????想象一下，如果投資變得就像開關(guān)電燈一樣簡單。感覺好就打開。感覺不好就關(guān)掉。就算你瘋了，每天都改主意，那也同樣簡單：要么開，要么關(guān)。好了，不用再瞎想了。近期整個市場似乎已然就是這種狀態(tài)， 忽而“風(fēng)險開”，忽而“風(fēng)險關(guān)”。覺得歐洲已實現(xiàn)自我拯救了嗎？風(fēng)險打開，寶貝！覺得這只是權(quán)宜之計？風(fēng)險關(guān)閉！

????這樣，復(fù)雜的投資決策就簡化成了在 “風(fēng)險性”資產(chǎn)（證券、石油等）和“低風(fēng)險”資產(chǎn)（美國國債、德國國債）之間的單項選擇，這就好像賭場里，一位衣冠楚楚的紳士每一局都在把全部籌碼在紅、黑兩邊移來移去。（以前黃金一直牢牢堅守在“低風(fēng)險”類陣營，但最近黃金的交易也不可靠了。我聽說，好像也有泡沫了。）請看《黃金為何光芒不再》（Why gold has lost its luster）。

????這種投資方式是不是太瘋狂了？不一定。正如吉姆?格蘭特在其最新一期《格蘭特利率觀察》（Grant's Interest Rate Observer）通訊中指出，標(biāo)普500、外匯、大宗商品和利率等所有形式的證券之間的關(guān)聯(lián)已處于歷史高位，換言之，它們的價格更加頻繁地同向而動。因此，設(shè)想所有投資一起上漲或一起下跌，也不是很牽強(qiáng)。即便在標(biāo)普500指數(shù)的成分股中，相互關(guān)聯(lián)度也高得離譜。雖然尚未出現(xiàn)在同一個交易日內(nèi)，標(biāo)普500指數(shù)所有成分股全部上漲或全部下跌的情況，但其中490只股票保持同一步調(diào)的交易日已經(jīng)多達(dá)11天。而且，這11個交易日中的6個都出現(xiàn)在今年7月份之后。

????當(dāng)然，除了最典型的“機(jī)構(gòu)”投資者，誰又有能力今天對所有各種有價證券都看多，明天又反其道而行之？你我肯定不成。（或者至少我不行。）瑞銀（UBS）瞄準(zhǔn)的恰恰就是這一點(diǎn)。上個月末，這家銀行推出了兩種新型的交易所交易票據(jù)（類似于交易所交易基金，但稍微復(fù)雜一些），名稱為“風(fēng)險打開”（Risk On ）和“風(fēng)險關(guān)閉”（Risk Off）。別再為選股或債券投資所煩惱了。所有都可以賣了，各位，只要坐在你個人的投資指示燈開關(guān)旁就可以了。就這么簡單。當(dāng)然，除非你在錯誤的時間選擇了錯誤的按鈕。那你可就要倒霉了。

????想法很簡單，但這些票據(jù)都不是投資單一證券。“風(fēng)險打開”看多所有的投資，從石油（34%權(quán)重），到半導(dǎo)體（1.84%）、互聯(lián)網(wǎng)（0.46%）、以及小麥和大豆（各4%）?！帮L(fēng)險關(guān)閉”相應(yīng)地看空這些投資，但看多10年期美國國債、日元、德國國債、瑞士法郎和英國國債。

????周二是風(fēng)險“打開”的一天。道瓊斯指數(shù)大漲2.87%，“風(fēng)險打開”躍升了4.07%，而“風(fēng)險關(guān)閉”跌4.01%。但總的來說，12月份仍屬于“風(fēng)險關(guān)閉”天下。在這兩種證券已交易的三周來，“風(fēng)險打開”下跌4.32%，“風(fēng)險關(guān)閉”漲3.66%。一旦認(rèn)準(zhǔn)了這事，就要考慮這一點(diǎn)：這兩種證券都是無擔(dān)保債務(wù)，以瑞銀為債務(wù)人；無論選哪種，都會面臨一種風(fēng)險。你是在押注，相信如有必要、瑞銀會把錢還給你。換句話說，即便你選擇“風(fēng)險關(guān)”，你仍是在假定將來瑞銀能兌現(xiàn)債務(wù)，你的選擇仍帶有一些風(fēng)險。

????格蘭特對于“風(fēng)險打開”和“風(fēng)險關(guān)閉”這樣的創(chuàng)新產(chǎn)品并不陌生。他可是有幾十年經(jīng)驗、眼光犀利的市場評論家。那么，“風(fēng)險打開”和“風(fēng)險關(guān)閉”怎么樣？讓他興奮呢，還是掃興？

????“奇思怪想在華爾街一點(diǎn)也不新鮮，”他告訴財富網(wǎng)站（Fortune.com）。“早在上世紀(jì)70年代初，就有過一波所謂的“單一決定”股票大熱。包括雅芳（Avon Products）、通用電氣（General Electric）、柯達(dá)（Kodak）和寶麗來（Polaroid）在內(nèi)的“漂亮50”（Nifty Fifty）擁躉者們建議買進(jìn)持有。我認(rèn)為，通過選擇風(fēng)險的開和關(guān)，我們現(xiàn)在有了“雙選決定”股票。在這方面我們真進(jìn)步了嗎？這一點(diǎn)還是留給大家來評判吧?！?/p>

????那么，對“風(fēng)險打開”和“風(fēng)險關(guān)閉”不可避免的要做個結(jié)論。投資變得更簡單了？沒錯。更理智了？不見得。

????Imagine if investing were as simple as a light switch. When you're feeling good, you turn it on. When you're not, off. Even if you're manic, and change your mind about your feelings every single day, it's as simple as that: ON or OFF. Well, imagine no more! That's the state the entire market seems to be in of late, what with the spread of the notions of "Risk On" and "Risk Off." Think Europe has saved itself? Risk on, baby! Think it merely kicked the can down the road? Risk Off!

????The devolution of the investment decision to a single choice between "risky" assets—equities, oil, and the like—and "less risky" ones—U.S. Treasuries, German bunds—brings to mind a well-dressed man in a casino, who, on each successive hand, moves all his chips from red to black and then back again. (Gold used to sit firmly in the "less risky" category, but trading in the metal has not been so dependable of late. Something about a bubble, I am told.) See Why gold has lost its luster

????Is this crazy behavior? Not exactly. As Jim Grant points out in his latest Grant's Interest Rate Observer, correlations between all manner of securities—the S&P 500, currencies, commodities, and interest rates—are all at record highs, meaning they move together more frequently. So the idea that it's all going up or all going down at once isn't so far-fetched. Even within the S&P 500 itself, correlations are through the roof. There has never been a single day when all the stocks in the S&P 500 moved up or down at once. There have been 11 days, however, that 490 of them have moved in lockstep. Six of those 11 days have occurred since July of this year.

????Of course, who has the capacity to put on an every-kind-of-security bet on one day and take it off the next other than the most institutional of investors? Not you or me. (Or at least not me.) That's where UBS (UBS) comes in. Late last month, the bank introduced two new exchange-traded notes (similar to exchange traded funds, but a little more complicated) called Risk On (ONN) and Risk Off (OFF). Forget stock picking or trying to ladder your bond investments. Sell everything, folks, and just sit by your own personal investing light switch. It's that easy. Unless, of course, you pick the wrong one on the wrong day. Then you're out of luck.

????While the idea is simple enough, these are not single-security notes. ONN is long everything from oil--with a 34% weighting--to semiconductors (1.84%), Internet stocks (0.46%), wheat and soybeans (both 4%). OFF is likewise short these same securities and it's also long 10-year Treasuries, Japanese yen, German bunds, Swiss francs, and gilts.)

????Yesterday was a risk ON day. With the Dow rallying 2.87%, ONN jumped 4.07% while OFF slid 4.01%. Still, December has been an OFF month, on balance. In the three weeks the two securities have traded, ONN is down 4.32% and OFF is up 3.66%. If you want to tie your brain in a knot, consider this, too: given that the two securities are unsecured debt obligations, with UBS as obligor, you're making an additional bet regardless of which way you choose. You're betting that UBS will be able to pay you back in a pinch. In other words, even if you're in a mood for OFF, you're still making a bit of a Risk On play in assuming UBS survives the day.

????Grant is no stranger to novelties such as ON and OFF. He's been a trenchant market commentator for decades now. So what of ON and OFF? Do they turn him on? Or off?

????"Fads are nothing new on Wall Street," he tells Fortune.com. "In the early 1970s, there was a boom in so-called 'one decision' stocks. Buy them and never sell, advised the boosters of the 'Nifty Fifty,' the roll call of which included Avon Products (AVP), General Electric (GE), Kodak, and Polaroid. I suppose that, with risk-on and risk-off, we now have 'two decision' stocks. I'll leave it up to you to judge whether we have thereby progressed."

????So there's the inevitable conclusion of an ONN and OFF world. Simpler? Yes. Saner? No.