一年前，马云在美国将阿里巴巴上市，如今时隔一年左右的时间，阿里巴巴的处境并非当初设想的那般美好。这一年间到底发生了什么?阿里巴巴的股价在上市后过山车般大涨大跌为哪般?股神巴菲特为何就是不肯投资阿里巴巴?本文作者一年前曾写过一篇文章阐述了巴菲特不肯买阿里巴巴股票的若干原因，如今一周年之际，他又出现了，为的是说明一年之后的现今巴菲特还是不肯投阿里巴巴的原因。虽然言辞间有唱衰马云的嫌疑，但作者对阿里巴巴发展策略方面所提的建议还是很值得我们反省的。
一年前电商大亨阿里巴巴刚上市，我(原文作者)风驰电掣写了一篇文章说明了沃伦·巴菲特不会买阿里巴巴股票的若干理由。文章发布之后，阿里巴巴市值缩水了
30%。
话说回来，巴菲特会觉得现在是买阿里巴巴股票的适当时机吗?答案是五个字——「根本不可能」。
在深入讨论这个问题之前，容我先再介绍一遍格罗兹先生。格罗兹是查理·芒格笔下故事的一个主人公，而且这个主人公是以沃伦·巴菲特为原型的，整天思考的问题就是该往哪儿砸钱。
芒格曾在 1996 年的一次演讲中说过，格罗兹先生这个投资人嘛，野心很大，想在接下来 150 年的时间里把 200 万美元给变成 2
万亿美元——复合年均增长率为 10%。芒格在演讲中提到他认为可口可乐是这样一家符合他期待的公司。
芒格建议格罗兹先生先花 15 分钟听听 CEO
们的融资演讲再做决定，而且他的投资决定应该是基于该公司百折不挠的全球化策略作出的，这种全球化策略需要有强有力的品牌实力，而且要善用「强大的基础购买力」达到「全球响应」的效果，让每个消费者都陷入嗑药般的狂热抢购中。
一年前，我说阿里巴巴缺少五个特质，要是有了这个五个特质，它将可能用 150 年的时间从 1680 亿美元的估值增长到 271.8
千万亿美元——一千万亿是一万亿后面加 3 个零。因此，我之前断言格罗兹先生不会买阿里巴巴的股票。
一年前阿里巴巴的股票以每股 68 美元的价格上市，而且其股价在上市后的第一个交易日比其发行价上升了 38%，在 9 月 13 日达到了 120
美元每股的巅峰。但在 9 月 18 日，阿里巴巴的收盘价格仅为 64.42 美元每股，比上市价格低 30%，与其空前最高点相比跌了 46%。
股票价格为什么会跌?有四个原因：
阿里巴巴频遭诉讼称其销售伪劣商品
就比如今年五月，古驰和伊夫·圣·洛朗的母公司起诉了阿里巴巴，要求财务赔偿并且要求禁止阿里巴巴「在阿里巴巴网站上销售侵犯商标权的伪劣商品」。
中国经济的走势低迷
今年八月，阿里巴巴的报表显明六月下旬该公司的增长率由近几年的 50% 下滑到
34%——消费者的消费量也在下降——考虑到中国经济不乐观的前景，这一状况不太可能会好转。
行业竞争日益激烈
电子商务领域的另一个巨头——京东正在「抢占阿里巴巴的两个主要网站的客户，一是淘宝，一个面向国内消费者的可以让小商贩们售卖商品的平台，另一个是天猫，一个让国际品牌和大型零售商接口国内消费者的平台」。
阿里巴巴的财务账单遭质疑
据消息称「阿里巴巴的财务报表已经曝光，该数据与实际收益数据不符，而且已经达到了逃逸速度，和中国政府官方公布的零售销售额、消费者开销和线上商务数据皆有出入。」
巴菲特会觉得现在买入阿里巴巴是个很划算的决定吗?事实并不然，我来从五个方面解释为什么巴菲特的投资会避开阿里巴巴的股票：
1. 没有形成全球化的吸引力
一年前，一些人夸夸其谈阿里巴巴会如何利用这些上市募集的资金进军美国市场。但阿里巴巴并没有抢占到美国的市场份额，不济的是，阿里巴巴还受到亚马逊的挤压。不出意料，阿里巴巴在六月份宣布撤出美国市场——将其投资的
11 Main(一家 2014 年创立的美国在线商场)卖给了 OpenSky(一家在纽约经营的在线商城)。
2. 没有形成强有力的垄断
从阿里巴巴的强劲对手京东就可以看出阿里巴巴在行业竞争中并不具备可持续的绝对优势。威廉·布莱尔预测京东将在第四季度抢占 5%
市场份额，而阿里巴巴的天猫将会丧失两个百分点。
3. 未能挖掘主要消费者的购买力
如果阿里巴巴利用好了基础群众的购买力，那消费者会持续购买更多商品的机会是大大的。而且在上市前，消费群众数量一直保持着上升态势。但在去年一年里，消费者数量下降。拿阿里巴巴的年度报表数据举例，其毛经营额在
2014 年九月为 1811 元，而至 2015 年三月已经跌到 1174 元。从该跌幅中我们可以看出阿里巴巴在挖掘消费者购买力这一点并没有使上劲。
4. 科技进步日新月异削弱行业壁垒
在用户购买行为都转向手机终端的大环境下，阿里巴巴并没有很快地适应角色转换。再看看阿里巴巴的年度报表，其手机客户端收益从去年年末的 64
亿元到今年三月已经减少到 52 亿元——这一下跌远比季节性下跌要严重得多。
5. 营业利润正在慢慢缩水
阿里巴巴的营业利润率已经逐渐减少，根据其最近公布的年度报表可知，上个财年，也就是 2014 年 3 月到 2015 年 3 月，营业利润率已经从
55.2% 发生了戏剧性的跌幅，跌到了 36.7%。
所有的这些担忧都掺杂着对阿里巴巴财务方面的质疑。正值中国政府力压在股市背后操纵股票涨跌的个体大户们的时机，听到中国政府方面在今年八月调查 CEO
马云旗下分支公司的信息的消息，我丝毫不感到惊讶。
所以，大家就跟着格罗兹先生，避开这支股票吧。
阅读详情: http://www.backchina.com/news/2015/09/30/387054.html#ixzz3nFpmqJaO
Wednesday, September 30, 2015
Thursday, September 17, 2015
How Does the Economy Look Now Compared to When the Fed Hiked Rates in the Past?
If
the Federal Reserve raises interest rates on Thursday, it will be doing
so in an economy that is radically different from the past. The lack of
comparable economic terrain is one of the complications that Chair
Janet Yellen faces as her committee contemplates an exit from almost
seven years of near-zero interest rates.
Check out the accompanying graphic to see how the landscape has changed, with a focus on key indicators that the Fed uses to gauge the economy's momentum. For example, when the Federal Reserve last started to lift rates back in June 2004, inflation stood at 2.8 percent and 66 percent of the population was working or looking for a job. Today, those numbers stand at a feeble 0.3 percent and less than 63 percent, respectively.
The U.S. Federal Reserve is debating when to start a
cycle of interest rate hikes for the first time since 2004. Economic
conditions barely resemble the last time the Fed contemplated raising
rates, leaving policy makers without comparable experience to guide
their way as they try to shepherd the economy to stable growth.
The changed dynamics mean that instead of inflation-fighting as it has in the past, the Fed is getting ahead of price pressures and working to preempt asset bubbles after more than 6 years of easy money. Rather than operating in an economy where a broad-based labor market rebound is beginning to boost wages, low labor force participation and tepid pay gains have left policy makers scratching their heads over whether low unemployment -- just above 5 percent -- is under-representing slack. The U.S. is also more exposed to the global economy, which is growing less rapidly than in 2004.
The difference between then and now "matters hugely -- it raises the risk of a policy misstep relative to previous cycles, and I think it explains why the commentary has been so much about gradualism,'' said John Davies, U.S. rates strategist at Standard Chartered Bank in London, referring to the Fed's desire to tighten only slowly.
"It is going to be very much meeting to meeting, quarter to quarter," he said.
Still, by raising rates the Fed will signal that they still think traditional economic relationships hold and inflation will firm as unemployment falls. That means they still view the past as a guide, if a rough one, said Adam Posen, president of the Peterson Institute for International Economics.
"It may be that instead of driving a highway from Washington to New York, I'm driving secondary to roads from Washington to Baltimore, but I still have a map," Posen said. "If the Fed doesn't believe that some of these growth dynamics are the same as they used to be, then they shouldn't be considering raising.''
Check out the accompanying graphic to see how the landscape has changed, with a focus on key indicators that the Fed uses to gauge the economy's momentum. For example, when the Federal Reserve last started to lift rates back in June 2004, inflation stood at 2.8 percent and 66 percent of the population was working or looking for a job. Today, those numbers stand at a feeble 0.3 percent and less than 63 percent, respectively.
Hiking Without a Map
Federal funds target rate
Recessions
February 1994–February 1995 hiking cycle
June 2004–June 2006 hiking cycle
- ExpansionThe Fed has given the postrecession economy much more time to grow before signaling a rate hike.
- UnemploymentJoblessness is lower than in previous cycles, but economists no longer view it as a comprehensive gauge of slack after many discouraged Americans left the workforce.
- ParticipationThe share of people working or looking for work has fallen, suggesting there may still be weakness in the labor market.
- EarningsEarnings growth for production and nonsupervisory employees has been tepid.
- InflationThe Fed's gauge of overall inflation lags well below the desired target of 2 percent.
- Core InflationThis measure of inflation, which excludes food and fuel, is faring better than the broader measure but remains subdued.
- Exports as Share of GDPExports have become increasingly important as a share of U.S. output, making the U.S. more vulnerable to global downturns.
- IMF Global GrowthWorld growth is slower compared to the 2004 cycle, according to International Monetary Fund projections and estimates.
- GDP GrowthThe domestic economy is growing more slowly than it did in 2004.
The changed dynamics mean that instead of inflation-fighting as it has in the past, the Fed is getting ahead of price pressures and working to preempt asset bubbles after more than 6 years of easy money. Rather than operating in an economy where a broad-based labor market rebound is beginning to boost wages, low labor force participation and tepid pay gains have left policy makers scratching their heads over whether low unemployment -- just above 5 percent -- is under-representing slack. The U.S. is also more exposed to the global economy, which is growing less rapidly than in 2004.
The difference between then and now "matters hugely -- it raises the risk of a policy misstep relative to previous cycles, and I think it explains why the commentary has been so much about gradualism,'' said John Davies, U.S. rates strategist at Standard Chartered Bank in London, referring to the Fed's desire to tighten only slowly.
"It is going to be very much meeting to meeting, quarter to quarter," he said.
Still, by raising rates the Fed will signal that they still think traditional economic relationships hold and inflation will firm as unemployment falls. That means they still view the past as a guide, if a rough one, said Adam Posen, president of the Peterson Institute for International Economics.
"It may be that instead of driving a highway from Washington to New York, I'm driving secondary to roads from Washington to Baltimore, but I still have a map," Posen said. "If the Fed doesn't believe that some of these growth dynamics are the same as they used to be, then they shouldn't be considering raising.''
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)