【英语国际】政治僵局可能将打压美国股市

For weeks, Wall Street has anticipated two events: Tuesday's election and Wednesday's expected Federal Reserve announcement that it will support financial markets by buying bonds.

Now the much-awaited moment is upon us. But instead of being overjoyed, Wall Street is worried it overdid things.

Some investors are beginning to fear that once this week is over, they will be left with a sluggish economy, a mediocre level of Fed intervention and an angry, divided Washington.

They worry that the Fed's efforts may not revive the economy and that Washington gridlock would prevent Congress from acting if needed to support the economy.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 12% in the two months through Oct. 26, but since then it is down 50.97 points to 11118.49 at Friday's close.

Wall Street's short-term reaction to the week's news will depend on what actually happens this week, of course. If Republicans win big on Tuesday and gain control of the Senate, hopes will spread that the Bush tax cuts will be extended for another year or two, not just for ordinary people but also for the rich. Wall Street likes rich people to have money, and it particularly likes dividend and capital-gains taxes to stay low for them. A big Republican victory could boost stocks, at least temporarily.

On the Fed front, fears have spread following a Wall Street Journal report that the U.S. central bank won't be as free-spending in its bond buying as Wall Street had hoped. If the Fed surprises the worriers with a huge program -- say, more than $500 billion -- then Wall Street could be cheered. Otherwise, it may not applaud much for what it likes to call QE2, by which it means a second installment of 'quantitative easing,' or central-bank efforts to pump money into the economy.

But longer term, some investors are starting to question two widely held tenets of election-related investing: that Washington gridlock is good for stocks, and that stocks inevitably rise in the third year of a presidential term, which is next year.

The one thing that seems almost certain about the coming election is gridlock.

Polls suggest Republicans will easily win control of the House of Representatives. Even if Republicans don't win a Senate majority, they will have far more than the 41 votes they need to sustain a filibuster and prevent passage of legislation they don't like. While the White House and Republicans may be able to agree on some tax cuts, common ground between the two looks narrow, especially if the tea-party movement is as successful as many expect.

'The idea that gridlock in Congress is good for the economy is not obvious to us,' Jan Loeys, J.P. Morgan Chase's global head of asset allocation, said in a note Friday. 'Gridlock surely promotes the status quo, but that is not great in a time when action is needed.'

In times of economic prosperity, Wall Street believes, limited government is good for stocks because Washington stays out of the market's way. But in times of economic trouble, such as we face now, investors aren't sure gridlock is good.

The main question is what a gridlocked Washington would do if faced with a new recession or financial crisis. But other issues abound: the future of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which control a huge proportion of the nation's mortgages; Medicare and Social Security costs; trade disputes and other issues involving China; the moribund housing market; and unemployment.

Some fear Washington gridlock could threaten the seemingly immutable strength of stocks in the third presidential year. The Dow hasn't declined in a president's third calendar year in office in 70 years.

Academic research suggests third presidential years are strong because Washington begins opening the purse strings in that year, in anticipation of the coming presidential election, said Alec Phillips, a Washington-based economist for Goldman Sachs.

This may not happen next year. The government already opened the purse strings wide in 2008 and 2009, and the stimulus is beginning to wane. With Republicans pulled further to the right by anti-spending tea-party activists, few expect another round of government spending next year. 'Significant fiscal-policy intervention from here seems, I think most people would agree, pretty unlikely,' Mr. Phillips said.

几周来华尔街一直在期盼着两件事：周二的中期选举和周三美联储（FED）的声明，预计联储将通过买入债券来支持金融市场。

眼下万众期待的时候就要到了。但华尔街不是欣喜若狂，眼下华尔街担心期望值过高了。

一些投资者开始担心，一旦本周结束，经济仍是迟滞不前，美联储干预水平一般，华盛顿政界人士则是意见分歧、气愤不已。

投资者担心美联储的努力可能拯救不了经济，如果需要支持经济的时候，华盛顿的僵局可能会阻碍国会采取行动。

在截至10月26日的两个月里，道琼斯工业平均指数累计涨12%，但自那以来下跌50.97点，上周五收报11,118.49点。

华尔街对本周新闻的短期反应当然要看本周真正发生的事情，如果共和党周二大胜，并控制参议院，人们对小布什时期的减税政策再延长一两年的预期将蔓延，小布什时期的减税政策既适用于普通人也适用于富人。华尔街希望富人有钱，尤其希望富人支付较低的股息税和资本收益税。如果共和党大胜，将提振股市，至少暂时是如此。

《华尔街日报》报导说，美联储在买入债券方面不会像华尔街此前预计的那样出手阔绰，此后忧虑不断蔓延。如果美联储意外大举买入债券，比如说超过5,000亿美元，那么华尔街可能会欣喜若狂，否则华尔街可能将不会为其称为第二次定量宽松的举动（即央行将大量资金注入经济）而拍手叫好。

较长期来说，一些投资者开始质疑两个广泛持有的与大选相关的投资原则：华盛顿僵局将有利于股市；在总统任期的第三年股市将不可避免地上涨，目前处于奥巴马总统任期的第二年。

即将到来的中期选举中几乎可以肯定的一件事是政治僵局。

调查显示，共和党人将轻易控制众议院。即使共和党人不能在参议院赢得多数选票，他们也将会获得远超过阻止他们不喜欢的立法所需的41张选票。尽管白宫和共和党人可能会就一些减税问题达成一致，但两者的共同点似乎较小，尤其是假如“茶党运动”（Tea-party movement）像许多人预计的那样胜利的话。

摩根大通资产配置全球主管洛伊斯（Jan Loeys）周五在研究报告中说，我们并不认同国会出现僵局有利于经济的看法，僵局肯定会促进维持现状，但在需要行动的时候，就不太好了。

华尔街认为，在经济繁荣的时候，有限的政府干预有利于股市，因为政府置身于市场之外。但在经济出现困难的时候，比如我们现在面临的情况，投资者就不确定僵局是否有利。

主要问题在于，在面临新的经济衰退或金融危机时，处于僵局中的美国政府将做什么。其他问题也是层出不穷：管理着美国大量抵押贷款的房利美（Fannie Mae）和房贷美（Freddie Mac）的前途；联邦医疗保险（Medicare）和社会安全（Social Security）制度的成本；涉及中国的贸易纠纷和其他事务；濒临崩溃的楼市以及庞大的失业人口数量。

一些人担心华盛顿僵局可能将威胁总统任期第三年股市似乎永恒不变的强势。道琼斯工业平均指数在70年里从没在总统任期第三年下跌。

高盛驻华盛顿经济学家菲利浦斯（Alec Phillips）说，学术研究显示，总统任期的第三年股市走势强劲，那一年政府预期着即将到来的总统选举，因此开始增加支出。

但明年可能不会发生这样的事。政府在2008和2009年已大量支出，而刺激效应已开始消退。受反对支出的茶党活动家影响，共和党已更加偏右，几乎没人预计明年政府将再次扩大支出。菲利浦斯说，我认为多数人会赞同，从现在起非常不可能进行明显的财政政策干预。