Or are you going to manage each individual asset class actively, trying to beat the market and generate risk-adjusted excess returns?

还是积极管理每项资产,力求获得市场水平以上的回报率,以及风险调整后的超额收益

耶鲁公开课 - 金融市场课程节选

Now,I think it's logical that if you're going to try and beat the markets, you'd want to beat the markets where the opportunity was greatest.

理论上说,如果你想获得优于市场水平的收益,在时机恰当时,你就能做到战胜市场

耶鲁公开课 - 金融市场课程节选

You have to limit your exposure to risky asset classes to a level that allows you to sustain those positions even in the face of terribly adverse market conditions.

你必须把手中持有的风险资产,限制在一个合适的比例水平,并且即使到了最差的市场环境下,你依旧能够承受这些风险资产

耶鲁公开课 - 金融市场课程节选

Firms that do that are, in practice, however, the minority and most mutual funds have some gimmick or some special-- they claim to be beating the market not forming the optimal portfolio.

然而实际上,这么做的公司很少,大部分共同基金都会耍些花招,或有一些特别的...,他们强调他们的收益率将强于市场平均水平,而非建立最佳投资组合

耶鲁公开课 - 金融市场课程节选

Now, that's not a huge number but, obviously, when you're hoping to beat the market by a point or two losing by 0.3% per year because of your market timing inability is a bad thing.

看起来这不是个巨大的数字,明显地,当你希望获得,高于市场水平一到两个百分点的回报率,却由于抓不住市场时机而每年亏个0.3%,就很糟糕了

耶鲁公开课 - 金融市场课程节选

Maybe on average institutions lose thirty basis points, but it's kind of Lake Wobegon, where we all believe that we're better than average, so we're going to overcome that thirty basis points -that's not such a big hurdle.

可能平均每个机构都会落后30个基点,这就有点像沃比冈湖效应,大家都觉得自己能高过市场平均水平,30个基点会赶上的,不算什么大的差距

耶鲁公开课 - 金融市场课程节选

If there were no credit markets, everyone would have to be on the production possibility frontier; there would be no other choice.

如果没有信贷市场,每个人的收入水平都会落在PPF曲线上,别无选择

耶鲁公开课 - 金融市场课程节选

But if we have credit markets, then people can individually choose to be off the production possibility frontier and at a higher level of consumption than otherwise would.

但如果存在信贷市场,那么个人可以选择超越,PPF曲线的范围,达到比没有信贷市场时更高的消费水平

耶鲁公开课 - 金融市场课程节选

In that case, alpha is a measure of how much Shiller,Inc. outperforms.

这样的话,alpha就用以衡量,希勒公司.表现超过市场平均水平多少

耶鲁公开课 - 金融市场课程节选