我趁午餐休息时间在健身俱乐部骑自行车锻炼身体的时候，一边踏着自行车，一边重温了本杰明•格雷厄姆的经典著作《聪明的投资者》（The Intelligent Investor）。上周，当我阅读到其中的一段章节时，我不由得加快了踏自行车蹬板的速度。在1973年修订版《聪明的投资者》【《华尔街日报》（Wall Street Journal ）专栏作家贾森•茨威格在该书中做了出色的注解】的第12章中，格雷厄姆指出，要想预测一家公司未来的业绩， 与根据该公司连续几个业绩出色的季度来推断相比，研究该公司几年来的平均盈利情况可以证明具有更好的指导意义。格雷厄姆在书中写道：“从前，分析师和投资者都相当重视一家公司在过去相当长一段时期内的平均盈利情况，他们认为这与单单考虑该公司最近一年的业绩相比，能够更好地了解该公司的盈利能力，”这是他由衷强烈支持的一个观点。

    事实上，在《聪明的投资者》整部书中，格雷厄姆自始至终都认为，盈利大幅增长通常是由一些不可持续的特殊情况造成的。这些盈利激发因素涵盖了从商业周期内的激增到推出突破性产品等各种情况。格雷厄姆认为，一个根本性的错误在于，仅仅依赖于根据过去一年的盈利而计算的市盈率，尤其是如果那些利润激增到远远高于该公司过往盈利增长轨迹（即趋势线）的话则更是如此。

    换句话说，根据“虚增的”盈利计算出来的市盈率会使股票看起来很便宜，而根据该公司过往盈利以及未来可能再次出现的盈利情况来计算，该股票股估值实际上是昂贵的。

    回味投资领域的智慧时，我马上想到了近来苹果（Apple）股票令投资者连连亏损的情况。华尔街是否因采取同样这种存在问题的思维方式（格雷厄姆几十年前就告诫我们要谨防这种思维方式）而对苹果作出了错误的判断呢？自从在去年9月21日涨至创纪录高位705美元以来，苹果股票已下跌至500美元，跌幅达29％，致使其市值蒸发掉1,840亿美元。本周三，苹果将发布其最受市场期待的2013财年第一季度业绩报告（苹果财年截止日为9月30日）。

    对于格雷厄姆的追随者而言，问题是苹果盈利的巨幅增长是否促使投资者放松了警惕，错误地认为涨到705美元的苹果股票仍然很便宜。事实上，假设苹果前所未有的巨额盈利已成为“新的常态，而且会继续增长下去”，那么这只股票看起来也已达到合理的价格水平（意思是没有多少进一步上涨的空间了）。”另一方面，根据投资圣人格雷厄姆认为非常重要的过往盈利历史来判断，苹果股票看起来已极其昂贵。而这似乎正是市场现在在向我们传递的讯息。因此，让我们来确定一下，当苹果股票去年秋季达到最高价位时，格雷厄姆的盈利测试会显示怎样的结果。

    去年9月下旬，苹果的市值为6,630亿美元，达到美国有史以来最大的市值水平，令埃克森美孚（Exxon，当时市值为4,110亿美元）、沃尔玛（Wal-Mart）及微软（Microsoft，当时这两家公司的市值均为2,300亿美元）都相形见绌。不过，根据华尔街在衡量股票是便宜还是昂贵时最喜欢使用的指标——基于过去四个季度的盈利而计算出来的市盈率来判断，苹果股票看起来并不昂贵。在2012财年（截至2012年9月30日），苹果的营收为417亿美元，相比2011财年非凡增长了39.5％。虽然苹果的市值非常高，但其盈利也是如此。根据2012财年的盈利情况，按照华尔街的标准采用最近四个季度的盈利情况来计算，苹果的市盈率为适中的15.9倍。华尔街利用这个数字来吹捧苹果股票非常便宜，绝对值得买入。

    While riding the exercise bike at my health club during lunchtime, I've been pedaling through Benjamin Graham's classic, The Intelligent Investor. Last week, I read a passage that made me pedal faster. In Chapter 12 of the updated 1973 edition (with excellent notes by Wall Street Journal columnist Jason Zweig), Graham states that studying a company's average earnings over several years can prove a far better guide to its future performance than extrapolating future results from a run of exceptional quarters. "In former times," Graham writes, "analysts and investors paid considerable attention to average earnings over a fairly long period in the past. It was thought to give a better idea of the company's earning power than the results of the latest year alone," a view he heartily endorses.

    Indeed, throughout The Intelligent Investor, Graham argues that big spikes in earnings often arise from extraordinary circumstances that don't last. The catalysts are everything from a surge in the business cycle to the launch of breakthrough products. For Graham, a fundamental error is relying on a price-to-earnings ratio based on the past year's earnings alone, especially if those profits are spiking far above the company's past growth trajectory.

    In other words, a PE based on "inflated" profits can make a stock look cheap when it's really expensive based on what the company used to earn, and will probably earn again.

    Spinning through this field of wisdom, I immediately thought of the travails surrounding Apple (AAPL). Was Wall Street using the same faulty thinking to misjudge Apple that Graham warned against decades ago? Since reaching a record high of $705 on September 21, Apple's stock has tumbled 29% to $500, erasing $184 billion in market value. Apple will release its first quarter results (its fiscal year ends September 30) on Wednesday in the most eagerly-awaited announcement of the earnings season.

    For Graham followers, the question is whether Apple's gigantic jump to profits lulled investors into falsely believing its stock was still cheap at $705. In fact, it actually looked reasonably priced, assuming its unprecedented profits were the "new-normal-and-growing." On the other hand, it looked extremely expensive based on the past earnings history that the sage considers so important. That's the message the market seems to be delivering now. So let's determine what the Graham's earnings test would have shown when Apple stock reached at its pinnacle last fall.

    In late September, Apple's market cap stood at $663 billion, the largest in US history, dwarfing Exxon ($411 billion), Wal-Mart and Microsoft (both $230 billion). Still, the shares hardly looked pricey based on Wall Street's favorite metric for judging if a stock is cheap or dear, the PE ratio based on the last four quarters of earnings. For fiscal 2012 (ended September 30), Apple earned $41.7 billion, an extraordinary 39.5% rise from $29.9 billion in 2011. Though the market value was epic, so were the earnings. Based on those fiscal 2012 profits, Apple's PE, using the standard trailing four quarters of earnings, stood at a modest 15.9. Wall Street seized on that number to tout Apple as a great buy.

    但格雷厄姆更喜欢采用的“平均盈利”测试却指向相反的方向，认为苹果股票估值处于危险的高位。16倍的市盈率意味着，要想股价持续上涨，苹果就需要在2012财年营收417亿美元的基础上，盈利实现大幅增长。投资者仍在预期苹果股票年收益率在8.3％左右（6.3％的收益率<相当于其市盈率15.9的倒数>加上2％的预期通胀率）。去年8月份，苹果从遵循不派息政策转为每年向股票持有者派发100亿美元股息。在9月份股价达到最高位时，这笔股息所对应的股息率为1.5％。因此，投资者预计从苹果未来的盈利增长中再获得每年6.7％的收益（预期8.3％的收益率减去1.5％的股息率）。

    考虑到苹果最近几年业绩激增而连创纪录的情况，这近7％的增长要求听起来似乎是轻而易举就能做到的事情。但问题是，在苹果股价处于705美元的高位时，市场预期苹果能够在业绩增速早已巨大以及盈利早已巨大的基础上，进一步实现显著的增长。到2017年，苹果将需要实现580亿美元的盈利，才能给股票持有者提供8％以上的收益，而届时其市值将飙升至9,000多亿美元。

    那么，如果投资者当时也权衡苹果过往业绩的话，情况会是怎样呢？过去五年里，苹果按照前四个季度计算的平均盈利为161亿美元。过去的三年里，这个数字是220亿美元。

    这两个数字都没有对苹果未来的盈利潜力给予一个明确的看法。但它们强烈表明，苹果股票在去年9月份绝对不便宜，而是一个极其昂贵、风险很大的赌注。即便采用220亿美元这个平均盈利数据来计算，苹果经调整后的市盈率也达到30倍。处于这么高的估值水平，一旦苹果出现任何令人失望的业绩，都会导致它的股票因遭到抛售而急剧暴跌。而这恰恰是现在出现的情况。

    华尔街宣称苹果已达到一个全新的盈利起始平台，其净利润将从这个基础上进一步飙升——这正是格雷厄姆的预测方法指出错误的那种思维方式。去年10月份，晨星（Morningstar）、美林（Merrill Lynch）、摩根大通（JP Morgan）、摩根士丹利（Morgan Stanley）、德意志银行（Deutsche Bank）和高盛集团（Goldman Sachs）都把苹果股票2013年的目标价格设置在714美元至880美元的区间内，而当时苹果股价已跌至600美元左右。这些预期的苹果目标价格都超过了该股9月份达到的最高价位，而且它们的平均值为776美元。

    为了证明自己的观点，华尔街各大公司都预测苹果盈利将会大幅增长，他们预期的盈利涨幅从8.2％至23％不等，平均值为10％。

    但通过查看苹果的10K年度财报，投资者自然会犯愁，推动这家科技巨头的盈利超越400亿美元的超高利润率是否会像分析师所预言的那样，不仅是完全可以重复的，甚至是可以显著超越的呢? 2012财年期间，iPhone及相关产品在苹果营收总额中占据了51％的份额，在扣除研发开支及企业日常管理费用前的毛利率中贡献了56％的份额——比iPad和iPod高出20个百分点。

    这么高的利润势必会吸引竞争对手，而且结果几乎总是昙花一现。现在，iPhone正面临三星（Samsung）Galaxy智能手机的挑战，引起了市场的高度关注。根据平均盈利测试来判断，我们甚至不能明确从其最高价位已下跌近30％的苹果股票目前是否已经估值便宜了。没有什么比重新阅读本•格雷厄姆存在已久的投资智慧更能揭露华尔街极端狂热的预期。（财富中文网）

    译者：iDo98

    The "average earnings" test preferred by Graham pointed in the opposite direction, towards danger. The 16 multiple meant that Apple would need to generate substantial earnings increases, over and above the $41.7 billion, to keep the stock rising. Investors were still expecting an annual return of around 8.3% (that's the earnings yield of 6.3% plus 2% anticipated inflation). In August, Apple went from a no-dividend policy to paying out $10 billion a year to shareholders. At the September peak, that dividend represented a 1.5% yield. So investors expected an additional 6.7% (the 8.3% expected return minus the 1.5% yield) from growth in future earnings.

    The nearly 7% growth requirement sounds like a snap, given Apple's explosive record. The problem is that, at $705 a share, the market was anticipating significant increases on top of already gigantic increases and gigantic earnings. By 2017, Apple would need to earn $58 billion to hand shareholders that 8%-plus return, and its valuation would soar to over $900 billion.

    So what's the picture if investors had also weighed Apple's past performance? Over the past five years, Apple's average earnings, based on four trailing quarters, is $16.1 billion. Over the past three years, the figure is $22 billion.

    Neither number gives a definitive view of Apple's future earnings potential. But they indicate strongly that Apple's stock in September was not cheap at all, but an extremely pricey, risky bet. Even using the $22 billion number, its adjusted PE was 30. At those levels, any disappointment causes a steep sell-off. And that's precisely what happened.

    The Wall Street pitch was that Apple had reached a new earnings threshold, and that profits would soar from there -- just the kind of prediction that the Graham method debunks. In October, Morningstar, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan, Deutsche Bank and Goldman Sachs placed target prices of between $714 and $880 a share for 2013 on Apple's stock, which had already declined to around $600. Those projected prices all exceed the September peak, and average $776.

    To support their view, the Wall Street firms all forecast big gains in earnings, ranging from 8.2% to 23%, and averaging 10%.

    But reviewing Apple's 10K, investors would naturally fret whether the fantastic margins that propelled the tech colossus to over $40 billion profits were not just repeatable, but eminently beatable, as the analysts were forecasting. For fiscal 2012, the iPhone and related products accounted for 51% of Apple's revenues, and generated gross margins, before R&D and corporate overhead, of 56%, 20 points higher than the iPad and iPod.

    Margins that high are a magnet for competitors, and almost always prove ephemeral. Now, the iPhone is facing a highly-publicized challenge from Samsung's Galaxy. It's not even clear that Apple is a bargain now after its almost 30% fall, based on the average earnings test. There's nothing like re-reading old Ben Graham to keep a check on Wall Street's wild expectations.