????科技股投資者已經(jīng)暈了頭？本月，去年賺20億美元的Facebook獲得了近1,000億美元的估值，社交網(wǎng)站LinkedIn上市后市值達到營收的17倍，而中國版的Facebook——人人網(wǎng)——上市后市值達到營收的52倍，許多懷疑論者認(rèn)為，科技股已重新進入非理性繁榮時期。

????但是這次出現(xiàn)了新的動向：投資者們一方面非理性地高估熱門的初創(chuàng)網(wǎng)絡(luò)公司，一方面卻又非理性地低估相對冷門、但卻成熟的科技巨頭。不同于1999年的互聯(lián)網(wǎng)泡沫，當(dāng)時微軟(Microsoft)、思科系統(tǒng)(Cisco)等巨頭的股票估值都一飛沖天； 而到了2011年，大型科技股卻集體式微——微軟、思科系統(tǒng)以及惠普(HP)、英特爾(Intel)等品牌公司的靜態(tài)市盈率都不到10倍，低于標(biāo)準(zhǔn)普爾500指數(shù)17.3倍的平均市盈率。

????二十世紀(jì)八、九十年代時科技板塊是成長股的天下。IT支出每年以10%-15%的速度增長，早早進駐微軟、英特爾和戴爾(Dell)的投資者們坐享高達50,000%的股價漲幅。但伴隨著巨大的成功，企業(yè)增速開始放緩。預(yù)計今年微軟、英特爾的營收和利潤增幅僅為10%- 20%。

????通常，增長一般、市盈率低于10倍的公司都被視為價值型投資——即股價已跌破基本面隱含價值，對投資者具有價格吸引力的股票。眼下大型科技股帶有很多價值型股的印記。除了低估值，它們還具有強勁的資產(chǎn)負(fù)債表和成熟的管理團隊，對風(fēng)險采取保守應(yīng)對措施。

????理論上，市場會自動修正失衡，令價值型股回到應(yīng)有價格水平。但在大型科技股身上尚未出現(xiàn)這種現(xiàn)象：盡管經(jīng)濟開始復(fù)蘇，這些利潤增速高于均值的大型科技股票估值仍低于均值。為什么會出現(xiàn)這種現(xiàn)象？假以時日，大型科技股能否反彈？很多分析師都試圖破解這個謎團，但迄今仍無人能給出令人信服的答案。

????去年11月，Bernstein Research的分析師托尼?薩康納吉發(fā)布的一份報告引發(fā)了一些討論。薩康納吉指出，標(biāo)準(zhǔn)普爾500指數(shù)中的科技股估值與整體指數(shù)一致。這是1991年以來從未出現(xiàn)過的。過去20年里相比大盤其他股票，大市值科技股享有30%的估值溢價。

????2月初，標(biāo)準(zhǔn)普爾(Standard & Poor's)的資深股票分析師斯考特?凱斯勒計算了標(biāo)準(zhǔn)普爾500指數(shù)中的科技股市盈率，發(fā)現(xiàn)仍比整體指數(shù)低25%。凱斯勒認(rèn)為，這種反?，F(xiàn)象說明“許多大市值科技股有相當(dāng)?shù)耐顿Y價值和升值潛力”。從基本面分析角度，這番分析頗有道理，但自那以來時間已過去了3個半月，科技股的表現(xiàn)依然弱于整體標(biāo)準(zhǔn)普爾500指數(shù)。

????而且，這并非因為盈利糟糕。彭博(Bloomberg)統(tǒng)計顯示，在標(biāo)準(zhǔn)普爾500指數(shù)中，信息技術(shù)業(yè)的營運利潤率中值為21.6%，高于能源業(yè)的18.1%和金融業(yè)的17.6%。信息技術(shù)業(yè)不僅是標(biāo)準(zhǔn)普爾500指數(shù)中利潤率最高的行業(yè)，而且大多數(shù)公司的利潤率都在穩(wěn)步提升。然而市場對它們的定價仍猶如隔夜之魚。

????為什么會出現(xiàn)這種情況呢？薩康納吉和其他人已給出了理論分析，但這可能只回答了一部分問題，不能完全解釋這個謎團。有一種理論認(rèn)為，科技巨頭一般不基于一般公認(rèn)會計原則(GAAP)發(fā)布業(yè)績，這一原則要求將股票期權(quán)保守地計為費用。

????這種理論認(rèn)為，科技公司的非GAAP利潤相對于遵循GAAP的行業(yè)人為虛高。但這種觀點忽視了兩個事實：首先，將非GAAP數(shù)據(jù)轉(zhuǎn)化為GAAP數(shù)據(jù)對于大多數(shù)分析師和機構(gòu)投資者而言只是一個簡單的數(shù)學(xué)問題；其次，近期很多估值高得嚇人的科技股同樣沒有遵循GAAP標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。為什么這些科技股卻全身而退？

????另一種理論是大型科技公司囤積了太多現(xiàn)金： IBM手頭有130億美元現(xiàn)金，谷歌(Google) 有360億美元，而微軟則有500億美元。投資者“劫持”這些股票——壓低它們的股價(和股票期權(quán)價格)，迫使公司派息。

????這種理論也站不住腳。這樣的股東行動也許會對某一家公司管用，但對整個行業(yè)的作用有限。股息向來有競爭力的微軟目前市盈率仍低于10倍，而持有290億美元現(xiàn)金、從未派息的蘋果(Apple)市盈率現(xiàn)為17倍。此外，微軟、IBM和惠普等公司每年通過回購股票向投資者返還的資金都在100億美元以上。大型科技公司向投資者返現(xiàn)，但投資者根本就不在意。

????第三種理論是大型科技股缺乏吸引力——它們不僅利潤增速放緩，傳統(tǒng)市場萎縮，而且它們的品牌也已令投資者厭煩。有些科技巨頭的情況確實如此。諾基亞(Nokia)擁有龐大的客戶基礎(chǔ)，但缺乏智能手機平臺來維系客戶的忠誠度。而思科則正在與定價較低的交換機和路由器供應(yīng)商苦苦競爭。

????但其他公司的情況不一定如此。市盈率低于均值的IBM公司和惠普都充滿信心地預(yù)測，(受益于云計算等新計劃)，公司的年利潤增長率一直到2014年都將維持在11%。兩位數(shù)的利潤增長率可能不如Facebook，但對理性投資者應(yīng)具有吸引力。

????在后PC時代可能停步不前的臺式PC操作系統(tǒng)之王微軟也在做出大刀闊斧的改變：Kinect上市頭兩個月售出800萬臺，是iPad 上市之初銷量的兩倍。同時，索尼(Sony) Playstation引發(fā)的公關(guān)危機也讓Xbox系統(tǒng)從中受益。而與諾基亞結(jié)盟、收購Skype等大膽的交易也預(yù)示了微軟在移動網(wǎng)絡(luò)領(lǐng)域的良好前景。

????因此，盡管不乏有將大型科技股作為互聯(lián)網(wǎng)故紙堆扔掉的念頭，仍有一些價值型投資者相信市場將恢復(fù)理智。他們其中就有Legg Mason基金經(jīng)理比爾?米勒，他在1991-2005年間每年的回報率都優(yōu)于標(biāo)準(zhǔn)普爾500指數(shù)，創(chuàng)造了歷史。自那以后，米勒的基金表現(xiàn)得就沒那么好了。但必須重申的是，價值投資已經(jīng)今非昔比。

????近日，米勒在致基金投資者的一份報告中談到了微軟。在痛心似乎無人想要那些“無出色表演、不迎合潮流的低價”股票之后，他將重點轉(zhuǎn)向了微軟。米勒指出，雖然過去十年微軟的凈利潤增長率達到穩(wěn)定的11%，但目前該股估值只是1998年(即網(wǎng)絡(luò)泡沫進入癲狂前的一年)的一半?；诖?，米勒有下述論述：

????“[微軟]當(dāng)前市盈率與輝瑞(Pfizer)相仿，但投資研究機構(gòu)Value Line預(yù)計微軟的增長率將達到15%，顯著高于輝瑞的3- 4%。微軟的權(quán)益回報率為44%，每個月產(chǎn)生近20億美元的自由現(xiàn)金流，其收益率顯著高于整體市場；微軟最近一次股息上調(diào)幅度高達23%，且在過去5年間，其已發(fā)行股本縮減了20億股。微軟當(dāng)前的估值完全是非理性的，但正如凱恩斯(Keynes)所言，在市場回歸理性之前，你很可能已經(jīng)破產(chǎn)了。”

????或許上述統(tǒng)計數(shù)據(jù)對你毫無意義，但對于一個價值型投資者來說，卻是對現(xiàn)實的強烈抗議——是在用數(shù)字向凱恩斯祈禱。在歷史的上一個非理性繁榮時期，這位經(jīng)濟學(xué)家曾以冷靜的頭腦令瘋狂的市場重歸理性。但那個時代已過去很久了。眼下，科技股投資者再一次失去了理智。

????換言之，投資者依然在進行計算，只是換成了馬克?扎爾伯格的算法。沒有人知道需要過多久，股票基本面分析才會重新回歸簡單的算術(shù)。如果真有那么一天，投資大型科技股將成為切實可行的好點子，而不僅僅是停留于理論層面。

????Have technology investors lost their bearings? In a month when Facebook, having made $2 billion last year, is valued near $100 billion; when social-network LinkedIn (LNKD) starts trading at 17 times its revenue and RenRen, the Facebook of China, lists its shares at 52 times revenue, many skeptics believe irrational exuberance has returned to tech.

????But this time there's a twist: If investors are irrationally overvaluing hot young web startups, they also appear to be irrationally undervaluing not-so-hot, aging tech giants. Unlike the dot-com bubble of 1999, when giants like Microsoft (MSFT) and Cisco (CSCO) saw their stock valuations surge upward, big tech is languishing in 2011. These days, Microsoft, Cisco as well as other brand names like HP (HPQ) and Intel (INTC), are all trading below ten times their historical earnings. For the S&P 500, the average P/E is 17.3 times earnings.

????In the 80s and 90s, the tech sector was the province of growth stocks. IT spending was increasing by 10%-15% a year, and investors who got in on the ground floor saw the stocks of Microsoft, Intel and Dell (DELL) rise as high as 50,000% over time. But with success comes slower growth. Microsoft and Intel are expected to see revenue and profit growth between 10% and 20% this year.

????Normally, companies with moderate growth and P/E's below 10 are considered value plays -- stocks that have fallen so far below the value implied by their fundamentals they present investors a tempting bargain. Big tech currently has many hallmarks of value stocks: In addition to low valuations, they offer strong balance sheets and seasoned managers who take a conservative approach to risk.

????In theory, the market will correct the imbalance, returning value stocks to their proper price. But this that hasn't happened with big tech: Since the economy began to recover, their valuations have remained below average despite above-average profit growth. And although many analysts have tried, nobody has come up with a convincing answer to why this is happening, or whether big tech will rebound given time.

????Last September, Bernstein Research analyst Toni Sacconaghi published a report that generated some discussion. Sacconaghi noted that tech stocks in the S&P 500 were trading on par with the broader index. That hadn't happened since 1991. During the interim two decades, large-cap tech traded at a 30% premium to the rest of the market.

????In early February, Scott Kessler, a seasoned stock analyst at Standard & Poor's, calculated that P/E valuations of tech stocks in the S&P 500 still priced them at a 25% discount to the broader index. The aberration presented "considerable value in and appreciation potential for many large-cap technology names," Kessler argued. It made good sense through the lens of fundamental analysis, yet in the three and a half months since then the tech sector has continued to underperform the broader S&P 500 index.

????And it's not because of poor earnings. According to Bloomberg, the S&P 500's information technology sector had a median operating margin of 21.6%, higher than the energy sector's 18.1% margin and the financial sector's 17.6% margin. Not only is infotech the index's most profitable sector, profit margins for most companies have been steadily increasing. Yet the market is pricing them like yesterday's fish.

????Why is this happening? Sacconaghi and others have posited theories, but while they may account for part of the answer, none fully answer the mystery. One theory is that few tech giants report earnings according to GAAP, an accounting standard that takes a conservative approach to how companies record stock options as expenses.

????This theory argues that that non-GAAP earnings of tech companies appear artificially high relative to industries that abide by GAAP. But this argument overlooks two things: First, that translating non-GAAP to GAAP is simple math for most analysts and institutional investors. And second, that many recent tech IPOs with obscenely high valuations also don't follow GAAP. So why not punish them too?

????Another theory is that big tech companies are hoarding too much cash: IBM (IBM) has $13 billion in cash on hand, Google (GOOG) $36 billion, Microsoft $50 billion. Investors are holding these stocks hostage -- weighing down their prices (and the value of those stock options) until they pay a dividend.

????This theory also fails to hold water. Such shareholder activism might work on one company, but it's too lame to take on an entire sector. Microsoft, which has long paid a competitive dividend, still has a P/E below 10; while Apple (AAPL), which has never paid a dividend despite holding $29 billion in cash, has a P/E of 17. What's more, Microsoft, IBM and HP have been returning more than $10 billion a year to investors by buying back shares. Big tech is returning cash to investors, and investors simply don't care.

????A third theory is that big tech is simply uncool -- that not only is profit growth for these companies slowing, not only are their traditional markets are drying up, but their brands repel investors. This is certainly true for some tech giants. Nokia (NOK) has a vast customer base but lacks a smartphone platform to keep them loyal. Cisco is struggling to fight off competitors with lower-priced switches and routers.

????But with other companies, it's not necessarily the case. IBM and HP -- which both struggle with below-average P/E ratios -- are confidently projecting profits to grow 11% a year through 2014, thanks to new initiatives like cloud computing. Double-digit profit growth may not be Facebook-worthy, but it should appeal to rational investors.

????And Microsoft, the king of operating software for desktop PCs, may be stuck in the post-PC age, but it's adapting remarkably well: The Kinect sold 8 million units in its first two months, twice as many units as the iPad sold on its launch. The Xbox stands to benefit from Sony's PR fiasco with the Playstation. And gutsy deals like the Nokia alliance and the Skype purchase suggest Microsoft has a future on the mobile web.

????So while it's tempting to cast off big tech as a bloated footnote to the Internet's history, there remain some value investors who still believe the market will return to its senses. One of them is Bill Miller, the Legg Mason fund manager who made history by beating the S&P 500 every year between 1991 and 2005. Miller's funds haven't performed as well since then. But then again, value investing isn't what it used to be.

????In a recent commentary to his funds investors, Miller had a few words about Microsoft. After lamenting that nobody seems to want stocks "that are not 'performing', that have no momentum, and that are cheap," he turned his focus on Microsoft. Although Microsoft has steadily posted earnings growth of 11% for the past decade, Miller noted, its stock trades at half its level in 1998, a year before the dot-com bubble went truly mad. That observation led to this wonky rant:

????"[Microsoft] now trades at a similar price-to-earnings ratio as Pfizer (PFE), which is expected to grow at 3% to 4% vs. MSFT's 15%, according to Value Line. Microsoft earns 44% on equity, generates almost $2 billion of free cash flow every month, yields significantly more than the market, last raised its dividend 23%, and has reduced shares outstanding by 2 billion in the past 5 years. The current valuation is completely irrational, but as Keynes so correctly noted, the market can stay irrational longer than you can remain solvent."

????Maybe that flurry of statistics means nothing to you, but to a value investor it's a cri de coeur -- a mathematical prayer that culminates in a plea to John Maynard Keynes, the economist whose cool mind in a previous era returned rationality to a mad market. But that era is long gone. And, for now, tech investors have gone mad again.

????That is, math is still here, it's just busy with Mark Zuckerberg's algorithms. No one knows how long it will take for simple math to return to stock fundamentals. When it does return, investing in big tech will seem like a good idea in practice, and not just in theory.