speculators “investors” is one of the most powerful ways marketers fuel excessive trading.</p><p><blockquote>将新手投机者称为“投资者”是营销人员助长过度交易的最有力方式之一。</blockquote></p><p> Ina recent Instagram post, a former porn star who goes by the name Lana Rhoades posed in—well, mostly in—a bikini, as she held up what appears to be Graham’s “The Intelligent Investor.” According to IMDb.com, she starred in such videos as “Tushy” and “Make Me Meow.”</p><p><blockquote>在最近的Instagram帖子中，一位名叫拉娜·罗迪斯(Lana Rhoades)的前色情明星穿着——嗯，大部分是穿着——比基尼，举着似乎是格雷厄姆的《聪明的投资者》。据IMDb.com报道，她主演了《Tushy》和《Make Me Meow》等视频。</blockquote></p><p> In her post, which was “liked” by nearly 1.8 million people, Ms. Rhoades announced that she will be promoting a cryptocurrency calledPAWGcoin.</p><p><blockquote>在她被近180万人“点赞”的帖子中，罗迪斯宣布她将推广一种名为PAWGCoin的加密货币。</blockquote></p><p> The currency’s website says the coin is meant for “those who pay homage to developed posteriors.” (PAWG, I’ve been reliably informed, stands for Phat Ass White Girl.)</p><p><blockquote>该货币的网站称，这枚硬币是为“那些向发达的后躯致敬的人”准备的。（我得到可靠消息，PAWG代表胖屁股白人女孩。）</blockquote></p><p> PAWGcoin is up roughly 900% since Ms. Rhoades began promoting it in early June, according to Poocoin.io, a website that tracks such digital currencies.</p><p><blockquote>据追踪此类数字货币的网站Poocoin.io称，自Rhoades女士6月初开始推广PAWGcoin以来，PAWGcoin已上涨约900%。</blockquote></p><p> Ms. Rhoades, who has tweeted “I also read the WSJ every morning,” couldn’t be reached for comment. PAWGcoin’s website encourages visitors to “invest now.”</p><p><blockquote>罗迪斯女士在推特上写道“我每天早上也阅读《华尔街日报》”，但记者无法联系到她置评。PAWGcoin的网站鼓励访问者“立即投资”。</blockquote></p><p> In Ms. Rhoades’s Instagram post, she is holding up an open copy of the “The Intelligent Investor,” whose cover is reversed. She appears to be reading it with her eyes closed.</p><p><blockquote>在罗迪斯的Instagram帖子中，她举着一本打开的《聪明的投资者》，封面是颠倒的。她似乎是闭着眼睛读的。</blockquote></p><p></p>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Investor, Trader, Speculator: Which One Are You?<blockquote>投资者、交易者、投机者：你是哪一个？</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nInvestor, Trader, Speculator: Which One Are You?<blockquote>投资者、交易者、投机者：你是哪一个？</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<p class=\"head\">\n<strong class=\"h-name small\">The Wall Street Journal</strong><span class=\"h-time small\">2021-06-12 11:56</span>\n</p>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p>  Understanding the difference between speculation and investing is essential to avoiding reckless risk.  I’ve had it.</p><p><blockquote>了解投机和投资之间的区别对于避免鲁莽风险至关重要。我受够了。</blockquote></p><p> The Wall Street Journal is wrong, and has remained wrong for decades, about one of the most basic distinctions in finance. And I can’t stand it anymore.</p><p><blockquote>关于金融最基本的区别之一，《华尔街日报》是错误的，而且几十年来一直是错误的。我再也受不了了。</blockquote></p><p> If you buy a stock purely because it’s gone up a lot, without doing any research on it whatsoever, you are not—as the Journal and its editors bizarrely insist on calling you—an “investor.” If you buy a cryptocurrency because, hey, that sounds like fun, you aren’t an investor either.</p><p><blockquote>如果你购买一只股票纯粹是因为它上涨了很多，而没有对其进行任何研究，那么你就不是——正如《华尔街日报》及其编辑奇怪地坚持这样称呼你的那样——“投资者”。如果你购买加密货币是因为，嘿，这听起来很有趣，你也不是投资者。</blockquote></p><p> Whenever you buy any financial asset becauseyou have a hunchorjust for kicks, or becausesomebody famous is hyping the heck out of itoreverybody else seems to be buying it too, you aren’t investing.</p><p><blockquote>每当你购买任何金融资产是因为你有一个只是为了好玩，或者因为某个名人正在大肆宣传它，而其他人似乎也在购买它，你就不是在投资。</blockquote></p><p> You’re definitely a trader: someone who has just bought an asset. And you may bea speculator: someone who thinks other people will pay more for it than you did.</p><p><blockquote>你绝对是一个交易者：刚刚购买了一项资产的人。你可能是一个投机者：认为其他人会比你付出更多的钱。</blockquote></p><p> Of course,some folkswho buy meme stocks likeGameStopCorp.GME5.88%<i>are</i>investors. They read the companies’ financial statements, study the health of the underlying businesses and learn who else is betting on or against the shares. Likewise, many buyers of digital coins have put in the time and effort to understand how cryptocurrency works and how it could reshape finance.</p><p><blockquote>当然，有些人购买像GameStopCorp.GME 5.88%这样的模因股票<i>是</i>投资者。他们阅读公司的财务报表，研究基础业务的健康状况，并了解还有谁在做空股票。同样，许多数字硬币的买家也投入了时间和精力来了解加密货币的工作原理以及它如何重塑金融。</blockquote></p><p> An investor relies on internal sources of return: earnings, income, growth in the value of assets. A speculator counts on external sources of return: primarilywhether somebody else will pay more, regardless of fundamental value.</p><p><blockquote>投资者依赖于内部回报来源：收益、收入、资产价值的增长。投机者依赖外部回报来源：主要是其他人是否会支付更多，而不考虑基本价值。</blockquote></p><p> The word investor comes from the Latin “investire,” to dress in or clothe oneself, surround or envelop. You would never wear clothes without knowing what color they are or what material they’re made of. Likewise, you can’t invest in an asset you know nothing about.</p><p><blockquote>投资者这个词来自拉丁语“investire”，意思是穿着或打扮自己，包围或包围。你永远不会在不知道衣服是什么颜色或由什么材料制成的情况下穿衣服。同样，你不能投资你一无所知的资产。</blockquote></p><p> Nevertheless, the Journal and its editors have long called almost everybody who buys just about anything an “investor.” On July 12, 1962, the Journal publisheda letter to the editorfrom Benjamin Graham, author of the classic books “Security Analysis” and “The Intelligent Investor.” That June, complained Graham, the Journal had run an article headlined “Many Small Investors Bet on Further Drops, Sell Odd Lots Short.”</p><p><blockquote>然而，《华尔街日报》及其编辑长期以来一直将几乎所有购买任何东西的人称为“投资者”。1962年7月12日，《华尔街日报》发表了经典著作《证券分析》和《聪明的投资者》的作者本杰明·格雷厄姆写给编辑的一封信。格雷厄姆抱怨说，那年6月，《华尔街日报》发表了一篇文章，标题是“许多小投资者押注进一步下跌，卖空零星股票”。</blockquote></p><p> He wrote: “By what definition of ‘investment’ can one give the name ‘investors’ to small people who make bets on the stock market by selling odd lots short?” (To short an odd lot is to borrow and sell fewer than 100 shares in a wager that a stock will fall—an expensive and risky bet, then and now.)</p><p><blockquote>他写道：“根据‘投资’的什么定义，人们可以给那些通过卖空零头在股市上下注的小人物起‘投资者’这个名字呢？”（做空奇数手就是借入并卖出少于100股的股票，押注股票会下跌——无论在当时还是现在，这都是一个昂贵且有风险的赌注。）</blockquote></p><p> “If these people are investors,” asked Graham, “how should one define ‘speculation’ and ‘speculators’? Isn’t it possible that the currentfailure to distinguishbetweeninvestment and speculationmay do grave harm not only to individuals but to the whole financial community—as it did in the late 1920s?”</p><p><blockquote>“如果这些人是投资者，”格雷厄姆问道，“我们应该如何定义‘投机’和‘投机者’？难道目前未能区分投资和投机的做法，不仅会对个人，而且会对整个金融界造成严重伤害吗——就像20世纪20年代末那样？”</blockquote></p><p> Graham wasn’t a snob who thought that the markets should be the exclusive playground of the rich. He wrote “The Intelligent Investor” with the express purpose of helping less-wealthy people participate wisely in the stock market.</p><p><blockquote>格雷厄姆并不是一个认为市场应该是富人专属游乐场的势利小人。他写了《聪明的投资者》，明确的目的是帮助不太富裕的人明智地参与股市。</blockquote></p><p> In that book, after which this column is named, Graham said, “Outright speculation is neither illegal, immoral, nor (for most people) fattening to the pocketbook.”</p><p><blockquote>格雷厄姆在那本书（本专栏就是以其命名的）中说：“彻头彻尾的投机既不违法、不道德，也（对大多数人来说）不会让钱包发胖。”</blockquote></p><p> However, he warned, it creates three dangers: “(1) speculating when you think you are investing; (2) speculating seriously instead of as a pastime, when you lack proper knowledge and skill for it; and (3) risking more money in speculation than you can afford to lose.”</p><p><blockquote>然而，他警告说，这会带来三种危险：“（1）当你认为自己在投资时进行投机；（2）当你缺乏适当的知识和技能时，认真地投机而不是作为一种消遣；以及（3）冒更多钱的风险投机超出了你的承受能力。”</blockquote></p><p> Most investors speculate a bit every once in a while. Like a lottery ticket or an occasional visit to the racetrack or casino, a little is harmless fun. A lot isn’t.</p><p><blockquote>大多数投资者每隔一段时间就会投机一点。就像彩票或偶尔去赛马场或赌场一样，一点点是无害的乐趣。很多都不是。</blockquote></p><p> If you think you’re investing when you’re speculating, you’ll attribute even momentary success to skill even thoughluck is the likeliest explanation. That can lead you to take reckless risks.</p><p><blockquote>如果你认为你在投机时是在投资，你会将哪怕是短暂的成功归因于技能，即使运气是最可能的解释。这会导致你冒鲁莽的风险。</blockquote></p><p> Take speculating too seriously, and it turns intoan obsessionandan addiction. You become incapable of accepting your losses or focusing on the future more than a few minutes ahead. Next thing you know, you’re throwing even more money onto the bonfire.</p><p><blockquote>把投机看得太重，它会变成一种痴迷和上瘾。你变得无法接受你的损失，也无法关注未来超过几分钟。接下来你知道的是，你在篝火上投入了更多的钱。</blockquote></p><p> I think calling traders and speculators “investors” shoves many newcomers farther down the slippery slope toward risks they shouldn’t take and losses they can’t afford. I fervently hope the Journal and its editors will finally stop using “investor” as the default term for anyone who makes a trade.</p><p><blockquote>我认为，将交易者和投机者称为“投资者”会将许多新来者推向他们不应该承担的风险和他们无法承受的损失的滑坡。我热切地希望《华尔街日报》及其编辑最终不再使用“投资者”作为任何进行交易的人的默认术语。</blockquote></p><p> “ ‘Investor’ has a long history in the English language as a catch-all term denoting people who commit capital with the expectation of a return, no matter how long or short, no matter how many or how few investing columns they read,” WSJ Financial Editor Charles Forelle said in response to my complaints. “Back at least to the mid-19th century, ‘invest’ has even been used to describe a wager on horses—an activity surely no less divorced from fundamental analysis than a purchase of dogecoin.”</p><p><blockquote>“‘投资者’在英语中作为一个包罗万象的术语有着悠久的历史，指的是那些投入资本并期望回报的人，无论时间长短，无论他们阅读的投资专栏有多少，”《华尔街日报》财经编辑查尔斯·福雷尔在回应我的投诉时说道。“至少可以追溯到19世纪中叶，‘投资’甚至被用来描述赌马——这种活动与基本面分析的脱节程度肯定不亚于购买狗狗币。”</blockquote></p><p></p><p> I hear you, Boss, but I still think you’re wrong. There’s no way the Journal would say a recreational gambler is “investing” at the racetrack just because a dictionary says we can.</p><p><blockquote>我听到了，老板，但我还是认为你错了。《华尔街日报》不可能仅仅因为字典上说我们可以，就说一个休闲赌徒在赛马场“投资”。</blockquote></p><p> Calling novice speculators “investors” is one of the most powerful ways marketers fuel excessive trading.</p><p><blockquote>将新手投机者称为“投资者”是营销人员助长过度交易的最有力方式之一。</blockquote></p><p> Ina recent Instagram post, a former porn star who goes by the name Lana Rhoades posed in—well, mostly in—a bikini, as she held up what appears to be Graham’s “The Intelligent Investor.” According to IMDb.com, she starred in such videos as “Tushy” and “Make Me Meow.”</p><p><blockquote>在最近的Instagram帖子中，一位名叫拉娜·罗迪斯(Lana Rhoades)的前色情明星穿着——嗯，大部分是穿着——比基尼，举着似乎是格雷厄姆的《聪明的投资者》。据IMDb.com报道，她主演了《Tushy》和《Make Me Meow》等视频。</blockquote></p><p> In her post, which was “liked” by nearly 1.8 million people, Ms. Rhoades announced that she will be promoting a cryptocurrency calledPAWGcoin.</p><p><blockquote>在她被近180万人“点赞”的帖子中，罗迪斯宣布她将推广一种名为PAWGCoin的加密货币。</blockquote></p><p> The currency’s website says the coin is meant for “those who pay homage to developed posteriors.” (PAWG, I’ve been reliably informed, stands for Phat Ass White Girl.)</p><p><blockquote>该货币的网站称，这枚硬币是为“那些向发达的后躯致敬的人”准备的。（我得到可靠消息，PAWG代表胖屁股白人女孩。）</blockquote></p><p> PAWGcoin is up roughly 900% since Ms. Rhoades began promoting it in early June, according to Poocoin.io, a website that tracks such digital currencies.</p><p><blockquote>据追踪此类数字货币的网站Poocoin.io称，自Rhoades女士6月初开始推广PAWGcoin以来，PAWGcoin已上涨约900%。</blockquote></p><p> Ms. Rhoades, who has tweeted “I also read the WSJ every morning,” couldn’t be reached for comment. PAWGcoin’s website encourages visitors to “invest now.”</p><p><blockquote>罗迪斯女士在推特上写道“我每天早上也阅读《华尔街日报》”，但记者无法联系到她置评。PAWGcoin的网站鼓励访问者“立即投资”。</blockquote></p><p> In Ms. Rhoades’s Instagram post, she is holding up an open copy of the “The Intelligent Investor,” whose cover is reversed. She appears to be reading it with her eyes closed.</p><p><blockquote>在罗迪斯的Instagram帖子中，她举着一本打开的《聪明的投资者》，封面是颠倒的。她似乎是闭着眼睛读的。</blockquote></p><p></p>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n<p> 来源：<a href=\"https://www.wsj.com/articles/you-cant-invest-without-trading-you-can-trade-without-investing-11623426213?mod=markets_lead_pos5\">The Wall Street Journal</a></p>\n<p>为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化</p>\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"SPY":"标普500ETF",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".DJI":"道琼斯",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index"},"source_url":"https://www.wsj.com/articles/you-cant-invest-without-trading-you-can-trade-without-investing-11623426213?mod=markets_lead_pos5","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1147474880","content_text":"Understanding the difference between speculation and investing is essential to avoiding reckless risk.\n\nI’ve had it.\nThe Wall Street Journal is wrong, and has remained wrong for decades, about one of the most basic distinctions in finance. And I can’t stand it anymore.\nIf you buy a stock purely because it’s gone up a lot, without doing any research on it whatsoever, you are not—as the Journal and its editors bizarrely insist on calling you—an “investor.” If you buy a cryptocurrency because, hey, that sounds like fun, you aren’t an investor either.\nWhenever you buy any financial asset becauseyou have a hunchorjust for kicks, or becausesomebody famous is hyping the heck out of itoreverybody else seems to be buying it too, you aren’t investing.\nYou’re definitely a trader: someone who has just bought an asset. And you may bea speculator: someone who thinks other people will pay more for it than you did.\nOf course,some folkswho buy meme stocks likeGameStopCorp.GME5.88%areinvestors. They read the companies’ financial statements, study the health of the underlying businesses and learn who else is betting on or against the shares. Likewise, many buyers of digital coins have put in the time and effort to understand how cryptocurrency works and how it could reshape finance.\nAn investor relies on internal sources of return: earnings, income, growth in the value of assets. A speculator counts on external sources of return: primarilywhether somebody else will pay more, regardless of fundamental value.\nThe word investor comes from the Latin “investire,” to dress in or clothe oneself, surround or envelop. You would never wear clothes without knowing what color they are or what material they’re made of. Likewise, you can’t invest in an asset you know nothing about.\nNevertheless, the Journal and its editors have long called almost everybody who buys just about anything an “investor.” On July 12, 1962, the Journal publisheda letter to the editorfrom Benjamin Graham, author of the classic books “Security Analysis” and “The Intelligent Investor.” That June, complained Graham, the Journal had run an article headlined “Many Small Investors Bet on Further Drops, Sell Odd Lots Short.”\nHe wrote: “By what definition of ‘investment’ can one give the name ‘investors’ to small people who make bets on the stock market by selling odd lots short?” (To short an odd lot is to borrow and sell fewer than 100 shares in a wager that a stock will fall—an expensive and risky bet, then and now.)\n“If these people are investors,” asked Graham, “how should one define ‘speculation’ and ‘speculators’? Isn’t it possible that the currentfailure to distinguishbetweeninvestment and speculationmay do grave harm not only to individuals but to the whole financial community—as it did in the late 1920s?”\nGraham wasn’t a snob who thought that the markets should be the exclusive playground of the rich. He wrote “The Intelligent Investor” with the express purpose of helping less-wealthy people participate wisely in the stock market.\nIn that book, after which this column is named, Graham said, “Outright speculation is neither illegal, immoral, nor (for most people) fattening to the pocketbook.”\nHowever, he warned, it creates three dangers: “(1) speculating when you think you are investing; (2) speculating seriously instead of as a pastime, when you lack proper knowledge and skill for it; and (3) risking more money in speculation than you can afford to lose.”\nMost investors speculate a bit every once in a while. Like a lottery ticket or an occasional visit to the racetrack or casino, a little is harmless fun. A lot isn’t.\nIf you think you’re investing when you’re speculating, you’ll attribute even momentary success to skill even thoughluck is the likeliest explanation. That can lead you to take reckless risks.\nTake speculating too seriously, and it turns intoan obsessionandan addiction. You become incapable of accepting your losses or focusing on the future more than a few minutes ahead. Next thing you know, you’re throwing even more money onto the bonfire.\nI think calling traders and speculators “investors” shoves many newcomers farther down the slippery slope toward risks they shouldn’t take and losses they can’t afford. I fervently hope the Journal and its editors will finally stop using “investor” as the default term for anyone who makes a trade.\n“ ‘Investor’ has a long history in the English language as a catch-all term denoting people who commit capital with the expectation of a return, no matter how long or short, no matter how many or how few investing columns they read,” WSJ Financial Editor Charles Forelle said in response to my complaints. “Back at least to the mid-19th century, ‘invest’ has even been used to describe a wager on horses—an activity surely no less divorced from fundamental analysis than a purchase of dogecoin.”\nI hear you, Boss, but I still think you’re wrong. There’s no way the Journal would say a recreational gambler is “investing” at the racetrack just because a dictionary says we can.\nCalling novice speculators “investors” is one of the most powerful ways marketers fuel excessive trading.\nIna recent Instagram post, a former porn star who goes by the name Lana Rhoades posed in—well, mostly in—a bikini, as she held up what appears to be Graham’s “The Intelligent Investor.” According to IMDb.com, she starred in such videos as “Tushy” and “Make Me Meow.”\nIn her post, which was “liked” by nearly 1.8 million people, Ms. Rhoades announced that she will be promoting a cryptocurrency calledPAWGcoin.\nThe currency’s website says the coin is meant for “those who pay homage to developed posteriors.” (PAWG, I’ve been reliably informed, stands for Phat Ass White Girl.)\nPAWGcoin is up roughly 900% since Ms. Rhoades began promoting it in early June, according to Poocoin.io, a website that tracks such digital currencies.\nMs. Rhoades, who has tweeted “I also read the WSJ every morning,” couldn’t be reached for comment. PAWGcoin’s website encourages visitors to “invest now.”\nIn Ms. Rhoades’s Instagram post, she is holding up an open copy of the “The Intelligent Investor,” whose cover is reversed. She appears to be reading it with her eyes closed.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{".IXIC":0.9,".SPX":0.9,".DJI":0.9,"SPY":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":379,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0}],"lives":[]}