盖伊•斯滕是Standard Life Investments公司多元化投资业务的负责人，当我问他是如何排除价格波动和其他众多投资对150亿美元的全球稳固回报策略基金（Global Absolute Return Strategies fund）的影响这一问题时，他的答案令人感到有点费解。

    “要记住，投资领域最不稳定的因素便是波动本身，”他说，“以股市为例。在过去的5年当中，其波动率一会是50，一会又是15。所以你得明白这些数值是不稳定的”。

    然而，斯滕（及其团队，共25名人员）的经营能力却相当稳定。全球稳固回报策略基金的目标就是回报率要比现金回报率多5%，而风险只有当前股市投资组合风险的一半。在过去的5年当中，该基金的回报率为7.4%，对比2.2%的现金回报率，几乎刚好高出5%。具体来说，这只基金的投资组合同时使用多达30种不同的策略，目的就是在全球经济动荡时期更好地保护投资者的利益，

    《财富》杂志（Fortune）好不容易采访到了斯滕，请他谈了谈对欧元、美元问题的看法以及他钟情于瑞典的原因。

    以股市一半的风险来套取同样回报的目标对于我来说如同乌托邦那样可望而不可及。你们是如何实施这一策略的？

    风险和回报是成正比的，想获得更高的回报，一般来说就得冒更大的风险。尽管如此，他们之间并不是线性关系。也就是说，要拿到如同投资股市那样的高回报，不一定就得承担相应的高风险。

    如何做到这一点？寻求那些不依赖于股市和全球经济增长就能获取收益的投资载体。多元化的增长型基金投资选择面很广，除了股票，其他的还包括投资级债券、私募股权、房产、甚至是新兴市场主权债务。但这些都是成长型资产。如果经济增长为零或趋于停滞，收益也就成为了泡影，投资也就毫无关联性可言。

    我们有四大种类的投资。第一种是市场常见的收益类型，带有风险溢价性质。第二种是证券选择，这一种与增长无关，完全依赖于出色的调研。第三种，方向性策略，意指那些没有隐性风险溢价的资产种类。第四种是相对价值。例如，几个季度以来，我们认为在投资组合当中，大盘股的表现要好于小盘股，这与市场方向无关。它们往往更便宜，财力更雄厚，资产负债表也更为稳健。但是我们不承担股票风险，我们在抛售小盘股的同时购进同样数量的大盘股。比起德国，我们更偏爱瑞士的股市。

    When I asked Guy Stern, head of multi-asset investments at Standard Life Investments, how he managed to stay on top of price fluctuations and correlations of the many investments in the $15 billion Global Absolute Return Strategies fund, he answered with a bit of a mindbender.

    "It's important to remember that one of the least stable things in the investment world is volatility itself," he said "Take the equity market. Over the past five years, its volatility was 50 at one point and 15 at another. So you need to start with an understanding that those values are not stable."

    What has been pretty stable, though, is Stern's ability (along with a team of 25) to deliver on the GARS fund's aim of delivering a return of 5% more than you'd get in cash, with half the risk of an active equity portfolio. Over the past five years, the GARS has delivered 7.4% returns, almost exactly 5% more than the cash return of 2.2%. More specifically, the purpose of the portfolio is to protect investors from global economic turmoil by deploying up to 30 different strategies simultaneously.

    Fortune tracked him down to talk about the euro, the dollar, and why he loves Sweden so much.

    Your stated goal of equity-like returns with half the risk strikes me as a Utopian dream. How do you go about putting that strategy in place?

    The step you have to take is that while risk and return are positively correlated—if you want higher returns, you generally need to take on more risk—they are not linear. You don't have to accept the kind of risk you would get from global equities to get the same return.

    How do we create that? By seeking out ways to generate returns that are not merely based on equities rising or global economic growth. Your typical diversified growth fund has an array of options, from equities to investment grade bonds, private equity, property, even emerging market sovereign debt. But those are all growth assets. If there's no economic growth—if its flat—you don't get returns and correlations go to one.

    We have four categories of investments. The first is market type returns with a risk premium. The second is security selection, which isn't dependent on growth but good research. Third, direction strategies—by which I mean asset classes with no embedded risk premium, like currencies. And fourth, relative value. I'll give you an example of the last one. For several quarters, we have had the view in the portfolio that large cap stocks will outperform small cap, regardless of the direction of the market. They're cheaper, better financed, and they have better balance sheets. But we're not taking equity risk—we're buying the same amount of large cap as we are shorting small cap. We also like the Swiss over the German equity market.

    你认为美元对欧元的走势会怎样？

    很难说未来三个月美元对欧元会是什么样的结果。但是我有一种强烈的预感，美元在未来3年内对欧元将会升值。原因很多，包括欧元的结构性问题。我们成天听到的这些与欧元有关的问题将使得投资者对欧元的热情大减。此外，随着此轮危机的结束，欧元区的经济增长将减缓。最终，人们会发现欧元价值被严重高估。

    对于黄金，你是做多还是做空？

    我们不投资黄金。虽然这并不是公司的规定，但是我们认为黄金的避险作用有被夸大的嫌疑。我们并不认为世界经济目前正处于非常脆弱的时期，因此资本避风港也并不是唯一能赚钱的地方。我们认为有比黄金更好的投资载体。

    在投资组合中你们同时采取了25-30种投资策略。还请举例介绍一下目前比较有意思的一种策略。

    名义上来说，我们最大的仓位是瑞典两年期利率产品。但这是我们所承担的最大 “风险”吗？不是。我们在俄罗斯股市的仓位也很大，接近基金的3%。而我们在瑞典两年期利率产品中的投资达到了基金的30%。问题在于，两者中仓位相对更大的是哪个？说实话，答案很有可能是俄罗斯股市，因为与之相关的波动性和风险更大。

    但是30%的基金都用于投资瑞典两年期利率？无论如何，这是一个很大的仓位。为什么会选择瑞典？

    原因真的很简单。美国两年期利率仅仅为0.2%。而瑞典为2.5%。澳大利亚超过了4%。美国太低，澳洲太高。而在中间水平，瑞典两年期的风险较低。即便风险资产上涨，我们仍能赚到2.5%。但如果风险资产跳水，我们将赚得盆满钵盈。

    早些时候你提到过一些事情，非常有意思。你说过你们不做套期保值。但是对于动荡的市场来说，你们的基金不就是为了保值吗？可以解释一下这种矛盾吗？

    我们制定的每一项策略都是为了获得积极的回报。我们不会为了购买所谓的“尾部”对冲风险工具而导致投资组合的净收益为零。我们认为每项策略都应获得回报。我们不会去做套期保值。而且我们在组建投资组合的时候会考虑多方面的因素。当然我们确实也会重点考虑经济增长、通胀以及就业，但是组建投资组合时我们会综合考虑。因为如果我们只考虑一个方面而又判断失误，投资组合的业绩会令人失望。如果经济出现急剧下滑，我们在股市就会赔钱，但是我们将在瑞典利率产品中获得超乎寻常的收益。

    你认为接下来会发生哪些出乎人们意料之外的事情。

    很抱歉，我实在无法预料接下来将发生的事情。你可以购买全球稳固策略基金，因为我们做的很好。正是因为世事难料，我们才需要组建投资组合。

    Dollar versus euro. Where do you come out?

    I have no idea where the dollar will be versus the euro over the next three months. But I do have a strong view that the dollar will appreciate over against the euro in over the next three years. There are a number of reasons, including structural problems in the euro—all of those problems we are hearing about all day every day in the euro theater will eventually make investors skittish about holding euros. Also, Euroland will grow slower as we start to move through the cycle. And finally, it's just grossly overvalued.

    Are you long or short gold?

    We don't invest in gold. There's no rule that says we can't, but we feel that gold has become little more than a safe haven. We don't have a view that says world is extraordinarily vulnerable right now and that the only place to make money is in a safe haven. We think there are better things to invest in than gold.

    You have 25 to 30 strategies in the portfolio at any one time. Give me an interesting one that you have on right now.

    Well, in nominal terms, our biggest position is exposure to Swedish two-year interest rates. But is it our biggest "risk?" No. We have a substantial position in Russian equities, about 3% of the fund. And we have almost 30% in Swedish two-year rates. The question is which one is a bigger position? Quite frankly, it's very possible that it's the Russian equities. There's more volatility and more risk associated with the position.

    But 30% in Swedish two-year rates? That's still a big position, no matter how you color it. Why Sweden?

    For a really simple reason. Sweden. U.S. two-year rates are just 0.2%. In Sweden, they're 2.5%. And in Australia, over 4%. Either the U.S. is far too low, or Australia is far too high. In the middle, though, Sweden has a low risk parameter attached to it. If risky assets rally, I'm still going to earn my 2.5%. But if they take a dive, we will make a lot of money.

    You said something interesting earlier, which was that you don't hedge. But isn't the whole point of your fund to be a hedge against market turmoil? Can you explain the contradiction?

    We design every strategy to have a positive payoff structure. We don't want to net out to zero by buying so-called "tail" hedges. We think every strategy should be rewarding. We don't hedge things away. And we're also not building the portfolio on a single point of view. We do have a central view of economic growth, inflation, and employment, but we're not building for a single scenario. If we didn't get it, the portfolio would disappoint. We own some equities in the portfolio. If there's a sharp downturn in the economy, we will lose on equities, but we will have a supra-normal return in Swedish rates.

    Tell me something people aren't expecting that you think is going to happen.

    I'm sorry to tell you, but I don't know what going to happen. You want to buy the GARS fund because that's what we do. We construct a portfolio for when we don't know what's next.