馬克?吐溫曾說過，歷史不會(huì)重演，但卻總是驚人的相似。最近，我們所看到的中國(guó)股市拋售與去年十分相似，但對(duì)于美國(guó)投資者來說，兩者之間存在一個(gè)重大區(qū)別，即美聯(lián)儲(chǔ)可能沒有像9月那樣糾結(jié)于市場(chǎng)的波動(dòng)。當(dāng)時(shí)，受地緣政治動(dòng)蕩和隨之而來的波動(dòng)的影響，美聯(lián)儲(chǔ)推遲了加息舉措。

在美聯(lián)儲(chǔ)看來，中國(guó)增速的放緩不會(huì)給美國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)前景帶來重大風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，因?yàn)槊缆?lián)儲(chǔ)已在前景展望中考慮了這一因素?？死蛱m聯(lián)邦儲(chǔ)備銀行行長(zhǎng)洛瑞塔?梅斯特在最新的演講中明確了這一表態(tài)。同一天，舊金山聯(lián)邦儲(chǔ)備銀行行長(zhǎng)約翰?威廉姆斯也表示，股市拋售不會(huì)影響美聯(lián)儲(chǔ)的決策。

今后，中國(guó)股市還會(huì)經(jīng)歷更多的苦日子。盡管人們應(yīng)謹(jǐn)慎對(duì)待此事，但它不應(yīng)被解讀為恐慌的理由。美國(guó)投資者大多認(rèn)為，2016年，有很多問題都有可能為股市帶來更大的波動(dòng)，而中國(guó)是其中之一，其他因素包括英國(guó)可能于6月脫離歐盟以及中東、亞洲的緊張局勢(shì)。美國(guó)投資者有必要學(xué)會(huì)適應(yīng)中國(guó)波動(dòng)頻繁的股市。要做到這一點(diǎn)，美國(guó)投資者應(yīng)進(jìn)一步了解當(dāng)今市場(chǎng)背后的驅(qū)動(dòng)因素。

首先，一旦少數(shù)負(fù)面經(jīng)濟(jì)數(shù)據(jù)論點(diǎn)浮出水面，人們對(duì)中國(guó)增速放緩的擔(dān)憂便不絕于耳，原因在于中國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)缺乏透明度。在經(jīng)濟(jì)上揚(yáng)時(shí)期，投資者似乎并不怎么在意經(jīng)濟(jì)的透明度，但是當(dāng)經(jīng)濟(jì)開始放緩時(shí)，透明度便成了備受關(guān)注的話題。

最近拋售的導(dǎo)火索之一是備受關(guān)注的財(cái)新中國(guó)采購(gòu)經(jīng)理人指數(shù)比預(yù)期更糟糕。在某種程度上，市場(chǎng)一片恐慌的原因在于投資者看不清中國(guó)的形勢(shì)，而且會(huì)做出最壞的打算。

另一個(gè)例子是原油價(jià)格，它已連續(xù)下跌了一年有余。通常，投資者認(rèn)為油價(jià)下跌對(duì)于經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)來說是一個(gè)好消息，因?yàn)榈陀蛢r(jià)意味著消費(fèi)者用于購(gòu)買其他商品的花費(fèi)將增加。然而，投資者并不知道此輪油價(jià)下跌的幕后推手到底是供應(yīng)還是需求。如果投資者認(rèn)為油價(jià)下跌源于需求的不足，那么人們就會(huì)將其看作是中國(guó)需求疲軟的跡象。只要外界對(duì)于中國(guó)增速放緩仍心存恐慌，預(yù)計(jì)油價(jià)將繼續(xù)面臨下行壓力，而這一現(xiàn)象最近也為美國(guó)股市帶來了下行壓力。

當(dāng)市場(chǎng)出現(xiàn)扭曲時(shí)，中國(guó)通常都會(huì)采取干預(yù)措施，而這也是導(dǎo)致市場(chǎng)波動(dòng)的元兇之一。中國(guó)官方最近下調(diào)了人民幣的匯率，而上一次下調(diào)是在2015年8月，這兩次下調(diào)均引發(fā)了股市的小幅震蕩。此外，本周是很多中國(guó)投資者在半年禁售期滿后首次出售股票，而“禁售令”則是去年中國(guó)股市拋售潮的產(chǎn)物。

一些人認(rèn)為，熔斷機(jī)制的引入加劇了拋售。采用熔斷機(jī)制后，股票價(jià)格波幅在超出某一范圍后將無法自然恢復(fù)。這一舉措給投資者帶來了一定程度的流動(dòng)性危機(jī)，而這必然會(huì)加劇波動(dòng)性。當(dāng)然，中國(guó)也叫停了熔斷機(jī)制，為的是讓股市能在將來有所好轉(zhuǎn)。

這其中還存在一些更為宏觀的因素。中國(guó)正從投資型經(jīng)濟(jì)向消費(fèi)型經(jīng)濟(jì)轉(zhuǎn)變，而這也會(huì)讓股市經(jīng)歷不少挫折。相對(duì)于其他國(guó)家的投資者，美國(guó)投資者可能對(duì)意識(shí)形態(tài)問題更為敏感，因?yàn)槊绹?guó)投資者更看重自由市場(chǎng)。兩種意識(shí)形態(tài)之間的差異也可能會(huì)引發(fā)人們的恐慌。

尤為值得一提的是，人們普遍認(rèn)為，在社會(huì)主義社會(huì)中，國(guó)家利益是高于個(gè)人利益的。而這一觀念對(duì)于資本家來說是噩夢(mèng)，因?yàn)樗麄冋J(rèn)為個(gè)人自由比國(guó)家更為重要。資本主義社會(huì)是一個(gè)自律的經(jīng)濟(jì)體系，而社會(huì)主義社會(huì)是一個(gè)由政府主導(dǎo)的系統(tǒng)。推行以市場(chǎng)自由化和資本主義繁榮為目的的改革需要時(shí)間，而且也會(huì)讓股市再次遭遇劇烈震蕩。（財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)）

克里斯汀娜?霍珀是Allianz Global Investors美國(guó)投資策略師。

譯者：馮豐

校對(duì)：詹妮

Mark Twain is attributed with saying that history may not repeat itself, but it certainly does rhyme. What we are seeing recently in terms of the Chinese stock market sell-off is similar to what we saw last year, except the one big difference for US investors is that the Fed may not be as worried about the volatility – unlike what we saw in September, when geopolitical turmoil and resulting volatility helped postpone the Fed’s rate hike.

In a speech on Monday, Cleveland Fed President Loretta Mester was clear that a China slowdown is not viewed as a significant risk to the Fed’s economic outlook for the US, as it’s already been built into the outlook. And on the same day, San Francisco Fed President John Williams said that a stock market sell-off won’t impact the Fed’s decision making.

In the year ahead, China’s stock market is in for many more bad days. But while there is cause for caution, that shouldn’t translate into a cause for panic. The bigger takeaway for U.S. investors is that China is one of many issues that will likely create more volatility for equity investors in 2016, driven by factors such as Britain potentially leaving the Euro in June and heightened tensions in the Middle East and Asia. US investors will need to learn to become accustomed to China’s volatile market. What might help is a better understanding of what’s driving markets today.

First of all, when a few negative economic data points are released, fears of a slowdown in China become overblown because there is a lack of transparency when it comes to the Chinese economy. Investors don’t seem to mind opaqueness when economies are moving up – but they seem to matter greatly when economies are slowing.

One catalyst for this week’s sell-off was a worse-than-expected reading for the Caixin, a purchasing manager index that is a closely watched indicator of manufacturing activity. In a way, the fears were overblown as investors wonder what’s happening in China – and think the worst.

Another example is oil prices, which has fallen for more than a year. Usually investors take a drop in prices as good news for economic growth, as cheaper oil means consumers can spend more on other items. However, investors have wondered whether this oil price drop has been driven largely by supply or largely by demand. To the extent investors believe that the drop is demand-driven, the assumption is that it is a sign of weak China demand. As long as fears are overblown about a China slowdown, expect downward pressure on the price of oil, which recently has meant downward pressure on U.S. stocks.

China’s tendency to intervene when the market goes awry is also to blame for the market’s volatility. Authorities depreciated the yuan again this week, following a devaluation last August – which caused jitters then as well as now. What’s more, this week was the first time many Chinese investors were able to sell stocks following a long lockdown period, which was implemented following a sell-off last year in the Chinese stock market.

And some have argued that the sell-offs during the past week have been exacerbated by the implementation of circuit breakers, which don’t allow for a natural recovery in stock prices once they have become oversold. These actions have created something of a liquidity crisis for investors, which can of course also add to volatility. Having said that, China also announced this week that they are doing away with circuit breakers so the situation could improve going forward.

There are bigger issues at play as well. China is transitioning from an investment-based economy to a consumption-based economy – and that will bring with it many hiccups. US investors may be more sensitive to this issue than investors from other countries given strong views on free markets. This may cause apprehension, given the differences between the two ideologies.

In particular, Communism is widely viewed as an ideology where the state has priority over individuals. That is anathema to capitalists, for whom individual freedom is more important than the state. And while capitalism is a self-regulated economic system, Communism is a government-run system. Enacting reforms that enable markets to be free and capitalism to flourish will take time – and again will come with significant hiccups.

Kristina Hooper is US Investment Strategist for Allianz Global Investors.