女超人

(W.E. Talk) Green architecture: building bridges between the East and West, without crossing the limits of our planet_我的网站

A |     By Anna Dalla Valle    (CNS)-- Forward-looking mindset: whole-system and life cycle thinking    My work is centred on the environmental sustainability of buildings over the entire life cycle and beyond in view of the circular economy: from design and construction to use and reuse, up to final disposal or, preferably, recovery for a second life. Here, the paradigm shift is twofold, because a whole-system thinking is needed not only to consider the entire life cycle, but also to envision what happens next. The ultimate goal is to minimize environmental impacts and to drive both sustainability and innovation.    To be more explicit, the first shift involves keeping in mind the entire life cycle – from the early design stages – moving beyond the traditional focus on construction and energy efficiency during use. It is to select building products looking back to the supply chain, such as recycled content, locally sourced and bio-based solutions, while also looking ahead to performance decay, maintenance needs and the potential for extending service life. Moreover, the second shift press to move beyond the linear building process – as traditionally practiced – in which we extract raw materials, we build, we use, and eventually we demolish. Indeed, this model has reached its limits, undermining planetary resources with adverse environmental and social effects.    Interconnected choices: designing decisions that create shared value    A life cycle perspective matched with circularity inevitably challenges this linearity, wondering from the very beginning about what happens when assets become obsolete and fall into disuse, to design buildings as part of a continuous loop of resources. Accordingly, design, construction, daily use (energy and water consumption), maintenance, replacement and end-of-life turn out to be regarded not as isolated steps but interconnected with each other. In fact, at each stage, choices can either preserve or destroy value.    For example, if construction solutions are carefully selected, they can be reused in the future, either in their entirety, as whole products, or through disassembly into components, or even by separating materials. In this way, they may maintain the same function (e.g. a window reused as it is) or serve different purposes (e.g. glass cullet used as input for glass wool insulation). If technological systems are designed flexibly, buildings can reach different business segments and host concurrently different activities, resulting easily adaptable from housing to office and vice versa, instead of being demolished. If building processes integrate digital tools, data can guide smarter decisions over decades, provided that data infrastructure is ensured, followed by constant monitoring and analysis of the collected data and the update and dissemination of results across industry and practitioners as well as policymakers.    Thinking this way means making choices future-oriented, ready to embrace innovation while respecting planetary boundaries, namely limiting the environmental impact at every stage and in every region – to avoid burden shifting – not just at the beginning but along the whole (first-second) life cycle. Certainly, a demanding but exciting challenge: one I am proud to take on and in my little to contribute to.    Beyond appearances: close-up process for understanding what lies behind    In daily life, we often say to "look beyond appearances". Usually, this expression pertains to people, to underline the risk of avoiding judging someone solely by what can be seen. Now the interesting thing is that the same advice can be applied to architecture, obviously without undermining the importance of aesthetic beauty, at the core also of the New European Bauhaus initiative together with sustainability and inclusion. Nonetheless, as an architect expert in sustainable technology, I have learned to extend it to the built environment, by seeing buildings not merely as visible structures (walls, roofs, windows), but as living parts of a larger and complex system. In this sense, architecture can be compared to a plant. Plants are anchored in the soil by roots; buildings are anchored in the ground by foundations. Plants capture sunlight, absorb water, accommodate small animals, and interact with other organisms; buildings consume energy, deplete water, host human life, and interact with their surroundings. Both are deeply connected to their ecosystem.    However, to fully understand them, both must be looked beyond appearances, through a "close-up" process taken to the extreme. It is not simply a matter of focusing on details, as happens in photography and cinema fields; the intention is to delve deeper and deeper to the fuller extent: an in-depth analysis of whatever is behind, starting from the exterior to gradually shift to construction technologies, materials, up to their chemicals. The latter is, of course, not the responsibility of architects, but it lies at the heart of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), analyses that I usually perform during the decision-making at the different process stage to help building stakeholders minimize environmental impacts across the entire – potentially multiple – life cycle.    For architectural technology, for example, it is a matter of addressing, alongside conventional requirements (e.g. performance, safety, usability, well-being), the specific requirements of environmental sustainability (e.g. the rational use and optimization of materials, energy, water), taking into account the technical feasibility and evaluating the entire life cycle. At the utmost, it is to look into everything that underlies the presence of that specific material in that exact spot, its behaviour and interrelationships when in service, and its post-use journey, setting up the necessary network to actually close the loop in practice.    Material-immaterial synergy: the invisible foundations of sustainable architecture    To embrace this vision, the idea of resources is to be extended compared to the ordinary sense. Certainly, buildings are made and calls for a set of tangible resources, such as money to be started, bricks, steel, or timber to be erected, tools and equipment to be managed including in the long-term. The issue that often runs out is that buildings rely heavily as well on intangible resources, namely knowledge, skills, processes, organisation, information flows and network. These two dimensions – tangible and intangible – are closely connected and interdependent on each other. Without appropriate eco-design knowledge, even the best materials are wasted; without materials, knowledge has no application.    In such a mindset, architecture becomes a remarkable expression of the synergy between tangible resources and intangible resources: a space where East and West can successfully meet, building a bridge across cultures through openness and inclusiveness. Indeed, it is well recognized that different traditions bring different perspectives and, when combined, generate the best and more holistic solutions. The "living building" is both a technical and cultural artefact, an expression of human creativity that must not overstep the planetary boundary.    Strategic imperative: cross-border and cross-disciplinary cooperation    Evidence is found in international collaborations such as Joint Schools, where universities from different countries join forces to promote shared research and training. A concrete example of Sino-foreign cooperation is the XJTU-POLIMI Joint School, opened in Xi'an (China) in 2019 through a partnership between Politecnico di Milano and Xi'an Jiaotong University. As POLIMI's first campus outside Italy, it serves as an international platform dedicated to education and research as well as technology transfer and business incubation. This initiative, like others currently in place, aims to take the best of each part to foster shared growth and mutual learning. Italy brings its strong polytechnic culture, its multidisciplinary approach and focus on design quality, together with the European emphasis on social and environmental responsibility. China, in turn, is a leader in fast-evolving business, in the integration capacity of digital technologies and in large-scale engineering projects, pulled by top-down policies that allow fast implementation. In conjunction, these strengths can create fertile ground for innovation and speed up the transformation process within the Architectural, Engineering and Construction (AEC) sector, always been acknowledged as resistant to change, due to its intrinsic complexity and fragmented nature.    Rethinking the built environment: buildings as resource-driven assets    The effort is to move beyond the concept of buildings as "material banks" – namely repositories where resources are temporarily stored – to rethink them and push the vision further of buildings as "resource-driven assets". While the first construct is earmarked for physical goods, that proposed calls for careful consideration of both tangible/material/visible resources and intangible/immaterial/invisible resources, taking care that everything is optimised and nothing is wasted, to preserve their value over time.    In practice, this means looking at what goes into buildings, such as materials, systems and the energy required to transform and assemble them, but also, for instance, the set of expertise, skills and specialization of practitioners involved during design. Similarly, starting from the outset, it means looking at what comes out throughout buildings life, like emissions, waste, and decommissioned materials, but also knowledge gained from monitoring and lessons learned from operations. To ignore either side of the equation (inputs-outputs) would be a missed opportunity. If we want buildings to truly act as resource-driven assets, we must synergise, map, understand, and manage the full spectrum of in- and out- flows, both tangible and intangible.    On the tangible side, this requires a deep understanding of material, energy and water flows across the entire life cycle. Which resources are extracted, transported, and assembled? How much energy is consumed, and how is it sourced? How do materials degrade over time, and how can they be reused or recycled without losing quality? These questions are essential to reduce impacts and to design systems that are both efficient and resilient.    On the intangible side, equally important are the flows of information and knowledge that connect all actors in the construction value chain. Long before a building is erected, crucial questions are: How is data exchanged among stakeholders? Is communication efficient enough to speed up the workflows? How can design capabilities evolve into maturity, meaning quality achieved through best practice? Then, as more buildings themselves add to this immaterial layer through sensors, smart meters, and digital platforms that produce valuable insights, another set of questions follows: How is this information managed, shared, and preserved? How to ensure that data supports predictive maintenance and reverse logistics? How to activate new business models based on sharing and collaboration? Just as materials should not be wasted, neither should information. Data and knowledge must be treated as resources that enrich our collective know-how, building an "infodump bank" that not only improves current performance but also informs future decisions, guides new designs and strengthens subsequent projects.    The correlation between tangible and intangible resources is ever closer: managing them together ensures that nothing is wasted and that the embedded value is preserved across time. In that respect, "no waste of resources" also means "no waste of value", since every material, every bit of data, and every piece of knowledge carries potential that, if carefully handled, can extend usefulness, inspire innovation, and create lasting benefits well beyond the life of a single project.    Global impact: construction sector as global lever for planetary sustainability    Through joint research and cross-border exchange programmes, the construction sector proves to be an extraordinary testing ground and given its global impact in terms of emissions and resource consumption, it clearly stands as a priority for change. Furthermore, never forget that buildings are everywhere and shape our daily lives, leading mindful planning crucial not only for preserving the natural environment but also human well-being.    In this framework, architects, engineers, designers, scientists and all necessary professionals can work side by side to explore new possibilities, even creating new synergies across key business sectors. Imagine if constructions integrate materials from unexpected sources such as fashion and/or food waste. Fast-fashion clothing and textile scraps, invasive plants and agricultural by-products, or even organic waste – which are currently a significant environmental burden with serious social effects – can be rethought as valuable inputs for new building solutions. In this way, the concept of waste disappears, as it serves as input resources from another industrial sector, consequently, contributing to lower material intensity (virgin material reduction), greater industrial symbiosis (new business opportunities), and implementing smarter ways to manage resources.    At the same time, digital technologies and artificial intelligence can support this process, helping to track resources, optimise flows, and potentially update in real-time the expected environmental impacts in relation to what actually happens. The ambition is to create architecture that is resource efficient and socially valuable in the long term. Considering the key role of construction, even small changes, when scale up to thousands of buildings and millions of people, can make a big difference for the planet.    At this point, the key role of China is beyond question. As the world's largest construction market and major exporter, its choices strongly affect global trends, making environmental awareness and transparency in its building sector essential. Indeed, in a globalised economy, what is produced in one region may be assembled in another, used in a third and so on throughout the different stages of the life cycle, spreading responsibilities across several borders. For this reason, it is imperative to turn LCA into a standard practice, but also to regionalise results, to identify where the greatest impacts occur over the building life cycle, including in geographical terms. Here, China inevitably results in a central hotspot to concentrate efforts: improving practices there could deliver benefits worldwide, setting the chance to become an outstanding reference and reducing burdens far beyond its borders, (hopefully) without exceeding the limits of the planet.    Yet – be warned – the focus is not solely on new construction, where starting from scratch makes everything easier: the real challenge (and greatest opportunity) stands in the existing building stock, because of representing the largest reserve of resources we already have. These artefacts embody vast amounts of materials, energy, and human effort that should not be wasted leaving unfinished and/or uninhabited. Instead of discarding them, we must be proactive to renew the existing buildings, extending their service life while improving performance to meet ever-evolving needs.    Call to action: building bridges within planetary boundaries    It is time to join forces, to move from theory to practice, from words to action. To succeed, we need lots more than technology. We need dialogue between cultures; we need young and open minds, trained to think across disciplines and borders, ready to learn from diversity, capable of working together toward a unified vision, think globally while acting locally. Green architecture should not be perceived as a trend, but as a common responsibility of the present for the future.    These are just the premises to the most open question ever: "What if we built bridges between East and West, without crossing the limits of our planet?" I therefore invite everyone to begin offering practical responses, reframing global challenges as shared opportunities for innovation.    Profile:        Anna Dalla Valle is an Assistant Professor and Researcher in the Department of Architecture, Built Environment and Construction Engineering (DABC) at Politecnico di Milano, Italy. She is an associate and active member of both the Italian LCA Network Association and the Italian Society of Architectural Technology. She represents Politecnico di Milano in the New European Bauhaus initiative and fully participates in various international organizations, including the LCA Working Group of the Italian Green Building Council, the Italian Circular Economy Stakeholder Platform, and the International Energy Agency’s working group on ' Ways to Implement Net-zero Whole Life Carbon Buildings'.                    。    出品 | 妙投APP          作者 | 刘国辉          编辑 | 关雪菁          头图 | 李蓓个人公众号                    李蓓就是太懂流量了。                   在私募行业，有很多响当当的人物，然而能把投资和流量都玩明白的，似乎只有李蓓一人。但因为懂流量，而被“耽误”的，也只能是李蓓。                   当业绩好的时候，流量是推波助澜再上层楼的浪；而在你颠簸时，流量就要“覆你的舟”。                   李蓓，这位投资界的网红、半夏投资创始人，出圈不仅靠高低起伏的业绩，更是有公开征婚、用周易算卦预判市场等出位的举动，以及地产股十年一遇的机会、小盘股是火葬场等犀利的投资观点，在市场上影响巨大。                   最近在11月28日参加活动时，李蓓沿袭一贯的风格，发表了鲜明的投资观点，如AI投资泡沫、黄金价格明显高估等，再次引发了热议。观点发布在半夏投资公众号上，不仅阅读量10W+，转发也达到1.6W以上，影响力可见一斑。                   私募主要针对机构客户和高净值客户，往往给人“好酒不怕巷子深”的感觉。李蓓则是例外，不仅乐于输出鲜明的投资观点，不怕打脸，更是乐于将自己的日常生活、情感展示给公众。即使不做投资，李蓓专职做网红做流量，估计也能杀出一条血路来。                   私募凭业绩说话，业绩是安身立命的基础，流量则是很大的加分项，带给李蓓的事业以很大的助力，让半夏能以极快的速度成为行业里的百亿私募。                   但此刻，流量正在反噬李蓓。

B | 2023年之后李蓓业绩下滑，半夏不仅规模下滑，外界评价也有急转直下的趋势。                   经历了一轮波折的李蓓，还能继续乘风破浪吗？                    被投资事业耽误的流量高手                    李蓓能占据私募圈流量高地，绝非偶然。

C |                    2007年李蓓北大毕业后，加入到公募交银施罗德，后来又到了前夫梁文涛创立的泓湖私募担任投资总监，2017年创立半夏投资开启了自己的事业。

D | 在职业生涯前十年里李蓓凭着不错的业绩，在行业里有一定的知名度，不过并没有主动营销做流量。2014年在私募金牛奖颁奖仪式上讲述宏观对冲策略，也是有板有眼但中规中矩。                   2017年创业当老板并在年底开始第一只产品的运作后，她有了募资与企业生存的压力。李蓓开始做半夏的公众号，也开启了自己的流量人生，展示了流量天赋与流量技巧。                   天赋上，李蓓热衷于分享，也对于评论非常开放，负面评论也出现在醒目的位置，而当好友、交银国际策略分析师洪灏因为谈经济问题被封号的时候，李蓓在公众号上以既感性又理性的内容为洪灏发声，体现出了真性情。她还打破了金融从业者高冷的刻板印象，在公众号中主动披露私生活。比如，以描述与前夫的决裂的文章，迅速出圈，抓住第一波大流量。除了引发热议的征友文，和小男友的交往日常等内容，她还在封控期间还写下《做一个快乐的普通人》这类生活化随笔。这种近乎 “自曝” 的方式，让读者感受到她专业之外的性情，拉近了与受众的距离，甚至让粉丝喊出了 “爱李蓓，爱生活” 的口号。                   李蓓很擅长跳出金融圈的小圈子制造话题，实现跨界出圈。2022 年通过半夏投资官方公众号发布高标准征友文，这种用公司官方账号发布个人情感需求的行为，放眼整个中国都是罕见。

E | “百亿私募女王高标准征友” 的话题迅速发酵，推文很快突破10万+阅读量，不仅让她热度飙升，连半夏投资也获得了大量圈外曝光。这种将个人话题与行业身份绑定的操作，是其流量天赋的直观体现，在金融行业可谓无人能出其右。                   技巧方面，专业性之下，李蓓的表达是具备公众性的。李蓓的公众号从 2017 年运营至今，产出的近 200 篇内容里，专业分析类文章常能成为现象级爆款。比如 2023 年 10 月的《美元黄昏》系列两篇文章，即便满是图表、阅读门槛不低，仍斩获超几十万点击量；她对地产股、AI 行业、人民币黄金等资产的极端看多或看空言论，总是和市场主流情绪形成反差，这种有争议的专业观点，天然具备吸引行业内外讨论的传播属性，让她的每一次发声都能成为行业焦点。                   她对流量节奏的把控精准，总能在关键节点发声。比如在市场对 AI 狂热时唱衰、地产板块低迷时喊出 10 年一遇的机会，这些言论都卡在市场情绪的关键节点，很容易引发讨论。                   2022年，她一度宣布以后不再公开发文章了，大部分时间也不接受公开采访，自己的公众号以后只发招聘广告和公司动态。不过很快，她就食言了，各种观点和分享接踵而至。                   这种流量能力，给李蓓和半夏带来实打实的回报，为半夏投资省下公关、品牌费用，更为半夏在2022年跻身百亿私募做出很大贡献。

F | 李蓓也表示，做号五年后，实现了自己最初期望实现的那些目标，让大家知道半夏投资了解宏观对冲策略，并让一部分人成为半夏的投资人。                   对于宏观对冲私募来说，“业绩能力”是基础，“销售/流量能力”是重要的加分项，没有长期正收益就根本迈不过 10 亿生死线，但过了 30 亿以后，销售（特别是机构渠道或流量势能）往往决定能否上百亿。

G | 有业绩没流量，增长会比较缓慢。有流量没业绩，只赚吆喝没人捧场。                   李蓓将业绩与流量都玩转，也就成了行业里的佼佼者。                   2021 年-2022年，趁着自身热度高涨，她发行多只产品，将半夏投资的管理规模从几十亿快速推至百亿级别。后续规模超百亿后，她果断宣布 “封盘”，理由是为维持一流业绩。这一操作既抬高了现有客户的身份认同感，又暗示了自身实力，堪称营销教科书级别的操作。                   业绩下滑后被流量反噬                    对于资管行业而言，流量始终是加分项，如果业绩不稳了，规模很难保证，且口碑还可能被流量反噬。                   李蓓近年来也因此而承压。                   从李蓓业绩来看，2022年是个分水岭。在此之前，2018年和2020年、2021年，半夏的产品业绩都非常优秀，排名靠前。好买基金网数据显示，2018年至2022年半夏投资旗下产品的平均收益率分别为16.67%、6.38%、99.99%、64.42%和0.74%，其中2020年因为精准的判断和择时操作，李蓓管理的一个产品半夏稳健投资收益高达258%，在国内宏观对冲基金中排名第一。

H |                    2022年之后，李蓓对行情的失误判断多起来，一度成为行业里的反指。                   2022年-2023年李蓓做了两个让人震惊的判断，一个是在2023年上半年判断地产将迎来十年一遇的机会，另一个是在2022年10月发文“站在新一轮牛市的起点”，事后都证明都是误判——时机不对，买点过早，新一轮牛市直到2024年Q4才来到，而地产的机会一直到现在也都没有在基本面上得到验证，二级市场也没有过持续性的机会。

I |                    在这样的判断下，半夏对地产加仓，除了持有地产股，还重仓过纯碱期货（纯碱是玻璃的原材料），均带来净值的较大波动，以及2022年底将权益仓位加到9成，2023年也保持了较高权益仓位，都以失败收场，净值回撤在30%以上，2022年三大产品线业绩在1%左右，勉强实现正收益。2023年则在百亿私募中倒数，有业绩展示的产品全部亏损，高波动的“半夏稳健混合宏观对冲”亏损20%以上。                   2024年，半夏对地产进行了止损，持仓聚焦于央企、低 PB、高股息个股以及地产基建等领域，主要产品勉强实现正收益，不过远低于大盘指数。连续两年业绩不佳，虽然李蓓流量与影响力仍在，但半夏的管理规模还是下滑，退出了百亿私募行列。                   人们对李蓓的流量也不再另眼相看，“爱生活爱李蓓”的声音少了，而多了审视的意味。

J |                    在最近一次深度对话后，被点赞最多的读者评论是“少整点人生感悟，多输出些投资观点”；因为李蓓不投科技股，有投资者提醒，科技牛市要远离老登投资人；也有真金白银支持过李蓓的机构投资者，委婉地提醒李蓓，应该是错过了什么，或者做错了什么。牛市来之不易，别错过了难得的机会。                   今年以来，李蓓除了继续重仓建材等板块外，李蓓通过中证500指数期货，参与了科技成长行情，因为这个指数中有不少科技成长个股。通过期货带来的杠杆效应，放大了收益，因此今年李蓓的业绩还算过得去。                   有数据显示，截至11.21日，半夏投资旗下的中波动产品半夏平衡宏观对冲年内收益为25%，跑赢了沪深300指数。                   宏观对冲策略之难，与李蓓的业绩之困                    为什么李蓓的业绩会有前后如此巨大的反差？                    李蓓的业绩下滑，可以归结到她的多次错判，错判又源自个人经验与认知的层面，包括李蓓自己所反思的，自2022年以后，政策的决策和执行机制发生了变化，很多政策出台后执行周期长落地速度不及预期，李蓓没有即使发现这种变化并调整。                   由此展开，李蓓业绩困局的关键，更深层面是宏观对冲策略的高难度，以及对于执行该策略的投资者的高要求。                   宏观对冲策略被称为"对冲策略皇冠上的明珠"，一方面因为具备跨资产跨市场的广度、多空杠杆的灵活性、危机中稳定获利的韧性与高夏普比的风险收益结构，另一方面也是因为其高门槛的投研与执行要求，难度相对于股票多头等策略，整体上更高，也让它成为能体现顶级投资能力的策略。                   无论是公募还是私募行业，占主流的都是股票多头或者债券策略，对应权益基金经理和固收基金经理，公募领域顶流如张坤葛兰，私募领域顶流如但斌林园冯柳，风格不一样，但都是股票多头，盈利通过持有股票来实现。

K | 而宏观对冲策略，因为其难度，是比较小众的策略类型。                   妙投曾与头部公募一位基金经理进行交流，这位基金经理本硕均就读于名校国际金融专业，曾在核心期刊发表过国际金融方面的论文，知识结构上相当“宏观”了，不过他成为基金经理后还是投入了股票多头中科技成长赛道的怀抱。

L | 按理说以宏观研究的背景，可以看宏观数据做一些择时操作。不过这位基金经理坦言太难了，试图做一些择时的研究，但目前还没有建立起框架来。因此择时做得不好。而公司的老基金经理在宏观择时上同样不行，因此也就坦然了。                   在公募历史上，早期有一些自上而下依据宏观经济变化做择时和板块配置的基金经理，如李蓓在交银基金时期的领导李旭利。公募发展早期我国的经济结构还是偏基建投资引导，五朵金花都跟宏观高度相关，当时有自上而下的空间。                   不过随着经济结构的调整，以及投资理念的更新，DCF等投资模型成为公募普遍的估值框架，自上而下的基金经理越来越少，更多是依据行业趋势和企业竞争力等中观、微观因素来判断企业未来现金流，评估投资价值，自2015年左右，自下而上选股并放弃宏观择时，成为多数公募的主流选股思路。私募大体上也是如此。

M |                    其原因在于，一方面宏观判断难度极高，要盯的变量太多，起决定作用的核心变量往往也在不同阶段发生变化，导致择时长期成功率不高，另一方面随着机会主要来自科技、消费医药等领域，自上而下宏观判断的策略逐渐失效。                   而包括李蓓等宏观对冲选手，以及一些强调资产配置的基金经理，仍然选用宏观对冲策略，一方面是知识结构的差异，很多中生代与新生代基金经理是理工与商科背景出身，研究员阶段也是研究行业，没有宏观方面的储备，而李蓓作为2007年入行的投资者，有其时代的烙印；另一方面，宏观对冲与股票多头策略所认为的利润来源并不同，股票多头策略多认为收益来自于企业长期成长，而李蓓所在的宏观对冲阵营认为，股票上涨三成来自利润增长，七成来自估值波动，而估值波动又是宏观因素导致的。

N |                    即使是李蓓这样具备宏观对冲思维框架且做出过不错业绩的专业投资者，在宏观判断中，也是频频出错，很大程度上也是来自宏观对冲策略对于投资者认知与交易能力的高要求。                   2018-2021年李蓓业绩不错，其实那时候也有误判，但经济上行期带来的机会是足够的，宏观对冲讲究多策略，错过了股票机会还有商品、债券的机会，更有宏观层面的贝塔机会。但在2022年以后，随着经济降速，投资机会是在减少的，比如这几年里主要的机会就在债券、黄金、红利属性的股票。错判就会带来更大的危机。                   从国际上来看，即使国外对冲工具更加丰富，非常成功的宏观对冲基金经理也局限在索罗斯、达利欧等知名投资者，然而相比于巴菲特、芒格这样的股票多头，影响力又略逊一番。                   并且，像索罗斯、达利欧这样的宏观对冲大鳄都是经过了几十年的市场拼杀，逐渐迭代自己的宏观分析框架。达利欧更是利用自己的专业能力与影响力，在全球主要经济体中与当地经济主官广泛交流，获取有价值的信息，这是多数宏观对冲选手难以获得的资源。

o |                    而李蓓即使已经入行近20年，判断经常出错，看起来未来也可能判断失误，这跟宏观对冲对综合能力的高要求有关。

p | 这种能力体现在，想把宏观对冲玩明白，在能力结构上，就需要同时跟踪经济增长、通胀预期、货币政策、财政政策、地缘政治、技术革命等核心的驱动因子，并理解其相互作用机制。                   这意味着，操盘手不仅要读懂政策表态，更要预判政策力度、节奏与市场预期的差值。经济周期判断中，需在康波周期等长周期框架以及短期的库存周期下定位当前阶段，并通过高频数据（如周度开工率、月度信贷）动态验证宏观假设。此外对于股、债、商、期等工具，需建立风险预算分配框架，而非简单叠加各资产。

q | 这对于研究深度和研究广度都有很高要求。                   李蓓作为国内宏观对冲领域的知名投资人，虽有成功躲过多次市场泡沫破灭的亮眼表现，但近两年其投资业绩不尽如人意，在宏观对冲的判断与操作中，暴露出宏观研判、行业研究、资产配置等多方面的能力短板。特别是政策落地效果预判失误，是李蓓自己复盘时承认的核心不足。                   李蓓行业与板块研究存在盲区，主动放弃了科技、细分消费和医药领域的深度研究，坦言这些领域与宏观研究缺乏协同性，且需大量时间精力投入，故而基本不参与相关投资。

r | 但事实上，科技周期（如AI资本开支）、消费医药（如人口结构、医保政策）均是宏观判断的核心验证指标。                   这一取舍不仅使她错失了近年来这些热门板块的上涨红利，比如 2024 年 9 月后小微盘、新消费、科技等板块持续走高，而她因未布局相关领域，导致权益类资产收益平庸。                   更关键的是，在宏观对冲策略中，其难以通过这些高成长板块对冲其他资产的风险，也无法捕捉相关板块与其他资产的轮动机会。而且随着AI成为全球投资界的主流叙事，科技的进展往往不仅能带来投资机会，更能带来信心的恢复和市场风险偏好的抬升，对于行情有着重要的影响。                   宏观层面的分析缺陷，使得李蓓在资产择时与配置上出现一些失误。宏观对冲策略的核心之一是跨资产择时与灵活配置，但李蓓近两年多次踏错市场节奏。2023 年她误判地产复苏行情；2024 年 2 月称 “小微盘是最大的火场”，后续错过小微盘的持续上涨行情，且在当年债牛和权益反弹行情中也完全踏空。                   这表明，李蓓在宏观信号到交易信号的转换上存在一定滞后，宏观逻辑可能没问题（如小微盘估值过高），但忽视了流动性、市场情绪、政策微调和资金结构等短期驱动因子，导致"看对方向，做错时间"，在把握不同资产短期趋势、适配市场风格切换上的能力有欠缺。                   李蓓对于重点行业的高频数据保持密切跟踪，不过过往的判断也显示她混淆了行业逻辑与企业盈利本质。对于地产链，她提出 “供给侧出清后龙头企业是寒冬里的花” ，存在一定的微观逻辑漏洞，认为行业小企业淘汰后龙头份额提升就会实现盈利改善，但忽略了房地产、建材等行业正处于大周期向下的阶段，行业总需求大幅萎缩。

s | 即便龙头企业市场份额提升，若整体市场蛋糕大幅缩小，其利润总额仍可能下滑。这体现出她对微观市场需求与企业盈利的关联研判不够精准。                   从“桥水模式”转型到“索罗斯模式”后的不归路                    除了对行情判断出现一些问题，李蓓在半夏投资的产品发展以及资管行业的演进上，也凸显了一些短视。                   创业早期，半夏以桥水为模版，桥水的核心路线是靠高度分散的资产配置降低组合波动率，优先控制最大回撤，而非追求高收益率。李蓓实践后认为，这种低波动策略在国内市场缺乏吸引力。国内投资者更看重直观的收益率，低波动对应低收益，使得半夏的产品和同类高波动产品相比毫无竞争力。2019年半夏业绩不突出，规模下降，生存压力下李蓓转向索罗斯模式。                   “索罗斯路线”核心是提高杠杆水平、追求高收益，她将半夏稳健这个产品原来中低波动策略的杠杆提升至 2.5 倍 - 3 倍，转型为高波动策略。2020 年其高风险策略产品就实现了超过两倍的收益，这个业绩不仅远超此前模仿桥水策略的收益水平，还让半夏投资快速在国内宏观对冲私募领域崭露头角，为后续的规模扩张打下了基础，并跻身百亿私募行列。                   也是基于此，李蓓2020年在业绩辉煌之时判断，桥水在中国做宏观对冲基金，半夏业绩会比桥水好。

t | 她还表示，桥水低波动性的投资策略在中国行不通，稳定的回报对习惯短期回报的投资者没什么吸引力。

u |                    不过半夏的辉煌并没能持续，业绩下滑后跌出百亿私募阵营。反而是桥水中国稳扎稳打，规模达到600亿，产品紧俏成了“金融圈爱马仕”。                   这一过程中李蓓没想到的是，她原本预计五到十年中国资管市场才会有对低波动产品的需求，实际上经过牛熊转换，以及市场利率的不断下降，低波动需求在2023年就开始凸显了，增额寿产品热销，固收+产品规模大增。今年“固收+”基金在一二季度分别实现了7%和5%的规模增长，三季度又环比大增27%，在所有基金类型中增速居首位。                   在这样的环境下，桥水中国业绩不错，规模持续攀升。

v | 当然这就涉及到一个问题，同样是宏观对冲策略，为什么桥水能在中国市场做好，生于中国的半夏却经历了业绩波动呢？                    桥水的成功，一方面在产品定位上以低波动为主，切中了一部分资金的配置需求，另一方面，以风险平价为主要手段，实行全天候策略，以一套规则来适应不同的宏观环境，保持了业绩的稳定。                   桥水的全天候策略，核心是 “风险平价”，强调各类资产对组合的风险贡献均等化，而非按资金比例配置。

w | 比如会降低股票这类高波动资产的资金占比，同时用杠杆提升债券等低波动资产的收益，让股票和债券的风险占比趋于平衡，不同资产的风险是均衡的，更能实现对冲效果，达到输出稳定业绩的目标。

x |                    这一策略弱化主观预测，淡化了宏观择时，属于偏被动的配置型策略，提前为每种经济场景配置对应资产，无需预判哪种场景会发生，靠组合的全面性适配市场变化，减少对管理人主观判断的依赖。

y |                    相比之下李蓓的宏观对冲，高度依赖管理人的主动研判能力，属于主动管理型策略。管理人需凭借对宏观趋势的精准预测，主动建立多空仓位，甚至运用高杠杆捕捉短期机会，策略灵活性极强，但风险与波动性更高。                   在宏观判断的高难度以及李蓓团队的能力结构下，主动管理型宏观对冲，难免阶段性出错，让业绩有较大波动。

z |                    而且李蓓未来维持产品的吸引力，引入了高波动策略，也对于其资产配置形成直接影响。如果将产品更多定位于低波动，可能会在2023-2024年的宏观环境下较多配置债券等稳定性强的资产，但在高波动策略的牵引下，更多会去看股票、商品等高风险领域的机会，也因此带来收益的滑坡。

|                    私募“大女主”，能否继续乘风破浪？                    半夏从百亿规模跌落后，还能重塑辉煌吗？                    从宏观策略私募对比来看，今年有私募的宏观对冲产品实现了150%以上的收益，而且2022年至今，产品均实现了较高的正收益，远高于李蓓。当然也有一些私募今年业绩不及李蓓，比如梁文涛管理的泓湖私募旗下宏观对冲产品，业绩为18%左右，不过该产品2021年至今均实现了正收益，管理规模也由2024年底的20-50亿元跃升至目前的100亿元以上。                   半夏来自于行业里的竞争压力是不小的。                   目前有宏观策略产品的百亿私募，包括千象资产、泓湖私募、乐瑞资产、博润银泰等，与半夏规模接近的50-100亿规模私募，包括凯丰、长雪、宁水、久期等。

|                    与竞争对手相比，半夏投资特点是个性鲜明的创始人李蓓主导，不过目前来看半夏过于依赖李蓓个人，投研团队的体系搭建不及其他头部私募。

|                    如凯丰投资投研团队超过40人，覆盖宏观、股票、债券、商品等条线；桥水中国全职员工71人，取得基金从业人数64人；而半夏的投研团队为10人左右。宏观对冲要跟踪的变量非常多，因此对于团队协作要求越来越高，过度依赖李蓓，半夏很难走得远。                   更重要的是，当下量化私募对于主观私募冲击很大，从2024年业绩看，登上2024年私募收益榜单的29家百亿私募中，多数都采用了量化投资。

| 宏观策略领域，梁文涛管理的泓湖私募已经从李蓓时期的主观宏观策略转向了系统化宏观策略，即通过量化模型优化投资决策，减少对个人判断的依赖。千象资产则是长期深耕量化投资领域。                   今年以来，量化投资在私募领域呈现爆发式增长，不仅百亿量化私募数量首次超过主观私募，业绩和募资规模也全面发力，对主观策略形成了多维度冲击。                   私募排排数据显示，截至2025年10月底，全市场超过一万只私募基金中，91.33%的产品实现了正收益，整体平均收益率达到24.32%。其中，量化多头策略以36.76%的平均收益率和96.52%的正收益占比，成为今年当之无愧的业绩领跑者。2025 年渠道端最热门的产品多是量化额度，银行私行理财师和高净值投资者的目光更多聚焦在量化私募产品上，主观私募即便业绩回暖，也难有效转化为净申购份额，不少主观私募还出现 “越涨越赎” 的情况，赎回客户多转投量化产品。                   在半夏所在的宏观策略领域，量化私募凭借业绩稳定性、募资吸引力和投研技术迭代等优势，给主观策略私募带来了募资、业绩竞争、投研模式以及人才储备等多方面的威胁。在板块风格频繁切换的结构性行情中，量化模型可通过高频交易快速捕捉大类资产间的轮动机会，且分散化投资能降低单一决策失误风险；而主观宏观策略依赖基金经理对宏观周期的研判，调仓节奏难跟上市场变化，容错空间小。                   李蓓引以为傲的宏观判断能力，也面临量化技术的解构。

| 主观私募的核心优势在于对宏观政策、产业逻辑等非结构化信息的解读，但现在量化通过 NLP 技术可将央行声明等文本信息转化为结构化 “情绪因子”，再借助机器学习捕捉宏观与资产价格间的复杂映射关系，不断缩小在非结构化信息处理上的差距。同时，量化模型能兼顾宏微观价格信号，实现全品种、全周期覆盖，通过多个子策略组合捕捉长中短周期的资产价格信号，这种系统化操作比主观私募依赖基金经理个人或团队的研判模式更高效。                   在这样的市场环境下，凭借自己的宏观专长以及流量优势，李蓓或许能稳住自己的基本盘，但市场偏好在变，半夏想要重回百亿私募以及继续做大，挑战不小。                   半夏的产品，还值得投资吗？                    李蓓在择时与多资产运用上相对还是有一定功力的，其宏观对冲策略在大类资产趋势明确且低相关的行情中，以及在经济周期明显切换的阶段，有望通过多资产的布局，以及衍生工具的操作，来把握机会。

| 在当下，集中体现在宏观经济转暖、传统周期顺利接棒科技成长，那时李蓓可能会有更突出表现。

| 如果仍是科技成长风格主导，李蓓仍然会比较被动。                   目前PPI仍在负增长，没有回归正增长的迹象，科技赛道倒是依旧如火如荼。李蓓继续创造出拔尖的业绩，还是比较难的。

|                    如果对于宏观对冲策略比较认可，也看好李蓓的能力，可以关注其中低波动产品。                   理论上说，宏观对冲策略既能适配高波动产品，也能打造中低波动产品，核心取决于管理人的策略选择、风险偏好以及目标客群定位，两种产品适配不同的市场环境与投资需求，不存在绝对的优劣之分。                   不过投资者如果想要高波动产品，买股票多头的公私募产品都更有优势，弹性更大，管理人的投资框架和操作也更好理解。

| 既然选择配置不同资产的宏观对冲产品，就不必过于追求业绩的短期弹性，以宏观对冲的高难度来看，高收益的持续性是很难的。倒不如借助专业机构的资产配置能力进行风险对冲，选择更放心的中低波动策略产品。

Current article:http://cyvfh.xuebenwagangqingre.buzz/k08/20260826/3528.html

Published on:03:10:25