对于密切关注人工智能驱动的美股涨势是否已进入泡沫区间的投资者而言，高盛给出了一个明确答案： 现在还不是泡沫，至少不是1999-2000年那种级 别的"宏观泡沫"。 11月9日，高盛发布报告称，当前市场的宏观基本面更像是泡沫中期的1997年或1998年，而非泡沫顶峰的1999年。 当年导致泡沫最终破裂的广泛投资 过热、企业盈利恶化、杠杆率急升等关键失衡现象尚未出现。 这意味着，尽管估值高企，但AI驱动的牛市可能还有下半场。过早离场可能会错失可观的后续收益。然而，风险正在积聚，投资者应开始布局对冲策 略。与1999年不同， 当前市场的信贷利差和波动率仍处于低位，这为投资者使用期权等工具进行风险管理提供了更具性价比的窗口。 高盛最新报告认为，当前AI驱动的美股并非1999年级别的"宏观泡沫"，因关键宏观失衡迹象尚未出现，如大规模投资过热、企业盈利恶化及杠杆率急 升。其分析指出，当前市场环境更类似泡沫早期的1997年，企业盈利稳健且杠杆可控，但报告也警示投资加速与财务状况变化正预示着潜在拐点临近。 "宏观泡沫"的五大关键指标 高盛首先明确了一个观点：单纯高企的估值并不等同于"宏观泡沫"。真正的宏观泡沫，如1990年代 ...

Core Viewpoint - Goldman Sachs indicates that the current AI-driven stock market surge is not in a bubble phase comparable to the macro bubble of 1999-2000, suggesting that the market resembles the mid-bubble years of 1997 or 1998 instead [1][10]. Group 1: Current Market Analysis - Despite high valuations, the AI-driven bull market may still have room to grow, and exiting too early could result in missed gains [2][20]. - Current credit spreads and volatility remain low, providing a cost-effective opportunity for investors to manage risks using options [3][18]. - The macroeconomic indicators do not show signs of imbalance similar to those seen in the late 1990s, indicating a healthier financial environment [10][12]. Group 2: Historical Comparison - The report outlines five key indicators of macro bubbles from the late 1990s, including a massive investment boom, peak profitability, rising leverage, external crises driving capital inflows, and warning signals from credit and volatility markets [7][9]. - Current AI investment levels, while increasing, are still below the peak levels seen in the telecom investment boom of 2000, suggesting a more moderate investment climate [11]. - Corporate profitability remains stable, with no signs of deterioration, contrasting with the late 1990s scenario where profit margins peaked [11][12]. Group 3: Potential Signals and Risks - The report identifies potential "1998-style" turning points, such as accelerating investment plans from AI giants and private companies, which could indicate a shift in the market [14][15]. - There is a rising trend in debt financing for data center investments, which could signal increasing financial pressure on companies [16]. - External factors, including foreign government investment commitments, could play a role similar to the capital inflows seen in the late 1990s [16]. Group 4: Investment Strategies - Investors are advised to balance participation in the ongoing AI bull market with risk management strategies, as the current environment resembles 1997 rather than 1999 [17][20]. - Utilizing options for "offensive and defensive" strategies is recommended, as the low volatility environment allows for cost-effective risk management [18]. - Preparing for potential credit spread widening and long-term equity volatility increases is prudent, as historical trends suggest these could occur even in a bull market [19].

对于密切关注人工智能驱动的美股涨势是否已进入泡沫区间的投资者而言，高盛给出了一个明确答案： 现在还不是泡沫，至少不是1999-2000年那种级别的"宏观泡沫"。 据追风交易台，11月9日，高盛发布报告称，当前市场的宏观基本面更像是泡沫中期的1997年或1998 年，而非泡沫顶峰的1999年。 当年导致泡沫最终破裂的广泛投资过热、企业盈利恶化、杠杆率急升等 关键失衡现象尚未出现。 这意味着，尽管估值高企，但AI驱动的牛市可能还有下半场。过早离场可能会错失可观的后续收益。 然而，风险正在积聚，投资者应开始布局对冲策略。与1999年不同，当前市场的信贷利差和波动率仍处 于低位，这为投资者使用期权等工具进行风险管理提供了更具性价比的窗口。 "宏观泡沫"的五大关键指标 高盛首先明确了一个观点：单纯高企的估值并不等同于"宏观泡沫"。真正的宏观泡沫，如1990年代末的 互联网泡沫，不仅涉及资产价格的严重高估，还伴随着对实体经济产生巨大影响的宏观失衡。报告系统 性地复盘了90年代的五大关键宏观与市场特征： 大规模投资热潮： 到2000年初，科技设备和软件投资占GDP的比重从1995年初的略高于3% 飙升至创纪录的4.5%。非 ...