60/40 Investing: A Forward-Looking Analysis

seekingalpha03-11

The 60/40 approach to investing, which involves maintaining a static mix of 60% stocks and 40% bonds, may not perform the same way in the future as it has in the past.Asset allocation should be viewed...

Source Link

Disclaimer: Investing carries risk. This is not financial advice. The above content should not be regarded as an offer, recommendation, or solicitation on acquiring or disposing of any financial products, any associated discussions, comments, or posts by author or other users should not be considered as such either. It is solely for general information purpose only, which does not consider your own investment objectives, financial situations or needs. TTM assumes no responsibility or warranty for the accuracy and completeness of the information, investors should do their own research and may seek professional advice before investing.

Comments

We need your insight to fill this gap

Leave a comment

{"i18n":{"language":"en_US"},"isChannel":false,"data":{"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/2418607362?lang=en_US&edition=fundamental","thumbnail":"","is_english":true,"pubTime":"2024-03-11 23:45","share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/5a36db9d73b4222bc376d24ccc48c8a4","id":"2418607362","market":"sg","top_or_hot":-1,"title":"60/40 Investing: A Forward-Looking Analysis","media":"seekingalpha","content":"<div>\n<p>The 60/40 approach to investing, which involves maintaining a static mix of 60% stocks and 40% bonds, may not perform the same way in the future as it has in the past.Asset allocation should be viewed...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://seekingalpha.com/article/4677361-60-40-investing-a-forward-looking-analysis\">Source Link</a>\n\n</div>\n","source":"seekingalpha","html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>60/40 Investing: A Forward-Looking Analysis</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\n60/40 Investing: A Forward-Looking Analysis\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2024-03-11 23:45 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://seekingalpha.com/article/4677361-60-40-investing-a-forward-looking-analysis><strong>seekingalpha</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>The 60/40 approach to investing, which involves maintaining a static mix of 60% stocks and 40% bonds, may not perform the same way in the future as it has in the past.Asset allocation should be viewed...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://seekingalpha.com/article/4677361-60-40-investing-a-forward-looking-analysis\">Source Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","isBrief":false,"type":0,"news_type":1,"symbol":"SSO","symbol_name":"两倍做多标普500ETF","start_time":0,"source_url":"https://seekingalpha.com/article/4677361-60-40-investing-a-forward-looking-analysis","article_id":"2418607362","we_media_id":null,"thumbnails":[],"rights":null,"url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=2418607362","pubTimestamp":1710171919,"sourceInfo":{"source_id":"seekingalpha","name":"Seeking Alpha"},"weMediaInfo":null,"summary":"The 60/40 approach to investing, which involves maintaining a static mix of 60% stocks and 40% bonds, may not perform the same way in the future as it has in the past.Asset allocation should be viewed","collect":0,"end_time":0,"defaultTopTitle":"seekingalpha.com","property":[],"viewcount":null,"language":"en","relate_stocks":{"SSO":"两倍做多标普500ETF","IVV":"标普500指数ETF","BK4559":"巴菲特持仓","BK4588":"碎股","BK4550":"红杉资本持仓","SDS":"两倍做空标普500ETF","SH":"标普500反向ETF","SPXU":"三倍做空标普500ETF","OEX":"标普100","BK4581":"高盛持仓",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index","BK4504":"桥水持仓","RSP":"平均加权指数ETF-Rydex S&P","FORD":"福沃德工业","UPRO":"三倍做多标普500ETF","BK4202":"服装、服饰与奢侈品","SPY":"标普500ETF","EQAL":"Invesco Russell 1000 Equal Weight ETF","FDN":"First Trust Dow Jones Internet I","TLT":"20+年以上美国国债ETF-iShares","GOVI":"Invesco Equal Weight 0-30 Year Treasury ETF","TLT.AU":"Tilt Renewables","OEF":"标普100指数ETF-iShares","BK4585":"ETF&股票定投概念","BK4534":"瑞士信贷持仓","AGG":"债券指数ETF-iShares Barclays综合国债"},"translate_title":"60/40投资：前瞻性分析","themeId":null,"isJumpTheme":false,"ttsUrl":null,"symbols_score_info":{"AGG":1,"TLT.AU":1,"TLT":1,"EQAL":1,"FORD":1,"GOVI":1,"RSP":1,"US2Y.BOND":0.9,"US12M.BOND":0.9,"US10Y.BOND":0.9,"US30Y.BOND":0.9,"US3Y.BOND":0.9,"SPY":0.9,"US5Y.BOND":0.9,"US6M.BOND":0.9,"US7Y.BOND":0.9,"FDN":0.9,"US912797FH58.BOND":0.6,"US912796CX52.BOND":0.6,"US912797FS14.BOND":0.6,"US912797GB79.BOND":0.6,"US912797GK78.BOND":0.6,"US912797GL51.BOND":0.6,"US912797GQ49.BOND":0.6,"US912797GW17.BOND":0.6,"US912797GX99.BOND":0.6,"US912797HE00.BOND":0.6,"US912797HG57.BOND":0.6,".SPX":0.6,"US912797HH31.BOND":0.6,"ESmain":0.6,"UPRO":0.6,"IVV":0.6,"OEF":0.6,"OEX":0.6,"SDS":0.6,"SH":0.6,"SPXU":0.6,"SSO":0.6},"content_text":"The 60/40 approach to investing, which involves maintaining a static mix of 60% stocks and 40% bonds, may not perform the same way in the future as it has in the past.Asset allocation should be viewed as a floating mix and a tactical discipline, rather than a fixed mix of stocks and bonds.The bond side of a 60/40 portfolio is experiencing a new era with higher inflation and changing interest rates, which may require a reevaluation of bond allocation and types of bonds used.alexsl I have my pizza with a certain combination of ingredients, but I don't tell everyone else they have to do what I do. Investment allocation for self-directed investors is no different. The 60/40 approach to investing involves maintaining a static mix of 60% in \"stocks\" and 40% in \"bonds,\" and the main activity is simply rebalancing back to that mix periodically. To be clear, I do not dislike 60/40. I think it was a great effort by Wall Street to bring new investors along the continuous learning curve we should all have. It gets the message through about not being an all-equity investor, unless you are willing to take the 40% down years with the 40% up years. Because for whatever history is worth, that's about the history. Unless we are talking about small caps or tech-laden portfolios, in which case we can double the history-based \"what could happen\" to about 80% either way. I don't know how many investors realize this, but that's one reason I now write instead of retiring. Because not everyone has seen what I have, and if I can bridge some gaps and open some eyes, that's great. Below, I use the past to show what has been possible, but with the overriding fact being that for the past 15 years, or really the past 40 years to a degree, the bond side of the 60/40 portfolio has not been what it is today. And that changes the dynamic, or at least the potential range of possible outcomes, for 60/40 going forward. Couple that with an S&P 500 that is making new records, in both price and speculative fever, and I look at the future of 60/40 as something that probably won't resemble the long-term past. If it does, great. But in investing, I think it is vitally important to take the past into account, but not be wedded to it. Ask anyone who was 100% in tech stocks in 2000, or 100% in a 60/40 mix at certain times during the past two decades. I prefer to learn from the past than assume it will repeat. That's my thesis here. Now, let's get into it. 60/40: a case of mistaken identity 60/40 investing is possibly the most misunderstood aspect of modern investing I know. I see investors clinging to their version of it, while having widely varying views of what should actually go into the 60% equity portion and the 40% bond portion. The fact is, there are literally an infinite number of combinations of 60/40. But I sense that is brushed over, and that's where I think the major risk is for some. 60/40 portfolios are not good or bad. They are one of many options out there for investors. Personally, I prefer not to establish a permanent asset allocation to stocks and bonds. I go beyond stocks and bonds, and prioritize \"avoiding big loss\" as I call it. Is \"winning\" all about making the highest return? I don't think it is. Some might call me a \"loser\" for thinking that way. But investing is not about whose portfolio is bigger (see what I did there?). It is about the degree to which investing allows someone to live the life they want. That's the business I was in for decades, and now I'm on the other side of it, investing for myself. But rather than keep to my 38 years of learning from successes and mistakes to myself, and developing what really matters to me, I am trying to transfer as much of that opinion and process to a wider audience. But that doesn't stop investors from assuming that what any investor opines on or explains what they are doing is some type of implicit recommendation. I have seen this error in judgment for 30 years, and while I know I can't stop it from happening, I decided to take on one of the \"sacred idols\" of modern investing, the 60/40 portfolio. By \"take on\" I mean try to break it down so that anyone reading this can get what I think is a more comprehensive assessment of the pros and cons of this mass-marketing approach from Wall Street firms and marketing outfits. I have been investing professionally since 1993, which was a fascinating time to be in the investment advisory and portfolio management business. That was a time when investing was truly becoming mainstream. Not as ubiquitous as it is today, but if we think about the life experience of the Baby Boom generation (which I catch the tail end of qualifying for), this was when the first of them were entering their late 40s. Now they are in their late 70s. And over the past three decades, the investment industry has evolved a lot. And, it has gotten really organized. So much so that marketing machines now exist. They do a lot of good, but I think that sometimes, what starts as a solid academic idea becomes a sales pitch for investment firms to bring in assets and revenue. The more a concept becomes mainstream and accepted as \"the right way to invest\" as one firm's tagline goes, the more two things happen:  Firms can boost their profit margins because selling the concept becomes easier. Investors become so devoted to the concept, especially if it did well in the past, they extrapolate that success forward.  Sometimes, their devotion works out very well. Sometimes, it takes fortunes that were built in part on arrogant belief, rather than with a risk-management mindset, and change lives and lifestyles. That happens when we get periods like 1987, 2000-2003, 2007-2009 and possibly even early 2020 (pandemic crash) and 2022 (stocks and bonds down together for the first time since the Boomers were kids, in the 1970s). I have written about 60/40 in the past, and never with the goal of telling someone else exactly what they should do. I've never in my career been in that position. I spent 27 years as a fiduciary advisor, and while we would consult in depth with the client at the start, once decisions were made about time horizon, risk tolerance, objectives, etc. it was up to me to determine what to buy and sell, as a discretionary portfolio manager. When I sold my practice in 2020, I left that world and started an investment research/publishing company. Firms of that sort not only do not provide personalized advice in any forum (their own newsletters or on platforms like Seeking Alpha). They explain what they are doing and thinking. So essentially, I skipped over the \"you should do this\" thing, intentionally. Another way to look at \"asset allocation\" I view asset allocation as a floating assessment, not something based on a Wall Street marketing pitch that looks great at times, but also may involve much more risk than some investors are willing to take... but they just don't realize that until risk happens. By then it is too late. This was the lesson of each of those past crisis periods I mentioned above. With each one, I've witnessed the \"I never thought that could happen\" reaction. The old joke is, \"don't turn a 401k into a 201k.\" So this risk-management-first aspect of investing is something I favor, and I'd think it would be something that those close to the retirement finish line or past it would prioritize too. But again, to be clear, that used to be my profession. Now it is just a concern, based on thousands of communications I've had through multiple forums that I publish in, including Seeking Alpha. None of this has anything to do with predicting what any part of the market will do. It is about the first thing I learned when I transitioned from the investment back office to the advisory/investment role 31 years ago: always account for what can happen if your market outlook is totally wrong. That's a big part of risk management, and also why I am committed to technical analysis. But that's another story for another day. Warning: \"chart attack\" approaching! Here's why. This is the first of several charts I will zip through for the rest of this article. The end goal is not about what is right or wrong, or what has been done well or poorly. As I've noted in multiple articles, my portfolio has been packed with US Treasury bills since back in September 2022, after the yield on the 3-month T-bill rose above 3%. Data by YCharts What goes into the 40% bond allocation of a 60/40 portfolio? Presumably, \"bonds.\" But what types of bonds, and what maturities? And will that maturity and duration remain in place, or be tactically positioned to take advantage of market anomalies? And more to the point, do bonds always need to be 40% and equities 60%? I've already told you that for me, the answer is a firm \"no.\" But no other human should take that as a reason to think the same way. That's why in the chart above, it helps to differentiate between \"bonds\" and \"bonds.\" That is not a misprint. Because from 2009-2021, bonds were all about the same: low yield, low price volatility, and low attention from investors. But 11 Fed rate hikes later, bonds are back to being \"in play\" for the first time in 15 years. That may have dramatic changes on how 60/40 portfolios perform in the future, and how they are structured. A whole new world has opened up, but it contains new risks as well as rewards. From the start of 2022 through last Friday (just over 26 months), if the \"bond\" portion of a 60/40 portfolio was in the iShares Core U.S. Aggregate Bond ETF (AGG), a very common benchmark for \"bonds,\" they'd still be looking up at their starting balance. It is down 8.5% during those 26 months, including the tailwind of a higher income versus prior years. And for those fans of the \"laddered US Treasury\" approach to that 40% of a 60/40, the Invesco Equal Weight 0-30 Year Treasury ETF (GOVI) shows that $100 to start 2022 would be worth about $82 today. And for the increasing number of investors who consider (for reasons I cannot comprehend other than speculation), a static 40% of a portfolio in the suddenly popular iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF (TLT) lost nearly one-third of its value. Despite a recent bounce, it is off more than 1% per month since more than two years ago. Yikes. That means that 40% of a portfolio in TLT would have had a performance \"contribution\" of 40% x (-31%) or about -12% toward the total 60/40 blend. That would require a 20% gain from the 60% in stocks over that same period just to make up for the decision to own TLT as the bond allocation. This is all just to show how the math works so that now we can look at those aforementioned charts in rapid-fire form. What has worked since the start of 2022? I think it is hard to ignore the 16% outperformance of AGG by an ETF that doesn't really take on any meaningful risk and currently yields around 5%. Again, I don't expect anyone to agree with me, I am just making that observation. At least in recent years, there was no benefit to pressing the issue in the 40% bond bucket, when T-bills were a clear value-add, after not doing anything but producing 0-1% a year for a while. 60/40 in 4 varieties: from 1/1/2008 through last week First, we can conclude in hindsight that if a 60/40 portfolio was SPY/AGG and nothing more (no equity diversification beyond SPY, and all of the bond allocation to AGG, which is a blend of Treasuries and Corporates, with current average maturity of about 8 years) was the long term plan and that one didn't deviate from that, the returns since the early days of the 2008 stock wreckage more than 16 years ago were stellar. 225%? Sign me up! Oh wait, that was the past. That means I am guaranteed not to be able to get that. Because, after all, it was in the past. My concern here is forward-looking, as is the goal of analysis on Seeking Alpha. YCharts Also note above that having the Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight ETF (RSP) in place of SPY (blue line) would have actually produced a marginally higher return, and one that was mostly in lockstep with the orange SPY/AGG line. Then there were a pair of alternative approaches. The purple line shows that the returns would have been markedly less if the 60% were in ACWI, which is a global equity mix that is currently dominated by the US. But if you guessed that just that one swap of ACWI for SPY would make such a difference, you are one sharp cookie. That is one of my key points here. All it would take to reverse fortune in the future versus the past is for non-US stocks to finally \"revert to the mean\" versus the S&P 500. I have no idea if that will happen, but I know that if it does, it will impact the nature of 60/40 investing. Currently, ACWI is 62% invested in the US, though decades ago it was dominated by Japanese stocks. Today, the Magnificent 7 make up a sizeable 17% of this \"all-world\" ETF. Below, we take a different look at the same data. But this time, instead of looking from start to finish, I present it as \"rolling\" returns of 3-year time periods. This is a busy chart but notice the one allocation I added which is not a 60/40 at all. It is 30% SPY and 70% in SHV, which invests in T-bills (green line). Investments like SHV added virtually nothing to 60/40 portfolios, but as shown above, T-bills are now a consideration in a way they have not been in a long time. That has made that mix the top performer in this group the past three years, but more importantly, to a risk manager like me, it has produced (no surprise) lower valleys as a tradeoff to lower peaks. Also note that while SPY is the focus of most investors today, the alternate version of those same 500 stocks, the equal-weight RSP ETF, has actually had some higher 3-year annualized gains since 2008, with slightly better downside protection. This SPY/RSP relationship will be one to watch carefully going forward, now that RSP has finally regained its 2022 high point. YCharts Below is a chart of rolling annualized 3-year standard deviations of these mixes. Obviously, the 30%/70% SPY/SHV combination will always be a lower volatility alternative to any 60/40, so it looks good relatively when the stock market, especially SPY, does poorly over a period of time. The others have not shown much separation from SPY when it comes to this measure of risk. YCharts How much can you deal with losing before you get emotional and are tempted to deviate from the long-term plan? That stress test is shown below. Like I said, 40% declines are part of equity investing. But they can also happen to 60/40 portfolios, if they are constructed with 60% SPY, RSP, or ACWI and 40% AGG. This is one reality of investment history that is key to point out here. Specifically, when market sentiment gets bad, it can get so bad that nearly all stocks of all varieties fall in sync. That's what I take from the chart immediately below. How do I combat that as a risk manager who never, ever wants to see a 20-40% \"correction\" in my own portfolio? I don't fix my allocation to 60/40 or any other combination. I float my allocation. That's too much for this article, but I'll put out another one that does focus on that in the near future. YCharts For now, the 30/70 SPY/SHV mix stands in for my personal preference, which is to view a 60/40 allocation as part of a floating, tactical mix. By \"tactical\" that can mean considering changes to the high-level mix over a shorter period of time, as short as weeks, or at times it won't change for many months or even a year at a time. Sometimes, 60/40 will be a better allocation than 30/70, and sometimes equal-weighted S&P 500 or even more global equity exposure is a better reward/risk tradeoff than the others. It is a process, executed consistently. That is not for everyone, but I think it is important to at least learn about it, given the forces that impact markets now that didn't 15 years ago, much less a few years ago. YCharts Next, below is the \"I have the worst luck\" scenario. The S&P 500 fell 55% in the first seven months I managed a mutual fund, so I remember when nearly any asset mix of long-only stocks and bonds was toxic for a while. The 30/70, if nothing else, allowed some investors to stay in their proverbial seats during this time of global market disruption. YCharts And, if you are 15%-20% ahead when many around you are hurting financially, you have just as much opportunity to recover what you have lost, just starting from a much higher level of assets. This has always been why I am just fine with not being the top returner in favorable market conditions. I don't see investing as a performance contest. But that's just me. Everything seems to be akin to a sport these days, so I can understand why some might approach investing differently than I do. The \"recency effect\" has been in favor of that more risk-managed approach, as shown below. I added in two more mixes here, since the Invesco Russell 1000 Equal Weight ETF (EQAL) has not been around as long as the others. It tracks the performance of the average stock among the 1,000 largest in the US. This removes the \"backward-looking bias\" of SPY, in which yesterday's winners climb up the weighting ranks and carry the index for a long period of time… and then there are at risk of wrecking it. That's potentially where we are now, with SPY historically top-heavy. YCharts If you are still reading after all the words and charts, thank you. The last picture (below) is the two risk measures for the two most different examples I've shown in this article: 60/40 SPY/AGG and 30/70 SPY/SHV. The top part of the chart shows that SPY/SHV outperformed with a consistently lower standard deviation. No surprise there. Perhaps what is a surprise is that during this up and down period from 2021 through last week, that mix never fell peak to trough by more than 8%, versus 25% for the SPY/AGG combination. YCharts Of course, a 30% stock weighting will fall less than a 60% weighting. But in this modern environment, with short-term bonds remaining high, I am more comfortable keeping my equity allocation toward the low end, while I can get more than half the long-term return of stocks with T-bill level risk (i.e., none unless something really catastrophic happens, that would render all investing fraught with risk). Summary  60/40 investing is a very viable approach to investing, just not one I favor for myself. My views, summarized:  The past experience investors have had with 60/40 may not be at all like it is going forward. The past few years may be the start of that, so hopefully investors come to recognize that what started as a good academic concept, then became a Wall Street sales pitch, and today has become an overrated idea. Asset allocation is at its best (for me, at least) when viewed as a floating mix and a tactical discipline, not a fixed mix of stocks and bonds at 60%/40% for very long periods of time. The S&P 500 capitalization-weighted index (SPY in ETF form) has done very well in the past, but there's a strong risk that other forms of \"60%\" will do better in the future, including equal weighting and diversification outside the US, as well as in global small-cap investing. I am accounting for that in my tactical asset allocation approach. The bond side of 60/40 (a.k.a. the 40%), whether it is fixed at 40% or floating as I prefer, is a brand new ballgame after 15 years of flat returns for bonds, 11 Fed rate cuts, and a new era of inflation that is higher than 1-2%. That puts things like T-bills and shorter-term bonds back into consideration, regardless of time horizon and how much is allocated to bonds.","kind":null,"is_publish_news":null,"is_publish_highlight":null,"is_publish_live":null,"is_publish_wemedia":null,"editions":null,"symbols":[],"gpt_button":1},"commentList":[],"isCommentEnd":true,"newsSizeData":{"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"favoriteSize":0,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false},"APP":{"userAgent":"Mozilla/5.0 AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko; compatible; ClaudeBot/1.0; +claudebot@anthropic.com)","isDev":false,"isTTM":true,"deviceId":"web-server-community-laohu8-v3","version":"4.22.4","shortVersion":"4.22.4","platform":"web","vendor":"web","appName":"ttm","isIOS":false,"isAndroid":false,"isTiger":false,"isTHS":false,"isWeiXin":false,"isWeiXinMini":false,"isWeiBo":false,"isQQ":false,"isBaiduSwan":false,"isBaiduBox":false,"isDingTalk":false,"isToutiao":false,"isOnePlus":false,"isHuaWei":false,"isXiaomi":false,"isXiaomiWebView":false,"isOppo":false,"isVivo":false,"isSamsung":false,"isMobile":false},"href":"/m/news/2418607362"}