????債券大佬比爾?格羅斯最近又掀起了軒然大波。他宣稱“股市神話正在破滅”，還把股票的歷史回報比做龐氏騙局。他的論點是，過去一個世紀內GDP的真實增速不過3.5%，因此股票投資者實際獲得的6.6%的回報“泡沫很多”。在他看來，股票市場的長期回報不可能超過真實GDP的增長。但是，股市總回報除了來自資本增值之外，還包括股息在內的公司現金流分配的貢獻。而后者恰恰就是股市回報得以超越GDP增長的原因。

????買股票實際上和買債券很相似，只是現金流更多變、更不確定。股東所能得到的凈利潤就相當于債券的息票，不過不像息票那樣固定，而是可能隨時間劇烈震蕩。公司可能以派息的形式直接返還凈利潤，也可以還債，回購股票，或者對業務再投資。在后兩種情況中，股東要么增加他們所擁有的未來現金流的份額（由于所有權比例的增加），要么擁有一家持續增值的成長型公司。

????現金流在產生股東回報中的重要性怎么評價也不為過。舉個例子，如果投資者以15倍的市盈率購買股票，那她就相當于購買了收益率為6.7%的債券，當然收益可能會大幅震蕩?，F在假設國家經濟穩定，而真實GDP并未增長。這樣一來，公司很可能不會增加運營資本，而資本支出也不會超過折舊。那么凈利潤基本上就等價于自由現金流（FCF）。假定100%的派息比率，投資者每年就可望得到6.7%的回報，就像很多業主有限責任合伙企業（Master Limited Partnerships）的安排一樣。當前經濟增長停滯，由于好壞公司互相抵消，真實的整體公司估值應該保持恒定。因而，除非真實的整體公司估值隨時間出現了明顯下跌（如下討論），否則投資者的回報就會顯著超過GDP的增速。

????股票對于債券的優勢就在于它對通脹的耐受性，如果通脹上升，就真實購買力而言，凈利潤也能保持相對恒定（假定公司能夠通過價格上漲來轉嫁輸入成本的上升）。此外，如果真實GDP增長，公司還可以利用自由現金流進行再投資，擴大業務規模。這樣的做法雖然在短期內會減少股東可以獲得的現金流，但從理論上說，長期看，他們擁有的公司會變得更有價值。

????通過對過去一個世紀股市回報的分析，我們預期投資者本應得到約10%的年均回報（1912年的股市市盈率也是接近15倍，和今天相似，相當于6.7%的凈收益率，加上3.5%的真實GDP年均增長率作為公司價值增值的估計）。實際回報較低的原因有二個。首先，股市在任一時間點上都只能代表上市公司，而市場指數（如標普500）通常只包括大盤股。然而隨著時間推移，某些大盤股的市場份額會被新興的私人公司或者小型的上市公司搶占（也就是說，新公司和新產業總是在取代老公司）。由于投資者（以市場指數為代表）擁有這些“過氣”的大盤股，而不是“搶班奪權”的私人公司或者小型的上市公司，那么實際的回報低于理論值也就情有可原了。其次，大部分公司的自由現金流還是用于公司發展，而不是派息，有些資本支出很可能被用錯了地方，特別是在走下坡路的公司中。換句話說，管理團隊對公司現金流的使用并非盡善盡美。

????由于全球經濟增長放緩，以及其它一些很有說服力的原因，未來的股市回報可能會低于歷史水平，就此而言，格羅斯也許是對的。此外，市場市盈率可能會降低，管理團隊對超額現金流的投資可能出現失誤，而上市公司中的“輸家”數量也可能顯著增加。但是，只要你計算回報時記得把現金流包含在內，所有這些現象和股市整體回報超出GDP增速的結論并不矛盾。

????杰夫?維斯蒙特曾是投資銀行家，他創建了一家專注于消費品公司的對沖基金Westwoods Capital。他最近首次出版的新書《圣戰倒計時》（Countdown to Jihad）是一本政治題材的驚悚小說。

????Bond guru Bill Gross recently created a controversy when he proclaimed "the cult of equity is dying" and compared historical stock returns to a Ponzi scheme. His position is that since GDP for the last century grew at a 3.5% real rate, stockholders were effectively "skimming off the top" to achieve their actual 6.6% return. In his view, shareholder returns can't exceed real GDP growth over time. Yet total stock market returns include both capital appreciation and the impact of the deployment of corporate cash flows, including dividends. It is this latter component that enables investors to achieve returns in excess of GDP growth.

????In effect, buying a share of stock is similar to buying a bond, but with more variable and uncertain cash flows. Net income available to stockholders is comparable to an interest payment, although one that can vary significantly over time. Corporations can either pay out this net income in dividends, reduce debt, repurchase stock or reinvest it in the business. In the latter two scenarios, shareholders either increase their share of future cash flows (due to an increase in ownership percentage) or own a growing and increasingly valuable corporation.

????The importance of these cash flows in generating investor returns cannot be overstated. For instance, if an investor pays 15 times earnings for the market, she is effectively buying a bond with a 6.7% yield, albeit a highly variable one. Now assume a steady state economy where real GDP does not grow. In this scenario, corporations are probably not increasing their working capital or making capital expenditures in excess of depreciation. Thus, net income is a decent proxy for free cash flow (FCF). Investors should expect to receive 6.7% annually -- assuming a 100% payout ratio -- similar to how many master limited partnerships are structured. In this no-growth economy, aggregate real corporate valuations should remain constant, as corporate winners and losers offset each other. As a result, unless the aggregate real value of public corporations decreases materially over time (as discussed below), investor returns will significantly exceed GDP growth.

????The advantage stocks have over bonds is that if inflation rises, this net income payment stream should remain relatively constant in real terms (assuming corporations can match the rise in input costs with price increases). Moreover, if real GDP grows, companies can reinvest their FCF in expanding the business. While this in the short run will decrease cash flows available to investors, theoretically, over time, they will own a more valuable business.

????In examining investor returns for the past century, one might have expected that investors would have earned closer to 10% annually (the market multiple in 1912 was about 15x, similar to today, implying a 6.7% earnings yield and adding the real 3.5% GDP annual growth as a proxy for the appreciation in corporate values). Yet actual returns were lower, which may be due to two reasons. First, the stock market at any one point in time represents only public companies and market indices (such as the S&P 500) generally include only large capitalization companies. Yet over time, some larger public companies lose market share to emerging private or smaller public companies (e.g. new companies and industries constantly emerge to replace established ones). Since investors (as represented by the indices) own these large public company "losers" and not the private or smaller public company "winners," it is not surprising that actual returns are lower than theoretically possible. Second, since the majority of corporate free cash flow is used for expansion and not to pay dividends, some of these capital expenditures are probably misallocated, particularly by companies in decline. In other words, management teams don't always make the best use of corporate cash flow.

????Gross may be right that future stock market returns will be lower than historical due to slower growth worldwide and his other compelling arguments. In addition, market multiples may contract, management teams may invest excess cash flow poorly or the number of public company "losers" could increase significantly. But there is nothing inconsistent with having total stock market returns greater than GDP growth, as long as cash flows are included in the calculation.

????Jeff Westmont, a former investment banker, is the founder of Westwoods Capital, a consumer oriented hedge fund. He recently published his first book, Countdown to Jihad, a political thriller.